{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_6092/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_6092","id":"gutenberg_6092","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/6092","summary":null,"tags":["Alford, Henry, 1810-1871","Category: British Literature","Category: Novels","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity -- Controversial literature","Jesus Christ -- Biography -- History and criticism","Jesus Christ -- Miracles","Jesus Christ -- Person and offices","Strauss, David Friedrich, 1808-1874"],"text":"Transcribed from the 1913 A. C. Fifield edition by David Price, email\nccx074@pglaf.org\n\n\n\n\n\n                              The Fair Haven\n\n\n              _A Work in Defence of the Miraculous Element_\n          _in our Lord\u2019s Ministry upon Earth_, _both as against_\n        _Rationalistic Impugners and certain Orthodox Defenders_,\n             _by the late John Pickard Owen_, _with a Memoir_\n               _of the Author by William Bickersteth Owen_.\n\n                                    By\n\n                              Samuel Butler\n\n                           Author of \u201cErewhon\u201d\n\n                                  OP. 2\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n            _Now Reset_; _and Edited_, _with an Introduction_,\n                          _by R. A. Streatfeild_\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n                                  London\n                  A. C. Fifield, 13 Clifford\u2019s Inn, E.C.\n                                   1913\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n            WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON, LTD., PRINTERS, PLYMOUTH\n\n                                 Contents\n\n             Introduction by R. A. Streatfeild                      ix\n             Butler\u2019s Preface to the Second Edition                 xv\n             Memoir of the late John Pickard Owen                    1\nCHAPTER\n         I.  Introduction                                           61\n        II.  Strauss and the Hallucination Theory                   83\n       III.  The Character and Conversion of St. Paul              105\n        IV.  Paul\u2019s Testimony considered                           120\n         V.  A Consideration of Certain Ill-judged Methods         134\n             of Defence\n        VI.  More Disingenuousness                                 153\n       VII.  Difficulties felt by our Opponents                    170\n      VIII.  The Preceding Chapter Continued                       194\n        IX.  The Christ-Ideal                                      230\n         X.  Conclusion                                            255\n             Appendix                                              273\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\nBy R. A. Streatfeild\n\n\nTHE demand for a new edition of _The Fair Haven_ gives me an opportunity\nof saying a few words about the genesis of what, though not one of the\nmost popular of Samuel Butler\u2019s books, is certainly one of the most\ncharacteristic.  Few of his works, indeed, show more strikingly his\nbrilliant powers as a controversialist and his implacable determination\nto get at the truth of whatever engaged his attention.\n\nTo find the germ of _The Fair Haven_ we should probably have to go back\nto the year 1858, when Butler, after taking his degree at Cambridge, was\npreparing himself for holy orders by acting as a kind of lay curate in a\nLondon parish.  Butler never took things for granted, and he felt it to\nbe his duty to examine independently a good many points of Christian\ndogma which most candidates for ordination accept as matters of course.\nThe result of his investigations was that he eventually declined to take\norders at all.  One of the stones upon which he then stumbled was the\nefficacy of infant baptism, and I have no doubt that another was the\nmiraculous element of Christianity, which, it will be remembered, was the\ncause of grievous searchings of heart to Ernest Pontifex in Butler\u2019s\nsemi-autobiographical novel, _The Way of All Flesh_.  While Butler was in\nNew Zealand (1859\u201364) he had leisure for prosecuting his Biblical\nstudies, the result of which he published in 1865, after his return to\nEngland, in an anonymous pamphlet entitled \u201cThe Evidence for the\nResurrection of Jesus Christ as given by the Four Evangelists critically\nexamined.\u201d  This pamphlet passed unnoticed; probably only a few copies\nwere printed and it is now extremely rare.  After the publication of\n_Erewhon_ in 1872, Butler returned once more to theology, and made his\nanonymous pamphlet the basis of the far more elaborate _Fair Haven_,\nwhich was originally published as the posthumous work of a certain John\nPickard Owen, preceded by a memoir of the deceased author by his supposed\nbrother, William Bickersteth Owen.  It is possible that the memoir was\nthe fruit of a suggestion made by Miss Savage, an able and witty woman\nwith whom Butler corresponded at the time.  Miss Savage was so much\nimpressed by the narrative power displayed in _Erewhon_ that she urged\nButler to write a novel, and we shall probably not be far wrong in\nregarding the biography of John Pickard Owen as Butler\u2019s trial trip in\nthe art of fiction\u2014a prelude to _The Way of All Flesh_, which he began in\n1873.\n\nIt has often been supposed that the elaborate paraphernalia of\nmystification which Butler used in _The Fair Haven_ was deliberately\ndesigned in order to hoax the public.  I do not believe that this was the\ncase.  Butler, I feel convinced, provided an ironical framework for his\narguments merely that he might render them more effective than they had\nbeen when plainly stated in the pamphlet of 1865.  He fully expected his\nreaders to comprehend his irony, and he anticipated that some at any rate\nof them would keenly resent it.  Writing to Miss Savage in March, 1873\n(shortly before the publication of the book), he said: \u201cI should hope\nthat attacks on _The Fair Haven_ will give me an opportunity of excusing\nmyself, and if so I shall endeavour that the excuse may be worse than the\nfault it is intended to excuse.\u201d  A few days later he referred to the\ndifficulties that he had encountered in getting the book accepted by a\npublisher: \u201c\u2014 were frightened and even considered the scheme of the book\nunjustifiable.  \u2014 urged me, as politely as he could, not to do it, and\nevidently thinks I shall get myself into disgrace even among\nfreethinkers.  It\u2019s all nonsense.  I dare say I shall get into a row\u2014at\nleast I hope I shall.\u201d  Evidently there is here no anticipation of _The\nFair Haven_ being misunderstood.  Misunderstood, however, it was, not\nonly by reviewers, some of whom greeted it solemnly as a defence of\northodoxy, but by divines of high standing, such as the late Canon\nAinger, who sent it to a friend whom he wished to convert.  This was more\nthan Butler could resist, and he hastened to issue a second edition\nbearing his name and accompanied by a preface in which the deceived elect\nwere held up to ridicule.\n\nButler used to maintain that _The Fair Haven_ did his reputation no harm.\nWriting in 1901, he said:\n\n\u201c_The Fair Haven_ got me into no social disgrace that I have ever been\nable to discover.  I might attack Christianity as much as I chose and\nnobody cared one straw; but when I attacked Darwin it was a different\nmatter.  For many years _Evolution_, _Old and New_, and _Unconscious\nMemory_ made a shipwreck of my literary prospects.  I am only now\nbeginning to emerge from the literary and social injury which those two\nperfectly righteous books inflicted on me.  I dare say they abound with\nsmall faults of taste, but I rejoice in having written both of them.\u201d\n\nVery likely Butler was right as to the social side of the question, but I\nam convinced that _The Fair Haven_ did him grave harm in the literary\nworld.  Reviewers fought shy of him for the rest of his life.  They had\nbeen taken in once, and they took very good care that they should not be\ntaken in again.  The word went forth that Butler was not to be taken\nseriously, whatever he wrote, and the results of the decree were apparent\nin the conspiracy of silence that greeted not only his books on\nevolution, but his Homeric works, his writings on art, and his edition of\nShakespeare\u2019s sonnets.  Now that he has passed beyond controversies and\nmystifications, and now that his other works are appreciated at their\ntrue value, it is not too much to hope that tardy justice will be\naccorded also to _The Fair Haven_.  It is true that the subject is no\nlonger the burning question that it was forty years ago.  In the early\nseventies theological polemics were fashionable.  Books like Seeley\u2019s\n_Ecce Homo_ and Matthew Arnold\u2019s _Literature and Dogma_ were eagerly\ndevoured by readers of all classes.  Nowadays we take but a languid\ninterest in the problems that disturbed our grandfathers, and most of us\nhave settled down into what Disraeli described as the religion of all\nsensible men, which no sensible man ever talks about.  There is, however,\nin _The Fair Haven_ a good deal more than theological controversy, and\nour Laodicean age will appreciate Butler\u2019s humour and irony if it cares\nlittle for his polemics.  _The Fair Haven_ scandalised a good many people\nwhen it first appeared, but I am not afraid of its scandalising anybody\nnow.  I should be sorry, nevertheless, if it gave any reader a false\nimpression of Butler\u2019s Christianity, and I think I cannot do better than\nconclude with a passage from one of his essays which represents his\nattitude to religion perhaps more faithfully than anything in _The Fair\nHaven_: \u201cWhat, after all, is the essence of Christianity?  What is the\nkernel of the nut?  Surely common sense and cheerfulness, with\nunflinching opposition to the charlatanisms and Pharisaisms of a man\u2019s\nown times.  The essence of Christianity lies neither in dogma, nor yet in\nabnormally holy life, but in faith in an unseen world, in doing one\u2019s\nduty, in speaking the truth, in finding the true life rather in others\nthan in oneself, and in the certain hope that he who loses his life on\nthese behalfs finds more than he has lost.  What can Agnosticism do\nagainst such Christianity as this?  I should be shocked if anything I had\never written or shall ever write should seem to make light of these\nthings.\u201d\n\n                                                        R. A. STREATFEILD.\n\n_August_, 1913.\n\n\n\n\nButler\u2019s Preface to the Second Edition\n\n\nTHE occasion of a Second Edition of _The Fair Haven_ enables me to thank\nthe public and my critics for the favourable reception which has been\naccorded to the First Edition.  I had feared that the freedom with which\nI had exposed certain untenable positions taken by Defenders of\nChristianity might have given offence to some reviewers, but no complaint\nhas reached me from any quarter on the score of my not having put the\nbest possible case for the evidence in favour of the miraculous element\nin Christ\u2019s teaching\u2014nor can I believe that I should have failed to hear\nof it, if my book had been open to exception on this ground.\n\nAn apology is perhaps due for the adoption of a pseudonym, and even more\nso for the creation of two such characters as JOHN PICKARD OWEN and his\nbrother.  Why could I not, it may be asked, have said all that I had to\nsay in my own proper person?\n\nAre there not real ills of life enough already?  Is there not a \u201clo\nhere!\u201d from this school with its gushing \u201cearnestness,\u201d it distinctions\nwithout differences, its gnat strainings and camel swallowings, its\npretence of grappling with a question while resolutely bent upon shirking\nit, its dust throwing and mystification, its concealment of its own\nineffable insincerity under an air of ineffable candour?  Is there not a\n\u201clo there!\u201d from that other school with its bituminous atmosphere of\nexclusiveness and self-laudatory dilettanteism?  Is there not enough\nactual exposition of boredom come over us from many quarters without\ndrawing for new bores upon the imagination?  It is true I gave a single\ndrop of comfort.  JOHN PICKARD OWEN was dead.  But his having ceased to\nexist (to use the impious phraseology of the present day) did not cancel\nthe fact of his having once existed.  That he should have ever been born\ngave proof of potentialities in Nature which could not be regarded\nlightly.  What hybrids might not be in store for us next?  Moreover,\nthough JOHN PICKARD was dead, WILLIAM BICKERSTETH was still living, and\nmight at any moment rekindle his burning and shining lamp of persistent\nself-satisfaction.  Even though the OWENS had actually existed, should\nnot their existence have been ignored as a disgrace to Nature?  Who then\ncould be justified in creating them when they did not exist?\n\nI am afraid I must offer an apology rather than an excuse.  The fact is\nthat I was in a very awkward position.  My previous work, _Erewhon_, had\nfailed to give satisfaction to certain ultra-orthodox Christians, who\nimagined that they could detect an analogy between the English Church and\nthe Erewhonian Musical Banks.  It is inconceivable how they can have got\nhold of this idea; but I was given to understand that I should find it\nfar from easy to dispossess them of the notion that something in the way\nof satire had been intended.  There were other parts of the book which\nhad also been excepted to, and altogether I had reason to believe that if\nI defended Christianity in my own name I should not find _Erewhon_ any\naddition to the weight which my remarks might otherwise carry.  If I had\nbeen suspected of satire once, I might be suspected again with no greater\nreason.  Instead of calmly reviewing the arguments which I adduced, _The\nRock_ might have raised a cry of _non tali auxilio_.  It must always be\nremembered that besides the legitimate investors in Christian stocks, if\nso homely a metaphor may be pardoned, there are unscrupulous persons\nwhose profession it is to be bulls, bears, stags, and I know not what\nother creatures of the various Christian markets.  It is all nonsense\nabout hawks not picking out each other\u2019s eyes\u2014there is nothing they like\nbetter.  I feared _The Guardian_, _The Record_, _The John Bull_, etc.,\nlest they should suggest that from a bear I now turned bull with a view\nto an eventual bishopric.  Such insinuations would have impaired the\nvalue of _The Fair Haven_ as an anchorage for well-meaning people.  I\ntherefore resolved to obey the injunction of the Gentile Apostle and\navoid all appearance of evil, by dissociating myself from the author of\n_Erewhon_ as completely as possible.  At the moment of my resolution JOHN\nPICKARD OWEN came to my assistance; I felt that he was the sort of man I\nwanted, but that he was hardly sufficient in himself.  I therefore\nsummoned his brother.  The pair have served their purpose; a year\nnowadays produces great changes in men\u2019s thoughts concerning\nChristianity, and the little matter of _Erewhon_ having quite blown over\nI feel that I may safely appear in my true colours as the champion of\northodoxy, discard the OWENS as other than mouthpieces, and relieve the\npublic from uneasiness as to any further writings from the pen of the\nsurviving brother.\n\nNevertheless I am bound to own that, in spite of a generally favourable\nopinion, my critics have not been unanimous in their interpretation of\n_The Fair Haven_.  Thus, _The Rock_ (April 25, 1873, and May 9, 1873),\nsays that the work is \u201can extraordinary one, whether regarded as a\nbiographical record or a theological treatise.  Indeed the importance of\nthe volume compels us to depart from our custom of reviewing with brevity\nworks entrusted to us, and we shall in two consecutive numbers of _The\nRock_ lay before its readers what appear to us to be the merits and\ndemerits of this posthumous production.\u201d\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\u201cHis exhibition of the certain proofs furnished of the Resurrection of\nour Lord is certainly masterly and convincing.\u201d\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\u201cTo the sincerely inquiring doubter, the striking way in which the truth\nof the Resurrection is exhibited must be most beneficial, but such a\ncharacter we are compelled to believe is rare among those of the schools\nof neology.\u201d\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\u201cMr. OWEN\u2019S exposition and refutation of the hallucination and mythical\ntheories of Strauss and his followers is most admirable, and all should\nread it who desire to know exactly what excuses men make for their\nincredulity.  The work also contains many beautiful passages on the\ndiscomfort of unbelief, and the holy pleasure of a settled faith, which\ncannot fail to benefit the reader.\u201d\n\nOn the other hand, in spite of all my precautions, the same misfortune\nwhich overtook _Erewhon_ has also come upon _The Fair Haven_.  It has\nbeen suspected of a satirical purpose.  The author of a pamphlet entitled\n_Jesus versus Christianity_ says:\u2014\n\n\u201c_The Fair Haven_ is an ironical defence of orthodoxy at the expense of\nthe whole mass of Church tenet and dogma, the character of Christ only\nexcepted.  Such at least is our reading of it, though critics of the\n_Rock_ and _Record_ order have accepted the book as a serious defence of\nChristianity, and proclaimed it as a most valuable contribution in aid of\nthe faith.  Affecting an orthodox standpoint it most bitterly reproaches\nall previous apologists for the lack of candour with which they have\nignored or explained away insuperable difficulties and attached undue\nvalue to coincidences real or imagined.  One and all they have, the\nauthor declares, been at best, but zealous \u2018liars for God,\u2019 or what to\nthem was more than God, their own religious system.  This must go on no\nlonger.  We, as Christians having a sound cause, need not fear to let the\ntruth be known.  He proceeds accordingly to set forth the truth as he\nfinds it in the New Testament; and in a masterly analysis of the account\nof the Resurrection, which he selects as the principal crucial miracle,\ninvolving all other miracles, he shows how slender is the foundation on\nwhich the whole fabric of supernatural theology has been reared.\u201d\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\u201cAs told by our author the whole affords an exquisite example of the\nnatural growth of a legend.\u201d\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\u201cIf the reader can once fully grasp the intention of the style, and its\naffectation of the tone of indignant orthodoxy, and perceive also how\nutterly destructive are its \u2018candid admissions\u2019 to the whole fabric of\nsupernaturalism, he will enjoy a rare treat.  It is not however for the\npurpose of recommending what we at least regard as a piece of exquisite\nhumour, that we call attention to _The Fair Haven_, but &c. &c.\u201d\n\n                                * * * * *\n\nThis is very dreadful; but what can one do?\n\nAgain, _The Scotsman_ speaks of the writer as being \u201cthroughout in\ndownright almost pathetic earnestness.\u201d  While _The National Reformer_\nseems to be in doubt whether the book is a covert attack upon\nChristianity or a serious defence of it, but declares that both orthodox\nand unorthodox will find matter requiring thought and answer.\n\nI am not responsible for the interpretations of my readers.  It is only\nnatural that the same work should present a very different aspect\naccording as it is approached from one side or the other.  There is only\none way out of it\u2014that the reader should kindly interpret according to\nhis own fancies.  If he will do this the book is sure to please him.  I\nhave done the best I can for all parties, and feel justified in appealing\nto the existence of the widely conflicting opinions which I have quoted,\nas a proof that the balance has been evenly held, and that I was\njustified in calling the book a defence\u2014both as against impugners and\ndefenders.\n\n                                                                S. BUTLER.\n\n_Oct._ 8, 1873.\n\n\n\n\nMemoir of\nThe late John Pickard Owen\n\n\nChapter I\n\n\nTHE subject of this Memoir, and Author of the work which follows it, was\nborn in Goodge Street, Tottenham Court Road, London, on the 5th of\nFebruary, 1832.  He was my elder brother by about eighteen months.  Our\nfather and mother had once been rich, but through a succession of\nunavoidable misfortunes they were left with but a very moderate income\nwhen my brother and myself were about three and four years old.  My\nfather died some five or six years afterwards, and we only recollected\nhim as a singularly gentle and humorous playmate who doted upon us both\nand never spoke unkindly.  The charm of such a recollection can never be\ndispelled; both my brother and myself returned his love with interest,\nand cherished his memory with the most affectionate regret, from the day\non which he left us till the time came that the one of us was again to\nsee him face to face.  So sweet and winning was his nature that his\nslightest wish was our law\u2014and whenever we pleased him, no matter how\nlittle, he never failed to thank us as though we had done him a service\nwhich we should have had a perfect right to withhold.  How proud were we\nupon any of these occasions, and how we courted the opportunity of being\nthanked!  He did indeed well know the art of becoming idolised by his\nchildren, and dearly did he prize the results of his own proficiency; yet\ntruly there was no art about it; all arose spontaneously from the\nwellspring of a sympathetic nature which knew how to feel as others felt,\nwhether old or young, rich or poor, wise or foolish.  On one point alone\ndid he neglect us\u2014I refer to our religious education.  On all other\nmatters he was the kindest and most careful teacher in the world.  Love\nand gratitude be to his memory!\n\nMy mother loved us no less ardently than my father, but she was of a\nquicker temper, and less adept at conciliating affection.  She must have\nbeen exceedingly handsome when she was young, and was still comely when\nwe first remembered her; she was also highly accomplished, but she felt\nmy father\u2019s loss of fortune more keenly than my father himself, and it\npreyed upon her mind, though rather for our sake than for her own.  Had\nwe not known my father we should have loved her better than any one in\nthe world, but affection goes by comparison, and my father spoiled us for\nany one but himself; indeed, in after life, I remember my mother\u2019s\ntelling me, with many tears, how jealous she had often been of the love\nwe bore him, and how mean she had thought it of him to entrust all\nscolding or repression to her, so that he might have more than his due\nshare of our affection.  Not that I believe my father did this\nconsciously; still, he so greatly hated scolding that I dare say we might\noften have got off scot free when we really deserved reproof had not my\nmother undertaken the _onus_ of scolding us herself.  We therefore\nnaturally feared her more than my father, and fearing more we loved less.\nFor as love casteth out fear, so fear love.\n\nThis must have been hard to bear, and my mother scarcely knew the way to\nbear it.  She tried to upbraid us, in little ways, into loving her as\nmuch as my father; the more she tried this, the less we could succeed in\ndoing it; and so on and so on in a fashion which need not be detailed.\nNot but what we really loved her deeply, while her affection for us was\nunsurpassable still, we loved her less than we loved my father, and this\nwas the grievance.\n\nMy father entrusted our religious education entirely to my mother.  He\nwas himself, I am assured, of a deeply religious turn of mind, and a\nthoroughly consistent member of the Church of England; but he conceived,\nand perhaps rightly, that it is the mother who should first teach her\nchildren to lift their hands in prayer, and impart to them a knowledge of\nthe One in whom we live and move and have our being.  My mother accepted\nthe task gladly, for in spite of a certain narrowness of view\u2014the natural\nbut deplorable result of her earlier surroundings\u2014she was one of the most\ntruly pious women whom I have ever known; unfortunately for herself and\nus she had been trained in the lowest school of Evangelical literalism\u2014a\nschool which in after life both my brother and myself came to regard as\nthe main obstacle to the complete overthrow of unbelief; we therefore\nlooked upon it with something stronger than aversion, and for my own part\nI still deem it perhaps the most insidious enemy which the cause of\nChrist has ever encountered.  But of this more hereafter.\n\nMy mother, as I said, threw her whole soul into the work of our religious\neducation.  Whatever she believed she believed literally, and, if I may\nsay so, with a harshness of realisation which left very little scope for\nimagination or mystery.  Her plans of Heaven and solutions of life\u2019s\nenigmas were direct and forcible, but they could only be reconciled with\ncertain obvious facts\u2014such as the omnipotence and all-goodness of God\u2014by\nleaving many things absolutely out of sight.  And this my mother\nsucceeded effectually in doing.  She never doubted that her opinions\ncomprised the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; she\ntherefore made haste to sow the good seed in our tender minds, and so far\nsucceeded that when my brother was four years old he could repeat the\nApostles\u2019 Creed, the General Confession, and the Lord\u2019s Prayer without a\nblunder.  My mother made herself believe that he delighted in them; but,\nalas! it was far otherwise; for, strange as it may appear concerning one\nwhose later life was a continual prayer, in childhood he detested nothing\nso much as being made to pray and to learn his Catechism.  In this I am\nsorry to say we were both heartily of a mind.  As for Sunday, the less\nsaid the better.\n\nI have already hinted (but as a warning to other parents I had better,\nperhaps, express myself more plainly), that this aversion was probably\nthe result of my mother\u2019s undue eagerness to reap an artificial fruit of\nlip service, which could have little meaning to the heart of one so\nyoung.  I believe that the severe check which the natural growth of faith\nexperienced in my brother\u2019s case was due almost entirely to this cause,\nand to the school of literalism in which he had been trained; but,\nhowever this may be, we both of us hated being made to say our\nprayers\u2014morning and evening it was our one bugbear, and we would avoid\nit, as indeed children generally will, by every artifice which we could\nemploy.  Thus we were in the habit of feigning to be asleep shortly\nbefore prayer time, and would gratefully hear my father tell my mother\nthat it was a shame to wake us; whereon he would carry us up to bed in a\nstate apparently of the profoundest slumber when we were really wide\nawake and in great fear of detection.  For we knew how to pretend to be\nasleep, but we did not know how we ought to wake again; there was nothing\nfor it therefore when we were once committed, but to go on sleeping till\nwe were fairly undressed and put to bed, and could wake up safely in the\ndark.  But deceit is never long successful, and we were at last\nignominiously exposed.\n\nIt happened one evening that my mother suspected my brother John, and\ntried to open his little hands which were lying clasped in front of him.\nNow my brother was as yet very crude and inconsistent in his theories\nconcerning sleep, and had no conception of what a real sleeper would do\nunder these circumstances.  Fear deprived him of his powers of\nreflection, and he thus unfortunately concluded that because sleepers, so\nfar as he had observed them, were always motionless, therefore, they must\nbe quite rigid and incapable of motion, and indeed that any movement,\nunder any circumstances (for from his earliest childhood he liked to\ncarry his theories to their legitimate conclusion), would be physically\nimpossible for one who was really sleeping; forgetful, oh! unhappy one,\nof the flexibility of his own body on being carried upstairs, and, more\nunhappy still, ignorant of the art of waking.  He, therefore, clenched\nhis fingers harder and harder as he felt my mother trying to unfold them\nwhile his head hung listless, and his eyes were closed I as though he\nwere sleeping sweetly.  It is needless to detail the agony of shame that\nfollowed.  My mother begged my father to box his ears, which my father\nflatly refused to do.  Then she boxed them herself, and there followed a\nscene and a day or two of disgrace for both of us.\n\nShortly after this there happened another misadventure.  A lady came to\nstay with my mother, and was to sleep in a bed that had been brought into\nour nursery, for my father\u2019s fortunes had already failed, and we were\nliving in a humble way.  We were still but four and five years old, so\nthe arrangement was not unnatural, and it was assumed that we should be\nasleep before the lady went to bed, and be downstairs before she would\nget up in the morning.  But the arrival of this lady and her being put to\nsleep in the nursery were great events to us in those days, and being\nparticularly wanted to go to sleep, we of course sat up in bed talking\nand keeping ourselves awake till she should come upstairs.  Perhaps we\nhad fancied that she would give us something, but if so we were\ndisappointed.  However, whether this was the case or not, we were wide\nawake when our visitor came to bed, and having no particular object to\ngain, we made no pretence of sleeping.  The lady kissed us both, told us\nto lie still and go to sleep like good children, and then began doing her\nhair.\n\nI remember that this was the occasion on which my brother discovered a\ngood many things in connection with the fair sex which had hitherto been\nbeyond his ken; more especially that the mass of petticoats and clothes\nwhich envelop the female form were not, as he expressed it to me, \u201call\nsolid woman,\u201d but that women were not in reality more substantially built\nthan men, and had legs as much as he had, a fact which he had never yet\nrealised.  On this he for a long time considered them as impostors, who\nhad wronged him by leading him to suppose that they had far more \u201cbody in\nthem\u201d (so he said), than he now found they had.  This was a sort of thing\nwhich he regarded with stern moral reprobation.  If he had been old\nenough to have a solicitor I believe he would have put the matter into\nhis hands, as well as certain other things which had lately troubled him.\nFor but recently my mother had bought a fowl, and he had seen it plucked,\nand the inside taken out; his irritation had been extreme on discovering\nthat fowls were not all solid flesh, but that their insides\u2014and these\nformed, as it appeared to him, an enormous percentage of the bird\u2014were\nperfectly useless.  He was now beginning to understand that sheep and\ncows were also hollow as far as good meat was concerned; the flesh they\nhad was only a mouthful in comparison with what they ought to have\nconsidering their apparent bulk\u2014insignificant, mere skin and bone\ncovering a cavern.  What right had they, or anything else, to assert\nthemselves as so big, and prove so empty?  And now this discovery of\nwoman\u2019s falsehood was quite too much for him.  The world itself was\nhollow, made up of shams and delusions, full of sound and fury signifying\nnothing.\n\nTruly a prosaic young gentleman enough.  Everything with him was to be\nexactly in all its parts what it appeared on the face of it, and\neverything was to go on doing exactly what it had been doing hitherto.\nIf a thing looked solid, it was to be very solid; if hollow, very hollow;\nnothing was to be half and half, and nothing was to change unless he had\nhimself already become accustomed to its times and manners of changing;\nthere were to be no exceptions and no contradictions; all things were to\nbe perfectly consistent, and all premises to be carried with extremest\nrigour to their legitimate conclusions.  Heaven was to be very neat (for\nhe was always tidy himself), and free from sudden shocks to the nervous\nsystem, such as those caused by dogs barking at him, or cows driven in\nthe streets.  God was to resemble my father, and the Holy Spirit to bear\nsome sort of indistinct analogy to my mother.\n\nSuch were the ideal theories of his childhood\u2014unconsciously formed, but\nvery firmly believed in.  As he grew up he made such modifications as\nwere forced upon him by enlarged perceptions, but every modification was\nan effort to him, in spite of a continual and successful resistance to\nwhat he recognised as his initial mental defect.\n\nI may perhaps be allowed to say here, in reference to a remark in the\npreceding paragraph, that both my brother and myself used to notice it as\nan almost invariable rule that children\u2019s earliest ideas of God are\nmodelled upon the character of their father\u2014if they have one.  Should the\nfather be kind, considerate, full of the warmest love, fond of showing\nit, and reserved only about his displeasure, the child having learned to\nlook upon God as His Heavenly Father through the Lord\u2019s Prayer and our\nChurch Services, will feel towards God as he does towards his own father;\nthis conception will stick to a man for years and years after he has\nattained manhood\u2014probably it will never leave him.  For all children love\ntheir fathers and mothers, if these last will only let them; it is not a\nlittle unkindness that will kill so hardy a plant as the love of a child\nfor its parents.  Nature has allowed ample margin for many blunders,\nprovided there be a genuine desire on the parent\u2019s part to make the child\nfeel that he is loved, and that his natural feelings are respected.  This\nis all the religious education which a child should have.  As he grows\nolder he will then turn naturally to the waters of life, and thirst after\nthem of his own accord by reason of the spiritual refreshment which they,\nand they only, can afford.  Otherwise he will shrink from them, on\naccount of his recollection of the way in which he was led down to drink\nagainst his will, and perhaps with harshness, when all the analogies with\nwhich he was acquainted pointed in the direction of their being\nunpleasant and unwholesome.  So soul-satisfying is family affection to a\nchild, that he who has once enjoyed it cannot bear to be deprived of the\nhope that he is possessed in Heaven of a parent who is like his earthly\nfather\u2014of a friend and counsellor who will never, never fail him.  There\nis no such religious nor moral education as kindly genial treatment and a\ngood example; all else may then be let alone till the child is old enough\nto feel the want of it.  It is true that the seed will thus be sown late,\nbut in what a soil!  On the other hand, if a man has found his earthly\nfather harsh and uncongenial, his conception of his Heavenly Parent will\nbe painful.  He will begin by seeing God as an exaggerated likeness of\nhis father.  He will therefore shrink from Him.  The rottenness of\nstillborn love in the heart of a child poisons the blood of the soul, and\nhence, later, crime.\n\nTo return, however, to the lady.  When she had put on her night-gown, she\nknelt down by her bedside and, to our consternation, began to say her\nprayers.  This was a cruel blow to both of us; we had always been under\nthe impression that grownup people were not made to say their prayers,\nand the idea of any one saying them of his or her own accord had never\noccurred to us as possible.  Of course the lady would not say her prayers\nif she were not obliged; and yet she did say them; therefore she must be\nobliged to say them; therefore we should be obliged to say them, and this\nwas a very great disappointment.  Awe-struck and open-mouthed we listened\nwhile the lady prayed in sonorous accents, for many things which I do not\nnow remember, and finally for my father and mother and for both of\nus\u2014shortly afterwards she rose, blew out the light and got into bed.\nEvery word that she said had confirmed our worst apprehensions; it was\njust what we had been taught to say ourselves.\n\nNext morning we compared notes and drew the most painful inferences; but\nin the course of the day our spirits rallied.  We agreed that there were\nmany mysteries in connection with life and things which it was high time\nto unravel, and that an opportunity was now afforded us which might not\nreadily occur again.  All we had to do was to be true to ourselves and\nequal to the occasion.  We laid our plans with great astuteness.  We\nwould be fast asleep when the lady came up to bed, but our heads should\nbe turned in the direction of her bed, and covered with clothes, all but\na single peep-hole.  My brother, as the eldest, had clearly a right to be\nnearest the lady, but I could see very well, and could depend on his\nreporting faithfully whatever should escape me.\n\nThere was no chance of her giving us anything\u2014if she had meant to do so\nshe would have done it sooner; she might, indeed, consider the moment of\nher departure as the most auspicious for this purpose, but then she was\nnot going yet, and the interval was at our own disposal.  We spent the\nafternoon in trying to learn to snore, but we were not certain about it,\nand in the end regretfully concluded that as snoring was not _de rigueur_\nwe had better dispense with it.\n\nWe were put to bed; the light was taken away; we were told to go to\nsleep, and promised faithfully that we would do so; the tongue indeed\nswore, but the mind was unsworn.  It was agreed that we should keep\npinching one another to prevent our going to sleep.  We did so at\nfrequent intervals; at last our patience was rewarded with the heavy\ncreak, as of a stout elderly lady labouring up the stairs, and presently\nour victim entered.\n\nTo cut a long story short, the lady on satisfying herself that we were\nasleep, never said her prayers at all; during the remainder of her visit\nwhenever she found us awake she always said them, but when she thought we\nwere asleep, she never prayed.  It is needless to add that we had the\nmatter out with her before she left, and that the consequences were\nunpleasant for all parties; they added to the troubles in which we were\nalready involved as to our prayers, and were indirectly among the\nearliest causes which led my brother to look with scepticism upon\nreligion.\n\nFor a while, however, all went on as though nothing had happened.  An\neffect of distrust, indeed, remained after the cause had been forgotten,\nbut my brother was still too young to oppose anything that my mother told\nhim, and to all outward appearance he grew in grace no less rapidly than\nin stature.\n\nFor years we led a quiet and eventless life, broken only by the one great\nsorrow of our father\u2019s death.  Shortly after this we were sent to a day\nschool in Bloomsbury.  We were neither of us very happy there, but my\nbrother, who always took kindly to his books, picked up a fair knowledge\nof Latin and Greek; he also learned to draw, and to exercise himself a\nlittle in English composition.  When I was about fourteen my mother\ncapitalised a part of her income and started me off to America, where she\nhad friends who could give me a helping hand; by their kindness I was\nenabled, after an absence of twenty years, to return with a handsome\nincome, but not, alas, before the death of my mother.\n\nUp to the time of my departure my mother continued to read the Bible with\nus and explain it.  She had become deeply impressed with the millenarian\nfervour which laid hold of so many some twenty-five or thirty years ago.\nThe Apocalypse was perhaps her favourite book in the Bible, and she was\nimbued with the fullest conviction that all the threatened horrors with\nwhich it teems were upon the eve of their accomplishment.  The year\neighteen hundred and forty-eight was to be (as indeed it was) a time of\ngeneral bloodshed and confusion, while in eighteen hundred and sixty-six,\nshould it please God to spare her, her eyes would be gladdened by the\nvisible descent of the Son of Man with a shout, with the voice of the\nArchangel, with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ should rise\nfirst; then she, as one of them that were alive, would be caught up with\nother saints into the air, and would possibly receive while rising some\ndistinguishing token of confidence and approbation which should fall with\ndue impressiveness upon the surrounding multitude; then would come the\nconsummation of all things, and she would be ever with the Lord.  She\ndied peaceably in her bed before she could know that a commercial panic\nwas the nearest approach to the fulfilment of prophecy which the year\neighteen hundred and sixty-six brought forth.\n\nThese opinions of my mother\u2019s were positively disastrous\u2014injuring her\nnaturally healthy and vigorous mind by leading her to indulge in all\nmanner of dreamy and fanciful interpretations of Scripture, which any but\nthe most narrow literalist would feel at once to be untenable.  Thus\nseveral times she expressed to us her conviction that my brother and\nmyself were to be the two witnesses mentioned in the eleventh chapter of\nthe Book of Revelation, and dilated upon the gratification she should\nexperience upon finding that we had indeed been reserved for a position\nof such distinction.  We were as yet mere children, and naturally took\nall for granted that our mother told us; we therefore made a careful\nexamination of the passage which threw light upon our future; but on\nfinding that the prospect was gloomy and full of bloodshed we protested\nagainst the honours which were intended for us, more especially when we\nreflected that the mother of the two witnesses was not menaced in\nScripture with any particular discomfort.  If we were to be martyrs, my\nmother ought to wish to be a martyr too, whereas nothing was farther from\nher intention.  Her notion clearly was that we were to be massacred\nsomewhere in the streets of London, in consequence of the anti-Christian\nmachinations of the Pope; that after lying about unburied for three days\nand a half we were to come to life again; and, finally, that we should\nconspicuously ascend to heaven, in front, perhaps, of the Foundling\nHospital.\n\nShe was not herself indeed to share either our martyrdom or our\nglorification, but was to survive us many years on earth, living in an\nodour of great sanctity and reflected splendour, as the central and most\naugust figure in a select society.  She would perhaps be able indirectly,\nthrough her sons\u2019 influence with the Almighty, to have a voice in most of\nthe arrangements both of this world and of the next.  If all this were to\ncome true (and things seemed very like it), those friends who had\nneglected us in our adversity would not find it too easy to be restored\nto favour, however greatly they might desire it\u2014that is to say, they\nwould not have found it too easy in the case of one less magnanimous and\nspiritually-minded than herself.  My mother said but little of the above\ndirectly, but the fragments which occasionally escaped her were pregnant,\nand on looking back it is easy to perceive that she must have been\nbuilding one of the most stupendous aerial fabrics that have ever been\nreared.\n\nI have given the above in its more amusing aspect, and am half afraid\nthat I may appear to be making a jest of weakness on the part of one of\nthe most devotedly unselfish mothers who have ever existed.  But one can\nlove while smiling, and the very wildness of my mother\u2019s dream serves to\nshow how entirely her whole soul was occupied with the things which are\nabove.  To her, religion was all in all; the earth was but a place of\npilgrimage\u2014only so far important as it was a possible road to heaven.\nShe impressed this upon both of us by every word and action\u2014instant in\nseason and out of season, so that she might fill us more deeply with a\nsense of God.  But the inevitable consequences happened; my mother had\naimed too high and had overshot her mark.  The influence indeed of her\nguileless and unworldly nature remained impressed upon my brother even\nduring the time of his extremest unbelief (perhaps his ultimate safety is\nin the main referable to this cause, and to the happy memories of my\nfather, which had predisposed him to love God), but my mother had\ninsisted on the most minute verbal accuracy of every part of the Bible;\nshe had also dwelt upon the duty of independent research, and on the\nnecessity of giving up everything rather than assent to things which our\nconscience did not assent to.  No one could have more effectually taught\nus to try _to think_ the truth, and we had taken her at her word because\nour hearts told us that she was right.  But she required three\nincompatible things.  When my brother grew older he came to feel that\nindependent and unflinching examination, with a determination to abide by\nthe results, would lead him to reject the point which to my mother was\nmore important than any other\u2014I mean the absolute accuracy of the Gospel\nrecords.  My mother was inexpressibly shocked at hearing my brother doubt\nthe authenticity of the Epistle to the Hebrews; and then, as it appeared\nto him, she tried to make him violate the duties of examination and\ncandour which he had learnt too thoroughly to unlearn.  Thereon came pain\nand an estrangement which was none the less profound for being mutually\nconcealed.\n\nThis estrangement was the gradual work of some five or six years, during\nwhich my brother was between eleven and seventeen years old.  At\nseventeen, I am told that he was remarkably well informed and clever.\nHis manners were, like my father\u2019s, singularly genial, and his appearance\nvery prepossessing.  He had as yet no doubt concerning the soundness of\nany fundamental Christian doctrine, but his mind was too active to allow\nof his being contented with my mother\u2019s child-like faith.  There were\npoints on which he did not indeed doubt, but which it would none the less\nbe interesting to consider; such for example as the perfectibility of the\nregenerate Christian, and the meaning of the mysterious central chapters\nof the Epistle to the Romans.  He was engaged in these researches though\nstill only a boy, when an event occurred which gave the first real shock\nto his faith.\n\nHe was accustomed to teach in a school for the poorest children every\nSunday afternoon, a task for which his patience and good temper well\nfitted him.  On one occasion, however, while he was explaining the effect\nof baptism to one of his favourite pupils, he discovered to his great\nsurprise that the boy had never been baptised.  He pushed his inquiries\nfurther, and found that out of the fifteen boys in his class only five\nhad been baptised, and, not only so, but that no difference in\ndisposition or conduct could be discovered between the regenerate boys\nand the unregenerate.  The good and bad boys were distributed in\nproportions equal to the respective numbers of the baptised and\nunbaptised.  In spite of a certain impetuosity of natural character, he\nwas also of a matter-of-fact and experimental turn of mind; he therefore\nwent through the whole school, which numbered about a hundred boys, and\nfound out who had been baptised and who had not.  The same results\nappeared.  The majority had not been baptised; yet the good and bad\ndispositions were so distributed as to preclude all possibility of\nmaintaining that the baptised boys were better than the unbaptised.\n\nThe reader may smile at the idea of any one\u2019s faith being troubled by a\nfact of which the explanation is so obvious, but in truth my brother was\nseriously and painfully shocked.  The teacher to whom he applied for a\nsolution of the difficulty was not a man of any real power, and reported\nmy brother to the rector for having disturbed the school by his\ninquiries.  The rector was old and self-opinionated; the difficulty,\nindeed, was plainly as new to him as it had been to my brother, but\ninstead of saying so at once, and referring to any recognised theological\nauthority, he tried to put him off with words which seemed intended to\nsilence him rather than to satisfy him; finally he lost his temper, and\nmy brother fell under suspicion of unorthodoxy.\n\nThis kind of treatment might answer with some people, but not with my\nbrother.  He alludes to it resentfully in the introductory chapter of his\nbook.  He became suspicious that a preconceived opinion was being\ndefended at the expense of honest scrutiny, and was thus driven upon his\nown unaided investigation.  The result may be guessed: he began to go\nastray, and strayed further and further.  The children of God, he\nreasoned, the members of Christ and inheritors of the kingdom of Heaven,\nwere no more spiritually minded than the children of the world and the\ndevil.  Was then the grace of God a gift which left no trace whatever\nupon those who were possessed of it\u2014a thing the presence or absence of\nwhich might be ascertained by consulting the parish registry, but was not\ndiscernible in conduct?  The grace of man was more clearly perceptible\nthan this.  Assuredly there must be a screw loose somewhere, which, for\naught he knew, might be jeopardising the salvation of all Christendom.\nWhere then was this loose screw to be found?\n\nHe concluded after some months of reflection that the mischief was caused\nby the system of sponsors and by infant baptism.  He therefore, to my\nmother\u2019s inexpressible grief, joined the Baptists and was immersed in a\npond near Dorking.  With the Baptists he remained quiet about three\nmonths, and then began to quarrel with his instructors as to their\ndoctrine of predestination.  Shortly afterwards he came accidentally upon\na fascinating stranger who was no less struck with my brother than my\nbrother with him, and this gentleman, who turned out to be a Roman\nCatholic missionary, landed him in the Church of Rome, where he felt sure\nthat he had now found rest for his soul.  But here, too, he was mistaken;\nafter about two years he rebelled against the stifling of all free\ninquiry; on this rebellion the flood-gates of scepticism were opened, and\nhe was soon battling with unbelief.  He then fell in with one who was a\npure Deist, and was shorn of every shred of dogma which he had ever held,\nexcept a belief in the personality and providence of the Creator.\n\nOn reviewing his letters written to me about this time, I am painfully\nstruck with the manner in which they show that all these pitiable\nvagaries were to be traced to a single cause\u2014a cause which still exists\nto the misleading of hundreds of thousands, and which, I fear, seems\nlikely to continue in full force for many a year to come\u2014I mean, to a\nfalse system of training which teaches people to regard Christianity as a\nthing one and indivisible, to be accepted entirely in the strictest\nreading of the letter, or to be rejected as absolutely untrue.  The fact\nis, that all permanent truth is as one of those coal measures, a seam of\nwhich lies near the surface, and even crops up above the ground, but\nwhich is generally of an inferior quality and soon worked out; beneath it\nthere comes a layer of sand and clay, and then at last the true seam of\nprecious quality and in virtually inexhaustible supply.  The truth which\nis on the surface is rarely the whole truth.  It is seldom until this has\nbeen worked out and done with\u2014as in the case of the apparent flatness of\nthe earth\u2014that unchangeable truth is discovered.  It is the glory of the\nLord to conceal a matter: it is the glory of the king to find it out.  If\nmy brother, from whom I have taken the above illustration, had had some\njudicious and wide-minded friend to correct and supplement the mainly\nadmirable principles which had been instilled into him by my mother, he\nwould have been saved years of spiritual wandering; but, as it was, he\nfell in with one after another, each in his own way as literal and\nunspiritual as the other\u2014each impressed with one aspect of religious\ntruth, and with one only.  In the end he became perhaps the widest-minded\nand most original thinker whom I have ever met; but no one from his early\nmanhood could have augured this result; on the contrary, he shewed every\nsign of being likely to develop into one of those who can never see more\nthan one side of a question at a time, in spite of their seeing that side\nwith singular clearness of mental vision.  In after life, he often met\nwith mere lads who seemed to him to be years and years in advance of what\nhe had been at their age, and would say, smiling, \u201cWith a great sum\nobtained I this freedom; but thou wast free-born.\u201d\n\nYet when one comes to think of it, a late development and laborious\ngrowth are generally more fruitful than those which are over-early\nluxuriant.  Drawing an illustration from the art of painting, with which\nhe was well acquainted, my brother used to say that all the greatest\npainters had begun with a hard and precise manner from which they had\nonly broken after several years of effort; and that in like manner all\nthe early schools were founded upon definiteness of outline to the\nexclusion of truth of effect.  This may be true; but in my brother\u2019s case\nthere was something even more unpromising than this; there was a\ncommonness, so to speak, of mental execution, from which no one could\nhave foreseen his after-emancipation.  Yet in the course of time he was\nindeed emancipated to the very uttermost, while his bonds will, I firmly\ntrust, be found to have been of inestimable service to the whole human\nrace.\n\nFor although it was so many years before he was enabled to see the\nChristian scheme _as a whole_, or even to conceive the idea that there\nwas any whole at all, other than each one of the stages of opinion\nthrough which he was at the time passing; yet when the idea was at length\npresented to him by one whom I must not name, the discarded fragments of\nhis faith assumed shape, and formed themselves into a consistently\norganised scheme.  Then became apparent the value of his knowledge of the\ndetails of so many different sides of Christian verity.  Buried in the\ndetails, he had hitherto ignored the fact that they were only the\nunessential developments of certain component parts.  Awakening to the\nperception of the whole after an intimate acquaintance with the details,\nhe was able to realise the position and meaning of all that he had\nhitherto experienced in a way which has been vouchsafed to few, if any\nothers.\n\nThus he became truly a broad Churchman.  Not broad in the ordinary and\nill-considered use of the term (for the broad Churchman is as little able\nto sympathise with Romanists, extreme High Churchmen and Dissenters, as\nthese are with himself\u2014he is only one of a sect which is called by the\nname broad, though it is no broader than its own base), but in the true\nsense of being able to believe in the naturalness, legitimacy, and truth\n_qu\u00e2_ Christianity even of those doctrines which seem to stand most\nwidely and irreconcilably asunder.\n\n\n\nChapter II\n\n\nBUT it was impossible that a mind of such activity should have gone over\nso much ground, and yet in the end returned to the same position as that\nfrom which it started.\n\nSo far was this from being the case that the Christianity of his maturer\nlife would be considered dangerously heterodox by those who belong to any\nof the more definite or precise schools of theological thought.  He was\nas one who has made the circuit of a mountain, and yet been ascending\nduring the whole time of his doing so: such a person finds himself upon\nthe same side as at first, but upon a greatly higher level.  The peaks\nwhich had seemed the most important when he was in the valley were now\ndwarfed to their true proportions by colossal cloud-capped masses whose\nvery existence could not have been suspected from beneath: and again,\nother points which had seemed among the lowest turned out to be the very\nhighest of all\u2014as the Finster-Aarhorn, which hides itself away in the\ncentre of the Bernese Alps, is never seen to be the greatest till one is\nhigh and far off.\n\nThus he felt no sort of fear or repugnance in admitting that the New\nTestament writings, as we now have them, are not by any means accurate\nrecords of the events which they profess to chronicle.  This, which few\nEnglish Churchmen would be prepared to admit, was to him so much of an\naxiom that he despaired of seeing any sound theological structure raised\nuntil it was universally recognised.\n\nAnd here he would probably meet with sympathy from the more advanced\nthinkers within the body of the Church, but so far as I know, he stood\nalone as recognising the wisdom of the Divine counsels in having ordained\nthe wide and apparently irreconcilable divergencies of doctrine and\ncharacter which we find assigned to Christ in the Gospels, and as finding\nhis faith confirmed, not by the supposition that both the portraits drawn\nof Christ are objectively true, but _that both are objectively\ninaccurate_, _and that the Almighty intended they should be inaccurate_,\ninasmuch as the true spiritual conception in the mind of man could be\nindirectly more certainly engendered by a strife, a warring, a clashing,\nso to speak, of versions, all of them distorting slightly some one or\nother of the features of the original, than directly by the most\nabsolutely correct impression which human language could convey.  Even\nthe most perfect human speech, as has been often pointed out, is a very\ngross and imperfect vehicle of thought.  I remember once hearing him say\nthat it was not till he was nearly thirty that he discovered \u201cwhat thick\nand sticky fluids were air and water,\u201d how crass and dull in comparison\nwith other more subtle fluids; he added that speech had no less deceived\nhim, seeming, as it did, to be such a perfect messenger of thought, and\nbeing after all nothing but a shuffler and a loiterer.\n\nWith most men the Gospels are true in spite of their discrepancies and\ninconsistencies; with him Christianity, as distinguished from a bare\nbelief in the objectively historical character of each part of the\nGospels, was true because of these very discrepancies; as his conceptions\nof the Divine manner of working became wider, the very forces which had\nat one time shaken his faith to its foundations established it anew upon\na firmer and broader base.  He was gradually led to feel that the ideal\npresented by the life and death of our Saviour could never have been\naccepted by Jews at all, if its whole purport had been made intelligible\nduring the Redeemer\u2019s life-time; that in order to insure its acceptance\nby a nucleus of followers it must have been endowed with a more local\naspect than it was intended afterwards to wear; yet that, for the sake of\nits subsequent universal value, the destruction of that local complexion\nwas indispensable; that the corruptions inseparable from _viv\u00e2 voce_\ncommunication and imperfect education were the means adopted by the\nCreator to blur the details of the ideal, and give it that breadth which\ncould not be otherwise obtainable\u2014and that thus the value of the ideal\nwas indefinitely enhanced, and _designedly enhanced_, alike by the waste\nof time and by its incrustations; that all ideals gain by a certain\namount of vagueness, which allows the beholder to fill in the details\naccording to his own spiritual needs, and that no ideal can be truly\nuniversal and permanents unless it have an elasticity which will allow of\nthis process in the minds of those who contemplate it; that it cannot\nbecome thus elastic unless by the loss of no inconsiderable amount of\ndetail, and that thus the half, as Dr. Arnold used to say, \u201cbecomes\ngreater than the whole,\u201d the sketch more preciously suggestive than the\nphotograph.  Hence far from deploring the fragmentary, confused, and\ncontradictory condition of the Gospel records, he saw in this condition\nthe means whereby alone the human mind could have been enabled to\nconceive\u2014not the precise nature of Christ\u2014but _the highest ideal of which\neach individual Christian soul was capable_.  As soon as he had grasped\nthese conceptions, which will be found more fully developed in one of the\nlater chapters of his book, the spell of unbelief was broken.\n\nBut, once broken, it was dissolved utterly and entirely; he could allow\nhimself to contemplate fearlessly all sorts of issues from which one\nwhose experiences had been less varied would have shrunk.  