B 
 
 ij 
 
 i 
 
 iliiii i 
 
\ CF PR///, 
 
 .V 
 
 CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS. V^ 
 
 ^K'CV?5 19' 
 
 ^GiCALGeV 
 
 THE LECTURES CONS'lTTU IING 11 IF, COURSE IN 
 
 ETHICS AND APOLOGETICS. 
 
 / 
 
 PROF. CHAS. A. 'AIKEN, D. D, 
 
 FOR THK 
 
 MIDDLH AND SENIOR CLASSES. 
 
 PRINCKTON ThHOLOGICAL SkMINARY. 
 
 EDITED FOR THK CLASS OF 1880. 
 
 PRINTED. NOT PUBLISHED. 
 
 PRINCE TON: 
 
 FRBSS PKINTINU ESTABLISH UBMT. 
 
 1879. 
 
No man, whether learned or unlearned, 
 can have the faith which makes him a Christian, 
 without having a reason for it — Thos. Chalmers. 
 
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS. 
 
 PROLEGOMENA. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 " To believe in Christianity, without knowing why we believe it, is not 
 Christian faith, but blind credulity." — Whately. 
 
 " Though we cannot always give a reason for ic/tai we believe, we 
 should give a reason v-hy we believe it." — Boyle. 
 
 " Be ready always to give an answer to every one that asketh you a 
 reason of the hope that is in you." — 1 Peter iii, 15. 
 
 To him who would approach the subject of Christian 
 Apologetics, two introductory questions suggest them- 
 selves : 
 
 1. Why do I believe that I am a Christian ? 
 
 2. Why am I a Cliristiai\ in my belief? 
 
 These questions differ more in meaning than in lan- 
 guage. The first looks for its answer to the past : and 
 personal and sacred experiences are recalled. We may 
 answer 
 
 a. From the remembrance ot sudden conversion ; of 
 a gradual tendency towards Christ from early education : 
 From something which has opened the blind eyes, or 
 softened the heart. 
 
 h. Our present love and obedience give us an ad- 
 ditional source of faith in the fact that we are Christians. 
 To the second question, why ain I a Christian in belief? 
 and not a Jew, Pagan, Atheist, various answers may be 
 given. 
 
 a. Providential reasons may have decided ; early edu- 
 cation or circumstances. 
 
 But you must be able to point to some elements of 
 Christianity which have secured your deliberate choice. 
 You cannot say as a rational believer, that you merely 
 follow the faith of your fathers. 
 
 6. You may say, I have adopted the faith of Christen- 
 dom as that of the enlightened part of the world. 
 
But thi8 is 110 adequate reason. A Christian siionld 
 be able to give some sound statement of the reason for 
 demanding the same faith of others. Self respect re- 
 quires that we give a reason. Loyalty to our fellow men 
 demands it. The clearest intelligence on all matters of 
 religion is essential. We cannot affect to be ignorant of 
 these great questions. All men are in a sense becoming 
 inquirers. Faith in Christianity involves intellectual 
 elements, and there are reasons why we turn to Jesus as 
 our Savior. 
 
 Our work gives a demand for convictions of the 
 truths of Christianity, " I speak as to wise men : judge 
 ye what I say " is Paul's statement. (1 Cor. 10 : 15). 
 
 Three practical ends are attained by the study of- 
 Christian Apologetics. 
 
 (1.) Justiticatiou and confirmation of our own faith 
 as Christians. 
 
 (2.) Our better qualification to commend Christianity. 
 
 (3.) Our fuller confidence to defend our faith from 
 whatever purpose or from whatever quarter it is assailed. 
 
 Definition. — («.) " Christian Apologetics, is that part 
 of Theology which vindicates the right of Theology in 
 general, and of Christian Theology in particular to exist 
 as a science." (Lindsay in Encyclopedia Brit.) 
 
 Note. — This is not a full definition and provides only 
 for Theological and not for practical purposes. 
 
 6. " That branch which sets forth the historical cre- 
 dentials of Christianity. 
 
 This also is but a partial definition. 
 
 (c.) " The science which sets forth the principles ac- 
 cording to which Christianity is to be defended." (Hagen- 
 bach.) 
 
 This is an etymological definition, but is also partial. 
 
 (d.) " That branch of Theological Science, which sets 
 forth the proofs, that the claims of Christianity, as a re- 
 ligion, are justified." This is the proper and correct 
 definition. It is more than a mere defense of truth. 
 
 The term ApologeiUbs. — This term is of strictly Scrip- 
 tural derivation, but somewhat infelicitous on account of 
 prejudices. People ask, does Christianity need an 
 apology ? Christ and the Apostles did not apologise, yet 
 they justified and defended it. They used the term, 
 
d.7i<jXojia. The verb dizoloyiofmc means to defend, to 
 vindicate, or justify, not simply to apologise. 
 
 A-oloyia means tlierefore an answer which may be 
 aggressive as well us defensive. The Apostle Paul 
 speaks of his answer [a.7:okoYco) to the Jews. Acts 
 19 : 33 ; Acts 22:1; Acts 24 : 10 ; Acts 25 : 8-16 ; Acts 
 26: 1, 2; Acts 26: 24. 
 
 The relatke position of Apolof/elics. — The scientific stnd}' 
 of Christian Apologetics is of recent date, of this cen- 
 tury in fact. Though there is a unanimity of opinion 
 respecting the necessity of it, yet there is :i difference in re- 
 gard to its relative place in Theological study. Some 
 would put it in Practical Theology; the object in tliia 
 view is to fit the worker for defence; but Apologetics is not 
 merely the training for a Chi'istian soldier; it is for every 
 one. Others would combine it with Systematic Theology. 
 Its specific object, and the fulness and variety of its nui- 
 terial, claim for it a place of its own, and an early place 
 in the course of theological studies; for unless the 
 claims of Christianity as a religion are justified the 
 Christian docti'ine can have no more authority than other 
 systems. 
 
 JjUerature of Apologetics. — Manj^ works called apolo- 
 gies are specific and defensive in form, taking up special 
 points. Many of these aim to remove practical errors 
 and objections, and are designed to meet a hostile etate 
 of mind. Christian Apologetics addresses itself to the 
 Christian man, with tliis implication, that what binds the 
 Christian should bind others. In our day religions have 
 been compared as never before. Pli^'sical and Metaph3-si- 
 cal Science are constantly opening new fields, or present- 
 ing old thoughts in new forms. These must l)e noticed 
 in their relations to Christian Apologetics. We are not 
 bound to run after every new theory, yet tliere are times 
 when we canr.ot keep silence. Never has the literature 
 of the church, so largely taken the Apologetic form, as 
 at the present time, except during the Second Centurj-. 
 The Apologists of that century, aimed at practical result 
 with tlae Jews and heathen, and their conversion to 
 Christianity. So in the Middle Ages a special object 
 was in view. [Vide Farrar's History of Free Thought.) 
 
 In our da}' specific attacks have brought out a multi- 
 tude of treatises. The attention of men has been di- 
 
8 
 
 rected to the divinity of Clirist; again to Prophecy; 
 again to miracles; again it has been attempted to reduce 
 Christianity to natural religion. The XVIII. century 
 objected that its founders were impostors ;. the XIX. 
 century talks of myths and mistakes. Therefore Apolo- 
 getical literature is largely specitic, a body of apologizing 
 rather than of works of a complete and comprehensive 
 sort. The most successful way to retute, is not to try to 
 overthrow the error, but to build the truth into a system, 
 in which the skeptic finds himself satisfied. Our great 
 work is to point to Christ. For our own satisfaction 
 however, we must have both the power to refute and to 
 build. 
 
 Apologetics, including what has been cnWed fundamental 
 apologetics, involves the whole field of science. It eiiters 
 into every department of knowledge. For example, in 
 Metaphysics we must go back to the query, is there such 
 a thing as human knowledge ? If so, whait are its limi- 
 tations? — Is there any knowledge of material things ? 
 Can we have any knowledge of spiritual things? Does 
 the amount, or kind of evidence justify what religion 
 calls for ? Such are some of the questions which lie back 
 of Christian Apologetics. In another direction an im- 
 portant and essential consideration is, 
 
 The kind of evidence : — What can be known? The 
 facts of Christianity are various and must be established 
 by various kinds of evidence. Logic, as well as Meta- 
 physics must be consulted. If there is a God, are his 
 revelations genuine, or is doubt reasonable? Where 
 does refusal to believe convict a man ? These are ques- 
 tions which must be solved to get at some forms of un- 
 belief. 
 
 We shall be largely occupied, in discussing the sub 
 ject of Apologetics, with historical evidence. The world 
 has been, and is full of religions — Christianity is one of 
 them. In the midst of conflicting claims, and of errone- 
 ous systems, we find this to be the claim of Christianity, 
 and this is the proposition which we are to examine : 
 
 Christianity is the true, divinely sanctioned, and 
 authoritative religion, for us, and for all men. 
 
CHRISTIANITY AS A RELIGION. 
 
 Christianity is a religion, bnt not the only religion. 
 Judaism, Molianimedanism, Buddhism and a host of 
 other systems are religions. All these are species. 
 Religion in itself is more generic. We are therefore to 
 inquire into the relative and absolute excellence of 
 Christianity as a religion, not as a civilizing power. It 
 vfould be unimportant to prove that it is a civilizing 
 power. Christianity is to be asserted as the true religion, 
 not a true religion. It is not to be denied that there are 
 elements of truth in other religions, but Christianity is 
 the ti'iie religion. It is the divinely sanctioned religion, 
 not a divinely sanctioned religion. Other sanctions have 
 been superseded by the sanction that has been given to 
 Christianity. It is the authoritative religion. In one 
 sense Ciiristianity alone is a religion, because it alone 
 tills out the conception of religion. Other systems do 
 not deserve the name. But this leads us to the import- 
 ant question, what is religion? And more specifically 
 what is a religion ? 
 
 We may give three distinct methods of reaching a 
 definition in answering this question. 
 
 (1) The Etymological method. Tliis advances us but 
 a little way. Single words only set forth one side : one 
 view. Moreover the terms have had a hidden origin, 
 which does not increase our confidence in them. Fol- 
 lowing this method we have the term, RelJgio, according 
 to some from i-e(ir/ere, meaning " to reconsider, to review." 
 (Cicero) This shows that the aspect of religion at that 
 time was a careful, scrupulous, conscientious reflection 
 on the objects, the relations, the duties with which reli- 
 gion is concerned. Others derive the word from religare, 
 to bind back, to rebind (Augustine and Lactantius) but 
 the former etymology is now generally accepted. 
 
 In the New Testament the corresponding word is 
 6pr^a/£ta—Yk\e, Acts 26 : 5 ; Colos. 2:18; Jas. 1 : 26, 27. 
 
 Three etj'mologies are given of this Greek term : 
 
 (a) From (fr)ai an obscure derivation, probably the 
 Thracian mysteries. (6) From Tf>i(o to tremble, (c) 
 
10 
 
 From &pico to murrnnr. Another word used in N, T. to 
 designate religion is 8ecacdat{x6vca. Vide, Acts 17 : 22 : 
 Acts 25 : 19. 
 
 The Old Testament contains no distinct term. It 
 speaks of " man's walk with God," of the " ways of 
 man," etc., and in the book of Proverbs religion is called 
 " wisdom." Etymology then gives us little help in ascer- 
 taining the true significance of the term. 
 
 (2.) The Historical Method. 
 
 This consists in taking differpnt religions and finding 
 out by con)parison, what is common to them all, and so 
 forming. a generic idea of religion, or in taking a single 
 religion, and eliminating the non-religions elements and 
 thus reaching a true idea of the term religion. The 
 difficulty with this method is the wide difference between 
 various systems of religion. 
 
 (3). The Inductive\\lethod. 
 
 This consists in studying the life of individual reli- 
 gions, or religion in individuals. 
 
 That is the most satisfactory definition which is pro- 
 duced by the combination of more than one of these 
 methods. 
 
 Dt'Jimtioiis of Religio7i. To an atheist religion is an 
 illusion, an error. He has no definition to give to reli- 
 gion as a reality. A deist does not deny a God, but he 
 reduces man's relations to God so much, that he can 
 have little religion. From various authorities of all 
 shades of belief we quote the following definitions of 
 Religion. 
 
 " The observance of the moral law as a divine ordi- 
 nance." — Kani. 
 
 " Faith in the moral order of the universe." — Fichte. 
 
 " An a priori theory of the um\ evse."— Herbert Spencer. 
 
 " Religion is a mode of knowing and worshipping 
 God." — 2'he Reformers. 
 
 " Faith in the reality of the idea of God, with an ap- 
 propriate state of mind and mode of life." — Breischneider. 
 
 " The relation of revelation to man, and of man to 
 revelation." — Hartmann. 
 
 " The relation between man and the superhuman 
 powers in which he believes." — Tiele. 
 
 " Man's recognition of God, and his way of manifest- 
 ing that recognition." 
 
11 
 
 *' Man's life in personal communion with God." — 
 Van Oosterzee. 
 
 "A mode of knowledge, thought, feeling, action, 
 which has the divine as its object, its ground, and its 
 aim." — Nitzsch of Berlin. 
 
 This is the best definition, and most suitable for the 
 end and purpose we have in view. Note its excellencies. 
 
 (1.) It makes a distinction between knowledge, 
 thought, feeling and action. 
 
 (2.) It recognizes the divine as the object of knowl- 
 edge, of thought, of feeling, of action, 
 
 (3.) It is thus easil}' applied to specific religions, while 
 it is a general definition. 
 
 Divisions of Prolegomena. — .Religion includes (1) A 
 subject. (2) An object, and (3) Some intercommunica- 
 tion between the religious being and the object of re- 
 ligious 'regard. These will be considered in their rela- 
 tions as follows : 
 
 I. Phenomenology of Religion. 
 
 II. Psychology of Religion. 
 
 III. Different theories of the origin of Religion. 
 
 IV. Criteria of Religion. 
 
 V. Relations of Religion to morality, 
 
 VI. Significance of Religion as an element of life and 
 history. 
 
12 
 
 I. 
 
 PHE^OMElNOLOGY OF RELIGION. 
 
 There are three points to be considered. 
 
 (1.) The Subject. (2.) The Object. (3.) Actual his- 
 torical manifestations. 
 
 1. Ihe Subject of Helic/ioji. — In whom or what does it 
 exist? of whom is religion predicated? In answer to 
 these inquiries we say. 
 
 A. We predicate reliorion of man, and only of man. 
 We are not concerned with any beings above or below 
 man. God's relations to man constitute religion, but we 
 do not predicate religion of these relations. They are 
 never called religious relations. 
 
 B. Religion is predicated of all men, not merely of 
 some. There are those who assert that it is to be predi- 
 cated only of some men : that there are some men who 
 are not religious: this is obviously and plainly an error. 
 Religion is not confined to any stage of progress of civ- 
 ilization, as the Positivist claims. There have been, 
 and are, no men on earth, so far as we know, who are 
 not religious. In regard to the majority of men there 
 is no question. The only question is, (1.) with degraded 
 classes, (2.) with men like John Stuart Mill ; philoso- 
 phers who claim that they are in no way religious. In 
 regard to (1.) of these classes it is asserted that there are 
 races who have no religious natures. In "Force and 
 Matter," Dr. Biichner asserts that there are tribes 
 among whom there cannot be foujid any idea of religion, 
 or conception of God. Sir Jobn Lubbock takes the 
 same view. Sir Samuel Baker takes the, same ground 
 in regard to certain tribes in Africa. These denials are 
 based on knowledge and unprejudiced observation. No 
 one can deny the degraded condition of those tribes ; 
 but the number of non-religious men found, is so small 
 thus far, that we must wait before accepting any con- 
 clusions, until more is shown in regard to them. More- 
 over their degradation is so great that they cannot give 
 
13 
 
 I any coherent ideas in reorard to their own belief. Peo- 
 [»le can only be said to be without religion, when tliey have 
 no idea of the Infinite. " Simple lack of faith in the 
 moral order of the world does not prove that they have 
 no religion." (Bretschneider.) 
 
 Dr. Motfatt, the missionary, in asserting that some 
 tribes have no religion, means it in the higlier sense of the 
 term. E. B. Tytor, in " Primltwe. Culture " Vol. I. p. 
 378, takes up all such statements as the foregoing, and 
 after examination says that they do not rest on proof suffi- 
 cient for an exceptional state of things. He then can- 
 vasses these assertions. He cites a case in regard to the 
 aborigines of Australia, and denying the claim that they 
 are without any super-natural beliefs, says, " they have 
 most positive belief in souls, demons, and deities." 
 
 French missionaries found partially developed ele- 
 ments of religious belief in South Africa. Tylor ex- 
 plains that savages seek to hide their worship from 
 foreigners. This accounts for many supposed absences 
 of religious elements of life and character. Tiele, 
 (" Outlines i if the History of Religion," p. 6,) says in regard 
 to these statements tliat they rest either on inaccurate 
 observation, or confusion of ideas. The conclusion from 
 all this is that so far as we have investigated, all men 
 have religious ideas and observances. 
 
 C. Religion is an essential function and characteristic 
 ofman. It belongs to the very nature of man. Thereare 
 two positions taken in regard to this. 
 
 (1.) That man became religious. 
 
 (2.) That he was made religious. jS either -of them is 
 true. Man is by nature a religious being; what is so uni- 
 versal and spontaneous, must be traced to his nature. 
 The very diversity of religions strengthens the argument 
 that religion is natural, and necessary to man. 
 
 Henry Rogers says, " man's religious instincts are in- 
 eradicably rooted in man's nature." The proof of the es- 
 sential character of religion to man is the same as that 
 for intelligence, and moral sense. Tyndal in the Preface 
 to his Belfast Address, (2d Edition) says, " no atheistic 
 reasoning can dislodge religion from the heart of man. 
 Logic cannot deprive us of life, and religion is life to the 
 religious : as an experience of consciousness it is beyond 
 the assaults of lo^ic." 
 
14 
 
 D. Religion belongs to the conscious and voluntary 
 phases of human life — it is not an unconscious and invol- 
 nntary state. The conditions, circumstances and sur- 
 roundings may have an influence in moulding man's 
 religion but this does not prove that religion is an uncon- 
 scious passive state. We never ascribe i-eligion to any 
 wlio are incompetent of voluntarily adopting it. 
 
 E. Man is a religious being by virtue of the posses- 
 sion, and in the use of the faculties, which constitute him 
 a moral agent, i. e. intelligence, sensibility, and con- 
 science. These endowments make man religious and de- 
 velop religious life. Yet moral and religious relations 
 are not identical. The spheres of the ethical and re- 
 ligious are to be distinguished, though the same man 
 sustain both relations, and this, by virtue of his possess- 
 ing and using the same faculties. There are those who 
 hold the independence of morality. (The moralistic 
 school in France.) Morality and religion require the 
 same substratum. 
 
 2. The Object of Religion. — That to which religion is 
 related as object is God. This isa[)plicable to the higher 
 forms of religion. For the lower forms, a wider gene- 
 ralization is needed. We accept from Natural Theology 
 that there is a God. There are certain lines of reasoning 
 whereby the existence of a God is proved. This is not 
 however necessary: man's nature clinging, longing, 
 reaching out for something super-human, tells him there 
 is something, whether he may interpret it into God or 
 gods. Men may not rightly interpret what things point 
 to the true God: the}^ ma}' not reason correctly: they 
 may not fashion any theory that approaches it, yet they 
 have by what may be an erroneous process of reasoning, 
 all reached some idea. The incompleteness of nature, 
 and its teachings thus makes a revelation of some sort 
 necessary. The supernatural then, supplements this feel- 
 ing after God. God comes thus to meet man in his 
 search, though he may not recognize the approach. 
 Man's own natural reasonings not only come short, but 
 they entirely miss the true God. We therefore find that 
 the world's worship has almost alwaj's been rendered to 
 the unworthy. Vide Acts 17 : 23-30 ; 1 Thess. 4:5: 
 Colos. 1 : 21 ; Gal. 4: 8; 1 Corinth. 12: 2. 
 
15 
 
 Tlie firsi chapter of Romans is far more philosophi- 
 cal, in saying that men did not like to retain God in their 
 knowledge, than the skeptic, when denying revelation, 
 in trying to explain this degradation. Notwithstanding 
 these monstrosities, no man can attribute them to God. 
 He has given them the means of knowing. The doctrine 
 that man has sunk from an earlier, better state is more 
 intelligible and defensible, than the theory ot develop- 
 ment and elevation. 
 
 Positivism insists on the insufficiency of both natural 
 and revealed religion. The centre of the new religion 
 is the great conception of Humanity. By it the idea of 
 God will be superseded. The object of the worship of 
 Positivism is not an infinite, absolute, incomprehensible 
 being. It is reached in a scientific way : there is no 
 mystery about it. Comte claims, that chemical, astro- 
 nomical, sociological, biological tests can be applied to it. 
 The question is, do we need these ? 
 
 Perfection is in no wise claimed for it. Defects are 
 sought for in order to be corrected. Again, the concep- 
 tion of the object of his worship could not be formed 
 till after the French Revolution. Were the longings of 
 our nature, through ages crying out after an object of 
 worship, that could only be satisfied after the French 
 Revolution ? 
 
 Rather than for such an object as this " my heart and 
 my flesh crieth out for the living God." 
 
 3. The Actual Historical Manifestations of Religion. — 
 A. Phenomena connected with formal public worship. 
 Pressense says " All ancient forms of worship are based 
 on four institutions, viz: Sacrifices, Priesthood, Temples 
 and Religious Festivals." These are the pillars that up- 
 hold religion. Condensed into three and changed in 
 order they are (1) Places prescribed for public worship. 
 (2.) Observances, and (3) Persons set apart to conduct 
 worship — Priesthood. 
 
 (1.) Places set apart for worship. History and Soci- 
 ology call attention to provisions made everywhere for 
 places for public worship. E.Kamples of this are the 
 temples of Greece and Italy ; the pagodas of India and 
 China; the mosques of Mohammedan countries; the 
 relics of Druidism in Great Britain ; churches and cathe- 
 drals everywhere. 
 
16 
 
 The depth of the religious convictions in man is seen 
 in the elaborate and costly way in which these edifices 
 are built. They are not the mere caprice of architec- 
 ture; they reveal an idea and purpose as clearly as the 
 walls of a fortress or a dungeon. 
 
 (2.) Observances connected with worship. As one 
 observes these many and varied ceremonials of different 
 stages of civilization, he is impressed with the fact that 
 they are the work of anxious thought. There is a religio 
 evidenced. Enormous exactions are made of men, and 
 submitted to by them. Besidef=^, all these voluntary offer- 
 ings are made, and duties assumed. Offerings not only 
 of material wealth, but sometimes in the form of torture 
 and fanatical sacrifices of virtue and life. Asceticism is 
 prescribed or assumed. Pilgrimages are undertaken, 
 that are long and wearisome. In India, in the Roman 
 and Greek Catholic churclies, in Mohammedan conn-- 
 tries to Benares, Jerusalem, Mecco, pilgrims are always 
 seen wending their way. The most protracted toil, the 
 most that is sacred to self, or in self, is surrendered ; 
 wealth, life, chastity, the blood of the first born, are 
 willingly given up. 
 
 (3.) Individuals, families, castes, are set apart for the 
 culture of religion. The cause of this is not merely the 
 ambitious grasping of certain men, but rather the wijl 
 of the people that tlie deit}' or deities niay be most effec- 
 tually served or propitiated. Sacrifice is usually com- 
 mitted to these hfnds. Where the patriarchal system 
 has passed away, it is the priest who offers sacrifice. 
 Worship is led by this specialh- privileged class: even 
 prayer is sometimes deputed entirely to priestly orders, 
 as if it were more acceptable from his sacred office. The 
 heart's whole n'eaning must be expressed ; how shall 
 this expression be made ? This question is left for 
 the priest. Yet in view of all this atheists say that the 
 conception of God is merely human. 
 
 B. Phenomena connected with the private life of men. 
 In the Roman home places were set apart for tiie family 
 gods (penates). The Greeks recognized this idea of 
 family divinity, embodied in the Goddess of the Hearth, 
 " Eazia ( Vesia). Priestly character is ascribed to the head 
 of the house in his own sphere. Business, however im- 
 
17 
 
 portant, is arrested for the sake of worship, at the call of 
 the muezzin in Mohanimedan h^iuls, and the curfew toll 
 in Catholic countries reaches every ear and stays every 
 hand. All these facts show that relijjion cannot be 
 brona;ht too near the individual heart, and that it is not 
 safe to be without it. Nominal Christianity is oft^n re- 
 buked by heathenism in that it does not I"»rin2; religion 
 into this nearness to private and family life. It would 
 be hard to make religion more general I3' persuasive, 
 than Homer has done in his poetry, or than the Romans 
 did wiien they began every new undertaking with relig- 
 ious observances. The verdict of all humanity is, that 
 religion inust not be wtM'u as an ornament. 
 
 C. Phenomena in connection with faith or creeds. 
 
 These are sometimes philosophical, sometimes doc- 
 trinal, sometimes mythological, and often without any 
 definite form whatever. All religions imply a revelation 
 of the deity. The contents of this revelation or discovery- 
 are embodied in creeds. Men do not seem to believe 
 tliat God wishes to remain uid-cnown. This however is 
 the intellectual element in religion, and therefore is least 
 developed, and sometimes missing in the lower forms. 
 
 The intelligent observer sees what the followers of 
 these lower forms believe without knowingor beingable 
 to formulate. Sometimes creeds are embodied in myth- 
 ology. In these the imagination has taken the longest 
 flights. In others, the most concentrated thought is 
 devoted to religion. (Compare Gladstone's Juventus 
 Mundi, cliap. VII.) It is not true that these systems are 
 creations of the poets. Tlie poets give form to them, 
 and elaborate them ; but the elements of them are in the 
 minds of average men. 
 
 The strong hold that religion has taken on man as an 
 intellectual being, is made evident from these phenom- 
 ena. 
 
 -D. The social element of religion. 
 
 Men do not hold religious beliefs as isolated beings, 
 as if each had a God of his own. They need fellowship, 
 and communion witli each other. Union and sociability 
 in religion is one of its most marked characteristics. Tliis 
 points to oneness of nature and origin in one direction, 
 and in another it points to fellowship in religion asessen- 
 
18 
 
 tial. Mail is concerned in man, as wftll as in God. 
 Religion is sympathetic : the rehitions of race, nationality, 
 social and domestic ties contribute much towards bring- 
 ing religions beings together. This sociability is not 
 due to mere pride of religion, but to the demands of man's 
 nature. 
 
 When the religions of the world are spoken of, 
 more or less organized forms of belief and of action are 
 signified, in which considei-able numbers of men agree. 
 When an individual man is spoken of as of this or that 
 religion, it is meant that by his own assertion, or observ- 
 ance, he agrees substantially with oiie or other of these 
 organized systems. The term employed to designate 
 any leligion ma}- be taken fi'om some internal charac- 
 teristic of the .system, or from some historical or geo- 
 graphical feature. On the ground of a man's declared 
 creed, or his association with those of a certain system, 
 he may be called a religious being, though actually he 
 is irreligious. Some religions are called historical and 
 national : scientifically they are those which have a sci- 
 entific development in history. A positive religion is 
 one wliich rests on aji external authority in all matters 
 pertaining to belief or observance. They differ from 
 natural religion wliose authority is internal. Natural 
 I'eligion however is a misnomer. There is no such thing 
 definitely accepted as Natural Theology except in tech- 
 nical tlieological usage. 
 
 4. I'ype.s of the World's Religions. 
 
 Various classifications have been proposed. These 
 are either determined by the philosophical theory of 
 their authors, or by some practical aim in view. The 
 most natural and best classification, is that given by 
 Paret. He groups the religions according to their 
 idea and conception of the divine object of religious 
 regard and worship. According to this classification 
 there are two general groups of religions. 
 
 A. Those which conceive God within and of nature, 
 called religions of nature. 
 
 B. Those which conceive God above nature, — called 
 supernatural religions. 
 
 Nature here does not mean merely the material 
 objects, but also the forces and phenomena, or even con- 
 
19 
 
 ceptions of the human mind. No intensifying of any 
 natural religion can make it supernatural. 
 
 A. JRelif/ious of Nature. 
 
 (1.) Non-mythological or (2.) mythological religions. 
 These mny he suhdivided into various species as 
 
 (1.) Non-mythological, — comprising those in which 
 the ohject of worship has no personality, hut spirituality 
 is ascrihed to it in its t\)rm or modes of working. 
 
 Some of the religions of this class are, 
 
 {a.) Fetichism, as developed in Africa, among the 
 American Indians, and in i>iii-ts of Asia. The ohject of 
 worship is sonie material substance as a stone, tree, etc., 
 anything that represents an idea of divinity. If this 
 ohject does not suit, it may he whipped, burned or 
 destroyed. This is the lowest of ail tN'pes of religion. 
 
 [h.) Shamanism as developed in central and northern 
 Asia, and to some extent in North Europe. The objects 
 worshipped are spirits, addressed through conquerors. 
 It prevails extensively though the number of worship- 
 pers is comparatively small. 
 
 {c.) That in which the worship is addressed to the 
 elements or to the heavenly bodies, fire, wind, and the 
 sun as representative forms of the deity. 
 
 [d.) That in which the heavens and earth or some 
 power back of them, in a general way are worshipped. 
 It existed in China before Confucianism. Ancestor wor- 
 shij) is associated with this type. 
 
 (2.) Mythological religions. These comprise, 
 
 [a.) Those in whicli tiie object of worship is external 
 nature, personified and deified. 
 
 {b.) Those in wdiich human ideas and conceptions are 
 personified and deified. Of these again, (a) would 
 include 
 
 («.) Old Indian religions. The religions of the Vedas. 
 
 (/3.) Religions of Western Asia, Syria, Phrygia, and 
 Carthage. In these the prominence is given to the 
 productive power of nature. The sun, the masculine 
 element : the moon the feminine, and fire as the destroy- 
 ing agent, symbolized by Baal. Astarte and Moloch. 
 
 {•(■.) The Egyptian, in which a natural principle is 
 worshipped, symbolized by some animal, as the bull, the 
 ibis, etc. The animal form is often combined with the 
 
20 
 
 human. This reliijion shows how the hnmati heart can- 
 not he content with such ohjects of worship, for when 
 the synihol dies, tiiere is a great wailing, 
 
 (6). This chiss will include : 
 
 (a). Greek and Roman religions. 
 
 (/9), Persian, where a large use is made of natural 
 symbolism. 
 
 {y). Old German, where we find ideas of moral char- 
 acter. 
 
 {3). Buddhism, which calls existence itself an evil and 
 makes salvation consist in annihilation, {Nirvana). This 
 religion shows best of all that it is impossible for man to 
 arrive at the true object of worship without revelation ; 
 that the true religion must Iiave been revealed, divinely 
 founded, which leads us to consider the 
 
 B. — Supernatural Beligions or following the same class- 
 ification. 
 
 (3). — Supra-Mythological Religions. 
 
 These are religions of revelation, or corruptions of 
 revealed religions. The deity is conceived of as supra- 
 mundane and extra mundane. The unity of God is also 
 recognized, as well as his infinity and perfection, and 
 holiness of character. He is acknowledged to be the 
 author of man's existence as well as of religion, and rep- 
 resented as coming to meet man in revelation. This 
 class includes — 
 
 (a). The religion of the Old Testament. 
 
 (b). Christianity, 
 
 (c), Mohammedanism, a mongrel of the other two, 
 with some elements added by Mohammed hiiiiself. The 
 differences between Judaism and Christianity may be 
 stated thus : 
 
 1. There is a dilFerence in the fulness of the Divine 
 manifestation, 
 
 2. There is a difl^erence in the degree of doctrinal de- 
 velopment. 
 
 3. In the measure in which the intended results are 
 realized. 
 
 Christianity excels in all these, though the identifica- 
 tion of Jesus as the Messiah, is the only new element in 
 the New Testament. Mohammedanism is a human cre- 
 ation, and yet it contains a part of revealed religion. It 
 
21 
 
 professed to be a reformation of Judaism ;ind Christian- 
 ty, with new revelations of wliich Mohumnied was the 
 organ. It recognized six great prophets, A(him, Noah, 
 Abraham, Moses, Jesns, Mohammed. It is intensely 
 hostile to idolatry and polytheism, and aims at a strict 
 system of morality. 
 
 There are other systems of classification, with differ, 
 ent criteria. Some set up historical tests; others suit- 
 ableness for universality ; others influence in politics ; 
 others again the type of worship, external or internal, 
 spiritual or material. From these religious manifesta- 
 tions, it is a[)parent that man does pay some deference to 
 his God ; that he seeks intercourse with his creator with 
 the purpose of attaining to some good or escaping some 
 evil. Tliat he recognizes his whole life as coming under 
 tlie power of religion. 
 
 The multiplicity of religions is bewildering. Some 
 it moves to indifference. They say it matters not what 
 a man's religion is, so long as he has one. This brings 
 us to the question, what should be the type of our re- 
 ligion ? whicl) we shall consider under the Psychology of 
 Religion. 
 
22 
 
 II. 
 PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION. 
 
 Man's inner nature is actively engaofed in religion, 
 as has been made manifest by the consideration of the 
 external phenomena of religion. What then is the 
 nature of this inner activit}' ? This question resolves 
 itself into two, viz. (1.) How many and which moral 
 faculties are in exercise in subjective religions? (2.) In 
 what order do they come into activity ? 
 
 As preliminary considerations in this discussion 
 notice 
 
 1. The spiritual oneness of man. 
 
 2. The necessity of so generalizing as to cover all 
 types of religion, the lowest as well as the highest. 
 
 1. How many and in hicli faculties are exercised ? 
 
 a. There are intellectual elements in exercise, and yet 
 religion is not wholly intellectual. If religion have God as 
 its end, there must be knowledge and thought of God's 
 claims on man. One test of the highest types, though 
 not the only one, is the degree of intelligence 
 wliich they imply. There is a more vivid conception 
 of the claims and relations of God with man in these 
 than the lower types. Yet care should be taken not to 
 go to the extreme of ultra intellectualism. Rationalism 
 and supernaturalism care more to have man's views right 
 than his heart. This would make knowledge and belief 
 too nearly identical. Orthodoxy does not alone consti- 
 tute religion. The O. T. describes religion as wisdom, 
 not as an exercise of mere intelligence. 
 
 h. There are emotional elements indispensable to 
 religion and yet religion is not wholly emotional. Hope, 
 fear, love, trust, all iind utterance in religion, but these 
 mere sentiments are not alone religion. Schleiermacher 
 makes godliness a determination of feeling : others make 
 religion to consist in [rious frames of mind. These 
 belong to the ultra-emotional school of thinkers. Mys- 
 ticism is as abnormal as rationalism. Faith is neither 
 
23 
 
 wliolly ii sentiment, nor only an intellectual apprehen-' 
 sion. 
 
 c. The will has no less really its part in subjective 
 leligion, and yet the si:)here of" religion is not bounded 
 l)y the will. The mere spontaneous development of 
 leligious feeling is not religion. Some jtliilosophers go 
 to the extreme of making the will the birth place and the 
 origin of religion, (e. g, Kant and the school which 
 tMJIows him). The Romish church holds this theory: 
 tliat the individual has little or nothing to do in himself, 
 lint he goes to the church, as to a teacher, and thus 
 exercises his will in following out her requirements. 
 Hence he becomes, in this view, religious. 
 
 (/. Religion calls into exercise tlie function of con- 
 science, and 3'et it is an error to explain religion as orig- 
 inating and consisting merely in conscience. 
 
 C'ertainly conscience does not supply the conceptions 
 of what we cherish most in religion. It is not conscience 
 which is reverent, trustful, loving, grateful, fearful. Con- 
 science passes Judgment on our treatment of the idea 
 and facts of religion ; on the way wc cherish and rnani- 
 test the sensibilities ; it approves or condemns the course 
 we take, and all that wo do in matters of religion. 
 
 2. The order of Psycliologiccd development. 
 
 Is there any order in the way in which these facul- 
 ties come into exercise ? Any antecedence of one to the 
 rest? That either the will or the conscience takes the 
 [)rocedence in the order of Psychological development, 
 is claimed by no one. There is a dift'erence of opinion 
 in regard to the relative position of the intellectual and 
 (Muotional element. There are those who make the 
 conviction of the reality of the ideas of God, truth, and 
 immortality the root of all religious development, and 
 that the emotional element closely follows upon this. 
 On the contrary side, Schleiermacher and his school of 
 tljinkers claim that religion is an immediate feeling, the 
 sense of absolute dependence. Others regarding this as 
 too vague and unsubstantial define religion as the " con- 
 sciousness of God:" others still objecting to these ideas 
 say, that" religion begins with faith. Morall, an English 
 authority, traces religion to a distinct and separate fac- 
 ulty which exists as a primary element in our nature. 
 
24 
 
 Jacobi, Fries, Pascal speak of a moral orc;an, a moral 
 faculty b}' which we come to know the snpersensual and 
 divine. As to the existence of such a faculty we need 
 not assume or concede it, if the other powers are suffi- 
 cient for the development of all that belon<Ts to relicijion. 
 The true view of the order of Psychological development 
 is, that religion implies (a) the discovery and at least 
 partial identification of relations existing between man 
 and God; but these need not all have been comprehend- 
 ed. It further implies (b) the recognition of feelings 
 corresponding to these relations, and also the manifesta- 
 tion ot them. In our endeavor to ascertain which is the 
 prior faculty exercised in the development of religious 
 ideas we will do well to emphasize 
 
 (1.) The spiritual unity of man, 
 
 (2.) The universality of religion. 
 
 With these points in view we must make the hypoth- 
 esis we accept include and explain all actually existing 
 circumstances. We must hence 
 
 a. Reject all explanations of the origin of religion 
 which talk of man's consciou.'^ness of God. All these sys- 
 tems are chargeable with Pantheism. However quick 
 our apprehension of God, we are not conscious of Ilim. 
 He does not come to the consciousness of himself in us, 
 
 b. We must reject all theories, and forms of state- 
 ment, which imply that feeling is cognitive. Feeling 
 does not know, does not take cognizance of anything; 
 can give no information of its own source or end. It is 
 bewildering and misleading to ascribe intelligence to 
 feeling, " It is a state of mind consequent on the con- 
 ception of some idea," (Bowen,) Some maintain that 
 "faith is a knowing on the ground of feeling," (Schleier- 
 macher.) This overturns our idea of feeling. It be- 
 comes an idea. Dependency implies the idea of some- 
 thing above, on which we are dependent. All feeling 
 must be able to justify* itself to some idea. 
 
 c. We must recognize as equally natural to man, and 
 in a sense equally primary and fundamental to religion, 
 the cogjiition and religious sentiments belonging to it. 
 It is no more true that the idea of God is innate in man, 
 than that religion is a part of his nature. Both are pri- 
 mary. But the sentiment can only be called into exer- 
 
25 
 
 cise toward its own appropriate object and cause. On 
 tlie other hand, there is no religion in the mere posses- 
 sion of the idea of God ; both are equally essential and 
 fundamental. Vide. Bibliotheca Sacra, October, 1876. 
 Bowen on the " Source of the idea of God." l*rof. 
 Bowen gives a three-fold source of the idea of God, viz : 
 
 Reason, Sentiment and Conscience, neither one 
 exclusive. 
 
 God the ruler in one wa}-, God the lovely and Just in 
 another, and God the holy and good in another way, is 
 the result of each of these ideas. 
 
 True and perfect religion does not exist until the 
 right Reason, the right Sensibility and the right Con- 
 science are exercised. 
 
 As appertaining to this subject, the Contemporary 
 Review says : " The God of Pliiloso}ih\' is the product of 
 speculation ; the God of religion is an object of worship. 
 In the latter case God must be conceived of as a person 
 or power standing in a relation to the worshipper; but 
 in the former, the deity is the Urst or final conclusion or 
 proposition in a system of reasoning for truth." As 
 against this it is claimed that God has made provision 
 for the knowledge of himself in the natural endowment, 
 and in the experience of every man which attests of him. 
 He has made provision for the awakening of the relig- 
 ious sensibility. He has placed in us a poweFto express 
 our state, and with all this the functions of conscience. 
 Paul at Athens, found men very i-eligious, yet their con- 
 ception of God was an erroneous one. So was it among 
 the Jews, and so in the world's religions there are many 
 awful lacks. 
 
26 
 
 III. 
 
 DIFFERENT THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF 
 
 RELIGION. 
 
 The old Materiiiiistic Philosophy of Lucretius and 
 Cicero, {De Natura Dear urn), asserted that fear made God. 
 
 The Natural Development Theory, brings the progress 
 of religion through seven stages of development. 
 
 (1) Atheism, ^2) Fetichism, (3) Nature Worship, (4) 
 Shamanism, (5) Idolatry, (6) Principle Worship, (7) The- 
 ism and Pantheism. 
 
 This is unscientific as well as unscriptural. It fails to 
 account for most of the phenomena of religion. Thus 
 Henry Buckle, in "The History of Civilization in Eng- 
 land," says that History is the modification of man by 
 nature and of nature by man. He excludes the super- 
 natural, and holds that Monotheism was prior to Poly- 
 theism. 
 
 Herbert Spencer claims that " the general theories, 
 Atheistic, Pantheistic and Theistic, are all unthinkable. 
 All creeds imply a problem, which they attempt to solve. 
 As we go from the lower type of creeds to the higher 
 ones, it becomes evident that the universe and the Crea- 
 tor are greater mysteries. The deepest and widest of all 
 facts, is that the power of the universe is inscrutable." 
 To the question how did man come to the idea of God, 
 he gives the following answer : 
 
 (a). — That man comes to an idea of dualism in nature. 
 
 {b). — That the first traceable conception of a super- 
 natural being, is a ghost. 
 
 (c). — From the conception of a ghost, he passes to 
 ancestor worship. (The first step in worship.) 
 
 {d). — Idolatry and Fetichism are abnormal, or aber- 
 raDt developments of ancestor worship. 
 
 (e). — Animal worship, and plant worship, are further 
 developments of the same thing, a progress away from 
 the worship of lifeless objects. 
 
 (/). — The worship of Deities. 
 
27 
 
 In reo^ard to tlie Semitic conception of God he sava, 
 '• that it is not to he snpposed tliat they caine hy their con- 
 ception in any dift'erent way from the rest of the worhl, 
 i. e. by any snpernatural means." This is the general 
 natnral deveU)pnient tlieory. 
 
 Specific TheorU's of the Origin of Belif/ion. — These are 
 tive in n timber. 
 
 A. The Political Theory : That religion is a device of 
 statesmen and rulers, to move the people to obedience to 
 the laws of the state throngli fear of occult powers. 
 Hence so called Supreme beirigs. This was the theorv 
 of Bolingbroke. Hobbes held, that " religion is the fear 
 of the invisible powers that the state recognizes." 
 '' Superstition," he held to be " the fear of those invisible 
 powers which the Rtate does not recognize," Tliis theory 
 implies a susceptiliility or tendency to religion of which 
 statesmen have taken advantage; but it is a shallow and 
 suiierticial explanation, because it does not see the extent 
 of thcf^e religious apprehensions, emotions, and obsei'v- 
 aiices. 
 
 B. Ti\e Physical Theory. — Tlie influence and phenom- 
 ena of nature, has so po we rfullj' affected the emotions, 
 the reason, the imagination of man, tliat these excited 
 sensibilities seek an object above and bej'ond nature 
 which has aroused them. Among savage men the im- 
 agination alane prevails almost entirely; therefore, tlieir 
 reliii^ion is fantastic. Amono: civilized and enliijhtened 
 men, the imagination is subject to the reason. First, 
 there is a belief that there are occult powers; then tliat 
 there are claims upon him by these occult powers, and 
 80 the actual religions are tlie results of the attempts 
 made to satisfy these claims. Tliis theory is in accord 
 with the ancient and modern philosopliy. 
 
 [Vide Volney and Biichner). Even some of the 
 Christian fathers when asked to account for religion, gavrj 
 tliis as their explanation. This, however, fails to account 
 for the early appearance and general prevalence of re- 
 ligion. 
 
 C. The Selfish Theory. — Hume sa3's, " the ignorant 
 and uninstructed, finding their own happiness or misery 
 depend on the secret influence, and unforeseen concur- 
 rence of external objects, regard with perpetual attention 
 
28 
 
 these unknown causes that distribute pleasure and pain, 
 good and ill to men. So, startino^ with mere re<]^ard for 
 one's own welfare, men reach the higlier forms of re- 
 ligion. Wljile this theory miujht explain a few phenom- 
 ena, it fails to do justice to the nobler aspects of life. 
 
