{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_42460/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_42460","id":"gutenberg_42460","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42460","summary":null,"tags":["Apologetics","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.\n\n=Secular.=\n\n'The book is a distinctly readable one.'--_Glasgow Herald_,\nSeptember 18, 1902.\n\n'Really excellent little work.'--_Daily News_, September 26, 1902.\n\n'We cannot commend it too highly.'--_Western Morning News_, January\n2, 1903.\n\n'Carefully thought-out little work ... written with frank and\ntolerant impartiality.'--_Standard_, May 26, 1905.\n\n'The arguments are admirably marshalled; difficulties are not\nevaded, but met fairly.'--_Westminster Review_, August, 1905.\n\n'We welcome a new edition.... The appeal of the book is evidently\none to common sense, and the success it has met is fully deserved.\nThere is a healthy lay atmosphere about Colonel Turton's arguments\nwhich renders them, we fancy, peculiarly effective.'--_Pall Mall\nGazette_, March 11, 1907.\n\n'It is difficult to know whether to admire most the logical\nprecision with which he marshals his facts, and enforces his\nconclusions, or the charming candour, and freshness of style, which\nmake his book so readable.'--_Liverpool Daily Post_, March 14, 1907.\n\n'This is a new edition, thoroughly revised, of LIEUTENANT-COLONEL\nTURTON'S famous book.... We are specially struck with the detached\nmanner in which he examines the case; he holds the scales evenly,\nand is not rhetorical. Anyone who has any power of reasoning at all\ncan follow him clearly from start to finish.'--_Bristol Times and\nMirror_, February 18, 1907.\n\n'It is a book for the hour, and needs to be circulated by thousands\n... straightforward, manly, and convincing.'--_Schoolmaster_, March\n27, 1909.\n\n\n=Church of England.=\n\n'The book is of considerable value to everyone who is concerned with\nthe controversy on Christian Evidences; it presents a perfect\nstorehouse of facts and the conclusions which may be legitimately\ndrawn from them.'--_Church Times_, November 2, 1900.\n\n'We have already expressed our high opinion of this work--the\nauthor of which, it may be mentioned, is serving in South\nAfrica.'--_Guardian_, October 17, 1900.\n\n'This thoughtful and convincing treatise.... We are glad to be able\nto give our good word for the book, which should be found in the\ncatalogue of every public library in the kingdom. It is a volume\nadmirably suited for a gift-book to young men. It furnishes an\narmoury of invincible weapons against the scepticism and\nsemi-scepticism which are rampant among us.'--_English Churchman_,\nNovember 1, 1900.\n\n'This very excellent volume.... We strongly recommend this book to\nthe clergy for their own use and for lending to thoughtful and\npainstaking readers.'--_Church Union Gazette_, January, 1901.\n\n'It is one of the best books of its class, readable, candid,\nconvincing, and thorough. It would be cheering news to hear that it\nhad been widely read. The book will continue to make its way; and\nall Christians will rejoice that it should do so.'--_Church\nIntelligencer_, October, 1905.\n\n'We give a hearty welcome to this revised edition. It is admirably\nsuited for general use.'--_Churchman_, February, 1909.\n\n'This is a textbook on Christian Evidence we would readily place in\nthe hands of the lay worker as an essential part of his\nequipment.'--_Lay Reader_, December, 1912.\n\n'There is no padding, and no unnecessary rhetoric. All the available\nspace is filled with good solid reasoning, put in simple language\nwhich an intelligent artisan can follow as easily as an educated\nperson.'--_Church Family Newspaper_, October 3, 1902.\n\n'Throughout the book the reader will be delighted with the sanity\nand level-headedness of the writer, whose frequent appeals to common\nsense are remarkably telling and effective.'--_Birmingham Diocesan\nMagazine_, October, 1907.\n\n'The brilliancy of the author does not consist in his rhetoric or\nappeal, but in the really brilliant fairness which he displays\ntowards the other side, in the accuracy with which he analyses each\nsituation, and in the clear and simple arguments which he\nadduces.'--_Church Standard_, January, 1906.\n\n'Personally, we have never met with any book which can be more\nconfidently recommended.'--_Church Army Review_, December, 1912.\n\n'This is the kind of book which strengthens believers and makes\nconverts. It is one which should be placed within the reach of every\nlad at that period of his life when he begins to think for\nhimself.'--_The_ (Church Lads') _Brigade_, October, 1905.\n\n\n=Roman Catholic.=\n\n'We most heartily wish that a copy of it could be found\nin the library of every Catholic family, school, and\ninstitution.'--_Catholic Times_, January, 1909 (sixth notice).\n\n'This excellent book, ... well written, attractive in its style,\nclearly thought out, and convincing.'--_Tablet_, August 29, 1903.\n\n'This is a work of uncommon merit.... The style is clear and makes\nfor pleasant reading. We wish many of our Catholic young men would\ntry and analyse a chapter in COLONEL TURTON'S helpful defence of\nChristianity.'--_Universe_, July 21, 1905.\n\n'Having read and thoroughly approved every page of the book, we can\nwell believe that many clergy and teachers are finding it a useful\ncompendium of replies to all the chief arguments advanced against\nChristianity. Though written by a non-Catholic, we can most strongly\nrecommend it as a book of the highest merit.'--_Catholic Herald_,\nFebruary 19, 1909.\n\n'A capital book already much used by priests in this country, and to\nbe found upon the shelves of very many of our clerical libraries.\nBut we wish that the Catholic paterfamilias would procure it too,\nand recommend it to his boys ... There is a masculine ring about it,\nand no shuffling over difficulties.'--_Catholic Fireside_, March 23,\n1907.\n\n\n=Presbyterian.=\n\n'One does not know what to admire most in the book--the accurate\nknowledge gathered from so many fields, the clear reasoning,\nthe sound judgment, or the fine spirit which animates the\nwhole.'--_Christian Leader_, June 15, 1905.\n\n'Admirably arranged and clearly expressed.'--_Weekly Leader_,\nOctober 6, 1902.\n\n'One of the best books of its kind.'--_St. Andrew_, June 1, 1905.\n\n'This is an admirable summary. It is clear, simple, and\nwell arranged ... The style also makes it extremely\nreadable.'--_Presbyterian_, March, 1906.\n\n\n=Nonconformist.=\n\n'He is eminently fair to opponents, clear in statement, and\nconvincing in argument for his own case, and his standpoint, is\nunmistakably evangelical. His style suits his work, being calm,\nlucid, and simple.'--_Methodist Times_, August 22, 1901.\n\n'Is a tried favourite, and has served the Kingdom in many lands.\nThere is no book of the class known to us so complete and\nconclusive.'--_Methodist Recorder_, February 28, 1907.\n\n'It deserves all the good that has been said of it.'--_United\nMethodist_, November 19, 1908.\n\n'One characteristic may be singled out for notice--the writer's\nextraordinary alertness in the use of the most recent material. He\nseems to be continually on the watch for discoveries and\nsuggestions, and to be able to utilise them promptly and\nskilfully.'--_Baptist_, January 21, 1909.\n\n'On the whole, it is the best popular summary that we have met. It\nexcels in definiteness of purpose, in clearness of statement, in\nmoderation, and in conciseness.'--_Baptist Times_, October 24, 1902.\n\n'The book is one that every young man would do well to read. Its\nabsolute fairness, convincing logic, and withal extreme simplicity\nare such as cannot fail to establish the faith of multitudes.'\n_Y.M.C.A. Review_, December, 1912.\n\n'The author's line of argument is irresistible in its rugged force.\n... A fascinating book.'--_Social Gazette_ (Salvation Army), April\n27, 1907.\n\n\n=Agnostic.=\n\n'Again, as in 1902, we commend LIEUTENANT-COLONEL TURTON'S book as a\nhandy epitome of nearly all conceivable arguments in support of\nChristianity. The twenty-four chapters champion twenty-four\npropositions, and the whole thing is worked out as systematically as\na problem in a successful student's honours paper. ...However, it is\nof no avail to argue such points with our well-meaning and\nunimaginative Lieutenant-Colonel; and we will merely remark that he\nis quite a gentleman, and uses no disdainful language towards the\npoor Agnostic.'--_Literary Guide and Rationalistic Review_, March,\n1907.\n\n'This remarkable volume contains over 500 pages, with scarcely a\ndull one among them. The author's easy flow of unlaboured thought,\nhis facility of expression, and his fine gift of exposition, carry\nthe reader on in spite of himself.... Differ as we may from much\nthat is in the gallant Colonel's volume, we gladly pay him the\nrespect due to frankness, cleverness, and transparency of mind and\nmotive, and thank him for putting his own side of a great\nsubject so simply and interestingly, and without prejudice or\nbitterness.'--_New Age_, August 3, 1905.\n\n\n\n\nTHE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY\n\n\n\n\n    THE\n\n    TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY\n\n    BEING AN\n\n    Examination of the More Important Arguments\n    For and Against Believing in that Religion\n\n    COMPILED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES BY\n\n    LT.-COL. W. H. TURTON, D.S.O.\n    LATE ROYAL ENGINEERS\n\n    NINTH EDITION  FORTIETH THOUSAND\n\n    (_Carefully revised throughout_)\n\n    LONDON\n    WELLS GARDNER, DARTON & CO., LTD.\n    3 AND 4, PATERNOSTER BUILDINGS, E.C.\n    AND 44, VICTORIA STREET, S.W.\n    1919\n\n\n\n\n    _First Edition             published Oct.,   1895.   }1,000 copies._\n    _Cheap   \"                      \"    Oct.,   1897._  }\n    _Third   \" carefully revised    \"    Sept.,  1900._   1,000    \"\n    _Fourth  \"     \"        \"       \"    Mar.,   1902._   2,000    \"\n    _Fifth   \"     \"        \"       \"    Mar.,   1905._   3,000    \"\n    _Sixth   \"     \"        \"       \"    Jan.,   1907._   5,000    \"\n    _Seventh \"     \"        \"       \"    Nov.,   1908._   8,000    \"\n    _Eighth  \"     \"        \"       \"    Nov.,   1912._  10,000    \"\n    _Ninth   \"     \"        \"       \"    Oct.,   1919._  10,000    \"\n\n\n    TRANSLATIONS:\n\n    _Japanese Edition      published     Dec.,   1910.      500 copies._\n    _Italian    \"             \"          Oct.,   1915._   1,000   \"\n    _Chinese    \"  shortened  \"         June,    1919._   1,000   \"\n    _Arabic     \"             \"          Oct.,   1919._   1,000   \"\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO NINTH EDITION.\n\n\nI have again carefully revised the whole book. Some additions have\nbeen made here and there, especially in Chapter XIX.; but as a rule\nthe alterations have been merely to shorten and condense the\narguments where this could be done without spoiling them, and to\nsimplify the language as much as possible. The book is thus shorter,\nand I hope simpler than any previous edition. Another slight\nimprovement, which will commend itself to most purchasers, is\nreducing the price to 2s. net. The work, as before stated, lays no\nclaim to originality, and I have not hesitated to borrow arguments\nand illustrations from any source. The references to the Bible are\nall to the Revised Version.\n\n    W. H. T.\n\n    29, CALEDONIA PLACE,\n    CLIFTON, BRISTOL,\n    _October 1, 1919_.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n  PART I.\n\n\n  _NATURAL RELIGION._\n\n  CHAPTER                                                          PAGE\n\n  I. THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A CREATOR                                  3\n\n  II. THAT THE CREATOR DESIGNED THE UNIVERSE                         10\n\n  III. THAT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS EXTREMELY PROBABLE               30\n\n  IV. THAT MAN IS A FREE AND RESPONSIBLE BEING                       38\n\n  V. THAT GOD TAKES AN INTEREST IN MAN'S WELFARE                     57\n\n  VI. THAT GOD MIGHT MAKE SOME REVELATION TO MAN                     82\n\n  VII. THAT A MIRACULOUS REVELATION IS CREDIBLE                      98\n\n\n  PART II.\n\n  _THE JEWISH RELIGION._\n\n  VIII. THAT THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION WAS DIVINELY REVEALED      117\n\n  IX. THAT ITS ORIGIN WAS CONFIRMED BY MIRACLES                     137\n\n  X. THAT ITS HISTORY WAS CONFIRMED BY MIRACLES                     167\n\n  XI. THAT ITS HISTORY WAS CONFIRMED BY PROPHECIES                  186\n\n  XII. THAT THE JEWISH RELIGION IS PROBABLY TRUE                    201\n\n\n  PART III.\n\n  _THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION._\n\n  XIII. THAT THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS CREDIBLE                     221\n\n  XIV. THAT THE FOUR GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM EXTERNAL TESTIMONY    252\n\n  XV. THAT THE GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM INTERNAL EVIDENCE           265\n\n  XVI. THAT THE GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM THE EVIDENCE OF THE ACTS   287\n\n  XVII. THAT THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST IS PROBABLY TRUE            301\n\n  XVIII. THAT THE FAILURE OF OTHER EXPLANATIONS INCREASES THIS\n        PROBABILITY                                                 324\n\n  XIX. THAT THE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES ARE PROBABLY TRUE      349\n\n  XX. THAT THE JEWISH PROPHECIES CONFIRM THE TRUTH OF\n        CHRISTIANITY                                                374\n\n  XXI. THAT THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST CONFIRMS THE TRUTH OF\n        CHRISTIANITY                                                396\n\n  XXII. THAT THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY CONFIRMS ITS TRUTH         415\n\n  XXIII. THAT ON THE WHOLE THE OTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THIS\n        CONCLUSION                                                  436\n\n  XXIV. THAT THE THREE CREEDS ARE DEDUCIBLE FROM THE NEW\n        TESTAMENT                                                   458\n\n  XXV. THAT THE TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS EXTREMELY\n        PROBABLE                                                    483\n\n  INDEX OF TEXTS                                                    495\n\n  INDEX OF SUBJECTS                                                 502\n\n\n\n\nPART I.\n\n_NATURAL RELIGION._\n\n  CHAP.     I.  THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A CREATOR.\n    \"      II.  THAT THE CREATOR DESIGNED THE UNIVERSE.\n    \"     III.  THAT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS EXTREMELY PROBABLE.\n    \"      IV.  THAT MAN IS A FREE AND RESPONSIBLE BEING.\n    \"       V.  THAT GOD TAKES AN INTEREST IN MAN'S WELFARE.\n    \"      VI.  THAT GOD MIGHT MAKE SOME REVELATION TO MAN.\n    \"     VII.  THAT A MIRACULOUS REVELATION IS CREDIBLE.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A CREATOR\n\n     (_A._) THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE.\n\n     Explanation of the universe, its origin, a Free Force.\n\n     (1.) The Philosophical Argument. If the universe had\n           not an origin, all events must have occurred before,\n           and this seems incredible.\n     (2.) The Scientific Argument. From the process of evolution\n           and the degradation of energy.\n\n     (_B._) THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE.\n\n     The Single Supernatural Cause, which originated it.\n\n\nIt is proposed in this Essay to consider the reasons for and against\nbelieving in the truth of Christianity, meaning by that term, as\nwill be explained later on (Chapter XIII.), the doctrines contained\nin the Three Creeds. For convenience the subject has been divided\ninto three Parts, Natural Religion, the Jewish Religion, and the\nChristian Religion; but the second of these may be omitted by anyone\nnot specially interested in that subject. At present we are\nconsidering _Natural Religion_ only, which deals with the great\nquestions of the Existence of God, and the probability, or\notherwise, of His making some Revelation to man. And we will\ncommence at the very beginning, though the first chapter will\nunfortunately have to be rather technical.\n\n\n(_A._) THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE.\n\nNow by the universe is meant the _material_ universe, which includes\neverything that exists (earth, sun, stars, and all they contain),\nwith the exception of immaterial or spiritual beings, if there are\nany such. And by this universe having had an _origin_ is meant that\nit was at some time acted on by a _Free_ Force, that is to say, by a\nforce which does not always act the same under the same\ncircumstances, but which can act or not as it pleases. No doubt such\na force would be totally different from all the known forces of\nnature; but there is no difficulty in understanding what is meant by\nthe term, since man himself _seems_ to possess such a force in his\nown free will. He _seems_ for instance to be able to raise his hand,\nor not, as he likes. We are not, of course, assuming that man's will\nis really free, but merely that the idea of a free force, able to\nact or not as it pleases, is well known and generally understood.\n\nHence the statement that the universe had an origin means that at\nsome time or other it was acted on by such a Free Force; in other\nwords, it has not existed for ever under the fixed and invariable\nforces of nature, and without any external interference. We have now\nto consider the two arguments in favour of this, which may be called\nthe Philosophical and the Scientific argument.\n\n(1.) _The Philosophical Argument._\n\nBy this is meant that, when we reflect on the subject, it seems\ninevitable that if the universe had not an origin, all present\nevents must have occurred before. The reason for thinking this is,\nthat if all free force is excluded, it is plain that matter must be\neternal, since its coming into existence at any time could not have\nbeen a necessity, and must therefore have been due to some free\nforce. It is equally plain that what we call the forces of nature\nand the properties of matter must also be eternal, since any\nalteration in them at any time would also have required a free\nforce. And from this it follows that no _new_ event can happen\n_now_. For every event which the forces of nature could possibly\nbring about of themselves would, since they have been acting from\neternity, have been brought about long ago. Therefore present events\nare not new, but must have occurred before.\n\nThis is no doubt a possible theory. For example, if we assume that\nthe universe will in process of time work itself back into precisely\nthe same condition in which it was long ago as a _nebula_ or\nanything else, when it will begin again precisely the same changes\nas before; then, and only then, is it possible that it has been\ngoing on doing so from all eternity. But this theory, though\npossible, is certainly not credible. For it requires that all\nevents, past, present, and future, down to the minutest detail, have\noccurred, and will occur, over and over again. They must, in fact,\nform a _recurring series_. And when applied to a single example, say\nthe history of the human race, this is seen to be quite incredible.\n\nWe must hence conclude that the universe has not existed for ever\nunder the fixed forces of nature, and without any external\ninterference; in other words, that it had an origin. No doubt there\nare difficulties in regard to this theory also, but they are mostly\ndue to our ignorance. We may not know, for instance, whether matter\nitself is eternal. Nor may we know why, if a free force once acted\non the universe, it never apparently does so at present, and still\nless can we picture to ourselves what such a force would be like;\nthough the difficulty here is no greater than that of picturing a\nforce which is not free, say gravity.\n\nBut our ignorance about all this is no reason for doubting what we\ndo know. And it appears to the writer that we do know that, unless\npresent events have occurred before, which seems incredible, the\nuniverse cannot have existed for ever without some _Free Force_\nhaving acted on it at some time. In short, it seems less difficult\nto believe that the universe had an origin than to believe that it\nhad not.\n\n(2.) _The Scientific Argument._\n\nAnd this conclusion is greatly strengthened by two scientific\ntheories now generally accepted--that of the process of evolution\nand the degradation of energy; both of which seem to show that the\nuniverse had a beginning.\n\nThe first subject, that of _Evolution_, will be discussed more fully\nin the next chapter. All that need be said here is, that the atoms\nof the universe, with their evolving properties, cannot have existed\neternally; for then the course of evolution would have commenced in\nthe eternal past, and would therefore have been finished now. But\nthis is certainly not the case, and evolution is still in progress,\nor at all events was so a few thousand years ago; and a state of\nprogress cannot be _eternal_. It thus differs from a mere state of\n_change_ which as we have seen, might be eternal, if the changes\nwere recurring. But a state of _progress_, in which the changes are\nnot recurring, but all tend in one direction, can never be eternal.\nIt must have had a commencement. And this commencement cannot have\nbeen a necessity, so it must have been due to some Free Force. In\nshort, evolution requires a previous _Evolver_; since it cannot have\nbeen going on for ever, and it cannot have started itself.\n\nThe other theory, that of the _Degradation of Energy_, is that all\nenergy (motion, etc.) tends to _heat_; the simplest instance being\nthat of two bodies hitting each other when a certain amount of\nmotion is lost, and a corresponding amount of heat is produced. And\nheat tends to be equally distributed. The heat, for instance, which\nis now stored up in the sun will in process of time be distributed\nthroughout space, and the same applies to the whole universe; so\nthat everything will eventually have the same temperature. And\nthough this may take millions of years, they are yet nothing to\neternity. Therefore, if the universe with all its present forces has\nexisted from eternity, and without any external interference, it\nmust have been reduced to this state long ago. So if this theory is\ncorrect (and the only reason for doubting it, is the curious\nbehaviour of _radium_), it seems not only probable, but certain,\nthat the universe had an origin.\n\nBut an objection has now to be considered. It may be said that the\nabove reasoning is merely another form of the old argument,\n'Everything must have a cause, and therefore there must have been a\nFirst Cause;' the obvious answer to which is, that then this First\nCause must also have had a cause, and so on indefinitely. But this\nis not the case; for the alleged First Cause is of a different\n_kind_ from all the others. It is a _Free_ Cause, whereas natural\ncauses are not free, but are themselves effects of other natural\ncauses; and these, again, of previous ones. What we want is a cause\nwhich is _not_ also an effect, in other words, a cause which is not\nmoved by anything else, but is moved by itself, or _Free_. When once\nwe get to such a cause as this, there is no need for a previous one.\n\nThis objection, then, cannot be maintained, and we therefore decide\nthat the universe had an origin. And all we know at present about\nthe Force which originated it, is that it was a Free Force. And the\nconclusion at which we have arrived may be concisely expressed by\nsaying, that before all natural causes which acted necessarily,\nthere was a _First Cause_ which acted voluntarily.\n\n\n(_B._) THE CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE.\n\nWe have next to consider what else we can ascertain in regard to\nthis First Cause. To begin with it can scarcely be disputed at the\npresent day that it was a _Single_ Cause, as modern science has\ncompletely established the unity which pervades the universe. We\nknow for instance that the same materials are used everywhere, many\nof the elements which exist on this earth being also found in the\nsun and stars. Then there is the force of gravity, which is\nall-embracing, and applies equally to the most distant stars, and\nto the most minute objects on this earth; and many other examples\nmight be given. But it is scarcely necessary, as everyone now admits\nthat the universe (as the word implies) is one whole, and this\nplainly points to a _Single_ First Cause.\n\nNor can it be disputed that this First Cause was _Supernatural_,\nwhich merely means that it differs from natural forces in being\n_free_; for this is exactly what we have shown. It was thus no kind\nof gravitation, or electricity, or anything of that sort. All these\nand all similar forces would always act the same under the same\nconditions; while the Force we are considering was of a different\nkind. It was a _Free_ Force, a Force which voluntarily chose to\noriginate the universe at a certain time. And such a Force must\nclearly have been Supernatural.\n\nIn conclusion we will call this _Single Supernatural Cause_, which\noriginated the universe, its _Creator_. And if it be objected that\nthe universe may have had no _origin_, owing to some Free Force\nhaving been always acting on it, such a Force must also be Single\nand Supernatural, and may equally well be called its Creator.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHAT THE CREATOR DESIGNED THE UNIVERSE.\n\nDesign means voluntary action, combined with foreknowledge.\n\n     (_A._) EVIDENCE OF DESIGN.\n\n     Seems overwhelming throughout organic nature; and we\n      are not appealing to it to show the Creator's existence,\n      but merely His foreknowledge.\n\n     (1.) The example of a watch: its marks of design show that\n           it had a maker who foresaw its use.\n     (2.) The example of an eye: this also has marks of design,\n           and must also have had a Designer.\n     (3.) The evidence cumulative.\n\n     (_B._) THE EVOLUTION OBJECTION.\n\n     (1.) The meaning of Evolution: it is a process, not a cause.\n     (2.) The effect of Evolution on the present argument: it\n           increases the evidence for design.\n\n     (_C._) THE FREE WILL OBJECTION.\n\n     (1.) Its great improbability: for several reasons.\n     (2.) Free Will and Foreknowledge not inconsistent; so\n           the chief argument in its favour cannot be maintained.\n           Conclusion.\n\n\nHaving decided that the universe had a Creator, we have next to\nexamine whether the Creator designed the universe. Now by _Design_\nis meant any voluntary action, combined with foreknowledge of the\nresults that will follow from such action. So when the Creator\noriginated the universe, if He foreknew the results of His action,\nit would be to _design_ those results, as the word is here used. And\nthese include, either directly or indirectly, the whole course of\nthe universe, everything that exists, or that ever has existed in\nthe world.\n\nBy the word _foreknew_ it is not meant that the Creator necessarily\n_thought_ of all future events, however insignificant, such as the\nposition of the leaves on each tree; but merely that He was able to\nforesee any of them He wished, and in this sense foreknew them.\nCompare the case of memory; a man may be able to remember a thousand\nevents in his life; but they are not all before his mind's eye at\nthe same time, and the insignificant ones may never be. In the same\nway the Creator may have been able to foresee all future events in\nthe world's history without actually thinking about them. At all\nevents, this is the kind of foresight, or rather foreknowledge,\nwhich is meant to be included in the term _design_.\n\n\n(_A._) EVIDENCE OF DESIGN.\n\nPassing on now to the evidence of design, this is of the most varied\nkind, especially throughout organic nature, where we find countless\nobjects, which seem to point to the foresight of the Cause which\nproduced them. The evidence is indeed so vast that it is difficult\nto deal with it satisfactorily. Perhaps the best way will be to\nfollow the well-known _watch_ argument of Paley, first showing by\nthe example of a watch what it is that constitutes marks of design;\nnext, how a single organ, say the human eye, possesses these marks;\nand then, the cumulative nature of the evidence.\n\n(1.) _The example of a watch._\n\nNow, when we examine a watch, we see that it has marks of design,\nbecause the several parts are put together for a _purpose_. They are\nso shaped and arranged as to produce motion, and this motion is so\nregulated as to point out the hour of the day. While, if they had\nbeen differently shaped or differently arranged, either no motion at\nall would have been produced, or none which would have answered the\nsame purpose. And from this, we may infer two things. The first is\nthat the watch had a _maker_ somewhere and at some time; and the\nsecond is that this maker understood its construction, and\n_designed_ it for the purpose which it actually serves.\n\nThese conclusions, it will be noticed, would not be altered by the\nfact that we had never seen a watch made; never knew a man capable\nof making one; and had no idea how the work could be done. All this\nwould only exalt our opinion of the unknown watchmaker's skill, but\nwould raise no doubt in our minds either as to his existence, or as\nto his having made the watch for the purpose of telling the time.\n\nNor should we feel that the watch was explained by being told that\nevery part of it worked in strict accordance with natural laws, and\ncould not possibly move otherwise than it did; in fact, that there\nwas no design to account for. We should feel that, though the action\nof every part might be in strict accordance with law, yet the fact\nthat all these parts agreed in this one particular, that they all\nhelped to enable the watch to tell the time, did show design\nsomewhere. In other words, we should feel that the properties of\nmatter could only partly account for the watch, and that it required\na skilful watchmaker as well, who made use of these properties so as\nto enable the watch to tell the time.\n\nNow suppose on further investigation we found that the watch also\npossessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its\nmovements another watch very like itself. It might, for instance,\ncontain a mould in which the new works were cast, and some machinery\nwhich fitted them together. What effect would this have on our\nformer conclusions? It would plainly increase our admiration for the\nwatch, and for the skill of its unknown maker. If without this extra\nproperty, the watch required a skilful maker, still more would it do\nso with it. And this conclusion would not be altered by the fact\nthat very possibly the watch we were examining was itself produced\nin this way from some previous one, and perhaps that from another.\nWe should feel that, though each watch might be thus produced from a\nprevious one, it was in no sense _designed_ by it. And hence this\nwould not in any way weaken our conviction as to the existence of a\nwatchmaker somewhere and at some time who designed the whole series.\n\nThis, then, is the watch argument. Wherever we find marks of design,\nthere must be a designer somewhere; and this conclusion cannot be\naltered by any other considerations whatever. If, then, we find in\nnature any objects showing marks of design, the obvious inference is\nthat they also had a designer. And this inference, it should be\nnoticed, does not depend on any supposed _analogy_ between the works\nof man and the works of nature. The example of the watch is merely\ngiven _as an example_, to show clearly what the design argument is;\nbut the argument itself would be just as sound if man never had\nmade, and never could make, any object showing marks of design.\n\nMoreover, to complete the example, we must assume that the\n_existence_ of the watchmaker, and the fact of his having made the\nwatch, are already admitted for other reasons. And we are only\nappealing to these marks of design to show that _when_ he made the\nwatch, he must have known that it would be able to tell the time,\nand presumably made it for that purpose. And in this case the\ninference seems, if possible, to be still stronger.\n\n(2.) _The example of an eye._\n\nWe will next consider the _human eye_ as an example of natural\norgans showing marks of design. It is a well-known instance, but\nnone the worse on that account. Now, in order to see anything\nclearly, it is necessary that an image or picture of it should be\nformed at the back of the eye, that is, on the _retina_ from whence\nthe impression is communicated to the brain. And the eye is an\ninstrument used for producing this picture, and in some respects\nvery similar to a telescope. And its marks of design are abundant\nand overwhelming.\n\nTo begin with, in both the eye and the telescope the rays of light\nhave to be _refracted_, so as to produce a distinct image; and the\nlens, and humours in the eye, which effect this, somewhat resemble\nthe lenses of a telescope. While the _different_ humours through\nwhich the rays pass, prevent them from being partly split up into\ndifferent colours. The same difficulty had of course to be overcome\nin telescopes, and this does not seem to have been effected till it\noccurred to some one to imitate in glasses made from different\nmaterials the effect of the different humours in the eye.[1]\n\n[Footnote 1: Encyc. Brit., 9th edit., vol. xxiii., p. 137.]\n\nIn the next place, the eye has to be suited to perceive objects at\ndifferent _distances_, varying from inches to miles. In telescopes\nthis would be done either by putting in another lens, or by some\nfocussing arrangement. In the eye it is effected by slightly\naltering the _shape_ of the lens, making it more or less convex. A\nlandscape of several miles is thus brought within a space of half an\ninch in diameter, though the objects it contains, at least the\nlarger ones, are all preserved, and can each be distinguished in its\nsize, shape, colour, and position. Yet the same eye that can do this\ncan read a book at the distance of a few inches.\n\nAgain, the eye has to be adapted to different _degrees of light_.\nThis is effected by the _iris_, which is a kind of screen in the\nshape of a ring, capable of expanding or contracting so as to alter\nthe size of the central hole or pupil, yet always retaining its\ncircular form. Moreover, it is somehow or other self-adjusting; for\nif the light is too strong, the pupil at once contracts. It is\nneedless to point out how useful such a contrivance would be in\nphotography, and how much we should admire the skill of its\ninventor.\n\nAgain, the eye can perceive objects in different _directions_; for\nit is so constructed that it can turn with the greatest rapidity\nright or left, up or down, without moving the head. It is also\nprovided _in duplicate_, the two eyes being so arranged that though\neach can see separately should the other get injured, they can, as a\nrule, see together with perfect harmony. Lastly, our admiration for\nthe eye is still further increased when we remember that it was\nformed _before birth_. It was what is called a _prospective_ organ,\nof no use at the time when it was made; and this, when carefully\nconsidered, shows design more plainly than anything else.\n\nOn the whole, then, the eye appears to be an optical instrument of\ngreat ingenuity; and the conclusion that it must have been made by\nsomeone, and that whoever made it must have known and designed its\nuse, seems inevitable.\n\nThese conclusions, it will be noticed, like the similar ones in\nregard to the watch, are not affected by our ignorance on many\npoints. We may have no idea as to how an eye can be made, and yet\nfeel certain that, as it exists, it must have been made by someone,\nand that its maker designed it for the purpose it serves.\n\nNor should we feel that the eye is explained by being told that\nevery part of it has been produced in strict accordance with natural\nlaws, and could not have been otherwise; in fact, that there is no\ndesign to account for. No doubt every single part has been thus\nproduced, and if it stood alone there might be little to account\nfor. But it does not stand alone. All the various and complicated\nparts of the eye agree in this one remarkable point, and in this one\nonly, that they all help to enable man to see; and it is this that\nrequires explanation. We feel that there must be some connection\nbetween the cause which brought all these parts together and the\nfact of man's seeing. In other words, the result must have been\ndesigned.\n\nNor does the fact that every organism in nature is produced from a\nprevious one of the same kind alter this conclusion. Indeed, as was\nshown with reference to the watch, it can only increase our\nadmiration for the skill which must have been spent on the first\norganism of each kind. Moreover, no part of the design can be\nattributed to the _parents_. If, for instance, the eyes of a child\nshow design, it is not due to the intelligence or designing power of\nits father and mother. _They_ have not calculated the proper shape\nfor the lens, or the mechanism of the iris, and as a rule know\nnothing whatever about it. And the same applies to _their_ parents,\nso that our going back ever so far in this way brings us no nearer\nto what we are in search of. The design is still unaccounted for, we\nstill want a designer.\n\nWe hence conclude that the marks of design in the eye afford, at all\nevents, what seems to be a very strong argument in favour of a\n_Designer_. And if only one eye existed in the universe, and there\nwere no other mark of design in nature, this conclusion would be\nnone the less clear.\n\n(3.) _The evidence cumulative._\n\nBut the argument is far stronger than this. It is cumulative in a\n_triple_ sense. To begin with, an eye is found not in one man only,\nbut in millions of men, each separately showing marks of design, and\neach separately requiring a designer. Secondly, the human eye is\nonly one example out of hundreds in the human body. The ear or the\nmouth would lead to the same conclusion, and so would the lungs or\nthe heart. While, thirdly, human beings are but one out of many\nthousands of organisms in nature, all bearing marks of design, and\nshowing in some cases an even greater ingenuity than in the human\neye. Of course, as a rule, the lower organisms, being less\ncomplicated than the higher ones, have less striking marks of\ndesign, but their existence is equally clear; the flowers of plants\naffording some well-known examples.\n\nNor is this all, for even the world itself bears traces of having\nbeen designed. Had it been a mere chaos, we might have thought that\nthe Creator was unaware of what would be the result of His action.\nBut a planet like our earth, so admirably adapted for the support of\nlife, can scarcely have been brought about by accident.\n\nWe conclude then, on reviewing the whole subject, that there are\ncountless objects in nature, more especially organs like the eye,\nwhich bear strong marks of having been _designed_. And then the\nUnity of Nature, and the fact that all its parts act on one another\nin so many ways (the eye for instance being useless without light),\nshows that if anything has been designed, everything has been\ndesigned. Now there are two, and only two, important objections to\nthis argument, which may be called the _Evolution_ and the _Free\nWill_ objection.\n\n\n(_B._) THE EVOLUTION OBJECTION.\n\nThe first objection is that the whole of nature has been brought\nabout in accordance with fixed laws by the process of _Evolution_.\nTherefore, though it is possible the Creator may have foreseen\neverything that exists; yet the apparent marks of design in nature,\nbeing all the necessary results of these laws, do not afford any\nevidence that He actually did so. And before discussing this\nobjection we must first consider what we mean by laws of nature and\nnatural forces.\n\nNow by a _law of nature_ is meant any regular, or uniform action\nwhich we observe in nature. For example, it is called a law, or rule\nof nature that (with certain exceptions) heat should expand bodies,\nwhich merely means that we see that it does so. In other words, we\nobserve that heat is followed by expansion, and we therefore assume\nthat the one is the cause of the other. But calling it a law of\nnature for heat to expand bodies, does not in any way account for\nits doing so. And the same is true in other cases, so that a law of\nnature _explains_ nothing, it is merely a summary of the facts to be\nexplained.\n\nIt should also be noticed that a law of nature _effects_ nothing. It\nhas no coercive, or compelling power whatever. The law of\ngravitation, for instance, has never moved a planet, any more than\nthe rules of navigation have steered a ship. In each case it is some\npower or force acting according to law which does it. And _natural\nforces_ are those which, as far as we know, _always_ act according\nto some fixed law. They have no freedom of choice, they cannot act\nor not as they like; they must always and everywhere act the same\nunder the same circumstances. We pass on now to the subject of\nEvolution, first considering its meaning, and then its effect on the\npresent argument.\n\n(1.) _The meaning of Evolution._\n\nNow by the term Evolution is meant to be included the processes of\nOrganic Evolution, Natural Selection, and the Survival of the\nFittest. The former may be described as meaning that all the\ndifferent forms of life now existing, or that ever have existed on\nthis earth, are the descendants of earlier and less developed forms,\nand those again of simpler ones; and so on, till we get back to the\nearliest form of life, whatever that may have been.\n\nAnd the theories of _Natural Selection_ and _the Survival of the\nFittest_ explain how this may have taken place. For among the slight\nmodifications that would most likely occur in every organism, those,\nand only those, would be perpetuated which were of advantage to it\nin the struggle for existence. And they would in time, it is\nassumed, become hereditary in its descendants, and thus higher forms\nof life would be gradually produced. And the value of these theories\nis that they show how Organic Evolution may have taken place without\ninvolving any sudden change, such as a monkey giving birth to a man.\nWe must remember, however, that the subject is far from settled; and\neven now naturalists are beginning to doubt whether all the\nmodifications were in reality very slight. But still, speaking\nbroadly, this is the theory we have to discuss.\n\nIt will, of course, be noticed that Evolution is thus a _process_,\nand not a _cause_. It is the method in which certain changes have\nbeen brought about, and not the cause which brings them about. Every\nslight modification must have been caused somehow. When such\nmodifications were caused, then Natural Selection can explain how\nthe useful ones alone were perpetuated, but it cannot explain how\nthe modifications themselves arose. On the contrary, it supposes\nthem as already existing, otherwise there would be nothing to select\nfrom. Natural Selection, then, rather weeds than plants, and would\nbe better described as Natural _Rejection_. It merely shows how, as\na rule, among the various modifications in an organism, some good\nand some bad, the useless ones would disappear, and the useful ones\nwould remain; in other words, how the fittest would survive. But\nthis survival of the fittest does not explain in the slightest\ndegree how the fitness arose. If, as an extreme example, out of a\nhundred animals, fifty had eyes and fifty had not, it is easy to\nunderstand how those that had eyes would be more likely to have\ndescendants; but this does not explain how they first got eyes. And\nthe same applies in other cases.\n\nHow, then, did the variations in each organism first arise? In\ncommon language they may be ascribed to chance; but, strictly\nspeaking, such a thing is impossible. The word _chance_ is merely a\nconvenient term for the results of certain forces of nature when we\nare unable to calculate them. Chance, then, must be excluded; and\nthere seem to be only two alternatives. Either the organisms in\nnature possessed free will, and acted as they did _voluntarily_; or\nelse they did not possess free will, and acted as they did\n_necessarily_. The former theory will be examined later on; the\nlatter is the one we are now considering.\n\n(2.) _The effect of Evolution._\n\nHow then would this theory affect our previous conclusion that the\nCreator designed all the organs of nature, such as the eye, and\nhence presumably the whole of the universe? As we shall see, it only\nconfirms it. For to put it plainly, if all free will on the part of\nthe organisms is excluded, so that they were all bound to act\nexactly as they did, it is clear that the earth and all it contains\nis like a vast mass of machinery. And however complicated its parts,\nand however much they may act on one another, and however long they\nmay take in doing so, yet if in the end they produce an organ\nshowing design, this must have been foreseen and intended by the\nMaker of the machinery. In the same way if a mass of machinery after\nworking for a long time eventually turned out a watch, we should\nhave no hesitation in saying that whoever made the machinery, and\nset it going, intended it to do so. And is the inference less clear,\nif it not only turned out a watch, but a watchmaker as well, and\neverything else that exists on this planet?\n\nAll then that evolution does is this. It shows that the whole of\nnature forms such a long and continuous process; that if the end has\nbeen foreseen at all, it must have been foreseen from the\nbeginning. In other words, just as the Unity of Nature shows that if\nanything has been designed, everything has been designed; so\nEvolution shows that if it has been designed at all, it has been\ndesigned _from the beginning_. We must hence conclude that the\norgans in nature, such as the eye, which undoubtedly show design,\nwere not designed separately or as _after-thoughts_, but were all\nincluded in one grand design from the beginning. And this can only\nincrease our admiration for the Designer. Thus evolution, even in\nits most extreme and automatic form, cannot get rid of a Designer.\nStill less can it do so, if (as is probable) it is not automatic at\nall; but is due to the _continuous_ action of the Creator, who is\nwhat is called _immanent_ in nature, and directs every step.\n\nIt should be noticed, moreover, that in one respect evolution rather\n_increases_ the evidence of design. For if, to take a single\nexample, a human hand has been evolved from a monkey's foot merely\nby the monkey using it as a hand, and taking hold of things; it\nincreases the amount of design which must have been spent on the\nfoot to enable it to do so. And if _all_ the organs in nature have\nbeen evolved in this way from simpler ones, it increases the amount\nof design which must have been spent on those simpler ones to an\nextent which is practically infinite.\n\nThus Evolution implies a previous _Involution_; since all forms of\nlife must have been involved in the first form before they could be\nevolved from it; so that creation by evolution is more wonderful\nthan creation by direct manufacture. And it seems to many to be a\nfar nobler conception of the Creator that He should obtain all the\nresults He desired, by one grand system of evolution, rather than by\na large number of separate creations. For then the _method_ in which\nthe results were obtained would be as marvellous, and show as much\nwisdom and foresight as the results themselves; and each would be\nworthy of the other. Evolution, then, seems to be the highest form\nof creation; and so far from destroying the present argument, it\nonly destroys its difficulties, by showing that every single part of\nevery single organism may have been _designed_, and yet in a manner\nworthy of the great Creator.\n\nNor is the conclusion altered if we carry back the process of\nevolution, and assume that the earliest form of life was itself\nevolved from some previous form of inanimate matter; and this again\nfrom a simpler one, and so on till we get back to the original form\nof matter, whatever that may have been. For if the results as we now\nsee them show design, then the argument for a Designer is not\nweakened, but our ideas of His skill are still further increased, if\nwe believe that they were already secured when our earth was merely\na nebula.\n\n\n(_C._) _The Free Will Objection._\n\nWe have, lastly, to consider the other, and more important\nobjection, that arising from _Free Will_. Why, it is urged, may not\nall organisms in nature have possessed free will within certain\nlimits, and have selected those forms which suited them best? For\nexample, referring to the case of a watch, if telling the time were\nof any advantage to the watch itself, and if the spring, wheels, and\nhands possessed free will; then it might be thought that they had\nformed themselves into that arrangement which suited them best. And\nif so, the idea that the watchmaker foresaw and intended them to\nadopt this arrangement seems unnecessary.\n\nNow, in the case before us, as the organs showing design in nature,\nsuch as the eye, always conduce to the welfare of their possessor,\nthe objection is certainly worth considering. But as we shall see,\nit is most improbable, while the chief argument in its favour cannot\nbe maintained. It need scarcely be pointed out that we are not\nassuming that the organisms have free will, but merely admitting\nthat they may have it; and if anyone denies this, the objection, as\nfar as he is concerned, falls to the ground at once.\n\n(1.) _Its great improbability._\n\nThis is apparent because low down in the scale of nature (plants,\ntrees, etc.), the free will of the organisms, if they have any, must\nbe extremely limited; yet they bear unmistakable marks of design.\nWhile, in higher beings which have (or may have) an undoubted free\nwill, it is hard to believe that it can effect anything like what is\nrequired. Would, for instance, wishing to see or trying to see, even\nif blind animals were capable of either, have ever given them eyes?\nAnd the same applies in other cases. It is hence most improbable\nthat the marks of design in nature are due to the organisms\nthemselves, rather than to their Creator.\n\nBut there is one important argument on the other side, which, if it\ncould be maintained, would be sufficient to outweigh all this\nimprobability. It is, that some beings, such as man, do, as a matter\nof fact, possess a free will, and that man can and does alter his\ncondition, to a slight extent, by using that free will. Therefore,\nit is said, it is impossible for the Creator to have foreknown what\nman's condition would be, because free will and foreknowledge are\n_necessarily_ inconsistent. But this latter point is disputed.\n\n(2.) _Free Will and Foreknowledge not inconsistent._\n\nNow, although at first sight freedom of action seems inconsistent\nwith any foreknowledge of what that action will be, yet on closer\nexamination this will be found to be at least doubtful. For our own\nexperience seems to show that in some cases, at all events, it is\nnot in the nature of things impossible to know how a free being will\nact.\n\nFor example, I myself may know how, under given external conditions,\nI will act to-morrow. Never being sure of these, I cannot be said to\nactually foreknow the event; so that foreknowing with man is never\nmore than foreguessing. But I may be quite sure how, _under given\nconditions_, I will act. For instance, I may know that, provided I\nkeep in good health, provided I receive no news from anyone,\nprovided, etc, I will go to my office some time to-morrow morning.\n\nYet I feel equally sure that this foreknowledge of mine does not\nprevent the act when it comes from being quite free on my part. My\nknowing this evening what I will do to-morrow does not oblige me to\ndo it. My foreknowledge of the event does not bring the event\nabout. It is in no sense its _cause_. The act when it comes is due\nto my own free will, I merely foreknow _what use I will make of my\nfreedom_. And these are probably the common feelings of mankind on\nthe subject.\n\nIt seems, then, that my foreknowledge need not be inconsistent with\nmy free will. And hence, if I tell someone else how I will act,\n_his_ foreknowledge would not be inconsistent with my free will. So\nthat in some cases, and under given conditions, it does not seem\nimpossible for a man to foreknow how another man will act, yet\nwithout interfering with his freedom. In short, free will does not\nseem to be _necessarily_ inconsistent with the foreknowledge even of\nman, though it is always practically so, owing to man's imperfect\nknowledge of the surrounding circumstances. But the Creator knows,\nor may know, these circumstances fully, therefore it must be still\nless inconsistent with _His_ foreknowledge.\n\nOf course it may be said that if the Creator foreknows how I will\nact to-morrow, I am _certain_ to act in that way; and this is\ndoubtless true. But it does not follow that I _need_ act in that\nway; for _certainty_ is not the same as _necessity_. This is obvious\nenough in regard to a past event. I certainly did it, but I need not\nhave done it; and it may be equally true in regard to a future\nevent. I will certainly do it, but I need not do it. Therefore the\nCreator may know that I will do it, though it will still be _free_\non my part.\n\nAnd this is strongly confirmed when we reflect that the difficulty\nof knowing how a free being will act, however great in itself,\nseems as nothing compared with the difficulty of _creating_ a free\nbeing. Apart from experience, we should probably have thought this\nto be impossible. Yet man has been created somehow. Is it then\nunlikely that the Being who was able to overcome the greater\ndifficulty, and create a free man, should also be able to overcome\nthe lesser difficulty, and foreknow how he would act?\n\nMoreover, if free will and foreknowledge are _always_ and\n_necessarily_ inconsistent, then the Creator cannot have any\nforeknowledge of _His Own_ acts, or else they are not free on His\npart; neither of which seems at all probable. We are not, of course,\narguing from this that He actually does foreknow how He will act\nHimself, or how a free man will act, but only that it is not in the\nnature of things impossible that He should do so; in other words,\nthat free will and foreknowledge are not _necessarily_ inconsistent.\n\nAnd this is precisely what we had to show. The marks of design in\nnature afford what seems to be overwhelming evidence in favour of\nthe foreknowledge of the Creator. The objection we are considering\nis that, in spite of all this evidence, we must still deny it,\nbecause some of the organisms in nature, such as man, possess a free\nwill; and therefore any foreknowledge is in the nature of things\nimpossible. And the instant it is shown that such foreknowledge is\nnot impossible, the objection falls to the ground.\n\nWe may now sum up the argument in this chapter. We first explained\nthat by _Design_ was meant any voluntary action combined with\nforeknowledge of the results of that action. We next considered the\nevidence for design in nature, taking, as a single example, the\nhuman eye. And this evidence appeared complete and overwhelming;\nmore especially as we were not appealing to it to show the existence\nof a Creator, which is already admitted, but merely His\nforeknowledge. And we have since considered the two apparent\nobjections to this argument arising from Evolution and Free Will.\nBut when carefully examined, the former only strengthens the\nargument, while the latter does not weaken it. We therefore\nconclude, on reviewing the whole subject, that the Creator _designed\nthe universe_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHAT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS EXTREMELY PROBABLE.\n\n     (_A._) MEANING OF THE TERM GOD.\n\n     The Personal Being who designed and created the universe.\n\n     (_B._) TWO OF GOD'S ATTRIBUTES.\n\n     Wisdom and Power. He is also Omnipresent.\n\n     (_C._) THE OBJECTION THAT GOD IS UNKNOWABLE.\n\n     This is partly true; but everything is unknowable in its\n      real nature, though in each case the partial knowledge\n      we can obtain is all we require.\n\n     (_D._) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.\n\n\nThe position in the argument at which we have now arrived is this.\nWe showed in the last chapter that the Creator designed the\nuniverse; in other words, that when he created it, He foreknew its\nfuture history. And from this the next step, as to the existence of\nGod, is quite plain; in fact, it is merely a question of words.\n\n\n(_A._) MEANING OF THE TERM GOD.\n\nNow any being who is able to design we will call a _personal being_.\nAnd GOD is the name given to the Personal Being who designed and\ncreated the universe.\n\nBut it ought to be noticed, before we pass on, that the term\n_personal being_ is also applied to _man_, and is said by many\nwriters to involve the three ideas of _thought_, _desire_, and\n_will_. But these seem to be all included in design; for if I design\nanything, I must first of all _think_ of it, then _wish_ it, and\nthen _accomplish_ it.\n\nWe will examine in the next chapter whether man is a personal being\nas we have used the term; but if we admit that he is, we have\nanother and independent argument in favour of the Creator being so\ntoo. For the Creator has somehow or other produced man, with all his\nattributes; so He cannot be a mere impersonal Being or Force, since\na cause must be able to account for its effect. And a free and\nintelligent man cannot be due to a Force, which is neither free nor\nintelligent. Therefore, if man is a personal being, it follows that\nman's _Maker_ must be so too.\n\nIt should also be noticed that man's mind and spirit, which make him\na personal being, cannot be discovered by any physical means. And\nthis meets the objection that we cannot discover God by any physical\nmeans. It would be much more surprising if we could. But though the\ntelescope can find no God in the heavens, just as the microscope can\nfind no mind in man, the existence of each may be quite certain for\nother reasons. In popular language, all we can see is the _house_,\nnot the _tenant_, in either case.\n\n\n(_B_). TWO OF GOD'S ATTRIBUTES.\n\nWe must next notice somewhat carefully two of God's attributes,\n_Wisdom_ and _Power_. Both of these are involved in the idea of a\nPersonal Being able to design. For _design_, as used in this Essay,\nmeans originating or freely doing anything, as well as previously\nplanning it. Therefore, if we use the word, as is often done, for\nplanning alone, we must remember that a personal being is one who\ncan both design and accomplish. The former implies a mind able to\nform some plan, and the latter a free force, or will, able to carry\nit out. So a personal being must of necessity have _wisdom_ to\ndesign and _power_ to accomplish. And considering the vastness of\nthe universe and the variety of its organisms, it seems only\nreasonable to conclude that the Creator possesses these attributes\nto the greatest possible extent, so that He is both Omniscient and\nOmnipotent.\n\nIt is important, however, to notice the meaning given to these\nwords. By _Omniscient_, then, we mean possessing all possible\nknowledge. Now the only knowledge which might be thought impossible\nis how a free being would act in the future, and we have already\nshown that such knowledge is not in the nature of things impossible;\nso there does not seem to be any necessary restriction here.\n\nBut with _Omnipotent_ the case is different. This means, as just\nsaid, possessing all possible power; that is to say, being able to\ndo anything which is not impossible. Of course some Christians may\nbe inclined to answer, that _with God all things are possible_; but\nas He who said so began one of His own prayers with the words _if it\nbe possible_, this cannot be taken in its widest sense.[2] And\nprovided the word _impossible_ is used in its strict meaning, we\nhave no reason for thinking that God could do impossible things;\nsuch as make a triangle with the properties of a circle, or allow a\nman a free choice between two alternatives, and yet force him to\nchoose one of them. These, then, are two of the great attributes of\nGod, Wisdom and Power. There is a third, which will be considered in\nChapter V.\n\n[Footnote 2: Matt. 19. 26; 26. 39.]\n\nIt should also be noticed that besides being the Designer and\nCreator of the universe in the past, God seems to be also its\n_Preserver_ at the present, being, in fact, the _Omnipresent_ Power\nwhich is still working throughout nature. That there is such a Power\ncan scarcely be denied (however hard it may be to realise), and that\nit is the same as the Creating Power is plainly the most probable\nview. God is thus the Cause of all natural forces now, just as He\nwas their Creator in times past; and what are called secondary or\nnatural causes, have probably no existence. They may, indeed, be\ncalled secondary _forces_, but they are not _causes_ at all in the\nstrict sense; for a cause must be _free_, it must have the power of\ninitiative. Thus man's free will, if it is free, would be a real\nsecondary cause, but the forces of nature are mere links in a chain\nof events, each of which is bound to follow the previous one. This\nis often spoken of as the Divine _Immanence_ in nature, and means\nlittle else than the Omnipresence of a Personal God--the\nall-pervading influence of One 'who is never so far off as even to\nbe called near.'\n\n\n(_C._) THE OBJECTION THAT GOD IS UNKNOWABLE.\n\nWe must lastly consider an important objection which may be made to\nthe whole of these chapters. It may be said that the human mind is\nunable to argue about the _First Cause_, because we have no\nfaculties for comprehending the Infinite; or, as it is commonly\nexpressed, because God is _Unknowable_.\n\nNow this objection is partly true. There is a sense in which all\nwill admit that God is Unknowable. His existence and attributes are\ntoo great for any human mind to comprehend entirely, or for any\nhuman language to express completely and accurately. Therefore our\nstatements on the subject are at best only approximations to the\ntruth. We can apprehend His existence, but we cannot comprehend it,\nand God in His true nature is certainly _Unknowable_.\n\nBut, strictly speaking, it is the same with everything. Man in his\ntrue nature is also unknowable, yet we know something about man. So,\nagain, the forces of nature are all unseen and unknowable in\nthemselves, yet from their effects we know something about them. And\neven matter when reduced to atoms, or electrons, or anything else,\nis still a mystery, yet we know a good deal about matter. And in\neach case this knowledge is not incorrect because it is incomplete.\nWhy, then, should the fact of God being in His true nature\nunknowable prevent our having some real, though partial, knowledge\nof Him? In short, we may know something about God, though we cannot\nknow everything about Him.\n\nAnd it should be noticed that Natural Religion and Natural Science\nare alike in this respect--they are both founded on inferences drawn\nfrom the observed facts of nature. For example, we observe the\nmotion of falling bodies, and infer the existence of some force,\ngravity, to account for this. Similarly, we observe the marks of\ndesign in nature, and infer the existence, or at least foresight, of\nsome Being who designed them. In neither case have we any direct\nknowledge as to the cause of what we see. And in some respects\nReligion is not so unknowable as Science. For our own, real or\napparent, mind and free will do give us some kind of idea as to the\nexistence of a personal being, apart from what he does; while of a\nnatural force, such as gravity, apart from its effects, we can form\nno idea whatever. Thus our knowledge of every subject is but\npartial, and it finally leads us into the Unknowable.\n\nBut now comes the important point. This partial knowledge, which is\nall we can obtain in either Science or Religion, is all we require.\nIt is not a perfect knowledge, but it is sufficient for all\npractical purposes. Whatever the force of gravity may be in itself,\nwe know what it is _to us_. We know that if we jump off a cliff we\nshall fall to the ground. And so in regard to Religion. Whatever God\nmay be in Himself, we know what He is _to us_. We know that He is\nour Maker, and therefore, as will be shown in the next chapter, He\nis the Being to whom we are responsible. This is the practical\nknowledge which we require, and this is the knowledge which we can\nobtain.\n\nMoreover, though our reason may be to some extent unfit to judge of\nsuch matters, the vast importance of the subject seems to demand our\ncoming to some conclusion one way or the other. This is especially\nthe case because important results affecting a man's daily life\nfollow from his deciding that there is a God, and to leave the\nquestion undecided is practically the same as deciding that there is\nnot a God. In the same way, if a ship were in danger of sinking,\nand a steamer also in distress offered to take off the passengers,\nfor one of them to say that he did not know whether it was safer to\ngo in the steamer or not, and would therefore do nothing and stay\nwhere he was, would be practically the same as deciding not to go in\nthe steamer. So in the case before us. To refuse to decide the\nquestion because of the supposed inadequacy of human reason is\npractically the same as to deny the existence of God.\n\nStill, it may be urged, granting that our reason must decide the\nquestion one way or the other, and granting that our reason seems to\nforce us to conclude in the existence of God, are there not great\ndifficulties in honestly believing this conclusion? No doubt there\nare, and no thoughtful man would think of ignoring them. But after\nall it is only a choice of difficulties; and, as we have shown,\nthere is _less_ difficulty in believing what we have here maintained\nthan the contrary. It is less difficult, for instance, to believe\nthat the universe had an origin, than to believe that it had not.\nSimilarly as to the existence of God; the theory is not free from\ndifficulties, but, with all its difficulties, it is still by far the\nmost probable theory to explain the origin and present state of the\nuniverse. We therefore decide, judging by reason alone (which is the\nline adopted in this Essay), that the existence of God is _extremely\nprobable_.\n\n\n(_D._) SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.\n\nIn conclusion, we will repeat very briefly, the main line of\nargument thus far. To begin with, in the present universe we observe\na succession of changes. If these changes are not recurring, which\nseems incredible, they must have had a commencement; and this is\nsupported by the theories of Evolution and the Degradation of\nEnergy. Therefore, as this commencement cannot have been a\nnecessity, it must have been due to some _Free Force_. And a Free\nForce must be a _Supernatural_ Force, since natural forces are not\nfree, but always act according to some fixed law, while the unity of\nnature points to its being a _Single_ Supernatural Force, which we\ncalled the Creator.\n\nNext, it follows that the Creator must have foreknown the\nconsequences of His acts, judging by the marks of design which they\npresent. And this conclusion was shown to be not inconsistent with\neither the process of evolution, or the existence of free will in\nman or other beings. Hence He must have been a _Personal Being_,\npossessing both Wisdom to design, and Power to accomplish.\n\nOr the whole argument may be repeated in an even shorter form. The\nuniverse (in its present condition) has not existed always, it is\ntherefore an _effect_,--something that has been effected, or brought\nabout somehow; and therefore like every effect, it must have had a\n_Cause_. Then since the effect shows a certain unity throughout, the\nCause must have been One. Since the effect shows in some parts\nevidence of having been planned and arranged, the capacity for\nplanning and arranging must have existed in the Cause. In other\nwords, a universe showing marks of design is the effect, and nothing\nless than a Personal Being who designed it can be the Cause. And GOD\nis the name given to this Personal Being.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHAT MAN IS A FREE AND RESPONSIBLE BEING.\n\n     (_A._) MAN'S MENTAL ATTRIBUTES.\n\n     Man possesses a mind as well as a body; the opposite\n      theory, materialism, has great difficulties.\n\n     (_B._) MAN'S MORAL ATTRIBUTES.\n\n     (1.) Man possesses a will.\n     (2.) Man's acts are partly determined by his will.\n     (3.) Man's will is _free_.\n     (4.) Man knows that his will is free; and this enables him\n           to design, and makes him a personal being.\n     (5.) Man's _responsibility_ for his acts.\n     (6.) Man's moral sense of right and wrong; which enables\n           him to distinguish the quality of acts, and makes\n           him a moral being.\n     (7.) Man's conscience, by which he can judge of this quality\n           in some cases.\n\n     (_C._) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANIMALS AND MEN.\n\n     There is a great mental difference, though probably only\n      of degree; and entire moral difference, since animals,\n      even if free, do not possess a _known_ freedom, and are\n      hence not personal beings.\n\n     (_D._) CONCLUSION.\n\n     Man consists of three parts, body, mind, and spirit: his\n      unique position.\n\n\nHaving decided on the Existence of God, which is the great truth of\n_Natural_ Religion, the question now arises whether, if nature can\nlead us so far, there is no means of getting further. No one will\ndeny that further knowledge is desirable, both as to God, ourselves,\nand our future destiny, and is there no means of obtaining it? And\nthis brings us to the subject of _Revealed_ Religion, that is to\nsay, of God's making some Revelation to man. And the probability of\nthis will depend partly on the _character of man_--is he a being at\nall worthy of a revelation; and partly on the _Character of God_--is\nHe a Being at all likely to make one? The former question alone will\nbe discussed in this chapter, and we will consider man's _mental_\nand _moral_ attributes separately. Nothing need be said about his\nbodily or _physical_ characteristics, as they have no bearing on the\npresent argument.\n\n\n(_A._) MAN'S MENTAL ATTRIBUTES.\n\nBy these are meant man's thoughts and feelings, and that they are\ndifferent from the matter composing his body seems self-evident.\nMatter possesses size, weight, colour, shape, and hardness. Mind\ndoes not possess any of these. They have no conceivable meaning when\napplied to thoughts and feelings. Yet both mind and matter exist in\nman. We each feel conscious that we have something which _thinks_,\nand which we call mind; as well as something which _moves_, and\nwhich we call matter (_i.e._, our bodies); and that these are\nabsolutely distinct from one another. And from the nature of the\ncase this _inherent conviction_ is all we can appeal to. For mind,\nif it exists at all, being different from matter, is beyond the\nreach of ordinary scientific discovery. We cannot however be more\ncertain of anything than of these inherent convictions, which form\nthe basis of all our knowledge. Even the propositions of Euclid are\nonly deductions from some other of our convictions, such as that the\nwhole is greater than its part.\n\nStill the difficulty of understanding this compound nature in man,\npart mind and part body, has led some persons to adopt the theory of\n_materialism_. According to this there is no such thing as _mind_;\nwhat we call thoughts and feelings being merely complicated motions\nof the molecules of the brain. Now, that the mind and brain are\nclosely associated together none will deny, but it does not follow\nthat they are identical. The brain may be merely the instrument of\nthe mind through which it acts. And though, as far as we know, the\nmind can never act without the brain, it may certainly have a\nseparate existence, and possibly, under different conditions, may be\nable to act separately. It is in fact no more difficult to conceive\nof thought without a brain, than to conceive of thought with a\nbrain. All we can say is, that within the range of our experience\nthe two seem to be somehow connected together.\n\nRecent investigations, however, in what is called _telepathy_ (or\nthought-transference) seem to show that in some cases one mind can\ninfluence another _at a distance_, and without any material\nconnection. And this (if admitted) proves that the mind is something\nmore than a mere collection of particles of matter.\n\nMoreover materialism, to be consistent, must deny not only that man\nhas a mind, but that he has anything immaterial at all; he must be\nmatter in motion, and nothing else. But this is disproved by our\n_memory_, which convinces us that we are the _same_ persons now as\nwe were ten years ago; yet we know that every particle of our\nbodies, including our brains, has changed in the interval. We must\nthen have something immaterial which survives, in spite of\neverything material changing.\n\nThe case, it should be noticed, is not like that of a tree, which\nmay be popularly said to be the same now as it was ten years ago,\nthough every particle of it has changed in the interval. For as far\nas we know, the tree has nothing which connects its present state\nwith its former state, it has no memory of what happened to it then.\nWe _have_, that is just the difference. We can remember now what\nhappened to us ten years ago, though our bodies now do not contain a\nsingle atom or molecule which they did then. We must, therefore,\nhave something else besides atoms and molecules, in other words,\nsomething _immaterial_; and if so, there is an end of materialism in\nits only logical form.\n\nThis theory then cannot possibly be accepted, and we must abide by\nour inherent conviction that we have a mind as well as a body. This\nis an ultimate fact in human nature; and we are as certain of it as\nwe are of anything, though like some other ultimate facts it has to\nbe assumed, because it can be neither proved nor doubted.\n\n\n(_B._) MAN'S MORAL ATTRIBUTES.\n\nWe pass on now to man's moral attributes, which we will consider in\ndetail.\n\n(1.) _Man possesses a will._\n\nIn the first place man possesses what, in common language, is called\na _will_. Strictly speaking, of course, the will is not anything\nindependent of the man, which he _possesses_, as he might possess a\ndog; it is the man himself _who wills_, or who possesses the power\nof willing. But the common language is so generally understood, that\nit will be used here. Now the chief reason for believing that man\nhas a will is his own inherent conviction. He feels certain that he\ndoes possess a will which is distinct from his body and his mind,\nthough closely associated with both, and apparently to some extent\ncontrolling both. For example, I may resolve to raise my hand, and\nthen do it; or I may resolve to think out a problem, and then do it.\nIn each case the will is felt to be something distinct from the\nsubsequent bodily or mental action.\n\n(2.) _Man's acts are partly determined by his will._\n\nIn the next place, a man's acts (and also his thoughts) are partly\ndetermined by his will. By this is meant that a man's will is able\nto move his limbs, so that, for instance, he can raise his hand when\nhe wishes, and this gives him the power of determining his acts. It\nis not meant that a man's will can move his limbs directly; his\nlimbs are moved by his muscles, which are directed by his nerves,\nand these by certain motions in the brain. All that the will can do\nis to give a particular direction to these motions, which, combined\nwith various other forces, brings about the observed result.\n\nNow we have in favour of this action of the human will on the human\nbody the universal experience of mankind, which is that a man can\nsomehow or other move his limbs at pleasure. Indeed, the question\nwhether a man can walk across the room when he wishes, seems to most\npeople to admit of a convincing answer: _solvitur ambulando_. But\nstill, the action of will on matter seems so improbable, and so\ndifficult to understand, that attempts have naturally been made to\nfind some other explanation.\n\nBut no satisfactory one can be suggested. For my wishing to move my\nbody, is followed by my moving it so frequently and so universally,\nthat there must be some connection between them. And though we\ncannot imagine how a mere wish can move particles of matter (in the\nbrain or anywhere else), it is just as hard to imagine how the\nmovement of particles of matter can produce a wish. The latter\ntheory is no easier to understand than the other; and, as just said,\nit is opposed to _the daily experience of mankind_, which is that a\nman's will can, somehow or other, move his limbs, and hence\ndetermine his acts.\n\n(3.) _Man's will is free._\n\nIt must next be noticed that man's will is a _free_ will, and this\nis a most important point. It is quite distinct from the previous\nquestion. Then we decided that a man's raising his hand, for\ninstance, was the result of his wishing to do so. We have now to\nconsider whether this wish was free on the man's part, or whether he\ncould not help it; the latter view being called that of _Necessity_,\nor _Determinism_, and meaning that a man's acts are necessarily\ndetermined, and not free. Of course everyone admits that there are\n_limits_ to human freedom. A man cannot always raise his hand when\nhe likes, it may be paralyzed. The important point is whether he is\n_ever_ free; and there are two main arguments on each side.\n\nNow the great argument in favour of free will is, again, our own\ninherent conviction. It is one of the most universal, and one of the\nmost certain, beliefs of mankind that he has free will. This belief\nis forced upon him by his own daily experience. He feels, for\ninstance, that he is free to raise his hand or not. And what is\nmore, he can verify the fact by actually raising it, whenever he\nlikes; so it is literally true to say that the conviction rests on\nthe daily experience of the human race. And to many, this argument\nalone seems conclusive.\n\nBut, as a matter of fact, it is fully confirmed by _human conduct_.\nFor a man's conduct is _variable_ and quite unlike the uniformity\nwhich we find in chemistry and physics, where there is no free\nforce, and everything is brought about in accordance with fixed\nlaws. So we seem to require some free force in man to account for\nhis variable conduct. These, then, are the two arguments in favour\nof free will--man's _inherent conviction_, confirmed by his\n_variable conduct_; and no more powerful arguments can be imagined.\n\nOn the other hand, the chief argument against human freedom is that\nit would be an _anomaly_ in nature; since natural forces always act\nin the same way, and any free force, able to act or not as it likes,\nis quite unknown. If, then, man possesses such a force, no matter\nhow limited it may be, he is partly, at least, a _supernatural_\nbeing, not bound by fixed laws.\n\nNow all this may be admitted, but what then? Why should not man be a\npartly supernatural being? God, Who has made man, is Supernatural;\nHe possesses free will, and He might, if He thought fit, bestow some\nof this attribute on man, allowing him, that is to say, within\ncertain limits, to act in one way or another. No doubt, to persons\nwho study physical science alone, the existence of any free force in\nman seems most improbable. But, on the other hand, to those who\nstudy the actions of men, such as barristers, soldiers, or\npoliticians, the idea that man is a mere machine seems equally\nimprobable.\n\nAnd does not the same principle apply in other cases? Suppose, for\ninstance, that a man were to study inorganic chemistry alone, living\non an island where vegetation was unknown, would not a tree be a\ncomplete anomaly to him? Yet trees exist and have to be allowed for.\nIn the same way man's free will may be an anomaly, but the evidence\nfor it is overwhelming.\n\nMoreover, the anomaly is greatly lessened by the fact that man\nalready occupies a very anomalous position. For as we have seen, his\nacts are often determined by his _will_, and this is utterly unlike\nanything that we find elsewhere in nature. Indeed the _action_ of a\nwill is as great an anomaly as its _freedom_; and with the possible\nexception of animals (see further on) we have no experience whatever\nof a will that can act and is _not_ free. Therefore claiming freedom\nfor a man, is not like claiming freedom for a mineral, or a plant.\nHe is anyhow a unique being, by far the highest and most important\non this planet; and that he should be partly supernatural as well\ndoes not seem so very unlikely after all.\n\nWe must also remember that we know more about ourselves where we are\nconscious of freedom, than we do about the surrounding universe,\nwhere we infer a rigid uniformity. Indeed, our own free will is the\nonly force of which we have any _direct_ knowledge, and the\nso-called forces of nature, such as gravity, are, strictly speaking,\nonly assumptions which we make to account for observed facts. And,\nas we have shown, even these forces seem to have originated in the\nFree Will of the Creator; so as far as we can judge, _free will_, of\nsome kind is the ultimate cause of all force.\n\nThe other important argument against free will is that it would be\ninconsistent with what is called the _Conservation of Energy_, since\nit is said any voluntary act would involve the creation of energy.\nBut this is at least doubtful; for the will might be free as to its\nacts, were it only able to control energy without producing it. And\nit could do this if it possessed the power of altering either the\ntime, or the direction of force; deciding, for instance, whether to\nraise my hand now, or a minute hence, or whether to raise my right\nhand or my left. And if it possessed either of these powers, it\ncould turn the latent force, which a man possesses, into actual\nmotion when and how it pleased. And it would thus be free as to its\nacts, without creating any energy at all.\n\nWe therefore decide on reviewing the whole subject, that man's will\nis free; since this alone agrees with his own inherent _conviction_,\nand fully accounts for his variable _conduct_. While, on the other\nhand, though an _anomaly_ in nature, it is not on that account\nincredible; nor is it inconsistent with the _conservation of\nenergy_.\n\n(4.) _Man knows that his will is free._\n\nHaving now decided that man's will is free, little need be said\nabout the next point, which is that man _knows_ that his will is\nfree, since, as we have shown, this is the chief argument for\nadmitting its freedom. There are, however, many other arguments for\nproving that man believes that he has a free will, for it is shown\nby his acts. It is this known freedom which enables a man to set\nbefore him an end, and deliberately work towards it; in other words,\nit enables him to _design_, and makes him a _personal being_, as we\nhave used the term. And it is needless to point out that the\nevidence of human design is universal. Again, human language affords\na conclusive proof that man has always and everywhere believed\nhimself to be free; for such terms as _I will_, _I choose_, _I\ndecide_, exist in all languages. However, we need not pursue this\nsubject, since it is undisputed that man _believes_ that he has a\nfree will; and it is taken for granted in all human affairs.\n\n(5.) _Man's responsibility for his acts._\n\nBy this is meant that a man is responsible for the way in which he\nuses his freedom; and this seems to follow at once from his knowing\nthat he is free. Moreover, a sense of responsibility is among the\ninherent convictions of mankind. Of course, there may be exceptions\nto this as to most other rules; but taking mankind as a whole, he\ncertainly believes in his own responsibility.\n\nHe also believes that this responsibility is in the first place to\nGod, or some other supernatural Being. No doubt he is also\nresponsible to his fellow-men, more especially to those among whom\nhe is living; but a moment's reflection will show that this is not\nthe leading idea. For a man must in the first place be responsible\nto his Maker rather than to his fellow-men. In the same way a child\nis first of all responsible to his parents, and then, secondly and\nconsequently, to his brothers and sisters. Therefore, because God\nhas made us, we are responsible to Him; and because He has placed us\namong other men, and presumably wishes us to take some part in human\nsociety, we are in a lesser degree responsible to them also. So the\n_brotherhood of man_, as it is called, naturally follows from the\nFatherhood of God.\n\n(6.) _Man's moral sense of right and wrong._\n\nIn the next place, man has the remarkable faculty of distinguishing\nthe _quality_ of acts which are free, regarding some as right and\nothers as wrong, the latter being called _sins_. And it may be\nnoticed in passing, that the existence of moral evil or sin seems to\nmany to be an additional argument in favour of man's freedom;\notherwise God would be the sole author of man's misdeeds. Of course,\nin this case, they would not be really _sins_, for if man has no\nfree will, he is a mere machine, and can no more sin against God (or\nman either) than a watch can sin against its maker. Such a man\nmight be imperfect, and so might a watch, but he could not be\n_wicked_; yet few will say that there are no wicked men in the\nworld. Now we will call a being who is thus able to distinguish the\nquality of acts a _moral being_. Man is therefore a moral being,\nhaving this _moral sense_, as it is called, of distinguishing right\nfrom wrong.\n\nIt will perhaps make the meaning of this moral sense plainer if we\ncompare it with one of man's other senses, say that of sight. The\none, then, distinguishes right from wrong, just as the other\ndistinguishes red from yellow, or blue from green. And as man's\nsense of colours is not disproved by one man thinking a colour blue\nwhich another thinks green--or his sense of taste, by one man\nthinking a taste nice, which another thinks nasty--so his moral\nsense is not disproved by one man thinking an act right which\nanother thinks wrong.\n\nMoreover this sense of right and wrong is quite distinct from the\npleasant or unpleasant consequences which are associated with\ncertain acts. For instance, I may avoid putting my hand into hot\nwater, because I remember having done so before, and it was painful;\nbut this is quite different from avoiding an act because it is\n_wrong_. It is also quite distinct from expediency, or the idea of\nbenefiting by an act. For an act may not benefit us at all, or may\neven injure us, and yet it may be right. In short, 'fifty\nexperiences of what is pleasant or what is profitable do not, and\ncannot, make one conviction of what is right'; the ideas differ in\nkind; and not merely in degree.\n\n(7.) _Man's conscience._\n\nLastly, as to man's conscience. This is often confused with his\nmoral sense, but a little reflection will show that the two are\ndistinct. For a man might possess a moral sense, and be able to\nclassify acts as right or wrong, yet have no direct means of knowing\nto which class any particular act belonged. He might have to work\nthis out by reasoning; and in difficult cases we sometimes do so.\nBut as a rule this is unnecessary. For mankind possesses a very\nremarkable _something_, called a conscience, which tells him at\nonce, and without either argument or reasoning, that certain acts\nare right and others wrong. Conscience is thus like an organ of the\nmoral sense, and may be compared to the eye or organ of sight; for\njust as the eye perceives that certain colours are red and others\nblue, so conscience perceives that certain acts are right and others\nwrong. In each case the perception is almost instantaneous, and\nquite distinct from any kind of reasoning.\n\nConscience, it will be noticed, does not _make_ the act right or\nwrong, any more than the eye makes the colour red or blue; it merely\ntells us what acts are right and what wrong. It is thus an\n_intermediary_ between Someone else and ourselves; and this Someone\nelse can only be God, Who gave us our conscience, so that in popular\nlanguage it may be called _the Voice of God_. And it tells us we\nought to act right, because this is the way in which God wishes us\nto act.\n\nNow that mankind possesses a conscience is indisputable. It is\nshared alike by young and old, rich and poor, educated and\nuneducated. It has existed in all ages, countries and races. We all\nhave it, and what is very remarkable it seems to be independent of\nour will, and not at our disposal. We do not correct it, but it\ncorrects us; for it not only tells us what acts are right and what\nwrong, but it approves definitely of our doing the former, and\ndisapproves just as definitely of our doing the latter. Indeed, one\nof the most striking effects of conscience is this feeling of\n_remorse_ or self-condemnation after wrong-doing; and such a feeling\nis practically universal.\n\nAnd if it be objected that one man's conscience may say that an act\nis right, which another man's conscience says is wrong, we must\nremember that the decision of a man's conscience, only refers to the\nman himself. It tells a man what is right _for him_, with his\nknowledge and surroundings, and it is quite possible that this may\nbe wrong for another man.\n\nThese, then, are the moral attributes of the human race, and it\nfollows at once that man is a _free and responsible being_. But as\nthis conclusion is often disputed, because of the similarity between\nanimals and men, and the difficulty of admitting that they also are\nfree and responsible beings, or else of showing where the\ndistinction lies, we must examine this subject.\n\n\n(_C._) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANIMALS AND MEN.\n\nNow the _bodily_ difference between certain animals and men is\nadmittedly small; and though the accompanying _mental_ difference is\nenormous, it is probably only one of degree; for all animals seem,\nto some slight extent, to possess a mind, which enables them at\nleast to feel conscious of pleasure and pain. We must therefore\npass on to the _moral_ attributes of animals; and as we know nothing\nas to their feelings on the subject, it is difficult to say\n(referring to the first three points) whether they have a _free\nwill_ or not. Of course, if they have _not_, that would be a clear\ndistinction between animals and men. But we have no right to assume\nthis, and there is a good deal to be said on the other side, at\nleast in regard to the higher animals, so the question had better be\nleft open.\n\nBut with regard to the next point, that of _known_ freedom, we are\non surer ground; for the proof of man's _believing_ himself to be\nfree does not depend solely on his own feelings. It is shown by his\nacts, as it enables him to _design_, and it is doubtful if there is\nanything corresponding to this in animals. For though many of their\nworks show design somewhere, it does not seem to be due to _them_.\nThis kind of unconscious designing (which strange to say is most\napparent in the _lower_ forms of animal life) is called _instinct_,\nand there are at least three reasons for thinking that it differs\nfrom real design implying forethought.\n\nThe first is, that, if these works were due to the design of the\nanimals themselves, they must possess intellectual powers of a very\nhigh order. Take, for instance, the well known example of the _cells\nof bees_. These are built on the most perfect mathematical\nprinciples, the three rhombs which close the hexagonal columns\nhaving the exact angles so as to contain the greatest amount of\nhoney, with the least expenditure of wax. And as we require advanced\nmathematics and a book of logarithms to work out such problems, it\nis hard to see how the bees can do it. Nor is heredity of any use,\nfor the bees which build cells are all _workers_ (as they are\ncalled) and have no descendants; while those which have descendants\nare either _drones_ or _queens_, and these do no building. Thus the\ncells are built by bees, none of whose ancestors have ever built\ncells; so the design cannot be ascribed to anything they have\ninherited from their parents.[3] Secondly, animals are only able to\ndesign in a few special cases, and in other respects they often act\nwith the greatest stupidity. A bee, for example, with all its\nmathematics, cannot very often, if it has flown in through an open\nwindow, retrace its way, but will buzz helplessly against another\nwhich is shut.\n\n[Footnote 3: Encyc. Brit., 9th edit., vol. iii., pp. 490, 484. The\nangles are 109\u00b0 28' and 70\u00b0 32'.]\n\nThirdly, the instincts of animals are practically the same, always\nand everywhere. They are not more advanced in some countries, than\nin others; or in some individuals, than in others. They are not even\nmore advanced as time goes on. The last cell built by a bee is no\nbetter than the first, and no better, as far as we know, than cells\nbuilt by bees thousands of years ago; while the young of animals,\nwithout any experience to guide them, have the same instincts as the\nold. Clearly, then, an animal's instinct is born with it, and not\nacquired; and therefore, any apparent design there may be in what is\ndone by instinct cannot be attributed to the animal itself, any more\nthan the design shown in its eyes, but to its Maker.\n\nSo far all is plain. It may, however, be urged that in some of the\nhigher animals, especially those in contact with man, we do find\ncertain acts which seem to imply forethought and design. A dog, for\nexample, will bury a bone one day, and go and look for it the next.\nBut when once it is admitted that what are apparently far more\nstriking instances of design are to be explained by instinct, it\nseems better to explain them all in the same way.\n\nAnd this is confirmed by the fact that even the higher animals do\nnot appear to have any idea of _responsibility_, or any sense of\n_right_ and _wrong_, which in man are the result of his known\nfreedom. Of course, this also may be disputed, since as we punish a\ndog for doing what we dislike, it looks as if we held it responsible\nfor the act. But this does not follow. We punish the dog to prevent\nits repeating the act. And it may avoid doing so, because its memory\nassociates the act with _pain_, and not because it feels responsible\nfor it, or considers it to be _wrong_. While in the vast majority of\ncases we never think of holding an animal responsible for its acts,\nor look upon its injuring anyone as a sin. We conclude, then, that\n_moral_ attributes form the great distinction between animals and\nmen; because though animals have, or may have, a free will, it is\nnot a _known_ freedom, so they are not able, like men, to _design_,\nand are hence not _personal beings_.\n\nTwo further remarks may be made before leaving this subject. The\nfirst is, that though there are difficulties in placing this known\nfreedom as the difference between animals and men, there are as\ngreat, if not greater, difficulties in placing it anywhere else. If\nwe say that an ape or a dog can design, the difficulty is not\nlessened; it is merely transferred lower down the scale. Can a\njellyfish design? The momentous attribute of known freedom must\nbegin _somewhere_; and it seems less difficult to place it between\nanimals and men than anywhere else.\n\nThe second and more important point is, that our ignorance about\nanimals is no reason for doubting what we do know about man. To do\nthis would be most illogical. Indeed, we might as well deny that a\nman could see, or hear, because there are difficulties in deciding\nwhere sight and hearing commence in the scale of animal life.\n\n\n(_D._) CONCLUSION.\n\nWe may now conclude this chapter. With regard to man, it is clear\nthat his bodily, mental, and moral attributes are quite distinct. A\nman may be strong in body, yet of weak intellectual power; or he may\nhave a great intellect, yet be of weak moral character. This makes\nit probable that human nature consists of three parts--_body_,\n_mind_, and _spirit_; the mind corresponding to the mental reasoning\npart of man, and the spirit to the free moral part, the word _soul_\nbeing often used for either of these latter.\n\nAnd the difference between animals and men is probably that the\nformer have no _spirits_, but only bodies and (undeveloped)\nminds. All life on this planet would then form three great\ngroups--_vegetation_, consisting of matter alone; _animals_, of\nmatter and mind; _man_, of matter, mind, and spirit. And from this\nit seems to follow that while a man's _body_ may (conceivably) have\nbeen evolved from any other form of matter, and his _mind_ from any\nother form of mind, yet his _spirit_ is essentially distinct, and\ncannot have been evolved from anything else.\n\nMoreover, as a man's body and mind are both (to some extent) under\nthe known control of his free will, or spirit, this latter must be\nlooked upon as his real _self_. Thus he is not, strictly speaking,\nan organism at all, but a free being served by organs both of body\nand mind. They are _his_; they do not constitute _him_. He is the\npersonal being, who controls both. In other words man _is_ a spirit,\nand _has_ a body and mind.\n\nAnd our present conclusion is quite plain. We have shown that man is\na _free_ being, his freedom distinguishing him from natural forces,\nand making him in part supernatural. And he is a _responsible_\nbeing, his responsibility being due to his known freedom, and\ndistinguishing him from animals. He has thus a unique position.\nNothing else on this planet resembles him, and in his attribute of\nknown freedom which enables him to design, and makes him a _personal\nbeing_, he resembles God alone.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHAT GOD TAKES AN INTEREST IN MAN'S WELFARE.\n\n     (_A._) THE EVIDENCE IN ITS FAVOUR.\n\n     Since God is a _Moral_ as well as a Personal Being, He must\n      be capable of caring for all His creatures; and we have\n      abundant evidence that He does so, especially for man.\n      But there are two great difficulties.\n\n     (_B._) THE INSIGNIFICANCE OF MAN.\n\n     (1.) Some counter-arguments, showing that even if insignificant,\n           God might still care for him.\n     (2.) Man's real importance, due to his mind and spirit.\n     (3.) The supposed inhabitants of other planets.\n\n     (_C._) THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL.\n\n     (1.) Physical evil in animals. The objection that it is vast\n           in amount, wholly unmerited, and perfectly useless,\n           cannot be maintained.\n     (2.) Physical evil in man. Several ways of lessening the\n           difficulty. Its explanation seems to be that God's\n           designing evil does not mean His desiring it, as it is\n           essential for forming a man's character.\n     (3.) Moral evil in man. The possibility of this is essential\n           to free will; and wicked men are as necessary as any\n           other form of evil.\n\n     (_D._) CONCLUSION.\n\n     God's _Goodness_ includes Beneficence and Righteousness.\n\n\nHaving discussed in the last chapter the character of man, we have\nnext to consider, as far as we have any means of doing so, _the\nCharacter of God_; more especially whether He seems to take any\ninterest in man's welfare. And we will first examine the evidence in\nfavour of this; then the two arguments on the other side from the\ninsignificance of man, and the existence of evil; and will conclude\nby considering in what sense the term _Goodness_ can be ascribed to\nGod.\n\n\n(_A._) THE EVIDENCE IN ITS FAVOUR.\n\nTo begin with, God is certainly capable of taking an interest in\nman's welfare, for He is not only a Personal Being, but also a Moral\nBeing. This follows at once from what may be called the _moral\nargument_ for the Existence of God, or that depending on man's free\nwill. It is briefly this, that no combination of natural forces,\nwhich are uniform and always act the same under the same\ncircumstances, can ever produce a _free_ force, able to act or not\nas it likes. The idea seems inconceivable. If, then, man possesses\nsuch a force, which we have already admitted, it cannot have come\nfrom any natural forces, nor can it have made itself, so it must\nhave been derived from some _previous_ free force, and this, again,\nfrom a previous one, and so on till we finally arrive at a _Free\nForce_, which was _not_ derived from any other, but which existed\neternally. And this, it will be remembered, was precisely the\nconclusion we reached in Chapter I., though from quite a different\nargument. And then it follows that this Free Force, or Free Being,\nmust know that He is free; and must therefore be a _moral_ Being,\nable to distinguish the quality of acts as right or wrong. Indeed,\nthe mere fact that man possesses this remarkable faculty makes it\ncertain that man's Maker must possess it too.\n\nNow a personal and moral God must clearly be able to take an\ninterest in the welfare of His creatures; and there is abundant\nevidence that He actually does so. For everywhere in nature, and\nespecially in man, we meet with marks, not only of design, but of\n_beneficent_ design--that is to say of design tending to the welfare\nand happiness of the beings in question. Take, for instance, the\nhuman eye, which we considered in Chapter II. Everyone will admit\nthat this conduces very greatly to man's happiness; and therefore\nthe conclusion that God, when He designed the eye, did so with the\nobject of benefiting man seems irresistible. Nor is this altered by\nthe fact that the eye has a few defects, in being liable to various\nkinds of disease. For no one can think that it was made for the sake\nof these defects. It was evidently made to see, and not to ache.\nThat it does ache now and then is in all probability due to its\nbeing such a complicated instrument; and perhaps also to its being\noften used too much.\n\nBut it may be said, beneficial organs like the eye, though they\nabound throughout nature, are not the only ones we meet with. There\nare others, like the claws and teeth of wild animals, which are just\nthe opposite, and seem designed to give pain to other creatures. But\nthis is quite untenable. They were plainly designed to enable the\nanimal to secure its food, and are perhaps necessary for that\npurpose, and they all tend to the welfare of their possessor, and\nsometimes also to that of their victim, as it hastens death. There\nis not, in fact, a single organ in nature the _object_ of which is\nto produce pain. Where pain is produced it is merely a sort of\n_by-product_. Thus far then, we are quite justified in concluding\nthat God takes an interest in man's welfare. But there are two great\ndifficulties.\n\n\n(_B._) THE INSIGNIFICANCE OF MAN.\n\nThe first is from the apparent _insignificance_ of man. For though\nhe is doubtless by far the most important being on this planet, and\nendowed with some of the Divine attributes, yet, after all how\nutterly insignificant he is in comparison with his Maker. This is no\nnew difficulty,[4] but modern science has increased its force by\nshowing that our earth is only one among the planets which go round\nthe sun, while the sun itself is only one among many millions of\nstars. And, we may ask, is it likely that the God Who rules these\nmillions of stars should take any interest in the beings on a small\nplanet like our earth?\n\n[Footnote 4: Ps. 8. 3, 4.]\n\nThis is the difficulty we have to face; but a good deal depends on\nthe way in which it is stated. Would it not be better to argue from\nthe known to the unknown, and ask--Is it likely that the God Who has\nmade this earth, and Who we know (from the marks of design) takes an\ninterest in its inhabitants, should be _also_ the Ruler of the\ndistant stars? And when so stated, the unity of nature compels us to\nsay that it is not only likely, but practically certain. However, we\nwill discuss the subject more in detail, first considering some\ncounter-arguments, which show that even if man were insignificant\nGod might still care for him; then man's real importance; and\nlastly, the question of other planets being inhabited.\n\n(1.) _Some Counter-arguments._\n\nTo begin with, though it seems unlikely that God should take any\ninterest in such insignificant beings as us men, it also seems\nunlikely that He should ever have designed and created such beings.\nYet He has done so. And having created them, there is at most only a\nslight _additional_ improbability, if any at all, that He should\ntake an interest in their welfare. And this is especially the case\nwhen we remember that man is not only the highest and noblest being\non this planet, but as far as we know on any planet. Therefore\nthough we may be quite unworthy of God's care, we do not know of any\nother being who is more worthy of it. And it is most unlikely that a\nCreator would not take an interest in _any_ of His works.\n\nNext, as to the analogy of nature. Here we find nothing resembling a\nneglect of small things. On the contrary, everything, down to the\nminutest insect, seems finished with as much perfection as if it\nalone existed in the universe. And this is surely what we should\nexpect. For true greatness does not exist in despising that which is\nsmall; and it may be a very part of God's infinite greatness that\nnothing should be too small for Him to care about, just as nothing\nis too large. And while a Being, Who can govern the universe, and\nattend to its millions of stars, is no doubt great--inconceivably\ngreat; yet He is surely greater still--_inconceivably greater_--if\nHe can _also_ attend to our little planet, and its inhabitants; and\ncan do this so thoroughly, as not only to take an interest in the\nhuman race, but in the welfare of each one of its members.\n\nAnd the whole analogy of nature is in favour of His doing so; for\nthe forces of nature never deal with matter in bulk, but with each\nparticle separately. A stone, for instance, is attracted to the\nground, because, and only because, each particle of it is so\nattracted. In the same way if God takes an interest in the human\nrace (and, as just said, it is hard to imagine His not doing so,\nsince it is His noblest work) it may be because, and only because,\nHe takes an interest in each individual member of it.\n\nThirdly, the difficulty of thus believing that God takes an interest\nin the daily life of an individual man, though undoubtedly great, is\nreally no more than that of believing that He knows about it. For if\nHe knows about it, why should He not care about it? Yet, as said in\nChapter II., a world like ours cannot have been made without both\nknowledge, and foreknowledge, on the part of its Maker. And though\nwe might at first be inclined to limit this to important matters, a\nlittle consideration will show that such a distinction is untenable;\nand that if God knows anything, He knows everything. And if He knows\neverything, why should He not care about everything?\n\nFourthly, and this is very important, whether we are insignificant\nor not, we are each of us _unique_. We are not like particles of\nmatter. Millions of these are (or may be) exactly alike, but no two\n_men_ are exactly alike; not even to the same extent as plants and\nanimals. For each man is a separate spirit, a _personal being_\ndistinct from all else in the world. And since he possesses a free\nwill, his character is also distinct; for this depends to a large\nextent on how he uses his free will, what he says, and what he does,\nday by day. So it is out of the question to think that any two men\nare exactly alike. And this is the common belief of mankind, for\nhowever much we may think other people alike, we each feel sure that\nthere is no one else in the world exactly like _ourselves_.