I

Hill !

"Igimthefefiooki
ly/oKtie/oiai^affiifjpCo&gi in -thu Colony"

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS.

Secular.
' The book is a distinctly readable one.' — Glasgow Herald, Sep
tember 1 8, 1902.
' Really excellent little work.' — Daily News, September 26, 1902.
' We cannot commend it too highly.' — Western Morning News,
January 2, 1903.
' Carefully thought-out little work . . . written with frank and
tolerant impartiality.' — Standard, May 26, 1905.
' The arguments are admirably marshalled ; difficulties are not
evaded, but met fairly.' — Westminster Review, August, 1905.
' We welcome a new edition. . . . The appeal of the book is
evidently one to common sense, and the success it has met is fully
deserved. There is a healthy lay atmosphere about Colonel Turton's
arguments which renders them, we fancy, peculiarly effective.' —
Pall Mall Gazette, March 11, 1907.
' It is difficult to know whether to admire most the logical pre
cision with which he marshals his facts, and enforces his conclusions,
or the charming candour, and freshness of style, which make his
book so readable." — Liverpool Daily Post, March 14, 1907.
' This is a new edition, thoroughly revised, of Lieutenant-Colonel
Turton's famous book. . . . We are specially struck with the de
tached manner in which he examines the case ; he holds the scales
evenly, and is not rhetorical. Anyone who has any power of reason
ing at all can follow him clearly from start to finish.' — Bristol Times
and Mirror, February 18, 1907.
Church of England.
' The book is of considerable value to everyone who is concerned
with the controversy on Christian Evidences ; it presents a perfect
storehouse of facts and the conclusions which may be legitimately
drawn from them.' — Church Times, November 2, 1900.

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS— continued.
' We have already expressed our high opinion of this work — the
author of which, it may be mentioned, is serving in South Africa.' —
Guardian, October 17, 1900.
' This thoughtful and convincing treatise. . . . We are glad to
be able to give our good word for the book, which should be found in
the catalogue of every public library in the kingdom. It is a
volume admirably suitable for a gift-book to young men. It furnishes
an armoury of invincible weapons against the scepticism and semi-
scepticism which are rampant among us.' — English Churchman,
November 1, 1900.
' This very excellent volume. . We strongly recommend this
book to the clergy for their own use and for lending to thoughtful
and painstaking readers.' — Church Union Gazette, January, 1901.
' It is one of the best books of its class, readable, candid, convinc
ing, and thorough. It would be cheering news to hear that it had
been widely read. The book will continue to make its way ; and
all Christians will rejoice that it should do so.' — Church Intelligencer,
October, 1905.
' We know of no book which we should lend with more hope of
advantage to a person who, without professional training in theology
or philosophy, is perplexed by the common arguments against the
Christian religion, and fears that the verdict of reason is against it.'
— Church Quarterly, July, 1903. (Subsequent reviews have not been
so favourable.)
' There is1 no padding, and no unnecessary rhetoric. All the avail
able space is filled with good solid reasoning, put in simple language
which an intelligent artisan can follow as easily as an educated
person.' — Church Family Newspaper, October 3, 1902.
' The chief characteristics of this most excellent handbook are
first, its combination of lucidity and simplicity with scholarliness and
accuracy of thought ; and then the remarkable freshness of presen
tation which is given to those arguments which have already brought
intellectual conviction to thousands. It is well adapted to be the
standard compendium of Christian Evidences for the busy man
. . . The brilliancy of the author does not consist in his rhetoric
or appeal, but in the really brilliant fairness which he displays
towards the other side, in the accuracy with which he analyses each
situation, and in the clear and simple arguments which he adduces '
— Church Standard, January, 1906.
' This is the kind of book which strengthens believers and makes
converts. It is one which should be placed within the reach of every
lad at that period of his life when he begins to think for himself.' 
The (Church Lads) Brigade, October, 1905.

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS— continued.

Roman Catholic.
' We very favourably reviewed Major Turton's book on its
first appearance, and we are not at all astonished that it has reached
its third edition. As we wrote then we write now : " We are not
aware of a similar publication by a Catholic writer so clear or so well
adapted to impress the mind with the drift and bearing of those
questions which it now behoves every priest to understand, if
modern minds are to be influenced towards Christianity." We con
gratulate the learned author on the well-merited success his book
has met with.' — Catholic Times, November 16, 1900.
' This excellent book, well written, attractive in its style,
clearly thought out, and convincing.' — Tablet, August 29, 1903.
' This is a work of uncommon merit. . . The style is clear and
makes for pleasant reading. We wish many of our Catholic young
men would try and analyse a chapter in Colonel Turton's helpful
defence of Christianity.' — Universe, July 21, 1905.
' A capital book already much used by priests in thi6 country,
and to be found upon the shelves of very many of our clerical
libraries. But we wish that the Catholic paterfamilias would pro
cure it too, and recommend it to his boys. . . . There is a mascu
line ring about it, and no shuffling over difficulties.' — Catholic Fire
side, March 23, 1907. Presbyterian.
' One does not know what^to admire most in the book — the
accurate knowledge gathered from so many fields, the clear reason
ing, the sound judgment, or the fine spirit which animates the whole.'
— Christian Leader, June 15, 1905.
' Admirably arranged and clearly expressed.' — Weekly Leader,
October 6, 1902.
' One of the best books of its kind.' — St. Andrew, June 1, 1905.
' This is an admirable summary. It is clear, simple, and well
arranged. . . The style also makes it extremely readable.' —
Presbyterian, March, 1906. Nonconformist.
' He is eminently fair to opponents, clear in statement, and
convincing in argument for his own case, and his standpoint is
unmistakably evangelical. His style suits his work, being calm,
lucid, and simple.' — Methodist Times, August 22, 1901.

OPINIONS OF THE PRESS— continued.
' Is a tried favourite, and has served the Kingdom in many lands.
There is no book of the class known to us so complete and conclu
sive.' — Methodist Recorder, February 28, 1907.
' A former review in the Baptist highly commended it as a clear,
concise setting forth of a strong argument for Christianity. This
is even more true to-day, as it has been carefully revised, and many
chapters rewritten and greatly strengthened." — Baptist, April 11,
1907. ' On the whole, it is the best popular summary that we have met,
It excels in definiteness of purpose, in clearness of statement, in
moderation, and in conciseness.' — Baptist Times, October 24, 1902.
' This excellent compendium. . . Every point is plainly put,
and the fact that the argument is not hidden by the use of un
familiar and technical terms makes it peculiarly adapted for general
reading. In these days of doubt we cordially commend it.' —
Westminster Record, April, 1907.
' The author's line of argument is irresistible in its rugged force.
... A fascinating book.' Social Gazette (Salvation Army),
April 27, 1907. Agnostic.
' Again, as in 1902, we commend Lieutenant-Colonel Tur
ton's book as a handy epitome of nearly all conceivable arguments
in support of Christianity. The twenty-four chapters champion
twenty-four propositions, and the whole thing is worked out as
systematically as a problem in a successful student's honours paper.
However, it is of no avail to argue such points with our well-
meaning and unimaginative Lieutenant-Colonel ; and we will merely
remark that he is quite a gentleman, and uses no disdamful language
towards the poor Agnostic' — Literary Guide and Rationalistic
Review, March, 1907.
' This remarkable volume contains over 500 pages, with scarcely
a dull one among them. The author's easy flow of unlaboured
thought, his facility of expression, and his fine gift of exposition,
carry the reader on in spite of himself. . . . Differ as we may from
much that is in the gallant Colonel's volume, we gladly pay him the
respect due to frankness, cleverness, and transparency of mind
and motive, and thank him for putting his own side of a great subject
so simply and interestingly, and without prejudice or bitterness.' —
New Age, August 3, 1905.

THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY

THE
TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY

Examination of tbe /Bore important Brguments
for ano Hgainst Believing in tbat IReligion

COMPILED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES BY
Lt.-Col. W. H. TURTON, D.S.O.
LATE ROYAL ENGINEERS

SEVENTH EDITION TWENTIETH THOUSAND
(CarefuUy revised throughout)

NEW YORK
G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS
27 WEST TWENTY-THIRD STREET
1910

PREFACE TO FIFTH EDITION.
The whole Essay has been again carefully revised, and
where possible shortened for this Edition. Some of
the chapters have been rearranged, which has necessi
tated renumbering them, but of course the argument
remains substantially what it has been all along. The
work, as stated in the first edition, lays no claim to
originality, and I have not hesitated to borrow argu
ments and illustrations from any source. The
references to the Bible are all to the Revised Version.
W. H. T.
potchefstroom, Transvaal,
February, 1905.

PREFACE TO SIXTH EDITION.
I have again carefully revised the whole book for this
Edition, and having now retired from the Army, have
been able to devote more time to it than was formerly
possible. In particular, Part II. has been rearranged,
and Chapters V., XVII., and XIX. altered (and I hope
improved) a good deal.
W. H. T.
Harley House,
Clifton Down, Bristol,
January, 1907.

PREFACE TO SEVENTH EDITION.
I have again carefully revised the whole book ; the
chief additions being in Chapters V. (b), XVII. (a),
and XVIII. (b). W. H. T.
• Harley House,
Clifton Down, Bristol,
November 1908.

CONTENTS.

PART I.
NATURAL RELIGION.
CHAPTER PAGE
I. THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A CREATOR . . .3
II. THAT THE CREATOR DESIGNED THE UNIVERSE . .11
III. THAT THEREFORE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS EXTREMELY
PROBABLE . . . . . -34
IV. THAT MAN IS A FREE AND RESPONSIBLE BEING . 44
V. THAT GOD TAKES AN INTEREST IN MAN'S WELFARE . 69
VI. THAT THEREFORE GOD MIGHT MAKE SOME REVELATION
TO MAN . . . . . -95
VII. THAT THEREFORE A MIRACULOUS REVELATION IS
CREDIBLE . . . . . -H3

PART II.
THE JEWISH RELIGION.
VIII. THAT ITS ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION WAS DIVINELY
REVEALED ...... 133
IX. THAT ITS ORIGIN WAS ATTESTED BY MIRACLES . -159

X. THAT ITS HISTORY WAS ATTESTED BY MIRACLES
XI. THAT ITS HISTORY WAS ALSO ATTESTED BY PROPHECIES . 2l8
XII. THAT THEREFORE THE JEWISH RELIGION IS PROBABLY
TRUE ...... vii

199

235

Vlll CONTENTS.

PART III.
THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
CHAPTER PAGE
XIII. THAT THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS CREDIBLE . . 255
XIV. THAT THE FOUR GOSPELS ARE AUTHENTIC FROM EX
TERNAL TESTIMONY . . . 295
XV. THAT THE GOSPELS ARE AUTHENTIC FROM INTERNAL
EVIDENCE ...... 320
XVI. THAT THE GOSPELS ARE AUTHENTIC FROM THE EVIDENCE
OF THE ACTS ...... 348
XVII. THAT THEREFORE THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST IS
PROBABLY TRUE .... 367
XVIII. THAT THE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES ARE
PROBABLY TRUE . . . . . 414
XIX. THAT THE JEWISH PROPHECIES CONFIRM THE TRUTH
OF CHRISTIANITY ..... 445
XX. THAT THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST CONFIRMS THE TRUTH
OF CHRISTIANITY . . . . -471
XXI. THAT THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY ALSO CONFIRMS
ITS TRUTH ...... 491
XXII. THAT ON THE WHOLE THE OTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTS
THIS CONCLUSION . . . • 5I4
XXIII. THAT THE THREE CREEDS ARE DEDUCIBLE FROM THE
NEW TESTAMENT . . . cao
XXIV. THAT THEREFORE THE TRUTH OF " THE CHRISTIAN RE
LIGION IS EXTREMELY PROBABLE . . .572
INDEX OF TEXTS . . 53.
INDEX OF SUBJECTS . _ eg!

PART I.
NATURAL RELIGION.
CHAP. I. THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A CREATOR.
,, II. THAT THE CREATOR DESIGNED THE UNIVERSE.
,, III. THAT THEREFORE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS EXTREMELY
PROBABLE.
,, IV. THAT MAN IS A FREE AND RESPONSIBLE BEING.
,, V. THAT GOD TAKES AN INTEREST IN MAN'S WELFARE.
„ VI. THAT THEREFORE GOD MIGHT MAKE SOME REVELATION TO
MAN.
,, VII. THAT THEREFORE A MIRACULOUS REVELATION IS CREDIBLE.

CHAPTER I.
THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD A CREATOR.
(A.) The Origin of the Universe.
Explanation of the universe, its origin, and a Free Force.
(i.) The Philosophical Argument. If the universe had
not an origin, it seems to necessitate that all events
form a recurring series ; and this is incredible.
(2.) The Scientific Argument. From the process of evolu
tion and the dissipation of energy.
(B.) The Creator of the Universe.
The Single Supernatural Cause, which originated it.
It is proposed in this Essay to consider the reasons
for and against believing in the truth of Christianity,
meaning by that term, as will be explained later on
(Chapter XIII.), the doctrines contained in the Three
Creeds. For convenience the subject has been divided
into three Parts and twenty-four Chapters ; though
Part II. , on the Jewish Religion, may be omitted by
anyone not specially interested in that subject. At
present we are considering Natural Religion only, which
deals with the great questions of the Existence of God,
and the probability of His making some Revelation to
man. And we will commence at the very beginning.
(4.) The Origin of the Universe.
Now by the universe is meant the material universe,
3 1—2

4 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. i.
which includes everything that exists (earth, sun, stars,
and all they contain), with the exception of immaterial
or spiritual beings, if there are any such. And by
this universe having had an origin is meant that it
was at some time acted on by a Free Force, that is
to say, by a force which does not always act the same
under the same circumstances, but which is able to
act or not as it pleases. Of course such a force would
be totally different from all the known forces of
nature ; but there is no difficulty in understanding
what is meant by the term, since man himself seems
to possess such a force in his own free will. We are
not assuming that man's will is really free, but merely
that the idea of a free force, able to act or not as it
pleases, is well known to man and generally under
stood. Hence the statement that the universe had an
origin means that at some time or other it was acted
on by such a Free Force ; in other words, it has not
existed eternally under the fixed and invariable forces
of nature, and without any external interference. And
we have now to consider the two arguments in favour
of this, which may be conveniently called the Philo
sophical and the Scientific argument.
(i.) The Philosophical Argument.
By this is meant that, when we reflect on the subject,
it seems inevitable that if the universe had not an
origin, all present events must form part of a recurring
series. The reason for thinking this is, that if all free
force is excluded, it is plain that matter must be
eternal, since its coming into existence at any time

CREATION. 5
could not have been a necessity, and must therefore
have been due to some free force. And it is equally
plain that what we call the forces of nature and the
properties of matter must also be eternal, since any
.alteration in them at any time would also have
required a free force. And from this it follows that no
new event can happen now. For every event which
the forces of nature could possibly bring about of
themselves would, since they have been acting from
eternity, have been brought about long ago. There
fore present events are not new, but must have occurred
before, and thus form part of a recurring series.
This is no doubt a possible theory. For example, if
we assume that the universe will in process of time
work itself back into precisely the same condition in
which it was long ago as a nebula or anything else,
when it will recommence precisely the same changes
as before, then, and only then, is it possible that it
has been going on doing so from all eternity. But
this theory, though possible, is certainly not credible.
For it requires that all events, past, present, and
future, have occurred, and will occur, an infinite
number of times. And when applied to a single
example, say the history of the human race, this is
seen to be quite incredible.
We are hence driven to the other alternative, which
is that the universe has not existed eternally under
the fixed forces of nature, and without any external
interference ; in other words, that it had an origin.
No doubt there are difficulties in regard to this theory
also, but they do not seem to be nearly so great as

6 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. i.
those in regard to the previous one, and are mostly
due to our ignorance. We may not know, for instance,
whether matter itself is eternal, or whether it began
to exist in some manner inconceivable to us at the
origin of the universe. Nor may we know how, on
the former supposition, the free force acted, whether
by causing matter to then assume its present properties,
or by altering the conditions under which it was placed.
Nor, again, may we have any idea as to why, if a free
force once acted on the universe, it never apparently
does so at present ; still less can we picture to ourselves
what such a force would be like, though the difficulty
here is no greater than that of picturing a force which
is not free, say gravity.
But our ignorance about all this is no reason for
doubting what we do know. And it appears to the
writer that we do know that, unless present events
form a recurring series, which seems incredible, the
universe cannot have existed eternally without some
Free Force having acted on it at some time. In short,
it seems less difficult to believe that the universe had
an origin than to believe that it had not.
(2.) The Scientific Argument.
And this conclusion is greatly strengthened by two
scientific theories now generally accepted — that of
the process of evolution and the dissipation of energy.
The former seems to show that the universe had a
beginning a certain number of years ago ; and the latter,
that it will have an end a certain number of years
hence. And either of these, if admitted, is sufficient
to establish the point.

CREATION. 7
The first subject, that of Evolution, is discussed in
the next chapter. All that need be said here is, that
the atoms of the universe with their evolving pro
perties cannot have existed eternally without any
interference ; for then the course of evolution would
have commenced in the eternal past, and would
therefore have been finished now. But this is cer
tainly not the case, and evolution is still in progress ;
or at all events was so a few thousand years ago.
And therefore, as a state of progress cannot be eternal,
it must have had a commencement. And this com
mencement cannot have been a necessity, so it must
have been due to a Free Force somewhere. In other
words, evolution requires a previous Evolver ; it
cannot start itself.
The other theory, that of the Dissipation of Energy,
is that the universe seems to be progressing towards a
uniform temperature ; for all energy tends to heat, and
heat tends to equal distribution. And when this has
been reached, it will be in a condition from which it
cannot change itself again. We need not go into the
proofs of this theory, as it is generally -admitted, but
will only point out that it is not in any way opposed
to the other and equally well-established theory of the
Conservation of Energy. For though the energy of the
universe is conserved as to its total amount or quantity,
it is yet dissipated or equalized as to what we may
call its quality. The heat, for instance, which is now
stored up in the sun will in process of time be dis
tributed throughout space, and the same applies to
the whole universe. Now let this complete dissipa-

8 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. I.
tion of energy take any number of millions of years,
they are yet nothing to eternity. And, therefore, if
the universe with all its present forces existed from
eternity, and without any external interference, it
must have been reduced to this state long ago. So
that if this theory is correct, it seems not only probable,
but certain, that the universe had an origin.
But an objection has now to be considered. It
may be said that the above reasoning is merely another
form of the old argument, " Everything must have a
cause, and therefore there must have been a First
Cause ;" the obvious answer to which is, that then the
First Cause must also have had a cause, and so on
indefinitely. But this is not the case ; for the alleged
First Cause is of a different kind from all the others.
It is a Free Cause, whereas natural causes are not free,
but are themselves effect's of other natural causes ;
and these, again, of previous ones. What we want is
a cause which is not also an effect, in other words, a
cause which is not moved by anything else, but is
moved by itself, or Free. When once we get to
such a cause as this, there is no need for a previous
one. This objection, then, cannot be maintained, and
we therefore decide that the universe had an origin.
And all we know at present about the Force which
originated it, is that it was a Free Force. And the
conclusion at which we have arrived may be concisely
expressed by saying, that before all natural causes
which acted necessarily, there was a First Cause which
acted voluntarily.

CREATION. g
(B.) The Creator of the Universe.
We have next to consider what further we can ascer
tain in regard to this First Cause. To begin with
it can scarcely be disputed at the present day that the
First Cause was a Single Cause, as modern science has
completely established the unity which pervades the
universe. We know for instance that the same
materials are used throughout, many of the elements
which exist on this earth being also found in the sun
and stars. Then there is the force of gravity, which
is all-embracing, and applies equally to the most
distant stars, and to the most minute objects on this
earth ; and there is also the luminiferous aether, which
forms a kind of atmosphere, extending throughout
the universe. Many other examples might be given ;
but it is scarcely necessary, as everyone now admits
that the universe (as the word implies) is one whole.
And this plainly points to a Single First Cause.
Nor can it be disputed that this First Cause was
Supernatural, which merely means that it differs from
all natural forces in being free ; for this is exactly what
we have shown. It was thus no kind of gravitation,
no molecular attraction, no chemical affinity. All
these and all similar forces would always act the same
under the same conditions ; whereas the Force we are
considering was of precisely an opposite character.
It was a Free Force, a Force which voluntarily chose
to originate the universe at a certain time. And
describing this Force as Supernatural is merely to
emphasize this striking difference from all natural
forces.

10 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. i.
In conclusion we will call this Single Supernatural
Cause which originated the universe its Creator, and
hence the proposition at the head of this chapter
follows at once. And if it be objected that the uni
verse may have had no origin, owing to some Free
Force having been eternally acting on it, such a Force
must also be Single and Supernatural, and therefore
may equally well be called its Creator.

CHAPTER II.
THAT THE CREATOR DESIGNED THE UNIVERSE.
Design means originating combined with foreknowledge.
(A.) Evidence of Design.
Seems overwhelming throughout organic nature ; and we
are not appealing to it to show the Creator's existence,
but merely His foreknowledge.
(i.) The example of a watch : its marks of design show that
it had a maker who foresaw its use.
(2.) The example of an eye : this also has marks of design,
and must also have had a Designer.
(3.) The evidence cumulative : other marks of design.
(B.) The Evolution Objection.
(1.) The meaning of Evolution : it is a process, not a cause.
(2.) The effect of Evolution on the present argument : it
increases the evidence for design.
(C.) The Free Will Objection.
(1.) Its great improbability : for several reasons.
(2.) Free Will and Foreknowledge not incompatible ; so
the chief argument in its favour cannot be main
tained. Conclusion.
Having decided that the universe had a Creator, we
have next to examine whether the Creator designed
the universe. Now by Design is meant originating
combined with foreknowledge ;¦ so that any voluntary
action, combined with foreknowledge of the results
that will follow from such action, is to design those

12 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ii.
results. In the case before us, we have already shown
that the Creator did originate the universe. The
question, then, that remains to be discussed is whether,
when so doing, He foreknew the consequences of His
action. If He did, it is equivalent to His designing
those consequences, as the word is here used. And
these include, directly or indirectly, the present state
of the universe.
By the word foreknowing it is not meant that the
Creator necessarily thought of all future events, how
ever insignificant, such as the position of the leaves on
each tree ; but merely that He was able to foresee any
of them He wished, and in this sense foreknew them.
Compare the converse case of memory ; a man may be
able to remember a thousand events in his life ; but
they are not all before his mind's eye at the same time,
and the insignificant ones may never be. In the same
way the Creator may have been able to foresee all
future events in the world's history without actually
thinking about them. At all events, this is the kind
of foresight, or rather foreknowledge, which is meant
to be included in the term design.
(A.) Evidence of Design.
Passing on now to the evidence of design, this is
of the most varied kind, especially throughout organic
nature, where we find countless objects, which seem
to point to the foresight of the Cause which produced
them. And it will be noticed that we are not appealing
to these marks of design as showing the existence of
the Creator, as is sometimes done, but merely His
foreknowledge. His existence has been already estab-

DESIGN. 13
lished, and also the fact that the universe was originated
by Him. All we are now investigating is whether,
when He originated it, He foreknew its future course ;
and the apparent evidence in favour of this is over
whelming. Everywhere in nature, from the highest
forms to the lowest, we meet with apparent marks of
design. The evidence is indeed so vast that it is
difficult to deal with it satisfactorily. Perhaps the best
way will be to follow the well-known watch argument
of Paley, and first show by the example of a watch
what it is that constitutes marks of design ; next, how
a single organ, say the human eye, possesses these
marks ; and then, the cumulative nature of the
evidence. (1.) The example of a watch.
Now, when we examine a watch, we see that it
bears marks of design, because the several parts are
put together for a purpose. They are so formed and
adjusted as to produce motion, and this motion is so
regulated as to point out the hour of the day. While,
if they had been differently shaped or differently
arranged, either no motion at all would have been
produced, or none which would have answered the
same purpose. And from this, two inferences seem to
follow at once? The first is that the watch must have
had a maker somewhere and at some time ; and the
second is that this maker understood its construction,
and designed it for the purpose which it actually serves.
These conclusions, it will be noticed, would not be
affected by the fact that we had never seen a watch
made, never knew a man capable of making one, had

14 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ii.
no idea how the work could be done, and could not
even understand the whole of the mechanism. All
this would only exalt our opinion of the unknown
watchmaker's skill, but would raise no doubt in our
minds either as to his existence or as to his having
made the watch for the purpose it serves.
Nor would we feel the watch explained by being
told that every part of it worked in strict accordance
with natural laws, and could not possibly move other
wise than it did ; in fact, that there was no design to
account for. We should feel that, though the action
of every part might be in strict accordance with law,
yet the fact that all these parts agreed in this one
particular, that they all conduced to enable the watch
to tell the time, did evidence design somewhere. In
other words, we should feel that the properties of
matter could only partly account for the watch, and
that it required a skilful watchmaker as well, who
utilised these properties so as to enable the watch to
tell the time.
Now suppose that on further investigation we found
the watch also possessed the marvellous and un
expected property of producing in the course of its
movements another watch very like itself ; due perhaps
to its containing a mould in which the new works were
cast, and some machinery which fitted them together.
What effect would this have on our former conclusions ?
It would plainly increase our admiration for the watch,
and our conviction of the skill of its unknown maker.
If without this extra property the watch required
a skilful maker, still more would it do so with it.

DESIGN. 15
And- this conclusion would not be altered by the
fact that very possibly the watch we were examining
was itself produced from some previous one, and
perhaps that from another. We should feel that,
though each watch might be produced from the
previous one, it was in no sense designed by it.
And hence this would not in any way weaken our
conviction as to the existence of a watchmaker some
where and at some time who designed the whole
series. This, then, is the watch argument. Wherever we
find marks of design, there must be a designer some
where ; and this conclusion cannot be altered by any
other considerations whatever. If, then, we find in
nature any objects showing marks of design, the
obvious inference is that they also must have had a
designer. And this inference, it should be noticed,
does not depend on any supposed analogy between the
works of man and the works of nature. The example
of the watch is merely given as an example, to show
clearly what the design argument is ; but the argu
ment itself would be just as sound if man never had
made, and never could make, any object showing
marks of design.
¦Moreover, to complete the example, we must
assume that the existence of the watchmaker, and the
fact of his having made the watch are already admitted
for other reasons ; and that we are only appeahng to
these marks of design to show that when he made the
watch he must have known that it would be able to
tell the time, and presumably made it for that purpose.

l6 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ii.
And in this case the inference seems, if possible, to
be still stronger.
(2.) The example of an eye.
We will now pass on to consider the human eye
as an example of natural organs showing marks of
design. It is a well-known instance, but none the
worse on that account. Now. it is necessary, in order
to produce distinct vision, that an image or picture of
the object should be formed at the back of the eye,
that is, on the retina or expansion of the optic nerve,
which communicates the impression to the brain.
And the eye is an optical instrument for producing
this picture, and in some respects very similar to a
telescope. And its marks of design are abundant and
overwhelming. To begin with, in both the eye and the telescope the
rays of light have to be refracted, so as to produce a
distinct image. And the humours in the eye which
effect this resemble the lenses of a telescope both in
their curved shape, their position, and their power
over the rays of light. Moreover, the different humours
through which the rays pass correct what would other
wise be an imperfection in vision, caused by the rays
being partly separated into different colours. The
same difficulty had to be overcome in telescopes, and
this does not seem to have been effected till it occurred
to opticians to imitate in glasses made from different
materials the effect of the different humours in the
eye.1 In the next place, the eye has to be suited to perceive
1 Encyc. Brit., 9th edit., vol. xxiii., p. 137.

DESIGN.

17

objects at different distances, varying from inches to
miles. In telescopes this would be done either by
putting in another lens, or by some focussing arrange
ment. How it is effected in the eye is not known for
certain, but it plainly is effected, and with marvellous
correctness. A landscape of several miles is brought
within a space of half an inch in diameter. And yet
the multitude of objects it contains, at least the
larger ones, are all preserved, and can each be dis
tinguished in its size, shape, colour, and position.
And yet the same eye that can do this can read a
inll book at the distance of a few inches.
£ Again, the eye has to be adapted to different degrees
of light. This is effected by the iris, which is a kind of
screen in the shape of a ring, capable of expanding or
contracting so as to alter the size of the central hole or
pupil, yet always retaining its circular form. More
over, it is somehow or other self-adjusting ; for if the
light is too strong, the pupil at once contracts. It
is needless to point out how useful such a contrivance
would be in photography, and how much we should
_____ admire the skill of its inventor.
Again, the eye can perceive objects in different
directions ; for it is so constructed that it can turn with
the greatest rapidity right or left, up or down, without
moving the head. While in order to keep it moist
and clean, both of which are essential to its utility, a
special fluid is constantly supplied, the superfluous
moisture passing through a hole in the bone to the
nose, where it is evaporated. Moreover, this valuable
instrument is provided in duplicate, the two eyes
2

l8 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ii.
being so adjusted that while each can see separately
should the other get injured, they can, as a rule, see
together with perfect harmony. Lastly, our admira
tion for the eye is still further increased when we
remember that it was formed before birth. It was a
prospective organ, of no use at the time when it was
made ; and this, when carefully considered, shows
design more plainly than anything else.
Several more points regarding the eye might be
mentioned, but the above are sufficient to show the
general style of the evidence. The eye is, in fact, an
optical instrument of great complexity and ingenuity ;
and the conclusion that it must have been made by
someone, and that whoever made it must have known
and designed its use, seems inevitable.
These conclusions, it will be noticed, like the similar
ones in regard to the watch, are not affected by our
ignorance on many points. We may have no idea as
to how an eye can be made, nor even understand all its
parts, and yet feel certain that, as the eye exists, it
must have been made by someone, and that its maker
designed it for the purpose it serves; and evidently
knew far more about it than we do.
Nor do we feel the eye explained by being told that
every part of it has been produced in strict accordance
with natural laws, and could not have been otherwise ;
in fact, that there is no design to account for. No
doubt every single part has been thus produced, and
if it stood alone there might be little to account for.
But it does not stand alone. All the various and
complicated parts of the eye agree in this one remark-

DESIGN. 19
able point, and in this one only, that they all conduce
to enable man to see ; and it is this that requires
explanation. We feel that there must be some
connection between the cause which brought all
these parts together and the fact of man's seeing. In
other words, the effect must have been designed.
-Nor does the fact that organisms of each kind in
nature succeed one another by generation alter this
conclusion. Indeed, as was shown with reference to
the watch, it can only increase our admiration for the
skill which must have been expended on the first
organism of each kind. Moreover, no part of the
design can be attributed to the parent. In other words,
if the eyes of a child show design, it is not due to the
intelligence or designing power of its father and mother.
They have not calculated the proper shape for the
lenses, .or the mechanism of the iris, and as a rule
know nothing whatever about it. And the same
applies to their parents, so that our going back ever so
.far in this way brings us no nearer to what we are in
search of. The design is still unaccounted for, we
still want a designer.
We hence conclude that the marks of design in the
eye afford, at all events, a very strong prima facie
argument in favour of a Designer. And if only one
eye existed in the universe, and there were no other
marks of design in nature, this conclusion would be
none the less clear.
(3.) The evidence cumulative.
But the argument is far stronger than this. It is
cumulative in a triple sense. To begin with, an eye is
2 — 2

20 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ii.
found not in one man only, but in millions of men, each
separately showing marks of design, and each separately
requiring a designer.
Secondly, the human eye is only one example out
of hundreds in the human body. The ear or the
mouth would prove the conclusion equally well, and
so would the lungs or the heart. And these various
organs, it should be noticed, do not exist merely as
individual organs, but as component parts of the
human body, to which, as well as to each other, they
are all adapted. And if a hundred independent organs
showing design would require a designer, still more will
they do so if, instead of being independent, they are
thus adapted to one another. Moreover, the mind
of man has to be accounted for, as well as his body ;
and if the unforeseen action of atoms could not have
produced a human body, with its wonderful marks of
design, still less could they have produced a human
mind able to know and argue about them. Indeed,
in any case, it seems inconceivable that human intelli
gence could have been produced by what was itself
unintelligent. While, thirdly, human beings are but one out of
many thousands of organisms in nature, all bearing
equally the marks of design, and showing in some cases
an even greater ingenuity than in the human eye.
Of course, as a rule, the lower organisms, being less
complicated than the higher ones, have less striking
marks of design, but their existence is equally clear ;
the flowers of plants affording some well-known ex
amples. And even where we cannot understand the

DESIGN. 21
design, we can infer its existence ; as an acorn must
be of a very ingenious structure to enable it to develop
into an oak-tree. It should also be noticed that
design is shown in the instincts of certain animals, and
in the mutual relation between plants and animals ;
the latter living upon organic matter ; which they
cannot produce for themselves from earth, air, and
water, but which they find ready for use in plants.
Nor is this all, for the world itself bears traces of
having been designed. Had it been a mere chaos, we
might have thought that the Creator was unaware of
what would be the result of His action. But a planet
like our earth, so admirably adapted for the support
of life, can scarcely have been brought about by acci
dent. It must have required Wisdom as well as Power,
to produce it ; and this implies forethought and a
Forethinker. We hence conclude, on reviewing the whole subject,
that various phenomena in nature, more especially
organs like the eye, bear strong marks of having been
designed. And then the Unity of Nature, and the fact
that all its parts act and re-act on each other in in
numerable ways, the eye for instance being useless
-without light, shows that if anything has been de
signed, everything has been designed. And the
further conclusion that the Designer of the universe
should be the same as its Creator is too plain to need
insisting on. Now there are two, and only two,
important objections to this argument, which may be
conveniently called the Evolution and the Free WiU
objection.

22 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ii.
(B.) The Evolution Objection.
The first objection is that everything in nature has
been brought about in accordance with fixed laws by
the process of Evolution ; and therefore, though it is
possible the Creator may have foreseen all present
phenomena, yet the apparent marks of design in nature,
being all the necessary and inevitable results of those
laws, do not afford any evidence that He actually did
so. And before discussing this objection we must
first consider somewhat carefully what we mean by
laws of nature and natural forces.
Now by a law of nature is meant an observed uni
formity in nature. For example, it is called a law or
rule of nature that (with certain exceptions) heat
should expand bodies, which merely means that we
know it does so. In other words, we observe that
heat is followed by expansion, and we therefore assume
that the one is the cause of the other. But calling it a
law of nature for heat to expand bodies, does not in
any way account for its doing so. And the same is true
universally, so that a law of nature explains nothing,
it is merely a summary of the facts to be explained.
It should also be noticed that a law of nature effects
nothing. It has no coercive power whatever. The
law of gravitation, for instance, has never moved a
planet, any more than the rules of navigation have
steered a ship. In each case it is some power or force
acting according to law which does it. And natural
forces are those which, as far as we know, always act
according to some fixed law. They have no freedom
of choice, they cannot act or not as they like ; they

DESIGN. 23
must always and everywhere act the same under the
same circumstances. We pass on now to the subject
of Evolution, and we will first consider its meaning,
and then its effect on the present argument.
(1.) The meaning of Evolution.
Now by the term Evolution is meant to be included
the processes of Organic Evolution, Natural Selection,
and Survival of the Fittest. The former may be
described as meaning that all the varied forms of life
now existing, or that ever have existed on this earth,
are the descendants of earlier and less developed forms,
and those again of yet simpler ones ; and so on, till we
get back to the earliest form of life, whatever that may
have been. And the theories of Natural Selection and
Survival of the Fittest explain how this may have taken
place. For among the slight modifications that would
most likely occur in every organism, those, and those
only, would be perpetuated which were of advantage
to it in the struggle for existence. And these would
in time, it is assumed, become hereditary in its de
scendants, and thus higher forms of life would be
gradually produced. And the value of these theories
is that they show how Organic Evolution may have
taken place without involving any sudden change,
such as a monkey giving birth to a man.
It will, of course, be noticed that Evolution is thus a
process, and not a cause. It is the method in which
certain changes have been brought about, and not
the cause which brings them about. Every slight
modification must have been caused somehow. When
such modifications were caused, then Natural Selection

24 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ii.
can explain how the useful ones alone were perpetu
ated, but it cannot explain how the modifications them
selves arose. On the contrary, it supposes them as
already existing, otherwise there would be nothing to
select from. Natural Selection, then, rather weeds
than plants. Among the various modifications in an
organism, some good and some bad, it merely shows
how the useless ones would disappear, and the useful
ones alone would be perpetuated ; in other words, how
the fittest would survive. But this survival of the
fittest does not explain in the slightest degree how the
fitness arose. If, as an extreme example, out of a
hundred animals, fifty had eyes and fifty had not, it is
easy to understand how those that had eyes would be
more likely to perpetuate their species ; but this does
not explain how they first got eyes. And the same
applies in other cases.
How, then, did the variations in each organism first
arise ? In common language they may be ascribed to
chance, but, strictly speaking, such a thing is impos
sible. The word chance is merely a convenient term for
the results of certain forces of nature when we are
unable to calculate them. Chance, then, must be ex
cluded ; and there seem to be only two alternatives to
choose from. Either the organisms in nature possessed
free will, and acted as they did voluntarily, or else they'
did not possess free will, and acted as they did neces
sarily. The former theory will be examined later on ;
the latter is the one we are now considering. And
it is plainly equivalent to all the organisms in nature
being mere machines, the future action of which was

DESIGN. 25
settled the last time a free external Force (i.e., the
Creator) acted on them. And this on the evolution
theory was not later than at the beginning of life.
Since then, everything has been brought about by the
ordinary forces of nature, or, assuming these as fixed,
everything has been automatic and the necessary con
sequence of what went before.
(2.) The effect of Evolution.
Now, would this invalidate our previous conclusion
that the Creator designed all the organs in nature, such
as the eye, and hence presumably the whole of the
universe? On the contrary, it confirms it. For to
put it plainly, if all free will on the part of the organ
isms is excluded, as well as all interference from the
Creator, or any other external Force, the earth and all
it contains is like a huge mass of machinery. And
however complicated its parts, and however much they
may act or re-act on each other, and however long they
may take in doing so, if in the end they produce an
organ showing design, this must have been foreseen and
intended by the Maker of the machinery. In the same
way if a mass of machinery after working for a long
time eventually turned out a watch, we should have
no hesitation in saying that whoever made the
machinery, and set it going, intended it to do so.
And is the inference lessened, if it not only turned out
a watch, but a watchmaker as well, and everything
else that exists on this planet ?
All then that evolution does is to show that as the
whole of nature forms a long and continuous process,
it cannot have been carried out piecemeal ; and there-

26 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ii.
fore, if the end has been foreseen at all, it must have
been foreseen from the beginning. In other words,
just as the Unity of Nature shows that if anything has
been designed, everything has been designed ; so
Evolution shows that if it has been designed at
all, it has been designed from the beginning. And
we must hence conclude that the organs in
nature, such as the eye, which undoubtedly show
design, were not designed separately or as after
thoughts, but were all included in one grand design
from the very beginning. And this can only increase
our admiration for the Designer. Thus evolution, even
in its most extreme and automatic form, cannot get rid
of a Designer. Still less can it do so, if (as is probable).
it is not automatic at all ; but is due to the con
tinuous action of the Creator, who is what is called
immanent in nature, and directs every step.
It should be noticed, moreover, that some of the
most striking marks of design cannot be explained by
evolution at all, as, for instance, the human eye. It
is quite clear that wishing to see or trying to see, even
if blind animals were capable of either, would never
give them eyes. But it may be said that some of the
earlier and less developed organisms had only rudi
mentary eyes, which could not see, but which in their
structure and position resembled seeing eyes, and
which became such in their later descendants. And
does not this show that the eye could not have been
designed by the Creator, or He would have given
animals perfect eyes at once ?
On the contrary, even if we admit that such eyes

DESIGN. 27
were useless (and this is at least doubtful, as they may
have been partly susceptible to light), the inference is
still in favour of design. For there is nothing im
probable in the Creator producing eyes, like the rest
of nature, in accordance with some fixed plan, and by
this slow process of Evolution. But on any other
theory a rudimentary eye is quite inexplicable, for it
was of no possible use to its owner in the struggle for
existence. It was rather a prospective organ, slowly
evolved and perfected during many generations, with
out being of any use till nearly finished. And this, as
before said, shows design more plainly than anything
else. It seems clear, then, that uncontrolled Evolu
tion — that is to say, Evolution merely by accidental
variations, as they are called — and Survival of the
Fittest, cannot account for the eye at all. In fact, it
requires not only natural selection but supernatural
selection to explain it satisfactorily.
But now suppose, for the sake of argument, that
this were otherwise, and that the eye and all other
organs had been produced merely by natural pro
cesses ; in the same way for instance that a human
hand may have been evolved from a monkey's foot,
merely by the monkey using it as a hand, and taking
hold of things. Does this destroy the evidence for
design ? Certainly not ; it only increases it. For to
make a foot which should in the course of time become
a hand, as the animal kept using it as such, would
require far more design than to make a hand straight
off, as we should say. And the same argument applies
universally, so that if the present organs in nature

28 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ii.
have all been evolved, from simpler ones, it increases the
amount of design which must have been spent on those
simpler ones to an extent which is practically infinite.
Thus Evolution necessarily implies a previous Invo
lution ; for all forms of life must have been involved
in the first form before they could be evolved from it ;
so that creation by evolution is far more wonderful
than creation by direct manufacture. And it seems
to many to be a far nobler conception of the Creator
that He should obtain all the results He desired by
one grand system of evolution, rather than by creating
each species separately. For then the method in
which the results were obtained would be as mar
vellous, and show as much wisdom and foresight as
the results themselves, and each would be on a par
with the other. Evolution, then, seems to be the
highest form of creation ; and so far from destroying
Theism, it only destroys the difficulties of Theism, by
showing that every single part of every single organism
may have been designed, and yet in a manner worthy
of an Infinite Being.
Nor is the argument affected if we carry back the
process of evolution, and assume that the earliest form
of life was itself evolved from some previous form of
inanimate matter ; and -this again from a simpler one,
and so on till we get back to the original form of
matter, whatever that may have been. For if the
results as we now see them show design, then the
deduction from this as to the existence, and still more,
since this is admitted, as to the foreknowledge, of a
Designer, is not weakened, but our ideas of His skill are

DESIGN. 29
greatly increased, if we believe that these results were
already secured when our earth was merely a nebula.
(C.) The Free Will Objection.
We have, lastly, to consider the other, and more
important objection, that arising from Free Will.
Why, it is urged, may not all organisms in nature have
possessed free will within certain limits, and have
voluntarily selected those forms which suited them
best ? For example, referring to the case of a watch,
if telling the time were of any advantage to the watch
itself, and if the spring, wheels, and hands possessed
free will, then it might be thought that they had formed
themselves into that arrangement which suited them
best ; and if so, the idea that the watchmaker foresaw
and intended them to adopt this arrangement seems
unnecessary. Now, in the case before us, as the organs showing
design in nature, such as the eye, always conduce to
the welfare of their possessor, the objection is cer
tainly credible, but, as we shall see, it is most improb
able ; while the chief argument in its favour cannot
be maintained. It need scarcely be pointed out that
we are not assuming that the organisms have free
will, but merely admitting that they may have it. And
if anyone denies this, the objection, as far as he is
concerned, falls to the ground at once.
(1.) Its great improbability.
This is apparent for three reasons. In the first
place, low down in the scale of nature, the free will of
the organisms, if they have any, must be very limited.
It is difficult, for instance, to imagine that plants and

30 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ii.
trees have a free will at all resembling that of man ;
and yet they bear unmistakable marks of design.
Secondly, in higher organisms, which may perhaps
have a free will capable of working towards a definite
end, it is difficult to see why they should have de
veloped organs, like the rudimentary eye, which were
not for their own advantage, but for that of their
remote descendants. And how, we may ask, did blind
animals know anything about the value of sight or
the proper means of obtaining it ? While, thirdly,
even in those cases where free will seems strongest, as
in man himself, there is no evidence that it can effect
anything like what is required. Suppose, for instance,
men wanted to have three eyes instead of two, can
anyone suggest how they would set about obtaining the
third ? And yet, if they have voluntarily given them
selves two eyes, they should be able with sufficient
time to give themselves three.
For all these reasons, then, it is most improbable
that the marks of design in nature are due to the
organisms themselves rather than to their Creator. But
there is one important argument on the other side,
which, if it could be maintained, would be sufficient
to outweigh all this improbability. It is, that some
beings, such as man, do, as a matter of fact, possess
a free will, and that man can and does alter his con
dition, to a slight extent, by using that free will. And
therefore it is said it is impossible for the Creator to
have foreknown what man's condition would be,
because free will and foreknowledge are necessarily
incompatible. But this latter point is disputed.

DESIGN. 31
(2.) Free Will and Foreknowledge not incompatible.
Now, although at first sight freedom of action seems
inconsistent with any foreknowledge of what that
action will be, yet on closer examination this will be
found to be at least doubtful. For our own experi
ence seems to show that in some cases, at all events, it
is not in the nature of things impossible to foreknow
how a free being will act.
For example, I myself may know how, under given
external conditions, I will act to-morrow. Never being
sure of these, I cannot be said to actually foreknow
the event ; so that foreknowing with man is never more
than foreguessing. But I may be quite sure how,
under given conditions, I will act. For instance, I
may know that, provided I keep in good health, pro
vided I receive no news from anyone, provided, etc.,
I will go to my office some time to-morrow morning.
And yet I feel equally sure that this foreknowledge of
mine does not prevent the act when it comes from
being quite free on my part. My knowing this even
ing what I shall do to-morrow does not oblige me to
do it. My foreknowledge of the event does not bring
the event about. It is in no sense its cause. The
act when it comes is due to my own free will, I merely
foreknow what use I shall make of my freedom. And
these are probably the common feelings of mankind
on the subject.
It seems, then, that my foreknowledge need not be
inconsistent with my free will. And hence, if I tell
someone else how I shall act, his foreknowledge would
not be inconsistent with my free will. So that in some

32 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ii.
cases, and with assumed external conditions, it does
not seem impossible for a man to foreknow how another
man will act, and yet without interfering with his
freedom. In short, free will does not seem to be
necessarily incompatible with the foreknowledge even
of man, though it is always practically so, owing to
man's imperfect knowledge of the surrounding cir
cumstances. But the Creator knows, or may know,
these circumstances fully, and therefore it must be
still less incompatible with His foreknowledge.
And this is strongly confirmed when we reflect that
the difficulty of knowing how a free being will act,
however great in itself, seems as nothing compared
with the difficulty of creating a free being. Apart
from experience, we should probably pronounce this
to be really impossible. And yet man has been created
somehow. Is it then unlikely that the Being who was
able to surmount the greater difficulty, and to create
a free man, should also be able to surmount the lesser
difficulty, and to foreknow how he would act ? More
over, if free will and foreknowledge are always and
necessarily incompatible, then the Creator cannot have
any foreknowledge of His Own acts, or else they are not
free on His part ; neither of which seems a probable
alternative. We are not, of course, arguing from all
this that He actually does foreknow how He will act
Himself, or how a free man will act, but only that it
is not in the nature of things impossible that He should
do so ; in other words, that free will and foreknowledge
are not necessarily incompatible.
And this is precisely what we had to show. The

DESIGN. 33
marks of design in nature afford what seems to be
overwhelming evidence in favour of the foreknowledge
of the Creator. The objection we are considering is
that, in spite of all this evidence, we must still deny
it, because some of the organisms in nature, such as
man, possess a free will ; and therefore any foreknow
ledge is in the nature of things impossible. And the
instant it is shown that such foreknowledge is not im
possible, the objection falls to the ground.
We may now sum up the argument in this chapter.
We first explained that by Design was meant originating
combined with foreknowledge. We next considered
the evidence for design in nature, choosing a single
example, the human eye, on which to focus the argu
ment. And this evidence appeared complete and over
whelming, more especially as we were not appealing
to it to show the existence of a Creator, which is
already admitted, but merely His foreknowledge.
And we have since considered the two apparent objec
tions to this argument arising from Evolution and Free
Will. But when carefully examined, the former only
strengthens the argument, while the latter does not
invalidate it. We therefore conclude, on reviewing
the whole subject, that the Creator designed the uni
verse.

CHAPTER III.
THAT THEREFORE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IS
EXTREMELY PROBABLE.
(A.) Meaning of the term God.
The Personal Being who designed and originated the
universe : some remarks on Personality.
(B.) Two of the Divine Attributes.
Wisdom and Power.
(C.) The Objection that God is Unknowable.
This is partly true ; but everything is unknowable in its
real nature, though in each case the partial knowledge
we can obtain is all we require.
(D.) Summary of Argument.
(A.) Meaning of the term God.
We decided in the last chapter that the Creator
designed the universe ; in other words, that when He
created it He foreknew its future history. Now any
being who is able to design we will call a personal
being. And God is the name given to the Personal
Being who designed and created the universe. Hence
the proposition at the head of this chapter follows at
once. Before, however, leaving the subject of personality,
it should be noticed that the term when applied to
man is commonly used in a much wider sense than is
34

THEISM. 35
here given to it, and includes various other attributes,
such as self - consciousness (or being able to think
about oneself), as well as the power of designing.
Many writers indeed say it involves the three ideas
of thought, desire, and will; but these seem to be
all included in designing ; for if I design anything, I
must first of all think of it, then wish it, and then
accomplish it. We will examine in the next chapter
whether man is a personal being as we have defined
the term ; but two remarks may be made here.
The first is, that if we admit the personality of man,
we have another and independent argument in favour
of that of the Creator. For the Creator has somehow
or other produced man, with all his attributes ; and,
therefore, He cannot be a mere impersonal Being or
Force, for such a Being could have formed no idea
of personality, much less have produced such a result
in ourselves ; so that if man is a personal being it
follows that man's Maker must be so too.
Moreover, as we shall see, man's personality involves
his having a mind and spirit, though we cannot* dis
cover them by any physical means. And this meets
the objection that we cannot discover God by any
physical means. It would be much more surprising
if we could. But though the telescope can find no God
in the heavens, just as the microscope can find no mind
in man, the existence of each may be quite certain
for other reasons. In popular language, all we can
see is the house, not the tenant, in each case.
The second remark is- that the idea of human per
sonality introduces a great difficulty ; indeed, many
3—2

36 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. hi.
consider it the greatest difficulty in regard to Theism ;
we mean that of believing that the Creator is a Per
sonal Being in any similar sense. For a human person,
as generally understood, means an individual — some
one with a separate existence, and this implies the
existence of something else from which he is separated ;
and it thus involves limitations of some kind. On
the other hand, the Creator or First Cause of the
universe seems to be Eternal, Omnipresent, and All-
embracing. There is an undoubted difficulty here, but it is
probably due to our ignorance. Personality with man
may imply limitations, but Personality with the
Creator need not. In the same way, seeing with man
implies an organ of sight ; but seeing with the Creator,
or rather His unknown attribute, which is least in
adequately expressed by that term, certainly does
not. In short, a human idea when transferred to the
Deity is necessarily incomplete and imperfect. And
it may be added, that many who hesitate to ascribe
Personality to the First Cause do so for this very
reason, that the term is inadequate rather than in
correct. The choice, they say, is not between per
sonality and something lower, but between personality
and something higher1 ; and the First Cause can be
no more represented in terms of human consciousness,
than this latter can be represented in terms of plant
functions. Under these circumstances, we have thought
it better to limit the meaning of personality to the idea
of designing. And in this sense the evidence that the
1 Herbert Spencer. First Principles, 4th Edition, 1880, p. 109.

THEISM. 37
Creator of the Universe is a Personal Being is, as we
have seen, overwhelming.
(B.) Two of the Divine Attributes.
We must next notice somewhat carefully two of
God's attributes, Wisdom and Power. Both of these
are necessarily involved in the idea of a Personal Being
able to design. For design, as used in this Essay,
means originating or freely doing anything, as well
as previously planning it. And therefore, if we use
the word, as is often done, for planning alone, we must
remember that a personal being is one who can both
design and accomplish. The former implies a mind
able to form some plan, and the latter a free force,
or will, able to carry it out. And, therefore, a personal
being must of necessity have wisdom to design and
power to accomplish. And considering the vastness of
the universe and the complexity of its organisms, it
seems only reasonable to conclude that the Creator pos
sesses both of these attributes to the greatest possible
extent, so that He is Omniscient and Omnipotent.
But it is important to notice the meaning given to
these words. Omniscience, then, means possessing all
possible knowledge. Now the only knowledge which
might be thought impossible is how a free being would
act in the future, and we have already shown that such
knowledge is not in the nature of things impossible ;
so there does not seem to be any necessary restriction
here. But with Omnipotence the case is different. This
means, as said above, possessing all possible power ;
that is to say, being able to do anything which is not

38 the truth of Christianity. chap. hi.
impossible. Of course some Christians may be in
clined to answer that with God all things are possible1 ;
but as He who said so began one of His own prayers
with the words if it be possible, this cannot be taken
in its widest sense. And provided the word im
possible is used in its strict meaning, we have no reason
for thinking that God could do impossible things;
such as make a triangle with the properties of a circle,
or allow a man a free choice between two alternatives,
and yet force him to choose one of them. These, then,
are two of the great attributes of God, Wisdom and
Power. There is a third, which will be considered in
Chapter V.
It should also be noticed that besides being the
Designer and Creator of the universe in the past,
God seems to be also its Maintainer at the present,
being, in fact, the Omnipresent Power which is still
working throughout nature. That there is such a
Power can scarcely be denied, and that it is the same
as the Creating Power is plainly the most probable
theory. God is thus the Cause of all natural forces
now, just as He was their Creator in times past ; and
what are called secondary or natural causes, have prob
ably no existence. They may, indeed, be called secon
dary forces, but they are not causes at all in the strict
sense ; for a cause must be free, it must have the power
of initiative. Thus man's free will, if it is free, would
be a real secondary cause, but the forces of nature
are mere links in a chain of necessary events. This is
often spoken of as the Divine Immanence in nature,
1 Matt. 19. 26 ; 26. 39.

theism.