 D. The theory thai religion originates in a primitice, super- 
 natural revelation. — This theory was held by many early 
 theologians, Catholic as well as Protestant; according to 
 it, man had the endowments of religious possibilities in 
 his nature, out no I'eligion until God began the super- 
 natural endowment ot man, with religion. There could 
 have been no development without this supernatural 
 revelation. According to the Scriptures, however, God's 
 witness in his own behalf in nature, is sufficient for re- 
 ligious oblio^ation and reliii^ious life. Man's nci^lect of 
 this, brings on him the guilt of ungodliness. 
 
 Revelation was not meant to supply a defect of nature, 
 and make the religious life possible. It was to guide 
 man to the right religious life. A supernatural revela- 
 tion would have been unintelligible to one who knew 
 nothing of religion. 
 
 E. The tlieory that religion began., in God^s revelation of it 
 to man, in nature. — Antecedent to the Supernatural inter- 
 vention, there is provision made for the revelation o'f a 
 system of religion, in nature. There are agencies in na- 
 ture which are reinforced by Supernatural agencies, in 
 the organization of religion. According to thi? theory, 
 man starts to find God in the way of nature. God comes 
 to meet him in the way of grace. Notice in this connec- 
 tion (1) How much more is told and known of God 
 than nature can tell ; ('2). How abundantly all man's 
 natural impulses are justified. (3.) How desirous God is 
 to be rightly known and reverenced. 
 
29 
 
 IV. 
 THE CRITERrA OP RELIGION. 
 
 The tests by which tlie exellencies of any relii^ion 
 may bo tried, are to be considered next in our order of 
 investiij^ation. When asked to accept one, or to reject 
 another, or to clioose from a number of religions, the 
 question becomes a practical one. The ancient lawgivers 
 and philosophers recognized three tests, and used them 
 to justify existing religions, or to eradicate errors. 
 
 (1). The traditional or prescriptive right of any re- 
 ligion to exist. 
 
 (2). Truth to reason. 
 
 (3). Truth to the great claims of morality. 
 
 (VVhen the ancients spoke of morality they usually 
 meant social and political morality). To these may be 
 added two other tests. 
 
 (4). The practical eifects, and 
 
 (5). The special and direct divine attestations in be- 
 half of one system above all others. 
 
 (1). The test of traditional or prescriptire right. — Plato 
 appeals to the uopo:; -dvoco:;, the custom or usage of the state 
 — {nios civitatis) — ra e&fj. (Acts 6: 14). This was used 
 by the Jews when they were condemning Stephen. 
 There are many things which support such systems. 
 National pride, reverence to ancestors, respect for sages 
 and for what they liave respected and accepted. All 
 these tend to strengthen this test. The ajiproved usage 
 may be called into question ; in such cases in ancient 
 times the oracles were appealed to; pontitis were recog- 
 niz*ed as arbiters. The Romans permitted the introduc- 
 tion of other systems of religious worship, if these were 
 not exclusive. In the conquered states, free course was 
 allowed to the native religions, but it was only as a mat- 
 ter of political expediency. They kept secret the 
 name of their protecting god ; while they wished to 
 avail themselves of the protection of other patrons, they 
 did not wish others to avail themselves of their advant- 
 ages. It is always the case that the new faith as an in- 
 
30 
 
 triider lias to overcome the traditional faith. This argu- 
 ment is used by Catholicism as against Protestantism, 
 and at times by Christianity. {Vide Archb. Whately on 
 the fallacy of believing in a faith, only because it is old). 
 This is a presumptke argument, though it cannot be 
 made a prime argument in favor of Christianity. 
 
 (2.) Truth to Reason. — Tiie application of this test' 
 may bring on the rejection of a system, or its correction 
 in those elements which are deemed irrational, or it mav 
 result in the confirmation of its claims. Some of the 
 Greek Schools of Philosophy rejected their mythologies, 
 others refined and ailegoi-ized them by simplv using this 
 test. Cliristianity itself invites in many w[\\s the ai:)pli- 
 cation of it. It asks acceptance as a reasonable system. 
 It also concedes the right of judgment in regard to other 
 systems, on the same criteria. It is not rrjeant that this 
 test should be ajiplied to each individual doctrine, but 
 only to the basis on which the whole system rests. Paul 
 at Athens makes this appeal. He compares Christianity 
 with heathenism on rational grounds. In using this test 
 such questions as the following should be answered (a.) 
 Is the system in its different parts consistent with itself? 
 (b.) Do its revelations harmonize with the simpler ele- 
 ments which it takes from natural religion ? (This ques- 
 tion can only be asked of a system which claims to be 
 revealed.) (c.) Does the system harmonize with the 
 constitution of the world which it must suit ? (d.) Is the 
 system suited to man's constitution ? Is it worth}' of 
 man as a religious being? Does it promise to meet his real 
 and pressing wants ? Does it give the remedial needs 
 which his nature requires? All these questions bring 
 out the internal evidences of the truth of a s3-stem. 
 
 (3.) Iruth to our Moral Nature. — The old Greeks rec- 
 ognized this test and ])rotested against the immoralities 
 of the mythological gods. In this respect however tiie 
 Greek and Roman religions were better than those of 
 the farther east, Assyrian, etc. A system should neither 
 condemn nor be indifferent to, but it should promote 
 moral interests. This was recognized by Greek phil- 
 osophers, though in their idea of evil they emphasized 
 what was aesthetically wrong, rather than what was con- 
 trary to the holiness of God. As used by them the test 
 
31 
 
 included taste us an element in morality. A religion 
 ought not to commend by example, or by ordinance, or 
 by institution, anything which is inconsistent with the 
 moral consciousness of rnai!. But evei-y religion should 
 consent to be tried by this test of its truth to man's moral 
 nature. 
 
 Of these three tests the tirst would be used by tlie 
 people, while the use of the last two would to a certain 
 extent be limited to men of thought and reason especially 
 with a view to refining and elevating their national relig- 
 ion. The old heathen systems were not aggressive, 
 therefore it is that the ancients did not ask whether these 
 systems were suitable for others: the question with 
 them was, what is right for us? What the}' put in the 
 first [)lace of importance we put in the last and thus 
 make more U3e of the rational and moral tests, taking care 
 to admit the right of reason and moral nature to estimate 
 the merits of a religion alread)' given tis, but not to create 
 a religion. The appearance of Christianity necessitated 
 comparison. It claims to come with evidence that will 
 overbear all other faiths At lirst it had the weight of 
 the traditional or prescriptive test against it, but soon 
 presented other grounds of excellence — and thus devel- 
 oped 
 
 (4.) The practical test ; the practical effects of a religion 
 as a valid and vital test of the reality and strength of 
 its claims. By practical effects are meant (a) Effects 
 on the intelligence. The intellectual conceptions be- 
 longing to a religion cannot be barren or confined 
 merely to outward observances ; they must be prolific 
 and that not in a temporary, but permanent manner. 
 A true religion should invigorate the mind, while 
 error always has the opposite effect. If the mind be not 
 thus consolidatCvl the religion does not bear the test. 
 Compare Polytheism and Monotheism, Idolatry and 
 the worship of a spiritual God; Pantheism and the 
 worship of a personal God ; Fatalism and free intelli- 
 gent worship of a Being who rules by moral law ; Mate- 
 rialism with supernaturalism in their effects on the 
 intelligence of man. 
 
 [b.) Effects on the emotional tastes and sensibilities. 
 If the results are mischievous in this respect the religion 
 
32 
 
 fails to bear the test. If they are salutary the religion 
 is salutary also. In examining the etfects on the emo- 
 tions, we should ask, (1.) what emotions are developed ? 
 (2.) in what degree and proportion are they called forth ? 
 (8.) to what purpose they are elicited, (4.) how does the 
 indulgence excited react upon the mf)ral nature of man, 
 e. g, liumility is dcveh)ped, but it may be developed too 
 much. It may become servility. Admiration, conse- 
 cration, love, fear, confidence, gratitude should be devel- 
 oped b}' religion. We ask can they be developed by 
 the contemplation of such religious objects as the gods of 
 Polytheism; or if they are, to wliat extent and purpose 
 are they developed. 
 
 [c.) Effects on the aesthetic nature of man. The sub- 
 lime and beautiful should lind their climax in true relig- 
 ion. 
 
 {(I.) Other practical effects. It should be asked, 
 how does a religion influence the conduct of its votaries ? 
 What things do men do when they give tliemselves up 
 to the influence of their religion ? These practical effects 
 may be classed (1.) Religious observances called for: 
 (2.) general activities of life: compare in regard to the 
 former, the effects of the formalism of many types of 
 religion, with those of true heart religion. The God who 
 wili accept formal and perfunctory worship is not wor- 
 thy of even that. In regard to the latter, compare those 
 religions wliere cruelty, licentiousness, and passion are 
 indulged, or intensified, with those under whose influ- 
 ence they are curbed or crushed, and instead of them 
 the domestic and social activities are elevated. This 
 test was applied to the old heathen religions, by such of 
 the ancient apologists, as Arnobius, Lactantius, Clem- 
 ent of Alexandria, etc. It is legitimate and applicable to 
 all religions. 
 
 The four foregoing tests may be applied to all relig- 
 ions equally. But as soon as a distinction is made between 
 natural and supernatural religions, then it is necessary 
 to use the fifth, or, 
 
 5. Special Divine attestations in favor of one form of re- 
 ligion. — The presence or absence of these is a test of the 
 absolute and comparative claims of a religion. The 
 special attestations must be of the nature of general com- 
 
33 
 
 miinications, macleixndantlienticatedby God, or of expres- 
 sive and si g:;iiifi cant acts performed in belialfof the re- 
 ligion wliicli the divinity would have men accept as true. 
 It has been argued against Christianity that revelation is 
 su|)eilluous ; that it is im[)ossil)le ; that it cannot be sus- 
 tained by human testimony ; that it cannot be sustained 
 by the evidence of the senses; that in all its alleged 
 forms it is unrelial)le, having been tampered with or 
 altered unconsciously. If these positions are defensible, 
 all religions are concerned in the issue. There are three 
 steps in establishing the claim of divine attestation : 
 
 (a). To prove that such attestations can be regarded 
 as possible under any circumstances, 
 
 (6). That they arc probable under certain circum- 
 stances, and 
 
 (c). That they are attested in any given system.. 
 
 A. That such attestations can be regarded as possi- 
 ble under any circumstances. 
 
 (1). Against the revealed religions it lias been argued 
 that revelation is superfluous. That such attestation 
 would not be superfluous, appears from the entire relig- 
 ious history of the world, as well as its present religious 
 condition. A correct interpretation of nature is not and 
 never has been common. This is granted by even those 
 who estimate man's abilities most highly. No nation, 
 nor even a solitary philosophei-, has come to a full knowl- 
 edge of the true religion of nature without help from 
 revelation. It is agreed on all hands, that the religions 
 of the world have been siginxlly defective and false. If 
 these divine attestations are not real, then they are worse 
 than superfluous, because they are an invasion of man's 
 prerogative, vitiating the spontaneous and natural con- 
 ceptions to which he would have come without this 
 alleged help. But the burden of proof falls on those 
 who make the claim, that man need not be helped by his 
 God, and that relis-ion is rendered higher without such 
 helj). 
 
 It is not necessary now to ask why man has failed. 
 It is enough to know that he has failed, that he needs 
 help, and that therefore revelation is not superfluous, 
 
 (2), That an appropriate and suflicient attestation to 
 the true and accepted religion by a deity desiring and 
 
3^ 
 
 delighting in worship and service, seems certain, if it be 
 possible, is indicated by the constitution of man, and 
 adaptation of nature. He who has inclined us to look 
 after him, will not stop at the rudimentary knowledge that 
 we thus acquire, unless there is a sufficient reason for it. 
 If he has any delight in any particular type of religion, 
 he will signify that preference by further instruction and 
 sufficient attestation. It is objected, however, that this 
 argument proves too much ; " if God desires to be wor- 
 shipped, and if attestation to some form of worship as 
 preferable to all others is needed by us, and possible to 
 Him, He will provide such attestation as v/ill convince 
 and persuade men. He will supply such attestation as 
 will have, an actual efficiency, as would be conclusive to 
 all, and everywhere, and to the fullest extent." In an- 
 swer to this ; notice that the objector goes beyond any 
 warrant, unless it can be shown that the actual and uni- 
 versal elFectiveness of these further attestations, will not 
 unduly encroach on human freedom, impair or degrade 
 virtue, and imperil some other moral interest. We hold 
 it impossible that such results can be shown. God makes 
 a revelation, provides for it attractions, and furnishes 
 evidences which facilitate its spread. We have no right 
 to say that if there is a revelation it must be universal ; 
 that because it is given as limited it is not genuine. If 
 revelation is not discoverable everywhere it may be dis- 
 coverable somewhere. We are led to look for a revela- 
 tion somewhere, by preliminary and partial revelations 
 in nature. We should not therefore require of a revela- 
 tion that it be necessarily effective. 
 
 (3). That direct and positive attestations to the posi- 
 tive and even to the exclusive excellence of some religious 
 system above others, seem to be entirely possible. There 
 is no difficulty lying in the way of revelation so far as 
 we can see. That God should express his preference 
 does not seem to be a task for his omniscience and om- 
 nipotence. There is no baffling or limiting element in 
 the end to be reached through such an expression, and 
 as for the means, it is not fitting or possible for us to say 
 in advance what kind of measure of sanctioning evidence 
 must be given to convince us; nor is it our province to 
 say that this or that line of evidence will be sufficient for 
 
35 
 
 a priori reasoning. The very fact that the probability of 
 revehition is proved, ought to make our attitude that of 
 the patient, expectant, eager, interested inquirer. It is 
 not a matter of indifference as if it did not concern us 
 whether there were an attestation from God or not. 
 Perfect mental equit}' and the impartiality of indifference, 
 are not to be confused the one with thi* other. 
 
 B. It is claimed in behalf of some religions that they 
 have received such special divine attestations, and that 
 they are supported by them. In one group we find Mo- 
 hammedanism, Judaism and Oliristianity, with the Pa- 
 triarchal type of religion. 
 
 Candor, simple love of truth and integrity require 
 us to examine the evidences for such an attestation. 
 Some systems claim to have revelations without accom- 
 panying attestation. All these must be examined. We 
 must inquire whether it be only an alleged, or a real 
 divine sanction. It is not necessary to wait for new 
 claims ; the first considered may seem so conclusive as to 
 demand our faith. Yet he who loves truth will not re- 
 fuse subsequent claims brought to his mind, but will 
 consider them. A Jew was bound to remain such until 
 God had shown him a new system, until Christianity 
 presented to him its conclusive warrant for its claims. 
 
36 
 
 V. 
 RELATIONS OF RELIGION TO MORALITY. 
 
 These are — 
 
 (1). Historical. (2). Theoretical, and (3). Practical. 
 
 1. The Hisifvical Belations of Religion and Morality. — 
 There are some thinf^s to be considered in regard to the 
 historical relations of the world's religions to the world's 
 morality. The problem is to ascertain and to estimate 
 the connection that has existed between the morality and 
 the religions of the world. What each of these two 
 systems has been to the other, or done for the other. 
 The examination of this question would bring up, 
 
 (1). The fo.ct, in answer to the question has religion 
 had an}' relation to morality ? 
 
 (2). The nature of this relation, and 
 
 (3). The direction and measure of their reciprocal in- 
 fluence. 
 
 In all religions of human origin, men have undoubt- 
 edly fashioned their objects of worship largely in their 
 own moral likeness. The religious code and ritual, have 
 taken their character from the character of the people. 
 
 The moral nature ot man may force him to put some 
 restraint on himself; a restraint which by nature ho 
 would not bear. Naturally he is neither disposed nor able 
 to fashion a religion which will be powertully and radi- 
 cally antagonistic to evil. For the most part the relig- 
 ions of man's devising confine and intensify his existing 
 moral state. Even revelation comes to the eye of man, 
 through the moral state in which the recipient is 
 found, unless he that gives the revelation accompanies it 
 with influences potent enough to prevent this. It is his- 
 torically true, that man's moral state .has corrupted his 
 religion. The moral elements are wanting in Fetichisra, 
 according to Herbert Spencer; so other lower religions 
 lack these moral elements; thci'efore it is inferred that 
 in the earliest stages of civilization, there was no moral 
 element in religion, but that it was gradually developed. 
 But it is hard to ascertain just where it makes it's ap- 
 
37 
 
 pearance. It is not developed from within, it must como 
 from without. We must admit a powerful reciprocal in- 
 fluence between a people's morality and their relit:;ion. 
 Let either be reduced to a minimum, and the influence on 
 the other is [jowerfully felt. Both are too deeply rooted 
 in the constitution of our nature, and too vitally con- 
 nected to allow us to grant their historical separation. 
 History accords with the teaching of Scripture in regard 
 to this. 
 
 Spencer says th;it " we read history thi-ongh the lens 
 of our religious faith," It may be said ofliim, that he 
 reads history through the lens of his philosophy. 
 
 2. Theoretical or essential relations of Religion aad Mo- 
 rality. — Religion and n\orality are not identical phetjom- 
 ena. The}', maj', however, be connected in the posses- 
 sion and use by man of certain faculties. The moral 
 faculties do not deal with precisely tlic same objects, 
 under the same impulse, and in precisely the same way 
 as the religious faculties. They ditier in the method of 
 their development, as well as in their essential nature. 
 We define morality to be the ordering of a man's life 
 according to his moral ideas; that is of obligation and 
 duty, of right and wrong. These conceptions may be 
 incomplete, or incorrect ; the subjection of the life to 
 them may be slight, fitful; yet there is something con- 
 ceived of as right, and man orders his life according to 
 this conception. The life then has amoral character; 
 morality is predicated of it. 
 
 In the stricter sense, morality is predicated of a life 
 in which the application of these moral ideas to conduct 
 is evident and consistent. By religion is meant an order- 
 ing of human life in which the desire is the object, 
 ground and aim, of knowledge, thought, feeling and ac- 
 tion. All religion has some moral quality, and all ideas 
 of morality are involved in a religious life in its every 
 part. Whether the facts and principles of religion have 
 in like manner and degree as much to do with morality 
 is debatable. To say that religion is not moral, would 
 be to say that the conscience has nothing to do with it. 
 It would reduce it to a physical basis. " The ethical or 
 moral, ideally is, that which it is normal for man to will 
 and to do." (Martensen). " The human will's consent 
 
38 
 
 to, or concurrence with what is normal," is his practical 
 definition of the ethical or moral in man. The former 
 is the morality that ought to he, the latter fairly repre- 
 sents that which is realized. This definition has the ad- 
 vantage of covering many of our restricted and qualified 
 uses of the term, and exposes the falsity of its abuses 
 and perversions, by callingattention to the false standard 
 of morality. The normal standard by which man is to 
 be morally judged, will vary in different parts of his life, 
 or as his life is viewed in different aspects. Philosophical or 
 theoretical ethics finds its standard in reason, or the con- 
 stitution of our common humanity; Christian Ethics 
 finds it in the facts and principles, and in the spirit of 
 Christianity as modifj'ing what before seemed to be good 
 and right ; Social Ethics finds it in man's relations to so- 
 ciety ; Po/Z^iCrt/ Ethics in his relations to the State ; Legal 
 and Medical Ethics in what, according to a right concep- 
 tion of those branches of science is normal, or is made 
 normal. The most fundamental element in morality is 
 the sense of obligation. There is that which our life 
 ought to be, all moral sensibilities assert that the moral 
 lite is noi a necessitated life, or an aimless life. It is not 
 a life directed and moulded by chance, or self-determi- 
 nation. We know and feel ourselves to be under obli- 
 gation in respect lo the mode and quality of our life, both 
 as a whole, and in its parts. 
 
 ((7,). When this personal sense of obligation comes to 
 deal with the details, the idea ot'dut.)/ is evolved. 
 
 {b). When dealing with the qualitj^ of our moral states 
 and acts, the idea of rirlue is developed. 
 
 (c). When directed towards the ends which we should 
 seek in life, it gives us the idea of subordinate and su- 
 preme good. These three ideas may be arranged in dif- 
 ferent orders, but they are indispensable. They may be 
 elaborated incompletely, directed wrongly, but never 
 set aside. 
 
 We ask now, what are the relations of religion and 
 morality to each other ? To Atheism religion has no 
 right to exist at all, and sustains no relation. It has less 
 warrant than the creations of the novelist or poet. On 
 the ground of Theism there are six different theories that 
 may be held in regard to these relations. 
 
39 
 
 A. One of the two may be regarded as including and 
 absorbing the other. 
 
 (1). Morality may be cojiceived ot'as merged in relig- 
 ion, so as to have only a nominal existence. This is the 
 theory of consistent mysticism. Devotion to, contem- 
 plation of, and love tor God, is according to this system, 
 the all embracing duty. 
 
 (2). Religion may be merged into morality. This is 
 the general tendency of the extreme forms of rational- 
 ism. (The Illnminism of the last century; the Masonic 
 systems, etc.). 
 
 B. (3). Religion and Morality may be held to be es- 
 sentially distinct and different, so that either may exist 
 in its entirety without the other. That each must justify 
 its existence and maintain its right on its own ground. 
 This is the theory of the Naturalistic Schools of Philoso- 
 iphy. There is a French school which advocates morality 
 fully developed, without any recognitic^n of God what- 
 ever. 
 
 C. Both morality and religion may be conceived of, 
 as having a rightful existence, but one decidedly subor- 
 dinate to the other. 
 
 (4.) Religion is conceived of as fundamental and 
 primary: morality as subordinate and secondary. This 
 has been a common view with theologians in so far forth 
 as they have been disposed to recognize the validity of 
 the results of philosophical research. Dr. Wardlaw in 
 " Christian Ethics " chapter VII, makes Religion and 
 Morality substantially equivalent. Morality, is'Religion 
 in practice, and Religion is morality in principle. Vide 
 Dr. McCosh "Divine Government " (p. 405.) 
 
 (5.) Morality conceived of as more primary and fun- 
 damental, and religion subordinate. This is Kant's 
 philosohical theory. The rationalistic theology of Kant, 
 derives our belief in God, from our moral ideas, as well 
 as well as our belief in immortality. 
 
 D. (6.) Religion and morality may be conceived of as 
 equally necessary and in a sense equally primary, and 
 therefore as co-ordinate developments in human life, 
 closely and vitally connected, yet not identical ; not prac- 
 tically separable, if either is to become true, full and 
 complete; yet the true life is influenced by considerations 
 
40 
 
 of different kinds, belongins; to each of these two spheres .- 
 in morality duty to right: in religion duty to God. 
 
 We now pass to the consideration of some points at 
 which morality and religion either agree or diverge the 
 one from the other. 
 
 (1.) Both have their ground in our constitution as 
 human beings. They are primary elements in our nature : 
 original impulses. Botli are called for and necessary for 
 a full complete development of manhood. 
 
 (2.) Both have reference to objects external to Our- 
 selves, whose claims upon us are real and valid, and 
 must be met if we would be true and just men. There 
 is a call from without for a moral and religious life, not 
 only from within. As we come to meet these claims 
 they are not annulled, but become wider and stronger. 
 Thei-e ought to be progress in religion : a Christian 
 ought not to be satisfied witli wliat contented him in the 
 beginning of liis religious life. 
 
 As differences between the two spheres of life may 
 be noted, 
 
 (3.) In respect to the relative position of the objects 
 with which they have to do. To religion God is the 
 central object, and all other things take their places about 
 Him: their relations to man depend on their relations to 
 God. From Hiin they acquire their significance. Life 
 is a circle, the centre of which is God. All things nre 
 referred to this centre and treated accordingly. Morality 
 has not necessarily- this object. It deals with each object 
 on its o\tn merits, emphasizing the claim of right with 
 regard to everything. Liie is a plane, in wliich all these 
 things lie, and each must be separately treated and con- 
 sidered. There is an intrinsic rigljt in every separate 
 case ; therefore an atheist may have a system of morality, 
 treating everytldng directly and immediately and ignor- 
 ing God. 
 
 (4.) In the quality of the claim which they assert, and 
 exercise overman. In religion it is the will of a personal 
 God which comes constantl}' into consideration. He is, 
 and is Lord, and whatever we ought to be in consequence 
 of religious relations, we ought to be in consequence 
 of our relation to Him. In moralit}' the claim is the 
 abstract claim of an abstract right; something desirable, 
 
41 
 
 fitting, obligatory. In this view right is not conceived 
 as something anterior or superior to^God. On the other 
 hand it is not created or contingent. Both the claims 
 of right, and the absolute claim of God are real, God 
 has so made ns that by the constitution of our being we 
 recognize right and wrong. We ieei that we owealle- 
 giance to both. We do not conceive of God as more 
 .primary. If so there would be a time when it could not 
 have been predicated of him. God however creates the 
 relations which bring right into manifestation. Men may 
 unwarranted deny one of these claims, or divorce theiri 
 unnaturally while professing to admit both, or regarding 
 them as valid separately. Ethics and morality are incom- 
 plete without the knowledge of God and his claims. 
 Therefore Ethics must recognize natural and revealed 
 religion. In morality the power working for good is a 
 power wholly within the moral agent. It depends on 
 the nature of the individual and is kept alive by abstract 
 considerations. It is influenced by the training, educa- 
 tion, inclinations and sensitiveness of the moralist. Pride, 
 hatred of religion may prompt the moralist to a vigil- 
 ance, a steadfastness, an earnestness which a Christian 
 may lack. 
 
 Usually however where the claims of religion are 
 recognized, there is a more healthful, a more eftective 
 eftbrt; then the voice of conscience becomes the voice 
 of God. The double call makes men more earnest and 
 more successful. 
 
 3. Wluit shonld he the practical relations of religion and 
 moralitj/. — It is evident that they both have their place in 
 life. The question is, what should each do for the other. 
 In answer, notice that religion should reach over into 
 morality, in order to make itself more complete and per- 
 fect, and to lift morality to its true place and dignity. 
 And morality too, will Ije misproportioned in its devel- 
 opment, and incomplete in its results, unless it reaches 
 into constant relation with religion. 
 
 Morality cannot, and should not be content with 
 recognizing God merely as one of many co-ordinate ob- 
 jects, that have claims on men. The small and great, 
 the eternal and transient, the fundamental and super- 
 ficial should not thus be considered alike. There is no 
 
42 
 
 equity in treating all claims as equal. If our sense of 
 right is to be vigorous and effective, it is essential to 
 have it in constant relation with God. A religion that 
 would live secluded from the common claims of moral- 
 ity, will run into Mysticism or Formalism, and a moral- 
 ity that would divorce itself from religion, becomes hard 
 and cold, censorious, self-righteous, ostentatious and 
 punctilious. 
 
43 
 
 VI. 
 
 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RELIGION IN LIFE 
 AND HISTORY. 
 
 Under this head we consider the significance of relig- 
 ion as a phenomenon in life, and the importance of reach- 
 ing the true religious faith. We are confronted with 
 wide-spread irreligion of the world, and its free-religion- 
 ism. We are asked (1) of what consequence is it that 
 we be religious, and (2) of what consequence is it that we 
 be rightly religious. Great multitudes all over Christen- 
 dom are irreligious. Are they at fault, and if so, to what 
 extent ? This answered, we are met by the free-religion- 
 ists, who claim that all men are divine travelers, travers- 
 ing the same road, their faces set toward the same object, 
 the same light on them, if they but see. We take up the 
 first question : 
 
 (1.) What consequence is it that we be really relig- 
 ious? To this we answer, if man is by nature a relig- 
 ious being, irreligion is in the lowest view of it, a neg- 
 lect, and a dishonor of a natural and an essential part of 
 the true, full human life. Manhood is dethroned where 
 religion is left out of it. Because man's highest powers, 
 his noblest, purest sensibilities are the objects with which 
 religion deals. He who would be a complete man, must 
 be positively and energetically religious. Irreligion is 
 explained in various ways. 
 
 It may be (a) the effect of a besotted and brutalized 
 life ; or (6) due to indifference, levity and negligence ; 
 or ((?) due to greater vividness in the pressure of material 
 occupations, secular interests ; or ((/) it may be traced to 
 a positive disinclination or aversion to the claims of a 
 religious life : or (e) it may be the result of a reaction 
 against prevalent religious abuses and errors; or finally 
 (/) the legitimate and logical result of false speculative 
 reasoning. Against irreligion from whicliever source it 
 may arise, we should press the claims of God, and of 
 right. We should not, however, treat all irreligious 
 
44 
 
 people alike, but discriminate with a view to the origin 
 of their irreligion. 
 
 (3). Of what consequence is it that we be rightly re- 
 ligious? It is claimed that the intrinsic difference between 
 truth and error, is a very little thing. It is hardly worth 
 while to find out error, say the objectors, for God is so 
 indiflferent to all forms of religion, that it matters not 
 which we embrace. Exclusiveness, according to this 
 view, is the only unpardonable sin. (Col. Higffinson.) In 
 answer, notice, if He who has made us religious beings is 
 not a prodigy of indifference, there is, there must be, a 
 right form of religion, which it is of the highest import- 
 ance that we identify. There is a right and a wrong way 
 and side in everything else. It is monstrous to assert 
 that religion is an exception to this general rule. "To 
 admit the possible realty of the objects and relations 
 Avith which religion deals, necessitates the utmost perse- 
 verance in seekinof the truth in regard to such relations." 
 (Thos. Chalmers). Even natural religion, if its leadings 
 are followed, presses upon us the necessity and duty of 
 ascertaining if God, who gave his revelation in nature, 
 has given us any larger, or fuller, or final one. 
 
 Having discussed the several heads of the Introduc- 
 tion at length, we now come to the consideration of our 
 System of Christian Apologetics as already defined and 
 stated. 
 
45 
 
 CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS. 
 
 11. 
 CHRISTIAJNITY IN PARTICULAR. 
 
 Christianity claims to be the only true, divinely sanc- 
 tioned, and authoritative religion for us and for all men. 
 What is meant by Christianity ? It is that religion whose 
 nature and claims are set forth in the Christian Scrip- 
 tures of the Old and New Testament. It belongs to Sys- 
 tematic Theology to examine the details of doctrine ; for 
 the purpose of Apologetics it is enough to identify the 
 system as follows : Christianity is the system, whatever 
 it may be found to be on examination, which, in regard 
 to its details, in the Scriptures, is as their complete and 
 final result, announced, established and provided jfor. 
 So far forth as it is a form of thought, or feeling, or ac- 
 tion, in reference to the divine, it is the Scriptures which 
 are to direct us how to think or act. 
 
 Characteristics of Christianitij. — (1). Christianitif is a 
 revealed religion. If this claim cannot be established, 
 its great distinctive characteristic is given up. It has no 
 gratitude for those who call it the Ijfest, but not the re- 
 vealed religion. 
 
 (2.) Chrisiianitfi is a historical religion not merely in 
 the looser sense, that it has figured conspicuously in his- 
 tory, or influenced history, but that it has a prolonged, 
 minute historical account to give of itself; a historical 
 progress and a communication of it to men. It has an 
 unfolding and an account of this unfolding. And this 
 is not merely a human account of a divinely given sys- 
 tem, but a divine account. It is closely and vitally 
 identified with certain documents. Its claims are 
 dependent largely on the historical accuracy and nature 
 of these documents. 
 
 (8.) CJiristianity is a positive religion. It does not 
 merely commend itself to us, by intrinsic excellencies, 
 
46 
 
 bat it commands authoritatively man's acceptance of it 
 and man's compliance with it. It is however, winning 
 and attractive. It has the divine as its ground and source, 
 as well as its object; it derives its authority from God. 
 
 (4.) Chistianetij is a rational religion. N^ot as origi- 
 nating in human reason ; there are systems which can 
 claim nothing farther than this ; not as professing to bring 
 all its elements into the comprehension of human reason ; 
 but simply as submitting its credentials to the adjudica- 
 tion of reason. It challenges the right of reason to 
 impe*ach its mysteries ; it never admits tiiat it could have 
 originated in human reason, but it claims that as God 
 made man a rational creature, He does not contradict 
 reason in Christianity. It demands of men, that they 
 act on its mysteries, as well as on those things which 
 reason comprehends. It claims that reason is honored 
 and not reproached by bowing to it. 
 
 (5.) Qlirisdanity is an Ethical Religion. — It not only 
 presents, but invites moral tests. It is based on moral 
 instinct, sensibilities and the conscience. It claims to 
 promote all the interests of morality. It throws light on 
 the moral decisions, increases precision and promptness 
 in moral judgments ; it claims to refine the motives, to 
 make the sensibilities delicate, steady and harmonious. 
 It adds to the significance of the sanction of morality. 
 But as religion has the divine as its aim, Christianity 
 claims to bring man into living union with the divine. 
 
 (6). Christianity is a world religion. — There are not many 
 religions that make this claim, or could maintain it. 
 Christianity has a basis of facts, which adapt it to the 
 needs of all. It makes provision for what all men are, 
 and for what the}' need. Its methods to accomplish the 
 fulfillment of man's needs are suited to all. It has 
 been tried more widely than any other religion, and its 
 adaptation has been proved more variously and widely. 
 This is not a mere accidental result, but one which was 
 contemplated. Those who pronounce it a religion in- 
 tended for a single type of men, or devised to meet any 
 local or transient state of society and of man, mistake its 
 whole scope. It is not merely a Jewish religion, nor 
 merely suited to the time of Christ. It claims and ex- 
 pects to be widely spread and to suit every class of men. 
 
47 
 
 (7). Christiamty is distinctly adapted to a special, intellectual 
 and moral condition of the race. — It is universal, because it 
 is specific. It docs not propose to give relief to a few 
 men only, or to provide for the imaginations of a fow. 
 Christ indeed absolves the righteous, but considers that 
 if an}' think themselves righteous, they are worthy of 
 condemnation. 
 
 The revelations of Christianity concern all men. Its 
 provision 8 are needed by all, and its summons are addressed 
 to all, because the moral condition of all is the same. 
 All men are liopelessly ignorant unless enlightened by 
 Christianity. If one per cent, of the human race were 
 in a condition not needing Christianity, it would fail in 
 its claim. It is specitically adapted to a certain moral 
 condition, but this condition is universal. No other re- 
 ligion addresses all men and offers to make of them what 
 they should he. 
 
 (8). Christianity traces its earthly origin to a. personal 
 founder, in a sense and to an extent which is true of no other 
 religion. — Some religions are growths, such as Brahman- 
 ism, and the Greek and Roman Mythologies; others are 
 institutions, such as Mohammedanism, Confucianism, 
 Buddhism. 
 
 Christianity as compared with all institutions, is 
 unique in the place wliich its founder assumed, and which 
 tue system ascribes to him. In the other systems the 
 founders stand outside and point to them as finished 
 rules of faith. Christ places himself in the centre of his 
 system. Faith in Mohammed does not occupy the same 
 place in the system of Mohammed which faith in Christ 
 occupies in Christianity. When Christ is rejected, the 
 very essence of Christianity is rejected, so that in one 
 sense, popularly speaking, Christianity is Christ. 
 
 The object of the system is accomplished, when a 
 special relation with Christ is eft'ected or established. 
 There are those who say that Christianity was founded 
 by Paul. That Christ would have earnestly disclaimed 
 what men believe concerning him, under the guidance of 
 Paul. We do not find this to be true ; forms of speech 
 may differ, but when we compare what Christ claimed 
 and what Paul taught about him, we find them the 
 same. 
 
48 
 
 (9). Christianify closely confines its doctrinal and its vital 
 elements. — What it requires of men to do, is the result of 
 what it asks them to believe. While it insists on a new 
 life, it builds the right life on truth as distinguished from 
 error. One cannot live the life which Christianity re- 
 quires, except for the reasons that it gives. 
 
 Some of its facts lie within the sphere of visible things, 
 others within the sphere of invisible things. The latter 
 are to be received on faith, Christianitv cannot be com- 
 municated without a right apprehension of its doctrines. 
 The outer}' against dogma, rests on the absurd assump- 
 tion, that one can live just as well with one conception of 
 truth as with another. All the doctrinal elements of 
 Christianity are vital, but dogma implies abstruse reason- 
 ing. The body of doctrine and the quality of faith, or 
 the objective and subjective work of the Holy Spirit are 
 inseparable. 
 
 (10.) Christianity is an exclusive religion. — Modern free- 
 thinkers consider this a reproach. Christianity claims it 
 as a distinction. They say Christianity is a sect. We 
 accept the issue, " neither is there salvation in any other." 
 Christianity would stultify itself if it were not exclusive ; 
 if it admitted that its precious sacrifice had nothing defi- 
 nite about it. The charity' of the free-thinkers is to be 
 distrusted. It is not genuine catholicity. 
 
 (11.) Christianity is the final religion. — This is denied by 
 the free religionists. They say that analogy leads us to 
 expect, that the end of all revelation has not passed. 
 Hence there may be another change ; God has not 
 exhausted his resources. Moreover, it is a disparage- 
 ment of ourselves to say that we are not as worthy as the 
 Jews to receive a new religion. In answer, notice : 
 
 (a.) That all the righttul antecedents of Christianity 
 pointed to it. It points to no successor. 
 
 (6.) It reaches the utmost wants of man. The pre- 
 ceding revelations did not meet all these wants. 
 
 (c.) It was brought to the world, by the Son of God, 
 Who that is higher can bring a better revelation. It was 
 established and extended by the Holy Spirit : what more 
 exalted agency shall establish and extend another S3'stem ? 
 
49 
 
 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 GENERAL CONSIDERATION. 
 
 1. Is the establishment of the proof of Christianity 
 within the reach of evidence ? It is sometimes said, that 
 religions truth is not within the reach of evidence. The 
 question belongs to Metaphysics and Natural Theology. 
 It is again said that thono;h religions trntli is not altogether 
 inaccessible to our faculties, yet no religion is supported 
 by* sufficient evidence. The certainty of religious truth 
 cannot be reached. The world possesses as yet no ade- 
 quate logic for that department of thought whicli lies 
 be3'ond our immediate experience. Therefore no imag- 
 inable evidence can be sufficient to support any religion. 
 A sincere theorist ought to have no difficulty in giving 
 a definite answer on this point. 
 
 The God wliom Natural Theology makes known to 
 us is surely competent to indicate the way in which we 
 are to think of Him. On the other hand, tlie human 
 mind which is capable of appreciating God in nature, can 
 appreciate additional religious knowledge. There is no 
 more intrinsic difficulty in God's saying " this is my 
 beloved Son," than in his saying through nature, " I am 
 what I am." (R. H. Hutton.) 
 
 (2.) If the establishment of truth is not beyond the 
 reach of evidence, what kind of evidence will establish 
 it? There are three kinds of evidence : 
 
 (a.) Intuitive Evidence. 
 
 (6.) Demonstrative Evidence. 
 
 ((?.) Experimental, Probable, or Moral Evidence ; 
 more generally known as Moral Evidence. This lat- 
 ter kind of evidence differs from the former two kinds. 
 
 (1.) In that it depends partly or fully on experience ; 
 (2.) In that it admits of degrees of conclusiveness ; (3.) 
 In that it may involve the balancing of truths seemingly 
 opposed to one another; (4.) In that it involves moral 
 elements in the act of the inquirer or reasoner. It calls 
 forth the use of the voluntary power of attention ; it 
 
50 
 
 involves a responaibility for taking and treating things 
 as they are taken and treated. 
 
 The truth of Christianity is not an intuitive truth ; 
 therefore the source of evidence must be exp^iriential, or 
 empirical. The sources of this class of evidence are (a.) 
 consciousness; (6.) The senses ; (c.) The memory ; (d.) 
 Testimony. Reasoning may combine the items given by 
 these sources. The truth of Christianity cannot be 
 established by consciousness, or the senses, or memory. 
 The chief source therefore of evidence for Christianity is 
 testimony. But under what conditions, and to what 
 extent can the facts of testimony.' be said to be certain. 
 The existence of testimony is a direct and necessary resplt 
 of our constitution, and social relations. It is not as 
 Hume claims, on the ground of experience alone that it 
 is accepted. We receive testimony as social beings ; it 
 has a necessity within us. Faith in it cannot be unlim- 
 ited ; it requires qualifications. A fact alleged on testi- 
 mony stands as a contingent truth. The question then 
 arises, when is testimony reliable ? when does it become 
 certain ? According to Ueberweg, every historical asser- 
 tion is to be treated as a hypothesis, which must be con- 
 firmed, in the following wa}' : 
 
 (a.) That it alone explains the shape which the report 
 took in the subsequent course of events. 
 
 (/?.) That it coincides with what was to be expected, 
 as a consequence of the nature of circumstances, and of 
 previous occurrences. 
 
 (;'.) The trustworthiness of the testimony must be 
 tested by the rules which govern conditional or contin- 
 gent inferences. 
 
 There are two things involved in historical credi- 
 bility; (1) the subjective credibility and (2) the objective 
 credibility of the fact. For any reputed fact various 
 hypotheses may be formed to account. These are : 
 
 {a.) That the testimony may have for its ground the 
 fact that the event did happen and was observed. 
 
 [b.) That the observation was influenced by a false 
 apprehension. 
 
 ((?.) That the report was influenced by a false appre- 
 hension. 
 
 {d.) That the recollection is untrue. 
 
61 
 
 (e.) That the transmitters of the testimony were influ- 
 enced by imagination. 
 
 (/.) That the occurrence may be recorded in the spirit 
 a?id for the purpose of romance. 
 
 {q.) That the report may be circulated for the delib- 
 erate purpose to deceive. 
 
 Relalive Value, of Different Kinds of Testimomj . — An 
 eye-vyitnessy known or credibly believed to have been so, 
 may be trustworthy, provided, (a) he was able to appre- 
 hend, strictly and truly, the event as it occurred ; and 
 (b) he was able to give a true statement, and (c) he had 
 the disposition to take care to do so, viz : competence, 
 opportunity and character, are requisite for the credi- 
 bility of an ej-e-witness. The very best kind of testi- 
 mony is that wherein there is an agreement of several 
 witnesses, provided, (1) they are independent ; (2) they 
 are not influenced by the same deception ; (3) they have 
 not been atfected by the same prejudice. 
 
 When there is no testimony from eye-witnesses, the 
 value of the testimony of secondary witnesses, even if 
 they be contemporaries, is determined, partly by their in- 
 telligence and critical capacity, and partly and chiefly by 
 their relation to the immediate witnesses, viz., character, 
 opportunity and sincerity, are essential to secondary wit- 
 nesses. When these requisites are found, the testimony 
 acquires a high degree of probability ; therefore, it is 
 important to discover the genealogy of the testimony. 
 
 The testimony of later witnesses, by common consent 
 is rejected, when there is anything which is suspicious 
 in it, viz., (1). When there is a personal interest, doctri- 
 nal or practical. (2). When there is a lack of compe- 
 tence, opportunity and character. If neither of these 
 grounds for rejection exists, then the objective probability 
 of the facts must ascertained. Rawlinson, {Bampton 
 Lectures), gives the following canons for determining the 
 value of testimony. 
 
 A. When the record which we possess of an event is 
 the writing of a contemporary, he being a credible wit- 
 ness, and having the means of observing the facts to 
 which he testified, the testimony is to be accepted as pos- 
 sessing the first, or highest historical credibility. 
 i' .; B. When the event recorded is one which the writer 
 may be reasonably supposed to have obtained directly 
 
52 
 
 from those vvlio witnessed it, we should accept it as prob- 
 ably true, unless it be in itself very improbable. Such 
 evidence constitutes the second degree of historical cred- 
 ibility. 
 
 C. When the event recorded is removed considerably 
 from the age of the recorder, and there is no reason to 
 suppose that he obtained it from a contemporary writing, 
 and when it is probable that his source of intormation 
 was tradition, still if the event be one of great import- 
 ance, of public notorietj^ if it affected the national life 
 or prosperity, especially if it was of a nature to have been 
 at once commemorated by the establishment of any rite 
 or practice, then it has a claim to belief, as probably true, 
 at least in general outline. 
 
 D. When we have a tradition of one race corrobor- 
 ated by that of another, especially if it be a distant and 
 hostile race, the event which has this double testimony 
 obtains a high degree of probability, and unless very 
 improbable in itself, thoroughly deserves acceptaiice. 
 The weight of this kind of testimony exceeds that of the 
 third class and nearly approaches that of the second. 
 
 3. What degree of assurance can jrioral evidence give "? 
 
 (a.) It does not give that philosophical certitude which 
 belongs to axiomatic truths intuitivel}' discerned or even 
 trutlis established demonstratively by rigorous logic. 
 
 {h.) Moral Evidence may produce certainty in the 
 popular or moral sense of the term. Such certainty as 
 may be affirmed of all truths of whatever kind in what- 
 ever way acquired, which are supported by a decided 
 preponderance of evidence satisfactory in its kind and 
 sufficient in its amount. 
 
 Note. — The terms certainiiy and evidence are used in a 
 subjective and in an objective sense. Objective certainty 
 may be predicated of the object of knowledge and it exists 
 whether known or not. So there may exist objective evi- 
 dence independently of the mind's estimate of it. 
 
 Subjective certainty is a condition of the mind in regard 
 to and depends on and corresponds with the evidence as 
 the mind is able to discern and comprehend it. Certain 
 things may and are often denied. 
 
 (c.) Moral evidence is the only evidence with which 
 moral responsibility and probation may be connected ; by 
 
53 
 
 the use of which character may be formed, developed or 
 tested. In its nature, when of satisfactor}' kind and of 
 sufficient amount, it is convincing enough to warrant 
 the luost momentous responsibilities. If religious truths 
 were intuitive religion would be removed from the re- 
 sponsible or moral life. If any historical or positive 
 religion were to be presented to men so that the evidence 
 should not constitute a great part of its foundation then 
 its historical and positive elements would have to be 
 brought before every individual. This would require a 
 greater miracle than Christianity claims for itself There- 
 fore it is not against Christianity but /or it that a great 
 portion of its evid«ince comes second hand. It is of the 
 nature of moral evidence that it does not preclude doubt, 
 and it is unreasonable to ask or expect any other kind 
 of evidence for religion otherwise, it would have to be 
 placed on intuitive or demonstrative evidence. Judge 
 Greenleaf on the " Testimony of the Evangelists " dis- 
 cusses this question from a point of jurisprudence, and 
 says " the subject of inquiry is a matter of fact ; the truth 
 of matters of fact rests on moral evidence alone. It 
 makes no difference whether they relate to this life or 
 the next. A proposition may be said to be proved when 
 the evidence is satisfactory in amount and quality in 
 favor of it. The only legal test is the sufficiency of cir- 
 cumstances to satisfy the mind and conscience of a man 
 of common prudence and discretion, and so to convince 
 him that he would venture to act upon that conviction 
 in matters of the highest importance to his own inter- 
 ests. 
 
 4. What menial conditions are essential to the proper esti- 
 mating of moral evidences ? 
 
 The species of truth and the process by which it is 
 elicited, make this consideration very important. ( Vide 
 Hamilton's Logic Chap. 32.) These conditions are : 
 
 [a.) Attention ; i. e., an effort to apprehend the phe- 
 nomena in their bearings and relations. 
 
 (6.) An effort to apprehend and rightly estimate other 
 connected phenomena. 
 
 (c.) Vigilance, to guard against the arrest, or perver- 
 sions of this intellectual process at any point, in any way, 
 or in any other interest than that of the truth. 
 
54 
 
 {d.) Equity ii) balancing the various evidence that 
 may seem to point in opposite directions. Common ex- 
 perienceshows thatt^uch balancingisconstantly necessary. 
 The senses, the memory, the witnesses, often are contra- 
 dictory. Where there is no direct conflict of testimony 
 there may be real or alleged improbabilities, or impossi- 
 bilities. Evidence has to be taken into account for the 
 improbability. 
 
 " The grounds of disbelief, are a state of mind in 
 which we are fully persuaded that some opinion or asser- 
 tion is not true, even though great evidence in its favor 
 is brought to bear upon the case, there may be reasons 
 for disbelief The generalization of one group of facts 
 may be set against another." {Vide Jno. Stuart Mill, 
 Logic; Chap. XXV.) 
 
 This will be more fully considered in connection with 
 the discussion of miracles. It is sufficient to notice here, 
 that the probabilities on both sides must be taken into 
 account. 
 
 5. What moral conditions are essential 1o the right treat- 
 ment cf moral evidence ? 
 
 To this we answer : 
 
 (a.) An apprehension of the moral responsibility 
 which always rests upon us in weighty evidence. The 
 moral responsibility begins before a conclusion is reached, 
 and in the process of reaching it. 
 
 (6.) Humility as opposed to Self-confidence in view 
 of our own infirmities, and the magnitude of the issues 
 involved, in collecting the facts, treating them properly 
 and then striking the balance. 
 
 (c.) Prayerfulness even in the light of natural religion. 
 
 [d) Willingness to abide by the result. The resolute 
 refusal to forestall the conclusions, or wrest the truth, 
 forcing it to an issue which we wish to reach. The mo- 
 tive to the construction of confused notions and the use 
 of ambiguous terms, lies commonly in a half perceived 
 divergence between the facts and the claims of the sys- 
 tem. The will controls science very much; the purity 
 of conscience is necessary to science as well as a continued 
 loyalty of the will. 
 
 6. What kinds of moral evidence are offered for our de- 
 cision on the claim of Christianity ? 
 
55 
 
 As commonly presented the evideiioea of Chriatianity 
 are grouped under tliree heads; 
 
 (a.) Internal: (6.) External ; [c] Collateral. 
 
 (a.) By Internal Eridenee has beeti and is meant gen- 
 erally, the evidence of tiie divinity of Christianitv sup- 
 plied in and by its substance and structure. Christianity 
 is contemplated as a religion purporting to come from 
 God. We ask, what in the system itself supports this 
 claim ? We compare it with what we have elsewhere 
 learned of God. 
 
 {b.) External Evidence, is supplied by something dis- 
 tinctive and characteristic in the way in which the 
 Christian Religion was introduced into the world. Chris- 
 tianity claims to have been comtnunicated to, and not 
 discovered by man ; what is the proof of this claim ? Our 
 attention is at once called to the methods by which it 
 was introduced ; to extraordinary powers and knowledge 
 given to its early propagators. Miraculous and pro- 
 phetic powers are said to be exercised by those who 
 ushered in Christianitv. External evidence does not 
 include all evidence outside of the internal. It has ref- 
 erence only to those peculiar, historical elements already 
 referred to. 
 
 [c.) Collateral or auxiliary evidence. 
 
 This term is convenient for covering all other evi- 
 dence, which is not included in the two former chisses. 
 There may be proofs found in the extent of the results, 
 in the influence of the work, and the quality of the 
 agencies which contributed to the issue. The apostles 
 were the small human instrumentalities, whereby the 
 inherent power of Christianity effected its results. God 
 has been operating with it and in it, making whatever 
 was hostile to it, contribute to its progress. 
 
 This collateral evidence is allied to internal evidence 
 in so far forth as what Christianity accomplishes proceeds 
 from what it is. On the other hand it is allied to exter- 
 nal evidence in that it was outsi-de of the substance and 
 structure of Christianity. It is external to Christianity 
 as a system of truth, but internal to it as a'dispeusation. 
 
 The comparative measure of the strength of these 
 classes of evidence is variously estimuted. Some dispar- 
 age external evidence ; others (Mozey ; Bampton Leo- 
 
56 
 
 tures) emphasize the practical results of Christianity as 
 an evidence. 
 
 Generally the internal evidences are of a philo- 
 sophical sort : the external evidences are of an historical 
 sort. The former are founded on the fitness of Christianity 
 to do what it claims to do; the latter are matters of 
 history and fact. The internal evidences cannot be es- 
 tablished without the historical. Some of the doctrines 
 themselves involve historical facts, and the external evi- 
 dences are not worth much if nothing is known of the 
 system to which they attest. The terms are arbitrary ; 
 they have no special relation to religion. The evidences 
 ought to grow out of religion, and to be so grouped as to 
 immediately suggest to the mind, their essential, applied 
 character. It is for this reason therefore, that this sys- 
 tem of the classification of evidences has fallen into dis- 
 use. Apologetics is now treated as a distinct branch of 
 Christian Science, having two departments, viz. (1.) The 
 Philosophical, and (2.) the Historical. Christianity is in 
 part a body of historical facts, and in part a system of 
 religious truths, moral precepts. We are to inquire into 
 the credibility of the historical facts, and into the rea- 
 sonableness of the precepts, then its consequences. If this 
 be a true history what follows ? These two branches 
 are to be investigated by special methods. 
 
57 
 
 THE HISTORICAL BRANCH. 
 
 The nature and claims of Christiainty as a histoiical Re- 
 ligion. 
 
 Looked at from a liistorical jioint of view what reason 
 is tliere for believinj^ tliat Christianity is the true, author- 
 itative and divinely sanetioiied reliji^ioii, f)r ns and for 
 all men ? Assuming that there is a superiority in Chris- 
 tianity over all other reliixions, is it so orpeat as to estab- 
 lish its elaim of divine oriijin ? Is it of such a kind as 
 to justify this claim? Christianity cannot l)e satisfied 
 with a mere comparison with other systems ; it contrasts 
 itself with them ; it insists that the results of this com- 
 parison shall be a co.ntrast so clear, so true, so distinct 
 as to convince all that it is tJic true religion. Is there 
 anything in Christianit}^ to prove it to be the true relig- 
 ion, historically ? When this is established the exam- 
 ination of it as a philosophical system follows. 
 
 Reasons for first considering the historical aspects of 
 Christian if)/. 
 
 (1.) The idea of Christianity came into the world, 
 through its historical facts. Without these historical 
 occurrences the world would never have had tlie idea of 
 Christianity. 
 
 (2.) Many of the elements in the idea of Christianity 
 are in themselves historical facts ; not merely metaphysi- 
 cal concepts, or moral precepts; e. g. sin, ruin, incarna- 
 tion, and the atonement are not merely conceivable 
 elements but actual fact?. If the philosoi)hical argument 
 shall have power, it must be founded on historical facts. 
 
 (3.) The philosophical argument itself viewed as such 
 will be more earnestly and hopefully conducted, when 
 the historical truth of the facts with which it is concerned 
 is exhibited to the mind. The whole moral nature is 
 concerned with Christianity; it needs facts to establish 
 faith. . - • 
 
 (4.) Christianity is an actual reality. It is not a mere 
 system of truth ; it has a historical existence which must 
 be accounted for. The Scri[>tures exist; their produc- 
 
58 
 
 tion, reception and influence must be accounted for, and 
 even those ideas or facts wliicli are least historical in their 
 character come to our knowledge with fact's that are 
 historical. 
 
 (5.) It is the experience with those portions of Chris- 
 tendom in which the historical character of Christianity 
 has been most denied, or lightly esteemed, that the whole 
 Christian argument is most lightly treated. The prac- 
 tical }iower of Christianity has suffered bej'ond estimate. 
 The argument for the divinity of Christianity snfters 
 when it is attempted to vindicate it, on any other than 
 its historical basis. 
 
 " Not the facts, but tlie idea of Christianity, are the 
 objects of faith." (Hedge.) This is the rationalistic wi>y 
 of reasoning; as against this, we claim, that we get the 
 ideal from the real and historical Christianity. It seems 
 tlien, to be of the greatest consequence to determine iirst 
 whether there is a historical Christianity and then, to 
 proceed to the philosophical argument. 
 
 Historical Christianity as a fact to be accounted for. — 
 Christianity now exists. It has existed for eighteen 
 hundred years. These are historical phenomena for 
 which we are bound to seek an explanation. Secular, 
 hostile testimonies carry the origin of Christianity back 
 into the first century. It is well attested that it then had 
 a definite character; that it sustained very remarkable 
 relations, both to the Jewish and to the Roman world. 
 It had very positive, historical beliefs. Its great histori- 
 cal characteristics stood in relation to these historical 
 facts. The historical existence of Jesus Christ is not 
 disputed. The fact that the church was what it was, on 
 the ground of what it believed in regard to Him, is con- 
 ceded, as also the fact that this ground is historical. 
 
 Four epistles of Paul, are admitted even by the Tiibin- 
 g.en school as genuine. (Romans, Galatians and I. and 
 II. Corinth.) In these there are facts regarding Christ. 
 Compare Rom. 15: 18-19; 2 Corinth. 12: 12; Gal. 3: 
 5 ; 1 Corinth. 12: 4-11 ; 1 Corinth. 14; Romans 15: 18. 
 
 Tliese allusions have to be accounted for; there are 
 also events in the life of Christ referred to as within the 
 belief and knowledge of those to whom they write, (Comp. 
 1 Cor. 15 ; Rom. 6 : 4-9 ; Rom. 8 : 34 ; 2 Cor. 4 : 14 ; 
 
59 
 
 Gal. 3 : 18 ; Gal. 6 : 14). How had these facts come to be 
 believed bjjncn of Jewish and Pa<;aii antecedents when so 
 few influences favored their acceptance and so manv op- 
 posed ? Row (in " The Supernatural in Christianity") pre- 
 sents five indisputable facts in regard to the bei^inninirs 
 of Christianity, viz. (a.) That at' the year 25 A. D. the 
 Christian society had no existence, (b.) In 40 A. D. it 
 was in ri<rorous growth, (c.) It was founded by Jesus 
 Christ, (d.) The crucifixion of Christ by the Roman 
 governor caused a temporary collapse of this society, (e.) 
 That an event of some kind which took place shortly 
 after his death imparted to it a new life which it never 
 lost and which gave it a power not possessed bj-any other 
 community we know. 
 
 These were abundantly open to verification and every 
 interest and scruple called for the most searching scrutiny 
 before belief. In the first Christian Apology by Qnadra- 
 tus some of these aspects of Christianity are alluded to 
 in connection with these historical truths. There were 
 other things supersensnal the acceptance of which was 
 not asked of any man except on the previous belief of 
 the historical facts. The Christian church then, would 
 have been insignificant if there had not been produced in 
 it a profound historical conviction ; but this conviction is 
 found not only in those who received Christianity, but 
 also in others who while admitting the facts, refused to 
 follow them to their logical conclusion. 
 
 After this time there were several sources from which 
 these facts could have been derived, viz. (1.) Personal 
 observation ; (2.) Oral tradition ; (3.) Written docu- 
 ments ; (4.) Monumental institutions, observances and 
 emblems ; e. g. the Sabbath, sacrameiits ; the dove as 
 the symbol of the Holy Ghost; the vine found in Chris- 
 tian art very early, in the Catacombs, etc. (5.) Significant 
 changes and omissions. The cessation of sacrifice is ex 
 plained on the ground of the Christians' belief that the 
 death of Christ meant something in relation to sacrifice. 
 There may be several hypotheses to explain these facts. 
 
 A. The hypothesis of the reality of the things be- 
 lieved in. This afibrds a simple and adequate explana- 
 tion of the facts of their influence. 
 
 B. Other hypotheses. There are four in number, 
 viz. : 1. The legendary ; 2. the mythical ; 3. that of 
 
•60 
 
 innocent and unconscious deception, and 4. tliat of will- 
 ful deception by those who were the authors of Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 1. The Legendary Ilj/pothesis. — Thh tlieory supposes 
 that the early historical belief rests to a considerable ex- 
 tent on vague and reputed, unveriiied and unveriliablo 
 body of legends. It starts with the fact that there is in 
 every people a mass of unwritten infoi-mation in regard 
 to the past. Antecedent to the existence of written his- 
 tory, tradition must be the source of history. It as- 
 sumes in regard to the gospel luirrative that it must hove 
 arisen in this way, and that it soon i)ecanie and is now 
 impossible to tell which is the historical nucleus in this 
 mass of legends. There would have been more plausi- 
 bility in this theory, if there had been a lapse of one or 
 two centuries between the time of Christ and the estab- 
 lishment of the churcli : if the definite record had not 
 been made at once, or havijig been made had perished ; 
 or if these events had occurred at a time and under cir- 
 cumstances which prevented the making of a record at 
 
 once 
 
 But the church was in existence within ten years of 
 the death of Christ; can it be explained that it came 
 then to be what it was on the ground of a legend ? (See 
 1 John 1 : 1.) This was neither in the Jewish or Roman 
 world, a legendary age. According to the most critical 
 schools there were letters written by Paul to churches at 
 Roirie, Corinth, Galatia ; these churches were well de- 
 veloped ; they contained Gentile elements, not predis- 
 posed to accept Jewish legends. The writer of these 
 epistles would not make use of legends; there is hardly 
 a mind known to us in modern or ancient times, who is 
 less likely to do so. On the supposition that these books 
 were not written till in the second century, the existence 
 of the church is unaccountable. 
 
 2, The MytJdcal Hypothesis. — This theorj' must accom- 
 plish three things if it is to succeed as against Chris- 
 tianity ; (a.) It must dispose of the gospel narrative as a 
 narrative; (h.) It must dispose of the gospel history in 
 the narrative ; {c.) It must explain away the character of 
 Christ himself. It must prove Christ to be not real, but 
 an idea fashioned to express certain ideals, not historical , 
 
61 
 
 reality. (Geo. Mathosoii on "The Originality of Christ" 
 ill Coiiteni[)oiary Review.) ('/.) The attempt to (lis[)oso 
 of the gospel history. This theory admits a nnclens, 
 but does not define how niiieli. It claims that abont this 
 iincleus there is gathered an enveloi)e of approximate 
 facts, sncli as might rcsnit from oral tradition. But aside 
 from this material it finds a considei-able amount of nar- 
 rative historical in form but not in reality. It admits 
 three elements, truth, approximate truth, and myth. It 
 draws an analogy from the mythical periods in Greece 
 a^nd Rome ; also from the apocryidia! gospels of the 
 centuries. It exonerates the original authors from the 
 intention of deception ; even those who incorporated 
 these myths into the Scripture narrative, did not mean 
 to deceive; they were simjily wanting in discrimination. 
 This theory meets with two difficulties. (1.) It cannot 
 account for the existence of the myths. (2.) Tlie myths 
 would not account for the facts: 
 
 (1.) It seems impossible to account for the origination 
 or acceptance of the alleged myths. 
 
 (a.) It is an assumption that the beginning of historical 
 movements calls into exercise the myth creating spirit; 
 (6.) It is equally an assumption that Chi'istianity begin- 
 ning wdien and where, and as it did, must have called 
 into exercise. these myth making tendencies. It did not 
 begin in the early mythical age of Greece, nor were the 
 men and circumstances such as to warrant this assump- 
 tion, (c.) It is an assumption further, that the Apocryphal 
 books show the actual existence and working of this 
 niytli making.spirit at the time, place, and on the theme of 
 the gospel narrative. The very shallowness of tlie Apoc- 
 ryphal books shows that they are counterfeits of historical 
 fact. They are legeiidary in their character, rather than 
 mythical, [d.) The question arises where did the friends 
 and followers of Christ, being plain and prosaic men, get 
 such ideas as made the germ of these alleged myths. 
 The Christ of the gospel is not the Christ ot^ the Jews. 
 Did they bring these peculiar ideas to embellish the 
 Christ of history; or did they receive them from Him? 
 How did they attach these noble ideas to a character 
 which was so much like others ? How did they come to 
 convince others who had seen the real Christ, of the 
 truth of these ideal conceptions. 
 
62 
 
 (e.) Ill rec^ard to the acceptance of this hypothesis 
 after the myths ha<l been created ; it is evident that if 
 there would be a ditiiculty of one kind at one time, dur- 
 ing the life of Christ, there would be a difficulty of 
 another kind in displacinsj the orijjinal true account at a 
 later day, and substituting this fanciful mythical story. 
 All traces of such a struggle between two narratives if 
 there was any, have vanished ; the men who imposed 
 their account succeeded in erasing every evidence that 
 there was a struggle. 
 
 (2.) The myths cannot account for the facts. If it is 
 difficult to understand how Christianity was developed 
 in several generations; if it is based on fiction, it is still 
 harder to see how it was established within ten years. 
 Then there is the difficulty of transforming the earlier 
 church wdiich grew on a basis of facts, to the later Chris- 
 tianity which is based on myths; and the accomplishing 
 of this without any apparent difficult}- and with u com- 
 plete obliteration from all the records, of the abandoning 
 of the real for the ideal and mythical. 
 
 3. The Hypothesis of Deception in regard to many and 
 cardinal facts. — There are two forms of this hypothesis 
 (1.) Unconscious and innocent deception. (2.) That of 
 wilful deception. In each the hypothesis may be so con-, 
 structed as to place the deception in Christ, or in the 
 early disciples. 
 
 (a.) So far as the hypothesis relates to Christ himself, 
 we are asked to believe that Christianity was built on a 
 foundation of deceptions, of which Christ was either the 
 innocent, or the designing author. In the first case, our 
 feeling towards Him would be that of pity. In the 
 second that of aversion and abhorrence ; and in both 
 cases, we would be thrown into the greatest perplexity 
 with regard to the early account of Christ in the gospels. 
 How could this deluded enthusiast have produced such 
 impressions as have influenced the world ? The recon- 
 ciliation of the theory of deception and the facts is im- 
 possible. Both in quantity, and in quality, the results 
 of the impressions produced are beyond any expectation 
 from either an enthusiast or an imposter. But Chri&t 
 gained immediate success with His enemies, as well as 
 with His friends and dupes. If He was an impostor He 
 
63 
 
 completely dwarfed all other men in history. We throw 
 back with indignation this hypothesis of a deceived or 
 a deceiving Christ. 
 
 The older rationalism paid, that the gospel history 
 was iruthful in intention, but not in fact. It made a 
 distinction between facts and the narration of facts. It 
 offered naturalistic explanations of the supernatural ; but 
 was set aside as shallow. This theory is obliged to 
 transform the faith of the early church which faith was 
 " in Jesus,"' to a "faith of Jesus," transferred to His 
 disciples. The more intentional deception introduced 
 by Strauss and Renan is still more incapable of account- 
 ing for the facts, and thereiore more repulsive. 
 
 (b.) So far as it relates to the early followers of 
 Christ and the authors of tlie New Testament, we are 
 asked to believe that they were the dupes of some strange 
 influence or else participators in the deception. If the 
 first supposition be true we can but be sorry for them, if 
 the second we reject them, but in either case we have 
 the gospel history to account for with its marvellous 
 appearance of honesty. We have the conduct of the 
 men to explain as well as the admitted facts of early Chris- 
 tianity. Renan asserts that during the middle and latter 
 part of his career Christ was constrained inwardly and 
 outwardly to claim Messianic attributes which He knew 
 he did not possess. The difficulty is again, to explain 
 how the disciples succeeded in hiding what they knew 
 to be true. They seem to have duped their own gener- 
 ation who had other independent sources of information. 
 We shall also need to account for the extraordinary re- 
 ligious doctrines which they taught. How could they 
 teach such pure morality, while following a false Christ. 
 If the characters themselves were under the power of this 
 deception then Christianity is the product of a misunder- 
 standing. {Vide Uhlhorn; "Modern Representations 
 of the Life of Christ.") Fitzgerald says (" Aids to Faith") 
 "the theory amounts to this, that they had no origin at 
 all." To illustrate the nature and difficulties of these 
 four hypotheses^ let them be applied, to the doctrine of 
 the resurrection of Ciirist. The church stakes its exist- 
 ence on this event, and the account given of it in the 
 Scriptures. It is believed to be a true occurrence. This 
 
64 
 
 hypothesis accounts for (1.) tlie narrative (2.) the char- 
 acter aiul conduct of tlie first disciples; (3.) the estab- 
 lishment and rise of Christiaiiitj and its proijressive 
 triumplis. The narrative of the gospels; the life and 
 institutions of tlie Chi'istian church ; the hopefulness and 
 steadfastiict-s of the disciples iniply a belief in the resur- 
 rection, and the belief'iniplies the certainty of the event. 
 How is it with the other liyp()tlieses. (c/.) Did the be- 
 lief in the resurrection grow out of a legend or myth? 
 When the avowedly genuine Epistlesof Paul appeared, it 
 was twenty-two to twent^'-nine years after this event liad 
 occurred. In these Epistles Paul alludes to the resur- 
 rection ; consents to be called a false witness, to give up 
 everything, if the resui-rection is proved a false event; 
 he also reasons on the ground of it. When he wrote 
 these allusions, his active ministry had been extended 
 over twenty 3-ear8, so that the event took place, within 
 ten years of his ministry. 
 
 He appeals to other witnesses of the event; to hun- 
 dreds of believers ; he asserts that the churches of Jeru- 
 salem and Antioch were founded in it. When, where 
 and how did tie myth of the Resuiection grow up ? How 
 did .this new belief so completely obliterate any [)revious 
 belief, that there remains no trace of it ; any previous 
 belief that might have been in existence, back of the 
 myth. How did the myth or legend of a risen Christ 
 arise? Wh}' was the old belief given up ? "The res- 
 urrection is never presented as the embodiment of a 
 great hope, or the consequence of some preconceived 
 idea of the Messiah," (Westcott "The Gospel of the 
 Resurrection.'') The fact came first, not the hope or 
 doctrine. 
 
 (a.) Did the belief grow out of deception, either con- 
 scious or innocent? 
 
 The supposition of a designed deception, is so violent, 
 that it has no longer any credence. Christ himself could 
 not have originated this belief, except he revived after a 
 fainting and exhaustion, but did not die on the cross. 
 
 The deceit in tlds case would lie in - liis not leaving 
 been dead : but after his restoration, is it credible that 
 a half dead man, needing a physician, could produce on 
 the minds of his disciples the impression that he had 
 
65 
 
 risen again, and this after liaviiig disappeared for a few- 
 days ? Strauss admits the validity of this reasoning. If 
 the conscious deceptioii is in sonje other way the foun- 
 dation of a risen Christ, the churcli rests on a falsehood. 
 If it was an unconscious deception it could have been 
 wrought in one of two ways; (1.) either the disciples 
 thoroughly mistook somebody else for Christ, for 
 forty days, and repeatedly, and went away hopeful, con- 
 fident to persuade men to believe in His resurrection, 
 and to die for it; or (2.) they mistook the hallucinations, 
 phantoms of their imagination. They saw a vision, 
 iiaving no objective reality. This is the favorite tlieorv 
 now amojig many Germans. It is said that the disciples 
 were so excited, that they thought they perceived Jesus 
 risen. That hundreds simultaneously and at repeated 
 instances saw visions, and in consfquence changed their 
 lives, and influenced the world, would be a greater mira- 
 cle than the real miracle of the resurrection. There are 
 reasons wliy we should have special evidences of this 
 fact, and we do have such evidence; in fact considering 
 the weight of these special evidences, the difliculties in 
 the way of receiving either one of the above accounts 
 are greater than the historical difficulties in the way of 
 belief in the resurrection. Some (Baur and Zeller) 
 altogether discard the miraculous from history, no mat- 
 ter what tlie evidence may be. 
 
 Christiatiity professes to give an account of itself in 
 historical documents. These are the authoritative 
 standing sources of our knowh.dge of its historical char- 
 acter. Some critics sa^-, that we cannot ascribe reliably 
 a single sentence to Christ. The New Testament, it is 
 said, correctly sets forth the faith of the 2d century; 
 but we liave no evidence that it describes the facts of 
 the 1st. What evidence then have we to trust any part 
 of the Christian Scriptures ? This leads us to the con- 
 sideration of the nature and value of the Christian Scrip- 
 tures as a source of information concerning Christianity. 
 
66 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES. 
 
 Tlie vature and value of the Christian Scriptures as a 
 source of information concernirir/ Christianity. 
 
 (1.) The Chri.-*tian Scriptures are not our only source 
 of iiiforr.iation. We may derive some information from 
 tlie C'liristian life as now exhibited ; some concerning 
 the [)ast, from ecclefiastieal and secnhir history. If we 
 go back far enough, we would find a tradition — strongly 
 emphasized still by the oriental and Romish churches. 
 But for the existence of tlie Scriptures we may admit, 
 that tradition would have been in some degree reliable. 
 Wemust remember that for a brief period, men depended 
 entirely on tradition for their ideas of Christianity, 
 The Scriptures are not merely a source of information. 
 (2.) Their entire value does not consistin, and istiot bound 
 by their cliaracter as sources of historical knowledge. 
 They profess to express to us, the present mind of God ; 
 they are a permanent and present divine instrument for 
 promoting God's purposes, yet their value in these and 
 other respects is bound up largely with their reliableness 
 as a soui'ce of information for nuittei'S of history. 
 
 (8.) Christianity as it exists and has existed in the 
 earth owes its existence very largely to the conviction 
 which the church has had in regard to the Scriptures and 
 the use which it has made of them. What Christianity 
 has beeti and done is due to the opinion of believers in 
 regard to these books, and the estimation in which they 
 were held. It is true Christianity existed for twenty-five 
 years without them ; just as the old dispensation existed 
 long before it had its Scriptures. But undoubtedly 
 Christianity would have changed greatly without them. 
 
 (4.) We cannot so separate Christianity from the 
 j-eliableness of testimony as that the decision which men 
 reach in regard to the trustworthiness of the Scriptures, 
 be a matter of indiflerence. The defense of Christianity is 
 imperilled by looseness, not by strictures in regard to 
 our belief concerning the Scriptures. Therefore, this 
 point should be emphasized as against those who advise 
 
67 
 
 UR to confine our defense to Christijinity as a system ; to 
 drop the advocacy of the Scriptures and preach Christ. 
 
 (5.) The Scriptures have on legal piinciples a i)re- 
 suniptive value, and a reliahleness, as a source of infor- 
 rViation concerning Christianity. Judge Greenleaf 
 ("Testimony of the Evangelists" pp. 26, 27,) writing as 
 a Jurist, says; "the lirst inquiry when a document is 
 offered as evidence in court is, whether it comes from 
 the proper repository ; whether it is found in the place, 
 and under the care of persons with whom it might reason- 
 ahly be expected to be found. This custody gives authen- 
 ticity to the documents which come from such a place 
 and bear no evident marks of foi-gery, — the law presumes 
 their genuineness. It lies with the objector to disprove 
 them. This is precisely the case with the Christian 
 Scriptures. They have been received from time imme- 
 morial, and are found in the right custody. If it be said 
 that the originals are lost, the law provides that copies 
 are to be accepted, when the multiplication of such 
 copies was a publicly known fact, in the faithfulness of 
 vN-'hich, all the community had an interest. On matters 
 of general and public interest every man must be pre- 
 sumed to be conversant, and supposed to be cognizant 
 of them. The prevailing current of assertion is resorted 
 to in such matters as evidence. The persons who mul- 
 tiplied the copies are agents of the public, for whose use 
 the copies are made. Thus made, the copies are entitled, 
 on the ground of credit due to the men who made them, 
 to an extraordinary degree of confidence, and as in the 
 case of official registers, it is not necessary that they 
 should be further confirmed or sanctioned. 
 
 2. Historical criticism in relation to the Christian Scrip- 
 tares. — The documents'which form the Christiati Scrip- 
 tures from their very form, as well as by much of their 
 contents, invite criticism. For the most part they are 
 tiot vague and general, teaching truths which had been 
 known long before, but definite; most of the truths 
 sriven in them are written under historical conditions 
 which are known. In the case of many of the docu- 
 ments, the form which they take is produced by the age, 
 the places, the persons connected with them. If there 
 are positive, divine dispensations, instituted and main- 
 
,68 
 
 tained, tliese must have been under historical conditions. 
 Communications were made at ditterent times to differ- 
 ent men. All these were made througli human instru- 
 mentality, and what is human and historic in their com- 
 position, must be dealt witli in a human way. And yet 
 we must insist that the other essential characteristics of 
 the Scriptures shall not he overlooked. Wliat then are 
 some of the recognized piinciples of historical ^M'iticism 
 which should he applied to the human side of the Chris- 
 tian Scriptures. Von Sybel says; "the examination of 
 the authors of an historical statement, and the examining 
 of the facts according to their connection in time and 
 space and causal relation ; these are the two necessary 
 conditions of historical criticism," Prof. Droysen more 
 exactly and analytically defines: " the province of criti- 
 cism is to ascertain in what relation the historical mate- 
 rial stands to those acts of which it hears witness." The 
 form of criticism is determined by the relation of the 
 materia! to its authorship. The main inquiries there- 
 fore in criticism are four in number. 
 
 (1.) In regard to Authenticity ; (2.) Integrity; (3.) 
 Correctness and (4.) Sufficiency and Completeness. 
 
 A. The first inquiry is whether the material submitted to 
 us Is really what it is supposed or claimed to be. 
 
 The demonstration of the spuriousness of any docu- 
 ment is complete when we can show the time, the origin 
 and the aim of it to be different from what it claims to 
 be. Yet a spurious document may indirectly be valuable 
 to history. Diplomatics as a department of criticism 
 judges of the authenticity of documents by external sigi»s 
 such as the writing materials, the styles of writing, etc., 
 etc. Higher criticism answere the question, is the docur 
 ment such as might have been wuitten under the histor- 
 ical circumstances. In other words it judges by internal 
 signs. 
 
 B. Whether the material before us is in unchanged form ; 
 in the form in which it was produced and was meant to 
 remain ; or if it has been changed, what alterations inay 
 be detected and eliminated. This is the criticism of in- 
 tegrity. 
 
 C. Whether the document when produced did give ayid can 
 give that which it claims to establish ; or; on the other hand 
 
6? 
 
 whether at the time of its prodnetioti it coiild have been, 
 or claimed to have been partially or relatively correct. 
 The answer is e^iven by the criticism of correctness, i. e. 
 Credibility. There are four inqnfries involved in this 
 question of credibility. (1.) Whether what is refuted, 
 is per se possible, in so far forth as human exi^erience 
 s:ives us any criteria; (2.) Whether in i^^iven conditions 
 and circumstances it is possible : (3.) Whether in the 
 motives, the aims, the personal narration of the narrator, 
 we can discover an^-thinir that should Warp his state- 
 »nents ; (4.) Whether incorrectness is unavoidable in 
 consequence of the inadequacy of the writer's means of 
 observation. Here we need to it)quire into (a.) the ca- 
 pacity and opportunity ; and (b.) the disposition, purposes 
 and circumstances, or either, or both of the narrator. 
 In judging of the sources of criticism we should ask what 
 they profess to give ; what coloring the document took, 
 from the peculiarities of the author himself, or of thv» 
 place or age in which he wrote it. 
 
 D. Whether (he material before us contains all the 
 elements of that of which we are seeking to (fain knowl- 
 edge, or whether it is incomplete, and if so in what degree. 
 All historical material is more or less fragmentary. 
 Therefore there should be a constructive criticism, after 
 the destructive processes as above enumerated. Here it 
 is that modern criticism is at fault. It does not attempt 
 to tell how much is reliable and true, and how much is 
 to be rejected. Historical criticism claims to apply these 
 principles to the Scriptures. But in doing this, great care 
 should be taken, in so far as there is much at stake on 
 the question. 
 
 Our means of ascertaining the reliability of these books. 
 If the Scriptures are to supply an adequate explana- 
 tion of the phenomena of historical Christianity, they must 
 be composed of authentic documents in regard to the life 
 and teachings of Jesus Christ, as well as in regard to the 
 first forms of doctrine and of life in the early Apostolic 
 church. The historical is the doctrinal itself; the essence 
 of Christianity is precisely its historical part (Schelling.) 
 The fact of the resurrection is the cardinal doctrine, and 
 the doctrine of the incarnation is the fundamental fact in 
 the Christian Scriptures. (JjQq^ow '-'■ Inspiration.'') The' 
 
^70 
 
 final question^jin regard to the Scriptures is that of their 
 credibility. Can we believe them ? 
 
 Genuineness, authenticity, integrity and credibility 
 are terras used ambiguously. There is some confusion 
 in regard to their exact respective meanings. R. Sole, 
 " English Synonyms" gives authentic a8(l.) real, veritable, 
 uncorrupt as opposed to that which is spurious and fic- 
 titious: (2.) Equivalent to reliable, trustworthy, worthy 
 of belief, as opposed to the incredible. The first definition 
 has reference to the form, the second to the contents of 
 the document. Where the usage is conflicting it is best 
 to follow one definite use consistent!}'. 
 
 Three terms are sutncient to express the various 
 qualities which criticism demands of a document. These 
 are. Authenticity, Integrity, Credibility. Genuineness 
 is included in Authenticity. Aulhe/iticity then would 
 signify that these documents ai'e the productions of the 
 authors or at least of the age and class of persons to 
 whom they are severally distributed and reputed by the 
 church. 
 
 Integrity would show that they are incorrupt in form. 
 Credibility^ that they are reliable in the statement of tacts. 
 These terms are in point of fact mutually inferential. The 
 credibility is increased when the authenticity is proved. 
 When we know the competency of the author; his up- 
 rightness of purpose ; his opportunities for observing 
 facts, etc., then wr- rely on his savings. Humanly speak- 
 ing we must know the individual witnesses, and we must 
 know favorably of them. When the testimony is anony- 
 mous, we want some ample equivalent in the form of 
 endorsement by the early church. In regard to the New 
 Testament history we have to a very large extent the 
 testimony of eye-witnesses |»rovided the documents are 
 authentic and uncorrupt. Compal-e Acts 1 : 21-22 ; Jno. 
 1 : 14; Jno. 21 : 24; 1 Jno. 1 : 1-3; Luke 1 : 1-2 ; 1 Cor. 
 15 : 3-12 ; Heb. 2 : 3. 
 
 To what documents are we to apply these principles 
 of historical criticism ? We go back fifteen hundred 
 years, and find that acertain numberof l)ooksareaccepted, 
 and form the New Testament Canon. What is the Canon ? 
 
71 
 
 I. — THK NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 
 
 1. Definition. 
 
 "The Canon is the collection of Books which consti- 
 tute the original, written rule of the Christian faith." 
 (Westcott; '' Canon of the New Testament:" Fourth Edition, 
 London, p. 1. note.) 
 
 "The original meaning o\' xavajv (connected with Heh. 
 Kaneli. xdvTj^xdvvrj^ can na [canal is, channel,] cane, cannon) 
 is a straight rod, as a ruler, or rarely the beam of a balance ; 
 and this with the secondary notion either (1.) of keeping 
 anything straight, as the rods of a shield, or the rod, [lic- 
 tatorium) used in weaving; or (2.) of testing straightness 
 as a carpenter's rale, and even \mi)ropev\y a plumb line. 
 From a sense of literal measurements naturally followed 
 the metaphorical use of xaucou (like regala, norma, rale,) 
 to express that which serves to measure or determine any- 
 thing ; whether in Ethics, as the good man (Ar. Eth. Nic. 
 Ill, 4, 4) or in Art, as the Doryphorus of Polycietus, 
 {xavii)u ;)or in Language as the " Canons of Grammar." 
 (Westcott, ibid, p. 499.) 
 2. Authorship. 
 
 This involves two questions {a.) by whom was this 
 collection made as a collection of books; (6.) by whom 
 was the collection invested with its authority as the 
 written rule of faith. In answer to the first question, 
 
 (a.) By whom was this collection made, we answer, 
 
 (1.) The church and no individual man ; 
 
 (2.) The church as a whole, and not the church as 
 constituted at some one particular time, or represented 
 in some particular place ; 
 
 (3.) The church acting gradually, not summarily and 
 decisively at any one point of time ; 
 
 (4.) The church guided by the instincts of its own 
 spiritual life, without a miraculous intervention, but by the 
 guidance of the Holy Spirit. He whose inspiration gave 
 to the separate books their form, we believe has also 
 guided the church to the selection of these and no others 
 out of the mass of writings as human productions, and 
 the process of their selection a human process. 
 
 {b.) By whom or by what was this collection invested 
 with its authority ? 
 
72 
 
 It was not the church, for the church could not have 
 created an anthority over itself. Some Catholic theolo- 
 joians have nriaintained, that there is nothing divine in 
 the Scriptures, except what the church has given them. 
 They hold that the relation ot the church to the au- 
 thority of the Scriptures, is that of recognition and sub- 
 jection, but not creation. The authority of the canon 
 is intrinsic. , It grows out of the nature of the book. 
 That this was the view taken of the canon by the early 
 church is seen from the usages and observances known 
 to have existed in the church. At first the New Tes- 
 tament was received in the same way that the Old Tes- 
 tament was used in the synagogue. Basilides (130 A. 
 D.) gives the earliest testimony in regai-d to the fact that 
 the Old and New Testament Scriptures are [daced on 
 the same level. "The Epistles of Saint Paul aie called 
 Scriptures ;" "quotations from tliem are introduced by the 
 well known form 'it is written.'" ( Westcott, pp. 288- 
 
 On what principle the credit of canonical authority 
 was given to these writings we learn in three ways: 
 
 (1.) From the language used by the early churcii 
 with regard to the separate documents universally ac- 
 cepted. 
 
 (2.) The language used in regard to those which 
 for the time being were doubtful. 
 
 (3.) The way in wliich the completer canon was 
 treated by the church. The church received no pro- 
 ductions which were not believed t<^ be those of apostles 
 or of apostolic men, prepared for the guidance of the 
 church. Yet they were not i-eceived as human produc- 
 tions, but as the productions of these men, writing as 
 they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Herein then we 
 have a double criterion ; (a) the human or apostolic au- 
 thorship, and (/3) the divine or inspiration. When the 
 first of these unique writings appeared there had been a 
 believing church for a generation. These writings were 
 called forth to meet the wants of the church then exis- 
 ting ; before their appearance the church had to depend 
 entirely on oral tradition. It was a living church that 
 accepted and recognized them, appealing to them as au- 
 thoritative documents. 
 
73 
 
 3. Relations of the New Testament to the Old Testament 
 canon. Consider niider this liead, 
 
 [a.) Wiiat was the attitude of the original christian 
 churcli toward the Scriptnrcs of the O. T. ? 
 
 {b.) Why did the clmrch need any other Scriptures 
 than those already recognized ? and how was it hronjrht 
 to recognize precisely these writings which became the 
 New Testament canon, as having dignity and anthoritv? 
 T(^ these inquii'ies we give the following answers : 
 
 (a.) Attitude of the early church. The attitude of the 
 early church would naturally and plainly he determined 
 by the attitude of Christ ami his apostles! We find that 
 the Old Testament Scriptures were the original rule of 
 written faith, so far as that rule was unfolded. Christ 
 and his apostles speak of it as such. They remonstrated 
 against the traditions which had been added to them. 
 They denied all other literature co-ordinate authority; 
 constantly assumed that the Old Testament points to a 
 continuation of a revelation. The continuity of this 
 revelation is therefore the first thing to be estal>lished. 
 
 Christ and the apostles, and tlie Jews agree in regard 
 to the Old Testament; but he parts company with them 
 in claiming that lie is entitled to continue the revelation, 
 which claim they reject. According to Josephvis, the 
 Old Testament canon closed, because there was no longer 
 a reliable line of prophets. The Jews did not believe 
 that God had ceased to work, but they held that otdy 
 the Messiah would be entitled to add to the Old Testa- 
 ment canon. 
 
 (6.) Why did the church need other Scriptures thaji 
 those already existing, and how was it brought to rec- 
 ognize those writings which became the New Testament 
 canon ? 
 
 (1.) If the question be what want there was of any 
 other Scriptures than those already received, the an- 
 swer wouidd)e, that whenever the fulfillment of the Old 
 Testament predictions should come, and God should re- 
 sume special and fresh communications with men, the 
 church and the world would want the proof and the full 
 benefit of these communications. If the fulfillment had 
 now come in Christ, as he himself claimed, and as the 
 apostles and the early church believed, the church and 
 
74 
 
 the world wanted argumentative and practical evidence 
 of it. The argumentative evidence must be derived from 
 the Scripturesof the Old Testament; the practical proof 
 could only be given in the life of Christ. He must show 
 himself to be one opening communication with God. 
 It is thus that Christ argues from the Scriptures to him- 
 self, and from himself to the Scriptures. He gives first, 
 to personal hearers and eve witnesses sufficient evidence 
 of his divine mission. But some sufficient evidence is 
 needed for others, who could not be personal hearers and 
 eye witnesses. This evidence must be definite and re- 
 liable, which oral traditions could not be. It is thus 
 that the definite, well attested body of documents was 
 formed. 
 
 (2.) If the question be how the authentic words of 
 Christ Himself first as orally transmitted, and then as 
 fixed in writing, gained a like authority with the Scrip- 
 tures of the Old Testament, the answer must be, that 
 these men believed that Jesus Christ was their prom- 
 ised Messiah. Confirmation of this faith, and the means 
 of spreading it were needful. (Heb. 1 : 1.) If God had 
 spoken in these later times by His Son, there is no 
 question but that the words of the new communica- 
 tion are of equal authority with those of the Old 
 Testament. 
 
 (3.) If the question be, howthew^ord of the Apostles 
 as distinguished from that of Christ Himself, could ever 
 have been put on equal authority with that of the Lord, 
 the answer is. that the apostolic words must have been 
 regarded as authorized by the Lord, and in some ade- 
 quate way exalted to a divine dignity- and authority. 
 This end would be attained, if the Holy Spirit promised 
 and sent by Christ,' prompted and guided the Apostles. 
 Hence we find the church recognized tlie fulfillment of 
 the promise of the Holy Spirit in these utterances. 
 
 Christ left no written word Himself. If we find that 
 the church regarded the words of the Apostles and apos- 
 tolic men, as of equal authority with the Old Testament, 
 then they regarded them as virtually the word of 
 Christ. 
 
 (4.) If the question be, what practical necessities 
 would have called forth the canon, and have been met 
 
75 
 
 by it's early formation, may be answered in two ways; 
 iirst, the habit of readinsj what was recoj^nized as Scripture 
 in public assemblies for instruction and edification would 
 explain it in part; and second, the need of an authorita- 
 tive standard of appeal in controversy with heretics. To 
 appeal to the Apostles as expressing the mind of the 
 Lord, would be the highest authority. The recognition 
 of this fact by heretics is also valuable, as showing the 
 estimation in which the Scriptures were held. It is a 
 noticeable fact that the oldest i-eferencp vve have to the 
 Scriptures, is made in the writings of a heretic (Basili- 
 des, A. D. 130.) Vide. Westcott on'the canon, p. 288. 
 
 4. Composition if the canon. The completion of the 
 canon was gradual, both for physical and moral reasons. 
 It was necessarily a work of time. Some of tiie docu- 
 ments were originally specific; limited and local in their 
 immediate aim. There was no reason why they should 
 come to the notice of remoter portions of the church. 
 They were writings of divers kinds, narrative, epistolary, 
 prophetic ; among the letters there were some addressed 
 to single churches, others to individuals, and others to 
 dispersed believers. On tlie assumption of the authen- 
 ticity of these docutnents they had all been composed 
 before the end of the first century. The apostolic fathers 
 make clear reference to all the Gospels and at least to 
 twelve of the Epistles. Within the next half century 
 (120-170) Oie Greek Apologists mention every volume in 
 the present canon, and use them with abundant attesta- 
 tion and recognition of their authority. The early ver- 
 sions, belonging to the same period give us nearly the 
 same result. The Peshitd contains twenty-two of the 
 twenty-seven. It omits 2nd and 3rd John, 2nd Peter, 
 Jude and the Revelation. The old Latin version lacks 
 2nd Peter and James. The heretics of the same period 
 make reference to these books. Before the end of 
 the second century, we find twenty books were 
 attested, six recognized in a more limited way, and only 
 one, as yet not recognized (2 Peter.) 
 
 The formation of the canon was one of the first in- 
 stincts of the Christian Society. The collection was at 
 first imperfect, as the church was imperfect, but as the 
 church attained a fuller growth, the canon was more and 
 
76 
 
 I 
 
 more clearly defined and recognized, and hy the end of 
 the fourth century we find it established as it now exists. 
 As for the books which for a tinrie received only a par- 
 tial and local recognition, it can be proven that they 
 were known from the very first, although not universally 
 known. Their limited circulation is easily explained. 
 As they became more and more widely known, they 
 became more generally received. The attitude of the 
 church towards them was from principle, that of caution 
 on account of heresies within and enemies without; so. 
 that those books which failed to gain acceptance at the. 
 end of the second century, were recognized or had to 
 make their way into the canon more slowly, but by the 
 end of the fourth the canon was complete. 
 
 Objections to the composition of the. Canon. Dr. Donald- 
 son says that not a few of tlie books were not fully re- 
 ceived by the early church, because they were regarded 
 as difieringin value. An unscrupulous age broke down 
 the discrimination and included them all. The third 
 century he characterizes as discriminate; the fourth as 
 indiscriminate. He advises the church to follow the 
 third century. In answer, notice; (a) The methods of 
 the early church were not those of the critical schools. 
 (b) The spirit of the early church was not that of the 
 critical schools. Tliere was much more moral earnest- 
 ness in it, and no such unreasonable demands, as Strauss 
 and other critics make, in demanding testimony of eye- 
 witnesses. No such ostentatious presumptions were 
 made, as are made by those who refuse to apply the 
 historical method to books containing the records of 
 miracles, (c) The acceptance in the fourth century of 
 the writings which at first had secured only partial or 
 local recognition admits of easy explanation. All the 
 objections to the canon, and those to the Epistles es- 
 pecially involve misunderstanding, or misrepresentation 
 of the condition and character of the early church. 
 
 The authenticity of the IS ew Testament Scriptures. 
 
 The main inquiry in regard to this subject belongs to 
 New Testament Introduction. Apologetics recalls the 
 principles and methods by which it is determined that 
 these documents can be confidently ascribed to the authors, 
 whose names they bear. 
 
■77 
 
 1. At the etui of the second century there were in the 
 possession of the early church documents confessedly of 
 very high sacredness. lionored as of actual or virtual 
 apostolic authoi'ship, bearing the names of our Scriptures 
 of the New Testament, and corresponding with them in 
 description. There are two points to be established ; (1.) 
 The identity of the books in our Scriptures with those 
 of the fourth century ; (2.) the evidence of the authenticity 
 of those. 
 
 2. The general identity of our Scriptures of the New 
 Testament with those of the early church, is to be deter- 
 mined by the examination of the early manuscripts, the 
 early versions, and all the definite citations by early 
 writers. 
 
 3. Our inquiry in regard to the authenticity of the 
 early Scriptures, reducesitself to this ; tirst, in what sense- 
 and second, with what reason the church of the second 
 century accredited these books to theauthors whose names 
 they bear. Was it a mere convenient and conventional 
 way of designating them, or did it impl}- a conviction 
 that the assumption was correct? Strauss says, that 
 the early writers published their works under the 
 name of some popular person, without intending any 
 harm, or deceit. Bleek says, it was u lawful thing to 
 do; it was understood on all hands, and we find that 
 these books which the church repudiated belonged to 
 this class of writings. Rawlinson (sixth Lecture) saya 
 that there is no proof for such assertions. In thatperiod 
 the writers received no encouragement in covering their 
 individuality under great names. The church rejected a 
 great number of pseudepigraphic writings. It rejected 
 thirty-eight such gospels, thirteen books of Acts, nine 
 Revelations, ten Epistles. Out of the whole number of 
 books claiming recognition, it rejected at least sevent}', 
 accepted twenty-seven. The alternative is, that these 
 writings which were received were authentic, or that 
 they were forgeries, perpetrated successfully within an 
 Hundred years of the apostolic period. That the docu- 
 ments were regarded as authentic appears from the fact 
 that the J were used by early Christian writers, early 
 heretics, pagan antagonists of Christianity, and that 
 they are embodied in early versions. 
 
78 
 
 Considerations confirming the judgment of the church of 
 the second century in regard to these documents. 
 
 As a preliminary consideration in this connection 
 notice, that seventeen of the twenty-seven books of the 
 New Testaraent contain the name of their author, in the 
 substance of the writing, not merely in a title prefixed or in 
 an appendage. Thus the best opportunity for tracing 
 and verifying their authenticity is furnished. So far as 
 the title is concerned, the ascription of it to a certain 
 authorship expresses the judgment of the early church 
 founded on tradition or internal evidence, or both. Strauss 
 says, that little reliance can be placed on these titles, 
 Rawlinson answers, that the church could not have pre- 
 iixed them unless the belief had previously existed. 
 
 Ji. It was not merely a literary satisfaction to the 
 church, but a vital necessity, for its own faith, and for 
 its propagation, that it should possess and be able to 
 convey to others the assurance, that the essential facts 
 and doctrines of Christianity were faithfully recorded. 
 This follows from the historical nature of Christianity. 
 
 B. These documents were very early transcribed, 
 interchanged among the churches, sometimes by apos- 
 tolic authority; (Colos. 4: 16;) they were accummu- 
 lated by individual churches, publicly read in worship 
 as Scripture. The eye of the whole body of Christians 
 was upon them.' The interest of the whole Christian 
 society was enlisted in the question of their acceptance 
 or rejection. It was not the trained intelligence of the 
 few, but the practical intelligence of the man\', which 
 was brought to exercise and judge them. 
 
 C. Different sections of the church which after Jeru- 
 salem had perished, recognized no superior body, but 
 followed out their own distinct sources of information, 
 agree in the result oi' their investigations. Ewald sa3'S, 
 " it cannot be said, that any one part of the church led 
 the way in accepting these new writings. It was a simul- 
 taneous movement of the whole church, 
 
 D. As a literary phenomenon the produatioti and 
 introduction into the Christian church of such forgeries, 
 is highly unnatural and improbable. It needs a greater 
 credibility to believe that the church, passing through 
 fiery persecution could produce, and be occupied with 
 
79 
 
 such books. It cannot be believed that at that time men 
 could be found, who could produce such accurate pro- 
 ductions, wonderful in whiit they saj and what they omit, 
 and in their delicate agreement of hook with book. 
 
 E. Add to this the moral improbability that any one 
 could attempt to pass off, as the productions of an apostle 
 or of an apostolic author, such forgeries, and succeed 
 when confronted with the moral purity and truth of the 
 Christian system. That he could make this purity his 
 own, and yet pass off the counterfeit. i\o secular scheme, 
 no ecclesiastical or religious results justify the use of 
 such means to secure such ends. That a man could carry 
 through sucii a -work as th's, working against such 
 motives and risks, without exciting suspicion, can be be- 
 lieved only by the credulous skeptics. 
 
 F. These considerations are corroborated and strength- 
 ened by important negative evidence. The writings be- 
 fore us, when their exposure would have been easy, ex- 
 cited great attention, created great interest, made great 
 demands, aroused great hatred, and were generally ac- 
 cepted. We have even from those who refuse to accept 
 the religion which they taught, the concession of their 
 authenticity. This is evidence more ample and varied 
 than can be cited for any other historical documents. 
 B. H. Cowper, {Popular Lectures on Christian Evidence) 
 thus presents the negative proof in favor of these docu- 
 ments. 
 
 (1.) No historians can be found who wrote after the 
 death of Christ, who do not mention Him if they might 
 be reasonably expected to do so. 
 
 (2.) No Greek or Roman autho'r within three centu- 
 ries after the promulgation of Christianity denies the 
 authenticity of the gospels. 
 
 (3.) No Jewish writer of the same period, denies the 
 authenticity of the gospels. 
 
 (4.) Neither Jewish, nor Gentile writers of the same 
 period deny the miracles of Christ. 
 
 (5.) The earliest heretics did not deny the genuine- 
 ness of the gospels. 
 
 (6.) No one of these authors mentions the four gos- 
 pels as first received iti his own time. 
 
 (7.) No ancient author says that the orthodox Chris- 
 tians received more or fewer than four gospels. 
 
80 
 
 (8.) Our four gospels were translated out of the Greek 
 into other languages, before 150 A. D, 
 
 (9.) If these writings were not autlientic, why did no 
 one discover or expose the forgery, when they lirst ap- 
 peared ? 
 
 (10.) Why did not the enemies of Christianity at- 
 tempt to disprove their authenticity, if it was floubted ? 
 
 (11.) Myriads of enemies were converted to the faith 
 of the govspels at an early day. 
 
 (12.) Multitudes of Christians suffered death, rather 
 than deny the truth of the gospels. 
 
 The Integrity of thk Canonical writings of the New 
 TesTx\ment. 
 
 Are our gospels. Acts, Epistles, Apacalypse, the 
 works described l)\' corresponding names in the lists 
 which were in circulation in the early church. This 
 problem can be investigated in two ways. 
 
 1. There are external means of determining the cor- 
 res}iondence of the Scriptures of the early church, with 
 our own. These are the oldest manuscripts ; the early 
 versions, and the oldest citations. 
 
 [a.) The Oldest Manuscripts ; the date of these cannot 
 be accurately determined, but some of them are cer- 
 tainly as old as the fourth century; {b.) the old versions 
 are the Peshito,the Latin, and the Gothic, But the old- 
 est manuscripts of these versions are of the fourth, fifth 
 and sixth centuries; (c.) the citations are \)ot \u original 
 documents but in transcripts. Combining the result of 
 these texts we reach the approximate correct text. 
 
 2. There are internal means of determining this cor- 
 respondence of the Scriptures of the early church with 
 our own. These are very often abused, but they should 
 certainly not be i-ejected on that account. They are, 
 
 (a.) The internal fitness of a document, or any part 
 of it, to the source to which it is ascribed, and the pro- 
 fessed objects of its author. 
 
 (6.) The harmony of subject and style, discoverable 
 within the document, or existing between it and other 
 writings credibly ascribed to the same author. 
 
 (<?.) The presence or absence of connecting links be- 
 tween the parts admitted to be authentic, and the parts 
 
81 
 
 said to be doubtful. The result of the application of ex- 
 ternal tests, leaves very few passages doubtful, it is neces- 
 sary that these internal tests be applied. 
 
 Credibility of the New Testament Scriptures. 
 
 What reason have we for believing what the New 
 Testament writers say, as true? And under what limi- 
 tations shall we receive them as such ? 
 
 Tliere are two preliminary considerations in regard to 
 thTs subject. 
 
 (1.) That the lapse of time, as such, has nothing 
 to do, with the conclusiveness of moral evidencee. 
 That which justifies belief at one time, does so a thousand 
 years later. Testimony once good is forever good ; time 
 does not touch the intrinsic value of our warrant for 
 belief 
 
 (2). The credibility which we are considering includes 
 largely the element of personal confidence. The attempt 
 is often made to put this proof on scientific grounds. 
 This is unjust. We are not' estimating the preponder- 
 ance of pi'obabilities. The early church especially re- 
 ceived these evidences as a ground of personal trust, not 
 merely of opinion. We also should resist the attempt 
 of modern science to eliminate this element. 
 
 The proofs of credibility are grouped under two 
 heads ; as 
 
 (1). Attested and (2) Presumptive. 
 
 (1). The Attested Proofs. — In many particulars the 
 credibility of the New Testatnent, is what may be called 
 an attested credibility. There are many confirmations 
 from without. 
 
 (a) Many things asserted by the New Testament 
 writers are demonstrable by reason. Such are the 
 truths of natural religion ; the existence of God, etc. 
 All the new facts brought to knowledge are congruous 
 with those which we already have from natural religion. 
 
 (h). The credibility, or truthfulness of the central and 
 essential facts of tlie New Testament, is confirmed by 
 the results which follow their hearty reception as true. 
 Truth believed works certain results, which error believ- 
 ed cannot work. Therefore the results of the reception 
 of the New Testament facts, are an important corrobor- 
 ation of their credibility. 
 
82 
 
 (c.) Many of the statements of the New Testanient 
 writers, are corroborated h}' independent, external testi- 
 monies, and even from foreiofn and historical quarters. 
 The concurrence of independent and various sources of 
 testimony, strengthens credibility. All the testimony of 
 the Jewish writers where they speak of the same things, 
 invariably harmonizes with that of the New Testament 
 writings. Chalmers urges the pertinence of using the 
 testimony of one book to confirm that of another. He 
 denies the propriety of rejecting the testimony of a be- 
 liever because he is such. It is not necessary that one 
 should be a heathen in order to be believed. The New 
 Testament contains twenty-seven books from at least 
 eight authors, who wrote independently, and hence their 
 agreement is a proof of their truthfulness. 
 
 (d.) The most effective attestation to the credibility 
 of the New Testament, at least in its historical parts, is 
 found in the fact, that these things were known, and be- 
 lieved by large numbers of men, and the only natural 
 explanation is that they had fully satisfied themselves of 
 the truth of what they believed. 
 
 2. The Presumjytive Proofs. The credibility of the 
 New Testament in regard to the great body of its his- 
 torical facts is presumptive. When no external corrob- 
 oration can be found, an assurance is found, by internal 
 or implicit signs, of the credibility of statements. 
 
 A. This is illustrated by considerations drawn from 
 the nature of the facts to which the record relates. 
 
 (1.) These facts were to a large extent accessible to 
 the scrutiny of others, as well as the narrators. Against 
 this it is objected, (a) that some of the most important 
 facts of the life of Jesus were witnessed by only three 
 persons ; {h) that the fact of Christ's repeated reap- 
 pearance after his resurrection, is attested only by his 
 disciples. To this it is answered ; that there is no rea- 
 son to believe, that if the witnesses were others more or 
 fewer, their testimony would be w^orth more. 
 
 (2.) These facts are numerous and by their number 
 give an opportunity for denial or disproof, if not true. 
 
 (3.) These facts are mii]utely described, and by their 
 minuteness confirm the belief that they are narrated by 
 eye-witnesses. 
 
83 
 
 (4.) These facts are of such a nature, as to make the 
 most imperative demands for the most searching scrutiny. 
 The\' are not matters of indifference ; on tlie contrary 
 they take hohl on the deepest instincts and influence a 
 whole life. 
 
 B. This presumptive credihility is further confirmed 
 hy considerations drawn from the character and circum- 
 stances of the witnesses. There pre three elements to 
 be regarded l)y all witnesses: opportunity for knowing, 
 competence forjudging, and character. When we lack 
 the testimony of original witnesses, we must thoroughlv 
 test the substitutes, and in<|uire as to what access thev 
 had to ej'e-witnesses or documents. On the supposition 
 that we could establish no more than the fact that these 
 books came from apostolic times and men, we have, 
 
 (1.) The testimony of witnesses, numerous and di- 
 verse, wlio ai-e not in their writings making the first 
 announcement to the church of the facts therein re- 
 corded ; tljey are narrating what had been accepted for 
 a generation or more, and widely believed. They are 
 writing to churches composed of members who liad been 
 eye-witnesses, not in order to create belief, but in order 
 to inform those already believing; to increase and per- 
 petuate the definiteness of their belief. They therefore 
 run the risk, and challenge the denial of thousands who 
 had been either eye-witnesses, or otherwise believers. 
 
 (2.) The testimony of men who are in spirit appar- 
 ently as far removed as possible from deceit, who taking 
 all things into consideration are incapable of such fabri- 
 cations, and intellectually and morally, without any 
 motive or opportunit\' to use such a capacity if they had 
 had it. " . " . 
 
 (3.) The testimony of men who held to the moat 
 simple and truthful recording of what they believed, by 
 ever}' consideration drawn from regard to self, regard to 
 their mafter, and regard for his cause. There is no 
 cause whatever, so far as can be discovered, why they 
 should further such a pure, noble cause, by means of a 
 fabrication. A historical falsehood so easily detected a.^ 
 this would De, would suffice for the condemnation of 
 such a cause, 
 
 C. The presumptive credibility of the narrative in 
 its minor parts, is immensely strengthened, by the 
 
84 
 
 consideration of the utter impossibility that the central 
 figure can be an invention. 
 
 The nature, the character and the life of Christ, 
 could not have been fabricated. They are beyond the 
 reach of the imagination. The minor facts are grouped 
 about this central figure in a harmonious way. The 
 style also is the style of truth ; the power is the power 
 of truth. 
 
 Attention has been called of late in an especial 
 manner to the character of Jesus Christ. Compare 
 Bnshnell, "-Character of Jesus;'' Albert Barnes, VIII 
 ''Lectures on Christ;" Philip Schaft' on " The Person of 
 Christ." 
 
 It is objected that the Apocryphal Gospels have the 
 same central figure, and skeptics ask why it does not 
 prove them to be credible. 
 
 Westcott on the canon (appendix C.) shows wherein 
 the character of Jesus in the Apocrypha differs from 
 the character of Jesus in the Gospels. In the Gospels 
 Christ is brought out in strong coiitrast with the ex- 
 pectation of the Jews. In the Apocrypha He is nearer 
 to the Jewish expectation. He is, in a looser sense, a 
 human Christ. 
 
 D. Another confirmation of the presumptive credi- 
 bility is found in the coexistence of a general and 
 strong harmony of representation, with clear signs of 
 individualit}' and inde[tendence in the collection and use 
 of material. In all historical accounts discrepancies in 
 detail within certain bounds, increase the presumption 
 of general correctness by showing that we have inde- 
 pendent witnesses. If our Gospels were transcripts of 
 one original document, they would not have varying ac- 
 counts of some things. As for oral testimony, without 
 a miracle, it is hardly conceivable that they should have 
 the same details. In regard to disagreements in detail 
 there should be on our part: (a) candor, in admitting 
 what difterence may exist ; (6) honesty in locating and 
 defining such difference, and (c) on the other hand, 
 equal candor in allowing full weight to the historical 
 evidence. The scantiness of material should warn us 
 against assuming that all possible solutious have pre- 
 sented themselves, and that if they fail the difficulty is. 
 
insurmountable. Wlien some difficnlty caniior he ex- 
 plained, let it remain as a mystery, and set over against 
 it tlie accumulation of evidence for credibility. 
 
 E. The presumptive historical credibility is increased 
 by the miraculous element in the New Testament 
 History. 
 
 This narrative does not purport to be a common 
 secular history. It is extraordinary in its character ; it 
 is not an account of transactions bet\veo!i man and man, 
 but between God and man. It is an account of the 
 oiigin of wliat claims to be a new final religion. So 
 far therefore from counting n)iracles a difficulty in the 
 historical narrative, (e. g. Zeller, Renan, Strauss, Baur, 
 etc.) we should regard the absence of signs and nnracles 
 as strange and remarkable. They are tlie worthy ac- 
 companiment of such a narrative. If there is to be a 
 communication of God to man, itshould be accompanied 
 by wonderful events. 
 
 E. All these considerations in regard to the credi- 
 bility of the New Testament narrative are advanced to 
 the highest signification and conclusiveness, bv the evi- 
 dence that these writers did not make their record 
 merely as human witnesses and narrators, but under the 
 inspiration of the Holy Ghost. This argument is the 
 climactic one because the veracity of the authors 
 of these documents must be first established in order 
 that their claim of inspiration may be acknowledged 
 and its force in this connection be admitted. 
 
 ir. THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. 
 
 Why should we want the Old Testament Scriptures 
 as witnesses in favor of Christianity ? This is a ques- 
 tion naturally asked in beginning the examination of 
 the Old Testament canon. We may in answer say; the 
 New Testament dispensation is not the first, divinely 
 accredited dispensation. It announces itself as a suc- 
 cessor, a later and a final system in a series of true, 
 divinely sanctioned and authoritative religions. As 
 such it may be regarded in a two-fold aspect. (1.) A 
 revelation of God to men by which He makes Himself 
 known. (2.) For the purpose of guiding, aiding atid 
 unfolding a religious life. For i» knowledge of the 
 
«6 
 
 stages which preceded it, Christianity refers us to the 
 Old Testament. For the mere purpose of historical 
 knowledge then, we must resort to the earlier canon. 
 Moreover, Christianity claims to be consistent with these 
 antecedent stages of revelation ; we need to examine 
 them in order to verify its claim. 
 
 (a.) Christianity needs the Old Testament in order 
 to understand what- Gotl has done and said to its ante- 
 cedents. 
 
 (6.) It represents them in a course as provisional 
 and preparatory. It differs from them in containing 
 some things which they lack. It claims to be so com- 
 plete as to supersede them. 
 
 (c-.) The I'cception and usage of these Scriptures is 
 commended by the language of Christ, the Apostles and 
 the early chui-ch. These make tliem to us what they 
 were to the earlv church. 
 
 THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 The question is what was the canon to which Christ 
 and the Apostles gave their sanction. Not how it grew, 
 but what in the day of Christ, to the Jews constituted 
 the rule of faith, or the oracles of God. The phrase 
 " Scripture " occurs about thirty times in the New Tes- 
 tament ; tlie plural " Scriptures *' occurs about twenty 
 times ; the phrase " Sacred Scriptures " once or twice ; 
 the "Law" (not in the sense of the law of Moses) three 
 times ; the " Law and Prophets " once ; the " Law and 
 Prophets and Psalms," once. What is meant by these 
 expressions? A few generations before Christ the ques- 
 tion might have been debatable, but even sceptics admit 
 that the references in Matthew 23 : 35 and Luke 11 : 57 
 are to the whole canon, from Genesis to 2 Chronicles. 
 Not every book is either quoted or referred to, from the 
 Old Testament. The books of Judges, Ecclesiastes, 
 Song of Solomon, Esther, Ezra, Nehemiah are not 
 mentioned. Some would include in this list Obadiah and 
 Nahum; the Apocryphal book Ecclesiaticus mentions 
 three groups of books, and discriminates between them, 
 viz., the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, and 
 makes a distinction between them and all other books. 
 Josephus makes the same division; mentions the num- 
 
87 
 
 her of books a8 twenty-two (the number of letters in the 
 Hebrew Alphabet.) He sayj, "it is inbred in the Jews 
 to esteem these booics as 0eia jloyiw.za i. e. divinely 
 sanctioned doctrines, and to abide by them, and die for 
 them if need be. The Septnagint contains books not 
 found in our canon. In some parts of the church Deu- 
 tero-canonical authority is assigned to them. According 
 tg some modern writers, there is only a chronological 
 discrimination made between these books and our caHon. 
 (DeWeett, Fiirst.) Ecclesiastes 12:11 indicates a 
 large and wearisome literary productiveness, and it can 
 iiardly be supposed that most of this literature perished 
 between the composition of Ecclesiastes and the time of 
 Christ, especially if Ecclesiastes is as late as these critics 
 claim. In 2 Maccabees 2:4 reference is made to the 
 work of Judas Maccabaeus and Nehemiah in forming a 
 library. It is but reasonable to suppose this comprised 
 a number of volumes of the existing literature. 
 
 The canonical collection of the Old Testament 
 Scriptures is composed of the Law, in five (5) books ; the 
 Prophets, including the historical books written by the 
 prophetic school, twenty-one (21) ; and the Ilagiogra- 
 pha in thirteen (13) books. In regard to the Old Testa- 
 ment Canon, there are two views opposed to the common 
 evangelical view : 
 
 (1.) The looser Protestant view, and 
 
 (2.) The Catholic view. 
 
 The first of these views is held by those who aim to 
 depreciate the canonical books, and exalt some of those 
 we call Apocryphal. They hold it impossible to make 
 a solid and binding discrimination between the books 
 which are, and which are not canonical. So far as the 
 argument for this view is historical it is based, (a) on the 
 Septuagint version ; (/>) on the dift'erence between the 
 Palestinian and Alexandrian canon ; {c) on the early 
 Greek and Latin Fathers; [d) o\\ the modern church 
 divergences on the subject. 
 
 The Catholic view includes the Apocrypha in its 
 
 "canon. This is embodied in the decision of the Council 
 
 of Trent. After enumerating the books as contained in 
 
 the Vulgate, the decree reads, " but if any one refuses 
 
 to receive the whole of these books, with every part of 
 
them, as they are rear! in the Catholic church, and con- 
 tained in the ancient edition of the Vulgate Latin, as 
 sacred and canonical, or knowinglj' atid deliberately de- 
 spises the traditions before mentioned, let him be anath- 
 ema." {Vide Townley's Biblical Literature, vol. IL, 
 p. 156.) The Westminster view is, " Tiie Books com- 
 monly called the Apocrypha, not being of divine inspi- 
 ration, are no [)art of the canon of the Scripture ; and 
 therefore are of no authority in the church of God, nor 
 to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than 
 other human writings." (The Confession of Faith of the 
 Presbyterian Church ; chap. I., sc^'. 3.) 
 
 Arguments for the Looser View. — (1.) Not all the can- 
 onical books of the Old Testament are quoted or clearly 
 alluded to in the New Testament. In answer we say: 
 
 [a.) There was no occasion to quote ur use them. 
 There need be no other explanation than this. 
 
 (h.) The absence of quotation by no means proves 
 the absence of the books from the collection. 
 
 (2.) We do find in the New Testament express cita- 
 tions from Jewish literature, not comprised in our 
 present canon, and quotations made by the use of the 
 same formulas. Instances of such quotations are the 
 following: Jude 9-14; Jam.es 4:5; 1 Cor. 2:9; Luke 
 11:49; Jno. 7 : 38. All these with on » exception are 
 from Apocryphal books, which cannot be identified. 
 Jude 9 is supposed to bo from a book of the " Assump- 
 tion of Moses." James 4 : 5 is from some lost book ; so 
 the quotations in 1 Cor., Luke and John, are supposed 
 to be from lost Apocryphal books. In fact if closely 
 compared these passages are seen to be free citations of 
 the substance of some passage found in some canonical 
 book. Whether Jude 14 is from Enoch, or vice versa, is 
 not known. Eph. 5 : 14 and 4 : 8 are also referred to in 
 this argument. 
 
 (3.) That in the case of most of the Apocryphal 
 books, we do find in the New Testament undoubted ref- 
 erence to their contents and clear traces of their in- 
 fluence, on the style of representation and language, 
 1 Peter 1:6-7 is an undoubted reference to Wisdom 3: 
 5, 6, 7; James 1 : 9 is a reference to Ecclesiasticus 5 : 11 ; 
 4 : 29 ; Hebrews 4 : 12-13 is a reference to Wisdom 7 : 
 
89 
 
 22-24; Romans 1:20-22 is a condensed reproduction 
 of chaps. 13, 14, 15 of Wisdom. Such is the chiim of 
 this chiss of thinkers. 
 
 These on examination are found to be unsubstan- 
 tiated. All that requires explanation is explained by 
 the admitted general use of the Septuagint and its in- 
 fluence on the writers of the New Testament. That the 
 New Testament writers were familiar with the Septua- 
 gint is not to be denied. Of the three hundred and 
 fifty (350) quotations, three hundred (300) are traced to 
 the Septuagint, rather than to the Hebrew text. But so 
 long as not one instance of clear citation from the Apoc- 
 rypha can be adduced, there remains no argument for 
 the canonicity of those books. 
 
 ArfjumenU for the Catholic F«>if. — The Catholic church 
 so far as it deigns to explain its position, says that we 
 have the same reason for receiving the deutero-canonical 
 books, as we have for the proto-canonical ones. The 
 reasons given are: 
 
 [a.) A tradition in the church, running back to the 
 Apostles. 
 
 {b.) The concurrent belief of the Greek and Latin 
 churches. 
 
 {c.) The authority of the Roman church. 
 
 When asked to give reasons for the non-appearance 
 of these books in the Palestinian canon, they give three 
 reasons : 
 
 (1.) Some of these books had not appeared when the 
 Jewish canon closed. 
 
 (2.) Others though in existence liad not yet come 
 to the knowledge of the Jewish people after their re- 
 turn from the Babj-lonish captivity. 
 
 (3.) The Synagogue had not yet enough information 
 in order to decide whether they were canonical or not. 
 
 The Protestant view as distinguished from these two 
 opposing views rests mainly on the clear and deep dis- 
 tinction made by Christ and the Apostles. ( F/rf^ Smith's 
 '■'■ Dictionary of the Bible.'' Art. Apocrypha.) 
 
 REASONS FOR REJECTING THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS. 
 
 (1.) The confessed absence from them of the pro- 
 phetic element. 
 
90 
 
 (2.) The deterioration in poetic dignity and power, 
 
 (3.) In the historical parts, 
 
 (a.) A manifest presence of iietion and legend ; 
 
 (b.) The assumption of false names to give weight to 
 authorship. 
 
 (c.) The incorporation of forged documents as gen- 
 uine. 
 
 (f/.) Gross historical inaccuracies. 
 
 (4.) In doctrine a frequent subservience to the tech- 
 nical and formal Judaism, and to novelty of beliefs. 
 
 The Authenticity and Integrity of the Old Testa- 
 ment Canon. 
 
 It is evident that .we cannot examine the Old 
 Testament books in the same way as those of the New 
 Testament, in respect to individual authorship. The Old 
 Testament covers a period of thirty-five hundred years; 
 the books constituting it were composed within one 
 thousand (1000) or tw^elve hundred (1200) years. The 
 New Testament covers a period of less than one century, 
 and were composed within forty years. With regard 
 to the Old Testament we have no quotations by Fathers; 
 no early versions; the oldest manuscripts are much more 
 remote from the original than those of the New Testa- 
 ment. More of the Old Testament books are anony- 
 mously written, than in the New Testainent. In some 
 cases when they bear a name, it is doubtful whether the 
 author v^^as a principal character or mere historian. The 
 evidence for the authenticity of the Old Testament is 
 grouped under (1.) Internal and (2.) External Evidence. 
 . I. General Internal 'Evidence of the virtual authenticity, 
 and substantial integrity of the Old Testament Scriptures. 
 ' A. There is a marked congruity between th6 alleged 
 authorship when indicated, and the subjects treated. 
 
 B. In many cases characteristics of iStyle confirm the 
 assertion or tradition by which a book is ascribed to a 
 certain age or even to* a given author.' 
 
 C. The general s[)irit of these books is that of authen- 
 tic words rather than that of conscious fabrications. 
 
 D. As far as we have at any point parallel accounts 
 within the Scriptures themselves, (Kings and Chronicles) 
 the general structure of several narratives agrees with 
 
91 
 
 the oiipposition of aiitbeiiticity, ratlior than with the 
 theory of spurious autiiorship. 
 
 2. Erlcrnal Eoidence of the virt'ial authentidtu and sub- 
 stantial Integrity of the Old Testament Scriptures.— These 
 are : 
 
 A. The faith of tlie Jews. The Jews cherished this 
 belief and were more concerned than any other nation \\\ 
 identifying them. They had reasons to scrutinize them. 
 The nature of the books, made it important for them to 
 know of tlieir authenticity. Therefor<^ their faith must 
 be a warrant to us. 
 
 B. Allusions made by Christ and tlie Apostles. 
 These books are referred to, quoted by reguhir formuhe. 
 They were regarded by Christ and the Apostles with 
 even more reverence than by the Jews. Some allege that 
 whei] Christ quotes Moses, Isaiah, David, etc., he does 
 not mean to sanction the belief that these books were 
 written by those authors ; but as He desired to guard 
 against controversy He admitted and did not contradict 
 U their claim, although it was erroneous. We do not be- 
 ! lieve in such a Christ. We have not so learned Him, as 
 to accredit Him with commonplace ignorance, o'r to im- 
 pute to Him such craftiness as to suppose tliat out of 
 misunderstandings He made arguments more convinc- 
 ing. 
 
 THE CREDIBILITY OP THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. 
 
 Here too we have not the same advantage as in the 
 New Testament. We shall notice, 
 
 (1.) That these historical facts in the Old Testament 
 are connected with, and recorded because they are con- 
 nected with an alleged series of divine communications, 
 having the highest aim, the widest reach, the most in- 
 tense eftect. Christianity appeared among the Jewish 
 people, whose history is recorded in these Old Testa- 
 ment Scriptures. It drew its explanation and justifica- 
 tion from them. It declares itself to be the completion 
 of the system partly developed in the Old Testa- 
 ment. When we keep in mind what was the purpose of 
 God in preserving the Jewish people; when we find the 
 continuity and consecutiveness, we infer a reliableness 
 which other records cannot have. The presence of the 
 
92 
 
 miraculous in such a liistory is to be expected ; its ab- 
 sence would be more surprising and perplexing: there- 
 fore it is one of ihe considerations that commend the 
 history as a whole to us as credible. 
 
 (2.) Many of the signs of the authenticity of the 
 documents are likewise signs of the credibility of the 
 nArrative, We do not know the authorship of many of 
 the books, but so far as we do know them, they are 
 worthy of credit. If tliey are from their accredited au- 
 thors, a great many nunutise are explained ; so far forth 
 as the}' can be identified, the authors are eye-witnesses, 
 or claim to have used documents, as sources of infor- 
 mation, to which they refer. They have the three re- 
 quisites of opportunity, competence and character. The 
 authorship of these books was subject to the scrutiny of 
 all the nation. Where the authors are not known we 
 are referred to authentic documents, and these docu-- 
 ments composed by public men, under official, national 
 sanction, or by schools of prophets, are such as any 
 critic should wish to have. No other records are written 
 with such care and sufficienc}'. Tlie world may be 
 challenged to show a history more unshrinking in the 
 description of the disgrace, shame and ruin, of the 
 nation. 
 
 (3.) The credibility of the Old Testament is con- 
 firmed at some points, in some particulars by external 
 corroboration. 
 
 (a) Confirmations are to be found in Jewish obser- 
 vances, whose existence is carried back to certain his- 
 torical statements; is explained by them, and remains 
 unexplained on any other hj-pothesis. Many of the 
 rites of tlie Jews had a spiritual import; many, a com- 
 memorative meaning. They were instituted to com- 
 memorate certain historical facts. It is said that these 
 may have originated in a different way. There is how- 
 ever a great difficulty in the way of this theory. It is 
 the supposition that the people should have mistaken 
 the object of their commemoration ; that they should 
 have been persuaded to adopt a new explanation for 
 thera. Borssuet says : " there were in a certain sense, 
 two histories of Moses; one in the books which bear 
 his name; another in the institutions which he estab- 
 lished." 
 
98 
 
 (7;) The existence of Christianity, and some of the 
 forms under which it is set forth, confirm in important 
 particulars the credihility of tiie Ohl Testament Scrip- 
 tures. That Christianity exists at all is a confirmation. 
 The Old Testament Scriptures point to it; some of the 
 forms of Christianity confirm the old recoi-d. (Chris- 
 tianity is not a philosopliy cominof to sni)ersede another 
 philosophy; it is an historical religion, cominij to sup- 
 plant another historical roliirion. ^It takes its element 
 from the Old Testament. The God of Christianity is 
 the God of the Old Testament. The phraseology used 
 to describe its observances, facts, doctrines arc of the 
 same general type. 
 
 ((') The discovery of numerous and important con- 
 firmations of the Jewish Scriptures, from foreign, secu- 
 lar sources, are some of the richest results of modern 
 scholarship. Egyptian, Assyrian records surprisingly 
 confirm the credibility of the Old Testament. This is 
 the more surprising, because they were beyond the 
 reach and anticipation of the Old Testament writers. 
 {Vide Rawlinson's Bampton Lectures on the ^^ Historical 
 Evidences of ChrisdanitJ/;" Gillett on "■Ancient Cities and 
 Empires-/' Pratt's "-ScripfHre and Science not at Variance;" 
 Savilie, " Truth of the Bible.'' 
 
 (4.) The highest and most conclusive proofs of the 
 creflibility of the Old Testament are the proofs of its 
 inspiration. All the former arguments refer to the 
 human side. If the human writings are so confirmed, 
 shall inspired writers not be believed? (2 Peter 1 : 21.) 
 Whatever dsoTtusuavo^, 2 Tim. 3,16, may mean it certainly 
 implies credibility. Christ and the Apostles appeal to the 
 Old Testament so deferentially; " it cannot be broken," 
 could not have been said of a mere human writing. 
 
 Some ask to what extent are the Old Testament 
 Scriptures credible. There are three positions in regard 
 to this question. 
 
 (a) The Old Testament Scriptures are credible in 
 whatever they contain as matters of revelation. 
 
 (6) That the credibility extends to the greater histor- 
 ical statements connected with these matters of reve- 
 lation. 
 
 (f) That it covers the whole of the books. 
 
94 
 
 If tlie credibility of these Scriptures is good in great 
 matters, why should it fail in the minutiae. The guar- 
 antees of character reach over the whole extent. No 
 reason can be given for the restriction. Moreover, no 
 line of discrimination as to which are great and which 
 are small can be drawn. Wc are told that it is a part 
 of the moral probation of every man to draw this line. 
 If this is so, why are we not informed, charged and 
 warned of it? Would it not be a tantalizing gift to 
 know that the word of God was somewliere in the 
 Scriptures, and not be able to lind it? It is however 
 for those who take this ground to prove it. The phra- 
 seology of the Bible seems to point to the whole as in- 
 spired. 
 
 HISTORICAL DIFFICULTIES. 
 
 (1.) We are asked on historical evidence to believe 
 that which is impossible, intrinsically incredible; in 
 other words miraculous. What we are asked to believe 
 on historical testimon}- is, that something occurred. In the 
 same way as for any other historical fact we take the 
 testimony of those who "aw the occurrence. In ordi- 
 nary events the causes of the occurrence are known ; in 
 extraordinary events, they are unknown. It belongs to 
 histor}^ to examine testimony for external events ; to 
 philosophy to inquire into the cause. 
 
 (2.) We are asked to believe on historical evidence 
 things having contrary accounts. It is an irrational 
 mode of dealing, to throw aside every thing of which 
 there are disagreeing accounts. Even if there are points 
 which cannot be harmonized, we ought to admit them, 
 but at the same time remember the weight of evidence 
 on the other side. 
 
 (3.) We are asked to believe historical accounts, the 
 most conspicuous element in which is their faulty 
 chronology. 
 
 It may be admitted that there are errors by copyists ; 
 that tliere are some numbers (e. g, fort}' years) which 
 seem to indicate that the writers speak in general terms, 
 rather than definitely. It is said that the whole period 
 ascribed to certain long series of events in the Old Tes- 
 tament, is too short, and ijiconsistent with known facts 
 
95 
 
 of secular history. The difference.^ are cited between 
 the Septuao:int, the Hebrew Scriptures, the Samaritan 
 version and Josephus, as follows: 
 
 From Creation to Delugh. 
 
 Heb. Scrip. 
 1656. 
 
 Samaritan . Josephas. 
 1307. 2365. 
 
 Septaarjint 
 2242. 
 2262.' 
 
 From the 
 
 Deluge to the Birth of 
 
 Arraham, 
 
 Heb. Scrip. 
 292. 
 
 Samaritan . Jose p has. 
 942. 1002. 
 
 The Whole Period. 
 
 Sepfa.a(/int 
 1172. 
 1072. 
 
 Heb. Scrip. 
 1948. 
 
 Samaritan. Josephas. 
 2249. 3267. 
 
 Septuaqivt 
 3414. 
 3334. 
 
 The discrepancies may have been increased by errors 
 in copying, the more easily as the Hebrew letters are 
 very easily mistaken. 
 
 (4.) In the Old Testament especially we find exaggera- 
 tion and extravagance, especially in regard to the num- 
 ber of the children of Israel when they came out of 
 Egypt; the large flocks which went through the wilder- 
 ness. All that can be asked is, that these objectors see 
 what is recorded, and implied in the text. 
 
 It is not merely to satisfy critics that we have made 
 this investigation. The historical character of the Scrip- 
 tiires demanded it. It is moreover for tlie interest of an 
 intelligent iaith. Historical criticism is only one of the 
 many means of examination, and for much of its work 
 our material is meagre. In regard to the internal criti- 
 cism the results are greatly modified by the state of mind 
 of tlie critic, as well as by the methods which he uses. 
 All come with, a bias on one side or another, to this in- 
 quiry. Historical criticism must at the best be incom- 
 plete and problematical. Most of our objections to the 
 Scriptures originate with men who when they begin are 
 prejudiced against the Bible, and therefore deny ex- 
 pressly its uniqueness. When we remember how far 
 they are from establishing any point against the claims 
 of the Bible we may rest assured, and the books which 
 
96 
 
 criticism passes by admitting them invulnerable are 
 enoui^h to establish all the Christian doctrine. 
 
 Historical Evidences. 
 
 The historical evidences of the divine origin and authority 
 of Christianity. — They are 
 
 I. The Scriptures themselves. 
 
 II. Jesus Christ as delineated in the Scriptures. 
 Iir. The miracles therein recorded. 
 
 IV. The prophecies therein recorded, with their de- 
 clared or demonstrable fulfillment. 
 
 V. The results of Christianity, the earliest of which 
 are recorded therein. 
 
 I. The argument from Scripture. 
 
 This is partly negative and partly positive. What- 
 ever characteristics of the Scriptures are inconsistent 
 with the idea of their human origin, will be proof of 
 their divine origin. This will be supplemented by all 
 evidences afforded by discoverable analogies between 
 Scripture, and whatever else \\q believe to be the work 
 of God. 
 
 General Characteristics of Scripture. 
 
 A. The general theme of the Scripture and the way 
 in which it is presented show that the Scriptures are 
 from God. The natural relations and the gracious re- 
 lations existing between man and God, the relations de- 
 signed to exist and those which have resulted from man's 
 corrupt nature are all accurately described in the Scrip- 
 tures. Man's present relations are complex to tliis ex- 
 tent that correct and adequate exhibitions of these rela- 
 tions are to be presented only from above. The book 
 which truly exhibits these complex relations therefore 
 must be of divine origin. 
 
 The way these relations are set forth, partly historicul, 
 partly didactic in appropriate proportions and relations, 
 is also divine. 
 
 B. The aim of the Scriptures and the way in which 
 the accomplishment of this aim is sought are proof of 
 its divine origin. The aim of imparting information is 
 knowledge, but the biblical idea of knowledge is different 
 from that of the historian or scientist. Its aim is to 
 raise us from and by the knowledge which it gives us 
 
97 
 
 about God to kiiowiiio; God. Tlie way in which the ac- 
 complishment of this is aons^lit is distinctive of the Scrip- 
 tures. It is not merely to reach tlie understanding^ hy 
 instruction,, or the emotions, or tlie conscipiico or the 
 will by appeals, but to sliow that if all this were done 
 there is still sometliino- which could not be remedied. 
 So that while our aim in one sense is to set in motion 
 every power in another it is to point to man his only 
 possible hope. 
 
 C. Their unity considered in connection with their 
 progressive development and production. 
 
 Historical criticism disinteticrates the Scriptures and 
 overlooks their unity; it takes them book by book, 
 chapter by chapter, and verse by verse. The sixty-six 
 books written by about forty men, throus^h fifteen or six- 
 teen hundred years, are one production, but their unity is 
 not uniformity. We must ascribe these books to the 
 power which ruled their time. We discern a unity and 
 progress in the Old Testament, but much more coi^ent is 
 this demonstration, when we pass to the New Testament 
 Scriptures. The Old Testament lays its stress on forms, 
 the New on principles. There is a unity and progres- 
 siveness, which denotes superhuman ori<riii. Man's ad- 
 vancing attainments and interests will not account for it. 
 
 D. The comprehensiveness of Scripture in respect to 
 themes, considered in connectionvvith the subordination 
 of all individual themes to the one great subject and end. 
 Scripture deals witli a great variety of subjects, yet in 
 another sense it has but one subject. Matters political, 
 ethical, economical, historical, religious, are all treated 
 with more or less frequencj- yet all are subordinate to 
 one theme. Men cannot pass by what the Scriptures 
 have to say on these subjects, if they would handle their 
 subjects fairly and exhaustively; yet while the Bible is 
 thus encyclopedic, its aim is not to touch briefly, and yet 
 effectively the greatest variety of subjects, but to show 
 the importance of one great subject, viz., the religious. 
 God is the being to whom all is subordinate. The reve- 
 lation of the Creator, and of the Providential and Moral 
 Governor, is subsidiary to God as Redeemer. The lirst 
 disclosures are the foundation of what afterwards was 
 to be revealed. What God was to the world, what the 
 
98 
 
 world was to Iliiii ; wliat the world has become to God, 
 and God to it, this is disclosed in order to show what it 
 will become to Ilim and He to it, in redemption. 
 
 E. The provisions which the Scriptures make for 
 promoting njan's leligions interest of every kind, it 
 gathers about and offers in one great central form, the 
 God-man Jesus Christ. No other religious book does 
 sucli a thing; the Bible is the Book of the Messiah. 
 Messiah needed, Messiah come ; this is the main story 
 of the Bible. That God has made the provision needed 
 and with which man should be satisHcd is the purpose of 
 the Bible to unfold. The more this system is compared 
 with others, the more this distinctive character of the 
 Bible stands out. Furthermore; the Bible reaches an 
 experience in the Chi'istian's heart which to him is con- 
 vincing, though he may not be able to make it felt by 
 others. Offering Christ is the Bible's way of solving the 
 religious problem. OMiis book is not of earth ; it is 
 divine by negative and positive proof; divine because it 
 cannot be human, and because it is so superior to all 
 others of human origin. 
 
 II. JESUS CHRIST AS DELINEATED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 The delineation of Christ which the Scriptures give 
 is a proof of the divine origin of Christianity. Tliere 
 are two forms of this argument: 
 
 (1.) Looking at the delineation and saying it is not 
 human, and 
 
 (2.) Looking at the person. 
 
 (1.) The delineation is not human. 
 
 (a) The delineation must have had a subject. 
 
 [h] In the delineation of that subject divine power is 
 seen; it was divinely moulded. The dcjineation of 
 Christ is not an ideal picture, but a real one ; a true 
 portrait. 
 
 Man never showed either the disposition or the 
 ability to form such a sketch ; in all the range of liter- 
 ature there is nothing parallel. It is too broadly human 
 and too unhuman to l)e a creation of the human mind. 
 Least of all, could one of such a strong nationality as 
 the Jew, have conceived of such a nature, character and 
 work as that of Christ. If Christ was before the biog- 
 
99 
 
 rapliers.tliey could not Iiave picrnred him with a human 
 power. Their acconnt is divinely m-nilded. The verv 
 inforniality, simplicity, sobriety and want of oxa<;<;eration 
 of the portraiture show it to be divine ; for such would 
 not liave been the style of men, writing of one whom 
 they thought divine. 
 
 (2.) The person whom the Scriptures foretell and pre- 
 dict as the Christ, [>roves the record divine, whose theme 
 and founder He was. He is so central tliat in a sense 
 He is Christianity, The evidence h\* which all other doc- 
 trines must stand or fall is centered on Him. 
 
 (a) The correspondence between tlie predicted and 
 real Christ is one element in this convincing evidence. 
 The predictions are so various and different that no pre- 
 tender would have known what to be, oi- how to act, in 
 order to fulfill them; but Christ fullilled all because He 
 was the Christ. 
 
 (b) The unique nature and character of Christ can 
 be nothing less than divinely moulded and divinely 
 evidential. Compare the incarnation of Christ with all 
 fabled incarnations, and this is clearly seen. Christ does 
 not so much say, " learn what I teach," as " learn of 
 me;" not so much "live as I live," as " live in me.'" 
 That He should thus connect tliC true religion with 
 Himself is peculiar to him. His character is such, that 
 we must accept all he saj'S as true, both in regard to 
 Himself and to others. 
 
 The words, work and life of Christ, whetlier con- 
 sidered in aggregate or in detail; whether we examine 
 those elements which seem most spontaneous, or those 
 which have in them most of forethought ; whether in 
 themselves or in their power to influence men, the de- 
 cision is the same in every case, — the}' are divine. Tlie 
 naturalness, the harmony pervading all, the spirit and 
 purpose in all, the personal in Christ, standing related 
 to all that is most permanent in Christianity, prove it to 
 be divine. He spoke as He did. He wroughtas He did, be- 
 cause He was what He was, — divine, 
 
 Christ cannot be accounted for, by any or by all 
 the forces wliich work in history to make men what 
 they are. He was not the product of His time; He 
 must have been divine. 
 
100 
 
 III. PROPHECY AND ITS FULFILLMENT. 
 
 PropJieoj Classed as an E:r,tcrnal Eddence of Christianity. 
 
 External evidence is of tliat clinracter wliicli consists 
 in those murks of credibility which \vc observe in look- 
 ins: to the witnesses of the message and methods of their 
 delivery. Internal evidences are those which are fonnd 
 in the contents themselves. Paley places proidiecy 
 among the auxiliary evidences. We drop the old group- 
 ing of extei'ual and •internal. The C/hristian Religion 
 consists in part of historical facts, in part of religions 
 truths, moral principles, and positive institutions con- 
 nected with the religious life of men. Proofs are mainly 
 of the historical kind, because they come by histoi'ical 
 recoi'd. 
 
 The prophecies and their fulfillment belong to the 
 way in which Christianity was introduced into the 
 world, and are not essentially of tlie nature and essence- 
 of the Christian religion. The Christian religion might 
 have been all it is now liad no prophecies beei' uttered ; 
 therefore we discuss this proof among the historical 
 evidences. 
 
 1. The 3Ieanmg of Propheeij in Apologetics. — When we 
 speak of propliecy as supjilying a proof, we mean in a 
 limited, specific se'nse, a real foretelling of future events 
 such as shows that divine omniscience has come to the 
 aid of tlie finite knowledge of men. 
 
 But the prophets had a much wider work than this ; 
 many of them foretold nothing. They were the repre- 
 sentatives of God among the people; to teach, warn, 
 rebuke, illustrate godliness. The term prophet is usu- 
 ally employed in the narrow sense. The prophetic in- 
 stitution alone without pi-ediction miglit be framed into 
 a powerful argument for the divine origin of Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 2. The occurrence of prediciire Proph(c>/ in 0. T.andN. T.; 
 thefaot and its declared purpose. 
 
 The church believes there have been such prophecies. 
 Historical criticism says it is remarkable forecasting but 
 not foretelling. This opposition often springs from 
 avowed hostility to the supernatural. 
 
 These critics do not hesitate to attack Christ and his 
 Apostles when they admit prophecy in the O. T. 
 
101 
 
 In others it comes from a rationjilistic-uiiwillingness 
 to admit anytliin<:j that transcends unaided hnnian power, 
 and thus the mumber of prophecies is reduced to a min- 
 imum. Some orthodox writers ijo too far in deference 
 to this destructive criticism. (See Princeton Review, 
 July, 1878, Prophets and Prophecy, Dr. W. II. Green.) 
 
 The ohject of prophecy was not to arrest attention, 
 nor to satisfy curiosity ; it was one aim of tliese com- 
 munications to accredit the men as servants of God hv 
 whom the projihecies wt'yc made. The accreditini; 
 would be in part to the cotemporaries of the proithets, 
 out more after the fultillment. Christ and Christianity 
 were predicted. 
 
 3. 7 he Conditions of Validiti/ : proof from Alleqed 
 Prop hen/. 
 
 a. The real futurity of the event. But critics aim to 
 show that there is deception, e. g., Daniel not written by 
 Daniel but long after. 
 
 6. The event must be beyond the reach of mere hu- 
 man discei-nment, e. g., Burke foresaw the French Rev- 
 olution. 
 
 c. The subsequent occurrence of the event with mi- 
 nute and specific exactness as foretold. Otherwise an 
 event cannot carry conviction as a fulfillment of proph- 
 ecy. 
 
 d. The event must not involve colhision between the 
 per.'^on foretelling and those accomplishing it, nor be 
 dependent upon the prediction for its fulfillment. 
 
 It usually comes to pass in the Bible without any 
 knowledge on the part of tlie actors that they were ful- 
 filling prophecy except in the case of Christ. In many 
 cases enemies to God and Christ are the ones who ful- 
 fil prophec}', the last tiling they would knowingly do. 
 
 e. There n\ust be in the prediction an obvious dcsif/n 
 to jiredict, and a distinct challenging of attention to it 
 at the time. It is not necessary that the prophet com- 
 prehend i'uUy his own prediction. He utters the mes- 
 sage received from God. Thus is met the objection to 
 the possibility of specific prophecies. Some say that 
 individual terms, as Cyprus, Bethlehem, etc., are only 
 general terms. Answer. This is bagging the question. 
 
 /. In many cases we discover a divinely proportional 
 blending of vagueness with precision in the particulars 
 
102 
 
 of the prediction ; so as on the one hand to secure the 
 identification of the fiiltillment, \vhile on the other hand 
 it prevents the possibility of pretended fiilfiUment. In 
 this case the prophet must have had kno\vled<re. 
 
 4. Other uses of Predictwe P/ ophec)/ besu/es the Eoi- 
 dential. 
 
 One purpose was to make evident the purpose of 
 God. It makes more vivid the fact of God's rehition 
 to his churcli, it excites devout expectation, stimuhites 
 the desire, and sustains the faith of the church. It 
 awakens anxiety and fear. Tlie prophets were preachers 
 of righteousness, and predictive prophecy aided the di- 
 dactic and hortatory presentation of truth and dut}' by 
 God's servants to men. The prophet must have tie con- 
 fidence of the people. 
 
 Object of Prophecies iri Regard to Christ. 
 
 a. To give certain signs by which the Messiah mig'nt 
 be identified when he came. 
 
 b. To keei» alive the belief that the i)romise would 
 be fulfilled. 
 
 c. To arouse the minds of men to a lively expectation 
 that " the latter days'' spoken of by the prophets had 
 come. 
 
 To illustrate and confirm the teachings of the past, 
 to emphasize tlie duties of the present, as really as to 
 create expectation for the future; tliese were a part of 
 the design of prediction in relation to other parts of 
 Scripture. 
 
 5. To ivhom loould Predictive Prophecy carry its Evi- 
 dential 31essa<]e ? Ans. Only those to whom the ful- 
 fillment became known would have this part of the 
 proof. A propliecy unfulfilled lacks just so much as the 
 fulfillment constitutes. 
 
 Davidson on Prophecy : "Indications of design, 
 fitness, wisdom, and internal truth will coalesce witli the 
 fulfillment as evidence for prophecy." (See Fairbairn on 
 Prophecy.) 
 
 6. What are the great Truths involved in and emphasized 
 by each instance of authenticated Prophecy ? 
 
 a. In respect to God's attributes each fulfillment 
 involves and emphasizes his immutability, omniscience, 
 power, etc. 
 
103 
 
 b. Hit? general, providential and moral government of 
 the world. He has a present as well as a future object 
 in the prophec}-. 
 
 c. God's special ])rovidential government. lie must 
 have a specific object in foretelling at a particular time, 
 j)lace, etc. 
 
 (/. God has a specific design, to accredit his human 
 agent to whom and through whom the prediction is 
 made, 
 
 e. The things ])redicted are usually sutih as have a 
 peculiar place in God's regarcL 
 
 7. The special hcarvn/ of Prophecy on Christianitii. 
 
 The most extraordinary prophecies on record are 
 found extended through thousands of years and concern 
 Christ and His kingdom. 
 
 When the fulfillment came, a new endorsement for 
 Judaism, and ever}- prophet as a servant of God, follows. 
 Judaism was fully endorsed only wlien its work was 
 done. 
 
 The language of John the Baptist ai)plies to Juda- 
 ism also, " He must increase but I must decrease." 
 Prophecies are miracles of knowledge. We now come 
 to mira(;ies of power. 
 
 rV. MIRACLES. 
 
 The miracles that are historically recorded in the 
 Scriptures are proof of diviui* origin and authority' of 
 Christianity. 
 
 There are three terms used in the Scrij)ture8, rijOa-a, 
 
 Design of miracles : to accredit those who wi-ought 
 them, showing superhuman power and authority of 
 mission. 
 
 Questions: (1) According to the principles of human 
 belief are such events possible? We call them violations 
 of nature's laws. (2) Are they under any particular cir- 
 cumstances probable, or at least not im|)robable ? (3) 
 Are they credible ? Does the evidence sullice in amount 
 and conclusiveness? (4) Suppose them possible, jirob- 
 able, credible — is the conclusion we are asked to draw 
 warranted by the fact? 
 
 Through many centuries miracles were received un- 
 disputed, ascribed to magic, art, or spirits. The fact 
 
104 ■ 
 
 was not denied, but wroiiiijly inter[ireted. Now unbelief 
 denies tbe fact. 
 
 1. Possibiliiy of Jliracles. 
 
 Def. (Hedge) "An event in the external world 
 brought about by the immediate etRciency of God." It 
 must stand out from the ordinar}' course of events in 
 such a way as to convince men that God's efficiency is the 
 agency at work, otherwise it will not attract proper 
 attention. How shall men be led to ascribe true mir- 
 acles to God. 
 
 (1.) It may be by the amount or quality of power 
 displayed. 
 
 (2.) By the purpose or wisdom shown. 
 
 Sonjetimest it may resemble what men have seen 
 before, e. g., healing. In that case it must differ from 
 ordinary cases, no remedies used. Christ healed by a 
 word. Some of these events are wholly without analogy. 
 
 Another definition of miracle : " An event in mani- 
 fest opposition to all the hitherto experienced laws of 
 created nature which are afJected b}' the miracle. The 
 event has no true material or physical cause, no human 
 cause, as the will, no superhuman created cause, as 
 spirits ; but is wrought by God.'" 
 
 Is such an event possible? 
 
 a. A miracle appears to be wholly within the original 
 reach of omnipotence. The events cannot be shown to 
 be any more difficult than tliose occurring ever}' 
 moment. 
 
 b. It does not appear that when God instituted the 
 course of nature that he put limitations on his own om- 
 nipotence. By "course of nature " we mean the way 
 in which the sequences of causes and effects is regularlv 
 and uniformly developed in created nature according to 
 ordinary experience, observation and reason. 
 
 Did he incor[»orate into nature all the forces that 
 were ever to work in the original schem.e of nature? 
 The objector must prove that He did, before our faith is 
 sliaken. 
 
 c. It does not appear that God's immutabUity renders 
 it impossibile for him to work in nature in any new way. 
 Belief in mi>'acles does not require us to believe that in 
 unchanged conditions, God changes liis method. But 
 
105 
 
 under peculiar conditions, God does introduce new 
 causes. 
 
 d. tt does not appear that God's omniscience inter- 
 feres with his workiufy a miracle. God does not sub- 
 stitute new methods and agencies for the old, hut to ac- 
 complish a particular end in a particular contingency lie 
 does interpose. 
 
 e. That God makes the uniformity of nature, a truth 
 apparent as well as important, sensible and indisputable, 
 does not make it impossible that in special circumstances 
 and on worthy occasions God should work miracles. 
 
 /. It does not appear that God has imparted his own 
 immutability to the works of his own created power. 
 It cannot he shown that any thing restricts him to a 
 certain line of working. 
 
 2. Are Miracles Probahle ? 
 
 If we can establish that they are not improbable, we 
 neutralize an objection. If we can go further and sliovv 
 that they are calculated to do good we increase the 
 probability. The burden of proof will always be on the 
 side of apparent or alleged interruption. The occasion 
 of the interru[)tion must alway? be a worthy one. Mir- 
 acles are offered to us as authenticating a divine com- 
 munication ; to authenticate a divine messenger and his 
 mission. Is not this a worthy occasion? 
 
 Which Would be the greater, loss to human belief, 
 expectation, hope, etc., the loss of divine communica- 
 tion and its benefits, or the loss of just so much confi- 
 dence in the uniformity of nature, as results from a 
 single infraction, for so wise a purpose. 
 
 The communication comes from God and must be 
 accredited as such. If in order to this it must be ac- 
 companied by such signs of divine origin is it improbable 
 that such events would occur? 
 
 "6. Credihiliii/ of Miracles. 
 
 Of a miracle aaid to have occurred, is the evidence 
 sufficient? Hume says, no amount of evidence could 
 convince a reasonable mind that such an event occurred. 
 Mill : All that Hume has made out is that there are no 
 evidences to prove miracles to any who have not believed 
 in a Being of supernatural power. Hume: They are 
 contrary to all experience, and hence not to be proved by 
 any known laws of evidence. 
 
106 
 
 If not impossible nor improbable, they are not in- 
 trinsically incredible. Is tliere then any thing in the 
 accompanying circumstances to make tljcm incredible? 
 Were tliose who saw them deceived? The question 
 turns on the credibility of the witnesses. Could they 
 trust their senses ? 
 
 Objection : They were mistaken. A)is. There were 
 hundreds of Jews present sometimes. Couid they Jiave 
 been deceived ? Often unfriendly witnesses were obliged 
 to believe. 
 
 In later ages the credibilit}^ depends on testimony. 
 Is this reliable? The question turns on validity in gen- 
 eral, and, in particular, of tlie kind in hand. 
 
 Objection : Testimony itself could not decide in such 
 a case, and further, others admit the force of testimon}-, 
 but not the kind and degree given. 
 
 Hume: The validity of testimony rests on experience 
 alone. We say it does not, but on the validity of the 
 testimony. The relation of language to thought -creates 
 in us a disposition to rely on testimony. The element 
 of experience determines the conditions of true tes- 
 timony. 
 
 Hume: The best result that can be obtained is ab- 
 solute rest or equilibrium. Ans. The improbability that 
 such testimony is false is greater than that the miracle 
 occurred in the given circumstances. It may be highly 
 irrational to receive such testimony as this. 
 
 How is it in regard to the N. T. miracles? The 
 witnesses were eye-witnesses, usually many, of mixed 
 prepossessions and sympathies. The fads are numerous, 
 clear, public, easily tested. The momejitous nature of 
 the issues involved was sucli as called for the greatest 
 pcrutiu}', and strong prejudices had to be overcome in . 
 those who believed the facts and accepted their inter- 
 pretation. Those who did not believe the evidence of 
 these miracles, appear not to have denied the facts, but 
 the way in which they were brought about. Some of 
 the miracles are internal, and essential to Christianit}'; 
 not external corroborations merely ; e. g., the resurrec- 
 tion. 
 
 We do not maintain that there are no difficulties in be- 
 lieving these miracles, nor that a perfect belief will be 
 
107 
 
 attained in any case. Those who reject them have im- 
 perfect views of inspiration, donbt as to an ovcrrnlinir 
 Providence, prayer, creation, and even the existence of 
 a personal God. 
 
 4. The Ecidential Bearing and Power of Miracles. 
 
 If in a o:iven instance or series of instances evidence 
 valid in kind and in amount be advanced, so that we as 
 believers in natnre and in God are satisfied, then what 
 follows? What credit accrnes to the messen^rer, his 
 messai>;e, or the dispensation to which he belonsjs. 
 
 Objection. Natural phenomena can prove no spiritual 
 truth. The physical cannot prove the spiritual. 
 
 Ans. It is not claimed that something is made true 
 by a miracle which was not true before, nor that an ar- 
 gument is made correct, nor a demonstration apparent. 
 God by these means accredits the messengers. The 
 truth is in the miracle, the agent, and the system or dis- 
 pensation with which he is connected are accredited by 
 the niiracle. In fact the agent is accredited to himself 
 as God's agent. 
 
 Internal evidence is always better than external. It 
 cannot so immediately arrest attention as the external. 
 By many it is less perfectly appreciated. In Ileb. ii, 4, 
 see the design of miracles, viz., the witness God gave to 
 his messengers to convince men that these were his 
 agents. Is this sufficient for, and atlapted to its))urpose? 
 Is it efficient or should it be? Dr. Mozley (Bampton 
 Lectures, 1865.) The visible supernatural is the appro- 
 priate witness of the invisible supernatural. This goes 
 straight to the point. A token being wanted of divine 
 communication, this is tliat token. Atittingsign would 
 naturally take a form analogous to creative work, and 
 sucli are mii-acles. The production of works that seem 
 opposed to all former experience in like circumstances 
 is analogous to creation. It is an intervention by God. 
 Prof. Nitzsch says: Jesus is the Christ. Is that doc- 
 trine or fact ? It is fact. Salvation has come into the 
 world. Is tliat doctrine or fact ? It is fact. Miracles 
 are in connection with fact. 
 
 Objection: The alleged miracles, were not convincing 
 to those who saw them, and were near them. Why 
 then should we believe ? What »uode has persuaded all 
 
log 
 
 men to receive evidence from Goc) ? It is essential to 
 moral evidence that there be a possibility of disbeliev- 
 ing. It is never eovnpnlsory. 
 
 As to lying wonders, as in Egypt, they were counter- 
 feits suffered b}' God, to be tested by their connection 
 and manifest spiritual teaching. Pharisees said Christ 
 wrought by Beelzebub. Christ replied, " Satan cannot 
 cast out Satan." 
 
 Miracles are thoroughly consistent with the system 
 they purport to attest. The most important of them are 
 internal and vital (e. g.. Resurrection.) 
 
 But some will not look at the evidence of miracles. 
 Strauss: Miracle had a subjective origin. People had 
 made up their minds, that Christ must do this and that 
 so they made up miracle= enough to identify him. 
 
 Reuiin : The men of those times were ignorant and 
 credulous, this fact is to be presupposed wherever 
 miracles are believed in. 
 
 Strauss does not implicate Christ. Renan does, in 
 deception. 
 
 Zeller : Miracles and the historical investigation of 
 a subject are mutually exclusive. If you have one you 
 must give up the otlier. 
 
 We admit that miracles are outside the pale of com- 
 mon experience, but we deny his right as a historian to 
 refuse, in advance, ihe examination of historical testi- 
 mony. The church challenges comparison of the his- 
 torical evidence for miracles with the evidence for any 
 other historical event, e. g., Resurrection of Christ and 
 the assassination of Julius Csesar. 
 
 v. — RESULTS OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 The results, the earliest of which are recorded in the 
 scriptures are a proof of its divine origin. This has been 
 considered auxiliary to tlie internal evidence. It is also 
 akin to the external. The system does not pretend to 
 reveal all its results in this life, some are to be revealed 
 only in the future life. 
 
 Mozley regards this as the strongest argument for 
 Christianity. 
 
 [Consult Pressenfe, Martyrs and Apologists ; Farrar's 
 Witness ot History to Christ. Newman's Grammar of 
 Assent. Luthardt's Fundamental Truths of Christianity.] 
 
109 
 
 We may examine the proof in three lines of argu- 
 ment. 
 
 a. The extent of the results. 
 
 b. The certain siijnificance of individual results. 
 
 c. The utter disproportion of the results to the ter- 
 restrial agencies that were employed in hriiii^iug them 
 about. 
 
 These can be accounted for in no other way than by 
 extraordinary inherent power in Christianity and by 
 divine aid and origin. 
 
 Each of these ma}' be considered with rc-spixt to 
 
 (1.) Facts connected witli the external propagation 
 and prevalence of Christianity. 
 
 (2.) Facts connected with intellectual influence of 
 Christianity on the world. 
 
 (3.) Facts connected with moral and social i'.itiuence. 
 
 (1.) Facts concerning propagailun. 
 
 Trajan, Pliny, Tacitus supplement the Acts and 
 Epistles. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Clement of Alex- 
 andria, Epistle of Diognetus. From Britain to India, 
 from Pro-Consular Africa, tc Scythia, Christianity spread 
 within ten (10) generations and over much of this region 
 in iive (5.) 
 
 The significance of this must be judged in connection 
 with the shortness of the time and the opposition encoun- 
 tered, its intensit}', ingenuity and persistence. The cus- 
 toms, literature, political condition and organization of 
 nations were all arrayed against Christianity. Roman 
 toleration did not allow the old religion to be supersed- 
 ed — Christianity insisted on superseding. Followers of 
 Christ were vilified, persecuted, and accused of treason, 
 having one Jesus, looking, not to Cfesar. The Pride and 
 Enmity of the natural heart was an obstacle, even if the 
 great of the earth had promulgated Christianity. It was 
 not so with Mohammedanism, which had much that 
 pleased the natural heart. 
 
 The endurance and changed lives of Christians at- 
 tracted the attention of all men. The blood of the mar- 
 tyrs is the seed of the Church, " semen est sangaie." 
 We can see now how everything was ready for Christi- 
 anity, but we must wonder at the results of early 
 Christianity. The world was ruled by one sceptre, the 
 
illO 
 
 Roman, and under one cnltnre, the Greek. A crucified 
 Jew was the founder of Christianity. Where was the 
 human adequacy of such air origin, to accomplish such 
 results. 
 
 What earthly advantage could it offer as an induce- 
 ment to receive it. The cross was the emblem of a slave's 
 infamy, this was held up to challenge the love, reverence, 
 and faith of men, to be a continual reminder of the Mas- 
 ter, and the possible experience of those who embraced 
 Christianity. Men listened to the preachers of the Cross 
 because of their ]M)re lives, and honored tiieir religion 
 because of their death. Preaching and living are inade- 
 quate to such results without divine aid (see Barnes on 
 Evidences of Christianity — Lecture 4th.) Newman says: 
 Christianity was to accomf)lish its destiny by the novel 
 means of sanctity and suffering: but what was this with- 
 out the might of God. 
 
 (2.) InteUcciual Infuence of C]iristkmil)j. 
 
 These facts are less palpable in themselves and more 
 open to different constructions. Christianity can be 
 shown to be the world's intellectual regenerator. The 
 Golden Age of Greece had i)assed centuries before 
 decline and corruption had begun in Rome. For some 
 centuries aflger Christianity began, all advanced vigorous 
 thinking and wilting came from it. It furnished new 
 themes, new philosophy, new legislation and jurispru- 
 dence, new impulse in education, especially in science, 
 which has now turned against its own foster mother. 
 Guizot, "the organizing power of the church did a great 
 deal to improve the organization of society. It made the 
 loftiest ideas the common property of humanity. Ideas 
 which before were reserved for the Platos". Such influ- 
 ence cannot have come from any sj'stem of ancient 
 philosophy, imposture, or enthusiasm. It must have 
 come from God. 
 
 (3.) Facts connected wilh the moral and social influence of 
 Qhristianitfj. 
 
 This is more easily traced. We know the condition 
 of man when Christianity came, when the true idea of 
 humanity arose, what woman had been and is now what 
 labor had been and has become through Christianity, 
 also how lofty and uncompromising the morality of 
 
Ill 
 
 Christianity, how Christianity exalts and refines every 
 virtue the world had known, how it added to the list ; 
 for exanijde meekness, iuunility, love, benevolence ; how 
 it transformed social, civil and i)olitical relations. Can 
 the religion which from the first, bec^an to work such 
 chanp^es be traced to Galilean fishermen, or to any source 
 but God. 
 
CHRISTIAN ETHICS 
 
 EDITED BY THE CLASS OF 1879. 
 
CHRISTIAN ETHICS. 
 
 Apologetics proves that Christianity is the divinely 
 originated religion. It is also ethical. Apologetics is 
 (1) Historical and (2) Philosophical. (1.) Christianity is 
 partly a system of religious truths, institutions &c., i. e. 
 historical, and (2) partly philosophical, since the ques- 
 tions that arise stand related mainly to ethical, meta- 
 physical, and natural science. 
 
 Christianit)j as an Ethical Religiov. 
 
 Christian Ethics we take up as a Biblical study, ob- 
 taining facts from the moral character of Christianity 
 partly in the Scriptures and partly in the results of the 
 Christian religion. Christianity is not a philosophy but 
 a religion. What do its moral results l^hovv it to be as 
 a religion ? What is Christian society ? How does relig- 
 ion propose to deal with human society to make it 
 Christian ? Some reduce Christianity to mere' morality, 
 some to a system of truth or doctrine; it is more: we 
 are to look at Christianity as an ethical religion, not as a 
 system of morals. 
 
 GENERAL PRINCIPLES. 
 
 First: Morality is inseparably connected with relig- 
 ion. 
 
 Second : Christian morality is inseparably connected 
 with the Christian religion. 
 
 Third: The only true, complete morality is the 
 Christian morality. 
 
 Three Preliminarn qaesiions. 
 
 1, What is the place of Ethics in Philosophy ? 
 
 2, What is the place of Christian Ethics in relation 
 to theology ? 
 
 3, What is the place of Christian Ethics in Philosoph- 
 ical Ethics? 
 
I. WHAT IS THE PLACE OP ETHICS IN PHILOSOPHY ? 
 
 By a merely nominal definition, Ethics is the science 
 of the moral. 
 
 McCosh " The science of the hiws of man's moral 
 constitution." 
 
 It is also called the science of human conduct. 
 
 Porter: "Science of human duty." 
 
 Wayland: " Science of moral law." 
 
 These differences arise from different approaches to 
 the subject. 
 
 IVie Subject of Ethics.— By common consent it is man 
 in his moral nature and relations. Notice such terms as 
 merit, demerit, ought, obligation, duty, right, wrong. 
 Ethics is the department in which these are the ruling 
 ideas. 
 
 Ought. The word ought introduces the mind into new 
 regions where thematerialis not found. All materialistic 
 philosophers are confronted with " ought/' " right," &c. 
 These words will not down at the bidding of evolution- 
 ists. We use Ethics in preference to moral philosophy 
 because the latter word is ambiguous. 
 
 Sidney Smith : By the term " moral pliilosophy " 
 is popularly understood. Ethics. But the term moral 
 philosophy is misleading and is too inclusive. Moral 
 philosophy is used in a popular sense including meta- 
 physics, aesthetics &c., and second in a proper sense as 
 opposed to natural philosophy. 
 
 Ethics is a more felicitous and accurate term. From 
 the Greek, eduot; (moral from wos.) " Morals" relates 
 to the external. Ethics is internal. This term origi- 
 nated with the Greeks. AVhile Ethics hag a wide sphere 
 and scope of its own, it does not stand alone. It is re- 
 lated — (1) to psychology because there are faculties to be 
 considered, (2) to nietaph3'sics as cause' and effect, (3) 
 to political and social science, jurisprudence and po- 
 litical economy. 
 
 Some of the topics that come up in these relations 
 must be discussed. 
 
 1. The nature and origin of moral ideas. 
 
 2. Faculities by which man is made capable of moral 
 action. 
 
 3. Relations in which he puts forth moral action. 
 
4. Impulses bv which he is urged, and obligations 
 impelling or holding him to right action. * 
 
 5. Functions of conscience in reference to moral ac- 
 tions. 
 
 6. Nature and bounds of duty. 
 
 7. Results to character. 
 
 8. Nature of virtue. 
 
 9. Nature of the supreme and secondary good. 
 
 The treatment of these themes will be modified ac- 
 cording to the view we take of man as he should be and 
 as he is. 
 
 Some of the topics relate to man as one moral l)eino' 
 alone. Others in liis relations to superiors, inferiors, 
 equals, &c. 
 
 Philosophical Ethics discusses man's natural charac- 
 ter, relations, obligations, &c., as reason construes them. 
 
 Theological Ethics is not confined to this. These 
 are onl\' elementary. 
 
 n. THE PLACE OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS IN RELATION TO CHRIS- 
 TIAN THIiOLOGY. 
 
 One would make it a part of Historical Theology, 
 atiother, of Practical Theology. 
 
 Rothe separates Ethics from dogmatics; makes 
 dogmatics a branch of historical Ethics and puts Ethics 
 in speculative theolog3\ As to the assignmentof Ethics 
 to practical theology we, cannot regard it a complete or 
 correct view which treats of Ethics as something to be 
 done in distinction from something to be believed. 
 
 In the moral life the why and hoio determine the what. 
 In dealing with the luhy and how there is quite as much 
 of the dogmatic as of the practical. 
 
 Theological science is divided thus: Exegetical, His- 
 torical, Systematic and Practical. If this be a correct 
 division Ethics belongs to the third, which includes dog- 
 matic and ethical theolog3\ For two hundred years 
 didactic and ethical theology have been treated sepa- 
 rately for the most part. 
 
 Redemption is fully realized when we do what it is 
 designed that we should. Therefore there should be no 
 separation of the didactic and the ethical. On the other 
 hand it is claimed, and rightly, that there shouldbeasepa- 
 
ration, one, being God's side of the question of redemp- 
 tion and the other man's. Doctrine and practice how- 
 ever may be, and often are, too widely separated. They 
 have a reciprocal relation to each other. 
 
 III. WHAT IS THE RELATION OF CHRISTIAN ETHICS TO PHIL- 
 OSOPHICAL ETHICS ? 
 
 Kahnis : " Ethics is the systematic exhibition of Chris- 
 tian morality." 
 
 Martensen : " The science of the moral life, deter- 
 mined by Christianity." 
 
 Neander : " That science which develops the laws 
 for human action out of the nature of Christianity." 
 
 Christian Ethics points man to the fource of his pow- 
 er — God. Philosophical Ethics points man to what he 
 ought to do of himself, by reason. These two should 
 harmonize. 
 
 Dorner : " Philosophical Ethics takes its starting 
 point in the first creation ; man as he was before the fall. 
 Christian Ethics in the new creation; man as restored by 
 grace." 
 
 Where shall we find the best exhibition of Christianity 
 as an ethical religion? In Christ. But we follow God's 
 order, beginning with the preliminary exhibition or 
 preparation for it in the patriarchal and Jewish systems. 
 
ETHICS OF OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
 No lono; inspection of O. T. is necessary to show that 
 its system is not cast in scientific form. Moreover, the O. 
 T, mode of presentinor things is different from tlie N. 
 T. The former bears resemblance to Semitic and Jewish 
 types. The religions system of the O. T. is evidently pro- 
 visional, prophetic, and preparatory, not permanent and 
 final; so the mode of presenting its Ethics is different. 
 That may be tolerated in one condition of things which 
 might not be in another. Judaism shows itself inferior to 
 Christianity both in the extent and perf>iCtion of the re- 
 sults wrought out. 
 
 Some general characteristics of the ethical systems of 0. T. 
 
 a. The ethical system of tlie O. T. like that of N. T., 
 is presented to us in, with, thrdugh, by, con- 
 cerning, the religion with which it is connected. 0. T. 
 knows nothing of a religion vrithout a moralitv. Hence 
 the irreligious men are the immoral men and vice- versa. 
 Ps. 14 : 1 ; 10:4-11; 94 : 6, 7 ; Gen. 18 : 19 ; 1 Sam. 15 : 
 22; Is. 1:11-17; Hos. 6 : 7; Jer. 7 : 9, 10 ; Ps. 50 :8 ; 
 Prov. 15 : 8. 
 
 Through the union of morality and religion, the pre- 
 dominant notions of relis^ion are brous^ht to bear on tlie 
 moral. 
 
 b. It is consistent with this mode of presenting the 
 subject that we note the entire absence from O. T. of 
 the specific, abstract terms used in Philosophical Ethics 
 as duty, ought, etc. The.«je are part of the religion 
 of O. t. 
 
 e. It is nowhere found, but always assumed, in 0. T. 
 that man has a moral nature, is under moral obligation, 
 and that he knows it, and should live to secure the high- 
 est good. 
 
 "General truths fundamental in 0. T. as a religious and 
 moral system.. 
 
 a. The life and power of 0. T. are found in its con- 
 ception of God. What we are to be, is shown to us in 
 God. The motives are drawn from him ; God's unity 
 
in opposition to polytheism, his spirituality in opposition 
 to materialism, his personality in opposition to panthe- 
 ism ; these had no little power in making O. T. mo- 
 rality. 
 
 Neander : " The apprehension of God came out in 
 Judaism as it could not in surrounding religions." Its 
 reolizoiion of God's holiness is a more important point. 
 When we combine with these his omnipotence, omni- 
 science, omnipresence, we have a faith which will be 
 morally effective as none other could be. 
 
 b. Its teaching^ of the dignity of individual human 
 nature. Man was made in" the image of God. This 
 fact gives solemnity to his actions. It is not necesary 
 that, his likeness be sharply defined. 
 
 The dignity of man is shown, by the place assigned 
 to him in the order of creation, and by the sharp distinction 
 between him and the other animals. Man has dominion 
 given him over other creatures. After the deluge man's 
 relations are defined and ratified again. There is a re- 
 peated prohibition of man's forgetting his superiority to 
 other animals. On the other hand he is taught to sep- 
 arate himself more and more from the brutes, and perfect 
 his fellowship with God. 
 
 c. The brotherhood of man less perfectl}' seen in O. 
 T. than in N. T., and yet more prominent there than in 
 any other system. The Bible represents us as brethren 
 in one race ; not in many. 1. The O. T, ascribes the 
 origin of the whole race to one pair, and connects pro- 
 pagation after the deluge with a single family. 2. The 
 duty of sympathy and charity is based not only on the 
 Fatherhood of God but also on the brotherhood of man 
 both in the Law and the Prophets. Gen. 9: 4-8; Is. 
 58: 7. 3. The reach of God's redeeming purpose em- 
 braces all families, as seen in the promise to Abraham, 
 prophecies concerning Gentiles, Is. 56: 6. 
 
 d. The organization of humanity is of God in all its 
 essential relations and institutions, and the maintenance 
 of this organization is God's deep concern, that it may 
 accomplish his purpose. And God is concerned in the 
 enjoyment by each individual of the advantage for which 
 the organization is instituted. The family is the unit of 
 this organization and must be kept pure. 
 
9 
 
 e. Moral responsibility extends also to man's relations 
 to the inferior creation. God gave man dominion over 
 the creatnres but not to nse it nnlawrnlly. It is not 
 insured to him permanently. Man's dominion is Ijound- 
 ecl by the riohts of God and of nature. 
 
 /. Man's treatment and use of himself, whether phys- 
 ical or spiritual, comes within the sphere of morals. The 
 O. T. protect^ man from his evil self, and demands the 
 best care and culture of himself Sins a,i:;ainst the body 
 are denounced, as also s[)iritaal sins, sucli as indolence, 
 I pride, etc. 
 
 ; r/. God's concern for man's moral life is shown under 
 
 i the O. T. economy, by provision for man's culture and 
 
 i education. Morality is not left witliout culture. Left 
 
 to bimself man mistakes natural impulse for natural 
 
 law, the ao^reeable for the obligatory, present e.\citement 
 
 for permanent good. 
 
 Our nature receives no new elements. God helps 
 us by instruction as to what man's relations are, and by 
 what the 0. T. does for refining and elevating man. Tic? 
 helps to regain lost purity, quickens moral sensibilities. 
 A personal ruler is put in j)lace or impersonal law. Man's 
 conscience is a monitor for good and evil, to reward and 
 punish. 
 
 h. Motives to the performance of duty are made 
 effective by new and peculiar sanctions in the O. T, 
 Man is not attracted to right or deterred from wrong 
 simply by conscience. Right action secures God's ap- 
 probation as well as the approbation of conscience. 
 Man is taught that the memory of God is ever enduring. 
 The brotherhood of man is well brought out in the 
 O. T,, Ijnt immortality of the soul is more vague than 
 in the JN", T, By the 0. T. men are taught to expect 
 retribution and rewards licre., hence it has been called a 
 mercenary system. The O. T. makes more than the 
 New, of present exhibitions of divine approval and con- 
 demnation, e. g., Job, Eccl. Men who are conscious of 
 God's presence feel the truth, so that the perplexities of 
 Job and Eccl. are removed by implicit confidence in 
 God, going beyond the present to the future, appreciat- 
 ing God's spiritual training beyond the temporal gifts. 
 While the O. T, encourages expectation, the sign is al- 
 
10 
 
 ways less than the tiling signified. Thy favor is life. 
 Even in the N. T. there is pron)isc for tlie life that now 
 is, as well as for that wliich is to come, while in theO. T. 
 Balaam desires to die the death of the righteous. 
 
 i. The quality of O. T. morality is displayed by the 
 standard of exi,'ellence it sets up. Three (3) things no- 
 ticeable ; first the intrinsic excellence, second, the degree 
 of conformit}^ required of us, third, the fitness of the 
 standard itseif to promote and secure this required con- 
 formity. 
 
 The stajidard is the character of God and his holi- 
 ness, the degiee required i-< exact correspondence, " Be 
 ye holy, for T am holy." There is unparalleled attrac- 
 tiveness as well as surpassing glory in this stand ird. 
 This is the most desirable excellence. Nothing higher 
 can be conceived of. If you lower the standard you 
 lower its attractive power. 
 
 Objectioks to Old Testament Morality. 
 
 These are in a great variety of forms. Some cour- 
 teous, some offensive. Some disparage the O. T. mo- 
 rality in order to exalt the New. Some are philosoph- 
 ical or speculative. 
 
 Mill : The Old Testament system of morality is bar- 
 barous, fit only for savages. 
 
 I. FIRST objection. 
 
 The God of the O, T. is represented as partial, fickle, 
 hateful, revengeful and otherwise morally unworthy. 
 
 Bolingbrokc says, it is blasphemy to assert that the 
 O. T. writers were inspired, when they attribute such 
 tilings to Divinity as would disgrace humanity. The 
 conclusion that such men draw is, there is a God, but 
 I cannot conceive of liim thus; or if this is the best 
 that can be conceived of, then for me there is no God. 
 
 Answer, a. The representation which is largely 
 predominant in O. T., by common consent, is that God 
 is infinitely exalted, and absolutely perfect in moral 
 excellence. The objector concedes this. If this be so, 
 we ought to be controlled in our interpretation of 
 doubtful passages by this fact. We are not to assume 
 that these writers deliberately falsify their other state- 
 ments. We must harmonize if possible. 
 
11 
 
 b. This liarmoniziiicr iiiteri>retatioM must take into 
 account the context as well as the contents of each pas- 
 sage, the idioms oflanirnage and the characteristics of 
 the oriental mind. Anthropomorphic style of literature 
 renders sncli roi-resentation necessary. ^ When we have 
 allowed for these we claim that the ohjection falls. 
 Instances. God repents, Gen. G : 5-7.' 
 Is licklc, Gen. 8 : 21. 
 
 His dealings with Phai-oah, E.v. 7-14, (chs.) 
 (See Trench's llnlsean Lectures, p. 90, Ilanna's Bainp- 
 ton Lectures, p. 88.) 
 
 God's anger allayed by appeals to His vanity — Ex. 
 32 :9-seq. : "Num. 16 : 20-seq."; Num. 14 : 22, 2-3. 
 
 God lickle with Balaam, Num. 22 ch. 
 
 Punishes people for others' sins, 2d Sam. chs. 21, 24 ; 
 Deceives Ahab, 1 Kings 22 ; Deceives the prophet, Ezek. 
 14 : 9. 
 
 ir. SECOND OBJECTION. 
 
 The principle of human brotherhood receives only a 
 very parti:d and inconsistent treatment in O, T. 
 
 Bolingbroke urges that the particularism by which 
 the Jews were taught to regard themselves as God's i)ecu- 
 liar ]ieople, took them out of obligation to the rest of 
 mankind. Ans. 
 
 a. This objection proves too much. It destroys all 
 belief in providential distinctions which all men must 
 observe and God is constantly making. 
 
 h. The objection mistakes or mis-states the nature, 
 ground, and aim of the particularism of the Hebrew 
 system. There is one God of all the earth, who has pur- 
 poses of mercy toward all, though not in the same way. 
 The Hebrews are represented in O. T. as brethren in 
 one human race, made to ditibr lor a time and for a pur- 
 pose that good ma}- result to all; the favors that distin- 
 guish the Hebrews at tiie same time increase their res])on- 
 sibility. This closer relation to God is not a meritorious 
 relation and the fiivors they enjoy are a means to an end. 
 Exclusiveness has a double object, (1) Defensive; to pro- 
 tect them from contamination, protecting and developing 
 His instrumentalities on earth ; and (2) the securing more 
 full and effectual application of God's instrumentalities 
 
12 
 
 to tlie whole hnniaii race. The wall of partition is to be 
 thrown down. 
 
 There is however a way open for the recognition of 
 human brotlierhood. 
 
 From the Pentatench. Lev. 19: 33. The Jews were 
 to treat strangers kindly. The doors of the Jewish 
 sanctnary were ijjnardediy opened, (i. e. to proselytes.) 
 
 E.x. 23 : 9. The>- shall not oppress the stranger. 
 
 Num. 15 : 15. As ye are, so shall the stranger be be- 
 fore the Lord. 
 
 Dent. 10: 18. The Lord loveth tlie stranger. 
 
 From the Prophets. 
 
 Micah 4 : 1, 2. Many nations shall come. 
 
 Is. 56 : 7. God's house a iiouse of prayer for all 
 people. 
 
 Is. 66: 20. God's glory to be declared among the 
 gentiles. 
 
 Is. 60. Access to the gentiles. 
 
 These show that in the end, a richer result will be to 
 the whole world from this temporary separation. 
 
 III. THIRD OBJECTION. 
 
 There is a divine endorsement of character not ap- 
 proved by our moral sense. 
 
 Ans. a. Divine approbation in many of these cases 
 where God's approbation ise.xpressed, is explicitly based 
 on and restricted to, certain specified aspects of these 
 characters. 
 
 b. In no case is Divine approbation extended to those 
 qualities which provoke our moral censure. 
 
 e. In some cases Divine disap{)robation is pronounced 
 upon those points of character which we denounce, and 
 the sins visited with severe judgments. 
 
 d. In no case should we \)e ivith God but in every 
 case against God if we withhold our censure from these 
 sins. 
 
 Dr. Ilessey : " The Christian rejects the pleading that 
 will not distinguish between the whole character, and 
 special acts." 
 
 IV. FOURTH OBJECTION. 
 
 The Old Testament represents God as expressly re- 
 quiring, in some instances, acts condemned by our moral 
 
13 
 
 sense, e. g. : Abnihuni is commanded to sacrifice Isaac ; 
 Moses deceives Phiiroali ; the i)orro\vin2: of jewelry mid 
 raiment from the Egyptians; Ilosea's marriage ; false- 
 hood of midwives of Egypt. 
 
 Reply: a. In each instance it belongs to exegesis to 
 determine the meaning of the record. Did Ilosea be- 
 come an adulterer? Did the Israelites borrow of the 
 Egyptians ? 
 
 h. In the petition of Moses to Pharaoh, there is no 
 evidence of deception. As the first step in a series of 
 dealings a moderate request is made to allow them to go 
 out to sacrifice. Other steps in God's purpose follow? 
 
 c. Abraham's call to sacrifice his son. Some say it 
 had been common for parents to sacrifice their children, 
 so that God tempts Abraham in this way, calling him to 
 do a wicked thing. God did not tempt but tried Abraham. 
 It was to prove his trust in God, making the clioice be- 
 tween parental affection and loyalty to God. He is to 
 choose in the midst of extraordinary experiences that 
 led him to trust in God. In dealing with God he liad 
 learned from the first not to count the cost of obedience. 
 He left his kindred not knowing whither lie went. It 
 was the same now. 
 
 V. FIFTH OBJECTION. 
 
 The Old Testament represents God as expressly re- 
 quiring courses of action toward nations and races that 
 are condemned by our moral sense. 
 
 Deut. 23 : 6. Thou shalt not seek their peace nor 
 their prosperity all thy days forever — in regard to the Ca- 
 naanites. 
 
 Bolingbroke: "Nothing can be conceived more un- 
 worthy of an all perfect being than the manner in which 
 the people were taken from Egypt and the way they got 
 possession of Canaan." 
 
 But was such treatment of hostile tribes intrinsically 
 immoral ? Had God no riglit to dispossess the Canaan- 
 ites and give the land to Israel, no right to guide Israel 
 to the land of promise, no riglit to protect them in the 
 possession of it, no right to visit these idolatrous nations 
 for their sins and that in His own way, no right to pro- 
 tect the world from the influence of their sins? 
 
14 
 
 Suppose no sncb. issue bo made conceriiiiio; the Divine 
 rigiit, what shall we say as to the fitness of the method. 
 He might have sent a pestilence. 
 
 Several things are to he considered, (Lev. 18 : 3, 24.) 
 
 a. Aggressive war was permitted and prescribed only 
 at certain specified points and for certain specified ob- 
 jects. Otherwise it was merely defensive. They were 
 left to human methods unless God interposed by miracle. 
 
 War for war's sake was never encouraged. For this 
 reason David was denied the honor of building the tem- 
 ple. (). These wars were not waged at the instigation 
 or for tlie indulgence of ferocious passions; but they 
 were in the interest of justice, present and future holi- 
 ness to Israel and others. Doing evil that good may 
 come, says the objector. 
 
 c. As to the methods and extent of application, the 
 people are not left to their own discretion or caprice in 
 interpreting a commission. They were punished if they 
 fell short of full oljcdience. It was not evil to protect 
 the present and future holiness of Israel by a course to 
 which they were strictly held. These cases were never 
 allowed to be made precedents. They were protected 
 while executing their commission. 
 
 Vr. SIXTH OBJECTION. 
 
 The O. T. endorses expressions of individual feeling 
 towards one's fellow-man that are offensive to moral 
 iudgments, especiallvthe imprecatory Psalms, about fifty 
 'in number. See Ps. 35 : 4, 5, 6, 8, 26; 55 : 10, 16, 24; 
 58 : 7-12 ; 59 : 6, 7, 11-14 ; 69 : 23-29 ; 109 : 6-20 ; 137 : 
 7-9. [See Bib. Sac. Vol. I. 13, 19, Ilanna's Bampt. Lects. 
 1863, McLean's Unity of the Moral Law.] 
 
 a. These are not the unauthorized malice of private 
 vindictiveness or passion, but inspired utterances which 
 we must seek to harmonize. 
 
 h. These do contain expressions of human convictions 
 and emotions, inclignation at wrong, sense ofjustice, and 
 desire to vindicate right. Are these wrong? 
 
 c. The Psalmists, in these utterances, are not merely 
 the representatives of private history and experience; 
 they are more. Their cause is God's. Opposition to it 
 rightly arouses their indignation and sense ofjustice. 
 
15 
 
 d. These utterances in ijenerul roist on divine denun- 
 ciations and predictions with res|)ect to evil. 
 
 e. They do reveal the spiiit of a dispsnsation in which 
 the realit}', necessity-, and meanin2^, of law and justice 
 had been far more i e: fectly disclosed than grace. Not 
 appropriate to the N. T. 
 
 VII. SEVENTH OBJECTION. 
 
 The sanctions by whicli the 0. T. commends and en- 
 forces what it requires are mercenary and therefore 
 inferior if not immoral. 
 
 Borm<;broke : " God purchased as it were, the obe- 
 dience of His people." 
 
 The book of Prov. is charged witli motives of pru- 
 di'nce instead of love. But 
 
 Munscher says the human agent regards the present 
 rather than the future. 
 
 Dillman saj-s the temporal leads man to the spiritual 
 and invisible. Partial Ans. as before. 
 
 1. Present experiences were never designed nor found 
 to be the exact exponent of God's esteem. 
 
 2. The favor signified was always more momentous 
 than tlie sign itself. 
 
 Objection : sanctions like these, embodying good 
 and ill, are inferior. 
 
 a. When it is said tliese sanctions are inferior we 
 need have no debate with the objector, if it be conceded 
 that abstract recommendations and precepts are made 
 effective by sanctions. Moral sanctions may be reinforced 
 by legal, without being superseded or necessarily weak- 
 ened by them. A law not sanctioned is but advice. 
 
 At that stage ot revelation sanctions drawn from a 
 future life were imperfectly available. The ' objection 
 must be against the constitution of human nature, or else 
 against God for having kept back the knowledge of a 
 future life. 
 
 b. As to the demoralizing tendency of this appeal to 
 secular rewards and penalties, we should be obliged to 
 admit the objection if certain things were true, for in- 
 stance if it were true that the practice of virtue was 
 commended merely for the sake of gain. This is not 
 true. The appeal is chiefly to God's approbation, and 
 
16 
 
 not to present 2:niii. That the inferior motives were more 
 palpahle than the superior, wonlcl be a reason for their 
 em[)Ioyment, not the contrary. God allows the wicked 
 to prosper and chastens His own for a purpose of prood, 
 a hio"her law overruling. National and individual disas- 
 ters, while indicatino; to the heathen the impotence of his 
 gods, to Israel would indicate the reality of his God. 
 
 Vril. EIGHTH OBJECTION. 
 
 The 0. T. contains positive precepts and indirect re- 
 quirements and permissions tliat are in conflict with the 
 teachings of the N. T. and high morality, e. g. the sanc- 
 tity of marriage and monogamy, yet allows polygamy and 
 easy divorce. The brotherhood of man, yet admits sla- 
 very ; retaliation is sanctioned. Thus, the 0. T. cen- 
 sures and sanctions the same things. 
 
 a. It is a signal merit of O. T. morality that it deals 
 with the world as it is, existing conditions being ac- 
 cepted as in a certain sense limiting t!ie immediate ob- 
 jects of the moral system. 
 
 /). Under the 0. T. dispensation God does not deal 
 either with existing defects, or positive evils, in a way to 
 efiect an immediate revolution. lie does not employ 
 supernatural means of conversion, but deals with all evil 
 as in a moral system, in which force is out of place. The 
 eradication of evil is the ultimate result, though gradual. 
 The objection, would show that God's wisdom is inierior 
 to that of tlie objectors. 
 
 c. The legislation of the O. T. in regard to polj-gamy, 
 divorce, and slavery is rerjulatife. Each is found existing, 
 not at once, always, and everywhere prohibited, but reg- 
 ulated. The removal is left to the slow working of the 
 moral dispensation. Thus monogamy gradually gained 
 almost entire ascendency in Israel. So also divorce is 
 restricted. Slavery in Israel, as compared with slavery 
 in other nations, although enlightened, as Greece and 
 Rome, is less degrading and oppresiive. A bondman 
 was a servant, not mere merchandise. Under the Mosaic 
 law slavery is lightened and regulated, as far as it is per- 
 mitted at all. Among the Jews only the Essenes and 
 Therapeutre put away slavery before Christ. 
 
 Retaliation, as an individual passion, is restrained. 
 The law puts limits on the avenger. It is immoral if 
 
17 
 
 God may not regard society as it is, and adapt His ways 
 to its present state : if temporary toleration of evil is im- 
 moral. The O. T. does not purport to exhibit the ulti- 
 mate or complete religion, neither should we expect in 
 it the ultimate morality. 
 
18 
 
 ETHICS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 I. Same General Characteristics and Truths. , 
 Many things true of the O. T. Dispensation are also 
 true of the INew. 
 
 1. Tliere is tiie same connection between Morality 
 and Religion. 
 
 The union is vital. Change in lieart is necessary to 
 a pei'fect morality. 
 
 2. Same lack of abstract terms. 
 
 3. Same quiet assumption in N. T. of the existence 
 in man of the essential elements of moial ethics. 
 
 The moral elements of N. T. Dispensation are more 
 conspicuous than those of O. T. The ceremonial is done 
 uvvay. N". T. Dispensation is for the world, and not for 
 the theocracy alone. It is more distinctly ethical. 
 
 IL Same fandojnental Truths. 
 
 (a.) The conception of God is central, as in 0. T., 
 only more powerful. The question, What is God? 
 answered more fully. His moral perfections brought 
 out tiiore clearly, ('ontrast Sinai with Calvary. Law 
 with Love. 
 
 (6.) The dignity ascribed to human nature; this dig- 
 nity e.xalted by the work of Christ. He died to redeem 
 it. If the image in which it was created furnished one 
 standard, the price paid for it gives another, and union 
 of the human and divine in Christ as the perfect man gives 
 a third. 
 
 The whole work of Christ sets the highest value on 
 human nature. 
 
 (c.) The Brotherhood of Men. Duties before dimly 
 discerned now come out more vividly. K T. not only 
 does not cancel or obscure the O. T. teachings on this 
 point, but adds and enforces. Christ's answer to the 
 question, "Who is my neighbor? teaches a broader view 
 of the rehitious of men. 
 
19 
 
 Paul's teaehiui!: the suinc, " God lins made of one 
 blood all nations," Acts 17: 26. Christ's redemptive 
 work not for a nmltitnde of races but for the one race. 
 
 {(I.) The Organization of Ilnnuinity. 
 
 This brongl'.t ont more clearly by N. T. 0. 7. deals 
 mainly with the Jews. The history, instrnction, disci- 
 [iline and religion were national, the new dispensation 
 can no longer be national when the transient has effected 
 its object. The organization of humanity is now seen 
 to be from God, and is brought under the precepts or 
 monidiiig spirit of the N. T. 
 
 (c.) Inferior Ci'eation. 
 
 Tlie IST. T. calls attention to the use of the world which 
 shall not be an abuse of it. Care of self enjoined in N. 
 T. We are to developo every organ and faculty, and to 
 use them for proper purposes. The N. T. enhances the 
 dignity of every part of human nature, by what Christ 
 planned and expended for the whole. Specific appeals 
 to Christians. " Know ye not that ye are the temple of 
 God." I. Cor. 3: 17. 
 
 " What ? know ye not that vour body is the temple of 
 the Holy Ghost?" ' I. Cor. G: 10. 
 
 (/.) Progi'essive enlightenment and elevation of men. 
 
 The O. T. system was preparatory. In the N. T. 
 education and progress are i)romineiit. The IsT. T. sys- 
 tem not thus prepai-atory : not to give place to a new 
 system? it is \\\<i jiri'il system. The moral results of the 
 Gospel arc reached by education from infancy to maturity. 
 As in the individual, so in the world, there is a gradual 
 appreciation of and instruction in morality. 
 
 (//.) The Sanctions of N. T. system are more generally 
 spiritual and less temporal than those of the O. T, There 
 is less appeal to the present. " Having promise of the 
 life that now is and that which is to come," I, Tim. 4 : 8. 
 
 The ]Sr. T. holds us to faithfulness in the present, and 
 makes God's favor the best reward and iiighest aim. 
 Immortality is brought to liglit in the Gospel. The N, 
 T. finds the sanction in God's estimate of human action 
 and the signs by whicli God chose to express this. It 
 rises above the 0. T, in making the rewards unseen and 
 eternal in a greater measure. Even in the O. T. there 
 are appeals to the future. Isaiah is better understood when 
 quoted by Paul. 
 
20 
 
 (h.) The Standard is the same, viz : Holiness. 
 
 We are to be like God. To prevent discouragement 
 in acliieving this effect the JS. T. brings in the life and 
 example of Christ to help lis. Perfect holiness lias ap- 
 peared on earth, and the power of His helping hand is 
 offered to us. 
 
 PECULIAKITIES OF N. T. MORALITY. 
 
 The nature of the moral life may appear from three 
 points of view. (1.) What is demanded of a moral life? 
 Duty. 
 
 (2.) AVhat should mora! lite and action be in quality 
 and character ? 
 
 Virtuous. 
 
 (3.) What should moral life aim at as its dominant 
 object ? 
 
 The supreme good. 
 
 Hence the three cardinal ideas of Ethics, duty, vir- 
 tue and the virtues, and the supreme good. 
 
 Three questions arise. 
 
 1. Do the revelations of the N". T. add anything to 
 the extent or exactness of man's knowledge of duty ? 
 
 2. Does the N. T. teach anything new in regard to 
 the power by which or the subjective conditions in which 
 duty is done. 
 
 3. Does the N.T. modify our conception of the supreme 
 good ? i. e. of the results aimed at, anticipated and at- 
 tained where Christian virtue exists and Christian duty 
 done. 
 
 Dutii. — A religions moralit}' is more complete and 
 effective than a non-religious moralit3\ Man needs to 
 be under personal influence. 
 
 A morality based on revealed religion will be higher 
 than one based on a revelation of nature, and a morality 
 based on God's last and highest revelations will be higher 
 than one based on preparatory revelations. We should 
 therefore expect the morality of the N. T. to include all 
 that natural religion, philosophy and the O. T. include. 
 
 A. As compared with the O. T. Dispensation, Chris- 
 tianity makes less of the legal aspects of duty, and lays 
 more stress on its self-evidencing nature. Christianity 
 attempts no metaphysical explanations of duty.- It is 
 
21 
 
 pnictical : its objc-et is to sliow man what lieliai to do so 
 as to bci^t secure his tloin<2j it. 
 
 It never ai\:2:nes the (pie^tion of llie eonloiniity of the 
 dnty to man's natnreor his rehitions. The N. T. annomices 
 its requirernents as beinf; so transi)arently rii^^lit and rea- 
 sonable as not to need argnment. God's \v\\\ is not stated 
 80 mneh in a le^a) ^Yay as in the O. T. Duties are pre- 
 sented as self-justifyinij. Aro^nrnents are sometimes used 
 to remove misa|)preliension or ovei'come prejudices. 
 
 Two extremes are to be avoided. One wouhl exhibit 
 dntv as tlie mere product of God's aibitrary will, the 
 other finds tl)e approvini; source ofdutyin the conscience 
 of man himself. It deals witli right as abstract and dis- 
 regards God. N. T. goes to neitlier extreme. What 
 God commands commends itself. Right reason and 
 conscience approve it. More use is made of simple au- 
 thority in O. T. ; less aj.peal to the understanding. 
 Duties of the N. T. justify themselves as soon as the facts 
 of it are seen, e. g. love and obedience to Christ are evi- 
 dently duties as soon as the facts in regaid to Christ are 
 known. How does Cli'ristianify lift man up to this plane 
 of duty? By increasing our knowledge of Him; teach- 
 ing us moi-e full_y what is His will, rliilosophicid Ethics 
 must rely upon the validity of moral ideas and hence 
 iniluences only the few, because they only can apprehend 
 them. The N. T, makes God best known, so exhibiting 
 His nature and character as to render the duties enjoined 
 self-evidencing. 
 
 B. The N. T. rearranges human relations, readjusts 
 duty by connecting all with its new relations of God. 
 
 We have not a multitude of new verbal statements 
 in the N. T., but of faets — things God has done, e. g. In- 
 carnation. Christ acts as and for God. Sometliing 
 more specific is revealed, viz., that the world was created 
 by God through the Logos. The greatest advance is 
 made in the manifestation of the love of God. 
 
 C. Into the substance of duty the N. T. introduces a 
 new simplicity and unity, by making the great all-em- 
 bracing duty to be love, and the obedience of love. 
 
 O. T. being a dispensation of law — presented duty 
 in detail, but in N. T. the oneness of all duty is better 
 understood. Our love must be appropriate and com- 
 
22 
 
 mensiiriite with the object. Toward God our duty is 
 supi'omc love. Under O. T. man could not understand 
 the fullness of this claim because that love v/as not yet 
 fully revealed. Likewise our duty to our fellow-men is 
 more clearly revealed. Deut. vi : 5. cf Matt, xxii : 36, 
 40; Mk. XII : 28, 31. Our Lord makes this duty more 
 self-justifying and efficient than it was before. Instead 
 of going: into detail IST. T. says " love is the fultilling of 
 the lawV' 
 
 D. To those duties which result from man's original 
 constitution and his permanent relations as man, Ciiris- 
 tiaiiit}- adds a grou[) of duties wliicli grow out of man's 
 actual moral state, and what God lias done for that moral 
 state. 
 
 N. T. tells us we are sinners. New d-uties come with 
 the appearing of Christ. These duties are contingent in 
 a sense; not growing out of our nature — not absolute 
 duties. They are now universal — for all men wliom God 
 has in view. Thej' have also become primary duties in 
 their importance. The items and order of duty differ 
 from those for a holy race. So the items and order of duty 
 for a race which Christ came to save, will differ from 
 those for n race whom he did n(>t come to save. 
 Two things modify the duty, viz. : the state in which we 
 have come and what God has done for us in that state 
 c. g. Repentance is u duty of fallen man, no matter what 
 God has done or not done. O'he system of theoretical 
 Ethics miglit point repentance as a hy|)0thetical duty, i. 
 e. if 'A man sins, he should repent, but in Scripture it is 
 a universal duty. 
 
 Faith does not become a primary duty in an evangel- 
 ical sense until God commands it. That God could for- 
 give and redeem was for lliro to reveal. As soon as this 
 revelation is made in Christ, a nevr form of faith becoivies 
 obligatory, not mere confidence in God. Our duty is to 
 e.xercise a most specific faith in what God commands 
 through His Son, All the new objects, institutions and 
 agencies that come in the train of this redeeming work 
 become in turn new centres of obligation, e. g. ministry, 
 sacraments &c. of the church. 
 
 They are secondary and contingent yet real and im- 
 perative. Thoy may properly be called Evangelical duties 
 
23 
 
 because they come with tlie Ghi(l-ti(lii)ii:.s. They first find 
 their full recognition in the N. T. thoui'h shadowed in 
 the O. T. 
 
 Among Evangelical duties the N. T. makes faith a 
 necessary antecedent to the sicceptable performance of 
 any and all man's general duties. We mean faith in a 
 Christian sense Faith not merely retrospectively hut 
 prospectively indispensable. Rom. 14 : 23, '' Whatsoever 
 is not of faith is sin." Paul means by faith more than 
 mere confidence in God. More than a clear conscience 
 that what we do will please God. According to the N. 
 T. the spring of all right action is faith. The sinner is 
 not in a right relation to God until he believes fully 
 according to the light given him Christian Etliics pre- 
 supposes a Christian man. The primary duty therefore 
 is faith. 
 
 Virtue. — The idea of virtue contains two elements. 
 One is made prominent in the non-ethical idea, the other 
 in its philosojihical idea. In the first, virtue is pi-esented 
 as an activity or power, antzTj — virtus, manliness, vigor, 
 power, energy. This continued to be their meaning 
 until philosophy applied them to tiioral acts. 
 
 In the other phase virtue is that state of inner excel- 
 lence which alone makes the former external excellence 
 [)Ossible. Man's competence to do the work of life con- 
 sists in a right inner condition. This is something be- 
 longing to the dispositions. The harmony of the inner 
 nature with the right, the true and the good is first nec- 
 essary. Moral worthiness did not enter into the heathen 
 idea of virtue. 
 
 The O. T. furnishes no discussion of what this virtue 
 is, like philosophy. Socrates found all good in knowl- 
 edge and evil in ignorance and error. Hence all wisdom 
 is virtue. 
 
 Plato makes virtue to be pleasure in the good, and 
 love to the good, because the good is the truly beautiful 
 and to be loved on that account. It showed itself in four 
 forms, wisdom, courage, temperance, justice. These are 
 the cardinal virtues. 
 
 Aristotle found good in the harmony and just propor- 
 tion of things, hence virtue is due regard to this har- 
 mony. More especially, virtue is the true mean between 
 
24 
 
 all extreniGs. It has emotional or intoUoetnal forms. 
 ZjiiD (Stoic) foiinJ virtue in livini^ in contbraiity to 
 nature. Ilippines^ will be the result, 
 
 Epiciiriis pot happiness in the forej^ round. The keen- 
 est enjoyment oF the present is virtue. Individual en- 
 joyment is tiio gootl aimed at and the highest u;ood. To 
 the lower classes this would he soniethin<i: sensual, to the 
 wise m m, somethini^ retiiied. The N. T. found these 
 ideas of virtue o.Kistiu«:. It does not enter upon any 
 deduition or analysis oF virtue. It tells wiiat man is to 
 do and to bo. Its main care is that man should adopt 
 and practice faith, hope and charity. 
 
 Tiie word aozv/] occurs five times in tlic !N". T. Four 
 times translated virtue, Phil. 4:9; 2 Peter 1: 3-5, used 
 twice in verse 5 ; 1 Peter 2 : 9, translated " praises." 
 
 Erymolotric il idea is that which ajives man his worth 
 or value. Moral excellence is also expressed l>y Sr/.acoo'jvrj. 
 Eph. 5:9; 4 : 21 ; Luke 1 : 75 ; Rom. 6 : 13, rendered 
 "righteousness." 
 
 Also by b.]'tiOTrjq and (lyaOcorrWrj, I Thes. 3 : 13 ; 2 Cor. 
 7:1; R )m. 15 : 14 ; Eph. 5:9; vjcr-^ica and yaniaiw. arc 
 also used. While the JST. T. uses no one term but many 
 to express this idea of moral excellence, it is not to be 
 thought that it is vague in its idea of virtue. C;ill to 
 mind the exterior ideas of virtue and you tind both rec- 
 ognized in N. T. virtue. 
 Christian Virtue. 
 
 A. Christan virtue and virtues have and must have a 
 supernatural origin. 
 
 They arc not found in man as he is. Ho has neither 
 the state nor the power of producing tliem. No new 
 faculties are needed. The foundation is in his nature, 
 but since the fall man has failed to reach this virtue. 
 He lacks both the disposition and tlie power for the ex- 
 ercise of this virtue. There is no provision in nature to 
 regain this lost power. 
 
 . This is the teaching of the Bible, whicli addresses 
 man as he is in a fallen state. It declares that emanci- 
 pation and regeneration are both necessary, and cannot 
 be effected within the enslaved and vitiated nature. Con- 
 science supplies the motives but not the power. It 
 merely approves and disapproves. 
 
25 
 
 B. While OhrisTian virtue and virtues are super- 
 natural in their origin, the N. T. represents them as 
 natural to the new man. 
 
 Til 6}' are not merely accredited to him hut are liis, 
 helonging to his new nature. They distinguish iiim as 
 a new man. He is not a mere figure on wliicli God dis- 
 plays the costume and drapery oi" virtue. God works in 
 him, but he does his own will, impelled from within and 
 not merely from without. It is a moral dispositioti, 
 wrought by the Spirit, more than mere natural endow- 
 ments, from which this virtue proceeds. 
 
 C. In answer to the question— what element in moral 
 condition or action makes or proves them right? the 
 K. T. answer is, conformity to the will of God. 
 
 The K. T. does not ask why this is right. The aim 
 of Scripture is to secure a practical religious life. It does 
 not enter into the metaphj^sical, philosophical or psycho- 
 logical questions in regard to these things. En the line 
 of religious revelation we can see why it is, God being 
 what he is declared to be in the Bible, that conform- 
 ity to the will of God is the standard of moral action. 
 It is not the mere product of that will which is the 
 ground of right, but the intrinsic rightness thereof Two 
 practical reasons for this standard: 
 
 {a) To make right influential over man he needs to 
 have its attractions and constraints multiplied. 
 
 [b) If not only abstract but personal, if manifold and 
 not single, if concurrent and not separate, the power 
 drawing us to goodness is greatly increased. 
 
 If there were no taints of corruption within ns, the 
 mere abstract command would be sufficient. 
 
 Our moral relations are personal, to God and not 
 merely to right and wrong. The right is intrinsically 
 right, conformitv to the w'ill of God, and profitable ; e. 
 g. thankfulness is right in itself when a favor is received, 
 and right according to the will of God in Christ Jesus. 
 (Eph. 5 : 20.) 
 
 (c) This mode of presenting virtue is a needed and 
 powerful corrective of man's ungodliness. 
 
 Man is naturally averse to the will of God and has a 
 tendency to resist it. This tendency needs to be power- 
 fully counteracted. 
 
26 
 
 D. Christian virtue not being created by full develop- 
 ment, perfects itself in the advancing activities and 
 deeper experiences of the Christian life. The germs of 
 virtue onh" are planted by a supernatural power. Growth 
 in Christian virtue is secured by the use of what we 
 have, and by the help of God. Hence some writers 
 speak of a means ot virtue, i. e., those acts by which 
 virtue is guarded from hindrances, established against 
 them, and advanced in its inner growth. They do not 
 mean that virtue can be originated by these •' means." 
 
 That which is sanctification in the theological phrase 
 is. in ethical phrase, the developing and perfecting of 
 Christian virtue. If it were developed and perfect at 
 lirst, there would be no need of sanctification. 
 
 N. T. expressions indicating tliis growth : 
 Gal. 5 : 25. Walk in the Spirit." 
 1 Cor. 1 : 2. Called to be saints. 
 
 Positive and negative expressions. 
 1 Peter 2 : 24. Being dead to sin should live' unto right- 
 eousness. 
 Rou). 12:2. JSTot conformed but transformed. 
 Matt. 16 : 24. Deny thyself, take up cross. 
 Luke 14: 33. Forsake all, be my disciple. 
 Gal. 5 : 24. Crucify the flesh. Col. 3 : 5. 
 Eph. 4 : 24. Put on the new man. Col. 3 ; 10. 
 Rom. 13 : 14. Put on the Lord Jesus Christ. 
 Eph. 4 : 13, 15. Growing up into a perfect man. 
 Col. 2:6, 7. Built up in Christ. 
 
 1 Cor. 15 : 58. Abounding in the work of the Lord. 
 Col. 3:12; Heb. 12 : 14 ; 1 Peter 1 : 13. 
 
 Agency. 
 1 Thes. 5 : 23. Sanctified by God. 
 1 Cor. 1 : 2. Sanctified in Christ Jesus. 
 
 1 Peter 1 : 2. Sanctified by the Spirit. 
 John 17: 17. Sanctified by Truth. 
 
 Results. 
 Rom. 6 : 22. Fruit unto holiness. 
 Rom. 6 : 19. Yield your members unto holiness. 
 Rom. 8 : 10. Life because of righteousness. 
 
 2 Cor. 4 : 16. Renewed day by day. 
 
 Palmer. "All divine training is fruitless unless I train 
 myself." Li some Ethical treatises this is called "As- 
 cetics," in others " Discipline." 
 
27 
 
 E. When most effective as a power, and most per- 
 fected as a moral state, Christian virtue is; not meritor- 
 ious in the Romish sense. Our work is so dependent 
 on God,t]iat tiiere is no ground for a demand of reward. 
 
 For Romish doctrine see 82nd Canon of 6th Session 
 Council of Trent. "Deserve eternal life, increase of 
 grace, &c." 
 
 Calvin, Institutes, chap. xv. Book iii; Turretin, topic 
 17, question 5. 
 
 South, Sermon 25th, lays down four conditions of 
 merit. 
 
 (1) That the action be not due. 
 
 (2) That that action may add something to the state 
 of him of whom it is to merit. 
 
 (3) That the action and reward be of equal value. 
 
 (4) That the action be done by the man's sole power, 
 without help of iiim of whom he is to merit. 
 
 In all these points Christian virtue can merit nothing. 
 
 F. Christian virtue where it exists cannot show itself 
 merely in general excellence, but must appear in the 
 form of specific virtues, and these when apparently 
 identical with certa'in natural virtues have a quality 
 which is peculiarly their own. 
 
 Christian life is always seen as concrete. Its objects 
 are definite, its conditions positive, so that the phenom- 
 ena must be specific. Individual acts must be seen to be 
 right. 
 
 Two inferences from individual right acts: 
 
 (1) With, regard to the individual disposition from 
 which the act springs. 
 
 (2) With regard to the general state of the soul of 
 which this is one of the dispositions. 
 
 Christian virtue will then be seen and known mainly 
 in the Christian virtues. 
 
 We must avoid several errors : 
 
 (1) That of individualizing and isolating them too 
 much. 
 
 (2) That of seeking and finding them in outward 
 action rather than in the disposition. 
 
 (3) That of judging them by the test of civil law, or 
 public opinion. 
 
 Remember, 
 
28 
 
 (a) That the virtues have a central principle which 
 gives them unitj and each lias a strong affinity for every 
 other. 
 
 (/;) That tiiey belong to the disposition more thaii 
 the visibly active life. 
 
 (c) That the test of all other dispositions must be 
 man's disposition toward God. 
 
 Plato's classification was accepted by the Christian 
 Fathers, and passed into many modern systems. He 
 makes the cardinal virtues wisdom, justice, fortitude, 
 temperance. We can't put wisdom in the first place 
 even if we mean by wisdom a moral excellence. 
 
 Ambrose and Augustine added faith, hope and char- 
 ity to Plato's four, making seven. Thus justice seemed 
 to be done to philosophy and Scripture, and the sacred 
 number seven had its signification. 
 
 Ambrose and Augustine put charity ti'rst instead of 
 wisdom, but the scheme is arbitrary and based on a 
 wrong principle. 
 
 Calvin based his analysis on Titus 2: 12. He makes 
 the virtues sobriety, justice, piety. 
 
 Sobriety regulating all belonging to self. 
 
 Justice, all belonging to our teilow men. 
 
 Piety referring to God. 
 
 Schleiermacher's : wisdom, love, prudence, perse- 
 verance. 
 
 Wiittke'sissimple, logical and complete. Faithfulness, 
 justice, temperance and courage. 
 
 These he treats as phases of love, in different rela- 
 tions and toward different objects. Their mutual af- 
 finity is strong. 
 
 Faithfalness. — Tnavc^, in a broad sense. It resembles 
 God's self-consistent and unvarying faithfulness to Him- 
 self In man the love that God implants is true to self. 
 Love true to self looking toward God, is faith in God ; 
 toward men it will show itself as self-consistent fidelit}'. 
 
 Perseverance, patience, earnestness, fixedness of char- 
 acter, sincerity, simplicity, and constancy are manifes- 
 tations of it. 
 
 Justice. In this scheme this is construed as a uniform 
 readiness to respect and concede the rights of each and 
 all with whom we have to do. Its counterpart in God is 
 rectitude. It reaches far beyond calculating equity. 
 
29 
 
 Gratitude is justice toward God as bouutiful and 
 gracious. To be ungrateful is to be unjust. Compas- 
 sion toward needy men is anotlier form of justice, [t 
 would owe uo man anything. This leaves no place for 
 works of supererogation, Rom. 13 : 7, 8. It is the golden 
 rule which is the Christian law of justice. 
 
 Temperance. — Is a due regulation of self and involves 
 in its broadest sense a just reputatioii of self. Keeping 
 oneself within right moral bounds. Itincludes^wcP/'o<T!Jv;^ 
 plus ip/>ar£;«. awif. well balanced, healthful min(l ; ayx. 
 keeping under control. In its first aspect temperance 
 will appear to be negative or prohibitory, restraining 
 and keeping back. But this restraint has a most positive 
 result. It forbids excess in order to secure the best use 
 of one's powers and energies. It regulates our feelings 
 and desires, moderating one's estimate of himself; hence 
 produces humility, which is the regulation of our judg- 
 ment with regard to ourselves. 
 
 Humility is preeminently a Christian virtue. The 
 old tendency was to exa.ij^gerate one's own worth. Sin 
 in self and grace in God's dealing are factors which 
 ancient philosophy never admitted. This teni|)erance 
 will also show itself in self-renunciation and content- 
 ment. Pride, arrogance and undue self-assertion will 
 have no place. 
 
 Courage. — Not di/o/^sf'a, Greek bravery or courage, but 
 ■Kap^rr^ata^ confidence, boldness and hopefulness, which 
 impels to and sustains in the conflicts of the Christian 
 life. Boldness in anticipation of death and judgment. 
 Its basis can never be a consciousness of personal worth 
 or ability. Its basis is hope and faith in God, thus dif- 
 fering from all natural courage. Nothing in life or 
 death can daunt him whose faith is staid in God. 
 
 These particular virtues are to be looked for as signs 
 of the general virtue. These are to be developed as 
 individual virtues, studied and nourished with proper 
 motives; yet Christian virtue has its unity and all go 
 hand in hand. We are to know the ground on which 
 each rests and to see that all are found in our character. 
 
 In Christian Ethics Love is the central and radical 
 virtue as well as the central duty, not one among co-ordi- 
 nate virtues: so faith may be called the primary virtue 
 as it is the primary duty. 
 
30 . 
 
 G. What has Christian Ethics to say of the natural 
 virtues, such as parental and filial affection, generosit}-, 
 honest3% &c., found in unsurpassed excellence in some 
 who have never experienced the work of grace in the 
 heart ? 
 
 Christianity neither denies that they are virtues nor 
 that they are natural, n(ir that they are largely in actual 
 existence among men, and in some degree and in some 
 form and measure all but universally present in human 
 life and character. To deny this would be to say that 
 all virtue is the fruit of regeneration. If either class are 
 natural it is those which have their root in man's con- 
 stitution and depend not on a second work, regeneration. 
 
 Chalmer? : " God's word is not in conflict with the 
 consciousness of men. There are then natural virtues. 
 There is a social and a divine standard of morality." 
 (Institutes Am. Ed. Vol. 1, pp. 2 and 3.) 
 
 The precepts of the Old and New Testaments show 
 that natural virtues and dispositions are enjoined, as hav- 
 ing a basis in nature and not necessarily in regeneration 
 Gen. 4 : 7, 2 : 7 ; Acts, 10 : 34 ; Rom. 2 : 14. ^ 
 
 What has the Bible to say of the presence and worth 
 of these in unrenewed men ? Under what condition and 
 to what extent does the Bible deny to iniin the right to 
 congratulate himself on the possession and manifestation 
 of these virtues, and to content himself therewith apart 
 from regeneration. 
 
 2. Man's disposition is to regard only two parties as 
 concerned in the existence and manifestation of virtues, 
 viz. himself and his neighbor. The Bible recognizes 
 three parties. God is the third, 1 Cor. 10 : 31, Whether 
 therefore ye eat or drink, do all to the glory of God. 
 See also Col. 3: 22, 23; Eph. 6: 6. Tttus 2:10, Ser- 
 vants, masters and God are concerned. 1 Tim. 5 : 8, If 
 any provide not for his own, &c., he is worse than an in- 
 fidel. Rom. 13 : 1-5 civic loyalty Eph. 6 : 1, the Obedi- 
 ence of children. Eph. 5 : 22, Obedience of wives. We 
 see that in all relations, God the third party is recognized. 
 In all or any of the natural virtues, even when justice 
 has been fully done so far as two of the parties are con- 
 cerned, it is not perfect unless it has taken account of 
 the third, i. e. God. 
 
31 
 
 1 Cor, 13: 3, charity without godliness is not recog- 
 nized. Phil. 4:8, Sincerity as a mere impulse is not 
 enough. 
 
 3. We may get the N. T.'s estimate of the natural 
 virtues by examining the epithets and ijhrases by ^vhich it 
 describes character and indicates the ground of its judg- 
 ment. 
 
 One group of these so often found in the N. T. is: — 
 aapxcxoQ (pw/^cxoi: Tivzunarcxoi;. Sometimes all of these and 
 sometimes onlv two are brought into contrast. 1 Cor. 
 2 : 12. 3:4; Gal. 6:1; Rom. 7 : 14 ; Jas. 3 : 15 ; Jude 
 19. 
 
 The third, Trvsy/zar^pfoc, is always and only approved — 
 the others always and only condemned. The first two 
 are substantially identical morally, though not psycho- 
 logically; the ruling principle being within the man 
 and not from God, as in the third. These termsare used 
 differently in the N. T. Greek from their classic use. 
 Ascendancy and control does not belong to that part of 
 our nature, the <r«o^, even when pure. The (f'oxrj has 
 still greater control but no absolute and supreme right 
 even in fallen man. The natural virtues spring from this 
 higher nature the {['ox-fj — but impulse, reason and con- 
 science are alike amenable to the law of God, andcannot 
 have commetidation unless controlled by the Spirit of 
 God. 
 
 (a.) So far forth as they spring from man's original, 
 unvitiated constitution they are appropriate virtues. 
 
 (b.) So far as they have respect to their proper objects, 
 they are right. 
 
 (c.) So far as the sanction of conscience, as God's rep- 
 resentative is regarded, they are commended. 
 
 (d.) So far as they are rooted in and spring from a 
 right moral disposition, they are endorsed and com- 
 mended. But they are censured so far forth as cherished 
 i'nd manifested without regard to God. So far as man 
 relies on his own judgment and impulses. A life that 
 shall please God and satisfy us must proceed from a di- 
 vine principle. 
 
 The Supreme Good. — Does the N. T. modify our view of 
 the supreme good to be aimed at, anticipated and attained? 
 
32 
 
 To the Brahmins and Buddhists, it is the disappear- 
 ance of the individual beino; and absorption in the uni- 
 versal being. 
 
 To the ancient Greeks, the doctrines of God and fate so 
 baffled their aspirations and endeavors that the suprenoe 
 good was never known. They were subject to the impulses 
 and caprice of too many gods and they and their gods alike 
 were liable to be crossed in all their plans by unknown 
 decrees of fate. Socrates made wisdom the supreme good. 
 Plato, harmony, Aristotle, soundness and symmetry of 
 self in all its activities. Epicurus, happiness. The Stoics, 
 conformity to nature, including reason. Kant, the union 
 of happiness with virtue. Througli this we get an idea 
 of God and immortality. 
 
 Schleiermacher, the complete mastery of nature or the 
 interpretation of nature by reason. Hegel's system in- 
 cludes no Ethics. Spirioza admits of no moral element 
 and hence precludes anything but physical Ethics. 
 
 The Christian view of the supreme good is best giveji 
 by Augustine and Aquinas. 
 
 Augustine — return to God and reunion with God by 
 likeness to himself 
 
 Thos. Aquinas — that absolutely perfect life of the 
 rational creature found in fellowship witli God. 
 
 Schmidt — moral principle introduced and made real 
 in the world of realities. Shaping of the world around 
 us in harmony with the divine will and divine law ; our 
 will acting in conformit}' with the divine will. This is 
 an improvement on Schleiermacher. 
 
 Wiittke, twofold definition. 
 
 Formal and material. 
 
 Formal, defining it by that in which it appears. 
 
 Material, by that of which it consists. 
 
 Formal def. — It is the highest perfection of his rational 
 personality, i. e. the perfect exliibition of his likeness to 
 God, or the complete agreement of the reality of the en- 
 tire human life with the will of God. 
 
 Material def. — The actual fellowship of life with God 
 which secures the outward appearance. 
 
 Remarks. — (1.) This conception of the supreme good 
 commends itself by the intrinsic excellence of the end 
 proposed. Nothing higher can be conceived of than 
 likeness to God and fellowship with him. 
 
33 
 
 (2.) Tlie end tlms proposed to ns, pliiiiily is and lias 
 been an end with God — viz., our fellowsliip of life with 
 hiniseif. That which we are to seek, he has been seek- 
 in,o\ He sought it in creation, much more in regenera- 
 tion, 
 
 (3.) The supreme good thus conceived of combines 
 two things of great importance : 
 
 (a.) The highestincitement to aspiration and endeavor 
 on our own part, with (b) encouragement of help from 
 him upon whom our success depends. To have chosen 
 this is to have been prompted by God, because no man 
 of himself as[)ires to this. God will not disappoint his 
 own prompting. 
 
 (4.) This conception includes and provides for all sub- 
 ordinate forms of good. This is what none of the other 
 conceptions did. It is the only certain guardntee of 
 wisdom, for in union with God we find the highest wis- 
 dom. It insures constant happiness of the highest type. 
 "Ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil" i.s onlv 
 realized thus. 
 
 (5.) This supreme good is not exhibited as something 
 to be desired and hoped for as the final attainment of a 
 distant future but as something with which a right moral 
 life begins ; to possess it, makes duty and virtue possible. 
 2 Peter 1:4. " Partakers of the divine nature." 
 
 The Motive Poaver of Christianity. 
 
 We must now consider the working force of Chris- 
 tianity. What provision does it make for calling into 
 play man's moral power? Does Christianity hold be- 
 fore us anything better than the best philosopln-? Does 
 it give promise and prospect of attaining something more 
 than we could otherwise ? The motive power of Chris- 
 tianity is being more and more considered by the best 
 thinkers. See^Blakie's "Four Phases of Morals ;" Prin- 
 cipal Sharp, " Studies on Poetry and Philosophy." He 
 sa3's, what is the dynamic power in the moral life? 
 Calderwood's "Handbook of Moral Philosophy" ap- 
 proaches the same subject from the &ide of philosophy. 
 
 The practical problem is to restore the moral power 
 which we have lost. What motive power does Chris- 
 tianity supply which shall make duty, virtue and the 
 supreme good more than barren ideas? 
 
34 
 
 A. The ambiguity of the word motive leads us to 
 indicate its sense as used by us. 
 
 (1) It belongs to every conception of moral action 
 and life that the moving power shall dwell and act with- 
 in man's own nature. 
 
 The term motive can be applied only in a secondary 
 sense to anything exterior to the man himself, e. g., gold. 
 
 Prof. Calderwood : " A motive is an internal force 
 which moves and excites -the mind toward a single def- 
 inite action.'' 
 
