diff options
Diffstat (limited to '42460-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 42460-0.txt | 17864 |
1 files changed, 17864 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/42460-0.txt b/42460-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..724bc7b --- /dev/null +++ b/42460-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,17864 @@ +*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 42460 *** + +OPINIONS OF THE PRESS. + +=Secular.= + +'The book is a distinctly readable one.'--_Glasgow Herald_, +September 18, 1902. + +'Really excellent little work.'--_Daily News_, September 26, 1902. + +'We cannot commend it too highly.'--_Western Morning News_, January +2, 1903. + +'Carefully thought-out little work ... written with frank and +tolerant impartiality.'--_Standard_, May 26, 1905. + +'The arguments are admirably marshalled; difficulties are not +evaded, but met fairly.'--_Westminster Review_, August, 1905. + +'We welcome a new edition.... The appeal of the book is evidently +one to common sense, and the success it has met is fully deserved. +There is a healthy lay atmosphere about Colonel Turton's arguments +which renders them, we fancy, peculiarly effective.'--_Pall Mall +Gazette_, March 11, 1907. + +'It is difficult to know whether to admire most the logical +precision with which he marshals his facts, and enforces his +conclusions, or the charming candour, and freshness of style, which +make his book so readable.'--_Liverpool Daily Post_, March 14, 1907. + +'This is a new edition, thoroughly revised, of LIEUTENANT-COLONEL +TURTON'S famous book.... We are specially struck with the detached +manner in which he examines the case; he holds the scales evenly, +and is not rhetorical. Anyone who has any power of reasoning at all +can follow him clearly from start to finish.'--_Bristol Times and +Mirror_, February 18, 1907. + +'It is a book for the hour, and needs to be circulated by thousands +... straightforward, manly, and convincing.'--_Schoolmaster_, March +27, 1909. + + +=Church of England.= + +'The book is of considerable value to everyone who is concerned with +the controversy on Christian Evidences; it presents a perfect +storehouse of facts and the conclusions which may be legitimately +drawn from them.'--_Church Times_, November 2, 1900. + +'We have already expressed our high opinion of this work--the +author of which, it may be mentioned, is serving in South +Africa.'--_Guardian_, October 17, 1900. + +'This thoughtful and convincing treatise.... We are glad to be able +to give our good word for the book, which should be found in the +catalogue of every public library in the kingdom. It is a volume +admirably suited for a gift-book to young men. It furnishes an +armoury of invincible weapons against the scepticism and +semi-scepticism which are rampant among us.'--_English Churchman_, +November 1, 1900. + +'This very excellent volume.... We strongly recommend this book to +the clergy for their own use and for lending to thoughtful and +painstaking readers.'--_Church Union Gazette_, January, 1901. + +'It is one of the best books of its class, readable, candid, +convincing, and thorough. It would be cheering news to hear that it +had been widely read. The book will continue to make its way; and +all Christians will rejoice that it should do so.'--_Church +Intelligencer_, October, 1905. + +'We give a hearty welcome to this revised edition. It is admirably +suited for general use.'--_Churchman_, February, 1909. + +'This is a textbook on Christian Evidence we would readily place in +the hands of the lay worker as an essential part of his +equipment.'--_Lay Reader_, December, 1912. + +'There is no padding, and no unnecessary rhetoric. All the available +space is filled with good solid reasoning, put in simple language +which an intelligent artisan can follow as easily as an educated +person.'--_Church Family Newspaper_, October 3, 1902. + +'Throughout the book the reader will be delighted with the sanity +and level-headedness of the writer, whose frequent appeals to common +sense are remarkably telling and effective.'--_Birmingham Diocesan +Magazine_, October, 1907. + +'The brilliancy of the author does not consist in his rhetoric or +appeal, but in the really brilliant fairness which he displays +towards the other side, in the accuracy with which he analyses each +situation, and in the clear and simple arguments which he +adduces.'--_Church Standard_, January, 1906. + +'Personally, we have never met with any book which can be more +confidently recommended.'--_Church Army Review_, December, 1912. + +'This is the kind of book which strengthens believers and makes +converts. It is one which should be placed within the reach of every +lad at that period of his life when he begins to think for +himself.'--_The_ (Church Lads') _Brigade_, October, 1905. + + +=Roman Catholic.= + +'We most heartily wish that a copy of it could be found +in the library of every Catholic family, school, and +institution.'--_Catholic Times_, January, 1909 (sixth notice). + +'This excellent book, ... well written, attractive in its style, +clearly thought out, and convincing.'--_Tablet_, August 29, 1903. + +'This is a work of uncommon merit.... The style is clear and makes +for pleasant reading. We wish many of our Catholic young men would +try and analyse a chapter in COLONEL TURTON'S helpful defence of +Christianity.'--_Universe_, July 21, 1905. + +'Having read and thoroughly approved every page of the book, we can +well believe that many clergy and teachers are finding it a useful +compendium of replies to all the chief arguments advanced against +Christianity. Though written by a non-Catholic, we can most strongly +recommend it as a book of the highest merit.'--_Catholic Herald_, +February 19, 1909. + +'A capital book already much used by priests in this country, and to +be found upon the shelves of very many of our clerical libraries. +But we wish that the Catholic paterfamilias would procure it too, +and recommend it to his boys ... There is a masculine ring about it, +and no shuffling over difficulties.'--_Catholic Fireside_, March 23, +1907. + + +=Presbyterian.= + +'One does not know what to admire most in the book--the accurate +knowledge gathered from so many fields, the clear reasoning, +the sound judgment, or the fine spirit which animates the +whole.'--_Christian Leader_, June 15, 1905. + +'Admirably arranged and clearly expressed.'--_Weekly Leader_, +October 6, 1902. + +'One of the best books of its kind.'--_St. Andrew_, June 1, 1905. + +'This is an admirable summary. It is clear, simple, and +well arranged ... The style also makes it extremely +readable.'--_Presbyterian_, March, 1906. + + +=Nonconformist.= + +'He is eminently fair to opponents, clear in statement, and +convincing in argument for his own case, and his standpoint, is +unmistakably evangelical. His style suits his work, being calm, +lucid, and simple.'--_Methodist Times_, August 22, 1901. + +'Is a tried favourite, and has served the Kingdom in many lands. +There is no book of the class known to us so complete and +conclusive.'--_Methodist Recorder_, February 28, 1907. + +'It deserves all the good that has been said of it.'--_United +Methodist_, November 19, 1908. + +'One characteristic may be singled out for notice--the writer's +extraordinary alertness in the use of the most recent material. He +seems to be continually on the watch for discoveries and +suggestions, and to be able to utilise them promptly and +skilfully.'--_Baptist_, January 21, 1909. + +'On the whole, it is the best popular summary that we have met. It +excels in definiteness of purpose, in clearness of statement, in +moderation, and in conciseness.'--_Baptist Times_, October 24, 1902. + +'The book is one that every young man would do well to read. Its +absolute fairness, convincing logic, and withal extreme simplicity +are such as cannot fail to establish the faith of multitudes.' +_Y.M.C.A. Review_, December, 1912. + +'The author's line of argument is irresistible in its rugged force. +... A fascinating book.'--_Social Gazette_ (Salvation Army), April +27, 1907. + + +=Agnostic.= + +'Again, as in 1902, we commend LIEUTENANT-COLONEL TURTON'S book as a +handy epitome of nearly all conceivable arguments in support of +Christianity. The twenty-four chapters champion twenty-four +propositions, and the whole thing is worked out as systematically as +a problem in a successful student's honours paper. ...However, it is +of no avail to argue such points with our well-meaning and +unimaginative Lieutenant-Colonel; and we will merely remark that he +is quite a gentleman, and uses no disdainful language towards the +poor Agnostic.'--_Literary Guide and Rationalistic Review_, March, +1907. + +'This remarkable volume contains over 500 pages, with scarcely a +dull one among them. The author's easy flow of unlaboured thought, +his facility of expression, and his fine gift of exposition, carry +the reader on in spite of himself.... Differ as we may from much +that is in the gallant Colonel's volume, we gladly pay him the +respect due to frankness, cleverness, and transparency of mind and +motive, and thank him for putting his own side of a great +subject so simply and interestingly, and without prejudice or +bitterness.'--_New Age_, August 3, 1905. + + + + +THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY + + + + + THE + + TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY + + BEING AN + + Examination of the More Important Arguments + For and Against Believing in that Religion + + COMPILED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES BY + + LT.-COL. W. H. TURTON, D.S.O. + LATE ROYAL ENGINEERS + + NINTH EDITION FORTIETH THOUSAND + + (_Carefully revised throughout_) + + LONDON + WELLS GARDNER, DARTON & CO., LTD. + 3 AND 4, PATERNOSTER BUILDINGS, E.C. + AND 44, VICTORIA STREET, S.W. + 1919 + + + + + _First Edition published Oct., 1895. }1,000 copies._ + _Cheap " " Oct., 1897._ } + _Third " carefully revised " Sept., 1900._ 1,000 " + _Fourth " " " " Mar., 1902._ 2,000 " + _Fifth " " " " Mar., 1905._ 3,000 " + _Sixth " " " " Jan., 1907._ 5,000 " + _Seventh " " " " Nov., 1908._ 8,000 " + _Eighth " " " " Nov., 1912._ 10,000 " + _Ninth " " " " Oct., 1919._ 10,000 " + + + TRANSLATIONS: + + _Japanese Edition published Dec., 1910. 500 copies._ + _Italian " " Oct., 1915._ 1,000 " + _Chinese " shortened " June, 1919._ 1,000 " + _Arabic " " Oct., 1919._ 1,000 " + + + + +PREFACE TO NINTH EDITION. + + +I have again carefully revised the whole book. Some additions have +been made here and there, especially in Chapter XIX.; but as a rule +the alterations have been merely to shorten and condense the +arguments where this could be done without spoiling them, and to +simplify the language as much as possible. The book is thus shorter, +and I hope simpler than any previous edition. Another slight +improvement, which will commend itself to most purchasers, is +reducing the price to 2s. net. The work, as before stated, lays no +claim to originality, and I have not hesitated to borrow arguments +and illustrations from any source. The references to the Bible are +all to the Revised Version. + + W. H. T. + + 29, CALEDONIA PLACE, + CLIFTON, BRISTOL, + _October 1, 1919_. + + + + +CONTENTS + + + PART I. + + + _NATURAL RELIGION._ + + CHAPTER PAGE + + I. THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A CREATOR 3 + + II. THAT THE CREATOR DESIGNED THE UNIVERSE 10 + + III. THAT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS EXTREMELY PROBABLE 30 + + IV. THAT MAN IS A FREE AND RESPONSIBLE BEING 38 + + V. THAT GOD TAKES AN INTEREST IN MAN'S WELFARE 57 + + VI. THAT GOD MIGHT MAKE SOME REVELATION TO MAN 82 + + VII. THAT A MIRACULOUS REVELATION IS CREDIBLE 98 + + + PART II. + + _THE JEWISH RELIGION._ + + VIII. THAT THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION WAS DIVINELY REVEALED 117 + + IX. THAT ITS ORIGIN WAS CONFIRMED BY MIRACLES 137 + + X. THAT ITS HISTORY WAS CONFIRMED BY MIRACLES 167 + + XI. THAT ITS HISTORY WAS CONFIRMED BY PROPHECIES 186 + + XII. THAT THE JEWISH RELIGION IS PROBABLY TRUE 201 + + + PART III. + + _THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION._ + + XIII. THAT THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS CREDIBLE 221 + + XIV. THAT THE FOUR GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM EXTERNAL TESTIMONY 252 + + XV. THAT THE GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM INTERNAL EVIDENCE 265 + + XVI. THAT THE GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM THE EVIDENCE OF THE ACTS 287 + + XVII. THAT THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST IS PROBABLY TRUE 301 + + XVIII. THAT THE FAILURE OF OTHER EXPLANATIONS INCREASES THIS + PROBABILITY 324 + + XIX. THAT THE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES ARE PROBABLY TRUE 349 + + XX. THAT THE JEWISH PROPHECIES CONFIRM THE TRUTH OF + CHRISTIANITY 374 + + XXI. THAT THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST CONFIRMS THE TRUTH OF + CHRISTIANITY 396 + + XXII. THAT THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY CONFIRMS ITS TRUTH 415 + + XXIII. THAT ON THE WHOLE THE OTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THIS + CONCLUSION 436 + + XXIV. THAT THE THREE CREEDS ARE DEDUCIBLE FROM THE NEW + TESTAMENT 458 + + XXV. THAT THE TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS EXTREMELY + PROBABLE 483 + + INDEX OF TEXTS 495 + + INDEX OF SUBJECTS 502 + + + + +PART I. + +_NATURAL RELIGION._ + + CHAP. I. THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A CREATOR. + " II. THAT THE CREATOR DESIGNED THE UNIVERSE. + " III. THAT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS EXTREMELY PROBABLE. + " IV. THAT MAN IS A FREE AND RESPONSIBLE BEING. + " V. THAT GOD TAKES AN INTEREST IN MAN'S WELFARE. + " VI. THAT GOD MIGHT MAKE SOME REVELATION TO MAN. + " VII. THAT A MIRACULOUS REVELATION IS CREDIBLE. + + + + +CHAPTER I. + +THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A CREATOR + + (_A._) THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. + + Explanation of the universe, its origin, a Free Force. + + (1.) The Philosophical Argument. If the universe had + not an origin, all events must have occurred before, + and this seems incredible. + (2.) The Scientific Argument. From the process of evolution + and the degradation of energy. + + (_B._) THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE. + + The Single Supernatural Cause, which originated it. + + +It is proposed in this Essay to consider the reasons for and against +believing in the truth of Christianity, meaning by that term, as +will be explained later on (Chapter XIII.), the doctrines contained +in the Three Creeds. For convenience the subject has been divided +into three Parts, Natural Religion, the Jewish Religion, and the +Christian Religion; but the second of these may be omitted by anyone +not specially interested in that subject. At present we are +considering _Natural Religion_ only, which deals with the great +questions of the Existence of God, and the probability, or +otherwise, of His making some Revelation to man. And we will +commence at the very beginning, though the first chapter will +unfortunately have to be rather technical. + + +(_A._) THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. + +Now by the universe is meant the _material_ universe, which includes +everything that exists (earth, sun, stars, and all they contain), +with the exception of immaterial or spiritual beings, if there are +any such. And by this universe having had an _origin_ is meant that +it was at some time acted on by a _Free_ Force, that is to say, by a +force which does not always act the same under the same +circumstances, but which can act or not as it pleases. No doubt such +a force would be totally different from all the known forces of +nature; but there is no difficulty in understanding what is meant by +the term, since man himself _seems_ to possess such a force in his +own free will. He _seems_ for instance to be able to raise his hand, +or not, as he likes. We are not, of course, assuming that man's will +is really free, but merely that the idea of a free force, able to +act or not as it pleases, is well known and generally understood. + +Hence the statement that the universe had an origin means that at +some time or other it was acted on by such a Free Force; in other +words, it has not existed for ever under the fixed and invariable +forces of nature, and without any external interference. We have now +to consider the two arguments in favour of this, which may be called +the Philosophical and the Scientific argument. + +(1.) _The Philosophical Argument._ + +By this is meant that, when we reflect on the subject, it seems +inevitable that if the universe had not an origin, all present +events must have occurred before. The reason for thinking this is, +that if all free force is excluded, it is plain that matter must be +eternal, since its coming into existence at any time could not have +been a necessity, and must therefore have been due to some free +force. It is equally plain that what we call the forces of nature +and the properties of matter must also be eternal, since any +alteration in them at any time would also have required a free +force. And from this it follows that no _new_ event can happen +_now_. For every event which the forces of nature could possibly +bring about of themselves would, since they have been acting from +eternity, have been brought about long ago. Therefore present events +are not new, but must have occurred before. + +This is no doubt a possible theory. For example, if we assume that +the universe will in process of time work itself back into precisely +the same condition in which it was long ago as a _nebula_ or +anything else, when it will begin again precisely the same changes +as before; then, and only then, is it possible that it has been +going on doing so from all eternity. But this theory, though +possible, is certainly not credible. For it requires that all +events, past, present, and future, down to the minutest detail, have +occurred, and will occur, over and over again. They must, in fact, +form a _recurring series_. And when applied to a single example, say +the history of the human race, this is seen to be quite incredible. + +We must hence conclude that the universe has not existed for ever +under the fixed forces of nature, and without any external +interference; in other words, that it had an origin. No doubt there +are difficulties in regard to this theory also, but they are mostly +due to our ignorance. We may not know, for instance, whether matter +itself is eternal. Nor may we know why, if a free force once acted +on the universe, it never apparently does so at present, and still +less can we picture to ourselves what such a force would be like; +though the difficulty here is no greater than that of picturing a +force which is not free, say gravity. + +But our ignorance about all this is no reason for doubting what we +do know. And it appears to the writer that we do know that, unless +present events have occurred before, which seems incredible, the +universe cannot have existed for ever without some _Free Force_ +having acted on it at some time. In short, it seems less difficult +to believe that the universe had an origin than to believe that it +had not. + +(2.) _The Scientific Argument._ + +And this conclusion is greatly strengthened by two scientific +theories now generally accepted--that of the process of evolution +and the degradation of energy; both of which seem to show that the +universe had a beginning. + +The first subject, that of _Evolution_, will be discussed more fully +in the next chapter. All that need be said here is, that the atoms +of the universe, with their evolving properties, cannot have existed +eternally; for then the course of evolution would have commenced in +the eternal past, and would therefore have been finished now. But +this is certainly not the case, and evolution is still in progress, +or at all events was so a few thousand years ago; and a state of +progress cannot be _eternal_. It thus differs from a mere state of +_change_ which as we have seen, might be eternal, if the changes +were recurring. But a state of _progress_, in which the changes are +not recurring, but all tend in one direction, can never be eternal. +It must have had a commencement. And this commencement cannot have +been a necessity, so it must have been due to some Free Force. In +short, evolution requires a previous _Evolver_; since it cannot have +been going on for ever, and it cannot have started itself. + +The other theory, that of the _Degradation of Energy_, is that all +energy (motion, etc.) tends to _heat_; the simplest instance being +that of two bodies hitting each other when a certain amount of +motion is lost, and a corresponding amount of heat is produced. And +heat tends to be equally distributed. The heat, for instance, which +is now stored up in the sun will in process of time be distributed +throughout space, and the same applies to the whole universe; so +that everything will eventually have the same temperature. And +though this may take millions of years, they are yet nothing to +eternity. Therefore, if the universe with all its present forces has +existed from eternity, and without any external interference, it +must have been reduced to this state long ago. So if this theory is +correct (and the only reason for doubting it, is the curious +behaviour of _radium_), it seems not only probable, but certain, +that the universe had an origin. + +But an objection has now to be considered. It may be said that the +above reasoning is merely another form of the old argument, +'Everything must have a cause, and therefore there must have been a +First Cause;' the obvious answer to which is, that then this First +Cause must also have had a cause, and so on indefinitely. But this +is not the case; for the alleged First Cause is of a different +_kind_ from all the others. It is a _Free_ Cause, whereas natural +causes are not free, but are themselves effects of other natural +causes; and these, again, of previous ones. What we want is a cause +which is _not_ also an effect, in other words, a cause which is not +moved by anything else, but is moved by itself, or _Free_. When once +we get to such a cause as this, there is no need for a previous one. + +This objection, then, cannot be maintained, and we therefore decide +that the universe had an origin. And all we know at present about +the Force which originated it, is that it was a Free Force. And the +conclusion at which we have arrived may be concisely expressed by +saying, that before all natural causes which acted necessarily, +there was a _First Cause_ which acted voluntarily. + + +(_B._) THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE. + +We have next to consider what else we can ascertain in regard to +this First Cause. To begin with it can scarcely be disputed at the +present day that it was a _Single_ Cause, as modern science has +completely established the unity which pervades the universe. We +know for instance that the same materials are used everywhere, many +of the elements which exist on this earth being also found in the +sun and stars. Then there is the force of gravity, which is +all-embracing, and applies equally to the most distant stars, and +to the most minute objects on this earth; and many other examples +might be given. But it is scarcely necessary, as everyone now admits +that the universe (as the word implies) is one whole, and this +plainly points to a _Single_ First Cause. + +Nor can it be disputed that this First Cause was _Supernatural_, +which merely means that it differs from natural forces in being +_free_; for this is exactly what we have shown. It was thus no kind +of gravitation, or electricity, or anything of that sort. All these +and all similar forces would always act the same under the same +conditions; while the Force we are considering was of a different +kind. It was a _Free_ Force, a Force which voluntarily chose to +originate the universe at a certain time. And such a Force must +clearly have been Supernatural. + +In conclusion we will call this _Single Supernatural Cause_, which +originated the universe, its _Creator_. And if it be objected that +the universe may have had no _origin_, owing to some Free Force +having been always acting on it, such a Force must also be Single +and Supernatural, and may equally well be called its Creator. + + + + +CHAPTER II. + +THAT THE CREATOR DESIGNED THE UNIVERSE. + +Design means voluntary action, combined with foreknowledge. + + (_A._) EVIDENCE OF DESIGN. + + Seems overwhelming throughout organic nature; and we + are not appealing to it to show the Creator's existence, + but merely His foreknowledge. + + (1.) The example of a watch: its marks of design show that + it had a maker who foresaw its use. + (2.) The example of an eye: this also has marks of design, + and must also have had a Designer. + (3.) The evidence cumulative. + + (_B._) THE EVOLUTION OBJECTION. + + (1.) The meaning of Evolution: it is a process, not a cause. + (2.) The effect of Evolution on the present argument: it + increases the evidence for design. + + (_C._) THE FREE WILL OBJECTION. + + (1.) Its great improbability: for several reasons. + (2.) Free Will and Foreknowledge not inconsistent; so + the chief argument in its favour cannot be maintained. + Conclusion. + + +Having decided that the universe had a Creator, we have next to +examine whether the Creator designed the universe. Now by _Design_ +is meant any voluntary action, combined with foreknowledge of the +results that will follow from such action. So when the Creator +originated the universe, if He foreknew the results of His action, +it would be to _design_ those results, as the word is here used. And +these include, either directly or indirectly, the whole course of +the universe, everything that exists, or that ever has existed in +the world. + +By the word _foreknew_ it is not meant that the Creator necessarily +_thought_ of all future events, however insignificant, such as the +position of the leaves on each tree; but merely that He was able to +foresee any of them He wished, and in this sense foreknew them. +Compare the case of memory; a man may be able to remember a thousand +events in his life; but they are not all before his mind's eye at +the same time, and the insignificant ones may never be. In the same +way the Creator may have been able to foresee all future events in +the world's history without actually thinking about them. At all +events, this is the kind of foresight, or rather foreknowledge, +which is meant to be included in the term _design_. + + +(_A._) EVIDENCE OF DESIGN. + +Passing on now to the evidence of design, this is of the most varied +kind, especially throughout organic nature, where we find countless +objects, which seem to point to the foresight of the Cause which +produced them. The evidence is indeed so vast that it is difficult +to deal with it satisfactorily. Perhaps the best way will be to +follow the well-known _watch_ argument of Paley, first showing by +the example of a watch what it is that constitutes marks of design; +next, how a single organ, say the human eye, possesses these marks; +and then, the cumulative nature of the evidence. + +(1.) _The example of a watch._ + +Now, when we examine a watch, we see that it has marks of design, +because the several parts are put together for a _purpose_. They are +so shaped and arranged as to produce motion, and this motion is so +regulated as to point out the hour of the day. While, if they had +been differently shaped or differently arranged, either no motion at +all would have been produced, or none which would have answered the +same purpose. And from this, we may infer two things. The first is +that the watch had a _maker_ somewhere and at some time; and the +second is that this maker understood its construction, and +_designed_ it for the purpose which it actually serves. + +These conclusions, it will be noticed, would not be altered by the +fact that we had never seen a watch made; never knew a man capable +of making one; and had no idea how the work could be done. All this +would only exalt our opinion of the unknown watchmaker's skill, but +would raise no doubt in our minds either as to his existence, or as +to his having made the watch for the purpose of telling the time. + +Nor should we feel that the watch was explained by being told that +every part of it worked in strict accordance with natural laws, and +could not possibly move otherwise than it did; in fact, that there +was no design to account for. We should feel that, though the action +of every part might be in strict accordance with law, yet the fact +that all these parts agreed in this one particular, that they all +helped to enable the watch to tell the time, did show design +somewhere. In other words, we should feel that the properties of +matter could only partly account for the watch, and that it required +a skilful watchmaker as well, who made use of these properties so as +to enable the watch to tell the time. + +Now suppose on further investigation we found that the watch also +possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its +movements another watch very like itself. It might, for instance, +contain a mould in which the new works were cast, and some machinery +which fitted them together. What effect would this have on our +former conclusions? It would plainly increase our admiration for the +watch, and for the skill of its unknown maker. If without this extra +property, the watch required a skilful maker, still more would it do +so with it. And this conclusion would not be altered by the fact +that very possibly the watch we were examining was itself produced +in this way from some previous one, and perhaps that from another. +We should feel that, though each watch might be thus produced from a +previous one, it was in no sense _designed_ by it. And hence this +would not in any way weaken our conviction as to the existence of a +watchmaker somewhere and at some time who designed the whole series. + +This, then, is the watch argument. Wherever we find marks of design, +there must be a designer somewhere; and this conclusion cannot be +altered by any other considerations whatever. If, then, we find in +nature any objects showing marks of design, the obvious inference is +that they also had a designer. And this inference, it should be +noticed, does not depend on any supposed _analogy_ between the works +of man and the works of nature. The example of the watch is merely +given _as an example_, to show clearly what the design argument is; +but the argument itself would be just as sound if man never had +made, and never could make, any object showing marks of design. + +Moreover, to complete the example, we must assume that the +_existence_ of the watchmaker, and the fact of his having made the +watch, are already admitted for other reasons. And we are only +appealing to these marks of design to show that _when_ he made the +watch, he must have known that it would be able to tell the time, +and presumably made it for that purpose. And in this case the +inference seems, if possible, to be still stronger. + +(2.) _The example of an eye._ + +We will next consider the _human eye_ as an example of natural +organs showing marks of design. It is a well-known instance, but +none the worse on that account. Now, in order to see anything +clearly, it is necessary that an image or picture of it should be +formed at the back of the eye, that is, on the _retina_ from whence +the impression is communicated to the brain. And the eye is an +instrument used for producing this picture, and in some respects +very similar to a telescope. And its marks of design are abundant +and overwhelming. + +To begin with, in both the eye and the telescope the rays of light +have to be _refracted_, so as to produce a distinct image; and the +lens, and humours in the eye, which effect this, somewhat resemble +the lenses of a telescope. While the _different_ humours through +which the rays pass, prevent them from being partly split up into +different colours. The same difficulty had of course to be overcome +in telescopes, and this does not seem to have been effected till it +occurred to some one to imitate in glasses made from different +materials the effect of the different humours in the eye.[1] + +[Footnote 1: Encyc. Brit., 9th edit., vol. xxiii., p. 137.] + +In the next place, the eye has to be suited to perceive objects at +different _distances_, varying from inches to miles. In telescopes +this would be done either by putting in another lens, or by some +focussing arrangement. In the eye it is effected by slightly +altering the _shape_ of the lens, making it more or less convex. A +landscape of several miles is thus brought within a space of half an +inch in diameter, though the objects it contains, at least the +larger ones, are all preserved, and can each be distinguished in its +size, shape, colour, and position. Yet the same eye that can do this +can read a book at the distance of a few inches. + +Again, the eye has to be adapted to different _degrees of light_. +This is effected by the _iris_, which is a kind of screen in the +shape of a ring, capable of expanding or contracting so as to alter +the size of the central hole or pupil, yet always retaining its +circular form. Moreover, it is somehow or other self-adjusting; for +if the light is too strong, the pupil at once contracts. It is +needless to point out how useful such a contrivance would be in +photography, and how much we should admire the skill of its +inventor. + +Again, the eye can perceive objects in different _directions_; for +it is so constructed that it can turn with the greatest rapidity +right or left, up or down, without moving the head. It is also +provided _in duplicate_, the two eyes being so arranged that though +each can see separately should the other get injured, they can, as a +rule, see together with perfect harmony. Lastly, our admiration for +the eye is still further increased when we remember that it was +formed _before birth_. It was what is called a _prospective_ organ, +of no use at the time when it was made; and this, when carefully +considered, shows design more plainly than anything else. + +On the whole, then, the eye appears to be an optical instrument of +great ingenuity; and the conclusion that it must have been made by +someone, and that whoever made it must have known and designed its +use, seems inevitable. + +These conclusions, it will be noticed, like the similar ones in +regard to the watch, are not affected by our ignorance on many +points. We may have no idea as to how an eye can be made, and yet +feel certain that, as it exists, it must have been made by someone, +and that its maker designed it for the purpose it serves. + +Nor should we feel that the eye is explained by being told that +every part of it has been produced in strict accordance with natural +laws, and could not have been otherwise; in fact, that there is no +design to account for. No doubt every single part has been thus +produced, and if it stood alone there might be little to account +for. But it does not stand alone. All the various and complicated +parts of the eye agree in this one remarkable point, and in this one +only, that they all help to enable man to see; and it is this that +requires explanation. We feel that there must be some connection +between the cause which brought all these parts together and the +fact of man's seeing. In other words, the result must have been +designed. + +Nor does the fact that every organism in nature is produced from a +previous one of the same kind alter this conclusion. Indeed, as was +shown with reference to the watch, it can only increase our +admiration for the skill which must have been spent on the first +organism of each kind. Moreover, no part of the design can be +attributed to the _parents_. If, for instance, the eyes of a child +show design, it is not due to the intelligence or designing power of +its father and mother. _They_ have not calculated the proper shape +for the lens, or the mechanism of the iris, and as a rule know +nothing whatever about it. And the same applies to _their_ parents, +so that our going back ever so far in this way brings us no nearer +to what we are in search of. The design is still unaccounted for, we +still want a designer. + +We hence conclude that the marks of design in the eye afford, at all +events, what seems to be a very strong argument in favour of a +_Designer_. And if only one eye existed in the universe, and there +were no other mark of design in nature, this conclusion would be +none the less clear. + +(3.) _The evidence cumulative._ + +But the argument is far stronger than this. It is cumulative in a +_triple_ sense. To begin with, an eye is found not in one man only, +but in millions of men, each separately showing marks of design, and +each separately requiring a designer. Secondly, the human eye is +only one example out of hundreds in the human body. The ear or the +mouth would lead to the same conclusion, and so would the lungs or +the heart. While, thirdly, human beings are but one out of many +thousands of organisms in nature, all bearing marks of design, and +showing in some cases an even greater ingenuity than in the human +eye. Of course, as a rule, the lower organisms, being less +complicated than the higher ones, have less striking marks of +design, but their existence is equally clear; the flowers of plants +affording some well-known examples. + +Nor is this all, for even the world itself bears traces of having +been designed. Had it been a mere chaos, we might have thought that +the Creator was unaware of what would be the result of His action. +But a planet like our earth, so admirably adapted for the support of +life, can scarcely have been brought about by accident. + +We conclude then, on reviewing the whole subject, that there are +countless objects in nature, more especially organs like the eye, +which bear strong marks of having been _designed_. And then the +Unity of Nature, and the fact that all its parts act on one another +in so many ways (the eye for instance being useless without light), +shows that if anything has been designed, everything has been +designed. Now there are two, and only two, important objections to +this argument, which may be called the _Evolution_ and the _Free +Will_ objection. + + +(_B._) THE EVOLUTION OBJECTION. + +The first objection is that the whole of nature has been brought +about in accordance with fixed laws by the process of _Evolution_. +Therefore, though it is possible the Creator may have foreseen +everything that exists; yet the apparent marks of design in nature, +being all the necessary results of these laws, do not afford any +evidence that He actually did so. And before discussing this +objection we must first consider what we mean by laws of nature and +natural forces. + +Now by a _law of nature_ is meant any regular, or uniform action +which we observe in nature. For example, it is called a law, or rule +of nature that (with certain exceptions) heat should expand bodies, +which merely means that we see that it does so. In other words, we +observe that heat is followed by expansion, and we therefore assume +that the one is the cause of the other. But calling it a law of +nature for heat to expand bodies, does not in any way account for +its doing so. And the same is true in other cases, so that a law of +nature _explains_ nothing, it is merely a summary of the facts to be +explained. + +It should also be noticed that a law of nature _effects_ nothing. It +has no coercive, or compelling power whatever. The law of +gravitation, for instance, has never moved a planet, any more than +the rules of navigation have steered a ship. In each case it is some +power or force acting according to law which does it. And _natural +forces_ are those which, as far as we know, _always_ act according +to some fixed law. They have no freedom of choice, they cannot act +or not as they like; they must always and everywhere act the same +under the same circumstances. We pass on now to the subject of +Evolution, first considering its meaning, and then its effect on the +present argument. + +(1.) _The meaning of Evolution._ + +Now by the term Evolution is meant to be included the processes of +Organic Evolution, Natural Selection, and the Survival of the +Fittest. The former may be described as meaning that all the +different forms of life now existing, or that ever have existed on +this earth, are the descendants of earlier and less developed forms, +and those again of simpler ones; and so on, till we get back to the +earliest form of life, whatever that may have been. + +And the theories of _Natural Selection_ and _the Survival of the +Fittest_ explain how this may have taken place. For among the slight +modifications that would most likely occur in every organism, those, +and only those, would be perpetuated which were of advantage to it +in the struggle for existence. And they would in time, it is +assumed, become hereditary in its descendants, and thus higher forms +of life would be gradually produced. And the value of these theories +is that they show how Organic Evolution may have taken place without +involving any sudden change, such as a monkey giving birth to a man. +We must remember, however, that the subject is far from settled; and +even now naturalists are beginning to doubt whether all the +modifications were in reality very slight. But still, speaking +broadly, this is the theory we have to discuss. + +It will, of course, be noticed that Evolution is thus a _process_, +and not a _cause_. It is the method in which certain changes have +been brought about, and not the cause which brings them about. Every +slight modification must have been caused somehow. When such +modifications were caused, then Natural Selection can explain how +the useful ones alone were perpetuated, but it cannot explain how +the modifications themselves arose. On the contrary, it supposes +them as already existing, otherwise there would be nothing to select +from. Natural Selection, then, rather weeds than plants, and would +be better described as Natural _Rejection_. It merely shows how, as +a rule, among the various modifications in an organism, some good +and some bad, the useless ones would disappear, and the useful ones +would remain; in other words, how the fittest would survive. But +this survival of the fittest does not explain in the slightest +degree how the fitness arose. If, as an extreme example, out of a +hundred animals, fifty had eyes and fifty had not, it is easy to +understand how those that had eyes would be more likely to have +descendants; but this does not explain how they first got eyes. And +the same applies in other cases. + +How, then, did the variations in each organism first arise? In +common language they may be ascribed to chance; but, strictly +speaking, such a thing is impossible. The word _chance_ is merely a +convenient term for the results of certain forces of nature when we +are unable to calculate them. Chance, then, must be excluded; and +there seem to be only two alternatives. Either the organisms in +nature possessed free will, and acted as they did _voluntarily_; or +else they did not possess free will, and acted as they did +_necessarily_. The former theory will be examined later on; the +latter is the one we are now considering. + +(2.) _The effect of Evolution._ + +How then would this theory affect our previous conclusion that the +Creator designed all the organs of nature, such as the eye, and +hence presumably the whole of the universe? As we shall see, it only +confirms it. For to put it plainly, if all free will on the part of +the organisms is excluded, so that they were all bound to act +exactly as they did, it is clear that the earth and all it contains +is like a vast mass of machinery. And however complicated its parts, +and however much they may act on one another, and however long they +may take in doing so, yet if in the end they produce an organ +showing design, this must have been foreseen and intended by the +Maker of the machinery. In the same way if a mass of machinery after +working for a long time eventually turned out a watch, we should +have no hesitation in saying that whoever made the machinery, and +set it going, intended it to do so. And is the inference less clear, +if it not only turned out a watch, but a watchmaker as well, and +everything else that exists on this planet? + +All then that evolution does is this. It shows that the whole of +nature forms such a long and continuous process; that if the end has +been foreseen at all, it must have been foreseen from the +beginning. In other words, just as the Unity of Nature shows that if +anything has been designed, everything has been designed; so +Evolution shows that if it has been designed at all, it has been +designed _from the beginning_. We must hence conclude that the +organs in nature, such as the eye, which undoubtedly show design, +were not designed separately or as _after-thoughts_, but were all +included in one grand design from the beginning. And this can only +increase our admiration for the Designer. Thus evolution, even in +its most extreme and automatic form, cannot get rid of a Designer. +Still less can it do so, if (as is probable) it is not automatic at +all; but is due to the _continuous_ action of the Creator, who is +what is called _immanent_ in nature, and directs every step. + +It should be noticed, moreover, that in one respect evolution rather +_increases_ the evidence of design. For if, to take a single +example, a human hand has been evolved from a monkey's foot merely +by the monkey using it as a hand, and taking hold of things; it +increases the amount of design which must have been spent on the +foot to enable it to do so. And if _all_ the organs in nature have +been evolved in this way from simpler ones, it increases the amount +of design which must have been spent on those simpler ones to an +extent which is practically infinite. + +Thus Evolution implies a previous _Involution_; since all forms of +life must have been involved in the first form before they could be +evolved from it; so that creation by evolution is more wonderful +than creation by direct manufacture. And it seems to many to be a +far nobler conception of the Creator that He should obtain all the +results He desired, by one grand system of evolution, rather than by +a large number of separate creations. For then the _method_ in which +the results were obtained would be as marvellous, and show as much +wisdom and foresight as the results themselves; and each would be +worthy of the other. Evolution, then, seems to be the highest form +of creation; and so far from destroying the present argument, it +only destroys its difficulties, by showing that every single part of +every single organism may have been _designed_, and yet in a manner +worthy of the great Creator. + +Nor is the conclusion altered if we carry back the process of +evolution, and assume that the earliest form of life was itself +evolved from some previous form of inanimate matter; and this again +from a simpler one, and so on till we get back to the original form +of matter, whatever that may have been. For if the results as we now +see them show design, then the argument for a Designer is not +weakened, but our ideas of His skill are still further increased, if +we believe that they were already secured when our earth was merely +a nebula. + + +(_C._) _The Free Will Objection._ + +We have, lastly, to consider the other, and more important +objection, that arising from _Free Will_. Why, it is urged, may not +all organisms in nature have possessed free will within certain +limits, and have selected those forms which suited them best? For +example, referring to the case of a watch, if telling the time were +of any advantage to the watch itself, and if the spring, wheels, and +hands possessed free will; then it might be thought that they had +formed themselves into that arrangement which suited them best. And +if so, the idea that the watchmaker foresaw and intended them to +adopt this arrangement seems unnecessary. + +Now, in the case before us, as the organs showing design in nature, +such as the eye, always conduce to the welfare of their possessor, +the objection is certainly worth considering. But as we shall see, +it is most improbable, while the chief argument in its favour cannot +be maintained. It need scarcely be pointed out that we are not +assuming that the organisms have free will, but merely admitting +that they may have it; and if anyone denies this, the objection, as +far as he is concerned, falls to the ground at once. + +(1.) _Its great improbability._ + +This is apparent because low down in the scale of nature (plants, +trees, etc.), the free will of the organisms, if they have any, must +be extremely limited; yet they bear unmistakable marks of design. +While, in higher beings which have (or may have) an undoubted free +will, it is hard to believe that it can effect anything like what is +required. Would, for instance, wishing to see or trying to see, even +if blind animals were capable of either, have ever given them eyes? +And the same applies in other cases. It is hence most improbable +that the marks of design in nature are due to the organisms +themselves, rather than to their Creator. + +But there is one important argument on the other side, which, if it +could be maintained, would be sufficient to outweigh all this +improbability. It is, that some beings, such as man, do, as a matter +of fact, possess a free will, and that man can and does alter his +condition, to a slight extent, by using that free will. Therefore, +it is said, it is impossible for the Creator to have foreknown what +man's condition would be, because free will and foreknowledge are +_necessarily_ inconsistent. But this latter point is disputed. + +(2.) _Free Will and Foreknowledge not inconsistent._ + +Now, although at first sight freedom of action seems inconsistent +with any foreknowledge of what that action will be, yet on closer +examination this will be found to be at least doubtful. For our own +experience seems to show that in some cases, at all events, it is +not in the nature of things impossible to know how a free being will +act. + +For example, I myself may know how, under given external conditions, +I will act to-morrow. Never being sure of these, I cannot be said to +actually foreknow the event; so that foreknowing with man is never +more than foreguessing. But I may be quite sure how, _under given +conditions_, I will act. For instance, I may know that, provided I +keep in good health, provided I receive no news from anyone, +provided, etc, I will go to my office some time to-morrow morning. + +Yet I feel equally sure that this foreknowledge of mine does not +prevent the act when it comes from being quite free on my part. My +knowing this evening what I will do to-morrow does not oblige me to +do it. My foreknowledge of the event does not bring the event +about. It is in no sense its _cause_. The act when it comes is due +to my own free will, I merely foreknow _what use I will make of my +freedom_. And these are probably the common feelings of mankind on +the subject. + +It seems, then, that my foreknowledge need not be inconsistent with +my free will. And hence, if I tell someone else how I will act, +_his_ foreknowledge would not be inconsistent with my free will. So +that in some cases, and under given conditions, it does not seem +impossible for a man to foreknow how another man will act, yet +without interfering with his freedom. In short, free will does not +seem to be _necessarily_ inconsistent with the foreknowledge even of +man, though it is always practically so, owing to man's imperfect +knowledge of the surrounding circumstances. But the Creator knows, +or may know, these circumstances fully, therefore it must be still +less inconsistent with _His_ foreknowledge. + +Of course it may be said that if the Creator foreknows how I will +act to-morrow, I am _certain_ to act in that way; and this is +doubtless true. But it does not follow that I _need_ act in that +way; for _certainty_ is not the same as _necessity_. This is obvious +enough in regard to a past event. I certainly did it, but I need not +have done it; and it may be equally true in regard to a future +event. I will certainly do it, but I need not do it. Therefore the +Creator may know that I will do it, though it will still be _free_ +on my part. + +And this is strongly confirmed when we reflect that the difficulty +of knowing how a free being will act, however great in itself, +seems as nothing compared with the difficulty of _creating_ a free +being. Apart from experience, we should probably have thought this +to be impossible. Yet man has been created somehow. Is it then +unlikely that the Being who was able to overcome the greater +difficulty, and create a free man, should also be able to overcome +the lesser difficulty, and foreknow how he would act? + +Moreover, if free will and foreknowledge are _always_ and +_necessarily_ inconsistent, then the Creator cannot have any +foreknowledge of _His Own_ acts, or else they are not free on His +part; neither of which seems at all probable. We are not, of course, +arguing from this that He actually does foreknow how He will act +Himself, or how a free man will act, but only that it is not in the +nature of things impossible that He should do so; in other words, +that free will and foreknowledge are not _necessarily_ inconsistent. + +And this is precisely what we had to show. The marks of design in +nature afford what seems to be overwhelming evidence in favour of +the foreknowledge of the Creator. The objection we are considering +is that, in spite of all this evidence, we must still deny it, +because some of the organisms in nature, such as man, possess a free +will; and therefore any foreknowledge is in the nature of things +impossible. And the instant it is shown that such foreknowledge is +not impossible, the objection falls to the ground. + +We may now sum up the argument in this chapter. We first explained +that by _Design_ was meant any voluntary action combined with +foreknowledge of the results of that action. We next considered the +evidence for design in nature, taking, as a single example, the +human eye. And this evidence appeared complete and overwhelming; +more especially as we were not appealing to it to show the existence +of a Creator, which is already admitted, but merely His +foreknowledge. And we have since considered the two apparent +objections to this argument arising from Evolution and Free Will. +But when carefully examined, the former only strengthens the +argument, while the latter does not weaken it. We therefore +conclude, on reviewing the whole subject, that the Creator _designed +the universe_. + + + + +CHAPTER III. + +THAT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS EXTREMELY PROBABLE. + + (_A._) MEANING OF THE TERM GOD. + + The Personal Being who designed and created the universe. + + (_B._) TWO OF GOD'S ATTRIBUTES. + + Wisdom and Power. He is also Omnipresent. + + (_C._) THE OBJECTION THAT GOD IS UNKNOWABLE. + + This is partly true; but everything is unknowable in its + real nature, though in each case the partial knowledge + we can obtain is all we require. + + (_D._) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. + + +The position in the argument at which we have now arrived is this. +We showed in the last chapter that the Creator designed the +universe; in other words, that when he created it, He foreknew its +future history. And from this the next step, as to the existence of +God, is quite plain; in fact, it is merely a question of words. + + +(_A._) MEANING OF THE TERM GOD. + +Now any being who is able to design we will call a _personal being_. +And GOD is the name given to the Personal Being who designed and +created the universe. + +But it ought to be noticed, before we pass on, that the term +_personal being_ is also applied to _man_, and is said by many +writers to involve the three ideas of _thought_, _desire_, and +_will_. But these seem to be all included in design; for if I design +anything, I must first of all _think_ of it, then _wish_ it, and +then _accomplish_ it. + +We will examine in the next chapter whether man is a personal being +as we have used the term; but if we admit that he is, we have +another and independent argument in favour of the Creator being so +too. For the Creator has somehow or other produced man, with all his +attributes; so He cannot be a mere impersonal Being or Force, since +a cause must be able to account for its effect. And a free and +intelligent man cannot be due to a Force, which is neither free nor +intelligent. Therefore, if man is a personal being, it follows that +man's _Maker_ must be so too. + +It should also be noticed that man's mind and spirit, which make him +a personal being, cannot be discovered by any physical means. And +this meets the objection that we cannot discover God by any physical +means. It would be much more surprising if we could. But though the +telescope can find no God in the heavens, just as the microscope can +find no mind in man, the existence of each may be quite certain for +other reasons. In popular language, all we can see is the _house_, +not the _tenant_, in either case. + + +(_B_). TWO OF GOD'S ATTRIBUTES. + +We must next notice somewhat carefully two of God's attributes, +_Wisdom_ and _Power_. Both of these are involved in the idea of a +Personal Being able to design. For _design_, as used in this Essay, +means originating or freely doing anything, as well as previously +planning it. Therefore, if we use the word, as is often done, for +planning alone, we must remember that a personal being is one who +can both design and accomplish. The former implies a mind able to +form some plan, and the latter a free force, or will, able to carry +it out. So a personal being must of necessity have _wisdom_ to +design and _power_ to accomplish. And considering the vastness of +the universe and the variety of its organisms, it seems only +reasonable to conclude that the Creator possesses these attributes +to the greatest possible extent, so that He is both Omniscient and +Omnipotent. + +It is important, however, to notice the meaning given to these +words. By _Omniscient_, then, we mean possessing all possible +knowledge. Now the only knowledge which might be thought impossible +is how a free being would act in the future, and we have already +shown that such knowledge is not in the nature of things impossible; +so there does not seem to be any necessary restriction here. + +But with _Omnipotent_ the case is different. This means, as just +said, possessing all possible power; that is to say, being able to +do anything which is not impossible. Of course some Christians may +be inclined to answer, that _with God all things are possible_; but +as He who said so began one of His own prayers with the words _if it +be possible_, this cannot be taken in its widest sense.[2] And +provided the word _impossible_ is used in its strict meaning, we +have no reason for thinking that God could do impossible things; +such as make a triangle with the properties of a circle, or allow a +man a free choice between two alternatives, and yet force him to +choose one of them. These, then, are two of the great attributes of +God, Wisdom and Power. There is a third, which will be considered in +Chapter V. + +[Footnote 2: Matt. 19. 26; 26. 39.] + +It should also be noticed that besides being the Designer and +Creator of the universe in the past, God seems to be also its +_Preserver_ at the present, being, in fact, the _Omnipresent_ Power +which is still working throughout nature. That there is such a Power +can scarcely be denied (however hard it may be to realise), and that +it is the same as the Creating Power is plainly the most probable +view. God is thus the Cause of all natural forces now, just as He +was their Creator in times past; and what are called secondary or +natural causes, have probably no existence. They may, indeed, be +called secondary _forces_, but they are not _causes_ at all in the +strict sense; for a cause must be _free_, it must have the power of +initiative. Thus man's free will, if it is free, would be a real +secondary cause, but the forces of nature are mere links in a chain +of events, each of which is bound to follow the previous one. This +is often spoken of as the Divine _Immanence_ in nature, and means +little else than the Omnipresence of a Personal God--the +all-pervading influence of One 'who is never so far off as even to +be called near.' + + +(_C._) THE OBJECTION THAT GOD IS UNKNOWABLE. + +We must lastly consider an important objection which may be made to +the whole of these chapters. It may be said that the human mind is +unable to argue about the _First Cause_, because we have no +faculties for comprehending the Infinite; or, as it is commonly +expressed, because God is _Unknowable_. + +Now this objection is partly true. There is a sense in which all +will admit that God is Unknowable. His existence and attributes are +too great for any human mind to comprehend entirely, or for any +human language to express completely and accurately. Therefore our +statements on the subject are at best only approximations to the +truth. We can apprehend His existence, but we cannot comprehend it, +and God in His true nature is certainly _Unknowable_. + +But, strictly speaking, it is the same with everything. Man in his +true nature is also unknowable, yet we know something about man. So, +again, the forces of nature are all unseen and unknowable in +themselves, yet from their effects we know something about them. And +even matter when reduced to atoms, or electrons, or anything else, +is still a mystery, yet we know a good deal about matter. And in +each case this knowledge is not incorrect because it is incomplete. +Why, then, should the fact of God being in His true nature +unknowable prevent our having some real, though partial, knowledge +of Him? In short, we may know something about God, though we cannot +know everything about Him. + +And it should be noticed that Natural Religion and Natural Science +are alike in this respect--they are both founded on inferences drawn +from the observed facts of nature. For example, we observe the +motion of falling bodies, and infer the existence of some force, +gravity, to account for this. Similarly, we observe the marks of +design in nature, and infer the existence, or at least foresight, of +some Being who designed them. In neither case have we any direct +knowledge as to the cause of what we see. And in some respects +Religion is not so unknowable as Science. For our own, real or +apparent, mind and free will do give us some kind of idea as to the +existence of a personal being, apart from what he does; while of a +natural force, such as gravity, apart from its effects, we can form +no idea whatever. Thus our knowledge of every subject is but +partial, and it finally leads us into the Unknowable. + +But now comes the important point. This partial knowledge, which is +all we can obtain in either Science or Religion, is all we require. +It is not a perfect knowledge, but it is sufficient for all +practical purposes. Whatever the force of gravity may be in itself, +we know what it is _to us_. We know that if we jump off a cliff we +shall fall to the ground. And so in regard to Religion. Whatever God +may be in Himself, we know what He is _to us_. We know that He is +our Maker, and therefore, as will be shown in the next chapter, He +is the Being to whom we are responsible. This is the practical +knowledge which we require, and this is the knowledge which we can +obtain. + +Moreover, though our reason may be to some extent unfit to judge of +such matters, the vast importance of the subject seems to demand our +coming to some conclusion one way or the other. This is especially +the case because important results affecting a man's daily life +follow from his deciding that there is a God, and to leave the +question undecided is practically the same as deciding that there is +not a God. In the same way, if a ship were in danger of sinking, +and a steamer also in distress offered to take off the passengers, +for one of them to say that he did not know whether it was safer to +go in the steamer or not, and would therefore do nothing and stay +where he was, would be practically the same as deciding not to go in +the steamer. So in the case before us. To refuse to decide the +question because of the supposed inadequacy of human reason is +practically the same as to deny the existence of God. + +Still, it may be urged, granting that our reason must decide the +question one way or the other, and granting that our reason seems to +force us to conclude in the existence of God, are there not great +difficulties in honestly believing this conclusion? No doubt there +are, and no thoughtful man would think of ignoring them. But after +all it is only a choice of difficulties; and, as we have shown, +there is _less_ difficulty in believing what we have here maintained +than the contrary. It is less difficult, for instance, to believe +that the universe had an origin, than to believe that it had not. +Similarly as to the existence of God; the theory is not free from +difficulties, but, with all its difficulties, it is still by far the +most probable theory to explain the origin and present state of the +universe. We therefore decide, judging by reason alone (which is the +line adopted in this Essay), that the existence of God is _extremely +probable_. + + +(_D._) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT. + +In conclusion, we will repeat very briefly, the main line of +argument thus far. To begin with, in the present universe we observe +a succession of changes. If these changes are not recurring, which +seems incredible, they must have had a commencement; and this is +supported by the theories of Evolution and the Degradation of +Energy. Therefore, as this commencement cannot have been a +necessity, it must have been due to some _Free Force_. And a Free +Force must be a _Supernatural_ Force, since natural forces are not +free, but always act according to some fixed law, while the unity of +nature points to its being a _Single_ Supernatural Force, which we +called the Creator. + +Next, it follows that the Creator must have foreknown the +consequences of His acts, judging by the marks of design which they +present. And this conclusion was shown to be not inconsistent with +either the process of evolution, or the existence of free will in +man or other beings. Hence He must have been a _Personal Being_, +possessing both Wisdom to design, and Power to accomplish. + +Or the whole argument may be repeated in an even shorter form. The +universe (in its present condition) has not existed always, it is +therefore an _effect_,--something that has been effected, or brought +about somehow; and therefore like every effect, it must have had a +_Cause_. Then since the effect shows a certain unity throughout, the +Cause must have been One. Since the effect shows in some parts +evidence of having been planned and arranged, the capacity for +planning and arranging must have existed in the Cause. In other +words, a universe showing marks of design is the effect, and nothing +less than a Personal Being who designed it can be the Cause. And GOD +is the name given to this Personal Being. + + + + +CHAPTER IV. + +THAT MAN IS A FREE AND RESPONSIBLE BEING. + + (_A._) MAN'S MENTAL ATTRIBUTES. + + Man possesses a mind as well as a body; the opposite + theory, materialism, has great difficulties. + + (_B._) MAN'S MORAL ATTRIBUTES. + + (1.) Man possesses a will. + (2.) Man's acts are partly determined by his will. + (3.) Man's will is _free_. + (4.) Man knows that his will is free; and this enables him + to design, and makes him a personal being. + (5.) Man's _responsibility_ for his acts. + (6.) Man's moral sense of right and wrong; which enables + him to distinguish the quality of acts, and makes + him a moral being. + (7.) Man's conscience, by which he can judge of this quality + in some cases. + + (_C._) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANIMALS AND MEN. + + There is a great mental difference, though probably only + of degree; and entire moral difference, since animals, + even if free, do not possess a _known_ freedom, and are + hence not personal beings. + + (_D._) CONCLUSION. + + Man consists of three parts, body, mind, and spirit: his + unique position. + + +Having decided on the Existence of God, which is the great truth of +_Natural_ Religion, the question now arises whether, if nature can +lead us so far, there is no means of getting further. No one will +deny that further knowledge is desirable, both as to God, ourselves, +and our future destiny, and is there no means of obtaining it? And +this brings us to the subject of _Revealed_ Religion, that is to +say, of God's making some Revelation to man. And the probability of +this will depend partly on the _character of man_--is he a being at +all worthy of a revelation; and partly on the _Character of God_--is +He a Being at all likely to make one? The former question alone will +be discussed in this chapter, and we will consider man's _mental_ +and _moral_ attributes separately. Nothing need be said about his +bodily or _physical_ characteristics, as they have no bearing on the +present argument. + + +(_A._) MAN'S MENTAL ATTRIBUTES. + +By these are meant man's thoughts and feelings, and that they are +different from the matter composing his body seems self-evident. +Matter possesses size, weight, colour, shape, and hardness. Mind +does not possess any of these. They have no conceivable meaning when +applied to thoughts and feelings. Yet both mind and matter exist in +man. We each feel conscious that we have something which _thinks_, +and which we call mind; as well as something which _moves_, and +which we call matter (_i.e._, our bodies); and that these are +absolutely distinct from one another. And from the nature of the +case this _inherent conviction_ is all we can appeal to. For mind, +if it exists at all, being different from matter, is beyond the +reach of ordinary scientific discovery. We cannot however be more +certain of anything than of these inherent convictions, which form +the basis of all our knowledge. Even the propositions of Euclid are +only deductions from some other of our convictions, such as that the +whole is greater than its part. + +Still the difficulty of understanding this compound nature in man, +part mind and part body, has led some persons to adopt the theory of +_materialism_. According to this there is no such thing as _mind_; +what we call thoughts and feelings being merely complicated motions +of the molecules of the brain. Now, that the mind and brain are +closely associated together none will deny, but it does not follow +that they are identical. The brain may be merely the instrument of +the mind through which it acts. And though, as far as we know, the +mind can never act without the brain, it may certainly have a +separate existence, and possibly, under different conditions, may be +able to act separately. It is in fact no more difficult to conceive +of thought without a brain, than to conceive of thought with a +brain. All we can say is, that within the range of our experience +the two seem to be somehow connected together. + +Recent investigations, however, in what is called _telepathy_ (or +thought-transference) seem to show that in some cases one mind can +influence another _at a distance_, and without any material +connection. And this (if admitted) proves that the mind is something +more than a mere collection of particles of matter. + +Moreover materialism, to be consistent, must deny not only that man +has a mind, but that he has anything immaterial at all; he must be +matter in motion, and nothing else. But this is disproved by our +_memory_, which convinces us that we are the _same_ persons now as +we were ten years ago; yet we know that every particle of our +bodies, including our brains, has changed in the interval. We must +then have something immaterial which survives, in spite of +everything material changing. + +The case, it should be noticed, is not like that of a tree, which +may be popularly said to be the same now as it was ten years ago, +though every particle of it has changed in the interval. For as far +as we know, the tree has nothing which connects its present state +with its former state, it has no memory of what happened to it then. +We _have_, that is just the difference. We can remember now what +happened to us ten years ago, though our bodies now do not contain a +single atom or molecule which they did then. We must, therefore, +have something else besides atoms and molecules, in other words, +something _immaterial_; and if so, there is an end of materialism in +its only logical form. + +This theory then cannot possibly be accepted, and we must abide by +our inherent conviction that we have a mind as well as a body. This +is an ultimate fact in human nature; and we are as certain of it as +we are of anything, though like some other ultimate facts it has to +be assumed, because it can be neither proved nor doubted. + + +(_B._) MAN'S MORAL ATTRIBUTES. + +We pass on now to man's moral attributes, which we will consider in +detail. + +(1.) _Man possesses a will._ + +In the first place man possesses what, in common language, is called +a _will_. Strictly speaking, of course, the will is not anything +independent of the man, which he _possesses_, as he might possess a +dog; it is the man himself _who wills_, or who possesses the power +of willing. But the common language is so generally understood, that +it will be used here. Now the chief reason for believing that man +has a will is his own inherent conviction. He feels certain that he +does possess a will which is distinct from his body and his mind, +though closely associated with both, and apparently to some extent +controlling both. For example, I may resolve to raise my hand, and +then do it; or I may resolve to think out a problem, and then do it. +In each case the will is felt to be something distinct from the +subsequent bodily or mental action. + +(2.) _Man's acts are partly determined by his will._ + +In the next place, a man's acts (and also his thoughts) are partly +determined by his will. By this is meant that a man's will is able +to move his limbs, so that, for instance, he can raise his hand when +he wishes, and this gives him the power of determining his acts. It +is not meant that a man's will can move his limbs directly; his +limbs are moved by his muscles, which are directed by his nerves, +and these by certain motions in the brain. All that the will can do +is to give a particular direction to these motions, which, combined +with various other forces, brings about the observed result. + +Now we have in favour of this action of the human will on the human +body the universal experience of mankind, which is that a man can +somehow or other move his limbs at pleasure. Indeed, the question +whether a man can walk across the room when he wishes, seems to most +people to admit of a convincing answer: _solvitur ambulando_. But +still, the action of will on matter seems so improbable, and so +difficult to understand, that attempts have naturally been made to +find some other explanation. + +But no satisfactory one can be suggested. For my wishing to move my +body, is followed by my moving it so frequently and so universally, +that there must be some connection between them. And though we +cannot imagine how a mere wish can move particles of matter (in the +brain or anywhere else), it is just as hard to imagine how the +movement of particles of matter can produce a wish. The latter +theory is no easier to understand than the other; and, as just said, +it is opposed to _the daily experience of mankind_, which is that a +man's will can, somehow or other, move his limbs, and hence +determine his acts. + +(3.) _Man's will is free._ + +It must next be noticed that man's will is a _free_ will, and this +is a most important point. It is quite distinct from the previous +question. Then we decided that a man's raising his hand, for +instance, was the result of his wishing to do so. We have now to +consider whether this wish was free on the man's part, or whether he +could not help it; the latter view being called that of _Necessity_, +or _Determinism_, and meaning that a man's acts are necessarily +determined, and not free. Of course everyone admits that there are +_limits_ to human freedom. A man cannot always raise his hand when +he likes, it may be paralyzed. The important point is whether he is +_ever_ free; and there are two main arguments on each side. + +Now the great argument in favour of free will is, again, our own +inherent conviction. It is one of the most universal, and one of the +most certain, beliefs of mankind that he has free will. This belief +is forced upon him by his own daily experience. He feels, for +instance, that he is free to raise his hand or not. And what is +more, he can verify the fact by actually raising it, whenever he +likes; so it is literally true to say that the conviction rests on +the daily experience of the human race. And to many, this argument +alone seems conclusive. + +But, as a matter of fact, it is fully confirmed by _human conduct_. +For a man's conduct is _variable_ and quite unlike the uniformity +which we find in chemistry and physics, where there is no free +force, and everything is brought about in accordance with fixed +laws. So we seem to require some free force in man to account for +his variable conduct. These, then, are the two arguments in favour +of free will--man's _inherent conviction_, confirmed by his +_variable conduct_; and no more powerful arguments can be imagined. + +On the other hand, the chief argument against human freedom is that +it would be an _anomaly_ in nature; since natural forces always act +in the same way, and any free force, able to act or not as it likes, +is quite unknown. If, then, man possesses such a force, no matter +how limited it may be, he is partly, at least, a _supernatural_ +being, not bound by fixed laws. + +Now all this may be admitted, but what then? Why should not man be a +partly supernatural being? God, Who has made man, is Supernatural; +He possesses free will, and He might, if He thought fit, bestow some +of this attribute on man, allowing him, that is to say, within +certain limits, to act in one way or another. No doubt, to persons +who study physical science alone, the existence of any free force in +man seems most improbable. But, on the other hand, to those who +study the actions of men, such as barristers, soldiers, or +politicians, the idea that man is a mere machine seems equally +improbable. + +And does not the same principle apply in other cases? Suppose, for +instance, that a man were to study inorganic chemistry alone, living +on an island where vegetation was unknown, would not a tree be a +complete anomaly to him? Yet trees exist and have to be allowed for. +In the same way man's free will may be an anomaly, but the evidence +for it is overwhelming. + +Moreover, the anomaly is greatly lessened by the fact that man +already occupies a very anomalous position. For as we have seen, his +acts are often determined by his _will_, and this is utterly unlike +anything that we find elsewhere in nature. Indeed the _action_ of a +will is as great an anomaly as its _freedom_; and with the possible +exception of animals (see further on) we have no experience whatever +of a will that can act and is _not_ free. Therefore claiming freedom +for a man, is not like claiming freedom for a mineral, or a plant. +He is anyhow a unique being, by far the highest and most important +on this planet; and that he should be partly supernatural as well +does not seem so very unlikely after all. + +We must also remember that we know more about ourselves where we are +conscious of freedom, than we do about the surrounding universe, +where we infer a rigid uniformity. Indeed, our own free will is the +only force of which we have any _direct_ knowledge, and the +so-called forces of nature, such as gravity, are, strictly speaking, +only assumptions which we make to account for observed facts. And, +as we have shown, even these forces seem to have originated in the +Free Will of the Creator; so as far as we can judge, _free will_, of +some kind is the ultimate cause of all force. + +The other important argument against free will is that it would be +inconsistent with what is called the _Conservation of Energy_, since +it is said any voluntary act would involve the creation of energy. +But this is at least doubtful; for the will might be free as to its +acts, were it only able to control energy without producing it. And +it could do this if it possessed the power of altering either the +time, or the direction of force; deciding, for instance, whether to +raise my hand now, or a minute hence, or whether to raise my right +hand or my left. And if it possessed either of these powers, it +could turn the latent force, which a man possesses, into actual +motion when and how it pleased. And it would thus be free as to its +acts, without creating any energy at all. + +We therefore decide on reviewing the whole subject, that man's will +is free; since this alone agrees with his own inherent _conviction_, +and fully accounts for his variable _conduct_. While, on the other +hand, though an _anomaly_ in nature, it is not on that account +incredible; nor is it inconsistent with the _conservation of +energy_. + +(4.) _Man knows that his will is free._ + +Having now decided that man's will is free, little need be said +about the next point, which is that man _knows_ that his will is +free, since, as we have shown, this is the chief argument for +admitting its freedom. There are, however, many other arguments for +proving that man believes that he has a free will, for it is shown +by his acts. It is this known freedom which enables a man to set +before him an end, and deliberately work towards it; in other words, +it enables him to _design_, and makes him a _personal being_, as we +have used the term. And it is needless to point out that the +evidence of human design is universal. Again, human language affords +a conclusive proof that man has always and everywhere believed +himself to be free; for such terms as _I will_, _I choose_, _I +decide_, exist in all languages. However, we need not pursue this +subject, since it is undisputed that man _believes_ that he has a +free will; and it is taken for granted in all human affairs. + +(5.) _Man's responsibility for his acts._ + +By this is meant that a man is responsible for the way in which he +uses his freedom; and this seems to follow at once from his knowing +that he is free. Moreover, a sense of responsibility is among the +inherent convictions of mankind. Of course, there may be exceptions +to this as to most other rules; but taking mankind as a whole, he +certainly believes in his own responsibility. + +He also believes that this responsibility is in the first place to +God, or some other supernatural Being. No doubt he is also +responsible to his fellow-men, more especially to those among whom +he is living; but a moment's reflection will show that this is not +the leading idea. For a man must in the first place be responsible +to his Maker rather than to his fellow-men. In the same way a child +is first of all responsible to his parents, and then, secondly and +consequently, to his brothers and sisters. Therefore, because God +has made us, we are responsible to Him; and because He has placed us +among other men, and presumably wishes us to take some part in human +society, we are in a lesser degree responsible to them also. So the +_brotherhood of man_, as it is called, naturally follows from the +Fatherhood of God. + +(6.) _Man's moral sense of right and wrong._ + +In the next place, man has the remarkable faculty of distinguishing +the _quality_ of acts which are free, regarding some as right and +others as wrong, the latter being called _sins_. And it may be +noticed in passing, that the existence of moral evil or sin seems to +many to be an additional argument in favour of man's freedom; +otherwise God would be the sole author of man's misdeeds. Of course, +in this case, they would not be really _sins_, for if man has no +free will, he is a mere machine, and can no more sin against God (or +man either) than a watch can sin against its maker. Such a man +might be imperfect, and so might a watch, but he could not be +_wicked_; yet few will say that there are no wicked men in the +world. Now we will call a being who is thus able to distinguish the +quality of acts a _moral being_. Man is therefore a moral being, +having this _moral sense_, as it is called, of distinguishing right +from wrong. + +It will perhaps make the meaning of this moral sense plainer if we +compare it with one of man's other senses, say that of sight. The +one, then, distinguishes right from wrong, just as the other +distinguishes red from yellow, or blue from green. And as man's +sense of colours is not disproved by one man thinking a colour blue +which another thinks green--or his sense of taste, by one man +thinking a taste nice, which another thinks nasty--so his moral +sense is not disproved by one man thinking an act right which +another thinks wrong. + +Moreover this sense of right and wrong is quite distinct from the +pleasant or unpleasant consequences which are associated with +certain acts. For instance, I may avoid putting my hand into hot +water, because I remember having done so before, and it was painful; +but this is quite different from avoiding an act because it is +_wrong_. It is also quite distinct from expediency, or the idea of +benefiting by an act. For an act may not benefit us at all, or may +even injure us, and yet it may be right. In short, 'fifty +experiences of what is pleasant or what is profitable do not, and +cannot, make one conviction of what is right'; the ideas differ in +kind; and not merely in degree. + +(7.) _Man's conscience._ + +Lastly, as to man's conscience. This is often confused with his +moral sense, but a little reflection will show that the two are +distinct. For a man might possess a moral sense, and be able to +classify acts as right or wrong, yet have no direct means of knowing +to which class any particular act belonged. He might have to work +this out by reasoning; and in difficult cases we sometimes do so. +But as a rule this is unnecessary. For mankind possesses a very +remarkable _something_, called a conscience, which tells him at +once, and without either argument or reasoning, that certain acts +are right and others wrong. Conscience is thus like an organ of the +moral sense, and may be compared to the eye or organ of sight; for +just as the eye perceives that certain colours are red and others +blue, so conscience perceives that certain acts are right and others +wrong. In each case the perception is almost instantaneous, and +quite distinct from any kind of reasoning. + +Conscience, it will be noticed, does not _make_ the act right or +wrong, any more than the eye makes the colour red or blue; it merely +tells us what acts are right and what wrong. It is thus an +_intermediary_ between Someone else and ourselves; and this Someone +else can only be God, Who gave us our conscience, so that in popular +language it may be called _the Voice of God_. And it tells us we +ought to act right, because this is the way in which God wishes us +to act. + +Now that mankind possesses a conscience is indisputable. It is +shared alike by young and old, rich and poor, educated and +uneducated. It has existed in all ages, countries and races. We all +have it, and what is very remarkable it seems to be independent of +our will, and not at our disposal. We do not correct it, but it +corrects us; for it not only tells us what acts are right and what +wrong, but it approves definitely of our doing the former, and +disapproves just as definitely of our doing the latter. Indeed, one +of the most striking effects of conscience is this feeling of +_remorse_ or self-condemnation after wrong-doing; and such a feeling +is practically universal. + +And if it be objected that one man's conscience may say that an act +is right, which another man's conscience says is wrong, we must +remember that the decision of a man's conscience, only refers to the +man himself. It tells a man what is right _for him_, with his +knowledge and surroundings, and it is quite possible that this may +be wrong for another man. + +These, then, are the moral attributes of the human race, and it +follows at once that man is a _free and responsible being_. But as +this conclusion is often disputed, because of the similarity between +animals and men, and the difficulty of admitting that they also are +free and responsible beings, or else of showing where the +distinction lies, we must examine this subject. + + +(_C._) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANIMALS AND MEN. + +Now the _bodily_ difference between certain animals and men is +admittedly small; and though the accompanying _mental_ difference is +enormous, it is probably only one of degree; for all animals seem, +to some slight extent, to possess a mind, which enables them at +least to feel conscious of pleasure and pain. We must therefore +pass on to the _moral_ attributes of animals; and as we know nothing +as to their feelings on the subject, it is difficult to say +(referring to the first three points) whether they have a _free +will_ or not. Of course, if they have _not_, that would be a clear +distinction between animals and men. But we have no right to assume +this, and there is a good deal to be said on the other side, at +least in regard to the higher animals, so the question had better be +left open. + +But with regard to the next point, that of _known_ freedom, we are +on surer ground; for the proof of man's _believing_ himself to be +free does not depend solely on his own feelings. It is shown by his +acts, as it enables him to _design_, and it is doubtful if there is +anything corresponding to this in animals. For though many of their +works show design somewhere, it does not seem to be due to _them_. +This kind of unconscious designing (which strange to say is most +apparent in the _lower_ forms of animal life) is called _instinct_, +and there are at least three reasons for thinking that it differs +from real design implying forethought. + +The first is, that, if these works were due to the design of the +animals themselves, they must possess intellectual powers of a very +high order. Take, for instance, the well known example of the _cells +of bees_. These are built on the most perfect mathematical +principles, the three rhombs which close the hexagonal columns +having the exact angles so as to contain the greatest amount of +honey, with the least expenditure of wax. And as we require advanced +mathematics and a book of logarithms to work out such problems, it +is hard to see how the bees can do it. Nor is heredity of any use, +for the bees which build cells are all _workers_ (as they are +called) and have no descendants; while those which have descendants +are either _drones_ or _queens_, and these do no building. Thus the +cells are built by bees, none of whose ancestors have ever built +cells; so the design cannot be ascribed to anything they have +inherited from their parents.[3] Secondly, animals are only able to +design in a few special cases, and in other respects they often act +with the greatest stupidity. A bee, for example, with all its +mathematics, cannot very often, if it has flown in through an open +window, retrace its way, but will buzz helplessly against another +which is shut. + +[Footnote 3: Encyc. Brit., 9th edit., vol. iii., pp. 490, 484. The +angles are 109° 28' and 70° 32'.] + +Thirdly, the instincts of animals are practically the same, always +and everywhere. They are not more advanced in some countries, than +in others; or in some individuals, than in others. They are not even +more advanced as time goes on. The last cell built by a bee is no +better than the first, and no better, as far as we know, than cells +built by bees thousands of years ago; while the young of animals, +without any experience to guide them, have the same instincts as the +old. Clearly, then, an animal's instinct is born with it, and not +acquired; and therefore, any apparent design there may be in what is +done by instinct cannot be attributed to the animal itself, any more +than the design shown in its eyes, but to its Maker. + +So far all is plain. It may, however, be urged that in some of the +higher animals, especially those in contact with man, we do find +certain acts which seem to imply forethought and design. A dog, for +example, will bury a bone one day, and go and look for it the next. +But when once it is admitted that what are apparently far more +striking instances of design are to be explained by instinct, it +seems better to explain them all in the same way. + +And this is confirmed by the fact that even the higher animals do +not appear to have any idea of _responsibility_, or any sense of +_right_ and _wrong_, which in man are the result of his known +freedom. Of course, this also may be disputed, since as we punish a +dog for doing what we dislike, it looks as if we held it responsible +for the act. But this does not follow. We punish the dog to prevent +its repeating the act. And it may avoid doing so, because its memory +associates the act with _pain_, and not because it feels responsible +for it, or considers it to be _wrong_. While in the vast majority of +cases we never think of holding an animal responsible for its acts, +or look upon its injuring anyone as a sin. We conclude, then, that +_moral_ attributes form the great distinction between animals and +men; because though animals have, or may have, a free will, it is +not a _known_ freedom, so they are not able, like men, to _design_, +and are hence not _personal beings_. + +Two further remarks may be made before leaving this subject. The +first is, that though there are difficulties in placing this known +freedom as the difference between animals and men, there are as +great, if not greater, difficulties in placing it anywhere else. If +we say that an ape or a dog can design, the difficulty is not +lessened; it is merely transferred lower down the scale. Can a +jellyfish design? The momentous attribute of known freedom must +begin _somewhere_; and it seems less difficult to place it between +animals and men than anywhere else. + +The second and more important point is, that our ignorance about +animals is no reason for doubting what we do know about man. To do +this would be most illogical. Indeed, we might as well deny that a +man could see, or hear, because there are difficulties in deciding +where sight and hearing commence in the scale of animal life. + + +(_D._) CONCLUSION. + +We may now conclude this chapter. With regard to man, it is clear +that his bodily, mental, and moral attributes are quite distinct. A +man may be strong in body, yet of weak intellectual power; or he may +have a great intellect, yet be of weak moral character. This makes +it probable that human nature consists of three parts--_body_, +_mind_, and _spirit_; the mind corresponding to the mental reasoning +part of man, and the spirit to the free moral part, the word _soul_ +being often used for either of these latter. + +And the difference between animals and men is probably that the +former have no _spirits_, but only bodies and (undeveloped) +minds. All life on this planet would then form three great +groups--_vegetation_, consisting of matter alone; _animals_, of +matter and mind; _man_, of matter, mind, and spirit. And from this +it seems to follow that while a man's _body_ may (conceivably) have +been evolved from any other form of matter, and his _mind_ from any +other form of mind, yet his _spirit_ is essentially distinct, and +cannot have been evolved from anything else. + +Moreover, as a man's body and mind are both (to some extent) under +the known control of his free will, or spirit, this latter must be +looked upon as his real _self_. Thus he is not, strictly speaking, +an organism at all, but a free being served by organs both of body +and mind. They are _his_; they do not constitute _him_. He is the +personal being, who controls both. In other words man _is_ a spirit, +and _has_ a body and mind. + +And our present conclusion is quite plain. We have shown that man is +a _free_ being, his freedom distinguishing him from natural forces, +and making him in part supernatural. And he is a _responsible_ +being, his responsibility being due to his known freedom, and +distinguishing him from animals. He has thus a unique position. +Nothing else on this planet resembles him, and in his attribute of +known freedom which enables him to design, and makes him a _personal +being_, he resembles God alone. + + + + +CHAPTER V. + +THAT GOD TAKES AN INTEREST IN MAN'S WELFARE. + + (_A._) THE EVIDENCE IN ITS FAVOUR. + + Since God is a _Moral_ as well as a Personal Being, He must + be capable of caring for all His creatures; and we have + abundant evidence that He does so, especially for man. + But there are two great difficulties. + + (_B._) THE INSIGNIFICANCE OF MAN. + + (1.) Some counter-arguments, showing that even if insignificant, + God might still care for him. + (2.) Man's real importance, due to his mind and spirit. + (3.) The supposed inhabitants of other planets. + + (_C._) THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL. + + (1.) Physical evil in animals. The objection that it is vast + in amount, wholly unmerited, and perfectly useless, + cannot be maintained. + (2.) Physical evil in man. Several ways of lessening the + difficulty. Its explanation seems to be that God's + designing evil does not mean His desiring it, as it is + essential for forming a man's character. + (3.) Moral evil in man. The possibility of this is essential + to free will; and wicked men are as necessary as any + other form of evil. + + (_D._) CONCLUSION. + + God's _Goodness_ includes Beneficence and Righteousness. + + +Having discussed in the last chapter the character of man, we have +next to consider, as far as we have any means of doing so, _the +Character of God_; more especially whether He seems to take any +interest in man's welfare. And we will first examine the evidence in +favour of this; then the two arguments on the other side from the +insignificance of man, and the existence of evil; and will conclude +by considering in what sense the term _Goodness_ can be ascribed to +God. + + +(_A._) THE EVIDENCE IN ITS FAVOUR. + +To begin with, God is certainly capable of taking an interest in +man's welfare, for He is not only a Personal Being, but also a Moral +Being. This follows at once from what may be called the _moral +argument_ for the Existence of God, or that depending on man's free +will. It is briefly this, that no combination of natural forces, +which are uniform and always act the same under the same +circumstances, can ever produce a _free_ force, able to act or not +as it likes. The idea seems inconceivable. If, then, man possesses +such a force, which we have already admitted, it cannot have come +from any natural forces, nor can it have made itself, so it must +have been derived from some _previous_ free force, and this, again, +from a previous one, and so on till we finally arrive at a _Free +Force_, which was _not_ derived from any other, but which existed +eternally. And this, it will be remembered, was precisely the +conclusion we reached in Chapter I., though from quite a different +argument. And then it follows that this Free Force, or Free Being, +must know that He is free; and must therefore be a _moral_ Being, +able to distinguish the quality of acts as right or wrong. Indeed, +the mere fact that man possesses this remarkable faculty makes it +certain that man's Maker must possess it too. + +Now a personal and moral God must clearly be able to take an +interest in the welfare of His creatures; and there is abundant +evidence that He actually does so. For everywhere in nature, and +especially in man, we meet with marks, not only of design, but of +_beneficent_ design--that is to say of design tending to the welfare +and happiness of the beings in question. Take, for instance, the +human eye, which we considered in Chapter II. Everyone will admit +that this conduces very greatly to man's happiness; and therefore +the conclusion that God, when He designed the eye, did so with the +object of benefiting man seems irresistible. Nor is this altered by +the fact that the eye has a few defects, in being liable to various +kinds of disease. For no one can think that it was made for the sake +of these defects. It was evidently made to see, and not to ache. +That it does ache now and then is in all probability due to its +being such a complicated instrument; and perhaps also to its being +often used too much. + +But it may be said, beneficial organs like the eye, though they +abound throughout nature, are not the only ones we meet with. There +are others, like the claws and teeth of wild animals, which are just +the opposite, and seem designed to give pain to other creatures. But +this is quite untenable. They were plainly designed to enable the +animal to secure its food, and are perhaps necessary for that +purpose, and they all tend to the welfare of their possessor, and +sometimes also to that of their victim, as it hastens death. There +is not, in fact, a single organ in nature the _object_ of which is +to produce pain. Where pain is produced it is merely a sort of +_by-product_. Thus far then, we are quite justified in concluding +that God takes an interest in man's welfare. But there are two great +difficulties. + + +(_B._) THE INSIGNIFICANCE OF MAN. + +The first is from the apparent _insignificance_ of man. For though +he is doubtless by far the most important being on this planet, and +endowed with some of the Divine attributes, yet, after all how +utterly insignificant he is in comparison with his Maker. This is no +new difficulty,[4] but modern science has increased its force by +showing that our earth is only one among the planets which go round +the sun, while the sun itself is only one among many millions of +stars. And, we may ask, is it likely that the God Who rules these +millions of stars should take any interest in the beings on a small +planet like our earth? + +[Footnote 4: Ps. 8. 