He was free of\nthe enemy\u2019s camp, and could go hither and thither whithersoever he would.\nThe very points which to others were insuperable difficulties were to him\nfoundation-stones of faith.  For example, to the objection that if in the\npresent state of the records no clear conception of the nature of\nChrist\u2019s life and teaching could be formed, we should be compelled to\ntake one for our model of whom we knew little or nothing certain, I have\nheard him answer, \u201cAnd so much the better for us all.  The truth, if read\nby the light of man\u2019s imperfect understanding, would have been falser to\nhim than any falsehood.  It would have been truth no longer.  _Better be\nled aright by an error which is so adjusted as to compensate for the\nerrors in man\u2019s powers of understanding_, _than be misled by a truth\nwhich can never be translated from objectivity to subjectivity_.  In such\na case, it is the error which is the truth and the truth the error.\u201d\n\nFearless himself, he could not understand the fears felt by others; and\nthis was perhaps his greatest sympathetic weakness.  He was impatient of\nthe subterfuges with which untenable interpretations of Scripture were\ndefended, and of the disingenuousness of certain harmonists; indeed, the\nmention of the word harmony was enough to kindle an outbreak of righteous\nanger, which would sometimes go to the utmost limit of righteousness.\n\u201cHarmonies!\u201d he would exclaim, \u201cthe sweetest harmonies are those which\nare most full of discords, and the discords of one generation of\nmusicians become heavenly music in the hands of their successors.  Which\nof the great musicians has not enriched his art not only by the discovery\nof new harmonies, but by proving that sounds which are actually\ninharmonious are nevertheless essentially and eternally delightful?  What\nan outcry has there not always been against the \u2018unwarrantable licence\u2019\nwith the rules of harmony whenever a Beethoven or a Mozart has broken\nthrough any of the trammels which have been regarded as the safeguards of\nthe art, instead of in their true light of fetters, and how gratefully\nhave succeeding musicians acquiesced in and adopted the innovation.\u201d\nThen would follow a tirade with illustration upon illustration,\ncomparison of this passage with that, and an exhaustive demonstration\nthat one or other, or both, could have had no sort of possible foundation\nin fact; he could only see that the persons from whom he differed were\ndefending something which was untrue and which they ought to have known\nto be untrue, but he could not see that people ought to know many things\nwhich they do not know.\n\nHad he himself seen all that he ought to have been able to see from his\nown standpoints?  Can any of us do so?  The force of early bias and\neducation, the force of intellectual surroundings, the force of natural\ntimidity, the force of dulness, were things which he could appreciate and\nmake allowance for in any other age, and among any other people than his\nown; but as belonging to England and the Nineteenth Century they had no\nplace in his theory of Nature; they were inconceivable, unnatural,\nunpardonable, whenever they came into contact with the subject of\nChristian evidences.  Deplorable, indeed, they are, but this was just the\nsort of word to which he could not confine himself.  The criticisms upon\nthe late Dean Alford\u2019s notes, which will be given in the sequel, display\nthis sort of temper; they are not entirely his own, but he adopted them\nand endorsed them with a warmth which we cannot but feel to be\nunnecessary, not to say more.  Yet I am free to confess that whatever\neditorial licence I could venture to take has been taken in the direction\nof lenity.\n\nOn the whole, however, he valued Dean Alford\u2019s work very highly, giving\nhim great praise for the candour with which he not unfrequently set the\nharmonists aside.  For example, in his notes upon the discrepancies\nbetween St. Luke\u2019s and St. Matthew\u2019s accounts of the early life of our\nLord, the Dean openly avows that it is quite beyond his purpose to\nattempt to reconcile the two.  \u201cThis part of the Gospel history,\u201d he\nwrites, \u201cis one where the harmonists, by their arbitrary reconcilement of\nthe two accounts, have given great advantage to the enemies of the faith.\n_As the two accounts now stand_, it is wholly impossible to suggest any\nsatisfactory method of _uniting them_, every one who has attempted it has\nin some part or other of his hypothesis violated probability and common\nsense,\u201d but in spite of this, the Dean had no hesitation in accepting\nboth the accounts.  With reference to this the author of _The Jesus of\nHistory_ (Williams and Norgate, 1866)\u2014a work to which my brother admitted\nhimself to be under very great obligations, and which he greatly admired,\nin spite of his utter dissent from the main conclusion arrived at, has\nthe following note:\u2014\n\n\u201cDean Alford, N.T. for English readers, admits that the narratives as\nthey stand are contradictory, but he believes both.  He is even severe\nupon the harmonists who attempt to frame schemes of reconciliation\nbetween the two, on account of the triumph they thus furnish to the\n\u2018enemies of the faith,\u2019 a phrase which seems to imply all who believe\nless than he does.  The Dean, however, forgets that the faith which can\nbelieve two (apparently) contradictory propositions in matters of fact is\na very rare gift, and that for one who is so endowed there are thousands\nwho can be satisfied with a plausible though demonstrably false\nexplanation.  To the latter class the despised harmonists render a real\nservice.\u201d\n\nUpon this note my brother was very severe.  In a letter, dated Dec. 18,\n1866, addressed to a friend who had alluded to it, and expressed his\nconcurrence with it as in the main just, my brother wrote: \u201cYou are wrong\nabout the note in _The Jesus of History_, there is more of the\nChristianity of the future in Dean Alford\u2019s indifference to the harmony\nbetween the discordant accounts of Luke and Matthew than there would have\nbeen _even in the most convincing and satisfactory_ explanation of the\nway in which they came to differ.  No such explanation is possible; both\nthe Dean and the author of _The Jesus of History_ were very well aware of\nthis, but the latter is unjust in assuming that his opponent was not\nalive to the absurdity of appearing to believe two contradictory\npropositions at one and the same time.  The Dean takes very good care\nthat he shall not appear to do this, for it is perfectly plain to any\ncareful reader that he must really believe that one or both narratives\nare inaccurate, inasmuch as the differences between them are too great to\nallow of reconciliation by a supposed suppression of detail.\n\n\u201cThis, though not said so clearly as it should have been, is yet\nvirtually implied in the admission that no sort of fact which could by\nany possibility be admitted as reconciling them had ever occurred to\nhuman ingenuity; what, then, Dean Alford must have really felt was that\nthe spiritual value of each account was no less precious for not being in\nstrict accordance with the other; that the objective truth lies somewhere\nbetween them, and is of very little importance, being long dead and\nburied, and living in its results only, in comparison with the subjective\ntruth conveyed by both the narratives, which lives in our hearts\nindependently of precise knowledge concerning the actual facts.\nMoreover, that though both accounts may perhaps be inaccurate, yet that\n_a very little_ natural inaccuracy on the part of each writer would throw\nthem apparently very wide asunder, that such inaccuracies are easily to\nbe accounted for, and would, in fact, be inevitable in the sixty years of\noral communication which elapsed between the birth of our Lord and the\nwriting of the first Gospel, and again in the eighty or ninety years\nprior to the third, so that the details of the facts connected with the\nconception, birth, genealogy, and earliest history of our Saviour are\nirrecoverable\u2014a general impression being alone possible, or indeed\ndesirable.\n\n\u201cIt might perhaps have been more satisfactory if Dean Alford had\nexpressed the above more plainly; but if he had done this, who would have\nread his book?  Where would have been that influence in the direction of\ntruly liberal Christianity which has been so potent during the last\ntwenty years?  As it was, the freedom with which the Dean wrote was the\ncause of no inconsiderable scandal.  Or, again, he may not have been\nfully conscious of his own position: few men are; he had taken the right\none, but more perhaps by spiritual instinct than by conscious and\ndeliberate exercise of his intellectual faculties.  Finally, compromise\nis not a matter of good policy only, it is a solemn duty in the interests\nof Christian peace, and this not in minor matters only\u2014we can all do this\nmuch\u2014but in those concerning which we feel most strongly, for here the\nsacrifice is greatest and most acceptable to God.  There are, of course,\nlimits to this, and Dean Alford may have carried compromise too far in\nthe present instance, but it is very transparent.  The narrowness which\nleads the author of _The Jesus of History_ to strain at such a gnat is\nthe secret of his inability to accept the divinity and miracles of our\nLord, and has marred the most exhaustively critical exegesis of the life\nand death of our Saviour with an impotent conclusion.\u201d\n\nIt is strange that one who could write thus should occasionally have\nshown himself so little able to apply his own principles.  He seems to\nhave been alternately under the influence of two conflicting spirits\u2014at\none time writing as though there were nothing precious under the sun\nexcept logic, consistency, and precision, and breathing fire and smoke\nagainst even very trifling deviations from the path of exact criticism\u2014at\nanother, leading the reader almost to believe that he disregarded the\nvalue of any objective truth, and speaking of endeavour after accuracy in\nterms that are positively contemptuous.  Whenever he was in the one mood\nhe seemed to forget the possibility of any other; so much so that I have\nsometimes thought that he did this deliberately and for the same reasons\nas those which led Adam Smith to exclude one set of premises in his\n_Theory of Moral Sentiments_ and another in his _Wealth of Nations_.  I\nbelieve, however, that the explanation lies in the fact that my brother\nwas inclined to underrate the importance of belief in the objective truth\nof any other individual features in the life of our Lord than his\nResurrection and Ascension.  All else seemed dwarfed by the side of these\nevents.  His whole soul was so concentrated upon the centre of the circle\nthat he forgot the circumference, or left it out of sight.  Nothing less\nthan the strictest objective truth as to the main facts of the\nResurrection and Ascension would content him; the other miracles and the\nlife and teaching of our Lord might then be left open; whatever view was\ntaken of them by each individual Christian was probably the one most\ndesirable for the spiritual wellbeing of each.\n\nEven as regards the Resurrection and Ascension, he did not greatly value\nthe detail.  Provided these facts were so established that they could\nnever henceforth be controverted, he thought that the less detail the\nbroader and more universally acceptable would be the effect.  Hence, when\nDean Alford\u2019s notes seemed to jeopardise the evidences for these things,\nhe could brook no trifling; for unless Christ actually died and actually\ncame to life again, he saw no escape from an utter denial of any but\nnatural religion.  Christ would have been no more to him than Socrates or\nShakespeare, except in so far as his teaching was more spiritual.  The\ntriune nature of the Deity\u2014the Resurrection from the dead\u2014the hope of\nHeaven and salutary fear of Hell\u2014all would go but for the Resurrection\nand Ascension of Jesus Christ; nothing would remain except a sense of the\nDivine as a substitute for God, and the current feeling of one\u2019s peers as\nthe chief moral check upon misconduct.  Indeed, we have seen this view\nopenly advocated by a recent writer, and set forth in the very plainest\nterms.  My brother did not live to see it, but if he had, he would have\nrecognised the fulfilment of his own prophecies as to what must be the\ninevitable sequel of a denial of our Lord\u2019s Resurrection.\n\nIt will be seen therefore that he was in no danger of being carried away\nby a \u201cpet theory.\u201d  Where light and definition were essential, he would\nsacrifice nothing of either; but he was jealous for his highest light,\nand felt \u201cthat the whole effect of the Christian scheme was indefinitely\nheightened by keeping all other lights subordinate\u201d\u2014this at least was the\nillustration which he often used concerning it.  But as there were limits\nto the value of light and \u201cfinding\u201d\u2014limits which had been far exceeded,\nwith the result of an unnatural forcing of the lights, and an effect of\ngarishness and unreality\u2014so there were limits to the as yet unrecognised\npreciousness of \u201closing\u201d and obscurity; these limits he placed at the\nobjectivity of our Lord\u2019s Resurrection and Ascension.  Let there be light\nenough to show these things, and the rest would gain by being in\nhalf-tone and shadow.\n\nHis facility of illustration was simply marvellous.  From his\nconversation any one would have thought that he was acquainted with all\nmanner of arts and sciences of which he knew little or nothing.  It is\ntrue, as has been said already, that he had had some practice in the art\nof painting, and was an enthusiastic admirer of the masterpieces of\nRaphael, Titian, Guido, Domenichino, and others; but he could never have\nbeen called a painter; for music he had considerable feeling; I think he\nmust have known thorough-bass, but it was hard to say what he did or did\nnot know.  Of science he was almost entirely ignorant, yet he had\nassimilated a quantity of stray facts, and whatever he assimilated seemed\nto agree with him and nourish his mental being.  But though his\nacquaintance with any one art or science must be allowed to have been\nsuperficial only, he had an astonishing perception of the relative\nbearings of facts which seemed at first sight to be quite beyond the\nrange of one another, and of the relations between the sciences\ngenerally; it was this which gave him his felicity and fecundity of\nillustration\u2014a gift which he never abused.  He delighted in its use for\nthe purpose of carrying a clear impression of his meaning to the mind of\nanother, but I never remember to have heard him mistake illustration for\nargument, nor endeavour to mislead an adversary by a fascinating but\nirrelevant simile.  The subtlety of his mind was a more serious source of\ndanger to him, though I do not know that he greatly lost by it in\ncomparison with what he gained; his sense, however, of distinctions was\nso fine that it would sometimes distract his attention from points of\ninfinitely greater importance in connection with his subject than the\nparticular distinction which he was trying to establish at the moment.\n\nThe reader may be glad to know what my brother felt about retaining the\nunhistoric passages of Scripture.  Would he wish to see them sought for\nand sifted out?  Or, again, what would he propose concerning such of the\nparables as are acknowledged by every liberal Churchman to be immoral,\nas, for instance, the story of Dives and Lazarus and the Unjust\nSteward\u2014parables which can never have been spoken by our Lord, at any\nrate not in their present shape?  And here we have a remarkable instance\nof his moderation and truly English good sense.  \u201cDo not touch one word\nof them,\u201d was his often-repeated exclamation.  \u201cIf not directly inspired\nby the mouth of God they have been indirectly inspired by the force of\nevents, and the force of events is the power and manifestation of God;\nthey could not have been allowed to come into their present position if\nthey had not been recognised in the counsels of the Almighty as being of\nindirect service to mankind; there is a subjective truth conveyed even by\nthese parables to the minds of many, that enables them to lay hold of\nother and objective truths which they could not else have grasped.\n\n\u201cThere can be no question that the communistic utterances of the third\ngospel, as distinguished from St. Matthew\u2019s more spiritual and doubtless\nmore historic rendering of the same teaching, have been of inestimable\nservice to Christianity.  Christ is not for the whole only, but also for\nthem that are sick, for the ill-instructed and what we are pleased to\ncall \u2018dangerous\u2019 classes, as well as for the more sober thinkers.  To how\nmany do the words, \u2018Blessed be ye poor: for your\u2019s is the kingdom of\nHeaven\u2019 (Luke vi., 20), carry a comfort which could never be given by the\n\u2018Blessed are the poor in spirit\u2019 of Matthew v., 3.  In Matthew we find,\n\u2018Blessed are the poor in spirit: for their\u2019s is the kingdom of Heaven.\nBlessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.  Blessed are\nthe meek: for they shall inherit the earth.  Blessed are they which do\nhunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.  Blessed\nare the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.  Blessed are the pure in\nheart: for they shall see God.  Blessed are the peacemakers: for they\nshall be called the children of God.  Blessed are they which are\npersecuted for righteousness\u2019 sake: for their\u2019s is the kingdom of heaven.\nBlessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall\nsay all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.  Rejoice, and be\nexceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted\nthey the prophets which were before you.\u2019  In Luke we read, \u2018Blessed are\nye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled.  Blessed are ye that weep\nnow: for ye shall laugh. . . .  But woe unto you that are rich! for ye\nhave received your consolation.  Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall\nhunger.  Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.  Woe\nunto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did _their_\nfathers to the false prophets,\u2019 where even the grammar of the last\nsentence, independently of the substance, is such as it is impossible to\nascribe to our Lord himself.\n\n\u201cThe \u2018upper\u2019 classes naturally turn to the version of Matthew, but the\n\u2018lower,\u2019 no less naturally to that of Luke, nor is it likely that the\nideal of Christ would be one-tenth part so dear to them had not this\nprovision for them been made, not by the direct teaching of the Saviour,\nbut by the indirect inspiration of such events as were seen by the\nAlmighty to be necessary for the full development of the highest ideal of\nwhich mankind was capable.  All that we have in the New Testament is the\ninspired word, directly or indirectly, of God, the unhistoric no less\nthan the historic; it is for us to take spiritual sustenance from\nwhatever meats we find prepared for us, not to order the removal of this\nor that dish; the coarser meats are for the coarser natures; as they grow\nin grace they will turn from these to the finer: let us ourselves partake\nof that which we find best suited to us, but do not let us grudge to\nothers the provision that God has set before them.  There are many things\nwhich though not objectively true are nevertheless subjectively true to\nthose who can receive them; and subjective truth is universally felt to\nbe even higher than objective, as may be shown by the acknowledged duty\nof obeying our consciences (which is the right _to us_) rather than any\ndictate of man however much more objectively true.  It is that which is\ntrue _to us_ that we are bound each one of us to seek and follow.\u201d\n\nHaving heard him thus far, and being unable to understand, much less to\nsympathise with teaching so utterly foreign to anything which I had heard\nelsewhere, I said to him, \u201cEither our Lord did say the words assigned to\nhim by St. Luke or he did not.  If he did, as they stand they are bad,\nand any one who heard them for the first time would say that they were\nbad; if he did not, then we ought not to allow them to remain in our\nBibles to the misleading of people who will thus believe that God is\ntelling them what he never did tell them\u2014to the misleading of the poor,\nwhom even in low self-interest we are bound to instruct as fully and\ntruthfully as we can.\u201d\n\nHe smiled and answered, \u201cThat is the Peter Bell view of the matter.  I\nthought so once, as, indeed, no one can know better than yourself.\u201d\n\nThe expression upon his face as he said this was sufficient to show the\nclearness of his present perception, nevertheless I was anxious to get to\nthe root of the matter, and said that if our Lord never uttered these\nwords their being attributed to him must be due to fraud; to pious fraud,\nbut still to fraud.\n\n\u201cNot so,\u201d he answered, \u201cit is due to the weakness of man\u2019s powers of\nmemory and communication, and perhaps in some measure to unconscious\ninspiration.  Moreover, even though wrong of some sort may have had its\nshare in the origin of certain of the sayings ascribed to our Saviour,\nyet their removal now that they have been consecrated by time would be a\nstill greater wrong.  Would you defend the spoliation of the monasteries,\nor the confiscation of the abbey lands?  I take it no\u2014still less would\nyou restore the monasteries or take back the lands; a consecrated change\nbecomes a new departure; accept it and turn it to the best advantage.\nThese are things to which the theory of the Church concerning lay baptism\nis strictly applicable.  _Fieri non debet_, _factum valet_.  If in our\nnarrow and unsympathetic strivings after precision we should remove the\nhallowed imperfections whereby time has set the glory of his seal upon\nthe gospels as well as upon all other aged things, not for twenty\ngenerations will they resume that ineffable and inviolable aspect which\nour fussy meddlesomeness will have disturbed.  Let them alone.  It is as\nthey stand that they have saved the world.\n\n\u201cNo change is good unless it is imperatively called for.  Not even the\nReformation was good; it is good now; I acquiesce in it, as I do in\nanything which in itself not vital has received the sanction of many\ngenerations of my countrymen.  It is sanction which sanctifieth in\nmatters of this kind.  I would no more undo the Reformation now than I\nwould have helped it forward in the sixteenth century.  Leave the\nhistoric, the unhistoric, and the doubtful to grow together until the\nharvest: that which is not vital will perish and rot unnoticed when it\nhas ceased to have vitality; it is living till it has done this.  Note\nhow the very passages which you would condemn have died out of the regard\nof any but the poor.  Who quotes them?  Who appeals to them?  Who\nbelieves in them?  Who indeed except the poorest of the poor attaches the\nsmallest weight to them whatever?  To us they are dead, and other\npassages will die to us in like manner, noiselessly and almost\nimperceptibly, as the services for the fifth of November died out of the\nPrayer Book.  One day the fruit will be hanging upon the tree, as it has\nhung for months, the next it will be lying upon the ground.  It is not\nripe until it has fallen of itself, or with the gentlest shaking; use no\nviolence towards it, confident that you cannot hurry the ripening, and\nthat if shaken down unripe the fruit will be worthless.  Christianity\nmust have contained the seeds of growth within itself, even to the\nshedding of many of its present dogmas.  If the dogmas fall quietly in\ntheir maturity, the precious seed of truth (which will be found in the\nheart of every dogma that has been able to take living hold upon the\nworld\u2019s imagination) will quicken and spring up in its own time: strike\nat the fruit too soon and the seed will die.\u201d\n\nI should be sorry to convey an impression that I am responsible for, or\nthat I entirely agree with, the defence of the unhistoric which I have\nhere recorded.  I have given it in my capacity of editor and in some sort\nbiographer, but am far from being prepared to maintain that it is likely,\nor indeed ought, to meet with the approval of any considerable number of\nChristians.  But, surely, in these days of self-mystification it is\nrefreshing to see the boldness with which my brother thought, and the\nfreedom with which he contemplated all sorts of issues which are too\ngenerally avoided.  What temptation would have been felt by many to\nsoften down the inconsistencies and contradictions of the Gospels.  How\nfew are those who will venture to follow the lead of scientific\ncriticism, and admit what every scholar must well know to be\nindisputable.  Yet if a man will not do this, he shows that he has\ngreater faith in falsehood than in truth.\n\n\n\nChapter III\n\n\nON my brother\u2019s death I came into possession of several of his early\ncommonplace books filled with sketches for articles; some of these are\nmore developed than others, but they are all of them fragmentary.  I do\nnot think that the reader will fail to be interested with the insight\ninto my brother\u2019s spiritual and intellectual progress which a few\nextracts from these writings will afford, and have therefore, after some\nhesitation, decided in favour of making them public, though well aware\nthat my brother would never have done so.  They are too exaggerated to be\ndangerous, being so obviously unfair as to carry their own antidote.  The\nreader will not fail to notice the growth not only in thought but also in\nliterary style which is displayed by my brother\u2019s later writings.\n\nIn reference to the very subject of the parables above alluded to, he had\nwritten during his time of unbelief:\u2014\u201cWhy are we to interpret so\nliterally all passages about the guilt of unbelief, and insist upon the\nhistorical character of every miraculous account, while we are indignant\nif any one demands an equally literal rendering of the precepts\nconcerning human conduct?  He that hath two coats is not to give to him\nthat hath none: this would be \u2018visionary,\u2019 \u2018utopian,\u2019 \u2018wholly\nunpractical,\u2019 and so forth.  Or, again, he that is smitten on the one\ncheek is not to turn the other to the smiter, but to hand the offender\nover to the law; nor are the commands relative to indifference as to the\nmorrow and a neglect of ordinary prudence to be taken as they stand; nor\nyet the warnings against praying in public; nor can the parables, any one\nof them, be interpreted strictly with advantage to human welfare, except\nperhaps that of the Good Samaritan; nor the Sermon on the Mount, save in\nsuch passages as were already the common property of mankind before the\ncoming of Christ.  The parables which every one praises are in reality\nvery bad: the Unjust Steward, the Labourers in the Vineyard, the Prodigal\nSon, Dives and Lazarus, the Sower and the Seed, the Wise and Foolish\nVirgins, the Marriage Garment, the Man who planted a Vineyard, are all\neither grossly immoral, or tend to engender a very low estimate of the\ncharacter of God\u2014an estimate far below the standard of the best earthly\nkings; where they are not immoral, or do not tend to degrade the\ncharacter of God, they are the merest commonplaces imaginable, such as\none is astonished to see people accept as having been first taught by\nChrist.  Such maxims as those which inculcate conciliation and a\nforgiveness of injuries (wherever practicable) are certainly good, but\nthe world does not owe their discovery to Christ, and they have had\nlittle place in the practice of his followers.\n\n\u201cIt is impossible to say that as a matter of fact the English people\nforgive their enemies more freely now than the Romans did, we will say in\nthe time of Augustus.  The value of generosity and magnanimity was\nperfectly well known among the ancients, nor do these qualities assume\nany nobler guise in the teaching of Christ than they did in that of the\nancient heathen philosophers.  On the contrary, they have no direct\nequivalent in Christian thought or phraseology.  They are heathen words\ndrawn from a heathen language, and instinct with the same heathen ideas\nof high spirit and good birth as belonged to them in the Latin language;\nthey are no part or parcel of Christianity, and are not only independent\nof it, but savour distinctly of the flesh as opposed to the spirit, and\nare hence more or less antagonistic to it, until they have undergone a\ncertain modification and transformation\u2014until, that is to say, they have\nbeen mulcted of their more frank and genial elements.  The nearest\napproach to them in Christian phrase is \u2018self-denial,\u2019 but the sound of\nthis word kindles no smile of pleasure like that kindled by the ideas of\ngenerosity and nobility of conduct.  At the thought of self-denial we\nfeel good, but uncomfortable, and as though on the point of performing\nsome disagreeable duty which we think we ought to pretend to like, but\nwhich we do not like.  At the thought of generosity, we feel as one who\nis going to share in a delightfully exhilarating but arduous pastime\u2014full\nof the most pleasurable excitement.  On the mention of the word\ngenerosity we feel as if we were going out hunting; at the word\n\u2018self-denial,\u2019 as if we were getting ready to go to church.  Generosity\nturns well-doing into a pleasure, self-denial into a duty, as of a\nservant under compulsion.\n\n\u201cThere are people who will deny this, but there are people who will deny\nanything.  There are some who will say that St. Paul would not have\ncondemned the Falstaff plays, _Twelfth Night_, _The Tempest_, _A\nMidsummer Night\u2019s Dream_, and almost everything that Shakspeare ever\nwrote; but there is no arguing against this.  \u2018Every man,\u2019 said Dr.\nJohnson, \u2018has a right to his own opinion, and every one else has a right\nto knock him down for it.\u2019  But even granting that generosity and high\nspirit have made some progress since the days of Christ, allowance must\nbe made for the lapse of two thousand years, during which time it is only\nreasonable to suppose that an advance would have been made in\ncivilisation\u2014and hence in the direction of clemency and\nforbearance\u2014whether Christianity had been preached or not, but no one can\nshow that the modern English, if superior to the ancients in these\nrespects, show any greater superiority than may be ascribed justly to\ncenturies of established order and good government.\u201d\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\u201cAgain, as to the ideal presented by the character of Christ, about which\nso much has been written; is it one which would meet with all this\nadmiration if it were presented to us now for the first time?  Surely it\noffers but a peevish view of life and things in comparison with that\noffered by other highest ideals\u2014the old Roman and Greek ideals, the\nItalian ideal, and the Shakespearian ideal.\u201d\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\u201cAs with the parables so with the Sermon on the Mount\u2014where it is not\ncommonplace it is immoral, and _vice vers\u00e2_; the admiration which is so\nfreely lavished upon the teachings of Jesus Christ turns out to be but of\nthe same kind as that bestowed upon certain modern writers, who have made\ngreat reputations by telling people what they perfectly well knew; and\nwere in no particular danger of forgetting.  There is, however, this\nexcuse for those who have been carried away with such musical but\nuntruthful sentences as \u2018Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be\ncomforted,\u2019 namely, that they have not come to the subject with unbiassed\nminds.  It is one thing to see no merit in a picture, and another to see\nno merit in a picture when one is told that it is by Raphael; we are few\nof us able to stand against the _prestige_ of a great name; our self-love\nis alarmed lest we should be deficient in taste, or, worse still, lest we\nshould be considered to be so; as if it could matter to any right-minded\nperson whether the world considered him to be of good taste or not, in\ncomparison with the keeping of his own soul truthful to itself.\n\n\u201cBut if this holds good about things which are purely matters of taste,\nhow much more does it do so concerning those who make a distinct claim\nupon us for moral approbation or the reverse?  Such a claim is most\nimperatively made by the teaching of Jesus Christ: are we then content to\nanswer in the words of others\u2014words to which we have no title of our\nown\u2014or shall we strip ourselves of preconceived opinion, and come to the\nquestion with minds that are truly candid?  Whoever shrinks from this is\na liar to his own self, and as such, the worst and most dangerous of\nliars.  He is as one who sits in an impregnable citadel and trembles in a\ntime of peace\u2014so great a coward as not even to feel safe when he is in\nhis own keeping.  How loose of soul if he knows that his own keeping is\nworthless, how aspen-hearted if he fears lest others should find him out\nand hurt him for communing truthfully with himself!\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\u201cThat a man should lie to others if he hopes to gain something\nconsiderable\u2014this is reckoned cheating, robbing, fraudulent dealing, or\nwhatever it may be; but it is an intelligible offence in comparison with\nthe allowing oneself to be deceived.  So in like manner with being bored.\nThe man who lets himself be bored is even more contemptible than the\nbore.  He who puts up with shoddy pictures, shoddy music, shoddy\nmorality, shoddy society, is more despicable than he who is the prime\nagent in any of these things.  He has less to gain, and probably deceives\nhimself more; so that he commits the greater crime for the less reward.\nAnd I say emphatically that the morality which most men profess to hold\nas a Divine revelation was a shoddy morality, which would neither wash\nnor wear, but was woven together from a tissue of dreams and blunders,\nand steeped in blood more virulent than the blood of Nessus.\n\n\u201cOh! if men would but leave off lying to themselves!  If they would but\nlearn the sacredness of their own likes and dislikes, and exercise their\nmoral discrimination, making it clear to themselves what it is that they\nreally love and venerate.  There is no such enemy to mankind as moral\ncowardice.  A downright vulgar self-interested and unblushing liar is a\nhigher being than the moral cur whose likes and dislikes are at the beck\nand call of bullies that stand between him and his own soul; such a\ncreature gives up the most sacred of all his rights for something more\nunsubstantial than a mess of pottage\u2014a mental serf too abject even to\nknow that he is being wronged.  Wretched emasculator of his own reason,\nwhose jejune timidity and want of vitality are thus omnipresent in the\nmost secret chambers of his heart!\n\n\u201cWe can forgive a man for almost any falsehood provided we feel that he\nwas under strong temptation and well knew that he was deceiving.  He has\ndone wrong\u2014still we can understand it, and he may yet have some useful\nstuff about him\u2014but what can we feel towards one who for a small motive\ntells lies even to himself, and does not know that he is lying?  What\nuseless rotten fig-wood lumber must not such a thing be made of, and what\nlies will there not come out of it, falling in every direction upon all\nwho come within its reach.  The common self-deceiver of modern society is\na more dangerous and contemptible object than almost any ordinary felon,\na matter upon which those who do not deceive themselves need no\nenlightenment.\u201d\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\u201cBut why insist so strongly on the literal interpretation of one part of\nthe sayings of Christ, and be so elastic about that of the passages which\ninculcate more than those ordinary precepts which all had agreed upon as\nearly as the days of Solomon and probably earlier?  We have cut down\nChristianity so as to make it appear to sanction our own conventions; but\nwe have not altered our conventions so as to bring them into harmony with\nChristianity.  We do not give to him that asketh; we take good care to\navoid him; yet if the precept meant only that we should be liberal in\nassisting others\u2014it wanted no enforcing: the probability is that it had\nbeen enforced too much rather than too little already; the more literally\nit has been followed the more terrible has the mischief been; the saying\nonly becomes harmless when regarded as a mere convention.  So with most\nparts of Christ\u2019s teaching.  It is only conventional Christianity which\nwill stand a man in good stead to live by; true Christianity will never\ndo so.  Men have tried it and found it fail; or, rather, its inevitable\nfailure was so obvious that no age or country has ever been mad enough to\ncarry it out in such a manner as would have satisfied its founders.  So\nsaid Dean Swift in his _Argument against abolishing Christianity_.  \u2018I\nhope,\u2019 he writes, \u2018no reader imagines me so weak as to stand up in\ndefence of real Christianity, such as used in primitive times\u2019 (if we may\nbelieve the authors of those ages) \u2018to have an influence upon men\u2019s\nbeliefs and actions.  To offer at the restoring of that would be, indeed,\na wild project; it would be to dig up foundations, to destroy at one blow\nall the wit and half the learning of the kingdom, to break the entire\nframe and constitution of things, to ruin trade, extinguish arts and\nsciences, with the professors of them; in short, to turn our courts of\nexchange and shops into deserts; and would be full as absurd as the\nproposal of Horace where he advises the Romans all in a body to leave\ntheir city, and to seek a new seat in some remote part of the world by\nway of cure for the corruption of their manners.\n\n\u201c\u2018Therefore, I think this caution was in itself altogether unnecessary\n(which I have inserted only to prevent all possibility of cavilling),\nsince every candid reader will easily understand my discourse to be\nintended only in defence of nominal Christianity, the other having been\nfor some time wholly laid aside by general consent as utterly\ninconsistent with our present schemes of wealth and power.\u2019\n\n\u201cYet but for these schemes of wealth and power the world would relapse\ninto barbarianism; it is they and not Christianity which have created and\npreserved civilisation.  And what if some unhappy wretch, with a serious\nturn of mind and no sense of the ridiculous, takes all this talk about\nChristianity in sober earnest, and tries to act upon it?  Into what\nmisery may he not easily fall, and with what life-long errors may he not\nembitter the lives of his children!\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n\u201cAgain, we do not cut off our right hand nor pluck out our eyes if they\noffend us; we conventionalise our interpretations of these sayings at our\nwill and pleasure; we do take heed for the morrow, and should be\ninconceivably wicked and foolish were we not to do so; we do gather up\nriches, and indeed we do most things which the experience of mankind has\ntaught us to be to our advantage, quite irrespectively of any precept of\nChristianity for or against.  But why say that it is Christianity which\nis our chief guide, when the words of Christ point in such a very\ndifferent direction from that which we have seen fit to take?  Perhaps it\nis in order to compensate for our laxity of interpretation upon these\npoints that we are so rigid in stickling for accuracy upon those which\nmake no demand upon our comfort or convenience?  Thus, though we\nconventionalise practice, we never conventionalise dogma.  Here, indeed,\nwe stickle for the letter most inflexibly; yet one would have thought\nthat we might have had greater licence to modify the latter than the\nformer.  If we say that the teaching of Christ is not to be taken\naccording to its import\u2014why give it so much importance?  Teaching by\nexaggeration is not a satisfactory method, nor one worthy of a being\nhigher than man; it might have been well once, and in the East, but it is\nnot well now.  It induces more and more of that jarring and straining of\nour moral faculties, of which much is unavoidable in the existing complex\ncondition of affairs, but of which the less the better.  At present the\ntug of professed principles in one direction, and of necessary practice\nin the other, causes the same sort of wear and tear in our moral gear as\nis caused to a steam-engine by continually reversing it when it is going\nit at full speed.  No mechanism can stand it.\u201d\n\nThe above extracts (written when he was about twenty-three years old) may\nserve to show how utter was the subversion of his faith.  His mind was\nindeed in darkness!  Who could have hoped that so brilliant a day should\nhave succeeded to the gloom of such mistrust?  Yet as upon a winter\u2019s\nmorning in November when the sun rises red through the smoke, and\npresently the fog spreads its curtain of thick darkness over the city,\nand then there comes a single breath of wind from some more generous\nquarter, whereupon the blessed sun shines again, and the gloom is gone;\nor, again, as when the warm south-west wind comes up breathing kindness\nfrom the sea, unheralded, suspected, when the earth is in her saddest\nfrost, and on the instant all the lands are thawed and opened to the\ngenial influences of a sweet springful whisper\u2014so thawed his heart, and\nthe seed which had lain dormant in its fertile soil sprang up, grew,\nripened, and brought forth an abundant harvest.\n\nIndeed now that the result has been made plain we can perhaps feel that\nhis scepticism was precisely of that nature which should have given the\ngreatest ground for hope.  He was a genuine lover of truth in so far as\nhe could see it.\n\nHis lights were dim, but such as they were he walked according to them,\nand hence they burnt ever more and more clearly, till in later life they\nserved to show him what is vouchsafed to such men and to such only\u2014the\nenormity of his own mistakes.  Better that a man should feel the\ndivergence between Christian theory and Christian practice, that he\nshould be shocked at it\u2014even to the breaking away utterly from the theory\nuntil he has arrived at a wider comprehension of its scope\u2014than that he\nshould be indifferent to the divergence and make no effort to bring his\nprinciples and practice into harmony with one another.  A true lover of\nconsistency, it was intolerable to him to say one thing with his lips and\nanother with his actions.  As long as this is true concerning any man,\nhis friends may feel sure that the hand of the Lord is with him, though\nthe signs thereof be hidden from mortal eyesight.\n\n\n\nChapter IV\n\n\nDURING the dark and unhappy time when he had, as it seems to me, bullied\nhimself, or been bullied into infidelity, he had been utterly unable to\nrealise the importance even of such a self-evident fact as that our Lord\naddressing an Eastern people would speak in such a way as Eastern people\nwould best understand; it took him years to appreciate this.  He could\nnot see that modes of thought are as much part of a language as the\ngrammar and words which compose it, and that before a passage can be said\nto be translated from one language into another it is often not the words\nonly which must be rendered, but the thought itself which must be\ntransformed; to a people habituated to exaggeration a saying which was\nnot exaggerated would have been pointless\u2014so weak as to arrest the\nattention of no one; in order to translate it into such words as should\ncarry precisely the same meaning to colder and more temperate minds, the\nwords would often have to be left out of sight altogether, and a new\nsentence or perhaps even simile or metaphor substituted; this is plainly\nout of the question, and therefore the best course is that which has been\ntaken, _i.e._, to render the words as accurately as possible, and leave\nthe reader to modify the meaning.  But it was years before my brother\ncould be got to feel this, nor did he ever do so fully, simple and\nobvious though it must appear to most people, until he had learned to\nrecognise the value of a certain amount of inaccuracy and inconsistency\nin everything which is not comprehended in mechanics or the exact\nsciences.  \u201cIt is this,\u201d he used to say, \u201cwhich gives artistic or\nspiritual value as contrasted with mechanical precision.\u201d\n\nIn inaccuracy and inconsistency, therefore (within certain limits), my\nbrother saw the means whereby our minds are kept from regarding things as\nrigidly and immutably fixed which are not yet fully understood, and\nperhaps may never be so while we are in our present state of probation.\nLife is not one of the exact sciences, living is essentially an art and\nnot a science.  Every thing addressed to human minds at all must be more\nor less of a compromise; thus, to take a very old illustration, even the\ndefinitions of a point and a line\u2014the fundamental things in the most\nexact of the sciences\u2014are mere compromises.  A point is supposed to have\nneither length, breadth, nor thickness\u2014this in theory, but in practice\nunless a point have a little of all these things there is nothing there.\nSo with a line; a line is supposed to have length, but no breadth, yet in\npractice we never saw a line which had not breadth.  What inconsistency\nis there here, in requiring us to conceive something which we cannot\nconceive, and which can have no existence, before we go on to the\ninvestigation of the laws whereby the earth can alone be measured and the\norbits of the planets determined.  I do not think that this illustration\nwas presented to my brother\u2019s mind while he was young, but I am sure that\nif it had been it would have made him miserable.  He would have had no\nconfidence in mathematics, and would very likely have made a furious\nattack upon Newton and Galileo, and been firmly convinced that he was\ndiscomfiting them.  Indeed I cannot forget a certain look of bewilderment\nwhich came over his face when the idea was put before him, I imagine, for\nthe first time.  Fortunately he had so grown that the right inference was\nnow in no danger of being missed.  He did not conclude that because the\nevidences for mathematics were founded upon compromises and definitions\nwhich are inaccurate\u2014therefore that mathematics were false, or that there\nwere no mathematics, but he learnt to feel that there might be other\nthings which were no less indisputable than mathematics, and which might\nalso be founded on facts for which the evidences were not wholly free\nfrom inconsistencies and inaccuracies.\n\nTo some he might appear to be approaching too nearly to the \u201cSed tu vera\nputa\u201d argument of Juvenal.  I greatly fear that an attempt may be made to\nmisrepresent him as taking this line; that is to say, as accepting\nChristianity on the ground of the excellence of its moral teaching, and\nlooking upon it as, indeed, a superstition, but salutary for women and\nyoung people.  Hardly anything would have shocked him more profoundly.\nThis doctrine with its plausible show of morality appeared to him to be,\nperhaps, the most gross of all immoralities, inasmuch as it cuts the\nground from under the feet of truth, luring the world farther and farther\nfrom the only true salvation\u2014the careful study of facts and of the safest\ninferences that may be drawn from them.  Every fact was to him a part of\nnature, a thing sacred, pregnant with Divine teaching of some sort, as\nbeing the expression of Divine will.  It was through facts that he saw\nGod; to tamper with facts was, in his view, to deface the countenance of\nthe Almighty.  To say that such and such was so and so, when the speaker\ndid not believe it, was to lead people to worship a false God instead of\na true one; an \u03b5\u03b9\u03b4\u03c9\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd; setting them, to quote the words of the Psalmist,\n\u201ca-whoring after their own imaginations.\u201d  He saw the Divine presence in\neverything\u2014the evil as well as the good; the evil being the expression of\nthe Divine will that such and such courses should not go unpunished, but\nbring pain and misery which should deter others from following them, and\nthe good being his sign of approbation.  There was nothing good for man\nto know which could not be deduced from facts.  This was the only sound\nbasis of knowledge, and to found things upon fiction which could be made\nto stand upon facts was to try and build upon a quicksand.\n\nHe, therefore, loathed the reasoning of Juvenal with all the intensity of\nhis nature.  It was because he believed that the Resurrection and\nAscension of our Lord were just as much matters of actual history as the\nassassination of Julius C\u00e6sar, and that they happened precisely in the\nsame way as every daily event happens at present\u2014that he accepted the\nChristian scheme in its essentials.  Then came the details.  Were these\nalso objectively true?  He answered, \u201cCertainly not in every case.\u201d  He\nwould not for the world have had any one believe that he so considered\nthem; but having made it perfectly clear that he was not going to deceive\nhimself, he set himself to derive whatever spiritual comfort he could\nfrom them, just as he would from any noble fiction or work of art, which,\nwhile not professing to be historical, was instinct with the soul of\ngenius.  That there were unhistorical passages in the New Testament was\nto him a fact; therefore it was to be studied as an expression of the\nDivine will.  What could be the meaning of it?  That we should consider\nthem as true?  Assuredly not this.  Then what else?  This\u2014that we should\naccept as subjectively true whatever we found spiritually precious, and\nbe at liberty to leave all the rest alone\u2014the unhistoric element having\nbeen introduced purposely for the sake of giving greater scope and\nlatitude to the value of the ideal.\n\nOf course one who was so firmly persuaded of the objective truth of the\nResurrection and Ascension could be in no sort of danger of relapsing\ninto infidelity as long as his reason remained.  During the years of his\nillness his mind was clearly impaired, and no longer under his own\ncontrol; but while his senses were his own it was absolutely impossible\nthat he could be shaken by discrepancies and inconsistencies in the\ngospels.  What small and trifling things are such discrepancies by the\nside of the great central miracle of the Resurrection!  Nevertheless\ntheir existence was indisputable, and was no less indisputably a cause of\nstumbling to many, as it had been to himself.  His experience of his own\nsufferings as an unbeliever gave him a keener sympathy with those who\nwere in that distressing condition than could be felt by any one who had\nnot so suffered, and fitted him, perhaps, more than any one who has yet\nlived to be the interpreter of Christianity to the Rationalist, and of\nRationalism to the Christian.  This, accordingly, was the task to which\nhe set himself, having been singularly adapted for it by Nature, and as\nsingularly disciplined by events.\n\nIt seemed to him that the first thing was to make the two parties\nunderstand one another\u2014a thing which had never yet been done, but which\nwas not at all impossible.  For Protestantism is raised essentially upon\na Rationalistic base.  When we come to a definition of Rationalism\nnothing can be plainer than that it demands no scepticism from any one\nwhich an English Protestant would not approve of.  It is another matter\nwith the Church of Rome.  That Church openly declares it as an axiom that\nreligion and reason have nothing to do with one another, and that\nreligion, though in flat contradiction to reason, should yet be accepted\nfrom the hands of a certain order as an act of unquestioning faith.  The\nline of separation therefore between the Romanist and the Rationalist is\nclear, and definitely bars any possibility of arrangement between the\ntwo.  Not so with the Protestant, who as heartily as the Rationalist\nadmits that nothing is required to be believed by man except such things\nas can be reasonably proved\u2014i.e., proved to the satisfaction of the\nreason.  No Protestant would say that the Christian scheme ought to be\naccepted in spite of its being contrary to reason; we say that\nChristianity is to be believed because it can be shewn to follow as the\nnecessary consequence of using our reason rightly.  We should be shocked\nat being supposed to maintain otherwise.  Yet this is pure Rationalism.\nThe Rationalist would require nothing more; he demurs to Christianity\nbecause he maintains that if we bring our reason to bear upon the\nevidences which are brought forward in support of it, we are compelled to\nreject it; but he would accept it without hesitation if he believed that\nit could be sustained by arguments which ought to carry conviction to the\nreason.  Thus both are agreed in principle that if the evidences of\nChristianity satisfy human reason, then Christianity should be received,\nbut that on any other supposition it should be rejected.\n\nHere then, he said, we have a common starting-point and the main\nprinciple of Rationalism turns out to be nothing but what we all readily\nadmit, and with which we and our fathers have been as familiar for\ncenturies as with the air we breathe.  Every Protestant is a Rationalist,\nor else he ought to be ashamed of himself.  Does he want to be called an\n\u201cIrrationalist\u201d?  Hardly\u2014yet if he is not a Rationalist what else can he\nbe?  No: the difference between us is one of detail, not of principle.\nThis is a great step gained.\n\nThe next thing therefore was to make each party understand the view which\nthe other took concerning the position which they had agreed to hold in\ncommon.  There was no work, so far as he knew, which would be accepted\nboth by Christians and unbelievers as containing a fair statement of the\narguments of the two contending parties: every book which he had yet seen\nupon either side seemed written with the view of maintaining that its own\nside could hold no wrong, and the other no right: neither party seemed to\nthink that they had anything to learn from the other, and neither that\nany considerable addition to their knowledge of the truth was either\npossible or desirable.  Each was in possession of truth already, and all\nwho did not see and feel this must be either wilfully blinded, or\nintensely stupid, or hypocrites.\n\nSo long as people carried on a discussion thus, what agreement was\npossible between them?  Yet where, upon the Christian side, was the\nattempt to grapple with the real difficulties now felt by unbelievers?\nSimply nowhere.  All that had been done hitherto was antiquated.  Modern\nChristianity seemed to shrink from grappling with modern Rationalism, and\ndisplayed a timidity which could not be accounted for except by the\nsupposition of secret misgiving that certain things were being defended\nwhich could not be defended fairly.  This was quite intolerable; a\nmisgiving was a warning voice from God, which should be attended to as a\nman valued his soul.  On the other hand, the conviction reasonably\nentertained by unbelievers that they were right on many not\ninconsiderable details of the dispute, and that so-called orthodox\nChristians in their hearts knew it but would not own it\u2014or that if they\ndid not know it, they were only in ignorance because it suited their\npurpose to be so\u2014this conviction gave an overweening self-confidence to\ninfidels, as though they must be right in the whole because they were so\nin part; they therefore blinded themselves to all the more fundamental\narguments in support of Christianity, because certain shallow ones had\nbeen put forward in the front rank, and been far too obstinately\ndefended.  They thus regarded the question too superficially, and had\nerred even more through pride of intellect and conceit than their\nopponents through timidity.\n\nWhat then was to be done?  Surely this; to explain the two contending\nparties to one another; to show to Rationalists that Christians are right\nupon Rationalistic principles in all the more important of their\nallegations; that is to say, to establish the Resurrection and Ascension\nof the Redeemer upon a basis which should satisfy the most imperious\ndemands of modern criticism.  This would form the first and most\nimportant part of the task.  Then should follow a no less convincing\nproof that Rationalists are right in demurring to the historical accuracy\nof much which has been too obstinately defended by so-called orthodox\nwriters.  This would be the second part.  Was there not reason to hope\nthat when this was done the two parties might understand one another, and\nmeet in a common Christianity?  He believed that there was, and that the\nground had been already cleared for such mutual compromise as might be\naccepted by both sides, not from policy but conviction.  Therefore he\nbegan writing the book which it has devolved upon myself to edit, and\nwhich must now speak for itself.  For him it was to suffer and to labour;\nalmost on the very instant of his having done enough to express his\nmeaning he was removed from all further power of usefulness.\n\nThe happy change from unbelief to faith had already taken place some\nthree or four years before my return from America.  With it had also come\nthat sudden development of intellectual and spiritual power which so\ngreatly astonished even those who had known him best.  The whole man\nseemed changed\u2014to have become possessed of an unusually capacious mind,\ninstead of one which was acute, but acute only.  On looking over the\nearlier letters which I received from him when I was in America, I can\nhardly believe that they should have been written by the same person as\nthe one to whom, in spite of not a few great mental defects, I afterwards\nowed more spiritual enrichment than I have owed to any other person.  Yet\nso it was.  It came upon me imperceptibly that I had been very stupid in\nnot discovering that my brother was a genius; but hardly had I made the\ndiscovery, and hardly had the fragment which follows this memoir received\nits present shape, when his overworked brain gave way and he fell into a\nstate little better than idiocy.  His originally cheerful spirits left\nhim, and were succeeded by a religious melancholy which nothing could\ndisturb.  He became incapable either of mental or physical exertion, and\nwas pronounced by the best physicians to be suffering from some obscure\ndisease of the brain brought on by excitement and undue mental tension:\nin this state he continued for about four years, and died peacefully, but\nstill as one in the profoundest melancholy, on the 15th of March, 1872,\naged 40.\n\nAlways hopeful that his health would one day be restored, I never\nventured to propose that I should edit his book during his own life-time.\nOn his death I found his papers in the most deplorable confusion.  The\nfollowing chapters had alone received anything like a presentable\nshape\u2014and these providentially are the most essential.\n\nA dream is a dream only, yet sometimes there follows a fulfilment which\nbears a strange resemblance to the thing dreamt of.  No one now believes\nthat the Book of Revelation is to be taken as foretelling events which\nwill happen in the same way as the massacre, for instance, of St.\nBartholomew, indeed it is doubtful how far the whole is not to be\ninterpreted as an allegory, descriptive of spiritual revolutions; yet\nsurely my mother\u2019s dream as to the future of one, at least, of her sons\nhas been strangely verified, and it is believed that the reader when he\nlays down this volume will feel that there have been few more potent\nwitnesses to the truth of Christ than John Pickard Owen.\n\n\n\n\nThe Fair Haven\n\n\nChapter I\nIntroduction\n\n\nIT is to be feared that there is no work upon the evidences of our faith,\nwhich is as satisfactory in its completeness and convincing power as we\nhave a right to expect when we consider the paramount importance of the\nsubject and the activity of our enemies.  Otherwise why should there be\nno sign of yielding on the part of so many sincere and eminent men who\nhave heard all that has been said upon the Christian side and are yet not\nconvinced by it?  