diff options
Diffstat (limited to '42460-8.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 42460-8.txt | 18259 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 18259 deletions
diff --git a/42460-8.txt b/42460-8.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 57ec069..0000000 --- a/42460-8.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,18259 +0,0 @@ -Project Gutenberg's The Truth of Christianity, by William Harry Turton - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org - - -Title: The Truth of Christianity - Being an Examination of the More Important Arguments For - and Against Believing in that Religion - -Author: William Harry Turton - -Release Date: April 2, 2013 [EBook #42460] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY *** - - - - -Produced by Heiko Evermann, Quentin Johnson, Fox in the -Stars, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at -http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images -scanned by Fox in the Stars from the collection of Brays -Advent Christian Church in Iberia, Missouri) - - - - - - - - - -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 Judĉus, 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, 'Archĉology 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--Cĉsar, 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 archĉology 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, hyĉnas, 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; Irenĉus, 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, Cĉsar, 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 _Irenĉus_, 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: Irenĉus, 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 -Irenĉus 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 Irenĉus, 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: Irenĉus, 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 Irenĉus, 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 -Irenĉus and Eusebius. We learn from the former that he was a -disciple of St. John and a companion of Polycarp; and considering -that Irenĉus 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: Irenĉus, 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 _Encyclopĉdia 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 Smyrnĉans, 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 Irenĉus, 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 -Cĉsar,[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 -Irenĉus. - -[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 -_proprĉtors_, 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 Judĉa 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 Judĉa, 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 Judĉa, 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 Cĉsarea 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 Cĉsarea_, 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 Cĉsar, 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 Cĉsar, 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. (Horĉ Evangelicĉ, 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 Judĉan 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 Judĉan -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 Judĉan 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 Irenĉus 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 Judĉa_[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 Judĉa 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 Cĉsar 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 Grĉcina (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 - Archĉology 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 - - Cĉsar, no early MSS., 253 - Cĉsarea, 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 - Encyclopĉdia 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 - Irenĉus 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 Grĉcina, 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 - ---- Irenĉus, 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 Judĉa, 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 THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY *** - -***** This file should be named 42460-8.txt or 42460-8.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/4/2/4/6/42460/ - -Produced by Heiko Evermann, Quentin Johnson, Fox in the -Stars, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at -http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images -scanned by Fox in the Stars from the collection of Brays -Advent Christian Church in Iberia, Missouri) - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions -will be renamed. - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no -one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation -(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without -permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, -set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to -copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to -protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project -Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you -charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you -do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the -rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose -such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and -research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do -practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is -subject to the trademark license, especially commercial -redistribution. - - - -*** START: FULL LICENSE *** - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at - www.gutenberg.org/license. - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy -all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. -If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" -or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the -collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from -copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative -works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg -are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project -Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by -freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of -this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with -the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by -keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project -Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate -access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently -whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, -copied or distributed: - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with -almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or -re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included -with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived -from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is -posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied -and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees -or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work -with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the -work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 -through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional -terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked -to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the -permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), -you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a -copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon -request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other -form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided -that - -- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is - owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he - has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the - Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments - must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you - prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax - returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and - sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the - address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to - the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." - -- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or - destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium - and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of - Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any - money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days - of receipt of the work. - -- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set -forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from -both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm -collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain -"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or -corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual -property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a -computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by -your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. -To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 -and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent -permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. -Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 -North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email -contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the -Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To -SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any -particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. -To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic -works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. -unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily -keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |