i/co CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES VIEWED IN RELATION TO MODERN THOUGHT. Worls hy the same Author. THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF DIVINE INSPIRA- TION", as stated by the Writers, and Deduced from the Facts of the New Testament. Longmans. THE JESUS OF THE EVANGELISTS: His Historical Character Vindicated ; or, an Examination into the External Evidences of Our Lord's Divine Mission, with reference to Modem Controversy, F. Norgate. THE MORAL TEACHING OF THE NEW TESTAMENT Viewed as Evidential to its Historical Truth. Christian Knowledge Society. THE SUPERNATURAL IN THE NEW TESTAMENT Possible, Credible, and Ilistorical ; or, an Examination of the Validity of some Recent Objections against Christianity as a Divine Revelation. F. Norgate. THE PRINCIPLES OF MODERN ATHEISTIC AND PAN- THEISTIC rillLOSOPHY (published by the Victoria Institute). Ilardwicke. THREE LECTURES delivered at Norwich Cathedral ; being the Seventh Series of the Norwich Evidential Discourses on " The Truth of Christianity proved by the admissions of Unbelievers." Hamilton, Adams, and Co. FIVE LECTURES delivered at the Request of the Christian Evidence Society (published in their Evidential Series). Hodder and Stoughton. REASONS FOR BELIEVING IN CHRISTIANITY, addressed to Busy People ; a Course of Lectures delivered at St. Paul's Cathe- dral at the request of the Dean and Chapter. Church of England Sunday School Institute. CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES VIEWED IN RELATION TO MODERN THOUGHT. EIGHT LECTURES PREACHED BEFORE THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD IN THE YEAR 1877 ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE LATE REV. JOHN^BAMPTON CANON OF SALISBURY '" N, M.A^) Le c."f u r-es BY TRy ' KEY. C. A. EOW, M.A., Fehbrokb College, Oxford ; Prebendary of St, Paul's Cathedral. LONDON : FREDERIC NORGATE, 17, BEDFORD STREET, COVENT GARDEN : WILLIAMS & NORGATE, 20, FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. 1877. LONDON : O. NORMAX AND SON, FRINTER8, MAIDEN LANB, COVBNT GARDEN, EXTRACT FROM THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF THE LATE REV JOHN BAMPTON, C.\NON OF SALISBURY. " I give and bequeath my Lauds and Estates to " the Chancellor^ Masters, and Scholars, of the University " of Oxford for ever, to have and to hold all and singular " the said Lands or Estates upon trust, and to the intents " and purposes hereinafter mentioned ; that is to say, I " will and appoint that the Vice-Chancellor of the Univer- " sity of Oxford for the time being shall take and receive " all the rents, issues, and profits thereof, and (after all " taxes, reparations, and necessary deductions made) that " he pay all the remainder to the endowment of eight '' Divinity Lecture Sermons, to be established for ever " in the said University, and to be performed in the '' manner following : — " I direct and appoint, that upon the First Tuesday " in Easter Term, a Lecturer may be yearly chosen by the " Heads of Colleges only, and by no others, in the room " adjoining to the Printing-House, between the hours of '' ten in the morning and two in the afternoon, to preach '^ eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, the year following, at " St. Mary's in Oxford, between the commencement of the VI EXTRACT PROM CANON BAMPTON S WILL. " last montli in Lent Tcrnij and the end of the third week ^' in Act Term. " Also I direct and appoint, that the eight Divinity " Lecture Sermons shall be preached upon either of the " following subjects — to confirm and establish the Chris- '' tian faith, and to confute all heretics and schismatics — " upon the divine authority of the holy Scriptures — upon " the authority of the writings of the primitive Fathers, '' as to the faith and practice of the primitive Church — " upon the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ '' — upon the Divinity of the Holy Ghost — upon the " Articles of the Christian Faith, as comprehended in the " Apostles' and Nicene Creed. " Also I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity " Lecture Sermons shall be always printed, within two *' months after they are preached ; and one copy shall be " given to the Chancellor of the University, and one copy " to the Head of every College, and one copy to the " Mayor of the city of Oxford, and one copy to be put " into the Bodleian Library ; and the expense of printing " them shall be paid out of the revenue of the Land or " Estates given for establishing the Divinity Lecture Ser- " mens ; and the Preacher shall not be paid, nor be " entitled to the revenue, before they are printed. " Also I direct and appoint, that no person shall be " qualified to preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons unless " he hath taken the degree of Master of Arts at least, in " one of the two Universities of Oxford or Cambridsre ; " and that the same person shall never preach the Diviuity " Lecture Sermons twice." CONTENTS. LECTURE I. THE ORDEE OP THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, ITS NATURE AND EXTENT. Introduction, I. The Chi'istian revelation progressive acconling to the analogy of the divine working in nature, 3. Necessity of accommodating our evidential position to our increasing light, 6. The question — What constitutes the inner life of Christianity, as distinct from the vehicle through which it has been communicated, considered, 7. The essence of the Christian revelation consists not in a body of formulated dogmatic truth, but in a personal history, 12. The bearing of this on the limits of the Christian argument, 14. The relation in which theology stands to revelation, 16. Various points which are eagerly discussed among theologians extraneous to the Christian argument, 20. The moral miracles of Christianity constitute the most important attestation to its divine character, 25. Facts capable of verification ought to be placed in the forefront of the Christian argument, 29. Reasons for assigning a primary place to the argument from the moral aspects of Christianity, and a secondary one to that from miracles, 30. Supplement I. THE EVIDENCE AEEORDED BY THE WRITINGS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT THE ESSENCE OF THE CHRISTIAN REVELA- TION CONSISTS IN THE OBJECTIVE PACT OF THE INCARNATION. The affirmations of St. John in his fii'st epistle, 39. Those in his Gospel, 41. Our Lord's direct assertions on the same subject, 42. Further proof from the numerous incidental references made to it by St. Paul, 44. St. Paul's direct assertions on the same subject, 45. Christianity not an afterthought for the purpose of repairing the failure of God's creative plan, 47. The effects of the incarnation not limited to the human race, 49. The views propoimded on this subject in the epistle to the Hebrews, and in the Apocalypse, 50. The testimony of the epistle of St. Peter, and of the Acts of the Apostles, 51. The views of the writers of the Synoptic Gospels in strict harmony with those of the other writers of the New Testament, 53. Vlll CONTENTS. Supplement II. K . THE conception OF A MIRACLE INVOLVES NEITHER A SUSPEN- SION OP THE FORCES, NOR A VIOLATION OP THE LAWS OP NATURE. The confusion which has been introduced into the controyersy about miracles by the nsc of ambiguous terms, 54. The distinction between the laws and the forces of nature, 57. The modus operandi of God in the performance of a miracle ought not to form a portion of its definition, 59. The question, whether, under the term nature, man and his free agency are meant to be included, all-important in this controversy, 61. Man capable of modifying the order of nature by imparting a new direction to its forces, 63. The laws of nature not violated, nor its forces suspended by the performance of a miracle, 65. The distinction between God's modus operandi in his ordinary provi- dence and in performing miracles, unicnown in the Old Testament, C8. The New Tcst.araent does not represent the forces of nature as suspended during the performance of miracles, 69. The theism of the Bible represents God not only as standing external to the universe, but as immanent in its forces, 71. LECTUKE II. THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OP JESUS CHRIST VERIFIABLE IN THE HISTORY OP THE PAST AND THE PACTS OF THE PRESENT. The principles on which the argument is based, 73. The self-evidencing character of Our Lord's person tlie highest evidence of his divine mission, 75. Our Lord's direct affirmations on this subject as reported in the fourth Gospel, 76. Similar principles underlie his teaching in the Synoptics, 80. Large numbers of his miracles not performed for purposes directly evidential, 81. The views propounded in the epistles of St. John and St. Paul as to the self- evidencing character of Our Lord's divine person, 82. The evidential value assigned to miracles in the Acts of the Apostles, and in the epistle to the Hebrews, 83. Cer-tain classes of miracles wrought rather for providential than for evidential purposes, 85. The supernatural gifts, how far evidential, 86. General summaiy of results, 88. The supcrliunian action of Jesus Ciirist in history a fact capable of verification, 89. The argument concisely stated, 90. Christianity based on a personal history — the unique character of this fact, 92. The mighty influence which this history has exerted on man- kind, 93. The source of this inlluence, 95. The testimony of history to the solitary grandeur of Jesus Christ— Mr. Lecky's admissions, 96. Jesus Christ the solitary character in history who for eighteen centuries has inspired the hearts of men with an impassioned love, 98. He is the one Catholic man capable of acting on every condition of human nature, 99. lie alone is the embodiment of holiness in his human life, and its perfect example, 101. Not only so, but he alone of men is capable of exerting a moral and spiritual CONTENTS, IX powcr"miglity for the regeneration of mankind, 102. His energetic action in the moral and spiritual worlds testified to by the history of the past, and the facts of the present, 104. The Church amidst its corruptions has found in the person of its Founder an ever enduring principle of regeneration, 106. The alternative propounded by unbelief to the acceptance of Christianity, 108. Supplement I. K THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OP MIRACLES AS AFFECTED BY ANSWERS TO PRAYER. The analogy between special providences and miracles, 109. The difficulty of discriminating between miracles, and answers to special prayers, which involve modifications in the action of the forces of the material universe, 1 10. A series of such answers in favour of a particular person would constitute a a/j^ilov, 111. The case of the Bristol Orphan Asylum, 112, How far such answers to prayer affect the value of miracles as the sole attestations of a divine Kevelation, 115. Supplement II. K MIRACLES wrought IN THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE NOT THE EXCLUSIVE ATTESTATION OF OUR LORd's DIVINE MISSION, Brief statement of the views propounded in the Lecture on this subject, 116. The opposite view which afiirms that certain doctrinal statements contained in the New Testament can only be accepted as true, on the evidence of physical mh-acles, 118. The positions of Professor Mozley considered, 119. Our Lord's ftfiirmations respecting himself to be accepted on the ground of his perfect truthfulness, and the adequacy of his knowledge, 122. While such assertions would have been incredible on the simple affirmation of an ordinary man, Our Lord was not an ordinary man, but his human life contained throughout a manifestation of the divine, 124. Our Lord's appeal to his sinlessness as an evidence of his veracity, 12.5. The change in the value of miracles as evidential to a divine Eevelation through our inability to witness them, and the consequent difficulties with which their proof is attended, 126. The Mission of John the Baptist affirmed to have been divine, yet destitute of a miraculous attestation, 127. LECTURE III. THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TEACHING OP CHRISTIANITY AND THAT OP THE PHILOSOPHERS VIEWED EVIDENTIALLY. The truth of Our Lord's affirmation that he is the Light of the World, and the Light of Life, verified by eighteen centuries of histoiy, and verifiable in the facts of the present, 130-132. The continuity of the moral world — its changes take place in conformity with moral laws, 133. The teaching of Christianity involves a break in the continuity of the chain of moral causes, 134. Such a break in continuity a proof of the presence of tiic X CONTENTS. supcrhiimnn, 136. The condition of thought out of which Chrisitianity must have been evolved if it owed its origin only tj the ordinary forces energizing in man, 137. The ability of man to discover moral truth without the aid of revelation, instead of constituting a difficulty, confirmatory of this argument, 138. The moral teaching of Christianity, 141. First contrast between its teaching and that of the philosophers — its earnestness, method, and aim, 141. Its appeal to the entire moral nature of man contrasted with the method of the philosophers, 143. Second contrast — its freedom from all attempts at political legislation, 144. Yet Jesus Christ professed to be the founder of a kingdom — contrasted in this respect with all previous lines of thought, 147. The mode in which Christianity deals with great social questions, 149. Third contrast— Jesus Christ the founder of the everlasting religion of humanity, 148. Fourth contrast — the all-comprehensiveness and self-deter- minative character of the Christian law of duty, and the basis on which it is erected, 149-151. Duty measured by the love of self, 151. Duty measured by love to Jesus Christ, 152. The teaching of Christianity incapable of evolution out of the atmosj)here of Jewish thought by the forces energizing in man, 154. Fifth contrast — the importance which Christianity assigns to the milder virtues compared with the political and heroical ones, 154. The mild and heroic virtues combined in the person of Jesus Christ, 157. Philosophy wrong in its preference of the heroic virtues, and Christianity right in assigning the first rank to the milder ones, 158. Sixth contrast — the views taken by Jesus Christ and the philosophers of their respective missions, 159. Jesus Christ the originator of all attempts to ameliorate the condition of the masses of mankind, 160. Seventh contrast — Christianity the Creator of a mighty moral and spiritual power, 161. The philosopher deeply conscious of his inability to operate on the masses of mankind, 162. The weakness of the moral forces at his command to struggle with the violence of passion, 163. The principle of habit, the only moral force recognized by philosophy, impotent to effect the regeneration of the human race, or the individual, 165. The political character of the ancient, and several modern systems of Ethics, 167. The New Testament propounds the principle of faith in contradistinction to that of habit as capable of effecting the regene- ration of mankind, 170. The mode of its action corresponds to the necessities of man's moral constitution, 172. The religious principle in man in its bearing on moral action, 173. The results of the contrast of the teachmg of Chris- tianity with that of the philosophers viewed evidentially, 174. The concessions of Mr. Mill, 176. LECTURE IV. THE UNITY OF THE CHARACTER OP CHRIST A PROOF OF ITS HIS- TORICAL REALITY; AND THE LOGICAL VALUE OF THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. The principle of verification recognized by the writers of the New Testament, 178. While the evangelists have given us no formal delineation of the character of Jesus Christ, its presence in their pages is a patent fact, 179. It CONTENTS. XI has been created by the simple jwxta-position of the materials which compose the Gospels, 180. This character is as deeply impressed on the miracnlous narratives of the Gospels as on the remaining portions of their contents, 181. The character delineated in the Gospels is an essential unity, 182. Any theory which attempts to account for the origin of the miraculous narratives is invalid, unless it can also account for the unity of the character, 183. The mythic and legendary theories fail to account for the unity of the delineation, 185. The four Evangelists present us with four portraitures of the same historical reality taken from different points of view, 187. The argument unaffected by the question whether the Gospels were composed by the aid of written docu- ments, or out of traditional reminiscences, 188. The absurdity of the supposi- tion that a number of mythologists, acting independently, can have excogitated a number of legends impressed with the same lofty moral ideal, 189. State- ment of the various points in which the mythologists must have concurred in their delineations, 191. Contrast presented by the delineations in the apocry- phal Gospels, 194. The theory of tendencies equally inconsistent with the facts and phenomena of the Gospels, 197. The meaning of the writers of the New Testament when they affirm that the prophetic and typical delineations of the Old have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ, 200. The logical value of the argument from prophecy unaffected by various questions respect- ing the date and authorship of various books of the Old Testament, 206. A common idea underlies the books of the Old Testament, such as can be found in no other set of writings which extend over an equal space of time, 208. The nature and chai'actcr of its predictive elements, 209. Its typical pro- phecies, 211. Their evidential value dependent on the degree in which they con- vei'ge in a common centre, 215. Jesus Christ was the ideal of the institutions of the Old Testament, 216. And of the aspirations which underlay its entire system, 218. The force of the prophetic argument, 219. Supplement I. THE IDENTITY OF THE POETEAITURE OP THE JESUS OP THE POURTH GOSPEL WITH THE JESUS OP THE SYNOPTICS. The allegation that the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel differs from the Jesus of the Synoptics considered, 221. Points in which the two delineations form an essential unity, 221. The Johannine discourses the counterpart of the Synop- tical delineation, 223. Points where the two delineations exactly coincide, 224. A perfectly human character ascribed to Our Lord in the Fourth Gospel, 226, The Johannine and the Synoptical delineations of the Passion compared, 227. Supplement II. THE MESSIANIC ELEMENTS OP THE OLD TESTAMENT INADEQUATE AS A MODEL TO IDEOLOGISTS FOE THE DELINEATION OP THE CHKIST OP THE NEW TESTAMENT. The materials which were open to mythologists to aid them in the delineation of an ideal Christ, 234. The Jesus of the Evangelists not manufactured out of Xn CONTENTS. the Messianic delineations of the book of Enocli, 235. Nor of those of Estlras, 239. Nor of Daniel, 240. Nor of that of the Servant of Jehovah, 242. Nor from the other Messianic delineations in Isaiah, 245. Nor from the other Messia- nic iirophecies of the Old Testament, 246. Nor from its typical characters, 247. LECTURE V. THE EVIDENCE AFFORDED BY THE WRITINGS OP THE FATHERS, WHO FLOURISHED BETWEEN A.D. 90 AND A.D. 180, THAT THE CHURCH WAS IN POSSESSION OF " AN ACCOUNT OP THE ACTIONS AND TEACHING OP OUR LORD ANALOGOUS TO THAT WHICH IS CONTAINED IN OUR PRESENT GOSPELS. Mr. Mill's positions respecting the evidence necessary to establish the truth of miracles, as set forth in his Logic and his posthumous Essays, accepted as the foundation of the present argument, 249. Miracles require a stronger attestation than ordinary facts, 252. The d priori ditRcixlties removed by the considerations adduced in the preceding Lectures, 254. Paley's work the model of modern evidential treatises ; its defects, 256. While martyr testimony is a perfect guarantee against fraud, it is by no means equally efficacious as a safeguard against delusion, 257. Paley's proof that we are in possession of the testimony of the original witnesses imperfect as against the positions taken by modern unbelief, 261. His position, that miracles constitute the only adequate evidence of a revelation, renders it necessary not only to prove the truth of the Christian miracles but the falsehood of all others, 262. The difficulties with which this is attended, 263. The necessity which the form of his argument imposes on him of proving by the testimony of the Fathers that the Gospels were the work of the persons whose names they bear ; and the imperfection of his method, 266. State of the patrisitic argument, 267. The Gospels fully recognized by the great Churcli writers who flourished at the conclusion of the second century, 268. The fact that Marcion's Gospel was a mutilated edition of our present Luke clearly established, 269. The value of the testimony of Papias, 270. The Clementine homilies render it nearly certain that their author used one of onr present Gospels, 272. While the Avritings of Justin Martyr render it very highly probable that he used one or more of our Gospels, the evidence comes short of a moral demonstration, 273. The same is true of the earlier extra canonical writings, 275. The importance of proving that the Fathers actually quoted our Gospels has been over-estimated by both sides in this controversy, 277. While the writings of Justin only afford a high probability that his " Memoirs of the Apostles" contained one or more of our Gospels, they afLbrd a moral demonstration that they contained an account of the actions and teaching of Our Lord which for all the purposes of history was identical with them, 278. The larger the nuinber of his authorities, the more complete is the guarantee of the truth of the facts, 280. The testimony of the earlier Fathers affords a moral demon- CONTENTS. xm Stratiou that the account current in the Cluirch was substantially the same as that contained in our Gospels, 281. The accounts of Our Lord's ministry originally handed down by the Church in an oral form, of M'hich the Synoptics are three different versions, 282. No legendary matter, invented between A.P. 80 and a.d. 180, has been incorporated into the Gospels, 283. The existence of the Church as a corporate society a guarantee of the accurate transmission of the events of its Founder's life such as is possessed by no other, 284. Such transmission was a necessary condition of its existence, 286. The impossibility of imposing a mass of fictions on the Church in place of the real events during the interval in question, 287. LECTURE VI. THE NATURE AND VALUE OP THE PAULINE EPISTLES AS HIS- TORICAL DOCUMENTS ; AND THE EVIDENCE THEY AFFORD THAT THE ACCOUNT OP OUR LORd's ACTIONS AND TEACHING WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE CHURCH BETWEEN" A.D. 30 AND A.D. 90 WAS IN ITS MAIN OUTLINES SIMILAR TO THAT IN OUR GOSPELS. The sixty years which follow the Crucifixion lie completely within that period during which traditionary reminiscences possess the utmost freshness, 289. During this interval it would have been impossible for the real fsicts of the ministiy of Our Lord to be superseded by myths and legends, 292. The entire period is covered by the testimony of St. Paul's epistles, 293. The genuineness of the four great epistles admitted by an overwhelming majority, and that of four more by a considerable number of learned unbelievers, 291. The historical value of the other writings in the New Testament, 295. The shortness of the interval which separates these letters from the events of Our Lord's ministry, 297. The value of original letters as affording materials for history, and the special value attaching to those of St. Paul, 298. They afford incontestable proof of his sincerity, and of the calmness of his judgment, 299. The value of incidental allusions as affording testimony to historic facts, 302. The existence in the Churches to which these epistles are addressed, of parties strongly antagonistic to St. Paul, renders their incidental allusions invaluable as testimony to facts, 303. These letters prove beyond question that St. Paul was firmly persuaded that he was in the habit of working miracles during the entire course of his ministry, 305. This fact fatal to the legendary theory, 308. They likewise prove that St. Paul and his opponents were persuaded that a number of supernatural endowments habitually manifested themselves in the Church from its foundation, 309. The epistles prove the presence in Chris- tianity of a mighty regenerating power, 313. The direct allusions in these epistles to events in Our Lord's ministry — their nature and value, 314. The indirect references to it very numerous, — their character, and historical value, 317. They presuppose that the Church was in possession of a well-known XIV CONTENTS. account of the chief events of Our Lord's ministry analogous to that contained in the Gos})cls, 320. And prove that it was the same as that which was lianded down by the primitivo followers of Jesus, 321. The proof furnished by them that the Church wa-s reconsti'uctcd on the basis of the Resurrection immediately after the Crucifixion, 322. The strength of the belief in the Resurrection in the Corinthian Church proved by St. Paul's peculiar mode of reasoning, 326. Sum- mary of results, 328. The facts of the epistles leave only two alternatives — that the liesurrection was an objective fact, or that the belief originated in some form of mental hallucination, 329. Supplement. THE INCIDENTAL ALLUSIONS IN ST. PAUL's EPISTLES TO THE ACTIONS AND TEACHING OF OUE LOED. The proof afforded by the epistles that the Christ who was accepted alike by St. Paul and his opponents was a superhuman Christ, and a worker of miracles during his earthly ministry, 330. The fact that the Christology of the epistles is not formulated proves that in its chief outlines it was accepted by the various parties in the Church, including St. Paul's opponents, 334. The incidental allusions to this Christology, 335. The Christology of St. Paul's opponents represents that of the primitive followers of Jesus, 339. The Gospel which was " another Gospel," and yet not another, 340. Additional proof furnished by the epistle to the Philippians, 341. The evidence furnished by the Apocalypse, 342. Proof furnished by the epistles that the account which the Church possessed of the actions and teaching of Our Lord must have been one of considerable fulness, and analogous to that con- tained in the Gospels, 344. Proved by the indirect allusions with which the epistles abound, 347. Proof furnished by the exhortations to follow Christ as an example, 349. The facts of Our Lord's ministry formed an habitual subject of Christian instruction in the Apostolic Churches, 351. And especially to converted heathen, 353. Further incidental allusions, 354. The assumption of the truth of the Resurrection underlies every portion of the epistles, 356. LECTURE VII. THE THEORY OP VISIONS CONSIDERED AND REFUTED, The historical fiicts which must be accounted for by those who deny the objective reality of the Resurrection, 358. The solution propounded by the theory of visions, 301. The state of mind of the disciples of Jesus on the days which followed tlie Crucifixion, the starting-point of our inquiry, 302. Assump- tions necessary to impart plausibility to this theory, 304. Not only is it neces- sary that it should account for the belief in the Resurrection, but for the reconstruction of the Church on the basis of this belief, 306. The inadequacy of the three principles of fixed idea, prepossession, and expectancy, to effect this re.sult, 367. The theoi'y that Mary Magdalene mistook a vision of the risen CONTENTS. XV Jesus for an exterual reality, considered and refuted, 3G3. The fact to be accounted for is not only that single persons mistook such visions for realities but that the disciples did so in bodies, 370. The ditficulties with which such a supposition is attended, 372. The importance of the existence of the Church as a visible institution as a testimony to the reality of the Resurrection, 374. The objection that Mahometanism is a great institution which has been founded on a visionary delusion considered, 375. Further difficulties with which this theoiy is encumbered, 377. Objections urged from the standpoint of Dr. Carpenter's explanations of the phenomena of spiritualism, and other kindred delusions considered, 379. Answer to these objections, 383. The state of mind of the followers of Jesus during the days which followed his Crucifixion the opposite of that which would have caused them to see visions of him risen from the dead, and to mistake them for realities, 387. The points in which the evidence of the Resurrection is contrasted witli that of all visionary appearances which have been mistaken for realities, 389. Solution of the difficulty that Our Lord was not easily recognized by his disciples after his resurrection, 392. The theory that Our Lord did not die from the effects of crucifixion, but slowly recovered, and that his recovery was mistaken for a resurrection considered, 393. This theory unknown to the Jewish and Pagan opponents of Christianity, 394. Its inherent difficulties, 395. Presupposes that the belief in the Resur- rection owed its origin to a deliberately concocted fraud, 397. Results of the foregoing reasonings, 399. Supplement I. THE VALUE OP ST. PAULAS TESTIMONY TO THE FACT OP THE KESURRECTION. The circumstances attending the appearance of Our Lord to St. Paul different from those of his appearances to the other Apostles, 400. The theories which have been propounded by unbelievers inconsistent with the unquestionable facts of history, 403. The objection that St. Paul was incapable of distinguishing between visions and objective realities considered, 407. Supplement II. DE. CAEPENTER^S OBJECTIONS TO THE EVIDENCE OF THE CHRIS- TIAN MIRACLES CONSIDERED. Dr. Carpenter's objections stated, 410. The fallacy of urging objections against the miracles in the Bible in a mass as though they were all equal in point of attestation and evidential value, 414. The question whether some of the miracles in the New Testament may not have had a foundation in certain natural agencies, as for example, the action of the mind on the body, 417. The influence which powerful faith is capable of exerting on our bodily frames, : 240. The question of Possession, 422. The existence of numerous narratives of false miracles does not justify us in rejecting all miracles in a mass, irrespec- tively of the evidence on which they rest, 423. XVI CONTENTS. LECTURE VIII. POrULAR THEORIES OP INSPIRATION — THEIR RELATION TO SCIENTIFIC THOUGHT. The important bearing of existing theories of inspiration in the controyersy l)Ct\vcen Christianity and scientific unbelief, 428. The functional character of ius])iration analogous to the mode of the divine action in the constitution of our ordinary faculties, 432. The real points of danger in the controversy, 433. The positions laid down by Butler respecting the nature of inspiration adequate to meet the chief difficulties, 437. Nine propositions which he has enunciated on this subject, 439. Stated generally, they affirm the invalidity of all purely cipriori theories as to what must be the extent of the supernatural .assistance afforded to those through whom a revelation is communicated, 441. The mechanical and verbal theories, 443. The dynamical theory, 444. " Plenary" inspiration, 445. The tlicory of superintendence, 446. The theory of special inspirjition vouchsafed to the writers of the books of the New Testament as distinct from their ordinary inspiration, 447. All these theories invalidated by their a priori character, 449. The results to which they inevitably lead when applied to the facts of the universe: Mr. Mill's reasoning on this subject, 448. Principles which ai-e invalid when applied to the facts of the universe, and lead to false conclu- sions as to the mode in which God must have acted in His creative work, must produce similar results when applied to the phenomena of revelation, 449. A careful induction of the facts and phenomena of the New Testament the only safe guide in constructing a theory of inspii-ation, 451. No definite theory as to the nature or extent of inspiration laid down in the Bible, 452. Our Lord's promises of supernatural assistance made to the Apostles — their extent, 455. The assertions made on this subject by the sacred writers in the Epistles, 456. The nature of the inspiration afforded by the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, 458. Application of Butler's principles to the first chapter of Genesis, 460. The alleged antiquity of man — its bearing on this question, 455. The gradual growth of civilization and language, 466. The Bible not pledged to a system of chronology, 468. The universality of the deluge— its bearing on the question of inspiration, 470. Similarly, the question of the authorship of the Sacred Books, 471. The alleged discrepancies in the Gospels, 472. Conclusion, 474. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTB.V REMARKS ON PROFESSOR MOZLEy's LECTURES ON '' RULING IDEAS IN EARLY ages" ....... 475 LECTURE I, •' Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things ? They say unto him, Yea, Lord. Then said he unto them. Therefore every Scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven, is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth out of his treasure things new and old." — Matt. xiii. 51, 52. The subject wliicli it will be my duty to bring before you iu tbe present course of Lectures^ is '' Christian Evidences viewed in relation to modern thought." Not only will the treatment of such a subject carry out the intention of the Founder of this Lectureship, but its careful examination is imperatively demanded by the exigencies of the times in which we live. We are all of us painfully aware, that a large number of men who are eminent in various depart- ments of philosophy, science, and criticism, have ceased to believe in Christianity as a divine revelation. Nor is it less certain that the wide diffusion of their principles has had the effect of suggesting anxious doubts, and even of shaking the faith of a still larger number of persons who would not willingly range themselves in the ranks of unbelief. That this latter class is a very numerous one, is a fact which it is impossible to question. Such persons have a right to our utmost sympathy, especially in those cases, which I fear are numerous, where many of the difficulties which they ex- perience have then' origin in some imperfection in our mode of stating the Christian argument. Nor is it less our duty, in accordance with the emphatic warnings of our divine Master, to do our utmost to remove every stumbling-block out of the way of professed unbelievers, by placing before to 2 THE OKDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, tlicm ill tlio simplest form, the gi'ounds on -vvliicli we claim their acceptance of Christianity as a divine Revelation. It is useless to close our eyes to the fact, that the progress of philosophical, scientific, and critical inquiry during the present century has suggested difficulties which were unfelt when our great defences of Christianity were composed. We need not therefore wonder that they are inadequate to meet them. On the other hand, it is no less certain that the same causes have disclosed reasons for the acceptance of Chris- tianity which were only imperfectly appreciated by our predecessors. This being the case, a careful reconsideration of the Christian position in relation to the requirements of modern thought is become indispensable. I propose, therefore, as far as the conditions imposed on me by these Lectures will allow, to take a view of our posi- tion, in relation to the chief difficulties which the progress of modern thought has suggested in connection with the evidences on which we have been accustomed to rest the claims of Christianity to be accepted as a divine revelation ; and to point out the nature of the ground which the new positions which have been taken by opponents, require us to occupy in its defence. In doing this it will be requisite that I should take a careful survey of those points in the Christian position which require to be defended as essential ; and that I should separate from them those which, however interesting they may be in relation to several important questions of theology, are really non-essential to the defence of Christianity as a divine Revelation. It will then be my duty to examine how far our old forms of evidence are valid for the purpose of meeting the difficulties which have been suggested by modern philosophical and critical thought, and to sketch the general outline of the defence necessary to meet the exigencies of our present position. To this latter point the seven concluding Lectures of this course will be exclusively devoted. I am deeply conscious of the responsibility which is ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 3 involved in the treatment of this subject, which renders it necessary that I should deal with several of the most critical points of modern controversy. Still it has become the plain duty of Christian men, not to hesitate to meet all difficulties honestly, fearlessly, cautiously and calmly. The time is past for propounding inadequate solutions or for attempting to hold ground which is evidently untenable. Such a course can only be damaging to the Christian cause. Its abandonment, instead of weakening, will strengthen our position. If on the other hand there are important branches of evidences which have been but imperfectly recognized by our predecessors, our duty is without delay to assign them their proper place in the Christian argument. To effect this object these Lectures will be directed. In the mode of treatment I shall take the text as my motto. It contains a profound and far-seeing truth, which theologians have been greatly prone to overlook. In it the great Teacher affirms that it is the duty of every subordinate teacher of his Gospel to bring out of his treasures things both new and old. Not the old only : for then progress would be impossible. Not the new only : for this would destroy that principle of continuity by which the works of God are linked together ; but the new in union with the old, and the old in union with the new. Such a union it is the special glory of Christianity to have effected. Eevelation, as it is recorded in the Bible, has not been imparted to us at the first complete and entire, as a rigid code irrespective of the ever-changing conditions of humanity; but it is a plant which has grown in a succession of gradual stages until its culmination in Jesus Christ, just as the Creator has effected His work through a succession of developments, each one of which has been closely interwoven with that which pre- ceded it, until it has culminated in man. In maintaining this analogy to the workings of God in nature Christianity stands in striking contrast to all other professed Eevelation s ; and even to the opinions of no inconsiderable number of those who accept it as divine. Our Lord Himself affirmed 1 * 4 THE ORDER OP THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, that He came not to destroy the law or the prophets ; but that on the contrary His purpose was to fill the ideal, of which they only contained an imperfect outline, up to the very full. Hence it has resulted that Revelation has been historical ; and therefore it can be only rightly read and understood when it is contemplated in its historical aspect. Consequently Christianity does not consist of a mass of abstract doctrines or precepts, but of a body of historical facts, the proper meaning of which it is the function of theology to explain. But while Christianity presents no break in point of continuity with former revelations, it vastly transcends them, in the same manner as man who, in respect of his bodily frame is closely allied to the inferior animal races, is raised to an immense elevation above them, both intellectually and morally. It is hardly possible to over-estimate the impor- tance of this continuity of Revelation in relation to modern thought. The doctrine of continuity in nature is one of very recent growth ; yet continuity in religion was fully accepted as the mode of the divine working by those who composed the records of the Christian Revelation. Nothing is more certain than that they have linked together a series of gradually progressive revelations, each growing out of that which preceded it, without a single break in the con- tinuity of the historic chain. Such an analogy to what modern science affirms to have been the order of the pro- duction of the various forms of being which are possessed of life, is a very striking one ; and one which at the time when the New Testament was written, would have been beyond the reach of the shrewdest guess, and to which no other religion can put in a claim. The developments of the great religions now existing in the world are developments of retrogression ; Christianity alone is a development of progress. " Many prophets and kings," says Our Lord, " have desired to see the things which ye see, and have not seen them ; and to hear the things which ye hear, and have not heard them." ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 5 But further, while every image employed by the great Teacher implies that the growth of His kingdom would be a slow and gradual process, it is no less clear that He felt assured that it would ultimately penetrate to the centre of humanity. If such be its character, can we wonder that the Christian revelation should contain truths, of which the fulness, like the great works of creation and providence, can only be fully recognized after the lapse of time, and as the result of careful investigation ? That great reasoner. Bishop Butler, clearly perceived that it is only in conformity with the analogy of nature, that a book which has been so long in the possession of mankind as the Bible, if it contains a Revelation from God, should contain truths as yet undis- covered; and that events, as they come to pass, should open and ascertain the meaning of Scripture ; and that such discoveries should be made " in the same way as all other knowledge is ascertained, by particular persons attending to, comparing, and pursuing intimations, scattered up and down in it, which are overlooked and disregarded by the generality of the world. ^^* * I subjoin, the entire passage. " And as it is owned that the wliole scheme of Scripture is not yet understood, so if it ever comes to be understood before the restitution of all things, and without miracidous interventions, it must be in the same way as natural knowledge is come at, by the continuance and progress of learning and liberty, and by particular persons attending to, comparing and pursuing intimations scattered up and down, which are overlooked and disregarded by the majority of the world. For this is the way in which all improvements are made by thoughtful men, tracing on obscure hints, as it were dropped to us by nature accidentally, or what seems to come into our minds by chance. Nor is it incredible that a book which has been so long in possession of mankind shoidd contain many truths as yet un- discovered, for all the same phenomena and the same faculties of in- vestigation from which such great discoveries have been made in the present and the past age, were equally in possession o£ mankind several thousand years before. And possibly it might be intended that events as they come to pass should open and ascertain the meaning of several parts of Scripture." — Analogy, Part II., chap. iii. These remarks are worthy of the deepest attention both of theologians and men of science. 6 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, Of tills prediction we in tlie present age are witnessing tlie fulfilment. Science and research of every kind are throwing light on the pages of the Bible, and we are now viewing many of its supposed affirmations in an altered aspect. Astronomy alone has shown that many positions which were supposed in former times to be deduced from its phraseology, as infallibly certain, were utterly devoid of justification. Numerous others have shared the same fate. Who then can venture to affirm, with the history of the past before us, that additional light may not yet be cast on the contents of the sacred page ? Nay, the great apostle affirms that the fulness of the meaning of Revelation will be only gradually unfolded during the ages of the future.* If the knowledge of the full meaning of Revelation, like that of the created Universe, be thus slowly and gradually progressive, it is clearly our duty to accommodate our evidential position to our increasing light, instead of raising an outcry against every fresh discovery of science, as if it was fatal to the claims of Christianity to be accepted as a divine revelation. If the principles which have been laid down by the foresight of the good Bishop, more than a century ago, had been kept steadily in view by theologians, a large proportion of those disputes which are now raging between theologians and men of science would have been rendered impossible. This power of self-accommodation to the ever-varying aspects of human thought which is possessed by Chris- tianity has a most important bearing on the general character of our evidential position. Nay, it forms one of the strongest proofs of the superhuman insight which was possessed by its Founder, that He has not anchored his religion to the rock of the immovable, as has been done by others, but that He has founded one which is capable of adjusting itself to the entire condition of man. By doing so, he has become the Founder of the eternal religion of * Ei)hcsians i. 10. ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. / human natm'e. Sucli a i*eligiou must be capable of pre- senting itself, not in a single and unvarying aspect, but in a manifold and varying one ; and consequently the mode of exhibiting its claims which was fitted to one aspect of thought, must become unsuited to another, rendering it necessary that we should bring the new as well as the old out of our treasures. In considering this subject, it is clear that my first duty must be to institute an inquiry into what constitutes the inner life of Christianity, as distinct from its accessories, and the vehicle through which it has been communicated — what in fact is its essence? The importance of rightly determiningf this cannot be over-estimated in reference to our mode of stating the Christian argument, for it is evi- dent, whenever we undertake to defend a position, that it is essential to ascertain what portion of the ground constitutes its key ; and on it to concentrate our entire force. What then, I ask, constitutes the essence of the Christian Revelation ? Is it a mass of dogmatic, or abstract truth after the manner of other religions ; or of reasoned truth, as elaborated by the various philosophic schools ; or is its essence to be found in its moral teaching, as numerous unbehevers are in the habit of afl&rmiug ; or is it an historic life, which constitutes its inner temple, and forms its dis- tinguishing characteristic — in fact, is it the manifestation of a divine being on the sphere of the human, who is the source of all the moral and spiritual power which it con- tains ? This question suggests another : — Must our defence embrace the wide range of everything which is contained in the Bible, in all the multifariousness of its contents ; or is there an inner temple of Christianity, which also con- stitutes its citadel and fortress, on which if we can maintain a firm hold we shall retain the command of the entire Christian position ? The answer to these questions will not only be of the highest importance in its bearing on our general conception of Christianity, but it will determine what must be the only 8 THE OEDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, correct method of conducting its defence. Our entire evidences will require to be marshalled and arranged in con- formity with the views we entertain on this subject. To use a military metaphor, the extent of the ground which it is necessary to occupy, forms the most important consideration in the mode of posting the forces at our command. A garrison of five thousand men may bo capable of holding a particular fortress against the most numerous army ; but if the lines are carried five miles in advance, they may be broken through at every point. Precisely the same is it with the defence of Christianity. If we confine it to its central position with the forces at our command its citadel will be impregnable ; but if we extend our defences over an indefinite mass of subject matter, only incidentally con- nected with it, and for that purpose proceed to cnhst into our service reasonings of only doubtful validity, we shall thereby endanger our entire position. The question as to what constitutes the inner life of Christianity, is one which amidst the Babel of the sects that distract the Church, each with intemperate zeal propound- ing its own formulated system as constituting its essence, is one which at first sight might appear difiicult if not impossible to answer. Yet surely an intelligent reader of the New Testament, who perused it for the first time free from the prepossessions of theological systems would return no ambiguous reply. He would affirm as a matter of certainty that one prominent idea pervades its pages and underlies every portion of its teaching — the divine person of Jesus Christ our Lord ; and that the central life of Chris- tianity, as it is there depicted, consists neither in a body of dogmas, or precepts, but in an historic life. This point is so obvious that it seems almost unnecessary to give a formal proof of it. Still as it is vital to my argument, and one which is so generally overlooked by popular theology, I must draw your attention to a few of its salient traits. '\\'bat then are the points which would force themselves on the attention of my supposed reader ? They are iudisput- ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 9 ably tliese. He would observe that tlie four most prominent treatises in tbe volume are four memoirs, which give a four- fold account of the actions and the teaching of Jesus Christ, by which he founded Christianity as a religion, and the Church as a Society. These evidently constitute the essence and foundation of the religion, for nothing can be more certain, than that every other portion of the New Testament presupposes the existence of this divine life as the founda- tion on which it rests. Next follows another historical work, which details to us the means through which the Church was constituted a visible Institution in the world. One idea is fundamental to the entire book, that Jesus is the Christ, or in other words, that He is the Ruler of God's spiritual kingdom, on which is founded the summons consequent thereon to men to enrol themselves as His subjects. To this idea, and to this pur- pose, all the other details of the book are plainly subordi- nated.