3, 4.] + +This is the difficulty we have to face; but a good deal depends on +the way in which it is stated. Would it not be better to argue from +the known to the unknown, and ask--Is it likely that the God Who has +made this earth, and Who we know (from the marks of design) takes an +interest in its inhabitants, should be _also_ the Ruler of the +distant stars? And when so stated, the unity of nature compels us to +say that it is not only likely, but practically certain. However, we +will discuss the subject more in detail, first considering some +counter-arguments, which show that even if man were insignificant +God might still care for him; then man's real importance; and +lastly, the question of other planets being inhabited. + +(1.) _Some Counter-arguments._ + +To begin with, though it seems unlikely that God should take any +interest in such insignificant beings as us men, it also seems +unlikely that He should ever have designed and created such beings. +Yet He has done so. And having created them, there is at most only a +slight _additional_ improbability, if any at all, that He should +take an interest in their welfare. And this is especially the case +when we remember that man is not only the highest and noblest being +on this planet, but as far as we know on any planet. Therefore +though we may be quite unworthy of God's care, we do not know of any +other being who is more worthy of it. And it is most unlikely that a +Creator would not take an interest in _any_ of His works. + +Next, as to the analogy of nature. Here we find nothing resembling a +neglect of small things. On the contrary, everything, down to the +minutest insect, seems finished with as much perfection as if it +alone existed in the universe. And this is surely what we should +expect. For true greatness does not exist in despising that which is +small; and it may be a very part of God's infinite greatness that +nothing should be too small for Him to care about, just as nothing +is too large. And while a Being, Who can govern the universe, and +attend to its millions of stars, is no doubt great--inconceivably +great; yet He is surely greater still--_inconceivably greater_--if +He can _also_ attend to our little planet, and its inhabitants; and +can do this so thoroughly, as not only to take an interest in the +human race, but in the welfare of each one of its members. + +And the whole analogy of nature is in favour of His doing so; for +the forces of nature never deal with matter in bulk, but with each +particle separately. A stone, for instance, is attracted to the +ground, because, and only because, each particle of it is so +attracted. In the same way if God takes an interest in the human +race (and, as just said, it is hard to imagine His not doing so, +since it is His noblest work) it may be because, and only because, +He takes an interest in each individual member of it. + +Thirdly, the difficulty of thus believing that God takes an interest +in the daily life of an individual man, though undoubtedly great, is +really no more than that of believing that He knows about it. For if +He knows about it, why should He not care about it? Yet, as said in +Chapter II., a world like ours cannot have been made without both +knowledge, and foreknowledge, on the part of its Maker. And though +we might at first be inclined to limit this to important matters, a +little consideration will show that such a distinction is untenable; +and that if God knows anything, He knows everything. And if He knows +everything, why should He not care about everything? + +Fourthly, and this is very important, whether we are insignificant +or not, we are each of us _unique_. We are not like particles of +matter. Millions of these are (or may be) exactly alike, but no two +_men_ are exactly alike; not even to the same extent as plants and +animals. For each man is a separate spirit, a _personal being_ +distinct from all else in the world. And since he possesses a free +will, his character is also distinct; for this depends to a large +extent on how he uses his free will, what he says, and what he does, +day by day. So it is out of the question to think that any two men +are exactly alike. And this is the common belief of mankind, for +however much we may think other people alike, we each feel sure that +there is no one else in the world exactly like _ourselves_. + +Nor can there be. For though God might, if He chose, make two trees +exactly alike, or two men exactly alike in their external features, +He could not make them alike _in their character_. For this, as just +said, depends on their own free use of their own free will; and if +God were to force them to decide in the same way, they would cease +to be free. And from this it follows that each man is not only +unique, but _irreplaceable_. No other can be made like him. +Therefore, as we each have something special about us, God may take +a _special_ interest in each of us. Doubtless such an idea seems +very wonderful; but no one who has any knowledge of the marvels of +nature will think it, on that account, incredible. Indeed, from one +point of view, it is only what we should expect. For we all know how +a naturalist will value a unique specimen, which cannot be replaced, +in spite of its having some defects. And if each man is really +_unique_, and _irreplaceable_, why may not the God of Nature value +him too (in spite of his faults), and take an interest in his +welfare? + +Then, fifthly, as to the discoveries of science, there is here also +a good deal to be said on the other side. For though the telescope +has shown us that our world is like a mere drop in the ocean, the +microscope has shown us a new world in each drop; and the +_infinitely little_, as it is called, is as wonderful as the +infinitely great, and man still occupies a sort of central position. + +When, for instance, we examine a single organ, say the human eye, we +find that it consists of an immense number of parts, each of which +is seen to be more and more complicated the more we are able to +magnify it, and so on without apparently any limit. And this makes +it more than ever likely that the God, Who has shown such marvellous +skill in the various organs of a man's body, should care for the man +himself, the personal and moral being, who possesses these organs. +Nor is the argument weakened by the fact that the organs of animals +also show a wonderful amount of design, for as far as we know, in +their case, there is no personal and moral being to care about. + +Again, science has not only shown us the _magnitude_ of the +universe, and that there are millions of stars, millions of miles +apart, but it has also shown us its _unity_, and that all its parts +are closely connected together. And certainly the idea that the God, +Who rules these stars, should take an interest in us men, is no +harder to believe than that the gases, which are burning in these +stars, should influence our spectroscopes. Yet they do; so if this +were all, it would still lessen the difficulty a good deal. + +(2.) _Man's real importance._ + +But this is not all, for science has also taught us a great deal +about man himself, and his long development; which has a most +important bearing on the argument. For we now know that our earth +has existed for thousands of centuries, gradually evolving higher +and higher forms of life, all leading up to _man_, who is the heir +of all the ages, the inheritor of all that is useful and best in his +long line of ancestors. + +And (what is very important) organic evolution seems obliged to stop +here. Man is not merely a link in a series leading on to still more +perfect beings, but he is the _end_ of the series. In all +probability there will never be a higher being on the earth, for the +causes which have produced his evolution thus far, can carry it no +further. When, for instance, man acquired an erect position, there +was an end to any further improvement in that respect. When he took +to wearing clothes, there was an end to the body becoming hardier +and stronger through exposure. When he took to using weapons and +inventing machinery, mere physical strength was no longer essential, +and could no longer be increased. + +In short, when Evolution began to take a _mental_ turn, there was an +end to bodily development. Henceforth there was to be no evolution +of any higher being, but rather the gradual perfecting of this one +being, by mental and moral, and not physical improvements. Man is +thus not only the highest being that ever has been evolved, but, as +far as we can judge, the highest being that ever will be evolved on +this earth. So the vast scheme of evolution, inconceivable alike in +magnitude, in duration, and in complexity, is all seen to be one +plan, with _man_ apparently at the end of it. And consequently, as +everything was designed by God, he must have been the foreknown and +intended end, from the very beginning; the first thought in +creation, as well as the last. + +And when we thus regard man as the goal towards which nature has all +along tended, and therefore as the _chief_ object which God--the +Author of Nature--had in view all the time, it seems to increase his +importance tenfold; and shows conclusively that in God's sight he +must be anything but insignificant. + +Nor is it difficult to suggest a reason for this. For man, as we +know, has a _mind_, as well as a body; and though the discoveries of +science have in some respects lessened the importance of his _body_, +by showing its evolution from other animals; they have at the same +time increased that of his _mind_, for it is his mind that has +discovered them. And every fresh discovery man makes can only exalt +him still higher for making it; so that the mind of man now shows +him to be a far nobler being than could possibly have been imagined +some centuries ago. And certainly, a mind that can discover the +motions of distant stars, and the elements of which they are +composed, cannot be thought insignificant. In fact, in one respect +man is greater than any of the stars; for he can think about them, +but they cannot think about him. + +Moreover, man has not only a mind, but also a _spirit_, or free +will, able to act right or wrong. And even his acting _wrong_, +however sad it may be in other respects, is a powerful witness to +his greatness; for who but a great being could act in opposition to +the will of the Almighty? But then; if his acting _wrong_ proves his +greatness, still more does his acting _right_. Indeed (if we were +not so far from it ourselves) we should probably see that moral +perfection, or _always_ acting right, though one might act wrong, is +the noblest thing in the whole universe; and as far above mental +greatness, as this latter is above mere physical strength. + +But though _we_ cannot properly appreciate it, God can. He is +Himself a Spirit, and therefore, in His sight, a man possessing a +mind and spirit, and thus made to some extent in His own image, and +capable of developing moral perfection, may be of more value +(because more like Himself) than a universe of dead matter. In the +same way (to quote a well-known analogy) a king will value his child +more than his palace: for the simple reason that the child is more +like himself. Thus _persons_ are always more valuable than _things_. +And they are _incomparably_ more valuable, for they have nothing in +common by which they can be compared. We cannot class an astronomer +with his telescopes, or say that one geologist is worth so many +fossils, or one bricklayer so many bricks. And this being so, what +shall we say of the millions of men who have lived, and are now +living, on this earth? Surely _their_ welfare cannot be thought +insignificant by anyone, least of all by their Creator. + +(3.) _The supposed inhabitants of other planets._ + +But it may be said, what about other planets? Are not some of these +inhabited, and does not this weaken the argument a good deal, and +show that God cannot take any special interest in man, or other +beings on this earth? + +Now there is, of course, no reason why God should take any _special_ +interest in the beings on this planet, more than in similar beings +on other planets, if such exist; but this is very doubtful. For +modern science has shown that not only are the same _materials_ +found in the other planets (and also in the fixed stars) as are +found here; but that _natural laws_, such as those of gravity, +light, and heat, are the same throughout the entire universe. And +this makes it probable that the laws of life are also the same; so +that if living beings exist on other planets, we should expect them +to be somewhat similar to the living beings here; and to have been +evolved in a somewhat similar manner. And this requires that a large +number of favourable circumstances, such as a moderate temperature, +a suitable atmosphere, sufficient water, etc., should all be found +on some other planet, not only now, but during the long ages which +(judging by this earth) appear necessary for the development of the +higher forms of life; and this certainly seems unlikely. + +On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that God would create +an immense number of suns or stars, many of which have probably +planets round them, if only one out of the whole series was to be +inhabited by personal beings. But however strange this may seem to +us, it entirely agrees with God's methods in nature, where what +seems to be needless waste is the universal rule. So this is not an +insuperable difficulty. The question, however, may well be left +open, for even if other planets are inhabited, there is no reason +why God should not take an interest--and perhaps a great +interest--in their inhabitants, as well as in ourselves; since all +His capacities are boundless, and even the smallest part of +_infinity_ may be very large. + + +(_C._) THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL. + +We now come to the other, and perhaps more important, +difficulty--that arising from the _existence of evil_. This term in +its widest sense includes both _pain_, which affects a man's body; +_sorrow_, which affects his mind; and _sin_, which affects his +spirit. The two former may be called _physical evil_, and apply also +to animals; while the latter is _moral evil_, and applies only to +man. And as the world is full of pain, sorrow, and sin, one may +naturally ask how could it have been designed and created by a God +Who cares for the welfare of His creatures? Or, to put the objection +in other words, does not the existence of this evil show that God +either could not or would not prevent it? If He _could_ not, he is +not All-Powerful; if He _would_ not, He is not All-Good. This is an +undoubted difficulty; and we will examine it in detail, both as it +affects animals and men. + +(1.) _Physical evil in animals._ + +The objection here is that animals of all kinds suffer a vast +_amount_ of pain and misery, which is wholly _unmerited_ and +perfectly _useless_; since, having no moral nature, they can neither +deserve pain nor profit by it. We will consider these points in +turn. + +And first, as to the _amount_ which animals suffer. One animal does +not suffer more because a million suffer likewise, so we must +consider the suffering as it affects the individual, and not the +_total_ amount. And as to its extent we know but little. That +animals appear to suffer greatly, _e.g._, a mouse being caught by a +cat, is obvious; but how far they really suffer is doubtful, as +their feelings are probably far less sensitive than those of man; so +it is quite misleading to think what we should feel like in similar +circumstances. This is indeed evident when we reflect that suffering +is connected with the brain, as is shown by the fact that savages +suffer much less than civilised nations. And therefore we should +expect animals, whose mental development is far less advanced, to +suffer still less; while the lower forms of life we should not +expect to suffer at all. + +And this is confirmed by observation, as several facts have been +noticed which almost force us to this conclusion. A crab, for +instance, will continue to eat, and apparently relish, a smaller +crab, while being itself slowly devoured by a larger one; and this +shows that the crab can feel scarcely any pain, since the almost +universal effect of pain is to destroy the pleasure of eating. And +many other instances are known.[5] + +[Footnote 5: Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxv., 1891, p. +257.] + +Moreover, animals, except domestic ones which are partly trained and +civilised, appear to have no anticipation of suffering, and no power +of concentrating their thoughts upon it, which increases it so +greatly in man. And assuming, with reference to the above example, +that the mouse is not to live for ever, its being destroyed by a +cat is at most a very short misery, and perhaps involving altogether +less pain than if it died from disease or old age. Indeed few things +could be worse than for old and weak animals to be left to +themselves, and gradually die of starvation. And we must remember, +in a state of nature, with uncertain meals the cat would never +_play_ at capturing the mouse, thus giving it needless and repeated +sufferings, but it would kill it at once. + +Then as to the so-called _struggle for existence_. It is nothing +like what is commonly supposed, as has been recognised by leading +naturalists. Thus _Darwin_ says:--'When we reflect on this struggle +we may console ourselves with the full belief that the war of nature +is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally +prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive +and multiply.' And _Wallace_ says:--'The popular idea of the +struggle for existence entailing misery and pain on the animal world +is the very reverse of the truth. What it really brings about is the +maximum of life, and of the enjoyment of life, with the minimum of +suffering and pain.'[6] On the whole, then, it seems probable that +pain among animals is far less than is commonly assumed, and in the +lower forms of life almost entirely absent. + +[Footnote 6: C. Darwin. Origin of Species. 6th edit., 1888, p. 96. +A. R. Wallace. Darwinism, 1889, p. 40.] + +Still it may be said, this only lessens the difficulty; for why +should animals suffer pain at all? As far as we can judge, it is +wholly _unmerited_, since, having no moral nature, and therefore no +responsibility, they cannot have done anything wrong to deserve it. +But then, the pleasure which they enjoy is also unmerited. The two +must in all fairness be taken together, and as a matter of fact, +animals seem to have a much greater amount of pleasure than of pain. +Their life (except when ill-treated by man) is, as a rule, one of +continual enjoyment, and probably, at any given moment, the number +of animals of any particular kind that are happy is incomparably +greater than those that are miserable. In short, health and +happiness is the rule, sickness and pain the exception. + +Nor can it be said that pain is _useless_ to animals; for though +they have no moral nature to be improved, they have a physical +nature to be preserved and transmitted, and the sense of pain may be +essential for this. It is indeed a kind of sentry, warning them of +dangers, which might otherwise lead to their destruction. If for +example, animals felt no pain from excessive heat, they might not +escape when a forest was burning; or, if they felt no pain from +hunger, they might die of starvation. Thus pain is, in reality, a +_preservative of life_; and it is often not an evil at all; so no +part of this objection can be maintained. + +(2.) _Physical evil in man._ + +We now pass on to the case of man. There is unfortunately no doubt +about the suffering which he endures. The struggling lives, the +painful diseases, the lingering deaths, not to mention accidents of +all kinds, are but too evident. And we may ask, would an Omnipotent +God, Who cared for man's welfare, have ever designed all this? + +Now it is important to remember that a great deal of physical evil +originates in _moral_ evil, which will be considered later on. By +far the greater part of the pain and misery which men endure is +brought about by their own wickedness and folly, or by that of their +fellow-men. The recent war--worse in _extent_, though not worse in +kind, than all previous wars--has been a terrible example of this. +But it was man's doing, not God's; and man alone must be blamed for +it. + +In the next place, many of the so-called evils of life do not +involve any actual suffering. If for instance a man loses the sight +of one eye, he need not have any pain; and were he originally blind +the possession of even one eye would have been thought a priceless +blessing. Again, however great may be the sufferings of life, they +cannot be as great as its _joys_, since nearly everyone wishes to go +on living. While it is undeniable that human pain, like that of +animals, is most useful, serving to warn men of dangers and +diseases, which would otherwise lead to their destruction. + +Moreover, in a material world like ours, if the forces of nature act +according to fixed laws, a certain amount of suffering seems +_inevitable_. If, for example, the force of gravity always acts as +it does, it will occasionally cause a tower to fall and injure +someone. Such an event could only be avoided by God's continually +interfering with these forces. But this would render all human life +a hopeless confusion. While, at present, owing to these forces being +invariable, a great deal of the evil which might otherwise result +from them can be foreseen and avoided. If, however, men will not +avoid it,--if, for instance, in spite of the numerous eruptions of +Vesuvius, they still choose to go and live on its slopes,--it is +hard to see how they can blame anyone but themselves. In the same +way, if a man chooses to sit on the safety valve of an engine, it is +his own fault if he gets blown up. + +And even in other cases, when the evil cannot be foreseen, as in an +unexpected earthquake, it is at least open to doubt whether it is +any worse for a number of men to die like this, suddenly and +together, than that they should all die in the usual way, slowly, +one by one, and often after a long illness. It of course appeals +more to the imagination, but it probably involves less suffering. + +Thus we may say that human suffering, excluding that due to man +himself, is by no means so great as it seems; that it is, as a rule, +more than counter-balanced by human happiness; and that a certain +amount seems not only useful, but in a world like ours inevitable. +But though all these considerations are undoubtedly true, and +undoubtedly lessen the difficulty, they do not remove it altogether. + +The following appears to be the true explanation: that though God +foreknew all this suffering when He created the world, and in this +sense _designed_ it, He need not have _desired_ it, but may have +desired something else, for the attainment of which, this suffering +was a necessary condition. And this _something else_ must obviously +have been the training and perfecting of man's character; for which, +some kind of suffering seems essential. + +For if there were no suffering in the world, there could be no +fortitude, no bravery, no patience, no compassion, no sympathy with +others, no self-sacrifice for their good--nothing, in fact, that +constitutes the highest type of man. In other words, a being such as +man, can only be made perfect through suffering. Therefore this +suffering implies no defect in God's design. It is a means, and, as +far as we can judge, the only possible means for developing the +highest and noblest character in man, such a character indeed as +alone makes him worthy of admiration. Moreover, a man's character +can only be formed by himself, it cannot be given him ready-made, +for then it would not be _his_ character at all; and it can only be +formed gradually, it cannot be done all at once. Therefore, if God +wishes a man to have the special character acquired by constantly +bearing suffering, it can only be obtained by constantly giving him +suffering to bear. + +Here, then, we have the most probable explanation of the physical +evils which man endures. Their object is to develop and perfect his +character; and as this is a good object, and as it cannot be +obtained in any other way, they may well have been designed by a +good God. + +(3.) _Moral evil in man._ + +But we now come to the most difficult part of the subject, the +existence of _moral evil_ in man. This, as before said, is the chief +cause of human misery, and might it not have been avoided? In other +words, could not all _sin_ have been excluded from the world? But +assuming man to be a _free being_, it could not have been avoided, +for freedom is always liable to abuse. Therefore, if God decided +that man was to be free in some cases to act right or wrong, it +necessarily follows that he may act wrong. No Omnipotence could +possibly alter this without destroying man's freedom. Hence, though +God designed all the moral evil in the world, He need not have +desired it, but (as before) may have desired some totally different +object, for the attainment of which, this evil was a necessary +condition. + +Nor, again, is it difficult to suggest what this object may have +been. For unless man is a free being, he can be little better than a +machine--a correctly-behaved machine, no doubt, and one able to talk +and think, but still only a machine. And God may not have wished +that man, who is, as far as we know, His highest and noblest work, +should be only a machine. Indeed, the superiority of free men who +act right, though they might act wrong, to mere machines is obvious +to everyone; and it may far outweigh the disadvantage that some of +them should act wrong. Therefore, though we have to pay dearly for +freedom, it is well worth the price; and the _infinite value of +goodness_, as it is called, may justify, though nothing else could, +the risks involved in giving man a free will. + +Nor is there anything unlikely in the Creator thus caring about the +conduct of His creatures. We certainly should not admire an earthly +ruler who regarded traitors to his cause, and his most faithful +adherents with the same indifference; or an earthly parent who did +not care whether his children obeyed him or not. Why, then, should +we think that God, Who has not only given us free will, but also a +conscience by which to know what is right (_i.e._, what is _His_ +will), should yet be indifferent as to whether we do it or not? +Everything points the other way, that God, Who is a Moral Being, and +Who has made us moral beings also, wishes us to freely act right. +Therefore He allows us to act wrong, with all the misery it +involves, in order to render possible our thus freely choosing to +act right. + +Or to put the argument in other words, a free being is far higher +than a being who is not free, and yet a free being cannot exist +without the possibility of his acting wrong. So, however strange the +conclusion appears, moral evil, or at least its possibility, is +essential to the universe, if it is to be worthy of its Creator, if, +that is, it is to contain beings of the highest order--_persons_ and +not _things_. Or, to put it still shorter, if God is good, it is +only natural that He should create beings capable of goodness, and +therefore of necessity capable of badness, for the two must go +together. + +And if it be still urged that, as God foreknew how men would use +their freedom, He need not have created those who would habitually +use it wrongly; in other words, there might be no _wicked men_ in +the world, the answer is obvious. Wicked men are as necessary as any +other form of evil to test a man's character, and to develop moral +perfection. For just as physical evil, pain, suffering, etc., can +alone render possible certain physical virtues, such as fortitude +and patience; so moral evil, or sin, can alone render possible +certain moral virtues. + +If, for instance, there were no sin in the world there could be no +forbearance with the faults of others, no moral courage in standing +alone for an unpopular cause, no forgiveness of injuries, nor (what +is perhaps the highest of all virtues) any rendering good for evil. +These require not merely the possibility, but the actual existence +of sin, and they would all be unattainable if we had nothing but +physical evils to contend with, and there were only good men in the +world. The case then stands thus. Evil men are essential to an evil +world. An evil world is essential to proving a man's character. +Proving a man's character is essential to his freely choosing to +serve God; and his freely choosing to serve God seems essential to +his being such a servant as God would care to have. + +One other point should be noticed before we conclude. It is that +with regard to the conduct of free beings, _foreknowing_ is not the +same as _foreordaining_. God may have foreknown how a man would use +or misuse his freedom, but without foreordaining or compelling him +to do either. In the same way, in human affairs it is possible in +some cases, and to some extent, to foreknow what a man will do, but +without in any way compelling him to do it. This is a most important +distinction, and we have no reason for thinking that God +foreordained any man to misuse his freedom, though He may have +foreknown that he would do so.[7] + +[Footnote 7: Of course if God creates a man, _foreknowing_ how he +will act, He may, in a certain sense, be said to _foreordain_ +it as well; compare Rom. 8. 29. "Whom He foreknew, He also +foreordained."] + +(_D._) CONCLUSION. + +We may now sum up the argument in this chapter. We first showed that +God is not only able to take an interest in man's welfare; but that +the marks of beneficent design afford abundant evidence that He +actually does so. On the other hand, the so-called _insignificance +of man_ is more apparent than real, since his position at the end of +evolution shows his great importance; while his mind and spirit +fully account for this, and prove him to be an altogether unique +being, certainly in regard to this earth, and perhaps in regard to +the universe. + +And as to the _existence of evil_, it is undeniable that God must +have foreknown all the evil in the world when He created it; and in +this sense He designed it. But He may also have foreknown that it is +only temporary, and that it will lead to a more than compensating +permanent good, which could not be obtained in any other way. For +the evils in this world need not be _ends_, but may be only _means_ +to ends; and, for all we know, they may be the very best means for +obtaining the very best ends. Indeed, as before said, they seem to +be not only the best, but the only possible means for developing all +that is highest and noblest in man. We conclude, then, that though +God designed both the evil and the good in the world, He need not +have desired both: and there are indications in nature sufficient to +show that the good is what He desired, and the evil is only its +inevitable companion. + +This conclusion is often expressed by saying that _Goodness_ is an +attribute of God; and the word may certainly be admitted. Indeed if +God is not _good_, He has made a being, in this respect, nobler than +Himself; since some men, in spite of their faults, are undoubtedly +good. But it is important to notice the sense in which the word is +used, and in which alone it is true. + +By God's _goodness_, then, or by His taking an interest in man's +welfare, is not meant a mere universal beneficence, or wishing to +make everyone as happy as possible, without regard to his conduct. +The existence of evil seems fatal to such a theory as this. But +rather God wishes to promote man's welfare in the truest and best +way, not by giving him everything he likes, but by training and +developing his character. God is thus not only _beneficent_, but +_righteous_ also. And He therefore wishes man to be not only happy, +but righteous also. And He therefore of necessity (as a man cannot +be made righteous against his will) gives him _free_ will, with the +option of being unrighteous, and consequently unhappy. So this view +of God's character, combining beneficence with righteousness, not +only accounts for the marks of beneficent design all through nature, +but also for the existence of evil, especially moral evil, in man, +and seems the only way of reconciling them. In short, beneficence +and righteousness are both good, and the Goodness of God includes +both. + +Now if we admit that goodness is an attribute of God, the analogy +from His other attributes would show that He possesses it in its +highest perfection. He is thus a Being not only of infinite _Power_ +and _Wisdom_, but also of perfect _Goodness_--the word 'perfect' +being obviously more suitable for a moral quality like goodness, +than 'infinite' would be. And it will be noticed that these three +great attributes of God correspond to the three chief arguments for +His existence. The first, or that from the universe requiring an +adequate Cause, proves an All-Powerful Creator; the second, or that +from its having been designed, proves that He is All-Wise; and the +third, or that from human nature, proves that He is All-Good. They +also correspond to some extent to the three aspects under which we +considered man's character in the last chapter; so we arrive at the +grand conclusion that God is physically _All-Powerful_, mentally +_All-Wise_, and morally _All-Good_. + + + + +CHAPTER VI. + +THAT GOD MIGHT MAKE SOME REVELATION TO MAN. + + This depends chiefly on man's future destiny. + + (_A._) THE IMMORTALITY OF MAN. + + By this is meant the personal immortality of man's spirit, + and there are four chief arguments in its favour: + + (1.) From his unique position. + (2.) From his unjust treatment. + (3.) From his vast capabilities. + (4.) From his inherent belief. + (5.) Counter-arguments. + + (_B._) THE PROBABILITY OF A REVELATION. + + (1.) From God's character; since He would be likely to + benefit man. + (2.) From man's character; since he desires it, and his + unique position makes him not altogether unworthy + of it. + (3.) Two difficulties: a revelation is said to be unjust, if + only given to certain men; and anyhow incredible + unless quite convincing. But neither of these can + be maintained. + + +We decided in the last two chapters that man is a free and +responsible being, and that God takes an interest in his welfare. We +now come to the subject of a _Revelation_, by which is meant any +superhuman knowledge directly imparted by God to man. And by +_superhuman_ knowledge is meant any knowledge which man could not +obtain for himself; such as God's object in creating him, His wishes +in regard to his conduct, or any past or future events of which he +would otherwise be ignorant. And that God could, if He chose, impart +such knowledge, either by visions, or dreams, or in some other way, +can scarcely be disputed. Nor will anyone affirm (least of all an +Agnostic) that we know enough about God to be quite sure that He +never would choose to do so. Therefore a revelation is certainly +_possible_; but is it at all _probable_? This is what we have to +examine. And as the answer to it will depend to a great extent on +man's future destiny, we will first consider the question of his +_Immortality_, and then the probability, or otherwise, of God's +making a _Revelation_ to him. + + +(_A._) THE IMMORTALITY OF MAN. + +By this is meant the immortality of man's _spirit_. And if we admit +(as was admitted in Chapter IV.) that man is a compound being, +consisting of a free and partly supernatural spirit, his real +_self_, which controls his body and mind; what becomes of this +spirit at death? We know what becomes of the body: the various +molecules are arranged in other groups, and the natural forces are +changed into other natural forces. Nothing is lost or annihilated. +But what becomes of the spirit? If this is a free supernatural +force, the idea that it should perish altogether, when the +accompanying natural forces are re-arranged at death, is most +unlikely. Indeed the apparent indestructibility of matter points to +a corresponding immortality of spirit. + +No doubt God could, _if He chose_, destroy either, just as He could +create either; but without some supernatural interference, the +creation or destruction of either seems incredible. Yet if a man's +spirit is not destroyed, it must survive; for it does not seem to +have any separate parts into which it can be split up like a man's +body. Therefore, as it cannot undergo the only kind of death of +which we have any knowledge (which is this re-arrangement of +separate parts), it may survive for ever. And there are four chief +arguments in favour of this personal immortality of man;--those +derived from his _unique position_; his _unjust treatment_; his +_vast capabilities_; and his _inherent belief_. We will consider +each in turn, and then see what can be said on the other side. + +(1.) _From his unique position._ + +The first argument is from man's _unique position_, more especially +when we regard him as the last and noblest result of the vast scheme +of evolution, which has been in progress here for so many thousands +of years. For such a vast scheme, like everything else, requires not +only a _cause_, but a _purpose_; and however much evolution can +explain, it cannot explain itself. Why should there have been any +evolution at all? Why should a universe of dead matter have ever +produced life? There must have been some motive in all this, and +what adequate motive can be suggested? + +We can only look for an answer in _man_, who is not only the highest +creature on this planet, but as far as we know on any planet; so +here if anywhere we must find the explanation. Evolution would then +have _God_ for its Cause, and _man_ for its purpose--an undoubtedly +adequate _Cause_, but is it an adequate _purpose_? For the human +race cannot exist for ever as it is. Everything points to this earth +sooner or later falling into the sun, when all forms of life must +cease. Therefore, if man is not immortal, the whole of evolution +which has led up to him as its final end will still have had no +_permanent_ result. And no result which is not permanent seems +altogether worthy of the Eternal God, the Author of this evolution. + +But if, on the other hand, man is immortal; and if this earth, with +its strange mixture of good and evil, is a suitable place in which +to test and form his character; and if perhaps God wishes hereafter +to be surrounded by men who have stood the test, and have formed +their character in accordance with His Will; then it may lead to a +_permanent_ result. And then its creation would not be such a +hopeless mystery as on the opposite theory; for the perfecting of +immortal beings seems an object worthy even of God. + +Thus if we deny the immortality of man, the whole of evolution +becomes meaningless, and nature is a riddle without a solution. But +if we admit it, there is at least the possibility of a satisfactory +answer. For then, as just said, nature is seen to be only _a means +to an end_--a temporary (though perhaps necessary) means to a +permanent end--the end being to produce _man_ (a free being), and +then to provide a suitable place for his moral training. And this +will enable him, if he wishes, from being a _free_ man, to become +also a _righteous_ man, that is, a man who acts right, though he +might act wrong, and thus to some extent worthy to share in his +Maker's immortality. And we must remember, man could not have been +created righteous, using the word in its strict sense. He might have +been created _perfect_ (like a machine), or _innocent_ (like a +child), but to be _righteous_ requires, as just said, his own +co-operation--his continually choosing to act right, though he might +act wrong. And this of necessity is a slow process, with some +failures. But the end aimed at is a permanent, and therefore perhaps +an adequate, end; and the present world seems exactly suited to +attain this end, as it affords a man boundless opportunities (every +day, if he likes to use them) of acting right, though he might act +wrong. + +We thus seem forced to the conclusion--however strange it may +appear--that the gradual training and perfecting of _man_ is the +only adequate explanation of the world, the real object of its long +evolution. Yet, if he is not _immortal_, this object can never be +attained, for no one reaches moral perfection here; while even if +they did, it would only last for a short time. And we may ask, is it +likely that such a vast scheme should end in failure, or at most in +only a temporary success? Is it not rather probable that if man is +the end of evolution, then God, the Author of evolution, must value +him; and if God values him, He is not likely to let him perish for +ever. In short (as it has been well put), such vast progress from +such small beginnings points to an end proportionately great, and +this involves the immortality of man. On the whole, then, we may say +in the words of Romanes, one of the great champions of evolution, +that 'only by means of this theory of probation is it possible to +give any meaning to the world, _i.e._, any _raison d'être_ of human +existence.'[8] + +[Footnote 8: Thoughts on Religion, 1895, p. 142.] + +(2.) _From his unjust treatment._ + +The second argument is from man's _unjust treatment_ in this world. +For as we saw in the last chapter, God is a Moral Being, able to +distinguish right from wrong; and, as far as we can judge, He is One +Who will always act right Himself. Yet His treatment of men in this +world seems most unjust. Wicked men are allowed to prosper by their +wickedness, good men suffer unjustly, while some men's lives seem to +be nothing but suffering; and how is this to be accounted for? + +There is here again one, and only one, satisfactory explanation, +which is that this life is not the whole of man's existence, but +only a preparation for a _future life_--a short trial for a long +hereafter. And, looked at from this point of view, the most +apparently miserable lives may afford as valuable training, perhaps +more so, than the outwardly happy ones. The temptation to +dishonesty, for example, can be as well resisted by a poor man who +is only tempted to steal sixpence, as by a rich man who is tempted +to embezzle a thousand pounds. + +And if resisting such a temptation helps to form a man's character, +as it certainly does, and hence, perhaps, to fit him for a better +life hereafter, this can be as well done in the one case as in the +other. And the same principle applies universally; even a child has +his temptations, which are very real _to the child_, though they may +seem ridiculous to us. So if this life is intended as a time of +probation in which to form a man's character, we cannot imagine a +better system or one more admirably adapted to the end in view. And +we must remember a man's _character_ is the thing most worth +forming, since (as far as we can judge) it is his only _permanent_ +possession. All else will be surrendered at death, but his character +will last as long as the man himself, and hence perhaps for ever. + +Nor is this all, for these trials and sufferings themselves may be +the very means of adding to man's future happiness. The joy of +having resisted temptation, for instance, would be impossible if men +were never tempted; and the joy of rescuing others from suffering +and sin, and thus perhaps making everlasting friendships, would be +impossible if there were no suffering, and no sin. And the same +applies in other cases. So man's probation in this life, with its +incessant battle against evil, may (for all we know) increase his +future happiness in a way which nothing else could possibly do, and +to an extent of which we can form no conception. No pain or +suffering, then, can be looked upon as useless, and no position in +this world as one to be despised; in short, to anyone who believes +in a future state, life is always worth living. And we may be sure +that in a future state every injustice will be made good, and all +wrongs will be righted. + +(3.) _From his vast capabilities._ + +The third argument is from man's _vast capabilities_. For he does +not seem adapted to this life only, but has aspirations and longings +far beyond it. His powers seem capable of continual and almost +endless development. Nearly all men wish for immortality. This life +does not seem to satisfy them entirely. For instance, men, +especially scientific men, have a longing after knowledge which can +never be fully realised in this world. A man's capacities are thus +out of all proportion to his destiny, if this life is all; and to +many it seems improbable that the Creator should have endowed men +with such needless and useless capacities. + +And this is strongly confirmed by the analogy of nature. For +example, a bird in an egg shows rudimentary organs which cannot be +used as long as it remains in the egg; and this of itself is a proof +that it is intended some day to leave the egg. On the other hand, a +full-grown bird seems to be entirely adapted to its present state, +and not to have any longing after, or capacity for, any higher +state; therefore we may infer that no higher state is intended for +it. And by the same reasoning we may infer that some higher state is +intended for man, as his mental and spiritual nature is not entirely +satisfied by his present life. In short, all animals seem made for +this world alone, and man is the only unsatisfied being in the +universe. + +Moreover, the period of preparation in a man's life seems out of all +proportion to the time prepared for, if death ends all. The +development in a man's moral character often continues till nearly +the close of his life. His character has then reached maturity. But +for what is it matured? Surely not for immediate destruction. Must +not the wise Creator, Who designed everything else with such +marvellous skill, have intended something better for His noblest +creatures than mere boundless capabilities, unsatisfied longings, +and a lifelong preparation all for nothing? + +(4.) _From his inherent belief._ + +The fourth argument is from man's _belief_ in immortality. For such +a belief has existed among men in nearly every age and country, +learned and ignorant, civilised and uncivilised. It was implied by +the pre-historic men who buried food and weapons with their dead, +and it was maintained by such philosophers as Socrates and Plato, +and how are we to account for it? It cannot have arisen from +experience; and the attempts to explain it as due to the desire +which men have for immortality, or to someone occasionally dreaming +that he sees a departed friend, are quite inadequate. Desire is not +conviction, and dreams are notoriously untrustworthy. They might +account for an individual here and there entertaining this belief, +but not for mankind always and everywhere doing so; especially in +face of the apparent contradiction afforded by every grave. + +The belief, then, seems intuitive, and an inherent part of human +nature; and we may ask, is it likely that God should have implanted +such a strange belief in man if it were erroneous? + +These, then, are the four great arguments in favour of man's +immortality--those derived from his unique position; his unjust +treatment; his vast capabilities; and his inherent belief. And with +the doubtful exception of the second, not one of them applies to +animals; so the common objection, that if man is immortal, animals +must be so too, is quite untenable. + +(5.) _Counter-arguments._ + +On the other hand, the great and only important argument _against_ +man's immortality is that his spirit seems to be inseparably +connected with his body. As far as we can judge, it is born with the +body; it often inherits the moral character of its parents, just as +the body inherits bodily diseases; it certainly develops and matures +with the body; and in most cases it seems to gradually decay with +the body; therefore it is inferred the two perish together. + +But this does not follow; since, as said in Chapter IV., it is not +the _same_ body (in the sense of the same material particles) with +which the spirit is united, even in this life. It is united to a +continually changing body, yet it always survives. So it is not +unlikely that it may survive the still greater change at death. +Moreover, it is united to the body as its _master_, not its servant. +It is, as already shown, a _free_ spirit; and it decides to a great +extent what the body shall say, and what it shall do. It thus uses +the body as a means, or instrument, by which to act in the outer +world; and therefore, of course, when the instrument gets out of +order, its actions will become confused, but without implying that +the spirit itself is so. In the same way, if we shut up a clerk in a +telegraph office, as soon as his instruments get out of order, the +messages he sends, which are his only means of communicating with +the outer world, will become confused, and finally cease, but +without implying that there is anything wrong with the clerk +himself. + +And this is confirmed by the fact that instances are known in which +a man's intellect and will have remained quite vigorous all through +a mortal sickness, and up to the very moment of death; so the +gradual decay of the body does not necessarily involve that of the +mind and spirit. While in states which somewhat resemble death, +when, for instance, the body is fast asleep, or rendered unconscious +by an accident, the mind and spirit are often peculiarly active, as +in dreams. Therefore, when the body is really dead, the spirit may +(for all we know) not only survive, but be endowed with still +greater powers. + +On the whole, then, this is not an insuperable difficulty; while the +previous arguments render the idea of a future life _distinctly +probable_. And this has, of course, a most important bearing on our +next question; indeed, it is scarcely too much to say that the +probability of a revelation depends on that of a future life. For if +death ends all, man's existence is so short that a revelation can +scarcely be thought probable; but if he is to live for ever, the +case is very different. + + +(_B._) THE PROBABILITY OF A REVELATION. + +Now (assuming man to be immortal) a revelation, from whichever side +we regard it, appears to be somewhat _probable_. For God is a Being, +Who seems likely to make a revelation; and man is a being exactly +fitted to receive one; so we will consider these points first, and +then the chief difficulties. + +(1.) _From God's character._ + +Now we have already shown that God takes an interest in man's +welfare, being not only beneficent, but _righteous_; and that He +apparently wishes to train and develop man's character, so that he +may be righteous also. And from this we may infer that if a +revelation would benefit man, and thus _help_ him to be righteous +also, it would not be improbable for God to make one. And that the +knowledge given by a revelation might influence him in this way +cannot be denied; for, as a matter of fact, such knowledge, either +real or pretended, has had precisely this effect on millions of men. + +We may also infer from God's methods in nature, which are those of +slow development, that if He made a revelation at all it would be +done _gradually_. At first it would be very simple, and such as +could be transmitted orally. Then when man acquired the art of +writing, and could thus hand it on accurately, a more definite +revelation might be given. And this again might become more and more +perfect, as man himself became more perfect. We obviously do not +know enough to speak with confidence, but still God's character, so +far as we can judge of it, seems to be in favour of His making some +revelation--and that a _progressive_ revelation--to man. + +(2.) _From man's character._ + +Passing on now to man's character, we find that he has been given a +nature exactly fitted to receive a revelation. For religion of some +kind is, and always has been, practically universal; and nearly all +important religions have rested on real or pretended revelations +from God, and have been accepted in consequence. In other words the +nature of man has everywhere led him to seek for, demand, and, if +need be, imagine a revelation from God. Nor is this in any way +surprising, for a thoughtful man cannot help _wishing_ to know why +he is placed in this world; why he is given free will; how he is +meant to use his freedom; and what future, if any, is in store for +him hereafter: in short, what was God's object in creating him. It +seems of all knowledge to be the highest, the noblest, the most +worth knowing. + +And therefore as this result of man's nature was not only brought +about by God, but must have been foreknown, and intended by Him, it +is not improbable that He should satisfy it; especially as it cannot +be satisfied in any other way, for the knowledge being superhuman, +is out of man's own reach. And it may be added, the more we realise +this, and feel that God is _Unknowable_, in the sense that we can +gain no satisfactory knowledge about Him by human science and +reasoning, so much the more likely does it seem that He should give +us such knowledge by revelation. + +And all this is strengthened when we consider man's _unique +position_ to which we have already alluded. For if we admit that the +creation and perfecting of man is the chief object the Creator had +in view for so many thousands of years, it does not seem unlikely +that He might wish to hold some communication with him. In fact, as +the whole of nature shows design or purpose; and as man occupies a +special place in nature; we may fairly conclude that God has some +special purpose in regard to man, and, for all we know, He may have +something special to tell him about it. + +We conclude then that man's character, and the unique position he +occupies on this earth, is a strong argument in favour of his +receiving some revelation from God. + +(3.) _Two difficulties._ + +But now for the other side. There are two chief difficulties. The +first is on the ground of _injustice_; since any revelation, it is +said, would imply a partiality to the men or nation to whom it was +given, and would therefore be unjust to the rest of mankind. But +this is quite untenable, for God's other benefits are not bestowed +impartially. On the contrary, pleasure and pain, good and evil, are +never equally distributed in this world. What seems to be partiality +and favouritism is the rule everywhere, and this without any +apparent merit on the part of the men concerned. Moreover, the +advantages of a revelation may not concern this world only. And all +who believe in a future life are convinced of God's justice, and +that men will only be judged according to the knowledge of His Will +which they possessed, or might have possessed had they chosen, and +not according to any higher standard which was out of their reach. + +The other and more important difficulty is, that if God gave a +revelation at all, it would be absolutely _convincing_. Everything +that God does He does well; and we cannot, it is urged, imagine His +making a revelation to man, and yet doing it so imperfectly as to +leave men in doubt as to whether He had done it or not. For this +would imply that He either could not, or would not, make the +evidence sufficient to ensure conviction, neither of which is +credible. + +Now, though all this seems very probable, a moment's reflection will +show that it is not conclusive; for exactly the same may be said in +regard to the whole of Natural Religion. Is it likely, for instance, +that God should create free and responsible men, and yet give them +such insufficient evidence about it, that while many are fully +convinced, others deny not only their own freedom and responsibility, +but even the existence of the God Who made them? Yet He has done so. +Therefore there is nothing improbable in the evidence for a revelation, +if one were given, being of a similar character. + +Indeed, there is much to be said in favour of its being so, since in +most other matters man is left a free choice. He is often able to +find out how he ought to think and how he ought to act, but he is +not forced to do either. And God may have wished that the same rule +should be followed in regard to a revelation, and that man should be +left free to believe it or not, just as he is left free to act on it +or not, if he does believe it, and just as he is left free to choose +right or wrong in other cases. Therefore we cannot say that no +revelation can come from God unless the evidence for it is +overwhelming. It would doubtless be sufficient to convince a man if +he took the trouble to examine it carefully; only it need not be +such as to compel conviction. What kind of evidence we may expect +will be considered in the next chapter. + +Neither of these difficulties, then, is at all serious; and we are +forced back to the conclusion that, provided man is immortal, a +revelation seems for several reasons to be somewhat probable. To put +it shortly, if God is good and really cares for man's welfare, it +seems unlikely that He should withhold from him that knowledge which +is the highest, the noblest, and the most longed for;--the knowledge +of Himself. While, if man is a free and immortal being, occupying a +unique position in the world, and intended to live for ever, it +seems unlikely that he should be told nothing, and therefore know +nothing, as to why he was created, or what is his future destiny. +Thus when we consider both God's character and man's character, it +seems on the whole to be somewhat _probable_, that God would make a +revelation to man; telling him how he ought to use his freedom in +this world, and possibly what future is in store for him hereafter. + + + + +CHAPTER VII. + +THAT A MIRACULOUS REVELATION IS CREDIBLE. + +A Divine messenger would probably have credentials. + + (_A._) SUPERHUMAN SIGNS. + + These include superhuman _knowledge_, afterwards verified + (such as prophecy), and superhuman _coincidences_; and + there is nothing incredible in either. + + (_B._) SUPERNATURAL SIGNS, or Miracles. + + These are 'marvels specially worked by God as signs to + confirm a revelation.' This definition is threefold, referring + to their outward appearance, cause, and purpose. + + (1.) _Miracles as marvels_: though they seem to be contrary + to experience, they are not really so, for we have no + experience of the proper kind to refer to. + (2.) _Miracles as special works of God_: they only interfere + with the uniformity of nature in the same way that + human works interfere with it. + (3.) _Miracles as signs_: there is nothing to show that they + are inconsistent with God's Character. + + +We decided in the last chapter that it was somewhat probable for God +to make a revelation to man, that is to say, to certain men, for +them to make known to others. And if so, it is also probable that +these men would have some means of showing that the knowledge had +come from God and not from themselves. In other words, if God sends +a message to man, it is probable that the messenger would have +_credentials_. And this is especially so when we remember that men +have often appeared in the world's history who professed to have a +revelation from God, and have misled mankind in consequence. Is it +not probable, then, that if God really did give a revelation, He +would take care that His true messengers should have credentials +which would distinguish them from all the others? + +These credentials, then, or _signs_, must plainly be such as could +not be imitated by man; and must therefore of necessity be +_superhuman_, if not _supernatural_. So we may divide them into +these two classes; and we have now to consider whether they are +_credible_. By this is meant something more than merely possible; +for the possibility of such signs follows at once from the existence +of God. But are they credible? is there, that is, at least a slight +chance that they would occur? + + +(_A._) SUPERHUMAN SIGNS. + +These include, to begin with, superhuman _knowledge_, which can be +afterwards verified, such as _prophecy_. And there is no difficulty +here, provided we admit a revelation at all. The only possible +objection refers to prophecies regarding human conduct; which it may +be said would interfere with man's freedom. But this is only part of +the more general objection that any foreknowledge on God's part +would interfere with man's freedom, which we have already considered +in Chapter II.; and there is no special difficulty in regard to +prophecies. In every case, as said before, God merely foreknows the +use man will make of his freedom. Therefore the event will not occur +_because_ it was foretold, but rather it was foretold because God +knew that it would occur. + +Superhuman _coincidences_ form another, and very important class of +superhuman signs. In these a man's acts or sayings are confirmed by +natural events _coinciding_ with them in a remarkable manner. For +example, suppose a prophet claimed to have a revelation from God; +and, as a proof of this, invited the people to witness a sacrifice +on a cloudless day. He then killed an animal, and placed it on an +altar of stones, but put no fire under it, and even threw water over +it. Suddenly, however, a thunderstorm arose, and the sacrifice was +struck by lightning. Now the thunderstorm might have arisen and the +lightning might have struck on that particular spot, in strict +accordance with natural laws. Yet the _coincidence_ of this +occurring just when and where the prophet wanted it, would tend +strongly to show that God, Who must have foreknown and designed the +coincidence, meant to confirm what the prophet said. + +Or, to put the argument in other words, the lightning would seem to +have struck the sacrifice _on purpose_; and therefore such events +have been popularly described as _natural forces acting rationally_. +Of course, as a rule, the forces of nature do not act rationally. A +falling meteorite, for instance, does not go a yard out of its way +to kill anyone, or to spare him. Man, on the other hand, does act +rationally. His acts are directed for a purpose, and thus show +design. And, in the events we are considering, the forces of nature +seem also to act with a purpose; and this makes it probable that +the Author of these forces was really acting with this purpose. In +short, the events seem to have been not only _superhuman_, but +_designed_ coincidences. And they present no difficulty whatever +from a scientific point of view, as they are part of the ordinary +course of nature. + +Of course, the value of such coincidences varies greatly according +to whether the event is of a usual or unusual character. In the +latter case, more especially if the event is very unusual or the +coincidence very striking, they are popularly called miracles. And +they may have considerable value, though there is always a slight +chance of the agreement being, as we might say, accidental. + + +(_B._) SUPERNATURAL SIGNS. + +We pass on now to supernatural signs or _Miracles_ in the strict +sense; which we will define as _marvels specially worked by God as +signs to confirm a revelation_. This definition has, of course, been +chosen so as to suit the miracles recorded in the Bible, and it is +really threefold. In the first place, a miracle is described as to +its outward _appearance_. It is a marvel--that is to say, a strange +and unusual event, which we cannot account for, and which thus +attracts attention. Secondly, it is described as to its _cause_. +This marvel is said to have been specially worked by God--that is to +say, by some action on His part different from His usual action in +nature. While, lastly, it is described as to its _purpose_; it is a +marvel worked by God as a sign to confirm a revelation. + +The first of these aspects is expressed in the Old Testament by the +word _wonder_, the second by such phrases as God's _mighty hand_ or +_outstretched arm_, and the third by the word _sign_; all these +terms being often used together. While in the New Testament the +words used are _wonders_, _mighty works_, and _signs_, which again +exactly correspond to these three aspects of the miracles. And it +should be noticed these aspects are not chosen merely to suit the +present argument, since other events can and ought to be looked at +in the same way, not as mere facts, but also with reference to their +alleged cause and purpose. And to show the great importance of this, +we will consider an event from modern history; and select the +well-known example of the Mont Cenis Tunnel. + +Suppose, then, that anyone heard of this as a _marvel_ only, the +cause and purpose being left out of account. Suppose, that is, he +heard that a small straight cavity of uniform size, and several +miles long, had been formed under a range of mountains; and that it +had begun as two cavities, one from each end, which after years of +growth, had exactly met in the middle. He would at once pronounce +the event incredible, for the cavity is quite unlike all natural +cavities. + +But now suppose the next point, as to its _cause_, to be introduced. +It is said to be something more than a natural cavity, and to be the +work of man. All previous difficulties would now vanish, but fresh +ones would arise. For numbers of men must have worked together for +years to excavate such a cavity, and from what we know of human +nature, men will only do this for commercial or profitable ends, and +not for boring useless holes through mountains; so the event is +still practically incredible. + +But now suppose the last point of _purpose_ to be introduced. It is +said that this is not a mere useless hole bored through a mountain; +but a hole bored for a particular purpose; it is, in fact, a railway +tunnel. Then all difficulties would disappear. Of course, whether we +believe the tunnel was actually made depends upon what evidence we +have; but it is clear that when we consider the _cause_ by which, +and the _purpose_ for which, it is said to have been made, there is +nothing incredible about it. + +Now a similar method must be adopted in regard to miracles. They +must not be regarded simply as _marvels_, but as marvels said to +have been brought about by an adequate _cause_, and for a sufficient +_purpose_. And it is just these elements of cause and purpose which +may make the marvels credible. We will consider these points in +turn. + +(1.) _Miracles as marvels._ + +The first aspect of miracles is that of marvels. As such, they are +events which seem to be _contrary to our experience_--contrary, that +is, to what our experience of apparently similar events would lead +us to expect. Suppose, for instance, it were stated that on one +occasion three men were thrown into a furnace, but instead of being +burnt to death they walked about, and in a few minutes came out +alive and unhurt. + +Such a marvel would be contrary to our experience, and that it would +be therefore _very improbable_ is obvious. But is this improbability +sufficient in all cases to make the event incredible, no matter +what testimony there may be in its favour? Hume's argument that it +is sufficient is well known. He says we can only judge of the +probability of anything, whether it be the occurrence of an event, +or the truthfulness of the narrator, by _experience_. And as it is +contrary to experience for miracles to be true, but not contrary to +experience for testimony to be false, the balance of probability +must always be against the miracle. + +But of course this reasoning, if true, must apply to all alleged +events which are contrary to experience; and yet such events have +occurred by the thousand. Let us take a single example. Everyone has +had some experience as to how far it is possible to hear the human +voice distinctly, and till the last half century, the limit has +always been fixed at a few hundred yards. Now, suppose anyone were +told for the first time that it was possible to speak right across +England, he would justly say that it was utterly contrary to +experience. No one, he would think, could possibly speak loud enough +to be heard even twenty miles away. But ought he to add that it was +therefore incredible? + +From this it is clear that there must be some flaw in Hume's +argument; and it is easily discovered. For the argument regards the +event only as a marvel, and _without reference to its cause_. But we +have no right to leave this out of account, nor do we in ordinary +affairs. When anyone first hears of a marvel, he does not merely +compare it with his previous experience, and then come to a +decision; in which case, as Hume supposes, it might be always +against the marvel. But he first inquires how this strange event is +said to have been brought about. For if any cause is stated to have +been at work as to the influence of which he knows nothing, then he +has no experience of the proper kind to appeal to. There is the +testimony in favour of the event as before; and if he disbelieves +it, he does so, not because it is contrary to his experience, but +because he thinks the supposed cause either did not exist, or would +not have had the effect asserted. + +A reference to the previous example will make this quite plain. When +the man first heard of persons talking across England, instead of at +once declaring it incredible, he would, if a reasonable man, inquire +as to the _cause_ of this. He would then be told that a wire was +stretched across England with an instrument called a telephone at +each end. Now, as to the possibility or adequacy of such a +contrivance he might doubt a good deal; but one thing would be quite +clear, that this was a case to which his experience, however large, +did not apply. + +Here, then, is the explanation of Hume's argument. So long as a +marvel, contrary to experience, is regarded _only_ as a marvel, the +probability must be always against its truth. But if we inquire as +to how it was brought about, and find that some _cause_ is said to +have been at work, as to the influence of which we are ignorant, +then the argument is no longer applicable. We have simply no +experience of the proper kind to appeal to. + +Now this is precisely the case with regard to miracles. As marvels +they seem contrary to experience; but they claim to have a special +_cause_, to be specially worked by God--that is to say, by some +action on His part different from His usual action in nature; and of +the influence of this cause we have no experience whatever. We may, +of course, deny its existence or doubt its adequacy; but the +argument, that the event is contrary to experience, vanishes. + +It is clear then that the fact of miracles appearing to be contrary +to experience is no reason for disbelieving _them_, though it might +be a reason for disbelieving other alleged marvels, because they +claim to have a special cause, by which to account for this special +character. We have now to examine whether this special cause really +existed--that is to say, we pass on to the second aspect of the +miracles; our conclusion thus far being that they are credible as +_marvels_, if it be credible that they were _specially worked by +God_. + +(2.) _Miracles as special works of God._ + +Now, any special action on God's part is often thought to present +great difficulties, as interfering with the uniformity of nature. +But, as we shall see, it would only interfere with it in the same +way that human action interferes with it. Neither of them violates +the laws of nature, though both are able to bring about results +which nature of itself could not have brought about. + +In the case of human action this is quite obvious. Suppose, for +example, a clock with an iron pendulum is placed on a table and +keeps perfect time. Suddenly, without anyone touching it, it begins +to gain rapidly, and then, after a short time, goes on as before. +To anyone unacquainted with the cause, this would appear a _marvel_: +and might even be thought incredible, as (assuming the clock to be +properly constructed) it would seem to imply some alteration in the +laws of motion, or the force of gravity. Yet we know a man can +easily produce such a marvel by holding a magnet under the table. +The disturbing cause, it will be noticed, was not really the magnet, +which always acts according to law; nor the hand which held it; but +the action of the _human will_ on matter. This took place in the +man's brain, and enabled him to move first his hand, and then the +magnet. Thus we may say the marvel was produced by _natural means +supernaturally applied_; for the magnet was undoubtedly a natural +means, yet nature of itself would never have used it in the way +described. It required something _above_ nature (something +_super_-natural) and this was the free will of man. + +Now, miracles claim to have been produced in a somewhat similar, +though to us unknown, manner by the action of God's Will on matter, +that is to say, by natural means supernaturally applied; and, if so, +they are certainly credible, under this head. For we know that God +has the power of acting on matter, and that He used it once in +creating the universe, so He might use it again if He thought fit. + +Moreover, God's knowledge of the laws of nature is complete, while +man's is only partial. As, then, man, with his limited power over +nature and partial knowledge of its laws, can produce marvels so +unlike nature's ordinary course (a steam engine, for instance), yet +without violating any of its laws; still more can God, Who has +complete power over nature, and complete knowledge of its laws. For +to deny this would be to deny to God the power which we concede to +man; and which we must remember, God Himself has given to man. And +this would lead to the strange conclusion that God has enabled man +to do what He cannot do Himself. No doubt we cannot imagine _how_ +God can exert His Will over matter, but neither can we imagine how +we can do it ourselves. The difficulty is as great in the one case +as in the other. + +From this it is clear that miracles need not violate natural laws. +And though at first one might be inclined to dispute this with +regard to particular miracles; the statement is quite correct, +provided we make due allowance for our own ignorance. Take, for +example, the supposed case of the men in the furnace. We certainly +do not know how their bodies were kept cool, but we cannot say it +was impossible. For extreme heat, and even _extreme_ cold, may be +very close together, as is shown by the well-known experiment of +freezing mercury inside a red-hot crucible. As a mere marvel this is +quite as wonderful as the men in the furnace; and an ignorant man +would probably pronounce both to be equally incredible. + +Or, to take another example, suppose it were said that on one +occasion a few loaves of bread were miraculously increased so as to +feed some thousands of persons: could we say that this must have +violated natural laws? Certainly not, for bread is composed of +carbon, and other elements, which were in abundance all round. And +though we only know one way of forming them into bread, which is by +means of a living plant, we cannot say that this is the only method. +Indeed, there is nothing incredible in substances like bread being +made artificially some day. Of course in all marvels produced by +_man_, we know the special cause at work, but this does not justify +us in saying that in a miracle, merely because we do not know it, +the laws of nature must be violated. + +Moreover there is much to be said in favour of what is usually +called God's _immanence_ in nature, but which would perhaps be +better described as _nature's immanence in God_.[9] This means that +all natural forces are due to the present and immediate action of +God's Will; and if it is correct, it greatly lessens the difficulty +as to miracles. For then there would be no interference with nature +at all, leave alone violating its laws, God would be working there +all the time, only in a miracle He would not be working in exactly +the same way as in ordinary events. + +[Footnote 9: Acts 17. 28; Col. 1. 17.] + +But in any case there is, as we have shown, nothing incredible in +the way in which miracles are said to be _caused_, provided it is +credible that God should wish to use His power over nature in the +assumed manner; for natural forces are anyhow His servants, not His +masters. And this brings us to the third aspect of the miracles; for +whether God would wish to act in a certain way depends of course on +what _purpose_ He had in doing so. + +(3.) _Miracles as signs._ + +Now the purpose for which miracles are said to be worked is as +_signs to confirm a revelation_. Therefore, since we have already +shown that it is somewhat probable that God would make a revelation, +we have now only to inquire whether miracles are suitable means for +confirming it. And they appear to be the most suitable means +possible; for they would both attract men's attention to the +revelation, and also convince them of its superhuman character; +which are precisely the two points required. + +It may still be objected, however, that God's character, as shown by +nature, is _Unchangeable_; and therefore it is most improbable that +He would at times act in a special manner with regard to natural +events. And the more nature is studied the stronger does this +objection appear; since there are thousands of cases, such as storms +and earthquakes, when it seems to us that a slight interference with +nature would be most beneficial to man, yet it never occurs. Or the +objection may be otherwise expressed by saying that a miracle would +reflect on either the Wisdom or the Power of God; since, if +All-Wise, He would have foreseen the occasion, and if All-Powerful, +He would have provided for it; so any subsequent interference with +nature is something like having to remedy a fault. + +This is no doubt the most serious objection to miracles, but it is +by no means insuperable. For, to begin with, God is a _Free Being_, +Who does not always act the same (Chapter I.). And when we turn to +the only other free being we know of, which is man himself, what do +we find? A man may, as a rule, act uniformly, yet on some special +occasion, and for some special reason, he may, and often does, act +differently; and why should not God do the same? Indeed the only +changelessness in a man which we could admire, would be that of +_moral character_, always and invariably acting right. And for all +we know the changelessness of God may be only of such a kind, and +this certainly would not prevent Him from acting in some special +manner, in order to obtain some special purpose. + +Secondly, in the case before us, it is even probable that He would +do so, since the chief object of the miracles could not have been +obtained by the ordinary course of nature, though their immediate +effects might have been. For example, instead of healing men +miraculously, they might be healed naturally; but then there would +be no evidence that the healer was sent by God, and was speaking in +His name. In short, the messenger would be without _credentials_; +and, as we have already shown, this seems unlikely. + +Thirdly, though miracles do not show God's changelessness in the +same manner as the unchanging course of nature, they are +not inconsistent with it. For no one supposes them to be +_after-thoughts_ with God, but to have been planned from the very +beginning. And if God always intended to make a revelation to man, +and always intended that when He did so, He would confirm it by +miracles, they would involve no inconsistency or change on His part. + +Fourthly, there may be some _other_ attributes of God which miracles +show, and which the ordinary course of nature does not; such as His +superiority over nature itself on the one hand, and the interest He +takes in man on the other. One object of a revelation might be to +convince man that though God was the Ruler of the Universe, He yet +cared for man's happiness and valued his affections. And how could +such a revelation _as this_, be better confirmed than by an +(apparent) interference with nature for the benefit of man. For this +would show, as nothing else could show, both that there was a Being +_above_ nature, and that He cared for man _more_ than He cared for +nature. + +And it entirely agrees with what we decided in the last chapter, +that the whole of nature seems to be only a means to an end, the end +being the moral training of man, enabling, that is, a free man to +become a _righteous_ man. And if so, it is out of the question to +think that _in order to further this end_--the very end for which +nature itself exists--God might not, if He thought fit, interfere +with the course of nature. We may therefore answer the objection in +one sentence, God is _All-Good_, as well as All-Wise, and +All-Powerful; and His Goodness might induce Him to use miracles, +though by His Wisdom and Power He might have dispensed with them. + +We may now sum up the present argument. We showed that miracles are +credible both as _marvels_ and as _special works of God_, if it be +credible that they were brought about as _signs to confirm a +revelation_. And we have now shown that, supposing God to make a +revelation, which we have already admitted, there is nothing +inconsistent with His character as far as we know it, and therefore +nothing in the slightest degree incredible, in His using such signs, +as one of the means of confirming its truth. On the whole, then, we +conclude that a Miraculous Revelation is certainly _credible_. +Whether one has ever been made will be discussed in the following +chapters. + + + + +PART II. + +_THE JEWISH RELIGION._ + + CHAP. VIII. THAT THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION WAS DIVINELY REVEALED. + " IX. THAT ITS ORIGIN WAS CONFIRMED BY MIRACLES. + " X. THAT ITS HISTORY WAS CONFIRMED BY MIRACLES. + " XI. THAT ITS HISTORY WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY PROPHECIES. + " XII. THAT THE JEWISH RELIGION IS PROBABLY TRUE. + + + + +CHAPTER VIII. + +THAT THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION WAS DIVINELY REVEALED. + + (_A._) ITS GENERAL PRINCIPLES. + + (1.) Its pure Monotheism; admittedly true. + (2.) Its seven days need not be taken literally. + (3.) Its gradual development; admittedly true. + + (_B._) ITS DETAILED ORDER. + + (1.) The earliest state of the earth. + (2.) Light. + (3.) The Firmament. + (4.) Dry Land. + (5.) Vegetation. + (6.) The Sun and Moon. + (7.) Fishes and Birds. + (8.) Land Animals. + (9.) Man. + + (_C._) CONCLUSION. + + The accuracy of the narrative points to its having been + Divinely revealed. + + +Having decided in the previous chapters on the Existence of God, and +that it was credible that He might make a miraculous Revelation to +man; we pass on now to the _Jewish Religion_, which (as well as the +Christian) actually claims to be such a Revelation. + +And the first argument we have to consider in its favour is that +afforded by the opening chapter of Genesis. It is urged that this +account of the Creation must have been _Divinely revealed_, since +it contains a substantially correct account of events which could +not have been otherwise known at the time. What then we have to +examine is, whether this narrative is nearer the truth, as we now +know it from geology and other sciences, than could have been the +case, if written by a man ignorant of these sciences. And the +ancient narratives of Babylonia, India, Persia, and elsewhere, show +how far from the truth mere human conjecture on such a subject is +likely to be. + +While if we admit a revelation at all, there is nothing improbable +in some account of the creation of the world having been revealed to +man very early in his history, and being accurately preserved by the +Jews, while only distorted versions of it occur among other nations. +Indeed considering the common custom among ancient nations of +worshipping the heavenly bodies, animals, etc., no subject could +have been more suited for a first revelation than the statement in +simple language that all these were created by one supreme God. We +will now consider the _general principles_ of the narrative, and +then its _detailed order_. + + +(_A._) ITS GENERAL PRINCIPLES. + +The most important of these are its pure Monotheism, its seven days, +and its gradual development, each of which we will notice in turn. + +(1.) _Its pure Monotheism._ + +This alone renders it almost, if not quite, unique among similar +narratives. According to the writer, the whole universe, including +sun, moon, and stars, was all due to _one_ God. And this is obvious +enough now, but it was not so when the narrative was written. For +other ancient accounts are either _Pantheistic_, and confuse God +with the universe; or _Dualistic_, and assume two eternal principles +of good and evil; or _Polytheistic_, and make the universe the work +of several gods. The Jewish writer, on the other hand, has kept +clear of all these theories; and he is admittedly right and all the +others wrong. + +(2.) _Its seven days._ + +Next as to the seven days. Now it is generally assumed, doubtless +from their being referred to in the Fourth Commandment, that the +writer intended these _days_ to be ordinary days of twenty-four +hours each, but this is at least doubtful. For ordinary days depend +on the _sun_, and would therefore have been impossible before the +formation of the sun on the _fourth_ day; as the writer himself +implies, when he says that the division of time into days and years +was due to the sun. + +Then there is the difficulty as to the _seventh_ day, when God +rested from all His work. This, it will be remembered had no close, +or _evening_, and it is implied that it has continued ever since. +For if God only rested for twenty-four hours, and then set to work +again it would not have been a rest from _all_ His work. But in this +case, the seventh day would represent a long period of time, and if +so the other days would probably do the same. Moreover the writer, +or compiler, of this very narrative, after describing the creation +in six days, says it all occurred in _one_ day,[10] so he could +scarcely have thought the days to be literal. + +[Footnote 10: Gen. 2. 4.] + +There are thus great difficulties from the narrative itself in +taking the word _day_ in its ordinary sense; and it seems better to +consider it (like so many terms in the Bible) as a human analogy +applied to God. Then God's _days_ must be understood in the same way +as God's _eyes_ or God's _hands_; and this removes all difficulties. + +None of these terms are of course literally true, but they represent +the truth _to man_ in such a way that he can to some extent +understand it. For example, the phrase that God gained the victory +_by His own right hand_ clearly means that He gained it not with the +assistance of others, or with the help of weapons, but simply by His +own unaided inherent strength. It was such a victory as might _in a +man_ be described as gained by his own right hand. And the same may +be said of the passage, _The eyes of the Lord are over the +righteous, and His ears are open unto their prayers_, and many +others which occur in the Bible. The terms hands, eyes, and ears, +when applied to God, are thus human analogies, which must not be +taken literally. + +And in one passage at least the word _day_ is used in a similar +sense; for we read "Hast thou eyes of flesh or seest thou as man +seeth? Are thy days as the days of man, or thy years as man's +days?"[11] Here it will be noticed _days_ and _years_ are applied to +God in precisely the same manner as _eyes_ and _seeing_. + +[Footnote 11: Job 10. 4, 5.] + +Moreover similar terms occur all through the present narrative. Even +the simple words _God said_ cannot be taken literally, for there was +no one to speak to. They must be meant in the sense that God +_thought_, or that God _willed_. And we have no more right to +suppose the days to be literal days than to suppose that God +literally spoke. What we are to suppose in the one case is that +God--the Almighty One, for whom nothing is too hard--created all +things in such a way as might _to man_ be best represented by a +simple word of command. And what we are to suppose in the other +case, is that God--the Eternal One, to whom a thousand years are but +as yesterday--created all things in such periods of time as might +_to man_ be best represented by six days. Vast as the universe was, +man was to regard it as being to God no more than a week's work to +himself. In short, the time of creation, however long in itself, was +utterly insignificant in its relation to God; to _Him_ each stage +was a mere day. + +And this it may be added, is not a purely modern theory, made to +reconcile the narrative with science; for the Greek Jew, Philo, born +about B.C. 20, who knew nothing of geology, ridicules the idea of +the days of Genesis being literal, or representing any definite +periods of time.[12] + +[Footnote 12: Works of Philo Judæus, First book of Allegories of the +Sacred Laws, Yonge's translation, 1854, vol. i., p. 52.] + +(3.) _Its gradual development._ + +Next, it must be noticed that, according to Genesis, God did not +create a perfect world all at once, but slowly built it up step by +step. At first the earth was waste and void, and only after it had +passed through several stages did it become fully inhabited. +Moreover, at every step (with two exceptions, the firmament and +man, noticed later on), God examined the work and pronounced it +_good_. He seems thus to have discerned a beauty and excellence in +each stage; though it was not till the close of the whole work that +He was completely satisfied, and pronounced it all _very_ good. + +And the narrative appears to be quite correct. For geology shows +that the formation of the earth, with its various inhabitants, was a +_gradual_ process, not accomplished all at once, but slowly step by +step, through successive ages. And it also shows that these ages +were of such magnitude and importance that we cannot regard them as +mere preparations for man's coming, but as having a beauty and +excellence of their own, so that they well deserved to be called +_good_. But we may ask, how did the writer of Genesis know all this? + +And then as to the way in which this development was brought about. +According to Genesis, each stage was due to what we may call a +_Special Divine force_, represented by a word of command from God. +And this also seems correct, for we cannot otherwise account for the +first appearance of the various groups, such as plants, animals, and +men. It is not disputed that these various stages may have been +evolved from the previous ones, _e.g._, the living from the +not-living, which the narrative itself suggests in the words, _Let +the earth put forth grass_; and also at its close, when it speaks of +_the generations_ of the heaven and of the earth; which implies some +kind of organic descent, or evolution. Indeed the common expression +that God _made_, is probably used in the sense of _evolved_; since +the same word is employed in ver. II of fruit-trees _making_ fruit +(translated _bearing_ or _yielding_ fruit); yet we know they do not +_make_ fruit suddenly out of nothing, but slowly produce it. + +What is disputed is, that this evolution took place merely under the +influence of natural development, and without the additional +influence of a new Divine force. And considering that all attempts +to effect a similar transition _now_ have failed completely, it is +not unreasonable to suppose that there was some other and special +Cause at work _then_. Nor is it easy to see how some of the changes +could have been otherwise produced. Take, for instance, this very +subject of the origin of life. As far as we know, the only natural +mode in which life can begin is from a living parent, yet there was +a time when there were no living parents on this earth. How, then, +could it have originated, except by some process other than natural, +_i.e._, supernatural? Or, again, to take another instance, when the +first _free being_, whether animal or man, appeared on this planet, +a force totally different from all natural forces was introduced, +and one which could not have been derived from them alone. + +And then there is another, and very interesting point, to notice. It +is that according to Genesis, these steps were not all of equal +importance. For while it describes most of them by the word _made_, +which, as just said, seems to mean here _evolved_; on three +occasions, and only three, it uses the word _create_. These refer to +the origin of the _universe_, of _animal life_ (fishes and birds), +and of _man_. And this is very significant, when we remember that +these correspond to the beginning of _matter_, _mind_, and +_spirit_; and are therefore (as said in Chapter IV.) just the three +places where something altogether _new_ was introduced; which could +not, as far as we can see, have been evolved from anything else. And +this double method of producing, partly by _creating_, and partly by +_making_ or evolving, is again referred to at the close of the +narrative, where we read that God rested from all His work, which He +had _created and made_. So much for the general _principles_ of the +narrative, we pass on now to its detailed _order_. + + +(_B._) ITS DETAILED ORDER. + +It will be remembered that in Genesis, after describing the earliest +state of the earth, there are eight stages in its development; two +of which occurred on the third, and two on the sixth, day. We have +thus altogether nine subjects to examine. + +(1.) _The earliest state of the earth._ + +Now according to Genesis, the earth was at first _waste and void_ +and in _darkness_, and apparently surrounded by _the waters_. And if +we adopt the usual nebula theory, and refer this to the first period +after it became a separate planet, and had cooled so as not to give +out any light itself, these statements seem quite correct. For we +know from geology that the earth was then waste and void as far as +any form of life was concerned, while it was probably surrounded by +a dense mass of clouds and vapours sufficient to produce darkness. +Genesis then starts from the right starting-point, but again we must +ask, how did the writer know this? + +(2.) _Light._ + +The first step in the development of the earth was, we are told, the +introduction of _light_. That this is what Genesis means seems +plain, for the _light_ must refer to the _darkness_ of the previous +verse, and that referred to the _earth_. As to whether light +previously existed in other parts of the universe, Genesis says +nothing, it is only concerned with this earth. And in the +development of this earth, _light_ (which in nature always includes +_heat_) must obviously have come first. For on it depend the changes +in temperature, which lead to the formation of winds, clouds, and +rain; while it also supplies the physical power that is necessary +for the life of plants and animals; so in placing _light_ as the +first step, Genesis is certainly correct. Of course, the _source_ of +light at this early period was the remainder of the nebula from +which our planet was thrown off. It was thus spread over an immense +space, instead of being concentrated like that of our present sun; +and probably only reached the earth through a partial clearing of +the clouds just alluded to. + +(3.) _The firmament._ + +The next step was separating the waters _above_ (_i.e._, these dense +clouds) from the waters _below_ which are stated to be the seas (v. +9-10) and forming between them a firmament or _expanse_ (see +margin), that is to say, the _air_. The idea that the writer thought +this expanse meant a solid plane holding up the waters above +(because it is perhaps derived from a word meaning firm or solid) is +scarcely tenable. For the firmament was called _heaven_, and the +upper waters, above this _heaven_, must mean the sources from which +the _rain_ usually comes, since it is called _rain from heaven_.[13] +And these sources are easily seen to be _clouds_; and no one could +have thought that a _solid_ firmament was between the clouds, and +the seas. + +[Footnote 13: Deut. 11. 11.] + +Moreover this same word _heaven_ (though used in various senses) is +translated _air_ later on in this very narrative when it speaks of +fowls of the _air_ (verses 26-28, 30). And it also occurs in other +passages, in some of which it cannot possibly mean anything but the +air, _e.g._, 'any winged fowl that flieth in the _heaven_,' and 'the +way of an eagle in the _air_,'[14] which is an additional reason for +thinking that it means the air here. + +[Footnote 14: Deut. 4. 17; Prov. 30. 19.] + +And the omission, before noticed, to say that God saw that the +firmament was _good_, is quite natural, if this means only the air, +_i.e._, the space between the clouds and the seas; just as an +artist, though he might examine his pictures to see that they were +_good_, would not examine the spaces between them. But it is +difficult to account for, if it means a _solid_ firmament, which +would seem to require God's approval like everything else. + +On the other side, we have the expression about opening the +_windows_ of heaven when it rained at the time of the Flood,[15] +which is sometimes thought to imply openings in a solid firmament. +But it need not be taken literally, any more than that about the +_doors_ of the sea;[16] especially as in another place the _heavens +dropping water_ is explained as meaning that the clouds dropped +it.[17] And since God promised that in future when a _cloud_ was +seen it should not cause another _flood_,[18] it is clear that the +flood was thought to have come from the clouds, and not from any +openings in a solid reservoir in the sky. + +[Footnote 15: Gen. 7. 11; 2 Kings 7. 2; Mal. 3. 10.] + +[Footnote 16: Job 38. 8-11.] + +[Footnote 17: Judges 5. 4 (R.V.).] + +[Footnote 18: Gen. 9. 14.] + +There is also the passage about the sun and moon being _set in the +firmament_. But the writer cannot have meant they were _fastened_ to +the firmament, since the moon keeps changing its position relatively +to the sun, just as a rainbow often does in regard to the cloud in +which it is also said to be _set_.[19] Of course their being in the +firmament at all, is not correct if this means only the air. But the +word may be used here in a wider sense, like the English word +_heaven_, to include both the air, and the space beyond. For we +speak of the clouds of heaven, and the stars of heaven, and in +neither case with any idea of their being _heaved up_, which is said +to be the literal meaning of the word. And in its primary sense, as +we have shown, the firmament or _expanse_ between the upper and +lower waters (the clouds and the seas) must mean the _air_. And the +order in which this is placed after light, and before plants and +animals is obviously correct. + +[Footnote 19: Gen. 9. 13.] + +(4.) _Dry land._ + +We now come to an important point, the appearance of _dry land_. +According to Genesis, there was not always dry land on the earth; +the whole of it was originally covered by the waters. And science +shows that this was probably the case; the earth being at first +surrounded by watery vapours, which gradually condensed and formed a +kind of universal ocean. And then, when the surface became +irregular, through its contracting and crumpling up, the water would +collect in the hollows, forming seas, and dry land would appear +elsewhere. But how was it possible for the writer of Genesis to know +all this? There is nothing in the present aspect of nature to +suggest that there was once a time when there was no _dry land_; and +if it was a guess on his part, it was, to say the least, a very +remarkable one. + +(5.) _Vegetation._ + +We next come to vegetation; and it is placed in exactly its right +position. For it requires four things: _soil_, _air_, _water_, and +_light_ including heat; and these were the four things which then +existed. The narrative, it will be noticed, speaks of three groups, +_grass_, _herbs_, and _fruit-trees_; and it seems to imply that they +appeared at the same time. But since its general plan is that of a +series of events, the other view, that they appeared successively, +is at least tenable. + +There is, however, this difficulty. None of these groups were +complete before the following periods. Some plants, for instance +(including both herbs and fruit-trees), appeared long after the +commencement of fishes and birds, and similarly some fishes and +birds after the commencement of land-animals. But the difficulty is +due to the fact that the classes _overlap_ to a large extent. And +the order given in Genesis is nearer the truth than any other would +be. Had the writer, for example, placed them plants, animals, birds, +fishes; he would have been quite wrong. As it is, by placing them +plants, fishes, birds, animals, he is as near the truth as he can +be, if classes which really overlap have to be arranged in a +consecutive narrative. + +(6.) _The sun and moon._ + +We next come to the formation (that is the _making_, or evolving) of +the sun and moon. The stars are also mentioned, but it is not said +that they were made on the fourth day, and they are not alluded to +in the opening command. Now, this alleged formation of the sun +_after_ that of light is certainly the most striking point in the +narrative, and was long thought to be a difficulty. But science has +now shown that it is correct. However strange we may think it, light +did undoubtedly exist long before the sun. In other words, the +original nebula of our solar system was luminous, and lighted the +earth, long before it contracted into a body with a definite +outline, and producing such an intense and concentrated light, as +could be called a sun. And since the earth would cool much quicker +than the large nebula from which it was thrown off, vegetation might +commence here before the nebula had become a sun, though this latter +point is doubtful. + +Two objections have now to be noticed. The first refers to the +_moon_, which must have been thrown off from the earth long before +the dry land and vegetation appeared; and being so small, would have +consolidated sooner. But when considered only as _lights_, as they +are in the narrative, it is quite correct to place the moon with +the sun; since moonlight is merely reflected sunlight, and must +obviously have commenced at the same time. The other objection is, +that according to Genesis, the earth seems to be the centre of +everything, and even the sun exists solely for the sake of lighting +the earth. But (as before pointed out) the narrative is only +concerned with this earth; and while we know that sunlight is of use +to the inhabitants of our planet, we do not know that it serves any +other useful purpose. + +These, however, are but minor matters; the important point, as +before said, is that Genesis places the formation of the sun _after_ +that of light. This must have appeared when it was written, and for +thousands of years afterwards, an obvious absurdity, since everyone +could see that the sun was the source of light. We now know that it +is correct. But how could the writer have known it, unless it had +been divinely revealed? + +(7.) _Fishes and birds._ + +We next come to fishes and birds, which formed the commencement of +animal life, and thus involved the beginning of _mind_ in some form; +so Genesis (as before said) appropriately uses the word _create_ in +regard to them. It is not clear whether the narrative means that +they appeared at the same time, or successively, though here, as in +other cases, the latter is the more probable. And science entirely +agrees in thus placing fishes before birds and both of these after +plants. This latter point indeed must be obvious to every +naturalist, since the food of all animals is derived, either +directly or indirectly, from the vegetable world. + +And Genesis is equally correct in emphasising the great abundance of +_marine_ life at this period--the waters were to _swarm with swarms +of living creatures_ (R.V. Margin), and also in specially alluding +to the great _sea-monsters_ (wrongly translated _whales_ in A.V.), +since these huge saurians were a striking feature of the time. The +Hebrew word is said to mean _elongated_ or stretched-out creatures, +and as several of them were over 50 feet long, no more suitable term +can be imagined. But again we must ask how did the writer know that +such creatures were ever plentiful enough, or important enough, to +deserve this special mention? + +What are called _invertebrate_ animals, such as insects, and +shell-fish, do not seem to be included in the narrative. But it +never claims to describe everything that was created; and its +extreme brevity, combined with the insignificance of these +creatures, may well account for their being omitted. + +(8.) _Land animals._ + +We next come to land animals, which we are told the earth was to +_bring forth_. As however it is said in the next verse that God +_made_ (or evolved) these creatures, this need not mean that they +were produced directly from the earth, as in the case of plants. And +the position in which they are placed, after fishes and birds and +before man, is again correct. It is true that a few animals such as +kangaroos, seem to have appeared as early as birds, but land animals +as a whole undoubtedly succeeded them. Three classes are mentioned, +_beasts of the earth_, _cattle_, and _creeping things_, probably +small animals, since another Hebrew word is used for them, later +on, which is said elsewhere to include weasels and mice.