We cannot think that the many philosophers who make no\nsecret of their opposition to the Christian religion are unacquainted\nwith the works of Butler and Paley\u2014of Mansel and Liddon.  This cannot be:\nthey must be acquainted with them, and find them fail.\n\nNow, granting readily that in some minds there is a certain wilful and\nprejudiced self-blindness which no reasoning can overcome, and granting\nalso that men very much preoccupied with any one pursuit (more especially\na scientific one) will be apt to give but scant and divided attention to\narguments upon other subjects such as religion or politics, nevertheless\nwe have so many opponents who profess to have made a serious study of\nChristian evidences, and against whose opinion no exception can be fairly\ntaken, that it seems as though we were bound either to admit that our\ndemonstrations require rearrangement and reconsideration, or to take the\nRoman position, and maintain that revelation is no fit subject for\nevidence but is to be accepted upon authority.  This last position will\nbe rejected at once by nine-tenths of Englishmen.  But upon rejecting it\nwe look in vain for a work which shall appear to have any such success in\narresting infidelity as attended the works of Butler and Paley in the\nlast century.  In their own day these two great men stemmed the current\nof infidelity: but no modern writers have succeeded in doing so, and it\nwill scarcely be said that either Butler or Paley set at rest the many\nserious and inevitable questions in connection with Christianity which\nhave arisen during the last fifty years.  We could hardly expect one of\nthe more intelligent students at Oxford or Cambridge to find his mind set\nonce and for ever free from all rising doubt either by the _Analogy_ or\nthe _Evidences_.  Suppose, for example, that he has been misled by the\nGerman writers of the T\u00fcbingen school, how will either of the above-named\nwriters help him?  On the contrary, they will do him harm, for they will\nnot meet the requirements of the case, and the inference is too readily\ndrawn that nothing else can do so.  It need hardly be insisted upon that\nthis inference is a most unfair one, but surely the blame of its being\ndrawn rests in some measure at the door of those whose want of\nthoroughness has left people under the impression that no more can be\nsaid than what has been said already.\n\nIt is the object, therefore, of this book to contribute towards\nestablishing Christian evidences upon a more secure and self-evident base\nthan any upon which they are made to rest at present, so far, that is to\nsay, as a work which deliberately excludes whole fields of Christian\nevidence can tend towards so great a consummation.  In spite of the\nnarrow limits within which I have resolved to keep my treatment of the\nsubject, I trust that I may be able to produce such an effect upon the\nminds of those who are in doubt concerning the evidences for the hope\nthat is in them, that henceforward they shall never doubt again.  I am\nnot sanguine enough to suppose that I shall be able to induce certain\neminent naturalists and philosophers to reopen a question which they have\nprobably long laid aside as settled; unfortunately it is not in any but\nthe very noblest Christian natures to do this, nevertheless, could they\nbe persuaded to read these pages I believe that they would find so much\nwhich would be new to them, that their prejudices would be greatly\nshaken.  To the younger band of scientific investigators I appeal more\nhopefully.\n\nIt may be asked why not have undertaken the whole subject and devoted a\nlife-time to writing an exhaustive work?  The answer suggests itself that\nthe believer is in no want of such a book, while the unbeliever would be\nrepelled by its size.  Assuredly there can be no doubt as to the value of\na great work which should meet objections derived from certain recent\nscientific theories, and confute opponents who have arisen since the\ndeath of our two great apologists, but as a preliminary to this a smaller\nand more elementary book seems called for, which shall give the main\noutlines of our position with such boldness and effectiveness as to\narrest the attention of any unbeliever into whose hands it may fall, and\ninduce him to look further into what else may be urged upon the Christian\nside.  We are bound to adapt our means to our ends, and shall have a\nbetter chance of gaining the ear of our adversaries if we can offer them\na short and pregnant book than if we come to them with a long one from\nwhich whole chapters might be pruned.  We have to bring the Christian\nreligion to men who will look at no book which cannot be read in a\nrailway train or in an arm-chair; it is most deplorable that this should\nbe the case, nevertheless it is indisputably a fact, and as such must be\nattended to by all who hope to be of use in bringing about a better state\nof things.  And let me add that never yet was there a time when it so\nmuch behoved all who are impressed with the vital power of religion to\nbestir themselves; for the symptoms of a general indifference, not to say\nhostility, must be admitted to be widely diffused, in spite of an\nimposing array of facts which can be brought forward to the contrary; and\nnot only this, but the stream of infidelity seems making more havoc\nyearly, as it might naturally be expected to do, when met by no new works\nof any real strength or permanence.\n\nBearing in mind, therefore, the necessity for prompt action, it seemed\nbest to take the most overwhelming of all miracles\u2014the Resurrection of\nour Lord Jesus Christ, and show that it can be so substantiated that no\nreasonable man should doubt it.  This I have therefore attempted, and I\nhumbly trust that the reader will feel that I have not only attempted it,\nbut done it, once and for all so clearly and satisfactorily and with such\nan unflinching examination of the most advanced arguments of unbelievers,\nthat the question can never be raised hereafter by any candid mind, or at\nany rate not until science has been made to rest on different grounds\nfrom those on which she rests at present.\n\nBut the truth of our Lord\u2019s resurrection having been once established,\nwhat need to encumber this book with further evidences of the miraculous\nelement in his ministry?  The other miracles can be no insuperable\ndifficulty to one who accepts the Resurrection.  It is true that as\nChristians we cannot dwell too minutely upon every act and incident in\nthe life of the Redeemer, but unhappily we have to deal with those who\nare not Christians, and must consider rather what we can get them to take\nthan what we should like to give them: \u201cBe ye wise as serpents and\nharmless as doves,\u201d saith the Saviour.  A single miracle is as good as\ntwenty, provided that it be well established, and can be shewn to be so:\nit is here that even the ablest of our apologists have too often failed;\nthey have professed to substantiate the historical accuracy of all the\nrecorded miracles and sayings of our Lord, with a result which is in some\ninstances feeble and conventional, and occasionally even unfair (oh! what\nsuicidal folly is there in even the remotest semblance of unfairness),\ninstead of devoting themselves to throwing a flood of brilliancy upon the\nmost important features and leaving the others to shine out in the light\nreflected from these.  Even granting that some of the miracles recorded\nof our Lord are apocryphal, what of that?  We do not rest upon them: we\nhave enough and more than enough without them, and can afford to take the\nline of saying to the unbeliever, \u201cDisbelieve this miracle or that if you\nfind that you cannot accept it, but believe in the Resurrection, of which\nwe will put forward such ample proofs that no healthy reason can\nwithstand them, and, having accepted the Resurrection, admit it as the\nmanifestation of supernatural power, the existence of which can thus no\nlonger be denied.\u201d\n\nDoes not the reader feel that there is a ring of truth and candour about\nthis which must carry more weight with an opponent than any strained\ndefence of such a doubtful miracle as the healing of the impotent man at\nthe pool of Bethesda?  We weight ourselves as against our opponents by\ntrying to defend too much; no matter how sound and able the defence of\none part of the Christian scheme may have been, its effect is often\nmarred by contiguity with argument which the writer himself must have\nsuspected, or even known, to be ingenious rather than sound: the moment\nthat this is felt in any book its value with an opponent is at an end,\nfor he must be continually in doubt whether the spirit which he has\ndetected here or there may not be existing and at work in a hundred other\nplaces where he has not detected it.  What carries weight with an\nantagonist is the feeling that his position has been mastered and his\ndifficulties grasped with thoroughness and candour.\n\nOn this point I am qualified to speak from long and bitter experience.  I\nsay that want of candour and the failure to grasp the position occupied,\nhowever untenably, by unbelievers is the chief cause of the continuance\nof unbelief.  When this cause has been removed unbelief will die a\nnatural death.  For years I was myself a believer in nothing beyond the\npersonality and providence of God: yet I feel (not without a certain\nsense of bitterness, which I know that I should not feel but cannot\nutterly subdue) that if my first doubts had been met with patient\nendeavour to understand their nature and if I had felt that the one in\nwhom I confided had been ready to go to the root of the matter, and even\nto yield up the convictions of a life-time could it be shewn that they\nwere unsafely founded, my doubts would have been resolved in an hour or\ntwo\u2019s quiet conversation, and would at once have had the effect, which\nthey have only had after long suffering and unrest, of confirming me in\nmy allegiance to Christ.  But I was met with anger and impatience.  There\nwas an instinct which told me that my opponent had never heard a syllable\nagainst his own convictions, and was determined not to hear one: on this\nI assumed rashly that he must have good reason for his resolution; and\ndoubt ripened into unbelief.  Oh! what years of heart-burning and utter\ndrifting followed.  Yet when I was at last brought within the influence\nof one who not only believed all that my first opponent did, but who also\nknew that the more light was thrown upon it the more clearly would its\ntruth be made apparent\u2014a man who talked with me as though he was anxious\nthat I should convince him if he were in error, not as though bent on\nmaking me believe whatever habit and circumstances had imposed as a\nformula upon himself\u2014my heart softened at once, and the dry places of my\nsoul were watered.\n\nThe above may seem too purely personal to warrant its introduction here,\nyet the experience is one which should not be without its value to\nothers.  Its effect upon myself has been to give me an unutterable\nlonging to save others from sufferings like my own; I know so well where\nit is that, to use a homely metaphor, the shoe pinches.  And it is\nchiefly here\u2014in the fact that the unbeliever does not feel as though we\nreally wanted to understand him.  This feeling is in many cases\nlamentably well founded.  No one likes hearing doubt thrown upon anything\nwhich he regards as settled beyond dispute, and this, happily, is what\nmost men feel concerning Christianity.  Again, indolence or impotence of\nmind indisposes many to intellectual effort; others are pained by coming\ninto contact with anything which derogates from the glory due to the\ngreat sacrifice of Christ, or to his Divine nature, and lastly not a few\nare withheld by moral cowardice from daring to bestow the pains upon the\nunbeliever which his condition requires.  But from whichever of these\nsources the disinclination to understand him comes, its effect is equally\ndisastrous to the unbeliever.  People do not mind a difference of\nopinion, if they feel that the one who differs from them has got a firm\ngrasp of their position; or again, if they feel that he is trying to\nunderstand them but fails from some defect either of intellect or\neducation, even in this case they are not pained by opposition.  What\ninjures their moral nature and hardens their hearts is the conviction\nthat another could understand them if he chose, but does not choose, and\nyet none the less condemns them.  On this they become imbued with that\nbitterness against Christianity which is noticeable in so many\nfree-thinkers.\n\nCan we greatly wonder?  For, sad though the admission be, it is only\njustice to admit that we Christians have been too often contented to\naccept our faith without knowing its grounds, in which case it is more by\nluck than by cunning that we are Christians at all, and our faith will be\nin continual danger.  The greater number even of those who have\nundertaken to defend the Christian faith have been sadly inclined to\navoid a difficulty rather than to face it, unless it is so easy as to be\nno real difficulty at all.  I do not say that this is unnatural, for the\nChristian writer must be deeply impressed with the sinfulness of\nunbelief, and will therefore be anxious to avoid raising doubts which\nwill probably never yet have occurred to his reader, and might possibly\nnever do so; nor does there at first sight appear to be much advantage in\nraising difficulties for the sole purpose of removing them; nevertheless\nI cannot think that if either Butler or Paley could have foreseen the\ncontinuance of unbelief, and the ruin of so many souls whom Christ died\nto save, they would have been contented to act so almost entirely upon\nthe defensive.\n\nYet it is impossible not to feel that we in their place should have done\nas they did.  Infidelity was still in its infancy: the nature of the\ndisease was hardly yet understood; and there seemed reason to fear lest\nit might be aggravated by the very means taken to cure it; it seemed\nsafer therefore in the first instance to confine attention to the matter\nactually in debate, and leave it to time to suggest a more active\ntreatment should the course first tried prove unsatisfactory.  Who can be\nsurprised that the earlier apologists should have felt thus in the\npresence of an enemy whose novelty made him appear more portentous than\nhe can ever seem to ourselves?  They were bound to venture nothing\nrashly; what they did they did, for their own age, thoroughly; we owe it\nto their cautious pioneering that we so know the weakness of our\nopponents and our own strength as to be able to do fearlessly what may\nwell have seemed perilous to our forefathers: nevertheless it is easy to\nbe wise after the event, and to regret that a bolder course was not taken\nat the outset.  If Butler and Paley had fought as men eager for the fray,\nas men who smelt the battle from afar, it is impossible to believe that\ninfidelity could have lasted as long as it has.  What can be done now\ncould have been done just as effectively then, and though we cannot be\nsurprised at the caution shewn at first, we are bound to deplore it as\nshort-sighted.\n\nThe question, however, for ourselves is not what dead men might have done\nbetter long ago, but what living men and women can do most wisely now;\nand in answer to it I would say that there is no policy so unwise as fear\nin a good cause: the bold course is also the wise one; it consists in\nbeing on the lookout for objections, in finding the very best that can be\nfound and stating them in their most intelligible form, in shewing what\nare the logical consequences of unbelief, and thus carrying the war into\nthe enemy\u2019s country; in fighting with the most chivalrous generosity and\na determination to take no advantage which is not according to the rules\nof war most strictly interpreted against ourselves, but within such an\ninterpretation showing no quarter.  This is the bold course and the true\ncourse: it will beget a confidence which can never be felt in the\nwariness, however well-intentioned, of the old defenders.\n\nLet me, therefore, beg the reader to follow me patiently while I do my\nbest to put before him the main difficulties felt by unbelievers.  When\nhe is once acquainted with these he will run in no danger of confirming\ndoubt through his fear in turning away from it in the first instance.\nHow many die hardened unbelievers through the treatment which they have\nreceived from those to whom their Christianity has been a matter of\ncircumstances and habit only?  Hell is no fiction.  Who, without bitter\nsorrow, can reflect upon the agonies even of a single soul as being due\nto the selfishness or cowardice of others?  Awful thought!  Yet it is one\nwhich is daily realised in the case of thousands.\n\nIn the commonest justice to brethren, however sinful, each one of us who\ntries to lead them to the Saviour is bound not only to shew them the\nwhole strength of our own arguments, but to make them see that we\nunderstand the whole strength of theirs; for men will not seriously\nlisten to those whom they believe to know one side of a question only.\nIt is this which makes the educated infidel so hard to deal with; he\nknows very well that an intelligent apprehension of the position held by\nan opponent is indispensable for profitable discussion; but he very\nrarely meets with this in the case of those Christians who try to argue\nwith him; he therefore soon acquires a habit of avoiding the subject of\nreligion, and can seldom be induced to enter upon an argument which he is\nconvinced can lead to nothing.\n\nHe who would cure a disease must first know what it is, and he who would\nconvert an infidel must know what it is that he is to be converted from,\nas well as what he is to be led to; nothing can be laid hold of unless\nits whereabouts is known.  It is deplorable that such commonplaces should\nbe wanted; but, alas! it is impossible to do without them.  People have\ntaken a panic on the subject of infidelity as though it were so\ninfectious that the very nurses and doctors should run away from those\nafflicted with it; but such conduct is no less absurd than cruel and\ndisgraceful.  _Infidelity is only infectious when it is not understood_.\nThe smallest reflection should suffice to remind us that a faith which\nhas satisfied the most brilliant and profound of human intellects for\nnearly two thousand years must have had very sure foundations, and that\nany digging about them for the purpose of demonstrating their depth and\nsolidity, will result, not in their disturbance, but in its being made\nclear to every eye that they are laid upon a rock which nothing can\nshake\u2014that they do indeed satisfy every demand of human reason, which\nsuffers violence not from those who accept the scheme of the Christian\nredemption, but from those who reject it.\n\nThis being the case, and that it is so will, I believe, appear with great\nclearness in the following pages, what need to shrink from the just and\ncharitable course of understanding the nature of what is urged by those\nwho differ from us?  How can we hope to bring them to be of one mind in\nChrist Jesus with ourselves, unless we can resolve their difficulties and\nexplain them?  And how can we resolve their difficulties until we know\nwhat they are?  Infidelity is as a reeking fever den, which none can\nenter safely without due precautions, but the taking these precautions is\nwithin our own power; we can all rely upon the blessed promises of the\nSaviour that he will not desert us in our hour of need if we will only\ntruly seek him; there is more infidelity in this shrinking and fear of\ninvestigation than in almost any open denial of Christ; the one who\nrefuses to examine the doubts felt by another, and is prevented from\nmaking any effort to remove them through fear lest he should come to\nshare them, shews either that he has no faith in the power of\nChristianity to stand examination, or that he has no faith in the\npromises of God to guide him into all truth.  In either case he is hardly\nless an unbeliever than those whom he condemns.\n\nLet the reader therefore understand that he will here find no attempt to\nconceal the full strength of the arguments relied on by unbelievers.\nThis manner of substantiating the truth of Christianity has unhappily\nbeen tried already; it has been tried and has failed as it was bound to\nfail.  Infidelity lives upon concealment.  Shew it in broad daylight,\nhold it up before the world and make its hideousness manifest to\nall\u2014then, and not till then, will the hours of unbelief be numbered.\n_We_ have been the mainstay of unbelief through our timidity.  Far be it\nfrom me, therefore, that I should help any unbeliever by concealing his\ncase for him.  This were the most cruel kindness.  On the contrary, I\nshall insist upon all his arguments and state them, if I may say so\nwithout presumption, more clearly than they have ever been stated within\nthe same limits.  No one knows what they are better than I do.  No one\nwas at one time more firmly persuaded that they were sound.  May it be\nfound that no one has so well known how also to refute them.\n\nThe reader must not therefore expect to find fictitious difficulties in\nthe way of accepting Christianity set up with one hand in order to be\nknocked down again with the other: he will find the most powerful\narguments against all that he holds most sacred insisted on with the same\nclearness as those on his own side; it is only by placing the two\ncontending opinions side by side in their utmost development that the\nstrength of our own can be made apparent.  Those who wish to cry peace,\npeace, when there is no peace, those who would take their faith by\nfashion as the take their clothes, those who doubt the strength of their\nown cause and do not in their heart of heart believe that Christianity\nwill stand investigation, those, again, who care not who may go to Hell\nprovided they are comfortably sure of going to Heaven themselves, such\npersons may complain of the line which I am about to take.  They on the\nother hand whose faith is such that it knows no fear of criticism, and\nthey whose love for Christ leads them to regard the bringing of lost\nsouls into his flock as the highest earthly happiness\u2014such will admit\ngladly that I have been right in tearing aside the veil from infidelity\nand displaying it uncloaked by the side of faith itself.\n\nAt the same time I am bound to confess that I never should have been able\nto see the expediency, not to say the absolute necessity for such a\ncourse, unless I had been myself for many years an unbeliever.  It is\nthis experience, so bitterly painful, that has made me feel so strongly\nas to the only manner in which others can be brought from darkness into\nlight.  The wisdom of the Almighty recognised that if man was to be saved\nit must be done by the assumption of man\u2019s nature on the part of the\nDeity.  God must make himself man, or man could never learn the nature\nand attributes of God.  Let us then follow the sublime example of the\nincarnation, and make ourselves as unbelievers that we may teach\nunbelievers to believe.  If Paley and Butler had only been _real\ninfidels_ for a single year, instead of taking the thoughts and\nreasonings of their opponents at second-hand, what a difference should we\nnot have seen in the nature of their work.  Alas! their clear and\npowerful intellects had been trained early in the severest exercises;\nthey could not be misled by any of the sophistries of their opponents;\nbut, on the other hand, never having been misled they knew not the thread\nof the labyrinth as one who has been shut up therein.\n\nI should also warn the reader of another matter.  He must not expect to\nfind that I can maintain everything which he could perhaps desire to see\nmaintained.  I can prove, to such a high degree of presumption as shall\namount virtually to demonstration, that our Lord died upon the cross,\nrose again from the dead upon the third day, and ascended into Heaven:\nbut I cannot prove that none of the accounts of these events which have\ncome down to us have suffered from the hand of time: on the contrary, I\nmust own that the reasons which led me to conclude that there must be\nconfusion in some of the accounts of the Resurrection continue in full\nforce with me even now.  I see no way of escaping from this conclusion:\nbut it seems equally strange that the Christian should have such an\nindomitable repugnance to accept it, and that the unbeliever should\nconceive that it inflicts any damage whatever upon the Christian\nevidences.  Perhaps the error of each confirms that of the other, as will\nappear hereafter.\n\nI have spoken hitherto as though I were writing only for men, but the\nhelp of good women can never be so precious as in the salvation of human\nsouls; if there is one work for which women are better fitted than\nanother, it is that of arresting the progress of unbelief.  Can there be\na nobler one?  Their superior tact and quickness give them a great\nadvantage over men; men will listen to them when they would turn away\nfrom one of their own sex; and though I am well aware that courtesy is no\nargument, yet the natural politeness shewn by a man to a woman will\ncompel attention to what falls from her lips, and will thus perhaps be\nthe means of bringing him into contact with Divine truths which would\nnever otherwise have reached him.  Yet this is a work from which too many\nwomen recoil in horror\u2014they know that they can do nothing unless they are\nintimately acquainted with the opinions of those from whom they differ,\nand from such an intimacy they believe that they are right in shrinking.\n\nOh, my sisters, my sisters, ye who go into the foulest dens of disease\nand vice, fearless of the pestilence and of man\u2019s brutality, ye whose\nwhole lives bear witness to the cross of Christ and the efficacy of the\nDivine love, did one of you ever fear being corrupted by the vice with\nwhich you came in contact?  Is there one of you who fears to examine why\nit is that even the most specious form of vice is vicious?  You fear not\ninfection here, for you know that you are on sure ground, and that there\nis no form of vice of which the viciousness is not clearly provable; but\ncan you doubt that the foundation of your faith is sure also, and can you\nnot see that your cowardice in not daring to examine the foul and\nsoul-destroying den of infidelity is a stumbling-block to those who have\nnot yet known their Saviour?  Your fear is as the fear of children who\ndare not go in the dark; but alas! the unbeliever does not understand it\nthus.  He says that your fear is not of the darkness but of the light,\nand that you dare not search lest you should find that which would make\nagainst you.  Hideous blasphemy against the Lord!  But is not the sin to\nbe laid partly at the door of those whose cowardice has given occasion\nfor it?\n\nIs there none of you who knows that as to the pure all things are pure,\nso to the true and loyal heart all things will confirm its faith?  You\nshrink from this last trial of your allegiance, partly from the pain of\neven seeing the wounds of your Redeemer laid open\u2014of even hearing the\nwords of those enemies who have traduced him and crucified him afresh\u2014but\nyou lose the last and highest of the prizes, for great as is your faith\nnow, be very sure that from this crowning proof of your devotion you\nwould emerge with greater still.\n\nHas none of you seen a savage dog barking and tearing at the end of his\nchain as though he were longing to devour you, and yet if you have gone\nbravely up to him and bade him be still, he is cowed and never barks\nagain?  Such is the genius of infidelity; it loves to threaten those who\nretreat, yet it shrinks daunted back from those who meet it boldly; it is\nthe lack of boldness on the part of the Christian which gives it all its\npower; when Christians are strong in the strength of their own cause\ninfidels will know their impotence, but as long as there are cowards\nthere will be those who prey upon cowardice, and as long as those who\nshould defend the cross of Christ hide themselves behind battlements, so\nlong will the enemy come up to the very walls of the defence and trouble\nthem that are within.  The above words must have sounded harsh and will I\nfear have given pain to many a tender heart which is conscious of the\ndepth of its own love for the Redeemer, and would be shocked at the\nthought that anything had been neglected in his service, but has not the\nvoice of such a heart returned answer to itself that what I have written\nis just?\n\nAgain, I have been told by some that they have been aware of the\nnecessity of doing their best towards putting a stop to infidelity, and\nthat they have been unceasing in their prayers for friends or husbands or\nrelations who know not Christ, but that with prayers their efforts have\nended.  Now, there can be no one in the whole world who has had more\nsignal proofs of the efficacy of prayer than the writer of these pages,\nbut he would lie if he were to say that prayer was ever answered when it\nwas only another name for idleness, a cloak for the avoidance of obvious\nduty.  God is no helper of the indolent and the coward; if this were so,\nwhat need to work at all?  Why not sit still, and trust in prayer for\neverything?  No; to the women who have prayed, and prayed only, the\nanswer is ready at hand, that work without prayer is bad, but prayer\nwithout work worse.  Let them do their own utmost in the way of sowing,\nplanting, and watering, and then let them pray to God that he will\nvouchsafe them the increase; but they can no more expect the increase to\nbe of God\u2019s free gift without the toil of sowing than did the blessed\nApostle St. Paul.  If God did not convert the heathen for Paul and\nApollos in answer to their prayers alone, how can we expect that he will\nconvert the infidel for ourselves, unless we have first followed in the\nfootsteps of the Apostles?  The sin of infidelity will rest upon us and\nour children until we have done our best to shake it off; and this not\ntimidly and disingenuously as those who fear for the result, but with the\ncertainty that it is the infidel and not the Christian who need fear\ninvestigation, if the investigation only goes deep enough.  Herein has\nlain our error, we have feared to allow the unbeliever to put forth all\nhis strength lest it should prove stronger than we thought it was, when\nin truth the world would only have known the sooner of its weakness; and\nthis shall now at last be abundantly shewn, for, as I said above, I will\nhelp no infidel by concealing his case; it shall appear in full, and as\nnearly in his own words as the limits at my disposal will allow.  Out of\nhis own mouth shall he be condemned, and yet, I trust, not condemned\nalone; but converted as I myself, and by the same irresistible chain of\npurest reason; one thing only is wanted on the part of the reader, it is\nthis, the desire to attain truth regardless of past prejudices.\n\nIf an unbeliever has made up his mind that we must be wrong, without\nhaving heard our side, and if he presumes to neglect the most ordinary\nprecaution against error\u2014that of understanding the position of an\nopponent\u2014I can do nothing with him or for him.  No man can make another\nsee, if the other persists in shutting his eyes and bandaging them: if it\nis a victory to be able to say that they cannot see the truth under these\ncircumstances, the victory is with our opponents; but for those who can\nlay their hands upon their heart and say truly before God and man that\nthey care nothing for the maintenance of their own opinions, but only\nthat they may come to know the truth, for such I can do much.  I can put\nthe matter before them in so clear a light that they shall never doubt\nhereafter.\n\nNever was there a time when such an exposition was wanted so much as now.\nThe specious plausibilities of a pseudo-science have led hundreds of\nthousands into error; the misapplication of geology has ensnared a host\nof victims, and a still greater misapplication of natural history seems\nlikely to devour those whom the perversion of geology has spared.  Not\nthat I have a word to say against _true_ science: true science can never\nbe an enemy of the Bible, which is the text-book of the science of the\nsalvation of human souls as written by the great Creator and Redeemer of\nthe soul itself, but the Enemy of Mankind is never idle, and no sooner\ndoes God vouchsafe to us any clearer illumination of his purposes and\nmanner of working, than the Evil One sets himself to consider how he can\nturn the blessing into a curse; and by the all-wise dispensation of\nProvidence he is allowed so much triumph as that he shall sift the wise\nfrom the foolish, the faithful from the traitors.  God knoweth his own.\nStill there is no surer mark that one is among the number of those whom\nhe hath chosen than the desire to bring all to share in the gracious\npromises which he has vouchsafed to those that will take advantage of\nthem; and there are few more certain signs of reprobation than\nindifference as to the existence of unbelief, and faint-heartedness in\ntrying to remove it.  It is the duty of all those who love Christ to lead\ntheir brethren to love him also; but how can they hope to succeed in this\nuntil they understand the grounds on which he is rejected?\n\nFor there _are_ grounds, insufficient ones, untenable ones, grounds which\na little loving patience and, if I may be allowed the word, ingenuity,\nwill shew to be utterly rotten; but as long as their rottenness is only\nto be asserted and not proved, so long will deluded people build upon\nthem in fancied security.  As yet the proof has never been made\nsufficiently clear.  If displayed sufficiently for one age it has been\nnecessary to do the work again for the next.  As soon as the errors of\none set of people have been made apparent, another set has arisen with\nfresh objections, or the old fallacies have reappeared in another shape.\nIt is not too much to say that it has never yet been so clearly proved\nthat Christ rose again from the dead, that a jury of educated Englishmen\nshould be compelled to assent to it, even though they had never before\nheard of Christianity.  This therefore it is my object to do once and for\never now.\n\nIt is not for me to pry into the motives of the Almighty, nor to inquire\nwhy it is that for nearly two thousand years the perfection of proof\nshould never have been duly produced, but if I dare hazard an opinion I\nshould say that such proof was never necessary until now, but that it has\nlain ready to be produced at a moment\u2019s notice on the arrival of the\nfitting time.  In the early stages of the Church the _viv\u00e2 voce_\ntestimony of the Apostles was still so near that its force was in no way\nspent; from those times until recently the universality of belief was\nsuch that proof was hardly needed; it is only for a hundred years or so\n(which in the sight of God are but as yesterday) that infidelity has made\nreal progress.  Then God raised his hand in wrath; revolution taught men\nto see the nature of unbelief and the world shrank back in horror; the\ntime of fear passed by; unbelief has again raised itself; whereon we can\nsee that other and even more fearful revolutions {82} are daily\nthreatening.  What country is safe?  In what part of the world do not men\nfeel an uneasy foreboding of the wrath which will surely come if they do\nnot repent and turn unto the Lord their God?  Go where we will we are\nconscious of that heaviness and oppression which is the precursor of the\nhurricane and the earthquake; none escape it: an all-pervading sense of\nrottenness and fearful waiting upon judgment is upon the hearts of all\nmen.  May it not be that this awe and silence have been ordained in order\nthat the still small voice of the Lord may be the more clearly heard and\nwelcomed as salvation?  Is it not possible that the infinite mercy of God\nis determined to give mankind one last chance, before the day of that\ncoming which no creature may abide?  I dare not answer: yet I know well\nthat the fire burneth within me, and that night and day I take no rest\nbut am consumed until the work committed to me is done, that I may be\nclear from the blood of all men.\n\n\n\nChapter II\nStrauss and the Hallucination Theory\n\n\nIT has been well established by Paley, and indeed has seldom been denied,\nthat within a very few years of Christ\u2019s crucifixion a large number of\npeople believed that he had risen from the dead.  They believed that\nafter having suffered actual death he rose to actual life, as a man who\ncould eat and drink and talk, who could be seen and handled.  Some who\nheld this were near relations of Christ, some had known him intimately\nfor a considerable time before his crucifixion, many must have known him\nwell by sight, but all were unanimous in their assertion that they had\nseen him alive after he had been dead, and in consequence of this belief\nthey adopted a new mode of life, abandoning in many cases every other\nearthly consideration save that of bearing witness to what they had known\nand seen.  I have not thought it worth while to waste time and space by\nintroducing actual proof of the above.  This will be found in Paley\u2019s\nopening chapters, to which the reader is referred.\n\nHow then did this intensity of conviction come about?  Differ as they\nmight and did upon many of the questions arising out of the main fact\nwhich they taught, as to the fact itself they differed not in the least\ndegree.  In their own life-time and in that of those who could confute\nthem their story gained the adherence of a very large and ever increasing\nnumber.  If it could be shewn that the belief in Christ\u2019s reappearance\ndid not arise until after the death of those who were said to have seen\nhim, when actions and teachings might have been imputed to them which\nwere not theirs, the case would then be different; but this cannot be\ndone; there is nothing in history better established than that the men\nwho said that they had seen Christ alive after he had been dead, were\nthemselves the first to lay aside all else in order to maintain their\nassertion.  If it could be maintained that they taught what they did in\norder to sanction laxity of morals, the case would again be changed.  But\nthis too is impossible.  They taught what they did because of the\nintensity of their own conviction and from no other motive whatsoever.\n\nWhat then can that thing have been which made these men so beyond all\nmeasure and one-mindedly certain?  Were they thus before the Crucifixion?\nFar otherwise.  Yet the men who fled in the hour of their master\u2019s peril\nbetrayed no signs of flinching when their own was no less imminent.  How\ncame it that the cowardice and fretfulness of the Gospels should be\ntransformed into the lion-hearted steadfastness of the Acts?\n\nThe Crucifixion had intervened.  Yes, but surely something more than the\nCrucifixion.  Can we believe that if their experience of Christ had ended\nwith the Cross, the Apostles would have been in that state of mind which\nshould compel them to leave all else for the sake of preaching what he\nhad taught them?  It is a hard thing for a man to change the scheme of\nhis life; yet this is not a case of one man but of many, who became\nchanged as if struck with an enchanter\u2019s wand, and who, though many, were\nas one in the vehemence with which they protested that their master had\nreappeared to them alive.  Their converse with Christ did not probably\nlast above a year or two, and was interrupted by frequent absence.  If\nChrist had died once and for all upon the Cross, Christianity must have\ndied with him; but it did not die; nay, it did not begin to live with\nfull energy until after its founder had been crucified.  We must ask\nagain, what could that thing have been which turned these querulous and\nfaint-hearted followers into the most earnest and successful body of\npropagandists which the world has ever seen, if it was not that which\nthey said it was\u2014namely, that Christ had reappeared to them alive after\nthey had themselves known him to be dead?  This would account for the\nchange in them, but is there anything else that will?\n\nThey had such ample opportunities of knowing the truth that the\nsupposition of mistake is fraught with the greatest difficulties; they\ngave such guarantees of sincerity as that none have given greater; their\nunanimity is perfect; there is not the faintest trace of any difference\nof opinion amongst them as to the main fact of the Resurrection.  These\nare things which never have been and never can be denied, but if they do\nnot form strong _prim\u00e2 facie_ ground for believing in the truth and\nactuality of Christ\u2019s Resurrection, what is there which will amount to a\n_prim\u00e2 facie_ case for anything whatever?\n\nNevertheless the matter does not rest here.  While there exists the\nfaintest possibility of mistake we may be sure that we shall deal most\nwisely by examining its character and value.  Let us inquire therefore\nwhether there are any circumstances which seem to indicate that the early\nChristians might have been mistaken, and been firmly persuaded that they\nhad seen Christ alive, although in point of fact they had not really seen\nhim?  Men have been very positive and very sincere about things wherein\nwe should have conceived mistake impossible, and yet they have been\nutterly mistaken.  A strong predisposition, a rare coincidence, an\nunwonted natural phenomenon, a hundred other causes, may turn sound\njudgments awry, and we dare not assume forthwith that the first disciples\nof Christ were superior to influences which have misled many who have had\nbetter chances of withstanding them.  Visions and hallucinations are not\nuncommon even now.  How easily belief in a supernatural occurrence\nobtains among the peasantry of Italy, Ireland, Belgium, France, and\nSpain; and how much more easily would it do so among Jews in the days of\nChrist, when belief in supernatural interferences with this world\u2019s\neconomy was, so to speak, omnipresent.  Means of communication, that is\nto say of verification, were few, and the tone of men\u2019s minds as regards\naccuracy of all kinds was utterly different from that of our own; science\nexisted not even in name as the thing we now mean by it; few could read\nand fewer write, so that a story could seldom be confined to its original\nlimits; error, therefore, had much chance and truth little as compared\nwith our own times.  What more is needed to make us feel how possible it\nwas for the purest and most honest of men to become parents of all\nfallacy?\n\nStrauss believes this to have been the case.  He supposes that the\nearliest Christians were under hallucination when they thought that they\nhad seen Christ alive after his Crucifixion; in other words, that they\nnever saw him at all, but only thought that they had done so.  He does\nnot imagine that they conceived this idea at once, but that it grew up\ngradually in the course of a few years, and that those who came under its\ninfluence antedated it unconsciously afterwards.  He appears to believe\nthat within a few months of the Crucifixion, and in consequence of some\nunexplained combination of internal and external causes, some one of the\nApostles came to be impressed with the notion that he had seen Christ\nalive; the impression, however made, was exceedingly strong, and was\ncommunicated as soon as might be to some other or others of the Apostles:\nthe idea was welcome\u2014as giving life to a hope which had been fondly\ncherished; each inflamed the imagination of the other, until the original\nbasis of the conception slipped unconsciously from recollection, while\nthe intensity of the conviction itself became stronger and stronger the\nmore often the story was repeated.  Strauss supposes that on seeing the\nfirm conviction of two or three who had hitherto been leaders among them,\nthe other Apostles took heart, and that thus the body grew together again\nperhaps within a twelve-month of the Crucifixion.  According to him, the\nidea of the Resurrection having been once started, and having once taken\nroot, the soil was so congenial that it grew apace; the rest of the\nApostles, perhaps assembled together in a high state of mental enthusiasm\nand excitement, conceived that they saw Christ enter the room in which\nthey were sitting and afford some manifest proof of life and identity; or\nsome one else may have enlarged a less extraordinary story to these\ndimensions, so that in a short time it passed current everywhere (there\nhave been instances of delusions quite as extraordinary gaining a\nfoothold among men whose sincerity is not to be disputed), and finally\nthey conceived that these appearances of their master had commenced a few\nmonths\u2014and what is a few months?\u2014earlier than they actually had, so that\nthe first appearance was soon looked upon as having been vouchsafed\nwithin three days of the Crucifixion.\n\nThe above is not in Strauss\u2019s words, but it is a careful _r\u00e9sum\u00e9_ of what\nI gather to be his conception of the origin of the belief in the\nResurrection of Christ.  The belief, and the intensity of the belief,\nneed explanation; the supernatural explanation, as we should ourselves\nreadily admit, cannot be accepted unless all others are found wanting; he\ntherefore, if I understand him rightly, puts forward the above as being a\nreasonable and natural solution of the difficulty\u2014the only solution which\ndoes not fail upon examination, and therefore the one which should be\naccepted.  It is founded upon the affection which the Apostles had borne\ntowards their master, and their unwillingness to give up their hope that\nthey had been chosen, as the favoured lieutenants of the promised\nMessiah.\n\nNo man would be willing to give up such hope easily; all men would\nreadily welcome its renewal; it was easy in the then intellectual\ncondition of Palestine for hallucination to originate, and still easier\nfor it to spread; the story touched the hearts of men too nearly to\nrender its propagation difficult.  Men and women like believing in the\nmarvellous, for it brings the chance of good fortune nearer to their own\ndoors; but how much more so when they are themselves closely connected\nwith the central figure of the marvel, and when it appears to give a clue\nto the solution of that mystery which all would pry into if they\ncould\u2014our future after death?  There can be no great cause for wonder\nthat an hallucination which arose under such conditions as these should\nhave gained ground and conquered all opposition, even though its origin\nmay be traced to the brain of but a single person.\n\nHe would be a bold man who should say that this was impossible;\nnevertheless it cannot be accepted.  For, in the first place, we collect\nmost certainly from the Gospel records that the Apostles were _not_ a\ncompact and devoted body of adherents at the time of the Crucifixion; yet\nit is hard to see how Strauss\u2019s hallucination theory can be accepted,\nunless this was the case.  If Strauss believed the earliest followers of\nChrist to have been already immovably fixed in their belief that he was\nthe Son of God\u2014the promised Messiah, of whom they were themselves the\nespecially chosen ministers\u2014if he considered that they believed in their\nmaster as the worker of innumerable miracles which they had themselves\nwitnessed; as one whom they had seen raise others from death to life, and\nwhom, therefore, death could not be expected to control\u2014if he held the\nfollowers of Christ to have been in this frame of mind at the time of the\nCrucifixion, it might be intelligible that he should suppose the strength\nof their faith to have engendered an imaginary reappearance in order to\nsave them from the conclusion that their hopes had been without\nfoundation; that, in point of fact, they should have accepted a new\ndelusion in order to prop up an old one; but we know very well that\nStrauss does not accept this position.  He denies that the Apostles had\nseen any miracles; independently therefore of the many and unmistakable\ntraces of their having been but partial and wavering adherents, which\nhave made it a matter of common belief among those who have studied the\nNew Testament that the faith of the Apostles was unsteadfast before the\nCrucifixion, he must have other and stronger reasons for thinking that\nthis was so, inasmuch as he does not look upon them as men who had seen\nour Lord raise any one from the dead, nor restore the eyes of the blind.\n\nAccording to him, they may have seen Christ exercise unusual power over\nthe insane, and temporary alleviations of sickness, due perhaps to mental\nexcitement, may have taken place in their presence and passed for\nmiracles; he would doubt how far they had even seen this much, for he\nwould insist on many passages in the Gospels which would point in the\ndirection of our Lord\u2019s never having professed to work a single miracle;\nbut even though he granted that they had seen certain extraordinary cases\nof healing, there is no amount of testimony which would for a moment\nsatisfy him of their having seen more.  _We_ see the Apostles as men who\nbefore the Crucifixion had seen Lazarus raised from death to life after\nthe corruption of the grave had begun its work, and who had seen sight\ngiven to one that had been born sightless; as men who had seen miracle\nafter miracle, with every loophole for escape from a belief in the\nmiraculous carefully excluded; who had seen their master walking upon the\nsea, and bidding the winds be still; our difficulty therefore is to\nunderstand the incredulity of the Apostles as displayed abundantly in the\nGospels; but Strauss can have none such; for he must see them as men over\nwhom the influence of their master had been purely personal, and due to\nnothing more than to a strength and beauty of character which his\nfollowers very imperfectly understood.  _He_ does not believe that\nLazarus was raised at all, or that the man who had been born blind ever\nexisted; he considers the fourth gospel, which alone records these\nevents, to be the work of a later age, and not to be depended on for\nfacts, save here and there; certainly not where the facts recorded are\nmiraculous.  He must therefore be even more ready than we are to admit\nthat the faith of the Apostles was weak before the Crucifixion; but\nwhether he is or not, we have it on the highest authority that their\nfaith was not strong enough to maintain them at the very first approach\nof danger, nor to have given them any hope whatever that our Lord should\nrise again; whereas for Strauss\u2019s theory to hold good, it must already\nhave been in a white heat of enthusiasm.\n\nBut even granting that this was so\u2014in the face of all the evidence we can\nreach\u2014men so honest and sincere as the Apostles proved themselves to be,\nwould have taken other ground than the assertion that their master had\nreappeared to them alive, unless some very extraordinary occurrences had\nled them to believe that they had indeed seen him.  If their faith was\nglowing and intense at the time of the Crucifixion\u2014so intense that they\nbelieved in Christ as much, or nearly as much, after the Crucifixion as\nbefore it (and unless this were so the hallucinations could never have\narisen at all, or at any rate could never have been so unanimously\naccepted)\u2014it would have been so intense as to stand in no need of a\nreappearance.  In this case, if they had found that their master did not\nreturn to them, the Apostles would probably have accepted the position\nthat he had, contrary to their expectation, been put to a violent death;\nthey would, perhaps, have come sooner or later to the conclusion that he\nwas immediately on death received into Heaven, and was sitting on the\nright hand of God; while some extraordinary dream might have been\nconstrued into a revelation of the fact with the manner of its\noccurrence, and been soon generally believed; but the idea of our Lord\u2019s\nreturn to earth in a gross material body whereon the wounds were still\nunhealed, was perhaps the last thing that would have suggested itself to\nthem by way of hallucination.  If their faith had been great enough, and\ntheir spirits high enough to have allowed hallucination to originate at\nall, their imagination would have presented them at once with a glorious\nthrone, and the splendours of the highest Heaven as appearing through the\nopened firmament; it would not surely have rested satisfied with a man\nwhose hands and side were wounded, and who could eat of a piece of\nbroiled fish and of an honeycomb.  A fabric so utterly baseless as the\nreappearances of our Lord (on the supposition of their being unhistoric)\nwould have been built of gaudier materials.  To repeat, it seems\nimpossible that the Apostles should have attempted to connect their\nhallucinations circumstantially and historically with the events which\nhad immediately preceded them.  Hallucination would have been conscious\nof a hiatus and not have tried to bridge it over.  It would not have\ndeveloped the idea of our Lord\u2019s return to this grovelling and unworthy\nearth prior to his assumption into glory, unless those who were under its\ninfluence had either seen other resurrections from the dead\u2014in which case\nthere is no difficulty attaching to the Resurrection of our Lord\nhimself\u2014or been forced into believing it by the evidence of their own\nsenses; this, on the supposition that the devotion of the first disciples\nwas intense before the Crucifixion; but if, on the other hand, they were\nat that time anything but steadfast, as both _a priori_ and _a\nposteriori_ evidence would seem to indicate, if they were few and\nwavering, and if what little faith they had was shaken to its foundations\nand apparently at an end for ever with the death of Christ, it becomes\nindeed difficult to see how the idea of his return to earth alive could\nhave ever struck even a single one of them, much less that hallucinations\nwhich could have had no origin but in the disordered brain of some one\nmember of the Apostolic body, should in a short time have been accepted\nby all as by one man without a shadow of dissension, and been strong\nenough to convert them, as was said above, into the most earnest and\nsuccessful body of propagandists that the world has ever seen.\n\nTruly this is not too much to say of them; and yet we are asked to\nbelieve that this faith, so intensely energetic, grew out of one which\ncan hardly be called a faith at all, in consequence of day-dreams whose\nexistence presupposes a faith hardly if any less intense than that which\nit is supposed to have engendered.  Are we not warranted in asserting\nthat a movement which is confined to a few wavering followers, and which\nreceives any very decisive check, which scatters and demoralises the few\nwho have already joined it, will be absolutely sure to die a speedy\nnatural death unless something utterly strange and new occurs to give it\na fresh impetus?  Such a resuscitating influence would have been given to\nthe Christian religion by the reappearance of Christ alive.  This would\nmeet the requirements of the case, for we can all feel that if we had\nalready half believed in some gifted friend as a messenger from God, and\nif we had seen that friend put to death before our eyes, and yet found\nthat the grave had no power over him, but that he could burst its bonds\nand show himself to us again unmistakably alive, we should from that\nmoment yield ourselves absolutely his; but our faith would die with him\nunless it had been utter before his death.\n\nThe devotion of the Apostles is explained by their belief in the\nResurrection, but their belief in the Resurrection is not explained by a\nsupposed hallucination; for their minds were not in that state in which\nalone such a delusion could establish itself firmly, and unless it were\nestablished firmly by the most apparently irrefragable evidence of many\npersons, it would have had no living energy.  How an hallucination could\noccur in the requisite strength to the requisite number of people is\nneither explained nor explicable, except upon the supposition that the\nApostles were in a very different frame of mind at the time of Christ\u2019s\nCrucifixion from that which all the evidence we can get would seem to\nindicate.  If Strauss had first made this point clear we could follow\nhim.  But he has not done so.\n\nStrauss says, the conception that Christ\u2019s body had been reawakened and\nchanged, \u201ca double miracle, exceeding far what had occurred in the case\nof Enoch and Elijah, could only be credible to one who saw in him a\nprophet far superior to them\u201d\u2014_i.e._, to one who notwithstanding his\ndeath was persuaded that he was the Messiah: \u201cthis conviction\u201d (that a\ndouble miracle had been performed) \u201cwas the first to which the Apostles\nhad to attain in the days of their humiliation after the Crucifixion.\u201d\nYes\u2014but how were they to attain to it, being now utterly broken down and\ndisillusioned?  Strauss admits that before they could have come to hold\nwhat he supposes them to have held, they must have seen in Christ even\nafter his Crucifixion a prophet far greater than either Moses or Elias;\nwhereas in point of fact it is very doubtful whether they ever believed\nthis much of their master even before the Crucifixion, and hardly\nquestionable that after it they disbelieved in him almost entirely, until\nhe shewed himself to them alive.  Is it possible that from the dead\nembers of so weak a faith, so vast a conflagration should have been\nkindled?\n\nI submit, therefore, that independently of any direct evidence as to the\nwhen and where of Christ\u2019s reappearances, the fact that the Apostles\nbefore the Crucifixion were irresolute, and after it unspeakably\nresolute, affords strong ground for believing that they must have seen\nsomething, or come to know something, which to their minds was utterly\noverwhelming in its convincing power: when we find the earliest and most\ntrustworthy records unanimously asserting that that something was the\nreappearance of Christ alive, we feel that such a reappearance was an\nadequate cause for the result actually produced; and when we think over\nthe condition of mind which both probability and evidence assign to the\nApostles, we also feel that no other circumstance would have been\nadequate, nor even this unless the proof had been such as none could\nreasonably escape from.\n\nAgain, Strauss\u2019s supposition that the Apostles antedated their\nhallucinations suggests no less difficulty.  Suppose that, after all,\nStrauss is right, and that there was no actual reappearance; whatever it\nwas that led the Apostles to believe in such reappearance must have been,\njudging by its effect, intense and memorable: it must have been as a\nshock obliterating everything save the memory of itself and the things\nconnected with it: the time and manner of such a shock could never have\nbeen forgotten, nor misplaced without deliberate intention to deceive,\nand no one will impute any such intention to the Apostles.\n\nIt may be said that if they were capable of believing in the reality of\ntheir visions they would be also capable of antedating them; this is\ntrue; but the double supposition of self-delusion, first in seeing the\nvisions at all, and then in unconsciously antedating them, reduces the\nApostles to such an exceedingly low level of intelligence and\ntrustworthiness, that no good and permanent work could come from such\npersons; the men who could be weak enough, and crazed enough, if the\nreader will pardon the expression, to do as Strauss suggests, could never\nhave carried their work through in the way they did.  Such men would have\nwrecked their undertaking a hundred times over in the perils which\nawaited it upon every side; they would have become victims of their own\nfancies and desires, with little or no other grounds than these for any\nopinions they might hold or teach: from such a condition of mind they\nmust have gone on to one still worse; and their tenets would have\nperished with them, if not sooner.\n\nAgain, as regards this antedating; unless the visions happened at once,\nit is inconceivable that they should have happened at all.  Strauss\nbelieves that the disciples fled in their first terror to their homes:\nthat when there, \u201coutside the range to which the power of the enemies and\nmurderers of their master extended, the spell of terror and consternation\nwhich had been laid upon their minds gave way,\u201d and that under the\ncircumstances a reaction up to the point at which they might have visions\nof Christ is capable of explanation.  The answer to this is that it is\nindeed likely that the spell of terror would give way when they found\nthemselves safe at home, but that it is not at all likely that any\nreaction would take place in favour of one to whom their allegiance had\nnever been thorough, and whom they supposed to have met with a violent\nand accursed end.  It might be easy to imagine such a reaction if we did\nnot also attempt to imagine the circumstances that must have preceded it;\nthe moment we try to do this, we find it to be an impossibility.  If once\nthe Apostles had been dispersed, and had returned home to their former\navocations without having seen or heard anything of their master\u2019s return\nto earth, all their expectations would have been ended; they would have\nremained peaceable fishermen for the rest of their lives, and been cured\nonce and for ever of their enthusiasm.\n\nCan we believe that the disciples, returning to Galilee in fear, and\nbereaved of that master mind which had kept them from falling out with\none another, would have remained a united and enthusiastic body?  Strauss\nadmits that their enthusiasm was for the time ended.  Is it then likely\nthat they would have remained in any sense united, or is it not much more\nlikely that they would have shunned each other and disliked allusions to\nthe past?  What but Christ\u2019s actual reappearance could rekindle this dead\nenthusiasm, and fan it to such a burning heat?  Suppose that one or two\ndisciples recovered faith and courage, the majority would never do so.\nIf Christ himself with the magic of his presence could not weld them into\na devoted and harmonious company, would the rumour arising at a later\ntime that some one had seen him after death, be acceptable enough to make\nthe others believe that they too had actually seen and handled him?\nPerhaps\u2014if the rumour was believed.  But _would_ it have been believed?\nOr at any rate have been believed so utterly?\n\nWe cannot think it.  For the belief and assertion are absolutely without\ntrace of dissent within the Christian body, and that body was in the\nfirst instance composed entirely of the very persons who had known and\nfollowed Christ before the Crucifixion.  If some of the original twelve\nhad remained aloof and disputed the reappearances of Christ, is it\npossible that no trace of such dissension should appear in the Epistles\nof St. Paul?  Paul differed widely enough from those who were Apostles\nbefore him, and his language concerning them is occasionally that of\nill-concealed contempt and hatred rather than of affection; but is there\na word or hint which would seem to indicate that a single one of those\nwho had the best means of knowing doubted the Resurrection?  There is\nnothing of the kind; on the contrary, whatever we find is such as to make\nus feel perfectly sure that none of them _did_ doubt it.  Is it then\npossible that this unanimity should have sprung from the original\nhallucinations of a small minority?  True\u2014it is plain from the Epistle to\nthe Corinthians that there were some of Paul\u2019s contemporaries who denied\nthe Resurrection.  But who were they?  We should expect that many among\nthe more educated Gentile converts would throw doubt upon so stupendous a\nmiracle, but is there anything which would point in the direction of\nthese doubts having been held within the original body of those who said\nthat they had seen Christ alive?  By the eleven, or by the five hundred\nwho saw him at once?  There is not one single syllable.  Those who heard\nthe story second-hand would doubtless some of them attempt to explain\naway its miraculous character, but if it had been founded on\nhallucination it is not from these alone that the doubts would have come.\n\nSomething is imperatively demanded in order to account for the intensity\nof conviction manifested by the earliest Christians shortly after the\nCrucifixion; for until that time they were far from being firmly\nconvinced, and the Crucifixion was the very last thing to have convinced\nthem.  Given (to speak of our Lord as he must probably appear to Strauss)\nan unusually gifted teacher of a noble and beautiful character: given\nalso, a small body of adherents who were inclined to adopt him as their\nmaster and to regard him as the coming liberator, but who were\nnevertheless far from settled in their conviction: given such a man and\nsuch followers: the teacher is put to a shameful death about two years\nafter they had first known him, and the followers forsake him instantly:\nsurely without his reappearing in some way upon the scene they would have\nconcluded that their doubts had been right and their hopes without\nfoundation: but if he reappeared, their faith would, for the first time,\nbecome intense, all-absorbing.  Surely also they might be trusted to know\nwhether they had really seen their master return to them or not, and not\nto sacrifice themselves in every way, and spend their whole lives in\nbearing testimony to pure hallucination?\n\nThere is one other point on which a few words will be necessary, before\nwe proceed to the arguments in favour of the objective character of\nChrist\u2019s Resurrection as derivable from the conversion and testimony of\nSt. Paul.  It is this.  Strauss and those who agree with him will perhaps\nmaintain that the Apostles were in truth wholly devoted to Christ before\nthe Crucifixion, but that the Evangelists have represented them as being\nonly half-hearted, in order to heighten the effect of their subsequent\nintense devotion.  But this looks like falling into the very error which\nRationalists condemn most loudly when it comes from so-called orthodox\nwriters.  They complain, and with too much justice, that our apologists\nhave made \u201canything out of anything.\u201d  Yet if the Apostles were not\nunsteadfast, and did not desert their master in his hour of peril, and if\nall the accounts of Christ\u2019s reappearances are the creations of\ndisordered fancy, we may as well at once declare the Evangelists to be\nworthless as historians, and had better give up all attempt at the\nconstruction of history with their assistance.  We cannot take whatever\nwe wish, and leave whatever we wish, and alter whatever we wish.  If we\nadmit that upon the whole the Gospel writings or at any rate the first\nthree Gospels, contain a considerable amount of historic matter, we\nshould also arrive at some general principles by which we will\nconsistently abide in separating the historic from the unhistoric.  We\ncannot deal with them arbitrarily, accepting whatever fits in with our\nfancies, and rejecting whatever is at variance with them.\n\nNow can it be maintained that the Evangelists would be so likely to\noverrate the half-heartedness of the Apostles, that we should look with\nsuspicion upon the many and very plain indications of their having been\nonly half-hearted?  Certainly not.  If there was any likelihood of a\ntendency one way or the other it would be in the direction of overrating\ntheir faith.  Would not the unbelief of the Apostles in the face of all\nthe recorded miracles be a most damaging thing in the eyes of the\nunconverted?  Would not the Apostles themselves, after they were once\nfirmly convinced, be inclined to think that they had from the first\nbelieved more firmly than they really had done?  This at least would be\nin accordance with the natural promptings of human instinct: we are all\nof us apt to be wise after the event, and are far more prone to dwell\nupon things which seem to give some colour to a pretence of prescience,\nthan upon those which force from us a confession of our own stupidity.\nIt might seem a damaging thing that the Apostles should have doubted as\nmuch as long as they clearly did; would then the Evangelists go out of\ntheir way to introduce more signs of hesitation?  Would any one suggest\nthat the signs of doubt and wavering had been overrated, unless there\nwere some theory or other to be supported, in order to account for which\nthis overrating was necessary?  Would the opinion that the want of faith\nhad been exaggerated arise prior to the formation of a theory, or\nsubsequently?  This is the fairest test; let the reader apply it for\nhimself.\n\nOn the other hand, there are many reasons which should incline us to\nbelieve that, before the Resurrection, the Apostles were less convinced\nthan is generally supposed, but it would be dangerous to depart either to\nthe right hand or to the left of that which we find actually recorded,\nnamely, that in the main the Apostles were prepared to accept Christ\nbefore the Crucifixion, but that they were by no means resolute and\ndevoted followers.  I submit that this is a fair rendering of the spirit\nof what we find in the Gospels.  It is just because Strauss has chosen to\ndepart from it that he has found himself involved in the maze of\nself-contradiction through which we have been trying to follow him.\nThere is no position so absurd that it cannot be easily made to look\nplausible, if the strictly scientific method of investigation is once\ndeparted from.\n\nBut if I had been in Strauss\u2019s place, and had wished to make out a case\nagainst Christianity without much heed of facts, I should not have done\nit by a theory of hallucinations.  A much prettier, more novel and more\nsensational opening for such an attempt is afforded by an attack upon the\nCrucifixion itself.  A very neat theory might be made, that there may\nhave been some disturbance at one of the Jewish passovers, during which\nsome persons were crucified as an example by the Romans: that during this\ntime Christ happened to be missing; that he reappeared, and finally\ndeparted, whither, no man can say: that the Apostles, after his last\ndisappearance, remembering that he had been absent during the tumult,\nlittle by little worked themselves up into the belief that on his\nreappearance they had seen wounds upon him, and that the details of the\nCrucifixion were afterwards revealed in a vision to some favoured\nbeliever, until in the course of a few years the narrative assumed its\npresent shape: that then the reappearance of Christ was denied among the\nJews, while the Crucifixion as attaching disgrace to him was not\ndisputed, and that it thus became so generally accepted as to find its\nway into Pliny and Josephus.  This tissue of absurdity may serve as an\nexample of what the unlicensed indulgence of theory might lead to; but\ntruly it would be found quite as easy of belief as that the early\nChristian faith in the Resurrection was due to hallucination only.\n\nConsidering, then, that Christianity was not crushed but overran the most\ncivilised portions of the world; that St. Paul was undoubtedly early\ntold, in such a manner as for him to be thoroughly convinced of the fact,\nthat on some few but sufficient occasions Christ was seen alive after he\nhad been crucified; that the general belief in the reappearance of our\nLord was so strong that those who had the best means of judging gave up\nall else to preach it, with a unanimity and singleness of purpose which\nis irreconcilable with hallucination; that all our records most\ndefinitely insist upon this belief and that there is no trace of its ever\nhaving been disputed among the Jewish Christians, it seems hard to see\nhow we can escape from admitting that Jesus Christ was crucified, dead,\nand buried, and yet that he was verily and indeed seen alive again by\nthose who expected nothing less, but who, being once convinced, turned\nthe whole world after them.\n\nIt is now incumbent upon us to examine the testimony of St. Paul, to\nwhich I would propose to devote a separate chapter.\n\n\n\nChapter III\nThe Character and Conversion of St. Paul\n\n\nSETTING aside for the present the story of St. Paul\u2019s conversion as given\nin the Acts of the Apostles\u2014for I am bound to admit that there are\ncircumstances in connection with that account which throw doubt upon its\nhistorical accuracy\u2014and looking at the broad facts only, we are struck at\nonce with the following obvious reflection, namely, that Paul was an able\nman, a cultivated man, and a bitter opponent of Christianity; but that in\nspite of the strength of his original prejudices, he came to see what he\nthought convincing reasons for going over to the camp of his enemies.  He\nwent over, and with the result we are all familiar.\n\nNow even supposing that the miraculous account of Paul\u2019s conversion is\nentirely devoid of foundation, or again, as I believe myself, that the\nstory given in the Acts is not correctly placed, but refers to the vision\nalluded to by Paul himself (I. Cor. xv.), and to events which happened,\nnot coincidently with his conversion, but some years after it\u2014does not\nthe importance of the conversion itself rather gain than lose in\nconsequence?  A charge of unimportant inaccuracy may be thus sustained\nagainst one who wrote in a most inaccurate age; but what is this in\ncomparison with the testimony borne to the strength of the Christian\nevidences by the supposition that _of their own weight alone_, _and\nwithout miraculous assistance_, _they succeeded in convincing the most\nbitter_, _and at the same time the ablest_, _of their opponents_?  This\nis very pregnant.  No man likes to abandon the side which he has once\ntaken.  The spectacle of a man committing himself deeply to his original\nparty, changing without rhyme or reason, and then remaining for the rest\nof his life the most devoted and courageous adherent of all that he had\nopposed, without a single human inducement to make him do so, is one\nwhich has never been witnessed since man was man.  When men who have been\ncommitted deeply and spontaneously to one cause, leave it for another,\nthey do so either because facts have come to their knowledge which are\nnew to them and which they cannot resist, or because their temporal\ninterests urge them, or from caprice: but if they change from caprice in\nimportant matters and after many pledges given, they will change from\ncaprice again: they will not remain for twenty-five or thirty years\nwithout changing a jot of their capriciously formed opinions.  We are\ntherefore warranted in assuming that St. Paul\u2019s conversion to\nChristianity was not dictated by caprice: it was not dictated by\nself-interest: it must therefore have sprung from the weight of certain\nnew facts which overbore all the resistance which he could make to them.\n\nWhat then could these facts have been?\n\nPaul\u2019s conduct as a Jew was logical and consistent: he did what any\nseriously-minded man who had been strictly brought up would have done in\nhis situation.  Instead of half believing what he had been taught, he\nbelieved it wholly.  Christianity was cutting at the root of what was in\nhis day accepted as fundamental: it was therefore perfectly natural that\nhe should set himself to attack it.  There is nothing against him in this\nbeyond the fact of his having done it, as far as we can see, with much\ncruelty.  Yet though cruel, he was cruel from the best of motives\u2014the\nstamping out of an error which was harmful to the service of God; and\ncruelty was not then what it is now: the age was not sensitive and the\nlot of all was harder.  From the first he proved himself to be a man of\ngreat strength of character, and like many such, deeply convinced of the\nsoundness of his opinions, and deeply impressed with the belief that\nnothing could be good which did not also commend itself as good to him.\nHe tested the truth of his earlier convictions not by external standards,\nbut by the internal standard of their own strength and purity\u2014a fearful\nerror which but for God\u2019s mercy towards him would have made him no less\nwicked than well-intentioned.\n\nEven after having been convinced by a weight of evidence which no\nprejudice could resist, and after thus attaining to a higher conception\nof right and truth and goodness than was possible to him as a Jew, there\nremained not a few traces of the old character.  Opposition beyond\ncertain limits was a thing which to the end of his life he could not\nbrook.  It is not too much to say that he regarded the other Apostles\u2014and\nwas regarded by them\u2014with suspicion and dislike; even if an angel from\nHeaven had preached any other doctrine than what Paul preached, the angel\nwas to be accursed (Gal. i., 8), and it is not probable that he regarded\nhis fellow Apostles as teaching the same doctrine as himself, or that he\nwould have allowed them greater licence than an angel.  It is plain from\nhis undoubted Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians that the other\nApostles, no less than his converts, exceedingly well knew that he was\nnot a man to be trifled with.  If the arm of the law had been as much on\nhis side after his conversion as before it, it would have gone hardly\nwith dissenters; they would have been treated with politic tenderness the\nmoment that they yielded, but woe betide them if they presumed on having\nany very decided opinions of their own.\n\nOn the other hand, his sagacity is beyond dispute; it is certain that his\nperception of what the Gentile converts could and could not bear was the\nmain proximate cause of the spread of Christianity.  He prevented it from\nbecoming a mere Jewish sect, and it has been well said that but for him\nthe Jews would now be Christians, and the Gentiles unbelievers.  Who can\ndoubt his tact and forbearance, where matters not essential were\nconcerned?  His strength in not yielding a fraction upon vital points was\nmatched only by his suppleness and conciliatory bearing upon all others.\nTo use his own words, he did indeed become \u201call things to all men\u201d if by\nany means he could gain some, and the probability is that he pushed this\nprinciple to its extreme (see Acts xxi., 20\u201326).\n\nNow when we see a man so strong and yet so yielding\u2014the writer moreover\nof letters which shew an intellect at once very vigorous and very subtle\n(not to say more of them), and when we know that there was no amount of\nhardship, pain, and indignity, which he did not bear and count as gain in\nthe service of Jesus Christ; when we also remember that he continued thus\nfor all the known years of his life after his conversion, can we think\nthat that conversion could have been the result of anything even\napproaching to caprice?  Or again, is it likely that it could have been\ndue to contact with the hallucinations of his despised and hated enemies?\nPaul the Christian appears to be the same sort of man in most respects as\nPaul the Jew, yet can we imagine Paul the Christian as being converted\nfrom Christianity to some other creed, by the infection of\nhallucinations?  On the contrary, no man would more quickly have come to\nthe bottom of them, and assigned them to diabolical agency.  What then\ncan that thing have been, which wrenched the strong and able man from all\nthat had the greatest hold upon him, and fixed him for the rest of his\nlife as the most self-sacrificing champion of Christianity?  In answer to\nthis question we might say, that it is of no great importance how the\nchange was made, inasmuch as the fact of its having been made at all is\nsufficiently pregnant.  Nevertheless it will be interesting to follow\nStrauss in his remarks upon the account given in the Acts, and I am bound\nto add that I think he has made out his case.  Strange! that he should\nhave failed to see that the evidences in support of the Resurrection are\nincalculably strengthened by his having done so.  How short-sighted is\nmere ingenuity!  And how weak and cowardly are they who shut their eyes\nto facts because they happen to come from an opponent!\n\nStrauss, however, writes as follows:\u2014\u201cThat we are not bound to the\nindividual features of the account in the Acts is shewn by comparing it\nwith the substance of the statement twice repeated in the language of\nPaul himself: for there we find that the author\u2019s own account is not\naccurate, and that he attributed no importance to a few variations more\nor less.  Not only is it said on one occasion that the attendants stood\ndumb-foundered: on another that they fell with Paul to the ground; on one\noccasion that they heard the voice but saw no one; on another that they\nsaw the light but did not hear the voice of him who spoke with Paul: but\nalso the speech of Jesus himself, in the third repetition, gets the well\nknown addition about \u201ckicking against the pricks,\u201d to say nothing of the\nfact that the appointment to the Apostleship of the Gentiles, which\naccording to the two earlier accounts was made partly by Ananias, partly\non the occasion of a subsequent vision in the Temple at Jerusalem, is in\nthis last account incorporated in the speech of Jesus.  There is no\noccasion to derive the three accounts of this occurrence in the Acts from\ndifferent sources, and even in this case one must suppose that the author\nof the Acts must have remarked and reconciled the discrepancies; that he\ndid not do so, or rather that without following his own earlier narrative\nhe repeated it in an arbitrary form, proves to us how careless the New\nTestament writers are about details of this kind, important as they are\nto one who strives after strict historical accuracy.\n\n\u201cBut even if the author of the Acts had gone more accurately to work,\nstill he was not an eye witness, scarcely even a writer who took the\nhistory from the narrative of an eye witness.  Even if we consider the\nperson who in different places comprehends himself and the Apostle Paul\nunder the word \u2018we\u2019 or \u2018us\u2019 to have been the composer of the whole work,\nthat person was not on the occasion of the occurrence before Damascus as\nyet in the company of the Apostle.  Into this he did not enter until much\nlater, in the Troad, on the Apostle\u2019s second missionary journey (Acts\nxvi., 10).  But that hypothesis with regard to the author of the Acts of\nthe Apostles is, moreover, as we have seen above, erroneous.  He only\nworked up into different passages of his composition the memoranda of a\ntemporary companion of the Apostle about the journeys performed in his\ncompany, and we are therefore not justified in considering the narrator\nto have been an eye witness in those passages and sections in which the\n\u2018we\u2019 is wanting.  Now among these is found the very section in which\nappear the two accounts of his conversion which Paul gives, first, to the\nJewish people in Jerusalem, secondly, to Agrippa and Festus in C\u00e6sarea.\nThe last occasion on which the \u2018we\u2019 was found was xxi., 18, that of the\nvisit of Paul to James, and it does not appear again until xxvii., 1,\nwhen the subject is the Apostle\u2019s embarkation for Italy.  Nothing\ntherefore compels us to assume that we have in the reports of these\nspeeches the account of any one who had been a party to the hearing of\nthem, and, in them, Paul\u2019s own narrative of the occurrences that took\nplace on his conversion.\u201d\n\nThe belief in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures having been long\ngiven up by all who have considered the awful consequences which it\nentails, the Bible records have been opened to modern criticism:\u2014the\nresult has been that their general accuracy is amply proved, while at the\nsame time the writers must be admitted to have fallen in with the\nfeelings and customs of their own times, and must accordingly be allowed\nto have been occasionally guilty of what would in our own age be called\ninaccuracies.  There is no dependence to be placed on the verbal, or\nindeed the substantial, accuracy of any ancient speeches, except those\nwhich we know to have been reported _verbatim_, they were (as with the\nHerodotean and Thucydidean speeches) in most cases the invention of the\nhistorian himself, as being what seemed most appropriate to be said by\none in the position of the speaker.  Reporting was a rare art among the\nancients, and was confined to a few great centres of intellectual\nactivity; accuracy, moreover, was not held to be of the same importance\nas at the present day.  Yet without accurate reporting a speech perishes\nas soon as it is uttered, except in so far as it lives in the actions of\nthose who hear it.  Even a hundred years ago the invention of speeches\nwas considered a matter of course, as in the well-known case of Dr.\nJohnson, than whom none could be more conscientious, and\u2014according to his\nlights\u2014accurate.  I may perhaps be pardoned for quoting the passage in\nfull from Boswell, who gives it on the authority of Mr. John Nichols; the\nitalics are mine.  \u201cHe said that the Parliamentary debates were the only\npart of his writings which then gave him any compunction: _but that at\nthe time he wrote them he had no conception that he was imposing upon the\nworld_, _though they were frequently written from very slender\nmaterials_, _and often from none at all\u2014the mere coinage of his own\nimagination_.  He never wrote any part of his works with equal velocity.\u201d\n(Boswell\u2019s _Life of Johnson_, chap. lxxxii.)\n\nThis is an extreme case, yet there can be no question about its truth.\nIt is only one among the very many examples which could be adduced in\norder to shew that the appreciation of the value of accuracy is a thing\nof modern date only\u2014a thing which we owe mainly to the chemical and\nmechanical sciences, wherein the inestimable difference between precision\nand inaccuracy became most speedily apparent.  If the reader will pardon\nan apparent digression, I would remark that that sort of care is wanted\non behalf of Christianity with which a cashier in a bank counts out the\nmoney that he tenders\u2014counting it and recounting it as though he could\nnever be sure enough before he allowed it to leave his hands.  This\ncaution would have saved the wasting of many lives, and the breaking of\nmany hearts.\n\nWe, on the other hand, however reckless we may be ourselves, are in the\nhabit of assuming that any historian whom we may have occasion to\nconsult, and on whose testimony we would fain rely, must have himself\nweighed and re-weighed his words as the cashier his money; an error which\narises from want of that sympathy which should make us bear constantly in\nmind what lights men had, under what influences they wrote, and what we\nshould ourselves have done had we been so placed as they.  But if any\nwill maintain that though the general run of ancient speeches were, as\nthose supposed to have been reported by Johnson, pure invention, yet that\nit is not likely that one reporting the words of Almighty God should have\nfailed to feel the awful responsibility of his position, we can only\nanswer that the writer of the Acts did most indisputably so fail, as is\nshewn by the various reports of those words which he has himself given:\nif he could in the innocency of his heart do this, and at one time report\nthe Almighty as saying this, and at another that, as though, more or\nless, this or that were a matter of no moment, what certainty can we have\nconcerning such a man that inaccuracy shall not elsewhere be found in\nhim?  None.  He is a warped mirror which will distort every object that\nit reflects.\n\nIt follows, then, that from the Acts of the Apostles we have no data for\narriving at any conclusion as to the manner of Paul\u2019s change of faith,\nnor the circumstances connected with it.  To us the accounts there given\nshould be simply non-existent; but this is not easy, for we have heard\nthem too often and from too early an age to be able to escape their\ninfluence; yet we must assuredly ignore them if we are anxious to arrive\nat truth.  We cannot let the story told in the Acts enter into any\njudgement which we may form concerning Paul\u2019s character.  The desire to\nrepresent him as having been converted by miracle was very natural.  He\nhimself tells us that he saw visions, and received his apostleship by\nrevelation\u2014not necessarily at the time of, or immediately after, his\nconversion, but still at some period or other in his life; it would be\nthe most natural thing in the world for the writer of the Acts to connect\nsome version of one of these visions with the conversion itself: the\ndramatic effect would be heightened by making the change, while the\nchange itself would be utterly unimportant in the eyes of such a writer;\nbe this however as it may, we are only now concerned with the fact that\nwe know nothing about Paul\u2019s conversion from the Acts of the Apostles,\nwhich should make us believe that that conversion was wrought in him by\nany other means, than by such an irresistible pressure of evidence as no\nsane person could withstand.\n\nFrom the Apostle\u2019s own writings we can glean nothing about his conversion\nwhich would point in the direction of its having been sudden or\nmiraculous.  It is true that in the Epistle to the Galatians he says,\n\u201cAfter it had pleased God to reveal his Son in me,\u201d but this expression\ndoes not preclude the supposition that his conversion may have been led\nup to by a gradual process, the culmination of which (if that) he alone\nregarded as miraculous.  Thus we are forced to admit that we know nothing\nfrom any source concerning the manner and circumstances of St. Paul\u2019s\nchange from Judaism to Christianity, and we can only conclude therefore\nthat he changed because he found the weight of the evidence to be greater\nthan he could resist.  And this, as we have seen, is an exceedingly\ntelling fact.  The probability is, that coming much into contact with\nChristians through his persecution of them, and submitting them to the\nseverest questioning, he found that they were in all respects sober\nplainspoken men, that their conviction was intense, their story coherent,\nand the doctrines which they had received simple and ennobling; that\nthese results of many inquisitions were so unvarying that he found\nconviction stealing gradually upon him against his will; common honesty\ncompelled him to inquire further; the answers pointed invariably in one\ndirection only; until at length he found himself utterly unable to resist\nthe weight of evidence which he had collected, and resolved, perhaps at\nthe last suddenly, to yield himself a convert to Christianity.\n\nStrauss says that, \u201cin the presence of the believers in Jesus,\u201d the\nconviction that he was a false teacher\u2014an impostor\u2014\u201cmust have become\nevery day more doubtful to him.  They considered it not only publicly\nhonourable to be as convinced of his Resurrection as they were of their\nown life\u2014but they shewed also a state of mind, a quiet peace, a tranquil\ncheerfulness, even under suffering, which put to shame the restless and\njoyless zeal of their persecutor.  Could _he_ have been a false teacher\nwho had adherents such as these?  Could that have been a false pretence\nwhich gave such rest and security? on the one hand, he saw the new sect,\nin spite of all persecutions, nay, in consequence of them, extending\ntheir influence wider and wider round them; on the other, as their\npersecutor, he felt that inward tranquillity growing less and less which\nhe could observe in so many ways in the persecuted.  We cannot therefore\nbe surprised if in hours of inward despondency and unhappiness he put to\nhimself the question, \u2018Who after all is right, thou, or the crucified\nGalilean about whom these men are so enthusiastic?\u2019  And when he had got\nas far as this, the result, with his bodily and mental characteristics,\nnaturally followed in an ecstasy in which the very same Christ whom up to\nthis time he had so passionately persecuted, appeared to him in all the\nglory of which his adherents spoke so much, shewed him the perversity and\nfolly of his conduct, and called him to come over to his service.\u201d\n\nThe above comes simply to this, that Paul in his constant contact with\nChristians found that they had more to say for themselves than he could\nanswer, and should, one would have thought, have suggested to Strauss\nwhat he supposes to have occurred to Paul, namely, that it was not likely\nthat these men had made a mistake in thinking that they had seen Christ\nalive after his Crucifixion.  There can be no doubt about Strauss\u2019s being\nright as to the Christian intensity of conviction, strenuousness of\nassertion, and readiness to suffer for the sake of their faith in Christ;\nand these are the main points with which we are concerned.  We arrive\ntherefore at the conclusion that the first Christians were sufficiently\nunanimous, coherent and undaunted to convince the foremost of their\nenemies.  They were not so _before_ the Crucifixion; they could not\ncertainly have been made so by the Crucifixion alone; something beyond\nthe Crucifixion must have occurred to give them such a moral ascendancy\nas should suffice to generate a revulsion of feeling in the mind of the\npersecuting Saul.  Strauss asks us to believe that this missing something\nis to be found in the hallucinations of two or three men whose names have\nnot been recorded and who have left no mark of their own.  Is there any\noccasion for answer?\n\nIt is inconceivable that he who could write the Epistle to the Romans\nshould not also have been as able as any man who ever lived to question\nthe early believers as to their converse with Christ, and to report\nfaithfully the substance of what they told him.  That he knew the other\nApostles, that he went up to Jerusalem to hold conferences with them,\nthat he abode fifteen days with St. Peter\u2014as he tells us, in order \u201cto\nquestion him\u201d\u2014these things are certain.  The Greek word \u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9 is a\nvery suggestive one.  It is so easy to make too much out of anything that\nI hardly dare to say how strongly the use of the verb \u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd suggests\nto me \u201cgetting at the facts of the case,\u201d \u201cquestioning as to how things\nhappened,\u201d yet such would be the most obvious meaning of the word from\nwhich our own \u201chistory\u201d and \u201cstory\u201d are derived.  Fifteen days was time\nenough to give Paul the means of coming to an understanding with Peter as\nto what the value of Peter\u2019s story was, nor can we believe that Paul\nshould not both receive and transmit perfectly all that he was then told.\nIn fact, without supposing these men to be so utterly visionary that\nnothing durable could come out of them, there is no escape from holding\nthat Peter was justified in firmly believing that he had seen Christ\nalive within a very few days of the Crucifixion, that he succeeded also\nin satisfying Paul that this belief was well-founded, and that in the\naccount of Christ\u2019s reappearances, as given I. Cor. xv., we have a\nvirtually _verbatim_ report of what Paul heard from Peter and the other\nApostles.  Of course the possibility remains that Paul may have been too\neasily satisfied, and not have cross-examined Peter as closely as he\nmight have done.  But then Paul was converted _before_ this interview;\nand this implies that he had already found a general consent among the\nChristians whom he had met with, that the story which he afterwards heard\nfrom Peter (or one to the same effect) was true.  Whence then the\nunanimity of this belief?  Strauss answers as before\u2014from the\nhallucinations of an originally small minority.  We can only again reply\nthat for the reasons already given we find it quite impossible to agree\nwith him.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n[The quotation from Strauss given in this chapter will be found pp. 414,\n415, 420, of the first volume of the English translation, published by\nWilliams and Norgate, 1865.  I believe that my brother intended to make a\nfresh translation from the original passages, but he never carried out\nhis intention, and in his MS. the page of the English translation with\nthe first and last words of each passage are alone given.  I could hardly\nventure to undertake the responsibility of making a fresh translation\nmyself, and have therefore adhered almost word for word to the published\nEnglish translation\u2014here and there, however, a trifling alteration was\nreally irresistible on the scores alike of euphony and clearness.\u2014W. B.\nO.]\n\n\n\nChapter IV\nPaul\u2019s Testimony Considered\n\n\nENOUGH has perhaps been said to cause the reader to agree with the view\nof St. Paul\u2019s conversion taken above\u2014that is to say, to make him regard\nthe conversion as mainly, if not entirely, due to the weight of evidence\nafforded by the courage and consistency of the early Christians.\n\nBut, the change in Paul\u2019s mind being thus referred to causes which\npreclude all possibility of hallucination or ecstasy on his own part, it\nbecomes unnecessary to discuss the attempts which have been made to\nexplain away the miraculous character of the account given in the Acts.\nI believe that this account is founded upon fact, and that it is derived\nfrom some description furnished by St. Paul himself of the vision\nmentioned, I. Cor. xv., which again is very possibly the same as that of\nII. Cor. xii.  For the purposes of the present investigation, however,\nthe whole story must be set aside.  At the same time it should be borne\nin mind, that any detraction from the historical accuracy of the writer\nof the Acts, is more than compensated for, by the additional weight given\nto the conversion of St. Paul, whom we are now able to regard as having\nbeen converted by evidence which was in itself overpowering, and which\ndid not stand in need of any miraculous interference in order to confirm\nit.\n\nIt is important to observe that the testimony of Paul should carry more\nweight with those who are bent upon close critical investigation than\nthat even of the Evangelists.  St. Paul is one whom we know, and know\nwell.  No syllable of suspicion has ever been breathed, even in Germany,\nagainst the first four of the Epistles which have been generally assigned\nto him; friends and foes of Christianity are alike agreed to accept them\nas the genuine work of the Apostle.  Few figures, therefore, in ancient\nhistory stand out more clearly revealed to us than that of St. Paul,\nwhereas a thick veil of darkness hangs over that of each one of the\nEvangelists.  Who St. Matthew was, and whether the gospel that we have is\nan original work, or a translation (as would appear from Papias, our\nhighest authority), and how far it has been modified in translation, are\nthings which we shall never know.  The Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke\nare involved in even greater obscurity.  The authorship, date, and origin\nof the fourth Gospel have been, and are being, even more hotly contested\nthan those of the other three, and all that can be affirmed with\ncertainty concerning it is, that no trace of its existence can be found\nbefore the latter half of the second century, and that the spirit of the\nwork itself is eminently anti-Judaistic, whereas St. John appears both\nfrom the Gospels and from St. Paul\u2019s Epistles to have been a pillar of\nJudaism.\n\nWith St. Paul all is changed: we not only know him better than we know\nnine-tenths of our own most eminent countrymen of the last century, but\nwe feel a confidence in him which grows greater and greater the more we\nstudy his character.  He combines to perfection the qualities that make a\ngood witness\u2014capacity and integrity: add to this that his conclusions\nwere forced upon him.  We therefore feel that, whereas from a scientific\npoint of view, the Gospel narratives can only be considered as the\ntestimony of early and sincere writers of whom we know little or nothing,\nyet that in the evidence of St. Paul we find the missing link which\nconnects us securely with actual eye-witnesses and gives us a confidence\nin the general accuracy of the Gospels which they could never of\nthemselves alone have imparted.  We could indeed ill spare either the\ntestimony of the Evangelists or that of St. Paul, but if we were obliged\nto content ourselves with one only, we should choose the Apostle.\n\nTurning then to the evidence of St. Paul as derivable from I. Cor. xv. we\nfind the following:\n\n\u201cMoreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto\nyou, which also ye have received and wherein ye stand.  By which also ye\nare saved if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have\nbelieved in vain.  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I\nalso received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the\nScriptures: and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day\naccording to the Scriptures; and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the\ntwelve: after that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of\nwhom the greater portion remain unto this present, but some are fallen\nasleep.  After that He was seen of James; then of all the Apostles.  And\nlast of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.\u201d\n\nIn the first place we must notice Paul\u2019s assertion that the Gospel which\nhe was then writing was identical with that which he had originally\npreached.  We may assume that each of the appearances of Christ here\nmentioned had in Paul\u2019s mind a definite time and place, derived from the\naccount which he had received and which probably led to his conversion;\nthe words \u201cthat which I also received\u201d surely imply \u201cthat which I also\nreceived _in the first instance_\u201d: now we know from his own mouth (Gal.\ni., 16, 17) that _after_ his conversion he \u201cconferred not with flesh and\nblood\u201d\u2014\u201cneither,\u201d he continues, \u201cwent I up to Jerusalem to them which\nwere Apostles before me, but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto\nDamascus: then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see\n(\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9) Peter, and abode with him fifteen days, but others of the\nApostles saw I none, save James the Lord\u2019s brother.\u201d  Since, then, he\nmust have heard _some_ story concerning Christ\u2019s reappearances before his\nconversion and subsequent sojourn in Arabia, and since he had heard\nnothing from eye-witnesses until the time of his going up to Jerusalem\nthree years later, it is probable that the account quoted above is the\nsubstance of what he found persisted in by the Christians whom he was\npersecuting at Damascus, and was at length compelled to believe.  But\nthis is very unimportant: it is more to the point to insist upon the fact\nthat St. Paul must have received the account given I. Cor. xv., 3\u20138\nwithin a very few years of the Crucifixion itself, and that it was\nsubsequently confirmed to him by Peter, and probably by James and John,\nduring his stay of fifteen days in Peter\u2019s house.\n\nThis account can have been nothing new even then, for it is plain that at\nthe time of Paul\u2019s conversion the Christian Church had spread far: Paul\nspeaks of _returning_ to Damascus, as though the writer of the Acts was\nright as regards the place of his conversion; but the fact of there\nhaving been a church in Damascus of sufficient importance for Paul to go\nthither to persecute it, involves the lapse of considerable time since\nthe original promulgation of our Lord\u2019s Resurrection, and throws back the\norigin of the belief in that event to a time closely consequent upon the\nCrucifixion itself.\n\nNow Paul informs us that he was told (we may assume by Peter and James)\nthat Christ first reappeared _within three days of the Crucifixion_.\nThere is no sufficient reason for doubting this; and one fact of weekly\nrecurrence even to this day, affords it striking confirmation\u2014I refer to\nthe institution of Sunday as the Lord\u2019s day.  We know that the observance\nof this day in commemoration of the Resurrection was a very early\npractice, nor is there anything which would seem to throw doubt upon the\nfact of the first \u201cSunday\u201d having been also the Sunday of the\nResurrection.  Another confirmation of the early date assigned to the\nResurrection by St. Paul, is to be found in the fact that every instinct\nwould warn the Apostles _against_ the third day as being dangerously\nearly, and as opening a door for the denial of the completeness of the\ndeath.  The fortieth day would far more naturally have been chosen.\n\nTurning now from the question of the date of the first reappearance to\nwhat is told us of the reappearances themselves, we find that the\nearliest was vouchsafed to St. Peter, which is at first sight opposed to\nthe Evangelistic records; but this is a discrepancy upon which no stress\nshould be laid; St. Paul might well be aware that Mary Magdalene was the\nfirst to look upon her risen Lord, and yet have preferred to dwell upon\nthe more widely known names of Peter and his fellow Apostles.  The facts\nare probably these, that our Lord first shewed Himself to the women, but\nthat Peter was the first of the Apostolic body to see Him; it was natural\nthat if our Lord did not choose to show Himself to the Apostles without\npreparation, Peter should have been chosen as the one best fitted to\nprepare them: Peter probably collected the other Apostles, and then the\nRedeemer shewed Himself alive to all together.  This is what we should\ngather from St. Paul\u2019s narrative; a narrative which it would seem\narbitrary to set aside in the face of St. Paul\u2019s character, opportunities\nand antecedent prejudices against Christianity\u2014in the face also of the\nunanimity of all the records we have, as well as of the fact that the\nChristian religion triumphed, and of the endless difficulties attendant\non the hallucination theory.\n\nWe conclude therefore that Paul was satisfied by sufficient evidence that\nour Lord had appeared to Peter on the third day after the Crucifixion,\nnor can any reasonable doubt be thrown upon the other appearances of\nwhich he tells us.  It is true that on the occasion of his visit to Peter\nhe saw none other of the Apostles save James\u2014but there is nothing to lead\nus to suppose that there was any want of unanimity among them: no trace\nof this has come down to us, and would surely have done so if it had\nexisted.  If any dependence at all is to be placed on the writers of the\nNew Testament it did not exist.  Stronger evidence than this unanimity it\nwould be hard to find.\n\nAnother most noticeable feature is the fewness of the recorded\nappearances of Christ.  They commenced according to Paul (and this is\nvirtually according to Peter and James) immediately after the\nCrucifixion.  Paul mentions only five appearances: this does not preclude\nthe supposition that he knew of more, nor that the women who came to the\nsepulchre had also seen Him, but it does seem to imply that the\nreappearances were few in number, and that they continued only for a very\nshort time.  They were sufficient for their purpose: one of preparation\nto Peter\u2014another to the Apostles\u2014another to the outside world, and then\none or two more\u2014but still not more than enough to establish the fact\nbeyond all possibility of dispute.  The writer of the Acts tells us that\nChrist was seen for a space of forty days\u2014presumably not every day, but\nfrom time to time.  Now forty days is a mystical period, and one which\nmay mean either more or less, within a week or two, than the precise time\nstated; it seems upon the whole most reasonable to conclude that the\nreappearances recorded by Paul, and some few others not recorded,\nextended over a period of one or two months after the Crucifixion, and\nthat they then came to an end; for there can be no doubt that St. Paul\nconceived them as having ended with the appearance to the assembled\nApostles mentioned I. Cor. xv., 7, and, though he does not say so\nexpressly, there is that in the context which suggests their having been\nconfined to a short space of time.\n\nIt is perfectly clear that St. Paul did not believe that any one had seen\nChrist in the interval between the last recorded appearance to the\neleven, and the vision granted to himself.  The words \u201cand last of all he\nwas seen also of me _as of one born out of due time_\u201d point strongly in\nthe direction of a lapse of some years between the second appearance to\nthe eleven and his own vision.  This confirms and is confirmed by the\nwriter of the Acts.  St. Paul never could have used the words quoted\nabove, if he had held that the appearances which he records had been\nspread over a space of years intervening between the Crucifixion and his\nown vision.  Where would be the force of \u201cborn out of due time\u201d unless\nthe time of the previous appearances had long passed by?  But if, at the\ntime of St. Paul\u2019s conversion, it was already many years since the last\noccasion upon which Christ had been seen by his disciples, we find\nourselves driven back to a time closely consequent upon the Crucifixion\nas the only possible date of the reappearances.  But this is in itself\nsufficient condemnation of Strauss\u2019s theory: that theory requires\nconsiderable time for the development of a perfectly unanimous and\nharmonious belief in the hallucinations, while every particle of evidence\nwhich we can get points in the direction of the belief in the\nResurrection having followed very closely upon the Crucifixion.\n\nTo repeat: had the reappearances been due to hallucination only, they\nwould neither have been so few in number nor have come to an end so soon.\nWhen once the mind has begun to run riot in hallucination, it is prodigal\nof its own inventions.  Favoured believers would have been constantly\nseeing Christ even up to the time of Paul\u2019s letter to the Corinthians,\nand the Apostle would have written that even then Christ was still\noccasionally seen of those who trusted in him, and served him faithfully.\nBut we meet with nothing of the sort: we are told that Christ was seen a\nfew times shortly after the Crucifixion, then _after a lapse of several\nyears_ (I am surely warranted in saying this) Paul himself saw Him\u2014but no\none in the interval, and no one afterwards.  This is not the manner of\nthe hallucinations of uneducated people.  It is altogether too sober: the\nstate of mind from which alone so baseless a delusion could spring, is\none which never could have been contented with the results which were\nevidently all, or nearly all, that Paul knew of.  St. Paul\u2019s words cannot\nbe set aside without more cause than Strauss has shewn: instead of\nbetraying a tendency towards exaggeration, they contain nothing whatever,\nwith the exception of his own vision, that is not imperatively demanded\nin order to account for the rise and spread of Christianity.\n\nConcerning that vision Strauss writes as follows:\n\n\u201cWith regard to the appearance he (Paul) witnessed\u2014he uses the same word\n(\u03c9\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7) as with regard to the others: he places it in the same category\nwith them only in the last place, as he names himself the last of the\nApostles, but in exactly the same rank with the others.  Thus much,\ntherefore, Paul knew\u2014or supposed\u2014that the appearances which the elder\ndisciples had seen soon after the Resurrection of Jesus had been of the\nsame kind as that which had been, only later, vouchsafed to himself.  Of\nwhat sort then was this?\u201d\n\nI confess that I am wholly unable to feel the force of the above.\nStrauss says that Paul\u2019s vision was ecstatic\u2014subjective and not\nobjective\u2014that Paul thought he saw Christ, although he never really saw\nhim.  But, says Strauss, he uses the same word for his own vision and for\nthe appearances to the earlier Apostles: it is plain therefore that he\ndid not suppose the earlier Apostles to have seen Christ in the same sort\nof way in which they saw themselves and other people, but to have seen\nhim as Paul himself did, _i.e._, by supernatural revelation.\n\nBut would it not be more fair to say that Paul\u2019s using the same word for\nall the appearances\u2014his own vision included\u2014implies that he considered\nthis last to have been no less real than those vouchsafed earlier, though\nhe may have been perfectly well aware that it was different in kind?  The\nuse of the same word for all the appearances is quite compatible with a\nbelief in Paul\u2019s mind that the manner in which he saw Christ was\ndifferent from that in which the Apostles had seen him: indeed, so long\nas he believed that he had seen Christ no less really than the others,\none cannot see why he should have used any other word for his own vision\nthan that which he had applied to the others: we should even expect that\nhe would do so, and should be surprised at his having done otherwise.\nThat Paul did believe in the reality of his own vision is indisputable,\nand his use of the word \u03c9\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7 was probably dictated by a desire to assert\nthis belief in the strongest possible way, and to place his own vision in\nthe same category with others, which were so universally known among\nChristians to have been material and objective, that there was no\noccasion to say so.  Nevertheless there is that in Paul\u2019s words on which\nStrauss does not dwell, but which cannot be passed over without notice.\nPaul does not simply say, \u201cand last of all he was seen also of me\u201d\u2014but he\nadds the words \u201cas of one born out of due time.\u201d\n\nIt is impossible to say decisively that this addition implies that Paul\nrecognised a difference in kind between the appearances, inasmuch as the\nwords added may only refer to time\u2014still they would explain the possible\nuse of [\u03c9\u03c6\u03b8\u03b7] in a somewhat different sense, and I cannot but think that\nthey will suggest this possibility to the reader.  They will make him\nfeel, if he does not feel it without them, how strained a proceeding it\nis to bind Paul down to a rigorously identical meaning on every occasion\non which the same word came from his pen, and to maintain that because he\nonce uses it on the occasion of an appearance which he held to be\nvouchsafed by revelation, therefore, wherever else he uses it, he must\nhave intended to refer to something seen by revelation: the words \u201cas of\none born out of due time\u201d imply the utterly unlooked for and transcendent\nnature of the favour, and suggest, even though they do not compel, the\ninference that while the other Apostles had seen Christ in the common\ncourse of nature, as a visible tangible being before their waking eyes,\nhe had himself seen Him not less truly, but still only by special and\nunlooked for revelation.  If such thoughts were in his mind he would not\nprobably have expressed them farther than by the touching words which he\nhas added concerning his own vision.  So much for the objection that the\nevidence of Paul concerning the earlier appearances is impaired by his\nhaving used the same word for them, and for the appearance to himself.\nIt only remains therefore to review in brief the general bearings of\nPaul\u2019s testimony as given I. Cor. xv., 1\u20138.\n\nFirstly, there is the early commencement of the reappearances: this is\nincompatible with hallucination, for the hallucination must be supposed\nto have occurred when most easy to refute, and when the spell of shame\nand fear was laid most heavily upon the Apostles.  Strauss maintains that\nthe appearances were unconsciously antedated by Peter; we can only say\nthat the circumstances of the case, as entered into more fully above,\nrender this very improbable; that if Peter told Paul that he saw Christ\non the third day after the Crucifixion, he probably firmly believed that\nhe did see Him; and that if he believed this, he was also probably right\nin so believing.\n\nSecondly, there is the fact that the reappearances were few, and extended\nover a short time only.  Had they been due to hallucination there would\nhave been no limit either to their number or duration.  Paul seems to\nhave had no idea that there ever had been, or ever would be, successors\nto the five hundred brethren who saw Christ at one time.  Some were\nfallen asleep\u2014the rest would in time follow them.  It is incredible that\nmen should have so lost all count of fact, so debauched their perception\nof external objects, so steeped themselves in belief in dreams which had\nno foundation but in their own disordered brains, as to have turned the\nwhole world after them by the sheer force of their conviction of the\ntruth of their delusions, and yet that suddenly, within a few weeks from\nthe commencement of this intoxication, they should have come to a dead\nstop and given no further sign of like extravagance.  The hallucinations\nmust have been so baseless, and would argue such an utter subordination\nof judgement to imagination, that instead of ceasing they must infallibly\nhave ended in riot and disorganisation; the fact that they did cease\n(which cannot be denied) and that they were followed by no disorder, but\nby a solemn sober steadfastness of purpose, as of reasonable men in\ndeadly earnest about a matter which had come to their knowledge, and\nwhich they held it vital for all to know\u2014this fact alone would be\nsufficient to overthrow the hallucination theory.  Such intemperance\ncould never have begotten such temperance: from such a frame of mind as\nStrauss assigns to the Apostles no religion could have come which should\nsatisfy the highest spiritual needs of the most civilised nations of the\nearth for nearly two thousand years.\n\nWhen, therefore, we look at the want of faith of the Apostles before the\nCrucifixion, and to their subsequent intense devotion; at their unanimity\nat their general sobriety; at the fact that they succeeded in convincing\nthe ablest of their enemies and ultimately the whole of Europe; at the\nundeviating consent of all the records we have; at the early date at\nwhich the reappearances commenced,\u2014at their small number and short\nduration\u2014things so foreign to the nature of hallucination; at the\nexcellent opportunities which Paul had for knowing what he tells us; at\nthe plain manner in which he tells it, and the more than proof which he\ngave of his own conviction of its truth; at the impossibility of\naccounting for the rise of Christianity without the reappearance of its\nFounder after His Crucifixion; when we look at all these things we shall\nadmit that it is impossible to avoid the belief that after having died,\nChrist _did_ reappear to his disciples, and that in this fact we have the\nonly intelligible explanation of the triumph of Christianity.\n\n\n\nChapter V\nA Consideration of Certain Ill-Judged\nMethods of Defence\n\n\nTHE reader has now heard the utmost that can be said against the historic\ncharacter of the Resurrection by the ablest of its impugners.  I know of\nnothing in any of Strauss\u2019s works which can be considered as doing better\njustice to his opinions than the passages which I have quoted and, I\ntrust, refuted.  I have quoted fully, and have kept nothing in the\nbackground.  If I had known of anything stronger against the Resurrection\nfrom any other source, I should certainly have produced it.  I have\nanswered in outline only, but I do not believe that I have passed any\ndifficulty on one side.\n\nWhat then does the reader think?  Was the attack so dangerous, or the\ndefence so far to seek?  I believe he will agree with me that the combat\nwas one of no great danger when it was once fairly entered upon.  But the\nwonder, and, let me add, the disgrace, to English divines, is that the\nbattle should have been shirked so long.  What is it that has made the\nname of Strauss so terrible to the ears of English Churchmen?  Surely\nnothing but the ominous silence which has been maintained concerning him\nin almost all quarters of our Church.  For what can he say or do against\nthe other miracles if he be powerless against the Resurrection?  He can\nmake sentences which sound plausible, but that is no great feat.  Can he\nshow that there is any _a priori_ improbability whatever, in the fact of\nmiracles having been wrought by one who died and rose from the dead?  If\na man did this it is a small thing that he should also walk upon the\nwaves and command the winds.  But if there is no _a priori_ difficulty\nwith regard to these miracles, there is certainly none other.\n\nLet this, however, for the present pass, only let me beg of the reader to\nhave patience while I follow out the plan which I have pursued up to the\npresent point, and proceed to examine certain difficulties of another\ncharacter.  I propose to do so with the same unflinching examination as\nheretofore, concealing nothing that has been said, or that can be said;\ngoing out of my way to find arguments for opponents, if I do not think\nthat they have put forward all that from their own point of view they\nmight have done, and careless how many difficulties I may bring before\nthe reader which may never yet have occurred to him, provided I feel that\nI can also shew him how little occasion there is to fear them.