* To these follow twenty-one writings of an historical cha- racter in the form of letters. They contain a mass of teach- ing, doctrinal and moral, pervaded and dominated by one idea which runs through them, that of Jesus as the personal Christ. While they contain doctrinal statements, it is worthy of particular remark that not one of them contains a formulated statement of what constitutes Christianity as a system of dogmatic or abstract truth. On the contrary, such doctrinal statements as are found in them, are wholly wanting in systematic form, and are evidently called forth * This is evidently tlie burden of the entire book, from the first opening speech of St. Peter to the concluding one of St. Paul. The following passages are summaries of its teaching : — "And daily in the temple and from house to house they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus to be the Christ " (Acts v. 42). " Tliis Jesus whom I preach unto you is Christ." (xvii. 3). "And when Silas and Timotheus were come from Macedonia, Paul was pressed in the spirit, and testified to the Jews that Jesus was Christ." (xviii. 5). "To whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus." xxviii. 23). 10 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, by the special circumstciuces of particular commuuities of Christians to whom the letters are addressed. But further, every one of them presupposes a Christianity already existing, and the ob\aous purpose of each letter is to explain it and to accommodate it to the state of thought and feeling as it existed in each particular Church. But throughout the entire contents of these letters, composed by six different writers, each of whom possessed marked mental peculiarities, one common idea unquestionably domi- nates— that of Jesus as the living personal Christ. Every doctrinal statement is made to have its focus in Him. Every moral precept has a vitality communicated to it by being referred to Him as the centre of obligation and spiritual power. Truth is propounded, but it is truth as it is in Jesus. Over all Christians he reigns by sovereign right. He is the supreme motive to holiness. He is Lord of the conscience. In Him centre all God^s creative and providen- tial acts. The manifested revelation of God is His historic life and actions. He is a great spiritual power, capable of acting on the human heart with energetic might. I fully admit that these points are brought out in different degrees and aspects by these writers. Yet one common thread runs through the entire series. It is not too much to say of every writer that the idea of Jesus as the Christ interpene- trates and modifies his entire thoughts, whether doctrinal or moral. To this even the Epistle of James, where it is least apparent, forms no exception. Its predominance throughout these writings is no theory, but a fact, and forms the feature which distinguishes them from every other literary composition in the world. Of the dominance of this idea we have a striking example in the epistle to Philemon. In it St. Paul asks a personal favour of a Christian friend on behalf of a delinquent slave. That favour is asked in the name of Christ. There remains one other writing in the New Testament, the Apocalypse. Whatever opinion we may form of the purpose of its authoi*, one thing respecting it is as clear as the existence of the ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 11 sun in the firmanent — that the great prominent idea which penetrates it from one end to the other is that of Jesus as the Christ living and reigning. The removal of this idea from the pages of the New Testament would reduce the residuum of its contents to a shapeless chaos. These facts then afford the most complete proof that the person of Jesus Christ constitutes the inner centre of Chris- tianity, and underlies its entire system ; and that everything else that is connected with it, occupies a position wholly subordinate to this its inner life. From this the inference is plain, that the Revelation which constitutes the essence of Christianity is not a body of dogmatic statements or pre- cepts, but the manifestation of that divine person whose actions and teachings are recorded in the Gospels — or in other words, that the essence of Christianity as distinct from its adjuncts, consists of a number of objective facts, which have actually occurred in the history of the world. Of these facts the original followers of Jesus were the witnesses and proclaimers, and, as far as light was communicated to them by the divine Spirit, the exponents to mankind. We must be careful however to observe that in accordance with their own statements, this exposition is far from having exbausted all their meaning, for the greatest of apostolic writers affirms that a greater unfolding of it is reserved for the ages of the future.* What then is the position occupied by the other books in the canon relatively to those which contain the objective * " Having made known unto us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself ; that in the dis- pensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and in earth, even in him." (Ephes. i. 9, 10). "And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the Mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ, to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God ; according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Ejihcs. iii. 8, 9, 10. 12 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, facts which constitute Christianity ? The Acts of the Apos- tles convey to us information how that divine Society called the Church was instituted and established in the world, as a visible institution, through whose agency these facts were to exert a mighty influence on mankind, and also inform us as to the mode in which the minds of the Apostles became gradually enlightened as to their meaning and import. The character of the Epistles is clear. They make no profes- sions of being a dogmatic revelation ; but in every case they assume the existence of a prior Christianity, which had been communicated orally to the converts, and consisting of such facts of its Founder's life as pi^oved Him to be the Christ, and which the writers endeavour to unfold, explain, and apply in accordance with the various emergencies of the primitive societies of believers. One of these Churches, that at Corinth, is expressly reminded by St. Paul, that the essence of the Christianity which he had proclaimed among them consisted of a number of such objective facts.* These writings are, in the strictest sense of the term, letters which were called forth by the special exi- gencies of those to whom they are addressed ; and in them the Christian revelation is unfolded, and adapted to the requirements, habits, and modes of thought of particular Churches, or individuals, who, having originally been Jews, proselytes, or pagans, had united themselves into a society, whose one bond of union was that Jesus was its Messiah and King. My 'position therefore is, that like as we have a great revelation of God in the created universe, which is the mani- festation of His eternal power and Godhead ; as also we have a second revelation of God, made in the conscience and moral nature of man, which at the same time affords mani- festations of the moral character of the Creator, and forms the foundation of moral obligation, so we have a third reve- lation of His innermost moral and spiritual perfections in * 1 Cor. XV. 1-8. ITS EXTENT A\D LIMITATION. 13 tlie person and work of Jesus Christ our Lord. This reve- lation may be briefly summed up as consisting of the Incar- nation and its results^ by means of which the moral and spiritual perfections of God have been exhibited in the actions and teaching of a divine man ; or in other words, in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If this view be correct, it follows that the personal history of our Lord must constitute the citadel of Christianity, and must therefore form the key of the Christian position, on which, if we can retain a firm hold, we shall remain masters of the entire ground; and other points connected with Christianity will assume their due place and proper subordi- nation. But if this cannot be maintained, the most suc- cessful defence of the remaining contents of the Bible will be so much wasted labour. On this point therefore the defence of Christianity must be concentrated. It is evident if this view is correct, that the proof that the inner temple of Christianity consists in the personal manifestation of Jesus Christ in the sphere of human history, is of the highest importance in reference to the position which ought to be taken by the Christian advocate. But such a proof can only be supplied by an examination of a large number of passages in the New Testament. IE I were to do so in the body of this Lecture, it would swell it to an undue length. I will therefore adduce the full proof in a Supplement ; and assume for the purpose of this argu- ment that the essence of Christianity consists neither in a body of dogmas nor of precepts, but in a personal history which constitutes a manifestation of the divine on the sphere of the human. This being so, to prove that Christianity is a divine reve- lation, it will be only necessary to establish two points. Fh-st. That the person of Jesus Christ is not a manifestation of the ordinary forces which energise in man, but of a power which is superhuman and divine. Secondly, that the account which the Church possesses of 14 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, His life, teacliing, cleatli, and resurrection, is not an ideal creation, but a body of historic facts. In determining tlie extent of the position which must be occupied by the defender of Christianity, it is of the highest importance that we should keep clearly in view the distinc- tion which exists between Revelation on the one hand, and inspiration and theology on the other. On this point great confusion of thought has prevailed ; and the result has been that the line of our defence has become dangerously extended. The wide extent of the position, to the defence of which the Christian advocate is supposed to be com- mitted, forms one of the strongholds of popular unbelief. It is also undeniable that theology has in former ages claimed, as its legitimate domains, whole provinces of thought, from which it has had to beat a retreat before the steady advance of scientific knowledge. It will probably have to retire further still before it occupies its rightful position. Such retreats have been attended with disastrous results ; and with the experience of the past before us, I must claim the right — it is in fact our duty — to separate the defence of Christianity from every question which is not vitally connected with the Christian position, and to confine it to the historic facts, which form the foundation on which the Church has been erected, and the inner life of Chris- tianity, as a great moral and spiritual power, is based. The consideration of the inferences dcducible from these facts is the proper function, not of the Christian advocate, but of the scientific theologian. The relation in which the popular theories of inspiration stand to science, and their bearing on Christianity as a divine revelation, I shall consider in the concluding Lecture of this course ; at present it will be only necessary for me to ofi"or a few brief remarks on the distinc- tion between Revelation and Inspii*ation. I have already shown that the innermost temple of Christianity, around which the whole might of our defence must be concentrated, is the objective fact of the Incar- nation, and the historical truth of the divine life, as ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 15 recorded in the pages of tlie Evangelists. But in addition to this great fundamental revelation some of the writers of the New Testament claim to have been the subjects of special revelations, by which the meaning of the great facts which constitute the essence of Christianity was imparted to their minds. These revelations, however, differ widely from that of which I have been speaking ; and it is very difficult to lay down a clear distinction between them and the gift which we commonly call inspiration. Thus St, Paul affirms that he received his knowledge of the great principles of Christianity by revelation, and that he did not derive them from any human source.* In other cases we can discover clear traces of the presence of a human element. Thus the slow and gradual influence of the Spirit unfolded to the leaders of the Church what constituted the essential principles of Christianity as distinct from the Judaism in which they had been born and educated. This we know from the history to have been brought about, not so much by a direct infusion of light and knowledge into their minds as by the leading of the events of Providence. Of this we have a remarkable illustration in the account which is given us of the mode in which the enlightenment of Peter was effected, which led to the reception of Cornelius into the Church. In it Peter's reason co-operated with the divine enlighten- ment. A vision was the immediate agent, of which several events of Providence suggested the interpretation. Of a * Thus lie ■writes, " But I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me is not after man ; for I neither received it of man, neither vras I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. i. 11, 12). Again, "How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote before in few words, whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the Mystery of Christ" (Eph. iii. 3, 4). This latter passage implies that the two former chapters may be received as the record of this revelation. Both passages, however, definitely affirm that its subject matter was strictly limited to the communication of Christian truth, and involved no enlightenment beyond its limits. 16 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, similar cliaracter was the revelation made to St. Paul, which led to the first preaching of Christianity in Europe. This forms a remarkable illustration of the relation in which such revelations stood to the ordinary action of the faculties of those who received them. The command to pass into Europe was not one which was given in direct terms. The historian tells us that St. Paul proposed to open a mission in two other places ; but that he was hindered by the Spirit. Ou arriving at Troas he saw a vision of a man of Macedonia standing by him, and saying, Come over into Macedonia and help us. From these circumstances the historian tells us that they assuredly gathered that the Lord had called them to preach the Gospel to them ; or in other words, that it was not a direct revelation of the Spirit, but an inference from the vision, united with the fact, that they had been forbidden to preach in two other places. In this case, as in St. Peter's vision, the divine and the human elements are quite separable from one another, the duty of passing into Macedonia being a rational inference from the divine facts. How far this was the case in the other revelations spoken of by St. Paul, we have no means of judging. Both these modes of communicating truth may be desig- nated revelations. Theoretically, therefore, the New Testament may be said to contain the record of two species of revelations — one, the record of those objective facts, which form God's great moral and spiritual revelation of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ — and the other, the commentary made by its authors on those facts, as far as their meaning was revealed to them by the Divine Spirit. This latter, however, is so mixed up with the question of inspiration that for all practical purposes it is inseparable from it ; and must therefore be dealt with on the same principles as a branch of scientific theology. It will now be necessary for the purpose of defining clearly the limits of our evidential position to consider the relation in which theology stands to Revelation. ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 17 If I liave correctly laid down the two previous positions, that Revelation consists of the objective facts, on which Christianity is based, and in a secondary sense, of the disclosures made to Apostolic men respecting their nature and meaning, it follows that the position of theology in relation to Christianity must consist in the elaboration of a body of systematic truth out of the facts and data furnished by Revelation. For evidential purposes it is of the utmost importance to keep this distinction clearly in view, and thereby to guard against that widely-spread confusion of thought, which identifies Christianity as a revelation with Christianity as a theology, and has led to the almost in- definite extension of the position which it is supposed to be the duty of the Christian advocate to defend. A.s a clear perception of the nature of this distinction is of the highest importance in relation to my argument, it is necessary that I should define the position which I take with the utmost clearness. I observe, therefore, that theology as a science must stand in the same relation to the facts of Revelation as the physical sciences do to the facts of the Universe. The function of these latter is to investigate the facts, to formulate them, and to evolve out of them the truths which they contain. Precisely similar is the function of theology to the facts of Revelation. These form its data. The duty of the theologian is to perform for them an office similar to that which the scientific investigator does for the facts of nature. This being so, the same methods of in- vestigation must be applicable to each, as far as is con- sistent with their different subject-matter. Both must involve rational processes ; both will be liable to the intrusion of human error ; and their successful study will be dependent on the employment of a proper method of investigation. The distinction, therefore, between Christianity as a revelation and Christianity as a theology, becomes clear. Christianity as a revelation consists of those objective 2 18 THE ORDER OP THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT^ facts through which God has manifested to man his moral and spiritual character. Christianity as a theology consists of a body of formulated truths elaborated by reason out of those facts as its data. It will be objected that, in running this parallel, I overlook the necessity of the influence of the Divine Spirit for the purpose of illuminating the heart and the understanding in the study of theology. I by no means do so. The Baconian method teaches us that physical truth can only be success- fully studied by first dissipating those dark mists, and the various idola, which naturally brood over the human under- standing, and its founder has elaborately described their nature and character. Precisely analogous is it with the successful study of the data furnished by Eevelation. Here even darker mists enshroud our understandings, which must be dissipated before our mental powers can be successfully applied to the study of Christian truth. One of these pre- conditions is a willingness to do the will of God.* We all know how the progress of scientific knowledge has been impeded in the past by the prepossessions of those who devoted themselves to its study. Witness the failure of the acutest intellects of the ancient world to penetrate the arcana of the Universe. Similar prepossessions are equally fatal to the appreciation of Christian evidences and of Christian truth. The attention of many of the students of the physical sciences may not unfitly be directed to the closeness of the analogy ; and they may well be asked to consider whether some of their methods of dealing with Eevelation are not due to prepossessions and idola * Such a precondition for the effectual appreciation of Hcvelation is distinctly laid down by Our Lord. "If any man will (OtXrj wills, is earnestly desirous of doing) do God's will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God, or whether I sj)eak of Myself" (John vii. 17). This, though pre-eminently true of religious truth, is applicable to every kind of truth, except perhaps the evidence of mathematical demonstration. The ethical readiness to acccj^t it is a precondition of its perception. ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 19 which darken their mental vision^ in the same manner as in former ages the same causes have rendered theologians insensible to the realities of physical truth. But the dissipation of these being presupposed in both caseSj it follows that in the same manner as physical science is the result of the application of our rational powers to the investigation of the phenomena of the Universe, and mental science results from their application to the facts of mind, and moral science to those of our moral nature and con- science; so theological science is the result of the application of our reason to the data furnished us by Revelation.* In each case our reason is fallible, and we are liable to draw erroneous conclusions, from which fallibility neither theolo- gians nor scientists can claim exemption. In by-gone ages the latter have propounded erroneous systems in abund- ance. Can it be said that theologians have not fallen into similar errors ? Or at the present day have we any right to claim an infallibility for our various theological systems, and after the manner of the sects stake the life of Christianity on their truth ? Our only safeguard is so to profit by the errors of the past as to lead us to employ better methods of investi- gation in the future. But let it be observed that like as the errors of philosophers and scientists are unable to obscure the great truth that the Universe is a manifestation of the eternal power and Godhead of the Creator, a truth which will ever be recognized by the unsophisticated heart of man, * Nothing is more dangerous to the Christian cause than the outcry which various schools of popular theology are in the habit of raising against the use of reason in religious investigations, and the mode in which it is constantly spoken of as opposed to faith. Such persons would do well to meditate on the following passage of Bishop Butler : " I express myself with caution lest I should be misunderstood to vilify reason, which is indeed the only faculty we have wherewith to judge concerning anything, even Hcvelation itself, or to be misunder- stood to assert that a supposed revelation cannot be proved false from internal characters." — {Analogy, Part II, chap, iii.) Season is not a perfect light, nor an infallible guide ; but as it is the only light and guide which we possess, we shall not improve our condition by extinguishing it. 2 * 20 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT^ despite all the theoriGS of atheism and pantheism^ so the errors of theologians are unable to hide from us the still greater truth that the moral perfections of God clearly shine forth in the person and work of Jesus Christ our Lord. In making these observations, I by no means wish to deny that the Apostolic epistles contain a theology in a rudimen- tary form. But viewed in relation to the present subject, the important point to observe is that they are a commentary on the facts of Revelation in a very unsystematic form, just as it was called forth by the exigencies of particular Churches, and that they also form our sole record of the subordinate revelations through which the meaning of the great facts of Christianity was communicated to the primitive believers. I am aware that there is also another theory, which affirms that these revelations and their meaning have been handed down by the traditions of the Church, and secured from errors by the permanently abiding presence in it of the divine Spirit. But to discuss this question would be to enter into a controversy which has neither limits nor bounds. Its indefinite character alone must exclude it from forming a portion of Christian evidences. Christianity must on other grounds be accepted as a divine revelation before it is pos- sible to accept the theory in question. My position, therefore, stated generally is. Revelation is throughout essentially divine; systematized theology is a human science. This being so, the ground which must be occupied and defended by the Christian advocate becomes clear and definite. It is not the wide range of Chi-istian theology, nor any par- ticular theory as to the mode in which Revelation has been communicated, nor as to the degree of inspiration which has been afforded to those by whom its record has been com- mitted to writing ; but the proof of the actual presence of a divine element in Christianity. My duty is to show not only that the facts are true, but that the divine is manifested in them. All other considerations stand extraneous to the subject-matter of these Lectures. ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 21 If this position be correctly taken, the points of contro- versy between those who affirm and those who deny Christianity to be a divine revelation, are brought within definite limits. We are saved from the necessity of wander- ing over an indefinite range of subject-matter. Numerous controversies now raging have only an indirect bearing on the real point at issue. This, I repeat, is. Have we evidence that there is a manifestation of the divine in Christianity ? If this be so, it must be a divine revelation, and a matter of unspeakable importance to mankind. Under the influence of increasing light, whether derived from the study of the Universe, or as Butler has pointed out, of the facts of Reve- lation itself, we may have to change many of our theo- logical positions, as inadequate exponents of its great realities; but the great fact that God has spoken, and is still speaking to man in Jesus Christ will remain untouched. Such being the case, it will be desirable that I should enumerate a few of the questions which lie outside the position which the defender of Christianity is called upon to occupy. It is necessary to do so, because the identification of a large number of questions now eagerly debated between Christians and unbelievers with the truth of Christianity itself, not only in the popular mind, but by many earnest inquirers, is one of the chief causes by which the faith of multitades has been shaken in the present day. This is the reason why I have been careful to lay down the distinction between Christianity as a revelation, and Christianity as a theology. If the view above taken is correct, the whole range of formulated theology, except as far as it is a matter of direct and positive revelation, is extraneous to the question whether Christianity is or is not a divine revelation. The determination whether its statements are legitimate de- ductions from the facts of Christianity, belongs to scientific theology, and will not affect the divine character of the facts themselves. In a similar manner, various questions con- nected with the origin of the books of the Old Testa- 22 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, meut, and tlieir correct interpretation, however profoundly interesting in a theological point of view, form no portion of onr evidential position. The defender of Christianity is by no means called upon to prove that they are free from philosophical, scientific, or historical errors, or even from moral imperfections. To use an illusti*ation borrowed from Paley, it is most unwise to stake the truth of Christianity on our ability to prove that every miraculous narrative recorded in its pages must, beyond all controversy, be accepted as an historical fact. To do this, would involve the defender of Christianity in the necessity of maintaining the truth of some special theory of inspiration, against which it is impossible at the present time too earnestly to protest ; for its identification with certain theories extensively popular forms one of the strongholds of unbelief. So likewise I accept Paley's general positions, that the Christian advocate is only concerned with the Old Testament so far as portions of it have received the direct sanction of Our Lord. I by no means overlook the importance of these questions as far as they bear on the elaboration of a true Christian theology ; but they must not be allowed to be mixed up with the all-important question, whether Christianity contains a mani- festation of the divine, or whether it has been the mere evolution of those moral and spiritual forces which energize in man. To do so is to weaken our position by indefinitely extending it ; a movement which can only be pi'ofitable to our opponents. For the same reasons a number of very interesting ques- tions respecting the New Testament which have been made the subjects of most eager controversy form no portion of the position necessary to be maintained by the defender of Christianity as vital to its truth. It is a matter of compara- tive unimportance in reference to the real issue whether Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene in the year when John the Baptist commenced his ministiy; whether Cyrenius was twice governor of Syria; whether Our Lord cured one or two demoniacs at Gadara, or one or two blind men at ITS EXTENT AND LUflTATION. 23 Jericho; or the precise mode in which Judas died. The successful solution of these and multitudes of similar ques- tions would afford an additional confirmation of the historical accuracy of some of the writers of the New Testament. But such points are often discussed as if the life of Christianity was involved in them^ whereas the only point which they really involve is the truth of a particular theory of inspiration. Nor is the question whether each Gospel was written by the person whose name it bears^ nor the actual date when its contents were first committed to writing, material to the present issue. Nor is it necessary to prove that the quota- tions from the Old Testament in the New are accurate renderings of the meaning of the original, nor that the logic of the Epistles is always accurate, when estimated according to our scientific forms of reasoning.* These, and a number of other questions, are profoundly interesting in a theological point of view; but they have no direct bearing on the all-important questions, whether there is evidence that a superhuman power has manifested itself in Christianity; whether the great facts on which Christianity is based were historical realities; whether the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a fact, or the belief in it originated in the * I have selected several of these questions, because they are those by means of which modern unbelief directs some of its sharpest attacks on Christianity as a divine revelation. This indefinite exten- sion of our position is simply to play into the hands of oui* opponents. They naturally prefer to raise side issues, instead of dealing with the centre of the Christian position. Thus nothing is more common than to raise questions about miracles generally, and the imperfection of the attestation of this or that particular miracle, instead of dealing with the one great evidential miracle of Christiauity, the Eesurrection, on the reality of which its truth rests. If they could prove that this Avas a fiction, they would force the entire Christian position. If it is a fact, Christianity will remain intact, notwithstanding all their attacks on the other miraculous narratives in the Bible. It must be confessed, however, that the defenders of Eevelation have greatly encouraged them in this practice, by not insisting on confining the issue to the discussion of this one great question. 24 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, hallucination of His followers. If all these things can be firmly established, it follows that Christianity must be a divine revelation; and we can afiford to wait for the solution of the minor difficulties with which it is attended. To lay down clearly the distinction between points which are essential, and those which are non-essential to the defence of Chris- tianity, is at the present day of the highest importance ; because a wide -spread opinion prevails, that many of the questions that are eagerly discussed in theological contro- versies are essential to its truth. Thus ordinary Christians have been led to believe that such questions as — Whether St. Matthew was the author of the Gospel that bears his name; whether the writings of Isaiah consist of two portions, one of which was composed at an earlier, and the other at a later date; whether the Pentateuch in its present form was written by Moses; whether the commonly-received Chronology of the Old Testament is, or is not accurate; whether the book of Daniel was composed by the prophet of that name, who lived during the Captivity; whether it is possible to weave the narratives of the Evangelists into an harmonious whole; whether the references made by the earlier Fathers to events in the Evangelical history are citations from our Gospels, and not from others which must have closely resembled them — that all these, and a multitude of similar questions, are so bound up with the acceptance of Christianity as a divine revelation, that they must stand or fall together. Men hear that a vast number of accepted beliefs on these and similar subjects, have been called in question by persons of profound learoing, and their faith in Christianity is shaken. What is the cause of this? The true answer is that popular theology has widely diffused the belief that a number of points which are really non-essential to Christianity as a divine revelation are vital to its defence. Unbelievers have not unnaturally accepted this position, and in consequence have loudly proclaimed that the belief in Christianity as a divine revelation is no longer tenable. The assumption that ]TS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 25 the defence of tliis wide extent of matter is essential to the Christian position, is unquestionably one of the causes which has led to that wide-spread shaking of belief which prevails at the present day. The whole question, however, as to the nature and validity of our popular theories of inspiration is a subject of which I must defer the con- sideration till my concluding Lecture. My position, therefore, is, that the ground on which the whole of our defences must be concentrated, is the historic reality of the life of Our Lord, as it has been handed down by the traditions of His primitive followers ; and that this life has exerted a unique and superhuman power throughout the last eighteen centuries of history. Before, however, I can address myself to the direct proof of this, it will be necessary to consider the relative value of the evidences themselves, the order in which they should be stated, and the modifications in the mode of treatment which are rendered necessary by the requirements of modern thought. 1. The proof of Christianity has been liitherto based on what is called its miraculous attestation. Miracles have been placed in the forefront of the Christian argument, and other evidences have occupied in it a very subordinate position. This is the line of reasoning which modern apologists have all but unanimously adopted. An opinion however is becoming widely diffused among thoughtful men, that this mode of putting the argument is unsound. I am fully aware of the weight of the authorities who have taken the opposite view to the one which I feel it to be my duty to propound in these Lectures ; and who have concurred in placing the evidence of miracles in the forefront of the Christian argument. Of these Paley may be cited as a crucial example. Subsequent writers have followed closely in his steps; and have contented themselves with adduc- ing proof of the possibility of miracles, or with strengthen- ing his central position. Some of them, however, have handled the moral argument far more effectually than it has 26 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT^ been done by him ; for tlie principles of his moral philosophy necessarily rendered his treatment of the moral aspects of Christianity inadequate. I am not aware that any modern writer has suggested the necessity of a complete change of front in our evidential position^ although many have attached a far higher value to the moral aspects of Christianity, as evidences of its truth. As however it seems to me that the whole exigencies of modern thought render such a change of front absolutely necessary, I will briefly give reasons why I consider that the moral evidences of Christianity ought to occupy the first place, and its miraculous attestation the second, in the Christian argument. But as the three following Lectures will chiefly be devoted to the consideration of what I shall designate the moral miracles of Christianity, it will be necessary that I should briefly explain the meaning which I attach to this expression. Our evidential treatises restrict the term miracle to an occurrence in the j^hysical universe the origin of which cannot be accounted for by the action of its ordinary forces. From such an event is inferred the presence of a power or force of a different order, capable of energizing in thom, directing, controlling, and bending them in such a manner as to effect a particular purpose, and to bring about a result different from that which would have taken place from their ordinaiy action. Such an event we designate '^a miracle;" and from it we infer the presence of a superhuman power. Tint why the expression should be limited to occurrences of this kind as constituting the sole divine attestation of Christianity it is difficult to say. Surely there is an order in the moral and spiritual world no less than in the material. Moral and spiritual forces act no less in conformity with moral and spiritual laws than the forces which energize in the physical universe act in conformity with physical laws. If deviations from the accustomed order of the one, or the occurrence of events which cannot be accounted for by the action of any of its known forces, prove the presence of a divine power, ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 27 so must similar phenomena in the moral and spiritua woi'lds be manifestations of the energy of a superhuman power. Such manifestations I shall designate " moral miracles/' by which I mean, events occurring in the moral and spiritual world, for the origin of which none of its known forces are sufficient to account. If I can prove that such manifestations have taken place in connection with Christianity, it will be evidence that a superhuman power has manifested itself in it. This being so, the all-important question will be. Are we able to verify in connection with it the presence of such a superhuman power in the history of the past, or in the facts of the present ? If we can, I con- tend that it will afford a far stronger proof of its divine character than that which can be supplied by miracles wrought in the physical universe, which require a long and complicated chain of historical reasoning to establish their truth. Much confusion has been introduced into our reasonings about miracles by the practice, which has been common to both the opponents and the defenders of Christianity, of using a number of ambiguous terms, so that it has become difficult to express oneself with precision on the subject.* A brief allusion to them is all that will be necessary in this place. Even the word " Sujoernatural " itself is one which it is almost dangerous for a theist to employ. When we use it to denote God's mode of action in connection with a reve- * It is worthy of notice that a large proportion of the arguments em- ployed by the author of " Supernatural Eeligion " against miracles are founded on the ambiguous senses in which the various terms employed in the Christian argument are used. To this their entire plausibility is due. The inconclusiveness of his reasoning is obvious enough to close logical thinkers ; but unfortunately the great majority of the readers of such works are not such, and the large number of editions through which this work has passed proves that on them its influence has been sufficiently teUing. This alone shows the import- ance of not allowing our strength to be wasted on a number o£ side issues, but of confining our defence of Christianity to its great central position. 28 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT^ lation, as distinguisliod from other modes of tlio divine activity, we run no little danger of making tlie covert assumption that God is not everywhere energizing in the ordinary forces of the Universe by which we are surrounded ; a view which is not only opposed to all sound principles of Theism, but one to which the writers of the Bible are entire strangers. If one thing is more certain than another, it is that the whole series of these writers view the forces of nature as manifestations of the energies of God. In fact the modern distinction between the Natural and the Supernatural is to them unknown.* This confusion has originated in the various senses which have been assigned to the words "Nature/' '' Natural," and their derivatives, and from the ambiguous use of the word " law," not only to denote the invariable sequences of events, but also the mode of the action of the forces which energize in the Universe. The all-important question on which the entire controversy turns is. What do we mean by " Nature," and what class of phenomena do we include under it ? Thus if we confine the words " Nature " and *' Natural '' to matter, its necessary forces and laws, we denote by them a definite class of phenomena; but if we include under them man, his freedom, his intellect, and his moral and spii'itual being, we mix up with the former phenomena of a wholly different class and order. But these terms have been used by both sides in this controversy, as though they had a clear and definite meaning, and thus various classes of * This may be aiErmed absolutely of the writers of the Old TesLa- ment. Thus in the Book of Psalms the energy of God is represented as being quite as much manifested in the daily course of nature as in tlie miracles of the Exodus. This is not quite so apparent in the New Testament, in which the references to the forces of nature are compara- tively rare. But whenever Our Lord refers to nature in His teaching, He uniformly recognizes in it the presence of His Father. According to the Bible both the energies which are constantly exhibiting them- selves in the Universe, and the phenomena which we designate miracles, are alike manifestations of the divine activity, the one diflfer- ing from the other merely in their mode of action. ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 29 phenomena fundamentally distinct have become mixed to- gether in hopeless confusion. A similar result has followed from the habitual use of the term '' law,^^ to denote both the invariable sequences and the forces that energize in the material Universe. Can any one wonder at the confusion of thought which has arisen in consequence ? The importance of this subject will render it necessary that I should consider it more fully in a supplement to this Lecture. This confusion of thought in which the whole question of miracles has become involved is a sufficient justification for placing what I have designated the moral miracles of Chris- tianity in the forefront of our evidential position. But this change seems to me to be imperatively called for by the fol- lowing reasons^ in order that we may adapt our evidential position to the requirements of modern thought. All its requirements point to verification as the great test of truth. The entire history of discovery has proved that theories which are incapable of being submitted to this test have failed to conduct us to the realities of things. Hence has arisen a great difficulty in the way of accepting as actual occurrences such events as, being without counter- parts in the modern world, require that their truth should be established by a long and intricate chain of reasoning, owing to the danger that exists, that among its numerous links there may be flaws which have escaped our observa- tion. The habits of reasoning which lie at the foundation of modern science have all tended to confirm the opinion that facts which can receive no kind of verification either in the realities of the present or in the palpable historical events of the past can only be accepted as true on an amount of evidence which is practically demonstrative. Whether this position be right or wrong, it is unquestion- able that such is the tendency of modern thought. This has introduced a difficulty into the proof of miracles, which was little felt in former times, as from the nature of the case they cannot be subjected to any species of verification. Very different, however, will it be with those manifestations 30 THE ORDER OP THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, of a superhuman power energizing in the moral and spiritual worlds, which I shall claim for Christianity. I shall prove that they can be clearly traced in the history of the past, and in the facts of the present, in connection with the person of Jesus Christ, and the Church which He has founded. The facts are plain and simple, requiring no long or intricate historical proof to establish their truth, but admit of an easy verification. As their reality is indisput- able, the only question that can arise is. Are they manifes- tations of a superhuman power, or can they be accounted for as the results of the known forces energizing in man ? On this point I shall appeal to your judgment hi the following Lectures. Their verifiable character alone forms a sufficient reason for placing them in the forefront of the Christian " argument. 2. As miracles, in the sense in which that term is employed in evidential treatises, do not take place in the present day, the only mode of proving their occurrence in former times is by a chain of historical reasoning which involves the necessity of carefully weighing and balancing a large number of intricate probabilities which constitute our historical argument, a process which requires a special training for its due appreciation. In one point of view it must be conceded that modern thought has increased the value of miracles as evidential to a divine commission, if we could cither witness them ourselves, or their occurrence could bo proved by demonstrative evidence. In the present day our belief in the invariability of the forces of the material Universe, and in the continuity of nature, is of the strongest kind. We are firmly persuaded that this con- tinuity is only capable of being interrupted by the Creator, or by one delegated by Him. To us, therefore, if an indu- bitable miracle could be performed before our eyes, it would have the highest evidential value, as aff'ordiug indisjDutable proof of the intervention of a Being distinct from, and superior to, the forces of the material universe, i.e., God. But very different were the ideas entertained on this subject ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 31 in former ages. The belief was then all but universal, tliat otlier beings were able to interfere with and modify its forces at their pleasure. Consequently, to persons who held such opinions, a miracle only offered evidence of the presence of a siqjerhuman, and not of a divine, power; and its evidential value was diminished in proportion to the prevalence of this belief. As in Our Lord^s days the belief was wide-spread that demons were capable of ex- ercising this power. He habitually appealed to the moral aspect of His miracles in proof that they were wrought by the finger of God. But while the course of modern thought thus assigns a higher evidential value to miracles, on the supposition that their proof is rigid and exact, this ad- vantage is far more than counterbalanced by the rigid exactitude of the proof which it requires. Nothing sets this difficulty in a stronger light than the prevailiDg tendency in modern times summarily to reject any account of the occurrence of a miracle without even deigning to inquire into the evidence on which it rests ; and this feeling is far from being confined to unbelievers. The Church of Rome professes to possess a continuous miraculous attesta- tion j but whenever we hear of a Romish miracle we set it aside at once without troubling ourselves to inquire into its evidence. This tendency is in some degree increased by the unquestionable fact that this Church has encouraged the belief in miracles which are notoriously false, and therefore stands before us in the character of a convicted impostor. Still we entertain much the same feelings with respect to all similar accounts, be they reported by whom they may. Men would now accept the reality of a miracle only on the very strongest evidence that it was not the result of delusion or imposture. From these difficulties moral miracles are exempt. The difficulty which was felt in resting the ])roof of the divine origin of Christianity on mu'acles alone is shown by the line of reasoning for the most part adopted by the early 32 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGOMENT^ apologists, wlio lived in daily contact with tlie heathen, when they endeavoured to recommend Christianity to their acceptance. It is evident that with them miracles occupied a very different place in the controversy from that which has been assigned to them by modern writers. One feels a difficulty in believing that if Paley's argument had been placed before a Father of the second or third century, it would have commended itself to him as an efficient mode of persuading an unbeliever to embrace the Christian faith. With them the moral aspects of Christianity preponderate over the mii^aculous, as the chief means of winning the assent of the heathen to the Gospel. 3. The usual proof which is adduced for miracles in our common evidential treatises consists in marshalling a very complicated mass of historical evidence, requiring a course of special training for its due appreciation. This alone forms a sufficient reason why it should not occupy the van of the Christian position, while other evidences, capable of a more direct appreciation, are equally available. It is evident that the number of those who have either the ability, the time, or the means of sifting a body of evidence of this description, is comparatively small, and consequently all that others can do, is to take it at second-hand. For example: one of the necessary media of proof for this purpose is to establish the authenticity and genuineness of the Gospels by quotations from the Fathers. A mass of evidence of this description involves the careful balancing of a large number of probabilities, and in the case before us their complication is considerable; and of the effect of the whole the ordinary reader feels himself to be a very imperfect judge. But the whole current of modern thought is steadily moving in an opposite direction. It justly refuses to rest its religious convictions on the authority of others, and demand.s, on a subject of such profound importance, evi- dence the value of which each individual can estimate for himself. I merely adduce this as one out of many difficulties, in ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 33 wliicli the historical argument^ as it is usually set forth^ is involved ; and which render it highly dangerous to rest upon it the chief weight of the defence of Christiaiiity. The entire field of evidence, as we know, extends over a large body of literature, and fully to estimate its value requires the exercise of a practised judgment. This alone constitutes a decisive reason why, if we can adduce proof of the operation of a superhuman power in Christianity, capable of easy verification in the history of the past and in the facts of the present, we should assign to it the place which the argument from miracles now holds in our ordinary evidential treatises.* 4. The evidential value of miracles operates less strongly on a large number of minds at the present day, because we have not only to prove that those who have reported them honestly believed that they witnessed them; but that they * It lias not been sufSciently observed that evidence which may at some former period have been perfectly satisfactory as proving a divine commission to those to whom it was vouchsafed, may have lost much of its force by lapse of time. It is one thing to witness a miracle, and from it to infer the presence of a divine power, and quite another thing to believe, as the result of carefully balancing a long and complicated mass of historical testimony, that a miracle has been performed at some distant period of time. Besides, as many of the witnesses die without leaving any record of their testimony, the evidence is less powerful to us than it must have been to contemporaries, who had tho entire evidence before them. It follows, therefore, even if it could be proved that miracles formed the chief attestation of Christianity in the Apostolic age, that it is by no means a necessary result of this that they should form its sole and all-commanding attestation eighteen centuries after they have ceased to be performed. Christianity, however, ' possesses this most remarkable characteristic. Precisely in propor- tion as its miracles have diminished in evidential value through lapse of time and the complicated methods thereby rendered necessary to prove their occurrence, the evidence derived from what I have designated its moral miracles becomes stronger and stronger, being testified to alike by the history of the past, and the facts of the present. Christianity is in fact the only religion in the world, the moral evidence of which increases by lapse of time. Contrast with this Mahometanism, the moral evidence of which, if it ever had any, is steadily diminishing. 3 34 THE ORDER OP THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, were at tlie same time not labomnng under any of those mental hallucinations which have unquestionably led persons under their influence to mistake the subjective creations of their own imagination for objective realities. Modern re- search has proved that such phenomena are not uncommon ; and that they have exerted no inconsiderable influence in originating many of the delusions of the pastj which were once assigned to the efiect of deliberate imposture. Not only is it the case that a large number of occurrences have been reported as true, which rational men now refuse to accept as objective facts ; but some of them rest on an attestation far stronger than would be necessary to establish the truth of an ordinary event. In several cases the honesty of the reporters is unquestionable. Consequently the only way of accounting for the belief in them is to assume, that under certain states of mental halhicination, the reality of which has been fully recognized by modern science, they have mistaken impressions purely subjective for external realities. The importance of this is increased, because it is a well ascertained fact that persons are capable of labouring under delusions on joarticular subjects, while in other respects they are mentally sound. This principle has been applied as the explanation of some well attested narratives of miracles in past ages, the honesty of the reporters of which it would be difficult to controvert, but the reality of which it would bo equally difficult to believe. But we need not wander over the asres of the past for examples of well attested miraculous narra- tives. At the present day the recently reported miracles in France, which, while they rest on a very high form of attestation, probably none of us accept as objective realities, are instances in point. Still more so are the phenomena of spiritualism, occurring as they arc alleged to do, in the very midst of us. These latter, as far as mere attestation goes, unquestionably rest on one which is extremely strong. Their reality is affirmed, not only by large numbers of persons of every variety of mental cultivation, but by men ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 35 who have been accustomed to estimate legal evidence, and by some who deservedly hold a high rank in departments of physical science, and cannot but be well acquainted with scientific processes of investigation. As their honesty is unquestionable, and on the supposition that they are not the dupes of fraud,* which in some cases is highly impro- bable, it follows that if the phenomena which they believe themselves to have witnessed are unreal, their belief in them must be owing to their having mistaken subjective im- pressions for external realities. I have selected the case of spiritualism as an illustration, because it is evident that if we view the question as one of attestation pure and simple, banishing all other considerations, some of its phenomena rest on a testimony which is unusually strong. I propose to discriminate between it and the evidence of Our Lord^s resurrection when I discuss the theory of visions in my seventh Lecture. My object in noticing the subject here is to point out the difficulty and complexity which the existence of such beliefs imports into the historical argument, if we view it as a simple question of attestation. It has now therefore become necessary to show, not only that the reporters of miracles believed that they actually witnessed them, but also that it was impossible that, in accordance with the explanations which an eminent scientific authorityf has given of some well-attested spiritualistic phenomena, the belief could have originated in mistaking subjective im- pressions for external realities. It would be absurd to shut our eyes to the fact that the proof of miracles which have occurred in the distant past, if we view the question exclu- sively as one of testimony, is rendered far less convincing to a considerable number of minds by the existence of wide- spread delusions of this description, of which men of un- * I state this on the authority of Dr. Carpenter. While lie attri- butes a large number of these phenomena to fraud, and others to mes- meric influences, he is of opinion that there is a considerable residuum ■which it is impossible to refer to imposture as their cause. t Dr. Carpenter's Mental Physiology. 3 * 36 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, questionable intelligence, and no small amount of scientific eminence, ai'e a prey. Still furtlier : it complicates the entire question by imposing on us the necessity of clearly discriminating between the evidence of the Christian miracles and those which, although they rest on a strong- attestation, we reject as unrealities. These considerations alone furnish the strongest reason why the argument from miracles, as it has been usually stated, should no longer occupy the van of our evidential position, but that it should give place to one which is capable of verification, namely, the superhuman action of Christ in history. 5. Our increased acquaintance with the power of the mind to produce important results by its action on our bodily frames has tended to produce in many a distrust in the evidence of miracles alleged to have been wrought in distant ages, the precise character of which it is now impos- sible to submit to such a rigid scrutiny, as we would any miracles alleged to have been performed at the present day, before admitting their reality. The limits of this power are unknown ; but it is unquestionably extensive and capable of producing results which to ordinary minds would seem miraculous. The eminent physiologist above referred to* has expressed his belief that the stigmata, alleged to have been produced on the bodies of some medieval saints, were realities, and that a purely mental influence is adequate to produce them. On such a point I can only quote his authority ; but it is unquestionable that within certain limitations, the power is a real one, and capable of produc- ing results which in former ages would have been deemed miraculous. This being so, it places a certain class of cures in an ambiguous position, and deprives them of much of their value as evidential miracles. It is clear, however, that while some of the miracles recorded in the New Testa- ment may be referred to influences of this kind, others lie quite beyond the power of any action of the mind on the * " Mental Physiology ^ ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 37 body to have effected. Still it cannot be denied that such phenomena, the belief entertained by large numbers of intelligent men in the phenomena of spiritualism, and other kindred delusions, and the existence of a considerable number of well attested miraculous narratives in the history of the past, the objective reality of which it is impossible to admit, have tended to weaken the force of the argument from miracles, and to increase the difficulty of proof, render- ing it necessary, if the entii'e weight of the Christian argu- ment is to be made to rest on it, clearly to discriminate between the evidence of the one set of miraculous narratives and of the other. The complexity of such an argument is, I think, a sufficient reason why we should place a body of evidence which admits of an easy verification in the fore- front of the Christian position, and assign to that of mu-acles a collateral and subordinate one. By way of illustration of my general position let us sup- pose a well informed missionary, endeavouring to win over to the acceptance of Christianity an intelligent Hindoo Theist, well acquainted with all our modern objections. Is it conceivable that he would begin by placing before him the argument from miracles, as it is set forth in our common evidential treatises ? Ought he not rather to place in the forefront of his reasoning the moral and spiritual aspects of Christianity, assigning the first place to that mighty energy which eighteen centuries of history testify to be centred in the person of its Founder ? To take the former course would not only render it necessaiy for his proposed convert to enter into the discussion of all the a i)riori difficulties with which the question of miracles is attended, but also to undertake an intricate and laborious historical investigation, not only for the purpose of esti- mating the value of the evidence in favour of the Christian miracles but of discriminating between them and the mass of false miracles with which history abounds. To plunge an intelligent heathen into a vast range of inquiries of this description would surely be very unlikely to result 38 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT^ in his speedily embracing the Christian faith. But if the order in which the Christian argument is placed in our common evidential treatises would be an unwise mode of placing the claims of Christianity before an intelligent heathen^ it surely cannot be a right mode of presenting it for the conviction of unbelievers, the confirmation of wavererSj or the strengthening of the Christian in his faith. In making these observations, it is by no means my inten- tion to depreciate the argument from miracles, which I hope to show in subsequent Lectures to possess a real value when assigned to its due place, in proper subordination to that course of reasoning which the exigencies of modern thought imperatively demand. For this purpose, therefore, in conformity with Our Lord^s precept, " to bring out of our treasures things both new and old,'^ I propose in the three following Lectures to state the outlines of the argument which I contend should be placed in the forefront of our evi- dential position. In the next three, I propose to examine the argument for miracles with a view of strengthening those portions of it which the results of modern investigation have shown to be defective. My last Lecture will be devoted to the consideration of the value of existing theories of inspira- tion and the relation in which they stand to modern science. ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 39 SUPPLEMENT I. The position which I have taken, that the essence of Christianity as distinct from its adjuncts, consists not in a mere body of abstract doctrinal statements, or moral pre- cepts, but in the manifestation of Jesus Christ, his teaching and historic life, is so important, whether we view it in its apologetic or in its theological aspect, as to render it desirable to adduce a larger body of proof in support of it than would have been possible to bring forward in the Lecture itself. I have affirmed that the Christian revela- tion is not only made by Jesus Christ, but consists in his person, his actions and his teaching : in other words that he is an actual manifestation of the divine in the sphere of the human, revealing to us the innermost aspect of the moral and spiritual character of God, as far as it can be conceived of by finite intelligence. If this position is correctly taken, it has not only a most important bearing on our evidential position, but on the entire range of Christian theology. On the latter subject however I must not enter ; but confine my observations to the former. If the writings of St. John form a legitimate portion of the New Testament canon, the truth of this position must be considered as firmly established. I will therefore adduce the chief points of the evidence which they supply. The introduction to the first epistle affirms in the most direct terms that the Christian Kevelation is made in the historic life and actions of Jesus Christ ; that this constitutes the truth which underlies the entire letter, and that its subsequent portions were intended to unfold it, and to form a commentary on it. " That which was from the beginning," says he, " which we .40 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT; have heard, which we have seeii with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life ; for the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us. That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us ; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you that your joy may be full.-'^ Nothing can be more explicit than this statement. The following points are either directly affirmed in it, or dedu- cible from it by the strictest rules of logical inference. 1. That the subject on which the author of the Epistle was going to address those to whom he wrote was " con- cerning the Word of life,^^ whom he identified with the historic Jesus. 2. That this " Word of life " was from the beginning, having existed prior to the manifestation of Jesus Christ in history. 3. That this divine life which dwelt in the Logos was manifested to men in the person of Jesus Christ by the Incarnation. 4. That this divine life took so substantial a form that the c^ Apostle had seen it with his eyes, looked upon it, and handled it with his hands. Further, he had had the testi- mony of his ears to the reality of this divine manifestation : for he had listened throughout the period of his ministry to its heavenly utterances. 6. That the actions and teaching of Jesus Christ consti- tuted this divine life of the Logos, which was originally with the Father, and in Jesus Christ became manifested to men. G. That the great end and purpose of his Apostolic ministry was to testify to 'the reality, the facts, and the teachings of this divine manifestation. '^ We have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that eternal life which ^ ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 41 was with the Father^ and was manifested unto us." Now the only mode in which it was possible for the Apostle to "show that eternal life" to others was by furnishing details of the actions and teaching of that person in whom it was exhibited. Consequently, as he affirms that his Apostolic ministry was a bearing witness to it, it must evi- dently have consisted in furnishing to those to whom he minis- tered details of its manifestation, and in commenting on their meaning. From this it follows that the details of this divine life which the Apostle communicated to the Church formed the essence and foundation of the Christianity which he taught. 7. The communication of what he had seen and heard, was capable of imparting to those to whom it was addressed, communion with the Father, with His Son Jesus Christ, and with one another ; in other words, it formed the bond which united the Church together and the basis on which it I'ested. Nothing can be more explicit than these statements. They prove that the Apostolic writer certainly viewed the Chi'istian Eevelation as consisting in tne Incarnation, and the historic manifestation of the divine character and perfections in the life of Jesus Christ. " The life was manifested and we have seen it, and bear witness." This is his fundamental conception of Christianity, which forms a striking contrast to the modern popular conceptions of it which are usually designated "plans of salvation." With statements thus ex- plicit it will be superfluous to adduce further evidence from the Epistle that such were the views of its author, for the entire writing is a commentary on it with the introduction as its text. The concluding words will be sufficient. " We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an under- standing, that we may know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life." Words cannot be more explicit. I now proceed to consider the testimony furnished by the Gospel. Its author makes the following affirmations in the prologue : — " In the beginning was the Word and the Word 42 THE OEDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, was with God and the Word was God. The same was iu the beginning with God. All things were made by Him (ttovto Si avTov lytveTo), and without Him was not any- thing made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not." . . . '' And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father full of grace and truth.^' ..." No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him." The passage here quoted, with its context, makes it certain that the author's conception of what constituted the fundamental essence of Christianity was : First, that all manifestations of the eternal Father were communicated through the divine Logos. Secondly, that He was both the life and the light of men. Thirdly, that He became man in the person of Jesus Christ. Fourthly, that the glory which shone forth in Jesus Christ in the Incarnation was the glory of the only begotten of the Father, of whose perfections, incomprehensible to finite in- telligences. He is the sole and adequate manifestation : or, to put the same thought in other words, Jesus Christ in His liuman manifestation is the objective revelation of the God- head. Fifthly, that this revelation was an objective revelation. The Apostle in his personal intercourse with Jesus Christ had beheld in Him " the glory of the only begotten of the Father,^^ whose life and actions had been the revelation of the Father to meni Such statements can leave no doubt that the writer of this Gospel viewed the essence of the Christian revela- tion as consisting in the person and work of Jesus Christ our Lord, His teaching, His life, death, and resurrection. And not only is this so, but he has represented Our Lord as affirming the same truth in the most decisive lan- guage, of which the following are instances. *' Philip saith ITS EXTENT AND JJMITATION. 43 unto Him, Lord, show us tlie Father and it sufficeth us. Jesus saitli unto liim, have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known Me, Philip ! he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father, and^ how sayest thou. Show us the Father. Believe Me, that I am in the Father and the Father in Me.''— John xiv. 8-11. If these words are a real utterance of Our Lord, nothing can be more conclusive than that He claimed to constitute revelation in His own person. They form a reply to a direct request made by Philip for a revelation of the Father. " Lord show us the Father, and it sufficeth us !" Our Lord in express words affirms that He constituted such a revelation, " He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father." '' From henceforth ye know Him, and have seen Him." " Believest thou not that I am in the Father and the Father in Me." No words could convey a mora direct affirmation that the apostles during their con- verse with Our Lord had beheld in His works and character a perfect revelation of the Father. Again, Jesus stood and cried, " he that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me, but on Him that sent Me, and he that seeth Me, seeth Him that sent Me. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth in Me should not abide in darkness." — John xii. 4-i-46. Again, '' I am the light of the world ; he that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." — John viii. 12. " Then said they unto Him, Where is Thy Father ? Jesus answered. Ye neither know Me, nor my Father, for if ye had known Me, ye should have known my Father also," — viii. 19. "If I do not the works of my Father, believe Me not, but if I do, thotigh ye believe not Me, believe the works, that ye may know and believe that the Father is in Me and I in Him."— (x. 37-38). These passages all affirm the same truth, that the perfec- tions of the Father are manifested in the person of Jesus Christ. He is the revealer of the Father; in fact. He affirms that be that sees Him, sees Him that sent Him ; and that the knowledge of Him is the knowledge of the Father. 44 THE ORDEE OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, In tliis capacity He is tlie liglit of tlie world, and tlie light of life. These assertions, when put together, constitute a most direct affirmation that He is the objective revelation of God. The author of this G-ospel also ascribes to Our Lord a number of other assertions respecting Himself and His relation to the Father, all of which presuppose the same truth, but which it will be unnecessary for me to cite. A similar view runs through the entire writings of St. Paul. The passages which assert that Revelation is made in Christ are exceedingly numerous, and what is greatly to the purpose, the allusions are not only direct but incidental, and made in every variety of form. Of these latter I cite a few examples as showing the extent to which the conception underlies the whole range of the Apostle's thought. ^^God was Ml Christ reconciling the world to Himself," 2 Cor. v. 19. " For of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, wlio of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption, that according as it is written, he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." 1 Cor. i. 30, 31. In ivhovi we have redemption. Epli. i. 7. In wJiom wo have attained an inheritance." i. 11. " The spirit of wisdom and revelation in the hioiuledge of him." i. 1 7. The working of God's mighty power ''is wrought in Christ." i. 30. ''In Christ, ye who sometimes were afar off are made nigh." Eph. ii. 13. "In Him were all things created." Col. i. 16. "In Him should all the fulness {i.e. the fulness of the divine jDerfections), dwell." Col. i. 19. " /;i ?y/i05Ji arc hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Col. ii. 3. " Ye are complete in Him." Col. ii. 10. ^' The grace of our Lord was ex- ceeding abundant with faith and love in Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. i. 14. " Live godly in Christ Jesus." 2 Tim. iii. 12. '^The redemption that is w Christ Jesus." Rom. iii. 24. " The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus." Rom. viii. 2. "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus." Rom. xiv. 14. " The veil is done away in Christ." 2 Cor. iii. 14. " We preach Christ Jesus the Lord." 2 Cor. iv. 5. " The glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 2 Cor. iv. 6. ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 45 All these passages iu various forms affirm that Revelation was given in the person of Jesus Christ ; and their incidental character proves the intense familiarity of the idea to the Apostle^s mind, far more than a number of directly dogma- tical assertions. They exhibit it as directly forming the basis on which his religious life was founded. They are consistent with one idea^ and with one only^ that Revelation was given in his person. Equally important are some of his assertions when speaking of the progressive character of revelation, and of the purposes formed in the divine mind respecting it. These must be considered in greater detail. Thus Ave have the remarkable assertion in Rom. xvi. 25, 26. '' Now to Him who is of power to stablish you according to my Gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret since the world began {Iv ai(jjvioiQ xpovoig, in the eternal ages), but now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.'^ This passage enunciates the following truths : — 1. Revelation is no afterthought of the Divine mind, but a part of His eternal purpose, forming with creation one great harmonious plan. 2. It has been kept secret as a hidden truth {fxvcjTnpiov) in the divine mind during the eternal ages, but has been manifested in the proclamation of Jesus the Messiah [Iv KripvjfxaTi 'IrjcroO Xpiarov). 3. That this revelation is made known to all nations for the obedience of faith ; and is a manifestation of the wisdom of God through Jesus Chi-ist. In conformity with this view the Apostle at the very commencement of the epistle declares that the subject of his writing was '^ concerning Jesus Christ our Lord." In Ephesians iii. 8-11 he makes the following statement: — *^ Whereof (the Gospel) I am made a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me, by the effectual 46 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, working of His power. Unto me who am less than the least of all saints is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world {airo twv aldjvoyv) has been hid in God who created all things by {Iv) Jesus Christ, to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord." Similar assertions occur in chap. i. 8, " Wherein He hath abounded towards us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will according to the good pleasure, which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are in earth, even in Him That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the know- ledge of Him . . . according to the working of His mighty power which He wrought in Christ." These passages are so important in relation to the present argument that I will enunciate in as many distinct proposi- tions the various affirmations which they contain. 1. They affirm that the Revelation made in Jesus Christ formed one of the eternal purposes of the divine mind, coeval with those which produced his work of Creation ; in fact that Creation and Redemption form portions of the same great whole, and that the latter is not a mere remedial measure superinduced in consequence of the failure of the purpose intended by the former. 2. That the Incarnation is the manifestation of this eternal purpose existing in the divine mind. 3. That unsearchable riches both of wisdom and goodness as yet undisclosed in God's creative work, were manifested in the incarnate Christ. 4. That so entirely coeval in the divine purposes are ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 47 Creation and the divine self-manifestation in Christ, that the creative work of God itself was given in Him " Who created all things in Jesus GJirist." 5. That the purpose and effects of the Incarnation are not limited to man, but on the contrary, it is intended to be a manifestation to " the principalities and powers in heavenly places of the manifold wisdom of God.'" 6. The ultimate purpose of the Incarnation is, that God might " in the dispensation of the fulness of the times gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth, in Him." The views thus propounded by the Apostle stand in striking contrast to various schemes of salvation which have become widely diffused by the influence of popular theology, and which profess to give a complete rationale of redemption. Their general theory is that the revelation of God in Jesus Christ is a kind of afterthought in the Divine mind, to remedy the failure of His original creative purpose, occasioned by the Fall ; in fact, a scheme devised for the mending His marred plan of Creation. Still coarser views of the divine plan in redemption have been extensively popular, exhibiting it in the vulgar form of a bargain between two independent parties, each of whom has thereby become bound to perform his part of the contract. The whole has proceeded from the assumption that it is possible accurately to represent the purposes of the Divine mind in the formularies of human thought. Such theories belong to that worst form of rationalism which makes man and his imperfections the accurate measures of the divine purposes and modus ojyerandi, being closely analogous to that which in a lower stage of mental development is the parent of idolatry, and which has invested deity with some of the worst attributes of human nature, representing God as altogether suck a one as our- selves. These assertions of the Apostle as to the extent of the divine purposes in Revelation are of the utmost impor- tance in relation to the subject before us, for nothing has more damaged Christianity with thoughtful men than the 48 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, idea wliicli has been so generally adopted by various forms of popular Christianit}^, tliat these so-called schemes of salva- tion, not only embody the Christianity of the New Testa- ment, but are co-extensive with the divine purpose in Revelation. Assertions of a similar character are made by the Apostle in the Epistle to the Colossians. Thus he writes: '^In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the for- giveness of sins. Who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of every creature {TTfywruroKog TrtKjrjg KTiaautg, the First-born before all creation) ; for in him {Iv (wtw) were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, or jDrincipalities or powers, all things were created by (St avTov, through Him), and for Him {{ig avrov, in reference to Him) ; and He is before all things, and by Him {Iv avTh', in him) all things consist : and He is the head of the body, the Church, who is the beginning {apxV} the principle of things) the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence. For it pleased the Father that in Him should all the fulness dwell ; and having made peace by the blood of His cross, through Him to reconcile all things unto Himself, through Him, whether they are things on earth, or things in heaven. ^^ Col. i. 14-20. Again : " That their hearts might be comforted, being knit together in love unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledging of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. As ye therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him, rooted and built up in him and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man spoil ou through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ, for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and ye are complete in him which is the head of all princi- pality and power." Col. ii. 2-10. ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 49 Tliese passages make it certain that tlie Apostle contem- plated the person of Jesus Christ as the objective revelation of the Godhead. On this point he lays down the following propositions : — 1. That the fulness of the divine perfections abides in the Incarnate person of Jesus Christ our Lord. 2. That He in His incarnate person is the image (eijcwv) of the invisible God. 3. That all creation has been constituted in Him, not only this world, but the entire Universe of Being. 4. That He is the instrumental agent (Si avTov) through whom the creative work has been effected : that it has been formed in reference to Him ; and that He had a prior exist- ence to it. 5. That the same person who has been the source of Creation, the instrument through whom it has been effected, and the purpose towards which it tends, is He through whom the revelations of the Father have been communicated, and who has carried out the great work of Redemption. 6. That through the work of Redemption it is the divine purpose to reconcile all things unto Himself, whether things on earth, or things in heaven. This last assertion proves that according to the views of the Apostle the effects of the Incarnation were not limited to the human race, but would be consummated by uniting to God all things iu heaven and earth. These propositions if accepted as the genuine utterances of the Apostle Paul, fully prove that according to the views entertained by him, the person of Jesus Christ our Lord constitutes the great objective revelation of God, which has manifested forth the divine character during the past and the present, and is destined still further to unfold it in the ages of the future. It is true that the genuineness of the two Epistles which contain the most definite affirma- tions on this point has been disputed by a number of unbe- lieving critics, for which one of the chief reasons is their advanced Christology. But although the statements in the 4 50 THE ORDER OP THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, otlier Epistles are somewhat less definite in form, tlic occa- sion and purpose of writing tliem not having called them forth with the same definiteness, yet there are statements, both in the Epistle to the Romans and those to the Corin- thians, and even to the Galatians, which prove that the Apostle regarded the Christian revelation as centred in the person of our Lord. The reference which I have above made to these Epistles is far more than sufficient to prove that their author entertained the same views as are more formally enunciated in these latter writings. Whether Paul or any one else was the author of the Epistles to Timothy, these likewise contain a strong affirmation of the same truth. " Great," says he, " is the mystery of godliness, God (or who) was manifested in the flesh," If we suppose these Epistles to have been the work of another writer, this would prove the wide acceptance of this view of the essence of Christianity in the Church. I have not yet referred to the opinions of the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, on account of the doubts as to its authorship. It is, however, important, because, if not written by the Apostle, it proves that the Pauline and Johannine views on this subject were accepted by other sec- tions of the Christian Church ; for whoever may have been its author, its early date is unquestionable. For this purpose it will be sufficient to cite the opening of the first chapter : " God, who at sundry times and in divers manners {TroXvfxeptog koX voXvTpoTrwg, implying the imperfec- tions of former revelations) spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir {KXr]pov6fxog) of all things, by whom (Si ov) also he made the worlds (roi'c alwvag s7rot>](T£v, constituted the ages), who being the bright- ness of his glory {uTravyaafia rrig So^rig, the outshining of his glory), and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, having by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the majesty on high.''' This passage is a direct affirmation of the ITS EXTENT AKD LIMITATION. 51 Pauline positions. It declares, first, as distinct from tlie partial manifestations wliicli God made of Himself in former ages in the propliets, that in these last days He has spoken to us in His Son; secondly, that the manifestation in the Son differs from that made in the prophets as the divine differs from the human, He being the inheritor of all things in whom God has constituted the ages ; and thirdly, that the Son, in whom God has made this last revelation, is '' the shining forth of the divine glories," the precise resem- blance of the divine subsistence, the inheritor of all things, tlu'ough whom the divine activities in the former ages have been manifested, and that He is the person through whom God has effected His work of providence and re- demption. The whole passage therefore afiirms, in the most unmistakeable language, that the divine person of Jesus Christ constitutes the objective revelation of God, a view which is consistently carried out through the entire Epistle. It will be superfluous for me to cite passages from the Apocalypse in proof that similar views were entertained by its author, because it is the idea which underlies the entire book, and forms the groundwork of all its visions. Throughout them Jesus Christ is depicted as the only Revealer of the Father. A single instance will be sufiicient. A book containing the divine decrees is represented as seen in the right hand of the Creator of all things. A proclama- tion is made to every creature in heaven and earth to come forward and establish such a claim of worthiness as would entitle him to take possession of the book, and unfold the divine decrees. All creation fails to establish such a claim. But no sooner does the Incarnate Lamb appear than a universal chorus of acclamation from all God^s creatures pronounces Him worthy ; and from henceforth He assumes throughout the whole book, which is the revelation of Jesus Christ, the office of the Eevealer of the Father. The remaining writings of the New Testament, with the exception of the Synoptic Gospels and the Acts of the 4 * 02 THE ORDER OP THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, ApostleSj are very brief. One of tliem, however, the first Epistle of St. Peter, contaius an unquestionable reference to the same truth. " Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed that not unto themselves, but unto us, they did minister the things which are now reported unto you, by them that have preached the Gospel unto you, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, which things the angels desire to look into." (i. 11, 12.) This passage makes the definite affirmation that the angels desire to look into the things " which were reported by those who have preached the Gospel unto you." From this two inferences follow. First, that the Christian revela- tion forms a matter of interest to other beings than men. Secondly, that it consists of a number of objective facts in connection with our Lord's divine person, viz., " The things reported unto you by them that have preached the Gospel unto you, which things the angels desire to look into.''' This last point is in strict agreement with the remaining contents of the Chapter. The Epistle of James, which contains not a single statement which can be viewed as theo- retical, is without any allusion to the subject. We now come to the Acts of the Apostles. Its subject- matter, which is to record the chief incidents in the planting of Christianity, would naturally afford to the writer little opportunity of making definite statements on the point before us. One idea, however, which is closely con- nected with it, runs through the entire book. The writer affirms that the one great subject of the Apostles' preach- ing was, that Jesus was the Christ. Such an affirmation proves that certain historic facts connected with the life of Jesus must have been regarded by them as forming the essence of Christianity. This idea is by the writer iden- tified with Christianity itself. Thus he says of the Apostles ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 53 that they daily, and from house to house, ceased not to teach and to preach Jesus the Christ. The only portions of the New Testament requiring any further observations are the Synoptic Gospels. It will bo objected that this idea is wanting in them and in the Epistle of James ; and consequently that it is not an original, but a subsequent development of Christianity, due to the Johannine and Pauline parties in the Church. To which I reply. First, that although there is only one statement on this subject in the Synoptics, equally formal with that in the fourth Gospel, it is inaccurate to assert that the idea does not underlie them. Both Matthew and Luke record an utterance of our Lord respecting Himself, which approaches very closely to the strongest affirmations of the fourth Gospel. " At that time Jesus answered, and said, I thank thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so. Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto mo of my Father ; and no man knoweth who the Son is but the Father, neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son ; and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him." Into the doctrinal statements of this passage I need not at present enter. It is sufficient for my present purpose that it distinctly affirms that the Son is the one Revealer of the Father ; and that in terms quite as plain as any which we read in the fourth Gospel, or in the Johannine and Pauline epistles, or in the book of the Revelation. With this express statement another trait which under- lies the whole of these Gospels is in strict agreement, and is only explicable on the supposition of the truth of the assertion in question. I allude to the habitual self-assertion of our Lord, and to the fact that He is uniformly depicted as deriving the whole of His teaching from the sole source of His own self-consciousness. When we consider the mild- ness, unobtrusiveness, and humility, which these Gospels 54 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, uniformly attribute to Him, His self-assertion is tlie most striking phenomenon in all history, and if it had been assigned to any other man, however great, it would have been simply extravagant. But it fits in with exquisite harmony with all the other divine aspects of His character, and can only be explained on the principle that he felt within Him the direct self- consciousness of the presence of ) the divine. Hence it was that throughout His teaching He IJ referred to no other authority than His own. As He is uniformly depicted by the Synoptics, His consciousness of the divine was immediate and direct, and He felt within Himself an inherent worthiness before which every merely human tie must yield. This trait which underlies the entire structure of the Synoptics, is not only in strict conformity with the great utterance above referred to, but pre-supposes its truth. I might easily have adduced a far larger mass of evidence on this subject ; but I submit that what I have brought forward is abundantly sufiicient for my purpose, and proves beyond all question that according to the views of the writers of the New Testament, the person and work of Jesus Christ constitute the very centre and essence of Christianity, and that the Christian revelation is made in His divine person. SUPPLEMENT II. A vast amount of confusion has been introduced into the controversy about miracles by the vague use of such terms as '' Nature," " Natural," " Supernatural," " The Order of Nature," " Law," '' Force," &c,, without any attempt to assign to them a definite and consistent meaning. In a controversy of this kind, involving as it must a large number of abstract reasonings, it is of the utmost importance to keep the signification of the chief terms which we employ in it free from ambiguity. These terms, however, have a great variety ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 56 of meaning, and yet they are habitually used as if they were terms of the utmost precision. Webster's Dictionary assigns no less than twelve distinct meanings to the word " Nature/' fourteen to '' Natural/' and twenty-seven to " Law." The Duke of Argyll tells us that even in scientific treatises the term '' law " is used in not less than five different senses, viz. : — First, — When applied simply to an observed order of facts. Secondly, — To that order as involving the action of some force, or forces, of which nothing more can be known. Thirdly, — As applied to individual forces, the measure of whose operation has been more or less clearly defined or ascertained. Fourthly, — As applied to those combinations offerees which have reference to the fulfilment of purpose or the discharge of functions. Fifthly, — ^As applied to abstract conceptions of the mind, not corresponding with any actual phenomena, but deduced therefrom as axioms of thought, necessary to an understand- ing of them. Law in this sense is a reduction of the pheno- mena not merely to an order of facts but to an order of thought. Such are the various senses in which this word is employed even by scientific men ; yet the Duke is not certain that he has enumerated them all. As this term enters as one of the most important factors into the discussion about miracles, we need not wonder that its ambiguity has opened wide the gate for the introduction of a large number of fallacies. Equally ambiguous is the term " Nature " and its com- pounds. As however only two or three of its various signi- fications enter largely into this question, it will be unneces- sary to enumerate the others. First, — The term " Nature " is used to denote the material Universe, its necessary forces and laws. This is a class of phenomena definite and distinct, and if its use were confined to them it would be free from ambiguity. 56 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARQUMENTj But it is also used to denote another class of phenomena, separated from these by the widest interval, viz., man, his intellectual and moral nature, including his volition. Thus phenomena become complicated together under a common term, which differ from one another as widely as freedom and necessity, the material and moral worlds, with the laws which regulate their action. It is even not unfrequently used to include everything which exists. When the same term is indiscriminately used to denote phenomena thus widely differing in character, inaccuracy of reasoning is the inevitable result. But when two terms as ambiguous as '^^ nature'^ and ''law^^ become complicated together, as is necessarily the case in this discussion, the confusion is greatly increased. The whole controversy is chiefly made up of questions respecting the Natural and the Supernatural; whether miracles are the results of a power within, or without nature ; whether they are contrary to the laws of nature, or are violations, or suspensions of them, or are violations of its order; or involve the action of some higher natui'al law; or the introduction of a new force into nature, or whether on these or any other grounds miracles are impossible, irrational, or incredible. This being so, it is evident that if we include under the same terms thing's so widely different in conception as the phenomena of the material and the moral worlds, nothing but hopeless con- fusion of thought can be the result. The whole question in fact turns on the meaning which we attach to the terms " Nature,'' " Natural,'' '' Supernatural," '' Order of Nature," " Force," and '' Law." This last term is constantly used to cover two conceptions which are radically distinct. The first of these is when the word is used to denote an invariable sequence of events. This is unquestionably the more correct meaning to attach to it; and if its use was rigidly limited to it, it would save both theo- logians and men of science no small amount of useless discussion. The term 'Maw" in its primary meaning is only applicable to man and his actions. It denotes a rule TTS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 57 of conduct whicli lie is bound to obey. Hence it has been applied by aualogy to the orderly sequences of events in the Material Universe, which are said to observe a certain law. This simply means, that they occur in an invariable order, which we call the law of their recurrence. But nothins: is more common in this controversy than to speak of the laws of nature as if they possessed an efficient power, or in other words to introduce into the conception of law the idea of causation. Yet nothing can be more certain than that in the proper sense of the term, the laws of nature are incapable of effecting any result whatever. They simply denote the invariable sequences of natural phenomena, and nothing more. They are wholly distinct from the causes of things, and those active energies in the Universe which we desig- nate forces. Its forces are the efficient causes ; its laws, the invariable sequences of the phenomena which result from the action of its forces. Thus the force of gravitation is quite distinct from the law of gravitation. The force is the active energy; the law is the invariable order of phenomena. From this simple and obvious meaning the term '' law" has become complicated with the conception of cause or force, and thus the laws of nature are habitually spoken of even by scientific men as though they were efficient causes, and language is used respecting them which amounts to little short of their personification. This confusion of thought is brought about as follows: — there is a principle in our minds (how it has originated is immaterial to the subject we are now considering) which irresistibly leads us to believe in the continuity of phe- nomena; and that a set of sequences which have invariably occurred in times past, will recur in times future. This principle lies at the foundation of the inductive process, and its validity depends on the assumption of its truth. It has been expressed in various forms, the most simple of which is that which affirms the truth of the principle of the continuity of nature; or that like causes must produce like 58 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT^ effects. For example, we infer because tlie sun has risen every day in times past_, tliat it will rise every day in times future, and we designate the sun's rising and setting for all future time a law of nature. In this way the concep- tion of necessity, causation, or efficiency becomes mixed up with that of law, instead of simply denoting what it really is, a succession of invariable sequences. Hence when a particular class of events is spoken of as a law of nature, the idea of necessity is superadded to that of invariable sequence. Thus it is said to be a law of Nature that all men must die. What does such an affirmation mean ? It affirms as an observed fact that all men have died ; and infers on the principle of continuity that what has taken place in the past, will take place in the future. In consequence of this inference, the proposition becomes altered in form from " all men have died,^' to " all men imist die '/' and thus the conceptions of necessity and causation become con- fused with the simple one of law as an observed order of phenomena. The proposition "■ All men must die " involves several assumptions, among the most important of which is, that the same causes must produce like effects in the future, unless other forces interpose which are capable of modifying their action. In this manner the term " law " has been extensively employed both by theologians and men of science to denote not only a set of invariable sequences of phenomena, but the causes which produce them, and the forces which energize in them. In this way it is that great confusion of thought has been introduced into the controversy about miracles. We are told that the laws of nature have effected this or that result ; that they act with irresistible power, and a multitude of similar expressions are habitually applied to them, whereas the only active energies are, not the laws, but the forces of nature, and the laws by themselves effect nothing. Thus man^s mortality is said to be a law of nature ; i. e. it is an event which has invariably happened in the past, and which on the ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 69 principle of continuity, we infer, will always happen in tlie future. But this law does not cause the death of any one, but certain forces which energize, or which fail to energize within us. Even in the primary sense of the word, law, as a rule of human conduct, can effect nothing; the only things which are efficient are the penalties which attend its violation. What effect this confusion of terms has on the clearness and precision of scientific reasonings it would be presumptuous in me to offer an opinion ; but in discussions about the possibility of miracles, involving, as they do, the most intricate questions of causation and efficiency, the only result of using the term to denote two such fundamentally distinct classes of phenomena is to invite confusion of thought. I will now adduce a few examples of the confusion arising from this indiscriminate use of the term ^^ Nature " in union with that of " law." One of the moot points of this controversy is, whether miracles are contrary to nature, or involve violations, or sus- pensions of its laws, and it has been affirmed that it is essential to the conception of a miracle that it should do so. On the other hand the opponents of Revelation affirm that this renders them absolutely incredible. It is evident however that when such a question is raised, the all-important subject for consideration is, what nature are they alleged to be contrary to, or what are the laws which they violate. Nor is it less important that our conceptions should be clear as to what distinguishes that kind of event which we call a miracle from all other occurrences. What then do we mean by a miracle ? Viewed merely as an occurrence in the physical universe, it is an event of a very unusual character, for which none of its known forces are sufficient to account. If such an event can be proved to have actually occurred, it leaves only two alternatives, either that its existence must have been due to the action of some un- known force which has manifested itself on this special occasion only, or to the energy of a Being who is able 60 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, either to combine the existing forces in the Universe in such a manner as to produce the event in question ; or to effect the same result by calling into existence a new force ; or by the direct agency of his creative will. Viewed merely as an objective occurrence, therefore, there is no difference between a miracle and a very unusual event. The distinction is a creation of the mind, and consists in the fact that the occurrence of the very uncommon event has been subse- quently accounted for by the action of the known forces of the Universe, while the other cannot. Another important factor in the idea of a miracle is that its occurrence is ushered in by a prediction that it is going to happen, and thus it becomes a manifestation of purpose. Theologians however have greatly increased the perplexity of the entire question by introducing into their definition of a miracle some account of the mode of the divine activity by which they suppose it to have been effected. Thus miracles have been defined to be events which involve violations or suspensions of the laws of nature, or are brought about by the action of a higher law of nature on a lower one, or are contrary to nature, or are brought about by the simple energy of God^s creative will. Nothing can be more unwise than to introduce such conceptions into the idea of a mii^acle. It would only be justifiable if we were acquainted with the modus oiicrandi which God would employ in the perform- ance of one. But of this we are from the nature of the case necessarily ignorant. It is impossible for us to have any abstract knowledge whether God would bring such an occurrence about, by a combination of existing forces, or by neutralizing the action of one force by the superior energy of another, or by the direct action of his creative will. This being so, it is hardly possible to pursue a method which can involve us in greater difficulties than to introduce into our definition of a miracle some theory as to God's modus o]}crandi in its performance, since from the nature of the case we must be ignorant of the mode in which He works in the Universe, except as far as ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 61 his action is manifested in its known forces ; and into the higher regions of the divine activity we are utterly unable to penetrate. Yet every consistent theist must hold that God is everywhere present energizing in the forces of nature, directing them and controlling them ; for if there he a God the energies of the Universe must have issued from Himj and be dependent on Him. This being so, it is abso- lutely beyond our power to determine by what instru- mentality He would effect a miracle if it were His pleasure to work one. Next : What is the Nature to which miracles are alleged to be contrary, and what are its laws or its order which they are said to violate ? Do we include within it the material universe, its necessary forces, and the sequences which inevitably re- sult from their activity ; or man, his reason, his free agency ; in a word his intellectual and moral nature ; or even every- thing that exists ? It is evident that the question whether miracles involve violations of the laws or order of nature, or suspensions of the activity of its forces, or the counteraction of one force and the superior energy of another, will entirely depend on the class of phenomena which we include under the term " Nature. '^ If we include in it free agency and its results the view which we take of the relation in which miracles stand to it and to its order will be quite different from what it would be, if we confined it to the material universe and its necessary forces. If man is a part of nature, it is evident that a being exists within it who is capable within certain limits of exerting a control over it. It is unnecessary, in reference to the subject under dis- cussion, to enter into the vexed question of necessity or freedom. All that we need do is to take the facts of con- sciousness as we find them; and it is wholly unnecessary to enter into a discussion about their origin. As a matter of fact, therefore, it is unquestionable that the forces which energize in the material universe are necessary ones; i.e. they are incapable, by any inherent power, of acting otherwise than they do. If nothing external to them interferes with their 62 THE OEDER OP THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, action, tliey will go on to all eternity grinding out tlie same invariable results, mutually acting and counteracting on one another. The never-ending sequences which result from their energy constitute the order of the material universe, which, if it existed alone, would leave no place for such an occurrence as a miracle, which, as I have said, is an event which manifests purpose. But wholly diflPerent is it, if man and the forces which energize in him, form a part of our conception of nature. In that case it becomes certain that a being exists in nature, who is capable of controlling it and modifying its order. It is beyond dispute that man acts on nature, and that the extent and mode of this action is deter- mined, not by the blind action of necessary forces, but by the action of forces which are under the control of intelh- gent volition, and are capable of manifesting purpose. It follows, therefore, that the action of man on nature differs wholly in character from that of the blind forces of the material universe which are incapable of acting other- wise than they do, or by any self-direction, of modifying their results. This being so, nature must be made up of two widely different factors, its blind unintelligent forces, and man, who by his intelligence and volition is capable of controlling those forces for the effectuation of purpose. In this point of view a miracle, as a deviation from the order of the material Universe, can be no more contrary to, or violate nature, than those actions of man which effectuate purpose. It has often been objected that volition is not a force, and is incapable of creating any not already in existence. But for the purpose of this argument it is unnecessary to assume that it either is a force or can create force. One thing respecting it is certain, that it is capable of imparting a direction to, and combining existing forces, and of neutra- lizing the action of one force by the superior energy of another; and thereby it can effectuate results entirely different from those which would have taken place from the uncontrolled action of forces destitute of self-direction. ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 63 It follows, therefore, that man is capable of modifying the order of nature, for it is certain that a wholly different order of events must have taken place, had it not been for his intervention. To this the entire surface of the globe bears witness. Yet every one of the mighty results which man has effected, has been brought about without the suspension of a single force in the universe, or a violation of its laws. It follows, therefore, that whether man be included in Nature, or excluded from it, a being exists who is capable of using its necessary forces for the effectuation of purpose. If we include him, then a being capable of modifying its order exists within it. If, on the other hand, we exclude him from nature, then a being exists outside it who can do the same, without suspending its forces, or interfering with the laws of their activity. From this a further inference is inevitable. What man can do on a limited scale, the Creator of the universe must be able to effect on a much larger one. If man can change the direction of the forces of the universe, combine them, and neutralize one by the superior energy of another in such a way as to effectuate the results of purpose, without suspending them, much more must God be able to do the same for the effectuation of His purposes; since His ability to effectuate the results of purpose without suspending the action of any existing force, or introducing a new one, must be so much the greater as He is mightier and wiser. On the same principles it is no less certain that God can answer prayer, if it be His pleasure to do so, without any such interference with the forces of the universe, as some eminent men of science have affirmed to be necessary, and have, therefore rashly pronounced that the expectation of it is irrational. It may be contrary to His will to answer many prayers which are offered to Him ; but this by no means affects the general principle that He can answer them when it is His pleasure to do so, without throwing the order of the universe into confusion. These observations are not made with the smallest inten- 64 THE ORDER OP THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, tion of affirming anything as to the agency which God must adopt in the performance of a miracle, on the supposition that it is His pleasure to work one ; but for the purpose of guarding against the introduction of needless difficulties into the subject, which cause us to incur the danger of running counter to the truths of science. All that I am desirous of showing is, that the practice which has prevailed of laying down that a miracle must necessarily involve a violation or a suspension of the laws of nature; or that it is effected by the introduction of a higher law to act on a lower, is not only unnecessary, but dangerous; and also that by intro- ducing into our definition of a miracle a number of ambigu- ous terms, it involves us in confusion of thought. Of this we have a remarkable illustration when a miracle is said to consist in the introduction of a higher law of nature to act on a lower law.* The neutralization of the action of one force by the superior energy of another, is a thing which we witness every day. Thus the chemical forces within a certain range neutralize but do not suspend that of gravitation; and the vital forces do the same for the chemical ones; and effisct results wholly different from what would have come to pass from the single action of either of them. This is what man is continually doing, and thus he brings about the results of purpose by skilfully combining tliose forces over which he * " So far from this, the true miracle is a higher and purer nature, coming down out of the world of untroubled harmonies into this world of ours, which so many discords have jarred and disturbed; and bringing them back again, though it is for one mysterious prophetic moment, into harmony with that higher. . . . We should term the miracle, not an infraction of a law, but behold in it a lower law neutralized, and for a time put out of working by a higher; and of this abundant analogous examples are evermore going forward before our eyes. Continually we behold in the world around us, lower laws held in restraint by higher, mechanic by dynamic, chemical by vital ; physical by moral." — Trencli, On Miracles, p. 15. Throughout this whole passage the terms Law and Nature arc used without any definite meaning. ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION, 65 can exercise control. But laws can effectuate nothing. To speak therefore of a miracle as the result of the introduc- tion of a higher law on the sphere of nature, is to use words as counters and not as representatives of realities,* Similar ambiguities result when miracles are said to be violations or suspensions of the laws of nature. The thing probably intended is that they involve suspensions of its forces. Let the question be fairly asked, What laws must a miracle violate, or suspend ? Surely not the invariable sequences which are the result of the energies of its forces, as for instance the law of bodies falling in the proportion of the inverse square under the influence of the force of gravi- tation. Viewed as a set of sequences, there is a sense in which man may be said to produce results contrary to the laws of nature, i.e. of the physical universe, or, to speak more correctly, contrary to the order, which would result from the action of its forces independently of his volition, whenever by a combination of them he brings about an order of events different from that which would have happened without such a combination. This he is accomplishing every day ; and thus he introduces into the Universe an order of events different from that w^hich would have occurred without his intervention. But this is in no proper sense a violation of the order of nature. The laws of nature are consequently no more violated by the performance of a miracle than they are by the activities of man. But it may be objected that a law of nature, viewed as an invariable recurrence of a set of observed phenomena, as for * " The chemical laws which would bring about decay in animal substances still subsist, even when tliey are hemmed in and hindered by the salt which keeps these substances from corruption. The law of siu in a regenerate man is held in continual check by the law of the Spirit o£ Life; yet it is in his members still, not indeed working, for a mightier law has stepped in, and now holds it in check, but stiU there, and ready to work." — Trench, On Miracles, p. 16. Surely such assertions not only confound laws and forces, but almost personify both. 66 THE OEDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, example, that "all men must die," is violated by sucli a miracle as tliat of a resurrection. The whole force of the objection arises from importing into the conception of law that of causal power or force. As far as we use the term to denote a set of phenomena which have been invariable as far as human observation has extended, the effect of the occurrence of a different phenomenon, as for instance, the case of a man^s not dying, would bo to render it inapplicable to the occurrences in question. But the fallacy arises from making law a causal power. The expression " it is a law of nature that all men must die" simply means that there are a set of forces in constant operation which unless their action is counteracted by some other force must cause death. But if some counteracting forces could be brought to bear on raan^s bodily structure by which the action of those forces which result in death could be neutralized, no violation of the laws of nature would be the result. Thus it would be with a resurrection. "What takes place in death ? The cessation of the action of those vital forces (be they what they may) which control and neutralize the action of those chemical forces, which, if unrestrained by the former, would cause the dissolution of the frame ; and which, when death has taken place, effect that dissolution. Without making any affirmation as to the means by which a resur- rection might be effected by God, one thing is clear, that it must involve the reversal of the process of dissolution; or in other words the presence of a power capable of neutralizing the forces which have resulted in death; and the presence of such a vital force as is capable of reconstructing the bodily frame and imparting a renewed activity to its organism. What force or forces may be capable of bringing about such a result, we have no knowledge ; but we know that a force exists which in our ignorance of its true nature we call the vital force, which has built up our bodily frames out of a mere germ. This has been effected without the smallest violation of any law or order of nature, though in the course of its activity it has neutralized the action of ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 67 other forces wliicli would have exerted an opposite influence if left to their unrestrained action. As this process has been effected once without any violation of such order, there is no reason why the might of the Creator should not be able to effect it a second time without any violation of it. Abstractedly we should probably have deemed it impossible to construct a body in the way in which it is actually accom- plished ; it is therefore impossible for us to affirm that the Creator cannot reverse the process without any violation of the forces, laws, or order of nature. There is nothing in the nature of the case more difficult in the effecting of a resurrection than there is in what God has actually accom- phshed — the formation of our present bodies by the combina- tion of theforcesof the universe which He has under his control. Many of the forces by which the first portions of the process have been effected are hidden ones, but they are real, though they cannot be measured by any of our instruments. So may it be with a resurrection. Surely that Being who has built our bodies by means of forces actually existing in the Universe, without once violating its order, if it be His pleasure to do so, can rebuild them without introducing the smallest particle of confusion into His creative work. Ignorant as we are of the mode of the Creator^s working, we can have no possible ground for affirming that the mode of His action in the performance of a miracle must differ from that of His ordinary providence. He must be a bold man who will venture to affirm that we are acquainted with all the forces of the Universe which are under His control, or all the possible combinations of them by which He may work out results in the distant ages of the futm'e very different from man^s narrow experience in the past. It follows therefore that we are only incumbering the question with needless difficulties when we introduce into our conception of a miracle some theory as to the mode of the divine action in its performance. It is clear that there is not the smallest necessity to affirm that the performance of one must involve either a directly creative act 5 * 68 THE ORDER OP THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, of God, or a violation or suspension of tlie action of any law oi* force in nature. I do not mean to affirm that sucli may not have been the mode of the divine working, but that it is wholly unnecessary to assert that it must have been. The only thing necessary to the conception of a miracle is that it should be some manifestation of the divine activity which exhibits special purpose on the part of God, and the only thing necessary for its performance is the active operation or the combination of such forces as are adequate to accom- plish it. As on general grounds the introduction of these questions into the controversy about miracles is unnecessary, so it is without any support whatever from anything which is affirmed respecting them in the Bible. If the sacred writers had made any affirmation as to the mode of the divine action in the performance of miracles we should have been com- pelled to adopt it, and to abide by the consequences of doing so. Whatever difiiculties we encounter on this subject are, however, entirely of our own creation, and cannot possibly be charged on Holy Scripture. I have already observed that as far as the Old Testament is concerned no distinction is made between God as the worker of miracles and God as the active agent in Providence. If a miracle is referred to as a wonder, God^s operations in nature are affirmed to be wonderful ; if as an act of power, still greater displays of might are ascribed to Him in His ordinary Providence ; if it is referred to as a proof of the divine working, so are all the operations of the Universe. " When the waves of the sea arise,^^ says the Psalmist, " thou stillest them.^^ ''In His hands are the deep places of the earth ; the strength of the liills is His also ; the sea is His, and He made it, and His hands prepared the dry land." The writers of the Old Testa- ment were certainly without the smallest idea that God was violating the order of the Universe when He wrought miracles. I am aware that it has been urged that the writers of the Bible did not recognize any order in the Universe at all, but this objection never could have been urged if the most ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION, G9 palpable facts had not been carelessly overlooked.* Nor is the case different with the New Testament. It contains not a single affirmation as to the modus operandi by which a miracle was accomplished, or a hint that it suspended either the forces or laws of the Universe. On the contrary, during the performance of some of Our Lord^s miracles, the intimations that the forces of the Universe were not suspended are suffi- ciently definite. We may take Peter's walking on the water as a crucial example. It has been affirmed that the force of gravitation must have been suspended in his favour. But the narrative affirms the contrary, for the sacred writer tells us that the moment Peter's faith failed him he began to sink, thus proving that the power of gravitation was not suspended for a moment. 'The only thing necessary was the presence of some force capable of neutralizing its action on Peter's body, precisely in the same way as it is constantly neutralized by ourselves whenever we lift a weight from the ground. In whatever way the miracle was performed it is clear that the suspension of the force of gravitation formed no portion of it. Equally gratuitous is the affirmation that the performance of certain miracles must have involved an act of creative power. As far as we have any hints in the New Testa- ment, it is clear that its authoi's did not suppose that the performance of a miracle was attended by an act of creation. Thus in the miracle of turning the water into wine, the wine was not produced in the empty jars, but an express direc- tion was given to fill them first with water, and then the water was converted into wine. Of the mode of effecting it we are not informed ; but there is nothing to imply that the performance of this miracle added one ounce to the weight of the globe. The jars were filled with water, and the water became wine. God slowly produces the grape out of substances already existing, of which water is the chief, by a set of elaborate combinations of the forces * Psalms 19, 33, 104, 111, 139, 148. 70 THE ORDER OF THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT, of the Universe. The grapes are gathered by man, and then subjected by him to the action of another set of forces more or less under his control, and by these are converted into wine. This process we think nothing wonderful, because we habitually witness it. In the case of the miracle He turned the water into wine in some other way, by the use of forces of which we have had no prior experience ; but there is nothing to imply that in this operation He violated or suspended any force or law of the Universe, or created one particle of matter which was not already in existence. I make this last observation because it is this supposed creation of matter in certain miracles, thereby adding to the weight of the globe, which endangers our coming in collision with physical science. The same observations are applicable to the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes. All the materials were at hand, either in the earth, the air, or the water. The ordinary action of God^s Providence makes bread and fish in one way : in a miracle He produces them in another. In the former case we understand some portion of the process, though the remainder is buried in profound darkness. In the latter the whole process is hidden fi'om our view. Another sticking phenomenon in the miracles of the New Testament, pointing to a similar result, is the remarkable economy in the exercise of miraculous power displayed in them. Ordinary means are invariably had recourse to where they are sufiicient to effect the end in view ; and where they are adequate, miracle is never invoked. Thus, in the miracle of the resurrection of Lazarus, the stone is ordered to be removed by human hands j and after the dead man was recalled to life the grave-clothes are directed to be re- moved by the same agency. So again, after the miracle wrought on Jairus^ daughter, Our Lord, who is doscrib3d as having miraculously fed the multitudes, directs the parents to furnish her with food. Whatever was the nature of the divine intervention in these miracles it was clearly limited ITS EXTENT AND LIMITATION. 71 to the smallest possible extent. This economy in the use of miracle forms one of the remarkable characteristics which distinguish those of the New Testament from all other miraculous narratives. In the case of the resm-rection of Lazarus a forger would hardly have been able to refrain from ordering the stone to roll back of itself ; still less would it have occurred to such a person to direct that a child just raised from the dead should be fmmished with a supply of food. But the overwhelming majority of the miracles of the New Testament were wrought not on dead matter but on the living organism of the human body. Of the mode of action of no force which comes under human observation are we more profoundly ignorant than of the vital ones, or of the mode or extent in which mind can act on matter. In this region, therefore, it is quite clear that a Being, who is thoroughly acquainted with the vital forces, and holds them in His hand, can work miracles without any dis- turbance of the forces, laws, or order of nature. In several of the Old Testament miracles the affirmation of the active presence of what have been designated second causes, or in other words the known forces of the Universe, as the means through which they were accomplished, is direct. Thus the mu^acle of the dividing of the Eed Sea, and of the supply of quails, is asserted to have been effected through the agency of a wind blowing in a particular direction. A similar afiirmation is made respecting several of the plagues of Egypt. A similar principle, though less obvious, may be detected in other miracles. All these instances prove that the introduction of a particular theory of the mode of the divine action into the conception of a miracle is entirely uncalled for by anything which is asserted in the pages of the Old or the New Testament. Nor can it be shown to be necessary on any grounds of solid reason. The whole theory that miracles must be contrary to nature, and that their performance must involve violations or suspensions of its laws and forces, arises out of a practical denial that God is everywhere every moment energizing in 72 THE ORDER OP THE CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT. nature ; in fact it involves the assumption that the Universe is a huge machine, outside which the Creator, if there be a Creator at all, exists — a machine which He has once contrived and set in motion, and will go on for ever grinding out results by the never ceasing activity of its forces, without any further exercise of His power. To such a conception of the Universe a miracle becomes a special intervention of the Creator, interrupting the order of its working, and conse- quently an indication of His presence in that from which He had previously retired.* Such a "conception of God differs wholly from the God of the Bible, which contains the only worthy theistic conception of Him, not only as the Creator of the Universe, a skilful mechanist and chemist, but the Father of those beings whom he has created. Christian theism affirms that God is not only a Being who exists inde- pendently of the Universe, but that in Him we live, and move, and exist ; that the earth is the Lord^s and the fulness thereof, the compass of the world and they that dwell therein ; and that all its forces and energies are the mani- festations of His ceaseless activity. What we designate the forces of nature, and miracles, are alike manifestations of God, the latter differing from the former not in the degree of power which they exhibit, nor in the fact that He is more present when He works a miracle than He is in the active energies of those forces in the midst of which we daily live, but in the fact that a miracle is an event fitted to awaken attention by a special manifestation of intelligent purpose, and stamped with the indications of it. As such it consti- tutes a arifiuov, and possesses an evidential value. * Such a view of the Universe (undoubtedly a very popular one at the present day among scientific men) is involved in the conception of a miracle as the effect of the introduction of a higher law. (See Mozley's Bampton Lectures, Lecture VI.) The whole idea involves the confusion between the conceptions of law and force which I have already referred to, as well as the mechanical view of the Universe as a bare machine in which He is not immanent, but to the action of which He stands outside. LECTUEE II. " I am one tliat bear witness of myself, and tlie Father that sent me beareth witness of me." — John viii. 18. At the conclusion of the last Lecture I offered some general considerations for the purpose of showing that the argument from miracles ought to occupy a less prominent place among the evidences of Christianity, than that which has been assigned to it in our modern apologetic works. The proper function which they discharge in relation to the Christian argument is a matter of such deep importance, that before I proceed to deal with the reconstructive portion of it, I must endeavour to estimate their proper value. While doing so, I must ask you to bear in mind the distinc- tion which I have laid down between the word, " Miracle," in its ordinary acceptation as an extraordinary occurrence in the physical Universe, and those manifestations of a super- human power in the moral and spiritual world, which I have designated moral miracles. I shall assume as the foundation of my argument, that it is an established philosophic truth, that the forces which energize in the moral and spiritual world, act in conformity with moral laws no less than those w^hich dominate in the physical Universe with physical ones. As, therefore, an"y event which manifests purpose, for the origin of which the known forces of the physical Universe are unable to account, is a physical miracle ; so an event in the moral Universe, of the origin of which the forces energizing in man can give 74 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OP no explanation^ is a moral miracle; and is, therefore, tlie manifestation of the energetic presence of a superhuman power. The moral miracle possesses this advantage over the physical one in point of evidential value. To those who believe in conformity with the theism of the Bible,* that God is energizing in all the forces of nature, there is some difficulty in laying down a clear line of distinction between , miracles, and remarkable acts of His providential govern- ment, as they are both alike manifestations of a divine energy. (See Supplement I.) On the other hand, those who view the Universe as a piece of self-acting mechanism, are always able to account for the occurrence of an extra- * Whatever may be said for any other species of theism, such as that which contemplates the forces of the Universe as having an objective existence, by the action of which it has been evolved, independently of the immanence in them of the Creator, of whose activity they are the manifestations, as an intellectual necessity, it evidently differs widely from the theism of the Bible. If one thing is more certain than another, it is that the Bible contemplates God as immanent in the forces of nature, and that they are the manifestations of His energies, equally as any miracle recorded in its pages. He has not retired from Creation, but is present energizing in it every moment. This is not only beyond all contradiction the theism of the Old Testament, of which the book of Psalms forms a perpetual witness, but also that of the New. Thus Our Lord not only expressly affirms that His Father works hitherto, and He in imitation of Him ; but he ascribes to His energetic action the rising of the sun, the falling of rain, the beauty of the flowers, the feeding of the animal races, and a providential care over man, even to the extent that a hair does not fall to the ground without His providence. The God of the Bible is not only immanent in the Universe, and energizing in its forces, but its moral governor, and the Father of rational creatures. The God of philosophy is assumed merely as an intellectual necessity. The authors of The Unseen Universe lay down that it is the duty of science to banish God as far as possible into the regions of the unknowable. With them the Universe is a huge machine. The authors of the Bible affirm that it is our duty to recognize in all His creative works the manifestation of the presence and energies of Him who is our Father. JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 75 ordinary event, by assigning it to the action of some force whicli lias never yet come under human observation. But as the long experience of history has made us thoroughly acquainted with the forces which energize in man, an occur-' rence in the moral world which transcends their power to have produced, is a direct proof of the presence of a super- human power. Hitherto the attention of evidential writers has been almost exclusively directed to physical miracles, while the evidence afforded by moral ones has been comparatively neglected. I propose, on the contrary, to appeal to the might with which Jesus Christ has energized in history; to His whole character as it is depicted in the Gospels ; and to the elevation of His teaching above the conditions which, in conformity with the laws of the moral world, were imposed on Him by the environment of thought in the midst of which He was born and educated, as constituting a proof capable of being verified by the most palpable facts of history, of the presence in Christianity of an element which is superhuman. What then is the evidential value of miracles ; and in what relation do they stand to the Christian argument ? In answering this question the obvious course is not to start with a number of a iwiori assumptions, but to ascer- tain what views the writers of the New Testament have pro- pounded on the subject. Have they in fact made any affirmations respecting the functions of miracles in connection with Christianity, and if so, what are they ? Nothing can be more absurd than to claim for them an evidential value which was unknown to those who actually performed them. Many modern writers have affirmed that miracles con- stitute the sole evidences of a revelation, and that there are truths in Christianity which would be utterly incredible unless they were thus confirmed. The question, therefore, becomes one of supreme importance — Are such opinions as to the functions of miracles borne out by the contents of the New Testament ? Above all what are the grounds on 76 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OF which Our Lord himself rested his claims to a divine Mission ? I will answer this latter question lirst. It is clear that Our Lord did not rest his claim to be the Christy nor to the acceptance of his teaching as authoritative and divine, exclusively on the miracles which he performed.