[20] + +[Footnote 20: Gen. 7. 21; Lev. 11. 29.] + +(9.) _Man._ + +Last of all we come to the creation of man. Four points have to be +noticed here. The first refers to the _time_ of man's appearance, +which everyone now admits was not till towards the close of the +Tertiary or most recent group of strata; so Genesis is quite correct +in placing him last of all. As to the actual date, it says nothing; +for its chronology only leads back to the creation of _Adam_ in +chapter 2, and not to that of the _human race_ (male and female) in +chapter 1. And it is implied in several places, that there were men +before Adam[21] and this was in consequence maintained by some +writers long before geology was thought of.[22] We need not +therefore discuss the difficulties connected with the story of Adam +and Eve, as to which the present writer has never seen a +satisfactory explanation. + +[Footnote 21: Gen. 4. 13-17, 26; 6. 2-4.] + +[Footnote 22: _E.g._, Peyreyrius, A.D. 1655, quoted in the Speaker's +Commentary.] + +Secondly, the creation of man is represented as of an altogether +_higher order_, than any of the previous ones, since God did not +say, "Let the earth bring forth a thinking animal" or anything of +that kind, but '_Let us make man_.' And this also is quite correct, +for man, as we know (Chapter IV.) has a _free will_, which makes him +a personal being, and therefore far above everything else on this +planet. + +And when we consider the vast possibilities, involved in the +creation of such a being,--able to act right or wrong, and +therefore able, if he wishes, to act in opposition to the will of +his Maker, thus bringing sin into the world with all its consequent +miseries,--it seems only suitable that such a momentous step should +have been taken with apparent deliberation and in a manner different +from all the others. + +And it explains why no such expression as _after its kind_, which is +so frequently used of plants and animals, is ever applied to man; +for he is not one of a kind in the same sense. Each man is _unique_, +a separate personal being, distinct from all else in the world, and +not (like a tree for instance) merely one example of a certain way +in which molecules may be grouped. + +It also explains why man (unlike plants, animals, etc.) is not said +to have been created _good_. For goodness in a free being must +include moral goodness, or _righteousness_; and, as explained in +Chapter VI., man could not have been _created_ righteous. He might +have been created _perfect_, like a machine, or _innocent_, like a +child, but to be _righteous_ requires his own co-operation, his +freely choosing to act right, though he might act wrong. No doubt he +was made in a condition perfectly suited for the _exercise_ of his +free choice; but this seems included in God's final approval of the +whole creation that it was all _very good_. + +Thirdly we are told that man (and man alone) was created _in the +image of God_. And once more the narrative is quite correct; for +that which distinguishes man from the rest of creation is his _free +will_, to which we have just alluded. And that which distinguishes +God's action from all natural forces is also His _freedom_, +(Chapter I.). So it is perfectly true to say that man was created +_in the image of God_, since the special attribute which separates +him from all else on this planet is precisely the attribute of God +Himself. + +And here we may notice in passing, that though God intended man to +be both in His image and _likeness_; He only created him in His +_image_ (vv. 26, 27). And the reason is probably that while image +means resemblance in _nature_ (possessing free will, etc.), likeness +means resemblance in _character_[23] (always acting right). +Therefore, of course, though God wished man to be both in His image +and likeness, He could only create him in His _image_; the other +point, that of _likeness_ in character, depending (as just said) on +the free will of the man himself. + +[Footnote 23: The Hebrew word appears to be sometimes used in this +sense. _E.g._, Ps. 58. 4; Isa. 13. 4. In one brief reference in Gen. +5. 1-2, when speaking of Adam, _likeness_ is used where we should +have expected _image_; though even here it is not said that man was +_created_ in God's likeness, but merely that he was so _made_.] + +The fourth, and last point is that though the writer assigns to man +this unique position, he does not give him, as we might have +expected, a _day_ to himself, but _connects him with land animals_, +as both appearing on the sixth day. And this also seems correct, for +in spite of his immense superiority, man, in his physical nature, is +closely connected with animals. Therefore the writer appropriately +uses both words, _made_ and _created_, in regard to him. The former +shows that in one respect (as to his body) he was evolved like the +rest of nature; the latter, that in another respect (as to his +spirit) he was essentially distinct. + + +(_C._) CONCLUSION. + +We have now discussed the narrative at some length, and (omitting +details) it shows three great periods of life. Each of these has a +leading characteristic; that of the third day being vegetation; that +of the fifth day fishes and birds, special mention being made of +great sea-monsters; and that of the sixth day land animals, and at +its close man. And though these groups _overlap_ to a large extent, +yet speaking broadly, the three periods in Geology have much the +same characteristics. The Primary is distinguished by its vegetation +(_e.g._, the coal beds); the Secondary by its saurians, or great +sea-monsters; and the Tertiary by its land animals, and at its close +(now often called the Quaternary) by man. The harmony between the +two is, to say the least, remarkable. + +And the theory of Evolution which like geology, was unknown when the +narrative was written, also supports it, as has been admitted by +some of its leading exponents. Thus Romanes once said, and as if the +fact was undisputed, 'The order in which the flora and fauna are +said, by the Mosaic account, to have appeared upon the earth +corresponds with that which the theory of Evolution requires, and +the evidence of geology proves.'[24] We decide, then, that the order +of creation, as given in Genesis, is in most cases certainly, and in +all cases probably, correct. + +[Footnote 24: _Nature_, 11th August, 1881.] + +And this is plainly of the utmost importance, for the points of +agreement between Genesis and science are far too many, and far too +unlikely to be due to accident. They are far too many; for the +chance against eight events being put down in their correct order by +guesswork is 40,319 to 1. And they are far too unlikely; for what +could have induced an ignorant man to say that light came before the +sun, or that the earth once existed without any dry land? + +Moreover, the general principles of the narrative, especially its +pure Monotheism and its gradual development, are very strongly in +its favour. And so are some individual points, such as the idea of +creation, in its strict sense, being limited to matter, mind, and +spirit. While our admiration for it is still further increased by +its extreme conciseness and simplicity. Seldom, indeed, has such a +mass of information been condensed into as few lines; and seldom has +such a difficult subject been treated so accurately yet in such +simple and popular language. + +Now what conclusion can be drawn from all this? There seem to be +only two alternatives: either the writer, whoever he was, knew as +much about science as we do, or else the knowledge was revealed to +him by God. And if we admit a revelation at all, the latter +certainly seems the less improbable. And this, it may be added, was +the opinion of the great geologist Dana, who said (after carefully +considering the subject) that the coincidences between the +narrative, and the history of the earth as derived from nature, were +such as to imply its Divine origin.[25] We therefore conclude that +this account of the creation was _Divinely revealed_. + +[Footnote 25: Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1885, p. 224.] + + + + +CHAPTER IX. + +THAT ITS ORIGIN WAS CONFIRMED BY MIRACLES. + +Importance of the Pentateuch, as the only record of the origin of +the Jewish Religion. + + (_A._) ITS EGYPTIAN REFERENCES. + + These are very strongly in favour of its early date; + + (1.) In the history of Joseph. + (2.) In the history of Moses. + (3.) In the laws and addresses. + + (_B._) ITS LAWS. + + These are also in favour of its early date: + + (1.) The subjects dealt with. + (2.) Their connection with the history. + (3.) Their wording. + + (_C._) THE THEORY OF A LATE-DATE. + + There are four chief arguments in favour of this, but they + are not at all convincing: + + (1.) The language of the Pentateuch. + (2.) Its composite character. + (3.) Its laws being unknown in later times. + (4.) The finding of Deuteronomy. + + (_D._) CONCLUSION. + + The Pentateuch was probably written, as it claims to be, + by Moses; and we must therefore admit the miracles + of the Exodus. + + +We pass on now to the _origin_ of the Jewish Religion--that is to +say, the events connected with the Exodus from Egypt. And as the +only account we have of these is contained in the _Pentateuch_, we +must examine this book carefully. Is it a trustworthy, and, on the +whole, accurate account of the events which it records? And this +depends chiefly on its _date_. Is it a _contemporary_ document, +written by, or in the time of, Moses? And modern discoveries have at +least shown that it may be so. For Egypt was then in such a +civilised state, that it is practically certain that Moses, and the +other leaders of Israel, could have written had they chosen. And as +they somehow or other brought the people out of Egypt, it is +extremely probable that they would have recorded it. But did they, +and do we possess this record in the Pentateuch? + +This is the question we have to decide; and we will first consider +the _Egyptian references_ in the Pentateuch, and then its _Laws_, +both of which are very strongly in favour of an early date. Then we +will see what can be said for the opposite theory, or that of a +_late-date_; and lastly, the _conclusion_ to be drawn from admitting +its genuineness. + + +(_A._) ITS EGYPTIAN REFERENCES. + +Now a considerable part of the Pentateuch deals with Egyptian +matters, and it appears to be written with correct details +throughout. This would of course be only natural in a contemporary +writer living in Egypt, but would be most unlikely for a late writer +in Canaan. The question is therefore of great importance in deciding +on the date of the book; so we will first consider these _Egyptian +references_ (as they are called) in the history of Joseph, then in +that of Moses, and then in the laws and addresses. They cannot of +course be properly appreciated without some knowledge of ancient +Egypt, but they are far too important to be omitted. It is +disappointing to have to add that the evidence is almost entirely +indirect, but up to the present no reference to either Joseph, or +Moses, has been found on the Egyptian monuments, and none to the +Israelites themselves that are at all conclusive. + +(1.) _In the history of Joseph._ + +To begin with, there are three cases where it is sometimes said that +the writer seems _not_ to have been a contemporary, since Egyptian +customs are there explained, as if unknown to the reader. These are +their eating at different tables from the Hebrews, their dislike of +shepherds, and their habit of embalming.[26] But the inference from +the first two is extremely doubtful; though that from the third is +rather in favour of a late date. There is not, however, a single +word here (or anywhere else) which is _incorrect_ for Egypt, or +which shows that the writer himself was unaware of its customs. + +[Footnote 26: Gen. 43. 32; 46. 34; 50. 3.] + +On the other hand, there is abundant evidence in favour of a +contemporary date. The Pharaoh is generally thought to be Apepi II., +who belonged to a _foreign_ dynasty of Shepherd Kings, probably +Asiatic tribes like the Israelites themselves. And this will explain +the evident surprise felt by the writer that one of his chief +officers should be an _Egyptian_, which seems so puzzling to the +ordinary reader.[27] It will also account for Joseph and his +brethren being so well received, and for their telling him so +candidly That they were _shepherds_, though they knew that +shepherds were hated by the Egyptians. Had the Pharaoh himself been +an Egyptian, this was hardly the way to secure his favour. + +[Footnote 27: Gen. 39. 1.] + +We will now consider a single chapter in detail, and select Gen. 41; +nearly every incident in which shows a knowledge of ancient Egypt: + + Ver. 1. To begin with, the words _Pharaoh_ and _the river_ + (_i.e._, the Nile), though they are the proper Egyptian names, + seem to have been adopted in Hebrew, and occur all through the + Old Testament; so they afford no indication of date. + + 2-4. The _dreams_, however, are peculiarly Egyptian. Cattle + along the river bank, and feeding on the _reed-grass_ (an + Egyptian word for an Egyptian plant), was a common sight in + that country, but must have been almost unknown in Canaan. And + their coming up _out of the river_ was specially suitable, as + they represented the years of plenty and famine, which in Egypt + depend entirely on the rise of the Nile. + + 5-7. In the same way wheat with _several ears_ is known to have + been produced in Egypt; but is nowhere mentioned as grown in + Canaan. + + 8. Moreover, we know that the Pharaohs attached great + importance to dreams, and used to consult their _magicians_ and + _wise men_ when in doubt; both these classes being often + mentioned--and mentioned together--on the monuments. + + 9-12. We also know that there were officials corresponding to + the _chief butler_ and the _chief baker_. And a reference has + even been found to the curious custom of the former giving the + King _fresh grape-juice_, squeezed into a cup (Gen. 40. 11), + which is not likely to have been known to anyone out of Egypt. + + 13. And hanging the chief baker evidently means, from Gen. 40. + 19, hanging up the dead body, after he had been _beheaded_; + which latter was an Egyptian, and not a Jewish, punishment. + + 14. Next we are told, that when Joseph was hurriedly sent for + by Pharaoh, he yet stopped to _shave_. And this was only + natural, as the upper class of Egyptians always shaved; but it + would scarcely have occurred to anyone in Canaan, as the + Israelites always wore beards.[28] + + [Footnote 28: 2 Sam. 10. 5.] + + 35. So again the custom of laying up corn in storehouses, to + provide against the frequent famines, and for taxation, was + thoroughly Egyptian, the Superintendent of the Granaries being + a well-known official. But as far as we know nothing of the + kind existed in Canaan. + + 39. We then come to the promotion of Joseph; and several + instances are known of foreigners, and even slaves, being + promoted to high offices in Egypt. + + 40. And the monuments show that it was the regular Egyptian + custom to have a Superintendent, who should _be over the + house_. + + 42. Joseph is then given Pharaoh's _signet ring_, the use of + which, at this early period, has been fully confirmed by the + inscriptions. And he also receives _fine linen_ (an Egyptian + word being used for this) and a _gold chain about his neck_. + This latter was a peculiarly Egyptian decoration, being called + _receiving gold_, and is continually alluded to on the + monuments. And a specimen may be seen in the Cairo Museum, + which happens to date from about the time of Joseph. + + 43-44. And the apparently insignificant detail that Joseph rode + _in a chariot_ (implying horses) is also interesting, since, as + far as we know, horses had only recently been introduced into + Egypt by the Shepherd Kings. And had they been mentioned + earlier--as, for instance, among the presents given to + Abraham[29]--it would have been incorrect. And the expression + _Abrech_, translated _Bow the knee_, is probably an Egyptian + word (Margin R.V.). + + [Footnote 29: Gen. 12. 16.] + + 45. We also know that when foreigners rose to great importance + in Egypt they were often given a new _name_. And Joseph's new + name, Zaphenathpaneah, (probably meaning Head of the College + of Magicians, a title he had just earned[30]) as well as + Asenath, and Potiphera, are all genuine Egyptian names; though + (with the exception of Asenath) they have not at present been + found as early as the time of Joseph. + + [Footnote 30: H. E. Naville, Professor of Egyptology, at the + University of Geneva, 'Archæology of the Old Testament,' 1913, + p. 80.] + + 49. Lastly, the usual Egyptian custom (as shown by the + monuments) of having a scribe to _count_ the quantity of corn + as it is stored, is incidentally implied in the statement that + on this occasion, owing to its great abundance, Joseph had _to + leave off numbering it_. + +Thus everything in this chapter, _and the same may be said of many +others_, is perfectly correct for Egypt; though much of it would be +incorrect for Canaan, and is not likely to have been known to anyone +living there. Yet the writer not only knows it, but _takes for +granted that his readers know it too_, as he never explains +anything. So the narrative is not likely to have been written after +the time of Moses, when the Israelites left Egypt. And this, it may +be added, is the opinion of many who have made a special study of +ancient Egypt. Thus Prof. Naville declares 'I do not hesitate to say +that he (Moses) was the only author who could have written the +history of Joseph, such as we have it.'[31] + +[Footnote 31: Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xlvii., 1915, +p. 355.] + +There is also evidence of quite another kind that this latter part +of Genesis was written in Egypt. This is afforded by six passages, +where, after the name of a place, is added some such phrase as +_which is in Canaan_.[32] Yet there do not appear to be any other +places of the same name liable to be confused with these. When then +would it be necessary to explain to the Israelites that these +places, Shechem, etc., were in Canaan? Certainly not after the +conquest, when they were living there, and it was obvious to +everyone; so we must refer them to the time when they were in Egypt. + +[Footnote 32: Gen. 23. 2, 19; 33. 18; 35. 6; 48. 3; 49. 30.] + +And this is strongly confirmed by a little remark as to the _desert +of Shur_, which lies between Egypt and Canaan, and which is +described as being _before Egypt as thou goest towards Assyria_.[33] +Clearly then this also must have been written in Egypt, since only +to a person living there would Shur be on the way to Assyria. + +[Footnote 33: Gen. 25. 18.] + +And the same may be said of the curious custom of first asking after +a person's health, and then, if he is still alive.[34] This was +thoroughly Egyptian, as some exactly similar cases have been found +in a papyrus dated in the eighth year of Menephthah, generally +thought to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus.[35] But it is scarcely +likely to have been adopted by a writer in Canaan, as it makes the +narrative seem so ridiculous. + +[Footnote 34: Gen. 43. 27-28.] + +[Footnote 35: Chabas, Mélanges Égyptologiques, Third Series, vol. +ii., Paris, 1873, p. 152.] + +(2.) _In the history of Moses._ + +Secondly, as to the history of _Moses_. The name itself is +Egyptian;[36] and his being placed in an ark of _papyrus_ smeared +with bitumen was quite suited to Egypt, where both materials were +commonly used, but would have been most unsuitable anywhere else. +And several of the words used here, as well as in other parts of +the Pentateuch, show that the writer was well acquainted with the +Egyptian _language_. In this single verse for instance, there are as +many as six Egyptian words, _ark_, _papyrus_, _pitch_, _flags_, +_brick_, and _river_; though some of these were also used in +Hebrew.[37] Then as to the Israelites making bricks with _straw_. +This is interesting, because we know from the monuments that straw +was often used for the purpose, the Nile mud not holding together +without it, and that its absence was looked upon as a hardship. So +here again the narrative suits Egypt, and not Canaan; where as far +as we know, bricks were never made with straw. And it so happens +that we have a little direct evidence here. For some excavations +were made at Tel-el-Muskhuta in 1883; which turns out to be +_Pithom_, one of the _store cities_ said to have been built by the +Israelites.[38] And nearly its whole extent is occupied by large +brick stores; some of the bricks being made with straw, some with +fragments of reed or stubble used instead, and some without any +straw at all. While, unlike the usual Egyptian custom, the walls are +built with mortar; all of which exactly agrees with the +narrative.[39] + +[Footnote 36: Driver's Exodus, 1911, p. 11.] + +[Footnote 37: Exod. 2. 3.] + +[Footnote 38: Exod. 1. 11. Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. +xviii., p. 85.] + +[Footnote 39: Exod. 1. 14; 5. 12.] + +Next, as to the _Ten Plagues_. There is much local colouring here, +and hardly one of them would have been suitable in Canaan. Moreover, +the order in which they come is very significant, as it makes them +agree with the natural calamities of Egypt. + +(i.) The water being turned into blood cannot, of course, be taken +literally, any more than when Joel speaks of the moon being turned +into blood.[40] It refers to the reddish colour, which is often seen +in the Nile about the end of June; though it is not as a rule +sufficient to kill the fish, or render the water unfit to drink. And +the mention of _vessels of wood and stone_[41] is interesting, as it +was the custom in Egypt to _purify_ the Nile water by letting it +stand in such vessels; and the writer evidently knew this, and took +for granted that his readers knew it too, though it seems to have +been peculiar to that country. + +[Footnote 40: Joel 2. 31.] + +[Footnote 41: Exod. 7. 19.] + +(ii.) Frogs are most troublesome in September. + +(iii.) Lice, perhaps mosquitoes or gnats, and + +(iv.) Flies, are usually worst in October. + +(v.) Murrain among the cattle, and + +(vi.) Boils cannot be identified for certain, but their coming on +just after the preceding plagues is most natural, considering what +we now know, as to the important part taken by mosquitoes and flies +in spreading disease. + +(vii.) The hail must have occurred about the end of January, as the +barley was then in the ear, but the wheat not grown up; and severe +hailstorms have been known in Egypt at that time. + +(viii.) Locusts are known to have visited Egypt terribly in March, +which seems the time intended, as the leaves were then young. + +(ix.) The darkness _which might be felt_ was probably due to the +desert wind, which blows at intervals after the end of March, and +sometimes brings with it such clouds of sand as to darken the +atmosphere.[42] And curiously enough it often moves in a narrow +belt, so that the land may be dark in one place, and light in +another close by, as recorded in the narrative. + +[Footnote 42: I have noticed the same in the Transvaal, in +particular a sandstorm at Christiana, on 20th October, 1900, which +so darkened the sky that for about a quarter of an hour I had to +light a candle.] + +(x.) The death of the _firstborn_, which occurred in April (Abib), +was evidently not a natural calamity. But what is specially +interesting is the statement _against all the gods of Egypt I will +execute judgments_, without any explanation being given of what is +meant by this.[43] It refers to the Egyptian custom of worshipping +_living_ animals, the firstborn of which were also to die; but this +would only be familiar to a writer in Egypt, since, as far as we +know, such worship was never practised in Canaan. The agreement all +through is most remarkable, and strongly in favour of a contemporary +date. + +[Footnote 43: Exod. 12. 12; Num. 33. 4.] + +(3.) _In the laws and addresses._ + +And the same familiarity with Egypt is shown in the subsequent laws +and addresses of the Pentateuch. Thus we read of laws being written +on the doorposts and gates of houses, and on great stones covered +with plaster, both of which were undoubtedly Egyptian customs; and +the latter was not, as far as we know, common elsewhere.[44] +Similarly the Egyptian habit of writing persons' names on sticks, +was evidently familiar to the writer.[45] And so was the curious +custom of placing food _for the dead_,[46] which was common in +Egypt, though it never prevailed among the Israelites. + +[Footnote 44: Deut. 6. 9; 11. 20; 27. 2.] + +[Footnote 45: Num. 17. 2.] + +[Footnote 46: Deut. 26. 14.] + +Again the ordinary _food_ of the people in Egypt is given as fish, +cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic, all of which were +commonly eaten there.[47] But as the Hebrew names of four out of the +five vegetables do not occur elsewhere in the Bible, they could +scarcely have been very common in Canaan; while none of the +characteristic productions of that land, such as honey, milk, +butter, figs, raisins, almonds, and olives, are mentioned. The list +is, as it ought to be, thoroughly Egyptian. + +[Footnote 47: Num. 11. 5.] + +It must next be noticed that a large part of the _religious worship_ +prescribed in the Pentateuch was obviously borrowed from Egypt; the +most striking instance being that of the _ark_. A sacred ark is seen +on Egyptian monuments long before the Exodus, and is sometimes +surmounted by winged figures resembling the cherubim.[48] And the +_materials_ said to have been used for this worship are precisely +such as the Israelites might have then employed. The ark, for +instance, and also the tabernacle were not made of cedar, or of fir, +or of olive, as would probably have been the case in Canaan (for +these were the materials used in the Temple)[49] but of shittim, +_i.e._, acacia which is very common near Sinai, though scarcely ever +used in Canaan. And the other materials were goats' hair, rams' +skins, sealskins (or porpoise skins) from the Red Sea, and gold, +silver, brass, precious stones, and _fine linen_ from the Egyptian +spoils; the latter, as before said, being an Egyptian word.[50] +There is no mistake anywhere, such as a late writer might have made. + +[Footnote 48: Comp. Exod. 25. 13-18.] + +[Footnote 49: 1 Kings 6. 14-36.] + +[Footnote 50: Exod. 25. 3-10.] + +Moreover, in other places, the writer of the Pentateuch frequently +assumes that his readers know Egypt as well as himself. Thus the +people are twice reminded of the _diseases_ they had in Egypt--'_the +evil diseases of Egypt which thou knowest_' or '_which thou wast +afraid of_'--and they are warned that if they deserve it, God will +punish them with the same diseases again.[51] But such a warning +would have been quite useless many centuries later in Canaan; just +as it would be useless to warn an Englishman now of the diseases of +Normandy, _which thou wast afraid of_, if this referred to some +diseases our ancestors had before they left Normandy in the eleventh +century. Such words must clearly have been written soon afterwards. +Similarly the people are urged to be kind to strangers, and to love +them as themselves, because _they knew the heart of a stranger_, +having been strangers in the land of Egypt. And this again could +scarcely have been written centuries after they left Egypt.[52] + +[Footnote 51: Deut. 7. 15; 28. 60.] + +[Footnote 52: Exod. 23. 9; Lev. 19. 34.] + +Elsewhere the writer describes the climate and productions of +Canaan; and with a view to their being better understood, he +contrasts them with those of _Egypt_.[53] Obviously, then, the +people are once more supposed to know Egypt, and not to know Canaan. +For instance, Canaan is described as a country of hills and +valleys, and consequently of running brooks; and not like Egypt +where they had to water the land with their _feet_. But no +explanation is given of this. It probably refers to the +_water-wheels_, which were necessary for raising water in a flat +country like Egypt, and which were worked by men's _feet_. But can +we imagine a late writer in Canaan using such a phrase without +explaining it? On the other hand, if the words were spoken by Moses, +all is clear; no explanation was given, because (for persons who had +just left Egypt) none was needed. + +[Footnote 53: Deut. 8. 7-10; 11. 10-12.] + +On the whole, then, it is plain that when Egyptian matters are +referred to in the Pentateuch, we find the most thorough familiarity +with native customs, seasons, etc., though these are often quite +different from those of Canaan. And we therefore seem forced to +conclude that the writer was a contemporary who lived in Egypt, and +knew the country intimately, and as we have shown, he evidently +wrote for persons who had only recently come from there. + + +(_B._) ITS LAWS. + +We pass on now to the Laws of the Pentateuch, which are found in the +middle of Exodus, and occupy the greater part of the remaining +books. And as we shall see, they also (quite apart from their +references to Egypt) bear strong marks of a contemporary origin. + +(1.) _The subjects dealt with._ + +In the first place several of the laws refer exclusively to the time +when the Israelites lived _in the desert_, and would have been of no +use whatever after they settled in Canaan. Among these are the laws +regarding the _camp_ and _order of march_.[54] Full particulars are +given as to the exact position of every tribe, and how the Levites +were to carry the Tabernacle. And what could have been the object of +inventing such laws in later times, when, as far as we know, the +people never encamped or marched in this manner? + +[Footnote 54: Num. 1. 47--4. 49.] + +Then there is the extraordinary law as to the _slaughter of +animals_. It is stated in Leviticus that every ox, lamb, or goat, +intended for food, was to be first brought to the Tabernacle, as a +kind of offering, and there killed. But plainly this could only have +been done, when the people were in the desert, living round the +Tabernacle. So when the law is again referred to in Deuteronomy, +just before they entered Canaan, it is modified by saying that those +living at a distance might kill their animals at home.[55] + +[Footnote 55: Lev. 17. 3; Deut. 12. 21.] + +Moreover, some of the other laws, though applicable to Canaan, are +of such a character as to be strongly in favour of an early date. +Take, for instance, the remarkable law about _land_, that every +person who bought an estate was to restore it to its original owner +in the year of Jubilee, the price decreasing according to the +nearness of this year.[56] How could anyone in later times have made +such a law, and yet assert that it had been issued by Moses +centuries before, though no one had ever heard of it? + +[Footnote 56: Lev. 25. 13.] + +Or take the law about the Levites.[57] They, it will be remembered, +had no separate territory like the other tribes, but were given some +special cities. And it is scarcely likely that such a curious +arrangement could have been made at any time except that of the +conquest of Canaan; still less that it could have been made +centuries afterwards, and yet ascribed to Moses, without everyone at +once declaring it to be spurious. + +[Footnote 57: Num. 35. 1-8.] + +(2.) _Their connection with the history._ + +It must next be noticed that the laws are not arranged in any +regular order, but are closely connected with the history; many of +them being _dated_, both as to time and place. For instance, 'The +Lord spake unto Moses in the Wilderness of Sinai, in the first month +of the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt, +saying,' etc.[58] And several others are associated with the events +which led to their being made; and these are often of such a trivial +nature, that it is hard to imagine their being invented.[59] Thus +the Pentateuch shows, not a complete code of laws, but one that was +formed _gradually_, and in close connection with the history. + +[Footnote 58: Num. 9. 1; 1. 1; Deut. 1. 3; see also Lev. 7. 38; 16. +1; 25. 1; 26. 46; 27. 34; Num. 1. 1; 3. 14; 33. 50; 35. 1; Deut. 4. +46; 29. 1.] + +[Footnote 59: Lev. 24. 15; Num. 9. 10; 15. 35; 27. 8; 36. 8.] + +And this is confirmed by the fact that in some cases the same laws +are referred to both in Leviticus, (near the beginning) and in +Deuteronomy (at the end) of the forty years in the Desert, but with +slight differences between them. And these _exactly correspond_ to +such a difference in date. One instance, that referring to the +_slaughter of animals_, has been already alluded to. Another has to +do with the animals, which might, and might not, be _eaten_. +Leviticus includes among the former, several kinds of locusts, and +among the latter the mouse, weasel, and lizard; all of which +Deuteronomy omits. + +Clearly then, when Leviticus was written, the people were in the +desert, and there was a lack of animal food, which might tempt them +to eat locusts or mice; but when Deuteronomy was written, animal +food was plentiful, and laws as to these were quite unnecessary. + +In each of these cases, then, and there are others like them, the +differences must be due either to the various laws dating from the +times they profess to, when all is plain and consistent; or else to +the carefully planned work of some late writer, who was trying in +this way to pretend that they did. + +Still more important is the fact that in several places stress is +laid on the people's _personal knowledge_ of the events referred to; +_e.g._, 'The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with +us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.'[60] And what is +more, this personal knowledge is often appealed to as a special +reason for obeying the laws.[61] For instance, 'I speak not with +your children which have not known, and which have not seen the +chastisement of the Lord, ... but your eyes have seen all the great +work of the Lord which He did. _Therefore_ shall ye keep all the +commandments,' etc. Plainly this would have had no force in later +times; indeed it would have provided an excuse for _not_ obeying the +laws, since the people of those days had no personal knowledge of +the events referred to. And we may ask, is it likely that a late +author, who falsely ascribed his laws to Moses, in order to get them +obeyed, should yet put into the mouth of Moses himself an excuse for +not obeying them? + +[Footnote 60: Deut. 5. 3; 24. 9, 18, 22; 25. 17.] + +[Footnote 61: Deut. 11. 2-8; 4. 3-15; 29. 2-9.] + +Moreover, combined with this assumed personal knowledge on the part +of the people there is a clear indication of _personal authority_ on +the part of the writer. The later prophets always speak in God's +name, and such expressions as _Thus saith the Lord, Hear ye the word +of the Lord_, are extremely common, occurring altogether over 800 +times. But in the laws of the Pentateuch nothing of the kind is +found. They are delivered by Moses in his own name, often with the +simple words, _I command thee_, which occur thirty times in +Deuteronomy. And, of course, if the laws are genuine, there is +nothing surprising in this, as Moses had been the great leader of +the people, for forty years; but a late author would scarcely have +adopted a style so different from that of all the other prophets. + +(3.) _Their wording._ + +Lastly we must consider the _wording_ of the laws; and this also is +strongly in favour of a contemporary origin. Thus, as many as +sixteen of them, which have special reference to Canaan, begin with +some such phrase as _when ye be come into the land of Canaan_,[62] +which plainly supposes that the people were not there already. And +the same may be said of numerous other laws, which the people are +told to obey when they enter into Canaan; or are even urged to obey +in order that they may enter in, both of which again, imply that +they were not there already.[63] While several of the laws refer to +the _camp_, and sometimes to _tents_, in such a way as to show that +when they were written, the people were still living in a camp.[64] + +[Footnote 62: Exod. 12. 25; 13. 11; Lev. 14. 34; 19. 23; 23. 10; 25. +2; Num. 15. 2, 18; 35. 10; Deut. 7. 1; 12. 1, 10, 29; 17. 14; 18. 9; +26. 1.] + +[Footnote 63: _E.g._, Deut. 4. 1, 5, 14; 5. 31; 6. 1, 18; 8. 1.] + +[Footnote 64: _E.g._, Exod. 29. 14; Lev. 4. 12; 6. 11; 13. 46; 14. +3; 16. 26; 17. 3; Num. 5. 2; 19. 3, 14.] + +The wording, then, of all these laws bears unmistakable signs of +contemporary origin. Of course, these signs may have been inserted +in later laws to give them an air of genuineness, but they cannot be +explained in any other way. Therefore the laws must be either of +_contemporary date_, or else _deliberate frauds_. No innocent +mistake in ascribing old laws to Moses, can possibly explain such +language as this; either it was the natural result of the laws being +genuine, or else it was adopted on purpose to mislead. + +Nor can the difficulty be got over by introducing a number of +compilers and editors. For each individual law, if it falsely +_claims_ to date from before the conquest of Canaan (and, as we have +seen, numbers and numbers of laws do so claim, _When ye be come into +the land of Canaan_, etc.), must have been made by _someone_. And +this someone, though he really wrote it after the conquest of +Canaan, must have inserted these words to make it appear that it was +written before. + +Practically, then, as just said, there are but two +alternatives--that of genuine laws written in the time of Moses, and +that of deliberate frauds. And bearing this in mind, we must ask, +is it likely that men with such a passion for truth and +righteousness as the Jewish prophets--men who themselves so +denounced lying and deception in every form[65]--should have spent +their time in composing such forgeries? Could they, moreover, have +done it so _skillfully_, as the laws contain the strongest marks of +genuineness; and could they have done it so _successfully_ as never +to have been detected at the time? This is the great _moral_ +difficulty in assigning these laws to a later age, and to many it +seems insuperable. + +[Footnote 65: Jer. 8. 8; 14. 14; Ezek. 13. 7.] + +We have thus two _very strong_ arguments in favour of an early date +for the Pentateuch: one derived from its _Egyptian references_, the +other from its _Laws_. The former shows that no Israelite in later +times could have written the book; and the latter that he would not +have done so, if he could. + + +(_C._) THE THEORY OF A LATE DATE. + +We pass on now to the opposite theory, or that of a _late date_. +According to this the Pentateuch, though no doubt containing older +traditions, and fragments of older documents, was not written till +many centuries after the death of Moses. And the four chief +arguments in its favour are based on the _language_ of the +Pentateuch, its _composite character_, its laws being _unknown_ in +later times, and the _finding of Deuteronomy_ in the reign of +Josiah. We will examine each in turn. + +(1.) _The language of the Pentateuch._ + +Now in general character the language of the Pentateuch undoubtedly +resembles that of some of the prophets, such as Jeremiah; so it is +assumed that it must date from about the same time. But +unfortunately critics who maintain this view do not admit that we +have _any_ Hebrew documents of a much earlier date, with which to +compare it. Therefore we have no means of knowing how much the +language altered, so this of itself proves little. + +But it is further said that we have three actual _signs of late +date_. The first is that the word for _west_ in the Pentateuch +really means _the sea_, (_i.e._, the Mediterranean) and hence, it is +urged, the writer's standpoint must have been that of Canaan, and +the books must have been written after the settlement in that +country. But, very possibly the word was in use before the time of +Abraham, when the sea actually was to the west. And in later years a +Hebrew, writing in Egypt or anywhere else, would naturally use the +word, without thinking that it was inappropriate to that particular +place. The second expression is _beyond Jordan_, which is often used +to denote the _eastern_ bank; so here again, it is urged, the +writer's standpoint must have been that of Canaan. But this is also +untenable. For the same term is also used for the _western_ bank in +several places,[66] and sometimes for both banks in the same +chapter.[67] The third is Joseph's speaking of Canaan as the _land +of the Hebrews_, long before they settled there, which is difficult +to explain on any theory, but rather in favour of a late date.[68] + +[Footnote 66: _E.g._, Deut. 11. 30; Josh. 12. 7.] + +[Footnote 67: _E.g._, eastern in Deut. 3. 8; Josh. 9. 10; and +western in Deut. 3. 20, 25; Josh. 9. 1.] + +[Footnote 68: Gen. 40. 15.] + +On the other hand, the language contains several _signs of early +date_, though most of these can only be understood by a Hebrew +scholar, which the present writer does not profess to be. But a +couple of examples may be given which are plain to the ordinary +reader. Thus the pronoun for _he_ is used in the Pentateuch both for +male and female; while in the later writings it is confined to +males, the females being expressed by a derived form which is very +seldom used in the Pentateuch. Similarly, the word for _youth_ is +used in the Pentateuch for both sexes, though afterwards restricted +to males, the female being again expressed by a derived form. These +differences, though small, are very significant, and they clearly +show that the language was at a less developed, and therefore +earlier, stage in the Pentateuch than in the rest of the Old +Testament. + +(2.) _Its composite character._ + +The next argument is that the Pentateuch seems to have had _several +authors_; since the same words, or groups of words, occur in +different passages all through the book. And this, combined with +slight variations of style, and other peculiarities, have led some +critics to split up the book into a number of different writings, +which they assign to a number of unknown writers from the ninth +century B.C. onwards. For instance, to take a passage where only +three writers are supposed to be involved, Exod. 7. 14-25. These +twelve verses seem to the ordinary reader a straightforward +narrative, but they have been thus split up.[69] Verses 19, 22, and +parts of 20, 21, are assigned to P, the supposed writer of the +Priestly Code of Laws; v. 24 and parts of 17, 20, 21, to E; and the +remainder to J; the two latter writers being thus named from their +generally speaking of the Deity as _Elohim_ and _Jehovah_ +(translated _God_, and _Lord_) respectively. + +[Footnote 69: Driver's Introduction to Literature of Old Testament, +sixth edition, 1897, p. 24. A slightly different division is given +in his Exodus, 1911, p. 59.] + +Fortunately, we need not discuss the minute and complicated +arguments on which all this rests, for the idea of any writings +being so hopelessly mixed together is most improbable. While it has +been shown in recent years to be very doubtful whether these names, +_Elohim_ and _Jehovah_, occurred in the original Hebrew, in the same +places as they do now.[70] And if they did _not_, the theory loses +one of its chief supports. + +[Footnote 70: The Name of God in The Pentateuch by Troelstra; +translated by McClure, 1912] + +And in any case there are at least four plain and simple arguments +against it. The first is that the _Egyptian references_, to which we +have already alluded extend to all the parts J, E, and P; as well as +to Deuteronomy, which these critics assign to yet another author D. +They are thus like an Egyptian _water-mark_ running all through the +Pentateuch. And while it is difficult enough to believe that even +one writer in Canaan should have possessed this intimate knowledge +of Egypt, it is far more difficult to believe that _four_ should +have done so. + +The second is that all the writers must have been equally +_dishonest_, for they all contain passages, which they assert were +written by Moses (see further on). And here again it is hard to +believe, that even one writer (leave alone four) should have been +so utterly unscrupulous. + +The third is that the curious custom of God speaking of Himself in +the _plural_ number, which would be strange in any case, and is +especially so considering the strong Monotheism of the Jews, is also +common to both J and P.[71] And so is the puzzling statement that it +was God Himself Who hardened Pharaoh's heart, which is also found in +E.[72] + +[Footnote 71: Gen. 1. 26 (P): 3. 22 (J).] + +[Footnote 72: Exod. 4. 21 (E): 7. 3 (P.): 10. 1 (J).] + + +The fourth is that parallel passages to the supposed two narratives +of the Flood, ascribed to J and P (and which are thought to occur +alternately _nineteen_ times in Gen. 7. 8.) have been found +_together_ in an old Babylonian story of the Flood, centuries before +the time of Moses; and also in layers corresponding to J and P.[73] +And this alone seems fatal to the idea that J and P were originally +separate narratives that were afterward combined in our Genesis. + +[Footnote 73: Sayce's Monument Facts, 1904, p. 20; Driver's Book of +Genesis, 1905, pp. 89-95, 107.] + +Of course those who maintain that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, quite +admit that he made use of previous documents, one of which, the book +of the _Wars of the Lord_, he actually quotes.[74] Nor is it denied +that some _additions_ have been made since his time, the most +important being the list of kings, who are said to have reigned in +Edom _before there reigned any king over the children of +Israel_.[75] And this brings the passage down to the time of Saul at +least who was Israel's first king. But it is probably a later +insertion, since these kings are referred to in a different way from +the dukes, who precede and follow them. And the same may be said of +a few other passages[76] such as that _the Canaanite was then in the +land_, which must clearly have been written after the Israelites +conquered the country. But they can all be omitted without breaking +the continuity of the narrative. + +[Footnote 74: Num. 21. 14.] + +[Footnote 75: Gen. 36. 31-39.] + +[Footnote 76: Gen. 12. 6; 13. 7; Exod. 16. 36; Deut. 2. 10-12, +20-23; 3. 14.] + +(3.) _Its laws being unknown in later times._ + +Passing on now to the third argument for a late date, it is urged +that the laws of the Pentateuch cannot really have been written by +Moses, since, judging from the other Old Testament Books, they seem +to have been _unknown_ for many centuries after his time. But this +is scarcely correct, for even the earliest books, Joshua and Judges +contain some references to a _written_ law of Moses;[77] while both +in Judges and 1 Samuel there are numerous agreements between what is +described there, and what is commanded in the Pentateuch.[78] And +similar evidence is afforded by the later books, David, for +instance, alluding to the _written_ law of Moses, as if it was well +known.[79] So in regard to the prophets. Two of the earliest of +these are Hosea and Amos; and they both contain frequent points of +agreement;[80] as well as one reference to a large number of +_written_ laws.[81] + +[Footnote 77: Joshua 1. 7, 8; 8. 31, 32; 23. 6; 24, 26. Judges 3. +4.] + +[Footnote 78: Judges 20. 27, 28; 21. 19; 1 Sam. 2. 12-30; 3. 3; 4. +4; 6. 15; 14. 3.] + +[Footnote 79: 1 Kings 2. 3. 2 Kings 14. 6.] + +[Footnote 80: Hos. 4. 4-6; 8. 1, 13; 9. 4; 12. 9; Amos 2. 4, 11; 4. +4, 5; 5. 21-25; 8. 5.] + +[Footnote 81: Hos. 8. 12 (R.V.).] + +On the other side, we have the statement in Jeremiah, that God did +not command the Israelites concerning burnt-offerings, and +sacrifices, when He brought them out of Egypt.[82] But the next +verse certainly implies that it was placing these before obedience +that God condemned. And Hosea in a similar passage declares this to +be the case, and that God's not desiring sacrifice means His not +caring so much about it, as about other things.[83] It is also urged +that there were practices which are _inconsistent_ with these laws; +the most important being that the sacrifices were not limited to one +place, or the offerers to priests. As to the former, the principle +of the law was that the place of sacrifice should be of Divine +appointment, _where God had chosen to record His name_, (_i.e._, +where the _ark_ was), and not selected by the worshippers +themselves.[84] In Exodus it is naturally implied that there should +be many such places, as the Israelites were then only beginning +their wanderings; and in Deuteronomy that there should be only one, +as they were then about to enter Canaan. + +[Footnote 82: Jer. 7. 22.] + +[Footnote 83: Hosea 6. 6; 1 Sam. 15. 22.] + +[Footnote 84: Exod. 20. 24; Deut. 12. 5.] + +But for many years, owing to the unsettled state of the country, and +the ark having been captured by the Philistines, the law could not +be obeyed. When however, the people had rest from their enemies +(which was the condition laid down in Deuteronomy) and the temple +was built at Jerusalem, the law was fully recognised. After this the +worship at _high places_ is spoken of as a _sin_, while Hezekiah is +commended for destroying these places, and for keeping the +commandments _which the Lord commanded Moses_.[85] + +[Footnote 85: 1 Kings 3. 2; 22. 43; 2 Kings 18. 4-6.] + +The discovery, however in 1907, that there was a Jewish Temple of +Jehovah at Elephantine, near Assouan in Egypt, with sacrifices, as +early as the sixth century B.C., and that it had apparently the +approval of the authorities at Jerusalem, makes it doubtful if the +law as to the one sanctuary was ever thought to be absolutely +binding. + +As to the other point--the sacrifices not being offered only by +_priests_--there is an apparent discrepancy in the Pentateuch +itself; since Deuteronomy (unlike the other books) seems in one +passage to recognise that _Levites_ might perform priestly +duties.[86] Various explanations have been given of this, though I +do not know of one that is quite satisfactory. There are also a few +cases, where men who were neither priests, nor Levites, such as +Gideon, David, and Elijah, are said to have offered sacrifices.[87] +But these were all under special circumstances, and in some of them +the sacrifice was directly ordered by God. There is thus nothing +like sufficient evidence to show that the laws of the Pentateuch +were not known in later days, but merely that they were often not +obeyed. + +[Footnote 86: Deut. 18. 6-8.] + +[Footnote 87: _E.g._, Judges 6. 26; 2 Sam. 24. 18; 1 Kings 18. 32.] + +(4.) _The finding of Deuteronomy._ + +Lastly we have the finding of the _Book of the Law_ (probably +Deuteronomy) when the temple was being repaired in the reign of +Josiah, about 621 B.C., which is regarded by some critics as its +first publication.[88] But this is a needless assumption, for there +is no hint that either the king or the people were surprised at +such a book being found, but merely at what it contained. And as +they proceeded at once to carry out its directions, it rather shows +that they knew there was such a book all the time, only they had +never before read it. And this is easily accounted for, as most +copies would have been destroyed by the previous wicked kings.[89] +On the other hand, an altogether new book is not likely to have +gained such immediate and ready obedience; not to mention the great +improbability of such an audacious fraud never being detected at the +time. + +[Footnote 88: 2 Kings 22.] + +[Footnote 89: 2 Kings 21. 2, 21.] + +Nor is it easy to see why, if Deuteronomy was written at a late +date, it should have contained so many obsolete and useless +instructions; such as the order to destroy the Canaanites, when +there were scarcely any Canaanites left to destroy.[90] Yet the +people are not only told to destroy them, but to do it _gradually_, +so that the wild beasts may not become too numerous;[91] which shows +that the passage was written centuries before the time of Josiah, +when there was no more danger from wild beasts than from Canaanites. +Nor is it likely, if Deuteronomy was written at that time, when +Jerusalem claimed to be the central sanctuary, that the city itself +should never once be named in the book, or even alluded to. + +[Footnote 90: Deut. 7. 2; 20. 17.] + +[Footnote 91: Deut. 7. 22.] + +Moreover, discoveries in Egypt have shown that in early times +religious writings were sometimes buried in the foundations, or +lower walls of important temples; where they were found centuries +afterwards when the temples were being repaired; so the account, as +we have it in the Bible, is both natural and probable.[92] + +[Footnote 92: E. Naville, Discovery of the Book of the Law, 1911, +pp. 4-10.] + +On the whole, then, none of these arguments for a _late date_ are at +all conclusive, and we therefore decide that this theory is not only +very improbable in any case, but quite untenable in face of the +strong evidence on the other side. + + +(_D._) CONCLUSION. + +Having thus shown that the Pentateuch appears to date from the time +of Moses, it only remains to consider its authorship, and the +witness it bears to the miracles of the Exodus. + +Now that the greater part should have been written by Moses himself +is plainly the most probable view. And this is strongly confirmed by +the book itself; for a large part of it distinctly _claims_ to have +been written by Moses. It is not merely that this title is given in +a heading, or opening verse, which might easily have been added in +later times. But it is asserted, positively and repeatedly, all +through the book itself, both in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, +that many of the events, and laws referred to (often including +several chapters) were actually _written down_ by Moses.[93] This is +an important point, and it must be allowed great weight. + +[Footnote 93: Exod. 17. 14; 24. 4; 34. 27; Num. 33. 2; 36. 13; Deut. +31. 9, 22, 24. The first two passages in Exod. are assigned to the +supposed E, the third to J, those in Num. to P, and those in Deut. +to D.] + +And the first passage, that Moses was to write the threat against +Amalek _in a book_, is specially interesting; because we cannot +think that the book contained nothing but this single sentence. It +evidently means in _the_ book (see American R. V.), implying that a +regular journal was kept, in which important events were recorded. +And this is confirmed by another of the passages, which says that +Moses wrote down something that occurred _the same day_;[94] and by +another which gives a long and uninteresting list of journeys in the +Desert,[95] which certainly looks like an official record kept at +the time. While the concluding passage relates how Moses, when he +had finished writing the book, gave it to the Levites to keep beside +the ark, in order to preserve it, and anything more precise than +this can scarcely be imagined.[96] + +[Footnote 94: Deut. 31. 22; comp. Exod. 24. 4.] + +[Footnote 95: Num. 33.] + +[Footnote 96: Deut. 31. 24-26.] + +Moreover, the frequent references of Moses to his own exclusion from +Canaan, and his pathetic prayer on the subject, have a very genuine +tone about them.[97] And his bitter complaint that God had broken +His promise, and not delivered the people,[98] could scarcely have +been written by anyone but himself; especially after the conquest of +Canaan, when it was so obviously untrue. + +[Footnote 97: _E.g._, Deut. 3. 23-26; 1. 37; 4. 21; 31. 2.] + +[Footnote 98: Exod. 5. 23.] + +And his authorship is further confirmed by the fact that so little +is said in his praise. His faults are indeed narrated quite +candidly, but nothing is said in admiration of the great leader's +courage, and ability, till the closing chapter of Deuteronomy. This +was evidently written by someone else, and shows what we might have +expected had the earlier part been the work of anyone but Moses +himself. Nor is there anything surprising in his writing in the +third person, as numbers of other men--Cæsar, for instance--have +done the same. + +But now comes the important point. Fortunately it can be stated in a +few words. If the Pentateuch is a contemporary document, probably +written by Moses, can we reject the miracles which it records? Can +we imagine, for instance, a _contemporary_ writer describing the Ten +Plagues, or the Passage of the Red Sea, if nothing of the kind had +occurred? The events, if true, must have been well known at the +time; and if untrue, no contemporary would have thought of inventing +them. We therefore conclude, on reviewing the whole chapter, that +the _origin_ of the Jewish religion _was confirmed by miracles_. + + + + +CHAPTER X. + +THAT ITS HISTORY WAS CONFIRMED BY MIRACLES. + + (_A._) THE LATER OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. + + (1.) Undesigned agreements; the rebellion of Korah. + (2.) Alleged mistakes; unimportant. + (3.) Modern discoveries; these support their accuracy. + + (_B._) THE OLD TESTAMENT MIRACLES. + + (1.) Their credibility; this can scarcely be disputed, if + miracles at all are credible; the silence of the sun + and moon, two other difficulties. + (2.) Their truthfulness; list of eight public miracles, two + examples, Elijah's sacrifice on Mount Carmel, and + the destruction of the Assyrian army, considered in + detail; conclusion. + + +Having now examined the origin of the Jewish Religion, we have next +to consider its _history_; which also claims to have been confirmed +by miracles. So we will first notice (very briefly) the Old +Testament _Books_, from Joshua onwards; and then consider some of +the _Miracles_ which they record. + + +(_A._) THE LATER OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. + +Now, the arguments for, and against the genuineness of these Books +need not be discussed at length, since we have already decided in +favour of that of the Pentateuch, and most critics who admit the +one, admit the other. But a few remarks may be made on three +subjects, those of _undesigned agreements_, the importance of which +is not obvious at first sight; the _alleged mistakes_ in the Old +Testament; and the effect of _modern discoveries_. + +(1.) _Undesigned agreements._ + +Now, if we find two statements regarding an event, or series of +events, which, though not identical, are yet perfectly consistent, +this agreement must be either _accidental_ or _not accidental_. And +supposing it to be too minute in detail to be accidental it shows +that the statements are somehow connected together. Of course, if +the events are true, each writer may know them independently, and +their statements would thus be in perfect, though unintentional +agreement. But if the events are not true, then either one writer +must have made his account agree with the other, or else both must +have derived their information from a common source. In the former +case, there would be intentional agreement between the writers; in +the latter, between the various parts of the original account. In +any case, there would be designed agreement somewhere; for, to put +it shortly, the events, being imaginary, would not fit together of +necessity, nor by accident, which is excluded, and hence must do so +by design. + +This has been otherwise expressed by saying that truth is +necessarily consistent, but falsehood is not so; therefore, while +consistency in truth may be undesigned, consistency in falsehood can +only result from design. And from this it follows that an +_undesigned agreement_ between two statements--provided of course it +is too minute to be accidental--is a sure sign of truthfulness. It +shows, moreover, that both writers had independent knowledge of the +event, and were both telling the truth. And of course the same +argument applies if the two statements are made by the same writer, +though in this case there is a greater probability that the +agreement is not undesigned. + +We will now consider a single example in detail, and select that +referring to the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, as it is +connected with an important miracle. Korah, we are told,[99] +belonged to the family of Kohath and the other two to that of +Reuben; and from incidental notices _in another part of the book_, +we learn the position of the _tents_ of these men. The former was to +the south of the central Tabernacle, or Tent of Meeting, on an inner +line of tents, while the latter were also to the south, though on an +outer line of tents. + +[Footnote 99: Num. 16; 2. 10, 17; 3. 29.] + +This explains how, when Moses was talking to Korah, he had to _send +for_ Dathan and Abiram, and how next morning he left the central +Tabernacle, where the men had assembled to offer incense, (and where +they were afterwards destroyed, probably by lightning) and _went +unto_ Dathan and Abiram (vv. 8-25). It explains how, later on, the +_tents_ of Dathan and Abiram are twice mentioned, while that of the +leading conspirator, Korah, is strangely omitted. It explains how +the _families_ of these two were destroyed, though no mention is +made of that of Korah; since the destruction was probably limited to +the tents of Dathan and Abiram, who were brothers, and the small +tabernacle they had erected alongside, and from which alone the +people were told to _depart_ (vv. 26, 27). We may therefore +conclude that Korah's _family_ was not destroyed, since their tent +was at some distance. And this accounts for what some have thought +to be a discrepancy in another passage, where we read that the +_sons_ of Korah did not die; as well as for Dathan and Abiram, being +mentioned alone later on.[100] In fact, the position of these tents +is the key to the whole narrative, though we are left to discover it +for ourselves. + +[Footnote 100: Num. 26. 11; Deut. 11. 6.] + +Now if the account is true and written by a contemporary, all is +plain; for truth, as said before, is necessarily consistent. But if +the story is a late fiction, all this agreement in various places +is, to say the least, very remarkable. Can we imagine a writer of +fiction _accidentally_ arranging these details in different parts of +his book, which fit together so perfectly? Or can we imagine his +doing so _intentionally_, and yet never hinting at the agreement +himself, but leaving it so unapparent that not one reader in a +thousand ever discovers it? This single instance may be taken as a +sample of numerous others which have been noticed all through the +Old Testament; and they certainly tend to show its accuracy. + +(2.) _Alleged mistakes._ + +We pass on now to the alleged mistakes in the Old Testament, and +considering the long period covered, and the variety of subjects +dealt with, and often the same subject by various writers, the +number of even apparent discrepancies is not very great. And it is +beyond dispute that many of these can be explained satisfactorily, +and doubtless many others could be so, if our knowledge were more +complete. Moreover, they are, as a rule, _numerical_ mistakes, such +as the incredibly large numbers in some places,[101] and the rather +discordant chronology in Kings and Chronicles. But the former may be +due to some error in copying, and the latter to the different ways +of counting a king's reign. + +[Footnote 101: Num. 26. 11; Deut. 11. 6.] + +The only mistake of any real importance refers to the large numbers +of the Israelites, who are said to have left Egypt,--some 600,000 +men, besides children, or probably over two million altogether. For +on two subsequent occasions, when the census of the tribes is given, +it totals up to about the same number.[102] This is no doubt a +serious difficulty; as anyone can see, who will take the trouble to +calculate the space they would require on the march, or in camp. If +we assume, for instance, that they crossed the arm of the Red Sea +in, say, _forty_ parallel columns, these would still have to be of +enormous length to contain 50,000 persons each, with their flocks +and herds. + +[Footnote 102: Exod. 12. 37. Num. 1. 26.] + +Perhaps the best explanation is that suggested by Professor +Flinders Petrie, that the word translated _thousands_ should be +_families_,[103] so that the tribe of Reuben, for instance,[104] +instead of having forty-six _thousand_ five hundred men, would have +forty-six _families_, (making about) five hundred men. The chief +arguments in favour of this are, first, that the same word is used +in Judges 6. 15, where it so obviously means family and not +thousand, that it is so translated in both the Authorised and +Revised Versions. + +[Footnote 103: Egypt and Israel, 1911, p. 43.] + +[Footnote 104: Num. 1. 21.] + +And secondly, it would account for the remarkable fact that though +there were twelve tribes, and they were each counted twice, yet the +number of the hundreds is never 0, 1, 8 or 9; but always one of the +other six digits. It is extremely unlikely (practically +incredible)[105] that this would occur in an ordinary census, but +the proposed theory explains it at once. For the hundreds could +scarcely be 0, or 1, as this would mean too few men in a family; or +8 or 9, which would mean too many; while the other digits always +work out to what (allowing for servants) is a reasonable proportion, +from 5 to 17. On this theory the number of men would be reduced to +5,600, which is much more intelligible. But some other passages +scarcely seem capable of this interpretation, so it must be admitted +that the number forms a difficulty, whatever view we adopt. + +[Footnote 105: The chance of its occurring would be only (6/10)^24 +or less than 1 in 200,000.] + +(3.) _Modern discoveries._ + +Lastly, as to the effect of modern discoveries on the accuracy of +the Old Testament. In the case of the Pentateuch, as we have seen, +there is very little _direct_ evidence either way; but it is +different in regard to some of the later books. + +In the first place, and this is very important, modern discoveries +have shown that the period of Jewish history from the time of Moses +onwards was distinctly _a literary age_. In Egypt, Babylonia, Syria, +and elsewhere, it was the custom, and had been for centuries, to +record all important events, at least all those that were creditable +to the people concerned; so it is almost certain that the Jews, like +the surrounding nations, had their historians. In every age +conquerors have loved to record their conquests, and why should the +Jews alone have been an exception? + +Yet the historical books of the Old Testament have no competitors. +If, then, we deny that these are in the main a contemporary record, +we must either assume that the Jews, unlike the surrounding nations, +had no contemporary historians, which is most unlikely; as well as +being contrary to the Books themselves, where the _recorders_ are +frequently mentioned, even by name.[106] Or else we must assume that +their works were replaced in later days by other and less reliable +accounts, which were universally mistaken for the originals, and +this seems equally improbable. + +[Footnote 106: _E.g._, 2 Sam. 8. 16; 2 Kings 18. 18; 2 Chron. 34. +8.] + +Passing on now to the evidence in detail, it may be divided into two +classes, geographical and historical. In the first place the +_geography_ of Palestine has been shown to be minutely accurate. But +this does not prove the Old Testament Books to be genuine, but +merely that they were written by Jews who knew the country +intimately. It helps, however, in some cases to remove apparent +difficulties. Thus the discoveries at Jericho, in 1908, have shown +that the place was merely a small fortified hill, the length of the +surrounding wall being about half a mile, so there was no difficulty +in the Israelites walking round it seven times in the day.[107] And +much the same may be said of the _historical_ notices. The +monumental records of the Kings of Judah and Israel have not at +present been discovered, but we can often check the history by the +records of other countries. And these are as a rule in perfect +agreement, not only as to the actual facts, but as to the society, +customs, and state of civilisation, of the period. Indeed, in some +cases where this was formerly disputed, as in the importance +assigned to the _Hittites_, it has been fully justified by modern +discoveries.[108] But this again does not prove the genuineness of +the Books, though it certainly raises a probability in their favour. + +[Footnote 107: Josh. 6. 15.] + +[Footnote 108: 1 Kings 10. 29; 2 Kings 7. 6.] + +Sometimes, however, the evidence is stronger than this, one of the +best known instances being Daniel's mention of _Belshazzar_.[109] He +states that the last king of Babylon was Nebuchadnezzar's son, or +grandson (margin, A.V.) called Belshazzar, who was slain at night +when the city was captured (about B.C. 538). But according to +Berosus, who wrote about the third century B.C., all this appears to +be wrong. The last king of Babylon was a usurper called Nabonidus, +and any such person as Belshazzar is quite unknown. And so matters +remained till some cuneiform inscriptions were discovered at Mugheir +in 1854. + +[Footnote 109: Dan. 5. 1.] + +From these it appears that Belshazzar was the eldest son of +Nabonidus, and was apparently associated with him in the government. +And an inscription recently found at Erech shows that this was the +case for several years.[110] There is no proof that he ever had the +title of _King_, unless he is the same as one _Mardukshazzar_, +about this time (not otherwise identified), which is not unlikely, +as we know Marduk was sometimes called _Bel_--_i.e._, Baal, or Lord. +And another inscription, somewhat mutilated, seems to show that he +was slain at Babylon in a night assault on the city (or some portion +of it) as described by Daniel, some months after Nabonidus had been +taken prisoner.[111] As to his relationship with Nebuchadnezzar +perhaps his mother (or grandmother) was a royal princess. And there +certainly seems to have been some connection between the families, +as we know from the inscriptions that he had a brother called +Nebuchadnezzar. + +[Footnote 110: Expository Times, April, 1915. Comp. Dan. 8. 1.] + +[Footnote 111: Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxxviii., +1906, p. 28; vol. xlvi., 1914, p. 14.] + +Now, of course, if Daniel himself wrote the book, he would have +known all about Belshazzar, however soon afterwards it was +forgotten. But, if the book is a late fiction, written by a Jew in +Palestine about B.C. 160, which is the rationalistic theory, as the +wars between Egypt and Syria up to that date are clearly foretold, +how did he know the name of Belshazzar at all, or anything about +him, when such a person was unknown to previous historians? Plainly +then, this is a distinct argument in favour of the contemporary date +of the book.[112] + +[Footnote 112: It is worth noting that this rationalistic theory, +which was generally accepted by the so-called Higher Critics, has +now become so difficult to maintain in the face of archæology that +Dr. Pinches, Lecturer in Assyriology at University College, London, +said recently 'I am glad to think with regard to the Book of Daniel +that the Higher Criticism is in fact buried.' Transactions of +Victoria Institute, vol. xlix., 1917, p. 135.] + +And much the same may be said of Isaiah's mention of _Sargon_ of +Assyria, who is stated to have taken Ashdod. Yet the very existence +of such a king was unknown to secular history, till the last +century; when his palace was discovered at Khorsabad, with +inscriptions recording, among other things, his capture of +Ashdod.[113] + +[Footnote 113: Isa. 20. 1. Orr's Problem of Old Test., 1906, p. +399.] + +Two other cases are of special interest, because the monuments +seemed at first to show that the Bible was wrong. One of these +refers to a so-called _Pul_, King of Assyria;[114] but when the list +of Assyrian monarchs was discovered, no such king could be found. It +looked like a serious discrepancy, and was even spoken of as 'almost +the only important historical difficulty' between the Bible and the +monuments.[115] But it has now been discovered that _Pulu_ was the +original name of a usurper, who changed it to Tiglath Pileser III. +on ascending the throne; though he was still sometimes called +Pulu.[116] This not only removes the difficulty, but tends to show +the early date of the narrative; for a late writer would probably +have called him by his better-known name. + +[Footnote 114: 2 Kings 15. 19.] + +[Footnote 115: Rawlinson, Historical Illustrations of the Old +Testament, 1871, p. 121.] + +[Footnote 116: Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, vol. iv., p. 761.] + +The other instance refers to _Jehu_, who is stated in the Assyrian +inscriptions to be the son of Omri; though according to the Bible he +was no relation whatever. But it has now been shown that the words +translated _son of Omri_ may only mean _of the land or house of +Omri_, which is a common Assyrian name for the kingdom of +Israel.[117] + +[Footnote 117: Driver, Schweich Lecture, 1908, p. 17.] + +As a last example we will take the _dates_ given for the Fall of the +two capital cities, Samaria and Jerusalem. These were calculated +long ago (margin, A.V.) from a number of statements in the Bible, +giving the lengths of different reigns, etc., at B.C. 721 and 588 +respectively.[118] And now the inscriptions from Assyria and +Babylonia fix the former at _B.C._ 722 and the latter at 586.[119] +Everyone must admit that these are remarkable agreements, +considering the way in which they have had to be calculated. + +[Footnote 118: 2 Kings 17. 6; 25. 3.] + +[Footnote 119: Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, vol. i., p. 401.] + +We have now briefly considered the Books of the Old Testament, both +as to their _undesigned agreements_, which are very interesting; +their _alleged mistakes_, which are unimportant; and the effect of +_modern discoveries_, which has undoubtedly been to support their +accuracy. What, then, is the value of the evidence they afford as to +the history of the Jewish Religion having been confirmed by +miracles? + + +(_B._) THE OLD TESTAMENT MIRACLES. + +We will include under this term superhuman coincidences as well as +miracles in the strict sense; and they occur all through the +historical books of the Old Testament. A few of them have been +already noticed in the last chapter, but we must now discuss them +more fully, first considering whether they are credible, and then +whether they are true. + +(1.) _Their credibility._ + +Now this can scarcely be disputed, _provided miracles at all are +credible_, which we have already admitted, since scientific +difficulties affect all miracles equally; and of course the +Superhuman Coincidences have no difficulties of this kind whatever. +Among these may be mentioned most of the Ten Plagues, the +destruction of Korah, the falling of the walls of Jericho, probably +due to an earthquake; the lightning which struck Elijah's sacrifice; +and many others. + +The _Passage of the Red Sea_, for instance, almost certainly belongs +to this class. The water, we are told, was driven back by a strong +east wind, lasting all night; and this was doubtless due to natural +forces, though, in common with other natural events (such as the +growth of grass[120]), it is in the Bible ascribed to God. And the +statement, _the waters were a wall unto them_, need not be pressed +literally, so as to mean that they stood upright. It may only mean +here, as it obviously does in some other cases, that the waters were +a defence on each side, and secured them from flank attacks.[121] +And as they must have advanced in several parallel columns, probably +half a mile wide, this certainly seems the more likely view. + +[Footnote 120: Ps. 147. 8-9.] + +[Footnote 121: Exod. 14. 21, 22; Nahum 3. 8; 1 Sam. 25. 16.] + +And what makes it still more probable is that much the same thing +occurred in this very neighbourhood in recent times. For in January, +1882, a large expanse of water, about 5 feet deep, near the Suez +Canal, was exposed to such a strong gale (also from the east) that +next morning it had been entirely driven away, and men were walking +about on the mud, where the day before the fishing-boats had been +floating.[122] Moreover, on this theory, the miracle would not lose +any of its evidential value. For the fact of such a strip of dry +land being formed just when and where the Israelites so much wanted +it, and then being suddenly covered again, through the wind changing +round to the west (which it must have done for the dead Egyptians to +have been cast up on the _east_ side)[123], would be a coincidence +far too improbable to be accidental. + +[Footnote 122: Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxviii., +1894, p. 268. It is vouched for by Major-General Tulloch, who was +there on duty at the time.] + +[Footnote 123: Exod. 14. 30.] + +Another well known miracle, which probably belongs to this class, is +the _'silence' (or standing still) of the sun and moon_.[124] This +is often thought to mean that the earth's rotation was stopped, so +that the sun and moon apparently stood still. But a miracle on so +vast a scale, was quite needless for the destruction of a few +Canaanites, and there is another, and far better explanation. + +[Footnote 124: Josh. 10. 12-14.] + +It is that the miracle, instead of being one of prolonged light, the +sun remaining visible after it should have set, was really one of +prolonged _darkness_. The sun, which had been hidden by thick +clouds, was just about to shine forth, when Joshua prayed to the +Lord that it might be _silent_, _i.e._, remain obscured behind the +clouds, which it did during the rest of the day. The Hebrew seems +capable of either meaning. For the important word translated _stand +still_ is literally _be silent_ (see margin), both in verses 12 +and 13; and while this would be most suitable to the sun's remaining +obscured by clouds during the day, it could scarcely be used of its +continuing to shine at night. + +On the other hand, the rest of the passage seems to favour the +ordinary view. But if we admit that this is what Joshua _prayed +for_, that the sun and moon should remain _silent_ or obscured, the +rest of the passage can only mean that this is what took place. And +it may be mentioned that, as early as the fourteenth century, a +Jewish writer Levi ben Gershon maintained that the words did not +mean that the sun and moon literally _stood still_, or in any way +altered their motion; though it is only fair to add that this was +not the general view.[125] + +[Footnote 125: Numerous quotations are given in 'A Misunderstood +Miracle,' by Rev. A. S. Palmer, 1887, pp. 103-107.] + +Moreover, even if the word did mean _stand still_, Joshua would only +be likely to have asked for the sun and moon to stand still, if they +were apparently _moving_. And they only move fast enough to be +apparent when they are just coming out from behind a dense bank of +clouds, due, of course, to the clouds really moving. And to _stand +still_ in such a case, would mean to stay behind the clouds, and +remain _obscured_, the same sense as before. And the words could +then have had an _immediate_ effect; visible at once to all the +people, which certainly seems implied in the narrative, and which +would not have been the case on the ordinary view. + +Assuming, then, that either meaning is possible, a prolonged +darkness is much the more probable for three reasons. To begin with, +the miracle must have occurred in the early _morning_, Gibeon, +where the sun was, being to the south _east_ of Beth-horon, the +scene of the incident. And it is most unlikely that Joshua, with the +enemy already defeated, and nearly all the day before him, should +have wished to have it prolonged. Secondly, just _before_ the +miracle there had been a very heavy thunderstorm, involving (as here +required) thick clouds and a dark sky; and this is stated to have +been the chief cause of the enemy's defeat. So Joshua is more likely +to have asked for a continuance of this storm, _i.e._, for prolonged +darkness, than for light. Thirdly, the moon is mentioned as well as +the sun, and, if Joshua wanted darkness, both would have to be +_silent_; but if he wanted light, the mention of the moon was quite +unnecessary. + +On the whole, then, the miracle seems to have been a superhuman +coincidence between a prayer of Joshua and an extraordinary and +unique thunderstorm, which caused the sun to remain _silent_ or +invisible all day. And if the Canaanites were sun-worshippers (as +many think probable), it was most suitable that at the time of their +great battle with the Israelites, the sun should have been obscured +the whole day, and it naturally led to their utter confusion. + +Before passing on, we may notice two objections of a more general +character, that are often made to the Jewish miracles. The first is +that some of them were very _trivial_, such as Elisha's purifying +the waters of Jericho, increasing the widow's oil, and making the +iron axe-head to float;[126] and hence it is urged they are most +improbable. And no doubt they would be so, if we regard them as mere +acts of kindness to individual persons. But if we regard them as so +many signs to the Israelites (and through them to the rest of the +world), that Elisha was God's prophet; and that God was not a +far-off God, but One Who knew about and cared about the every-day +troubles of His people, they were certainly not inappropriate. +Indeed, if this was the end in view, they were just the kind of +miracles most likely to attain it. + +[Footnote 126: 2 Kings 2. 22; 4. 6; 6. 6.] + +The second and more important objection would destroy, or at least +lessen, the value of all the miracles. They could not, it is urged, +have really confirmed a revelation from God, since the same writers +who describe them, also describe _other_ miracles, which, they say, +were worked in opposition to God's agents. But if we exclude some +doubtful cases, we have only one instance to judge by. It is that of +the _magicians of Egypt_, who imitated some of the earlier miracles +of Moses and Aaron; and here the inference is uncertain. For we are +told that this was due to their _enchantments_ (or _secret arts_, +margin R.V.), a term which might very possibly cover some feat of +jugglery; as they knew beforehand what was wanted, and had time to +prepare. While the fact that they tried and failed to imitate the +next plague, which they frankly confessed was a Divine miracle, +makes this a very probable solution.[127] + +[Footnote 127: Exod. 7. 11, 22; 8. 7, 18, 19.] + +We decide, then, that none of the Jewish miracles can be pronounced +_incredible_; though some of them no doubt seem, at first sight, +very improbable. + +(2.) _Their truthfulness._ + +Now, of course, the miracles vary greatly in evidential value, the +following being eight of the most important: + + The destruction of Korah, Num. 16. + + The passage of the Jordan, Josh. 3. 14-17. + + The capture of Jericho, Josh. 6. 6-20. + + Elijah's sacrifice on Mount Carmel, 1 Kings 18. 17-40. + + The cure of Naaman's leprosy, 2 Kings 5. 10-27. + + The destruction of the Assyrian army, 2 Kings 19. 35. + + The shadow on the dial, 2 Kings 20. 8-11. + + The three men in the furnace, Dan. 3. 20-27. + +We will examine a couple of instances in detail and select first +_Elijah's sacrifice on Mount Carmel_. This is said to have occurred +on the most public occasion possible, before the King of Israel and +thousands of spectators. And as a miracle, or rather _superhuman +coincidence_, it presents no difficulty whatever. The lightning +which struck the sacrifice was doubtless due to natural causes; yet, +as before explained (Chapter VII.), this would not interfere with +its evidential value. + +Moreover, it was avowedly a test case to definitely settle whether +Jehovah was the true God or not. The nation, we learn, had long been +in an undecided state. Some were worshippers of Jehovah, others of +Baal; and these rival sacrifices were suggested for the express +purpose of settling the point. So, if miracles at all are credible, +there could not have been a more suitable occasion for one; while it +was, for the time at least, thoroughly successful. All present were +convinced that Jehovah was the true God, and, in accordance with +the national law, the false prophets of Baal were immediately put to +death. + +Now could any writer have described all this, even a century +afterwards, if nothing of the kind had occurred? The event, if true, +must have been well known, and remembered; and if untrue, no one +living near the time and place would have thought of inventing it. +And (what renders the argument still stronger) all this is stated to +have occurred, not among savages, but among a fairly civilised +nation and in a literary age. + +Next as to _the destruction of the Assyrian army_. Here it will be +remembered that when Sennacherib came to attack Jerusalem, he +publicly, and in the most insulting manner, defied the God of Israel +to deliver the city out of his hand (probably about B.C. 701).[128] +We then read how Isaiah declared that God accepted the challenge, +and would defend Jerusalem, and would not allow it to be destroyed. +'_I will defend this city to save it, for mine own sake, and for my +servant David's sake._' And the sacredness of the city is very +strongly insisted on. + +[Footnote 128: 2 Kings 18. 28-35; 19. 10, 34.] + +Now it is inconceivable that this could have been written after +Jerusalem had been captured by Nebuchadnezzar in _B.C._ 598; though +there is no real inconsistency in God's preserving the city in the +one case, and not in the other. For Nebuchadnezzar is always +represented as being, though unconsciously, God's servant in +punishing the Jews; while Sennacherib openly defied Jehovah. + +Then comes the sudden destruction of the Assyrian army, probably by +pestilence;[129] and the extreme fitness of this, after +Sennacherib's challenge, must be obvious to everyone. Moreover, such +a very public event, if untrue, could not have been recorded till +long afterwards; yet, as we have seen, the narrative could not have +been written long afterwards. Sennacherib does not of course allude +to it himself in his inscriptions, for kings never like to record +their own defeats; but this is no reason for doubting that it +occurred, especially as it is confirmed by the Babylonian historian +Berosus.[130] And even Sennacherib himself, though he mentions the +campaign, and says that he shut up Hezekiah in Jerusalem, never +claims to have taken the city. + +[Footnote 129: Comp. 2 Kings 19. 35; 1 Chron. 21. 12.] + +[Footnote 130: Quoted by Josephus, Antiq. x. 1.] + +We need not examine the other miracles in detail, since the argument +is much the same in every case. They are all said to have occurred +on important and critical occasions when, if we admit miracles at +all, they would be most suitable. They are all said to have been +_public_ miracles, either actually worked before crowds of persons, +or else so affecting public men that their truth or otherwise must +have been well-known at the time. And they were all of such a kind +that any mistake or fraud as to their occurrence was out of the +question. It is, then, on the face of it, most unlikely that +miracles, _such as these_, should have been recorded unless they +were true. Indeed, if the Old Testament books were written by +contemporaries, or even within a century of the events they relate, +it is very difficult to deny their occurrence. We decide, therefore, +that the _history_ of the Jewish Religion was _confirmed by +miracles_. + + + + +CHAPTER XI. + +THAT ITS HISTORY WAS CONFIRMED BY PROPHECIES. + + (_A._) GENERAL PROPHECIES. + + Three examples considered: + + (1.) The desolation of Assyria and Babylonia. + (2.) The degradation of Egypt. + (3.) The dispersion of the Jews, including the Roman siege + of Jerusalem. + + (_B._) SPECIAL PROPHECIES. + + List of eight important ones: a single example, the destruction + of Jerusalem by the Babylonians considered in + detail; some general remarks. + + (_C._) CONCLUSION. + + The cumulative nature of the evidence. + + +We pass on now to the Jewish Prophecies. It should be explained at +starting that the word _prophecy_ is used here in the sense of +_prediction_; and not as it often is, in the Bible, to include +various kinds of teaching. And the prophecies may be divided into +two classes, general and special. + + +(_A._) GENERAL PROPHECIES. + +We will consider the General Prophecies first, the most important of +which concern the Jews themselves, and their great neighbours +Assyria and Babylonia, on the one hand, and Egypt on the other. All +these nations had existed for centuries, and there was nothing to +indicate what was to be their future; yet the prophets foretold it, +and with remarkable accuracy. + +(1.) _The desolation of Assyria and Babylonia._ + +And first as to Assyria and Babylonia. The future of these countries +was to be utter _desolation_. The kingdoms were to be destroyed, the +land was to become a wilderness, and the cities to be entirely +forsaken. We read repeatedly that they were to be desolate _for +ever_; and though this cannot be pressed as meaning literally for +all eternity, it certainly implies a long duration.[131] A single +passage referring to each may be quoted at length. + +[Footnote 131: Isa. 13. 19-22; 14. 22, 23; Jer. 50. 13, 39, 40; 51. +26, 37, 43; Nahum 3. 7; Zeph. 2. 13-14.] + +Thus Zephaniah says of Assyria, 'And he will stretch out his hand +against the north, and destroy Assyria; and will make Nineveh a +desolation, and dry like the wilderness. And herds shall lie down in +the midst of her, all the beasts of the nations; both the pelican +and the porcupine shall lodge in the chapiters thereof [the capitals +of the fallen columns]: their voice shall sing in the windows; +desolation shall be in the thresholds: for he hath laid bare the +cedar work.' + +And Isaiah says of Babylon, 'And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the +beauty of the Chaldean's pride, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom +and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt +in from generation to generation; neither shall the Arabian pitch +tent there; neither shall shepherds make their flocks to lie down +there. But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their +houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and ostriches shall dwell +there, and satyrs [or goats] shall dance there. And wolves shall cry +in their castles, and jackals in the pleasant palaces: and her time +is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.' + +It seems needless to comment on prophecies so plain and +straightforward. Nor need we insist at any length on their exact +fulfilment; it is obvious to everyone. For two thousand years +history has verified them. The utter desolation of these countries +is without a parallel: the empires have vanished, the once populous +land is deserted, and the cities are heaps of ruins, often the dens +of wild beasts,--lions, hyænas, and jackals having all been seen +among the ruins of Babylon. In short, the prophecies have been +fulfilled in a manner which is, to say the least, very remarkable. + +(2.) _The degradation of Egypt._ + +Next as to Egypt. The future foretold of this country was not +desolation but _degradation_. Ezekiel tells us it was to become a +_base kingdom_, and he adds, 'It shall be the basest of the +kingdoms; neither shall it any more lift itself up above the +nations: and I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over +the nations.'[132] And here also prophecy has been turned into +history. The permanent degradation of Egypt is a striking fact which +cannot be disputed. When the prophets wrote, Egypt had on the whole +been a powerful and independent kingdom for some thousands of years: +but it has never been so since. Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantine +Greeks, Saracens, Memlooks, Turks, and we may now add British, have +in turn been its masters; but it has been the master of no one. It +has never more _ruled over the nations_ as it used to do for so many +centuries. Its history in this respect has been unique--an +unparalleled period of prosperity followed by an unparalleled period +of degradation. + +[Footnote 132: Ezek. 29. 15.] + +With such an obvious fulfilment of the main prophecy, it seems +needless to insist on any of its details, though some of these are +sufficiently striking. Thus, we are told, _Her cities shall be in +the midst of the cities that are wasted_.[133] And though it is +doubtful to what period this refers, no more accurate description +can be given of the present cities of Egypt, such as Cairo, than +that they are in the midst of the cities that are wasted, such as +Memphis, Bubastis, and Tanis. While a few verses farther on we read, +_There shall be no more a prince out of the land of Egypt_; yet, +when this passage was written, there had been independent Egyptian +sovereigns, off and on, from the very dawn of history. But there +have been none since. Stress, however, is not laid on details like +these, some of which are admittedly obscure, such as the forty +years' desolation of the land with the scattering of its +inhabitants;[134] but rather on the broad fact that Egypt was not to +be destroyed like Assyria and Babylonia, but to be _degraded_, and +that this has actually been its history. + +[Footnote 133: Ezek. 30. 7, 13.] + +[Footnote 134: Ezek. 29. 11-13.] + +(3.) _The dispersion of the Jews._ + +Lastly, as to the Jews. Their future was to be neither desolation, +nor degradation, but _dispersion_. This is asserted over and over +again. They were to be scattered among the nations, and dispersed +through the countries; to be wanderers among the nations; sifted +among all nations; tossed to and fro among all the kingdoms of the +earth; and scattered among all peoples from one end of the earth +even unto the other end of the earth.[135] + +[Footnote 135: Ezek. 22. 15; Hos. 9. 17; Amos 9. 9; Deut. 28. 25, +64; see also Deut. 4. 27; Neh. 1. 8; Jer. 9. 16.] + +Moreover, in their dispersion they were to be subjected to continual +_suffering_ and _persecution_. They were to become a proverb, and a +byword among all people. Their curses were to be upon them, for a +sign and for a wonder, and upon their seed for ever. They were to +have a yoke of iron upon their necks; and to have the sword drawn +out after them in all lands, etc. Yet, in spite of all this, they +were not to be absorbed into other nations, but to remain +_distinct_. They and their seed _for ever_ were to be a separate +people, a sign and a wonder at all times; and God would never make a +full end of _them_, as He would of the nations among whom they were +scattered. Indeed heaven and earth were to pass away, rather than +the Jews cease to be a distinct people.[136] + +[Footnote 136: Deut. 28. 37, 46, 48; Lev. 26. 33; Jer. 24. 9; 29. +18; 30. 11; 31. 35-37.] + +And here again history has exactly agreed with prophecy. The fate of +the Jews, since the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, has +actually been _dispersion_, and this to an extent which is quite +unique. It has been combined, moreover, with incessant suffering and +persecution, yet they have always remained a separate people. The +Jews are still everywhere, though the Jewish nation is nowhere. They +are present in all countries, but with a home in none, having been +literally _scattered among the nations_. + +We will now examine a single passage in detail, and select the +latter part of Deut. 28. The whole chapter is indeed full of +prophecies as to the future condition of the Jews, some of which +seem to point to the Babylonian captivity, (_e.g._, v. 36); but +after this we come to another and final catastrophe in v. 49. This +evidently begins a fresh subject, which is continued without a break +till the end of the chapter. And it is specially interesting +because, not only is the world-wide dispersion of the Jews, and +their continual sufferings, clearly foretold; but also the _previous +war_ which led up to it. We have, as is well known, a full account +of this in the history of Josephus, and as he never alludes to the +prophecy himself (except in the most general terms), his evidence is +above suspicion. + + Ver. 49. First of all the conquerors themselves are described + as a nation _from far, from the end of the earth, as the eagle + flieth, a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand_, etc. + And this is very applicable to the Romans, whose general, + Vespasian, had come from Britain, and their troops from various + countries, who had the eagle as their standard, and whose + language, Latin, was unknown to most of the Jews. + + 50. And the merciless way in which these fierce warriors were + to spare neither old nor young was painfully true in their + treatment of the Jews. + + 51. And they also of course destroyed or confiscated their + property. + + 52. Then the war is foretold as one of _sieges_ (he shall + _besiege_ thee in all thy gates), rather than of open battles. + And this was certainly the case, since a large number of + towns, including Jotapata, Gamala, Masada, and Jerusalem + itself, suffered terrible sieges. And these were to be + continued _till the high walls came down_, which is very + appropriate to the Roman battering rams that were actually used + at all these places. + + 53. Then we have the dreadful famine, due to the severity (or + _straitness_) of the siege, evidently the great siege, that of + Jerusalem. This is strongly insisted on, being repeated three + times, and it was to drive the wretched inhabitants to + cannibalism of the most revolting kind, which it actually did. + + 54. It was also to lead to considerable strife _within the + city_; even between members of the same family. And this, + though by no means common in all sieges, was abundantly + fulfilled in the case of Jerusalem. + + 55. And they were to grudge their nearest relatives a morsel of + food; which again exactly agrees with Josephus, who says that + parents would fight with their own children for pieces of food. + + 56. And all this was to be the fate, not only of the poor; but, + what is very remarkable, and perhaps unique in the world's + history, of the _wealthy_ also. It was even to include one + instance at least (perhaps several) of a lady of high position. + She is described as not _setting her foot upon the ground_; + which means that she was accustomed to be carried about in a + chair, or ride on an ass; and was therefore rich enough to buy + anything that could be bought. + + 57. And she was to _eat her own children secretly_. Here was + the climax of their sufferings. Yet this very detail, so + unlikely to have occurred, and so unlikely to have been + discovered if it did occur (as it was to be done secretly), is + fully confirmed by Josephus. For he mentions one instance that + actually was discovered, in which a lady _eminent for her + family and wealth_ (Mary, the daughter of Eleazar) had secretly + eaten half her own child.[137] + + [Footnote 137: Wars, vi. 3.] + + 58. And these miseries were to come upon the Jews for their + disobedience of God's laws; and again Josephus says that + their wickedness at this time was so great that if the Romans + had not destroyed their city, he thinks it would have been + swallowed up by the earth.[138] + + [Footnote: 138: Wars, v. 13.] + + 59. Moreover, the plagues of themselves, and of their seed, + were to be _wonderful, even great plagues, and of long + continuance_. And no one who has read the account of the siege, + and the subsequent treatment of the Jews, will think the + description at all exaggerated. + + 60. And the people are specially threatened with _the diseases + of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of_, and this, as said in + Chapter IX., implies that the passage was written soon after + the people left Egypt, and therefore centuries before any siege + or dispersion. + + 61. And it was to end, as it actually did end, in the + destruction of the nation, _until thou be destroyed_. + + 62. While the Jews that survived were to be left comparatively + _few in number_; which was certainly the case, even allowing + that the statement of Josephus that 600,000 perished in the + siege may be an exaggeration. + + 63. And these were to be forcibly expelled from the land of + Canaan, which they were just about to conquer. And they + actually were so expelled by the Romans, partly after this war, + and still more so after their rebellion in A.D. 134, when for + many centuries scarcely any Jews were allowed to live in their + own country, an event probably unique in history. + + 64. But instead of being taken away to a single nation, as at + the Babylonian captivity, they were now to be scattered over + the whole world, _among all peoples, from one end of the earth, + even unto the other end of the earth_. And how marvellously + this has been fulfilled is obvious to everyone. No mention is + made of a _king_ here, as in ver. 36; so while that suits the + Babylonian captivity, this suits the later dispersion, though + in each case there is a reference to their serving other gods, + for which it must be admitted there is very little evidence. + + 65. Then we have the further _sufferings_ that the Jews were to + undergo in their dispersion. Among these nations they were to + find _no ease, nor rest for the sole of their foot_, but were + to have _a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and pining of + soul_. And here, again, the event is as strange as the + prophecy. Nowhere else shall we find a parallel to it. For + centuries the Jews were not only persecuted, but were often + expelled from one country to another, so that they found _no + rest_ anywhere, but were driven from city to city, and from + kingdom to kingdom. + + 66. And their life was to hang in doubt night and day; + + 67. And they were to be in a continual state of fear and alarm; + all of which was completely fulfilled. + + 68. Lastly, we read, that some of the Jews, instead of being + dispersed, were to be _brought to Egypt again with ships_, and + to be in bondage there. And this also came true, after the + siege, when many of the Jews were sold for slaves, and sent to + the mines in Egypt, probably in slave ships. + +Everyone must admit that the agreement all through is very +remarkable; in fact, the prophecies about the dispersion of the +Jews--and we have only examined a single instance in detail--are +even more striking than those about the desolation of Assyria and +Babylonia, or the degradation of Egypt. And to fully realise their +importance, let us suppose that anyone _now_ were to foretell the +future of three great nations, saying that one was to be utterly +destroyed, and the land desolated; another to sink to be a base +kingdom; and the third to be conquered and its inhabitants forcibly +expelled, and scattered over the whole world. What chance would +there be of any one of the prophecies (leave alone all three) coming +true, and _remaining true for two thousand years_? Yet this would be +but a similar case. + +What conclusion, then, must be drawn from all these prophecies, so +clear in their general meaning, so distinctive in their character, +so minute in many of their details, so unlikely at the time they +were written, and yet one and all so exactly fulfilled? There appear +to be only three alternatives. Either they must have been random +_guesses_, which certainly seems incredible. Or else they must have +been due to deep _foresight_ on the part of the writers, which seems +equally so; for the writers had had no experience of the permanent +desolation of great empires like Assyria and Babylonia, while as to +the fate of Egypt and the Jews themselves, history afforded no +parallel. Or else, lastly, the writers must have had _revealed_ to +them what the future of these nations would be; in which case, and +in which case alone, all is plain. + + +(_B._) SPECIAL PROPHECIES. + +We pass on now to the Special Prophecies. These are found all +through the Old Testament, the following being eight of the most +important. + +The fact that David's throne should always be held by his +descendants, _i.e._, till the captivity, about 450 years;[139] and +its fulfilment is specially remarkable when contrasted with the +rival kingdom of Samaria, where the dynasty changed eight or nine +times in 250 years. + +[Footnote 139: 2 Sam. 7. 