39

and means little else than the Omnipresence of a
Personal God — the all-pervading influence of One
" who is never so far off as even to be called near."
And it may be pointed out that if God is thus
omnipresent He must be invisible ; since to be visible
He would require some outline which we could see, and
thus be in one place and not in another. And if He is
immanent in nature, and all natural forces are the im
mediate effect of His Will, then as long as His Will
remains the same, these forces will be invariable.
And, therefore, their being so at present is no argu
ment against the Theistic theory. It would be an
argument against a capricious God, but not against
One whose power is guided by wisdom, and directed
for a definite purpose.
(C.) The Objection that God is Unknowable.
We must lastly consider an important objection
which may be made to the whole argument in these
chapters. It may be said that the human mind is
unable to argue about the First Cause, because we have
no faculties for comprehending the Infinite ; or, as it
is commonly expressed, because God is Unknowable.
Now this objection is partly true. There is a sense
in which all will admit that God is Unknowable. His
existence and attributes are too great for any human
mind to comprehend entirely, or for any human
language to express completely and accurately. And,
therefore, all our statements on the subject are at best
only approximations to the truth. We can appre
hend His existence, but we cannot comprehend it, and
God alone knows fully what the term means. We

40 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. in.
need have no hesitation, then, in admitting that God
in His true nature is Unknowable.
But, strictly speaking, it is the same with every
thing. Man in his true nature is also unknowable, but
yet we know something about man. So, again, the
forces of nature are all unseen and unknowable in
themselves, but yet from their effects we know some
thing about them. And even matter when reduced
to atoms, or electrons, or anything else, is still a
mystery, and yet we know a good deal about matter.
And in each case this knowledge is not unreal because
it is incomplete. Why, then, should the fact of God
being in His true nature unknowable prevent our
having some real, though partial, knowledge of Him,
and arranging that knowledge in scientific order ? In
short, we may know something about God, though we
cannot know everything about Him.
And it should be noticed that Natural Theology and
Natural Science are alike in this respect — they are
both founded on inferences drawn from the observed
facts of nature. For example, we observe the motion
of falling bodies, and infer the existence of some
force, gravity, to account for this. Similarly, we
observe the marks of design throughout nature, and
infer the existence, or at least foresight, of some
Being who designed them. In neither case have we
any direct knowledge as to the cause of the pheno
mena. And in some respects Theology is not so un
knowable as Science. For our own, real or apparent,
mind and free will do give us some kind of idea of the
existence of a personal being apart from what he does ;

THEISM. 41
whereas of a natural force, such as gravity, apart from
its effects, we can form no conception whatever. Thus
our knowledge of every subject is but partial, and it
finally leads us into the Unknowable.
But now comes the important point. This partial
knowledge, which is all we can obtain in either Science
or Theology, is all we require. It is not a perfect
knowledge, but it is sufficient for all practical purposes.
Whatever the force of gravity may be in itself, we
know what it is to us. We know that if we jump off
a cliff we shall fall to the ground. And so in regard
to Theology. Whatever God may be in Himself, we
know what He is to us. We know that He is our
Maker, and therefore, as will be shown in the next
chapter, the Being to whom we are responsible. This
is the practical knowledge which we require, and this
is the knowledge which we can obtain.
Moreover, though our reason may be to some extent
unfit to judge of such matters, the vast importance of
the subject seems to demand our coming to some con
clusion one way or the other. This is especially the
case because important results affecting a man's daily
life follow from deciding the question of God's exist
ence in the affirmative, and to leave it undecided is
practically to decide it in the negative. In the same
way, if a ship were in danger of sinking, and a steamer
also in distress offered to take off the passengers, for
one of them to say that he had not sufficient means to
determine whether it was safer to go in the steamer or
not, and would therefore do nothing and stay where he
was. would be practically the same as deciding not to

42 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. hi.
go in the steamer. So in the case before us. To
refuse to decide the question owing to the alleged
inadequacy of human reason is practically the same
as to deny the existence of God.
Still, it may be urged, granting that our reason must
decide the question one way or the other, and granting
that our reason seems to force us to conclude in the
existence of God, are there not great difficulties in
honestly believing this conclusion ? No doubt there
are, and no thoughtful man would think of ignoring
them. But after all it is only a choice of difficulties.
If reason is to decide the question, our beliefs must
move in the line of least resistance ; and, as we have
shown, there is less difficulty in believing each of the
propositions here maintained than the contrary. It
is less difficult, for instance, to believe that the universe
had an origin than to believe that it had not. And
this is the only kind of proof the subject admits
of. We have not attempted to demonstrate the exist
ence of God, or to show that this theory is free from
difficulties ; but we have shown that, with all its
difficulties, it is still by far the most probable theory to
explain the origin and present state of the universe.
And we therefore decide, judging by reason alone
(which is the line adopted in this Essay), that the
existence of God is extremely probable.
(D.) Summary of Argument.
In conclusion, we will very briefly repeat the main
line of argument thus far. To begin with, in the
present universe we observe a succession of changes.
If these changes are not recurring, which seems in-

theism. 43
credible, they must have had a commencement at some
time ; and this is supported by the theories of Evolution
and the Dissipation of Energy. And, therefore, as this
commencement cannot have been a necessity, it must
have been due to a Free Force somewhere. And a Free
Force must be a Supernatural Force, since natural
forces are not free, but always act according to some
fixed law, while the unity of nature points to its being a
Single Supernatural Force, which we called the Creator.
Next, it follows that the Creator must have fore
known the consequences of His own action, judging
by the marks of design which they present. And this
conclusion is shown to be not incompatible with either
the process of evolution or the existence of free will
in man or other beings. And hence He must have
been a Personal Being, possessing both Wisdom to
design and Power to accomplish.
Or the whole argument may be repeated in an even
shorter form. The universe (in its present condition)
has not existed always, it is therefore an effect, some
thing that has been effected, or brought about some
how, and therefore like every effect, it must have
had a Cause. And then since the effect shows a certain
unity throughout, the Cause must have been One.
Since the effect shows in some parts evidence of having
been planned and arranged, the capacity for planning
and arranging must have existed in the Cause. In
other words, a universe showing marks of design is the
effect, and nothing less than a Personal Being who
designed it can be the Cause. And God is the name
given to this Personal Being.

CHAPTER IV.
THAT MAN IS A FREE AND RESPONSIBLE BEING.
(A.) Man's Mental Attributes.
Man possesses a mind as well as a body ; two objections,
Idealism, scarcely ever held ; and Materialism, a possible
theory, but it has enormous difficulties.
(B.) Man's Moral Attributes.
(i.) Man possesses a will.
(2.) And his acts are partly determined by his will.
(3.) This will is a free will.
(4.) Moreover, man knows that his will is free ; and this
enables him to design, and makes him a personal
being.
(5.) And therefore man is responsible for his acts, that is,
for how he uses his freedom.
(6.) Man also possesses a moral sense ; which enables him
to distinguish the quality of acts as right or wrong,
and makes him a moral being.
(7.) While, lastly, man has a conscience, or direct means of
judging of this quality in some cases.
(C.) Difference between Animals and Men.
There is a great mental difference, though probably only
of degree ; and entire moral difference, since animals do
not seem to possess a known freedom, and are hence not
personal beings.
" (D.) Conclusion. Man consists of three parts ; his unique position.
Having decided on the Existence of God, which is
the great truth of Natural Religion, the question
44

MAN S CHARACTER. 45
now arises whether, if nature can lead us so far,
there is no means of getting further. No one will
deny that further knowledge is desirable, both as to
God, ourselves, and our future destiny ; and is there
no means of obtaining it ? And this brings us to the
subject of Revealed Religion, that is to say, of God's
making some Revelation to man. And the probability
of this will depend partly on the character of man —
is he a being at all worthy of a revelation ; and partly
on the Character of God — is He a Being at all likely
to make a revelation ? The former question alone
will be dealt with in this chapter, and we will con
sider man's mental and moral attributes separately.
Nothing need be said about his bodily or physical
characteristics, as they have no bearing on our present
argument. And it may be pointed out at starting, that as all
science is based on observed facts, the science of Human
Nature must be based on the observed facts of human
nature, and not on any a priori reasoning as to what we
think probable or the reverse. Moreover, in discussing
human nature or anything else, we must of course
argue from a perfect, and not from an imperfect,
specimen. Savages and children are only imperfect
specimens of humanity, and cannot be taken to repre
sent the species.
(A) Man's Mental Attributes.
By these are meant man's thoughts and feelings, and
that they are different from the matter composing his
body seems self-evident. Matter has size, weight,
colour, shape, and hardness. Mind has the absence

46 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. IV.
of all these. They have no conceivable meaning
when applied to thoughts and feelings. And yet both
mind and matter exist in man. We each feel conscious
that we have something which thinks, and which we
call mind; as well as something which moves, and
which we call matter (i.e., our bodies), and that these
are absolutely distinct from one another ; and are no
more two names for one substance (the theory of
Monism) than a circle and triangle are two names for
one figure. And from the nature of the case this
inward conviction, or human consciousness, is all we
can appeal to. For mind, if it exists at all, being by
hypothesis different from matter, must be immaterial,
and cannot therefore be discovered in the laboratory
or by any scientific process.
"^And it must be remembered we possess no higher
certainties than these inherent convictions, which form
the basis of all our knowledge. Even the propositions
of Euclid are only deductions from some other of our
inherent convictions, such as that the whole is greater
than its part. But still the difficulty of understanding
this compound nature in man, part mind and part
body, has led many to adopt one or other of two
opposite theories, Idealism or Materialism.
The former theory, that of Idealism, may be dis
missed at once, as it is scarcely ever held at the present
day. It means that man has ideas only, and that
there is no such thing as matter ; the whole of our life
being regarded as a mere dream. It is a consistent
theory, but I have never met anyone who consistently
maintained it.

MAN S CHARACTER. 47
The other theory, that of Materialism, is much more
important. According to this there is no such thing
as mind ; what we call thoughts and feelings being
merely very complex motions of the molecules of the
brain. Now, that the mind and brain are closely associ
ated together none will deny, but it does not follow
that they are identical. The brain may be merely the
instrument of the mind through which it acts. And
though, as far as we know, the mind can never act
without the brain, it may certainly have a separate
. existence, and possibly, under different conditions, may
be able to act separately. It is in fact just as easy to
conceive of thought without a brain, as to conceive
of thought with a brain. All we can say is, that
within the range of our experience the two seem to
be somehow connected together.
On the other hand, there are great difficulties in
accepting Materialism. For thoughts and feehngs
must be either the peculiar property of such highly
organized forms of matter as our brains, or else the
common property of all matter. On the former
hypothesis, the proposed explanation is no explanation
at all. If water does not think or feel when it freezes,
nor hydrogen when it burns, nor nitrogen when it
combines with other elements, why should these and
similar substances when united in a man have thoughts
and feelings as well ? To assert that this is so is no
explanation whatever.
On the latter hypothesis, thoughts and feelings
must exist in all matter, only in a very diluted form ;
so that the elements carbon, hydrogen, etc., do to

48 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. I v.
some extent think and feel, and so also does the table
at which I am writing, and the pen and ink I am
writing with. And then when matter assumes the
complicated form of our brains, its thoughts and
feelings become more clearly marked. This is no
doubt a possible theory, but that is about all that
can be said for it. There is no evidence whatever in
its favour, and it is so difficult to believe as to be
practically incredible.
Neither of these theories then can be accepted, and
we must abide by our inherent conviction that we have
a mind as well as a body. This is an ultimate fact in
human nature ; and we are as certain of it as we are of
anything, though like some other ultimate facts it has
to be assumed, because it can be neither proved nor
doubted. One further remark may, however, be made in regard
to Materialism. This theory, to be consistent, must
deny not only that man has a mind, but that he has
anything immaterial at all ; he must be matter in
motion, and nothing else. But this is disproved by
our memory, which convinces us that we are the same
persons now as we were ten years ago. And yet we
know that every particle of our bodies, including our
brains, has changed in the interval. We must then
have something immaterial which survives, in spite of
everything material changing. And this is confirmed
by our consciousness, for the sense of sameness (or
personal identity as it is called), is another of our
inherent convictions.
The case, it should be noticed, is not like that of

MAN S CHARACTER. 49
a tree, which may be popularly said tp be the same now
as it was ten years ago, though every particle of it
has changed in the interval ; for as far as we know, the
tree has nothing which connects its present state with
its former state, it has no memory of what happened to
it then. We have, that is just the difference. We can
remember now what happened to us ten years ago. And
yet our bodies now do not contain a single atom or
molecule which they did then. We must, therefore,
have something else beside atoms and molecules ; in
other words, something immaterial, and if so, there is
an end of materialism in its only logical form.
(B.) Man's Moral Attributes.
We pass on now to man's moral attributes, which
may be thus analysed.
(1.) Man possesses a Will.
In the first place man possesses what, in common
language, is called a will. Strictly speaking, of course,
the will is not anything independent of the man, which
he possesses, as he might possess a dog ; it is the man
himself who wills, or who possesses the power of
willing. But the common language is so generally
understood, that it will -be used here. Now the chief
reason for believing that man has a will is, of course,
human consciousness. Man feels that he does possess
a will which is distinct from his body and mind, though
closely associated with both, and apparently to some
extent controlling both. For example, I may "resolve
to raise my hand, and thereupon do it ; or I may resolve
to think out a proposition in Euclid, and thereupon
do it. In each case the will is felt to be something 4

50 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. iv.
distinct from the succeeding bodily or mental action ;
so that arguing from human consciousness — and we
have nothing else to argue from — man possesses a will
as well as a body and mind.
(2.) Man's, acts are partly determined by his Will.
In the next place, a man's acts (and also his thoughts)
are often determined by his will. By this is meant
that a man's will is able to move his limbs, so that, for
instance, he can. raise his hand when he wishes, and
this gives him the power of determining his acts. It
is not, of course, meant that a man's will can move his
limbs directly ; his limbs are moved by his muscles,
which are directed by his nerves, and these are excited
by motions in the brain. All that the will can do is
to give a particular direction to these motions, which,
in conjunction with various other forces, brings about
the observed result.
Now we have in favour of this action of the human
will on the human body , the universal experience of
mankind, which is that a man can somehow or other
move his limbs at pleasure. Indeed, the question
whether a man can walk across the room when he
wishes, seems to most persons to admit of a convincing
answer : solvitur ambulando. But notwithstanding
this, the action of will on matter seems so improbable,
and so difficult to understand, that attempts have
naturally been made to find some other explanation.
But no satisfactory one can be suggested. For my
wishing to move my body, and my moving it, occur at
or near the same time, so frequently and so universally,
that there must be some connection between them.

MAN S CHARACTER. 5 1
And therefore either the wish caused the change in the
brain (which led to moving my body) or else some
change in the brain both caused me to move my body,
and also to wish to do so. And one theory is about as
inconceivable as the other. We cannot imagine how
an immaterial wish can move molecules of matter, or
how the movement of molecules of matter can pro
duce an immaterial wish. The former, however,
seems the less improbable, for two reasons.
The first is that the will generally precedes the act :
e.g., I wish to raise my hand, and subsequently do it ;
not I raise my hand first, and subsequently wish to do
it. This alone is not conclusive ; for, as just said,
moving the hand resulted from certain movements in
the brain, and these may have been previous to the
wish, and possibly produced it, but the presumption
is plainly the other way.
The second is from the process of evolution. For if
the will is only the effect of material action and never
its cause, it is clear that all the material actions might
have gone on just as well without there being any will
at all. It would have been a useless by-product.
But in this case it is almost certain that they would
have done so, and that the will would never have
been evolved; since evolution cannot perpetuate and
perfect what is useless, and a will that can never
influence matter is from a material point of view quite
useless. These arguments then support — what to most
persons scarcely needs supporting — the daily experience
of mankind, which is that a man's will can, somehow
or other, move his hmbs, and hence determine his acts.
4—2

52 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. IV.
(3.) Man's Will is free.
It must next be noticed that man's will is a free will,
and this is a most important point. It is quite distinct
from the previous question. Then we decided that a
man's raising his hand, for instance, was the result of
his wishing to do so. We have now to consider whether
the wish was free on the man's part, or whether he
could not help it ; the latter view being called that of
Necessity or Determinism, and meaning that a man's
actions are necessarily determined and not free.
Of course, both the theories of Freedom and De
terminism admit that a man's will is influenced by
motives or reasons, and always acts in conformity
with the strongest ; in other words, that the prevailing
motive prevails. But the difference between them
lies in the ambiguity of this word motive. What are
all the motives influencing the will ? Are they only
external, and such as are brought from without to
bear upon the will ; or are they partly internal, and
such as the will may, but need not, evolve out of its
own powers, or out of previously acquired materials ?
Moreover, is their strength of a uniform kind, so that
they merely want combining, like physical forces, to
yield a resultant ? Or do they differ so widely that
the will alone can decide as to what is their relative
strength ; whether, for instance, the motive to yield
to some animal passion is stronger than that to sacrifice
oneself for the good of others ? The former view
corresponds to the doctrine of Determinism, the latter
to that of Free Will.
Of course, in every case a man's birth, education, and

man's character. 53
surroundings, that is to say his heredity and environ
ment, will greatly influence his choice. These have
been likened to a player's hand at whist, which he
may play well or badly. So a man's free will may
make the best or worst of his opportunities. The im
portant point, however, is not what limits there are
to the freedom of man's will, but is it free at all ?
Now, strange to say, though the freedom of the will
appears self-evident to most men, and is taken for
granted in all human affairs, no absolute proof can be
given of it. Everything can be consistently explained
on the opposite theory. For, however much a man
may think his choice is free, it can always be said that
he could not help deciding as he did. This is admitted.
But, on the other hand, no proof can be suggested of
the existence of free will which cannot be given. An
absolute proof is, from the nature of the case, unattain
able. We are thus obliged to judge by probability ;
and there are two important arguments on each
side. Now the great argument in favour of free will is, of
course, human consciousness. It is one of the most
universal, and one of the most certain, convictions of
mankind that he has free will. This conviction is
forced upon him by his own daily experience. He
feels, for instance, that he is free to raise his hand or
not. And this conviction, resting as it does oh the daily
experience of the human race, cannot be upset by any
mere a priori arguments showing that it is improbable,
or that there are difficulties in understanding how a
man's will can be free ; for in every case it is more

54 the truth of Christianity. chap. iv.
likely that the premises of such reasonings are wrong,
rather than the consciousness of mankind.
And the argument is strengthened when we consider
that man's belief in his freedom, which is undisputed,
must have had both a cause and a purpose. And as
to its cause, it is hard to see how, on the evolution
theory, the belief in human freedom, if untrue, could
ever have been evolved. "For if man were only an
automaton, no amount of believing that he was free
could alter his condition in the slightest degree, and
therefore the belief would be utterly useless, and yet it
has been not only evolved, but perfected to such an
extent that it now forms an inherent part of human
nature. And as to its purpose, it is hard to see why
God, Who has somehow or other created man, should
have implanted in his nature an inherent conviction of
falsehood ; indeed, to many this appears incredible.
The argument, then, from human consciousness alone
seems conclusive on the subject.
But, as a matter of fact, this argument is amply
confirmed by human experience. For experience shows
that a man's conduct is variable and quite unlike the
uniformity which we find in chemistry and physics,
where there is no free force, and everything is brought
about in accordance with fixed laws. So that, for
this reason alone, the existence of some free force in
man to account for this variable conduct is not very
unlikely. And if it be objected that human conduct,
when considered as a whole, is not variable, since under
the same circumstances most men will act in the
same way, the inference against free will does not

MAN'S CHARACTER. 55
follow. For there is nothing unlikely in most men
choosing to act in the same way ; and this does not at
all resemble the uniformity of inorganic nature, where
particles of matter always and invariably act in the
same way. These, then, are the two arguments in
favour of free will — human consciousness, confirmed by
human experience ; and no more powerful arguments
can be imagined.
On the other hand, the great argument against
human freedom is that it would be an anomaly in
nature ; since natural forces always act in the same
way, and any free force, able to act or not as it likes, is
absolutely unknown. If, then, man possesses such a
force, no matter how limited it may be, he is partly,
at least, a supernatural being, not bound by fixed
laws. Now all this may be admitted, but what then ? Is
it incredible that man should be a partly supernatural
being ? Certainly not. For God, Who created man,
is a Supernatural Being ; He possesses free will, and
He might, if He thought fit, bestow some of this special
attribute on man, allowing him, that is to say, within
certain limits, and up to a certain extent, to act in one
way or another. No doubt, to persons who study
physical science alone, the existence of any free force
in man seems most improbable. But, on the other
hand, to those who study the actions of men, such as
barristers, judges, or politicians, the idea that man is
a mere automaton might seem equally improbable.
And does not the same principle apply in other cases ?
If a man were to study inorganic chemistry alone,

56 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. iv.
living, say, on an island where vegetation was unknown,
would not a tree be a complete anomaly to him ? And
yet trees exist and have to be allowed for. Chemistry
has, in consequence, to be divided into two parts,
organic and inorganic, and rules regarding the former
are admitted not to apply to the latter. This is plainly
the scientific way of treating the subject ; and why
should not the same method be adopted in regard
to man ? He is found by consciousness and experience
to have free will. This, then, must be admitted and
allowed for. The forces we meet with in the universe
have, in consequence, to be divided into two groups —
those which are fixed, and those which are free ; the
former including all the invariable forces of nature,
and the latter the variable force which man possesses,
and which is called his free will. This may be an
anomaly, but the evidence for it is overwhelming.
Moreover, the anomaly is greatly lessened by the
fact that man already occupies a very anomalous
position. Claiming free will for him is not like claiming
free will for some mineral or plant. He is anyhow a
unique being, incomparably the highest and most
important on this planet ; and that he should be
partly supernatural as well is not so very unlikely
after all.
While, lastly, we must remember that the whole idea
of natural forces being invariable is only a deduction
from our reasoning. And we know more about our
selves where we are conscious of freedom, than we do
about the surrounding, universe, where we infer this
uniformity. Indeed, our own free will is the only

man's character. 57
force of which we have any direct knowledge, and the
so-called forces of nature, such as gravity, are, strictly
speaking, only assumptions which we make to account
for observed facts. And, as we have already pointed
out, even these forces seem to have originated in the
Free Will of the Creator ; so that as far as we can
judge, volition of some kind is the ultimate source of
all force.
The other important argument against free will is
that it would be inconsistent with the Conservation of
Energy, since it is said any voluntary action would
involve the creation of energy. But this is at least
doubtful ; for the will might be free as to its actions,
were it only able to control energy without producing
it. And it could do this if it possessed the power of
altering either the time or the direction of force. By
altering the time is meant freely choosing the time.
when an act should take place ; deciding, for instance,
whether to raise my hand now or a minute hence.
And by altering the direction is meant" deciding, for
instance, whether to raise my right hand or my left.
And if the will possessed either of these powers, a free
being would be like a reservoir of latent force, which
the will could transform into actual motion when and
how it pleased. And thus the will would be free as
to its actions, without creating any energy at all.
We must therefore conclude, on reviewing the whole
subject, that man's will is free, since this alone agrees
with the consciousness of mankind, and fully accounts
for the variability of human conduct. While, on the
other hand, though an anomaly in nature, it is not on

58 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. iv.
that account incredible ; nor is it inconsistent with the
conservation of energy.
(4.) Man knows that his Will is free.
Having now decided that man's will is free, little
need be said about the next point, which is that man
knows that his will is free, since, as we have shown,
this is the chief argument for admitting its freedom.
There are, however, many other arguments for proving
that man believes that he has free will, for it is shown
by 'his acts. It is this known freedom which enables
a man to set before him an end, and deliberately work
towards it ; in other words, it enables him to design,
and makes him a personal being, as the term is used in
this Essay. And it is needless to point out that the
evidence of human design is universal.
Again, human language affords a conclusive proof
that man has always and everywhere believed himself
to be free. For not only do such terms as I will, I
choose, I decide, exist in all languages ; but these and
similar expressions are so essential to conversation
that it is even difficult for anyone to argue against
free will without using terms which imply that he
and his opponent are both free. Indeed if " I "
stands for nothing more than a changing group of
molecules, it is difficult to see how I can argue at all.
However, we need not pursue this subject, since it is
undisputed that man believes that he has free will.
(5.) Man's responsibility for his acts.
We next come to man's responsibility. By this is
meant that a man is responsible for the way in which
he uses his freedom ; and this seems to follow at once

MAN'S CHARACTER. 59
from his knowing that he is free. Moreover, it is
amply confirmed by human consciousness, for a sense
of responsibility seems to be among the inherent
convictions of mankind. Of course, there may be
exceptions to this as to most other rules ; but taking
mankind as a whole, he certainly believes in his
responsibility. And he also believes that this responsibility is
primarily to God, or to some other supernatural Being.
No doubt he is also responsible to his fellow-men, more
especially to those among whom he is living ; but a
moment's reflection will show that this is not the
primary idea. For man must in the first place be
responsible to his Maker rather than to his fellow-men.
In the same way a child is first of all responsible to his
parents, and then, secondly and consequently, to his
brothers and sisters. And, therefore, because God has
made us, we are responsible to Him ; and because He
has placed us among other men, and presumably
wishes us to take some part in human society, we are
in a lesser degree responsible to them also. So that
the brotherhood of man, as it is called, naturally follows
from the Fatherhood of God.
(6.) Man's moral sense of right and wrong.
Next, as to man's moral sense of right and wrong.
Now it is undeniable that man has the remarkable
faculty of distinguishing the quality of acts which are
free, and regarding some as right and others as wrong,
the latter being called sins. And it may be noticed
in passing, that the existence of moral evil or sin
seems to many to be an additional argument in favour

60 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. iv.
of man's freedom ; for otherwise God must be the sole
author of man's misdeeds. Of course they would not
in this case be really sins, for if man has no free will
he is a mere machine, and can no more sin against
God (or man either) than a watch can sin against its
maker. Such a man might be imperfect, and so might
a watch, but he could not be wicked ; and yet few will
say that there are no wicked men in the world. Now
we will call a being who is thus able to distinguish
the quality of acts a moral being. Man is therefore a
moral being, having this moral sense, as it is called, of
distinguishing right from wrong.
It will perhaps make the meaning of this moral sense
plainer if we compare it with one of man's other senses,
say that of sight. The one, then, distinguishes right
from wrong, just as the other distinguishes red from
yellow, or green from blue. And as the fact of man's
possessing the faculty of distinguishing colours is
not disproved by one man thinking a colour blue
which another thinks green, and some individuals
here and there being colour-blind or having lost their
eyesight ; nor, to give another example, is the fact of
man's possessing a sense of taste disproved by one man
thinking a taste nice, which another thinks nasty ; so
the fact of man's possessing a moral sense is not
disproved by one man thinking an act right which
another thinks wrong, or possibly by individuals here
and there not recognising any difference between right
and wrong.
And it should be noticed, this sense of right and
wrong is quite distinct from the pleasant or unpleasant

MAN'S CHARACTER. 6l
consequences which are associated with certain acts.
For instance, I may avoid putting my hand into hot
water, because I remember having done so before, and
that it was painful ; but this is quite different from
avoiding an act because it is wrong. It is also quite
distinct from expediency, or the idea of benefiting by
an act. For an act may not benefit us at all, or may
even injure us, and yet it may be right. In short,
" fifty experiences of what is pleasant or what is
profitable do not, and cannot, make one conviction
of what is right ;" the ideas differ in kind, and not
merely in degree.
Nor is man's moral sense to be depreciated, or con
sidered untrustworthy, because it had, or may have
had, a very humble origin in times past. For if so
man's reason must be depreciated too on the same
account ; and if human reason is not to be trusted
there is an end of all science.
(7.) Man's conscience.
Lastly, as to man's conscience. This is often con
fused with his moral sense, but the two are quite
distinct, as a little reflection will. show. For a man
might possess a moral sense, and be able to classify
acts as right or wrong, and yet have no direct means
of knowing to which class any particular act belonged.
He might have to work this out by reasoning ; and in
difficult cases we sometimes do so. But as a rule this
is unnecessary. For mankind possesses a very re
markable something, called a conscience, which tells
him intuitively, and without either argument or
reasoning, that certain acts are right and others

62 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. iv.
wrong. Conscience is thus like an organ of the moral
sense, and may be compared to the eye or organ of
sight ; for just as the eye perceives that certain colours
are red and others blue, so the conscience perceives
that certain acts are right and others wrong. In each
case the perception is almost instantaneous, and quite
distinct from a deduction from reasoning. Conscience,
it will be noticed, does not make the act right or
wrong, any more than the eye makes the colour red
or blue ; it merely tells us what acts are right and what
wrong. Now that mankind as a species possesses a con
science is indisputable. It is shared alike by young
and old, rich and poor, educated and uneducated.
It has existed in all age?, countries, and races. We
all have it ; and what is very remarkable it seems to
be independent of our will, and not at our disposal.
We do not correct it, but it corrects us ; for it not only
tells us what acts are right and what wrong, but
approves definitely of our doing the former, and dis
approves just as definitely of our doing the latter.
Indeed, one of the most striking effects of conscience
is this feeling of remorse or self-condemnation after
wrong-doing. And such a feeling is practically uni
versal. And it is, of course, an additional argument
(if such were needed) in favour of man's free will ; for
if a man's conduct is not free, why should he feel sorry
for acting as he did ?
These, then, are the moral attributes of the human
race, and it follows at once that man is a free and re
sponsible being. But as this conclusion is often dis-

MAN'S CHARACTER. 63
puted,- because of the similarity between animals and
men, and the difficulty of admitting that they also
are free and responsible beings, or else of showing
wherein the distinction lies, we must examine this
subject.
(C.) Difference between Animals and Men.
Now the bodily difference between certain animals
and men is admittedly small ; and if, as many think
probable, both were evolved from some common
ancestor, it is plainly unessential. And though the
accompanying * mental difference is enormous, it is
probably only one of degree, for the higher animals
appear to possess the rudiments of a mind. So we
must pass on to the moral attributes of animals.
Unfortunately our knowledge here must always be
imperfect ; for unless some discoveries are made in
the language of animals, we can know nothing of their
consciousness, which is the basis of argument in regard
to man ; and therefore we cannot say (referring to the
first three points) whether they have a free will or not.
Of course, if they have not, the objection falls to the
ground at once, as this would be a clear distinction
between animals and men. But we have no right to
assume this, and there is a good deal to be said on the
other side, at least in regard to the higher animals,
so the subject had better be left an open one.
But with regard to the next point, that of known
freedom, we are on surer ground, for not only is there
no reason, except of course human analogy, for think
ing that animals possess this, but there are strong
reasons for thinking they do not. For the proof of

64 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. IV.
man's believing himself to be free does not depend
solely on his consciousness. It is shown by his acts,
as it enables him to design — i.e., to work towards a
foreseen end — and there is nothing corresponding to
this in animals. For though many of their works
undoubtedly show design somewhere, it does not seem
to be due to them. This kind of unconscious designing
is called instinct, and there are four reasons for thinking
that it differs from real design implying forethought.
The first is, that it is by no means strongest in the
most intelligent animals, such as monkeys, horses,
and dogs. On the contrary, this kind of designing
seems to decrease in the scale of animal life, just as
real intelligence increases. And this is very remark
able, and of itself suggests that there must be some
difference between the two.
The next is, that animals are only able to design in
a few special cases. A bird, for example, will con
struct her nest admirably, but she does not seem able
to construct anything else. In the same way, a bee
will build its hive on the most perfect mathematical
principles, the three rhombs, which close the hex
agonal prisms, having the exact angles so as to contain
the greatest space with the least material.1 But it
cannot apply its mathematics to anything else.
Similarly, a spider and its web, and many other in
stances, might be given. This makes it probable that
such works are due to some special and particular
cause, which is called instinct, and do not result from
1 Encyc Brit., 9th edit., vol. iii., p. 490. The angles are 109° 28'
and 700 32'.

man's character: 65
the animal's possessing a known freedom of action,
which would enable it to design equally well in other
cases. And thirdly, this is confirmed by the fact that, if
these works resulted from the design of the animals
themselves, they must possess intellectual powers of
a very high order. But this is quite untenable, since
in other respects they act with the greatest stupidity.
A bee, for instance, with all its mathematics, cannot
very often, if it has flown in through an open window,
retrace its way, but will buzz helplessly against another
which is shut. Moreover, the instincts of animals
are the same all over the world, and not more advanced
in some countries than in others, as would probably
be the case if they were due to reasoning.
And fourthly, even in these few cases there is no
gradual improvement in what the animal does. The
last cell built by a bee is no better than the first, and
no better, as far as we know, than cells built by bees
thousands of years ago. The bee gains nothing by
experience ; it never makes an alteration by way of
improvement on what it did before ; whereas man, in
consequence of his known freedom, is always trying
to improve upon his previous works. Animals are
thus like producers, who work by a rule given to them,
and not like creators, who design for themselves, and
profit by their previous experience ; and the young of
animals without any experience whatever have the
same instincts as the old. Plainly, then, an animal's
instinct is born with it, and not acquired ; and there
fore, any apparent design there may be in what is done
5

66 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. iv.
by instinct cannot be attributed to the animal itself,
any more than the design shown in its eyes and other
organs, but to its Maker.
But it may be urged that in some of the higher
animals, especially those in contact with man, we find
certain acts which do seem to imply forethought and
design. A dog, for example, will bury a bone one day
and go and look for it the next. But when once it
is admitted that what are apparently far more striking
instances of design are to be explained by instinct, it
seems more probable that these are to be explained in
the same way.
And this is confirmed by the fact that animals do
not appear to have any idea of responsibility, or any
sense of right and wrong, which in man are the result
of his known freedom. Of course, it may be said that
as we punish a dog for doing what we dislike, it implies
that we hold him responsible for the act. But this
does not follow. The punishment may only appeal to
the dog's association of ideas. The dog, like other
animals, has a natural impulse to avoid pain, and
therefore it avoids the act which its memory associates
with pain without necessarily feeling responsible for
it, or considering it to be wrong; while in the vast
majority of cases we never think of holding an animal
responsible for its acts, or look upon its injuring any
one as a sin. We conclude, then, that moral attributes
form the great distinction between animals and men ;
because though animals have, or may have, a free will, it
is not a known freedom, and therefore they are not able,
like men, to design, and are hence not personal beings. -4 5
i *
•4 \!
li

man's character. 67
Two further remarks may be made before leaving
this subject. The first is, that though there are diffi
culties in placing this known freedom as the difference
between animals and men, there are as great, if not
greater, difficulties in placing it anywhere else. If we
say that an ape or a dog can design, the difficulty is
not lessened ; it is merely transferred lower down the
scale. Can a jellyfish design ? and if so, can an oak
or a seaweed ? The momentous attribute of known
freedom, unless it is common to all life, which is most
improbable, must begin somewhere ; and it seems less
difficult to place it between animals and men than
anywhere else.
The second and more important point is, that our
ignorance about animals is no reason for doubting what
we do know about man. To do this would be most
illogical. Indeed, we might as well deny that a man
could see, or hear, or remember, because there are
difficulties in deciding where sight and hearing and
memory commence in the scale of animal life.
(D.) Conclusion.
We may now conclude this chapter. With regard
to man, it is clear that his bodily, mental, and moral
attributes are quite distinct. A man may be strong
in body, and yet of weak intellectual power ; or,
again, a man may have a great intellect, and yet be
of weak moral character. This makes it probable that
human nature consists of three parts — body, mind, and
spirit ; the mind corresponding to the mental reasoning
part of man, and the spirit to the free moral part.
And as a man's body and mind are both (to some
5—2

68 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. iv.
extent) under the control of his free will, or spirit,
this latter must be looked upon as his real self. Thus
he is not strictly speaking an organism at all, but a
free being served by organs both of body and mind.
They are his ; they do not constitute him. He is the
personal being, the free spirit conscious of its freedom,
which controls both.
And our present conclusion is quite plain. We have
shown that man is a free being, his freedom distinguish
ing him from all natural forces, and making him in
part supernatural. And he is a responsible being, his
responsibility being due to his known freedom, and
distinguishing him from all animals. He has thus a
unique position. Nothing else on this planet resembles
him, and in his attribute of known freedom which
enables him to design, and therefore makes him a
personal being, he resembles God alone.

CHAPTER V.
THAT GOD TAKES AN INTEREST IN MAN'S WELFARE.
(A.) The Evidence in its Favour.
Since God is a Moral as well as a Personal Being, He must
be capable of caring for all His creatures ; and He prob
ably, would do so, especially for man ; while the marks
of beneficent design seem to prove the point. But there
are two great difficulties.
(B.) The Insignificance of Man.
(i.) Some counter-arguments, showing that if insignificant,
God may still care for him.
(2.) Man's real importance.
(3.) The supposed inhabitants of other planets.
(C.) The Existence of Evil.
(1.) Physical evil in animals. The objection that it is vast
in amount, wholly unmerited, and perfectly useless,
cannot be maintained.
(2.) Physical evil in man. Several ways of lessening the
difficulty. Its explanation seems to be that God's
designing evil does not mean His desiring it, as it is
essential for forming a man's character.
(3.) Moral evil in man. Also designed but not desired, as
it is essential to free will ; and wicked men are as
necessary as any other form of evil.
(D.) Conclusion. God's Goodness includes both Beneficence and Righteous
ness.
Having discussed in the last chapter the character of
man, we have next to consider, as far as we have any
69

70 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. v.
means of doing so, the Character of God ; more especially
whether He seems to take any interest in man's wel
fare. And we will first examine the evidence in favour
of this ; then the two great arguments on the other
side from the apparent insignificance of man, and the.
existence of evil ; and will conclude by considering in
what sense the term Goodness can be ascribed to God.
(A) The Evidence in its Favour.
To begin with, God is certainly capable of taking an
interest in man's welfare, for He is not only a Personal
Being, but also a Moral Being. This follows at once
from what may be called the moral argument for the
Existence of God, or that depending on man's free
will. It is briefly this, that no combination of natural
forces, which are uniform and always act the same
under the same circumstances, can ever produce a free
force, able to act or not as it likes. The idea seems
inconceivable. If, then, man possesses such a force,
which we have already admitted, it cannot have been
derived from any natural forces, nor can it have made
itself, so it must have come from some previous free
force, and this, again, from a previous one, and so on
till we finally arrive at an eternally existing Free Force.
And this, it will be remembered, was precisely the con
clusion we reached in Chapter I., though from quite a
different argument.
Having admitted this, the next step is that this
Free Force, or Free Being, must be conscious of His
Freedom, and must therefore be a moral Being, able
to distinguish the quality of acts as right or wrong.
Indeed, the mere fact that man possesses this re-

GOD S CHARACTER. 71
markable faculty makes it certain that man's Maker
must do the same. For this faculty differs in kind
from all physical and mental faculties, and cannot
therefore have been evolved from them alone. In
other words, physical and mental forces can never by
any possible combination produce out of themselves
that which was never in them — the idea of right and
wrong. So that a moral man implies a moral God.
And this is amply confirmed by our conscience, which,
as before said, tells us that certain acts are right and
others wrong, though it does not make them right or
wrong. It is thus only an intermediary between
Someone else and ourselves ; and this Someone else
can only be God, Who gave us our conscience, so that
in popular language it may be called the Voice of God.
And it tells us we ought to act right, because this is
the way in which God wishes us to act. But if so, it
follows again that He must be a Moral Being capable
of distinguishing the quality of acts.
Now a personal and moral God must certainly be
able to take an interest in the welfare of His creatures ;
and, as we shall see, it is not only probable that He
would do so, but there is abundant evidence that this
is actually the case.
In the first place, it is distinctly probable that God
would care for all the beings whom He has created ;
or why should He have created them ? And the
probability that He would care for man, who, like
Himself, is a personal and moral being, and whom He
has thus endowed with some of His own attributes,
is of course much greater. Moreover, we have no

72 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. v.
knowledge scientifically of any other being in the
universe who is either personal or moral ; so that
though man may be quite unworthy of God's care,
we know of no other being who is more worthy of it.
And it is scarcely likely that a Creator would not take
an interest in any of His works.
And this a priori argument is confirmed by observa
tion. For everywhere in nature, and especially in
man, we meet with marks, not only of design, but of
beneficent design — that is, of design tending to the
welfare and happiness of the beings in question.
Take for instance the human eye, which we con
sidered in Chapter II. As there shown, all its various
and complicated parts agree in this one particular,
that they all conduce to enable man to see. And
the inference from this, that God, Who somehow or
other brought all these parts together did so with
the intention of enabling man to see, seems irre
sistible. And the further conclusion that God's
object in thus enabling man to see, or at least the
chief object, was to conduce to his welfare, is equally
obvious. And the same applies to thousands of other
organs throughout nature.
But there are two shght objections. The first is,
that the human eye has some defects, in being liable
to various kinds of disease and accident ; and this is
of course true. But these defects are incidental to
the construction of the eye and not the object of its
construction. The eye was made to see and not to
ache. That it does ache now and then is in all
probability due to its being such a complicated

¦« GOD S CHARACTER. 73
instrument, and therefore it scarcely affects the
argument. The other objection is, that beneficial organs like
the eye, though they abound throughout nature, are
not the only ones we meet with. There are others,
like the claws and teeth of wild animals, which are
just the opposite, and seem designed to give pain to
other creatures. But this is quite untenable. They
were plainly designed to enable the animal to secure
its food, and are perhaps necessary for that purpose,
and they all tend to the welfare of their possessor.
There is, in fact, not a single organ in nature the object
of which is to produce pain. Where pain is produced
it is merely a sort of by-product. Neither of these
objections then can be maintained.
(B.) The Insignificance of Man.
But now to consider the other side. There are two
chief difficulties ; the first being from the apparent
insignificance of man. For though he is doubtless by
far the most important being on this planet, and en
dowed with some of the divine attributes, yet, after
all, how utterly insignificant he is in comparison with
his Maker. This is no new difficulty,1 but modern
science has increased its force by showing that our
earth is but one member of the solar system, which
again is itself a mere unit in the universe of stars.
And, we may ask, is it likely that the God Who rules
these millions of stars should take any interest in the
beings on a small planet like our earth ? This is the
difficulty we have to face ; and we will first consider
1 Ps. 8. 3, 4.

74 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. v.
some counter-arguments, then man's real importance,
and lastly the question of other planets being in
habited. (i.) Some Counter-arguments.
To begin with, though it seems unlikely that God
should take any interest in such insignificant beings
as us men, it also seems unlikely that He should ever
have designed and created such beings ? And yet
He has done so. And having created them, there is
at most only a slight additional improbability, if any
at all, that He should take an interest in their welfare.
Thus, " His interest in the beginning is the pledge of
His interest to the end"; and having once created the
human race, it is unlikely that He should cease to care
for it.
Moreover, lack of interest in His creatures, however
insignificant they may be, is scarcely a worthy attri
bute to ascribe to God ; least of all to the God of
nature. For all through nature we find nothing re
sembling a neglect of small things. On the contrary,
everything, down to the minutest insect, seems
finished with as much perfection as if it alone existed
in the universe. True greatness does not consist in
despising that which is small ; and it may be a very
part of God's infinite greatness that nothing should
be too small for Him to care about, just as nothing is
too large. And while a Being, Who can govern the
universe, and attend to its millions of stars, is no
doubt great— inconceivably great; yet He is surely
greater still — inconceivably greater — if He can also
attend to our tiny planet, and its inhabitants; and

GOD S CHARACTER. 75
can do this so thoroughly, as not only to take an
interest in the human race, but in the welfare of each
one of its members.
And the whole analogy of nature is in favour of His
doing so ; for the forces of nature never deal with
matter in bulk, but with each particle separately. A
stone, for instance, is attracted to the ground, because,
and only because, each particle of it is so attracted.
In the same way if God takes an interest in the human
race (and, as just said, it is hard to imagine His not
doing so), it may be because, and only because, He
takes an interest in each individual member of it.
Moreover, whether we are insignificant or not, we
are each of us unique. We are not like particles of
matter. Millions of these are exactly alike, but no
two men are exactly alike ; not even to the same extent
as plants and animals. For each man is a separate
spirit, a personal being distinct from all else in the
world. And therefore, as we have each something
special about us, God may take a special interest in
each of us. Doubtless such an idea seems very
wonderful ; but no one who has any knowledge of the
marvels of nature will think it, on that account,
incredible. And then as to the discoveries of science, there is
here also a good deal to be said on the other side.
For though the telescope has shown us that our world
is like a mere drop in the ocean, the microscope has
shown us a new world in each drop ; and the infinitely
little, as it is called, is as wonderful as the infinitely
great, and man still occupies a sort of central position.

76 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. v.
When, for instance, we examine a single part of a
single organ, say the iris of the human eye, we find
that it consists of a multitude of details, each of which
is seen to be more and more complex the more we are
able to magnify it, and so on without apparently any
limit. And all this makes it more than ever likely
that the God, Who has shown such marvellous skill
in the formation of the various organs of a man's
body, should care for the man himself, the personal
and moral being, who is the possessor of these organs.
Nor is the argument weakened by the fact that the
organs of animals and plants also show a wonderful
amount of design, for as far as we know, in their case,
there is no personal and moral being to care about.
Again, science has not only shown us the magnitude ,
of the universe, and that there are millions of stars,
millions of miles apart, but it has also shown us its
unity, and that all its parts are closely connected?
together. And certainly the idea that the God, Who
rules these stars, should take an interest in us men,
is no harder to believe than that the gases, which are
burning in these stars, should influence our spectro- ::
scopes. And yet they do ; so that if this were all, it
would still lessen the difficulty a good deal.
(2.) Man's real importance.
But this is not all, for science has also taught us a
great deal about man himself, and his long develop
ment ; and this has of course a most important bear
ing on the argument. Indeed, it is scarcely too much
to say, that the theory of Evolution has reversed the
position altogether, and shown that so far from being

GOD S CHARACTER. 77
insignificant, man is in reality a being of the greatest
importance. For we now know that our earth has
existed for thousands of centuries, gradually evolving
higher and higher forms of life, and all leading up to
man, who is the heir of all the ages, the inheritor of
those thousands of useful adaptations which have been
perfected by his long line of ancestors.
And what is very important, organic evolution seems
obliged to stop here. Man is not merely a link in a
series leading on to still more perfect beings, but he is
the end of the series. In all probability there will
never be a higher being on the earth, for the causes
which produced his evolution thus far have now ceased
to act, and can" carry it no further. When, for in
stance, man discovered the use of tools, there was an
end to any further evolution of the hand. When he
took to wearing clothes, there was an end to the body
becoming hardier and stronger through exposure.
When he took to using weapons and inventing ma
chinery, mere physical strength was no longer essential,
and could no longer be increased.
In short, when Evolution began to take a mental
turn, there was an end to bodily development. Hence
forth there was to be no evolution of any higher
species, but the gradual perfecting of this one species
by mental and moral, and not physical improvements.
Man is thus not only the highest being that ever has
been evolved, but, as far as we can judge, the highest
being that ever will be evolved on this earth. So that
the vast scheme of evolution, inconceivable alike in
magnitude, in duration, and in complexity, is seen to

78 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. v.
be one plan, with man apparently at the end of it.
And therefore, of course, as everything was designed
by God, he must have been the foreknown and in
tended end, from the very beginning ; the first thought
in creation, as well as the last.
And when we thus regard man as the goal towards
which nature has all along tended, and as the chief
object which God — the Author of nature — had in view
all the time, it seems to increase his importance ten
fold ; and shows conclusively that in God's sight he
must be anything but insignificant.
Nor is it difficult to suggest a reason for this. For
man, as before said, has a mind, as well as a body ; and
though the discoveries of science have in some respects
depreciated his body, by showing its evolution from
other animals, they have at the same time magni
fied his mind, for it is his mind that has discovered
them. And every fresh discovery man makes can only
exalt him still higher for making it ; so that the mind
of man now shows him to be a far nobler being than
could possibly have been imagined some centuries ago.
And certainly a mind that can discover the motions of
distant stars, and the elements of which they are
composed, cannot be thought insignificant. And if
we believe that a man's mind, like his body, has been
slowly evolved through countless ages, it seems to
still further increase its importance.
Moreover, man has not only a mind, but also a
spirit, or free will, able to act right or wrong; and
perhaps (if we were unfortunately not so far from it
ourselves) we should see that moral perfection, always

GOD S CHARACTER. 79
acting right though one might act wrong, is as much
above mental greatness, as this latter is above mere
physical strength. But though we cannot properly
appreciate it, God can. He is Himself a Spirit, and
therefore, in His sight, a child possessing a mind and
spirit, and thus made to some extent in His own
image, and capable of developing moral perfection,
may be of more value (because more hke Himself)
than a universe of dead matter. And if so, what shall
we say of the millions of men who have lived, and are
now living, on this earth ? Surely their welfare cannot
be thought insignificant by anyone, least of all by
their Creator.
(3.) The supposed inhabitants of other planets.
But it may be said, what about other planets ?
Are not some of these inhabited, and does not this
weaken the argument a good deal, and show that God
cannot take any special interest in man, or other beings
on this earth ?
Now there is, of course, no reason why God should take
any special interest in the beings on this planet, more
than in similar beings on other planets, if such exist,
but this is very doubtful. For modern science has
shown that natural laws, such as those of gravity, light,
heat, etc., are the same throughout the entire universe ;
and this makes it probable that the laws of life are
also the same. And, therefore, if living beings exist
on other planets, we should expect them to be some
what similar to the living beings here ; and to have
been evolved in a somewhat similar manner. And
this requires that a large number of favourable circum-

80 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. v.
stances, such as a regular and moderate heat supply, a
suitable atmosphere, sufficient water, etc., should all
be found on some other planet, not only now, but
during the long ages which (judging by this earth)
appear necessary for the development of the higher
forms of life ; and this certainly seems unlikely.
On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that
God would create an immense number of suns or stars,
many of which have probably planets round them, if
only one out of the whole series was to be inhabited
by personal beings. But however strange this may
seem to us, it is in strict agreement with God's methods
in nature, where what seems to be needless waste is
the universal rule. So this is not an insuperable
difficulty. The question, however, may well be left an open
one, for even if other planets are inhabited, there is no
reason why God should not take an interest — and per
haps a great interest — in their inhabitants, as well as in
ourselves ; since all His capacities are boundless, and
even an infinitesimal part of infinity may be very large.
(C.) The Existence of Evil.
We now come to the other, and perhaps more im
portant, objection, that arising from the existence of
evil. The world, it is said, is full of pain and misery,
and is not this fatal to its having been designed and
created by a God Who cares for the welfare of His
creatures ? Or, to put the objection in other words,
does not the existence of this evil, or indeed of any
evil at all, using that word in its widest sense, to include
both physical suffering and moral wrong, show that

god s character. 8i
God either could not or would not prevent it ? If He
could not, he is not All-Powerful ; if He would not,
He is not All-Good. This is an undoubted difficulty ;
and, considering its importance, we will examine it
in detail, both as it affects animals and men.
But it may be remarked at starting that the difficulty
is common to all theories. For though the idea that
all this evil is due to a good God seems improbable, the
opposite idea that the world was designed by a bad
Being, who wishes men to be miserable, is out of the
question. Every happiness in life contradicts it. And
so does the general consent of mankind, for however
much men have puzzled over the existence of evil,
they have seldom thought the existence of good needed
any explanation. While the only other alternative,
that the Creator is indifferent, and does not care
whether man is happy or miserable, seems also im
probable, since He has Himself made us capable of
feeling pleasure and pain, and keenly sensitive to
both. And if this difficulty is urged as opposed to
Theism altogether, or the existence of any Supreme
Being, we must remember that though Theism may
not account for it satisfactorily, neither Atheism nor
Agnosticism can account for it at all. When con
sidered by itself it leads towards Dualism, or the
eternal existence of both a Good and an Evil Power.
But the unity of nature is hopelessly opposed to such
a view. Moreover, the difficulty, though great, is by
no means insuperable.
(i.) Physical evil in animals.
The objection here is that animals of all kinds suffer
6

82 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. v.
a vast amount of pain and misery, which is wholly
unmerited and perfectly useless ; since, having no
moral nature, they can neither deserve pain nor profit
by it. We will consider these points in turn.
And first, as to the extent to which animals suffer.
One animal does not suffer more because a million
suffer likewise, so we must consider the suffering as it
affects the individual, and not the total amount. And
as to its extent we know but little. That animals
appear to suffer greatly, e.g., a mouse being caught by
a cat, is obvious ; but how far they really suffer is
doubtful, as their feelings are probably far less sensitive
than those of man ; and therefore it is quite misleading
to think what we should feel like in similar circum
stances. This is evident when we reflect that suffering
is connected with the brain, as is shown by the fact
that savages suffer much less than civilised nations.
And therefore we should expect animals, whose mental
development is far less advanced, to suffer still less ;
while the lower forms of life we should not expect to
suffer at all.
And this also is confirmed by observation, as several
facts have been noticed which almost force us to this
conclusion. For instance, a crab will continue to eat,
and apparently relish, a smaller crab, while being itself
slowly devoured by a larger one ; and this clearly
shows that the crab can feel scarcely any pain, since
the almost universal effect of pain is to destroy the
pleasure of eating. And many other instances are
known.1 The only argument on the other side is
1 Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxv., p. 257.

god's character. 83
that the bodies of the lower animals when ill-treated
appear to writhe as if in great pain ; but in many cases
there is certainly no pain at all. For instance, if a
worm is cut in half, the tail end, just as much as
the other, will writhe, though obviously it can feel no
pain. Moreover, animals, except domestic ones which are
partly trained and civilised, appear to have no anticipa
tion of suffering, and no power of concentrating their
thoughts upon it, which increases it so greatly in man.
And assuming, with reference to the above example,
that the mouse is not to live always, its being de
stroyed by a cat is at most .a very short misery, and
perhaps involving altogether less pain than if it died
from disease or gradual decay. On the whole, then,
it seems probable that pain in the animal world is
far less than is commonly assumed, and in the lower
forms of life nearly, if not entirely, absent.
Still it may be said this lessens the difficulty, but it
does not remove it. For why should animals suffer
pain at all ? It is, as far as we can judge, wholly
immerited, since, having no moral nature, and there
fore no responsibility, they cannot have done anything
wrong to deserve it. But we must remember that if
the pain which animals suffer is unmerited, the pleasure
which they enjoy is equally so. The two must in all
fairness be taken together. And it is probable that
were there no capacity for pain, there would be no
capacity for pleasure, since the same nervous system
gives rise to both. And, as a matter of fact, animals
seem to have a much greater amount of pleasure than
6—2

84 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. v.
pain. Their life is, as a rule, one of continual enjoy
ment, and probably, at any given moment, the number
of animals of any species that are happy is incom
parably greater than those that are miserable. In
short, health and happiness is the rule, sickness and
pain the exception.
Nor can it be said that pain is useless to animals ;
for though they have no moral nature to be improved,
they have a physical nature to be preserved and trans
mitted, and the sense of pain may be essential for this.
It is indeed a kind of sentinel, warning them of dangers
which might otherwise lead to their destruction. For
example, if animals felt no pain from excessive heat,
they might not escape when a forest was burning ;
or, if they felt no pain from hunger, they might die of
starvation. And the same applies in other cases, so
that pain is, in reality, a great preservative of life.
We have, thus, no sufficient reason for saying that the
pain which animals suffer is useless ; and with this the
last and most important part of the objection falls to
the ground.
(2.) Physical evil in man.
WTe now pass on to the case of man. We unfortu
nately know a great deal of the suffering which he
endures. The struggling lives, the painful diseases,
the lingering deaths, not to mention accidents of all
kinds, are but too evident. And it may be asked,
would an Omnipotent God, Who cared for man's
welfare, have ever designed all this ?
Now it is important to remember that a great deal
of physical evil originates in moral evil, which will be