\n\nNor can there be. For though God might, if He chose, make two trees\nexactly alike, or two men exactly alike in their external features,\nHe could not make them alike _in their character_. For this, as just\nsaid, depends on their own free use of their own free will; and if\nGod were to force them to decide in the same way, they would cease\nto be free. And from this it follows that each man is not only\nunique, but _irreplaceable_. No other can be made like him.\nTherefore, as we each have something special about us, God may take\na _special_ interest in each of us. Doubtless such an idea seems\nvery wonderful; but no one who has any knowledge of the marvels of\nnature will think it, on that account, incredible. Indeed, from one\npoint of view, it is only what we should expect. For we all know how\na naturalist will value a unique specimen, which cannot be replaced,\nin spite of its having some defects. And if each man is really\n_unique_, and _irreplaceable_, why may not the God of Nature value\nhim too (in spite of his faults), and take an interest in his\nwelfare?\n\nThen, fifthly, as to the discoveries of science, there is here also\na good deal to be said on the other side. For though the telescope\nhas shown us that our world is like a mere drop in the ocean, the\nmicroscope has shown us a new world in each drop; and the\n_infinitely little_, as it is called, is as wonderful as the\ninfinitely great, and man still occupies a sort of central position.\n\nWhen, for instance, we examine a single organ, say the human eye, we\nfind that it consists of an immense number of parts, each of which\nis seen to be more and more complicated the more we are able to\nmagnify it, and so on without apparently any limit. And this makes\nit more than ever likely that the God, Who has shown such marvellous\nskill in the various organs of a man's body, should care for the man\nhimself, the personal and moral being, who possesses these organs.\nNor is the argument weakened by the fact that the organs of animals\nalso show a wonderful amount of design, for as far as we know, in\ntheir case, there is no personal and moral being to care about.\n\nAgain, science has not only shown us the _magnitude_ of the\nuniverse, and that there are millions of stars, millions of miles\napart, but it has also shown us its _unity_, and that all its parts\nare closely connected together. And certainly the idea that the God,\nWho rules these stars, should take an interest in us men, is no\nharder to believe than that the gases, which are burning in these\nstars, should influence our spectroscopes. Yet they do; so if this\nwere all, it would still lessen the difficulty a good deal.\n\n(2.) _Man's real importance._\n\nBut this is not all, for science has also taught us a great deal\nabout man himself, and his long development; which has a most\nimportant bearing on the argument. For we now know that our earth\nhas existed for thousands of centuries, gradually evolving higher\nand higher forms of life, all leading up to _man_, who is the heir\nof all the ages, the inheritor of all that is useful and best in his\nlong line of ancestors.\n\nAnd (what is very important) organic evolution seems obliged to stop\nhere. Man is not merely a link in a series leading on to still more\nperfect beings, but he is the _end_ of the series. In all\nprobability there will never be a higher being on the earth, for the\ncauses which have produced his evolution thus far, can carry it no\nfurther. When, for instance, man acquired an erect position, there\nwas an end to any further improvement in that respect. When he took\nto wearing clothes, there was an end to the body becoming hardier\nand stronger through exposure. When he took to using weapons and\ninventing machinery, mere physical strength was no longer essential,\nand could no longer be increased.\n\nIn short, when Evolution began to take a _mental_ turn, there was an\nend to bodily development. Henceforth there was to be no evolution\nof any higher being, but rather the gradual perfecting of this one\nbeing, by mental and moral, and not physical improvements. Man is\nthus not only the highest being that ever has been evolved, but, as\nfar as we can judge, the highest being that ever will be evolved on\nthis earth. So the vast scheme of evolution, inconceivable alike in\nmagnitude, in duration, and in complexity, is all seen to be one\nplan, with _man_ apparently at the end of it. And consequently, as\neverything was designed by God, he must have been the foreknown and\nintended end, from the very beginning; the first thought in\ncreation, as well as the last.\n\nAnd when we thus regard man as the goal towards which nature has all\nalong tended, and therefore as the _chief_ object which God--the\nAuthor of Nature--had in view all the time, it seems to increase his\nimportance tenfold; and shows conclusively that in God's sight he\nmust be anything but insignificant.\n\nNor is it difficult to suggest a reason for this. For man, as we\nknow, has a _mind_, as well as a body; and though the discoveries of\nscience have in some respects lessened the importance of his _body_,\nby showing its evolution from other animals; they have at the same\ntime increased that of his _mind_, for it is his mind that has\ndiscovered them. And every fresh discovery man makes can only exalt\nhim still higher for making it; so that the mind of man now shows\nhim to be a far nobler being than could possibly have been imagined\nsome centuries ago. And certainly, a mind that can discover the\nmotions of distant stars, and the elements of which they are\ncomposed, cannot be thought insignificant. In fact, in one respect\nman is greater than any of the stars; for he can think about them,\nbut they cannot think about him.\n\nMoreover, man has not only a mind, but also a _spirit_, or free\nwill, able to act right or wrong. And even his acting _wrong_,\nhowever sad it may be in other respects, is a powerful witness to\nhis greatness; for who but a great being could act in opposition to\nthe will of the Almighty? But then; if his acting _wrong_ proves his\ngreatness, still more does his acting _right_. Indeed (if we were\nnot so far from it ourselves) we should probably see that moral\nperfection, or _always_ acting right, though one might act wrong, is\nthe noblest thing in the whole universe; and as far above mental\ngreatness, as this latter is above mere physical strength.\n\nBut though _we_ cannot properly appreciate it, God can. He is\nHimself a Spirit, and therefore, in His sight, a man possessing a\nmind and spirit, and thus made to some extent in His own image, and\ncapable of developing moral perfection, may be of more value\n(because more like Himself) than a universe of dead matter. In the\nsame way (to quote a well-known analogy) a king will value his child\nmore than his palace: for the simple reason that the child is more\nlike himself. Thus _persons_ are always more valuable than _things_.\nAnd they are _incomparably_ more valuable, for they have nothing in\ncommon by which they can be compared. We cannot class an astronomer\nwith his telescopes, or say that one geologist is worth so many\nfossils, or one bricklayer so many bricks. And this being so, what\nshall we say of the millions of men who have lived, and are now\nliving, on this earth? Surely _their_ welfare cannot be thought\ninsignificant by anyone, least of all by their Creator.\n\n(3.) _The supposed inhabitants of other planets._\n\nBut it may be said, what about other planets? Are not some of these\ninhabited, and does not this weaken the argument a good deal, and\nshow that God cannot take any special interest in man, or other\nbeings on this earth?\n\nNow there is, of course, no reason why God should take any _special_\ninterest in the beings on this planet, more than in similar beings\non other planets, if such exist; but this is very doubtful. For\nmodern science has shown that not only are the same _materials_\nfound in the other planets (and also in the fixed stars) as are\nfound here; but that _natural laws_, such as those of gravity,\nlight, and heat, are the same throughout the entire universe. And\nthis makes it probable that the laws of life are also the same; so\nthat if living beings exist on other planets, we should expect them\nto be somewhat similar to the living beings here; and to have been\nevolved in a somewhat similar manner. And this requires that a large\nnumber of favourable circumstances, such as a moderate temperature,\na suitable atmosphere, sufficient water, etc., should all be found\non some other planet, not only now, but during the long ages which\n(judging by this earth) appear necessary for the development of the\nhigher forms of life; and this certainly seems unlikely.\n\nOn the other hand, it is difficult to believe that God would create\nan immense number of suns or stars, many of which have probably\nplanets round them, if only one out of the whole series was to be\ninhabited by personal beings. But however strange this may seem to\nus, it entirely agrees with God's methods in nature, where what\nseems to be needless waste is the universal rule. So this is not an\ninsuperable difficulty. The question, however, may well be left\nopen, for even if other planets are inhabited, there is no reason\nwhy God should not take an interest--and perhaps a great\ninterest--in their inhabitants, as well as in ourselves; since all\nHis capacities are boundless, and even the smallest part of\n_infinity_ may be very large.\n\n\n(_C._) THE EXISTENCE OF EVIL.\n\nWe now come to the other, and perhaps more important,\ndifficulty--that arising from the _existence of evil_. This term in\nits widest sense includes both _pain_, which affects a man's body;\n_sorrow_, which affects his mind; and _sin_, which affects his\nspirit. The two former may be called _physical evil_, and apply also\nto animals; while the latter is _moral evil_, and applies only to\nman. And as the world is full of pain, sorrow, and sin, one may\nnaturally ask how could it have been designed and created by a God\nWho cares for the welfare of His creatures? Or, to put the objection\nin other words, does not the existence of this evil show that God\neither could not or would not prevent it? If He _could_ not, he is\nnot All-Powerful; if He _would_ not, He is not All-Good. This is an\nundoubted difficulty; and we will examine it in detail, both as it\naffects animals and men.\n\n(1.) _Physical evil in animals._\n\nThe objection here is that animals of all kinds suffer a vast\n_amount_ of pain and misery, which is wholly _unmerited_ and\nperfectly _useless_; since, having no moral nature, they can neither\ndeserve pain nor profit by it. We will consider these points in\nturn.\n\nAnd first, as to the _amount_ which animals suffer. One animal does\nnot suffer more because a million suffer likewise, so we must\nconsider the suffering as it affects the individual, and not the\n_total_ amount. And as to its extent we know but little. That\nanimals appear to suffer greatly, _e.g._, a mouse being caught by a\ncat, is obvious; but how far they really suffer is doubtful, as\ntheir feelings are probably far less sensitive than those of man; so\nit is quite misleading to think what we should feel like in similar\ncircumstances. This is indeed evident when we reflect that suffering\nis connected with the brain, as is shown by the fact that savages\nsuffer much less than civilised nations. And therefore we should\nexpect animals, whose mental development is far less advanced, to\nsuffer still less; while the lower forms of life we should not\nexpect to suffer at all.\n\nAnd this is confirmed by observation, as several facts have been\nnoticed which almost force us to this conclusion. A crab, for\ninstance, will continue to eat, and apparently relish, a smaller\ncrab, while being itself slowly devoured by a larger one; and this\nshows that the crab can feel scarcely any pain, since the almost\nuniversal effect of pain is to destroy the pleasure of eating. And\nmany other instances are known.[5]\n\n[Footnote 5: Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxv., 1891, p.\n257.]\n\nMoreover, animals, except domestic ones which are partly trained and\ncivilised, appear to have no anticipation of suffering, and no power\nof concentrating their thoughts upon it, which increases it so\ngreatly in man. And assuming, with reference to the above example,\nthat the mouse is not to live for ever, its being destroyed by a\ncat is at most a very short misery, and perhaps involving altogether\nless pain than if it died from disease or old age. Indeed few things\ncould be worse than for old and weak animals to be left to\nthemselves, and gradually die of starvation. And we must remember,\nin a state of nature, with uncertain meals the cat would never\n_play_ at capturing the mouse, thus giving it needless and repeated\nsufferings, but it would kill it at once.\n\nThen as to the so-called _struggle for existence_. It is nothing\nlike what is commonly supposed, as has been recognised by leading\nnaturalists. Thus _Darwin_ says:--'When we reflect on this struggle\nwe may console ourselves with the full belief that the war of nature\nis not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally\nprompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive\nand multiply.' And _Wallace_ says:--'The popular idea of the\nstruggle for existence entailing misery and pain on the animal world\nis the very reverse of the truth. What it really brings about is the\nmaximum of life, and of the enjoyment of life, with the minimum of\nsuffering and pain.'[6] On the whole, then, it seems probable that\npain among animals is far less than is commonly assumed, and in the\nlower forms of life almost entirely absent.\n\n[Footnote 6: C. Darwin. Origin of Species. 6th edit., 1888, p. 96.\nA. R. Wallace. Darwinism, 1889, p. 40.]\n\nStill it may be said, this only lessens the difficulty; for why\nshould animals suffer pain at all? As far as we can judge, it is\nwholly _unmerited_, since, having no moral nature, and therefore no\nresponsibility, they cannot have done anything wrong to deserve it.\nBut then, the pleasure which they enjoy is also unmerited. The two\nmust in all fairness be taken together, and as a matter of fact,\nanimals seem to have a much greater amount of pleasure than of pain.\nTheir life (except when ill-treated by man) is, as a rule, one of\ncontinual enjoyment, and probably, at any given moment, the number\nof animals of any particular kind that are happy is incomparably\ngreater than those that are miserable. In short, health and\nhappiness is the rule, sickness and pain the exception.\n\nNor can it be said that pain is _useless_ to animals; for though\nthey have no moral nature to be improved, they have a physical\nnature to be preserved and transmitted, and the sense of pain may be\nessential for this. It is indeed a kind of sentry, warning them of\ndangers, which might otherwise lead to their destruction. If for\nexample, animals felt no pain from excessive heat, they might not\nescape when a forest was burning; or, if they felt no pain from\nhunger, they might die of starvation. Thus pain is, in reality, a\n_preservative of life_; and it is often not an evil at all; so no\npart of this objection can be maintained.\n\n(2.) _Physical evil in man._\n\nWe now pass on to the case of man. There is unfortunately no doubt\nabout the suffering which he endures. The struggling lives, the\npainful diseases, the lingering deaths, not to mention accidents of\nall kinds, are but too evident. And we may ask, would an Omnipotent\nGod, Who cared for man's welfare, have ever designed all this?\n\nNow it is important to remember that a great deal of physical evil\noriginates in _moral_ evil, which will be considered later on. By\nfar the greater part of the pain and misery which men endure is\nbrought about by their own wickedness and folly, or by that of their\nfellow-men. The recent war--worse in _extent_, though not worse in\nkind, than all previous wars--has been a terrible example of this.\nBut it was man's doing, not God's; and man alone must be blamed for\nit.\n\nIn the next place, many of the so-called evils of life do not\ninvolve any actual suffering. If for instance a man loses the sight\nof one eye, he need not have any pain; and were he originally blind\nthe possession of even one eye would have been thought a priceless\nblessing. Again, however great may be the sufferings of life, they\ncannot be as great as its _joys_, since nearly everyone wishes to go\non living. While it is undeniable that human pain, like that of\nanimals, is most useful, serving to warn men of dangers and\ndiseases, which would otherwise lead to their destruction.\n\nMoreover, in a material world like ours, if the forces of nature act\naccording to fixed laws, a certain amount of suffering seems\n_inevitable_. If, for example, the force of gravity always acts as\nit does, it will occasionally cause a tower to fall and injure\nsomeone. Such an event could only be avoided by God's continually\ninterfering with these forces. But this would render all human life\na hopeless confusion. While, at present, owing to these forces being\ninvariable, a great deal of the evil which might otherwise result\nfrom them can be foreseen and avoided. If, however, men will not\navoid it,--if, for instance, in spite of the numerous eruptions of\nVesuvius, they still choose to go and live on its slopes,--it is\nhard to see how they can blame anyone but themselves. In the same\nway, if a man chooses to sit on the safety valve of an engine, it is\nhis own fault if he gets blown up.\n\nAnd even in other cases, when the evil cannot be foreseen, as in an\nunexpected earthquake, it is at least open to doubt whether it is\nany worse for a number of men to die like this, suddenly and\ntogether, than that they should all die in the usual way, slowly,\none by one, and often after a long illness. It of course appeals\nmore to the imagination, but it probably involves less suffering.\n\nThus we may say that human suffering, excluding that due to man\nhimself, is by no means so great as it seems; that it is, as a rule,\nmore than counter-balanced by human happiness; and that a certain\namount seems not only useful, but in a world like ours inevitable.\nBut though all these considerations are undoubtedly true, and\nundoubtedly lessen the difficulty, they do not remove it altogether.\n\nThe following appears to be the true explanation: that though God\nforeknew all this suffering when He created the world, and in this\nsense _designed_ it, He need not have _desired_ it, but may have\ndesired something else, for the attainment of which, this suffering\nwas a necessary condition. And this _something else_ must obviously\nhave been the training and perfecting of man's character; for which,\nsome kind of suffering seems essential.\n\nFor if there were no suffering in the world, there could be no\nfortitude, no bravery, no patience, no compassion, no sympathy with\nothers, no self-sacrifice for their good--nothing, in fact, that\nconstitutes the highest type of man. In other words, a being such as\nman, can only be made perfect through suffering. Therefore this\nsuffering implies no defect in God's design. It is a means, and, as\nfar as we can judge, the only possible means for developing the\nhighest and noblest character in man, such a character indeed as\nalone makes him worthy of admiration. Moreover, a man's character\ncan only be formed by himself, it cannot be given him ready-made,\nfor then it would not be _his_ character at all; and it can only be\nformed gradually, it cannot be done all at once. Therefore, if God\nwishes a man to have the special character acquired by constantly\nbearing suffering, it can only be obtained by constantly giving him\nsuffering to bear.\n\nHere, then, we have the most probable explanation of the physical\nevils which man endures. Their object is to develop and perfect his\ncharacter; and as this is a good object, and as it cannot be\nobtained in any other way, they may well have been designed by a\ngood God.\n\n(3.) _Moral evil in man._\n\nBut we now come to the most difficult part of the subject, the\nexistence of _moral evil_ in man. This, as before said, is the chief\ncause of human misery, and might it not have been avoided? In other\nwords, could not all _sin_ have been excluded from the world? But\nassuming man to be a _free being_, it could not have been avoided,\nfor freedom is always liable to abuse. Therefore, if God decided\nthat man was to be free in some cases to act right or wrong, it\nnecessarily follows that he may act wrong. No Omnipotence could\npossibly alter this without destroying man's freedom. Hence, though\nGod designed all the moral evil in the world, He need not have\ndesired it, but (as before) may have desired some totally different\nobject, for the attainment of which, this evil was a necessary\ncondition.\n\nNor, again, is it difficult to suggest what this object may have\nbeen. For unless man is a free being, he can be little better than a\nmachine--a correctly-behaved machine, no doubt, and one able to talk\nand think, but still only a machine. And God may not have wished\nthat man, who is, as far as we know, His highest and noblest work,\nshould be only a machine. Indeed, the superiority of free men who\nact right, though they might act wrong, to mere machines is obvious\nto everyone; and it may far outweigh the disadvantage that some of\nthem should act wrong. Therefore, though we have to pay dearly for\nfreedom, it is well worth the price; and the _infinite value of\ngoodness_, as it is called, may justify, though nothing else could,\nthe risks involved in giving man a free will.\n\nNor is there anything unlikely in the Creator thus caring about the\nconduct of His creatures. We certainly should not admire an earthly\nruler who regarded traitors to his cause, and his most faithful\nadherents with the same indifference; or an earthly parent who did\nnot care whether his children obeyed him or not. Why, then, should\nwe think that God, Who has not only given us free will, but also a\nconscience by which to know what is right (_i.e._, what is _His_\nwill), should yet be indifferent as to whether we do it or not?\nEverything points the other way, that God, Who is a Moral Being, and\nWho has made us moral beings also, wishes us to freely act right.\nTherefore He allows us to act wrong, with all the misery it\ninvolves, in order to render possible our thus freely choosing to\nact right.\n\nOr to put the argument in other words, a free being is far higher\nthan a being who is not free, and yet a free being cannot exist\nwithout the possibility of his acting wrong. So, however strange the\nconclusion appears, moral evil, or at least its possibility, is\nessential to the universe, if it is to be worthy of its Creator, if,\nthat is, it is to contain beings of the highest order--_persons_ and\nnot _things_. Or, to put it still shorter, if God is good, it is\nonly natural that He should create beings capable of goodness, and\ntherefore of necessity capable of badness, for the two must go\ntogether.\n\nAnd if it be still urged that, as God foreknew how men would use\ntheir freedom, He need not have created those who would habitually\nuse it wrongly; in other words, there might be no _wicked men_ in\nthe world, the answer is obvious. Wicked men are as necessary as any\nother form of evil to test a man's character, and to develop moral\nperfection. For just as physical evil, pain, suffering, etc., can\nalone render possible certain physical virtues, such as fortitude\nand patience; so moral evil, or sin, can alone render possible\ncertain moral virtues.\n\nIf, for instance, there were no sin in the world there could be no\nforbearance with the faults of others, no moral courage in standing\nalone for an unpopular cause, no forgiveness of injuries, nor (what\nis perhaps the highest of all virtues) any rendering good for evil.\nThese require not merely the possibility, but the actual existence\nof sin, and they would all be unattainable if we had nothing but\nphysical evils to contend with, and there were only good men in the\nworld. The case then stands thus. Evil men are essential to an evil\nworld. An evil world is essential to proving a man's character.\nProving a man's character is essential to his freely choosing to\nserve God; and his freely choosing to serve God seems essential to\nhis being such a servant as God would care to have.\n\nOne other point should be noticed before we conclude. It is that\nwith regard to the conduct of free beings, _foreknowing_ is not the\nsame as _foreordaining_. God may have foreknown how a man would use\nor misuse his freedom, but without foreordaining or compelling him\nto do either. In the same way, in human affairs it is possible in\nsome cases, and to some extent, to foreknow what a man will do, but\nwithout in any way compelling him to do it. This is a most important\ndistinction, and we have no reason for thinking that God\nforeordained any man to misuse his freedom, though He may have\nforeknown that he would do so.[7]\n\n[Footnote 7: Of course if God creates a man, _foreknowing_ how he\nwill act, He may, in a certain sense, be said to _foreordain_\nit as well; compare Rom. 8. 29. \"Whom He foreknew, He also\nforeordained.\"]\n\n(_D._) CONCLUSION.\n\nWe may now sum up the argument in this chapter. We first showed that\nGod is not only able to take an interest in man's welfare; but that\nthe marks of beneficent design afford abundant evidence that He\nactually does so. On the other hand, the so-called _insignificance\nof man_ is more apparent than real, since his position at the end of\nevolution shows his great importance; while his mind and spirit\nfully account for this, and prove him to be an altogether unique\nbeing, certainly in regard to this earth, and perhaps in regard to\nthe universe.\n\nAnd as to the _existence of evil_, it is undeniable that God must\nhave foreknown all the evil in the world when He created it; and in\nthis sense He designed it. But He may also have foreknown that it is\nonly temporary, and that it will lead to a more than compensating\npermanent good, which could not be obtained in any other way. For\nthe evils in this world need not be _ends_, but may be only _means_\nto ends; and, for all we know, they may be the very best means for\nobtaining the very best ends. Indeed, as before said, they seem to\nbe not only the best, but the only possible means for developing all\nthat is highest and noblest in man. We conclude, then, that though\nGod designed both the evil and the good in the world, He need not\nhave desired both: and there are indications in nature sufficient to\nshow that the good is what He desired, and the evil is only its\ninevitable companion.\n\nThis conclusion is often expressed by saying that _Goodness_ is an\nattribute of God; and the word may certainly be admitted. Indeed if\nGod is not _good_, He has made a being, in this respect, nobler than\nHimself; since some men, in spite of their faults, are undoubtedly\ngood. But it is important to notice the sense in which the word is\nused, and in which alone it is true.\n\nBy God's _goodness_, then, or by His taking an interest in man's\nwelfare, is not meant a mere universal beneficence, or wishing to\nmake everyone as happy as possible, without regard to his conduct.\nThe existence of evil seems fatal to such a theory as this. But\nrather God wishes to promote man's welfare in the truest and best\nway, not by giving him everything he likes, but by training and\ndeveloping his character. God is thus not only _beneficent_, but\n_righteous_ also. And He therefore wishes man to be not only happy,\nbut righteous also. And He therefore of necessity (as a man cannot\nbe made righteous against his will) gives him _free_ will, with the\noption of being unrighteous, and consequently unhappy. So this view\nof God's character, combining beneficence with righteousness, not\nonly accounts for the marks of beneficent design all through nature,\nbut also for the existence of evil, especially moral evil, in man,\nand seems the only way of reconciling them. In short, beneficence\nand righteousness are both good, and the Goodness of God includes\nboth.\n\nNow if we admit that goodness is an attribute of God, the analogy\nfrom His other attributes would show that He possesses it in its\nhighest perfection. He is thus a Being not only of infinite _Power_\nand _Wisdom_, but also of perfect _Goodness_--the word 'perfect'\nbeing obviously more suitable for a moral quality like goodness,\nthan 'infinite' would be. And it will be noticed that these three\ngreat attributes of God correspond to the three chief arguments for\nHis existence. The first, or that from the universe requiring an\nadequate Cause, proves an All-Powerful Creator; the second, or that\nfrom its having been designed, proves that He is All-Wise; and the\nthird, or that from human nature, proves that He is All-Good. They\nalso correspond to some extent to the three aspects under which we\nconsidered man's character in the last chapter; so we arrive at the\ngrand conclusion that God is physically _All-Powerful_, mentally\n_All-Wise_, and morally _All-Good_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTHAT GOD MIGHT MAKE SOME REVELATION TO MAN.\n\n     This depends chiefly on man's future destiny.\n\n     (_A._) THE IMMORTALITY OF MAN.\n\n     By this is meant the personal immortality of man's spirit,\n      and there are four chief arguments in its favour:\n\n     (1.) From his unique position.\n     (2.) From his unjust treatment.\n     (3.) From his vast capabilities.\n     (4.) From his inherent belief.\n     (5.) Counter-arguments.\n\n     (_B._) THE PROBABILITY OF A REVELATION.\n\n     (1.) From God's character; since He would be likely to\n           benefit man.\n     (2.) From man's character; since he desires it, and his\n           unique position makes him not altogether unworthy\n           of it.\n     (3.) Two difficulties: a revelation is said to be unjust, if\n           only given to certain men; and anyhow incredible\n           unless quite convincing. But neither of these can\n           be maintained.\n\n\nWe decided in the last two chapters that man is a free and\nresponsible being, and that God takes an interest in his welfare. We\nnow come to the subject of a _Revelation_, by which is meant any\nsuperhuman knowledge directly imparted by God to man. And by\n_superhuman_ knowledge is meant any knowledge which man could not\nobtain for himself; such as God's object in creating him, His wishes\nin regard to his conduct, or any past or future events of which he\nwould otherwise be ignorant. And that God could, if He chose, impart\nsuch knowledge, either by visions, or dreams, or in some other way,\ncan scarcely be disputed. Nor will anyone affirm (least of all an\nAgnostic) that we know enough about God to be quite sure that He\nnever would choose to do so. Therefore a revelation is certainly\n_possible_; but is it at all _probable_? This is what we have to\nexamine. And as the answer to it will depend to a great extent on\nman's future destiny, we will first consider the question of his\n_Immortality_, and then the probability, or otherwise, of God's\nmaking a _Revelation_ to him.\n\n\n(_A._) THE IMMORTALITY OF MAN.\n\nBy this is meant the immortality of man's _spirit_. And if we admit\n(as was admitted in Chapter IV.) that man is a compound being,\nconsisting of a free and partly supernatural spirit, his real\n_self_, which controls his body and mind; what becomes of this\nspirit at death? We know what becomes of the body: the various\nmolecules are arranged in other groups, and the natural forces are\nchanged into other natural forces. Nothing is lost or annihilated.\nBut what becomes of the spirit? If this is a free supernatural\nforce, the idea that it should perish altogether, when the\naccompanying natural forces are re-arranged at death, is most\nunlikely. Indeed the apparent indestructibility of matter points to\na corresponding immortality of spirit.\n\nNo doubt God could, _if He chose_, destroy either, just as He could\ncreate either; but without some supernatural interference, the\ncreation or destruction of either seems incredible. Yet if a man's\nspirit is not destroyed, it must survive; for it does not seem to\nhave any separate parts into which it can be split up like a man's\nbody. Therefore, as it cannot undergo the only kind of death of\nwhich we have any knowledge (which is this re-arrangement of\nseparate parts), it may survive for ever. And there are four chief\narguments in favour of this personal immortality of man;--those\nderived from his _unique position_; his _unjust treatment_; his\n_vast capabilities_; and his _inherent belief_. We will consider\neach in turn, and then see what can be said on the other side.\n\n(1.) _From his unique position._\n\nThe first argument is from man's _unique position_, more especially\nwhen we regard him as the last and noblest result of the vast scheme\nof evolution, which has been in progress here for so many thousands\nof years. For such a vast scheme, like everything else, requires not\nonly a _cause_, but a _purpose_; and however much evolution can\nexplain, it cannot explain itself. Why should there have been any\nevolution at all? Why should a universe of dead matter have ever\nproduced life? There must have been some motive in all this, and\nwhat adequate motive can be suggested?\n\nWe can only look for an answer in _man_, who is not only the highest\ncreature on this planet, but as far as we know on any planet; so\nhere if anywhere we must find the explanation. Evolution would then\nhave _God_ for its Cause, and _man_ for its purpose--an undoubtedly\nadequate _Cause_, but is it an adequate _purpose_? For the human\nrace cannot exist for ever as it is. Everything points to this earth\nsooner or later falling into the sun, when all forms of life must\ncease. Therefore, if man is not immortal, the whole of evolution\nwhich has led up to him as its final end will still have had no\n_permanent_ result. And no result which is not permanent seems\naltogether worthy of the Eternal God, the Author of this evolution.\n\nBut if, on the other hand, man is immortal; and if this earth, with\nits strange mixture of good and evil, is a suitable place in which\nto test and form his character; and if perhaps God wishes hereafter\nto be surrounded by men who have stood the test, and have formed\ntheir character in accordance with His Will; then it may lead to a\n_permanent_ result. And then its creation would not be such a\nhopeless mystery as on the opposite theory; for the perfecting of\nimmortal beings seems an object worthy even of God.\n\nThus if we deny the immortality of man, the whole of evolution\nbecomes meaningless, and nature is a riddle without a solution. But\nif we admit it, there is at least the possibility of a satisfactory\nanswer. For then, as just said, nature is seen to be only _a means\nto an end_--a temporary (though perhaps necessary) means to a\npermanent end--the end being to produce _man_ (a free being), and\nthen to provide a suitable place for his moral training. And this\nwill enable him, if he wishes, from being a _free_ man, to become\nalso a _righteous_ man, that is, a man who acts right, though he\nmight act wrong, and thus to some extent worthy to share in his\nMaker's immortality. And we must remember, man could not have been\ncreated righteous, using the word in its strict sense. He might have\nbeen created _perfect_ (like a machine), or _innocent_ (like a\nchild), but to be _righteous_ requires, as just said, his own\nco-operation--his continually choosing to act right, though he might\nact wrong. And this of necessity is a slow process, with some\nfailures. But the end aimed at is a permanent, and therefore perhaps\nan adequate, end; and the present world seems exactly suited to\nattain this end, as it affords a man boundless opportunities (every\nday, if he likes to use them) of acting right, though he might act\nwrong.\n\nWe thus seem forced to the conclusion--however strange it may\nappear--that the gradual training and perfecting of _man_ is the\nonly adequate explanation of the world, the real object of its long\nevolution. Yet, if he is not _immortal_, this object can never be\nattained, for no one reaches moral perfection here; while even if\nthey did, it would only last for a short time. And we may ask, is it\nlikely that such a vast scheme should end in failure, or at most in\nonly a temporary success? Is it not rather probable that if man is\nthe end of evolution, then God, the Author of evolution, must value\nhim; and if God values him, He is not likely to let him perish for\never. In short (as it has been well put), such vast progress from\nsuch small beginnings points to an end proportionately great, and\nthis involves the immortality of man. On the whole, then, we may say\nin the words of Romanes, one of the great champions of evolution,\nthat 'only by means of this theory of probation is it possible to\ngive any meaning to the world, _i.e._, any _raison d'\u00eatre_ of human\nexistence.'[8]\n\n[Footnote 8: Thoughts on Religion, 1895, p. 142.]\n\n(2.) _From his unjust treatment._\n\nThe second argument is from man's _unjust treatment_ in this world.\nFor as we saw in the last chapter, God is a Moral Being, able to\ndistinguish right from wrong; and, as far as we can judge, He is One\nWho will always act right Himself. Yet His treatment of men in this\nworld seems most unjust. Wicked men are allowed to prosper by their\nwickedness, good men suffer unjustly, while some men's lives seem to\nbe nothing but suffering; and how is this to be accounted for?\n\nThere is here again one, and only one, satisfactory explanation,\nwhich is that this life is not the whole of man's existence, but\nonly a preparation for a _future life_--a short trial for a long\nhereafter. And, looked at from this point of view, the most\napparently miserable lives may afford as valuable training, perhaps\nmore so, than the outwardly happy ones. The temptation to\ndishonesty, for example, can be as well resisted by a poor man who\nis only tempted to steal sixpence, as by a rich man who is tempted\nto embezzle a thousand pounds.\n\nAnd if resisting such a temptation helps to form a man's character,\nas it certainly does, and hence, perhaps, to fit him for a better\nlife hereafter, this can be as well done in the one case as in the\nother. And the same principle applies universally; even a child has\nhis temptations, which are very real _to the child_, though they may\nseem ridiculous to us. So if this life is intended as a time of\nprobation in which to form a man's character, we cannot imagine a\nbetter system or one more admirably adapted to the end in view. And\nwe must remember a man's _character_ is the thing most worth\nforming, since (as far as we can judge) it is his only _permanent_\npossession. All else will be surrendered at death, but his character\nwill last as long as the man himself, and hence perhaps for ever.\n\nNor is this all, for these trials and sufferings themselves may be\nthe very means of adding to man's future happiness. The joy of\nhaving resisted temptation, for instance, would be impossible if men\nwere never tempted; and the joy of rescuing others from suffering\nand sin, and thus perhaps making everlasting friendships, would be\nimpossible if there were no suffering, and no sin. And the same\napplies in other cases. So man's probation in this life, with its\nincessant battle against evil, may (for all we know) increase his\nfuture happiness in a way which nothing else could possibly do, and\nto an extent of which we can form no conception. No pain or\nsuffering, then, can be looked upon as useless, and no position in\nthis world as one to be despised; in short, to anyone who believes\nin a future state, life is always worth living. And we may be sure\nthat in a future state every injustice will be made good, and all\nwrongs will be righted.\n\n(3.) _From his vast capabilities._\n\nThe third argument is from man's _vast capabilities_. For he does\nnot seem adapted to this life only, but has aspirations and longings\nfar beyond it. His powers seem capable of continual and almost\nendless development. Nearly all men wish for immortality. This life\ndoes not seem to satisfy them entirely. For instance, men,\nespecially scientific men, have a longing after knowledge which can\nnever be fully realised in this world. A man's capacities are thus\nout of all proportion to his destiny, if this life is all; and to\nmany it seems improbable that the Creator should have endowed men\nwith such needless and useless capacities.\n\nAnd this is strongly confirmed by the analogy of nature. For\nexample, a bird in an egg shows rudimentary organs which cannot be\nused as long as it remains in the egg; and this of itself is a proof\nthat it is intended some day to leave the egg. On the other hand, a\nfull-grown bird seems to be entirely adapted to its present state,\nand not to have any longing after, or capacity for, any higher\nstate; therefore we may infer that no higher state is intended for\nit. And by the same reasoning we may infer that some higher state is\nintended for man, as his mental and spiritual nature is not entirely\nsatisfied by his present life. In short, all animals seem made for\nthis world alone, and man is the only unsatisfied being in the\nuniverse.\n\nMoreover, the period of preparation in a man's life seems out of all\nproportion to the time prepared for, if death ends all. The\ndevelopment in a man's moral character often continues till nearly\nthe close of his life. His character has then reached maturity. But\nfor what is it matured? Surely not for immediate destruction. Must\nnot the wise Creator, Who designed everything else with such\nmarvellous skill, have intended something better for His noblest\ncreatures than mere boundless capabilities, unsatisfied longings,\nand a lifelong preparation all for nothing?\n\n(4.) _From his inherent belief._\n\nThe fourth argument is from man's _belief_ in immortality. For such\na belief has existed among men in nearly every age and country,\nlearned and ignorant, civilised and uncivilised. It was implied by\nthe pre-historic men who buried food and weapons with their dead,\nand it was maintained by such philosophers as Socrates and Plato,\nand how are we to account for it? It cannot have arisen from\nexperience; and the attempts to explain it as due to the desire\nwhich men have for immortality, or to someone occasionally dreaming\nthat he sees a departed friend, are quite inadequate. Desire is not\nconviction, and dreams are notoriously untrustworthy. They might\naccount for an individual here and there entertaining this belief,\nbut not for mankind always and everywhere doing so; especially in\nface of the apparent contradiction afforded by every grave.\n\nThe belief, then, seems intuitive, and an inherent part of human\nnature; and we may ask, is it likely that God should have implanted\nsuch a strange belief in man if it were erroneous?\n\nThese, then, are the four great arguments in favour of man's\nimmortality--those derived from his unique position; his unjust\ntreatment; his vast capabilities; and his inherent belief. And with\nthe doubtful exception of the second, not one of them applies to\nanimals; so the common objection, that if man is immortal, animals\nmust be so too, is quite untenable.\n\n(5.) _Counter-arguments._\n\nOn the other hand, the great and only important argument _against_\nman's immortality is that his spirit seems to be inseparably\nconnected with his body. As far as we can judge, it is born with the\nbody; it often inherits the moral character of its parents, just as\nthe body inherits bodily diseases; it certainly develops and matures\nwith the body; and in most cases it seems to gradually decay with\nthe body; therefore it is inferred the two perish together.\n\nBut this does not follow; since, as said in Chapter IV., it is not\nthe _same_ body (in the sense of the same material particles) with\nwhich the spirit is united, even in this life. It is united to a\ncontinually changing body, yet it always survives. So it is not\nunlikely that it may survive the still greater change at death.\nMoreover, it is united to the body as its _master_, not its servant.\nIt is, as already shown, a _free_ spirit; and it decides to a great\nextent what the body shall say, and what it shall do. It thus uses\nthe body as a means, or instrument, by which to act in the outer\nworld; and therefore, of course, when the instrument gets out of\norder, its actions will become confused, but without implying that\nthe spirit itself is so. In the same way, if we shut up a clerk in a\ntelegraph office, as soon as his instruments get out of order, the\nmessages he sends, which are his only means of communicating with\nthe outer world, will become confused, and finally cease, but\nwithout implying that there is anything wrong with the clerk\nhimself.\n\nAnd this is confirmed by the fact that instances are known in which\na man's intellect and will have remained quite vigorous all through\na mortal sickness, and up to the very moment of death; so the\ngradual decay of the body does not necessarily involve that of the\nmind and spirit. While in states which somewhat resemble death,\nwhen, for instance, the body is fast asleep, or rendered unconscious\nby an accident, the mind and spirit are often peculiarly active, as\nin dreams. Therefore, when the body is really dead, the spirit may\n(for all we know) not only survive, but be endowed with still\ngreater powers.\n\nOn the whole, then, this is not an insuperable difficulty; while the\nprevious arguments render the idea of a future life _distinctly\nprobable_. And this has, of course, a most important bearing on our\nnext question; indeed, it is scarcely too much to say that the\nprobability of a revelation depends on that of a future life. For if\ndeath ends all, man's existence is so short that a revelation can\nscarcely be thought probable; but if he is to live for ever, the\ncase is very different.\n\n\n(_B._) THE PROBABILITY OF A REVELATION.\n\nNow (assuming man to be immortal) a revelation, from whichever side\nwe regard it, appears to be somewhat _probable_. For God is a Being,\nWho seems likely to make a revelation; and man is a being exactly\nfitted to receive one; so we will consider these points first, and\nthen the chief difficulties.\n\n(1.) _From God's character._\n\nNow we have already shown that God takes an interest in man's\nwelfare, being not only beneficent, but _righteous_; and that He\napparently wishes to train and develop man's character, so that he\nmay be righteous also. And from this we may infer that if a\nrevelation would benefit man, and thus _help_ him to be righteous\nalso, it would not be improbable for God to make one. And that the\nknowledge given by a revelation might influence him in this way\ncannot be denied; for, as a matter of fact, such knowledge, either\nreal or pretended, has had precisely this effect on millions of men.\n\nWe may also infer from God's methods in nature, which are those of\nslow development, that if He made a revelation at all it would be\ndone _gradually_. At first it would be very simple, and such as\ncould be transmitted orally. Then when man acquired the art of\nwriting, and could thus hand it on accurately, a more definite\nrevelation might be given. And this again might become more and more\nperfect, as man himself became more perfect. We obviously do not\nknow enough to speak with confidence, but still God's character, so\nfar as we can judge of it, seems to be in favour of His making some\nrevelation--and that a _progressive_ revelation--to man.\n\n(2.) _From man's character._\n\nPassing on now to man's character, we find that he has been given a\nnature exactly fitted to receive a revelation. For religion of some\nkind is, and always has been, practically universal; and nearly all\nimportant religions have rested on real or pretended revelations\nfrom God, and have been accepted in consequence. In other words the\nnature of man has everywhere led him to seek for, demand, and, if\nneed be, imagine a revelation from God. Nor is this in any way\nsurprising, for a thoughtful man cannot help _wishing_ to know why\nhe is placed in this world; why he is given free will; how he is\nmeant to use his freedom; and what future, if any, is in store for\nhim hereafter: in short, what was God's object in creating him. It\nseems of all knowledge to be the highest, the noblest, the most\nworth knowing.\n\nAnd therefore as this result of man's nature was not only brought\nabout by God, but must have been foreknown, and intended by Him, it\nis not improbable that He should satisfy it; especially as it cannot\nbe satisfied in any other way, for the knowledge being superhuman,\nis out of man's own reach. And it may be added, the more we realise\nthis, and feel that God is _Unknowable_, in the sense that we can\ngain no satisfactory knowledge about Him by human science and\nreasoning, so much the more likely does it seem that He should give\nus such knowledge by revelation.\n\nAnd all this is strengthened when we consider man's _unique\nposition_ to which we have already alluded. For if we admit that the\ncreation and perfecting of man is the chief object the Creator had\nin view for so many thousands of years, it does not seem unlikely\nthat He might wish to hold some communication with him. In fact, as\nthe whole of nature shows design or purpose; and as man occupies a\nspecial place in nature; we may fairly conclude that God has some\nspecial purpose in regard to man, and, for all we know, He may have\nsomething special to tell him about it.\n\nWe conclude then that man's character, and the unique position he\noccupies on this earth, is a strong argument in favour of his\nreceiving some revelation from God.\n\n(3.) _Two difficulties._\n\nBut now for the other side. There are two chief difficulties. The\nfirst is on the ground of _injustice_; since any revelation, it is\nsaid, would imply a partiality to the men or nation to whom it was\ngiven, and would therefore be unjust to the rest of mankind. But\nthis is quite untenable, for God's other benefits are not bestowed\nimpartially. On the contrary, pleasure and pain, good and evil, are\nnever equally distributed in this world. What seems to be partiality\nand favouritism is the rule everywhere, and this without any\napparent merit on the part of the men concerned. Moreover, the\nadvantages of a revelation may not concern this world only. And all\nwho believe in a future life are convinced of God's justice, and\nthat men will only be judged according to the knowledge of His Will\nwhich they possessed, or might have possessed had they chosen, and\nnot according to any higher standard which was out of their reach.\n\nThe other and more important difficulty is, that if God gave a\nrevelation at all, it would be absolutely _convincing_. Everything\nthat God does He does well; and we cannot, it is urged, imagine His\nmaking a revelation to man, and yet doing it so imperfectly as to\nleave men in doubt as to whether He had done it or not. For this\nwould imply that He either could not, or would not, make the\nevidence sufficient to ensure conviction, neither of which is\ncredible.\n\nNow, though all this seems very probable, a moment's reflection will\nshow that it is not conclusive; for exactly the same may be said in\nregard to the whole of Natural Religion. Is it likely, for instance,\nthat God should create free and responsible men, and yet give them\nsuch insufficient evidence about it, that while many are fully\nconvinced, others deny not only their own freedom and responsibility,\nbut even the existence of the God Who made them? Yet He has done so.\nTherefore there is nothing improbable in the evidence for a revelation,\nif one were given, being of a similar character.\n\nIndeed, there is much to be said in favour of its being so, since in\nmost other matters man is left a free choice. He is often able to\nfind out how he ought to think and how he ought to act, but he is\nnot forced to do either. And God may have wished that the same rule\nshould be followed in regard to a revelation, and that man should be\nleft free to believe it or not, just as he is left free to act on it\nor not, if he does believe it, and just as he is left free to choose\nright or wrong in other cases. Therefore we cannot say that no\nrevelation can come from God unless the evidence for it is\noverwhelming. It would doubtless be sufficient to convince a man if\nhe took the trouble to examine it carefully; only it need not be\nsuch as to compel conviction. What kind of evidence we may expect\nwill be considered in the next chapter.\n\nNeither of these difficulties, then, is at all serious; and we are\nforced back to the conclusion that, provided man is immortal, a\nrevelation seems for several reasons to be somewhat probable. To put\nit shortly, if God is good and really cares for man's welfare, it\nseems unlikely that He should withhold from him that knowledge which\nis the highest, the noblest, and the most longed for;--the knowledge\nof Himself. While, if man is a free and immortal being, occupying a\nunique position in the world, and intended to live for ever, it\nseems unlikely that he should be told nothing, and therefore know\nnothing, as to why he was created, or what is his future destiny.\nThus when we consider both God's character and man's character, it\nseems on the whole to be somewhat _probable_, that God would make a\nrevelation to man; telling him how he ought to use his freedom in\nthis world, and possibly what future is in store for him hereafter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHAT A MIRACULOUS REVELATION IS CREDIBLE.\n\nA Divine messenger would probably have credentials.\n\n     (_A._) SUPERHUMAN SIGNS.\n\n     These include superhuman _knowledge_, afterwards verified\n      (such as prophecy), and superhuman _coincidences_; and\n      there is nothing incredible in either.\n\n     (_B._) SUPERNATURAL SIGNS, or Miracles.\n\n     These are 'marvels specially worked by God as signs to\n      confirm a revelation.' This definition is threefold, referring\n      to their outward appearance, cause, and purpose.\n\n     (1.) _Miracles as marvels_: though they seem to be contrary\n           to experience, they are not really so, for we have no\n           experience of the proper kind to refer to.\n     (2.) _Miracles as special works of God_: they only interfere\n           with the uniformity of nature in the same way that\n           human works interfere with it.\n     (3.) _Miracles as signs_: there is nothing to show that they\n           are inconsistent with God's Character.\n\n\nWe decided in the last chapter that it was somewhat probable for God\nto make a revelation to man, that is to say, to certain men, for\nthem to make known to others. And if so, it is also probable that\nthese men would have some means of showing that the knowledge had\ncome from God and not from themselves. In other words, if God sends\na message to man, it is probable that the messenger would have\n_credentials_. And this is especially so when we remember that men\nhave often appeared in the world's history who professed to have a\nrevelation from God, and have misled mankind in consequence. Is it\nnot probable, then, that if God really did give a revelation, He\nwould take care that His true messengers should have credentials\nwhich would distinguish them from all the others?\n\nThese credentials, then, or _signs_, must plainly be such as could\nnot be imitated by man; and must therefore of necessity be\n_superhuman_, if not _supernatural_. So we may divide them into\nthese two classes; and we have now to consider whether they are\n_credible_. By this is meant something more than merely possible;\nfor the possibility of such signs follows at once from the existence\nof God. But are they credible? is there, that is, at least a slight\nchance that they would occur?\n\n\n(_A._) SUPERHUMAN SIGNS.\n\nThese include, to begin with, superhuman _knowledge_, which can be\nafterwards verified, such as _prophecy_. And there is no difficulty\nhere, provided we admit a revelation at all. The only possible\nobjection refers to prophecies regarding human conduct; which it may\nbe said would interfere with man's freedom. But this is only part of\nthe more general objection that any foreknowledge on God's part\nwould interfere with man's freedom, which we have already considered\nin Chapter II.; and there is no special difficulty in regard to\nprophecies. In every case, as said before, God merely foreknows the\nuse man will make of his freedom. Therefore the event will not occur\n_because_ it was foretold, but rather it was foretold because God\nknew that it would occur.\n\nSuperhuman _coincidences_ form another, and very important class of\nsuperhuman signs. In these a man's acts or sayings are confirmed by\nnatural events _coinciding_ with them in a remarkable manner. For\nexample, suppose a prophet claimed to have a revelation from God;\nand, as a proof of this, invited the people to witness a sacrifice\non a cloudless day. He then killed an animal, and placed it on an\naltar of stones, but put no fire under it, and even threw water over\nit. Suddenly, however, a thunderstorm arose, and the sacrifice was\nstruck by lightning. Now the thunderstorm might have arisen and the\nlightning might have struck on that particular spot, in strict\naccordance with natural laws. Yet the _coincidence_ of this\noccurring just when and where the prophet wanted it, would tend\nstrongly to show that God, Who must have foreknown and designed the\ncoincidence, meant to confirm what the prophet said.\n\nOr, to put the argument in other words, the lightning would seem to\nhave struck the sacrifice _on purpose_; and therefore such events\nhave been popularly described as _natural forces acting rationally_.\nOf course, as a rule, the forces of nature do not act rationally. A\nfalling meteorite, for instance, does not go a yard out of its way\nto kill anyone, or to spare him. Man, on the other hand, does act\nrationally. His acts are directed for a purpose, and thus show\ndesign. And, in the events we are considering, the forces of nature\nseem also to act with a purpose; and this makes it probable that\nthe Author of these forces was really acting with this purpose. In\nshort, the events seem to have been not only _superhuman_, but\n_designed_ coincidences. And they present no difficulty whatever\nfrom a scientific point of view, as they are part of the ordinary\ncourse of nature.\n\nOf course, the value of such coincidences varies greatly according\nto whether the event is of a usual or unusual character. In the\nlatter case, more especially if the event is very unusual or the\ncoincidence very striking, they are popularly called miracles. And\nthey may have considerable value, though there is always a slight\nchance of the agreement being, as we might say, accidental.\n\n\n(_B._) SUPERNATURAL SIGNS.\n\nWe pass on now to supernatural signs or _Miracles_ in the strict\nsense; which we will define as _marvels specially worked by God as\nsigns to confirm a revelation_. This definition has, of course, been\nchosen so as to suit the miracles recorded in the Bible, and it is\nreally threefold. In the first place, a miracle is described as to\nits outward _appearance_. It is a marvel--that is to say, a strange\nand unusual event, which we cannot account for, and which thus\nattracts attention. Secondly, it is described as to its _cause_.\nThis marvel is said to have been specially worked by God--that is to\nsay, by some action on His part different from His usual action in\nnature. While, lastly, it is described as to its _purpose_; it is a\nmarvel worked by God as a sign to confirm a revelation.\n\nThe first of these aspects is expressed in the Old Testament by the\nword _wonder_, the second by such phrases as God's _mighty hand_ or\n_outstretched arm_, and the third by the word _sign_; all these\nterms being often used together. While in the New Testament the\nwords used are _wonders_, _mighty works_, and _signs_, which again\nexactly correspond to these three aspects of the miracles. And it\nshould be noticed these aspects are not chosen merely to suit the\npresent argument, since other events can and ought to be looked at\nin the same way, not as mere facts, but also with reference to their\nalleged cause and purpose. And to show the great importance of this,\nwe will consider an event from modern history; and select the\nwell-known example of the Mont Cenis Tunnel.\n\nSuppose, then, that anyone heard of this as a _marvel_ only, the\ncause and purpose being left out of account. Suppose, that is, he\nheard that a small straight cavity of uniform size, and several\nmiles long, had been formed under a range of mountains; and that it\nhad begun as two cavities, one from each end, which after years of\ngrowth, had exactly met in the middle. He would at once pronounce\nthe event incredible, for the cavity is quite unlike all natural\ncavities.\n\nBut now suppose the next point, as to its _cause_, to be introduced.\nIt is said to be something more than a natural cavity, and to be the\nwork of man. All previous difficulties would now vanish, but fresh\nones would arise. For numbers of men must have worked together for\nyears to excavate such a cavity, and from what we know of human\nnature, men will only do this for commercial or profitable ends, and\nnot for boring useless holes through mountains; so the event is\nstill practically incredible.\n\nBut now suppose the last point of _purpose_ to be introduced. It is\nsaid that this is not a mere useless hole bored through a mountain;\nbut a hole bored for a particular purpose; it is, in fact, a railway\ntunnel. Then all difficulties would disappear. Of course, whether we\nbelieve the tunnel was actually made depends upon what evidence we\nhave; but it is clear that when we consider the _cause_ by which,\nand the _purpose_ for which, it is said to have been made, there is\nnothing incredible about it.\n\nNow a similar method must be adopted in regard to miracles. They\nmust not be regarded simply as _marvels_, but as marvels said to\nhave been brought about by an adequate _cause_, and for a sufficient\n_purpose_. And it is just these elements of cause and purpose which\nmay make the marvels credible. We will consider these points in\nturn.\n\n(1.) _Miracles as marvels._\n\nThe first aspect of miracles is that of marvels. As such, they are\nevents which seem to be _contrary to our experience_--contrary, that\nis, to what our experience of apparently similar events would lead\nus to expect. Suppose, for instance, it were stated that on one\noccasion three men were thrown into a furnace, but instead of being\nburnt to death they walked about, and in a few minutes came out\nalive and unhurt.\n\nSuch a marvel would be contrary to our experience, and that it would\nbe therefore _very improbable_ is obvious. But is this improbability\nsufficient in all cases to make the event incredible, no matter\nwhat testimony there may be in its favour? Hume's argument that it\nis sufficient is well known. He says we can only judge of the\nprobability of anything, whether it be the occurrence of an event,\nor the truthfulness of the narrator, by _experience_. And as it is\ncontrary to experience for miracles to be true, but not contrary to\nexperience for testimony to be false, the balance of probability\nmust always be against the miracle.\n\nBut of course this reasoning, if true, must apply to all alleged\nevents which are contrary to experience; and yet such events have\noccurred by the thousand. Let us take a single example. Everyone has\nhad some experience as to how far it is possible to hear the human\nvoice distinctly, and till the last half century, the limit has\nalways been fixed at a few hundred yards. Now, suppose anyone were\ntold for the first time that it was possible to speak right across\nEngland, he would justly say that it was utterly contrary to\nexperience. No one, he would think, could possibly speak loud enough\nto be heard even twenty miles away. But ought he to add that it was\ntherefore incredible?\n\nFrom this it is clear that there must be some flaw in Hume's\nargument; and it is easily discovered. For the argument regards the\nevent only as a marvel, and _without reference to its cause_. But we\nhave no right to leave this out of account, nor do we in ordinary\naffairs. When anyone first hears of a marvel, he does not merely\ncompare it with his previous experience, and then come to a\ndecision; in which case, as Hume supposes, it might be always\nagainst the marvel. But he first inquires how this strange event is\nsaid to have been brought about. For if any cause is stated to have\nbeen at work as to the influence of which he knows nothing, then he\nhas no experience of the proper kind to appeal to. There is the\ntestimony in favour of the event as before; and if he disbelieves\nit, he does so, not because it is contrary to his experience, but\nbecause he thinks the supposed cause either did not exist, or would\nnot have had the effect asserted.\n\nA reference to the previous example will make this quite plain. When\nthe man first heard of persons talking across England, instead of at\nonce declaring it incredible, he would, if a reasonable man, inquire\nas to the _cause_ of this. He would then be told that a wire was\nstretched across England with an instrument called a telephone at\neach end. Now, as to the possibility or adequacy of such a\ncontrivance he might doubt a good deal; but one thing would be quite\nclear, that this was a case to which his experience, however large,\ndid not apply.\n\nHere, then, is the explanation of Hume's argument. So long as a\nmarvel, contrary to experience, is regarded _only_ as a marvel, the\nprobability must be always against its truth. But if we inquire as\nto how it was brought about, and find that some _cause_ is said to\nhave been at work, as to the influence of which we are ignorant,\nthen the argument is no longer applicable. We have simply no\nexperience of the proper kind to appeal to.\n\nNow this is precisely the case with regard to miracles. As marvels\nthey seem contrary to experience; but they claim to have a special\n_cause_, to be specially worked by God--that is to say, by some\naction on His part different from His usual action in nature; and of\nthe influence of this cause we have no experience whatever. We may,\nof course, deny its existence or doubt its adequacy; but the\nargument, that the event is contrary to experience, vanishes.\n\nIt is clear then that the fact of miracles appearing to be contrary\nto experience is no reason for disbelieving _them_, though it might\nbe a reason for disbelieving other alleged marvels, because they\nclaim to have a special cause, by which to account for this special\ncharacter. We have now to examine whether this special cause really\nexisted--that is to say, we pass on to the second aspect of the\nmiracles; our conclusion thus far being that they are credible as\n_marvels_, if it be credible that they were _specially worked by\nGod_.\n\n(2.) _Miracles as special works of God._\n\nNow, any special action on God's part is often thought to present\ngreat difficulties, as interfering with the uniformity of nature.\nBut, as we shall see, it would only interfere with it in the same\nway that human action interferes with it. Neither of them violates\nthe laws of nature, though both are able to bring about results\nwhich nature of itself could not have brought about.\n\nIn the case of human action this is quite obvious. Suppose, for\nexample, a clock with an iron pendulum is placed on a table and\nkeeps perfect time. Suddenly, without anyone touching it, it begins\nto gain rapidly, and then, after a short time, goes on as before.\nTo anyone unacquainted with the cause, this would appear a _marvel_:\nand might even be thought incredible, as (assuming the clock to be\nproperly constructed) it would seem to imply some alteration in the\nlaws of motion, or the force of gravity. Yet we know a man can\neasily produce such a marvel by holding a magnet under the table.\nThe disturbing cause, it will be noticed, was not really the magnet,\nwhich always acts according to law; nor the hand which held it; but\nthe action of the _human will_ on matter. This took place in the\nman's brain, and enabled him to move first his hand, and then the\nmagnet. Thus we may say the marvel was produced by _natural means\nsupernaturally applied_; for the magnet was undoubtedly a natural\nmeans, yet nature of itself would never have used it in the way\ndescribed. It required something _above_ nature (something\n_super_-natural) and this was the free will of man.\n\nNow, miracles claim to have been produced in a somewhat similar,\nthough to us unknown, manner by the action of God's Will on matter,\nthat is to say, by natural means supernaturally applied; and, if so,\nthey are certainly credible, under this head. For we know that God\nhas the power of acting on matter, and that He used it once in\ncreating the universe, so He might use it again if He thought fit.\n\nMoreover, God's knowledge of the laws of nature is complete, while\nman's is only partial. As, then, man, with his limited power over\nnature and partial knowledge of its laws, can produce marvels so\nunlike nature's ordinary course (a steam engine, for instance), yet\nwithout violating any of its laws; still more can God, Who has\ncomplete power over nature, and complete knowledge of its laws. For\nto deny this would be to deny to God the power which we concede to\nman; and which we must remember, God Himself has given to man. And\nthis would lead to the strange conclusion that God has enabled man\nto do what He cannot do Himself. No doubt we cannot imagine _how_\nGod can exert His Will over matter, but neither can we imagine how\nwe can do it ourselves. The difficulty is as great in the one case\nas in the other.\n\nFrom this it is clear that miracles need not violate natural laws.\nAnd though at first one might be inclined to dispute this with\nregard to particular miracles; the statement is quite correct,\nprovided we make due allowance for our own ignorance. Take, for\nexample, the supposed case of the men in the furnace. We certainly\ndo not know how their bodies were kept cool, but we cannot say it\nwas impossible. For extreme heat, and even _extreme_ cold, may be\nvery close together, as is shown by the well-known experiment of\nfreezing mercury inside a red-hot crucible. As a mere marvel this is\nquite as wonderful as the men in the furnace; and an ignorant man\nwould probably pronounce both to be equally incredible.\n\nOr, to take another example, suppose it were said that on one\noccasion a few loaves of bread were miraculously increased so as to\nfeed some thousands of persons: could we say that this must have\nviolated natural laws? Certainly not, for bread is composed of\ncarbon, and other elements, which were in abundance all round. And\nthough we only know one way of forming them into bread, which is by\nmeans of a living plant, we cannot say that this is the only method.\nIndeed, there is nothing incredible in substances like bread being\nmade artificially some day. Of course in all marvels produced by\n_man_, we know the special cause at work, but this does not justify\nus in saying that in a miracle, merely because we do not know it,\nthe laws of nature must be violated.\n\nMoreover there is much to be said in favour of what is usually\ncalled God's _immanence_ in nature, but which would perhaps be\nbetter described as _nature's immanence in God_.[9] This means that\nall natural forces are due to the present and immediate action of\nGod's Will; and if it is correct, it greatly lessens the difficulty\nas to miracles. For then there would be no interference with nature\nat all, leave alone violating its laws, God would be working there\nall the time, only in a miracle He would not be working in exactly\nthe same way as in ordinary events.\n\n[Footnote 9: Acts 17. 28; Col. 1. 17.]\n\nBut in any case there is, as we have shown, nothing incredible in\nthe way in which miracles are said to be _caused_, provided it is\ncredible that God should wish to use His power over nature in the\nassumed manner; for natural forces are anyhow His servants, not His\nmasters. And this brings us to the third aspect of the miracles; for\nwhether God would wish to act in a certain way depends of course on\nwhat _purpose_ He had in doing so.\n\n(3.) _Miracles as signs._\n\nNow the purpose for which miracles are said to be worked is as\n_signs to confirm a revelation_. Therefore, since we have already\nshown that it is somewhat probable that God would make a revelation,\nwe have now only to inquire whether miracles are suitable means for\nconfirming it. And they appear to be the most suitable means\npossible; for they would both attract men's attention to the\nrevelation, and also convince them of its superhuman character;\nwhich are precisely the two points required.\n\nIt may still be objected, however, that God's character, as shown by\nnature, is _Unchangeable_; and therefore it is most improbable that\nHe would at times act in a special manner with regard to natural\nevents. And the more nature is studied the stronger does this\nobjection appear; since there are thousands of cases, such as storms\nand earthquakes, when it seems to us that a slight interference with\nnature would be most beneficial to man, yet it never occurs. Or the\nobjection may be otherwise expressed by saying that a miracle would\nreflect on either the Wisdom or the Power of God; since, if\nAll-Wise, He would have foreseen the occasion, and if All-Powerful,\nHe would have provided for it; so any subsequent interference with\nnature is something like having to remedy a fault.\n\nThis is no doubt the most serious objection to miracles, but it is\nby no means insuperable. For, to begin with, God is a _Free Being_,\nWho does not always act the same (Chapter I.). And when we turn to\nthe only other free being we know of, which is man himself, what do\nwe find? A man may, as a rule, act uniformly, yet on some special\noccasion, and for some special reason, he may, and often does, act\ndifferently; and why should not God do the same? Indeed the only\nchangelessness in a man which we could admire, would be that of\n_moral character_, always and invariably acting right. And for all\nwe know the changelessness of God may be only of such a kind, and\nthis certainly would not prevent Him from acting in some special\nmanner, in order to obtain some special purpose.\n\nSecondly, in the case before us, it is even probable that He would\ndo so, since the chief object of the miracles could not have been\nobtained by the ordinary course of nature, though their immediate\neffects might have been. For example, instead of healing men\nmiraculously, they might be healed naturally; but then there would\nbe no evidence that the healer was sent by God, and was speaking in\nHis name. In short, the messenger would be without _credentials_;\nand, as we have already shown, this seems unlikely.\n\nThirdly, though miracles do not show God's changelessness in the\nsame manner as the unchanging course of nature, they are\nnot inconsistent with it. For no one supposes them to be\n_after-thoughts_ with God, but to have been planned from the very\nbeginning. And if God always intended to make a revelation to man,\nand always intended that when He did so, He would confirm it by\nmiracles, they would involve no inconsistency or change on His part.\n\nFourthly, there may be some _other_ attributes of God which miracles\nshow, and which the ordinary course of nature does not; such as His\nsuperiority over nature itself on the one hand, and the interest He\ntakes in man on the other. One object of a revelation might be to\nconvince man that though God was the Ruler of the Universe, He yet\ncared for man's happiness and valued his affections. And how could\nsuch a revelation _as this_, be better confirmed than by an\n(apparent) interference with nature for the benefit of man. For this\nwould show, as nothing else could show, both that there was a Being\n_above_ nature, and that He cared for man _more_ than He cared for\nnature.\n\nAnd it entirely agrees with what we decided in the last chapter,\nthat the whole of nature seems to be only a means to an end, the end\nbeing the moral training of man, enabling, that is, a free man to\nbecome a _righteous_ man. And if so, it is out of the question to\nthink that _in order to further this end_--the very end for which\nnature itself exists--God might not, if He thought fit, interfere\nwith the course of nature. We may therefore answer the objection in\none sentence, God is _All-Good_, as well as All-Wise, and\nAll-Powerful; and His Goodness might induce Him to use miracles,\nthough by His Wisdom and Power He might have dispensed with them.\n\nWe may now sum up the present argument. We showed that miracles are\ncredible both as _marvels_ and as _special works of God_, if it be\ncredible that they were brought about as _signs to confirm a\nrevelation_. And we have now shown that, supposing God to make a\nrevelation, which we have already admitted, there is nothing\ninconsistent with His character as far as we know it, and therefore\nnothing in the slightest degree incredible, in His using such signs,\nas one of the means of confirming its truth. On the whole, then, we\nconclude that a Miraculous Revelation is certainly _credible_.\nWhether one has ever been made will be discussed in the following\nchapters.\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\n_THE JEWISH RELIGION._\n\n  CHAP. VIII. THAT THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION WAS DIVINELY REVEALED.\n    \"     IX. THAT ITS ORIGIN WAS CONFIRMED BY MIRACLES.\n    \"      X. THAT ITS HISTORY WAS CONFIRMED BY MIRACLES.\n    \"     XI. THAT ITS HISTORY WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY PROPHECIES.\n    \"    XII. THAT THE JEWISH RELIGION IS PROBABLY TRUE.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nTHAT THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION WAS DIVINELY REVEALED.\n\n     (_A._) ITS GENERAL PRINCIPLES.\n\n     (1.) Its pure Monotheism; admittedly true.\n     (2.) Its seven days need not be taken literally.\n     (3.) Its gradual development; admittedly true.\n\n     (_B._) ITS DETAILED ORDER.\n\n     (1.) The earliest state of the earth.\n     (2.) Light.\n     (3.) The Firmament.\n     (4.) Dry Land.\n     (5.) Vegetation.\n     (6.) The Sun and Moon.\n     (7.) Fishes and Birds.\n     (8.) Land Animals.\n     (9.) Man.\n\n     (_C._) CONCLUSION.\n\n     The accuracy of the narrative points to its having been\n      Divinely revealed.\n\n\nHaving decided in the previous chapters on the Existence of God, and\nthat it was credible that He might make a miraculous Revelation to\nman; we pass on now to the _Jewish Religion_, which (as well as the\nChristian) actually claims to be such a Revelation.\n\nAnd the first argument we have to consider in its favour is that\nafforded by the opening chapter of Genesis. It is urged that this\naccount of the Creation must have been _Divinely revealed_, since\nit contains a substantially correct account of events which could\nnot have been otherwise known at the time. What then we have to\nexamine is, whether this narrative is nearer the truth, as we now\nknow it from geology and other sciences, than could have been the\ncase, if written by a man ignorant of these sciences. And the\nancient narratives of Babylonia, India, Persia, and elsewhere, show\nhow far from the truth mere human conjecture on such a subject is\nlikely to be.\n\nWhile if we admit a revelation at all, there is nothing improbable\nin some account of the creation of the world having been revealed to\nman very early in his history, and being accurately preserved by the\nJews, while only distorted versions of it occur among other nations.\nIndeed considering the common custom among ancient nations of\nworshipping the heavenly bodies, animals, etc., no subject could\nhave been more suited for a first revelation than the statement in\nsimple language that all these were created by one supreme God. We\nwill now consider the _general principles_ of the narrative, and\nthen its _detailed order_.\n\n\n(_A._) ITS GENERAL PRINCIPLES.\n\nThe most important of these are its pure Monotheism, its seven days,\nand its gradual development, each of which we will notice in turn.\n\n(1.) _Its pure Monotheism._\n\nThis alone renders it almost, if not quite, unique among similar\nnarratives. According to the writer, the whole universe, including\nsun, moon, and stars, was all due to _one_ God. And this is obvious\nenough now, but it was not so when the narrative was written. For\nother ancient accounts are either _Pantheistic_, and confuse God\nwith the universe; or _Dualistic_, and assume two eternal principles\nof good and evil; or _Polytheistic_, and make the universe the work\nof several gods. The Jewish writer, on the other hand, has kept\nclear of all these theories; and he is admittedly right and all the\nothers wrong.\n\n(2.) _Its seven days._\n\nNext as to the seven days. Now it is generally assumed, doubtless\nfrom their being referred to in the Fourth Commandment, that the\nwriter intended these _days_ to be ordinary days of twenty-four\nhours each, but this is at least doubtful. For ordinary days depend\non the _sun_, and would therefore have been impossible before the\nformation of the sun on the _fourth_ day; as the writer himself\nimplies, when he says that the division of time into days and years\nwas due to the sun.\n\nThen there is the difficulty as to the _seventh_ day, when God\nrested from all His work. This, it will be remembered had no close,\nor _evening_, and it is implied that it has continued ever since.\nFor if God only rested for twenty-four hours, and then set to work\nagain it would not have been a rest from _all_ His work. But in this\ncase, the seventh day would represent a long period of time, and if\nso the other days would probably do the same. Moreover the writer,\nor compiler, of this very narrative, after describing the creation\nin six days, says it all occurred in _one_ day,[10] so he could\nscarcely have thought the days to be literal.\n\n[Footnote 10: Gen. 2. 4.]\n\nThere are thus great difficulties from the narrative itself in\ntaking the word _day_ in its ordinary sense; and it seems better to\nconsider it (like so many terms in the Bible) as a human analogy\napplied to God. Then God's _days_ must be understood in the same way\nas God's _eyes_ or God's _hands_; and this removes all difficulties.\n\nNone of these terms are of course literally true, but they represent\nthe truth _to man_ in such a way that he can to some extent\nunderstand it. For example, the phrase that God gained the victory\n_by His own right hand_ clearly means that He gained it not with the\nassistance of others, or with the help of weapons, but simply by His\nown unaided inherent strength. It was such a victory as might _in a\nman_ be described as gained by his own right hand. And the same may\nbe said of the passage, _The eyes of the Lord are over the\nrighteous, and His ears are open unto their prayers_, and many\nothers which occur in the Bible. The terms hands, eyes, and ears,\nwhen applied to God, are thus human analogies, which must not be\ntaken literally.\n\nAnd in one passage at least the word _day_ is used in a similar\nsense; for we read \"Hast thou eyes of flesh or seest thou as man\nseeth? Are thy days as the days of man, or thy years as man's\ndays?\"[11] Here it will be noticed _days_ and _years_ are applied to\nGod in precisely the same manner as _eyes_ and _seeing_.\n\n[Footnote 11: Job 10. 4, 5.]\n\nMoreover similar terms occur all through the present narrative. Even\nthe simple words _God said_ cannot be taken literally, for there was\nno one to speak to. They must be meant in the sense that God\n_thought_, or that God _willed_. And we have no more right to\nsuppose the days to be literal days than to suppose that God\nliterally spoke. What we are to suppose in the one case is that\nGod--the Almighty One, for whom nothing is too hard--created all\nthings in such a way as might _to man_ be best represented by a\nsimple word of command. And what we are to suppose in the other\ncase, is that God--the Eternal One, to whom a thousand years are but\nas yesterday--created all things in such periods of time as might\n_to man_ be best represented by six days. Vast as the universe was,\nman was to regard it as being to God no more than a week's work to\nhimself. In short, the time of creation, however long in itself, was\nutterly insignificant in its relation to God; to _Him_ each stage\nwas a mere day.\n\nAnd this it may be added, is not a purely modern theory, made to\nreconcile the narrative with science; for the Greek Jew, Philo, born\nabout B.C. 20, who knew nothing of geology, ridicules the idea of\nthe days of Genesis being literal, or representing any definite\nperiods of time.[12]\n\n[Footnote 12: Works of Philo Jud\u00e6us, First book of Allegories of the\nSacred Laws, Yonge's translation, 1854, vol. i., p. 52.]\n\n(3.) _Its gradual development._\n\nNext, it must be noticed that, according to Genesis, God did not\ncreate a perfect world all at once, but slowly built it up step by\nstep. At first the earth was waste and void, and only after it had\npassed through several stages did it become fully inhabited.\nMoreover, at every step (with two exceptions, the firmament and\nman, noticed later on), God examined the work and pronounced it\n_good_. He seems thus to have discerned a beauty and excellence in\neach stage; though it was not till the close of the whole work that\nHe was completely satisfied, and pronounced it all _very_ good.\n\nAnd the narrative appears to be quite correct. For geology shows\nthat the formation of the earth, with its various inhabitants, was a\n_gradual_ process, not accomplished all at once, but slowly step by\nstep, through successive ages. And it also shows that these ages\nwere of such magnitude and importance that we cannot regard them as\nmere preparations for man's coming, but as having a beauty and\nexcellence of their own, so that they well deserved to be called\n_good_. But we may ask, how did the writer of Genesis know all this?\n\nAnd then as to the way in which this development was brought about.\nAccording to Genesis, each stage was due to what we may call a\n_Special Divine force_, represented by a word of command from God.\nAnd this also seems correct, for we cannot otherwise account for the\nfirst appearance of the various groups, such as plants, animals, and\nmen. It is not disputed that these various stages may have been\nevolved from the previous ones, _e.g._, the living from the\nnot-living, which the narrative itself suggests in the words, _Let\nthe earth put forth grass_; and also at its close, when it speaks of\n_the generations_ of the heaven and of the earth; which implies some\nkind of organic descent, or evolution. Indeed the common expression\nthat God _made_, is probably used in the sense of _evolved_; since\nthe same word is employed in ver. II of fruit-trees _making_ fruit\n(translated _bearing_ or _yielding_ fruit); yet we know they do not\n_make_ fruit suddenly out of nothing, but slowly produce it.\n\nWhat is disputed is, that this evolution took place merely under the\ninfluence of natural development, and without the additional\ninfluence of a new Divine force. And considering that all attempts\nto effect a similar transition _now_ have failed completely, it is\nnot unreasonable to suppose that there was some other and special\nCause at work _then_. Nor is it easy to see how some of the changes\ncould have been otherwise produced. Take, for instance, this very\nsubject of the origin of life. As far as we know, the only natural\nmode in which life can begin is from a living parent, yet there was\na time when there were no living parents on this earth. How, then,\ncould it have originated, except by some process other than natural,\n_i.e._, supernatural? Or, again, to take another instance, when the\nfirst _free being_, whether animal or man, appeared on this planet,\na force totally different from all natural forces was introduced,\nand one which could not have been derived from them alone.\n\nAnd then there is another, and very interesting point, to notice. It\nis that according to Genesis, these steps were not all of equal\nimportance. For while it describes most of them by the word _made_,\nwhich, as just said, seems to mean here _evolved_; on three\noccasions, and only three, it uses the word _create_. These refer to\nthe origin of the _universe_, of _animal life_ (fishes and birds),\nand of _man_. And this is very significant, when we remember that\nthese correspond to the beginning of _matter_, _mind_, and\n_spirit_; and are therefore (as said in Chapter IV.) just the three\nplaces where something altogether _new_ was introduced; which could\nnot, as far as we can see, have been evolved from anything else. And\nthis double method of producing, partly by _creating_, and partly by\n_making_ or evolving, is again referred to at the close of the\nnarrative, where we read that God rested from all His work, which He\nhad _created and made_. So much for the general _principles_ of the\nnarrative, we pass on now to its detailed _order_.\n\n\n(_B._) ITS DETAILED ORDER.\n\nIt will be remembered that in Genesis, after describing the earliest\nstate of the earth, there are eight stages in its development; two\nof which occurred on the third, and two on the sixth, day. We have\nthus altogether nine subjects to examine.\n\n(1.) _The earliest state of the earth._\n\nNow according to Genesis, the earth was at first _waste and void_\nand in _darkness_, and apparently surrounded by _the waters_. And if\nwe adopt the usual nebula theory, and refer this to the first period\nafter it became a separate planet, and had cooled so as not to give\nout any light itself, these statements seem quite correct. For we\nknow from geology that the earth was then waste and void as far as\nany form of life was concerned, while it was probably surrounded by\na dense mass of clouds and vapours sufficient to produce darkness.\nGenesis then starts from the right starting-point, but again we must\nask, how did the writer know this?\n\n(2.) _Light._\n\nThe first step in the development of the earth was, we are told, the\nintroduction of _light_. That this is what Genesis means seems\nplain, for the _light_ must refer to the _darkness_ of the previous\nverse, and that referred to the _earth_. As to whether light\npreviously existed in other parts of the universe, Genesis says\nnothing, it is only concerned with this earth. And in the\ndevelopment of this earth, _light_ (which in nature always includes\n_heat_) must obviously have come first. For on it depend the changes\nin temperature, which lead to the formation of winds, clouds, and\nrain; while it also supplies the physical power that is necessary\nfor the life of plants and animals; so in placing _light_ as the\nfirst step, Genesis is certainly correct. Of course, the _source_ of\nlight at this early period was the remainder of the nebula from\nwhich our planet was thrown off. It was thus spread over an immense\nspace, instead of being concentrated like that of our present sun;\nand probably only reached the earth through a partial clearing of\nthe clouds just alluded to.\n\n(3.) _The firmament._\n\nThe next step was separating the waters _above_ (_i.e._, these dense\nclouds) from the waters _below_ which are stated to be the seas (v.\n9-10) and forming between them a firmament or _expanse_ (see\nmargin), that is to say, the _air_. The idea that the writer thought\nthis expanse meant a solid plane holding up the waters above\n(because it is perhaps derived from a word meaning firm or solid) is\nscarcely tenable. For the firmament was called _heaven_, and the\nupper waters, above this _heaven_, must mean the sources from which\nthe _rain_ usually comes, since it is called _rain from heaven_.[13]\nAnd these sources are easily seen to be _clouds_; and no one could\nhave thought that a _solid_ firmament was between the clouds, and\nthe seas.\n\n[Footnote 13: Deut. 11. 11.]\n\nMoreover this same word _heaven_ (though used in various senses) is\ntranslated _air_ later on in this very narrative when it speaks of\nfowls of the _air_ (verses 26-28, 30). And it also occurs in other\npassages, in some of which it cannot possibly mean anything but the\nair, _e.g._, 'any winged fowl that flieth in the _heaven_,' and 'the\nway of an eagle in the _air_,'[14] which is an additional reason for\nthinking that it means the air here.\n\n[Footnote 14: Deut. 4. 17; Prov. 30. 19.]\n\nAnd the omission, before noticed, to say that God saw that the\nfirmament was _good_, is quite natural, if this means only the air,\n_i.e._, the space between the clouds and the seas; just as an\nartist, though he might examine his pictures to see that they were\n_good_, would not examine the spaces between them. But it is\ndifficult to account for, if it means a _solid_ firmament, which\nwould seem to require God's approval like everything else.\n\nOn the other side, we have the expression about opening the\n_windows_ of heaven when it rained at the time of the Flood,[15]\nwhich is sometimes thought to imply openings in a solid firmament.\nBut it need not be taken literally, any more than that about the\n_doors_ of the sea;[16] especially as in another place the _heavens\ndropping water_ is explained as meaning that the clouds dropped\nit.[17] And since God promised that in future when a _cloud_ was\nseen it should not cause another _flood_,[18] it is clear that the\nflood was thought to have come from the clouds, and not from any\nopenings in a solid reservoir in the sky.\n\n[Footnote 15: Gen. 7. 11; 2 Kings 7. 2; Mal. 3. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Job 38. 8-11.]\n\n[Footnote 17: Judges 5. 4 (R.V.).]\n\n[Footnote 18: Gen. 9. 14.]\n\nThere is also the passage about the sun and moon being _set in the\nfirmament_. But the writer cannot have meant they were _fastened_ to\nthe firmament, since the moon keeps changing its position relatively\nto the sun, just as a rainbow often does in regard to the cloud in\nwhich it is also said to be _set_.[19] Of course their being in the\nfirmament at all, is not correct if this means only the air. But the\nword may be used here in a wider sense, like the English word\n_heaven_, to include both the air, and the space beyond. For we\nspeak of the clouds of heaven, and the stars of heaven, and in\nneither case with any idea of their being _heaved up_, which is said\nto be the literal meaning of the word. And in its primary sense, as\nwe have shown, the firmament or _expanse_ between the upper and\nlower waters (the clouds and the seas) must mean the _air_. And the\norder in which this is placed after light, and before plants and\nanimals is obviously correct.\n\n[Footnote 19: Gen. 9. 13.]\n\n(4.) _Dry land._\n\nWe now come to an important point, the appearance of _dry land_.\nAccording to Genesis, there was not always dry land on the earth;\nthe whole of it was originally covered by the waters. And science\nshows that this was probably the case; the earth being at first\nsurrounded by watery vapours, which gradually condensed and formed a\nkind of universal ocean. And then, when the surface became\nirregular, through its contracting and crumpling up, the water would\ncollect in the hollows, forming seas, and dry land would appear\nelsewhere. But how was it possible for the writer of Genesis to know\nall this? There is nothing in the present aspect of nature to\nsuggest that there was once a time when there was no _dry land_; and\nif it was a guess on his part, it was, to say the least, a very\nremarkable one.\n\n(5.) _Vegetation._\n\nWe next come to vegetation; and it is placed in exactly its right\nposition. For it requires four things: _soil_, _air_, _water_, and\n_light_ including heat; and these were the four things which then\nexisted. The narrative, it will be noticed, speaks of three groups,\n_grass_, _herbs_, and _fruit-trees_; and it seems to imply that they\nappeared at the same time. But since its general plan is that of a\nseries of events, the other view, that they appeared successively,\nis at least tenable.\n\nThere is, however, this difficulty. None of these groups were\ncomplete before the following periods. Some plants, for instance\n(including both herbs and fruit-trees), appeared long after the\ncommencement of fishes and birds, and similarly some fishes and\nbirds after the commencement of land-animals. But the difficulty is\ndue to the fact that the classes _overlap_ to a large extent. And\nthe order given in Genesis is nearer the truth than any other would\nbe. Had the writer, for example, placed them plants, animals, birds,\nfishes; he would have been quite wrong. As it is, by placing them\nplants, fishes, birds, animals, he is as near the truth as he can\nbe, if classes which really overlap have to be arranged in a\nconsecutive narrative.\n\n(6.) _The sun and moon._\n\nWe next come to the formation (that is the _making_, or evolving) of\nthe sun and moon. The stars are also mentioned, but it is not said\nthat they were made on the fourth day, and they are not alluded to\nin the opening command. Now, this alleged formation of the sun\n_after_ that of light is certainly the most striking point in the\nnarrative, and was long thought to be a difficulty. But science has\nnow shown that it is correct. However strange we may think it, light\ndid undoubtedly exist long before the sun. In other words, the\noriginal nebula of our solar system was luminous, and lighted the\nearth, long before it contracted into a body with a definite\noutline, and producing such an intense and concentrated light, as\ncould be called a sun. And since the earth would cool much quicker\nthan the large nebula from which it was thrown off, vegetation might\ncommence here before the nebula had become a sun, though this latter\npoint is doubtful.\n\nTwo objections have now to be noticed. The first refers to the\n_moon_, which must have been thrown off from the earth long before\nthe dry land and vegetation appeared; and being so small, would have\nconsolidated sooner. But when considered only as _lights_, as they\nare in the narrative, it is quite correct to place the moon with\nthe sun; since moonlight is merely reflected sunlight, and must\nobviously have commenced at the same time. The other objection is,\nthat according to Genesis, the earth seems to be the centre of\neverything, and even the sun exists solely for the sake of lighting\nthe earth. But (as before pointed out) the narrative is only\nconcerned with this earth; and while we know that sunlight is of use\nto the inhabitants of our planet, we do not know that it serves any\nother useful purpose.\n\nThese, however, are but minor matters; the important point, as\nbefore said, is that Genesis places the formation of the sun _after_\nthat of light. This must have appeared when it was written, and for\nthousands of years afterwards, an obvious absurdity, since everyone\ncould see that the sun was the source of light. We now know that it\nis correct. But how could the writer have known it, unless it had\nbeen divinely revealed?\n\n(7.) _Fishes and birds._\n\nWe next come to fishes and birds, which formed the commencement of\nanimal life, and thus involved the beginning of _mind_ in some form;\nso Genesis (as before said) appropriately uses the word _create_ in\nregard to them. It is not clear whether the narrative means that\nthey appeared at the same time, or successively, though here, as in\nother cases, the latter is the more probable. And science entirely\nagrees in thus placing fishes before birds and both of these after\nplants. This latter point indeed must be obvious to every\nnaturalist, since the food of all animals is derived, either\ndirectly or indirectly, from the vegetable world.\n\nAnd Genesis is equally correct in emphasising the great abundance of\n_marine_ life at this period--the waters were to _swarm with swarms\nof living creatures_ (R.V. Margin), and also in specially alluding\nto the great _sea-monsters_ (wrongly translated _whales_ in A.V.),\nsince these huge saurians were a striking feature of the time. The\nHebrew word is said to mean _elongated_ or stretched-out creatures,\nand as several of them were over 50 feet long, no more suitable term\ncan be imagined. But again we must ask how did the writer know that\nsuch creatures were ever plentiful enough, or important enough, to\ndeserve this special mention?\n\nWhat are called _invertebrate_ animals, such as insects, and\nshell-fish, do not seem to be included in the narrative. But it\nnever claims to describe everything that was created; and its\nextreme brevity, combined with the insignificance of these\ncreatures, may well account for their being omitted.\n\n(8.) _Land animals._\n\nWe next come to land animals, which we are told the earth was to\n_bring forth_. As however it is said in the next verse that God\n_made_ (or evolved) these creatures, this need not mean that they\nwere produced directly from the earth, as in the case of plants. And\nthe position in which they are placed, after fishes and birds and\nbefore man, is again correct. It is true that a few animals such as\nkangaroos, seem to have appeared as early as birds, but land animals\nas a whole undoubtedly succeeded them. Three classes are mentioned,\n_beasts of the earth_, _cattle_, and _creeping things_, probably\nsmall animals, since another Hebrew word is used for them, later\non, which is said elsewhere to include weasels and mice.[20]\n\n[Footnote 20: Gen. 7. 21; Lev. 11. 29.]\n\n(9.) _Man._\n\nLast of all we come to the creation of man. Four points have to be\nnoticed here. The first refers to the _time_ of man's appearance,\nwhich everyone now admits was not till towards the close of the\nTertiary or most recent group of strata; so Genesis is quite correct\nin placing him last of all. As to the actual date, it says nothing;\nfor its chronology only leads back to the creation of _Adam_ in\nchapter 2, and not to that of the _human race_ (male and female) in\nchapter 1. And it is implied in several places, that there were men\nbefore Adam[21] and this was in consequence maintained by some\nwriters long before geology was thought of.[22] We need not\ntherefore discuss the difficulties connected with the story of Adam\nand Eve, as to which the present writer has never seen a\nsatisfactory explanation.\n\n[Footnote 21: Gen. 4. 13-17, 26; 6. 2-4.]\n\n[Footnote 22: _E.g._, Peyreyrius, A.D. 1655, quoted in the Speaker's\nCommentary.]\n\nSecondly, the creation of man is represented as of an altogether\n_higher order_, than any of the previous ones, since God did not\nsay, \"Let the earth bring forth a thinking animal\" or anything of\nthat kind, but '_Let us make man_.' And this also is quite correct,\nfor man, as we know (Chapter IV.) has a _free will_, which makes him\na personal being, and therefore far above everything else on this\nplanet.\n\nAnd when we consider the vast possibilities, involved in the\ncreation of such a being,--able to act right or wrong, and\ntherefore able, if he wishes, to act in opposition to the will of\nhis Maker, thus bringing sin into the world with all its consequent\nmiseries,--it seems only suitable that such a momentous step should\nhave been taken with apparent deliberation and in a manner different\nfrom all the others.\n\nAnd it explains why no such expression as _after its kind_, which is\nso frequently used of plants and animals, is ever applied to man;\nfor he is not one of a kind in the same sense. Each man is _unique_,\na separate personal being, distinct from all else in the world, and\nnot (like a tree for instance) merely one example of a certain way\nin which molecules may be grouped.\n\nIt also explains why man (unlike plants, animals, etc.) is not said\nto have been created _good_. For goodness in a free being must\ninclude moral goodness, or _righteousness_; and, as explained in\nChapter VI., man could not have been _created_ righteous. He might\nhave been created _perfect_, like a machine, or _innocent_, like a\nchild, but to be _righteous_ requires his own co-operation, his\nfreely choosing to act right, though he might act wrong. No doubt he\nwas made in a condition perfectly suited for the _exercise_ of his\nfree choice; but this seems included in God's final approval of the\nwhole creation that it was all _very good_.\n\nThirdly we are told that man (and man alone) was created _in the\nimage of God_. And once more the narrative is quite correct; for\nthat which distinguishes man from the rest of creation is his _free\nwill_, to which we have just alluded. And that which distinguishes\nGod's action from all natural forces is also His _freedom_,\n(Chapter I.). So it is perfectly true to say that man was created\n_in the image of God_, since the special attribute which separates\nhim from all else on this planet is precisely the attribute of God\nHimself.\n\nAnd here we may notice in passing, that though God intended man to\nbe both in His image and _likeness_; He only created him in His\n_image_ (vv. 26, 27). And the reason is probably that while image\nmeans resemblance in _nature_ (possessing free will, etc.), likeness\nmeans resemblance in _character_[23] (always acting right).\nTherefore, of course, though God wished man to be both in His image\nand likeness, He could only create him in His _image_; the other\npoint, that of _likeness_ in character, depending (as just said) on\nthe free will of the man himself.\n\n[Footnote 23: The Hebrew word appears to be sometimes used in this\nsense. _E.g._, Ps. 58. 4; Isa. 13. 4. In one brief reference in Gen.\n5. 1-2, when speaking of Adam, _likeness_ is used where we should\nhave expected _image_; though even here it is not said that man was\n_created_ in God's likeness, but merely that he was so _made_.]\n\nThe fourth, and last point is that though the writer assigns to man\nthis unique position, he does not give him, as we might have\nexpected, a _day_ to himself, but _connects him with land animals_,\nas both appearing on the sixth day. And this also seems correct, for\nin spite of his immense superiority, man, in his physical nature, is\nclosely connected with animals. Therefore the writer appropriately\nuses both words, _made_ and _created_, in regard to him. The former\nshows that in one respect (as to his body) he was evolved like the\nrest of nature; the latter, that in another respect (as to his\nspirit) he was essentially distinct.\n\n\n(_C._) CONCLUSION.\n\nWe have now discussed the narrative at some length, and (omitting\ndetails) it shows three great periods of life. Each of these has a\nleading characteristic; that of the third day being vegetation; that\nof the fifth day fishes and birds, special mention being made of\ngreat sea-monsters; and that of the sixth day land animals, and at\nits close man. And though these groups _overlap_ to a large extent,\nyet speaking broadly, the three periods in Geology have much the\nsame characteristics. The Primary is distinguished by its vegetation\n(_e.g._, the coal beds); the Secondary by its saurians, or great\nsea-monsters; and the Tertiary by its land animals, and at its close\n(now often called the Quaternary) by man. The harmony between the\ntwo is, to say the least, remarkable.\n\nAnd the theory of Evolution which like geology, was unknown when the\nnarrative was written, also supports it, as has been admitted by\nsome of its leading exponents. Thus Romanes once said, and as if the\nfact was undisputed, 'The order in which the flora and fauna are\nsaid, by the Mosaic account, to have appeared upon the earth\ncorresponds with that which the theory of Evolution requires, and\nthe evidence of geology proves.'[24] We decide, then, that the order\nof creation, as given in Genesis, is in most cases certainly, and in\nall cases probably, correct.\n\n[Footnote 24: _Nature_, 11th August, 1881.]