 (2) In every intelligent agent the power thus moving 
 him consists of two elements: 
 
 («) The views which he takes, and, [b) The dispo- 
 sitions or the judgments and dispositions. Dispositions 
 include desires and affections. The dispositions are 
 non-rational, acting by impulse. The judgments are 
 rational, supplying lioth impulse and regulation. They 
 respect truth as truth, and recognize it in its relations to 
 us as a rule of life. These two motive powers may con- 
 cur or conflict. When they conflict, the control and 
 decision must belong to the higlier and rational ele- 
 ment, the judgment. The dispositions cannot be trusted 
 to regulate themselves. 
 
 B. The motive power of Christianity must be sought 
 on the one hand in tlie convictions, beliefs and knowl- 
 edge which it gives to us to be motives, and which it 
 makes the rule of life: on the other hand, it will be 
 found partlj' in the dispositions which it develops to- 
 wards its centi-al objects, and through these toward all 
 other related objects. It cannot be found in either, ex- 
 clusive of the others. Neither can it be found in en- 
 lightenment only; consequently those systems which 
 work only through excited sensibilities are at feinlt. 
 
 C. The rational motives which are distinctive of 
 Christianity, and which give it power and effectiveness, 
 are mainly those which gather about its revelation of the 
 nature, character, relations and purposes of God, es- 
 pecially in Christ. 
 
 Our knowledge of secondary relations and duties 
 stand in the most vital connection to these tacts and 
 truths. This \sihe power to regulate us above all others. 
 Secondary duties are not disparaged when subordinated 
 to these higher duties. 
 
35 
 
 T). The ratioiiiil motive power by which Christi;mitv 
 seeks to acconiplisli its results, is found in the view wliich 
 it gives, the belief wliich it creates, the knowledge wliich 
 it imparts, of the love of God. 
 
 This does not disparage the knowledge of hia other 
 attributes. It does not draw us from any other tluty, 
 nor is there les:^ regulative than motive power in these 
 facts concerning the love of God. Nothing so secures 
 fidelity, vigilance, perseverance. Nothing so exalts virtue 
 as this love. 
 
 E. The motive object in which God's love is found 
 most fully embodied and expressed, is the person and 
 work of Jesus Christ. 
 
 A motive object is that toward which the mind is 
 called to act. Christianity presents this motive object in 
 three ways as adai)ted to inllue'nce us. 
 
 (1) Asa new test to show us what we are ourselves — 
 sinners. 
 
 (2) Asa ncin point of departure in our whole religious 
 and moral life. We see what we have not been, and 
 what we ought to be; and from the time we take Christ 
 we begin again, or if rejecting him go on to worse. 
 
 (3) As a new source and reservoir of motive power, ex- 
 citing our afteetions. 
 
 Illustrations. 
 
 [a) A man sees himself as never before when Christ 
 is fully before him.. Ilis power to love the truth, his 
 inclination and willingness to follow it are then tested. 
 
 (6) Christ becomes a point of departure, heavenward 
 or hell ward, according as they receive or reject Him. 
 
 (e) There is no more vital, practical, winning truth 
 than this. All the rights and powers of God are brought 
 so near us, and to bear upon us in Christ. There can 
 be nothing more done to move us. 
 
 F. Christianity traces the new moral and religious 
 life to the work of the Holy Spirit, and oflers this as a 
 motive power to all. 
 
 The Holy Spirit is really the motive power in Chris- 
 tianity, an almighty power not added, but entering into 
 all our work. Noi that we live, but Christ by his Spirit 
 living in us. 
 
 When Christ has been received, neither the rational 
 or moral convictions alone actuate a man. (1 John 
 
36 
 
 2 : 20.) The dispositions are of divine origin ; no man 
 can call Jesus, Lord, but by the Holy Spirit. 
 Summary. 
 
 (1) The new and characteristic motive object that 
 Christianity brings and holds before the mind and heart, 
 is the most inflnential conceivable. 
 
 (2) Every other object with which the moral life is 
 concerned, has its import and power enhanced by the 
 relation into which it comes to God in Christ. 
 
 (8) In all who are brought rightly to apprehend and 
 respond to this revelation of God in Christ, there is a 
 peculiar and powerful divine inworkiiig, as well as co- 
 working of God in man. Faith overcomes the world. 
 
 Objections urged against the morality of Christianity : 
 
 1. The Ethical system of Christianity is not scientific, 
 nor presented in scientific form. 
 
 If this is anything more than a pedantic, frivolous 
 objection it rests on the misconception, thnt the Bible is 
 a scientific book. If it be scientific to take the only 
 complete view of man's condition and relations, then 
 Christian Ethics is scientific. 
 
 If scientific to locate and arrange and define duty as 
 never before, then the morality of Christianity is sci- 
 entific. 
 
 If it be scientific to perfect man's conception of vir- 
 tue, and to set before man thf. highest good any system 
 has yet presented ; if to show the possibility of reaching 
 this high excellence, and to supply the moral power nec- 
 essary, then Christian morality is scientific. 
 
 2. Another group of objections. 
 
 The requirements and standards of Christian morals 
 are too liigh for such a world as this. Too transcen- 
 dental, too easily exaggerated and distorted by us in our 
 apprehension of it. 
 
 (a) Standard too high. 
 
 What should the best system aim at ? AVould that 
 be a better system of morals which should aim at any- 
 thing less than likeness to God ? Would it be an \m- 
 provement to lower the standard, so that we might hope 
 to reach it ? 
 
 (b) Requirements visionary and transcendental.. 
 
 E. g., " Whosoever shall smite tliee on thy right 
 
37 
 
 cheek, tiini to him the other also." " Charity that 
 thiiiketh no evih" 
 
 But we must take into consideration the circum- 
 stances and the spirit in which it is uttered. The ob- 
 jection lies often against the form of statement ; when 
 we study all together the visionary and transcendental 
 disappears. 
 
 (c) The St/stem too delicate and liable to distortion. 
 
 It presents its requirements so vividly that men run 
 into asceticism. Zeal in good works is apt to make no 
 account of knqwledge, and to lose the proper balance 
 and proportion of true living. 
 
 True, it has sometimes led to perversion: develop- 
 ment has been unsymmetricah True, men have been • 
 called upon to extirpate what Christianity would regu- , 
 late. We might say the fault is in human nature, but 
 this is not a sufficient answer, because the system is 
 given to us in our present condition. 
 
 It grows out of the very nature ot a moral sj'stem, 
 working by motives, that it does not elfectually protect 
 itself against the infirmities of human nature. It is not 
 to be expected that it would constrain man always and' 
 everywhere. The motives are set before us, and the 
 responsibility of seeing the truth, and doing the right, 
 is left to us. 
 
 Would the system be better if shorn of its power, 
 robbed of the vividness of its presentation, and less 
 urgent in its apjteals? These become the occasions of 
 exaggeration and distortion ; shall we therefore take 
 them away ? It is evident that this very character of the 
 Gospel is its power, and secures the measure of Chris- 
 tianity that exists. 
 
 Some make so much of truth as to become dogma- 
 tists ; some make so much of ceremony as to become 
 formalists. These are exceptions. The misuse of a 
 principle does not do away with its right use. 
 
 3. Another group of objections charges the moral 
 system of Christianity with positive and serious incom- 
 pleteness. John Stuart Mill says, the 0. T. must be 
 used to complete the morality of the K T., and that of 
 the O. T. is bad enough. 
 
 He says it is a reaction against certain things that are 
 
88 
 
 wrong. Its character is negative rather than positive. 
 It makes obedience the only valuable thing, and thus 
 takes away a man's dignity. 
 
 Answer: It is no disparagement that the Old and N. 
 T. morality must betaken together to complete a perfect 
 system. Both were in-otituted of God for different 
 times. 
 
 To the objection that Christian morality is passive 
 rather than active, innocence rather than nobleness, ab- 
 sence from evil rather than active power to gooil, Prin- 
 cipal Shairp answers, " this is ignorance or obstinacy, 
 not to be expected from Mill." The precepts and teach- 
 ings. of the N. T. prove tliis objection totally' nnfonnded. 
 
 Then as to the loss of self-respect, obedience to God 
 lis not luimiliating or degrading. Who has a greater 
 right to respect himself than the man who is a child of 
 God ? 
 
 4. Christianity as an Ethical system, it is said, fails to 
 recognize adequately some of man's most important re- 
 lations, and is positively unfriendly to some of his high- 
 est interests. 
 
 Prof. Newman says, Christianity cramps human 
 freedom. It treats the instinct or love of knowledge 
 and beauty as illegitimate. In regard to family and pri- 
 vate rights decisions are given which are seeds of per- 
 nicious errors. It disparages or omits duties to the 
 state. It ignores the rights of men and nations, though 
 it says much of the rights of kings and rulers. It sup- 
 ports lamentable superstitions, adverse to the progress 
 of civilization. 
 
 («) Cramjjs freedom. Answer: Christianity guards 
 and guides, as well as maintains, human freedom. It 
 rebukes and restrains license; it holds man to his place 
 as a finite creature; does demand faith as the condition 
 of certain kinds of knowledge. But within proper 
 bounds Christianity protects man's freedom from his 
 own and other's abuse of it, prescribes laws for it, and 
 conditions of its working. It regulates the love and de- 
 sire for knowledge and beauty. 
 
 Christianity is not to be Jield responsible for all the 
 narrowness and short-sightedness exhibited by its ex- 
 ponents. 
 
39 
 
 (b) Pernicious errors. E. g. Undue authority given to 
 husbands, fathers and mothers at the expense" of wives, 
 children and servants, disparaging more than halfof the 
 human race, and robbing them oV their freedom. True 
 Ciiristianity does not sanction modern phih)3ophiea 
 vv'hich break down all distinctions. But it would not be 
 hard to show how Christianity has formed and protects 
 the Christian home. Because the precepts of IN. T. are 
 given to Christians, it is no reason why otiier men are 
 not to be bound by tliem also. All men ought to be 
 Christians. The historical effect of Christianity does 
 not sustain these charges. 
 
 (e) Christianity represented as unfavorable to patri- 
 otic feeling unci service to one's country. It either takes 
 no notice of or disparages our duty to the state. (Lecky, 
 Mill, Newman.) 
 
 True it does make less of the state than ancient phil- 
 osophies. It does not say that man is a political ani- 
 mal, but this is to its credit. True that early Christians 
 could not be faithful to the demands of the state, and at 
 the same time to Christ. 
 
 They could not take part in idolatrj' and oaths con- 
 trary to Scripture. But where they were not called on 
 to sacrifice principle they were most faithful. The 
 charge now rests, chiefly upon there being little said in 
 the IST. T. about our duty to the state. .Moreover it is 
 said that obedience is exhorted to rulers rather than the 
 state. It recognizes kings, however tyrannical, as or- 
 dained of God, but not nations or communities. 
 
 Lecky says, that patriotism as a duty has never found 
 a place in Christian morals. He asserts, 
 
 (1) That strong religious feeling tends to divert the 
 mind from terrestrial Uiings; (2) that an organized 
 church with a government of its own, an interest and a 
 policy, and a frontier intersecting national boundaries, is 
 unfavorable to national sentiment. Many denomina- 
 tions increases the difficulty. 
 
 (3) The saintly and heroic characters wliich represent 
 the ideals of Christianity are essentially different. Re- 
 ligion develops the saintly and undermines the heroic. 
 
 Answer : We may admit that small space is given to 
 this, and that Christianity does recognize two worlds. 
 
40 
 
 the spiritual mid secular. Yet we repel the charge and 
 claim that no devotion to the state is so pure, no service 
 so great, as that of the Christian. 
 
 Luthardt says, the man who is true to all his obliga- 
 tions in the higher sphere, will be truest to all the ob- 
 ligations of the lower. Christianity exhibits a better 
 type of love than that of fellow country-men. All hu- 
 man affections are subordinated to love to Christ. 
 
 Francis William Newton in his "Phases of Faith," 
 says, " the rights of those in authority are jireserved and 
 advanced by the morality of C'hristianity, at the ex])ense 
 of the nation or the individual subject. Christianity is 
 always a main sta}' of tyranny and oppression." 
 
 Answer: Christianity does emphasize the sentiments 
 that are most likely to be deficient, guards the rights 
 most lilscly to be ignored. It aims to secure the sta- 
 bility of society. This is not gained by teaching men 
 to always and everywhere insist on their oicn rights. 
 Men must learn to give up much for the good of others. 
 
 Christianity throws its influence on the side which 
 needs sup])orting. Yet it does not ignore the rights of 
 subjects. It impresses rulers also, with a sense of their 
 duties. Being ordained of God only shows their re- 
 sponsibility to God. The remedy for contempt of au- 
 thority can come kindly, and efficiently, only from the 
 side of religion. 
 
 Christianity not being a political system does not go 
 into detail as to political duties. With its principle of 
 love it inculcates also that of self-sacrifice, wliich sup- 
 plies the underground for freedom, courage, and faith- 
 fulness. 
 
 {d.) It is charged that Christianity supports super- 
 stitions. Belief in ghosts, witchcraft. 
 
 We are willing to accept the responsibility of pro- 
 moting belief in the existence of evil spirits, their mali- 
 cious activity and our exposure to them, and the use 
 of this belief to warn us. We don't deny the abuse of 
 this teaching. We simply say it is neither equitable nor 
 scientific in view of the great power of Christianity for 
 good to make these charges. It is not Christians who 
 abuse this belief. 
 
 ((?.) Religious toleration. 
 
41 
 
 What does Mr. Newman mean by toleration ? lie 
 would have reliirions iiidifierencc. If he means that 
 Christianity would encourage forcible interference in 
 other men's beliefs, we deny it. If, that we interest our- 
 selves in other's beliefs, in correcting the wrong, and 
 spreading the truth, we admit it. He says, Christianity 
 is favorable to intolerance because it teaches that God 
 will visit with iiery vengeance those who hold an errone- 
 ous creed, hence Christians will come to have the same 
 feeling toward those wiio do not so believe. 
 
 But that Christians have any warrant for this or have 
 ever taken it. we den}'. 
 
 (/.) Christianity is said to be adverse to the progress 
 of civilization. 
 
 One form of this charge is from Matthew Arnold. 
 Pie speaks of Hebraisms and Hellenisms. Hebraism i. e. 
 Christianity, does less complete justice to man than Hel- 
 lenism, i. e. culture. 
 
 Religion exercises and developes certain elements of 
 maiv to the neglect of others. Hellenism is characterized 
 by spontaneity of action and breadth of culture. The 
 governing idea of culture is complete, symmetrical de- 
 velopment. He admits in developing a full manhood 
 that disci pit lie should occupy the first place, which braces 
 the moral powers, and furnishes a solid basis of character. 
 The fault of religion is that it stops there. We want a 
 fuller and more harmonious development of our human- 
 ity. 
 
 Celsus charged Christians long betore with being in- 
 different to wisdouK "With holding that the wisdom 
 that is in the world i's an evil." 
 
 But Canon Farrar says Christianity made culture 
 possible andsaved the intellect of the world from selfish- 
 ness, and an intoxicated form of pride, by putting it lower 
 than the affections. 
 
 Culture cannot be perfected until a higher end than 
 self is put before it. The N. T. insists that religion is to 
 preside over and encompass all culture. 
 
 How shall a man make the most of himself? What 
 shall he do with his culture, and why should he cultivate 
 himself at all ? lleligion must answer these questions, 
 not culture. 
 
42 
 
 Sonic alle£:e that the influence of Christianity is ad- 
 verse to civilization. Tliis is stronger than Arnold who 
 holds that Christianity needs to he supplemented. In 
 answer, we say, that no civilization has risen above 
 Christian civilization. 
 
 Frothinghain, and others, charge that Christianity 
 teaches men to nndervaloe riches, and the industries 
 which are the sources of civilization, and snaps thd 
 springs of human enterprise. It teaches man to keep 
 the eye on the future lifo. Aris. If liuman industries are 
 so selfish as this theory maintains they need to be snap- 
 ped. Moreover we challenge them to prove that 
 enterprises are not developed w^hen men are laboring 
 for something beside self. If man is to rise to the high- 
 est manhood, we claim he must live for God and a higher 
 life. 
 
 5th. It is said that many of the assumptions, arcju- 
 ments and appeals of Christianity do not address them- 
 selves to man as man, but are only of force on the con- 
 dition that Christianity is true. 
 
 If it contained fewer questioned truths and debated 
 propositions, it would be better fitted to move all men. 
 Many do not grant its postulates. It ought to take truths 
 universally conceded if it would influence men. E. g. 
 Christianity assumes that man is a fallen sinner. But 
 here is a man whodenys this, henceit is said Christianity 
 has no force for him, and therefore it is not calculated to 
 be the universal religion. 
 
 Arts. Are the communications of Christianity unnec- 
 essary or false? Is it to her discredit that she tells ns 
 we did not know? Tells us things we- resent ? Would 
 its moral basis be improved, audits effectiveness increas- 
 ed if all that men would willingly receive as true were 
 exscinded ? Is it not to its credit that it reveals us to 
 ourselves even though the revelation is unwelcome ? 
 
 Tiiere is practical need of more knowledge of our- 
 selves, our wants and destiny. Here man is addressed 
 as man needing Christianity. And in that condition 
 which makes Christianity essential to him. We must 
 be told the truth, disagreeable as it may be. 
 
 6th. The great Christian doctrine of Justification by 
 Faith leads men to neijlect an active and resolute moral- 
 ity and even to tolerate immorality. 
 
43 
 
 Wcof course admit that tliis doctrine lias been abused. 
 Christianity teaches tliat the best works are not done 
 for sake of being jnstiHed by them wholly or in part. 
 That is not the truest love which goes forth to show it- 
 self as love. That is not tlie most genuine generosity 
 which is always complimenting itself. 
 
 Benevolence loses itself in its object. So of all good 
 r.ffectio'ns and good works. 
 
 Some like Gregg hold that a better morality is secured 
 when men are taught that there is no forgiveness. That 
 sin has no pnnislimeut excejit riatural consequences, yet 
 these are inevitable hence cannot be forgiven. Teach 
 men this and they have some inducement to guard against 
 sinning. Brahmanism also teaches this. 
 
 It is only from revelation that man knows of other 
 consequences of sin than the natural, but these men do 
 not admit revelation. From the nature of things also, it 
 is only fi'om revelation that a hope of forgiveness is 
 raised. 
 
 It is hard to see how a better morality would be se- 
 cured by telling men that there is no forgiveness. 
 
 That after the lirst sin there is nothing but despair. 
 
 When the scriptures are so explicit in guarding this 
 docti'ine of justification by faith from abuse and teaciiing 
 pure holiness, we arc authorized in denying that it is the 
 servant of sin. 
 
 7tli. The Christian system influences men, too prom- 
 inently and exclusively by considerations drawn from a 
 futnrelife; and so its powers are impaired over the 
 moralities of this life. Gregg urges in his Creeds of 
 Christendom that a " morbid condition of the soul is 
 produced " and " insincere professions," aloss of earnest- 
 ness in taking holil of tlie evils around us. 
 
 (a.) Christia\iity teaches only this, that a just propor- 
 tion should be observed between things visible and in- 
 visible — things temporal and eternal. Keeping these in 
 their proper ratio. It allows earthly things a place but 
 demands that tliey be kept in flieir proper place. 
 
 Nature needs subduing only because, and in so far 
 as, man is disposed to disregard this proportion. 
 
 {b.) Christianity teachesthatwhen thisjustproportiou 
 is observed, the near, the visible, the temporal, receive 
 
44 
 
 better care than wl, en they are treated as man's chief 
 and only concern. 
 
 The motives by which his actions arc determined, and 
 the laws by which they arc regulated and the results 
 achieved are better when this proportion is observed. 
 
 (c.) The fact that life is probationary, instead of low- 
 ering, exalts it. The fact that men deal here as stewards 
 and not owners makes their actions more responsible and 
 sacred, and brings to bear new motives. 
 
 {(/.) Practically no men have discharged their tem- 
 poral and social duties with more consistent and ^^crsistent 
 diligence and fidelity, than those moved by the power of 
 
 ARGUMENTS FOR THE DIVINITY OF CHRISTIANITY DRAWN 
 FROM ITS MORAL CHARACTER. 
 
 Usually placed among the internal evidences, but so 
 far are objective — since they belong to external evidences. 
 
 All the proofs of Christianity are moral, not demon- 
 strative or intuitive. 
 
 Question. Does Christianity show in moral substance 
 and structure such characteristics that we and our fellow 
 men must ac^^ept it as the true, the authoritative and 
 divinely sanctioned religion? 
 
 I. J^''irst Argument. The superiority of Christianity as 
 a moral s_ystem appears in the precision and completeness 
 with which it exhibits the facts that concern man's moral 
 life. 
 
 The word superiority is used here in a very emphatic 
 sense. It indicates a divine not a human authority. * In 
 this higher sense we claim a superiority. It is exhibited 
 in three groups of facts. 
 
 {a.) Facts in reference to man's own nature, both in 
 its design and in its actual condition. 
 
 {h.) Facts with reference to tlie relation which man 
 sustains. Relations to all beings and things toward 
 which he can act morally. 
 
 {c.) Facts with reference to the end to be secured in 
 and by these relations, an'd by man's right moral action 
 in them. 
 
 II. The superiority of Christianity appears in the way 
 in wliich it awakens keeps, alive, and develops the sense 
 of duty in most perfect symmetry. Instruction and en- 
 
45 
 
 lightenment would avail little without the help of Chris- 
 tianity, arousing and purifying the moral impulses. 
 
 (a.) Man is continually confronted with the moral 
 rectitude of God. This is" one of the ways in which duty 
 is kept alive. 
 
 (/>,) The reach of man's responsihility is disclosed in 
 Christianity as nowliere beside. 
 
 (c.) The sanctions and gracious provisions of Christi- 
 anity are designed, among other things, to discipline and 
 invigorate the moral sense. 
 
 III. Third argument formed by a combination of the 
 two former. The superiority is nianifested, 
 
 {a.) In the duties emphasized. 
 
 (6.) The basis on which it puts them. 
 
 (c.) The order in which it presents and urges them. 
 
 [d.) The mode in which it presses them upon us, so 
 that by this vevy process which brings duty to view the 
 moral sensibilities are awakened, a-.ui invigorated to the 
 highest degree. 
 
 IV. In view of man's abncn-mal condition as a sinner, 
 the superiority of Christianity is api)arent in its exhibi- 
 tion ot the conditions on which, and the means by which, 
 a man may attain the end of his existence as a moral 
 being. 
 
 The fact of man's ruin is presented most vividly, but 
 along with it Christianity shows what God has done to 
 lift him out of it, and hence man is not driven to despair, 
 but is shown that the highest- attainment of morality is 
 the greatest and necessary proof of his gi-ateful love, and 
 the proper fruit of faith. 
 
 V. Superiority appears also in the motives which it 
 employs for tlie attainment of its ends. 
 
 {a.) In general, as virtue is exhibited as conformity to 
 tlie will of God, and supreme good, as (;onsisting in fel- 
 lowshi]) or life with God. To set up the will of God as 
 a standard secures immutability', elevation and consist- 
 ency in the standar<l. 
 
 \b.) It is more characteristic of the motive elements 
 and powder of Christianity that it reveals the great love 
 of God in Christ, so that whatever we do, we are to do 
 it unto the Lord. 
 
 (e.) This superiority appears in its eidiancing the 
 significance and importance of all duty done here, and 
 
46 
 
 all failure to do duty here, by connecting this life so 
 closely with the future life, so that whatever we do here 
 rightly has eternal recognition and reward and all fail- 
 ure nnd sin brings retribution and punishment eternal. 
 
 VI. Another token of sui)ei'iority may be found in 
 the fact that it insists so strenuously on the inward rather 
 than the outward as essential in morality. 
 
 The disposition and intent. It demands the outward 
 as the complexion of the inward, it does not begin with 
 it. Incidental!}' Ibis characteristic of Christianit}- secures 
 the culture of self-examinati.on — humility and sincerity. 
 
 VII. Another peculiar feature of the superiority of 
 Christian Ethics is that tlie system makes chief use of 
 the facts of individual experience and of history rather 
 than of s]>oculative and theoretical truths. 
 
 Prof. Blackie in his " Four Phases of Morals " com- 
 pares Socrates and Christ. The one a help and guide, 
 the other a foundation of faith and fountain of life. 
 
 Its general historical character and speoilic historical 
 elements contribute much to the moral attiactivenessand 
 power of Christianity. 
 
 VIII. If Ave look distributively at the chief depart- 
 ments of practical and ajtplied morals, at what has been 
 called theistic, social and individual Ethics, we find still 
 other proofs of the superiority of the Christian system 
 and of its divine origin. 
 
 (a.) In regard to its exhibition of the duties which 
 man owes to God we notice : 
 
 (1.) Its fuller disclosure of vital facts concerning God. 
 His nature, relations and work with reference to us. 
 This gives a broader and more solid basis to that class 
 of duties which are specitically duties to God, [is well as 
 a greater definiteness, vividness and power to the duties 
 themselves. 
 
 (2.) There is no duty that has not a side turned God- 
 ward. 
 
 God is recognized as having 'not only originally 
 ordained, but as having a present concern in all man's 
 duties. 
 
 {().) The duties man owes to his fellow-man are put 
 by Cliristianity distinctly on the basis of the universal 
 Fatherhood of God — the common Brotherhood of man 
 and the redeeming work of Christ. 
 
47 
 
 (1.) All the relations of miui to man are essential a'ul 
 permanent, are ordinances of God from the hei^^inniiiir ; 
 and are continually recoj^nized and rcorulatcd in "llisde d- 
 ings with men in ail the successive stnges of revelation. 
 They are frequently dealt witJi by direct precei)t. 
 
 (2.) All the most transient relations of man to man, 
 so far as legitimate, are brought under, and may be main- 
 tained under, the sanctions of His Worch A relation 
 wliich can not so exist and accomplish its purpose is shown 
 to be wrong. 
 
 (3.) Christianity always accomplishes its main work 
 in society through principles better than through pre- 
 cepts. 
 
 Every rehition can be thus regulated by principles. 
 These priticiples run through both dispensations, ijiving 
 flexibility to the system and showing it suited to everv 
 age and human condition. 
 
 (4.) Christianity works for the regeneration of society, 
 through the regeneration of the individual. 
 
 {'c.) Man's duties to himself are not left on any merely 
 selfish or utilitarian basis. The excellence of Christiani- 
 ty here appeal's. 
 
 (1.) In the dignity ascribed to man's origin. 
 
 (2. In its representation of the expenditure of divine 
 thought, love and sacrifice, of wliicli it declares man the 
 object. 
 
 (3.) In that which Christianity proposes to make of 
 man. Tlie future glory which awaits him. In one sense 
 we cannot think too highly of ourselves. 
 
 IX. The weight of these moral arguments for the 
 Divinity of Christianity is cumulative. It is to be esti- 
 mated by the combined force of all. The combination 
 being multiplicative, the conclusiveness of these argu- 
 ments in such a combination, is more than their sum. 
 
 The moral results of Christianity as illustrations of 
 its nature and proof of its divinity: 
 
 Chas. C. llinnel: "It is not easy to sa}' whether 
 Christianity has done more good or evil in the world." 
 He imputes to Christianity asceticisnif and whatever 
 other evils have passed under its name. He attributes 
 to civilization much that we asci-ibe to Christianity. 
 There is great difJiculty in eliminating what is due to 
 
48 
 
 Christianity in tho great forces wliich combine to pro- 
 duce results. The problem is a complex one. But the 
 unquestionable fruits of Christianity, leaving out the 
 doubtful, are enougb to prove our point. 
 
 Prof. Lecky gives three criteria of judging of prog- 
 ress in the moral condition of a country. (1) The 
 changes that have taken place in the moral standard. (2) 
 In the moral type. (3) The degree in which the ideal 
 of moralists has been realized among the people. By 
 moral standard, be means the degree in whicli in dif- 
 ferent ages, recognized virtues liave been enjoined and 
 practiced. By moral type, the relative importance at- 
 tached to different virtues in different ages. The moral 
 results of Christianity are tested: 
 
 1. With reference to the changes wrought by it in 
 the moral judgments that have prevailedamong men. 
 
 2. With respect to the changes wrought in the vis- 
 ible life of the world. 
 
 MORAL JUDGMENTS. 
 
 General remarks: — 
 
 A. We arc prepared to expect that Christianity will 
 work changes in the moral judgments of men, from the 
 more intimate and indissoluble connection which it es- 
 tablishes between religion and morality. 
 
 Man's relation to God, in Homer and other classical 
 writers, is legal and temporal rather than moral. There 
 is no reference to the inmost spirit and dispositions. 
 Religious motives were supplied for civic virtues, not 
 for inward impurity. 
 
 Montesquieu : ''Paganism forbade onlj' certain gross 
 crimes, restraining the hand but neglecting tho heart." 
 
 B. There is not only a more intimate relation estab- 
 lished between religion and morality, but it is a religion 
 of mutual helpfulness. Tiie more powerful influence 
 goes forth from' religion. 
 
 Schmid traces the moral importance of Paganism: 
 
 (1) To the uRture of Polytheism, which detracts and 
 weakens both religion and morality. 
 
 (2) To the low and corrupting representations which 
 crowded mythology, art and worship. 
 
49 
 
 Lecky : "Ancient Rome ]M-o(liiced many heroes but 
 no saints." Such was the influence of pafianism, while 
 that. of Christianity is directly and powerfully helpful to 
 morality, sensibility and Juds^nient, penetrating to the 
 moral essence of sin and holiness; bringino; new ineanin" 
 ai.d power to the old terms evil, good, conscience, &c. 
 
 C. Group 1st. Illustrations of the new moral jud«r- 
 mentsdeveloi)od by Christianity: 
 
 I. We notice the new estimate which Christianity 
 led each individual man to put on himself and others. 
 It is the claim of Christianity to have created the idea of 
 humanity. It first declared what it was to be a man. 
 Tliis new estimate led to greater self-respect, and also to 
 the renouncing of unh'.dy conceit and pride, because we 
 constantly see how far short we fall of the standard. 
 This would and did prevent men from [lutting their 
 powers to low uses, and from sinking into degrading as- 
 sociations : 
 
 a. New views are given to man of the sanctity of 
 liuman life. Suicide had been commended by ancient 
 religions, philosojihies and examples. But Christianity 
 pronounced it self-murder. Ai)ortion and infanticide 
 were very prevalent crimes, justified by legislators. 
 Lycurgns said that weaklings should be put out of the 
 wa}'. Christianity stamps this as murder. Paganism 
 sanctioned gladiatorial combats, which Christianity from 
 the first resisted and condemned. Lecky regards the 
 abolition of this amusement as one of the most signal 
 triumphs of Christianity. 
 
 b. Christianity taught the world to attach a new 
 value to chasdtj/. The ancient religions had contributed 
 to tlie demoralization of society. The system of sla- 
 very and other agencies led to every imaginable form 
 of pollution. Christianity came, demanding purity 
 everywhere; in the home and marriage relations ; be- 
 
 ,tween man and man. The human body was made more 
 sacred by the incarnation of Christ. Men and women 
 are exhorted to become flt tem[)les for the Holy Ghost. 
 Purity was made essential to self-respect. 
 
 c. Christianity taught men to put a new value on 
 veracity/. The self-respect of the individual man and the 
 interests of society were thus enhanced and guarded. 
 
50 
 
 Plato and the Stoics under certain conditions jostiiied 
 lying. Leckv snys, that the influence of Chric^tianityMs 
 not entirely favorable to veracity. He makes throe forms 
 of veracity : 
 
 (1) Industrial,!, e., fidelity to engagements and state- 
 ments. It touches the }3ractical industries of life. 
 
 (2) Political, which, in matters of controversy and 
 public interest, would have all opinions, arguments and 
 facts faii-ly stated. 
 
 (3) Philosophical, which pursues truth for its own 
 sake. It desires to estimate truth for just what it is. 
 It cultivates a judicial spirit in controversy. These forms 
 are emphasized ip proportion to the growth of civiliza- 
 tion. 
 
 He represents the theological spirit as an adversary 
 to progress, in retarding the growth of the last two 
 forms. It prompts the repression of all opinions and 
 facts not in accord with common faith. " Indeed," he 
 says, " Christian veracity deserves to raidv with Punic 
 faith." But the very reverse is true. Christianity has 
 exalted veracity to what it was not before. The Ro- 
 man satirists comment on this want of good faith in 
 their time. Pliny says, the oath of the Christian was 
 to avoid theft, adultery and falsehood. 
 
 [d) Christianity creates the new virtue of humility. 
 Life acquires a new sacredness, so that man has reason 
 to think more of himself Christianity never suffers 
 man to reproach himself, nor reproaches him with the 
 fact that he is a dependent creature. It does show him 
 to be a sinner, and charges him to humble himself on 
 that account; requiring him in this regard to consent to 
 the verdict of reason and conscience. Modest estimates 
 of self were seldom inculcated in heathen philosophy, 
 but even then, it was for natural and moral reasons. 
 Appollonius. 
 
 D. Group 2nd. Changes which Christianity pro- 
 duced in man's estimate of certain common and often 
 inevitable conditions of human life. 
 
 Labor was regarded as a hindrance to public life, de- 
 grading and impairing virtue. Plato, Aristotle, Socrates 
 and the historians all notice and comment on this. 
 They said that labor was remanded to a particular class; 
 
51 
 
 that it blunted virtue and intellinjence, and nuist be 
 done by slaves. Christianity reinstates labor in tlie re- 
 spect of the world, and shows it worthy of men of all 
 ranks. No redistribution of property could have been 
 as valuable to the world as this exaltation of labor. This 
 view of it was commended by eminent Christian ex- 
 amples. Adam, unfallen, was put in the garden to care 
 for it. The Apostles inculcated the duty and the honor 
 of labor. It was brought into close connection with 
 Christian charity and so ennobled. It is the Christian's 
 dut}' to labor that he may have something to give. 
 
 Poverty. — A no less promincuit and beneficent 
 change was wrought by Christianity in the idea of pov- 
 erty. Greece and Rome pronounced it dishonorable. 
 Juvenal's third satire expressed the common opinion of 
 his age. " The gods waste no thunderbolts on a poor 
 man." Plato taught that the children of poor men 
 were no better than bastards, and a poor man has no 
 right to increase his class. The poor, as poor, are not 
 entitled to relief, for to show kindness to a poor man 
 was only to prolong his miser}'. 
 
 Schmid says, that it was necessary to reinstate man- 
 hood and to rehabilitate labor; to teach the rich to re- 
 8[)ect the poor, and the poor to respect himself, and to 
 be content with liis lot. Christ ennoMed poverty, for 
 he was poor. Christianity works in two ways : first, 
 inwardly in the hearts of the poor themselves; second, 
 outwardly in producing sympathy, respect and charity. 
 It removes the stigma from poverty. " To the poor the 
 Gospel is preached." 
 
 E. Group 3rd. New estimates put on man's relations 
 and duties to his fellow man. 
 
 Illustrations maybe taken from three departments: 
 
 a Christianity implied, demanded and promoted a 
 new value of family relations and duties, and of the 
 nature and work of home; especially the place of the 
 wife and mother in tlie home. Not only among sav- 
 ages, but under Grecian and Roman culture, woman 
 was greatly disparaged and despised. Her physical 
 feebleness and incapacity to serve the state, put her 
 down with the children, the slaves and the poor. She 
 was endured because of her sex and not for her hu- 
 
52 
 
 manify. In the family wliich existed for the perpetua- 
 tion of the state, she had no intluence, or valne, except 
 as a necessity for this end. 
 
 Some have attributed the ruin of ancient civilization 
 to the low estimate of won^an. It was ou'i of the chief 
 causes. Among the Hebrews she had a higher placp. 
 
 Christianity gives her the respect due to her as made 
 in the image of God, redeemed by the blood of Christ 
 and made the temple of the Holy Ghost. In her human 
 relations, she is represented not as the burden, bnt as 
 the glory of man, sliaring with him the honors and re- 
 sponsibilities of home. 
 
 Monogamy is insisted upon ; adultery and concu- 
 binage denounced. Gratitude had something to do 
 with the welcome given to Christianity by woman. 
 
 (/>) Christianity developed new inter[)retations of jus- 
 iice and equity, wherever their principles found applica- 
 tion among men. Kot only in the family, but every- 
 where, it gives new force to these ideas. 
 
 Justice and equit3'are not measured by the law or by 
 the standard of a community. Man is to live right- 
 eously as well as soberly and godly. There are three 
 elements of Christianity which contribute to this 
 change: 
 
 1. The new views which Christianity takes and de- 
 mands of the nature and intrinsic worth of the [)arties 
 in any transaction. 
 
 2. The new aspect given to the fact that God has in- 
 stituted these relations, and has a purpose in them. 
 
 3. In the new spirit and principle implanted in man 
 to interpret his responsibilities. 
 
 Christianity disclosed, in a sense created, the very 
 idea of humanity, and all the r'elations of Christianity 
 were n)ade in relation to the good of humanity. Love 
 is made the impelling, regulating principle of life. Jus- 
 tice and equity are to be construed by love. Who is my 
 neighbor, if all are alike in creation, in redemption, in 
 dependence on grace ? 
 
 Christianity regulates our use of our freedom, what 
 we may or may not do. The transient duties are dis- 
 tinguished from the permanent. We are to love our 
 neighbors as ourselves. The selfish idea of measurinor 
 
53 
 
 duty by mere justice is done away. It is not mere Ic-iral 
 indebtedness. Love is made rlie expounder of uritrcMi 
 as well as unwritten obliu:ation. 
 
 In the state, Christianity tauirht new lessons of what 
 rulers owe to subjects, and what subjects owe to rulers. 
 It does iiot presume to prescribe the form of i^'overn- 
 ment; it strikes at sclfishnes and capi-ice in th^Muter- 
 pretation of the ricrhts of rukirs, and at the hiwlessness 
 and servility of subjects. The stale is made a means, 
 not an end. Old systems made it the end to which evei» 
 tlie family was subordinate. As rulers, men exist for 
 God and the people, and not for self 
 
 It is ol)jected that between the consideration demand- 
 ed by Christianity for all men as men, and the specilic 
 and intense love demanded of Christians for Christian 
 brethren, the breath of life is crushed out of patriotism. 
 
 In the provision made for the mutual fidelity of 
 ruler and ruled, we have the best safeguard of patriot- 
 ism, lu the family, Christianity deiined more perfectly 
 and consecrated more fully all the existin<r relations, 
 and tJie mutual obligations of its member.<». (TropIon<^, 
 "Influence of Christianity among the llomans.") 
 
 Christianity strikes with the same blow, adultery 
 which provokes divorce, and divorce which provokes 
 adultery, and puts the conjugal bond above the caprice 
 of man. 
 
 One of the stei'uest judgments which Paul passed on 
 the heathen world was that it is without natural affec- 
 tion ; and tliis is justified. Children were a species of 
 property. Troplong says, the relation of blood is dead 
 and passive. Vico says, that in order that parentage 
 may make itself hej'rd, it must put on the civil mask. 
 The mere rehition of father is imi)ortant. 
 
 Schmid : " The children belonged to the father and 
 he was to consult only the public interest. He miglit 
 sell or capitally punish them. Christianity confers 
 rights on children, and duties on parents and vice versa." 
 
 Troplong pictures the conflict between a lather on 
 the one hand, and children, wife and slaves on tlieotiier, 
 urKler the empire when the father had been stripped of 
 much of his authority. Hence Christianity was charged 
 with teaching the insubordination of wife and children, 
 
54 
 
 subvertiijo: order, loosening the bonds between slave and 
 master, child and parent. This charge in the face of 
 the fact that love was alread}' beginning, a? a new bond, 
 to exei't its refoi-niing influence in the famil}'. 
 
 Into the mutual relation between masters and ser- 
 vants, new ideas are introduced. In tlie old Roman law 
 the most valuable proi)ert3' was lands, slaves, and beasts 
 used in assisting men. 
 
 Cato : " Our slaves are our enemies." Nero, strange 
 to relate, is the tirst to recognize rights of slaves; he 
 charged magistrates to receive complaints of slaves 
 against their masters. Seneca alone, in his day, vindi- 
 cated the humanity of slaves. Paul : (Col. 4 : 1) "■ Mas- 
 ters give unto your servants that which is just and 
 equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven." 
 (Comp. Eph. vi, 9.) 
 
 It has been said that the master needed Christianity 
 more than the slave. • 
 
 Schn)id : In a society in which all men are equal and 
 actuated by love, free service will be one olfecl, and slav-^ 
 ery an accident, which, under the principle at work, will 
 gradually be removed. 
 
 Lecky : Slavery was recoiiiiized, but Christianity in- 
 troduced three principles : tlie new order of relation be- 
 tween master and slave, the moral dignity which attaches 
 to the slave, and the moral impetus to enfranchisement 
 of the slave. 
 
 Christianity so transformed and developed, that it 
 may almost be said to have created, charity. 
 
 In the least remarkable form it led men to relieve 
 the wants of the brethren. Even this was unknown be- 
 fore; for the conception of a moral obligation to relieve 
 those of the same faith was new to heathendom. But 
 charity reached far beyond the bounds of common faith 
 and owned the bonds of a simple human brotherhood, 
 manifested in its strongest form in love to enemies. 
 
 Fruits of Christian principle appeared and those 
 watching testified to their wide-spread influence, so that 
 heathen observers wondered. JDuring the persecution 
 in Carthage, Christians relieved those dying of the plague, 
 imperiling their own lives. 
 
 Julian said : These godless Galileans nourish not oidy 
 
55 
 
 tlieir own poor, but also ours, iuvitiiiir tlicMii to tlieir h.vo 
 feasts and attraetino tlieni as childroM with cakes. 
 
 Tertullian : To love friends is coininoii to all ; to love 
 enemies peculiar to Cliristians alone. 
 
 This teaching of Christianit.v grew out of the new 
 views which Christianity exemplified and inculcated with 
 regard to the very nature of charity. 
 
 Heathenism did not cherish charity even in the fam- 
 ily. Christianity wonderfully refined the sensibilities, 
 and puritied tlie emotional nature. Charity was built 
 on the deeper foundation of i)rinciple, love to God 
 being the general motive, love to Christ the more 
 specific. 
 
 Aristotle, in his Ethics, says, that friemlship cannot 
 exist without mulual love, which cannot bo conceived 
 of on the part of the Supreme Being. It would sound 
 strangely for one to say he loved Zeus. 
 
 Christ's identification of himself with the poor and 
 the poor with himself, gave new meaning to chnritv. 
 Christianity, Lecky says, efiected a comi»lete reforniati(')n 
 by showing the identification of the poor with it^ 
 founder. 
 
 Human brotherhood has been a dream of some 
 lieathen philosophers but never a reality: we find feeble 
 indications of it in the classics. 
 
 Terence: " lam a man, and nothing that belongs to 
 man do I count foreign to myself" 
 
 " Christo in pauperibus," an old inscrijition testify- 
 ing to the union of the poor with Christ. 
 
 Christ had shown that the love of enemies was not 
 a mere negative thing, but a positive love. 
 
 The Indian books which are extolled by free relig- 
 ionists, are found on examination to be very defective, 
 and the virtues commended, they could not make vital. 
 
 On the other hand Christians began immediately to 
 practice, not merely to quote the teachings of Christ. 
 
 II. Is there anj'diing to show that the ideal has been 
 realized ; that Christianity wrought actual changes in the 
 life of men ? Was it true that men merely gained a 
 new conception of virtue, and not the power t(» prac- 
 tice it? 
 
06 
 
 What chccncjes have been wrought in the visible life of the 
 world ? 
 
 Wlmt was an ideal 200i\, has been made a real good. 
 The world is no more what it was before Cliristianity 
 came. It is not necessary to show either tliat notliino; 
 but Christianity was tending in the direction of this 
 improvement, or tliat the designed result was at once or 
 is yet fully reached. 
 
 We need only show that Christianity has done eome- 
 thing toward great changes, not attempted before. It in 
 enongli if we cannot account for these beneficial r»^sults 
 without Christianity, while on the other hand we can 
 account for the incompleteness of the results without 
 making Christianity responsible. 
 
 Some consideraiions. 
 
 a. The estinuite put on man as man. 
 
 (1) Did Christianity practically, and not merely in 
 theory teach that life is sacred? Lecky (uQt over fond 
 of Christianity) pronounces it one of the most impor- 
 tant services of Christianity, that it definitely and dog- 
 matically asserted the sini'ulness of all destruction of 
 human life. (European Morals, vol. ii, p. 21.) 
 
 (2) As to chastity, the world is much purer than it 
 was without Christianity. Sanctity and purity are se- 
 cured to the marriage relation by Christianity. 
 
 (3) \^eraciiy. fidelity. Illustrated by a single fact. 
 The Euro]>ean Constantine Chloras, father of Constan- 
 tine the Great, surrounded himself with Christians be- 
 cause of their fidelity. To test them, he one day gave 
 them the alternative of renouncing their faith, or 
 losing their position. Most kept their faith. These he 
 restored to their positions, Avhile lie dismissed the others, 
 saying, that those who would betray their God would 
 betray man. 
 