GOD'S CHARACTER. 85
considered later on. By far the greater part of the
pain and misery which men endure is probably brought
about by their own wickedness and folly, or by that
of their fellow-men. It is their doing, and not God's ;
and they alone must be blamed for it.
In the next place, many of the so-called evils of life
do not imply any actual suffering. If for instance
a man loses the sight of one eye, he need not have
any pain ; and were he originally blind, the possession
of even one eye would have been looked upon as a
priceless blessing. But being always accustomed to
having two eyes, having only one is now looked upon
as an affliction ; and the same applies in other cases.
Again, however great may be the sufferings of life,
they cannot be as great as its joys, since nearly every
one wishes to go on living. And there is also a vast
amount of unconscious happiness in the world, for men
are so constituted that they may be happy (and as a
rule are so) without knowing it : though no one can be
unhappy without knowing it. While it is undeniable
that human pain, like that of animals, is most useful,
serving to warn men of dangers and diseases, which
would otherwise lead to their destruction.
Moreover, in a material world like ours, if the forces
of nature act according to fixed laws, a certain amount
of suffering seems inevitable. If, for example, the
force of gravity always acts as it does, it will occasion
ally cause a tower to fall and injure someone. Such
an event could only be avoided by God's continually
interfering with these forces, or, in popular language,
working miracles. But this would render all human

86 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. v.
life a hopeless confusion. While, at present, owing to
these forces being invariable, a great deal of the evil
which might otherwise result from them can be foreseen
and avoided. If, however, men will not avoid it, — if,
for instance, in spite of the numerous eruptions of
Vesuvius, they still choose to go and live on its slopes, —
it is hard to see how they can blame anyone but them
selves. And even in other cases, when the evil cannot be
foreseen, as in an unexpected earthquake; it is at least
open to doubt whether (assuming so many million men
have to die every year) it is any worse for a few
thousand to die like this, suddenly and together, than
that they should all die slowly, one by one, and often
after a long illness. It of course appeals more to the
imagination, but it proba,bly involves less suffering.
Thus we may say that human suffering, excluding
that due to man himself, is by no means so great
as it seems ; that it is, as a rule, more than counter
balanced by human happiness ; and that a certain
amount seems not only useful, but in a world like
ours inevitable. But though all these considera
tions are undoubtedly true, and undoubtedly lessen
the difficulty, they dp not remove it ; since there is far
more suffering in the world than can be thus accounted
for. The foUowing appears to be the true, explanation ;
that though God foreknew all this suffering when He
created the world, and in this sense designed it, He
need not have desired it, but may have desired some
thing else, for the attainment of which however this

god's character. 87
suffering was a necessary condition. And this some
thing else must obviously have been the training and
perfecting of man's character, for which suffering of
some kind seems essential.
For if there were no suffering in the world, there could
be no fortitude, no bravery, no patience, no com
passion, no sympathy with others, no self-sacrifice for
their good — nothing, in fact, that constitutes the highest
type of man. In other words, a being such as man can
only be made perfect through suffering. And therefore
this suffering implies no defect in God's design. It is
a means, and, as far as we can judge, the only possible
means for developing the highest and noblest char
acter in man, such a character indeed as alone makes
him worthy of admiration. Moreover, a man's char
acter can only be formed by himself, it cannot be given
him ready-made ; and it can only be formed gradually,
it cannot be done all at once. And therefore, if God
wishes a man to have the special character acquired
by constantly bearing suffering, it can only be obtained
by constantly giving him suffering to bear.
Here, then, we have the most probable explanation
of the physical evils which man endures. Their object
is to develop and perfect his character ; and as this is
in itself a good object, and as it cannot be obtained in
any other way, they may well have been designed by
a good God. And the more we contemplate the vast
amount of human suffering — and there certainly is a
vast amount in spite of all explanations — the more we
feel how vast must be also the Goodness of God, what
an intense longing He must have for man's truest and

88 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. v.
best welfare, to be willing to bring it about at such a
tremendous cost. So that, as it has been happily
expressed, if God is good at all, He must be very good
to have designed such a world as ours.
(3.) Moral evil in man.
But it may be urged that, even admitting the neces
sity and value of physical evils, these are greatly
aggravated by moral evil — that is, by a man wilfully
causing misery to himself and others — and might not
this have been avoided ? In other words, could not
all sin have been excluded from the world ? But
assuming man to be a free being, it could not have been
avoided, for freedom is always liable to abuse. And
therefore, if God decided that man was to be free in
some cases to act right or wrong, it necessarily follows
that he may act wrong. No Omnipotence could pos
sibly alter this without destroying man's freedom.
And hence, though the Creator designed all the moral
evil in the world, He need not have desired it, but (as
before) may have desired some totaUy different object,
for the attainment of which, however, the existence of
this evil was a necessary condition.
Nor, again, is it difficult to suggest what this object
may have been. For unless man is a free being, he
can be little better than a machine — a correctly-
behaved machine, no doubt, and one able to talk and
think, but still only a machine. And God may not
have wished that man, who is, as far as we know, His
highest and noblest work, should be only a machine.
Indeed, the superiority of free men who act right,
though they might act wrong, to mere machines is

GOD'S CHARACTER. 89
obvious to everyone ; and it may far outweigh the
disadvantage that some of them should act wrong.
And therefore, though we have to pay dearly for
freedom, it is well worth the price ; and the infinite
value of goodness, as it is called, may justify, though
nothing else could, the risks involved in giving man
free will.
Nor is there anything unlikely in the Creator thus
caring about the conduct of His creatures. We cer
tainly should not admire an earthly ruler who regarded
traitors to his cause and his most faithful adherents
with the same indifference ; or an earthly parent who
did not care whether his children obeyed him or not.
Why, then, should we think that God, Who has not
only given us free will, but also a conscience by which
to know what is right (i.e., what is His will), should
yet be indifferent as to whether we do it or not ?
Everything points the other way, that God, Who is
a Moral Being, and Who has made us moral beings also,
wishes us to voluntarily act right. And therefore of
necessity He allows us to act wrong, with all its con
sequent miseries, in order to render possible our thus
freely choosing to act right.
Or to put the argument in other words, a free being
is far higher than a being who is not free, and yet a
free being cannot exist without the possibility of his
acting wrong. And, therefore, however strange the
conclusion appears, moral evil, or at least its possi
bility, is essential to the universe, if it is to be worthy
of its Creator, if, that is, it is to contain beings of the
highest order — persons and not things. Or, to put it

go THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. v.
still shorter, if God is good, it is only natural that He
should create beings capable of goodness, and there
fore of necessity capable of badness, for the two must
go together.
And if it be still urged that, as God foreknew how
men would use their freedom, He need not have created
those who would habitually use it wrongly ; in other
words, there might be no wicked men in the world,
the answer is obvious. Wicked men are as necessary,
perhaps more so, than any other form of evil to test
a man's character, and to develop moral perfection.
For just as physical evil, pain, suffering, etc., can alone
render possible certain physical virtues, such as forti
tude and patience ; so moral evil, or sin, can alone
render possible certain moral virtues.
If, for instance, there were no sin in the world,
there could be no forebearance with the faults of others,
no moral courage in standing alone for an unpopular
cause, no forgiveness of injuries, nor (what is perhaps
the highest of all virtues) any rendering good for evil-.
These require not merely the possibility, but the actual
existence of sin, and they would be aU unattainable
if we had nothing but physical evils to contend with,
and there were only good men in the world. The case
then stands thus. Evil men are essential to an evil
world. An evil world is essential to proving a man's
character. Proving a man's character is essential to
his freely choosing to serve God ; and his freely choos
ing to serve God seems essential to his being such a
servant as God would care to have.
One other point should be noticed before we con-

GOD S CHARACTER. 9 1
elude. It is that with regard to the conduct of free
beings, foreknowing is not the same as foreordaining.
God may have foreknown how a man would use or
misuse his freedom, without foreordaining or com
pelling him to do either, since his conduct is by hypo
thesis free. In the same way, in human affairs it
is possible in some cases, and to some extent, to fore
know what a man wiU do, but without in any way fore
ordaining or compeUing him to do it. This is a most
important distinction, and we have no reason whatever'
for saying that God foreordained any man to misuse
his freedom, though He may have foreknown that he
would do so.
(D.) Conclusion.
We may now sum up the arguments in this chapter.
We have shown that God is certainly able to take an
interest in man's welfare ; and that it is not only prob
able that He would do so, but that the marks of bene
ficent design afford abundant evidence that He actually
does. On the other hand, the so-called insignificance
of man is more apparent than real, since his position
at the end of evolution shows his great importance ;
while his mind and spirit fully account for this, and
prove him to be an altogether unique being, certainly
in regard to this earth, and perhaps in regard to the
universe. And our conclusion in regard to the Existence of
EvU is this. It is undeniable that God must have
foreknown aU the evil in the world when He created
it ; and in this sense He designed it. But He may also
have foreknown, what we can only foreguess, that this

92 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. v.
evil is but temporary, and that it will lead to a more
than compensating permanent good, which could not
be obtained in any other way. God, it must be re
membered, has eternity to work in, and His plan
embraces the whole universe ; so it is not surprising
that, with our finite knowledge, we do not altogether
understand it. Suffice it to say, that we do under
stand it to some extent. We perceive that the evils
in this world " need not be ends, but may be only
means to ends ;" and, for all we know, they may be
the very best means for obtaining the very best ends.
Indeed, as before said, they seem to be not only the
best, but the only possible means for developing all
that is highest and noblest in man. We conclude,
then, that though God designed both the evil and the
good in the world, He need not have desired both :
and there are indications in nature sufficient to show
that the good is what He desired, and the evil is only
its inevitable companion.
This conclusion is often expressed by saying that
Goodness is an attribute of the Deity ; and the term
may certainly be admitted. For though it is doubtless
a very inadequate one, and does not fuUy express the
reality, it is immeasurably nearer the truth than
badness, or even indifference would be. But it is
important to notice the sense in which it is used, and
in which alone it is true.
By God's goodness, then, or by His taking an interest
in man's welfare, is not meant a mere universal benefi
cence, or wishing to make everyone as happy as pos
sible, irrespective of his conduct. The existence of

GOD S CHARACTER. 93
evil seems fatal to such a theory as this. But rather
God wishes to promote man's welfare in the truest and
best way, not by gratifying every passing fancy, but
by training and developing his character, so that he
may be able to enjoy the highest form of happi
ness. God's character is thus not only beneficent, but
righteous also. And He therefore wishes man to be not
only happy, but righteous also. And He therefore of
necessity (as a man cannot be made righteous against
his will) gives him free will, with the option of being
unrighteous, and consequently unhappy. So that this
view of God's character, combining beneficence with
righteousness, not only accounts for the marks of bene
ficent design all through nature, but also for the exist
ence of evil, especially moral evil, in man, and seems the
only way of reconciling them. In short, beneficence
and righteousness are both good, and the Goodness of
God includes both.
Now if we admit that goodness is an attribute of
the Deity, the analogy from God's other attributes
would show that He possesses it in its highest perfec
tion ; so that God is a Being not only of infinite Power
and Wisdom, but also of perfect Goodness — the word
" perfect " being obviously more suitable to a moral
quality like goodness than " infinite " would be. And
it will be noticed that these three great attributes
of the Deity correspond to the three chief Theistic
arguments. The first, that from causation, proves the
existence of an All-Powerful Creator ; the second, that
from design, proves that He is All- Wise ; and the
third, that from human consciousness, proves that He

94 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. v.
is All-Good. They also correspond to some extent to
the three aspects under which we considered man's
character in the last chapter ; so we arrive at the grand
conclusion that God is physicaUy All-Power ful, men
tally All-Wise, and morally All-Good.

CHAPTER VI.
THAT THEREFORE GOD MIGHT MAKE SOME REVELATION
TO MAN.
This depends chiefly on man's future destiny.
(A.) The Immortality of Man.
By this is meant the personal immortality of man's spirit,
and there are several arguments in its favour :
(i.) From his unique position.
(2.) From his unjust treatment.
(3.) From his vast capabilities.
(4.) From his inherent belief.
(5.) Counter arguments.
(B.) The Probability of a Revelation.
(1.) From God's character.
(2.) From man's character ; since mentally he can under
stand it, and morally he can profit by it ; while he
also desires it, and his unique position makes him
not altogether unworthy of it.
(3.) Two objections : a revelation is said to be unjust, as
only given to certain men ; and anyhow incredible
unless quite convincing. But neither of these can
be maintained.
We decided in the last two chapters that man is a free
and responsible being, and that God takes an interest
in his welfare. We now come to the subject of a
Revelation, which we will define as any superhuman
knowledge directly imparted by God to man. And
95

96 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. vi.
by superhuman knowledge is meant any knowledge
which man could not otherwise obtain ; such, for
instance, as God's object in creating him, His wishes
in regard to his conduct, or any past or future events
of which he would otherwise be ignorant. And that
God could, if He chose, impart such knowledge, either
by visions, or dreams, or in some other way, can
scarcely be disputed. Nor will anyone affirm (least of
all an Agnostic) that we know enough about God to
be quite sure that He never would chose to do so.
And therefore a revelation is certainly possible ; but
is it at all probable ? And as this will depend to a great
extent on man's future destiny, we will first consider
the question of his Immortality , and then the proba
bility, or otherwise, of God's making a Revelation to him.
(A.) The Immortality of Man.
By this is of course meant the immortality of man's
spirit, and if we admit (as was admitted in Chapter IV.)
that man is a compound being, consisting of a free and
partly supernatural spirit, his real self, which controls
his body and mind, what becomes of this spirit at
death ? We know what becomes of the body : the
various molecules are re-arranged in other groups, arid
the natural forces are transformed into other natural
forces. Nothing is lost or annihilated. But what
becomes of the spirit ? If this is a free supernatural
force, the idea that it should perish altogether, when
the accompanying natural forces are re-arranged at
death, is most unlikely. Indeed the apparent in
destructibility of matter points to a corresponding
immortality of spirit.

revelation. 97
No doubt God could, if He chose, destroy either, just
as He could create either ; but without some super
natural interference, the creation or destruction of
either seems incredible. And yet if a man's spirit is
not destroyed, it must survive ; for it does not seem to
have any component parts into which it can be split
up like a man's body. And therefore, as it cannot be
subjected to the only form of death of which we have
any knowledge, which is the re-arrangement of con
stituent parts in other groups, it may survive for ever.
And there are four chief arguments in favour of this
personal immortality of man ; which are derived from
his unique position, his unjust treatment, his vast
capabilities, and his inherent belief. And we will con
sider each in turn, and then see what can be said on
the other side.
(i.) From his unique position.
The first argument is from man's unique position,
more especially when we regard him as the last and
noblest result of the vast scheme of evolution, which has
been in progress here for so many thousands of years.
For such a vast scheme, like everything else, requires
not only a cause, but a purpose ; and however much
evolution can explain, it cannot explain itself. Why
should there have been any evolution at aU ? Why
should a universe of dead matter have ever produced
hfe ? There must have been some motive in all this,
and what adequate motive can be suggested ?
We can only look for an answer in man, who seems
not only the highest creature on this planet (or as far
as we know on any planet), but also a personal and
7

98 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. vi.
moral being, so here if anywhere we must find the ex
planation. Evolution would then have God for its
Cause, and man for its purpose — an undoubtedly
adequate Cause, but is it an adequate purpose ?
For the human. race cannot exist for ever as it is.
Everything points to this earth sooner or later faUing
into the sun, when all forms of hfe must cease. And
therefore, if man is not immortal, the whole of evolu
tion which has led up to him as its final end will stui
have had no permanent result. And no result which is
not permanent seems altogether worthy of the Eternal
God, the Author of this evolution. But if, on the other
hand, man is immortal, and if this earth, with its
strange mixture of good and evil, is a suitable place in
which to form and test his character, and if perhaps
God wishes hereafter to be surrounded by men who
have stood the test, and have proved their fidelity to
Him by enduring suffering for His sake ; then it may
lead to a permanent result. And then its creation
would not be such a hopeless mystery as on the opposite
theory ; for the perfecting of immortal beings seems
an object worthy even of God.
Thus if we deny the immortality of man, the whole
of evolution becomes meaningless, and nature is a
riddle without a solution. But if we admit it, there
is at least the possibility of a satisfactory answer.
For then, as just said, nature is seen to be only a means
to an end — a temporary (though perhaps necessary)
means to a permanent end— the end being to produce
man (a being endowed with free will), and when this
is done to provide a suitable environment for his moral

REVELATION. 99
training. And this will enable him, if he wishes, from
being a free man, to become also a righteous man, that
is, a man who acts right, though he might act wrong,
and thus to some extent worthy to share in his
Maker's immortality.
And we must remember, man could not have been
created righteous, using the word in its strict sense.
He might have been created perfect (like a machine) , or
innocent (like a child), but to be righteous requires, as
just said, his own co-operation. It is a self-acquired
virtue, due to the habit of freely acting right, though
one might act wrong; and this of necessity is a slow
process, with some "failures. But the end aimed at is
a permanent, and therefore perhaps an adequate, end,
and the present world seems exactly suited to attain
this end, as it affords a man boundless opportunities
(almost every day, if he likes to use them) of acting
right, though he might act wrong.
And thus the gradual training and perfecting
of man seems the only adequate explanation of
the world, the real object of its long evolution.
And yet, if he is not immortal, this object can never
be attained, for no one reaches moral perfection
here ; while even if they did, it would only last
for a short time. And is it likely that such a vast
scheme should end in faUure, or at most in only a tem
porary success ? Is it not rather probable that if man
is the end of evolution, then God, the Author of evolu
tion, must value him ; and if God values him, He is
not likely to let him perish for ever. In short (as it
has been well put), such vast progress from such smaU
7—2

100 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. vi.
beginnings points to an end proportionately great,
and this requires the immortality of man. On the
whole, then, we may say in the words of Romanes,
one of the great champions of evolution, ' only by
means of this theory of probation is it possible to give
any meaning to the world, i.e., any raison d'etre of
human existence.'1
(2.) From his unjust treatment.
The second argument is from man's unjust treatment
in this world. For, as we saw in the last chapter, God
is a Moral Being, capable of distinguishing right from
wrong, and, as far as we can judge, He is One Who will
always act right Himself. And yet His treatment of
men in this world seems most unjust. Wicked men are
allowed to prosper by their wickedness, good men suffer
unjustly, while some men's lives seem to be nothing
but suffering*; and how is this to be accounted for ?
There is here again one, and only one, satisfactory
explanation, which is that this life is not the whole
of man's existence, but only a preparation for a future
life — a short trial for a long hereafter. And, looked at
from this point of view, the most apparently miser
able lives may afford as valuable training, perhaps
more so, than the outwardly happy ones. The temp
tation to dishonesty, for example, can be as well resisted
by a poor man who is only tempted to steal sixpence, -|
as by a rich man who is tempted to embezzle a thousand
pounds. And if resisting such a temptation helps to
form a man's character, as it certainly does, and
hence, perhaps, to fit him for a better life hereafter,
1 Thoughts on Religion, 1895, P- 142.

REVELATION. IOI
this can be as well done in the one case as in the other.
And the same principle applies universally ; even a
child has his temptations, which are very real to the
child, though they may seem ridiculous to us. So
that if this life is intended as a time of probation in
which to form a man's character, we cannot imagine
a better system or one more admirably adapted to the
end in view.
Nor is this all, for these trials and sufferings them
selves may be the very means of adding to man's
future happiness. The joy of having resisted tempta
tion, for instance, would be impossible if men were
never tempted ; and the joy of rescuing others from
suffering and sin, and thus perhaps making everlasting
friendships, would be impossible if there were no
suffering, and no sin. And the same applies in other
cases. And therefore man's long probation in this
life, with its incessant battle against evil, may (for all
we know) increase his future happiness in a way which
nothing else could possibly do, and to an extent of
which perhaps we can form no conception. No pain
or suffering, then, can be looked upon as useless, and
no position in this world as one to be despised ; in short,
to anyone who believes in a future state, life is always
worth living. And we may be sure that in a future
state every injustice wiU be made good, and all wrongs
wUl be righted.
(3.) From his vast capabilities.
The third argument is from man's vast capabilities.
For he does not seem adapted to this life only, and has
aspirations and longings far beyond it. His powers

102 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. vi.
seem capable of continual and almost endless develop
ment. Nearly all men wish for immortality. This
life does not seem to satisfy them entirely. For
instance, men, especially scientific men, have a longing
after knowledge which can never be fuUy realised in
this world. A man's capacities are thus out of all
proportion to his destiny, if this life is aU ; and to
many it seems improbable that the Creator should have
endowed men with such needless and useless capacities.
And this is strongly confirmed by the analogy of
nature. For example, a bird in an egg shows rudi
mentary organs which cannot be exercised so long as
it remains in the egg ; and this of itself is a proof that
it is intended some day to leave the egg. On the other
hand, a full-grown bird seems, as far as we can judge,
to be entirely adapted to its present state, and not to
have any longing after or capacity for any higher state ;
and therefore we may infer that no higher state is
intended for it. And by the same reasoning we may
infer that some higher state is intended for man, for
his mental and spiritual nature is not entirely satis
fied by his present hfe. In short, aU animals seem made
for this world alone, and man is the one unsatisfied
being in the universe.
Moreover, the period of preparation in a man's hfe
seems out of aU proportion to the time prepared for,
if death ends all. The development in a man's moral
character often continues till nearly the close of his life.
His character has then reached maturity. But for what
is it matured ? Surely not for immediate destruction.
Must not the wise Creator, Who designed everything

REVELATION. IO3
else in the universe with such marvellous skill, have
intended something better for His noblest creature than
mere boundless capabilities, unsatisfied longings, and
a lifelong preparation all for nothing ?
(4.) From his inherent belief.
The fourth argument is from man's belief in immor
tality. For such a belief has existed among men in
nearly every age and country, learned and ignorant,
civilised and uncivilised. It was implied by the
Neolithic men who buried food and weapons with
their dead, and it was maintained by such philosophers
as Socrates and Plato, and how are we to account for
it ? It cannot have arisen from experience ; and the
attempts to explain it as due to the desire which men
have for immortality, or to someone occasionally
dreaming that he sees a departed friend, are quite in
adequate. Desire is not conviction, and dreams are
notoriously untrustworthy. They might account for
an individual here and there entertaining this belief,
but not for mankind always and everywhere doing so.
The belief, then, seems intuitive and an inherent
part of human nature ; though, like other intuitive
beliefs, such as that of right and wrong, it is more
fuUy developed in some nations than in others, and
may sometimes be entirely absent. What, however,
makes it almost certain that it is intuitive is, that
nothing but such a belief could have been strong
enough to withstand the apparent contradiction
afforded by every grave. And we may ask, is it likely
that God should have implanted such a strange belief
in man if it were erroneous ?

104 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. vi.
These, then, are the four great arguments in favour
of man's immortality— that derived from his unique
position, his unjust treatment in this world, his vast
capabilities, and his inherent belief. And not one of
them applies to animals ; so the common objection,
that if man is immortal, animals must be so too, is
quite untenable.
(5.) Counter-arguments.
On the other hand, the great and only important
argument against man's immortality is that his spirit
seems to be inseparably connected with his body. As
far as we can judge, it is born with the body, it often
inherits the moral character of its parents, just as the
body inherits bodily diseases, it certainly develops and
matures with the body, and in most cases it seems to
gradually decay with the body, and therefore it is
inferred the two perish together.
But this does not foUow ; for, as was shown in a
previous chapter, our memory alone proves that we
have something immaterial which survives in spite of
everything material changing ; and therefore it is not
unlikely that this immaterial something (our spirit)
may survive the still greater change at death. The,
body would thus be like the instrument of the spirit,
by which it manifests itself in the outer world ; and
hence, if the instrument gets out of order, its manifesta
tions wiU become confused, but without implying that
the spirit itself is so. In the same way, if we shut up
a clerk in a telegraph office, as soon as his instruments
get out of order, the messages he sends, which are his
only means of communicating with the outer world,

REVELATION. 105
will become confused, and finally cease, but without
implying that there is anything wrong with the clerk
himself. And this is confirmed by the fact that
instances are known in which a man's intellect and
will have remained quite vigorous all through a mortal
sickness, and up to the very moment of death ; so
that the gradual decay of the body does not neces
sarily involve that of the mind and spirit.
- On the whole, then, this is not an insuperable diffi
culty ; while the previous arguments render the idea
of a future life distinctly probable. And this has, of
course, a most important bearing on our next question ;
indeed, it is scarcely too much to say that the proba
biUty of a revelation depends on that of a future life.
For if death ends all, man's existence is so short that
a revelation can scarcely be thought probable ; but if
man is to live for ever, the case is very different.
(B.) The Probability of a Revelation.
Now (assuming man to be immortal) a revelation,
from whichever side we regard it, appears to be some
what probable. For God is a Being, Who seems likely to
give a revelation; and man is a being pre-eminently
suited to receive one ; so we will consider these points
first, and then the chief objections to a revelation.
(1.) From God's character.
Now since God is a Personal and Moral Being, Who
takes an interest in man's welfare, we may infer that,
if a revelation were beneficial to man, as it probably
would be, it would be in harmony with God's character
to confer it. And when we add to this the fact that
God is not only beneficent but righteous, and appar-

106 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. vi.
ently wishes to train and develop man's character so
that he may be righteous also, and this with the idea
of his living in some future state, then a revelation
cannot be thought to be at all improbable.
Moreover, as we have shown, man to some extent
resembles God. Like Him, he is a personal and moral
being, and, as far as we know scientifically, the only
other being in the universe who is either personal or
moral, so that he may be appropriately called a child .
of God. And God seems to care for his welfare, just
as a human father would care for the welfare of his
children. And it is certainly probable, if a human
father loved his children, that he would wish to hold
some intercourse with them. And if we are in any
sense God's children, and He really cares for our
welfare, is it not likely that He would do the same ?
Some would even push the argument further, and
say that it seems unlikely for God to create a race of
personal beings without holding some intercourse with
them ; in the same way that it would be unhkely for
a man to paint a picture without looking at it, or to
arrange -a concert without listening to it. For a per
sonal being seems to differ from all else in this, very
point, that he is able to hold intercourse with other
personal beings ; it is, so to speak, one of his dis
tinguishing features, and therefore as God has created
such beings, it seems only natural that He should hold
some intercourse with them.
And if we admit this, the whole idea of Evolution
would tend to show that during the long period of
man's infancy (what we now call palaeolithic and

REVELATION. IO7
neolithic times), when man was imperfect in every
other respect, this intercourse would also be of the
most imperfect and elementary kind. It would thus
correspond to what we now call Natural Theology in
its simplest form, though it is doubtful whether at
that early age even the truths of Natural Theology
could have been discovered by man's reason alone,
without being in some way revealed by God. And
then when man became sufficiently advanced to
appreciate it, and to be able to hand it on accurately, —
and this would require the use of writing, and must
therefore have been comparatively late in his history —
some definite Revelation might be given. And this
again might become more and more perfect, as man
himself became more perfect. At all events, if this
were the case, it would be in accord with God's methods
in nature ; and therefore God's character, so far as we
have any means of judging of it, seems in favour of His
making some Revelation — and that a progressive
Revelation — to man.
(2.) From man's character.
Passing on now to man's character, it must be
noticed that he has been given a nature exactly fitted
to receive a revelation. This can scarcely be dis
puted, for religion of some kind is, and always has
been, practicaUy universal ; and (if we disregard the
prehistoric times, as to which we have not sufficient
information) nearly all important religions have rested
on real or pretended revelations from God, and have
been accepted in consequence. Natural Theology
alone, however noble its teaching, has never been able

108 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. vi.
to influence the masses. It exists chiefly in books,
and the actual nature of man has everywhere led him
to seek for, demand, and, if need be, imagine a revela
tion from God. Nor is this surprising when we
examine his nature in detail.
For, in the first place, man's mental character
would enable him to understand and appreciate a
revelation if one were given him, while his moral
character would enable him to profit by it. For
man is not a mere machine, or a mere animal ; he
possesses a known freedom of action. And therefore
if God teUs him what He wishes him to do, man can,
if he chooses, do it. And since, as already shown,
God seems to value man's conduct, a revelation which
would influence him to act right, and yet without
forcing him, and thereby destroying his freedom, and
making it impossible for him to act either right or
wrong, is certainly not improbable. And that the
knowledge alleged to be given by revelation might
influence him in this way cannot be denied ; for, as
a matter of fact, such knowledge, either real or pre
tended, has had precisely this effect on miUions of
men. But more than this, not only can man understand
and profit by a revelation, but he earnestly desires
it. A thoughtful man cannot help wishing to know
why he is placed in this world ; why he is given free
wiU ; how he is meant to use his freedom ; and what
future, if any, is in store for him hereafter : in short,
what was God's object in creating him. It seems
of all knowledge to be the highest, the noblest, the

REVELATION. IOg
most worth . knowing. And therefore as this result
of man's nature was not . only brought about by
God, but must have been foreknown, and intended
by Him, it is not improbable that He should satisfy
this craving of His own creating ; more especially as it
cannot be satisfied in any other way, for the knowledge
is by hypothesis superhuman, and therefore out of
man's own reach. And it may be added, the more we
realise this, and feel that God is Unknowable, in the
sense that we can gain no satisfactory knowledge
about Him by human science and reasoning, so much
the more likely does it seem that He should give us
such knowledge by revelation.
And all this is stiU further strengthened when we
consider man's unique position to which we have
already aUuded. For if we admit that the creation and
perfecting of man is the chief object the Creator had in
view for so many thousands of years, it does not seem
unlikely that He might wish to hold some communica
tion with him. In fact, as the whole of nature evi
dences design or purpose ; and as man occupies a
special place in nature ; we may fairly conclude that
God has some special purpose in regard to man, and, for
all we know, may have something special to tell him
about it.
We conclude then that man's mental and moral
character, and the unique position he occupies on this
earth, is a strong argument in favour of his receiving
some revelation from God.
(3.) Two objections.
But now for the other side. There are two chief

HO THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAT. VI.-
objections to a revelation. The first is on the ground
of injustice ; since any revelation, it is said, would imply
a partiality to the men or nation to whom it was given,
and would therefore be unjust to the rest of mankind.
But this is quite untenable, for God's other benefits are
not bestowed impartially. On the contrary, pleasure
and pain, good and evil, are never equaUy distributed
in this world. Partiality and apparent favouritism
is the rule everywhere, and this without any seeming
merit or demerit on the part of the men concerned.
Moreover, the advantages of a revelation may not
concern this world only ; and all who believe in a
future life are convinced of God's equity, and that
men will only be judged according to the knowledge of
God's Will which they possessed, or might have pos
sessed had they chosen, and not according to any higher -
standard which was out of their reach.
The other and more important objection is, that if
God gave a revelation at all, it would be absolutely
convincing. Everything that God does He does weU ;
and we cannot, it is urged, imagine His making a
revelation to man, and yet doing it so imperfectly as
to leave men in doubt as to whether He had done it
or not. For this would imply that He either could not,
or would not, make the evidence sufficient to ensure
conviction, neither of which is credible.
Now, although all this seems very probable, a
moment's reflection will show that it is not conclusive ;
for exactly the same may be said in regard l:o the whole
of Natural Religion. Is it likely, for instance, that
God should create free and responsible men, and yet

REVELATION. Ill
give them such insufficient evidence about it, that while
many are fully convinced, others deny not only their
own freedom and responsibility, but the very existence
of the God Who made them ? And yet He has done
so. And therefore there is nothing improbable in
the evidence for a revelation, if one were given, being
of a similar character.
Indeed, there is much to be said in favour of its being
so, since in most other matters man is left a free
choice. He is often able to find out how he ought to
think and how he ought to act, but he is not forced to
do either. And God may have wished that the same
rule should be followed in regard to a revelation, and
that man should be left free to believe it or not, just
as he is left free to act on it or not if he does believe
it, and just as he is left free to choose right or wrong
in other cases. And therefore we cannot say that no
revelation can come from God unless the evidence for
it be" overwhelming. It would doubtless be sufficient
to convince a man if he took the trouble to examine it
carefully ; only it need not be such as to compel con
viction. What kind pf evidence we may expect will
be considered in the next chapter.
Neither of these objections, then, can be maintained,
and we are forced back to the conclusion that, provided
man is immortal, a revelation seems for several reasons
to be somewhat probable. To put it shortly, if God
is good and reaUy cares for man's welfare, it seems
unlikely that He should withhold from him that know
ledge which is the highest, the noblest, and the most
longed after ;-^the knowledge of Himself. While, if

112 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP, vi,
man is really a free and immortal being, occupying a
unique position in the world, and intended to live for
ever, it seems unlikely that he should be told nothing,
and therefore know nothing, as to why he was created
or what is his future destiny. Thus when we consider
both God's character and man's character, it seems on
the whole to be somewhat probable, that God would
make some revelation to man, telling him how he
ought to use his freedom in this world, and possibly
what future is in store for him hereafter.

CHAPTER VII.
THAT THEREFORE A MIRACULOUS REVELATION IS
CREDIBLE.
A Divine messenger would probably have credentials.
(A.) Superhuman Signs.
These include superhuman knowledge, afterwards verified
(such as prophecy), and superhuman coincidences ; and
. there is nothing incredible in either.
(B.) Supernatural Signs, or Evidential Miracles.
These are ' marvels specially worked by God as signs to
attest a revelation.' This definition is threefold, re
ferring to their outward aspect, cause, and purpose.
(i.) As Marvels : though they appear to be contrary to
experience, they are not really so, for we have no
experience of the proper kind to refer to.
(2.) As Special Works of God : they only interfere with the
uniformity of nature in the same way that human
works interfere with it.
(3.) And as Signs : there is nothing to show that they are
inconsistent with God's Character. Conclusion.
We decided in the last chapter that it was probable
that God might make some revelation to man, that
is to say, -to certain men, for them to make known
to others. Now, it would obviously be desirable that
these men should have some means of showing that
the knowledge had come from God and not from them
selves. It is not meant that this accompanying
113 8 •

114 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. vn.
evidence is in any way necessary to the revelation,
but merely that it is somewhat probable. In other
words, if God sends a message to man, it is somewhat
probable that the messenger would have credentials.
And this is especiaUy so when we remember that men
have often appeared in the world's history who pro
fessed to have a revelation from God, and have misled
mankind in consequence. Is it not probable, then,
that if God really did give a revelation, He would take
care that His true messengers should have credentials
which would distinguish them from the impostors ?
These credentials, then, or signs, must obviously be
such as could not be forged by man ; and must therefore
of necessity be superhuman, if not supernatural. So
we may divide them into these two classes ; and we
have now to consider whether such signs are credible.
By this we mean something more than merely possible ;
for the possibUity of miracles follows at once from the
existence of God. But are they credible ? is there,
that is, at least a very slight probability of their
occurrence ?
(A.) Superhuman Signs.
These include, to begin with, superhuman knowledge,
which can afterwards be verified, such as prophecy.
And there is no difficulty here, provided we admit a
revelation at all. The only possible objection refers
to prophecies regarding human conduct ; which it
may be said would interfere with man's freedom.;
But this is only part of the more general objection
that any foreknowledge on God's part would interfere
with man's freedom, which we have already considered

MIRACLES. 115
in Chapter II. ; and there is no special difficulty in
regard to prophecies. In every case, as said before,
God merely foreknows the use man wiU make of his
freedom. And therefore the event will not occur
because it was foretold, but rather it was foretold
because God knew that it would occur.
Superhuman coincidences form another, and very
important class of superhuman signs. In these a man's
acts or sayings are attested by natural events coinciding
with them in a remarkable manner. For example,
suppose a prophet claimed to have a revelation from
God, and, as a proof of this, invited the people to
witness a sacrifice on a cloudless day. He then kiUed
an animal, and placed it on an altar of stones, but
put no fire under it, and even threw water over it.
Suddenly, however, a heavy thunderstorm arose, and
the sacrifice was struck by lightning. Now the thun
derstorm might have arisen and the lightning might
have struck on that particular spot, in strict accord
ance with natural laws ; and yet the coincidence of this
occurring just when and where the prophet wanted it,
would tend strongly to show that God, Who must
have foreknown and designed the coincidence, meant
to confirm what the prophet said.
Or, to put the argument in other words, the lightning
would seem to have struck the sacrifice on purpose;
and therefore such events have been popularly de
scribed as natural forces acting rationally. Of course,
as a rule, the forces of nature do not act rationally.
A falling meteorite, for instance, does not go a yard
out of its way to kill anyone or to spare him. Man;
8—2

Il6 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. vii.
on the other hand, does act rationally. His acts are
directed for a purpose, and thus evidence design.
And, in the events we are considering, the forces of
nature seem also to act with a purpose, and this raises
a strong presumption that the Author of these forces
was really acting with this purpose. In short, the
events seem to have been not only superhuman, but
designed coincidences.
And they present no difficulty whatever from a
scientific point of view, as they are part of the ordinary
course of nature. And God might have arranged at
the origin of the universe, or subsequently, so as to bring
about the events just when and where He wanted them
to attest any human acts or sayings, the foreknowledge
of which He also possessed. Of course, the value of
such coincidences varies greatly according to whether
the event is of a usual or unusual character. In the
latter case, more especially if the event is very unusual
or the coincidence very striking, they are popularly
called miracles. And they may have considerable
value, though there is always a slight chance of the
agreement being, as we might say, accidental.
(B.) Supernatural Signs.
We pass on now to supernatural signs or Evidential
Miracles in the strict sense, which we wUl define as
marvels specially worked by God as signs to attest a
revelation. This definition has, of course, been framed
to suit the miracles recorded in the Bible, and it is
really threefold. In the first place, the miracle is
described as to its outward aspect. It is a marvel-
that is to say, it is a strange and unusual event, which

MIRACLES. 117
we cannot account for, and which thus attracts atten
tion. Secondly, it is described as to its cause. This
marvel is said to have been speciaUy worked by God —
that is to say, by some action on His part different
from His usual action in nature. While, lastly, it is
described as to its purpose ; it is a marvel worked by
God as a sign to attest a revelation.
The first of these aspects is expressed in the Old
Testament by the word wonder, the second by such
phrases as God's mighty hand or outstretched arm, and
the third by the word sign ; all these terms being often
used together.1 While in the New Testament the
words used are wonders, mighty works, and signs, which
again exactly correspond to these three aspects of the
miracles. They are, however, never called in the New
Testament (and very seldom in the Old) wonders alone,
though they are caUed signs alone, and mighty works
alone. And it should be noticed these aspects are not chosen
arbitrarily, since other events can and ought to be
looked at in the same way, not as mere facts, but also
with reference to their alleged cause and purpose.
And to show the great importance of this, we will
consider an event from recent history ; and select the
well-known example of the Mont Cenis Tunnel.
Suppose, then, that anyone heard of this as a marvel
only, the cause and purpose being left out of account.
Suppose, that is, he heard that a hollow straight
cavity of uniform size, and over seven miles long, had
been formed under a range of mountains ; and that it
1 E.g., Deut. 6. 22 ; 7. 19 ; 11. 2.

Il8 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. vii.
had begun as two cavities, one from each end, which
after years of growth, had exactly met in the middle.
He would at once pronounce the event incredible, for
the cavity presents features utterly unlike all natural
cavities. But now suppose the next point, as to its cause, to
be introduced. It is said to be something more than
a natural cavity, and to be the work of man. AU pre
vious difficulties would now vanish, but fresh ones
would arise ; for numbers of men must have laboured
together for years to excavate such a cavity, and from
what we know of human nature, men will only thus
combine for commercial or profitable ends, and not
for boring holes through mountains ; so that the event
is still practicaUy incredible.
But now suppose the last point of purpose to be
introduced. It is said that this is not a mere useless
hole bored through a mountain ; but a hole bored for a
particular purpose ; it is, in fact, a railway tunnel.
Then all difficulties as to its credibility would dis
appear. Of course, whether we believe the tunnel was
actually made depends upon what evidence we have ;
but it is clear that when we consider the cause by
which, and the purpose for which, it is alleged to have
been made, there is nothing incredible about it.
Now a similar method must be adopted in regard to
Evidential Miracles. They must not be regarded^
simply as marvels (and, as just said, the New Testa
ment writers never so regard them), but as marvels
said to have been brought about by an adequate cause,
and for a sufficient purpose. And it is just these

MIRACLES. 119
elements of cause and purpose which may make the
marvels credible. And each is equally important ; for
a miracle without a sufficient purpose would be morally
incredible, just as one without a sufficient cause would
be mentally so. We will now consider these points in
turn. (1.) Miracles as marvels.
The first aspect of evidential miracles is that of
marvels. As such, they are events which seem to be
contrary to our experience — contrary, that is, to what
our experience of apparently similar events would lead
us to expect. Suppose, for instance, it were stated
that on one occasion three men were thrown into a
furnace, but instead of being burnt to death they
walked about, and in a few minutes came out alive
and unhurt.
Such a marvel would be contrary to our experience,
and that it would be therefore very improbable is
obvious. But is this improbability sufficient in all
cases to make the event incredible, no matter what
testimony there may be in its favour ? Hume's argu
ment that it is sufficient is well known. He says that
we can only judge of the probability of anything,
whether it be the occurrence of an event or the truthful
ness of the narrator, by experience ; and that as it is
contrary to experience for miracles to be true, but not
contrary to experience for testimony to be false, the
balance of probability must always be against the
miracle. But of course this reasoning, if true, must apply to
aU alleged events which are contrary to experience.

120 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. vii.
And yet such events are not only credible, but have
occurred by the thousand. Let us take a single ex
ample. Everyone has had some experience as to how
far it is possible to hear the human voice distinctly,
and till recent years this has invariably fixed the hmit
at a few hundred yards. Now, suppose anyone Was
told for the first time that it was possible to speak
right across England, he would justly say that it was
utterly contrary to experience ; but ought he to add
that it was therefore incredible ?
From this it is clear that there must be some flaw
in Hume's argument. And on examination this is
easily discovered. For the argument regards the event
only as a marvel, and without reference to its alleged
cause. But we have no right to leave this out of
account, nor do we in practice. When anyone first
hears of a marvel, he does not merely compare it with
his previous experience, and then come to a decision ;
in which case, as Hume supposes, it might be always
against the marvel ; but he first inquires how, and
under what circumstances, is this strange event said
to have been brought about. For if any cause is
alleged to have been at work of the influence of which
he knows nothing, then he has no experience of the
proper kind to appeal to. There is the testimony in
favour of the event as before ; and if he disbelieves it,
he does so, not because it is contrary to his experience,
but because he thinks the supposed cause either did
not exist, or would not have had the effect asserted.
A reference to the previous example wiU make this
quite plain. When the man first heard of persons

MIRACLES. 121
talking across England, instead of at once declaring
it incredible, he would, if a reasonable man, inquire
as to the cause of this. He would then be told that a
wire was stretched across England with an instrument
called a telephone at each end. Now, as to the possi
bility or adequacy of such a contrivance he might
doubt a good deal ; but one thing would be quite
clear, that this was a case to which his experience,
however large, did not apply. The instant the wire
was mentioned, whether he believed it or not, that
instant the event was taken out of the range of his
experience altogether.
This, then, is the explanation of Hume's argument.
So long as a marvel, contrary to experience, is regarded
only as a marvel, the probabUity must be always against
its truth. But if we inquire as to the agency by which
it was brought about, and find that some special cause
is alleged, as to the influence of which we are ignorant,
then the argument is no longer applicable. We have
simply no experience of the proper kind to appeal to.
Now this is precisely the case with regard to evi
dential miracles. As marvels they seem contrary to
experience ; but they claim to have a special cause, to
be speciaUy worked by God — that is to say, by some
action on His part different from His usual action
in nature ; and of the influence of this cause we have
no experience whatever. We may, of course, deny
its existence or doubt its adequacy ; but the argument,
as contrary to experience, vanishes.
It is clear then that the fact of evidential miracles
seeming to be contrary to experience is no reason for

122 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. vii.
disbelieving them, though it might be a reason for
disbelieving other alleged marvels, because they claim
to have a special cause wherewith to account for this
special character. So we have now to examine whether
this special cause really existed — that is.to say, we pass
on to the second aspect of the miracles ; our conclusion
thus far being that they are credible as marvels, if it
be credible that they were specially worked by God.
(2.) Miracles as special works of God.
Now, any special action on God's part is often
thought to present great difficulties, as interfering
with the uniformity of nature. But, as we shall see,
it would only interfere with it in the same way that
human action interferes with it. Neither of them
violates the laws of nature, though both are able to
bring about results which nature of itself could not
have brought about.
In the case of human action this is quite obvious.
Suppose, for example, a clock with an iron pendulum
is placed on a table and keeps perfect time. Suddenly,
without anyone touching it, it begins to gain rapidly, •
and then, after an hour or so. goes on as before. To
anyone unacquainted with the cause, this would
appear a marvel : and might even be thought incredible,
as (assuming the clock to be properly constructed)
it would seem to imply some alteration in the laws of
motion, or the force of gravity. And yet we know
a man can easily produce such a marvel by simply
holding a magnet under the table. The disturbing
cause, it will be noticed, was not really the magnet,
which always acts according to law ; nor the hand

MIRACLES. 123
which held it ; but the action of the human will on
matter. This took place in the man's brain, and
gave a particular direction to some nerve-force, which
enabled the man to move his hand, and hence the
magnet. Thus we may say the marvel was produced by
natural means supernaturally applied ; for the magnet
was undoubtedly a natural means, and yet nature of
itself would never have used it in the way described.
Now, evidential miracles claim to have been pro
duced in a somewhat similar, though to us unknown,
manner by the action of God's Will on matter, that is
to say, by natural means supernaturaUy applied ; and,
if so, their credibility under this head must be admitted.
For we know that God has the power of acting on
matter, and that He used it once in originating the
universe, so He might use it again if He thought
fit. Indeed, the creation seems the greatest of all
miracles, and of itself renders any other credible.
Moreover, God's knowledge of the laws of nature is
complete, whereas man's is only partial. As, then,
man, with his limited power over nature and partial
knowledge of its laws, can produce marvels out of
nature's ordinary course, and yet without violating
any of its laws ; stiU more can God, Who has complete
power over nature, and complete knowledge of its
laws. For to deny this would be to deny to God the
power which we concede to man.
And if it be objected that man can only do this
through his having a material body, the answer is
obvious. The action of the will on matter takes place
in the brain, and the body is only a natural link in the

I24 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap/to.
chain of cause and effect, and so does not alter the
analogy. No doubt we cannot imagine how God can
exert His Will over matter, but neither can we imagine
how we can do it ourselves. The difficulty is as great
in the one case as in the other.
From this it is clear that evidential miracles do not
necessitate God's violating natural laws. And though
at first one might be inclined to dispute this with
regard to individual miracles, the statement is quite
justified, provided we make due aUowance for our own
ignorance. Take, for example, the supposed case of the
men in the furnace. This might be thought to violate
the laws of heat, which necessitate a man's body
being consumed in such circumstances. But even if
we admit that, a man's body must be kept below a
certain temperature to sustain life, we cannot say
that this was impossible in the furnace. For extreme
heat, and even extreme cold, may be very close to
gether, as is shown by the weU-known experiment of
freezing mercury inside a red-hot crucible. As a
mere marvel this is quite as wonderful as the men in
the furnace ; and an ignorant man would probably-;
pronounce both to be equaUy incredible. Of course,
in all marvels produced by man, we know the special
cause at work, and can therefore repeat it ; but this
does not justify us in saying that in a miracle, merely
perhaps because we do not know it, the laws of nature
must be violated.
[^Or, again, to take another example, suppose it was
said that on one occasion a few loaves of bread were
miraculously increased so as to feed some thousands of

MIRACLES. 125
persons; could we say that this must have violated
natural laws ? Certainly not, for bread is composed
of the elements carbon, oxygen, etc., and these were
in abundance all around. And though we only know
one way in which they can be formed into bread, which
is through the agency of a living plant, we cannot say
that this is the only method. Indeed, there is nothing
incredible in organic substances, including bread,
being made in the laboratory some day. Such iUus-
trations do not of course show how God worked the
miracles ; they merely prevent us from saying that He
could not have worked them, had He chosen, without
violating natural laws.
It will thus be noticed that evidential miracles do not
claim to be brought about by any action on God's part
different in kind from how ordinary events are brought
about, for each is produced in conformity with natural
laws, and each is due originally to the action of God's
Will on matter. Only, in the one case there are or may
be an immense number of intermediate natural links,
and in the other comparatively few. And hence it
foUows that aU events are in a certain sense both
natural and supernatural. They are natural as regards
the mode in which they are brought about, and super
natural as regards the First Cause which brings them
about ; so that the cause of the natural, if we go far
enough back, is always supernatural.
And very possibly we need not go back at all ; for
there is much to be said in favour of the theory of
God's immanence in nature, as it is usuaUy called,
but which would perhaps be better described as

126 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. vii.
nature's immanence in God z1 and which means that aU
natural forces are due to the present and immediate
action of God's WiU. And this seems to have been the
view taken by the writers of the Old Testament, for
all natural events, even the formation of clouds and
rain, and the growth of grass, are ascribed to God
in the same way that miracles are.2 They did not
therefore recognise any sharp distinction between the
natural and the supernatural, but looked upon them
all as God's works. In other words, this Divine
immanence in nature, which modern science is beginning '
to realise, seems to have been known instinctively to
the Jews. And if this theory is correct, it greatly '';
lessens the difficulty as to miracles. For then there
would be no interference with nature at all, God would ;
be working there all the time, only in a miracle He
would not be working in exactly the same way as in
ordinary events.
But in any case there is, as we have shown, nothing
incredible in the way in which evidential miracles are
said to be caused, provided it is credible that God
should wish to use His power over nature in the
assumed manner ; for natural forces are anyhow His
servants, not His masters. And this leads us to the
third aspect of the miracles ; for whether God would
wish to act in a certain way depends of course on what
purpose He had in doing so.
(3.) Miracles as signs.
Now the purpose for which evidential miracles are
said to be worked is as signs to attest a revelation. And
1 Acts 17. 28; Col. 1. 17. 2 E.g., Ps. 104,' 147.

MIRACLES. 127"
therefore, as we have already shown that it is some
what probable that God would make a revelation, we
have now only to inquire whether evidential miracles
are suitable means for attesting it." And they appear
to be the most suitable means possible ; for they would
both attract men's attention to the revelation, and
also convince them of its superhuman character ; and
these are precisely the two points required. While
their extraordinary character in the physical world
would correspond with that of revelation itself in the
mental world, which has been called a kind of mental
miracle. It may still be objected that God's character, as
indicated by nature, is Unchangeable ; and that there
fore it is most improbable that He would at times act
in a special manner with regard to natural events.
And the more nature is studied the stronger does this
objection appear, since there are thousands of cases,
such as storms and earthquakes, when it seems to us
that a slight interference with the course of nature
would be highly beneficial to man, and yet it never
occurs. Or the objection may be otherwise expressed
by saying that; a miracle would reflect on either the
Wisdom or the Power of God, since, if All- Wise, He
would have foreseen the occasion, and if All-Powerful,
He would have provided for it ; so that any subsequent
interference with nature is something like having to
remedy a fault.
This is no doubt the most serious objection to
miracles, but it is by no means insuperable. In the
first place, it rests to a great extent on our ignorance,

128 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. vii.
or at most partial knowledge, of God's character. For
had we only our own sense of the fitness of things to
judge by, we should never have thought that God
would have created such a world as ours at aU. The
existence of evil, and especially that innocent men
should suffer for guilty ones, are events we should
have thought most unlikely ; and yet they occur every
day. If, then, we are incompetent to decide how
God would be likely to govern the world in an ordinary
manner, still less can we say whether, under special
circumstances, He might not deviate from this manner.
And we must remember God is a Free Being, Who does
not always act the same, even under the same circum
stances (Chapter I.) ; so there is nothing improbable
in His acting differently under different circumstances.
And as part of the world which God has made is free
(ourselves for instance) different circumstances may
certainly arise.
Moreover, the objection is directly opposed to the
analogy of the only other personal being we know of,
which is man himself. A man may, as a rule, act
uniformly, and yet on some special occasion, and for
some special reason, he may, and often does, act
differently ; and why should not God do the same ? In
fact the only changelessness in a man which we could
admire, would be a changelessness in moral char
acter, always and invariably acting right. And for all
we know the changelessness of God may be only of
such a kind, and this certainly would not prevent Him
from acting in some special manner, for the attainment
of some special purpose.

,. . MIRACLES. 129
Secondly, in the case before us, it is even probable
that He would do so, since the chief object of the
miracles could not have been obtained by the ordinary
course of nature, though their immediate effects might
have been. For example, instead of healing men
miraculously, they might be healed naturally ; but
then there would be no evidence that the healer was
sent by God, and was speaking in His name. In short,
the messenger would be without credentials; and, as
we have already shown, this seems unlikely.
Thirdly, though evidential miracles do not show
God's unchangeableness in the same manner as the
unchanging course of nature, they are not inconsistent
with it. For they are not asserted to be after-thoughts
with God, but to have been planned from the very
beginning. And if He foresaw that at certain periods
in the world's' history events would arise which, in
order to carry out His purpose, could be best dealt with
in some special manner, and therefore determined that
when these events arose He would deviate from His
usual way of working, this would involve no incon
sistency or change on His part.
Fourthly, there may be some other attributes of
God which evidential miracles show, and which the
ordinary course of nature does not show ; such as His
condescension in giving them at aU. One object of
a revelation might be to convince man that God really
cared for his happiness and valued his affections. And
there is nothing unlikely in supposing that, to attest
such a revelation as this, God might condescend to
manifest Himself more after a human manner, and to

I30 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. vn.
act, not with the uniformity of nature, but more as a
man would act, in order that man might the more
readily understand Him.
While, lastly, we must remember that the whole of
nature seems (as before said) to be only a means to an
end, the end being the moral training of man. And
if so, it is out of the question to think that in order to
further this end — the very end for which nature itself
exists — God might not, if He thought fit, interfere
with nature, or modify the course of events. The
scientific improbability of a miracle may thus be
counterbalanced by its moral probability — i.e., by its
being suitable for some moral purpose, such as attesting
a revelation. And we may therefore answer the objec
tion in one sentence, God is All-Good, as weU as AU-
Wise, and All-Powerful ; and His Goodness might
induce Him to use miracles, though by His Wisdom
and Power He might have dispensed with them.
We may now sum up the present argument. We
showed that evidential miracles are credible both as
marvels and as special works of God, if it be credible
that they were brought about as signs to attest a revela
tion. And we have now shown that, on the supposition
that God might make a revelation, which we have
already admitted, there is nothing inconsistent with
His character as far as we know it, and therefore
nothing in the slightest degree incredible, in His using
evidential miracles, as one of the means of attesting its
truth. Onthewhole, then, we conclude that a Miraculous
Revelation is certainly credible. Whether one has ever
been made wiU be discussed in the following chapters.

PART II.
THE JEWISH RELIGION.
CHAP. VIII. THAT ITS ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION WAS DIVINELY
REVEALED.
„ IX. THAT ITS ORIGIN WAS ATTESTED BY MIRACLES.
„ X. THAT ITS HISTORY WAS ATTESTED BY MIRACLES.
„ XI. THAT ITS HISTORY WAS ALSO ATTESTED BY PROPHECIES.
XII. THAT THEREFORE THE JEWISH RELIGION IS PROBABLY
TRUE.

[31 9 — 2

CHAPTER VIII.
THAT ITS ACCOUNT OF THE CREATION WAS
DIVINELY REVEALED.
(A.) The Days of Creation.
Some apparent difficulties ; but they disappear if the word
Day is understood as a Representative Term, showing the
insignificance of the time of creation in regard to God.
Additional reasons for this view.
(B.) The Principles of Creation.
(i.) Its pure Monotheism ; admittedly true.
(2.) Its gradual development ; admittedly true.
(3.) Its method of development ; each stage being due to a
creative force from God ; probably true.
(C.) The Order of Creation.
(1.) The origin of the universe.
(2.) The earliest state of the earth.
(3.) Light created on first day.
(4.) The Firmament, on second day.
(5.) The Dry Land, 1 __,¦•,,
(6.) Vegetation, ' } on «-d ^
(7.) The Sun and Moon, on fourth day.
(8.) Fishes and Birds, on fifth day.
(9.) Land Animals, 1 . .. ,
, ' , v on sixth day.
(10.) Man, J 3
(D.) Conclusion. The accuracy of. the narrative points to its having been
Divinely revealed.
Having decided in the previous Part of this Essay
on the Existence of God, and that it was credible
133

134 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. viii.
that He might make a miraculous Revelation to man ;
we pass on now to the Jewish Religion, which (as well
as the Christian Religion) actually claims to be such a
Revelation. And the first argument we have to consider in its
favour is that afforded by the opening chapter of
Genesis. It is urged that this account of the Creation,
no matter when or by whom it was written, must have
been Divinely revealed, since it contains a substantially
correct account of events which could not have been
otherwise known at the time.
What then we have- to examine is, whether this
narrative is nearer the truth, as we now know it from
geology and other sciences, than the unaided guesswork
of a man ignorant of these sciences might be expected
to be. Fortunately, in the ancient narratives of Baby
lonia, India, Persia, and elsewhere, we have abundant
evidence as to how far from the truth such guesswork
is likely to be. It is scarcely too much to say that they.
are one and all entirely false, except where they happen
to agree with Genesis ; whUe the latter is of course quite
free from their absurd and grotesque elements.
And if we admit revelation at all, there is nothing
improbable in some account of the creation of the
world having been revealed to man very early in his
history, and being accurately preserved by the Jews,
while only distorted versions of it occur among other
nations. Or else it might have been revealed to the
Jews in later times, when it would naturaUy have in
corporated the very small amount that was correct,
in the accounts already known to them. And in any

THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. I35
case, considering the common custom of worshipping
the heavenly bodies, animals, etc., no subject could
have been more suited for a first Revelation than the
statement in simple language that all these were
created by one supreme God.
(A.) The Days of Creation.
And first we must consider somewhat carefully the
meaning of the days of creation. Now, if the word
day is used of a period of time, in Scripture as else
where, it has but two meanings— a period of twenty-
four or of twelve hours. It is indeed often used in a
vague indefinite sense as the day of judgment or the
day of the Lord. But here there is no idea of duration,
and we might just as well say the hour of judgment or
the time of the Lord. In no case does the word day of
itself denote a long period of time. And yet, on the
. other hand, ordinary days would have been impossible
before the formation of the sun on the fourth day, and
the writer must obviously have known this. Indeed,
he implies it himself, since he expressly assigns the
division of time into days and years to the sun.
How then are we to reconcile all this ? The only
satisfactory solution is that the word day must be
understood as a Representative Term, relating to God.
And therefore, God's days must be interpreted in the
same manner as God's eye or God's hand ; and this
removes aU difficulties. By a representative term is
meant a term which is not, strictly speaking, true, but
which represents the truth to man in such a way that
he can to some extent understand it. For example, the
phrase that God gained the victory by His own right

136 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. viii.
hand clearly means that He gained it not with the
assistance of others, nor with the help of weapons, but
simply by His own unaided inherent strength. It was
such a victory as might in a man be described as gained
by his own right hand. God's acts are thus represented
under the figure of those acts of men which most nearly
correspond to them in character. And on the same
principle we interpret the passage, The eyes of the Lord
are over the righteous, and His ears are open unto their
prayers, and hundreds of others which occur all through
the Bible. We do not assign any new meaning to the
actual words themselves, such as hands, eyes, and
ears ; but we say that aU such terms, when apphed
to God, are mere descriptions drawn from human
analogies, which cannot be pressed literally.
And in the present case it is extremely probable
that the word day is to be understood in the same
sense ; for representative terms abound all through the
narrative. From God's word of command calling forth
light at the beginning to His rest at the end, everyone
must admit that the expressions used are not, strictly
speaking, true, but merely represent the truth about
God in a way which man can understand. We have
hence no more right to suppose the six days to be
literal days than to suppose that God literaUy spoke
or literally rested. What we are to suppose is that
God created all things in such periods of time as might
to man be most fitly represented by six days. Vast
as the universe was, man was to regard it as being to
God no more than a week's work to himself. In short,
the time of creation, however long in itself, was utterly

THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. 137
insignificant in its relation to God ; .to Him each stage
was a mere day.
Further, if need be, to support this view, we may
notice three points. The first is that it is not a purely
modern theory, made to reconcile the narrative with
science ; for the Greek Jew, Philo, born about B.C. 20,
who knew nothing of geology, ridicules the idea of
the days of Genesis being literal, or representing any
definite periods of time.1
Secondly, the Israelites quite understood that
human measures of time, when applied to God, were
not to be taken Uterally. Thus we are told that a
thousand years in His sight are but as yesterday ;
and elsewhere we read, " Hast thou eyes of flesh, or
seest thou as man seeth ? Are thy days as the
days of man, or thy years as man's days ?"2 Here
days and years are applied to God in precisely the
same manner as eyes and seeing, which everyone admits
are representative terms only. Nor is the Fourth
Commandment, that in six days the Lord made Heaven
and earth, etc., in any way opposed to this view. For
days are not the only things it mentions, but also
'work and rest. And none will deny that God's work
is different from man's work, and His rest from man's
rest ; so why should not the days of His work be also
different from the days of man's work ?
Lastly, there does not seem any reason why, if literal
days were meant, a total of seven should have been
selected, rather than eight or any larger number. For
1 Works of Philo Judsus, Yonge's translation, 1854, vol. i., p. 52.
2 Ps. 90. 4 ; Job 10. 4, 5.

138 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. viii.
if the Creator only rested twenty-four hours, what did
He do afterwards ? And if He continued to rest, would
it not have been just as true to have selected a total of
twelve days, and say that God worked for the first six
and rested the second six ? On the other hand, if the
days represent indefinite periods of time, the choice
of seven is easily explained, since we are stiU in the
seventh day or period, to which, be it remembered, no
close, or evening, is assigned, and the Creator is still
resting. And this is of course quite correct ; for
nothing has occurred since the appearance of man,
which requires any fresh creative act.
Any contradiction, then, between Genesis and
• geology as to the time of creation is plainly impossible ;
for their teaching is of a different kind. The one tells
us, or may tell us, the time of creation in regard to
man, as measured by years and centuries ; the other
tells us the insignificance of this time in regard to God.
And therefore, as has been well said, there is only one
way in which the discoveries of science can affect this
subject. By the help of science we may obtain a truer
conception of the real dimensions and marvellous con
stitution of the universe, a truer idea of the enormous
lapse of ages during which it was being elaborated to
its present perfection ; thus obtaining also a truer idea
of the eternal greatness of Him to whom the whole of
this vast work seemed but the labour of a few days.
(B.) The Principles of Creation.
We pass on now to some general principles which
are stated or imphed in the narrative, and which are
of great importance.

THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. I39
(1.) Its pure Monotheism.
And first as to its pure Monotheism. This alone
renders it almost, if not quite, unique among similar
narratives. According to the writer, the whole uni
verse, including sun, moon, and stars, was all due to
one First Cause. That this is strictly correct we have
already shown in the earlier chapters of this Essay ;
and it may seem obvious enough now, but was it
equaUy so when the narrative was written ? Certainly
not. For other ancient accounts are either Pan
theistic, and confuse God with the universe ; or else
Dualistic, and assume two eternal principles of good
and evil ; or else Polytheistic, and make the universe
the work of several gods. The Jewish writer, on the
other hand, has kept clear of all these theories ; and
he is admittedly right and all the others wrong.
(2.) Its gradual development.
Next, it must be noticed that, according to Genesis,
the creation of the world was on the system of gradual
development. God did not create a perfect universe
aU at once, but slowly built it up step by step. At
first the earth was waste and void, and only after it
had passed through several stages did it become fully
ordered and peopled. Moreover, at every step (with
two exceptions, the firmament and man, noticed later
on), God surveyed the work and pronounced it good.
He seems thus to have discerned a beauty and excel
lence in each stage ; though it was not till the close of
the whole work that He found complete satisfaction,
and pronounced it all very good.
And here, again, the narrative seems quite correct.

I40 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. viii.
For geology has shown conclusively that the formation
and peopling of the earth was a gradual process, not
accomplished all at once, but slowly step by step,
through successive ages ; and also that those ages were
of such magnitude and importance that we cannot
regard them as mere preparations for man's coming,
but as having a beauty and excellence of their own.
Thus, according to science, though man is the highest
member of creation, and though all evolution has
tended to him as its final result, yet there were many
earlier stages which well deserved the epithet good.
But we may ask, how did the writer of Genesis know
all this ?
(3.) Its method of development.
Now, how was this gradual development effected ?
According to Genesis, the transition from each stage
to the next was due to a word of command from God.
This need not, of course, mean that certain words were
audibly uttered, but that the kind of power God ex
erted could be least inadequately represented by the
human word of command. The AU-Mighty One had
not to labour over His work, but could accomplish it
aU by a mere word ; each stage being due to what we
may call a special creative force.
And once more science seems in agreement, for it
is unable of itself to account for the first appearance
of the various members of creation, such as plants,
animals, and men. It is not, of course, disputed that
these various stages were, or may have been, evolved -
from the previous ones, e.g., the living from the not-
living, which Genesis itself suggests in the words and

THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. 141
the earth brought forth grass ; and still more plainly
when it speaks of the generations of the heaven and of
ihe earth;1 the word generation clearly implying some
kind of organic descent, or evolution. What is dis
puted is, that this evolution took place merely under
the influence of natural development, and without the
further influence of a new creative force. And con
sidering that all attempts to effect a similar transition
now have failed hopelessly, it is not unreasonable to
suppose that there was some other and special cause
at- work then.
Nor is it easy to see how some of the changes could
have been otherwise effected. Take, for example, this
very subject of the origin of life. As far as we know,
the only natural mode in which life can begin is from
a living parent, and yet there was a time when there
were no living parents on this earth. How, then, could
it originate, except by some process other than natural,
i.e., supernatural ? Or, again, to take another instance,
when the first free being, whether animal or man,
appeared on this planet, a force totaUy different from
all previous ones was introduced ; and no natural
process can bridge over the gulf which separates
natural forces from free forces, since the latter are in
their essence supernatural.
Anyhow, it must be. admitted that a special creative.
force would adequately account for each of these steps
in creation, and that science cannot account for them
in any other way. In fact, science knows nothing as
to what brought them about, and it therefore agrees,
- 1 Gen. 2, 4.

142 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. viii.
as far as it can agree, with Genesis, which expressly
assigns them to a Cause of which science could not
possibly know anything. So here, as in other cases,
the general principles of the narrative are either
certainly or probably correct.
(C.) The Order of Creation.
We pass on now to the detailed order of creation.
It will be remembered that in Genesis, after describing
the origin of the universe and the earliest state of the
earth, there are eight acts of creation, two on the third
day and two on the sixth ; so we have altogether ten
subjects to examine.
(i.) The origin of the universe.
' In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth.' It is, I believe, admitted on all sides that the
Hebrew word for created does not necessarily mean
created out of nothing ; indeed, it is often used in
places where it cannot possibly have this meaning,1
so that the eternal existence of matter, as it is caUed,
is left an open question by Genesis. And as the term
heaven and earth is the common Hebrew one for the
universe, little stress can be laid on heaven coming
before earth. But if it means that the heaven was
created first, it is almost certainly correct, as many
suns and stars came into existence before our earth.
Omitting, however, this doubtful point, it is clear
from Genesis that the universe had an origin, and
that this origin was due to God; and, as we have
shown, science forces us to precisely the same con
clusion. 1 E.g., Ps. 102. 18 ; Isa. 54. 16 ; Ezek. 21. 30.

THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. 143
(2.) The earliest state of the earth.
According to Genesis, taking the words in their
obvious and natural sense, the earth was at first waste
and void and in darkness, and apparently surrounded
by the waters. And if we adopt the usual nebula
theory, and refer this to the first period after it be
came a separate planet, and had cooled so as to be
not self-luminous, the statements seem quite correct.
For we know from geology that the earth was then
waste and void as far as any form of life was concerned,
while it was probably surrounded by a dense mass of
watery vapours sufficient to produce darkness. Genesis
then starts from the right starting-point, but again we
must ask, how did the writer know this ?
(3.) Light.
The first step in the development of the earth was,
we are told, the introduction of light ; which in nature
always includes heat. And this must obviously have
come first, for on it depend all changes in temperature,
the formation of winds, clouds, rain, and ocean cur
rents ; while it also supplies the physical power needed
for the life of plants and animals ; and therefore in
placing light as the first step, Genesis is certainly
correct. Of course, the source of light at this early period was
the remainder of the gaseous nebula from which our
planet was thrown off ; so that it was diffused through
an immense space, instead of being concentrated like
that of our present sun ; and probably only reached
the earth through a thick belt of clouds and vapours.
But still as it was all on one side of the revolving earth,

144 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. viii.
there would be the alternations of light and darkness,
which are alluded to in the narrative, and which were
previously unknown.
(4.) The firmament.
The next step was the separation of the waters above
(the clouds) from the waters below (the seas), and
placing between them a firmament or expanse (see
margin), i.e., the atmosphere. The idea that the writer
thought this expanse meant a sohd plane holding up
the waters above (because it is perhaps derived from
a word meaning firm or solid) is scarcely tenable! For
the firmament, was called ' Heaven,' and the upper
waters, above the ' heaven,' must mean the sources
from which the rain from heaven comes. And these
sources are easily seen to be clouds, and no writer could
have thought that a solid firmament intervened be
tween the clouds and the earth ; more especially as we
read later on that birds are to fly in this firmament,
And the omission, before noticed, to say that God saw
that the firmament was good, is quite natural, if this.
means the (apparently), empty space separating the
clouds from the seas ; but it is difficult to account for,
if if means any material object, which would seem to
require God's approval like everything else.
And this view is further confirmed by the symmetry
of the narrative, for the six days are divided into two
groups of three each, the first set being clearly a sort
of preparation for the second. Thus we have light
on the first day, and the light-giving bodies, the sun
and moon, on the fourth day ; and we have land and
vegetation on the third day, and animals and men,

THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. I45
who live on the land and feed on the vegetation, on
the sixth day ; and therefore we should expect a similar
agreement between the second and the fifth day.
Now on the fifth day we have fishes that live in the
water, and birds that fly in the air ; and if the work of
the second day was, as just explained, the formation
of the water, and the air (i.e., the firmament), then,
and only then, is the symmetry perfect.
It may of course be objected to this view, that the
sun and moon are said to have been set in the firma
ment, which is not, strictly speaking, correct if this
means the atmosphere. But the writer could scarcely
have meant it literally ; for anyone can see that they
are not set at all, in the sense of being fastened to any
thing, as the moon keeps changing its position relatively
to the sun, just as a rainbow does, which is also said
to be set in the cloud.1 Nor are they literally in the
firmament, for anyone can see that the clouds (i.e.,
the waters above the firmament) are not, as a matter
of fact, on the other side of the sun and moon, but
frequently come in front of them. It may also be
added that the English word heaven has a similar
vagueness, for we speak of the clouds of heaven and
the stars of heaven. On the whole, then, there can
be little doubt that the firmament, or expanse, means
the atmosphere ; and the order in which this is placed
after light and before plants and animals is obviously
correct. (5.) The dry land.
We now come to an important point, the first ap-
1 Gen. 9. 13. 10

146 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. viii.
pearance of dry land. According to Genesis, there
was not always dry land on the earth ; the whole of
it was originally covered by the waters. And turning
to science, it seems probable that this was actuaUy the
case. The earth was originaUy surrounded by watery
vapours, which gradually condensed and formed a kind
of universal ocean. And then, when irregularities were
caused in the surface, either by volcanic action or else
by its contracting, and crumpling up, the water would
collect into the hollows, forming seas, and dry land
would appear elsewhere. But how was it possible for
the writer of Genesis to know all this ? There is
nothing in the present aspect of nature to suggest that
there was once a time when there was ho dry land;
and if it was a guess on his part, it was, to say the
least, a very remarkable one.
(6.) Vegetation.
We next come to the introduction of life ; which
is placed in exactly its right position in the narrative.
For vegetation requires four things : soil, air, water,
and light including heat ; and these were precisely the
four things which then existed.
The narrative, it will be noticed, speaks of grass,
herbs, and fruit-trees ; and it seems to imply that these
appeared simultaneously. But considering its general
structure, which is that of a sequence of events, the
other view, that they appeared successively, is at
least tenable. This would mean that the vegetable
life, which now began, gave rise to a long line of de
scendants, the three most important groups being
specially mentioned. And the order in which these

THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. I47
come agrees weU with geology ; first grass, which
apparently means here seedless vegetation (crypto
gams), as seed is mentioned in regard to the other two,
but omitted here ; then herbs, probably cereals and
vegetables ; and lastly, fruit-trees. However, little
stress can be laid on this, as the meaning of the Hebrew
words is somewhat uncertain.
Before passing on, an apparent difficulty may be
noticed, which is, that the series of plants and trees was
not, as a matter of fact, complete before the following
periods of creation. Some new species, for instance,
were evolved long after the commencement of fishes
and birds, and similarly some fishes and birds after the
commencement of animals. But the difficulty is due
to the fact that the various classes overlap to a large
extent. And the order given in Genesis is far nearer
the truth than any other order would be. Had the
writer, for example, placed them fishes, birds, plants,
animals ; or animals, fishes, birds, plants ; he would
have been hopelessly wrong. As it is, by placing them
plants, fishes, birds, animals, he is as near the truth as
he can be, provided classes which really overlap have
to be arranged in a consecutive narrative.
(7.) The sun and moon.
We next come to the formation of the sun and moon.
The stars are also mentioned, but it is not said that
they were made on the fourth day, and they are not
alluded to in the opening command. Now, the alleged
formation of the sun after that of light is undoubtedly
the most striking point in the whole narrative, and
was long thought to be a difficulty. Various explana-
10 — 2

148 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. viii.
tions, more or less forced, were suggested ; but they are
happily no longer required. For science has now
proved to almost a certainty that the statement of
Genesis is strictly correct. However strange it may"
seem at first sight, light did undoubtedly exist long
before the sun. In other words, the gaseous matter
forming the original nebula of our solar system was
luminous long before it contracted into a body with
a definite outline and emitting such an intense and
concentrated light, as could be called a sun.
And as a planet like the earth would cool and con
solidate much quicker than the central mass, vegetation
might take place here before the gaseous nebula had
become a sun. This latter point is disputed by many
geologists, but our knowledge is scarcely sufficient to
enable us to speak with confidence either way. Though
in any case as the earth was originally surrounded by
dense clouds, due to the evaporation from its watery
surface, the sun would probably not shine on the earth
(which is what Genesis refers to) till this evaporation
was reduced, owing to the appearance of the dry land
and vegetation. And therefore the formation of the
sun after light is certainly correct, and its formation
or at least its not shining on the earth till after the
dry land, and vegetation, probably correct.
And if it be urged that on this view the sun was not
actually created on the fourth day, but had merely by
that time sufficiently contracted to become a great light,
and that Genesis ought to have implied this, the answer
is obvious. It is precisely what Genesis has done. The
original creation of the sun is described in verse 1 under

THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. I49
the term Heaven, and when on the fourth day we are
told that God made two great lights, a different word is
used, which means appointed rather than created, and is
sometimes so translated.1 This exactly agrees with
what we now know to be true. The sun was originally
created (or evolved) as a nebulous mass, and not till
long afterwards did it contract so as to become the
great light which we see at present.
Two objections have now to be considered. The
first is, that the moon would consolidate before the
earth, being smaller, and not after it like the sun.
But when considered as lights, as they are in the
narrative, it is quite correct to class the two together,
since moonlight is only reflected sunlight ; and, there
fore, before the sun contracted so as to give out a
powerful light, the moon could not have shone very
brightly either. This is, of course, obvious to everyone
now, but was it equally so when the narrative was
written ?
The second objection is, that according to Genesis,
the earth seems to be the centre of everything, and even
the sun, or at all events its light, is represented as
existing solely for the sake of lighting the earth. Now
no doubt the narrative takes for granted that the earth
is the most important member of the solar system ; but
no objection can be taken to this, provided none of the
statements are false, since as far as man is concerned —
and the narrative was written for him alone — the earth
undoubtedly is the most important member. And then
as to the object of sunlight : we know that it is of use
1 E.g., 1 Sam. 12. 6.

150 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. viii.
to the inhabitants of this planet, and we do not know
that it serves any other useful purpose whatever.
These, however, are but minor matters ; the im
portant point, as before said, is that the writer of
Genesis places the formation of the sun after that of
light. This must have appeared when it was written,
and for thousands of years afterwards, an obvious
absurdity, since everyone could see that the sun .was
the source of light. We now know that it is correct.
But is it likely that the writer of Genesis had any
human means of knowing this ; or is it likely that,
without such means, he should have made such a
wonderfully lucky guess ? It seems hard to exag
gerate the great improbability of either alternative;
and yet there is no other, unless we admit that the
knowledge was divinely revealed.
(8.) Fishes and birds.
We next come to the introduction of fishes and birds.
It is not clear whether the narrative means that they
appeared simultaneously or successively, though here,
as in other cases, the latter is the more probable. And
it is needless to point out that science entirely agrees in
thus placing fishes before birds and also in placing both
of these after plants. Indeed, this latter point must
be obvious to every naturalist, since the food of all
animals is derived, either directly or indirectly, from
the vegetable world. And Genesis is equally correct
in emphasising the great abundance of marine life at
this period, though, as far as we know, had the same
been said of birds it would not have been correct ;
and also in specially alluding to the great sea-monsters

THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. 151
(wrongly translated whales in A.V.), since these huge
saurians were a striking feature of the time.
It should also be noticed that the narrative associates
fishes and birds together, and separates them from
land animals ; and this, though by no means obvious,
is also correct. For fishes and birds both produce
their young in eggs ; they move in a similar way, either
by wings in the air or fins in the water ; and their blood
is practically the same, though this latter point was
only discovered in modern times.1 Land animals on
the other' hand are, with trifling exceptions, quite
different in each of these important respects. But
again we must ask, what was there to suggest to the
writer of Genesis that birds more resemble fishes, which
live in the water, than animals, which, like themselves,
are air-breathers and live on the land ?
But we now come to what is perhaps the most
important argument against the accuracy of the narra
tive. It refers to invertebrate animals, which include
an immense variety of creatures, ranging from sponges
and corals up to insects and shell-fish ; and where do
these come in the narrative ? Some would place them
among the moving creatures brought forth by the
waters ; and others among the creeping things brought
forth on the land. But in either case their position
would be wrong, as invertebrate animals of some kind
seem to have accompanied plants all along. The
difficulty, however, is by no means insuperable, for
neither of the above classes need include invertebrates.
The former may refer to fishes alone, and the latter to
1 Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol, ix., p. 119.

152 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. viii.
small animals. Why, then, may not invertebrates
be omitted from the narrative ? It never claims to
describe everything that was created ; and its extreme
brevity, combined with the relative insignificance of
these creatures, might well account for their being
left out. And if so, the difficulty vanishes.
(9.) Land animals.
We next come to land animals, which apparently
were produced from the earth, and not from previous
forms of life. Science does not confirm this, though
it shows that the order in which they are placed, after
fishes and birds and before man, is quite correct. It
is true that a few marsupials seem to have appeared
as early as birds, but land animals as a whole un
doubtedly succeeded them. Genesis, it wiU be
noticed, divides them into three classes : cattle (do
mestic animals), creeping things (meaning doubtful),1
and beasts of the earth (wild animals). But as these
come in a different order in verses 24 and 25, perhaps
due to some error in copying, it would be unsafe to
found on them any argument either way. There is
also a difficulty in verse 30, where carnivorous animals
do not seem to be allowed for ; though the writer,
whoever he was, must certainly have known of them.
(10.) Man.
Last of all we come to the creation of man. This
clearly means mankind or the human species, and not
1 Two Hebrew words are "used for these, one in Gen. 1. 24, and
the other (evidently referring to the same creatures) in Gen. 7. 21.
The latter is said in Lev. 11. 29 to include weasels, mice, and lizards ;
and small animals are probably intended here also, as they are
mentioned between other animals,

THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. 153
a single individual, from the subsequent words, ' Let
them have dominion.' Now this creation of man is
represented as not only subsequent in time, and distinct
in nature, but of an altogether higher order than any
of the preceding ones ; since it is not said that the
earth brought forth a thinking animal, or anything
of that kind, but that man was made (or evolved)
in the image of God. This Divine likeness must of
course depend not on any attribute, bodily or mental,
which man shares with animals — for if so, they also
would be in the image of God — but on some attribute
which distinguishes man from the rest of creation. And
yet, strange to say, the writer who assigns to man this
unique character, with dominion over the whole of
nature, does not give him, as we should have expected,
a day to himself, but links him with land animals as
both appearing on the sixth day. He thus represents
man as having a certain relationship with animals,
though being in part supernatural. And science
agrees in all five points.
And first as to the time of man's appearance. Every
one now admits that this was not till towards the
close of the Tertiary or most recent group of strata ;
and no animal can be shown to have appeared since
then. Man was thus not only a late, but the very
latest member of creation, which is precisely the
position assigned to him in Genesis.
With regard to the actual date, the Bible says
nothing ; for its chronology only leads back to the
creation of Adam in Chap. 2, and not to that of the
human species in Chap. 1. And it is implied in other

154 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. viii.
places besides this, that there were pre-Adamite races
of men. Thus we are told that Cain was afraid that
whoever found him would slay him, and that he had a
wife ; though there is no hint that Adam had any
daughters at that time, still less that one of them had
been exiled with her brother and married him.1 And
some commentators have in consequence always
maintained (long before geology was thought of) that
Gen. 1. refers to a previous race of men.2 We need not
therefore discuss the difficulties connected with the
story of Adam and Eve, as to which the present writer
has never seen a satisfactory explanation.
Next, as to man being due to a distinct cause. We
have already considered in Chapter IV. the enormous
difference between animals and man. And though ¦
the first man may have been evolved from a previous
ape, such a vast change, especiaUy if it only occurred
once in the world's history, seems to have required a
special creative force. At all events, science cannot
account for it in any other way.
Thirdly, this evolution involved not only a great
development of existing faculties, but the introduction
of an altogether new and higher faculty, the known
possession of a free will, enabling man, on a smaU
scale, both to design and to accomplish. This has been
already shown to be the characteristic of man when
compared with the rest of creation, so need not be
further considered here. And it explains why man
1 Gen. 4. 15-17, 26 ; 6. 2-4.
2 E.g., I. Peyreyrius, a.d. 1655, quoted in the Speaker's Com
mentary.

. THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. 155
(unlike plants, animals, etc.) is not said to have been
created good. For goodness in a free being must
include moral goodness, or righteousness ; and, as ex
plained in Chapter VI., man could not possibly have
been created righteous. He might have been created
perfect, like a machine, or innocent, like a chUd, .but
to be righteous requires his own co-operation, his freely
choosing to -act right, though he might act wrong. No
doubt he was made in a condition perfectly suited for
the exercise of his free choice, but this seems included
in God's final approval of the whole creation that it
was aU very good.
Fourthly, it will be remembered that the possession
of a similar freedom, also able both to design and to
accomplish, was shown in Chapters I. and II. to be
the characteristic of the Deity, which distinguished His
action from that of all natural forces. Scientifically,
then, it is strictly true to say that man is made in
the image of God, since the special attribute which dis
tinguishes him from all else on this planet is precisely
the attribute of God Himself. And when we consider
the vast possibilities involved in the creation of such a
being, able to act right or wrong, and therefore able,
if he wishes, to act in opposition to the will of his
Maker ; thus bringing sin into the world with all its
consequent miseries, there seems a peculiar fitness in
the statement of Genesis that before taking such a
momentous step, even the Creator paused to deliberate,
Let us make man, which He had not done before.
It is also worth noting that no such expression as
after its kind, which is so frequently used of plants and

156 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. viii.
animals, is applied to man ; for he is not one of a kind
in the same sense. Each man is unique, a separate
personal being, distinct from all else in the world ; and
not (like a tree, for instance) merely one example of
a certain way in which molecules may be grouped.
While, lastly, science has rendered it abundantly
clear that, in spite of all this, man in his physical nature
is closely allied to land animals. And therefore the
division in Genesis of fishes and birds on one day, and
land animals and man on another, is more correct than
the more obvious division of all animals on one day
and man on another.
In dwelling on details like these, however, though
many of them are sufficiently striking, there is a danger
of forgetting the main features, which are briefly these.
In Genesis there are three periods of life, each with a
leading feature : that of the third day being vegeta
tion ; that of the fifth day fishes and birds, special
mention being made of great sea-monsters ; and that
of the sixth day land animals, and at its close man.
And the three great periods in Geology have just the
same characteristics ; the Primary being distinguished
by its vegetation (e.g., the coal beds) ; the Secondary by
its saurians, or great sea-monsters ; and the Tertiary
by its land animals ; and at its close (now often called
the Quaternary) by man. The harmony between the
two is, to say the least, very remarkable.
(D.) Conclusion.
We have now examined in detail the account of
creation given in Genesis, and have compared it as far
as possible with the teaching of astronomy and geology ;

THE ACCOUNT OF CREATION. 157
and, as we have shown, it seems to be in substantial
agreement all thrqugh. And this, it may be added,
has been the opinion of some leading men of science.
Thus Romanes once said, and as if the fact was un
disputed, ' The order in which the flora and fauna are
said, by the Mosaic account, to have appeared upon
the earth corresponds with that which the theory
of Evolution requires and the evidence of geology
proves.'1 We decide, then, that the order of creation,
as given in Genesis, is in most cases certainly, and in
all cases probably, correct.
And this is plainly of the utmost importance, for
the points of agreement between Genesis and science
are far too many and far too unlikely to be due to
accident. They are far too many ; for the chances
against even eight events being put down in their
correct order by guesswork is 40,319 to 1. And they
are far too unlikely ; for what could have induced
an ignorant man to say that light came before the
sun, or that the earth once existed without any dry
land ? Moreover, the general principles of the narra
tive, especially its pure Monotheism and its gradual
development, are very strongly in its favour. While
our admiration for it is still further increased by its
extreme conciseness and simplicity. Seldom, indeed,
has such a mass of information been condensed into as
few lines ; and seldom has such a difficult subject been
treated so accurately, and yet in such simple and
popular language.
Now what conclusion can be drawn from all this ?
1 Nature, nth August, 1881.

158 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. viii.
There seem to be only two alternatives to choose from :
either the writer, whoever he was, knew as much, or
more, of science than we do, or else the knowledge was
revealed to him by God. And if we admit revelation
at all, the latter certainly seems the less improbable.
We therefore conclude that this account of the creation
was Divinely revealed.

CHAPTER IX.
THAT ITS ORIGIN WAS ATTESTED BY MIRACLES.
Great Importance of the Pentateuch ; it claims to have been written
by Moses, and there is nothing unlikely in this.
(A.) The Egypticity of the Pentateuch.
This is very strongly in favour of its early date, as shown
(i.) In the history of Joseph.
(2.) In the history of Moses.
(3.) In the laws and addresses.
(B.) The Law's of the Pentateuch.
These are also in favour of its early date, as shown by :
(I.) Their subject-matter.
(2.) Their relation to the history.
(3.) Their relation to one another.
(4.) Their wording.
(C.) The Late-Date Theory.
There are three chief arguments in favour of this, but they
are not at all convincing :
(1.) The language of the Pentateuch.
(2.) The ignorance of its laws.
(3.) The finding of Deuteronomy.
(D.) Conclusion. The Pentateuch is, on the whole, a contemporary narra
tive ; and hence we must admit the miracles of the
Exodus. Objection from there being no confirming
evidence.
We pass on now to the origin of the Jewish Religion —
that is to say, the events connected with the Exodus
*59

l6q THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ix.
from Egypt. And as the only account we have of
these is contained in the Pentateuch, we must examine
this book carefully. Is it a trustworthy, and, on the
whole, accurate account of the events which it records?
And this depends chiefly on its date. Is it a con
temporary document, written by, or in the time of,
Moses ?
And it must be noticed at starting, that a large part
of it distinctly claims to have been written by Moses.
It is not merely that this title is given in a head
ing, or opening verse, which might easily be added in
later times. But it is asserted, positively and re
peatedly, all through the book itself, both in Exodus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy, that many of the events
or laws referred to (often including several chapters)
were actually written down by Moses. This is an im
portant point, and it must not be forgotten.1
Moreover, modern discoveries have shown con
clusively that there is nothing in the Pentateuch,
except the earlier chapters of Genesis, which might
not have been written down as it occurred. For we
now know that writing was in common use throughout
Babylonia and Egypt centuries before the time of
Abraham, and these were precisely the two countries
with which the ancestors of the Jews had most to do.
While at the time of the Exodus, Egypt was in such a
civilised state, that it is practically certain that Moses,
and the other leaders of Israel, could have written had
they chosen. And as they somehow or other brought
the people out of Egypt, it is extremely probable that
1 Exod. 17. 14 ; 24. 4 ; 34. 27 ; Num. 33. 2 ; Deut. 31. 9, 22, 24."

THE EXODUS. l6l
they should have recorded it. But did they, and do
we possess this .record in the Pentateuch ? This is
the question we have to decide, and we will first con
sider what is called the Egypticity of the Pentateuch,
and then its laws, both of which are very strongly in
favour of an early date ; then what can be said on
behalf of the opposite, or late-date theory ; and lastly,
the conclusion to be drawn from admitting its
genuineness. (A.) The Egypticity of the Pentateuch.
And first as to the Egypticity of the Pentateuch.
By this is meant that the part of the Pentateuch in
which reference is made to Egyptian matters appears
to be written with correct details throughout. This
would of course be only natural in a contemporary
writer acquainted with Egypt, but would be most
unlikely for a late writer in Canaan. The evidence
cannot of course be properly appreciated without
some knowledge of ancient Egypt ; but it is far too
important to be omitted ; so we will first consider it
in regard to the history of Joseph, then in regard to
that of Moses, and then in regard to the laws and
addresses. (i.) In the history of Joseph. ¦
To begin with, there are three cases where it is often
said that the writer seems not to have been a con
temporary, since Egyptian customs are there explained,
as if unknown to the reader. These are their eating at
different tables from the Hebrews, their abhorrence of
shepherds, and their habit of embalming.1 But when
1 Gen. 43. 32; 46. 34 ; 50. 3. II

l62 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ix.
the context is examined, the inference from the first
two will be seen to be very doubtful ; though that from
the third is in favour of a late date.
On the other hand, there is abundant evidence in
favour of a contemporary origin, in fact, nearly every
point can be illustrated by ancient inscriptions. For
instance, to take a single chapter,1 we know that the
Pharaohs attached great weight to dreams, and that
they used to consult their magicians and wise men
when in doubt, both these classes being often men
tioned — and mentioned together — on the monuments.
Moreover, the details of the dreams are peculiarly
Egyptian. Cattle coming up out of the river and
feeding on the reed-grass (an Egyptian word) was a
common sight in that country, but must have been
almost unknown in Canaan. In the same way seven-
eared wheat seems to have been a product of Egypt,
but is nowhere mentioned as grown in Canaan. We
also know that there was an official caUed the Super
intendent of the Bakery (i.e., the chief baker), and that
another had the same position in regard to the
Butlers. Next, when Joseph was hastily summoned to appear
before Pharaoh, it is mentioned that he yet stopped
to shave. To anyone familiar with ancient Egypt,
nothing could be more natural than this, as the better
ciass of Egyptians always shaved ; but to an IsraeUte,
on the other hand, it would be most unnatural, as
they always wore beards.2 So, again, the custom of
laying up corn in store-houses, to provide against the
1 Gen. 41. 2 2 Sam_ 10- -

THE EXODUS. 163
frequent famines, and for taxation, was thoroughly
, Egyptian ; the Superintendent of the Granaries being
a weU-known official.
Moreover, we know that when foreigners rose to
great importance in Egypt, they often adopted a
change of name ; and that it was the custom to give
a signet ring, and a gold collar (or chain about the
neck) as a mark of royal favour. This bestowal of
a gold coUar was a peculiarly Egyptian custom, being
called receiving gold, and is continually alluded to on
the monuments. And Joseph's new name Zaphen-
athpaneah, as weU as Asenath, and Potiphera, are all
genuine Egyptian names, though (with the exception
of Asenath) they have not at present been found as
early as the time of Joseph. In short, everything in
this chapter, (and it is but a sample of many others),
is perfectly correct for Egypt, though much of it would
be incorrect for Canaan.
And there is also evidence (indirect, but perhaps
the more valuable on that account) that all this latter
part of Genesis was actually written in Egypt. This
is afforded by six passages, where, after the name of a
place, is added some such phrase as which is in Canaan.1
And yet there do not appear to be any other places
of the same name liable to be confused with these.
When then would it be necessary to explain to the
Israelites that these places, Shechem, etc., were in
Canaan ? Certainly not after the conquest, when
they were living there, and it was evident to every
one ; so we must refer them to the time of the sojourn
1 Gen. 23. 2, 19 ; 33. 18 ; 35. 6 ; 48. 3 ; 49. 30.
II — 2

164 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ix.
in Egypt. And this is strongly confirmed by a
remark as to the desert of Shur, which lies between
Egypt and Canaan, and which is described as being
before Egypt as thou goest towards Assyria.1 Clearly
then this passage also must have been written in
Egypt, since only to one living there would Shur
appear on the way to Assyria.
And the same may be said, though less decisively,
of some other passages, such as the strangely inverted
order of first asking after a person's health, and then,
if he is still alive.2 This curious custom was thoroughly
Egyptian, as some exactly similar cases have been
found in a papyrus dated in the eighth year of
Menephthah, generally thought to be the Pharaoh
of the Exodus.3 But it is scarcely likely to have been
adopted by a writer in Canaan, as it makes the narra
tive seem so ridiculous.
(2.) In the history of Moses.
Secondly, as to the history of Moses. His being ex
posed in an ark of papyrus smeared with bitumen was
quite suited to Egypt, where both materials were com
monly used, but would have been most unsuitable
anywhere else. Again, we find the use of straw in
brickmaking is alluded to, as is also the custom of
reaping the corn close to the ear, so as to leave the bulk
of the straw standing in the field as stubble.4 Both of
these were undoubtedly Egyptian customs ; but, as far
as we know, the Israelites in Canaan never made bricks
1 Gen. 25. 18. 2 Gen. 43. 27-28.
3 Chabas. Melanges Egyptologiques, Third Series, vol. ii., Paris,
1873, p. 152.
4 Exod. 5. 7, 12.

THE EXODUS. 165
with straw, while their method of reaping was to
tie up the corn in sheaves instead of collecting it in
baskets.1 Next, as to the Ten Plagues. There is much local
colouring here, and hardly one of them would have
been suitable in Canaan. Moreover, the order in
which they come is very significant. It is clear from
the mention of stubble as still in the fields that the first
interview of Moses with Pharaoh took place shortly
after harvest-time, say May or June ; while the Exodus
took place in the month Abib, which corresponds to
our March and April. Hence we have nearly a year
along which to distribute the plagues ; and it will be
seen that they agree with the natural calamities of
Egypt in a remarkable manner.
(1.) The water being turned into blood cannot, of
course, be taken literally, any more than when Joel
speaks of the moon being turned into blood.2 It
refers to the reddish discoloration of the Nile, which
commences annually about the end of June, though
it is not generaUy sufficient to kill the fish or render the
water unfit to drink. And the incidental mention of
vessels of wood and stone3 is interesting, as it was the
custom in Egypt to purify the Nile water by letting
it stand in such vessels ; and the writer evidently
knew this, and took for granted that his readers knew
it too. (2.) Frogs are most troublesome in September.
(3.) Lice, perhaps mosquitoes or gnats, and (4.) flies,
are unfortunately not confined to any one month, but
are usually worst in October. (5.) Murrain among
1 E.g., Gen. 37. 7. 2 Joel 2. 31. 3 Exod. 7. 19-

l66 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ix.
the cattle and (6.) boils cannot be identified for cer
tain, but their coming on just after the preceding
plagues is most natural, considering what we now
know, as to the important part taken by mosquitoes
and flies in spreading disease. (7.) The particulars
given in regard to the hail, that the barley was then
in the ear, but the wheat not grown up, fix its date
about the end of January, when severe hailstorms have
been known in Egypt. (8.) Locusts are known to
have visited Egypt terribly in March, which seems the
time intended, as the leaves were then young. And
they have sometimes been brought there by an East
wind, and then driven back through the wind changing
round, exactly as recorded in Exodus. (9.) The
darkness which might be felt was probably due to the
desert wind, which blows at intervals after the end of
March, and sometimes brings with it such clouds of
sand as to darken the atmosphere.1 And curiously
enough it often lasts for about three days, and moves
in a narrow belt, so that the land may be dark in one
place, and light in another close by. (10.) The death
of the Firstborn was evidently not a natural calamity.
But what is specially interesting is the statement
against all the Gods of Egypt I will execute judgments,
without any explanation being given of what is meant
by this.2 It refers to the Egyptian custom of wor
shipping living animals, the firstborn of which were
1 I have noticed the same in the Transvaal, in particular a
sand-storm at Christiana, on 20th Oct., 1900, which so darkened
the sky that for about a quarter of an hour I had to light a
candle. 2 Exod. 12. 12 ; Num. 33. 4. See also Exod. 8. 26.

THE EXODUS. 167
also to die ; but this would only be famiUar to a writer
in Egypt, since, as far as we know, such worship was
never practised in Canaan.
The agreement all through is most remarkable, and
very suggestive of a contemporary date. And it ex
plains to some extent the strange vacillation of
Pharaoh in so often permitting, and then forbidding
the Israelites to depart ; as he may have been told
that something similar to all the plagues (except the
last) had been known before, and that therefore they
had not any real significance. How easily a late
writer might destroy it by accidentally altering the
order of the plagues is shown in Ps. 78 and 105 ;
neither list agrees with the Pentateuch, and as little
do they agree with each other.
(3.) In the laws and addresses.
And the same familiarity with Egypt is shown in
the subsequent laws and addresses of the Pentateuch.
Thus we read of laws being written on the doorposts
and gates of houses, and on great stones covered with
plaster, both of which were undoubtedly Egyptian
customs ; and the latter was not, as far as we know,
common elsewhere. Similarly the Egyptian habit of
writing persons' names on sticks, was evidently familiar
to the writer.1 Then we have the curious custom of
placing offerings of food for the dead, which was also very
common in Egypt, probably because they embalmed
their dead, and believed in their eventual return to life,
and therefore placed some food in the tomb to be at
hand when wanted. But here again, as far as we
1 Num. 17. 2.

l68 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ix.
know, such a practice never prevailed among the
Israelites.1 Once more, the customary food of the people in
Egypt is given as fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks,
onions, and garlic, aU of which were commonly eaten
there.2 But as the Hebrew names of four out of the
five vegetables do not occur elsewhere in the Bible,
they could scarcely have been very common in Canaan ;
while none of the characteristic productions of that
land, such as honey, milk, butter, figs, raisins, almonds,
and olives, are mentioned. The list is, as it ought to
be, thoroughly Egyptian.
It must next be noticed that a large part of the
ritual worship prescribed in the Pentateuch is obviously
borrowed from Egypt. The most striking instance is
that of the ark. A sacred ark is seen on Egyptian
monuments centuries before the Exodus, and is some
times shown as carried by poles resting on men's
shoulders, and surmounted by winged figures some
thing like the cherubim. Among other points most
likely derived from Egypt are the Tabernacle ; the
mercy-seat ; the dress and regulations for the priests,
especially their only wearing linen garments, which
seems to have been peculiar to Egypt ; the overlaying
the ark with gold ; and many of the ornaments of the
sanctuary. All this implies a lawgiver who knew
Egypt remarkably well, and a people who knew it
almost as well. How very suitable this would be for
Moses, who was educated in Egypt, and for the
Israelites, who had just come from there, scarcely
1 Deut. 6. 9 ; 11. 20 ; 27. 2 ; 26. 14. 2 Num. 11. 5.

THE EXODUS. 169
needs pointing out ; while, on the other hand, how
unsuitable, if not impossible, it would be for a law
giver centuries afterwards in Canaan is equally
clear. And the materials said to have been used for this
worship are precisely such as the Israelites might
have then employed. The ark, for instance, was not
made -of oak, or cedar, or fir, as would have been the
case in Canaan, but of acacia (shittim), which is very
common near Sinai, though rarely used in Canaan.
And the other materials were goats' hair, rams'
skins, sealskins from the adjoining gulfs of the Red
Sea, and gold, silver, brass, precious stones, and fine
linen from the Egyptian spoUs ; the latter evidently
so, as an Egyptian word is used.1 There is no
anachronism anywhere, such as a late writer might
have faUen into.
Moreover, in other places, the writer of the Penta
teuch frequently assumes that his readers know Egypt
as weU as himself.2 Thus the people are twice re
minded of the diseases they suffered from in Egypt —
1 the evil diseases of Egypt which thou knowest ' or
' which thou wast afraid of ' — and they are warned
that if they misbehave, God will punish them with
the same diseases again. But such a warning would
have been quite useless many centuries later in Canaan ;
just as it would be useless to warn an Englishman now
of the diseases of Normandy, which thou wast afraid of,
if this referred to some diseases our ancestors had
before they left Normandy in the eleventh century.
1 Exod. 25. 1 -'10. 2 Deut. 7. 15 ; 28. 60 ; Exod. 23. 9.

170 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ix.
Such words must clearly have been written soon after
wards. Similarly the people are urged to be kind to
strangers, because they knew the heart of a stranger,
seeing they had been strangers in the land of Egypt.
And this again could scarcely have been written cen
turies after they left Egypt.
Elsewhere the writer describes the peculiarities of
Canaan as to climate and productions ; and with a
view to their being better understood, he contrasts
them with those of Egypt.1 Obviously, then, the people
are again supposed to know Egypt, and not to know
Canaan. For instance, Canaan is described as a
country of hills and valleys, and consequently of
running brooks ; and not like Egypt where they had
to water the land with their feet. But no explanation
is given of this. It probably refers to the water-
wheels, which were necessary for raising water in a
flat country like Egypt, and which were worked by
men's feet. But can we imagine a late writer in
Canaan using such a phrase without explaining it ?
On the other hand, if the words were spoken by
Moses, all is clear ; no explanation was given, because
(for persons who had just come from Egypt) none was
needed. Lastly, the writer of the Pentateuch was evidently
weU acquainted with the Egyptian language. Nearly
all the Egyptian names mentioned are accurate tran
scriptions of Egyptian words into Hebrew. Similarly
the writer often uses Egyptian nouns or nouns common
to both languages, several of them sometimes occurring
1 Deut. 8. 7-10; 11. 10-12.

THE EXODUS. 171
in a single verse ; e.g., ark, papyrus, bitumen, pitch,
flags, brink, and the river.1 And as many of these
words — the first four out of the above seven, for in
stance — are seldom, if ever, found in the Prophets
when treating of Egyptian matters, we are justified in
concluding that they are not only such as a writer
in Egypt would have used, but are such as a writer
in Canaan would not have used.
On the whole, then, it is plain that when Egyptian
matters are touched upon in the Pentateuch, the most
thorough familiarity with native customs, seasons,
and language is everywhere displayed, though in
many cases these are quite different from those of
Canaan. Moreover, the evidence is never introduced
ostentatiously, or as if the writer wished to display
his knowledge, but it drops out incidentaUy, and in
the most natural manner possible. And we therefore
seem forced to conclude that the writer was a con
temporary who lived in Egypt, and knew the country
intimately ; . and as we have shown, he evidently
wrote for persons who had only . recently come from
there. (B.) The Laws of the Pentateuch.
We pass on now to the Laws of the Pentateuch,
which commence in the middle of Exodus, and occupy
the greater part of the remaining books. And as we
shaU see, they also (quite apart from their references
to Egypt) bear strong marks of a contemporary origin.
Nor is there anything surprising in this, for the
analogy of other ancient countries would lead us to
* Exod. 2. 3.

I72 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ix.
expect that the Israelites would have had an organ
ised priesthood, with written laws at a very early
time. (1.) Their subject-matter.
In the first place several of the laws refer exclusively
to the wilderness life of the Israelites ; and it is hence
probable that they originated, in the days of Moses.
Among such laws may be mentioned those referring to
the Tabernacle and its furniture.1 It is obvious that
we have here no mere description of the Tabernacle,
but a set of working directions for its construction ;
and if Moses received such instructions from God, that
he should at once record them is most reasonable.
And that to this should be added soon afterwards a
precise account of their carrying out is equally so.
But at no later time is this double record of instructions
and fulfilment at all probable. Nor can these laws
have been invented, as is sometimes aUeged, merely
as a pattern for the first or second Temple ; for what
need was there to describe such things as curtains,
loops, clasps, boards, tenons, sockets, bars, screens,
hangings, pillars, hooks, fiUets, and pins, if the end
in view was a pattern for a stone temple ? And yet
this is all given in detail twice over ; so a late, date for
any of these chapters is most improbable.
A similar argument applies to the laws regarding the
camp and order of march.2 FuU particulars are given
as to the exact position every tribe was to occupy, and
how the Levites were to carry the Tabernacle. And
what could be the object of inventing such laws in
1 Exod. 25-28 ; 36-39. 2 Num. 1. 47—4. 49.

THE EXODUS. 173
later times, when, as far as we know, the Israelites
never encamped or marched in this manner ? In
fact, they would have been of no more use after
the people settled in Canaan, than laws concerning
the Heptarchy would be at present. All these laws,
then, amounting to over eleven chapters, must either
have been of contemporary date, or else perfectly
useless. And the same may be said of the long and uninterest
ing list of the Journeys in the Desert ml which certainly
looks like an official record kept at the time. What
possible object could there have been in inventing
such a list centuries afterwards in Canaan ? And yet
if we admit its early date, it seems to involve that of
other portions of the Pentateuch, for it merely sum
marises what is there more fully described.
Moreover, the subject-matter of many of the other
laws, though applicable to Canaan, is strongly sugges
tive of an early date ; for the laws are of such a public
character that the Israelites in later times could scarcely
have ascribed them to Moses if, as a matter of fact,
they had only just been invented, and Were unknown
to their forefathers. Take, for instance, the remark
able land law, that whoever bought an estate was to
restore it to its original owner in the year of Jubilee, the
price gradually decreasing according to the nearness of
this year.2 How difficult it must have been to first
introduce such a law as this ! It would have revolu
tionised the whole community ; for some men would
suddenly lose their possessions, and others be as
1 Num. 33. 2 Lev. 25. 13.

174 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ix.
suddenly restored to theirs. And how could anyone in
later times have made such a law, and yet assert that
it had been in existence for centuries, though no one
had ever heard of it ?
Or again, take the law regarding the Levitical Cities.1
The Levites, it will be remembered, had no separate
territory like the other tribes, but were given forty-
eight special towns. And it is scarcely conceivable
that such a curious arrangement could have been made
at any time except that of the conquest ; stiU less that
it could have been made centuries afterwards, and yet
ascribed to Moses, without everyone at once declaring
it to be spurious.
(2.) Their relation to the history.
It will next be noticed that the laws are not syste
matically arranged, but are closely related to the
history. To begin with, as many as fourteen of them
are actually dated either as to time or place. For
instance, ' The Lord spake unto Moses in the wUderness
of Sinai, in the first month of the second year after
they were come out of the land of Egypt, saying,'
etc.2 And several others are associated with the
events which led to their enactment ; and these are
often of such a trivial nature, that it is hard to imagine
their being invented.3
Now, had the laws been the work of late writers,
this is the last thing we should have expected ; the
natural form for such writers to adopt being either
1 Num. 35. 1-8.
2 Num. 9. 1 ; Exod. 12. 1 ; Lev. 7. 38 ; 16. 1 ; 25. 1 ; 26. 46 ;
27. 34 ; Num. 1. 1 ; 3. 14 ; 33. 50 ; 35. 1 ; Deut. 1. 3 ; 4. 46 ; 29. 1.
3 Lev. 24. 15 ; Num. 9. 10 ; 15. 35 ; 27. 8 ; 36. 8.

THE EXODUS.

175

separate commands or regular codes. A contem
porary, on the other hand, would of course record the
laws in connection with the events which gave rise to
them, and at the times and places when they were
issued ; and this is precisely what we find in the
Pentateuch. It shows, not a complete legislation,
but one in process of growth, and of growth in intimate
connection -with the accompanying history.
And this is confirmed by the fact that in several
places, especiaUy in Deuteronomy, stress is laid on the
people's personal knowledge of the events referred to ;
e.g., ' The Lord made not this covenant ' (that at
Horeb) ' with our fathers, but with us, even us, who
are all of us here alive this day.'1 Of course only
persons over forty would have been born before the
Exodus ; but these elders would have been the ones
addressed by Moses, and most of them would remember
the striking events of their childhood.
Moreover, this personal knowledge is often appealed
to as a special and chief reason for obeying the laws.2
For instance, ' I speak not with your children which
have not known, and which have not seen the chastise
ment of the Lord, . . . but your eyes have seen aU the
great work of the Lord which He did. Therefore shaU
ye keep all the commandments,* etc. Plainly this
would have had no force in later times ; indeed it would
have furnished an excuse for not obeying the laws, since
the people of those days had no personal knowledge
of the events referred to. And is it likely, we may
1 Deut. 5. 3 ; 24. 9, 18, 22 ; 25. 17.
2 Deut. 11. 2-7 ; 4. 3-15 ; 29. 2-9.

176 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ix.
ask, that a late author, who falsely ascribed his laws
to Moses, in order to get them obeyed, should yet put
into the mouth of Moses himself an excuse for not
obeying them ?
It is also worth noting in this connection how much
Moses relies on his own personal authority in issuing
the laws, especiaUy those in Deuteronomy. The later
prophets always speak in God's name, and such ex
pressions as Thus saith the Lord, Hear ye the word of
the Lord, are extremely common, occurring over 800
times ; but in the laws of the Pentateuch nothing of
the kind is found. They are delivered by Moses in his
own name, often with the simple words, / command
thee, which occur thirty times in Deuteronomy. And,
of course, if the laws are genuine, there is nothing sur
prising in this, for forty years' sole leadership might
well have induced Moses to adopt such a peremptory
tone. But a late author, afraid of writing in his own
name, would scarcely have adopted a style so different
from that of all the other prophets.
(3.) Their relation to one another.
Now the laws profess to have been delivered mainly
at two periods — near the beginning and at the end of
the forty years' wanderings. And, it wiU be seen, the
difference between the two sets of laws exactly corre
sponds to such a difference in date. To begin with, the
laws referring to the Tabernacle, the camp, and some
temporary duties of the Levites, are of course peculiar
to the earlier group ; as are also numerous ceremonial
and ritual laws, which would have been out of place in
Deuteronomy, as that was addressed to the laity. On

THE EXODUS. 177
the other hand the laws as to the division of Canaan
among the tribes, the possession of lands and houses,
and the appointment of a successor to Moses, naturally
belong only to the later group. Among other additions
are the laws referring to apostasy among the Israelites,
and the admission of foreigners to the nation, both of
which might be required when they became settled in
Canaan. In some cases, however, though the same laws occur
in both groups, there are certain differences between
them. The most important concerns the duties of
Priests and Levites. In Leviticus and Numbers the
tribe of Levi is divided into two parts ; the sons of
Aaron being Priests, and the rest of the tribe Levites.
But in Deuteronomy, it is urged, this distinction is
unknown ; the priests are never called sons of Aaron,
but are called Levites ; while, on the other hand,
Levites are allowed to perform priestly duties. In
answer to this it must be noticed, that as Aaron was
himself a descendant of Levi, all priests were, as a
matter of fact, Levites. And the writer of Deuter
onomy was quite able to distinguish between them
when necessary ; for in Deut. 18. 1-8 the first two
verses are said to refer to the whole tribe, the next
three to the priests, and the last three to the Levites.
The only difference, then, that exists is that Deuter
onomy seems to recognise that Levites might perform
priestly duties. But, with the doubtful exception of
the above three verses, there is not a single passage in
which distinctively priestly duties are assigned to those
distinctively called Levites. All that we find is that
12

178 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, ix
where the whole tribe is referred to, the various duties
are named together.1
In other cases the differences are as a rule trivial,
and they often tend to prove the genuineness of the
laws. Take for instance the slaughter of animals.2
In Leviticus every ox, sheep, or goat intended for food
was to be first brought to the Tabernacle as a kind
of offering, and there killed. But in Deuteronomy
those living at a distance were to be allowed to kill
and eat at home. The first obviously suits the cir
cumstances of the desert, when everyone was near
the Tabernacle, and the latter those of Canaan, when
some were near and many at a distance. Moreover,
the passage in Deuteronomy begins // the place, etc.,
which implies some previous law on the subject. And
it also implies that the gazelle and hart were not
included in this law, precisely as we find them not in
cluded in Leviticus. Thus the apparent discrepancy
is more like an undesigned agreement between the
laws, the later one implying the existence of the
earlier, which had now to be modified to make it
suitable to Canaan.
And exactly the same may be said as to the list of
clean and unclean animals.3 Leviticus includes among
clean animals, which might be eaten, four kinds of
locusts, and among unclean animals, which might not
be eaten, eight creeping things, such as the weasel,
mouse, and lizard, all of which Deuteronomy omits.
On the other hand, the latter mentions several animals,
1 E.g., Deut. 10. 8. 2 Lev-. 17. 1-7 ; Deut. 12. 21, 22.
3 Lev. 11; Deut.. 14.

THE EXODUS. 179
such as the ox, sheep, and hart, which the former omits.
Plainly, then, when Leviticus was written there was a
lack of animal food, which might tempt the people to
eat locusts (permitted), or even mice and lizards (for
bidden) ; whUe when Deuteronomy was written animal
food was plentiful, and regulations as to these were
wholly unnecessary. Thus the differences in the laws
again correspond precisely to the different conditions
of the people at the two periods.
In each of these cases, then, and they are only
samples of several others, we have but two alter
natives to choose from. Either the differences result
from the fact that the laws date respectively from the
times they profess to, when all is plain and consistent ;
or else they must be due to the carefully planned work
of some late writer ; in which case, while we admire
the skUl with which the fraud is executed, we cannot
help wondering at its utter uselessness. Why indeed
was it necessary to invent two sets of laws at all ?
Surely one complete code would have been better from
every point of view ? The only motive, then, that
late writers could have had in inventing a double code
was to give the laws an air of genuineness. And if
this was their object, it must be allowed that they have
thoroughly succeeded. t
(4.) Their wording.
Lastly we have to consider the wording of the laws,
and this also is strongly in favour of a contemporary
origin. Thus, as many as sixteen of them, which
have special reference to Canaan, are introduced with
some such phrase as when ye be come into the land of
12 — 2

l8o THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ix.
Canaan,1 which plainly supposes that the people were
not there already. And it is a phrase which would soon
have dropped out had the laws been merely handed on
traditionally, and not written down at the time. And
the same may be said of numerous other laws, which
the people are told to obey when they enter into
Canaan ; or are even exhorted to obey in order that
they may enter into Canaan, both of which again
imply that they were not there already.2
Moreover, many of the laws refer to the camp, and
sometimes to tents, in such a way as to imply that the
whole life and worship of Israel was carried on in a
camp.3 These laws were, with some necessary modifi
cations, as binding in Canaan as in the wilderness ; so
there was no reason to refer to the camp here, except
the most natural one that they were actually issued
in the camp, and were consequently adapted in their
language to camp-life.
The wording, then, of aU these laws bears unmis
takable signs of contemporary origin. Of course, these
signs may have been inserted at a later time to give
subsequent laws a Mosaic air, but they cannot be
explained in any other way. And therefore the laws
must be either contemporary, or deliberate frauds. No
innocent mistake in ascribing old laws to Moses, such
as the Athenians may have made in ascribing theirs
1 Exod. 12. 25; 13. 11; Lev. 14. 34; 19. 23; 23. 10; 25. 2;
Num. 15. 2, 18 ; 35. 10 ; Deut. 7. 1 ; 12. 1,' io, 29 ; 17. 14 ; 18. 9 ;
26. 1.
2 Deut. 4. 1, 5, 14 ; 5. 31 ; 6. 1, 18 ; 8. 1 ; 11. 8, 23.
3 E.g., Exod. 29. 14 ; Lev. 4. 12 ; 6. 11 ; 13. 46 ; 14. 3 ; 16. 26 ;
17. 3 ; Num. 5. 2 ; 19. 3, t4.

THE EXODUS. l8l
to Solon, can possibly explain such language as this ;
either it was the natural result of the laws being
genuine, or else it was adopted on purpose to mislead.
Nor is the difficulty got over by saying that the
laws date from very different times ; and that perhaps
the last compiler, who may have lived at the time of
the ExUe, did not invent any laws himself, but merely
selected and arranged previous ones. For shifting the
difficulty does not remove it. Each individual law,
if it falsely claims to date from before the conquest of
Canaan (and, as we have seen, numbers and numbers
of laws do so claim, When ye be come into the land of
Canaan, etc.) , must have been invented by someone ;
and this someone, though he really wrote it after the
conquest of Canaan, must have inserted these words
to make it appear that it was written before.
Practically, then, as just said, there are but two
theories to choose from — that of genuine Mosaic laws
and that of dehberate frauds. And bearing this in
mind, we must ask, is it likely that men with such a
passion for truth and righteousness as the Hebrew
prophets — men who themselves so denounced lying
and deception in every form1 — should have spent their
time in composing such forgeries ? Could they, more
over, have done it so skilfully, as the laws contain the
strongest, and most subtle, marks of genuineness ;
and could they have done it so successfully as never to
have been detected at the time ? This is the great
moral difficulty in assigning these laws to a later
age, and to many it seems insuperable.
i.Jer. 8. 8; 14. 14; Ezek. 13. 7.

l82 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ix.
We have now concluded a brief examination of the
laws of the Pentateuch, and however we regard them,
they have every appearance of dating from the time of
Moses. Moreover the whole of the evidence is of such a
kind that the ordinary reader can judge of its value.
Anyone who likes to look out the texts for himself can
form an independent opinion as to how extremely
improbable it is that laws such as these should have
been invented in after times. We have thus two very
strong arguments in favour of an early date for the
Pentateuch : the one derived from its Egypticity, and
the other from its laws.
(C.) The Late-Date Theory.
We pass on now to the opposite, or late-date theory.
According to this the Pentateuch, though it' no doubt
contains older traditions, and perhaps fragments of
older documents, was in the main not written till
many centuries after the death of Moses. And the
three chief arguments in its favour are based on the
language of the Pentateuch, the apparent ignorance of
its laws in later times, and the finding of Deuteronomy
in the reign of Josiah ; and we will examine each in
turn. (i.) The language of the Pentateuch.
Now in general character the language of the Pen
tateuch undoubtedly resembles that of some of the
Hebrew prophets, such as Jeremiah ; and therefore it
is assumed that it must date from about the same time.
But unfortunately critics who maintain this view do
not admit that we have any genuine Hebrew documents
of a much earlier date, with which to compare it. And

t
* the exodus. 183
therefore we have no means of knowing how much
the language altered, so this of itself proves little ;
while the Pentateuch contains many ' hundreds of
words peculiar to itself.
But it is said we have two actual signs of late date.
The first is that the common word for west in the
Pentateuch really means the sea, and hence, it is
said, the writer's standpoint must have been that of
Canaan, and the books must have been written after
the settlement in that country. But the fallacy here
is obvious. In all probability this word was adopted
in the Hebrew language before the time of Abraham,
when the sea, i.e., the Mediterranean, actually was to
the west. And in later years a Hebrew, writing in
Egypt or anywhere else, would naturally use the word,
without thinking that it was inappropriate to that
particular place. The other expression is beyond
Jordan, which is frequently used to denote the eastern
bank ; and hence again, it is urged, the writer's stand
point must have been that of Canaan. But this is
also untenable. For the same term is used for the
western bank in several places,1 and sometimes of both
banks in the same chapter.2 And therefore no infer
ence as to the position of the writer, and hence as to
the date of the book, can be drawn from either of these
expressions. On the other hand, there are several signs of early
date, for the Pentateuch contains a variety of archaisms.
1 E.g., Deut. 11. 30 ; Josh. 12. 7.
2 E.g., eastern in Deut. 3. 8 ; Josh. 9. 10 ; and western in Deut.
3. 20, 25 ; Josh. 9. 1.

184 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ix.
Of course, most of these can only be understood by a
Hebrew scholar (which the present writer does not
profess to be) ; but this is the less to be regretted,
because, I believe, the fact is undisputed. We will
therefore give a couple of examples only, which are
plain to the English reader. The pronoun for he is
commonly used throughout the Pentateuch (including
Deuteronomy) both for male and female ; while in the
later writings it is confined to males, the females being
expressed by a derived form which is very seldom used
in the Pentateuch. Similarly, the word for youth is
used in the Pentateuch for both sexes, though after
wards restricted to males only, the female being again
expressed by a derived form. These differences, though
small, are very significant, and they clearly show that
the language was at a less developed, and therefore
earlier, stage in the Pentateuch than in the rest of
the Old Testament.
It is, however, further urged in support of the later
date theory that the language of the Pentateuch, when
carefully examined, shows that it had several authors ;
as the same words, or groups of words, occur in different
passages all through the book. And this, combined
with shght variations of style, and other peculiarities,
have led some critics to split up the book into a number
of different writings, which they assign to a number
of unknown writers from the ninth century B.C. on
wards. For instance, to take a passage where only
three writers are supposed to be involved, Exod. 7.
14-25. These twelve verses seem to the ordinary
reader a straightforward narrative, but they have

THE EXODUS. 185
been thus split up.1 Verses 19, 22, and parts of
20, 21, are assigned to P, the supposed writer of the
Priestly Code of Laws ; v. 24 and parts of 17, 20, 21,
to E ; and the remainder to J ; the two latter writers
being thus named from their generally describing the
Deity as Elohim and Jehovah (translated God, and
Lord) respectively.
Fortunately, we need not discuss the minute and
complicated arguments on which all this rests, for the
Pentateuch, as we have seen, has strong claims to a
contemporary origin. And if so, it matters little
whether it was the work of one or more writers ;
though the idea of their writings being so hopelessly
intermixed seems in any case to be most improbable.
And there are at least two plain and simple arguments
against it.
The first is that the so-called Egypticity of the
narrative extends to all the parts J, E, and P ; as well
as to Deuteronomy, which these critics assign to a
different author again. And while it is difficult enough
to believe that even one writer in Canaan should have
possessed this intimate knowledge of Egypt, it is far
more difficult to beUeve that several should have done so.
The second is that parallel passages to the supposed
two narratives of the Flood, ascribed to J and P (and
which are thought to occur alternately nineteen times
in Gen. 7.-8.) have been found together in an old
Babylonian story of the Flood, centuries before the
time of Moses ; and also in layers corresponding to
1 Driver's Introduction to Literature of Old Testament, sixth
edition, 1897, P- 24-

l86 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ix.
J and P ; and this of course makes the theory still more
unlikely. For then we must assume that J first got
hold of this- Babylonian story, and appropriated
certain portions of it, freeing it from its absurd and
polytheistic elements ; that some time later P did the
same, choosing, however, other portions of the story,
and that long afterwards these two narratives were
combined together again in our Genesis ; and all this
is, to say the least, very improbable.1
Of course no one denies that Moses may, and prob
ably did in some cases avail himself of previous docu
ments, one of these, ' The Book of the Wars of the
Lord,' being quoted in Num. 21. 14, and others are
doubtless included in the narratives of Genesis, as
indeed they must be, if these are in any sense con
temporary history. While quite recently (1902) it
has been found that some of the laws are also much
older than Moses ; as they occur (with slight differ
ences) in the code of Hammurabi of Babylon, probably
the Amraphel of Gen. 14.
Nor on the other hand can it be denied that some addi
tions have been made to the Pentateuch since the time of
Moses.2 The most important is the list of Edomite kings,
who are said to have reigned before there reigned any
king over the children of Israel, which brings the passage
down to the time of Saul at least. But it is probably
a later insertion, since the dukes of Edom mentioned
in vv. 40-43 seem naturaUy to follow those of Seir
1 Sayce's Monument Facts, 1904, p. 20 ; Driver's Book of Genesis,
1905, pp. 89-95, 107-
2 Gen. 36. 31-39 ; 12. 6 ; 13. 7 ; Exod. 16. 36.

THE EXODUS. 187
in vv. 29, 30 ; as they are referred to in a similar manner
and not like the intervening kings. There are also two
passages referring to Abraham, after which it is added
the Canaanite was then in the land. This was plainly
to prevent anyone thinking that the country was then
uninhabited ; and the notes must therefore have been
written after the conquest of the land by Joshua. But
they also appear to be subsequent additions ; and if
so, this would point to an earlier date for the original
narrative, which was written when such explanations
were thought unnecessary. And exactly the same
may be said as to the note on the omer, that it is the
tenth part of an ephah. This was evidently a later
addition, when the omer had fallen into disuse and
needed explanation.
With regard to these and other slight additions,1 it
must be remembered that it was the custom in ancient
times for notes on a previous document to be incor
porated in the text, and not put at the bottom of the
page, or at the end of the book, as at present. And,
hence, adding such notes did not imply any deception
on the part of the subsequent editor ; he was merely
trying to make the original sense more easily under
stood ; and they may aU be omitted without breaking
the continuity of the narrative. It thus differs alto
gether from composing a whole document, and falsely
ascribing it to some earher writer, which would entirely
destroy our confidence in it. Indeed, on the late-date
theory, it is difficult to see how the Pentateuch can
have any historical value whatever.
1 Deut. 2. 10-12, 20-23 ; 3. 14 ; 33, 34.

l88 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY, chap. ix.
(2.) The ignorance of its laws.
Passing on now to the next argument for a late date,
it is urged that the laws of the Pentateuch cannot
really have been written by Moses, since, judging
from the other Old Testament Books, they seem to
have been unknown for many centuries after his time.
And the evidence adduced in support of this is the
silence of early writers as to these laws, and the observ
ance of practices inconsistent with them.
But with regard to the former, none of the earliest
books, either historical or prophetical, are really silent
as to the laws, though they do not allude to them as
often as we might think probable. The first of the
historical books is Joshua ; but this, though it expressly
refers to written Mosaic laws,1 cannot be appealed to
as an independent witness, since hostile critics beUeve
that it forms one work with the Pentateuch, so the
two earliest books are Judges and 1 Samuel.
In Judges the references are admittedly few,2 which
is not perhaps surprising considering the unsettled
state of the country ; but in 1 Samuel they are much
more numerous, the first six chapters alone supplying
over a dozen points of agreement.3 And so in regard
to the prophetical books. Two of the earliest of these
are Hosea and Amos, and they both contain numerous
references, one of which is to written laws.4
All this is abundant evidence as to the existence of
some law and ritual very like what we now find in
1 Josh. 1. 7, 8, 13 ; 24. 26. 2 Judges 18. 31 ; 20. 27, 28 ; 21. 19.
3 1 Sam. I. 3, 24 ; 2. 12-30 ; 3. 3 ; 4. 4 ; 6. 15.
* Hos. 2. 11 ; 3. 4 ; 4. 4-6 ; 6. 6 ; 8. 1, 12, 13 ; 9. 4 ; 12. 9 ; Amos
2. 4, 11 ; 4. 4, 5 ; 5. 21-25 ." 8. 5.

THE EXODUS. 189
the Pentateuch. And though many of the references
are of a disparaging nature, this very fact that the
prophets found it necessary to protest against ritual
being placed above morality shows not only that the
ritual then existed, but that it was believed to have had
a Divine origin, which they themselves imply in some
cases. And similar evidence is afforded by most of the
other prophets, and also of course by the later his
torical books, David, for instance, alluding to the
written law of Moses, and as if it was well known.1
Moreover, the references are all incidental. The
writers nowhere give a list of Mosaic laws ; the allusions
to them turn up, as it were, by accident ; and this
makes it almost certain that many other laws must
have been equaUy well known without being alluded to
at aU.
The chief counter-argument is from the statement in
Jeremiah, that God did not command the Israelites
concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices when He
brought them out of the land of Egypt.2 But the
context certainly implies that it was placing these
before obedience that God condemned ; and Hosea in
a similar passage declares this to be the case, and that
God's not desiring sacrifice means His not caring so
much about it, as about other things (I desire mercy
and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than
burnt offerings). Both passages are mere echoes of
the older saying, To obey is better than sacrifice.3
With regard to the inconsistent practices, the most
important of these were the sacrifices not being confined
1 I Kings 2. 3. 2 Jer. 7. 22. 3 Hosea 6. 6 ; 1 Sam. 15. 22.

igo THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ix.
to one place, and their being offered by laymen, as
weU as some minor points, such as the erection of
piUars. As to the former, the principle of both the
earlier and later laws was that the place of sacrifice
should be of Divine appointment, where Jehovah had
chosen to record His name, and not selected by the
worshippers themselves.1 In Exodus it is naturaUy
implied that there should be many such places, as the
Israelites were then only beginning their wanderings ;
and in Deuteronomy that there should be only one,
as they were then about to settle in Canaan.
Now, the manner in which this place was made known
was by the presence of the ark : wherever the ark was,
there was the tabernacle, and the place for Divine wor
ship. And hence when the ark was in the hands of the
Philistines, the law could not be obeyed. But as soon
as it was recovered, the law again assumed its autho
rity, and the sanctuary at Jerusalem was the only one
recognised. In later times, no doubt, the worship at
high places was contrary to the law ; but this is men
tioned as a sin, and Hezekiah is specially commended
for removing these places, and for keeping the com
mandments which the Lord commanded Moses.2
The recent discovery, however (1907), that there
was a Jewish Temple of Jehovah at Syene in Egypt,
with sacrifices, as early as the sixth century B.C., and
that it had the fuU approval of the authorities at Jeru
salem, makes it doubtful if the law as to the one sanc
tuary was ever considered to be absolutely binding.
1 Exod. 20. 24 ; Deut. 12. 5.
2 1 Kings 3. 2 ; 22. 43 ; 2 Kings. 18. 4-6.

THE EXODUS. igi
Indeed, Deuteronomy itself recognises that there may
be exceptions to the rule, as it authorises an altar on
Mount Ebal on one occasion.1
The second practice, that of laymen offering sacri
fices, can generally be explained by the simple rule that
acts done by subordinates are often ascribed to their
superiors. Thus, at the dedication of the Temple,
Solomon is said to have offered 22,000 oxen and
120,000 sheep, though they cannot have been offered
with his own hands. Similarly, when David and
Solomon are said elsewhere to have offered sacrifices,
we may fairly assume that, as a rule, they only pro
vided and ordered them, the actual ministers being
doubtless priests. There are, it is true, some instances
where the above explanations do not apply, such as
those of Gideon, Samuel, and Elijah. But these were
all under special and exceptional circumstances, and
in some of them the offering of sacrifice was directly
enjoined by God.2 Thus the so-caUed ignorance of the
laws in later days is nothing like sufficient to show
that they were not then in existence ; it merely shows
that they were often not obeyed.
(3.) The finding of Deuteronomy.
Lastly we have the finding of the Book of the Law
(probably Deuteronomy) when the temple was being
repaired in the reign of Josiah, about B.C. 621, and
which is of course regarded by some critics as its first
publication.3 But this is a needless assumption, for
there is no hint that either the king or the people were
surprised at such a book being found, but only at what
1 Deut. 27. 5-7. 2 E.g., Judges 6. 26. 3 2 Kings 22.

I92 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ix.
it contained. And as they proceeded at once to carry
out its directions, this seems rather to show that they
knew there was such a book all the time, only they had
never before read it. And this is easily accounted for, as
most copies would have been destroyed by the previous
wicked kings Manasseh and Amon. On the other hand,
the new invention of a hitherto unsuspected law-book
could scarcely have gained such immediate and ready
obedience. Nor is it easy to see why, if Deuteronomy
was invented at that time, it should have contained so
many obsolete and useless instructions ; such as the
order to destroy the Canaanites, when there were no
Canaanites left to destroy ; and still less how it could
have been twice quoted in the previous history.1
On the whole, then, none of these arguments for a
late date can be looked upon as at all conclusive, and
we therefore decide that this theory is not only very
improbable in any case, but quite untenable in face
of the strong evidence on the other side.
(D.) Conclusion.
Having now shown that the Pentateuch appears to
date from the time of Moses, it matters little as to who
was the actual writer, though that the greater part
should have been written by Moses himself is plainly
the most probable view. And as we have seen, this is
positively asserted in the book itself: Moreover his
frequent references to his own exclusion from Canaan,
and his pathetic prayer on the subject, seem to have a
very genuine tone about them.2 And so have some
1 Deut. 20. 17 ; 1 Kings 11. 2 ; 2 Kings 14. 6 ; Deut. 7. 3-4 ; 24. 16.
2 E.g., Deut. 3. 23-26 ; 1. 37 ; 4. 21 ; 31. 2.

THE EXODUS. 193
individual remarks when carefully considered ; such as
that Moses ' looked this way and that way ' before
slaying the Egyptian. Who but one, who vividly
remembered the incident, would have thought it worth
noting that he took such an obvious precaution ?
And would anyone else (especiaUy in later days) have
put into his mouth the bitter complaint that God had
broken His promise, and not delivered the people P1
And his authorship is further confirmed by the fact
that so little is said in his praise. His faults are indeed
narrated quite candidly, but nothing is said in admira
tion of the great leader's courage, ability, and character,
till the closing verses of Deuteronomy. These were
evidently written by someone else, and show what we
might have expected had the earlier part been the work
of anyone but Moses himself. Nor is there anything
surprising in his writing in the third person, as numbers
of other men — Caesar, for instance — -have done the same.
But now comes the important point. If the Penta
teuch is a contemporary document, can we reject the
miracles which it records ?• Can we imagine, for
instance, a contemporary writer describing the Ten
Plagues, or the Passage of the Red Sea, if nothing of
the kind had occurred ? The events, if true, must
have been public, notorious, and well known at the
time ; and if untrue, no contemporary would have
thought of inventing them. While, if they were true,
it matters little whether they were evidential miracles
in the strict sense, or whether, as is more likely, they
were what we have called superhuman coincidences.
1 Exod. 2. 12 ; 5. 23. 13

194 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ix.
Many of the Ten Plagues, for instance, probably
belonged to this latter class ; but their coming on with
such unprecedented violence, and in each case immedi
ately following the words of Moses, could not have been
due to accident.
Similarly in regard to the Passage of the Red Sea.
The water, we are told, was driven back by a strong
east wind, lasting all night ; and this was doubtless
due to natural causes, though, in common with other
natural events, it is in the Bible ascribed to God. And
the statement, the waters were a wall unto them, need
not be pressed literally, as meaning that the waters
stood up vertically ; it may only mean here (as it ob
viously does in some other cases), that the waters were
a defence on each side, and secured them from flank
attacks.1 And as, considering their immense numbers,
they must have advanced in several parallel columns,
probably half a mile wide, this certainly seems the more
likely view.
And what makes it still more probable is that much
the same thing occurred- in this very neighbourhood
in recent times. For in January, 1882, a large expanse
of water, about 5 feet deep, near the Suez Canal, was
subjected to such a strong gale from the east (the very
direction mentioned in Genesis), that next morning it
had been entirely driven away, and men were walking
about on the mud, where the day before the fishing-
boats had been floating.2 Moreover, on this theory, the
1 Exod. 14. 21, 22 ; Nahum 3. 8 ; i Sam. 25. 16.
2 Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxviii., p. 268. It is
vouched for by Major-General Tullpch, who was there on duty at
the time.

THE EXODUS. I95
miracle would not lose any of its evidential value, since
the fact of such a strip of dry land being formed just
when and where the Israelites so much wanted it, and
then being suddenly covered again, through the wind
changing round to the west (which it must have done
for the dead Egyptians to have been cast up on the
east side)1, would be a coincidence far too improbable
to be accidental.
The immense number of the Israelites just alluded
to, some 600,000 men, besides women and children,2 or
probably over two million altogether, is no doubt a
serious difficulty ; as anyone can see, who will take the
trouble to calculate the space they would require on
the-march, or in camp. If we assume, for instance,
that they crossed the arm of the Red Sea in, say, forty
parallel columns, these would still have to be of enor
mous length to contain 50,000 persons each, with their
flocks and herds. And the whole narrative is opposed
to such huge, unwieldy masses. Most critics are con
sequently of opinion that the number has, somehow
or other, got exaggerated. This has certainly been the
case with some other numbers in the Old Testament
(see Chapter X.), and it would afford the most obvious
solution, but for the detailed censuses in Num. 1. and
26., each of which totals up to about 600,000 men.
Perhaps the best explanation is that recently sug
gested by Professor Flinders Petrie, that the word trans
lated thousands should be families ;3 so that the tribe
of Reuben, for instance,4 instead of having forty-six
1 Exod. 14. 30. 2 Exod. 12. 37.
3 Expositor, Aug., 1905. * Num. 1. 21.
13—2

196 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ix.
thousand five hundred men, would have forty-six
families, (making about) five hundred men. The chief
arguments in favour of this are, first, that the same
word is used in Judges 6. 15, where it so obviously
means family and not thousand, that it is so trans
lated in both the Authorised and Revised Versions ;
and secondly, that the number of men in a family, on
this supposition, always works out to a reasonable pro
portion, allowing for servants, from five to seventeen.
This is of course due to the number given for the
hundreds never being 0 or 1, which would work out
too few ; or 8 or 9, which would work out too many ;
but always one of the six other digits. And as there
were two censuses, with twelve tribes in each, • the
chance of this occurring every time, if the figures were
an ordinary census (when any one digit would be as
likely as any other), would be (xV)24, or less than 1 in
200,000. On this theory the total number of fighting
men would be reduced to about 5,600, which is much
more intelligible. But some other passages scarcely
seem capable of this interpretation, so it must be
admitted that the number forms a difficulty, whatever
view we adopt.
There is only one other important argument against
the truthfulness of the narrative, which is the entire
absence of any confirming evidence from other sources.
Of course, in regard to the Exodus itself, if the events
were such as are recorded in the Pentateuch, the
Egyptians must have been very much ashamed of
themselves, and would be the last persons to refer to
them. But still, considering the number of the

THE EXODUS. I97
Israelites, and the centuries they stayed in Egypt,
we might expect to find some aUusions to them on
Egyptian monuments. And perhaps we shall some
day, though up to the present none have been dis
covered that are at all conclusive.
The excavations, however, that were made at Tel-el-
Muskhuta in 1883 strikingly confirm a portion of the
narrative.1 For this turns out to be Pithom, one of
the store cities said to have been built by the Israelites ;
and we now learn not only that there was such a place,
and that it was a store city, evidently intended for
military supplies, being near the frontier, but that it
was probably founded by Rameses II. , who has long
been thought to be the Pharaoh who so oppressed the
Israelites.2 And nearly its whole extent is occupied
by the treasure chambers, which are divided by strong
brick walls ; some of the bricks being made with straw,
some with fragments of reed or stubble used instead,
and some without any straw at all. And, unlike the
usual Egyptian custom, the walls are built with mortar,
which is expressly mentioned in the Bible.3
It must also be remembered that the subsequent
history of the Israelites undoubtedly helps to confirm
the Exodus. For that event occupied a unique place
in their feelings, writings, and religion. Their religion
was indeed based on it, as it comes at the , beginning
of the Decalogue ; and their most characteristic insti
tution, the Passover, was directly associated with it,
1 Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xviii., p. 85.
2 Many critics, however, now consider that this was Thothmes III.
which suits the Biblical dates much better.
3 Exod. 1. 11, 14; 5. 12.

198 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. ix.
even in name, and it is hard to see how so striking a
ceremony could have been founded on mere fiction.
A document might be forged, but not a memorial
ordinance like this. So that even had the Pentateuch
never been written, the subsequent writings and rehgion
of the Israelites would still have formed a strong,
though indirect, argument in favour of some miraculous
deliverance from Egypt.
And this is further confirmed by the fact that scarcely
anyone doubts that the Israelites were in bondage
there at some time, and did somehow or other get away,
and such a deliverance is not likely to have been for
gotten ; and yet if it did not occur in the way recorded
in Exodus, there is not the slightest, trace or tradition
of it anywhere.
These objections, then, are quite insufficient to in
vahdate the strong evidence of the Pentateuch ; and
we therefore conclude in this chapter that it seems
probable that the origin of the Jewish religion was
attested by miracles.

CHAPTER X.
THAT ITS HISTORY WAS ATTESTED BY MIRACLES.
(A.) The Later Old Testament Books.
Arguments for and against their genuineness.
(i.) Undesigned coincidences ; an example as to the
rebellion of Korah.
(2.) Their alleged mistakes ; unimportant.
(3.) The effect of modern discoveries ; these have on the
whole confirmed their accuracy.
(B.) The Old Testament Miracles.
(1.) Their credibility; this can scarcely be disputed, if
miracles at all are credible; some difficulties, the
silence of the sun and moon ; trivial and diabolical
miracles.
(2.) Their truthfulness ; list of eight public miracles, two
examples, Elijah's. sacrifice on Mount Carmel, and
the destruction of the Assyrian army, considered in
detail ; conclusion.
Having now examined the origin of the Jewish
Religion, we have next to consider its history ; which
also claims to have been attested by miracles. So we
will first offer a few remarks as to the genuineness of
the Old Testament Books, from Joshua onwards ; and
then consider some of the miracles which they record.
(A) The Later Old Testament Books.
Now, the arguments as to the genuineness of these
Books need not be discussed at length, since we have
199

200 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. x.
already decided in favour of that of the Pentateuch,
and nearly all critics who admit the one, admit the
other. Suffice it, then, to say that we have in their
favour first of aU the universal tradition of the Jews,
who, being the writers and custodians of these books,
had the best possible means of knowjng, and who
reverenced them to such an extent that they could
have had no doubt whatever as to their authenticity.
Secondly, there are a variety of internal marks of
genuineness, such as undesigned coincidences, and the
minute and graphic manner in which several of the
events (including some of the miracles) are described ;
and which seems quite beyond the power of invention
in those early days. While lastly, there is the moral
argument : many of the books, especially the Prophets,
are not anonymous, but claim to have been written
by certain men and at certain times. And therefore,
unless genuine, they must be deliberate frauds ;
executed, moreover, by men whose one object seems
to have been to inculcate moral virtues, such as truth
fulness. On the other hand, the arguments against their
genuineness are the a priori one, that they record
miraculous events, which is supported by the historical
one, that they contain various slight inaccuracies, as
well as differences in style and language. And here,
as in so many other cases, the former seems to be the
reason for discrediting the books, the latter merely the
excuse. We do not propose to examine these argu
ments in detail, but a few words may be said on
three subjects, that of undesigned coincidences, the

JEWISH MIRACLES. 201
importance of which is not obvious at first sight ; the
alleged mistakes in the Old Testament ; and the effect
of modern discoveries.
(i.)' Undesigned coincidences.
Now, if we find two statements regarding an event,
or series of events, which, though not identical, are
yet perfectly consistent, this agreement must be either
¦accidental or not accidental. An agreement which is
too minute in detail to be accidental we will call a
coincidence, and this of necessity implies that the state
ments are somehow connected together. If the alleged
events are true, this connection may lie between the
facts themselves, each writer having independent know
ledge of these ; and hence their statements being in
perfect though unintentional agreement. But if the
alleged events are not true, then this connection must
lie between the writers, either one of them making his
account agree with the other, or else both deriving
their information from a common source. In the
former case, there would be intentional agreement
between the writers ; in the latter, between the various
parts of the original account. In any case, there
would be designed agreement somewhere ; for, to put
it shortly, the events, being imaginary, would not fit
together of necessity, nor by accident, which is
excluded, and hence must do so by design.
This has been otherwise expressed by saying that
truth is necessarily consistent, but falsehood is not so ;
and therefore, while consistency in truth may be un
designed, consistency in falsehood can only result from
design. And from this it follows that an undesigned

202 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. x.
coincidence between two statements — provided of
course we are fully convinced that it is a coincidence,
and that it is undesigned — is a sure sign of truthfulness.
It shows, moreover, that both writers possessed inde
pendent knowledge of the event, and were both telling
the truth. And of course the same argument applies
if the two statements are made by the same writer,
though in this case there is a greater presumption that
the agreement is not undesigned. And it should be
noticed that the more indirect and unobtrusive is the
agreement so much the stronger is the argument, while
the more obvious the agreement the weaker the argu
ment. Having now explained the great value of undesigned
coincidences, we will consider a single example in
detail, and select that referring to the rebellion of
Koran, Dathan, and Abiram, as this is connected with
an important miracle ; though it followed so soon after
the Exodus, that it might have been considered in the
last chapter. Now Korah, we are told,1 was a Levite
of the family of Kohath, and the other two were
Reubenites ; and from incidental notices in another
part of the book, we learn the position of the tents of
these men. The Kohathites were to the south of the
central Tabernacle, or Tent of Meeting, on an inner
line of tents, while the Reubenites were also to the
south, though on an outer line of tents. .
This explains how easy it was for the leaders to form
a secret conspiracy against Moses, as they could consult
together without passing through any other tribe. It
1 Num. 16. ; 2. io, 17 ; 3. 29.

JEWISH MIRACLES. 203
explains how, when Moses was talking to Korah (v. 8),
he had to send for Dathan and Abiram (v. 12), who
refused to come ; and how next morning (v. 16) Moses
left the central Tabernacle (or Tent of Meeting) where
the men had assembled to offer incense, and went unto
Dathan and Abiram (v. 25) . It explains how, later on,
the tents of Dathan and Abiram are twice mentioned,
while that of the leading conspirator, Korah, is
strangely omitted (v. 26, 27). It explains how the
families of these two were destroyed, though no men
tion is made of that of Korah, since the destruction was
probably limited to the tents of Dathan and Abiram,
who were brothers, and the schismatical tabernacle
which had been erected alongside, and from which
alone the rest of the people were told to depart (v. 26) .
(This must not be confused with the central Tabernacle
where the men who offered incense were afterwards
destroyed, probably by lightning.) We may therefore
conclude that Korah's family was not destroyed,
since their tent, being on the inner line, was at some
distance. And this accounts for the mention of
Dathan and Abiram alone in Deut. 11. 6, as well as
for what some have thought to be a discrepancy in
Num. 26. n, where we read that the children of Korah
did not die. In fact, the position of these tents is
the key to the narrative throughout, though we are
left to discover it for ourselves.
Now if the account is true and written by a contem
porary, all is plain ; for truth, as said before, is neces
sarily consistent. But if the whole story is a late
fiction, all this agreement in various places is, to say the

204 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. x.
least, very remarkable. Can we imagine a writer of
fiction accidentally arranging these detaUs in different
parts of his book, which fit together so perfectly ? Or
can we imagine his doing so intentionally, and yet never
hinting at the agreement himself, but leaving it so un
obtrusive that not one reader in a thousand ever
discovers it ? This single instance may be taken as a
sample of numerous others which have been noticed
all through the Bible ; and they certainly tend to show
its accuracy.
(2.) Their alleged mistakes.
We pass on now to the alleged mistakes in the Old
Testament, and considering the long period covered,
and the variety of subjects dealt with, and often the
same subject by various writers, the number of even
apparent discrepancies is not very great ; and it is
beyond dispute that many of these can be explained
satisfactorily, and doubtless many others could be so
were our knowledge more complete. Moreover, they
are, as a rule, quite obvious, and have not been brought
to light by recent discoveries. And the fact that the
scribes, who, from time to time, copied the documents,
allowed these discrepancies to remain, just as they were,
without attempting to reconcile them, shows with
what reverence they regarded the books. It has no
doubt left some blemishes in the Bible, which less
scrupulous copyists might have removed ; but it has
added to our confidence that we have the original
writings and not an ' improved ' edition of them.
It is also beyond dispute that many, perhaps most,
of the mistakes are numerical ones, such as the chron-

« JEWISH MIRACLES. 205
ology in Kings and Chronicles, and the incredibly large
numbers in some places.1 But these may be due to
some copyist expressing the numbers in figures, instead
of, as usual, in words ; and the Hebrew figures, i.e.,
the letters used as such, are very confusing. For
instance, beth and caph mean 2 and 20, while daleth and
resh mean 4 and 200 respectively ; and yet they are
very much alike even in print, as the English reader
can see in the headings of Ps. 119, Rev. Vers. Of
course, when used as letters the rest of the word shows
which is intended, but when used as numbers there is
no check. Moreover, a letter expressing a small num
ber, such as 3, is converted into 3,000 by merely adding
two dots. Any other mistakes there may be are only
such as any good historian might make, and are
quite insufficient to raise any general distrust of the
books. (3.) The effect of modern discoveries.
Lastly, as to the effect of modern discoveries in
Palestine, Egypt, Assyria, and elsewhere on the accu
racy of the Old Testament. In the case of the Penta
teuch, as we have seen, there is very little direct
evidence either way ; but it is otherwise with regard
to some of the later books.
In the first place, and this is very important, modern
discoveries have completely changed what was formerly
the chief argument on the subject. It used to be
thought that the Jews were a kind of half-savage nation,
living at a time when civilization was almost unknown,
and when literary records could scarcely be expected.
1 E.g., 1 Sam. 6. 19 ; 1 Kings 20. 30 ; 2 Chron. 14. 8, 9.

206 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. x.
But we now know that it was precisely the opposite.
The period of Jewish history from the time of Moses
onwards was distinctly a literary age. In Egypt,
Babylonia, Syria, and elsewhere it was the custom,
and had been for centuries, to chronicle all important
events, at least all those that were creditable to the
persons concerned ; so that it is almost certain that
the Jews, like the surrounding nations, had their
historians. In every age conquerors have loved to
record their conquests, and why should the Jews alone
have been an exception ?
And yet the historical books of the Old Testament
have no competitors. If, then, we deny that these are
in the main a contemporary record, we must either
assume that the Jews, unlike the surrounding nations,
had no contemporary historians, which is most unlikely ;
or else that their works were superseded in later days
by other and less reliable accounts, which were univer
sally mistaken for the originals, and this seems equally
improbable. Passing on now to the evidence in detail, it may be
divided into two classes, geographical and historical.
In the first place the geography of Palestine has been
shown to be minutely accurate. But this of itself does
not prove the Old Testament Books to be authentic,
but merely that they were written by Jews who knew
the country intimately. It does, however, raise a
presumption in their favour, for late forgeries are very
liable to mistakes of all kinds, while accuracy in small
and unimportant details inspires confidence in a book.
And much the same may be said of the historical

JEWISH MIRACLES. 207
notices. The monumental records of the Kings of Judah
and Israel have not at present been discovered, but we
can often check the history by the records of other
countries ; and these are as a rule in perfect agreement,
not only as to the actual facts, but as to the society,
customs, state of civilisation, etc., of the period. But
this again does not prove the authenticity of the
Books, though it also raises a presumption in their
favour. In some cases, however, the evidence is stronger
than this, one of the best known instances being
Daniel's mention of Belshazzar. He states that the
last king of Babylon was Nebuchadnezzar's son, called
Belshazzar, who was slain at night when the city was
captured (about B.C. 538). But according to Berosus,
who, though he only wrote about the third century
B.C., was tiU recently our chief authority, all this
appears to be wrong. The last king of Babylon was a
usurper called Nabonidus, and any such person as
Belshazzar is quite unknown. And so matters re
mained till some cuneiform inscriptions were discovered
in 1854.
From these it appears that Belshazzar was the eldest
son of Nabonidus, and was apparently associated with
him in the government ; though there is no proof that he
ever had the title of King, unless he is the same as
one Mardukshazzar, about this time (not otherwise
identified), which is not unlikely, as we know Marduk
was sometimes called Bel — i.e., Baal, or Lord. And
another inscription, somewhat mutilated, seems to
show that he was slain at Babylon in a night assault

208 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. x.
upon the city, as described by Daniel, some months
after Nabonidus had been taken prisoner.1
As to his relationship with Nebuchadnezzar we learn
that the mother of Nabonidus was an important person,
so she was very likely the daughter of that monarch ;
or possibly the usurper may have strengthened his
claim by the common expedient of marrying a royal
princess ; and there certainly seems to have been some
connection between the families, as we know from the
inscriptions that Nabonidus had a younger son called
Nebuchadnezzar. In either case, Belshazzar would be
a descendant of the former Nebuchadnezzar ; and as the
same word is used in Aramaic for father and grandfather
(see margin of Authorised Version), all the apparent
mistakes would vanish.
And, of course, if Daniel himself wrote the book, he
would have known all about Belshazzar, however soon
afterwards it was forgotten. But, if the book was a
forgery, written by a Jew in Palestine about B.C. 160,
which is the rationalistic theory, as the wars between
Egypt and Syria up to that date are clearly foretold,
how was it that he knew the name of Belshazzar at aU,
or anything about him, when such a person was un
known to previous historians ? Plainly, then, this is a
distinct argument in favour of the contemporary date
of the book.
And much the same may be said of Isaiah's mention
of Sargon of Assyria, who is stated to have taken Ash-
1 Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxxviii., 1906, p. 28 ;
Pinches' Old Testament in Light of Historical Records, 1902, p. 415,
54-

JEWISH MIRACLES. 209
dod. And yet the very existence of such a king was
unknown to secular history, till the last century ;
when his palace was discovered at Khorsabad, with
inscriptions relating, among other things, his capture
of Ashdod.1
We have now briefly indicated the reasons for
thinking that the books of the Old Testament are on
the whole authentic and contemporary records. What,
then, is the value of the evidence they afford as to the
history of the Jewish Religion having been attested by
miracles ?
(B.) The Old Testament Miracles.
We wiU include under this term both superhuman
coincidences and evidential miracles in the strict sense ;
and they occur all through the historical books of the
Old Testament. But as these cover nearly a thousand
years, and presumably all important miracles are
recorded, they were not of very frequent occurrence.
A few of them have been already noticed in the last
chapter, but we must now discuss them more fully,
first considering whether they are credible, and then
whether they are true.
(1.) Their credibility.
Now this can scarcely be disputed, provided miracles
at all are credible, which we have already admitted,
since scientific difficulties affect all miracles equally ;
and of course the Superhuman Coincidences present
no difficulties of this kind whatever. Among these
may be mentioned the destruction of Korah, the
falling of the walls .of Jericho, probably due to an
1 Isa. 20. 1. Orr's Problem of Old Test., 1906, p. 399'
14

210 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. x.
earthquake ; the lightning which struck Elijah's sacri
fice ; several cases of recovery from sickness ; and
many others, including some which appear at first
sight to be strictly miraculous.
One of these we will consider in detail, because it is
usually misunderstood, and is in consequence declared
by some critics to be so hopelessly incredible, as to
seriously compromise the whole Religion. This is the
' silence ' (or standing still) of the sun and moon,1 which
is often thought to involve an entire dislocation of the
solar system, due to the earth's, rotation being stopped,
thus causing the sun and moon to apparently stand
still. And it is justly urged that a miracle on so vast
a scale, even if possible, is quite out of proportion to the
end in view, which was merely the slaughter of a few
Canaanites. But there is another, and far more prob
able explanation of the miracle.
It is that instead of being one of prolonged light, the
sun remaining visible after it should have set, it was
really one of prolonged darkness ; the sun, which had
been hidden by thick clouds, being just about to shine
forth, when Joshua prayed to the Lord that it might
be silent, i.e., remain obscured behind the clouds, which
it did during the rest of the day. The Hebrew ap
pears to be capable of either meaning. For the crucial
word translated stand still is literally be silent (see
margin), both in verses 12 and 13 ; and while this is
very applicable to the sun's remaining obscured by
clouds during the day, it could scarcely be used of its
continuing to shine at night.
1 Josh. 10. 12-14.

JEWISH MIRACLES. 211
On the other hand, the rest of the passage seems to
favour the ordinary view. But as it is a quotation
from the poetical book of Jashar (now lost), a certain
amount of figurative language must be allowed for.
And anyhow, if we admit that this is what Joshua
prayed for, that the sun and moon should remain
silent or obscured, the rest of the passage can only mean
that this is what took place. And it may be men
tioned that, as early as the fourteenth century, the
Jewish commentator Rabbi Levi ben Gershon main
tained that the words did not mean that the sun and
moon literally stood still, or in any way altered their
motion, though it is only fair to add that this was not
the general view.1
Moreover, even if the word did mean stand still,
Joshua would only be likely to have asked for the sun
and moon to stand still, if they were apparently
moving ; and they only move fast enough to be ap
parent when they are just coming out from behind
a dense bank of clouds, due, of course, to the clouds
really moving. And to stand still in such a case,
would mean to stay behind the clouds, and remain
obscured, the same sense as before. And the words
could then have had an immediate effect ; visible at
once to all the people, which certainly seems implied
in the narrative, and which would not have been the
case on the ordinary view.
Assuming, then,,. that either meaning is possible, a
prolonged darkness is much the more probable for three
1 Numerous quotations are given in ' A Misunderstood Miracle,'
by Rev. A. S. Palmer, 1887, pp. 103-107.
14 — 2

212 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. x.
reasons. To begin with, the miracle must have oc
curred in the early morning (Gibeon, where the sun was,
being to the S.E. of the battlefield, and Ajalon, where
the moon was, to the S.W.) ; and it is scarcely con
ceivable that Joshua, with the enemy already defeated,
and nearly all the day before him, should have wished
to have it prolonged. Secondly, just before the miracle
there had been a very heavy thunderstorm, involving
(as here required) thick clouds and a dark sky ; and
this is stated to have been the chief cause of the
enemy's defeat. And therefore Joshua is more likely
to have asked for a continuance of this storm, i.e., for
prolonged darkness, than for light. Thirdly, the moon
is mentioned as weU as the sun, and, if Joshua wanted
darkness, both would have to be silent ; but if he
wanted light, the mention of the moon as well as the
sun was quite unnecessary.
On the whole, then, the miracle seems to have been
a superhuman coincidence between a prayer of Joshua
and an extraordinary and unique thunderstorm, which
caused the sun to remain silent or invisible all day ;
a coincidence, however, so remarkable, that, if true,
it would have considerable value. And if the Canaan
ites were sun- worshippers (as many think probable),
there was a peculiar fitness in the sun being obscured
the whole day, and it would naturally lead to their
utter confusion.
Before we pass on we may notice two more general
objections that are sometimes made to the Jewish
miracles. The first is that some of them were of a very
trivial character, such as Elisha's healing the waters of

JEWISH MIRACLES. 213
Jericho, increasing the widow's oil, and making the
iron axe-head to float ;* and hence it is urged they are
most improbable. And no doubt they would be so, if
we regard them as mere acts of kindness to individual
persons ; but if we regard them as so many signs to
the Israelites (and through them to the rest of the
world), that Elisha was God's prophet, and that God
was not a far-off God, but One who knew about and
cared about the every-day troubles of his people, they
are certainly not inappropriate. Indeed, if this was
the end in view, they were precisely the kind of miracles
most suited to attain this end. And if some years later
it was necessary to remind the people that though
Elisha was dead, yet Elisha's God was still living, and
still took an interest in their welfare, then the miracle
connected with the prophet's bones also loses a good
deal of its improbability.2
The second and more important objection strikes at
the evidential value of all the miracles. They could
not, it is urged, have really attested any revelation from
God, since the writers who describe them also describe
other miracles, which, they say, were worked in opposi
tion to God's agents. I have not met with a satis
factory explanation of these diabolical miracles, as they
are called ; and if such events were of frequent occur
rence in the Bible, they would form a great difficulty.
But this is not the case. For if we exclude some
doubtful instances, such 'as the raising of Samuel by the
witch of Endor, and some general statements as to the
powers of evil being able to perform marvels, there
1 2 Kings 2. 22 ; 4. 6 ; 6. 6. 2 2 Kings 13. 21.

214 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. x.
remains only one instance in which we have any detailed
facts to judge by.
This is the case of the magicians of Egypt, who
imitated some of the earlier miracles of Moses and
Aaron. And even here the inference is doubtful, for
we are expressly told that this was due to their en
chantments, a term which might very possibly cover
some feat of jugglery, as they knew beforehand what
was wanted, and had time to prepare. While the fact
that they tried and failed to imitate the next plague,
which was done suddenly, and without previous notice ;
and which they frankly confessed was a Divine miracle,
makes this a very probable solution.1 Anyhow, it is
little more than a one-text difficulty, and does not affect
the Religion as a whole. We decide, then, that none
of the Jewish miracles can be pronounced incredible ;
though some of them no doubt seem very improbable.
(2.) Their truthfulness.
Now, of course, the miracles vary greatly in evi
dential value, the following being eight of the most
important :
The destruction of Korah, Num. 16.
The passage of the Jordan, Josh. 3. 14-17.
The capture of Jericho, Josh. 6. 6-20.
Elijah's sacrifice on Mount Carmel, 1 Kings 18. 17-40.
The cure of Naaman's leprosy, 2 Kings 5. 10-27.
The destruction of the Assyrian army, 2 Kings 19. 35.
The shadow on the dial, 2 Kings 20. 8-1 1.
The three men in the furnace, Dan. 3. 20-27.
We will examine a couple of instances in detail and
1 Exod. 7. 11, 17 ; 8. 2, 7, 18, 19.

JEWISH MIRACLES. 215
select first Elijah's sacrifice on Mount Carmel. This
event is saidv to have occurred on the most public
occasion possible, before the King of Israel and thou
sands of spectators. And as a miracle, or rather super
human coincidence, it presents no difficulty whatever.
The lightning which struck the sacrifice was doubtless
due to natural causes ; and yet, as before explained
(Chapter VII.), this would not interfere with its
evidential value.
Moreover, it was avowedly a test case to definitely
settle whether Jehovah was the true God or not. The
nation, we learn, had long been in an undecided state.
Some were worshippers of Jehovah, others of Baal ;
and these rival sacrifices were suggested for the express
purpose of settling the point. And therefore, if
miracles at all are credible, there could not have been a
more appropriate occasion for one ; while it was, for
the time at least, thoroughly successful. AU present
were convinced that Jehovah was the true God, and,
in accordance with the national law, the false prophets
of Baal were immediately put to death.1
Now could any writer have described all this, even
a century afterwards, if nothing of the kind had
occurred ? The event, if true, must have been
notorious and well known for several generations ;
and if untrue, no one living near the time and place
would have ventured to fabricate it. And (what
renders the argument still stronger) all this is stated to
have occurred, not among savages, but among a fairly
civilised nation and in a literary age.
1 Deut. 13.

2l6 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. x.
Next as to the destruction of the Assyrian army.
Here it will be remembered that when, Sennacherib
came to attack Jerusalem, he publicly, and in the
most insulting manner, defied the God of Israel to
deliver the city out of his hand (probably about
B.C. 701) -1 We then read how Isaiah declared that God
accepted the challenge, and would defend Jerusalem,
and would not allow it to be destroyed. And the
sacredness of the city is very strongly insisted on. For
instance, ' The virgin daughter of Zion hath despised
thee, and laughed thee to scorn, the daughter of Jeru
salem hath shaken her head at thee,' and a great deal
more to the same effect, ending with the emphatic asser
tion by Jehovah, ' / will defend this city to save it, for
mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake.'
Now it is inconceivable that such a passage could
have been written after Jerusalem had been totally
destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (about B.C. 586) or even
after it had been captured by him (b.c. 598) .2 There
is of course no real inconsistency in God's preserving
the city in the one case, and not in the other ; for
Nebuchadnezzar is always represented as being, though
unconsciously, God's servant in punishing the Jews ;
while Sennacherib openly defied Jehovah.
After this comes the sudden destruction of the As
syrian army (probably by pestilence) ; and the extreme
fitness of such a miracle, or superhuman coincidence,
after Sennacherib's challenge must be obvious to every
one. Moreover, such a public and notorious event, if
untrue, could not have been invented till long after-
* 2 Kings 18. 17 ; 19. 34. 2 2 Kings 24. 13 ; 25. 9.