12-16; 1 Kings 9. 4, 5.] + +The division of the kingdom into ten and two tribes, evidently +announced at the time, since Jeroboam had to go away in consequence, +and apparently the reason why the rebels were not attacked.[140] + +[Footnote 140: 1 Kings 11. 31, 40; 12. 24.] + +The destruction, rebuilding, and final destruction of the Temple; +the first of these prophecies being made so publicly that it caused +quite a commotion, and nearly cost the prophet his life.[141] + +[Footnote 141: Jer. 26. 8-16; Isa. 44. 28; Dan. 9. 26.] + +The destruction of the altar at Bethel, which was set up as a rival +to that at Jerusalem; publicly announced some centuries before, +including the name of the destroyer.[142] + +[Footnote 142: 1 Kings 13. 2; 2 Kings 23. 15, 16.] + +The destruction of Israel by the Assyrians.[143] + +[Footnote 143: 1 Kings 14. 15; Isa. 8. 4.] + +The destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.[144] + +[Footnote 144: 2 Kings 20. 17.] + +The captivity of the Jews, including its duration of seventy years, +their most unlikely restoration, and the name of the restorer.[145] + +[Footnote 145: Jer. 29. 10; Isa. 44. 28.] + +The wars between Syria and Egypt.[146] + +[Footnote 146: Dan. 11.] + +We will examine a single instance in detail, and select that +referring to the _destruction of Jerusalem_ by the Babylonians, as +this is connected with one of the miracles mentioned in the last +chapter, _the shadow on the dial_. Now, it will be remembered that, +on one occasion, the Jewish King Hezekiah was seriously ill, and on +being told of his unexpected recovery, he naturally asked for a +_sign_. And then in accordance with his demand the shadow on his +dial went back ten _steps_.[147] + +[Footnote 147: 2 Kings 20. 8-11 (margin, R.V.); Isa. 38. 8.] + +This _dial_ was evidently a flight of steps, with some object on the +top, perhaps an obelisk, which threw a shadow on a gradually +increasing number of these as the sun set. And a sudden vibration +of the ground, due perhaps to an earthquake, and causing the obelisk +to slope to one side, would quite account for the shadow _going +backward_, and leaving some of the steps which it had covered. And +the narrative certainly implies that the effect was sudden, and +apparently limited to this one dial. + +It seems, however, to have attracted considerable attention; since +messengers came from Babylon to _enquire about it_, and to +congratulate the King on his recovery.[148] And if the sloping +obelisk, and perhaps broken steps, were still visible, this would be +much more natural than if there was nothing left for them to see. +Though in any case, as they called it the wonder that was done _in +the land_, it evidently was not noticed elsewhere, and must have +been due to some local cause. And we may ask, how could any writer +have asserted all this, even a century afterwards, if no such sign +had occurred? + +[Footnote 148: 2 Chron. 32. 24, 31.] + +We are then told that Hezekiah showed these messengers all his +treasures, which leads up to the _prophecy_ that the treasures +should be carried away and Jerusalem destroyed by these very +Babylonians. This is introduced in the most natural way possible, as +a rebuke to the king for his proud display; and it is difficult to +consider it a later insertion. Yet the event could not have been +humanly foreseen. For Babylon was then but a comparatively small and +friendly nation, shortly to be absorbed into Assyria (in B.C. 689), +and only when it regained its independence nearly a century later +did it become strong enough to cause any fear to the Jews. + +We need not discuss the other prophecies at length, since that they +all refer to the events in question is generally admitted. Indeed, +in some cases, owing to the mention of names and details, it can +scarcely be denied. Therefore those who disbelieve in prophecy have +no alternative but to say that they were all written _after the +event_. + +At this lapse of time it is difficult to prove or disprove such a +statement. But it must be remembered that to say that any apparent +prophecies were written after the event is not merely to destroy +their superhuman character, and bring them down to the level of +ordinary writings, but far below it. For ordinary writings do not +contain wilful falsehoods, yet every pretended prophecy written +after the event cannot possibly be regarded in any other light. The +choice then lies between _real prophecies_ and _wilful forgeries_. +There is no other alternative. And bearing this in mind, we must +ask, is it likely that men of such high moral character as the +Jewish prophets would have been guilty of such gross imposture? Is +it likely that, if guilty of it, they would have been able to pass +it off successfully on the whole nation? And is it likely that they +would have had any sufficient motive to induce them to make the +attempt? + +Moreover, many of these prophecies are stated to have been made _in +public_, and to have been talked about, and well known long before +their fulfilment. And it is hard to see how this could have been +asserted unless it was the case, or how it could have been the case +unless they were superhuman. + +It should also be noticed that in Deuteronomy the occurrence of some +definite and specified event is given as the _test_ of a prophet, +and one of the later prophets (Isaiah) appeals to this very test. +For he challenges the false prophets to foretell future events, and +repeatedly declares that this was the mark of a true prophet.[149] +And it is inconceivable that men should thus court defeat by +themselves proposing a test which would have shown that they were +nothing more than impostors. Yet this would have been the case if +all their so-called prophecies had been written after the events. + +[Footnote 149: Deut. 18. 22; Isa. 41. 22; 44. 8; 48. 3-5; see also +Deut. 13. 1-3.] + + +(_C._) CONCLUSION. + +In concluding this chapter, we must notice the _cumulative nature_ +of the evidence. The prophecies we have referred to, like the +miracles in the last chapter, are but specimens, a few out of many +which might be given. This is very important, and its bearing on our +present argument is naturally twofold. + +In the first place, it does not increase, and in some respects +rather decreases, the difficulty of believing them to be true, for +thirty miracles or prophecies, provided they occur on suitable +occasions, are scarcely more difficult to believe than three. And +the number recorded in the Old Testament shows that, instead of +being mere isolated marvels, they form a complete series. Their +object was to instruct the Jews, and through them the rest of the +world, in the great truths of Natural Religion, such as the +existence of One Supreme God, Who was shown to be _All-Powerful_ by +the miracles, _All-Wise_ by the prophecies, and _All-Good_ by His +rewarding and punishing men and nations alike for their deeds. And +when we thus regard them as confirming a Revelation, which was for +the benefit of the whole human race, they lose a good deal of their +improbability. Indeed many who now believe Natural Religion alone, +and reject all revelation, would probably never have believed even +this, but for the Bible. + +On the other hand, the number and variety of these alleged events +greatly increases the difficulty of any _other_ explanation; for +thirty miracles or prophecies are far more difficult to _disbelieve_ +than three. A successful fraud might take place once, but not often. +An imitation miracle might be practised once, but not often. +Spurious prophecies might be mistaken for genuine once, but not +often. Yet, if none of these events are true, such frauds and such +deceptions must have been practised, and practised successfully, +over and over again. In fact, the Old Testament must be a collection +of the most dishonest books ever written, for it is full of miracles +and prophecies from beginning to end; and it is hard to exaggerate +the immense _moral_ difficulty which this involves. + +Many of the Jewish prophets, as before said, teach the highest moral +virtues; and the Jewish religion, especially in its later days, is +admittedly of high moral character. It seems, then, to be almost +incredible that its sacred writings should be merely a collection of +spurious prophecies uttered after the event, and false miracles +which never occurred. We therefore decide in this chapter that the +_history_ of the Jewish religion _was confirmed by prophecies_. + + + + +CHAPTER XII. + +THAT THE JEWISH RELIGION IS PROBABLY TRUE. + + Only two subjects remain to be discussed. + + (_A._) THE EXISTENCE OF ANGELS. + + No difficulty here, nor as to their influence. + + (_B._) THE CHARACTER OF GOD. + + The Jewish idea of God often thought to be defective. + + (1.) Its partiality; but any revelation must be more or + less partial. + (2.) Its human element; we must, however, use analogies + of some kind when speaking of God, and human + analogies are the least inappropriate. + (3.) Its moral defects; since God is shown as approving + of wicked men, ordering wicked deeds, and sanctioning + wicked customs; but these difficulties are not + so great as they seem. + (4.) Its general excellence. On the other hand, the Jews + firmly believed in Monotheism, and had the highest + mental and moral conception of God; so that their + God was the true God, the God of Natural Religion. + + (_C._) CONCLUSION. + + Four further arguments; the Jewish Religion is probably + true. + + +We have been considering in the previous chapters several strong +arguments in favour of the Jewish Religion; and before concluding we +must of course notice _any_ adverse arguments which we have not +already dealt with. The only two of any importance refer to the +Existence of Angels, and the Character ascribed to God; so we will +consider these first, and then conclude with some general remarks. + + +(_A._) THE EXISTENCE OF ANGELS. + +Now the Old Testament always takes for granted the existence and +influence of angels, yet at the present day this is often thought to +be a difficulty. But as to the mere _existence_ of angels, there is +no difficulty whatever. For the whole analogy of nature would teach +us that since there are numerous beings in the scale of life below +man, so there would be some beings above man--that is to say, +between him and the Supreme Being. And this is rendered still more +probable when we reflect on the small intervals there are in the +descending scale, and the immense interval there would be in the +ascending scale if man were the next highest being in the universe +to God. + +And that these higher beings should be entirely _spiritual_, _i.e._, +without material bodies, and therefore beyond scientific discovery, +is not improbable. Indeed, considering that man's superiority to +lower beings lies in this very fact of his having a partly spiritual +nature, the idea that higher beings may be entirely spiritual is +even probable. And though it is difficult for us to imagine how +angels can see, or hear without a material body, it is really no +more difficult than imagining how we can do it with a body. Take for +instance the case of seeing. Neither the eye nor the brain sees, +they are mere collections of molecules of matter, and how can a +molecule see anything? It is the _man himself_, the _personal +being_, who in some mysterious way sees by means of both eyes and +brain; and for all we know he might see just as well without them. +And the same applies in other cases. + +Then that angels should have as great, if not greater, intellectual +and moral faculties than man seems certain; otherwise they would not +be higher beings at all. And this necessitates their having _free +will_, with the option of choosing good or evil. And that, like men, +some should choose one, and some the other, seems equally probable. +Hence the _existence_ of both good and evil angels presents no +difficulty. And that the good angels should have a leader, or +captain (called in the Old Testament, Michael), and that the evil +angels should have one too (called Satan) is only what we should +expect. + +Next, as to their _influence_. Now that good angels should wish to +influence men for good, and might occasionally be employed by God +for that purpose, scarcely seems improbable. While, on the other +hand, that evil angels should wish to act, as evil men act, in +tempting others to do wrong, is again only what we should expect. +And that God should allow them to do so is no harder to believe than +that He should allow evil men to do the same. + +It may still be objected however that we have no actual _evidence_ +as to the influence of angels at the present day. But this is at +least doubtful. For what evidence could we expect to have? We could +not expect to have any physical sensation, or anything capable of +scientific investigation, for angels, if they exist at all, are +spiritual beings. If, then, they were to influence man, say, by +tempting him to do evil, all we could know would be the sudden +presence of some evil thought in our minds, without, as far as we +could judge, any previous cause for it. And who will assert that +this is an unknown experience? Yet if it is known, does it not +constitute all the proof we could expect of the action of an evil +spirit? And of course the same applies to good spirits. There is +thus no difficulty as to the existence, and influence of angels. + + +(_B._) THE CHARACTER OF GOD. + +We pass on now to the Character ascribed to God in the Old +Testament, first considering its difficulties, under the three heads +of its _partiality_, its _human element_, and its _moral defects_; +and then what can be said on the other side as to its _general +excellence_. + +(1.) _Its partiality._ + +The objection here is that God is the just God of all mankind, and +it is therefore incredible that He should have selected a single +nation like the Jews to be His special favourites, more particularly +as His alleged attempt to make them a holy people proved such a +hopeless failure. While it is further urged that the very fact of +the Jews believing Jehovah to be their special God shows that they +regarded Him as a mere national God, bearing the same relation to +themselves as the gods of other nations did to them. + +But, as said in Chapter VI., any revelation implies a certain +_partiality_ to the men or nation to whom it is given; though it is +not on that account incredible. And there is certainly no reason why +the Jews should not have been the nation chosen, and some slight +reason why they should; for their ancestor Abraham was not selected +without a cause. He did, partly at least, deserve it, since, judging +by the only accounts we have, he showed the most perfect obedience +to God in his willingness to sacrifice Isaac. It must also be +remembered that God's so-called partiality to the Jews did not imply +any indulgence to them in the sense of overlooking their faults. On +the contrary, He is represented all along as blaming and punishing +them, just as much as other nations, for their sins. + +Next, as to God's purpose in regard to the Jews having been a +_failure_. This is only partly true. No doubt they were, on the +whole, a sinful nation; but they were not worse than, or even so bad +as, the nations around them; it was only the fact of their being the +chosen race that made their sins so serious. They had free will, +just as men have now; and if they chose to misuse their freedom and +act wrong, that was not God's fault. + +Moreover, the Jewish nation was not selected merely for its own +sake, but for the sake of all mankind; as is expressly stated at the +very commencement, '_In thee shall all the families of the earth be +blessed_.'[150] Thus God did not select the Jews, and reject other +nations; but He selected the Jews in order that through them He +might bless other nations. The religious welfare of the whole world +was God's purpose from the beginning; and the Jews were merely the +means chosen for bringing it about. And to a great extent the +purpose has been fulfilled; for however sinful the nation may have +been, they preserved and handed on God's revelation, and the Old +Testament remains, and will always remain, as a permanent and +priceless treasure of religion. + +[Footnote 150: Gen. 12. 3.] + +The last part of the objection may be dismissed at once. For if the +Jews regarded Jehovah as their special God, it was merely because He +had specially _selected_ them to be His people. He must therefore +have had a power of choice, and might, if He pleased, have selected +some other nation, so He could not have been a mere national God, +but the God of all nations with power to select among them. And this +is distinctly asserted by many of the writers.[151] + +[Footnote 151: _E.g._, Exod. 19. 5; Deut. 32. 8; 2 Chron. 20. 6; +Isa. 37. 16.] + +We conclude, then, that God's so-called partiality to the Jews does +not, when carefully considered, form a great difficulty. To put it +shortly, if a revelation is given at all, some individuals must be +selected to receive it; if it is given gradually (and God's methods +in nature are always those of gradual development) these men would +probably belong to a single nation; and if one nation had to be +selected, there is no reason why the Jews should not have been the +one chosen. While, if they were selected for the purpose of handing +on God's revelation to the world at large, the purpose has been +completely successful. + +(2.) _Its human element._ + +The next difficulty, is that the Jewish idea of God was thoroughly +_human_, the Deity being represented as a great _Man_, with human +form, feelings, attributes, and imperfections. Thus He has hands +and arms, eyes and ears; He is at times glad or sorry, angry or +jealous; He moves about from place to place; and sometimes repents +of what He has done, thus showing, it is urged, a want of foresight, +on His part. And all this is plainly inconsistent with the character +of the immaterial, omnipresent, omniscient God of Nature. The answer +to this objection is twofold. + +In the first place, we must of necessity use analogies of some kind +when speaking of God, and _human_ analogies are not only the easiest +to understand, but are also the least inappropriate, since, as we +have shown, man resembles God in that he is a personal and moral +being. Therefore likening God to man is not so degrading as likening +Him to mere natural forces. Such expressions, then, must always be +considered as descriptions drawn from human analogies, which must +not be pressed literally. + +While, secondly, it is plain that the Jewish writers themselves so +understood them, for they elsewhere describe the Deity in the most +exalted language, as will be shown later on. And this is strongly +confirmed by the remarkable fact that the Jews, unlike other ancient +nations, had no material idol or representation of their God. Inside +both the tabernacle and the temple there was the holy of holies with +the mercy seat, but no one sat on it. An empty throne was all that +the shrine contained. Their Jehovah was essentially an invisible +God, who could not be represented by any human or other form; and +this alone seems a sufficient answer to the present objection. + +(3.) _Its moral defects._ + +Lastly as to the supposed moral defects in God's Character. The +three most important are that God is frequently represented as +approving of wicked men, as ordering wicked deeds, and even in His +own laws as sanctioning wicked customs. We will consider these +points in turn. + +And first as to God's _approving of wicked men_; that is, of men who +committed the greatest crimes, such as Jacob and David. This is +easily answered, since approving of a man does not mean approving of +_everything_ he does. The case of David affords a convincing example +of this; for though he is represented as a man after God's own +heart, yet we are told that God was so extremely displeased with one +of his acts that He punished him for it severely, in causing his +child to die. In the same way no one supposes that God approved of +Jacob because of his treachery, but in spite of it; and even in his +treachery, he was only carrying out (and with apparent reluctance) +the orders of his mother.[152] Moreover, in estimating a man's +character, his education and surroundings have always to be taken +into account. And if the conduct of one man living in an immoral age +is far better than that of his contemporaries, he may be worthy of +praise, though similar conduct at the present day might not deserve +it. + +[Footnote 152: Gen. 27. 8-13.] + +And if it be asked what there was in the character of these men, and +many others, to counterbalance their obvious crimes, the answer is +plain; it was their intense belief in the spiritual world. The +existence of One Supreme God, and their personal responsibility to +Him, were realities to them all through life; so, in spite of many +faults, they still deserved to be praised. + +Next as to God's _ordering wicked deeds_. In all cases of this kind +it is important to distinguish between a man's personal acts, and +his official ones. At the present day the judge who condemns a +criminal, and the executioner who hangs him are not looked upon as +murderers. And the same principle applies universally. Now in the +Old Testament the Jews are represented as living under the immediate +rule of God. Therefore when a man, or body of men, had to be +punished for their crimes, He commanded some prophet or king, or +perhaps the whole people, to carry out the sentence. And of course, +if they failed to do so they were blamed, just as we should blame a +hangman at the present day who failed to do his duty. Thus, in the +case of _destroying the Canaanites_, which is the instance most +often objected to, the people were told, in the plainest terms, that +they were only acting as God's ministers, and that if they became as +bad as the Canaanites, who were a horribly polluted race, God would +have them destroyed as well.[153] + +[Footnote 153: _E.g._, Lev. 18. 21-28; Deut. 9. 5.] + +A more serious objection is that God is occasionally represented as +if He Himself _caused_ men to do wrong, such as His _hardening +Pharaoh's heart_.[154] But, as we shall see later on, the Bible +often speaks of everything that occurs, whether good or evil, as +being, in a certain sense, God's doing. And since the writer +asserts more than once that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, there +can be little doubt that he intended the two expressions to mean the +same. Indeed the whole narrative represents Pharaoh as extremely +obstinate in the matter, refusing to listen even to his own +people.[155] + +[Footnote 154: _E.g._, Exod. 14. 4.] + +[Footnote 155: Exod. 8. 15, 32; 9. 34; 10. 3, 7.] + +Thirdly, as to God's _sanctioning wicked customs_. The most +important is that of _human sacrifice_; but it is very doubtful +whether the passages relied on do sanction this custom;[156] since +it is clearly laid down elsewhere that the firstborn of _men_ are +never to be sacrificed, but are always to be redeemed.[157] Moreover +human sacrifices among other nations are strongly condemned, in one +passage Jehovah expressly saying that they were not to be offered +to Him.[158] It is, however, further urged that we have two +actual instances of such sacrifices in regard to _Isaac_ and +_Jephthah_.[159] But Jephthah had evidently no idea when he made his +vow that it would involve the sacrifice of his daughter; and there +is nothing to show that it was in any way acceptable to God. + +[Footnote 156: Exod. 22. 29, 30; Lev. 27. 28, 29.] + +[Footnote 157: Exod. 13. 13; 34. 20; Num. 18. 15.] + +[Footnote 158: Deut. 12. 31.] + +[Footnote 159: Gen. 22; Judg. 11. 39.] + +In the case of _Isaac_ we have the one instance in which God did +order a human sacrifice; but then He specially intervened to prevent +the order from being carried out. And the whole affair, the command +and the counter-command, must of course be taken together. It was +required to test Abraham's faith to the utmost, therefore as he +most valued his son, he was told to offer him. And since children +were then universally regarded as property, and at the absolute +disposal of their parents, human sacrifices being by no means +uncommon, the command, however distressing to his heart, would have +formed no difficulty to his conscience. But when his faith was found +equal to the trial, God intervened, as He had of course intended +doing all along, to prevent Isaac from being actually slain. + +With regard to the other practices, such as _slavery_, and +_polygamy_, it is undisputed that they were recognised by the Jewish +laws; but none of them were _instituted_ by these laws. The +Pentateuch neither commands them, nor commends them; it merely +mentions them, and, as a rule, to guard against their abuse. Take, +for instance, the case of slavery. The custom was, and had been for +ages, universal. All that the laws did was to recognise its +existence and to provide certain safeguards; making kidnapping, for +instance, a capital offence, and in some cases ordering the release +of slaves every seventh year.[160] + +[Footnote 160: Exod. 21. 2, 16; Lev. 25. 41.] + +On the other hand, many _worse customs_ existed at the time which +the Jewish laws did absolutely forbid;[161] and they also introduced +a code of morals, summed up in the Decalogue, of such permanent +value that it has been practically accepted by the civilised world. +While the highest of all virtues, that of doing good to one's +_enemies_, which was scarcely known among other nations, is +positively enjoined in the Pentateuch.[162] + +[Footnote 161: _E.g._, Lev. 18-20.] + +[Footnote 162: Exod. 23. 4-5.] + +(4.) _Its general excellence._ + +Having now discussed at some length the alleged difficulties in +God's character, it is only fair to see what can be said on the +other side. And much indeed may be said; for the Jewish conception +of the Deity, when considered as a whole, and apart from these +special difficulties, was one of the noblest ever formed by man. + +To begin with, the Jews firmly believed in _Monotheism_, or the +existence of One Supreme God. This was the essence of their +religion. It is stamped on the first page of Genesis; it is implied +in the Decalogue; it occurs all through the historical books; and it +is emphasised in the Psalms and Prophets; in fact they were never +without it. And in this respect the Jews stood alone among the +surrounding nations. Some others, it is true, believed in a god who +was more or less Supreme; but they always associated with him a +number of lesser deities which really turned their religion into +Polytheism. With the Jews it was not so. Their Jehovah had neither +rivals nor assistants. There were no inferior gods, still less +goddesses. He was the one and only God; and as for the so-called +gods of other nations, they either did not believe in their +existence, or thought them utterly contemptible, and even ridiculed +the idea of their having the slightest power.[163] And it may be +added, this is a subject on which the Jews have become the teachers +of the world, for both the great monotheistic Religions of the +present day, Christianity and Mohammedanism, have been derived from +them. + +[Footnote 163: Deut. 4. 39; 1 Kings 18. 27; 2 Kings 19. 15-18; Ps. +115. 4-8.] + +Moreover, the great problem of the _Existence of Evil_ never led the +Jews, as it did some other nations, into Dualism, or the belief in +an independent Evil Power. Difficult as the problem was, the Jews +never hesitated in their belief that there was but One Supreme God, +and that everything that existed, whether good or evil, existed by +His permission, and was in a certain sense His doing.[164] And they +gave to Him the very highest attributes. + +[Footnote 164: Isa. 45. 7; Prov. 16. 4; Amos 3. 6.] + +They described Him as _Omnipotent_; the Creator, Preserver, and +Possessor of all things, the Cause of all nature, the Sustainer of +all life, Almighty in power, and for Whom nothing is too hard.[165] + +[Footnote 165: Gen. 1. 1; Neh. 9. 6; Gen. 14. 22; Amos 5. 8; Job 12. +10; 1 Chron. 29. 11; Jer. 32. 17.] + +They described Him as _Omniscient_; infinite in understanding, +wonderful in counsel, perfect in knowledge, declaring the end from +the beginning, knowing and foreknowing even the thoughts of +men.[166] + +[Footnote 166: Ps. 147. 5; Isa. 28. 29; Job 37. 16; Isa. 46. 10; +Ezek. 11. 5. Ps. 139. 2.] + +They described Him as _Omnipresent_; filling Heaven and earth, +though contained by neither, existing everywhere, and from Whom +escape is impossible.[167] + +[Footnote 167: Jer. 23. 24; 1 Kings 8. 27; Prov. 15. 3; Ps. 139. 7.] + +They described Him as _Eternal_; the Eternal God, the Everlasting +God, God from everlasting to everlasting, Whose years are +unsearchable, the First and the Last.[168] + +[Footnote 168: Deut. 33. 27; Gen. 21. 33; Ps. 90. 2; Job 36. 26; +Isa. 48. 12.] + +They described Him as _Unchangeable_; the same at all times, ruling +nature by fixed laws, and with Whom a change of purpose is +impossible.[169] + +[Footnote 169: Mal. 3. 6; Ps. 148. 6; Num. 23. 19.] + +And lastly, they described Him as in His true nature _Unknowable_; a +hidden God, far above human understanding.[170] This will be enough +to show the lofty _mental_ conception which the Jews formed of the +Deity. + +[Footnote 170: Isa. 45. 15; Job 11. 7.] + +Now for their _moral_ conception. They believed their God to be not +only infinite in power and wisdom, but, what is more remarkable, +they ascribed to Him the highest moral character. He was not only a +_beneficent_ God, Whose blessings were unnumbered, but He was also a +_righteous_ God. His very Name was Holy, and His hatred of evil is +emphasised all through to such an extent that at times it forms a +difficulty, as in the case of the Canaanites. Thus the _goodness_ +they ascribed to God was a combination of beneficence and +righteousness very similar to what we discussed in Chapter V. + +Moreover, in this respect the God of the Jews was a striking +contrast to the gods of other nations. We have only to compare +Jehovah with Moloch and Baal, or with the Egyptian gods, Ptah and +Ra, or with the classical gods, Jupiter and Saturn, and the +superiority of the Jewish conception of the Deity is beyond dispute. +In particular it may be mentioned that among other nations, even the +god they worshipped as Supreme always had a _female companion_. +Thus we have Baal and Astaroth, Osiris and Isis, Jupiter and Juno, +and many others. It is needless to point out how easily such an idea +led to immorality being mixed up with religion, a vice from which +the Jews were absolutely free. Indeed, few things are more +remarkable, even with this remarkable people, than that in the +innermost shrine of their temple, in the ark just below the +mercy-seat, there was a code of _moral laws_, the _Ten Commandments_. +This was the very centre of their religion, theirgreatest treasure; +and they believed them to have been written by God Himself. + +Nor can it be said that this high conception of the Deity was +confined to the later period of Jewish history. For the above texts +have been purposely selected from all through the Old Testament, and +even Abraham, the remote ancestor of the Jews, seems to have looked +upon it as self-evident that Jehovah, the _Judge of all the earth_, +should _do right_.[171] No wonder, then, believing in such a perfect +Being as this, the Jews, in contrast with most other nations, +thought that their first and great commandment was to _love_ God +rather than to _fear_ Him, that they were each individually +responsible to Him for their conduct, and that every sin was a sin +against God, Who was a Searcher of hearts, and the impartial Judge +of all men.[172] So much, then, for the Jewish conception of the +Deity when considered as a whole and apart from special +difficulties. + +[Footnote 171: Gen. 18. 25.] + +[Footnote 172: Deut. 6. 5; Eccles. 12. 14; Gen. 39. 9; 1 Chron. 28. +9; Job 34. 19.] + +And from this it follows that the Jewish God, Jehovah, was the true +God, the God of Natural Religion, the Being Who is All-Powerful, +All-Wise, and All-Good. Yet strange to say the Jews were not a more +advanced nation than those around them. On the contrary, in the arts +both of peace and war they were vastly inferior to the great nations +of antiquity, but in their conception of the Deity they were vastly +superior; or, as it has been otherwise expressed, they were men in +religion, though children in everything else. And this appears to +many to be a strong argument in favour of their religion. For unless +it had been revealed to them, it is not likely that the Jews alone +among ancient nations would have had such a true conception of the +Deity. And unless they were in some special sense God's people, it +is not likely that they alone would have worshipped Him. + +(_C._) CONCLUSION. + +Before concluding this chapter, we must notice four arguments of a +more general character; all of which are undisputed, and all of +which are distinctly in favour of the Jewish Religion. The first is +that the Jews are all descended from _one man_, Abraham. They have +always maintained this themselves, and there seems no reason to +doubt it. Yet it is very remarkable. There are now about _sixteen +hundred_ million persons in the world, and if there were at the time +of Abraham (say) _one_ million men (_i.e._, males), each of these +would, on an average, have 1,600 descendants now.[173] But the Jews +now number, not 1,600, but over 12,000,000. This extraordinary +posterity would be strange in any case, but is doubly so, +considering that it was foretold. It was part of the great promise +made to Abraham, for his great faith, that his seed should be as +_the stars of heaven_, and as _the sand which is upon the sea-shore_ +for multitude.[174] + +[Footnote 173: _I.e._, descendants in the male line; descendants +through daughters are of course not counted.] + +[Footnote 174: Gen. 22. 17.] + +The second is that the Jews are anyhow _a unique nation_. For +centuries, though scattered throughout the world, they have been +held together by their religion. And according to the Bible, their +religion was given them for this very purpose, it was to make them a +_peculiar people_, unlike everyone else.[175] If then it was, as far +as it went, the true religion, revealed by God, the fact is +explicable; but if it was nothing better than other ancient and +false religions, it is hopelessly inexplicable. + +[Footnote 175: Deut. 14. 2; 26. 18.] + +The third is that the early history of the Jews, either real or +supposed, has exerted a greater and more beneficial influence on the +world for the last thousand years, than that of all the great +nations of antiquity put together. Millions of men have been helped +to resist sin by the Psalms of David, and the stories of Elijah, +Daniel, etc., over whom the histories of Egypt and Assyria, Greece, +and Rome, have had no influence whatever. And the _effect_ of the +Religion being thus unique, makes it probable that its _cause_ was +unique also; in other words, that it was Divinely revealed. + +The fourth is that the Jews themselves always prophesied that their +God, Jehovah, would one day be universally acknowledged.[176] And +(however strange we may think it) this has actually been the case; +and the God of this small and insignificant tribe--_the God of +Israel_--is now worshipped by millions and millions of men +(Christians) of every race, language, and country, throughout the +civilised world. These are facts that need explanation, and the +Truth of the Jewish Religion seems alone able to explain them. + +[Footnote 176: _E.g._, Ps. 22. 27; 86. 9; Isa. 11. 9; Zeph. 2. 11.] + +In conclusion, we will just sum up the arguments in these chapters. +We have shown that there are strong reasons for thinking that the +account of the _Creation_ was Divinely revealed; that the _origin_ +of the Jewish religion was confirmed by miracles; and that its +_history_ was confirmed both by miracles and prophecies. And it +should be noticed, each of these arguments is independent of the +others. So the evidence is all cumulative and far more than +sufficient to outweigh the improbability of the religion, due to its +apparent _partiality_, which is the most important argument on the +opposite side. Moreover, we know so little as to why man was +created, or what future, God intended for him, that it is not easy +to say whether the religion is really so improbable after all. On +the other hand, the evidence in its favour is plain, direct, and +unmistakable. And we therefore decide that the _Jewish Religion is +probably true_. + + + + +PART III. + +_THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION_. + + CHAP. XIII. THAT THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS CREDIBLE. + " XIV. THAT THE FOUR GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. + " XV. THAT THE GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM INTERNAL EVIDENCE. + " XVI. THAT THE GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM THE EVIDENCE OF THE + ACTS. + " XVII. THAT THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST IS PROBABLY TRUE. + " XVIII. THAT THE FAILURE OF OTHER EXPLANATIONS INCREASES THIS + PROBABILITY. + " XIX. THAT THE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES ARE PROBABLY TRUE. + " XX. THAT THE JEWISH PROPHECIES CONFIRM THE TRUTH OF + CHRISTIANITY. + " XXI. THAT THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST CONFIRMS THE TRUTH OF + CHRISTIANITY. + " XXII. THAT THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY CONFIRMS ITS TRUTH. + " XXIII. THAT ON THE WHOLE THE OTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THIS + CONCLUSION. + " XXIV. THAT THE THREE CREEDS ARE DEDUCIBLE FROM THE NEW + TESTAMENT. + " XXV. THAT THE TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS EXTREMELY + PROBABLE. + + + + +CHAPTER XIII. + +THAT THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS CREDIBLE. + + By the Christian Religion is meant the Three Creeds, its four great + doctrines. + + (_A._) THE TRINITY. + + (1.) Its meaning; Three Persons in One Nature. + (2.) Its credibility; this must be admitted. + (3.) Its probability more likely than simple Theism. + + (_B._) THE INCARNATION. + + (1.) Its difficulties; not insuperable. + (2.) Its motive; God, it is said, loves man, and wishes man + to love Him, not improbable for several reasons. + (3.) Its historical position. + + (_C._) THE ATONEMENT. + + The common objections do not apply because of the + _willingness_ of the Victim. + + (1.) As to the Victim; it does away with the injustice. + (2.) As to the Judge; it appeals to His mercy not justice. + (3.) As to the sinner; it has no bad influence. + + (_D._) THE RESURRECTION. + + (1.) Christ's Resurrection; not incredible, for we have no + experience to judge by. + (2.) Man's resurrection; not incredible, for the same body + need not involve the same molecules. + + (_E._) CONCLUSION. + + Three considerations which show that the Christian + Religion, though improbable, is certainly not incredible. + + +We pass on now to the Christian Religion, by which we mean the facts +and doctrines contained in the _Three Creeds_, commonly, though +perhaps incorrectly, called the Apostles', the Nicene, and the +Athanasian. And, as these doctrines are of such vast importance, and +of so wonderful a character, we must first consider whether they are +_credible_. Is it conceivable that such doctrines should be true, no +matter what evidence they may have in their favour? In this chapter, +therefore, we shall deal chiefly with the difficulties of +Christianity. Now its four great and characteristic doctrines are +those of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, and the +Resurrection. We will examine each in turn, and then conclude with a +few general remarks. + + +(_A._) THE TRINITY. + +To begin with, the Christian religion differs from all others in its +idea of the nature of God. According to Christianity, the Deity +exists in some mysterious manner as a _Trinity of Persons_ in a +_Unity of Nature_; so we will first consider the meaning of this +doctrine, then its credibility, and lastly its probability. It is +not, as some people suppose, a kind of intellectual puzzle, but a +statement which, whether true or false, is fairly intelligible, +provided, of course, due attention is given to the meaning of the +words employed. + +(1.) _Its meaning._ + +In the first place, we must carefully distinguish between _Person_ +and _Substance_; this is the key to the whole question. The former +has been already considered in Chapters III. and IV., though it must +be remembered that this term, like all others, when applied to God, +cannot mean exactly the same as it does when applied to man. All we +can say is that, on the whole, it seems the least inappropriate +word. The latter is a little misleading, since it is not the modern +English word _substance_, but a Latin translation of a Greek word, +which would be better rendered by _nature_ or _essence_. + +But though difficult to explain, its meaning is tolerably clear. +Take, for instance, though the analogy must not be pressed too far, +the case of three men; each is a distinct human _person_, but they +all have a common human _nature_. This human nature, which may also +be called human substance (in its old sense), humanity, or manhood, +has of course no existence apart from the men whose nature it is; it +is merely _that_ which they each possess in common, and the +possession of which makes each of them a man. And hence, any +attribute belonging to human nature would belong to each of the +three men, so that each would be mortal, each subject to growth, +etc. Each would in fact possess the complete human nature, yet +together there would not be three human natures, but only one. + +Bearing this in mind, let us now turn to the doctrine of the +Trinity. This is expressed in vv. 3-6 of the Athanasian Creed as +follows:-- + + 3. 'The Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one + God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity. + + 4. 'Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing + the Substance. + + 5. 'For there is one Person of the Father, another + of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. + + 6. 'But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, + and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the + Majesty co-eternal.' + +Here, it will be noticed, vv. 5 and 6 give the _reasons_ for v. 4, +so that the Godhead in v. 6 is, as we should have expected, the same +as the Divine _Substance_ or Nature in v. 4. Thus the meaning is as +follows:-- + +We must worship one God (as to Nature) in Trinity (of Persons) and +Trinity (of Persons) in Unity (of Nature); neither confusing the +Persons, for each is distinct; nor dividing the Nature, for it is +all one. + +Thus far there is no intellectual difficulty in the statements of +the Creed. We do not mean that there is no difficulty in believing +them to be true, or in accurately defining the terms used; but that, +as statements, their meaning is quite intelligible. + +We now pass on to the following verses which are deductions from +this, and show that as each of the three Persons possesses the +Divine Nature, all attributes of the Godhead (_i.e._, of this one +Divine Nature) are possessed by each of the three. Each is therefore +_eternal_, and yet there is only _one_ eternal Nature. But this is +expressed in a peculiarly short and abrupt manner. No one, of +course, supposes that God is Three _in the same sense_ in which He +is One, but the Creed does not sufficiently guard against this, +perhaps because it never occurred to its author that anyone would +think it meant such an obvious absurdity. Moreover, even +grammatically the verses are not very clear. For the various terms +_uncreate_, _incomprehensible_ (_i.e._, boundless, or omnipresent), +_eternal_, _almighty_, _God_, and _Lord_ are used as if they were +adjectives in the first part of each sentence, and nouns in the +latter part. + +But we must remember these verses do not stand alone. If they did, +they might perhaps be thought unintelligible. But they do not. As +just said, they are deductions from the previous statement of the +doctrine of the Trinity; and, therefore, they must in all fairness +be interpreted so as to agree with that doctrine, not to contradict +it. And the previous verses (3-6) show clearly that where _three_ +are spoken of, it refers to Persons; and where _one_ is spoken of, +it refers to Substance or Nature. + +It must however be admitted that the _names_ of these Divine Persons +imply some closer union between them than that of merely possessing +in common one Divine Nature. For they are not independent names like +those of different men or of heathen gods, each of whom might exist +separately; but they are all _relative_ names, each implying the +others. Thus the Father implies the Son, for how can there be a +Father, unless there is a Son (or at least a child)? And of course +an Eternal Father implies an Eternal Son, so any idea that the +Father must have lived first, as in the case of a human father and +son, is out of the question. Similarly the Son implies the Father, +and the Spirit implies Him whose Spirit He is. And though these +names are no doubt very inadequate; they yet show that the three +Persons are of the same Nature, which is the important point. + +We conclude then that the Doctrine of the Trinity means the +existence of three Divine Persons, each possessing in its +completeness the one Divine Nature; and closely united together; +though in a manner, which is to us unknown. + +(2.) _Its credibility._ + +Having now discussed the meaning of the Christian doctrine, we have +next to consider whether it is credible. It must of course be +admitted that the doctrine is very mysterious, and though fairly +intelligible as a doctrine, is extremely hard to realise (indeed +some might say inconceivable) when we try to picture to ourselves +what the doctrine actually means. But we must remember that the +nature of God is anyhow almost inconceivable, even as simple Theism. +We cannot picture to ourselves a Being Who is omnipresent,--in this +room, for instance, as well as on distant stars. Nor can we imagine +a Being Who is grieved every time we commit sin, for if so, +considering the number of people in the world, He must be grieved +many thousands of times _every second_; as well as being glad +whenever anyone resists sin, also, let us hope, several thousand +times a second. All this may be true, just as the marvels of +science--the _ether_, for instance, which is also omnipresent, and +has millions of vibrations every second--may be true, but our minds +are quite unable to realise any of them. + +Thus, as said in Chapter III., though we have ample means of knowing +what God is _in His relation to us_ as our Creator and Judge, yet as +to His real nature we know next to nothing. Nor is this surprising +when we remember that the only being who in any way resembles God +is _man_; and man's nature, notwithstanding all our opportunities of +studying it, still remains a mystery. + +Now Christianity does attempt (in its doctrine of the Trinity) to +state what God is _in Himself_, and without any reference to +ourselves, or to nature; and that this should be to a great extent +inconceivable to our minds seems inevitable. For the nature of God +must be beyond human understanding, just as the nature of a man is +beyond the understanding of animals; though they may realise what he +is _to them_, in his power or his kindness. And for all we know, +Trinity in Unity, like omnipresence, may be one of the unique +attributes of God, which cannot be understood (because it cannot be +shared) by anyone else. Therefore the mysteriousness of the +Christian doctrine is no reason for thinking it incredible. + +Nor is it inconsistent with Natural Religion, for though this shows +the _Unity_ of God, it is only a unity of _outward action_. It does +not, and cannot tell us what this one God is _in Himself_, whether, +for instance, He exists as one or more Persons. In the same way (if +we may without irreverence take a homely illustration) a number of +letters might be so extremely alike as to show that they were all +written by one man. But this would not tell us what the man was _in +himself_, whether, for instance, he had a free will, as well as a +body and mind; or how these were related to one another. Hence +Natural Religion can in no way conflict with Christianity. + +(3.) _Its probability._ + +But we may go further than this, and say that the Christian doctrine +of _Three_ Divine Persons is (when carefully considered) _less_ +difficult to believe than the Unitarian doctrine of only _One_. For +this latter leads to the conclusion, either that God must have been +a solitary God dwelling alone from all eternity, before the creation +of the world; or else that the world itself (or some part of it) +must have been eternal, and have formed a kind of companion. And +each of these theories has great difficulties. Take for instance the +attributes of _Power_ and _Wisdom_, both of which, as we have seen, +must of necessity belong to God. How could a solitary God dwelling +alone before the Creation of the world have been able to exercise +either His Power or His Wisdom? As far as we can judge, His Power +could have produced nothing, His Wisdom could have thought of +nothing. He would have been a _potential_ God only, with all His +capacities unrealised. And such a view seems quite incredible. + +Yet the only alternative--that the world itself is eternal--though +it gets over this difficulty, is still inadequate. For as we have +seen God possesses _moral_ attributes as well, such as Goodness. And +all moral attributes--everything connected with right and wrong--can +only be thought of as existing between two _persons_. We cannot be +good to an atom of hydrogen, or unjust to a molecule of water. We +can it is true be kind to _animals_, but this is simply because they +resemble personal beings in having a capacity for pleasure and pain. +But moral attributes in their highest perfection can only exist +between two persons. Therefore as the eternal God possesses, and +must always have possessed, such attributes, it seems to require +some other eternal _Person_. + +The argument is perhaps a difficult one to follow, but a single +example will make it plain. Take the attribute of _love_. This +requires at least two persons--one to love, the other to be loved. +Therefore if love has always been one of God's attributes, there +must always have been some _other_ person to be loved. And the idea +that God might have been eternally _creating_ persons, like men or +angels, as objects of His love, though perhaps attractive, is still +inadequate. For love in its perfection can only exist between two +beings _of the same nature_. A man cannot love his dog, in the same +way that he can love his son. In short, _personality_, involving as +it does moral attributes like love, implies _fellowship_, or the +existence of other and _similar_ persons. + +Yet, when we think of the meaning of the term God, His omnipresence +and omnipotence, it seems impossible that there can be more than +one. We must then believe in at least two Eternal and Divine +Persons, yet in but one God; and the Christian doctrine of the +Trinity in Unity, with all its difficulties, still seems the _least_ +difficult explanation. + +But this is not all, for Natural Religion itself leads us to look +upon God in _three_ distinct ways, which correspond to the three +chief arguments for His existence. (Chaps. I., II., and V.) Thus we +may think of Him as the Eternal, Self-Existent One, altogether +independent of the world--the All-Powerful _First Cause_ required to +account for it. Or we may think of Him in His relation to the world, +as its Maker and Evolver, working everywhere, in everything and +through everything,--the All-Wise _Designer_ required by nature. Or +we may think of Him in His relation to ourselves as a Spirit holding +intercourse with our spirits, and telling us what is right--the +All-Good _Moral_ God required by conscience. And how well this +agrees with the Christian doctrine scarcely needs pointing out; the +Father the Source of all, the Son by Whom all things were made, and +the Spirit bearing witness with our spirits; and yet not three Gods, +but one God. + +On the whole, then, we decide that the Doctrine of the Trinity is +certainly credible and perhaps even probable. For to put it shortly, +Nature forces us to believe in a personal God; yet, when we reflect +on the subject, the idea of a personal God, Who is only one Person, +seems scarcely tenable; since (as said above) personality implies +fellowship. + + +(_B._) THE INCARNATION. + +We next come to the doctrine of the Incarnation; which however is so +clearly stated in the Athanasian Creed, that its meaning is quite +plain. God the Son, we are told, the second Person of the Trinity, +was pleased to become Man and to be born of the Virgin Mary, so that +He is now both _God_ and _Man_. He is God (from all eternity) of the +Substance or Nature of His Divine Father, and Man (since the +Incarnation) of the Substance or Nature of His human Mother. He is +thus complete God and complete Man; equal to the Father in regard to +His Godhead, for He is of the same Nature; and inferior to the +Father, in regard to His Manhood, for human nature must be inferior +to the Divine. Moreover, though He possesses these two Natures, they +are not changed one into the other, or confused together; but each +remains distinct, though both are united in His One Person. This is +in brief the doctrine of the Incarnation; and we will first consider +its difficulties, then its motive, and lastly its historical +position. + +(1.) _Its difficulties._ + +The first of these is that the Incarnation would be a _change_ in +the existence of God, Who is the changeless One. He, it is urged, is +always the same, while an Incarnation would imply that at some +particular time and place a momentous change occurred, and for ever +afterwards God became different from what He had been for ever +before. + +This is no doubt a serious difficulty, but it must not be +exaggerated. For an Incarnation would not, strictly speaking, +involve any change in the Divine Nature itself. God the Son remained +completely and entirely God all the time, He was not (as just said) +in any way changed into a man, only He united to Himself a human +nature as well. And perhaps if we knew more about the nature of God, +and also about that of man (who we must remember was made to some +extent in God's image, and this perhaps with a view to the +Incarnation), we should see that it was just as natural for God to +become Man, as it was for God to create man. We have really nothing +to argue from. An Incarnation seems improbable, and that is all we +can say. + +But if it took place at all, there is nothing surprising in this +planet being the one chosen for it. Indeed, as far as we know, it is +the only one that could be chosen, since it is the only one which +contains personal beings in whom God could become incarnate. Of +course other planets _may_ contain such beings; but as said before +(Chapter V.) this is only a conjecture, and in the light of recent +investigations not a very probable one. While if they do contain +such beings, these may not have sinned, in which case our little +world, with its erring inhabitants, would be like the lost sheep in +the parable, the only one which the Ruler of the Universe had come +to save. + +The second difficulty is, that the Incarnation would lead to a +_compound Being_, who is both Divine and human at the same time, and +this is often thought to be incredible. But here the answer is +obvious, and is suggested by the Creed itself. Man himself is a +compound being; he is the union of a material body and an immaterial +spirit, in a single person. His spirit is in fact _incarnate_ in his +body. We cannot explain it, but so it is. And the Incarnation in +which Christians believe is the union of the Divine Nature and the +human nature in a single Person. Both appear equally improbable, and +equally inconceivable to our minds, if we try and think out all that +they involve; but as the one is actually true, the other is +certainly not incredible. + +The third and last of these difficulties refers to the miraculous +_Virgin-birth_. But if we admit the possibility of an Incarnation, +no method of bringing it about can be pronounced incredible. The +event, if true, is necessarily unique, and cannot be supposed to +come under the ordinary laws of nature. For it was not the birth of +a _new_ being (as in the case of ordinary men), but an already +existing Being entering into new conditions. And we have no +experience of this whatever. Indeed, that a child born in the usual +way should be the Eternal God, is just as miraculous, and just as +far removed from our experience, as if He were born in any other +way. While considering that one object of the Incarnation was to +promote moral virtues in man, such as purity, the virgin-birth was +most suitable, and formed an appropriate beginning for a sinless +life. + +(2.) _Its motive._ + +But we now come to a more important point, for the Incarnation, if +true, must have been the most momentous event in the world's +history; and can we even imagine a sufficient reason for it? God we +may be sure does not act without motives, and what adequate motive +can be suggested for the Incarnation? Now the alleged motive, indeed +the very foundation of Christianity, is that God _loves_ man; and as +a natural consequence wishes man to love Him. Is this then +incredible, or even improbable? Certainly not, for several reasons. + +To begin with, as we have already shown, God is a Personal and Moral +Being, Who cares for the welfare of His creatures, more especially +for man. And this, allowing for the imperfection of human language, +may be described as God's _loving_ man, since disinterested love for +another cannot be thought an unworthy attribute to ascribe to God. +On the other hand, man is also a personal and moral being, able to +some extent to love God in return. And to this must be added the +fact that man, at least some men, do not seem altogether unworthy of +God's love, while we certainly do not know of any other being who is +more worthy of it. + +Moreover, considering the admitted resemblance between God and man, +the analogy of human parents loving their children is not +inappropriate. Indeed it is specially suitable, since here also we +have a relationship between two personal and moral beings, one of +whom is the producer (though not in this case the creator) of the +other. And human parents often love their children intensely, and +will sometimes even die for them; while, as a rule, the better the +parents are the more they love their children, and this in spite of +the children having many faults. Is it, then, unlikely that the +Creator may love His children also, and that human love may be only +a reflection of this--another instance of how man was made in the +image of God? The evidence we have may be slight, but it all points +the same way. + +Now, if it be admitted that God loves man, we have plainly no means +of estimating the _extent_ of this love. But by comparing the other +attributes of God, such as His wisdom and His power, with the +similar attributes of man, we should expect God's love to be +infinitely greater than any human love; so great indeed that He +would be willing to make any sacrifice in order to gain what is the +object in all love, that it should be returned. Might not then God's +love induce Him to become man, so that He might the more easily win +man's love? + +And we must remember that man's love, like his will, is _free_. +Compulsory love is in the nature of things impossible. A man can +only love, what he can if he chooses hate. Therefore God cannot +force man to love Him, He can only induce him; and how can He do +this better than by an Incarnation? For it would show, as nothing +else could show, that God's love is a self-sacrificing love; and +this is the highest form of love. Indeed, if it were not so, in +other words, if God's love cost Him nothing, it would be _inferior_ +in this respect to that of many men. But if, on the other hand, +God's love involved self-sacrifice;--if it led to Calvary--then it +is the highest possible form of love. And then we see that God's +attributes are all, so to speak, on the same scale; and His Goodness +is as far above any human goodness, as the Power which rules the +universe is above any human power; or the Wisdom which designed all +nature is above any human wisdom. Hence, if the Incarnation still +seems inconceivable, may it not be simply because the love of God, +like His other attributes, is so inconceivably greater than anything +we can imagine? + +Moreover a self-sacrificing love is the form, which is most likely +to lead to its being returned. And experience proves that this has +actually been the case. The condescending love of Christ in His +life, and still more in His death, forms an overpowering motive +which, when once realised, has always been irresistible. + +But more than this. Not only does the Incarnation afford the +strongest possible motive for man to love God, but it _enables_ him +to do so in a way which nothing else could. Man, it is true, often +longs for some means of intercourse, or communion with his Maker, +yet this seems impossible. The gulf which separates the Creator from +the creature is infinite, and can never be bridged over by man, or +even by an angel, or other intermediate being. For a bridge must of +necessity touch _both sides_; so if the gulf is to be bridged at +all, it can only be by One Who is at the same time both God and Man. +Thus the Incarnation brings God, if we may use the expression, +within man's reach, so that the latter has no mere abstract and +invisible Being to love, but a definite Person, Whose Character he +can appreciate, and Whose conduct he can to some extent follow. In +short, the Incarnation provides man with a worthy Being for his love +and devotion, yet with a Being Whom he can partly at least +understand and partly imitate. And he is thus able to become in a +still truer sense a _child of God_; or, as it is commonly expressed, +God became Man in order that man might become as far as possible, +like God. + +And this brings us to another aspect of the Incarnation. Christ's +life was meant to be an _example_ to man, and it is clear that a +_perfect_ example could only be given by a Being Who is both God and +Man. For God alone is above human imitation, and even the best of +men have many faults; so that from the nature of the case, Christ, +and Christ alone, can provide us with a perfect example, for being +Man He is capable of imitation, and being God He is worthy of it. + +Now what follows from this? If Christ's life was meant to be an +example to man, it was essential that it should be one of +_suffering_, or the example would have lost more than half its +value. Man does not want to be shown how to live in prosperity, but +how to live in adversity, and how to suffer patiently. The desertion +of friends, the malice of enemies, and a cruel death are the +occasional lot of mankind. They are perhaps the hardest things a man +has to bear in this world, and they have often had to be borne by +the followers of Christ. Is it incredible, then, that He should have +given them an example of the perfect way of doing so; gently +rebuking His friends, praying for His murderers, and acting +throughout as only a perfect man could act? No doubt such a life and +death seem at first sight degrading to the Deity. But strictly +speaking, suffering, if borne voluntarily and for the benefit of +others, is not degrading; especially if the benefit could not be +obtained in any other way. + +When we consider all this, it is plain that many reasons can be +given for the Incarnation. Of course it may be replied that they are +not adequate; but we have no means of knowing whether God would +consider them adequate or not. His ideas are not like ours; for what +adequate motive can we suggest for His creating man at all? Yet He +has done so. And having created him and given him free will, and +man having misused his freedom, all of which is admitted, then that +God should endeavour to restore man cannot be thought incredible. +Indeed it seems almost due to Himself that He should try and prevent +His noblest work from being a failure. And if in addition to this +God loves man still, in spite of his sins, then some intervention on +his account seems almost probable. + +(3.) _Its historical position._ + +It may still be objected that if the above reasons are really +sufficient to account for the Incarnation, it ought to have taken +place near the commencement of man's history. And no doubt when we +contemplate the great antiquity of man, this often seems a +difficulty. But we have very little to judge by, and that little +does not support the objection. For in nature God seems always to +work by the slow and tedious process of evolution, not attaining +what He wanted all at once, but by gradual development. Therefore, +if He revealed Himself to man, we should expect it to be by the same +method. At first it would be indistinctly, as in _Natural Religion_; +which dates back to pre-historic times, since the burial customs +show a belief in a future life. Then it would be more clearly, as in +the _Jewish Religion_; and finally it might be by becoming Man +Himself, as in the _Christian Religion_. + +According to Christianity, the whole previous history of the world +was a preparation for the Incarnation. But only when the preparation +was complete, _when the fullness of the time came_, as St. Paul +expresses it,[177] did it take place. And it has certainly proved, +as we should have expected, an epoch-making event. In all +probability the history of the world will always be considered +relatively to it in years B.C. and A.D. And very possibly it has a +significance far beyond man or even this planet. For we must +remember, man is not merely a link in a series of created beings +indefinitely improving, but, as shown in Chapter V., he is the _end_ +of the series, the last stage in evolution, the highest organised +being that will ever appear on this planet, or, as far as we know, +on any planet. + +[Footnote 177: Gal. 4. 4.] + +Therefore, man's rank in the universe is not affected by the +insignificance of this earth. Where else shall we find a personal +being with attributes superior to those of man? Where else indeed +shall we find a personal being at all? The only answer Science can +give is _nowhere_. But if so, man's position in the universe is one +of unique pre-eminence. And it is this inherent greatness of man, as +it has been called, which justifies the Incarnation. _He is worthy +that Thou should'st do this for him._ + +Moreover when we consider God the Son as the Divine Person who is +specially _immanent_ in nature, and who has been evolving the +universe through countless ages from its original matter into higher +and higher forms of life, there seems a special fitness in its +leading up to such a climax as the Incarnation. For then by becoming +Man, He united Himself with matter in its highest and most perfect +form. Thus the Incarnation, like the Nebula theory in astronomy, or +the process of Evolution, if once accepted, throws a new light on +the entire universe; and it has thus a grandeur and impressiveness +about it, which to some minds is very attractive. On the whole, +then, we decide that the doctrine is certainly not incredible, +though it no doubt seems improbable. + + +(_C._) THE ATONEMENT. + +We pass on now to the doctrine of the Atonement, which is that +Christ's death was in some sense a sacrifice for sin, and thus +reconciled (or made 'at-one') God the Father and sinful man. And +though not actually stated in the Creeds, it is implied in the +words, _Was crucified also for us_, and _Who suffered for our +salvation_. + +The chief difficulty is of course on moral grounds. The idea of +atonement, it is said, or of one man being made to suffer as a +substitute for another, and thus appeasing the Deity, was well-nigh +universal in early times, and is so still among savage nations. Such +a sacrifice, however, is a great injustice to the _victim_; it +ascribes an unworthy character to God, as a _Judge_, Who can be +satisfied with the punishment of an innocent man in place of the +guilty one; and it has a bad influence on the _sinner_, allowing him +to sin on with impunity, provided he can find another substitute +when needed. + +The answer to this difficulty is, that it takes no account of the +most important part of the Christian doctrine, which is the +_willingness_ of the Victim. According to Christianity, Christ was a +willing Sacrifice, Who freely laid down His life;[178] while the +human sacrifices just alluded to were not willing sacrifices, since +the victims had no option in the matter. And, as we shall see, this +alters the case completely both in regard to the victim himself, the +judge, and the sinner. + +[Footnote 178: _E.g._, John 10. 18.] + +(1.) _As to the Victim._ + +It is plain that his willingness does away with the injustice +altogether. There is no injustice in accepting a volunteer for any +painful office, provided he thoroughly knows what he is doing, for +he need not undertake it unless he likes. If, on the other hand, we +deny the voluntary and sacrificial character of Christ's death, and +regard Him as merely a good man, then there certainly was +injustice--and very great injustice too, that such a noble life +should have ended in such a shameful death. + +(2.) _As to the Judge._ + +Next as to the Judge. It will be seen that a willing sacrifice, +though it does not satisfy his _justice_, makes a strong appeal to +his _mercy_; at least it would do so in human cases. Suppose for +instance a judge had before him a criminal who well deserved to be +punished, but a good man, perhaps the judge's own son, came forward, +and not only interceded for the prisoner, but was so devotedly +attached to him as to offer to bear his punishment (pay his fine, +for instance), this would certainly influence the judge in his +favour. It would show that he was not so hopelessly bad after all. +Mercy and justice are thus both facts of human nature; and it is +also a fact of human nature, that the voluntary suffering, or +willingness to suffer, of a good man for a criminal whom he deeply +loves, does incline man to mercy rather than justice. + +Now, have we any reason for thinking that God also combines, in +their highest forms, these two attributes of mercy and justice? +Certainly we have; for, as shown in Chapter V., the goodness of God +includes both _beneficence_ and _righteousness_; and these general +terms, when applied to the case of judging sinners, closely +correspond to mercy and justice. God, as we have seen, combines +both, and both are required by the Christian doctrine. Mercy alone +would have forgiven men without any atonement; justice alone would +not have forgiven them at all. But God is both merciful and just, +and therefore the idea that voluntary atonement might incline Him to +mercy rather than justice does not seem incredible. + +And this is precisely the Christian doctrine. The mercy of God the +Father is obtained for sinful man by Christ's generous sacrifice of +Himself on man's behalf; so that, to put it shortly, _God forgives +sins for Christ's sake_. And it should be noticed, the idea of sins +being _forgiven_ which occurs all through the New Testament, and is +alluded to in the Apostles' Creed, shows that Christ's Atonement was +not that of a mere substitute, for then no forgiveness would have +been necessary. If, for example, I owe a man a sum of money, and a +friend pays it for me, I do not ask the man to forgive me the debt; +I have no need of any forgiveness. But if, instead of paying it, he +merely intercedes for me, then the man may forgive me the debt for +my friend's sake. + +And in this way, though Christ did not, strictly speaking, bear +man's _punishment_ (which would have been eternal separation from +God), His sufferings and death may yet have procured man's _pardon_; +He suffered on our behalf, though not in our stead. And some +Atonement was certainly necessary to show God's _hatred for sin_, +and to prevent His Character from being misunderstood in this +respect. And it probably would have been so, if men had been +forgiven without any Atonement, when they might have thought that +sin was not such a very serious affair after all. + +(3.) _As to the sinner._ + +Lastly, the willingness of the victim affects the sinner also. For +if the changed attitude of the judge is due, not to his justice +being satisfied, but to his mercy being appealed to, this is plainly +conditional on a _moral change_ in the sinner himself. A good man +suffering for a criminal would not alter our feelings towards him, +if he still chose to remain a criminal. And this exactly agrees with +the Christian doctrine, which is that sinners cannot expect to avail +themselves of Christ's Atonement if they wilfully continue in sin; +so that _repentance_ is a necessary condition of forgiveness. +Therefore instead of having a bad influence on the sinners +themselves; it has precisely the opposite effect. + +And what we should thus expect theoretically has been amply +confirmed by experience. No one will deny that Christians in all +ages have been devotedly attached to the doctrine of the Atonement. +They have asserted that it is the cause of all their joy in this +world, and all their hope for the next. Yet, so far from having +had a bad influence, it has led them to the most noble and +self-sacrificing lives. It has saved them from _sin_, and not only +the penalties of sin, and this is exactly what was required. The +greatness of man's sin, and the misery it causes in the world, are +but too evident, apart from Christianity. Man is indeed both the +glory and the scandal of the universe--the _glory_ in what he was +evidently intended to be, and the _scandal_ in what, through sin, he +actually became. And the Atonement was a 'vast remedy for this vast +evil.' And if we admit the _end_, that man had to be redeemed from +sin, impressed with the guilt of sin, and helped to resist sin; we +cannot deny the appropriateness of the _means_, which, as a matter +of fact, has so often brought it about. + +This completes a brief examination of the moral difficulties +connected with the Atonement; and it is clear that the _willingness_ +of the Victim makes the whole difference, whether we regard them as +referring to the Victim himself, the Judge, or the sinner. + + +(_D._) THE RESURRECTION. + +The last great Christian doctrine is that of the Resurrection. +According to Christianity, all men are to rise again, with their +bodies partly changed and rendered incorruptible; and the +Resurrection of Christ's Body was both a pledge of this, and also to +some extent an example of what a risen body would be like. He was +thus, as the Bible says, the _firstborn_ from the dead.[179] Now +this word _firstborn_ implies, to begin with, that none had been so +born before, the cases of Lazarus, etc., being those of +_resuscitation_ and not _resurrection_; they lived again to die +again, and their bodies were unchanged. And it implies, secondly, +that others would be so born afterwards, so that our risen bodies +will resemble His. The Resurrection of Christ is thus represented +not as something altogether exceptional and unique, but rather as +the first instance of what will one day be the universal rule. It +shows us the last stage in man's long development, what he is +intended to become when he is at length perfected. We will therefore +consider first Christ's Resurrection, and then man's resurrection. + +[Footnote 179: Col. 1. 18; Rev. 1. 5; 1 Cor. 15. 20; Acts. 26. 23.] + +(1.) _Christ's Resurrection._ + +Now according to the Gospels, Christ's Risen Body combined material +and immaterial properties in a remarkable manner. Thus He could be +touched and eat food, and yet apparently pass through closed doors +and vanish at pleasure; and this is often thought to be incredible. +But strictly speaking it is not _incredible_; since no material +substance (a door or anything else) is _solid_. There are always +spaces between the molecules; so that for one such body to pass +through another is no more difficult to imagine, than for one +regiment to march through another on parade. And if a regiment +contained anything like as many men, as there are molecules in a +door, it would probably look just as solid. + +Moreover Christ's risen Body, though possessing some material +properties, is represented to have been _spiritual_ as well. And the +nearest approach to a spiritual substance of which we have any +scientific knowledge is the _ether_, and this also seems to combine +material and immaterial properties, being in some respects more like +a solid than a gas. Yet it can pass through all material substances; +and this certainly prevents us from saying that it is incredible +that Christ's spiritual Body should pass through closed doors. + +Indeed for all we know, it may be one of the properties of spiritual +beings, that they can pass through material substances (just as the +X-rays can) and be generally invisible; yet be able, if they wish, +to assume some of the properties of matter, such as becoming visible +or audible. In fact, unless they were able to do this, it is hard to +see how they could manifest themselves at all. And a slight +alteration in the waves of light coming from a body would make it +visible or not to the human eye. And it is out of the question to +say that God--the Omnipotent One--could not produce such a change in +a spiritual body. While for such a body to become tangible, or to +take food, is not really more wonderful (though it seems so) than +for it to become visible or audible; since when once we pass the +boundary between the natural and the supernatural everything is +mysterious. + +It may of course be replied that though all this is not perhaps +incredible, it is still most improbable; and no doubt it is. But +what then? We have no adequate means of judging, for the fact, if +true, is, up to the present, unique. It implies a _new_ mode of +existence which is neither spiritual nor material, though possessing +some of the properties of each, and of which we have no experience +whatever. So we are naturally unable to understand it. But assuming +the Resurrection of Christ to be otherwise credible, as it certainly +is if we admit His Incarnation and Death, we cannot call it +incredible, merely because the properties of His risen Body are said +to be different from those of ordinary human bodies, and in some +respects to resemble those of spirits. It is in fact only what we +should expect. + +(2.) _Man's Resurrection._ + +Next as to man's resurrection. The Christian doctrine of the +resurrection of the _body_ must not be confused with that of the +immortality of the _spirit_, discussed in Chapter VI., which is +common to many religions, and is certainly not improbable. But two +objections may be made to the resurrection of the body. + +The first is that it is _impossible_, since the human body +decomposes after death, and its molecules may afterwards form a part +of other bodies; so, if all men were to rise again at the same time, +those molecules would have to be in two places at once. But the +fallacy here is obvious, for the molecules composing a man's body +are continually changing during life, and it is probable that every +one of them is changed in a few years; yet the identity of the body +is not destroyed. This identity depends not on the identity of the +molecules, but on their relative position and numbers so that a +man's body in this respect is like a whirlpool in a stream, the +water composing which is continually changing, though the whirlpool +itself remains. Therefore the resurrection need not be a +resurrection of _relics_, as it is sometimes called. No doubt in the +case of Christ it was so, and perhaps it will be so in the case of +some Christians, only it _need_ not be so; and this removes at once +the apparent impossibility of the doctrine. + +Secondly, it may still be objected that the doctrine is extremely +_improbable_. And no doubt it seems so. But once more we have no +adequate means of judging. Apart from experience, how very unlikely +it would be that a seed when buried in the ground should develop +into a plant; or that plants and trees, after being apparently dead +all through the winter, should blossom again in the spring. Thus +everything connected with life is so mysterious that we can decide +nothing except by experience. And therefore we cannot say what may, +or may not happen in some future state, of which we have no +experience whatever. Indeed, if man's spirit is immortal, the fact +that it is associated with a body during its life on this earth +makes it not unlikely that it will be associated with a body of some +kind during its future life. And that this body should be partly +spiritual, and so resemble Christ's risen body, is again only what +we should expect. Thus, on the whole, the doctrine of the +Resurrection is certainly credible. + + +(_E._) CONCLUSION. + +We have now examined the four great doctrines of Christianity, the +others either following directly from these, or not presenting any +difficulty. And though, as we have shown, not one of these doctrines +can be pronounced _incredible_, yet some of them, especially those +of the Incarnation and the Atonement, certainly seem _improbable_. +This must be fully and freely admitted. At the same time, it is only +fair to remember that this improbability is distinctly lessened by +the three following considerations. + +First, in regard to all these doctrines we have no _adequate_ means +of deciding what is or is not probable. Reason cannot judge where it +has nothing to judge by; and apart from Christianity itself, we know +next to nothing as to what was God's object in creating man. If, +then, these doctrines are true, their truth depends not on reason, +but on revelation. All reason can do is to examine most carefully +the evidence in favour of the alleged revelation. Of this we should +expect it to be able to judge, but not of the doctrines themselves. +We are hence in a region where we cannot trust to our own sense of +the fitness of things; and therefore the Christian doctrines must +not be condemned merely because we think them contrary to our +reason. Moreover many thoughtful men (including Agnostics) do not +consider them so. Thus the late Professor Huxley once wrote, 'I have +not the slightest objection to offer _a priori_ to all the +propositions of the Three Creeds. The mysteries of the Church are +child's play compared with the mysteries of Nature.'[180] + +[Footnote 180: Quoted with his permission in Bishop Gore's Bampton +Lectures, 1891, p. 247, 1898 edition.] + +And this brings us to the next point, which is that many _other_ +facts which are actually true appear equally improbable at first +sight; such, for instance, as the existence of the ether, or the +growth of plants. Apart from experience, what an overwhelming +argument could be made out against such facts as these. Yet they +concern subjects which are to a great extent within our +comprehension, while Christianity has to do with the nature and +character of a God Who is admittedly beyond our comprehension. May +not the difficulties in both cases, but especially in regard to the +latter, be due to our _ignorance_ only? The Christian doctrines, we +must remember, do not claim to have been revealed in all their +bearings, but only in so far as they concern ourselves. + +Thirdly, it should be noticed that, though individually these +doctrines may seem improbable, yet, when considered as a whole, as +in all fairness they ought to be, there is a complete harmony +between them. Their improbability is not _cumulative_. On the +contrary, one often helps to explain the difficulties of another. +This has been recognised by most writers, including many who can +scarcely be called theologians. Thus the great Napoleon is reported +to have said, 'If once the Divine character of Christ is admitted, +Christian doctrine exhibits the precision and clearness of algebra; +so that we are struck with admiration at its scientific connection +and unity.'[181] + +[Footnote 181: Beauterne, Sentiment de Napoleon 1^er sur le +Christianisme, new edition, Paris, 1864, p. 110.] + +In conclusion, it must be again pointed out that we are only now +considering the _credibility_ of Christianity, and not trying to +make out that it appears a probable religion, at first sight, which +it plainly does not. Only its improbability is not so extremely +great as to make it useless to consider the evidence in its favour. +This is especially so when we remember that this improbability must +have seemed far greater when Christianity was first preached than it +does now, when we are so accustomed to the religion. Yet, as a +matter of fact, the evidence in its favour did outweigh every +difficulty, and finally convince the civilised world. What this +evidence is we proceed to inquire. + + + + +CHAPTER XIV. + +THAT THE FOUR GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. + + (_A._) THE UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY. + + End of second century; Irenæus, his evidence of great + value. + + (_B._) THE ALMOST UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY. + + (1.) Justin Martyr, A.D. 150, refers to some Apostolic + _Memoirs_, which were publicly read among Christians; + and his quotations show that these were our + Four Gospels. + (2.) Tatian, Justin's disciple, A.D. 175, wrote the Diatessaron, + or harmony of Four Gospels. + (3.) Marcion, A.D. 140, wrote a Gospel based on St. Luke's. + + (_C._) THE DISPUTED TESTIMONY. + + (1.) Papias, mentions the first two Gospels by name. + (2.) Aristides, A.D. 125, alludes to some Gospel as well + known. + (3.) The Apostolic Fathers, Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement, + Barnabas, and the Teaching of the Twelve, seem to + contain references to our Gospels. + + +Having shown in the last chapter that the Christian Religion is +_credible_, we have next to consider what evidence there is in its +favour. Now that it was founded on the alleged miracles and teaching +of Christ, and chiefly on His Resurrection, is admitted by everyone. +So we must first examine whether we have any trustworthy testimony +as to these events; more especially whether the Four Gospels, which +appear to contain such testimony, are genuine. By the _Four +Gospels_, we of course mean those commonly ascribed to SS. Matthew, +Mark, Luke, and John; and by their being _genuine_, we mean that +they were written, or compiled by those persons. And we will first +consider the _external testimony_ borne by early Christian writers +to these Gospels, leaving _the internal evidence_ from the Books +themselves for the next chapter. + +It may be mentioned at starting that we have no complete manuscripts +of the Gospels earlier than the beginning of the fourth century; but +there is nothing surprising in this, as for the first two centuries +books were generally written on _papyrus_, an extremely fragile +material. Therefore, with the exception of some fragments preserved +in Egypt, all documents of this period have entirely perished. A +much better material, _vellum_, began to take the place of papyrus +in the third century; but did not come into common use till the +fourth. Moreover, during the persecutions, which occurred at +intervals up to the fourth century, all Christian _writings_ were +specially sought for, and destroyed. So the absence of earlier +manuscripts though very unfortunate, is not perhaps unnatural; and +it is anyhow no worse than in the case of classical works. I have +seen it stated, for instance, that there are no manuscripts of +either Cicero, Cæsar, Tacitus, or Josephus, within 800 years of +their time. + + +(_A._) THE UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY. + +Passing on now to the testimony of early writers; we need not begin +later than the end of the second century; since it is admitted by +everyone that our Four Gospels were then well known. They were +continually quoted by Christian writers; they were universally +ascribed to the authors we now ascribe them to; and they were always +considered to be in some sense divinely inspired. + +As this is undisputed, we need not discuss the evidence; but one +writer deserves to be mentioned, which is _Irenæus_, Bishop of +Lyons. His works date from about A.D. 185; and he not only quotes +the Gospels frequently (about 500 times altogether), but shows there +were only _four_ of acknowledged authority. Since the fanciful +analogies he gives for this, likening the four Gospels to the four +rivers in Paradise, and the four quarters of the globe, render it +certain that the fact of there being four, neither more nor less, +must have been undisputed in his day. + +Moreover he had excellent means of knowing the truth; for he was +born in Asia Minor, about A.D. 130, and brought up under Polycarp, +Bishop of Smyrna. And in later years he tells us how well he +remembered his teacher. 'I can even describe the place where the +blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse--his going out, too, and +his coming in--his general mode of life and personal appearance, +together with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also +how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with +the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their +words to remembrance.'[182] + +[Footnote 182: Irenæus, Fragment of Epistle to Florinus. The +translations here and elsewhere are from the Ante-Nicene Christian +Library.] + +The importance of this passage, especially in regard to the Fourth +Gospel, can scarcely be exaggerated. For is it conceivable that +Irenæus would have ascribed it to St. John, unless his teacher +Polycarp had done the same? Or is it conceivable that Polycarp, who +personally knew St. John, could have been mistaken in the matter? +The difficulties of either alternative are very great; yet there is +no other, unless we admit that St. John was the author. + +It should also be noticed that Irenæus, when discussing two readings +of Rev. 13. 18, supports one of them by saying that it is found _in +all the most approved and ancient copies_; and was also maintained +by men _who saw John face to face_.[183] He had thus some idea as to +the value of evidence; and he is not likely to have written as he +did about the Four Gospels, unless he had seen of them equally +_approved and ancient_ copies. + +[Footnote 183: Irenæus, Bk. 5. 30.] + + +(_B._) THE ALMOST UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY. + +We next come to the testimony of some earlier writers, which was +formerly much disputed, but is now admitted by nearly all critics. + +(1.) _Justin Martyr._ + +By far the most important of these is _Justin Martyr_; whose +works--two _Apologies_ (or books written in defence of Christianity) +and a _Dialogue_--date from about A.D. 145-50. He was no ordinary +convert, but a philosopher, and says that before he became a +Christian, he studied various philosophical systems and found them +unsatisfactory; so we may be sure that he did not accept +Christianity without making some inquiries as to the facts on which +it rested.[184] And as his father and grandfather were natives of +Palestine, where he was born, he had ample means of finding out the +truth. + +[Footnote 184: Dial., 2.] + +Now Justin does not allude to any of the Evangelists by name, but he +frequently quotes from the '_Memoirs of the Apostles_,' which he +says were sometimes called _Gospels_,[185] and were publicly read +and explained in the churches, together with the Old Testament +Prophets. And he gives no hint that this was a local or recent +practice, but implies that it was the universal and well-established +custom. These Memoirs, he tells us,[186] were written _by the +Apostles and their followers_, which exactly suits our present +Gospels, two of which are ascribed to Apostles (St. Matthew and St. +John), and the other two to their immediate followers (St. Mark and +St. Luke). And as Justin was writing for unbelievers, not +Christians, there is nothing strange in his not mentioning the names +of the individual writers. + +[Footnote 185: Apol. 1. 66; Dial., 100.] + +[Footnote 186: Dial., 103.] + +He has altogether about sixty quotations from these Memoirs, and +they describe precisely those events in the life of Christ; which +are recorded in our Gospels, with scarcely any addition. Very few of +the quotations however are verbally accurate, and this used to be +thought a difficulty. But as Justin sometimes quotes the same +passage differently, it is clear that he was relying on his memory; +and had not looked up the reference, which in those days of +manuscripts, without concordances, must have been a tedious +process. Also when quoting the Old Testament, he is almost equally +inaccurate. Moreover later writers, such as Irenæus, who avowedly +quoted from our Gospels, are also inaccurate in small details. It is +hence practically certain that Justin was quoting from these +Gospels. + +(2.) _Tatian._ + +And this is strongly confirmed by Justin's disciple, _Tatian_. He +wrote a book about A.D. 175, discovered last century, called the +_Diatessaron_, which, as its name implies, was a kind of harmony of +_Four_ Gospels. It was based chiefly on St. Matthew's, the events +peculiar to the others being introduced in various places. And its +containing nearly the whole of _St. John's_ Gospel is satisfactory; +because it so happens that Justin has fewer quotations from that +Gospel, than from the other three. We may say then with confidence, +that our four Gospels were well known to Christians, and highly +valued by them, in the middle of the second century. + +(3.) _Marcion._ + +Another important witness is Marcion. He wrote (not later than A.D. +140), a kind of Gospel, so similar to St. Luke's that one was +evidently based on the other. And though his actual work is lost, +Tertullian (about A.D. 200) quotes it so fully that it is fairly +well-known; and that St. Luke's is the earlier is now admitted by +critics of all schools. Therefore as Matthew and Mark are generally +allowed to be earlier than Luke, this shows that all these Gospels +were in circulation before A.D. 140. + + +(_C._) THE DISPUTED TESTIMONY. + +We pass on now to the testimony of still earlier writers, all of +which is more or less disputed by some critics. + +(1.) _Papias._ + +And first as to Papias. He was bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor +(about a hundred miles from Ephesus) early in the second century; +and only a few fragments of his writings have been preserved by +Irenæus and Eusebius. We learn from the former that he was a +disciple of St. John and a companion of Polycarp; and considering +that Irenæus was himself Polycarp's pupil, there is no reason to +doubt this.[187] Now Papias tells us himself what were his sources +of information: 'If, then, anyone who had attended on the elders +came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter +said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by +John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which +things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, +say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so +profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.' + +[Footnote 187: Irenæus, Bk. 5. 33.] + +He had thus very good means of knowing the truth, for though the +Apostles themselves were dead, two of Christ's disciples (Aristion +and the presbyter John) were still alive when he made his inquiries. +And he refers to the first two Gospels by name. He says, 'Matthew +put together the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one +interpreted them as best he could.' And 'Mark, having become the +interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he +remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the +sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor +accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied +Peter.'[188] + +[Footnote 188: Eusebius, Hist., iii. 39.] + +And his testimony in regard to _St. Matthew_ is specially important, +because in the passage just quoted he says that he had spoken to +those who had known St. Matthew personally; and had carefully +questioned them about what he had said. And this makes it difficult +to believe that he should have been mistaken as to his having +written the Gospel. Nor is it likely that the work of St. Matthew +known to Papias was different from the Gospel which we now have, and +which was so frequently quoted by Justin a few years later. Whether +Papias was acquainted with the Third and Fourth Gospels cannot be +decided for certain, unless his works should be recovered; but there +are slight indications that he knew them. + +(2.) _Aristides._ + +Next as to Aristides. He was a philosopher at Athens, and addressed +an Apology to the Emperor, Hadrian, in A.D. 125, which was recovered +in 1889. He has no _quotation_ from the Gospels, but what is equally +important, he gives a summary of Christian doctrine, including the +Divinity, Incarnation, Virgin-Birth, Resurrection and Ascension of +Christ; and says that it is _taught in the Gospel_, where men can +_read_ it for themselves. And this shows that some Gospel, +containing this teaching, was then in existence, and easily +accessible. + +(3.) _The Apostolic Fathers._ + +The last group of writers to be examined are those who lived soon +after the Apostles. The chief of these are _Polycarp_ of Smyrna, the +disciple of St. John, martyred in A.D. 155, when he had been a +Christian 86 years; _Ignatius_ of Antioch, also martyred in his old +age, about A.D. 110; _Clement_ of Rome, perhaps the companion of St. +Paul;[189] and the writers of the so-called _Epistle of Barnabas_, +and _Teaching of the Twelve Apostles_. Their dates are not known for +certain, but it is now generally admitted by rationalists as well as +Christians that they all wrote before A.D. 120, and probably before +110. Thus the _Encyclopædia Biblica_ (article _Gospels_) dates their +works, Polycarp 110; Ignatius (7 Epistles) before 110; Barnabas, +probably before 100; Clement 95; Teaching 80-100. + +[Footnote 189: Phil. 4. 3.] + +Now none of these writers mention the Gospels by _name_; but this is +no argument to show that they were not quoting them, because the +same writers, when admittedly quoting St. Paul's Epistles, also do +it at times, without in any way referring to him. And later +Christian writers do precisely the same; the Gospels are often not +quoted by name, but their language is continually employed, much as +it is by preachers at the present day. If, then, we find in these +writers passages similar to those in our Gospels, the inference is +that they are quoting from them; and, as a matter of fact, we do +find such passages, though they are not numerous. A single example +may be given from each. + +_Polycarp._ 'But being mindful of what the Lord said in His +teaching; Judge not, that ye be not judged; forgive, and it shall be +forgiven unto you; be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; with what +measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again; and once more, +Blessed are the poor, and those that are persecuted for +righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God.'[190] + +[Footnote 190: Polycarp, ch. ii.; Luke 6. 36-38; Matt. 5. 3, 10.] + +_Ignatius._ 'For I know that after His Resurrection also, He was +still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for +instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, +"Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal +spirit."'[191] + +[Footnote 191: Ignatius to Smyrnæans, ch. iii.; Luke 24. 39.] + +_Barnabas._ 'Let us beware lest we be found, as it is written, Many +are called, but few are chosen.'[192] + +[Footnote 192: Barnabas, ch. iv.; Matt. 22. 14.] + +_Clement._ 'Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He +said, Woe to that man! It were better for him that he had never been +born, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my +elect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung +about (his neck), and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea, +than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little +ones.'[193] + +[Footnote 193: Clement, ch. xlvi.; Luke 17. 1. 2.] + +_Teaching._ 'Having said beforehand all these things, baptize ye in +the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost in +living water.'[194] + +[Footnote 194: Teaching, ch. vii.; Matt. 28. 19.] + +The passage from Barnabas deserves special mention, since here we +have words which only occur in our Gospels, introduced with the +phrase _as it is written_, which is only used of Scripture +quotations. And this shows conclusively that at the time of the +writer, some Gospel containing these words must have been well +known, and considered of high authority. And the attempts to explain +it away as being from the Book of Esdras,[195] where the words are, +'There be many created, but few shall be saved;' or else as an error +on the part of the writer, who thought they came somewhere in the +Old Testament, are quite inadmissible. + +[Footnote 195: 2 Esdr. 8. 