\n\nI must, however, maintain two propositions, which may perhaps be\nunfamiliar to some of those who have not as yet given more than a\nconventional and superficial attention to the Scriptural records, but\nwhich will meet with ready assent from all whose studies have been\ndeeper.  Fain would I avoid paining even a single reader, but I am\nconvinced that the arresting of infidelity depends mainly upon the\ngeneral recognition of two broad facts.  The first is this\u2014that the\nApostles, even after they had received the gift of the Holy Spirit were\nstill fallible though holy men; the second\u2014that there are certain\npassages in each of the Gospels as we now have them, which were not\noriginally to be found therein, and others which, though genuine, are\nstill not historic.  This much of concession we must be prepared to make,\nand we shall find (as in the case of the conversion of St. Paul) that our\nposition is indefinitely strengthened by doing so.\n\nWhen shall we Christians learn that the truest ground is also the\nstrongest?  We may be sure that until we have done so we shall find a\nhost of enemies who will say that truth is not ours.  It is we who have\ncreated infidelity, and who are responsible for it.  _We_ are the true\ninfidels, for we have not sufficient faith in our own creed to believe\nthat it will bear the removal of the incrustations of time and\nsuperstition.  When men see our cowardice, what can they think but that\nwe must know that we have cause to be afraid?  We drive men into unbelief\nin spite of themselves, by our tenacious adherence to opinions which\nevery unprejudiced person must see at a glance that we cannot rightfully\ndefend, and then we pride ourselves upon our love for Christ and our\nhatred of His enemies.  If Christ accepts this kind of love He is not\nsuch as He has declared Himself.\n\nWe mistake our love of our own immediate ease for the love of Christ, and\nour hatred of every opinion which is strange to us, for zeal against His\nenemies.  If those to whom the unfamiliarity of an opinion or its\ninconvenience to themselves is a test of its hatefulness to Christ, had\nbeen born Jews, they would have crucified Him whom they imagine that they\nare now serving: if Turks, they would have massacred both Jew and\nChristian; if Papists at the time of the Reformation they would have\npersecuted Protestants: if Protestants, under Elizabeth, Papists.  Truth\nis to them an accident of birth and training, and the Christian faith is\nin their eyes true because these accidents, as far as they are concerned,\nhave decided in its favour.  But such persons are not Christians.  It is\nthey who crucify Christ, who drive men from coming to Him whose every\ninstinct would lead them to love and worship Him, but who are warned off\nby observing the crowd of sycophants and time-servers who presume to call\nHim Lord.\n\nBut to look at the matter from another point of view; when there is a\nlong sustained contest between two bodies of capable and seriously\ndisposed people, (and none can deny that many of our adversaries have\nbeen both one and the other), and when this contest shews no sign of\nhealing, but rather widens from generation to generation, and each party\naccuses the other of disingenuousness, obstinacy and other like serious\ndefects of mind\u2014it may be certainly assumed that the truth lies wholly\nwith neither side, but that each should make some concessions to the\nother.  A third party sees this at a glance, and is amazed because\nneither of the disputants can perceive that his opponent must be\npossessed of some truths, in spite of his trying to defend other\npositions which are indefensible.  Strange! that a thing which it seems\nso easy to avoid, should so seldom be avoided!  Homer said well:\n\n    \u201cPerish strife, both from among gods and men,\n    And wrath which maketh even him that is considerate, cruel,\n    Which getteth up in the heart of a man like smoke,\n    And the taste thereof is sweeter than drops of honey.\u201d\n\nBut strife can never cease without concessions upon both sides.  We agree\nto this readily in the abstract, but we seldom do so when any given\nconcession is in question.  We are all for concession in the general, but\nfor none in the particular, as people who say that they will retrench\nwhen they are living beyond their income, but will not consent to any\nproposed retrenchment.  Thus many shake their heads and say that it is\nimpossible to live in the present age and not be aware of many\ndifficulties in connection with the Christian religion; they have studied\nthe question more deeply than perhaps the unbeliever imagines; and having\nsaid this much they give themselves credit for being wide-minded, liberal\nand above vulgar prejudices: but when pressed as to this or that\nparticular difficulty, and asked to own that such and such an objection\nof the infidel\u2019s needs explanation, they will have none of it, and will\nin nine cases out of ten betray by their answers that they neither know\nnor want to know what the infidel means, but on the contrary that they\nare resolute to remain in ignorance.  I know this kind of liberality\nexceedingly well, and have ever found it to harbour more selfishness,\nidleness, cowardice and stupidity than does open bigotry.  The bigot is\ngenerally better than his expressed opinions, these people are invariably\nworse than theirs.\n\nThe above principle has been largely applied in the writings of so-called\northodox commentators, not unfrequently even by men who might have been\nassumed to be above condescending to such trickery.  A great preface\nconcerning candour, with a flourish of trumpets in the praise of truth,\nseems to have exhausted every atom of truth and candour from the work\nthat follows it.\n\nIt will be said that I ought not to make use of language such as this\nwithout bringing forward examples.  I shall therefore adduce them.\n\nOne of the most serious difficulties to the unbeliever is the\ninextricable confusion in which the accounts of the Resurrection have\nreached us: no one can reconcile these accounts with one another, not\nonly in minute particulars, but in matters on which it is of the highest\nimportance to come to a clear understanding.  Thus, to omit all notice of\nmany other discrepancies, the accounts of Mark, Luke, and John concur in\nstating that when the women came to the tomb of Jesus very early on the\nSunday morning, they found it _already empty_: the stone was gone when\nthey came there, and, according to John, there was not even an angelic\nvision for some time afterwards.  There is nothing in any of these three\naccounts to preclude the possibility of the stone\u2019s having been removed\nwithin an hour or two of the body\u2019s having been laid in the tomb.\n\nBut when we turn to Matthew we find all changed: we are told that the\nstone was gone _not_ when the women came, but that on their arrival there\nwas a great earthquake, and that an angel came down from Heaven, and\nrolled away the stone, _and sat upon it_, and that the guard who had been\nset over the tomb (of whom we hear nothing from any of the other\nevangelists) became as dead men while the angel addressed the women.\n\nNow this is not one of those cases in which the supposition can be\ntolerated that all would be clear if the whole facts of the case were\nknown to us.  No additional facts can make it come about that the tomb\nshould have been sealed and guarded, and yet _not_ sealed and guarded;\nthat the same women, at the same time and place, should have witnessed an\nearthquake, and yet _not_ witnessed one; have found a stone already gone\nfrom a tomb, and yet _not_ found it gone; have seen it rolled away, and\n_not_ seen it, and so on; those who say that we should find no difficulty\nif we knew _all_ the facts are still careful to abstain from any example\n(so far as I know) of the sort of additional facts which would serve\ntheir purpose.  They cannot give one; any mind which is truly\ncandid\u2014white\u2014not scrawled and scribbled over till no character is\ndecipherable\u2014will feel at once that the only question to be raised is,\nwhich is the more correct account of the Resurrection\u2014Matthew\u2019s or those\ngiven by the other three Evangelists?  How far is Matthew\u2019s account true,\nand how far is it exaggerated?  For there must be either exaggeration or\ninvention somewhere.  It is inconceivable that the other writers should\nhave known the story told by Matthew, and yet not only made no allusion\nto it, but introduced matter which flatly contradicts it, and it is also\ninconceivable that the story should be true, and yet that the other\nwriters should not have known it.\n\nThis is how the difficulty stands\u2014a difficulty which vanishes in a moment\nif it be rightly dealt with, but which, when treated after our unskilful\nEnglish method, becomes capable of doing inconceivable mischief to the\nChristian religion.  Let us see then what Dean Alford\u2014a writer whose\nprofessions of candour and talk about the duty of unflinching examination\nleave nothing to be desired\u2014has to say upon this point.  I will first\nquote the passage in full from Matthew, and then give the Dean\u2019s note.  I\nhave drawn the greater part of the comments that will follow it from an\nanonymous pamphlet {141} upon the Resurrection, dated 1865, but without a\npublisher\u2019s name, so that I presume it must have been printed for private\ncirculation only.\n\nSt. Matthew\u2019s account runs:\u2014\n\n    \u201cNow the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the\n    chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, saying, \u2018Sir,\n    we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, \u201cAfter\n    three days I will rise again.\u201d  Command therefore that the sepulchre\n    be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night\n    and steal him away and say unto the people, \u201cHe is risen from the\n    dead:\u201d so the last error shall be worse than the first.\u2019  Pilate said\n    unto them, \u2018Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.\u2019\n    So they went and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone and\n    setting a watch.  In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn\n    towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other\n    Mary to see the sepulchre.  And, behold, there was a great\n    earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came\n    and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.  His\n    countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And\n    for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.  And\n    the angel answered and said unto the women, \u2018Fear not ye: for I know\n    that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.  He is not here: for he is\n    risen, as he said.  Come, see the place where the Lord lay.  And go\n    quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and,\n    behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo,\n    I have told you.\u2019  And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with\n    fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.  And as\n    they went to tell his disciples, Jesus met them, saying, \u2018All hail.\u2019\n    And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him (_cf._\n    John xx., 16, 17).  Then said Jesus unto them, \u2018Be not afraid: go\n    tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see\n    me.\u2019  Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into\n    the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were\n    done.  And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken\n    counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, \u2018Say ye,\n    His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.  And\n    if this come to the governor\u2019s ears, we will persuade him and secure\n    you.\u2019  So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this\n    saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.\u201d\n\nLet us turn now to the Dean\u2019s note on Matt. xxvii., 62\u201366.\n\nWith regard to the setting of the watch and sealing of the stone, he\ntells us that the narrative following (_i.e._, the account of the guard\nand the earthquake) \u201chas been much impugned and its historical accuracy\nvery generally given up even by the best of the German commentators\n(Olshausen, Meyer; also De Wette, Hase, and others).  The chief\ndifficulties found in it seem to be: (1) How should the chief priests,\n&c., _know of His having said_ \u2018in three days I will rise again,\u2019 when\nthe saying was hid even from His own disciples?  The answer to this is\neasy.  The _meaning_ of the saying may have been, and was hid from the\ndisciples; _but the fact of its having been said_ could be no secret.\nNot to lay any stress on John ii., 19 (Jesus answered and said unto them,\n\u2018Destroy this temple and in three days I will build it up\u2019), we have the\ndirect prophecy of Matt. xii., 40 (\u2018For as Jonah was three days and three\nnights in the whale\u2019s belly, so shall the Son of Man be three days and\nthree nights in the heart of the earth): besides this there would be a\nrumour current, through the intercourse of the Apostles with others, that\nHe had been in the habit of so saying.  (From what source can Dean Alford\nknow that our Lord _was_ in the habit of so saying?  What particle of\nauthority is there for this alleged habit of our Lord?)  As to the\n_understanding_ of the words we must remember that _hatred is keener\nsighted than love_: that the _raising of Lazarus_ would shew _what sort\nof a thing rising from the dead was to be_; and the fulfilment of the\nLord\u2019s announcement of his _crucifixion_ would naturally lead them to\nlook further to _what more_ he had announced. (2) How should the women\nwho were solicitous about the _removal_ of the stone not have been still\nmore so about its being sealed and a guard set?  The answer to this last\nhas been given above\u2014_they were not aware of the circumstance because the\nguard was not set till the evening before_.  There would be no need of\nthe application before the _approach of the third day_\u2014it is only made\nfor a watch, \u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u03c1\u03af\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 (ver. 64), and it is not probable that\nthe circumstance would transpire that night\u2014certainly it seems not to\nhave done so. (3) That Gamaliel was of the council, and if such a thing\nas this and its sequel (chap. xxviii., 11\u201315) had really happened, he\nneed not have expressed himself doubtfully (Acts v., 39), but would have\nbeen certain that this was from God.  But, first, it does not necessarily\nfollow that _every member_ of the Sanhedrim was present, and applied to\nPilate, or even had they done so, that all bore a part in the act of\nxxviii., 12\u201d (the bribing of the guard to silence).  \u201cOne who like Joseph\nhad not consented to the deed before\u2014and we may safely say that there\nwere others such\u2014would naturally withdraw himself from further\nproceedings against the person of Jesus. (4) Had this been so the three\nother Evangelists would not have passed over so important a testimony to\nthe Resurrection.  But surely we cannot argue in this way\u2014for thus every\nimportant fact narrated by _one Evangelist alone_ must be rejected, e.g.\n(which stands in much the same relation), _the satisfaction of\nThomas\u2014another such narrations_.  _Till we know more about the\ncircumstances under which_, _and the scope with which_, _each Gospel was\ncompiled_, _all a priori arguments of this kind are good for nothing_.\u201d\n\n(The italics in the above, and throughout the notes quoted, are the\nDean\u2019s, unless it is expressly stated otherwise.)\n\nI will now proceed to consider this defence of Matthew\u2019s accuracy against\nthe objections of the German commentators.\n\nI.  The German commentators maintain that the chief priests are not\nlikely to have known of any prophecy of Christ\u2019s Resurrection when His\nown disciples had evidently heard of nothing to this effect.  Dean\nAlford\u2019s answer amounts to this:\u2014\n\n1.  They had heard the words but did not understand their meaning; hatred\nenabled the chief priests to see clearly what love did not reveal to the\nunderstanding of the Apostles.  True, according to Matthew, Christ had\nsaid that as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale\u2019s belly,\nso the Son of Man should be three days and three nights in the heart of\nthe earth; but it would be only hatred which would suggest the\ninterpretation of so obscure a prophecy: love would not be sufficiently\nkeen-sighted to understand it.\n\nBut in the first place I would urge that if the Apostles had ever heard\nany words capable of suggesting the idea that Christ should rise, after\nthey had already seen the raising of Lazarus, on whom corruption had\nbegun its work, they _must_ have expected the Resurrection.  After having\nseen so stupendous a miracle, any one would expect anything which was\neven suggested by the One who had performed it.  And, secondly, hatred is\nnot keener sighted than love.\n\n2.  Dean Alford says that the raising of Lazarus would shew the chief\npriests what sort of a thing the Resurrection from the dead was to be,\nand that the fulfilment of Christ\u2019s prophecy concerning his Crucifixion\nwould naturally lead them to look further to what else he had announced.\n\nBut, if the raising of Lazarus would shew the chief priests what sort of\nthing the Resurrection was to be, it would shew the Apostles also; and\nagain if the fulfilment of the prophecy of the Crucifixion would lead the\nchief priests to look further to the fulfilment of the prophecy of the\nResurrection, so would it lead the Apostles; this supposition of one set\nof men who can see everything, and of another with precisely the same\nopportunities and no less interest, who can see nothing, is vastly\nconvenient upon the stage, but it is not supported by a reference to\nNature; self-interest would have opened the eyes of the Apostles.\n\nII.  The German commentators ask how was it possible that the women who\nwere solicitous about the removal of the stone, should not be still more\nso about \u201cits being sealed and a guard set?\u201d  If the German commentators\nhave asked their question in this shape, they have asked it badly, and\nDean Alford\u2019s answer is sufficient: they might have asked, how the other\nthree writers could all tell us that the stone was already gone when the\nwomen got there, and yet Matthew\u2019s story be true? and how Matthew\u2019s story\ncould be true without the other writers having known it? and how the\nother writers could have introduced matter contradictory to it, if they\nhad known it to be true?\n\nIII.  The German commentators say that in the Acts of the Apostles we\nfind Gamaliel expressing himself as doubtful whether or no Christianity\nwas of God, whereas had he known the facts related by Matthew he could\nhave had no doubt at all.  He must have _known_ that Christianity was of\nGod.\n\nDean Alford answers that perhaps Gamaliel was not there.  To which I\nwould rejoin that though Gamaliel might have had no hand in the bribery,\nsupposing it to have taken place, it is inconceivable that such a story\nshould have not reached him; the matter could never have been kept so\nquiet but that it must have leaked out.  Men are not so utterly bad or so\nutterly foolish as Dean Alford seems to imply; and whether Gamaliel was\nor was not present when the guard were bribed, he must have been equally\naware of the fact before making the speech which is assigned to him in\nthe Acts.\n\nIV.  The German commentators argue from the silence of the other\nEvangelists: Dean Alford replies by denying that this silence is any\nargument: but I would answer, that on a matter which the other three\nwriters must have known to have been of such intense interest, their\nsilence is a conclusive proof either of their ignorance or their\nindolence as historians.  Dean Alford has well substantiated the\nindependence of the four narratives, he has well proved that the writer\nof the fourth Gospel could never have seen the other Gospels, and yet he\nsupposes that that writer either did not know the facts related by\nMatthew, or thought it unnecessary to allude to them.  Neither of these\nsuppositions is tenable: but there would nevertheless be a shadow of\nground for Dean Alford to stand upon if the other Evangelists were simply\nsilent: but why does he omit all notice of their introducing matter which\nis absolutely incompatible with Matthew\u2019s accuracy?\n\nThere is one other consideration which must suggest itself to the reader\nin connection with this story of the guard.  It refers to the conduct of\nthe chief priests and the soldiers themselves.  The conduct assigned to\nthe chief priests in bribing the guard to lie against one whom they must\nby this time have known to be under supernatural protection, is contrary\nto human nature.  The chief priests (according to Matthew) knew that\nChrist had said he should rise: in spite of their being well aware that\nChrist had raised Lazarus from the dead but very recently they did not\nbelieve that he _would_ rise, but feared (so Matthew says) that the\nApostles would steal the body and pretend a resurrection: up to this\npoint we admit that the story, though very improbable, is still possible:\nbut when we read of their bribing the guards to tell a lie under such\ncircumstances as those which we are told had just occurred, we say that\nsuch conduct is impossible: men are too great cowards to be capable of\nit.  The same applies to the soldiers: they would never dare to run\ncounter to an agency which had nearly killed them with fright on that\nvery selfsame morning.  Let any man put himself in their position: let\nhim remember that these soldiers were previously no enemies to Christ,\nnor, as far as we can judge, is it likely that they were a gang of\ndouble-dyed villains: but even if they were, they would not have dared to\nact as Matthew says they acted.\n\nAnd now let us turn to another note of Dean Alford\u2019s.\n\nSpeaking of the independence of the four narratives (in his note on Matt.\nxxviii., 1\u201310) and referring to their \u201cminor discrepancies,\u201d the Dean\nsays, \u201c_Supposing us to be acquainted with every thing said and done in\nits order and exactness_, _we should doubtless be able to reconcile_, _or\naccount for_, _the present forms of the narratives_; but not having this\nkey to the harmonising of them, all attempts to do so in minute\nparticulars must be full of arbitrary assumptions, and carry no certainty\nwith them: and I may remark that _of all harmonies_ those of the\n_incidents of these chapters_ are to me the _most unsatisfactory_.\nGiving their compilers all credit for the best intentions, I confess they\nseem to me to _weaken_ instead of strengthening the evidence, which now\nrests (speaking merely _objectively_) on the unexceptionable testimony of\nthree independent narrators, and one who besides was an eye witness of\nmuch that happened.  If we are to compare the four and ask which is to be\ntaken as most nearly reporting the _exact_ words and incidents, on this\nthere can, I think, be no doubt.  On internal as well as external ground\n_that of John_ takes the _highest place_, but not of course to the\nexclusion of those parts of the narrative which he _does not touch_.\u201d\n\nSurely the above is a very extraordinary note.  The difficulty of the\nirreconcilable differences between the four narratives is not met nor\nattempted to be met: the Dean seems to consider the attempt as hopeless:\nno one, according to him, has been as yet successful, neither can he see\nany prospect of succeeding better himself: the expedient therefore which\nhe proposes is that the whole should be taken on trust; that it should be\nassumed that no discrepancy which could not be accounted for would be\nfound, if the facts were known in the exact order in which they occurred.\nIn other words, he leaves the difficulty where it was.  Yet surely it is\na very grave one.  The same events are recorded by three writers (one\nbeing professedly an eye-witness, and the others independent writers), in\na way which is virtually the same, in spite of some unimportant\nvariations in the manner of telling it, while a fourth gives a totally\ndifferent and irreconcilable account; the matter stands in such confusion\nat present that even Dean Alford admits that any attempt to reconcile the\ndifferences leaves them in worse confusion than ever; the ablest and most\nspiritually minded of the German commentators suggest a way of escape;\nnevertheless, according to the Dean we are not to profit by it, but shall\navoid the difficulty better by a simpler process\u2014the process of passing\nit over.\n\nA man does well to be angry when he sees so solemn and momentous a\nsubject treated thus.  What is trifling if this is not trifling?  What is\ndisingenuousness if not this?  It involves some trouble and apparent\ndanger to admit that the same thing has happened to the Christian records\nwhich has happened to all others\u2014_i.e._, that they have\nsuffered\u2014miraculously little, but still something\u2014at the hands of time;\npeople would have to familiarise themselves with new ideas, and this can\nseldom be done without a certain amount of wrangling, disturbance, and\nunsettling of comfortable ease: it is therefore by all means and at all\nrisks to be avoided.  Who can doubt that some such feeling as this was in\nDean Alford\u2019s mind when the notes above criticised were written?  Yet\nwhat are the means taken to avoid the recognition of obvious truth?  They\nare disingenuous in the very highest degree.  Can this prosper?  Not if\nChrist is true.\n\nWhat is the practical result?  The loss of many souls who would gladly\ncome to the Saviour, but who are frightened off by seeing the manner in\nwhich his case is defended.  And what after all is the danger that would\nfollow upon candour?  None.  Not one particle.  Nevertheless, danger or\nno danger, we are bound to speak the truth.  We have nothing to do with\nconsequences and moral tendencies and risk to this or that fundamental\nprinciple of our belief, nor yet with the possibility of lurid lights\nbeing thrown here or there.  What are these things to us?  They are not\nour business or concern, but rest with the Being who has required of _us_\nthat we should reverently, patiently, unostentatiously, yet resolutely,\nstrive to find out what things are true and what false, and that we\nshould give up all, rather than forsake our own convictions concerning\nthe truth.\n\nThis is our plain and immediate duty, in pursuance of which we proceed to\nset aside the account of the Resurrection given in St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel.\nThat account must be looked upon as the invention of some copyist, or\npossibly of the translator of the original work, at a time when men who\nhad been eye-witnesses to the actual facts of the Resurrection were\nbecoming scarce, and when it was felt that some more unmistakably\nmiraculous account than that given in the other three Gospels would be a\ncomfort and encouragement to succeeding generations.  We, however, must\nnow follow the example of \u201ceven the best\u201d of the German commentators, and\ndiscard it as soon as possible.  On having done this the whole difficulty\nof the confusion of the four accounts of the Resurrection vanishes like\nsmoke, and we find ourselves with three independent writers whose\ndifferences are exactly those which we might expect, considering the time\nand circumstances in which they wrote, but which are still so trifling as\nto disturb no man\u2019s faith.\n\n\n\nChapter VI\nMore Disingenuousness\n\n\n[Here, perhaps, will be the fittest place for introducing a letter to my\nbrother from a gentleman who is well known to the public, but who does\nnot authorise me to give his name.  I found this letter among my\nbrother\u2019s papers, endorsed with the words \u201cthis must be attended to,\u201d but\nwith nothing more.  I imagine that my brother would have incorporated the\nsubstance of his correspondent\u2019s letter into this or the preceding\nchapter, but not venturing to do so myself, I have thought it best to\ngive the letter and extract in full, and thus to let them speak for\nthemselves.\u2014W. B. O.]\n\n                                                            June 15, 1868.\n\nMy dear Owen,\n\nYour brother has told me what you are doing, and the general line of your\nargument.  I am sorry that you should be doing it, for I need not tell\nyou that I do not and cannot sympathise with the great and unexpected\nchange in your opinions.  You are the last man in the world from whom I\nshould have expected such a change: but, as you well know, you are also\nthe last man in the world whose sincerity in making it I should be\ninclined to question.  May you find peace and happiness in whatever\nopinions you adopt, and let me trust also that you will never forget the\nlessons of toleration which you learnt as the disciple of what you will\nperhaps hardly pardon me for calling a freer and happier school of\nthought than the one to which you now believe yourself to belong.\n\nYour brother tells me that you are ill; I need not say that I am sorry,\nand that I should not trouble you with any personal matter\u2014I write solely\nin reference to the work which I hear that you have undertaken, and which\nI am given to understand consists mainly in the endeavour to conquer\nunbelief, by really entering into the difficulties felt by unbelievers.\nThe scheme is a good one _if thoroughly carried out_.  We imagine that we\nstand in no danger from any such course as this, and should heartily\nwelcome any book which tried to grapple with us, even though it were to\ncompel us to admit a great deal more than I at present think it likely\nthat even you can extort from us.  Much more should we welcome a work\nwhich made people understand us better than they do; this would indeed\nconfer a lasting benefit both upon them and us.\n\nHowever, I know you wish to do your work thoroughly; I want, therefore,\nto make a trifling suggestion which you will take _pro tanto_: it is\nthis:\u2014Paley, in his third book, professes to give \u201ca brief consideration\nof some popular objections,\u201d and begins Chap.  I. with \u201cThe discrepancies\nbetween the several Gospels.\u201d\n\nNow, I know you have a Paley, but I know also that you are ill, and that\npeople who are ill like being saved from small exertions.  I have,\ntherefore, bought a second-hand Paley for a shilling, and have cut out\nthe chapter to which I especially want to call your attention.  Will you\nkindly read it through from beginning to end?\n\nIs it fair?  Is the statement of our objections anything like what we\nshould put forward ourselves?  And can you believe that Paley with his\nprofoundly critical instinct, and really great knowledge of the New\nTestament, should not have been perfectly well aware that he was\nmisrepresenting and ignoring the objections which he professed to be\nremoving?\n\nHe must have known very well that the principle of confirmation by\ndiscrepancy is one of very limited application, and that it will not\ncover anything approaching to such wide divergencies as those which are\npresented to us in the Gospels.  Besides, how _can_ he talk about\nMatthew\u2019s object as he does, and yet omit all allusion to the wide and\nimportant differences between his account of the Resurrection, and those\nof Mark, Luke, and John?  Very few know what those differences really\nare, in spite of their having the Bible always open to them.  I suppose\nthat Paley felt pretty sure that his readers would be aware of no\ndifficulty unless he chose to put them up to it, and wisely declined to\ndo so.  Very prudent, but very (as it seems to me) wicked.  Now don\u2019t do\nthis yourself.  If you are going to meet us, meet us fairly, and let us\nhave our say.  Don\u2019t pretend to let us have our say while taking good\ncare that we get no chance of saying it.  I know you won\u2019t.\n\nHowever, will you point out Paley\u2019s unfairness in heading this part of\nhis work \u201cA brief consideration of some popular objections,\u201d and then\nproceeding to give a chapter on \u201cthe discrepancies between the several\nGospels,\u201d without going into the details of any of those important\ndiscrepancies which can have been known to none better than himself?\nThis is the only place, so far as I remember, in his whole book, where he\neven touches upon the discrepancies in the Gospels.  Does he do so as a\nman who felt that they were unimportant and could be approached with\nsafety, or as one who is determined to carry the reader\u2019s attention away\nfrom them, and fix it upon something else by a _coup de main_?\n\nThis chapter alone has always convinced me that Paley did not believe in\nhis own book.  No one could have rested satisfied with it for moment, if\nhe felt that he was on really strong ground.  Besides, how insufficient\nfor their purpose are his examples of discrepancies which do not impair\nthe credibility of the main fact recorded!\n\nHow would it have been if Lord Clarendon and three other historians had\neach told us that the Marquis of Argyll _came to life again after being\nbeheaded_, and then set to work to contradict each other hopelessly as to\nthe manner of his reappearance?  How if Burnet, Woodrow, and Heath had\ngiven an account which was not at all incompatible with a natural\nexplanation of the whole matter, while Clarendon gave a circumstantial\nstory in flat contradiction to all the others, and carefully excluded any\nbut a supernatural explanation?  Ought we to, or should we, allow the\ndiscrepancies to pass unchallenged?  Not for an hour\u2014if indeed we did not\nrather order the whole story out of court at once, as too wildly\nimprobable to deserve a hearing.\n\nYou will, I know, see all this, and a great deal more, and will point it\nbetter than I can.  Let me as an old friend entreat you not to pass this\nover, but to allow me to continue to think of you as I always have\nthought of you hitherto, namely, as the most impartial disputant in the\nworld.\u2014Yours, &c.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n (_Extract from Paley\u2019s_ \u201c_Evidences_.\u201d\u2014_Part III._, _Chapter 1_.  \u201c_The\n                  Discrepancies between the Gospels_.\u201d)\n\n\u201cI know not a more rash or unphilosophical conduct of the understanding,\nthan to reject the substance of a story, by reason of some diversity in\nthe circumstances with which it is related.  The usual character of human\ntestimony is substantial truth under circumstantial variety.  This is\nwhat the daily experience of courts of justice teaches.  When accounts of\na transaction come from the mouths of different witnesses, it is seldom\nthat it is not possible to pick out apparent or real inconsistencies\nbetween them.  These inconsistencies are studiously displayed by an\nadverse pleader, but oftentimes with little impression upon the minds of\nthe judges.  On the contrary, close and minute agreement induces the\nsuspicion of confederacy and fraud.  When written histories touch upon\nthe same scenes of action, the comparison almost always affords ground\nfor a like reflection.  Numerous and sometimes important variations\npresent themselves; not seldom, also, absolute and final contradictions;\nyet neither one nor the other are deemed sufficient to shake the\ncredibility of the main fact.  The embassy of the Jews to deprecate the\nexecution of Claudian\u2019s order to place his statue in their temple Philo\nplaces in harvest, Josephus in seed-time, both contemporary writers.  No\nreader is led by this inconsistency to doubt whether such an embassy was\nsent, or whether such an order was given.  Our own history supplies\nexamples of the same kind.  In the account of the Marquis of Argyll\u2019s\ndeath in the reign of Charles II., we have a very remarkable\ncontradiction.  Lord Clarendon relates that he was condemned to be\nhanged, which was performed the same day; on the contrary, Burnet,\nWoodrow, Heath, Echard, concur in stating that he was condemned upon the\nSaturday, and executed upon a Monday. {158a}  Was any reader of English\nhistory ever sceptic enough to raise from hence a question, whether the\nMarquis of Argyll was executed or not?  Yet this ought to be left in\nuncertainty, according to the principles upon which the Christian\nreligion has sometimes been attacked.  Dr. Middleton contended that the\ndifferent hours of the day assigned to the Crucifixion of Christ by John\nand the other Evangelists, did not admit of the reconcilement which\nlearned men had proposed; and then concludes the discussion with this\nhard remark: \u2018We must be forced, with several of the critics, to leave\nthe difficulty just as we found it, chargeable with all the consequences\nof manifest inconsistency.\u2019 {158b}  But what are these consequences?  By\nno means the discrediting of the history as to the principal fact, by a\nrepugnancy (even supposing that repugnancy not to be resolvable into\ndifferent modes of computation) in the time of the day in which it is\nsaid to have taken place.\n\n\u201cA great deal of the discrepancy observable in the Gospels arises from\n_omission_; from a fact or a passage of Christ\u2019s life being noticed by\none writer, which is unnoticed by another.  Now, omission is at all times\na very uncertain ground of objection.  We perceive it not only in the\ncomparison of different writers, but even in the same writer, when\ncompared with himself.  There are a great many particulars, and some of\nthem of importance, mentioned by Josephus in his Antiquities, which as we\nshould have supposed, ought to have been put down by him in their place\nin the Jewish Wars. {159a}  Suetonius, Tacitus, Dion Cassius have all\nthree written of the reign of Tiberius.  Each has mentioned many things\nomitted by the rest, {159b} yet no objection is from thence taken to the\nrespective credit of their histories.  We have in our own times, if there\nwere not something indecorous in the comparison, the life of an eminent\nperson, written by three of his friends, in which there is very great\nvariety in the incidents selected by them, some apparent, and perhaps\nsome real, contradictions: yet without any impeachment of the substantial\ntruth of their accounts, of the authenticity of the books, of the\ncompetent information or general fidelity of the writers.\n\n\u201cBut these discrepancies will be still more numerous, when men do not\nwrite histories, but _memoirs_; which is perhaps the true name and proper\ndescription of our Gospels; that is, when they do not undertake, or ever\nmeant to deliver, in order of time, a regular and complete account of\n_all_ the things of importance which the person who is the subject of\ntheir history did or said; but only, out of many similar ones, to give\nsuch passages, or such actions and discourses, as offered themselves more\nimmediately to their attention, came in the way of their enquiries,\noccurred to their recollection, or were suggested by their _particular\ndesign_ at the time of writing.\n\n\u201cThis particular design may appear sometimes, but not always, nor often.\nThus I think that the particular design which St. Matthew had in view\nwhilst he was writing the history of the Resurrection, was to attest the\nfaithful performance of Christ\u2019s promise to his disciples to go before\nthem into Galilee; because he alone, except Mark, who seems to have taken\nit from him, has recorded this promise, and he alone has confined his\nnarrative to that single appearance to the disciples which fulfilled it.\nIt was the preconcerted, the great and most public manifestation of our\nLord\u2019s person.  It was the thing which dwelt upon St. Matthew\u2019s mind, and\nhe adapted his narrative to it.  But, that there is nothing in St.\nMatthew\u2019s language which negatives other appearances, or which imports\nthat this his appearance to his disciples in Galilee, in pursuance of his\npromise, was his first or only appearance, is made pretty evident by St.\nMark\u2019s Gospel, which uses the same terms concerning the appearance in\nGalilee as St. Matthew uses, yet itself records two other appearances\nprior to this: \u2018Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth\nbefore you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you\u2019\n(xvi., 7).  We might be apt to infer from these words, that this was the\n_first_ time they were to see him: at least, we might infer it with as\nmuch reason as we draw the inference from the same words in Matthew; yet\nthe historian himself did not perceive that he was leading his readers to\nany such conclusion, for in the twelfth and two following verses of this\nchapter, he informs us of two appearances, which, by comparing the order\nof events, are shown to have been prior to the appearance in Galilee.\n\u2018He appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went\ninto the country: and they went and told it unto the residue: neither\nbelieved they them.  Afterward He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at\nmeat, and upbraided them with their unbelief, because they believed not\nthem which had seen Him after He was risen.\u2019  Probably the same\nobservation, concerning the _particular design_ which guided the\nhistorian, may be of use in comparing many other passages of the\nGospels.\u201d\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n[My brother\u2019s work, which has been interrupted by the letter and extract\njust given, will now be continued.  What follows should be considered as\ncoming immediately after the preceding chapter.\u2014W.  B. O.]\n\n                                * * * * *\n\nBUT there is a much worse set of notes than those on the twenty-eighth\nchapter of St. Matthew, and so important is it that we should put an end\nto such a style of argument, and get into a manner which shall commend\nitself to sincere and able adversaries, that I shall not apologise for\ngiving them in full here.  They refer to the spear wound recorded in St.\nJohn\u2019s Gospel as having been inflicted upon the body of our Lord.\n\nThe passage in St. John\u2019s Gospel stands thus (John xix., 32\u201337)\u2014\u201cThen\ncame the soldiers and brake the legs of the first and of the other which\nwas crucified with Him.  But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was\ndead already they brake not His legs: but one of the soldiers with a\nspear pierced His side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.\nAnd he that saw it bare record, and we know that his record is true, and\nhe knoweth that he saith true that ye might believe.  For these things\nwere done that the Scripture should be fulfilled, \u2018A bone of Him shall\nnot be broken\u2019 and again another Scripture saith, \u2018They shall look on Him\nwhom they pierced.\u2019\u201d\n\nIn his note upon the thirty-fourth verse Dean Alford writes\u2014\u201cThe lance\nmust have penetrated deep, for the object was to _ensure_ death.\u201d  Now\nwhat warrant is there for either of these assertions?  We are told that\nthe soldiers saw that our Lord was dead already, and that for this reason\nthey did not break his legs: if there had been any doubt about His being\ndead can we believe that they would have hesitated?  There is ample proof\nof the completeness of the death in the fact that those whose business it\nwas to assure themselves of its having taken place were so satisfied that\nthey would be at no further trouble; what need to kill a dead man?  If\nthere had been any question as to the possibility of life remaining, it\nwould not have been resolved by the thrust of the spear, but in a way\nwhich we must shudder to think of.  It is most painful to have had to\nwrite the foregoing lines, but are they not called for when we see a man\nso well intentioned and so widely read as the late Dean Alford\ncondescending to argument which must only weaken the strength of his\ncause in the eyes of those who have not yet been brought to know the\nblessings and comfort of Christianity?  From the words of St. John no one\ncan say whether the wound was a deep one, or why it was given\u2014yet the\nDean continues, \u201cand see John xx., 27,\u201d thereby implying that the wound\nmust have been large enough for Thomas to get his hand into it, because\nour Lord says, \u201creach hither thine hand and thrust it into my side.\u201d\nThis is simply shocking.  Words cannot be pressed in this way.  Dean\nAlford then says that the spear was thrust \u201cprobably into the _left_ side\non account of the position of the soldier\u201d (no one can arrive at the\nposition of the soldier, and no one would attempt to do so, unless\nactuated by a nervous anxiety to direct the spear into the heart of the\nRedeemer), \u201cand of what followed\u201d (the Dean here implies that the water\nmust have come from the pericardium; yet in his next note we are led to\ninfer that he rejects this supposition, inasmuch as the quantity of water\nwould have been \u201cso small as to have scarcely been observed\u201d).  Is this\nfair and manly argument, and can it have any other effect than to\nincrease the scepticism of those who doubt?\n\nHere this note ends.  The next begins upon the words \u201cblood and water.\u201d\n\n\u201cThe spear,\u201d says the Dean, \u201cperhaps pierced the pericardium or envelope\nof the heart\u201d (but why introduce a \u201cperhaps\u201d when there is ample proof of\nthe death without it?), \u201cin which case a liquid answering to the\ndescription of water may have\u201d (_may_ have) \u201cflowed with the blood, but\nthe quantity would have been so small as scarcely to have been observed\u201d\n(yet in the preceding note he has led us to suppose that he thinks the\nwater \u201cprobably\u201d came from near the heart).  \u201cIt is scarcely possible\nthat the separation of the blood into placenta and serum should have\ntaken place so soon, or that if it had, it should have been described by\nan observe as blood and water.  It is more probable that the fact here so\nstrongly testified was a consequence of the extreme exhaustion of the\nbody of the Redeemer.\u201d  (Now if this is the case, the spear-wound does\nnot prove the death of Him on whom it was inflicted, and Dean Alford has\nweakened a strong case for nothing.)  \u201cThe medical opinions on the\nsubject are very various and by no means satisfactory.\u201d  Satisfactory!\nWhat does Dean Alford mean by satisfactory?  If the evidence does not go\nto prove that the spear-wound must have been necessarily fatal why not\nhave said so at once, and have let the whole matter rest in the obscurity\nfrom which no human being can remove it.  The wound may have been severe\nor may not have been severe, it may have been given in mere wanton\nmockery of the dead King of the Jews, for the indignity\u2019s sake: or it may\nhave been the savage thrust of an implacable foe, who would rejoice at\nthe mutilation of the dead body of his enemy: none can say of what nature\nit was, nor why it was given; but the object of its having been recorded\nis no mystery, for we are expressly told that it was in order to shew\n_that prophecy was thus fulfilled_: the Evangelist tells us so in the\nplainest language: he even goes farther, for he says that these things\nwere _done_ for this end (not only that they were _recorded_)\u2014so that the\nprimary motive of the Almighty in causing the soldier to be inspired with\na desire to inflict the wound is thus graciously vouchsafed to us, and we\nhave no reason to harrow our feelings by supposing that a deeper thrust\nwas given than would suffice for the fulfilment of the prophecy.  May we\nnot then well rest thankful with the knowledge which the Holy Spirit has\nseen fit to impart to us, without causing the weak brother to offend by\nour special pleading?\n\nThe reader has now seen the two first of Dean Alford\u2019s notes upon this\nsubject, and I trust he will feel that I have used no greater plainness,\nand spoken with no greater severity than the case not only justifies but\ndemands.  We can hardly suppose that the Dean himself is not firmly\nconvinced that our Lord died upon the Cross, but there are millions who\nare not convinced, and whose conviction should be the nearest wish of\nevery Christian heart.  How deeply, therefore, should we not grieve at\nmeeting with a style of argument from the pen of one of our foremost\nchampions, which can have no effect but that of making the sceptic\nsuspect that the evidences for the death of our Lord are felt, even by\nChristians, to be insufficient.  For this is what it comes to.\n\nLet us, however, go on to the note on John xix., 35, that is to say on\nSt. John\u2019s emphatic assertion of the truth of what he is recording.  The\nnote stands thus, \u201cThis emphatic assertion of the fact seems rather to\nregard the whole incident than the mere outflowing of the blood and\nwater.  It was the object of John to shew that the Lord\u2019s body was a\n_real body_ and _underwent real death_.\u201d  (This is not John\u2019s own\naccount\u2014supposing that John is the writer of the fourth Gospel\u2014either of\nhis own object in recording, or yet of the object of the wound\u2019s having\nbeen inflicted; his words, as we have seen above, run thus:\u2014\u201cand he that\nsaw it bare record, and we know that his record is true; and he knoweth\nthat he saith true that ye might believe.  _For these things were done\nthat the Scripture should be fulfilled_ which saith \u2018a bone of him shall\nnot be broken,\u2019 and, again, another Scripture saith, \u2018they shall look\nupon\u2019 him whom they pierced.\u2019\u201d  Who shall dare to say that St. John had\nany other object than to show that the event which he relates had been\nlong foreseen, and foretold by the words of the Almighty?)  And both\nthese were shewn by what took place, _not so much by the phenomenon of\nthe water and blood_\u201d (then here we have it admitted that so much\ndisingenuousness has been resorted to for no advantage, inasmuch as the\nfact of the water and blood having flowed is not _per se_ proof of a\nnecessarily fatal wound) \u201cas by the infliction of such a wound\u201d (Such a\nwound!  What can be the meaning of this?  What has Dean Alford made clear\nabout the wound?  We know absolutely nothing about the severity or\nintention of the wound, and it is mere baseless conjecture and assumption\nto say that we do; neither do we know anything concerning its effect\nunless it be shewn that the issuing of the blood and water _prove_ that\ndeath must have ensued, and this Dean Alford has just virtually admitted\nto be not shewn), after which, _even if death had not taken place before_\n(this is intolerable), _there could not by any possibility be life\nremaining_.\u201d  (The italics on this page are mine.)\n\nWith this climax of presumptuous assertion these disgraceful notes are\nended.  They have shewn clearly that the wound does not in itself prove\nthe death: they shew no less clearly that the Dean does not consider that\nthe death is proved beyond possibility of doubt _without_ the wound; what\ntherefore should be the legitimate conclusion?  Surely that we have no\nproof of the completeness of Christ\u2019s death upon the Cross\u2014or in other\nwords no proof of His having died at all!  Couple this with the notes\nupon the Resurrection considered above, and we feel rather as though we\nwere in the hands of some Jesuitical unbeliever, who was trying to\nundermine our faith in our most precious convictions under the guise of\ndefending them, than in those of one whom it is almost impossible to\nsuspect of such any design.  What should we say if we had found Newton,\nAdam Smith or Darwin, arguing for their opinions thus?  What should we\nthink concerning any scientific cause which we found thus defended?  We\nshould exceedingly well know that it was lost.  And yet our leading\ntheologians are to be applauded and set in high places for condescending\nto such sharp practice as would be despised even by a disreputable\nattorney, as too transparently shallow to be of the smallest use to him.\n\nAfter all that has been said either by Dean Alford or any one else, we\nknow nothing more than what we are told by the Apostle, namely, that\nimmediately before being taken down from the Cross our Lord\u2019s body was\nwounded more severely, or less severely, as the case may be, with the\npoint of a spear, that from this wound there flowed something which to\nthe eyes of the writer resembled blood and water, and that the whole was\ndone in order that a well-known prophecy might be fulfilled.  Yet his\nsentences in reference to this fact being ended, without his having added\none iota to our knowledge upon the subject, the Dean gravely winds up by\nthrowing a doubt upon the certainty of our Lord\u2019s death which was not\nfelt by a single one of those upon the spot, and resting his clenching\nproof of its having taken place upon a wound, which he has just virtually\nadmitted to have not been necessarily fatal.  Nothing can be more\ndeplorable either as morality or policy.\n\nYet the Dean is justified by the event.  One would have thought he could\nhave been guilty of nothing short of infatuation in hoping that the above\nnotes would pass muster with any ordinarily intelligent person, but he\nknew that he might safely trust to the force of habit and prejudice in\nthe minds of his readers, and his confidence has not been misplaced.  Of\nall those engaged in the training of our young men for Holy Orders, of\nall our Bishops and clergy and tutors at colleges, whose very profession\nit is to be lovers of truth and candour, who are paid for being so, and\nwho are mere shams and wolves in sheep\u2019s clothing if they are not ever on\nthe look-out for falsehood, to make war upon it as the enemy of our\nsouls\u2014not one, _no_, _not a single one_, so far as I know, has raised his\nvoice in protest.  If a man has not lost his power of weeping let him\nweep for this; if there is any who realises the crime of self-deception,\nas perhaps the most subtle and hideous of all forms of sin, let him lift\nup his voice and proclaim it now; for the times are not of peace, but of\na sowing of wind for the reaping of whirlwinds, and of the calm that is\nthe centre of the hurricane.\n\nEither Christianity is the truth of truths\u2014the one which should in this\nworld overmaster all others in the thoughts of all men, and compared with\nwhich all other truths are insignificant except as grouping themselves\naround it\u2014or it is at the best a mistake which should be set right as\nsoon as possible.  There is no middle course.  Either Jesus Christ was\nthe Son of God, or He was not.  If He was, His great Father forbid that\nwe should juggle in order to prove Him so\u2014that we should higgle for an\ninch of wound more, or an inch less, and haggle for the root \u03bd\u03c5y in the\nGreek word \u03b5\u03bd\u03c5\u03be\u03b5.  Better admit that the death of Christ must be ever a\nmatter of doubt, should so great a sacrifice be demanded of us, than go\nnear to the handling of a lie in order to make assurance doubly sure.  No\ntruthful mind can doubt that the cause of Christ is far better served by\nexposing an insufficient argument than by silently passing it over, or\nelse that the cause of Christ is one to be attacked and not defended.\n\n\n\nChapter VII\nDifficulties felt by our Opponents\n\n\nTHERE are some who avoid all close examination into the circumstances\nattendant upon the death of our Lord, using the plea that however\nexcellent a quality intellect may be, and however desirable that the\nfacts connected with the Crucifixion should be intelligently considered,\nyet that after all it is spiritual insight which is wanted for a just\nappreciation of spiritual truths, and that the way to be preserved from\nerror is to cultivate holiness and purity of life.  This is well for\nthose who are already satisfied with the evidences for their convictions.\nWe could hardly give them any better advice than simply to \u201cdepart from\nevil, do good, seek peace and ensue it\u201d (Psalm xxxiv., 14), if we could\nonly make sure that their duty would never lead them into contact with\nthose who hold the external evidences of Christianity to be insufficient.\nWhen, however, they meet with any of these unhappy persons they will find\ntheir influence for good paralysed; for unbelievers do not understand\nwhat is meant by appealing to their spiritual insight as a thing which\ncan in any way affect the evidence for or against an alleged fact in\nhistory\u2014or at any rate as forming evidence for a fact which they believe\nto be in itself improbable and unsupported by external proof.  They have\nnot got any spiritual insight in matters of this sort; nor, indeed, do\nthey recognise what is meant by the words at all, unless they be\ninterpreted as self-respect and regard for the feelings and usages of\nother people.  What spiritual insight they have, they express by the very\nnearly synonymous terms, \u201ccurrent feeling,\u201d or \u201ccommon sense,\u201d and\nhowever deep their reverence for these things may be, they will never\nadmit that goodness or right feeling can guide them into intuitive\naccuracy upon a matter of history.  On the contrary, in any such case\nthey believe that sentiment is likely to mislead, and that the\nwell-disciplined intellect is alone trustworthy.  The question is,\nwhether it is worth while to try and rescue those who are in this\ncondition or not.  If it _is_ worth while, we must deal with them\naccording to their sense of right and not ours: in other words, if we\nmeet with an unbeliever we must not expect him to accept our faith unless\nwe take much pains with him, and are prepared to make great sacrifice of\nour own peace and patience.\n\nYet how many shrink from this, and think that they are doing God service\nby shrinking; the only thing from which they should really shrink, is the\nfalsehood which has overlaid the best established fact in all history\nwith so much sophistry, that even our own side has come to fear that\nthere must be something lurking behind which will not bear daylight; to\nsuch a pass have we been brought by the desire to prove too much.\n\nNow for the comfort of those who may feel an uneasy sense of dread, as\nthough any close examination of the events connected with the Crucifixion\nmight end in suggesting a natural instead of a miraculous explanation of\nthe Resurrection, for the comfort of such\u2014and they indeed stand in need\nof comfort\u2014let me say at once that the ablest of our adversaries would\ntell them that they need be under no such fear.  Strauss himself admits\nthat our Lord died upon the Cross; he does not even attempt to dispute\nit, but writes as though he were well aware that there was no room for\nany difference of opinion about the matter.  He has therefore been\ncompelled to adopt the hallucination theory, with a result which we have\nalready considered.  Yet who can question that Strauss would have\nmaintained the position that our Lord did not die upon the Cross, unless\nhe had felt that it was one in which he would not be able to secure the\nsupport even of those who were inclined to disbelieve?  We cannot doubt\nthat the conviction of the reality of our Lord\u2019s death has been forced\nupon him by a weight of testimony which, like St. Paul, he has found\nhimself utterly unable to resist.\n\nHere then, we might almost pause.  Strauss admits that our Lord died upon\nthe Cross.  Yet can the reader help feeling that the vindication of the\nreality of our Lord\u2019s reappearances, and the refutation of Strauss\u2019s\ntheories with which this work opened, was triumphant and conclusive?\nThen what follows?  That Christ died and rose again!  The central fact of\nour faith is proved.  It is proved externally by the most solid and\nirrefragable proofs, such as should appeal even to minds which reject all\nspiritual evidence, and recognise no canons of investigation but those of\nthe purest reason.\n\nBut anything and everything is believable concerning one whose\nresurrection from death to life has been established.  What need, then,\nto enter upon any consideration of the other miracles?  Of the Ascension?\nOf the descent of the Holy Spirit?  Who can feel difficulty about these\nthings?  Would not the miracle rather be that they should _not_ have\nhappened!  May we not now let the wings of our soul expand, and soar into\nthe heaven of heavens, to the footstool of the Throne of Grace, secure\nthat we have earned the right to hope and to glory by having consented to\nthe pain of understanding?