 (4) Htunility. — Christianity did not merely add hu- 
 mility to the catalogue of virtues, but gave it as an 
 actual power. 
 
 Lecky says, that humility is the crowning grace of 
 all the saintly type of graces. Though he thinks there 
 is another type of graces, a wholesome pride. There 
 was a danger of humility leading to servility. This is 
 questiouable. James says, that God resisteth the proud. 
 
57 
 
 Philosophical pride is not the parent and <rnide of so 
 many virtues as Mr. Lecky claims. Man cannot wear 
 two faces, hninble toward God and proud toward man. 
 
 Christianity had a double victory to ^ain, not merely 
 to conquer the defects and shams of society, but chiefly 
 to gain a victory over every heart, to enable each miii 
 to conquer himself. 
 
 b. The change wrought by Christianity in the world's 
 estimate of labor and poverty. Consult Neander, 
 Church History, i, §3; also Memorials of Christian 
 Life; Merivales's Conversion of the Roman Empire, also 
 Conversion of Northern Nations (Boyle Lectures); 
 Pressense's Martyrs and Apologists of Christianity. 
 
 c. To what extent Christianity wrought a change in 
 man's relation to man. (See Pliny's Letter to Trajan.) 
 
 Free religionists call attention to the tenderness of 
 Hindooism toward animals, and yome German replies 
 that it builds hospitals for sick cows, but burns widows 
 and throws children into the Ganges. 
 
 Bearing of Christian missions on the evidence that Chris- 
 tianiti/ is from God. 
 
 There are two questions. 
 
 (1) Are Christian missions a normal characteristic, 
 and necessary outgrowth of Christianity? 
 
 If so (2) what do missions prove as to Christianity ? 
 
 1. The work undertaken»and prosecuted in the pre- 
 cise line of the parting commission of Christ to his 
 church, as well as in the line of other teacliings of His. 
 (Matt. 28:19, 20.) 
 
 One essential feature is the acknowledgment of 
 Christ's supremacy and what he says is to be done, for 
 he is not only Redeemer but Lord. The church is not 
 to be merely a preaching and teaching church, l)ut a 
 going church. 
 
 Not merely to teach, and preach to those lying 
 hardening in sin, about our doors or within a Sabbath 
 Jay's journey, but to go into all the world. So far forth 
 as the church is doing this, she is doing what is an 
 e556'??^/aZ part of Christianity. 
 
 Effectual doors are opened by Providence. 1 he 
 church must be ready to enter in when the door i« 
 opened, and not be taken by surprise. 
 
58 
 
 2. The work of missions is a fittins^ and necessary 
 manifestation of the spirit of Christ, as imparted to the 
 church and dwelling in it. 
 
 This spirit would prompt the church to mission work, 
 even without the commission ; if any man have not the 
 spirit of Christ he is none of His, so also of the church. 
 
 Where this spirit is the same motives and aiins must 
 prevail as were in Christ. Not merely must I go, but 
 may I go. 
 
 3. The work of Christian missions is a work of in- 
 telligent obedience to Christ and Christ-like love of 
 men, directed towards and adapted to advance the Chris- 
 tian dispensation. 
 
 The Christian dispensation is the manifestation of 
 the glory of God, of the glory of God's grace, of God's 
 grace in saving, grace in saving men, saving men 
 through Christ, through Christ to everlasting salvation. 
 
 4. Those who receive the Gospel hold it in part as 
 a trust for others. Paul was a debtor to the Jews and 
 Gentiles. So every disciple owes the Gospel to others. 
 Christian intelligence regards it as due to others. 
 
 5. Another proof is found in the fact that the early 
 church full of the Spirit of the Lord and fresh from the 
 teachings of Christ was pre-eminently a mission church. 
 So every church in proportion to its fullness of the spirit 
 of Christ. , 
 
 The English church was charged by a Pope as not 
 being a true church because it was not a missionary 
 church. (This was some 3'ears ago.) 
 
 It ifi not so much the presence of the mission spirit 
 and work that needs to be accounted for, as the absence 
 of it when wanting. 
 
 The church that is no't going and preaching must tell 
 why. 
 
 Objections against this view of the vital and essential 
 union of missions with Christianity. 
 
 Objections from Catholicism (1) the Catholic church 
 asserts that the Protestant body not being the church of 
 Christ, has neither the right nor the divine call, so that 
 the work must be spurious. (2) It calls upon Protes- 
 tants to unity of faith before they go out to disturb 
 the nations with diverse beliefs. 
 
59 
 
 It is not necessary to jinswvr the ohjection that such 
 work must be begun " fVoin Jeriisaleiii," since Christ 
 commanded them " beginnino; from Jerusalem," Tlie 
 work at home must not be perfected before a f.-reij^n is be- 
 gun. Wliere sliould we be if the church had" always 
 taken care only of the work at home. It is further ohjccted, 
 missions are an artilicial graft on the original stock of 
 the Reformed Church, alien to its nature arising from 
 narrow views of man's condition without the gospel. 
 They are peculiar to one type of the Reformed faitli — 
 the pietistic — originating with Wesley and Whitetield. 
 As to the age of missions they areas old as the apostles, 
 and as to tlieir being alien to the spirit of the Reforma- 
 tion it onl}' sliows that the Reformation needed reforming, 
 if it were true, which it is not. Modern Protestant mis- 
 sions date from the Reformation. 
 
 When, if these views are antiquated, did they become 
 so? They are the views of the Apostle Paul. In whose 
 judgment are tliese views of the appropriateness of the 
 gospel to all narrow views ? 
 
 As Catholicism denies the call of the church to mis- 
 sionary eftbrt, rationalism denies its diit//. Rationalism 
 maintains that it is not the duty of Christians, that even 
 ii'it were, Christianity is not adapted to accomplish the 
 desired result. 
 
 //. What do missionary results as so far dereloped prort 
 in regard to Christianity ? 
 
 i. The gospel message can be carried to all nations. 
 The commission so tar as it concerns the delivc'^ry of the 
 message in the speech that men use, can be fulfilled. 
 
 Many languages have first been reduced to writing 
 in order to carry the g(>spel. 
 
 A Danish writer calls attention to the fact that but 60 
 years ago translations had been made only in the [Semitic 
 languages, Greek, Latin, Lithuanian, Celtic &c., while 
 no\v in almost every language and dialect. Dr. Moffatt 
 found words among the lowest classes in South Africa 
 that had had a purer and better meaning. No language 
 of earth refuses to have the story of the cross told in it. 
 
 Philologists often have to come to the Christian mis- 
 sionary for'information in their field and sometimes only 
 to turn around against the mission cause. 
 
60 
 
 The question how shall I preach the gospel is rightly 
 answered only when localized and individualized. 
 
 If the gospel is in the heart a way will he found to 
 express it. You must first have the gospel in your own 
 heart, then find out where among the people the altar 
 " to the unknown god " is. 
 
 2. The gospel message can reach and move the hearts 
 of men all the world over. 
 
 This shows it isfroniGod. Thougli not co-extensive 
 with the earth it is broad enough to allow the induction. 
 Renan scoffs at the idea of disturbing the SouthSea Is- 
 landers in their simplicity. A strange innocency ! 
 
 3. The gospel message when received can produce 
 its legitimate and appropriate fruit on every soil under 
 heaven. The gospel is full of vital and regenerating 
 power, and missionaries are encouraged to send it fuither 
 on, beyond their own stations. Societies are formed 
 among converts. It must not be forgotten how long it 
 took Christianity to revolutionize the German and Celtic 
 nations. The work of purifying is slow of necessity. 
 The cause for amazement is not that it is so slow but so 
 rapid. 
 
 4. Secondary and secular results of the reception of 
 the gospel message are a boon whose equal cannot be 
 found in connection with any other agency. 
 
 Good that culture never could accomplish. Gospel 
 alone can be relied on to produce endurance and per- 
 sistent struggles against evil. (So Prof. Nitzch shows.) 
 See Dr. Ellinwood\s " Great Conquest." 
 
 Objections. 1. From scientific anthropology. The 
 whole theory and practice of foreign missions rests on 
 false views concerning the relations of human races. 
 
 Such persons hold to the inequality of the human 
 races, frank enough to renounce. Christianity with mis- 
 sions. Since missions assume that God has made of one 
 blood all nations, and Christianity also rests on this, 
 then the overthrow of the one involves the other. 
 
 This objection, in an unscientific form, is as old as 
 Celsus; he asked, who can believe it possible that the 
 same religion is suited to Europe, Asia and Africa? 
 
 2. It is foolish to carry Christianity before civiliza- 
 tion. First civilize then carry the gospel. 
 
61 
 
 a. The word "civilize " Chriat failed to iiitrudiice into 
 his great commission. 
 
 h. Experience proves that civilization is not neces- 
 sary. Among some savage nations the gospel has niore 
 effect, so that these objectors tnrn around and say it is 
 suited only for savages. 
 
 c. Christianity is the only etiectual civilizer. The 
 testimony of the report of the committee appointed by 
 the House of Commons, of learned Englishmen, who 
 searched history for many years aiid reported that there 
 never has been a satisfactory civilization apart from 
 Christianity. 
 
 3. Practically, Christianity has proved itself in con- 
 nection with mission work, to be ill adapted to heathen 
 nations. They put their heathen idols under tiie altar. 
 The restraints of Christianity is killing off the natives. 
 
 4. Practically Christianity has made l)ut little impres- 
 sion on the stronger nations, viz: India and China. 
 
 Some time ago there was some truth in this, but noi 
 now. We should remember that in China we have but 
 one missionary to ever}' one and a half million. 
 
 5. As compared witli some other religions, Christi- 
 anity has shown greatly inferior power for impressing 
 men, especially in Asia and Africa. True to some 
 extent — and this is an argument in favor of Christi- 
 anity which does jiot pander to human depravity. 
 
 6. Economical — Christianity involves tremendous 
 expense. A person objected to the writer that it cost 
 $50,000 to convert one soul in India. It is not true, for 
 facts show that in proportion to the outlay, foreign mis- 
 sions are more successful tlian the home work. But if 
 true, Christ set a higher value than that on a hunum soul. 
 
 Finis. 
 
ANALYSIS OF APOLOGETICS. 
 
 PROLEGOMENA. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 Prelhnivari/ gucsUoriii. 
 
 1. Why do I believe I an\ a Christian ? 
 
 2. Why a Christian in belief? 
 
 Answei- (o 1 lies (a) in past experience, (b) in present. Answer to 2. 
 from (a) early education, (b) enlightened choice. 
 
 Reasons for Stady of Apologetics. 
 
 (a) Self-respect. (b) Loyalty to fellow-men. (c) For our times 
 especially, it is the question of the day. (d) Personal composure and 
 confidence. 
 
 Practiced Aims of Apologetics. 
 
 1. Justification and confession of our faith. 
 
 2. Better qualification to commend. 
 
 3. Fuller confidence in defending. 
 
 Definition of Apologetics. 
 
 (a) "That part of Theology which vindicates the right of Theology 
 in general, and of Christian Theology in particular, to exist as a science." 
 (Partial.) (b) " That which sets forth the hi.storial credentials of Chris- 
 tianity " (c) Science which sets forth the principles according to which 
 Christianity is to be defended, (d) That branch of Theol. Science which 
 sets forth the proofs that the claims of Christianity as a religion are 
 justified. Term Apologetics ambiguous. 
 
 Relative Position of Apologetics. 
 
 Some : In Practical Theology. Others : before Systematic Theology. 
 
 Literature. 
 
 Specific Apologetics for each age. Scientific and Practical Apolo 
 getics Fundamental Apologetics and Christian Apologetics proper. 
 
 Kind of Evidence. 
 
 Logical ; metaphysical ; historical. 
 
 THESIS : That Christianitg is the true divinclg sanc- 
 tioned and authoritative religion for us, and for all men. 
 
II. 
 
 CHRISTIANITY AS A RELIGION. 
 
 Christianity not tlie only reliojioii. What is a relior- 
 ioii ? Definition reached. 
 
 (1) Etymologically — religio — from religere, to reconsider, rather 
 than from rdigare, to refiiid. ©prjiTKeta from either (a)<'paS, (b) rpim^ (c) 
 9pcu. O. T. gives no specific term. 
 
 (2.) Historically. Examine religions. 
 
 (3.) Philosophically — by induction of facts. 
 
 Definitions of Religion. 
 
 1. Philosophical. 
 
 'Observance of moral law as Divine ordinance." — (Kant.) "'Faith 
 in moral order of universe." — (Fichte.) "A priori theory of universe." 
 — (H. Spencer. ) 
 
 '2. Theological. 
 
 " A mode of knowing and worshipping God. Relation of Revelation 
 to man, and of man to it. ' Relation of man to superhuman powers in 
 which he believes." 
 
 " Man's life in personal communion with God." 
 
 " A mode of knowledge, thought, feeling, action, which has the 
 divine for object, ground and aim." (Proper and complete). 
 
 Advantages of last defence (aj includes all particulars, (b) recognizes 
 divine as object, (c) general yet applicable to specific religions. 
 
 Divisions of Prolegomena. 
 
 I. Phenomenology of Religion. 
 
 II. Psychology. 
 
 III. Ditierent theories of origin. 
 
 IV. Criteria. 
 
 V. Relations to morality. 
 VI. Significance. 
 
 I. Phenomonology of Religion. 
 
 1. Subject of Beligion. 
 
 A. Man — not other creatures. . 
 
 B. All men — not some only. 
 
 C. Essential characteristics of man. 
 
 D. Belongs to conscious voluntary phases of human life. 
 
 E. Belongs to man as moral agent. 
 
 2. Object of Religion. 
 
 The Divine. God of the SS, not of Positivism. 
 
 3. Actual Manifestations of Religion. 
 
 A. Phenomena of public worship. 
 
 (1.) Places set apart to worship. 
 (2.) Observances of worship. 
 (3.) Priesthoods. 
 
III. 
 
 B. Phenomena in private life. IIoiuselKjld gods— family worsliii.. 
 
 C. Creeds : — Philosupliical, doctrinal, mytliological, without anv 
 
 form. 
 
 D. The social element in Religion. The world's reilgion.s. 
 
 4. T(/pes of the world's Reiir/ions. 
 
 Principle of classification : conception of the divine as an object of 
 worship. 
 
 A. Reugions of Naturk. 
 (1.) Noaniijthoiogical. 
 (a). Fetichism. 
 (b)' Shamanism. 
 (c). Element worship, 
 (dj. Power worship in nature, and ancestor worship. 
 
 (2). Mythological. 
 
 (a). Objects of worship: external nature personified and deified. 
 A — Old Indian rels. /i.— Baal, Astarte, Moloch-worship. C. — Egyptian 
 religion. 
 
 (b). Human ideas personified aid deified. A. — Greek and Roman 
 religions. H. — Persian relig. C. — Old (jcrman rel. J). — Buddhisam. 
 
 A. Sui'EKNATUKAI. Rlil.IGIOXS. 
 
 (3). Siiper-mi/tkolnglcal. 
 
 (a) Judaism. 
 
 (b) Christianity. 
 
 (c) Mohammedanism. 
 
 Differences between (a) and (b). (1). In fulness of divine inani 
 festation. (2). In degree of doctrinal developm>;nt. {-i). In measure 
 of realization of intended results. 
 
 Other classifications ; criteria ; Historical development, suitable- 
 ness, political influence, nature of worship. 
 
 II. P.<!YCHOI.OGY OF ReI.IGION. 
 
 Preliminary — (a), spiritual oneness of man. (b). Necessity of 
 generalizing to cover all religions. 
 
 1. How many and which fac allies exercised. 
 
 (a). Intelligence : guard against ultra intellectualism, 
 
 {h). Emotion : but guard against ultra emotionalism. 
 
 (c). Will : yet will not the seat of religion. 
 
 (d). Conscience : yet religion does not originate in conscience. 
 
 2. The order af Psychological development. 
 
 Question between Intelligence and Emotion. True order : (a). 
 Discovery of relations between man and God. (b). Recognition of feel- 
 ings corresponding to the relations. 
 
 Guard against: (a). Theories tending to .Pantheism. 
 
 (b). Theories implying that feeling is cognitive 
 
 (cj. Theories ignoring or subordinating either cognitions <ir senti- 
 ments in religion. 
 
 III. ThEOUIES of OlUGIN OF RELIGION. 
 
 The Natural Development theory. 
 
 (2). Atheism. (2). Fetichism. (3). Nature worship._^ M). Sha 
 manism. (5). Idolatry. (6). Principle worship. (7). Theism and 
 Pantheism. This unscientific as well as unscriptural. 
 
. IV. 
 
 Herbert Spencer: (a). Man conies to dualism in natur*?. 
 
 (6). To idea of supernatural in ghosts. 
 
 {c). To Ancestor worship. 
 
 [d). Idolatry and Fetichism. 
 
 (e). Animal and plant worship. 
 
 (/). Worship of Deities. 
 
 Specific Theories. 
 
 A. Political Theory. 
 
 B. Physical Theory. 
 
 C. Selfish Theory. 
 
 I). Theory of primitive supernatural revelation. 
 E. Theory of Supplemental Revelation. 
 
 IV. Criteria of Religion. 
 
 (1). The traditioiuil or prescriptwe right of ani/ religion to 
 
 exist. 
 
 (2). Truth to Reason. 
 
 {a). Is the system consistent in itself? (b). Does it harmonize witli 
 the world's constitution ? (c). Does it meet the needs of man ? 
 
 (3). Truth to Moral Nature. 
 
 Additional modern tests. 
 
 (4). Practical Test. 
 
 (a). Effects on the intelligence. (6). On the emotional nature, (c). 
 On .(Esthetical nature, {d). Other practical effects. 
 
 (6). Special Divine Attestations. 
 
 Objected riiat attestations are superffuous, impossible, improbable, 
 not sustained by evidence. 
 
 (a). Not superfluous: from history of world and present condition. 
 
 (6). Not impossible : from Omnipotence of God. 
 • (c). Not improbable : from Benevolence of God e.vhibited in pro- 
 visions in nature. 
 
 V. Relations of Religion and Morality. 
 
 1. Historical. 
 
 {a) That there are such relations, (b) What they are. (c) Their 
 measure and direction. 
 
 2. Theoretical. 
 
 Define Religion and Morality in their mutual relation, according to 
 Martensen. This varies and so we have Philosophical (ethics ; Theoretical 
 ethics ; Christian ethics ; Social ethics ; Political ethics ; origin of ideas 
 (a), of duty, (6). of virtue, (c). of supreme and subordinate good. 
 
 What are the Relations of M. and R. ? 
 
 6 views. 
 
 A. one includes the other. 
 (1). Morality merged in religion. 
 (2). Religion merged in morality. 
 
 fi. (3). Each held distinct and essential and independent of each 
 other. 
 
P.\ ^5'*'i/V"<^'\"ient,il ami primary, vol one si.l.oniii.at.- t.. ll..- ..ihor 
 
 (4). Keligioii tuiulameiUal, morality subordinalc. 
 
 (5). Morality primary, religion secondary. 
 
 D. (6). Both as essential and necessary to each: tliereroie coordinate. 
 
 Points of Agreement and Dicen/enne. 
 Agueeme.vt. 
 
 (1). Both in having their ground in human constiiution. 
 ('2). Both refer to external ohjects with real, valid ciaims. 
 
 DlI'^FEKEXCES. 
 
 (3). [n respect of relative position of their objects. 
 (4). Inqualityoftheirclaim. Will of a person in religion : .\l)stract 
 right in morality. 
 
 3. Practical Relations. 
 
 Religion and morality to supplemont and support each other. 
 VI. The SiGxiKii'ANCE ok Rei.icion. 
 
 1 . Of lohit consequence is it that one should be rclicjious ? 
 
 Completeness of manhood demands it. 
 
 Causes of irreligion. 
 
 («). Brutalized life. [h). Indifference, (c). Vividness of pressure 
 of material and secular interests, {d). Positive disinclination to religious 
 life. (e). Reaction against prevalent abu.ses. (/). iiegitimate logic of 
 false speculative reasoning. 
 
 2. Of mhai consequence that one should be rightly religious f 
 
 There is a right and wrong in everything else, much more so in re- 
 ligion ; natural religion points to right religion. 
 
 CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS. 
 
 Christianity in Particular. 
 
 Christianity is the system announced, established, provided for in 
 Scriptures. — Characteristics. 
 
 1. Christianity is a revealed religion. 
 
 2. Christianity is a historical religion. 
 
 3. Christianity is a positive religion. 
 
 4. Christianity is a rational religion. 
 
 5. Christianity is an ethical religion. 
 
 6. Christianity is a world's religion. 
 
 7. Christianity distinctly adapted to special conditions. 
 
 8. Christianity claims a Personal Founder in a special sense. 
 
 9. Christianity combines its doctrinal and vital elements. 
 
 10. Christianity is an exclusive religion. 
 
 11. Christianity is the final religion. 
 
 Objections. 
 
 (1). God has not exhausted his resources. (2). Disparaging fn our- 
 selves. Ans. — (a) All rightful antecedents point to Christianity ; it and 
 no successor, (b) It reaches the utmost wants of men. (c) Brought 
 to the world by the Son of God. Who sliall bring a better religion. 
 
YI. 
 
 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 General Considerations on Emdence. 
 
 1. Is the establishment of the proof of Christianity within the reach 
 of evidence? No intrinsic difficulty in God's revealing or man's appre- 
 hending revelation. 
 
 2. What kind of evidence will establish it? There are tlnree kinds: 
 (a) Intuitive ; {h) Demonstrative ; (c) Experiential, probable or moral 
 evidence. 
 
 Last differs from others (1). In depending on experience. (2) Ad- 
 mitting of degrees of conclusiveness. (8). Involving balancing of con- 
 trary proofs. (4). Involving respon.?ibility. 
 
 Christianity not to be known intuitively as demonstrating therefore 
 established by experimental evidence. Sources of this : (a) Conscious 
 ness. [b] 'i'he Senses. (c) Memory. (d) Testimony. Chief source 
 of evidence for Christianity must be Testimony. Testimony is received 
 by a law of our nature not from exiierience. Criteria of a historical 
 .assertion, (a) That it alone explains the report, [b^ That it is what 
 should be expected, (c) To be tested by rules of conditional or contin- 
 gent influences. (ITeberweg). 
 
 Various hypotheses tenable to account for historical assertions, (a). 
 That the event did happen and was olxserved. (b). That the observation 
 influenced by false apprehension, (c). That report influenced by false 
 apprehension, (d). Recollection untrue. [e). Imagination influenced 
 transmitors. {f). Recorded in spirit and for purpse of romance, [g). 
 Purpo.se to deceive. 
 
 Relatice value of kinds of testimoni/. 
 
 (1). Eye witness trustworthy provided he has (a), competence, (6). 
 opportunity and (c). character. Many eye witnesses better than one wlien 
 (1 ). they are independent. (2). Not influenced by same deception. (3). 
 Not aff"ected by same prejudice. 
 
 (2). Secondary witnesses judged partly by 'same tests but chiefly by 
 their relations to oi'iginal eye witnesses. 
 
 (3). Later witnesses untrustworthy when (o), there is a personal in- 
 terest, (6), a lack of competence, opportunity or character. 
 
 RAWLINSONS CANONS. 
 
 I. Record by contemporary and credible witness is of highest histori- 
 cal credibility. 
 
 II. Record by one reasonably supposed to have obtained directly 
 from those who witnessed is of second degree of historical credibility. 
 
 III. Record by later writers source of information being chiefly 
 tradition if event is of nature of public transaction notorious and afl"ected 
 propriety of national life it is probably true at lea.^t in general outline. 
 
 IV. Tradition of one race corroborated by another especially distant 
 or hostile, constitutes third degree of credibility less than first class of evi- 
 dence and nearly equal to second. 
 
 3. What degree of assurance can moral evidence give ? 
 
 a. Not philosophical certitude, b. But certitude in moral or popular 
 sense. 
 
 Note. Distinction between subjective and objective certitude and sub- 
 jective and objective evidence. 
 
 c Moral evidence only void, entailing moral responsibility. 
 
VII. 
 
 4. What mental comHtiona ncressan/ to i'Htini,tt!n,i moral 
 
 evidence ? 
 
 (a). Attention. (6). Rffort to apprel.en.l. (c). Vigilanc*., to L-uard 
 ngamst perver.sion. (d). Kcjuity. 8""i>« 
 
 5. What moral conditiovs essential to treatnu-iil of ,„(,rot 
 
 evidence ? 
 
 ia) Apprehension of moral responsiljilitv. (/>i Uiiniility (c) 
 Prayerfiilness, even in the li-ht of nature aluiie. (,/) W'ilJiimnV.ss to 
 abide by result. 
 
 6. What kind of moral eridencr offered in favor o/ Christi- 
 
 auiti/ ? 
 
 Old clas.sification : ia) Internal. (/;) External. kJ Collateral. 
 New classification : 
 
 A. Historical. 
 
 B. Philosophical. 
 
 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES. 
 
 1. Nature, md claim of ChristiamDj as a Historical Religion. 
 
 2 Reasons for first consider inc/ Historical Ecidence. 
 
 (1). The idea of Christianity came to the world historically. 
 (2). Many elements in idea are historical facts. 
 
 (3). Philosophical argument more earnestly conducted after this 
 establishment of historical truth. 
 
 (4) Christianity an actual reality ; historical fact to be explained. 
 (5.) Christianity suffers where historical claims are not urged. 
 
 8. Historical ChHstianity as a fact to be accounted for. 
 
 Christianity e.-^ists and has existed. Historical existence of Christi- 
 anity is not disputed. Paul's four epistles, (Rom.. (Jal., I and H Cor.) 
 admitted. Facts alluded to : How came these to be believed ? Five indis- 
 putable facts. 
 
 (a). That in 25 A. D., Christian society had no existence. 
 
 (6). In 40 A. D., it was in vigorous growth 
 
 (c). It was founded by Jesus Christ. 
 
 (d) Crucifixion by Roman governor caused a collapse in this society. 
 
 (e) An event taking place soon after imparted new life. 
 
 These facts were abundantly verifiable : Late sources of informa- 
 tion. (1). Recorded personal ol)serralion (2) oral tradition, (8) written 
 documents, (4) monumental institutions, observances and emblems, (5) 
 significant charges and omissions. 
 
 HypotJieses propounded to account for these facts. 
 
 A. That of their reality. 
 
 B. Other hypotheses, viz : 1. Legendary. 2. Mythical. 3. Inno- 
 cent deception. 4. Willful deception, 
 
 1. Legendary Hypothesis. 
 
Vtll. 
 
 Historical belief rests to great extent on vague, unverified body of 
 legends. Argument: Fact that there is in every people a body of oral 
 lecends. Answer: Christianity not based on oral statements but written 
 documents. Paul, 10 years after death of Christ, could not have used 
 legends as he does facts of Christianity. 
 
 2. Mythical Hypothesis 
 
 Must (a) dispose of gospel narrative, (b) of gospel history in narra- 
 tive (c) of character of Christ. 
 
 In regard to (a) the theory is unsatisfactory. (1). Cannot account 
 for myths. 
 
 {a.) Assumption that historical movements excite myth-making 
 spirit. 
 
 (b) Christianity beginning where, when and as it did not call forth 
 myth-mai\ing. 
 
 (c) Apocryphal books do not show this tendency. 
 
 (d) Where did Christ's followers get such ideas as made the germ of 
 the alleged myths. 
 
 (e) After myths had been created, there would be a difficulty to im- 
 pose them. 
 
 (2). The myths cannot account for the facts. The change wrought 
 in ideas of Messiah. 
 
 3, Tlie hypotheses of deception. 
 
 . (1). Unconscious deception. 
 
 (2). Wilful deception. _ _ • 
 
 (a). So far as refers to Christ. Unconscious deception; reconciliation 
 to facts is impossible. Wilful deception also. 
 
 (b). So far as it refers to Apostles in either case the conduct of the 
 men is to be accounted for ; the difficulties in their way ; the character, 
 circumstances, marvelous appearance of honesty. 
 
 Apply these hypotheses to the resurrection. The hypothesis of re- 
 ality accounts for: (1). The narrative. (2). The character and con- 
 duct of first disciples. (3). The rise of Christianity. • 
 
 (a). The theory of legend or myth cannot account for when, where 
 and how the narrative arose and how it supplanted the original and true 
 record without leaving traces of the struggle. 
 
 (6). The theories of deception, that of designed deception is too 
 violent and therefore universally abandoned ; that of unconscious decep- 
 tion assumes either, (1). that the disciples mistook somebody else for 
 Christ for a long time or (2). that they mistook the hallucination, of their 
 imaginations. This last is the favorite. Assumes a greater miracle than 
 that of the resurrection. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES, 
 
 1. The SS. as a source of information concerning Christianity. 
 
 (1). They are not the only source of information. 
 
 (2). They are not riiereiy a source of information. 
 
 (3). Christianity is closely identified with them. 
 
 (4). Decision in regard to them can't be a matter of indifiference. 
 
 (5). They have on legal principles a presumptive value. 
 
 2. Historical criticism in relation to the Christian SS. 
 
 Christian SS. invite criticism. Christians mnst ascertain relations of 
 material to authorship of SS. Four questions. 
 
IX. 
 
 A. Whetl.or material is what iU-Iai..,s to he ; qvei^lhm of „ull,eu(inl„ 
 
 B. het her ,t ,s ,n nnchancrod fon,. ; .jnesliJn „r i„e„ru', 
 
 C \\hetl.erwlien produce.l it ,1h1 an.l cai. ,i;iv,. what i"i claims f. 
 establish ; qnextion of correctness. 
 
 I). Whether it contains all the elements of ki.owle(hro : miesUon of 
 completeness. " > y < ■■ " "y 
 
 Genuineness, authenticity, integrity. cnMlihiiity are ainhig.u.ns terms • 
 use three, Authenticity, Integrity. Credibility. Th.-y are intoneiat.d an. 
 mutually helpful. 
 
 I. THE i\. T. ('AXON. 
 
 1. A/. " Collection of books wliicli constitutes oi-i<;inal 
 
 written rule of Clirisiian faith." (Westeott). 
 
 2. Authorship. 
 
 {\). By wlioni was this collection made. rl\. By wIkud invested 
 wiih its authority. 
 
 In answer to (1 ). 
 
 (a). The church, no individual. 
 
 (b). 'I'he church as a whole. 
 
 (c). The clinreh gradually. 
 
 (d). The church guided by instinct, not Holy (Jhost. 
 
 In answer to (2). 
 
 Not the church, for it could not have created an authority over itself, 
 but intrinsic— the authority grows out of nature of book. 
 
 On what principle credit of canonical authority given to these book, 
 we learn : 
 
 (1). From language used by early church in regard to books accepted. 
 
 (2). From language in regard to doubtful books. 
 
 (3). The way in which complete canon was treated. Elements re- 
 cognized, (a), human; apostolic authorship, (b). divine : inspiration of 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 3. Relations of JY. T. to 0. T. canon. 
 
 {a). Attitude of early church towards 0. T. determined by that of 
 Christ and apostles. 
 
 [b). Why did church need other SS. 
 
 (1). 0. T. predictions point to them : proof and full benelit must be 
 used for the church and world. 
 
 (2). .lesus Christ was the promised Messiah, therefore his sayings 
 acquired like authority as 0. T. 
 
 (3). Apostolic words were regarded as authorized by Christ. 
 
 (4). Practical necessities, [a). Habit of reading in public worship. 
 (6). Authoritative standard caused early writing down of the N. T. 
 
 4. The Composition of Canon. 
 
 A work of time necessarily. Testimony to it by apostolic fathers 
 120-190 Greek apologists. Early versions. Heretics. 
 
 6. Objections to the Composition of Canon. 
 
 The books were regarded as differing in value in early church during 
 3d and 4th centuries. Ans. (a). The methods of the early church not 
 those of critical schools. (6). The spirit of the early church ditferent. 
 (c). The difference admits of easy explanations. 
 
X. 
 
 THE AUTHENTICITY OF N. T. SCRIPTURES. 
 
 1. At the end of 2d century there were in possession of early church 
 books, bearing names of our scriptures. 
 
 2. [dentity determined by i\ISS. early M5S. and citations. 
 
 8. Inquiry: In what sense and with what reason church attributed 
 them to apostles. 
 
 Considerations confirming Judgment of Church. 
 
 Out of 27 books 17 bear name of author, in substance of writing, 
 not merely title. 
 
 A. Not merely a literary satisfaction to church but a necessity to 
 have SS. 
 
 B. These documents transcribed and interchanged among churches 
 by apostolic authority. 
 
 C. Different sections of church ai^ree in result. 
 
 D. As a literary phenomenon forgery is here unnatural. 
 B. Morally imprjl)able that any could forge them. 
 
 F. Negative: Exposure would have been easy. 
 
 INTEGRITY OF THE CHRISTIAN SS. 
 
 1. Extenial meaii.s of a.-^cei-taiuing Integrity. 
 
 (a, MSS. (6) VSS. (c) Citations. 
 
 2. Internal . 
 
 (I). B'itness of document to alleged source. (2). Harmony of sub- 
 ject, style to author. (8). Presence or absence of connecting links 
 between parts admitted to be authentic, and doubtful pafts. 
 
 CllEniClLlTY OK N. T. SS. 
 Preliminary: 1. Lapse of time does not affect credibility. 2. Cred. 
 includes element of personal trust. Attesting and Presumptive credi- 
 bility. 
 
 1. Attesting Proofs. 
 
 (a). Many things assertei in N. T. are demonstrable by reason. 
 
 (6). By results which follow their reception. 
 
 (c). By external independent evidence. 
 
 {(i). Most important attestation that the historical parts of N. T. at 
 least have been received by larg^ numbers of man who were satisfied of 
 their truth. 
 
 2. Presumptive Credibility . 
 
 A. Illustrated by considerations drawn from facts recorded. 
 (1). They were accessible to scrutiny. 
 
 (2). They were numerous. 
 
 (3). They were minutely described. 
 
 (4). Invited scrutiny by extraordinary nature. 
 
 B. Confirmed by considerations of circumstances and witnesses. 
 (1). Witness numerous and diverse. 
 
 (2). Apparently far removed from deceit in spirit. 
 (8). No cause whatever why ihey should further such a cause by 
 false means. 
 
 C. Utterly impossible that the central figure can be a fabriciition. 
 
 D. Co-existence of harmony in representation, and clear signs of indi- 
 viduality in recorders. 
 
XI. 
 
 The 0. T. SfRiPTi'itEs. 
 
 (11. Christianity nrefls llip 0. 'J'. FS.. in oidor l« iindrrslniid ila 
 antecedents. (2). Ihe 0. T. Scriiituie.'* are pieparatory and provisional. 
 (3). Christ and the Apostles command their use. 
 
 1. Canon of 0. T. : CdiijoKd of law. 5 looks; I'rcj luls and 
 Historical books written by pro) hels, 21 locks; Haj!irj;iaj ha. V,\ liookn. 
 
 Two views held : (1). ].oo.«er Prot. view ; (2). Hi man Caiholic vipw. 
 Both opposed to evangelical view. 
 
 (1). Not all canonical books ofO. T. are quoted oralhided to in N. T. 
 
 A. Argiimevt for looser view. 
 
 Ans: (a). No occasion to quote all. \h). Ab.MiKe of (iinMsilion 
 does not prove absence from canon. 
 
 (2). Express citations from other writings by .sime formulas. Ann : 
 Cannot be identified ; probably ivhslaiitial references to 0. T 
 
 (3). References to Apocryphal books and inHuence of Apocrypha, on 
 N. T. books. Ans: The first unsubstantiated; the second admilled 
 proves nothing. 
 
 B. Arguments for Catholic via/'. 
 
 {a). A tradition in the church traced to Apostles. 
 (6). Concur! ent belief of Greek and Latin churches. 
 (c). The authority of the Roman church. 
 
 Measons for vni-appearavce of books in envoiK 
 
 (1). Some of them had not appe^ired at close of Jewish canon. 
 
 (2). Others had not come to knowledge of Jews after Babyi- fitp 
 tivity. 
 
 (3). Synagogue had iioi enough information to decide. 
 
 (J. Reasons for rejecting Jipocrgpha. 
 
 1. Confessed absence of Prophetic element. 
 
 2. Deterioration in poetic dignity and power. 
 
 3. In historical parts. 
 
 (a). Manifest presence of fiction. 
 (b). Assumption of false names to give weight. 
 (c). Incorporation of forged documents. 
 (d). Gross historical inaccuracies. 
 
 4. In doctrine, subservience to technical Judaism. 
 
 2. The Authenticity of 0. T. Canon. 
 
 (1). General internal evidences. 
 
 A. A marked congruity between authorship and siil)jecl.s treated. 
 
 B. Characteristics of style in many instances. 
 
 C. The general spirit is authentic- 
 
 D. Parallel accounts within them. 
 (2). External evidences. 
 
 A. Faith of Jews. 
 
 B. Allusions by Christ and apostles. 
 
 3. The Grcdibilit;i of 0. T. Scriptures. 
 
 (1). Historical facts of 0. T. are connected with divine ?-ommuinra- 
 
 tions. . . .. ,., •,-. 
 
 (2). Many signs of authenticity are signs o( credil)il«ly. 
 
 (3). External corroborations. 
 
 (a). In Jewish observances. 
 
XII. 
 
 (b). The existence and some forms of Christianity. 
 
 (c). Foreign and secular sources of information. 
 
 (4). Inspiration. 
 
 E.xtent cf credibility : positions. 
 
 (a). Limited to mntters of revelation. 
 
 (b). To greater iiistorical statements connected with revelation. 
 
 (c). That it covers the whole of these books. 
 
 4. Historical Difficalties. 
 
 (1). Contains impossibilities : miracles. 
 
 {'!). Contradictions. 
 
 (3). Faulty ciironology. 
 
 (4). Exaggerations and extravagance. 
 
 Historical Evidexces. 
 
 I. The Scriptures themselces. 
 II. Jesus Christ as delineated in the Scriptares. 
 Ill The Miracles therein recorded. 
 IV. Prophecies inith declared or demonstrable fulfilment. 
 V. The Results of Christianifi/. 
 
 I. THE ARGUMENT FROM TIIK SS. 
 
 Partly negative, partly positive. 
 General characteristics. 
 
 A. The general theme and way in which it is presented show the SS. 
 to be of divine origin. 
 
 B. The aim and the way in which it is accomplished are proof of 
 divine origin. 
 
 C. Tiieir unity considered in connection with progressive develop- 
 ment and ]iroduction. 
 
 D. Comprehensiveness in themes, and subordination of individual 
 themes to one subject. 
 
 E. Provisions made for promoting religious interest of every kind. 
 
 II. JESUS CHRIST DELINEATED IN THE N. T. 
 
 1. Look at the delineation : it is not human. 
 (a). The delineation must have had a subject. 
 (6). Divine power seen in delineation of subject. 
 
 2. The person predicted as Christ proves the system divine. 
 
 (a). The correspondence between predicted and real Christ is one 
 element in this convincing evidence. 
 
 (b). The unique nature and charncter of Christ is nothing less than 
 divinely moulded and divinely evidential. 
 
 III. PROPHECY. 
 
 Prophecy classed as an external evidence of Christianity. Compare 
 external and internal evidence. 
 
 1. 'J'he meaning of jirophecy in Apologetics. 
 
 2. The occurrence of predicted prophecy in 0. T. and N. T. fact 
 and its purpose. 
 
 3. The condition of validity : proof from alleged prophecy. 
 
XIII. 
 
 (a). The real futurity of event. 
 
 [b). Event beyond conjecture. 
 
 (c). Subsequent occurrence as specifically foretold. 
 
 id). Must not involve collusion between persons forelellinp and those 
 accompiislMiio; it. 
 
 (e). Obvious design necessary. 
 
 {/). Blending of vagueness with precision. 
 4. Other uses of predictive prophecy besides evidential, in regard to 
 Christianity specially. 
 
 (a). To give certain signs of Messiah. 
 
 (6j. To keep alive tiie belief in fujtilment. 
 
 (c)) To arouse a divine expectation. 
 
 5. To whom would predictive prophecy carry its evidential message. 
 Ans : To tiiose who knew fiiifilment. 
 
 G. What truths involved and emphasized by each instance of authen- 
 icated prophecy ? 
 
 (a). God's immutability, omniscience, power, &c. 
 
 (b). His general providential government of world. 
 
 (c. ) His specific iirovideuce. 
 
 {d). A specific design to accredited agent. 
 
 (e). Things predicted usually have peculiar place in God's regard. 
 
 7. The special bearing of prophecy on Chiistianity. 
 
 IV. MIRACLIiS. 
 
 Three terms designate them in SS. 
 Design : To accredit those who wrought tiiem. 
 
 Questions: 1. Are they possible ? 2. Probable? 3. Credible'' 4. 
 Is conclusion drawn from them warranted? 
 
 1. Posf>ihU'itii of Miracles. 
 
 Def. Hodge's. How ascribe miracles to God ? 
 (1). By amount and quality of power displayed. 
 (2). By purpose or wisdom shown. 
 Are they jiossible ? 
 
 a. Wholly within reach of original omuipoteucc. 
 
 b. God did not limit his original omnipotence. 
 
 c. God's immutability does not render impossible. 
 
 d. God's omniscience does not interfere. 
 
 e. Uniformity of nature not consistent. 
 
 f. Created things are not inimutable. 
 
 2. ProkibiUly of Miracles. 
 
 Calculated to do good. Communications from God justify them. 
 
 3. Crcdihilitt/ of Jliracles. 
 
 If not impossible or improbable they arc credible. 
 
 Question: Are witnesses credible? Ans. In cases of Christian 
 miracles, hundreds of witnesses, could they have been deceived. 
 
 Objection. 'J'estimony could not decide in such a case. Ans. More 
 improbable that testimony is false, than that the miracles occurred. 
 
 4. Evidential Bearing: Credit to iiiesseugcr or dispensation to 
 which he belongs. Obj. 1. That phenom. can't prove .spiritual truths. 
 Ans. Not claimed that something is made true but divine mis.sion at- 
 tested. Obj. 2. Alleged miracles were not convinciiig to those who saw 
 them. Ans. Moral evidence implies possibility of disbelieving 
 
XIV. 
 
 V. RESULTS OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 Earliest results proof of divine origin. Examine 1. Extent. 2. 
 Significance and 3. Utter disproportion of" results to terrestrial agencies 
 employed in bringing them about. Each of these can be considered in 
 relation to. 
 
 1. Facts concerning propagation. 
 
 2. Intellectual influence of Christianity. 
 
 3. Facts connected with moral and social influence of Christianity. 
 
XV, 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Apologetie.1. 
 
 Page 87, line 32: For "desire'" read "'divine.'' 
 
 Page 89. line 26: For "disposed ".read " indisposed." 
 
 Page 48, line 1 : For " confines" read " conil)ines." 
 
 Page 49, line 27 : For " Experimental," read " E.vperientiui." 
 
 Page 81, line 20, ef seq : For "attested," read "attesting." 
 
 Page Uo. line (i : For " Joseplms 23i')0,"' read " 22i;:')." 
 
 Page 108, line 40: For " Presenfe," read " Pressens^." 
 
 Page 109, line 39 : Read " Semen eat sanguis.'' 
 
 Page 101, line 13 : For colon after " validity," read " of." 
 
 Page 101, line 41 : For "proportional," re:id " iiroportioned.' 
 
 Ethics. 
 
 Page 4, line 2o : For " wos," read " vinx." 
 Page 18, line 1 : For "same." read "some." 
 Page 31, line 22: For "fallen," road " nnfallen." 
 Page 33, line 24 : For " Blakie," read " BUcUie." 
 Page 33, line 36 : for " Sharp," read " Sliairp." 
 Page 40. line 9: E'or " Newton," read " Newman." 
 Page 44, line 12: Insert " Christianity " at end of line. 
 Page 47, line 37 : For " Hinnal," read " Hennell." 
 Page 48, line 38 : For " importance," read " impotence." 
 Page 48, line 39 : For " detracts." read " distracts." 
 Page 50, line 2 : Read " Christianity is," at end of line. 
 Page 51, line 35: For "work," read "worth." 
 Page 54, line 28: Insert (c) for notation. 
 Page 56, line 27 : tor " Europeans," road " Emperor." 
 Page 57, line 28 : After " the work," insert " is." 
 On Page 47, the sentence "The moral results." Ac. . should be iu 
 small cap. heading as on page 44. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^il.ljM 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 •«llW"ff*? 
 
 "■■•^ 
 
 
 ' 
 
 J««»***^ 
 
 ^^i^^mm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 (-.- ^^_^^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRJNTED IN U.S. A