3.] + +But it may be said, may not all these quotations be from some _Lost +Gospel_? Of course they may. It is always possible to refer +quotations not to the only book in which we know they do occur, but +to some imaginary book in which they might occur. There is, however, +no need to do so in this case, as all the evidence points the other +way. Though, even if we do, it does not materially affect the +argument; for while it weakens the evidence for our Gospels, it +increases that for the _facts_ which they record; and this is the +important point. + +Suppose, for instance, the passage in Ignatius was not taken from +St. Luke's, but from some _Lost_ Gospel. It could not then be quoted +to show that St. Luke's Gospel was known to Ignatius. But it would +afford additional evidence that Christ really did rise from the +dead, that when He appeared to His Apostles, they at first thought +He was a spirit; and that He took the obvious means of convincing +them, by asking them to handle His Body. All this would then be +vouched for, not only by St. Luke's Gospel; but also by some _other_ +early Christian writing, which as Ignatius quotes it in A.D. 110 +must certainly have been written in the first century, and must have +been considered by him as conclusive evidence. For he is careful to +distinguish between what he thus _knows_ (that Christ had a Body +after His Resurrection) and what he merely _believes_ (that He has +one now). And the same applies in other cases. + +And if it be further urged that these writers would have referred +more frequently to the Gospels, had they really known them, we must +remember that their writings are generally short; and while a single +quotation proves the previous existence of the document quoted, ten +pages without a quotation do not disprove it. Moreover when they +refer to the sayings of Christ, or the events of His life, they +always do so without the slightest hesitation; as if everyone +acknowledged them to be true. And as we have seen, their allusions +often begin with the words _remember_ or _be mindful of_, clearly +showing that they expected their readers to know them already. Hence +some books must then have existed which were well known, containing +a life of Christ; and the improbability of these having perished, +and a fresh set of Gospels having been published in a few years, is +very great. + +And the evidence in regard to the _Third_ Gospel is particularly +strong, since it was addressed to Theophilus, who was clearly a +prominent convert; and he must have known from whom the book came, +even if for some reason this was not stated in the heading. And as +he is not likely to have kept it secret, the authorship of the book +must have been well known to Christians from the very beginning. +Therefore the testimony of early writers, like Irenæus, who always +ascribed it to St. Luke, becomes of exceptional value; and makes it +almost certain that he was the author. + +We may now sum up the _external testimony_ to the Four Gospels. It +shows that at the _beginning_ of the second century they were well +known to Christian writers, and this alone would necessitate their +having been written in the first century, or at all events before +A.D. 110. And thanks to modern discoveries, especially that of the +_Diatessaron_, this is now generally admitted. It may indeed be +considered as one of the definite results of recent controversies. +But if so, it is, to say the least, distinctly probable that they +were written by the men to whom they have been universally ascribed. +We have thus strong external testimony in favour of the genuineness +of the Four Gospels. + + + + +CHAPTER XV. + +THAT THE GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM INTERNAL EVIDENCE. + + (_A._) THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. + + (1.) Their general accuracy; this is shown by secular + history, where they can be tested. + (2.) Their sources; the triple tradition; other early documents. + (3.) Their probable date; before the destruction of Jerusalem, + A.D. 70. + + (_B._) THE FOURTH GOSPEL. + + (1.) Its authorship. The writer appears to have lived in + the first century, and to have been an eye-witness + of what he describes; so probably St. John. + (2.) Its connection with the other Gospels. It was meant + to supplement them; and it does not show a different + Christ, either in language or character. + (3.) Its connection with the Book of Revelation. This + admitted to be by St. John, and the Gospel was + probably by the same author. + + +Having decided in the last chapter that the Four Gospels are +probably genuine from _external testimony_, we pass on now to the +_internal evidence_, which, it will be seen, strongly supports this +conclusion. For convenience we will examine the first Three, +commonly called the _Synoptic_ Gospels, separately from the Fourth, +which is of a different character. + + +(_A._) THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS. + +In dealing with these Gospels, we will first consider their general +accuracy, then their sources, and then their probable date. + +(1.) _Their general accuracy._ + +It is now admitted by everyone that the writers show a thorough +acquaintance with Palestine both as to its geography, history, and +people, especially the political and social state of the country in +the half-century preceding the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). The +Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote about A.D. 95, gives us a vivid +description of this; and everything we read in the Gospels is in +entire agreement with it. + +In regard to the actual events recorded, we have, as a rule, no +other account, but where we have, with the doubtful exception of the +enrolment under _Quirinius_, their accuracy is fully confirmed. +According to St. Luke[196] this enrolment occurred while Herod was +king, and therefore not later than what we now call B.C. 4, when +Herod died; but, according to Josephus and other authorities, +Quirinius was Governor of Syria, and carried out his taxing in A.D. +6. + +[Footnote 196: Luke 2. 2 (R.V.).] + +This used to be thought one of the most serious mistakes in the +Bible, but modern discoveries have shown that it is probably +correct. To begin with, an inscription was found at Tivoli in 1764, +which shows that Quirinius was _twice_ Governor of Syria, or at +least held some important office there. And this has been confirmed +quite recently by an inscription found at Antioch, which shows that +the former time was about B.C. 7.[197] There is thus very likely an +end of that difficulty, though it must be admitted that it would +place the birth of Christ a little earlier than the usually accepted +B.C. 4, which however some critics think probable for other reasons. + +[Footnote 197: Ramsay, 'Bearing of Recent Discovery on New +Testament.' 1915, p. 285-292.] + +Next it will be noticed that St. Luke says that this was the _first_ +enrolment, implying that he knew of others; and discoveries in Egypt +have confirmed this in a remarkable manner. For they have shown that +it was the custom of the Romans to have a _periodical_ enrolment of +that country (and therefore presumably of the adjacent country of +Syria) every fourteen years. Some of the actual census papers have +been found for A.D. 20, 48, 62, 76, etc., and it is extremely +probable that the system started in B.C. 9-8, though the first +enrolment may have been delayed a few years in Palestine, which was +partly independent. + +And St. Luke's statement that everyone had to go to _his own city_, +which was long thought to be a difficulty, has been partly confirmed +as well. For a decree has been discovered in Egypt, dated in the +seventh year of Trajan (A.D. 104), ordering all persons to return to +their own districts before the approaching census,[198] which is +worded as if it were the usual custom. The next census in A.D. 6, +which is the one referred to by Josephus, is also mentioned by St. +Luke;[199] but he knew, what his critics did not, that it was only +one of a series, and that the _first_ of the series took place at an +earlier date. + +[Footnote 198: Ramsay, p. 259.] + +[Footnote 199: Acts. 5. 37.] + +Curiously enough, there used to be a very similar error, charged +against St. Luke, in regard to Lysanias; whom he says was tetrarch +of Abilene, a district near Damascus, in the fifteenth year of +Tiberius, about A.D. 27.[200] Yet the only ruler of this name known +to history in those parts was a king, who was killed in B.C. 34. But +inscriptions found at Baalbec, and Abila (the latter dating +somewhere between A.D. 14-29) show that there was a second Lysanias, +hitherto unknown, who is expressly called the _tetrarch_ and who is +now admitted to be the one referred to by St. Luke.[201] On the +whole then, these Gospels, wherever we have any means of testing +them by secular history, appear to be substantially accurate. + +[Footnote 200: Luke 3. 1.] + +[Footnote 201: Boeckh's Corp. Ins. Gr., No. 4523; Ramsay, 'Bearing +of Recent Discovery on New Testament.' 1915, p. 298.] + +But it may be said, do not the Gospels themselves contradict one +another in some places, and if so they cannot all be correct? Now +that there are some apparent contradictions, especially in the +narratives of the Resurrection (see Chapter XVII.), must of course +be admitted; but many of these can be explained satisfactorily, and +those which cannot are as a rule quite trivial. For example,[202] +St. Matthew relates that at Christ's Baptism the Voice from Heaven +said, '_This_ is my beloved Son in _whom_ I am well pleased;' and +the other Evangelists, '_Thou_ art my beloved Son, in _thee_ I am +well pleased.' There is a clear verbal discrepancy, whatever words +were used, or in whatever language they were spoken. Again, St. +Matthew records the passage about the Queen of the South as being +spoken just after, and St. Luke as just before, the similar passage +about the men of Nineveh, though both can hardly be correct. Such +mistakes as these, however, do not interfere with the substantial +accuracy of the narratives. + +[Footnote 202: Matt. 3. 17; 12. 42; Mark 1. 11; Luke 3. 22; 11. 31.] + +(2.) _Their sources._ + +Now the first three Gospels have, as is well known, a number of +identical passages, which must plainly be due to _copying_ in some +form, either two Evangelists copying the third, or all three some +earlier document. The portion they have in common (often called the +_Triple Tradition_) includes some of the parables of Christ, and +several of His miracles, such as calming the storm, feeding the five +thousand, curing the man at Gadara, and raising the daughter of +Jairus. If, as is probable, it represents the testimony of a single +witness, there is little difficulty in identifying him with St. +Peter. + +But it is _most unlikely_ for the _whole_ of this earlier document +to have been included in three separate Gospels; it is sure to have +contained something that was only copied by one or two. Therefore +most scholars are now of opinion that the so-called Triple Tradition +was merely our St. Mark's Gospel, practically all of which was +copied, either by St. Matthew or St. Luke, if not by both. And this +is certainly probable, for the many graphic details in this Gospel +show that it must date from an extremely early time; so it was most +likely known to the other Evangelists. It would also agree with the +statement of Papias (quoted in the last chapter) that St. Mark got +his information from St. Peter. And as some of it has to do with +events, such as the Transfiguration, when St. Peter was present, and +St. Matthew was not, there is nothing improbable in St. Matthew (as +well as St. Luke) including part of it in his Gospel. + +This however is not all; for our first and third Gospels also +contain a good deal in common, which is not in Mark, and this looks +like another older document, often called 'Q' from the German +_Quelle_, meaning '_source_.' It consists chiefly of discourses and +parables, though including at least one miracle, that of healing the +centurion's servant, and is admitted by most critics to date from +before A.D. 50. + +But here again, it is unlikely for the _whole_ of this earlier +document to have been included in two separate Gospels, it is sure +to have contained something else besides. Moreover, _as thus +restored_ (from Matthew and Luke) it is obviously incomplete. It +contains scarcely any narrative to explain how the discourses arose, +and of necessity it omits everything in Christ's life which is +recorded by St. Mark as well, for this has been already assigned to +the so-called Triple Tradition. Therefore when it was complete, it +must have contained a good deal more, which may well have been the +remainder of our St. Matthew's Gospel. St. Luke would then have only +included _a part_ of what St. Matthew wrote, just as they both only +included a part of what St. Mark wrote. And the supposed second +document would be our St. Matthew's Gospel, just as the supposed +Triple Tradition is now thought to be our St. Mark's Gospel. There +are difficulties on every theory, but on the whole this seems as +satisfactory as any other, and it accounts fairly well for the first +two Gospels. + +But the third Gospel requires further explanation, for besides what +is copied from the other two, it contains a good deal of additional +matter, such as the parable of the Prodigal Son, which St. Luke must +have got from some other source. While he expressly says that _many_ +had written before himself; so there were several such sources in +existence. And this was only natural, for the Christian religion +spread rapidly, and St. Luke himself shows us what its converts were +taught. For he says that he only wrote his Gospel to convince +Theophilus of the things about which he had already been +instructed.[203] Clearly then the course of instruction must have +included what the Gospel included; and this was the whole of +Christ's life, from His Virgin-Birth to His Ascension. It is hence +probable that from the very first Christian teachers had some +account of that life. + +[Footnote 203: Luke 1. 1-4.] + +And this probability becomes almost a certainty in the light of +modern discoveries. For quantities of old _papyri_ have been found +in Egypt, which show that at the time of Christ, writing was in +common use among all classes; soldiers, farmers, servants, +schoolboys, were all accustomed to write. Therefore, as it has been +well said, 'so far as antecedent probability goes, founded on the +general character of preceding and contemporary society, the first +Christian account of the circumstances connected with the death of +Jesus must be presumed to have been written in the year when Jesus +died.'[204] And since St. Luke, when he was at Jerusalem met several +of the _elders_ there, including Christ's brother, St. James,[205] +he probably had access to all existing documents. + +[Footnote 204: Ramsay, Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. +xxxix., 1907, p. 203.] + +[Footnote 205: Acts 21. 18.] + +There is thus no reason to doubt his own statement, that he had +ample means of knowing the truth, _from the beginning_. And this, he +says, was the very reason why he determined to write; so a more +trustworthy historian can scarcely be imagined.[206] Fortunately, +however, though dividing the Gospels into their original parts is an +interesting study, it is in no way essential to our present +argument. + +[Footnote 206: Luke 1. 2-3.] + +(3.) _Their probable date._ + +We now come to the _probable date_ of the first three Gospels; and +there are strong reasons for fixing this before the fall of +Jerusalem, in A.D. 70. In the first place several _subjects_ are +discussed, such as the lawfulness of the Jews paying tribute to +Cæsar,[207] which would have had no interest after that event. And +that conversations on such subjects should have been composed in +later days, or even thought worth recording, is most unlikely. Nor +are Christ's instructions as to what persons should do when they +bring their gifts to the altar, likely to have been recorded after +the altar, and everything connected with it, had been totally +destroyed.[208] + +[Footnote 207: Matt. 22. 17.] + +[Footnote 208: Matt. 5. 24.] + +Secondly, nearly all the _parables_ of Christ have very strong marks +of truthfulness, as they are thoroughly natural in character, and +suit the customs and scenery of Palestine. Moreover, they are unique +in Christian literature. However strange we may think it, the early +Christians never seem to have adopted Christ's method of teaching by +parables. Yet, if they had composed these parables, instead of +merely recording them, they would doubtless have composed others +like them. It is hence probable that these discourses are genuine; +and, if so, they must obviously have been written down very soon +afterwards. + +Thirdly, there are a few passages which deserve special mention. Two +of these are Christ's saying that (apparently) there would not be +time to go through the cities of Israel before His Second Coming; +and that some of His hearers would not die till the end of the +world.[209] That such statements should have been composed in later +years is out of the question; so we can only conclude that they were +actually spoken by Christ. And they show that the Gospels must not +only have been written when some of Christ's hearers were still +alive, but that they could not have been revised afterwards; or the +passages would not have been allowed to remain as they are. + +[Footnote 209: Matt. 10. 23; 16. 28; Mark 9. 1; Luke 9. 27; but some +other texts imply the contrary--_e.g._, Matt. 21. 43; Mark 13. 7, +10; 14. 9; Luke 21. 24.] + +Another is the statement that the potter's field was called the +field of blood _unto this day_;[210] which could scarcely have been +written when the whole city was little more than a heap of ruins. Of +course, on the other hand, it could not have been written +immediately after the time of Christ, but twenty years would +probably be a sufficient interval. + +[Footnote 210: Matt. 27. 8; see also 28. 15.] + +Fourthly, there is the prophetic description of the _fall of +Jerusalem_ itself, which seems confused by the Evangelists with that +of the Day of Judgment, St. Matthew saying, and both the others +implying, that the one would immediately follow the other.[211] Had +the Gospels been written after the former event, it is almost +certain that the writers would have distinguished between the two; +indeed, their not doing so is scarcely intelligible, unless we +assume that when they wrote, both events were still future. + +[Footnote 211: Matt. 24. 3, 29; Mark 13. 24; Luke 21. 27.] + +And this is confirmed by the curious hint given to the readers both +in Matthew and Mark to _understand_, and act on Christ's advice, and +leave the city and go to the mountains, before the siege became too +severe.[212] Plainly such a warning could not have been written +_after_ the siege, when it would have been useless. It must have +been written _before_; so if it is a later insertion, as it seems to +be, it proves a still earlier date for the rest of the chapter. +Moreover, none of the Evangelists have altered the passage, as later +writers might have done, to make it agree with the event; since as +far as we know, the Christians did not go to _the mountains_, but +to Pella, a city in the Jordan valley.[213] + +[Footnote 212: Matt. 24. 16; Mark 13. 14; Luke 21. 21.] + +[Footnote 213: Eusebius, Hist., iii. 5.] + +St. Luke, it will be noticed, omits the hint just referred to, and +as his account of Christ's prophecy of the siege is rather more +detailed than the others, it is sometimes thought to have been +written _after_ the event. But this is a needless assumption, for +the hint would have been quite useless to Theophilus, to whom the +Gospel was addressed; and the prophecy is anyhow no closer than that +in Deut. 28., which everyone admits was written centuries before +(Chapter XI.). + +On the whole, then, everything points to our first three Gospels +having been written some years before the destruction of Jerusalem, +A.D. 70; and most likely by the Evangelists, to whom they have been +universally ascribed. + +It may also be added, in regard to the Evangelists themselves, _St. +Matthew_ the Apostle was a publican or tax-collector, so just the +sort of person to keep records, in either Greek or Hebrew.[214] _St. +Mark_ came of a wealthy family, as his relative, Barnabas, had some +property; and his mother, Mary, had a large house at Jerusalem, +where Christians used to assemble, and where it has been thought the +Last Supper was held.[215] And the _young man_ who followed from +here to Gethsemane was probably St. Mark himself, or he would not +have recorded such a trivial incident.[216] + +[Footnote 214: Matt. 9. 9.] + +[Footnote 215: Acts 4. 37; 12. 12; 1. 13; Col. 4. 10.] + +[Footnote 216: Mark 14. 51.] + +And _St. Luke_, as we shall see in the next chapter, was a doctor, +who says he got his information from _eye-witnesses_. And if he was +the companion of Cleopas, as is perhaps probable (for such a graphic +narrative must have come from one who was present, yet the language +is thoroughly that of St. Luke), he would also have had some slight +knowledge of Christ himself.[217] And in similar cases where St. +John speaks of two disciples, but gives the name of only one, it is +practically certain that he himself was the other.[218] Moreover St. +Luke says that his Gospel, which only goes as far as the Ascension, +was about _those matters which have been fulfilled among us_[219] +(_i.e._, which have _occurred_ among us), and this implies that it +was written in Palestine at a very early date, and that St. Luke +himself was there during at least part of the time referred to. + +[Footnote 217: Luke 24. 18; _Expositor_, Feb., 1904.] + +[Footnote 218: John 1. 40; 18. 15.] + +[Footnote 219: Luke 1. 1. (R.V.). A short paper on _Fulfilled among +us_, by the present writer, appeared in the _Churchman_, Aug. 1914.] + +All three must thus have been well-educated men, and quite in a +position to write Gospels if they wanted to. While as none of them +seem to have taken a prominent part in the founding of Christianity, +there was no reason for ascribing the Gospels to them, rather than +to such great men as St. Peter and St. Paul, unless they actually +wrote them. + + +(_B._) THE FOURTH GOSPEL. + +We pass on now to the Fourth Gospel, and will first examine the +internal arguments as to its authorship, which are strongly in +favour of its being the work of St. John; and then the two arguments +on the opposite side, said to be derived from its connection with +the other Gospels, and the Book of Revelation. + +(1.) _Its authorship._ + +To begin with, the writer appears to have lived in the _first +century_. This is probable from his intimate acquaintance with +Jerusalem, and as before said that city was only a heap of ruins +after A.D. 70. Thus he speaks of Bethesda, the pool near the +sheep-gate, having five porches; of Solomon's porch; of the pool of +Siloam; and of the Temple, with its treasury; its oxen, sheep, and +doves for sacrifice; and its money-changers for changing foreign +money into Jewish, in which alone the Temple tax could be paid. And +his mention of Bethesda is specially interesting as he uses the +present tense, _There is in Jerusalem_, etc., implying that the gate +and porches were still standing (and therefore the city not yet +destroyed) when he wrote.[220] + +[Footnote 220: John 5. 2.] + +Secondly, the writer appears to have been an _eye-witness_ of what +he describes. He twice asserts this himself, as well as in an +Epistle which is generally admitted to be by the same writer, where +he declares that he had both seen, heard, and touched his +Master.[221] So, if this is not true, the work must be a deliberate +forgery; which is certainly improbable. Moreover, he frequently +identifies himself with the Twelve Apostles, recording their +feelings and reflections in a way which would be very unlikely for +any late writer to have thought of. Would a late writer, for +instance, have thought of inventing questions which the Apostles +wanted to ask their Master, but were afraid to do so? Or would he +have thought it worth repeating so often that they did not +understand at the time the real significance of the events they took +part in?[222] + +[Footnote 221: John 1. 14; 19. 35; 1 John 1. 1.] + +[Footnote 222: _E.g._, John 2. 17, 22; 4. 27; 13. 28; 16. 17.] + +The author is also very particular as to times and places. Take, for +instance, the passage 1. 29-2. 12, with its expressions _On the +morrow_, _Again on the morrow_, _About the tenth hour_, _On the +morrow_, _And the third day_, _And there they abode not many days_. +It reads like extracts from an old diary, and why should all these +insignificant details be recorded? What did it matter half a century +later whether it was the same day, or on the morrow, or the third +day; or whether they stayed many days in Capernaum, or only a few; +as no hint is given as to why they went there, or what they did? The +only reasonable explanation is that the writer was present himself +(being of course the unnamed companion of St. Andrew); that this was +the turning-point in his life when he first saw his Lord; and that +therefore he loved to recall every detail. + +And it may be noticed in passing that this passage explains an +apparent difficulty in the other Gospels, where it is stated that +these Apostles were called to follow Christ, after the death of St. +John the Baptist; though with a suddenness and ready obedience on +their part, which is hard to believe.[223] But we here learn that +they had already been with Christ some months before, in company +with the Baptist, so they were doubtless prepared for the call when +it came. And the passage, like many others, bears internal marks of +truthfulness. In particular may be mentioned the words of Nathanael, +_Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel_, implying +that the latter title was at least as honourable as the former. No +Christian in later times, when Christ was obviously not the King of +Israel (except in a purely spiritual sense), and when the title _Son +of God_ had come to mean so much more than it ever did to the Jews, +would have arranged it thus. + +[Footnote 223: _E.g._, Mark 1. 14-20.] + +Lastly, if we admit that the writer was an eye-witness, it can +hardly be disputed that he was the Apostle _St. John_. Indeed, were +he anyone else, it is strange that an Apostle of such importance +should not be once mentioned throughout the Gospel. It is also +significant that the other John, who is described in the first three +Gospels as John the _Baptist_, to distinguish him from the Apostle, +is here called merely _John_. No confusion could arise if, and only +if, the writer himself were the Apostle John. While still more +important is the fact that at the close of the Gospel, we have a +solemn declaration made by the author's own friends that he was the +_disciple whom Jesus loved_ (admitted by nearly everyone to be St. +John), that he had witnessed the things he wrote about, and that +what he said was true. And testimony more ancient or more conclusive +can scarcely be imagined. + +With regard to the _date_ of the book, we can say little for +certain. But the extreme care which is taken in these closing verses +to explain exactly what Christ did, and did not say, as to St. +John's dying, before His coming again, seems to imply that the +matter was still undecided, in other words that St. John was still +alive, though very old, when they were written. And if so the Gospel +must have been _published_ (probably in some Gentile city, like +Ephesus, from the way the Jews are spoken of)[224] towards the close +of the first century; though a large part of it may have been +_written_ in the shape of notes, etc., long before. + +[Footnote 224: _E.g._, John 2. 13; 5. 1; 6. 4.] + +(2.) _Its connection with the other Gospels._ + +But, as before said, there are two arguments against the genuineness +of this Gospel. The first is that the Christ of the Fourth Gospel is +almost a different person from the Christ of the other three. The +_events_ of His life are different, His _language_ is different, and +His _character_ is different; while, when the Gospels cover the same +ground, there are _discrepancies_ between them. But every part of +this objection admits of a satisfactory answer. + +To begin with, the fact that the Fourth Gospel narrates different +_events_ in the life of Christ from what we find in the other three +must of course be admitted. But what then? Why should not one +biography of Christ narrate certain events in His life, which the +writer thought important, but which had been omitted in previous +accounts? This is what occurs frequently at the present day, and why +should it not have occurred then? The Fourth Gospel may have been +written on purpose to _supplement_ some other accounts. + +And there is strong evidence from the book itself that this was +actually the case. For the writer refers to many events without +describing them, and in such a way as to show that he thought his +readers knew about them. He assumes, for instance, that they know +about St. John the Baptist being imprisoned, about Joseph being the +supposed father of Christ, and about the appointment of the +Twelve.[225] It is probable then that the Gospel was written for +well-instructed Christians, who possessed some other accounts of +Christ's life. And everything points to these being our first three +Gospels. + +[Footnote 225: John 3. 24; 6. 42, 70.] + +Then as to the _language_ ascribed to Christ in the Fourth Gospel +being different from that in the others. This is no doubt partly +true, especially in regard to His speaking of Himself as _the Son_, +in the same way in which God is _the Father_. But it so happens that +we have in these other Gospels at least three similar passages[226] +which show that Christ did occasionally speak in this way. And there +is no reason why St. John should not have preserved such discourses +because the other Evangelists had omitted to do so. On the other +hand, the title _Son of Man_ (applied to Christ) occurs repeatedly +in all the Gospels, though strange to say only in the mouth of +Christ Himself. This is a striking detail, in which St. John +entirely agrees with the other Evangelists. + +[Footnote 226: Matt. 11. 25-27; 24. 36; 28. 19; Mark 13. 32; Luke +10. 21, 22.] + +The next part of the objection is that the _Character_ assigned to +Christ in the Fourth Gospel is different from that in the other +three; since instead of teaching moral virtues as in the Sermon on +the Mount, He keeps asserting His own Divine nature. And this also +is partly true, for the Fourth Gospel shows the Divinity of Christ +more directly than the others, which only imply it (Chapter XXI.). +And very probably the writer did so on purpose, thinking that this +aspect of Christ's character had not been sufficiently emphasised in +the previous accounts. Indeed, he implies it himself, for he says +that he omitted much that he might have inserted, and merely +recorded what he did in order to convince his readers that Jesus was +the Christ, the Son of God.[227] + +[Footnote 227: John 20. 31.] + +But no argument for a late date can be drawn from this. Because four +of St. Paul's Epistles (_i.e._ Rom.; 1 Cor.; 2 Cor.; and Gal.) which +have been admitted to be genuine by critics of all schools, describe +exactly the same Christ as we find in the Fourth Gospel, speaking of +His Divinity, Pre-existence, and Incarnation (Chapter XXI.). And +from the way in which St. Paul alludes to these doctrines he +evidently considered them the common belief of all Christians when +he wrote, about A.D. 55. So the fact of the Fourth Gospel laying +stress on these doctrines is no reason whatever against either its +genuineness or its early date. Indeed, it seems to supply just those +discourses of Christ which are necessary to account for St. Paul's +language. + +Lastly, as to the _discrepancies_. The one most often alleged is +that according to the first three Gospels (in opposition to the +Fourth) Christ's ministry never reached Jerusalem till just before +His death. But this is a mistake, for though they do not relate His +attendance at the Jewish feasts, like St. John does, they imply by +the word _often_ ('How _often_ would I have gathered thy +children,'[228] etc.) that He had frequently visited the city, and +preached there. And one of them also refers to an earlier visit of +Christ, to Martha and Mary, which shows that He had been to Bethany +(close to Jerusalem) some time before.[229] + +[Footnote 228: Matt. 23. 37; Luke 13. 34.] + +[Footnote 229: Luke 10. 38.] + +Another difficulty (it is scarcely a discrepancy) is the fact that +such a striking miracle as the raising of Lazarus, which is +described in the Fourth Gospel, should have been _omitted_ in the +other three. It is certainly strange, but these Evangelists +themselves tell us there were _other_ instances of raising the dead, +which they do not record,[230] and they probably knew of it, as it +alone explains the great enthusiasm with which Christ was received +at Jerusalem. This they all relate, and St. Luke's saying that it +was due to the _mighty works_, which the people had _seen_, implies +that there had been some striking miracles in the neighbourhood.[231] + +[Footnote 230: Matt. 10. 8; 11. 5; Luke 7. 22.] + +[Footnote 231: Luke 19. 37.] + +On the other hand, there are several _undesigned agreements_ between +the Gospels, which are a strong argument in favour of their +accuracy. Take, for instance, the accusation brought against Christ +of destroying the Temple, and rebuilding it in three days. This is +alluded to both by St. Matthew and St. Mark; but St. John alone +records the words on which it was founded, though he does not +mention the charge, and quotes the words in quite a different +connection.[232] + +[Footnote 232: Matt. 26. 61; Mark 14. 58; John 2. 19.] + +Or take the Feeding of the five thousand.[233] St. Mark says that +this occurred in a desert place, where Christ had gone for a short +rest, and to avoid the crowd of persons who were _coming and going_ +at Capernaum. But he gives no hint as to why there was this crowd +just at that time. St. John says nothing about Christ's going to the +desert, nor of the crowd which occasioned it; but he happens to +mention, what fully explains both, that it was shortly before the +Passover. Now we know that at the time of the Passover numbers of +people came to Jerusalem from all parts; so Capernaum, which lay on +a main road from the north, would naturally be crowded with persons +_coming and going_. And this explains everything; even St. Mark's +little detail, as to the people sitting on the _green_ grass, for +grass is only green in Palestine in the spring, _i.e._, at the time +of the Passover. But can anyone think that the writer of the Fourth +Gospel purposely made his account to agree with the others, yet did +this in such a way that not one reader in a hundred ever discovers +it? The only reasonable explanation is that the event was true, and +that both writers had independent knowledge of it. + +[Footnote 233: Matt. 14. 13; Mark 6. 31; Luke 9. 10; John 6. 4.] + +The objection, then, as to the connection of the Fourth Gospel with +the other three must be put aside. It was plainly meant to +_supplement_ them; and it shows not a different Christ, either in +_language_ or _character_, but merely a different aspect of the +same Christ, while the slight _discrepancies_, especially when +combined with the undesigned coincidences, rather support its +genuineness. + +(3.) _Its connection with the Book of Revelation._ + +We pass on now to the other argument. The Book of Revelation is +generally admitted to be the work of St. John, and it is ascribed to +him by Justin Martyr.[234] Its date is usually fixed at A.D. 68; +though many critics prefer A.D. 95, which is the date given by +Irenæus. + +[Footnote 234: Dial., 81.] + +Yet it is said it cannot be by the same writer as the Fourth Gospel +because the _Greek_ is so different, that of the Revelation being +very abrupt, with numerous faults of grammar, while the Gospel is in +good Greek. Therefore it is urged that a Galilean fisherman like St. +John, though he might have been sufficiently educated to have +written the former, as his father was well off and kept servants, +and he himself was a friend of the High Priest,[235] could scarcely +have written the latter. Various explanations have been given of +this. Perhaps the best is that the Revelation was written by St. +John himself, since he is not likely to have had friends in Patmos; +and that when writing the Gospel he had the assistance of a Greek +disciple. + +[Footnote 235: Mark 1. 20; John 18. 15.] + +On the other side, it must be remembered that though the two books +are different in language, they are the same in their _teaching_; +for the great doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, that of the Divinity of +Christ, is asserted almost as plainly in the Revelation. And even +the striking expression that Christ is the _Logos_, or _Word_, +occurs in both books, though it is not found elsewhere in the New +Testament, except in one of St. John's Epistles.[236] And the same +may be said of another striking expression, that Christ is the +_Lamb_, which also occurs in the Gospel and Revelation, though not +elsewhere in the New Testament.[237] This similarity in doctrine is +indeed so marked that it strongly suggests the same authorship; and +if so, it makes it practically certain that the Fourth Gospel was +written by St. John. + +[Footnote 236: John 1. 1; 1 John 1. 1; Rev. 19. 13.] + +[Footnote 237: John 1. 29, 36; Rev. 6. 1; 14. 1.] + +On the whole, then, these objections are not serious; while, as +already shown, the Fourth Gospel has very strong internal marks of +genuineness. And when we combine these with the equally strong +external testimony, it forces us to conclude that St. John was the +author. This Gospel, then, like the other three, must be considered +_genuine_; indeed, the evidence in favour of them all is +overwhelming. + + + + +CHAPTER XVI. + +THAT THE GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM THE EVIDENCE OF THE ACTS. + +Importance of the Acts, as it is by the writer of the Third Gospel. + + (_A._) ITS ACCURACY. + + Three examples of this: + + (1.) The titles of different rulers. + (2.) The riot at Ephesus. + (3.) The agreement with St. Paul's Epistles. + + (_B._) ITS AUTHORSHIP. + + The writer was a companion of St. Paul, and a medical + man; so probably St. Luke. + + (_C._) ITS DATE. + + There are strong reasons for fixing this at the close of + St. Paul's imprisonment at Rome, about A.D. 60; and + this points to an earlier date for the first three Gospels. + + +We have next to consider an argument of great importance derived +from the Acts of the Apostles. This book is universally admitted to +be by the same writer as the Third Gospel, as is indeed obvious from +the manner in which both are addressed to Theophilus, from the +_former treatise_ being mentioned in the opening verse of the Acts, +and from the perfect agreement in style and language. Hence +arguments for or against the antiquity of the Acts affect the Third +Gospel also, and therefore, to some extent, the First and Second as +well. So we will consider first its _accuracy_, then its +_authorship_, and lastly its _date_. + + +(_A._) ITS ACCURACY. + +Now, this book, unlike the Gospels, deals with a large number of +public men and places, many of which are well known from secular +history, while inscriptions referring to others have been recently +discovered. It is thus liable to be detected at every step if +inaccurate; yet, with the doubtful exception of the date of the +rebellion of Theudas, and some details as to the death of Herod +Agrippa, no error can be discovered. As this is practically +undisputed, we need not discuss the evidence in detail, but will +give three examples. + +(1.) _The titles of different rulers._ + +We will commence with the _titles_ given to different rulers. As is +well known, the Roman provinces were of two kinds, some belonging to +the Emperor, and some to the Senate. The former were governed by +_proprætors_, or when less important by _procurators_, and the +latter by _proconsuls_, though they frequently changed hands. +Moreover, individual places had often special names for their +rulers; yet in every case the writer of the Acts uses the proper +title. + +For example, the ruler at Cyprus is rightly called _proconsul_.[238] +This used to be thought a mistake, but we now know that it is +correct; for though Cyprus had previously belonged to the Emperor, +it had been exchanged with the Senate for another province before +the time in question. And an inscription[239] found there at Soli +has the words in Greek, _Paulus proconsul_, probably the Sergius +Paulus of the Acts. Cyprus, it may be added, subsequently changed +hands again. + +[Footnote 238: Acts. 13. 7.] + +[Footnote 239: Cyprus, by Cesnola (London, 1877), p. 425.] + +In the same way Gallio is correctly described as _proconsul_ of +Achaia.[240] For though this province belonged to the Emperor for +some years before A.D. 44, and was independent after A.D. 66, it +belonged to the Senate in the interval, when the writer referred to +it. And an inscription, recently found at Delphi, shows that Gallio +was proconsul in A.D. 52, which agrees well with the chronology of +the Acts.[241] Equally correct is the title of _governor_ or +_procurator_, applied to both Felix and Festus.[242] While it is +satisfactory to add that the title _lord_, addressed to the Emperor +Nero, which used to be thought rather a difficulty, as it was not +known to have been adopted till the time of Domitian (A.D. 81-96), +has now been found in papyri of the age of Nero.[243] + +[Footnote 240: Acts 18. 12.] + +[Footnote 241: Palestine Exploration Quarterly, July, 1913.] + +[Footnote 242: Acts 19. 38; 23. 26; 26. 30.] + +[Footnote 243: Acts 25. 26; Deissman, New Light on the New +Testament, 1907, p. 80.] + +Again, Herod (_i.e._, Agrippa I.) shortly before his death, is +styled _king_.[244] Now we learn from other sources that he had this +title for the last three years of his government (A.D. 41-44), +though there had been no king in Judæa for the previous thirty +years, nor for many centuries afterwards. + +[Footnote 244: Acts 12. 1; Josephus, Antiq., xviii. 6, xix. 5.] + +Moreover, his son is also called _King_ Agrippa, though it is +implied that he was not king of Judæa, which was governed by Festus, +but of some other province. Yet, strange to say, he seems to have +held some official position in regard to the Jews, since Festus +_laid Paul's case before him_, as if he were in some way entitled to +hear it.[245] And all this is quite correct; for Agrippa, though +King of Chalcis, and not Judæa, was yet (being a Jew) entrusted by +the Emperor with the management of the Jewish Temple and Treasury, +and the choice of the High Priests, so he was a good deal mixed up +in Jewish affairs.[246] And this, though only a trifle, is +interesting; because a late writer, who had taken the trouble to +study the subject, and find out the position Agrippa occupied, is +not likely to have shown his knowledge in such a casual way. +Scarcely anyone notices it. And equally correct is the remarkable +fact that his sister _Bernice_ used to act with him on public +occasions.[247] + +[Footnote 245: Acts 25. 13, 14.] + +[Footnote 246: Josephus, Antiq., xx., 1, 8, 9.] + +[Footnote 247: Acts 25. 23; Josephus, Wars, ii. 16; Life, xi.] + +Again at Malta we read of the _chief-man_ Publius; the accuracy of +which title (for it is a _title_, and does not mean merely the most +important man) is also proved by inscriptions, though as far as we +know it was peculiar to that island.[248] At Thessalonica, on the +other hand, the magistrates have the curious title of _politarchs_, +translated 'rulers of the city.'[249] This name does not occur in +any classical author in this form, so the writer of the Acts used to +be accused of a blunder here. His critics were unaware that an old +arch was standing all the time at this very place, the modern +Salonica, with an inscription containing this very word, saying it +was built when certain men were the politarchs. The arch was +destroyed in 1876, but the stone containing the inscription was +preserved, and is now in the British Museum.[250] And since then +other inscriptions have been found, showing that the term was in use +all through the first century. + +[Footnote 248: Acts 28. 7; Boeckh's Corp. Ins. Lat. X., No. 7495; +Corp. Ins. Gr., No. 5754.] + +[Footnote 249: Acts 17. 6.] + +[Footnote 250: In the Central Hall, near the Library.] + +Nor is this accuracy confined to well-known places on the coast; it +extends wherever the narrative extends, even to the interior of Asia +Minor. For though the rulers there are not mentioned, the writer was +evidently well acquainted with the places he refers to. Take +_Lystra_, for instance.[251] According to the writer, it was a city +of Lycaonia, though the adjacent town of Iconium was not, and this +has been recently proved to be correct. And it is interesting, +because many classical authors wrongly assign Iconium to Lycaonia; +while Lystra, though belonging to that province in the first +century, was separated from it early in the second; so a late +writer, or one ignorant of the locality, might easily have made a +mistake in either case. And an inscription found near Lystra, in +1909, shows that the two gods, Jupiter and Mercury (_i.e._, Zeus and +Hermes) were commonly associated together by the inhabitants, as +they are represented to be in the Acts. + +[Footnote 251: Acts 14. 1-12; Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery on +New Testament, 1915, pp. 48-63.] + +(2.) _The riot at Ephesus._ + +As a second example we will take the account of the _riot at +Ephesus_. All the allusions here to the worship of Diana, including +her image believed to have fallen from heaven (perhaps a meteorite +roughly cut into shape), her magnificent shrine, the small silver +models of this, her widespread worship, and the fanatical devotion +of her worshippers, are all in strict agreement with what we know +from other sources. + +Moreover, inscriptions discovered there have confirmed the narrative +to a remarkable extent. They have shown that the _theatre_ was the +recognised place of public meeting; that there were certain officers +(who presided at the games, etc.) called _asiarchs_; that another +well-known Ephesian officer was called the _town-clerk_; that +Ephesus had the curious designation of _temple-keeper_ of Diana +(long thought to be a difficulty); that _temple-robbing_ and +_blasphemy_ were both crimes which were specially recognised by the +Ephesian laws; and that the term _regular assembly_ was a technical +one in use at Ephesus.[252] The reference to the _town-clerk_ is +particularly interesting, because what is recorded of him is said to +agree with the duties of the town-clerk at Ephesus, though not with +those of the same official elsewhere.[253] All this minute accuracy +is hard to explain unless the narrative came from one who was +present during the riot, and recorded what he actually saw and +heard. + +[Footnote 252: _Comp._ Acts 19. 29-39; with inscriptions found in +the Great Theatre. Wood's Discoveries at Ephesus, 1877, pp. 43, 47, +53, 51, 15, 39.] + +[Footnote 253: Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles, translated by +Wilkinson, 1909, p. 63.] + +(3.) _The agreement with St. Paul's Epistles._ + +Our third example shall be of a different kind. It is that if we +compare the biography of St. Paul given in the Acts with the letters +of that Apostle, many of them written to the very Churches and +persons described there, we shall find numerous _undesigned +agreements_ between them. And these, as before explained (Chapter +X.) form a strong argument in favour of the accuracy of both. Take, +for instance, the Epistle to the Romans. Though not dated, it was +evidently written at the close of St. Paul's second visit to Greece; +and therefore, if mentioned in the Acts, it would come in at Chapter +20. 3. And the following are two, out of the numerous points of +agreement. + +The first is St. Paul's saying that he was going to Jerusalem, with +alms from Macedonia and Achaia for the poor in that city. Now in the +Acts it is stated that St. Paul had just passed through these +provinces, and was on his way to Jerusalem, though there is no +mention about the alms there. But it happens to be alluded to some +chapters later, without, however, mentioning then where the alms +came from.[254] The agreement is complete though it is certainly not +designed. + +[Footnote 254: Rom. 15. 25, 26; Acts 19. 21; 24. 17.] + +The other refers to St. Paul's travels, which he says extended from +Jerusalem as far as _Illyricum_. Now Illyricum is not once mentioned +in the Acts; so there can be no intentional agreement here. And yet +there is agreement. For we learn from various places that St. Paul +had gone from Jerusalem all through what we now call Asia Minor, and +just before the date of this Epistle had passed through Macedonia, +which was his limit in this direction. And as this was the next +province to Illyricum, it exactly agrees with the Epistle.[255] + +[Footnote 255: Rom. 15. 19; Acts 20. 2.] + +We may now sum up the evidence as to the accuracy of the Acts. The +above instances are only specimens of many which might be given. The +writer knew about Jerusalem and Athens just as well as about +Ephesus. While his account of St. Paul's voyage from Cæsarea to +Italy, including as it does, references to a number of places; to +the climate, and prevailing winds of the Mediterranean; and to the +phrases and customs of seamen, is so accurate, that critics of all +schools have admitted that he is describing a voyage he had actually +made. In short, the Book of the Acts is full of correct details +throughout, and it is hard to believe that anyone but a contemporary +could have written it. + + +(_B._) ITS AUTHORSHIP. + +Now if we admit the general accuracy of the book, there is little +difficulty in deciding on its _authorship_. As is well known, +certain portions of it (describing some of St. Paul's travels, +including his voyage to Italy) are written in the first person +plural, and are commonly called the "_We_" sections.[256] This shows +that the writer was a _companion_ of St. Paul at that time; and +then the great similarity in _language_, between these sections and +the rest of the book, shows that they had the same author. For they +are both written in the same style, and they both contain over forty +important words and expressions, which do not occur elsewhere in the +New Testament, except in the Third Gospel. This is indeed so +striking that it practically settles the point.[257] + +[Footnote 256: Acts 16. 9-40; 20. 5-21. 18; 27. 1-28. 16.] + +[Footnote 257: Harnack, Luke the Physician, translated by Wilkinson, +1907, p. 53.] + +But there are also slight _historical_ connections between the two +portions. For example, in the earlier chapters some incidents are +recorded, in which a certain Philip (one of the _Seven_) was +concerned; and why should these have been selected? The writer was +not present himself, and many far more important events must have +occurred, of which he gives no account. But a casual verse in the +_We_ sections explains everything: the writer, we are told, stayed +_many days_ with Philip, and of course learnt these particulars +then. And as it seems to have been his rule only to record what he +knew for certain, he might well have left out other and more +important events, of which he had not such accurate knowledge.[258] +And the earlier reference, which ends with the apparently pointless +remark that _Philip came to Cæsarea_, without saying why or +wherefore, is also explained, since this was the place where the +writer afterwards met him. It is then practically certain that the +whole book was written by one man, and that he was a companion of +St. Paul in many of his travels. + +[Footnote 258: Acts 6. 5; 8. 5, 26, 40; 21. 10.; Luke 1. 3.] + +It is also practically certain that he was a _medical man_. The +evidence for this is overwhelming, but as the fact is generally +admitted, we need not discuss it at length. All we need say is that +201 places have been counted in the Acts, and 252 in the Third +Gospel, where words and expressions occur which are specially, and +many of them exclusively, used by Greek medical writers, and which, +with few exceptions, do not occur elsewhere, in the New +Testament.[259] For instance, we read of the many proofs of the +Resurrection; the word translated _proofs_ being frequently used by +medical writers to express the infallible symptoms of a disease, as +distinct from its mere signs, which may be doubtful, and they +expressly give it this meaning. And we read of the restoration of +all things; the word translated _restoration_ being the regular +medical term for a complete recovery of a man's body or limb.[260] + +[Footnote 259: Hobart's Medical Language of St. Luke (1882); some of +his examples are rather doubtful.] + +[Footnote 260: Acts 1. 3; 3. 21.] + +We conclude then, from the book itself, that the writer was an +intimate friend of St. Paul and a medical man; and from one +of St. Paul's Epistles we learn his name, _Luke the beloved +physician_.[261] And this is confirmed by the fact that both this +Epistle and that to Philemon, where St. Paul also names Luke as his +companion, appear to have been written from Rome, when, as we know, +the writer of the Acts was with him. And he seems to have remained +with him to the last, _only Luke is with me_.[262] Yet this beloved +and ever-faithful friend of St. Paul is not once named in the Acts, +which would be most unlikely unless he were the author. + +[Footnote 261: Col. 4. 14; Philemon 24.] + +[Footnote 262: 2 Tim. 4. 11.] + + +(_C._) ITS DATE. + +The _date_ of the book can also be fixed with tolerable certainty. +It is implied in its abrupt ending. The last thing it narrates is +St. Paul's living at Rome, two years before his expected trial (A.D. +58-60).[263] It says nothing about this trial, nor of St. Paul's +release, nor of his subsequent travels, nor of his second trial and +martyrdom (probably under Nero, A.D. 64); though had it been written +after these events, it could hardly have failed to record them. This +is especially the case as the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul, +which, according to early authorities, occurred together at Rome, +would have formed such a suitable conclusion for a work chiefly +concerned with their labours. + +[Footnote 263: Rackham's Commentary on the Acts, 1901, p. lxvii; +many place it a year or two later, some a little earlier.] + +On the other hand, the abrupt ending of the book is at once +accounted for if it was written at that time, about A.D. 60, by St. +Luke, who did not relate anything further, because nothing further +had then occurred. And it is obvious that these two years would not +only have formed a most suitable period for its compilation, but +that he is very likely to have sent it to his friend Theophilus just +before the trial, perhaps somewhat hurriedly, not knowing whether it +might not involve his own death, as well as that of St. Paul. + +This would also account for the great prominence given to the +events of the immediately preceding years in Chapters 20. to 28., +which is quite unintelligible, unless the book was written soon +afterwards. They were nothing like as important as the events of the +next few years, about which the writer says nothing. And why should +he go through the earlier stages of St. Paul's arrest and trial, so +carefully, step by step, from Lysias to Felix, from Felix to Festus, +and then to Agrippa, and on to Rome; and then when he comes to the +crisis, and the Apostle is about to appear before Cæsar, suddenly +break off, without giving a hint as to which way it was decided? +Everyone must feel how tantalising it is; and how unlikely he is to +have stopped here, if he could have gone on. + +This abrupt ending, then, is the great argument for dating the book +about A.D. 60; but it is supported by several others. In the first +place, the journey to Rome itself, especially the shipwreck, is +described with such minute and graphic details, that it seems likely +to have been written down very soon afterwards, probably in that +city. + +Secondly, the Roman judges and officials are always represented as +treating the Christians with fairness, and even kindness; and the +writer leaves St. Paul appealing to Cæsar, with every hope of a +favourable verdict. There is no sign of bitterness or ill-feeling +anywhere. And all this would have been most unlikely after the great +persecution in A.D. 64; when Christians regarded Rome with the +utmost horror.[264] Compare the somewhat similar case of the Indian +Mutiny. Can we imagine an Englishman in India writing soon after the +Mutiny a history, say of Cawnpore, up to 1854, and then closing it, +without ever letting a hint fall that he was aware of the terrible +tragedy which happened in 1857, or showing the slightest ill-feeling +towards its perpetrators? The only reasonable conclusion would be +that such a history must have been written _before_ the Mutiny. In +the same way the Acts must have been written _before_ Nero's great +persecution. + +[Footnote 264: _E.g._, Rev. 17. 6.] + +Thirdly, the same sort of argument is afforded by the destruction of +Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Had the book been written after this, it is +strange that the writer should seem to be entirely unaware of it; +more especially as it had so close a bearing on the events described +in the Acts, such as the Jewish law not being binding on Gentile +Christians. And it is the more significant, because he records the +prophecy of the event in his Gospel,[265] but nowhere hints that the +prophecy had been fulfilled. + +[Footnote 265: Luke 19. 43.] + +Lastly, an early date is implied by the passage, where St. Paul +tells his friends near Ephesus, that they would not see him again. +It was quite natural for him to have said so at the time, as his +feelings were very despondent; but no one, writing many years later, +would have recorded it _without comment_; since it is almost certain +that St. Paul, after his release from Rome, did revisit +Ephesus.[266] + +[Footnote 266: Acts 20. 25, 38; 2 Tim. 4. 20.] + +On the whole, then, there is very strong evidence in favour of the +Acts of the Apostles having been written by St. Luke about A.D. 60; +and this of course proves an earlier date for _St. Luke's Gospel_. +And this again proves a still earlier one for _St. Mark's Gospel_, +which is now generally admitted to have been written before St. +Luke's; and probably for _St. Matthew's_ as well. The evidence of +the Acts, then, while confirming our previous conclusion that the +first three Gospels were certainly written before A.D. 70, enables +us to add with some confidence that they were also written before +A.D. 60. And, it may be added, Prof. Harnack, who long maintained +the opposite view, has at last accepted this early date for all +these Gospels.[267] The book has of course no direct bearing on the +date of St. John's Gospel. + +[Footnote 267: Date of Acts, and Synoptic Gospels, translated by +Wilkinson, 1911, pp. 99, 133, 134. Some writers would place them +still earlier. Thus Canon Birks, dates them all between A.D. 42-51, +and he gives strong reasons for thinking that St. Luke, and his +Gospel, are referred to in 2 Cor. 8. 18. (Horæ Evangelicæ, 1892, +edit., pp. 259, 281, 293); and Archdeacon Allen places the second +Gospel, about A.D. 44, and the first about A.D. 50. (Introduction to +the Books of the New Testament, 1913, p. 13.)] + + + + +CHAPTER XVII. + +THAT THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST IS PROBABLY TRUE. + + (_A._) ITS IMPORTANCE. + + The third day, the empty tomb. + + (_B._) THE NARRATIVES. + + The various accounts, table of Christ's appearances, the + three groups, the double farewell. + + (_C._) THEIR DIFFICULTIES. + + (1.) Discrepancies; often due to the appearances being + placed together; the disciples going to Galilee. + (2.) Omissions; the Gospels only record selected instances, + and St. Paul refers to them in groups. + + (_D._) THEIR TRUTHFULNESS. + + (1.) Agreements; very important. + (2.) Mutual explanations; very numerous. + (3.) Signs of early date; very interesting. + + Conclusion, the narratives appear to be thoroughly trustworthy. + + +We decided in the previous chapters that the Four Gospels, and also +the Acts of the Apostles, were _genuine_; that is to say, they were +written by the persons to whom they are commonly ascribed. And to +these may be added the four great Epistles of St. Paul, and the +Revelation of St. John, which, as before said, are admitted to be +genuine by critics of all schools. We have thus direct testimony +as to the life of Christ, that is to say, the testimony of +contemporaries, some of whom must have known Him well. St. Matthew +and St. John were two of His Apostles; St. Mark and St. Luke had +exceptionally good means of knowing the truth, and may perhaps have +had some slight knowledge of Christ themselves, as had also St. +Paul.[268] We have now to examine the value of this testimony, more +especially as to the _Resurrection of Christ_. So in the present +chapter we will consider the _importance_ of the Resurrection, and +the _narratives_ we have of it; both as to their _difficulties_, and +their _truthfulness_; and in the next the various alternative +theories. + +[Footnote 268: 2 Cor. 5. 16.] + + +(_A._) ITS IMPORTANCE. + +In the first place, we cannot overestimate the importance of the +Resurrection, for this fact, either real or supposed, was the +foundation of Christianity. This is plain not only from the Gospels, +but still more from the Acts, where we have numerous short speeches +by the Apostles, given under various circumstances, and to various +audiences, including Jewish Councillors, Greek philosophers, and +Roman governors. And in nearly all of them the Resurrection of +Christ is not only positively asserted, but is emphasised as a fact +established by indisputable evidence and as being the foundation of +Christianity.[269] It is even said that it was the special duty of +an apostle to bear witness to it; and St. Paul seems to have been +aware of this, since, when claiming to be an apostle, he is careful +to show that he was thus qualified. And for himself he makes it the +basis of all his teaching, _if Christ hath not been raised, then is +our preaching vain_.[270] It is certain, then, that the first +preachers of Christianity preached the Resurrection of Christ. + +[Footnote 269: Acts 2. 24; 4. 10; 5. 30; 10. 40; 13. 30; 17. 31; 26. +23.] + +[Footnote 270: Acts 1. 22; 1 Cor. 9. 1; 15. 14-17.] + +It is equally certain that they preached that it occurred on the +_third day_, counting from the Crucifixion.[271] This also is stated +not only in the Gospels, but by St. Paul; who in one place bases his +whole argument on the fact that the Body of Christ (unlike that of +David) _saw no corruption_, a point also alluded to by St. Peter, +and implying a Resurrection in a few days.[272] While if further +evidence is required, the fact that this third day (the first day of +the week) became _the Lord's Day_--the Christian Sunday--seems to +put the matter beyond dispute. + +[Footnote 271: Sometimes described as _after three days_, but that +the two expressions are intended to mean the same is clear from +Matt. 27. 63-64, where Christ's saying that He would rise again +_after three days_ is given as the reason for guarding the sepulchre +_until the third day_. In the same way _after eight days_ evidently +means _on the eighth day_ (John 20. 26).] + +[Footnote 272: 1 Cor. 15. 4; Acts 13. 35-37; 2. 31.] + +Once more it is certain that the Christians believed that this +Resurrection was one of Christ's _Body_, not His _Spirit_. This +again is clear not only from the Gospels, which all speak of the +_empty tomb_; but also from St. Paul's Epistles. For when he says +that Christ _died_, and was _buried_, and was _raised on the third +day_, and _appeared_ to Cephas, etc., he must mean Christ's _Body_ +(for a Spirit cannot be _buried_); and he must mean that it was the +_same_ Body that died and was buried, that was afterwards raised, +and appeared to them, including himself.[273] Christ's being +_raised_, it will be noticed, was distinct from, and previous to, +His _appearing_ to anyone, just as in the Gospels the empty tomb is +always mentioned _before_ any of the appearances. + +[Footnote 273: 1 Cor. 15. 3-5.] + +And even in the one case, where St. Paul alludes to what he saw as a +_heavenly vision_, he refers to it in order to prove that it is not +incredible that God should _raise the dead_;[274] which again shows +that he thought it was a _Body_, for a _Spirit_ cannot be raised +from the _dead_. And his specifying _the third day_ makes this (if +possible) still plainer, for the life of the spirit after death does +not commence on the third day; nor would it have prevented Christ's +Body from seeing corruption. + +[Footnote 274: Acts 26. 19, 8.] + +From all this it is abundantly clear that St. Paul, like the Four +Evangelists, and the other Apostles, believed in what is called the +_physical_ Resurrection, in the sense that Christ's Body was +restored to life, and left the tomb. Though like them, he also +believed that it was no longer a _natural_ body, bound by the +ordinary laws of nature, but that it had been partly changed as +well, so that it shared to some extent the properties of spirits. + +Nor is his statement that _flesh and blood_ cannot inherit the +Kingdom of God, opposed to this.[275] For when he uses the same +expression elsewhere (_e.g._, _I conferred not with flesh and +blood_)[276] it is evidently not used in a literal sense. It does +_not_ mean flesh and blood, in the same way in which we might speak +of bones and muscles. It means _men_. So his meaning here is +probably that mere men--human beings as such--cannot inherit the +future life of glory. Their bodies will first have to be changed, +and made incorruptible; but they will still be _bodies_. And as just +said, St. Paul is quite definite as to its being the Body of Christ +that was _buried_, that was afterwards raised on the third day. + +[Footnote 275: Cor. 15. 50.] + +[Footnote 276: Gal. 1. 16; Eph. 6. 12; comp. Matt. 16. 17.] + +We may say, then, with confidence, that wherever the Resurrection +was believed, the fact that it occurred on the third day, and the +fact that it was a physical Resurrection, involving the empty tomb, +was believed also. The three invariably went together. But was this +belief justified? This is the question we have to discuss. + + +(_B._) THE NARRATIVES. + +Now we have five different accounts of the Resurrection; and these +are so thoroughly independent that not one of them can be regarded +as the source of any of the others. Little stress, however, can be +laid on the latter part of St. Mark's account, as the genuineness of +the last twelve verses is doubtful; but it anyhow represents a very +early Christian belief, Aristion being sometimes named as the +author. And even the earlier part is conclusive as to the empty +tomb, and the promised appearance in Galilee. On the other hand, St. +Paul's account, which is perhaps the strongest, is universally +allowed to have been written within thirty years of the event; the +most probable date for which is A.D. 29 or 30, and for the Epistle +A.D. 55. And it should be noticed that St. Paul reminds the +Corinthians that what he here says about the Resurrection is what he +preached to them on his first visit (about A.D. 50), and that as +they had _received_ it from him, so he had himself _received_ it +from others at a still earlier date.[277] + +[Footnote 277: 1 Cor. 15. 1-3.] + +And we can even fix this date approximately, for two of the +appearances he records were to St. Peter and St. James; and he +happens to mention elsewhere[278] that these were the two Apostles +he met at Jerusalem, three years after his conversion (A.D. 35, or +earlier); so he doubtless heard the whole account then, even if he +had not heard it before. And this was certainly within _ten +years_--probably within _seven_ years--of the Crucifixion. More +ancient testimony than this can scarcely be desired. And if anything +could add to its importance it would be St. Paul's own statement +that in this respect his teaching was the same as that of the +original Apostles: _Whether then it be I or they, so we preach and +so ye believed_.[279] + +[Footnote 278: Gal. 1. 19.] + +[Footnote 279: 1 Cor. 15. 11.] + +We need not quote the various accounts here, but the accompanying +table gives them in a convenient form for reference. Altogether +Christ seems to have been seen on thirteen different occasions; and +there may have been others, which are not recorded, though they are +perhaps hinted at.[280] + +[Footnote 280: Acts 1. 3; 13. 31; John 20. 30.] + +It is doubtful however if the eighth appearance was separate from +the ninth, for St. Matthew says that when the Eleven saw Him, on the +mountain in Galilee, as He had appointed, _they_ worshipped Him, +but _some_ doubted. This _some_ can scarcely mean some of the +Eleven, who had just worshipped. It probably refers to some others +who were present (_i.e._, some of the five hundred) who doubted at +first if it was really He, as He was some way off, and it was before +He _came_ to them. And since the command to preach the Gospel to all +the world, which St. Matthew records, was probably addressed to the +Eleven only, it will account for his not mentioning that others were +present. In the same way St. Luke relates the Ascension, as if only +the Eleven were there, though it is clear _from his own narrative_ +that he knew there were others with them; since he afterwards +records St. Peter as saying so.[281] + +[Footnote 281: Acts 1. 1-13; 22-23.] + +On the other hand, the appearance to the five hundred must have +been on a _mountain_, or some other open space, as a room would not +have been large enough. It must have been in _Galilee_, as there +were not so many disciples in Jerusalem.[282] It must have been _by +appointment_, as they could hardly have come together by accident; +and they are not likely to have come together at all unless the +_Eleven_ had collected them. And all this is an additional reason for +identifying it with that recorded by St. Matthew. + +[Footnote 282: Acts 1. 15.] + +It must next be noticed that the appearances form _three groups_. +First a group in or near Jerusalem, which was chiefly to the Twelve +Apostles, and extended over eight days. Secondly a group in Galilee, +the most important being that to the five hundred, which was a sort of +_farewell_ to His Galilean disciples. And thirdly to a group back again +at Jerusalem, chiefly to the Twelve, but including others, and ending +with the Ascension, or _farewell_ to His Judæan disciples. + +TABLE OF CHRIST'S APPEARANCES. + + +-----------------------+--------+-------+--------+---------+---------+ + | |_1 Cor._|_Matt._| _Mark._| _Luke._ | _John._ | + +-----------------------+--------+-------+--------+---------+---------+ + | | | | | | | + |Empty tomb visited }| | | {|24. 1-11,|} | + | by women }| .. |28. 1-8|16. 1-8{| 22-23 |}20. 1-2 | + | | | | | | | + | And by Apostles | .. | .. | .. | 12, 24 | 3-10| + | | | | | | | + |An appearance in }| | | | | | + | Galilee foretold }| .. | 7| 16. 7 | .. | .. | + | | | | | | | + | | | | | | | + |Then Christ was seen | | | | | | + | _In or near | | | | | | + | Jerusalem, by_ | | | | | | + | | | | | | | + | (i.) Mary Magdalene | .. | .. | 9-11 | .. | 11-18| + | | | | | | | + | (ii.) The two Marys | .. | 9-10| .. | .. | .. | + | | | | | | | + | (iii.) St. Peter | 15. 5 | .. | .. | 34 | .. | + | | | | | | | + | ( iv.) Cleopas and }| | | | | | + | another, }| | | | | | + | perhaps St. }| | | | | | + | Luke, at }| | | | | | + | Emmaus }| .. | .. | 12-13 | 13-35 | .. | + | | | | | | | + | (v.) The Apostles }| | | | | | + | and others }| | | | | | + | (without }| | | | | | + | St. Thomas) }| 5 | .. | 14 | 36-43 | 19-25| + | | | | | | | + | (vi.) The Apostles }| | | | | | + | (with St. }| | | | | | + | Thomas) }| .. | .. | .. | .. | 26-29| + | | | | | | | + | | | | | | | + |_In Galilee, by_ | | | | | | + | | | | | | | + | (vii.) Seven Apostles}| | | | | | + | on the Lake }| .. | .. | .. | .. | 21. 1-23| + | | | | | | | + |(viii.) The Apostles }| | | | | | + | on the }| | | | | | + | mountain }| .. | 16-20| 15-18 | .. | .. | + | | | | | | | + | (ix.) Over 500 }| | | | | | + | persons }| 6 | .. | .. | .. | .. | + | | | | | | | + | (x.) St. James | 7 | .. | .. | .. | .. | + | | | | | | | + | | | | | | | + |_Back at Jerusalem, by_| | | | | | + | | | | | | _Acts._ | + | (xi.) The Apostles }| | | | | | + | at Jerusalem}| .. | .. | .. | 44-49 | 1. 4-5| + | | | | | | | + | (xii.) The Apostles }| | | | | | + | and others }| | | | | | + | at Bethany }| 7 | .. | 19-20 | 50-53 | 6-11, 22| + | | | | | | | + |(xiii.) St. Paul | 8 | .. | .. | .. | 9. 3-9| + | | | | | | | + +-----------------------+--------+-------+--------+---------+---------+ + +And though this _double_ farewell is sometimes thought to be a +difficulty, yet as Christ's Resurrection was meant to be the proof +of His mission, it seems only natural that He should have appeared +again to _all_ His disciples, and have taken leave of them; both +those in Galilee, and those at Jerusalem, the Apostles themselves +being of course present on each occasion. And as the words _when +they were come together_ imply that the meeting in Jerusalem, like +that in Galilee, had been previously announced, all the Judæan +disciples may well have been there; and this we know was the case +with Matthias, Justus, and others.[283] + +[Footnote 283: Acts 1. 6, 22.] + + +(_C._) THEIR DIFFICULTIES. + +Passing on now to the difficulties in the narratives; they may be +conveniently placed under the two heads of _discrepancies_ and +_omissions_. + +(1.) _Discrepancies._ + +These seem to be chiefly due to two of the Evangelists, St. Mark and +St. Luke, recording separate appearances as if they were continuous. +But it so happens that they do much the same in the rest of their +Gospels, often recording separate sayings of Christ as if they were +one discourse; and even in closely-connected passages a break has +sometimes to be assumed.[284] While in these very narratives, St. +Luke describes an appearance at Jerusalem in Acts 1. 4, and +continues without any change of place till v. 12, when he says +_they returned to Jerusalem_. Plainly he is here grouping together +words spoken on different occasions. + +[Footnote 284: _E.g._, in Luke 14. 21-22.] + +Therefore he may have done the same at the end of his Gospel. +Indeed, it is almost certain that he did, otherwise we should have +to place the Ascension in the middle of the night, which is scarcely +probable. Moreover, in the Acts he expressly says that the +appearances lasted _forty days_; and he quotes St. Paul, as saying +that they lasted _many days_.[285] He seems to have thought it +unnecessary in his Gospel to explain that they were at different +times; and if St. Mark did the same, it would account for most, +though not all, of the discrepancies between them. + +[Footnote 285: Acts 1. 3; 13. 31.] + +These discrepancies, however, are often much exaggerated. Take for +instance the fifth appearance in the previous list. St. Luke and St. +John evidently refer to the same occasion, as it was on the evening +of Easter Day; yet one says the Apostles were _terrified_, and +thought they saw a spirit; while the other says they were _glad_. +Can both be true? Certainly they can, if we assume (as is most +natural) that the Apostles were _at first_ terrified, and thought +they saw a spirit; but were afterwards glad, when on Christ's +showing them His hands and side, they were convinced that it was +really Himself. And He may then have reproached them for their +unbelief as recorded by St. Mark. + +Or take the case of the Angels at the Tomb. These are referred to by +every Evangelist, though some call them men (in white or dazzling +apparel) and others angels. But as St. Luke uses both words,[286] +and as angels are not likely to have appeared in any but a human +form, there is no real difficulty here. While if the second angel +was not always visible, it would account for some of the Evangelists +speaking of only one. And it may be mentioned in passing, that one +of the angels is said to have been seen by the Roman soldiers as +well, who went and told the Jews about it.[287] And this is not +likely to have been asserted within twenty years unless it had been +the case, as the Jews would have contradicted it. Yet if it was the +case, it affords an additional argument for the Resurrection, and +one derived from Christ's enemies, not His friends. + +[Footnote 286: Luke 24. 4, 23. Similarly Gabriel is called a _man_ +in Dan. 9. 21, and an _angel_ in Luke 1. 25.] + +[Footnote 287: Matt. 28. 4, 11.] + +A more important difficulty is caused by Christ's command to the +women, that they and the Apostles were to proceed to Galilee to meet +Him, when, as He knew, He was going to appear to them in Jerusalem +the same day. The most probable explanation is that the meeting in +Galilee was the one _intended_ all along, in fact we are definitely +told so.[288] But when the women, in consequence of the Angel's +message, and after they had recovered from their fright (which at +first made them run away and say nothing to anyone),[289] went and +told the Apostles to go there, they were _disbelieved_.[290] This +naturally made the women doubt too, so they returned to the grave to +make further inquiries, none of them having the slightest intention +of going to Galilee. + +[Footnote 288: Mark 14. 28.] + +[Footnote 289: Mark 16. 8.] + +[Footnote 290: Luke 24. 11.] + +Under these circumstances, something more was necessary, so Christ +appeared first to Mary Magdalene, and then to her with the other +Mary, when He told them Himself to warn the Apostles to proceed to +Galilee, which they again did, and were again _disbelieved_.[291] +Then He appeared to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, and when +they came back, and told the rest, they were also at first +_disbelieved_; the Apostles, though now admitting that Christ had +been seen by St. Peter, still denying such a bodily resurrection +(able to eat food, etc.) as they described.[292] + +[Footnote 291: Mark 16. 11.] + +[Footnote 292: Mark 16. 13; Luke 24. 34.] + +After this there was nothing for it, but for Christ to appear to the +Apostles Himself, and convince them personally by eating food in +their presence, which He did, when most of them were assembled +together the same evening. And He may then have told them to remain +in Jerusalem till they were _all_ convinced, as they could scarcely +have been expected to collect the five hundred for the meeting in +Galilee, so long as they kept disputing among themselves as to +whether He had really risen. And it was thus another week before the +last sceptic (St. Thomas) was convinced, and they finally started +for Galilee. These discrepancies then are not nearly so serious as +is commonly supposed. + +(2.) _Omissions._ + +With regard to the _omissions_, none of our lists are at all +complete, and this is often thought to be a difficulty. But as far +as the _Gospels_ are concerned, the writers nowhere profess to give +a complete list of Christ's appearances, any more than of His +parables, or His miracles; they only record (as one of them tells +us)[293] _selected instances_. And in the present case their choice +is quite intelligible. Thus St. Matthew closes his Gospel, which is +concerned chiefly with the Galilean ministry, with the farewell +meeting in Galilee; St. John, whose Gospel is concerned chiefly with +the Judæan ministry, ended his (before the last chapter was added, +which seems a sort of appendix) with some of the appearances in +Jerusalem. While St. Luke, who was more of an historian, and wrote +everything _in order_,[294] though he describes most in detail the +appearance to the two disciples at Emmaus (which is only natural if +he was one of them), is yet careful to carry his narrative right on +to the Ascension. Therefore, though they only record certain +appearances, they may well have known of the others; and there can +be little doubt that they did. + +[Footnote 293: John 20. 30.] + +[Footnote 294: Luke 1. 3.] + +Thus, St. Matthew speaks of the Eleven meeting Christ by +_appointment_, so he must have known of some interview when this +appointment was made, (perhaps the one on the Lake), as the messages +to the women did not fix either the time or place.[295] In the same +way St. Mark must have known of a meeting in Galilee, as he refers +to it himself, and St. Luke of an appearance to St. Peter.[296] +While St. John, though he does not record the Ascension, must +certainly have known of it, as he refers to it twice in the words, +_if ye should behold the Son of Man ascending_, and _I ascend unto +My Father_, the former passage clearly showing that it was to be a +visible ascent, and that the Apostles were to see it.[297] Plainly, +then, the Evangelists did not relate every appearance they knew of, +and the objection as far as they are concerned, may be dismissed at +once. + +[Footnote 295: Matt. 28. 16, 7, 10.] + +[Footnote 296: Mark 16. 7; Luke 24. 34.] + +[Footnote 297: John 6. 62; 20. 17.] + +On the other hand, _St. Paul's list_ certainly looks as if it were +meant to be complete; and this is no doubt a real difficulty. +Surely, it is said, if the other appearances had occurred, or were +even supposed to have occurred, when St. Paul wrote, he would have +heard of them; and if he had heard of them, he would have mentioned +them, as he was evidently trying to make out as strong a case as he +could. He might perhaps have omitted the appearances to _women_, as +their testimony was not considered of much value at the time; and +they were not witnesses of the Resurrection, in the sense he alludes +to--_i.e._, persons who went about preaching it;[298] but why should +he have omitted the rest? + +[Footnote 298: 1 Cor. 15. 11.] + +There is however a fairly good explanation. The appearances it will +be remembered form _three groups_. Now St. Paul mentions two +appearances to individual Apostles--St. Peter and St. James; and +this was doubtless because he had had such vivid accounts of them +from the men themselves, when he met them at Jerusalem. For we may +be sure that if they had not told him, he would not have accepted it +from anyone else. But he seems to refer to the others _in these +groups_, first to the Twelve (at Jerusalem), then to the five +hundred (in Galilee), and then to all the Apostles, evidently +meaning more than the Twelve (back again at Jerusalem). But by so +doing, he does not limit it to only one appearance in each group. In +the same way a man might say that on returning to England he saw +first his parents, then his brothers, then his cousins; though he +had seen his parents on two days a week apart, his brothers for only +a few hours, and his cousins for several successive days. + +And the fact that St. Paul, in one of his speeches in the Acts,[299] +expressly says that Christ was seen for _many days_ at Jerusalem, +strongly confirms this view. We conclude, then, that in his Epistle +he is mentioning the appearances by groups, rather than every single +one; wishing to emphasise the number of men who had seen Christ, +rather than the number of times they had seen Him; and if so it does +away with the difficulty. None of these objections, then, are of +much importance. + +[Footnote 299: Acts 13. 31.] + + +(_D._) THEIR TRUTHFULNESS. + +Turning now to the other side, the narratives bear abundant marks of +truthfulness. These we will consider under the three heads of +_agreements_, _mutual explanations_, and _signs of early date_. + +(1.) _Agreements._ + +In the first place it is important to notice that in spite of the +discrepancies and omissions just alluded to, there is an +extraordinary amount of _agreement_ in the narratives. For all the +more important points--the third day, the empty tomb, the visit of +the women, the angelic message, the first appearance being in +Jerusalem, the incredulity of some of the disciples, and Christ's +not only appearing, but speaking as well, and this in the presence +of all the Apostles--are _all_ vouched for by _every_ Evangelist. + +They also agree in saying that the Apostles _remained in Jerusalem_ +after Christ's arrest, and did not as we might have expected return +at once to Galilee? For the last two Gospels expressly state that +they were in Jerusalem on Easter Day; and the first two imply it, or +how could the women have been told to take them a message to _go_ to +Galilee? + +Further they all agree in _not_ giving (what imaginary accounts +might well have contained) any description of the Resurrection +itself, any appearance of Christ to His enemies; or any information +as to the other world, though this last would have been so eagerly +welcomed, and could have been so easily invented. + +Moreover the _order_ in which the appearances are placed is also the +same in every account, that to Mary Magdalene for instance (wherever +it occurs) being, always placed first, that to St. Peter next, that +to Cleopas next, then that to the Twelve, etc. And this is the more +remarkable because the narratives are so obviously independent, and +the order is not at all a likely one. Writers of fiction, for +instance, would never have made Christ first appear to so little +known a person as Mary Magdalene, rather than to His Mother or His +Apostles. + +Once more the narratives all agree in the extreme _calmness_ with +which they are written. One would have thought it almost impossible +for anyone after relating the story of the Cross, to have avoided +some word of triumph, or exultation, in regard to the Resurrection +and Ascension. But nothing of the kind is found. The writers record +them, like the rest of the history, as simple matters of fact, +apparently regarding them as the natural close for such a Life, and +calling for no comment. How unlikely this would be in legendary +accounts scarcely needs pointing out. + +It may also be added (though it does not concern these actual +narratives) that the Evangelists all agree in saying that Christ had +_prophesied_ His own Resurrection.[300] And while this does not of +course prove it to have been true, it yet forms a difficulty on any +other theory. + +[Footnote 300: _E.g._, Matt. 16. 21; Mark 9. 31; Luke 18. 33; John +2. 19-21.] + +(2.) _Mutual explanations._ + +In the next place it is surprising to find how often a slight remark +in one of the narratives will help to explain some apparent +improbability, or difficulty in another. And since, as just said, +the narratives are quite independent, and were certainly not written +to explain one another; such indications of truthfulness are of +great value. We will therefore consider several examples.[301] + +[Footnote 301: These and some others are discussed in a paper in the +_Expositor_, May, 1909, by the present writer.] + +To begin with, St. John records Mary Magdalene as visiting the empty +Tomb, and then telling the disciples _we know not where they have +laid Him_. But to whom does the _we_ refer, as she was apparently +alone all the time? St. John does not explain matters; but the other +Evangelists do. For they say that though Mary Magdalene was the +leader of the party, and is always named first, yet as a matter of +fact there were other women with her; and this accounts for the +_we_. Later on no doubt she was alone; but then she uses the words +_I know not_.[302] + +[Footnote 302: John 20. 2, 13.] + +Secondly, St. Luke says that _Peter_ was the disciple who ran to the +tomb on hearing of the Angel's message, without however giving any +reason why he should have been the one to go. But St. Mark, though +he does not mention the visit of Peter, records that the message had +been specially addressed to him; and St. John says that Mary +Magdalene had specially informed him; and this of course explains +his going. St. Luke, it may be added, in the subsequent words, +_certain of them that were with us_,[303] implies that at least one +other disciple went with him, which agrees with St. John. + +[Footnote 303: Luke 24. 24.] + +St. Luke then says that when Peter arrived at the tomb, he saw the +linen cloths _by themselves_, and went home _wondering_. This seems +only a trifle, but what does it mean? St. Luke does not explain +matters, but St. John does; for he describes how the cloths were +arranged. This was in a way which showed that the Body could not +have been hurriedly stolen, but had apparently vanished without +disturbing them. It convinced St. John that the disappearance was +supernatural, and would quite account for St. Peter's wondering.[304] + +[Footnote 304: Luke 24. 12; John 20. 6-8.] + +Again, St. Matthew narrates that when Christ appeared to Mary +Magdalene, and the other Mary, He was at once recognised, held by +the feet, and worshipped. And they do not seem to have been at all +surprised at meeting Him near the tomb, in spite of the Angel's +message that they should go to Galilee to see Him. Evidently +something must have occurred between, making a break in the +narrative after v. 8, which is quite possible, for the words, _And +behold_ (Rev. Vers.) do not always imply a close connection.[305] +And from the other Evangelists we learn what this was. For St. John +describes an appearance to Mary Magdalene _alone_, when she was +rebuked for wishing to touch Him, apparently in the old familiar +way, and without any act of reverence; and St. Mark says this was +the _first_ appearance. If then a few minutes later, she, in company +with the other Mary, saw Christ again, it would quite account for +their not being surprised at meeting Him, and also for their altered +behaviour in prostrating themselves to the ground, and being in +consequence permitted to hold Him by the _feet_, and worship Him. + +[Footnote 305: _E.g._, Matt. 2. 1.] + +Once more St. Luke says that when Christ appeared to the Apostles in +the evening, He was mistaken for a _spirit_; but he gives no reason +for this, and it was apparently the only occasion on which it +occurred. St. John however, though he does not mention the incident, +fully explains it; for he says that _the doors were shut_ for fear +of the Jews; and obviously if Christ suddenly appeared within closed +doors, it would account for their thinking that He must be a +spirit. On the other hand, St. John speaks of Christ's showing them +His hands (and also His side) though without giving any reason for +this. But St. Luke's statement that they at first took Him for a +spirit, and that He did this to convince them of His identity, quite +accounts for it; so each of the narratives helps to explain the +other. + +But this is not all, for St. Luke then adds that as they still +disbelieved, Christ asked if they had anything to eat (_i.e._, if +they would give _Him_ something to eat) and they at once offered Him +a piece of broiled fish. But he gives no hint as to why they +happened to have any fish ready. St. Mark however, though he does +not mention either the request, nor its response, fully explains +both; for he says they were _sitting at meat_ at the time, probably +just concluding their evening meal. And all this still further +explains St. John's narrative, that Christ said to them _again_, the +second time, _Peace be unto you_; which would be much more natural +if something had occurred between, than if (as St. John implies) it +was just after the first time. + +Again, St. Mark records Christ as saying, after His command to +preach the Gospel to all the world, 'He that believeth _and is +baptised_ shall be saved,' though without any previous reference to +baptism. But St. Matthew says the command was not only to make +disciples of all nations, but to _baptise_ them as well, and this of +course explains the other passage, though curiously enough St. +Matthew himself does not refer to it. + +And then as to the appearance to the five hundred recorded by St. +Paul. None of the Evangelists mention this, but it explains a good +deal that they do mention. Thus St. John alludes to the Apostles +being in _Galilee_, (instead of staying in Jerusalem) after the +Resurrection, but he gives no hint as to why they went there. Nor do +St. Matthew and St. Mark, who say Christ told them to go there, give +any hint as to why He told them; but this appearance to the five +hundred, who had to be collected in Galilee, explains everything. It +also accounts for St. Matthew's curious remark (before noticed) that +when the Eleven saw Christ in Galilee, _they worshipped Him, but +some doubted_. And it probably explains St. Luke's omission of +Galilee among the places where the Apostles themselves had to preach +the Resurrection; as there were so many witnesses there +already.[306] + +[Footnote 306: Acts 1. 8.] + +Now of course too much stress must not be laid on small details like +these, but still the fact that such short and independent accounts +should explain one another in so many ways is a distinct evidence of +truthfulness. Legendary accounts of fictitious events would not be +likely to do so. + +(3.) _Signs of early date._ + +In conclusion, it is interesting to note that these accounts, +especially those in the first three Gospels, show signs of an +extremely early, if not a _contemporary_ date. Thus St. Peter is +still called by his old name of _Simon_,[307] and it is the last +occasion when that name is used, without explaining to whom it +refers; St. Paul, some years later, though alluding to this same +appearance, calling him by what was then his usual name of Cephas or +Peter. Whilst St. John, writing many years afterwards, though he is +equally accurate as to Simon being the name in use at the time, +thinks it necessary to explain who was meant by it ('Jesus saith to +Simon _Peter_, Simon son of John, lovest thou Me?').[308] + +[Footnote 307: Luke 24. 34.] + +[Footnote 308: John 21. 15; comp. Acts. 15. 7, 14.] + +Similarly the Apostles are still spoken of as _the Eleven_, though +they could only have had this title for _just these few weeks_.[309] +And the fact of their having had it seems to have been soon +forgotten. For St. Paul even when alluding to this very time prefers +to call them by the familiar title of _the Twelve_, which was +equally correct, as we are specially told that St. Matthias, who was +afterwards chosen as the twelfth, had been with them all along.[310] + +[Footnote 309: Mark 16. 14; Luke 24. 9, 33.] + +[Footnote 310: Acts 1. 22; 1 Cor. 15. 5.] + +There are also some incidental remarks in the narratives, which seem +so natural, and yet so unlikely to have been invented. Thus we read +that on one occasion after Christ appeared to the Apostles, they +still disbelieved _for joy_; and on another, that though they knew +it was the Lord, they yet wanted to ask Him _Who art Thou?_[311] +Such bewildered feelings are quite intelligible at the time, but are +not likely to have been thought of afterwards. + +[Footnote 311: Luke 24. 41; John 21. 12.] + +Moreover the _kind_ of Resurrection asserted (though no doubt +presenting great difficulties) is strongly in favour of a +contemporary date. For it was not (as said in Chapter XIII.) a mere +resuscitation of Christ's natural body, but His rising again in a +body which combined material and spiritual properties in a +remarkable manner. And there was nothing in the Old Testament, or +anywhere else, to suggest such a Resurrection as this; it was quite +unique. Indeed the _combination_ of these properties--and they occur +in the same Gospel--is so extremely puzzling, that it is hard to see +how anything but actual experience (or what they believed to be +such) could ever have induced men to record it. And much the same +may be said of their ascribing an _altered appearance_ to Christ's +Body, so that He was often not recognised at first. Late writers are +not likely to have imagined this. + +Lastly, the utter absence of any attempt at harmonising the +narratives, or avoiding the apparent discrepancies between them, +also points to their extreme antiquity. The writers in fact seem to +narrate just what they believed to have happened, often mentioning +the most trivial circumstances, and without ever attempting to meet +difficulties or objections. And while such disconnected accounts +might well have been written by the actual witnesses of a wonderful +miracle, they are not such as would have been deliberately invented; +nor are they like subsequent legends and myths. + +These narratives then appear throughout to be thoroughly +trustworthy; and we therefore decide that the _Resurrection of +Christ is probably true_. In the next chapter we will consider the +various alternative theories. + + + + +CHAPTER XVIII + +THAT THE FAILURE OF OTHER EXPLANATIONS INCREASES THIS PROBABILITY. + + The first witnesses of the Resurrection. The value of all testimony + depends on four questions about the witnesses, and here the denial + of each corresponds to the four chief alternative theories. + + (_A._) THE FALSEHOOD THEORY. + + This would be to deny their _veracity_, and say that they + did not speak the truth, as far as they knew it. But + it is disproved by their motives, their conduct, and their + sufferings. + + (_B._) THE LEGEND THEORY. + + This would be to deny their _knowledge_, and say that they + had not the means of knowing the truth. But amply + sufficient means were within their reach, and they were + quite competent to use them. + + (_C._) THE VISION THEORY. + + This would be to deny their _investigation_, and say that + they were too excited to avail themselves of these + means. But this theory has immense difficulties. + + (1.) Arguments in its favour. + (2.) Arguments against it. + (3.) Its failure to account for the facts. + (4.) The theory of real visions. + + (_D._) THE SWOON THEORY. + + This would be to deny their _reasoning_, and say that they + did not draw the right conclusion, since Christ's appearances + were due to His not having died. But this theory + also has immense difficulties. + + (_E._) CONCLUSION. + + The alleged difficulties of the Christian Theory, extremely + strong argument in favour of the Resurrection. + + +We decided in the last chapter that the Resurrection of Christ was +_probably true_; that is to say, we carefully examined the various +narratives, and came to the conclusion that they had every +appearance of being candidly and truthfully written. We have now to +consider, more in detail, _the testimony of its first witnesses_. +And, as we shall see, this affords strong additional evidence in its +favour; since all attempts to account for this testimony, without +admitting its truth, fail hopelessly. + +By the _first witnesses_, we mean those persons who saw, or said +they saw, Christ alive after His Crucifixion. This will include the +twelve Apostles, and over 500 other Christians, most of whom St. +Paul says were still alive when he wrote. It will also include two +persons, who at the time were _not_ Christians,--St. Paul himself, +an avowed enemy, and St. James who, though he was Christ's brother, +does not seem to have believed in Him.[312] + +[Footnote 312: John 7. 5.] + +And before discussing the value of their testimony, it may be well +to glance at some general rules in regard to all testimony. If, +then, a person plainly asserts that a certain event took place, +before we believe that it did take place, we must inquire first as +to his _Veracity_: did he speak the truth as far as he knew it? Next +as to his _Knowledge_: had he the means of knowing the truth? Next +as to his _Investigation_: did he avail himself of those means? And +lastly, as to his _Reasoning_: did he draw the right conclusion? And +all possible ways of denying the truth of a man's statement can be +brought under one or other of these heads. For if it is not true, it +must be either:-- + + Intentionally false = want of Veracity. + { had not the } + { means of } + or { knowing the } = want of Knowledge. + { truth } + { + Unintentionally { + false, in which { or { did not } = want of Investigation. + case he either { { use them } + { had the means,{ or + { and either { used them } + { { wrongly } = want of Reasoning. + +From this it is clear that for anyone to deny a man's statement, +without disputing either his veracity, knowledge, investigation, or +reasoning, is very like denying that one angle is greater than +another, without disputing that it is neither equal to it, nor less +than it. We have now to apply these general rules to the testimony +in favour of the Resurrection of Christ. And, as we shall see, the +denial of these four points corresponds to the four chief +alternative theories, which, may be called the _Falsehood_, the +_Legend_, the _Vision_, and the _Swoon_ Theory. + + +(_A._) THE FALSEHOOD THEORY. + +We will begin with the Falsehood Theory. This would be to deny the +_veracity_ of the witnesses, and say that though they asserted that +Christ rose from the dead, and appeared to them, they did not really +believe it. In other words they were deliberate impostors, who, +knowing that their Master did not rise from the dead, yet spent +their whole lives in trying to persuade people that He did. And, as +we shall see, their _motives_, their _conduct_, and their +_sufferings_, are all strongly opposed to such a theory. + +And first as to their _motives_, had they any interest in asserting +that Christ rose from the dead unless they really believed it? +Clearly they had _not_, for they were so few or so faint-hearted +that they could not prevent their Master being crucified. What +chance was there then of persuading the world that He had risen from +the dead, and why should they have embarked on such a hopeless +scheme? Nothing indeed but the most firm conviction of their Lord's +Resurrection, and therefore of supernatural assistance, would ever +have induced men to have ventured on it. If they believed the +Resurrection to be true, then, and only then, would they have had +any motive whatever for preaching it. + +Next as to their _conduct_, did this show that they really believed +what they preached? And here also the evidence is overwhelming. When +their Master was crucified His followers were naturally filled with +gloom and despair; but in a few days this was changed to intense joy +and confidence. They preached the Resurrection in the very place +where He was crucified, and boldly went forth to convert the world +in His name. It is clear that before such a marvellous change could +take place they must at least have thought they had, what St. Luke +asserts they actually did have, _many proofs_ of the Resurrection.[313] +To them, at all events, the evidence must haveseemed conclusive, or +Christianity would have perished on Calvary. + +[Footnote 313: Acts 1. 3.] + +Lastly as to their _sufferings_. This is the most important point, +since voluntary suffering in any form, but especially in its extreme +form of martyrdom, seems conclusive as to a man's veracity. Persons +do not suffer for what they believe to be false; they must have +believed it to be true, though this does not of course prove that it +actually was true. And here is the answer to the common objection, +that since all religions have had their martyrs, this kind of +evidence proves nothing. On the contrary, it does prove something, +though it does not prove everything. It does not prove that what the +man died for was true, but it does prove that he believed it to be +true. It is therefore a conclusive test as to his _veracity_. + +What evidence have we, then, that the first witnesses suffered for +the truth of what they preached? And once more the evidence is +complete and overwhelming, both from the Acts and St. Paul's +Epistles. We need only refer to these latter, as their genuineness +is undisputed. St. Paul then, in one place, gives a list of the +actual sufferings he had undergone; he alludes to them in numerous +other places, and often as if they were the common experience of all +Christians at the time; and in one passage he expressly includes the +other Apostles with himself in the long list of sufferings he +describes. While he elsewhere declares that at a still earlier time, +before his conversion, he himself persecuted the Christians _beyond +measure_.