\n\nAnd this is plainly of the utmost importance, for the points of\nagreement between Genesis and science are far too many, and far too\nunlikely to be due to accident. They are far too many; for the\nchance against eight events being put down in their correct order by\nguesswork is 40,319 to 1. And they are far too unlikely; for what\ncould have induced an ignorant man to say that light came before the\nsun, or that the earth once existed without any dry land?\n\nMoreover, the general principles of the narrative, especially its\npure Monotheism and its gradual development, are very strongly in\nits favour. And so are some individual points, such as the idea of\ncreation, in its strict sense, being limited to matter, mind, and\nspirit. While our admiration for it is still further increased by\nits extreme conciseness and simplicity. Seldom, indeed, has such a\nmass of information been condensed into as few lines; and seldom has\nsuch a difficult subject been treated so accurately yet in such\nsimple and popular language.\n\nNow what conclusion can be drawn from all this? There seem to be\nonly two alternatives: either the writer, whoever he was, knew as\nmuch about science as we do, or else the knowledge was revealed to\nhim by God. And if we admit a revelation at all, the latter\ncertainly seems the less improbable. And this, it may be added, was\nthe opinion of the great geologist Dana, who said (after carefully\nconsidering the subject) that the coincidences between the\nnarrative, and the history of the earth as derived from nature, were\nsuch as to imply its Divine origin.[25] We therefore conclude that\nthis account of the creation was _Divinely revealed_.\n\n[Footnote 25: Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1885, p. 224.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTHAT ITS ORIGIN WAS CONFIRMED BY MIRACLES.\n\nImportance of the Pentateuch, as the only record of the origin of\nthe Jewish Religion.\n\n     (_A._) ITS EGYPTIAN REFERENCES.\n\n     These are very strongly in favour of its early date;\n\n     (1.) In the history of Joseph.\n     (2.) In the history of Moses.\n     (3.) In the laws and addresses.\n\n     (_B._) ITS LAWS.\n\n     These are also in favour of its early date:\n\n     (1.) The subjects dealt with.\n     (2.) Their connection with the history.\n     (3.) Their wording.\n\n     (_C._) THE THEORY OF A LATE-DATE.\n\n     There are four chief arguments in favour of this, but they\n      are not at all convincing:\n\n     (1.) The language of the Pentateuch.\n     (2.) Its composite character.\n     (3.) Its laws being unknown in later times.\n     (4.) The finding of Deuteronomy.\n\n     (_D._) CONCLUSION.\n\n     The Pentateuch was probably written, as it claims to be,\n      by Moses; and we must therefore admit the miracles\n      of the Exodus.\n\n\nWe pass on now to the _origin_ of the Jewish Religion--that is to\nsay, the events connected with the Exodus from Egypt. And as the\nonly account we have of these is contained in the _Pentateuch_, we\nmust examine this book carefully. Is it a trustworthy, and, on the\nwhole, accurate account of the events which it records? And this\ndepends chiefly on its _date_. Is it a _contemporary_ document,\nwritten by, or in the time of, Moses? And modern discoveries have at\nleast shown that it may be so. For Egypt was then in such a\ncivilised state, that it is practically certain that Moses, and the\nother leaders of Israel, could have written had they chosen. And as\nthey somehow or other brought the people out of Egypt, it is\nextremely probable that they would have recorded it. But did they,\nand do we possess this record in the Pentateuch?\n\nThis is the question we have to decide; and we will first consider\nthe _Egyptian references_ in the Pentateuch, and then its _Laws_,\nboth of which are very strongly in favour of an early date. Then we\nwill see what can be said for the opposite theory, or that of a\n_late-date_; and lastly, the _conclusion_ to be drawn from admitting\nits genuineness.\n\n\n(_A._) ITS EGYPTIAN REFERENCES.\n\nNow a considerable part of the Pentateuch deals with Egyptian\nmatters, and it appears to be written with correct details\nthroughout. This would of course be only natural in a contemporary\nwriter living in Egypt, but would be most unlikely for a late writer\nin Canaan. The question is therefore of great importance in deciding\non the date of the book; so we will first consider these _Egyptian\nreferences_ (as they are called) in the history of Joseph, then in\nthat of Moses, and then in the laws and addresses. They cannot of\ncourse be properly appreciated without some knowledge of ancient\nEgypt, but they are far too important to be omitted. It is\ndisappointing to have to add that the evidence is almost entirely\nindirect, but up to the present no reference to either Joseph, or\nMoses, has been found on the Egyptian monuments, and none to the\nIsraelites themselves that are at all conclusive.\n\n(1.) _In the history of Joseph._\n\nTo begin with, there are three cases where it is sometimes said that\nthe writer seems _not_ to have been a contemporary, since Egyptian\ncustoms are there explained, as if unknown to the reader. These are\ntheir eating at different tables from the Hebrews, their dislike of\nshepherds, and their habit of embalming.[26] But the inference from\nthe first two is extremely doubtful; though that from the third is\nrather in favour of a late date. There is not, however, a single\nword here (or anywhere else) which is _incorrect_ for Egypt, or\nwhich shows that the writer himself was unaware of its customs.\n\n[Footnote 26: Gen. 43. 32; 46. 34; 50. 3.]\n\nOn the other hand, there is abundant evidence in favour of a\ncontemporary date. The Pharaoh is generally thought to be Apepi II.,\nwho belonged to a _foreign_ dynasty of Shepherd Kings, probably\nAsiatic tribes like the Israelites themselves. And this will explain\nthe evident surprise felt by the writer that one of his chief\nofficers should be an _Egyptian_, which seems so puzzling to the\nordinary reader.[27] It will also account for Joseph and his\nbrethren being so well received, and for their telling him so\ncandidly That they were _shepherds_, though they knew that\nshepherds were hated by the Egyptians. Had the Pharaoh himself been\nan Egyptian, this was hardly the way to secure his favour.\n\n[Footnote 27: Gen. 39. 1.]\n\nWe will now consider a single chapter in detail, and select Gen. 41;\nnearly every incident in which shows a knowledge of ancient Egypt:\n\n     Ver. 1. To begin with, the words _Pharaoh_ and _the river_\n     (_i.e._, the Nile), though they are the proper Egyptian names,\n     seem to have been adopted in Hebrew, and occur all through the\n     Old Testament; so they afford no indication of date.\n\n     2-4. The _dreams_, however, are peculiarly Egyptian. Cattle\n     along the river bank, and feeding on the _reed-grass_ (an\n     Egyptian word for an Egyptian plant), was a common sight in\n     that country, but must have been almost unknown in Canaan. And\n     their coming up _out of the river_ was specially suitable, as\n     they represented the years of plenty and famine, which in Egypt\n     depend entirely on the rise of the Nile.\n\n     5-7. In the same way wheat with _several ears_ is known to have\n     been produced in Egypt; but is nowhere mentioned as grown in\n     Canaan.\n\n     8. Moreover, we know that the Pharaohs attached great\n     importance to dreams, and used to consult their _magicians_ and\n     _wise men_ when in doubt; both these classes being often\n     mentioned--and mentioned together--on the monuments.\n\n     9-12. We also know that there were officials corresponding to\n     the _chief butler_ and the _chief baker_. And a reference has\n     even been found to the curious custom of the former giving the\n     King _fresh grape-juice_, squeezed into a cup (Gen. 40. 11),\n     which is not likely to have been known to anyone out of Egypt.\n\n     13. And hanging the chief baker evidently means, from Gen. 40.\n     19, hanging up the dead body, after he had been _beheaded_;\n     which latter was an Egyptian, and not a Jewish, punishment.\n\n     14. Next we are told, that when Joseph was hurriedly sent for\n     by Pharaoh, he yet stopped to _shave_. And this was only\n     natural, as the upper class of Egyptians always shaved; but it\n     would scarcely have occurred to anyone in Canaan, as the\n     Israelites always wore beards.[28]\n\n     [Footnote 28: 2 Sam. 10. 5.]\n\n     35. So again the custom of laying up corn in storehouses, to\n     provide against the frequent famines, and for taxation, was\n     thoroughly Egyptian, the Superintendent of the Granaries being\n     a well-known official. But as far as we know nothing of the\n     kind existed in Canaan.\n\n     39. We then come to the promotion of Joseph; and several\n     instances are known of foreigners, and even slaves, being\n     promoted to high offices in Egypt.\n\n     40. And the monuments show that it was the regular Egyptian\n     custom to have a Superintendent, who should _be over the\n     house_.\n\n     42. Joseph is then given Pharaoh's _signet ring_, the use of\n     which, at this early period, has been fully confirmed by the\n     inscriptions. And he also receives _fine linen_ (an Egyptian\n     word being used for this) and a _gold chain about his neck_.\n     This latter was a peculiarly Egyptian decoration, being called\n     _receiving gold_, and is continually alluded to on the\n     monuments. And a specimen may be seen in the Cairo Museum,\n     which happens to date from about the time of Joseph.\n\n     43-44. And the apparently insignificant detail that Joseph rode\n     _in a chariot_ (implying horses) is also interesting, since, as\n     far as we know, horses had only recently been introduced into\n     Egypt by the Shepherd Kings. And had they been mentioned\n     earlier--as, for instance, among the presents given to\n     Abraham[29]--it would have been incorrect. And the expression\n     _Abrech_, translated _Bow the knee_, is probably an Egyptian\n     word (Margin R.V.).\n\n     [Footnote 29: Gen. 12. 16.]\n\n     45. We also know that when foreigners rose to great importance\n     in Egypt they were often given a new _name_. And Joseph's new\n     name, Zaphenathpaneah, (probably meaning Head of the College\n     of Magicians, a title he had just earned[30]) as well as\n     Asenath, and Potiphera, are all genuine Egyptian names; though\n     (with the exception of Asenath) they have not at present been\n     found as early as the time of Joseph.\n\n     [Footnote 30: H. E. Naville, Professor of Egyptology, at the\n     University of Geneva, 'Arch\u00e6ology of the Old Testament,' 1913,\n     p. 80.]\n\n     49. Lastly, the usual Egyptian custom (as shown by the\n     monuments) of having a scribe to _count_ the quantity of corn\n     as it is stored, is incidentally implied in the statement that\n     on this occasion, owing to its great abundance, Joseph had _to\n     leave off numbering it_.\n\nThus everything in this chapter, _and the same may be said of many\nothers_, is perfectly correct for Egypt; though much of it would be\nincorrect for Canaan, and is not likely to have been known to anyone\nliving there. Yet the writer not only knows it, but _takes for\ngranted that his readers know it too_, as he never explains\nanything. So the narrative is not likely to have been written after\nthe time of Moses, when the Israelites left Egypt. And this, it may\nbe added, is the opinion of many who have made a special study of\nancient Egypt. Thus Prof. Naville declares 'I do not hesitate to say\nthat he (Moses) was the only author who could have written the\nhistory of Joseph, such as we have it.'[31]\n\n[Footnote 31: Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xlvii., 1915,\np. 355.]\n\nThere is also evidence of quite another kind that this latter part\nof Genesis was written in Egypt. This is afforded by six passages,\nwhere, after the name of a place, is added some such phrase as\n_which is in Canaan_.[32] Yet there do not appear to be any other\nplaces of the same name liable to be confused with these. When then\nwould it be necessary to explain to the Israelites that these\nplaces, Shechem, etc., were in Canaan? Certainly not after the\nconquest, when they were living there, and it was obvious to\neveryone; so we must refer them to the time when they were in Egypt.\n\n[Footnote 32: Gen. 23. 2, 19; 33. 18; 35. 6; 48. 3; 49. 30.]\n\nAnd this is strongly confirmed by a little remark as to the _desert\nof Shur_, which lies between Egypt and Canaan, and which is\ndescribed as being _before Egypt as thou goest towards Assyria_.[33]\nClearly then this also must have been written in Egypt, since only\nto a person living there would Shur be on the way to Assyria.\n\n[Footnote 33: Gen. 25. 18.]\n\nAnd the same may be said of the curious custom of first asking after\na person's health, and then, if he is still alive.[34] This was\nthoroughly Egyptian, as some exactly similar cases have been found\nin a papyrus dated in the eighth year of Menephthah, generally\nthought to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus.[35] But it is scarcely\nlikely to have been adopted by a writer in Canaan, as it makes the\nnarrative seem so ridiculous.\n\n[Footnote 34: Gen. 43. 27-28.]\n\n[Footnote 35: Chabas, M\u00e9langes \u00c9gyptologiques, Third Series, vol.\nii., Paris, 1873, p. 152.]\n\n(2.) _In the history of Moses._\n\nSecondly, as to the history of _Moses_. The name itself is\nEgyptian;[36] and his being placed in an ark of _papyrus_ smeared\nwith bitumen was quite suited to Egypt, where both materials were\ncommonly used, but would have been most unsuitable anywhere else.\nAnd several of the words used here, as well as in other parts of\nthe Pentateuch, show that the writer was well acquainted with the\nEgyptian _language_. In this single verse for instance, there are as\nmany as six Egyptian words, _ark_, _papyrus_, _pitch_, _flags_,\n_brick_, and _river_; though some of these were also used in\nHebrew.[37] Then as to the Israelites making bricks with _straw_.\nThis is interesting, because we know from the monuments that straw\nwas often used for the purpose, the Nile mud not holding together\nwithout it, and that its absence was looked upon as a hardship. So\nhere again the narrative suits Egypt, and not Canaan; where as far\nas we know, bricks were never made with straw. And it so happens\nthat we have a little direct evidence here. For some excavations\nwere made at Tel-el-Muskhuta in 1883; which turns out to be\n_Pithom_, one of the _store cities_ said to have been built by the\nIsraelites.[38] And nearly its whole extent is occupied by large\nbrick stores; some of the bricks being made with straw, some with\nfragments of reed or stubble used instead, and some without any\nstraw at all. While, unlike the usual Egyptian custom, the walls are\nbuilt with mortar; all of which exactly agrees with the\nnarrative.[39]\n\n[Footnote 36: Driver's Exodus, 1911, p. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 37: Exod. 2. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 38: Exod. 1. 11. Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol.\nxviii., p. 85.]\n\n[Footnote 39: Exod. 1. 14; 5. 12.]\n\nNext, as to the _Ten Plagues_. There is much local colouring here,\nand hardly one of them would have been suitable in Canaan. Moreover,\nthe order in which they come is very significant, as it makes them\nagree with the natural calamities of Egypt.\n\n(i.) The water being turned into blood cannot, of course, be taken\nliterally, any more than when Joel speaks of the moon being turned\ninto blood.[40] It refers to the reddish colour, which is often seen\nin the Nile about the end of June; though it is not as a rule\nsufficient to kill the fish, or render the water unfit to drink. And\nthe mention of _vessels of wood and stone_[41] is interesting, as it\nwas the custom in Egypt to _purify_ the Nile water by letting it\nstand in such vessels; and the writer evidently knew this, and took\nfor granted that his readers knew it too, though it seems to have\nbeen peculiar to that country.\n\n[Footnote 40: Joel 2. 31.]\n\n[Footnote 41: Exod. 7. 19.]\n\n(ii.) Frogs are most troublesome in September.\n\n(iii.) Lice, perhaps mosquitoes or gnats, and\n\n(iv.) Flies, are usually worst in October.\n\n(v.) Murrain among the cattle, and\n\n(vi.) Boils cannot be identified for certain, but their coming on\njust after the preceding plagues is most natural, considering what\nwe now know, as to the important part taken by mosquitoes and flies\nin spreading disease.\n\n(vii.) The hail must have occurred about the end of January, as the\nbarley was then in the ear, but the wheat not grown up; and severe\nhailstorms have been known in Egypt at that time.\n\n(viii.) Locusts are known to have visited Egypt terribly in March,\nwhich seems the time intended, as the leaves were then young.\n\n(ix.) The darkness _which might be felt_ was probably due to the\ndesert wind, which blows at intervals after the end of March, and\nsometimes brings with it such clouds of sand as to darken the\natmosphere.[42] And curiously enough it often moves in a narrow\nbelt, so that the land may be dark in one place, and light in\nanother close by, as recorded in the narrative.\n\n[Footnote 42: I have noticed the same in the Transvaal, in\nparticular a sandstorm at Christiana, on 20th October, 1900, which\nso darkened the sky that for about a quarter of an hour I had to\nlight a candle.]\n\n(x.) The death of the _firstborn_, which occurred in April (Abib),\nwas evidently not a natural calamity. But what is specially\ninteresting is the statement _against all the gods of Egypt I will\nexecute judgments_, without any explanation being given of what is\nmeant by this.[43] It refers to the Egyptian custom of worshipping\n_living_ animals, the firstborn of which were also to die; but this\nwould only be familiar to a writer in Egypt, since, as far as we\nknow, such worship was never practised in Canaan. The agreement all\nthrough is most remarkable, and strongly in favour of a contemporary\ndate.\n\n[Footnote 43: Exod. 12. 12; Num. 33. 4.]\n\n(3.) _In the laws and addresses._\n\nAnd the same familiarity with Egypt is shown in the subsequent laws\nand addresses of the Pentateuch. Thus we read of laws being written\non the doorposts and gates of houses, and on great stones covered\nwith plaster, both of which were undoubtedly Egyptian customs; and\nthe latter was not, as far as we know, common elsewhere.[44]\nSimilarly the Egyptian habit of writing persons' names on sticks,\nwas evidently familiar to the writer.[45] And so was the curious\ncustom of placing food _for the dead_,[46] which was common in\nEgypt, though it never prevailed among the Israelites.\n\n[Footnote 44: Deut. 6. 9; 11. 20; 27. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 45: Num. 17. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 46: Deut. 26. 14.]\n\nAgain the ordinary _food_ of the people in Egypt is given as fish,\ncucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic, all of which were\ncommonly eaten there.[47] But as the Hebrew names of four out of the\nfive vegetables do not occur elsewhere in the Bible, they could\nscarcely have been very common in Canaan; while none of the\ncharacteristic productions of that land, such as honey, milk,\nbutter, figs, raisins, almonds, and olives, are mentioned. The list\nis, as it ought to be, thoroughly Egyptian.\n\n[Footnote 47: Num. 11. 5.]\n\nIt must next be noticed that a large part of the _religious worship_\nprescribed in the Pentateuch was obviously borrowed from Egypt; the\nmost striking instance being that of the _ark_. A sacred ark is seen\non Egyptian monuments long before the Exodus, and is sometimes\nsurmounted by winged figures resembling the cherubim.[48] And the\n_materials_ said to have been used for this worship are precisely\nsuch as the Israelites might have then employed. The ark, for\ninstance, and also the tabernacle were not made of cedar, or of fir,\nor of olive, as would probably have been the case in Canaan (for\nthese were the materials used in the Temple)[49] but of shittim,\n_i.e._, acacia which is very common near Sinai, though scarcely ever\nused in Canaan. And the other materials were goats' hair, rams'\nskins, sealskins (or porpoise skins) from the Red Sea, and gold,\nsilver, brass, precious stones, and _fine linen_ from the Egyptian\nspoils; the latter, as before said, being an Egyptian word.[50]\nThere is no mistake anywhere, such as a late writer might have made.\n\n[Footnote 48: Comp. Exod. 25. 13-18.]\n\n[Footnote 49: 1 Kings 6. 14-36.]\n\n[Footnote 50: Exod. 25. 3-10.]\n\nMoreover, in other places, the writer of the Pentateuch frequently\nassumes that his readers know Egypt as well as himself. Thus the\npeople are twice reminded of the _diseases_ they had in Egypt--'_the\nevil diseases of Egypt which thou knowest_' or '_which thou wast\nafraid of_'--and they are warned that if they deserve it, God will\npunish them with the same diseases again.[51] But such a warning\nwould have been quite useless many centuries later in Canaan; just\nas it would be useless to warn an Englishman now of the diseases of\nNormandy, _which thou wast afraid of_, if this referred to some\ndiseases our ancestors had before they left Normandy in the eleventh\ncentury. Such words must clearly have been written soon afterwards.\nSimilarly the people are urged to be kind to strangers, and to love\nthem as themselves, because _they knew the heart of a stranger_,\nhaving been strangers in the land of Egypt. And this again could\nscarcely have been written centuries after they left Egypt.[52]\n\n[Footnote 51: Deut. 7. 15; 28. 60.]\n\n[Footnote 52: Exod. 23. 9; Lev. 19. 34.]\n\nElsewhere the writer describes the climate and productions of\nCanaan; and with a view to their being better understood, he\ncontrasts them with those of _Egypt_.[53] Obviously, then, the\npeople are once more supposed to know Egypt, and not to know Canaan.\nFor instance, Canaan is described as a country of hills and\nvalleys, and consequently of running brooks; and not like Egypt\nwhere they had to water the land with their _feet_. But no\nexplanation is given of this. It probably refers to the\n_water-wheels_, which were necessary for raising water in a flat\ncountry like Egypt, and which were worked by men's _feet_. But can\nwe imagine a late writer in Canaan using such a phrase without\nexplaining it? On the other hand, if the words were spoken by Moses,\nall is clear; no explanation was given, because (for persons who had\njust left Egypt) none was needed.\n\n[Footnote 53: Deut. 8. 7-10; 11. 10-12.]\n\nOn the whole, then, it is plain that when Egyptian matters are\nreferred to in the Pentateuch, we find the most thorough familiarity\nwith native customs, seasons, etc., though these are often quite\ndifferent from those of Canaan. And we therefore seem forced to\nconclude that the writer was a contemporary who lived in Egypt, and\nknew the country intimately, and as we have shown, he evidently\nwrote for persons who had only recently come from there.\n\n\n(_B._) ITS LAWS.\n\nWe pass on now to the Laws of the Pentateuch, which are found in the\nmiddle of Exodus, and occupy the greater part of the remaining\nbooks. And as we shall see, they also (quite apart from their\nreferences to Egypt) bear strong marks of a contemporary origin.\n\n(1.) _The subjects dealt with._\n\nIn the first place several of the laws refer exclusively to the time\nwhen the Israelites lived _in the desert_, and would have been of no\nuse whatever after they settled in Canaan. Among these are the laws\nregarding the _camp_ and _order of march_.[54] Full particulars are\ngiven as to the exact position of every tribe, and how the Levites\nwere to carry the Tabernacle. And what could have been the object of\ninventing such laws in later times, when, as far as we know, the\npeople never encamped or marched in this manner?\n\n[Footnote 54: Num. 1. 47--4. 49.]\n\nThen there is the extraordinary law as to the _slaughter of\nanimals_. It is stated in Leviticus that every ox, lamb, or goat,\nintended for food, was to be first brought to the Tabernacle, as a\nkind of offering, and there killed. But plainly this could only have\nbeen done, when the people were in the desert, living round the\nTabernacle. So when the law is again referred to in Deuteronomy,\njust before they entered Canaan, it is modified by saying that those\nliving at a distance might kill their animals at home.[55]\n\n[Footnote 55: Lev. 17. 3; Deut. 12. 21.]\n\nMoreover, some of the other laws, though applicable to Canaan, are\nof such a character as to be strongly in favour of an early date.\nTake, for instance, the remarkable law about _land_, that every\nperson who bought an estate was to restore it to its original owner\nin the year of Jubilee, the price decreasing according to the\nnearness of this year.[56] How could anyone in later times have made\nsuch a law, and yet assert that it had been issued by Moses\ncenturies before, though no one had ever heard of it?\n\n[Footnote 56: Lev. 25. 13.]\n\nOr take the law about the Levites.[57] They, it will be remembered,\nhad no separate territory like the other tribes, but were given some\nspecial cities. And it is scarcely likely that such a curious\narrangement could have been made at any time except that of the\nconquest of Canaan; still less that it could have been made\ncenturies afterwards, and yet ascribed to Moses, without everyone at\nonce declaring it to be spurious.\n\n[Footnote 57: Num. 35. 1-8.]\n\n(2.) _Their connection with the history._\n\nIt must next be noticed that the laws are not arranged in any\nregular order, but are closely connected with the history; many of\nthem being _dated_, both as to time and place. For instance, 'The\nLord spake unto Moses in the Wilderness of Sinai, in the first month\nof the second year after they were come out of the land of Egypt,\nsaying,' etc.[58] And several others are associated with the events\nwhich led to their being made; and these are often of such a trivial\nnature, that it is hard to imagine their being invented.[59] Thus\nthe Pentateuch shows, not a complete code of laws, but one that was\nformed _gradually_, and in close connection with the history.\n\n[Footnote 58: Num. 9. 1; 1. 1; Deut. 1. 3; see also Lev. 7. 38; 16.\n1; 25. 1; 26. 46; 27. 34; Num. 1. 1; 3. 14; 33. 50; 35. 1; Deut. 4.\n46; 29. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 59: Lev. 24. 15; Num. 9. 10; 15. 35; 27. 8; 36. 8.]\n\nAnd this is confirmed by the fact that in some cases the same laws\nare referred to both in Leviticus, (near the beginning) and in\nDeuteronomy (at the end) of the forty years in the Desert, but with\nslight differences between them. And these _exactly correspond_ to\nsuch a difference in date. One instance, that referring to the\n_slaughter of animals_, has been already alluded to. Another has to\ndo with the animals, which might, and might not, be _eaten_.\nLeviticus includes among the former, several kinds of locusts, and\namong the latter the mouse, weasel, and lizard; all of which\nDeuteronomy omits.\n\nClearly then, when Leviticus was written, the people were in the\ndesert, and there was a lack of animal food, which might tempt them\nto eat locusts or mice; but when Deuteronomy was written, animal\nfood was plentiful, and laws as to these were quite unnecessary.\n\nIn each of these cases, then, and there are others like them, the\ndifferences must be due either to the various laws dating from the\ntimes they profess to, when all is plain and consistent; or else to\nthe carefully planned work of some late writer, who was trying in\nthis way to pretend that they did.\n\nStill more important is the fact that in several places stress is\nlaid on the people's _personal knowledge_ of the events referred to;\n_e.g._, 'The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with\nus, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.'[60] And what is\nmore, this personal knowledge is often appealed to as a special\nreason for obeying the laws.[61] For instance, 'I speak not with\nyour children which have not known, and which have not seen the\nchastisement of the Lord, ... but your eyes have seen all the great\nwork of the Lord which He did. _Therefore_ shall ye keep all the\ncommandments,' etc. Plainly this would have had no force in later\ntimes; indeed it would have provided an excuse for _not_ obeying the\nlaws, since the people of those days had no personal knowledge of\nthe events referred to. And we may ask, is it likely that a late\nauthor, who falsely ascribed his laws to Moses, in order to get them\nobeyed, should yet put into the mouth of Moses himself an excuse for\nnot obeying them?\n\n[Footnote 60: Deut. 5. 3; 24. 9, 18, 22; 25. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 61: Deut. 11. 2-8; 4. 3-15; 29. 2-9.]\n\nMoreover, combined with this assumed personal knowledge on the part\nof the people there is a clear indication of _personal authority_ on\nthe part of the writer. The later prophets always speak in God's\nname, and such expressions as _Thus saith the Lord, Hear ye the word\nof the Lord_, are extremely common, occurring altogether over 800\ntimes. But in the laws of the Pentateuch nothing of the kind is\nfound. They are delivered by Moses in his own name, often with the\nsimple words, _I command thee_, which occur thirty times in\nDeuteronomy. And, of course, if the laws are genuine, there is\nnothing surprising in this, as Moses had been the great leader of\nthe people, for forty years; but a late author would scarcely have\nadopted a style so different from that of all the other prophets.\n\n(3.) _Their wording._\n\nLastly we must consider the _wording_ of the laws; and this also is\nstrongly in favour of a contemporary origin. Thus, as many as\nsixteen of them, which have special reference to Canaan, begin with\nsome such phrase as _when ye be come into the land of Canaan_,[62]\nwhich plainly supposes that the people were not there already. And\nthe same may be said of numerous other laws, which the people are\ntold to obey when they enter into Canaan; or are even urged to obey\nin order that they may enter in, both of which again, imply that\nthey were not there already.[63] While several of the laws refer to\nthe _camp_, and sometimes to _tents_, in such a way as to show that\nwhen they were written, the people were still living in a camp.[64]\n\n[Footnote 62: Exod. 12. 25; 13. 11; Lev. 14. 34; 19. 23; 23. 10; 25.\n2; Num. 15. 2, 18; 35. 10; Deut. 7. 1; 12. 1, 10, 29; 17. 14; 18. 9;\n26. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 63: _E.g._, Deut. 4. 1, 5, 14; 5. 31; 6. 1, 18; 8. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 64: _E.g._, Exod. 29. 14; Lev. 4. 12; 6. 11; 13. 46; 14.\n3; 16. 26; 17. 3; Num. 5. 2; 19. 3, 14.]\n\nThe wording, then, of all these laws bears unmistakable signs of\ncontemporary origin. Of course, these signs may have been inserted\nin later laws to give them an air of genuineness, but they cannot be\nexplained in any other way. Therefore the laws must be either of\n_contemporary date_, or else _deliberate frauds_. No innocent\nmistake in ascribing old laws to Moses, can possibly explain such\nlanguage as this; either it was the natural result of the laws being\ngenuine, or else it was adopted on purpose to mislead.\n\nNor can the difficulty be got over by introducing a number of\ncompilers and editors. For each individual law, if it falsely\n_claims_ to date from before the conquest of Canaan (and, as we have\nseen, numbers and numbers of laws do so claim, _When ye be come into\nthe land of Canaan_, etc.), must have been made by _someone_. And\nthis someone, though he really wrote it after the conquest of\nCanaan, must have inserted these words to make it appear that it was\nwritten before.\n\nPractically, then, as just said, there are but two\nalternatives--that of genuine laws written in the time of Moses, and\nthat of deliberate frauds. And bearing this in mind, we must ask,\nis it likely that men with such a passion for truth and\nrighteousness as the Jewish prophets--men who themselves so\ndenounced lying and deception in every form[65]--should have spent\ntheir time in composing such forgeries? Could they, moreover, have\ndone it so _skillfully_, as the laws contain the strongest marks of\ngenuineness; and could they have done it so _successfully_ as never\nto have been detected at the time? This is the great _moral_\ndifficulty in assigning these laws to a later age, and to many it\nseems insuperable.\n\n[Footnote 65: Jer. 8. 8; 14. 14; Ezek. 13. 7.]\n\nWe have thus two _very strong_ arguments in favour of an early date\nfor the Pentateuch: one derived from its _Egyptian references_, the\nother from its _Laws_. The former shows that no Israelite in later\ntimes could have written the book; and the latter that he would not\nhave done so, if he could.\n\n\n(_C._) THE THEORY OF A LATE DATE.\n\nWe pass on now to the opposite theory, or that of a _late date_.\nAccording to this the Pentateuch, though no doubt containing older\ntraditions, and fragments of older documents, was not written till\nmany centuries after the death of Moses. And the four chief\narguments in its favour are based on the _language_ of the\nPentateuch, its _composite character_, its laws being _unknown_ in\nlater times, and the _finding of Deuteronomy_ in the reign of\nJosiah. We will examine each in turn.\n\n(1.) _The language of the Pentateuch._\n\nNow in general character the language of the Pentateuch undoubtedly\nresembles that of some of the prophets, such as Jeremiah; so it is\nassumed that it must date from about the same time. But\nunfortunately critics who maintain this view do not admit that we\nhave _any_ Hebrew documents of a much earlier date, with which to\ncompare it. Therefore we have no means of knowing how much the\nlanguage altered, so this of itself proves little.\n\nBut it is further said that we have three actual _signs of late\ndate_. The first is that the word for _west_ in the Pentateuch\nreally means _the sea_, (_i.e._, the Mediterranean) and hence, it is\nurged, the writer's standpoint must have been that of Canaan, and\nthe books must have been written after the settlement in that\ncountry. But, very possibly the word was in use before the time of\nAbraham, when the sea actually was to the west. And in later years a\nHebrew, writing in Egypt or anywhere else, would naturally use the\nword, without thinking that it was inappropriate to that particular\nplace. The second expression is _beyond Jordan_, which is often used\nto denote the _eastern_ bank; so here again, it is urged, the\nwriter's standpoint must have been that of Canaan. But this is also\nuntenable. For the same term is also used for the _western_ bank in\nseveral places,[66] and sometimes for both banks in the same\nchapter.[67] The third is Joseph's speaking of Canaan as the _land\nof the Hebrews_, long before they settled there, which is difficult\nto explain on any theory, but rather in favour of a late date.[68]\n\n[Footnote 66: _E.g._, Deut. 11. 30; Josh. 12. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 67: _E.g._, eastern in Deut. 3. 8; Josh. 9. 10; and\nwestern in Deut. 3. 20, 25; Josh. 9. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 68: Gen. 40. 15.]\n\nOn the other hand, the language contains several _signs of early\ndate_, though most of these can only be understood by a Hebrew\nscholar, which the present writer does not profess to be. But a\ncouple of examples may be given which are plain to the ordinary\nreader. Thus the pronoun for _he_ is used in the Pentateuch both for\nmale and female; while in the later writings it is confined to\nmales, the females being expressed by a derived form which is very\nseldom used in the Pentateuch. Similarly, the word for _youth_ is\nused in the Pentateuch for both sexes, though afterwards restricted\nto males, the female being again expressed by a derived form. These\ndifferences, though small, are very significant, and they clearly\nshow that the language was at a less developed, and therefore\nearlier, stage in the Pentateuch than in the rest of the Old\nTestament.\n\n(2.) _Its composite character._\n\nThe next argument is that the Pentateuch seems to have had _several\nauthors_; since the same words, or groups of words, occur in\ndifferent passages all through the book. And this, combined with\nslight variations of style, and other peculiarities, have led some\ncritics to split up the book into a number of different writings,\nwhich they assign to a number of unknown writers from the ninth\ncentury B.C. onwards. For instance, to take a passage where only\nthree writers are supposed to be involved, Exod. 7. 14-25. These\ntwelve verses seem to the ordinary reader a straightforward\nnarrative, but they have been thus split up.[69] Verses 19, 22, and\nparts of 20, 21, are assigned to P, the supposed writer of the\nPriestly Code of Laws; v. 24 and parts of 17, 20, 21, to E; and the\nremainder to J; the two latter writers being thus named from their\ngenerally speaking of the Deity as _Elohim_ and _Jehovah_\n(translated _God_, and _Lord_) respectively.\n\n[Footnote 69: Driver's Introduction to Literature of Old Testament,\nsixth edition, 1897, p. 24. A slightly different division is given\nin his Exodus, 1911, p. 59.]\n\nFortunately, we need not discuss the minute and complicated\narguments on which all this rests, for the idea of any writings\nbeing so hopelessly mixed together is most improbable. While it has\nbeen shown in recent years to be very doubtful whether these names,\n_Elohim_ and _Jehovah_, occurred in the original Hebrew, in the same\nplaces as they do now.[70] And if they did _not_, the theory loses\none of its chief supports.\n\n[Footnote 70: The Name of God in The Pentateuch by Troelstra;\ntranslated by McClure, 1912]\n\nAnd in any case there are at least four plain and simple arguments\nagainst it. The first is that the _Egyptian references_, to which we\nhave already alluded extend to all the parts J, E, and P; as well as\nto Deuteronomy, which these critics assign to yet another author D.\nThey are thus like an Egyptian _water-mark_ running all through the\nPentateuch. And while it is difficult enough to believe that even\none writer in Canaan should have possessed this intimate knowledge\nof Egypt, it is far more difficult to believe that _four_ should\nhave done so.\n\nThe second is that all the writers must have been equally\n_dishonest_, for they all contain passages, which they assert were\nwritten by Moses (see further on). And here again it is hard to\nbelieve, that even one writer (leave alone four) should have been\nso utterly unscrupulous.\n\nThe third is that the curious custom of God speaking of Himself in\nthe _plural_ number, which would be strange in any case, and is\nespecially so considering the strong Monotheism of the Jews, is also\ncommon to both J and P.[71] And so is the puzzling statement that it\nwas God Himself Who hardened Pharaoh's heart, which is also found in\nE.[72]\n\n[Footnote 71: Gen. 1. 26 (P): 3. 22 (J).]\n\n[Footnote 72: Exod. 4. 21 (E): 7. 3 (P.): 10. 1 (J).]\n\n\nThe fourth is that parallel passages to the supposed two narratives\nof the Flood, ascribed to J and P (and which are thought to occur\nalternately _nineteen_ times in Gen. 7. 8.) have been found\n_together_ in an old Babylonian story of the Flood, centuries before\nthe time of Moses; and also in layers corresponding to J and P.[73]\nAnd this alone seems fatal to the idea that J and P were originally\nseparate narratives that were afterward combined in our Genesis.\n\n[Footnote 73: Sayce's Monument Facts, 1904, p. 20; Driver's Book of\nGenesis, 1905, pp. 89-95, 107.]\n\nOf course those who maintain that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, quite\nadmit that he made use of previous documents, one of which, the book\nof the _Wars of the Lord_, he actually quotes.[74] Nor is it denied\nthat some _additions_ have been made since his time, the most\nimportant being the list of kings, who are said to have reigned in\nEdom _before there reigned any king over the children of\nIsrael_.[75] And this brings the passage down to the time of Saul at\nleast who was Israel's first king. But it is probably a later\ninsertion, since these kings are referred to in a different way from\nthe dukes, who precede and follow them. And the same may be said of\na few other passages[76] such as that _the Canaanite was then in the\nland_, which must clearly have been written after the Israelites\nconquered the country. But they can all be omitted without breaking\nthe continuity of the narrative.\n\n[Footnote 74: Num. 21. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 75: Gen. 36. 31-39.]\n\n[Footnote 76: Gen. 12. 6; 13. 7; Exod. 16. 36; Deut. 2. 10-12,\n20-23; 3. 14.]\n\n(3.) _Its laws being unknown in later times._\n\nPassing on now to the third argument for a late date, it is urged\nthat the laws of the Pentateuch cannot really have been written by\nMoses, since, judging from the other Old Testament Books, they seem\nto have been _unknown_ for many centuries after his time. But this\nis scarcely correct, for even the earliest books, Joshua and Judges\ncontain some references to a _written_ law of Moses;[77] while both\nin Judges and 1 Samuel there are numerous agreements between what is\ndescribed there, and what is commanded in the Pentateuch.[78] And\nsimilar evidence is afforded by the later books, David, for\ninstance, alluding to the _written_ law of Moses, as if it was well\nknown.[79] So in regard to the prophets. Two of the earliest of\nthese are Hosea and Amos; and they both contain frequent points of\nagreement;[80] as well as one reference to a large number of\n_written_ laws.[81]\n\n[Footnote 77: Joshua 1. 7, 8; 8. 31, 32; 23. 6; 24, 26. Judges 3.\n4.]\n\n[Footnote 78: Judges 20. 27, 28; 21. 19; 1 Sam. 2. 12-30; 3. 3; 4.\n4; 6. 15; 14. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 79: 1 Kings 2. 3. 2 Kings 14. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 80: Hos. 4. 4-6; 8. 1, 13; 9. 4; 12. 9; Amos 2. 4, 11; 4.\n4, 5; 5. 21-25; 8. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 81: Hos. 8. 12 (R.V.).]\n\nOn the other side, we have the statement in Jeremiah, that God did\nnot command the Israelites concerning burnt-offerings, and\nsacrifices, when He brought them out of Egypt.[82] But the next\nverse certainly implies that it was placing these before obedience\nthat God condemned. And Hosea in a similar passage declares this to\nbe the case, and that God's not desiring sacrifice means His not\ncaring so much about it, as about other things.[83] It is also urged\nthat there were practices which are _inconsistent_ with these laws;\nthe most important being that the sacrifices were not limited to one\nplace, or the offerers to priests. As to the former, the principle\nof the law was that the place of sacrifice should be of Divine\nappointment, _where God had chosen to record His name_, (_i.e._,\nwhere the _ark_ was), and not selected by the worshippers\nthemselves.[84] In Exodus it is naturally implied that there should\nbe many such places, as the Israelites were then only beginning\ntheir wanderings; and in Deuteronomy that there should be only one,\nas they were then about to enter Canaan.\n\n[Footnote 82: Jer. 7. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 83: Hosea 6. 6; 1 Sam. 15. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 84: Exod. 20. 24; Deut. 12. 5.]\n\nBut for many years, owing to the unsettled state of the country, and\nthe ark having been captured by the Philistines, the law could not\nbe obeyed. When however, the people had rest from their enemies\n(which was the condition laid down in Deuteronomy) and the temple\nwas built at Jerusalem, the law was fully recognised. After this the\nworship at _high places_ is spoken of as a _sin_, while Hezekiah is\ncommended for destroying these places, and for keeping the\ncommandments _which the Lord commanded Moses_.[85]\n\n[Footnote 85: 1 Kings 3. 2; 22. 43; 2 Kings 18. 4-6.]\n\nThe discovery, however in 1907, that there was a Jewish Temple of\nJehovah at Elephantine, near Assouan in Egypt, with sacrifices, as\nearly as the sixth century B.C., and that it had apparently the\napproval of the authorities at Jerusalem, makes it doubtful if the\nlaw as to the one sanctuary was ever thought to be absolutely\nbinding.\n\nAs to the other point--the sacrifices not being offered only by\n_priests_--there is an apparent discrepancy in the Pentateuch\nitself; since Deuteronomy (unlike the other books) seems in one\npassage to recognise that _Levites_ might perform priestly\nduties.[86] Various explanations have been given of this, though I\ndo not know of one that is quite satisfactory. There are also a few\ncases, where men who were neither priests, nor Levites, such as\nGideon, David, and Elijah, are said to have offered sacrifices.[87]\nBut these were all under special circumstances, and in some of them\nthe sacrifice was directly ordered by God. There is thus nothing\nlike sufficient evidence to show that the laws of the Pentateuch\nwere not known in later days, but merely that they were often not\nobeyed.\n\n[Footnote 86: Deut. 18. 6-8.]\n\n[Footnote 87: _E.g._, Judges 6. 26; 2 Sam. 24. 18; 1 Kings 18. 32.]\n\n(4.) _The finding of Deuteronomy._\n\nLastly we have the finding of the _Book of the Law_ (probably\nDeuteronomy) when the temple was being repaired in the reign of\nJosiah, about 621 B.C., which is regarded by some critics as its\nfirst publication.[88] But this is a needless assumption, for there\nis no hint that either the king or the people were surprised at\nsuch a book being found, but merely at what it contained. And as\nthey proceeded at once to carry out its directions, it rather shows\nthat they knew there was such a book all the time, only they had\nnever before read it. And this is easily accounted for, as most\ncopies would have been destroyed by the previous wicked kings.[89]\nOn the other hand, an altogether new book is not likely to have\ngained such immediate and ready obedience; not to mention the great\nimprobability of such an audacious fraud never being detected at the\ntime.\n\n[Footnote 88: 2 Kings 22.]\n\n[Footnote 89: 2 Kings 21. 2, 21.]\n\nNor is it easy to see why, if Deuteronomy was written at a late\ndate, it should have contained so many obsolete and useless\ninstructions; such as the order to destroy the Canaanites, when\nthere were scarcely any Canaanites left to destroy.[90] Yet the\npeople are not only told to destroy them, but to do it _gradually_,\nso that the wild beasts may not become too numerous;[91] which shows\nthat the passage was written centuries before the time of Josiah,\nwhen there was no more danger from wild beasts than from Canaanites.\nNor is it likely, if Deuteronomy was written at that time, when\nJerusalem claimed to be the central sanctuary, that the city itself\nshould never once be named in the book, or even alluded to.\n\n[Footnote 90: Deut. 7. 2; 20. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 91: Deut. 7. 22.]\n\nMoreover, discoveries in Egypt have shown that in early times\nreligious writings were sometimes buried in the foundations, or\nlower walls of important temples; where they were found centuries\nafterwards when the temples were being repaired; so the account, as\nwe have it in the Bible, is both natural and probable.[92]\n\n[Footnote 92: E. Naville, Discovery of the Book of the Law, 1911,\npp. 4-10.]\n\nOn the whole, then, none of these arguments for a _late date_ are at\nall conclusive, and we therefore decide that this theory is not only\nvery improbable in any case, but quite untenable in face of the\nstrong evidence on the other side.\n\n\n(_D._) CONCLUSION.\n\nHaving thus shown that the Pentateuch appears to date from the time\nof Moses, it only remains to consider its authorship, and the\nwitness it bears to the miracles of the Exodus.\n\nNow that the greater part should have been written by Moses himself\nis plainly the most probable view. And this is strongly confirmed by\nthe book itself; for a large part of it distinctly _claims_ to have\nbeen written by Moses. It is not merely that this title is given in\na heading, or opening verse, which might easily have been added in\nlater times. But it is asserted, positively and repeatedly, all\nthrough the book itself, both in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy,\nthat many of the events, and laws referred to (often including\nseveral chapters) were actually _written down_ by Moses.[93] This is\nan important point, and it must be allowed great weight.\n\n[Footnote 93: Exod. 17. 14; 24. 4; 34. 27; Num. 33. 2; 36. 13; Deut.\n31. 9, 22, 24. The first two passages in Exod. are assigned to the\nsupposed E, the third to J, those in Num. to P, and those in Deut.\nto D.]\n\nAnd the first passage, that Moses was to write the threat against\nAmalek _in a book_, is specially interesting; because we cannot\nthink that the book contained nothing but this single sentence. It\nevidently means in _the_ book (see American R. V.), implying that a\nregular journal was kept, in which important events were recorded.\nAnd this is confirmed by another of the passages, which says that\nMoses wrote down something that occurred _the same day_;[94] and by\nanother which gives a long and uninteresting list of journeys in the\nDesert,[95] which certainly looks like an official record kept at\nthe time. While the concluding passage relates how Moses, when he\nhad finished writing the book, gave it to the Levites to keep beside\nthe ark, in order to preserve it, and anything more precise than\nthis can scarcely be imagined.[96]\n\n[Footnote 94: Deut. 31. 22; comp. Exod. 24. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 95: Num. 33.]\n\n[Footnote 96: Deut. 31. 24-26.]\n\nMoreover, the frequent references of Moses to his own exclusion from\nCanaan, and his pathetic prayer on the subject, have a very genuine\ntone about them.[97] And his bitter complaint that God had broken\nHis promise, and not delivered the people,[98] could scarcely have\nbeen written by anyone but himself; especially after the conquest of\nCanaan, when it was so obviously untrue.\n\n[Footnote 97: _E.g._, Deut. 3. 23-26; 1. 37; 4. 21; 31. 2.]\n\n[Footnote 98: Exod. 5. 23.]\n\nAnd his authorship is further confirmed by the fact that so little\nis said in his praise. His faults are indeed narrated quite\ncandidly, but nothing is said in admiration of the great leader's\ncourage, and ability, till the closing chapter of Deuteronomy. This\nwas evidently written by someone else, and shows what we might have\nexpected had the earlier part been the work of anyone but Moses\nhimself. Nor is there anything surprising in his writing in the\nthird person, as numbers of other men--C\u00e6sar, for instance--have\ndone the same.\n\nBut now comes the important point. Fortunately it can be stated in a\nfew words. If the Pentateuch is a contemporary document, probably\nwritten by Moses, can we reject the miracles which it records? Can\nwe imagine, for instance, a _contemporary_ writer describing the Ten\nPlagues, or the Passage of the Red Sea, if nothing of the kind had\noccurred? The events, if true, must have been well known at the\ntime; and if untrue, no contemporary would have thought of inventing\nthem. We therefore conclude, on reviewing the whole chapter, that\nthe _origin_ of the Jewish religion _was confirmed by miracles_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nTHAT ITS HISTORY WAS CONFIRMED BY MIRACLES.\n\n     (_A._) THE LATER OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS.\n\n     (1.) Undesigned agreements; the rebellion of Korah.\n     (2.) Alleged mistakes; unimportant.\n     (3.) Modern discoveries; these support their accuracy.\n\n     (_B._) THE OLD TESTAMENT MIRACLES.\n\n     (1.) Their credibility; this can scarcely be disputed, if\n           miracles at all are credible; the silence of the sun\n           and moon, two other difficulties.\n     (2.) Their truthfulness; list of eight public miracles, two\n           examples, Elijah's sacrifice on Mount Carmel, and\n           the destruction of the Assyrian army, considered in\n           detail; conclusion.\n\n\nHaving now examined the origin of the Jewish Religion, we have next\nto consider its _history_; which also claims to have been confirmed\nby miracles. So we will first notice (very briefly) the Old\nTestament _Books_, from Joshua onwards; and then consider some of\nthe _Miracles_ which they record.\n\n\n(_A._) THE LATER OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS.\n\nNow, the arguments for, and against the genuineness of these Books\nneed not be discussed at length, since we have already decided in\nfavour of that of the Pentateuch, and most critics who admit the\none, admit the other. But a few remarks may be made on three\nsubjects, those of _undesigned agreements_, the importance of which\nis not obvious at first sight; the _alleged mistakes_ in the Old\nTestament; and the effect of _modern discoveries_.\n\n(1.) _Undesigned agreements._\n\nNow, if we find two statements regarding an event, or series of\nevents, which, though not identical, are yet perfectly consistent,\nthis agreement must be either _accidental_ or _not accidental_. And\nsupposing it to be too minute in detail to be accidental it shows\nthat the statements are somehow connected together. Of course, if\nthe events are true, each writer may know them independently, and\ntheir statements would thus be in perfect, though unintentional\nagreement. But if the events are not true, then either one writer\nmust have made his account agree with the other, or else both must\nhave derived their information from a common source. In the former\ncase, there would be intentional agreement between the writers; in\nthe latter, between the various parts of the original account. In\nany case, there would be designed agreement somewhere; for, to put\nit shortly, the events, being imaginary, would not fit together of\nnecessity, nor by accident, which is excluded, and hence must do so\nby design.\n\nThis has been otherwise expressed by saying that truth is\nnecessarily consistent, but falsehood is not so; therefore, while\nconsistency in truth may be undesigned, consistency in falsehood can\nonly result from design. And from this it follows that an\n_undesigned agreement_ between two statements--provided of course it\nis too minute to be accidental--is a sure sign of truthfulness. It\nshows, moreover, that both writers had independent knowledge of the\nevent, and were both telling the truth. And of course the same\nargument applies if the two statements are made by the same writer,\nthough in this case there is a greater probability that the\nagreement is not undesigned.\n\nWe will now consider a single example in detail, and select that\nreferring to the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, as it is\nconnected with an important miracle. Korah, we are told,[99]\nbelonged to the family of Kohath and the other two to that of\nReuben; and from incidental notices _in another part of the book_,\nwe learn the position of the _tents_ of these men. The former was to\nthe south of the central Tabernacle, or Tent of Meeting, on an inner\nline of tents, while the latter were also to the south, though on an\nouter line of tents.\n\n[Footnote 99: Num. 16; 2. 10, 17; 3. 29.]\n\nThis explains how, when Moses was talking to Korah, he had to _send\nfor_ Dathan and Abiram, and how next morning he left the central\nTabernacle, where the men had assembled to offer incense, (and where\nthey were afterwards destroyed, probably by lightning) and _went\nunto_ Dathan and Abiram (vv. 8-25). It explains how, later on, the\n_tents_ of Dathan and Abiram are twice mentioned, while that of the\nleading conspirator, Korah, is strangely omitted. It explains how\nthe _families_ of these two were destroyed, though no mention is\nmade of that of Korah; since the destruction was probably limited to\nthe tents of Dathan and Abiram, who were brothers, and the small\ntabernacle they had erected alongside, and from which alone the\npeople were told to _depart_ (vv. 26, 27). We may therefore\nconclude that Korah's _family_ was not destroyed, since their tent\nwas at some distance. And this accounts for what some have thought\nto be a discrepancy in another passage, where we read that the\n_sons_ of Korah did not die; as well as for Dathan and Abiram, being\nmentioned alone later on.[100] In fact, the position of these tents\nis the key to the whole narrative, though we are left to discover it\nfor ourselves.\n\n[Footnote 100: Num. 26. 11; Deut. 11. 6.]\n\nNow if the account is true and written by a contemporary, all is\nplain; for truth, as said before, is necessarily consistent. But if\nthe story is a late fiction, all this agreement in various places\nis, to say the least, very remarkable. Can we imagine a writer of\nfiction _accidentally_ arranging these details in different parts of\nhis book, which fit together so perfectly? Or can we imagine his\ndoing so _intentionally_, and yet never hinting at the agreement\nhimself, but leaving it so unapparent that not one reader in a\nthousand ever discovers it? This single instance may be taken as a\nsample of numerous others which have been noticed all through the\nOld Testament; and they certainly tend to show its accuracy.\n\n(2.) _Alleged mistakes._\n\nWe pass on now to the alleged mistakes in the Old Testament, and\nconsidering the long period covered, and the variety of subjects\ndealt with, and often the same subject by various writers, the\nnumber of even apparent discrepancies is not very great. And it is\nbeyond dispute that many of these can be explained satisfactorily,\nand doubtless many others could be so, if our knowledge were more\ncomplete. Moreover, they are, as a rule, _numerical_ mistakes, such\nas the incredibly large numbers in some places,[101] and the rather\ndiscordant chronology in Kings and Chronicles. But the former may be\ndue to some error in copying, and the latter to the different ways\nof counting a king's reign.\n\n[Footnote 101: Num. 26. 11; Deut. 11. 6.]\n\nThe only mistake of any real importance refers to the large numbers\nof the Israelites, who are said to have left Egypt,--some 600,000\nmen, besides children, or probably over two million altogether. For\non two subsequent occasions, when the census of the tribes is given,\nit totals up to about the same number.[102] This is no doubt a\nserious difficulty; as anyone can see, who will take the trouble to\ncalculate the space they would require on the march, or in camp. If\nwe assume, for instance, that they crossed the arm of the Red Sea\nin, say, _forty_ parallel columns, these would still have to be of\nenormous length to contain 50,000 persons each, with their flocks\nand herds.\n\n[Footnote 102: Exod. 12. 37. Num. 1. 26.]\n\nPerhaps the best explanation is that suggested by Professor\nFlinders Petrie, that the word translated _thousands_ should be\n_families_,[103] so that the tribe of Reuben, for instance,[104]\ninstead of having forty-six _thousand_ five hundred men, would have\nforty-six _families_, (making about) five hundred men. The chief\narguments in favour of this are, first, that the same word is used\nin Judges 6. 15, where it so obviously means family and not\nthousand, that it is so translated in both the Authorised and\nRevised Versions.\n\n[Footnote 103: Egypt and Israel, 1911, p. 43.]\n\n[Footnote 104: Num. 1. 21.]\n\nAnd secondly, it would account for the remarkable fact that though\nthere were twelve tribes, and they were each counted twice, yet the\nnumber of the hundreds is never 0, 1, 8 or 9; but always one of the\nother six digits. It is extremely unlikely (practically\nincredible)[105] that this would occur in an ordinary census, but\nthe proposed theory explains it at once. For the hundreds could\nscarcely be 0, or 1, as this would mean too few men in a family; or\n8 or 9, which would mean too many; while the other digits always\nwork out to what (allowing for servants) is a reasonable proportion,\nfrom 5 to 17. On this theory the number of men would be reduced to\n5,600, which is much more intelligible. But some other passages\nscarcely seem capable of this interpretation, so it must be admitted\nthat the number forms a difficulty, whatever view we adopt.\n\n[Footnote 105: The chance of its occurring would be only (6/10)^24\nor less than 1 in 200,000.]\n\n(3.) _Modern discoveries._\n\nLastly, as to the effect of modern discoveries on the accuracy of\nthe Old Testament. In the case of the Pentateuch, as we have seen,\nthere is very little _direct_ evidence either way; but it is\ndifferent in regard to some of the later books.\n\nIn the first place, and this is very important, modern discoveries\nhave shown that the period of Jewish history from the time of Moses\nonwards was distinctly _a literary age_. In Egypt, Babylonia, Syria,\nand elsewhere, it was the custom, and had been for centuries, to\nrecord all important events, at least all those that were creditable\nto the people concerned; so it is almost certain that the Jews, like\nthe surrounding nations, had their historians. In every age\nconquerors have loved to record their conquests, and why should the\nJews alone have been an exception?\n\nYet the historical books of the Old Testament have no competitors.\nIf, then, we deny that these are in the main a contemporary record,\nwe must either assume that the Jews, unlike the surrounding nations,\nhad no contemporary historians, which is most unlikely; as well as\nbeing contrary to the Books themselves, where the _recorders_ are\nfrequently mentioned, even by name.[106] Or else we must assume that\ntheir works were replaced in later days by other and less reliable\naccounts, which were universally mistaken for the originals, and\nthis seems equally improbable.\n\n[Footnote 106: _E.g._, 2 Sam. 8. 16; 2 Kings 18. 18; 2 Chron. 34.\n8.]\n\nPassing on now to the evidence in detail, it may be divided into two\nclasses, geographical and historical. In the first place the\n_geography_ of Palestine has been shown to be minutely accurate. But\nthis does not prove the Old Testament Books to be genuine, but\nmerely that they were written by Jews who knew the country\nintimately. It helps, however, in some cases to remove apparent\ndifficulties. Thus the discoveries at Jericho, in 1908, have shown\nthat the place was merely a small fortified hill, the length of the\nsurrounding wall being about half a mile, so there was no difficulty\nin the Israelites walking round it seven times in the day.[107] And\nmuch the same may be said of the _historical_ notices. The\nmonumental records of the Kings of Judah and Israel have not at\npresent been discovered, but we can often check the history by the\nrecords of other countries. And these are as a rule in perfect\nagreement, not only as to the actual facts, but as to the society,\ncustoms, and state of civilisation, of the period. Indeed, in some\ncases where this was formerly disputed, as in the importance\nassigned to the _Hittites_, it has been fully justified by modern\ndiscoveries.[108] But this again does not prove the genuineness of\nthe Books, though it certainly raises a probability in their favour.\n\n[Footnote 107: Josh. 6. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 108: 1 Kings 10. 29; 2 Kings 7. 6.]\n\nSometimes, however, the evidence is stronger than this, one of the\nbest known instances being Daniel's mention of _Belshazzar_.[109] He\nstates that the last king of Babylon was Nebuchadnezzar's son, or\ngrandson (margin, A.V.) called Belshazzar, who was slain at night\nwhen the city was captured (about B.C. 538). But according to\nBerosus, who wrote about the third century B.C., all this appears to\nbe wrong. The last king of Babylon was a usurper called Nabonidus,\nand any such person as Belshazzar is quite unknown. And so matters\nremained till some cuneiform inscriptions were discovered at Mugheir\nin 1854.\n\n[Footnote 109: Dan. 5. 1.]\n\nFrom these it appears that Belshazzar was the eldest son of\nNabonidus, and was apparently associated with him in the government.\nAnd an inscription recently found at Erech shows that this was the\ncase for several years.[110] There is no proof that he ever had the\ntitle of _King_, unless he is the same as one _Mardukshazzar_,\nabout this time (not otherwise identified), which is not unlikely,\nas we know Marduk was sometimes called _Bel_--_i.e._, Baal, or Lord.\nAnd another inscription, somewhat mutilated, seems to show that he\nwas slain at Babylon in a night assault on the city (or some portion\nof it) as described by Daniel, some months after Nabonidus had been\ntaken prisoner.[111] As to his relationship with Nebuchadnezzar\nperhaps his mother (or grandmother) was a royal princess. And there\ncertainly seems to have been some connection between the families,\nas we know from the inscriptions that he had a brother called\nNebuchadnezzar.\n\n[Footnote 110: Expository Times, April, 1915. Comp. Dan. 8. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 111: Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxxviii.,\n1906, p. 28; vol. xlvi., 1914, p. 14.]\n\nNow, of course, if Daniel himself wrote the book, he would have\nknown all about Belshazzar, however soon afterwards it was\nforgotten. But, if the book is a late fiction, written by a Jew in\nPalestine about B.C. 160, which is the rationalistic theory, as the\nwars between Egypt and Syria up to that date are clearly foretold,\nhow did he know the name of Belshazzar at all, or anything about\nhim, when such a person was unknown to previous historians? Plainly\nthen, this is a distinct argument in favour of the contemporary date\nof the book.[112]\n\n[Footnote 112: It is worth noting that this rationalistic theory,\nwhich was generally accepted by the so-called Higher Critics, has\nnow become so difficult to maintain in the face of arch\u00e6ology that\nDr. Pinches, Lecturer in Assyriology at University College, London,\nsaid recently 'I am glad to think with regard to the Book of Daniel\nthat the Higher Criticism is in fact buried.' Transactions of\nVictoria Institute, vol. xlix., 1917, p. 135.]\n\nAnd much the same may be said of Isaiah's mention of _Sargon_ of\nAssyria, who is stated to have taken Ashdod. Yet the very existence\nof such a king was unknown to secular history, till the last\ncentury; when his palace was discovered at Khorsabad, with\ninscriptions recording, among other things, his capture of\nAshdod.[113]\n\n[Footnote 113: Isa. 20. 1. Orr's Problem of Old Test., 1906, p.\n399.]\n\nTwo other cases are of special interest, because the monuments\nseemed at first to show that the Bible was wrong. One of these\nrefers to a so-called _Pul_, King of Assyria;[114] but when the list\nof Assyrian monarchs was discovered, no such king could be found. It\nlooked like a serious discrepancy, and was even spoken of as 'almost\nthe only important historical difficulty' between the Bible and the\nmonuments.[115] But it has now been discovered that _Pulu_ was the\noriginal name of a usurper, who changed it to Tiglath Pileser III.\non ascending the throne; though he was still sometimes called\nPulu.[116] This not only removes the difficulty, but tends to show\nthe early date of the narrative; for a late writer would probably\nhave called him by his better-known name.\n\n[Footnote 114: 2 Kings 15. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 115: Rawlinson, Historical Illustrations of the Old\nTestament, 1871, p. 121.]\n\n[Footnote 116: Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, vol. iv., p. 761.]\n\nThe other instance refers to _Jehu_, who is stated in the Assyrian\ninscriptions to be the son of Omri; though according to the Bible he\nwas no relation whatever. But it has now been shown that the words\ntranslated _son of Omri_ may only mean _of the land or house of\nOmri_, which is a common Assyrian name for the kingdom of\nIsrael.[117]\n\n[Footnote 117: Driver, Schweich Lecture, 1908, p. 17.]\n\nAs a last example we will take the _dates_ given for the Fall of the\ntwo capital cities, Samaria and Jerusalem. These were calculated\nlong ago (margin, A.V.) from a number of statements in the Bible,\ngiving the lengths of different reigns, etc., at B.C. 721 and 588\nrespectively.[118] And now the inscriptions from Assyria and\nBabylonia fix the former at _B.C._ 722 and the latter at 586.[119]\nEveryone must admit that these are remarkable agreements,\nconsidering the way in which they have had to be calculated.\n\n[Footnote 118: 2 Kings 17. 6; 25. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 119: Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, vol. i., p. 401.]\n\nWe have now briefly considered the Books of the Old Testament, both\nas to their _undesigned agreements_, which are very interesting;\ntheir _alleged mistakes_, which are unimportant; and the effect of\n_modern discoveries_, which has undoubtedly been to support their\naccuracy. What, then, is the value of the evidence they afford as to\nthe history of the Jewish Religion having been confirmed by\nmiracles?\n\n\n(_B._) THE OLD TESTAMENT MIRACLES.\n\nWe will include under this term superhuman coincidences as well as\nmiracles in the strict sense; and they occur all through the\nhistorical books of the Old Testament. A few of them have been\nalready noticed in the last chapter, but we must now discuss them\nmore fully, first considering whether they are credible, and then\nwhether they are true.\n\n(1.) _Their credibility._\n\nNow this can scarcely be disputed, _provided miracles at all are\ncredible_, which we have already admitted, since scientific\ndifficulties affect all miracles equally; and of course the\nSuperhuman Coincidences have no difficulties of this kind whatever.\nAmong these may be mentioned most of the Ten Plagues, the\ndestruction of Korah, the falling of the walls of Jericho, probably\ndue to an earthquake; the lightning which struck Elijah's sacrifice;\nand many others.\n\nThe _Passage of the Red Sea_, for instance, almost certainly belongs\nto this class. The water, we are told, was driven back by a strong\neast wind, lasting all night; and this was doubtless due to natural\nforces, though, in common with other natural events (such as the\ngrowth of grass[120]), it is in the Bible ascribed to God. And the\nstatement, _the waters were a wall unto them_, need not be pressed\nliterally, so as to mean that they stood upright. It may only mean\nhere, as it obviously does in some other cases, that the waters were\na defence on each side, and secured them from flank attacks.[121]\nAnd as they must have advanced in several parallel columns, probably\nhalf a mile wide, this certainly seems the more likely view.\n\n[Footnote 120: Ps. 147. 8-9.]\n\n[Footnote 121: Exod. 14. 21, 22; Nahum 3. 8; 1 Sam. 25. 16.]\n\nAnd what makes it still more probable is that much the same thing\noccurred in this very neighbourhood in recent times. For in January,\n1882, a large expanse of water, about 5 feet deep, near the Suez\nCanal, was exposed to such a strong gale (also from the east) that\nnext morning it had been entirely driven away, and men were walking\nabout on the mud, where the day before the fishing-boats had been\nfloating.[122] Moreover, on this theory, the miracle would not lose\nany of its evidential value. For the fact of such a strip of dry\nland being formed just when and where the Israelites so much wanted\nit, and then being suddenly covered again, through the wind changing\nround to the west (which it must have done for the dead Egyptians to\nhave been cast up on the _east_ side)[123], would be a coincidence\nfar too improbable to be accidental.\n\n[Footnote 122: Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxviii.,\n1894, p. 268. It is vouched for by Major-General Tulloch, who was\nthere on duty at the time.]\n\n[Footnote 123: Exod. 14. 30.]\n\nAnother well known miracle, which probably belongs to this class, is\nthe _'silence' (or standing still) of the sun and moon_.[124] This\nis often thought to mean that the earth's rotation was stopped, so\nthat the sun and moon apparently stood still. But a miracle on so\nvast a scale, was quite needless for the destruction of a few\nCanaanites, and there is another, and far better explanation.\n\n[Footnote 124: Josh. 10. 12-14.]\n\nIt is that the miracle, instead of being one of prolonged light, the\nsun remaining visible after it should have set, was really one of\nprolonged _darkness_. The sun, which had been hidden by thick\nclouds, was just about to shine forth, when Joshua prayed to the\nLord that it might be _silent_, _i.e._, remain obscured behind the\nclouds, which it did during the rest of the day. The Hebrew seems\ncapable of either meaning. For the important word translated _stand\nstill_ is literally _be silent_ (see margin), both in verses 12\nand 13; and while this would be most suitable to the sun's remaining\nobscured by clouds during the day, it could scarcely be used of its\ncontinuing to shine at night.\n\nOn the other hand, the rest of the passage seems to favour the\nordinary view. But if we admit that this is what Joshua _prayed\nfor_, that the sun and moon should remain _silent_ or obscured, the\nrest of the passage can only mean that this is what took place. And\nit may be mentioned that, as early as the fourteenth century, a\nJewish writer Levi ben Gershon maintained that the words did not\nmean that the sun and moon literally _stood still_, or in any way\naltered their motion; though it is only fair to add that this was\nnot the general view.[125]\n\n[Footnote 125: Numerous quotations are given in 'A Misunderstood\nMiracle,' by Rev. A. S. Palmer, 1887, pp. 103-107.]\n\nMoreover, even if the word did mean _stand still_, Joshua would only\nbe likely to have asked for the sun and moon to stand still, if they\nwere apparently _moving_. And they only move fast enough to be\napparent when they are just coming out from behind a dense bank of\nclouds, due, of course, to the clouds really moving. And to _stand\nstill_ in such a case, would mean to stay behind the clouds, and\nremain _obscured_, the same sense as before. And the words could\nthen have had an _immediate_ effect; visible at once to all the\npeople, which certainly seems implied in the narrative, and which\nwould not have been the case on the ordinary view.\n\nAssuming, then, that either meaning is possible, a prolonged\ndarkness is much the more probable for three reasons. To begin with,\nthe miracle must have occurred in the early _morning_, Gibeon,\nwhere the sun was, being to the south _east_ of Beth-horon, the\nscene of the incident. And it is most unlikely that Joshua, with the\nenemy already defeated, and nearly all the day before him, should\nhave wished to have it prolonged. Secondly, just _before_ the\nmiracle there had been a very heavy thunderstorm, involving (as here\nrequired) thick clouds and a dark sky; and this is stated to have\nbeen the chief cause of the enemy's defeat. So Joshua is more likely\nto have asked for a continuance of this storm, _i.e._, for prolonged\ndarkness, than for light. Thirdly, the moon is mentioned as well as\nthe sun, and, if Joshua wanted darkness, both would have to be\n_silent_; but if he wanted light, the mention of the moon was quite\nunnecessary.\n\nOn the whole, then, the miracle seems to have been a superhuman\ncoincidence between a prayer of Joshua and an extraordinary and\nunique thunderstorm, which caused the sun to remain _silent_ or\ninvisible all day. And if the Canaanites were sun-worshippers (as\nmany think probable), it was most suitable that at the time of their\ngreat battle with the Israelites, the sun should have been obscured\nthe whole day, and it naturally led to their utter confusion.\n\nBefore passing on, we may notice two objections of a more general\ncharacter, that are often made to the Jewish miracles. The first is\nthat some of them were very _trivial_, such as Elisha's purifying\nthe waters of Jericho, increasing the widow's oil, and making the\niron axe-head to float;[126] and hence it is urged they are most\nimprobable. And no doubt they would be so, if we regard them as mere\nacts of kindness to individual persons. But if we regard them as so\nmany signs to the Israelites (and through them to the rest of the\nworld), that Elisha was God's prophet; and that God was not a\nfar-off God, but One Who knew about and cared about the every-day\ntroubles of His people, they were certainly not inappropriate.\nIndeed, if this was the end in view, they were just the kind of\nmiracles most likely to attain it.\n\n[Footnote 126: 2 Kings 2. 22; 4. 6; 6. 6.]\n\nThe second and more important objection would destroy, or at least\nlessen, the value of all the miracles. They could not, it is urged,\nhave really confirmed a revelation from God, since the same writers\nwho describe them, also describe _other_ miracles, which, they say,\nwere worked in opposition to God's agents. But if we exclude some\ndoubtful cases, we have only one instance to judge by. It is that of\nthe _magicians of Egypt_, who imitated some of the earlier miracles\nof Moses and Aaron; and here the inference is uncertain. For we are\ntold that this was due to their _enchantments_ (or _secret arts_,\nmargin R.V.), a term which might very possibly cover some feat of\njugglery; as they knew beforehand what was wanted, and had time to\nprepare. While the fact that they tried and failed to imitate the\nnext plague, which they frankly confessed was a Divine miracle,\nmakes this a very probable solution.[127]\n\n[Footnote 127: Exod. 7. 11, 22; 8. 7, 18, 19.]\n\nWe decide, then, that none of the Jewish miracles can be pronounced\n_incredible_; though some of them no doubt seem, at first sight,\nvery improbable.\n\n(2.) _Their truthfulness._\n\nNow, of course, the miracles vary greatly in evidential value, the\nfollowing being eight of the most important:\n\n     The destruction of Korah, Num. 16.\n\n     The passage of the Jordan, Josh. 3. 14-17.\n\n     The capture of Jericho, Josh. 6. 6-20.\n\n     Elijah's sacrifice on Mount Carmel, 1 Kings 18. 17-40.\n\n     The cure of Naaman's leprosy, 2 Kings 5. 10-27.\n\n     The destruction of the Assyrian army, 2 Kings 19. 35.\n\n     The shadow on the dial, 2 Kings 20. 8-11.\n\n     The three men in the furnace, Dan. 3. 20-27.\n\nWe will examine a couple of instances in detail and select first\n_Elijah's sacrifice on Mount Carmel_. This is said to have occurred\non the most public occasion possible, before the King of Israel and\nthousands of spectators. And as a miracle, or rather _superhuman\ncoincidence_, it presents no difficulty whatever. The lightning\nwhich struck the sacrifice was doubtless due to natural causes; yet,\nas before explained (Chapter VII.), this would not interfere with\nits evidential value.\n\nMoreover, it was avowedly a test case to definitely settle whether\nJehovah was the true God or not. The nation, we learn, had long been\nin an undecided state. Some were worshippers of Jehovah, others of\nBaal; and these rival sacrifices were suggested for the express\npurpose of settling the point. So, if miracles at all are credible,\nthere could not have been a more suitable occasion for one; while it\nwas, for the time at least, thoroughly successful. All present were\nconvinced that Jehovah was the true God, and, in accordance with\nthe national law, the false prophets of Baal were immediately put to\ndeath.\n\nNow could any writer have described all this, even a century\nafterwards, if nothing of the kind had occurred? The event, if true,\nmust have been well known, and remembered; and if untrue, no one\nliving near the time and place would have thought of inventing it.\nAnd (what renders the argument still stronger) all this is stated to\nhave occurred, not among savages, but among a fairly civilised\nnation and in a literary age.\n\nNext as to _the destruction of the Assyrian army_. Here it will be\nremembered that when Sennacherib came to attack Jerusalem, he\npublicly, and in the most insulting manner, defied the God of Israel\nto deliver the city out of his hand (probably about B.C. 701).[128]\nWe then read how Isaiah declared that God accepted the challenge,\nand would defend Jerusalem, and would not allow it to be destroyed.\n'_I will defend this city to save it, for mine own sake, and for my\nservant David's sake._' And the sacredness of the city is very\nstrongly insisted on.\n\n[Footnote 128: 2 Kings 18. 28-35; 19. 10, 34.]\n\nNow it is inconceivable that this could have been written after\nJerusalem had been captured by Nebuchadnezzar in _B.C._ 598; though\nthere is no real inconsistency in God's preserving the city in the\none case, and not in the other. For Nebuchadnezzar is always\nrepresented as being, though unconsciously, God's servant in\npunishing the Jews; while Sennacherib openly defied Jehovah.\n\nThen comes the sudden destruction of the Assyrian army, probably by\npestilence;[129] and the extreme fitness of this, after\nSennacherib's challenge, must be obvious to everyone. Moreover, such\na very public event, if untrue, could not have been recorded till\nlong afterwards; yet, as we have seen, the narrative could not have\nbeen written long afterwards. Sennacherib does not of course allude\nto it himself in his inscriptions, for kings never like to record\ntheir own defeats; but this is no reason for doubting that it\noccurred, especially as it is confirmed by the Babylonian historian\nBerosus.[130] And even Sennacherib himself, though he mentions the\ncampaign, and says that he shut up Hezekiah in Jerusalem, never\nclaims to have taken the city.\n\n[Footnote 129: Comp. 2 Kings 19. 35; 1 Chron. 21. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 130: Quoted by Josephus, Antiq. x. 1.]\n\nWe need not examine the other miracles in detail, since the argument\nis much the same in every case. They are all said to have occurred\non important and critical occasions when, if we admit miracles at\nall, they would be most suitable. They are all said to have been\n_public_ miracles, either actually worked before crowds of persons,\nor else so affecting public men that their truth or otherwise must\nhave been well-known at the time. And they were all of such a kind\nthat any mistake or fraud as to their occurrence was out of the\nquestion. It is, then, on the face of it, most unlikely that\nmiracles, _such as these_, should have been recorded unless they\nwere true. Indeed, if the Old Testament books were written by\ncontemporaries, or even within a century of the events they relate,\nit is very difficult to deny their occurrence. We decide, therefore,\nthat the _history_ of the Jewish Religion was _confirmed by\nmiracles_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nTHAT ITS HISTORY WAS CONFIRMED BY PROPHECIES.\n\n     (_A._) GENERAL PROPHECIES.\n\n     Three examples considered:\n\n     (1.) The desolation of Assyria and Babylonia.\n     (2.) The degradation of Egypt.\n     (3.) The dispersion of the Jews, including the Roman siege\n           of Jerusalem.\n\n     (_B._) SPECIAL PROPHECIES.\n\n     List of eight important ones: a single example, the destruction\n      of Jerusalem by the Babylonians considered in\n      detail; some general remarks.\n\n     (_C._) CONCLUSION.\n\n     The cumulative nature of the evidence.\n\n\nWe pass on now to the Jewish Prophecies. It should be explained at\nstarting that the word _prophecy_ is used here in the sense of\n_prediction_; and not as it often is, in the Bible, to include\nvarious kinds of teaching. And the prophecies may be divided into\ntwo classes, general and special.\n\n\n(_A._) GENERAL PROPHECIES.\n\nWe will consider the General Prophecies first, the most important of\nwhich concern the Jews themselves, and their great neighbours\nAssyria and Babylonia, on the one hand, and Egypt on the other. All\nthese nations had existed for centuries, and there was nothing to\nindicate what was to be their future; yet the prophets foretold it,\nand with remarkable accuracy.\n\n(1.) _The desolation of Assyria and Babylonia._\n\nAnd first as to Assyria and Babylonia. The future of these countries\nwas to be utter _desolation_. The kingdoms were to be destroyed, the\nland was to become a wilderness, and the cities to be entirely\nforsaken. We read repeatedly that they were to be desolate _for\never_; and though this cannot be pressed as meaning literally for\nall eternity, it certainly implies a long duration.[131] A single\npassage referring to each may be quoted at length.\n\n[Footnote 131: Isa. 13. 19-22; 14. 22, 23; Jer. 50. 13, 39, 40; 51.\n26, 37, 43; Nahum 3. 7; Zeph. 2. 13-14.]\n\nThus Zephaniah says of Assyria, 'And he will stretch out his hand\nagainst the north, and destroy Assyria; and will make Nineveh a\ndesolation, and dry like the wilderness. And herds shall lie down in\nthe midst of her, all the beasts of the nations; both the pelican\nand the porcupine shall lodge in the chapiters thereof [the capitals\nof the fallen columns]: their voice shall sing in the windows;\ndesolation shall be in the thresholds: for he hath laid bare the\ncedar work.'\n\nAnd Isaiah says of Babylon, 'And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the\nbeauty of the Chaldean's pride, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom\nand Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt\nin from generation to generation; neither shall the Arabian pitch\ntent there; neither shall shepherds make their flocks to lie down\nthere. But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their\nhouses shall be full of doleful creatures; and ostriches shall dwell\nthere, and satyrs [or goats] shall dance there. And wolves shall cry\nin their castles, and jackals in the pleasant palaces: and her time\nis near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.'\n\nIt seems needless to comment on prophecies so plain and\nstraightforward. Nor need we insist at any length on their exact\nfulfilment; it is obvious to everyone. For two thousand years\nhistory has verified them. The utter desolation of these countries\nis without a parallel: the empires have vanished, the once populous\nland is deserted, and the cities are heaps of ruins, often the dens\nof wild beasts,--lions, hy\u00e6nas, and jackals having all been seen\namong the ruins of Babylon. In short, the prophecies have been\nfulfilled in a manner which is, to say the least, very remarkable.\n\n(2.) _The degradation of Egypt._\n\nNext as to Egypt. The future foretold of this country was not\ndesolation but _degradation_. Ezekiel tells us it was to become a\n_base kingdom_, and he adds, 'It shall be the basest of the\nkingdoms; neither shall it any more lift itself up above the\nnations: and I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over\nthe nations.'[132] And here also prophecy has been turned into\nhistory. The permanent degradation of Egypt is a striking fact which\ncannot be disputed. When the prophets wrote, Egypt had on the whole\nbeen a powerful and independent kingdom for some thousands of years:\nbut it has never been so since. Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantine\nGreeks, Saracens, Memlooks, Turks, and we may now add British, have\nin turn been its masters; but it has been the master of no one. It\nhas never more _ruled over the nations_ as it used to do for so many\ncenturies. Its history in this respect has been unique--an\nunparalleled period of prosperity followed by an unparalleled period\nof degradation.\n\n[Footnote 132: Ezek. 29. 15.]\n\nWith such an obvious fulfilment of the main prophecy, it seems\nneedless to insist on any of its details, though some of these are\nsufficiently striking. Thus, we are told, _Her cities shall be in\nthe midst of the cities that are wasted_.[133] And though it is\ndoubtful to what period this refers, no more accurate description\ncan be given of the present cities of Egypt, such as Cairo, than\nthat they are in the midst of the cities that are wasted, such as\nMemphis, Bubastis, and Tanis. While a few verses farther on we read,\n_There shall be no more a prince out of the land of Egypt_; yet,\nwhen this passage was written, there had been independent Egyptian\nsovereigns, off and on, from the very dawn of history. But there\nhave been none since. Stress, however, is not laid on details like\nthese, some of which are admittedly obscure, such as the forty\nyears' desolation of the land with the scattering of its\ninhabitants;[134] but rather on the broad fact that Egypt was not to\nbe destroyed like Assyria and Babylonia, but to be _degraded_, and\nthat this has actually been its history.\n\n[Footnote 133: Ezek. 30. 7, 13.]\n\n[Footnote 134: Ezek. 29. 11-13.]\n\n(3.) _The dispersion of the Jews._\n\nLastly, as to the Jews. Their future was to be neither desolation,\nnor degradation, but _dispersion_. This is asserted over and over\nagain. They were to be scattered among the nations, and dispersed\nthrough the countries; to be wanderers among the nations; sifted\namong all nations; tossed to and fro among all the kingdoms of the\nearth; and scattered among all peoples from one end of the earth\neven unto the other end of the earth.[135]\n\n[Footnote 135: Ezek. 22. 15; Hos. 9. 17; Amos 9. 9; Deut. 28. 25,\n64; see also Deut. 4. 27; Neh. 1. 8; Jer. 9. 16.]\n\nMoreover, in their dispersion they were to be subjected to continual\n_suffering_ and _persecution_. They were to become a proverb, and a\nbyword among all people. Their curses were to be upon them, for a\nsign and for a wonder, and upon their seed for ever. They were to\nhave a yoke of iron upon their necks; and to have the sword drawn\nout after them in all lands, etc. Yet, in spite of all this, they\nwere not to be absorbed into other nations, but to remain\n_distinct_. They and their seed _for ever_ were to be a separate\npeople, a sign and a wonder at all times; and God would never make a\nfull end of _them_, as He would of the nations among whom they were\nscattered. Indeed heaven and earth were to pass away, rather than\nthe Jews cease to be a distinct people.[136]\n\n[Footnote 136: Deut. 28. 37, 46, 48; Lev. 26. 33; Jer. 24. 9; 29.\n18; 30. 11; 31. 35-37.]\n\nAnd here again history has exactly agreed with prophecy. The fate of\nthe Jews, since the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, has\nactually been _dispersion_, and this to an extent which is quite\nunique. It has been combined, moreover, with incessant suffering and\npersecution, yet they have always remained a separate people. The\nJews are still everywhere, though the Jewish nation is nowhere. They\nare present in all countries, but with a home in none, having been\nliterally _scattered among the nations_.\n\nWe will now examine a single passage in detail, and select the\nlatter part of Deut. 28. The whole chapter is indeed full of\nprophecies as to the future condition of the Jews, some of which\nseem to point to the Babylonian captivity, (_e.g._, v. 36); but\nafter this we come to another and final catastrophe in v. 49. This\nevidently begins a fresh subject, which is continued without a break\ntill the end of the chapter. And it is specially interesting\nbecause, not only is the world-wide dispersion of the Jews, and\ntheir continual sufferings, clearly foretold; but also the _previous\nwar_ which led up to it. We have, as is well known, a full account\nof this in the history of Josephus, and as he never alludes to the\nprophecy himself (except in the most general terms), his evidence is\nabove suspicion.\n\n     Ver. 49. First of all the conquerors themselves are described\n     as a nation _from far, from the end of the earth, as the eagle\n     flieth, a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand_, etc.\n     And this is very applicable to the Romans, whose general,\n     Vespasian, had come from Britain, and their troops from various\n     countries, who had the eagle as their standard, and whose\n     language, Latin, was unknown to most of the Jews.\n\n     50. And the merciless way in which these fierce warriors were\n     to spare neither old nor young was painfully true in their\n     treatment of the Jews.\n\n     51. And they also of course destroyed or confiscated their\n     property.\n\n     52. Then the war is foretold as one of _sieges_ (he shall\n     _besiege_ thee in all thy gates), rather than of open battles.\n     And this was certainly the case, since a large number of\n     towns, including Jotapata, Gamala, Masada, and Jerusalem\n     itself, suffered terrible sieges. And these were to be\n     continued _till the high walls came down_, which is very\n     appropriate to the Roman battering rams that were actually used\n     at all these places.\n\n     53. Then we have the dreadful famine, due to the severity (or\n     _straitness_) of the siege, evidently the great siege, that of\n     Jerusalem. This is strongly insisted on, being repeated three\n     times, and it was to drive the wretched inhabitants to\n     cannibalism of the most revolting kind, which it actually did.\n\n     54. It was also to lead to considerable strife _within the\n     city_; even between members of the same family. And this,\n     though by no means common in all sieges, was abundantly\n     fulfilled in the case of Jerusalem.\n\n     55. And they were to grudge their nearest relatives a morsel of\n     food; which again exactly agrees with Josephus, who says that\n     parents would fight with their own children for pieces of food.\n\n     56. And all this was to be the fate, not only of the poor; but,\n     what is very remarkable, and perhaps unique in the world's\n     history, of the _wealthy_ also. It was even to include one\n     instance at least (perhaps several) of a lady of high position.\n     She is described as not _setting her foot upon the ground_;\n     which means that she was accustomed to be carried about in a\n     chair, or ride on an ass; and was therefore rich enough to buy\n     anything that could be bought.\n\n     57. And she was to _eat her own children secretly_. Here was\n     the climax of their sufferings. Yet this very detail, so\n     unlikely to have occurred, and so unlikely to have been\n     discovered if it did occur (as it was to be done secretly), is\n     fully confirmed by Josephus. For he mentions one instance that\n     actually was discovered, in which a lady _eminent for her\n     family and wealth_ (Mary, the daughter of Eleazar) had secretly\n     eaten half her own child.[137]\n\n     [Footnote 137: Wars, vi. 3.]\n\n     58. And these miseries were to come upon the Jews for their\n     disobedience of God's laws; and again Josephus says that\n     their wickedness at this time was so great that if the Romans\n     had not destroyed their city, he thinks it would have been\n     swallowed up by the earth.[138]\n\n     [Footnote: 138: Wars, v. 13.]\n\n     59. Moreover, the plagues of themselves, and of their seed,\n     were to be _wonderful, even great plagues, and of long\n     continuance_. And no one who has read the account of the siege,\n     and the subsequent treatment of the Jews, will think the\n     description at all exaggerated.\n\n     60. And the people are specially threatened with _the diseases\n     of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of_, and this, as said in\n     Chapter IX., implies that the passage was written soon after\n     the people left Egypt, and therefore centuries before any siege\n     or dispersion.\n\n     61. And it was to end, as it actually did end, in the\n     destruction of the nation, _until thou be destroyed_.\n\n     62. While the Jews that survived were to be left comparatively\n     _few in number_; which was certainly the case, even allowing\n     that the statement of Josephus that 600,000 perished in the\n     siege may be an exaggeration.\n\n     63. And these were to be forcibly expelled from the land of\n     Canaan, which they were just about to conquer. And they\n     actually were so expelled by the Romans, partly after this war,\n     and still more so after their rebellion in A.D. 134, when for\n     many centuries scarcely any Jews were allowed to live in their\n     own country, an event probably unique in history.\n\n     64. But instead of being taken away to a single nation, as at\n     the Babylonian captivity, they were now to be scattered over\n     the whole world, _among all peoples, from one end of the earth,\n     even unto the other end of the earth_. And how marvellously\n     this has been fulfilled is obvious to everyone. No mention is\n     made of a _king_ here, as in ver. 36; so while that suits the\n     Babylonian captivity, this suits the later dispersion, though\n     in each case there is a reference to their serving other gods,\n     for which it must be admitted there is very little evidence.\n\n     65. Then we have the further _sufferings_ that the Jews were to\n     undergo in their dispersion. Among these nations they were to\n     find _no ease, nor rest for the sole of their foot_, but were\n     to have _a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and pining of\n     soul_. And here, again, the event is as strange as the\n     prophecy. Nowhere else shall we find a parallel to it. For\n     centuries the Jews were not only persecuted, but were often\n     expelled from one country to another, so that they found _no\n     rest_ anywhere, but were driven from city to city, and from\n     kingdom to kingdom.\n\n     66. And their life was to hang in doubt night and day;\n\n     67. And they were to be in a continual state of fear and alarm;\n     all of which was completely fulfilled.\n\n     68. Lastly, we read, that some of the Jews, instead of being\n     dispersed, were to be _brought to Egypt again with ships_, and\n     to be in bondage there. And this also came true, after the\n     siege, when many of the Jews were sold for slaves, and sent to\n     the mines in Egypt, probably in slave ships.\n\nEveryone must admit that the agreement all through is very\nremarkable; in fact, the prophecies about the dispersion of the\nJews--and we have only examined a single instance in detail--are\neven more striking than those about the desolation of Assyria and\nBabylonia, or the degradation of Egypt. And to fully realise their\nimportance, let us suppose that anyone _now_ were to foretell the\nfuture of three great nations, saying that one was to be utterly\ndestroyed, and the land desolated; another to sink to be a base\nkingdom; and the third to be conquered and its inhabitants forcibly\nexpelled, and scattered over the whole world. What chance would\nthere be of any one of the prophecies (leave alone all three) coming\ntrue, and _remaining true for two thousand years_? Yet this would be\nbut a similar case.\n\nWhat conclusion, then, must be drawn from all these prophecies, so\nclear in their general meaning, so distinctive in their character,\nso minute in many of their details, so unlikely at the time they\nwere written, and yet one and all so exactly fulfilled? There appear\nto be only three alternatives. Either they must have been random\n_guesses_, which certainly seems incredible. Or else they must have\nbeen due to deep _foresight_ on the part of the writers, which seems\nequally so; for the writers had had no experience of the permanent\ndesolation of great empires like Assyria and Babylonia, while as to\nthe fate of Egypt and the Jews themselves, history afforded no\nparallel. Or else, lastly, the writers must have had _revealed_ to\nthem what the future of these nations would be; in which case, and\nin which case alone, all is plain.\n\n\n(_B._) SPECIAL PROPHECIES.\n\nWe pass on now to the Special Prophecies. These are found all\nthrough the Old Testament, the following being eight of the most\nimportant.\n\nThe fact that David's throne should always be held by his\ndescendants, _i.e._, till the captivity, about 450 years;[139] and\nits fulfilment is specially remarkable when contrasted with the\nrival kingdom of Samaria, where the dynasty changed eight or nine\ntimes in 250 years.\n\n[Footnote 139: 2 Sam. 7. 12-16; 1 Kings 9. 4, 5.]\n\nThe division of the kingdom into ten and two tribes, evidently\nannounced at the time, since Jeroboam had to go away in consequence,\nand apparently the reason why the rebels were not attacked.[140]\n\n[Footnote 140: 1 Kings 11. 31, 40; 12. 24.]\n\nThe destruction, rebuilding, and final destruction of the Temple;\nthe first of these prophecies being made so publicly that it caused\nquite a commotion, and nearly cost the prophet his life.[141]\n\n[Footnote 141: Jer. 26. 8-16; Isa. 44. 28; Dan. 9. 26.]\n\nThe destruction of the altar at Bethel, which was set up as a rival\nto that at Jerusalem; publicly announced some centuries before,\nincluding the name of the destroyer.[142]\n\n[Footnote 142: 1 Kings 13. 2; 2 Kings 23. 15, 16.]\n\nThe destruction of Israel by the Assyrians.[143]\n\n[Footnote 143: 1 Kings 14. 15; Isa. 8. 4.]\n\nThe destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.[144]\n\n[Footnote 144: 2 Kings 20. 17.]\n\nThe captivity of the Jews, including its duration of seventy years,\ntheir most unlikely restoration, and the name of the restorer.[145]\n\n[Footnote 145: Jer. 29. 10; Isa. 44. 28.]\n\nThe wars between Syria and Egypt.[146]\n\n[Footnote 146: Dan. 11.]\n\nWe will examine a single instance in detail, and select that\nreferring to the _destruction of Jerusalem_ by the Babylonians, as\nthis is connected with one of the miracles mentioned in the last\nchapter, _the shadow on the dial_. Now, it will be remembered that,\non one occasion, the Jewish King Hezekiah was seriously ill, and on\nbeing told of his unexpected recovery, he naturally asked for a\n_sign_. And then in accordance with his demand the shadow on his\ndial went back ten _steps_.[147]\n\n[Footnote 147: 2 Kings 20. 8-11 (margin, R.V.); Isa. 38. 8.]\n\nThis _dial_ was evidently a flight of steps, with some object on the\ntop, perhaps an obelisk, which threw a shadow on a gradually\nincreasing number of these as the sun set. And a sudden vibration\nof the ground, due perhaps to an earthquake, and causing the obelisk\nto slope to one side, would quite account for the shadow _going\nbackward_, and leaving some of the steps which it had covered. And\nthe narrative certainly implies that the effect was sudden, and\napparently limited to this one dial.\n\nIt seems, however, to have attracted considerable attention; since\nmessengers came from Babylon to _enquire about it_, and to\ncongratulate the King on his recovery.[148] And if the sloping\nobelisk, and perhaps broken steps, were still visible, this would be\nmuch more natural than if there was nothing left for them to see.\nThough in any case, as they called it the wonder that was done _in\nthe land_, it evidently was not noticed elsewhere, and must have\nbeen due to some local cause. And we may ask, how could any writer\nhave asserted all this, even a century afterwards, if no such sign\nhad occurred?\n\n[Footnote 148: 2 Chron. 32. 24, 31.]\n\nWe are then told that Hezekiah showed these messengers all his\ntreasures, which leads up to the _prophecy_ that the treasures\nshould be carried away and Jerusalem destroyed by these very\nBabylonians. This is introduced in the most natural way possible, as\na rebuke to the king for his proud display; and it is difficult to\nconsider it a later insertion. Yet the event could not have been\nhumanly foreseen. For Babylon was then but a comparatively small and\nfriendly nation, shortly to be absorbed into Assyria (in B.C. 689),\nand only when it regained its independence nearly a century later\ndid it become strong enough to cause any fear to the Jews.\n\nWe need not discuss the other prophecies at length, since that they\nall refer to the events in question is generally admitted. Indeed,\nin some cases, owing to the mention of names and details, it can\nscarcely be denied. Therefore those who disbelieve in prophecy have\nno alternative but to say that they were all written _after the\nevent_.\n\nAt this lapse of time it is difficult to prove or disprove such a\nstatement. But it must be remembered that to say that any apparent\nprophecies were written after the event is not merely to destroy\ntheir superhuman character, and bring them down to the level of\nordinary writings, but far below it. For ordinary writings do not\ncontain wilful falsehoods, yet every pretended prophecy written\nafter the event cannot possibly be regarded in any other light. The\nchoice then lies between _real prophecies_ and _wilful forgeries_.\nThere is no other alternative. And bearing this in mind, we must\nask, is it likely that men of such high moral character as the\nJewish prophets would have been guilty of such gross imposture? Is\nit likely that, if guilty of it, they would have been able to pass\nit off successfully on the whole nation? And is it likely that they\nwould have had any sufficient motive to induce them to make the\nattempt?\n\nMoreover, many of these prophecies are stated to have been made _in\npublic_, and to have been talked about, and well known long before\ntheir fulfilment. And it is hard to see how this could have been\nasserted unless it was the case, or how it could have been the case\nunless they were superhuman.\n\nIt should also be noticed that in Deuteronomy the occurrence of some\ndefinite and specified event is given as the _test_ of a prophet,\nand one of the later prophets (Isaiah) appeals to this very test.\nFor he challenges the false prophets to foretell future events, and\nrepeatedly declares that this was the mark of a true prophet.[149]\nAnd it is inconceivable that men should thus court defeat by\nthemselves proposing a test which would have shown that they were\nnothing more than impostors. Yet this would have been the case if\nall their so-called prophecies had been written after the events.\n\n[Footnote 149: Deut. 18. 22; Isa. 41. 22; 44. 8; 48. 3-5; see also\nDeut. 13. 1-3.]\n\n\n(_C._) CONCLUSION.\n\nIn concluding this chapter, we must notice the _cumulative nature_\nof the evidence. The prophecies we have referred to, like the\nmiracles in the last chapter, are but specimens, a few out of many\nwhich might be given. This is very important, and its bearing on our\npresent argument is naturally twofold.\n\nIn the first place, it does not increase, and in some respects\nrather decreases, the difficulty of believing them to be true, for\nthirty miracles or prophecies, provided they occur on suitable\noccasions, are scarcely more difficult to believe than three. And\nthe number recorded in the Old Testament shows that, instead of\nbeing mere isolated marvels, they form a complete series. Their\nobject was to instruct the Jews, and through them the rest of the\nworld, in the great truths of Natural Religion, such as the\nexistence of One Supreme God, Who was shown to be _All-Powerful_ by\nthe miracles, _All-Wise_ by the prophecies, and _All-Good_ by His\nrewarding and punishing men and nations alike for their deeds. And\nwhen we thus regard them as confirming a Revelation, which was for\nthe benefit of the whole human race, they lose a good deal of their\nimprobability. Indeed many who now believe Natural Religion alone,\nand reject all revelation, would probably never have believed even\nthis, but for the Bible.\n\nOn the other hand, the number and variety of these alleged events\ngreatly increases the difficulty of any _other_ explanation; for\nthirty miracles or prophecies are far more difficult to _disbelieve_\nthan three. A successful fraud might take place once, but not often.\nAn imitation miracle might be practised once, but not often.\nSpurious prophecies might be mistaken for genuine once, but not\noften. Yet, if none of these events are true, such frauds and such\ndeceptions must have been practised, and practised successfully,\nover and over again. In fact, the Old Testament must be a collection\nof the most dishonest books ever written, for it is full of miracles\nand prophecies from beginning to end; and it is hard to exaggerate\nthe immense _moral_ difficulty which this involves.\n\nMany of the Jewish prophets, as before said, teach the highest moral\nvirtues; and the Jewish religion, especially in its later days, is\nadmittedly of high moral character. It seems, then, to be almost\nincredible that its sacred writings should be merely a collection of\nspurious prophecies uttered after the event, and false miracles\nwhich never occurred. We therefore decide in this chapter that the\n_history_ of the Jewish religion _was confirmed by prophecies_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nTHAT THE JEWISH RELIGION IS PROBABLY TRUE.\n\n     Only two subjects remain to be discussed.\n\n     (_A._) THE EXISTENCE OF ANGELS.\n\n     No difficulty here, nor as to their influence.\n\n     (_B._) THE CHARACTER OF GOD.\n\n     The Jewish idea of God often thought to be defective.\n\n     (1.) Its partiality; but any revelation must be more or\n           less partial.\n     (2.) Its human element; we must, however, use analogies\n           of some kind when speaking of God, and human\n           analogies are the least inappropriate.\n     (3.) Its moral defects; since God is shown as approving\n           of wicked men, ordering wicked deeds, and sanctioning\n           wicked customs; but these difficulties are not\n           so great as they seem.\n     (4.) Its general excellence. On the other hand, the Jews\n           firmly believed in Monotheism, and had the highest\n           mental and moral conception of God; so that their\n           God was the true God, the God of Natural Religion.\n\n     (_C._) CONCLUSION.\n\n     Four further arguments; the Jewish Religion is probably\n      true.\n\n\nWe have been considering in the previous chapters several strong\narguments in favour of the Jewish Religion; and before concluding we\nmust of course notice _any_ adverse arguments which we have not\nalready dealt with. The only two of any importance refer to the\nExistence of Angels, and the Character ascribed to God; so we will\nconsider these first, and then conclude with some general remarks.\n\n\n(_A._) THE EXISTENCE OF ANGELS.\n\nNow the Old Testament always takes for granted the existence and\ninfluence of angels, yet at the present day this is often thought to\nbe a difficulty. But as to the mere _existence_ of angels, there is\nno difficulty whatever. For the whole analogy of nature would teach\nus that since there are numerous beings in the scale of life below\nman, so there would be some beings above man--that is to say,\nbetween him and the Supreme Being. And this is rendered still more\nprobable when we reflect on the small intervals there are in the\ndescending scale, and the immense interval there would be in the\nascending scale if man were the next highest being in the universe\nto God.\n\nAnd that these higher beings should be entirely _spiritual_, _i.e._,\nwithout material bodies, and therefore beyond scientific discovery,\nis not improbable. Indeed, considering that man's superiority to\nlower beings lies in this very fact of his having a partly spiritual\nnature, the idea that higher beings may be entirely spiritual is\neven probable. And though it is difficult for us to imagine how\nangels can see, or hear without a material body, it is really no\nmore difficult than imagining how we can do it with a body. Take for\ninstance the case of seeing. Neither the eye nor the brain sees,\nthey are mere collections of molecules of matter, and how can a\nmolecule see anything? It is the _man himself_, the _personal\nbeing_, who in some mysterious way sees by means of both eyes and\nbrain; and for all we know he might see just as well without them.\nAnd the same applies in other cases.\n\nThen that angels should have as great, if not greater, intellectual\nand moral faculties than man seems certain; otherwise they would not\nbe higher beings at all. And this necessitates their having _free\nwill_, with the option of choosing good or evil. And that, like men,\nsome should choose one, and some the other, seems equally probable.\nHence the _existence_ of both good and evil angels presents no\ndifficulty. And that the good angels should have a leader, or\ncaptain (called in the Old Testament, Michael), and that the evil\nangels should have one too (called Satan) is only what we should\nexpect.\n\nNext, as to their _influence_. Now that good angels should wish to\ninfluence men for good, and might occasionally be employed by God\nfor that purpose, scarcely seems improbable. While, on the other\nhand, that evil angels should wish to act, as evil men act, in\ntempting others to do wrong, is again only what we should expect.\nAnd that God should allow them to do so is no harder to believe than\nthat He should allow evil men to do the same.\n\nIt may still be objected however that we have no actual _evidence_\nas to the influence of angels at the present day. But this is at\nleast doubtful. For what evidence could we expect to have? We could\nnot expect to have any physical sensation, or anything capable of\nscientific investigation, for angels, if they exist at all, are\nspiritual beings. If, then, they were to influence man, say, by\ntempting him to do evil, all we could know would be the sudden\npresence of some evil thought in our minds, without, as far as we\ncould judge, any previous cause for it. And who will assert that\nthis is an unknown experience? Yet if it is known, does it not\nconstitute all the proof we could expect of the action of an evil\nspirit? And of course the same applies to good spirits. There is\nthus no difficulty as to the existence, and influence of angels.\n\n\n(_B._) THE CHARACTER OF GOD.\n\nWe pass on now to the Character ascribed to God in the Old\nTestament, first considering its difficulties, under the three heads\nof its _partiality_, its _human element_, and its _moral defects_;\nand then what can be said on the other side as to its _general\nexcellence_.\n\n(1.) _Its partiality._\n\nThe objection here is that God is the just God of all mankind, and\nit is therefore incredible that He should have selected a single\nnation like the Jews to be His special favourites, more particularly\nas His alleged attempt to make them a holy people proved such a\nhopeless failure. While it is further urged that the very fact of\nthe Jews believing Jehovah to be their special God shows that they\nregarded Him as a mere national God, bearing the same relation to\nthemselves as the gods of other nations did to them.\n\nBut, as said in Chapter VI., any revelation implies a certain\n_partiality_ to the men or nation to whom it is given; though it is\nnot on that account incredible. And there is certainly no reason why\nthe Jews should not have been the nation chosen, and some slight\nreason why they should; for their ancestor Abraham was not selected\nwithout a cause. He did, partly at least, deserve it, since, judging\nby the only accounts we have, he showed the most perfect obedience\nto God in his willingness to sacrifice Isaac. It must also be\nremembered that God's so-called partiality to the Jews did not imply\nany indulgence to them in the sense of overlooking their faults. On\nthe contrary, He is represented all along as blaming and punishing\nthem, just as much as other nations, for their sins.\n\nNext, as to God's purpose in regard to the Jews having been a\n_failure_. This is only partly true. No doubt they were, on the\nwhole, a sinful nation; but they were not worse than, or even so bad\nas, the nations around them; it was only the fact of their being the\nchosen race that made their sins so serious. They had free will,\njust as men have now; and if they chose to misuse their freedom and\nact wrong, that was not God's fault.\n\nMoreover, the Jewish nation was not selected merely for its own\nsake, but for the sake of all mankind; as is expressly stated at the\nvery commencement, '_In thee shall all the families of the earth be\nblessed_.'[150] Thus God did not select the Jews, and reject other\nnations; but He selected the Jews in order that through them He\nmight bless other nations. The religious welfare of the whole world\nwas God's purpose from the beginning; and the Jews were merely the\nmeans chosen for bringing it about. And to a great extent the\npurpose has been fulfilled; for however sinful the nation may have\nbeen, they preserved and handed on God's revelation, and the Old\nTestament remains, and will always remain, as a permanent and\npriceless treasure of religion.\n\n[Footnote 150: Gen. 12. 3.]\n\nThe last part of the objection may be dismissed at once. For if the\nJews regarded Jehovah as their special God, it was merely because He\nhad specially _selected_ them to be His people. He must therefore\nhave had a power of choice, and might, if He pleased, have selected\nsome other nation, so He could not have been a mere national God,\nbut the God of all nations with power to select among them. And this\nis distinctly asserted by many of the writers.[151]\n\n[Footnote 151: _E.g._, Exod. 19. 5; Deut. 32. 8; 2 Chron. 20. 6;\nIsa. 37. 16.]\n\nWe conclude, then, that God's so-called partiality to the Jews does\nnot, when carefully considered, form a great difficulty. To put it\nshortly, if a revelation is given at all, some individuals must be\nselected to receive it; if it is given gradually (and God's methods\nin nature are always those of gradual development) these men would\nprobably belong to a single nation; and if one nation had to be\nselected, there is no reason why the Jews should not have been the\none chosen. While, if they were selected for the purpose of handing\non God's revelation to the world at large, the purpose has been\ncompletely successful.\n\n(2.) _Its human element._\n\nThe next difficulty, is that the Jewish idea of God was thoroughly\n_human_, the Deity being represented as a great _Man_, with human\nform, feelings, attributes, and imperfections. Thus He has hands\nand arms, eyes and ears; He is at times glad or sorry, angry or\njealous; He moves about from place to place; and sometimes repents\nof what He has done, thus showing, it is urged, a want of foresight,\non His part. And all this is plainly inconsistent with the character\nof the immaterial, omnipresent, omniscient God of Nature. The answer\nto this objection is twofold.\n\nIn the first place, we must of necessity use analogies of some kind\nwhen speaking of God, and _human_ analogies are not only the easiest\nto understand, but are also the least inappropriate, since, as we\nhave shown, man resembles God in that he is a personal and moral\nbeing. Therefore likening God to man is not so degrading as likening\nHim to mere natural forces. Such expressions, then, must always be\nconsidered as descriptions drawn from human analogies, which must\nnot be pressed literally.\n\nWhile, secondly, it is plain that the Jewish writers themselves so\nunderstood them, for they elsewhere describe the Deity in the most\nexalted language, as will be shown later on. And this is strongly\nconfirmed by the remarkable fact that the Jews, unlike other ancient\nnations, had no material idol or representation of their God. Inside\nboth the tabernacle and the temple there was the holy of holies with\nthe mercy seat, but no one sat on it. An empty throne was all that\nthe shrine contained. Their Jehovah was essentially an invisible\nGod, who could not be represented by any human or other form; and\nthis alone seems a sufficient answer to the present objection.\n\n(3.) _Its moral defects._\n\nLastly as to the supposed moral defects in God's Character. The\nthree most important are that God is frequently represented as\napproving of wicked men, as ordering wicked deeds, and even in His\nown laws as sanctioning wicked customs. We will consider these\npoints in turn.\n\nAnd first as to God's _approving of wicked men_; that is, of men who\ncommitted the greatest crimes, such as Jacob and David. This is\neasily answered, since approving of a man does not mean approving of\n_everything_ he does. The case of David affords a convincing example\nof this; for though he is represented as a man after God's own\nheart, yet we are told that God was so extremely displeased with one\nof his acts that He punished him for it severely, in causing his\nchild to die. In the same way no one supposes that God approved of\nJacob because of his treachery, but in spite of it; and even in his\ntreachery, he was only carrying out (and with apparent reluctance)\nthe orders of his mother.[152] Moreover, in estimating a man's\ncharacter, his education and surroundings have always to be taken\ninto account. And if the conduct of one man living in an immoral age\nis far better than that of his contemporaries, he may be worthy of\npraise, though similar conduct at the present day might not deserve\nit.\n\n[Footnote 152: Gen. 27. 8-13.]\n\nAnd if it be asked what there was in the character of these men, and\nmany others, to counterbalance their obvious crimes, the answer is\nplain; it was their intense belief in the spiritual world. The\nexistence of One Supreme God, and their personal responsibility to\nHim, were realities to them all through life; so, in spite of many\nfaults, they still deserved to be praised.\n\nNext as to God's _ordering wicked deeds_. In all cases of this kind\nit is important to distinguish between a man's personal acts, and\nhis official ones. At the present day the judge who condemns a\ncriminal, and the executioner who hangs him are not looked upon as\nmurderers. And the same principle applies universally. Now in the\nOld Testament the Jews are represented as living under the immediate\nrule of God. Therefore when a man, or body of men, had to be\npunished for their crimes, He commanded some prophet or king, or\nperhaps the whole people, to carry out the sentence. And of course,\nif they failed to do so they were blamed, just as we should blame a\nhangman at the present day who failed to do his duty. Thus, in the\ncase of _destroying the Canaanites_, which is the instance most\noften objected to, the people were told, in the plainest terms, that\nthey were only acting as God's ministers, and that if they became as\nbad as the Canaanites, who were a horribly polluted race, God would\nhave them destroyed as well.[153]\n\n[Footnote 153: _E.g._, Lev. 18. 21-28; Deut. 9. 5.]\n\nA more serious objection is that God is occasionally represented as\nif He Himself _caused_ men to do wrong, such as His _hardening\nPharaoh's heart_.[154] But, as we shall see later on, the Bible\noften speaks of everything that occurs, whether good or evil, as\nbeing, in a certain sense, God's doing. And since the writer\nasserts more than once that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, there\ncan be little doubt that he intended the two expressions to mean the\nsame. Indeed the whole narrative represents Pharaoh as extremely\nobstinate in the matter, refusing to listen even to his own\npeople.[155]\n\n[Footnote 154: _E.g._, Exod. 14. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 155: Exod. 8. 15, 32; 9. 34; 10. 3, 7.]\n\nThirdly, as to God's _sanctioning wicked customs_. The most\nimportant is that of _human sacrifice_; but it is very doubtful\nwhether the passages relied on do sanction this custom;[156] since\nit is clearly laid down elsewhere that the firstborn of _men_ are\nnever to be sacrificed, but are always to be redeemed.[157] Moreover\nhuman sacrifices among other nations are strongly condemned, in one\npassage Jehovah expressly saying that they were not to be offered\nto Him.[158] It is, however, further urged that we have two\nactual instances of such sacrifices in regard to _Isaac_ and\n_Jephthah_.[159] But Jephthah had evidently no idea when he made his\nvow that it would involve the sacrifice of his daughter; and there\nis nothing to show that it was in any way acceptable to God.\n\n[Footnote 156: Exod. 22. 29, 30; Lev. 27. 28, 29.]\n\n[Footnote 157: Exod. 13. 13; 34. 20; Num. 18. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 158: Deut. 12. 31.]\n\n[Footnote 159: Gen. 22; Judg. 11. 39.]\n\nIn the case of _Isaac_ we have the one instance in which God did\norder a human sacrifice; but then He specially intervened to prevent\nthe order from being carried out. And the whole affair, the command\nand the counter-command, must of course be taken together. It was\nrequired to test Abraham's faith to the utmost, therefore as he\nmost valued his son, he was told to offer him. And since children\nwere then universally regarded as property, and at the absolute\ndisposal of their parents, human sacrifices being by no means\nuncommon, the command, however distressing to his heart, would have\nformed no difficulty to his conscience. But when his faith was found\nequal to the trial, God intervened, as He had of course intended\ndoing all along, to prevent Isaac from being actually slain.\n\nWith regard to the other practices, such as _slavery_, and\n_polygamy_, it is undisputed that they were recognised by the Jewish\nlaws; but none of them were _instituted_ by these laws. The\nPentateuch neither commands them, nor commends them; it merely\nmentions them, and, as a rule, to guard against their abuse. Take,\nfor instance, the case of slavery. The custom was, and had been for\nages, universal. All that the laws did was to recognise its\nexistence and to provide certain safeguards; making kidnapping, for\ninstance, a capital offence, and in some cases ordering the release\nof slaves every seventh year.[160]\n\n[Footnote 160: Exod. 21. 2, 16; Lev. 25. 41.]\n\nOn the other hand, many _worse customs_ existed at the time which\nthe Jewish laws did absolutely forbid;[161] and they also introduced\na code of morals, summed up in the Decalogue, of such permanent\nvalue that it has been practically accepted by the civilised world.\nWhile the highest of all virtues, that of doing good to one's\n_enemies_, which was scarcely known among other nations, is\npositively enjoined in the Pentateuch.[162]\n\n[Footnote 161: _E.g._, Lev. 18-20.]\n\n[Footnote 162: Exod. 23. 4-5.]\n\n(4.) _Its general excellence._\n\nHaving now discussed at some length the alleged difficulties in\nGod's character, it is only fair to see what can be said on the\nother side. And much indeed may be said; for the Jewish conception\nof the Deity, when considered as a whole, and apart from these\nspecial difficulties, was one of the noblest ever formed by man.\n\nTo begin with, the Jews firmly believed in _Monotheism_, or the\nexistence of One Supreme God. This was the essence of their\nreligion. It is stamped on the first page of Genesis; it is implied\nin the Decalogue; it occurs all through the historical books; and it\nis emphasised in the Psalms and Prophets; in fact they were never\nwithout it. And in this respect the Jews stood alone among the\nsurrounding nations. Some others, it is true, believed in a god who\nwas more or less Supreme; but they always associated with him a\nnumber of lesser deities which really turned their religion into\nPolytheism. With the Jews it was not so. Their Jehovah had neither\nrivals nor assistants. There were no inferior gods, still less\ngoddesses. He was the one and only God; and as for the so-called\ngods of other nations, they either did not believe in their\nexistence, or thought them utterly contemptible, and even ridiculed\nthe idea of their having the slightest power.[163] And it may be\nadded, this is a subject on which the Jews have become the teachers\nof the world, for both the great monotheistic Religions of the\npresent day, Christianity and Mohammedanism, have been derived from\nthem.\n\n[Footnote 163: Deut. 4. 39; 1 Kings 18. 27; 2 Kings 19. 15-18; Ps.\n115. 4-8.]\n\nMoreover, the great problem of the _Existence of Evil_ never led the\nJews, as it did some other nations, into Dualism, or the belief in\nan independent Evil Power. Difficult as the problem was, the Jews\nnever hesitated in their belief that there was but One Supreme God,\nand that everything that existed, whether good or evil, existed by\nHis permission, and was in a certain sense His doing.[164] And they\ngave to Him the very highest attributes.\n\n[Footnote 164: Isa. 45. 7; Prov. 16. 4; Amos 3. 6.]\n\nThey described Him as _Omnipotent_; the Creator, Preserver, and\nPossessor of all things, the Cause of all nature, the Sustainer of\nall life, Almighty in power, and for Whom nothing is too hard.[165]\n\n[Footnote 165: Gen. 1. 1; Neh. 9. 6; Gen. 14. 22; Amos 5. 8; Job 12.\n10; 1 Chron. 29. 11; Jer. 32. 17.]\n\nThey described Him as _Omniscient_; infinite in understanding,\nwonderful in counsel, perfect in knowledge, declaring the end from\nthe beginning, knowing and foreknowing even the thoughts of\nmen.[166]\n\n[Footnote 166: Ps. 147. 5; Isa. 28. 29; Job 37. 16; Isa. 46. 10;\nEzek. 11. 5. Ps. 139. 2.]\n\nThey described Him as _Omnipresent_; filling Heaven and earth,\nthough contained by neither, existing everywhere, and from Whom\nescape is impossible.[167]\n\n[Footnote 167: Jer. 23. 24; 1 Kings 8. 27; Prov. 15. 3; Ps. 139. 7.]\n\nThey described Him as _Eternal_; the Eternal God, the Everlasting\nGod, God from everlasting to everlasting, Whose years are\nunsearchable, the First and the Last.[168]\n\n[Footnote 168: Deut. 33. 27; Gen. 21. 33; Ps. 90. 2; Job 36. 26;\nIsa. 48. 12.]\n\nThey described Him as _Unchangeable_; the same at all times, ruling\nnature by fixed laws, and with Whom a change of purpose is\nimpossible.[169]\n\n[Footnote 169: Mal. 3. 6; Ps. 148. 6; Num. 23. 19.]\n\nAnd lastly, they described Him as in His true nature _Unknowable_; a\nhidden God, far above human understanding.[170] This will be enough\nto show the lofty _mental_ conception which the Jews formed of the\nDeity.\n\n[Footnote 170: Isa. 45. 15; Job 11. 7.]\n\nNow for their _moral_ conception. They believed their God to be not\nonly infinite in power and wisdom, but, what is more remarkable,\nthey ascribed to Him the highest moral character. He was not only a\n_beneficent_ God, Whose blessings were unnumbered, but He was also a\n_righteous_ God. His very Name was Holy, and His hatred of evil is\nemphasised all through to such an extent that at times it forms a\ndifficulty, as in the case of the Canaanites. Thus the _goodness_\nthey ascribed to God was a combination of beneficence and\nrighteousness very similar to what we discussed in Chapter V.\n\nMoreover, in this respect the God of the Jews was a striking\ncontrast to the gods of other nations. We have only to compare\nJehovah with Moloch and Baal, or with the Egyptian gods, Ptah and\nRa, or with the classical gods, Jupiter and Saturn, and the\nsuperiority of the Jewish conception of the Deity is beyond dispute.\nIn particular it may be mentioned that among other nations, even the\ngod they worshipped as Supreme always had a _female companion_.\nThus we have Baal and Astaroth, Osiris and Isis, Jupiter and Juno,\nand many others. It is needless to point out how easily such an idea\nled to immorality being mixed up with religion, a vice from which\nthe Jews were absolutely free. Indeed, few things are more\nremarkable, even with this remarkable people, than that in the\ninnermost shrine of their temple, in the ark just below the\nmercy-seat, there was a code of _moral laws_, the _Ten Commandments_.\nThis was the very centre of their religion, theirgreatest treasure;\nand they believed them to have been written by God Himself.\n\nNor can it be said that this high conception of the Deity was\nconfined to the later period of Jewish history. For the above texts\nhave been purposely selected from all through the Old Testament, and\neven Abraham, the remote ancestor of the Jews, seems to have looked\nupon it as self-evident that Jehovah, the _Judge of all the earth_,\nshould _do right_.[171] No wonder, then, believing in such a perfect\nBeing as this, the Jews, in contrast with most other nations,\nthought that their first and great commandment was to _love_ God\nrather than to _fear_ Him, that they were each individually\nresponsible to Him for their conduct, and that every sin was a sin\nagainst God, Who was a Searcher of hearts, and the impartial Judge\nof all men.[172] So much, then, for the Jewish conception of the\nDeity when considered as a whole and apart from special\ndifficulties.\n\n[Footnote 171: Gen. 18. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 172: Deut. 6. 5; Eccles. 12. 14; Gen. 39. 9; 1 Chron. 28.\n9; Job 34. 19.]\n\nAnd from this it follows that the Jewish God, Jehovah, was the true\nGod, the God of Natural Religion, the Being Who is All-Powerful,\nAll-Wise, and All-Good. Yet strange to say the Jews were not a more\nadvanced nation than those around them. On the contrary, in the arts\nboth of peace and war they were vastly inferior to the great nations\nof antiquity, but in their conception of the Deity they were vastly\nsuperior; or, as it has been otherwise expressed, they were men in\nreligion, though children in everything else. And this appears to\nmany to be a strong argument in favour of their religion. For unless\nit had been revealed to them, it is not likely that the Jews alone\namong ancient nations would have had such a true conception of the\nDeity. And unless they were in some special sense God's people, it\nis not likely that they alone would have worshipped Him.\n\n(_C._) CONCLUSION.\n\nBefore concluding this chapter, we must notice four arguments of a\nmore general character; all of which are undisputed, and all of\nwhich are distinctly in favour of the Jewish Religion. The first is\nthat the Jews are all descended from _one man_, Abraham. They have\nalways maintained this themselves, and there seems no reason to\ndoubt it. Yet it is very remarkable. There are now about _sixteen\nhundred_ million persons in the world, and if there were at the time\nof Abraham (say) _one_ million men (_i.e._, males), each of these\nwould, on an average, have 1,600 descendants now.[173] But the Jews\nnow number, not 1,600, but over 12,000,000. This extraordinary\nposterity would be strange in any case, but is doubly so,\nconsidering that it was foretold. It was part of the great promise\nmade to Abraham, for his great faith, that his seed should be as\n_the stars of heaven_, and as _the sand which is upon the sea-shore_\nfor multitude.[174]\n\n[Footnote 173: _I.e._, descendants in the male line; descendants\nthrough daughters are of course not counted.]\n\n[Footnote 174: Gen. 22. 17.]\n\nThe second is that the Jews are anyhow _a unique nation_. For\ncenturies, though scattered throughout the world, they have been\nheld together by their religion. And according to the Bible, their\nreligion was given them for this very purpose, it was to make them a\n_peculiar people_, unlike everyone else.[175] If then it was, as far\nas it went, the true religion, revealed by God, the fact is\nexplicable; but if it was nothing better than other ancient and\nfalse religions, it is hopelessly inexplicable.\n\n[Footnote 175: Deut. 14. 2; 26. 18.]\n\nThe third is that the early history of the Jews, either real or\nsupposed, has exerted a greater and more beneficial influence on the\nworld for the last thousand years, than that of all the great\nnations of antiquity put together. Millions of men have been helped\nto resist sin by the Psalms of David, and the stories of Elijah,\nDaniel, etc., over whom the histories of Egypt and Assyria, Greece,\nand Rome, have had no influence whatever. And the _effect_ of the\nReligion being thus unique, makes it probable that its _cause_ was\nunique also; in other words, that it was Divinely revealed.\n\nThe fourth is that the Jews themselves always prophesied that their\nGod, Jehovah, would one day be universally acknowledged.[176] And\n(however strange we may think it) this has actually been the case;\nand the God of this small and insignificant tribe--_the God of\nIsrael_--is now worshipped by millions and millions of men\n(Christians) of every race, language, and country, throughout the\ncivilised world. These are facts that need explanation, and the\nTruth of the Jewish Religion seems alone able to explain them.\n\n[Footnote 176: _E.g._, Ps. 22. 27; 86. 9; Isa. 11. 9; Zeph. 2. 11.]\n\nIn conclusion, we will just sum up the arguments in these chapters.\nWe have shown that there are strong reasons for thinking that the\naccount of the _Creation_ was Divinely revealed; that the _origin_\nof the Jewish religion was confirmed by miracles; and that its\n_history_ was confirmed both by miracles and prophecies. And it\nshould be noticed, each of these arguments is independent of the\nothers. So the evidence is all cumulative and far more than\nsufficient to outweigh the improbability of the religion, due to its\napparent _partiality_, which is the most important argument on the\nopposite side. Moreover, we know so little as to why man was\ncreated, or what future, God intended for him, that it is not easy\nto say whether the religion is really so improbable after all. On\nthe other hand, the evidence in its favour is plain, direct, and\nunmistakable. And we therefore decide that the _Jewish Religion is\nprobably true_.\n\n\n\n\nPART III.\n\n_THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION_.\n\n  CHAP. XIII. THAT THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS CREDIBLE.\n    \"    XIV. THAT THE FOUR GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM EXTERNAL TESTIMONY.\n    \"     XV. THAT THE GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM INTERNAL EVIDENCE.\n    \"    XVI. THAT THE GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM THE EVIDENCE OF THE\n                ACTS.\n    \"   XVII. THAT THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST IS PROBABLY TRUE.\n    \"  XVIII. THAT THE FAILURE OF OTHER EXPLANATIONS INCREASES THIS\n                PROBABILITY.\n    \"    XIX. THAT THE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES ARE PROBABLY TRUE.\n    \"     XX. THAT THE JEWISH PROPHECIES CONFIRM THE TRUTH OF\n                CHRISTIANITY.\n    \"    XXI. THAT THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST CONFIRMS THE TRUTH OF\n                CHRISTIANITY.\n    \"   XXII. THAT THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY CONFIRMS ITS TRUTH.\n    \"  XXIII. THAT ON THE WHOLE THE OTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THIS\n                CONCLUSION.\n    \"   XXIV. THAT THE THREE CREEDS ARE DEDUCIBLE FROM THE NEW\n                TESTAMENT.\n    \"    XXV. THAT THE TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS EXTREMELY\n                PROBABLE.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nTHAT THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS CREDIBLE.\n\n     By the Christian Religion is meant the Three Creeds, its four great\n     doctrines.\n\n     (_A._) THE TRINITY.\n\n     (1.) Its meaning; Three Persons in One Nature.\n     (2.) Its credibility; this must be admitted.\n     (3.) Its probability more likely than simple Theism.\n\n     (_B._) THE INCARNATION.\n\n     (1.) Its difficulties; not insuperable.\n     (2.) Its motive; God, it is said, loves man, and wishes man\n     to love Him, not improbable for several reasons.\n     (3.) Its historical position.\n\n     (_C._) THE ATONEMENT.\n\n     The common objections do not apply because of the\n     _willingness_ of the Victim.\n\n     (1.) As to the Victim; it does away with the injustice.\n     (2.) As to the Judge; it appeals to His mercy not justice.\n     (3.) As to the sinner; it has no bad influence.\n\n     (_D._) THE RESURRECTION.\n\n     (1.) Christ's Resurrection; not incredible, for we have no\n           experience to judge by.\n     (2.) Man's resurrection; not incredible, for the same body\n           need not involve the same molecules.\n\n     (_E._) CONCLUSION.\n\n     Three considerations which show that the Christian\n      Religion, though improbable, is certainly not incredible.\n\n\nWe pass on now to the Christian Religion, by which we mean the facts\nand doctrines contained in the _Three Creeds_, commonly, though\nperhaps incorrectly, called the Apostles', the Nicene, and the\nAthanasian. And, as these doctrines are of such vast importance, and\nof so wonderful a character, we must first consider whether they are\n_credible_. Is it conceivable that such doctrines should be true, no\nmatter what evidence they may have in their favour? In this chapter,\ntherefore, we shall deal chiefly with the difficulties of\nChristianity. Now its four great and characteristic doctrines are\nthose of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, and the\nResurrection. We will examine each in turn, and then conclude with a\nfew general remarks.\n\n\n(_A._) THE TRINITY.\n\nTo begin with, the Christian religion differs from all others in its\nidea of the nature of God. According to Christianity, the Deity\nexists in some mysterious manner as a _Trinity of Persons_ in a\n_Unity of Nature_; so we will first consider the meaning of this\ndoctrine, then its credibility, and lastly its probability. It is\nnot, as some people suppose, a kind of intellectual puzzle, but a\nstatement which, whether true or false, is fairly intelligible,\nprovided, of course, due attention is given to the meaning of the\nwords employed.\n\n(1.) _Its meaning._\n\nIn the first place, we must carefully distinguish between _Person_\nand _Substance_; this is the key to the whole question. The former\nhas been already considered in Chapters III. and IV., though it must\nbe remembered that this term, like all others, when applied to God,\ncannot mean exactly the same as it does when applied to man. All we\ncan say is that, on the whole, it seems the least inappropriate\nword. The latter is a little misleading, since it is not the modern\nEnglish word _substance_, but a Latin translation of a Greek word,\nwhich would be better rendered by _nature_ or _essence_.\n\nBut though difficult to explain, its meaning is tolerably clear.\nTake, for instance, though the analogy must not be pressed too far,\nthe case of three men; each is a distinct human _person_, but they\nall have a common human _nature_. This human nature, which may also\nbe called human substance (in its old sense), humanity, or manhood,\nhas of course no existence apart from the men whose nature it is; it\nis merely _that_ which they each possess in common, and the\npossession of which makes each of them a man. And hence, any\nattribute belonging to human nature would belong to each of the\nthree men, so that each would be mortal, each subject to growth,\netc. Each would in fact possess the complete human nature, yet\ntogether there would not be three human natures, but only one.\n\nBearing this in mind, let us now turn to the doctrine of the\nTrinity. This is expressed in vv. 3-6 of the Athanasian Creed as\nfollows:--\n\n           3. 'The Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one\n          God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.\n\n           4. 'Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing\n          the Substance.\n\n           5. 'For there is one Person of the Father, another\n          of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost.\n\n          6. 'But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son,\n          and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the Glory equal, the\n          Majesty co-eternal.'\n\nHere, it will be noticed, vv. 5 and 6 give the _reasons_ for v. 4,\nso that the Godhead in v. 6 is, as we should have expected, the same\nas the Divine _Substance_ or Nature in v. 4. Thus the meaning is as\nfollows:--\n\nWe must worship one God (as to Nature) in Trinity (of Persons) and\nTrinity (of Persons) in Unity (of Nature); neither confusing the\nPersons, for each is distinct; nor dividing the Nature, for it is\nall one.\n\nThus far there is no intellectual difficulty in the statements of\nthe Creed. We do not mean that there is no difficulty in believing\nthem to be true, or in accurately defining the terms used; but that,\nas statements, their meaning is quite intelligible.\n\nWe now pass on to the following verses which are deductions from\nthis, and show that as each of the three Persons possesses the\nDivine Nature, all attributes of the Godhead (_i.e._, of this one\nDivine Nature) are possessed by each of the three. Each is therefore\n_eternal_, and yet there is only _one_ eternal Nature. But this is\nexpressed in a peculiarly short and abrupt manner. No one, of\ncourse, supposes that God is Three _in the same sense_ in which He\nis One, but the Creed does not sufficiently guard against this,\nperhaps because it never occurred to its author that anyone would\nthink it meant such an obvious absurdity. Moreover, even\ngrammatically the verses are not very clear. For the various terms\n_uncreate_, _incomprehensible_ (_i.e._, boundless, or omnipresent),\n_eternal_, _almighty_, _God_, and _Lord_ are used as if they were\nadjectives in the first part of each sentence, and nouns in the\nlatter part.\n\nBut we must remember these verses do not stand alone. If they did,\nthey might perhaps be thought unintelligible. But they do not. As\njust said, they are deductions from the previous statement of the\ndoctrine of the Trinity; and, therefore, they must in all fairness\nbe interpreted so as to agree with that doctrine, not to contradict\nit. And the previous verses (3-6) show clearly that where _three_\nare spoken of, it refers to Persons; and where _one_ is spoken of,\nit refers to Substance or Nature.\n\nIt must however be admitted that the _names_ of these Divine Persons\nimply some closer union between them than that of merely possessing\nin common one Divine Nature. For they are not independent names like\nthose of different men or of heathen gods, each of whom might exist\nseparately; but they are all _relative_ names, each implying the\nothers. Thus the Father implies the Son, for how can there be a\nFather, unless there is a Son (or at least a child)? And of course\nan Eternal Father implies an Eternal Son, so any idea that the\nFather must have lived first, as in the case of a human father and\nson, is out of the question. Similarly the Son implies the Father,\nand the Spirit implies Him whose Spirit He is. And though these\nnames are no doubt very inadequate; they yet show that the three\nPersons are of the same Nature, which is the important point.\n\nWe conclude then that the Doctrine of the Trinity means the\nexistence of three Divine Persons, each possessing in its\ncompleteness the one Divine Nature; and closely united together;\nthough in a manner, which is to us unknown.\n\n(2.) _Its credibility._\n\nHaving now discussed the meaning of the Christian doctrine, we have\nnext to consider whether it is credible. It must of course be\nadmitted that the doctrine is very mysterious, and though fairly\nintelligible as a doctrine, is extremely hard to realise (indeed\nsome might say inconceivable) when we try to picture to ourselves\nwhat the doctrine actually means. But we must remember that the\nnature of God is anyhow almost inconceivable, even as simple Theism.\nWe cannot picture to ourselves a Being Who is omnipresent,--in this\nroom, for instance, as well as on distant stars. Nor can we imagine\na Being Who is grieved every time we commit sin, for if so,\nconsidering the number of people in the world, He must be grieved\nmany thousands of times _every second_; as well as being glad\nwhenever anyone resists sin, also, let us hope, several thousand\ntimes a second. All this may be true, just as the marvels of\nscience--the _ether_, for instance, which is also omnipresent, and\nhas millions of vibrations every second--may be true, but our minds\nare quite unable to realise any of them.\n\nThus, as said in Chapter III., though we have ample means of knowing\nwhat God is _in His relation to us_ as our Creator and Judge, yet as\nto His real nature we know next to nothing. Nor is this surprising\nwhen we remember that the only being who in any way resembles God\nis _man_; and man's nature, notwithstanding all our opportunities of\nstudying it, still remains a mystery.\n\nNow Christianity does attempt (in its doctrine of the Trinity) to\nstate what God is _in Himself_, and without any reference to\nourselves, or to nature; and that this should be to a great extent\ninconceivable to our minds seems inevitable. For the nature of God\nmust be beyond human understanding, just as the nature of a man is\nbeyond the understanding of animals; though they may realise what he\nis _to them_, in his power or his kindness. And for all we know,\nTrinity in Unity, like omnipresence, may be one of the unique\nattributes of God, which cannot be understood (because it cannot be\nshared) by anyone else. Therefore the mysteriousness of the\nChristian doctrine is no reason for thinking it incredible.\n\nNor is it inconsistent with Natural Religion, for though this shows\nthe _Unity_ of God, it is only a unity of _outward action_. It does\nnot, and cannot tell us what this one God is _in Himself_, whether,\nfor instance, He exists as one or more Persons. In the same way (if\nwe may without irreverence take a homely illustration) a number of\nletters might be so extremely alike as to show that they were all\nwritten by one man. But this would not tell us what the man was _in\nhimself_, whether, for instance, he had a free will, as well as a\nbody and mind; or how these were related to one another. Hence\nNatural Religion can in no way conflict with Christianity.\n\n(3.) _Its probability._\n\nBut we may go further than this, and say that the Christian doctrine\nof _Three_ Divine Persons is (when carefully considered) _less_\ndifficult to believe than the Unitarian doctrine of only _One_. For\nthis latter leads to the conclusion, either that God must have been\na solitary God dwelling alone from all eternity, before the creation\nof the world; or else that the world itself (or some part of it)\nmust have been eternal, and have formed a kind of companion. And\neach of these theories has great difficulties. Take for instance the\nattributes of _Power_ and _Wisdom_, both of which, as we have seen,\nmust of necessity belong to God. How could a solitary God dwelling\nalone before the Creation of the world have been able to exercise\neither His Power or His Wisdom? As far as we can judge, His Power\ncould have produced nothing, His Wisdom could have thought of\nnothing. He would have been a _potential_ God only, with all His\ncapacities unrealised. And such a view seems quite incredible.\n\nYet the only alternative--that the world itself is eternal--though\nit gets over this difficulty, is still inadequate. For as we have\nseen God possesses _moral_ attributes as well, such as Goodness. And\nall moral attributes--everything connected with right and wrong--can\nonly be thought of as existing between two _persons_. We cannot be\ngood to an atom of hydrogen, or unjust to a molecule of water. We\ncan it is true be kind to _animals_, but this is simply because they\nresemble personal beings in having a capacity for pleasure and pain.\nBut moral attributes in their highest perfection can only exist\nbetween two persons. Therefore as the eternal God possesses, and\nmust always have possessed, such attributes, it seems to require\nsome other eternal _Person_.\n\nThe argument is perhaps a difficult one to follow, but a single\nexample will make it plain. Take the attribute of _love_. This\nrequires at least two persons--one to love, the other to be loved.\nTherefore if love has always been one of God's attributes, there\nmust always have been some _other_ person to be loved. And the idea\nthat God might have been eternally _creating_ persons, like men or\nangels, as objects of His love, though perhaps attractive, is still\ninadequate. For love in its perfection can only exist between two\nbeings _of the same nature_. A man cannot love his dog, in the same\nway that he can love his son. In short, _personality_, involving as\nit does moral attributes like love, implies _fellowship_, or the\nexistence of other and _similar_ persons.\n\nYet, when we think of the meaning of the term God, His omnipresence\nand omnipotence, it seems impossible that there can be more than\none. We must then believe in at least two Eternal and Divine\nPersons, yet in but one God; and the Christian doctrine of the\nTrinity in Unity, with all its difficulties, still seems the _least_\ndifficult explanation.\n\nBut this is not all, for Natural Religion itself leads us to look\nupon God in _three_ distinct ways, which correspond to the three\nchief arguments for His existence. (Chaps. I., II., and V.) Thus we\nmay think of Him as the Eternal, Self-Existent One, altogether\nindependent of the world--the All-Powerful _First Cause_ required to\naccount for it. Or we may think of Him in His relation to the world,\nas its Maker and Evolver, working everywhere, in everything and\nthrough everything,--the All-Wise _Designer_ required by nature. Or\nwe may think of Him in His relation to ourselves as a Spirit holding\nintercourse with our spirits, and telling us what is right--the\nAll-Good _Moral_ God required by conscience. And how well this\nagrees with the Christian doctrine scarcely needs pointing out; the\nFather the Source of all, the Son by Whom all things were made, and\nthe Spirit bearing witness with our spirits; and yet not three Gods,\nbut one God.\n\nOn the whole, then, we decide that the Doctrine of the Trinity is\ncertainly credible and perhaps even probable. For to put it shortly,\nNature forces us to believe in a personal God; yet, when we reflect\non the subject, the idea of a personal God, Who is only one Person,\nseems scarcely tenable; since (as said above) personality implies\nfellowship.\n\n\n(_B._) THE INCARNATION.\n\nWe next come to the doctrine of the Incarnation; which however is so\nclearly stated in the Athanasian Creed, that its meaning is quite\nplain. God the Son, we are told, the second Person of the Trinity,\nwas pleased to become Man and to be born of the Virgin Mary, so that\nHe is now both _God_ and _Man_. He is God (from all eternity) of the\nSubstance or Nature of His Divine Father, and Man (since the\nIncarnation) of the Substance or Nature of His human Mother. He is\nthus complete God and complete Man; equal to the Father in regard to\nHis Godhead, for He is of the same Nature; and inferior to the\nFather, in regard to His Manhood, for human nature must be inferior\nto the Divine. Moreover, though He possesses these two Natures, they\nare not changed one into the other, or confused together; but each\nremains distinct, though both are united in His One Person. This is\nin brief the doctrine of the Incarnation; and we will first consider\nits difficulties, then its motive, and lastly its historical\nposition.\n\n(1.) _Its difficulties._\n\nThe first of these is that the Incarnation would be a _change_ in\nthe existence of God, Who is the changeless One. He, it is urged, is\nalways the same, while an Incarnation would imply that at some\nparticular time and place a momentous change occurred, and for ever\nafterwards God became different from what He had been for ever\nbefore.\n\nThis is no doubt a serious difficulty, but it must not be\nexaggerated. For an Incarnation would not, strictly speaking,\ninvolve any change in the Divine Nature itself. God the Son remained\ncompletely and entirely God all the time, He was not (as just said)\nin any way changed into a man, only He united to Himself a human\nnature as well. And perhaps if we knew more about the nature of God,\nand also about that of man (who we must remember was made to some\nextent in God's image, and this perhaps with a view to the\nIncarnation), we should see that it was just as natural for God to\nbecome Man, as it was for God to create man. We have really nothing\nto argue from. An Incarnation seems improbable, and that is all we\ncan say.\n\nBut if it took place at all, there is nothing surprising in this\nplanet being the one chosen for it. Indeed, as far as we know, it is\nthe only one that could be chosen, since it is the only one which\ncontains personal beings in whom God could become incarnate. Of\ncourse other planets _may_ contain such beings; but as said before\n(Chapter V.) this is only a conjecture, and in the light of recent\ninvestigations not a very probable one. While if they do contain\nsuch beings, these may not have sinned, in which case our little\nworld, with its erring inhabitants, would be like the lost sheep in\nthe parable, the only one which the Ruler of the Universe had come\nto save.\n\nThe second difficulty is, that the Incarnation would lead to a\n_compound Being_, who is both Divine and human at the same time, and\nthis is often thought to be incredible. But here the answer is\nobvious, and is suggested by the Creed itself. Man himself is a\ncompound being; he is the union of a material body and an immaterial\nspirit, in a single person. His spirit is in fact _incarnate_ in his\nbody. We cannot explain it, but so it is. And the Incarnation in\nwhich Christians believe is the union of the Divine Nature and the\nhuman nature in a single Person. Both appear equally improbable, and\nequally inconceivable to our minds, if we try and think out all that\nthey involve; but as the one is actually true, the other is\ncertainly not incredible.\n\nThe third and last of these difficulties refers to the miraculous\n_Virgin-birth_. But if we admit the possibility of an Incarnation,\nno method of bringing it about can be pronounced incredible. The\nevent, if true, is necessarily unique, and cannot be supposed to\ncome under the ordinary laws of nature. For it was not the birth of\na _new_ being (as in the case of ordinary men), but an already\nexisting Being entering into new conditions. And we have no\nexperience of this whatever. Indeed, that a child born in the usual\nway should be the Eternal God, is just as miraculous, and just as\nfar removed from our experience, as if He were born in any other\nway. While considering that one object of the Incarnation was to\npromote moral virtues in man, such as purity, the virgin-birth was\nmost suitable, and formed an appropriate beginning for a sinless\nlife.\n\n(2.) _Its motive._\n\nBut we now come to a more important point, for the Incarnation, if\ntrue, must have been the most momentous event in the world's\nhistory; and can we even imagine a sufficient reason for it? God we\nmay be sure does not act without motives, and what adequate motive\ncan be suggested for the Incarnation? Now the alleged motive, indeed\nthe very foundation of Christianity, is that God _loves_ man; and as\na natural consequence wishes man to love Him. Is this then\nincredible, or even improbable? Certainly not, for several reasons.\n\nTo begin with, as we have already shown, God is a Personal and Moral\nBeing, Who cares for the welfare of His creatures, more especially\nfor man. And this, allowing for the imperfection of human language,\nmay be described as God's _loving_ man, since disinterested love for\nanother cannot be thought an unworthy attribute to ascribe to God.\nOn the other hand, man is also a personal and moral being, able to\nsome extent to love God in return. And to this must be added the\nfact that man, at least some men, do not seem altogether unworthy of\nGod's love, while we certainly do not know of any other being who is\nmore worthy of it.\n\nMoreover, considering the admitted resemblance between God and man,\nthe analogy of human parents loving their children is not\ninappropriate. Indeed it is specially suitable, since here also we\nhave a relationship between two personal and moral beings, one of\nwhom is the producer (though not in this case the creator) of the\nother. And human parents often love their children intensely, and\nwill sometimes even die for them; while, as a rule, the better the\nparents are the more they love their children, and this in spite of\nthe children having many faults. Is it, then, unlikely that the\nCreator may love His children also, and that human love may be only\na reflection of this--another instance of how man was made in the\nimage of God? The evidence we have may be slight, but it all points\nthe same way.\n\nNow, if it be admitted that God loves man, we have plainly no means\nof estimating the _extent_ of this love. But by comparing the other\nattributes of God, such as His wisdom and His power, with the\nsimilar attributes of man, we should expect God's love to be\ninfinitely greater than any human love; so great indeed that He\nwould be willing to make any sacrifice in order to gain what is the\nobject in all love, that it should be returned. Might not then God's\nlove induce Him to become man, so that He might the more easily win\nman's love?\n\nAnd we must remember that man's love, like his will, is _free_.\nCompulsory love is in the nature of things impossible. A man can\nonly love, what he can if he chooses hate. Therefore God cannot\nforce man to love Him, He can only induce him; and how can He do\nthis better than by an Incarnation? For it would show, as nothing\nelse could show, that God's love is a self-sacrificing love; and\nthis is the highest form of love. Indeed, if it were not so, in\nother words, if God's love cost Him nothing, it would be _inferior_\nin this respect to that of many men. But if, on the other hand,\nGod's love involved self-sacrifice;--if it led to Calvary--then it\nis the highest possible form of love. And then we see that God's\nattributes are all, so to speak, on the same scale; and His Goodness\nis as far above any human goodness, as the Power which rules the\nuniverse is above any human power; or the Wisdom which designed all\nnature is above any human wisdom. Hence, if the Incarnation still\nseems inconceivable, may it not be simply because the love of God,\nlike His other attributes, is so inconceivably greater than anything\nwe can imagine?\n\nMoreover a self-sacrificing love is the form, which is most likely\nto lead to its being returned. And experience proves that this has\nactually been the case. The condescending love of Christ in His\nlife, and still more in His death, forms an overpowering motive\nwhich, when once realised, has always been irresistible.\n\nBut more than this. Not only does the Incarnation afford the\nstrongest possible motive for man to love God, but it _enables_ him\nto do so in a way which nothing else could. Man, it is true, often\nlongs for some means of intercourse, or communion with his Maker,\nyet this seems impossible. The gulf which separates the Creator from\nthe creature is infinite, and can never be bridged over by man, or\neven by an angel, or other intermediate being. For a bridge must of\nnecessity touch _both sides_; so if the gulf is to be bridged at\nall, it can only be by One Who is at the same time both God and Man.\nThus the Incarnation brings God, if we may use the expression,\nwithin man's reach, so that the latter has no mere abstract and\ninvisible Being to love, but a definite Person, Whose Character he\ncan appreciate, and Whose conduct he can to some extent follow. In\nshort, the Incarnation provides man with a worthy Being for his love\nand devotion, yet with a Being Whom he can partly at least\nunderstand and partly imitate. And he is thus able to become in a\nstill truer sense a _child of God_; or, as it is commonly expressed,\nGod became Man in order that man might become as far as possible,\nlike God.\n\nAnd this brings us to another aspect of the Incarnation. Christ's\nlife was meant to be an _example_ to man, and it is clear that a\n_perfect_ example could only be given by a Being Who is both God and\nMan. For God alone is above human imitation, and even the best of\nmen have many faults; so that from the nature of the case, Christ,\nand Christ alone, can provide us with a perfect example, for being\nMan He is capable of imitation, and being God He is worthy of it.\n\nNow what follows from this? If Christ's life was meant to be an\nexample to man, it was essential that it should be one of\n_suffering_, or the example would have lost more than half its\nvalue. Man does not want to be shown how to live in prosperity, but\nhow to live in adversity, and how to suffer patiently. The desertion\nof friends, the malice of enemies, and a cruel death are the\noccasional lot of mankind. They are perhaps the hardest things a man\nhas to bear in this world, and they have often had to be borne by\nthe followers of Christ. Is it incredible, then, that He should have\ngiven them an example of the perfect way of doing so; gently\nrebuking His friends, praying for His murderers, and acting\nthroughout as only a perfect man could act? No doubt such a life and\ndeath seem at first sight degrading to the Deity. But strictly\nspeaking, suffering, if borne voluntarily and for the benefit of\nothers, is not degrading; especially if the benefit could not be\nobtained in any other way.\n\nWhen we consider all this, it is plain that many reasons can be\ngiven for the Incarnation. Of course it may be replied that they are\nnot adequate; but we have no means of knowing whether God would\nconsider them adequate or not. His ideas are not like ours; for what\nadequate motive can we suggest for His creating man at all? Yet He\nhas done so. And having created him and given him free will, and\nman having misused his freedom, all of which is admitted, then that\nGod should endeavour to restore man cannot be thought incredible.\nIndeed it seems almost due to Himself that He should try and prevent\nHis noblest work from being a failure. And if in addition to this\nGod loves man still, in spite of his sins, then some intervention on\nhis account seems almost probable.\n\n(3.) _Its historical position._\n\nIt may still be objected that if the above reasons are really\nsufficient to account for the Incarnation, it ought to have taken\nplace near the commencement of man's history. And no doubt when we\ncontemplate the great antiquity of man, this often seems a\ndifficulty. But we have very little to judge by, and that little\ndoes not support the objection. For in nature God seems always to\nwork by the slow and tedious process of evolution, not attaining\nwhat He wanted all at once, but by gradual development. Therefore,\nif He revealed Himself to man, we should expect it to be by the same\nmethod. At first it would be indistinctly, as in _Natural Religion_;\nwhich dates back to pre-historic times, since the burial customs\nshow a belief in a future life. Then it would be more clearly, as in\nthe _Jewish Religion_; and finally it might be by becoming Man\nHimself, as in the _Christian Religion_.\n\nAccording to Christianity, the whole previous history of the world\nwas a preparation for the Incarnation. But only when the preparation\nwas complete, _when the fullness of the time came_, as St. Paul\nexpresses it,[177] did it take place. And it has certainly proved,\nas we should have expected, an epoch-making event. In all\nprobability the history of the world will always be considered\nrelatively to it in years B.C. and A.D. And very possibly it has a\nsignificance far beyond man or even this planet. For we must\nremember, man is not merely a link in a series of created beings\nindefinitely improving, but, as shown in Chapter V., he is the _end_\nof the series, the last stage in evolution, the highest organised\nbeing that will ever appear on this planet, or, as far as we know,\non any planet.\n\n[Footnote 177: Gal. 4. 4.]\n\nTherefore, man's rank in the universe is not affected by the\ninsignificance of this earth. Where else shall we find a personal\nbeing with attributes superior to those of man? Where else indeed\nshall we find a personal being at all? The only answer Science can\ngive is _nowhere_. But if so, man's position in the universe is one\nof unique pre-eminence. And it is this inherent greatness of man, as\nit has been called, which justifies the Incarnation. _He is worthy\nthat Thou should'st do this for him._\n\nMoreover when we consider God the Son as the Divine Person who is\nspecially _immanent_ in nature, and who has been evolving the\nuniverse through countless ages from its original matter into higher\nand higher forms of life, there seems a special fitness in its\nleading up to such a climax as the Incarnation. For then by becoming\nMan, He united Himself with matter in its highest and most perfect\nform. Thus the Incarnation, like the Nebula theory in astronomy, or\nthe process of Evolution, if once accepted, throws a new light on\nthe entire universe; and it has thus a grandeur and impressiveness\nabout it, which to some minds is very attractive. On the whole,\nthen, we decide that the doctrine is certainly not incredible,\nthough it no doubt seems improbable.\n\n\n(_C._) THE ATONEMENT.\n\nWe pass on now to the doctrine of the Atonement, which is that\nChrist's death was in some sense a sacrifice for sin, and thus\nreconciled (or made 'at-one') God the Father and sinful man. And\nthough not actually stated in the Creeds, it is implied in the\nwords, _Was crucified also for us_, and _Who suffered for our\nsalvation_.\n\nThe chief difficulty is of course on moral grounds. The idea of\natonement, it is said, or of one man being made to suffer as a\nsubstitute for another, and thus appeasing the Deity, was well-nigh\nuniversal in early times, and is so still among savage nations. Such\na sacrifice, however, is a great injustice to the _victim_; it\nascribes an unworthy character to God, as a _Judge_, Who can be\nsatisfied with the punishment of an innocent man in place of the\nguilty one; and it has a bad influence on the _sinner_, allowing him\nto sin on with impunity, provided he can find another substitute\nwhen needed.\n\nThe answer to this difficulty is, that it takes no account of the\nmost important part of the Christian doctrine, which is the\n_willingness_ of the Victim. According to Christianity, Christ was a\nwilling Sacrifice, Who freely laid down His life;[178] while the\nhuman sacrifices just alluded to were not willing sacrifices, since\nthe victims had no option in the matter. And, as we shall see, this\nalters the case completely both in regard to the victim himself, the\njudge, and the sinner.\n\n[Footnote 178: _E.g._, John 10. 18.]\n\n(1.) _As to the Victim._\n\nIt is plain that his willingness does away with the injustice\naltogether. There is no injustice in accepting a volunteer for any\npainful office, provided he thoroughly knows what he is doing, for\nhe need not undertake it unless he likes. If, on the other hand, we\ndeny the voluntary and sacrificial character of Christ's death, and\nregard Him as merely a good man, then there certainly was\ninjustice--and very great injustice too, that such a noble life\nshould have ended in such a shameful death.\n\n(2.) _As to the Judge._\n\nNext as to the Judge. It will be seen that a willing sacrifice,\nthough it does not satisfy his _justice_, makes a strong appeal to\nhis _mercy_; at least it would do so in human cases. Suppose for\ninstance a judge had before him a criminal who well deserved to be\npunished, but a good man, perhaps the judge's own son, came forward,\nand not only interceded for the prisoner, but was so devotedly\nattached to him as to offer to bear his punishment (pay his fine,\nfor instance), this would certainly influence the judge in his\nfavour. It would show that he was not so hopelessly bad after all.\nMercy and justice are thus both facts of human nature; and it is\nalso a fact of human nature, that the voluntary suffering, or\nwillingness to suffer, of a good man for a criminal whom he deeply\nloves, does incline man to mercy rather than justice.\n\nNow, have we any reason for thinking that God also combines, in\ntheir highest forms, these two attributes of mercy and justice?\nCertainly we have; for, as shown in Chapter V., the goodness of God\nincludes both _beneficence_ and _righteousness_; and these general\nterms, when applied to the case of judging sinners, closely\ncorrespond to mercy and justice. God, as we have seen, combines\nboth, and both are required by the Christian doctrine. Mercy alone\nwould have forgiven men without any atonement; justice alone would\nnot have forgiven them at all. But God is both merciful and just,\nand therefore the idea that voluntary atonement might incline Him to\nmercy rather than justice does not seem incredible.\n\nAnd this is precisely the Christian doctrine. The mercy of God the\nFather is obtained for sinful man by Christ's generous sacrifice of\nHimself on man's behalf; so that, to put it shortly, _God forgives\nsins for Christ's sake_. And it should be noticed, the idea of sins\nbeing _forgiven_ which occurs all through the New Testament, and is\nalluded to in the Apostles' Creed, shows that Christ's Atonement was\nnot that of a mere substitute, for then no forgiveness would have\nbeen necessary. If, for example, I owe a man a sum of money, and a\nfriend pays it for me, I do not ask the man to forgive me the debt;\nI have no need of any forgiveness. But if, instead of paying it, he\nmerely intercedes for me, then the man may forgive me the debt for\nmy friend's sake.\n\nAnd in this way, though Christ did not, strictly speaking, bear\nman's _punishment_ (which would have been eternal separation from\nGod), His sufferings and death may yet have procured man's _pardon_;\nHe suffered on our behalf, though not in our stead. And some\nAtonement was certainly necessary to show God's _hatred for sin_,\nand to prevent His Character from being misunderstood in this\nrespect. And it probably would have been so, if men had been\nforgiven without any Atonement, when they might have thought that\nsin was not such a very serious affair after all.\n\n(3.) _As to the sinner._\n\nLastly, the willingness of the victim affects the sinner also. For\nif the changed attitude of the judge is due, not to his justice\nbeing satisfied, but to his mercy being appealed to, this is plainly\nconditional on a _moral change_ in the sinner himself. A good man\nsuffering for a criminal would not alter our feelings towards him,\nif he still chose to remain a criminal. And this exactly agrees with\nthe Christian doctrine, which is that sinners cannot expect to avail\nthemselves of Christ's Atonement if they wilfully continue in sin;\nso that _repentance_ is a necessary condition of forgiveness.\nTherefore instead of having a bad influence on the sinners\nthemselves; it has precisely the opposite effect.\n\nAnd what we should thus expect theoretically has been amply\nconfirmed by experience. No one will deny that Christians in all\nages have been devotedly attached to the doctrine of the Atonement.\nThey have asserted that it is the cause of all their joy in this\nworld, and all their hope for the next. Yet, so far from having\nhad a bad influence, it has led them to the most noble and\nself-sacrificing lives. It has saved them from _sin_, and not only\nthe penalties of sin, and this is exactly what was required. The\ngreatness of man's sin, and the misery it causes in the world, are\nbut too evident, apart from Christianity. Man is indeed both the\nglory and the scandal of the universe--the _glory_ in what he was\nevidently intended to be, and the _scandal_ in what, through sin, he\nactually became. And the Atonement was a 'vast remedy for this vast\nevil.' And if we admit the _end_, that man had to be redeemed from\nsin, impressed with the guilt of sin, and helped to resist sin; we\ncannot deny the appropriateness of the _means_, which, as a matter\nof fact, has so often brought it about.\n\nThis completes a brief examination of the moral difficulties\nconnected with the Atonement; and it is clear that the _willingness_\nof the Victim makes the whole difference, whether we regard them as\nreferring to the Victim himself, the Judge, or the sinner.\n\n\n(_D._) THE RESURRECTION.\n\nThe last great Christian doctrine is that of the Resurrection.\nAccording to Christianity, all men are to rise again, with their\nbodies partly changed and rendered incorruptible; and the\nResurrection of Christ's Body was both a pledge of this, and also to\nsome extent an example of what a risen body would be like. He was\nthus, as the Bible says, the _firstborn_ from the dead.[179] Now\nthis word _firstborn_ implies, to begin with, that none had been so\nborn before, the cases of Lazarus, etc., being those of\n_resuscitation_ and not _resurrection_; they lived again to die\nagain, and their bodies were unchanged. And it implies, secondly,\nthat others would be so born afterwards, so that our risen bodies\nwill resemble His. The Resurrection of Christ is thus represented\nnot as something altogether exceptional and unique, but rather as\nthe first instance of what will one day be the universal rule. It\nshows us the last stage in man's long development, what he is\nintended to become when he is at length perfected. We will therefore\nconsider first Christ's Resurrection, and then man's resurrection.\n\n[Footnote 179: Col. 1. 18; Rev. 1. 5; 1 Cor. 15. 20; Acts. 26. 23.]\n\n(1.) _Christ's Resurrection._\n\nNow according to the Gospels, Christ's Risen Body combined material\nand immaterial properties in a remarkable manner. Thus He could be\ntouched and eat food, and yet apparently pass through closed doors\nand vanish at pleasure; and this is often thought to be incredible.\nBut strictly speaking it is not _incredible_; since no material\nsubstance (a door or anything else) is _solid_. There are always\nspaces between the molecules; so that for one such body to pass\nthrough another is no more difficult to imagine, than for one\nregiment to march through another on parade. And if a regiment\ncontained anything like as many men, as there are molecules in a\ndoor, it would probably look just as solid.\n\nMoreover Christ's risen Body, though possessing some material\nproperties, is represented to have been _spiritual_ as well. And the\nnearest approach to a spiritual substance of which we have any\nscientific knowledge is the _ether_, and this also seems to combine\nmaterial and immaterial properties, being in some respects more like\na solid than a gas. Yet it can pass through all material substances;\nand this certainly prevents us from saying that it is incredible\nthat Christ's spiritual Body should pass through closed doors.\n\nIndeed for all we know, it may be one of the properties of spiritual\nbeings, that they can pass through material substances (just as the\nX-rays can) and be generally invisible; yet be able, if they wish,\nto assume some of the properties of matter, such as becoming visible\nor audible. In fact, unless they were able to do this, it is hard to\nsee how they could manifest themselves at all. And a slight\nalteration in the waves of light coming from a body would make it\nvisible or not to the human eye. And it is out of the question to\nsay that God--the Omnipotent One--could not produce such a change in\na spiritual body. While for such a body to become tangible, or to\ntake food, is not really more wonderful (though it seems so) than\nfor it to become visible or audible; since when once we pass the\nboundary between the natural and the supernatural everything is\nmysterious.\n\nIt may of course be replied that though all this is not perhaps\nincredible, it is still most improbable; and no doubt it is. But\nwhat then? We have no adequate means of judging, for the fact, if\ntrue, is, up to the present, unique. It implies a _new_ mode of\nexistence which is neither spiritual nor material, though possessing\nsome of the properties of each, and of which we have no experience\nwhatever. So we are naturally unable to understand it. But assuming\nthe Resurrection of Christ to be otherwise credible, as it certainly\nis if we admit His Incarnation and Death, we cannot call it\nincredible, merely because the properties of His risen Body are said\nto be different from those of ordinary human bodies, and in some\nrespects to resemble those of spirits. It is in fact only what we\nshould expect.\n\n(2.) _Man's Resurrection._\n\nNext as to man's resurrection. The Christian doctrine of the\nresurrection of the _body_ must not be confused with that of the\nimmortality of the _spirit_, discussed in Chapter VI., which is\ncommon to many religions, and is certainly not improbable. But two\nobjections may be made to the resurrection of the body.\n\nThe first is that it is _impossible_, since the human body\ndecomposes after death, and its molecules may afterwards form a part\nof other bodies; so, if all men were to rise again at the same time,\nthose molecules would have to be in two places at once. But the\nfallacy here is obvious, for the molecules composing a man's body\nare continually changing during life, and it is probable that every\none of them is changed in a few years; yet the identity of the body\nis not destroyed. This identity depends not on the identity of the\nmolecules, but on their relative position and numbers so that a\nman's body in this respect is like a whirlpool in a stream, the\nwater composing which is continually changing, though the whirlpool\nitself remains. Therefore the resurrection need not be a\nresurrection of _relics_, as it is sometimes called. No doubt in the\ncase of Christ it was so, and perhaps it will be so in the case of\nsome Christians, only it _need_ not be so; and this removes at once\nthe apparent impossibility of the doctrine.\n\nSecondly, it may still be objected that the doctrine is extremely\n_improbable_. And no doubt it seems so. But once more we have no\nadequate means of judging. Apart from experience, how very unlikely\nit would be that a seed when buried in the ground should develop\ninto a plant; or that plants and trees, after being apparently dead\nall through the winter, should blossom again in the spring. Thus\neverything connected with life is so mysterious that we can decide\nnothing except by experience. And therefore we cannot say what may,\nor may not happen in some future state, of which we have no\nexperience whatever. Indeed, if man's spirit is immortal, the fact\nthat it is associated with a body during its life on this earth\nmakes it not unlikely that it will be associated with a body of some\nkind during its future life. And that this body should be partly\nspiritual, and so resemble Christ's risen body, is again only what\nwe should expect. Thus, on the whole, the doctrine of the\nResurrection is certainly credible.\n\n\n(_E._) CONCLUSION.\n\nWe have now examined the four great doctrines of Christianity, the\nothers either following directly from these, or not presenting any\ndifficulty. And though, as we have shown, not one of these doctrines\ncan be pronounced _incredible_, yet some of them, especially those\nof the Incarnation and the Atonement, certainly seem _improbable_.\nThis must be fully and freely admitted. At the same time, it is only\nfair to remember that this improbability is distinctly lessened by\nthe three following considerations.\n\nFirst, in regard to all these doctrines we have no _adequate_ means\nof deciding what is or is not probable. Reason cannot judge where it\nhas nothing to judge by; and apart from Christianity itself, we know\nnext to nothing as to what was God's object in creating man. If,\nthen, these doctrines are true, their truth depends not on reason,\nbut on revelation. All reason can do is to examine most carefully\nthe evidence in favour of the alleged revelation. Of this we should\nexpect it to be able to judge, but not of the doctrines themselves.\nWe are hence in a region where we cannot trust to our own sense of\nthe fitness of things; and therefore the Christian doctrines must\nnot be condemned merely because we think them contrary to our\nreason. Moreover many thoughtful men (including Agnostics) do not\nconsider them so. Thus the late Professor Huxley once wrote, 'I have\nnot the slightest objection to offer _a priori_ to all the\npropositions of the Three Creeds. The mysteries of the Church are\nchild's play compared with the mysteries of Nature.'[180]\n\n[Footnote 180: Quoted with his permission in Bishop Gore's Bampton\nLectures, 1891, p. 247, 1898 edition.]\n\nAnd this brings us to the next point, which is that many _other_\nfacts which are actually true appear equally improbable at first\nsight; such, for instance, as the existence of the ether, or the\ngrowth of plants. Apart from experience, what an overwhelming\nargument could be made out against such facts as these. Yet they\nconcern subjects which are to a great extent within our\ncomprehension, while Christianity has to do with the nature and\ncharacter of a God Who is admittedly beyond our comprehension. May\nnot the difficulties in both cases, but especially in regard to the\nlatter, be due to our _ignorance_ only? The Christian doctrines, we\nmust remember, do not claim to have been revealed in all their\nbearings, but only in so far as they concern ourselves.\n\nThirdly, it should be noticed that, though individually these\ndoctrines may seem improbable, yet, when considered as a whole, as\nin all fairness they ought to be, there is a complete harmony\nbetween them. Their improbability is not _cumulative_. On the\ncontrary, one often helps to explain the difficulties of another.\nThis has been recognised by most writers, including many who can\nscarcely be called theologians. Thus the great Napoleon is reported\nto have said, 'If once the Divine character of Christ is admitted,\nChristian doctrine exhibits the precision and clearness of algebra;\nso that we are struck with admiration at its scientific connection\nand unity.'[181]\n\n[Footnote 181: Beauterne, Sentiment de Napoleon 1^er sur le\nChristianisme, new edition, Paris, 1864, p. 110.]\n\nIn conclusion, it must be again pointed out that we are only now\nconsidering the _credibility_ of Christianity, and not trying to\nmake out that it appears a probable religion, at first sight, which\nit plainly does not. Only its improbability is not so extremely\ngreat as to make it useless to consider the evidence in its favour.\nThis is especially so when we remember that this improbability must\nhave seemed far greater when Christianity was first preached than it\ndoes now, when we are so accustomed to the religion. Yet, as a\nmatter of fact, the evidence in its favour did outweigh every\ndifficulty, and finally convince the civilised world. What this\nevidence is we proceed to inquire.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nTHAT THE FOUR GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM EXTERNAL TESTIMONY.\n\n     (_A._) THE UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY.\n\n     End of second century; Iren\u00e6us, his evidence of great\n      value.\n\n     (_B._) THE ALMOST UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY.\n\n     (1.) Justin Martyr, A.D. 150, refers to some Apostolic\n         _Memoirs_, which were publicly read among Christians;\n           and his quotations show that these were our\n           Four Gospels.\n     (2.) Tatian, Justin's disciple, A.D. 175, wrote the Diatessaron,\n           or harmony of Four Gospels.\n     (3.) Marcion, A.D. 140, wrote a Gospel based on St. Luke's.\n\n     (_C._) THE DISPUTED TESTIMONY.\n\n     (1.) Papias, mentions the first two Gospels by name.\n     (2.) Aristides, A.D. 125, alludes to some Gospel as well\n           known.\n     (3.) The Apostolic Fathers, Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement,\n           Barnabas, and the Teaching of the Twelve, seem to\n           contain references to our Gospels.\n\n\nHaving shown in the last chapter that the Christian Religion is\n_credible_, we have next to consider what evidence there is in its\nfavour. Now that it was founded on the alleged miracles and teaching\nof Christ, and chiefly on His Resurrection, is admitted by everyone.\nSo we must first examine whether we have any trustworthy testimony\nas to these events; more especially whether the Four Gospels, which\nappear to contain such testimony, are genuine. By the _Four\nGospels_, we of course mean those commonly ascribed to SS. Matthew,\nMark, Luke, and John; and by their being _genuine_, we mean that\nthey were written, or compiled by those persons. And we will first\nconsider the _external testimony_ borne by early Christian writers\nto these Gospels, leaving _the internal evidence_ from the Books\nthemselves for the next chapter.\n\nIt may be mentioned at starting that we have no complete manuscripts\nof the Gospels earlier than the beginning of the fourth century; but\nthere is nothing surprising in this, as for the first two centuries\nbooks were generally written on _papyrus_, an extremely fragile\nmaterial. Therefore, with the exception of some fragments preserved\nin Egypt, all documents of this period have entirely perished. A\nmuch better material, _vellum_, began to take the place of papyrus\nin the third century; but did not come into common use till the\nfourth. Moreover, during the persecutions, which occurred at\nintervals up to the fourth century, all Christian _writings_ were\nspecially sought for, and destroyed. So the absence of earlier\nmanuscripts though very unfortunate, is not perhaps unnatural; and\nit is anyhow no worse than in the case of classical works. I have\nseen it stated, for instance, that there are no manuscripts of\neither Cicero, C\u00e6sar, Tacitus, or Josephus, within 800 years of\ntheir time.\n\n\n(_A._) THE UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY.\n\nPassing on now to the testimony of early writers; we need not begin\nlater than the end of the second century; since it is admitted by\neveryone that our Four Gospels were then well known. They were\ncontinually quoted by Christian writers; they were universally\nascribed to the authors we now ascribe them to; and they were always\nconsidered to be in some sense divinely inspired.\n\nAs this is undisputed, we need not discuss the evidence; but one\nwriter deserves to be mentioned, which is _Iren\u00e6us_, Bishop of\nLyons. His works date from about A.D. 185; and he not only quotes\nthe Gospels frequently (about 500 times altogether), but shows there\nwere only _four_ of acknowledged authority. Since the fanciful\nanalogies he gives for this, likening the four Gospels to the four\nrivers in Paradise, and the four quarters of the globe, render it\ncertain that the fact of there being four, neither more nor less,\nmust have been undisputed in his day.\n\nMoreover he had excellent means of knowing the truth; for he was\nborn in Asia Minor, about A.D. 130, and brought up under Polycarp,\nBishop of Smyrna. And in later years he tells us how well he\nremembered his teacher. 'I can even describe the place where the\nblessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse--his going out, too, and\nhis coming in--his general mode of life and personal appearance,\ntogether with the discourses which he delivered to the people; also\nhow he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with\nthe rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their\nwords to remembrance.'[182]\n\n[Footnote 182: Iren\u00e6us, Fragment of Epistle to Florinus. The\ntranslations here and elsewhere are from the Ante-Nicene Christian\nLibrary.]\n\nThe importance of this passage, especially in regard to the Fourth\nGospel, can scarcely be exaggerated. For is it conceivable that\nIren\u00e6us would have ascribed it to St. John, unless his teacher\nPolycarp had done the same? Or is it conceivable that Polycarp, who\npersonally knew St. John, could have been mistaken in the matter?\nThe difficulties of either alternative are very great; yet there is\nno other, unless we admit that St. John was the author.\n\nIt should also be noticed that Iren\u00e6us, when discussing two readings\nof Rev. 13. 18, supports one of them by saying that it is found _in\nall the most approved and ancient copies_; and was also maintained\nby men _who saw John face to face_.[183] He had thus some idea as to\nthe value of evidence; and he is not likely to have written as he\ndid about the Four Gospels, unless he had seen of them equally\n_approved and ancient_ copies.\n\n[Footnote 183: Iren\u00e6us, Bk. 5. 30.]\n\n\n(_B._) THE ALMOST UNDISPUTED TESTIMONY.\n\nWe next come to the testimony of some earlier writers, which was\nformerly much disputed, but is now admitted by nearly all critics.\n\n(1.) _Justin Martyr._\n\nBy far the most important of these is _Justin Martyr_; whose\nworks--two _Apologies_ (or books written in defence of Christianity)\nand a _Dialogue_--date from about A.D. 145-50. He was no ordinary\nconvert, but a philosopher, and says that before he became a\nChristian, he studied various philosophical systems and found them\nunsatisfactory; so we may be sure that he did not accept\nChristianity without making some inquiries as to the facts on which\nit rested.[184] And as his father and grandfather were natives of\nPalestine, where he was born, he had ample means of finding out the\ntruth.\n\n[Footnote 184: Dial., 2.]\n\nNow Justin does not allude to any of the Evangelists by name, but he\nfrequently quotes from the '_Memoirs of the Apostles_,' which he\nsays were sometimes called _Gospels_,[185] and were publicly read\nand explained in the churches, together with the Old Testament\nProphets. And he gives no hint that this was a local or recent\npractice, but implies that it was the universal and well-established\ncustom. These Memoirs, he tells us,[186] were written _by the\nApostles and their followers_, which exactly suits our present\nGospels, two of which are ascribed to Apostles (St. Matthew and St.\nJohn), and the other two to their immediate followers (St. Mark and\nSt. Luke). And as Justin was writing for unbelievers, not\nChristians, there is nothing strange in his not mentioning the names\nof the individual writers.\n\n[Footnote 185: Apol. 1. 66; Dial., 100.]\n\n[Footnote 186: Dial., 103.]\n\nHe has altogether about sixty quotations from these Memoirs, and\nthey describe precisely those events in the life of Christ; which\nare recorded in our Gospels, with scarcely any addition. Very few of\nthe quotations however are verbally accurate, and this used to be\nthought a difficulty. But as Justin sometimes quotes the same\npassage differently, it is clear that he was relying on his memory;\nand had not looked up the reference, which in those days of\nmanuscripts, without concordances, must have been a tedious\nprocess. Also when quoting the Old Testament, he is almost equally\ninaccurate. Moreover later writers, such as Iren\u00e6us, who avowedly\nquoted from our Gospels, are also inaccurate in small details. It is\nhence practically certain that Justin was quoting from these\nGospels.\n\n(2.) _Tatian._\n\nAnd this is strongly confirmed by Justin's disciple, _Tatian_. He\nwrote a book about A.D. 175, discovered last century, called the\n_Diatessaron_, which, as its name implies, was a kind of harmony of\n_Four_ Gospels. It was based chiefly on St. Matthew's, the events\npeculiar to the others being introduced in various places. And its\ncontaining nearly the whole of _St. John's_ Gospel is satisfactory;\nbecause it so happens that Justin has fewer quotations from that\nGospel, than from the other three. We may say then with confidence,\nthat our four Gospels were well known to Christians, and highly\nvalued by them, in the middle of the second century.\n\n(3.) _Marcion._\n\nAnother important witness is Marcion. He wrote (not later than A.D.\n140), a kind of Gospel, so similar to St. Luke's that one was\nevidently based on the other. And though his actual work is lost,\nTertullian (about A.D. 200) quotes it so fully that it is fairly\nwell-known; and that St. Luke's is the earlier is now admitted by\ncritics of all schools. Therefore as Matthew and Mark are generally\nallowed to be earlier than Luke, this shows that all these Gospels\nwere in circulation before A.D. 140.\n\n\n(_C._) THE DISPUTED TESTIMONY.\n\nWe pass on now to the testimony of still earlier writers, all of\nwhich is more or less disputed by some critics.\n\n(1.) _Papias._\n\nAnd first as to Papias. He was bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor\n(about a hundred miles from Ephesus) early in the second century;\nand only a few fragments of his writings have been preserved by\nIren\u00e6us and Eusebius. We learn from the former that he was a\ndisciple of St. John and a companion of Polycarp; and considering\nthat Iren\u00e6us was himself Polycarp's pupil, there is no reason to\ndoubt this.[187] Now Papias tells us himself what were his sources\nof information: 'If, then, anyone who had attended on the elders\ncame, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter\nsaid, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by\nJohn, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which\nthings Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord,\nsay. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so\nprofitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.'\n\n[Footnote 187: Iren\u00e6us, Bk. 5. 33.]\n\nHe had thus very good means of knowing the truth, for though the\nApostles themselves were dead, two of Christ's disciples (Aristion\nand the presbyter John) were still alive when he made his inquiries.\nAnd he refers to the first two Gospels by name. He says, 'Matthew\nput together the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each one\ninterpreted them as best he could.' And 'Mark, having become the\ninterpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he\nremembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the\nsayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor\naccompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied\nPeter.'[188]\n\n[Footnote 188: Eusebius, Hist., iii. 39.]\n\nAnd his testimony in regard to _St. Matthew_ is specially important,\nbecause in the passage just quoted he says that he had spoken to\nthose who had known St. Matthew personally; and had carefully\nquestioned them about what he had said. And this makes it difficult\nto believe that he should have been mistaken as to his having\nwritten the Gospel. Nor is it likely that the work of St. Matthew\nknown to Papias was different from the Gospel which we now have, and\nwhich was so frequently quoted by Justin a few years later. Whether\nPapias was acquainted with the Third and Fourth Gospels cannot be\ndecided for certain, unless his works should be recovered; but there\nare slight indications that he knew them.\n\n(2.) _Aristides._\n\nNext as to Aristides. He was a philosopher at Athens, and addressed\nan Apology to the Emperor, Hadrian, in A.D. 125, which was recovered\nin 1889. He has no _quotation_ from the Gospels, but what is equally\nimportant, he gives a summary of Christian doctrine, including the\nDivinity, Incarnation, Virgin-Birth, Resurrection and Ascension of\nChrist; and says that it is _taught in the Gospel_, where men can\n_read_ it for themselves. And this shows that some Gospel,\ncontaining this teaching, was then in existence, and easily\naccessible.\n\n(3.) _The Apostolic Fathers._\n\nThe last group of writers to be examined are those who lived soon\nafter the Apostles. The chief of these are _Polycarp_ of Smyrna, the\ndisciple of St. John, martyred in A.D. 155, when he had been a\nChristian 86 years; _Ignatius_ of Antioch, also martyred in his old\nage, about A.D. 110; _Clement_ of Rome, perhaps the companion of St.\nPaul;[189] and the writers of the so-called _Epistle of Barnabas_,\nand _Teaching of the Twelve Apostles_. Their dates are not known for\ncertain, but it is now generally admitted by rationalists as well as\nChristians that they all wrote before A.D. 120, and probably before\n110. Thus the _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_ (article _Gospels_) dates their\nworks, Polycarp 110; Ignatius (7 Epistles) before 110; Barnabas,\nprobably before 100; Clement 95; Teaching 80-100.\n\n[Footnote 189: Phil. 4. 3.]\n\nNow none of these writers mention the Gospels by _name_; but this is\nno argument to show that they were not quoting them, because the\nsame writers, when admittedly quoting St. Paul's Epistles, also do\nit at times, without in any way referring to him. And later\nChristian writers do precisely the same; the Gospels are often not\nquoted by name, but their language is continually employed, much as\nit is by preachers at the present day. If, then, we find in these\nwriters passages similar to those in our Gospels, the inference is\nthat they are quoting from them; and, as a matter of fact, we do\nfind such passages, though they are not numerous. A single example\nmay be given from each.\n\n_Polycarp._ 'But being mindful of what the Lord said in His\nteaching; Judge not, that ye be not judged; forgive, and it shall be\nforgiven unto you; be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy; with what\nmeasure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again; and once more,\nBlessed are the poor, and those that are persecuted for\nrighteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God.'[190]\n\n[Footnote 190: Polycarp, ch. ii.; Luke 6. 36-38; Matt. 5. 3, 10.]\n\n_Ignatius._ 'For I know that after His Resurrection also, He was\nstill possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for\ninstance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them,\n\"Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal\nspirit.\"'[191]\n\n[Footnote 191: Ignatius to Smyrn\u00e6ans, ch. iii.; Luke 24. 39.]\n\n_Barnabas._ 'Let us beware lest we be found, as it is written, Many\nare called, but few are chosen.'[192]\n\n[Footnote 192: Barnabas, ch. iv.; Matt. 22. 14.]\n\n_Clement._ 'Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, how He\nsaid, Woe to that man! It were better for him that he had never been\nborn, than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my\nelect. Yea, it were better for him that a millstone should be hung\nabout (his neck), and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea,\nthan that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little\nones.'[193]\n\n[Footnote 193: Clement, ch. xlvi.; Luke 17. 1. 2.]\n\n_Teaching._ 'Having said beforehand all these things, baptize ye in\nthe name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost in\nliving water.'[194]\n\n[Footnote 194: Teaching, ch. vii.; Matt. 28. 19.]\n\nThe passage from Barnabas deserves special mention, since here we\nhave words which only occur in our Gospels, introduced with the\nphrase _as it is written_, which is only used of Scripture\nquotations. And this shows conclusively that at the time of the\nwriter, some Gospel containing these words must have been well\nknown, and considered of high authority. And the attempts to explain\nit away as being from the Book of Esdras,[195] where the words are,\n'There be many created, but few shall be saved;' or else as an error\non the part of the writer, who thought they came somewhere in the\nOld Testament, are quite inadmissible.\n\n[Footnote 195: 2 Esdr. 8. 3.]\n\nBut it may be said, may not all these quotations be from some _Lost\nGospel_? Of course they may. It is always possible to refer\nquotations not to the only book in which we know they do occur, but\nto some imaginary book in which they might occur. There is, however,\nno need to do so in this case, as all the evidence points the other\nway. Though, even if we do, it does not materially affect the\nargument; for while it weakens the evidence for our Gospels, it\nincreases that for the _facts_ which they record; and this is the\nimportant point.\n\nSuppose, for instance, the passage in Ignatius was not taken from\nSt. Luke's, but from some _Lost_ Gospel. It could not then be quoted\nto show that St. Luke's Gospel was known to Ignatius. But it would\nafford additional evidence that Christ really did rise from the\ndead, that when He appeared to His Apostles, they at first thought\nHe was a spirit; and that He took the obvious means of convincing\nthem, by asking them to handle His Body. All this would then be\nvouched for, not only by St. Luke's Gospel; but also by some _other_\nearly Christian writing, which as Ignatius quotes it in A.D. 110\nmust certainly have been written in the first century, and must have\nbeen considered by him as conclusive evidence. For he is careful to\ndistinguish between what he thus _knows_ (that Christ had a Body\nafter His Resurrection) and what he merely _believes_ (that He has\none now). And the same applies in other cases.\n\nAnd if it be further urged that these writers would have referred\nmore frequently to the Gospels, had they really known them, we must\nremember that their writings are generally short; and while a single\nquotation proves the previous existence of the document quoted, ten\npages without a quotation do not disprove it. Moreover when they\nrefer to the sayings of Christ, or the events of His life, they\nalways do so without the slightest hesitation; as if everyone\nacknowledged them to be true. And as we have seen, their allusions\noften begin with the words _remember_ or _be mindful of_, clearly\nshowing that they expected their readers to know them already. Hence\nsome books must then have existed which were well known, containing\na life of Christ; and the improbability of these having perished,\nand a fresh set of Gospels having been published in a few years, is\nvery great.\n\nAnd the evidence in regard to the _Third_ Gospel is particularly\nstrong, since it was addressed to Theophilus, who was clearly a\nprominent convert; and he must have known from whom the book came,\neven if for some reason this was not stated in the heading. And as\nhe is not likely to have kept it secret, the authorship of the book\nmust have been well known to Christians from the very beginning.\nTherefore the testimony of early writers, like Iren\u00e6us, who always\nascribed it to St. Luke, becomes of exceptional value; and makes it\nalmost certain that he was the author.\n\nWe may now sum up the _external testimony_ to the Four Gospels. It\nshows that at the _beginning_ of the second century they were well\nknown to Christian writers, and this alone would necessitate their\nhaving been written in the first century, or at all events before\nA.D. 110. And thanks to modern discoveries, especially that of the\n_Diatessaron_, this is now generally admitted. It may indeed be\nconsidered as one of the definite results of recent controversies.\nBut if so, it is, to say the least, distinctly probable that they\nwere written by the men to whom they have been universally ascribed.\nWe have thus strong external testimony in favour of the genuineness\nof the Four Gospels.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nTHAT THE GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM INTERNAL EVIDENCE.\n\n     (_A._) THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.\n\n     (1.) Their general accuracy; this is shown by secular\n           history, where they can be tested.\n     (2.) Their sources; the triple tradition; other early documents.\n     (3.) Their probable date; before the destruction of Jerusalem,\n     A.D. 70.\n\n     (_B._) THE FOURTH GOSPEL.\n\n     (1.) Its authorship. The writer appears to have lived in\n           the first century, and to have been an eye-witness\n           of what he describes; so probably St. John.\n     (2.) Its connection with the other Gospels. It was meant\n           to supplement them; and it does not show a different\n           Christ, either in language or character.\n     (3.) Its connection with the Book of Revelation. This\n           admitted to be by St. John, and the Gospel was\n           probably by the same author.\n\n\nHaving decided in the last chapter that the Four Gospels are\nprobably genuine from _external testimony_, we pass on now to the\n_internal evidence_, which, it will be seen, strongly supports this\nconclusion. For convenience we will examine the first Three,\ncommonly called the _Synoptic_ Gospels, separately from the Fourth,\nwhich is of a different character.\n\n\n(_A._) THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.\n\nIn dealing with these Gospels, we will first consider their general\naccuracy, then their sources, and then their probable date.\n\n(1.) _Their general accuracy._\n\nIt is now admitted by everyone that the writers show a thorough\nacquaintance with Palestine both as to its geography, history, and\npeople, especially the political and social state of the country in\nthe half-century preceding the fall of Jerusalem (A.D. 70). The\nJewish historian Josephus, who wrote about A.D. 95, gives us a vivid\ndescription of this; and everything we read in the Gospels is in\nentire agreement with it.\n\nIn regard to the actual events recorded, we have, as a rule, no\nother account, but where we have, with the doubtful exception of the\nenrolment under _Quirinius_, their accuracy is fully confirmed.\nAccording to St. Luke[196] this enrolment occurred while Herod was\nking, and therefore not later than what we now call B.C. 4, when\nHerod died; but, according to Josephus and other authorities,\nQuirinius was Governor of Syria, and carried out his taxing in A.D.\n6.\n\n[Footnote 196: Luke 2. 2 (R.V.).]\n\nThis used to be thought one of the most serious mistakes in the\nBible, but modern discoveries have shown that it is probably\ncorrect. To begin with, an inscription was found at Tivoli in 1764,\nwhich shows that Quirinius was _twice_ Governor of Syria, or at\nleast held some important office there. And this has been confirmed\nquite recently by an inscription found at Antioch, which shows that\nthe former time was about B.C. 7.[197] There is thus very likely an\nend of that difficulty, though it must be admitted that it would\nplace the birth of Christ a little earlier than the usually accepted\nB.C. 4, which however some critics think probable for other reasons.\n\n[Footnote 197: Ramsay, 'Bearing of Recent Discovery on New\nTestament.' 1915, p. 285-292.]\n\nNext it will be noticed that St. Luke says that this was the _first_\nenrolment, implying that he knew of others; and discoveries in Egypt\nhave confirmed this in a remarkable manner. For they have shown that\nit was the custom of the Romans to have a _periodical_ enrolment of\nthat country (and therefore presumably of the adjacent country of\nSyria) every fourteen years. Some of the actual census papers have\nbeen found for A.D. 20, 48, 62, 76, etc., and it is extremely\nprobable that the system started in B.C. 9-8, though the first\nenrolment may have been delayed a few years in Palestine, which was\npartly independent.\n\nAnd St. Luke's statement that everyone had to go to _his own city_,\nwhich was long thought to be a difficulty, has been partly confirmed\nas well. For a decree has been discovered in Egypt, dated in the\nseventh year of Trajan (A.D. 104), ordering all persons to return to\ntheir own districts before the approaching census,[198] which is\nworded as if it were the usual custom. The next census in A.D. 6,\nwhich is the one referred to by Josephus, is also mentioned by St.\nLuke;[199] but he knew, what his critics did not, that it was only\none of a series, and that the _first_ of the series took place at an\nearlier date.\n\n[Footnote 198: Ramsay, p. 259.]\n\n[Footnote 199: Acts. 5. 37.]\n\nCuriously enough, there used to be a very similar error, charged\nagainst St. Luke, in regard to Lysanias; whom he says was tetrarch\nof Abilene, a district near Damascus, in the fifteenth year of\nTiberius, about A.D. 27.[200] Yet the only ruler of this name known\nto history in those parts was a king, who was killed in B.C. 34. But\ninscriptions found at Baalbec, and Abila (the latter dating\nsomewhere between A.D. 14-29) show that there was a second Lysanias,\nhitherto unknown, who is expressly called the _tetrarch_ and who is\nnow admitted to be the one referred to by St. Luke.[201] On the\nwhole then, these Gospels, wherever we have any means of testing\nthem by secular history, appear to be substantially accurate.\n\n[Footnote 200: Luke 3. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 201: Boeckh's Corp. Ins. Gr., No. 4523; Ramsay, 'Bearing\nof Recent Discovery on New Testament.' 1915, p. 298.]\n\nBut it may be said, do not the Gospels themselves contradict one\nanother in some places, and if so they cannot all be correct? Now\nthat there are some apparent contradictions, especially in the\nnarratives of the Resurrection (see Chapter XVII.), must of course\nbe admitted; but many of these can be explained satisfactorily, and\nthose which cannot are as a rule quite trivial. For example,[202]\nSt. Matthew relates that at Christ's Baptism the Voice from Heaven\nsaid, '_This_ is my beloved Son in _whom_ I am well pleased;' and\nthe other Evangelists, '_Thou_ art my beloved Son, in _thee_ I am\nwell pleased.' There is a clear verbal discrepancy, whatever words\nwere used, or in whatever language they were spoken. Again, St.\nMatthew records the passage about the Queen of the South as being\nspoken just after, and St. Luke as just before, the similar passage\nabout the men of Nineveh, though both can hardly be correct. Such\nmistakes as these, however, do not interfere with the substantial\naccuracy of the narratives.\n\n[Footnote 202: Matt. 3. 17; 12. 42; Mark 1. 11; Luke 3. 22; 11. 31.]\n\n(2.) _Their sources._\n\nNow the first three Gospels have, as is well known, a number of\nidentical passages, which must plainly be due to _copying_ in some\nform, either two Evangelists copying the third, or all three some\nearlier document. The portion they have in common (often called the\n_Triple Tradition_) includes some of the parables of Christ, and\nseveral of His miracles, such as calming the storm, feeding the five\nthousand, curing the man at Gadara, and raising the daughter of\nJairus. If, as is probable, it represents the testimony of a single\nwitness, there is little difficulty in identifying him with St.\nPeter.\n\nBut it is _most unlikely_ for the _whole_ of this earlier document\nto have been included in three separate Gospels; it is sure to have\ncontained something that was only copied by one or two. Therefore\nmost scholars are now of opinion that the so-called Triple Tradition\nwas merely our St. Mark's Gospel, practically all of which was\ncopied, either by St. Matthew or St. Luke, if not by both. And this\nis certainly probable, for the many graphic details in this Gospel\nshow that it must date from an extremely early time; so it was most\nlikely known to the other Evangelists. It would also agree with the\nstatement of Papias (quoted in the last chapter) that St. Mark got\nhis information from St. Peter. And as some of it has to do with\nevents, such as the Transfiguration, when St. Peter was present, and\nSt. Matthew was not, there is nothing improbable in St. Matthew (as\nwell as St. Luke) including part of it in his Gospel.\n\nThis however is not all; for our first and third Gospels also\ncontain a good deal in common, which is not in Mark, and this looks\nlike another older document, often called 'Q' from the German\n_Quelle_, meaning '_source_.' It consists chiefly of discourses and\nparables, though including at least one miracle, that of healing the\ncenturion's servant, and is admitted by most critics to date from\nbefore A.D. 50.\n\nBut here again, it is unlikely for the _whole_ of this earlier\ndocument to have been included in two separate Gospels, it is sure\nto have contained something else besides. Moreover, _as thus\nrestored_ (from Matthew and Luke) it is obviously incomplete. It\ncontains scarcely any narrative to explain how the discourses arose,\nand of necessity it omits everything in Christ's life which is\nrecorded by St. Mark as well, for this has been already assigned to\nthe so-called Triple Tradition. Therefore when it was complete, it\nmust have contained a good deal more, which may well have been the\nremainder of our St. Matthew's Gospel. St. Luke would then have only\nincluded _a part_ of what St. Matthew wrote, just as they both only\nincluded a part of what St. Mark wrote. And the supposed second\ndocument would be our St. Matthew's Gospel, just as the supposed\nTriple Tradition is now thought to be our St. Mark's Gospel. There\nare difficulties on every theory, but on the whole this seems as\nsatisfactory as any other, and it accounts fairly well for the first\ntwo Gospels.\n\nBut the third Gospel requires further explanation, for besides what\nis copied from the other two, it contains a good deal of additional\nmatter, such as the parable of the Prodigal Son, which St. Luke must\nhave got from some other source. While he expressly says that _many_\nhad written before himself; so there were several such sources in\nexistence. And this was only natural, for the Christian religion\nspread rapidly, and St. Luke himself shows us what its converts were\ntaught. For he says that he only wrote his Gospel to convince\nTheophilus of the things about which he had already been\ninstructed.[203] Clearly then the course of instruction must have\nincluded what the Gospel included; and this was the whole of\nChrist's life, from His Virgin-Birth to His Ascension. It is hence\nprobable that from the very first Christian teachers had some\naccount of that life.\n\n[Footnote 203: Luke 1. 1-4.]\n\nAnd this probability becomes almost a certainty in the light of\nmodern discoveries. For quantities of old _papyri_ have been found\nin Egypt, which show that at the time of Christ, writing was in\ncommon use among all classes; soldiers, farmers, servants,\nschoolboys, were all accustomed to write. Therefore, as it has been\nwell said, 'so far as antecedent probability goes, founded on the\ngeneral character of preceding and contemporary society, the first\nChristian account of the circumstances connected with the death of\nJesus must be presumed to have been written in the year when Jesus\ndied.'[204] And since St. Luke, when he was at Jerusalem met several\nof the _elders_ there, including Christ's brother, St. James,[205]\nhe probably had access to all existing documents.\n\n[Footnote 204: Ramsay, Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol.\nxxxix., 1907, p. 203.]\n\n[Footnote 205: Acts 21. 18.]\n\nThere is thus no reason to doubt his own statement, that he had\nample means of knowing the truth, _from the beginning_. And this, he\nsays, was the very reason why he determined to write; so a more\ntrustworthy historian can scarcely be imagined.[206] Fortunately,\nhowever, though dividing the Gospels into their original parts is an\ninteresting study, it is in no way essential to our present\nargument.\n\n[Footnote 206: Luke 1. 2-3.]\n\n(3.) _Their probable date._\n\nWe now come to the _probable date_ of the first three Gospels; and\nthere are strong reasons for fixing this before the fall of\nJerusalem, in A.D. 70. In the first place several _subjects_ are\ndiscussed, such as the lawfulness of the Jews paying tribute to\nC\u00e6sar,[207] which would have had no interest after that event. And\nthat conversations on such subjects should have been composed in\nlater days, or even thought worth recording, is most unlikely. Nor\nare Christ's instructions as to what persons should do when they\nbring their gifts to the altar, likely to have been recorded after\nthe altar, and everything connected with it, had been totally\ndestroyed.[208]\n\n[Footnote 207: Matt. 22. 17.]\n\n[Footnote 208: Matt. 5. 24.]\n\nSecondly, nearly all the _parables_ of Christ have very strong marks\nof truthfulness, as they are thoroughly natural in character, and\nsuit the customs and scenery of Palestine. Moreover, they are unique\nin Christian literature. However strange we may think it, the early\nChristians never seem to have adopted Christ's method of teaching by\nparables. Yet, if they had composed these parables, instead of\nmerely recording them, they would doubtless have composed others\nlike them. It is hence probable that these discourses are genuine;\nand, if so, they must obviously have been written down very soon\nafterwards.\n\nThirdly, there are a few passages which deserve special mention. Two\nof these are Christ's saying that (apparently) there would not be\ntime to go through the cities of Israel before His Second Coming;\nand that some of His hearers would not die till the end of the\nworld.[209] That such statements should have been composed in later\nyears is out of the question; so we can only conclude that they were\nactually spoken by Christ. And they show that the Gospels must not\nonly have been written when some of Christ's hearers were still\nalive, but that they could not have been revised afterwards; or the\npassages would not have been allowed to remain as they are.\n\n[Footnote 209: Matt. 10. 23; 16. 28; Mark 9. 1; Luke 9. 27; but some\nother texts imply the contrary--_e.g._, Matt. 21. 43; Mark 13. 7,\n10; 14. 9; Luke 21. 24.]\n\nAnother is the statement that the potter's field was called the\nfield of blood _unto this day_;[210] which could scarcely have been\nwritten when the whole city was little more than a heap of ruins. Of\ncourse, on the other hand, it could not have been written\nimmediately after the time of Christ, but twenty years would\nprobably be a sufficient interval.\n\n[Footnote 210: Matt. 27. 8; see also 28. 15.]\n\nFourthly, there is the prophetic description of the _fall of\nJerusalem_ itself, which seems confused by the Evangelists with that\nof the Day of Judgment, St. Matthew saying, and both the others\nimplying, that the one would immediately follow the other.[211] Had\nthe Gospels been written after the former event, it is almost\ncertain that the writers would have distinguished between the two;\nindeed, their not doing so is scarcely intelligible, unless we\nassume that when they wrote, both events were still future.\n\n[Footnote 211: Matt. 24. 3, 29; Mark 13. 24; Luke 21. 27.]\n\nAnd this is confirmed by the curious hint given to the readers both\nin Matthew and Mark to _understand_, and act on Christ's advice, and\nleave the city and go to the mountains, before the siege became too\nsevere.[212] Plainly such a warning could not have been written\n_after_ the siege, when it would have been useless. It must have\nbeen written _before_; so if it is a later insertion, as it seems to\nbe, it proves a still earlier date for the rest of the chapter.\nMoreover, none of the Evangelists have altered the passage, as later\nwriters might have done, to make it agree with the event; since as\nfar as we know, the Christians did not go to _the mountains_, but\nto Pella, a city in the Jordan valley.[213]\n\n[Footnote 212: Matt. 24. 16; Mark 13. 14; Luke 21. 21.]\n\n[Footnote 213: Eusebius, Hist., iii. 5.]\n\nSt. Luke, it will be noticed, omits the hint just referred to, and\nas his account of Christ's prophecy of the siege is rather more\ndetailed than the others, it is sometimes thought to have been\nwritten _after_ the event. But this is a needless assumption, for\nthe hint would have been quite useless to Theophilus, to whom the\nGospel was addressed; and the prophecy is anyhow no closer than that\nin Deut. 28., which everyone admits was written centuries before\n(Chapter XI.).\n\nOn the whole, then, everything points to our first three Gospels\nhaving been written some years before the destruction of Jerusalem,\nA.D. 70; and most likely by the Evangelists, to whom they have been\nuniversally ascribed.\n\nIt may also be added, in regard to the Evangelists themselves, _St.\nMatthew_ the Apostle was a publican or tax-collector, so just the\nsort of person to keep records, in either Greek or Hebrew.[214] _St.\nMark_ came of a wealthy family, as his relative, Barnabas, had some\nproperty; and his mother, Mary, had a large house at Jerusalem,\nwhere Christians used to assemble, and where it has been thought the\nLast Supper was held.[215] And the _young man_ who followed from\nhere to Gethsemane was probably St. Mark himself, or he would not\nhave recorded such a trivial incident.[216]\n\n[Footnote 214: Matt. 9. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 215: Acts 4. 37; 12. 12; 1. 13; Col. 4. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 216: Mark 14. 51.]\n\nAnd _St. Luke_, as we shall see in the next chapter, was a doctor,\nwho says he got his information from _eye-witnesses_. And if he was\nthe companion of Cleopas, as is perhaps probable (for such a graphic\nnarrative must have come from one who was present, yet the language\nis thoroughly that of St. Luke), he would also have had some slight\nknowledge of Christ himself.[217] And in similar cases where St.\nJohn speaks of two disciples, but gives the name of only one, it is\npractically certain that he himself was the other.[218] Moreover St.\nLuke says that his Gospel, which only goes as far as the Ascension,\nwas about _those matters which have been fulfilled among us_[219]\n(_i.e._, which have _occurred_ among us), and this implies that it\nwas written in Palestine at a very early date, and that St. Luke\nhimself was there during at least part of the time referred to.\n\n[Footnote 217: Luke 24. 18; _Expositor_, Feb., 1904.]\n\n[Footnote 218: John 1. 40; 18. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 219: Luke 1. 1. (R.V.). A short paper on _Fulfilled among\nus_, by the present writer, appeared in the _Churchman_, Aug. 1914.]\n\nAll three must thus have been well-educated men, and quite in a\nposition to write Gospels if they wanted to. While as none of them\nseem to have taken a prominent part in the founding of Christianity,\nthere was no reason for ascribing the Gospels to them, rather than\nto such great men as St. Peter and St. Paul, unless they actually\nwrote them.\n\n\n(_B._) THE FOURTH GOSPEL.\n\nWe pass on now to the Fourth Gospel, and will first examine the\ninternal arguments as to its authorship, which are strongly in\nfavour of its being the work of St. John; and then the two arguments\non the opposite side, said to be derived from its connection with\nthe other Gospels, and the Book of Revelation.\n\n(1.) _Its authorship._\n\nTo begin with, the writer appears to have lived in the _first\ncentury_. This is probable from his intimate acquaintance with\nJerusalem, and as before said that city was only a heap of ruins\nafter A.D. 70. Thus he speaks of Bethesda, the pool near the\nsheep-gate, having five porches; of Solomon's porch; of the pool of\nSiloam; and of the Temple, with its treasury; its oxen, sheep, and\ndoves for sacrifice; and its money-changers for changing foreign\nmoney into Jewish, in which alone the Temple tax could be paid. And\nhis mention of Bethesda is specially interesting as he uses the\npresent tense, _There is in Jerusalem_, etc., implying that the gate\nand porches were still standing (and therefore the city not yet\ndestroyed) when he wrote.[220]\n\n[Footnote 220: John 5. 2.]\n\nSecondly, the writer appears to have been an _eye-witness_ of what\nhe describes. He twice asserts this himself, as well as in an\nEpistle which is generally admitted to be by the same writer, where\nhe declares that he had both seen, heard, and touched his\nMaster.[221] So, if this is not true, the work must be a deliberate\nforgery; which is certainly improbable. Moreover, he frequently\nidentifies himself with the Twelve Apostles, recording their\nfeelings and reflections in a way which would be very unlikely for\nany late writer to have thought of. Would a late writer, for\ninstance, have thought of inventing questions which the Apostles\nwanted to ask their Master, but were afraid to do so? Or would he\nhave thought it worth repeating so often that they did not\nunderstand at the time the real significance of the events they took\npart in?[222]\n\n[Footnote 221: John 1. 14; 19. 35; 1 John 1. 1.]\n\n[Footnote 222: _E.g._, John 2. 17, 22; 4. 27; 13. 28; 16. 17.]\n\nThe author is also very particular as to times and places. Take, for\ninstance, the passage 1. 29-2. 12, with its expressions _On the\nmorrow_, _Again on the morrow_, _About the tenth hour_, _On the\nmorrow_, _And the third day_, _And there they abode not many days_.\nIt reads like extracts from an old diary, and why should all these\ninsignificant details be recorded? What did it matter half a century\nlater whether it was the same day, or on the morrow, or the third\nday; or whether they stayed many days in Capernaum, or only a few;\nas no hint is given as to why they went there, or what they did? The\nonly reasonable explanation is that the writer was present himself\n(being of course the unnamed companion of St. Andrew); that this was\nthe turning-point in his life when he first saw his Lord; and that\ntherefore he loved to recall every detail.\n\nAnd it may be noticed in passing that this passage explains an\napparent difficulty in the other Gospels, where it is stated that\nthese Apostles were called to follow Christ, after the death of St.\nJohn the Baptist; though with a suddenness and ready obedience on\ntheir part, which is hard to believe.[223] But we here learn that\nthey had already been with Christ some months before, in company\nwith the Baptist, so they were doubtless prepared for the call when\nit came. And the passage, like many others, bears internal marks of\ntruthfulness. In particular may be mentioned the words of Nathanael,\n_Thou art the Son of God, thou art the King of Israel_, implying\nthat the latter title was at least as honourable as the former. No\nChristian in later times, when Christ was obviously not the King of\nIsrael (except in a purely spiritual sense), and when the title _Son\nof God_ had come to mean so much more than it ever did to the Jews,\nwould have arranged it thus.\n\n[Footnote 223: _E.g._, Mark 1. 14-20.]\n\nLastly, if we admit that the writer was an eye-witness, it can\nhardly be disputed that he was the Apostle _St. John_. Indeed, were\nhe anyone else, it is strange that an Apostle of such importance\nshould not be once mentioned throughout the Gospel. It is also\nsignificant that the other John, who is described in the first three\nGospels as John the _Baptist_, to distinguish him from the Apostle,\nis here called merely _John_. No confusion could arise if, and only\nif, the writer himself were the Apostle John. While still more\nimportant is the fact that at the close of the Gospel, we have a\nsolemn declaration made by the author's own friends that he was the\n_disciple whom Jesus loved_ (admitted by nearly everyone to be St.\nJohn), that he had witnessed the things he wrote about, and that\nwhat he said was true. And testimony more ancient or more conclusive\ncan scarcely be imagined.\n\nWith regard to the _date_ of the book, we can say little for\ncertain. But the extreme care which is taken in these closing verses\nto explain exactly what Christ did, and did not say, as to St.\nJohn's dying, before His coming again, seems to imply that the\nmatter was still undecided, in other words that St. John was still\nalive, though very old, when they were written. And if so the Gospel\nmust have been _published_ (probably in some Gentile city, like\nEphesus, from the way the Jews are spoken of)[224] towards the close\nof the first century; though a large part of it may have been\n_written_ in the shape of notes, etc., long before.\n\n[Footnote 224: _E.g._, John 2. 13; 5. 1; 6. 4.]\n\n(2.) _Its connection with the other Gospels._\n\nBut, as before said, there are two arguments against the genuineness\nof this Gospel. The first is that the Christ of the Fourth Gospel is\nalmost a different person from the Christ of the other three. The\n_events_ of His life are different, His _language_ is different, and\nHis _character_ is different; while, when the Gospels cover the same\nground, there are _discrepancies_ between them. But every part of\nthis objection admits of a satisfactory answer.\n\nTo begin with, the fact that the Fourth Gospel narrates different\n_events_ in the life of Christ from what we find in the other three\nmust of course be admitted. But what then? Why should not one\nbiography of Christ narrate certain events in His life, which the\nwriter thought important, but which had been omitted in previous\naccounts? This is what occurs frequently at the present day, and why\nshould it not have occurred then? The Fourth Gospel may have been\nwritten on purpose to _supplement_ some other accounts.\n\nAnd there is strong evidence from the book itself that this was\nactually the case. For the writer refers to many events without\ndescribing them, and in such a way as to show that he thought his\nreaders knew about them. He assumes, for instance, that they know\nabout St. John the Baptist being imprisoned, about Joseph being the\nsupposed father of Christ, and about the appointment of the\nTwelve.[225] It is probable then that the Gospel was written for\nwell-instructed Christians, who possessed some other accounts of\nChrist's life. And everything points to these being our first three\nGospels.\n\n[Footnote 225: John 3. 24; 6. 42, 70.]\n\nThen as to the _language_ ascribed to Christ in the Fourth Gospel\nbeing different from that in the others. This is no doubt partly\ntrue, especially in regard to His speaking of Himself as _the Son_,\nin the same way in which God is _the Father_. But it so happens that\nwe have in these other Gospels at least three similar passages[226]\nwhich show that Christ did occasionally speak in this way. And there\nis no reason why St. John should not have preserved such discourses\nbecause the other Evangelists had omitted to do so. On the other\nhand, the title _Son of Man_ (applied to Christ) occurs repeatedly\nin all the Gospels, though strange to say only in the mouth of\nChrist Himself. This is a striking detail, in which St. John\nentirely agrees with the other Evangelists.\n\n[Footnote 226: Matt. 11. 25-27; 24. 36; 28. 19; Mark 13. 32; Luke\n10. 21, 22.]\n\nThe next part of the objection is that the _Character_ assigned to\nChrist in the Fourth Gospel is different from that in the other\nthree; since instead of teaching moral virtues as in the Sermon on\nthe Mount, He keeps asserting His own Divine nature. And this also\nis partly true, for the Fourth Gospel shows the Divinity of Christ\nmore directly than the others, which only imply it (Chapter XXI.).\nAnd very probably the writer did so on purpose, thinking that this\naspect of Christ's character had not been sufficiently emphasised in\nthe previous accounts. Indeed, he implies it himself, for he says\nthat he omitted much that he might have inserted, and merely\nrecorded what he did in order to convince his readers that Jesus was\nthe Christ, the Son of God.[227]\n\n[Footnote 227: John 20. 31.]\n\nBut no argument for a late date can be drawn from this. Because four\nof St. Paul's Epistles (_i.e._ Rom.; 1 Cor.; 2 Cor.; and Gal.) which\nhave been admitted to be genuine by critics of all schools, describe\nexactly the same Christ as we find in the Fourth Gospel, speaking of\nHis Divinity, Pre-existence, and Incarnation (Chapter XXI.). And\nfrom the way in which St. Paul alludes to these doctrines he\nevidently considered them the common belief of all Christians when\nhe wrote, about A.D. 55. So the fact of the Fourth Gospel laying\nstress on these doctrines is no reason whatever against either its\ngenuineness or its early date. Indeed, it seems to supply just those\ndiscourses of Christ which are necessary to account for St. Paul's\nlanguage.\n\nLastly, as to the _discrepancies_. The one most often alleged is\nthat according to the first three Gospels (in opposition to the\nFourth) Christ's ministry never reached Jerusalem till just before\nHis death. But this is a mistake, for though they do not relate His\nattendance at the Jewish feasts, like St. John does, they imply by\nthe word _often_ ('How _often_ would I have gathered thy\nchildren,'[228] etc.) that He had frequently visited the city, and\npreached there. And one of them also refers to an earlier visit of\nChrist, to Martha and Mary, which shows that He had been to Bethany\n(close to Jerusalem) some time before.[229]\n\n[Footnote 228: Matt. 23. 37; Luke 13. 34.]\n\n[Footnote 229: Luke 10. 38.]\n\nAnother difficulty (it is scarcely a discrepancy) is the fact that\nsuch a striking miracle as the raising of Lazarus, which is\ndescribed in the Fourth Gospel, should have been _omitted_ in the\nother three. It is certainly strange, but these Evangelists\nthemselves tell us there were _other_ instances of raising the dead,\nwhich they do not record,[230] and they probably knew of it, as it\nalone explains the great enthusiasm with which Christ was received\nat Jerusalem. This they all relate, and St. Luke's saying that it\nwas due to the _mighty works_, which the people had _seen_, implies\nthat there had been some striking miracles in the neighbourhood.[231]\n\n[Footnote 230: Matt. 10. 8; 11. 5; Luke 7. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 231: Luke 19. 37.]\n\nOn the other hand, there are several _undesigned agreements_ between\nthe Gospels, which are a strong argument in favour of their\naccuracy. Take, for instance, the accusation brought against Christ\nof destroying the Temple, and rebuilding it in three days. This is\nalluded to both by St. Matthew and St. Mark; but St. John alone\nrecords the words on which it was founded, though he does not\nmention the charge, and quotes the words in quite a different\nconnection.[232]\n\n[Footnote 232: Matt. 26. 61; Mark 14. 58; John 2. 19.]\n\nOr take the Feeding of the five thousand.[233] St. Mark says that\nthis occurred in a desert place, where Christ had gone for a short\nrest, and to avoid the crowd of persons who were _coming and going_\nat Capernaum. But he gives no hint as to why there was this crowd\njust at that time. St. John says nothing about Christ's going to the\ndesert, nor of the crowd which occasioned it; but he happens to\nmention, what fully explains both, that it was shortly before the\nPassover. Now we know that at the time of the Passover numbers of\npeople came to Jerusalem from all parts; so Capernaum, which lay on\na main road from the north, would naturally be crowded with persons\n_coming and going_. And this explains everything; even St. Mark's\nlittle detail, as to the people sitting on the _green_ grass, for\ngrass is only green in Palestine in the spring, _i.e._, at the time\nof the Passover. But can anyone think that the writer of the Fourth\nGospel purposely made his account to agree with the others, yet did\nthis in such a way that not one reader in a hundred ever discovers\nit? The only reasonable explanation is that the event was true, and\nthat both writers had independent knowledge of it.\n\n[Footnote 233: Matt. 14. 13; Mark 6. 31; Luke 9. 10; John 6. 4.]\n\nThe objection, then, as to the connection of the Fourth Gospel with\nthe other three must be put aside. It was plainly meant to\n_supplement_ them; and it shows not a different Christ, either in\n_language_ or _character_, but merely a different aspect of the\nsame Christ, while the slight _discrepancies_, especially when\ncombined with the undesigned coincidences, rather support its\ngenuineness.\n\n(3.) _Its connection with the Book of Revelation._\n\nWe pass on now to the other argument. The Book of Revelation is\ngenerally admitted to be the work of St. John, and it is ascribed to\nhim by Justin Martyr.[234] Its date is usually fixed at A.D. 68;\nthough many critics prefer A.D. 95, which is the date given by\nIren\u00e6us.\n\n[Footnote 234: Dial., 81.]\n\nYet it is said it cannot be by the same writer as the Fourth Gospel\nbecause the _Greek_ is so different, that of the Revelation being\nvery abrupt, with numerous faults of grammar, while the Gospel is in\ngood Greek. Therefore it is urged that a Galilean fisherman like St.\nJohn, though he might have been sufficiently educated to have\nwritten the former, as his father was well off and kept servants,\nand he himself was a friend of the High Priest,[235] could scarcely\nhave written the latter. Various explanations have been given of\nthis. Perhaps the best is that the Revelation was written by St.\nJohn himself, since he is not likely to have had friends in Patmos;\nand that when writing the Gospel he had the assistance of a Greek\ndisciple.\n\n[Footnote 235: Mark 1. 20; John 18. 15.]\n\nOn the other side, it must be remembered that though the two books\nare different in language, they are the same in their _teaching_;\nfor the great doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, that of the Divinity of\nChrist, is asserted almost as plainly in the Revelation. And even\nthe striking expression that Christ is the _Logos_, or _Word_,\noccurs in both books, though it is not found elsewhere in the New\nTestament, except in one of St. John's Epistles.[236] And the same\nmay be said of another striking expression, that Christ is the\n_Lamb_, which also occurs in the Gospel and Revelation, though not\nelsewhere in the New Testament.[237] This similarity in doctrine is\nindeed so marked that it strongly suggests the same authorship; and\nif so, it makes it practically certain that the Fourth Gospel was\nwritten by St. John.\n\n[Footnote 236: John 1. 1; 1 John 1. 1; Rev. 19. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 237: John 1. 29, 36; Rev. 6. 1; 14. 1.]\n\nOn the whole, then, these objections are not serious; while, as\nalready shown, the Fourth Gospel has very strong internal marks of\ngenuineness. And when we combine these with the equally strong\nexternal testimony, it forces us to conclude that St. John was the\nauthor. This Gospel, then, like the other three, must be considered\n_genuine_; indeed, the evidence in favour of them all is\noverwhelming.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nTHAT THE GOSPELS ARE GENUINE FROM THE EVIDENCE OF THE ACTS.\n\nImportance of the Acts, as it is by the writer of the Third Gospel.\n\n     (_A._) ITS ACCURACY.\n\n     Three examples of this:\n\n     (1.) The titles of different rulers.\n     (2.) The riot at Ephesus.\n     (3.) The agreement with St. Paul's Epistles.\n\n     (_B._) ITS AUTHORSHIP.\n\n     The writer was a companion of St. Paul, and a medical\n      man; so probably St. Luke.\n\n     (_C._) ITS DATE.\n\n     There are strong reasons for fixing this at the close of\n      St. Paul's imprisonment at Rome, about A.D. 60; and\n      this points to an earlier date for the first three Gospels.\n\n\nWe have next to consider an argument of great importance derived\nfrom the Acts of the Apostles. This book is universally admitted to\nbe by the same writer as the Third Gospel, as is indeed obvious from\nthe manner in which both are addressed to Theophilus, from the\n_former treatise_ being mentioned in the opening verse of the Acts,\nand from the perfect agreement in style and language. Hence\narguments for or against the antiquity of the Acts affect the Third\nGospel also, and therefore, to some extent, the First and Second as\nwell. So we will consider first its _accuracy_, then its\n_authorship_, and lastly its _date_.\n\n\n(_A._) ITS ACCURACY.\n\nNow, this book, unlike the Gospels, deals with a large number of\npublic men and places, many of which are well known from secular\nhistory, while inscriptions referring to others have been recently\ndiscovered. It is thus liable to be detected at every step if\ninaccurate; yet, with the doubtful exception of the date of the\nrebellion of Theudas, and some details as to the death of Herod\nAgrippa, no error can be discovered. As this is practically\nundisputed, we need not discuss the evidence in detail, but will\ngive three examples.\n\n(1.) _The titles of different rulers._\n\nWe will commence with the _titles_ given to different rulers. As is\nwell known, the Roman provinces were of two kinds, some belonging to\nthe Emperor, and some to the Senate. The former were governed by\n_propr\u00e6tors_, or when less important by _procurators_, and the\nlatter by _proconsuls_, though they frequently changed hands.\nMoreover, individual places had often special names for their\nrulers; yet in every case the writer of the Acts uses the proper\ntitle.\n\nFor example, the ruler at Cyprus is rightly called _proconsul_.[238]\nThis used to be thought a mistake, but we now know that it is\ncorrect; for though Cyprus had previously belonged to the Emperor,\nit had been exchanged with the Senate for another province before\nthe time in question. And an inscription[239] found there at Soli\nhas the words in Greek, _Paulus proconsul_, probably the Sergius\nPaulus of the Acts. Cyprus, it may be added, subsequently changed\nhands again.\n\n[Footnote 238: Acts. 13. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 239: Cyprus, by Cesnola (London, 1877), p. 425.]\n\nIn the same way Gallio is correctly described as _proconsul_ of\nAchaia.[240] For though this province belonged to the Emperor for\nsome years before A.D. 44, and was independent after A.D. 66, it\nbelonged to the Senate in the interval, when the writer referred to\nit. And an inscription, recently found at Delphi, shows that Gallio\nwas proconsul in A.D. 52, which agrees well with the chronology of\nthe Acts.[241] Equally correct is the title of _governor_ or\n_procurator_, applied to both Felix and Festus.[242] While it is\nsatisfactory to add that the title _lord_, addressed to the Emperor\nNero, which used to be thought rather a difficulty, as it was not\nknown to have been adopted till the time of Domitian (A.D. 81-96),\nhas now been found in papyri of the age of Nero.[243]\n\n[Footnote 240: Acts 18. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 241: Palestine Exploration Quarterly, July, 1913.]\n\n[Footnote 242: Acts 19. 38; 23. 26; 26. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 243: Acts 25. 26; Deissman, New Light on the New\nTestament, 1907, p. 80.]\n\nAgain, Herod (_i.e._, Agrippa I.) shortly before his death, is\nstyled _king_.[244] Now we learn from other sources that he had this\ntitle for the last three years of his government (A.D. 41-44),\nthough there had been no king in Jud\u00e6a for the previous thirty\nyears, nor for many centuries afterwards.\n\n[Footnote 244: Acts 12. 1; Josephus, Antiq., xviii. 6, xix. 5.]\n\nMoreover, his son is also called _King_ Agrippa, though it is\nimplied that he was not king of Jud\u00e6a, which was governed by Festus,\nbut of some other province. Yet, strange to say, he seems to have\nheld some official position in regard to the Jews, since Festus\n_laid Paul's case before him_, as if he were in some way entitled to\nhear it.[245] And all this is quite correct; for Agrippa, though\nKing of Chalcis, and not Jud\u00e6a, was yet (being a Jew) entrusted by\nthe Emperor with the management of the Jewish Temple and Treasury,\nand the choice of the High Priests, so he was a good deal mixed up\nin Jewish affairs.[246] And this, though only a trifle, is\ninteresting; because a late writer, who had taken the trouble to\nstudy the subject, and find out the position Agrippa occupied, is\nnot likely to have shown his knowledge in such a casual way.\nScarcely anyone notices it. And equally correct is the remarkable\nfact that his sister _Bernice_ used to act with him on public\noccasions.[247]\n\n[Footnote 245: Acts 25. 13, 14.]\n\n[Footnote 246: Josephus, Antiq., xx., 1, 8, 9.]\n\n[Footnote 247: Acts 25. 23; Josephus, Wars, ii. 16; Life, xi.]\n\nAgain at Malta we read of the _chief-man_ Publius; the accuracy of\nwhich title (for it is a _title_, and does not mean merely the most\nimportant man) is also proved by inscriptions, though as far as we\nknow it was peculiar to that island.[248] At Thessalonica, on the\nother hand, the magistrates have the curious title of _politarchs_,\ntranslated 'rulers of the city.'[249] This name does not occur in\nany classical author in this form, so the writer of the Acts used to\nbe accused of a blunder here. His critics were unaware that an old\narch was standing all the time at this very place, the modern\nSalonica, with an inscription containing this very word, saying it\nwas built when certain men were the politarchs. The arch was\ndestroyed in 1876, but the stone containing the inscription was\npreserved, and is now in the British Museum.[250] And since then\nother inscriptions have been found, showing that the term was in use\nall through the first century.\n\n[Footnote 248: Acts 28. 7; Boeckh's Corp. Ins. Lat. X., No. 7495;\nCorp. Ins. Gr., No. 5754.]\n\n[Footnote 249: Acts 17. 6.]\n\n[Footnote 250: In the Central Hall, near the Library.]\n\nNor is this accuracy confined to well-known places on the coast; it\nextends wherever the narrative extends, even to the interior of Asia\nMinor. For though the rulers there are not mentioned, the writer was\nevidently well acquainted with the places he refers to. Take\n_Lystra_, for instance.[251] According to the writer, it was a city\nof Lycaonia, though the adjacent town of Iconium was not, and this\nhas been recently proved to be correct. And it is interesting,\nbecause many classical authors wrongly assign Iconium to Lycaonia;\nwhile Lystra, though belonging to that province in the first\ncentury, was separated from it early in the second; so a late\nwriter, or one ignorant of the locality, might easily have made a\nmistake in either case. And an inscription found near Lystra, in\n1909, shows that the two gods, Jupiter and Mercury (_i.e._, Zeus and\nHermes) were commonly associated together by the inhabitants, as\nthey are represented to be in the Acts.\n\n[Footnote 251: Acts 14. 1-12; Ramsay, Bearing of Recent Discovery on\nNew Testament, 1915, pp. 48-63.]\n\n(2.) _The riot at Ephesus._\n\nAs a second example we will take the account of the _riot at\nEphesus_. All the allusions here to the worship of Diana, including\nher image believed to have fallen from heaven (perhaps a meteorite\nroughly cut into shape), her magnificent shrine, the small silver\nmodels of this, her widespread worship, and the fanatical devotion\nof her worshippers, are all in strict agreement with what we know\nfrom other sources.\n\nMoreover, inscriptions discovered there have confirmed the narrative\nto a remarkable extent. They have shown that the _theatre_ was the\nrecognised place of public meeting; that there were certain officers\n(who presided at the games, etc.) called _asiarchs_; that another\nwell-known Ephesian officer was called the _town-clerk_; that\nEphesus had the curious designation of _temple-keeper_ of Diana\n(long thought to be a difficulty); that _temple-robbing_ and\n_blasphemy_ were both crimes which were specially recognised by the\nEphesian laws; and that the term _regular assembly_ was a technical\none in use at Ephesus.[252] The reference to the _town-clerk_ is\nparticularly interesting, because what is recorded of him is said to\nagree with the duties of the town-clerk at Ephesus, though not with\nthose of the same official elsewhere.[253] All this minute accuracy\nis hard to explain unless the narrative came from one who was\npresent during the riot, and recorded what he actually saw and\nheard.\n\n[Footnote 252: _Comp._ Acts 19. 29-39; with inscriptions found in\nthe Great Theatre. Wood's Discoveries at Ephesus, 1877, pp. 43, 47,\n53, 51, 15, 39.]\n\n[Footnote 253: Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles, translated by\nWilkinson, 1909, p. 63.]\n\n(3.) _The agreement with St. Paul's Epistles._\n\nOur third example shall be of a different kind. It is that if we\ncompare the biography of St. Paul given in the Acts with the letters\nof that Apostle, many of them written to the very Churches and\npersons described there, we shall find numerous _undesigned\nagreements_ between them. And these, as before explained (Chapter\nX.) form a strong argument in favour of the accuracy of both. Take,\nfor instance, the Epistle to the Romans. Though not dated, it was\nevidently written at the close of St. Paul's second visit to Greece;\nand therefore, if mentioned in the Acts, it would come in at Chapter\n20. 3. And the following are two, out of the numerous points of\nagreement.\n\nThe first is St. Paul's saying that he was going to Jerusalem, with\nalms from Macedonia and Achaia for the poor in that city. Now in the\nActs it is stated that St. Paul had just passed through these\nprovinces, and was on his way to Jerusalem, though there is no\nmention about the alms there. But it happens to be alluded to some\nchapters later, without, however, mentioning then where the alms\ncame from.[254] The agreement is complete though it is certainly not\ndesigned.\n\n[Footnote 254: Rom. 15. 25, 26; Acts 19. 21; 24. 17.]\n\nThe other refers to St. Paul's travels, which he says extended from\nJerusalem as far as _Illyricum_. Now Illyricum is not once mentioned\nin the Acts; so there can be no intentional agreement here. And yet\nthere is agreement. For we learn from various places that St. Paul\nhad gone from Jerusalem all through what we now call Asia Minor, and\njust before the date of this Epistle had passed through Macedonia,\nwhich was his limit in this direction. And as this was the next\nprovince to Illyricum, it exactly agrees with the Epistle.[255]\n\n[Footnote 255: Rom. 15. 19; Acts 20. 2.]\n\nWe may now sum up the evidence as to the accuracy of the Acts. The\nabove instances are only specimens of many which might be given. The\nwriter knew about Jerusalem and Athens just as well as about\nEphesus. While his account of St. Paul's voyage from C\u00e6sarea to\nItaly, including as it does, references to a number of places; to\nthe climate, and prevailing winds of the Mediterranean; and to the\nphrases and customs of seamen, is so accurate, that critics of all\nschools have admitted that he is describing a voyage he had actually\nmade. In short, the Book of the Acts is full of correct details\nthroughout, and it is hard to believe that anyone but a contemporary\ncould have written it.\n\n\n(_B._) ITS AUTHORSHIP.\n\nNow if we admit the general accuracy of the book, there is little\ndifficulty in deciding on its _authorship_. As is well known,\ncertain portions of it (describing some of St. Paul's travels,\nincluding his voyage to Italy) are written in the first person\nplural, and are commonly called the \"_We_\" sections.[256] This shows\nthat the writer was a _companion_ of St. Paul at that time; and\nthen the great similarity in _language_, between these sections and\nthe rest of the book, shows that they had the same author. For they\nare both written in the same style, and they both contain over forty\nimportant words and expressions, which do not occur elsewhere in the\nNew Testament, except in the Third Gospel. This is indeed so\nstriking that it practically settles the point.[257]\n\n[Footnote 256: Acts 16. 9-40; 20. 5-21. 18; 27. 1-28. 16.]\n\n[Footnote 257: Harnack, Luke the Physician, translated by Wilkinson,\n1907, p. 53.]\n\nBut there are also slight _historical_ connections between the two\nportions. For example, in the earlier chapters some incidents are\nrecorded, in which a certain Philip (one of the _Seven_) was\nconcerned; and why should these have been selected? The writer was\nnot present himself, and many far more important events must have\noccurred, of which he gives no account. But a casual verse in the\n_We_ sections explains everything: the writer, we are told, stayed\n_many days_ with Philip, and of course learnt these particulars\nthen. And as it seems to have been his rule only to record what he\nknew for certain, he might well have left out other and more\nimportant events, of which he had not such accurate knowledge.[258]\nAnd the earlier reference, which ends with the apparently pointless\nremark that _Philip came to C\u00e6sarea_, without saying why or\nwherefore, is also explained, since this was the place where the\nwriter afterwards met him. It is then practically certain that the\nwhole book was written by one man, and that he was a companion of\nSt. Paul in many of his travels.\n\n[Footnote 258: Acts 6. 5; 8. 5, 26, 40; 21. 10.; Luke 1. 3.]\n\nIt is also practically certain that he was a _medical man_. The\nevidence for this is overwhelming, but as the fact is generally\nadmitted, we need not discuss it at length. All we need say is that\n201 places have been counted in the Acts, and 252 in the Third\nGospel, where words and expressions occur which are specially, and\nmany of them exclusively, used by Greek medical writers, and which,\nwith few exceptions, do not occur elsewhere, in the New\nTestament.[259] For instance, we read of the many proofs of the\nResurrection; the word translated _proofs_ being frequently used by\nmedical writers to express the infallible symptoms of a disease, as\ndistinct from its mere signs, which may be doubtful, and they\nexpressly give it this meaning. And we read of the restoration of\nall things; the word translated _restoration_ being the regular\nmedical term for a complete recovery of a man's body or limb.[260]\n\n[Footnote 259: Hobart's Medical Language of St. Luke (1882); some of\nhis examples are rather doubtful.]\n\n[Footnote 260: Acts 1. 3; 3. 21.]\n\nWe conclude then, from the book itself, that the writer was an\nintimate friend of St. Paul and a medical man; and from one\nof St. Paul's Epistles we learn his name, _Luke the beloved\nphysician_.[261] And this is confirmed by the fact that both this\nEpistle and that to Philemon, where St. Paul also names Luke as his\ncompanion, appear to have been written from Rome, when, as we know,\nthe writer of the Acts was with him. And he seems to have remained\nwith him to the last, _only Luke is with me_.[262] Yet this beloved\nand ever-faithful friend of St. Paul is not once named in the Acts,\nwhich would be most unlikely unless he were the author.\n\n[Footnote 261: Col. 4. 14; Philemon 24.]\n\n[Footnote 262: 2 Tim. 4. 11.]\n\n\n(_C._) ITS DATE.\n\nThe _date_ of the book can also be fixed with tolerable certainty.\nIt is implied in its abrupt ending. The last thing it narrates is\nSt. Paul's living at Rome, two years before his expected trial (A.D.\n58-60).[263] It says nothing about this trial, nor of St. Paul's\nrelease, nor of his subsequent travels, nor of his second trial and\nmartyrdom (probably under Nero, A.D. 64); though had it been written\nafter these events, it could hardly have failed to record them. This\nis especially the case as the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul,\nwhich, according to early authorities, occurred together at Rome,\nwould have formed such a suitable conclusion for a work chiefly\nconcerned with their labours.\n\n[Footnote 263: Rackham's Commentary on the Acts, 1901, p. lxvii;\nmany place it a year or two later, some a little earlier.]\n\nOn the other hand, the abrupt ending of the book is at once\naccounted for if it was written at that time, about A.D. 60, by St.\nLuke, who did not relate anything further, because nothing further\nhad then occurred. And it is obvious that these two years would not\nonly have formed a most suitable period for its compilation, but\nthat he is very likely to have sent it to his friend Theophilus just\nbefore the trial, perhaps somewhat hurriedly, not knowing whether it\nmight not involve his own death, as well as that of St. Paul.\n\nThis would also account for the great prominence given to the\nevents of the immediately preceding years in Chapters 20. to 28.,\nwhich is quite unintelligible, unless the book was written soon\nafterwards. They were nothing like as important as the events of the\nnext few years, about which the writer says nothing. And why should\nhe go through the earlier stages of St. Paul's arrest and trial, so\ncarefully, step by step, from Lysias to Felix, from Felix to Festus,\nand then to Agrippa, and on to Rome; and then when he comes to the\ncrisis, and the Apostle is about to appear before C\u00e6sar, suddenly\nbreak off, without giving a hint as to which way it was decided?\nEveryone must feel how tantalising it is; and how unlikely he is to\nhave stopped here, if he could have gone on.\n\nThis abrupt ending, then, is the great argument for dating the book\nabout A.D. 60; but it is supported by several others. In the first\nplace, the journey to Rome itself, especially the shipwreck, is\ndescribed with such minute and graphic details, that it seems likely\nto have been written down very soon afterwards, probably in that\ncity.\n\nSecondly, the Roman judges and officials are always represented as\ntreating the Christians with fairness, and even kindness; and the\nwriter leaves St. Paul appealing to C\u00e6sar, with every hope of a\nfavourable verdict. There is no sign of bitterness or ill-feeling\nanywhere. And all this would have been most unlikely after the great\npersecution in A.D. 64; when Christians regarded Rome with the\nutmost horror.[264] Compare the somewhat similar case of the Indian\nMutiny. Can we imagine an Englishman in India writing soon after the\nMutiny a history, say of Cawnpore, up to 1854, and then closing it,\nwithout ever letting a hint fall that he was aware of the terrible\ntragedy which happened in 1857, or showing the slightest ill-feeling\ntowards its perpetrators? The only reasonable conclusion would be\nthat such a history must have been written _before_ the Mutiny. In\nthe same way the Acts must have been written _before_ Nero's great\npersecution.\n\n[Footnote 264: _E.g._, Rev. 17. 6.]\n\nThirdly, the same sort of argument is afforded by the destruction of\nJerusalem in A.D. 70. Had the book been written after this, it is\nstrange that the writer should seem to be entirely unaware of it;\nmore especially as it had so close a bearing on the events described\nin the Acts, such as the Jewish law not being binding on Gentile\nChristians. And it is the more significant, because he records the\nprophecy of the event in his Gospel,[265] but nowhere hints that the\nprophecy had been fulfilled.\n\n[Footnote 265: Luke 19. 43.]\n\nLastly, an early date is implied by the passage, where St. Paul\ntells his friends near Ephesus, that they would not see him again.\nIt was quite natural for him to have said so at the time, as his\nfeelings were very despondent; but no one, writing many years later,\nwould have recorded it _without comment_; since it is almost certain\nthat St. Paul, after his release from Rome, did revisit\nEphesus.[266]\n\n[Footnote 266: Acts 20. 25, 38; 2 Tim. 4. 20.]\n\nOn the whole, then, there is very strong evidence in favour of the\nActs of the Apostles having been written by St. Luke about A.D. 60;\nand this of course proves an earlier date for _St. Luke's Gospel_.\nAnd this again proves a still earlier one for _St. Mark's Gospel_,\nwhich is now generally admitted to have been written before St.\nLuke's; and probably for _St. Matthew's_ as well. The evidence of\nthe Acts, then, while confirming our previous conclusion that the\nfirst three Gospels were certainly written before A.D. 70, enables\nus to add with some confidence that they were also written before\nA.D. 60. And, it may be added, Prof. Harnack, who long maintained\nthe opposite view, has at last accepted this early date for all\nthese Gospels.[267] The book has of course no direct bearing on the\ndate of St. John's Gospel.\n\n[Footnote 267: Date of Acts, and Synoptic Gospels, translated by\nWilkinson, 1911, pp. 99, 133, 134. Some writers would place them\nstill earlier. Thus Canon Birks, dates them all between A.D. 42-51,\nand he gives strong reasons for thinking that St. Luke, and his\nGospel, are referred to in 2 Cor. 8. 18. (Hor\u00e6 Evangelic\u00e6, 1892,\nedit., pp. 259, 281, 293); and Archdeacon Allen places the second\nGospel, about A.D. 44, and the first about A.D. 50. (Introduction to\nthe Books of the New Testament, 1913, p. 13.)]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nTHAT THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST IS PROBABLY TRUE.\n\n     (_A._) ITS IMPORTANCE.\n\n     The third day, the empty tomb.\n\n     (_B._) THE NARRATIVES.\n\n     The various accounts, table of Christ's appearances, the\n      three groups, the double farewell.\n\n     (_C._) THEIR DIFFICULTIES.\n\n     (1.) Discrepancies; often due to the appearances being\n           placed together; the disciples going to Galilee.\n     (2.) Omissions; the Gospels only record selected instances,\n           and St. Paul refers to them in groups.\n\n     (_D._) THEIR TRUTHFULNESS.\n\n     (1.) Agreements; very important.\n     (2.) Mutual explanations; very numerous.\n     (3.) Signs of early date; very interesting.\n\n     Conclusion, the narratives appear to be thoroughly trustworthy.\n\n\nWe decided in the previous chapters that the Four Gospels, and also\nthe Acts of the Apostles, were _genuine_; that is to say, they were\nwritten by the persons to whom they are commonly ascribed. And to\nthese may be added the four great Epistles of St. Paul, and the\nRevelation of St. John, which, as before said, are admitted to be\ngenuine by critics of all schools. We have thus direct testimony\nas to the life of Christ, that is to say, the testimony of\ncontemporaries, some of whom must have known Him well. St. Matthew\nand St. John were two of His Apostles; St. Mark and St. Luke had\nexceptionally good means of knowing the truth, and may perhaps have\nhad some slight knowledge of Christ themselves, as had also St.\nPaul.[268] We have now to examine the value of this testimony, more\nespecially as to the _Resurrection of Christ_. So in the present\nchapter we will consider the _importance_ of the Resurrection, and\nthe _narratives_ we have of it; both as to their _difficulties_, and\ntheir _truthfulness_; and in the next the various alternative\ntheories.\n\n[Footnote 268: 2 Cor. 5. 16.]\n\n\n(_A._) ITS IMPORTANCE.\n\nIn the first place, we cannot overestimate the importance of the\nResurrection, for this fact, either real or supposed, was the\nfoundation of Christianity. This is plain not only from the Gospels,\nbut still more from the Acts, where we have numerous short speeches\nby the Apostles, given under various circumstances, and to various\naudiences, including Jewish Councillors, Greek philosophers, and\nRoman governors. And in nearly all of them the Resurrection of\nChrist is not only positively asserted, but is emphasised as a fact\nestablished by indisputable evidence and as being the foundation of\nChristianity.[269] It is even said that it was the special duty of\nan apostle to bear witness to it; and St. Paul seems to have been\naware of this, since, when claiming to be an apostle, he is careful\nto show that he was thus qualified. And for himself he makes it the\nbasis of all his teaching, _if Christ hath not been raised, then is\nour preaching vain_.[270] It is certain, then, that the first\npreachers of Christianity preached the Resurrection of Christ.\n\n[Footnote 269: Acts 2. 24; 4. 10; 5. 30; 10. 40; 13. 30; 17. 31; 26.\n23.]\n\n[Footnote 270: Acts 1. 22; 1 Cor. 9. 1; 15. 14-17.]\n\nIt is equally certain that they preached that it occurred on the\n_third day_, counting from the Crucifixion.[271] This also is stated\nnot only in the Gospels, but by St. Paul; who in one place bases his\nwhole argument on the fact that the Body of Christ (unlike that of\nDavid) _saw no corruption_, a point also alluded to by St. Peter,\nand implying a Resurrection in a few days.[272] While if further\nevidence is required, the fact that this third day (the first day of\nthe week) became _the Lord's Day_--the Christian Sunday--seems to\nput the matter beyond dispute.\n\n[Footnote 271: Sometimes described as _after three days_, but that\nthe two expressions are intended to mean the same is clear from\nMatt. 27. 63-64, where Christ's saying that He would rise again\n_after three days_ is given as the reason for guarding the sepulchre\n_until the third day_. In the same way _after eight days_ evidently\nmeans _on the eighth day_ (John 20. 26).]\n\n[Footnote 272: 1 Cor. 15. 4; Acts 13. 35-37; 2. 31.]\n\nOnce more it is certain that the Christians believed that this\nResurrection was one of Christ's _Body_, not His _Spirit_. This\nagain is clear not only from the Gospels, which all speak of the\n_empty tomb_; but also from St. Paul's Epistles. For when he says\nthat Christ _died_, and was _buried_, and was _raised on the third\nday_, and _appeared_ to Cephas, etc., he must mean Christ's _Body_\n(for a Spirit cannot be _buried_); and he must mean that it was the\n_same_ Body that died and was buried, that was afterwards raised,\nand appeared to them, including himself.[273] Christ's being\n_raised_, it will be noticed, was distinct from, and previous to,\nHis _appearing_ to anyone, just as in the Gospels the empty tomb is\nalways mentioned _before_ any of the appearances.\n\n[Footnote 273: 1 Cor. 15. 3-5.]\n\nAnd even in the one case, where St. Paul alludes to what he saw as a\n_heavenly vision_, he refers to it in order to prove that it is not\nincredible that God should _raise the dead_;[274] which again shows\nthat he thought it was a _Body_, for a _Spirit_ cannot be raised\nfrom the _dead_. And his specifying _the third day_ makes this (if\npossible) still plainer, for the life of the spirit after death does\nnot commence on the third day; nor would it have prevented Christ's\nBody from seeing corruption.\n\n[Footnote 274: Acts 26. 19, 8.]\n\nFrom all this it is abundantly clear that St. Paul, like the Four\nEvangelists, and the other Apostles, believed in what is called the\n_physical_ Resurrection, in the sense that Christ's Body was\nrestored to life, and left the tomb. Though like them, he also\nbelieved that it was no longer a _natural_ body, bound by the\nordinary laws of nature, but that it had been partly changed as\nwell, so that it shared to some extent the properties of spirits.\n\nNor is his statement that _flesh and blood_ cannot inherit the\nKingdom of God, opposed to this.[275] For when he uses the same\nexpression elsewhere (_e.g._, _I conferred not with flesh and\nblood_)[276] it is evidently not used in a literal sense. It does\n_not_ mean flesh and blood, in the same way in which we might speak\nof bones and muscles. It means _men_. So his meaning here is\nprobably that mere men--human beings as such--cannot inherit the\nfuture life of glory. Their bodies will first have to be changed,\nand made incorruptible; but they will still be _bodies_. And as just\nsaid, St. Paul is quite definite as to its being the Body of Christ\nthat was _buried_, that was afterwards raised on the third day.\n\n[Footnote 275: Cor. 15. 50.]\n\n[Footnote 276: Gal. 1. 16; Eph. 6. 12; comp. Matt. 16. 17.]\n\nWe may say, then, with confidence, that wherever the Resurrection\nwas believed, the fact that it occurred on the third day, and the\nfact that it was a physical Resurrection, involving the empty tomb,\nwas believed also. The three invariably went together. But was this\nbelief justified? This is the question we have to discuss.\n\n\n(_B._) THE NARRATIVES.\n\nNow we have five different accounts of the Resurrection; and these\nare so thoroughly independent that not one of them can be regarded\nas the source of any of the others. Little stress, however, can be\nlaid on the latter part of St. Mark's account, as the genuineness of\nthe last twelve verses is doubtful; but it anyhow represents a very\nearly Christian belief, Aristion being sometimes named as the\nauthor. And even the earlier part is conclusive as to the empty\ntomb, and the promised appearance in Galilee. On the other hand, St.\nPaul's account, which is perhaps the strongest, is universally\nallowed to have been written within thirty years of the event; the\nmost probable date for which is A.D. 29 or 30, and for the Epistle\nA.D. 55. And it should be noticed that St. Paul reminds the\nCorinthians that what he here says about the Resurrection is what he\npreached to them on his first visit (about A.D. 50), and that as\nthey had _received_ it from him, so he had himself _received_ it\nfrom others at a still earlier date.[277]\n\n[Footnote 277: 1 Cor. 15. 1-3.]\n\nAnd we can even fix this date approximately, for two of the\nappearances he records were to St. Peter and St. James; and he\nhappens to mention elsewhere[278] that these were the two Apostles\nhe met at Jerusalem, three years after his conversion (A.D. 35, or\nearlier); so he doubtless heard the whole account then, even if he\nhad not heard it before. And this was certainly within _ten\nyears_--probably within _seven_ years--of the Crucifixion. More\nancient testimony than this can scarcely be desired. And if anything\ncould add to its importance it would be St. Paul's own statement\nthat in this respect his teaching was the same as that of the\noriginal Apostles: _Whether then it be I or they, so we preach and\nso ye believed_.[279]\n\n[Footnote 278: Gal. 1. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 279: 1 Cor. 15. 11.]\n\nWe need not quote the various accounts here, but the accompanying\ntable gives them in a convenient form for reference. Altogether\nChrist seems to have been seen on thirteen different occasions; and\nthere may have been others, which are not recorded, though they are\nperhaps hinted at.[280]\n\n[Footnote 280: Acts 1. 3; 13. 31; John 20. 30.]\n\nIt is doubtful however if the eighth appearance was separate from\nthe ninth, for St. Matthew says that when the Eleven saw Him, on the\nmountain in Galilee, as He had appointed, _they_ worshipped Him,\nbut _some_ doubted. This _some_ can scarcely mean some of the\nEleven, who had just worshipped. It probably refers to some others\nwho were present (_i.e._, some of the five hundred) who doubted at\nfirst if it was really He, as He was some way off, and it was before\nHe _came_ to them. And since the command to preach the Gospel to all\nthe world, which St. Matthew records, was probably addressed to the\nEleven only, it will account for his not mentioning that others were\npresent. In the same way St. Luke relates the Ascension, as if only\nthe Eleven were there, though it is clear _from his own narrative_\nthat he knew there were others with them; since he afterwards\nrecords St. Peter as saying so.[281]\n\n[Footnote 281: Acts 1. 1-13; 22-23.]\n\nOn the other hand, the appearance to the five hundred must have\nbeen on a _mountain_, or some other open space, as a room would not\nhave been large enough. It must have been in _Galilee_, as there\nwere not so many disciples in Jerusalem.[282] It must have been _by\nappointment_, as they could hardly have come together by accident;\nand they are not likely to have come together at all unless the\n_Eleven_ had collected them. And all this is an additional reason for\nidentifying it with that recorded by St. Matthew.\n\n[Footnote 282: Acts 1. 15.]\n\nIt must next be noticed that the appearances form _three groups_.\nFirst a group in or near Jerusalem, which was chiefly to the Twelve\nApostles, and extended over eight days. Secondly a group in Galilee,\nthe most important being that to the five hundred, which was a sort of\n_farewell_ to His Galilean disciples. And thirdly to a group back again\nat Jerusalem, chiefly to the Twelve, but including others, and ending\nwith the Ascension, or _farewell_ to His Jud\u00e6an disciples.\n\nTABLE OF CHRIST'S APPEARANCES.\n\n +-----------------------+--------+-------+--------+---------+---------+\n |                       |_1 Cor._|_Matt._| _Mark._| _Luke._ | _John._ |\n +-----------------------+--------+-------+--------+---------+---------+\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n |Empty tomb visited    }|        |       |       {|24. 1-11,|}        |\n |    by women          }|   ..   |28. 1-8|16. 1-8{|   22-23 |}20. 1-2 |\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n |  And by Apostles      |   ..   |  ..   |   ..   |  12, 24 |     3-10|\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n |An appearance in      }|        |       |        |         |         |\n |  Galilee foretold    }|   ..   |      7|  16. 7 |   ..    |    ..   |\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n |Then Christ was seen   |        |       |        |         |         |\n |  _In or near          |        |       |        |         |         |\n |    Jerusalem, by_     |        |       |        |         |         |\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n |   (i.) Mary Magdalene |   ..   |  ..   |   9-11 |   ..    |    11-18|\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n |  (ii.) The two Marys  |   ..   |   9-10|   ..   |   ..    |    ..   |\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n | (iii.) St. Peter      |  15. 5 |  ..   |   ..   |      34 |    ..   |\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n | ( iv.) Cleopas and   }|        |       |        |         |         |\n |          another,    }|        |       |        |         |         |\n |          perhaps St. }|        |       |        |         |         |\n |          Luke, at    }|        |       |        |         |         |\n |          Emmaus      }|   ..   |  ..   |  12-13 |   13-35 |    ..   |\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n |   (v.) The Apostles  }|        |       |        |         |         |\n |          and others  }|        |       |        |         |         |\n |          (without    }|        |       |        |         |         |\n |          St. Thomas) }|      5 |  ..   |     14 |   36-43 |    19-25|\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n |  (vi.) The Apostles  }|        |       |        |         |         |\n |          (with St.   }|        |       |        |         |         |\n |          Thomas)     }|   ..   |  ..   |   ..   |   ..    |    26-29|\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n |_In Galilee, by_       |        |       |        |         |         |\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n | (vii.) Seven Apostles}|        |       |        |         |         |\n |          on the Lake }|   ..   |  ..   |   ..   |   ..    | 21. 1-23|\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n |(viii.) The Apostles  }|        |       |        |         |         |\n |          on the      }|        |       |        |         |         |\n |          mountain    }|   ..   |  16-20|  15-18 |   ..    |   ..    |\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n |  (ix.) Over 500      }|        |       |        |         |         |\n |          persons     }|      6 |  ..   |   ..   |   ..    |   ..    |\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n |   (x.) St. James      |      7 |  ..   |   ..   |   ..    |   ..    |\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n |_Back at Jerusalem, by_|        |       |        |         |         |\n |                       |        |       |        |         | _Acts._ |\n |  (xi.) The Apostles  }|        |       |        |         |         |\n |          at Jerusalem}|   ..   |  ..   |   ..   |   44-49 | 1.   4-5|\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n | (xii.) The Apostles  }|        |       |        |         |         |\n |          and others  }|        |       |        |         |         |\n |          at Bethany  }|      7 |  ..   |  19-20 |   50-53 | 6-11, 22|\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n |(xiii.) St. Paul       |      8 |  ..   |   ..   |   ..    | 9.   3-9|\n |                       |        |       |        |         |         |\n +-----------------------+--------+-------+--------+---------+---------+\n\nAnd though this _double_ farewell is sometimes thought to be a\ndifficulty, yet as Christ's Resurrection was meant to be the proof\nof His mission, it seems only natural that He should have appeared\nagain to _all_ His disciples, and have taken leave of them; both\nthose in Galilee, and those at Jerusalem, the Apostles themselves\nbeing of course present on each occasion. And as the words _when\nthey were come together_ imply that the meeting in Jerusalem, like\nthat in Galilee, had been previously announced, all the Jud\u00e6an\ndisciples may well have been there; and this we know was the case\nwith Matthias, Justus, and others.[283]\n\n[Footnote 283: Acts 1. 6, 22.]\n\n\n(_C._) THEIR DIFFICULTIES.\n\nPassing on now to the difficulties in the narratives; they may be\nconveniently placed under the two heads of _discrepancies_ and\n_omissions_.\n\n(1.) _Discrepancies._\n\nThese seem to be chiefly due to two of the Evangelists, St. Mark and\nSt. Luke, recording separate appearances as if they were continuous.\nBut it so happens that they do much the same in the rest of their\nGospels, often recording separate sayings of Christ as if they were\none discourse; and even in closely-connected passages a break has\nsometimes to be assumed.[284] While in these very narratives, St.\nLuke describes an appearance at Jerusalem in Acts 1. 4, and\ncontinues without any change of place till v. 12, when he says\n_they returned to Jerusalem_. Plainly he is here grouping together\nwords spoken on different occasions.\n\n[Footnote 284: _E.g._, in Luke 14. 21-22.]\n\nTherefore he may have done the same at the end of his Gospel.\nIndeed, it is almost certain that he did, otherwise we should have\nto place the Ascension in the middle of the night, which is scarcely\nprobable. Moreover, in the Acts he expressly says that the\nappearances lasted _forty days_; and he quotes St. Paul, as saying\nthat they lasted _many days_.[285] He seems to have thought it\nunnecessary in his Gospel to explain that they were at different\ntimes; and if St. Mark did the same, it would account for most,\nthough not all, of the discrepancies between them.\n\n[Footnote 285: Acts 1. 3; 13. 31.]\n\nThese discrepancies, however, are often much exaggerated. Take for\ninstance the fifth appearance in the previous list. St. Luke and St.\nJohn evidently refer to the same occasion, as it was on the evening\nof Easter Day; yet one says the Apostles were _terrified_, and\nthought they saw a spirit; while the other says they were _glad_.\nCan both be true? Certainly they can, if we assume (as is most\nnatural) that the Apostles were _at first_ terrified, and thought\nthey saw a spirit; but were afterwards glad, when on Christ's\nshowing them His hands and side, they were convinced that it was\nreally Himself. And He may then have reproached them for their\nunbelief as recorded by St. Mark.\n\nOr take the case of the Angels at the Tomb. These are referred to by\nevery Evangelist, though some call them men (in white or dazzling\napparel) and others angels. But as St. Luke uses both words,[286]\nand as angels are not likely to have appeared in any but a human\nform, there is no real difficulty here. While if the second angel\nwas not always visible, it would account for some of the Evangelists\nspeaking of only one. And it may be mentioned in passing, that one\nof the angels is said to have been seen by the Roman soldiers as\nwell, who went and told the Jews about it.[287] And this is not\nlikely to have been asserted within twenty years unless it had been\nthe case, as the Jews would have contradicted it. Yet if it was the\ncase, it affords an additional argument for the Resurrection, and\none derived from Christ's enemies, not His friends.\n\n[Footnote 286: Luke 24. 4, 23. Similarly Gabriel is called a _man_\nin Dan. 9. 21, and an _angel_ in Luke 1. 25.]\n\n[Footnote 287: Matt. 28. 4, 11.]\n\nA more important difficulty is caused by Christ's command to the\nwomen, that they and the Apostles were to proceed to Galilee to meet\nHim, when, as He knew, He was going to appear to them in Jerusalem\nthe same day. The most probable explanation is that the meeting in\nGalilee was the one _intended_ all along, in fact we are definitely\ntold so.[288] But when the women, in consequence of the Angel's\nmessage, and after they had recovered from their fright (which at\nfirst made them run away and say nothing to anyone),[289] went and\ntold the Apostles to go there, they were _disbelieved_.[290] This\nnaturally made the women doubt too, so they returned to the grave to\nmake further inquiries, none of them having the slightest intention\nof going to Galilee.\n\n[Footnote 288: Mark 14. 28.]\n\n[Footnote 289: Mark 16. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 290: Luke 24. 11.]\n\nUnder these circumstances, something more was necessary, so Christ\nappeared first to Mary Magdalene, and then to her with the other\nMary, when He told them Himself to warn the Apostles to proceed to\nGalilee, which they again did, and were again _disbelieved_.[291]\nThen He appeared to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, and when\nthey came back, and told the rest, they were also at first\n_disbelieved_; the Apostles, though now admitting that Christ had\nbeen seen by St. Peter, still denying such a bodily resurrection\n(able to eat food, etc.) as they described.[292]\n\n[Footnote 291: Mark 16. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 292: Mark 16. 13; Luke 24. 34.]\n\nAfter this there was nothing for it, but for Christ to appear to the\nApostles Himself, and convince them personally by eating food in\ntheir presence, which He did, when most of them were assembled\ntogether the same evening. And He may then have told them to remain\nin Jerusalem till they were _all_ convinced, as they could scarcely\nhave been expected to collect the five hundred for the meeting in\nGalilee, so long as they kept disputing among themselves as to\nwhether He had really risen. And it was thus another week before the\nlast sceptic (St. Thomas) was convinced, and they finally started\nfor Galilee. These discrepancies then are not nearly so serious as\nis commonly supposed.\n\n(2.) _Omissions._\n\nWith regard to the _omissions_, none of our lists are at all\ncomplete, and this is often thought to be a difficulty. But as far\nas the _Gospels_ are concerned, the writers nowhere profess to give\na complete list of Christ's appearances, any more than of His\nparables, or His miracles; they only record (as one of them tells\nus)[293] _selected instances_. And in the present case their choice\nis quite intelligible. Thus St. Matthew closes his Gospel, which is\nconcerned chiefly with the Galilean ministry, with the farewell\nmeeting in Galilee; St. John, whose Gospel is concerned chiefly with\nthe Jud\u00e6an ministry, ended his (before the last chapter was added,\nwhich seems a sort of appendix) with some of the appearances in\nJerusalem. While St. Luke, who was more of an historian, and wrote\neverything _in order_,[294] though he describes most in detail the\nappearance to the two disciples at Emmaus (which is only natural if\nhe was one of them), is yet careful to carry his narrative right on\nto the Ascension. Therefore, though they only record certain\nappearances, they may well have known of the others; and there can\nbe little doubt that they did.\n\n[Footnote 293: John 20. 30.]\n\n[Footnote 294: Luke 1. 3.]\n\nThus, St. Matthew speaks of the Eleven meeting Christ by\n_appointment_, so he must have known of some interview when this\nappointment was made, (perhaps the one on the Lake), as the messages\nto the women did not fix either the time or place.[295] In the same\nway St. Mark must have known of a meeting in Galilee, as he refers\nto it himself, and St. Luke of an appearance to St. Peter.[296]\nWhile St. John, though he does not record the Ascension, must\ncertainly have known of it, as he refers to it twice in the words,\n_if ye should behold the Son of Man ascending_, and _I ascend unto\nMy Father_, the former passage clearly showing that it was to be a\nvisible ascent, and that the Apostles were to see it.[297] Plainly,\nthen, the Evangelists did not relate every appearance they knew of,\nand the objection as far as they are concerned, may be dismissed at\nonce.\n\n[Footnote 295: Matt. 28. 16, 7, 10.]\n\n[Footnote 296: Mark 16. 7; Luke 24. 34.]\n\n[Footnote 297: John 6. 62; 20. 17.]\n\nOn the other hand, _St. Paul's list_ certainly looks as if it were\nmeant to be complete; and this is no doubt a real difficulty.\nSurely, it is said, if the other appearances had occurred, or were\neven supposed to have occurred, when St. Paul wrote, he would have\nheard of them; and if he had heard of them, he would have mentioned\nthem, as he was evidently trying to make out as strong a case as he\ncould. He might perhaps have omitted the appearances to _women_, as\ntheir testimony was not considered of much value at the time; and\nthey were not witnesses of the Resurrection, in the sense he alludes\nto--_i.e._, persons who went about preaching it;[298] but why should\nhe have omitted the rest?\n\n[Footnote 298: 1 Cor. 15. 11.]\n\nThere is however a fairly good explanation. The appearances it will\nbe remembered form _three groups_. Now St. Paul mentions two\nappearances to individual Apostles--St. Peter and St. James; and\nthis was doubtless because he had had such vivid accounts of them\nfrom the men themselves, when he met them at Jerusalem. For we may\nbe sure that if they had not told him, he would not have accepted it\nfrom anyone else. But he seems to refer to the others _in these\ngroups_, first to the Twelve (at Jerusalem), then to the five\nhundred (in Galilee), and then to all the Apostles, evidently\nmeaning more than the Twelve (back again at Jerusalem). But by so\ndoing, he does not limit it to only one appearance in each group. In\nthe same way a man might say that on returning to England he saw\nfirst his parents, then his brothers, then his cousins; though he\nhad seen his parents on two days a week apart, his brothers for only\na few hours, and his cousins for several successive days.\n\nAnd the fact that St. Paul, in one of his speeches in the Acts,[299]\nexpressly says that Christ was seen for _many days_ at Jerusalem,\nstrongly confirms this view. We conclude, then, that in his Epistle\nhe is mentioning the appearances by groups, rather than every single\none; wishing to emphasise the number of men who had seen Christ,\nrather than the number of times they had seen Him; and if so it does\naway with the difficulty. None of these objections, then, are of\nmuch importance.\n\n[Footnote 299: Acts 13. 31.]\n\n\n(_D._) THEIR TRUTHFULNESS.\n\nTurning now to the other side, the narratives bear abundant marks of\ntruthfulness. These we will consider under the three heads of\n_agreements_, _mutual explanations_, and _signs of early date_.\n\n(1.) _Agreements._\n\nIn the first place it is important to notice that in spite of the\ndiscrepancies and omissions just alluded to, there is an\nextraordinary amount of _agreement_ in the narratives. For all the\nmore important points--the third day, the empty tomb, the visit of\nthe women, the angelic message, the first appearance being in\nJerusalem, the incredulity of some of the disciples, and Christ's\nnot only appearing, but speaking as well, and this in the presence\nof all the Apostles--are _all_ vouched for by _every_ Evangelist.\n\nThey also agree in saying that the Apostles _remained in Jerusalem_\nafter Christ's arrest, and did not as we might have expected return\nat once to Galilee? For the last two Gospels expressly state that\nthey were in Jerusalem on Easter Day; and the first two imply it, or\nhow could the women have been told to take them a message to _go_ to\nGalilee?\n\nFurther they all agree in _not_ giving (what imaginary accounts\nmight well have contained) any description of the Resurrection\nitself, any appearance of Christ to His enemies; or any information\nas to the other world, though this last would have been so eagerly\nwelcomed, and could have been so easily invented.\n\nMoreover the _order_ in which the appearances are placed is also the\nsame in every account, that to Mary Magdalene for instance (wherever\nit occurs) being, always placed first, that to St. Peter next, that\nto Cleopas next, then that to the Twelve, etc. And this is the more\nremarkable because the narratives are so obviously independent, and\nthe order is not at all a likely one. Writers of fiction, for\ninstance, would never have made Christ first appear to so little\nknown a person as Mary Magdalene, rather than to His Mother or His\nApostles.\n\nOnce more the narratives all agree in the extreme _calmness_ with\nwhich they are written. One would have thought it almost impossible\nfor anyone after relating the story of the Cross, to have avoided\nsome word of triumph, or exultation, in regard to the Resurrection\nand Ascension. But nothing of the kind is found. The writers record\nthem, like the rest of the history, as simple matters of fact,\napparently regarding them as the natural close for such a Life, and\ncalling for no comment. How unlikely this would be in legendary\naccounts scarcely needs pointing out.\n\nIt may also be added (though it does not concern these actual\nnarratives) that the Evangelists all agree in saying that Christ had\n_prophesied_ His own Resurrection.[300] And while this does not of\ncourse prove it to have been true, it yet forms a difficulty on any\nother theory.\n\n[Footnote 300: _E.g._, Matt. 16. 21; Mark 9. 31; Luke 18. 33; John\n2. 19-21.]\n\n(2.) _Mutual explanations._\n\nIn the next place it is surprising to find how often a slight remark\nin one of the narratives will help to explain some apparent\nimprobability, or difficulty in another. And since, as just said,\nthe narratives are quite independent, and were certainly not written\nto explain one another; such indications of truthfulness are of\ngreat value. We will therefore consider several examples.[301]\n\n[Footnote 301: These and some others are discussed in a paper in the\n_Expositor_, May, 1909, by the present writer.]\n\nTo begin with, St. John records Mary Magdalene as visiting the empty\nTomb, and then telling the disciples _we know not where they have\nlaid Him_. But to whom does the _we_ refer, as she was apparently\nalone all the time? St. John does not explain matters; but the other\nEvangelists do. For they say that though Mary Magdalene was the\nleader of the party, and is always named first, yet as a matter of\nfact there were other women with her; and this accounts for the\n_we_. Later on no doubt she was alone; but then she uses the words\n_I know not_.[302]\n\n[Footnote 302: John 20. 2, 13.]\n\nSecondly, St. Luke says that _Peter_ was the disciple who ran to the\ntomb on hearing of the Angel's message, without however giving any\nreason why he should have been the one to go. But St. Mark, though\nhe does not mention the visit of Peter, records that the message had\nbeen specially addressed to him; and St. John says that Mary\nMagdalene had specially informed him; and this of course explains\nhis going. St. Luke, it may be added, in the subsequent words,\n_certain of them that were with us_,[303] implies that at least one\nother disciple went with him, which agrees with St. John.\n\n[Footnote 303: Luke 24. 24.]\n\nSt. Luke then says that when Peter arrived at the tomb, he saw the\nlinen cloths _by themselves_, and went home _wondering_. This seems\nonly a trifle, but what does it mean? St. Luke does not explain\nmatters, but St. John does; for he describes how the cloths were\narranged. This was in a way which showed that the Body could not\nhave been hurriedly stolen, but had apparently vanished without\ndisturbing them. It convinced St. John that the disappearance was\nsupernatural, and would quite account for St. Peter's wondering.[304]\n\n[Footnote 304: Luke 24. 12; John 20. 6-8.]\n\nAgain, St. Matthew narrates that when Christ appeared to Mary\nMagdalene, and the other Mary, He was at once recognised, held by\nthe feet, and worshipped. And they do not seem to have been at all\nsurprised at meeting Him near the tomb, in spite of the Angel's\nmessage that they should go to Galilee to see Him. Evidently\nsomething must have occurred between, making a break in the\nnarrative after v. 8, which is quite possible, for the words, _And\nbehold_ (Rev. Vers.) do not always imply a close connection.[305]\nAnd from the other Evangelists we learn what this was. For St. John\ndescribes an appearance to Mary Magdalene _alone_, when she was\nrebuked for wishing to touch Him, apparently in the old familiar\nway, and without any act of reverence; and St. Mark says this was\nthe _first_ appearance. If then a few minutes later, she, in company\nwith the other Mary, saw Christ again, it would quite account for\ntheir not being surprised at meeting Him, and also for their altered\nbehaviour in prostrating themselves to the ground, and being in\nconsequence permitted to hold Him by the _feet_, and worship Him.\n\n[Footnote 305: _E.g._, Matt. 2. 1.]\n\nOnce more St. Luke says that when Christ appeared to the Apostles in\nthe evening, He was mistaken for a _spirit_; but he gives no reason\nfor this, and it was apparently the only occasion on which it\noccurred. St. John however, though he does not mention the incident,\nfully explains it; for he says that _the doors were shut_ for fear\nof the Jews; and obviously if Christ suddenly appeared within closed\ndoors, it would account for their thinking that He must be a\nspirit. On the other hand, St. John speaks of Christ's showing them\nHis hands (and also His side) though without giving any reason for\nthis. But St. Luke's statement that they at first took Him for a\nspirit, and that He did this to convince them of His identity, quite\naccounts for it; so each of the narratives helps to explain the\nother.\n\nBut this is not all, for St. Luke then adds that as they still\ndisbelieved, Christ asked if they had anything to eat (_i.e._, if\nthey would give _Him_ something to eat) and they at once offered Him\na piece of broiled fish. But he gives no hint as to why they\nhappened to have any fish ready. St. Mark however, though he does\nnot mention either the request, nor its response, fully explains\nboth; for he says they were _sitting at meat_ at the time, probably\njust concluding their evening meal. And all this still further\nexplains St. John's narrative, that Christ said to them _again_, the\nsecond time, _Peace be unto you_; which would be much more natural\nif something had occurred between, than if (as St. John implies) it\nwas just after the first time.\n\nAgain, St. Mark records Christ as saying, after His command to\npreach the Gospel to all the world, 'He that believeth _and is\nbaptised_ shall be saved,' though without any previous reference to\nbaptism. But St. Matthew says the command was not only to make\ndisciples of all nations, but to _baptise_ them as well, and this of\ncourse explains the other passage, though curiously enough St.\nMatthew himself does not refer to it.\n\nAnd then as to the appearance to the five hundred recorded by St.\nPaul. None of the Evangelists mention this, but it explains a good\ndeal that they do mention. Thus St. John alludes to the Apostles\nbeing in _Galilee_, (instead of staying in Jerusalem) after the\nResurrection, but he gives no hint as to why they went there. Nor do\nSt. Matthew and St. Mark, who say Christ told them to go there, give\nany hint as to why He told them; but this appearance to the five\nhundred, who had to be collected in Galilee, explains everything. It\nalso accounts for St. Matthew's curious remark (before noticed) that\nwhen the Eleven saw Christ in Galilee, _they worshipped Him, but\nsome doubted_. And it probably explains St. Luke's omission of\nGalilee among the places where the Apostles themselves had to preach\nthe Resurrection; as there were so many witnesses there\nalready.[306]\n\n[Footnote 306: Acts 1. 8.]\n\nNow of course too much stress must not be laid on small details like\nthese, but still the fact that such short and independent accounts\nshould explain one another in so many ways is a distinct evidence of\ntruthfulness. Legendary accounts of fictitious events would not be\nlikely to do so.\n\n(3.) _Signs of early date._\n\nIn conclusion, it is interesting to note that these accounts,\nespecially those in the first three Gospels, show signs of an\nextremely early, if not a _contemporary_ date. Thus St. Peter is\nstill called by his old name of _Simon_,[307] and it is the last\noccasion when that name is used, without explaining to whom it\nrefers; St. Paul, some years later, though alluding to this same\nappearance, calling him by what was then his usual name of Cephas or\nPeter. Whilst St. John, writing many years afterwards, though he is\nequally accurate as to Simon being the name in use at the time,\nthinks it necessary to explain who was meant by it ('Jesus saith to\nSimon _Peter_, Simon son of John, lovest thou Me?').[308]\n\n[Footnote 307: Luke 24. 34.]\n\n[Footnote 308: John 21. 15; comp. Acts. 15. 7, 14.]\n\nSimilarly the Apostles are still spoken of as _the Eleven_, though\nthey could only have had this title for _just these few weeks_.[309]\nAnd the fact of their having had it seems to have been soon\nforgotten. For St. Paul even when alluding to this very time prefers\nto call them by the familiar title of _the Twelve_, which was\nequally correct, as we are specially told that St. Matthias, who was\nafterwards chosen as the twelfth, had been with them all along.[310]\n\n[Footnote 309: Mark 16. 14; Luke 24. 9, 33.]\n\n[Footnote 310: Acts 1. 22; 1 Cor. 15. 5.]\n\nThere are also some incidental remarks in the narratives, which seem\nso natural, and yet so unlikely to have been invented. Thus we read\nthat on one occasion after Christ appeared to the Apostles, they\nstill disbelieved _for joy_; and on another, that though they knew\nit was the Lord, they yet wanted to ask Him _Who art Thou?_[311]\nSuch bewildered feelings are quite intelligible at the time, but are\nnot likely to have been thought of afterwards.\n\n[Footnote 311: Luke 24. 41; John 21. 12.]\n\nMoreover the _kind_ of Resurrection asserted (though no doubt\npresenting great difficulties) is strongly in favour of a\ncontemporary date. For it was not (as said in Chapter XIII.) a mere\nresuscitation of Christ's natural body, but His rising again in a\nbody which combined material and spiritual properties in a\nremarkable manner. And there was nothing in the Old Testament, or\nanywhere else, to suggest such a Resurrection as this; it was quite\nunique. Indeed the _combination_ of these properties--and they occur\nin the same Gospel--is so extremely puzzling, that it is hard to see\nhow anything but actual experience (or what they believed to be\nsuch) could ever have induced men to record it. And much the same\nmay be said of their ascribing an _altered appearance_ to Christ's\nBody, so that He was often not recognised at first. Late writers are\nnot likely to have imagined this.\n\nLastly, the utter absence of any attempt at harmonising the\nnarratives, or avoiding the apparent discrepancies between them,\nalso points to their extreme antiquity. The writers in fact seem to\nnarrate just what they believed to have happened, often mentioning\nthe most trivial circumstances, and without ever attempting to meet\ndifficulties or objections. And while such disconnected accounts\nmight well have been written by the actual witnesses of a wonderful\nmiracle, they are not such as would have been deliberately invented;\nnor are they like subsequent legends and myths.\n\nThese narratives then appear throughout to be thoroughly\ntrustworthy; and we therefore decide that the _Resurrection of\nChrist is probably true_. In the next chapter we will consider the\nvarious alternative theories.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XVIII\n\nTHAT THE FAILURE OF OTHER EXPLANATIONS INCREASES THIS PROBABILITY.\n\n     The first witnesses of the Resurrection. The value of all testimony\n      depends on four questions about the witnesses, and here the denial\n      of each corresponds to the four chief alternative theories.\n\n     (_A._) THE FALSEHOOD THEORY.\n\n     This would be to deny their _veracity_, and say that they\n      did not speak the truth, as far as they knew it. But\n      it is disproved by their motives, their conduct, and their\n      sufferings.\n\n     (_B._) THE LEGEND THEORY.\n\n     This would be to deny their _knowledge_, and say that they\n      had not the means of knowing the truth. But amply\n      sufficient means were within their reach, and they were\n      quite competent to use them.\n\n     (_C._) THE VISION THEORY.\n\n     This would be to deny their _investigation_, and say that\n      they were too excited to avail themselves of these\n      means. But this theory has immense difficulties.\n\n     (1.) Arguments in its favour.\n     (2.) Arguments against it.\n     (3.) Its failure to account for the facts.\n     (4.) The theory of real visions.\n\n     (_D._) THE SWOON THEORY.\n\n     This would be to deny their _reasoning_, and say that they\n      did not draw the right conclusion, since Christ's appearances\n      were due to His not having died. But this theory\n      also has immense difficulties.\n\n     (_E._) CONCLUSION.\n\n     The alleged difficulties of the Christian Theory, extremely\n      strong argument in favour of the Resurrection.\n\n\nWe decided in the last chapter that the Resurrection of Christ was\n_probably true_; that is to say, we carefully examined the various\nnarratives, and came to the conclusion that they had every\nappearance of being candidly and truthfully written. We have now to\nconsider, more in detail, _the testimony of its first witnesses_.\nAnd, as we shall see, this affords strong additional evidence in its\nfavour; since all attempts to account for this testimony, without\nadmitting its truth, fail hopelessly.\n\nBy the _first witnesses_, we mean those persons who saw, or said\nthey saw, Christ alive after His Crucifixion. This will include the\ntwelve Apostles, and over 500 other Christians, most of whom St.\nPaul says were still alive when he wrote. It will also include two\npersons, who at the time were _not_ Christians,--St. Paul himself,\nan avowed enemy, and St. James who, though he was Christ's brother,\ndoes not seem to have believed in Him.[312]\n\n[Footnote 312: John 7. 5.]\n\nAnd before discussing the value of their testimony, it may be well\nto glance at some general rules in regard to all testimony. If,\nthen, a person plainly asserts that a certain event took place,\nbefore we believe that it did take place, we must inquire first as\nto his _Veracity_: did he speak the truth as far as he knew it? Next\nas to his _Knowledge_: had he the means of knowing the truth? Next\nas to his _Investigation_: did he avail himself of those means? And\nlastly, as to his _Reasoning_: did he draw the right conclusion? And\nall possible ways of denying the truth of a man's statement can be\nbrought under one or other of these heads. For if it is not true, it\nmust be either:--\n\n Intentionally false                            = want of Veracity.\n                  { had not the   }\n                  {  means of     }\n       or         {  knowing the  }             = want of Knowledge.\n                  {  truth        }\n                  {\n Unintentionally  {\n  false, in which {  or           { did not   } = want of Investigation.\n  case he either  {               {  use them }\n                  { had the means,{   or\n                  {  and either   { used them }\n                  {               {  wrongly  } = want of Reasoning.\n\nFrom this it is clear that for anyone to deny a man's statement,\nwithout disputing either his veracity, knowledge, investigation, or\nreasoning, is very like denying that one angle is greater than\nanother, without disputing that it is neither equal to it, nor less\nthan it. We have now to apply these general rules to the testimony\nin favour of the Resurrection of Christ. And, as we shall see, the\ndenial of these four points corresponds to the four chief\nalternative theories, which, may be called the _Falsehood_, the\n_Legend_, the _Vision_, and the _Swoon_ Theory.\n\n\n(_A._) THE FALSEHOOD THEORY.\n\nWe will begin with the Falsehood Theory. This would be to deny the\n_veracity_ of the witnesses, and say that though they asserted that\nChrist rose from the dead, and appeared to them, they did not really\nbelieve it. In other words they were deliberate impostors, who,\nknowing that their Master did not rise from the dead, yet spent\ntheir whole lives in trying to persuade people that He did. And, as\nwe shall see, their _motives_, their _conduct_, and their\n_sufferings_, are all strongly opposed to such a theory.\n\nAnd first as to their _motives_, had they any interest in asserting\nthat Christ rose from the dead unless they really believed it?\nClearly they had _not_, for they were so few or so faint-hearted\nthat they could not prevent their Master being crucified. What\nchance was there then of persuading the world that He had risen from\nthe dead, and why should they have embarked on such a hopeless\nscheme? Nothing indeed but the most firm conviction of their Lord's\nResurrection, and therefore of supernatural assistance, would ever\nhave induced men to have ventured on it. If they believed the\nResurrection to be true, then, and only then, would they have had\nany motive whatever for preaching it.\n\nNext as to their _conduct_, did this show that they really believed\nwhat they preached? And here also the evidence is overwhelming. When\ntheir Master was crucified His followers were naturally filled with\ngloom and despair; but in a few days this was changed to intense joy\nand confidence. They preached the Resurrection in the very place\nwhere He was crucified, and boldly went forth to convert the world\nin His name. It is clear that before such a marvellous change could\ntake place they must at least have thought they had, what St. Luke\nasserts they actually did have, _many proofs_ of the Resurrection.[313]\nTo them, at all events, the evidence must haveseemed conclusive, or\nChristianity would have perished on Calvary.\n\n[Footnote 313: Acts 1. 3.]\n\nLastly as to their _sufferings_. This is the most important point,\nsince voluntary suffering in any form, but especially in its extreme\nform of martyrdom, seems conclusive as to a man's veracity. Persons\ndo not suffer for what they believe to be false; they must have\nbelieved it to be true, though this does not of course prove that it\nactually was true. And here is the answer to the common objection,\nthat since all religions have had their martyrs, this kind of\nevidence proves nothing. On the contrary, it does prove something,\nthough it does not prove everything. It does not prove that what the\nman died for was true, but it does prove that he believed it to be\ntrue. It is therefore a conclusive test as to his _veracity_.\n\nWhat evidence have we, then, that the first witnesses suffered for\nthe truth of what they preached? And once more the evidence is\ncomplete and overwhelming, both from the Acts and St. Paul's\nEpistles. We need only refer to these latter, as their genuineness\nis undisputed. St. Paul then, in one place, gives a list of the\nactual sufferings he had undergone; he alludes to them in numerous\nother places, and often as if they were the common experience of all\nChristians at the time; and in one passage he expressly includes the\nother Apostles with himself in the long list of sufferings he\ndescribes. While he elsewhere declares that at a still earlier time,\nbefore his conversion, he himself persecuted the Christians _beyond\nmeasure_.[314]\n\n[Footnote 314: 2 Cor. 11. 24-27; Rom. 8. 35; 1 Cor. 4. 9-13; Gal. 1.\n13.]\n\nThere can thus be no doubt as to the continual sufferings of the\nfirst witnesses, and, as just said, it is a decisive proof of their\nveracity. We conclude therefore that when they asserted that Christ\nrose from the dead, they were asserting what they honestly believed\nwhether rightly or wrongly, to be true. And as this belief was due,\nsimply to the witnesses believing that they saw Christ alive after\nHis death; we must further conclude that they honestly believed in\nthe appearances of Christ as recorded by themselves, and their\nfriends, in the New Testament. In other words, these accounts are\nnot _intentionally_ false.\n\nSo much for the _veracity_ of the witnesses. It is not, as a rule,\ndenied by modern opponents of the Resurrection; but in early times,\nwhen men ought to have known best, it was evidently thought to be\nthe only alternative. St. Paul declares emphatically that unless\nChrist had risen, he and the other Apostles were _false witnesses_,\nin plain words _liars_.[315] That was the only choice. They were\neither saying what they knew to be true, or what they knew to be\nfalse. And the idea of there being some _mistake_ about it, due to\nvisions, or swoons, or anything else, never seems to have occurred\nto anyone.\n\n[Footnote 315: 1 Cor. 15. 15.]\n\n\n(_B._) THE LEGEND THEORY.\n\nWe pass on now to the Legend Theory. This would be to deny the\n_knowledge_ of the witnesses: and say that our Gospels are not\ngenuine, but merely record subsequent legends; so we cannot tell\nwhether the first witnesses had, or had not, the means of knowing\nthe truth. But if we admit the genuineness of our Gospels, and the\nveracity of their writers (both of which have been admitted), the\nLegend Theory is out of the question.\n\nThey asserted, it will be remembered, that Christ's _Body_, not His\nSpirit, appeared to them, after the crucifixion; and from their own\naccounts it is clear that they had ample means of finding out if\nthis was true. Whether they used these means, and actually did find\nout, is, of course, another question; but as to sufficient means\nbeing available, and their being quite competent to use them if they\nliked, there can be no doubt whatever. As has been well said, it was\nnot one person who saw Him, but many; they saw Him not only\nseparately, but together; not only for a moment, but for a long\ntime; not only by night, but by day; not only at a distance, but\nnear; not only once, but several times. And they not only saw Him,\nbut they touched Him, walked with Him, conversed with Him, ate with\nHim, and examined His Body to satisfy their doubts. In fact,\naccording to their own accounts, Christ seems to have convinced them\nin every way in which conviction was possible that He had really\nrisen from the dead.\n\nAnd even apart from our Gospels, the Legend Theory is still\nuntenable. For St. Paul mentions several of the appearances, and as\nthis was within a few years of the events, there was no time for the\ngrowth of legends. Moreover he heard of them direct from those who\nsaw them, St. Peter, St. James, etc., so he must have known the\ncircumstances under which they occurred, and, being an educated man,\nis not likely to have been taken in by any imposture. While his\nsaying that some of the five hundred had died, though most of them\nwere still alive when he wrote, implies that he had also made some\nenquiries about that appearance. His testimony is thus very valuable\nfrom every point of view, and absolutely fatal to the Legend\nTheory.\n\n\n(_C._) THE VISION THEORY.\n\nWe now come to the Vision Theory. This would be to deny the\n_investigation_ of the witnesses; and say that they were so excited,\nor so enthusiastic, or perhaps so stupid, that they did not avail\nthemselves of the ample means they had of finding out the truth. In\nother words they so expected their Lord to appear to them after His\ndeath, and kept so dwelling on the thought of Him, as though unseen,\nyet perhaps very near to them, that after a time they fancied they\nactually saw Him, and that He had risen from the dead. The wish was,\nin fact, father to the thought; so that when a supposed appearance\ntook place, they were so filled with joy at their Master's presence,\nthat they neglected to ascertain whether the appearance they saw was\nreal, or only due to their own fancy.\n\nSuch is the theory; though it is often modified in regard to\nparticular appearances, by ascribing them to dreams, or to someone\nbeing mistaken for Christ. And as it is at present the favourite one\nwith those who reject the Resurrection, we must examine it\ncarefully; first considering the arguments in its favour, then those\nagainst it, then its failure to account for the facts recorded, and\nlastly what is known as the theory of real visions.\n\n(1.) _Arguments in its favour._\n\nNow we must at once admit that it is possible for an honest man to\nmistake a phantom of his own brain, arising from some diseased state\nof the mind or body, for a reality in the outer world. Such\n_subjective_ visions, as they are called, are by no means unheard\nof, though they are not common. And of course the great, if not the\nonly argument in its favour is that it professes to account for the\nalleged Resurrection, without on the one hand admitting its truth,\nor on the other that the witnesses were deliberate impostors. Here,\nit is urged, is a way of avoiding both difficulties, by allowing\nthat the witnesses honestly believed all they said, only they were\n_mistaken_ in supposing the appearances to be real, when they were\nmerely due to their own imagination. And undoubtedly the fact that\nmen have often thought they saw ghosts, visions, etc., when there\nwas really nothing to see, gives it some support.\n\n(2.) _Arguments against it._\n\nLet us now consider how this Vision Theory would suit the accounts\nof the Resurrection written by the witnesses themselves, and their\nfriends. As will be seen, we might almost imagine that they had been\nwritten on purpose to contradict it.\n\nTo begin with, the writers were not unacquainted with visions, and\noccasionally record them as happening to themselves or others. But\nthen they always use suitable expressions, such as falling into a\ntrance.[316] No such language is used in the Gospels to describe\nthe appearances of Christ, which are always recorded as if they were\nactual matters of fact. While as to St. Paul, he never confuses the\nrevelations and visions, which he sometimes had, with the one great\nappearance of Christ to him near Damascus, which qualified him to be\nan Apostle.[317]\n\n[Footnote 316: _E.g._, Acts 10. 10; 9. 10; 16. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 317: 1 Cor. 9. 1; 15. 8; Gal. 1. 16-17.]\n\nSecondly, the appearances did not take place (as visions might have\nbeen expected to do, and generally did)[318] when the disciples were\nengaged in prayer, or in worship. But it was during their ordinary\neveryday occupations; when for instance they were going for a walk,\nor sitting at supper, or out fishing. And they were often simple,\nplain, and almost trivial in their character, very different from\nwhat enthusiasts would have imagined.\n\n[Footnote 318: _E.g._, Acts 10. 30; 11. 5; 22. 17.]\n\nThirdly, subjective visions due to enthusiasm, would not have\nstarted so soon after the Crucifixion as the _third_ day. It would\nhave required a much longer time for the disciples to have got over\ntheir utter confusion, and to have realised (perhaps by studying the\nold prophecies) that this humiliation was, after all, part of God's\nscheme, and was to be followed by a Resurrection. Nor again would\nsuch visions have only lasted for a short time; yet with the single\nexception of that to St. Paul, they were all over in a few weeks,\nthough the enthusiasm of the witnesses lasted through life.\n\nFourthly, it is plain from all the accounts that the Apostles did\nnot _expect_ the Resurrection, and were much surprised at it,\nthough they afterwards remembered that Christ had foretold it. This\nis shown, not only by the Christians bringing spices, to embalm the\nBody, and persons do not embalm a body unless they expect it to\nremain in the grave; but also by the account of the appearances\nthemselves. For with the exception of the two farewell meetings (and\npossibly that to the two Marys), Christ's appearance was wholly\nunexpected. No one was looking for it, no one was anticipating it.\nWhen for instance Mary Magdalene found the tomb empty, it never even\noccurred to her that He had come to life again, she merely thought\nthe Body had been removed.\n\nFifthly, and this is very remarkable, when Christ did appear, He was\noften _not recognised_. This was the case with Mary Magdalene, with\nCleopas and his companion, and with the disciples at Tiberias. But\nit is plain that, if they so hoped to see their risen Master, that\nthey eventually fancied they did see Him, they would at once have\nrecognised Him; and their not doing so is quite inconsistent with\nthe Vision Theory.\n\nSixthly, we are repeatedly told that at first some of the disciples\n_disbelieved_ or _doubted_ the Resurrection.[319] This is an\nimportant point, since it shows that opinions were divided on the\nsubject, and therefore makes it almost certain that they would have\nused what means they had of finding out the truth. And a visit to\nthe grave would have shown them at once whether the Body was there,\nor not: and they are not likely to have preached the Resurrection,\nwithout first ascertaining the point. Moreover, some of them\nremained doubtful even after the others were persuaded, St. Thomas\nin particular requiring the most convincing proof. His state of mind\nwas certainly not that of an enthusiast, since, instead of being so\nconvinced of the Resurrection as to have imagined it, he could with\ngreat difficulty be got to believe it. Indeed, according to these\naccounts, scarcely one of the witnesses believed the Resurrection\ntill the belief was almost forced on him.\n\n[Footnote 319: Matt. 28. 17; Mark 16. 11-14; Luke 24. 11, 37; John\n20. 25.]\n\nSeventhly, subjective visions do not occur to different persons\n_simultaneously_. A man's private illusions (like his dreams) are\nhis own. A number of men do not simultaneously dream the same dream,\nstill less do they simultaneously see the same subjective vision--at\nleast a vision like that here referred to, of a person moving about\namong them, and speaking to them. This is quite different from\nConstantine's army thinking that they saw a luminous cross in the\nsky, or a body of Spanish troops that they saw their patron (St.\nJames) riding at their head, or anything of that kind; several\ninstances of which are known. But a subjective vision, at all\nresembling what is described in the Gospels, is extremely rare. It\nmay perhaps happen to one person in ten thousand once in his life.\nIt is difficult to believe that even two persons should have such an\nexperience at the same time, while the idea that a dozen or more men\nshould simultaneously see such a subjective vision is out of the\nquestion. And the Gospels, it may be added, always imply that\nChrist was visible _to all present_ (though some of them doubted as\nto His identity), which was not, as a rule, the case in other\nalleged visions.\n\nEighthly, how are we to account for visionary _conversations_? Yet\nthese occurred on _every_ occasion. Christ never merely appeared,\nand then vanished. He always spoke, and often for a considerable\ntime, giving detailed instructions; and can we imagine anyone\nbelieving a mere vision to have done all this? Is it possible, for\ninstance, for St. Thomas to have believed that Christ conversed with\nhim, and for the other Apostles, _who were all present_, to have\nbelieved it too, if the whole affair was only a vision? Indeed,\nconversations _in the presence of others_ seem peculiarly hard to\nexplain as visions, yet they are mentioned more than once.\n\nFor all these reasons then--because the appearances are not\ndescribed in suitable language, did not occur on suitable occasions,\nbegan and ended too soon, were not expected, were not recognised,\nwere not believed, occurred simultaneously, and always included\nconversations as well--the Vision Theory is to say the least\nextremely improbable.\n\n(3.) _Its failure to account for the facts._\n\nBut this is not all; the Theory is not only improbable, it does not\naccount for the actual _facts_ recorded--facts concerning which,\nunless the writings are intentionally false, there could be no doubt\nwhatever. A vision, for instance, could not have rolled away the\nstone from the door of the tomb, yet this is vouched for by _every_\nEvangelist. Again, persons could not have honestly believed that\nthey went to the tomb, and found it empty, if the Body was there all\nthe time. And this also is vouched for by _every_ Evangelist. Nor\ncould they have thought that they _touched_ their Master, _i.e._,\ntook hold of His feet, if He existed only in their imagination; for\nthe attempt to touch Him would at once have shown them their\nmistake.[320] Nor could they have seen Him _eat food_, for a vision,\nlike a dream, would not explain the disappearance of the food. Nor\nagain could a mere vision take bread, and on another occasion bread\nand fish, and give it them to eat.[321] In regard to all these\nparticulars, then, the Vision Theory is hopelessly untenable.\n\n[Footnote 320: Matt. 28. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 321: Luke 24. 30, 43; John 21. 13; Acts 10. 41.]\n\nThere is also the great difficulty as to what became of the _dead\nBody_ of Christ. For if it was still in the grave, the Jews would\nhave produced it, rather than invent the story about its being\nstolen; and if it was not in the grave, its removal could not have\nbeen due to visions. With regard to this story it may be noticed\nthat St. Matthew says it was _spread abroad_ among the Jews; and\nJustin Martyr, himself a native of Palestine, also alludes to it.\nFor he says that the Jews sent men all over the world to proclaim\nthat the disciples _stole_ the Body at _night_;[322] so there can be\nno doubt that some such story existed.\n\n[Footnote 322: Matt. 28. 15; Justin, Dial., 108.]\n\nBut its weakness is self-evident. For if the soldiers (who were\nprobably posted on the Saturday evening, and thus not known to the\nwomen) were, as they said, _asleep_ at the time, how could they\ntell whether the disciples had stolen the Body, or whether Christ\nhad come forth of His own accord? Moreover that Roman soldiers, with\ntheir strict discipline, who were put there on purpose to keep the\nBody, should really have gone to sleep, and allowed it to be stolen,\nis _most improbable_. And though it seems unlikely that they could\nhave been bribed to say they were asleep, if they were not, as it\nwas a capital offence; we must remember that they were _already_\nliable to death; since they had left the tomb, and the Body was\ngone. So whether they were asleep, or awake, at the time mattered\nlittle. And in any case, the fact of their having left it (which is\nplain from all the accounts) shows that something very extraordinary\nmust have happened.\n\nAll, then, that the story proves is this (but this it does prove\nunquestionably), that though the Body was guarded, yet when it was\nwanted it was gone, and could not be found. And this is a strong\nargument not only against the Vision Theory, but against every\ntheory except the Christian one. For when the Resurrection was first\nannounced, the most obvious and decisive answer would have been for\nthe Jews to have produced the dead Body; and their not doing this\nstrongly supports the Christian account. Indeed, the _empty tomb_,\ntogether with the failure of all attempts to account for it, was\ndoubtless one of the reasons why the Apostles gained so many\nconverts the first day they preached the Resurrection.[323]\n\n[Footnote 323: Acts 2. 41.]\n\nLastly, we must remember that this gaining of converts, _i.e._, the\n_founding of Christianity_, is, after all, the great fact that has\nto be explained. And even if the Vision Theory could account for the\nApostles themselves believing that they had seen Christ, it would\nnot account for their being able to convince others of this belief,\nespecially if the Body was still in the tomb. For a mere vision,\nlike a ghost story, would begin and end in nothing; and if the\nResurrection also began in nothing, how are we to account for its\nending in so much?\n\nSumming up these arguments, then, we conclude that the Vision Theory\nis most improbable in any case; and can only be accepted at all by\nadmitting that nearly the whole of our accounts are not only untrue,\nbut intentionally so. But then it is quite needless. Its object was\nto explain the alleged Resurrection without disputing the _veracity_\nof the writers, and this it is quite unable to do. In short, if the\nwriters honestly believed the accounts as we have them, or indeed\nany other accounts at all resembling them, the Vision Theory is out\nof the question.\n\nIt does not even account satisfactorily for the one appearance, that\nto St. Paul, which it might be thought capable of explaining. For\nhis _companions_ as well as himself saw the Light and (apparently)\nheard the Voice, though not the actual words.[324] And how could a\nsubjective vision of St. Paul have thus affected all his companions?\nMoreover physical blindness does not result from such a vision, and\nto say that in his case the wish was father to the thought, and\nthat his expectation and hope of seeing Christ eventually made him\nthink that he did see Him, is absurd. For even when he did see Him,\nhe did not recognise Him; but had to ask _Who art Thou, Lord?_ Here\nthen was the case of an avowed enemy, and a man of great\nintellectual power, who was converted, and that against his will,\nsolely by the appearance of Christ. And as he had access to all\nexisting evidence on both sides, and had everything to lose and\nnothing to gain from the change, his conversion alone is a strong\nargument in favour of the Resurrection, more especially as the fact\nitself is beyond dispute.\n\n[Footnote 324: Acts 9. 7; 22. 9; 26. 13, 14.]\n\n(4.) _The Theory of real visions._\n\nBefore passing on, we must just glance at a modification of the\nVision Theory, that has been suggested in recent years; which is\nthat the Apostles saw _real_ visions, miraculously sent by God, to\npersuade them to go on preaching the Gospel. And no doubt this\ntheory avoids many of the difficulties of the ordinary Vision\nTheory, especially in regard to the appearances beginning so soon as\nthe third day, their not being expected, and their occurring\nsimultaneously. But it has even greater difficulties of its own. For\nit admits the supernatural, and yet these divinely sent visions were\nsuch as to _mislead_ the Apostles, and to make them think that\nChrist's Body had risen from the grave, and saw no corruption, when\nin reality it was still decaying in the tomb.\n\nAnd this alone is fatal to the theory. For if God gave a\nsupernatural vision, it would certainly be to convince men of what\nwas true, not of what was false. And even a real miracle is easier\nto believe, than that God should found His Church on a false one.\nMoreover supernatural visions are just as unable as natural ones to\naccount for the facts recorded, such as the rolling away of the\nstone, the empty tomb, the holding of Christ by His feet, or the\ndisappearance of the food. While the great difficulty as to what\nbecame of the dead Body, applies to this as much as to the ordinary\nVision Theory.\n\n\n(_D._) THE SWOON THEORY.\n\nLastly we come to the Swoon Theory. This would be to deny the\n_reasoning_ of the witnesses; and say that though they saw Christ\nalive after His Crucifixion, they did not draw the right conclusion\nin thinking that He had risen from the dead, since as a matter of\nfact He had never died, but had only fainted on the Cross.\n\nAnd in support of this, it is urged that death after crucifixion did\nnot generally occur so quickly, since Pilate _marvelled if He were\nalready dead_; and that He might easily have been mistaken for dead,\nas no accurate tests were known in those days. While the blood\ncoming out of His side is also appealed to, because blood does not\nflow from a dead body. Moreover, as He was then placed in a cool\nrock cave, with aromatic spices, He would probably recover\nconsciousness; when He would come forth and visit His friends, and\nask for something to _eat_: which is what He did according to St.\nLuke. And they, superstitious men, looking upon their Master as in\nsome sense Divine, and perhaps half expecting the Resurrection,\nwould at once conclude that He had risen from the dead; especially\nif they had already heard that the tomb was empty.\n\nAnd the chief argument in favour of the theory is, of course, the\nsame as that in favour of the Vision Theory. It professes to account\nfor the recorded appearances, without admitting either the truth of\nthe Resurrection, or deliberate falsehood on the part of the\nwitnesses; who, according to this theory, were themselves mistaken\nin thinking that Christ had risen from the dead, when in reality He\nhad never died. They could not therefore have helped in restoring\nHim; He must have recovered by Himself. This is essential to the\ntheory; so it is quite unlike a case recorded by Josephus, where a\nman who had been crucified, and taken down alive, was gradually\nrestored by a doctor.[325]\n\n[Footnote 325: Josephus, Life, 75.]\n\nHow then would this theory suit the facts of the case? While\nadmitting its possibility, it is hard to find words to express its\ngreat _improbability_. It has immense difficulties, many of them\npeculiarly its own. And first as to Christ Himself. He must have\nbeen extremely exhausted after all the ill-treatment He had\nreceived, yet He is supposed not only to have recovered\nconsciousness, but to have come out of the tomb by Himself, rolling\naway the large stone. And then, instead of creeping about weak and\nill, and requiring nursing and medical treatment, He must have\nwalked over twelve miles--and this with pierced feet[326]--to\nEmmaus and back. And the same evening He must have appeared to His\ndisciples so completely recovered that they, instead of looking upon\nHim as still half-dead, thought that He had conquered death, and was\nindeed the Prince of Life. All this implies such a rapid recovery as\nis quite incredible.\n\n[Footnote 326: The feet being pierced is often disputed, but St.\nLuke (who probably knew more about crucifixion than we do) evidently\nthought they were; for he records Christ as saying, _See my hands\nand my feet that it is I myself_, which implies that His hands and\nfeet would identify Him.]\n\nNext as to the piercing of His side with a spear.[327] This is\nrecorded by an eye-witness, and would doubtless of itself have\ncaused death, though St. John's statement that He was dead already\nseems the more probable. Nor did the blood coming out, in any way,\ndisprove this. For blood (as long as it remains liquid) will of\ncourse flow out _downwards_ from any body, just as other liquids\nwould do. Only when a person is alive, the action of the heart will\nmake it flow out upwards as well.\n\n[Footnote 327: John 19. 34.]\n\nAgain, it is most unlikely that so many persons, both friends and\nfoes, should have mistaken Christ for dead. Yet according to this\ntheory the _soldiers_ entrusted with the execution, who must have\nhad a good deal of experience in such matters; the _centurion_, who\nwas sent for by Pilate on purpose to ascertain this very point; the\n_Christians_, who took down the Body and wrapped it in linen cloths;\nand the _Jews_, who are not likely to have left their Victim without\nmaking sure of the fact, must all have honestly believed that\nChrist was dead when He was not. Moreover, the tomb was carefully\nguarded by His enemies for the express purpose of securing the Body.\nHow then did they let it escape? If they were not asleep at the\ntime, they must either have done this _willingly_, because they were\nbribed; or _unwillingly_, because they could not help it, being\novercome by some supernatural Power; and either alternative is fatal\nto the Swoon Theory.\n\nThis theory also requires not only that the Apostles should have\nbeen mistaken in thinking that Christ had risen from the dead, but\nthat Christ Himself should have countenanced the mistake; or He\nwould have explained the truth to His disciples. He is thus made to\nbe a deceiver instead of His Apostles, which all will admit to be\nmost improbable.\n\nAnd then, what became of Him afterwards? If He died again within a\nfew weeks, His disciples could scarcely have thought Him the Prince\nof Life, who had the keys of Death and of Hades;[328] and if He\ncontinued to live, where did He go to? Moreover He must have died\nagain at some time, and His real tomb is sure to have been much\nvenerated by His followers; and it would have prevented any belief\nin the Ascension. Yet as said before (Chapter XV.), this seems to\nhave formed a part of Christian instruction from the very first.\n\n[Footnote 328: Acts 3. 15; Rev. 1. 18.]\n\nBut perhaps the chief argument against this theory is that it does\nnot account for many of the actual _facts_ recorded; such as Christ\npassing through closed doors, His vanishing at pleasure, and His\nAscension. These details present no difficulty on the Vision Theory,\nnor on that of deliberate falsehood; but they are inconsistent with\nthe present one. And though it accounts to some extent for the empty\ntomb; it does not account for the _angels_ being there, announcing\nthe Resurrection.\n\nNor does it account for the _grave-clothes_ being so carefully left\nbehind. For if Christ had come out of the tomb by Himself, He could\nscarcely have left His clothes behind; not to mention the difficulty\nof taking them off, caused by the adhesive myrrh, which would have\nstuck them together, and to the Body. These grave-clothes are thus\nfatal to this, as to every other theory, except the Christian one;\nyet it was a simple matter of fact, as to which there could be no\npossible _mistake_. Either the clothes were there, or else the\npersons who said they saw them were telling a falsehood. Moreover,\nin any case Christ could not have walked to Emmaus and back, or\nappeared to the Apostles, or to anyone else, in His _grave-clothes_,\nso He must have obtained some others, and how did He get them? His\nenemies are not likely to have supplied them, and if His friends\ndid, they must have been aware of the fraud.\n\nOn the whole then, we decide that the _Swoon Theory_, like the\nVision Theory, is very improbable in any case, and only tenable at\nall by supposing a large part of our narratives to be intentionally\nfalse. But then it is quite needless.\n\n\n(_E._) CONCLUSION.\n\nBefore concluding this chapter a few remarks may be made on the\nalleged difficulties of the _Christian_ theory. There are only two\nof any importance. The first is that the Resurrection would be a\n_miracle_, and probably nine out of ten men who disbelieve it, do so\nfor this reason. It is not that the evidence for it is insufficient\n(they have perhaps never examined it) but that no conceivable\nevidence would be sufficient to establish such an event. Miracles,\nthey say, are incredible, _they cannot happen_, and that settles the\npoint; for it is of course easier to believe _any_ explanation,\nvisions, swoons, or anything else, than the occurrence of that which\ncannot happen.\n\nBut we have already admitted, in Chapter VII., that miracles\nare _not_ incredible. And though no doubt, _under ordinary\ncircumstances_, a dead man coming to life again would be so\n_extremely_ improbable as to be practically incredible; yet these\nwere not ordinary circumstances, and Christ was not an ordinary man.\nOn the contrary, as we shall see, He was an absolutely unique Man,\nclaiming moreover to be Divine, and having a mass of powerful\nevidence both from His own Character, from previous Prophecies, and\nfrom subsequent History, to support His claims. Therefore that He\nshould rise from the dead, as a proof that these claims were\nwell-founded, does not seem so very improbable after all.\n\nThe other difficulty refers to Christ's not appearing _publicly_ to\nthe Jews. Why, it is asked, did He only appear to His own disciples?\nSurely this is very suspicious. If He really did rise from the\ndead, and wished the world to believe it, why did He not settle the\npoint by going publicly into Jerusalem?\n\nBut we cannot feel sure that this would have _settled the point_. No\ndoubt the Jews who saw Him would have been convinced, but the nation\nas a whole might, or might not, have accepted Christianity. If they\ndid _not_, saying for instance it was due to a pretender, it would\nhave been worse than useless. While if they did, the Romans would\nvery likely have looked upon it as a national insurrection, and its\nprogress would have been more than ever difficult. It would also\nhave greatly weakened the force of _Prophecy_; since, in the absence\nof ancient manuscripts, people might think that the old Jewish\nprophecies had been tampered with, to make them suit their Christian\ninterpretation. But now these prophecies, having been preserved by\nmen who are opposed to Christianity, are above suspicion.\n\nMoreover, to get the world to believe in the Resurrection required\nnot only evidence, but _missionaries_, that is to say, men who were\nso absolutely convinced of its truth, as to be willing to spend\ntheir whole lives in witnessing for it, in all lands and at all\ncosts. And the chief object of the appearances may have been to\nproduce such men; and it is obvious that (apart from a miraculous\nconversion like St. Paul's) there could not have been more than a\nfew of them.\n\nFor only a _few_ could have conversed with Christ, and eaten with\nHim after His death, so as to be quite certain that He was then\nalive; only a _few_ could have known Him so intimately before, as\nto be quite certain that it was really He, and only a _few_ had\nloved Him so dearly as to be willing to give up everything for His\nsake. In short, there were only a few _suitable_ witnesses\navailable. And Christ's frequently appearing to these few--the\n_chosen witnesses_ as they are called[329]--in the private and\nintimate manner recorded in the Gospels, was evidently more likely\nto turn them into ardent missionaries (which it actually did) than\nany public appearance. Indeed it so often happens that what\neverybody should do, nobody does; that it may be doubted whether\nChrist's publicly appearing to a number of persons in Jerusalem\nwould have induced even one of them to have faced a life of\nsuffering, and a death of martyrdom, in spreading the news. This\nobjection, then, cannot be maintained.\n\n[Footnote 329: Acts 10. 41.]\n\nIn conclusion, it seems scarcely necessary to sum up the arguments\nin this chapter. We have discussed at some length the veracity,\nknowledge, investigation, and reasoning of the _first witnesses_ of\nthe Resurrection; and as we have seen, not one of these points can\nbe fairly doubted. In fact the evidence in favour of each is\noverwhelming. Therefore the alternative theories--the Falsehood, the\nLegend, the Vision, and the Swoon Theory--which are founded on\ndenying these points, are all untenable. And this greatly supports\nthe conclusion we arrived at in the last chapter; so that combining\nthe two; we have an _extremely strong_ argument in favour of the\nResurrection of Christ.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nTHAT THE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES ARE PROBABLY TRUE.\n\n     (_A._) THEIR CREDIBILITY.\n\n     They present few difficulties; the casting out of evil spirits.\n\n     (_B._) THEIR TRUTHFULNESS.\n\n     (1.) General marks of truthfulness.\n     (2.) Special marks of truthfulness.\n\n     (_C._) THEIR PUBLICITY.\n\n     (1.) They occurred in public.\n     (2.) They were publicly appealed to.\n     (3.) They were never disputed.\n     (4.) The silence of classical writers.\n\n     (_D._) CONCLUSION.\n\n     Futile attempts to explain them away, the subject of\n      modern miracles.\n\n\nHaving discussed in the last two chapters the Resurrection of\nChrist, we pass on now to the other New Testament miracles, and will\nconsider in turn their _credibility_, their _truthfulness_, and\ntheir _publicity_.\n\n\n(_A._) THEIR CREDIBILITY.\n\nNow with one exception, the casting out of evil spirits, the\nmiracles present scarcely any difficulty provided miracles at all\nare credible, which we have already admitted. Most of them,\nespecially those of healing, were very suitable from a moral point\nof view, while that they were meant to confirm Christ's teaching and\nclaims is beyond dispute. Not only do all the Evangelists declare\nthis, but Christ Himself though He refused to work a miracle when\nchallenged to do so--He would not work one _to order_, as we might\nsay--yet appealed to His _public_ miracles in the most emphatic\nmanner.\n\nThus, when St. John the Baptist sent messengers to inquire whether\nHe was the Messiah, His only answer was, 'Go your way, and tell John\nthe things which ye do hear and see; the blind receive their sight,\nand the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and\nthe dead are raised up,'[330] etc. And this is specially important\nbecause Christians would not have _invented_ an incident which shows\nthat Christ's own messenger had (apparently) lost faith in Him. Yet\nit is not easy to separate his question from the reply which it\nreceived; while if we admit that Christ gave this reply, it seems to\nsettle the question as to His working miracles.\n\n[Footnote 330: Matt. 11. 4; Luke 7. 22; see also Mark 2. 10; John 5.\n36.]\n\nAnd He afterwards condemned Chorazin, and other cities, in the\nstrongest terms, because, although He had done so many miracles\nthere, they had not repented; which again shows both the publicity\nof the miracles, and their intended evidential value.[331] And this\npassage also is very important, since its genuineness is confirmed\nby the fact that not a single miracle is recorded as having been\nworked at Chorazin. Yet, if the Evangelists (or anyone else) had\ninvented the saying, they would surely have invented some miracles\nthere to justify it. If on the other hand, they did not invent it,\nand the words were actually spoken by Christ, is it conceivable that\nHe should have blamed these cities for not believing on Him in spite\nof His miracles, if He had done no miracles?\n\n[Footnote 331: Matt. 11. 21-24; Luke 10. 13-15. Both this passage,\nand the last, belong to Q, the supposed earliest source of our\nGospels.]\n\nWe pass on now to the _casting out of evil spirits_, which implies\nthat persons may sometimes be _possessed_ by such spirits, and this\nis often thought to be a difficulty. But though our ignorance on the\nsubject is undoubtedly great, there is nothing incredible here. For\nwe have already admitted the _influence_ of such spirits (Chapter\nXII.), and what is called _possession_ is merely an extreme form of\ninfluence. Indeed, the accounts of mesmerism at the present day,\nthough they cannot always be trusted, seem to show that even one man\nmay so entirely _possess_ the mind and will of another as to make\nhim do whatever he wishes. And it is certainly no more difficult to\nbelieve that this power may in some cases be exercised by an evil\nspirit. With regard to the outward symptoms mentioned in the\nGospels, they seem to have resembled certain forms of madness;\nthough, as the patients are now kept under restraint in civilised\ncountries, they have not the same notoriety.\n\nBut it may be said, why ascribe this madness to an evil spirit? But\nwhy not? Madness often follows the frequent yielding to certain\ntemptations, such as drunkenness or impurity; and that it may really\nbe due to the action of an evil spirit (an _unclean_ spirit is the\nsignificant term used in the Gospels) and be the appropriate\npunishment for yielding to _his_ temptation, is certainty not\nincredible. And if so, considering the immoral state of the world at\nthe time of Christ, we cannot be surprised at such cases being far\nmore common then than now. And the writers, it may be added, do not\n(like some early nations) attribute _all_ maladies to evil spirits,\nfor we read of men having fever and palsy, as well as being blind,\nlame, deaf, and dumb, without any hint of its being due to an evil\nspirit; so they were quite able to distinguish between the two.\n\nThere is, however, one instance--the swine at Gadara--of _animals_\nbeing thus afflicted,[332] which undoubtedly forms a difficulty, and\nI have never seen a satisfactory explanation of it. But still our\nignorance about animals, combined with the fact that they resemble\nman in so many respects, prevents us from saying that it is\nabsolutely incredible. And as to the alleged _injustice_ of the\nmiracle (which is often objected to) we must remember that if Christ\nwere the Divine Being He claimed to be, the world and all it\ncontained belonged to Him; so His allowing the swine to be destroyed\nby evil spirits was no more unjust to their owners, than if He had\nallowed them to die by disease.\n\n[Footnote 332: Matt. 8. 30-32; Mark 5. 11-13; Luke 8. 32-33.]\n\nLastly, all the Christian miracles lose a great deal of their\nimprobability when we consider the _unique position of Christ_. And\nwhat would be incredible, if told of another man who had done\nnothing to alter the history of the world, may easily be credible of\n_Him_. We decide, then, that all the New Testament miracles are\n_credible_: we have next to consider whether they are _true_.\n\n\n(_B._) THEIR TRUTHFULNESS.\n\nNow the testimony in favour of these miracles is very similar to\nthat in favour of the Resurrection of Christ. They are recorded by\nthe same writers and in the same books, and everything points to\nthese accounts being trustworthy. To put it shortly, the writers had\nno motive for recording the miracles unless they believed them to be\ntrue, and they had ample means of finding out whether they were true\nor not; while many of them are such as cannot possibly be explained\nby want of investigation, or an error in reasoning. Moreover, as we\nshall see, they contain numerous marks of truthfulness. These may be\ndivided into two classes, _general_, or those which concern the\nmiracles as a whole; and _special_, or those which concern\nindividual miracles, or sayings about them; and we will consider\neach in turn.\n\n(1.) _General marks of truthfulness._\n\nAmong these we may notice first the extremely _simple and graphic_\nway in which many of the miracles are described, such as the curing\nof the man who was born blind, with the repeated questioning of the\nman himself.[333] Then there is the raising of the daughter of\nJairus, and the curing of the man who was deaf and had a difficulty\nin speaking, both of which are described with the most minute\ndetails, including the actual Aramaic words spoken by Christ.[334]\nIt is difficult to think that they do not come from eye-witnesses.\nAnd the same may be said of a large number of the miracles.\n\n[Footnote 333: John 9. 8-34.]\n\n[Footnote 334: Mark 5. 41; 7. 34.]\n\nSecondly, the _kind_ of miracles ascribed to Christ seem (as far as\nwe can judge) to be worthy of Him. They were not for His own\nbenefit, but for that of other people, and they are a great contrast\nto the imaginary miracles ascribed to Him in the Apocryphal Gospels,\nmost of which are extremely childish. When for instance Christ was a\nboy, we read of His making clay birds fly; of His turning children\ninto kids for refusing to play with Him; and of His cursing another\nboy who had run against Him, and who in consequence fell down\ndead.[335] How different such miracles are from those in our Gospels\nscarcely needs pointing out. Nor is the case of the _barren\nfig-tree_, so often objected to, an exception. For the tree itself\ncould have felt no injury, and as far as we know, its destruction\ninjured no one else.\n\n[Footnote 335: Gospel of the Infancy, chapters xv., xvii., xix.]\n\nThirdly, the miracles are closely connected with the _moral\nteaching_ of Christ, and it is difficult either to separate the two,\nor to believe the whole account to be fictitious. His wonderful\nworks, and His wonderful words involve each other, and form together\nan harmonious whole, which is too life-like to be imaginary. Indeed,\na life of Christ without His miracles would be as unintelligible as\na life of Napoleon without his campaigns. And it is interesting to\nnote in this connection that our earliest Gospel, St. Mark's,\ncontains (in proportion to its length) the most miracles. As we\nshould expect, it was Christ's miracles, rather than His moral\nteaching, which first attracted attention.\n\nFourthly, the miracles were as a rule miracles of _healing_: that is\nto say, of restoring something to its natural state, such as making\nblind eyes see; and not doing something unnatural, such as giving a\nman a third eye. Miracles of either kind would of course show\nsuperhuman power; but the former are obviously the more suited to\nthe God of Nature. And this _naturalness_ of the miracles, as we may\ncall it, seems to many a strong argument in their favour.\n\nFifthly, there were an immense _number_ of miracles, the ones\nrecorded being mere _examples_ of those that were actually worked.\nThus in St. Mark's Gospel we are told that on one occasion, Christ\nhealed _many_ who were sick with _divers_ diseases; on another that\nHe had healed so _many_, that those with plagues pressed upon Him to\ntouch Him; and on another that everywhere He went, into the\nvillages, cities, or country, the sick were laid out, so that they\nmight touch His garment, and _as many as touched Him were made\nwhole_.[336]\n\n[Footnote 336: Mark 1. 34; 3. 10; 6. 56]\n\nSixthly, there was a great _variety_ in the miracles. They were of\nvarious kinds, worked in various places, before various witnesses,\nand with various details and characteristics. They occurred in\npublic as well as in private; in the towns as well as in the\ncountry; at sea as well as on land; in groups as well as singly; at\na distance as well as near; after due notice as well as suddenly;\nwhen watched by enemies as well as among friends; unsolicited as\nwell as when asked for; in times of joy, and in times of sorrow.\nThey were worked on the blind as well as the deaf; the lame as well\nas the dumb; the leprous as well as the palsied; the dead as well as\nthe living. They concerned men as well as women; the rich as well as\nthe poor; the educated as well as the ignorant; the young as well as\nthe old; multitudes as well as individuals; Gentiles as well as\nJews; nature as well as man--in fact, according to our accounts, it\nis difficult to imagine any miracles that could have been more\nabsolutely convincing.\n\nSeventhly, the miracles of Christ were (with trifling exceptions)\nworked _suddenly_. They were not like gradual cures, or slow\nrecoveries, but they were done in a moment. The blind man\n_immediately_ received his sight; the palsied _immediately_ took up\nhis couch: the leper was _straightway_ cleansed; the infirm was\n_straightway_ made whole; the dead _immediately_ rose up, etc.[337]\nThis was evidently a striking feature in the miracles, and the\nEvangelists seem to have been much impressed by it.\n\n[Footnote 337: Luke 18. 43; 5. 25; Mark 1. 42; Matt. 8. 3; John 5.\n9; Luke 8. 55.]\n\nEighthly, many of the miracles were of a _permanent_ character, and\nsuch as could be examined again and again. When, for instance, a man\nwho had long been lame, or deaf, or blind, was restored to health,\nthe villagers, as well as the man himself, could certify to the\ncure for years to come. And miracles such as these are obviously of\nmuch greater value than what we may call _momentary_ miracles (such\nas Christ's calming the storm) where the only possible evidence is\nthat of the actual spectators.\n\nLastly, and this is very remarkable, the Evangelists nearly always\nrelate that Christ worked His miracles _by His own authority_: while\nthe Old Testament prophets, with scarcely an exception, worked\ntheirs by calling upon God. Take for instance the similar cases of\nraising a widow's son.[338] Elijah prays earnestly that God would\nrestore the child to life; Christ merely gives the command, _I say\nunto thee, Arise_. The difference between the two is very striking,\nand is of itself a strong argument in favour of Christ's miracles;\nfor had the Evangelists invented them, they would certainly have\nmade them resemble those of the Old Testament. But instead of this,\nthey describe them as worked in a new and unprecedented manner, and\none which must at the time have seemed most presumptuous.\n\n[Footnote 338: 1 Kings 17. 21; Luke 7. 14.]\n\nThe Gospel miracles then, from the simple and graphic way in which\nthey are described; their not containing anything childish or\nunworthy; their close connection with the moral teaching of Christ;\ntheir naturalness; their number; their variety; their suddenness;\ntheir permanence; and above all from the authoritative way in which\nthey are said to have been worked; have every appearance of being\ntruth fully recorded.\n\n(2.) _Special marks of truthfulness._\n\nMoreover several individual miracles, and sayings about them, are of\nsuch a kind as could scarcely have been invented. Take, for\ninstance, the raising of the daughter of Jairus.[339] Now of course\nanyone, wishing to magnify the power of Christ, might have invented\nthis or any other miracle. But if so, he is not likely to have put\ninto the mouth of Christ Himself the words, _The child is not dead\nbut sleepeth_. These words seem to imply that Christ did not\nconsider it a miracle; and though we may be able to explain them, by\nthe similar words used in regard to Lazarus,[340] they certainly\nbear the marks of genuineness.\n\n[Footnote 339: Mark 5. 39.]\n\n[Footnote 340: John 11. 11.]\n\nWe are also told, more than once, that Christ's power of working\nmiracles was _conditional_ on the faith of the person to be healed,\nso that in one place He could do scarcely any miracles _because of\ntheir unbelief_.[341] This is not the sort of legend that would have\ngrown up round a glorified Hero; it bears unmistakably the mark of\ntruthfulness. But then if the writer had good means of knowing that\nChrist could do no miracles in one place, because of their unbelief;\nhad he not equally good means of knowing that Christ could, and did,\ndo miracles in other places?\n\n[Footnote 341: Matt. 13. 58; Mark 6. 5-6; Luke 18. 42.]\n\nAnd what shall we say of Christ's frequent commands to keep His\nmiracles _secret_?[342] There were doubtless reasons for this in\nevery case; but Christ's followers, who presumably recorded the\nmiracles in order to get them known, are not likely to have\ninvented, and put into His mouth the command to keep them secret.\nNor is Christ likely to have given it, had there been no miracles to\nkeep secret. Nor again is anyone likely to have added, unless it was\nthe case, that the command was generally _disobeyed_. This seems\nsurprising, yet it is very true to human nature that a man who had\nbeen suddenly cured of a long complaint, should insist on talking\nabout it.\n\n[Footnote 342: _E.g._, Mark 3. 12; 5. 43; 7. 36.]\n\nIn the same way the discussions about working miracles _on the\nSabbath Day_ have a very genuine tone about them and it is difficult\nto imagine them to be inventions.[343] Yet such discussions could\nnot have arisen, if there had been no miracles on the Sabbath, or\nany other day.\n\n[Footnote 343: Mark 3. 1-5; Luke 13. 10-17; John 5. 9-16; 9. 14-16.]\n\nThen there is the striking passage where Christ warned His hearers\nthat even working miracles in His name, without a good life, would\nnot ensure their salvation.[344] This occurs in one of His most\ncharacteristic discourses, the Sermon on the Mount, and it is hard\nto doubt its genuineness. But even if we do, it is not likely that\nChrist's followers would have invented such a warning, if as a\nmatter of fact no one ever did work miracles in His name.\n\n[Footnote 344: Matt. 7. 22.]\n\nAnd much the same may be said of another passage where Christ is\nrecorded as saying that _all_ believers would be able to work\nmiracles.[345] If He said so, He must surely have been able to work\nthem Himself; and if He did not say so, His followers must have\nbeen able to work them, or their inventing such a promise would\nmerely have shown that they were not believers. On the whole, then,\nas said before, the accounts of the New Testament miracles have\nevery appearance of being thoroughly truthful.\n\n[Footnote 345: Mark 16. 17.]\n\n\n(_C._) THEIR PUBLICITY.\n\nBut the most important point has still to be noticed, which is the\nalleged _publicity_ of these miracles; and as this renders the\ntestimony in their favour peculiarly strong, we must examine it at\nsome length.\n\n(1.) _They occurred in public._\n\nTo begin with, according to our Gospels, all the miracles of Christ\noccurred during His _public ministry_, when He was well known, that\nat Cana being definitely called the first.[346] And as they were\nmeant to confirm His teaching and claims, it was only natural for\nthem to begin when His teaching began. But if they had been\ninvented, or had grown up as legends, some at least would have been\nascribed to His earlier years (as they are in the Apocryphal\nGospels) when there was less chance of their being disputed.\n\n[Footnote 346: John 2. 11.]\n\nMoreover, many of them are stated to have been worked openly, and\nbefore crowds of people, including Scribes, Pharisees, and\nlawyers.[347] And the _names_ of the places where they occurred, and\neven of the persons concerned, are given in some cases. Among these\nwere _Jairus_, a ruler of the synagogue; _Lazarus_, a well known man\nat Bethany; _Malchus_, a servant of the High Priest; and the\n_centurion_ at Capernaum, who, though his name is not given, must\nhave been well known to the Jews, as he had built them a synagogue.\nWhile the miracles recorded in the Acts concern such prominent\npersons as the _proconsul_, Sergius Paulus, at Cyprus, and the\n_chief man_, Publius, at Malta. And it is hard to overestimate the\nimmense difficulty of thus asserting _public_ miracles, with the\nnames of persons, and places, if none occurred; yet the early\nChristians asserted such miracles from the very first.\n\n[Footnote 347: _E.g._, Luke 5. 17-21.]\n\nTake for instance the feeding of the five thousand, near the Lake of\nGalilee. This is recorded in the earliest Gospel, St. Mark's, and\nmust therefore have been written down very soon after the event,\nwhen a large number of the five thousand were still alive. Now is it\nconceivable that anyone would have ventured to make up such an\naccount, even twenty years afterwards, if nothing of the kind had\noccurred? And if he had done so, would not his story have been\ninstantly refuted? Or take the case of healing the centurion's\nservant at Capernaum. This, as before said, belongs to Q, the\nsupposed source common to Matthew and Luke, and admitted by most\ncritics to date from before A.D. 50. And how could such a story have\nbeen current within twenty years of the event, if nothing of the\nkind had occurred?\n\nIt is also declared that the miracles were much talked about at the\ntime, and caused widespread astonishment. The people _marvelled_ at\nthem, they _wondered_, they were _amazed_, they were _beyond measure\nastonished_, there had been nothing like them _since the world\nbegan_.[348] The miracles were in fact the talk of the whole\nneighbourhood. And we are told that in consequence several of those\nwhich occurred at Jerusalem were at once officially investigated by\nthe Jewish rulers, who made the most searching inquiries about\nthem;[349] and in two instances, at least, publicly admitted them to\nbe true.[350] And this also is not likely to have been asserted,\nunless it was the case; and not likely to have been the case, if\nthere had been no miracles.\n\n[Footnote 348: Matt. 9. 33; 15. 31; Mark 5. 42; 7. 37; John 9. 32.]\n\n[Footnote 349: _E.g._, John 9. 13-34; Acts 4. 5-22.]\n\n[Footnote 350: John 11. 47; Acts 4. 16.]\n\n(2.) _They were publicly appealed to._\n\nMoreover, these public miracles were _publicly appealed to_ by the\nearly Christians. According to the _Acts_, this was done in the very\nfirst public address, that at Pentecost, by St. Peter, who reminds\nhis hearers that they had themselves seen the miracles (_even as ye\nyourselves know_), as well as in one other speech at least.[351] And\nthis is important, because even those critics, who deny the\ngenuineness of the Acts, yet admit that these speeches date from a\nvery early time. And if so, it shows conclusively that some of\nChrist's immediate followers not only believed themselves that He\nhad worked miracles, but spoke as if their opponents believed it\ntoo.\n\n[Footnote 351: Acts 2. 22; 10. 38.]\n\nThat they are not more frequently alluded to in the Acts is not\nsurprising, when we remember that, according to the writer,--and he\nwas an _eye-witness_ in some cases, as they occur in the _We_\nsections,[352]--the Apostles themselves worked miracles. There was\nthus no occasion for them to appeal to those of Christ as proving\nthe truth of what they preached; their own miracles being quite\nsufficient to convince anyone who was open to this kind of proof.\nBut still the important fact remains that in the first recorded\nChristian address the public miracles of Christ were publicly\nappealed to. And this was within a few months of their occurrence;\nand at Jerusalem, where the statement, if untrue, could have been\nmore easily refuted than anywhere else.\n\n[Footnote 352: Acts 16. 18, 26; 28. 6, 8-9.]\n\nPassing on to _St. Paul's Epistles_; it is true that they do not\ncontain any reference to Christ's miracles, except of course the\nResurrection. But as they were not written to convert heathens, but\nto instruct those who were already Christians, there is nothing\nsurprising in this; and they do not mention any of His parables\neither. On the other hand, they do contain direct reference to\n_Apostolic_ miracles. St. Paul in two of his undisputed Epistles\npositively asserts that he had worked miracles himself; and he uses\nthe same three words, _signs_, _wonders_, and _mighty works_, which\nare used in the Gospels to describe the miracles of Christ.[353]\n\n[Footnote 353: Rom. 15. 18, 19; 2 Cor. 12. 12.]\n\nThe second passage is extremely important, since he speaks of them\nas the _signs of an apostle_; and calls upon his opponents at\nCorinth to admit that he was an apostle _because_ he had worked\nthese miracles. And this implies not only that the miracles were\ndone in public, but that his readers as well as himself believed\nthat the power of working miracles belonged to all the Apostles. And\nit will be noticed that he is addressing the very persons among\nwhom he declares he had worked the miracles; which makes it almost\ninconceivable that his claim was unfounded, quite apart from the\ndifficulty of believing that such a man as St. Paul would wilfully\nmake a false statement.\n\nFrom all this it follows that the first preachers of Christianity\nnot only appealed to Christ's miracles; but also to their own, in\nsupport of their claims. And, as just said, how they could have done\nso, if they worked no miracles, is not easy to understand.\n\nWe next come to a class of writings where we should expect to find\nChrist's miracles alluded to, and these are the first Christian\n_Apologies_. Nor are we disappointed. The three earliest, of which\nwe have any knowledge, were by Quadratus, Aristides, and Justin; the\nfirst two being presented to the Emperor Hadrian, when he visited\nAthens, A.D. 125.\n\n_Quadratus_, in a passage preserved by Eusebius, lays stress on what\nwe have called the _permanent_ character of Christ's miracles. He\nsays: 'The works of our Saviour were always conspicuous, for they\nwere real; both they that were healed and they that were raised from\nthe dead were seen, not only when they were healed or raised, but\nfor a long time afterwards; not only whilst He dwelt on this earth,\nbut also after His departure, and for a good while after it,\ninsomuch that some of them have reached to our times.'[354]\n\n[Footnote 354: Eusebius, Hist., iv. 3.]\n\n_Aristides_ bases his defence of Christianity on its moral\ncharacter, and does not appeal to any public miracles, though as\nbefore said (Chapter XIV.) he asserts the Divinity, Incarnation,\nVirgin-birth, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ.\n\nLastly, _Justin_, about A.D. 150, not only specifies many of\nChrist's miracles; but also says in general terms that He 'healed\nthose who were maimed, and deaf, and lame in body from their birth,\ncausing them to leap, to hear, and to see by His word. And having\nraised the dead, and causing them to live, by His deeds He compelled\nthe men who lived at that time to recognise Him. But though they saw\nsuch works, they asserted it was magical art.'[355] Justin, however,\ndoes not base his argument on miracles, but on prophecy, because, as\nhe tells us again, the former might be ascribed to magic.\n\n[Footnote 355: Dial., 69; Apol. 1. 30.]\n\nBut still, the actual occurrence of the miracles, he evidently\nthought to be indisputable. He even says that the Emperor and Senate\ncan learn for themselves that Christ worked miracles (healing the\nlame, dumb, and blind, cleansing the lepers, and raising the dead)\nby consulting the _Acts of Pilate_.[356] And this certainly implies\nthat such a document, whether genuine or not, then existed in Rome;\nand that it contained an account of the miracles. Thus two out of\nthe three earliest writers in defence of Christianity appealed to\nChrist's miracles, in the most public manner possible, when\naddressing the Emperor.\n\n[Footnote 356: Apol. 1. 48, 35.]\n\n(3.) _They were never disputed._\n\nBut now comes another important point. Though these public miracles\nwere publicly appealed to by the early Christians, and though\nwritten accounts of them were in circulation very soon after they\nare stated to have occurred; yet, as far as we know, they were\n_never disputed_. And this is the more remarkable, since they are\nsaid to have been worked among enemies as well as friends. They were\nthus peculiarly open to hostile criticism; and we may be sure that\nthe bitter opponents of Christ, who had brought about His death,\nwould have exposed them if they could. Yet, as just said, they were\nnever disputed, either by Jews or Gentiles; though, of course, they\nboth denied their evidential value.\n\nThe _Jews_--that is to say the Scribes and Pharisees--did this, by\nascribing them to the Evil One. And though this was a very strange\nexpedient, as their effect was obviously good, and not evil, they\nhad really no alternative. The common people were much impressed by\nthe miracles, and were anxious to welcome Christ as their\nMessiah;[357] yet the Pharisees decided that such a man as this--so\nunlike what they expected--could not possibly be their Messiah. They\nhad then to explain away the miracles somehow. And since they denied\nthat they were worked by God, they were bound to ascribe them to the\nDevil, for these were the only supernatural powers they believed in;\nthough of course both of these had subordinate angels under them.\nBut we may ask, would the Jews have adopted such an expedient had\nthere been any possibility of denying that the miracles occurred?\nYet that they did adopt it can scarcely be disputed. It is\npositively asserted in each of the first three Gospels;[358] and\nChristians are not likely to have reported such a horrible\nsuggestion as that their Master was an agent of the Evil One, unless\nit had been made.\n\n[Footnote 357: John 6. 15; Mark 11. 10.]\n\n[Footnote 358: Matt. 9. 34; 12. 24; Mark 3. 22; Luke 11. 15.]\n\nThe _Gentiles_ on the other hand, believed in a variety of gods,\nmany of whom were favourable to mankind, and could be invoked by\n_magic_; so they could consistently ascribe the miracles to some of\nthese lesser deities; or, in popular language, to magic. And we have\nabundant evidence that they did so. As we have seen, it is expressly\nasserted by Justin, who in consequence preferred the argument from\nprophecy; and Iren\u00e6us did the same, and for avowedly the same\nreason.[359]\n\n[Footnote 359: Bk. ii. 32.]\n\nMoreover, _Celsus_, the most important opponent of Christianity in\nthe second century, also adopted this view. His works are now lost,\nbut Origen in answering him frequently and positively asserts it;\nsaying that he often spoke of the miracles as _works of\nsorcery_.[360] And though Celsus lived some years after the time in\nquestion, it is most unlikely, if the early opponents of\nChristianity had denied that the miracles occurred, that its later\nopponents should have given up this strong line of defence, and have\nadopted the far weaker one that they did occur, but were due to\nmagic. We are quite justified, then, in saying that Christ's\nmiracles were not disputed at the time, and considering their\nalleged publicity, this is a strong additional argument in their\nfavour.\n\n[Footnote 360: Origen cont. Cels., i. 38; ii. 48.]\n\n(4.) _The silence of classical writers._\n\nAll that can be said on the other side is from the _silence_ of\nclassical writers. Had the miracles really occurred, it is said,\nespecially in such a well-known place as Palestine, the writers of\nthe day would have been full of them. Yet, with the single exception\nof Tacitus, they do not even allude to Christianity; and he\ndismisses it with contempt as a _pernicious superstition_.[361]\n\n[Footnote 361: Tacitus Annals. Bk. xv., ch. 44.]\n\nNow these words of Tacitus show that he had never studied the\nsubject, for whatever may be said against the religion, it certainly\nwas not pernicious; so he must have rejected Christianity _without\nexamination_. And if the other classical writers did the same, there\nis nothing remarkable in their not alluding to it. Alleged marvels\nwere common enough in those days, and they probably did not think\nthe Christian miracles worth inquiring about. But we do not know of\nany writer who did inquire about them, and was not convinced of\ntheir truth.\n\nIt may, of course, be replied that some of the events ought anyhow\nto be alluded to, such as the _darkness over all the land_ at the\ntime of the Crucifixion. And if this extended over the whole of\nPalestine, it is certainly strange that it should not be noticed.\nBut it may only refer to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Compare the\nexpression _all the country of Jud\u00e6a_[362] (when referring to the\npeople being baptized) which is evidently not meant to be taken\nliterally. And if the darkness was limited to the neighbourhood of\nJerusalem, there is nothing surprising in its not being recorded by\nany except Christians, for whom of course it had a special\nsignificance.\n\n[Footnote 362: Mark 1. 5.]\n\nIt should also be noticed that in some respects the testimony of\nChristian writers is _more_ valuable than that of either Jews or\nGentiles: since none of the writers of that country were brought up\nas Christians. They were all unbelievers before they were believers;\nand if such testimony from unbelievers would be valuable, it is\nstill more so from those who showed how thoroughly convinced they\nwere of its truth by becoming believers. Indeed, the best Jewish or\nGentile evidence conceivable is that of well-educated men, like St.\nPaul and St. Luke, who, on the strength of it, became Christians.\n\nLastly, it must be remembered that the argument from silence is\nproverbially unsound. We have, for instance, over two hundred\nletters of the younger Pliny, and in only one of these does he\nmention Christianity. Suppose this one had been lost, what a strong\nargument could have been formed against the spread of Christianity\nfrom the silence of Pliny, yet this one shows its marvellous\nprogress (see Chapter XXII.). This objection, then, is quite\ninsufficient to outweigh the positive testimony in favour of the\nmiracles, to which we have already alluded.\n\n\n(_D._) CONCLUSION.\n\nIn conclusion we must notice certain rationalistic explanations\nwhich have been given of the miracles. It was hardly to be expected\nthat, with such strong evidence in their favour, the modern\nopponents of Christianity would merely assert that the accounts\nwere pure fiction from beginning to end. Attempts have of course\nbeen made to explain the miracles in such a way that, while\ndepriving them of any supernatural character, it may yet be admitted\nthat some such events occurred, which gave rise to the Christian\naccounts.\n\nThe miracles of _healing_ are perhaps the easiest to explain in this\nway, as some wonderful instances of sudden, though natural, cures\nhave been known. But it is doubtful whether any of Christ's miracles\nwere of such a kind, for St. Paul is careful to distinguish between\n_gifts of healing_ and _working of miracles_.[363] Both were\nevidently known to the early Church, and known to be different.\n\n[Footnote 363: 1 Cor. 12. 9-10, 28.]\n\nAnd of course no such explanations will apply to most of the\nmiracles, which have to be got rid of in various other ways. Thus\nChrist's walking on the sea is explained as His walking on a ridge\nof sand or rock running out just under the water; the raising of\nLazarus as his having had himself buried alive, so that when Christ\ncame, there might be a pretended miracle;[364] and feeding the five\nthousand as nothing more than the example of Christ and His friends,\nwho so freely shared their small supply with those around them, that\nothers did the same, and thus everyone had a little. It seems\nscarcely necessary to discuss these theories in detail, as they are\nall most improbable.\n\n[Footnote 364: This extraordinary theory was maintained by R\u00e9nan in\nthe earlier editions of his _Life of Jesus_, though he afterwards\nabandoned it.]\n\nMoreover, their difficulties are all _cumulative_. The Christian\nexplanation has but _one_ difficulty for all the miracles, which is\nthat they _are_ miracles, and involve the supernatural. Once admit\nthis, and twenty miracles (provided they occur on suitable\noccasions) are no more difficult to believe than two. But the\ndifficulties of these explanations are all cumulative. If for\ninstance, the raising of Lazarus is explained by his having been\nburied alive, it does not account for Christ's walking on the sea.\nIf this is explained by the supposed ridge of sand, it does not\naccount for feeding the five thousand, etc. Thus each difficulty has\nto be added to all the others, so taken together they are quite\ninsuperable.\n\nOne other point has still to be considered, which is the subject of\nmodern miracles. Why, it is said, are there no miracles _now_, when\nthey could be properly tested? If they were really employed by God\nas helps to the spread of His religion, why should they not have\naccompanied it at intervals all along, as it is said they did the\nJewish religion? They are surely wanted for the support of\nChristianity at the present day; and if God were, _after due\nwarning_, to work a public and indisputable miracle every\nhalf-century, all the other evidences of Christianity might be\ndispensed with.\n\nThe answer to this objection is that the Christian revelation does\nnot claim to be a gradual one, like the Jewish; but a final and\ncomplete revelation, made once for all through Christ and His\nApostles. Therefore, as there is to be no fresh revelation, there\ncan be no fresh miracles to confirm it. The question of _other_\nmiracles, such as those which are said to have been worked by\nChristians at various periods, need not be considered here. If\n_true_, they would of course tend to prove the New Testament ones;\nwhile, if _untrue_, they would not disprove them, any more than\nimitation diamonds would disprove the existence of real diamonds.\n\nOf course, it may be replied that God might still work a miracle now\nby a man, who stated that it was not to confirm anything that he\nsaid himself, but merely what the Founder of Christianity had said;\nand this is no doubt possible. But it would be a different method\nfrom that recorded in the Bible, where a messenger from God always\nbrings his own credentials, even though, as in the case of a\nprophecy, they may not be verified till afterwards. And what reason\nhave we for thinking that God would change His method now? It is\nalso very doubtful whether a public miracle at the present day,\nwould convince everybody.\n\nThis objection, then, must be put aside, and we therefore conclude,\non reviewing the whole subject, that the New Testament miracles are\nnot only _credible_, but that there is extremely strong evidence in\ntheir favour. Indeed their marks of _truthfulness_, combined with\ntheir alleged _publicity_, form together a very powerful argument.\nAnd it is rendered all the stronger by their having been so\nthoroughly successful. Their object was to establish the truth of\nChristianity, and this is precisely what they did. The evidence they\nafforded was so decisive, that a hostile world found it\nirresistible.\n\nMoreover it is doubtful whether any other religion, except, of\ncourse, the Jewish, has ever claimed to have been confirmed by\npublic miracles. Christianity thus rests upon a unique foundation.\nUnlike other religions, it appealed at first not to abstract\nreasoning, or moral consciousness, or physical force, but to\nmiraculous events, of the truth or falsehood of which others could\njudge. They did judge, and they were convinced. We decide, then,\nthat the New Testament miracles are probably true.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nTHAT THE JEWISH PROPHECIES CONFIRM THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.\n\n     (_A._) ISAIAH'S PROPHECY OF THE LORD'S SERVANT.\n\n     (1.) The historical agreement, very striking.\n     (2.) The doctrinal agreement, equally so.\n     (3.) The modern Jewish interpretation, quite untenable.\n\n     (_B._) THE PSALM OF THE CRUCIFIXION.\n\n     (1.) Its close agreement, all through.\n     (2.) Two objections, unimportant.\n\n     (_C._) THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH.\n\n     At least three prophecies of this; it is also involved in some\n      hints as to the Doctrine of the Trinity.\n\n     (_D._) CONCLUSION.\n\n     Why are not the prophecies plainer? Cumulative nature\n      of the evidence.\n\n\nWe propose to consider in this chapter what is called the argument\nfrom _Prophecy_, using the word, as we did in Chapter XI., in the\nsense of _prediction_. Now it is a remarkable and undisputed fact\nthat for many centuries before the time of Christ, it was foretold\nthat a member of the Jewish nation--small and insignificant though\nit was--should be a blessing _to all mankind_. This promise is\nrecorded as having been made both to Abraham, to Isaac, and to\nJacob;[365] and as a matter of fact, Christianity was founded by a\nJew, and has undoubtedly been a blessing to the human race. This is\nat least a remarkable coincidence. And as we proceed in the Old\nTestament, the statements about this future Messiah become clearer\nand fuller, till at last, in the Prophets, we find whole chapters\nreferring to Him, which Christians assert were fulfilled in Christ.\n\n[Footnote 365: Gen. 22. 18; 26. 4; 28.14.]\n\nThis argument is plainly of the utmost importance. Fortunately it is\nmuch simplified by the question of _dates_ being altogether\nexcluded. As a rule, the most important point in an alleged prophecy\nis to show that it was written before its fulfilment. But here this\nis undisputed, since everyone admits that the whole of the Old\nTestament, except some of the apocryphal books, was written before\nthe time of Christ. And as the writings have been preserved by the\nJews themselves, who are opposed to the claims of Christianity, we\nmay be sure that not a single alteration in its favour has been made\nanywhere.\n\nWe will now examine a few of the strongest prophecies, avoiding all\nthose that were only fulfilled in a figurative, or spiritual sense;\nand selecting whole passages rather than single texts. For though\nmany of these latter are very applicable to Christ, they might also\nbe applicable to someone else. So we will first discuss somewhat\nfully Isaiah's prophecy of the Lord's Servant, and the Psalm of the\nCrucifixion; and then examine more briefly a group of prophecies\nreferring to the Divinity of the Messiah.\n\n\n(_A._) ISAIAH'S PROPHECY OF THE LORD'S SERVANT (52. 13-53. 12).\n\nIt may be pointed out at starting that no one denies the antiquity\nof the passage, even if it was not written by Isaiah. And it forms a\ncomplete whole, closely connected together and not mixed up with any\nother subject. So in regard to its fulfilment, most of the details\nmentioned occurred within a few hours. We will consider first the\nhistorical, and then the doctrinal agreement.\n\n(1.) _The Historical Agreement._\n\nWith regard to this, the following is the translation from the\nRevised Version, together with the corresponding events. It will be\nobserved that the sufferings of the Servant are usually expressed in\nthe past tense, and his triumph in the future, the prophet placing\nhimself, as it were, between the two. But the Hebrew tenses are\nrather uncertain, and what is translated as _past_ in the Revised\nVersion is translated as _future_ in the Authorised (_e.g._, 53. 2).\n\n          52. 13. 'Behold, my servant shall\n          deal wisely, he shall be exalted\n          and lifted up, and shall be\n          very high.\n\n               The excellence of Christ's\n               teaching and conduct is now\n               generally admitted; while as to\n               His exalted position, He is worshipped\n               by millions of men.\n\n          14. 'Like as many were astonied\n          at thee (his visage was so\n          marred more than any man, and\n          his form more than the sons of\n          men) so shall he sprinkle many\n          nations;\n\n               Yet at the time of His death,\n               which was public so that _many_\n               saw Him, the cruel treatment He\n               had received must have terribly\n               disfigured His face and body.\n\n          15. 'Kings shall shut their\n          mouths at him: for that which\n          had not been told them shall\n          they see; and that which they had\n          not heard shall they understand.\n\n               But now even Kings are silent\n               with reverence,[366] when contemplating\n               such a wonderful life.\n\n          [Footnote 366: _Comp._ Job 29. 9.]\n\n          53. 1. 'Who hath believed our\n          report?\n\n          'and to whom hath the arm\n          of the Lord been revealed?\n\n               Indeed what the prophet is\n               about to declare, is so marvellous\n               that it can scarcely be believed.\n\n               The Arm of the Lord evidently\n               means some instrument,\n               or Person, which God uses for\n               His work, as a man might use\n               his arm.[367] And here it must be\n               a _Person_, from the following\n               words, 'For _he_ grew up,' etc. It\n               is thus a most suitable term for\n               the Messiah, who was to be\n               recognised by hardly anyone.\n\n          2. 'For he grew up before him\n          as a tender plant, and as a root\n          out of a dry ground:\n\n          he hath no form nor comeliness;\n          and when we see him, there is no\n          beauty that we should desire\n          him.\n\n               This was because He lived at a\n               place (Nazareth) which was always\n               regarded as _dry ground_ so\n               far as anything good was concerned.[368]\n\n               Moreover, His appearance was\n               humble, and when at His trial,\n               Pilate presented Him to the\n               people, they did not desire Him.\n\n          3. 'He was despised, and rejected\n          of men; a man of sorrows,\n          and acquainted with grief: and\n          as one from whom men hide their\n          face he was despised, and we\n          esteemed him not.\n\n               But they at once rejected Him\n               as they had done often before.\n\n          4. 'Surely he hath borne our\n          griefs, and carried our sorrows:\n          yet we did esteem him stricken,\n          smitten of God, and afflicted.\n\n               While His life was not only one\n               of grief and sorrow, but such a\n               death seemed to show that He\n               was accursed of God, for the\n               Jews so regarded anyone who\n               was crucified.[369]\n\n          5. 'But he was wounded for\n          our transgressions, he was bruised\n          for our iniquities: the chastisement\n          of our peace was upon him;\n          and with his stripes we are healed.\n\n               The scourging and other ill-treatment\n               is here referred to;\n               including probably the nails,\n               and spear, for the word translated\n             _wounded_ is literally _pierced_.\n\n          [Footnote 367: _Comp._ Isa. 40. 10; 51. 9.]\n\n          [Footnote 368: John 1. 46.]\n\n          [Footnote 369: Deut. 21. 23; Gal. 3. 13.]\n\n          6. 'All we like sheep have\n          gone astray; we have turned\n          every one to his own way; and\n          the Lord hath laid on him the\n          iniquity of us all.\n\n          7. 'He was oppressed, yet he\n          humbled himself and opened not\n          his mouth; as a lamb that is\n          led to the slaughter, and as a\n          sheep that before her shearers is\n          dumb; yea, he opened not his\n          mouth.\n\n               Christ, who is sometimes called\n               the Lamb of God, not only bore\n               His ill-treatment patiently, but\n               refused to plead at either of His\n               trials (the verse repeats twice _He\n               opened not His mouth_) to the\n               utter astonishment of His judges.[370]\n\n          8. 'By oppression and judgment\n          he was taken away; and as\n          for his generation, who among\n          them considered that he was cut\n          off out of the land of the living?\n          for the transgression of my\n          people was he stricken.\n\n               He was not killed accidentally,\n               or by the mob, but had a\n               judicial trial; and was most\n               unjustly condemned. While\n               few, if any, of His contemporaries\n               understood the real meaning\n               of His death.\n\n          9. 'And they made his grave\n          with the wicked, and with the\n          rich in his death (i.e., _when he\n          was dead_. Comp. Ps. 6. 8);\n\n          although he had done no violence,\n          neither was any deceit in\n          his mouth.\n\n               He was appointed to die between\n               two robbers, and would\n               doubtless have been buried with\n               them, had not Joseph of Arimathea\n               intervened; when, in\n               strange contrast with His ignominious\n               death, He was honourably\n               buried, with costly spices,\n               and in a rich man's tomb.\n\n               Although His judge repeatedly\n               declared that He was innocent.\n\n          10. 'Yet it pleased the Lord\n          to bruise him; he hath put him\n          to grief: when thou shalt make\n          his soul an offering for sin, he\n          shall see his seed, he shall prolong\n          his days, and the pleasure\n          of the Lord shall prosper in his\n          hand.\n\n               Yet after His death He was to\n               see His seed, and _prolong His\n               days_, _i.e._, rise again from the\n               dead. The word _seed_ cannot\n               mean here, actual children,[371] since\n               He was to obtain them by His\n               death. But it may well refer to\n               the disciples, whom Christ saw\n               after His Resurrection, and called\n               His _children_.[372]\n\n          [Footnote 370: Matt. 26. 62; 27. 14.]\n\n          [Footnote 371: _Comp._ Isa. 1. 4.]\n\n          [Footnote 372: Mark 10. 24; John 21. 5.]\n\n          11. 'He shall see of the travail\n          of his soul, and shall be satisfied:\n          by his knowledge shall my righteous\n          servant justify many: and\n          he shall bear their iniquities.\n\n               And this is confirmed by their\n               being spoken of as _the travail of\n               His soul_, not body. While the\n               latter expression also implies\n               that He had had some intense\n               mental struggle comparable to\n               the bodily pains of childbirth;\n               which is very suitable to His\n               mental agony in the Garden and\n               on the Cross.\n\n          12. 'Therefore will I divide\n          him a portion with the great,\n          and he shall divide the spoil with\n          the strong;\n\n          because he poured out his soul\n          unto death,\n\n          and was numbered with the\n          transgressors: yet he bare the\n          sin of many, and made intercession\n          for the transgressors.'\n\n               His subsequent triumph in\n               the Christian Church is here alluded\n               to.\n\n               This implies that His sufferings\n               were of some duration; and is thus\n               very appropriate to a lingering\n               death like crucifixion.\n\n               While the closing words exactly\n               agree with His dying a\n               shameful death between two robbers;\n               yet praying for His murderers,\n               'Father, forgive them.'\n\nIt seems hardly necessary to insist on the agreement shown above; it\nis indisputable. The sufferings and the triumph of the Lord's\nServant are foretold with equal confidence and with equal clearness,\nthough they might well have seemed incompatible.\n\n(2.) _The Doctrinal Agreement._\n\nBut the significance of the passage does not depend on these\nprophecies alone, though they are sufficiently remarkable, but on\nthe _meaning_ which the writer assigns to the great tragedy. It is\nthe Christian doctrine concerning Christ's death, and not merely the\nevents attending it, which is here insisted on. This will be best\nshown by adopting the previous method of parallel columns, showing\nin the first the six chief points in the Christian doctrine, and in\nthe other the prophet's words corresponding to them.\n\n     All mankind are sinners.\n\n          'All we like sheep have gone\n          astray.'\n\n     Christ alone was sinless.\n\n          'My righteous servant.'\n\n          'He had done no violence,\n          neither was any deceit in his\n          mouth.'\n\n     He suffered not for His own\n     sins, but for those of others.\n     Nor was this the mere accidental\n     suffering of an innocent man for\n     a guilty one; it was a great\n     work of _atonement_, an offering\n     for sin. This is the central\n     feature of the Christian doctrine,\n     and it is asserted over and over\n     again in the prophecy, which is\n     above all that of a _Saviour_.\n\n          'Surely he hath borne our\n          griefs, and carried our sorrows.'\n\n          'He was wounded for our\n          transgressions, he was bruised\n          for our iniquities; the chastisement\n          of (_i.e._, which procured)\n          our peace was upon him; and\n          with his stripes we are healed.'\n\n          'The Lord hath laid on him\n          the iniquity of us all.'\n\n          'For the transgression of my\n          people was he stricken.'\n\n          'Thou shalt make his soul an\n          offering for sin.'\n\n          'He shall bear their iniquities.'\n\n          'He bare the sin of many.'\n\n     And this Atonement was the\n     fulfilment of the old Jewish\n     sacrifices; especially that of the\n     Paschal Lamb; so there was a\n     special fitness in Christ's being\n     put to death at the time of the\n     Passover.\n\n          This is shown by the language\n          employed, the _offering for sin_\n          being the same word as that used\n          for the old _guilt-offering_.[373] And\n          the curious expression _So shall he\n          sprinkle many nations_ evidently\n          refers to the sprinkling of the\n          blood in the Jewish sacrifices, as\n          the same word is used, and\n          means cleansing them from sin.[374]\n\n     Yet it availed not only for\n     the Jews, but for all mankind.\n\n          The _many nations_ must include\n          Gentiles as well as Jews.\n\n     Lastly, Christ's sacrifice was\n     _voluntary_; He freely laid down\n\n          'He poured out his soul unto\n          death,' implies that the act was\n\n     [Footnote 373: _E.g._, Lev. 7. 1.]\n\n     [Footnote 374: _E.g._, Lev. 16. 19.]\n\n     His life, no one took it from Him\n     (John 10. 18).\n\n        _voluntary_, and this is rendered\n          still clearer from the context;\n          for it was _because_ He did this that\n          He was to divide the spoil, etc.\n          And the words _He humbled Himself_,\n          also imply that the humiliation\n          was voluntary.\n\nAll this, it is plain, exactly suits the Christ in whom Christians\nbelieve; and it does not and cannot suit anyone else, since several\nof the Christian doctrines are quite unique, and do not occur in the\nJewish or any other religion. This is indeed so striking, that if\nanyone acquainted with Christianity, but unacquainted with Isaiah,\ncame across the passage for the first time, he would probably refer\nit to one of St. Paul's Epistles. And every word of it might be\nfound there with perfect fitness.\n\n(3.) _The modern Jewish interpretation._\n\nNow, what can be said on the other side? Many of the ancient Jews\ninterpreted the passage as referring to their future Messiah;[375]\nbut the modern Jews (and most critics who disbelieve in prophecy)\nrefer it to the Jewish nation, or to the religious part of it, which\nthey say is here personified as a single man, the Servant of the\nLord. And it must of course be admitted that Isaiah does frequently\nspeak of the Jews as God's _servant_ (_e.g._, 'But thou Israel, my\nservant, and Jacob whom I have chosen,')[376] though he nowhere else\nuses the term 'my _righteous_ servant,' which he does here, and\nwhich would have been inapplicable to the nation.\n\n[Footnote 375: References are given in Edersheim's 'Life and Times\nof Jesus the Messiah,' 1901, vol. ii., p. 727.]\n\n[Footnote 376: Isa. 41. 8.]\n\nBut it is important to remember that this prophecy does not stand\nalone, and a little before, we read in a similar passage, 'It is too\nlight a thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the\ntribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also\ngive thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my\nsalvation unto the end of the earth. Thus saith the Lord, the\nRedeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to\nhim whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers: Kings shall\nsee and arise; princes, and they shall worship.'[377]\n\n[Footnote 377: Isa. 49. 6-7; comp. 42. 1-6.]\n\nHere it will be noticed the Lord's _servant_ is clearly\ndistinguished from both Jacob and Israel, and evidently means the\nMessiah. While His bringing salvation to the Gentiles, as well as to\nthe Jews; His humiliation in being despised by men and hated by the\nJewish nation; and His subsequent triumph, even Kings submitting\nthemselves to Him; are all alluded to, much as they are in the\npresent passage.\n\nNo doubt there is a difficulty in the prophet thus passing from one\nmeaning of the word _servant_ to another (especially, in a closely\nconnected passage),[378] and various attempts have been made to\nexplain it; but it does not alter the fact that he does so. Perhaps\nthe best explanation is that Israel was _intended_ to be God's\nServant, but owing to their sins became unfitted; when God promised\nin the future to raise up a _righteous_ servant, who should do all\nHis pleasure and atone for Israel's failure. And, it may be added,\nthe term _Servant_ is applied to the Messiah both by Ezekiel and\nZechariah, as well as in the New Testament.[379]\n\n[Footnote 378: Isa. 49. 3, 5.]\n\n[Footnote 379: Ezek. 34. 23; Zech. 3. 8; Acts 3. 13 (R.V.).]\n\nMoreover, the Jewish interpretation not only leaves all the details\nof the prophecy unexplained and inexplicable, but ignores its very\nessence, which, as before said, is the atoning character of the\nsufferings. No one can say that the sufferings of the Jews were\nvoluntary, or that they were not for their own sins, but for those\nof other people, which were in consequence atoned for. Or, to put\nthe argument in other words, if the _He_ refers to the Jewish\nnation, to whom does the _our_ refer in such sentences as _He was\nwounded for our transgressions_? While v. 8 expressly says that the\nJews (God's people) were not the sufferers, but those for whom He\nsuffered. (For the transgression of _my people_ was _he_ stricken.)\nThis interpretation then is hopelessly untenable, and the passage\neither means what Christians assert, or it means nothing.\n\nIn conclusion, it must be again pointed out that all these minute\nhistorical details attending Christ's death, and all these\nremarkable Christian doctrines concerning it, are all found within\nfifteen verses of a writing many centuries older than the time of\nChrist. It would be hard to over-estimate the great improbability of\nall this being due to chance; indeed, such a conclusion seems\nincredible.\n\n\n(_B._) THE PSALM OF THE CRUCIFIXION (Ps. 22).[380]\n\n[Footnote 380: This is discussed more fully in an article in the\n_Churchman_, April, 1912, by the present writer.]\n\nWe pass on now to another most remarkable prophecy; for this\nwell-known Psalm describes what can only be regarded as a\n_crucifixion_. The decisive verse is of course, _They pierced my\nhands and my feet_; but even apart from this, the various sufferings\ndescribed cannot all be endured in any other form of death, such as\nstoning or beheading. And the Psalm agrees with the Death of Christ,\nboth in its numerous details, and in its whole scope and meaning. We\nwill therefore consider this close agreement first, and then some of\nthe objections.\n\n(1.) _Its close agreement._\n\nWe need not quote the Psalm, as it is so well known; but will point\nout the agreement verse by verse.\n\n     Ver. 1. His feeling forsaken by God, and using these actual\n     words: 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?'\n\n     2. as well as praying for deliverance during the previous\n     night;\n\n     3. though in spite of His sufferings, He casts no reproach upon\n     God.\n\n     4. His belonging to God's chosen people, the Jews, so that He\n     could speak of _our_ fathers;\n\n     5. who had so often been helped by God before.\n\n     6. His pitiable condition in being exposed to the scorn and\n     reproach of men, and despised by the people.\n\n     7. His being lifted up to die in public, so that those who\n     passed by could see Him; and the way in which they mocked Him,\n     shaking their heads, etc.\n\n     8. The exact words they used: _He trusted on the Lord that He\n     would deliver him, let Him deliver him seeing He delighteth in\n     him_ (margin). These words show that the speakers themselves\n     were Jews, and that He was thus put to death among His own\n     nation. And the last clause can only be meant ironically in the\n     sense that the Sufferer _claimed_ that God delighted in him,\n     claimed, that is, in some special sense to be beloved by God.\n\n     9. And, as a matter of fact, God had always watched over Him,\n     and had saved Him in His infancy from being slain by Herod.\n\n     10. And in return His whole life had been dedicated to God; so\n     that He could say that God had been _His_ God, even from His\n     birth.\n\n     11. His being abandoned by His disciples, and left without a\n     helper;\n\n     12. though surrounded by His enemies, described as _bulls of\n     Bashan_. This curious term is used elsewhere for the unjust\n     rulers of the people,[381] and was therefore very applicable to\n     the chief priests and rulers, who had so unjustly condemned\n     Him, and now stood round the Cross reviling Him.\n\n     [Footnote 381: Amos. 4. 1.]\n\n     13. And they continually insulted Him, _gaping with the mouth_\n     being a common expression of contempt;[382] _ravening_\n     appropriate to the way in which they had thirsted for His blood\n     before Pilate; and _roaring_ to the great noise and tumult made\n     at the time.\n\n     [Footnote 382: _E.g._, Job 16. 10.]\n\n     14. His side being pierced, so that there poured out a quantity\n     of watery fluid (mixed with clots of blood), the probable cause\n     of this--the rupture of the heart[383]--being also hinted at;\n     while His bones were nearly out of joint, through the weight of\n     the suspended Body.\n\n     [Footnote 383: See 'The Physical Cause of the Death of Christ,'\n     by Dr. Symes Thompson, 1904.]\n\n     15. His suffering extreme weakness, and extreme thirst,\n     immediately before His death.[384]\n\n     [Footnote 384: Lam. 4. 4; John 19. 28-30.]\n\n     16. His being crucified (_i.e._, His hands and feet being\n     pierced), the men who did this being here called _dogs_. They\n     seem to have been a special set of men, different from the Jews\n     who had before been mocking Him. And as this was the very term\n     used by Christ Himself for the Gentiles, in distinction to the\n     Jews,[385] it was peculiarly appropriate to the Gentile (Roman)\n     soldiers who crucified Him.\n\n     [Footnote 385: Matt. 15. 26.]\n\n     17. And they also exposed and stretched out His Body, so that\n     the bones stood out in relief. And they then stood watching\n     Him;\n\n     18. and divided His garments among them, casting lots for one\n     of them.\n\n     19. Then follows a short prayer.\n\n     20. The term _sword_, like the _dog_, the _lion's mouth_, and\n     the _wild oxen_, need not be pressed literally; but may be used\n     here (as in other places)[386] for any violent death. And in\n     the New Testament it seems employed for all punishments,\n     including probably a death by crucifixion (St. Peter's).[387]\n\n     [Footnote 386: _Comp._ 2 Sam. 11. 24; 12. 9.]\n\n     [Footnote 387: Rom. 13. 4; Matt. 26. 52.]\n\n     21. Yet in spite of His troubles, and even death, He feels sure\n     of deliverance.\n\n     22. And now the strain suddenly changes, the Sufferer is\n     restored to life and freedom and at once declares God's name\n     unto His brethren. And this exactly agrees with Christ's now\n     declaring for the first time God's complete _Name_ of, Father,\n     Son, and Holy Ghost, unto His _brethren_, as He calls them, the\n     Apostles.[388] While if we identify this appearance with that\n     to the five hundred, it was literally _in the midst of the\n     congregation_--in the presence, that is, of the first large\n     Christian assembly.\n\n     [Footnote 388: Matt. 28. 10, 19.]\n\n     23. Moreover, His deliverance is of world-wide significance,\n     and great blessings are to follow from it. These commence with\n     the Jews, who were to _praise_ and glorify God; though with a\n     strange feeling of _awe_ and fear; all of which was exactly\n     fulfilled.[389]\n\n     [Footnote 389: Acts 2. 43-47.]\n\n     24. And the blessings are somehow connected with God's not\n     having despised, but having accepted, His sufferings.\n\n     25. And they include a reference to some _vows_ (meaning\n     uncertain);\n\n     26. and to a wonderful feast generally thought to refer to the\n     Holy Communion.\n\n     27. And the blessings then extend to the Gentile nations also,\n     even to the most distant parts of the world, who are now to\n     become worshippers of the true God, Jehovah. And, as a matter\n     of fact, Christians exist in all known countries, and wherever\n     there are Christians, Jehovah is worshipped.\n\n     28. To Whom the whole earth, both the Jewish kingdom and the\n     Gentile nations, really belongs.\n\n     29. And to Whom everyone will eventually bow down.\n\n     30. After this we read of a _seed_ serving Him, probably used\n     here, as in Isaiah, for disciples, each generation of whom is\n     to tell of this wonderful deliverance to the next. And this\n     they have been doing for eighteen centuries.\n\n     31. And so they will continue doing to generations that are yet\n     unborn. While the closing words, _He hath done it_ (R.V.) are\n     often taken as referring to the whole Psalm, meaning that the\n     work of suffering and atonement was now complete, _It is\n     done_;[390] and they would thus correspond to Christ's closing\n     words on the Cross, _It it finished_.\n\n     [Footnote 390: Hengstenberg, Commentary on Psalms, 1867, vol.\n     i., 396.]\n\nEveryone must admit that the agreement all through is very\nremarkable; though there are two slight objections.\n\n(2.) _Two objections._\n\nThe first is that there is nothing to show that the writer meant the\nPsalm to refer to the Messiah at all, though, strange to say, some\nof the Jews so interpreted it;[391] therefore if there is an\nagreement, it is at most only a chance coincidence. But the idea of\n_all_ these coincidences being due to chance is most improbable. And\nthere certainly is some indication that it refers to the Messiah,\nsince, as we have seen, it leads up to the conversion of the\nGentiles, which the other Jewish prophets always associate with the\ntimes of the Messiah.\n\n[Footnote 391: Edersheim, 1901, vol. ii., 713.]\n\nMoreover, if the Psalm does not refer to Christ, it is difficult to\nsee to whom it does refer, since it is quite inapplicable to David,\nor Hezekiah, or anyone else at that time; as crucifixion was not a\nJewish punishment, though dead bodies were sometimes hung on trees.\nYet, as just said, verses 7-8 show that the Sufferer was put to\ndeath among his own nation. This strange anomaly of a Jew being put\nto death among Jews, though not in the Jewish manner by stoning, but\nby crucifixion, exactly suits the time of Christ, when Jud\u00e6a was a\nRoman province, and crucifixion a Roman punishment.\n\nMany of the _details_ also are quite inapplicable. David, for\ninstance, never had his garments divided among his enemies; yet\n(even apart from our Gospels) there can be little doubt that the\ngarments of Christ were so divided, as the clothes of a prisoner\nwere usually taken by the guard who executed him.\n\nAnd any such reference (to David, etc.) is rendered still more\nimprobable, because the sufferer appears to have no sense of _sin_,\nand never laments his own wickedness, as the writers so frequently\ndo when speaking about themselves. And here also the Psalm is\nentirely applicable to Christ, since (as we shall see in the next\nchapter) His sinlessness was a striking feature in His character.\nNor again did the deliverance of David in any way lead to the\n_conversion of the Gentiles_, which, as just said, is the grand\nclimax of the Psalm, and excludes all other interpretations.\n\nBut in any case this objection (which is also made to other Old\nTestament prophecies) cannot be maintained; for _who_, we must ask,\nwas their real author? Was it the human prophet, or was it God Who\ninspired the prophet to write as he did? And the prophets themselves\nemphatically declared that it was the latter. The word of the Lord\ncame unto them, or a vision was granted unto them, and they had to\nproclaim it, whether they liked it or not. In fact, as St. Matthew\nsays, it was not really the prophet who spoke, but God, who spoke\n_through the prophet_.[392] There is thus no reason for thinking\nthat they either knew, or thought they knew, the whole meaning of\ntheir prophecies; and the objection may be dismissed at once.\n\n[Footnote 392: _E.g._, Matt. 1. 22.]\n\nThe second objection is, that some of the events fulfilling this,\nand other Old Testament prophecies, never occurred, but were\npurposely invented. This, however, destroys altogether the moral\ncharacter of the Evangelists, who are supposed to tell deliberate\nfalsehoods, in order to get a pretended fulfilment of an old\nprophecy. And the difficulty of admitting this is very great.\nMoreover, such explanations can only apply to a very few cases;\nsince, as a rule, the events occurred in _public_, and must\ntherefore have been well known at the time.\n\nAnd even in those cases where the event was so trivial, that it\nmight possibly have been invented, such an explanation is often\nuntenable. Take, for example, the manner in which Christ on the\ncross was mocked by His enemies, who said, 'He trusted in God, let\nhim deliver him now if he desireth him.'[393] A more probable\nincident under the circumstances can scarcely be imagined, the chief\npriests quoting the familiar language (just as men sometimes quote\nthe Bible now) without thinking of its real significance. But,\nsupposing the words were never uttered, is it conceivable that the\nEvangelist (or anyone else) would have invented them in order to get\na pretended fulfilment of this Psalm, where the Crucified One is\nmocked with almost identical words; yet have never pointed out the\nfulfilment himself, but have trusted to the chance of his readers\ndiscovering it?\n\n[Footnote 393: Matt. 27. 43.]\n\nNeither of these objections, then, is of much importance; while the\nagreement of the Psalm with the events attending the death and\nResurrection of Christ, seems, as in the previous case, to be far\ntoo exact to be accidental.\n\n\n(_C._) THE DIVINITY OF THE MESSIAH.\n\nOur last example shall be of a different kind from the others. It is\nthat the Old Testament contains several passages which show that the\nfuture Messiah was to be not only Superhuman, but Divine. And\nconsidering the strong Monotheism of the Jews this is very\nremarkable. The following are three of the most important:--\n\n'For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the\ngovernment shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called\nWonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of\nPeace.'[394] Here we have a plain statement of the Divinity of One\nWho should be born a child. The two words translated _Mighty God_\nare incapable of any other translation, and no other is suggested\nfor them in the margin of either the Authorised or Revised Version;\nwhile the same two words occur in the next chapter, where they\nplainly mean _Mighty God_ and nothing else. Moreover, the term\n_Everlasting Father_ is literally _Father of Eternity_ (see margin)\nand means the Eternal One. This is another divine title, and does\nnot conflict with the Christian doctrine that it was the Son, and\nnot the Father, Who became Incarnate. While the following words,\nthat of the increase of His government _there shall be no end_, and\nthat it should be established _for ever_, also point to a Divine\nRuler, in spite of the reference to David's throne. And it is\nsignificant that a few verses before it is implied that the Ministry\nof this future Messiah should commence in the land of Zebulon, and\nNaphtali, by the Sea of Galilee; where, as a matter of fact,\nChrist's Ministry did commence.\n\n[Footnote 394: Isa. 9. 6; 10. 21; 9. 1-2.]\n\n'But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the\nthousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is\nto be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from\neverlasting.'[395] Here we have a prophecy of the birth of One who\nhad existed _from everlasting_; thus showing the Pre-existence and\napparent Divinity of the Messiah, who was to be born at Bethlehem,\nwhere, again, as a matter of fact, Christ actually was born.\n\n[Footnote 395: Mic. 5. 2.]\n\n'Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is\nmy fellow, saith the Lord of hosts.'[396] The word translated\n_fellow_ is only found elsewhere in Leviticus, where it is usually\ntranslated _neighbour_, and always implies an equality between the\ntwo persons.[397] Thus God speaks of the Shepherd who was to be\nslain with the sword (a term, as before said, used for any violent\ndeath), as equal with Himself, and yet at the same time Man; so no\none but a Messiah who is both God and Man--_Fellow-God_ as well as\n_fellow-man_--can satisfy the language.\n\n[Footnote 396: Zech. 13. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 397: Lev. 6. 2; 18. 20; 19. 11, 15, 17; 24. 19; 25. 14,\n15, 17.]\n\nAnd here again the reference to Christ is confirmed by the fact that\nseveral incidents in His Passion are alluded to, in some of which\nHis Divinity is likewise asserted. The most important are the way in\nwhich He (the Just Saviour) rode into Jerusalem on an ass; and the\nrejoicing with which He was received, when the people welcomed Him\nas their _King_. And the fact that He (the Lord Jehovah) should be\nsold for thirty pieces of silver, the money being cast down in the\nHouse of the Lord, and afterwards given to the potter; and also that\nHe (again the Lord Jehovah) should be pierced.[398] These are, it is\ntrue, expressed in figurative language, and often mixed up with\nother subjects; so no instance by itself, affords a strong argument.\nBut still their all occurring so close together, and all leading up\nto the violent death of a _man_, who was yet the _fellow_, or\n_equal_, with God, can scarcely be accidental. While the prophecy,\nlike so many others, ends with the conversion of the Gentiles, the\nLord Jehovah being recognised as King over all the earth; which\nseems to place the Messianic character beyond dispute.\n\n[Footnote 398: Zech. 9. 9; 11. 12-13; 12. 10; 14. 9; Luke 19.\n37-38.]\n\nThe Divinity of the Messiah is also involved in some hints which\noccur in the Old Testament as to the doctrine of the _Trinity_. For\ninstance, the Hebrew word for God, _Elohim_, is a plural word,\nthough, strange to say, it generally takes a singular adjective, and\nverb. Thus if we tried to represent it in English, the first verse\nof the Bible would read, 'In the beginning the Gods, He created the\nheaven and the earth.' Attempts have of course been made to reduce\nthe significance of this by pointing out that a few other Hebrew\nwords, such as _lord_ and _master_, sometimes do the same; or by\nregarding it as a survival from some previous polytheistic religion;\nor else as being what is called the plural of Majesty, a sort of\nroyal _We_. This, however, does not seem to have been in use in\nearly times, and never occurs in the Bible, where kings always speak\nof themselves in the singular.[399] Anyhow it is very remarkable\nthat the Jews should have used a plural word for God with a singular\nverb; especially as the same word, when used of false gods, takes a\nplural verb.\n\n[Footnote 399: _E.g._, Gen. 41. 41; Ezra 6. 12; 7. 21; Dan. 4. 6.]\n\nMoreover, God is at times represented as speaking in the\nplural,[400] saying, for instance, _Let us make man in our image_,\nas if consulting with other Divine Persons; since it is obvious that\nthe expression cannot refer to angels, who are themselves created,\nand not fellow Creators. Yet just afterwards we read, 'God created\nman in _his_ own image,' thus implying that there is still but one\nGod. Another and even more remarkable expression is, _Behold, the\nman is become as one of us_. This cannot possibly be the plural of\nMajesty; for though a king might speak of himself as _We_ or _Us_,\nno king ever spoke of himself as _one of Us_. Such an expression can\nonly be used when there are other persons of similar rank with the\nspeaker; therefore when used by God, it shows conclusively that\nthere are other Divine Persons. So again when God says, 'Whom shall\n_I_ send, and who will go for _us_?' it implies that He is both one,\nand more than one; which the previous _thrice_ Holy, points to as\nbeing a Trinity.[401] The existence of such passages seems to\nrequire some explanation, and Christianity alone can explain them.\n\n[Footnote 400: Gen. 1. 26; 3. 22; 11. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 401: Isa. 6. 8.]\n\n\n(_D._) CONCLUSION.\n\nBefore concluding this chapter there is still one objection to be\nconsidered. Why, it is said, if these prophecies really refer to\nChrist, are they not plainer? Surely if God wished to foretell the\nfuture, He would have done it better than this: and a few words\nadded here and there would have made the reference to Christ\nindisputable. No doubt they would; but possibly God did not wish to\nmake the reference indisputable. Moreover, if the prophecies had\nbeen plainer, they might have prevented their own fulfilment. Had\nthe Jews known for certain that Christ was their Messiah, they\ncould scarcely have crucified Him; and it seems to many that the\nprophecies are already about as plain as they could be without doing\nthis. The important point, however, is not whether the prophecies\nmight not have been plainer, but whether they are not already too\nplain to be accidental.\n\nLastly, we must notice the cumulative nature of the evidence. We\nhave only examined a few instances, but, as said before, Messianic\nprophecies of some kind more or less distinct, occur at intervals\nall through the Old Testament. And though some of those commonly\nbrought forward seem weak and fanciful, there are numbers of others\nwhich are not. And here, as elsewhere, this has a double bearing on\nthe argument.\n\nIn the first place, it does not at all increase the difficulty of\nthe _Christian_ interpretation; for twenty prophecies are\npractically no more difficult to admit than two. Indeed, the fact\nthat instead of being a few isolated examples, they form a complete\nseries, rather lessens the difficulty than otherwise.\n\nOn the other hand, it greatly increases the difficulty of _any\nother_ interpretation; for twenty prophecies are far more difficult\nto deny than two. If one is explained as a lucky coincidence, it\nwill not account for the next; if that is got rid of by some\nunnatural interpretation of the words, it will not account for the\nthird, and so on indefinitely. The difficulties are thus not only\ngreat in themselves, but are all cumulative; and hence together they\nseem insuperable. Anyhow, it is clear that these Prophecies form\nanother strong argument in favour of Christianity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nTHAT THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST CONFIRMS THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.\n\n     The character of Christ can only be deduced from the New Testament,\n      any other Christ being purely imaginary.\n\n     (_A._) THE TEACHING OF CHRIST.\n\n     (1.) Its admitted excellence.\n     (2.) Two objections.\n     (3.) His sinlessness.\n\n     (_B._) THE CLAIMS OF CHRIST.\n\n     (1.) His claim to be Superhuman--declaring that He was\n           the Ruler, Redeemer, and final Judge of the world.\n     (2.) His claim to be Divine--declaring His Equality, Unity,\n           and Pre-existence with God.\n     (3.) How these claims were understood at the time, both\n           by friends and foes.\n\n     (_C._) THE GREAT ALTERNATIVE.\n\n     Christ cannot, therefore, have been merely a good man;\n      He was either _God_, as He claimed to be, or else a _bad_\n      man, for making such claims. But the latter view is\n      disproved by His Moral Character.\n\n\nIn this chapter we propose to consider the Character of Christ, and\nits bearing on the truth of Christianity. Now our knowledge of\nChrist's character can only be derived from the four Gospels;\nindeed, a Christ with any other character assigned to Him is a\npurely imaginary being, and might as well be called by some other\nname. Taking, then, the Gospels as our guide, what is the character\nof Christ? Clearly this can be best deduced from His own _teaching_\nand _claims_, both of which are fortunately given at some length; so\nwe will consider these first, and then the _great alternative_ which\nthey force upon us.\n\n\n(_A._) THE TEACHING OF CHRIST.\n\nUnder this head, we will first notice the admitted excellence of\nChrist's teaching, then some objections which are often made, and\nlastly His sinlessness.\n\n(1.) _Its admitted excellence._\n\nTo begin with, the excellence of Christ's moral teaching hardly\nneeds to be insisted on at the present day, and rationalists as well\nas Christians have proclaimed its merits. For instance, to quote a\nfew examples:--\n\n'Religion cannot be said to have made a bad choice in pitching on\nthis man as the ideal representative and guide of humanity; nor even\nnow would it be easy, even for an unbeliever, to find a better\ntranslation of the rule of virtue from the abstract into the\nconcrete, than to endeavour so to live that Christ should approve\nour life.'--_J. S. Mill_.[402]\n\n[Footnote 402: Nature, the Utility of Religion and Theism, 2nd\nedit., 1874, p. 255.]\n\n'Jesus remains to humanity an inexhaustible source of moral\nregenerations.' And again, 'In Him is condensed all that is good and\nlofty in our nature.'--_E. Renan_.[403]\n\n[Footnote 403: Life of Jesus, translated by Wilbour, New York, 1864,\npp. 370, 375.]\n\n'It was reserved for Christianity to present to the world an ideal\ncharacter, which, through all the changes of eighteen centuries,\nhas inspired the hearts of men with an impassioned love; has shown\nitself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments, and\nconditions; has been not only the highest pattern of virtue, but the\nstrongest incentive to its practice; and has exercised so deep an\ninfluence that it may be truly said that the simple record of three\nshort years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften\nmankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers, and all the\nexhortations of moralists.'--_W. E. H. Lecky_.[404]\n\n[Footnote 404: History of European Morals, 3rd edit., 1877, vol.\nii., p. 8.]\n\nThese quotations are only examples of many which might be given; but\nit is practically undisputed that the morality taught by Christ is\nthe best the world has ever seen. It is also undisputed that His\nlife was in entire harmony with His teaching. He lived, as far as we\ncan judge, a holy and blameless life, and His character has never\nbeen surpassed either in history or fiction.\n\n(2.) _Two objections._\n\nThere are, however, two slight objections. The first is that\nChrist's teaching was not _original_; and, strictly speaking, this\nis perhaps true. Something similar to all He taught has been\ndiscovered in more ancient times, either in Egypt, India, China, or\nelsewhere. But this hardly affects the argument. An unlearned Jew\nliving at Nazareth cannot be supposed to have derived his teaching\nfrom these sources; and it is a great improvement on all of them put\ntogether. The important point is, that there was nothing among the\nJews of His own time which could have produced, or even have\ninvented, such a character. He was immeasurably better than His\ncontemporaries, and all of them put together have not exerted an\ninfluence on the world a thousandth part that of Christ.\n\nThe second objection refers to _certain portions_ of Christ's\nteaching. For example, He urges men not to resist evil, and seems to\nplace virginity above marriage to an exaggerated extent.[405] I have\nnever seen a satisfactory explanation of the latter passage; but it\nis obvious on the face of it that it cannot be meant for universal\napplication, or it would lead to the extinction of the human race.\n\n[Footnote 405: Matt. 5. 39; 19. 12.]\n\nAgain, several of the _parables_ are said to be unjust such as that\nof the workmen in the vineyard, the unrighteous steward, and the\nwedding garment. But parables must not be pressed literally, and\nvery different interpretations have been put on these. However, we\nwill consider the two last, which are those most often objected to.\n\nWith regard to the _Unrighteous Steward_, though apparently he had\nbeen guilty of dishonesty, we are told that his lord _commended_\nhim, because he had done wisely.[406] But no one can think that his\nlord commended him, because he had just cheated him. So if his\nconduct was really dishonest (about which scholars are by no means\nagreed) we can only suppose that _in spite of this_, his lord\ncommended him, because of his wisdom. In the same way, if an\ningenious robbery were committed at the present day, even the man\nrobbed, might say that he could not help admiring the scoundrel for\nhis cleverness. The meaning then appears to be that _wisdom_ is so\ndesirable that it is to be commended even in worldly matters, and\neven in a bad cause; and therefore of course still more to be aimed\nat in religious matters, and in a good cause.\n\n[Footnote 406: Luke 16. 8.]\n\nNext as to the _Wedding Garment_. It is distinctly implied that\nthere was only _one_ man without it,[407] so obviously the first\npoint to determine is how the other men got their garments. They\ncould not have had them out in the roads, and there was no time to\ngo home and get them, even if they possessed any. It follows then\nthat they must each have been provided with a suitable garment\n(probably a cloak, worn over their other clothes) when they reached\nthe palace. This appears to have been an eastern custom,[408] and if\none of them refused to put it on, he would certainly deserve to be\nexcluded from the feast. Thus the object of the parable seems to be\nto show that God's blessings can only be obtained on God's terms\n(_e.g._ _forgiveness_ on _repentance_), though there is no hardship\nin this, as He has Himself given us grace to comply with these\nterms, if we like. Neither of these objections, then, is of much\nimportance.\n\n[Footnote 407: Matt. 22. 11.]\n\n[Footnote 408: Archb. Trench, Notes on the Parables, 1870, p. 234.]\n\n(3.) _His sinlessness._\n\nA most remarkable point has now to be noticed. It is that,\nnotwithstanding His perfect moral teaching, there is not in the\ncharacter of Christ the slightest consciousness of _sin_. In all His\nnumerous discourses, and even in His prayers, there is not a single\nword which implies that He thought He ever had done, or ever could\ndo, anything wrong Himself. He is indeed most careful to avoid\nimplying this, even incidentally. Thus He does not tell His\ndisciples, 'If _we_ forgive men their trespasses,' etc., but 'If\n_ye_,' as the former might imply that He, as well as they, had need\nof the Father's forgiveness.[409] Nor did He ever regret anything\nthat He had done, or ever wish that He had acted otherwise. And\nthough He blamed self-righteousness in others, and urged them to\nrepentance, He never hinted that He had any need of it Himself; in\nfact, He expressly denied it, for He said that He _always_ did those\nthings that were pleasing to God.[410]\n\n[Footnote 409: Matt. 6. 14.]\n\n[Footnote 410: John 8. 29.]\n\nAnd this is the more striking when we reflect that good men are, as\na rule, most conscious of their faults. Yet here was One who carried\nmoral goodness to its utmost limit, whose precepts are admittedly\nperfect, but who never for a moment thought that He was not\nfulfilling them Himself. Such a character is absolutely unique in\nthe world's history. It can only be explained by saying that Christ\nwas not merely a good man, but a _perfect_ man, since goodness\nwithout perfection would only have made Him more conscious of the\nfaults He had. Yet if we admit this, we must admit more; for\nperfection is not a human attribute, and a _sinless life_ needs a\ngood deal to account for it.\n\n\n(_B._) THE CLAIMS OF CHRIST.\n\nWe pass on now to the _claims_ of Christ; and His high moral\ncharacter would plainly lead us to place the utmost confidence in\nwhat He said about Himself. And as we shall see He claimed to be\nboth _Superhuman_ and _Divine_; and this is how all His\ncontemporaries, both friends and foes, understood Him. And though it\nis impossible to add to the marvel of such claims, yet the fact that\nnothing in any way resembling them is to be found among the Jewish\nProphets helps us, at least, to realise their uniqueness. Many of\nthem are spoken concerning the _Son of Man_; but there can be no\ndoubt whatever that by this title Christ means Himself.[411]\n\n[Footnote 411: _E.g._, Matt. 16. 13, 16.]\n\n(1.) _His Claim to be Superhuman._\n\nThis is shown by three main arguments, for Christ declared that He\nwas the Ruler, Redeemer, and final Judge of the world. In the first\nplace, He claimed to be the _Ruler_ of the world, saying in so many\nwords that all things had been delivered unto Him, and that He\npossessed all authority, both in heaven and on earth.[412] Moreover,\nHis dominion was to be not only universal, but it was to last for\never; since after this world had come to an end, the future Kingdom\nof Heaven was still to be _His_ Kingdom, its angels were to be _His_\nangels, and its citizens _His_ elect.[413]\n\n[Footnote 412: Matt. 11. 27; 28. 18; Luke 10. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 413: Matt. 13. 41; 24. 31.]\n\nSecondly, Christ claimed to be the _Redeemer_ of the world. He\ndistinctly asserted that He came to give His life a ransom for many,\nand that His blood was shed for the remission of sins. And the\nimportance He attached to this is shown by the fact that He\ninstituted a special rite (the Holy Communion) on purpose to\ncommemorate it.[414]\n\n[Footnote 414: Matt. 20. 28; 26. 28; Mark 10. 45; 14. 24; Luke 22.\n19.]\n\nThirdly, Christ claimed to be the final _Judge_ of the world. This\ntremendous claim alone shows that He considered Himself quite above\nand distinct from the rest of mankind. While they were all to be\njudged according to their works, He was to be the Judge Himself,\ncoming in the clouds of heaven with thousands of angels. And His\ndecision was to be final and without appeal. Moreover, this\nastonishing claim does not depend on single texts or passages, but\noccurs all through the first three Gospels.[415] During the whole of\nHis Ministry--from His Sermon on the Mount to His trial before\nCaiaphas--He persistently asserted that He was to be the final Judge\nof the world. It is hardly credible that a mere man, however\npresumptuous, should ever have made such a claim as this. Can we\nimagine anyone doing so at the present day? and what should we think\nof him if he did?\n\n[Footnote 415: Matt. 7. 22; 10. 32; 13. 41; 16. 27; 19. 28; 24. 30;\n25. 31-46; 26. 64; and similar passages in the other Gospels.]\n\n(2.) _His Claim to be Divine._\n\nLike the preceding, this is shown by three main arguments; for\nChrist declared His Equality, Unity, and Pre-existence with God. In\nthe first place, Christ claimed _Equality_ with God. He said that\nthe same honour should be given to Himself as to God the Father;\nthat men should believe in Him as well as in God; that He and the\nFather would together dwell in the souls of men; and that He, like\nthe Father, had the power of sending the Holy Spirit of God.