\n\nWe may: and I have given the reader this foretaste of the prize which he\nmay justly claim, lest he should be swallowed up in overmuch grief at the\njourney which is yet before him ere he shall have done all which may\njustly be required of him.  For it is not enough that his own sense of\nsecurity should be perfected.  This is well; but let him also think of\nothers.\n\nWhat then is their main difficulty, now that it has been shewn that the\nreappearances of our Lord were not due to hallucination?\n\nI propose to shew this by collecting from all the sources with which I\nwas familiar in former years, and throwing the whole together as if it\nwere my own.  I shall spare no pains to make the argument tell with as\nmuch force as fairness will allow.  I shall be compelled to be very\nbrief, but the unbeliever will not, I hope, feel that anything of\nimportance to his side has been passed over.  The believer, on the other\nhand, will be thankful both to know the worst and to see how shallow and\nimpotent it will appear when it comes to be tested.  Oh! that this had\nbeen done at the beginning of the controversy, instead of (as I heartily\ntrust) at the end of it.\n\nOur opponents, therefore, may be supposed to speak somewhat after the\nfollowing manner:\u2014\u201cGranted,\u201d they will say, \u201cfor the sake of argument,\nthat Jesus Christ did reappear alive after his Crucifixion; it does not\nfollow that we should at once necessarily admit that his reappearance was\ndue to miracle.  What was enough, and reasonably enough, to make the\nfirst Christians accept the Resurrection, and hence the other miracles of\nChrist, is not enough and ought not to be enough to make men do so now.\nIf we were to hear now of the reappearance of a man who had been believed\nto be dead, our first impulse would be to learn the when and where of the\ndeath, and the when and where of the first reappearance.  What had been\nthe nature of the death?  What conclusive proof was there that the death\nhad been actual and complete?  What examination had been made of the\nbody?  And to whom had it been delivered on the completeness of the death\nhaving been established?  How long had the body been in the grave\u2014if\nburied?  What was the condition of the grave on its being first\nrevisited?  It is plain to any one that at the present day we should ask\nthe above questions with the most jealous scrutiny and that our opinion\nof the character of the reappearance would depend upon the answers which\ncould be given to them.\n\n\u201cBut it is no less plain that the distance of the supposed event from our\nown time and country is no bar to the necessity for the same questions\nbeing as jealously asked concerning it, as would be asked if it were\nalleged to have happened recently and nearer home.  On the contrary,\ndistance of time and space introduces an additional necessity for\ncaution.  It is one thing to know that the first Christians unanimously\nbelieved that their master had miraculously risen from death to life; it\nis another to know their reasons for so thinking.  Times have changed,\nand tests of truth are infinitely better understood, so that the\nreasonable of those days is reasonable to us no longer.  Nor would it be\nenough that the answers given could be just strained into so much\nagreement with one another as to allow of a _modus vivendi_ between them,\n_and not to exclude the possibility of death_, _they must exclude all\npossibility of life having remained_, or we should not hesitate for a\nmoment about refusing to believe that the reappearance had been\nmiraculous: indeed, so long as any chink or cranny or loophole for escape\nfrom the miraculous was afforded to us, we should unhesitatingly escape\nby it; this, at least, is the course which would be adopted by any judge\nand jury of sensible men if such a case were to come before their\nunprejudiced minds in the common course of affairs.\n\n\u201cWe should not refuse to believe in a miracle even now, if it were\nsupported by such evidence as was considered to be conclusive by the\nbench of judges and by the leading scientific men of the day: in such a\ncase as this we should feel bound to accept it; but we cannot believe in\na miracle, no matter how deeply it has been engrained into the creeds of\nthe civilised world, merely because it was believed by \u2018unlettered\nfishermen\u2019 two thousand years ago.  This is not a source from which such\nan event as a miracle should be received without the closest\ninvestigation.  We know, indeed, that the Apostles were sincere men, and\nthat they firmly believed that Jesus Christ had risen from the dead;\ntheir lives prove their faith; but we cannot forget that the fact itself\nof Christ\u2019s having been crucified and afterwards seen alive, would be\nenough, under the circumstances, to incline the men of that day to\nbelieve that he had died and had been miraculously restored to life,\nalthough we should ourselves be bound to make a far more searching\ninquiry before we could arrive at any such conclusion.  A miracle was not\nand could not be to them, what it is and ought to be to ourselves\u2014a\nmatter to be regarded _a priori_ with the very gravest suspicion.  To\nthem it was what it is now to the lower and more ignorant classes of\nIrish, French, Spanish and Italian peasants: that is to say, a thing\nwhich was always more or less likely to happen, and which hardly demanded\nmore than a _prim\u00e2 facie_ case in order to establish its credibility.  If\nwe would know what the Apostles felt concerning a miracle, we must ask\nourselves how the more ignorant peasants of to-day feel: if we do this we\nshall have to admit that a miracle might have been accepted upon very\ninsufficient grounds, and that, once accepted, it would not have had\none-hundredth part so good a chance of being refuted as it would have\nnow.\n\n\u201cIt should be borne in mind, and is too often lost sight of, that _we\nhave no account of the Resurrection from any source whatever_.  We have\naccounts of the visit of certain women to a tomb which they found empty;\nbut this is not an account of a resurrection.  We are told that Jesus\nChrist was seen alive after being thought to have been dead, but this\nagain is not an account of a resurrection.  It is a statement of a fact,\nbut it is not an account of the circumstances which attended that fact.\nIn the story told by Matthew we have what comes nearest to an account of\nthe Resurrection, but even here the principal figure is wanting; the\nangel rolls away the stone and sits upon it, but we hear nothing about\nthe body of Christ emerging from the tomb; we only meet with this, when\nwe come to the Italian painters.\n\n\u201cMoreover, St. Matthew\u2019s account is utterly incredible from first to\nlast; we are therefore thrown back upon the other three Evangelists, none\nof whom professes to give us the smallest information as to the time and\nmanner of Christ\u2019s Resurrection.  _There is nothing in any of their\naccounts to preclude his having risen within two hours from his having\nbeen laid in the tomb_.\n\n\u201cIf a man of note were condemned to death, crucified and afterwards seen\nalive, the almost instantaneous conclusion in the days of the Apostles,\nand in such minds as theirs, would be that he had risen from the dead;\nbut the almost instantaneous conclusion now, among all whose judgement\nwould carry the smallest weight, would be that he had never died\u2014that\nthere must have been some mistake.  Children and inexperienced persons\nbelieve readily in all manner of improbabilities and impossibilities,\nwhich when they become older and wiser they cannot conceive their having\never seriously accepted.  As with men, so with ages; an unusual train of\nevents brings about unusual results, whereon the childlike age turns\ninstinctively to miracle for a solution of the difficulty.  In the days\nof Christ men would ask for evidence of the Crucifixion and the\nreappearance; when these two points had been established they would have\nbeen satisfied\u2014not unnaturally\u2014that a great miracle had been performed:\nbut no sane man would be contented now with the evidence that was\nsufficient then, any more than he would be content to accept many things\nwhich a child must take upon authority, and authority only.  _We_ ought\nto require the most ample evidence that not only the appearance of death,\nbut death itself, must have inevitably ensued upon the Crucifixion, and\nif this were not forthcoming we should not for a moment hesitate about\nrefusing to believe that the reappearance was miraculous.\n\n\u201cAnd this is what would most assuredly be done now by impartial\nexaminers\u2014by men of scientific mind who had no wish either to believe or\ndisbelieve except according to the evidence; but even now, if their\naffections and their hopes of a glorious kingdom in a world beyond the\ngrave were enlisted on the side of the miracle, it would go hard with the\njudgement of most men.  How much more would this be so, if they had\nbelieved from earliest childhood that miracles were still occasionally\nworked in England, and that a few generations ago they had been much more\nsignal and common?\n\n\u201cCan we wonder then, if we ourselves feel so strongly concerning events\nwhich are hull down upon the horizon of time, that those who lived in the\nvery thick of them should have been possessed with an all absorbing\necstasy or even frenzy of excitement?  Assuredly there is no blame on the\nscore of credulity to be attached to those who propagated the Christian\nreligion, but the beliefs which were natural and lawful to them, are, if\nnatural, yet not lawful to ourselves: they should be resisted: they are\nneither right nor wise, and do not form any legitimate ground for faith:\nif faith means only the believing facts of history upon insufficient\nevidence, we deny the merit of faith; on the contrary, we regard it as\none of the most deplorable of all errors\u2014as sapping the foundations of\nall the moral and intellectual faculties.  It is grossly immoral to\nviolate one\u2019s inner sense of truth by assenting to things which, though\nthey may appear to be supported by much, are still not supported by\nenough.  The man who can knowingly submit to such a derogation from the\nrights of his self-respect, deserves the injury to his mental eye-sight\nwhich such a course will surely bring with it.  But the mischief will\nunfortunately not be confined to himself; it will devolve upon all who\nare ill-fated enough to be in his power; he will be reckless of the harm\nhe works them, provided he can keep its consequences from being\nimmediately offensive to himself.  No: if a good thing can be believed\nlegitimately, let us believe it and be thankful, otherwise the goodness\nwill have departed out of it; it is no longer ours; we have no right to\nit, and shall suffer for it, we and our children, if we try to keep it.\nIt has been said that the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the\nchildren\u2019s teeth are set on edge, but, more truly, it is the eating of\nsweet and stolen fruit by the fathers that sets the teeth of the children\njarring.  Let those who love their children look to this, for on their\nown account they may be mainly trusted to avoid the sour.  Hitherto the\nintensity of the belief of the Apostles has been the mainstay of our own\nbelief.  But that mainstay is now no longer strong enough.  A rehearing\nof the evidence is imperatively demanded, that it may either be confirmed\nor overthrown.\u201d\n\nIt cannot be denied that there is much in the above with which all true\nChristians will agree, and little to find fault with except the\nself-complacency which would seem to imply that common sense and plain\ndealing belong exclusively to the unbelieving side.  It is time that this\nspirit should be protested against not in word only but in deed.  The\nfact is, that both we and our opponents are agreed that nothing should be\nbelieved unless it can be proved to be true.  We repudiate the idea that\nfaith means the accepting historical facts upon evidence which is\ninsufficient to establish them.  We do not call this faith; we call it\ncredulity, and oppose it to the utmost of our power.\n\nOur opponents imply that we regard as a virtue well-pleasing in the sight\nof God, and dignify with the name of faith, a state of mind which turns\nout to be nothing but a willingness to stand by all sorts of wildly\nimprobable stories which have reached us from a remote age and country,\nand which, if true, must lead us to think otherwise of the whole course\nof nature than we should think if we were left to ourselves.  This\naccusation is utterly false and groundless.  Faith is the \u201cevidence of\nthings not seen,\u201d but it is not \u201cinsufficient evidence for things alleged\nto have been seen.\u201d  It is \u201cthe substance of things hoped for,\u201d but\n\u201creasonably hoped for\u201d was unquestionably intended by the Apostle.  We\nbase our faith in the deeper mysteries of our religion, as in the nature\nof the Trinity and the sacramental graces, upon the certainty that other\nthings which are within the grasp of our reason can be shewn to be beyond\ndispute.  We know that Christ died and rose again; therefore we believe\nwhatever He sees fit to tell us, and follow Him, or endeavour to follow\nHim, whereinsoever He commands us, but we are not required to take both\nthe commands of the Mediator _and His credentials_ upon faith.  It is\nbecause certain things within our comprehension are capable of the most\nirrefragable proof, that certain others out of it may justly be required\nto be believed, and indeed cannot be disbelieved without contumacy and\npresumption.  And this applies to a certain extent to the credentials\nalso: for although no man should be captious, nor ask for more evidence\nthan would satisfy a well-disciplined mind concerning the truth of any\nordinary fact (as one who not contented with the evidence of a seal, a\nhandwriting and a matter not at variance with probability, would\nnevertheless refuse to act upon instructions because he had not with his\nown eyes actually seen the sender write and sign and seal), yet it is\nboth reasonable and indeed necessary that a certain amount of care should\nbe taken before the credentials are accepted.  If our opponents mean no\nmore than this we are at one with them, and may allow them to proceed.\n\n\u201cTurn then,\u201d they say, \u201cto the account of the events which are alleged to\nhave happened upon the morning of the Resurrection, as given in the\nfourth Gospel: and assume for the sake of the argument that that account,\nif not from John\u2019s own hand, is nevertheless from a Johannean source, and\nvirtually the work of the Apostle.  The account runs as follows:\n\n\u201c\u2018The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene while it was yet dark\nunto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.\nThen she runneth and cometh to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom\nJesus loved, and saith unto them, \u2018They have taken away the Lord out of\nthe sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him.\u2019  Peter\ntherefore went forth and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre.\nSo they both ran together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and\ncame first to the sepulchre.  And he stooping down and looking in, saw\nthe linen clothes lying, yet went he not in.  Then cometh Simon Peter\nfollowing him and went into the sepulchre and seeth the linen clothes\nlie, and the napkin that was about His head not lying with the linen\nclothes but wrapped together in a place by itself.  Then went in also\nthat other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw and\nbelieved.  For as yet they knew not the Scripture that he must rise from\nthe dead.  Then the disciples went away again to their own home.  But\nMary stood without at the sepulchre weeping; and as she wept, she stooped\ndown, and looked into the sepulchre, and seeth two angels in white\nsitting, the one at the head, the other at the feet, where the body of\nJesus had lain, and they say unto her, \u2018Woman, why weepest thou?\u2019  She\nsaith unto them, \u2018Because they have taken away my Lord and I know not\nwhere they have laid him.\u2019\u201d\n\n\u201cThen Mary sees Jesus himself, but does not at first recognise him.\n\n\u201cNow, let us see what the above amounts to, and, dividing it into two\nparts, let us examine first what we are told as having come actually\nunder John\u2019s own observation, and, secondly, what happened afterwards.\n\nI.  \u201cIt is clear that Mary had seen nothing miraculous before she came\nrunning to the two Apostles, Peter and John.  She had found the tomb\nempty when she reached it.  She did not know where the body of her Lord\nthen was, _nor was there anything to shew how long it had been removed_:\nall she knew was that within thirty-six hours from the time of its having\nbeen laid in the tomb it had disappeared, but how much earlier it had\nbeen gone neither did she know, nor shall we.  Peter and John went into\nthe sepulchre and thoroughly examined it: they saw no angel, nor anything\napproaching to the miraculous, simply the grave clothes (_which were\nprobably of white linen_), lying _in two separate places_.  Then, _and\nnot till then_, do they appear to have entertained their first belief or\nhope that Christ might have risen from the dead.\n\n\u201cThis is plain and credible; but it amounts to an empty tomb, and to an\nempty tomb only.\n\n\u201cHere, for a moment, we must pause.  Had these men but a few weeks\npreviously seen Lazarus raised from the corruption of the grave\u2014to say\nnothing of other resurrections from the dead?  Had they seen their master\noverride every known natural law, and prove that, as far as he was\nconcerned, all human experience was worthless, by walking upon rough\nwater, by actually talking to a storm of wind and making it listen to\nhim, by feeding thousands with a few loaves, and causing the fragments\nthat remained after all had eaten, to be more than the food originally\nprovided?  Had they seen events of this kind continually happening for a\nspace of some two years, and finally had they seen their master\ntransfigured, conversing with the greatest of their prophets (men who had\nbeen dead for ages), and recognised by a voice from heaven as the Son of\nthe Almighty, and had they also heard anything approaching to an\nannouncement that he should himself rise from the dead\u2014or had they not?\nThey might have seen the raising of Lazarus and the rest of the miracles,\nbut might not have anticipated that Christ himself would rise, for want\nof any announcement that this should be so; or, again, they might have\nheard a prophecy of his Resurrection from the lips of Christ, but\ndisbelieved it for the want of any previous miracles which should\nconvince them that the prophecy came from no ordinary person; so that\ntheir not having expected the Resurrection is explicable by giving up\neither the prophecies, or the miracles, but it is impossible to believe\nthat _in spite both of the miracles and the prophecies_, the Apostles\nshould have been still without any expectation of the Resurrection.  If\nthey had both seen the miracles and heard the prophecies, they must have\nbeen in a state of inconceivably agitated excitement in anticipation of\ntheir master\u2019s reappearance.  And this they were not; on the contrary,\nthey were expecting nothing of the kind.  The condition of mind ascribed\nto them considering their supposed surroundings, is one which belongs to\nthe drama only; it is not of nature: it is so utterly at variance with\nall human experience that it should be dismissed at once as incredible.\n\n\u201cBut it is very credible if Christ was seen alive after his Crucifixion,\nand his reappearance, though due to natural causes, was once believed to\nbe miraculous, that this one seemingly well substantiated miracle should\nbecome the parent of all the others, and of the prophecies of the\nResurrection.  Thirty years in all probability elapsed between the\nreappearances of Christ and the earliest of the four Gospels; thirty\nyears of oral communication and spiritual enthusiasm, among an oriental\npeople, and in an unscientific age; an age by which the idea of an\ninterference with the modes of the universe from a point outside of\nitself, was taken as a matter of course; an age which believed in an\nanthropomorphic Deity who had back parts, which Moses had been allowed to\nsee through the hand of God; an age which, over and above all this, was\nat the time especially convulsed with expectations of deliverance from\nthe Roman yoke.  Have we not here a soil suitable for the growth of\nmiracles, if the seed once fell upon it?  Under such conditions they\nwould even spring up of themselves, seedless.\n\n\u201cOnce let the reappearances of Christ have been believed to be miraculous\n(and under all the circumstances they might easily have been believed to\nbe so, though due to natural causes), and it is not wonderful that, in\nsuch an age and among such a people, the other miracles and the\nprophecies of the Resurrection should have become current within thirty\nyears.  Even we ourselves, with all our incalculably greater advantages,\ncould not withstand so great a temptation to let our wish become father\nto our thoughts.  If we had been the especially favoured friends of one\nwhom we believed to have died, but who yet was not to beholden by death,\nno matter how careful and judicially minded we might be by nature, we\nshould be blind to everything except the fact that we had once been the\nchosen companions of an immortal.  There lives no one who could withstand\nthe intoxication of such an idea.  A single well-substantiated miracle in\nthe present day, even though we had not seen it ourselves, would uproot\nthe hedges of our caution; it would rob us of that sense of the\ncontinuity of nature, in which our judgements are, consciously or\nunconsciously, anchored; but if we were very closely connected with it in\nour own persons, we should dwell upon the recollection of it and on\nlittle else.\n\n\u201cFew of us can realise what happened so very long ago.  Men believe in\nthe Christian miracles, though they would reject the notion of a modern\nmiracle almost with ridicule, and would hardly even examine the evidence\nin its favour.  But the Christian miracles stand in their minds as things\napart; their _prestige_ is greater than that attaching to any other\nevents in the whole history of mankind.  They are hallowed by the\nunhesitating belief of many, many generations.  Every circumstance which\nshould induce us to bow to their authority surrounds them with a bulwark\nof defences which may make us well believe that they must be impregnable,\nand sacred from attack.  Small wonder then that the many should still\nbelieve them.  Nevertheless they do not believe them so fully, nor nearly\nso fully, as they think they do.  For even the strongest imagination can\ntravel but a very little way beyond a man\u2019s own experience; it will not\nbear the burden of carrying him to a remote age and country; it will\nflag, wander and dream; it will not answer truly, but will lay hold of\nthe most obvious absurdity, and present it impudently to its tired\nmaster, who will accept it gladly and have done with it.  Even\nrecollection fails, but how much more imagination!  It is a high flight\nof imagination to be able to realise how weak imagination is.\n\n\u201cWe cannot therefore judge what would be the effect of immediate contact\neven with the wild hope of a miracle, from our conventional acceptance of\nthe Christian miracles.  If we would realise this we must look to modern\nalleged miracles\u2014to the enthusiasm of the Irish and American revivals,\nwhen mind inflames mind till strong men burst into hysterical tears like\nchildren; we must look for it in the effect produced by the supposed\nIrvingite miracles on those who believed in them, or in the miracles that\nfollowed the Port Royal miracle of the holy thorn.  There never was a\nmiracle solitary yet: one will soon become the parent of many.  The minds\nof those who have believed in a single miracle as having come within\ntheir own experience become ecstatic; so deeply impressed are they with\nthe momentous character of what they have known, that their power of\nenlisting sympathy becomes immeasurably greater than that of men who have\nnever believed themselves to have come into contact with the miraculous;\ntheir deep conviction carries others along with it, and so the belief is\nstrengthened till adverse influences check it, or till it reaches a pitch\nof grotesque horror, as in the case of the later Jansenist miracles.\nThere is nothing, therefore, extraordinary in the gradual development\nwithin thirty years of all the Christian miracles, if the Resurrection\nwere once held to be well substantiated; and there is nothing wonderful,\nunder the circumstances, in the reappearance of Christ alive after his\nCrucifixion having been assigned to miracle.  He had already made\nsufficient impression upon his followers to require but little help from\ncircumstances.  He had not so impressed them as to want _no_ help from\nany supposed miracle, but nevertheless any strange event in connection\nwith him would pass muster, with little or no examination, as being\nmiraculous.  He had undoubtedly professed himself to be, and had been\nhalf accepted as, the promised Messiah.  He had no less undoubtedly\nappeared to be dead, and had been believed to be so both by friends and\nfoes.  Let us also grant that he reappeared alive.  Would it, then, be\nvery astonishing that the little missing link in the completeness of the\nchain of evidence\u2014_absolute certainty concerning the actuality of the\ndeath_\u2014should have been allowed to drop out of sight?\n\n\u201cRound such a centre, and in such an age, the other miracles would spring\nup spontaneously, and be accepted the moment that they arose; there is\nnothing in this which is foreign to the known tendencies of the human\nmind, but there would be something utterly foreign to all we know of\nhuman nature, in the fact of men not anticipating that Christ would rise,\nif they had already seen him raise others from the dead and work the\nmiracles ascribed to him, and if they had also heard him prophesy that he\nshould himself rise from the dead.  In fact nothing can explain the\nuniversally recorded incredulity of the Apostles as to the reappearance\nof Christ, except the fact that they had never seen him work a single\nmiracle, or else that they had never heard him say anything which could\nlead them to suppose that he was to rise from the dead.\n\n\u201cWe are therefore not unwilling to accept the facts recorded in the\nfourth Gospel, in so far as they inform us of things which came under the\nknowledge of the writer.  Mary found the tomb empty.  Ignorant alike of\nwhat had taken place and of what was going to happen, she came to Peter\nand John to tell them that the body was gone; this was all she knew.  The\ntwo go to the tomb, and find all as Mary had said; on this it is not\nimpossible that a wild dream of hope may have flashed upon their minds,\nthat the aspirations which they had already indulged in were to prove\nwell founded.  Within an hour or two Christ was seen alive, nor can we\nwonder if the years which intervened between the morning of the\nResurrection and the writing of the fourth Gospel, should have sufficed\nto make the writer believe that John had had an actual belief in the\nResurrection, while in truth he had only wildly hoped it.  This much is\nat any rate plain, that neither he nor Peter had as yet heard any clearly\nintelligible prophecy that their master should rise from the dead.\nWhatever subsequent interpretation may have been given to some of the\nsayings of Jesus Christ, no saying was yet known which would of itself\nhave suggested any such inference.  We may justly doubt the caution and\naccuracy of the first founders of Christianity, without, even in our\nhearts, for one moment impugning the honesty of their intentions.  We are\nready to admit that had we been in their places we should in all\nlikelihood have felt, believed, and, we will hope, acted as they did; but\nwe cannot and will not admit, in the face of so much evidence to the\ncontrary, that they were superior to the intelligence of their times, or,\nin other words, that they were capable critics of an event, in which both\ntheir feelings and the _prim\u00e2 facie_ view of the facts would be so likely\nto mislead them.\n\nII.  \u201cTurning now to the narrative of what passed when Peter and John\nwere gone, we find that Mary, stooping down, looked through her tears\ninto the darkness of the tomb, and saw two angels clothed in white, who\nasked her why she wept.  We must remember the wide difference between\nbelieving what the writer of the fourth Gospel tells us that John saw,\nand what he tells us that Mary Magdalene saw.  All we know on this point\nis that he believed that Mary had spoken truly.  Peter and John were men,\nthey went into the tomb itself, and we may say for a certainty that they\nsaw no angel, nor indeed anything at all, but the grave clothes (_which\nwere probably of white linen_), lying _in two separate places_ within it.\nMary was a woman\u2014a woman whose parallel we must look for among Spanish or\nItalian women of the lower orders at the present day; she had, we are\nelsewhere told, been at one time possessed with devils; she was in a\nstate of tearful excitement, and looking through her tears from light\ninto comparative darkness.  Is it possible not to remember what Peter and\nJohn _did_ see when they were in the tomb?  Is it possible not to surmise\nthat Mary in good truth saw nothing more?  She thought she saw more, but\nthe excitement under which she was labouring at the time, an excitement\nwhich would increase tenfold after she had seen Christ (as she did\nimmediately afterwards and before she had had time to tell her story),\nwould easily distort either her vision or her memory, or both.\n\n\u201cThe evidence of women of her class\u2014especially when they are highly\nexcited\u2014is not to be relied upon in a matter of such importance and\ndifficulty as a miracle.  Who would dare to insist upon such evidence\nnow?  And why should it be considered as any more trustworthy eighteen\nhundred years ago?  We are indeed told that the angels spoke to her; but\nthe speech was very short; the angels simply ask her why she weeps; she\nanswers them as though it were the common question of common people, and\nthen leaves them.  This is in itself incredible; but it is not incredible\nthat if Mary looking into the tomb saw two white objects within, she\nshould have drawn back affrighted, and that her imagination, thrown into\na fever by her subsequent interview with Christ, should have rendered her\nutterly incapable of recollecting the true facts of the case; or, again,\nit is not incredible that she should have been believed to have seen\nthings which she never did see.  All we can say for certain is that\nbefore the fourth Gospel was written, and probably shortly after the\nfirst reappearance of Christ, Mary Magdalene believed, or was thought to\nhave believed, that she had seen angels in the tomb; and this being so,\nthe development of the short and pointless question attributed to\nthem\u2014possibly as much due to the eager cross-questioning of others as to\nMary herself\u2014is not surprising.\n\n\u201cBefore the Sunday of the Resurrection was over, the facts as derivable\nfrom the fourth Gospel would stand thus.  Jesus Christ, who was supposed\nto have been verily and indeed dead, was known to be alive again.  He had\nbeen seen, and heard to speak.  He had been seen by those who were\nalready prepared to accept him as their leader, and whose previous\neducation, and tone of mind, would lead them rather to an excess of faith\nin a miracle, than of scepticism concerning its miraculous character.\nThe Apostles would be in no impartial nor sceptical mood when they saw\nthat Christ was alive.  The miracle was too near themselves\u2014too\nfascinating in its supposed consequences for themselves\u2014to allow of their\ngoing into curious questions about the completeness of the death.  The\nMaster whom they had loved, and in whom they had hoped, had been\ncrucified and was alive again.  Is it a harsh or strained supposition,\nthat what would have assuredly been enough for ourselves, if we had known\nand loved Christ and had been attuned in mind as the Apostles were,\nshould also have been enough for them?  Who can say so?  The nature of\nour belief in our Master would have been changed once and for ever; and\nso we find it to have been with the Christian Apostles.\n\n\u201cOver and above the reappearance of Christ, there would also be a report\n(probably current upon the very Sunday of the Resurrection), that Mary\nMagdalene had seen a vision of angels in the tomb in which Christ\u2019s body\nhad been laid; and this, though a matter of small moment in comparison\nwith the reappearance of Christ himself, will nevertheless concern us\nnearly when we come to consider the narratives of the other Evangelists.\u201d\n\n\n\nChapter VIII\nThe Preceding Chapter Continued\n\n\n\u201cLET us now turn to Luke.  His account runs as follows:\u2014\n\n\u201c\u2018Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they\ncame unto the sepulchre bringing the spices which they had prepared, and\ncertain others with them.  _And they found the stone rolled away from the\nsepulchre_.  _And they entered in_, _and found not the body of the Lord\nJesus_.  And it came to pass as they were much perplexed thereabout,\nbehold, two men stood by them in shining garments, _and as they were\nafraid_, _and bowed their faces to the earth_, they said unto them, \u201c_Why\nseek ye the living among the dead_?  He is not here, but is risen:\n_remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee_, saying,\n\u2018_The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be\ncrucified_, _and the third day rise again_.\u201d  _And they remembered his\nwords_, and returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto\nthe eleven, and to all the rest.  It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and\nMary the mother of James, and other women that were with them which told\nthese things unto the Apostles.  _And their words seemed unto them as\nidle tales_, _and they believed them not_.  Then arose Peter, and went\nunto the sepulchre: and, stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid\nby themselves, and departed wondering in himself at that which was come\nto pass.\u2019\n\n\u201cWhen we compare this account with John\u2019s we are at once struck with the\nresemblances and the discrepancies.  Luke and John indeed are both agreed\nthat Christ was seen alive after the Crucifixion.  Both agree that the\ntomb was found empty very early on the Sunday morning (_i.e._, within\nthirty-six hours of the deposition from the Cross), and neither writer\naffords us any clue whatever as to the time and manner of the removal of\nthe body; but here the resemblances end; the angelic vision of Mary, seen\n_after_ Peter and John had departed from the tomb, and seen apparently by\nMary alone, in Luke finds its way into the van of the narrative, and\nPeter is represented as having gone to the tomb, _not in consequence of\nhaving been simply told that the body of Christ was missing_, _but\nbecause he refused to believe the miraculous story which was told him by\nthe women_.  In the fourth Gospel we heard of no miraculous story being\ncarried by Mary to Peter and John.  The angels instead of being seen by\none person only, as would have appeared from the fourth Gospel, are now\nseen _by many_; and the women instead of being almost stolidly\nindifferent to the presence of supernatural beings, are afraid, and bow\ndown their faces to the earth; instead of merely wanting to be informed\nwhy Mary was weeping, the angels speak with definite point, and as angels\nmight be expected to speak; they allude, also, to past prophecy, which\nthe women at once remember.\n\n\u201cStrange, that they should want reminding!  And stranger still that a few\nverses lower down we should find the Apostles remembering no prophetic\nsaying, but regarding the story of the women as mere idle tales.  What\nshall we say?  Are not these differences precisely similar to those which\nwe are continually meeting with, when a case of exaggeration comes before\nus?  Can we accept _both_ the stories?  Is this one of those cases in\nwhich all would be made clear if we did but know _all_ the facts, or is\nit rather one in which we can understand how easily the story given by\nthe one writer might become distorted into the version of the other?\nDoes it seem in any way improbable that within the forty years or so\nbetween the occurrences recorded by John and the writing of Luke\u2019s\nGospel, the apparently trifling, yet truly most important, differences\nbetween the two writers should have been developed?\n\n\u201cNo one will venture to say that the facts, upon the face of them, do not\nstrongly suggest such an inference, and that, too, with no conscious\nfraud on the part of any of those through whose mouths the story must\nhave passed.  If the fourth Gospel be assigned to John (and if it is\n_not_ assigned to John the difficulties on the Christian side become so\ngreat that the cause may be declared lost), his story is that of a\nprincipal actor and eye-witness; it bears every impress of truth and none\nof exaggeration upon any point which came under his own observation.\nEven when he tells of what Mary Magdalene said she saw, we see the myth\nin its earliest and crudest form; there is no attempt at circumstance in\nconnection with it, and abundant reason for suspecting its supernatural\ncharacter is given along with it; reason which to our minds is at any\nrate sufficient to make us doubt it, but which would naturally have no\nweight whatever with John after he had once seen Christ alive, or indeed\nwith us if we had been in his place.  It is not to be wondered at that in\nsuch times many a fresh bud should be grafted on to the original story;\nindeed it was simply inevitable that this should have been the case.  No\none would mean to deceive, but we know how, among uneducated and\nenthusiastic persons, the marvellous has an irresistible tendency to\nbecome more marvellous still; and, as far as we can gather, all the\ncauses which bring this about were more actively at work shortly after\nthe time of Christ\u2019s first reappearance than at any other time which can\nbe readily called to mind.  The main facts, as we derive them from the\nconsent of _both_ writers, were simply these:\u2014That the tomb of Christ was\nfound unexpectedly empty on the Sunday morning; that this fact was\nreported to the Apostles; that Peter went into the tomb and saw the linen\nclothes laid by themselves; that Mary Magdalene said that she had seen\nangels; and that eventually Christ shewed himself undoubtedly alive.\nBoth writers agree so far, but it is impossible to say that they agree\nfarther.\n\n\u201cSome may say that it is of little moment whether the angels appeared\nfirst or last; whether they were seen by many or by one; whether, if seen\nonly by one, that one had previously been insane; whether they spoke as\nangels might be expected to speak, _i.e._, to the point, and are shewn to\nhave been recognised as angels by the fear which their appearance caused;\nor whether they caused no alarm, and said nothing which was in the least\nequal to the occasion.  But most men will feel that the whole complexion\nof the story changes according to the answers which can be made to these\nvery questions.  Surely they will also begin to feel a strong suspicion\nthat the story told by Luke is one which has not lost in the telling.\nHow natural was it that the angelic vision should find its way into the\nforeground of the picture, and receive those little circumstantial\ndetails of which it appeared most to stand in need; how desirable also\nthat the testimony of Mary should be corroborated by that of others who\nwere with her, and out of whom no devils had been cast.  The first\nChristians would not have been men and women at all unless they had felt\nthus; but they _were_ men and women, and hence they acted after the\nfashion of their age and unconsciously exaggerated; the only wonder is\nthat they did not exaggerate more, for we must remember that even though\nthe Apostles themselves be supposed to have been more judicially\nunimpassioned and less liable to inaccuracy than we have reason to\nbelieve they were, yet that from the very earliest ages of the Church\nthere would be some converts of an inferior stamp.  No matter how small a\nsociety is, there will be bad in it as well as good\u2014there was a Judas\neven in the twelve.\n\n\u201cBut to speak less harshly, there must from the first have been some\nconverts who would be capable of reporting incautiously; visions and\ndreams were vouchsafed to many, and not a few marvels may be referable to\nthis source; there is no trusting an age in which men are liable to give\na supernatural interpretation to an extraordinary dream, nor is there any\nend to what may come of it, if people begin seriously confounding their\nsleeping and waking impressions.  In such times, then, Luke may have said\nwith a clear conscience that he had carefully sifted the truth of what he\nwrote; but the world has not passed through the last two thousand years\nin vain, and we are bound to insist upon a higher standard of\ncredibility.  Luke would believe at once, and as a matter of course,\nthings which we should as a matter of course reject; yet it is probable\nthat he too had heard much that he rejected; he seems to have been\ndissatisfied with all the records with the existence of which he was\naware; the account which he gives is possibly derived from some very\nearly report; even if this report arose at Jerusalem, and within a week\nafter the Crucifixion, it might well be very inaccurate, though\napparently supported by excellent authority, so that there is no\nnecessity for charging Luke with unusual credulity.  No one can be\nexpected to be greatly in advance of his surroundings; it is well for\nevery one except himself if he should happen to be so, but no man is to\nbe blamed if he is not; it is enough to save him if he is fairly up to\nthe standard of his own times.  \u2018Morality\u2019 is rather of the custom which\n_is_, than of the custom which ought to be.\n\n\u201cTurning now to the account of Mark, we find the following:\u2014\n\n\u201c\u2018And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of\nJames, and Salome had bought sweet spices that they might come and anoint\nhim.  And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came\nunto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.  And they said among\nthemselves,\n\n\u201cWho shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?\u201d  And\nwhen they looked they saw that the stone was rolled away; for it was very\ngreat.  And entering into the sepulchre they saw _a young man_ sitting on\nthe right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were\naffrighted.  And he saith unto them, \u201cBe not affrighted; ye seek Jesus of\nNazareth which was crucified; he is risen; he is not here; behold the\nplace where they laid him.  But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter\nthat he goeth before you into Galilee: there ye shall see him, as he said\nunto you.\u201d  And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; _for\nthey trembled and were amazed_, _neither said they any thing to any man_,\n_for they were afraid_.  Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of\nthe week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast\nseven devils.  And she went and told them that had been with him as they\nmourned and wept.  And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had\nbeen seen of her, _believed not_.\u2019\n\n\u201cHere we have substantially the same version as that given by Luke; there\nis only one angel mentioned, but it may be said that it is possible that\nthere may have been another who is not mentioned, inasmuch as he remained\nsilent; the angelic vision, however, is again brought into the foreground\nof the story and the fear of the women is even more strongly insisted on\nthan it was in Luke.  The angel reminds the women that Christ had said\nthat he should be seen by his Apostles in Galilee, of which saying we\nagain find that the Apostles seem to have had no recollection.  The linen\nclothes have quite dropped out of the story, and we can detect no trace\nof Peter and John\u2019s visit to the tomb, but it is remarkable that the\nwomen are represented as not having said anything about the presence of\nthe angel immediately on their having seen him; and this fact, which\nmight be in itself suspicious, is apologised for on the score of fear,\nnotwithstanding that their silence was a direct violation of the command\nof the being whom they so greatly feared.  We should have expected that\nif they had feared him so much they would have done as he told them, but\nhere again everybody seems to act as in a dream or drama, in defiance of\nall the ordinary principles of human action.\n\n\u201cThroughout the preceding paragraph we have assumed that Mark intended\nhis readers to understand that the young man seen in the tomb was an\nangel; but, after all, this is rather a bold assumption.  On what grounds\nis it supported?  Because Luke tells us that when the women reached the\ntomb they found _two_ white angels within it, are we therefore to\nconclude that Mark, who wrote many years earlier, and as far as we can\ngather with much greater historical accuracy, must have meant an angel\nwhen he spoke of a \u2018young man\u2019?  Yet this can be the only reason, unless\nthe young man\u2019s having worn a long white robe is considered as sufficient\ncause for believing him to have been an angel; and this, again, is rather\na bold assumption.  But if St. Mark meant no more than he said, and when\nhe wrote of a \u2018young man\u2019 intended to convey the idea of a young man and\nof nothing more, what becomes of the angelic visions at the tomb of\nChrist?  For St. Matthew\u2019s account is wholly untenable; St. Luke is a\nmuch later writer, who must have got all his materials second or third\nhand; and although we granted, and are inclined to believe, that the\naccounts of the visits of Mary Magdalene, and subsequently of Peter and\nJohn to the tomb, which are given in the fourth Gospel, are from a\nJohannean source, if we were asked our reasons for this belief, we should\nbe very hard put to it to give them.  Nevertheless we think it probable.\n\n\u201cBut take it either way; if the account in the fourth Gospel is supposed\nto have been derived from the Apostle John, we have already seen that\nthere is nothing miraculous about it, so far as it deals with what came\nunder John\u2019s own observation; if, on the other hand, it is _not_\nauthentic we are thrown back upon St. Mark as incomparably our best\nauthority for the facts that occurred on the Sunday after the\nCrucifixion, and he tells us of nothing but a tomb found empty, with the\nexception that there was a young man in it who wore a long white dress\nand told the women to tell the Apostles to go to Galilee, where they\nshould see Christ.  On the strength of this we are asked to believe that\nthe reappearance of Christ alive, after a hurried crucifixion, must have\nbeen due to supernatural causes, and supernatural causes only!  It will\nbe easily seen what a number of threads might be taken up at this point,\nand followed with not uninteresting results.  For the sake, however, of\nbrevity, we grant it as most probable that St. Mark meant the young man\nsaid to have been seen in the tomb, to be considered as an angel; but we\nmust also express our conviction that this supposed angelic vision is a\nmisplaced offshoot of the report that Mary Magdalene had seen angels in\nthe tomb after Peter and John had left it.\n\n\u201cIt is possible that Mark\u2019s account may be the most historic of all those\nthat we have; but we incline to think otherwise, inasmuch as the angelic\nvision placed in the foreground by Mark and Luke, would not be likely to\nfind its way into the background again, as it does in the fourth Gospel,\nunless in consequence of really authentic information; no unnecessary\ndetraction from the miraculous element is conceivable as coming from the\nwriter who has handed down to us the story of the raising of Lazarus,\nwhere we have, indeed, _a real account of a resurrection_, the continuity\nof the evidence being unbroken, and every link in the chain forged fast\nand strong, even to the unwrapping of the grave clothes from the body as\nit emerged from the sepulchre.  Is it possible that the writer may have\ngiven the story of the raising of Lazarus (of which we find no trace\nexcept in the fourth Gospel), because he felt that in giving the\nApostolic version with absolute or substantial accuracy, he was so\nweakening the miraculous element in connection with the Resurrection of\nJesus Christ himself, that it became necessary to introduce an\nincontrovertible account of the resurrection of some other person, which\nshould do, as it were, vicarious duty?\n\n\u201cNevertheless there are some points on which all the three writers are\nagreed: we have the same substratum of facts, namely, _the tomb found\nalready empty when the women reached it_, a confused and contradictory\nreport of an angel or angels seen within it, and the subsequent\nreappearance of Christ.  Not one of the three writers affords us the\nslightest clue as to the time and manner of the removal of the body from\nthe tomb; there is nothing in any of the narratives which is incompatible\nwith its having been taken away on the very night of the Crucifixion\nitself.\n\n\u201cIs this a case in which the defenders of Christianity would clamour for\n_all_ the facts, unless they exceedingly well knew that there was no\nchance of their getting them?  _All_ the facts, indeed\u2014what tricks does\nour imagination play us!  One would have thought that there were quite\nenough facts given as the matter stands to make the defenders of\nChristianity wish that there were not so many; and then for them to say\nthat if we had more, those that we have would become less contradictory!\nWhat right have they to assume that if they had all the facts, the\naccounts of the Resurrection would cease to puzzle us, more than we have\nto say that if we had all the facts, we should find these accounts even\nmore inexplicable than we do at present?  Had _we_ argued thus we should\nhave been accused of shameless impudence; of a desire to maintain any\nposition in which we happened to find ourselves, and by which we made\nmoney, regardless of every common principle of truth or honour, or\nwhatever else makes the difference between upright men and\nself-deceivers.\n\n\u201cIt may be said by some that the discrepancies between the three accounts\ngiven above are discrepancies concerning details only, but that all three\nwriters agree about the \u2018main fact.\u2019  We are continually hearing about\nthis \u2018main fact,\u2019 but nobody is good enough to tell us precisely what\nfact is meant.  Is the main fact the fact that Jesus Christ was\ncrucified?  Then no one denies it.  We all admit that Jesus Christ was\ncrucified.  Or, is it that he was seen alive several times after the\nCrucifixion?  This also we are not disposed to deny.  We believe that\nthere is a considerable preponderance of evidence in its favour.  But if\nthe \u2018main fact\u2019 turns out to be that Christ was crucified, _died_, and\nthen came to life again, we admit that here too all the writers are\nagreed, but we cannot find with any certainty that one of them was\npresent when Christ died or when his body was taken down from the Cross,\nor that there was any such examination of the body as would be absolutely\nnecessary in order to prove that a man had been dead who was afterwards\nseen alive.  If Christ reappeared alive, there is not only no tittle of\nevidence in support of his death which would be allowed for a moment in\nan English court of justice, but there is an overwhelming amount of\nevidence which points inexorably in the direction of his never having\ndied.  If he reappeared, there is no evidence of his having died.  If he\ndid not reappear, there is no evidence of his having risen from the dead.\n\n\u201cWe are inclined, however, as has been said already, to believe that\nJesus Christ really did reappear shortly after the Crucifixion, and that\nhis reappearance, though due to natural causes, was conceived to be\nmiraculous.  We believe also that Mary fancied that she had seen angels\nin the tomb, and openly said that she had done so; who would doubt her\nwhen so far greater a marvel than this had been made palpably manifest to\nall?  Who would care to inquire very particularly whether there were two\nangels or only one?  Whether there were other women with Mary or whether\nshe was quite alone?  Who would compare notes about the exact moment of\ntheir appearing, and what strictly accurate account of their words could\nbe expected in the ferment of such excitement and such ignorance?  Any\nspeech which sounded tolerably plausible would be accepted under the\ncircumstances, and none will complain of Mark as having wilfully\nattempted to deceive, any more than he will of Luke: the amplification of\nthe story was inevitable, and the very candour and innocence with which\nthe writers leave loophole after loophole for escape from the miraculous,\nis alone sufficient proof of their sincerity; nevertheless, it is also\nproof that they were all more or less inaccurate; we can only say in\ntheir defence, that in the reappearance of Christ himself we find\nabundant palliation of their inaccuracy.  Given one great miracle, proved\nwith a sufficiency of evidence for the capacities and proclivities of the\nage, and the rest is easy.  The groundwork of the after-structure of the\nother miracles is to be found in the fact that Christ was crucified, and\nwas afterwards seen alive.\u201d\n\nThere is no occasion for me to examine St. Matthew\u2019s account of the\nResurrection in company with the unhappy men whose views I have been\nendeavouring to represent above.  For reasons which have already been\nsufficiently dwelt upon I freely own that I agree with them in rejecting\nit.  I shall therefore admit that the story of the sealing of the tomb,\nand setting of the guard, the earthquake, the descent of the angel from\nHeaven, his rolling away the stone, sitting upon it, and addressing the\nwomen therefrom, is to be treated for all controversial purposes as\nthough it had never been written.  By this admission, I confess to\ncomplete ignorance of the time when the stone was removed from the mouth\nof the tomb, or the hour when the Redeemer rose.  I should add that I\nagree with our opponents in believing that our Lord never foretold His\nResurrection to the Apostles.  But how little does it matter whether He\nforetold His Resurrection or not, and whether He rose at one hour or\nanother.  It is enough for me that he rose at all; for the rest I care\nnot.\n\n\u201cYet, see,\u201d our opponents will exclaim in answer, \u201cwhat a mighty river\nhas come from a little spring.  We heard first of two men going into an\nempty tomb, finding two bundles of grave clothes, and departing.  Then\nthere comes a certain person, concerning whom we are elsewhere told a\nfact which leaves us with a very uncomfortable impression, and _she_\nsees, not two bundles of grave clothes, but two white angels, who ask a\ndreamy pointless question, and receive an appropriate answer.  Then we\nfind the time of this apparition shifted; it is placed in the front, not\nin the background, and is seen by many, instead of being vouchsafed to no\none but to a weeping woman looking into the bottom of a tomb.  The speech\nof the angels, also, becomes effective, and the linen clothes drop out of\nsight entirely, unless some faint trace of them is to be found in the\n\u2018long white garment\u2019 which Mark tells us was worn by the young man who\nwas in the tomb when the women reached it.  Finally, we have a guard set\nupon the tomb, and the stone which was rolled in front of it is sealed;\nthe angel _is seen to descend from Heaven_, to roll away the stone, and\nsit upon it, and there is a great earthquake.  Oh! how things grow, how\nthings grow!  And, oh! how people believe!\n\n\u201cSee by what easy stages the story has grown up from the smallest seed,\nas the mustard tree in the parable, and how the account given by Matthew\nchanges the whole complexion of the events.  And see how this account has\nbeen dwelt upon to the exclusion of the others by the great painters and\nsculptors from whom, consciously or unconsciously, our ideas of the\nChristian era are chiefly drawn.  Yes.  These men have been the most\npotent of theologians, for their theology has reached and touched most\nwidely.  We have mistaken their echo of the sound for the sound itself,\nand what was to them an aspiration, has, alas! been to us in the place of\nscience and reality.\n\n\u201cTruly the ease with which the plainest inferences from the Gospel\nnarratives have been overlooked is the best apology for those who have\nattributed unnatural blindness to the Apostles.  If we are so blind, why\nnot they also?  A pertinent question, but one which raises more\ndifficulties than it solves.  The seeing of truth is as the finding of\ngold in far countries, where the shepherd has drunk of the stream and\nused it daily to cleanse the sweat of his brow, and recked little of the\ntreasure which lay abundantly concealed therein, until one luckier than\nhis fellows espies it, and the world comes flocking thither.  So with\ntruth; a little care, a little patience, a little sympathy, and the\nwonder is that it should have lain hidden even from the merest child, not\nthat it should now be manifest.\n\n\u201cHow early must it have been objected that there was no evidence that the\ntomb had not been tampered with (not by the Apostles, for they were\nscattered, and of him who laid the body in the tomb\u2014Joseph of\nArimath\u00e6a\u2014we hear no more) and that the body had been delivered not to\nenemies, but friends; how natural that so desirable an addition to the\ncompleteness of the evidences in favour of a miraculous Resurrection\nshould have been early and eagerly accepted.  Would not twenty years of\noral communication and Spanish or Italian excitability suffice for the\nrooting of such a story?  Yet, as far as we can gather, the Gospel\naccording to St. Matthew was even then unwritten.  And who was Matthew?\nAnd what was his original Gospel?\n\n\u201cThere is one part of his story, and one only, which will stand the test\nof criticism, and that is this:\u2014That the saying that the disciples came\nby night and stole the body of Jesus away was current among the Jews, at\nthe time when the Gospel which we now have appeared.  Not that they did\nso\u2014no one will believe this; but the allegation of the rumour (which\nwould hardly have been ventured unless it would command assent as true)\npoints in the direction of search having been made for the body of\nJesus\u2014and made in vain.\n\n\u201cWe have now seen that there is no evidence worth the name, for any\nmiracle in connection with the tomb of Christ.  He probably reappeared\nalive, but not with any circumstances which we are justified in regarding\nas supernatural.  We are therefore at length led to a consideration of\nthe Crucifixion itself.  Is there evidence for more than this\u2014that Christ\nwas crucified, was afterwards seen alive, and that this was regarded by\nhis first followers as a sufficient proof of his having risen from the\ndead?  This would account for the rise of Christianity, and for all the\nother miracles.  Take the following passage from Gibbon:\u2014\u2018The grave and\nlearned Augustine, whose understanding scarcely admits the excuse of\ncredulity, has attested the innumerable prodigies which were worked in\nAfrica by the relics of St. Stephen, and this marvellous narrative is\ninserted in the elaborate work of \u201cThe City of God,\u201d which the Bishop\ndesigned as a solid and immortal proof of the truth of Christianity.\nAugustine solemnly declares that he had selected those miracles only\nwhich had been publicly certified by persons who were either the objects\nor the spectators of the powers of the martyr.  Many prodigies were\nomitted or forgotten, and Hippo had been less favourably treated than the\nother cities of the province, yet the Bishop enumerates above seventy\nmiracles, of which three were resurrections from the dead, within the\nlimits of his own diocese.  If we enlarge our view to all the dioceses\nand all the saints of the Christian world, it will not be easy to\ncalculate the fables and errors which issued from this inexhaustible\nsource.  