[314] + +[Footnote 314: 2 Cor. 11. 24-27; Rom. 8. 35; 1 Cor. 4. 9-13; Gal. 1. +13.] + +There can thus be no doubt as to the continual sufferings of the +first witnesses, and, as just said, it is a decisive proof of their +veracity. We conclude therefore that when they asserted that Christ +rose from the dead, they were asserting what they honestly believed +whether rightly or wrongly, to be true. And as this belief was due, +simply to the witnesses believing that they saw Christ alive after +His death; we must further conclude that they honestly believed in +the appearances of Christ as recorded by themselves, and their +friends, in the New Testament. In other words, these accounts are +not _intentionally_ false. + +So much for the _veracity_ of the witnesses. It is not, as a rule, +denied by modern opponents of the Resurrection; but in early times, +when men ought to have known best, it was evidently thought to be +the only alternative. St. Paul declares emphatically that unless +Christ had risen, he and the other Apostles were _false witnesses_, +in plain words _liars_.[315] That was the only choice. They were +either saying what they knew to be true, or what they knew to be +false. And the idea of there being some _mistake_ about it, due to +visions, or swoons, or anything else, never seems to have occurred +to anyone. + +[Footnote 315: 1 Cor. 15. 15.] + + +(_B._) THE LEGEND THEORY. + +We pass on now to the Legend Theory. This would be to deny the +_knowledge_ of the witnesses: and say that our Gospels are not +genuine, but merely record subsequent legends; so we cannot tell +whether the first witnesses had, or had not, the means of knowing +the truth. But if we admit the genuineness of our Gospels, and the +veracity of their writers (both of which have been admitted), the +Legend Theory is out of the question. + +They asserted, it will be remembered, that Christ's _Body_, not His +Spirit, appeared to them, after the crucifixion; and from their own +accounts it is clear that they had ample means of finding out if +this was true. Whether they used these means, and actually did find +out, is, of course, another question; but as to sufficient means +being available, and their being quite competent to use them if they +liked, there can be no doubt whatever. As has been well said, it was +not one person who saw Him, but many; they saw Him not only +separately, but together; not only for a moment, but for a long +time; not only by night, but by day; not only at a distance, but +near; not only once, but several times. And they not only saw Him, +but they touched Him, walked with Him, conversed with Him, ate with +Him, and examined His Body to satisfy their doubts. In fact, +according to their own accounts, Christ seems to have convinced them +in every way in which conviction was possible that He had really +risen from the dead. + +And even apart from our Gospels, the Legend Theory is still +untenable. For St. Paul mentions several of the appearances, and as +this was within a few years of the events, there was no time for the +growth of legends. Moreover he heard of them direct from those who +saw them, St. Peter, St. James, etc., so he must have known the +circumstances under which they occurred, and, being an educated man, +is not likely to have been taken in by any imposture. While his +saying that some of the five hundred had died, though most of them +were still alive when he wrote, implies that he had also made some +enquiries about that appearance. His testimony is thus very valuable +from every point of view, and absolutely fatal to the Legend +Theory. + + +(_C._) THE VISION THEORY. + +We now come to the Vision Theory. This would be to deny the +_investigation_ of the witnesses; and say that they were so excited, +or so enthusiastic, or perhaps so stupid, that they did not avail +themselves of the ample means they had of finding out the truth. In +other words they so expected their Lord to appear to them after His +death, and kept so dwelling on the thought of Him, as though unseen, +yet perhaps very near to them, that after a time they fancied they +actually saw Him, and that He had risen from the dead. The wish was, +in fact, father to the thought; so that when a supposed appearance +took place, they were so filled with joy at their Master's presence, +that they neglected to ascertain whether the appearance they saw was +real, or only due to their own fancy. + +Such is the theory; though it is often modified in regard to +particular appearances, by ascribing them to dreams, or to someone +being mistaken for Christ. And as it is at present the favourite one +with those who reject the Resurrection, we must examine it +carefully; first considering the arguments in its favour, then those +against it, then its failure to account for the facts recorded, and +lastly what is known as the theory of real visions. + +(1.) _Arguments in its favour._ + +Now we must at once admit that it is possible for an honest man to +mistake a phantom of his own brain, arising from some diseased state +of the mind or body, for a reality in the outer world. Such +_subjective_ visions, as they are called, are by no means unheard +of, though they are not common. And of course the great, if not the +only argument in its favour is that it professes to account for the +alleged Resurrection, without on the one hand admitting its truth, +or on the other that the witnesses were deliberate impostors. Here, +it is urged, is a way of avoiding both difficulties, by allowing +that the witnesses honestly believed all they said, only they were +_mistaken_ in supposing the appearances to be real, when they were +merely due to their own imagination. And undoubtedly the fact that +men have often thought they saw ghosts, visions, etc., when there +was really nothing to see, gives it some support. + +(2.) _Arguments against it._ + +Let us now consider how this Vision Theory would suit the accounts +of the Resurrection written by the witnesses themselves, and their +friends. As will be seen, we might almost imagine that they had been +written on purpose to contradict it. + +To begin with, the writers were not unacquainted with visions, and +occasionally record them as happening to themselves or others. But +then they always use suitable expressions, such as falling into a +trance.[316] No such language is used in the Gospels to describe +the appearances of Christ, which are always recorded as if they were +actual matters of fact. While as to St. Paul, he never confuses the +revelations and visions, which he sometimes had, with the one great +appearance of Christ to him near Damascus, which qualified him to be +an Apostle.[317] + +[Footnote 316: _E.g._, Acts 10. 10; 9. 10; 16. 9.] + +[Footnote 317: 1 Cor. 9. 1; 15. 8; Gal. 1. 16-17.] + +Secondly, the appearances did not take place (as visions might have +been expected to do, and generally did)[318] when the disciples were +engaged in prayer, or in worship. But it was during their ordinary +everyday occupations; when for instance they were going for a walk, +or sitting at supper, or out fishing. And they were often simple, +plain, and almost trivial in their character, very different from +what enthusiasts would have imagined. + +[Footnote 318: _E.g._, Acts 10. 30; 11. 5; 22. 17.] + +Thirdly, subjective visions due to enthusiasm, would not have +started so soon after the Crucifixion as the _third_ day. It would +have required a much longer time for the disciples to have got over +their utter confusion, and to have realised (perhaps by studying the +old prophecies) that this humiliation was, after all, part of God's +scheme, and was to be followed by a Resurrection. Nor again would +such visions have only lasted for a short time; yet with the single +exception of that to St. Paul, they were all over in a few weeks, +though the enthusiasm of the witnesses lasted through life. + +Fourthly, it is plain from all the accounts that the Apostles did +not _expect_ the Resurrection, and were much surprised at it, +though they afterwards remembered that Christ had foretold it. This +is shown, not only by the Christians bringing spices, to embalm the +Body, and persons do not embalm a body unless they expect it to +remain in the grave; but also by the account of the appearances +themselves. For with the exception of the two farewell meetings (and +possibly that to the two Marys), Christ's appearance was wholly +unexpected. No one was looking for it, no one was anticipating it. +When for instance Mary Magdalene found the tomb empty, it never even +occurred to her that He had come to life again, she merely thought +the Body had been removed. + +Fifthly, and this is very remarkable, when Christ did appear, He was +often _not recognised_. This was the case with Mary Magdalene, with +Cleopas and his companion, and with the disciples at Tiberias. But +it is plain that, if they so hoped to see their risen Master, that +they eventually fancied they did see Him, they would at once have +recognised Him; and their not doing so is quite inconsistent with +the Vision Theory. + +Sixthly, we are repeatedly told that at first some of the disciples +_disbelieved_ or _doubted_ the Resurrection.[319] This is an +important point, since it shows that opinions were divided on the +subject, and therefore makes it almost certain that they would have +used what means they had of finding out the truth. And a visit to +the grave would have shown them at once whether the Body was there, +or not: and they are not likely to have preached the Resurrection, +without first ascertaining the point. Moreover, some of them +remained doubtful even after the others were persuaded, St. Thomas +in particular requiring the most convincing proof. His state of mind +was certainly not that of an enthusiast, since, instead of being so +convinced of the Resurrection as to have imagined it, he could with +great difficulty be got to believe it. Indeed, according to these +accounts, scarcely one of the witnesses believed the Resurrection +till the belief was almost forced on him. + +[Footnote 319: Matt. 28. 17; Mark 16. 11-14; Luke 24. 11, 37; John +20. 25.] + +Seventhly, subjective visions do not occur to different persons +_simultaneously_. A man's private illusions (like his dreams) are +his own. A number of men do not simultaneously dream the same dream, +still less do they simultaneously see the same subjective vision--at +least a vision like that here referred to, of a person moving about +among them, and speaking to them. This is quite different from +Constantine's army thinking that they saw a luminous cross in the +sky, or a body of Spanish troops that they saw their patron (St. +James) riding at their head, or anything of that kind; several +instances of which are known. But a subjective vision, at all +resembling what is described in the Gospels, is extremely rare. It +may perhaps happen to one person in ten thousand once in his life. +It is difficult to believe that even two persons should have such an +experience at the same time, while the idea that a dozen or more men +should simultaneously see such a subjective vision is out of the +question. And the Gospels, it may be added, always imply that +Christ was visible _to all present_ (though some of them doubted as +to His identity), which was not, as a rule, the case in other +alleged visions. + +Eighthly, how are we to account for visionary _conversations_? Yet +these occurred on _every_ occasion. Christ never merely appeared, +and then vanished. He always spoke, and often for a considerable +time, giving detailed instructions; and can we imagine anyone +believing a mere vision to have done all this? Is it possible, for +instance, for St. Thomas to have believed that Christ conversed with +him, and for the other Apostles, _who were all present_, to have +believed it too, if the whole affair was only a vision? Indeed, +conversations _in the presence of others_ seem peculiarly hard to +explain as visions, yet they are mentioned more than once. + +For all these reasons then--because the appearances are not +described in suitable language, did not occur on suitable occasions, +began and ended too soon, were not expected, were not recognised, +were not believed, occurred simultaneously, and always included +conversations as well--the Vision Theory is to say the least +extremely improbable. + +(3.) _Its failure to account for the facts._ + +But this is not all; the Theory is not only improbable, it does not +account for the actual _facts_ recorded--facts concerning which, +unless the writings are intentionally false, there could be no doubt +whatever. A vision, for instance, could not have rolled away the +stone from the door of the tomb, yet this is vouched for by _every_ +Evangelist. Again, persons could not have honestly believed that +they went to the tomb, and found it empty, if the Body was there all +the time. And this also is vouched for by _every_ Evangelist. Nor +could they have thought that they _touched_ their Master, _i.e._, +took hold of His feet, if He existed only in their imagination; for +the attempt to touch Him would at once have shown them their +mistake.[320] Nor could they have seen Him _eat food_, for a vision, +like a dream, would not explain the disappearance of the food. Nor +again could a mere vision take bread, and on another occasion bread +and fish, and give it them to eat.[321] In regard to all these +particulars, then, the Vision Theory is hopelessly untenable. + +[Footnote 320: Matt. 28. 9.] + +[Footnote 321: Luke 24. 30, 43; John 21. 13; Acts 10. 41.] + +There is also the great difficulty as to what became of the _dead +Body_ of Christ. For if it was still in the grave, the Jews would +have produced it, rather than invent the story about its being +stolen; and if it was not in the grave, its removal could not have +been due to visions. With regard to this story it may be noticed +that St. Matthew says it was _spread abroad_ among the Jews; and +Justin Martyr, himself a native of Palestine, also alludes to it. +For he says that the Jews sent men all over the world to proclaim +that the disciples _stole_ the Body at _night_;[322] so there can be +no doubt that some such story existed. + +[Footnote 322: Matt. 28. 15; Justin, Dial., 108.] + +But its weakness is self-evident. For if the soldiers (who were +probably posted on the Saturday evening, and thus not known to the +women) were, as they said, _asleep_ at the time, how could they +tell whether the disciples had stolen the Body, or whether Christ +had come forth of His own accord? Moreover that Roman soldiers, with +their strict discipline, who were put there on purpose to keep the +Body, should really have gone to sleep, and allowed it to be stolen, +is _most improbable_. And though it seems unlikely that they could +have been bribed to say they were asleep, if they were not, as it +was a capital offence; we must remember that they were _already_ +liable to death; since they had left the tomb, and the Body was +gone. So whether they were asleep, or awake, at the time mattered +little. And in any case, the fact of their having left it (which is +plain from all the accounts) shows that something very extraordinary +must have happened. + +All, then, that the story proves is this (but this it does prove +unquestionably), that though the Body was guarded, yet when it was +wanted it was gone, and could not be found. And this is a strong +argument not only against the Vision Theory, but against every +theory except the Christian one. For when the Resurrection was first +announced, the most obvious and decisive answer would have been for +the Jews to have produced the dead Body; and their not doing this +strongly supports the Christian account. Indeed, the _empty tomb_, +together with the failure of all attempts to account for it, was +doubtless one of the reasons why the Apostles gained so many +converts the first day they preached the Resurrection.[323] + +[Footnote 323: Acts 2. 41.] + +Lastly, we must remember that this gaining of converts, _i.e._, the +_founding of Christianity_, is, after all, the great fact that has +to be explained. And even if the Vision Theory could account for the +Apostles themselves believing that they had seen Christ, it would +not account for their being able to convince others of this belief, +especially if the Body was still in the tomb. For a mere vision, +like a ghost story, would begin and end in nothing; and if the +Resurrection also began in nothing, how are we to account for its +ending in so much? + +Summing up these arguments, then, we conclude that the Vision Theory +is most improbable in any case; and can only be accepted at all by +admitting that nearly the whole of our accounts are not only untrue, +but intentionally so. But then it is quite needless. Its object was +to explain the alleged Resurrection without disputing the _veracity_ +of the writers, and this it is quite unable to do. In short, if the +writers honestly believed the accounts as we have them, or indeed +any other accounts at all resembling them, the Vision Theory is out +of the question. + +It does not even account satisfactorily for the one appearance, that +to St. Paul, which it might be thought capable of explaining. For +his _companions_ as well as himself saw the Light and (apparently) +heard the Voice, though not the actual words.[324] And how could a +subjective vision of St. Paul have thus affected all his companions? +Moreover physical blindness does not result from such a vision, and +to say that in his case the wish was father to the thought, and +that his expectation and hope of seeing Christ eventually made him +think that he did see Him, is absurd. For even when he did see Him, +he did not recognise Him; but had to ask _Who art Thou, Lord?_ Here +then was the case of an avowed enemy, and a man of great +intellectual power, who was converted, and that against his will, +solely by the appearance of Christ. And as he had access to all +existing evidence on both sides, and had everything to lose and +nothing to gain from the change, his conversion alone is a strong +argument in favour of the Resurrection, more especially as the fact +itself is beyond dispute. + +[Footnote 324: Acts 9. 7; 22. 9; 26. 13, 14.] + +(4.) _The Theory of real visions._ + +Before passing on, we must just glance at a modification of the +Vision Theory, that has been suggested in recent years; which is +that the Apostles saw _real_ visions, miraculously sent by God, to +persuade them to go on preaching the Gospel. And no doubt this +theory avoids many of the difficulties of the ordinary Vision +Theory, especially in regard to the appearances beginning so soon as +the third day, their not being expected, and their occurring +simultaneously. But it has even greater difficulties of its own. For +it admits the supernatural, and yet these divinely sent visions were +such as to _mislead_ the Apostles, and to make them think that +Christ's Body had risen from the grave, and saw no corruption, when +in reality it was still decaying in the tomb. + +And this alone is fatal to the theory. For if God gave a +supernatural vision, it would certainly be to convince men of what +was true, not of what was false. And even a real miracle is easier +to believe, than that God should found His Church on a false one. +Moreover supernatural visions are just as unable as natural ones to +account for the facts recorded, such as the rolling away of the +stone, the empty tomb, the holding of Christ by His feet, or the +disappearance of the food. While the great difficulty as to what +became of the dead Body, applies to this as much as to the ordinary +Vision Theory. + + +(_D._) THE SWOON THEORY. + +Lastly we come to the Swoon Theory. This would be to deny the +_reasoning_ of the witnesses; and say that though they saw Christ +alive after His Crucifixion, they did not draw the right conclusion +in thinking that He had risen from the dead, since as a matter of +fact He had never died, but had only fainted on the Cross. + +And in support of this, it is urged that death after crucifixion did +not generally occur so quickly, since Pilate _marvelled if He were +already dead_; and that He might easily have been mistaken for dead, +as no accurate tests were known in those days. While the blood +coming out of His side is also appealed to, because blood does not +flow from a dead body. Moreover, as He was then placed in a cool +rock cave, with aromatic spices, He would probably recover +consciousness; when He would come forth and visit His friends, and +ask for something to _eat_: which is what He did according to St. +Luke. And they, superstitious men, looking upon their Master as in +some sense Divine, and perhaps half expecting the Resurrection, +would at once conclude that He had risen from the dead; especially +if they had already heard that the tomb was empty. + +And the chief argument in favour of the theory is, of course, the +same as that in favour of the Vision Theory. It professes to account +for the recorded appearances, without admitting either the truth of +the Resurrection, or deliberate falsehood on the part of the +witnesses; who, according to this theory, were themselves mistaken +in thinking that Christ had risen from the dead, when in reality He +had never died. They could not therefore have helped in restoring +Him; He must have recovered by Himself. This is essential to the +theory; so it is quite unlike a case recorded by Josephus, where a +man who had been crucified, and taken down alive, was gradually +restored by a doctor.[325] + +[Footnote 325: Josephus, Life, 75.] + +How then would this theory suit the facts of the case? While +admitting its possibility, it is hard to find words to express its +great _improbability_. It has immense difficulties, many of them +peculiarly its own. And first as to Christ Himself. He must have +been extremely exhausted after all the ill-treatment He had +received, yet He is supposed not only to have recovered +consciousness, but to have come out of the tomb by Himself, rolling +away the large stone. And then, instead of creeping about weak and +ill, and requiring nursing and medical treatment, He must have +walked over twelve miles--and this with pierced feet[326]--to +Emmaus and back. And the same evening He must have appeared to His +disciples so completely recovered that they, instead of looking upon +Him as still half-dead, thought that He had conquered death, and was +indeed the Prince of Life. All this implies such a rapid recovery as +is quite incredible. + +[Footnote 326: The feet being pierced is often disputed, but St. +Luke (who probably knew more about crucifixion than we do) evidently +thought they were; for he records Christ as saying, _See my hands +and my feet that it is I myself_, which implies that His hands and +feet would identify Him.] + +Next as to the piercing of His side with a spear.[327] This is +recorded by an eye-witness, and would doubtless of itself have +caused death, though St. John's statement that He was dead already +seems the more probable. Nor did the blood coming out, in any way, +disprove this. For blood (as long as it remains liquid) will of +course flow out _downwards_ from any body, just as other liquids +would do. Only when a person is alive, the action of the heart will +make it flow out upwards as well. + +[Footnote 327: John 19. 34.] + +Again, it is most unlikely that so many persons, both friends and +foes, should have mistaken Christ for dead. Yet according to this +theory the _soldiers_ entrusted with the execution, who must have +had a good deal of experience in such matters; the _centurion_, who +was sent for by Pilate on purpose to ascertain this very point; the +_Christians_, who took down the Body and wrapped it in linen cloths; +and the _Jews_, who are not likely to have left their Victim without +making sure of the fact, must all have honestly believed that +Christ was dead when He was not. Moreover, the tomb was carefully +guarded by His enemies for the express purpose of securing the Body. +How then did they let it escape? If they were not asleep at the +time, they must either have done this _willingly_, because they were +bribed; or _unwillingly_, because they could not help it, being +overcome by some supernatural Power; and either alternative is fatal +to the Swoon Theory. + +This theory also requires not only that the Apostles should have +been mistaken in thinking that Christ had risen from the dead, but +that Christ Himself should have countenanced the mistake; or He +would have explained the truth to His disciples. He is thus made to +be a deceiver instead of His Apostles, which all will admit to be +most improbable. + +And then, what became of Him afterwards? If He died again within a +few weeks, His disciples could scarcely have thought Him the Prince +of Life, who had the keys of Death and of Hades;[328] and if He +continued to live, where did He go to? Moreover He must have died +again at some time, and His real tomb is sure to have been much +venerated by His followers; and it would have prevented any belief +in the Ascension. Yet as said before (Chapter XV.), this seems to +have formed a part of Christian instruction from the very first. + +[Footnote 328: Acts 3. 15; Rev. 1. 18.] + +But perhaps the chief argument against this theory is that it does +not account for many of the actual _facts_ recorded; such as Christ +passing through closed doors, His vanishing at pleasure, and His +Ascension. These details present no difficulty on the Vision Theory, +nor on that of deliberate falsehood; but they are inconsistent with +the present one. And though it accounts to some extent for the empty +tomb; it does not account for the _angels_ being there, announcing +the Resurrection. + +Nor does it account for the _grave-clothes_ being so carefully left +behind. For if Christ had come out of the tomb by Himself, He could +scarcely have left His clothes behind; not to mention the difficulty +of taking them off, caused by the adhesive myrrh, which would have +stuck them together, and to the Body. These grave-clothes are thus +fatal to this, as to every other theory, except the Christian one; +yet it was a simple matter of fact, as to which there could be no +possible _mistake_. Either the clothes were there, or else the +persons who said they saw them were telling a falsehood. Moreover, +in any case Christ could not have walked to Emmaus and back, or +appeared to the Apostles, or to anyone else, in His _grave-clothes_, +so He must have obtained some others, and how did He get them? His +enemies are not likely to have supplied them, and if His friends +did, they must have been aware of the fraud. + +On the whole then, we decide that the _Swoon Theory_, like the +Vision Theory, is very improbable in any case, and only tenable at +all by supposing a large part of our narratives to be intentionally +false. But then it is quite needless. + + +(_E._) CONCLUSION. + +Before concluding this chapter a few remarks may be made on the +alleged difficulties of the _Christian_ theory. There are only two +of any importance. The first is that the Resurrection would be a +_miracle_, and probably nine out of ten men who disbelieve it, do so +for this reason. It is not that the evidence for it is insufficient +(they have perhaps never examined it) but that no conceivable +evidence would be sufficient to establish such an event. Miracles, +they say, are incredible, _they cannot happen_, and that settles the +point; for it is of course easier to believe _any_ explanation, +visions, swoons, or anything else, than the occurrence of that which +cannot happen. + +But we have already admitted, in Chapter VII., that miracles +are _not_ incredible. And though no doubt, _under ordinary +circumstances_, a dead man coming to life again would be so +_extremely_ improbable as to be practically incredible; yet these +were not ordinary circumstances, and Christ was not an ordinary man. +On the contrary, as we shall see, He was an absolutely unique Man, +claiming moreover to be Divine, and having a mass of powerful +evidence both from His own Character, from previous Prophecies, and +from subsequent History, to support His claims. Therefore that He +should rise from the dead, as a proof that these claims were +well-founded, does not seem so very improbable after all. + +The other difficulty refers to Christ's not appearing _publicly_ to +the Jews. Why, it is asked, did He only appear to His own disciples? +Surely this is very suspicious. If He really did rise from the +dead, and wished the world to believe it, why did He not settle the +point by going publicly into Jerusalem? + +But we cannot feel sure that this would have _settled the point_. No +doubt the Jews who saw Him would have been convinced, but the nation +as a whole might, or might not, have accepted Christianity. If they +did _not_, saying for instance it was due to a pretender, it would +have been worse than useless. While if they did, the Romans would +very likely have looked upon it as a national insurrection, and its +progress would have been more than ever difficult. It would also +have greatly weakened the force of _Prophecy_; since, in the absence +of ancient manuscripts, people might think that the old Jewish +prophecies had been tampered with, to make them suit their Christian +interpretation. But now these prophecies, having been preserved by +men who are opposed to Christianity, are above suspicion. + +Moreover, to get the world to believe in the Resurrection required +not only evidence, but _missionaries_, that is to say, men who were +so absolutely convinced of its truth, as to be willing to spend +their whole lives in witnessing for it, in all lands and at all +costs. And the chief object of the appearances may have been to +produce such men; and it is obvious that (apart from a miraculous +conversion like St. Paul's) there could not have been more than a +few of them. + +For only a _few_ could have conversed with Christ, and eaten with +Him after His death, so as to be quite certain that He was then +alive; only a _few_ could have known Him so intimately before, as +to be quite certain that it was really He, and only a _few_ had +loved Him so dearly as to be willing to give up everything for His +sake. In short, there were only a few _suitable_ witnesses +available. And Christ's frequently appearing to these few--the +_chosen witnesses_ as they are called[329]--in the private and +intimate manner recorded in the Gospels, was evidently more likely +to turn them into ardent missionaries (which it actually did) than +any public appearance. Indeed it so often happens that what +everybody should do, nobody does; that it may be doubted whether +Christ's publicly appearing to a number of persons in Jerusalem +would have induced even one of them to have faced a life of +suffering, and a death of martyrdom, in spreading the news. This +objection, then, cannot be maintained. + +[Footnote 329: Acts 10. 41.] + +In conclusion, it seems scarcely necessary to sum up the arguments +in this chapter. We have discussed at some length the veracity, +knowledge, investigation, and reasoning of the _first witnesses_ of +the Resurrection; and as we have seen, not one of these points can +be fairly doubted. In fact the evidence in favour of each is +overwhelming. Therefore the alternative theories--the Falsehood, the +Legend, the Vision, and the Swoon Theory--which are founded on +denying these points, are all untenable. And this greatly supports +the conclusion we arrived at in the last chapter; so that combining +the two; we have an _extremely strong_ argument in favour of the +Resurrection of Christ. + + + + +CHAPTER XIX. + +THAT THE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES ARE PROBABLY TRUE. + + (_A._) THEIR CREDIBILITY. + + They present few difficulties; the casting out of evil spirits. + + (_B._) THEIR TRUTHFULNESS. + + (1.) General marks of truthfulness. + (2.) Special marks of truthfulness. + + (_C._) THEIR PUBLICITY. + + (1.) They occurred in public. + (2.) They were publicly appealed to. + (3.) They were never disputed. + (4.) The silence of classical writers. + + (_D._) CONCLUSION. + + Futile attempts to explain them away, the subject of + modern miracles. + + +Having discussed in the last two chapters the Resurrection of +Christ, we pass on now to the other New Testament miracles, and will +consider in turn their _credibility_, their _truthfulness_, and +their _publicity_. + + +(_A._) THEIR CREDIBILITY. + +Now with one exception, the casting out of evil spirits, the +miracles present scarcely any difficulty provided miracles at all +are credible, which we have already admitted. Most of them, +especially those of healing, were very suitable from a moral point +of view, while that they were meant to confirm Christ's teaching and +claims is beyond dispute. Not only do all the Evangelists declare +this, but Christ Himself though He refused to work a miracle when +challenged to do so--He would not work one _to order_, as we might +say--yet appealed to His _public_ miracles in the most emphatic +manner. + +Thus, when St. John the Baptist sent messengers to inquire whether +He was the Messiah, His only answer was, 'Go your way, and tell John +the things which ye do hear and see; the blind receive their sight, +and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and +the dead are raised up,'[330] etc. And this is specially important +because Christians would not have _invented_ an incident which shows +that Christ's own messenger had (apparently) lost faith in Him. Yet +it is not easy to separate his question from the reply which it +received; while if we admit that Christ gave this reply, it seems to +settle the question as to His working miracles. + +[Footnote 330: Matt. 11. 4; Luke 7. 22; see also Mark 2. 10; John 5. +36.] + +And He afterwards condemned Chorazin, and other cities, in the +strongest terms, because, although He had done so many miracles +there, they had not repented; which again shows both the publicity +of the miracles, and their intended evidential value.[331] And this +passage also is very important, since its genuineness is confirmed +by the fact that not a single miracle is recorded as having been +worked at Chorazin. Yet, if the Evangelists (or anyone else) had +invented the saying, they would surely have invented some miracles +there to justify it. If on the other hand, they did not invent it, +and the words were actually spoken by Christ, is it conceivable that +He should have blamed these cities for not believing on Him in spite +of His miracles, if He had done no miracles? + +[Footnote 331: Matt. 11. 21-24; Luke 10. 13-15. Both this passage, +and the last, belong to Q, the supposed earliest source of our +Gospels.] + +We pass on now to the _casting out of evil spirits_, which implies +that persons may sometimes be _possessed_ by such spirits, and this +is often thought to be a difficulty. But though our ignorance on the +subject is undoubtedly great, there is nothing incredible here. For +we have already admitted the _influence_ of such spirits (Chapter +XII.), and what is called _possession_ is merely an extreme form of +influence. Indeed, the accounts of mesmerism at the present day, +though they cannot always be trusted, seem to show that even one man +may so entirely _possess_ the mind and will of another as to make +him do whatever he wishes. And it is certainly no more difficult to +believe that this power may in some cases be exercised by an evil +spirit. With regard to the outward symptoms mentioned in the +Gospels, they seem to have resembled certain forms of madness; +though, as the patients are now kept under restraint in civilised +countries, they have not the same notoriety. + +But it may be said, why ascribe this madness to an evil spirit? But +why not? Madness often follows the frequent yielding to certain +temptations, such as drunkenness or impurity; and that it may really +be due to the action of an evil spirit (an _unclean_ spirit is the +significant term used in the Gospels) and be the appropriate +punishment for yielding to _his_ temptation, is certainty not +incredible. And if so, considering the immoral state of the world at +the time of Christ, we cannot be surprised at such cases being far +more common then than now. And the writers, it may be added, do not +(like some early nations) attribute _all_ maladies to evil spirits, +for we read of men having fever and palsy, as well as being blind, +lame, deaf, and dumb, without any hint of its being due to an evil +spirit; so they were quite able to distinguish between the two. + +There is, however, one instance--the swine at Gadara--of _animals_ +being thus afflicted,[332] which undoubtedly forms a difficulty, and +I have never seen a satisfactory explanation of it. But still our +ignorance about animals, combined with the fact that they resemble +man in so many respects, prevents us from saying that it is +absolutely incredible. And as to the alleged _injustice_ of the +miracle (which is often objected to) we must remember that if Christ +were the Divine Being He claimed to be, the world and all it +contained belonged to Him; so His allowing the swine to be destroyed +by evil spirits was no more unjust to their owners, than if He had +allowed them to die by disease. + +[Footnote 332: Matt. 8. 30-32; Mark 5. 11-13; Luke 8. 32-33.] + +Lastly, all the Christian miracles lose a great deal of their +improbability when we consider the _unique position of Christ_. And +what would be incredible, if told of another man who had done +nothing to alter the history of the world, may easily be credible of +_Him_. We decide, then, that all the New Testament miracles are +_credible_: we have next to consider whether they are _true_. + + +(_B._) THEIR TRUTHFULNESS. + +Now the testimony in favour of these miracles is very similar to +that in favour of the Resurrection of Christ. They are recorded by +the same writers and in the same books, and everything points to +these accounts being trustworthy. To put it shortly, the writers had +no motive for recording the miracles unless they believed them to be +true, and they had ample means of finding out whether they were true +or not; while many of them are such as cannot possibly be explained +by want of investigation, or an error in reasoning. Moreover, as we +shall see, they contain numerous marks of truthfulness. These may be +divided into two classes, _general_, or those which concern the +miracles as a whole; and _special_, or those which concern +individual miracles, or sayings about them; and we will consider +each in turn. + +(1.) _General marks of truthfulness._ + +Among these we may notice first the extremely _simple and graphic_ +way in which many of the miracles are described, such as the curing +of the man who was born blind, with the repeated questioning of the +man himself.[333] Then there is the raising of the daughter of +Jairus, and the curing of the man who was deaf and had a difficulty +in speaking, both of which are described with the most minute +details, including the actual Aramaic words spoken by Christ.[334] +It is difficult to think that they do not come from eye-witnesses. +And the same may be said of a large number of the miracles. + +[Footnote 333: John 9. 8-34.] + +[Footnote 334: Mark 5. 41; 7. 34.] + +Secondly, the _kind_ of miracles ascribed to Christ seem (as far as +we can judge) to be worthy of Him. They were not for His own +benefit, but for that of other people, and they are a great contrast +to the imaginary miracles ascribed to Him in the Apocryphal Gospels, +most of which are extremely childish. When for instance Christ was a +boy, we read of His making clay birds fly; of His turning children +into kids for refusing to play with Him; and of His cursing another +boy who had run against Him, and who in consequence fell down +dead.[335] How different such miracles are from those in our Gospels +scarcely needs pointing out. Nor is the case of the _barren +fig-tree_, so often objected to, an exception. For the tree itself +could have felt no injury, and as far as we know, its destruction +injured no one else. + +[Footnote 335: Gospel of the Infancy, chapters xv., xvii., xix.] + +Thirdly, the miracles are closely connected with the _moral +teaching_ of Christ, and it is difficult either to separate the two, +or to believe the whole account to be fictitious. His wonderful +works, and His wonderful words involve each other, and form together +an harmonious whole, which is too life-like to be imaginary. Indeed, +a life of Christ without His miracles would be as unintelligible as +a life of Napoleon without his campaigns. And it is interesting to +note in this connection that our earliest Gospel, St. Mark's, +contains (in proportion to its length) the most miracles. As we +should expect, it was Christ's miracles, rather than His moral +teaching, which first attracted attention. + +Fourthly, the miracles were as a rule miracles of _healing_: that is +to say, of restoring something to its natural state, such as making +blind eyes see; and not doing something unnatural, such as giving a +man a third eye. Miracles of either kind would of course show +superhuman power; but the former are obviously the more suited to +the God of Nature. And this _naturalness_ of the miracles, as we may +call it, seems to many a strong argument in their favour. + +Fifthly, there were an immense _number_ of miracles, the ones +recorded being mere _examples_ of those that were actually worked. +Thus in St. Mark's Gospel we are told that on one occasion, Christ +healed _many_ who were sick with _divers_ diseases; on another that +He had healed so _many_, that those with plagues pressed upon Him to +touch Him; and on another that everywhere He went, into the +villages, cities, or country, the sick were laid out, so that they +might touch His garment, and _as many as touched Him were made +whole_.[336] + +[Footnote 336: Mark 1. 34; 3. 10; 6. 56] + +Sixthly, there was a great _variety_ in the miracles. They were of +various kinds, worked in various places, before various witnesses, +and with various details and characteristics. They occurred in +public as well as in private; in the towns as well as in the +country; at sea as well as on land; in groups as well as singly; at +a distance as well as near; after due notice as well as suddenly; +when watched by enemies as well as among friends; unsolicited as +well as when asked for; in times of joy, and in times of sorrow. +They were worked on the blind as well as the deaf; the lame as well +as the dumb; the leprous as well as the palsied; the dead as well as +the living. They concerned men as well as women; the rich as well as +the poor; the educated as well as the ignorant; the young as well as +the old; multitudes as well as individuals; Gentiles as well as +Jews; nature as well as man--in fact, according to our accounts, it +is difficult to imagine any miracles that could have been more +absolutely convincing. + +Seventhly, the miracles of Christ were (with trifling exceptions) +worked _suddenly_. They were not like gradual cures, or slow +recoveries, but they were done in a moment. The blind man +_immediately_ received his sight; the palsied _immediately_ took up +his couch: the leper was _straightway_ cleansed; the infirm was +_straightway_ made whole; the dead _immediately_ rose up, etc.[337] +This was evidently a striking feature in the miracles, and the +Evangelists seem to have been much impressed by it. + +[Footnote 337: Luke 18. 43; 5. 25; Mark 1. 42; Matt. 8. 3; John 5. +9; Luke 8. 55.] + +Eighthly, many of the miracles were of a _permanent_ character, and +such as could be examined again and again. When, for instance, a man +who had long been lame, or deaf, or blind, was restored to health, +the villagers, as well as the man himself, could certify to the +cure for years to come. And miracles such as these are obviously of +much greater value than what we may call _momentary_ miracles (such +as Christ's calming the storm) where the only possible evidence is +that of the actual spectators. + +Lastly, and this is very remarkable, the Evangelists nearly always +relate that Christ worked His miracles _by His own authority_: while +the Old Testament prophets, with scarcely an exception, worked +theirs by calling upon God. Take for instance the similar cases of +raising a widow's son.[338] Elijah prays earnestly that God would +restore the child to life; Christ merely gives the command, _I say +unto thee, Arise_. The difference between the two is very striking, +and is of itself a strong argument in favour of Christ's miracles; +for had the Evangelists invented them, they would certainly have +made them resemble those of the Old Testament. But instead of this, +they describe them as worked in a new and unprecedented manner, and +one which must at the time have seemed most presumptuous. + +[Footnote 338: 1 Kings 17. 21; Luke 7. 14.] + +The Gospel miracles then, from the simple and graphic way in which +they are described; their not containing anything childish or +unworthy; their close connection with the moral teaching of Christ; +their naturalness; their number; their variety; their suddenness; +their permanence; and above all from the authoritative way in which +they are said to have been worked; have every appearance of being +truth fully recorded. + +(2.) _Special marks of truthfulness._ + +Moreover several individual miracles, and sayings about them, are of +such a kind as could scarcely have been invented. Take, for +instance, the raising of the daughter of Jairus.[339] Now of course +anyone, wishing to magnify the power of Christ, might have invented +this or any other miracle. But if so, he is not likely to have put +into the mouth of Christ Himself the words, _The child is not dead +but sleepeth_. These words seem to imply that Christ did not +consider it a miracle; and though we may be able to explain them, by +the similar words used in regard to Lazarus,[340] they certainly +bear the marks of genuineness. + +[Footnote 339: Mark 5. 39.] + +[Footnote 340: John 11. 11.] + +We are also told, more than once, that Christ's power of working +miracles was _conditional_ on the faith of the person to be healed, +so that in one place He could do scarcely any miracles _because of +their unbelief_.[341] This is not the sort of legend that would have +grown up round a glorified Hero; it bears unmistakably the mark of +truthfulness. But then if the writer had good means of knowing that +Christ could do no miracles in one place, because of their unbelief; +had he not equally good means of knowing that Christ could, and did, +do miracles in other places? + +[Footnote 341: Matt. 13. 58; Mark 6. 5-6; Luke 18. 42.] + +And what shall we say of Christ's frequent commands to keep His +miracles _secret_?[342] There were doubtless reasons for this in +every case; but Christ's followers, who presumably recorded the +miracles in order to get them known, are not likely to have +invented, and put into His mouth the command to keep them secret. +Nor is Christ likely to have given it, had there been no miracles to +keep secret. Nor again is anyone likely to have added, unless it was +the case, that the command was generally _disobeyed_. This seems +surprising, yet it is very true to human nature that a man who had +been suddenly cured of a long complaint, should insist on talking +about it. + +[Footnote 342: _E.g._, Mark 3. 12; 5. 43; 7. 36.] + +In the same way the discussions about working miracles _on the +Sabbath Day_ have a very genuine tone about them and it is difficult +to imagine them to be inventions.[343] Yet such discussions could +not have arisen, if there had been no miracles on the Sabbath, or +any other day. + +[Footnote 343: Mark 3. 1-5; Luke 13. 10-17; John 5. 9-16; 9. 14-16.] + +Then there is the striking passage where Christ warned His hearers +that even working miracles in His name, without a good life, would +not ensure their salvation.[344] This occurs in one of His most +characteristic discourses, the Sermon on the Mount, and it is hard +to doubt its genuineness. But even if we do, it is not likely that +Christ's followers would have invented such a warning, if as a +matter of fact no one ever did work miracles in His name. + +[Footnote 344: Matt. 7. 22.] + +And much the same may be said of another passage where Christ is +recorded as saying that _all_ believers would be able to work +miracles.[345] If He said so, He must surely have been able to work +them Himself; and if He did not say so, His followers must have +been able to work them, or their inventing such a promise would +merely have shown that they were not believers. On the whole, then, +as said before, the accounts of the New Testament miracles have +every appearance of being thoroughly truthful. + +[Footnote 345: Mark 16. 17.] + + +(_C._) THEIR PUBLICITY. + +But the most important point has still to be noticed, which is the +alleged _publicity_ of these miracles; and as this renders the +testimony in their favour peculiarly strong, we must examine it at +some length. + +(1.) _They occurred in public._ + +To begin with, according to our Gospels, all the miracles of Christ +occurred during His _public ministry_, when He was well known, that +at Cana being definitely called the first.[346] And as they were +meant to confirm His teaching and claims, it was only natural for +them to begin when His teaching began. But if they had been +invented, or had grown up as legends, some at least would have been +ascribed to His earlier years (as they are in the Apocryphal +Gospels) when there was less chance of their being disputed. + +[Footnote 346: John 2. 11.] + +Moreover, many of them are stated to have been worked openly, and +before crowds of people, including Scribes, Pharisees, and +lawyers.[347] And the _names_ of the places where they occurred, and +even of the persons concerned, are given in some cases. Among these +were _Jairus_, a ruler of the synagogue; _Lazarus_, a well known man +at Bethany; _Malchus_, a servant of the High Priest; and the +_centurion_ at Capernaum, who, though his name is not given, must +have been well known to the Jews, as he had built them a synagogue. +While the miracles recorded in the Acts concern such prominent +persons as the _proconsul_, Sergius Paulus, at Cyprus, and the +_chief man_, Publius, at Malta. And it is hard to overestimate the +immense difficulty of thus asserting _public_ miracles, with the +names of persons, and places, if none occurred; yet the early +Christians asserted such miracles from the very first. + +[Footnote 347: _E.g._, Luke 5. 17-21.] + +Take for instance the feeding of the five thousand, near the Lake of +Galilee. This is recorded in the earliest Gospel, St. Mark's, and +must therefore have been written down very soon after the event, +when a large number of the five thousand were still alive. Now is it +conceivable that anyone would have ventured to make up such an +account, even twenty years afterwards, if nothing of the kind had +occurred? And if he had done so, would not his story have been +instantly refuted? Or take the case of healing the centurion's +servant at Capernaum. This, as before said, belongs to Q, the +supposed source common to Matthew and Luke, and admitted by most +critics to date from before A.D. 50. And how could such a story have +been current within twenty years of the event, if nothing of the +kind had occurred? + +It is also declared that the miracles were much talked about at the +time, and caused widespread astonishment. The people _marvelled_ at +them, they _wondered_, they were _amazed_, they were _beyond measure +astonished_, there had been nothing like them _since the world +began_.[348] The miracles were in fact the talk of the whole +neighbourhood. And we are told that in consequence several of those +which occurred at Jerusalem were at once officially investigated by +the Jewish rulers, who made the most searching inquiries about +them;[349] and in two instances, at least, publicly admitted them to +be true.[350] And this also is not likely to have been asserted, +unless it was the case; and not likely to have been the case, if +there had been no miracles. + +[Footnote 348: Matt. 9. 33; 15. 31; Mark 5. 42; 7. 37; John 9. 32.] + +[Footnote 349: _E.g._, John 9. 13-34; Acts 4. 5-22.] + +[Footnote 350: John 11. 47; Acts 4. 16.] + +(2.) _They were publicly appealed to._ + +Moreover, these public miracles were _publicly appealed to_ by the +early Christians. According to the _Acts_, this was done in the very +first public address, that at Pentecost, by St. Peter, who reminds +his hearers that they had themselves seen the miracles (_even as ye +yourselves know_), as well as in one other speech at least.[351] And +this is important, because even those critics, who deny the +genuineness of the Acts, yet admit that these speeches date from a +very early time. And if so, it shows conclusively that some of +Christ's immediate followers not only believed themselves that He +had worked miracles, but spoke as if their opponents believed it +too. + +[Footnote 351: Acts 2. 22; 10. 38.] + +That they are not more frequently alluded to in the Acts is not +surprising, when we remember that, according to the writer,--and he +was an _eye-witness_ in some cases, as they occur in the _We_ +sections,[352]--the Apostles themselves worked miracles. There was +thus no occasion for them to appeal to those of Christ as proving +the truth of what they preached; their own miracles being quite +sufficient to convince anyone who was open to this kind of proof. +But still the important fact remains that in the first recorded +Christian address the public miracles of Christ were publicly +appealed to. And this was within a few months of their occurrence; +and at Jerusalem, where the statement, if untrue, could have been +more easily refuted than anywhere else. + +[Footnote 352: Acts 16. 18, 26; 28. 6, 8-9.] + +Passing on to _St. Paul's Epistles_; it is true that they do not +contain any reference to Christ's miracles, except of course the +Resurrection. But as they were not written to convert heathens, but +to instruct those who were already Christians, there is nothing +surprising in this; and they do not mention any of His parables +either. On the other hand, they do contain direct reference to +_Apostolic_ miracles. St. Paul in two of his undisputed Epistles +positively asserts that he had worked miracles himself; and he uses +the same three words, _signs_, _wonders_, and _mighty works_, which +are used in the Gospels to describe the miracles of Christ.[353] + +[Footnote 353: Rom. 15. 18, 19; 2 Cor. 12. 12.] + +The second passage is extremely important, since he speaks of them +as the _signs of an apostle_; and calls upon his opponents at +Corinth to admit that he was an apostle _because_ he had worked +these miracles. And this implies not only that the miracles were +done in public, but that his readers as well as himself believed +that the power of working miracles belonged to all the Apostles. And +it will be noticed that he is addressing the very persons among +whom he declares he had worked the miracles; which makes it almost +inconceivable that his claim was unfounded, quite apart from the +difficulty of believing that such a man as St. Paul would wilfully +make a false statement. + +From all this it follows that the first preachers of Christianity +not only appealed to Christ's miracles; but also to their own, in +support of their claims. And, as just said, how they could have done +so, if they worked no miracles, is not easy to understand. + +We next come to a class of writings where we should expect to find +Christ's miracles alluded to, and these are the first Christian +_Apologies_. Nor are we disappointed. The three earliest, of which +we have any knowledge, were by Quadratus, Aristides, and Justin; the +first two being presented to the Emperor Hadrian, when he visited +Athens, A.D. 125. + +_Quadratus_, in a passage preserved by Eusebius, lays stress on what +we have called the _permanent_ character of Christ's miracles. He +says: 'The works of our Saviour were always conspicuous, for they +were real; both they that were healed and they that were raised from +the dead were seen, not only when they were healed or raised, but +for a long time afterwards; not only whilst He dwelt on this earth, +but also after His departure, and for a good while after it, +insomuch that some of them have reached to our times.'[354] + +[Footnote 354: Eusebius, Hist., iv. 3.] + +_Aristides_ bases his defence of Christianity on its moral +character, and does not appeal to any public miracles, though as +before said (Chapter XIV.) he asserts the Divinity, Incarnation, +Virgin-birth, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ. + +Lastly, _Justin_, about A.D. 150, not only specifies many of +Christ's miracles; but also says in general terms that He 'healed +those who were maimed, and deaf, and lame in body from their birth, +causing them to leap, to hear, and to see by His word. And having +raised the dead, and causing them to live, by His deeds He compelled +the men who lived at that time to recognise Him. But though they saw +such works, they asserted it was magical art.'[355] Justin, however, +does not base his argument on miracles, but on prophecy, because, as +he tells us again, the former might be ascribed to magic. + +[Footnote 355: Dial., 69; Apol. 1. 30.] + +But still, the actual occurrence of the miracles, he evidently +thought to be indisputable. He even says that the Emperor and Senate +can learn for themselves that Christ worked miracles (healing the +lame, dumb, and blind, cleansing the lepers, and raising the dead) +by consulting the _Acts of Pilate_.[356] And this certainly implies +that such a document, whether genuine or not, then existed in Rome; +and that it contained an account of the miracles. Thus two out of +the three earliest writers in defence of Christianity appealed to +Christ's miracles, in the most public manner possible, when +addressing the Emperor. + +[Footnote 356: Apol. 1. 48, 35.] + +(3.) _They were never disputed._ + +But now comes another important point. Though these public miracles +were publicly appealed to by the early Christians, and though +written accounts of them were in circulation very soon after they +are stated to have occurred; yet, as far as we know, they were +_never disputed_. And this is the more remarkable, since they are +said to have been worked among enemies as well as friends. They were +thus peculiarly open to hostile criticism; and we may be sure that +the bitter opponents of Christ, who had brought about His death, +would have exposed them if they could. Yet, as just said, they were +never disputed, either by Jews or Gentiles; though, of course, they +both denied their evidential value. + +The _Jews_--that is to say the Scribes and Pharisees--did this, by +ascribing them to the Evil One. And though this was a very strange +expedient, as their effect was obviously good, and not evil, they +had really no alternative. The common people were much impressed by +the miracles, and were anxious to welcome Christ as their +Messiah;[357] yet the Pharisees decided that such a man as this--so +unlike what they expected--could not possibly be their Messiah. They +had then to explain away the miracles somehow. And since they denied +that they were worked by God, they were bound to ascribe them to the +Devil, for these were the only supernatural powers they believed in; +though of course both of these had subordinate angels under them. +But we may ask, would the Jews have adopted such an expedient had +there been any possibility of denying that the miracles occurred? +Yet that they did adopt it can scarcely be disputed. It is +positively asserted in each of the first three Gospels;[358] and +Christians are not likely to have reported such a horrible +suggestion as that their Master was an agent of the Evil One, unless +it had been made. + +[Footnote 357: John 6. 15; Mark 11. 10.] + +[Footnote 358: Matt. 9. 34; 12. 24; Mark 3. 22; Luke 11. 15.] + +The _Gentiles_ on the other hand, believed in a variety of gods, +many of whom were favourable to mankind, and could be invoked by +_magic_; so they could consistently ascribe the miracles to some of +these lesser deities; or, in popular language, to magic. And we have +abundant evidence that they did so. As we have seen, it is expressly +asserted by Justin, who in consequence preferred the argument from +prophecy; and Irenæus did the same, and for avowedly the same +reason.[359] + +[Footnote 359: Bk. ii. 32.] + +Moreover, _Celsus_, the most important opponent of Christianity in +the second century, also adopted this view. His works are now lost, +but Origen in answering him frequently and positively asserts it; +saying that he often spoke of the miracles as _works of +sorcery_.[360] And though Celsus lived some years after the time in +question, it is most unlikely, if the early opponents of +Christianity had denied that the miracles occurred, that its later +opponents should have given up this strong line of defence, and have +adopted the far weaker one that they did occur, but were due to +magic. We are quite justified, then, in saying that Christ's +miracles were not disputed at the time, and considering their +alleged publicity, this is a strong additional argument in their +favour. + +[Footnote 360: Origen cont. Cels., i. 38; ii. 48.] + +(4.) _The silence of classical writers._ + +All that can be said on the other side is from the _silence_ of +classical writers. Had the miracles really occurred, it is said, +especially in such a well-known place as Palestine, the writers of +the day would have been full of them. Yet, with the single exception +of Tacitus, they do not even allude to Christianity; and he +dismisses it with contempt as a _pernicious superstition_.[361] + +[Footnote 361: Tacitus Annals. Bk. xv., ch. 44.] + +Now these words of Tacitus show that he had never studied the +subject, for whatever may be said against the religion, it certainly +was not pernicious; so he must have rejected Christianity _without +examination_. And if the other classical writers did the same, there +is nothing remarkable in their not alluding to it. Alleged marvels +were common enough in those days, and they probably did not think +the Christian miracles worth inquiring about. But we do not know of +any writer who did inquire about them, and was not convinced of +their truth. + +It may, of course, be replied that some of the events ought anyhow +to be alluded to, such as the _darkness over all the land_ at the +time of the Crucifixion. And if this extended over the whole of +Palestine, it is certainly strange that it should not be noticed. +But it may only refer to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Compare the +expression _all the country of Judæa_[362] (when referring to the +people being baptized) which is evidently not meant to be taken +literally. And if the darkness was limited to the neighbourhood of +Jerusalem, there is nothing surprising in its not being recorded by +any except Christians, for whom of course it had a special +significance. + +[Footnote 362: Mark 1. 5.] + +It should also be noticed that in some respects the testimony of +Christian writers is _more_ valuable than that of either Jews or +Gentiles: since none of the writers of that country were brought up +as Christians. They were all unbelievers before they were believers; +and if such testimony from unbelievers would be valuable, it is +still more so from those who showed how thoroughly convinced they +were of its truth by becoming believers. Indeed, the best Jewish or +Gentile evidence conceivable is that of well-educated men, like St. +Paul and St. Luke, who, on the strength of it, became Christians. + +Lastly, it must be remembered that the argument from silence is +proverbially unsound. We have, for instance, over two hundred +letters of the younger Pliny, and in only one of these does he +mention Christianity. Suppose this one had been lost, what a strong +argument could have been formed against the spread of Christianity +from the silence of Pliny, yet this one shows its marvellous +progress (see Chapter XXII.). This objection, then, is quite +insufficient to outweigh the positive testimony in favour of the +miracles, to which we have already alluded. + + +(_D._) CONCLUSION. + +In conclusion we must notice certain rationalistic explanations +which have been given of the miracles. It was hardly to be expected +that, with such strong evidence in their favour, the modern +opponents of Christianity would merely assert that the accounts +were pure fiction from beginning to end. Attempts have of course +been made to explain the miracles in such a way that, while +depriving them of any supernatural character, it may yet be admitted +that some such events occurred, which gave rise to the Christian +accounts. + +The miracles of _healing_ are perhaps the easiest to explain in this +way, as some wonderful instances of sudden, though natural, cures +have been known. But it is doubtful whether any of Christ's miracles +were of such a kind, for St. Paul is careful to distinguish between +_gifts of healing_ and _working of miracles_.[363] Both were +evidently known to the early Church, and known to be different. + +[Footnote 363: 1 Cor. 12. 9-10, 28.] + +And of course no such explanations will apply to most of the +miracles, which have to be got rid of in various other ways. Thus +Christ's walking on the sea is explained as His walking on a ridge +of sand or rock running out just under the water; the raising of +Lazarus as his having had himself buried alive, so that when Christ +came, there might be a pretended miracle;[364] and feeding the five +thousand as nothing more than the example of Christ and His friends, +who so freely shared their small supply with those around them, that +others did the same, and thus everyone had a little. It seems +scarcely necessary to discuss these theories in detail, as they are +all most improbable. + +[Footnote 364: This extraordinary theory was maintained by Rénan in +the earlier editions of his _Life of Jesus_, though he afterwards +abandoned it.] + +Moreover, their difficulties are all _cumulative_. The Christian +explanation has but _one_ difficulty for all the miracles, which is +that they _are_ miracles, and involve the supernatural. Once admit +this, and twenty miracles (provided they occur on suitable +occasions) are no more difficult to believe than two. But the +difficulties of these explanations are all cumulative. If for +instance, the raising of Lazarus is explained by his having been +buried alive, it does not account for Christ's walking on the sea. +If this is explained by the supposed ridge of sand, it does not +account for feeding the five thousand, etc. Thus each difficulty has +to be added to all the others, so taken together they are quite +insuperable. + +One other point has still to be considered, which is the subject of +modern miracles. Why, it is said, are there no miracles _now_, when +they could be properly tested? If they were really employed by God +as helps to the spread of His religion, why should they not have +accompanied it at intervals all along, as it is said they did the +Jewish religion? They are surely wanted for the support of +Christianity at the present day; and if God were, _after due +warning_, to work a public and indisputable miracle every +half-century, all the other evidences of Christianity might be +dispensed with. + +The answer to this objection is that the Christian revelation does +not claim to be a gradual one, like the Jewish; but a final and +complete revelation, made once for all through Christ and His +Apostles. Therefore, as there is to be no fresh revelation, there +can be no fresh miracles to confirm it. The question of _other_ +miracles, such as those which are said to have been worked by +Christians at various periods, need not be considered here. If +_true_, they would of course tend to prove the New Testament ones; +while, if _untrue_, they would not disprove them, any more than +imitation diamonds would disprove the existence of real diamonds. + +Of course, it may be replied that God might still work a miracle now +by a man, who stated that it was not to confirm anything that he +said himself, but merely what the Founder of Christianity had said; +and this is no doubt possible. But it would be a different method +from that recorded in the Bible, where a messenger from God always +brings his own credentials, even though, as in the case of a +prophecy, they may not be verified till afterwards. And what reason +have we for thinking that God would change His method now? It is +also very doubtful whether a public miracle at the present day, +would convince everybody. + +This objection, then, must be put aside, and we therefore conclude, +on reviewing the whole subject, that the New Testament miracles are +not only _credible_, but that there is extremely strong evidence in +their favour. Indeed their marks of _truthfulness_, combined with +their alleged _publicity_, form together a very powerful argument. +And it is rendered all the stronger by their having been so +thoroughly successful. Their object was to establish the truth of +Christianity, and this is precisely what they did. The evidence they +afforded was so decisive, that a hostile world found it +irresistible. + +Moreover it is doubtful whether any other religion, except, of +course, the Jewish, has ever claimed to have been confirmed by +public miracles. Christianity thus rests upon a unique foundation. +Unlike other religions, it appealed at first not to abstract +reasoning, or moral consciousness, or physical force, but to +miraculous events, of the truth or falsehood of which others could +judge. They did judge, and they were convinced. We decide, then, +that the New Testament miracles are probably true. + + + + +CHAPTER XX. + +THAT THE JEWISH PROPHECIES CONFIRM THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. + + (_A._) ISAIAH'S PROPHECY OF THE LORD'S SERVANT. + + (1.) The historical agreement, very striking. + (2.) The doctrinal agreement, equally so. + (3.) The modern Jewish interpretation, quite untenable. + + (_B._) THE PSALM OF THE CRUCIFIXION. + + (1.) Its close agreement, all through. + (2.) Two objections, unimportant. + + (_C._) THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH. + + At least three prophecies of this; it is also involved in some + hints as to the Doctrine of the Trinity. + + (_D._) CONCLUSION. + + Why are not the prophecies plainer? Cumulative nature + of the evidence. + + +We propose to consider in this chapter what is called the argument +from _Prophecy_, using the word, as we did in Chapter XI., in the +sense of _prediction_. Now it is a remarkable and undisputed fact +that for many centuries before the time of Christ, it was foretold +that a member of the Jewish nation--small and insignificant though +it was--should be a blessing _to all mankind_. This promise is +recorded as having been made both to Abraham, to Isaac, and to +Jacob;[365] and as a matter of fact, Christianity was founded by a +Jew, and has undoubtedly been a blessing to the human race. This is +at least a remarkable coincidence. And as we proceed in the Old +Testament, the statements about this future Messiah become clearer +and fuller, till at last, in the Prophets, we find whole chapters +referring to Him, which Christians assert were fulfilled in Christ. + +[Footnote 365: Gen. 22. 18; 26. 4; 28.14.] + +This argument is plainly of the utmost importance. Fortunately it is +much simplified by the question of _dates_ being altogether +excluded. As a rule, the most important point in an alleged prophecy +is to show that it was written before its fulfilment. But here this +is undisputed, since everyone admits that the whole of the Old +Testament, except some of the apocryphal books, was written before +the time of Christ. And as the writings have been preserved by the +Jews themselves, who are opposed to the claims of Christianity, we +may be sure that not a single alteration in its favour has been made +anywhere. + +We will now examine a few of the strongest prophecies, avoiding all +those that were only fulfilled in a figurative, or spiritual sense; +and selecting whole passages rather than single texts. For though +many of these latter are very applicable to Christ, they might also +be applicable to someone else. So we will first discuss somewhat +fully Isaiah's prophecy of the Lord's Servant, and the Psalm of the +Crucifixion; and then examine more briefly a group of prophecies +referring to the Divinity of the Messiah. + + +(_A._) ISAIAH'S PROPHECY OF THE LORD'S SERVANT (52. 13-53. 12). + +It may be pointed out at starting that no one denies the antiquity +of the passage, even if it was not written by Isaiah. And it forms a +complete whole, closely connected together and not mixed up with any +other subject. So in regard to its fulfilment, most of the details +mentioned occurred within a few hours. We will consider first the +historical, and then the doctrinal agreement. + +(1.) _The Historical Agreement._ + +With regard to this, the following is the translation from the +Revised Version, together with the corresponding events. It will be +observed that the sufferings of the Servant are usually expressed in +the past tense, and his triumph in the future, the prophet placing +himself, as it were, between the two. But the Hebrew tenses are +rather uncertain, and what is translated as _past_ in the Revised +Version is translated as _future_ in the Authorised (_e.g._, 53. 2). + + 52. 13. 'Behold, my servant shall + deal wisely, he shall be exalted + and lifted up, and shall be + very high. + + The excellence of Christ's + teaching and conduct is now + generally admitted; while as to + His exalted position, He is worshipped + by millions of men. + + 14. 'Like as many were astonied + at thee (his visage was so + marred more than any man, and + his form more than the sons of + men) so shall he sprinkle many + nations; + + Yet at the time of His death, + which was public so that _many_ + saw Him, the cruel treatment He + had received must have terribly + disfigured His face and body. + + 15. 'Kings shall shut their + mouths at him: for that which + had not been told them shall + they see; and that which they had + not heard shall they understand. + + But now even Kings are silent + with reverence,[366] when contemplating + such a wonderful life. + + [Footnote 366: _Comp._ Job 29. 9.] + + 53. 1. 'Who hath believed our + report? + + 'and to whom hath the arm + of the Lord been revealed? + + Indeed what the prophet is + about to declare, is so marvellous + that it can scarcely be believed. + + The Arm of the Lord evidently + means some instrument, + or Person, which God uses for + His work, as a man might use + his arm.[367] And here it must be + a _Person_, from the following + words, 'For _he_ grew up,' etc. It + is thus a most suitable term for + the Messiah, who was to be + recognised by hardly anyone. + + 2. 'For he grew up before him + as a tender plant, and as a root + out of a dry ground: + + he hath no form nor comeliness; + and when we see him, there is no + beauty that we should desire + him. + + This was because He lived at a + place (Nazareth) which was always + regarded as _dry ground_ so + far as anything good was concerned.[368] + + Moreover, His appearance was + humble, and when at His trial, + Pilate presented Him to the + people, they did not desire Him. + + 3. 'He was despised, and rejected + of men; a man of sorrows, + and acquainted with grief: and + as one from whom men hide their + face he was despised, and we + esteemed him not. + + But they at once rejected Him + as they had done often before. + + 4. 'Surely he hath borne our + griefs, and carried our sorrows: + yet we did esteem him stricken, + smitten of God, and afflicted. + + While His life was not only one + of grief and sorrow, but such a + death seemed to show that He + was accursed of God, for the + Jews so regarded anyone who + was crucified.[369] + + 5. 'But he was wounded for + our transgressions, he was bruised + for our iniquities: the chastisement + of our peace was upon him; + and with his stripes we are healed. + + The scourging and other ill-treatment + is here referred to; + including probably the nails, + and spear, for the word translated + _wounded_ is literally _pierced_. + + [Footnote 367: _Comp._ Isa. 40. 10; 51. 9.] + + [Footnote 368: John 1. 46.] + + [Footnote 369: Deut. 21. 23; Gal. 3. 13.] + + 6. 'All we like sheep have + gone astray; we have turned + every one to his own way; and + the Lord hath laid on him the + iniquity of us all. + + 7. 'He was oppressed, yet he + humbled himself and opened not + his mouth; as a lamb that is + led to the slaughter, and as a + sheep that before her shearers is + dumb; yea, he opened not his + mouth. + + Christ, who is sometimes called + the Lamb of God, not only bore + His ill-treatment patiently, but + refused to plead at either of His + trials (the verse repeats twice _He + opened not His mouth_) to the + utter astonishment of His judges.[370] + + 8. 'By oppression and judgment + he was taken away; and as + for his generation, who among + them considered that he was cut + off out of the land of the living? + for the transgression of my + people was he stricken. + + He was not killed accidentally, + or by the mob, but had a + judicial trial; and was most + unjustly condemned. While + few, if any, of His contemporaries + understood the real meaning + of His death. + + 9. 'And they made his grave + with the wicked, and with the + rich in his death (i.e., _when he + was dead_. Comp. Ps. 6. 8); + + although he had done no violence, + neither was any deceit in + his mouth. + + He was appointed to die between + two robbers, and would + doubtless have been buried with + them, had not Joseph of Arimathea + intervened; when, in + strange contrast with His ignominious + death, He was honourably + buried, with costly spices, + and in a rich man's tomb. + + Although His judge repeatedly + declared that He was innocent. + + 10. 'Yet it pleased the Lord + to bruise him; he hath put him + to grief: when thou shalt make + his soul an offering for sin, he + shall see his seed, he shall prolong + his days, and the pleasure + of the Lord shall prosper in his + hand. + + Yet after His death He was to + see His seed, and _prolong His + days_, _i.e._, rise again from the + dead. The word _seed_ cannot + mean here, actual children,[371] since + He was to obtain them by His + death. But it may well refer to + the disciples, whom Christ saw + after His Resurrection, and called + His _children_.[372] + + [Footnote 370: Matt. 26. 62; 27. 14.] + + [Footnote 371: _Comp._ Isa. 1. 4.] + + [Footnote 372: Mark 10. 24; John 21. 5.] + + 11. 'He shall see of the travail + of his soul, and shall be satisfied: + by his knowledge shall my righteous + servant justify many: and + he shall bear their iniquities. + + And this is confirmed by their + being spoken of as _the travail of + His soul_, not body. While the + latter expression also implies + that He had had some intense + mental struggle comparable to + the bodily pains of childbirth; + which is very suitable to His + mental agony in the Garden and + on the Cross. + + 12. 'Therefore will I divide + him a portion with the great, + and he shall divide the spoil with + the strong; + + because he poured out his soul + unto death, + + and was numbered with the + transgressors: yet he bare the + sin of many, and made intercession + for the transgressors.' + + His subsequent triumph in + the Christian Church is here alluded + to. + + This implies that His sufferings + were of some duration; and is thus + very appropriate to a lingering + death like crucifixion. + + While the closing words exactly + agree with His dying a + shameful death between two robbers; + yet praying for His murderers, + 'Father, forgive them.' + +It seems hardly necessary to insist on the agreement shown above; it +is indisputable. The sufferings and the triumph of the Lord's +Servant are foretold with equal confidence and with equal clearness, +though they might well have seemed incompatible. + +(2.) _The Doctrinal Agreement._ + +But the significance of the passage does not depend on these +prophecies alone, though they are sufficiently remarkable, but on +the _meaning_ which the writer assigns to the great tragedy. It is +the Christian doctrine concerning Christ's death, and not merely the +events attending it, which is here insisted on. This will be best +shown by adopting the previous method of parallel columns, showing +in the first the six chief points in the Christian doctrine, and in +the other the prophet's words corresponding to them. + + All mankind are sinners. + + 'All we like sheep have gone + astray.' + + Christ alone was sinless. + + 'My righteous servant.' + + 'He had done no violence, + neither was any deceit in his + mouth.' + + He suffered not for His own + sins, but for those of others. + Nor was this the mere accidental + suffering of an innocent man for + a guilty one; it was a great + work of _atonement_, an offering + for sin. This is the central + feature of the Christian doctrine, + and it is asserted over and over + again in the prophecy, which is + above all that of a _Saviour_. + + 'Surely he hath borne our + griefs, and carried our sorrows.' + + 'He was wounded for our + transgressions, he was bruised + for our iniquities; the chastisement + of (_i.e._, which procured) + our peace was upon him; and + with his stripes we are healed.' + + 'The Lord hath laid on him + the iniquity of us all.' + + 'For the transgression of my + people was he stricken.' + + 'Thou shalt make his soul an + offering for sin.' + + 'He shall bear their iniquities.' + + 'He bare the sin of many.' + + And this Atonement was the + fulfilment of the old Jewish + sacrifices; especially that of the + Paschal Lamb; so there was a + special fitness in Christ's being + put to death at the time of the + Passover. + + This is shown by the language + employed, the _offering for sin_ + being the same word as that used + for the old _guilt-offering_.[373] And + the curious expression _So shall he + sprinkle many nations_ evidently + refers to the sprinkling of the + blood in the Jewish sacrifices, as + the same word is used, and + means cleansing them from sin.[374] + + Yet it availed not only for + the Jews, but for all mankind. + + The _many nations_ must include + Gentiles as well as Jews. + + Lastly, Christ's sacrifice was + _voluntary_; He freely laid down + + 'He poured out his soul unto + death,' implies that the act was + + [Footnote 373: _E.g._, Lev. 7. 1.] + + [Footnote 374: _E.g._, Lev. 16. 19.] + + His life, no one took it from Him + (John 10. 18). + + _voluntary_, and this is rendered + still clearer from the context; + for it was _because_ He did this that + He was to divide the spoil, etc. + And the words _He humbled Himself_, + also imply that the humiliation + was voluntary. + +All this, it is plain, exactly suits the Christ in whom Christians +believe; and it does not and cannot suit anyone else, since several +of the Christian doctrines are quite unique, and do not occur in the +Jewish or any other religion. This is indeed so striking, that if +anyone acquainted with Christianity, but unacquainted with Isaiah, +came across the passage for the first time, he would probably refer +it to one of St. Paul's Epistles. And every word of it might be +found there with perfect fitness. + +(3.) _The modern Jewish interpretation._ + +Now, what can be said on the other side? Many of the ancient Jews +interpreted the passage as referring to their future Messiah;[375] +but the modern Jews (and most critics who disbelieve in prophecy) +refer it to the Jewish nation, or to the religious part of it, which +they say is here personified as a single man, the Servant of the +Lord. And it must of course be admitted that Isaiah does frequently +speak of the Jews as God's _servant_ (_e.g._, 'But thou Israel, my +servant, and Jacob whom I have chosen,')[376] though he nowhere else +uses the term 'my _righteous_ servant,' which he does here, and +which would have been inapplicable to the nation. + +[Footnote 375: References are given in Edersheim's 'Life and Times +of Jesus the Messiah,' 1901, vol. ii., p. 727.] + +[Footnote 376: Isa. 41. 8.] + +But it is important to remember that this prophecy does not stand +alone, and a little before, we read in a similar passage, 'It is too +light a thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the +tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also +give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my +salvation unto the end of the earth. Thus saith the Lord, the +Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to +him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers: Kings shall +see and arise; princes, and they shall worship.'[377] + +[Footnote 377: Isa. 49. 6-7; comp. 42. 1-6.] + +Here it will be noticed the Lord's _servant_ is clearly +distinguished from both Jacob and Israel, and evidently means the +Messiah. While His bringing salvation to the Gentiles, as well as to +the Jews; His humiliation in being despised by men and hated by the +Jewish nation; and His subsequent triumph, even Kings submitting +themselves to Him; are all alluded to, much as they are in the +present passage. + +No doubt there is a difficulty in the prophet thus passing from one +meaning of the word _servant_ to another (especially, in a closely +connected passage),[378] and various attempts have been made to +explain it; but it does not alter the fact that he does so. Perhaps +the best explanation is that Israel was _intended_ to be God's +Servant, but owing to their sins became unfitted; when God promised +in the future to raise up a _righteous_ servant, who should do all +His pleasure and atone for Israel's failure. And, it may be added, +the term _Servant_ is applied to the Messiah both by Ezekiel and +Zechariah, as well as in the New Testament.[379] + +[Footnote 378: Isa. 49. 3, 5.] + +[Footnote 379: Ezek. 34. 23; Zech. 3. 8; Acts 3. 13 (R.V.).] + +Moreover, the Jewish interpretation not only leaves all the details +of the prophecy unexplained and inexplicable, but ignores its very +essence, which, as before said, is the atoning character of the +sufferings. No one can say that the sufferings of the Jews were +voluntary, or that they were not for their own sins, but for those +of other people, which were in consequence atoned for. Or, to put +the argument in other words, if the _He_ refers to the Jewish +nation, to whom does the _our_ refer in such sentences as _He was +wounded for our transgressions_? While v. 8 expressly says that the +Jews (God's people) were not the sufferers, but those for whom He +suffered. (For the transgression of _my people_ was _he_ stricken.) +This interpretation then is hopelessly untenable, and the passage +either means what Christians assert, or it means nothing. + +In conclusion, it must be again pointed out that all these minute +historical details attending Christ's death, and all these +remarkable Christian doctrines concerning it, are all found within +fifteen verses of a writing many centuries older than the time of +Christ. It would be hard to over-estimate the great improbability of +all this being due to chance; indeed, such a conclusion seems +incredible. + + +(_B._) THE PSALM OF THE CRUCIFIXION (Ps. 22).[380] + +[Footnote 380: This is discussed more fully in an article in the +_Churchman_, April, 1912, by the present writer.] + +We pass on now to another most remarkable prophecy; for this +well-known Psalm describes what can only be regarded as a +_crucifixion_. The decisive verse is of course, _They pierced my +hands and my feet_; but even apart from this, the various sufferings +described cannot all be endured in any other form of death, such as +stoning or beheading. And the Psalm agrees with the Death of Christ, +both in its numerous details, and in its whole scope and meaning. We +will therefore consider this close agreement first, and then some of +the objections. + +(1.) _Its close agreement._ + +We need not quote the Psalm, as it is so well known; but will point +out the agreement verse by verse. + + Ver. 1. His feeling forsaken by God, and using these actual + words: 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' + + 2. as well as praying for deliverance during the previous + night; + + 3. though in spite of His sufferings, He casts no reproach upon + God. + + 4. His belonging to God's chosen people, the Jews, so that He + could speak of _our_ fathers; + + 5. who had so often been helped by God before. + + 6. His pitiable condition in being exposed to the scorn and + reproach of men, and despised by the people. + + 7. His being lifted up to die in public, so that those who + passed by could see Him; and the way in which they mocked Him, + shaking their heads, etc. + + 8. The exact words they used: _He trusted on the Lord that He + would deliver him, let Him deliver him seeing He delighteth in + him_ (margin). These words show that the speakers themselves + were Jews, and that He was thus put to death among His own + nation. And the last clause can only be meant ironically in the + sense that the Sufferer _claimed_ that God delighted in him, + claimed, that is, in some special sense to be beloved by God. + + 9. And, as a matter of fact, God had always watched over Him, + and had saved Him in His infancy from being slain by Herod. + + 10. And in return His whole life had been dedicated to God; so + that He could say that God had been _His_ God, even from His + birth. + + 11. His being abandoned by His disciples, and left without a + helper; + + 12. though surrounded by His enemies, described as _bulls of + Bashan_. This curious term is used elsewhere for the unjust + rulers of the people,[381] and was therefore very applicable to + the chief priests and rulers, who had so unjustly condemned + Him, and now stood round the Cross reviling Him. + + [Footnote 381: Amos. 4. 1.] + + 13. And they continually insulted Him, _gaping with the mouth_ + being a common expression of contempt;[382] _ravening_ + appropriate to the way in which they had thirsted for His blood + before Pilate; and _roaring_ to the great noise and tumult made + at the time. + + [Footnote 382: _E.g._, Job 16. 10.] + + 14. His side being pierced, so that there poured out a quantity + of watery fluid (mixed with clots of blood), the probable cause + of this--the rupture of the heart[383]--being also hinted at; + while His bones were nearly out of joint, through the weight of + the suspended Body. + + [Footnote 383: See 'The Physical Cause of the Death of Christ,' + by Dr. Symes Thompson, 1904.] + + 15. His suffering extreme weakness, and extreme thirst, + immediately before His death.[384] + + [Footnote 384: Lam. 4. 4; John 19. 28-30.] + + 16. His being crucified (_i.e._, His hands and feet being + pierced), the men who did this being here called _dogs_. They + seem to have been a special set of men, different from the Jews + who had before been mocking Him. And as this was the very term + used by Christ Himself for the Gentiles, in distinction to the + Jews,[385] it was peculiarly appropriate to the Gentile (Roman) + soldiers who crucified Him. + + [Footnote 385: Matt. 15. 26.] + + 17. And they also exposed and stretched out His Body, so that + the bones stood out in relief. And they then stood watching + Him; + + 18. and divided His garments among them, casting lots for one + of them. + + 19. Then follows a short prayer. + + 20. The term _sword_, like the _dog_, the _lion's mouth_, and + the _wild oxen_, need not be pressed literally; but may be used + here (as in other places)[386] for any violent death. And in + the New Testament it seems employed for all punishments, + including probably a death by crucifixion (St. Peter's).[387] + + [Footnote 386: _Comp._ 2 Sam. 11. 24; 12. 9.] + + [Footnote 387: Rom. 13. 4; Matt. 26. 52.] + + 21. Yet in spite of His troubles, and even death, He feels sure + of deliverance. + + 22. And now the strain suddenly changes, the Sufferer is + restored to life and freedom and at once declares God's name + unto His brethren. And this exactly agrees with Christ's now + declaring for the first time God's complete _Name_ of, Father, + Son, and Holy Ghost, unto His _brethren_, as He calls them, the + Apostles.[388] While if we identify this appearance with that + to the five hundred, it was literally _in the midst of the + congregation_--in the presence, that is, of the first large + Christian assembly. + + [Footnote 388: Matt. 28. 10, 19.] + + 23. Moreover, His deliverance is of world-wide significance, + and great blessings are to follow from it. These commence with + the Jews, who were to _praise_ and glorify God; though with a + strange feeling of _awe_ and fear; all of which was exactly + fulfilled.[389] + + [Footnote 389: Acts 2. 43-47.] + + 24. And the blessings are somehow connected with God's not + having despised, but having accepted, His sufferings. + + 25. And they include a reference to some _vows_ (meaning + uncertain); + + 26. and to a wonderful feast generally thought to refer to the + Holy Communion. + + 27. And the blessings then extend to the Gentile nations also, + even to the most distant parts of the world, who are now to + become worshippers of the true God, Jehovah. And, as a matter + of fact, Christians exist in all known countries, and wherever + there are Christians, Jehovah is worshipped. + + 28. To Whom the whole earth, both the Jewish kingdom and the + Gentile nations, really belongs. + + 29. And to Whom everyone will eventually bow down. + + 30. After this we read of a _seed_ serving Him, probably used + here, as in Isaiah, for disciples, each generation of whom is + to tell of this wonderful deliverance to the next. And this + they have been doing for eighteen centuries. + + 31. And so they will continue doing to generations that are yet + unborn. While the closing words, _He hath done it_ (R.V.) are + often taken as referring to the whole Psalm, meaning that the + work of suffering and atonement was now complete, _It is + done_;[390] and they would thus correspond to Christ's closing + words on the Cross, _It it finished_. + + [Footnote 390: Hengstenberg, Commentary on Psalms, 1867, vol. + i., 396.] + +Everyone must admit that the agreement all through is very +remarkable; though there are two slight objections. + +(2.) _Two objections._ + +The first is that there is nothing to show that the writer meant the +Psalm to refer to the Messiah at all, though, strange to say, some +of the Jews so interpreted it;[391] therefore if there is an +agreement, it is at most only a chance coincidence. But the idea of +_all_ these coincidences being due to chance is most improbable. And +there certainly is some indication that it refers to the Messiah, +since, as we have seen, it leads up to the conversion of the +Gentiles, which the other Jewish prophets always associate with the +times of the Messiah. + +[Footnote 391: Edersheim, 1901, vol. ii., 713.] + +Moreover, if the Psalm does not refer to Christ, it is difficult to +see to whom it does refer, since it is quite inapplicable to David, +or Hezekiah, or anyone else at that time; as crucifixion was not a +Jewish punishment, though dead bodies were sometimes hung on trees. +Yet, as just said, verses 7-8 show that the Sufferer was put to +death among his own nation. This strange anomaly of a Jew being put +to death among Jews, though not in the Jewish manner by stoning, but +by crucifixion, exactly suits the time of Christ, when Judæa was a +Roman province, and crucifixion a Roman punishment. + +Many of the _details_ also are quite inapplicable. David, for +instance, never had his garments divided among his enemies; yet +(even apart from our Gospels) there can be little doubt that the +garments of Christ were so divided, as the clothes of a prisoner +were usually taken by the guard who executed him. + +And any such reference (to David, etc.) is rendered still more +improbable, because the sufferer appears to have no sense of _sin_, +and never laments his own wickedness, as the writers so frequently +do when speaking about themselves. And here also the Psalm is +entirely applicable to Christ, since (as we shall see in the next +chapter) His sinlessness was a striking feature in His character. +Nor again did the deliverance of David in any way lead to the +_conversion of the Gentiles_, which, as just said, is the grand +climax of the Psalm, and excludes all other interpretations. + +But in any case this objection (which is also made to other Old +Testament prophecies) cannot be maintained; for _who_, we must ask, +was their real author? Was it the human prophet, or was it God Who +inspired the prophet to write as he did? And the prophets themselves +emphatically declared that it was the latter. The word of the Lord +came unto them, or a vision was granted unto them, and they had to +proclaim it, whether they liked it or not. In fact, as St. Matthew +says, it was not really the prophet who spoke, but God, who spoke +_through the prophet_.[392] There is thus no reason for thinking +that they either knew, or thought they knew, the whole meaning of +their prophecies; and the objection may be dismissed at once. + +[Footnote 392: _E.g._, Matt. 1. 22.] + +The second objection is, that some of the events fulfilling this, +and other Old Testament prophecies, never occurred, but were +purposely invented. This, however, destroys altogether the moral +character of the Evangelists, who are supposed to tell deliberate +falsehoods, in order to get a pretended fulfilment of an old +prophecy. And the difficulty of admitting this is very great. +Moreover, such explanations can only apply to a very few cases; +since, as a rule, the events occurred in _public_, and must +therefore have been well known at the time. + +And even in those cases where the event was so trivial, that it +might possibly have been invented, such an explanation is often +untenable. Take, for example, the manner in which Christ on the +cross was mocked by His enemies, who said, 'He trusted in God, let +him deliver him now if he desireth him.'[393] A more probable +incident under the circumstances can scarcely be imagined, the chief +priests quoting the familiar language (just as men sometimes quote +the Bible now) without thinking of its real significance. But, +supposing the words were never uttered, is it conceivable that the +Evangelist (or anyone else) would have invented them in order to get +a pretended fulfilment of this Psalm, where the Crucified One is +mocked with almost identical words; yet have never pointed out the +fulfilment himself, but have trusted to the chance of his readers +discovering it? + +[Footnote 393: Matt. 27. 43.] + +Neither of these objections, then, is of much importance; while the +agreement of the Psalm with the events attending the death and +Resurrection of Christ, seems, as in the previous case, to be far +too exact to be accidental. + + +(_C._) THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH. + +Our last example shall be of a different kind from the others. It is +that the Old Testament contains several passages which show that the +future Messiah was to be not only Superhuman, but Divine. And +considering the strong Monotheism of the Jews this is very +remarkable. The following are three of the most important:-- + +'For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the +government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called +Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of +Peace.'[394] Here we have a plain statement of the Divinity of One +Who should be born a child. The two words translated _Mighty God_ +are incapable of any other translation, and no other is suggested +for them in the margin of either the Authorised or Revised Version; +while the same two words occur in the next chapter, where they +plainly mean _Mighty God_ and nothing else. Moreover, the term +_Everlasting Father_ is literally _Father of Eternity_ (see margin) +and means the Eternal One. This is another divine title, and does +not conflict with the Christian doctrine that it was the Son, and +not the Father, Who became Incarnate. While the following words, +that of the increase of His government _there shall be no end_, and +that it should be established _for ever_, also point to a Divine +Ruler, in spite of the reference to David's throne. And it is +significant that a few verses before it is implied that the Ministry +of this future Messiah should commence in the land of Zebulon, and +Naphtali, by the Sea of Galilee; where, as a matter of fact, +Christ's Ministry did commence. + +[Footnote 394: Isa. 9. 6; 10. 21; 9. 1-2.] + +'But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the +thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is +to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from +everlasting.'[395] Here we have a prophecy of the birth of One who +had existed _from everlasting_; thus showing the Pre-existence and +apparent Divinity of the Messiah, who was to be born at Bethlehem, +where, again, as a matter of fact, Christ actually was born. + +[Footnote 395: Mic. 5. 2.] + +'Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is +my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts.'[396] The word translated +_fellow_ is only found elsewhere in Leviticus, where it is usually +translated _neighbour_, and always implies an equality between the +two persons.[397] Thus God speaks of the Shepherd who was to be +slain with the sword (a term, as before said, used for any violent +death), as equal with Himself, and yet at the same time Man; so no +one but a Messiah who is both God and Man--_Fellow-God_ as well as +_fellow-man_--can satisfy the language. + +[Footnote 396: Zech. 13. 7.] + +[Footnote 397: Lev. 6. 2; 18. 20; 19. 11, 15, 17; 24. 19; 25. 14, +15, 17.] + +And here again the reference to Christ is confirmed by the fact that +several incidents in His Passion are alluded to, in some of which +His Divinity is likewise asserted. The most important are the way in +which He (the Just Saviour) rode into Jerusalem on an ass; and the +rejoicing with which He was received, when the people welcomed Him +as their _King_. And the fact that He (the Lord Jehovah) should be +sold for thirty pieces of silver, the money being cast down in the +House of the Lord, and afterwards given to the potter; and also that +He (again the Lord Jehovah) should be pierced.[398] These are, it is +true, expressed in figurative language, and often mixed up with +other subjects; so no instance by itself, affords a strong argument. +But still their all occurring so close together, and all leading up +to the violent death of a _man_, who was yet the _fellow_, or +_equal_, with God, can scarcely be accidental. While the prophecy, +like so many others, ends with the conversion of the Gentiles, the +Lord Jehovah being recognised as King over all the earth; which +seems to place the Messianic character beyond dispute. + +[Footnote 398: Zech. 9. 9; 11. 12-13; 12. 10; 14. 9; Luke 19. +37-38.] + +The Divinity of the Messiah is also involved in some hints which +occur in the Old Testament as to the doctrine of the _Trinity_. For +instance, the Hebrew word for God, _Elohim_, is a plural word, +though, strange to say, it generally takes a singular adjective, and +verb. Thus if we tried to represent it in English, the first verse +of the Bible would read, 'In the beginning the Gods, He created the +heaven and the earth.' Attempts have of course been made to reduce +the significance of this by pointing out that a few other Hebrew +words, such as _lord_ and _master_, sometimes do the same; or by +regarding it as a survival from some previous polytheistic religion; +or else as being what is called the plural of Majesty, a sort of +royal _We_. This, however, does not seem to have been in use in +early times, and never occurs in the Bible, where kings always speak +of themselves in the singular.