[416] He\nalso commanded men to be baptized into His Name as well as into\nthat of the Father; and promised that whenever and wherever His\ndisciples were gathered together, He would be in the midst of them,\neven unto the end of the world, which, cannot be true of anyone but\nGod.[417]\n\n[Footnote 416: John 5. 23; 14. 1, 23; 16. 7.]\n\n[Footnote 417: Matt. 18. 20; 28. 19, 20.]\n\nSecondly, Christ claimed _Unity_ with God. He did not say that He\nwas another God, but that He and the Father were _One_; that He was\nin the Father, and the Father in Him; that whoever beheld Him beheld\nthe Father; that whoever had seen Him had seen the Father.[418]\nThese latter texts cannot, of course, be pressed literally, as few\nwould maintain that Christ was really God _the Father_. But just as\nif a human father and son were _extremely_ alike, we might say that\nif you had seen the son, you had seen the father; so if Christ was\ntruly God--God the Son--the _very image_ of His Father,[419] the\nsame language might be used. It would at least be intelligible. But\nit would be quite unintelligible, if Christ had been merely a _good\nman_. Can we imagine the best man that ever lived saying, If you\nhave seen me, you have seen God?\n\n[Footnote 418: John 10. 30; 17. 21; 12. 45; 14. 9.]\n\n[Footnote 419: Heb. 1. 3.]\n\nThirdly, Christ claimed _Pre-existence_ with God. He said that He\nhad descended out of heaven; that He had come down from heaven; that\nHe came out from the Father and was come into the world; and that\neven before its creation He had shared God's glory.[420] While in\nanother passage, '_Before Abraham was, I am_,'[421] He not only said\nthat He existed before Abraham, but by using the words _I am_\ninstead of _I was_, He seemed to identify Himself with Jehovah, the\ngreat _I am_, of the Old Testament.[422]\n\n[Footnote 420: John 3. 13; 6. 38; 16. 28; 17. 5.]\n\n[Footnote 421: John 8. 58.]\n\n[Footnote 422: Exod. 3. 14.]\n\nTurning now to the other side, there are four passages in which\nChrist seems to _disclaim_ being Divine. The most important is where\nHe says that the Son (_i.e._ Himself) does not know the time of the\nfuture Judgment;[423] and the present writer has never seen a really\nsatisfactory explanation of this. But it may be pointed out that if\nwe admit that Christ was both Divine and human, it is only fair to\nrefer any particular statement to that nature, to which it is\napplicable; even though the wording seems to suggest the opposite.\nIn the same way, the passage, that the _Lord of Glory_ was\ncrucified[424] can only refer to Christ in His _human_ nature, and\nnot in His Divine nature, as the Lord of Glory. And in His human\nnature Christ may have been ignorant of the time of the future\nJudgment, just as in His human nature He increased in wisdom and\nstature.[425]\n\n[Footnote 423: Mark 13. 32.]\n\n[Footnote 424: 1 Cor. 2. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 425: Luke 2. 52.]\n\nThen we have the passage where a ruler addresses Christ as '_Good_\nMaster,' and Christ demurs to this, saying that the word was only\napplicable to God.[426] And how, it is asked, could He have done so,\nif He had been both good and God? The best explanation seems to be\nthat among the Jews, it was the custom never to address a Teacher\n(or Rabbi) as _Good_. They said God was 'the _Good One_ of the\nworld'; it was one of _His_ titles.[427] Therefore as the ruler had\nno means of knowing that Christ was God, he was not justified in\nthus addressing Him as _Good_.\n\n[Footnote 426: Mark 10. 18.]\n\n[Footnote 427: Edersheim's Life and Times of the Messiah, vol. ii.,\np. 339.]\n\nThe remaining two passages, 'I go unto the Father; for the Father is\ngreater than I'; and 'I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and\nmy God and your God,'[428] are easier to explain, since here it is\nobvious that they refer to Christ's _human_ nature alone, as it was\nin His human nature alone that He was ever absent from the Father.\nAnd even here He carefully distinguishes His own relationship to God\nfrom that of His disciples. For though He teaches them to say _our\nFather_, yet when including Himself with them, He does not here or\nanywhere else say _our_ Father, or _our_ God; but always emphasises\nHis own peculiar position. While we may ask in regard to the first\npassage, would anyone but God have thought it necessary to explain\nthat God the Father was greater than Himself? Anyhow, these passages\ndo not alter the fact that Christ did repeatedly claim to be both\nsuperhuman and Divine.\n\n[Footnote 428: John 14. 28; 20. 17.]\n\n(3.) _How these Claims were understood at the time._\n\nWe have now to consider how these claims were understood at the\ntime. And first, as to _Christ's friends_. We have overwhelming\nevidence that after His Resurrection all the disciples and early\nChristians believed their Master to be both superhuman and Divine.\nAnd to realise the full significance of this, we must remember that\nthey were not polytheists, who did not mind how many gods they\nbelieved in, and were willing to worship Roman Emperors or anyone\nelse; but they were strict monotheists. They firmly believed that\nthere was only one God, yet they firmly believed that Christ was\nDivine. This is shown throughout the New Testament.\n\nThus the writers of the _first three Gospels_, though they usually\nrecord the events of Christ's life without comment, yet in one\npassage identify Him with the God of the Old Testament, referring\nthe prophecy about the messenger of the _Lord our God_ to the\nmessenger of _Christ_.[429] And as to the _Fourth Gospel_, it begins\nwith asserting Christ's Divinity in the plainest terms, saying that\n_the Word_, who afterwards became flesh, _was God_. And it\nappropriately ended, before the last chapter was added, with St.\nThomas declaring this same belief, when he addressed Christ as _my\nLord and my God_, which titles He fully accepted.[430] Yet\nimmediately afterwards, the author says he wrote his Gospel to\nconvince men that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. Evidently\nthen this expression, _the Son of God_, meant to him, and therefore\npresumably to other New Testament writers, who use it frequently,\nthat Christ was truly God--God the Son--_my Lord and my God_--in the\nfullest and most complete sense.\n\n[Footnote 429: Isa. 40. 3; Matt. 3. 3; Mark 1. 3; Luke 3. 4.]\n\n[Footnote 430: John 1. 1; 20. 28.]\n\nWith regard to the _Acts_ an argument on the other side is sometimes\ndrawn from St. Peter's speaking of Christ as 'a _man_ approved of\nGod unto you by mighty works,' thus implying, it is urged, that St.\nPeter did not know Him to be more than man.[431] But since he says\nhe was only appealing to what his _hearers_ knew to be true (_even\nas ye yourselves know_), how else could he have put it? His hearers\ndid not know that Christ was God; they did know that He was _a man\napproved of God_ by many wonderful miracles, because they had seen\nthem. Moreover, in other places the Acts bear strong witness to the\nDivinity of Christ, as for instance when St. Paul speaks _of the\nChurch of God which He purchased with His own blood_, or St. Stephen\nsays _Lord Jesus receive my spirit_; or when the Apostles are\nrepresented as working their miracles, not in the name of God the\nFather, but in that of Christ.[432]\n\n[Footnote 431: Acts 2. 22.]\n\n[Footnote 432: Acts 20. 28; 7. 59; 3. 6; 4. 10.]\n\nNext, as to the Book of _Revelation_. The evidence this affords is\nimportant, because nearly all critics admit that it was written by\nSt. John. And if so, it shows conclusively that one at least of\nChrist's intimate followers firmly believed in His Divinity. For he\nnot only speaks of Him as being universally worshipped both in\nheaven and on earth, but describes Him as _the First and the Last_,\nwhich is a title used by God in the Old Testament, and is plainly\ninapplicable to anyone else.[433] And we may ask, is it conceivable\nthat an intimate friend of Christ should have believed Him to be the\nEverlasting God, unless He had claimed to be so Himself, and had\nsupported His claim by working miracles, and rising from the dead?\nIs it not, rather, certain that nothing but the most _overwhelming_\nproof would ever have convinced a Jew (of all persons) that a fellow\nMan, with whom he had lived for years, and whom he had then seen put\nto death as a malefactor, was Himself the Lord Jehovah, _the First\nand the Last_?\n\n[Footnote 433: Rev. 5. 11-14; 1. 17, 18; 2. 8; 22. 13; Isa. 44. 6.]\n\nBut it is urged on the other side, that the writer also calls Him\n_the beginning of the Creation of God_, as if He had been merely the\nfirst Being created.[434] But the previous passages clearly show\nthat this was not his meaning. It was rather that Christ was the\n_beginning_ of creation, because He was its Source and Agent; He by\nwhom, as the same writer declares, _all things were made_. And\nelsewhere a similar title is given Him for this identical reason, as\nHe is called _the first-born of all creation_, because _all things\nhave been created through Him_.[435]\n\n[Footnote 434: Rev. 3. 14;]\n\n[Footnote 435: John 1. 3; Col. 1. 15, 16.]\n\nEqually important evidence is afforded by _St. Paul's Epistles_. For\nthough he is not likely to have known Christ intimately, he must\nhave been acquainted with numbers who did, including, as he says,\n_James the Lord's brother_.[436] And his early conversion, before\nA.D. 35, together with the fact that he had previously persecuted\nthe Church at Jerusalem, and afterwards visited some of the Apostles\nthere, must have made him well acquainted with the Christian\ndoctrines from the very first. Moreover he tells us himself that the\nfaith which he taught was the same as that which he had previously\npersecuted; and that when he visited the Apostles he _laid before\nthem_ the Gospel he preached, evidently to make sure that it agreed\nwith what they preached.[437]\n\n[Footnote 436: Gal. 1. 19.]\n\n[Footnote 437: Gal. 1. 23; 2. 2.]\n\nThere can thus be no doubt that the Christianity of St. Paul was\nthe same as that of the Twelve. And all through his Epistles he\nbears witness to the _superhuman_ character of Christ; declaring,\namong other things, His sinlessness, and that He is the Ruler,\nRedeemer, and final Judge of the world.[438]\n\n[Footnote 438: 2 Cor. 5. 21; Rom. 14. 9; 1 Cor. 15. 3; 2 Cor. 5.\n10.]\n\nHe also bears witness to His _Divine_ character, saying in so many\nwords that He is over all, God blessed for ever; that we shall all\nstand before the Judgment-seat of God, which elsewhere he calls the\nJudgment-seat of Christ; that He was originally in the form of God\n(_i.e._, in a state of Deity), and on an equality with God, before\nHe became incarnate, and took the form of Man; that in Him dwells\nall the fullness of the Godhead bodily; that He is our great God and\nSaviour Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for us; and that the Psalmist\nprophesied of Him when he said, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and\never.'[439] This last passage, from the _Hebrews_, was perhaps not\nwritten by St. Paul, but this makes it all the more valuable, as the\nEpistle is generally dated, from internal evidence, before the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70; and we have thus _another_ early\nwitness to the Divinity of Christ.\n\n[Footnote 439: Rom. 9. 5; 14. 10; 2 Cor. 5. 10; Phil. 2. 6; Col. 2.\n9; Titus 2. 13; Heb. 1. 8.]\n\nThe most important text on the other side is where St. Paul says\nthere is _one God the Father_, and _one Lord Jesus Christ_,[440]\nwhich is quoted in the Nicene Creed. But though the statement is a\ndifficult one, it cannot be pressed as implying that Christ is not\n_God_; for if so it would equally imply that the Father was not\n_Lord_, which few would contend was St. Paul's meaning.\n\n[Footnote 440: 1 Cor. 8. 6; _Comp._ Eph. 4. 4-6.]\n\nWith regard to the above passages, it is important to notice that\nthe allusions are all incidental. St. Paul does not attempt to prove\nthe superhuman and Divine character of Christ, but refers to it as\nif it were undisputed. He evidently believed it himself, and took\nfor granted that his readers did so too. And his readers included\nnot only his own converts at Corinth and elsewhere, but the converts\nof other Apostles at Rome, which was a place he had not then\nvisited, and a strong party of opponents in Galatia, with whom he\nwas arguing. It is clear, then, that these doctrines were not\npeculiar to St. Paul, but were the common property of all Christians\nfrom the earliest times. And when combined with the previous\nevidence, this leaves no doubt as to how Christ's _friends_\nunderstood His claims. Whatever they may have thought of them before\nthe Resurrection, that event convinced them that they were true, and\nthey never hesitated in this belief.\n\nNext as to _Christ's foes_. The evidence here is equally convincing.\nIn St. John's Gospel we read that on several occasions during His\nlife, when Christ asserted His superhuman and Divine character, the\nJews wanted to kill Him in consequence; often avowing their reason\nfor doing so with the utmost frankness. 'For a good work we stone\nthee not, but for blasphemy and because that thou, being a man,\nmakest thyself God.'[441] And in thus doing they were only acting\nin accordance with their law, which commanded a blasphemer to be\nstoned.[442]\n\n[Footnote 441: John 10. 33; 5. 18; 8. 59; 11. 8.]\n\n[Footnote 442: Lev. 24. 16.]\n\nIn none of these instances did Christ repudiate the claims\nattributed to Him, or say He had been misunderstood. In fact, only\nonce did He offer any explanation at all. He then appealed to the\npassage in the Old Testament, 'I said, Ye are gods,'[443] and\nasserted that He was much better entitled to the term, since He was\nsent into the world by the Father, and did the works of the Father.\nAfter which He again asserted His unity with the Father, which was\nthe very point objected to by the Jews.\n\n[Footnote 443: Ps. 82. 6.]\n\nMoreover, not only during His life did Christ make these claims to\nbe Divine, but He persevered with them even when it brought about\nHis death. It is undisputed that the Jews condemned Him for\n_blasphemy_, and for nothing else. This is the teaching not of one\nGospel alone, but of each of the four.[444] Every biography of\nChrist that we possess represents this as the real charge against\nHim; though, of course, when tried before the Roman governor that of\ndisloyalty to C\u00e6sar was brought forward as well.\n\n[Footnote 444: Matt. 26. 65; Mark 14. 64; Luke 22. 71; John 19. 7.]\n\nThere is only one conclusion to be drawn from all this. It is that\nChrist did really claim to be both superhuman and Divine; that He\ndeliberately and repeatedly asserted these claims during His life;\nthat this provoked the hostility of the Jews, who frequently wanted\nto kill Him; that He never repudiated these claims, but persevered\nwith them to the end; and was finally put to death in consequence.\n\n\n(_C._) THE GREAT ALTERNATIVE.\n\nWe pass on now to the _great alternative_, which is forced upon us\nby combining the teaching and the claims of Christ. Before pointing\nout its importance we must notice a favourite method of trying to\nget out of the difficulty, which is by saying that the teaching of\nChrist occurs in the _first three Gospels_, and the claims in the\n_Fourth_; so if we deny the accuracy of this single Gospel the\ndifficulty is removed. But unfortunately for this objection, though\nthe Divine claims occur chiefly in the Fourth Gospel, the superhuman\nones are most prominent in the other three; and we have purposely\nchosen all the passages illustrating them from these Gospels\n_alone_. And what is more, they occur in all the supposed _sources_\nof these Gospels--the so-called Triple Tradition, the source common\nto Matthew and Luke, etc. Everywhere from the earliest record to the\nlatest, Christ is represented as claiming to be superhuman. And such\nclaims are equally fatal to His moral character if He were only a\nman. For no good man, and indeed very few bad ones, could be so\nfearfully presumptuous as to claim to be the absolute Ruler of the\nworld, still less to be its Redeemer, and, least of all, to be its\none and only Judge hereafter.\n\nThis objection, then, cannot be maintained, and we are forced to\nconclude that the perfect moral teaching of Christ was accompanied\nby continual assertions of His own superhuman and Divine character.\nAnd as this was a point about which He must have known, it is clear\nthat the statements must have been either true or intentionally\nfalse. He must, therefore, have been Divine, or else a deliberate\nimpostor. In other words, the Christ of the Gospels--and history\nknows of no other--could not have been merely a good man. He was\neither _God_ as He claimed to be, or else a _bad man_ for making\nsuch claims. This is the _Great Alternative_.\n\nMoreover, it is absolutely unique in the world's history. Nowhere\nelse shall we find a parallel to it. In Christ--and in Christ\nalone--we have a Man Whose moral character and teaching have\nfascinated the world for centuries; and yet Who, unless His own\nclaims were true, must have been guilty of the greatest falsehood,\nand blasphemy. This is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from\nthe facts we have been considering, and all attempts to avoid it\nfail hopelessly.\n\nNow what effect has this on our present inquiry as to the truth of\nChristianity? Plainly it forms another strong argument in its\nfavour. For the moral teaching of its Founder is shown to be not\nonly the most perfect the world has ever seen, but it is combined\nwith a sense of entire sinlessness which is absolutely unique among\nmen. Both of these, however, are also combined with claims to a\nsuperhuman and Divine character, which, if they are not correct, can\nonly be described as impious, and profane. Therefore, unless\nChristianity is true, its Founder must have been not only the very\n_best_ of men; but also one of the very _worst_; and this is a\ndilemma from which there is no escape.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nTHAT THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY CONFIRMS ITS TRUTH.\n\n     (_A._) ITS EARLY TRIUMPHS.\n\n     (1.) Its immense difficulties.\n     (2.) Its marvellous success.\n     (3.) The so-called _natural_ causes of success: they all imply\n           the truth of the Religion.\n     (4.) Contrast with Mohammedanism.\n\n     (_B._) ITS LATER HISTORY.\n\n     (1.) Its vitality in the past; very remarkable.\n     (2.) Its effect at the present; very beneficial.\n     (3.) Its prospects in the future; very hopeful.\n     (4.) The spread of _Rationalism_; but this is no new difficulty,\n           while it shows the strength of Christianity, and being\n           only destructive, can never take its place.\n\n     (_C._) CONCLUSION.\n\n     The history of Christianity, which seems to have been\n      foreknown to its Founder, forms another strong argument\n      in its favour.\n\n\nThe argument we have next to consider is that derived from the\n_History of Christianity_. This religion, it must be remembered,\noriginated, spread over, and finally conquered the civilised world\nin an historical age. And since the fact of this conquest can\nneither be disputed nor ignored, it must be accounted for. How is it\nthat an obscure Jewish Peasant, who was crucified as a malefactor,\nsome nineteen centuries ago, should now be worshipped, by over five\nhundred million persons, including all the most civilised nations of\nthe world? As a mere historical problem, this requires some\nsolution, for an effect in history, as elsewhere, must have an\nadequate cause. And it is scarcely too much to say that this is the\nmost remarkable effect in the history of mankind. Here, then, is the\nsubject we have to discuss; and we will first consider the _early\ntriumphs_ of Christianity, and then its _later history_.\n\n\n(_A._) ITS EARLY TRIUMPHS.\n\nNow it seems hard to exaggerate either the immense difficulties the\nreligion had to overcome, or its marvellous success in overcoming\nthem.\n\n(1.) _Its immense difficulties._\n\nIn the first place, we must consider the immense difficulties of\nfounding such a religion as Christianity. Our familiarity with the\nsubject prevents us from fully realising this, so perhaps an analogy\nwill help to make it clear. Suppose, then, that missionaries _now_\nappeared in the cities of Europe, in London and Edinburgh, for\nexample, and preached that an obscure peasant, who had been put to\ndeath somewhere in Persia as a malefactor, had risen from the dead,\nand was the God of heaven and earth. What chance would they have of\nmaking a single convert? Yet the first preaching of Christianity at\nRome or Athens must have been very similar to this, only far more\ndangerous. Indeed, it is hard to over-estimate the difficulties of\nfounding a religion, the principal doctrine of which,--and one that\nthe Christians so boldly proclaimed,--was that of a crucified\nSaviour.[445]\n\n[Footnote 445: 1 Cor. 1. 23.]\n\nAnd all this took place among civilised nations, and in a literary,\none might almost say a rationalistic, age; when the old pagan\nreligions were being abandoned, because men could no longer believe\nin them. What, then, must have been the difficulty of introducing a\nnew religion, which was (apparently) more absurd than any of them,\nand which worshipped One Who had been crucified? Christianity had,\nof course, many other difficulties to contend with especially in\nregard to its absolute claims; for it was a religion which could\nstand no rival, and its success meant the destruction of every\nheathen altar. But these sink into insignificance, compared with the\ngreat difficulty of the Cross.\n\n(2.) _Its marvellous success._\n\nYet, in spite of every difficulty, Christianity prevailed. The new\nreligion spread with great rapidity. This we learn not only from\nChristian writers, who might be thought to exaggerate; but from\nimpartial men such as _Suetonius_ and _Tacitus_. The former says\nthat in the reign of Claudius (A.D. 41-54) the Jews in Rome,\n_stirred up by one Chrestus_ (_i.e._, Christian Jews), were so\nnumerous that the Emperor thought it expedient to banish them; and\nthe latter that at the time of the great fire (A.D. 64) _large\nnumbers_ of Christians were discovered at Rome. While some years\nlater _Pliny_, one of the Roman governors in Asia Minor, complained\nto the Emperor Trajan that the Christians were so numerous that the\ntemples had long been deserted, though at the time he wrote (A.D.\n112) they were being frequented again. He also bears witness to the\nexemplary lives of the Christians, their steadfastness in their\nreligion, and the divine worship they paid to Christ. And as the\nreligion did not originate in either Rome or Asia Minor, Christians\nwere presumably as numerous elsewhere.\n\nNor can it be said that they were only to be found among the poor\nand ignorant. For Pliny himself admits that they included men of\n_every rank_ in life; and the undisputed Epistles of St. Paul, such\nas that to the Romans (about A.D. 55), show that he thought his\nreaders well educated, and quite able to follow a difficult\nargument. Moreover, according to the Acts, the people were by no\nmeans willing to accept Christianity without inquiry; and St. Paul\nwas obliged in consequence to have long discussions on the subject.\nThis was especially the case at Ephesus, where he _reasoned daily_\nin one of the schools, for about _two years_,[446] which does not\nlook as if his followers were only among the poor and ignorant.\nWhile elsewhere we have the names of some eminent converts.\n\n[Footnote 446: Acts 19. 9-10; 17. 17.]\n\nAmong these may be mentioned _Erastus_ the treasurer of the city at\nCorinth; and _Crispus_, the ruler of the Synagogue there;\n_Dionysius_, the Areopagite at Athens; _Manaen_, the foster-brother\nof Herod the tetrarch; _Apollos_, a learned Jew of Alexandria, who\nhad made a special study of the Scriptures; and _Theophilus_, a man\nof high rank (as is shown by the title _Most excellent_), none of\nwhom are likely to have accepted the religion of the Crucified,\nwithout very strong evidence.[447] And recent discoveries in the\ncatacombs have made it probable that a distinguished Roman lady,\nPomponia Gr\u00e6cina (wife of the General Aulus Plautius) who Tacitus\nsays was accused in A.D. 57 of having adopted a _foreign\nsuperstition_, was also a Christian.[448]\n\n[Footnote 447: Rom. 16. 23; Acts 18. 8; 17. 34; 13. 1; 18. 24; 1. 1;\n_comp._ 23. 26; 24. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 448: J. Orr, Hist. and Lit. of early Church, 1913, p. 43.\nTacitus, Annals, Bk. xiii., ch. 32.]\n\nNow what was the cause of this wonderful progress? It is easy to say\nwhat was _not_ its cause. Physical force and the authority of the\nGovernment had nothing to do with it. Its missionaries did not\npreach with sword in hand, nor were they backed up by the civil\npower. All they did, all they could do, was to appeal to man's\nreason and conscience, and this appeal was successful. And we learn\nfrom the Christians' themselves, _e.g._, in the Acts, that there\nwere two main reasons for this. The first was the confident appeal\nto the facts of Christianity, such as the Resurrection of Christ, as\nundisputed and indisputable; and the second was the occasional aid\nof miracles. And the more we reflect on the subject, the more\ndifficult it is to account for it, without at least one of these\ncauses. For the spread of Christianity was not like that of a mere\nphilosophy, or system of morals. It depended entirely on certain\nalleged _matters of fact_, which facts were quite recent at the time\nof its origin, occurred at the very place where it was first\npreached, and were open to the hostile criticism of an entire\nnation. This, it is needless to say, is without a parallel in\nhistory.\n\nBut it may be said, notwithstanding this rapid progress at first,\nChristianity took nearly three centuries to conquer the civilised\nworld. Undoubtedly it did, but the significance of the conquest is\nnot diminished by this. It is rather increased when we remember that\nat intervals all through this period the Religion suffered the\nfiercest persecution. That it should have survived such a fearfully\nprolonged struggle, and have finally conquered, does but show its\ninherent strength. We may look in vain for anything like this in the\nrest of history. No other religion has ever withstood such\npersistent attacks; no other religion has ever obtained such a\ncomplete and almost incredible triumph, the Emperor of the civilised\nworld being brought to worship One Who had been put to death as a\nmalefactor. In short, the progress of Christianity was as unique as\nits origin, and can only be satisfactorily accounted for by its\ntruth.\n\n(3.) _The so-called natural causes of success._\n\nWe must next glance at some natural causes which have been alleged\nas accounting for the wonderful spread of Christianity. Those\nbrought forward by Gibbon in his _Decline and Fall of the Roman\nEmpire_ (Chapter XV.) are five in number. The first is the _intense\nzeal_ of the early Christians. And doubtless this was a most\nimportant element in spreading their religion. But what gave them\nthis intense zeal? What was it that made them so fearfully in\nearnest about their new religion, that they faced a life of\nsuffering, and a death of martyrdom in preaching it? There can be\nbut one answer. It was because they were so absolutely convinced of\nits truth. It was vouched for by what they considered overwhelming\nevidence, so they willingly risked everything for it. Their zeal,\nthen, is but evidence for their conviction, and their conviction is\nbut evidence for the truth of what they were convinced of; and\nvaluable evidence too, for they plainly had much better means of\nknowing about it, than any that we can have.\n\nSecondly, there is the doctrine of a _future life_; and doubtless\nthis also had much to do with the success of Christianity. A longing\nfor immortality seems inherent in man, and the vague guesses of\nphilosophers were quite unable to satisfy this. It _might_ be true\nthat men should live again, but that was all they could say.\nChristianity alone, resting on the actual fact of Christ's\nResurrection, said it _was_ true; so here men found the assurance\nthey wanted. But is it likely that Christianity should have so\nthoroughly satisfied them in this respect, had there been any real\ndoubt as to Christ's Resurrection?\n\nThirdly, we have the _miracles_ ascribed to the early Christians.\nGibbon's argument here is more difficult to follow. Of course if\nthese miracles were true, they would have greatly assisted the new\nreligion; but then they would have been, not a natural but a\nsupernatural cause of success. If on the other hand, the miracles\nwere false, it is hard to see how the early Christians could have\nhelped their religion by claiming miraculous powers which they did\nnot possess, and which their contemporaries must have known that\nthey did not possess.\n\nFourthly, we have the _pure morality_ taught and practised by the\nearly Christians. And no doubt this had something to do with helping\ntheir religion. But again we must ask, what was it that enabled the\nChristians alone in that age of vice and wickedness to lead pure\nlives? They ascribed it themselves to the example and power of their\nFounder, and nothing else can account for it. Christian morality\ncannot be a stream without a source, and no other source can be\nassigned to it. But could a mere human Teacher have had this more\nthan human influence over thousands of converts, most of whom had\nnever seen him?\n\nLastly, comes the _union_ and _discipline_ of the early Church. This\nmay have helped Christianity in the later stages of the struggle,\nbut could obviously have been of little use at the commencement.\nMoreover, why should Christians of various nations and classes have\nbeen so thoroughly united on this one subject, unless they were\nconvinced of its overwhelming importance? On the whole, then, these\nso-called natural causes of success are at most only _secondary_\ncauses; the truth of the religion is what they all imply, and this\nis the real cause which alone can account for its success.\n\nA better way of explaining the spread of Christianity, which is now\noften adopted, is by saying that it arose _at a favourable crisis_.\nThe dispersion of the Jews throughout the known world would, it is\nurged, have facilitated the spread of a religion founded by Jews.\nThe speculations of the Greeks as to a Divine Word, or _Logos_,\nwould have prevented the doctrines of the Trinity, and the\nIncarnation, from forming any great difficulty to the learned\nclasses. While the mass of the people were disgusted with the old\nmythologies of Greece and Rome. These were dying out, because they\nfailed to satisfy human nature, and men were longing for something\nbetter. They wanted, as men always will want, a religion; but they\nwanted it free from the absurdities and immoralities of Pagan\nworship. Christianity then appeared, and as it was found by many to\nmeet the demand, it naturally succeeded.\n\nIn answer to this it must be remembered that Christianity was not a\nreligion founded at Rome or Athens, in which case it might perhaps\nbe said that the demand caused the supply; but it arose as a small\nJewish sect in Palestine. While the fierce persecutions it had to\nendure show that it did not obviously meet the requirements of the\nday, even apart from the tremendous difficulties involved in the\nworship of the Crucified. But now suppose, for the sake of argument,\nthat this had been otherwise, and that the world was so suited to\nreceive Christianity as to account for its rapid spread; would the\ninference be against its Divine origin? Certainly not; for the\nagreement in this case would be far too close to be accidental. It\nmust have been _designed_. And it would thus show that the God Who\nrules in history, is also the God Who introduced Christianity. So\nhere again the proposed explanation, even if admitted, does but\nimply the truth of the religion.\n\n(4.) _Contrast with Mohammedanism._\n\nAnd this conclusion is rendered still stronger when we contrast the\nprogress of Christianity with that of Mohammedanism. For here we\nhave the one example that history affords of the spread of a\nreligion which can be compared with that of Christianity. Yet the\ncontrast between the two is very marked, whether we consider the\nmeans by which they were spread, or their alleged evidence of\ntruthfulness. For Mohammed did not appeal to reason, but to _force_,\nand all we have to account for is that he should be able to collect\nan army, that this army should conquer, and that the conquered\nshould adopt the religion of their conquerors, about which they were\noften given no option. In the spread of Christianity, on the other\nhand, no force whatever was employed, and it had immense\ndifficulties to contend with. In fact it carried a cross instead of\na sword. Thus the contrast between the two is just what we should\nexpect between the natural and the supernatural spread of a\nreligion, the one advancing by worldly power, the other in spite of\nit.\n\nBut an even greater contrast has still to be noticed, which is that\nMohammed did not appeal to any _miracles_ in support of his\nclaims--that is, to outward matters of fact which could be judged of\nby other people. And this is the more remarkable since he refers to\nthe miracles of previous prophets, including those of Christ, as\nauthentic,[449] but never claims to have worked any himself. The\nobvious conclusion is that he felt, as all men must feel, the\noverwhelming difficulty of asserting public miracles if none\noccurred, and he therefore appealed to force, because he had nothing\nbetter to appeal to. Yet, as we have seen, the early Christians\nasserted such miracles from the first. They were not advocates of a\ncreed, but witnesses for certain facts, such as the Resurrection and\nother miracles which they believed they actually saw; and there is\nnothing corresponding to this in regard to Mohammedanism, or any\nother religion. It may of course be said that Mohammedanism shows\nthat a religion can make rapid progress without miracles. No doubt\nit does; and so does Buddhism, which also spread rapidly. But it\ndoes not show that a religion which, like Christianity, claims to\nrest on miracles, can make its way if those miracles are false.\n\n[Footnote 449: Koran, Sura v.]\n\n\n(_B._) ITS LATER HISTORY.\n\nWe pass on now from the early triumphs of Christianity to its later\nhistory, and will consider in turn its past vitality, its present\neffect, and its future prospects.\n\n(1.) _Its vitality in the past._\n\nTo begin with, a strong argument in favour of Christianity is its\nvitality. It has survived in spite of external assaults and internal\ndivisions; and its spread and continuity can only be satisfactorily\naccounted for by its truth. This is an argument the force of which\nincreases as times goes on, and fresh difficulties are encountered\nand overcome. Moreover, the social state of the world has changed\nimmensely, yet Christianity has always kept in touch with it. It has\nshown itself suitable for different ages, countries, and social\nconditions; and, unlike other religions, is still in sympathy with\nthe highest forms of civilisation. In short, Christianity has kept\npossession of the civilised world for sixteen centuries, and is as\nvigorous in its age as in its youth.\n\nIts long reign is indeed so familiar to us that there is a danger of\nnot noticing its importance. Can we imagine a man _now_ who should\nfound a religion, which nearly two thousand years hence should be\nstill flourishing, still spreading, and still recognising him not\nonly as its founder but its God? Yet this would be but a similar\ncase to that of Christianity. Amid all the changes in history it\nalone has remained unchanged. Its doctrines, at least the essential\nones, contained in the Creeds, have been the same, century after\ncentury, and its Founder is still worshipped by millions.\n\n(2.) _Its effect at the present._\n\nIn close connection with the history of Christianity comes its\neffect on the world. A religion which has reigned so long, and over\nthe most civilised nations, must of necessity have had some\ninfluence for good or evil. And with regard to Christianity there\ncan be little doubt as to the answer. The present state of the\ncivilised world is a standing witness to its benefits, since nearly\nall our moral superiority to the nations of old is due to this\nreligion.\n\nFor example, it has entirely altered the position of _women_, who\nare no longer looked down upon as they used to be. It has also\naltered the position of _children_, who were formerly considered as\nproperty, and at the disposal of their parents, infanticide being of\ncourse common. Again, it has changed our ideas as to the _sick_, a\nhospital being almost entirely a Christian institution. It has also\nchanged our ideas about _work_. In all the nations of antiquity, and\nin heathen countries at the present day, a workman is looked down\nupon. But to Christians, who believe that God Himself worked in a\ncarpenter's shop, all work is ennobled. Once more, it has created a\nrespect for _human life_ as such, and apart from the position of the\nindividual person, which was unknown in ancient times. In short, our\nacknowledgement of what are called the _rights of man_ is almost\nentirely due to Christianity. Nor is there anything surprising in\nthis; for the common Fatherhood of God and the common love of Christ\nnaturally afford the strongest argument for the common rights of\nman. In Christ, as St. Paul expresses it, there can be _neither\nbond, nor free_; _male nor female_; for all are equal.[450] The good\nwhich Christianity has done is thus indisputable.\n\n[Footnote 450: Gal. 3. 28.]\n\nBut it may be said, has it not also done some _harm_? What about the\nreligious wars and persecutions in the Middle Ages? With regard to\nthe wars, however, religion was, as a rule, the excuse rather than\nthe cause; for had Christianity never been heard of, there would\ndoubtless have been wars in the Middle Ages, as in all other ages.\nWith regard to the persecutions, they must be both admitted and\ndeplored; but we may ask, what religion except Christianity could\nhave been mixed up with such persecutions, and yet have escaped the\nodium of mankind? Christianity has done so, because men have seen\nthat it was not the religion itself, but its false friends who were\nresponsible for the persecutions. The important point is that the\nNew Testament, unlike the Koran,[451] does not authorise, still less\ncommand, the employment of force in gaining converts.\n\n[Footnote 451: Koran, Sura viii. 12; ix. 5; xlvii. 4.]\n\nWe now turn to another aspect of the subject. Not only has\nChristianity done much good in the past, but it is doing much good\nat the present. This also is beyond dispute; anyone can verify the\nfact for himself. Thousands of men and women spend their lives in\nself-sacrifice among the poor and sick solely for the sake of\nChrist. Of course, it may be said that all this is folly and that we\nought to try and benefit our fellow-men for their own sake or for\nthe sake of the State. But, whether folly or not, the fact remains.\nThe vast majority of those who visit the poor and sick (Sisters of\nMercy for instance) do not do so for the sake of the State, or even\nmainly for the sake of the poor themselves, but from avowedly\nChristian motives. They believe that Christ loves these poor, and\ntherefore they love them too, and willingly spend their lives in\ntrying to help them.\n\nIt is also a fact that this strange _attraction_ which Christ\nexercises, over the hearts of men is unique in history. Can we\nimagine anyone spending his life in visiting the sick in some large\ntown, and saying that he is doing it for the love of David, or of\nPlato, or of Mohammed? Yet all through the civilised world thousands\nare doing it for the love of Christ. And this influence, be it\nobserved, is not like that of other great men, local and temporary,\nbut world-wide and permanent. Christ is thus not only, as we saw in\nthe last chapter, the _holiest_ of men, but the _mightiest_ of men\nalso; the Man in short who has most influenced mankind. And, with\ntrifling exceptions, few will dispute that this influence has been\nwholly for good. So judged by its fruits, Christianity is a religion\nwhich might very reasonably have had a Divine origin.\n\nOn the other hand, it must be admitted that though Christianity has\ndone so much good, it has not entirely reformed the world,--it has\nnot even stopped wars among Christian nations--and its failure to do\nthis, after trying for so many centuries, is thought by some to be\nadverse to its claims. But others think that its partial success and\npartial failure are just what we should expect if it were true. And\nwhat is more to the point, this seems to have been expected by its\nFounder, for He always implied that the good and the evil--the wheat\nand the tares--were to be mixed together until the end of the world.\nMoreover, its failure has been due almost entirely to the\n_inconsistency_ of its adherents. If all men were Christians, and\nall Christians lived up to the religion they professed, there would\nbe little to complain of, even in this imperfect world.\n\nOn the whole, then, the _effect_ of Christianity is distinctly in\nits favour. It has done much good, and will probably do more as time\ngoes on; though it has not entirely reformed the world, and probably\nnever will. But the good it has done is an actual fact which cannot\nbe disputed, while the argument that it ought to have done more good\nis at least open to doubt.\n\n(3.) _Its prospects in the future._\n\nLastly, the spread of Christianity seems likely to continue, and\nsome day we may expect to see it universally professed in the world,\nas it is in Western Europe at the present time, though, of course,\nthere will always be individuals who dissent from it. The reasons\nfor this confident hope are, that, speaking broadly, Christian\nnations alone are extending their influence. Japan may, of course,\nbe quoted as an exception, but strange to say Japan seems to be\nbecoming Christian.\n\nAnd to this must be added the fact that Christian _missions_ are now\nbeing revived to a large extent; and, though they are not always\nsuccessful, yet, taken together, they secure a good many converts.\nMoreover, there is no other side to this argument. It is not that\nChristianity is being adopted in some countries but renounced in\nothers. The gains, whether great or small, are all _net profits_.\nWith one exception, there is not a single instance for many\ncenturies of a nation or tribe which once adopted Christianity\nchanging its religion to anything else. And the exception, that of\nFrance at the time of the Revolution, strikingly proves the rule;\nfor the change could not be maintained, and in a few years\nChristianity again asserted itself throughout the country.\n\n(4.) _The spread of Rationalism._\n\nBut an important objection has now to be examined. It is said that\neven in Christian countries an increasingly large number of men\neither openly reject Christianity, or give it at most a mere nominal\napproval. This may be called the objection from the spread of\n_Rationalism_, and it is an important one, because it is an attempt\nto meet Christianity with its own weapons, by appealing to reason.\nOf course it must be remembered that a great deal of the infidelity\nof the present day is not due to reasoning at all, but to the want\nof it; and it is hopeless to argue against this. For how can men be\nconvinced of Christianity, or anything else, if they will not take\nthe trouble to examine its claims?\n\nBut putting aside this class, there are still many men who may\nfairly be called Rationalists--men, that is, who have studied _both_\nsides of the subject, and whose reasoning leads them to reject\nChristianity. They admit that there is evidence in its favour, but\nthey say that it is far from convincing. And it is believed by many\nthat Rationalism is spreading at the present day, and will\neventually become common among thoughtful men. Now, of course, the\nwhole of this _Essay_ is really an attempt to meet this objection,\nand to show that, when carefully considered, the arguments in favour\nof Christianity far outweigh those against it. But three additional\nremarks may be made here.\n\nThe first is, that this is no _new_ difficulty. Rationalism has\nexisted ever since the Middle Ages, and was most aggressive and most\nconfident in the eighteenth century, as a single quotation will\nshow. Bishop Butler in the preface to his _Analogy of Religion_,\n1736, says, 'It has come, I know not how, to be taken for granted,\nby many persons, that Christianity is not so much as a subject of\ninquiry, but that it is now at length discovered to be fictitious.\nAnd accordingly they treat it as if, in the present age, this were\nan agreed point among all people of discernment; and nothing\nremained but to set it up as a principal subject of mirth and\nridicule, as it were by way of reprisals for its having so long\ninterrupted the pleasures of the world.' It is now nearly two\ncenturies since these words were written, and Christianity is still\nflourishing! Therefore, as all previous attacks have proved futile,\nthere is no reason to believe that the present one will be more\nsuccessful.\n\nSecondly, these continued assaults on Christianity afford in one\nrespect additional evidence in its favour; since they show, as\nnothing but repeated attacks could show, its _indestructibility_.\nHad Christianity never been assailed, its strength would never have\nbeen apparent; but now we know that, try as men will for centuries,\nthey cannot get rid of this religion.\n\nThirdly, it must be remembered that Rationalism is all destructive\nand not constructive. It can show many reasons for _not_ believing\nin Christianity, but it can give the world nothing which can in any\nway take its place. It has no satisfactory solution for the great\nproblems of life. Why does man exist at all? Why has he got free\nwill? What is the meaning of sin? Is there any forgiveness for sin?\nWhat is the meaning of death? Is there any life beyond death? Is\nthere a judgment? Can we dare to face it? Shall we recognise those\nwhom we have loved on earth? In short, what is man's destiny here\nand hereafter? These are the questions which always have interested,\nand always will interest, mankind. Rationalists may say that the\nChristian answer to them is incorrect; but they can offer no other\nwhich is worth a moment's consideration.\n\n\n(_C._) CONCLUSION.\n\nBefore concluding this chapter one other point of some importance\nhas to be noticed. It is that the early history of Christianity with\nits continual triumph amidst continual persecution, seems to have\nbeen foreknown to its Founder; as well as His own marvellous\ninfluence in the world.\n\nThese _prophecies_ of Christ concerning His own religion are\ncertainly very striking. We find, on the one hand, a most absolute\nconviction as to the triumph of His Church. It was to spread far and\nwide; its missionaries were to go into _all the world_ and make\ndisciples _of all the nations_, and its enemies would never _prevail\nagainst it_.[452] And on the other, there is an equally certain\nconviction as to the constant sufferings of its members, who were to\nexpect life-long persecution and the universal hatred of\nmankind.[453]\n\n[Footnote 452: Mark 16. 15; Matt. 28. 19; 16. 18.]\n\n[Footnote 453: _E.g._, Matt. 10. 17, 22.]\n\nYet these strange prophecies of continual success amidst continual\nsuffering were for three centuries as strangely fulfilled, including\neven the little detail that Christ's followers were to be hated for\nHis _name's_ sake.[454] Since as a matter of fact they were often\npersecuted for the mere _name_, and it was this that made them so\nindignant. Thus Justin says, 'You receive the _name_ as proof\nagainst us.... If any deny the _name_ you acquit him as having no\nevidence against him.'[455] As Christ foretold, it was literally for\nHis _name's_ sake.\n\n[Footnote 454: Mark 13. 13.]\n\n[Footnote 455: Justin, Apol. 1. 4; 1 Peter 4. 14.]\n\nMoreover, Christ's assertions regarding His own influence in the\nworld are equally remarkable. We will give but two examples.[456] He\nsaid, _And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men\nunto Myself_. He was lifted up on the cross, and, however strange we\nmay think it, millions of men have in consequence been drawn to Him\nwith passionate devotion. Again, He said, _I am the light of the\nworld_. And now, after nearly nineteen centuries, both friends and\nfoes admit that His is the teaching which has enlightened and\npurified mankind. Had He been a mere Jewish peasant, His making such\nprophecies as these seems almost as incredible as their fulfilment.\nBut what shall we say when they were both made _and_ fulfilled? Have\nwe not here a powerful argument in favour of Christianity? Nor can\nwe get out of the difficulty by denying the genuineness of the\npassages; for they would be quite as remarkable if invented by an\nevangelist, as if spoken by Christ Himself.\n\n[Footnote 456: John 12. 32; 8. 12.]\n\nWe may now sum up this chapter on the _History of Christianity_. We\nhave considered in turn, both its early triumphs, and its later\nhistory; and each of these is, strictly speaking, unique, and each\nis inexplicable on purely natural grounds. But undoubtedly the more\nimportant is the marvellous success of Christianity at first, in\nspite of the immense difficulties it had to encounter; and, as we\nhave seen, all natural explanations of _this_ fail hopelessly.\n\nThe historical argument, then, leads us back to _miracles_; for\nevery other explanation of the first triumph of Christianity is\nfound to be inadequate. While, on the other hand, the establishment\nof the Christian religion is just what we should expect if the\nmiracles were true. And of course true miracles, not false ones, are\nrequired to account for it. The most holy and the most powerful\nreligion the world has ever seen cannot have been founded on\nfalsehood or fable. In other words, if we deny that the Christian\nmiracles occurred, and take from Christ all that is superhuman, we\ncannot imagine Him as the Founder of Christianity. There would be an\nobvious want of proportion between cause and effect. And, as a\nmatter of fact, it was not a natural Christ, but a supernatural\nChrist--_the Christ of the Gospels_--who won the heart of mankind,\nand conquered the world. We seem thus forced to the conclusion that\nthe only thing which can account for the history of Christianity is\nits _truth_. Anyhow, it is plain that its _History_ forms another\nstrong argument in its favour.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\nTHAT ON THE WHOLE THE OTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THIS CONCLUSION.\n\n     Additional arguments for and against Christianity.\n\n     (_A._) CHRISTIANITY AND PRAYER.\n\n     Its universality. There are, however, three difficulties:\n\n     (1.) Scientific difficulty; said to be incredible, as interfering\n           with the course of nature.\n     (2.) Moral difficulty; said to be wrong, as inconsistent with\n           the power, wisdom, and goodness of God.\n     (3.) Practical difficulty; said to be useless, as shown by\n            observation; but none of these can be maintained.\n\n     (_B._) CHRISTIANITY AND HUMAN NATURE.\n\n     It is adapted to human nature; for it meets to a great\n      extent the inherent cravings of mankind, especially in\n      regard to sorrow and sin, death and eternity. The\n      objection as to selfishness.\n\n     (_C._) CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS.\n\n     Their comparative study; the Krishna myth; the Horus\n      myth. Conclusion.\n\n\nWe propose in this chapter to consider some of the remaining\narguments for and against Christianity. Fortunately, there are only\nthree of anything like sufficient importance to affect the general\nconclusion. These arise from the relation of Christianity to prayer,\nto human nature, and to other religions; and we will examine each in\nturn.\n\nWe need not discuss mere _Bible difficulties_, as they are called;\nfor though some of these are fatal to the theory of Verbal\nInspiration, or that every word of the Bible is true; this is now\nheld by scarcely anyone. And if the Book is as trustworthy a record\nof the facts it relates, as an ordinary History of England, that is\namply sufficient to prove Christianity.\n\nNor, on the other hand, need we discuss further evidence in favour\nof the Bible. But as we considered what it says about the creation\nof the world, we may just notice in passing what it says about its\nend. There will be a _great noise_, the elements will be _dissolved\nwith fervent heat_, and the earth, and all it contains will be\n_burned up_.[457] Everyone now admits that this is true, for our\nplanet will, sooner or later, fall into the sun, when all these\nresults will follow. But (apart from Revelation) how could the\nwriter have known it? There is nothing in the present aspect of the\nearth to suggest that it will one day be _burned up_, and\nconsidering the amount of water it contains, the idea might well\nseem incredible. We pass on now to the subject of Prayer.\n\n[Footnote 457: 2 Peter 3. 10.]\n\n\n(_A._) CHRISTIANITY AND PRAYER.\n\nNow the Christian, in common with most other religions, asserts the\nvalue of prayer not only for obtaining what are called spiritual\nblessings, but also as a means of influencing natural events. Yet\nprayer with such an object is said by many to be scientifically\n_incredible_, morally _wrong_, and practically _useless_. So we will\nfirst glance at the universality of the custom, and then consider\nthese difficulties.\n\nNow, prayer of some kind is, and always has been, the universal rule\nin almost every religion. It is found wherever mankind is found. No\none can point to its inventor, no one can point to a time when men\ndid not pray. Missionaries have not to teach their converts to pray,\nbut merely to _Whom_ to pray. In short, prayer of some kind seems\nuniversal, just as man's sense of right and wrong is universal,\nthough each is capable of being trained and perfected. Nor is it in\nany way like an animal's cry of pain when hurt, which, though\nuniversal, means nothing; for this of course resembles a man's cry\nof pain, and has no connection with prayer whatever.\n\nIf, then, prayer is a delusion, it is to say the least a very\nremarkable one, especially as in most ancient religions prayer was\nmade to false gods who could not answer it; yet in spite of every\nfailure, the belief in prayer has always remained. Men have always\npreferred to think that the failure was due to their own\nunworthiness, rather than give up the belief in a God Who answers\nprayer. And this _universality_ of the custom is a strong argument\nin its favour; for it seems most unlikely that God should have\nimplanted in mankind a universal habit of asking if He never\nintended to answer. We pass on now to the difficulties.\n\n(1.) _Scientific difficulty._\n\nIn the first place, it is said that answers to prayer are\nscientifically _incredible_, since they would involve God's\ninterfering with the course of nature, or, in popular language,\nworking miracles. The most probable explanation is, that they are\nonly a particular class of _superhuman coincidences_ (Chapter VII.).\nAccording to this theory, God, knowing beforehand that the prayer\nwould be offered, arranged beforehand to answer it. Thus the prayer\nwas not a direct cause of the event which fulfilled it, but it may\nstill have been an indirect cause. For had the man not prayed, God,\nforeknowing this, might not have arranged for the event to have\nhappened.\n\nAnd the same is true even when the prayer is made _after_ the event.\nSuppose, for instance, a man heard of the loss of a ship in which\nhis son was travelling, and prayed for his safety. That safety, as\nfar as the shipwreck was concerned, must have been decided before\nthe father prayed. Yet, as everything was foreknown to God, his\nsubsequent prayer might not have been useless; since, if God had not\nknown that the father would have prayed, He might not have brought\nabout the son's safety.\n\nOf course, it may be said that this is making the cause come after\nthe effect, and is therefore absurd. No doubt it would be so if\nmerely physical forces were involved; but when we are dealing with\npersonal beings, able to foresee and act accordingly, there is\nnothing impossible in a cause happening after what was in a certain\nsense its effect. For instance, my going for a holiday next week may\nbe the cause of my working hard this; though, strictly speaking, it\nis my _foreknowledge_ of the intended holiday, that leads to my\nworking hard. So in the case before us. It is God's _foreknowledge_\nthat the prayer will be offered, that leads Him to answer it; but\nfor all practical purposes this is the same as if the prayer itself\ndid so.\n\nTherefore this theory does not detract from the value and importance\nof prayer any more than God's foreknowledge in other respects makes\nhuman conduct of no importance. In every case God foreknows the\nresult, not in spite of, but because He also foreknows, the man's\nconduct on which it depends. While if we admit what is called God's\n_Immanence_ in nature, and that everything that occurs is due to the\npresent and immediate action of His Will (Chapter VII.), it greatly\nlessens any remaining difficulty there may be in regard to prayer.\n\nFrom this it is plain that answers to prayer may, without losing\ntheir value, be regarded as superhuman coincidences; and, if so,\nthey do not involve any interference with the ordinary course of\nnature, and all scientific difficulties are at an end.\n\n(2.) _Moral difficulty_.\n\nIn the next place, prayer is said to be morally _wrong_, since it is\ninconsistent with each of the three great attributes of God. It is\ninconsistent with His _Power_, by implying that He is partly under\nthe control of men; with His _Wisdom_, by implying that He has to be\ninformed of what we want; and with His _Goodness_, by implying that\nHe cannot be trusted to act for the best, without our interference.\n\nBut with regard to God's _Power_, no one who prays supposes that God\nis under the control of his prayers, but merely that He may freely\nchoose to be influenced by them. Insignificant as man is in\ncomparison with his Maker, we have already shown that God takes an\ninterest in his welfare. And admitting this, there is nothing\nimprobable in His being influenced by a man's prayer. Nor is this in\nany way trying to persuade Him to change His Will, since as\neverything was foreknown to God, the prayer with all it involved,\nmay have been part of His Will from all eternity. Nor does it\nreflect on His _Wisdom_, for no one who prays supposes that prayer\nis for the information of God, but merely that it is the way in\nwhich He wishes us to show our trust in Him.\n\nAnd then, as to God's _Goodness_. As a matter of fact, God does not\nwait for us to pray before sending most of His blessings; but a few\nof them are said to be conditional on our praying. And this is quite\nconsistent with perfect goodness. Human analogy seems decisive on\nthe point. A father may know what his child wants, may be quite\nwilling to supply that want, and may yet choose to wait till the\nchild asks him. And why? Simply because supplying his wants is not\nthe whole object the father has in view. He also wishes to train the\nchild's character; to teach him to rely upon and trust his father,\nand to develop his confidence and gratitude. And all this would be\nunattainable if the father supplied his wants as a machine would do;\nin which case the child might perhaps forget that his father was not\na machine.\n\nNow, for all we know, precisely the same may be the case with regard\nto prayer. God may wish not only to supply man's wants, but also to\ntrain and develop his character. Indeed, as shown in Chapter V.,\nthe existence of evil seems to force us to this very conclusion. And\nif so, it is out of the question to say that His not giving some\nblessings till they are asked for is inconsistent with perfect\ngoodness. It may be a very proof of that goodness. For, as already\nsaid, God's goodness does not consist of simple beneficence, but\nalso of righteousness. And, as a general rule, it certainly seems\nright that those who believe in God, and take the trouble to ask for\nHis blessings, should be the ones to receive them.\n\nAnd here we may notice another moral difficulty, which is sometimes\nfelt in regard to prayers _for others_. They are said to be\n_unjust_, since one man's success would often mean another's\nfailure. Suppose, for instance, a man is going in for a competitive\nexamination, say a scholarship or a clerkship; and a friend of his\nprays that he may get it. Of course in most cases this will not\naffect the issue; but all who believe in the power of prayer must\nadmit that in _some_ cases it will. Yet is not this hard on the next\ncompetitor, who loses the scholarship in consequence?\n\nIt certainly seems so. But it is only part of a more general\ndifficulty. For suppose the man's friend instead of praying for him,\nsent him some money to enable him to have a tutor. Is not this\nequally hard on the other man? Yet no one will say that his having\nthe tutor could not affect the result; or that his friend acted\nunfairly in sending him the money. So in regard to prayer. Indeed of\nall ways of helping a friend, praying for him seems the fairest;\nsince it is appealing to a Being, Who we know will always act\nfairly; and will not grant the petition, unless it is just and right\nto do so. The objection, then, that prayer is morally wrong cannot\nbe maintained from any point of view.\n\nIt is, however, only fair to add that a certain class of prayers\nwould be wrong. We have no right to pray for _miracles_, _e.g._, for\nwater to run uphill, or for a dead man to come to life again; though\nwe have a right to pray for any ordinary event, such as rain or\nrecovery from sickness. The reason for this distinction is obvious.\nA miracle is, in popular language, something contrary to the order\nof nature; and as the order of nature is merely the Will of Him who\nordered nature, it would be contrary to God's Will. And we must not\nask God to act contrary to what we believe to be His Will.\n\nOf course it may be said that to pray for rain, when otherwise it\nwould not have rained, really involves a miracle. But here\neverything depends on the words _when otherwise it would not have\nrained_. If we knew this for certain, it would be wrong to pray for\nrain (just as it would be wrong for the father to pray for his son's\nsafety after hearing that he had been drowned) not knowing it for\ncertain, it is not wrong. Therefore as we do know for certain that\nwater will not run uphill without a miracle, it is always wrong to\npray for that. In the same way we may pray for fruitful crops,\nbecause it is plainly God's Will that mankind should be nourished;\nbut we may not pray to be able to live without food, since this is\nplainly not God's Will. No doubt, in the Bible, miracles were\nsometimes prayed for, but only by persons who acted under special\nDivine Guidance; and this affords no argument for our doing so.\n\n(3.) _Practical difficulty._\n\nLastly, it is said, even admitting that prayers might be answered,\nyet we have abundant evidence that they never are; so that prayer at\nthe present day is _useless_. But several points have to be noticed\nhere; for no one asserts that _all_ prayers are answered. Various\nconditions have to be fulfilled. A person, for instance, must not\nonly believe in God, and in His power and willingness to answer\nprayers; but the answer must be of such a kind that it would be\nright to pray for it. Moreover, he must be trying to lead such a\nlife as God wishes him to lead; and also be honestly exerting\nhimself to gain the required end, for prayer cannot be looked upon\nas a substitute for work.\n\nAnd this prevents our deciding the question by _experiment_, as is\nsometimes urged. Why not, it is said, settle the question once for\nall by a test case? But this is impossible, since in the vast\nmajority of cases we cannot say whether the above conditions are\nfulfilled or not; and even if we could, it would still be\nimpracticable. For prayer is the earnest entreaty that God would\ngrant something we earnestly desire; and if used as an experiment,\nit ceases to be genuine prayer altogether.\n\nBut it is further urged that though we cannot decide by experiment\nwe can by _observation_. The facts, however, can be explained on\neither theory. Suppose, for instance, an epidemic breaks out, and\nprayer is at once made that it may cease; but instead of ceasing, it\ncontinues for a week, and kills a hundred persons. How do we know\nthat but for the prayers it might not have continued for a month and\nkilled a thousand? And the same argument applies in other cases.\n\nAgainst these various objections we must remember that an immense\nnumber of men of many ages and countries, and of undoubted honesty\nand intelligence have asserted that their prayers have been\nanswered; and the cumulative value of this evidence is very great.\nWhile, to those who possess it, the conviction that certain events\nhappened, not accidentally, as we might say, but in answer to some\nprayer, is absolutely convincing.\n\nNone of these difficulties, then, can be maintained. There is\nnothing _incredible_ in prayers being answered, they are not\n_wrong_, and many of those who ought to know best (_i.e._, those who\npray) assert that they are not _useless_.\n\n\n(_B._) CHRISTIANITY AND HUMAN NATURE.\n\nThe next subject we have to consider is a very important one, the\n_adaptation_ of Christianity to human nature. To begin with, it is\nundeniable that Christianity appeals very strongly to some, at\nleast, among every class of men. The poor value it as much as the\nrich, the ignorant as much as the learned; children can partly\nunderstand it, and philosophers can do no more. And this is not only\nthe case at the present time, but it has been so among all the\nchanging conditions of society for eighteen centuries.\n\nNow, when we inquire into the reason of this powerful hold which\nChristianity has on so many men, we find it is because it meets\ncertain inherent cravings of human nature. Some of these, such as\nman's belief in prayer, and his sense of responsibility, are of\ncourse satisfied by any form of Theism. So also is his idea of\njustice, which requires virtue and vice to be suitably rewarded\nhereafter, since they are not here. But man's nature has many other\ncravings besides these; yet Christianity seems to satisfy it\neverywhere.\n\nWe will consider four points in detail and select _Sorrow_ and\n_Sin_, _Death_ and _Eternity_. The first three, and possibly the\nfourth, all have to be faced; they are the common heritage of all\nmankind. And while Rationalism does not help us to face any of them,\nand Natural Religion leaves much in uncertainty, Christianity meets\nthe needs of mankind throughout, or at all events far better than\nany other religion.\n\nAnd first, as to _Sorrow_. It is indisputable that in this life man\nhas to bear a great deal of sorrow and suffering; and it is also\nindisputable that when in sorrow he longs for someone who can both\nsympathise with him, and help him. An impersonal God can, of course,\ndo neither; indeed, we might as well go for comfort to the force of\ngravity. And though a personal God can help us, we do not feel sure\nthat He can sympathise with us. On the other hand, fellow-men can\nsympathise, but they cannot always help. In Christ alone we have a\nBeing Who entirely satisfies human nature; for being Man, He can\nsympathise with human sorrow, and being God, He can alleviate it.\nSo here Christianity supplies a universal want Of course, the\ndoctrine of the _Incarnation_ also satisfies mankind in other\nrespects, especially in presenting him with a worthy Being for his\naffections, and with a perfect Example; but these points have been\nalready noticed in Chapter XIII.\n\nNext, as to _Sin_. Here again the facts are practically undisputed.\nMan's sense of sin is universal, so also is his belief in the\njustice of God; and therefore in all ages man has longed for some\nmeans of appeasing the Deity. The widespread custom of sacrifice is\na conclusive proof of this. Yet, wherever Christianity has been\naccepted, such sacrifices have been abandoned. It is scarcely\nnecessary to point out the reason for this. The Christian doctrine\nof the _Atonement_ entirely satisfies these cravings of mankind. It\nadmits the fact of sin; it provides a sufficient Sacrifice for sin,\nwhich man could never provide for himself, and it thus assures him\nof complete forgiveness. Yet, as shown in Chapter XIII., it does all\nthis without in any way lessening the guilt of sin, or allowing man\nto sin on with impunity; for it makes _repentance_ an essential\ncondition of forgiveness.\n\nMoreover, Christianity proves that sin is not a necessity in human\nnature; for it alone of all religions can point to One Who, though\ntempted as we are, was yet without sin. And Christ's temptations\nwere probably greater than any that we can have. For it is only when\na man _resists_ a temptation that he feels its full force, just as\nonly those trees that were _not_ blown down, felt the full force of\nthe gale. Therefore Christ alone, because He was sinless, can have\nfelt the full force of every temptation. And Christians assert, and\nthey surely ought to know best, that this example of Christ is a\nstrong help in enabling them to resist temptation.\n\nNext, as to _Death_. Here again the facts are undisputed. Few\npersons like to contemplate their own death, yet it is the one event\nto which we may look forward with certainty. But is there a life\nafter death? Most men long for it, and most religions have tried to\nsatisfy this longing in one way or another, but only with partial\nsuccess. The higher nature of man revolts against any mere material\nor sensual heaven, while a purely spiritual heaven does not satisfy\nhim either; for a man longs to know that he will be able to\nrecognise again those whom he has loved on earth. This is indeed one\nof our deepest, strongest, and most universal longings (who is there\nthat has not felt it?), yet there must always be some doubt as to\nrecognising a spirit.\n\nAnd here again the Christian doctrine of the _Resurrection of the\nBody_ alone satisfies the cravings of mankind; for all doubt is now\nat an end. The risen body will define and localise man's spirit\nthen, just as the natural body does now; and though there will be a\ngreat change, it will not prevent recognition. Even the Apostles,\nthough unprepared for it, and though themselves unaware of what a\nrisen body was like, were soon able to recognise Christ after His\nResurrection.\n\nThere is, of course, the well-known difficulty as to the _period of\nlife_ of the risen body. A man, it is said, would only be recognised\nby his grandfather, if he remained a child; and by his grandson, if\nhe were an old man. But the difficulty is not so great as it seems;\nfor in this life a man who has not seen his son, since he was a\nchild, may not be able to recognise him in later years, in the sense\nof knowing him by sight. But he may be immensely pleased to meet him\nagain, and live near him, especially if in the meanwhile the son had\ndone well, and been a credit to his father. Moreover, the risen body\nwill show us, for the first time, what a man really is, when his\naccidental surroundings, such as wealth or poverty, have been\nremoved; and his character is at length perfected. And perhaps we\nshall then see that all that is best in the various states in which\nhe has lived here--the affection of childhood, the activity of\nboyhood, and the mature judgment of manhood--will be combined in the\nrisen body.\n\nAnd though it is somewhat tantalising not to know more about this\nfuture life, very possibly we are not told more, because we should\nnot be able to understand it if we were. Even in this world it is\ndoubtful if a savage or a young child could understand the\nintellectual life of a civilised man, however carefully it might be\nexplained to him; and practically certain that an ape could not. And\nfor all we know our own future life may be as far beyond our present\nunderstanding. It is the _Great Surprise_ in store for us all. But\nhowever much we may be changed, our personal identity will still\nremain, _I shall be I, and you will be you_, with much the same\ncharacters as we have at present. This is the important point, and\nof this we may be quite sure.\n\nLastly, as to _Eternity_. Christianity, it is true, can say little\nhere, but that little is full of hope. It opens up boundless\npossibilities, far more than any other religion. For by the\nIncarnation human nature has been united to the Divine, and thus\nraised to a position second only to that of God Himself. No destiny,\nthen, that can be imagined is too great for man. Created in the\nimage of the Triune God, with a supernatural freedom of choice; his\nnature united to God's by the Incarnation; his sins forgiven through\nthe Atonement; his body purified and spiritualised at its\nResurrection--surely the end of all this cannot be any mere\nmonotonous existence, but rather one of ceaseless joy and activity.\nHeaven has been called the _last act_ in God's drama of the\nuniverse. And considering the magnitude of the previous acts--the\nformation of the solar system, the development of organic life,\netc.--we should expect this last act to be on a scale equally vast\nand magnificent, and as far above anything we can imagine as the\nlife of a butterfly is above the imagination of a chrysalis.\n\nNow the conclusion to be drawn from all this is quite plain.\nChristianity is so adapted to man's nature that it probably came\nfrom the Author of man's nature; just as if a complicated key fits a\ncomplicated lock, it was probably made by the same locksmith. And\nsince Christianity is meant for all mankind, and the vast majority\nof men have neither time nor ability to examine its proofs, the\nfact of its thus appealing direct to human nature is certainly a\nstrong argument in its favour.\n\nBut we must now consider an objection. It is, that Christianity is\nreally a _selfish_ religion, looking only for future rewards, and\nteaching men to follow virtue, not for virtue's sake, but solely\nwith a view to their own advantage. But this is an entire mistake,\nthough a very common one. The Christian's motive, in trying to lead\nsuch a life as God wishes him to lead, is simply _love_. He has, as\nalready said, an overwhelming sense of God's love to him. And\nthough, doubtless, leading a good life will bring with it some\nfuture reward, yet this is not the true motive for leading it.\nCompare the case of a young child trying to please his parents\nsimply because he loves them. It would be unjust to call this\nselfishness, though it may be quite true that the parents will do\nmuch for the child later on in life, which they would not have done\nhad the child never shown them any affection.\n\nNor, to take another example, is it selfishness for a young man to\nput aside a certain amount of his earnings for his old age, when he\nwill be unable to work, though it will certainly be to his own\nadvantage. Selfishness is having regard to one's self, _at the\nexpense of other people_. But this does not apply to a Christian\nstriving after his own salvation. The _Great Ambition_, as it is\ncalled, is one which all may entertain, all may work for, and all\nmay realise.\n\nStill, it may be asked, is not the hope of future reward meant to\ninfluence men at all? No doubt it is to some extent. But what then?\nHope is undoubtedly a powerful motive in human nature, and therefore\nChristianity, by partly appealing to this motive, does but show how\nfully adapted it is to human nature. It provides the highest motive\nof _love_ for those able to appreciate it; the lower motive of\n_hope_ of future reward for the many who would not be reached by the\nformer; and we may add, the still lower motive of _fear_ of future\npunishment for those who could not be otherwise influenced. This\nobjection, then, as to selfishness is quite untenable.\n\n\n(_C._) CHRISTIANITY AND OTHER RELIGIONS.\n\nWe have lastly to consider the relation in which Christianity stands\nto other religions; since an argument against Christianity is often\ndrawn from their _comparative study_. In far more ancient religions,\nit is alleged, we find similar doctrines to those of the Trinity,\nthe Incarnation, the Atonement, and the Resurrection; and this is\nfatal to the claim of Christianity to be the one and only true\nReligion.\n\nBut as to the doctrine of the _Trinity_, it is really unique. Some\nother religions, it is true, had a group of three gods; but this was\nmerely a form of Polytheism. And though these gods were often\naddressed by the same titles, there does not appear to have been\nanything resembling the Christian idea of the Triune God.\n\nNext, as to the _Incarnation_. This is said to resemble similar\ndoctrines of other ancient religions, more especially the\nincarnation of _Krishna_. For though he was not (as is sometimes\nasserted) born of a virgin, being the eighth son of his\nparents;[458] he is yet believed to have been in some sense an\nincarnation of the supreme god Vishnu. And he is recorded to have\nworked various miracles similar to those of Christ, and to have\nclaimed an equally absolute devotion from his followers. Most\nscholars, however, now place these legends some centuries later\nthan the Christian era; and considering the early spread of\nChristianity in India, and the similarity in name between Krishna\nand Christ, they may be only distorted versions of the Gospel story.\n\n[Footnote 458: Tisdall, Christianity and Other Faiths, 1912, p. 89.]\n\nBut even were they earlier than Christianity, it seems impossible\nfor them to have influenced it. For not only is India many hundreds\nof miles from Palestine, but there is also a great moral difficulty.\nSince the miracles and occasional lofty teaching of Krishna are\nassociated all along with a most immoral character. In the Gospels,\non the other hand, they occur among suitable surroundings, and form\nperfect parts of a perfect whole. A single example will illustrate\nthis difference. On one occasion, Krishna is related to have healed\na deformed woman, very similar to the story in Luke 13. But it is\nadded he made her beautiful as well as whole, and subsequently spent\nthe night with her in immorality. Few will contend that this was the\norigin of the Gospel story; and it is but one instance out of\nmany.[459]\n\n[Footnote 459: Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxi., p.\n169.]\n\nAny resemblance, then, there may be between the Incarnation of\nKrishna and that of Christ cannot be due to Christianity having\nborrowed from the other religion. A far better explanation is to be\nfound in the fact that man has almost always believed that God takes\nan interest in his welfare. And this inherent belief has naturally\nled him to imagine an incarnation, since this was the most fitting\nmethod by which God could make Himself known to man. And then this\nsupposed incarnation was of course attended by various miracles of\nhealing, somewhat similar to those of Christ, though often mixed up\nwith immoral ideas, from which the Christian doctrine is entirely\nfree.\n\nNext, as to the _Atonement_, especially the position of Christ, as\nthe _Mediator_ between God and man. This also is said to resemble\nfar older legends, such as the _Horus_ myth of ancient Egypt. The\nleading idea here seems to have been that Horus was the only son of\nthe supreme God Osiris, and came on earth long ago, before the time\nof man. He was always looked upon as the champion of right against\nwrong, and nothing but lofty and noble actions are ascribed to him.\nWith regard to mankind, he became their deliverer and justifier. The\nsoul after death was supposed to pass through a sort of Purgatory;\nwhere various dangers were overcome by the help of Horus; and\nfinally, when judged before Osiris, he interceded for the faithful\nsoul and ensured its salvation. And what makes the resemblance to\nChristianity all the more striking are the titles ascribed to Horus;\nsuch as _the Only Begotten Son of the Father_, _the Word of the\nFather_, _the Justifier of the Righteous_, and _the Eternal_\n_King_. But the titles of Horus are very numerous, and very\ncontradictory; therefore, while some of them bear such a striking\nresemblance to those of Christ, others do not; and many of them are\nalso applied to the other gods.[460]\n\n[Footnote 460: Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xii., p.\n52.]\n\nBut still the position of Horus, as a mediator between God and man,\nundoubtedly resembles that of Christ. But what is the cause of this\nsimilarity? Not surely that the Christian doctrine was founded on\nthat of Horus. As in the previous case, there is another and far\nbetter solution. For what was the origin of the Egyptian doctrine\nitself? It was simply this. The ancient Egyptians firmly\nbelieved in the _justice_ of God; the _immortality_ of man; his\n_responsibility_, involving a future judgment; and his _sinfulness,_\nwhich naturally made him long for some mediator with the just Judge\nhe would have to face hereafter. Given these four ideas--and they\nall belong to Natural Religion--and Horus was merely an imaginary\nbeing, who was thought to satisfy them. Hence, if these ideas are\ntrue, and if Christianity is the true religion, which really does\nsatisfy them, that Horus should to some extent resemble Christ seems\ninevitable. Thus the Horus myth only proves how deeply rooted in the\nhuman mind is the idea of a _mediator_ between God and man.\n\nLastly, as to the doctrine of the _Resurrection_, more especially\nthat of Christ. Numerous analogies have been suggested for this, but\nnone of them are at all satisfactory. Thus the Egyptian god Osiris\nis recorded as doing a great deal after his death; but he is only\nsupposed to have done this by living on in the _spirit_, and there\nis no hint that his _body_ was restored to life, in the sense in\nwhich Christ's was; and the same may be said in other cases.[461]\nWhile the way in which the educated Athenians (who must have known a\ngood deal about heathen religions) treated St. Paul, when he\nproclaimed the Resurrection of Christ, shows how absolutely novel\nthey considered the doctrine.[462]\n\n[Footnote 461: Tisdall, Christianity and Other Faiths, 1912, p.\n153.]\n\n[Footnote 462: Acts 17. 19, 32; 26.8.]\n\nWe must also remember that the Christian doctrines of the\nIncarnation, the Atonement, and the Resurrection, were not slowly\nevolved, but were essential features in Christianity from the very\nfirst. They are all strongly insisted on by St. Paul. And this alone\nseems fatal to the idea of their having been derived from the myths\nof India, Egypt, and elsewhere.\n\nOn the whole, then, it is evident that the _comparative study_ of\nreligions, instead of being against Christianity, is distinctly in\nits favour; for it shows, as nothing but a comparative study could\nshow, its striking superiority. Human nature is always the same, and\nin so far as other religions have satisfied human nature, they have\nresembled Christianity. On the other hand, Christianity differs\nfrom them in being free from their various absurdities and\ncontradictions, as well as from their tendency to degenerate; and\nhaving instead a moral character of admitted excellence, and\npowerful evidence by which to establish its actual truth. In short,\nother religions are _human_; and therefore, as man is a mixture of\ngood and evil, they contain some good (what we now call Natural\nReligion) and some evil. But Christianity is _superhuman_; and\ntherefore contains all the good they do, with much more besides, and\nwith none of their evil. This completes a brief examination of the\nmore important additional arguments for and against Christianity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nTHAT THE THREE CREEDS ARE DEDUCIBLE FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\n     Only three Doctrines can be disputed.\n\n     (_A._) THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.\n\n     In addition to belief in God the Father, the New Testament\n      teaches--\n\n     (1.) The Divinity of Christ.\n     (2.) The Divinity of the Holy Spirit; so there are\n     (3.) Three Divine Persons and yet but One God.\n\n     (_B._) THE FINAL STATE OF THE WICKED.\n\n     The only alternatives are:\n\n     (1.) Their endless misery: very strong texts in favour of\n           this; its difficulties considered.\n     (2.) Their endless happiness: most improbable.\n     (3.) Their destruction: more likely than the last, but still\n           improbable. On the whole the statement of the\n           Creed seems fully justified.\n\n     (_C._) THE IMPORTANCE OF A TRUE BELIEF.\n\n     This is strongly insisted on in the warning clauses of the\n      Athanasian Creed.\n\n     (1.) Their meaning.\n     (2.) Their truthfulness: they merely repeat similar warnings\n           in the New Testament.\n     (3.) The objection as to dogmatism.\n\n\nWe have now reached the last stage in our inquiry. We have shown in\nthe previous chapters that there is very strong evidence in favour\nof what may be called in a general sense, Christianity or the\nChristian Religion--_i.e.,_ the Religion founded by Christ and\ntaught in the New Testament. We have, lastly, to inquire, is this\nReligion correctly summarised in the doctrines and statements of the\n_Three Creeds_? And the only doctrines that can be disputed, are\nfound in the Athanasian Creed, and refer to the _Trinity_; the\n_Final State of the Wicked;_ and the importance of a _True Belief_:\neach of which we will examine in turn.\n\n\n(_A._) THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY.\n\nNow, although there are no statements in the New Testament identical\nwith those in the Creed, yet the latter are merely logical\ndeductions from the former. For the New Testament asserts that,\nbesides God the Father, there are two other Divine Persons, Christ\nand the Holy Spirit, and yet but one God.\n\n\n(1.) _The Divinity of Christ_.\n\nThis has already been discussed in Chapter XXI., where we showed\nthat Christ claimed to be not only Superhuman, but Divine; and that\nthis is how His contemporaries, both friends and foes, understood\nHim. The doctrine is also asserted by St. Paul, as well as by St.\nJohn, who in the opening verse of his Gospel, states it very\nconcisely, saying that the Word (_i.e._, Christ) _was with God_,\nimplying a distinction of Persons, and _was_ God, implying a unity\nof Nature; which is the exact doctrine of the Creed.\n\n\n(2.) _The Divinity of the Holy Spirit._\n\nThis also follows at once from the New Testament. For the Holy\nSpirit is called by Divine names, such as God and Lord; He is given\nDivine attributes, such as Eternity and Omniscience; and He is\nidentified with Jehovah, the Lord of Hosts, of the Old Testament.[463]\n\n[Footnote 463: Acts 5. 3, 4; 2 Cor. 3.17; Heb. 9. 14; 1 Cor. 2. 10; Acts\n28. 25; Isa. 6. 5-10.]\n\nAnd yet, He is a distinct _Person_: for, to quote a decisive\ntext,[464] Christ prays the Father to send His disciples _another_\nComforter when He goes away; thus showing that the Holy Spirit is a\ndifferent Person, both from the Father and the Son. And elsewhere we\nare told that the Spirit _makes intercession for us_, which again\nshows that He must be a different Person from the Father, with Whom\nHe intercedes.[465] While in another passage blasphemy against the\nHoly Ghost is said to be the worst of all sins;[466] which shows\nboth that He is a _Person_, or He could not be blasphemed; and that\nHe is _God_, or blasphemy against God would be a greater sin.\n\n[Footnote 464: John 14. 16, 26; 15. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 465: Rom. 8. 26.]\n\n[Footnote 466: Matt. 12. 31, 32; Mark 3. 28, 29.]\n\nNo doubt the actual word _Person_ is not applied to the Holy Spirit\nin the New Testament, just as it is not applied to either the Father\nor the Son, but it cannot be thought inappropriate, provided it is\nnot taken in a literal, or human sense. For the relations between\nThem closely _resemble_ those between human persons, as They love\none another, speak to one another, and use the personal pronouns I,\nThou, He, and We.\n\n\n(3.) _Three Divine Persons and yet but One God._\n\nIt is clear, then, from the New Testament, that the Father, the Son,\nand the Holy Spirit are all Persons, and all Divine; and yet the\nfact of there being but one God is at times plainly asserted.[467]\nNow the only means of reconciling all this is by the doctrine of\nthe Trinity in Unity. And this is plainly hinted at in the New\nTestament itself, for the Three Persons are often closely associated\ntogether, as for instance in the text just alluded to, where\n_Christ_ prays _the Father_ to give His disciples _another\nComforter_.\n\n[Footnote 467: Mark 12. 29; 1 Cor. 8. 4.]\n\nQuite naturally, then, just before His Ascension, Christ completed\nthis earlier teaching by finally, and for ever, joining the Three\nPersons together, when He commanded Christians to be baptized _into\nthe name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost_.[468]\nAnd this alone is sufficient to prove the doctrine, for it shows\nthat there are _Three_ distinct Persons, and that each is _Divine_,\nfor who but God could be thus associated with God? While the\nexpression into the _name_ and not _names_, implies a unity in this\nTrinity.\n\n[Footnote 468: Matt. 28. 19.]\n\nAnd we happen to have indirect evidence from the _Acts_, that\nbaptism was administered in this way. For when St. Paul found some\ndisciples, who said they knew nothing about the Holy Ghost; he at\nonce asked, 'Into what then were ye _baptized_?'[469] Obviously,\nthen, the baptism to which St. Paul was accustomed must have been\ninto the name of the Holy Ghost, as well as into that of Christ; and\nthe Father's name could scarcely have been omitted. Yet immediately\nafterwards we are told that they were baptized _into the Name of the\nLord Jesus_. In the same way the 'Teaching of the Twelve' once\nspeaks of baptism as _into the Name of the Lord_; and twice as _into\nthe Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy\nGhost_.[470] The former seems to have been only a short way of\ndescribing Christian baptism, (in distinction from that of the Jews,\nor of St. John the Baptist), while the latter represented the actual\nwords used.[471]\n\n[Footnote 469: Acts 19. 3.]\n\n[Footnote 470: Teaching, chaps. vii. and ix.]\n\n[Footnote 471: _Comp._ Acts 2. 38; 8. 16; 18. 25; I Cor. 10. 2.]\n\nSimilarly St. Paul sometimes closes his Epistles with the shorter\nform of blessing. _The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with you_;\nonce with an intermediate form, naming the Father and Christ; and\nonce with the longer form, _The Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and\nthe love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with you\nall_.[472] This latter passage, the genuineness of which is\nundisputed, is of course extremely important, in fact like the\npreceding one it is practically conclusive; for again we must ask,\nwho but God could be thus associated with God? If Christ were a mere\nhuman prophet, like Isaiah for instance; and the Holy Spirit a mere\ninfluence for good; what strange language it would be. Can we\nimagine anyone blessing his converts with, The grace of Isaiah, the\nlove of God, and the fellowship of a holy influence--God, it will be\nnoticed, being placed _between_ the other two, so there can be no\nascending or descending scale, they must all be equal?\n\n[Footnote 472: 1 Cor. 16. 23; Gal. 6. 18; Eph. 6. 23; 2 Cor. 13.\n14.]\n\nAnd as St. Paul takes for granted that his readers would understand\nhis meaning, it implies that they had had some previous teaching on\nthe subject, which must clearly have been given them by St. Paul\nhimself on his first visit. And at that early date (about A.D. 50)\nsuch teaching could scarcely have originated except from what Christ\nHimself had taught. This passage, then, implies more than it says,\nand needs explanation; and as far as we know the former one alone\ncan explain it.\n\nAnd of course the same is true, though to a lesser degree, of\nnumerous other Trinitarian passages which occur all through the\nEpistles, including the earliest (1 Thess., about A.D. 50).[473]\nNowhere do the writers seem to be explaining anything new to their\nconverts; but merely to be touching on a truth, with which all\nChristians were of course familiar. Indeed, the very fact of their\nnever attempting to explain or defend the doctrine, shows\nconclusively that it did not originate with _them_. Persons do not\npreach a new doctrine without a word of explanation or comment, as\nif every one already believed it.\n\n[Footnote 473: _E.g._, Rom. 15. 30; Eph. 4. 4-6; 1 Thess. 1. 3-5; 1\nPeter 1. 2; Jude 20-21.]\n\nThus, to put it shortly, according to the New Testament, there are\n_Three_ distinct Persons; each is God, each is Lord, each is\nEternal, each is Omniscient, into the Name of each converts are\nbaptized, each is referred to in Blessing; and yet there is but\n_One_ God. This is what the Bible says, and the Creed says the same,\nthough it says it in more logical language.\n\n\n(_B._) THE FINAL STATE OF THE WICKED.\n\nWe pass on now to what is perhaps the most difficult of all\nsubjects, the final state of the wicked. The Creed asserts that all\nmen are to rise again with their bodies, and be judged according to\ntheir _works_; and that then, _they that have done good shall go\ninto life everlasting; and they that have done evil into everlasting\nfire_. This latter expression can scarcely be taken literally, since\nit is associated in the Bible with another--_the worm that dieth\nnot_--which cannot be literal, as worms do not live for ever, and\ncannot live at all in fire. While it is said to have been prepared\nfor evil spirits who have no material bodies. Moreover, the joys of\nheaven are also represented by terms which are clearly not literal;\nsuch as attending a wedding, feasting with Abraham, and wearing\ncrowns. Probably we are not at present able to understand the\nrealities in either case, so figures of some kind have to be used;\nand those associated with gladness and happiness are of course\nchosen for the one, and those with pain and woe for the other.\n\nBut the language certainly implies some form of _endless misery_;\nand as there are obvious difficulties in accepting such a view, we\nmust discuss the subject carefully. It may be pointed out at\nstarting that we have only three theories to choose from; for unless\nthe wicked are to be in a continual state of change, which seems\nalmost incredible (for a state of change cannot go on for ever,\nunless it is recurring) they must finally either exist for ever in\n_misery_, or exist for ever in _happiness_, or be _destroyed_, and\nnot exist for ever.\n\n(1.) _Their endless misery._\n\nIt would be difficult to exaggerate the strength of the texts in\nfavour of this. We are told that the wicked, or at all events some\nof them, are to awake to shame and everlasting contempt; that they\nare to be cast into the eternal fire; that they are to depart into\nthe eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; that they\nare to go away into _eternal punishment_; that they are guilty of an\neternal sin; that their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched;\nand that they are to be cast into the lake of fire, there to be\ntormented day and night for ever and ever.[474] The fourth of these\ntexts is perhaps the most important, since Christ uses the same word\nfor _eternal_ punishment as for _eternal_ life; therefore, though\nthe Greek word does not necessarily mean _endless_, it certainly\nseems to do so here. Similarly in Daniel the same Hebrew word is\nused for the _everlasting_ life of the righteous, as for the\n_everlasting_ contempt of the wicked. Moreover the doctrine is\n_implied_ in numerous other passages;[475] so altogether the New\nTestament teaching on the subject seems about as plain as it can be.\n\n[Footnote 474: Dan. 12. 2; Matt. 18. 8; 25. 41, 46; Mark 3. 29; 9.\n48; Rev. 14. 11; 20. 15.]\n\n[Footnote 475: _E.g._, Matt. 7. 13, 23; 8. 12; 10. 33; 12. 32; 13.\n42, 50, etc.]\n\nYet everyone must admit that there are great difficulties in\naccepting it. For the _endless misery_ of the wicked appears to be\ninconsistent with the great attributes of God, especially His power,\nHis justice, and His mercy; as well as with the endless happiness of\nthe righteous. We will consider these points in turn.\n\nAnd first as to God's _power_. The eternal existence of sinners\nagainst God means, it is said, a never-ending conflict between good\nand evil; and this is most improbable. No doubt it seems so, but\nthen the existence of evil at all is a difficulty; yet as shown in\nChapter V. it is essential for free will. And the final state of the\nwicked is but one out of many difficulties connected with human\nfreedom. That God could create a free man at all; that He could\nforesee how he would use his freedom; that He should allow him to\nuse it wrongly, thus involving himself and others in misery; and\nthat this misery should last for ever; are all to a great extent\nbeyond our comprehension. But as the first three must be admitted,\nthe last is certainly not incredible.\n\nThe second and commonest objection refers to God's _justice_. The\nsuffering, it is said, would be out of all proportion to the\noffence. Man's life is brief at the most, and every sin in this\nworld cannot deserve countless years of misery in the next. In\nshort, a man's sin here must anyhow be finite, while endless misery,\nhowever slight, would be infinite. But very possibly, being sinners\nourselves, we do not realise the magnitude of sin, more especially\nits far-reaching and _permanent_ effect on the character of others,\nwho in their turn may influence others also, and so on indefinitely.\nIn this way the consequences of even a single sin may be _endless_,\nand therefore infinite, and if so its guilt may be infinite too. And\nthis also agrees with the analogy of nature. For in nature nothing\nis forgotten, and even a small act, like planting a flower has\n(almost) endless consequences, since the ground will _never_ be\nexactly the same as if it had not been planted.\n\nMoreover, we need not assume that endless misery is for a man's sins\nhere only. Why may not the wicked go on sinning for ever? They must\ncertainly have the power of doing so, for the option of acting, or\nat all events of thinking right or wrong, is essential to free will;\nand if we deny them their free will, they are no longer men but mere\nmachines. And it even seems probable that they would do so; for all\nour experience of human character is that it tends to a final\npermanence, of good or bad, which nothing can alter. By doing good,\nmen become good--evil gradually loses its influence over them. And\nthen, when their character is fixed, they will cease to be\n_attracted_ by evil; and they will in consequence remain (and this\nwithout any effort or struggle on their part) for ever good, and\ntherefore for ever happy. Similarly with regard to the wicked. By\ncommitting sin men become sinful, and then, when their character is\nfixed, they may remain for ever sinful, and therefore for ever\nmiserable. In each case the man's conduct will be always _free_; but\nhis character, and therefore the use which he makes of his freedom,\nwill have become fixed. And perhaps one of the strongest motives for\nleading a good life here, and thus forming a good character, is the\nknowledge that, whether good or bad, it will be _our_ character for\nall eternity.\n\nNo doubt it is an overwhelming thought that a man's endless\nhappiness, or misery should depend on his short probation in this\nworld; yet as he is given free will with the option of choosing one\nor the other, there is nothing _unjust_ in the results being so\npermanent. And it entirely agrees with God's methods in nature,\nwhere, for instance, the shape of a tree for centuries is fixed\nduring the short time it is growing.\n\nNor does the fact of God's _foreknowledge_ as to how each man will\nact alter the case or cause any injustice, since, as said in Chapter\nII., it does not interfere with man's freedom. God merely foreknows\nthe use man will make of his freedom. Therefore His knowing\nbeforehand that a man will commit a murder does not make it unjust\nto punish him for doing so. And the same rule applies universally;\nso that although God foreknows that the wicked will be lost, they\nwill not be lost _because_ God foreknows it. They will be lost\nbecause of their own wilful abuse of their own free will; and God\nforeknows both this, and its consequences.\n\nThe third objection refers to God's _mercy_. Surely, it is said, God\nwould never punish men unless there were a chance of improving them;\nso it is incredible that He should go on punishing them for ever.\nBut perhaps the future misery of the wicked may not be a punishment\nat all, in the sense of being inflicted by God; it may be the\nnecessary result of their own acts,--the _consequence_ rather than\nthe punishment of sin. Or if we still use the word punishment, we\nmay say that they will be punished, not so much for doing what they\nhave done, as by being what they have become. It will be _according\nto_ their works rather than _because_ of them.[476]\n\n[Footnote 476: Matt. 16. 27; Rom. 2. 6.]\n\nAnd there is much to be said in favour of this view, since it is the\nway in which God punishes men in this world. Suppose, for instance,\na man repeatedly gives way to drink, he will have the natural\npunishment (which is really God's punishment, Who is the Author of\nNature) of being what he has become, an habitual drunkard, and very\npossibly miserable for the rest of his life. It is the necessary\nconsequence of his sin; and the extent of his misery will, as a\nrule, be in exact proportion to the extent of his sin. Therefore, if\na man is to suffer hereafter for other sins, we should expect this\nsuffering to come in the same way; and to be the natural, and\nperhaps unavoidable, consequence of the sin itself.\n\nNor is it difficult to suggest how this may be. For the endless\nmisery of the wicked may be to a great extent mental, rather than\nbodily--_shame and everlasting contempt_, as Daniel calls it. They\nmay be tormented by remorse and regret at having made themselves\nunfit to share in the joys of heaven. And until we know the\ngreatness of those joys, we cannot know the greatness of this\nsuffering. But if the joys of heaven are endless, and if the\nexistence of the wicked outside heaven is also endless, it must\nplainly be an _endless_ source of misery. While, in conclusion, the\nfact that it is the same Christ who has taught us (more than anyone\nelse) the mercy and love of God, who has also taught us the endless\nmisery of the wicked, is an additional reason for thinking that the\ntwo cannot really be inconsistent.\n\nThe fourth and last objection refers to _man_ rather than God. It is\nthat the endless misery of the wicked would destroy the happiness of\nthe righteous; for how could a man enjoy heaven if he knew that his\nown father and mother were in endless and hopeless misery elsewhere?\nOf course, if we deny him his memory, and say he does not remember\nthem, it destroys his identity, and for all practical purposes, he\nis a different man. I have not met with any satisfactory answer to\nthis difficulty. But it may be pointed out that if he knows his\nparents' fate, he will certainly know their character too, and that\ntheir fate was deserved. And this may alter his feelings in regard\nto them, as it often does now, if we find that one of our friends\nhas behaved in a mean, and disgraceful manner.\n\nReviewing all these objections, it must be admitted that the endless\nmisery of the wicked seems improbable, but it is certainly not\n_incredible_. For, to put it shortly, our knowledge of human nature\nconvinces us that, out of a large number of wicked men, some at all\nevents will continue to be wicked, _i.e._ to commit sin as long as\nthey live. Hence, if they live for ever, they will sin for ever. And\nif they sin for ever, it is not only just, but perhaps inevitable,\nthat they should be miserable for ever. And if so, the endless\nmisery of the wicked does not reflect on either the power, justice,\nor mercy of God, and, as said above, is certainly not incredible.\n\n(2.) _Their endless happiness._\n\nWe pass on now to the next theory, that of their _endless\nhappiness_. According to this, all the wicked (after some suitable\npunishment) will at last be reconciled to God, and in popular\nlanguage, go to heaven. And there are several texts which are more\nor less in favour of this view.[477] But how are we to reconcile\nthese with the far stronger ones before alluded to? The most\nprobable explanation is that they are merely general statements,\nindicating the final destiny of the vast majority of mankind, but\nthat there are exceptions to this as to most other rules. And the\nCreed nowhere implies that most men will be lost; it may be only a\nfew obstinate sinners.\n\n[Footnote 477: _E.g._, Col. 1. 20; 1 Tim. 4. 10; 1 John 2. 2; Rev.\n5. 13.]\n\nMoreover, we cannot think that the wicked will be allowed to go on\nsinning in heaven, so if they go there, they must finally cease to\ncommit sin. Many may do this voluntarily, but what about the\nremainder? If they _must_ finally forsake sin, whether they like it\nor not, it destroys their free will, and leads to _compulsory\ngoodness_, which is very like a contradiction in terms. For goodness\ncannot be ascribed to mere machines without free will, which only\nact under compulsion; yet on this theory the men would be nothing\nmore. In fact, the wicked _men_ would in reality have been\ndestroyed, and a good piece of mechanism created instead; which\nscarcely seems a probable theory.\n\nThen there is this further difficulty: what is to become of the evil\nangels? If we have to admit endless misery for these, why not for\nman? Yet the Bible gives no hint that the Devil will in the end be\nreconciled to God, and go to heaven.\n\n(3.) _Their destruction._\n\nLastly, as to the other and only possible alternative, the\n_destruction_ of the wicked. This may be better described as their\nfailure to obtain everlasting life; which is here regarded not as\nthe attribute of all men, but as being _conditional_ on a man's\nfulfilling certain duties and developing a certain character in this\nlife. And the wicked, not having done this, will eventually be\ndestroyed and cease to exist. Numerous texts can be quoted in favour\nof this theory.[478] And it is also supported by the analogy of\nnature: for if an organism or a species is a failure, it eventually\n_ceases to exist_; it is not kept alive for ever as a disfigurement\nto the world.\n\n[Footnote 478: _E.g._, John 6. 51; Rom. 6. 23; Matt. 10. 28.]\n\nThis theory, no doubt, presents less moral difficulties than either\nof the others, but it is not free from them. For are the wicked to\nbe _punished_ after death previous to their destruction? If they are\nnot, justice is not satisfied; and while excessive punishment seems\na reflection on God's character, no punishment at all for sinners\nwho have been successful in this world, seems equally so. Yet, on\nthe other hand, any punishment which precedes destruction seems\nmerely vindictive, and of no possible use.\n\nEach of these theories, then, appears improbable, but the _endless\nmisery_ of the wicked is scarcely more so than the others, and\ntherefore, as it is the one most strongly supported by the Bible, we\nseem bound to accept it.