But we may surely be allowed to observe that a miracle in that\nage of superstition and credulity lost its name and its merits, since it\ncould hardly be considered as a deviation from the established laws of\nNature.\u2019\u2014(Gibbon\u2019s _Decline and Fall_, chap. xxviii., sec. 2).\n\n\u201cWho believes in the miracles, or who would dare to quote them?  Yet on\nwhat better foundation do those of the New Testament rest?  For the death\nof Christ there is no evidence at all.  There is evidence that he was\nbelieved to have been dead (under circumstances where a misapprehension\nwas singularly likely to arise), by men whose minds were altogether in a\ndifferent _clef_ to ours as regards the miraculous, and whom we cannot\ntherefore fairly judge by any modern standard.  We cannot judge _them_,\nbut we are bound to weigh the facts which they relate, not in their\nbalance, but in our own.  It is not what might have seemed reasonably\nbelievable to them, but what is reasonably believable in our own more\nenlightened age which can be alone accepted sinlessly by ourselves.\nMen\u2019s modes of thought concerning facts change from age to age; but the\nfacts change not at all, and it is of them that we are called to judge.\n\n\u201cWe turn to the fourth Gospel, as that from which we shall derive the\nmost accurate knowledge of the facts connected with the Crucifixion.\nHere we find that it was about twelve o\u2019clock when Pilate brought out\nChrist for the last time; the dialogue that followed, the preparations\nfor the Crucifixion, and the leading Christ outside the city to the place\nwhere the Crucifixion was to take place, could hardly have occupied less\nthan an hour.  By six o\u2019clock (by consent of all writers) the body was\nentombed, so that the actual time during which Christ hung upon the cross\nwas little more than four hours.  Let us be thankful to hope that the\ntime of suffering may have been so short\u2014but say five hours, say six, say\nwhatever the reader chooses, the Crucifixion was avowedly too hurried for\ndeath in an ordinary case to have ensued.  The thieves had to be killed,\nas yet alive.  Immediately before being taken down from the cross the\nbody was delivered to friends.  Within thirty-six hours afterwards the\ntomb in which it had been laid was discovered to have been opened; for\nhow long it had been open we do not know, but a few hours later Christ\nwas seen alive.\n\n\u201cLet it be remembered also that the fact of the body having been\ndelivered to Joseph _before_ the taking down from the cross, greatly\nenhanced the chance of an escape from death, inasmuch as the duties of\nthe soldiers would have ended with the presentation of the order from\nPilate.  If any faint symptom of returning animation shewed itself in\nconsequence of the mere change of position and the inevitable shock\nattendant upon being moved, the soldiers would not know it; their task\nwas ended, and they would not be likely either to wish, or to be allowed,\nto have anything to do with the matter.  Joseph appears to have been a\nrich man, and would be followed by attendants.  Moreover, although we are\ntold by Mark that Pilate sent for the centurion to inquire whether Christ\nwas dead, yet the same writer also tells us that this centurion had\nalready come to the conclusion that Christ was the Son of God, a\nstatement which is supported by the accounts of Matthew and Luke; Mark is\nthe only Evangelist who tells us that the centurion _was_ sent for, but\neven granting that this was so, would not one who had already recognised\nChrist as the Son of God be inclined to give him every assistance in his\npower?  He would be frightened, and anxious to get the body down from the\ncross as fast as possible.  So long as Christ appeared to be dead, there\nwould be no unnecessary obstacle thrown in the way of the delivery of the\nbody to Joseph, by a centurion who believed that he had been helping to\ncrucify the Son of God.  Besides Joseph was rich, and rich people have\nmany ways of getting their wishes attended to.\n\n\u201cWe know of no one as assisting at the taking down or the removal of the\nbody, except Joseph of Arimath\u00e6a, for the presence of Nicodemus, and\nindeed his existence, rests upon the slenderest evidence.  None of the\nApostles appear to have had anything to do with the deposition, nor yet\nthe women who had come from Galilee, who are represented as seeing where\nthe body was laid (and by Luke as seeing _how_ it was laid), but do not\nseem to have come into close contact with the body.\n\n\u201cWould any modern jury of intelligent men believe under similar\ncircumstances that the death had been actual and complete?  Would they\nnot regard\u2014and ought they not to regard\u2014reappearance as constituting\nample proof that there had been no death?  Most assuredly, unless Christ\nhad had his head cut off, or had been seen to be burnt to ashes.  Again,\nif unexceptionable medical testimony as to the completeness of the death\nhad reached us, there would be no help for it; we should have to admit\nthat something had happened which was at variance with all our experience\nof the course of nature; or again if his legs had been broken, or his\nfeet pierced, we could say nothing; but what irreparable mischief is done\nto any vital function of the body by the mere act of crucifixion?  The\nfeet were not always, \u2018nor perhaps generally,\u2019 pierced (so Dean Alford\ntells us, quoting from Justin Martyr), nor is there a particle of\nevidence to shew that any exception was made in the present instance.  A\nman who is crucified dies from sheer exhaustion, so that it cannot be\ndeemed improbable that he might swoon away, and that every outward\nappearance of death might precede death by several hours.\n\n\u201cAre we to suppose that a handful of ignorant soldiers should be above\nerror, when we remember that men have been left for dead, been laid out\nfor burial and buried by their best friends\u2014nay, that they have over and\nover again been pronounced dead by skilled physicians, when the\nfacilities for knowing the truth were far greater, and when a mistake was\nmuch less likely to occur, than at the hurried Crucifixion of Jesus\nChrist?  The soldiers would apply no polished mirror to the lips, nor\nmake use of any of those tests which, under the circumstances, would be\nabsolutely necessary before life could be pronounced to be extinct; they\nwould see that the body was lifeless, inanimate, to all outward\nappearance like the few other dead bodies which they had probably\nobserved closely; with this they would rest contented.\n\n\u201cIt is true, they probably believed Christ to be dead at the time they\nhanded over the body to his friends, and if we had heard nothing more of\nthe matter we might assume that they were right; but the reappearance of\nChrist alive changes the whole complexion of the story.  It is not very\nlikely that the Roman soldiers would have been mistaken in believing him\nto be dead, unless the hurry of the whole affair, and the order from\nPilate, had disposed them to carelessness, and to getting the matter done\nas fast as possible; but it is much less likely that a dead man should\ncome to life again than that a mistake should have been made about his\nhaving being dead.  The latter is an event which probably happens every\nweek in one part of the world or another; the former has never yet been\nknown.\n\n\u201cIt is not probable that a man officially executed should escape death;\nbut that a _dead man_ should escape from it is more improbable still; in\naddition to the enormous preponderance of probability on the side of\nChrist\u2019s never having died which arises from this consideration alone, we\nare told many facts which greatly lessen the improbability of his having\nescaped death, inasmuch as the Crucifixion was hurried, and the body was\nimmediately delivered to friends without the known destruction of any\norganic function, and while still hanging upon the cross.\n\n\u201cJoseph and Nicodemus (supposing that Nicodemus was indeed a party to the\nentombment) may be believed to have thought that Christ was dead when\nthey received the body, but they could not refuse him their assistance\nwhen they found out their mistake, nor, again, could they forfeit their\nhigh position by allowing it to be known that they had restored the life\nof one who was so obnoxious to the authorities.  They would be in a very\ndifficult position, and would take the prudent course of backing out of\nthe matter at the first moment that humanity would allow, of leaving the\nrest to chance, and of keeping their own counsel.  It is noticeable that\nwe never hear of them again; for there were no two people in the world\nbetter able to know whether the Resurrection was miraculous or not, and\nnone who would be more deeply interested in favour of the miracle.  They\nhad been faithful when the Apostles themselves had failed, and if their\nfaith had been so strong while everything pointed in the direction of the\nutter collapse of Christianity, what would it be, according to every\nnatural impulse of self-approbation, when so transcendent a miracle as a\nresurrection had been worked almost upon their own premises, and upon one\nwhose remains they had generously taken under their protection at a time\nwhen no others had ventured to shew them respect?\n\n\u201cWe should have fancied that Mary would have run to Joseph and Nicodemus,\nnot to the Apostles; that Joseph and Nicodemus would then have sent for\nthe Apostles, or that, to say the least of it, we should have heard of\nthese two persons as having been prominent members of the Church at\nJerusalem; but here again the experience of the ordinary course of nature\nfails us, and we do not find another word or hint concerning them.  This\nmay be the result of accident, but if so, it is a very unfortunate\naccident, and we have already had a great deal too much of unfortunate\naccidents, and of truths which _may_ be truths, but which are uncommonly\nlike exaggeration.  Stories are like people, whom we judge of in no small\ndegree by the dress they wear, the company they keep, and that subtle\nindefinable something which we call their expression.\n\n\u201cNevertheless, there arise the questions how far the spear wound recorded\nby the writer of the fourth Gospel must be regarded, firstly, as an\nactual occurrence, and, secondly, as having been necessarily fatal, for\nunless these things are shewn to be indisputable we have seen that the\nbalance of probability lies greatly in favour of Christ\u2019s having escaped\nwith life.  If, however, it can be proved that it is a matter of\ncertainty both that the wound was actually inflicted, and that death must\nhave inevitably followed, then the death of Christ is proved.  The\nResurrection becomes supernatural; the Ascension forthwith ceases to be\nmarvellous; the Miraculous Conception, the Temptation in the Wilderness,\nall the other miracles of Christ and his Apostles, become believable at\nonce upon so signal a failure of human experience; human experience\nceases to be a guide at all, inasmuch as it is found to fail on the very\npoint where it has been always considered to be most firmly\nestablished\u2014the remorselessness of the grip of death.  But before we can\nconsent to part with the firm ground on which we tread, in the confidence\nof which we live, move, and have our being\u2014the trust in the established\nexperience of countless ages\u2014we must prove the infliction of the wound\nand its necessarily fatal character beyond all possibility of mistake.\nWe cannot be expected to reject a natural solution of an event however\nmysterious, and to adopt a supernatural in its place, so long as there is\nany element of doubt upon the supernatural side.\n\n\u201cThe natural solution of the origin of belief in the Resurrection lies\nvery ready to our hands; once admit that Christ was crucified hurriedly,\nthat there is no proof of the destruction of any organic function of the\nbody, that the body itself was immediately delivered to friends, and that\nthirty-six hours afterwards Christ was seen alive, and it is impossible\nto understand how any human being can doubt what he ought to think.  We\nmust own also that once let Joseph have kept his own counsel (and he had\na great stake to lose if he did _not_ keep it), once let the Apostles\nbelieve that Christ\u2019s restoration to life was miraculous (and under the\ncircumstances they would be sure to think so), and their reason would be\nso unsettled that in a very short time all the recognised and all the\napocryphal miracles of Christ would pass current with them without a\nshadow of difficulty.\u201d\n\nIt will be observed that throughout both this and the preceding chapter I\nhave been dealing with those of our opponents who, while admitting the\nreappearances of our Lord, ascribe them to natural causes only.  I\nconsider this position to be only second in importance to the one taken\nby Strauss, and as perhaps in some respects capable of being supported\nwith an even greater outward appearance of probability.  I therefore\nresolved to combat it, and as a preliminary to this, have taken care that\nit shall be stated in the clearest and most definite manner possible.\nBut it is plain that those who accept the fact that our Lord reappeared\nafter the Crucifixion differ hardly less widely from Strauss than they do\nfrom ourselves; it will therefore be expedient to shew how they maintain\ntheir ground against so formidable an antagonist.  Let it be remembered\nthat Strauss and his followers admit that _the Death_ of our Lord is\nproved, while those of our opponents who would deny this, nevertheless\nadmit that we can establish _the reappearances_; it follows therefore\nthat each of our most important propositions is admitted by one section\nor other of the enemy, and each section would probably be heartily glad\nto be able to deny what it admits.  Can there be any doubt about the\nsignificance of this fact?  Would not a little reflection be likely to\nsuggest to the distracted host of our adversaries that each of its two\nhalves is right, as _far as it goes_, but that agreement will only be\npossible between them when each party has learnt that it is in possession\nof only half the truth, and has come to admit both the _Death of our Lord\nand His Resurrection_?\n\nReturning, however, to the manner in which the section of our opponents\nwith whom I am now dealing meet Strauss, they may be supposed to speak as\nfollows:\u2014\n\n\u201cStrauss believes that Christ died, and says (_New Life of Jesus_, Vol.\nI., p. 411) that \u2018the account of the Evangelists of the death of Jesus is\nclear, unanimous, and connected.\u2019  If this means that the Evangelists\nwould certainly know whether Christ died or not, we demur to it at once.\nStrauss would himself admit that not one of the writers who have recorded\nthe facts connected with the Crucifixion was an eyewitness of that event,\nand he must also be aware that the very utmost which any of these writers\ncan have _known_, was _that Christ was believed to have been dead_.  It\nis strange to see Strauss so suddenly struck with the clearness,\nunanimity, and connectedness of the Evangelists.  In the very next\nsentence he goes on to say, \u2018Equally fragmentary, full of contradiction\nand obscurity, is all that they tell us of the opportunities of observing\nhim which his adherents are supposed to have had after his resurrection.\u2019\nNow, this seems very unfair, for, after all, the gospel writers are quite\nas unanimous in asserting the main fact that Christ reappeared, as they\nare in asserting that he died; they would seem to be just as \u2018clear,\nunanimous, and connected,\u2019 about the former event as the latter (for the\naccounts of the Crucifixion vary not a little), and they must have had\ninfinitely better means of knowing whether Christ reappeared than whether\nhe had actually died.  There is not the same scope for variation in the\nbare assertion that a man died, as there is in the narration of his\nsayings and doings upon the several occasions of his reappearance.\nBesides, in support of the reappearances, we have the evidence of Paul,\nwho, though not an eye-witness, was well acquainted with those who were;\nwhereas no man can make more out of the facts recorded concerning the\ndeath of Jesus, than that he was believed to be dead under circumstances\nin which mistake might easily arise, that there is no reason to think\nthat any organic function of the body had been destroyed at the time that\nit was delivered over to friends, and that none of those who testified to\nChrist\u2019s death appear to have verified their statement by personal\ninspection of the body.  On these points the Evangelists do indeed appear\nto be \u2018clear, unanimous, and connected.\u2019\n\n\u201cLater on Strauss is even more unsatisfactory, for on the page which\nfollows the one above quoted from, he writes: \u2018Besides which, it is quite\nevident that this (the natural) view of the resurrection of Jesus, apart\nfrom the difficulties in which it is involved, does not even solve the\nproblem which is here under consideration: the origin, that is, of the\nChristian Church by faith in the miraculous resurrection of the Messiah.\nIt is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of a\nsepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who\nrequired bandaging, strengthening, and indulgence, and who still, at\nlast, yielded to his sufferings, could have given to the disciples the\nimpression that he was a conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince\nof Life, an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry.\nSuch a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which he had\nmade upon them in life and in death; at the most could only have given it\nan elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow\ninto enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship.\u2019\n\n\u201cNow, the fallacy in the above is obvious; it assumes that _Christ_ was\nin such a state as to be compelled to creep about, weak and ill, &c., and\nultimately to die from the effects of his sufferings; whereas there is\nnot a word of evidence in support of all this.  He may have been weak and\nill when he forbade Mary to touch him, on the first occasion of his being\nseen alive; but it would be hard to prove even this, and on no subsequent\noccasion does he shew any sign of weakness.  The supposition that he died\nof the effects of his sufferings is quite gratuitous; one would like to\nknow where Strauss got it from.  He _may_ have done so, or he may have\nbeen assassinated by some one commissioned by the Jewish Sanhedrim, or he\nmay have felt that his work was done, and that any further interference\nupon his part would only mar it, and therefore resolved upon withdrawing\nhimself from Palestine for ever, or Joseph of Arimath\u00e6a may have feared\nthe revolution which he saw approaching\u2014or twenty things besides might\naccount for Christ\u2019s final disappearance.  The only thing, however, which\nwe can say with any certainty is that he disappeared, and that there is\nno reason to believe that he died of his wounds.  All over and above this\nis guesswork.\n\n\u201cAgain, if Christ on reappearing had continued in daily intercourse with\nhis disciples, it might have been impossible that they should not find\nout that he was in all respects like themselves.  But he seems to have\nbeen careful to avoid seeing them much.  Paul only mentions five\nreappearances, only one of which was to any considerable number of\npeople.  According also to the gospel writers, the reappearances were\nfew; they were without preparation, and nothing seems to have been known\nof where he resided between each visit; this rarity and mysteriousness of\nthe reappearances of Christ (whether dictated by fear of his enemies or\nby policy) would heighten their effect, and prevent the Apostles from\nknowing much more about their master than the simple fact that he was\nindisputably alive.  They saw enough to assure them of this, but they did\nnot see enough to prevent their being able to regard their master as a\nconqueror over death and the grave, even though it could be shewn (which\ncertainly cannot be done) that he continued in infirm health, and\nultimately died of his wounds.\n\n\u201cIf the Apostles had been highly educated English or German Professors,\nit might be hard to believe them capable of making any mistake; but they\nwere nothing of the kind; they were ignorant Eastern peasants, living in\nthe very thick of every conceivable kind of delusive influence.  Strauss\nhimself supposes their minds to have been so weak and unhinged that they\nbecame easy victims to hallucination.  But if this was the case, they\nwould be liable to other kinds of credulity, and it seems strange that\none who would bring them down so low, should be here so suddenly jealous\nfor their intelligence.  There is no reason to suppose that Christ _was_\nweak and ill after the first day or two, any more than there is for\nbelieving that he died of his wounds.  This being so, is it not more\nsimple and natural to believe that the Apostles were really misled by a\nsolid substratum of strange events\u2014a substratum which seems to be\nsupported by all the evidence which we can get\u2014than that the whole story\nof the appearances of Christ after the Crucifixion should be due to\nbaseless dreams and fancies?  At any rate, if the Apostles could be\nmisled by hallucination, much more might they be misled by a natural\nreappearance, which looked not unlike a supernatural one.\n\n\u201cThe belief in the miraculous character of the Resurrection is the\ncentral point of the whole Christian system.  Let this be once believed,\nand considering the times, which, it must always be remembered, were in\nrespect of credulity widely different from our own, considering the\nprevious hopes and expectations of the Apostles, considering their\neducation, Oriental modes of thought and speech, familiarity with the\nideas of miracle and demonology, and unfamiliarity with the ideas of\naccuracy and science, and considering also the unquestionable beauty and\nwisdom of much which is recorded as having been taught by Christ, and the\nreally remarkable circumstances of the case\u2014we say, once let the\nResurrection be believed to be miraculous, and the rest is clear; there\nis no further mystery about the origin of the Christian religion.\n\n\u201cSo the matter has now come to this pass, that we are to jeopardise our\nfaith in all human experience, if we are unable to see our way clearly\nout of a few words about a spear wound, recorded as having been inflicted\nin a distant country nearly two thousand years ago, by a writer\nconcerning whom we are entirely ignorant, and whose connection with any\neye-witness of the events which he records is a matter of pure\nconjecture.  We will see about this hereafter; all that is necessary now\nis to make sure that we do not jeopardise it, if we _do_ see a way of\nescape, and this assuredly exists.\u201d\n\nI will not pain either the reader or myself by a recapitulation of the\narguments which have led our opponents as well as the Dean of Canterbury,\nand I may add, with due apology, myself, to conclude that nothing is\nknown as to the severity or purpose of the spear wound.  The case,\ntherefore, of our adversaries will rest thus:\u2014that there is not only no\nsufficient reason for believing that Christ died upon the cross, but that\nthere are the strongest conceivable reasons for believing that He did not\ndie; that the shortness of time during which He remained upon the cross,\nthe immediate delivery of the body to friends, and, above all, the\nsubsequent reappearance alive, are ample grounds for arriving at such a\nconclusion.  They add further that it would seem a monstrous supposition\nto believe that a good and merciful God should have designed to redeem\nthe world by the infliction of such awful misery upon His own Son, and\nyet determined to condemn every one who did not believe in this design,\nin spite of such a deficiency of evidence that disbelief would appear to\nbe a moral obligation.  No good God, they say, would have left a matter\nof such unutterable importance in a state of such miserable uncertainty,\nwhen the addition of a very small amount of testimony would have been\nsufficient to establish it.\n\nIn the two following chapters I shall show the futility and irrelevancy\nof the above reasoning\u2014if, indeed, that can be called reasoning which is\nfrom first to last essentially unreasonable.  Plausible as, in parts, it\nmay have appeared, I have little doubt that the reader will have already\ndetected the greater number of the fallacies which underlie it.  But\nbefore I can allow myself to enter upon the welcome task of refutation, a\nfew more words from our opponents will yet be necessary.  However\nstrongly I disapprove of their views, I trust they will admit that I have\nthroughout expressed them as one who thoroughly understands them.  I am\nconvinced that the course I have taken is the only one which can lead to\ntheir being brought into the way of truth, and I mean to persevere in it\nuntil I have explained the views which they take concerning our Lord\u2019s\nAscension, with no less clearness than I shewed forth their opinions\nconcerning the Resurrection.\n\n\u201cIn St. Matthew\u2019s Gospel,\u201d they will say, \u201cwe find no trace whatever of\nany story concerning the Ascension.  The writer had either never heard\nanything about the matter at all, or did not consider it of sufficient\nimportance to deserve notice.\n\n\u201cDean Alford, indeed, maintains otherwise.  In his notes on the words,\n\u2018And lo!  I am with you always unto the end of the world,\u2019 he says,\n\u2018These words imply and set forth the Ascension\u2019; it is true that he adds,\n\u2018the manner of which is not related by the Evangelist\u2019: but how do the\nwords quoted, \u2018imply and set forth\u2019 the Ascension?  They imply a belief\nthat Christ\u2019s spirit would be present with his disciples to the end of\ntime; but how do they set forth the fact that his body was seen by a\nnumber of people to rise into the air and actually to mount up far into\nthe region of the clouds?\n\n\u201cThe fact is simply this\u2014and nobody can know it better than Dean\nAlford\u2014that Matthew tells us nothing about the Ascension.\n\n\u201cThe last verses of Mark\u2019s Gospel are admitted by Dean Alford himself to\nbe not genuine, but even in these the subject is dismissed in a single\nverse, and although it is stated that Christ was received into Heaven,\nthere is not a single word to imply that any one was supposed to have\nseen him actually on his way thither.\n\n\u201cThe author of the fourth Gospel is also silent concerning the Ascension.\nThere is not a word, nor hint, nor faintest trace of any knowledge of the\nfact, unless an allusion be detected in the words, \u2018What and if ye shall\nsee the Son of Man ascending where he was before?\u2019 (John vi., 62) in\nreference to which passage Dean Alford, in his note on Luke xxiv., 52,\nwrites as follows:\u2014\u2018And might not we have concluded from the wording of\nJohn vi., 62, that our Lord must have intended an ascension _insight of\nsome of those to whom he spoke_, and that the Evangelist _gives that\nhint_, _by recording those words without comment_, _that he had seen\nit_?\u2019  That is to say, we are to conclude that the writer of the fourth\nGospel actually _saw_ the Ascension, because he tells us that Christ\nuttered the words, \u2018What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascending\nwhere he was before?\u2019\n\n\u201cBut who _was_ the author of the fourth Gospel?  And what reason is there\nfor thinking that that work is genuine?  Let us make another extract from\nDean Alford.  In his prolegomena, chapter v., section 6, on the\ngenuineness of the fourth Gospel, he writes:\u2014\u2018Neither Papias, who\ncarefully sought out all that Apostles and Apostolic men had related\nregarding the life of Christ; nor Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of\nthe Apostle John; nor Barnabas, nor Clement of Rome, in their epistles;\nnor, lastly, Ignatius (in his genuine writings), makes any mention of, or\nallusion to, this gospel.  _So that in the most ancient circle of\necclesiastical testimony_, _it appears to be unknown or not recognised_.\u2019\nWe may add that there is no trace of its existence before the latter half\nof the second century, and that the internal evidence against its\ngenuineness appears to be more and more conclusive the more it is\nexamined.\n\n\u201cSt. Paul, when enumerating the last appearances of his master, in a\npassage where the absence of any allusion to the Ascension is almost\nconclusive as to his never having heard a word about it, is also silent.\nIn no part of his genuine writings does he give any sign of his having\nbeen aware that any story was in existence as to the manner in which\nChrist was received into Heaven.\n\n\u201cWhere, then, does the story come from, if neither Matthew, Mark, John,\nnor Paul appear to have heard of it?\n\n\u201cIt comes from a single verse in St. Luke\u2019s Gospel\u2014written more than half\na century after the supposed event, when few, or more probably none, of\nthose who were supposed to have seen it were either living or within\nreach to contradict it.  Luke writes (xxiv., 51), \u2018And it came to pass\nthat while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into\nHeaven.\u2019  This is the only account of the Ascension given in any part of\nthe Gospels which can be considered genuine.  It gives Bethany as the\nplace of the miracle, whereas, if Dean Alford is right in saying that the\nwords of Matthew \u2018set forth\u2019 the Ascension, they set it forth as having\ntaken place on a mountain in Galilee.  But here, as elsewhere, all is\nhaze and contradiction.  Perhaps some Christian writers will maintain\nthat it happened both at Bethany and in Galilee.\n\n\u201cIn his subsequent work, written some sixty or seventy years after the\nAscension, St. Luke gives us that more detailed account which is commonly\npresent to the imagination of all men (thanks to the Italian painters),\nwhen the Ascension is alluded to.  The details, it would seem, came to\nhis knowledge after he had written his Gospel, and many a long year after\nMatthew and Mark and Paul had written.  How he came by the additional\ndetails we do not know.  Nobody seems to care to know.  He must have had\nthem revealed to him, or been told them by some one, and that some one,\nwhoever he was, doubtless knew what he was saying, and all Europe at one\ntime believed the story, and this is sufficient proof that mistake was\nimpossible.\n\n\u201cIt is indisputable that from the very earliest ages of the Church there\nexisted a belief that Christ was at the right hand of God; but no one who\nprofesses to have seen him on his way thither has left a single word of\nrecord.  It is easy to believe that the facts may have been revealed in a\nnight vision, or communicated in one or other of the many ways in which\nextraordinary circumstances _are_ communicated, during the years of oral\ncommunication and enthusiasm which elapsed between the supposed Ascension\nof Christ and the writing of Luke\u2019s second work.  It is not surprising\nthat a firm belief in Christ\u2019s having survived death should have arisen\nin consequence of the actual circumstances connected with the Crucifixion\nand entombment.  Was it then strange that this should develop itself into\nthe belief that he was now in Heaven, sitting at the right hand of God\nthe Father?  And finally was it strange that a circumstantial account of\nthe manner in which he left this earth should be eagerly accepted?\u201d\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n[In an appendix at the end of the book I have given the extracts from the\nGospels which are necessary for a full comprehension of the preceding\nchapters.\u2014W. B. O.]\n\n\n\nChapter IX\nThe Christ-Ideal\n\n\nI HAVE completed a task painful to myself and the reader.  Painful to\nmyself inasmuch as I am humiliated upon remembering the power which\narguments, so shallow and so easily to be refuted, once had upon me;\npainful to the reader, as everything must be painful which even appears\nto throw doubt upon the most sublime event that has happened in human\nhistory.  How little does all that has been written above touch the real\nquestion at issue, yet, what self-discipline and mental training is\nrequired before we learn to distinguish the essential from the\nunessential.\n\nBefore, however, we come to close quarters with our opponents concerning\nthe views put forward in the preceding chapters, it will be well to\nconsider two questions of the gravest and most interesting character,\nquestions which will probably have already occurred to the reader with\nsuch force as to demand immediate answer.  They are these.\n\nFirstly, what will be the consequences of admitting any considerable\ndeviation from historical accuracy on the part of the sacred writers?\n\nSecondly, how can it be conceivable that God should have permitted\ninaccuracy or obscurity in the evidence concerning the Divine commission\nof His Son?\n\nIf God so loved the World that He sent His only begotten Son into it to\nrescue those who believed in Him from destruction, how is it credible\nthat He should not have so arranged matters as that all should find it\neasy to believe?  If He wanted to save mankind and knew that the only way\nin which mankind could be saved was by believing certain facts, how can\nit be that the records of the facts should have been allowed to fall into\nconfusion?\n\nTo both these questions I trust that the following answers may appear\nconclusive.\n\nI.  As regards the consequences which may be supposed to follow upon\ngiving up any part of the sacred writings, no matter how seemingly\nunimportant, it is undoubtedly true that to many minds they have appeared\ntoo dangerous to be even contemplated.  Thus through fear of some\nsupposed unutterable consequences which would happen to the cause of\ntruth if truth were spoken, people profess to believe in the genuineness\nof many passages in the Bible which are universally acknowledged by\ncompetent judges of every shade of theological opinion to be\ninterpolations into the original text.  To say nothing of the Old\nTestament, where many whole books are of disputed genuineness or\nauthenticity, there are portions of the New which none will seriously\ndefend;\u2014for example, the last verses of St. Mark\u2019s Gospel,\u2014containing, as\nthey do, the sentence of damnation against all who do not believe\u2014the\nsecond half of the third, and the whole of the fourth verse of the fifth\nchapter of St. John\u2019s Gospel, the story of the woman taken in adultery,\nand probably the whole of the last chapter of St. John\u2019s Gospel, not to\nmention the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and\nto the Ephesians, the Epistles of Peter and James, the famous verses as\nto the three witnesses in the First Epistle of St. John, and perhaps also\nthe book of Revelation.  These are passages and works about which there\nis either no doubt at all as to their not being genuine, or over which\nthere hangs so much uncertainty that no dependence can be placed upon\nthem.\n\nBut over and above these, there are not a few parts of each of the\nGospels which, though of undisputed genuineness, cannot be accepted as\nhistorical; thus the account of the Resurrection given by St. Matthew,\nand parts of those by Luke and Mark, the cursing of the barren fig-tree,\nand the prophecies of His Resurrection ascribed to our Lord Himself, will\nnot stand the tests of criticism which we are bound to apply to them if\nwe are to exercise the right of private judgement; instead of handing\nourselves over to a priesthood as the sole custodians and interpreters of\nthe Bible.  It has been said by some that the miracle of the penny found\nin the fish\u2019s mouth should be included in the above category, but it\nshould be remembered that we have only the injunction of our Lord to St.\nPeter that he should catch the fish and the promise that he should find\nthe penny in its mouth, but that we have no account of the sequel, it is\ntherefore possible that in the event of St. Peter\u2019s faith having failed\nhim he may have procured the money from some other source, and that thus\nthe miracle, though undoubtedly intended, was never actually performed.\nHow unnecessary therefore as well as presumptuous are the Rationalistic\ninterpretations which have been put upon the event by certain German\nwriters!\n\nNow there are few, if any, who would be so illiberal as to wish for the\nexclusion from the sacred volume of all those books or passages which,\nthough neither genuine nor perhaps edifying, have remained in the Canon\nof Scripture for many centuries.  Any serious attempt to reconstruct the\nCanon would raise a theological storm which would not subside in this\ncentury.  The work could never be done perfectly, and even if it could,\nit would have to be done at the expense of tearing all Christendom in\npieces.  The passages do little or no harm where they are, and have\nreceived the sanction of time; let them therefore by all means remain in\ntheir present position.  But the question is still forced upon us whether\nthe consequences of openly admitting the certain spuriousness of many\npassages, and the questionable nature of others as regards morality,\ngenuineness and authenticity, should be feared as being likely to\nprejudice the main doctrines of Christianity.\n\nThe answer is very plain.  He who has vouchsafed to us the Christian\ndispensation may be safely trusted to provide that no harm shall happen,\neither to it or to us, from an honest endeavour to attain the truth\nconcerning it.  What have we to do with consequences?  These are in the\nhands of God.  Our duty is to seek out the truth in prayer and humility,\nand when we believe that we have found it, to cleave to it through evil\nand good report; _to fail in this is to fail in faith_; to fail in faith\nis to be an infidel.  Those who suppose that it is wiser to gloss over\nthis or that, and who consider it \u201cinjudicious\u201d to announce the whole\ntruth in connection with Christianity, should have learnt by this time\nthat no admission which can by any possibility be required of them can be\nso perilous to the cause of Christ as the appearance of shirking\ninvestigation.  It has already been insisted upon that cowardice is at\nthe root of the infidelity which we see around us; the want of faith in\nthe power of truth which exists in certain pious but timid hearts has\nbegotten utter unbelief in the minds of all superficial investigators\ninto Christian evidences.  Such persons see that the defenders have\nsomething in the background, something which they would cling to although\nthey are secretly aware that they cannot justly claim it.  This is enough\nfor many, and hence more harm is done by fear than could ever have been\ndone by boldness.  Boldness goes out into the fight, and if in the wrong\ngets slain, childless.  Fear stays at home and is prolific of a brood of\nfalsehoods.\n\nIt is immoral to regard consequences at all, where truth and justice are\nconcerned; the being impregnated with this conviction to the inmost core\nof one\u2019s heart is an axiom of common honesty\u2014one of the essential\nfeatures which distinguish a good man from a bad one.  Nevertheless, to\nmake it plain that the consequences of outspoken truthfulness in\nconnection with the scriptural writings would have no harmful effect\nwhatever, but would, on the contrary, be of the utmost service as\nremoving a stumbling-block from the way of many\u2014let us for the moment\nsuppose that very much more would have to be given up than can ever be\ndemanded.\n\nSuppose we were driven to admit that nothing in the life of our Lord can\nbe certainly depended upon beyond the facts that He was begotten by the\nHoly Ghost of the Virgin Mary; that He worked many miracles upon earth,\nand delivered St. Matthew\u2019s version of the sermon on the mount and most\nof the parables as we now have them; finally, that He was crucified,\ndead, and buried, that He rose again from the dead upon the third day,\nand ascended unto Heaven.  Granting for the sake of argument that we\ncould rely on no other facts, what would follow?  Nothing which could in\nany way impair the living power of Christianity.\n\nThe essentials of Christianity, _i.e._, a belief in the Divinity of the\nSaviour and in His Resurrection and Ascension, have stood, and will\nstand, for ever against any attacks that can be made upon them, and these\nare probably the only facts in which belief has ever been absolutely\nnecessary for salvation; the answer, therefore, to the question what ill\nconsequences would arise from the open avowal of things which every\nstudent must know to be the fact concerning the biblical writings is that\nthere would be none at all.  The Christ-ideal which, after all, is the\nsoul and spirit of Christianity would remain precisely where it was,\nwhile its recognition would be far more general, owing to the departure\non the part of its apologists from certain lines of defence which are\nirreconcilable with the ideal itself.\n\nII.  Returning to the objection how it could be possible that God should\nhave left the records of our Lord\u2019s history in such a vague and\nfragmentary condition, if it were really of such intense importance for\nthe world to understand it and believe in it, we find ourselves face to\nface with a question of far greater importance and difficulty.\n\nThe old theory that God desired to test our faith, and that there would\nbe no merit in believing if the evidence were such as to commend itself\nat once to our understanding, is one which need only be stated to be set\naside.  It is blasphemy against the goodness of God to suppose that He\nhas thus laid as it were an ambuscade for man, and will only let him\nescape on condition of his consenting to violate one of the very most\nprecious of God\u2019s own gifts.  There is an ingenious cruelty about such\nconduct which it is revolting even to imagine.  Indeed, the whole theory\nreduces our Heavenly Father to a level of wisdom and goodness far below\nour own; and this is sufficient answer to it.\n\nBut when, turning aside from the above, we try to adopt some other and\nmore reasonable view, we naturally set ourselves to consider why the\nAlmighty should have required belief in the Divinity of His Son from man.\nWhat is there in this belief on man\u2019s part which can be so grateful to\nGod that He should make it a _sine qu\u00e2 non_ for man\u2019s salvation?  As\nregards Himself, how can it matter to Him what man should think of Him?\nNay, it must be for man\u2019s own good that the belief is demanded.\n\nAnd why?  Surely we can see plainly that it is the beauty of the\nChrist-ideal which constitutes the working power of Christianity over the\nhearts and lives of men, leading them to that highest of all worships\nwhich consists in imitation.  Now the sanction which is given to this\nideal by belief in the Divinity of our Lord, raises it at once above all\npossibility of criticism.  If it had not been so sanctioned it might have\nbeen considered open to improvement; one critic would have had this, and\nanother that; comparison would have been made with ideals of purely human\norigin such as the Greek ideal, exemplified in the work of Phidias, and\nin later times with the medi\u00e6val Italian ideal, as deducible from the\nbest fifteenth and early sixteenth Italian painting and sculpture, the\nMadonnas of Bellini and Raphael, or the St. George of Donatello; or again\nwith the ideal derivable from the works of our own Shakespeare, and there\nare some even now among those who deny the Divinity of Christ who will\nprofess that each one of these ideals is more universal, more fitted for\nthe spiritual food of a man, and indeed actually higher, than that\npresented by the life and death of our Saviour.  But once let the Divine\norigin of this last ideal be admitted, and there can be no further\nuncertainty; hence the absolute necessity for belief in Christ\u2019s Divinity\nas closing the most important of all questions, Whereunto should a man\nendeavour to liken both himself and his children?\n\nSeeing then that we have reasonable ground for thinking that belief in\nthe Divinity of our Lord is mainly required of us in order to exalt our\nsense of the paramount importance of following and obeying the life and\ncommands of Christ, it is natural also to suppose _that whatever may have\nhappened to the records of that life_ should have been ordained with a\nview to the enhancing of the preciousness of the ideal.\n\nNow, the fragmentary character, and the partial obscurity\u2014I might have\nalmost written, the incomparable _chiaroscuro_\u2014of the Evangelistic\nwritings have added to the value of our Lord\u2019s character as an ideal, not\nonly in the case of Christians, but as bringing the Christ-ideal within\nthe reach and comprehension of an infinitely greater number of minds than\nit could ever otherwise have appealed to.  It is true that those who are\ninsensible to spiritual influences, and whose materialistic instinct\nleads them to deny everything which is not as clearly demonstrable by\nexternal evidence as a fact in chemistry, geography, or mathematics, will\nfail to find the hardness, definition, tightness, and, let me add,\nlittleness of outline, in which their souls delight; they will find\nrather the gloom and gleam of Rembrandt, or the golden twilight of the\nVenetians, the losing and the finding, and the infinite liberty of\nshadow; and this they hate, inasmuch as it taxes their imagination, which\nis no less deficient than their power of sympathy; they would have all\nfound, as in one of those laboured pictures wherein each form is as an\ninflated bladder and, has its own uncompromising outline remorselessly\ninsisted upon.\n\nLooking to the ideals of purely human creation which have come down to us\nfrom old times, do we find that the Theseus suffers because we are unable\nto realise to ourselves the precise features of the original?  Or again\ndo the works of John Bellini suffer because the hand of the painter was\nless dexterous than his intention pure?  It is not what a man has\nactually put upon his canvas, but what he makes us feel that he felt,\nwhich makes the difference between good and bad in painting.  Bellini\u2019s\nhand was cunning enough to make us feel what he intended, and did his\nutmost to realise; but he has not realised it, and the same hallowing\neffect which has been wrought upon the Theseus by decay (to the enlarging\nof its spiritual influence), has been wrought upon the work of Bellini by\nincapacity\u2014the incapacity of the painter to utter perfectly the perfect\nthought which was within.  The early Italian paintings have that stamp of\nindividuality upon them which assures us that they are not only\nportraits, but as faithful portraits as the painter could make them, more\nthan this we know not, but more is unnecessary.\n\nDo we not detect an analogy to this in the records of the Evangelists?\nDo we not see the child-like unself-seeking work of earnest and loving\nhearts, whose innocence and simplicity more than atone for their many\nshortcomings, their distorted renderings, and their omissions?  We can\nsee _through_ these things as through a glass darkly, or as one looking\nupon some ineffable masterpiece of Venetian portraiture by the fading\nlight of an autumnal evening, when the beauty of the picture is enhanced\na hundredfold by the gloom and mystery of dusk.  We may indeed see less\nof the actual lineaments themselves, but the echo is ever more\nspiritually tuneful than the sound, and the echo we find within us.  Our\nimagination is in closer communion with our longings than the hand of any\npainter.\n\nThose who relish definition, and definition only, are indeed kept away\nfrom Christianity by the present condition of the records, but even if\nthe life of our Lord had been so definitely rendered as to find a place\nin their system, would it have greatly served their souls?  And would it\nnot repel hundreds and thousands of others, who find in the\nsuggestiveness of the sketch a completeness of satisfaction, which no\nphotographic reproduction could have given?  The above may be difficult\nto understand, but let me earnestly implore the reader to endeavour to\nmaster its import.\n\nPeople misunderstand the aim and scope of religion.  Religion is only\nintended to guide men in those matters upon which science is silent.  God\nillumines us by science as with a mechanical draughtsman\u2019s plan; He\nillumines us in the Gospels as by the drawing of a great artist.  We\ncannot build a \u201cGreat Eastern\u201d from the drawings of the artist, but what\npoetical feeling, what true spiritual emotion was ever kindled by a\nmechanical drawing?  How cold and dead were science unless supplemented\nby art and by religion!  Not joined with them, for the merest touch of\nthese things impairs scientific value\u2014which depends essentially upon\naccuracy, and not upon any feeling for the beautiful and lovable.  In\nlike manner the merest touch of science chills the warmth of\nsentiment\u2014the spiritual life.  The mechanical drawing is spoiled by being\nmade artistic, and the work of the artist by becoming mechanical.  The\naim of the one is to teach men how to construct, of the other how to\nfeel.\n\nFor the due conservation therefore of both the essential requisites of\nhuman well-being\u2014science, and religion\u2014it is requisite that they be kept\nasunder and reserved for separate use at different times.  Religion is\nthe mistress of the arts, and every art which does not serve religion\ntruly is doomed to perish as a lying and unprofitable servant.  Science\nis external to religion, being a separate dispensation, a distinct\nrevelation to mankind, whereby we are put into full present possession of\nmore and more of God\u2019s modes of dealing with material things, according\nas we become more fitted to receive them through the apprehension of\nthose modes which have been already laid open to us.\n\nWe ought not therefore to have expected scientific accuracy from the\nGospel records\u2014much less should we be required to believe that such\naccuracy exists.  Does any great artist ever dream of aiming directly at\nimitation?  He aims at representation\u2014not at imitation.  In order to\nattain true mastery here, he must spend years in learning how to see; and\nthen no less time in learning how _not_ to see.  Finally, he learns how\nto translate.  Take Turner for example.  Who conveys so living an\nimpression of the face of nature?  Yet go up to his canvas and what does\none find thereon?  Imitation?  Nay\u2014blotches and daubs of paint; the\ncombination of these daubs, each one in itself when taken alone\nabsolutely untrue, forms an impression which is quite truthful.  No\ncombination of minute truths in a picture will give so faithful a\nrepresentation of nature as a wisely arranged tissue of untruths.\n\nAbsolute reproduction is impossible even to the photograph.  The work of\na great artist is far more truthful than any photograph; but not even the\ngreatest artist can convey to our minds the whole truth of nature; no\nhuman hand nor pigments can expound all that lies hidden in \u201cNature\u2019s\ninfinite book of secrecy\u201d; the utmost that can be done is to convey an\nimpression, and if the impression is to be conveyed truthfully, the means\nmust often be of the most unforeseen character.  The old Pre-Raphaelites\naimed at absolute reproduction.  They were succeeded by a race of men who\nsaw all that their predecessors had seen, but also something higher.  The\nVan Eycks and Memling paved the way for painters who found their highest\nrepresentatives in Rubens, Vandyke, and Rembrandt\u2014the mightiest of them\nall.  Giovanni Bellini, Carpaccio and Mantegna were succeeded by Titian,\nGiorgione, and Tintoretto; Perugino was succeeded by Raphael.  It is\neverywhere the same story; a reverend but child-like worship of the\nletter, followed by a manful apprehension of the spirit, and, alas! in\ndue time by an almost total disregard of the letter; then rant and cant\nand bombast, till the value of the letter is reasserted.  In theology the\nearly men are represented by the Evangelicals, the times of utter\ndecadence by infidelity\u2014the middle race of giants is yet to come, and\nwill be found in those who, while seeing something far beyond either\nminute accuracy or minute inaccuracy, are yet fully alive both to the\nletter and to the spirit of the Gospels.\n\nAgain, do not the seeming wrongs which the greatest ideals of purely\nhuman origin have suffered at the hands of time, add to their value\ninstead of detracting from it?  Is it not probable that if we were to see\nthe glorious fragments from the Parthenon, the Theseus and the Ilyssus,\nor even the Venus of Milo, in their original and unmutilated condition,\nwe should find that they appealed to us much less forcibly than they do\nat present?  All ideals gain by vagueness and lose by definition,\ninasmuch as more scope is left for the imagination of the beholder, who\ncan thus fill in the missing detail according to his own spiritual needs.\nThis is how it comes that nothing which is recent, whether animate or\ninanimate, can serve as an ideal unless it is adorned by more than common\nmystery and uncertainty.  A new Cathedral is necessarily very ugly.\nThere is too much found and too little lost.  Much less could an\nabsolutely perfect Being be of the highest value as an ideal, as long as\nHe could be clearly seen, for it is impossible that He could be known as\nperfect by imperfect men, and His very perfections must perforce appear\nas blemishes to any but perfect critics.  To give therefore an impression\nof perfection, to create an absolutely unsurpassable ideal, it became\nessential that the actual image of the original should become blurred and\nlost, whereon the beholder now supplies from his own imagination that\nwhich is _to him_ more perfect than the original, though objectively it\nmust be infinitely less so.\n\nIt is probably to this cause that the incredulity of the Apostles during\nour Lord\u2019s life-time must be assigned.  The ideal was too near them, and\ntoo far above their comprehension; for it must be always remembered that\nthe convincing power of miracles in the days of the Apostles must have\nbeen greatly weakened by the current belief in their being events of no\nvery unusual occurrence, and in the existence both of good and evil\nspirits who could take possession of men and compel them to do their\nbidding.  A resurrection from the dead or a restoration of sight to the\nblind, must have seemed even less portentous to them, than an unusually\nskilful treatment of disease by a physician is to us.  We can therefore\nunderstand how it happened that the faith of the Apostles was so little\nto be depended upon even up to the Crucifixion, inasmuch as the\nconvincing power of miracles had been already, so to speak, exhausted, a\nfact which may perhaps explain the early withdrawal of the power to work\nthem; we cannot indeed believe that it could have been so far weakened as\nto make the Apostles disregard the prophecies of their Master that He\nshould rise from the dead, if He had ever uttered them, and we have\nalready seen reason to think that these prophecies are the _ex post\nfacto_ handiwork of time; but the incredulity of the disciples, when seen\nthrough the light now thrown upon it, loses that wholly inexplicable\ncharacter which it would otherwise bear.\n\nBut to return to the subject of the ideal presented by the life and death\nof our Lord.  In the earliest days of the Church there can have been no\nwant of the most complete and irrefragable evidence for the objective\nreality of the miracles, and especially of the Resurrection and\nAscension.  The character of Christ would also stand out revealed to all,\nwith the most copious fulness of detail.  The limits within which so\nsharply defined an ideal could be acceptable were narrow, but as the\nradius of Christian influence increased, so also would the vagueness and\nelasticity of the ideal; and as the elasticity of the ideal, so also the\nrange of its influence.\n\nA beneficent and truly marvellous provision for the greater complexity of\nman\u2019s spiritual needs was thus provided by a gradual loss of detail and\ngain of breadth.  Enough evidence was given in the first instance to\nsecure authoritative sanction for the ideal.  During the first thirty or\nforty years after the death of our Lord no one could be in want of\nevidence, and the guilt of unbelief is therefore brought prominently\nforward.  Then came the loss of detail which was necessary in order to\nsecure the universal acceptability of the ideal; but the same causes\nwhich blurred the distinctness of the features, involved the inevitable\nblurring of no small portions of the external evidences whereby the\nDivine origin of the ideal was established.  The primary external\nevidence became less and less capable of compelling instantaneous assent,\naccording as it was less wanted, owing to the greater mass of secondary\nevidence, and to the growth of appreciation of the internal evidences, a\ngrowth which would be fostered by the growing adaptability of the ideal.\n\nSome thirty or forty years, then, from the death of our Saviour the case\nwould stand thus.  The Christ-ideal would have become infinitely more\nvague, and hence infinitely more universal: but the causes which had thus\nadded to its value would also have destroyed whatever primary evidence\nwas superabundant, and the vagueness which had overspread the ideal would\nhave extended itself in some measure over the evidences which had\nestablished its Divine origin.\n\nBut there would of course be limits to the gain caused by decay.  Time\ncame when there would be danger of too much vagueness in the ideal, and\ntoo little distinctness in the evidences.  It became necessary therefore\nto provide against this danger.\n\n_Precisely at that epoch the Gospels made their appearance_.  Not\nsimultaneously, not in concert, and not in perfect harmony with each\nother, yet with the error distributed skilfully among them, as in a\nwell-tuned instrument wherein each string is purposely something out of\ntune with every other.  Their divergence of aim, and different\nauthorship, secured the necessary breadth of effect when the accounts\nwere viewed together; their universal recognition afforded the necessary\npermanency, and arrested further decay.  If I may be pardoned for using\nanother illustration, I would say that as the roundness of the\nstereoscopic image can only be attained by the combination of two\ndistinct pictures, neither of them in perfect harmony with the other, so\nthe highest possible conception of Christ, cannot otherwise be produced\nthan through the discrepancies of the Gospels.\n\nFrom the moment of the appearing of the Gospels, and, I should add, of\nthe Epistles of St. Paul, the external evidences of Christianity became\nsecured from further change; as they were then, so are they now, they can\nneither be added to nor subtracted from; they have lain as it were\nsleeping, till the time should come to awaken them.  And the time is\nsurely now, for there has arisen a very numerous and increasing class of\npersons, whose habits of mind unfit them for appreciating the value of\nvagueness, but who have each one of them a soul which may be lost or\nsaved, and on whose behalf the evidences for the authority whereby the\nChrist-ideal is sanctioned, should be restored to something like their\nformer sharpness.  Christianity contains provision for all needs upon\ntheir arising.  The work of restoration is easy.  It demands this much\nonly\u2014the recognition that time has made incrustations upon some parts of\nthe evidences, and that it has destroyed others; when this is admitted,\nit becomes easy, after a little practice, to detect the parts that have\nbeen added, and to remove them, the parts that are wanting, and to supply\nthem.  Only let this be done outside the pages of the Bible itself, and\nnot to the disturbance of their present form and arrangement.\n\nThe above explanation of the causes for the obscurity which rests upon\nmuch of our Lord\u2019s life and teaching, may give us ground for hoping that\nsome of those who have failed to feel the force of the external evidences\nhitherto, may yet be saved, provided they have fully recognised the\nChrist-ideal and endeavoured to imitate it, although irrespectively of\nany belief in its historical character.