[399] Anyhow it is very remarkable +that the Jews should have used a plural word for God with a singular +verb; especially as the same word, when used of false gods, takes a +plural verb. + +[Footnote 399: _E.g._, Gen. 41. 41; Ezra 6. 12; 7. 21; Dan. 4. 6.] + +Moreover, God is at times represented as speaking in the +plural,[400] saying, for instance, _Let us make man in our image_, +as if consulting with other Divine Persons; since it is obvious that +the expression cannot refer to angels, who are themselves created, +and not fellow Creators. Yet just afterwards we read, 'God created +man in _his_ own image,' thus implying that there is still but one +God. Another and even more remarkable expression is, _Behold, the +man is become as one of us_. This cannot possibly be the plural of +Majesty; for though a king might speak of himself as _We_ or _Us_, +no king ever spoke of himself as _one of Us_. Such an expression can +only be used when there are other persons of similar rank with the +speaker; therefore when used by God, it shows conclusively that +there are other Divine Persons. So again when God says, 'Whom shall +_I_ send, and who will go for _us_?' it implies that He is both one, +and more than one; which the previous _thrice_ Holy, points to as +being a Trinity.[401] The existence of such passages seems to +require some explanation, and Christianity alone can explain them. + +[Footnote 400: Gen. 1. 26; 3. 22; 11. 7.] + +[Footnote 401: Isa. 6. 8.] + + +(_D._) CONCLUSION. + +Before concluding this chapter there is still one objection to be +considered. Why, it is said, if these prophecies really refer to +Christ, are they not plainer? Surely if God wished to foretell the +future, He would have done it better than this: and a few words +added here and there would have made the reference to Christ +indisputable. No doubt they would; but possibly God did not wish to +make the reference indisputable. Moreover, if the prophecies had +been plainer, they might have prevented their own fulfilment. Had +the Jews known for certain that Christ was their Messiah, they +could scarcely have crucified Him; and it seems to many that the +prophecies are already about as plain as they could be without doing +this. The important point, however, is not whether the prophecies +might not have been plainer, but whether they are not already too +plain to be accidental. + +Lastly, we must notice the cumulative nature of the evidence. We +have only examined a few instances, but, as said before, Messianic +prophecies of some kind more or less distinct, occur at intervals +all through the Old Testament. And though some of those commonly +brought forward seem weak and fanciful, there are numbers of others +which are not. And here, as elsewhere, this has a double bearing on +the argument. + +In the first place, it does not at all increase the difficulty of +the _Christian_ interpretation; for twenty prophecies are +practically no more difficult to admit than two. Indeed, the fact +that instead of being a few isolated examples, they form a complete +series, rather lessens the difficulty than otherwise. + +On the other hand, it greatly increases the difficulty of _any +other_ interpretation; for twenty prophecies are far more difficult +to deny than two. If one is explained as a lucky coincidence, it +will not account for the next; if that is got rid of by some +unnatural interpretation of the words, it will not account for the +third, and so on indefinitely. The difficulties are thus not only +great in themselves, but are all cumulative; and hence together they +seem insuperable. Anyhow, it is clear that these Prophecies form +another strong argument in favour of Christianity. + + + + +CHAPTER XXI. + +THAT THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST CONFIRMS THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. + + The character of Christ can only be deduced from the New Testament, + any other Christ being purely imaginary. + + (_A._) THE TEACHING OF CHRIST. + + (1.) Its admitted excellence. + (2.) Two objections. + (3.) His sinlessness. + + (_B._) THE CLAIMS OF CHRIST. + + (1.) His claim to be Superhuman--declaring that He was + the Ruler, Redeemer, and final Judge of the world. + (2.) His claim to be Divine--declaring His Equality, Unity, + and Pre-existence with God. + (3.) How these claims were understood at the time, both + by friends and foes. + + (_C._) THE GREAT ALTERNATIVE. + + Christ cannot, therefore, have been merely a good man; + He was either _God_, as He claimed to be, or else a _bad_ + man, for making such claims. But the latter view is + disproved by His Moral Character. + + +In this chapter we propose to consider the Character of Christ, and +its bearing on the truth of Christianity. Now our knowledge of +Christ's character can only be derived from the four Gospels; +indeed, a Christ with any other character assigned to Him is a +purely imaginary being, and might as well be called by some other +name. Taking, then, the Gospels as our guide, what is the character +of Christ? Clearly this can be best deduced from His own _teaching_ +and _claims_, both of which are fortunately given at some length; so +we will consider these first, and then the _great alternative_ which +they force upon us. + + +(_A._) THE TEACHING OF CHRIST. + +Under this head, we will first notice the admitted excellence of +Christ's teaching, then some objections which are often made, and +lastly His sinlessness. + +(1.) _Its admitted excellence._ + +To begin with, the excellence of Christ's moral teaching hardly +needs to be insisted on at the present day, and rationalists as well +as Christians have proclaimed its merits. For instance, to quote a +few examples:-- + +'Religion cannot be said to have made a bad choice in pitching on +this man as the ideal representative and guide of humanity; nor even +now would it be easy, even for an unbeliever, to find a better +translation of the rule of virtue from the abstract into the +concrete, than to endeavour so to live that Christ should approve +our life.'--_J. S. Mill_.[402] + +[Footnote 402: Nature, the Utility of Religion and Theism, 2nd +edit., 1874, p. 255.] + +'Jesus remains to humanity an inexhaustible source of moral +regenerations.' And again, 'In Him is condensed all that is good and +lofty in our nature.'--_E. Renan_.[403] + +[Footnote 403: Life of Jesus, translated by Wilbour, New York, 1864, +pp. 370, 375.] + +'It was reserved for Christianity to present to the world an ideal +character, which, through all the changes of eighteen centuries, +has inspired the hearts of men with an impassioned love; has shown +itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments, and +conditions; has been not only the highest pattern of virtue, but the +strongest incentive to its practice; and has exercised so deep an +influence that it may be truly said that the simple record of three +short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften +mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers, and all the +exhortations of moralists.'--_W. E. H. Lecky_.[404] + +[Footnote 404: History of European Morals, 3rd edit., 1877, vol. +ii., p. 8.] + +These quotations are only examples of many which might be given; but +it is practically undisputed that the morality taught by Christ is +the best the world has ever seen. It is also undisputed that His +life was in entire harmony with His teaching. He lived, as far as we +can judge, a holy and blameless life, and His character has never +been surpassed either in history or fiction. + +(2.) _Two objections._ + +There are, however, two slight objections. The first is that +Christ's teaching was not _original_; and, strictly speaking, this +is perhaps true. Something similar to all He taught has been +discovered in more ancient times, either in Egypt, India, China, or +elsewhere. But this hardly affects the argument. An unlearned Jew +living at Nazareth cannot be supposed to have derived his teaching +from these sources; and it is a great improvement on all of them put +together. The important point is, that there was nothing among the +Jews of His own time which could have produced, or even have +invented, such a character. He was immeasurably better than His +contemporaries, and all of them put together have not exerted an +influence on the world a thousandth part that of Christ. + +The second objection refers to _certain portions_ of Christ's +teaching. For example, He urges men not to resist evil, and seems to +place virginity above marriage to an exaggerated extent.[405] I have +never seen a satisfactory explanation of the latter passage; but it +is obvious on the face of it that it cannot be meant for universal +application, or it would lead to the extinction of the human race. + +[Footnote 405: Matt. 5. 39; 19. 12.] + +Again, several of the _parables_ are said to be unjust such as that +of the workmen in the vineyard, the unrighteous steward, and the +wedding garment. But parables must not be pressed literally, and +very different interpretations have been put on these. However, we +will consider the two last, which are those most often objected to. + +With regard to the _Unrighteous Steward_, though apparently he had +been guilty of dishonesty, we are told that his lord _commended_ +him, because he had done wisely.[406] But no one can think that his +lord commended him, because he had just cheated him. So if his +conduct was really dishonest (about which scholars are by no means +agreed) we can only suppose that _in spite of this_, his lord +commended him, because of his wisdom. In the same way, if an +ingenious robbery were committed at the present day, even the man +robbed, might say that he could not help admiring the scoundrel for +his cleverness. The meaning then appears to be that _wisdom_ is so +desirable that it is to be commended even in worldly matters, and +even in a bad cause; and therefore of course still more to be aimed +at in religious matters, and in a good cause. + +[Footnote 406: Luke 16. 8.] + +Next as to the _Wedding Garment_. It is distinctly implied that +there was only _one_ man without it,[407] so obviously the first +point to determine is how the other men got their garments. They +could not have had them out in the roads, and there was no time to +go home and get them, even if they possessed any. It follows then +that they must each have been provided with a suitable garment +(probably a cloak, worn over their other clothes) when they reached +the palace. This appears to have been an eastern custom,[408] and if +one of them refused to put it on, he would certainly deserve to be +excluded from the feast. Thus the object of the parable seems to be +to show that God's blessings can only be obtained on God's terms +(_e.g._ _forgiveness_ on _repentance_), though there is no hardship +in this, as He has Himself given us grace to comply with these +terms, if we like. Neither of these objections, then, is of much +importance. + +[Footnote 407: Matt. 22. 11.] + +[Footnote 408: Archb. Trench, Notes on the Parables, 1870, p. 234.] + +(3.) _His sinlessness._ + +A most remarkable point has now to be noticed. It is that, +notwithstanding His perfect moral teaching, there is not in the +character of Christ the slightest consciousness of _sin_. In all His +numerous discourses, and even in His prayers, there is not a single +word which implies that He thought He ever had done, or ever could +do, anything wrong Himself. He is indeed most careful to avoid +implying this, even incidentally. Thus He does not tell His +disciples, 'If _we_ forgive men their trespasses,' etc., but 'If +_ye_,' as the former might imply that He, as well as they, had need +of the Father's forgiveness.[409] Nor did He ever regret anything +that He had done, or ever wish that He had acted otherwise. And +though He blamed self-righteousness in others, and urged them to +repentance, He never hinted that He had any need of it Himself; in +fact, He expressly denied it, for He said that He _always_ did those +things that were pleasing to God.[410] + +[Footnote 409: Matt. 6. 14.] + +[Footnote 410: John 8. 29.] + +And this is the more striking when we reflect that good men are, as +a rule, most conscious of their faults. Yet here was One who carried +moral goodness to its utmost limit, whose precepts are admittedly +perfect, but who never for a moment thought that He was not +fulfilling them Himself. Such a character is absolutely unique in +the world's history. It can only be explained by saying that Christ +was not merely a good man, but a _perfect_ man, since goodness +without perfection would only have made Him more conscious of the +faults He had. Yet if we admit this, we must admit more; for +perfection is not a human attribute, and a _sinless life_ needs a +good deal to account for it. + + +(_B._) THE CLAIMS OF CHRIST. + +We pass on now to the _claims_ of Christ; and His high moral +character would plainly lead us to place the utmost confidence in +what He said about Himself. And as we shall see He claimed to be +both _Superhuman_ and _Divine_; and this is how all His +contemporaries, both friends and foes, understood Him. And though it +is impossible to add to the marvel of such claims, yet the fact that +nothing in any way resembling them is to be found among the Jewish +Prophets helps us, at least, to realise their uniqueness. Many of +them are spoken concerning the _Son of Man_; but there can be no +doubt whatever that by this title Christ means Himself.[411] + +[Footnote 411: _E.g._, Matt. 16. 13, 16.] + +(1.) _His Claim to be Superhuman._ + +This is shown by three main arguments, for Christ declared that He +was the Ruler, Redeemer, and final Judge of the world. In the first +place, He claimed to be the _Ruler_ of the world, saying in so many +words that all things had been delivered unto Him, and that He +possessed all authority, both in heaven and on earth.[412] Moreover, +His dominion was to be not only universal, but it was to last for +ever; since after this world had come to an end, the future Kingdom +of Heaven was still to be _His_ Kingdom, its angels were to be _His_ +angels, and its citizens _His_ elect.[413] + +[Footnote 412: Matt. 11. 27; 28. 18; Luke 10. 22.] + +[Footnote 413: Matt. 13. 41; 24. 31.] + +Secondly, Christ claimed to be the _Redeemer_ of the world. He +distinctly asserted that He came to give His life a ransom for many, +and that His blood was shed for the remission of sins. And the +importance He attached to this is shown by the fact that He +instituted a special rite (the Holy Communion) on purpose to +commemorate it.[414] + +[Footnote 414: Matt. 20. 28; 26. 28; Mark 10. 45; 14. 24; Luke 22. +19.] + +Thirdly, Christ claimed to be the final _Judge_ of the world. This +tremendous claim alone shows that He considered Himself quite above +and distinct from the rest of mankind. While they were all to be +judged according to their works, He was to be the Judge Himself, +coming in the clouds of heaven with thousands of angels. And His +decision was to be final and without appeal. Moreover, this +astonishing claim does not depend on single texts or passages, but +occurs all through the first three Gospels.[415] During the whole of +His Ministry--from His Sermon on the Mount to His trial before +Caiaphas--He persistently asserted that He was to be the final Judge +of the world. It is hardly credible that a mere man, however +presumptuous, should ever have made such a claim as this. Can we +imagine anyone doing so at the present day? and what should we think +of him if he did? + +[Footnote 415: Matt. 7. 22; 10. 32; 13. 41; 16. 27; 19. 28; 24. 30; +25. 31-46; 26. 64; and similar passages in the other Gospels.] + +(2.) _His Claim to be Divine._ + +Like the preceding, this is shown by three main arguments; for +Christ declared His Equality, Unity, and Pre-existence with God. In +the first place, Christ claimed _Equality_ with God. He said that +the same honour should be given to Himself as to God the Father; +that men should believe in Him as well as in God; that He and the +Father would together dwell in the souls of men; and that He, like +the Father, had the power of sending the Holy Spirit of God.[416] He +also commanded men to be baptized into His Name as well as into +that of the Father; and promised that whenever and wherever His +disciples were gathered together, He would be in the midst of them, +even unto the end of the world, which, cannot be true of anyone but +God.[417] + +[Footnote 416: John 5. 23; 14. 1, 23; 16. 7.] + +[Footnote 417: Matt. 18. 20; 28. 19, 20.] + +Secondly, Christ claimed _Unity_ with God. He did not say that He +was another God, but that He and the Father were _One_; that He was +in the Father, and the Father in Him; that whoever beheld Him beheld +the Father; that whoever had seen Him had seen the Father.[418] +These latter texts cannot, of course, be pressed literally, as few +would maintain that Christ was really God _the Father_. But just as +if a human father and son were _extremely_ alike, we might say that +if you had seen the son, you had seen the father; so if Christ was +truly God--God the Son--the _very image_ of His Father,[419] the +same language might be used. It would at least be intelligible. But +it would be quite unintelligible, if Christ had been merely a _good +man_. Can we imagine the best man that ever lived saying, If you +have seen me, you have seen God? + +[Footnote 418: John 10. 30; 17. 21; 12. 45; 14. 9.] + +[Footnote 419: Heb. 1. 3.] + +Thirdly, Christ claimed _Pre-existence_ with God. He said that He +had descended out of heaven; that He had come down from heaven; that +He came out from the Father and was come into the world; and that +even before its creation He had shared God's glory.[420] While in +another passage, '_Before Abraham was, I am_,'[421] He not only said +that He existed before Abraham, but by using the words _I am_ +instead of _I was_, He seemed to identify Himself with Jehovah, the +great _I am_, of the Old Testament.[422] + +[Footnote 420: John 3. 13; 6. 38; 16. 28; 17. 5.] + +[Footnote 421: John 8. 58.] + +[Footnote 422: Exod. 3. 14.] + +Turning now to the other side, there are four passages in which +Christ seems to _disclaim_ being Divine. The most important is where +He says that the Son (_i.e._ Himself) does not know the time of the +future Judgment;[423] and the present writer has never seen a really +satisfactory explanation of this. But it may be pointed out that if +we admit that Christ was both Divine and human, it is only fair to +refer any particular statement to that nature, to which it is +applicable; even though the wording seems to suggest the opposite. +In the same way, the passage, that the _Lord of Glory_ was +crucified[424] can only refer to Christ in His _human_ nature, and +not in His Divine nature, as the Lord of Glory. And in His human +nature Christ may have been ignorant of the time of the future +Judgment, just as in His human nature He increased in wisdom and +stature.[425] + +[Footnote 423: Mark 13. 32.] + +[Footnote 424: 1 Cor. 2. 8.] + +[Footnote 425: Luke 2. 52.] + +Then we have the passage where a ruler addresses Christ as '_Good_ +Master,' and Christ demurs to this, saying that the word was only +applicable to God.[426] And how, it is asked, could He have done so, +if He had been both good and God? The best explanation seems to be +that among the Jews, it was the custom never to address a Teacher +(or Rabbi) as _Good_. They said God was 'the _Good One_ of the +world'; it was one of _His_ titles.[427] Therefore as the ruler had +no means of knowing that Christ was God, he was not justified in +thus addressing Him as _Good_. + +[Footnote 426: Mark 10. 18.] + +[Footnote 427: Edersheim's Life and Times of the Messiah, vol. ii., +p. 339.] + +The remaining two passages, 'I go unto the Father; for the Father is +greater than I'; and 'I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and +my God and your God,'[428] are easier to explain, since here it is +obvious that they refer to Christ's _human_ nature alone, as it was +in His human nature alone that He was ever absent from the Father. +And even here He carefully distinguishes His own relationship to God +from that of His disciples. For though He teaches them to say _our +Father_, yet when including Himself with them, He does not here or +anywhere else say _our_ Father, or _our_ God; but always emphasises +His own peculiar position. While we may ask in regard to the first +passage, would anyone but God have thought it necessary to explain +that God the Father was greater than Himself? Anyhow, these passages +do not alter the fact that Christ did repeatedly claim to be both +superhuman and Divine. + +[Footnote 428: John 14. 28; 20. 17.] + +(3.) _How these Claims were understood at the time._ + +We have now to consider how these claims were understood at the +time. And first, as to _Christ's friends_. We have overwhelming +evidence that after His Resurrection all the disciples and early +Christians believed their Master to be both superhuman and Divine. +And to realise the full significance of this, we must remember that +they were not polytheists, who did not mind how many gods they +believed in, and were willing to worship Roman Emperors or anyone +else; but they were strict monotheists. They firmly believed that +there was only one God, yet they firmly believed that Christ was +Divine. This is shown throughout the New Testament. + +Thus the writers of the _first three Gospels_, though they usually +record the events of Christ's life without comment, yet in one +passage identify Him with the God of the Old Testament, referring +the prophecy about the messenger of the _Lord our God_ to the +messenger of _Christ_.[429] And as to the _Fourth Gospel_, it begins +with asserting Christ's Divinity in the plainest terms, saying that +_the Word_, who afterwards became flesh, _was God_. And it +appropriately ended, before the last chapter was added, with St. +Thomas declaring this same belief, when he addressed Christ as _my +Lord and my God_, which titles He fully accepted.[430] Yet +immediately afterwards, the author says he wrote his Gospel to +convince men that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. Evidently +then this expression, _the Son of God_, meant to him, and therefore +presumably to other New Testament writers, who use it frequently, +that Christ was truly God--God the Son--_my Lord and my God_--in the +fullest and most complete sense. + +[Footnote 429: Isa. 40. 3; Matt. 3. 3; Mark 1. 3; Luke 3. 4.] + +[Footnote 430: John 1. 1; 20. 28.] + +With regard to the _Acts_ an argument on the other side is sometimes +drawn from St. Peter's speaking of Christ as 'a _man_ approved of +God unto you by mighty works,' thus implying, it is urged, that St. +Peter did not know Him to be more than man.[431] But since he says +he was only appealing to what his _hearers_ knew to be true (_even +as ye yourselves know_), how else could he have put it? His hearers +did not know that Christ was God; they did know that He was _a man +approved of God_ by many wonderful miracles, because they had seen +them. Moreover, in other places the Acts bear strong witness to the +Divinity of Christ, as for instance when St. Paul speaks _of the +Church of God which He purchased with His own blood_, or St. Stephen +says _Lord Jesus receive my spirit_; or when the Apostles are +represented as working their miracles, not in the name of God the +Father, but in that of Christ.[432] + +[Footnote 431: Acts 2. 22.] + +[Footnote 432: Acts 20. 28; 7. 59; 3. 6; 4. 10.] + +Next, as to the Book of _Revelation_. The evidence this affords is +important, because nearly all critics admit that it was written by +St. John. And if so, it shows conclusively that one at least of +Christ's intimate followers firmly believed in His Divinity. For he +not only speaks of Him as being universally worshipped both in +heaven and on earth, but describes Him as _the First and the Last_, +which is a title used by God in the Old Testament, and is plainly +inapplicable to anyone else.[433] And we may ask, is it conceivable +that an intimate friend of Christ should have believed Him to be the +Everlasting God, unless He had claimed to be so Himself, and had +supported His claim by working miracles, and rising from the dead? +Is it not, rather, certain that nothing but the most _overwhelming_ +proof would ever have convinced a Jew (of all persons) that a fellow +Man, with whom he had lived for years, and whom he had then seen put +to death as a malefactor, was Himself the Lord Jehovah, _the First +and the Last_? + +[Footnote 433: Rev. 5. 11-14; 1. 17, 18; 2. 8; 22. 13; Isa. 44. 6.] + +But it is urged on the other side, that the writer also calls Him +_the beginning of the Creation of God_, as if He had been merely the +first Being created.[434] But the previous passages clearly show +that this was not his meaning. It was rather that Christ was the +_beginning_ of creation, because He was its Source and Agent; He by +whom, as the same writer declares, _all things were made_. And +elsewhere a similar title is given Him for this identical reason, as +He is called _the first-born of all creation_, because _all things +have been created through Him_.[435] + +[Footnote 434: Rev. 3. 14;] + +[Footnote 435: John 1. 3; Col. 1. 15, 16.] + +Equally important evidence is afforded by _St. Paul's Epistles_. For +though he is not likely to have known Christ intimately, he must +have been acquainted with numbers who did, including, as he says, +_James the Lord's brother_.[436] And his early conversion, before +A.D. 35, together with the fact that he had previously persecuted +the Church at Jerusalem, and afterwards visited some of the Apostles +there, must have made him well acquainted with the Christian +doctrines from the very first. Moreover he tells us himself that the +faith which he taught was the same as that which he had previously +persecuted; and that when he visited the Apostles he _laid before +them_ the Gospel he preached, evidently to make sure that it agreed +with what they preached.[437] + +[Footnote 436: Gal. 1. 19.] + +[Footnote 437: Gal. 1. 23; 2. 2.] + +There can thus be no doubt that the Christianity of St. Paul was +the same as that of the Twelve. And all through his Epistles he +bears witness to the _superhuman_ character of Christ; declaring, +among other things, His sinlessness, and that He is the Ruler, +Redeemer, and final Judge of the world.[438] + +[Footnote 438: 2 Cor. 5. 21; Rom. 14. 9; 1 Cor. 15. 3; 2 Cor. 5. +10.] + +He also bears witness to His _Divine_ character, saying in so many +words that He is over all, God blessed for ever; that we shall all +stand before the Judgment-seat of God, which elsewhere he calls the +Judgment-seat of Christ; that He was originally in the form of God +(_i.e._, in a state of Deity), and on an equality with God, before +He became incarnate, and took the form of Man; that in Him dwells +all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; that He is our great God and +Saviour Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for us; and that the Psalmist +prophesied of Him when he said, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and +ever.'[439] This last passage, from the _Hebrews_, was perhaps not +written by St. Paul, but this makes it all the more valuable, as the +Epistle is generally dated, from internal evidence, before the +destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70; and we have thus _another_ early +witness to the Divinity of Christ. + +[Footnote 439: Rom. 9. 5; 14. 10; 2 Cor. 5. 10; Phil. 2. 6; Col. 2. +9; Titus 2. 13; Heb. 1. 8.] + +The most important text on the other side is where St. Paul says +there is _one God the Father_, and _one Lord Jesus Christ_,[440] +which is quoted in the Nicene Creed. But though the statement is a +difficult one, it cannot be pressed as implying that Christ is not +_God_; for if so it would equally imply that the Father was not +_Lord_, which few would contend was St. Paul's meaning. + +[Footnote 440: 1 Cor. 8. 6; _Comp._ Eph. 4. 4-6.] + +With regard to the above passages, it is important to notice that +the allusions are all incidental. St. Paul does not attempt to prove +the superhuman and Divine character of Christ, but refers to it as +if it were undisputed. He evidently believed it himself, and took +for granted that his readers did so too. And his readers included +not only his own converts at Corinth and elsewhere, but the converts +of other Apostles at Rome, which was a place he had not then +visited, and a strong party of opponents in Galatia, with whom he +was arguing. It is clear, then, that these doctrines were not +peculiar to St. Paul, but were the common property of all Christians +from the earliest times. And when combined with the previous +evidence, this leaves no doubt as to how Christ's _friends_ +understood His claims. Whatever they may have thought of them before +the Resurrection, that event convinced them that they were true, and +they never hesitated in this belief. + +Next as to _Christ's foes_. The evidence here is equally convincing. +In St. John's Gospel we read that on several occasions during His +life, when Christ asserted His superhuman and Divine character, the +Jews wanted to kill Him in consequence; often avowing their reason +for doing so with the utmost frankness. 'For a good work we stone +thee not, but for blasphemy and because that thou, being a man, +makest thyself God.'[441] And in thus doing they were only acting +in accordance with their law, which commanded a blasphemer to be +stoned.[442] + +[Footnote 441: John 10. 33; 5. 18; 8. 59; 11. 8.] + +[Footnote 442: Lev. 24. 16.] + +In none of these instances did Christ repudiate the claims +attributed to Him, or say He had been misunderstood. In fact, only +once did He offer any explanation at all. He then appealed to the +passage in the Old Testament, 'I said, Ye are gods,'[443] and +asserted that He was much better entitled to the term, since He was +sent into the world by the Father, and did the works of the Father. +After which He again asserted His unity with the Father, which was +the very point objected to by the Jews. + +[Footnote 443: Ps. 82. 6.] + +Moreover, not only during His life did Christ make these claims to +be Divine, but He persevered with them even when it brought about +His death. It is undisputed that the Jews condemned Him for +_blasphemy_, and for nothing else. This is the teaching not of one +Gospel alone, but of each of the four.[444] Every biography of +Christ that we possess represents this as the real charge against +Him; though, of course, when tried before the Roman governor that of +disloyalty to Cæsar was brought forward as well. + +[Footnote 444: Matt. 26. 65; Mark 14. 64; Luke 22. 71; John 19. 7.] + +There is only one conclusion to be drawn from all this. It is that +Christ did really claim to be both superhuman and Divine; that He +deliberately and repeatedly asserted these claims during His life; +that this provoked the hostility of the Jews, who frequently wanted +to kill Him; that He never repudiated these claims, but persevered +with them to the end; and was finally put to death in consequence. + + +(_C._) THE GREAT ALTERNATIVE. + +We pass on now to the _great alternative_, which is forced upon us +by combining the teaching and the claims of Christ. Before pointing +out its importance we must notice a favourite method of trying to +get out of the difficulty, which is by saying that the teaching of +Christ occurs in the _first three Gospels_, and the claims in the +_Fourth_; so if we deny the accuracy of this single Gospel the +difficulty is removed. But unfortunately for this objection, though +the Divine claims occur chiefly in the Fourth Gospel, the superhuman +ones are most prominent in the other three; and we have purposely +chosen all the passages illustrating them from these Gospels +_alone_. And what is more, they occur in all the supposed _sources_ +of these Gospels--the so-called Triple Tradition, the source common +to Matthew and Luke, etc. Everywhere from the earliest record to the +latest, Christ is represented as claiming to be superhuman. And such +claims are equally fatal to His moral character if He were only a +man. For no good man, and indeed very few bad ones, could be so +fearfully presumptuous as to claim to be the absolute Ruler of the +world, still less to be its Redeemer, and, least of all, to be its +one and only Judge hereafter. + +This objection, then, cannot be maintained, and we are forced to +conclude that the perfect moral teaching of Christ was accompanied +by continual assertions of His own superhuman and Divine character. +And as this was a point about which He must have known, it is clear +that the statements must have been either true or intentionally +false. He must, therefore, have been Divine, or else a deliberate +impostor. In other words, the Christ of the Gospels--and history +knows of no other--could not have been merely a good man. He was +either _God_ as He claimed to be, or else a _bad man_ for making +such claims. This is the _Great Alternative_. + +Moreover, it is absolutely unique in the world's history. Nowhere +else shall we find a parallel to it. In Christ--and in Christ +alone--we have a Man Whose moral character and teaching have +fascinated the world for centuries; and yet Who, unless His own +claims were true, must have been guilty of the greatest falsehood, +and blasphemy. This is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from +the facts we have been considering, and all attempts to avoid it +fail hopelessly. + +Now what effect has this on our present inquiry as to the truth of +Christianity? Plainly it forms another strong argument in its +favour. For the moral teaching of its Founder is shown to be not +only the most perfect the world has ever seen, but it is combined +with a sense of entire sinlessness which is absolutely unique among +men. Both of these, however, are also combined with claims to a +superhuman and Divine character, which, if they are not correct, can +only be described as impious, and profane. Therefore, unless +Christianity is true, its Founder must have been not only the very +_best_ of men; but also one of the very _worst_; and this is a +dilemma from which there is no escape. + + + + +CHAPTER XXII. + +THAT THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY CONFIRMS ITS TRUTH. + + (_A._) ITS EARLY TRIUMPHS. + + (1.) Its immense difficulties. + (2.) Its marvellous success. + (3.) The so-called _natural_ causes of success: they all imply + the truth of the Religion. + (4.) Contrast with Mohammedanism. + + (_B._) ITS LATER HISTORY. + + (1.) Its vitality in the past; very remarkable. + (2.) Its effect at the present; very beneficial. + (3.) Its prospects in the future; very hopeful. + (4.) The spread of _Rationalism_; but this is no new difficulty, + while it shows the strength of Christianity, and being + only destructive, can never take its place. + + (_C._) CONCLUSION. + + The history of Christianity, which seems to have been + foreknown to its Founder, forms another strong argument + in its favour. + + +The argument we have next to consider is that derived from the +_History of Christianity_. This religion, it must be remembered, +originated, spread over, and finally conquered the civilised world +in an historical age. And since the fact of this conquest can +neither be disputed nor ignored, it must be accounted for. How is it +that an obscure Jewish Peasant, who was crucified as a malefactor, +some nineteen centuries ago, should now be worshipped, by over five +hundred million persons, including all the most civilised nations of +the world? As a mere historical problem, this requires some +solution, for an effect in history, as elsewhere, must have an +adequate cause. And it is scarcely too much to say that this is the +most remarkable effect in the history of mankind. Here, then, is the +subject we have to discuss; and we will first consider the _early +triumphs_ of Christianity, and then its _later history_. + + +(_A._) ITS EARLY TRIUMPHS. + +Now it seems hard to exaggerate either the immense difficulties the +religion had to overcome, or its marvellous success in overcoming +them. + +(1.) _Its immense difficulties._ + +In the first place, we must consider the immense difficulties of +founding such a religion as Christianity. Our familiarity with the +subject prevents us from fully realising this, so perhaps an analogy +will help to make it clear. Suppose, then, that missionaries _now_ +appeared in the cities of Europe, in London and Edinburgh, for +example, and preached that an obscure peasant, who had been put to +death somewhere in Persia as a malefactor, had risen from the dead, +and was the God of heaven and earth. What chance would they have of +making a single convert? Yet the first preaching of Christianity at +Rome or Athens must have been very similar to this, only far more +dangerous. Indeed, it is hard to over-estimate the difficulties of +founding a religion, the principal doctrine of which,--and one that +the Christians so boldly proclaimed,--was that of a crucified +Saviour.[445] + +[Footnote 445: 1 Cor. 1. 23.] + +And all this took place among civilised nations, and in a literary, +one might almost say a rationalistic, age; when the old pagan +religions were being abandoned, because men could no longer believe +in them. What, then, must have been the difficulty of introducing a +new religion, which was (apparently) more absurd than any of them, +and which worshipped One Who had been crucified? Christianity had, +of course, many other difficulties to contend with especially in +regard to its absolute claims; for it was a religion which could +stand no rival, and its success meant the destruction of every +heathen altar. But these sink into insignificance, compared with the +great difficulty of the Cross. + +(2.) _Its marvellous success._ + +Yet, in spite of every difficulty, Christianity prevailed. The new +religion spread with great rapidity. This we learn not only from +Christian writers, who might be thought to exaggerate; but from +impartial men such as _Suetonius_ and _Tacitus_. The former says +that in the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54) the Jews in Rome, +_stirred up by one Chrestus_ (_i.e._, Christian Jews), were so +numerous that the Emperor thought it expedient to banish them; and +the latter that at the time of the great fire (A.D. 64) _large +numbers_ of Christians were discovered at Rome. While some years +later _Pliny_, one of the Roman governors in Asia Minor, complained +to the Emperor Trajan that the Christians were so numerous that the +temples had long been deserted, though at the time he wrote (A.D. +112) they were being frequented again. He also bears witness to the +exemplary lives of the Christians, their steadfastness in their +religion, and the divine worship they paid to Christ. And as the +religion did not originate in either Rome or Asia Minor, Christians +were presumably as numerous elsewhere. + +Nor can it be said that they were only to be found among the poor +and ignorant. For Pliny himself admits that they included men of +_every rank_ in life; and the undisputed Epistles of St. Paul, such +as that to the Romans (about A.D. 55), show that he thought his +readers well educated, and quite able to follow a difficult +argument. Moreover, according to the Acts, the people were by no +means willing to accept Christianity without inquiry; and St. Paul +was obliged in consequence to have long discussions on the subject. +This was especially the case at Ephesus, where he _reasoned daily_ +in one of the schools, for about _two years_,[446] which does not +look as if his followers were only among the poor and ignorant. +While elsewhere we have the names of some eminent converts. + +[Footnote 446: Acts 19. 9-10; 17. 17.] + +Among these may be mentioned _Erastus_ the treasurer of the city at +Corinth; and _Crispus_, the ruler of the Synagogue there; +_Dionysius_, the Areopagite at Athens; _Manaen_, the foster-brother +of Herod the tetrarch; _Apollos_, a learned Jew of Alexandria, who +had made a special study of the Scriptures; and _Theophilus_, a man +of high rank (as is shown by the title _Most excellent_), none of +whom are likely to have accepted the religion of the Crucified, +without very strong evidence.[447] And recent discoveries in the +catacombs have made it probable that a distinguished Roman lady, +Pomponia Græcina (wife of the General Aulus Plautius) who Tacitus +says was accused in A.D. 57 of having adopted a _foreign +superstition_, was also a Christian.[448] + +[Footnote 447: Rom. 16. 23; Acts 18. 8; 17. 34; 13. 1; 18. 24; 1. 1; +_comp._ 23. 26; 24. 3.] + +[Footnote 448: J. Orr, Hist. and Lit. of early Church, 1913, p. 43. +Tacitus, Annals, Bk. xiii., ch. 32.] + +Now what was the cause of this wonderful progress? It is easy to say +what was _not_ its cause. Physical force and the authority of the +Government had nothing to do with it. Its missionaries did not +preach with sword in hand, nor were they backed up by the civil +power. All they did, all they could do, was to appeal to man's +reason and conscience, and this appeal was successful. And we learn +from the Christians' themselves, _e.g._, in the Acts, that there +were two main reasons for this. The first was the confident appeal +to the facts of Christianity, such as the Resurrection of Christ, as +undisputed and indisputable; and the second was the occasional aid +of miracles. And the more we reflect on the subject, the more +difficult it is to account for it, without at least one of these +causes. For the spread of Christianity was not like that of a mere +philosophy, or system of morals. It depended entirely on certain +alleged _matters of fact_, which facts were quite recent at the time +of its origin, occurred at the very place where it was first +preached, and were open to the hostile criticism of an entire +nation. This, it is needless to say, is without a parallel in +history. + +But it may be said, notwithstanding this rapid progress at first, +Christianity took nearly three centuries to conquer the civilised +world. Undoubtedly it did, but the significance of the conquest is +not diminished by this. It is rather increased when we remember that +at intervals all through this period the Religion suffered the +fiercest persecution. That it should have survived such a fearfully +prolonged struggle, and have finally conquered, does but show its +inherent strength. We may look in vain for anything like this in the +rest of history. No other religion has ever withstood such +persistent attacks; no other religion has ever obtained such a +complete and almost incredible triumph, the Emperor of the civilised +world being brought to worship One Who had been put to death as a +malefactor. In short, the progress of Christianity was as unique as +its origin, and can only be satisfactorily accounted for by its +truth. + +(3.) _The so-called natural causes of success._ + +We must next glance at some natural causes which have been alleged +as accounting for the wonderful spread of Christianity. Those +brought forward by Gibbon in his _Decline and Fall of the Roman +Empire_ (Chapter XV.) are five in number. The first is the _intense +zeal_ of the early Christians. And doubtless this was a most +important element in spreading their religion. But what gave them +this intense zeal? What was it that made them so fearfully in +earnest about their new religion, that they faced a life of +suffering, and a death of martyrdom in preaching it? There can be +but one answer. It was because they were so absolutely convinced of +its truth. It was vouched for by what they considered overwhelming +evidence, so they willingly risked everything for it. Their zeal, +then, is but evidence for their conviction, and their conviction is +but evidence for the truth of what they were convinced of; and +valuable evidence too, for they plainly had much better means of +knowing about it, than any that we can have. + +Secondly, there is the doctrine of a _future life_; and doubtless +this also had much to do with the success of Christianity. A longing +for immortality seems inherent in man, and the vague guesses of +philosophers were quite unable to satisfy this. It _might_ be true +that men should live again, but that was all they could say. +Christianity alone, resting on the actual fact of Christ's +Resurrection, said it _was_ true; so here men found the assurance +they wanted. But is it likely that Christianity should have so +thoroughly satisfied them in this respect, had there been any real +doubt as to Christ's Resurrection? + +Thirdly, we have the _miracles_ ascribed to the early Christians. +Gibbon's argument here is more difficult to follow. Of course if +these miracles were true, they would have greatly assisted the new +religion; but then they would have been, not a natural but a +supernatural cause of success. If on the other hand, the miracles +were false, it is hard to see how the early Christians could have +helped their religion by claiming miraculous powers which they did +not possess, and which their contemporaries must have known that +they did not possess. + +Fourthly, we have the _pure morality_ taught and practised by the +early Christians. And no doubt this had something to do with helping +their religion. But again we must ask, what was it that enabled the +Christians alone in that age of vice and wickedness to lead pure +lives? They ascribed it themselves to the example and power of their +Founder, and nothing else can account for it. Christian morality +cannot be a stream without a source, and no other source can be +assigned to it. But could a mere human Teacher have had this more +than human influence over thousands of converts, most of whom had +never seen him? + +Lastly, comes the _union_ and _discipline_ of the early Church. This +may have helped Christianity in the later stages of the struggle, +but could obviously have been of little use at the commencement. +Moreover, why should Christians of various nations and classes have +been so thoroughly united on this one subject, unless they were +convinced of its overwhelming importance? On the whole, then, these +so-called natural causes of success are at most only _secondary_ +causes; the truth of the religion is what they all imply, and this +is the real cause which alone can account for its success. + +A better way of explaining the spread of Christianity, which is now +often adopted, is by saying that it arose _at a favourable crisis_. +The dispersion of the Jews throughout the known world would, it is +urged, have facilitated the spread of a religion founded by Jews. +The speculations of the Greeks as to a Divine Word, or _Logos_, +would have prevented the doctrines of the Trinity, and the +Incarnation, from forming any great difficulty to the learned +classes. While the mass of the people were disgusted with the old +mythologies of Greece and Rome. These were dying out, because they +failed to satisfy human nature, and men were longing for something +better. They wanted, as men always will want, a religion; but they +wanted it free from the absurdities and immoralities of Pagan +worship. Christianity then appeared, and as it was found by many to +meet the demand, it naturally succeeded. + +In answer to this it must be remembered that Christianity was not a +religion founded at Rome or Athens, in which case it might perhaps +be said that the demand caused the supply; but it arose as a small +Jewish sect in Palestine. While the fierce persecutions it had to +endure show that it did not obviously meet the requirements of the +day, even apart from the tremendous difficulties involved in the +worship of the Crucified. But now suppose, for the sake of argument, +that this had been otherwise, and that the world was so suited to +receive Christianity as to account for its rapid spread; would the +inference be against its Divine origin? Certainly not; for the +agreement in this case would be far too close to be accidental. It +must have been _designed_. And it would thus show that the God Who +rules in history, is also the God Who introduced Christianity. So +here again the proposed explanation, even if admitted, does but +imply the truth of the religion. + +(4.) _Contrast with Mohammedanism._ + +And this conclusion is rendered still stronger when we contrast the +progress of Christianity with that of Mohammedanism. For here we +have the one example that history affords of the spread of a +religion which can be compared with that of Christianity. Yet the +contrast between the two is very marked, whether we consider the +means by which they were spread, or their alleged evidence of +truthfulness. For Mohammed did not appeal to reason, but to _force_, +and all we have to account for is that he should be able to collect +an army, that this army should conquer, and that the conquered +should adopt the religion of their conquerors, about which they were +often given no option. In the spread of Christianity, on the other +hand, no force whatever was employed, and it had immense +difficulties to contend with. In fact it carried a cross instead of +a sword. Thus the contrast between the two is just what we should +expect between the natural and the supernatural spread of a +religion, the one advancing by worldly power, the other in spite of +it. + +But an even greater contrast has still to be noticed, which is that +Mohammed did not appeal to any _miracles_ in support of his +claims--that is, to outward matters of fact which could be judged of +by other people. And this is the more remarkable since he refers to +the miracles of previous prophets, including those of Christ, as +authentic,[449] but never claims to have worked any himself. The +obvious conclusion is that he felt, as all men must feel, the +overwhelming difficulty of asserting public miracles if none +occurred, and he therefore appealed to force, because he had nothing +better to appeal to. Yet, as we have seen, the early Christians +asserted such miracles from the first. They were not advocates of a +creed, but witnesses for certain facts, such as the Resurrection and +other miracles which they believed they actually saw; and there is +nothing corresponding to this in regard to Mohammedanism, or any +other religion. It may of course be said that Mohammedanism shows +that a religion can make rapid progress without miracles. No doubt +it does; and so does Buddhism, which also spread rapidly. But it +does not show that a religion which, like Christianity, claims to +rest on miracles, can make its way if those miracles are false. + +[Footnote 449: Koran, Sura v.] + + +(_B._) ITS LATER HISTORY. + +We pass on now from the early triumphs of Christianity to its later +history, and will consider in turn its past vitality, its present +effect, and its future prospects. + +(1.) _Its vitality in the past._ + +To begin with, a strong argument in favour of Christianity is its +vitality. It has survived in spite of external assaults and internal +divisions; and its spread and continuity can only be satisfactorily +accounted for by its truth. This is an argument the force of which +increases as times goes on, and fresh difficulties are encountered +and overcome. Moreover, the social state of the world has changed +immensely, yet Christianity has always kept in touch with it. It has +shown itself suitable for different ages, countries, and social +conditions; and, unlike other religions, is still in sympathy with +the highest forms of civilisation. In short, Christianity has kept +possession of the civilised world for sixteen centuries, and is as +vigorous in its age as in its youth. + +Its long reign is indeed so familiar to us that there is a danger of +not noticing its importance. Can we imagine a man _now_ who should +found a religion, which nearly two thousand years hence should be +still flourishing, still spreading, and still recognising him not +only as its founder but its God? Yet this would be but a similar +case to that of Christianity. Amid all the changes in history it +alone has remained unchanged. Its doctrines, at least the essential +ones, contained in the Creeds, have been the same, century after +century, and its Founder is still worshipped by millions. + +(2.) _Its effect at the present._ + +In close connection with the history of Christianity comes its +effect on the world. A religion which has reigned so long, and over +the most civilised nations, must of necessity have had some +influence for good or evil. And with regard to Christianity there +can be little doubt as to the answer. The present state of the +civilised world is a standing witness to its benefits, since nearly +all our moral superiority to the nations of old is due to this +religion. + +For example, it has entirely altered the position of _women_, who +are no longer looked down upon as they used to be. It has also +altered the position of _children_, who were formerly considered as +property, and at the disposal of their parents, infanticide being of +course common. Again, it has changed our ideas as to the _sick_, a +hospital being almost entirely a Christian institution. It has also +changed our ideas about _work_. In all the nations of antiquity, and +in heathen countries at the present day, a workman is looked down +upon. But to Christians, who believe that God Himself worked in a +carpenter's shop, all work is ennobled. Once more, it has created a +respect for _human life_ as such, and apart from the position of the +individual person, which was unknown in ancient times. In short, our +acknowledgement of what are called the _rights of man_ is almost +entirely due to Christianity. Nor is there anything surprising in +this; for the common Fatherhood of God and the common love of Christ +naturally afford the strongest argument for the common rights of +man. In Christ, as St. Paul expresses it, there can be _neither +bond, nor free_; _male nor female_; for all are equal.[450] The good +which Christianity has done is thus indisputable. + +[Footnote 450: Gal. 3. 28.] + +But it may be said, has it not also done some _harm_? What about the +religious wars and persecutions in the Middle Ages? With regard to +the wars, however, religion was, as a rule, the excuse rather than +the cause; for had Christianity never been heard of, there would +doubtless have been wars in the Middle Ages, as in all other ages. +With regard to the persecutions, they must be both admitted and +deplored; but we may ask, what religion except Christianity could +have been mixed up with such persecutions, and yet have escaped the +odium of mankind? Christianity has done so, because men have seen +that it was not the religion itself, but its false friends who were +responsible for the persecutions. The important point is that the +New Testament, unlike the Koran,[451] does not authorise, still less +command, the employment of force in gaining converts. + +[Footnote 451: Koran, Sura viii. 12; ix. 5; xlvii. 4.] + +We now turn to another aspect of the subject. Not only has +Christianity done much good in the past, but it is doing much good +at the present. This also is beyond dispute; anyone can verify the +fact for himself. Thousands of men and women spend their lives in +self-sacrifice among the poor and sick solely for the sake of +Christ. Of course, it may be said that all this is folly and that we +ought to try and benefit our fellow-men for their own sake or for +the sake of the State. But, whether folly or not, the fact remains. +The vast majority of those who visit the poor and sick (Sisters of +Mercy for instance) do not do so for the sake of the State, or even +mainly for the sake of the poor themselves, but from avowedly +Christian motives. They believe that Christ loves these poor, and +therefore they love them too, and willingly spend their lives in +trying to help them. + +It is also a fact that this strange _attraction_ which Christ +exercises, over the hearts of men is unique in history. Can we +imagine anyone spending his life in visiting the sick in some large +town, and saying that he is doing it for the love of David, or of +Plato, or of Mohammed? Yet all through the civilised world thousands +are doing it for the love of Christ. And this influence, be it +observed, is not like that of other great men, local and temporary, +but world-wide and permanent. Christ is thus not only, as we saw in +the last chapter, the _holiest_ of men, but the _mightiest_ of men +also; the Man in short who has most influenced mankind. And, with +trifling exceptions, few will dispute that this influence has been +wholly for good. So judged by its fruits, Christianity is a religion +which might very reasonably have had a Divine origin. + +On the other hand, it must be admitted that though Christianity has +done so much good, it has not entirely reformed the world,--it has +not even stopped wars among Christian nations--and its failure to do +this, after trying for so many centuries, is thought by some to be +adverse to its claims. But others think that its partial success and +partial failure are just what we should expect if it were true. And +what is more to the point, this seems to have been expected by its +Founder, for He always implied that the good and the evil--the wheat +and the tares--were to be mixed together until the end of the world. +Moreover, its failure has been due almost entirely to the +_inconsistency_ of its adherents. If all men were Christians, and +all Christians lived up to the religion they professed, there would +be little to complain of, even in this imperfect world. + +On the whole, then, the _effect_ of Christianity is distinctly in +its favour. It has done much good, and will probably do more as time +goes on; though it has not entirely reformed the world, and probably +never will. But the good it has done is an actual fact which cannot +be disputed, while the argument that it ought to have done more good +is at least open to doubt. + +(3.) _Its prospects in the future._ + +Lastly, the spread of Christianity seems likely to continue, and +some day we may expect to see it universally professed in the world, +as it is in Western Europe at the present time, though, of course, +there will always be individuals who dissent from it. The reasons +for this confident hope are, that, speaking broadly, Christian +nations alone are extending their influence. Japan may, of course, +be quoted as an exception, but strange to say Japan seems to be +becoming Christian. + +And to this must be added the fact that Christian _missions_ are now +being revived to a large extent; and, though they are not always +successful, yet, taken together, they secure a good many converts. +Moreover, there is no other side to this argument. It is not that +Christianity is being adopted in some countries but renounced in +others. The gains, whether great or small, are all _net profits_. +With one exception, there is not a single instance for many +centuries of a nation or tribe which once adopted Christianity +changing its religion to anything else. And the exception, that of +France at the time of the Revolution, strikingly proves the rule; +for the change could not be maintained, and in a few years +Christianity again asserted itself throughout the country. + +(4.) _The spread of Rationalism._ + +But an important objection has now to be examined. It is said that +even in Christian countries an increasingly large number of men +either openly reject Christianity, or give it at most a mere nominal +approval. This may be called the objection from the spread of +_Rationalism_, and it is an important one, because it is an attempt +to meet Christianity with its own weapons, by appealing to reason. +Of course it must be remembered that a great deal of the infidelity +of the present day is not due to reasoning at all, but to the want +of it; and it is hopeless to argue against this. For how can men be +convinced of Christianity, or anything else, if they will not take +the trouble to examine its claims? + +But putting aside this class, there are still many men who may +fairly be called Rationalists--men, that is, who have studied _both_ +sides of the subject, and whose reasoning leads them to reject +Christianity. They admit that there is evidence in its favour, but +they say that it is far from convincing. And it is believed by many +that Rationalism is spreading at the present day, and will +eventually become common among thoughtful men. Now, of course, the +whole of this _Essay_ is really an attempt to meet this objection, +and to show that, when carefully considered, the arguments in favour +of Christianity far outweigh those against it. But three additional +remarks may be made here. + +The first is, that this is no _new_ difficulty. Rationalism has +existed ever since the Middle Ages, and was most aggressive and most +confident in the eighteenth century, as a single quotation will +show. Bishop Butler in the preface to his _Analogy of Religion_, +1736, says, 'It has come, I know not how, to be taken for granted, +by many persons, that Christianity is not so much as a subject of +inquiry, but that it is now at length discovered to be fictitious. +And accordingly they treat it as if, in the present age, this were +an agreed point among all people of discernment; and nothing +remained but to set it up as a principal subject of mirth and +ridicule, as it were by way of reprisals for its having so long +interrupted the pleasures of the world.' It is now nearly two +centuries since these words were written, and Christianity is still +flourishing! Therefore, as all previous attacks have proved futile, +there is no reason to believe that the present one will be more +successful. + +Secondly, these continued assaults on Christianity afford in one +respect additional evidence in its favour; since they show, as +nothing but repeated attacks could show, its _indestructibility_. +Had Christianity never been assailed, its strength would never have +been apparent; but now we know that, try as men will for centuries, +they cannot get rid of this religion. + +Thirdly, it must be remembered that Rationalism is all destructive +and not constructive. It can show many reasons for _not_ believing +in Christianity, but it can give the world nothing which can in any +way take its place. It has no satisfactory solution for the great +problems of life. Why does man exist at all? Why has he got free +will? What is the meaning of sin? Is there any forgiveness for sin? +What is the meaning of death? Is there any life beyond death? Is +there a judgment? Can we dare to face it? Shall we recognise those +whom we have loved on earth? In short, what is man's destiny here +and hereafter? These are the questions which always have interested, +and always will interest, mankind. Rationalists may say that the +Christian answer to them is incorrect; but they can offer no other +which is worth a moment's consideration. + + +(_C._) CONCLUSION. + +Before concluding this chapter one other point of some importance +has to be noticed. It is that the early history of Christianity with +its continual triumph amidst continual persecution, seems to have +been foreknown to its Founder; as well as His own marvellous +influence in the world. + +These _prophecies_ of Christ concerning His own religion are +certainly very striking. We find, on the one hand, a most absolute +conviction as to the triumph of His Church. It was to spread far and +wide; its missionaries were to go into _all the world_ and make +disciples _of all the nations_, and its enemies would never _prevail +against it_.[452] And on the other, there is an equally certain +conviction as to the constant sufferings of its members, who were to +expect life-long persecution and the universal hatred of +mankind.[453] + +[Footnote 452: Mark 16. 15; Matt. 28. 19; 16. 18.] + +[Footnote 453: _E.g._, Matt. 10. 17, 22.] + +Yet these strange prophecies of continual success amidst continual +suffering were for three centuries as strangely fulfilled, including +even the little detail that Christ's followers were to be hated for +His _name's_ sake.[454] Since as a matter of fact they were often +persecuted for the mere _name_, and it was this that made them so +indignant. Thus Justin says, 'You receive the _name_ as proof +against us.... If any deny the _name_ you acquit him as having no +evidence against him.'[455] As Christ foretold, it was literally for +His _name's_ sake. + +[Footnote 454: Mark 13. 13.] + +[Footnote 455: Justin, Apol. 1. 4; 1 Peter 4. 14.] + +Moreover, Christ's assertions regarding His own influence in the +world are equally remarkable. We will give but two examples.[456] He +said, _And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men +unto Myself_. He was lifted up on the cross, and, however strange we +may think it, millions of men have in consequence been drawn to Him +with passionate devotion. Again, He said, _I am the light of the +world_. And now, after nearly nineteen centuries, both friends and +foes admit that His is the teaching which has enlightened and +purified mankind. Had He been a mere Jewish peasant, His making such +prophecies as these seems almost as incredible as their fulfilment. +But what shall we say when they were both made _and_ fulfilled? Have +we not here a powerful argument in favour of Christianity? Nor can +we get out of the difficulty by denying the genuineness of the +passages; for they would be quite as remarkable if invented by an +evangelist, as if spoken by Christ Himself. + +[Footnote 456: John 12. 32; 8. 12.] + +We may now sum up this chapter on the _History of Christianity_. We +have considered in turn, both its early triumphs, and its later +history; and each of these is, strictly speaking, unique, and each +is inexplicable on purely natural grounds. But undoubtedly the more +important is the marvellous success of Christianity at first, in +spite of the immense difficulties it had to encounter; and, as we +have seen, all natural explanations of _this_ fail hopelessly. + +The historical argument, then, leads us back to _miracles_; for +every other explanation of the first triumph of Christianity is +found to be inadequate. While, on the other hand, the establishment +of the Christian religion is just what we should expect if the +miracles were true. And of course true miracles, not false ones, are +required to account for it. The most holy and the most powerful +religion the world has ever seen cannot have been founded on +falsehood or fable. In other words, if we deny that the Christian +miracles occurred, and take from Christ all that is superhuman, we +cannot imagine Him as the Founder of Christianity. There would be an +obvious want of proportion between cause and effect. And, as a +matter of fact, it was not a natural Christ, but a supernatural +Christ--_the Christ of the Gospels_--who won the heart of mankind, +and conquered the world. We seem thus forced to the conclusion that +the only thing which can account for the history of Christianity is +its _truth_. Anyhow, it is plain that its _History_ forms another +strong argument in its favour. + + + + +CHAPTER XXIII. + +THAT ON THE WHOLE THE OTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THIS CONCLUSION. + + Additional arguments for and against Christianity. + + (_A._) CHRISTIANITY AND PRAYER. + + Its universality. There are, however, three difficulties: + + (1.) Scientific difficulty; said to be incredible, as interfering + with the course of nature. + (2.) Moral difficulty; said to be wrong, as inconsistent with + the power, wisdom, and goodness of God. + (3.) Practical difficulty; said to be useless, as shown by + observation; but none of these can be maintained. + + (_B._) CHRISTIANITY AND HUMAN NATURE. + + It is adapted to human nature; for it meets to a great + extent the inherent cravings of mankind, especially in + regard to sorrow and sin, death and eternity. The + objection as to selfishness. + + (_C._) CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS. + + Their comparative study; the Krishna myth; the Horus + myth. Conclusion. + + +We propose in this chapter to consider some of the remaining +arguments for and against Christianity. Fortunately, there are only +three of anything like sufficient importance to affect the general +conclusion. These arise from the relation of Christianity to prayer, +to human nature, and to other religions; and we will examine each in +turn. + +We need not discuss mere _Bible difficulties_, as they are called; +for though some of these are fatal to the theory of Verbal +Inspiration, or that every word of the Bible is true; this is now +held by scarcely anyone. And if the Book is as trustworthy a record +of the facts it relates, as an ordinary History of England, that is +amply sufficient to prove Christianity. + +Nor, on the other hand, need we discuss further evidence in favour +of the Bible. But as we considered what it says about the creation +of the world, we may just notice in passing what it says about its +end. There will be a _great noise_, the elements will be _dissolved +with fervent heat_, and the earth, and all it contains will be +_burned up_.[457] Everyone now admits that this is true, for our +planet will, sooner or later, fall into the sun, when all these +results will follow. But (apart from Revelation) how could the +writer have known it? There is nothing in the present aspect of the +earth to suggest that it will one day be _burned up_, and +considering the amount of water it contains, the idea might well +seem incredible. We pass on now to the subject of Prayer. + +[Footnote 457: 2 Peter 3. 10.] + + +(_A._) CHRISTIANITY AND PRAYER. + +Now the Christian, in common with most other religions, asserts the +value of prayer not only for obtaining what are called spiritual +blessings, but also as a means of influencing natural events. Yet +prayer with such an object is said by many to be scientifically +_incredible_, morally _wrong_, and practically _useless_. So we will +first glance at the universality of the custom, and then consider +these difficulties. + +Now, prayer of some kind is, and always has been, the universal rule +in almost every religion. It is found wherever mankind is found. No +one can point to its inventor, no one can point to a time when men +did not pray. Missionaries have not to teach their converts to pray, +but merely to _Whom_ to pray. In short, prayer of some kind seems +universal, just as man's sense of right and wrong is universal, +though each is capable of being trained and perfected. Nor is it in +any way like an animal's cry of pain when hurt, which, though +universal, means nothing; for this of course resembles a man's cry +of pain, and has no connection with prayer whatever. + +If, then, prayer is a delusion, it is to say the least a very +remarkable one, especially as in most ancient religions prayer was +made to false gods who could not answer it; yet in spite of every +failure, the belief in prayer has always remained. Men have always +preferred to think that the failure was due to their own +unworthiness, rather than give up the belief in a God Who answers +prayer. And this _universality_ of the custom is a strong argument +in its favour; for it seems most unlikely that God should have +implanted in mankind a universal habit of asking if He never +intended to answer. We pass on now to the difficulties. + +(1.) _Scientific difficulty._ + +In the first place, it is said that answers to prayer are +scientifically _incredible_, since they would involve God's +interfering with the course of nature, or, in popular language, +working miracles. The most probable explanation is, that they are +only a particular class of _superhuman coincidences_ (Chapter VII.). +According to this theory, God, knowing beforehand that the prayer +would be offered, arranged beforehand to answer it. Thus the prayer +was not a direct cause of the event which fulfilled it, but it may +still have been an indirect cause. For had the man not prayed, God, +foreknowing this, might not have arranged for the event to have +happened. + +And the same is true even when the prayer is made _after_ the event. +Suppose, for instance, a man heard of the loss of a ship in which +his son was travelling, and prayed for his safety. That safety, as +far as the shipwreck was concerned, must have been decided before +the father prayed. Yet, as everything was foreknown to God, his +subsequent prayer might not have been useless; since, if God had not +known that the father would have prayed, He might not have brought +about the son's safety. + +Of course, it may be said that this is making the cause come after +the effect, and is therefore absurd. No doubt it would be so if +merely physical forces were involved; but when we are dealing with +personal beings, able to foresee and act accordingly, there is +nothing impossible in a cause happening after what was in a certain +sense its effect. For instance, my going for a holiday next week may +be the cause of my working hard this; though, strictly speaking, it +is my _foreknowledge_ of the intended holiday, that leads to my +working hard. So in the case before us. It is God's _foreknowledge_ +that the prayer will be offered, that leads Him to answer it; but +for all practical purposes this is the same as if the prayer itself +did so. + +Therefore this theory does not detract from the value and importance +of prayer any more than God's foreknowledge in other respects makes +human conduct of no importance. In every case God foreknows the +result, not in spite of, but because He also foreknows, the man's +conduct on which it depends. While if we admit what is called God's +_Immanence_ in nature, and that everything that occurs is due to the +present and immediate action of His Will (Chapter VII.), it greatly +lessens any remaining difficulty there may be in regard to prayer. + +From this it is plain that answers to prayer may, without losing +their value, be regarded as superhuman coincidences; and, if so, +they do not involve any interference with the ordinary course of +nature, and all scientific difficulties are at an end. + +(2.) _Moral difficulty_. + +In the next place, prayer is said to be morally _wrong_, since it is +inconsistent with each of the three great attributes of God. It is +inconsistent with His _Power_, by implying that He is partly under +the control of men; with His _Wisdom_, by implying that He has to be +informed of what we want; and with His _Goodness_, by implying that +He cannot be trusted to act for the best, without our interference. + +But with regard to God's _Power_, no one who prays supposes that God +is under the control of his prayers, but merely that He may freely +choose to be influenced by them. Insignificant as man is in +comparison with his Maker, we have already shown that God takes an +interest in his welfare. And admitting this, there is nothing +improbable in His being influenced by a man's prayer. Nor is this in +any way trying to persuade Him to change His Will, since as +everything was foreknown to God, the prayer with all it involved, +may have been part of His Will from all eternity. Nor does it +reflect on His _Wisdom_, for no one who prays supposes that prayer +is for the information of God, but merely that it is the way in +which He wishes us to show our trust in Him. + +And then, as to God's _Goodness_. As a matter of fact, God does not +wait for us to pray before sending most of His blessings; but a few +of them are said to be conditional on our praying. And this is quite +consistent with perfect goodness. Human analogy seems decisive on +the point. A father may know what his child wants, may be quite +willing to supply that want, and may yet choose to wait till the +child asks him. And why? Simply because supplying his wants is not +the whole object the father has in view. He also wishes to train the +child's character; to teach him to rely upon and trust his father, +and to develop his confidence and gratitude. And all this would be +unattainable if the father supplied his wants as a machine would do; +in which case the child might perhaps forget that his father was not +a machine. + +Now, for all we know, precisely the same may be the case with regard +to prayer. God may wish not only to supply man's wants, but also to +train and develop his character. Indeed, as shown in Chapter V., +the existence of evil seems to force us to this very conclusion. And +if so, it is out of the question to say that His not giving some +blessings till they are asked for is inconsistent with perfect +goodness. It may be a very proof of that goodness. For, as already +said, God's goodness does not consist of simple beneficence, but +also of righteousness. And, as a general rule, it certainly seems +right that those who believe in God, and take the trouble to ask for +His blessings, should be the ones to receive them. + +And here we may notice another moral difficulty, which is sometimes +felt in regard to prayers _for others_. They are said to be +_unjust_, since one man's success would often mean another's +failure. Suppose, for instance, a man is going in for a competitive +examination, say a scholarship or a clerkship; and a friend of his +prays that he may get it. Of course in most cases this will not +affect the issue; but all who believe in the power of prayer must +admit that in _some_ cases it will. Yet is not this hard on the next +competitor, who loses the scholarship in consequence? + +It certainly seems so. But it is only part of a more general +difficulty. For suppose the man's friend instead of praying for him, +sent him some money to enable him to have a tutor. Is not this +equally hard on the other man? Yet no one will say that his having +the tutor could not affect the result; or that his friend acted +unfairly in sending him the money. So in regard to prayer. Indeed of +all ways of helping a friend, praying for him seems the fairest; +since it is appealing to a Being, Who we know will always act +fairly; and will not grant the petition, unless it is just and right +to do so. The objection, then, that prayer is morally wrong cannot +be maintained from any point of view. + +It is, however, only fair to add that a certain class of prayers +would be wrong. We have no right to pray for _miracles_, _e.g._, for +water to run uphill, or for a dead man to come to life again; though +we have a right to pray for any ordinary event, such as rain or +recovery from sickness. The reason for this distinction is obvious. +A miracle is, in popular language, something contrary to the order +of nature; and as the order of nature is merely the Will of Him who +ordered nature, it would be contrary to God's Will. And we must not +ask God to act contrary to what we believe to be His Will. + +Of course it may be said that to pray for rain, when otherwise it +would not have rained, really involves a miracle. But here +everything depends on the words _when otherwise it would not have +rained_. If we knew this for certain, it would be wrong to pray for +rain (just as it would be wrong for the father to pray for his son's +safety after hearing that he had been drowned) not knowing it for +certain, it is not wrong. Therefore as we do know for certain that +water will not run uphill without a miracle, it is always wrong to +pray for that. In the same way we may pray for fruitful crops, +because it is plainly God's Will that mankind should be nourished; +but we may not pray to be able to live without food, since this is +plainly not God's Will. No doubt, in the Bible, miracles were +sometimes prayed for, but only by persons who acted under special +Divine Guidance; and this affords no argument for our doing so. + +(3.) _Practical difficulty._ + +Lastly, it is said, even admitting that prayers might be answered, +yet we have abundant evidence that they never are; so that prayer at +the present day is _useless_. But several points have to be noticed +here; for no one asserts that _all_ prayers are answered. Various +conditions have to be fulfilled. A person, for instance, must not +only believe in God, and in His power and willingness to answer +prayers; but the answer must be of such a kind that it would be +right to pray for it. Moreover, he must be trying to lead such a +life as God wishes him to lead; and also be honestly exerting +himself to gain the required end, for prayer cannot be looked upon +as a substitute for work. + +And this prevents our deciding the question by _experiment_, as is +sometimes urged. Why not, it is said, settle the question once for +all by a test case? But this is impossible, since in the vast +majority of cases we cannot say whether the above conditions are +fulfilled or not; and even if we could, it would still be +impracticable. For prayer is the earnest entreaty that God would +grant something we earnestly desire; and if used as an experiment, +it ceases to be genuine prayer altogether. + +But it is further urged that though we cannot decide by experiment +we can by _observation_. The facts, however, can be explained on +either theory. Suppose, for instance, an epidemic breaks out, and +prayer is at once made that it may cease; but instead of ceasing, it +continues for a week, and kills a hundred persons. How do we know +that but for the prayers it might not have continued for a month and +killed a thousand? And the same argument applies in other cases. + +Against these various objections we must remember that an immense +number of men of many ages and countries, and of undoubted honesty +and intelligence have asserted that their prayers have been +answered; and the cumulative value of this evidence is very great. +While, to those who possess it, the conviction that certain events +happened, not accidentally, as we might say, but in answer to some +prayer, is absolutely convincing. + +None of these difficulties, then, can be maintained. There is +nothing _incredible_ in prayers being answered, they are not +_wrong_, and many of those who ought to know best (_i.e._, those who +pray) assert that they are not _useless_. + + +(_B._) CHRISTIANITY AND HUMAN NATURE. + +The next subject we have to consider is a very important one, the +_adaptation_ of Christianity to human nature. To begin with, it is +undeniable that Christianity appeals very strongly to some, at +least, among every class of men. The poor value it as much as the +rich, the ignorant as much as the learned; children can partly +understand it, and philosophers can do no more. And this is not only +the case at the present time, but it has been so among all the +changing conditions of society for eighteen centuries. + +Now, when we inquire into the reason of this powerful hold which +Christianity has on so many men, we find it is because it meets +certain inherent cravings of human nature. Some of these, such as +man's belief in prayer, and his sense of responsibility, are of +course satisfied by any form of Theism. So also is his idea of +justice, which requires virtue and vice to be suitably rewarded +hereafter, since they are not here. But man's nature has many other +cravings besides these; yet Christianity seems to satisfy it +everywhere. + +We will consider four points in detail and select _Sorrow_ and +_Sin_, _Death_ and _Eternity_. The first three, and possibly the +fourth, all have to be faced; they are the common heritage of all +mankind. And while Rationalism does not help us to face any of them, +and Natural Religion leaves much in uncertainty, Christianity meets +the needs of mankind throughout, or at all events far better than +any other religion. + +And first, as to _Sorrow_. It is indisputable that in this life man +has to bear a great deal of sorrow and suffering; and it is also +indisputable that when in sorrow he longs for someone who can both +sympathise with him, and help him. An impersonal God can, of course, +do neither; indeed, we might as well go for comfort to the force of +gravity. And though a personal God can help us, we do not feel sure +that He can sympathise with us. On the other hand, fellow-men can +sympathise, but they cannot always help. In Christ alone we have a +Being Who entirely satisfies human nature; for being Man, He can +sympathise with human sorrow, and being God, He can alleviate it. +So here Christianity supplies a universal want Of course, the +doctrine of the _Incarnation_ also satisfies mankind in other +respects, especially in presenting him with a worthy Being for his +affections, and with a perfect Example; but these points have been +already noticed in Chapter XIII. + +Next, as to _Sin_. Here again the facts are practically undisputed. +Man's sense of sin is universal, so also is his belief in the +justice of God; and therefore in all ages man has longed for some +means of appeasing the Deity. The widespread custom of sacrifice is +a conclusive proof of this. Yet, wherever Christianity has been +accepted, such sacrifices have been abandoned. It is scarcely +necessary to point out the reason for this. The Christian doctrine +of the _Atonement_ entirely satisfies these cravings of mankind. It +admits the fact of sin; it provides a sufficient Sacrifice for sin, +which man could never provide for himself, and it thus assures him +of complete forgiveness. Yet, as shown in Chapter XIII., it does all +this without in any way lessening the guilt of sin, or allowing man +to sin on with impunity; for it makes _repentance_ an essential +condition of forgiveness. + +Moreover, Christianity proves that sin is not a necessity in human +nature; for it alone of all religions can point to One Who, though +tempted as we are, was yet without sin. And Christ's temptations +were probably greater than any that we can have. For it is only when +a man _resists_ a temptation that he feels its full force, just as +only those trees that were _not_ blown down, felt the full force of +the gale. Therefore Christ alone, because He was sinless, can have +felt the full force of every temptation. And Christians assert, and +they surely ought to know best, that this example of Christ is a +strong help in enabling them to resist temptation. + +Next, as to _Death_. Here again the facts are undisputed. Few +persons like to contemplate their own death, yet it is the one event +to which we may look forward with certainty. But is there a life +after death? Most men long for it, and most religions have tried to +satisfy this longing in one way or another, but only with partial +success. The higher nature of man revolts against any mere material +or sensual heaven, while a purely spiritual heaven does not satisfy +him either; for a man longs to know that he will be able to +recognise again those whom he has loved on earth. This is indeed one +of our deepest, strongest, and most universal longings (who is there +that has not felt it?), yet there must always be some doubt as to +recognising a spirit. + +And here again the Christian doctrine of the _Resurrection of the +Body_ alone satisfies the cravings of mankind; for all doubt is now +at an end. The risen body will define and localise man's spirit +then, just as the natural body does now; and though there will be a +great change, it will not prevent recognition. Even the Apostles, +though unprepared for it, and though themselves unaware of what a +risen body was like, were soon able to recognise Christ after His +Resurrection. + +There is, of course, the well-known difficulty as to the _period of +life_ of the risen body. A man, it is said, would only be recognised +by his grandfather, if he remained a child; and by his grandson, if +he were an old man. But the difficulty is not so great as it seems; +for in this life a man who has not seen his son, since he was a +child, may not be able to recognise him in later years, in the sense +of knowing him by sight. But he may be immensely pleased to meet him +again, and live near him, especially if in the meanwhile the son had +done well, and been a credit to his father. Moreover, the risen body +will show us, for the first time, what a man really is, when his +accidental surroundings, such as wealth or poverty, have been +removed; and his character is at length perfected. And perhaps we +shall then see that all that is best in the various states in which +he has lived here--the affection of childhood, the activity of +boyhood, and the mature judgment of manhood--will be combined in the +risen body. + +And though it is somewhat tantalising not to know more about this +future life, very possibly we are not told more, because we should +not be able to understand it if we were. Even in this world it is +doubtful if a savage or a young child could understand the +intellectual life of a civilised man, however carefully it might be +explained to him; and practically certain that an ape could not. And +for all we know our own future life may be as far beyond our present +understanding. It is the _Great Surprise_ in store for us all. But +however much we may be changed, our personal identity will still +remain, _I shall be I, and you will be you_, with much the same +characters as we have at present. This is the important point, and +of this we may be quite sure. + +Lastly, as to _Eternity_. Christianity, it is true, can say little +here, but that little is full of hope. It opens up boundless +possibilities, far more than any other religion. For by the +Incarnation human nature has been united to the Divine, and thus +raised to a position second only to that of God Himself. No destiny, +then, that can be imagined is too great for man. Created in the +image of the Triune God, with a supernatural freedom of choice; his +nature united to God's by the Incarnation; his sins forgiven through +the Atonement; his body purified and spiritualised at its +Resurrection--surely the end of all this cannot be any mere +monotonous existence, but rather one of ceaseless joy and activity. +Heaven has been called the _last act_ in God's drama of the +universe. And considering the magnitude of the previous acts--the +formation of the solar system, the development of organic life, +etc.--we should expect this last act to be on a scale equally vast +and magnificent, and as far above anything we can imagine as the +life of a butterfly is above the imagination of a chrysalis. + +Now the conclusion to be drawn from all this is quite plain. +Christianity is so adapted to man's nature that it probably came +from the Author of man's nature; just as if a complicated key fits a +complicated lock, it was probably made by the same locksmith. And +since Christianity is meant for all mankind, and the vast majority +of men have neither time nor ability to examine its proofs, the +fact of its thus appealing direct to human nature is certainly a +strong argument in its favour. + +But we must now consider an objection. It is, that Christianity is +really a _selfish_ religion, looking only for future rewards, and +teaching men to follow virtue, not for virtue's sake, but solely +with a view to their own advantage. But this is an entire mistake, +though a very common one. The Christian's motive, in trying to lead +such a life as God wishes him to lead, is simply _love_. He has, as +already said, an overwhelming sense of God's love to him. And +though, doubtless, leading a good life will bring with it some +future reward, yet this is not the true motive for leading it. +Compare the case of a young child trying to please his parents +simply because he loves them. It would be unjust to call this +selfishness, though it may be quite true that the parents will do +much for the child later on in life, which they would not have done +had the child never shown them any affection. + +Nor, to take another example, is it selfishness for a young man to +put aside a certain amount of his earnings for his old age, when he +will be unable to work, though it will certainly be to his own +advantage. Selfishness is having regard to one's self, _at the +expense of other people_. But this does not apply to a Christian +striving after his own salvation. The _Great Ambition_, as it is +called, is one which all may entertain, all may work for, and all +may realise. + +Still, it may be asked, is not the hope of future reward meant to +influence men at all? No doubt it is to some extent. But what then? +Hope is undoubtedly a powerful motive in human nature, and therefore +Christianity, by partly appealing to this motive, does but show how +fully adapted it is to human nature. It provides the highest motive +of _love_ for those able to appreciate it; the lower motive of +_hope_ of future reward for the many who would not be reached by the +former; and we may add, the still lower motive of _fear_ of future +punishment for those who could not be otherwise influenced. This +objection, then, as to selfishness is quite untenable. + + +(_C._) CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS. + +We have lastly to consider the relation in which Christianity stands +to other religions; since an argument against Christianity is often +drawn from their _comparative study_. In far more ancient religions, +it is alleged, we find similar doctrines to those of the Trinity, +the Incarnation, the Atonement, and the Resurrection; and this is +fatal to the claim of Christianity to be the one and only true +Religion. + +But as to the doctrine of the _Trinity_, it is really unique. Some +other religions, it is true, had a group of three gods; but this was +merely a form of Polytheism. And though these gods were often +addressed by the same titles, there does not appear to have been +anything resembling the Christian idea of the Triune God. + +Next, as to the _Incarnation_. This is said to resemble similar +doctrines of other ancient religions, more especially the +incarnation of _Krishna_. For though he was not (as is sometimes +asserted) born of a virgin, being the eighth son of his +parents;[458] he is yet believed to have been in some sense an +incarnation of the supreme god Vishnu. And he is recorded to have +worked various miracles similar to those of Christ, and to have +claimed an equally absolute devotion from his followers. Most +scholars, however, now place these legends some centuries later +than the Christian era; and considering the early spread of +Christianity in India, and the similarity in name between Krishna +and Christ, they may be only distorted versions of the Gospel story. + +[Footnote 458: Tisdall, Christianity and Other Faiths, 1912, p. 89.] + +But even were they earlier than Christianity, it seems impossible +for them to have influenced it. For not only is India many hundreds +of miles from Palestine, but there is also a great moral difficulty. +Since the miracles and occasional lofty teaching of Krishna are +associated all along with a most immoral character. In the Gospels, +on the other hand, they occur among suitable surroundings, and form +perfect parts of a perfect whole. A single example will illustrate +this difference. On one occasion, Krishna is related to have healed +a deformed woman, very similar to the story in Luke 13. But it is +added he made her beautiful as well as whole, and subsequently spent +the night with her in immorality. Few will contend that this was the +origin of the Gospel story; and it is but one instance out of +many.[459] + +[Footnote 459: Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxi., p. +169.] + +Any resemblance, then, there may be between the Incarnation of +Krishna and that of Christ cannot be due to Christianity having +borrowed from the other religion. A far better explanation is to be +found in the fact that man has almost always believed that God takes +an interest in his welfare. And this inherent belief has naturally +led him to imagine an incarnation, since this was the most fitting +method by which God could make Himself known to man. And then this +supposed incarnation was of course attended by various miracles of +healing, somewhat similar to those of Christ, though often mixed up +with immoral ideas, from which the Christian doctrine is entirely +free. + +Next, as to the _Atonement_, especially the position of Christ, as +the _Mediator_ between God and man. This also is said to resemble +far older legends, such as the _Horus_ myth of ancient Egypt. The +leading idea here seems to have been that Horus was the only son of +the supreme God Osiris, and came on earth long ago, before the time +of man. He was always looked upon as the champion of right against +wrong, and nothing but lofty and noble actions are ascribed to him. +With regard to mankind, he became their deliverer and justifier. The +soul after death was supposed to pass through a sort of Purgatory; +where various dangers were overcome by the help of Horus; and +finally, when judged before Osiris, he interceded for the faithful +soul and ensured its salvation. And what makes the resemblance to +Christianity all the more striking are the titles ascribed to Horus; +such as _the Only Begotten Son of the Father_, _the Word of the +Father_, _the Justifier of the Righteous_, and _the Eternal_ +_King_. But the titles of Horus are very numerous, and very +contradictory; therefore, while some of them bear such a striking +resemblance to those of Christ, others do not; and many of them are +also applied to the other gods.[460] + +[Footnote 460: Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xii., p. +52.] + +But still the position of Horus, as a mediator between God and man, +undoubtedly resembles that of Christ. But what is the cause of this +similarity? Not surely that the Christian doctrine was founded on +that of Horus. As in the previous case, there is another and far +better solution. For what was the origin of the Egyptian doctrine +itself? It was simply this. The ancient Egyptians firmly +believed in the _justice_ of God; the _immortality_ of man; his +_responsibility_, involving a future judgment; and his _sinfulness,_ +which naturally made him long for some mediator with the just Judge +he would have to face hereafter. Given these four ideas--and they +all belong to Natural Religion--and Horus was merely an imaginary +being, who was thought to satisfy them. Hence, if these ideas are +true, and if Christianity is the true religion, which really does +satisfy them, that Horus should to some extent resemble Christ seems +inevitable. Thus the Horus myth only proves how deeply rooted in the +human mind is the idea of a _mediator_ between God and man. + +Lastly, as to the doctrine of the _Resurrection_, more especially +that of Christ. Numerous analogies have been suggested for this, but +none of them are at all satisfactory. Thus the Egyptian god Osiris +is recorded as doing a great deal after his death; but he is only +supposed to have done this by living on in the _spirit_, and there +is no hint that his _body_ was restored to life, in the sense in +which Christ's was; and the same may be said in other cases.[461] +While the way in which the educated Athenians (who must have known a +good deal about heathen religions) treated St. Paul, when he +proclaimed the Resurrection of Christ, shows how absolutely novel +they considered the doctrine.[462] + +[Footnote 461: Tisdall, Christianity and Other Faiths, 1912, p. +153.] + +[Footnote 462: Acts 17. 19, 32; 26.8.] + +We must also remember that the Christian doctrines of the +Incarnation, the Atonement, and the Resurrection, were not slowly +evolved, but were essential features in Christianity from the very +first. They are all strongly insisted on by St. Paul. And this alone +seems fatal to the idea of their having been derived from the myths +of India, Egypt, and elsewhere. + +On the whole, then, it is evident that the _comparative study_ of +religions, instead of being against Christianity, is distinctly in +its favour; for it shows, as nothing but a comparative study could +show, its striking superiority. Human nature is always the same, and +in so far as other religions have satisfied human nature, they have +resembled Christianity. On the other hand, Christianity differs +from them in being free from their various absurdities and +contradictions, as well as from their tendency to degenerate; and +having instead a moral character of admitted excellence, and +powerful evidence by which to establish its actual truth. In short, +other religions are _human_; and therefore, as man is a mixture of +good and evil, they contain some good (what we now call Natural +Religion) and some evil. But Christianity is _superhuman_; and +therefore contains all the good they do, with much more besides, and +with none of their evil. This completes a brief examination of the +more important additional arguments for and against Christianity. + + + + +CHAPTER XXIV. + +THAT THE THREE CREEDS ARE DEDUCIBLE FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. + + Only three Doctrines can be disputed. + + (_A._) THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. + + In addition to belief in God the Father, the New Testament + teaches-- + + (1.) The Divinity of Christ. + (2.) The Divinity of the Holy Spirit; so there are + (3.) Three Divine Persons and yet but One God. + + (_B._) THE FINAL STATE OF THE WICKED. + + The only alternatives are: + + (1.) Their endless misery: very strong texts in favour of + this; its difficulties considered. + (2.) Their endless happiness: most improbable. + (3.) Their destruction: more likely than the last, but still + improbable. On the whole the statement of the + Creed seems fully justified. + + (_C._) THE IMPORTANCE OF A TRUE BELIEF. + + This is strongly insisted on in the warning clauses of the + Athanasian Creed. + + (1.) Their meaning. + (2.) Their truthfulness: they merely repeat similar warnings + in the New Testament. + (3.) The objection as to dogmatism. + + +We have now reached the last stage in our inquiry. We have shown in +the previous chapters that there is very strong evidence in favour +of what may be called in a general sense, Christianity or the +Christian Religion--_i.e.,_ the Religion founded by Christ and +taught in the New Testament. We have, lastly, to inquire, is this +Religion correctly summarised in the doctrines and statements of the +_Three Creeds_? And the only doctrines that can be disputed, are +found in the Athanasian Creed, and refer to the _Trinity_; the +_Final State of the Wicked;_ and the importance of a _True Belief_: +each of which we will examine in turn. + + +(_A._) THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. + +Now, although there are no statements in the New Testament identical +with those in the Creed, yet the latter are merely logical +deductions from the former. For the New Testament asserts that, +besides God the Father, there are two other Divine Persons, Christ +and the Holy Spirit, and yet but one God. + + +(1.) _The Divinity of Christ_. + +This has already been discussed in Chapter XXI., where we showed +that Christ claimed to be not only Superhuman, but Divine; and that +this is how His contemporaries, both friends and foes, understood +Him. The doctrine is also asserted by St. Paul, as well as by St. +John, who in the opening verse of his Gospel, states it very +concisely, saying that the Word (_i.e._, Christ) _was with God_, +implying a distinction of Persons, and _was_ God, implying a unity +of Nature; which is the exact doctrine of the Creed. + + +(2.) _The Divinity of the Holy Spirit._ + +This also follows at once from the New Testament. For the Holy +Spirit is called by Divine names, such as God and Lord; He is given +Divine attributes, such as Eternity and Omniscience; and He is +identified with Jehovah, the Lord of Hosts, of the Old Testament.[463] + +[Footnote 463: Acts 5. 