^ Of this the text is one out of many direct affirmations, " I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." In this passage a marked distinction is laid down between his own testimony and that of his Father to the truth of his divine mission. In what did that distinction consist ? His own testimony must have been his self-evidencing divine character; the testimony of his Father, the miracles that he performed. No other distinction is possible. The same truth is brought out in another passage. " If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not, but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works, that ye may see and believe that the Father is in me, and I in Him'' (John iv. 37, 38). These words are important, because they are addressed by Our Lord to his opponents, and therefore they throw a clear light on my position. Our Lord affirmed that they ought to have believed in him on his own testimony, i.e. on the evidence afforded by his moral and spiritual character, and his entire working, which he addressed to the depths of the human spirit. If however they were incapable of appreciating this, then he appeals to his miraculous works, yet not as mere wonders or energies of power, but to their entire moral environment ; nor even to them as simply evidencing a divine commission, but to their special character as proving his direct union with the Father, as he himself puts it, ^Hliat ye may see and believe that the Father is in me and I in him." Secondly : the account of the interview between Our Lord and Nicodemus proves that the latter, even from his own low standpoint, did not view miracles alone apart from their attending circumstances as sufficient proofs of a divine commission. " Rabbi," says he, " we know that thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do these miracles JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 77 that tliou doest except God be with him." Such words imply that, in the opinion of the speaker, a certain class of miracles could be wrought without the intervention of God. We are not told how he discriminated between the one class and the other, but there can be little doubt that it must have been by their moral impress. The Divine Speaker, however, rests the acceptance of His testimony on higher grounds than the attestation of miracles wrought for the purpose of confirming the truth of his assertions. " We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen, and ye receive not our witness." He then proceeds in the remainder of the discourse to make a number of affirmations respecting His own divine character, which the whole con- text makes it clear that Nicodemus must have heard with profound astonishment, yet He not only works no miracle to prove the truth of His affirmations, but does not make any allusion to them as distinct from his general super- human working. Here it is important that I should draw attention to the term by which Our Lord throughout this Gospel designates His miracles. They are His ivorks {epya). By the use of such a term it is clear that He did not view them as a class of actions standing by themselves, but as portions of His divine working. His working included not only His miracles but His entire divine life. His actions, and His teaching. It is a remarkable fact that this nse of the word tpya is almost peculiar to Our Lord, proving that He viewed His miracles, not as standing in a class by themselves, but as constituting a portion of the manifestation of the divine which dwelt within Him. The sacred writers, when they refer to miracles, usually designate them as '' signs " (crrjjUfTa), less frequently, '^mighty works" {^vv a fxng), and ''wonders^' (TtpaTo). But Our Lord Himself never uses these terms except when He is stating the views of others respecting them ; as when He addressed the nobleman of Capernaum, " Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe." 78 THE SUPEEHUMAN ACTION OP Thirdly : tlie following utterances^ even if they stood alone, would afford strong proof that Our Lord considered that He had higher evidences of His divine character than that which could be afforded by mere objective miracles, and that He appealed to these latter only when the others failed. Thus He says to the Jews, '' Though ye believe not me, believe the works/' But His ^^ works'' are meant to include His whole superhuman working, of which His miracles formed a remarkable portion, and were stamped with the moral perfection of His character. Thus " The works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works which I do bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me," must embrace the whole of that divine work which He came to accomplish. A similar view is propounded in His prayer of intercession, '^I have glorified thee on the earth ; I have finished the work that thou gavest me to do," a work which is subsequently defined as consisting in the manifes- tation of His Father. So likewise in the declaration made to the disciples, '' My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work." The working of Our Lord, in short, included the whole of His divine life and actions, in which those who witnessed it^ beheld ^' the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." Such a manifestation must necessarily have been self- evidential. Fourthly : The entire discourse recorded in the eighth chapter definitely affirms that Our Lord laid claim to a higher class of evidence than that of mere objective miracles con- templated as '^ mighty acts " or '' wonders " in proof of His superhuman claims. This chapter is particularly impor- tant as bearing on the present question, because throughout it Our Lord is reasoning with His opponents. It will be suf- ficient to cite the following passage : — '' And because I tell you the truth ye believe me not. Which of you convinceth me of sin ? and if I say the truth why do ye not believe me ? He that is of God heareth God's words. Ye therefore hear them not because ye are not of God." JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 79 The entire reasoning tlirougliout this chapter is made to turn on Our Lord^s self-evidencing character. It is most remarkable that throughout the whole argument Our Lord never once refers to a miracle either in its character of a mighty work, a wonder, or even a sign. On the contrary. He rests His claim to be believed in His complete and abso- lute sinlessness. '' Which if 3^ou convinceth me of sin?^' says He, " and if I say the truth why do ye not believe me ? " The perfection of his holiness, as he affirms, constituted the great proof that his teaching was worthy of all acceptation. His testimony was in fact that of an eye-witness who could not fail to know the truth of the things which He uttered by the directness of his intercommunion with Grod,and his perfect sinlessness was the guarantee of the truthof his assertions. '' I speak,^^ says He, " what I have seen with my Father, and ye do what ye have seen with your Father.^' But further : it is worthy of particular notice that immediately after making these declarations. He proceeds to make one of the strongest affirmations of His divine character which is to be found in the Gospels — '' Before Abraham was I am.^^ Ac- cording to the views which have been entertained by many on this subject. Our Lord ought to have performed one of His greatest miracles in confirmation of the truth of so astound- ing a statement, as being the only thing which could give it credibility, yet throughout the whole discourse He never once alludes to His miracles, which He surely would have done if He had regarded them as the sole or even the chief guarantee of His veracity. Fifthly : Another striking proof that Our Lord uniformly appealed to the self-evidencing power manifesting itself in His person is contained in His last discourse. The apostle Philip makes a definite request that He would afford them a visible manifestation of the Father, and declares that if He would do so it would be sufficient for their complete con- viction. What is Our Lord's reply ? " Have I been so long time with you, and yet has thou not known me, Philip ? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father, and how sayest 80 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OF thou, Show us the Father ? Believcst thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me ? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself, but the Father who dwclleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me ; or else believe me for the works' sake.'' Such an affirmation, even if it stood alone, would prove conclusively that the evidence afforded by the presence of the divine in Our Lord's person and working ought to occupy a very prominent place in the Christian argument. But further : Our Lord affirmed that He was the light of the world. This is equivalent to the assertion that His person and work were self-evidential; or in other words, as the best proof that the sun is shining is to turn and behold its beams, so the strongest evidence of the existence of the spiritual Sun is the light which He emits. A pretender to be the light of the world, who emits no radiance, is self-convicted of being an impostor. Sixthly : Although no such explicit affirmations are to be found in the Synoptics, they afford abundant confirmations of the same view. They fully concur with St. John that whenever Our Lord's opponents challenged Him to work a miracle as a proof of His divine mission, He vmiformly refused to do so. This seems inexplicable, if He viewed them as constituting its sole and only proof. But they inform us of the further fact, that He was deeply grieved when this demand was made on Him ; that He declared that it was an evil and adulterous generation that sought after a sign of this description ; and that the only sign which He would afford them would be the sign of the prophet Jonas, i.e. His own death and resurrection. It seems incredible that persons who have attributed to Our Lord utterances of this description could have held the views laid down in some of our modern evidential treatises that miracles form the exclusive attestation of a divine mission. Neither the Synoptics nor St. John have once repre- sented Our Lord as performing miracles for the purpose of proving the truth of any doctrine or moral precept uttered JESUS CHRIST IN HISTOKY. 81 by Him. Whenever tliey mention His motive at all for per- forming tliem^ tliey nearly uniformly ascribe it to His divine compassion, or to its being an answer to a prayer for help. The only exceptions are, when Our Lord cured the paralytic in proof that He had power on earth to forgive sins ; and when He wrought several miracles in reply to the message sent Him by John the Baptist, "Art thou he that should come, or look we for another ?" In his reply, he directed the messengers to report the miracles they had seen and heard, as proofs of His Messianic character.* To these may be added the miracle of the Resurrection of Lazarus, which is directly stated to have been wrought that the people which stood by might believe that the Father had sent Him. But so far were Our Lord^s miracles from being performed with the direct purpose of proving either doctrines, precepts, or even His divine mission, that in no inconsiderable number of cases. He strictly charged those whom He healed to keep * St. Luke's account is as follows : — " When the men were come unto Hm, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee saying, Art thou he that should come, or look we for another ? And the same hour he cured many of their infirmities, and plagues, and of evil spirits, and unto many that were blind, he gave sight. Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard ; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the Gospel is preached. And blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me" (Luke vii. 20-23). The miracles wrought on this occasion were evidently wrought for an evidential purpose ; but they were not merely performed as proofs of a divine commission, but as works which were suitable for the Messiah to perform as part of His divine character. As such, several of them are directly attributed to the Messiah in the Old Testament Scriptures. It should be observed that among them, the preaching the Gospel to the poor holds an equal rank with those occurrences which we commonly designate as miracles, a reference which not only points out the fulfilment of the prediction of the prophet, but draws attention to their moral aspect. Besides, the miracles in question are all works of healing — not wonders wrought in the physical imiverse — being manifestations of the divine goodness which dwelt in Our Lord ; and as such, proofs of His Messianic character. G 82 THE SUPEEHUMAN ACTION OP the miracle secret. It is simply impossible tliat such miracles could have been wrought for directly evidential purposes, though all miracles, as portions of His divine working, and as manifestations of the superhuman power which dwelt within Him, were evidential in the sense so often referred to in St. John's gospel. In this point of view, they form at the same time portions of the Revelation, and of its evidence. Such then are Our Lord's affirmations on this subject. They prove beyond contradiction that He considered His own divine character and working self- evidential ; and that it formed a higher attestation to His divine mission than miracles viewed as mere wonders and mighty deeds. Also that the right view to take of the miracles which He per- formed is, not that they are merely marvellous acts of power, displayed in the physical Universe, but essential portions of His divine working, entirely in harmony with it, and stamped with the same moral impress. Viewed in this aspect, the perfection of His divine character and working constitutes His witness to Himself ; and His miracles, bearing the impress of the same character, the testimony of the Father to His Divine Mission. The self-evidencing power of Our Lord's divine person and working occupies a very prominent place in the Apostolic Epistles. 1. The affirmations made by St. John on this point in his first Epistle and in the prologue to his Gospel are con- clusive. I have fully examined them in a supplement to the first Lecture, and, therefore, I need not adduce them here. It will be sufficient to observe that they affirm in the clearest manner that the highest form of Christian evidence consists in the manifestation of the divine, made in the person of Jesus Christ. This is in fact the burden of the entire Epistle. 2. St. Paul's mode of placing the claims of Christianity to be accepted as a divine revelation is precisely similar. With his Epistles in our hands it is impossible to doubt that the Apostle viewed the moral and spiritual power residing JESUS CHEIST IN HISTORY. 83 in the person of Jesus Christ as the all commanding evidence of His Divine Mission. He again and again declares that this had formed the very centre and essence of his teaching ; and he appeals to those to whom he wi'ote as witnesses of the mighty effects which it had wrought in them. That teaching which had been mighty to lay deep the foundation of the Christian Churchy and had manifested the energetic power of which they were the monuments, might be summed up in two pregnant sentences — Christ, the power of God, and Christ, the wisdom of God. They make it clear that the Apostle was not in the habit of appealing to miracles as the sole or even the most con- elusive evidence of Christianity. In fact, he has never once appealed to them in this light, neither in the Epistles themselves nor in his discourses as recorded in the Acts. With him the great evidential miracle of Christianity is the Resurrection ; his references to other miracles wrought by Our Lord are indirect, and only three, or at most four times has he referred to any as having been wrought by himself. These he viewed not as proofs of his divine commission but as manifestations of a divine power residing in Jesus Christ, and, as such, proofs of His Resui-rection. Numerous and profound as are his doctrinal statements, and vehement as was the opposition of his opponents to certain aspects of the Gospel which he preached, it never once occurred to him to work a miracle in vindication of their truth. It is clear, therefore, that he could not have regarded miracles as the necessary confirmations of his doctrines. Portions of the Acts afford on this point strong confirma- tory evidence. In dealing with Jews and Proselytes, he is uniformly described as endeavomnng to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, not by working mu^acles in their synagogues, but by reasonings drawn from the Old Testament Scriptures. When he addressed heathen auditories, his first efforts were directed to prove the Unity and Fatherhood of God, and he concludes by referring to the Resurrection as a proof that God would render to men hereafter a righteous retribution 6 * 84 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OF according to their deeds. He describes his own teaching as having consisted of two tilings, repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, but nowhere does he intimate that miracles formed the groundwork or the chief support of his arguments. This is rendered the more remarkable because the historian tells us that he wrought miracles at Cyprus, at Lystra, at Philippi, and at Ephesus ; yet neither in his discourses recorded in the Acts nor in his Epistles addressed to these latter Churches does he make a single allusion to them. One miracle, and one only, is habitually appealed to by him, the Resurrection of Our Lord. 3. It will be only necessary to notice one further affirma- tion made by the writers of the New Testament on this sub- ject, the remarkable one which is contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Having spoken of the revelation made of the perfections of God in Our Lord's divine person the author says, " How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him, God also bearing them witness {(jwhuifxapTvpovvTOQ rov Qtov, God also bearing a joint and additional testimony) with signs, and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to His own will.'' — Heb. ii. 3, 4. Here the enumeration of miracles is complete in all the various aspects in which they are presented to us in the New Testament, Respecting them the author makes the following affirmations : — 1 . That the great salvation spoken of in the first chapter was announced by Our Lord. 2. That it was confirmed by the testimony of eye-witnesses of the facts. 3. That the various classes of miracles which took place in the Apostolic Church formed a conjoint and additional testi- mony to its truth, the miracles not standing by them- selves but forming a portion of the same divine workino- {avvtTri/iafjTVfwvvTog tov Qtov). In conformity with this, several of the miracles recorded in the Acts of the Apostles JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 85 are stated to have been wrouglit in proof of tlie Resurrection of Our Lord. As sucli they are affirmed to be manifesta- tions of His living energy rather than proofs of His Divine Mission. A few further brief remarks will bo necessary, as to the nature of some of the other miraculous occurrences recorded in the New Testament. 1. A considerable number of these, while they are manifestations of a superhuman power, were CCTtainly not performed for directly evidential purposes. Some of them were providential, as the liberation of St. Peter from prison. Others were answers to the prayer of faith, as the cures mentioned by St. James, which were effected by prayer, and by anointing the sick with oil in the name of the Lord.* These evidently partook of a semi-miraculous character, and were only evidential as being manifestations of the presence of the divine Spirit abiding in the Church. 2. Two other cases of miraculous occurrences men- tioned in the history are of a very peculiar character; I allude to the cures said to have been wrought by the passing of Peter's shadow; and by garments which, during his abode at Ephesus, were brought from St. Paul's person, and applied to the sick. It seems impossible to regard these as intended for evidential purposes. The historian describes the latter as occurrences of a very unusual kind. The manifestation seems to have taken place at Ephesus alone, a city which was especially addicted to the practice of Magic. This latter circumstance must have deprived them, in * The passage in St. James is as follows : — " Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the Church ; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick ; and the Lord shall raise him up ; and if he hath committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." — James v. 14, 15. The cure is here expressly described as being an answer to prayer ; and it is implied that it would be gradually effected. Consequently it is impossible to appeal to it as an evidential miracle, since it forms no attestation to a Divine Mission. 86 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OP the eyes of the heathen inhabitants, of any value as proofs of a divine commission. All that they could have proved, would have been the presence of some kind of superhuman agency, similar to those in which they already believed ; but they could have had no means of identifying it with that of the only God. But although they could not have been in our modern sense of the word evidential miracles, there was a very important purpose which these, and others which are mentioned in the New Testament, were fitted to subserve, viz. that of arresting attention, and procuring a hearing for the Christian missionary. This purpose has been far too generally overlooked in this controversy. The difficulty which the primitive missionary must have encountered in obtaining a hearing for his message must have been extreme. He was a member of a despised race, and consequently subject to all the disadvantages attending one who belongs to an inferior civilization, when he sets himself up as a teacher of those who consider themselves his superiors. Even our modern missionary finds a difficulty in commanding the attention of his hearers, though he goes armed with all the appliances of a higher civilization, and the advantage of being a member of a dominant race. But if the primitive believers had some of those miraculous endowments which are referred to in the New Testament, such as the gifts of healing, the difiiculty in question would have been greatly obviated. Such seems to have been the character of St. Paul's cure of the cripple at Derbe. To the heathen inhabitants it evidently had no evidential value, as they attributed it to a visit from their own gods. Bat it served a valuable purpose in procuring their attention to the teaching of two despised Jews. Such also seems to have been the purpose of many of the manifestations of superhuman power in the early Church. 3. To this class belong those numerous superhuman endowments which are described with considerable detail in JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 87 the Epistles to the Corintliiaiis and repeatedly referred to elsewhere in the New Testament as possessed by large numbers of the primitive believers. They are uniformly represented as being the fulfilment of the promises of supernatural assistance which were made by Our Lord to His followers^ to quahfy them for the work of laying deep the foundations of His Church'. But with two exceptions, they differ wholly from what we now designate evidential miracles. These gifts^ according to the enumera- tion of St. Paul, were nine in number, two of which only conferred miraculous powers ; and the remaining seven, as many distinct mental endowments. The purpose of these latter was evidently providential, conferring a supernatural enlightenment within their special spheres of activity. As such they were fitted to supply the defects in the character and training of the primitive converts, taken, as large numbers of them were, from the lower strata of society, thereby qualifying them for the arduous work of setting up the Church as a visible community in the world, for which their natural powers would have been utterly unfit.* The precise distinction between the two miraculous gifts it is now impossible to determine ; but we shall not greatly err, if we suppose that one of them, xopt^^i""''" la/xarwv, was the gift mentioned by St. James, and conferred on the missionary those powers which were necessary for commanding the attention of heathen audiences, just as in modern times * Tlie following is the complete list of tliem-.— 1. The word of wisdom. 2. The word of knowledge. 3. The gift of faith. 4. Gifts of healing, x«P'<^/*«''« innaTix)v. 5. The working of miracles, tripy))- Hara dvvafitojv. 6. The gift of prophecy. 7. That of discerning of spirits. 8. Divers kinds of tongues. 9. Interpretation. The con- clusion of the chapter contains a second list of the same gifts, viewed as qualifications for special offices in the Church. Their order is as follows:—!. Apostles. 2. Prophets. 3. Teachers. 4. Miracles. 5. Gifts of healing. 6. Helps. 7. Governments. 8. Diversities of tongues. 9. Interpretation. I shall consider the nature and evi- dential value of these supernatural endowments more at length in the Sixth Lecture. oo THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OP the uniou of the functions of missionary and physician is found so influential a mode of procuring attention among uncultivated people. These gifts are viniformly represented as proofs of the energetic action of Christ in the Church ; and the results of His resurrection and ascension into heaven ; but they are never appealed to as evidential miracles^ from which they differed in their entire conception. Such are the afhrmatious of the New Testament on this subject. From which I draw the following conclusions. Firstj that Our Lord's divine person is self-evidential ; and that the various manifestations of the divine which have been exhibited in Him, whether they are recorded in the New Testament, or subsequently manifested in history, con- stitute the highest evidence that He came forth from God ; and therefore that they ought to be placed in the front of the Christian argument. Secondly, that the evidential value of miracles, viewed merely as objective facts in the physical universe, is subor- dinate to this, and in estimating it, it is necessary to take into account the moral impress which they bear. Thirdly, that while all miracles, as being manifestations of the divine on the sphere of the human, have an indirectly evidential value, a considerable number of those wrought by Our Lord were not performed for the purposes of proof ; but stand in the same relation to Him as ordinary actions do to other men. Fourthly, while several of the apostolic miracles were wrought for the express purpose of proving to those who witnessed them the truth of Our Lord's resurrection, and of His Messianic character consequent thereon, a very con- siderable number of them were wrought for merely pro- vidential purposes, and consequently were only indirectly evidential. Fifthly, that the great evidential miracle of Christianity is the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which, if it can be proved to have been an objective fact, will carry all the other miracles in the Gospels along with it. JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 89 Having determined what is the relative importance of these evidences it will now be my duty to lay before you a sketch of the line of argument which the exigencies of modern thought require us to place in the front of the Christian position. We have seen that the great difficulty with which the argument from miracles is attended is the intricacy of the proof by which it is necessary to establish their occurrence, and the difficulties which have been suggested with respect to portions of that proof. The question^ therefore^ becomes of the highest importance. Is there any other species of evidence which will lead us to the same result by a less circuitous route ? The whole course of modern thought has produced in the minds of men an urgent demand that our beliefs should be based on facts which admit of some species of verification ; and a conviction that long processes of reasoning, which are incapable of being submitted to such a test, are unreliable. This being so, the method which I propose to pursue in this inquiry is one which is in strict conformity with the principles of the inductive philosophy. I shall inquire, therefore, whether we can dis- cover either in the history of the past or in the facts of the present anything in Christianity which manifests the action of a superhuman power, and whether it is possible for those facts connected with it, the truth of which is beyond dispute, to be accounted for as the mere result of the forces that energize in man. I shall base my reasonings only on facts which are either verifiable in the history of the past or of which we have present experience. In drawing inferences fi'om them I shall assume such only to be valid as are in conformity with the reahties of human nature and the past experience of history. This mode of inquiry is strictly analogous to that by which our discoveries in physical science have been effected. In fact it involves the application of the inductive method of investigation to the facts and phenomena of Christianity, a method which is strictly in conformity with 90 THE SUPEEHUMAN ACTION OP the requirements of modern thought. I shall therefore directly put the question, Do the known forces which energize in man give any rational account of the might with which Jesus Christ has energized in history ? If not. His action in history must be the manifestation of a super- human power. If we can discern distinct manifestations of a superhuman power energizing in Christianity it will form a far more decisive proof of its being a divine revelation than the long and intricate argument from miracles. My argument is founded on the principles of common sense. If Christianity is divine we ought to be able to dis- cern in it the clear indications of the operation of a super- human power. If Jesus Christ really was what the writings of St. John and St. Paul affirm Him to have been surely we ought to be able to discover in Him the action and presence of forces different from those which operate in ordinary humanity. If He is the light of the world that light must be visible to those who seek for it. If He is a living power energizing in the Church, its Governor and Head, indica- tions must exist of that life and energy ; or to put the same idea in other words, the action of Jesus Christ in history ought to have been different from that of all other men however great. If a divine attractiveness dwells within Him He ought to manifest such a power of attracting the human heart as has been manifested by none other beside Him. If Jesus Christ was a manifestation of the divine on the sphere of the human, then His entire work and teaching ought to manifest a breadth and depth which has been possessed by no other man — one which is absolutely unique — in fact His entire character, and not merely those actions which are commonly called miraculous, ought to be instinct with the presence of the divine. The great question, therefore, for us to consider is. Are any such manifestations of the divine discoverable in con- nection with Jesus Christ ? On these and similar points the evidence is of no doubtful character. Present facts, no less than the unquestionable testimony of history, prove that He JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 91 stands on an elevation, ■whicli, among the sons o£ men, is solitary and alone. But if He be the one man who has no peer. His solitary greatness must be due to some cause different from those forces which have produced not only ordinary men, but all great men ; for a unique effect must have a corresponding cause. If so, He must have been a manifestation of the superhuman. My argument briefly stated will stand thus : — As an event manifesting purpose for which the action of the forces of the Material Universe is unable to account, is a physical miracle, and proves the presence of a power different from those forces, so an event in the moral and spiritual worlds, for which the forces that energize in man are unable to account, must be a moral miracle, and must prove the presence of a superhuman power. I claim on behalf of Jesus Christ, that His character and action in history constitute a mani- festation of such a power, the presence of which admits of an actual verification in the history of the past and the facts of the present. If it be objected to this line of reasoning, that we are not sufiiciently acquainted with those forces that energize in man, and the laws of their action, to determine when an event is a moral miracle; and that man may possess within him a number of latent powers of which we have as yet no knowledge, my reply is, that our experience of them lies over an historical period of not less than three thousand years, during which they have had ample opportunity of manifesting themselves and proving what they can accomplish. If, therefore, Jesus Christ was the result of their activity, it is clear that dm'ing this long interval of time they must have produced other men at least approaching to His greatness. Fm'ther, if I can establish the fact that Jesus Christ has acted on history with an energy which is absolutely unique, the proof of the miraculous actions attributed to Him in the Gospels will be rendered easy, for it would be far more improbable that such a person did not manifest a super- 92 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OP human power in the Material Universe^ than that he performed the miracles in question. In other words, the « priori difficulties attending them will disappear, and their occurrence can be proved by the evidence which is valid to establish the ordinary facts of history. Such is my argument. My inquiry, therefore, must be directed to ascertain the following points : — What is there in Christianity, and in its action on history, which distinguishes it from every other system which man has invented in the past or in the present ? Is there anything in it which stands out absolutely unique? Surely, if Christianity contains a manifestation of the superhuman, this is where we ought to be able to discover unequivocal traces of its presence. To this question there is only one possible answer — that it stands out in marked contrast to every other human institution, in that its entire system, its inner life, and its sole principle of cohesion is based on the personal history of its Founder. I ask your deep attention to this most remarkable fact. The inner life of Christianity, as I have shown, consists not in a body of moral precepts, or of dogmas, or in a ritual, or a system of philosophy, but in a personal history. To thijr the entire history of man presents nothing parallel. Take a careful survey of its wide range. He has originated religions without number ; and every form of political and social institution; but the inner life of not one of them is based on the personal history of its founder. Not to speak of other religions of inferior importance, three great religions, ex- clusive of Christianity, now existing in the world, probably number among their votaries between seven and eight hun- dred millions of the human family ; Braminism, Buddhism and Mahomedanism. Two of these have known founders, whose memory is held in deep reverence by their votaries. Yet the essential principle of each consists in a body of dog- matic teaching, and not in a personal history. As systems of religion, the personal history of their founders might be removed out of them, and leave their fundamental principles intact. The same is true of every other religion which has JESUS CHKIST IN HISTORY. 93 existed in the past^ or still exists in the present. But to take away the person of the Founder of Christianity out o£ His religion would be its destruction. Its doctrines and its precepts would lose all cohesion; tlie key-stone would be removed from its arch, and its wbole superstructure would collapse. If we take a survey of the various philosophical systems and political and social institutions that have ever existed, we shall arrive at the same result. Individuals may have founded them; but that is all. Their vitality and cohesion have never been based on their own personal histories. A common agreement in a number of dos^matic statements has formed the bond of union among all the philosophic sects which have ever existed in the ancient or the modern world. The last thing which would have occurred to the leaders of ancient thought would have been to found their systems on their own persons. So it has been with every political and social institution. A common end or purpose, not a personal history, has constituted the principle of their inner life. But, further, although Christianity has set the example of basing itself as a religion, and the Church as a society, on a personal history, it has never yet found a successful imitator. A vast number of sects have sprung up within the Church, but the bond which has imparted to them unity and vitality, has been a doctrinal one, and never the events of an historic life. Here then we are in the presence of a fact which is absolutely unique in the history of man. It is needless to attempt to prove that the supreme attractiveness of the person of the Founder of Christianity has imparted to the Church the whole of its vitality. To this fact all history bears witness. Nor is its testimony less certain that of all the influences that have been exerted in this earth, that of Jesus has been the most potent. Enume- rate all the great men who have ever existed, whether they be kings, conquerors, statesmen, patriots, poets, philosophers, or men of science ; and their influence for good will be 94 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OF found to have been as nothing compared with that which has been exerted by Jesus Christ. Why is this ? He alone of the sons of men possesses in himself a power of divine attractiveness which can penetrate to the depths of the human heart, and exercise there a mighty moral and spiri- tual power. What has He accomplished ? He who was in outward form a Galilean peasant, who died a malefactor's death, has founded a spiritual empire which has endured for eighteen centuries of time, and which, despite the vaticinations of unbelievers, shows no signs of decrepitude. Commencing with the smallest beginnings. His empire now embraces all the progressive races of men. Those by whom it has not been accepted are in a state of stagnation and decay. It is the only one which is adapted to every state of civilization. It differs from all other states and commu- nities in that it is founded neither on force nor self-interest, but on persuasion, and the supreme attractiveness of the character of its Founder.* The holiest of men have bowed before Him with the supremest reverence ; and have accepted Him as a king who is entitled to reign by right of inherent worthiness, and with the greater eagerness in proportion to their holiness. Such are indisputable facts of history. Even unbelievers are not unwilling to yield to Him the highest place in their pantheon of great men among the benefactors of mankind. But this by no means satisfies the requirements of the case. * I fully admit that force has been employed in the propagation of Christianity by some of its zealous but mistaken adherents. Two facts must, however, be borne in mind respecting it. First, — That this did not take place until several centuries after it had attained a firm footing in the world, when Mahomedanism had set the evil example of propagating religion by the sword. Secondly, — That its use is in direct opposition both to the letter and the spirit of the New Testament, which not only repudiates every form of violence for its propagation, but directly affirms that the kingdom of Jesus Christ is based only on persuasion. It is also an unquestionable fact that the influence of force in the propagation of Christianity h|^been really very inconsiderable. * JESUS CHRIST IN HISTOEY. 95 • History affirms tliat Jesus has not only been a great man among great men, or even the greatest of tliem, but that He stands at an immeasurable height above them, as their Lord, before whom it is becoming that the greatest of them should bow down. He is the one only catholic man, the one ideal of humanity, for whose presence in and action on history none of the known forces that energize in the moral and spiritual worlds can account. What is the necessary infe- rence from this ? I answer, that as those forces which have energized in man from the day of His appearance on this earth have failed to produce His fellow, we must be in the presence of a moral miracle. It is all important that we should observe in what this mighty influence, or in other words, this supreme greatness of Jesus consists : It is not the mere result of either His doctrinal, or His moral teaching, nor is it simply because His human life constitutes an embodiment of the morality which he taught. Nor is it the mere result of intellectual superiority, nor of all the causes combined which by their united action make a great man in the ordinary acceptation of the term. The mighty influence of Jesus is founded on that divine life which runs through His entire character, as it is depicted by the Evangelists — not merely in those actions which we designate miracles — but in every portion of it. This attractiveness culminates in one aspect of it — the perfection of self-sacrifice manifested in His life, fol- lowed by the divinest exhibition of love displayed in His voluntary death. This is it which distinguishes the great- ness of Jesus from that of all other men, and constitutes the secret of His power. Wonderful is that great utterance of His, if we view it merely as a prediction : '' I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.^^ Who would have believed in the possibility of its accom- plishment, even if we accept the date which unbelievers have assigned to the composition of the fourth Gospel as that of its utterance ? What human foresight could have anticipated the fact that the crucifixion of a Galilean peasant 96 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OF would prove the most attractive influence which has been exerted on the heart of man during all the ages of the future ? If this portion of the divine delineation was removed from the portraiture of the Jesus of the Gospels, it would exert no more influence than that of other men who have been good and great. The testimony of history to the solitary grandeur, and to the might of the influence which has been exerted by Jesus Christ, is indisputable. I cannot better state the facts which it discloses than in the words of an historian, who does not accept Christianity as a Divine Revelation, and whose par- tiality as a witness cannot be suspected. Mr. Lecky, in the second volume of his History of Moralitij from Augustus to Charlemagne, writes as follows: — '^It was reserved for Christianity to present to the world an ideal character, which, through all the changes of eighteen centuries has filled the hearts of men with an impassioned love, and has shown itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, temperaments, and conditions ; has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the highest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence that it may be truly said that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind than all the dis- quisitions of philosophers, and than all the exhortations of moralists. This has indeed been the well-spring of what- ever has been best and purest in the Christian life. Amid all the sins and failings, amid all the priestcraft, the perse- cution, and fanaticism which have defaced the Church, it has preserved in the character and example of its Founder an enduring principle of regeneration " (vol. ii., p. 8.) This passage will, I think, be admitted even by un- believers to be a correct statement of the facts as they are presented to us by history. They all admit of the most certain verification. Jesus Christ has certainly exerted an influence such as is here described by the historian, and he is the only one of the sons of men wlio has done so. The only thing which can admit of discussion is — What is the JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 97 legitimate deduction from the facts ? Are they consistent with the theory that Christianity has originated in nothing but the action of those forces which for three thousand years of unquestionable history, and for an indefinite period which is semi-historical, have been energizing in man's intel- lectual, moral, and spiritual being-, and have produced the results which we behold in his past developments ? Or do they testify to the presence and energy of a superhuman power ? The long course of history has furnished us with abundant materials for forming an accurate judgment as to what the forces which energize in human nature are capable of accomplishing. It is in vain to plead that we are here dealing with a number of unknown quantities. We know that the forces of the moral and spiritual worlds do not work at hap-hazard, but in a definite order. Here, no less than in the physical Universe, like causes must produce like effects, and different results cannot flow from the same cause. It follows, therefore, if the character of Jesus Christ and his action in history are separated by a profound interval from that of every other man, if He stands at an elevation im- measurably higher than the greatest, the wisest, and the best of men, if His influence for good not only transcends that of single great men, but of all great men united, it is utterly unphilosophical to afiirm that He was the simple product of those forces that energize in humanity; on the contrary, the diSference in the eflect proves a difference in the cause which has produced it. If He were their simple product, how, I ask, has it come to pass that they have produced only this one great perfect man, this single ideal of human nature, and then ceased from their activity for evermore ? Such a question urgently demands solution, if our beliefs are to be grounded on rational conviction. The diff'erence in the results proves that the causes which produced them must have been different ; in other words, that the greatness of Jesus Christ and His action on history cannot have been due to those forces which have produced other great men, but are manifestations of the energy of a superhuman power. 7 98 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OF This couclusioii will become more clearly established if I examine each fact as it has been stated by the historian, and place before yon separately and conjointly the inferences which they justify. 1. "It has been reserved for Christianity/' says Mr. Lecky, " to present to the world an ideal character, which, through all the changes of eighteen centuries, has filled the hearts of men with an impassioned love.'' This character, I need not say, is that of Jesus Christ, as it is depicted in the Gospels. Whether it be the creation of the imagination or an historical reality, space will not allow me to discuss in this place. I have done so in another work.* My present argument is unaffected by the question whether it be an ideal or an actual one. The great fact will remain the same, that during eighteen centuries it has inspired the hearts of men with an impassioned love, and that its power to accom- plish this shows no signs of diminution. The statement before me contains two distinct affirmations. First : The character of Jesus Christ has accomplished this result. Secondly : that it is the only one in the history of man which has succeeded in doing so. These two affirmations, as matters of fact, rest on evidence which is so plainly written on the pages of history as to render a formal proof unne- cessary. Whence, I ask, has come this power of inspiring the hearts of men with an impassioned love, which has been exhibited by Jesus Christ for a period of more than eighteen centuries after the termination of his earthly life ? Why have not other great men exerted a similarly attractive power? If they have not done so to the fall extent, why have they not at least made some approaches towards it ? Great men have existed in abundance ; and not a few of them have been great benefactors of mankind, and to the utmost of their powers have laboured to do them good. But where is the great man, Jesus Christ * The Jesus of the Evangelists, JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 99 alone excepted^ wlio has for eighteen centuries after the termination of his earthly life been capable of exciting in the hearts of men an impassioned love ? Who among them has called forth a self-sacrificing devotion of heart and life ? The memory of other great men we respect and reverence ; but not one of them inspires us with impassioned love. Take a careful survey of the entire history of the past. Does Socrates^ or Plato^ or Aristotle ? does Zoroaster, or Conf uciuSj or Sakyamuni ? does Mahomet, does even the venerable Howard ? Who among the sons of men who have ever existed has kindled towards himself a self-sacri- ficing love in the smallest degree analogous to that which has been aroused towards Jesus Christ ? Even if we assume the character of Jesus to be an ideal creation, the argument is no less cogent. Where is the ideal creation which has exerted this singular power ? The interval which separates the earliest of poets from the greatest of living ones is very wide, and contains many illustrious names ; yet poetic genius has been unable to create a character which could similarly inspire the hearts of men, and thereby act mightily on man's moral and spiritual being for eighteen centuries, and afford the promise of continuing to act mightily for ever. Jesus Christ alone has exerted such a power. What then is the inference ? I answer that we must be in the presence of the superhuman. 