JEWISH MIRACLES. 217
wards ; and yet, as we have just shown, the narrative
could not have been written long afterwards. Sen
nacherib does not of course allude to it himself in his
inscriptions, for kings never like to record their own
defeats ; but this is no reason for doubting that it
occurred, more especially as it is confirmed by the
Babylonian historian Berosus.1
We need not examine the other miracles in detail,
since the argument is much the same in every case.
They are all said to have occurred on important and
critical occasions when, if we admit miracles at all,
they would be most suitable. They are all said to have
been public miracles, either actually worked before
crowds of persons, or else so affecting public men that
their truth or otherwise must have been notorious at
the time. And they were all of such a kind that any
mistake or fraud as to their occurrence was out of the
question. It is, then, on the face of it, most unlikely
that miracles, such as these, should have been described
unless they were true. Indeed, if the Old Testament
books were written by contemporaries, or even within
a century of the events they relate, it is very difficult
to deny their occurrence. We decide, therefore, that
it seems probable that the history of the Jewish Religion
was attested by miracles.
1 Quoted by Josephus, Antiq. x. i.

CHAPTER XL
THAT ITS HISTORY WAS ALSO ATTESTED BY
PROPHECIES.
(A.) General Prophecies.
Three examples considered .
(i.) The desolation of Assyria and Babylonia.
(2.) The degradation of Egypt.
(3.) The dispersion of the Jews, including the Roman siege.
(B.) Special Prophecies.
List of eight important ones : a single example, the destruc
tion of Jerusalem by the Babylonians considered in
detail ; and some general remarks.
(C.) Conclusion. The cumulative nature of the evidence.
We pass on now to the Jewish Prophecies. And it
should be explained at starting that the word prophecy
is used in this Essay in the sense of prediction ; and
not as it often is, in the Bible, to include exhortation
and teaching. And the prophecies may be divided
into two classes, general and special.1
(A.) General Prophecies.
We will consider the General Prophecies first, exclud
ing at present those referring to the Messiah (Chapter
1 The former were called prophecies, and the latter predictions
in the earlier editions of this book. 218

JEWISH PROPHECIES. 219
XIX.) ; and, as we shall see, their agreement with
history seems far too exact to be accidental, while
in this case it is impossible to get over the difficulty
by the favourite expedient of saying that they were
written after the event. We will select for examination
those concerning the Jews themselves, and their great
neighbours Assyria and Babylonia, on the one hand,
and Egypt on the other. All these nations had existed
for centuries, and there seems no reason why the
Jewish prophets should have pronounced any per
manent doom on them at all, still less on their own
people. But they did so, and with remarkable dis
crimination. (1.) The desolation of Assyria and Babylonia.
And first as to Assyria and Babylonia. The future
of these countries was to be utter desolation. The
kingdoms were to be destroyed, the land was to
become a wilderness, and the cities to be entirely
forsaken. We read repeatedly that they were to be
desolate for ever ; and though this cannot be pressed
as meaning literally for aU eternity, it certainly implies
a long duration.1 A single passage referring to each
may be quoted at length.
Thus Zephaniah says of Assyria, ' And he will stretch
out his hand against the north, and destroy Assyria ;
and will make Nineveh a desolation, and dry like the
wilderness. And herds shall lie down in the midst of
her, aU the beasts of the nations ; both the pelican and
the porcupine shall lodge in the chapiters thereof [the
1 Isa. 13. 19-22 ; 14. 22, 23 ; Jer. 50. 13, 39, 40 ; 51. 26, 37, 43 ;
Nahum 3. 7 ; Zeph. 2. 13-15.

220 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xi.
capitals of the fallen columns] : their voice shall sing
in the windows ; desolation shall be in the thresholds :
for he hath laid bare the cedar work. This is the
joyous city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her
heart, I am, and there is none else beside me : how
is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to Ue
down in !'
And Isaiah says of Babylon, ' And Babylon, the
glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldean's pride,
shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt
in from generation to generation : neither shall the
Arabian pitch tent there ; neither shaU shepherds make
their flocks to lie down there. But wild beasts of the
desert shall lie there ; and their houses shall be fuU of
doleful creatures ; and ostriches shall dweU there, and
satyrs [or goats] shall dance there. And wolves shaU
cry in their castles, and j ackals in the pleasant palaces :
and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be
prolonged.' It seems needless to comment on prophecies so plain
and straightforward. Nor need we insist at any length
on their exact fulfilment ; it is obvious to everyone.
For two thousand years history has verified them.
The utter desolation of these countries is without a
parallel : the empires have vanished, the once populous
land is deserted, and the cities are heaps of ruins, often
the dens of wild beasts; lions, hyaenas, and jackals
having all been seen among the ruins of Babylon. In
short, the prophecies have been fulfilled in a manner
which is, to say the least, very remarkable.

JEWISH PROPHECIES. 221
(2.) The degradation of Egypt.
And next as to Egypt. The future foretold of this
country is not desolation but degradation. Ezekiel
tells us it is to become a base kingdom, and he adds,
' It shall be the basest of the kingdoms ; neither shall
it any more lift itself up above the nations : and I will
diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the
nations.'1 And here also prophecy has been turned
into history. The permanent degradation of Egypt
is a striking fact which cannot be disputed. When
the prophets wrote, Egypt had on the whole been a
powerful and independent kingdom for some thousands
of years : but it has never been so since. Persians,
Greeks, Romans, Byzantine Greeks, Saracens, Mem-
looks, Turks, and we may now add British, have in
turn been its masters ; but it has been the master of
no one. It has never more ruled over the nations as it
used to do for so many centuries. Its history in this
respect has been unique — an unparaUeled period of
prosperity followed by an unparalleled period of
degradation. With such an obvious fulfilment of the main pro
phecy, it seems needless to insist on any of its details,
though some of these are sufficiently striking. Thus
Ezekiel's description of Egypt as the basest of kingdoms
seems peculiarly appropriate to that country, which
was once ruled by a dynasty of slaves (the Memlooks) .
Again, we read in the next chapter, Her cities shall be in
the midst of the cities that are wasted ;2 and though it is
doubtful to what period this refers, yet no more
1 Ezek. 29. 15. 2 Ezek. 30. 7.

222 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xi.
accurate description can be given of the present cities
of Egypt, such as Cairo, than that they are in the
midst of the cities that are wasted, such as Memphis,
Bubastis, and Tanis.
And a few verses farther on is foretold the fate of the
two ancient capitals, Thebes (called in the Bible No
or No-Amon) and Memphis (called Noph). Both were
to be destroyed, but of Memphis alone the significant
detail is added, Thus saith the Lord God, I will destroy
the idols, and I will cause the images to cease from Noph.1
And what do we find ? Both cities have been destroyed
for centuries ; but while the temples and statues of
Thebes still remain, the admiration of aU traveUers,
those of Memphis (though of great magnificence in the
time of Herodotus) have now entirely perished, except
such fragments as are buried underground. Only
persons who have visited the two sites can fully realise
the difference between them.
And again in this same vesse we" read, There shall be
no more a prince out of the land of Egypt ; and yet,
when this passage was written, there had been inde
pendent Egyptian sovereigns from the very dawn of
history ; but there have been none since. Stress, how
ever, is not laid on details like these, some of which
are admittedly obscure, such as the forty years' desola
tion of the land with the scattering of its inhabitants,2
but rather on the broad fact that Egypt was not to be
destroyed like Assyria and Babylonia, but to be
degraded, and that this has actually been its history.
1 Ezek. 30. 13-16; Jer. 46. 19.
2 Ezek. 29. 11-13 ; 30. 23, 26.

JEWISH PROPHECIES. 223
(3.) The dispersion of the Jews.
Lastly, as to the Jews. Their future was to be
neither destruction nor degradation, but dispersion.
This is asserted over and over again. They were to be
scattered among the nations, and dispersed through the
countries ; to be wanderers among the nations ; sifted
among all nations ; tossed to and fro among all the king
doms of the earth ; and scattered among all peoples
from one end of the earth even unto the other end of
the earth.1 Moreover, in their dispersion they were to
be subjected to continual suffering and persecution.
They were to become an astonishment, a proverb, and
a byword among all people. Their curses were to be
upon them, for a sign and for a wonder, and upon their
seed for ever. They were to have a yoke of iron upon
their necks ; and to have the sword drawn out after
them in all lands, etc. And yet, in spite of all this,
they were not to be merged into other nations, but to
remain distinct. They and their seed for ever were to
be a separate people, a sign and a wonder at all times.2
And here again history has exactly coincided with
prophecy. The fate of the Jews, since the destruction
of Jerusalem in a.d. 70, has actually been dispersion,
and this to an extent which is quite unique. It has
been combined, moreover, with incessant suffering
and persecution, and yet they have always remained
a separate people. The Jews are still everywhere,
though the Jewish nation is nowhere. They are
1 Ezek. 22. 15 ; Hos. 9. 17 ; Amos 9. 9 ; Deut. 28. 25, 64 ; see
also Lev. 26. 33 ; Deut. 4. 27 ; Neh. 1. 8 ; Jer. 9. 16.
2 Deut. 28. 37, 46, 48 ; Lev. 26. 33 ; Jer. 24. 9 ; 29. 18.

224 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xi.
present in all countries, but with a home in none,
having been literally scattered among the nations.
We will now examine a single passage in detail, and
select the latter part of Deut. 28. The whole chapter
is indeed full of prophecies as to the future condition
of the Jews, some of which seem to point to the Baby
lonian captivity, (e.g., v. 36) ; but after this we come
to another and final catastrophe in v. 49. This evi
dently begins a fresh subject, which is continued with
out a break till the end of the chapter, and it is specially
interesting because, not only is the world-wide dis
persion of the Jews clearly foretold, but also the
previous war which led up to it. And though much
of the language used would of course suit any ancient
war, it seems to be particularly applicable to that in
a.d. 70. We have, as is well known, a full account of
this in the history of Josephus, and as he never alludes
to the prophecy himself (except in the most general
terms),1 his evidence is beyond suspicion.
Ver. 49. First of all the conquerors themselves are described as a
nation from far, from the end of the earth, as the eagle
flieth, a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand,
etc., which is very appropriate to the Romans, whose
general Vespasian had come from Britain,2 and their
troops from various countries, who had the eagle as
their standard, and whose language, Latin, was un- .-
known to most of the Jews.
50. And the merciless way in which these fierce warriors
were to spare neither old nor young was painfully true
in their treatment of the Jews.
51. And they also of course destroyed or confiscated their
property.
52. Then the war itself is foretold — in fact, emphasised — as
1 Wars, iv. 6. 2 Wars, iii. i.

JEWISH PROPHECIES. 225
one of sieges, throughout all the land, rather than of open
battles ; and this was actually the case in this war
(though it had not been so in some other wars, such as
those of the Maccabees), Jotapata, Japha, Tarichea,
Gamala, Girschala, Macherus, and Masada, as well as
Jerusalem itself, all suffering terrible sieges. And
these were to be continued till the high walls came down,
which is very suggestive of the Roman battering rams,
that were actually used at several of these places.1
53-55. Then we have the dreadful famine, due to the straitness
of the siege (evidently the great siege, that of Jeru
salem), which is strongly insisted on. And it was to
lead to the fiercest strife, even members of the same
family fighting for morsels of food ; and finally to drive
the wretched inhabitants to cannibalism of the most
revolting kind.
56-57. And this was to be the fate not only of the poor, but of
the wealthy also ; even ladies of high position who
would not put their feet on the ground, but were
accustomed to be carried about in chairs (and there
fore rich enough to buy anything that could be bought) ,
secretly eating their own children. And all this, as
we learn from Josephus, actually occurred during the
Roman siege.2 He describes how parents would fight
with their children for fragments of food, and mentions
one instance that was discovered, in which a lady
eminent for her family and wealth (Mary, the daughter
of Eleazar) had secretly eaten half her own child.
58. And these miseries were to come upon the Jews for their
disobedience of God's laws ; and though, unfortunately,
this was not confined to any one period, yet Josephus
bears witness to their exceptional wickedness at this
time ; which he says was so great that if the Romans
had not destroyed their city, he thinks it would have
been swallowed up by the earth, or destroyed like
Sodom.3 In fact, towards the close of the war, their
crimes seem to have been as unparalleled as their
sufferings.
59. And it was to be no ordinary tale of suffering ; but the
plagues of themselves, and of their seed, were to be

1 Wars, iii. 7, 10 ; iv. 1,2; vii. 6, 8.
2 Wars, v. 10 ; vi. 3. 3 Wars, v. 13. 15

226 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xi.
wonderful, even great plagues, and of long continuance,
and sore sicknesses and of long continuance. And no
one who bas read the account of the siege, and the
subsequent treatment of the Jews, will think the
description at all exaggerated.
60. And the people are specially threatened with the diseases
of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of, and this, as said in
Chapter IX., implies that -the passage was written
soon after the people left Egypt, and therefore cen
turies before any siege or dispersion.
61. And all these woes, and many others, were to end, as
they actually did end, in the destruction of the nation,
until thou be destroyed.
62. And the Jews that survived were to be left compara
tively few in number ; and this was certainly the case,
even allowing that the statement of Josephus that
over 600,000 perished in the siege may be an exaggera
tion.1
63. And these were to be forcibly expelled from the land of
Canaan, which they were just about to conquer —
plucked from off the land is the striking expression used ;
and they actually were so expelled by the Romans,
partly after this war, and still more so after then-
rebellion in a.d. 134, when for many centuries scarcely
any Jews were allowed to live in their own country,
an event probably unique in history.
64. But instead of being taken away to a single nation, as
at - the Babylonian captivity, they were now to be
scattered over the whole world; among all peoples,
from one end of ihe earth, even unto the other end of the
earth. And how marvellously this has been fulfilled
is obvious to everyone. No mention is made of a
king here, as in ver. 36 ; so while that suits the Baby
lonian captivity, this suits the later dispersion, though
in each case there is a reference to serving other
gods which cannot be satisfactorily explained.
65-67. And then we have the terrible sufferings that the Jews
were to undergo in their dispersion. Among these
nations they were to find no ease, nor rest for the sole
of their foot, but were to have a trembling Jieart, and
failing of eyes, and pining of soul, and their life was
1 Wars, v. 13.

JEWISH PROPHECIES. 227
to hang in doubt night and day. And here, again,
the event is as strange as the prophecy. Nowhere else
shall we find a parallel to it. For centuries the Jews
have been subject to continual suffering and persecu
tion, and are so still in some countries, such as Russia.
They have found no rest anywhere, but have been
driven from city to city, and from kingdom to king
dom, and have lived in daily fear of their lives.
68. Lastly, we read, that some of the Jews, instead of being
dispersed, were to be brought to Egypt again with ships,
and to be in bondage there. And there ye shall sell
yourselves (or be sold) unto your enemies for bondmen,
and for bondwomen, and no man shall buy you. This
latter clause cannot, of course, be taken literally, for
unless they were bought, they could not be sold ; it
can only mean that there were not enough buyers.
And this also came true, after the Roman siege (though
not, as far as we know, after any other siege), when
the number of Jews sold for slaves was so great that
there was a difficulty in finding purchasers, and many
of them were sent to the mines in Egypt, probably in
slave ships.1
Everyone must admit that the agreement all through
is very remarkable ; in fact, the prophecies about the
dispersion of the Jews — and we have only examined
a single instance in detail — are even more striking than
those about the desolation of Assyria and Babylonia,
or the degradation of Egypt. And to fully realise
their combined importance, let us suppose that anyone
now were to foretell the future of three great nations,
saying that one was to be utterly destroyed, and the
land desolated ; another to sink to be a base kingdom ;
and the third to be conquered and its inhabitants
forcibly expelled, and scattered over the whole world.
What chance would there be of any one of the pro-
1 Wars, vi. 8, 9,
15—2

228 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xi.
phecies (leave alone aU three) coming true, and remain
ing true for two thousand years ? And yet this would
be but a parallel case.
What conclusion, then, must be drawn from all these
prophecies, so clear in their general meaning, so distinc
tive in their character, so minute in many of their
details, so unlikely at the time they were written, and
yet one and all so exactly fulfilled ? There seem to be
only three alternatives to choose from. Either they
must have been random guesses, which seems in
credible ; for such guesses do not, as a rule, come true.
Or else they must have been due to deep foresight
on the part of the writers, which seems equally in
credible ; for the writers had had no experience of the
permanent desolation of great empires like Assyria and
Babylonia, while as to the fate of Egypt and the Jews
themselves history afforded no parallel. Or else,
lastly, the writers must have had revealed to them
what the future of these nations would be ; in which
case, and in which case alone, all is plain.
(B.) Special Prophecies.
We pass on now to the Special Prophecies. These
are found all through the Old Testament, the foUowing
being eight of the most important.
The fact that David's throne should always be held
by his descendants, i.e., till the captivity, about 450
years j1 and its fulfilment is specially remarkable when
contrasted with the rival kingdom of Samaria, where
the dynasty changed eight or nine times in 250 years.
The division of the kingdom into ten and two tribes,
1 2 Sam. 7. 12-17 • l Kings 9. 4, 5.

JEWISH PROPHECIES. 22g
evidently announced at the time, since Jeroboam had
to flee in consequence, and apparently the reason why
the rebels were not attacked.1
The destruction, rebuilding, and final destruction of
the Temple ; the first of these prophecies being made
so publicly that it caused quite a commotion.2
The destruction of the altar at Bethel, which was set
up as a rival to that at Jerusalem ; publicly announced
some centuries before, including the name of the
destroyer.3 The destruction of Israel by the Assyrians.4
The destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.6
The captivity of the Jews, including its duration of
seventy years, their most unlikely restoration, and the
name of the restorer.6
The wars between Egypt and Syria.7
We will examine a single instance in detail, and
select that referring to the destruction of Jerusalem by
the Babylonians, as this is connected with one of the
miracles mentioned in the last chapter, the shadow on
the dial, which we will glance at in passing. Now, it
will be remembered that, on one occasion, the Jewish
King Hezekiah was seriously ill, and on being told by
Isaiah of his unexpected recovery, he naturally asked
for a sign ; and then in accordance with his demand
the shadow on the dial went back ten steps.6 The dial
1 I Kings 11. 30, 40 ; 12. 24.
2 Jer. 26. 8-16 ; Isa. 44. 28 ; Dan. 9. 26.
3 1 Kings 13. 2 ; 2 Kings 23. 15, 16 ; Josephus, Antiq., viii. 9.
4 1 Kings 14. 15 ; Isa. 7. 8, 9 ; 8. 4.
6 2 Kings 20. 17. 8 Jer. 29. 10 ; Isa. 44. 28.
7 Dan. 11. 8 2 Kings 20. 8-1 1 ; 2 Chron. 32. 24, 31

230 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xi.
was evidently a flight of steps (for the Hebrew word
means steps),1 with some object on the top which threw,
a shadow on a gradually decreasing number of these as
the sun rose, and a sudden subsidence of the ground at
one end, due perhaps to an earthquake, would quite
account for the. shadow going back and again covering
some steps it had left. The event seems to have
attracted considerable attention, since messengers
came from Babylon to inquire about it (so it evidently
was not noticed there, and must have been due to some
local cause) and to congratulate the king on his re
covery. And we may ask, how could any writer have
asserted all this, even a century afterwards, if no such
sign had occurred ?
We are then told that Hezekiah showed these mes
sengers all his treasures, which leads up to the pro
phecy that the treasures should be carried away and
Jerusalem destroyed by these very Babylonians. This
is introduced in the most natural way possible as a
rebuke to the king for his ostentatious display ; and
it is difficult to consider it a later insertion. And yet
the event could not have been humanly foreseen. For
Babylon was then but a smaU and friendly, nation,
shortly to be absorbed into Assyria, and only when it
reasserted its independence a century later did it
become powerful enough to have caused any fear to
the Jews.
It will not be necessary to discuss the other pro
phecies at length, since that they all refer to the events
in question is generaUy admitted. Indeed, in some
1 2 Kings 20. ii (margin, R.V.).

JEWISH PROPHECIES. 23I
cases, owing to the mention of names and details, it
cannot possibly be denied. And therefore, of course,
those who disbelieve in prophecy have no alternative
but to say that they were all written after the event.
At this lapse of time it is difficult to prove or disprove
such a statement. But it must be remembered that to
say that any apparent prophecies were written after
the event is hot merely to destroy their superhuman
character, and bring them down to the level of ordinary
writings, but far below it. For ordinary writings do not
contain wilful misstatements, and yet every pretended
prophecy written after the event cannot possibly be
regarded in any other light. The choice then lies
between real prophecies and wilful forgeries. There is
no other alternative. And bearing this in mind, we
must ask, is it likely that men of such high moral
character as the Hebrew prophets, — men who declared
that they spoke in the name of God, — should have
been guilty of such gross imposture ? Is it likely that,
if guilty of it, they should have been able to palm it off
successfuUy on the whole Jewish nation ? And is it
likely that they should have had any sufficient motive
to induce them to make the attempt ?
Moreover, many of these prophecies are stated to
have been made in public, and to have been notorious
and weU known long before their fulfilment. And it is
hard to see how this could have been asserted unless it
was the case, or how it could have been the case unless
they were superhuman.
It should also be noticed that in Deuteronomy the
occurrence of some definite and specified event is given

232 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xi.
as the test of a prophet, and the later prophets appeal
to this very test. Thus Isaiah challenges the false
prophets to foretell future events, and repeatedly
asserts that this was the mark of a true prophet.1 And
it seems inconceivable that men should thus court
defeat by themselves proposing a test which would
have shown that they were nothing more than impos
tors. And yet this would have been the case if all
their so-called prophecies had been uttered after the
events. Lastly, it is important to notice what we may call the
moral aspect of these prophecies. Their object was
not to satisfy mere curiosity as to the future ; they had
a very different purpose. The prophet and the teacher
were then combined, and the prophecies were, as a rule,
only a means of enforcing the teaching, more especially
God's overruling providence in the affairs of men.
And therefore in almost every case the reason why
the event was to come was foretold as plainly as the
event itself. And prophecy thus became the inter
preter of history, showing the Jews what were the
objects God had in view in the various events which
befeU them.
And it has this moral use still. For though it is a
truth of Natural Theology that God governs the world,
and carries out His purposes in the history of men just
as much as in the course of nature, yet it is a truth
likely to be forgotten. And the history of the Jews
enforces it on us in an instructive manner. We here see
what we may call a small sample of the world's history,
1 Deut. 18. 22 ; Isa. 41. 22 ; 44. 8 ; 48. 3-5 ; see also Deut. 13. 1-3.

JEWISH PROPHECIES. 233
annotated by God Himself, with His object in bringing
about every important event announced beforehand ;
this prior announcement being, of course, necessary to
show that they were really God's purposes, and not the
subsequent guesses of men.
(C.) Conclusion.
In concluding this chapter, we must notice the
cumulative nature of the evidence. The instances we
have enumerated of prophecies, and the same applies
to the miracles mentioned in the last chapter, are but
specimens, a few out of many which might be given.
This is very important, and its bearing on our present
argument is naturally twofold.
In the first place, it does not at all increase, and in
some respects rather decreases, the. difficulty of believ
ing them to be genuine, for thirty miracles or pro
phecies, provided they occur on suitable occasions, are
scarcely more difficult to believe than three. And the
number recorded in the Old Testament shows that,
instead of being mere isolated marvels, they form a
complete series. Their object was the gradual in
struction of the Jews, and through them of the rest of
the world, in the great truths of Natural Theology,
such as the existence of One Supreme God, who was
shown to be All-Powerful by the miracles, All-Wise by
the prophecies, and All-Good by His rewarding and
punishing men and nations alike for their deeds. And
it may be added many who now believe Natural
Theology alone, and reject all revelation, would prob
ably never have believed even this but for the Bible.
On the other hand, the number and variety of these

234 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xi.
aUeged events increase the difficulty of any other ex
planation to an enormous extent, for thirty miracles or
prophecies are far more difficult to disbelieve than
three. A successful fraud might take place once, but
not often. An imitation miracle might be practised
once, but not often. Spurious prophecies might be
mistaken for genuine once,. but not often. And yet, if
none of these events are true, such frauds and such
deceptions must have been practised, and practised
successfully, over and over again. In short, the Old
Testament must be a collection of the most dishonest
books ever written, for it is full of miracles and pro
phecies from beginning to end ; and it is hard to ex
aggerate the immense moral difficulty of accepting such
a view. Many of the Jewish prophets, as before said,
inculcate the highest moral virtues ; and the Jewish
religion, especially in its later days, is admittedly of
high moral character. It seems, then, to be almost
incredible that its sacred writings should be merely a
collection of spurious prophecies uttered after the
event and false miracles which never occurred. We
therefore decide in this chapter that it seems probable
that the history of the Jewish religion was attested by
prophecies.

CHAPTER XII.
THAT THEREFORE THE JEWISH RELIGION IS
PROBABLY TRUE.
Only one subject remains to be discussed, the Character ascribed to
God in the Old Testament.
(A.) Its Partiality.
But any revelation must be more or less partial.
(B.) Its Difficulties.
(i.) Mental difficulties, or anthropomorphism ; but we must
use representative terms when speaking of the Deity,
and the writers quite understood the terms to be
such.
(2.) Moral difficulties ; since God is shown as approving of
wicked men, ordering wicked deeds, and sanctioning
wicked customs ; but these objections are not so
great as they seem.
(C.) Its General Excellence.
The Jews firmly believed in Monotheism, and had the
highest mental and moral conception of the Deity ; so
that their religion was Natural Theology, only with
certain additions.
(D.) Conclusion. The Jewish Religion is probably true.
We have been considering in the previous chapters
several strong arguments in favour of the Jewish
Religion ; and before concluding we must of course
notice any adverse arguments which we have not
235

236 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xii.
already examined. The only one of any importance
refers to the Character ascribed to God in the Old Testa
ment, and we will consider this under the three heads
of its partiality, its difficulties, and its general excellence,
and will then conclude with some general remarks.
(A.) Its Partiality.
And first as to the alleged partiality in God's Char
acter. The objection here is that God is the just God
of all mankind, and it is therefore incredible that He
should have selected a single nation to be His special
favourites, more particularly as His alleged attempt
to make them a holy people proved such a hopeless
failure. While it is further urged that the very fact of
the Jews believing Jehovah to be their special God
shows that they regarded Him as a mere national God,
bearing the same relation to themselves as the gods
of other nations did to them.
But, as said in Chapter VI., any Revelation implies
a certain partiality to the men or nation to whom it is
given ; but it is not therefore incredible. And there
is certainly no reason why the Jews should not have
been the nation chosen, and some slight reason why
they should ; for their ancestor Abraham was not
selected without a cause. He did, partly at least,
deserve it, since, judging by the only accounts we have,
he showed the most unbounded confidence in God in
leaving his home in Haran, and the most implicit
obedience to God in his willingness to offer up Isaac ;
and such confidence and obedience may well have
deserved a blessing. It must also be remembered
that God's so-called partiality to the Jews did not

TRUTH OF JEWISH RELIGION. 237
imply any indulgence to them in the sense of over
looking their faults. On the contrary, He is repre
sented aU along as blaming and punishing them, just
as much as other nations, for their iniquities.
Next, as to God's purpose in regard to Israel having
been a failure. This is only partly true. No doubt
the Israelites were, with many bright exceptions, a
sinful nation ; but they were not worse than, or even so
bad as, the nations around them ; it was only the fact
of their being the chosen race that made their sins so
heinous. They had free will, just as men have now ;
and if they chose to misuse their freedom and act
wrong, that was not God's fault. Moreover, Israel was
not selected merely for its own sake, but for the sake
of all mankind. This is expressly stated at the very
commencement, ' In thee shall all the families of the
earth be blessed.'1 And this strange promise has cer
tainly been fulfilled ; for however sinful the nation may
have been, they preserved and handed on God's revela
tion, and the Old Testament remains, and will always
remain, as a permanent and priceless treasure of religion.
The last part of the objection, that God's alleged
selection of the Israelites shows that they believed
their Jehovah to be only a national God, may be
dismissed at once, as it proves precisely the opposite.
For if Jehovah selected Israel to be His people, He
must have had a power of choice, and might, if He
pleased, have selected some other nation, and there
fore He could not have been a mere national God, but
the God of all nations, with power to select among
1 Gen. 12. 3.

238 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xn.
them. And this is distinctly asserted by many of the
writers.1 We conclude, then, that God's partiality to the Jews
does not, when carefully considered, form a great diffi
culty. To put it shortly, if a revelation is given at
all, some individuals must be selected to receive it ;
if it is given gradually (and God's methods in nature
are always those of gradual development) these men
must in all probability belong to a single nation ; and
if one nation has to be selected, there is no reason why
the Jews should not have been the one chosen ; while,
if they were selected for the purpose of handing on
God's revelation to the world at large, the purpose has
been completely successful.
(B.) Its Difficulties.
Passing on now to the difficulties in God's Character,
these may be conveniently classed under the two heads
of mental and moral.
(1.) Mental difficulties.
The objection here is that the Jewish idea of God
is very anthropomorphic, the Deity being represented
as a great Man, with human form, feelings, attributes,
and imperfections. Thus He has hands and arms,
eyes and ears ; He is at times glad or sorry, angry or
jealous ; He moves about from place to place ; and
sometimes repents of what He has done, thus showing,
it is urged, a want of foresight on His part. And all
this is plainly inconsistent with the character of the
immaterial, omnipresent, omniscient God of nature.
The answer to this objection is twofold.
1 E.g., Deut. 32. 8 ; 2 Chron. 20. 6 ; Isa. 37. 16 ; Amos. 9. 7.

TRUTH OF JEWISH RELIGION. 239
In the first place, it is almost impossible for the
human mind to form any conception of the Deity
which is not to some extent anthropomorphic, which
merely means human. For a moment's reflection will
show that we are bound to use what are called repre
sentative terms (Chapter VIII.) when speaking of the
Deity. And if such terms are used at all, those drawn
from human analogies are not only the easiest to under
stand, but are also the least inappropriate, since, as we
have shown, man resembles God in that he is a per
sonal and moral being ; and therefore likening God to
man is not so degrading as likening Him to natural
forces. Such expressions, then, must always be con
sidered as descriptions drawn from human analogies
which cannot be pressed literally.
While, secondly, it is plain that the Jewish writers
themselves so understood them, for they elsewhere
describe the Deity in the most exalted language, as
will be shown later on. And this is strongly confirmed
by the remarkable fact that the Jews, unlike other
ancient nations, had no material idol or representation
of their Deity. Inside both the tabernacle and the
temple there was the holy of holies with the mercy-
seat, but no one sat on it. An empty throne was all
that the shrine contained. Their Jehovah was essen
tially an invisible God, who could not be represented
by any human or other form ; and this alone seems a
sufficient answer to the present objection.
(2.) Moral difficulties.
Next as to the moral difficulties. Many of these
depend on single texts, or doubtful passages, and so

240 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xii.
need scarcely be examined ; but there are at least three
of a more general character. These are that God is
frequently represented as approving of wicked men,
as ordering wicked deeds, and even in His own laws as
sanctioning . wicked customs. We will consider these
points in turn.
And first as to God's approving of wicked men ; that
is, of men who committed the greatest crimes, such
as Jacob and David. This is easily answered, since
approving of a man does not mean approving of
everything he does. The case of David affords a con
vincing example of this ; for though he is represented
as a man after God's own heart, yet we are told that
God was so extremely displeased with one of his acts
that He punished him for it severely in causing his
child to die. In the same way no one supposes that
God approved of Jacob because of his treachery, but
in spite of it. Moreover, in estimating a man's char
acter, his education and surroundings have always to
be taken into account. And therefore, if the conduct
of one man living in an immoral age is far better than
that of his contemporaries, he may be worthy of praise,
though similar conduct at the present day might not
deserve it.
And if it be asked what there was in the character of
these men, and many others, to counterbalance their
obvious crimes, the answer is plain : it was their
intense and unfaltering belief in the spiritual world.
The existence of One Supreme God, and their per
sonal responsibility to Him, were realities to them
aU through life ; and therefore, in spite of many

TRUTH OF JEWISH RELIGION. 24I
faults, they were, on the whole, worthy of com
mendation. Next as to God's ordering wicked deeds. In all cases
of this kind it is important to distinguish between a
man's personal acts and his official ones. At the
present day the judge who condemns a criminal and
the executioner who hangs him are not looked upon as
murderers. And the same principle applies among
unciviUsed nations. If the ruler of the country decides
that a man is worthy of death, and thereupon sends
someone to kill him, his doing so is not a murder in the
ordinary sense. It is merely carrying out the command
of the sovereign, which may or may not be justified.
Now in the Old Testament the Israelites are repre
sented as living under the immediate rule of God.
He was their true Sovereign, and therefore when a man,
or body of men, had to be punished for their crimes,
He commanded some prophet or king, or perhaps the
whole people, to carry out the sentence. And of course,
if they failed to do so, even from kindness of heart, they
were blamed, just as we should blame a hangman at
the present day who failed to do his duty.
Thus, in the case of destroying the Canaanites, which
is the instance most often objected to, the Israelites
were told, in the plainest terms, that they were only
acting as God's ministers, and that if they behaved as
badly as the Canaanites, God would have them exter
minated too.1 This was not the usual way in which
they were to carry on wars, but the Canaanites, for
their special and exceptional wickedness, had to be
1 E.g., Lev. 18. 28 ; Deut. 9. 5. 16

242 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xii.
specially punished. They were in fact a horribly
polluted race,1 and it was quite in accord with God's
methods in nature (where the unfit are always de
stroyed) to have them exterminated. And viewed in
this light, the difficulties under this head are very greatly
reduced, even if they do not disappear altogether.
A more serious objection is that God is occasionally
represented as if He Himself caused men to do wrong,
such as His hardening Pharaoh's heart.2 But this may
be only another instance in which the Bible omits all
secondary causes, and refers everything direct to the
First Cause (see Chapter VII.). And as the writer
asserts more than once that Pharaoh hardened his own
heart,3 there can be little doubt that he meant the two
expressions to be synonymous.
Lastly, as to God's sanctioning wicked customs. The
most important is that of- human sacrifice ; but it is
extremely doubtful whether the passages relied on
do sanction this custom ;4 since it is clearly laid down
elsewhere that the firstborn of men are never to be
sacrificed, but are always to be redeemed. While
human sacrifices among other nations are strongly
condemned, in one passage Jehovah expressly saying
that they were not to be offered to Him.5 It is, how
ever, further urged that we have two actual instances
of such sacrifices in the case of Isaac and Jephthah.6
But with regard to Jephthah, he evidently had no
1 Lev. 18. 20-25. 2 E.g., Exod. 14. 4.
3 Exod. 8. 15, 32 ; 9. 34 ; 10. 3.
* Exod. 22. 29, 30 ; Lev. 27. 28, 29.
6 Exod. 13. 13 ; 34. 20 ; Num. 18. 15 ; Deut. 12. 31.
6 Gen. 22; Judg. 11. 39.

TRUTH OF JEWISH RELIGION. 243
idea when he made his vow that it would involve the
sacrifice of his daughter. Having made it, however, he
determined to keep it ; and during the two months
which intervened no one seems to have tried to dis
suade him from it. This certainly shows that human
sacrifices were not regarded with the same abhorrence
then as they are now ; but it does not show that they
were ever ordered by God, or in any way acceptable
to Him.
In the case of Isaac we have the one instance in
which God did order a human sacrifice ; but this is
worthless as an argument, since He specially inter
vened to prevent the order from being carried out.
And the whole affair, the command and the counter-
command, must of course be taken together. It was
required to test Abraham's faith to the utmost, and
therefore as he most valued his son he was ordered to
offer him. And since children were then universally
regarded as property, and at the absolute disposal
of their parents, human sacrifices being by no means
uncommon, the command, however distressing to his
heart, would have formed no difficulty to his con
science. But when his faith was found equal to the
trial, God interposed, as He had of course intended
doing aU along, to prevent Isaac from being actually
slain. Thus we have not a single instance of a
deliberate human sacrifice offered to Jehovah in the
whole course of Jewish history before or after the
Exodus, and this is an additional reason against
interpreting these doubtful laws as if they ordered such
sacrifices.
16 — 2

244 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xii.
With regard to the other practices, such as slavery,
polygamy, and trial by ordeal, it is undisputed that they
were recognised by the Mosaic laws, and also that they
are quite opposed to our modern ideas of right and
wrong. But it must be remembered that none of
these practices were instituted by the laws. The
Pentateuch neither commands them nor commends
them ; it merely mentions them, and, as a rule, to
guard against their abuse. Take, for instance, the
case of slavery. The custom was, and had been for
ages, universal. All the Mosaic laws did was to
recognise its existence and to provide certain safer
guards ; making kidnapping, for instance, a capital
offence, and ordering the periodic release of slaves.1
On the other hand, many worse customs existed at
the time which the Jewish laws did rigorously forbid,2
so that the case stands thus : At the time of the
Exodus society was in an extremely low moral state.
Many of its worst customs were absolutely forbidden
by the laws ; others were sanctioned, though in a
mitigated form. While at the same time a code of
morals was introduced, summed up in the Decalogue,
of such permanent value that it has been practically
accepted by the civilised world.
(C.) Its General Excellence.
Having now discussed the alleged mental and moral
difficulties in God's character at some length, it is only
fair to see what can be said on the other side. And
much indeed may be said ; for the Jewish conception
of .the Deity, when considered as a whole, and apart
1 Exod. 21. 2, 16 ; Lev. 25. 41. 2 E.g., Lev. 18-20-

TRUTH OF JEWISH RELIGION. 245
from these special difficulties, was one of the loftiest
ever formed by man.
To begin with, the Jews firmly believed in Mono
theism, or the existence of One Supreme God. This
was the essence of their religion. It is stamped on
the first page of Genesis ; it is implied in the Deca
logue ; it occurs all through the historical books ;
it is emphasised in the Psalms and Prophets. They
were never without it, and it made them into a nation.
And in this, respect the Jews stood alone among the
surrounding nations. Some others, it is true, believed
in a God who was more or less Supreme ; but they
always associated with him a variety of lesser deities,
which really turned their religion into Polytheism.
With the Jews it was not so. Their Jehovah had
neither rivals nor assistants. He was the one and only
God ; and as for the so-caUed gods of other nations,
they looked upon them as either non-existent or utterly
contemptible, and even ridiculed the idea of their
having the slightest power.1 And it may be added,
this is a subject on which the Jews have become the
teachers of the world, for both the great monotheistic
Religions of the present day, Christianity and Mahomet
anism, have been derived from them.
Moreover, the great problem of the Existence of Evil
never led the Jews, as it did some other nations, into
Dualism, or the belief in an independent Evil Power.
Difficult as the problem was, the Jews never faltered
in their belief that there was but One Supreme God
and that therefore everything that existed, whether
1 Deut. 4. 39 ; 1 Kings 18. 27 ; 2 Kings 19. 15-18 ; Ps. 115. 4-8.

246 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xii.
good or evil, existed by His permission, and was in a
certain sense His doing.1 But this is not all, for the
Jews ascribed to this Supreme God the very highest
attributes. His name, Jehovah or I Am, implied the
Self-Existent One, and they exhausted language to
proclaim His excellence.
They described Him as Omnipotent ; the Creator,
Preserver, and Possessor of all things, the Cause of all
nature, the Sustainer of aU life, Almighty in power,
and with whom nothing is too hard.2
They described Him as Omniscient ; infinite in
understanding, wonderful in counsel, perfect in know
ledge, the Designer of all nature down to its smallest
details, knowing and foreknowing even the thoughts
of men.3
They described Him as Omnipresent ; filling Heaven
and earth, though contained by neither, existing
everywhere, and from Whom escape is impossible.4
They described Him as Eternal ; the Eternal God,
the Everlasting God, God from everlasting to ever
lasting, Whose years are unsearchable, the First and
the Last.5
They described Him as Unchangeable ; the same at
aU times, ruUng nature by fixed laws, and with Whom
a change of purpose is impossible.6
1 Isa. 45. 7 ; Prov. 16. 4 ; Job 2. 6 ; Exod. 3. 14.
2 Gen. 1. 1 ; Neh. 9. 6 ; Gen. 14. 22 ; Amos 5. 8 ; Job 12. 10 ;
1 Chron. 29. 11 ; Jer. 32. 17.
3 Ps. 147. 5 ; Isa. 28. 29 ; Job 37. 16; Prov. 3. 19 ; Ps. 94. 9 ;
Ezek. 11. 5 ; Ps. 139. 2.
4 Jer. 23. 24 ; 1 Kings 8. 27 ; Prov. 15. 3 ; Ps. 139. 7.
5 Deut. 33. 27 ; Gen. 21. 33 ; Ps. 90. 2 ; Job 36. 26 ; Isa. 48. 12.
6 Mal. 3. 6 ; Ps. 148. 6 ; Num. 23. 19.

TRUTH OF JEWISH RELIGION. 247
And lastly, they described Him as in His true
nature Unknowable ; far above human understanding,
a hidden God, and showing but the outskirts of His
ways.1 This will be enough to show the lofty mental
conception which the Jews formed of the Deity.
And it may be added, after more than twenty centuries
of progress, we cannot improve upon it at the present
day. But now for their moral conception. They believed
their God to be not only infinite in power and wisdom,
but also, what is more remarkable, they ascribed to
Him the highest moral character. It is needless to
quote texts here, as the fact is indisputable. He was
not only a beneficent God, Whose blessings were un
numbered, but He was a righteous God also. His
very Name was Holy, and His hatred of evil is empha
sised aU through to such an extent that at times it
forms a difficulty, as in the extermination of the
Canaanites. Thus the goodness they ascribed to God
was a combination of beneficence and righteousness
very similar to what we discussed in Chapter V.
Moreover, in this respect the God of the Jews was a
striking contrast to the gods of the surrounding nations.
We have only to compare Jehovah with Moloch and
Baal, or with the Egyptian gods, Ptah and Ra, or with
the classical gods, Jupiter and Saturn, and the superi
ority of the Jewish conception of the Deity is beyond
dispute. In particular it may be noticed that other
nations had the revolting habit of ascribing sexuality
to their deities. Even the gods they worshipped as
1 Job 11. 7 ; Isa, 40. 28 ; 45. 15 ; Job 26. 14.

248 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xii.
more or less supreme always had their female com
panions. Thus we have Baal and Astaroth, Bel and
Istar, Osiris and Isis, Zeus and Hera, Jupiter and
Juno, and numbers of others. It is needless to point
out how easily such an idea led to immorality being
mixed up with religion, a vice from which the Jews
were absolutely free. Indeed, few things are more
remarkable, even with this remarkable people, than
that the innermost shrine of their temple contained
a code of moral laws, the Ten Commandments. This
was the very centre of their religion, their most cherished
possession ; and they believed them to have been written
by God Himself.
Nor can it be said that this high conception of the
Deity was confined to the later period of Jewish
history. For the above texts have been purposely
selected from all through the Old Testament, and even
Abraham, the remote ancestor of the Jews, seems to
have looked upon it as self-evident that Jehovah,
the Judge of all the earth, should do right.1 No wonder,
then, believing in such a perfect Being as this, the Jews,
in contrast with most other nations, thought that their
first and great commandment was to love God rather
than to fear Him, that they were each individually
responsible to Him for their conduct, and that every
sin was a sin against God, Who was a searcher of
hearts, and the impartial Judge of all men.2 So
much, then, for the Jewish conception of the Deity
1 Gen. 18. 25.
2 Deut. 6. 5 ; Eccles. 12. 14 ; Gen. 39. 9 ; 1 Chron. 28. 9 ; Job
34. 19.

TRUTH OF JEWISH RELIGION. 249
when considered as a whole and apart from special
difficulties. Now what is all this but to say that the Jewish God,
Jehovah, was the true God, the God of Natural
Theology, the Being Who is AU-Powerful, AU-Wise,
and All-Good, and Whose existence and attributes
have been discussed in the earlier chapters of this
Essay ? In short, the Jewish Religion was Natural
Theology, with some additional, though not incon
sistent, rites ; and this cannot be said of other ancient
religions. And it may be noticed in passing that Natural
Theology also has its moral difficulties, since such
events as earthquakes and plagues have often been
urged against the goodness of God with much greater
force than anything that occurs in the Bible. But
in each case we infer God's character from the vast
majority of facts, and then try and find some explana
tion for the smaU minority. And, as we have seen,
such explanations are not, as a rule, hard to find in
regard to the moral difficulties of the Old Testament.
While few will deny that the Bible, both Old and New
Testaments, with all its so-called moral defects, has
done more to improve the Uves of men than any other
book that was ever written.
The idea, then, that the character ascribed to God
in the Old Testament renders the Jewish religion in
credible, or even improbable, is out of the question.
Difficulties there may be here and there, but they sink
into utter insignificance when contrasted with its
general excellence. And yet strange to say the Jews

250 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xii.
were not a more advanced nation than those around
them. On the contrary, in the arts both of peace and
war they were vastly inferior to the great nations of
antiquity, but in their conception of the Deity they were
vastly superior ; or, as it has been otherwise expressed,
they were men in religion though children in everything
else. And this appears to many to be a strong argu
ment in favour of their religion. For unless it was
revealed to them by God Himself, it is not likely that
the Jews alone among ancient nations would have
arrived at the true conception of the Deity. And unless
they were in some peculiar sense God's people, it is
not likely that they alone would have worshipped Him.
(D.) Conclusion.
Before concluding this chapter, we must notice three
arguments of a more general character ; all of which are
undisputed, and all of which are distinctly in favour of
the Jewish religion. The first is that the Jews are any
how a unique nation. For centuries, though scattered
throughout the world, they have been held together
by their religion. If this was, as far as it went, the
true religion, the fact is to some extent exphcable ;
but if their religion was nothing better than other
ancient and false religions, it is hopelessly inexplic
able. The second is that their early history, either real or
supposed, has exerted a greater and more beneficial
influence on the world for the last thousand years, than
that of all the great nations of antiquity put together.
Millions of men have been helped to resist sin by the
Psalms of David, and the stories of Elijah, Daniel, etc.,

TRUTH OF JEWISH RELIGION. 251
over whom the histories of Egypt and Assyria, Greece
and Rome, have had no influence whatever. And the
effect of the Religion being thus unique, raises a pre
sumption that its cause may have been unique also ;
in other words that it may have been divinely revealed.
The third is that the Jews themselves always pro
phesied that their God, Jehovah, would one day be
universally acknowledged.1 And (however strange we
may think it) this has actually been the case, and the
God of this small and insignificant tribe — the God of '
Israel — is now worshipped by millions and millions of
men (Christians) of every race, language, and country,
throughout the civilised world. These are facts that
need explanation, and the Truth of the Jewish Religion
seems alone able to explain them.
In conclusion it is scarcely necessary to give a
summary of the arguments in this portion (Part II.) of
the Essay. Suffice it to say that in the previous
chapters we have shown that there are strong reasons
for thinking that the account of the Creation was
divinely revealed ; that the origin of the Jewish religion
was attested by miracles ; and that its history was
attested both by miracles and prophecies. And it should
be noticed, each of these arguments is independent of
the others. We have not, for instance, assumed the
Divine origin of the religion, when arguing about its
history, or either of these when discussing the first
chapter of Genesis. Thus the evidence is all cumulative
and far more than sufficient to outweigh the improba
bility of the religion, due to its apparent favouritism,
1 E.g., Ps. 22. 27 ; 86. 9 ; Isa. 11. 9.

252 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xii.
which is the most important argument on the opposite
side ; as the other difficulties discussed in this chapter
are comparatively trivial. Moreover, we know so little
as to why man was created, or what future God intended
for him, that it is not easy to say whether the religion
is really so improbable after all. On the other hand,
the evidence in its favour is plain, direct, and un
mistakable. And we therefore decide that the Jewish
Religion is probably true.

PART III.
THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
CHAP. XIII. THAT THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS CREDIBLE.
„ XIV. THAT THE FOUR GOSPELS ARE AUTHENTIC FROM EX
TERNAL TESTIMONY.
„ XV. THAT THE GOSPELS ARE AUTHENTIC FROM INTERNAL
EVIDENCE.
XVI. THAT THE GOSPELS ARE AUTHENTIC FROM THE EVIDENCE
OF THE ACTS.
„ XVII. THAT THEREFORE THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST IS
PROBABLY TRUE.
,, XVIII. THAT THE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES ARE
PROBABLY TRUE.
XIX. THAT THE JEWISH PROPHECIES CONFIRM THE TRUTH OF
CHRISTIANITY.
„ XX. THAT THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST CONFIRMS THE TRUTH
' OF CHRISTIANITY.
,, XXI. THAT THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY ALSO CONFIRMS ITS
TRUTH.
,, XXII. THAT ON THE WHOLE THE OTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTS
THIS CONCLUSION.
,, XXIII. THAT THE THREE CREEDS ARE DEDUCIBLE FROM THE
NEW TESTAMENT.
,, XXIV. THAT THEREFORE THE TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN
RELIGION IS EXTREMELY PROBABLE.