3, 4; 2 Cor. 3.17; Heb. 9. 14; 1 Cor. 2. 10; Acts +28. 25; Isa. 6. 5-10.] + +And yet, He is a distinct _Person_: for, to quote a decisive +text,[464] Christ prays the Father to send His disciples _another_ +Comforter when He goes away; thus showing that the Holy Spirit is a +different Person, both from the Father and the Son. And elsewhere we +are told that the Spirit _makes intercession for us_, which again +shows that He must be a different Person from the Father, with Whom +He intercedes.[465] While in another passage blasphemy against the +Holy Ghost is said to be the worst of all sins;[466] which shows +both that He is a _Person_, or He could not be blasphemed; and that +He is _God_, or blasphemy against God would be a greater sin. + +[Footnote 464: John 14. 16, 26; 15. 26.] + +[Footnote 465: Rom. 8. 26.] + +[Footnote 466: Matt. 12. 31, 32; Mark 3. 28, 29.] + +No doubt the actual word _Person_ is not applied to the Holy Spirit +in the New Testament, just as it is not applied to either the Father +or the Son, but it cannot be thought inappropriate, provided it is +not taken in a literal, or human sense. For the relations between +Them closely _resemble_ those between human persons, as They love +one another, speak to one another, and use the personal pronouns I, +Thou, He, and We. + + +(3.) _Three Divine Persons and yet but One God._ + +It is clear, then, from the New Testament, that the Father, the Son, +and the Holy Spirit are all Persons, and all Divine; and yet the +fact of there being but one God is at times plainly asserted.[467] +Now the only means of reconciling all this is by the doctrine of +the Trinity in Unity. And this is plainly hinted at in the New +Testament itself, for the Three Persons are often closely associated +together, as for instance in the text just alluded to, where +_Christ_ prays _the Father_ to give His disciples _another +Comforter_. + +[Footnote 467: Mark 12. 29; 1 Cor. 8. 4.] + +Quite naturally, then, just before His Ascension, Christ completed +this earlier teaching by finally, and for ever, joining the Three +Persons together, when He commanded Christians to be baptized _into +the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost_.[468] +And this alone is sufficient to prove the doctrine, for it shows +that there are _Three_ distinct Persons, and that each is _Divine_, +for who but God could be thus associated with God? While the +expression into the _name_ and not _names_, implies a unity in this +Trinity. + +[Footnote 468: Matt. 28. 19.] + +And we happen to have indirect evidence from the _Acts_, that +baptism was administered in this way. For when St. Paul found some +disciples, who said they knew nothing about the Holy Ghost; he at +once asked, 'Into what then were ye _baptized_?'[469] Obviously, +then, the baptism to which St. Paul was accustomed must have been +into the name of the Holy Ghost, as well as into that of Christ; and +the Father's name could scarcely have been omitted. Yet immediately +afterwards we are told that they were baptized _into the Name of the +Lord Jesus_. In the same way the 'Teaching of the Twelve' once +speaks of baptism as _into the Name of the Lord_; and twice as _into +the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy +Ghost_.[470] The former seems to have been only a short way of +describing Christian baptism, (in distinction from that of the Jews, +or of St. John the Baptist), while the latter represented the actual +words used.[471] + +[Footnote 469: Acts 19. 3.] + +[Footnote 470: Teaching, chaps. vii. and ix.] + +[Footnote 471: _Comp._ Acts 2. 38; 8. 16; 18. 25; I Cor. 10. 2.] + +Similarly St. Paul sometimes closes his Epistles with the shorter +form of blessing. _The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you_; +once with an intermediate form, naming the Father and Christ; and +once with the longer form, _The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and +the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you +all_.[472] This latter passage, the genuineness of which is +undisputed, is of course extremely important, in fact like the +preceding one it is practically conclusive; for again we must ask, +who but God could be thus associated with God? If Christ were a mere +human prophet, like Isaiah for instance; and the Holy Spirit a mere +influence for good; what strange language it would be. Can we +imagine anyone blessing his converts with, The grace of Isaiah, the +love of God, and the fellowship of a holy influence--God, it will be +noticed, being placed _between_ the other two, so there can be no +ascending or descending scale, they must all be equal? + +[Footnote 472: 1 Cor. 16. 23; Gal. 6. 18; Eph. 6. 23; 2 Cor. 13. +14.] + +And as St. Paul takes for granted that his readers would understand +his meaning, it implies that they had had some previous teaching on +the subject, which must clearly have been given them by St. Paul +himself on his first visit. And at that early date (about A.D. 50) +such teaching could scarcely have originated except from what Christ +Himself had taught. This passage, then, implies more than it says, +and needs explanation; and as far as we know the former one alone +can explain it. + +And of course the same is true, though to a lesser degree, of +numerous other Trinitarian passages which occur all through the +Epistles, including the earliest (1 Thess., about A.D. 50).[473] +Nowhere do the writers seem to be explaining anything new to their +converts; but merely to be touching on a truth, with which all +Christians were of course familiar. Indeed, the very fact of their +never attempting to explain or defend the doctrine, shows +conclusively that it did not originate with _them_. Persons do not +preach a new doctrine without a word of explanation or comment, as +if every one already believed it. + +[Footnote 473: _E.g._, Rom. 15. 30; Eph. 4. 4-6; 1 Thess. 1. 3-5; 1 +Peter 1. 2; Jude 20-21.] + +Thus, to put it shortly, according to the New Testament, there are +_Three_ distinct Persons; each is God, each is Lord, each is +Eternal, each is Omniscient, into the Name of each converts are +baptized, each is referred to in Blessing; and yet there is but +_One_ God. This is what the Bible says, and the Creed says the same, +though it says it in more logical language. + + +(_B._) THE FINAL STATE OF THE WICKED. + +We pass on now to what is perhaps the most difficult of all +subjects, the final state of the wicked. The Creed asserts that all +men are to rise again with their bodies, and be judged according to +their _works_; and that then, _they that have done good shall go +into life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting +fire_. This latter expression can scarcely be taken literally, since +it is associated in the Bible with another--_the worm that dieth +not_--which cannot be literal, as worms do not live for ever, and +cannot live at all in fire. While it is said to have been prepared +for evil spirits who have no material bodies. Moreover, the joys of +heaven are also represented by terms which are clearly not literal; +such as attending a wedding, feasting with Abraham, and wearing +crowns. Probably we are not at present able to understand the +realities in either case, so figures of some kind have to be used; +and those associated with gladness and happiness are of course +chosen for the one, and those with pain and woe for the other. + +But the language certainly implies some form of _endless misery_; +and as there are obvious difficulties in accepting such a view, we +must discuss the subject carefully. It may be pointed out at +starting that we have only three theories to choose from; for unless +the wicked are to be in a continual state of change, which seems +almost incredible (for a state of change cannot go on for ever, +unless it is recurring) they must finally either exist for ever in +_misery_, or exist for ever in _happiness_, or be _destroyed_, and +not exist for ever. + +(1.) _Their endless misery._ + +It would be difficult to exaggerate the strength of the texts in +favour of this. We are told that the wicked, or at all events some +of them, are to awake to shame and everlasting contempt; that they +are to be cast into the eternal fire; that they are to depart into +the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; that they +are to go away into _eternal punishment_; that they are guilty of an +eternal sin; that their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched; +and that they are to be cast into the lake of fire, there to be +tormented day and night for ever and ever.[474] The fourth of these +texts is perhaps the most important, since Christ uses the same word +for _eternal_ punishment as for _eternal_ life; therefore, though +the Greek word does not necessarily mean _endless_, it certainly +seems to do so here. Similarly in Daniel the same Hebrew word is +used for the _everlasting_ life of the righteous, as for the +_everlasting_ contempt of the wicked. Moreover the doctrine is +_implied_ in numerous other passages;[475] so altogether the New +Testament teaching on the subject seems about as plain as it can be. + +[Footnote 474: Dan. 12. 2; Matt. 18. 8; 25. 41, 46; Mark 3. 29; 9. +48; Rev. 14. 11; 20. 15.] + +[Footnote 475: _E.g._, Matt. 7. 13, 23; 8. 12; 10. 33; 12. 32; 13. +42, 50, etc.] + +Yet everyone must admit that there are great difficulties in +accepting it. For the _endless misery_ of the wicked appears to be +inconsistent with the great attributes of God, especially His power, +His justice, and His mercy; as well as with the endless happiness of +the righteous. We will consider these points in turn. + +And first as to God's _power_. The eternal existence of sinners +against God means, it is said, a never-ending conflict between good +and evil; and this is most improbable. No doubt it seems so, but +then the existence of evil at all is a difficulty; yet as shown in +Chapter V. it is essential for free will. And the final state of the +wicked is but one out of many difficulties connected with human +freedom. That God could create a free man at all; that He could +foresee how he would use his freedom; that He should allow him to +use it wrongly, thus involving himself and others in misery; and +that this misery should last for ever; are all to a great extent +beyond our comprehension. But as the first three must be admitted, +the last is certainly not incredible. + +The second and commonest objection refers to God's _justice_. The +suffering, it is said, would be out of all proportion to the +offence. Man's life is brief at the most, and every sin in this +world cannot deserve countless years of misery in the next. In +short, a man's sin here must anyhow be finite, while endless misery, +however slight, would be infinite. But very possibly, being sinners +ourselves, we do not realise the magnitude of sin, more especially +its far-reaching and _permanent_ effect on the character of others, +who in their turn may influence others also, and so on indefinitely. +In this way the consequences of even a single sin may be _endless_, +and therefore infinite, and if so its guilt may be infinite too. And +this also agrees with the analogy of nature. For in nature nothing +is forgotten, and even a small act, like planting a flower has +(almost) endless consequences, since the ground will _never_ be +exactly the same as if it had not been planted. + +Moreover, we need not assume that endless misery is for a man's sins +here only. Why may not the wicked go on sinning for ever? They must +certainly have the power of doing so, for the option of acting, or +at all events of thinking right or wrong, is essential to free will; +and if we deny them their free will, they are no longer men but mere +machines. And it even seems probable that they would do so; for all +our experience of human character is that it tends to a final +permanence, of good or bad, which nothing can alter. By doing good, +men become good--evil gradually loses its influence over them. And +then, when their character is fixed, they will cease to be +_attracted_ by evil; and they will in consequence remain (and this +without any effort or struggle on their part) for ever good, and +therefore for ever happy. Similarly with regard to the wicked. By +committing sin men become sinful, and then, when their character is +fixed, they may remain for ever sinful, and therefore for ever +miserable. In each case the man's conduct will be always _free_; but +his character, and therefore the use which he makes of his freedom, +will have become fixed. And perhaps one of the strongest motives for +leading a good life here, and thus forming a good character, is the +knowledge that, whether good or bad, it will be _our_ character for +all eternity. + +No doubt it is an overwhelming thought that a man's endless +happiness, or misery should depend on his short probation in this +world; yet as he is given free will with the option of choosing one +or the other, there is nothing _unjust_ in the results being so +permanent. And it entirely agrees with God's methods in nature, +where, for instance, the shape of a tree for centuries is fixed +during the short time it is growing. + +Nor does the fact of God's _foreknowledge_ as to how each man will +act alter the case or cause any injustice, since, as said in Chapter +II., it does not interfere with man's freedom. God merely foreknows +the use man will make of his freedom. Therefore His knowing +beforehand that a man will commit a murder does not make it unjust +to punish him for doing so. And the same rule applies universally; +so that although God foreknows that the wicked will be lost, they +will not be lost _because_ God foreknows it. They will be lost +because of their own wilful abuse of their own free will; and God +foreknows both this, and its consequences. + +The third objection refers to God's _mercy_. Surely, it is said, God +would never punish men unless there were a chance of improving them; +so it is incredible that He should go on punishing them for ever. +But perhaps the future misery of the wicked may not be a punishment +at all, in the sense of being inflicted by God; it may be the +necessary result of their own acts,--the _consequence_ rather than +the punishment of sin. Or if we still use the word punishment, we +may say that they will be punished, not so much for doing what they +have done, as by being what they have become. It will be _according +to_ their works rather than _because_ of them.[476] + +[Footnote 476: Matt. 16. 27; Rom. 2. 6.] + +And there is much to be said in favour of this view, since it is the +way in which God punishes men in this world. Suppose, for instance, +a man repeatedly gives way to drink, he will have the natural +punishment (which is really God's punishment, Who is the Author of +Nature) of being what he has become, an habitual drunkard, and very +possibly miserable for the rest of his life. It is the necessary +consequence of his sin; and the extent of his misery will, as a +rule, be in exact proportion to the extent of his sin. Therefore, if +a man is to suffer hereafter for other sins, we should expect this +suffering to come in the same way; and to be the natural, and +perhaps unavoidable, consequence of the sin itself. + +Nor is it difficult to suggest how this may be. For the endless +misery of the wicked may be to a great extent mental, rather than +bodily--_shame and everlasting contempt_, as Daniel calls it. They +may be tormented by remorse and regret at having made themselves +unfit to share in the joys of heaven. And until we know the +greatness of those joys, we cannot know the greatness of this +suffering. But if the joys of heaven are endless, and if the +existence of the wicked outside heaven is also endless, it must +plainly be an _endless_ source of misery. While, in conclusion, the +fact that it is the same Christ who has taught us (more than anyone +else) the mercy and love of God, who has also taught us the endless +misery of the wicked, is an additional reason for thinking that the +two cannot really be inconsistent. + +The fourth and last objection refers to _man_ rather than God. It is +that the endless misery of the wicked would destroy the happiness of +the righteous; for how could a man enjoy heaven if he knew that his +own father and mother were in endless and hopeless misery elsewhere? +Of course, if we deny him his memory, and say he does not remember +them, it destroys his identity, and for all practical purposes, he +is a different man. I have not met with any satisfactory answer to +this difficulty. But it may be pointed out that if he knows his +parents' fate, he will certainly know their character too, and that +their fate was deserved. And this may alter his feelings in regard +to them, as it often does now, if we find that one of our friends +has behaved in a mean, and disgraceful manner. + +Reviewing all these objections, it must be admitted that the endless +misery of the wicked seems improbable, but it is certainly not +_incredible_. For, to put it shortly, our knowledge of human nature +convinces us that, out of a large number of wicked men, some at all +events will continue to be wicked, _i.e._ to commit sin as long as +they live. Hence, if they live for ever, they will sin for ever. And +if they sin for ever, it is not only just, but perhaps inevitable, +that they should be miserable for ever. And if so, the endless +misery of the wicked does not reflect on either the power, justice, +or mercy of God, and, as said above, is certainly not incredible. + +(2.) _Their endless happiness._ + +We pass on now to the next theory, that of their _endless +happiness_. According to this, all the wicked (after some suitable +punishment) will at last be reconciled to God, and in popular +language, go to heaven. And there are several texts which are more +or less in favour of this view.[477] But how are we to reconcile +these with the far stronger ones before alluded to? The most +probable explanation is that they are merely general statements, +indicating the final destiny of the vast majority of mankind, but +that there are exceptions to this as to most other rules. And the +Creed nowhere implies that most men will be lost; it may be only a +few obstinate sinners. + +[Footnote 477: _E.g._, Col. 1. 20; 1 Tim. 4. 10; 1 John 2. 2; Rev. +5. 13.] + +Moreover, we cannot think that the wicked will be allowed to go on +sinning in heaven, so if they go there, they must finally cease to +commit sin. Many may do this voluntarily, but what about the +remainder? If they _must_ finally forsake sin, whether they like it +or not, it destroys their free will, and leads to _compulsory +goodness_, which is very like a contradiction in terms. For goodness +cannot be ascribed to mere machines without free will, which only +act under compulsion; yet on this theory the men would be nothing +more. In fact, the wicked _men_ would in reality have been +destroyed, and a good piece of mechanism created instead; which +scarcely seems a probable theory. + +Then there is this further difficulty: what is to become of the evil +angels? If we have to admit endless misery for these, why not for +man? Yet the Bible gives no hint that the Devil will in the end be +reconciled to God, and go to heaven. + +(3.) _Their destruction._ + +Lastly, as to the other and only possible alternative, the +_destruction_ of the wicked. This may be better described as their +failure to obtain everlasting life; which is here regarded not as +the attribute of all men, but as being _conditional_ on a man's +fulfilling certain duties and developing a certain character in this +life. And the wicked, not having done this, will eventually be +destroyed and cease to exist. Numerous texts can be quoted in favour +of this theory.[478] And it is also supported by the analogy of +nature: for if an organism or a species is a failure, it eventually +_ceases to exist_; it is not kept alive for ever as a disfigurement +to the world. + +[Footnote 478: _E.g._, John 6. 51; Rom. 6. 23; Matt. 10. 28.] + +This theory, no doubt, presents less moral difficulties than either +of the others, but it is not free from them. For are the wicked to +be _punished_ after death previous to their destruction? If they are +not, justice is not satisfied; and while excessive punishment seems +a reflection on God's character, no punishment at all for sinners +who have been successful in this world, seems equally so. Yet, on +the other hand, any punishment which precedes destruction seems +merely vindictive, and of no possible use. + +Each of these theories, then, appears improbable, but the _endless +misery_ of the wicked is scarcely more so than the others, and +therefore, as it is the one most strongly supported by the Bible, we +seem bound to accept it. + +One remark may however be made in conclusion, and it brings a little +comfort into this saddest of all truths. It is that whatever doubt +may exist as to the future state of the wicked, of one thing we may +be quite sure--that their punishment will not be in excess of what +they deserve. They will be treated fairly; and every merciful +allowance will be made for circumstances, including the inherent +weakness of human nature. Christianity indeed seems to emphasise +this more than any other religion, since men are to be judged not by +the Father, but by the Son; apparently for this very reason that, +being Man, He can sympathise with human weakness.[479] And after the +judgment, persons will enjoy heaven just in proportion as their +lives on earth have rendered them capable of doing so, while the +misery of the lost will also be in exact proportion to what they +deserve. + +[Footnote 479: John 5. 27.] + + +(_C._) THE IMPORTANCE OF A TRUE BELIEF. + +The last doctrine to be considered is the importance of a True +Belief, that is of believing the _truth_ in regard to matters of +religion. This is strongly insisted on in the _warning clauses_ of +the Athanasian Creed; so we will first consider their meaning, then +their truthfulness, and lastly, the objection as to dogmatism. + +(1.) _Their meaning._ + +Before discussing this, it may be pointed out that they are often +called the _damnatory_ or _uncharitable_ clauses; but both these +terms are somewhat misleading. For the Creed does not condemn anyone +by these clauses, it merely declares that certain persons will be +condemned by God, which is a very different thing. No one desires +their condemnation, but the contrary; therefore, believing the +danger to be a fact, it is stated in the hope that persons will in +consequence avoid it. + +An analogy may help to illustrate this distinction. Suppose a +despotic ruler in some island were to put up a notice that anyone +walking along a certain part of the coast would be arrested and +shot; this might well be called uncharitable. But now, suppose the +notice was that, owing to their being quicksands along that part of +the coast, anyone walking there would be drowned; this might be +untrue, but it could scarcely be called uncharitable. So in regard +to the Creed. Its warnings (whether true or false) are in no sense +uncharitable; and it no more _consigns men to perdition_ (as it is +sometimes called) for denying the faith, than a doctor consigns men +to die of fever for drinking bad water. In each case they merely +state what they believe will (unfortunately) be the result. + +Its warnings are also quite different from the _Let him be anathema_ +of St. Paul, as well as from some of the Psalms, where the writer +does not merely state that the wicked will be miserable, but prays +that they may be so.[480] This no doubt seems uncharitable, but +there is nothing like it in the Creed. + +[Footnote 480: _E.g._, Gal. 1. 8-9; Ps. 69.] + +What the Creed says is that holding, or _holding fast_,[481] the +Catholic Faith, especially the doctrines of the Trinity and the +Incarnation, is necessary to salvation (vv. 1, 28, 29, 42); and that +those who do _not_ keep (or hold fast) this Faith will _perish_ +everlastingly (v. 2). The word _keep_, it should be noticed, +implies previous possession, since a man cannot keep what he never +had; so these verses are inapplicable to heathens, infidels, or even +nominal Christians who have never really held the Faith. They refer +only to apostates--to those who, having once held the Faith, do not +_keep_ it. + +[Footnote 481: It is so translated in the revised version, issued in +November, 1909, by a Committee, under the Archbishop of Canterbury.] + +Moreover, there can be little doubt that the apostasy here referred +to was not that due to intellectual doubt, but to giving way, _under +persecution_. For the Gothic conquerors of Southern Europe, where +the Creed was composed about the fifth century, were _Arians_, and +they much persecuted the Catholics. So a statement of what the +Catholic Faith really was (in opposition to Arianism) might well +contain warnings as to the great danger of abandoning it under trial +and persecution. In the same way Christ warned His followers that if +they denied Him before men, He would also deny them before His +Father. + +And a time of persecution is distinctly implied in the Creed itself. +For in ver. 30 we are told that it is not enough to believe the +faith, it must be publicly _confessed_; and even in ver. 1, the +_holding_ or _holding fast_, suggests a temptation to surrender. +Compare the passage: _Thou holdest fast my name, and didst not deny +my faith_:[482] where in the Latin translation (the Vulgate) the +same word is used for _hold fast_, as occurs in the Creed. + +[Footnote 482: Rev. 2. 13, 25; 3. 11; 2 Tim. 1. 13.] + +Next as to the meaning of to _perish_. This is no doubt much +disputed, both here, and in the similar passage in the Gospel, +where Christ says that all who believe on Him shall _not perish, but +have eternal (or everlasting) life_; which certainly implies that +those who disbelieve, or cease to believe, _shall_ perish, +and shall _not_ have everlasting life, _i.e._, shall perish +everlastingly.[483] But whatever Christ meant by these words, the +Creed means too, neither more nor less. Taken by themselves, they +seem to point to the destruction of the wicked; or perhaps only to +their failure to obtain the joys of heaven, without actually ceasing +to exist. + +[Footnote 483: John 3. 16.] + +But however this may be, one thing is plain; that, according to the +Creed, those who have been taught the truth about God, (_i.e._, the +Catholic Faith), must both _lead a good life_, (fighting against +sin, etc.), and also _hold fast_, or _keep this faith_, if they wish +to be saved. And St. Paul evidently regarded these as the two +essentials; for at the close of his life, he rejoiced because he had +_fought the good fight_, and _kept the faith_.[484] + +[Footnote 484: 2 Tim. 4. 7.] + +(2.) _Their truthfulness._ + +Having thus shown what the warning clauses actually mean, we have +next to consider whether they are true. Now, it is plain from the +nature of the case that we can know nothing on such a subject, +except what is revealed by God. Is then, this doctrine stated or +implied in the New Testament? Certainly it is, since belief in +Christ is everywhere laid down as _necessary_ to salvation. He is +not one Saviour among many, nor is Christianity one means among many +of getting to heaven. But Christianity is always represented as the +_only_ means, and Christ as the _only_ Saviour. + +We have already alluded to one text on this subject, that about the +_perishing_; and we will now quote five others, each from a +different writer, thus showing that the doctrine was not peculiar to +any one Apostle or Evangelist. We are told then, that while he that +believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that disbelieveth shall +be condemned; that unless men believe in Christ they shall die in +their sins; that His is the only Name under heaven wherein men can +be saved; that public confession of Him as Lord, together with +belief in His Resurrection, leads to salvation; and that His Blood +alone can redeem us from our sins.[485] + +[Footnote 485: Mark 16. 16; John 8. 24; Acts 4. 12; Rom. 10. 9; 1 +Pet. 1. 19.] + +And the early Christians acted in entire accordance with this. When, +for instance, the gaoler at Philippi asked St. Paul, _What must I do +to be saved?_ the answer was, _Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou +shalt be saved_.[486] Repentance, baptism, and amendment of life, +would of course follow in due time; but first of all, before all +other things, it was necessary that he should _believe in Christ_. +This was the great essential. + +[Footnote 486: Acts 16. 31.] + +Now it is obvious that the belief in Christ, which is thus +everywhere insisted on, must mean believing the truth about Christ, +and not a false belief. If, then, the statements in the Creed +represent the truth about Christ, as we have shown they do, then +belief in these is necessary to salvation. And the Bible, like the +Creed, expressly says that the great and fundamental truth about +Christ, which we must both believe and _confess_, is His +Incarnation, that He _is come in the flesh_.[487] And this involves +His relationship to God the Father, and the doctrine of the Trinity. +Thus the warning clauses as to the importance of a true belief, +especially in regard to these two great doctrines, seem fully +justified. + +[Footnote 487: 1 John 4. 2-3.] + +Three further remarks may be made before leaving this subject. The +first is that the Creed is addressed to _Christians_ only. This is +clear from its opening sentence, _Quicunque vult salvus esse_, which +means literally, 'Whoever _wishes_ to be saved'; and this takes for +granted that the persons addressed have heard of salvation. And, as +we have shown, the following words, that they must _hold fast_ or +_keep_ the Faith, also imply that they have been already taught it. +The Creed cannot therefore be held to refer to any but Christians, +no matter how general the language may be. + +Secondly, among Christians the Creed is meant chiefly for +_theologians_. This is plain from its technical language, which is +so worded as to prevent a recurrence of several old errors. And it +seems only fair to assume that children and unlearned persons +belonging to a Church holding these doctrines would be considered as +believing them. But though a child's belief,[488] which is merely +trust and love, may be sufficient _for a child_, something more may +reasonably be expected from well-instructed Christians. And this is +that they should believe these doctrines _rightly_ (v. 29), though +this is a most unfortunate translation of the Latin word +_fideliter_, as it seems to connect it with the _right_ faith +(_fides recta_) of the following verse. It would be better rendered +by _faithfully_, as it is in v. 24, or _heartily_. Thus a _heartfelt +belief_ in the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation--a +belief which leads at once to _worship_, for 'the Catholic Faith is +that we _worship_ one God':--is what the Creed says is so essential. + +[Footnote 488: Matt. 18. 6.] + +Lastly, all these statements, like so many passages in the +Bible,[489] are only _general rules_; to which there are often some +exceptions. And in the present case, we may feel sure (from other +passages)[490] that God will make exceptions, wherever unbelief or +misbelief has not been due to a person's own fault. Our conclusion, +then, as to the _warning clauses_ is this; that if the other +statements of the Creed are _true_ (as we have shown they are), +these clauses do not present any great difficulty. + +[Footnote 489: _E.g._, 1 Cor. 6. 12.] + +[Footnote 490: _E.g._, 1 Tim. 1. 13.] + +(3.) _The objection as to dogmatism._ + +An important objection has still to be considered. It is that the +Athanasian Creed _dogmatises_ too much. Granting, it is said, that +all its doctrines are contained in the New Testament, yet why not be +content with the _simpler_ statements in the Apostles' and Nicene +Creeds? These were _sufficient_ for the Church for several +centuries, so why not leave other matters open for discussion, +instead of treating them as _closed questions_? We will consider +these points in turn. + +And first as to _dogmatism_; by which is meant the exact statement +of any truth. Now on all other subjects which influence our +conduct, such as diseases or science, it is admitted to be of great +importance that we should know the truth, and act accordingly. Why, +then, should it be thought that in Religion alone this is +immaterial, and that a false Creed is as good as the true one, if a +man honestly believes it? + +Moreover, a certain amount of dogmatism in matters of Religion seems +essential. No one can intelligently serve or pray to a God of Whose +Nature he has formed no idea, and the moment he begins to form such +an idea he is involved in difficulties. Take for example what some +will consider a very simple prayer, _May God forgive my sins for +Christ's sake_. Who, we may ask, is God; who is Christ; what is the +relation between them; why should One be asked to forgive for the +sake of the Other; and what would happen if the sins were not +forgiven? Such difficulties cannot be avoided; and if the statements +in the Athanasian Creed are their true explanation, the more clearly +this is stated the better. + +In the next place, it is very doubtful whether the earlier Creeds +are _simpler_ and more easy to believe than the Athanasian. To a +thoughtful reader it may well seem otherwise. For example, referring +to the Trinity, the Apostles' Creed teaches us to believe in God the +Father, in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost, but it does +not attempt to answer the simplest questions concerning Them. Are +They, for instance, all three Persons? if so, are They all three +Divine? and if so, are They three Gods? And the Nicene Creed is even +more puzzling, for it first says that there is one God the Father, +and soon afterwards that the Son is also God. So in regard to the +Holy Spirit, He is called the Lord, yet it has been already stated +that there is only one Lord Jesus Christ. How can all this be +reconciled? And much the same applies to the future state of the +wicked. The two earlier Creeds speak of the life everlasting (for +the good), but what is to become of the bad? These and many other +questions are suggested by the earlier Creeds, and answered by the +Athanasian. And to many it seems easier to believe the Creed which +answers difficulties, than those which merely suggest them. + +And it was for this very purpose of answering difficulties, not +making them, that the Athanasian Creed was composed. Its object was +not to assert any new doctrines, or to suggest that those previously +received were not _sufficient_, but merely to explain them, and to +prevent them from being misunderstood. All the doctrines, as we have +seen, are contained in the New Testament, and they were in +consequence always believed by Christians. But it was not till after +much controversy that men learnt to express this belief with +clearness and precision. + +Lastly, as to these doctrines being _closed questions_. They are +closed questions in much the same way as the fact that the earth +goes round the sun, and not the sun round the earth, is a closed +question in astronomy. That is to say, they have been thoroughly +discussed, and (to those who believe the New Testament) the evidence +in their favour is overwhelming. Of course anyone may go over the +proofs again for himself, and if he wants to have an intelligent +belief he should do so; but as a rule of conduct the subject cannot +be re-opened. + +And it should be noticed that the Church, in thus treating certain +questions as closed for its members, is only acting as other +societies would do. Would a society of engineers, for instance, +allow one of its members to construct an iron bridge on the +supposition that the expansion of iron by heat was an open question; +which he might, or might not, think worth allowing for? Or would a +society of doctors allow one of its members to attend patients if he +asserted that whether scarlet fever was infectious or not was an +open question; which each patient might decide for himself? In +short, well-ascertained truth, or what is believed to be such, in +every department of knowledge is looked upon as a closed question; +and it must remain so, unless some important fresh evidence is +produced. But with regard to the Creeds, no fresh evidence can be +produced, unless God were to give a fresh Revelation; so, from the +nature of the case, they are closed questions in an even stricter +sense than ascertained truths on other subjects. + +This concludes a brief examination of the doctrines of the Three +Creeds, and, as we have seen, they are all either contained in, or +logically deducible from, the New Testament. + + + + +CHAPTER XXV. + +THAT THE TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS EXTREMELY PROBABLE. + + (_A._) THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. + + One remaining objection, why are there so many difficulties, + and no more obvious proof? considered in detail. + + (_B._) SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. + + +We have now examined all the more important arguments for and +against the Truth of Christianity. Many of them, as we have seen, +involve a good deal of study, and we have often been obliged to +consider a few examples only of various classes of facts; but it is +hoped that no important argument on either side has been entirely +overlooked. One remaining objection has still to be considered. + + +(_A._) THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. + +Does not, it is urged, this very fact of itself form a difficulty? +Can an ordinary man be expected to ponder over arguments, +objections, and counter-arguments by the dozen, even supposing the +balance of probability to be in favour of the Religion? Surely, if +Christianity were true, and God wished men to believe it, there +would not be so many difficulties. He would have provided an easier +way of proving it than this; or, at all events, if this elaborate +argument were examined, the inference in its favour would be simply +overwhelming. This is a difficulty felt perhaps by some who have +read the present _Essay_; fortunately it can be answered +satisfactorily. + +And first, as to there being so many difficulties. Several of these +are simply due to the evidence in favour of Christianity being so +strong. If, for instance, we had only one Gospel instead of four, +the difficulties caused by the discrepancies between them would +disappear, but the argument in favour of Christianity would not be +strengthened in consequence. Still putting aside these, it must be +admitted that there are many difficulties connected with the +Religion. + +But what is the cause of this? It is the very magnitude of the +Christian Religion which opens the way for so many attacks. A +religion which claims to be the only true one in the world; to have +been founded by God Himself; to have been prepared for by prophecies +and introduced by miracles; to be the centre of the world's history, +all previous history leading up to it, and all subsequent history +being influenced by it; to be suitable for all ages and countries; +to hold the key to all mental and moral problems; to be man's guide +and comfort in this life, and his only hope for the next;--such a +religion _must_ be assailable at a great many points. But +provided all these assaults can be repelled, provided this long +_frontier-line_, so to speak, can be properly defended, it does not +show the weakness of the religion; on the contrary, it shows its +enormous strength. A religion which made less claims would, no +doubt, have less difficulties; but it would be less likely to be the +true one. If God became Incarnate, no claims can be too vast for the +Religion He founded. And to many, this unspeakable grandeur of +Christianity, so far from being a difficulty, constitutes one of its +greatest charms. + +Next, as to there being no _easier_ means of proof. It is a simple +matter of fact that the vast majority of men, both educated and +uneducated, who believe in Christianity, have not arrived at this +belief by a long line of reasoning, such as we have examined. They +assert that there is an easier way. They say that God has given them +a faculty of _Faith_, which, though it may be hard to explain, just +as man's free will is hard to explain, yet gives them the most +certain conviction of the truth of Christianity. And starting with +this inward conviction, they say it is confirmed by their daily +experience, just as a man's belief in his free will is confirmed by +his daily experience. Of course, this appeal to faith is no argument +to those who do not possess it. On the other hand, to those who do +possess it, no arguments can really weaken or strengthen it. It is a +thing by itself, and absolutely convincing. + +It may be pointed out, however, that if man is a partly spiritual as +well as a partly material being, which we have already admitted; +then the existence of some spiritual sense, or faculty, by which to +perceive spiritual truths, just as the body has material senses by +which to perceive material objects, cannot be thought incredible. +And this is what faith claims to be; it is a means to spiritual +discernment, and may be compared to eyesight. It does not enable us +to believe what we might otherwise think to be untrue; but it +enables us to know for certain, what we might otherwise think to be +only probable (_e.g._, the existence of God). In the same way a +blind man might, by feeling, think it probable that there were a +certain number of pictures in a room, but if he could _see_, he +would know for certain. And, just as a man, who had always been +blind, ought not to reject the testimony of those who see, so a man +who has no faith ought not to reject the testimony of those who +have. And the existence of such a faculty will account for the very +different views taken of Christianity by men of apparently equal +intelligence and candour. + +Still, it may be asked, why should some persons be given this +faculty of faith, while others are not? The subject is no doubt a +difficult one. But very possibly the faculty is _latent_ in every +one, only it needs (like other faculties) to be exercised and +developed. And the man himself may be responsible for whether he +takes suitable means (prayer, etc.) for doing this. However, we need +not pursue this subject, since, as said above, no arguments can +prove, or disprove Christianity to those who believe by faith. + +But now comes the most important part of the objection. Granting, it +is said, that the subject is a difficult one, and demands a long +investigation, yet when we do go through the arguments on both sides +the conclusion is not irresistible. In short, why are not the +evidences in favour of Christianity _stronger_? Of course they might +be so, but we have no reason for thinking that they would be. In +our ordinary daily life we have never absolute certainty to guide +us, but only various degrees of probability. And even, in Natural +Religion, the reasons for believing in a Personal God and the +freedom and responsibility of man, though to most people quite +convincing, are certainly not irresistible; since, as a matter of +fact, some men resist them. + +And if God intends us to act on such evidence in common life, and +also with regard to the great truths of Natural Religion, why should +He not do the same with regard to Christianity? He seems, if we may +use the word, to _respect_ man's momentous attribute of free will +even in matters of Religion; therefore in His sight a right belief, +like right conduct, may be of no value unless it is more or less +voluntary. It is to be a virtue, rather than a necessity. And this +fully accounts for the evidences of Christianity not being +overwhelming. They are amply sufficient to justify anyone in +believing it; but they are not, and were probably never meant to be, +sufficient to compel him to do so. + +If, however,--and this is a matter of practical importance--they are +strong enough to show that the Religion is _probably_ true, a man +who admits this is obviously bound to accept it. He cannot adopt a +neutral attitude, because the evidence is not conclusive; since, as +just said, in every other subject we have only probability, not +certainty, to guide us; and why should religion alone be different? +Then, if he accepts it, he is obviously bound to try and live +accordingly, no matter what the sacrifice may be; for Christianity, +if it is worth anything, is worth everything. Such tremendous truths +cannot be half acted on if believed, any more than they can be half +believed; it must be a case of all for all. And then, if he tries to +live accordingly, he may find (as Christians in all ages have found) +that for himself the probability becomes a certainty. + +Lastly, it may be pointed out that though perhaps the evidences of +Christianity are not so strong as we should expect, they are +precisely of such a _kind_ as we should expect; for they exhibit +each of the three great attributes of God. His Omnipotence is shown +in the miracles, His Omniscience in the prophecies, and His perfect +Goodness in the Character of Christ; so that, judged by its +evidences, Christianity is a Religion which might very reasonably +have come from the God Who is All-Powerful, All-Wise, and All-Good. + + +(_B._) SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION. + +It now only remains to give a summary of the previous chapters, and +then point out the final choice of difficulties. + +In Chapter XIII. we considered the _credibility_ of the Christian +Religion, and decided that some of its leading doctrines, especially +those of the Incarnation and the Atonement, seemed very improbable. +All that can be said on the other side is practically this, that we +have no adequate means of judging; and that when we apply similar +reasoning to subjects about which we do know, such as the freedom of +man or the existence of evil, it generally leads us wrong. But +still the fact remains that the Religion appears, at first sight, +very improbable. + +In Chapter XIV. we considered the _external testimony_ to the _Four +Gospels_, and decided that this was very strongly in their favour. +At the close of the second century they held the same position among +Christians as they do at present; during the middle of that century +Justin shows that they were publicly read, together with the Old +Testament Prophets; while the few earlier writers whose works have +come down to us also seem to have known them. + +In Chapter XV. we considered their _internal evidence_, and found +that it strongly supported the above conclusion; so combining the +two, we have an almost overwhelming argument in favour of their +genuineness. + +In Chapter XVI. we considered an additional argument of great +importance, derived from the _Acts of the Apostles_. There are +strong reasons for dating this book about A.D. 60; and if so it +proves a still earlier date for the first three Gospels. + +In Chapter XVII. we considered the _Resurrection of Christ_, and the +accounts we have of it in the Four Gospels. And we decided that +these Narratives, in spite of some obvious discrepancies and +omissions had every appearance of being thoroughly trustworthy. +Indeed their complete agreement in important points, their mutual +explanations, and their signs of early date are all strongly in +their favour. + +In Chapter XVIII. we considered the testimony of the First +Witnesses, and examined in detail their veracity, knowledge, +investigation, and reasoning; and each seemed to be supported by +irresistible evidence. Therefore the opposite theories, which are +based on denying these points, and are called respectively the +_Falsehood_, the _Legend_, the _Vision_, and the _Swoon_ Theory, are +quite untenable. So we must either accept the Resurrection of +Christ; or deny it, in spite of all the evidence, and solely because +of the miraculous nature of the event. + +In Chapter XIX. we considered the other New Testament _Miracles_, +and came to the conclusion that they also occurred. Indeed their +marks of truthfulness, and their publicity together with the fact +that they were never disputed at the time, make the evidence in +their favour extremely strong. + +In Chapter XX. we considered the argument from _Prophecy_; and +discussed in detail Isaiah's Prophecy of the Lord's Servant, and the +Psalm of the Crucifixion, and then glanced at several others. And we +pointed out how completely these prophecies were fulfilled in +Christ, and how utterly hopeless it was to find any other fulfilment +of them. So here again the choice lies between either accepting +these prophecies, or disputing them simply because they are +prophecies, and imply superhuman knowledge. In other words, we must +either admit the marvel of a Divine Revelation, or else we must face +the _mental_ difficulty of believing that all these coincidences +were due to chance, the improbability of which can scarcely be +calculated. + +In Chapter XXI. we considered the _Character of Christ_; and the +admitted excellence of His moral teaching seems quite inconsistent +with deliberate falsehood on His part. Yet He kept asserting His +superhuman and Divine Nature, and was finally put to death in +consequence. So here once more we have a similar choice before us. +We must either accept the Divinity of Christ, with all the wonders +it involves; or else we must face the _moral_ difficulty of +believing that the best moral teaching the world has ever had, was +given by One, whose own life was full of falsehood and presumption. + +In Chapter XXII. we considered the _History of Christianity_, and +found that its marvellous progress at first, in spite of its immense +difficulties, and without the use of any force, could only be +accounted for by its truth. So here for the last time we have the +same alternatives to choose from. We must either admit the +supernatural origin and spread of Christianity; or else we must face +the _historical_ difficulty of believing that its first preachers +were able to convince men without evidence, conquer them without +force, and found the greatest religion the world has ever seen on +claims which at the time everyone must have known to be untrue. + +In Chapter XXIII. we considered the _other evidence_ on the subject, +and briefly examined various arguments for and against Christianity, +such as its connection with prayer; its adaptation to human nature, +and its relation to other religions; but all of comparative +unimportance. + +Lastly, in Chapter XXIV. we decided that the _Three Creeds_ were +deducible from the New Testament; so the religion which has all this +evidence in its favour is the _Christian Religion_, as we have used +the term. + +From the above summary it will be seen that the arguments against +Christianity are all what may be called _antecedent_ (or _a priori_) +ones. The Religion itself, its doctrines, its claims, its miraculous +origin, all seem most improbable. Thus the objections to +Christianity all lie on the surface. They are obvious and palpable +to everyone. + +On the other hand, the arguments in its favour have often to be +sought for; but when found they are seen to be stronger and stronger +the more they are examined. There are four main arguments. These are +of a widely different character, and each appeals most strongly to a +certain class of minds, so each is often said to be the chief +argument for Christianity, but they are probably of equal value. +They may be conveniently called the argument from _Miracles_, +including of course the Resurrection of Christ; from _Prophecy_; +from _Christ's Character_; and from _History_. And it should be +noticed in passing, that they mutually support one another. +Miracles, for instance, are less difficult to believe when it is +seen that they were to establish a religion which has for centuries +exercised a greater influence on mankind than anything else; and +prophecies become stronger when it is seen that the Life foretold +was one that had such supreme and far-reaching effects. + +Now, it is important to remember that the actual facts on which +these arguments rest are in each case absolutely _unique_. Once, +and only once in the history of the world, have men appeared who +asserted that they were actual witnesses of miracles, and who faced +all forms of suffering and death solely in consequence of this. +Again, once, and only once in the history of the world, has a long +series of prophecies, uttered many centuries apart, united in a +single Person, in whom they one and all find a complete fulfilment. +Yet again, once, and only once in the history of the world, has a +Man appeared of faultless moral character, who asserted that He was +also God, and who boldly claimed all that this tremendous assertion +involved, and submitted to the consequences. While, lastly, once, +and only once in the history of the world, has a Religion, most +improbable in itself, and without using any force, succeeded in +conquering nation after nation. + +These, then, are the four chief arguments on the subject, and in +every case we have the same choice before us. We must either face +the antecedent (or _a priori_) difficulties in accepting +Christianity, or the mental, moral and historical difficulties in +rejecting it. There is no neutral ground, no possibility of avoiding +both sets of difficulties. But the difficulties on the one side +concern what we do _not_ know--God's purpose in creating man--and +may be due to our ignorance only. The difficulties on the other side +concern what we _do_ know. They are practical, they are derived from +experience. We do know that men will not lay down their lives for +what they believe to be false, and that the first preachers of +Christianity must have known whether it was false or not. We do +know that prophecies uttered at random through centuries would not +all unite in a single Person. We do know that even moderately good +men do not make extravagant claims. And we do know that no natural +causes can account for such a religion as Christianity obtaining +such a triumph as it did. + +The choice, then, seems to lie between what we may call _unknown_ +difficulties and _known_ ones. The unknown difficulty of believing +that the Eternal God could so love man as to humble Himself even to +death to win man's love; and the known difficulty of believing that +evidence so vast and so various, so cumulative and so apparently +irresistible, could all unite in making a monstrous falsehood appear +to be a momentous truth. Between these two sets of difficulties we +have to make our choice. But to those who agree with the previous +chapters, the choice cannot be doubtful; for however hard it is to +believe Christianity, it is, as we have shown, harder still to +disbelieve it. This, then, is our final conclusion, that the truth +of the Christian religion is _extremely probable_, because, to put +it shortly, though the difficulties of accepting Christianity are +great, the difficulties of rejecting it are far greater. + + + + +INDEX OF TEXTS. + + + PAGE + + GENESIS. + + 1. 117 + " 1 213 + " 26 159, 393 + 2. 132 + " 4 119 + 3. 22 159, 393 + 4. 13-17, 26 132 + 5. 1-2 134 + 6. 2-4 132 + 7. 11 126 + " 21 132 + 7-8. 159 + 9. 13-14 127 + 11. 7 393 + 12. 3 205 + " 6 160 + " 16 141 + 13. 7 160 + 14. 22 213 + 18. 25 215 + 21. 33 213 + 22. 210 + " 17 217 + " 18 374 + 23. 2, 19 142 + 25. 18 143 + 26. 4 374 + 27. 8-13 208 + 33. 18 142 + 35. 6 142 + 36. 31-39 159 + 39. 1 139 + " 9 215 + 40. 11, 19 140 + " 15 156 + 41. 140 + " 41 393 + 43. 27-28 143 + " 32 139 + 46. 34 139 + 48. 3 142 + 49. 30 142 + 50. 3 139 + + EXODUS. + + 1. 11 144 + " 14 144 + 2. 3 144 + 3. 14 405 + 4. 21 159 + 5. 12 144 + " 23 165 + 7. 3 159 + " 11, 22 182 + " 14-25 157 + " 19 145 + 8. 7, 18, 19 182 + " 15, 32 210 + 9. 34 210 + 10. 1 159 + " 3, 7 210 + 12. 12 146 + " 25 153 + " 37 171 + 13. 11 153 + " 13 210 + 14. 4 209 + " 21, 22 178 + " 30 179 + 16. 36 160 + 17. 14 164 + 19. 5 206 + 20. 24 161 + 21. 2, 16 211 + 22. 29, 30 210 + 23. 4-5 211 + 23. 9 148 + 24. 4 164, 165 + 25. 3-10 148 + " 13-18 147 + 29. 14 154 + 34. 20 210 + " 27 164 + + LEVITICUS. + + 4. 12 154 + 6. 2 392 + " 11 154 + 7. 1 380 + " 38 151 + 11. 29 132 + 13. 46 154 + 14. 3 154 + " 34 153 + 16. 1 151 + " 19 380 + " 26 154 + 17. 3 150, 154 + 18-20. 211 + 18. 20 392 + " 21-28 209 + 19. 11, 15, 17 392 + " 23 151 + " 34 412 + 23. 10 153 + 24. 15 151 + " 16 412 + 24. 19 392 + 25. 1 151 + " 2 153 + " 13 150 + " 14, 15, 17 392 + " 41 211 + 26. 33 190 + 26. 46 151 + 27. 28, 29 210 + " 34 151 + + NUMBERS. + + 1. 171 + " 1 151 + " 21 171 + " 47-4, 49 150 + 2. 10, 17 169 + 3. 14 151 + " 29 169 + 5. 2 154 + 9. 1 151 + " 10 151 + 11. 5 147 + 15. 2, 18 153 + " 35 151 + 16. 169, 183 + 17. 2 147 + 18. 15 210 + 19. 3, 14 154 + 21. 14 159 + 23. 19 214 + 26. 171 + " 11 170 + 27. 8 151 + 33. 165 + " 2 164 + " 4 146 + " 50 151 + 35. 1 151 + " 1-8 150 + " 10 153 + 36. 8 151 + " 13 164 + + DEUTERONOMY. + + 1. 3 151 + " 37 165 + 2. 10-12 160 + " 20-23 160 + 3. 8, 20, 25 156 + " 14 160 + " 23-26 165 + 4. 1, 5, 14 154 + " 3-15 152 + " 17 126 + " 21 165 + " 27 190 + " 39 212 + 4. 46 151 + 5. 3 152 + " 31 154 + 6. 1, 18 154 + " 5 215 + " 9 146 + 7. 1 153 + " 2 163 + " 15 148 + " 22 163 + 8. 1 154 + " 7-10 148 + 9. 5 209 + 11. 2-8 152 + " 6 170 + " 10-12 148 + " 11 126 + " 20 146 + " 30 156 + 12. 1, 10, 29 153 + " 5 161 + " 21 150 + " 31 210 + 13. 1-3 199 + 14. 2 216 + 17. 14 153 + 18. 6-8 162 + " 9 153 + " 22 199 + 20. 17 163 + 21. 23 377 + 24. 9, 18, 22 152 + 25. 17 152 + 26. 1 153 + " 14 147 + " 18 216 + 27. 2 146 + 28. 191 + " 25, 64 190 + " 37, 46, 48 190 + " 60 148 + 29. 1 151 + " 2-9 152 + 31. 2, 22, 24-26 165 + " 9, 22, 24 164 + 32. 8 206 + 33. 27 123 + + JOSHUA. + + 1. 7, 8 160 + 3. 14-17 183 + 6. 6-20 183 + 6. 15 173 + 8. 31, 32 160 + 9. 1, 10 156 + 10. 12-14 179 + 12. 7 156 + 23. 26 160 + 24. 26 160 + + JUDGES. + + 3. 4 160 + 5. 4 127 + 6. 15 171 + " 26 162 + 11. 39 210 + 20. 27, 28 160 + 21. 19 160 + + I. SAMUEL. + + 2. 12-30 160 + 3. 3 160 + 4. 4 160 + 6. 15 160 + " 19 171 + 14. 3 160 + 15. 22 161 + 25. 16 178 + + II. SAMUEL. + + 7. 12-16 195 + 8. 16 173 + 10. 5 141 + 11. 24 386 + 12. 9 386 + 24. 18 162 + + I. KINGS. + + 2. 3 160 + 3. 2 161 + 6. 14-36 147 + 8. 27 213 + 9. 4, 5 195 + 10. 29 174 + 11. 31, 40 195 + 12. 24 195 + 13. 2 196 + 14. 15 196 + 17. 21 357 + 18. 27-40 183 + " 27 212 + " 32 162 + 20. 30 171 + 22. 43 161 + + II. KINGS. + + 2. 22 181 + 4. 6 181 + 5. 10-27 183 + 6. 6 181 + 7. 2 126 + " 6 174 + 14. 6 160 + 15. 19 176 + 17. 6 177 + 18. 4-6 161 + " 28-35 184 + " 18 173 + 19. 10, 34 184 + " 15-18 212 + " 35 183, 184 + 20. 8-11 183, 196 + " 17 196 + 21. 2, 21 163 + 22. 162 + 23. 15, 16 196 + 25. 3 177 + + I. CHRONICLES. + + 21. 12 184 + 28. 9 215 + 29. 11 213 + + II. CHRONICLES. + + 14. 8, 9 171 + 20. 6 206 + 32. 24, 31 197 + 34. 8 173 + + EZRA. + + 6. 12 393 + 7. 21 393 + + NEHEMIAH. + + 1. 8 190 + 9. 6 213 + + JOB. + + 10. 4, 5 120 + 11. 7 214 + 12. 10 213 + 16. 10 385 + 29. 9 376 + 34. 19 215 + 36. 26 213 + 37. 16 213 + 33. 8-11 127 + + PSALMS. + + 8. 3, 4 60 + 22. 384 + 22. 27 218 + 58. 4 134 + 69. 474 + 82. 6 412 + 86. 9 218 + 90. 2 213 + 115. 4-8 212 + 139. 2 213 + " 7 213 + 147. 5 213 + " 8-9 178 + 148. 6 214 + + PROVERBS. + + 15. 3 213 + 16. 4 213 + 30. 19 126 + + ECCLESIASTES. + + 12. 14 215 + + ISAIAH. + + 1. 4 378 + 6. 5-10 460 + " 8 394 + 8. 4 196 + 9. 1-2 390 + " 6 390 + 10. 21 390 + 11. 9 218 + 13. 4 134 + " 19-22 187 + 14. 22, 23 187 + 28. 29 213 + 37. 16 206 + 38. 8 196 + 40. 3 407 + " 10 377 + 41. 8 381 + " 22 199 + 42. 1-6 382 + 44. 6 408 + " 8 199 + " 28 196 + 45. 7 213 + " 15 214 + 46. 10 213 + 48. 3-5 199 + " 12 213 + 49. 3-5 382 + " 6-7 382 + 51. 9 377 + 52. 13-53, 12 376 + + JEREMIAH. + + 7. 22 161 + 8. 8 155 + 9. 16 190 + 14. 14 155 + 23. 24 213 + 24. 9 190 + 26. 8-16 196 + 29. 10 196 + " 18 190 + 30. 11 190 + 31. 35-37 190 + 32. 17 213 + 50. 13, 39, 40 187 + + LAMENTATIONS. + + 4. 4 385 + + EZEKIEL. + + 11. 5 213 + 13. 7 155 + 22. 15 190 + 29. 11-13 189 + " 15 188 + 30. 7, 13 189 + 34. 23 383 + + DANIEL. + + 3. 20-27 183 + 4. 6 393 + 5. 1 174 + 8. 1 174 + 9. 21 311 + 9. 26 196 + 11. 196 + 12. 2 465 + + HOSEA. + + 4. 4-6 160 + 6. 6 161 + 8. 1, 12, 13 160 + 9. 4 160 + " 17 190 + 12. 9 160 + + JOEL. + + 2. 31 145 + + AMOS. + + 2. 4, 11 160 + 3. 6 213 + 4. 1 385 + " 4, 5 160 + 5. 8 213 + " 21-25 160 + 8. 5 160 + 9. 9 190 + + MICAH. + + 5. 2 391 + + NAHUM. + + 3. 7 187 + " 8 178 + + ZEPHANIAH. + + 2. 11 218 + 2. 13-14 187 + + ZECHARIAH. + + 3. 8 383 + 9. 9 392 + 11. 12-13 392 + 12. 10 392 + 13. 7 392 + 14. 9 392 + + MALACHI. + + 3. 6 214 + " 10 126 + + II. ESDRAS. + + 8. 3 262 + + MATTHEW. + + 1. 22 389 + 2. 1 318 + 3. 3 407 + " 17 268 + 5. 3, 10 261 + " 24 273 + " 39 398 + 6. 14 401 + 7. 13, 23 465 + 7. 22 359, 403 + 8. 3 356 + " 12 465 + " 30-32 352 + 9. 9 275 + " 33 361 + " 34 367 + 10. 8 283 + " 17, 22 433 + " 28 472 + " 32 403 + " 33 465 + 11. 21-24 350 + " 4 350 + " 5 283 + " 25-27 281 + " 27 402 + 12. 24 367 + " 31, 32 460 + " 32 465 + " 42 268 + 13. 41 402, 403 + " 42, 50 465 + " 58 358 + 14. 13 284 + 15. 26 386 + 16. 13-16 402 + " 17 304 + " 18 433 + " 21 317 + " 27 403, 468 + " 28 273 + 18. 6 478 + " 8 465 + " 20 404 + 19. 12 399 + " 26 32 + " 28 403 + 20. 28 402 + 21. 43 273 + 22. 11 400 + " 14 261 + " 17 272 + 23. 37 283 + 24. 3, 29 274 + " 16 274 + " 30 403 + " 31 402 + " 36 281 + 25. 31-46 403 + " 41, 46 465 + 26. 28 402 + " 39 32 + " 52 386 + " 61 284 + " 62 378 + " 64 403 + " 65 412 + 27. 8 274 + " 14 378 + 27. 43 390 + " 63-64 303 + 28. 4, 11 311 + " 16, 7, 10 313 + " 9 337 + " 10, 19 386 + " 15 274, 337 + " 17 334 + " 18 402 + " 19, 20 404 + " 19 262, 281, 433, 461 + + MARK. + + 1. 3 407 + " 5 368 + " 11 268 + " 14-20 278 + " 20 285 + " 34 355 + " 42 356 + 2. 10 350 + 3. 1-5 359 + " 10 355 + " 12 358 + " 22 367 + " 28, 29 460 + " 29 465 + 5. 11-13 352 + " 39 358 + " 41 354 + " 42 361 + " 43 358 + 6. 5-6 358 + " 31 284 + " 56 355 + 7. 34 354 + " 36 358 + " 37 361 + 9. 1 273 + " 31 317 + " 48 465 + 10. 18 405 + 10. 24 378 + " 45 402 + 11. 10 366 + 12. 29 460 + 13. 7, 10 273 + " 13 433 + " 14 274 + " 24 274 + " 32 281, 405 + 14. 9 273 + " 24 402 + " 28 311 + " 51 275 + " 58 284 + " 64 412 + 16. 7 313 + " 8 311 + " 11 312 + " 11-14 334 + " 13 312 + " 14 322 + " 15 433 + " 16 477 + " 17 359 + + LUKE. + + 1. 1 276 + " 1-4 271 + " 2-3 272 + " 3 295,313 + " 25 311 + 2. 2 266 + " 52 405 + 3. 1 268 + " 4 407 + " 22 268 + 5. 17-21 360 + " 25 356 + 6. 36-38 261 + 7. 14 357 + " 22 283, 350 + 8. 32-33 352 + " 55 356 + 9. 10 284 + " 27 273 + 10. 13-15 350 + " 21, 22 281 + " 22 402 + " 38 283 + 11. 15 367 + " 31 268 + 13. 453 + " 10-17 359 + " 34 283 + 14. 21-22 309 + 16. 8 399 + 17. 1-2 261 + 18. 33 317 + " 42 358 + " 43 356 + 19. 37 283 + " 37-38 392 + " 43 299 + 21. 21 274 + " 24 273 + " 27 274 + 22. 19 402 + " 71 412 + 24. 4, 23 311 + " 9, 33 322 + " 11 311 + " 11, 37 334 + " 12 318 + " 18 276 + " 24 318 + " 30, 43 337 + " 34 312, 313, 321 + " 41 322 + " 39 261 + + JOHN. + + 1. 1 286, 407 + " 3 409 + " 14 277 + " 29-2, 12 278 + " 29, 36 286 + " 40 276 + " 46 377 + 2. 11 360 + " 13 280 + " 17, 22 278 + " 19 284 + " 19-21 317 + 3. 13 404 + " 16 476 + " 24 281 + 4. 27 278 + 5. 1 280 + " 2 277 + " 9 356 + " 9-16 359 + " 18 411 + 5. 23 403 + " 27 473 + " 36 350 + 6. 4 280, 284 + " 15 366 + " 38 404 + " 42, 70 281 + " 51 472 + " 62 314 + 7. 5 325 + 8. 12 434 + " 24 477 + " 29 401 + " 58 404 + " 59 411 + 9. 8-34 353 + " 13-34 362 + " 14-16 359 + " 32 361 + 10. 18 241, 381 + " 30 404 + " 33 411 + 11. 8 411 + " 11 358 + " 47 362 + 12. 32 434 + " 45 404 + 13. 28 278 + 14. 1, 23 403 + " 9 404 + " 16, 26 460 + " 28 406 + 15. 26 460 + 16. 7 403 + " 17 278 + " 28 404 + 17. 5 404 + " 21 404 + 18. 15 276, 285 + 19. 7 412 + " 28-30 385 + " 34 343 + " 35 277 + 20. 2, 13 318 + " 6-8 318 + " 17 314, 406 + " 25 334 + " 26 303 + " 28 407 + " 30 306, 313 + " 31 282 + 21. 5 378 + 21. 12 322 + " 13 337 + " 15 322 + + ACTS. + + 1. 1 419 + " 1-13 307 + " 3 296, 306, 310, 327 + " 6 309 + " 8 321 + " 13 275 + " 15 307 + " 22 303, 309, 322 + " 22-23 307 + 2. 22 362, 407 + " 24 302 + " 31 303 + " 38 462 + " 41 338 + " 43-47 386 + 3. 6 408 + " 13 383 + " 15 379, 344 + " 21 296 + 4. 5-22 362 + " 10 302, 408 + " 12 477 + " 16 362 + " 37 275 + 5. 3, 4 460 + " 30 302 + " 37 267 + 6. 5 295 + 7. 59 408 + 8. 5, 26, 40 295 + " 16 462 + 9. 7 339 + " 10 332 + 10. 10 332 + " 30 333 + " 38 362 + " 40 302 + " 41 337, 348 + 11. 5 333 + 12. 1 289 + " 12 275 + 13. 1 419 + " 7 288 + " 30 302 + " 31 306, 310, 315 + " 35-37 303 + 14. 1-12 291 + 15. 7, 14 322 + 16. 9 332 + " 9-40 294 + " 18, 26 362 + " 31 477 + 17. 6 290 + " 17 418 + " 19, 32 456 + " 28 109 + " 31 302 + " 34 419 + 18. 8, 24 419 + " 12 289 + " 25 462 + 19. 3 461 + " 9-10 418 + " 21 293 + " 29-39 292 + " 38 289 + 20. 2 294 + " 5-21, 18 294 + " 25, 38 299 + " 28 408 + 21. 10 295 + " 18 272 + 22. 9 339 + " 17 333 + 23. 26 289, 419 + 24. 3 419 + " 17 293 + 25. 13, 14, 23 290 + " 26 289 + 26. 23 302 + " 8 456 + " 19, 8 304 + " 13, 14 339 + " 23 245 + " 30 289 + 27. 1-28, 16 294 + 28. 6, 8, 9 362 + " 7 290 + " 25 460 + + ROMANS. + + 2. 6 468 + 6. 23 472 + 8. 26 460 + " 8, 29 78 + " 35 328 + 9. 5 410 + 10. 9 477 + 13. 4 386 + 14. 9 410 + " 10 410 + 15. 18, 19 363 + " 19 294 + " 25, 26 293 + " 30 463 + 16. 23 419 + + I. CORINTHIANS. + + 1. 23 417 + 2. 8 405 + " 10 460 + 4. 9-13 328 + 6. 12 479 + 8. 4 460 + 8. 6 410 + 9. 1 303, 333 + 10. 2 462 + 12. 9-10, 28 370 + 15. 1-3 306 + " 3 410 + " 4 303 + " 3-5 304 + " 5 322 + " 8 333 + " 11 306, 314 + " 14-17 303 + " 15 329 + " 20 245 + " 50 304 + 16. 23 462 + + II. CORINTHIANS. + + 3. 17 460 + 5. 10 410 + " 16 302 + " 21 410 + 8. 18 300 + 11. 24-27 328 + 12. 12 363 + 13. 14 462 + + GALATIANS. + + 1. 8-9 474 + " 13 328 + " 16 304 + " 16-17 333 + " 19 306, 409 + " 23 409 + 2. 2 409 + 3. 13 377 + " 28 427 + 4. 4 239 + 6. 18 462 + + EPHESIANS. + + 4. 4-6 410, 463 + 6. 12 304 + " 23 462 + + PHILIPPIANS. + + 2. 6 410 + 4. 3 260 + + COLOSSIANS. + + 1. 15-16 409 + " 17 109 + " 18 245 + " 20 471 + 2. 9 410 + 4. 10 275 + " 14 296 + + I THESSALONIANS. + + 1. 3-5 463 + + I TIMOTHY. + + 1. 13 479 + 4. 10 471 + + II TIMOTHY. + + 1. 13 475 + 4. 7 476 + " 11 296 + " 20 299 + + TITUS. + + 2. 13 410 + + PHILEMON. + + 24 296 + + HEBREWS. + + 1. 3 404 + " 8 410 + 9. 14 460 + + I PETER. + + 1. 2 463 + " 19 477 + 4. 14 434 + + II PETER. + + 3. 10 437 + + I JOHN. + + 1. 1 277, 286 + 2. 2 471 + 4. 2-3 478 + + JUDE. + + 20-21 463 + + REVELATION. + + 1. 5 245 + " 17, 18 408 + " 18 344 + 2. 8 408 + " 13, 25 475 + 3. 11 475 + " 14 409 + 5. 11-14 408 + " 13 471 + 6. 1 286 + 13. 18 255 + 14. 1 286 + " 11 465 + 17. 6 298 + 19. 13 286 + 20. 15 465 + 22. 13 408 + + + + +INDEX OF SUBJECTS. + + + PAGE + + Abila, inscription at, 268 + Abraham, trust in God, 205, 210 + ---- promises to, 374 + Account of creation, 117 + Acts of Apostles, 287 + ---- accuracy, 288 + ---- authorship, 294 + ---- medical language, 296 + ---- date, 297 + ---- and Christ's Divinity, 407 + ---- of Pilate, 365 + Adam and Eve, 132 + Additions to Pentateuch, 159 + Agreements, undesigned, 168 + ---- in Gospels, 315 + Agrippa, called King, 289 + Amalek, threat against, 164 + Ambition, the great, 451 + Amos, 160 + Analogies and illustrations: + ---- watch showing design, 12 + ---- mass of machinery, 22 + ---- house and tenant, 31 + ---- ship in distress, 36 + ---- king and child, 67 + ---- bird in egg, 89 + ---- telegraph clerk, 91 + ---- Mont Cenis tunnel, 102 + ---- telephone, 105 + ---- clock and magnet, 107 + ---- artist and pictures, 126 + ---- diseases of Normandy, 148 + ---- similar letters, 227 + ---- man's nature, 232 + ---- parents and children, 234 + ---- paying a debt, 242 + ---- regiments crossing, 245 + ---- whirlpool, 248 + ---- Indian Mutiny, 299 + ---- ingenious robbery, 399 + ---- founding a religion, 416 + ---- going for a holiday, 439 + ---- prayer to a father, 441 + ---- trees and storm, 447 + ---- key fitting lock, 450 + ---- planting a flower, 466 + ---- quicksands, 474 + ---- doctor and fever, 474 + ---- scarlet fever, 482 + ---- long frontier line, 484 + Angels, their existence, 202 + ---- their influence, 203 + ---- at tomb, 310, 345 + ---- seen by the women, 310 + ---- and by soldiers, 311 + ---- not fellow-creators, 394 + ---- seeing and hearing, 202 + ---- are Christ's angels, 402 + ---- casting out evil, 351 + Animals, their creation, 131 + ---- difference from man, 51 + ---- cannot know man, 227 + ---- not immortal, 91 + ---- their sufferings, 69 + Antioch, inscription at, 267 + Antiquity of man, 132 + Apocryphal Gospels, 354 + Apollos of Alexandria, 418 + Apostasy, under trial, 475 + Apostolic Fathers, 260 + Aramaic words of Christ, 354 + Archæology and O. Test, 172 + Arianism, 475 + Aristides, 259, 364 + Aristion, 258, 305 + Ark, 147 + Arm of the Lord, 377 + Artist and pictures, 126 + Ascension, the, 314 + ---- and early converts, 344 + Ashdod, taken by Sargon, 176 + Assyria, prophecies as to, 187 + ---- army destroyed, 184 + Athanasian Creed, warnings, 473 + Athanasian Creed, implies persecution, 475 + ---- dogmatism, 479 + Atonement, doctrine of, 240 + ---- prophecies as to, 379 + ---- and human nature, 447 + ---- and other religions, 454 + + Baal and Jehovah, 183 + Baalbec, inscription at, 268 + Babylonia, prophecies, 187 + ---- messengers from, 197 + Baker, the chief, 140 + Baptismal formula, 461 + ---- witness of St. Paul, 461 + ---- of Teaching, 262, 461 + Baptist (see John), 279 + Barnabas, epistle of, 261 + Bashan, bulls of, 385 + Battering-rams, 192 + Beauterne as to Napoleon, 251 + Bees, cells of, 52 + ---- not due to heredity, 53 + Belief, importance of true, 473 + ---- virtue not necessity, 487 + Belshazzar, 174 + Beneficence in nature, 59 + ---- and righteousness, 80 + ---- in Jewish Religion, 214 + ---- and in Christian, 242 + Bernice, 290 + Berosus, as to Nabonidus, 174 + ---- as to Sennacherib, 185 + Bethany, 283 + Bethel, altar at, 196 + Bethesda, pool at, 277 + Bethlehem, Birth at, 391 + 'Beyond Jordan', 156 + Bible, mistakes in O. Test., 170 + ---- in N. Test., 268 + ---- inspiration, 437 + Bible and Nat. Religion, 200 + Blasphemy against Spirit, 460 + ---- Christ charged with, 412 + Blood and water, 343, 385 + Book of the Law, 162 + Books buried in temples, 163 + Bread, miracle as to, 108 + Bricks with straw, 144 + Brotherhood of man, 48 + Butler, 431 + By-product, pain is a, 60 + + Cæsar, no early MSS., 253 + Cæsarea, Philip at, 295 + Calmness of Evangelists, 317 + Canaan, its peculiarities, 148 + Canaanites destroyed, 209 + ---- but done gradually, 163 + Cannibalism at Jerusalem, 192 + Capernaum, centurion at, 360 + Cats and mice, 70 + Cause, must be free, 33 + Cells of bees, 52 + ---- built by workers, 53 + Celsus, Christ's miracles, 367 + Cenis, tunnel in Mont, 102 + Census of Israelites, 171 + ---- at Christ's birth, 266 + Centurion at Capernaum, 360 + Certainty not necessity, 27 + Chabas, 143 + Chance, really impossible, 21 + Change of place in Acts I, 310 + Changelessness, moral, 111 + Character of God, 58 + ---- of man, 39 + ---- its permanence, 88 + Chiefman of Malta, 290, 361 + Child of God, man is a, 236 + Child's belief, 478 + ---- temptations, 87 + Chorazin, its significance, 350 + Christ, His character, 396 + ---- teaching, 397 + ---- sinlessness, 400 + ---- in Old Test, 380, 388 + ---- always pleasing God, 401 + ---- claims, 401 + ---- sufferings unmerited, 241 + ---- His temptations, 447 + ---- foretold Resurrection, 317 + ---- beginning of creation, 409 + ---- seeing Him seeing God, 404 + ---- influence in world, 434 + ---- prophecies as to, 374 + ---- the perfect Example, 236 + ---- the Jewish Messiah, 375 + ---- the Paschal Lamb, 380 + ---- the One Mediator, 454 + ---- the only Saviour, 476 + ---- (see Divinity), 403, 459 + Christiana, sand storm, 146 + Christianity, meaning of, 3, 221 + ---- its leading doctrines, 222 + ---- its improbability, 249, 488 + Christianity, preparation for, 422 + ---- based on miracles, 435 + ---- and the Resurrection, 302 + ---- its early triumphs, 416 + ---- its later history, 425 + ---- effect on world, 426 + ---- future prospects, 430 + ---- its indestructibility, 432 + ---- and prayer, 437 + ---- and human nature, 445 + ---- and other religions, 452 + ---- its evidences, 483 + ---- unspeakable grandeur, 485 + ---- no half measures, 488 + Classical writers, miracles, 368 + ---- no early MSS., 253 + Clement of Rome, Gospels, 261 + Cleopas, 276 + Clock and magnet, 107 + Closed questions, 481 + Coincidences, superhuman, 100 + Communion, Holy, 386, 402 + Conscience, man has a, 50 + ---- the Voice of God, 50 + Conservation of energy, 46 + Constantine's vision, 335 + Conversion, St. Paul's, 306 + ---- effect on companions, 339 + ---- Christ unrecognised, 340 + Converts, early, 418 + Crabs, and sense of pain, 70 + Creation, 4 + ---- account of, in Genesis, 117 + ---- days of, 119 + ---- on three occasions, 123, 136 + ---- and evolution, 24 + Creator, meaning of term, 8 + Credentials, of messenger, 98 + Credible, meaning of, 99 + Creeping things, 131 + Crispus of Corinth, 418 + Crucifixion, Psalm of the, 384 + ---- no Jewish punishment, 388 + Cyprus, proconsul at, 288 + Cyrenius (see Quirinius), 266 + + Damnatory clauses, 473 + Dana on Genesis I, 136 + Daniel, Book of, 174 + Darkness over land, 368 + Darwin, 71 + David, his character, 208 + ---- not subject of Ps. 22, 388 + Days of creation, 119 + Dead body of Christ, 337 + ---- offerings for, 147 + Death, 448 + Decalogue, its excellence, 211 + ---- preserved in temple, 215 + Definitions, credible, 99 + ---- design, 10 + ---- dogmatism, 479 + ---- evolution, 20 + ---- free force, 4 + ---- instinct, 52 + ---- law of nature, 19 + ---- material universe, 4 + ---- miracles, 101 + ---- natural force, 20 + ---- omnipotence, 32 + ---- omniscience, 32 + ---- origin, 4 + ---- personal being, 30 + ---- revelation, 82 + ---- supernatural force, 9 + Degradation of energy, 7 + Delphi, inscription at, 289 + Demoniacal possession, 351 + Desert, of Shur, 143 + ---- laws suitable for, 149 + ---- journeys in, 165 + ---- wind, 145 + Design, meaning of, 10 + ---- evidence in a watch, 12 + ---- in an eye, 14 + ---- throughout nature, 18 + ---- beneficent, 59 + ---- need not be desire, 74 + ---- man can, 47 + ---- animals cannot, 52 + ---- and instinct, 52 + Destruction of Canaanites, 209 + ---- done gradually, 163 + ---- of wicked, 471 + Determinism, 43 + Deuteronomy, finding of, 162 + Dial, shadow on, 196 + Diana of Ephesus, 292 + Diatessaron of Tatian, 257 + Diet in Egypt, 147 + Difficulties not explained + ---- as to Adam and Eve, 132 + ---- number of Israelites, 171 + ---- swine at Gadara, 352 + ---- vows in Ps. 22, 386 + ---- virginity, 399 + Difficulties, endless misery, 470 + ---- known and unknown, 494 + Dionysius the Areopagite, 418 + Discoveries, modern, 172 + Discrepancies in Gospels, 268 + ---- in Fourth Gospel, 282 + ---- as to Resurrection, 309 + ---- essential agreement, 315 + Diseases of Egypt, 148, 193 + Dishonesty in E, J, P, and D, 158 + Dispersion of Jews, 189, 217 + Divinity of Christ, 403, 459 + ---- witness of Synoptists, 407 + ---- of St. John, 407 + ---- of Acts, 407 + ---- of Revelation, 408 + ---- of St. Paul's Epistles, 409 + ---- of Hebrews, 410 + ---- of Aristides, 365 + ---- of Christ's foes, 411 + ---- of Pliny, 418 + ---- of Jewish prophecies, 390 + ---- of Holy Spirit, 459 + Dogmatism, objection to, 479 + Dogs, term for Gentiles, 385 + Doors of the sea, 126 + Doubts of Resurrection, 334 + Dreams, 92 + ---- of Pharaoh, 140 + Driver, 157, 159 + Dry land, appearance of, 127 + Dualism in old religions, 119 + ---- unknown to Jews, 213 + ---- and endless misery, 466 + + Eagle, Roman ensign, 191 + Earth likened to machine, 22 + Earthquakes, 74 + Edersheim and Isaiah, 53, 381 + ---- and Psalm 22, 387 + Edomite kings, list of, 159 + Effect, the world is an, 37 + Egypt, prophecies as to, 188 + ---- magicians of, 182 + ---- diseases of, 148, 193 + ---- gods of, 146 + ---- religion of, 454 + ---- and the Pentateuch, 138 + ---- return of Jews to, 194 + ---- periodical census, 267 + Elephantine, temple at, 162 + Eleven, the, ancient term, 322 + Elijah's sacrifice, 100, 183 + Elisha, trivial miracles of, 181 + Elohim, plural word, 393 + Embalming Christ's body, 334 + Emperor called lord, 289 + Encyclopædia Britannica, 15, 53 + End of the world, 437 + Endless happiness, 470 + ---- misery, 464 + Enemies, doing good to, 211 + Energy, degradation of, 7 + ---- conservation of, 46 + Ephesus, riot at, 292 + ---- St. Paul's discussions, 418 + ---- farewell to friends, 299 + Epistles of St. Paul, four admittedly genuine, 282 + ---- accuracy of Acts, 293 + ---- the Resurrection, 303 + ---- St. Paul's sufferings, 328 + ---- Christian miracles, 363 + ---- Divinity of Christ, 410 + ---- doctrine of Trinity, 462 + ---- spread of Christianity, 418 + Erastus of Corinth, 418 + Erech, inscription at, 174 + Erect position, man's, 65 + Eternal punishment, 464 + Eternity, 450 + Ether, 226, 246 + Euclid, 40 + Eusebius, as to Papias, 259 + ---- Quadratus, 364 + ---- Jews going to Pella, 275 + Evangelists educated, 275 + ---- had known Christ, 302 + Everlasting Father and Son, 225 + ---- in Isaiah, 391 + Everyone's work no one's, 348 + Evidences, Christian, 483 + Evil, existence of, 69 + ---- physical, 69, 72 + ---- moral, 75 + ---- Jewish idea of, 213 + ---- men, 77 + ---- spirits, 351 + Evolution, meaning of, 20 + ---- requires a Cause, 7 + ---- requires a Designer, 23 + ---- requires a motive, 84 + ---- implies involution, 23 + Evolution and mind, 65 + ---- and immortality, 85 + ---- a form of creation, 24 + ---- leads up to man, 65 + ---- and the Incarnation, 239 + ---- in revelation, 93, 206 + ---- in prophecies, 375 + ---- in account of Creation, 122 + Experience and miracles, 103 + Eye, its marks of design, 14 + ---- shows beneficence, 59 + Ezekiel, prophecy of Egypt, 188 + + Faith, faculty of, 485 + ---- and miracles, 358 + Falsehood Theory, the, 326 + ---- not now adopted, 329 + Famines in Egypt, 141 + ---- at Jerusalem, 192 + Farewell, Christ's double, 309 + Feeding the 5,000 credible, 108 + ---- in triple tradition, 269 + ---- undesigned coincidence, 284 + ---- public miracle, 361 + ---- rationalistic view, 370 + Feet pierced, 343 + Felix and Festus, 289 + 'Fellow,' meaning of, 392 + Fellowship and personality, 229 + Fig-tree, the barren, 354 + Final state of wicked, 463 + Firmament, or expanse, 125 + Firstborn from dead, 245 + ---- of Creation, 409 + ---- death of the, 146 + First Cause single, 8 + ---- supernatural, 9 + ---- needed no cause, 8 + First Witnesses, the, 325 + Fishes and birds, 130 + Five hundred, appearance, 307 + ---- explains Gospels, 321 + Flesh and blood, 304 + Flood, parallel passages, 159 + Forces and causes, 33 + Foreknowledge, free will, 26 + ---- and omniscience, 32 + ---- and prophecies, 99 + ---- and prayer, 439 + ---- and endless misery, 468 + ---- differs from foresight, 11 + ---- from foreordaining, 78 + ---- in man, foreguessing, 26 + Forgiveness of sins, 242 + Fourth Gospel, authorship, 277 + ---- and other three, 280 + ---- and Revelation, 285 + Free force, meaning of a, 4 + Free will, foreknowledge, 26 + ---- of man, 43 + ---- of animals, 52 + ---- of angels, 203 + ---- source of all force, 46 + ---- its introduction, 123 + ---- makes evil possible, 76 + ---- difficulties as to, 466 + ---- in religious belief, 487 + Fruit-trees making fruit, 122 + Fulfilled among us, 276 + Future life (_see_ Immortality and Resurrection). + + Gabriel, man and angel, 311 + Gadara, miracle at, 269, 352 + Galilee, appearance in, 307 + Gallio, proconsul, 289 + Generations, meaning, 122 + Genesis, the Creation in, 117 + ---- refers to Egypt, 138 + ---- partly written there, 142 + Gentiles, conversion, 380, 388, 393 + ---- called dogs, 385 + Geography of Palestine, 173 + Gibbon and Christianity, 420 + Gifts brought to the altar, 272 + God, meaning of term, 30 + ---- argument from causation, 4 + ---- from design, 10 + ---- moral argument, 58 + ---- three combined, 81, 229 + ---- no physical proof, 31 + ---- a Personal Being, 30 + ---- who loves man, 234 + ---- Power, 32, 213, 228, 440, 465 + ---- Wisdom 32, 213, 228, 441 + ---- Goodness, 79, 214, 228, 242, 441 + ---- bearing on miracles, 112 + ---- and on the Trinity, 229 + ---- emphasized by Christianity, 235 + ---- three attributes combined, 80, 112, 199, 235, 488 + ---- Justice, 204, 466 + God, and Mercy, 468 + ---- bearing on Atonement, 241 + ---- Love, 229 + ---- bearing on Trinity, 229 + ---- Greatness, 61 + ---- Omnipresence, 33, 213 + ---- Unknowable, 33, 214, 226 + ---- bearing on revelation, 94 + ---- Unchangeable, 110, 214 + ---- bearing on miracles, 110 + ---- and the Incarnation, 231 + ---- Omnipotent, 32 + ---- Eternal, 213 + ---- Creator of Universe, 8 + ---- and its Preserver, 33 + ---- Jewish idea of, 204 + ---- faith in, 486 + ---- (_see_ Immanence) + ---- (_see_ Trinity) + Goodness, God's, 80, 214, 228 + ---- not below man's, 80, 235 + ---- man's, 48 + ---- depends on free will, 76 + ---- its infinite value, 76 + Gospels, the Four, 252 + ---- external testimony, 252 + ---- internal evidence, 265 + ---- evidence of Acts, 287 + ---- probable date, 300 + ---- (_see_ Synoptics, Fourth) + Governor, title of, 289 + Grape-juice in Egypt, 140 + Grave-clothes at tomb, 345 + ---- by themselves, 318 + Gravity, force, universal, 8 + ---- known by effects, 35 + ---- an assumption, 46 + Great ambition, 451 + ---- alternative, 413 + ---- surprise, 449 + Greek philosophy, 423 + Green grass, mentioned, 284 + Guard at the tomb, 337 + + Harnack, unity of Acts, 295 + ---- date of Gospels, 300 + ---- as to Town Clerk, 292 + Healing, gifts of, 370 + Hebrews, Christ's Divinity, 410 + ---- land of the, 156 + Hengstenberg, 387 + Herod, Agrippa, death of, 288 + Herod, called king, 289 + Hezekiah, his sickness, 196 + ---- not subject of Ps. 22, 388 + Hittites, 174 + Holy Communion, 386, 402 + Holy Spirit, the, 230 + ---- Divinity of, 459 + Horses, time of Joseph, 141 + Horus myth, and Christ, 454 + Human sacrifices in O.T., 210 + ---- and Atonement, 240 + Hume on experience, 104 + Hurtful organs in nature, 59 + Huxley on the Creeds, 249 + + Iconium, 291 + Ignatius, 261 + ---- knowing, believing, 263 + Illusions, not simultaneous, 335 + Illyricum, 293 + Image and likeness, 134 + Immanence, God's, 109 + ---- and Evolution, 23 + ---- and secondary forces, 33 + ---- and miracles, 109 + ---- and the Incarnation, 239 + ---- and prayer, 440 + Immortality, man's, 83 + ---- from unique position, 84 + ---- unjust treatment, 87 + ---- vast capabilities, 88 + ---- inherent belief, 90 + ---- counter-arguments, 91 + ---- and human nature, 448 + ---- in Egyptian religion, 455 + Incarnation, doctrine of, 230 + ---- its difficulties, 231 + ---- its motive, 233 + ---- historical position, 238 + ---- and evolution, 239 + ---- and human nature, 447 + ---- and other religions, 452 + Indian Mutiny, 299 + Infinitely little, 64 + Inhabitants, other planets, 67 + Inherent convictions, man's, 39 + ---- as to mind, 41 + ---- free will, 44 + ---- responsibility, 47 + ---- sin, 48 + ---- immortality, 90 + ---- prayer, 438 + Inscriptions at Erech, 174 + Inscriptions, at Mugheir, 174 + ----Khorsabad, 176 + ---- Tivoli, 266 + ---- Antioch, 267 + ---- Baalbec, 268 + ---- Abila, 268 + ---- Soli, Cyprus, 289 + ---- Delphi, 289 + ---- Malta, 290 + ---- Thessalonica, 290 + ---- Lystra, 291 + ---- Ephesus, 292 + Insignificance of man, 60 + ---- counter-arguments, 61 + ---- real importance, 64 + Instincts of animals, 52 + Invertebrates, in Genesis, 131 + Involution and evolution, 23 + Irenæus and Gospels, 254 + ---- Polycarp, 254 + ---- Papias, 258 + ---- date of Revelation, 285 + ---- value of prophecy, 367 + Isaac, sacrifice of, 210 + Isaiah, mentions Sargon, 176 + ---- test of a prophet, 199 + ---- prophecy of Babylon, 187 + ---- of Jerusalem, 196 + ---- of the Messiah, 377 + ---- of His Divinity, 391 + ---- implies the Trinity, 394 + Israel, God's selection of, 204 + ---- going through cities of, 273 + Israelites, great number, 171 + + Jacob's character, 208 + Jairus' daughter, 353, 358, 360 + James, St., Christ's brother, 272 + ---- unbeliever, 325 + Japan, becoming Christian, 430 + Jehovah adored by millions, 218 + ---- identified with Christ, 407 + ---- and with Holy Spirit, 460 + Jehu not son of Omri, 176 + Jephthah's daughter, 210 + Jericho, discoveries at, 173 + Jeroboam's rebellion, 195 + Jerusalem, first destruction foretold, 196 + ---- accuracy of date, 177 + ---- and second, 191, 274 + ---- later than Gospels, 275 + Jerusalem, later than Acts, 299 + ---- hint to leave, 274 + Jewish Prophecies, Egypt, 188 + ---- Assyria, 187 + ---- Babylonia, 187 + ---- dispersion of Jews, 189 + ---- the Messiah, 374 + Jewish Religion, its origin, 137 + ---- its partiality, 204 + ---- its miracles, 177 + ---- its prophecies, 186 + ---- influence in world, 217 + ---- and Natural Religion, 216 + Jews, dispersion of, 189 + ---- a peculiar people, 217 + ---- all from one man, 216 + ---- use of term, 280 + John, St., his call, 278 + ---- author of Gospel, 279 + ---- the Baptist, 279 + ---- and Christ's miracles, 350 + Jordan, beyond, 156 + Joseph in Egypt, 139 + Josephus, witness to Acts, 289 + ---- as to Sennacherib, 185 + ---- as to crucifixion, 342 + ---- siege of Jerusalem, 191 + ---- date of the taxing, 266 + Josiah and Deuteronomy, 162 + Journeys in Desert, 165 + Jubilee, year of, 150 + Judges and Pentateuch, 160 + Justice, God's, 204, 466 + Justin, witness to Gospels, 255 + ---- Book of Revelation, 285 + ---- guard at tomb, 337 + ---- Christ's miracles, 365 + ---- prefers prophecy, 365 + ---- the Name, persecuted, 434 + ---- Acts of Pilate, 365 + + King of the Jews, 392 + Kings did not use plural, 393 + Korah, rebellion of, 169 + Koran, Christ's miracles, 424 + ---- authorises force, 428 + Krishna myth, and Christ, 452 + + Lamb of God, 286 + ---- Paschal, 380 + Land animals, 131 + Laws, of nature, 19 + ---- in Pentateuch, 149 + Laymen offering sacrifice, 162 + Lazarus, raising of, 370 + ---- only in one Gospel, 283 + ---- well-known man, 360 + ---- case of resuscitation, 245 + Lecky, on Christ's teaching, 398 + Legend Theory, the, 329 + ---- disproved by Gospels, 329 + ---- and St. Paul's Epistles, 330 + Legislation, Jewish, 149 + Levi ben Gershon, 180 + Levites, 150, 162 + Life, origin of, in Genesis, 128 + ---- science and, 122 + ---- forms three groups, 55 + Light before the sun, 129 + Logos in Revelation, 286 + ---- among Greeks, 423 + Lord, and God, 407 + ---- title or emperor, 289 + Lord's Day, 303 + ---- Servant, the, 376 + Lost Gospel, 262 + Love, of God, 229 + ---- must be free, 235 + ---- motive of Religion, 451 + Luke, St., a doctor, 296 + ---- wrote Gospel, 275 + ---- wrote Acts, 294 + ---- perhaps at Emmaus, 276 + ---- witnessed miracles, 362 + Lycaonia, the cities of, 291 + Lysanias, 268 + Lystra, inscriptions at, 291 + + Magicians of Egypt, 182 + Magnet and clock, 107 + Mohammedanism, 213 + ---- unlike Christianity, 424 + ---- and Christ's miracles, 424 + ---- authorises force, 428 + Malchus, 360 + Malta, title 'chiefman', 290 + Man, mental attributes, 39 + ---- moral attributes, 41 + ---- memory, 41 + ---- free will, 43 + ---- responsibility, 47 + ---- moral sense, 48 + ---- conscience, 50 + ---- personal being, 47 + Man, moral being, 49 + ---- bearing on Christianity, 239 + ---- his Unique position, 45, 65 + ---- due to mind, and spirit, 66 + ---- greater than stars, 66 + ---- bearing on revelation, 94 + ---- each man unique, 62, 133 + ---- and irreplaceable, 63 + ---- character, permanent, 88 + ---- tripartite nature, 55 + ---- end of creation, 65, 84 + ---- also its first thought, 66 + ---- his probation, 85 + ---- scandal of universe, 244 + ---- seems insignificant, 60 + ---- real importance, 64 + ---- bearing on Incarnation, 239 + ---- immortality of spirit, 83 + ---- resurrection of body, 247 + ---- creation in Genesis, 132 + ---- not created good, 86, 133 + ---- antiquity, 132 + ---- differs from animals, 51 + ---- his erect position, 65 + ---- resembles God, 56, 133, 234 + ---- child of God, 236 + ---- bearing on Incarnation, 232 + ---- his ignorance, 6, 17, 34 + ---- bearing on miracles, 108 + ---- and on Christianity, 249 + Manaen, 418 + Marcion, Luke's Gospel, 257 + Mardukshazzar, 175 + Mark, St., wrote Gospel, 275 + ---- interpreter of Peter, 259 + ---- earliest of Four, 269 + ---- at Gethsemane, 275 + ---- witness to miracles, 355 + ---- their sitting at meat, 320 + Martha, 283 + Mary Magd. first witness, 316 + ---- not expecting it, 334 + Material universe, meaning, 4 + Materialism, 40 + Materials, same everywhere, 68 + Matter, perhaps eternal, 6 + ---- certainly a mystery, 34 + ---- indestructible, 83 + ---- not solid, 245 + Matthew, St., wrote Gospel, 275 + Mediator, Christ the, 454 + Medical language in Acts, 296 + Memory, and materialism, 41 + ---- in heaven, 470 + Menephthah, 143 + Mercy, God's, 468 + Mesmerism, 351 + Messiah, Jewish, 374 + Meteorite, 100, 292 + Micah, prophecy of, 391 + Michael, 203 + Microscope, 64 + Mill, on Christ's teaching, 397 + Mind of man, 39 + ---- shows his importance, 66 + Miracles, 101 + ---- as marvels, 103 + ---- and experience, 103 + ---- as special works, 106 + ---- as signs, 110 + ---- not mere wonders, 101, 103 + ---- natural means supernaturally applied, 107 + ---- in Jewish religion, 177 + ---- to benefit mankind, 200 + ---- their publicity, 185 + ---- some seem trivial, 181 + ---- in Christian religion, 349 + ---- their credibility, 349 + ---- not worked to order, 350 + ---- their truthfulness, 353 + ---- their naturalness, 355 + ---- their number, 355 + ---- their variety, 355 + ---- their suddenness, 356 + ---- their permanence, 356 + ---- order to keep secret, 358 + ---- on the Sabbath, 359 + ---- their publicity, 360 + ---- names often given, 360 + ---- caused astonishment, 361 + ---- peculiarity of Christ's, 357 + ---- conditional on faith, 358 + ---- publicly admitted, 362 + ---- St. Peter's appeal to, 362 + ---- and Acts of Pilate, 365 + ---- how explained away, 369 + ---- Apostolic, St. Paul's, 363 + ---- witnessed by St. Luke, 362 + ---- in Christ's name, 408 + ---- helped Christianity, 421 + ---- Mohammed did none, 424 + Miracles, not to be prayed for, 443 + ---- later Christian, 371 + Missionaries and prayer, 438 + ---- of the Resurrection, 347 + Missions, 430 + Mistakes in O. Test., 170 + ---- in N. Test., 268 + Monkey and evolution, 23 + Monotheism, of Jews, 212 + ---- in account of creation, 118 + Moral sense, 48 + ---- perfection, 67 + ---- difficulties in O. Test., 208 + ---- in N. Testament, 399 + Morality, Christian, 422 + Moses wrote Pentateuch, 164 + ---- an Egyptian name, 143 + Mugheir, inscription at, 174 + Mutiny, Indian, 299 + Mutual explanations, 317 + Myrrh, 345 + + Nabonidus, 174 + Name of Christ persecuted, 434 + Names, Egyptian, 142 + ---- of God in O. Test., 158 + ---- in N. Test. miracles, 360 + ---- of eminent converts, 418 + ---- and titles in Acts, 288 + Napoleon, on Christianity, 251 + Nathaniel, 279 + Natural means, supernaturally applied, 107 + Natural forces, 20 + ---- Selection, 20 + ---- Rejection, 21 + ---- Religion, depends on, probability, 36, 96, 487 + ---- only partly known, 35 + ---- in Jewish religion, 216 + ---- in Egyptian religion, 455 + ---- in other religions, 457 + ---- in prehistoric times, 238 + ---- moral difficulties, 69 + ---- and the Bible, 200 + ---- and unity of God, 227 + ---- leads to Revelation, 39 + Nature, its unity, 8, 18 + ---- its laws, 19 + ---- its forces, 20 + ---- acting rationally, 100 + ---- its uniformity, 106 + Nature, its mysteries, 250 + ---- its perfection, 61 + ---- care of individuals, 62 + ---- a means to an end, 85 + ---- bearing on miracles, 112 + ---- immanence in God, 109 + ---- forgets nothing, 466 + ---- analogy, as to angels, 202 + ---- man's future life, 89 + ---- man's resurrection, 247 + ---- short probation, 468 + ---- his destruction, 472 + Naville, 164 + ---- unity of Genesis, 142 + Nazareth, dry ground, 377 + Nebuchadnezzar, 174, 184 + Nebula theory, 124 + Necessity, doctrine of, 43 + ---- and certainty, 27 + Nero addressed as Lord, 289 + ---- his persecution, 298 + Nineveh, men of, 269 + Numbers in O. Test., 171 + + Obedience and sacrifice, 161 + Old Testament, genuine, 167 + ---- alleged mistakes, 170 + ---- miracles, 177 + ---- prophecies, 186 + ---- moral defects, 208 + Omnipotence, 32, 213 + Omnipresence, 33, 213 + Omniscience, 32, 213 + Origen and Celsus, 367 + Origin of universe, 4 + ---- in Genesis, 118 + ---- of life, 123 + ---- of Jewish religion, 137 + ---- of Christian religion, 301 + Osiris, 454 + + Pain, 69, 71 + ---- not always an evil, 72 + Paley, watch argument, 11 + Pantheism, 119 + Papias as to Gospels, 258 + Papyri, Egyptian, 271, 289 + Papyrus used for writing, 253 + Parables, teaching by, 273 + ---- some objected to, 399 + ---- Unrighteous Steward, 399 + ---- Wedding Garment, 400 + Partiality in revelation, 95 + Partiality to Jews, 204 + Paul, St., conversion, 305, 339 + ---- teaching not new, 409 + ---- the two essentials, 476 + ---- (_see_ Epistles) + Peace be unto you, twice, 320 + Peculiar people, Jews a, 217 + Pella, Christians go to, 275 + Pentateuch, importance, 138 + ---- claims to be Mosaic, 164 + ---- language, 155 + ---- Egyptian references, 138 + ---- laws, 149 + ---- date and author, 164 + ---- excellent morality, 211 + ---- theory of late date, 155 + Perish, its meaning, 475 + Persecution for Name, 434 + Persecutions, religious, 427 + ---- of Jews, 190 + ---- of Christians, 328 + ---- implied in Creed, 475 + Person, not in N. Test, 460 + Personal Being, meaning, 30 + ---- God is a, 30 + ---- man is a, 47 + ---- animals are not, 54 + ---- implies fellowship, 229 + Persons and things, 67 + Peter, St., called Simon, 321 + ---- connection with Mark, 259 + ---- appeal to miracles, 362, 408 + Petrie, as to Exodus, 171 + Peyreyrius, 132 + Pharaoh's dreams, 140 + ---- heart hardened, 209 + Philip, one of the Seven, 295 + Philippi, gaoler at, 477 + Philo, days of Genesis, 121 + Pilate, Acts of, 365 + Pinches, Book of Daniel, 175 + Pithom, discoveries at, 144 + Plagues, the ten, 144 + ---- superhuman coincidences, 178 + ---- and magicians, 182 + Planets, inhabited (?), 67 + ---- not by sinners (?), 232 + Pliny, numerous letters, 369 + ---- spread of Christianity, 418 + ---- Christ's Divinity, 418 + Plural of majesty, 393 + ---- in P and J, 159 + Politarchs, 290 + Polycarp of Smyrna, 254 + ---- witness to Gospels, 261 + Polytheism, 119, 212 + Pomponia Græcina, 419 + Prayer, subject of, 437 + ---- and experiment, 444 + ---- and observation, 444 + ---- a simple, 480 + ---- after the event, 439 + ---- for others, 442 + Pre-existence of Christ, 404 + ---- in O. Test., 391 + Prehistoric men, future life, 90, 238 + Priests and Levites, 162 + Probability, guide of life, 487 + Proconsul and other terms, 288 + Prophecy, credible, 99 + ---- in Old Testament, 186 + ---- word of Jehovah, 389 + ---- as to Christ, 374 + ---- His Resurrection, 317 + ---- why not plainer, 394 + ---- His own influence, 434 + Prospective organs, 16 + Psalm of the Crucifixion, 384 + Publius, chief man, 290, 361 + Pul of Assyria, 176 + + 'Q' (Quelle) and Gospels, 270, 350, 361 + Quadratus, as to miracles, 364 + Quirinius, his census, 266 + Quotations, Barnabas, 261 + ---- Butler, 431 + ---- Clement, 261 + ---- Dana, 136 + ---- Darwin, 71 + ---- Eusebius, 259, 364 + ---- Huxley, 249 + ---- Ignatius, 261 + ---- Irenæus, 254 + ---- Justin, 365 + ---- Lecky, 398 + ---- Mill, 397 + ---- Napoleon, 250 + ---- Naville, 142 + ---- Papias, 258 + ---- Pinches, 175 + ---- Polycarp, 261 + ---- Quadratus, 364 + ---- Ramsay, 272 + ---- Renan, 397 + ---- Romanes, 87, 135 + ---- Teaching of Twelve, 261 + ---- Wallace, 71 + + Radium, 7 + Ramsey, as to the census, 267 + ---- Lysanias, 268 + ---- early Gospels, 272 + ---- Lycaonia, 291 + Rationalism, spread of, 430 + ---- and miracles, 369 + Rawlinson, 176 + Reason cannot judge of Christian doctrines, 249 + Recognition, hereafter, 448 + Recorders in O. Test., 173 + Recurring series of events, 5 + Red Sea, passage of, 178 + Relics, resurrection of, 248 + Remorse, 51 + Renan, raising of Lazarus, 370 + ---- Christ's character, 397 + Repentance, 243 + Responsibility of man, 47 + Resurrection, doctrine of, 244 + ---- applies to a body, 303 + ---- not resuscitation, 245, 323 + ---- Christ's, 301 + ---- falsehood theory, 326 + ---- legend theory, 329 + ---- vision theory, 331 + ---- swoon theory, 341 + ---- wanted missionaries, 347 + ---- a physical fact, 304 + ---- not really unique, 245 + ---- table of appearances, 308 + ---- three groups, 307 + ---- the narratives, 305 + ---- their discrepancies, 309 + ---- their agreements, 315 + ---- omissions, 312 + ---- signs of early date, 321 + ---- the real difficulty, 346 + ---- in other religions, 455 + ---- man's, 247 + ---- need not be of relics, 248 + ---- the period of life, 449 + ---- the great surprise, 449 + ---- and human nature, 448 + ---- terms not literal, 464 + Resuscitation, 245, 323 + Revelation, meaning of, 82 + ---- possible, 83 + ---- probable, 92 + ---- progressive, 93 + ---- after writing, 93 + ---- must be partial, 95, 204 + ---- evidence inconclusive, 95 + ---- miraculous, 98 + ---- Book of, and Gospel, 285 + ---- Divinity of Christ, 408 + Risen Body difficulties, 245 + ---- record of eyewitnesses, 323 + Roman provinces, 288 + ---- siege of Jerusalem, 191 + ---- State and Christians, 298 + Romanes, man's probation, 87 + ---- accuracy of Genesis, 135 + + Sabbath, miracles on, 359 + Sacrifices, heathen, 447 + ---- human, in O. Test., 210 + Salvation, not selfishness, 451 + Samaria, date of fall, 177 + Samuel and Pentateuch, 160 + Sanctuary, the one, 161 + Sand-storms and darkness, 146 + Sargon, named in Isaiah, 176 + Satan, 203 + Saurians, 131 + Secondary forces, 33 + Secrecy in Christ's miracles, 358 + Seed, may be disciples, 378, 387 + Selfishness, objection as to, 451 + Sennacherib, 184 + Sentry, pain a kind of, 72 + Sergius Paulus, 289, 361 + Servant, the Lord's, 376 + Seventh day, the, 119 + Shadow on dial, 196 + Shaving in Egypt, 141 + Shepherd, the Lord's, 391 + ---- kings, foreign, 139 + Shur, desert of, 143 + Siege of Jerusalem foretold by Moses, 191 + ---- and by Christ, 274 + Signet ring, in Egypt, 141 + Signs, superhuman, 99 + ---- supernatural, 101 + Silence, argument from, 368 + ---- of sun and moon, 179 + Simon, shows early date, 321 + Simultaneous visions, 335 + Sin, its meaning, 48 + ---- reason for it, 76 + ---- necessary for some virtues, 78 + ---- its universality, 447 + ---- its remedy, 244 + ---- eternal, 467 + Sinai, 147 + Sinlessness of Christ, 400 + ---- foretold by Isaiah, 380 + ---- implied in Ps. 22, 388 + Slaughter of animals, 150 + Slavery in early times, 211 + Soli, inscription at, 289 + Son of God, means God the Son, 407 + ---- of Man in Gospels, 281 + Sorrow, human, 446 + Sources of Gospels, 269, 413 + South, Queen of the, 269 + Spectroscopes, 64 + Spirit, man's, 55, 66 + ---- master of body, 91 + Spiritual beings, 202, 351 + Standing still of sun, 179 + Steward, the Unrighteous, 399 + Stone at Tomb, 336 + Straw in brick making, 144 + Struggle for life, 71 + Substance, meaning of, 222 + Suetonius, 417 + Sufferings of animals, 69 + ---- of men, 72 + ---- and future happiness, 88 + ---- of Jews, 190 + ---- of Christians, 328 + Sun and moon formation, 129 + ---- silence of, 179 + Sunday, 303 + Superhuman signs, 99 + ---- coincidences, 100 + ---- passage of Red Sea, 178 + ---- destruction of Korah, 169 + ---- of Assyrian army, 184 + ---- silence of sun, 179 + ---- Elijah's sacrifice, 183 + ---- shadow on dial, 196 + ---- and prayer, 439 + Supernatural, force, 9 + ---- man partly, 45 + ---- signs, 101 + Surprise, the great, 449 + Survival of fittest, 20 + Swine at Gadara, 269, 352 + Swoon Theory, the, 341 + Sword, any violent death, 386 + Synoptic Gospels, accuracy, 266 + ---- discrepancies, 266 + ---- sources, 269 + ---- ministry in Judæa, 282 + ---- probable date, 272, 300 + ---- authors, 275 + ---- and Fourth, 280 + + Table of Appearances, 308 + Tacitus, and Christianity, 417 + ---- his contempt for it, 368 + Tatian, the Diatessaron, 257 + Teaching of Twelve, 261 + ---- and the Trinity, 461 + Tel-el-Muskhuta, ruins, 144 + Telepathy, 40 + Telephone, 105 + Telescope and eye, 14 + ---- discoveries of, 64 + Ten, Commandments, 211 + ---- Plagues, 144 + ---- superhuman coincidences, 178 + ---- and the magicians, 182 + Tertullian, 257 + Testimony and experience, 104 + ---- its value, 325 + Theophilus and Gospel, 275 + ---- and Acts, 297 + ---- things taught to, 271 + ---- prominent convert, 418 + Thessalonica, politarchs, 290 + Theudas, date of, 288 + Third Day, importance, 303 + Thomas, St., Resurrection, 336 + ---- Christ's Divinity, 407 + Thousands or families, 171 + Three, Creeds, 458 + ---- men in furnace, 103 + Tisdall, 453, 456 + Titles of various rulers, 288 + Tomb, the empty, 338 + ---- visit of disciples, 318 + ---- guard at, 337 + ---- angels at, 310, 345 + Town Clerk of Ephesus, 292 + Trajan, decree of, 267 + Transfiguration, 270 + Trials here, future reward, 88 + Trinity, doctrine of the, 222 + ---- its probability, 228 + ---- peculiarly Christian, 452 + ---- hinted at in Old Test., 393 + ---- contained in N. Test., 459 + ---- implied by Teaching, 461 + Triple tradition in Gospels, 269 + Troelstra, 158 + True belief, importance, 473 + ---- a virtue, 487 + + Undesigned agreements, 168 + ---- examples, Korah, 169 + ---- call of St. John, 278 + ---- destroying temple, 283 + ---- feeding the 5,000, 284 + ---- Acts and Epistles, 293 + ---- mocking the Crucified, 390 + ---- baptismal formula, 461 + Uniformity of nature, 106 + ---- and prayer, 438 + Uniqueness of man, 65 + ---- of each man, 62 + ---- of the Incarnation, 233 + Unitarianism, 228 + Unity of nature, 8 + Universalism, 470 + Universe, its origin, 4, 118 + ---- its magnitude, 64 + ---- bearing on man, 60 + ---- an effect, 37 + Unknowable, everything is, 34 + Unrighteous Steward, 399 + + Vellum used for writing, 253 + Veracity of the witnesses, 326 + Verbal inspiration, 437 + Vessels of wood, 145 + Vesuvius, eruption of, 74 + 'Victoria Institute,' pain, 70 + ---- Pithom, 144 + ---- Belshazzar, 175 + ---- Red Sea, 179 + ---- earliest Gospel, 272 + ---- Horus myth, 455 + ---- Krishna myth, 453 + Virgin Birth, unique, 233 + ---- and Aristides, 365 + ---- not said of Krishna, 452 + Virtue, the highest, 78, 211 + Vision Theory, the, 331 + ---- arguments in favour, 332 + ---- arguments against, 332 + ---- does not explain facts, 336 + ---- real visions, 340 + Voice from heaven, 268 + Voyage, St. Paul's, 294 + + Walking on sea, Christ's, 370 + Wallace, 71 + Warnings of the Creed, 473 + Wars of the Lord, quoted, 159 + Waste and void, in Gen., 124 + Waste in nature, 68 + Watch showing design, 12 + Water-wheels, Egyptian, 149 + 'We' sections of Acts, 294 + Wedding Garment, the, 400 + West, use of term, 156 + Wheat, several ears, 140 + Whirlpool, 248 + Wicked men, their use, 77 + ---- not machines, 48 + ---- final state, 463 + Will, man's, its action, 42, 45 + ---- its freedom, 43 + Windows of heaven, 126 + Wisdom, God's, 32, 213, 441 + Word or Logos in Revelation, 286 + ---- among Greeks, 423 + World, creation of the, 4, 117 + ---- end of the, 437 + Wounded means pierced, 377 + Writing, early use of, 138, 172 + ---- wanted for revelation, 93 + + X-rays, 246 + + Zeal of early Christians, 420 + Zebulon, prophecy as to, 391 + Zechariah, prophecies of, 392 + Zeus and Hermes, 291 + + + PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN. WELLS GARDNER, DARTON AND CO., LTD., LONDON. + + + + +Transcriber's Notes + + +Some punctuation has been inserted to maintain consistency. + +The reference in the index to page 541 was corrected to 441. + +Spelling and hyphenation match the original text and may vary within +the book. + +The caret symbol (^) has been used to represent superscripts. + +OE ligatures have been changed to simple OE in this text version. + + + + + +End of Project Gutenberg's The Truth of Christianity, by William Harry Turton + +*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 42460 *** |