2. The next fact mentioned by the historian is, that this influence has not been merely temporary or local, but has acted on all ages, nations, temperaments and conditions of men ; in one word, it has been as wide as humanity itself. The truth of this will not be far to seek ; for it is every- where stamped on the pages of history. The European, the Asiatic, the African, the aboriginal American, the native of the Polynesian Isles, notwithstanding that these races exhibit the widest divergency of intellect and character, have alike confessed its power. It has surmounted every peculiarity of temperament and of race. Men of the pro- foundest intellect have been penetrated by it; men of the 7 * 100 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OP greatest moral elevation liave been raised still higher by its influences ; it has touched a chord in the hearts of the un- civiHzed and the savage ; yes^ its influence has burst the trammels imposed by nationality, intellectual and moral training, and social condition. It speaks to man as man. Is it true then that Jesus Christ is the one solitary cha- racter known to history who has exerted this influence ? We have had no lack of great men during the ages of the past ; great conquerors, great philosophers and great poets — great men of various orders and degrees — who have possessed a wide range of intellectual vision ; and I may add, many of whom have been animated by an earnest desire to benefit their fellows according to the light that was in them. But every one of them has been national or local, only partially able to break through the con- ditions imposed upon them by their birth and their moral and intellectual environment. Not one of them has been capable of speaking to all races, nations, temperaments, and conditions of mankind. No genius is perhaps more catholic than that of Shakespeare; yet compared with Jesus it is narrow. Its influence too is the influence of intellect, not of character. We may feel admii^ation for it ; but to whom is the character divinely attractive ? Who is impelled to self-sacrifice by the love of Shakespeare ? Whom does it elevate to holiness ? Whom has it rescued from moral degradation ? None can speak to the universal heart of man but Jesus Christ. What then is the inference ? I answer, that a power must have manifested itself in Him which has burst through those ])ands by which the greatest of men are chained fast to that spiritual, moral, and intellectual environment in the midst of which they have been born and educated. If He is thus the only really catholic man, it proves the presence in Him of something which exists in no other man. Ho must be super- human. Is it, I ask, believable that the very ideal of huma- nity has been produced and developed in the midst of the atmosphere of Jewish narrowness and exclusiveness, through JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 101 the sole agency of those forces by which the moral and intellectual character of mankind is generated and pro- duced ? To assert its possibility is to deny the reign of law in the moral and spiritual worlds. Thistles cannot produce figs, nor brambles grapes. 3. The next fact mentioned by the historian is, that Jesus is " the highest pattern of virtue" that has ever been exhi- bited among mankind ; in fact, the only one who can be propounded as an actual embodiment of holiness. This iaas been admitted by numbers of unbelievers. Mr. Mill concurs with Mr. Lecky. To these it would be easy to add a whole chorus of assenting voices. Mr. Mill goes so far as to affirm that even in these modern days the rational sceptic would do well to make Him the subject of imitation, and to live such a life as would meet with His approbation. Nay more, he treats with absolute scorn the idea which has so frequently been thrown out by opponents, that the perfec- tion of the character can have been due to the inventions of His followers, or of the early Christians, whose whole sphere of thought was immeasurably beneath Him. The perfection of the moral character of Jesus therefore is an indisputable fact, which remains unassailed by the minute criticisms of an inconsiderable number of objectors. What the Baptist said of himself is still true of the holiest of men. They are not worthy to unloose the latchet of His sandals. But if this be so, the question demands solution, how can we account for the moral perfection of Jesus Christ? To say that it is due to His exalted genius is simply to confess our inability to account for it. Why, I ask, is it that this exalted genius has appeared only once among men, if it is nothing more than the offspring of the forces which energize in the production of men ? Has nature expended all her powers in His pi'oduction ; and retired ever since wearied with her work. But if one fact respecting man is more certain than another, it is this — characters of commanding moral eleva- tion do not emerge from a hotbed of narrowness, bigotry, and fanaticism. All that great men under such circum- 102 THE SUl'KRHUMAN ACTION OV stances cau effect is to raise themselves to a moderate height above their surroundings. Yet Jesus was by birth a Jew ; and His entire surroundings were those o£ Jewish thought and feeling such as prevailed during the century which pre- ceded and that which followed the Advent^ and respecting the character of which history gives ample evidence. Far more might we expect the forces of nature to develop by their unassisted power a venerable Howard out of one born and educated in the moral and spiritual atmosphere of a society of Kaffirs or of Bushmen_, than that the perfection of the character of Jesus could be the natural outcome of the condition of Jewish thought during that period of time. 4. But the historian tells us that Jesus Christ has not only been the highest example of virtvie^ but the highest incentive to its practice. Here then we are in the presence of a fact^ which^ if true, is of the profoundest significance. Multitudes of men have in different degrees been patterns, though not perfect patterns, of virtue ; but the whole course of history presents us with only one character who has been set up as the great motive and incentive to its practice ; or, in other words, who constitutes in his person and history a great moral and spiritvial power. This person is Jesus Christ our Lord. Some of the great teachers of religion and morality have, with various degrees of modesty, and frequently with the deepest misgivings, ventured to pro- pound their example for the imitation of their followers ; but the idea of propounding a teacher as the highest incen- tive to the practice of holiness, or, in other words, as the mightiest moral and spii'itual power that can be brought to bear on man, is to be found in Christianity alouc. The fact is, there is no other character known to history, real or fictitious, with respect to wdiom this would have been possible except Jesus Christ. The idea is one which is absolutely unique. Let it be observed that to propound a man as an example of virtue, and to propound him as an incentive to its prac- tice, are two things fundamentally distinct. All good men may be used as patterns of virtue in proportion to the JESUS ClIKIST IN HISTOKY. lOo degree of their lioliuess^ and the elevation of their characters. There is also a very subordinate sense in which they may bo said to be incentives to its practice, if their example is capable of exciting in others a spirit of emulation either to rival or to excel it. But such a power is very limited, nor is it in this sense that Jesus Christ is an incentive to holi- ness ; for no man has yet been found presumptuous enough to think that he can rival or excel the holiness of Jesus. They can also exhort us, urge on us the motives to virtue ; in a word, preach to us. But this is all that can be accom- plished by even the holiest and the best of men. Why is this ? The answer is evident. A power which is capable of acting as an incentive to holiness, must be one that is capable of energizing on man's moral and spiritual being. It must be a power capable of exerting an attractive influence ; one which can bind the conscience, profoundly stir the emotions and the affections, call into activity all that is good in them, and enable the higher portions of human nature to triumph over those which are meaner and baser. Now there is nothing in an ordinary man, however holy, which can effect this. If done at all, it can only be by the exhibition of an attractiveness capable of seizing on some affection of our moral being ; and of a right which is self-assertive to rule the conscience, and make him in whom it dwells the centre of moral and spiritual obligation. Such a power implies worship, adoration, love. Our moral nature, unless debased, refuses to bow before a fellow-man, however holy. If therefore one can act on another as a power capable of impelling him to virtue, in the sense in which Jesus Christ is an incentive to holiness, it can only be by right of a superhuman superiority residing within him. Many men have inspired devotion within the sphere of their influence, as has been done by great generals both in ancient and modern times ; but it is impossible to produce any man known to history, however great, who has acted as a motive to holiness. Yet that Jesus Christ is thus presented in the New Testa- ment is apparent from the most casual perusal of its pages. 104 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OF Nor is this merely accidental to its teacliiug, but of tlic very essence of it. The Synoptic Gospels^ which have been represented as depicting Him in a less divine aspect^ repre- sent Him as claiming a right to supersede every tie which binds man to man in favour of Himself ; and as grounding that claim on His own inherent worthiness, even to the extent of demanding unlimited sacrifice of self as due to Him. His whole deportment as depicted in these Gospels is that of one who feels that He has an inherent right to reign ; and the fourth Gospel and the Apostolic epistles do little more than unfold the idea which runs through the discourses of the Synoptics. It is impossible therefore to affirm that the idea of representing Jesus as the centre of obligation, is an aftergrowth on Christianity. Every record which we possess proves that it formed part of its primary and original concep- tion : yet the originality of the idea is startling, for it is the one solitary attempt to do so known to history. But further : since it has been made, it has not had a single imitator. The question of fact therefore becomes one of the highest importance. Has the attempt proved a success ? Has Jesus Christ energized in history as the mightiest of moral and spiritual powers ? Is the evidence clearly legible on its pages ? Further, I ask, is it, or is it not a fact, that He is the mightiest incentive to holiness, and self sacrifice which is energizing at the present hour ? There can be no doubt what must be the answer. To remove the action of Jesus Christ out of the history of the last eighteen cen- turies would be to reduce it to a blank. Whether his character, as depicted in the Gospels, be an ideal or an historical one, does not in any way affect the fact that its energy has been mighty, and that this one solitary attempt to exhibit a character as the highest incentive to virtue and holiness, has proved a great success. I will state the answer of history in the words of Mr. Lecky. " The brief record of three short years of active life, has done more to regenerate and soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers, and than all the exhortations of moralists." JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 105 Who with the history of the past iu his hands can doubt the truth of this statement ? Jesus Christ has stamped His impress on the entire range of modern civilization ^ its modes of thought^ its legislation, its social customs, and its morality. If we survey the efforts that have been made for the amelioration of mankind, and the self-sacrifice by which these efforts have been carried out, it is not too much to say, that nine-tenths of it — it would probably be more correct to affirm, that ninety-nine hundredths of it — have been called forth by attachment to Him, and by this alone. I ask you specially to observe, that this result has not been due to the mere teaching of Jesus, great as its influ- ence has been. It has been the result of a personal influence, seated in the record of a life. To this the entire history of Christendom bears witness. This alone has made Him capable of acting as a power, mighty to inspire devotion, love, and adoration. Apart from this, His doc- trines and His moral teaching would have exerted as little infl.uence as those of the philosophers and moralists, for what mankind stand in urgent need of is, not wise precepts for the regulation of life, but a moral and spiritual power, capable of making obedience to it an actuality. Nor is His unique power seated in a mere fond reminiscence of departed worth which perishes after a lapse of time ; but in self- sacrifice rendered to one who is capable of recognizing that sacrifice which He has Himself evoked. And, I ask, is He not energizing at this moment ? Although we cannot see Him with our eyes, we can verify His present power in the facts of daily experience. The noble army of self-sacrificers in the Christian Church may be counted by hundreds of thousands. Wherever Christianity exists,' its rank and file may be found.* Let us put the * It is worthy of remark that this is the case even iu the most degraded forms of Christianity, and has been so in every age. The divine rays which issue from the person of its Founder succeed in penetrating those mists of darkness and superstition which have brooded over the Church. AUhough these have grievously obscured 106 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OF question to tliem. What is impelling you to your self-denying exertions ? They will answer with unanimous voice. We are constrained by the love of Jesus Christ, and His divine attractiveness — His self-sacrifice for us impels us to sacrifice ourselves for Him. This is a fact which each of us may verify for himself, and it is unique in the history of man. These modern times have set up a phantom called the reli- gion of humanity, whose great moral principle is altruism, or the sacrifice of self to the idea of human nature, i.e., the sum total of men and women who have existed in the past, or will exist in the future— a mere caricature of Chris- tianity. But it is powerless ! Where is its army of self- sacrificers ? It stamps on the ground, but no legions appear at its bidding. All that its adherents have yet succeeded in accomplishing is to draw largely on the bank of hope. It follows therefore, inasmuch as the idea of making an individual the centre of a great moral and spiritual power is unique in the history of man, and when tried in the person of Jesus Christ, the only being known to history in whom the expei'iment was possible, has as a matter of unquestionable fact, exerted a mightier influence for good than all philosophers and moralists united, that the power thus manifested in Him must be superhuman. 5. One more fact is noticed by the historian — While the Christian Church, like all other societies which have ever existed, has been infected and defaced by various corrup- tions, it differs from every other in that it possesses in the character and example of its Founder au ever-enduring prin- ciple of regeneration. Here again the facts of history are indubitable. The Church has been frequently overlaid by superstition ; she has sanctioned practices which her Founder expressly fer- tile light, they have uever been able to extinguish it. The reason of this is, that the person of Our Lord is so essential to Christianity, that even its most degraded forms cannot wholly destroy His personal influence; and wherever the bright lineaments of His character dis- close themselves they are necessarily an influence for good. JKSUS CHRIST ]N HISTORY. 107 bade : slie has, terrible to say, unsbeathed the sword, which He expressly enjoined her to put up into its scabbard. All this is true : and its truth only increases the inarvellousness of the fact which the historian brings to our notice, that she has ever found in the person of her Founder an enduring- principle of regeneration. There is a depth of meaning in the person and teaching of Jesus Christ, which has trans- cended the actual Christianity of every age — something in fact, which soars high above the discordant Babel of her sects. It has been the universal law of human institu- tions that their corruptions have resulted in their slow and gradual dissolution. Hence empires have passed away ; institutions have become effete ; religions have become corrupt. But a principle of ever-renewing vitality has been seated in the bosom of Chinstianity ; and the effect of the unveiling of the person of its Founder before the eyes of men, just as He has been depicted by the Evangelists, free from the false lineaments in which He has been enshrouded by human folly, and human sin, ever has been, and ever will be, the source of a new life to the Church which He has founded. In this respect the Church of Christ differs from every merely human institution. Finally : let me ask you to observe that each of these manifestations of a superhuman power shiuiug forth in Jesus Christ, do not stand by themselves solitary and alone. Even if they did, their evidential value would be great. But the whole of this evidence, (and it is only some of the most striking portions of it which I have adduced) possesses a cumulative force. I ask you fully to estimate the weight of the whole of it taken together, centring as it does in the person of Jesus Christ. From Him issues, not a single ray of divine light, but a mass of rays all converging in a common focus. Before the brightness of the light which He emits, all other illuminations grow dim, like the stars in the presence of the sun ; all other activities are feebleness. There are only two alternatives before us. I will simply state them, and leave it to yourselves to choose which is the 108 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OF most pliilosopliical auJ rational ; Jesus Christ must Le cither the manifestation of a superhuman power, or of the ordinary forces which act in man, which have energized only this once in His production, and then ceased from their activity for evermore. There is, I am aware, one other alternative which unbelief propounds, hut which space prevents me from discussing liere. It is that the Jesus of the Gospels is an ideal cha- racter, devoid of historical reality. What does this mean ? Its meaning, stripped of all disguises is, that the mightiest power which for eighteen centui'ies has energized for good, nay more, which at this moment is the cause of nearly every institution for good which exists in Europe, is based on a delusion. This theory, when examined in its details and tested by philosophy and fact, hopelessly breaks down. It will be sufficient here to say, that until it can be shown that some such shadowy creation has exerted a«miglitier influence for good during the ages of the past than the most strenuous exertions of the wisest and the best have been able to accomplish, the objection is dashed in pieces against the facts of history and the realities of human life. But this alternative which unbelief propounds — the only one which it is able to propound — is terrible to contemplate. If it be true, human life is a delusion. It means this, and nothing less : — If the Jesus of the Gospels is an ideal crea- tion, and not an historical reality, then a phantom and a shadow has been the centre of a mightier power, and has exerted a mightier influence for good, than all the realities which have ever existed. Good and wise men have struggled hard, but the results of their combined efforts have been as nothing compared with those which have been accomplished by this unreal creation of a number of distem- pered brains. If this bo so, one thing is true, and one only — that man is walking in a vain shadow and disquieting himself in vain. Why then struggle for truth? for delu- sions are mightier than realities. Let us therefore take refuge in delusions, for their influence for good has been JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 109 greater than all the self-sacrifice of tlie wisest and the best of men. This is the alternative which unbelief presents to us ; and I say it is an alternative terrible to contemplate. If so, all is vanity : the pi'csent life is a dream ; the life to come a blank; and man's only hope — shall I not rather say, his best hope — to be speedily swallowed up in that eternal silence, out of which he has come, to which he is hastening", and from which there will be no awakening. This is the prospect we are asked to accept in exchange for our Christianity and our belief in that God who is the mer- ciful Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and whose dominion endureth through- out all ages ; in whose presence there is fulness of joy, and at whose right hand there must be pleasures for evermore. SUPPLEMENT I. The question of the evidential value of miracles as neces- sary proofs of a revelation is in some degree complicated with that of special providences and answers to prayer. Professor Mozley allows that these are unseen miracles, only differing from actual ones in that their manifestation of special purpose is more or less imperfect. It is obvious that if a miracle be viewed simply as an occurrence in the phj'sical Universe, it is impossible clearly to distinguish it from a special providence, because both alike involve such an inter- ference with the order of nature, that a different order of events must have taken place but for the fact of such inter- ference. The idea of a special providence is that the order of events has been diverted for a special purpose, and a new order of sequences introduced, which otherwise would not have existed. I use this language because it is the best that I can employ, although it is unquestionably inaccurate, since the very affirmation that God interferes with the order of the Universe in acts of his special providence amounts 110 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OF almost to a denial that He is always energizing in the produc- tion of its usual order ; or in other words, that those events which are designated special providences are the effects of God^s action in the Universe^ while ordinary providences are not. Having thus pointed out the inaccuracy of the term, I may proceed to use it in its ordinary acceptation. If special providences and miracles are alike interferences with the order of the Universe, they can only be brought about by some modification in the action of its forces ; for the order of nature is nothing else than the sequences which are the results of their activity. In this respect special providences and miracles are alike ; and only distinguishable from one another, as far as the one may be a more clear manifestation of purpose than the other. It follows therefore that the evidential value of a miracle as an attestation to a revelation is diminished in proportion to the difficulty of discriminating between the special purpose involved in a miracle, and that which^is manifested in what is called an act of God's special providence : for it is clear that if the same event could subserve two purposes, it could no longer be the distinguishing mark of either. But a distinction maybe laid down between a miracle and a special providence, if the word " miracle'^ is used only to denote such occurrences as are preceded by a prediction that they are going to happen. Such a prediction would make the purpose of the event apparent as centring in a particular person, and thus constitute a special attestation to him. But here the question becomes complicated with events which are brought about as answers to prayer ; and hence the difficulty of discriminating between them and miracles. A special answer to a special prayer, if the petition be for something other than the exertion of an influence on the mind, although the answer may be brought about through the agency of the existing forces of the Universe, necessarily involves some special modification of their action, because the supposition pre-supposcs an order of events introduced in answer to the prayer different from JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 1 1 1 tliat which would have happened if the petition had not been oflPered. But the event occurring in answer to a petition is almost as clear a manifestation of purpose as an event occurring after a prediction that it is going to happen, which we call a miracle. Both the one and the other cause the event to point to a particular person ; in the one case, to the person who offers the petition and obtains the answer ; and in the other, to the person who uttered the prediction on which the miracle followed as the result. In each case it would constitute an attestation to that particular indi- vidual, showing that the order of nature has been changed in his favour. Several of the Scriptural miracles are in fact described as answers to prayer ; and this increases the difficulty of clearly discriminating between palpable answers to prayer, and what are usually called evidential miracles. One distinction between them has been laid down, that to constitute an event an evidential miracle, it must be brought about instantaneously ; whereas an answer to prayer may be a slow and gradual operation. I doubt, however, whether the distinction is one of real importance, because a series of definite and unquestionable answers to prayer occurring to the same person would be as clear a manifesta- tion of purpose in reference to that individual as any miracle could be, and would prove that God marked him out for His special favour by deviating from His usual course of action at his request. A series of such answers would constitute such a special divine intervention as the Scriptures desig- nate a sign {(jrifxeiov). It is true that in some of the Scrip- ture miracles which are described as taking place in answer to prayer, a special command was given that the event should happen after the prayer had been offered, though this is not always the case, as in the resurrections wrought by Elijah and Elisha; and, in fact, many of their other miracles were unaccompanied by a prediction. It is difficult to see how a seines of such answers can be distinguished as to their evidential value from a miracle. This difficulty is increased when n. person professes to ] 1 2 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OF have been favoured with a long series of answers, all of which are brought about in favour of a particular institution. It is difficult to see how such do not constitute a direct divine attestation in its behalf. I cannot better illustrate my meaning than by referring to the well-known case of Mr. Mliller's Orphan Asylum at Bristol. This institution has been in existence for a considerable number of j^ears, and is one which from a small beginning has grown to very large dimensions. Its founder believes that it owes its support exclusively to the influence of faith and prayer. He disclaims the use of those means by which other reli- gious societies are supported ; he makes none of the usual appeals for funds, holds no public meetings, inserts no adver- tisements, and refuses to employ any organization for the purpose of obtaining pecuniaiy support. On the contrary, when funds are wanted, prayer is offered for them ; and they are believed to come in consequence ; and he affirms that this has never failed to supply them in their greatest straits. But further ; not only does Mr. Miiller believe that this has supplied him with all the necessary funds for the sup- port of his establishment, but he narrates a considerable number of occurrences as having taken place in answer to his prayers, involving not mere influences exerted on the mind, but direct interferences with the order of nature ; as, to adduce a single example, the change of a north wind into a south wind, when in consequence of the failure of his warming apparatus, and the difficulty of repairing it, the children were in danger of suffering from cold. Taking the whole series of these events, and supposing them to have been brought about in the manner in which Mr. Miiller believes them to have been, as definite answers to no less definite prayers, they constitute as distinct a divine attesta- tion to the Orphan Asylum as could be given by any series of miracles. I have cited the Orphan Asylum as a crucial example, because it is so remarkable an institution as to have attracted JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 113 the attention of unbelievers. Mr. Wallace, who has some claims to be called the originator of the Darwinian theory of evolution, has referred to it in his work on Spiritualism, as a proof of the reality of spiritual influences. He pronounces a just condemnation on Sir W. Thomson's and Professor Tyndall's proposal to bring answers to prayer to an experi- mental test, by separating off two hospitals, one of which should receive the benefit of the united prayers of Christians, and the other should not, and testing the efficacy of such prayers by the results as manifested by the number of reco- veries. Accepting the facts in connection with the Orphan Asylum, precisely as they appear to Mr. Mliller's mind, he urges them on their consideration as an unquestionable proof of the efficacy of prayer. He then propounds his own theory as to their origin. He does not consider them as answers to prayer in any Christian sense of the term ; but that Mr, Miiller by the force of his devotions congregates around him a large number of kindred spirits, who suggest to other men and women of similar feelings, and possessing adequate means, to supply the wants of the Institution. To similar influences Mr. Wallace ascribes no inconsiderable number of the miracles recorded in the Bible, and those which are reported in Church and other histories. On the discussion of Mr. Wallace's theories in connection with this subject, I cannot enter here. I have only to do with the facts of the Orphan Institution, as bearing on the evidential value of miracles. I have no intention to dispute the general truth of the facts as stated by Mr. Miiller, although it is highly probable that they have received some colouring from his own peculiar opinions. To accept his testimony to the facts is one thing; to accept his views as to the agency which has brought them about is altogether another. If his views on this point are correct, the conclusion is inevitable that the Orphan Asylum has as definite a divine attestation in its ftivour as it would if its wants were supplied by the most direct form of miracle. In fact, a long series of such immediate answers to a set of 114 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OP definite petitions is of itself a miracle of the most unequivo- cal description. But it must be remembered tbat the person who believes himself to have been favoured by this kind of attestation for a long period of years, makes no claims to a divine commission of any kind, only to be the founder of a useful institution j nor does he lay claim to any divine illu- mination as directing him in its superintendence. The divine attestation, vs^hich has been given by this long series of answers to prayer, is tendered to the institution, and nothing else. If the facts as narrated by Mr. Miiller are assigned by him to their true causes, the value of the testi- mony of miracles to a divine commission is greatly weak- ened by them, as in that case it is clear that a series of events, which it is impossible to distinguish from miracles, has been brought about, not for the purpose of attesting a divine commission, or anything resembling it, but for the benefit of an institution which does not differ in point of goodness from a vast number of others. This difficulty is further increased when it is remembered that the principle laid down is, that all other institutions for good might live and prosper by the use of similar means. If so, this would make a set of special interferences with the order of nature not the exception, but the rule of the divine government, thereby depriving a miracle of all evidential value as an attes- tation to a divine commission. But I have not to deal with anything theoretical as to what might happen, if other institutions were to adopt similar means of supporting themselves ; but with what has actually happened with respect to the Orphan Asylum. I fully concede that it is a very remarkable institution ; but I believe that its growth and success can be accounted for by ordinary human causes without having recourse to the theory of special divine interventions. I observe therefore that although its founder adopts none of the usual methods by which other societies obtain their income, it is clear that he employs means which, although highly efficacious, are nevertheless purely human. It is the JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 115 single institution of its kind, and appeals to a sentiment wliicli is particularly attractive to a large number of minds_, the profession of living by faith : or in other words, of deriving its support from a set of supernatural interven- tions. All such persons (and their class is a numerous one), take a deep interest in the success of such an institu- tion. Now, although its founder disclaims the use of means, such as are employed by other societies, yet he uses others equally efficacious, among which is the annual publication of a book containing an account of these special interventions during the past year, which is sent to all subscribers. This certainly constitutes an appeal of a very effective character, and one preeminently well fitted to stimulate the particular class of minds to which it is addressed, to large and frequent contributions. But it may be objected, that however efficacious these means may be now, this will not account for the original setting up of the institution. I think that any one who will carefully investigate the account which Mr. Miiller has given of its origin, will be able to assign it to a number of ordinary human causes, without invoking the aid of any special divine interventions in its favour ; but to enter on a minute criticism of them would not be desirable in this place. Many of the events narrated by him which involve special interferences with the order of nature, may be readily accounted for on the principle of coincidences, such as have occurred to each of us during our past lives ; and are often of a very remarkable character, but which by no means involve the assumption that they have been brought about by special interferences with the forces of nature in our favour. But it is not my purpose in this place to discuss the abstract question, but only to consider how far such interferences as those alleged to have taken place in connection with the Orphan Asylum, affect the question of miracles, as evidential to a divine revelation. It seems to me to be impossible to distinguish between such occurrences as those above alluded to, if they are brought about in answer to definite petitions, 8 * 116 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OF from evidential miracles. They would bo simply marks of divine favour to particular persons and institutions ; and would consequently be devoid of evidential value as proofs of the reality of a divine commission. We know from the history of St. Paul that he habitually trusted to God^s ordinary providence for the supply of his wants^ rather than to special interventions.* Viewed in connection with the question of the evidential value of miracles, the whole subject of special answers to prayer requires very serious consideration, as it is evident that the analogy between them and miracles is of the closest charac- ter. When we offer special requests for special interferences with the ordinary mode of the divine acting, it is only in consonance with Christian humility to add to our prayers that God will be pleased to reject them, if we in our ignorance have asked Him to do what is not in accordance with the divine will. Surely a firm trust in His ordinary providence, and an habitual recognition that the forces of the universe in their daily operation are regulated by His wisdom, and subserving the purposes of His goodness, ia quite as religious and reverential a state of mind, as that which is constantly asking Him to make special interventions on our behalf. Many of the prevailing ideas on this subject even among religious men owe their origin to their failing to recognize the teaching of the Bible, that all the forces of the universe are manifestations of the activity of God. SUPPLEMENT II. It will be seen that the view which I have taken in this and the preceding Lecture respecting the evidential value of miracles, and the relation in which they stand to the * See tlie account of the dangers he encountered in liis Missionary travels, 2 Cor. xii. St, Luke's narrative of his voyage to Rome, his shipwreck, and escape, is a striking illustration of the same habitual trust. JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 117 Christian revelation, differs very materially from that which has been propounded by Pi'ofessor Mozley in his first Bampton Lecture. So important is this difference that it will be neces- sary to offer a few additional observations on the subject, for which it was impossible to find room in the Lecture itself. The view propounded in the Lecture, briefly stated, is as follows : — The essence of the Christian revelation consists in Our Lord^s divine person and work, which constitute Him the visible manifestation of the invisible God, and not in a number of dogmatic statements or moral precepts. His entire character is in fact a manifestation of the divine in union with the human, constituting an harmonious whole, of which the miracles form an important portion of the delineation. In one word, they are viewed as the natural outcome of the divine which dwelt within Him, and which manifested itself as much in His actions and teaching, in the spotless perfection of His character, and above all, in the divine self-sacrifice of His life and death, as in those actions which are usually designated His miracles. Further, while many of the miracles recorded in the New Testament were not wrought for directly evidential purposes (those which are directly afiirmed to have been wrought for this purpose being few in number) ; yet all miracles, like all other manifestations of the divine, must have an indirectly evidential value, as indicating the presence and energy of a superhuman power. Also, while there are recorded in the New Testament a con- siderable number of doctrinal statements and moral precepts, it is a fact that however startling a statement may have been uttered by Oiu' Lord, or whatever degree of opposition it called forth on the part of His opponents, or of incredulity in His disciples. He never condescends to perform a miracle in order to prove the truth of His assertions, but rests it solely on His own absolute knowledge and veracity. * Nor * There are but two apparent exceptions to tlais rule, viz., tliat of the cure of the paralj'tic in proof of His " power on earth to forgive sins," and the raising of Lazarus, " that the people who stood by might believe that His Father had sent Him." 118 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OP "was such a tiling once done by His apostles. In the same manner while He repeatedly appealed to His miracles as evidence of His divine character^ He referred to them as portions of His moral working, and only appealed to them separately when the higher form of evidence failed to com- mand assent. This view of the subject seems to me to be rendered necessary by the most direct assertions of the sacred writers. Besides the evidence adduced in the Lecture, a large number of the passages quoted in the Supplement to the first Lecture for the purpose of proving that the essence of the Christian revelation consists in the person and work of Christ, tend equally to prove that the highest attestation to His divine Mission was His self-evidential character. So strong are the assertions on this point in those portions of the 1st Epistle and the Gospel of St. John, to which I have already referred, that any other view seems to me inconsistent with assigning to them canonical authority. The writer affirms that the life of the Logos was manifested. It was the light of men. This light was manifested in the person of Jesus Christ. It shone in the darkness, and the dark- ness comprehended it not. He was the true light which enlightens every man that cometh into the world. If these statements are the veritable utterances of the Apostle, they are conclusive on the subject. They make it certain that Jesus Christ must be a manifestation of the divine on the sphere of the human, the Sun of the moral and spiritual worlds, which energizes in them mightily. If this be so, it follows that the character of our evidential position must bo such as I have described. First, Jesus Christ and His entire divine working, in which He bears witness to Himself. Secondly, His miracles, viewed as wonders, signs, and mighty deeds. The entire argument of Professor Mozley rests on a different basis. He considers the essence of Christianity to consist in a number of statements of dogmatic truth, the dis- covery of which lies beyond the powers of human reason. JESUS CHRIST IN HISTOEY. 119 Of the truth of these statements he maintains that the miracles form the one great attestation and guarantee ; or in other wordsj that they would be absolutely incredible but for their confirmation by miracles. His position is clearly stated in the following passage : — " There is one great necessary purpose^ then^ which divines assign to miracles, viz., the proof of a Revelation. And certainly if it were the will of God to give a Revelation, there are plain and obvious reasons for asserting that miracles are necessary as the guarantee and voucher of that Revelation. A Revelation is, properly speaking, such only by virtue of telling us some- thing which we could not know without it. But how do we know that that communication of what is undiscoverable by human reason is true. Our reason cannot prove the truth of it, for it is by the very supposition beyond our reason. There must be then some note or sign to certify it, and dis- tinguish it as a true communication from God, which note can be nothing else than a miracle.''^ This passage, which contains the essence of the view in question, seems to me to be based on the direct assumption of the point at issue. " A Revelation,^^ says the Professor, " is properly speaking such only by telling us something that we could not know without it.''^ This assumption is involved in the use of the word '' Telling." It takes for granted that a Revelation, to be such, must consist in certain abstract statements of truths to be believed, and not of facts such as St. John speaks of, which he could see, hear, and bear witness to. It is in fact assumed not only that a Revelation, to be such, must be a dogmatic Revelation ; but that it can- not consist of truths, which have a self-evidencing power to the heart and the conscience, and through them to the understandmg. Such a view seems to me not only to con- travene the express statements of the fourth Gospel, but the whole of the implied teaching of the Pauline epistles. I by no means dispute that a Revelation, " to be worthy of the name," must communicate to us something which was previously unknown. This can certainly be done in 120 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OF many other ways besides in a numbei' of dogmatic proposi- tions. St. Paul definitely affirms tliat the Universe is a Revelation of God. " The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being manifested by the things that are made, even His eternal power and God- head, so that they are without excuse. For that which is known of God is manifest in them, for God has showed it unto them.^' Words could hardly have been framed to affirm in a more definite manner that the Universe consti- tutes a revelation of the eternal power and Godhead of its Creator, and one of so distinct and definite a character that tlie heathen were withovit excuse for not attending to it. Yet in making this revelation, God has told us nothing respecting its forces or its laws, but has left them to be dis- covered by the use of the faculties with which He has endowed us. Of what, I ask, does this revelation consist ? Evidently of an immense number of objective facts, showing forth the divine power and wisdom, and in an inferior degree His other attributes. Every creative work of God is unques- tionably a discovery of a new truth, and, as such, a revelation of Himself. But it consists of a fact, manifested to man's understanding, the meaning of which he is capable of dis- covering j not the dogmatic affirmation of some truth previously unknown. Least of all does such a revelation require to be confirmed by a miracle wrought to attest either its reality or its truth. On the contrary it is self-evidencing, and its miracles, which are God's creative works, constitute its essence. In a similar manner another great Revelation of God has been made in man's conscience and moral nature, by which we learn the law of duty, and that the Creator of the Universe is not only a Being who possesses wisdom and power, but that He is also a moral being. * But here again the revelation does not contain a single dogmatic statement, * Here again St. Paul's assertions are definite and precise. " For when the Gentiles, wliick have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto them- JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 121 nor is it confirmed by a single miracle, except that great one which constitutes its essence, the moral nature of man, and the greatest of all marvels, the creation of a free agent. Again, a resurrection from the dead would constitute a real revelation ; even if unaccompanied by a single dogmatic explanation. It would plainly be a discovery of at least one truth which was previously unknown, viz. that man was capable of a renewed life after he had undergone the stroke of death, and would thereby impart a certain degree of reason- ableness to the expectation that others would receive the same. So again the appearance of an angel, and an actual conversation with one, would be an unquestionable revela- tion that there were other orders of intelligences in existence besides men. These, and a multitude of other kindred things, would in the truest sense of the term constitute revelations of truths, to which the unaided power of man^s reason could never have penetrated, yet they are self- evidential, and require no miracle to confirm them. In a similar manner God's revelation of His moral perfections made in the life and death of Jesus Christ is self-evidential. In it, as St. John says, the divine life is manifested. We can see it, i.e. with the eye of our moral vision, and draw conclusions from it in the same manner, as we do from the other objective revelations of God. In reply then to the question proposed by Professor Mozley, How do we know that the communication of what is undis- coverable by human reason is true ?, I answer. By beholding it. Our reason cannot prove the truth of it until it has been discovered. Granted. But this forms no obstacle to our ability to recognize God in it, when He has thus revealed Himself. Such revelations require no note or sign to certify that they are true communications from God, other than themselves, when contemplated by the eye of reason. It is clear therefore that his remarks are only applicable selves ; whicli sliow the works of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another." — Eom. ii. 14, 15. 122 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OP to sucli revelations as consist of statements of dogmatic trutlis whicli would have been undiscoverablc by the unaided human intellect. But whatever connection such truths may- have with the Christian Revelation, it is certain that the sacred writers affirm the presence of an objective Revelation in the person of Jesus Christy apart from the dogmatic assertions which are found in the New Testament. I fully agree with Professor Mozley that such assertions as some of those made by Our Lord respecting Himself would be incredible if made by one who had passed thirty- three years in converse with mankind without once exhibit- ing anything superhuman in his character. But it by no means follows that the only way of doing this is by the dis- play of those marvels in the physical universe which we commonly designate miracles. Surely the presence of the divine is as clearly recognizable in superhuman holiness and loveliness as in acts of power in nature. I admit that the divine presence is manifested in the volcano and the earthquake ; but it is far more so in the character of Christ our Lord as delineated ill the Gospels. Every one of His actions was radiant with superhuman goodness, and surely a character which is a manifestation of superhuman goodness is a stronger guarantee of truthfulness than the performance of any number of marvellous works. Apart from such manifestations the assertions concerning Himself which are attributed to Him in the Gospel of St. John would not be rendered credible by the performance of any number of mere marvels in the physical Universe. Power is no doubt an attribute of God, but moral perfection is no less so. If anything analogous to miracles can be performed by the agency of demons, it is clear that the only means of dis- tinguishing between the divine and the diabolical, must be the moral impress which they bear. It follows therefore that our acceptance of Our Lord's testimony respecting himself is founded on His entire divine working, manifested during His life on earth, and not on His miracles pure and simple. Such a person could not but JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 123 have known whether his statements were true or false. We therefore accept them as we do those of any other witness, on the ground of his adequate knowledge and entire veracity. Professor Mozley has more fully expressed his views on this subject in another passage of this lecture. It has been quoted somewhat unfairly by the author of Sujyeniatural Religion. Still I think that the general mode of putting the case incurs a serious danger of causing misconception. As the passage is a long one, I will only quote its salient points. " If then a person of evident integrity and loftiness of character rose into notice in a particular country and com- munity eighteen centuries ago, who made these communica- tions about himself, that he had existed before his natural birth, &c., &c.^^ (here follow a number of affirmations which Our Lord actually made respecting Himself as reported in the fourth Grospel). ^' If this person made these assei'tions respecting himself ; and all that was done was to make the assertions, what would be the inevitable conclusion of sober /reason respecting that person ? The necessary conclusion ,' of sober reason respecting that person would be that he was disordered in his understanding. What other decision could we come to, when a man looJcing like one of ourselves, and only exemijlifying in his life and circumstances the ordinary course of nature,* said this about himself, but that when reason had lost its balance, a dream of extraordinary and unearthly grandeur might be the result. By no rational being could a just and benevolent life be accepted as proof of such astonishing announcements. Miracles then are the necessary complement of the truth of such announcements, which without them are purposeless and abortive, the unfinished fragments of a design which is nothing unless it is the whole. They are necessary to the justification of such announcements, which unless they are supernatural truths are the wildest delusions. The matter and its guarantee * The italics are mine. 124 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OP are the two parts of a revelation, the absence of either of which neutralizes and undoes it/' This passage is misleading^ because while it contains statements very closely resembling the facts of the Gospel, Dr. Mozley applies them to a condition of things wholly different from those exhibited in the life of Christ as there depicted. I fully admit that if a mere man, who differed in nothing from ordinary good men made such statements, they would be utterly incredible, and the fair inference would be that he had become suddenly insane. But the Gospels do not tell us that it was an ordinary man like ourselves who made these assertions ; but one whose entire character and actions were as much a manifestation of superhuman goodness and holiness, as His miracles were of superhuman power. To assume that Our Lord before He performed His first miracle at Cana, did not differ from an ordinary man, is to beg the whole question. In fact it is simply impossible that He did not, if His own affirmations and. those of the writers of the New Testament are true, that he who had seen Him had seen the Father ; and that the fulness of Godhead dwelt in His incarnate person. The question is not what we should think of such assertions, if made by a man- of ordinary goodness ; but what we should think of them, if made by one who during the whole of his past life had been the highest manifestation of the moral perfections of God. St. Luke tells us that even at the age of twelve years Jesus astonished the Jewish doctors by His understanding and answers. Surely during the eighteen years which elapsed between this event and his public ministry, when His manhood had become fully developed, the divine rays must have shone in Him with greater brilliancy. According to Professor Mozley's position, these assertions, if they had been made by Our Lord before He had performed His first miracle at Cana, might have been justly deemed the results of insanity (we know that the Jews did subsequently affirm that he was mad) ; but they would have been rendered credible by its performance. Surely such a position is JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 125 untenable. The error has originated in the incorrect assump- tion that Our Lord did not differ from an ordinary man until He manifested that difference by the performance of miracles. But the Professor continues, " Would not a pei'fectly sinless character be a proof of a revelation ? Undoubtedly that would be as great a miracle as any that could be con- ceived ; but where is the proof of perfect sinlessness ? No outward life and conduct, however just, benevolent, and irreproachable, could prove this, because goodness depends on the inward motive, and the perfection of the inward motive is not proved by the outward act." . . . ''We accept Om- Lord^s perfect goodness then on the same evidence upon which we admit the rest of His supernatural character ; but not as proved by the outward goodness of His life, by His character, sublime as it was, as it presented itself to the eye." First. This affirmation is a very unfortunate one, because it directly traverses one made by Our Lord Himself as reported in the Fourth Gospel, " which of you convinceth me of sin ; and if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me ?" Surely Our Lord here affirms that the inability of any one to convince Him of sin was an adequate proof that His moral character was perfect. He demands to be believed in virtue of His inherent truthfulness ; and on the strength of it He proceeds to make the affirmation of His pre-existence, "Before Abraham was, lam." He certainly here distinctly lays down that His absolute sinlessness was a sufficient ground for His affirmation being entitled to the fullest credence. Secondly. But, says the Professor, how could this sin- lessness be known ? It is impossible that we could know that any man was sinless unless we could penetrate to his motives, and this we cannot do. Surely this is hyper- critical. A being whose entire outward life was a manifes- tation of absolute moral purity, must have been equally pure in his inward character. " The tree," says Our Lord, 126 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OP " is known by its fruits." A being whose actual life is moral perfection^ while his inward life is corrupt, must pos- sess a superhuman power of hypocrisy. My answer, there- fore, to the question, '' How could the perfection of Jesus be proved ?" is^ By His perfect life. It was a question, not of theory, but of fact. I fully admit " that we accept Our Lord^s perfect goodness on the same evidence on which we admit the rest of His supernatural character/^ i.e. by its manifestations. But here let it be observed, the proof of the manifestations of his superhuman power derived from His miracles is dependent on a complicated chain of his- torical proof; that of His divine working in the history of the past and the facts of the present is patent to the ordi- nary student of history. It may be urged that large numbers of the Jews would not have any evidence that His character was morally stain- less ; and consequently to such persons it would be no sufficient guarantee of the truth of his assertions. This I fully admit. The same observation is equally true with respect to those who did not witness His miracles ; and we know, as matter of fact, that even many who did, ascribed them to demoniacal agency. But it was far more difficult to ascribe His manifestations of divine goodness to such an influence than His miracles, when viewed separately from their moral environment. Both His moral perfection and His miracles could only be evidential as far as He afforded evidence of their reality. But the character of the evidence has become widely different in the present day from what it was in Our Lord's. Then the miracles could be witnessed ; now they cannot. Then their reality could be tested ; now it cannot ; now they can only be accepted on the testimony of those who witnessed them. Then the only alternative, if they were accepted as true, was between their being wrought by the finger of God or by Satanic agency. This latter alternative would weigh little now; but we are embarrassed by the length of the chain of the historic proof, and other difficulties peculiar JESUS CHRIST IN HISTORY. 127 to modern times^ whicli considerably overbalance this advan- tage. Those who came into direct contact with Jesus were able to behold the divine radiance of His character. This we cannot do ; but we have eighteen centuries of experience of the superhuman working of this character in history, and of the laws which regulate the evolution of ordinary men. This furnishes us with materials for judging whether a superhuman power manifested itself in Jesus Christ of which His contemporaries were destitute. We have also the character depicted before our eyes in the pages of the Evangelists. The only question is, whether it is possible that this character can be an ideal one, and of this our means of judging are ample. If any one will set himself thus carefully to balance our losses and our gains, I think that the conclusion at which he will arrive must be that the evidences of the divine mission of Jesus Christ which we now possess are of equal, if not of greater weight, than those which were enjoyed by those who lived in the apos- tolic age. It is true that we witness no physical miracles now ; but we witness mightier moral ones. The moral miracles we can behold and verify : these being established, render our proof of the physical ones comparatively easy, which, when dissevered from that of the moral ones, becomes a balance of intricate probabilities. The history of John the Baptist fully confirms the posi- tions laid down in the Lecture, that miracles are not the one indispensable proof of a divine mission. The divine mission of John is directly affirmed by Our Lord. '' Among those that are born of women,'' he says, '^ there has not arisen a greater prophet than John the Baptist.'" These words, if taken strictly, affirm that he was a greater prophet even than Moses. Yet not only do the Synoptics record no miracle as having been performed by him, but the fom'th Gospel expressly affirms that he wrought none, while at the same time it attributes to him several dogmatical assertions respecting the superhuman greatness of Our Lord. If it be urged that a miracle was wrought on the occasion 128 THE SUPERHUMAN ACTION OP of tlie descent of tlie divine Spirit on Our Lord at his baptisra, I reply^ tliougli the special mark to John by which the presence of the Messiah was indicated, and to him in the highest sense evidential, yet it was not so to others. As far as the people are concerned, the evidence of the fourth Gospel is incontestable, ''John did no miracle, but all things which John spake of this man were true." If it be urged that while miracles may not be necessary to prove a divine mission, yet they are necessary to prove the truth of a revelation, and that John had no revelation to com- municate, I reply, that it is equally true that neither Elijah nor Elisha inti-oduced a new revelation, yet the Old Testa- ment ascribes to them a number of miracles. Nor is the affirmation that he had no revelation to communicate strictly accurate : for he was far more a communicator of one than any of the former prophets, in that he pointed out the Messiah as actually come ; and authoritatively affirmed that Jesus was He. It is true that the Synoptics describe him rather as a preacher of repentance; but St. John's Gospel not only affirms that he gave distinct testimony to Jesus as the actual Messiah, but that he made several remarkable statements as to the divine character of His person, one of them being an affirmation referred to by Dr. Mozley, as requiring to be substantiated by miracle, that '' He was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world ;'^ and if we accept the conclusion of the third chapter as an utter- ance of the Baptist, and not a meditation of its author, he must have announced yet profo under truths respecting His divine character. Although utterances of this kind are not directly mentioned by the Synoptics, yet they make it certain that John must have given a very clear and well known testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus, for they inform us that after Our Lord had performed the high Messianic act of cleansing the temple, and the Sanhedrim demanded His authority for doing so, He replied by asking their opinion as to the divine mission of John the Baptist ; and that after consulting among themselves, they declined to return an JESUS CHRIST IN HISTOKY. 129 answer, on the ground that if they affirmed its reality, Our Lord would fall back on His testimony to Himself as the Messiah ; and if they denied it, they were afraid of a serious loss of reputation among the people, who believed in John as a prophet. If miracles are the necessary confirmation of a revelation, it is difficult to understand how a prophet who had a direct divine commission to point out Jesus as the Messiah, was not armed with the power of working them, while that power was so largely possessed by prophets with a mission so inferior as that of Elijah or Elisha. According to the theory which has been commonly accepted, when John the Baptist pointed out Jesus as the Messiah, and declared Him to be '^ the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,^^ and that " he that believed on Him had everlasting life," he ought to have wrought a miracle to prove that such extraordinary assertions were true. It is impossible for me to enter here on a discussion of the grounds on which John rested the truth of his divine mission. I am only concerned with it in this place as showing that the affirmation that miracles are indispensable for the proof of its reality, and that certain truths are incredible unless they are attested by them, is not borne out by the statements of the New Testament. I am far from wishing to deny their value as a portion of the attes- tation given to Jesus as the Messiah, but this is a very ^ different thing from affirming that they constitute the sole attestation, or are absolutely necessary to prove the truth of His utterances. The fact is, that neither abstract nor moral truths can be attested by miracles, viewed merely as marvels or exhibitions of jjower. As mere exhibitions of power, the greatest miracles recorded in the Bible arc transcended by the daily workings of God in Creation and Providence. If we cannot attain to the knowleilge of cer- tain truths by the use of our reason, we can only accept them on the testimony of a Avitness whom we know to be veracious and to possess adequate means of information. 9 130 THE CONTKAST BETWEEN THE TEACHING OF LECTUIIE III. " I am tlie light of tlie world ; lie that foUowcth Me shall not walk iu darkness, but shall have the light of life." — John viii. 12. Is this light clearly shining in the spiritual and moral firmament ? Can we behold its beams ? Do the rays of the spiritual Sun generate vitality and life in the moral World ? These are questions not of theory but of fact^ which can be verified in the ex23erience of the past and of the present. The text affirms not only that Jesus Christ is the great illu- minator of the moral and spiritual worlds, but that the light which He emits communicates also a vital influence. He is the Light of Life. Such an assertion was a bold one, for it removes His pretensions out of the regions of the abstract and the theoretical, and brings them to the test of fact. If we can discover neither in the history of the past nor in the facts of the present clear and unmistakable signs of an illu- minating and vital power issuing from Jesus Christ, then the author of the Fourth Gospel has placed in His mouth words which make Him bear false witness of Himself, and He thus becomes convicted of imposture. But if, on the other hand. He has proved during eighteen centuries the great source of man^s spiritual illumination, then the writer has either reported a true utterance of Jesus, or, if a forger, he must have been possessed of a superhuman insight into the history of the future. This inference will be equally certain, whether we accept CHEISTIANITY AND THAT OF THE PHILOSOPHERS. 131 the Gospel as tlie veritable work of tlie Apostle Jolm^ written near tlie conclusion of the first century, or adopt the theory so dear to modern unbelievers, that it is the production of an unknown author some seventy or eighty years afterwards. In either case the assertion that an obscure Jewish carpenter would be the great illuminator of the most civilized and energetic races of mankind ; that he would be the creator of a new moral and spiritual life ; that he would indelibly stamp the impress of his action on all the progressive races of mankind — nothing, I say, could have been moi-e unlikely in the year 170, than that such a saying would be realized. No human foresight could have anticipated the fact that this obscure carpenter would exert this mighty influence on his- tory, and would distance the combined efforts for good of the wisest and the best of men. Such an utterance, if made by an ordinary man, could have only been attributed to madness. The question is. Have this and similar utterances which this Gospel has attributed to Jesus been verified in fact ? If they have, not only is the assertion that Jesus is the Light of the World, and the Light of Life, proved on indisputable evidence to be true, but the further conclusion is inevitable, that a spirit of the profoundest prophetic in- sight must have dwelt in Him who gave utterance to it — or, in other words, that it proves in Him the presence of a super- human power. The evidence that Jesus Christ has exerted this mighty influence, as the illuminator of the world, and the introducer of a new principle of moral and spiritual life, is so complete and overwhelming, that I need not further discuss it. It is written on every page of history from the year 315 downwards.* I have pointed out its evidential value in the * I take tlie date of the conversion of Constantine as the starting point, because it is clear that from that time to the present Christianity has been tlie mightiest influence which han acted on the history of the Western world. From that time its action emerges into the clear light of history. Previously it had been comparatively obscure ; Mr. Lecky's observation is worthy of deep attention, that nothing is 9 * 132 THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TEACHING Oh' last Lecture. Look at tlie modern world. Is it not every- where present in its institutions, its legislation, its forms of thought, its morality, its language, and its social life ? The unbeliever cannot dispute the fact that the whole course of modern civilization has been deeply imbued, if it has not been actually created by Christianity. Let the experiment be tried of striking out of the history of the last eighteen centuries eveiy event which has been affected by its influ- ence, and we shall empty our historical libraries. It follows then that the assertion that Jesus Christ is the light of the world, and the light of life, is not only capable of being verified in the history of the past, but is visibly receiving its accomplishment before our eyes in the facts of the present. What is the inevitable inference ? I answer : Either Jesus Christ has been the manifestation of a super- human power, or all this influence has been exerted by an obscure carpenter, whose entire moral and intellectual cha- i-acter must have been fashioned and developed in the narrow atmosphei-e of Jewish thought. If it be objected that a large portion of mankind are still unillumined by him, I reply that Christianity obeys the laws of the moral world in exerting an influence which is slowly and gradually pro- gressive, and that its Founder distinctly stated that such would be its mode of operation.* I now pass on to consider the evidence afforded by the moral teaching of Christianity to the presence of a super- human power in Jesus Christ. I will first state the condi- tions of the argument, and point out what it is valid to prove. more remarkable than the uncousciousness of pagan writers of the second and third centuries of the power that was growing up among them, prior to the hour of its triumph. This being so, we need not W'onder at the inconsiderable notice it received from the heathen writers of the first. * This is the idea which luiderlies those parables of Our Lord which draw their imagery from the processes of nature. Among them, those of the sower, the wheat and the tares, the mustard seed, and the leaven, stand out conspicuously. CHRISTIANITY AND THAT OF THE PHILOSOPHEES. 133 First^ I assume as an established scientific truth that the forces which energize in the moral worlds act in conformity with moral laws ;* that the long course of human history has enabled ns to ascertain what these forces are^ and the laws of their action ; that each successive stage of the moral world has grown out of that which preceded it ; and that its changes are not sudden_, nor violent, but follow a law of gradual evolution. This being so, it follows that there are no violent breaks in the developments of man ; but, on the contrary, that the entire atmosphere of thought and feeling of any one particular period, has grown out of that which preceded it, and has only slowly elevated itself above it. Such is a brief statement of the law of human progress, as confirmed by the universal voice of history, and accepted by modern philosophy. It is now an established truth that man presents no great gaps in the course of his intellectual and moral development, so long as he is only acted on by the forces which enei'gize within him.f * The difference between the forces that act in the material and the moral Universe is precisely this. Material forces possess no power of self-determination. Moral forces energize in a being who possesses such a power. This we designate freedom, or free agency. Necessitarians, while denying its existence theoretically, are compelled to admit it practically; ?'.e., human nature is in reality so constructed, whatever account may be given of its origin, that not only is the existence of a power of self-determination one of the most certain facts of conscious- ness, but we cannot help acting on it as a practical truth. This power, which man is capable of exerting within a limited sphere, is perfectly consistent with the great truth that moral forces act in conformity with moral laws. Necessitarians are constantly in the habit of charg- ing their opponents with assuming positions which exclude law from the moral Universe ; and that the assertion of a self- determining power in man is equivalent to affirming that confusion, not order, reigns within it. This subject is far too large to admit of discussion here, but it is not too much to affirm, that such a charge is simply a caricature of the views of those who hold in conformity with the principles of the inductive philosophy, that self-determination in man is as much a phenomenon of the moral Universe, as the absence of it is of the forces which dominate in the material one. t The principle of production by evolution has been looked upon by 134 THE CONTRAST BET WEEN - 'J?HE TEACHING OF It has been objected to this form of the argument that the elevated moral teaching of Christianity was due to the lofty genius of Jesus. To this I reply, that history proves that no human being, however exalted may have been his genius, has been able wholly to emancipate himself from the conditions imposed on him by his birth, and the moral and spiritual atmosphere in which he was educated ; While it is true that we are ignorant of the laws which regu- late the production of genius, and of the precise extent of many with, great jealousy as a theory wliicL. is destructive of religion. On the value of such theories as a philosophical account of the origin of things, I would not wish to express an opinion, as having no immediate bearing on the subject of these Lectures. In fact all dog- matic assertions on this subject are evidently premature, as our induc- tions are as yet far too narrow to form a firm foundation for a theory so vast. But viewed as an abstract question, there is no more difEcidty in conceiving that the Creator has carried on His work in conformity with some principle of evolution than by that which is designated sj)ecial creation. I say this on the supposition that the theory presupposes an intelligent Creator acting on the forces of the Universe and moulding them to His purposes. Such theories are only dangerous to religion when they assume that the results which we behold in the Universe have been brought about by the action of its blind forces independently of the direction of intelligence. We know as a fact that every existing man and woman has been brought into existence by a very complicated process of evolution tlirough a long train of ancestry, yet this is no hindrance whatever to our acceptance of the great truth, " I believe in God the Father, who made me and all the world." The outcry which has been raised against theories of evolution as destructive to religion is, to say the least of it, unwise. But I am here concerned with them only as far as they bear on the Christian argument. In this respect their impor- tance has been far too generally overlooked by both parties in the controversy. If for the sake of argument we assume that things have been produced in conformity with a principle of evolution (and it is important to observe that this is maintained by a great majority of un- believers), then it follows that the principle of continuity in the development of man must be a great philosophical truth ; and the existence of considerable intervals between its stages an impossibility. As in conformity with the princij)lcs laid down by evolutionists, evolution is effected by a number of small and inconsiderable varia- CHEISTIANITY AND THAT OF THE PHILOSOPHERS. 135 its action ; yet tlie experience of history renders it certain tliat there are limitations imposed on it by its surronndings, which it is unable to transcend.* This being so^ it will follow, if there was nothing super- tions, it follows that it is impossible that a man can emerge siiddeuly as a moral and intellectual giant above those surroundings in the midst of which he has been born and has drawn his entire moral and intellectual nourishment. This being so, a theory of evolution inter- poses an impenetrable barrier against the theory that Jesus Christ and His mighty action on history has been the simple creation of the ordinary forces energizing in man. The interval which separates Him notonly from his own countrymen, in the midst of whom he was born and educated, but from the greatest of men, is too wide to be bridged over by any theory of evolution with which philosophy is acquainted. In this point of view the theories propounded by modern philosophy instead of weakening, impart strength to the Christian argument. * It may be objected that I am basing [my argument on the prin- ciples of the Necessitarian philosophy. I am simply appealing to the plain facts of the moral world, which I believe to be entirely consistent with the principle of self determination in man. It is impossible to deny that the characters of the majority of mankind are largely, though not exclusively, formed by their surroundings ; and that such as has been the environment, such will be the man. The power of self- determination is confined within definite limits which it cannot transcend, though it may be able to effect modifications of the character within those limits. The distinction between physical and moral law is that the sequences of the former are invariable, while those of the latter are subject to modification by this principle, as in the material Universe the action of one force may be controlled by that of another. Whatever theory we may hold on these subjects, it is our duty to make them accord with the facts, and not the facts with the theories. Nothing has been more common in this controversy, whenever unbelievers are beset by difllculties, than to ascribe every fact connected with Jesus which cannot be accounted for on ordinary principles, to the influence of genius. Thus, in endeavouring to account for the mighty influence which He has exerted in history, and for the elevation of His teaching and character, it is foimd to be a ready way of escape from all difllculties to say that it was due to His exalted genius. This however is really equivalent to the admission that it has been due to a force for which we are unable to account, and that a power has manifested itself in Him of a character wholly different from those which energize in ordinary humanity. 136 THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TEACHING OF human in Jesus Christy and if the forces which manifested themselves in Him werenothino- but the ordinary ones which energize in human nature^ the moral teaching of Christianity must have been a natural growth out of that moral and spiritual environment in which He and his Jewish followers were born and educated, aided by such influences as may have been imported into it by St. Paul and his Grecian converts. Consequently, however exalted may have been the genius of Jesus, it would only have enabled Him to elevate Himself above those conditions in a way precisely analogous to what has been done by other great men, of whom Mahomet may be cited as an example. His case is one which bears directly on my argument. I readily concede that he must be numbered among the great men of our race ; but the Koran makes it certain that his genius, great as it was, was unable to break through the conditions imj^osed on him by his birth, his education, and his surroundings. Its whole teaching bears the strongest impress of the Arab mind, and proves that the prophet was unable to free himself from the conditions which it imposed on him. The same truth is borne witness to by all the other great teachers of mankind. The peculiarities of the moral and spiritual atmosphere which they breathed are indelibly impressed on their respective systems. All are national, and local ; Jesus Christ alone is Catholic as humanity. From these principles I draw the following conclu- sions : First. If the teaching of Jesus Christ clearly transcends the limits which were imposed on Him by His birth and surroundings, it proves the existence iu Him of a force different from those which energize in ordinary humanity. Secondly. If the moral teaching of Christianity, taken as a whole, not only transcends that of the great teachers of the ancient world, but solves problems, of which, while they recognized the importance, they found the solution im- possible, it proves that it cannot have originated in that hot-bed of fanaticism and credulity which unbelievers CHRISTIANITY AND THAT OF THE THILOSOPHERS. 137 are obliged to attribute to tlie followers of Jesus in order to impart plausibility to the tlieories tliey liave pro- pounded to account for the belief in His resui-rection from the dead. I shall assume as one of the bases of this argument the position which is taken by a large number of my oppo- nents,* that the Jewish race, during the century which preceded and that which followed the advent, were to the * I accept the positions laid down by unbelievers on lliis subject for tlie purposes of the argument, though there can be no doubt that they can only be received with considerable modifications. They have freely attributed to the Jewish mind at the period of the advent an enormous amount of credulity and superstition, for the purpose of enabling them to give something like a plausible account of the miraculous narratives contained in the Gospels, and above all, of the belief in the Hesurrection. In taking this course it does not seem to have occurred to them that just in proportion as they heap on the primitive Christians this charge of credulity and superstition, they increase the diificulty of accounting for the moral teaching of tlie New Testament as the natural product of such a soil. Besides, if the entire environment of Jesus was such a mass of credulity and super- stition as they assume, no amount of genius could have wholl}'- freed him from its influences ; for we know as a matter of fact that even the greatest of men have shared in the credulity and superstition of theirage. Nothing is more certain than that an elevated sj'stem of moral teaching, which embodies a wide catholicity of spirit, cannot be the natural product of a soil which is deeply impregnated with these qualities. It follows therefore that the more certainly it can be proved that such was the moral and spiritual atmosphere of the primitive followers of Jesus, the stronger will be the evidence that the moral teaching of the New Testament is not of their creation. The evidence that their credulity exceeded that of the average of mankind hopelessly breaks down when tested by the facts of history — it is, in short, an hypothesis which has been invented to support a theory — still, in arguing with unbelievers, I am fully entitled to the benefit of their own assumptions, especially as their reasonings against the truth of the Resurrection owe all their plausi- bility to them. But the evidence of the narrow-mindedness and exclusive bigotry of the Jews of this period rests on a firm historical foundation ; and this fact is alone sufficient to support the weight of the argument. 138 THE CONTEAST BETWEEN THE TEACHING OP last degree exclusive, fanatical, and superstitious ; and that in an atmosphere of this kind Jesus and His disciples must have been born and educated; and that a corresponding character was deeply impressed on His early followers. So much was this the case, that in the opinion of so profound a thinker as Mr. Mill it is simply incredible that the dis- courses attributed to him in the Synoptic Gospels can have been invented by the evangelists, or even by the Apostle Paul. This being so, it is surprising that he did not ask himself the question. Whence did this man get all this wisdom ? instead of contenting himself with a vague plati- tude about the genius of the prophet of Nazareth ?* Further : it will be quite unnecessary for the purposes of this argument to maintain that a large amount of moral truth has not been discovered by man^s unassisted reason. Many persons have argued on the principle that the more they can detract from reason, the more they strengthen Revelation. Such a position is however utterly unsound. * On tlie other hand another class of unbelievers endeavour to prove that a considerable number of the moral precepts in the Gospels were the current sayings of Jewish doctors, who were Our Lord's contemporaries. The sole authority for this is the Talmud, one por- tion of which, the Mishna, was not committed to writing before a.d. 180 at the earliest ; and the other, the Gemara, about a.d. 500. This being the case, it is impossible to say, how far any of its sayings accurately represent the teaching of Our Lord's contemporaries, or whether they may not have been borrowed from Christian sources. These writers display an unbounded trust in tradition when it can be used as a weapon against Christianity, and an equal distrust in it, when it makes in its favour. They also forget to inform their readers, that these moral gems which are scattered over twelve folio volumes are entombed in a mass of contemptible trivialities, and hair splittings, about questions of which not a single vestige can be found in the pages of the Gospels. All the evidence of which we arc in possession tends to prove that Jewish teaching in Our Lord's time had fully entered on that course of casuistry, of which the Tahnud is the con- summation, and of which the moral teaching of Christianity is the absolute contrast. But as I shall show, objections of this kind, even if they had all the value which has been attributed to them by those who have adduced them, leave the real point of issue untouched. CHRISTIANITY AND THAT OP THE PHILOSOPHERS. 139 To assert the inability of reason to discover moral truth, is not only to contradict the most unquestionable facts ; but it is equivalent to the denial that man possesses a moral nature ; for if he does^ the discovery of a large amount of moral truth must be possible. To adopt this course is in fact to sacrifice one of our strongest arguments. On the contrary, my position is, that as far as portions of the teaching of the New Testament are in agreement with that of the most enlightened teachers of the ancient world, it proves that the persons by whom it has been elaborated must have been emancipated from the narrow-mindedness of the Jew of the Apostolic age ; and consequently that it could not have been evolved by any natural process out of such a moral and intellectual atmosphere. Further; if Jewish peasants and fishermen have succeeded in accomplishing what all the masters of ancient thought, after all their cff'orts, failed to eSect, it proves the presence in Christianity of an insight which is more than human. It has been objected against this line of reasoning, that some of the moral jDrecepts which are contained in the New Testament can be found elsewhere ;* and that if reason can * Of the first of these objections we liave some remarkable examples iu Mr. Buckle's History of Civilization. He not only charges the -R-riters of the New Testament with borrowing largely from heathen sources, but he goes the length of affirming that it is a fact well known to every scholar that several of its most elevated moral precepts are quotations from heathen authors. When we con- sider that the quotations from such sources are only three in number, it is incomprehensible how a man of Mr. Buckle's extensive erudition can have committed so extraordinary a blunder. I am aware that it has been inferred from some passages in St. Paul's writings that he was acquainted with the Greek tragedians. But of this the evidence amounts to little, or nothing. Nothing can be more absurd than to affirm, because two sets of writings contain a few mox-al precepts which bear a close affinity to one another, that the one must have been derived from the other, when the resemblance can be sufficiently accounted for by the fact that both writers drew from the dictates of that moral nature which is common to man. The bare perusal of St. Paul's epistles ought to be sufficient to convince any reader of the 140 THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TEACHING OP discover moral truth^ a revelation is unnecessary. But how, I would askj can tlie fact that some of its precepts are to be found scattered up and down in detached aphorisms, in the writings of ancient moralists, he valid against its originality taken as a whole ? The objection would only have weight, if some one of them had succeeded in elaborating its entire system. Nor does it follow, that because reason can dis- cover a considerable amount of moral truth, it can discover all that is necessary for the well-being of man. But above all : it is founded on the assumption that the chief end and aim of Christianity is to propound a body of ethical truth, instead of what it affirms to be its great purpose, to com- municate to man a great moral and spiritual power of which he was previously destitute. The real point for our investigation is. Are there specialities in Christianity, which vast difference between his teaching, taken as a whole, and the entire system of Pagan ethics ; nor can the smallest trace of such an influence be found in that of Jesus Christ. But Mr. Buckle, in common with nearly every unbeliever who has touched on the moral teaching of Christianity, persistently ignores the fact that the most striking cha- racteristic of the teaching of the New Testament consists in its bringing the principle of faith to bear oi> the human mind as a great moi'al and spiritual power. In fact they habitually speak of it as a mere system of ethical doctrine. Of the second objection, the writings of Mr. F. "W. Newman contain many remarkable examples. He has even gone the length of affirming that a revelation of moral truth is an impos- sibility. In giving utterance to such a paradox, he has laid himself open to a severe retort which constitutes in fact its best refutation. As a writer on moral subjects it is clear that he must consider himself able to impart information to those who are less informed than him- self ; or in other words, that he has some revelation of moral truth to impart to them. Hence it follows, if his views are correct, that what is impossible to God is possible to himself. Numerous affirmations made by both these writers constitute a remarkable proof that high mental powers form no safeguard against the blinding effects of inveterate prejudices. Of this a short work of the latter entitled On the Defective Morality of the New Testament, forms a singular example, the blunders in reasoning being such that if it did not bear the author's name on the title-page, it would have been scarcely credible that it could be the product of his pen. CHRISTIANITY AND THAT OP THE PHILOSOPHERS. 141 all the wisdom of the ancient world was unable to discover ? Does it bring to bear on man^s moral beings a regenerating power, of the want of which the philosopher was deeply conscious_, but which his philosophy was unable to supply ? If so, the peasants of Galilee have distanced the results effected by all the great teachers of the ancient world. Such are the conditions of the argument. II. We must now inquire in what does the moral teaching of the New Testament consist. It naturally separates itself into three divisions. First : a body of special precepts in a very unsystematic form, which were called forth for the purpose of meeting the particular emergencies of those to whom they were addressed ; but with no pretensions to constitute a body of ethical doctrines applicable to all time. Secondly : a number of principles which form the foun- dation of all moral obligation, and are as Catholic as humanity itself, embracing every conceivable form of duty in their all-comprehensive range. Thirdly : its chief speciality consists in the revelation of a mighty moral and spiritual power which is intended to render obedience to the moral law a possibility ; to elevate the holy to higher degrees of holiness, to rescue those whose powers of self-control are weak from the violence of their passions, and to recover from their degradation those who have fallen into a state of moral corruption. This principle is the power of faith in its action on the moral nature of man ; and forms the great characteristic by which the teaching of the New Testament is distinguished from every other system. III. The following are the chief points in which the teaching of the New Testament is most strikingly contrasted with that of the philosophers; and in which its authors have transcended all the great masters of ancient thought in their deep insight into the realities of thiugs. First Contrast. Its earnestness, method, and aim. The first thiug which strikes every reader is the intense 142 THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TEACHING OF earnestness and reality of its teaching. He feels himself brouglit into contact with a power whose aim is, not to enunciate a mere set of rules for the regulation of life or to write disquisitions on the grounds of moral obligation, but to bring men into subjection to the moral law. In striking- contrast to this was the teaching of philosophy. A large portion of its attention was directed to the investigation of the grounds of moral obligation. These Christianity as- sumes as testified to by the conscience, and therefore suffi- ciently known. It accepts the moral nature of man as a fact, and assumes that every one of its primary principles has a legitimate sphere of action in its proper place. This has imparted to its teaching a catholicity which is to be found in no other system. Thus, for the purpose of en- forcing the practice of holiness, it appeals to every principle which acts mightily on human nature. It addresses itself to the love of God, to the love of Christ, to the principle of benevolence in man, to his self-love, to his perception of moral beauty, to his sense of truth, to his love of justice, to his appreciation of the honourable, his sense of self- respect, his love of approbation, and even to his desire of praise.* These last principles are deeply implanted in human nature ; and instead of denouncing them as unhal- lowed or ignoble, it appeals to every one of them as holding a legitimate place in man's moral constitution. Striking is the contrast between this and the course which has been pursued by a large number of systematic moralists. They have occupied themselves in endeavouring to ascertain a number of abstract questions respecting the nature of moral obligation ; as, for example, whether regard for others or rational self-love constitutes the fundamental * No less thau seven of these principles are appealed to by St. Paul in one single passage, as incentives to holiness. " Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true ; whatsoever things are honest {amvu) ; whatsoever things are just ; whatsoever things are pure ; whatsoever things are lovely ; whatsoever things are of good rej^ort ; if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things." — Phil. iv. 8. CHRISTIANITY AND THAT OP THE PHILOSOPHERS. 143 principle of virtue ; and according as they have deter- mined in favour of one or the other, they have elaborated systems based on partial principles, and in disregard of some of the great realities of man's moral constitution.