\n\nIt is reasonable to suppose that the duty of belief was so imperatively\ninsisted upon, in order that the ideal might thus be exalted above\ncontroversy, and made more sacred in the eyes of men than it could have\nbeen if referable to a purely human source.  May not, then, one who\nrecognises the ideal as his _summum bonum_ find grace although he knows\nnot, or even cares not, how it should have come to be so?  For even a\nsceptic who regarded the whole New Testament as a work of art, a poem, a\npure fiction from beginning to end, and who revered it for its intrinsic\nbeauty only, as though it were a picture or statue, even such a person\nmight well find that it engendered in him an ideal of goodness and power\nand love and human sympathy, which could be derived from no other source.\nIf, then, our blessed Lord so causes the sun of His righteousness to\nshine upon these men, shall we presume to say that He will not in another\nworld restore them to that full communion with Himself which can only\ncome from a belief in His Divinity?\n\nWe can understand that it should have been impossible to proclaim this in\nthe earliest ages of the Church, inasmuch as no weakening of the\nsanctions of the ideal could be tolerated, but are we bound to extend the\noperation of the many passages condemnatory of unbelief to a time so\nremote as our own, and to circumstances so widely different from those\nunder which they were uttered?  Do we so extend the command not to eat\nthings strangled or blood, or the assertion of St. Paul that the\nunmarried state is higher than the married?  May we not therefore hope\nthat certain kinds of unbelief have become less hateful in the sight of\nGod inasmuch as they are less dangerous to the universal acceptance of\nour Lord as the one model for the imitation of all men?  For, after all,\nit is not belief in the facts which constitutes the essence of\nChristianity, but rather the being so impregnated with love at the\ncontemplation of Christ that imitation becomes almost instinctive; this\nit is which draws the hearts of men to God the Father, far more than any\nintellectual belief that God sent our Lord into the world, ordaining that\nhe should be crucified and rise from the dead.  Christianity is addressed\nrather to the infinite spirit of man than to his finite intelligence, and\nthe believing in Christ through love is more precious in the sight of God\nthan any loving through belief.  May we not hope, then, that those whose\nlove is great may in the end find acceptance, though their belief is\nsmall?  We dare not answer this positively; but we know that there are\ntimes of transition in the clearness of the Christian evidences as in all\nelse, and the treatment of those whose lot is cast in such times will\nsurely not escape the consideration of our Heavenly Father.\n\nBut with reference to the many-sidedness of the Christ-ideal, as having\nbeen part of the design of God, and not attainable otherwise than as the\ncreation of destruction\u2014as coming out of the waste of time\u2014it is clear\nthat the perception of such a design could only be an offspring of modern\nthought; the conception of such an apparently self-frustrating scheme\ncould only arise in minds which were familiar with the manner in which it\nis necessary \u201cto hound nature in her wanderings\u201d before her feints can be\neluded, and her prevarications brought to book.  A deep distrust of the\nover-obvious is wanted, before men can be brought to turn aside from\nobjections which at the first blush appear to be very serious, and to\ntake refuge in solutions which seem harder than the problems which they\nare intended to solve.  What a shock must the discovery of the rotation\nof the earth have given to the moral sense of the age in which it was\nmade.  How it contradicted all human experience.  How it must have\noutraged common sense.  How it must have encouraged scepticism even about\nthe most obvious truths of morality.  No question could henceforth be\nconsidered settled; everything seemed to require reopening; for if man\nhad once been deceived by Nature so entirely, if he had been so utterly\nled astray and deluded by the plausibility of her pretence that the earth\nwas immovably fixed, what else, that seemed no less incontrovertible,\nmight not prove no less false?\n\nIt is probable that the opposition to Galileo on the part of the Roman\nchurch was as much due to some such feelings as these, as to theological\nobjections; the discovery was felt to unsettle not only the foundations\nof the earth, but those of every branch of human knowledge and polity,\nand hence to be an outrage upon morality itself.  A man has no right to\nbe very much in advance of other people; he is as a sheep, which may lead\nthe mob, but must not stray forward a quarter of a mile in front of it;\nif he does this, he must be rounded up again, no matter how right may\nhave been his direction.  He has no right to be right, unless he can get\na certain following to keep him company; the shock to morality and the\nencouragement to lawlessness do more harm than his discovery can atone\nfor.  Let him hold himself back till he can get one or two more to come\nwith him.  In like manner, had reflections as to the advantage gained by\nthe Christ ideal in consequence of the inaccuracies and inconsistencies\nof the Gospels\u2014reflections which must now occur to any one\u2014been put\nforward a hundred years ago, they would have met justly with the severest\ncondemnation.  But now, even those to whom they may not have occurred\nalready will have little difficulty in admitting their force.\n\nBut be this as it may, it is certain that the inability to understand how\nthe sense of Christ in the souls of men could be strengthened by the loss\nof much knowledge of His character, and of the facts connected with His\nhistory, lies at the root of the error even of the Apostle St. Paul, who\nexclaims with his usual fervour, but with less than his usual wisdom,\n\u201cHas Christ been divided?\u201d (I. Cor. i., 13).  \u201cYea,\u201d we may make answer,\n\u201cHe is divided and is yet divisible that all may share in Him.\u201d  St. Paul\nhimself had realised that it was the spiritual value of the Christ-ideal\nwhich was the purifier and refresher of our souls, inasmuch as he\nelsewhere declares that even though he had known Christ Himself after the\nflesh, he knew Him no more; the spiritual Christ, that is to say the\nspirit of Christ as recognisable by the spirits of men, was to him all in\nall.  But he lived too near the days of our Lord for a full comprehension\nof the Christian scheme, and it is possible that had he known Christ\nafter the flesh, his soul might have been less capable of recognising the\nspiritual essence, rather than more so.  Have we here a faint glimmering\nof the motive of the Almighty in not having allowed the Gentile Apostle\nto see Christ after the flesh?  We cannot say.  But we may say this much\nwith certainty, that had he been living now, St. Paul would have rejoiced\nat the many-sidedness of Christ, which he appears to have hardly\nrecognised in his own life-time.\n\nThe apparently contradictory portraits of our Lord which we find in the\nGospels\u2014so long a stumbling-block to unbelievers\u2014are now seen to be the\nvery means which enable men of all ranks, and all shades of opinion, to\naccept Christ as their ideal; they are like the sea, which from having\nseemed the most impassable of all objects, turns out to be the greatest\nhighway of communication.  To the artisan, for instance, who may have\nlong been out of work, or who may have suffered from the greed and\nselfishness of his employers, or again, to the farm labourer who has been\ndischarged perhaps at the approach of winter, the parable of \u201cthe\nLabourers in the Vineyard\u201d offers itself as a divinely sanctioned picture\nof the dealings of God with man; few but those who have mixed much with\nthe less educated classes, can have any idea of the priceless comfort\nwhich this parable affords daily to those whose lot it has been to remain\nunemployed when their more fortunate brethren have been in full work.\nHow many of the poor, again, are drawn to Christianity by the parable of\nDives and Lazarus.  How many a humble-minded Christian while reflecting\nupon the hardness of his lot, and tempted to cast a longing eye upon the\nluxuries which are at the command of his richer neighbours, is restrained\nfrom seriously coveting them, by remembering the awful fate of Dives, and\nthe happy future which was in store for Lazarus.  \u201cDives,\u201d they exclaim,\n\u201cin his life-time possessed good things and in like manner Lazarus evil\nthings, but now the one is comforted in the bosom of Abraham, and the\nother tormented in a lake of fire.\u201d  They remember, also, that it is\neasier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man\nto enter into the kingdom of Heaven.\n\nIt has been said by some that the poor are thus encouraged to gloat over\nthe future misery of the rich, and that many of the sayings ascribed to\nour Lord have an unhealthy influence over their minds.  I remember to\nhave thought so once myself, but I have seen reason to change my mind.\nHope is given by these sayings to many whose lives would be otherwise\nvery nearly hopeless, and though I fully grant that the parable of Dives\nand Lazarus can only afford comfort to the very poor, yet it is most\ncertain that it _does_ afford comfort to this numerous class, and helps\nto keep them contented with many things which they would not otherwise\nendure.\n\nOn the other hand, though the poor are first provided for, the rich are\nnot left without their full share of consolation.  Joseph of Arimath\u00e6a\nwas rich, and modern criticism forbids us to believe that the parable of\nDives and Lazarus was ever actually spoken by our Lord\u2014at any rate not in\nits present form.  Neither are the children of the rich forgotten; the\nson who repents at length of a course of extravagant or riotous living is\nencouraged to return to virtue, and to seek reconciliation with his\nfather, by reflecting upon the parable of the Prodigal Son, wherein he\nwill find an everlasting model for the conduct of all earthly fathers.  I\nwill say nothing of the parable of the Unjust Steward, for it is one of\nwhich the interpretation is most uncertain; nevertheless I am sure that\nit affords comfort to a very large number of persons.\n\nChrist came not to the whole, but to those that were sick; he came not to\ncall the righteous but sinners to repentance.  Even our fallen sisters\nare remembered in the story of the woman taken in adultery, which reminds\nthem that they can only be condemned justly by those who are without sin.\nIt is to the poor, the weak, the ignorant and the infirm that\nChristianity appeals most strongly, and to whose needs it is most\nespecially adapted\u2014but these form by far the greater portion of mankind.\n\u201cBlessed are they that mourn!\u201d  Whose sorrow is not assuaged by the mere\nsound of these words?  Who again is not reassured by being reminded that\nour Heavenly Father feeds the sparrows and clothes the lilies of the\nfield, and that if we will only seek the kingdom of God and His\nrighteousness we need take no heed for the morrow what we shall eat, and\nwhat we shall drink, nor wherewithal we shall be clothed.  God will\nprovide these things for us if we are true Christians, whether we take\nheed concerning them or not.  \u201cI have been young and now am old,\u201d saith\nthe Psalmist, \u201cyet never saw I the righteous forsaken nor his seed\nbegging their bread.\u201d\n\nHow infinitely nobler and more soul-satisfying is the ideal of the\nChristian saint with wasted limbs, and clothed in the garb of poverty\u2014his\nupturned eyes piercing the very heavens in the ecstasy of a divine\ndespair\u2014than any of the fleshly ideals of gross human conception such as\nhave already been alluded to.  If a man does not feel this instinctively\nfor himself, let him test it thus\u2014whom does his heart of hearts tell him\nthat his son will be most like God in resembling?  The Theseus?  The\nDiscobolus? or the St. Peters and St. Pauls of Guido and Domenichino?\nWho can hesitate for a moment as to which ideal presents the higher\ndevelopment of human nature?  And this I take it should suffice; the\nnatural instinct which draws us to the Christ-ideal in preference to all\nothers as soon as it has been once presented to us, is a sufficient\nguarantee of its being the one most tending to the general well-being of\nthe world.\n\n\n\nChapter X\nConclusion\n\n\nIT only remains to return to the seventh and eighth chapters, and to pass\nin review the reasons which will lead us to reject the conclusions\ntherein expressed by our opponents.\n\nThese conclusions have no real bearing upon the question at issue.  Our\nopponents can make out a strong case, so long as they confine themselves\nto maintaining that exaggeration has to a certain extent impaired the\nhistoric value of some of the Gospel records of the Resurrection.  They\nhave made out this much, but have they made out more?  They have mistaken\nthe question\u2014which is this\u2014\u201cDid Jesus Christ die and rise from the dead?\u201d\nAnd in the place of it they have raised another, namely, \u201cHas there been\nany inaccuracy in the records of the time and manner of His reappearing?\u201d\n\nOur error has been that instead of demurring to the relevancy of the\nissue raised by our opponents, we have accepted it.  We have thus placed\nourselves in a false position, and have encouraged our opponents by doing\nso.  We have undertaken to fight them upon ground of their own choosing.\nWe have been discomfited; but instead of owning to our defeat, and\nbeginning the battle anew from a fresh base of operations, we have\ndeclared that we have not been defeated; hence those lamentable and\nsuicidal attempts at disingenuous reasoning which we have seen reason to\ncondemn so strongly in the works of Dean Alford and others.  How\ndeplorable, how unchristian they are!\n\nThe moment that we take a truer ground, the conditions of the strife\nchange.  The same spirit of candid criticism which led us to reject the\naccount of Matthew _in toto_, will make it easy for us to admit that\nthose of Mark, Luke, and John, may not be so accurate as we could have\nwished, and yet to feel that our cause has sustained no injury.  There\nare probably very few who would pin their faith to the fact that Julius\nC\u00e6sar fell exactly at the feet of Pompey\u2019s statue, or that he uttered the\nwords \u201cEt tu, Brute.\u201d  Yet there are still fewer who would dispute the\nfact that Julius Caesar was assassinated by conspirators of whom Brutus\nand Cassius were among the leaders.  As long as we can be sure that our\nLord _died and rose from the dead_, we may leave it to our opponents to\ncontend about the details of the manner in which each event took place.\n\nWe had thought that these details were known, and so thinking, we had a\ncertain consolation in realising to ourselves the precise manner in which\nevery incident occurred; yet on reflection we must feel that the desire\nto realise is of the essence of idolatry, which, not content with knowing\nthat there is a God, will be satisfied with nothing if it has not an\neffigy of His face and figure.  If it has not this it falls straight-way\nto the denial of God\u2019s existence, being unable to conceive how a Being\nshould exist and yet be incapable of representation.  We are as those who\nwould fall down and worship the idol; our opponents, as those who upon\nthe destruction of the idol would say that there was no God.\n\nWe have met sceptics hitherto by adhering to the opinions as to the\nnecessity of accuracy which prevailed among our forefathers, and instead\nof saying, \u201cYou are right\u2014we do _not_ know all that we thought we\ndid\u2014nevertheless we know enough\u2014we know the fact, though the manner of\nthe fact be hidden,\u201d we have preferred to say, \u201cYou are mistaken, our\nsevere outline, our hard-and-fast lines are all perfectly accurate, there\nis not a detail of our theories which we are not prepared to stand by.\u201d\nOn this comes recrimination and mutual anger, and the strife grows hotter\nand hotter.\n\nLet us now rather say to the unbeliever, \u201cWe do not deny the truth of\nmuch which you assert.  We give up Matthew\u2019s account of the Resurrection;\nwe may perhaps accept parts of those of Mark and Luke and John, but it is\nimpossible to say which parts, unless those in which all three agree with\none another; and this being so, it becomes wiser to regard all the\naccounts as early and precious memorials of the certainty felt by the\nApostles that Christ died and rose again, but as having little historic\nvalue with regard to the time and manner of the Resurrection.\u201d\n\nOnce take this ground, and instead of demurring to the truth of many of\nthe assertions of our opponents, demur to their relevancy, and the\nunbeliever will find the ground cut away from under his feet\nindependently of the fact that the reasonableness of the concession, and\nthe discovery that we are not fighting merely to maintain a position,\nwill incline him to calmness and to the reconsideration of his own\nopinions\u2014which will in itself be a great gain\u2014he will soon perceive that\nwe are really standing upon firm ground, from which no enemy can dislodge\nus.  The discovery that we know less of the time and manner of our Lord\u2019s\ndeath and Resurrection than we thought we did, does not invalidate a\nsingle one of the irresistible arguments whereby we can establish the\nfact of His having died and risen again.  The reader will now perhaps\nbegin to perceive that the sad division between Christians and\nunbelievers has been one of those common cases in which both are right\nand both wrong; Christians being right in their chief assertion, and\nwrong in standing out for the accuracy of their details, while\nunbelievers are right in denying that our details are accurate, but wrong\nin drawing the inference that because certain facts have been\ninaccurately recorded, therefore certain others never happened at all.\nBoth the errors are natural; it is high time, however, that upon both\nsides they should be recognised and avoided.\n\nBut as regards the demolition of the structure raised in the seventh and\neighth chapters of this book, whereinsoever, that is to say, it seems to\nmenace the more vital part of our faith, the ease with which this will\neffected may perhaps lead the reader to think that I have not fulfilled\nthe promise made in the outset, and have failed to put the best possible\ncase for our opponents.  This supposition would be unjust; I have done\nthe very best for them that I could.  For it is plain that they can only\ntake one of two positions, namely, _either_ that Christ really died upon\nthe Cross but was never seen alive again afterwards at all, and that the\nstories of His having been so seen are purely mythical, _or_, if they\nadmit that He was seen alive after His Crucifixion, they must deny the\ncompleteness of the death; in other words, if they are to escape miracle,\nthey must either deny the reappearances or the death.\n\nNow in the commencement of this work I dealt with those who deny that our\nLord rose from the dead, and as the exponent of those who take this view\nI selected Strauss, who is undoubtedly the ablest writer they have.\nWhether I shewed sufficient reason for thinking that his theory was\nunsound must remain for the decision of the reader, but I certainly\nbelieve that I succeeded in doing so.  Perhaps the ablest of all the\nwriters who have treated the facts given us in the Gospels from the\nRationalistic point of view, is the author of an anonymous work called\n_The Jesus of History_ (Williams and Norgate, 1866); but this writer (and\nit is a characteristic feature of the Rationalistic school to become\nvague precisely at this very point) leaves us entirely in doubt as to\nwhether he accepts the reappearances of Christ or not, and his treatment\nof the facts connected both with the Crucifixion and Resurrection is less\ndefinite than that of any other part of the life of our Lord.  He does\nnot seem to see his own way clearly, and appears to consider that it must\nfor ever remain a matter of doubt whether the Death of Christ or His\nreappearance is to be rejected.\n\nIt is evident that it was most desirable to examine _both_ sets of\narguments, _i.e._, those against the Resurrection, and those against the\ncompleteness of the Death; I have therefore mainly drawn the opinions of\nthose who deny the Death from the same pamphlet as that from which I drew\nthe criticisms on Dean Alford\u2019s notes.  I know of no other English work,\nindeed, in which whatever can be said against us upon this all-important\nhead has been put forward, and was therefore compelled to draw from this\nsource, or to invent the arguments for our opponents, which would have\nsubjected me to the accusation of stating them in such way as should best\nsuit my own purpose.  The reader, however, must now feel that since there\ncan be no other position taken but one or other of the two alluded to\nabove, and since the one taken by Strauss has been shewn to be untenable,\nthere remains nothing but to shew that the other is untenable also,\nwhereupon it will follow that our Saviour did actually die, and did\nactually shew Himself subsequently alive; and this amounts to a\ndemonstration of the miraculous character of the Resurrection.  If, then,\nthis one miracle be established, I think it unnecessary to defend the\nothers, because I cannot think that any will attack them.\n\nBut, as has been seen already, Strauss admits that our Lord died upon the\nCross, and denies the reality of the reappearances.  It is not probable\nthat Strauss would have taken refuge in the hallucination theory if he\nhad felt that there was the remotest chance of successfully denying our\nLord\u2019s death; for the difficulties of his present position are\noverwhelming, as was fully pointed out in the second, third, and fourth\nchapters of this work.  I regret, however, to say that I can nowhere find\nany detailed account of the reasons which have led him to feel so\npositively about our Lord\u2019s Death.  Such reasons must undoubtedly be at\nhis command, or he would indisputably have referred the Resurrection to\nnatural causes.  Is it possible that he has thought it better to keep\nthem to himself, as proving the Death of our Lord _too_ convincingly?  If\nso, the course which he has adopted is a cruel one.\n\nWe must endeavour, however, to dispense with Strauss\u2019s assistance, and\nwill proceed to inquire what it is that those who deny the Death of our\nLord, call upon us to reject.\n\nI regret to pass so quickly over one great field of evidence which in\njustice to myself I must allude to, though I cannot dwell upon it, for in\nthe outset I declared that I would confine myself to the historical\nevidence, and to this only.  I refer to spiritual insight; to the\ntestimony borne by the souls of living persons, who from personal\nexperience _know_ that their Redeemer liveth, and that though worms\ndestroy this body, yet in their flesh shall they see God.  How many\nthousands are there in the world at this moment, who have known Christ as\na personal friend and comforter, and who can testify to the work which He\nhas wrought upon them!  I cannot pass over such testimony as this in\nsilence.  I must assign it a foremost place in reviewing the reasons for\nholding that our hope is not in vain, but I may not dwell upon it,\ninasmuch as it would carry no weight with those for whom this work is\ndesigned, I mean with those to whom this precious experience of Christ\nhas not yet been vouchsafed.  Such persons require the external evidence\nto be made clear to demonstration before they will trust themselves to\nlisten to the voices of hope or fear, and it is of no use appealing to\nthe knowledge and hopes of others without making it clear upon what that\nknowledge and those hopes are grounded.  Nevertheless, I may be allowed\nto point out that those who deny the Death and Resurrection of our Lord,\ncall upon us to believe that an immense multitude of most truthful and\nestimable people are no less deceivers of their own selves and others,\nthan Mohammedans, Jews and Buddhists are.  How many do we not each of us\nknow to whom Christ is the spiritual meat and drink of their whole lives.\nYet our opponents call upon us to ignore all this, and to refer the\nemotions and elation of soul, which the love of Christ kindles in his\ntrue followers, to an inheritance of delusion and blunder.  Truly a\nmelancholy outlook.\n\nAgain, let a man travel over England, North, South, East, and West, and\nin his whole journey he shall hardly find a single spot from which he\ncannot see one or several churches.  There is hardly a hamlet which is\nnot also a centre for the celebration of our Redemption by the Death and\nResurrection of Christ.  Not one of these churches, say the Rationalists,\nnot one of the clergymen who minister therein, not one single village\nschool in all England, but must be regarded as a fountain of error, if\nnot of deliberate falsehood.  Look where they may, they cannot escape\nfrom the signs of a vital belief in the Resurrection.  All these signs,\nthey will tell us, are signs of superstition only; it is superstition\nwhich they celebrate and would confirm; they are founded upon fanaticism,\nor at the best upon sheer delusion; they poison the fountain heads of\nmoral and intellectual well-being, by teaching men to set human\nexperience on the one side, and to refer their conduct to the supposed\nwill of a personal anthropomorphic God who was actually once a baby\u2014who\nwas born of one of his own creatures\u2014and who is now locally and\ncorporeally in Heaven, \u201cof reasonable soul and _human flesh_ subsisting.\u201d\n\nThus do our opponents taunt us, but when we think not only of the present\nday, but of the nearly two thousand years during which Christianity has\nflourished, not in England only, but over all Europe, that is to say,\nover the quarter of the globe which is most civilised, and whose\ncivilisation is in itself proof both of capacity to judge and of having\njudged rightly\u2014what an awful admission do unbelievers require us to make,\nwhen they bid us think that all these ages and countries have gone astray\nto the imagining of a vain thing.  All the self-sacrifice of the holiest\nmen for sixty generations, all the wars that have been waged for the sake\nof Christ and His truth, all the money spent upon churches, clergy,\nmonasteries and religious education, all the blood of martyrs, all the\ncelibacy of priests and nuns, all the self-denying lives of those who are\nnow ministers of the Gospel\u2014according to the Rationalist, no part of all\nthis devotion to the cause of Christ has had any justifiable base on\nactual fact.  The bare contemplation of such a stupendous misapplication\nof self-sacrifice and energy, should be enough to prevent any one from\never smiling again to whose mind such a deplorable view was present: we\nwonder that our opponents do not shrink back appalled from the\ncontemplation of a picture which they must regard as containing so much\nof sin, impudence and folly; yet it is to the contemplation of such a\npicture, and to a belief in its truthfulness to nature, that they would\ninvite us; they cannot even see a clergyman without saying to themselves,\n\u201cThere goes one whose trade is the promotion of error; whose whole life\nis devoted to the upholding of the untrue.\u201d  To them the sight of people\nflocking to a church must be as painful as it would be to us to see a\ncongregation of Jews or Mohammedans: they ought to have no happiness in\nlife so long as they believe that the vast majority of their\nfellow-countrymen are so lamentably deluded; yet they would call on us to\njoin them, and half despise us upon our refusing to do so.\n\nBut upon this view also I may not dwell; it would have been easy and I\nthink not unprofitable, had my aim been different, to have drawn an\nampler picture of the heart-rending amount of falsehood, stupidity,\ncruelty and folly which must be referable to a belief in Christianity,\nif, as our opponents maintain, there is no solid ground for believing it;\nbut my present purpose is to prove that there _is_ such ground, and\nhaving said enough to shew that I do not ignore the fields of evidence\nwhich lie beyond the purpose of my work, I will return to the Crucifixion\nand Resurrection.\n\nWhat, then, let me ask of freethinkers, _became of Christ eventually_?\nSeveral answers may be made to this question, _but there is none but the\none given in Scripture which will set it at rest_.  Thus it has been said\nthat Christ survived the Cross, lingered for a few weeks, and in the end\nsuccumbed to the injuries which He had sustained.  On this there arises\nthe question, did the Apostles know of His death?  And if so, were they\nlikely to mistake the reappearance of a dying man, so shattered and weak\nas He must have been, for the glory of an immortal being?  We know that\npeople can idealise a great deal, but they cannot idealise as much as\nthis.  The Apostles cannot have known of any death of Christ except His\nDeath upon the Cross, and it is not credible that if He had died from the\neffects of the Crucifixion the Apostles should not have been aware of it.\nNo one will pretend that they were, so it is needless to discuss this\ntheory further.\n\nIt has also been said that our Lord, having seen the effect of His\nreappearance on the Apostles, considered that further converse with them\nwould only weaken it; and that He may have therefore thought it wiser to\nwithdraw Himself finally from them, and to leave His teaching in their\nhands, with the certainty that it would never henceforth be lost sight\nof; but this view is inconsistent with the character which even our\nadversaries themselves assign to our Saviour.  The idea is one which\nmight occur to a theorist sitting in his study, and enlightened by a\nknowledge of events, but it would not suggest itself to a leader in the\nheat of action.\n\nAnother supposition has been that our Lord on recovering consciousness\nafter He had been left alone in the tomb, or perhaps even before Joseph\nhad gone, may have been unable to realise to Himself the nature of the\nevents that had befallen Him, and may have actually believed that He had\nbeen dead, and been miraculously restored to life; that He may yet have\nfelt a natural fear of again falling into the hands of His enemies; and\npartly from this cause, and partly through awe at the miracle that He\nsupposed had been worked upon Him, have only shewn Himself to His\ndisciples hurriedly, in secret, and on rare occasions, spending the\ngreater part of His time in some one or other of the secret places of\nresort, in which He had been wont to live apart from the Apostles before\nthe Crucifixion.\n\nI have known it urged that our Lord never said or even thought that He\nhad risen from the dead, but shewed Himself alive secretly and fearfully,\nand bade His disciples follow Him to Galilee, where He might, and perhaps\ndid, appear more openly, though still rarely and with caution; that the\nrarity and mystery of the reappearances would add to the impression of a\nmiraculous resurrection which had instantly presented itself to the minds\nof the Apostles on seeing Christ alive; that this impression alone would\nprevent them from heeding facts which must have been obvious to any whose\nminds were not already unhinged by the knowledge that Christ was alive,\nand by the belief that He had been dead; and that they would be blinded\nby awe, which awe would be increased by the rarity of the reappearances\u2014a\nrarity that was in reality due, perhaps to fear, perhaps to\nself-delusion, perhaps to both, but which was none the less politic for\nnot having been dictated by policy; finally that the report of Christ\u2019s\nhaving been seen alive reached the Chief Priests (or perhaps Joseph of\nArimath\u00e6a), and that they determined at all hazards to nip the coming\nmischief in the bud; that they therefore watched their opportunity, and\ngot rid of so probable a cause of disturbance by the knife of the\nassassin, or induced Him to depart by threats, which He did not venture\nto resist.\n\nBut if our Lord was secretly assassinated how could it have happened that\nthe body should never have been found, and produced, when the Apostles\nbegan declaring publicly that Christ had risen?  What could be easier\nthan to bring it forward and settle the whole matter?  It cannot be\ndoubted that the body must have been looked for when the Apostles began\npublishing their story; we saw reason for believing this when we\nconsidered the account of the Resurrection given by St. Matthew.  _Now\nthose that hide can find_; and if the enemies of Christ had got rid of\nHim by foul play, they would know very well where to lay their hands upon\nthat which would be the death blow to Christianity.  If then Christ did\nnot go away of His own accord, as feeling that His teaching would be\nbetter preserved by His absence, and if He did not die from wounds\nreceived upon the Cross, and if He was not assassinated secretly, what\nremains as the most reasonable view to be taken concerning His\ndisappearance?  Surely the one that _was_ taken; the view which commended\nitself to those who were best able to judge\u2014namely, _that He had ascended\nbodily into Heaven and was sitting at the right hand of God the Father_.\n\nWhere else could He be?\n\nFor that He disappeared, and disappeared finally, within six weeks of the\nCrucifixion must be considered certain; there is no one who will be bold\nenough even to hazard a conjecture that the appearance of Christ alluded\nto by St. Paul, as having been vouchsafed to him some years later, was\nthat of the living Christ, who had chosen upon this one occasion to\ndepart from the seclusion and secrecy which he had maintained hitherto.\nBut if Christ was still living on earth, how was it possible that no\nhuman being should have the smallest clue to His whereabouts?  If He was\ndead how is it that no one should have produced the body?  Such a\nmysterious and total disappearance, even in the face of great jeopardy,\nhas never yet been known, and can only be satisfactorily explained by\nadopting the belief which has prevailed for nearly the last two thousand\nyears, and which will prevail more and more triumphantly so long as the\nworld shall last\u2014the belief that Christ was restored to the glory which\nHe had shared with the Father, as soon as ever He had given sufficient\nproofs of His being alive to ensure the devotion of His followers.\n\nBefore we can reject the supernatural solution of a mystery otherwise\ninexplicable, we should have some natural explanation which will meet the\nrequirements of the case.  A confession of ignorance is not enough here.\n_We_ are _not_ ignorant; we _know_ that Christ died, inasmuch as we have\nthe testimony of all the four Evangelists to this effect, the testimony\nof the Apostle Paul, and through him that of all the other Apostles; we\nhave also the certainty that the centurion in charge of the soldiers at\nthe Crucifixion would not have committed so grave a breach of discipline\nas the delivery of the body to Joseph and Nicodemus, unless he had felt\nquite sure that life was extinct; and finally we have the testimony of\nthe Church for sixty generations, and that of myriads now living, whose\nexperience assures them that Christ died and rose from the dead; in\naddition to this tremendous body of evidence we have also the story of\nthe spear wound recorded in a Gospel which even our opponents believe to\nbe from a Johannean source in its later chapters; and though, as has been\nalready stated, this wound cannot be insisted upon as in itself\nsufficient to prove our Lord\u2019s death, yet it must assuredly be allowed\nits due weight in reviewing the evidence.  The unbeliever cannot surely\nhave considered how shallow are all the arguments which he can produce,\nin comparison with those that make against him.  He cannot say that I\nhave not done him justice, and I feel confident that when he reconsiders\nthe matter in that spirit of humility without which he cannot hope to be\nguided to a true conclusion, he will feel sure that Strauss is right in\nbelieving that the death of our Lord cannot be seriously called in\nquestion.\n\nBut this being so, the reappearances, which we have seen to be\nestablished by the collapse of the hallucination theory, must be referred\nto supernatural or miraculous agency; that is to say, our Lord died and\nrose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures.  Whereon His\ndisappearance some six weeks later must be looked upon very differently\nfrom that of any ordinary person.  If our Lord could have been shewn to\nhave been a mere man, who had escaped death only by a hair\u2019s breadth, but\nstill escaped it, perhaps some one of the theories for His disappearance,\nor some combination of them, or some other explanation which has not yet\nbeen thought of, might be held to be sufficient; but in the case of One\nwho died and rose from the dead, there is no theory which will stand,\nexcept the one which it has been reserved for our own lawless and\nself-seeking times to question.  Through the light of the Resurrection\nthe Ascension is clearly seen.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\nMy task is now completed.  In an age when Rationalism has become\nrecognised as the only basis upon which faith can rest securely, I have\nestablished the Christian faith upon a Rationalistic basis.\n\nI have made no concession to Rationalism which did not place all the\nvital parts of Christianity in a far stronger position than they were in\nbefore, yet I have conceded everything which a sincere Rationalist is\nlikely to desire.  I have cleared the ground for reconciliation.  It only\nremains for the two contending parties to come forward and occupy it in\npeace jointly.  May it be mine to see the day when all traces of\ndisagreement have been long obliterated!\n\nTo the unbeliever I can say, \u201cNever yet in any work upon the Christian\nside have your difficulties been so fully and fairly stated; never yet\nhas orthodox disingenuousness been so unsparingly exposed.\u201d  To the\nChristian I can say with no less justice, \u201cNever yet have the true\nreasons for the discrepancies in the Gospels been so put forward as to\nenable us to look these discrepancies boldly in the face, and to thank\nGod for having graciously allowed them to exist.\u201d  I do not say this in\nany spirit of self-glorification.  We are children of the hour, and\ncreatures of our surroundings.  As it has been given unto us, so will it\nbe required at our hands, and we are at best unprofitable servants.\nNevertheless I cannot refrain from expressing my gratitude at having been\nborn in an age when Christianity and Rationalism are not only ceasing to\nappear antagonistic to one another, _but have each become essential to\nthe very existence of the other_.  May the reader feel this no less\nstrongly than I do, and may he also feel that I have supplied the missing\nelement which could alone cause them to combine.  If he asks me what\nelement I allude to, I answer Candour.  This is the pilot that has taken\nus safely into the Fair Haven of universal brotherhood in Christ.\n\n\n\nAppendix\n\n\nI\nThe Burial\n\n\n                            (John xix. 38\u201342)\n\nAnd after this Joseph of Arimath\u00e6a, being a disciple of Jesus, but\nsecretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away\nthe body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave.  He came therefore, and\ntook the body of Jesus.  And there came also Nicodemus, which at the\nfirst came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes,\nabout an hundred pound weight.  Then took they the body of Jesus, and\nwound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is\nto bury.  Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and\nin the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.  There\nlaid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews\u2019 preparation day; for the\nsepulchre was nigh at hand.\n\n                           (Luke xxiii. 50\u201356)\n\nAnd, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was a\ngood man, and a just: (the same had not consented to the counsel and deed\nof them;) he was of Arimath\u00e6a, a city of the Jews: who also himself\nwaited for the kingdom of God.  This man went unto Pilate, and begged the\nbody of Jesus.  And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it\nin a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.\nAnd that day was the preparation, and the sabbath drew on.  And the women\nalso, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the\nsepulchre, and how his body was laid.  And they returned, and prepared\nspices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the\ncommandment.\n\n                             (Mark xv. 42\u201347)\n\nAnd now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is,\nthe day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimath\u00e6a, an honourable\ncounsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in\nboldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus.  And Pilate marvelled\nif he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him\nwhether he had been any while dead.  And when he knew it of the\ncenturion, he gave the body to Joseph.  And he bought fine linen, and\ntook him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre\nwhich was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the\nsepulchre.  And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joseph beheld where\nhe was laid.\n\n                          (Matthew xxvii. 57\u201361)\n\nWhen the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimath\u00e6a, named Joseph,\nwho also himself was Jesus\u2019 disciple.  He went to Pilate, and begged the\nbody of Jesus.  Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.  And when\nJoseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth.  And\nlaid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he\nrolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.  And\nthere was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the\nsepulchre.\n\n\nII\nThe Guard set upon the Tomb\n(_Peculiar to Matthew_)\n\n\n                          (Matthew xxvii. 62\u201366)\n\nNow the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief\npriests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate.  Saying, Sir, we\nremember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three\ndays I will rise again.  Command therefore that the sepulchre be made\nsure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him\naway, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last\nerror shall be worse than the first.  Pilate said unto them, Ye have a\nwatch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.  So they went, and made\nthe sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.\n\n\nIII\nVisit of Mary Magdalene, and Others, to the Tomb\n\n\n                             (John xx. 1\u201313)\n\nThe first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet\ndark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the\nsepulchre.  Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other\ndisciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the\nLord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.\nPeter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the\nsepulchre.  So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun\nPeter, and came first to the sepulchre.  And he stooping down, and\nlooking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.  Then cometh\nSimon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the\nlinen clothes lie.  And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying\nwith the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.  Then\nwent in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulchre, and\nhe saw, and believed.  For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he\nmust rise again from the dead.  Then the disciples went away again unto\ntheir own home.  But Mary stood without the sepulchre weeping: and as she\nwept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two\nangels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet,\nwhere the body of Jesus had lain.  And they say unto her, Woman, why\nweepest thou?  She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord,\nand I know not where they have laid him.\n\n                            (Luke xxiv. 1\u201312)\n\nNow upon the first day of the week very early in the morning, they came\nunto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and\ncertain others with them.  And they found the stone rolled away from the\nsepulchre.  And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord\nJesus.  And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout,\nbehold, two men stood by them in shining garments: and as they were\nafraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why\nseek ye the living among the dead?  He is not here, but is risen:\nremember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The\nSon of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be\ncrucified, and the third day rise again.  And they remembered his words,\nand returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the\neleven, and to all the rest.  It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary\nthe mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told\nthese things unto the apostles.  And their words seemed to them as idle\ntales, and they believed them not.  Then arose Peter, and ran unto the\nsepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by\nthemselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to\npass.\n\n                             (Mark xvi. 1\u20138)\n\nAnd when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of\nJames, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and\nanoint him.  And very early in the morning the first day of the week,\nthey came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.  And they said\namong themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the\nsepulchre?  And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled\naway: for it was very great.  And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a\nyoung man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and\nthey were affrighted.  And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek\nJesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here:\nbehold the place where they laid him.  But go your way, tell his\ndisciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye\nsee him, as he said unto you.  And they went out quickly, and fled from\nthe sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they\nanything to any man; for they were afraid.\n\n                          (Matthew xxviii. 1\u20138)\n\nIn the end of the sabbath, as it began to draw toward the first day of\nthe week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.\nAnd, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord\ndescended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door,\nand sat upon it.  His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment\nwhite as snow, and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as\ndead men.  And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye:\nfor I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.  He is not here: for\nhe is risen, as he said.  Come, see the place where the Lord lay.  And go\nquickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and,\nbehold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I\nhave told you.  And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear\nand great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.\n\n\nIV\nAppearance of Christ to Mary Magdalene and Others\n\n\n                             (John xx. 14\u201318)\n\nAnd when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus\nstanding, and knew not that it was Jesus.  Jesus saith unto her, Woman,\nwhy weepest thou?  Whom seekest thou?  She, supposing him to be the\ngardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me\nwhere thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.  Jesus saith unto\nher, Mary.  She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to\nsay, Master.  Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet\nascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend\nunto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.  Mary\nMagdalene came and told the disciples that she had seen the Lord, and\nthat he had spoken these things unto her.\n\n                             (Mark xvi. 9\u201311)\n\nNow when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared\nfirst to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.  And she\nwent and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.  And\nthey, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her,\nbelieved not.\n\n                          (Matthew xxvii. 9\u201310)\n\nAnd as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying,\nAll hail.  And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.\nThen said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they\ngo into Galilee, and there shall they see me.\n\n\nV\nThe Bribing of the Guard\n(_Peculiar to Matthew_)\n\n\n                         (Matthew xxviii. 11\u201315)\n\nNow when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city,\nand shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.  And\nwhen they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they\ngave large money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, His disciples came by\nnight, and stole him away while we slept.  And if this come to the\ngovernor\u2019s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.  So they took the\nmoney, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported\namong the Jews until this day.\n\n\nVI\nAppearance to Cleopas (and James?)\n\n\n                            (Luke xxiv. 13\u201335)\n\nAnd, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus,\nwhich was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.  And they talked\ntogether of all these things which had happened.  And it came to pass,\nthat, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near,\nand went with them.  But their eyes were holden that they should not know\nhim.  And he said unto them, What manner of communications are these that\nye have one to another, as ye walk, and are sad?  And the one of them,\nwhose name was Cleopas, answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger\nin Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there\nin these days?  And he said unto them, What things?  And they said unto\nhim, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and\nword before God and all the people: And how the chief priests and our\nrulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.\nBut we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and\nbeside all this, to-day is the third day since these things were done.\nYea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were\nearly at the sepulchre; and when they found not his body, they came,\nsaying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that he\nwas alive, and certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre,\nand found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.  Then\nhe said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the\nprophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and\nto enter into his glory?  And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he\nexpounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.\nAnd they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as\nthough he would have gone further.  But they constrained him, saying,\nAbide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent.  And\nhe went in to tarry with them.  And it came to pass, as he sat at meat\nwith them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.\nAnd their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of\ntheir sight.  And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within\nus, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the\nscriptures?  And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem,\nand found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them,\nsaying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.  And they\ntold what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in\nbreaking of bread.\n\n                            (Mark xvi. 12\u201313)\n\nAfter that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked,\nand went into the country.  And they went and told it unto the residue:\nneither believed they them.\n\n\nVII\nAppearance to the Apostles\n(_Twice in John_)\n\n\n                             (John xx. 19\u201329)\n\nThen the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the\ndoors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews,\ncame Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto\nyou.  And when he had so said, he shewed them his hands and his side.\nThen were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.  Then said Jesus to\nthem again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even, so send I\nyou.  And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto\nthem, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.  Whose soever sins ye remit, they are\nremitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.\nBut Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when\nJesus came.  The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen\nthe Lord.  But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the\nprint of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and\nthrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.  And after eight days\nagain his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus,\nthe doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto\nyou.  Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my\nhands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not\nfaithless, but believing.  And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord\nand my God.  Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me,\nthou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have\nbelieved.\n\n                                * * * * *\n\n[I have not quoted the twenty-first chapter of St. John\u2019s Gospel on\naccount of its exceedingly doubtful genuineness.\u2014W. B. O.]\n\n                            (Luke xxiv. 36\u201349)\n\nAnd as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and\nsaith unto them, Peace be unto you.  But they were terrified and\naffrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.  And he said unto\nthem, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts?\nBehold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for\na spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.  And when he had\nthus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.  And while they yet\nbelieved not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any\nmeat?  And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.\nAnd he took it, and did eat before them.  And he said unto them, These\nare the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all\nthings must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in\nthe prophets, and in the psalms concerning me.  Then opened he their\nunderstanding, that they might understand the scriptures.  And said unto\nthem, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to\nrise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of\nsins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at\nJerusalem.  And ye are witnesses of these things.  And, behold, I send\nthe promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem,\nuntil ye be endued with power from on high.\n\n                            (Mark xvi. 14\u201318)\n\nAfterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided\nthem with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not\nthem which had seen him after he was risen.  And he saith unto them, Go\nye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.  He that\nbelieveth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall\nbe damned.  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name\nshall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall\ntake up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt\nthem; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.\n\n                          (Matthew xviii. 16\u201320)\n\nThen the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where\nJesus had appointed them.  And when they saw him, they worshipped him:\nbut some doubted.  And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power\nis given unto me in heaven and in earth, go ye therefore, and teach all\nnations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of\nthe Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have\ncommanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the\nworld.  Amen.\n\n\nVIII\nThe Ascension\n\n\n                            (Luke xxiv. 50\u201353)\n\nAnd he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and\nblessed them.  And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted\nfrom them, and carried up into heaven.  And they worshipped him, and\nreturned to Jerusalem with great joy.  And were continually in the\ntemple, praising and blessing God.  Amen.\n\n                            (Mark xvi. 19\u201320)\n\nSo then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into\nheaven, and sat on the right hand of God.  And they went forth, and\npreached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word\nwith signs following.  Amen.\n\n                              (Acts i. 1\u201312)\n\nThe former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began\nboth to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that\nhe through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom\nhe had chosen.  To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by\nmany infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of\nthe things pertaining to the kingdom of God: and, being assembled\ntogether with them, commanded them that they should not depart from\nJerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye\nhave heard of me.  For John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be\nbaptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.  When they therefore\nwere come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this\ntime restore again the kingdom to Israel?  And he said unto them, It is\nnot for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put\nin his own power.  But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost\nis come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem,\nand in all Jud\u00e6a, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the\nearth.  And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was\ntaken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight, And while they\nlooked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by\nthem in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye\ngazing up into heaven?  This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into\nheaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.\nThen returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is\nfrom Jerusalem a sabbath day\u2019s journey.\n\n\nIX\nSt. Paul\u2019s account of our Lord\u2019s Reappearances\n\n\n                         (I. Corinthians xv. 3\u20138)\n\nFor I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how\nthat Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he\nwas buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the\nscriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; after\nthat he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the\ngreater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.  After\nthat, he was seen of James: then of all the apostles.  And last of all he\nwas seen of me also as of one born out of due time.\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n{82}  It should be borne in mind that this passage was written five or\nsix years ago, before the commencement of the Franco-Prussian war, What\nwould my brother have said had he been able to comprehend the events of\n1870 and 1871?\u2014W. B. O.\n\n{141}  This pamphlet was by Butler himself.\n\n{158a}  See Biog. Britann.\n\n{158b}  Middleton\u2019s Reflections answered by Benson.  Hist. Christ, vol.\niii., p. 50.\n\n{159a}  Lardner, part I., vol. ii., p. 135 et seq.\n\n{159b}  Ibid., part I., vol. ii., p. 742.","title":"The Fair Haven","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":84447}