\n\nOne remark may however be made in conclusion, and it brings a little\ncomfort into this saddest of all truths. It is that whatever doubt\nmay exist as to the future state of the wicked, of one thing we may\nbe quite sure--that their punishment will not be in excess of what\nthey deserve. They will be treated fairly; and every merciful\nallowance will be made for circumstances, including the inherent\nweakness of human nature. Christianity indeed seems to emphasise\nthis more than any other religion, since men are to be judged not by\nthe Father, but by the Son; apparently for this very reason that,\nbeing Man, He can sympathise with human weakness.[479] And after the\njudgment, persons will enjoy heaven just in proportion as their\nlives on earth have rendered them capable of doing so, while the\nmisery of the lost will also be in exact proportion to what they\ndeserve.\n\n[Footnote 479: John 5. 27.]\n\n\n(_C._) THE IMPORTANCE OF A TRUE BELIEF.\n\nThe last doctrine to be considered is the importance of a True\nBelief, that is of believing the _truth_ in regard to matters of\nreligion. This is strongly insisted on in the _warning clauses_ of\nthe Athanasian Creed; so we will first consider their meaning, then\ntheir truthfulness, and lastly, the objection as to dogmatism.\n\n(1.) _Their meaning._\n\nBefore discussing this, it may be pointed out that they are often\ncalled the _damnatory_ or _uncharitable_ clauses; but both these\nterms are somewhat misleading. For the Creed does not condemn anyone\nby these clauses, it merely declares that certain persons will be\ncondemned by God, which is a very different thing. No one desires\ntheir condemnation, but the contrary; therefore, believing the\ndanger to be a fact, it is stated in the hope that persons will in\nconsequence avoid it.\n\nAn analogy may help to illustrate this distinction. Suppose a\ndespotic ruler in some island were to put up a notice that anyone\nwalking along a certain part of the coast would be arrested and\nshot; this might well be called uncharitable. But now, suppose the\nnotice was that, owing to their being quicksands along that part of\nthe coast, anyone walking there would be drowned; this might be\nuntrue, but it could scarcely be called uncharitable. So in regard\nto the Creed. Its warnings (whether true or false) are in no sense\nuncharitable; and it no more _consigns men to perdition_ (as it is\nsometimes called) for denying the faith, than a doctor consigns men\nto die of fever for drinking bad water. In each case they merely\nstate what they believe will (unfortunately) be the result.\n\nIts warnings are also quite different from the _Let him be anathema_\nof St. Paul, as well as from some of the Psalms, where the writer\ndoes not merely state that the wicked will be miserable, but prays\nthat they may be so.[480] This no doubt seems uncharitable, but\nthere is nothing like it in the Creed.\n\n[Footnote 480: _E.g._, Gal. 1. 8-9; Ps. 69.]\n\nWhat the Creed says is that holding, or _holding fast_,[481] the\nCatholic Faith, especially the doctrines of the Trinity and the\nIncarnation, is necessary to salvation (vv. 1, 28, 29, 42); and that\nthose who do _not_ keep (or hold fast) this Faith will _perish_\neverlastingly (v. 2). The word _keep_, it should be noticed,\nimplies previous possession, since a man cannot keep what he never\nhad; so these verses are inapplicable to heathens, infidels, or even\nnominal Christians who have never really held the Faith. They refer\nonly to apostates--to those who, having once held the Faith, do not\n_keep_ it.\n\n[Footnote 481: It is so translated in the revised version, issued in\nNovember, 1909, by a Committee, under the Archbishop of Canterbury.]\n\nMoreover, there can be little doubt that the apostasy here referred\nto was not that due to intellectual doubt, but to giving way, _under\npersecution_. For the Gothic conquerors of Southern Europe, where\nthe Creed was composed about the fifth century, were _Arians_, and\nthey much persecuted the Catholics. So a statement of what the\nCatholic Faith really was (in opposition to Arianism) might well\ncontain warnings as to the great danger of abandoning it under trial\nand persecution. In the same way Christ warned His followers that if\nthey denied Him before men, He would also deny them before His\nFather.\n\nAnd a time of persecution is distinctly implied in the Creed itself.\nFor in ver. 30 we are told that it is not enough to believe the\nfaith, it must be publicly _confessed_; and even in ver. 1, the\n_holding_ or _holding fast_, suggests a temptation to surrender.\nCompare the passage: _Thou holdest fast my name, and didst not deny\nmy faith_:[482] where in the Latin translation (the Vulgate) the\nsame word is used for _hold fast_, as occurs in the Creed.\n\n[Footnote 482: Rev. 2. 13, 25; 3. 11; 2 Tim. 1. 13.]\n\nNext as to the meaning of to _perish_. This is no doubt much\ndisputed, both here, and in the similar passage in the Gospel,\nwhere Christ says that all who believe on Him shall _not perish, but\nhave eternal (or everlasting) life_; which certainly implies that\nthose who disbelieve, or cease to believe, _shall_ perish,\nand shall _not_ have everlasting life, _i.e._, shall perish\neverlastingly.[483] But whatever Christ meant by these words, the\nCreed means too, neither more nor less. Taken by themselves, they\nseem to point to the destruction of the wicked; or perhaps only to\ntheir failure to obtain the joys of heaven, without actually ceasing\nto exist.\n\n[Footnote 483: John 3. 16.]\n\nBut however this may be, one thing is plain; that, according to the\nCreed, those who have been taught the truth about God, (_i.e._, the\nCatholic Faith), must both _lead a good life_, (fighting against\nsin, etc.), and also _hold fast_, or _keep this faith_, if they wish\nto be saved. And St. Paul evidently regarded these as the two\nessentials; for at the close of his life, he rejoiced because he had\n_fought the good fight_, and _kept the faith_.[484]\n\n[Footnote 484: 2 Tim. 4. 7.]\n\n(2.) _Their truthfulness._\n\nHaving thus shown what the warning clauses actually mean, we have\nnext to consider whether they are true. Now, it is plain from the\nnature of the case that we can know nothing on such a subject,\nexcept what is revealed by God. Is then, this doctrine stated or\nimplied in the New Testament? Certainly it is, since belief in\nChrist is everywhere laid down as _necessary_ to salvation. He is\nnot one Saviour among many, nor is Christianity one means among many\nof getting to heaven. But Christianity is always represented as the\n_only_ means, and Christ as the _only_ Saviour.\n\nWe have already alluded to one text on this subject, that about the\n_perishing_; and we will now quote five others, each from a\ndifferent writer, thus showing that the doctrine was not peculiar to\nany one Apostle or Evangelist. We are told then, that while he that\nbelieveth and is baptized shall be saved, he that disbelieveth shall\nbe condemned; that unless men believe in Christ they shall die in\ntheir sins; that His is the only Name under heaven wherein men can\nbe saved; that public confession of Him as Lord, together with\nbelief in His Resurrection, leads to salvation; and that His Blood\nalone can redeem us from our sins.[485]\n\n[Footnote 485: Mark 16. 16; John 8. 24; Acts 4. 12; Rom. 10. 9; 1\nPet. 1. 19.]\n\nAnd the early Christians acted in entire accordance with this. When,\nfor instance, the gaoler at Philippi asked St. Paul, _What must I do\nto be saved?_ the answer was, _Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou\nshalt be saved_.[486] Repentance, baptism, and amendment of life,\nwould of course follow in due time; but first of all, before all\nother things, it was necessary that he should _believe in Christ_.\nThis was the great essential.\n\n[Footnote 486: Acts 16. 31.]\n\nNow it is obvious that the belief in Christ, which is thus\neverywhere insisted on, must mean believing the truth about Christ,\nand not a false belief. If, then, the statements in the Creed\nrepresent the truth about Christ, as we have shown they do, then\nbelief in these is necessary to salvation. And the Bible, like the\nCreed, expressly says that the great and fundamental truth about\nChrist, which we must both believe and _confess_, is His\nIncarnation, that He _is come in the flesh_.[487] And this involves\nHis relationship to God the Father, and the doctrine of the Trinity.\nThus the warning clauses as to the importance of a true belief,\nespecially in regard to these two great doctrines, seem fully\njustified.\n\n[Footnote 487: 1 John 4. 2-3.]\n\nThree further remarks may be made before leaving this subject. The\nfirst is that the Creed is addressed to _Christians_ only. This is\nclear from its opening sentence, _Quicunque vult salvus esse_, which\nmeans literally, 'Whoever _wishes_ to be saved'; and this takes for\ngranted that the persons addressed have heard of salvation. And, as\nwe have shown, the following words, that they must _hold fast_ or\n_keep_ the Faith, also imply that they have been already taught it.\nThe Creed cannot therefore be held to refer to any but Christians,\nno matter how general the language may be.\n\nSecondly, among Christians the Creed is meant chiefly for\n_theologians_. This is plain from its technical language, which is\nso worded as to prevent a recurrence of several old errors. And it\nseems only fair to assume that children and unlearned persons\nbelonging to a Church holding these doctrines would be considered as\nbelieving them. But though a child's belief,[488] which is merely\ntrust and love, may be sufficient _for a child_, something more may\nreasonably be expected from well-instructed Christians. And this is\nthat they should believe these doctrines _rightly_ (v. 29), though\nthis is a most unfortunate translation of the Latin word\n_fideliter_, as it seems to connect it with the _right_ faith\n(_fides recta_) of the following verse. It would be better rendered\nby _faithfully_, as it is in v. 24, or _heartily_. Thus a _heartfelt\nbelief_ in the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation--a\nbelief which leads at once to _worship_, for 'the Catholic Faith is\nthat we _worship_ one God':--is what the Creed says is so essential.\n\n[Footnote 488: Matt. 18. 6.]\n\nLastly, all these statements, like so many passages in the\nBible,[489] are only _general rules_; to which there are often some\nexceptions. And in the present case, we may feel sure (from other\npassages)[490] that God will make exceptions, wherever unbelief or\nmisbelief has not been due to a person's own fault. Our conclusion,\nthen, as to the _warning clauses_ is this; that if the other\nstatements of the Creed are _true_ (as we have shown they are),\nthese clauses do not present any great difficulty.\n\n[Footnote 489: _E.g._, 1 Cor. 6. 12.]\n\n[Footnote 490: _E.g._, 1 Tim. 1. 13.]\n\n(3.) _The objection as to dogmatism._\n\nAn important objection has still to be considered. It is that the\nAthanasian Creed _dogmatises_ too much. Granting, it is said, that\nall its doctrines are contained in the New Testament, yet why not be\ncontent with the _simpler_ statements in the Apostles' and Nicene\nCreeds? These were _sufficient_ for the Church for several\ncenturies, so why not leave other matters open for discussion,\ninstead of treating them as _closed questions_? We will consider\nthese points in turn.\n\nAnd first as to _dogmatism_; by which is meant the exact statement\nof any truth. Now on all other subjects which influence our\nconduct, such as diseases or science, it is admitted to be of great\nimportance that we should know the truth, and act accordingly. Why,\nthen, should it be thought that in Religion alone this is\nimmaterial, and that a false Creed is as good as the true one, if a\nman honestly believes it?\n\nMoreover, a certain amount of dogmatism in matters of Religion seems\nessential. No one can intelligently serve or pray to a God of Whose\nNature he has formed no idea, and the moment he begins to form such\nan idea he is involved in difficulties. Take for example what some\nwill consider a very simple prayer, _May God forgive my sins for\nChrist's sake_. Who, we may ask, is God; who is Christ; what is the\nrelation between them; why should One be asked to forgive for the\nsake of the Other; and what would happen if the sins were not\nforgiven? Such difficulties cannot be avoided; and if the statements\nin the Athanasian Creed are their true explanation, the more clearly\nthis is stated the better.\n\nIn the next place, it is very doubtful whether the earlier Creeds\nare _simpler_ and more easy to believe than the Athanasian. To a\nthoughtful reader it may well seem otherwise. For example, referring\nto the Trinity, the Apostles' Creed teaches us to believe in God the\nFather, in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost, but it does\nnot attempt to answer the simplest questions concerning Them. Are\nThey, for instance, all three Persons? if so, are They all three\nDivine? and if so, are They three Gods? And the Nicene Creed is even\nmore puzzling, for it first says that there is one God the Father,\nand soon afterwards that the Son is also God. So in regard to the\nHoly Spirit, He is called the Lord, yet it has been already stated\nthat there is only one Lord Jesus Christ. How can all this be\nreconciled? And much the same applies to the future state of the\nwicked. The two earlier Creeds speak of the life everlasting (for\nthe good), but what is to become of the bad? These and many other\nquestions are suggested by the earlier Creeds, and answered by the\nAthanasian. And to many it seems easier to believe the Creed which\nanswers difficulties, than those which merely suggest them.\n\nAnd it was for this very purpose of answering difficulties, not\nmaking them, that the Athanasian Creed was composed. Its object was\nnot to assert any new doctrines, or to suggest that those previously\nreceived were not _sufficient_, but merely to explain them, and to\nprevent them from being misunderstood. All the doctrines, as we have\nseen, are contained in the New Testament, and they were in\nconsequence always believed by Christians. But it was not till after\nmuch controversy that men learnt to express this belief with\nclearness and precision.\n\nLastly, as to these doctrines being _closed questions_. They are\nclosed questions in much the same way as the fact that the earth\ngoes round the sun, and not the sun round the earth, is a closed\nquestion in astronomy. That is to say, they have been thoroughly\ndiscussed, and (to those who believe the New Testament) the evidence\nin their favour is overwhelming. Of course anyone may go over the\nproofs again for himself, and if he wants to have an intelligent\nbelief he should do so; but as a rule of conduct the subject cannot\nbe re-opened.\n\nAnd it should be noticed that the Church, in thus treating certain\nquestions as closed for its members, is only acting as other\nsocieties would do. Would a society of engineers, for instance,\nallow one of its members to construct an iron bridge on the\nsupposition that the expansion of iron by heat was an open question;\nwhich he might, or might not, think worth allowing for? Or would a\nsociety of doctors allow one of its members to attend patients if he\nasserted that whether scarlet fever was infectious or not was an\nopen question; which each patient might decide for himself? In\nshort, well-ascertained truth, or what is believed to be such, in\nevery department of knowledge is looked upon as a closed question;\nand it must remain so, unless some important fresh evidence is\nproduced. But with regard to the Creeds, no fresh evidence can be\nproduced, unless God were to give a fresh Revelation; so, from the\nnature of the case, they are closed questions in an even stricter\nsense than ascertained truths on other subjects.\n\nThis concludes a brief examination of the doctrines of the Three\nCreeds, and, as we have seen, they are all either contained in, or\nlogically deducible from, the New Testament.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\nTHAT THE TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS EXTREMELY PROBABLE.\n\n     (_A._) THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.\n\n     One remaining objection, why are there so many difficulties,\n      and no more obvious proof? considered in detail.\n\n     (_B._) SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.\n\n\nWe have now examined all the more important arguments for and\nagainst the Truth of Christianity. Many of them, as we have seen,\ninvolve a good deal of study, and we have often been obliged to\nconsider a few examples only of various classes of facts; but it is\nhoped that no important argument on either side has been entirely\noverlooked. One remaining objection has still to be considered.\n\n\n(_A._) THE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.\n\nDoes not, it is urged, this very fact of itself form a difficulty?\nCan an ordinary man be expected to ponder over arguments,\nobjections, and counter-arguments by the dozen, even supposing the\nbalance of probability to be in favour of the Religion? Surely, if\nChristianity were true, and God wished men to believe it, there\nwould not be so many difficulties. He would have provided an easier\nway of proving it than this; or, at all events, if this elaborate\nargument were examined, the inference in its favour would be simply\noverwhelming. This is a difficulty felt perhaps by some who have\nread the present _Essay_; fortunately it can be answered\nsatisfactorily.\n\nAnd first, as to there being so many difficulties. Several of these\nare simply due to the evidence in favour of Christianity being so\nstrong. If, for instance, we had only one Gospel instead of four,\nthe difficulties caused by the discrepancies between them would\ndisappear, but the argument in favour of Christianity would not be\nstrengthened in consequence. Still putting aside these, it must be\nadmitted that there are many difficulties connected with the\nReligion.\n\nBut what is the cause of this? It is the very magnitude of the\nChristian Religion which opens the way for so many attacks. A\nreligion which claims to be the only true one in the world; to have\nbeen founded by God Himself; to have been prepared for by prophecies\nand introduced by miracles; to be the centre of the world's history,\nall previous history leading up to it, and all subsequent history\nbeing influenced by it; to be suitable for all ages and countries;\nto hold the key to all mental and moral problems; to be man's guide\nand comfort in this life, and his only hope for the next;--such a\nreligion _must_ be assailable at a great many points. But\nprovided all these assaults can be repelled, provided this long\n_frontier-line_, so to speak, can be properly defended, it does not\nshow the weakness of the religion; on the contrary, it shows its\nenormous strength. A religion which made less claims would, no\ndoubt, have less difficulties; but it would be less likely to be the\ntrue one. If God became Incarnate, no claims can be too vast for the\nReligion He founded. And to many, this unspeakable grandeur of\nChristianity, so far from being a difficulty, constitutes one of its\ngreatest charms.\n\nNext, as to there being no _easier_ means of proof. It is a simple\nmatter of fact that the vast majority of men, both educated and\nuneducated, who believe in Christianity, have not arrived at this\nbelief by a long line of reasoning, such as we have examined. They\nassert that there is an easier way. They say that God has given them\na faculty of _Faith_, which, though it may be hard to explain, just\nas man's free will is hard to explain, yet gives them the most\ncertain conviction of the truth of Christianity. And starting with\nthis inward conviction, they say it is confirmed by their daily\nexperience, just as a man's belief in his free will is confirmed by\nhis daily experience. Of course, this appeal to faith is no argument\nto those who do not possess it. On the other hand, to those who do\npossess it, no arguments can really weaken or strengthen it. It is a\nthing by itself, and absolutely convincing.\n\nIt may be pointed out, however, that if man is a partly spiritual as\nwell as a partly material being, which we have already admitted;\nthen the existence of some spiritual sense, or faculty, by which to\nperceive spiritual truths, just as the body has material senses by\nwhich to perceive material objects, cannot be thought incredible.\nAnd this is what faith claims to be; it is a means to spiritual\ndiscernment, and may be compared to eyesight. It does not enable us\nto believe what we might otherwise think to be untrue; but it\nenables us to know for certain, what we might otherwise think to be\nonly probable (_e.g._, the existence of God). In the same way a\nblind man might, by feeling, think it probable that there were a\ncertain number of pictures in a room, but if he could _see_, he\nwould know for certain. And, just as a man, who had always been\nblind, ought not to reject the testimony of those who see, so a man\nwho has no faith ought not to reject the testimony of those who\nhave. And the existence of such a faculty will account for the very\ndifferent views taken of Christianity by men of apparently equal\nintelligence and candour.\n\nStill, it may be asked, why should some persons be given this\nfaculty of faith, while others are not? The subject is no doubt a\ndifficult one. But very possibly the faculty is _latent_ in every\none, only it needs (like other faculties) to be exercised and\ndeveloped. And the man himself may be responsible for whether he\ntakes suitable means (prayer, etc.) for doing this. However, we need\nnot pursue this subject, since, as said above, no arguments can\nprove, or disprove Christianity to those who believe by faith.\n\nBut now comes the most important part of the objection. Granting, it\nis said, that the subject is a difficult one, and demands a long\ninvestigation, yet when we do go through the arguments on both sides\nthe conclusion is not irresistible. In short, why are not the\nevidences in favour of Christianity _stronger_? Of course they might\nbe so, but we have no reason for thinking that they would be. In\nour ordinary daily life we have never absolute certainty to guide\nus, but only various degrees of probability. And even, in Natural\nReligion, the reasons for believing in a Personal God and the\nfreedom and responsibility of man, though to most people quite\nconvincing, are certainly not irresistible; since, as a matter of\nfact, some men resist them.\n\nAnd if God intends us to act on such evidence in common life, and\nalso with regard to the great truths of Natural Religion, why should\nHe not do the same with regard to Christianity? He seems, if we may\nuse the word, to _respect_ man's momentous attribute of free will\neven in matters of Religion; therefore in His sight a right belief,\nlike right conduct, may be of no value unless it is more or less\nvoluntary. It is to be a virtue, rather than a necessity. And this\nfully accounts for the evidences of Christianity not being\noverwhelming. They are amply sufficient to justify anyone in\nbelieving it; but they are not, and were probably never meant to be,\nsufficient to compel him to do so.\n\nIf, however,--and this is a matter of practical importance--they are\nstrong enough to show that the Religion is _probably_ true, a man\nwho admits this is obviously bound to accept it. He cannot adopt a\nneutral attitude, because the evidence is not conclusive; since, as\njust said, in every other subject we have only probability, not\ncertainty, to guide us; and why should religion alone be different?\nThen, if he accepts it, he is obviously bound to try and live\naccordingly, no matter what the sacrifice may be; for Christianity,\nif it is worth anything, is worth everything. Such tremendous truths\ncannot be half acted on if believed, any more than they can be half\nbelieved; it must be a case of all for all. And then, if he tries to\nlive accordingly, he may find (as Christians in all ages have found)\nthat for himself the probability becomes a certainty.\n\nLastly, it may be pointed out that though perhaps the evidences of\nChristianity are not so strong as we should expect, they are\nprecisely of such a _kind_ as we should expect; for they exhibit\neach of the three great attributes of God. His Omnipotence is shown\nin the miracles, His Omniscience in the prophecies, and His perfect\nGoodness in the Character of Christ; so that, judged by its\nevidences, Christianity is a Religion which might very reasonably\nhave come from the God Who is All-Powerful, All-Wise, and All-Good.\n\n\n(_B._) SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.\n\nIt now only remains to give a summary of the previous chapters, and\nthen point out the final choice of difficulties.\n\nIn Chapter XIII. we considered the _credibility_ of the Christian\nReligion, and decided that some of its leading doctrines, especially\nthose of the Incarnation and the Atonement, seemed very improbable.\nAll that can be said on the other side is practically this, that we\nhave no adequate means of judging; and that when we apply similar\nreasoning to subjects about which we do know, such as the freedom of\nman or the existence of evil, it generally leads us wrong. But\nstill the fact remains that the Religion appears, at first sight,\nvery improbable.\n\nIn Chapter XIV. we considered the _external testimony_ to the _Four\nGospels_, and decided that this was very strongly in their favour.\nAt the close of the second century they held the same position among\nChristians as they do at present; during the middle of that century\nJustin shows that they were publicly read, together with the Old\nTestament Prophets; while the few earlier writers whose works have\ncome down to us also seem to have known them.\n\nIn Chapter XV. we considered their _internal evidence_, and found\nthat it strongly supported the above conclusion; so combining the\ntwo, we have an almost overwhelming argument in favour of their\ngenuineness.\n\nIn Chapter XVI. we considered an additional argument of great\nimportance, derived from the _Acts of the Apostles_. There are\nstrong reasons for dating this book about A.D. 60; and if so it\nproves a still earlier date for the first three Gospels.\n\nIn Chapter XVII. we considered the _Resurrection of Christ_, and the\naccounts we have of it in the Four Gospels. And we decided that\nthese Narratives, in spite of some obvious discrepancies and\nomissions had every appearance of being thoroughly trustworthy.\nIndeed their complete agreement in important points, their mutual\nexplanations, and their signs of early date are all strongly in\ntheir favour.\n\nIn Chapter XVIII. we considered the testimony of the First\nWitnesses, and examined in detail their veracity, knowledge,\ninvestigation, and reasoning; and each seemed to be supported by\nirresistible evidence. Therefore the opposite theories, which are\nbased on denying these points, and are called respectively the\n_Falsehood_, the _Legend_, the _Vision_, and the _Swoon_ Theory, are\nquite untenable. So we must either accept the Resurrection of\nChrist; or deny it, in spite of all the evidence, and solely because\nof the miraculous nature of the event.\n\nIn Chapter XIX. we considered the other New Testament _Miracles_,\nand came to the conclusion that they also occurred. Indeed their\nmarks of truthfulness, and their publicity together with the fact\nthat they were never disputed at the time, make the evidence in\ntheir favour extremely strong.\n\nIn Chapter XX. we considered the argument from _Prophecy_; and\ndiscussed in detail Isaiah's Prophecy of the Lord's Servant, and the\nPsalm of the Crucifixion, and then glanced at several others. And we\npointed out how completely these prophecies were fulfilled in\nChrist, and how utterly hopeless it was to find any other fulfilment\nof them. So here again the choice lies between either accepting\nthese prophecies, or disputing them simply because they are\nprophecies, and imply superhuman knowledge. In other words, we must\neither admit the marvel of a Divine Revelation, or else we must face\nthe _mental_ difficulty of believing that all these coincidences\nwere due to chance, the improbability of which can scarcely be\ncalculated.\n\nIn Chapter XXI. we considered the _Character of Christ_; and the\nadmitted excellence of His moral teaching seems quite inconsistent\nwith deliberate falsehood on His part. Yet He kept asserting His\nsuperhuman and Divine Nature, and was finally put to death in\nconsequence. So here once more we have a similar choice before us.\nWe must either accept the Divinity of Christ, with all the wonders\nit involves; or else we must face the _moral_ difficulty of\nbelieving that the best moral teaching the world has ever had, was\ngiven by One, whose own life was full of falsehood and presumption.\n\nIn Chapter XXII. we considered the _History of Christianity_, and\nfound that its marvellous progress at first, in spite of its immense\ndifficulties, and without the use of any force, could only be\naccounted for by its truth. So here for the last time we have the\nsame alternatives to choose from. We must either admit the\nsupernatural origin and spread of Christianity; or else we must face\nthe _historical_ difficulty of believing that its first preachers\nwere able to convince men without evidence, conquer them without\nforce, and found the greatest religion the world has ever seen on\nclaims which at the time everyone must have known to be untrue.\n\nIn Chapter XXIII. we considered the _other evidence_ on the subject,\nand briefly examined various arguments for and against Christianity,\nsuch as its connection with prayer; its adaptation to human nature,\nand its relation to other religions; but all of comparative\nunimportance.\n\nLastly, in Chapter XXIV. we decided that the _Three Creeds_ were\ndeducible from the New Testament; so the religion which has all this\nevidence in its favour is the _Christian Religion_, as we have used\nthe term.\n\nFrom the above summary it will be seen that the arguments against\nChristianity are all what may be called _antecedent_ (or _a priori_)\nones. The Religion itself, its doctrines, its claims, its miraculous\norigin, all seem most improbable. Thus the objections to\nChristianity all lie on the surface. They are obvious and palpable\nto everyone.\n\nOn the other hand, the arguments in its favour have often to be\nsought for; but when found they are seen to be stronger and stronger\nthe more they are examined. There are four main arguments. These are\nof a widely different character, and each appeals most strongly to a\ncertain class of minds, so each is often said to be the chief\nargument for Christianity, but they are probably of equal value.\nThey may be conveniently called the argument from _Miracles_,\nincluding of course the Resurrection of Christ; from _Prophecy_;\nfrom _Christ's Character_; and from _History_. And it should be\nnoticed in passing, that they mutually support one another.\nMiracles, for instance, are less difficult to believe when it is\nseen that they were to establish a religion which has for centuries\nexercised a greater influence on mankind than anything else; and\nprophecies become stronger when it is seen that the Life foretold\nwas one that had such supreme and far-reaching effects.\n\nNow, it is important to remember that the actual facts on which\nthese arguments rest are in each case absolutely _unique_. Once,\nand only once in the history of the world, have men appeared who\nasserted that they were actual witnesses of miracles, and who faced\nall forms of suffering and death solely in consequence of this.\nAgain, once, and only once in the history of the world, has a long\nseries of prophecies, uttered many centuries apart, united in a\nsingle Person, in whom they one and all find a complete fulfilment.\nYet again, once, and only once in the history of the world, has a\nMan appeared of faultless moral character, who asserted that He was\nalso God, and who boldly claimed all that this tremendous assertion\ninvolved, and submitted to the consequences. While, lastly, once,\nand only once in the history of the world, has a Religion, most\nimprobable in itself, and without using any force, succeeded in\nconquering nation after nation.\n\nThese, then, are the four chief arguments on the subject, and in\nevery case we have the same choice before us. We must either face\nthe antecedent (or _a priori_) difficulties in accepting\nChristianity, or the mental, moral and historical difficulties in\nrejecting it. There is no neutral ground, no possibility of avoiding\nboth sets of difficulties. But the difficulties on the one side\nconcern what we do _not_ know--God's purpose in creating man--and\nmay be due to our ignorance only. The difficulties on the other side\nconcern what we _do_ know. They are practical, they are derived from\nexperience. We do know that men will not lay down their lives for\nwhat they believe to be false, and that the first preachers of\nChristianity must have known whether it was false or not. We do\nknow that prophecies uttered at random through centuries would not\nall unite in a single Person. We do know that even moderately good\nmen do not make extravagant claims. And we do know that no natural\ncauses can account for such a religion as Christianity obtaining\nsuch a triumph as it did.\n\nThe choice, then, seems to lie between what we may call _unknown_\ndifficulties and _known_ ones. The unknown difficulty of believing\nthat the Eternal God could so love man as to humble Himself even to\ndeath to win man's love; and the known difficulty of believing that\nevidence so vast and so various, so cumulative and so apparently\nirresistible, could all unite in making a monstrous falsehood appear\nto be a momentous truth. Between these two sets of difficulties we\nhave to make our choice. But to those who agree with the previous\nchapters, the choice cannot be doubtful; for however hard it is to\nbelieve Christianity, it is, as we have shown, harder still to\ndisbelieve it. This, then, is our final conclusion, that the truth\nof the Christian religion is _extremely probable_, because, to put\nit shortly, though the difficulties of accepting Christianity are\ngreat, the difficulties of rejecting it are far greater.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF TEXTS.\n\n\n                              PAGE\n\n           GENESIS.\n\n            1.                 117\n            \"     1            213\n            \"     26           159, 393\n            2.                 132\n            \"     4            119\n            3.    22           159, 393\n            4.    13-17, 26    132\n            5.    1-2          134\n            6.    2-4          132\n            7.    11           126\n            \"     21           132\n          7-8.                 159\n            9.    13-14        127\n           11.    7            393\n           12.    3            205\n            \"     6            160\n            \"     16           141\n           13.    7            160\n           14.    22           213\n           18.    25           215\n           21.    33           213\n           22.                 210\n            \"     17           217\n            \"     18           374\n           23.    2, 19        142\n           25.    18           143\n           26.    4            374\n           27.    8-13         208\n           33.    18           142\n           35.    6            142\n           36.    31-39        159\n           39.    1            139\n            \"     9            215\n           40.    11, 19       140\n            \"     15           156\n           41.                 140\n            \"     41           393\n           43.    27-28        143\n            \"     32           139\n           46.    34           139\n           48.    3            142\n           49.    30           142\n           50.    3            139\n\n           EXODUS.\n\n            1.    11           144\n            \"     14           144\n            2.    3            144\n            3.    14           405\n            4.    21           159\n            5.    12           144\n            \"     23           165\n            7.    3            159\n            \"     11, 22       182\n            \"     14-25        157\n            \"     19           145\n            8.    7, 18, 19    182\n            \"     15, 32       210\n            9.    34           210\n           10.    1            159\n            \"     3, 7         210\n           12.    12           146\n            \"     25           153\n            \"     37           171\n           13.    11           153\n            \"     13           210\n           14.    4            209\n            \"     21, 22       178\n            \"     30           179\n           16.    36           160\n           17.    14           164\n           19.    5            206\n           20.    24           161\n           21.    2, 16        211\n           22.    29, 30       210\n           23.    4-5          211\n           23.    9            148\n           24.    4            164, 165\n           25.    3-10         148\n            \"     13-18        147\n           29.    14           154\n           34.    20           210\n            \"     27           164\n\n           LEVITICUS.\n\n            4.    12           154\n            6.    2            392\n            \"     11           154\n            7.    1            380\n            \"     38           151\n           11.    29           132\n           13.    46           154\n           14.    3            154\n            \"     34           153\n           16.    1            151\n            \"     19           380\n            \"     26           154\n           17.    3            150, 154\n        18-20.                 211\n           18.    20           392\n            \"     21-28        209\n           19.    11, 15, 17   392\n            \"     23           151\n            \"     34           412\n           23.    10           153\n           24.    15           151\n            \"     16           412\n           24.    19           392\n           25.    1            151\n            \"     2            153\n            \"     13           150\n            \"     14, 15, 17   392\n            \"     41           211\n           26.    33           190\n           26.   46            151\n           27.   28, 29        210\n            \"    34            151\n\n           NUMBERS.\n\n            1.                 171\n            \"    1             151\n            \"    21            171\n            \"    47-4, 49      150\n            2.   10, 17        169\n            3.   14            151\n            \"    29            169\n            5.   2             154\n            9.   1             151\n            \"    10            151\n           11.   5             147\n           15.   2, 18         153\n            \"    35            151\n           16.                 169, 183\n           17.   2             147\n           18.   15            210\n           19.   3, 14         154\n           21.   14            159\n           23.   19            214\n           26.                 171\n            \"    11            170\n           27.   8             151\n           33.                 165\n            \"    2             164\n            \"    4             146\n            \"    50            151\n           35.   1             151\n            \"    1-8           150\n            \"    10            153\n           36.   8             151\n            \"    13            164\n\n           DEUTERONOMY.\n\n            1.   3             151\n            \"    37            165\n            2.   10-12         160\n            \"    20-23         160\n            3.   8, 20, 25     156\n            \"    14            160\n            \"    23-26         165\n            4.   1, 5, 14      154\n            \"    3-15          152\n            \"    17            126\n            \"    21            165\n            \"    27            190\n            \"    39            212\n            4.   46            151\n            5.   3             152\n            \"    31            154\n            6.   1, 18         154\n            \"    5             215\n            \"    9             146\n            7.   1             153\n            \"    2             163\n            \"    15            148\n            \"    22            163\n            8.   1             154\n            \"    7-10          148\n            9.   5             209\n           11.   2-8           152\n            \"    6             170\n            \"    10-12         148\n            \"    11            126\n            \"    20            146\n            \"    30            156\n           12.   1, 10, 29     153\n            \"    5             161\n            \"    21            150\n            \"    31            210\n           13.   1-3           199\n           14.   2             216\n           17.   14            153\n           18.   6-8           162\n            \"    9             153\n            \"    22            199\n           20.   17            163\n           21.   23            377\n           24.   9, 18, 22     152\n           25.   17            152\n           26.   1             153\n            \"    14            147\n            \"    18            216\n           27.   2             146\n           28.                 191\n            \"    25, 64        190\n            \"    37, 46, 48    190\n            \"    60            148\n           29.   1             151\n            \"    2-9           152\n           31.   2, 22, 24-26  165\n            \"    9, 22, 24     164\n           32.   8             206\n           33.   27            123\n\n           JOSHUA.\n\n            1.   7, 8          160\n            3.   14-17         183\n            6.   6-20          183\n            6.   15            173\n            8.   31, 32        160\n            9.   1, 10         156\n           10.   12-14         179\n           12.   7             156\n           23.   26            160\n           24.   26            160\n\n           JUDGES.\n\n            3.   4             160\n            5.   4             127\n            6.   15            171\n            \"    26            162\n           11.   39            210\n           20.   27, 28        160\n           21.   19            160\n\n           I. SAMUEL.\n\n            2.   12-30        160\n            3.   3            160\n            4.   4            160\n            6.   15           160\n            \"    19           171\n           14.   3            160\n           15.   22           161\n           25.   16           178\n\n           II. SAMUEL.\n\n            7.   12-16        195\n            8.   16           173\n           10.   5            141\n           11.   24           386\n           12.   9            386\n           24.   18           162\n\n           I. KINGS.\n\n            2.   3            160\n            3.   2            161\n            6.   14-36        147\n            8.   27           213\n            9.   4, 5         195\n           10.   29           174\n           11.   31, 40       195\n           12.   24           195\n           13.   2            196\n           14.   15           196\n           17.   21           357\n           18.   27-40        183\n            \"    27           212\n            \"    32           162\n           20.   30           171\n           22.   43           161\n\n           II. KINGS.\n\n            2.   22          181\n            4.   6           181\n            5.   10-27       183\n            6.   6           181\n            7.   2           126\n            \"    6           174\n           14.   6           160\n           15.   19          176\n           17.   6           177\n           18.   4-6         161\n            \"    28-35       184\n            \"    18          173\n           19.   10, 34      184\n            \"    15-18       212\n            \"    35          183, 184\n           20.   8-11        183, 196\n            \"    17          196\n           21.   2, 21       163\n           22.               162\n           23.   15, 16      196\n           25.   3           177\n\n           I. CHRONICLES.\n\n           21.   12          184\n           28.   9           215\n           29.   11          213\n\n           II. CHRONICLES.\n\n           14.   8, 9        171\n           20.   6           206\n           32.   24, 31      197\n           34.   8           173\n\n           EZRA.\n\n            6.   12          393\n            7.   21          393\n\n           NEHEMIAH.\n\n            1.   8           190\n            9.   6           213\n\n           JOB.\n\n           10.   4, 5        120\n           11.   7           214\n           12.   10          213\n           16.   10          385\n           29.   9           376\n           34.   19          215\n           36.   26          213\n           37.   16          213\n           33.   8-11        127\n\n           PSALMS.\n\n            8.   3, 4        60\n           22.               384\n           22.   27          218\n           58.   4           134\n           69.               474\n           82.   6           412\n           86.   9           218\n           90.   2           213\n          115.   4-8         212\n          139.   2           213\n            \"    7           213\n          147.   5           213\n            \"    8-9         178\n          148.   6           214\n\n           PROVERBS.\n\n           15.   3           213\n           16.   4           213\n           30.   19          126\n\n           ECCLESIASTES.\n\n           12.   14          215\n\n           ISAIAH.\n\n            1.   4           378\n            6.   5-10        460\n            \"    8           394\n            8.   4           196\n            9.   1-2         390\n            \"    6           390\n           10.   21          390\n           11.   9           218\n           13.   4           134\n            \"    19-22       187\n           14.   22, 23      187\n           28.   29          213\n           37.   16          206\n           38.   8           196\n           40.   3           407\n            \"    10          377\n           41.   8           381\n            \"    22          199\n           42.   1-6         382\n           44.   6           408\n            \"    8           199\n            \"    28          196\n           45.   7           213\n            \"    15          214\n           46.   10          213\n           48.   3-5         199\n            \"    12          213\n           49.   3-5         382\n            \"    6-7         382\n           51.   9           377\n           52.   13-53, 12   376\n\n           JEREMIAH.\n\n            7.   22          161\n            8.   8           155\n            9.   16          190\n           14.   14          155\n           23.   24          213\n           24.   9           190\n           26.   8-16        196\n           29.   10          196\n            \"    18          190\n           30.   11          190\n           31.   35-37       190\n           32.   17          213\n           50.   13, 39, 40  187\n\n           LAMENTATIONS.\n\n            4.   4           385\n\n           EZEKIEL.\n\n           11.   5           213\n           13.   7           155\n           22.   15          190\n           29.   11-13       189\n            \"    15          188\n           30.   7, 13       189\n           34.   23          383\n\n           DANIEL.\n\n            3.   20-27       183\n            4.   6           393\n            5.   1           174\n            8.   1           174\n            9.   21          311\n            9.   26          196\n           11.               196\n           12.   2           465\n\n           HOSEA.\n\n            4.   4-6         160\n            6.   6           161\n            8.   1, 12, 13   160\n            9.   4           160\n            \"    17          190\n           12.   9           160\n\n           JOEL.\n\n            2.   31          145\n\n           AMOS.\n\n            2.   4, 11       160\n            3.   6           213\n            4.   1           385\n            \"    4, 5        160\n            5.   8           213\n            \"    21-25       160\n            8.   5           160\n            9.   9           190\n\n           MICAH.\n\n            5.   2           391\n\n           NAHUM.\n\n            3.   7           187\n            \"    8           178\n\n           ZEPHANIAH.\n\n            2.   11          218\n            2.   13-14       187\n\n           ZECHARIAH.\n\n            3.   8           383\n            9.   9           392\n           11.   12-13       392\n           12.   10          392\n           13.   7           392\n           14.   9           392\n\n           MALACHI.\n\n            3.   6           214\n            \"    10          126\n\n           II. ESDRAS.\n\n            8.   3           262\n\n           MATTHEW.\n\n            1.   22          389\n            2.   1           318\n            3.   3           407\n            \"    17          268\n            5.   3, 10       261\n            \"    24          273\n            \"    39          398\n            6.   14          401\n            7.   13, 23      465\n            7.   22          359, 403\n            8.   3           356\n            \"    12          465\n            \"    30-32       352\n            9.   9           275\n            \"    33          361\n            \"    34          367\n           10.   8           283\n            \"    17, 22      433\n            \"    28          472\n            \"    32          403\n            \"    33          465\n           11.   21-24       350\n            \"    4           350\n            \"    5           283\n            \"    25-27       281\n            \"    27          402\n           12.   24          367\n            \"    31, 32      460\n            \"    32          465\n            \"    42          268\n           13.   41          402, 403\n            \"    42, 50      465\n            \"    58          358\n           14.   13          284\n           15.   26          386\n           16.   13-16       402\n            \"    17          304\n            \"    18          433\n            \"    21          317\n            \"    27          403, 468\n            \"    28          273\n           18.   6           478\n            \"    8           465\n            \"    20          404\n           19.   12          399\n            \"    26          32\n            \"    28          403\n           20.   28          402\n           21.   43          273\n           22.   11          400\n            \"    14          261\n            \"    17          272\n           23.   37          283\n           24.   3, 29       274\n            \"    16          274\n            \"    30          403\n            \"    31          402\n            \"    36          281\n           25.   31-46       403\n            \"    41, 46      465\n           26.   28          402\n            \"    39          32\n            \"    52          386\n            \"    61          284\n            \"    62          378\n            \"    64          403\n            \"    65          412\n           27.   8           274\n            \"    14          378\n           27.   43          390\n            \"    63-64       303\n           28.   4, 11       311\n            \"    16, 7, 10   313\n            \"    9           337\n            \"    10, 19      386\n            \"    15          274, 337\n            \"    17          334\n            \"    18          402\n            \"    19, 20      404\n            \"    19          262, 281, 433, 461\n\n           MARK.\n\n            1.   3           407\n            \"    5           368\n            \"    11          268\n            \"    14-20       278\n            \"    20          285\n            \"    34          355\n            \"    42          356\n            2.   10          350\n            3.   1-5         359\n            \"    10          355\n            \"    12          358\n            \"    22          367\n            \"    28, 29      460\n            \"    29          465\n            5.   11-13       352\n            \"    39          358\n            \"    41          354\n            \"    42          361\n            \"    43          358\n            6.   5-6         358\n            \"    31          284\n            \"    56          355\n            7.   34          354\n            \"    36          358\n            \"    37          361\n            9.   1           273\n            \"    31          317\n            \"    48          465\n           10.   18          405\n           10.   24          378\n            \"    45          402\n           11.   10          366\n           12.   29          460\n           13.   7, 10       273\n            \"    13          433\n            \"    14          274\n            \"    24          274\n            \"    32          281, 405\n           14.   9           273\n            \"    24          402\n            \"    28          311\n            \"    51          275\n            \"    58          284\n            \"    64          412\n           16.   7           313\n            \"    8           311\n            \"    11          312\n            \"    11-14       334\n            \"    13          312\n            \"    14          322\n            \"    15          433\n            \"    16          477\n            \"    17          359\n\n           LUKE.\n\n            1.   1           276\n            \"    1-4         271\n            \"    2-3         272\n            \"    3           295,313\n            \"    25          311\n            2.   2           266\n            \"    52          405\n            3.   1           268\n            \"    4           407\n            \"    22          268\n            5.   17-21       360\n            \"    25          356\n            6.   36-38       261\n            7.   14          357\n            \"    22          283, 350\n            8.   32-33       352\n            \"    55          356\n            9.   10          284\n            \"    27          273\n           10.   13-15       350\n            \"    21, 22      281\n            \"    22          402\n            \"    38          283\n           11.   15          367\n            \"    31          268\n           13.               453\n            \"    10-17       359\n            \"    34          283\n           14.   21-22       309\n           16.   8           399\n           17.   1-2         261\n           18.   33          317\n            \"    42          358\n            \"    43          356\n           19.   37          283\n            \"    37-38       392\n            \"    43          299\n           21.   21          274\n            \"    24          273\n            \"    27          274\n           22.   19          402\n            \"    71          412\n           24.   4, 23       311\n            \"    9, 33       322\n            \"    11          311\n            \"    11, 37      334\n            \"    12          318\n            \"    18          276\n            \"    24          318\n            \"    30, 43      337\n            \"    34          312, 313, 321\n            \"    41          322\n            \"    39          261\n\n           JOHN.\n\n            1.   1           286, 407\n            \"    3           409\n            \"    14          277\n            \"    29-2, 12    278\n            \"    29, 36      286\n            \"    40          276\n            \"    46          377\n            2.   11          360\n            \"    13          280\n            \"    17, 22      278\n            \"    19          284\n            \"    19-21       317\n            3.   13          404\n            \"    16          476\n            \"    24          281\n            4.   27          278\n            5.   1           280\n            \"    2           277\n            \"    9           356\n            \"    9-16        359\n            \"    18          411\n            5.   23          403\n            \"    27          473\n            \"    36          350\n            6.   4           280, 284\n            \"    15          366\n            \"    38          404\n            \"    42, 70      281\n            \"    51          472\n            \"    62          314\n            7.   5           325\n            8.   12          434\n            \"    24          477\n            \"    29          401\n            \"    58          404\n            \"    59          411\n            9.   8-34        353\n            \"    13-34       362\n            \"    14-16       359\n            \"    32          361\n           10.   18          241, 381\n            \"    30          404\n            \"    33          411\n           11.   8           411\n            \"    11          358\n            \"    47          362\n           12.   32          434\n            \"    45          404\n           13.   28          278\n           14.   1, 23       403\n            \"    9           404\n            \"    16, 26      460\n            \"    28          406\n           15.   26          460\n           16.   7           403\n            \"    17          278\n            \"    28          404\n           17.   5           404\n            \"    21          404\n           18.   15          276, 285\n           19.   7           412\n            \"    28-30       385\n            \"    34          343\n            \"    35          277\n           20.   2, 13       318\n            \"    6-8         318\n            \"    17          314, 406\n            \"    25          334\n            \"    26          303\n            \"    28          407\n            \"    30          306, 313\n            \"    31          282\n           21.   5           378\n           21.   12          322\n            \"    13          337\n            \"    15          322\n\n           ACTS.\n\n            1.   1           419\n            \"    1-13        307\n            \"    3           296, 306, 310, 327\n            \"    6           309\n            \"    8           321\n            \"    13          275\n            \"    15          307\n            \"    22          303, 309, 322\n            \"    22-23       307\n            2.   22          362, 407\n            \"    24          302\n            \"    31          303\n            \"    38          462\n            \"    41          338\n            \"    43-47       386\n            3.   6           408\n            \"    13          383\n            \"    15          379, 344\n            \"    21          296\n            4.   5-22        362\n            \"    10          302, 408\n            \"    12          477\n            \"    16          362\n            \"    37          275\n            5.   3, 4        460\n            \"    30          302\n            \"    37          267\n            6.   5           295\n            7.   59          408\n            8.   5, 26, 40   295\n            \"    16          462\n            9.   7           339\n            \"    10          332\n           10.   10          332\n            \"    30          333\n            \"    38          362\n            \"    40          302\n            \"    41          337, 348\n           11.   5           333\n           12.   1           289\n            \"    12          275\n           13.   1           419\n            \"    7           288\n            \"    30          302\n            \"    31          306, 310, 315\n            \"    35-37       303\n           14.   1-12        291\n           15.   7, 14       322\n           16.   9           332\n            \"    9-40        294\n            \"    18, 26      362\n            \"    31          477\n           17.   6           290\n            \"    17          418\n            \"    19, 32      456\n            \"    28          109\n            \"    31          302\n            \"    34          419\n           18.   8, 24       419\n            \"    12          289\n            \"    25          462\n           19.   3           461\n            \"    9-10        418\n            \"    21          293\n            \"    29-39       292\n            \"    38          289\n           20.   2           294\n            \"    5-21, 18    294\n            \"    25, 38      299\n            \"    28          408\n           21.   10          295\n            \"    18          272\n           22.   9           339\n            \"    17          333\n           23.   26          289, 419\n           24.   3           419\n            \"    17          293\n           25.   13, 14, 23  290\n            \"    26          289\n           26.   23          302\n            \"    8           456\n            \"    19, 8       304\n            \"    13, 14      339\n            \"    23          245\n            \"    30          289\n           27.   1-28, 16    294\n           28.   6, 8, 9     362\n            \"    7           290\n            \"    25          460\n\n           ROMANS.\n\n            2.   6           468\n            6.   23          472\n            8.   26          460\n            \"    8, 29       78\n            \"    35          328\n            9.   5           410\n           10.   9           477\n           13.   4           386\n           14.   9           410\n            \"    10          410\n           15.   18, 19      363\n            \"    19          294\n            \"    25, 26      293\n            \"    30          463\n           16.   23          419\n\n           I. CORINTHIANS.\n\n            1.   23          417\n            2.   8           405\n            \"    10          460\n            4.   9-13        328\n            6.   12          479\n            8.   4           460\n            8.   6           410\n            9.   1           303, 333\n           10.   2           462\n           12.   9-10, 28    370\n           15.   1-3         306\n            \"    3           410\n            \"    4           303\n            \"    3-5         304\n            \"    5           322\n            \"    8           333\n            \"    11          306, 314\n            \"    14-17       303\n            \"    15          329\n            \"    20          245\n            \"    50          304\n           16.   23          462\n\n           II. CORINTHIANS.\n\n            3.   17          460\n            5.   10          410\n            \"    16          302\n            \"    21          410\n            8.   18          300\n           11.   24-27       328\n           12.   12          363\n           13.   14          462\n\n           GALATIANS.\n\n            1.   8-9         474\n            \"    13          328\n            \"    16          304\n            \"    16-17       333\n            \"    19          306, 409\n            \"    23          409\n            2.   2           409\n            3.   13          377\n            \"    28          427\n            4.   4           239\n            6.   18          462\n\n           EPHESIANS.\n\n            4.   4-6         410, 463\n            6.   12          304\n            \"    23          462\n\n           PHILIPPIANS.\n\n            2.   6           410\n            4.   3           260\n\n           COLOSSIANS.\n\n            1.   15-16       409\n            \"    17          109\n            \"    18          245\n            \"    20          471\n            2.   9           410\n            4.   10          275\n            \"    14          296\n\n           I THESSALONIANS.\n\n            1.   3-5         463\n\n           I TIMOTHY.\n\n            1.   13          479\n            4.   10          471\n\n           II TIMOTHY.\n\n            1.   13          475\n            4.   7           476\n            \"    11          296\n            \"    20          299\n\n           TITUS.\n\n            2.   13          410\n\n           PHILEMON.\n\n                 24          296\n\n           HEBREWS.\n\n            1.   3           404\n            \"    8           410\n            9.   14          460\n\n           I PETER.\n\n            1.   2           463\n            \"    19          477\n            4.   14          434\n\n           II PETER.\n\n            3.   10          437\n\n           I JOHN.\n\n            1.   1           277, 286\n            2.   2           471\n            4.   2-3         478\n\n           JUDE.\n\n                 20-21       463\n\n           REVELATION.\n\n            1.   5           245\n            \"    17, 18      408\n            \"    18          344\n            2.   8           408\n            \"    13, 25      475\n            3.   11          475\n            \"    14          409\n            5.   11-14       408\n            \"    13          471\n            6.   1           286\n           13.   18          255\n           14.   1           286\n            \"    11          465\n           17.   6           298\n           19.   13          286\n           20.   15          465\n           22.   13          408\n\n\n\n\nINDEX OF SUBJECTS.\n\n\n                    PAGE\n\n    Abila, inscription at, 268\n    Abraham, trust in God, 205, 210\n      ---- promises to, 374\n    Account of creation, 117\n    Acts of Apostles, 287\n      ---- accuracy, 288\n      ---- authorship, 294\n      ---- medical language, 296\n      ---- date, 297\n      ---- and Christ's Divinity, 407\n      ---- of Pilate, 365\n    Adam and Eve, 132\n    Additions to Pentateuch, 159\n    Agreements, undesigned, 168\n      ---- in Gospels, 315\n    Agrippa, called King, 289\n    Amalek, threat against, 164\n    Ambition, the great, 451\n    Amos, 160\n    Analogies and illustrations:\n      ---- watch showing design, 12\n      ---- mass of machinery, 22\n      ---- house and tenant, 31\n      ---- ship in distress, 36\n      ---- king and child, 67\n      ---- bird in egg, 89\n      ---- telegraph clerk, 91\n      ---- Mont Cenis tunnel, 102\n      ---- telephone, 105\n      ---- clock and magnet, 107\n      ---- artist and pictures, 126\n      ---- diseases of Normandy, 148\n      ---- similar letters, 227\n      ---- man's nature, 232\n      ---- parents and children, 234\n      ---- paying a debt, 242\n      ---- regiments crossing, 245\n      ---- whirlpool, 248\n      ---- Indian Mutiny, 299\n      ---- ingenious robbery, 399\n      ---- founding a religion, 416\n      ---- going for a holiday, 439\n      ---- prayer to a father, 441\n      ---- trees and storm, 447\n      ---- key fitting lock, 450\n      ---- planting a flower, 466\n      ---- quicksands, 474\n      ---- doctor and fever, 474\n      ---- scarlet fever, 482\n      ---- long frontier line, 484\n    Angels, their existence, 202\n      ---- their influence, 203\n      ---- at tomb, 310, 345\n      ---- seen by the women, 310\n      ---- and by soldiers, 311\n      ---- not fellow-creators, 394\n      ---- seeing and hearing, 202\n      ---- are Christ's angels, 402\n      ---- casting out evil, 351\n    Animals, their creation, 131\n      ---- difference from man, 51\n      ---- cannot know man, 227\n      ---- not immortal, 91\n      ---- their sufferings, 69\n    Antioch, inscription at, 267\n    Antiquity of man, 132\n    Apocryphal Gospels, 354\n    Apollos of Alexandria, 418\n    Apostasy, under trial, 475\n    Apostolic Fathers, 260\n    Aramaic words of Christ, 354\n    Arch\u00e6ology and O. Test, 172\n    Arianism, 475\n    Aristides, 259, 364\n    Aristion, 258, 305\n    Ark, 147\n    Arm of the Lord, 377\n    Artist and pictures, 126\n    Ascension, the, 314\n      ---- and early converts, 344\n    Ashdod, taken by Sargon, 176\n    Assyria, prophecies as to, 187\n      ---- army destroyed, 184\n    Athanasian Creed, warnings, 473\n    Athanasian Creed, implies persecution, 475\n      ---- dogmatism, 479\n    Atonement, doctrine of, 240\n      ---- prophecies as to, 379\n      ---- and human nature, 447\n      ---- and other religions, 454\n\n    Baal and Jehovah, 183\n    Baalbec, inscription at, 268\n    Babylonia, prophecies, 187\n      ---- messengers from, 197\n    Baker, the chief, 140\n    Baptismal formula, 461\n      ---- witness of St. Paul, 461\n      ---- of Teaching, 262, 461\n    Baptist (see John), 279\n    Barnabas, epistle of, 261\n    Bashan, bulls of, 385\n    Battering-rams, 192\n    Beauterne as to Napoleon, 251\n    Bees, cells of, 52\n      ---- not due to heredity, 53\n    Belief, importance of true, 473\n      ---- virtue not necessity, 487\n    Belshazzar, 174\n    Beneficence in nature, 59\n      ---- and righteousness, 80\n      ---- in Jewish Religion, 214\n      ---- and in Christian, 242\n    Bernice, 290\n    Berosus, as to Nabonidus, 174\n      ---- as to Sennacherib, 185\n    Bethany, 283\n    Bethel, altar at, 196\n    Bethesda, pool at, 277\n    Bethlehem, Birth at, 391\n    'Beyond Jordan', 156\n    Bible, mistakes in O. Test., 170\n      ---- in N. Test., 268\n      ---- inspiration, 437\n    Bible and Nat. Religion, 200\n    Blasphemy against Spirit, 460\n      ---- Christ charged with, 412\n    Blood and water, 343, 385\n    Book of the Law, 162\n    Books buried in temples, 163\n    Bread, miracle as to, 108\n    Bricks with straw, 144\n    Brotherhood of man, 48\n    Butler, 431\n    By-product, pain is a, 60\n\n    C\u00e6sar, no early MSS., 253\n    C\u00e6sarea, Philip at, 295\n    Calmness of Evangelists, 317\n    Canaan, its peculiarities, 148\n    Canaanites destroyed, 209\n      ---- but done gradually, 163\n    Cannibalism at Jerusalem, 192\n    Capernaum, centurion at, 360\n    Cats and mice, 70\n    Cause, must be free, 33\n    Cells of bees, 52\n      ---- built by workers, 53\n    Celsus, Christ's miracles, 367\n    Cenis, tunnel in Mont, 102\n    Census of Israelites, 171\n      ---- at Christ's birth, 266\n    Centurion at Capernaum, 360\n    Certainty not necessity, 27\n    Chabas, 143\n    Chance, really impossible, 21\n    Change of place in Acts I, 310\n    Changelessness, moral, 111\n    Character of God, 58\n      ---- of man, 39\n      ---- its permanence, 88\n    Chiefman of Malta, 290, 361\n    Child of God, man is a, 236\n    Child's belief, 478\n      ---- temptations, 87\n    Chorazin, its significance, 350\n    Christ, His character, 396\n      ---- teaching, 397\n      ---- sinlessness, 400\n      ---- in Old Test, 380, 388\n      ---- always pleasing God, 401\n      ---- claims, 401\n      ---- sufferings unmerited, 241\n      ---- His temptations, 447\n      ---- foretold Resurrection, 317\n      ---- beginning of creation, 409\n      ---- seeing Him seeing God, 404\n      ---- influence in world, 434\n      ---- prophecies as to, 374\n      ---- the perfect Example, 236\n      ---- the Jewish Messiah, 375\n      ---- the Paschal Lamb, 380\n      ---- the One Mediator, 454\n      ---- the only Saviour, 476\n      ---- (see Divinity), 403, 459\n    Christiana, sand storm, 146\n    Christianity, meaning of, 3, 221\n      ---- its leading doctrines, 222\n      ---- its improbability, 249, 488\n    Christianity, preparation for, 422\n      ---- based on miracles, 435\n      ---- and the Resurrection, 302\n      ---- its early triumphs, 416\n      ---- its later history, 425\n      ---- effect on world, 426\n      ---- future prospects, 430\n      ---- its indestructibility, 432\n      ---- and prayer, 437\n      ---- and human nature, 445\n      ---- and other religions, 452\n      ---- its evidences, 483\n      ---- unspeakable grandeur, 485\n      ---- no half measures, 488\n    Classical writers, miracles, 368\n      ---- no early MSS., 253\n    Clement of Rome, Gospels, 261\n    Cleopas, 276\n    Clock and magnet, 107\n    Closed questions, 481\n    Coincidences, superhuman, 100\n    Communion, Holy, 386, 402\n    Conscience, man has a, 50\n      ---- the Voice of God, 50\n    Conservation of energy, 46\n    Constantine's vision, 335\n    Conversion, St. Paul's, 306\n      ---- effect on companions, 339\n      ---- Christ unrecognised, 340\n    Converts, early, 418\n    Crabs, and sense of pain, 70\n    Creation, 4\n      ---- account of, in Genesis, 117\n      ---- days of, 119\n      ---- on three occasions, 123, 136\n      ---- and evolution, 24\n    Creator, meaning of term, 8\n    Credentials, of messenger, 98\n    Credible, meaning of, 99\n    Creeping things, 131\n    Crispus of Corinth, 418\n    Crucifixion, Psalm of the, 384\n      ---- no Jewish punishment, 388\n    Cyprus, proconsul at, 288\n    Cyrenius (see Quirinius), 266\n\n    Damnatory clauses, 473\n    Dana on Genesis I, 136\n    Daniel, Book of, 174\n    Darkness over land, 368\n    Darwin, 71\n    David, his character, 208\n      ---- not subject of Ps. 22, 388\n    Days of creation, 119\n    Dead body of Christ, 337\n      ---- offerings for, 147\n    Death, 448\n    Decalogue, its excellence, 211\n      ---- preserved in temple, 215\n    Definitions, credible, 99\n      ---- design, 10\n      ---- dogmatism, 479\n      ---- evolution, 20\n      ---- free force, 4\n      ---- instinct, 52\n      ---- law of nature, 19\n      ---- material universe, 4\n      ---- miracles, 101\n      ---- natural force, 20\n      ---- omnipotence, 32\n      ---- omniscience, 32\n      ---- origin, 4\n      ---- personal being, 30\n      ---- revelation, 82\n      ---- supernatural force, 9\n    Degradation of energy, 7\n    Delphi, inscription at, 289\n    Demoniacal possession, 351\n    Desert, of Shur, 143\n      ---- laws suitable for, 149\n      ---- journeys in, 165\n      ---- wind, 145\n    Design, meaning of, 10\n      ---- evidence in a watch, 12\n      ---- in an eye, 14\n      ---- throughout nature, 18\n      ---- beneficent, 59\n      ---- need not be desire, 74\n      ---- man can, 47\n      ---- animals cannot, 52\n      ---- and instinct, 52\n    Destruction of Canaanites, 209\n      ---- done gradually, 163\n      ---- of wicked, 471\n    Determinism, 43\n    Deuteronomy, finding of, 162\n    Dial, shadow on, 196\n    Diana of Ephesus, 292\n    Diatessaron of Tatian, 257\n    Diet in Egypt, 147\n    Difficulties not explained\n      ---- as to Adam and Eve, 132\n      ---- number of Israelites, 171\n      ---- swine at Gadara, 352\n      ---- vows in Ps. 22, 386\n      ---- virginity, 399\n    Difficulties, endless misery, 470\n      ---- known and unknown, 494\n    Dionysius the Areopagite, 418\n    Discoveries, modern, 172\n    Discrepancies in Gospels, 268\n      ---- in Fourth Gospel, 282\n      ---- as to Resurrection, 309\n      ---- essential agreement, 315\n    Diseases of Egypt, 148, 193\n    Dishonesty in E, J, P, and D, 158\n    Dispersion of Jews, 189, 217\n    Divinity of Christ, 403, 459\n      ---- witness of Synoptists, 407\n      ---- of St. John, 407\n      ---- of Acts, 407\n      ---- of Revelation, 408\n      ---- of St. Paul's Epistles, 409\n      ---- of Hebrews, 410\n      ---- of Aristides, 365\n      ---- of Christ's foes, 411\n      ---- of Pliny, 418\n      ---- of Jewish prophecies, 390\n      ---- of Holy Spirit, 459\n    Dogmatism, objection to, 479\n    Dogs, term for Gentiles, 385\n    Doors of the sea, 126\n    Doubts of Resurrection, 334\n    Dreams, 92\n      ---- of Pharaoh, 140\n    Driver, 157, 159\n    Dry land, appearance of, 127\n    Dualism in old religions, 119\n      ---- unknown to Jews, 213\n      ---- and endless misery, 466\n\n    Eagle, Roman ensign, 191\n    Earth likened to machine, 22\n    Earthquakes, 74\n    Edersheim and Isaiah, 53, 381\n      ---- and Psalm 22, 387\n    Edomite kings, list of,     159\n    Effect, the world is an, 37\n    Egypt, prophecies as to, 188\n      ---- magicians of, 182\n      ---- diseases of, 148, 193\n      ---- gods of, 146\n      ---- religion of, 454\n      ---- and the Pentateuch, 138\n      ---- return of Jews to, 194\n      ---- periodical census, 267\n    Elephantine, temple at, 162\n    Eleven, the, ancient term, 322\n    Elijah's sacrifice, 100, 183\n    Elisha, trivial miracles of, 181\n    Elohim, plural word, 393\n    Embalming Christ's body, 334\n    Emperor called lord, 289\n    Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, 15, 53\n    End of the world, 437\n    Endless happiness, 470\n      ---- misery, 464\n    Enemies, doing good to, 211\n    Energy, degradation of, 7\n      ---- conservation of, 46\n    Ephesus, riot at, 292\n      ---- St. Paul's discussions, 418\n      ---- farewell to friends, 299\n    Epistles of St. Paul, four admittedly genuine, 282\n      ---- accuracy of Acts, 293\n      ---- the Resurrection, 303\n      ---- St. Paul's sufferings, 328\n      ---- Christian miracles, 363\n      ---- Divinity of Christ, 410\n      ---- doctrine of Trinity, 462\n      ---- spread of Christianity, 418\n    Erastus of Corinth, 418\n    Erech, inscription at, 174\n    Erect position, man's, 65\n    Eternal punishment, 464\n    Eternity, 450\n    Ether, 226, 246\n    Euclid, 40\n    Eusebius, as to Papias, 259\n      ---- Quadratus, 364\n      ---- Jews going to Pella, 275\n    Evangelists educated, 275\n      ---- had known Christ, 302\n    Everlasting Father and Son, 225\n      ---- in Isaiah, 391\n    Everyone's work no one's, 348\n    Evidences, Christian, 483\n    Evil, existence of, 69\n      ---- physical, 69, 72\n      ---- moral, 75\n      ---- Jewish idea of, 213\n      ---- men, 77\n      ---- spirits, 351\n    Evolution, meaning of, 20\n      ---- requires a Cause, 7\n      ---- requires a Designer, 23\n      ---- requires a motive, 84\n      ---- implies involution, 23\n    Evolution and mind, 65\n      ---- and immortality, 85\n      ---- a form of creation, 24\n      ---- leads up to man, 65\n      ---- and the Incarnation, 239\n      ---- in revelation, 93, 206\n      ---- in prophecies, 375\n      ---- in account of Creation, 122\n    Experience and miracles, 103\n    Eye, its marks of design, 14\n      ---- shows beneficence, 59\n    Ezekiel, prophecy of Egypt, 188\n\n    Faith, faculty of, 485\n      ---- and miracles, 358\n    Falsehood Theory, the, 326\n      ---- not now adopted, 329\n    Famines in Egypt, 141\n      ---- at Jerusalem, 192\n    Farewell, Christ's double, 309\n    Feeding the 5,000 credible, 108\n      ---- in triple tradition, 269\n      ---- undesigned coincidence, 284\n      ---- public miracle, 361\n      ---- rationalistic view, 370\n    Feet pierced, 343\n    Felix and Festus, 289\n    'Fellow,' meaning of, 392\n    Fellowship and personality, 229\n    Fig-tree, the barren, 354\n    Final state of wicked, 463\n    Firmament, or expanse, 125\n    Firstborn from dead, 245\n      ---- of Creation, 409\n      ---- death of the, 146\n    First Cause single, 8\n      ---- supernatural, 9\n      ---- needed no cause, 8\n    First Witnesses, the, 325\n    Fishes and birds, 130\n    Five hundred, appearance, 307\n      ---- explains Gospels, 321\n    Flesh and blood, 304\n    Flood, parallel passages, 159\n    Forces and causes, 33\n    Foreknowledge, free will, 26\n      ---- and omniscience, 32\n      ---- and prophecies, 99\n      ---- and prayer, 439\n      ---- and endless misery, 468\n      ---- differs from foresight, 11\n      ---- from foreordaining, 78\n      ---- in man, foreguessing, 26\n    Forgiveness of sins, 242\n    Fourth Gospel, authorship, 277\n      ---- and other three, 280\n      ---- and Revelation, 285\n    Free force, meaning of a, 4\n    Free will, foreknowledge, 26\n      ---- of man, 43\n      ---- of animals, 52\n      ---- of angels, 203\n      ---- source of all force, 46\n      ---- its introduction, 123\n      ---- makes evil possible, 76\n      ---- difficulties as to, 466\n      ---- in religious belief, 487\n    Fruit-trees making fruit, 122\n    Fulfilled among us, 276\n    Future life (_see_ Immortality and Resurrection).\n\n    Gabriel, man and angel, 311\n    Gadara, miracle at, 269, 352\n    Galilee, appearance in, 307\n    Gallio, proconsul, 289\n    Generations, meaning, 122\n    Genesis, the Creation in, 117\n      ---- refers to Egypt, 138\n      ---- partly written there, 142\n    Gentiles, conversion, 380, 388, 393\n      ---- called dogs, 385\n    Geography of Palestine, 173\n    Gibbon and Christianity, 420\n    Gifts brought to the altar, 272\n    God, meaning of term, 30\n      ---- argument from causation, 4\n      ---- from design, 10\n      ---- moral argument, 58\n      ---- three combined, 81, 229\n      ---- no physical proof, 31\n      ---- a Personal Being, 30\n      ---- who loves man, 234\n      ---- Power, 32, 213, 228, 440, 465\n      ---- Wisdom 32, 213, 228, 441\n      ---- Goodness, 79, 214, 228, 242, 441\n      ---- bearing on miracles, 112\n      ---- and on the Trinity, 229\n      ---- emphasized by Christianity, 235\n      ---- three attributes combined, 80, 112, 199, 235, 488\n      ---- Justice, 204, 466\n    God, and Mercy, 468\n      ---- bearing on Atonement, 241\n      ---- Love, 229\n      ---- bearing on Trinity, 229\n      ---- Greatness, 61\n      ---- Omnipresence, 33, 213\n      ---- Unknowable, 33, 214, 226\n      ---- bearing on revelation, 94\n      ---- Unchangeable, 110, 214\n      ---- bearing on miracles, 110\n      ---- and the Incarnation, 231\n      ---- Omnipotent, 32\n      ---- Eternal, 213\n      ---- Creator of Universe, 8\n      ---- and its Preserver, 33\n      ---- Jewish idea of, 204\n      ---- faith in, 486\n      ---- (_see_ Immanence)\n      ---- (_see_ Trinity)\n    Goodness, God's, 80, 214, 228\n      ---- not below man's, 80, 235\n      ---- man's, 48\n      ---- depends on free will, 76\n      ---- its infinite value, 76\n    Gospels, the Four, 252\n      ---- external testimony, 252\n      ---- internal evidence, 265\n      ---- evidence of Acts, 287\n      ---- probable date, 300\n      ---- (_see_ Synoptics, Fourth)\n    Governor, title of, 289\n    Grape-juice in Egypt, 140\n    Grave-clothes at tomb, 345\n      ---- by themselves, 318\n    Gravity, force, universal, 8\n      ---- known by effects, 35\n      ---- an assumption, 46\n    Great ambition, 451\n      ---- alternative, 413\n      ---- surprise, 449\n    Greek philosophy, 423\n    Green grass, mentioned, 284\n    Guard at the tomb, 337\n\n    Harnack, unity of Acts, 295\n      ---- date of Gospels, 300\n      ---- as to Town Clerk, 292\n    Healing, gifts of, 370\n    Hebrews, Christ's Divinity, 410\n      ---- land of the, 156\n    Hengstenberg, 387\n    Herod, Agrippa, death of, 288\n    Herod, called king, 289\n    Hezekiah, his sickness, 196\n      ---- not subject of Ps. 22, 388\n    Hittites, 174\n    Holy Communion, 386, 402\n    Holy Spirit, the, 230\n      ---- Divinity of, 459\n    Horses, time of Joseph, 141\n    Horus myth, and Christ, 454\n    Human sacrifices in O.T., 210\n      ---- and Atonement, 240\n    Hume on experience, 104\n    Hurtful organs in nature, 59\n    Huxley on the Creeds, 249\n\n    Iconium, 291\n    Ignatius, 261\n      ---- knowing, believing, 263\n    Illusions, not simultaneous, 335\n    Illyricum, 293\n    Image and likeness, 134\n    Immanence, God's, 109\n      ---- and Evolution, 23\n      ---- and secondary forces, 33\n      ---- and miracles, 109\n      ---- and the Incarnation, 239\n      ---- and prayer, 440\n    Immortality, man's, 83\n      ---- from unique position, 84\n      ---- unjust treatment, 87\n      ---- vast capabilities, 88\n      ---- inherent belief, 90\n      ---- counter-arguments, 91\n      ---- and human nature, 448\n      ---- in Egyptian religion, 455\n    Incarnation, doctrine of, 230\n      ---- its difficulties, 231\n      ---- its motive, 233\n      ---- historical position, 238\n      ---- and evolution, 239\n      ---- and human nature, 447\n      ---- and other religions, 452\n    Indian Mutiny, 299\n    Infinitely little, 64\n    Inhabitants, other planets, 67\n    Inherent convictions, man's, 39\n      ---- as to mind, 41\n      ---- free will, 44\n      ---- responsibility, 47\n      ---- sin, 48\n      ---- immortality, 90\n      ---- prayer, 438\n    Inscriptions at Erech, 174\n    Inscriptions, at Mugheir, 174\n      ----Khorsabad, 176\n      ---- Tivoli, 266\n      ---- Antioch, 267\n      ---- Baalbec, 268\n      ---- Abila, 268\n      ---- Soli, Cyprus, 289\n      ---- Delphi, 289\n      ---- Malta, 290\n      ---- Thessalonica, 290\n      ---- Lystra, 291\n      ---- Ephesus, 292\n    Insignificance of man, 60\n      ---- counter-arguments, 61\n      ---- real importance, 64\n    Instincts of animals, 52\n    Invertebrates, in Genesis, 131\n    Involution and evolution, 23\n    Iren\u00e6us and Gospels, 254\n      ---- Polycarp, 254\n      ---- Papias, 258\n      ---- date of Revelation, 285\n      ---- value of prophecy, 367\n    Isaac, sacrifice of, 210\n    Isaiah, mentions Sargon, 176\n      ---- test of a prophet, 199\n      ---- prophecy of Babylon, 187\n      ---- of Jerusalem, 196\n      ---- of the Messiah, 377\n      ---- of His Divinity, 391\n      ---- implies the Trinity, 394\n    Israel, God's selection of, 204\n      ---- going through cities of, 273\n    Israelites, great number, 171\n\n    Jacob's character, 208\n    Jairus' daughter, 353, 358, 360\n    James, St., Christ's brother, 272\n      ---- unbeliever, 325\n    Japan, becoming Christian, 430\n    Jehovah adored by millions, 218\n      ---- identified with Christ, 407\n      ---- and with Holy Spirit, 460\n    Jehu not son of Omri, 176\n    Jephthah's daughter, 210\n    Jericho, discoveries at, 173\n    Jeroboam's rebellion, 195\n    Jerusalem, first destruction foretold, 196\n      ---- accuracy of date, 177\n      ---- and second, 191, 274\n      ---- later than Gospels, 275\n    Jerusalem, later than Acts, 299\n      ---- hint to leave, 274\n    Jewish Prophecies, Egypt, 188\n      ---- Assyria, 187\n      ---- Babylonia, 187\n      ---- dispersion of Jews, 189\n      ---- the Messiah, 374\n    Jewish Religion, its origin, 137\n      ---- its partiality, 204\n      ---- its miracles, 177\n      ---- its prophecies, 186\n      ---- influence in world, 217\n      ---- and Natural Religion, 216\n    Jews, dispersion of, 189\n      ---- a peculiar people, 217\n      ---- all from one man, 216\n      ---- use of term, 280\n    John, St., his call, 278\n      ---- author of Gospel, 279\n      ---- the Baptist, 279\n      ---- and Christ's miracles, 350\n    Jordan, beyond, 156\n    Joseph in Egypt, 139\n    Josephus, witness to Acts, 289\n      ---- as to Sennacherib, 185\n      ---- as to crucifixion, 342\n      ---- siege of Jerusalem, 191\n      ---- date of the taxing, 266\n    Josiah and Deuteronomy, 162\n    Journeys in Desert, 165\n    Jubilee, year of, 150\n    Judges and Pentateuch, 160\n    Justice, God's, 204, 466\n    Justin, witness to Gospels, 255\n      ---- Book of Revelation, 285\n      ---- guard at tomb, 337\n      ---- Christ's miracles, 365\n      ---- prefers prophecy, 365\n      ---- the Name, persecuted, 434\n      ---- Acts of Pilate, 365\n\n    King of the Jews, 392\n    Kings did not use plural, 393\n    Korah, rebellion of, 169\n    Koran, Christ's miracles, 424\n      ---- authorises force, 428\n    Krishna myth, and Christ, 452\n\n    Lamb of God, 286\n      ---- Paschal, 380\n    Land animals, 131\n    Laws, of nature, 19\n      ---- in Pentateuch, 149\n    Laymen offering sacrifice, 162\n    Lazarus, raising of, 370\n      ---- only in one Gospel, 283\n      ---- well-known man, 360\n      ---- case of resuscitation, 245\n    Lecky, on Christ's teaching, 398\n    Legend Theory, the, 329\n      ---- disproved by Gospels, 329\n      ---- and St. Paul's Epistles, 330\n    Legislation, Jewish, 149\n    Levi ben Gershon, 180\n    Levites, 150, 162\n    Life, origin of, in Genesis, 128\n      ---- science and, 122\n      ---- forms three groups, 55\n    Light before the sun, 129\n    Logos in Revelation, 286\n      ---- among Greeks, 423\n    Lord, and God, 407\n      ---- title or emperor, 289\n    Lord's Day, 303\n      ---- Servant, the, 376\n    Lost Gospel, 262\n    Love, of God, 229\n      ---- must be free, 235\n      ---- motive of Religion, 451\n    Luke, St., a doctor, 296\n      ---- wrote Gospel, 275\n      ---- wrote Acts, 294\n      ---- perhaps at Emmaus, 276\n      ---- witnessed miracles, 362\n    Lycaonia, the cities of, 291\n    Lysanias, 268\n    Lystra, inscriptions at, 291\n\n    Magicians of Egypt, 182\n    Magnet and clock, 107\n    Mohammedanism, 213\n      ---- unlike Christianity, 424\n      ---- and Christ's miracles, 424\n      ---- authorises force, 428\n    Malchus, 360\n    Malta, title 'chiefman', 290\n    Man, mental attributes, 39\n      ---- moral attributes, 41\n      ---- memory, 41\n      ---- free will, 43\n      ---- responsibility, 47\n      ---- moral sense, 48\n      ---- conscience, 50\n      ---- personal being, 47\n    Man, moral being, 49\n      ---- bearing on Christianity, 239\n      ---- his Unique position, 45, 65\n      ---- due to mind, and spirit, 66\n      ---- greater than stars, 66\n      ---- bearing on revelation, 94\n      ---- each man unique, 62, 133\n      ---- and irreplaceable, 63\n      ---- character, permanent, 88\n      ---- tripartite nature, 55\n      ---- end of creation, 65, 84\n      ---- also its first thought, 66\n      ---- his probation, 85\n      ---- scandal of universe, 244\n      ---- seems insignificant, 60\n      ---- real importance, 64\n      ---- bearing on Incarnation, 239\n      ---- immortality of spirit, 83\n      ---- resurrection of body, 247\n      ---- creation in Genesis, 132\n      ---- not created good, 86, 133\n      ---- antiquity, 132\n      ---- differs from animals, 51\n      ---- his erect position, 65\n      ---- resembles God, 56, 133, 234\n      ---- child of God, 236\n      ---- bearing on Incarnation, 232\n      ---- his ignorance, 6, 17, 34\n      ---- bearing on miracles, 108\n      ---- and on Christianity, 249\n    Manaen, 418\n    Marcion, Luke's Gospel, 257\n    Mardukshazzar, 175\n    Mark, St., wrote Gospel, 275\n      ---- interpreter of Peter, 259\n      ---- earliest of Four, 269\n      ---- at Gethsemane, 275\n      ---- witness to miracles, 355\n      ---- their sitting at meat, 320\n    Martha, 283\n    Mary Magd. first witness, 316\n      ---- not expecting it, 334\n    Material universe, meaning, 4\n    Materialism, 40\n    Materials, same everywhere, 68\n    Matter, perhaps eternal, 6\n      ---- certainly a mystery, 34\n      ---- indestructible, 83\n      ---- not solid, 245\n    Matthew, St., wrote Gospel, 275\n    Mediator, Christ the, 454\n    Medical language in Acts, 296\n    Memory, and materialism, 41\n      ---- in heaven, 470\n    Menephthah, 143\n    Mercy, God's, 468\n    Mesmerism, 351\n    Messiah, Jewish, 374\n    Meteorite, 100, 292\n    Micah, prophecy of, 391\n    Michael, 203\n    Microscope, 64\n    Mill, on Christ's teaching, 397\n    Mind of man, 39\n      ---- shows his importance, 66\n    Miracles, 101\n      ---- as marvels, 103\n      ---- and experience, 103\n      ---- as special works, 106\n      ---- as signs, 110\n      ---- not mere wonders, 101, 103\n      ---- natural means supernaturally applied, 107\n      ---- in Jewish religion, 177\n      ---- to benefit mankind, 200\n      ---- their publicity, 185\n      ---- some seem trivial, 181\n      ---- in Christian religion, 349\n      ---- their credibility, 349\n      ---- not worked to order, 350\n      ---- their truthfulness, 353\n      ---- their naturalness, 355\n      ---- their number, 355\n      ---- their variety, 355\n      ---- their suddenness, 356\n      ---- their permanence, 356\n      ---- order to keep secret, 358\n      ---- on the Sabbath, 359\n      ---- their publicity, 360\n      ---- names often given, 360\n      ---- caused astonishment, 361\n      ---- peculiarity of Christ's, 357\n      ---- conditional on faith, 358\n      ---- publicly admitted, 362\n      ---- St. Peter's appeal to, 362\n      ---- and Acts of Pilate, 365\n      ---- how explained away, 369\n      ---- Apostolic, St. Paul's, 363\n      ---- witnessed by St. Luke, 362\n      ---- in Christ's name, 408\n      ---- helped Christianity, 421\n      ---- Mohammed did none, 424\n    Miracles, not to be prayed for, 443\n      ---- later Christian, 371\n    Missionaries and prayer, 438\n      ---- of the Resurrection, 347\n    Missions, 430\n    Mistakes in O. Test., 170\n      ---- in N. Test., 268\n    Monkey and evolution, 23\n    Monotheism, of Jews, 212\n      ---- in account of creation, 118\n    Moral sense, 48\n      ---- perfection, 67\n      ---- difficulties in O. Test., 208\n      ---- in N. Testament, 399\n    Morality, Christian, 422\n    Moses wrote Pentateuch, 164\n      ---- an Egyptian name, 143\n    Mugheir, inscription at, 174\n    Mutiny, Indian, 299\n    Mutual explanations, 317\n    Myrrh, 345\n\n    Nabonidus, 174\n    Name of Christ persecuted, 434\n    Names, Egyptian, 142\n      ---- of God in O. Test., 158\n      ---- in N. Test. miracles, 360\n      ---- of eminent converts, 418\n      ---- and titles in Acts, 288\n    Napoleon, on Christianity, 251\n    Nathaniel, 279\n    Natural means, supernaturally applied, 107\n    Natural forces, 20\n      ---- Selection, 20\n      ---- Rejection, 21\n      ---- Religion, depends on, probability, 36, 96, 487\n      ---- only partly known, 35\n      ---- in Jewish religion, 216\n      ---- in Egyptian religion, 455\n      ---- in other religions, 457\n      ---- in prehistoric times, 238\n      ---- moral difficulties, 69\n      ---- and the Bible, 200\n      ---- and unity of God, 227\n      ---- leads to Revelation, 39\n    Nature, its unity, 8, 18\n      ---- its laws, 19\n      ---- its forces, 20\n      ---- acting rationally, 100\n      ---- its uniformity, 106\n    Nature, its mysteries, 250\n      ---- its perfection, 61\n      ---- care of individuals, 62\n      ---- a means to an end, 85\n      ---- bearing on miracles, 112\n      ---- immanence in God, 109\n      ---- forgets nothing, 466\n      ---- analogy, as to angels, 202\n      ---- man's future life, 89\n      ---- man's resurrection, 247\n      ---- short probation, 468\n      ---- his destruction, 472\n    Naville, 164\n      ---- unity of Genesis, 142\n    Nazareth, dry ground, 377\n    Nebuchadnezzar, 174, 184\n    Nebula theory, 124\n    Necessity, doctrine of, 43\n      ---- and certainty, 27\n    Nero addressed as Lord, 289\n      ---- his persecution, 298\n    Nineveh, men of, 269\n    Numbers in O. Test., 171\n\n    Obedience and sacrifice, 161\n    Old Testament, genuine, 167\n      ---- alleged mistakes, 170\n      ---- miracles, 177\n      ---- prophecies, 186\n      ---- moral defects, 208\n    Omnipotence, 32, 213\n    Omnipresence, 33, 213\n    Omniscience, 32, 213\n    Origen and Celsus, 367\n    Origin of universe, 4\n      ---- in Genesis, 118\n      ---- of life, 123\n      ---- of Jewish religion, 137\n      ---- of Christian religion, 301\n    Osiris, 454\n\n    Pain, 69, 71\n      ---- not always an evil, 72\n    Paley, watch argument, 11\n    Pantheism, 119\n    Papias as to Gospels, 258\n    Papyri, Egyptian, 271, 289\n    Papyrus used for writing, 253\n    Parables, teaching by, 273\n      ---- some objected to, 399\n      ---- Unrighteous Steward, 399\n      ---- Wedding Garment, 400\n    Partiality in revelation, 95\n    Partiality to Jews, 204\n    Paul, St., conversion, 305, 339\n      ---- teaching not new, 409\n      ---- the two essentials, 476\n      ---- (_see_ Epistles)\n    Peace be unto you, twice, 320\n    Peculiar people, Jews a, 217\n    Pella, Christians go to, 275\n    Pentateuch, importance, 138\n      ---- claims to be Mosaic, 164\n      ---- language, 155\n      ---- Egyptian references, 138\n      ---- laws, 149\n      ---- date and author, 164\n      ---- excellent morality, 211\n      ---- theory of late date, 155\n    Perish, its meaning, 475\n    Persecution for Name, 434\n    Persecutions, religious, 427\n      ---- of Jews, 190\n      ---- of Christians, 328\n      ---- implied in Creed, 475\n    Person, not in N. Test, 460\n    Personal Being, meaning, 30\n      ---- God is a, 30\n      ---- man is a, 47\n      ---- animals are not, 54\n      ---- implies fellowship, 229\n    Persons and things, 67\n    Peter, St., called Simon, 321\n      ---- connection with Mark, 259\n      ---- appeal to miracles, 362, 408\n    Petrie, as to Exodus, 171\n    Peyreyrius, 132\n    Pharaoh's dreams, 140\n      ---- heart hardened, 209\n    Philip, one of the Seven, 295\n    Philippi, gaoler at, 477\n    Philo, days of Genesis, 121\n    Pilate, Acts of, 365\n    Pinches, Book of Daniel, 175\n    Pithom, discoveries at, 144\n    Plagues, the ten, 144\n      ---- superhuman coincidences, 178\n      ---- and magicians, 182\n    Planets, inhabited (?), 67\n      ---- not by sinners (?), 232\n    Pliny, numerous letters, 369\n      ---- spread of Christianity, 418\n      ---- Christ's Divinity, 418\n    Plural of majesty, 393\n      ---- in P and J, 159\n    Politarchs, 290\n    Polycarp of Smyrna, 254\n      ---- witness to Gospels, 261\n    Polytheism, 119, 212\n    Pomponia Gr\u00e6cina, 419\n    Prayer, subject of, 437\n      ---- and experiment, 444\n      ---- and observation, 444\n      ---- a simple, 480\n      ---- after the event, 439\n      ---- for others, 442\n    Pre-existence of Christ, 404\n      ---- in O. Test., 391\n    Prehistoric men, future life, 90, 238\n    Priests and Levites, 162\n    Probability, guide of life, 487\n    Proconsul and other terms, 288\n    Prophecy, credible, 99\n      ---- in Old Testament, 186\n      ---- word of Jehovah, 389\n      ---- as to Christ, 374\n      ---- His Resurrection, 317\n      ---- why not plainer, 394\n      ---- His own influence, 434\n    Prospective organs, 16\n    Psalm of the Crucifixion, 384\n    Publius, chief man, 290, 361\n    Pul of Assyria, 176\n\n    'Q' (Quelle) and Gospels, 270, 350, 361\n    Quadratus, as to miracles, 364\n    Quirinius, his census, 266\n    Quotations, Barnabas, 261\n      ---- Butler, 431\n      ---- Clement, 261\n      ---- Dana, 136\n      ---- Darwin, 71\n      ---- Eusebius, 259, 364\n      ---- Huxley, 249\n      ---- Ignatius, 261\n      ---- Iren\u00e6us, 254\n      ---- Justin, 365\n      ---- Lecky, 398\n      ---- Mill, 397\n      ---- Napoleon, 250\n      ---- Naville, 142\n      ---- Papias, 258\n      ---- Pinches, 175\n      ---- Polycarp, 261\n      ---- Quadratus, 364\n      ---- Ramsay, 272\n      ---- Renan, 397\n      ---- Romanes, 87, 135\n      ---- Teaching of Twelve, 261\n      ---- Wallace, 71\n\n    Radium, 7\n    Ramsey, as to the census, 267\n      ---- Lysanias, 268\n      ---- early Gospels, 272\n      ---- Lycaonia, 291\n    Rationalism, spread of, 430\n      ---- and miracles, 369\n    Rawlinson, 176\n    Reason cannot judge of Christian doctrines, 249\n    Recognition, hereafter, 448\n    Recorders in O. Test., 173\n    Recurring series of events, 5\n    Red Sea, passage of, 178\n    Relics, resurrection of, 248\n    Remorse, 51\n    Renan, raising of Lazarus, 370\n      ---- Christ's character, 397\n    Repentance, 243\n    Responsibility of man, 47\n    Resurrection, doctrine of, 244\n      ---- applies to a body, 303\n      ---- not resuscitation, 245, 323\n      ---- Christ's, 301\n      ---- falsehood theory, 326\n      ---- legend theory, 329\n      ---- vision theory, 331\n      ---- swoon theory, 341\n      ---- wanted missionaries, 347\n      ---- a physical fact, 304\n      ---- not really unique, 245\n      ---- table of appearances, 308\n      ---- three groups, 307\n      ---- the narratives, 305\n      ---- their discrepancies, 309\n      ---- their agreements, 315\n      ---- omissions, 312\n      ---- signs of early date, 321\n      ---- the real difficulty, 346\n      ---- in other religions, 455\n      ---- man's, 247\n      ---- need not be of relics, 248\n      ---- the period of life, 449\n      ---- the great surprise, 449\n      ---- and human nature, 448\n      ---- terms not literal, 464\n    Resuscitation, 245, 323\n    Revelation, meaning of, 82\n      ---- possible, 83\n      ---- probable, 92\n      ---- progressive, 93\n      ---- after writing, 93\n      ---- must be partial, 95, 204\n      ---- evidence inconclusive, 95\n      ---- miraculous, 98\n      ---- Book of, and Gospel, 285\n      ---- Divinity of Christ, 408\n    Risen Body difficulties, 245\n      ---- record of eyewitnesses, 323\n    Roman provinces, 288\n      ---- siege of Jerusalem, 191\n      ---- State and Christians, 298\n    Romanes, man's probation, 87\n      ---- accuracy of Genesis, 135\n\n    Sabbath, miracles on, 359\n    Sacrifices, heathen, 447\n      ---- human, in O. Test., 210\n    Salvation, not selfishness, 451\n    Samaria, date of fall, 177\n    Samuel and Pentateuch, 160\n    Sanctuary, the one, 161\n    Sand-storms and darkness, 146\n    Sargon, named in Isaiah, 176\n    Satan, 203\n    Saurians, 131\n    Secondary forces, 33\n    Secrecy in Christ's miracles, 358\n    Seed, may be disciples, 378, 387\n    Selfishness, objection as to, 451\n    Sennacherib, 184\n    Sentry, pain a kind of, 72\n    Sergius Paulus, 289, 361\n    Servant, the Lord's, 376\n    Seventh day, the, 119\n    Shadow on dial, 196\n    Shaving in Egypt, 141\n    Shepherd, the Lord's, 391\n      ---- kings, foreign, 139\n    Shur, desert of, 143\n    Siege of Jerusalem foretold by Moses, 191\n      ---- and by Christ, 274\n    Signet ring, in Egypt, 141\n    Signs, superhuman, 99\n      ---- supernatural, 101\n    Silence, argument from, 368\n      ---- of sun and moon, 179\n    Simon, shows early date, 321\n    Simultaneous visions, 335\n    Sin, its meaning, 48\n      ---- reason for it, 76\n      ---- necessary for some virtues, 78\n      ---- its universality, 447\n      ---- its remedy, 244\n      ---- eternal, 467\n    Sinai, 147\n    Sinlessness of Christ, 400\n      ---- foretold by Isaiah, 380\n      ---- implied in Ps. 22, 388\n    Slaughter of animals, 150\n    Slavery in early times, 211\n    Soli, inscription at, 289\n    Son of God, means God the Son, 407\n      ---- of Man in Gospels, 281\n    Sorrow, human, 446\n    Sources of Gospels, 269, 413\n    South, Queen of the, 269\n    Spectroscopes, 64\n    Spirit, man's, 55, 66\n      ---- master of body, 91\n    Spiritual beings, 202, 351\n    Standing still of sun, 179\n    Steward, the Unrighteous, 399\n    Stone at Tomb, 336\n    Straw in brick making, 144\n    Struggle for life, 71\n    Substance, meaning of, 222\n    Suetonius, 417\n    Sufferings of animals, 69\n      ---- of men, 72\n      ---- and future happiness, 88\n      ---- of Jews, 190\n      ---- of Christians, 328\n    Sun and moon formation, 129\n      ---- silence of, 179\n    Sunday, 303\n    Superhuman signs, 99\n      ---- coincidences, 100\n      ---- passage of Red Sea, 178\n      ---- destruction of Korah, 169\n      ---- of Assyrian army, 184\n      ---- silence of sun, 179\n      ---- Elijah's sacrifice, 183\n      ---- shadow on dial, 196\n      ---- and prayer, 439\n    Supernatural, force, 9\n      ---- man partly, 45\n      ---- signs, 101\n    Surprise, the great, 449\n    Survival of fittest, 20\n    Swine at Gadara, 269, 352\n    Swoon Theory, the, 341\n    Sword, any violent death, 386\n    Synoptic Gospels, accuracy, 266\n      ---- discrepancies, 266\n      ---- sources, 269\n      ---- ministry in Jud\u00e6a, 282\n      ---- probable date, 272, 300\n      ---- authors, 275\n      ---- and Fourth, 280\n\n    Table of Appearances, 308\n    Tacitus, and Christianity, 417\n      ---- his contempt for it, 368\n    Tatian, the Diatessaron, 257\n    Teaching of Twelve, 261\n      ---- and the Trinity, 461\n    Tel-el-Muskhuta, ruins, 144\n    Telepathy, 40\n    Telephone, 105\n    Telescope and eye, 14\n      ---- discoveries of, 64\n    Ten, Commandments, 211\n      ---- Plagues, 144\n      ---- superhuman coincidences, 178\n      ---- and the magicians, 182\n    Tertullian, 257\n    Testimony and experience, 104\n      ---- its value, 325\n    Theophilus and Gospel, 275\n      ---- and Acts, 297\n      ---- things taught to, 271\n      ---- prominent convert, 418\n    Thessalonica, politarchs, 290\n    Theudas, date of, 288\n    Third Day, importance, 303\n    Thomas, St., Resurrection, 336\n      ---- Christ's Divinity, 407\n    Thousands or families, 171\n    Three, Creeds, 458\n      ---- men in furnace, 103\n    Tisdall, 453, 456\n    Titles of various rulers, 288\n    Tomb, the empty, 338\n      ---- visit of disciples, 318\n      ---- guard at, 337\n      ---- angels at, 310, 345\n    Town Clerk of Ephesus, 292\n    Trajan, decree of, 267\n    Transfiguration, 270\n    Trials here, future reward, 88\n    Trinity, doctrine of the, 222\n      ---- its probability, 228\n      ---- peculiarly Christian, 452\n      ---- hinted at in Old Test., 393\n      ---- contained in N. Test., 459\n      ---- implied by Teaching, 461\n    Triple tradition in Gospels, 269\n    Troelstra, 158\n    True belief, importance, 473\n      ---- a virtue, 487\n\n    Undesigned agreements, 168\n      ---- examples, Korah, 169\n      ---- call of St. John, 278\n      ---- destroying temple, 283\n      ---- feeding the 5,000, 284\n      ---- Acts and Epistles, 293\n      ---- mocking the Crucified, 390\n      ---- baptismal formula, 461\n    Uniformity of nature, 106\n      ---- and prayer, 438\n    Uniqueness of man, 65\n      ---- of each man, 62\n      ---- of the Incarnation, 233\n    Unitarianism, 228\n    Unity of nature, 8\n    Universalism, 470\n    Universe, its origin, 4, 118\n      ---- its magnitude, 64\n      ---- bearing on man, 60\n      ---- an effect, 37\n    Unknowable, everything is, 34\n    Unrighteous Steward, 399\n\n    Vellum used for writing, 253\n    Veracity of the witnesses, 326\n    Verbal inspiration, 437\n    Vessels of wood, 145\n    Vesuvius, eruption of, 74\n    'Victoria Institute,' pain, 70\n      ---- Pithom, 144\n      ---- Belshazzar, 175\n      ---- Red Sea, 179\n      ---- earliest Gospel, 272\n      ---- Horus myth, 455\n      ---- Krishna myth, 453\n    Virgin Birth, unique, 233\n      ---- and Aristides, 365\n      ---- not said of Krishna, 452\n    Virtue, the highest, 78, 211\n    Vision Theory, the, 331\n      ---- arguments in favour, 332\n      ---- arguments against, 332\n      ---- does not explain facts, 336\n      ---- real visions, 340\n    Voice from heaven, 268\n    Voyage, St. Paul's, 294\n\n    Walking on sea, Christ's, 370\n    Wallace, 71\n    Warnings of the Creed, 473\n    Wars of the Lord, quoted, 159\n    Waste and void, in Gen., 124\n    Waste in nature, 68\n    Watch showing design, 12\n    Water-wheels, Egyptian, 149\n    'We' sections of Acts, 294\n    Wedding Garment, the, 400\n    West, use of term, 156\n    Wheat, several ears, 140\n    Whirlpool, 248\n    Wicked men, their use, 77\n      ---- not machines, 48\n      ---- final state, 463\n    Will, man's, its action, 42, 45\n      ---- its freedom, 43\n    Windows of heaven, 126\n    Wisdom, God's, 32, 213, 441\n    Word or Logos in Revelation, 286\n      ---- among Greeks, 423\n    World, creation of the, 4, 117\n      ---- end of the, 437\n    Wounded means pierced, 377\n    Writing, early use of, 138, 172\n      ---- wanted for revelation, 93\n\n    X-rays, 246\n\n    Zeal of early Christians, 420\n    Zebulon, prophecy as to, 391\n    Zechariah, prophecies of, 392\n    Zeus and Hermes, 291\n\n\n  PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN. WELLS GARDNER, DARTON AND CO., LTD., LONDON.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes\n\n\nSome punctuation has been inserted to maintain consistency.\n\nThe reference in the index to page 541 was corrected to 441.\n\nSpelling and hyphenation match the original text and may vary within\nthe book.\n\nThe caret symbol (^) has been used to represent superscripts.\n\nOE ligatures have been changed to simple OE in this text version.","title":"The Truth of Christianity: Being an Examination of the More Important Arguments For and Against Believing in That Religion","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":143609}