* This is also the case with several of our modern systems. Some of the ancient ones in this respect even displayed a spirit of fanaticism, and preached the uprooting of some of the fundamental principles of our moral constitution as a duty. Other defects inherent in their method have stamped them with an impress which is partial, national, and local. The New Testament, on the contrary, embraces all its * Such, has been the course taken by systematizers in every age, to concentrate the mind on one or two motives as correct principles of action, and to ignore all others, however deeply seated they may be in the moral nature of man. Thus those who have taken a narrow view of Christianity have affirmed that the only motive which ought to influence the Christian is the love of Jesus Christ, and that for a Christian to act on any inferior motive, such as the desire of approba- tion, or the love of praise, would be almost sinful. The love of Christ is undoubtedly the highest motive appealed to by Christianity ; but while the writers of the New Testament habitually place this in the forefront, they appeal to every principle in man's moral constitution which can be enlisted in the service of holiness. Thus St. Paul urges the forwardness of other Churches in making contributions to relieve the poverty of the Church in Judeea as a motive to provoke the Corin- thians to additional liberality. Sectarianism would pronounce such a motive unworthy to regulate the conduct of Christian men. St. Paul however, recognizes the fact that every principle in man's moral nature has a legitimate [sphere of action, and in so doing, he shows a com- prehensiveness of view wholly foreign to the enthusiast or the fanatic. A similar exclusiveness has been often exhibited by philosophy. The principle of self-love is one which is deeply seated in human nature, and as such, it claims to occupy a suitable place in the philosophy of man. But a well-known school denounces the appeal to it as a principle of action, and affirms that an elevated system of morahty must be founded on absolute benevolence. Yet Jesus Christ has repeatedly appealed to enlightened self-love as a principle of action. Thus the writers of the New Testament, by recognizing every prin- ciple of man's moral nature in its proper subordination, have shown themselves alike free from the exclusiveness of sectarianism and philosophy. 144 THE CONTEAST BETWEEN THE TEACHING OF principles within its comprehensive range, and is as catholic as human nature. What is the necessary inference ? It is this : that from whatever source its teaching has been derived, it is impossible that it can have been developed by any natural process of evolution out of that hot-bed of narrow-minded bigotry which unbelievers affirm to have constituted the moral and spiritual atmosphere which was breathed by Jesus and His early followers. To attribute such a result to the genius of Jesus is to allow that it cannot be accounted for by the action of any of the known forces energizing in man. Second Contrast. The freedom of Christianity from all attempts at political legislation. A very remarkable contrast between the teaching of Christianity and that of philosophy is presented to us in that the former is entirely free from all attempts to deal with either political or social questions. The universal practice of the great philosophers of the ancient world was precisely the reverse. With them moral questions invariably assumed a political aspect ; Ethics were in fact a branch of politics. The reason of this is obvious. Their only hope for the regeneration of man was based on the creation of sound political and social institutions, by means of which men might be trained to virtue. Hence they thought it necessary to sketch an ideal republic, which never became an actual one. The Jew on the contrary, who knew nothing of philosophy, was filled with the profoundest reverence for the Scriptures of the Old Testament. These not only pro- pounded a system of political legislation as of divine autho- rity, but the teaching of the prophets is addressed to Israel, not in an individual, but in a corporate or political capacity. Surely if the teaching had been the mere natural outcome of either Jewish or Gentile thought, this striking charac- teristic would not have been entirely wanting. But what is still more remarkable, the great Teacher professed to be the founder of a kingdom ; yet His abstinence from political and social questions is total : the kingdom CHRISTIANITY AND THAT OF THE PHILOSOPHERS. 145 ■which he set up was one which was diverse in character from everything which had existed in the past, being exclu- sively based on conviction and persuasion. Yet it has existed in full vigour for eighteen centuries; and during this long interval of time, not a single attempt to erect another on the same principles has proved successful. Jesus Christ alone at one single bound has passed from the / political, the formal, and the ritual, to the individual, ( the spiritual, and the moral. The one single sentence of His teaching, which bears a political aspect, " Eender to Ceesar the things that are Ctesar's, and to God the things that are God's," has for ever emancipated the conscience from the control of the State, assigning to each their respective limits, and establishing for ever the liberty of the individual.* * It lias often been objected that St. Paul has taught the doctrine of non-resistance to Governments, however tyrannical they may be. (B,om. xiii. 1-9.) This objection has arisen from a disregard of the important principle that the precepts in the Epistles, in the special form Ln which they are there enunciated, are not portions of a moral code, binding for all time, but were called forth by the special circum- stances of those to whom they were addressed. The Jewish element in the Church was always turbulent, and by such persons the doctrine of the Kingdom of God easily admitted of being perverted into a treasonable principle against pagan Governments, and thus compromis- ing the Church as a political institution. Hence it became necessary that the Apostle should carefully guard against this danger, which was so far real that the Eoman Government only a short time previously had made it the pretext for expelling all Jews, and doubtless the Christians among them, from the city. Hence in the peculiar circum- stances of the Eoman Church these precepts of the Apostle against political turbulence are peculiarly appropriate. In them he lays down that civil government is a divine ordinance, and consequently civil obedience a duty which must be conscientiously rendered by the Christian. He then decides the question which the Jews were con- stantly raising as to the lawfulness of paying taxes to heathen Govern- ments, and aCSrms that it is a Christian duty to do so on the ground that the end of all government is the protection of the individual, and that this was the divine purpose in its institution. It is quite true that the Apostle has given no precept as to what is the duty of 10 146 THE CONPRAST BETWEEN THE TEACHING OP I need not draw your attention to tlic fact that tlie presence of a body of political and social legislation in the Koran constitutes the rock on which Mahomedanism is being hopelessly shipwrecked before our eyes^ and utterly unfits it for being the religion of humanity. Is it possible, I ask, that any one who was born and educated under the influences by which Jesus was surrounded could have rigidly excluded all political and social questions from His teaching ? With the experience of the past before Him, would any amount of foresight have enabled Him to guess that if He had prescribed a body of political legislation, the consequences would have been fatal to His religion, and would have caused the ruin of that kingdom which it was His purpose to establish. Mr. Mill considers the moral teaching of Christianity defective because it dwells so little on public duties and public virtues.* Such an opinion is not to be wondered at, when we consider that the whole school of thought to which he belongs place their hopes of man's future regeneration on improving his condition politically and socially, rather than by acting on his conscience and his heart. This most remarkable absti- nence from entering on questions of this description I claim to be a striking proof that the Founder of Christianity possessed an insight which must have raised Him above all the trammels imposed on Him by His birth and His sur- roundings, in that while He has kept clear of all political and social questions. He has been able to enforce all the duties which they demand in the all-comprehensive principle of self-sacrifice rendered to Himself. If He had pursued the course which many eminent moderns would have suggested to Him, and commenced His work of regenerating mankind, not by appealing to the conscience of the individual, but by Christians when Oovernments fail in tlio cliscliargc of this tlieir proper function. If he had done so he must have converted his epistle into a political treatise, and incurred the danger which under the existing circumstances of the Church he wished to avoid. * £i>say on Liberty. CHRISTIANITY AND THAT OF THE PHILOSOPHERS. 1 17 addressing Himself to tlie external^ the social^ aud the politi- cal^ Christianity would never have survived the century that gave it birth.* It will pei'haps be urged that the far-seeing genius of Jesus enabled Him thus to penetrate into the realities of the distant future. But genius can only act in conformity with the laws of our intellectual and moral being. If therefore Jesus was a genius after the model of other great men, and nothing more, all this profound insight must have been generated in the solitary musings of a Jew, whose moral and spiritual suiToundings were the atmosphere of narrow exclu- * The mode in which Christianity deals with the great social question of Slavery is a remarkable instance of the profound wisdom which dwelt in the authors of the New Testament. Many modern writers would have had Our Lord and His Apostles denounce it as an unhallowed institution. What would have been the consequences if they had done so ? It would have brought down the whole weight of the Roman Government on the Church as a political society whose object was to subvert the existing order of things, and thus have caused its speedy extinction. If on the other hand an anti-slavery propaganda had been instituted, and any amount of success had attended its efforts, which in the then condition of society was in tlvo highest degree improbable, the result would have been a war of classes ; and we know as a matter of fact that the previous revolts of the slaves had been attended with one result only, the production of a frightful amount of human misery, aud the more firmly rivetting their chains. The course taken by Christianity in dealing with this great evil has been very different from that which modern thcorisers would have suggested, but it has been an effectual one. Instead of a number of precepts directly aimed at Slavery, it has laid down certain great pi-inciples of duty obligatory towards all men, with the practice of which the existence of Slavery is impossible. These have gradually'- leavened the whole atmosphere of thought, and after a long and severe struggle Slavery has become extinct in every nation which professes Christianity. In this manner it has far more effectually crushed the evil than if it had openly declared war against it as a social institution. Other social evils will share the same fate in jjroportion as its great principles gradually leaven the entire lump of humanity. Nothing can afford a stronger proof that Christianity has not been the invention of a number of credulous fanatics than the wisdom it has shown in dealing with these aud kindred questions. 10 * 148 THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TEACHING OF siveness, and who perished at the early age of thirty-four. We may call this genius, if we please^ but it must be one which manifests the presence of the superhuman. Third Contrast. The teaching of Christianity has founded the religion of humanity. I adduce from the Fourth Gospel another instance of the profound insight which must have dwelt in the Author of Christianity or whoever put the saying into His mouth, by which he has enthroned religion in the centre of man^s moral and spiritual being. The utterance to which I allude, is the great utterance made to the woman of Samaria, " Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father. But the hour cometh and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit ; and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.'' John iv. 21, 24. Mr. Mill has expressed the opinion that the utterances which the author of this Gospel has put into the mouth of Jesus (and he makes no exception in favour of the one before us), are ''Poor Stuff." It was only in conformity with the principles of his philosophy, and of the atmosphere of thought in which he was nurtured from his earliest years, that he should have been incapable of appreciating their insight and their depth. M. Renan, however, affirms that in this utterance Jesus has for ever laid deep the foundations of the religion of humanity. Can there be any doubt, I ask, with respect to this great saying, that an overwhelming majority of deep thinkers will confirm his verdict. No such profound utterance had up to this time passed the lips of man. What then are the facts before us ? Jesus, or the author of this Gospel, who has put the saying into His mouth, must have been possessed of an insight so profound as to have burst through all the conditions of his environment, and in three short sentences laid deep for all ages the everlasting foundations of the temple of humanity. The repudiation of CHRISTIANITY AND THAT OP THE THILOSOPHERS. 149 what is national, local, and outward is complete, and religion is declared to rest for evermore on the Fatherhood of God. By this act he has effected what the philosophers were un- able to accomplish, the union of man's religious aspirations with his moral nature. Compare with this our modern worship of humanity, and its moral aspects. Surely those nnbelievers who allow a religion to be possible must concede that the Author of this saying has placed it on a foundation which will endure for evermore. Yet the moral and spiritual atmosphere in the midst of which He was born and nurtured, was the exclusiveness of Judaism. If it be said that an insight which rose to such an elevation above its surround- ings, was due to the exalted genius of the prophet of Naza- reth, I shall not absolutely quarrel with the term, but it must have been a genius which manifested the presence of the superhuman. Fourth Contrast. The all-comprehensiveness of the Chris- tian law of duty. I now ask your attention to the great law of duty as enunciated by Christianity, and its all-comprehensive cha- racter. The great Teacher who, if there was nothing superhuman in him, must have been a mere peasant, nurtured in the narrow exclusiveness of Judaism, has by the enun- ciation of three great principles, solved all the various questions of duty raised by the endless discussions of philosophers. These are : — First. Man's duty to man, as founded on, and originatino* in the relation in which man stands to' God. Secondly. Man's duty to man, measured by the regard which he feels for himself. Thirdly. Man's duty to man, measured and sanctioned by the obligations he is under to Jesus Christ. The fii'st of these makes the law of duty co-extensive with the human family. We are all aware that the greatest of the ancient philosophers failed to discover any law of duty which could make it co-extensive with all races and con- ditions of men. They did not regard duty as an obligation 150 THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TEACHING OF to man as man, but restricted it witliin tlie narrow bounds of citizenship, race, and social condition; and consequently looked upon tlie majority o£ mankind as pariaks, wko stood outside the pale of obligation. Some dim conception of tlie universal brotkerkood of mankind may be found in tke later Stoic pkilosopky, but it exists only as a barren speculation, devoid of any substantial basis. Ancient pkilosopky, in skort, divorced morality from religion, and thereby deprived itself of all moral and spiritual power. Jesus Ckrist, on tke contrary, lias united tke two, and tkereby strengtkened tke moral principle by all tke sanctions wkick religion can impart. Contrast witli tke teacking of tke illiterate Jewisk peasant tkat of our modern Atkeistic and Pantkeistic systems. Instead of being able to announce a law of duty extending to all meu, because all men are tke ckildren of tke same gracious Fatker, wko kas made all tke nations of tke eartk, tke only bond of union tkey can suggest is, not tkat all men are tke ckildren of tke same Fatker in heaven, but tkat tkey are tke common descendants of some primeval savage.* * All modern systems of anti-Cliristian pliilosopliy find it impos- sible to propound any principle whicli can form an effectual basis on wliicb to rest the universal brotlierjiood of mankind. Tlie question demands an answer — How do we know tbat we owe obligations to others ? Why is self-sacrifice a duty ? To those who admit that gratitude and a sense of justice are inherent portions of man's moral nature, and that the voice of conscience is authoritative, the answer is not difficult. The principle that we are bound to render to others what we would wish to have done to ourselves, is at once pronounced by it to be in accordance with the highest reason. The answer of Christianity on this point is clear and distinct. God is our Creator, and the Creator of all men. From Him come down every faculty and power we possess, and we are His stewards in the use of them. He has therefore a right to demand the higliest self-sacrifice ; and the voice of conscience asserts that His claims are just. As therefore all men are the children of God, all fall within a common bond of obliga- tion, as members of the same family. But if the Fatherhood of God, and the principle of intuitional morality is renounced, the question Why is one man bound to an act of self-sacrifice on behalf of anotlicr, ]jecomes incapable of solution. A system which denies that our moral CHRISTIANITY AND THAT OP THE PHILOSOPHERS. 151 The second great principle of the teaching of Jesus renders the law of duty self-determinative, i.e., it converts the individual conscience into a law to itself. Under it the question, What is my duty in this or that particular instance ? is infallibly answered by another, which the questioner may put to himself, What would I have done to me, if I were in that man's place ? Obedience may be hard, but the answer will certainly be unmistakably distinct. The third great principle carries the law of duty to its extremest limits. The love of Jesus Christ to man is made both the measure and the motive of the love of man to man. It has been objected (I think absurdly) that the divine rule, " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself '' (obedience to perceptions of riglit and wrong are intuitional, is compelled to resolve all moral distinctions into mere questions of expediency ; or, in other words, into tlie principle of self-love. If it be affirmed that the sacrifice of self for others is a duty merely because it is conducive to our own highest happiness, the difficulty is, to prove it. In fact there are cases of unquestionable duty, where the highest forms of self- sacrifice, even that of life itself, are demanded of us, where such proof becomes impossible. Atheistic and Pantheistic systems of thought have no resource but to base moral obligation on expediency. If this be its only foundation, it is clear that each man must be a measure of obligation to himself only as far as he is capable of perceiving that a particular line of conduct is conducive to his own happiness. I am aware that this principle is affirmed to mean the greatest happiness of the greatest number, and not merely the greatest happiness of the individual. But the question immediately arises, How do we know that it is obligatory on us to pursue the greatest happiness of the greatest number except as far as the realization of it is conducive to our own? It is quite conceivable that the pursuit of the greatest happiness of the greatest number may involve a degree of self-sacrifice which is inconsistent with the pursuit of our own individual good. The fact is, that all theories which refuse to rest duty on some intuitional basis resolve it into a question of accurate calculation ; and. the best man will be he who possesses the clearest head. The Father- hood of God beiug renounced, and the intuitional perception of any moral principle denied. Atheistic and Pantheistic philosophy are able to announce no principle binding on the conscience which will bring all mankind within the range of obligation. 152 THE CONTEAST BETWEEN THE TEACHING OF wliich would certainly go far to convert this world into a heaven), sets up a selfish standard of morality. Those who have made the objection, if they had looked a little further, would have found in the last great precept of Jesus Christ, which he designates his '' new Commandment," a rule which would have gratified their most unselfish wishes ; " Love one another, as I have loved you." This removes the ideal of duty out of self; and measures and sanctions it by the divine self-sacrifice of Christ our Lord. Surely this is one beyond which it is impossible for human thought to pass. On this is founded the great Christian duty of self-sacrifice, which underlies the whole moral teaching of the New Testament, and which embraces within its comprehensive range all other possible duties, whether they be individual, social, or political. Every duty which man owes to man in every situation in life in which he is placed, he is bound to render as a grateful sacrifice to Christ his Lord, whom he is bound to glorify alike in life and death. I earnestly draw your attention to this principle, because its existence is overlooked by the various classes of unbelievers who treat of the moral teaching of Christianity, and pronounce it de- fective.* A popular school of modern thought has made the charge against Christianity of not having made adequate provision for the discharge of those duties which man owes to the public. Surely those who have made this charge must have read the New Testament with blinded eyes, for nothing can be clearer than that its great fundamental * I am not aware that Mr. Mill has once recognized the fact that the great Christian duty of sacrifice of self as due to Christ our Lord ; nor the equally comprehensive one that the Christian in every position in society in which he is placed as God's steward, is bound to use every gift with which he is entrusted to God's glory, as a fundamental principle, which underlies the moral teaching of the New Testament. His philosojihy was no doubt very adverse to its recognition. "Xet surely it is absurd to discuss the value of any system, above all, to pronounce it inadequate to meet the requirements of advancing civili- zation, when M'e neglect to include its most fundamental principles in our survey uf it. CHRISTIANITY AND THAT OP THE PHILOSOPHERS. 153 principles of our being stewards of God^ and onr duty of sacrifice of self, measured by the self-sacrifice of Christ, must include every social duty wkicli man can owe to man.* * The New Testament lays down another principle which has a most important bearing on the obliojation of the Christian to the faith- ful discharge of all the various duties which he owes to the public. It teaches that every mental gift which he possesses, and the position in society in which he is placed are a stewardship intrusted to him by God, for the right discharge of which he is responsible. The over- looking of these two great principles has caused many unbelievers to charge the moral teaching o£ Christianity with imperfection. It is clear that if the position in society in which a Christian is placed is a stewardship intrusted to him by God, he is bound by the strongest considerations to the diligent discharge of the various duties which it imposes on him. If he possesses wealth, he is bound to administer it, not merely as he pleases, but under a direct feeling of responsibility to God who has intrusted him with it. The same is true of every mental endowment, and of all the political and social influence he possesses. Christianity, in short, is ignorant of the distinction so commonly laid down between religious and secular duties ; between things sacred and the pursuits of daily life. It has made every duty which man can owe to man a religious duty. It has sanctified the whole of human life, including its pleasures and enjoyments, and claimed it for God. "None of us liveth unto himself" says the Aj)ostle, " and no man dieth unto himself," " Ye serve the Lord Christ." The error above referred to has originated in the idea that Christianity has so directed our attention to the importance of the world to come as to divert it from the concerns of the present. This however is an evident misappre- hension of its teaching. It is perfectly true that it speaks in the strongest manner of our interest in the future state ; and that the interests of this world are unimportant in comparison with those of the next. But its assertions are no less emphatic that the only mode of securing our interests in the world to come is by a faithful discharge of every duty which man owes to man in the present. Thus, instead of disparaging the importance of present duties, it imparts the highest possible sanction to the conscientious and faithful discharge of them. The fact is, that Christianity lays down that this world is God's world ; and that whatever duty man is called upon to discharge, he is to do it heartily unto the Lord, and not to man, because he is bound to glorify God in his body and in his spirit, which are God's. Such is the provision which Christianity makes for the discharge of all the duties 154 THE CONTEAST BETWEEN THE TEACHING OP Striking tlien is tlie contrast between the all-comprelien- sive teaching of the illiterate Jewish peasant and that of the profoundest teachers of the ancient world. The one is one-sided, national and partial ; the other as catholic as human nature, and as many sided as the moral nature of man. The one bears on it the impress of those by whom it was elaborated ; the other has burst through every trammel which was imposed on it by its surroundings. The one discussed questions of duty with endless prolixity ; the other by a few comprehensive utterances has solved all such questions for evermore. Whence then did this man derive all this wisdom? The profoundest thinkers of the ancient world with all the mass of accumulated experience at their command, were unable to approach to the comprehensiveness or the elevation of His teaching. Yet if Christianity be a mere human development, this world-wide catholicity must have been evolved out of a system of narrow-minded exclusiveness. IV. Another contrast between the teaching of the New Testament and that of the philosophers, which probably strikes every intelligent reader, is the relative importance it assigns to the milder virtues. As no inconsiderable amount of misrepresentation has taken place on this subject, I will briefly state what are the actual facts. Kespecting the views of philosophy there can be little doubt. The political or heroical virtues occupy the first place in every system ; the milder ones a place wholly subor- dinate ; and one of them, humility, a virtue much insisted on by Christianity, has no place at all. We have only to read the Ethics of Aristotle to ascertain the fact, and the writings of the great philosopher fairly represent the views of the we owe to tlie public; and I maintain that it is more comprehensive than that enjoined by any system of modern teacliing, and sanctioned by the highest motives that can be brought to bear on man. If on the other hand we view the question as one of fact, it is certain that no servants of the public discharge their duties with greater faithful- ness and devotion than those who are thoroughly leavened with the principles of Christianity. CHEISTIANITY AND THXT OF THE PHILOSOPHERS. 155 ancient world. If we consider its standpoint, the case could hardly have been otherwise. Christianity on the contrary places the milder virtues in the forefront, quite as emphati- cally as philosophy did the political ones.* Of some of these latter, such as patriotism, it takes no direct notice. To the practice of others its exhortations are few; but so earnest is its effort to enforce the practice of the milder ones, that several of its j)recepts, if taken literally, and detached from the immediate circumstances which called them forth, may be said to be inconsistent with a due regard for the public rights of man. In .considering this subject it should be borne in mind that while it was the end and purpose of philosophy to propound a complete ethical code, such was wholly foreign to the aim of the writers of the New Testament. While the great principles of the latter are of world-wide comprehen- sivenesSj their special precepts are invariably called forth * I do not claim for Christianity absolute originality in assigning a more prominent place to tlie milder virtues. The principle is very dis- tinctly recognized in the Old Testament Scriptures. In fact the assign- ing a prominent place to certain virtues, such as humility, tlie existence of wliich is scarcely recognized by pagan ethics, is inseparable from any system of theism which views God as the Creator of all things, and man as standing in a personal relation to Him as His creature. Whenever this conception receives a practical recognition, all those feelings which spring out of man's relationship to God, and from a sense of sin, are called into lively exercise. But while the Old Testament assigns to the milder virtues a very diiTerent place from that which is assigned to them in pagan ethics, most of its great characters are striking exemplifications of the predominance of the heroic ones. A few of them exhibit the former qualities, but taking the whole as a series, the sterner aspects of human nature unquestionably predominate. It is therefore quite true that it has been reserved for Christianity to bring the importance of the milder virtues into prominent light, by placing them in the forefront of its teachings ; and above all, by ex- hibiting them as the predominant element in the divine character of Christ our Lord. The manner in which they are exhibited in Him, in the closest union with, but yet predominant over the heroical ones, constitute Him the perfect exhibition of moral loveliness. 156 THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TEACHING OP by tlie special circumstances of tliose to wliom tliey are addressed.* Consequently before they can be applied to otlier circumstances and conditions, they require to be resol^^ed into the principles on which they are based, and then accommodated to the altered facts. They are in fact directions for practice under special circumstances ; and to interpret them as though they were intended as abstract precepts binding on man for all time, is utterly to mistake their meaning. Thus a strong precept inculcating the duty of obedience to governors, might be very appropriate when addressed to a body of turbulent Jews, but would be wholly inapplicable to the free citizens of a well-ordered State. Similarly, precepts urging abnega- tion of the rights of property might have been very necessary when addressed to certain conditions of society, which would be absolutely pernicious if regarded as ap- plicable to every state of civilization. f Nothing has been a * The precepts given by St. Paul to the Eoman and Corinthian Churches in reference to the duty of observing certain days, and the lawfulness of eating certain kinds of food, form a very remark- able illustration of this principle. The circumstances which called them forth, have passed away : and consequently the precepts, in the form in wliich they were given by the Aj)ostle, have no direct beai'ing on the present condition of the Church. But the undei-lying princij^les are valid for all time for the solution of a vast number of questions beyond those which came within the Apostle's immediate view. They lay down the broadest principles of toleration with respect to the diilerences which arise among Christians in every age ; and may be truly said to constitute the "Magna Charta" of religious liberty. Would that the Church had given heed to them during the various controversies that have agitated her throughout the long period of her history! The principles of no modern philosophical system surpass them in comprehensiveness. Yet they are the utterances of one who was born and nurtured amid the narrowest Jewish fanaticism and intolerance, and who had carried out these principles by fiercely perse- cuting the Church. t I allude to those which seem to condemn saving, and to enjoin indiscriminate almsgiving. There can be no doubt that if such pre- cepts were acted on to the letter, they would not only occasion a far greater amount of misery than would be relieved by their observance, CHRISTrANITY AND THAT OF THE PHILOSOrHERS. 157 more fruitful source of error respecting the teacliing of tlie New Testament, tlian tliis assumption tliat its precepts, as distinct from its great moral principles, were intended to constitute a body of ethical docti-ine applicable to all time, instead of being specially addressed to particular Cburclies and individuals, in reference to the circumstances in wliich they were placed. On the other hand it should be observed that, although the political virtues receive but a partial recognition, they are strongly exemplified in the actions of its great characters. While there is scarcely a precept which enjoins courage or self-respect, the world contains no grander example of these two virtues than is exhibited in the Founder of Christianity and the Apostle Paul. I invite you to compare the portraiture of the Jesus of the Gospels as exhibiting the perfection of self-conscious dignity with that which has been drawn by the great author of the Ethics, of his jueya- but would be destructive of modern civilization. It has been said that such, precepts are intended to embody an ideal morality, which, would be fitted to a perfect state of society. I cannot attribute any- thing so unpractical to Our Lord and His Apostles, for it is clear that they did not anticipate the realization of a perfect state of society during the present condition of things ; and wlien it was realized, such precepts would be unnecessary. The only correct view seems to me to be, that they are precepts enunciated in a very popular form, addressed to a state of thought and feeling in wliich the opposite tendencies were extremely powerful. As a general fact there can be no doubt that the benevolent impulses are the weakest in human nature, and therefore require to be called forth by having the whole weight of the religious principle thrown into the scale with them ; and that those which terminate in self are so powerful as to requii-e the strongest repression. I fully allow that these precepts (which are far fewer in number than is commonly supposed,) if carried out to the letter, amount to communism ; but the great Teacher Himself has given an emphatic warning against such a mode of interpreting them, and so has the Apostle Paul (John vi. 63 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6). Taking the teaching of the New Testament as a whole, it is clear that while it makes the strongest effort to awaken the benevolent aflfections, it keeps itself wholly free from communistic pi-inciples. 158 THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TEACHING OF X6\fjv\og, or magnauimous man. The comparison makes the latter seem like a burlesque. Though none of the writers of the New Testament have written direct commendations of courage^ they exliibit the brightest example of it in their practice, and place it on its true foundation in the great saying, '' It is right to obey God rather than man/' The very men whose exhortations to the practice of the milder virtues are so strong that they almost seem to have over- looked the existence of the heroic, exhibit these latter in their practice on the grandest scale, affording them thereby the highest recognition. I fully concede, however, that while it is an utter mis- representation of the moral teaching of the New Testament, to charge on it the purpose of superseding the heroical and political virtues, it was its aim and purpose to reverse the order in which they stood in the estimation of the ancient world. Admitting the fact, the important question is, have they in adopting this course exhibited a deep insight into the realities of human nature ? Which in fact have been right, the writers of the New Testament or the philosophers, in the relative importance they have assigned to these two classes of virtues ? If this question can be decided by authority, there cannot bo a doubt that since Christianity has pronounced in favour of the milder virtues, an over- whelming majority of the wisest and the holiest of men have accepted its decision as the right one. There can be no doubt that if, during the last three thousand years, the milder virtues had occupied the place which the heroical ones have held in men's estimation, the happiness of mankind would have increased a thousand-fold. Take, for example, the three great political virtues, of courage, patriotism and ambition, which have in all ages commanded the most un- bounded admiration. When we calmly survey the pages of history, is it, I ask, too much to affirm that a large portion of the crimes with which it has been stained, have been due to the unrestrained action of these three qualities : qualities noble in themselves, but which become simply pernicious CHRISTIA^'ITY AND THAT OF THE PHILOSOPHERS. 159 when uncontrolled and unregulated by tlie predominant in- fluence of tlie milder virtues ? The political and lieroical ones are higlily valuable when kept in proper subordination to the milder qualities of the human mind ; but when they reign supreme and alone^ as they have generally done throughout the ages of the past, the perniciousness of their influence has only been in proportion to their greatness. I claim therefore for the writers of the New Testament, that in reversing the order of the importance of the virtues, they have shown a profound insight into the reahties of human nature ; and that they are right in assigning the first place to the fi'uits of the Spirit of God, and the subordinate one to the qualities in question. The place they have assigned to the milder virtues, and their exhibition of them in com- bination with the heroical ones in the person of Jesus Christ, have, in the words of Mr. Lecky, " done more to regenerate and soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philoso- phers, and than all the exhortations of moralists. ^^ Fifth Contrast. The views taken by Jesus Christ and by the philosophers of the extent of their respective missions. The next striking contrast between the Founder of Chris- tianity and the philosophers is His great conception of addressing His mission to the masses of mankind, while theirs was confined to a small spiritual aristocracy. In this respect the interval which separates Jesus Christ from the traditions of the past is profound. He is the founder and the leader of all the benevolent and missionary exertions in the modern world, and has made the duty of following His example an inherent portion of His system to such an extent that it is impossible for any genuine disciple to avoid making Him the subject of his imitation. I need not in this place dwell on the exclusiveness of the great teachers of the ancient world. This was inevitable from their position. Their teaching was not a religion, but a philosophy, and their object was to form a school for its study. Hence it was that nothing could be more alien to the ideas of the philosopher than to go out into the high- IGO THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TEACHING OP ways and hedges of humanity, and compel the degraded to come in. The reason is obvious. PLilosophy had no Gospel of good news for such. With the means at its command it could only address itself to the intellectual aristocracy of mankind. Two sentences will^ I think, pre- sent the contrast between the method of Jesus and that of the philosophers in a striking light. Jesus Christ afl&rmed that He came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. Philosophy affirmed that its special mission was " to those of mankind who have a natural tendency and disposition towards virtue." The conception which Jesus Christ and the philosophers entertained of their respective missions differed as widely as the poles. I boldly affirm that all modern attempts to ameliorate the condition of the masses have originated in this grand conception of Jesus Christ. He is the originator, the leader, and the pioneer of every self-sacrificing effort which has been made for the improvement of mankind -, its example, and what is more, the motive force which has impelled all subsequent efforts. In this respect it is beyond all ques- tion that the teaching and example of Jesus has transcended that of all philosophy. Yet if the positions of unbelievers be true, the genius of a peasant, born and educated in the narrowest atmosphere of Jewish exclusiveness, has origi- nated and carried out this- grand conception. If it be so, the genius which has effected this great result must have been an inspiration from above, for it is unique in the his- tory of mankind.* * It will perLaps be urged that Socrates took a wider view of Ms mission than that which I have assigned to the philosophers ; that he spent his whole life in endeavouring to improve his fellow-citizens in virtue ; and that he died a martyr to his exertions. There can be no doubt that he took a wider view of his mission than that which was taken by the other philosophers. Still it was confined to the citizens of a single State ; and these formed the intellectual aristocracy of the ancient world. Tlic philosopher affirms in his defence that it was his fixed purpose to confine his labours to his countrymen; and in reply to all exhortations to avoid the dangers which surrounded him, by CHRISTIANITY AND TUAT OF THE PHILOSOPHERS. IGl Sixth Contrast. Tlie creation by Cliristianitj of a miglity moral and spiritual power, which, while philosophy confessed the need of it, it failed to discover. This brings me to the consideration of the most striking contrast which exists between the teaching of philosophy and that of Christianity, viz. the affirmation which Chris- tianity makes that it possesses within itself a moral and transferring liis labours to another sphere of action, declined to do so on the ground that it would prove an uncongenial soil. It is clear therefore that Socrates never entertained the idea of a mission to mankind, nor even to the Grecian race, but that his eflforts were strictly confined to the improvement of his fellow-citizens. With these in the public places of resort he spent his time in arguing and discussing. Between his own conception of his mission and that of Jesus Christ, or even that of an Old Testament prophet, there is scarcely a single point of resemblance. Jesus Christ authoritatively ,' announced a number of great truths which penetrated to the depths of} the human heart. The method of the philosopher was to create a philosophy by awakening a spirit of sceptical inquiry. He declared that he could atfirui nothing as certain. His whole position dis- qualified him to act the part of a preacher of repentance, and none would have more readily admitted than himself that he was devoid o£ the means of acting as the regenerator of those who were fallen into a condition of moral corruption and degradation. His views were incapable of appreciation except by those who possessed a high order of intellectual power, and a character in some degree congenial to his own. This is evident from the discourses attributed to liim by his two great disciples, unless they have wholly misre- presented his meaning. It is true that he addressed himself to the citizens generally, but the mode of his address was only cal- culated to attract the intellectual aristocracy among them. These he endeavoured to discover in every circle of society. The result was, that his leading disciples became, not a number of missionaries who exhorted mankind to repentance and conversion, or conceived that it was their special duty to devote themselves to the improvement of the condition of degraded man, but the founders of a number of philosophic sects. There is nothing therefore in the conduct or the example of Socrates which at all affects the originality of the conception of the Founder of Christianity ; but everything to impress us with a sense of the unique power with which He has acted as the regenerator and the ameliorator of the condition of mankind. 11 1G2 THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE TEACTIING OF spiritual powei% adequate to effect tlie regeneration o£ man- kind. This poWer^ it affirms, can elevate the holy to higher degrees of holiness, and rescue the degraded from their degradation. This portion of my subject is one of pro- found importance, and to it I earnestly invite your attention, tor it is one which has been greatly overlooked in the entire controversy. Of the want of such a power all the ancient philosophers were profoundly conscious, but all their efforts failed to produce any permanent influence on the regenera- tion of mankind from their inability to discover one. The originality of the claim on the part of Christianity to have created such a power is unquestionable. In proof of this, I adduce the whole course of ancient 1 philosophic thought. If we read the entire remains of \ ancient literature, we shall arise from it with the conviction j that the idea of preaching repentance and amendment to 1 tliose portions of mankind who were sinking into a state of \ moral corruption, or who had already become degraded, was one which never entered into the heads of the philosophers. Yet it is a certain fact that from the time of Socrates Dnwards, man, intellectually, politically, and morally, formed :he chief subject of their investigations. To their labours fve are deeply indebted, for they have thrown a flood of /light on what could or could not be effected by rational in- vestigation, before the great spiritual Sun threw the radiance of his beams on the moral and spiritual world. Their ex- penditure of intellect on this subject was enormous. Of the tendency of man to moral corruption they were profoundly sensible, and have submitted its causes and its symptoms to a minute analysis of which we enjoy the benefit. But did this produce on their part an energetic effort to work its cure. No ; they did what the Priest and the Levite in the ■ parable did to the wounded traveller. They looked curiously and with inquiring eye on degraded man, and passed by on the other side, leaving him to perish in his degradation. Was this owing to inhumanity ? No ; they felt that they had no means of cure. When moral deterioration had ad- CirnTSTIANITY AND THAT OF THE PHILOSOrHErS. IGG vanced to a certain stage, philosophy contemplated it with, despair. Eead your Ethics. Portions of the Seventh book speak on this point in language which it is impossible to misunderstand. That passage in the Tenth book_, in which the great philosopher surveys the probable results of his labours, is almost pathetic in its melancholy.* Whom did he, the spiritual physician, consider himself capable of benefit- ing ? A small body of ingenuous youths, born with a natural tendency to what is good and noble ; but as for the masses, they have no perception of the morally beautiful, and can only be operated on by the fear of punishment. Such are the views which the great philosopher, with his deep insight into human nature, took of the hopeless cha- racter of moral corruption. For it he knew no remedy. We need not wonder therefore that the Schools pronounced on the degraded multitude the ban of spiritual excommuni- cation. To those who are acquainted with the range of ancient philosophic thought, the reason of its impotency to deal with moral corruption will not be difficult to discover. The philosopher was profoundly conscious that there was no moral and spiritual power which he was capable of wielding adequate to cope with the violence of the passions. Reason * El iiev oil' rj'yav 01 Xoyoi avrapKeis TrpoQ to Troiijaai tTritiKilQ ttoWovq av jXKjBovg Kai jxiyaXovQ diKaiwQl t(pipov Kara tov Qsoyviv, Kai tSsi dv TOVTOVQ TTOpiaacSraf vvv Si faivoVTai TrporpExpaa^ai fikv, kuI Trapopfttiaai tCjv vtwv TOVQ tXiv^epovQ iayyiiv, tj^og TEvytvig Kat tLg dXijBiog cpiXoKaXov TTOiJjffat av KaroKioxifiov tic riig aptTrjg, Tovg Sk TruXXovg dSwartiv Trpbg KaXoKayabiav TrpoTptxpaffBar ov yap ■n-e(pvKaatv aldol TTtiSrapKtlv dXXd ^o/3^j, old' (iirkxta^ at twv (pavXwv did to aidxpbv aXXd £id Tag Tifiwpiag- TniBti yap l^wVTig Tag o'lKiing j)6ovdg SiwKovffi Kai ^i ii)V avTai taovrat,