253

CHAPTER XIII.
THAT THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS CREDIBLE.
By the Christian Religion is meant the Three Creeds.
(A.) The Doctrine of the Trinity.
(i.) Its meaning"; Three Persons in One Nature.
(2.) Its credibility.
(3.) Its relation to Natural Theology, more probable than
simple Theism.
(B.) The Doctrine of the Incarnation.
(1.) Its difficulties ; not insuperable.
(2.) Its motive ; God, it is said, loves man, and wishes man
to love Him, and this is not improbable for several
reasons.
(3.) Its historical position.
(C.) The Doctrine of the Atonement.
The common objections do not apply because of the
willingness of the Victim.
(1.) As to the Victim ; this does away with the injustice.
(2.) As to the Judge ; it appeals to His mercy not justice.
(3.) As to the sinner ; it has no demoralising tendency.
(D.) The Doctrine of the Resurrection.
(1.) Christ's Resurrection ; not incredible, for we have no
experience to judge by.
(2.) Man's resurrection ; not incredible, for the same body
need not involve the same molecules.
(E.) Conclusion. Four important considerations which show that the Christian
Religion, though improbable, is certainly not incredible.
We pass on now to the Christian Religion, by which we
mean the facts and doctrines contained in the Three
255

256 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiii.
Creeds, commonly, though perhaps incorrectly, called-
the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian. And,
as these doctrines are of such vast importance, and of
so wonderful a character, we must first consider whether
they are credible. Is it conceivable that such doctrines
should be true, no matter what evidence they may
have in their favour ? In this chapter, therefore, we
shall deal chiefly with the difficulties of Christianity.
Now its four great and characteristic doctrines are
those of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement,
and the Resurrection ; and we will examine each in
turn, and then conclude with a few general remarks.
(^4.) The Doctrine of the Trinity.
To begin with, the Christian religion differs from all
others in its idea of the nature of God. According
to Christianity, the Deity exists in some mysterious
manner as a Trinity of Persons in a Unity of Nature ;
so we will first consider the meaning of this doctrine,
then its credibility, and then its relation to Natural
Theology. It is not, as some people suppose, a kind of
intellectual puzzle, but a statement which, whether true
or false, is fairly intelligible, provided, of course, due
attention is given to the meaning of the words
employed. (1.) Its meaning.
In the first place, we must carefully distinguish
between Person and Substance ; this is the key to the
whole question. The former has been already con
sidered in Chapters III. and IV., though it must be
remembered that this term, like all others, when
applied to God, cannot mean exactly the same as it

CHRISTIANITY. 257
does in regard to man. All we can say is that, on the
whole, it seems the least inappropriate word. The
latter is a difficult term to define, and is rather mis
leading, since it is not the modern English word, but a
Latin translation of a Greek word, which would be
better rendered by nature or essence.
But though difficult to define, its meaning is tolerably
clear. Take, for instance, though the analogy must not
be pressed too far, the case of three men ; each is a
distinct human person, but they all have a common
human nature. This human nature, which may also be
called human substance (in its old sense) , humanity, or
manhood, has of course no existence apart from the
men whose nature it is ; it is merely that which they
each possess in common, and the possession of which
constitutes each a man. And hence, any attribute
belonging to human nature as such would belong to
each of the three men, so that each would be mortal,
each subject to growth, etc., each would in fact possess
the complete human nature, and yet together there
would not be three human natures, but only one.
Bearing this in mind, let us now turn to the doctrine
of the Trinity. This is expressed in vv. 3-6 of the
Athanasian Creed as follows : —
3. ' The Catholic Faith is this, that we worship one
God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.
4. ' Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing
the Substance.
5. ' For (i.e., because) there is one Person of the
Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy
Ghost. 17

258 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xiii
6. ' But (on the other hand) the Godhead of the
Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one,
the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.'
Here, it will be noticed, vv. 5 and 6 give the reasons
for v. 4, so that the Godhead in v. 6 is, as we should
have expected, equivalent to the Divine Substance or
Nature in v. 4. Thus the meaning is as follows : —
We must worship one God (as to Nature) in Trinity
(of Persons) and Trinity (of Persons) in Unity (of
Nature) ; neither confusing the Persons, for each is
distinct ; nor dividing the Nature, for it is all one.
Thus far there is no intellectual difficulty in the
statements of the Creed. We do not mean that there
is no difficulty in believing them to be true, or in
accurately defining the terms used ; but that, as state
ments, their meaning is quite intelligible.
We now pass on to the following verses which are
deductions from this, and show that as each of the
three Persons possesses the Divine Nature, all attributes
of the Deity (i.e., of this one Divine Nature) are pos
sessed by each of the three. Each is therefore eternal,
and yet there is only one eternal nature. But this is
expressed in a peculiarly short and abrupt manner.
No one of course supposes that God is Three in the same
sense in which He is One, but the Creed does not
sufficiently guard against this, perhaps because it never
occurred to its author that anyone would think it
meant such an obvious absurdity. Moreover, even
grammatically the verses are not very clear. For the
various terms uncreate, incomprehensible (i.e., bound
less, or omnipresent), eternal, Almighty, God, and Lord

CHRISTIANITY. 259
are used as if they were adjectives in the first part of
each sentence, and nouns in the latter part.
But we must remember these verses do not stand
alone. As just said, they are deductions from the
previous statement of the doctrine of the Trinity ;
and, therefore, they must in all fairness be interpreted
to agree with that doctrine, and not to contradict it.
And the previous verses (3-6) show clearly that where
three are spoken of, it refers to persons ; and where one
is spoken of, it refers to substance or nature. And of
course the same applies to all the attributes, including
God and Lord, though the statements here are often
thought to be a contradiction in terms. But this is not
the case. For the Creed nowhere asserts that there are
three Gods and yet but one God, which would be a
contradiction in terms. Nor does it say that the
Father is a God, the Son a God, etc., which would imply
that together there must be three Gods. What it does
say is that there are Three Persons, each of whom is
God, and yet but one God ; and though this statement,
if it stood alone, might be thought unintelligible, yet
considering the position it occupies in the Creed its
meaning is quite clear. God is Three in regard to
Personality, and One in regard to Nature.
While, however, admitting that this is the un
doubted meaning of all these verses, it is important
to add that the words seem to imply some closer
union between the Divine Persons than that of merely
possessing in common one Divine Nature. And,
therefore, the human analogy before considered is
misleading in some respects. Morepver, three men do
17 — 2

26o THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiii.
not make up the whole of humanity, but the three
Divine Persons do make up the whole of the Godhead.
In the same way the names given to these Divine
Persons are not independent names like those of
different men or of heathen gods, each of whom might
exist separately ; but they are aU relative names, each
implying the others. Thus the Father implies the Son,
for Fatherhood would be meaningless without Sonship ;
and of course an Everlasting Father implies an Ever
lasting Son, so that any idea of priority in point of time,
as in the case of a human father and son, is out of the
question. Similarly the Son implies the Father, and
the Spirit implies Him whose Spirit He is.
And though these names are no doubt very inade
quate, for human language is but the record of human
experience, and cannot therefore express that of which
we have no experience whatever, such as the nature of
God ; yet no better ones can be suggested, and they
certainly convey the idea of the Divine Persons being
of the same Nature or Substance, which is the all-
important point. We conclude then that the Doctrine
of the Trinity means the existence of three Divine
Persons, each possessing in its entirety the one Divine
Nature, and closely united together in an unknown, but
not therefore incredible, manner.
Before passing on it may be mentioned that numerous
analogies from nature have been suggested for the
doctrine of the Trinity. None of them, as we should
expect, are at all satisfactory, since the universe cannot
afford an ade.quate analogy to its Maker, any more than
the works of man can afford an adequate analogy to the

CHRISTIANITY. 26l
man himself, but still they are better than nothing.
Perhaps one of the least inadequate is that of solar light,
colour, and heat. Each is in a certain sense solar
radiance, and each is distinct from the others ; and yet
they are so closely united that together they form but
one radiance. Each is also co-extensive with the others
in time and space. There never was a time when there
was sunlight without colour and heat ; and if one is
eternal and omnipresent, so are the others. Each is
also in its true nature unknowable, and each is, as a
rule, invisible. But just as solar colour may be mani.
fested to us as the rainbow at a particular time and
place, and yet be omnipresent all the time, so Christians
believe that God the Son was manifested to the world
at a particular time and place, yet remaining omni.
present all the time. And just as heat, though
invisible, pervades the whole universe, and is the source
of aU life, so Christians beUeve that the Holy Spirit,
though invisible, is omnipresent, and, as the Creed says,
the Giver of Life. And the analogy could be illustrated
in many other details if necessary.
(2.) Its credibility.
Having now discussed the meaning of the Christian
doctrine, we have next to consider whether it is credible.
It must of course be admitted that the doctrine is very
mysterious, and though fairly inteUigible as a doctrine,
is extremely hard to realise (and some might say incon
ceivable) when we try to picture to ourselves what the
doctrine actuaUy means. But we must remember that
the nature of God is anyhow almost inconceivable, even
as simple Theism. We cannot picture to ourselves a

262 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiii.
Being Who is omnipresent, — in this room, for instance,
as well as on distant stars. Nor can we imagine a
Being Who is grieved every time we commit sin, for
if so, considering there are over twelve hundred million
persons in the world, He must be grieved many
thousands of times every second ; as well as being glad
whenever anyone resists sin, also, let us hope, several
thousand times a second. All this may be true, just as
the marvels of science — the luminiferous aether, for in
stance, with its millions of vibrations every second-
may be true, but our minds are quite unable to realise
any of them.
Thus, as said in Chapter III., though we have ample
means of knowing what God is in His relation to us as
our Creator and Judge, yet as to His real nature we
know next to nothing. Nor is this surprising when we
remember that the only being who in any way resembles
God is man ; and that man's nature, notwithstanding all
our opportunities of studying it, still remains a mystery.
Now Christianity does attempt (in its doctrine of the
Trinity) to state what the Deity is in Himself, and
apart from His relation to us, or His operations in
nature ; and that this should be to a great extent in
conceivable to our minds seems a necessity of the case.
Indeed, any doctrine of the Deity which we could
thoroughly understand would be self-condemned, for
the nature of God must be to a great extent beyond
human understanding, just as the nature of man is
beyond the understanding of animals ; though they
may realise what man is to them, in his power or his
kindness. And for aU we know plurality in unity, like

CHRISTIANITY. 263
omnipresence, may be one of the unique attributes of
the Deity, which cannot be understood (because it
cannot be shared) by anyone else. The mysteriousness
of the Christian doctrine is therefore, if we may use .the
expression, befitting the mysteriousness of its Subject ;
and it is certainly not incredible on this account.
(3.) Its relation to Natural Theology.
Lastly we must ask, how does the Christian doctrine
of God agree with that of Natural Theology ? There is
of course no possible contradiction between the two, for
the arguments of Natural Religion, though they show
the Unity of God, go no further than a unity of outward
action ; they do not and cannot tell us what this one
God is in Himself, whether He exists as one or more
Persons. In the same way (if we may without irrever
ence take a homely illustration) a dozen letters might
be so extremely alike as to show that they were all
written by one man, but this would npt tell us what the
man was in himself, whether, for instance, he had a
body and mind alone, or whether he had also a spirit or
free will, or how these were related to one another.
And therefore Natural Religion in no way conflicts with
Christianity. But still it is often thought that the Trinitarian
doctrine is much more difficult to believe than the
Unitarian, and perhaps it seems so at first sight. But
there are certainly some reasons for thinking the
contrary, for Unitarianism has been well described
as the easiest Religion to get, but the hardest to keep.
On the other hand, the doctrine of the Trinity is
addressed to the reason ; it requires thinking about

264 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiii.
and studying, but when carefuUy considered, it seems
to many to be less difficult to believe than simple
Theism. In the first place, the Christian doctrine meets to a
great extent what is perhaps the chief difficulty of
Theism, that of conceiving of an Infinite God who is
yet Personal. For, as shown in Chapter III., person
ality seems to imply a limitation and separation of
some kind ; and therefore an eternal Person would
require something else eternal, from which he is
separated ; and Natural Theology cannot of course
supply this, though Christianity can, as it believes in
more than one Divine Person. Thus on the Trini
tarian theory God is complete in Himself, and con
tains in His own Being all that is needed for His own
perfection ; whereas, on the Unitarian theory we have
either a solitary Being dwelling alone from all eternity,
or else we must make the universe itself eternal to be
His .companion.
And both these theories have enormous difficulties.
Take for instance the attributes of Power and Wisdom,
both of which, as we have seen, are necessarily involved
in the idea of a Personal Being, able to design. How
could a solitary God dwelling alone before the Creation
of the world have been able to exercise either His
Power or His Wisdom ? As far as we can judge there
could have been no object for either. His Power could
have produced nothing, His Wisdom could have thought
of nothing. He would have been a potential God only,
with all His capacities unrealised. And when care
fully considered, such a view seems quite incredible.

CHRISTIANITY. 265
And yet the only other alternative requires not only
that the world itself should be eternal ; but makes it
in reality as necessary to God, as God is to the world ;
and this is hardly a satisfactory theory.
Nor is it in any way an adequate one. For though
a material universe, existing eternally, might supply
an object for God's Power and Wisdom, yet as we have
seen God possesses moral attributes as well, such as
Goodness. He is in fact a Moral, as well as a Personal
Being. And all moral attributes — everything con
nected with right and wrong — can only be thought of
as existing between two persons. We cannot be good
to an atom of hydrogen, or unjust to a molecule of
water. We can it is true be kind to animals, but this
is simply because they resemble personal beings in
having a capacity for pleasure and pain. But moral
attributes in their highest perfection can only exist
between two persons. And therefore as the eternal
God possesses, and must always have possessed, such
attributes, it seems to require some other eternal
Person. And yet the idea of there being another God
is scarcely conceivable ; so we can only conclude (how
ever hard it may be to realise) that there must be more
than one Person, and yet but one God.
The argument is no doubt a difficult one to follow,
but a single example will help to explain it. Take
for instance the attribute of love. This, unless it is
mere self-love, requires at least two persons — one to
love, the other to be loved. And therefore if love has
always been an attribute of the Deity, it requires either
some other Eternal (and therefore Divine) Person to be

266 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiii.
loved ; or else that God should have been eternally
creating persons, like men or angels, as objects of His
love. And this latter seems not only improbable, but
also inadequate, as love, in its perfection, can only
exist between two beings of the same nature. And yet,
when we think of the meaning of the term God, His
omnipresence and omnipotence, it seems impossible
that there can be more than one. We are then forced
into this dilemma : we must believe in at least two
Eternal Persons, and yet in but one God ; and the
Christian doctrine of the Trinity in Unity seems the
least difficult explanation.
But this is not all, for Natural Theology itself leads
us to look upon the Deity in three distinct ways.
We may think of Him as the Eternal, Self-Existent
One, the Absolute and Unconditioned of modern
philosophy. Or we may think of Him as the Creator
and Evolver of the Universe, the Upholder of each
planet, the Designer of each plant ; the Being by
Whom the world was made, and Who perhaps will
one day be its Judge. Or, again, we may think of
Him in His relation to ourselves as a Divine Spirit,
holding intercourse with our spirits, and speaking to
us by our conscience. And yet our reason compels
us to acknowledge that the Divine Persons we thus
contemplate are but one God. And what is this but
the Christian doctrine of the Trinity in Unity ?
Or, to otherwise express it, according to philosophy,
the Deity is a Transcendent God, dwelling apart from
Nature, above and beyond the world. According to
science, He is an Immanent God, dwelling within

CHRISTIANITY. 267
Nature, the Omnipresent but Unknown Power which
is everywhere working. The former corresponds to
the mechanical idea of the universe, regarding God as
a Being who long ago made a perfect world, and has
since left it to itself ; the latter to the organic idea,
regarding God as still acting throughout the universe.
Both ideas may be illustrated, though of course im
perfectly, by human analogy ; for our spirit both
transcends matter, being above and distinct from our
bodies, and is also immanent in matter. The former
view leads to what is called Deism, the latter to Pan
theism in its higher forms. And considering how strong
a hold both these doctrines have had on the human
mind in all ages, there is doubtless some truth in each.
Christianity alone unites the two doctrines, and de
clares that God is both Transcendent and Immanent,
as weU as bearing some close relationship to our
selves, being in fact immanent in man as well as in
Nature, of which our conscience is a perpetual witness.
Or, to repeat it once more in a slightly different
form : there are, as is well known, three main argu
ments in favour of the existence of God. The first,
or that from Causation, is derived from the universe
requiring an external Cause to account for it, and leads
to the God of Philosophy. The second, or that from
Design, leads to the ever-active God of Nature. While
the third, or Moral argument, leads to the God of
Conscience. Now each of these arguments has been
already considered in Chapters I., II. , and V., and each
appears to be sound, and to require a distinct Divine
Person ; and yet it is obvious all the time that there

268 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xih.
can be but one God. And what, again, is this but the
Christian doctrine of the Trinity in Unity : the Father
the Source of all, the Son by Whom aU things were
made, and the Spirit bearing witness with our spirits ;
and yet not three Gods, but one God ? It is not, of
course, meant that the God of Philosophy, of Nature,
and of Conscience correspond accurately with the
Three Persons of the Christian Trinity, stiU less that
the Christian doctrine could have been derived from
any such speculations ; but merely that when the
two are compared there is seen to be a certain harmony
between them.
On the whole, then, we decide that the Doctrine of
the Trinity is certainly credible and perhaps slightly
probable ; for to put it shortly, Nature forces us to
believe in a personal God, and yet, when we reflect on
the subject, the idea of a personal God, Who is only one
Person, seems scarcely tenable.
(B.) The Doctrine of the Incarnation.
We next come to the doctrine of the Incarnation,
which however is so clearly stated in the Athanasian
Creed, that its meaning is quite plain. God the Son,
we are told, the second Person of the Trinity, was
pleased to become Man and to be born of the Virgin
Mary, so that He is now both God and Man. He is
God (from all eternity) of the Substance or Nature
of His Divine Father, and Man (since the Incarnation)
of the Substance or Nature of His human Mother ;
complete God and complete Man ; equal to the Father
as concerning His Godhead (for He is of the same
Nature) and inferior to the Father as concerning His

CHRISTIANITY. 269
Manhood (for human nature is necessarily inferior
to the Divine). Moreover, though He possesses these
two Natures, they are not changed one into the other,
or confused together, but each remains distinct, though
both are united in His One Person. This is in brief
the doctrine of the Incarnation, and we will first con
sider its difficulties, then its motive, and then its
historical position.
(1.) Its difficulties.
The first of these is that the Incarnation would be
a change in the existence of God, Who is the change
less One. He, it is urged, is omnipresent and always
the same, whereas an Incarnation would imply that
at some particular time and place a momentous change
occurred, and for ever afterwards God became different
from what He had been for ever before.
This is no doubt a serious objection, but it must not
be exaggerated. For an Incarnation would not strictly
speaking involve any change in the Divine Nature itself.
God the Son remained completely and entirely God all
the time, He was not (as just said) in any way changed
into a man, only He united to Himself a human nature
as weU. And then as to God's being brought into rela
tion with time and place, the creation of the world did
this long ago, for He created it, or began to create it, at
a certain definite time, and in a certain definite place.
And the same applies to the creation of man. And
perhaps if we knew more of the Nature of God, and
also of the nature of man, who we must remember was
made to some extent in the image of God, and this
possibly with a view to the Incarnation, we should see

270 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiii.
that it was just as natural for God to become Man, as
it was for God to create man. We have really nothing
to argue from. An Incarnation seems improbable, and
that is all we can say.
But if it took place at all, there is nothing surprising
in this planet being the one chosen for it. Indeed, as far
as we know, it is the only one that could be chosen,
since it is the only one which contains personal and
moral beings in whom God could become incarnate.
Of course other planets may contain such beings ; but
as said before (Chapter V.) this is only a conjecture,
and in the light of recent investigations not a very
probable one. While if they do contain such beings,
these may not have sinned, in which case our little
world, with its erring inhabitants, would be like the
lost sheep in the parable, the only one which the Ruler
of the Universe had to come and save.
The second difficulty is, that the Incarnation would
lead to a compound Being, who is both Divine and
human at the same time, and this is thought to be
inconceivable. But here the answer is obvious, and is
suggested by the Athanasian Creed. Man himself is a
compound being ; he is the union of a material body
and an immaterial spirit, in a single person. And the
Incarnation in which Christians believe is the union of
the Divine Nature and the human nature in a single
Person. Both appear equally improbable, and equally
inconceivable to our minds, if we try and think out all
that they involve ; but as the one is actually true, the
other is certainly not incredible.
The third and last of these difficulties refers to the

CHRISTIANITY. 27I
miraculous Virgin-birth. But if we admit the possi
bility of an Incarnation, no method of bringing it about
can be pronounced incredible. The event, if true, is
necessarily unique, and Gannot be supposed to come
under the ordinary laws of nature. Indeed, that a
child born in the usual way should be the Eternal God,
is just as miraculous as if He were born in any other
way. While considering that one object of the alleged
Incarnation was to promote moral virtues in man, such
as purity, the virgin-birth was most suitable, and
formed an appropriate beginning for a sinless life.
(2.) Its motive.
But we now come to a more important point, for the
Incarnation, if true, must have been the most momen
tous event in the world's history ; and can we imagine
a sufficient reason for it ? God we may be sure does
not act without motives, and what adequate motive
can be suggested for the Incarnation ? Now the
alleged motive, indeed the fundamental axiom of
Christianity, is that God loves man, and as a natural
consequence wishes man to love Him. Is this then
incredible, or even improbable ? Certainly not, for
several reasons.
To begin with, as we have already shown, God is a
Personal and Moral Being, Who cares for the welfare
of His creatures, more especially for man. And this,
allowing for the imperfection of human language, may
be described as God's loving man, since disinterested
love for another cannot be thought an unworthy attri
bute to ascribe to the Deity. On the other hand, man
is also a personal and moral being, able to some extent

272 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiii.
to return God's love. And to this must be added
the fact that man, at least some men, do not seem
altogether unworthy of God's love, while we certainly do
not know of any other being who is more worthy of it.
Moreover, considering the admitted resemblance
between God and man, the analogy of human parents
loving their children is not inappropriate. Human
parents often love their children intensely, and will
sometimes even die for them ; while, as a rule, the
better the parents are the more they love their children,
and this in spite of the children having many faults.
Is it, then, unlikely that the Creator may love His
children also, and that human love may be but a reflec
tion of this — a further application of the admitted law
that man is made in the image of God ? The evidence we
have may be slight, but it aU points the same way.
Now, if it be granted that God loves man, we have
plainly no means of estimating the extent of this love.
But by comparing the other attributes of God, such as
His wisdom and His power, with the similar attributes
of man, we should expect God's love to be infinitely
greater than any human love ; so great indeed that He
would be wiUing to make any sacrifice in order to gain
what is the object in aU love, that it should be
returned. Might not then God's love induce Him to
become Man, that He might the better win man's love ?
And it must be remembered that man's love, like his
will, is free. Compulsory love is in the nature of things
impossible, and therefore God cannot force man to love
Him, He can only induce Him ; and what inducement
can be suggested more powerful than the Incarnation ?

CHRISTIANITY. 273
For it shows, as nothing else can show, that God's love
is a self-sacrificing love ; and this is the highest form
of love. Indeed, if it were not so, in other words, if
God's love cost Him nothing, it would be in this
respect inferior to that of many men. But if, on the
other hand, God's love involved self-sacrifice ; — if it led
to Calvary — then it is the highest possible form of love.
And then we see that God's attributes are all, so to
speak, on the same scale ; and His Goodness is as far
above any human goodness, as the Power which rules
the universe is above any human power ; or the Wisdom
which designed all nature is above any human wisdom.
And thus, if the Incarnation still seems inconceivable,
may it not be simply because the love of God, like His
other attributes, is so inconceivably greater than any
thing we can imagine ?
Moreover a self-sacrificing love is the form which of
all others is most likely to lead to its being returned.
And experience proves that this has actually been the
case. The condescending love of Christ in His life,
and still more in His death, forms an overpowering
motive which, when once realised, has always been
irresistible. But more than this. Not only does the Incarnation
afford the strongest possible motive for man to love
God, but it enables him to do so in a way which nothing
else could. Man, it is true, often longs for some means
of intercourse or communion with the Deity, but yet
this seems impossible. The gulf which separates the
Creator from the creature is infinite, and can never
be bridged over by man, or even by an angel, or other
18

274 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiii.
intermediate being. For a bridge must of necessity
touch both sides ; so if the gulf is to be bridged over
at all, it can only be by One Who is at the same time
both God and Man. Thus the Incarnation brings God,
if we may use the expression, within measurable dis
tance of man, so that the latter has no mere abstract
and invisible Being to love, but a definite Person,
Whose Character he can appreciate and Whose conduct
he can to some extent follow. In short, the Incarna
tion presents man with a worthy Obj ect for his love and
devotion, and yet with an Object Whom he can partly
at least understand and partly imitate. And he is
thus able to become in a still truer sense a child of God,
or, as it is commonly expressed, God became Man that
man might become as far as possible like God.
And this leads us to another aspect of the Incarna
tion. Christ's life was meant to be an example to man,
and it is clear that a perfect example could only be
given by a Being Who is both God and Man. For God
alone is above human imitation, and even the best of
men have many faults ; so that from the nature of the
case, Christ, and Christ alone, can present us with a
perfect example, for being Man He is capable of
imitation, and being God He is worthy of it.
Now what follows from this ? If Christ's life was
meant to be an example to man, it was essential that
it should be one of suffering, or the example would
have lost more than half its value. Man does not want
to be shown how to live in prosperity, but how to live
in adversity, and how to suffer patiently. The deser
tion of friends, the malice of enemies, and a cruel death

CHRISTIANITY. 275
are the occasional lot of all mankind. They are perhaps
the hardest things a man has to bear in this world,and
they have often had to be borne by the followers of
Christ. Is it incredible, then, that He should have
given them an example of the perfect way of doing so ;
gently rebuking His friends, praying for His murderers,
and acting throughout as only a perfect man could act ?
Of course it may be said that such a life and death are
degrading to the Deity ; and no doubt they seem so at
first sight. But, strictly speaking, suffering, if borne
voluntarily and for the benefit of others, is not de
grading, especially if the benefit could not be obtained
in any other way.
When we consider all this, it is plain that many
reasons can be given for the Incarnation. Of course
it may be replied that they are not adequate; but
we- have no means of knowing whether God would
consider them adequate or not. His ideas are not like
ours ; for what adequate motive can we suggest for
His creating man at all, let alone all the lower animals ?
But yet He has done so. And having created man
and given him free will, and man having misused
his free wiU, all of which is admitted, that God should
endeavour to restore man cannot be thought in
credible. Indeed it seems almost due to Himself that
He should try and prevent His noblest work from
being a failure. And if in addition to this God loves
man stiU, in spite of his sins, then some intervention on
his behalf seems almost probable. And God may thus
have designed the Incarnation, leading up to the Atone
ment, as a remedy for man's sin. And assuming man to
18—2

276 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiii.
retain his free will, and not to be obliged to forsake sin,
the remedy has doubtless been as successful as possible.
And thus the Incarnation removes any remaining
difficulty that may be felt in regard to God's permitting
evil to enter the world ; since He foresaw not only the
disease but its remedy, and in due time brought it
about. This is, of course, only one reason for the
Incarnation, and had man never sinned it would
probably have taken place. It was, as the Nicene
Creed says, for us men, and not merely for our salva
tion, that" Christ came down from heaven ; and it is
unreasonable to think that the benefits of the Incarna
tion, such as uniting the human nature to the Divine,
showing man what God is, and what he himself ought
to be, are all the result of man's sin. But if an Incarna
tion for sinless men would be credible, stiU more is
it so for sinners, who are in such need of help and
guidance. (3.) Its historical position.
It may still be objected that if the foregoing reasons
are really sufficient to account for the Incarnation, it
ought to have taken place near the commencement of
man's history. And no doubt when we contemplate
the great antiquity of man, stretching back into neo
lithic and palaeolithic times, this often seems a great
difficulty. But we have in reality very little to judge
by, and that little does not support the objection. For
in nature God seems always to work by the slow and
tedious process of evolution, not attaining the results
He wished for all at once, but by gradual development.
And, therefore, it is only natural that if He revealed

CHRISTIANITY. 277
Himself to man, it would be by the same method — at
first indistinctly — Natural Religion, which in its ele
mentary stage certainly dates back to neolithic times
(perhaps earlier), as the burial customs show a behef
in a future life ; then more clearly — the Jewish Re
ligion ; and finally by becoming Man Himself — the
Christian Religion.
According to Christianity, the whole previous history
of the world was really a preparation for the Incarna
tion. But only when the preparation was complete,
when the fulness of the time came, as St. Paul expresses
it,1 did it take place. And it has certainly proved, as
we should have expected, an epoch-making event. In
all probability the history of the world wUl always be
considered relatively to it in years B.C. arid a.d. And
very possibly it has a significance far beyond man or
even this planet. For we must remember man is not
merely a link in a series of created beings indefinitely
improving, in which case no doubt in future ages an
Incarnation in man would appear as improbable as we
should now think an Incarnation in one of the lower
animals. But (as shown in Chapter V.) there are
strong reasons for thinking that man is the end of the
series, the last stage in creation, the highest organised
being that will ever appear on this planet, or, as far
as we know, on any planet.
And, therefore, man's rank in the universe cannot
be determined by the size of this earth. Where else
shall we find a personal and moral being with attri
butes superior to those of man ? Where else indeed
1 Gal. 4. 4.

278 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiii.
shall we find a personal or moral being at all ? The
only answer science can give is nowhere. But if so,
man's position in the universe is one of unique pre
eminence. And it is this inherent greatness of man,
as it has been called, which justifies the Incarnation.
He is worthy that Thou should' st do this for him.
Moreover when we consider God the Son as the
Divine Person who is specially immanent in nature,
and who has been evolving the universe through count
less ages from its original matter into higher and higher
forms bf life, there seems a special fitness in its leading
up to such a climax as the Incarnation ; when by be
coming Man He united Himself with matter in its
highest and most perfect form. Thus the Incarnation,
like the Copernican system of astronomy, or the theory
of Evolution, if once accepted, throws a new Ught on
the entire universe ; and it has thus a grandeur and
impressiveness about it, which to some minds is very
attractive. On the whole, then, we decide that the
doctrine is certainly not incredible, though it is no
doubt improbable.
(C.) The Doctrine of the Atonement.
We pass on now to the doctrine of the Atonement,
which is that Christ's death was in some sense a
sacrifice for sin, and thus reconciled (or made ' at-one ')
God the Father and sinful man. And though not
formally stated in the Creeds, it is implied in the
words, Was crucified also for us, and Who suffered for
our salvation.
The chief objections to the doctrine are of course on
moral grounds. The idea of atonement, it is said, or

CHRISTIANITY. 279
of one man being made to suffer as a substitute for
another, and thus appeasing the Deity, was well-nigh
universal in early times, and is so still among savage
nations. Such a sacrifice, however, is a great injustice
to the victim ; it ascribes an unworthy character to
God, as the Judge, Who it assumes can be satisfied
with the punishment of an innocent man in place
of the guilty one ; and is demoralising to the sinner,
on whose behalf the sacrifice is offered, allowing him
to sin on with impunity, provided he can find another
substitute when needed.
The answer to this objection is, that it takes no
account of the most important part of the Christian
doctrine, which is the willingness of the Victim. Ac
cording to Christianity, Christ was a willing Sacrifice,
Who freely laid down His life j1 while the human
sacrifices above alluded to were not willing sacrifices,
since the victims had no option in the matter. And,
as we shall see, this alters the case completely both
in regard to the victim himself, the judge, and the
sinner. (1.) As to the Victim.
It is plain that his willingness does away with the
injustice altogether. There is no injustice in accept
ing a volunteer for any painful office provided he
thoroughly knows what he is doing, for he need not
undertake it unless he likes.
(2.) As to the Judge.
Next it will be seen that the willingness of the
victim changes the manner in which the sacrifice
1 E.g., John 10. 18.

280 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiii.
appeals to the judge. A mere substitution sacrifice/
appeals to his sense of justice, and endeavours to satisfy
it by giving, as far as possible, a literal fulfilment of
justice, modified only in the one respect pf the punishr
ment not being borne by the guilty person.
But a willing sacrifice appeals not to his justice,
but to his mercy ; it endeavours, so to say, to stimulate
this element of mercy and to soften his heart. That
it would have this effect in human cases is almost
certain. If a judge had before him a criminal who
well deserved punishment, but a good man, perhaps
the judge's own son, came forward, and not only inter
ceded for the prisoner, but was so devotedly attached
to him as to offer to bear his punishment (pay his fine,
for instance), this would certainly influence the judge
in his favour. It would show that he was not so hope
lessly bad after all, and the judge would feel more
inclined to be merciful. Justice and mercy, then,
though hard to reconcile, are both facts of human
nature ; and it is also a fact of human nature, that the
voluntary suffering, or willingness to suffer, of a good
man for a criminal whom he deeply loves, does incline
man to mercy rather than justice.
Now, have we any reason for thinking that God also
combines, in their highest forms, these seemingly
inconsistent attributes of justice and mercy ? Cer
tainly we have ; for, as shown in Chapter V., Natural
Theology, not to mention the Jewish Religion, leads
us to ascribe to God precisely such a combination.
As there shown, the suffering in this world forces us
to conclude that the goodness of God is not simple

/

CHRISTIANITY. 28l
beneficence, but this combined with some other
attribute which we called righteousness. And these
general terms, when applied to the special case of
judging sinners, closely correspond to mercy and jus
tice. God, as we have seen, combines both these
attributes, and a combination of both is required
by the Christian doctrine. Mercy alone would have
forgiven men without any atonement ; justice alone
would not have forgiven them at all. But God is both
merciful and just, and therefore the idea that volun
tary atonement might incline Him to mercy rather
than justice does not seem incredible.
And this is precisely the Christian doctrine. The
mercy of God the Father is called out towards sinful
man by Christ's generous sacrifice of Himself on
man's behalf ; so that, to put it shortly, God forgives
sins for Christ's sake. And it should be noticed, the
idea of sins being forgiven which occurs all through
the New Testament, and is alluded to in the Apostles'
Creed, shows that Christ's Atonement was not that
of a mere substitute, for then no forgiveness would
have been necessary. If, for example, I owe a man
a sum of money, and a friend pays it for me, I do
not ask the man to forgive me the debt ; I have no
need of any forgiveness. But if, instead of paying
it, he merely intercedes for me, then the man may
forgive me the debt for my friend's sake. And this
corresponds to this aspect of the Christian doctrine ;
for the Atonement, like the Incarnation, is a many-
sided doctrine, which can be regarded from various
points of view.

282 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiii.
We must also remember that though for con
venience we speak of justice and mercy as two separate
attributes of the Deity, they are probably closely con
nected together. God is not sometimes merciful and
sometimes just, but He is always both, that is to say,
His one Character always involves elements of what
we call mercy and justice.
It may still be objected that however noble it may
have been for Christ to have offered Himself as a
sacrifice for man, it hardly seems right for the offer
to have been accepted. But here we must remember
the mysterious union which exists between the Persons
of the Trinity. It is the Son Himself Who, in a certain
sense, by virtue of His union with the Father, both
offers and accepts the offer. While on the other hand,
the love of the Father in giving His Son to be a sacrifice
for man is emphasised in Scripture, just as much as
the love of the Son in freely becoming that Sacrifice.
Thus the Father's love for sinful man was the cause,
and not the effect of Christ's Atonement.
Of course it may be said that this is only shirking
a difficulty by having recourse to mysteries. But the
answer is obvious. The mystery of the Atonement is
an essential part of the doctrine. Christians do not
believe in an atonement effected by anyone who was
not both God and Man. On the contrary, they assert
that no one else could have effected it. It is the
position which Christ occupies towards God on the
one hand, as being His eternal Son, and towards man
kind and the world on the other, as being in a special
sense their Creator and Maintainer, which renders Him

CHRISTIANITY. 283
the only possible Mediator between the two. Thus He
is not an intervening third between God and man, any
more than man is an intervening third between matter
and spirit. He is Himself complete God, and complete
Man ; the Son of God, and the Son of Man, to use the
striking titles which He adopted ; and therefore in dis
cussing the Christian doctrine, we cannot argue as if
He were only a man. To do this would be to destroy
its naturalness altogether. Nor, on the other hand,
must we forget the close union which is said to
exist between Christ and His followers, even as close
as that between a vine and its branches, or a body
and its limbs ; and this, however mysterious it may be,
also lessens the difficulty to some extent.1
One more point has to be noticed under this head.
Christ, by His Incarnation, became, in a unique sense,
the Representative of mankind, since it was human
nature and not a human person that He then united to
Himself. In the case of ordinary men, this nature is
inherited from their parents and developed round a
new person ; but in the case of Christ it was inherited
from His mother and developed round the pre-existing
Person of the Son of God, so that His human nature
as such was impersonal. In other words, to quote the
Nicene Creed, Christ became Man, not a man. And
the distinction is important, for had He been a man,
He could not have represented all men. But by His
taking human nature in the abstract, as we may call
it, He represented, as no one else could, the entire
race, and He suffered as such ; so that to this extent
1 John 15. 5 ; Eph. 4. 15-16.

284 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiii.
there was a kind of fulfilment of justice. Thus, on
the whole, though Christ did not, strictly speaking,
bear man's punishment, His sufferings and death
procured man's pardon ; He suffered on our behalf,
though not in our stead.
(3.) .4s to the sinner.
Lastly, as to the effect of the willingness of the victim
on the sinner. Of course, on the mere substitution
theory, justice would be satisfied, and a criminal might
sin on as much as he liked, provided he could be sure
of finding another substitute when wanted. But if
the changed attitude of the judge is due, not to his
justice being satisfied, but to his mercy being stimu
lated, this is plainly conditional on a moral change
in the sinner himself. A good man suffering for a
criminal would not alter our feelings towards him if
he obstinately chose to remain a criminal. And this is
in exact harmony with the Christian doctrine, which is
that sinners cannot expect to avail themselves of
Christ's Atonement if they wilfully continue in sin ; so
that repentance is a necessary condition of forgiveness.
This, it is plain, destroys altogether the objection that
an atoning sacrifice has an immoral tendency on the
sinners themselves ; it has precisely the opposite effect.
And what we should thus expect theoretically has
been amply confirmed by experience. No one wiU deny
that Christians in all ages have embraced the doctrine
of the Atonement with the utmost devotion. They
have asserted that it is the cause of aU their joy in this
world and all their hope for the next. And yet, so far
from having had a bad influence, it has led them to the

CHRISTIANITY. 285
most noble and self-sacrificing lives. It has saved them
from sin, and not only from the penalties of sin, and this
is exactly what was required. The greatness of man's
sin, and the misery it causes in the world, are but too
evident apart from Christianity. And the Atonement
was a ' vast remedy for this vast evil.' And if we
admit the end, that man had to be redeemed from sin,
impressed with the guilt of sin, and helped to resist sin,
we cannot deny the appropriateness of the means,
which, as a matter of fact, has so often brought it about.
This completes a brief examination of the moral objec
tions to the Atonement ; and it is clear that the willing
ness of the Victim makes the whole difference, whether
we regard them as referring to the Victim himself, the
Judge, or the sinner.
(D.) The Doctrine of the Resurrection.
The last great Christian doctrine is that of the
Resurrection. According to Christianity, all men
are to rise again, with their bodies partly changed
and rendered incorruptible ; and the Resurrection of
Christ's Body was both a pledge of this, and also to
some extent an example of what a risen body would be
like. He was thus, as the Bible says, the firstborn from
the dead.1 Now this word firstborn implies, to begin
with, that none had been so born before, the cases of
Lazarus, etc., being those of resuscitation and not
resurrection ; they lived again to die again, and their
bodies were unchanged. And it implies, secondly, that
others would be so born afterwards, so that our risen
bodies will resemble His. The Resurrection of Christ
1 1 Cor. 15. 20 ; Col. 1. 18 ; Rev. 1. 5.

286 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiii.
is thus represented not as something altogether excep
tional and unique, but rather as the first instance of
what will one day be the universal rule. It shows us
the last stage in man's long development, what he is
intended to become when he is at length perfected.
We wiU therefore consider first Christ's Resurrection,
and then man's resurrection.
(i.) Christ's Resurrection.
Now according to the Gospels, Christ's Risen Body
combined material and immaterial properties in a very
remarkable manner. Thus He could be touched and
eat food, and yet apparently pass through closed doors
and vanish at pleasure ; and this is often thought to be
incredible. But though we know very little about semi-
spiritual substances, that little is enough to show that
it is not incredible., For the nearest approach to one
of which we have any scientific knowledge is the
luminiferous aether, and this also seems to combine
spiritual and material properties in a remarkable
manner, being in some respects more like a solid than
a gas. And yet it can pass through all material sub
stances, and allows them to pass through it without
any appreciable resistance. This fact certainly pre
vents us from saying that it is incredible that Christ's
semi-spiritual body should pass through closed doors.
Indeed for all we know, it may be one of the pro
perties of spiritual beings, that they can pass through
material substances (just as the Rontgen rays can) and
be generaUy invisible ; and yet be able, if they wish, to
assume some of the properties of matter, such as
becoming visible or audible. In fact unless they were

CHRISTIANITY. 287
able to do this, it is hard to see how they could make
themselves manifest at all. And we must remember
it is never said that Christ was visible and invisible at
the same time, which would be a contradiction ; but
that He appeared to the Apostles, or showed Himself to
them, and afterwards that He vanished, literally ceased
to be seen of them, all of which imply that He became
visible or not at pleasure.
Nor again is there anything incredible in this, for
man, we know, does not see all that is to be seen even
in nature, e.g., the ultra-violet rays. And a slight
alteration in the waves of light coming from a body
would make it visible or not to the human eye ; and
it is out of the question to say that God — the Omni
potent One — could not produce such a change at
pleasure, in a spiritual body. And for a spirit to become
tangible, or to take food, is not really more wonderful
(though it seems so) than for it to become visible or
audible ; since when once we pass the boundary between
the natural and the supernatural everything is
mysterious. It may of course be replied that though aU this is
not perhaps incredible, it is still most improbable ; and
no doubt it is. But what then ? We have no adequate
means of judging, for the fact if true is, up to the
present, unique. It implies a new mode of existence
which is neither spiritual nor material, and of which
we have no experience whatever. And therefore until
we receive new powers of apprehension, we are naturaUy
unable to understand what it is like. But assuming the
resurrection of Christ to be otherwise credible, as it

288 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiii.
certainly is if we admit His Incarnation and Death, we
cannot call it incredible merely because the properties
of His risen body are alleged to be different from those
of ordinary human bodies, and in some respects to
resemble those of spirits. It is in fact only what we
should expect.
(2.) Man's Resurrection.
Next as to man's resurrection. The Christian
doctrine of the resurrection of the body must not be
confused with the immortality of the spirit, discussed in
Chapter V., which is common to many religions, and is
certainly not improbable. But two objections may be
made to the resurrection of the body.
The first is that it is impossible, since the human body
decomposes after death, and its molecules may be sub
sequently incorporated into other bodies. And thus,
if all men were to rise again at the same time, the same
molecules might have to be in two places at once. But
the fallacy here is obvious, for the molecules composing
a man's body are continually changing during life, and
it is probable that every one of them is changed in a
few years ; and yet the identity of the body is not
destroyed. This identity depends not on the identity
of the molecules, but on their relative position and
numbers ; so that a man's body is in this respect like
a whirlpool in a stream, the water composing which is
continually changing, though the whirlpool itself re
mains. And therefore the resurrection need not be a
resurrection of relics, as it is sometimes called, and this
removes at once the apparent impossibility of the
doctrine.

CHRISTIANITY. 289
Secondly, it may still be objected that the doctrine is
extremely improbable. And no doubt it seems so.* But
once more we have no adequate means of judging.
Certainly, that a man who has once lived should be
raised to life again is not antecedently more improbable
than that he should have lived at aU. Indeed the
origin of life seems of the two to be the more mys
terious. Again, apart from experience, how very
improbable it would be that a seed when buried in the
ground should develop into a plant ; or that plants and
trees, after being apparently dead all through the winter,
should blossom again in the spring. Thus everything
connected with life is so mysterious that we can
decide nothing a priori, and experience must be our
only guide. And therefore we cannot say what may
or may not happen at some future time, of which we
have no experience whatever. Indeed, if man's spirit
is immortal, the fact that it is associated with a body
during its life on this earth makes it not unlikely that
it will be associated with a body of some kind during
its future life.
And as to the condition of man's risen body, that it
should be partly spiritual, and thus resemble Christ's
risen body, is distinctly probable. And just as man's
body in this Ufe is suited to his surroundings here, so
we may infer that his future body wiU be suited to his
surroundings hereafter ; though, not knowing what
they will be like, we cannot say what his body will be
like. But we may be sure of this : the infinite re
sources of the God of Nature are not baffled by the
grave. His Power and Wisdom know no limits ; and
19

29O THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiii.
He will be able, if He wishes, to provide man with
a body Which, having no 'tendency to decay, will be a
suitable instrument for the noblest exertions of his
mind and will.
And then as to the position of the future heaven.
It may be on some other planet, where God will
specially manifest His presence, and where sin, pain,
and death will be unknown. Or it may be the name
for some unseen spiritual state, into which Christ
passed when He left this earth, and into which the
righteous will pass after the Judgment. And the
existence of such a state, perhaps pervading the whole
universe, is certainly not incredible. Indeed, the
luminiferous aether should convince us that our senses
are not able to perceive everything that exists, even in
our immediate vicinity. While as to everlasting life,
when man is not only perfect in himself, and lives in
perfect surroundings, but enjoys the immediate presence
of God, as well as the society of the perfect, there is
nothing inconceivable in his being able to live for ever
in perfect happiness. The final state of the righteous
then presents little difficulty, but what about that of
the wicked? This is admitted by all to be a most
difficult subject, but as Christians themselves are not
agreed about it, and we shall have to discuss it
fully in Chapter XXIII., we need not consider it at
present. (E.) Conclusion.
We have now examined the four great doctrines of
Christianity, the others either foUowing directly from
these, or not presenting any difficulty. And though,

CHRISTIANITY. 29 1
as we have shown, not one of these doctrines can be
pronounced incredible, yet some of them, especially the
Incarnation and the Atonement, seem so very improb
able as to raise a strong presumption against the truth
of the religion. This must be fully and freely admitted.
At the same time, it is only fair to remember that this
improbability is distinctly lessened by the foUowing
considerations. Firstly, in regard to all these doctrines we have no
adequate means of deciding what is or is not probable.
Reason cannot judge where it has nothing to judge
by ; and apart from Christianity itself, we know next
to nothing as to what was God's purpose in creating
man. If, then, these doctrines are true, their truth
depends not upon reason, but upon revelation. All
reason can do is to examine most carefully the evi
dence in favour of the alleged revelation. Of this
we should expect it to be able to judge, but the
Christian doctrines themselves are plainly above its
jurisdiction. We are hence in a region where we
cannot trust to our own sense of the fitness of things.
And therefore the Christian doctrines cannot be con
demned merely because we think them contrary to
our reason.
And it is undeniable that many thoughtful men
(including Agnostics) do not consider them so. For
instance, the late Professor Huxley wrote in 1877, ' I
have not the slightest objection to offer a priori to all
the propositions of the Three Creeds. The mysteries of
the Church are child's play compared with the mysteries
of Nature. The doctrine of the Trinity is not more
19 — 2

292 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XIII.
puzzling than the necessary antinomies ' (that is
contradictions) ' of physical speculation.'1
And this leads us on to the next point, which is that
many other facts which are actually true appear
equally improbable on prima facie grounds ; such, for
instance, as the luminiferous aether and the phenomena
of growth in the physical world, or the existence of
evil and the freedom of man in the moral world.
Apart from experience, what an overwhelming argu
ment could be made out against such facts as these ;
and yet they concern subjects which are to a great
extent within our comprehension, whereas Christianity
has to do with the nature and character of a Being
Who is avowedly beyond our comprehension. May
not the difficulties in both cases, but especially in
regard to the latter, be due to our ignorance only ?
Very possibly, to understand all the difficulties of
Christianity, we should have to understand all the
plans and intentions of the Infinite God, which is
perhaps in the nature of things impossible for us finite
men. Thirdly, it should be noticed that this partial ignor
ance in regard to Christianity is precisely simUar to
our partial ignorance in regard to Natural Theology,
discussed in Chapter III. We there showed that,
though we had not a perfect knowledge of God, we
had a sufficient knowledge for all practical purposes.
And the same applies to Christianity. The subject
does not claim to have been revealed in aU its bearings,
1 Quoted with his permission in Bishop Gore's Bampton
Lectures, 1891, p. 247, 1898 edition.

CHRISTIANITY. 293
but only in so far as it concerns ourselves. Take, for
instance, the doctrine of the Atonement. We are not
told how much was God the Father's part, or how much
was Christ's part, or the exact relation of these two ;
but we are told what must be our part, in forsaking sin,
etc., if we are to benefit by it. Thus Christianity, like
Natural Theology, claims to be a subject which can
only be partly and yet sufficiently understood.
Fourthly, it should be noticed that, though indi
vidually the Christian doctrines may seem improbable,
yet, when considered as a whole, as in all fairness they
ought to be, there is a complete harmony between
them. Their improbability is not cumulative. On the
contrary, one often helps to explain the difficulties of
another. This has been recognised by most writers,
including many who can scarcely be called theo
logians. For instance, the great Napoleon is reported
to have said, ' If once the Divine character of Christ
is admitted, Christian doctrine exhibits the precision
and clearness of algebra ; so that we are struck with
admiration at its scientific connection and unity.'1
In conclusion, it must be again pointed out that we
are only now considering the credibility of Christianity,
and not trying to make out that it is a probable
religion on a priori grounds, which it obviously is not.
Only its improbability is not so extremely great as to
make it useless to consider the evidence in its favour.
This is especially so when we reflect that this improba
bility must have seemed as great, if not greater, when
1 Beauterne, Sentiment de Napoleon ier sur le Christianisme,
new edition, Paris, 1864, p. no.

294 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. xih.
Christianity was first preached than it does now,
when we are so accustomed to the religion. And
yet, as a matter of fact, the evidence in its favour did
outweigh every objection, and finally convince the
civilised world. What this evidence is we proceed to
inquire.

CHAPTER XIV.
THAT THE .FOUR GOSPELS ARE AUTHENTIC FROM
EXTERNAL TESTIMONY.,
(A.) Preliminary Objection.
That many critics have decided against the Gospels, but
this is easily accounted for, as they reject the Super
natural altogether.
(B.) The Undisputed Testimony.
End of second century : Irenaaus, and the Muratorian
Canon. This evidence retrospective, and of great value.
(C.) The almost Undisputed Testimony.
(i.) Justin Martyr, a.d. 150. He refers to publicly read
Apostolic Memoirs, which must have been our
Synoptic Gospels, as the same events are alluded to,
though the quotations are not accurate ; and prob
ably included the Fourth Gospel.
(2.) Tatian, Justin's disciple, a.d. 175, wrote the Diates
saron or harmony of Four Gospels.
(3.) Marcian, a.d. 140, wrote a Gospel based on St. Luke's.
(D.) The Disputed Testimony.
(1.) The Apocryphal Gospel of St. Peter, later than our
Four, and yet previous to Justin.
(2.) Papias : mentions first two Gospels by name, and
probably knew of the others.
(3.) Aristides : alludes to some Gospel as well known.
(4.) The Apostolic Fathers : Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement,
Barnabas, and the Teaching of the Twelve, seem to
contain references to our Gospels.
Having shown in the last chapter that the Christian
Religion is credible, we have next to consider what
295

296 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiv.
evidence there is in its favour. Now that it was
founded on the aUeged teaching and miracles of
Christ, and chiefly on His Resurrection, is admitted
by everyone. So we must first examine whether we
have any trustworthy testimony as to these events;
more especially whether the Four Gospels, which ap
pear to contain such testimony, are authentic. By the
Four Gospels, it need scarcely be remarked, we mean
those commonly ascribed to SS. Matthew, Mark,- Luke,
and John ; and by their being authentic, or genuine, we
mean that they were in the main, and excluding
doubtful passages, written or compiled by those persons.
Whether the events they record are true is of course
another question, which will be examined later on : at
present we are dealing with their authenticity only.
And there is an important objection to be considered
at starting.
(A.) Preliminary Objection.
This is that the authenticity of the Four Gospels, or
indeed of any Books of the Bible, can only be decided
by specialists ; that is to say, by men who have made
a special study of the subject, and are well acquainted
with the languages in which the Books were written.
And that therefore, as a large number of these critics
— extremely able men — have decided against their
authenticity, this ought to settle the question. And if
it could only be rephed that equally able men have
decided the other way, the ordinary reader might well
think that for him to try and examine the evidence,
and judge between them, was mere waste of time.
But it so happens that there is a satisfactory answer

THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 297
to this objection. It is that the chief critics, who
deny the authenticity of the Four Gospels (and most
of the other Books of the Bible) are all Rationalists,
that is to say, men who reject the supernatural alto
gether. A miracle is to them incredible. Trustworthy
testimony to it is of course equally so, and hence those
books of the Bible which, if authentic, would contain
such testimony, must of necessity be not authentic.
This principle has been admitted, either directly or
indirectly, by aU the leading writers of this school,
such as Baur and Strauss in Germany, Renan in France,
and the author of ' Supernatural Religion ' in England,
some of whom state it with surprising candour.
Thus Baur says, ' The main argument for the later
date of our Gospels is, after all, this— that they, one by
one, and still more collectively, exhibit so much out of
the life of Jesus in a way which is impossible,' i.e.,
miraculous, as the context clearly shows.1 Here it will
be noticed the foregone conclusion that miracles are
impossible is made the chief argument for saying the
Gospels which record them are not authentic.
Next as to Strauss. He expresses his agreement
with critics who adopt ' the fundamental conviction
that everything that happens, or ever happened,
happened naturally ; that even the most distinguished
of men was still man ; and that consequently the super
natural colouring in the accounts of early Christianity
must be adventitious and unreal.' Again he says, ' In
the person and acts of Jesus no supernaturalism shall
be suffered to remain.' Arid quite consistently he
1 Critical Enquiry as to the Gospels, Tubingen, 1 847, p. 5 30.

298 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY., chap. xiv.
declares that none of the Gospels can be truly and
fully historical, ' for the simple reason that they
contain supernaturalism.'1
Passing on to Renan, he is equally precise, for though
he denies that a miracle is impossible, he certainly
considers it incredible. His words are, ' Till we have
new light, we shall maintain, therefore, this principle
of historical criticism, that a supernatural relation
cannot be accepted as such, that it always implies
credulity or imposture, that the duty of the historian
is to interpret it, and to seek what portion of truth
and what portion of error it may contain. Such are
the rules which have been followed in the composition
of this Life.' Again he says, speaking of the Gospels
being in part legendary, ' That is evident, since they
are full of miracles and the supernatural.'2
So, again, the author of ' Supernatural Religion '
says, when speaking of miracles, ' There are th
strongest reasons for affirming that such phenomena
are antecedently incredible.' And again, ' Both the
supernatural religion, therefore, and its supernatural
evidence labour under the fatal disability of being ante
cedently incredible.' And again, speaking of Christ's
resurrection, ' The belief that a dead man rose from
the dead and appeared to several persons alive, is at
once disposed of upon abstract grounds. The alleged
occurrence is contrary to universal experience.'3
1 Strauss, New Life of Jesus. Authorised translation. London,
1865, pp. x, xii, 34.
2 Renan's Life of Jesus, translated by Wilbour. New York, 1864,
pp. 17, 44, 45.
a Supernatural Religion, 2nd edit., 1874-77, PP- 78, 94 ; vol. iii.,
p. 522.

THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 299
These quotations, which are mere samples of numbers
that might be given, show clearly that the rejection of
the supernatural is the basis from which these writers
start. But to assume that miracles are incredible, and
that therefore authentic evidence to them is equally
so, is to give up the critical and historical argument
altogether. We do not of course mean that critical
and historical' objections are not relied on at all. They
are to some extent ; but they are more like excuses
than reasons, the real reason for disputing the books
being in every case an antecedent objection to the
miraculous events recorded. And then, starting with
this, they search for any slight evidence that can be
found, either critical or historical, for proving it. Such
a method of arguing has been happily described as a
conclusion in search of its premises ; and it is needless
to add that, in a case of this sort, premises of some
kind are generally found.
Under these circumstances we need not discuss
further the objection that many specialists have decided
against the authenticity of the Gospels. Fortunately
their opponents, who maintain the genuineness of
these books, can afford to lay aside all arguments
founded on" their own views as to the supernatural,
and rely only on critical evidence.
We have now to examine what this evidence is ;
first considering the external testimony borne by early
Christian writers to the Four Gospels, and reserving
the internal evidence from the Books themselves for
the next chapter. It may be mentioned at starting
that we have no complete manuscripts of the Gospels

300 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiv.
earlier than the beginning of the fourth century ; but
there is nothing surprising in this, as for the first two
centuries books were generaUy written on papyrus, an
extremely fragile material. And therefore, with the
exception of some fragments preserved in Egypt, all
documents of this period, whether Christian or
classical, have entirely perished. A much more durable
material, vellum, began to supplant papyrus in the
third century, but did not come into common use tiU
the fourth. Moreover, during the persecutions, which
occurred at intervals up to the fourth century, all
Christian writings were specially sought for, and de
stroyed ; indeed, their mere possession involved such
great danger that many preferred not to have them.
And therefore the absence of earlier manuscripts
though very unfortunate, is not perhaps unnatural ;
and it is anyhow no worse than in the case of classical
authors. I have seen it stated, for instance, that there
are no manuscripts of either Cicero, Caesar, or Tacitus
within 800 years of their time.
It of course raises a doubt as to whether we have the
original text of our Gospels. But the numerous refer
ences in early Christian writers show that this cannot
affect more than a few verses ; so all it can do is to
make us careful not to base too much on a single
passage. And certainly the defenders of Christianity
have nothing to fear from such a restriction, as the
arguments in its favour never depend on single passages,
though the difficulties connected with it often do.
(B.) The Undisputed Testimony.
Fortunately we need not begin later than the end of

THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 301
the second century, since it is admitted by everyone
that our Four Gospels were then well known through
out the Church. They were continually quoted by
Christian writers ; they were universally ascribed to
the authors we now ascribe them to ; and they were
always considered to be in some sense divinely inspired.
As this is undisputed, we need not discuss the evi
dence in detail ; but one writer deserves to be men
tioned, because his testimony is retrospective, and
proves far more than the mere fact that the Gospels
were well known in his time. This is Irenceus of
Lyons, whose works date from about a.d. 185 ; and he
not only quotes the Gospels frequently (about 500 times
altogether, of which 100 are from the Fourth Gospel),
but assigns them to the same Evangelists as we do now.
Moreover he shows there were only four of acknow
ledged authority, since the fanciful analogies he gives
for this, likening the four Gospels to the four rivers in
Paradise, and the four quarters of the globe, render it
certain that the fact of there being four, neither more
nor less, must have been undisputed in his day. And
he distinctly implies that this had been so from the
beginning. And as he was not a mere private indi
vidual, but an important bishop, who had travelled
much, his testimony has an official character, and may
be said to represent that of the Church.
And what makes it stiU more valuable is that he
had such excellent means of knowing the truth.
He was born in Asia Minor (probably about a.d. 130)
and brought up under Polycarp ; and he himself
tells us in after life how well he remembered his

302 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiv.
teacher. ' I can even describe the place where the
blessed Polycarp used to sit and discourse — his going
out, too, and his coming in — his general mode of life
and personal appearance, together with the discourses
which he delivered to the people ; also how he would
speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with
the rest of those who had seen the Lord ; and how
he would call their words to remembrance. Whatso
ever things he had heard from them respecting the
Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teach
ing, Polycarp having thus received (information) from
the eye-witnesses of the Word of Life, would recount
them aU in harmony with the Scriptures.'1
The importance of this passage can scarcely be ex
aggerated ; for in the mouth of Irenaeus, the Scriptures,
which contain an account of Christ's miracles and teach-
• ing, can only mean the Four Gospels ; and thus we
have in Polycarp a very early witness to these. And it
has also a special bearing on the authorship of the
Fourth Gospel. For is it conceivable that Irenaeus,
who quotes it so often, would have ascribed it to St.
John unless it had been mentioned to him as such by
Polycarp ? Or is it conceivable that Polycarp, who
personally knew St. John, could have been deceived
by a forgery ? The difficulties of either alternative,
when carefully considered, will be seen to be enor
mous ; and yet there is no other, unless we admit that
St. John was the author.
It should also be noticed that Irenaeus, when dis-
1 Irenseus, Fragment oi Epistle to Florinus. The translations
here and elsewhere are from the Ante-Nicene Christian Library.

THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 303
cussing two alternative readings of Rev. 13. 18, sup
ports one of them by saying that it is found in all the
most approved and ancient copies ; and was also main
tained by men who saw John face to face.1 He had
thus some idea as to the value of evidence : and it is
most unUkely that he should have written as he did
about the Four Gospels, unless he had seen equally
approved and ancient copies of them.
Before passing on, we must just glance at the Mura-
torian Canon. This is the earliest known list of New
Testament books, and appears to have been written
about a.d. 175. The first part is lost ; the portion
that remains commences in the middle of a sentence
evidently referring to St. Mark's Gospel. It then goes
on to ' The third Book of the Gospel, that of Luke.'
It then mentions ' The Fourth Gospel, that of John,'
then the Acts of the Apostles by Luke, and then the
remaining books of our present New Testament, except
the Epistle to the Hebrews, giving a few notes about
each. It also mentions various apocryphal works, but
distinguishes between these and the canonical ones,
saying that the latter were inspired. From all this it
is clear that towards the close of the second century,
our Four Gospels held much the same position among
Christians as they do a*t present. And this alone raises
a strong presumption in favour of their authenticity.
(C.) The almost Undisputed Testimony.
We next come to the testimony of some earlier
writers, which was formerly much disputed, but is
now practically admitted by all critics.
1 Iren. 5. 30.

304 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiv.
(1.) Justin Martyr.
By far the most important of these is Justin Martyr ;
and this importance is due to the fact that three of
his writings, two Apologies and a Dialogue, have come
down to us, which are admittedly genuine, and long
enough to argue from with some confidence. And that
he refers to our Gospels is now almost undisputed. His
works date from about a.d. 145-150, the first Apology
being addressed to the Emperor Antoninus (138-161).
Moreover, he was no ordinary convert, but a philo
sopher, and says himself that prior to embracing Chris
tianity he had studied various philosophical systems
and found them unsatisfactory ; so we may be sure
that he did not accept Christianity without making
similar inquiries as to the facts on which it rested.1
And as his father and grandfather were natives of
Palestine, where he was born (probably about a.d. 114),
he must have had good means of finding out the truth.
Now Justin does not allude to any of the Evangelists
by name, but he frequently quotes from the ' Memoirs
of the Apostles,' which he says were sometimes called
Gospels,2 and were publicly read and expounded in the
churches, together with the Old Testament Prophets.
And he gives no hint that this was a local or recent
practice, but implies that it was the universal and well-
established custom. These Memoirs, he tells us,3 were
written by the Apostles and their followers, which exactly
describes our present Gospels, two of which are ascribed
to Apostles (Matthew and John), and the other two to
their immediate followers (Mark and Luke) . And con-
1 Dial., 2. 2 Apol. 1. 66 ; Dial., 100. 3 Dial., 103.

THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 30^
sidering that Justin was writing for unbelievers, not
Christians, there is nothing strange in his not men
tioning the names of the individual writers. In the
same way Tertullian never once names the Evangelists
in his Apology, which is addressed to heathens,
though he often does so in his writings addressed to
Christians. Now Justin gives about sixty quotations from these
Memoirs, and they describe precisely those events in
the life of Christ recorded in our first three, commonly
called the Synoptic, Gospels, and with scarcely any
addition. Indeed, out of all Justin's references to
the events of Christ's life, whether quotations or not,
of which there are over two hundred, only four refer
to events not now found in our Gospels. This is very
remarkable, and seems to show that even at this early
time our Gospels were the only recognised sources of
information. For example, we may take the events of Christ's
birth and childhood. As is well known, the apocryphal
Gospels were very diffuse on this subject ; but the
events mentioned by Justin have been carefully col
lected, and are found to consist merely of these : that
Christ was descended from Abraham, through Jacob,
Judah, Phares, Jesse, and David;1 that the Angel
Gabriel announced His birth to the Virgin Mary ; that
this was a fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah ; that
Joseph was forbidden in a vision to put away his
espoused wife ; that Christ's birth at Bethlehem had
1 Justin names these persons as the ancestors of the Virgin Mary,
but she, as well as Joseph, may have been descended from David.
20

306 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiv.
been foretold by Micah ; that His parents went thither
from Nazareth, where they dwelt, in consequence of
the enrolment of Quirinius ; that as they could not
find a lodging in the village they lodged in a cave
close by, where Christ was born, and laid in a manger ;
that while there wise men from Arabia, guided by a
star, worshipped Him and offered Him gold, frankin
cense, and myrrh, and by revelation were commanded
not to return to Herod, to whom they had first come ;
that He was called Jesus, as the Saviour of His people ;
that by the command of God His parents fled with
Him to Egypt for fear of Herod, and remained there
till Archelaus succeeded him ; and that Herod, being
deceived by the wise men, slew the infants at Beth
lehem, so that the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfiUed,
as to Rachel weeping for her chUdren.
With the exception of the two words in italics,
there is no addition to our present Gospels here ; and
any ordinary reader would at once conclude that
Justin was quoting from them. There is, however, this
difficulty. Scarcely any of the quotations are verbaUy
accurate, and it has been urged in consequence that
Justin must have been quoting from some Lost Gospel.
But this theory is hardly tenable. For Justin some
times quotes the same passage differently, clearly
showing that he was relying on his memory ; and had
not looked up the reference, which in those days of
manuscripts, without concordances, must have been a
tedious process. Also when quoting the Old Testa
ment, he is almost equally inaccurate ; though none
will deny that he both knew it, and intended to quote

THE_GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 307
it. While later Christian writers, such as Irenaeus, who
avowedly quoted from our Gospels, are also inaccurate
in small details. And it must be remembered that
until printing was introduced, no two copies of a book
were exactly alike, as even the most careful scribes
would make a few mistakes ; and this also may explain
some of the verbal differences.
We need not therefore assume a Lost Gospel to
account for Justin's quotations ; though, if we do,
it does not materially affect the argument, since of
necessity this Lost Gospel must have contained a
precisely similar account of Christ's life to that in
our Synoptic ones. And this is, after all, the impor
tant point — not when or by whom were the Gospels
written, but whether the facts they record are true.
And this must depend on whether the immediate fol
lowers of Christ, who had ample means of knowing.
believed them to be true. And an earlier Lost Gospel,
if it recorded the same facts, would be as valuable
evidence of this as our present ones. But there is
practicaUy no doubt that Justin was quoting from
these Gospels.
But with regard to the Fourth Gospel, the case is
different, since there are far fewer apparent references
to it in Justin. He seems, however, to have known it,
since its phraseology, and to some extent its doctrines,
are distinct from the other three, and yet they are repro
duced by Justin. Thus his phraseology is so similar in
some cases as to amount to a quotation. For instance :
' Christ also said, Except ye be born again, ye shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Now, that it
20 — 2

308 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiv.
is impossible for those who have once been born to
enter into their mother's womb is manifest to all.'
And ' He [John the Baptist] cried to them, I am not
the Christ, but the voice of one crying ; for He that
is stronger than I- shall come, Whose shoes I am not
worthy to bear.'1
Again, the doctrines taught by Justin regarding the
pre-existence and divinity of Christ, the sacrament of
Baptism, and some others, are precisely such as are
found in the Fourth Gospel and nowhere else. For
example,2 ' The first power after God the Father and
Lord of all is the Word, Who is also the Son ; and of
Him we will, in what follows, relate how He took flesh
and became man.' And again, ' The Word of wisdom,
Who is Himself this God begotten of the Father of all
things.' It has been suggested that Justin derived
these doctrines from the Greek Jew Philo, born about
B.C. 20, in whose writings the Divine Word or Logos is
often alluded to. And some have even thought that
the Fourth Gospel itself may have been indebted to
Philo. But its great doctrine, that of the Incarnation,
or that the Word became flesh, which is reproduced by
Justin, is never hinted at by Philo, or any other philo
sopher, and this separates the two systems entirely.
The Logos of Philo is a kind of Intermediate Being,
who is neither God nor man ; while the Logos of
Christianity is both. Moreover, as Justin in his Dia
logue was arguing with a Jew, he would probably have
mentioned Philo if quoting from him.
1 Apol. 1. 6i ; Dial., 88 ; John 3. 3-5 ; 1. 20-27.
* Apol. 1. 32 ; Dial., 61.

THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 309
(2.) Tatian.
To the above evidence must be added that of Justin's
disciple, Tatian, and this seems conclusive. He wrote
a book about a.d. 175, recently discovered, called the
Diatessaron, -> hich, as its name implies, was a kind of
harmony of Four Gospels. It was based chiefly on
St. Matthew's, the events peculiar to the others being
introduced in various places. And its special value
in our present inquiry is that it commences with the
sentence, In the beginning was the Word, etc., which is
the opening clause of the Fourth Gospel. And this
shows that that Gospel must not only have been in
circulation, but of acknowledged authority, in Justin's
time, and renders it almost certain that he derived these
quotations and doctrines from it, and not from some
purely imaginary source.
We can now sum up the evidence of Justin. He
shows that in the middle of the second century — and
his memory was probably good for thirty years
earlier — certain Apostolic Memoirs or Gospels Were
publicly read in the churches, and were evidently
considered of great authority. And everything points
to these being the same Gospels which were known and
quoted throughout the Church towards the close of
the century. Indeed, it is hardly conceivable that in
such a short time a new set of Gospels could have
been introduced, and the older ones immediately for
gotten, so that Irenaeus, for instance, could have
written as he did about there being only four.
(3.) Marcion.
Another most important witness is Marcion. He

310 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. xiv.
wrote, not later than a.d. 140, a kind of Gospel, so
similar to St. Luke's that one was evidently based on
the other. And that St. Luke's is the earlier is now
admitted by critics of all schools, including the author
of ' Supernatural Religion ' in the third and subse
quent editions of his book ; though he had before tried
to prove the opposite. And therefore as St. Matthew
and St. Mark are generaUy allowed to be earlier than
St. Luke, this shows that all our Synoptic Gospels were
in circulation before a.d. 140 ; which makes it stiU
more certain that Justin, who wrote some years later,
got his quotations from these Gospels. And if so,
their want of verbal accuracy, so far from being an
adverse argument, is just the opposite, for it shows that
similar discrepancies in other writers do not disprove
that they were quoting from our Gospels.
(D.) The Disputed Testimony.
We pass on now to the testimony of stifl earlier
writers, all of which is more or less disputed by some
critics. (1.) The Apocryphal Gospel of St. Peter.
And first as to the Gospel of St. Peter. The existence
, of this work (like that of Tatian) has long been known
through references to it in early writers, but only
recently (1887) has a portion of the work itself been
discovered. This is about as long as a single chapter
in our Gospels, and contains a brief narrative of events
from the washing of Pilate's hands to the return of the
disciples to Galilee after the Resurrection. The work
was evidently known to Justin, so it cannot be later
than a.d. 140. It seems to be rather a careless com-

the gospels : external testimony. 311
pilatiori from our four Gospels, as it mentions very
few facts that are not recorded there, though it often
distorts them, and puts them in a different order.
Its special value lies in its witness to the Fourth
Gospel, since it mentions several points which are
peculiar to that Gospel ; such as the legs of the male
factors being broken, though not apparently those of
Christ Himself, the place where He was buried being
caUed a garden, and the Crucifixion taking place before
' the first day of Unleavened Bread,' in which respect
it seems to differ from the Synoptics. And hence it
follows that the Fourth Gospel, like the other three,
must have been well known, and of recognised authority
at that time.
(2.) Papias.
Next as to Papias. He was bishop of Hierapolis in
Asia Minor early in the second century, and only a
few fragments of his writings have been preserved by
Irenaeus and Eusebius. We learn from the former
that he was a disciple of St. John and a companion of
Polycarp ; and considering that Irenaeus was himself
Polycarp's pupil, there is no reason to doubt this.1 But
these fragments have been the cause of great contro
versy. Papias tells us himself what were his sources of
information : ' If, then, anyone who had attended on
the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings, —
what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by PhUip,
or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew,
or by any other of the Lord's disciples : which things
Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of^the
1 Irenasus, Bk. 5. 33.

312 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiv.
Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got
from books was not so profitable to me as what came
from the living and abiding voice.'
He had thus the best possible means of knowing, and
his testimony to the first two Gospels is explicit. He
says, ' Matthew put together the oracles in the Hebrew
language, and each one interpreted them as best he
could.' And ' Mark, having become the interpreter of
Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remem
bered. It was not, however, in exact order that he
related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither
heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But after
wards, as I said, he accompanied Peter.'1
Papias, it will be noticed, does not state whether
St. Mark wrote during St. Peter's lifetime or after
wards ; and early authorities are divided on the subject ;
Irenaeus being generally quoted as saying that it was
after St. Peter's death, while Clement of Alexandria,
who wrote at the close of the second century, says it
was during his lifetime.2 This latter is the more prob
able (see Chapter XVI.), especially as Irenaeus seems
to have been misunderstood in the matter.3
But Eusebius gives no quotations from Papias con
cerning the last two Gospels ; and from this we may
perhaps infer that he knew nothing as to the compo
sition of these Gospels, similar to what he did about
the first two. But to conclude, as some critics do, that
Papias had never heard of the books in question, is
1 Eusebius, Hist., iii. 39 ; 1 Pet. 5. 13.
2 Irenaaus, Bk. 3. 1 ; Eusebius, Hist., ii. 15 , vi. 14.
3 Journal of Theological Studies, July, 1905.

THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 313
quite unjustified. It is based on a misunderstanding
of a passage in Eusebius.1 He does not here say that
he will mention every reference in earlier writers to the
New Testament scriptures, but only their allusion to
the disputed books of his time (a.d. 315), and what they
said about the canonical ones. And judging by those
writers whose works are still extant, this is exactly
what he has done. For instance, he quotes what
Irenaeus says about the Gospels and the Revelation,
and also that he quoted 1 John, 1 Peter, and the
Shepherd of Hermas, which latter he accepted as
canonical ; but not a word is said about his having
used the Acts and St. Paul's Epistles. Yet as a matter
of fact he does so frequently. Plainly Eusebius did
not mention this because he took it for granted that
every Christian acknowledged these writings. And
therefore it is quite possible for Papias to have used,
or even quoted, the third and fourth Gospels, without
Eusebius mentioning it.
Whether he actually did so cannot of course be
decided, unless his works should be rediscovered ; but
there are slight indications that he knew them. For
instance, the order in which he names the Apostles
— Andrew, Peter, and Philip — is not that of their im
portance, nor are they ever mentioned in that order in
the Synoptics, but it is the order in which their calling
is described in the fourth Gospel.
(3.) Aristides.
Next as to Aristides. He was a philosopher at
Athens, and addressed an Apology to the Roman
1 Eusebius, Hist., iii. 3.

314 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiv.
Emperor, Hadrian, about a.d. 125, which was re
discovered in 1889. He' has no quotation from the
Gospels, but what is perhaps equally important, "he
gives a summary of Christian doctrine, including the
Divinity, Incarnation, Virgin-Birth, Resurrection and
Ascension of Christ ; and says that it is taught in the
Gospel, where men can read it for themselves ; which
clearly shows that some well-known biography of
Christ containing this teaching was then in existence.
(4.) The Apostolic Fathers.
The last group of writers to be examined are those
who lived soon after the Apostles. The chief of these
are Polycarp of Smyrna, the disciple of St. John,
martyred in a.dl 155, when he had been a Christian
86 years ; Ignatius of Antioch, martyred in his old
age, about a.d. no ; Clement of Rome, probably the
companion of St. Paul,1 and" the writers of the so-caUed
Epistle of Barnabas, and Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.
Their dates are not known for certain, but it is now
generaUy admitted by Rationalists as well as Christians
that they all wrote before a.d. 120. Thus the Encyclo-
pcedia Biblica (article Gospels) dates their works,
Polycarp no ; Ignatius (7 Epistles) before no ;
Clejnent 95 ; Barnabas, probably in first century ;
Teaching 80-110.
Now none of these writers mention the Gospels by
name ; but this is no argument to show that they were
not quoting them, because the same writers, when
admittedly quoting St. Paul's Epistles, also do so at
times without reference or acknowledgment. And
1 Phil. 4. 3.

THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 315
later Christian writers do precisely the same ; the
Gospels are often not quoted by name, but their
language and phraseology are continually employed,
much as they are by clergymen when preaching at the
present day. If, then, we find in these writers pas
sages similar to those in our Gospels, the inference is
that they are quoting from them ; and, as a matter
of fact, we do find such passages, though they are
not numerous. A single example may be given from
each. ' But being mindful of what the Lord said in His
teaching : Judge not, that ye be not judged ; forgive,
and it shaU be forgiven unto you ; be merciful, that
ye may obtain mercy ; with what measure ye mete,
it shall be measured to you again ; and once more,
Blessed are the poor, and those that are persecuted
for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of
God.*1 ' For I know that after His Resurrection also, He
was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so
now. When, for instance, He came to those who were
with Peter, He said to them, " Lay hold, handle Me,
and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit." '2
' Remember the words of our Lord Jesus Christ,
how He said, Woe to that man ! It were better for
him that he had never been born, than that he should
cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect. Yea,
it were better for him that a millstone should be hung
about (his neck), and he should be sunk in the depths
1 Polycarp, ch. ii. ; Luke 6. 36-38 ; Matt. 5. 3, 10.
2 Ignatius to Smyrnasans, ch. iii. ; Luke 24. 39.

316 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiv.
of the sea, than that he should cast a stumbling-block
before one of my little ones.'1
' Let us beware lest we be found, as it is written,
Many are called, but few are chosen.'2
' Having said beforehand all these things, baptize
ye in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost in living water.'3
The passage from Barnabas deserves special men
tion, since here we have words which only occur in
our Gospels, introduced with the phrase as it is written,
which is only used of Scripture quotations. And this
shows conclusively that at the time of the writer some
Gospel containing these words must have been weU
known, and considered of high authority. And the
attempts to explain away this quotation as from the
second Book of Esdras,4 where the words are, ' There
be many created, but few shall be saved ;' or as an
error on the part of the writer, who fancied they came
somewhere in the Old Testament, are quite inadmis
sible. And the Teaching of the Twelve, it may be.
added, also refers more than once to what is com
manded in the Gospel, mentioning among other matters
the Lord's Prayer.5
But it may be said, may not all these quotations be
from some Lost Gospel ? Of course they may. It is
always possible to refer quotations not to the only book
in which we know they do occur, but to some imaginary
book in which they might occur. There is, however,
1 Clement, ch. xlvi. ; Luke 17. I, 2.
2 Barnabas, ch. iv. ; Matt. 22. 14.
3 Teaching, ch. vii. ; Matt. 28. 19.
1 2 Esdr. 8. 3. s Teaching, ch. viii., xi., xv.

THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 317
no need to do so in this case, as all the evidence points
the other way. Though, as said before, even if we do
it does not materially affect the argument ; for though
it weakens the evidence for our Gospels, it rather
increases that for the facts which they record.
Suppose, for instance, the passage in Ignatius was
not taken from St. Luke's, but from some Lost Gospel.
It could not then be cited to show that St. Luke's
Gospel was known to Ignatius, but it would afford
additional evidence that Christ really did rise from
the dead, that when He appeared to His Apostles,
they at first thought it was a spirit ; and that He took
the obvious means of convincing them, by asking
them to handle His Body. AU this would then be
vouched for not only by St. Luke's Gospel, but also
by some other early Christian writing, which as Ignatius
quotes it in a.d. no must certainly have been written
within the first century, and must certainly have been
considered by him as conclusive evidence ; for he is
careful to distinguish between what he thus knows
(that Christ had a Body after His Resurrection) and
what he merely believes (that He has one now). And
the same applies in other cases.
And if it be further urged that these writers would
have referred more frequently to the Gospels, if they
really knew them, we must remember that their writings
are generally short, and that while a single quotation
proves the prior existence of the document quoted,
ten pages without a quotation do not disprove it.
Moreover we can. test this argument by seeing how soon
important classical works are quoted ; and the result

318 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xiv.
is surprising, since (as, far as we know) those of Hero
dotus are only quoted once, and those of Thucydides
not at all, within a hundred years of their appear
ance.1 Lastly, it must be noticed that when these writers
refer to the sayings of Christ or the events of His life,
they always do so without the slightest hesitation, as if
it were acknowledged truth. And these events include
all the more important facts about Christ, such as His
Pre - existence and Divinity, His Incarnation and
Virgin-Birth, His Epiphany and Baptism, His Cruci
fixion and Resurrection, His Ascension and Future
Coming in Judgment. Moreover, as we have seen,
their allusions are often introduced with the words
remember or be mindful, clearly showing that they
expected their readers to know them already. Hence
some books must have then existed which were well
known, containing a life of Christ ; and the improba
bility of these having perished, and a fresh set of Gospels
having been published in a few years, is very great.
While the later the date we assign to our Gospels, the
less likely is it for them to have been at once accepted
by the whole Church. And this is confirmed by the
fact that none of the apocryphal Gospels, which were
later inventions, could ever obtain universal acceptance.
We may now sum up the external testimony to the
Four Gospels. It shows that at the beginning of the
second century they were well known to Christian
writers, and this alone would necessitate their com
position in the first century, or at all events before
1 Rawlinson, Bampton Lectures, i860, p. 379.

THE GOSPELS : EXTERNAL TESTIMONY. 319
a.d. no. And thanks to recent discoveries, this is
now admitted by many leading rationalists, such as
Harnack. It may indeed be considered as one of the
definite results of recent controversies. But if we
admit this, the uniform tradition of the Church, and
the entire absence of any counter-testimony, make it
probable that they were actually written by the
Evangelists to whom they have been universally
ascribed. We have thus very strong external testi
mony in favour of the authenticity of the Four Gospels.

CHAPTER XV.
THAT THE GOSPELS ARE AUTHENTIC FROM INTERNAL
EVIDENCE.
(A.) Their General Accuracy.
This is shown by secular history, where they can be tested.
(B.) The Three Synoptic Gospels.
(i.) Their sources ; the triple tradition ; other early docu
ments.
(2.) Their apparent truthfulness ; numerous indications of
this.
(3.) Their probable date ; before the destruction of Jeru
salem, say, a.d. 50-70.
(C.) The Fourth Gospel.
(1.) Its authorship. The writer appears to have been a
Jew, living in the first century, and an eye-witness
of what he describes ; hence probably St. John.
(2.) Its connection with the other Gospels. It was meant
to supplement them ; while the alleged difference in
Christ's character favours its authenticity.
(3.) Its connection with the Book of Revelation. This
admitted to be by St. John, and there are no valid
reasons for the Gospel being by a different author.
Having decided in the last chapter that the Four
Gospels are probably authentic from external testi
mony, we pass on now to the internal evidence, which,
it will be seen, strongly supports this conclusion. For
convenience we will first consider their general accuracy
320

THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 321
and then examine the Three Synoptic Gospels and the
Fourth Gospel separately ; as they are of a somewhat
different character.
(A.) Their General Accuracy.
It is now admitted by everyone that the writers
show a thorough acquaintance with Palestine both as
to its geography, history, and people, especially the
political and social state of the country in the half-
century preceding the faU of Jerusalem (a.d. 70).
The Jewish historian Josephus, who wrote about
a.d. 95, gives us a vivid description of this ; and
everything we read in the Gospels is in entire agree
ment with it. And this is the more important because
the country was then in a very anomalous condition.
It was not like an ordinary Roman province, but had
been allowed to retain a certain amount of indepen
dence. And yet this double system of government,
half Roman, half Jewish, which only existed up to the
fall, of Jerusalem, is implied all through the Gospels.
And this alone shows that they must have been written
by men familiar with Palestine, and well acquainted
with the time in question.
With regard to the actual events described, we have,
as a rule, no other account, but where we have, their
accuracy is fuUy confirmed. Take, for instance, the
puzzling changes in the Government of Palestine.
Within fifty years this was a single kingdom under
Herod the Great (up to B.C. 4) ; a set of principalities
under various tetrarchs, one of whom, Archelaus, had
the title of King (up to a.d. 6), a country consisting
partly of such principalities, and partly a Roman pro-
21

322 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xv.
vince under procurators like Pilate (up to a.d. 41) ;
a kingdom united again under Herod Agrippa I. (up
to a.d. 44) ; and the whole finally reduced to a Roman
province (after a.d. 44). And yet everyone of these
changes, though mentioned quite incidentally, is cor
rectly referred to in the Gospels or Acts.1
More important than these, however, are several
slight points of agreement, which none but a con
temporary was likely to have known. Among such
may be mentioned the importance assigned by the
Pharisees to their traditions / the mention of the
didrachma, or tribute-money voluntarily paid for the
support of the Temple, which St. Matthew does not
think to need explanation, though Josephus does ;
the strange fact that the term high priest was applied
to two persons at the same time, which was incorrect
according to Jewish law ; the publicans or tax-col
lectors for the Romans being often Jews ; the ill-feeling
of the Samaritans towards the Jews ; and the position
Pilate occupied as a Roman governor to the Jewish
courts.2 In all these cases the accuracy of the narrative is
directly confirmed by Josephus or other sources,
though it is obvious that many of them are not likely
to have been known to a late writer ; especially after
the destruction of Jerusalem, which completely changed
everything in Palestine. Of course combined with
all this accuracy, there are a few instances of alleged
1 Matt. 2. 1, 22 ; Luke 3. i ; Acts 12. i ; 23. 24 ; Josephus, Wars,
. 20, 33 ; ii. 6 ; Antiq., xviii. 1 ; Wars, xix. 5, 9.
2 Matt. 15. 3 ; 17. 24 ; Luke 3. 2 ; 5. 27 ; 9. 53 ; 23. 7 ; comp.
osephus, Antiq., xiii. 10 ; xviii. 9 ; Wars, ii. 12, 14 ; Antiq., xx. 6, 9.

" THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL- EVIDENCE. 323
inaccuracy. Three are commonly urged. The first
two are mere slips, perhaps due to a copyist, in calling
Zachariah the son of Barachiah ; and in referring a
prophecy to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah.1 The
other is the enrolment under Quirinius. According
to St. Luke2 this occurred while Herod was king, and
therefore not later than what we now call B.C. 4,
when Herod died ; whereas, according to Josephus and
other authorities, Quirinius was Governor of Syria some
years after Herod's death, and carried out his taxing
in a.d. 6.
This used to be thought one of the most glaring
blunders in the Bible, but modern discoveries have
shown that it is probably correct. To begin with, an
inscription was found at Tivoli in 1764 which shows
that Quirinius was twice Governor of Syria, the former
time being probably during the reign of Herod, so
there is very likely an end of that difficulty, though
it must be admitted the dates do not seem satisfactory.
Next it will be noticed that St. Luke expressly says
that this was the first enrolment (RV.) , implying that
he knew of others ; and recent discoveries in Egypt
(1896-98) have confirmed this in a remarkable manner.
For they have shown that it was the custom of the
Romans to have a periodical enrolment of that country
(and therefore presumably of the adjacent country of
Syria) every fourteen years. The actual census papers
have been found for a.d. 20, 48, 62, 76, etc., and it is
x. Matt. 23. 35 ; 27. 9 ; 2 Chron. 24. 20 ; Zech. 1. 1 ; 11. 12.
2 Luke 2. 2. See Ramsay, 'Was Christ born at Bethlehem ?'
1899. 21 — 2

324 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xv.
extremely probable, though it cannot be proved for
certain, that the system started in B.C. 9-8.
It is also probable that the first enrolment may
have been delayed a few years in Palestine, which
was partly independent, and that to make it as little
unpopular as possible, Herod had it carried out in the
Jewish manner, genealogically, each family going to
its own city as described by St. Luke. Perhaps, how
ever, this was the usual custom, as a rescript has been
recently discovered in Egypt, dated in the 7th year
of Trajan (a.d. 104), ordering all persons to return to
their own districts in view of the approaching census.1
The next census in a.d. 6 was not apparently carried
out in this way, and it led to a rebellion, and therefore
it alone was thought worthy of notice by Josephus.
St. Luke, it may be added, seems to have known of this
second. census ;2 but he also knew, what his critics did
not, that it was only one of a series, and that the first
of the series took place at an earlier date.
Curiously enough, there used to be a very similar
error, charged against St. Luke, in regard to Lysanias ;
who he says was tetrarch of Abilene (near Damascus)
in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, about a.d. 27-3 And
yet the only ruler of this name known to history in
those parts was killed iri B.C. 34. But an inscription
discovered at Baalbec shows that there was a second
Lysanias, hitherto unknown, who is now generally
admitted to be the one referred to by St. Luke.4 On
1 Expository Times, Oct., 1907.
2 Acts 5. 37. 3 Luke 3. 1.
"¦ Boeckh's Corp. Ins. Gr., No. 4523 : Edersheim's ' Life and Times
of Jesus the Messiah,' 1901, vol. i., p. 261.

THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 325
the whole then, our Four Gospels, wherever we have
any means of testing them by secular history, appear
to be substantially accurate.
(B.) The Three Synoptic Gospels.
We pass on now to examine the Gospels in detail,
and wiU commence with the three Synoptic Gospels ;
first considering their sources, then their apparent truth
fulness, and lastly their probable date.
(1.) Their sources.
Now the three Gospels have, as is well known, a
number of identical passages ; and as these are far
too many to be ascribed to oral tradition, they must
be due to copying in some form, either two Evangelists
copying the third, or all three some earlier document.
The portion they have in common is often called the
Triple Tradition ; but this is a singularly unfortunate
name, as it seems to imply that this part of the narra
tive is triply attested, whereas it is precisely the oppo
site. For if the three Evangelists record an event in
the same words, it is obviously derived from only
one original source ; whereas, if they record it in
different words, it may be due to three independent
witnesses. This triple tradition includes many of the parables
of Christ, also several of His miracles, such as the
stiUing of the storm, the feeding of the five thousand,
the curing of the Gadarene, and the Transfiguration ;
but it stops short at the Passion. If, as is probable,
it represents the testimony of a single witness, there
is little difficulty in identifying him with St. Peter.
As to the closing scenes of Christ's life, there would of

326 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XV.
course be numerous witnesses, and this may account
for want of verbal agreement here.
But it must be remembered that it is most unlikely
for the whole of this original document to have been
verbally incorporated in three separate Gospels, and
often in a different order ; it is sure to have contained
something else that was only copied by one or two.
And therefore many critics are now of opinion that the
so-called Triple Tradition was merely our St. Mark's
Gospel, practically all of which was copied, either by
St. Matthew or St. Luke, if not by both. And this is
certainly probable, for the many graphic details in this
Gospel, which have led to its being called the first im
pressions of the life of Christ, show that it must date
from an extremely early time ; so it was most likely
known to the other Evangelists. And it would also
agree with the statement of Papias (quoted in the last
chapter) that St. Mark got his information from St.
Peter. But this is not all ; for our first and third Gospels
also contain a common element, which is not in St.
Mark, and this looks like another older document.
While St. Luke expressly says that many had written
before himself ; so we may safely assume that there
were several such documents in existence at the time.
And this was only natural, for the Christian religion
spread with great rapidity, and from the very first
what its missionaries preached was not a mere philo
sophy or system of morals, but the life and work,
the death and resurrection of Christ. Indeed, St. Luke
himself says that he only wrote his Gospel to assure

THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 327
Theophilus of the things wherein he had already been
instructed, clearly showing that the course of in
struction must have included the whole of Christ's
life, from His Virgin-Birth to His Ascension.1 And
therefore from the very first Christian teachers must
have had some accounts of that life. And that they
left these with the Churches they founded is most
probable. And this is strongly confirmed by St. Paul's Epistles.
As is well known, four of these (Rom., 1 Cor., 2 Cor.,
and Gal.) are admitted to be genuine by critics of all
schools, such as Baur, Strauss, Renan, and the author
of ' Supernatural Religion '; and they show that the
Gospel which he preached, and which he alludes to all
through his Epistles, was based on certain historic
facts connected with Christ's life, especially His
Resurrection, and that he was in the habit of commit
ting these to his converts.2 And that there was some
written account of them is extremely probable, since
Christianity arose in a literary age ; and these same
Epistles show how fully both preachers and converts
were able to appreciate documentary teaching. In
deed that the early Christians should not have had
some written account of their Founder's Life is scarcely
conceivable. And when we add to this the fact that
many of the parables and other sayings of Christ have,
as we shall see, strong claims to genuineness, and there
fore to a very early date, the conclusion seems irresistible
that some biographies of Christ must have been com
posed very soon after His death.
1 Luke 1. 4. 2 E.g., 1 Cor. 11. 23-25 ; 15. 1-8,

328 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xv.
And this has been rendered still more probable in
recent years, by the discovery of quantities of Egyptian
papyri, which show that writing was in common use
among all classes at the time of Christ. And therefore
we may say, in the words of Sir William Ramsay,
' So far as antecedent probability goes, founded on the
general character of preceding and contemporary
society, the first Christian account of the circumstances
connected with the death of Jesus must be presumed
to have been written in the year when Jesus died.'1
And there are even some passages in our Gospels
which seem to date still earlier ; such as Luke 1. 68-79.
This reads like a portion of the Old Testament, with
its allusions to the God of Israel, the house of His
servant David, His holy covenant, the oath which He
sware unto Abraham our father, and above all the
hopes of a Messiah, who should deliver us from the
hands of our enemies — i.e., the Romans. Of course
Christians give a spiritual meaning to the passage, but
this was obviously not its original sense. It is all
perfectly consistent in the mouth of Zacharias shortly
before the time of Christ, but could scarcely have been
invented by anyone after the Crucifixion. And exactly
the same may be said of other parts of this chapter
(e.g., vv. 32-33). No doubt St. Luke incorporated
it all from some early document ; but if so it strongly
supports his own statement, that he had ample means
of knowing the truth, from the very beginning. And
this, he says, was the express reason why he deter
mined to write ; so a more (apparently) trustworthy
J Transactions of Victoria Institute, V9I, xxxix., 1907, p. 203.

THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 329
historian can scarcely be imagined.1 Fortunately,
however, though dividing the Gospels into their original
parts is an interesting study, it is in no way essential
to our present argument.
(2.) Their apparent truthfulness.
We now come to the apparent truthfulness of the
Gospels, and of this there are numerous indications.
The writers, for instance, record several events which
were not at aU creditable to the Apostles, such as their
cowardice when Christ was apprehended ; and also
many minute incidents which could hardly have been
worth inventing. Moreover, when they relate Christ's
acts, they do so as a rule without remark, and do not
dweU upon their excellence in the way St. Paul does,
or stop to censure His foes. And the same calmness
is shown even when recording the details of His Passion
and the triumph of His Resurrection. They express
no indignation at the one, and no exultation at the
other, but strictly limit themselves to the actual facts.
This is indeed so striking, that it has sometimes been
made the ground of objection. The Evangelists, it is
said, describe the most stupendous miracles, even the
Resurrection itself, as if they were common everyday
affairs ; so they clearly did not realise the extra
ordinary nature of the events, and the extraordinary
amount of evidence required to prove them. But this
is only partly true, for they frequently record the
astonishment felt by the crowds at Christ's miracles ;
and for themselves they expressed the wonder they
felt at the Resurrection, not in words, but in deeds ;
1 Luke 1, 1-4.

330 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. CHAP. XV.
devoting their whole lives to preaching it, and risking
everything for its sake.
Again, and this is very important, the facts recorded
in the Gospels are often of such a kind as to bear un
mistakable signs of truthfulness. Is it conceivable, for
example, that Christians in later times, who believed
Christ to be the King of Glory, should ever have in
vented His prayer in Gethsemane, that the cup might
pass from Him ; or His (seeming) cry of despair on the
Cross that God had forsaken Him ? Or would they
have said that His relatives thought Him mad, unless
it had been the case, or that one of His own Apostles
actually ventured to rebuke Him P1
Moreover, the Evangelists record several of Christ's
hard sayings, as they are called, which must have pre
sented great difficulties. In particular may be men
tioned His statement that some of the bystanders were
not to die till apparently the end of the world, and that
a Christian's faith could move mountains.2 That such
statements should have been invented in later years is
out of the question ; so we can only conclude that they
were actually spoken by Christ, and that the writers,
knowing this, did not venture to omit them or soften
them down, no matter what difficulties they presented.
And the former passage gives us an indication of the
date of the Gospels ; for they must obviously have been
written when some of Christ's hearers were still alive,
and therefore within the first century.
Again, nearly aU the parables of Christ have very
1 Mark 3. 21 ; 14. 36 ; 15. 34 ; 8. 32.
2 Matt. 16. 28 ; 17. 20 ; Mark 9. 1 ; 11. 23 ; Luke 9. 27 ; 17. 6.

THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 33I
strong marks of genuineness, as they, are thoroughly
natural in character, and suit the customs and scenery
in Palestine. Moreover, they are unique in Christian
literature. However strange we may think it, the
early Christians seem never to have adopted Christ's
method of teaching by parables. And yet, if they had
invented these parables, instead of merely recording
them, they would doubtless have invented others like
them. It is hence probable that these discourses are
genuine ; and, if so, they must have been written down
within a very few years, since the accurate preserva
tion of such long discourses by memory would have
been most difficult.
On the other hand, it must be admitted that there
are some discrepancies between the Gospels ; but these
are as a rule so trivial that they do not affect their
substantial accuracy. For example,1 St. Matthew
relates that at Christ's Baptism the Voice from Heaven
said, ' This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased ;' and the other Evangelists, ' Thou art my
beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased.' Now the Voice
may have spoken in the third or in the second person,
but not in both. There is a clear verbal discrepancy,
whatever words were used or in whatever language
they were spoken. Again, St. Matthew records the
passage about the Queen of the South as being spoken
just after, and St. Luke as just before, the similar
passage about the men of Nineveh, though both can
hardly be correct. While, however, the discrepancies
are plain, their unimportance is at least equally so.
1 Matt. 3. 17 ; 12. 42 ; Mark 1. 11 ; Luke 3. 22 ; 11. 31.

332 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xv.
These Gospels, then, on the whole, have every appear
ance of being candidly and truthfully written.
(3.) Their probable date.
Lastly we come to what is perhaps the most impor
tant point of all, the probable date of the Synoptic
Gospels. And there are strong reasons for fixing this
before the fall of Jerusalem, in a.d. 70. For instance,
several subjects are discussed, such as the lawfulness
of the Jews paying tribute to Caesar, which would have
had no interest after that event. And that conversa
tions on such subjects should have been invented in
later days, or even thought worth recording, is most
improbable. Again in St. Matthew we read that the
potter's field, where strangers were buried, was called
the field of blood unto this day.1 And this could scarcely
have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem,
when the whole city was little more than a heap of
ruins. Of course, on the other hand it could not
have been written immediately after the time of
Christ, but twenty years would probably be a sufficient
interval. Still more important is the prophetic description of
the fall of Jerusalem itself, which seems confused by
the Evangelists with that of the Day of Judgment,
St. Matthew saying, and both the others implying,
that the one would immediately follow the other.2
Had the Gospels been written after the former event,
it is almost certain that the writers would have dis
tinguished between the two ; indeed, their not doing
1 Matt. 27. 8 ; see also 28. 15.
2 Matt. 24. 3, 29 , Mark 13. 24 ; Luke 21. 27.

THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 333
so is scarcely inteUigible, except on the supposition
that when they wrote both events were yet future.
And this is strongly confirmed by the curious hint
given to the readers both in Matthew and Mark to
understand, and act on Christ's advice, and leave the
city and flee to the mountains, before the siege became
too severe. It is out of the question that such a warn
ing should have been added after the siege, when it
would have been utterly useless. It was evidently
written before (probably not later than a.d. 65), when
the storm seemed to be gathering ; and therefore if it
is an interpolation, as it certainly seems to be, it
proves a still earlier date for the rest of the chapter.
Moreover, none of the Evangelists have altered the
passage, as later writers might have done, to make it
agree with the event ; for as far as we know, the
Christians did not go to the mountains, but to Pella,
a city in the Jordan valley.1
St. Luke, it will be noticed, omits the hint just
alluded to, and as his prophecy of the siege is rather
more exact than the others, it is often thought to have
been written after the event. But this is a needless
assumption, for the hint would have been quite useless
for Theophilus, to whom the Gospel was addressed ;
and the prophecy is anyhow no closer than that in
Deut. 28., which everyone admits was written centuries
before (Chapter XL).
On the whole then everything points to our Synoptic
Gospels having been composed some years before the
destruction of Jerusalem, say a.d. 50-70 ; and hence
1 Matt. 24. 16 ; Mark 13. 14 ; Luke 21. 21 ; Eusebius iii. 5.

334 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xv.
they were most likely written by the Evangelists, to
whom they have been universally ascribed.
And, it may be added, in regard to the Evangelists
themselves, St. Matthew the Apostle was a publican or
tax-collector, and therefore just the sort of person to
keep records.1 St. Mark came of a well-to-do family,
as his relative, Barnabas, had some property ; and his
mother, Mary, had a large house at Jerusalem, where
Christians used to assemble, and where it has been
thought the Last Supper was held ; in which case the
young man who followed from here to Gethsemane
would probably be St. Mark himself. Indeed this
latter incident seems so pointless, that it is hard to
account for its being recorded, unless the writer' felt a
personal interest in it.2 And in any case, as he was
the intimate friend of St. Peter, he must have been
well acquainted with the facts he relates, most of which
occurred when St. Peter was present.
And St. Luke (as we shall see in the next chapter)
was a doctor, who got his information from eyewitnesses,
and if he was the companion of Cleopas, as is perhaps
probable (for such a graphic narrative must have come
from one who was present, and yet the language is
thoroughly that of St. Luke), he would also have had
some slight knowledge of Christ himself.3
All three must thus have been well educated, and
quite in a position to write Gospels if they wanted to.
While, on the other hand, none of them seem to have
taken a prominent part in the founding of Christianity,
1 Matt. 9. 9. 2 Acts 4. 37 ; 12. 12 ; Col. 4. 10 ; Mark 14. 51.
3 Col. 4. 14 ; Luke 1. 2 ; 24. 18 ; Expositor, Feb., 1904.

THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. , 335
so there was no reason for ascribing the Gospels to
them, rather than to such great men as St. Peter and
St. Paul, unless they actually wrote them.
(C.) The Fourth Gospel.
We pass on now to the Fourth Gospel, and will first
examine the internal arguments as to its authorship,
which are strongly in favour of its being the work of
St. John ; and then the two counter-arguments, said to
be derived by comparing it with the Synoptic Gospels,
and the Book of Revelation.
(1.) Its authorship.
In the first place, the writer appears to have been a
Jew. This is shown by his frequently quoting the Old
Testament, and twice from the Hebrew instead of the
Septuagint, where there is a difference between them.1
He was also well acquainted with the Jewish feasts, he
alone having recorded Christ's attendance at them ;2
with Jewish prejudices, such as their ill-feeling against
the Samaritans ; and with Jewish customs, those in
regard to purification being frequently alluded to.3"
The only counter-argument is from the frequent use
of the term the Jews ; 'but this does not necessarily
show that the writer was not a Jew himself, but
merely that his intended readers were not. A Jew
writing for Gentile Christians might certainly use the
phrase. Secondly, the writer appears to have lived in the first
century. This is probable from his intimate acquaint-
1 John 13. 18 ; 19. 37.
2 John 2. 13 ; 6. 4 ; 7. 37 ; 10. 22 ; 13. 1.
3 John 2. 6 ; 11. 55 ; 18. 28 ; 19. 31.

336 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xv.
ance with Jerusalem, and as before said that city was
only a heap of ruins after a.d. 70. Thus he speaks of
Bethesda, the pool near the sheep-gate, having five
porches ; of Solomon's porch ; of the pool of Siloam ;
of the brook Kedron ; of the place that is called the
Pavement, or Gabbatha ; of the place of a skull, or
Golgotha ; and of the Temple with its treasury, its
oxen, sheep, and doves for sacrifice, and its money
changers for changing foreign money into Jewish, in
which alone the Temple tax could be paid. And he
also knew that it had been founded forty-six years
before the time of Christ's ministry.1
Moreover, the controversies discussed in the Gospel
are such as would have had no interest even early in
the second century. Then the important disputes were
about the Gnostic theories as to the origin of. evil, as
well as such questions as the time of celebrating Easter,
and Church government. But none of these are even
alluded to in the Gospel, and yet a writer of that age
was sure to have taken one or other side in these con
troversies, and, if a forger, would not have scrupled to
introduce some favourable evidence into his pretended
Gospel. On the other hand, the duty of observing the
Sabbath is discussed at length, which would have had
no interest in the second century. And the Gospel is
also full of the hopes of the Jews, of a temporal Messiah,.
and the expectations they had formed about Him,
which, of course, perished with Jerusalem.2
Thirdly, the writer appears to have been an eye
witness of what he describes. He twice asserts this
1 John 2. 20. 2 E.g., John 7. 27, 31, 42 ; 12. 34.

THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 337
himself, as well as in an Epistle which is generally
allowed to be by the same writer, where he positively
declares that he had both seen, heard, and touched his
Master.1 So, if not true, the work must be a deliberate
forgery ; and this is certainly improbable. Moreover,
the whole narrative seems to imply that the writer was
an eye-witness. For instance, he frequently identifies
himself with the Apostles, recording their feelings and
reflections in a way which would be very unlikely for
any forger to have thought of. Would a forger, for
instance, have thought of inventing questions which
the Apostles wanted to ask their Master, though they
were afraid to do so ? Or would he have thought it
worth repeating so often that they did not understand
at the time the real significance of the events they took
part in ? 2 Or would he have said that they all went to
Capernaum, merely to add that they stayed there not
many days, and without giving a hint as to why they
went, or what they did ?3 Or again, would he have
invented such a strange discourse as that about the
Bread of Life, and then say at the end that it had the
effect of driving away many of Christ's own disciples ?4
The writer is also very minute as to times and places.
Take, for instance, the passage 1. 29—2. 1, with its
expressions On the morrow, Again on the morrow, About
the tenth hour, On the morrow, And the third day. It
reads like extracts from an old diary, and why should
all these insignificant details be recorded ? What did it
1 John 1. 14 ; 19. 35 ; 1 John 1. 1.
2 E,g., John 2. 17, 22 ; 4. 27 ; 12. 6 ; 13. 28 ; 16. 17 ; 21. 12.
3 John 2. 12. i John 6. 32-66. 22

338 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xv.
matter half a century later whether it was the same
day, or the morrow, or the third day ? The only
reasonable explanation is that the writer was present
himself (being of course the unnamed companion of
St. Andrew) ; that this was the turning-point in his
life when he first saw his Lord ; and that therefore
every detail, however unimportant, was stamped on
his memory, and he loved to recaU it.
And it should be noticed in passing that this passage
explains an apparent difficulty in St. Mark, and the
other Synoptics, where it is stated that these Apostles
were called to follow Christ, after the death of St. John
the Baptist ; but with an abruptness, and sudden
obedience on their part, which it is hard to believe.1
We here learn, however, that they had already been
with Christ some months before, in company with the
Baptist, so they were doubtless prepared for the call
when it came.
And the passage, like many others, also bears internal
marks of truthfulness. In particular may be men
tioned the avowal of Nathanael, Thou art the Son of
God, thou art the King of Israel, implying that the
latter title was at least as honourable as the former.
No Christian in later times, when Christ was obviously
not the King of Israel (except in a purely spiritual
sense), and when the title Son of God had come to mean
so much more than it ever did to the Jews, would have
invented such a phrase as this. Nor would he have
put into the mouth of Philip the words, ' Jesus of
Nazareth, the Son of Joseph.' ' It was of course quite
1 Mark 1. 14-20,

THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 339
natural for Philip to have said so at the time (as during
His life Christ could not have been otherwise known
than as the Son of Joseph), but it speaks much for the
writer's candour to have recorded it, more especially as
the latter words were quite needless, and might easily
have been omitted. And little marks of genuineness
like these are of considerable value in the Fourth Gospel,
because it is generally admitted to be the work of a single
author ; whereas in the Synoptics they can always be
explained as' fragments of some older document.
Lastly, if we admit that the writer was an eye
witness, it can hardly be disputed that he was the
Apostle St. John. Indeed, were he anyone else, it is
strange that an apostle of such importance should not
be once mentioned throughout the Gospel. It is also
significant that the other John, who is described in the
Synoptics as John the Baptist, to distinguish him from
the Apostle, is called in this Gospel merely John. No
confusion could arise if, and only if, the writer himself
were the Apostle'John. While still more important is
the fact that at the close of the last chapter, which
seems to be a sort of appendix to the Gospel (though
written in almost exactly the same style) we have the
solemn declaration of St. John's disciples, who knew
him personally, that he was its author, that he had
witnessed the things he wrote about, and that what he
said was true ; and testimony more ancient or more
conclusive can scarcely be imagined.1
With regard to the date of the book, we can say little
1 He is called the disciple whom Jesus loved, but this evidently
means St. John. 22 — 2

340 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xv.
for certain, but the extreme care which is taken in these
closing verses to explain exactly what Christ did, and
did not say as to St. John's dying before His coming
again, seems to imply that the matter was still un
decided, in other words that St. John was still alive,
though very old, when they were written. And if so
the Gospel must have been published towards the close
of the first century.
(2.) Its connection with the other Gospels.
But, as before, said, there are two arguments against
the authenticity of this Gospel. The first is that the
Christ of the Fourth Gospel is almost a different person
from the Christ of the other Gospels. His miracles
with one exception are all different, and so are His
discourses both in substance and in style. His char
acter is also different, since, instead of inculcating
moral virtues, as in the Sermon on the Mount, He keeps
asserting His own Divine nature. While, lastly, where
the Gospels cover the same ground there are dis
crepancies between them. From aU this it is urged
the Fourth Gospel is evidently unhistorical, and written
long after the time of Christ, when the Church held high
views concerning His Divinity. This objection is really
threefold, and each part of it admits of a complete
and satisfactory answer.
To begin with, the fact that the Fourth Gospel
narrates different events and discourses in the life- of
Christ from what we find in the other three, and this
to an extent which can scarcely be accidental, must
of course be admitted. But what then ? Why should
not one biography of Christ purposely narrate certain

THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 341
events in His -life, which the writer thought important,
but which had been omitted in previous accounts ?
This is what occurs frequently at the present day, and
why should it not have occurred then ? The Fourth
Gospel may have been written on purpose to supple
ment some other accounts.
Nor is this mere conjecture, for there is strong
evidence from the Gospel itself that it was actually
written with some such purpose. Thus the writer
refers to many events without describing them, and in
such a way as to show that he supposed his readers
knew about them. He assumes, for instance, that they
know about St. John the Baptist being imprisoned
about Joseph being the reputed father of Christ, about
the appointment of the Twelve, and about Mary having
anointed the Lord.1 And when we add to this the fact
that many important events in the life of Christ are
omitted altogether, such as His Birth, His Baptism,
His instituting the Eucharist, and His Ascension, it
makes it almost certain that the Gospel was written
for well-instructed Christians, who possessed some other
biographies of Christ. And everything points to these
being our present Synoptic Gospels.
And then as to the style of language ascribed to
Christ in the Fourth Gospel being different from that
in the Synoptics. This is no doubt partly true, but we
have in these other Gospels at least two specimens of
similar style ; one of which occurs in the so-called
Triple Tradition.2 And this shows conclusively that
1 John 3. 24 ; 6. 42, 70 ; 11. 2.
2 Matt. 11. 25-27 ; 24. 36 ; Mark 13. 32 ; Luke 10. 21, 22.

342 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xv.
Christ did occasionally speak in this manner ; and there
is no reason why St. John should not have purposely
preserved such discourses because the other Evangelists
had neglected to do so.
Moreover, Christ's discourses in St. John are, as a
rule, addressed to the upper and learned classes, like
Nicodemus, in Jerusalem, while those in the Synoptics
are addressed to the multitudes in Galilee ; which will
also account for some difference between them.
Indeed, judging by the Synoptics alone, some critics
have thought that Christ's ministry never reached
Jerusalem, till just before His death. But this would
be most unlikely, and St. John's account that Christ,
like other pious Jews, regularly went up to the feasts
there is far more probable, especially as a religious
Teacher would scarcely have avoided the chief city.
And it is even implied by the Synoptics, both in the
word often (' How often would I have gathered thy
children,'1 etc.), which must mean that Christ had
frequently visited the city, and preached there ; and
also in the reference to an earlier visit1 of Christ to
Martha and Mary, which shows that He had been to
Bethany (close to Jerusalem) some time before.2
The next part of the objection is that the Character
assigned to Christ in the Fourth Gospel is different
from that in the other three. And this also is partly
true, for the Fourth Gospel asserts the Divinity of
Christ more directly than the others, which only imply
it (see Chapter XX.). And very probably the writer
did so intentionally, thinking that this aspect of
1 Matt. 23. 37 ; Luke 13. 34. 2 Luke 10. 38.

THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 343
Christ's character had not been sufficiently emphasised
in the previous accounts. Indeed, he implies it
himself, for he says that he omitted much that he
might have inserted, and merely recorded what he
did in order to convince his readers that Jesus was the
Christ, the Son of God.1
But in any case no argument for a late date can be
drawn from this, for the admittedly genuine Epistles of
St. Paul, which are probably as early as the Synoptic
Gospels (perhaps earlier) describe exactly the same
Christ as is portrayed in the Fourth Gospel, speaking
of His Divinity, Pre-existence, and Incarnation. And
from the way in which St. Paul alludes to these doc
trines he evidently considered them the common belief
of all Christians when he wrote, about a.d. 54. And
therefore the fact of the Fourth Gospel laying stress on
these doctrines is no reason whatever .against either its
authenticity or its early date. It is indeed just the
opposite, for we know from the Book of Revelation
(which even hostile critics admit to be genuine) that
these doctrines were held by St. John himself (chap, xx.)
so their occurring in the Fourth Gospel is a distinct
argument in favour of his authorship.
Lastly, as to the discrepancies. Many of these can
be explained satisfactorily ; possibly all could if we
had fuller knowledge. But even if discrepancies exist,
the inference against the genuineness of the Fourth
Gospel does not follow. For the writer, whoever he
was, must certainly have lived after the Synoptics
were in circulation, and, as we have seen, probably
1 John 20. 31.

344 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xv.
wrote to supplement them. Now, if he were an
obscure Christian, or lived many years after the events
of which he pretended he was an eye-witness, he would
have been careful not to contradict the received
accounts. But if he were the Apostle John, writing
from memory after the lapse of many years, he might
well narrate things somewhat differently from the
others, and, considering his own authority, would not
have thought it necessary to make his account har
monise with theirs. Slight discrepancies, then, with
the other three Gospels are no argument against the
Fourth. On the other hand, there are several undesigned
coincidences between them which are a strong argu
ment in favour of the accuracy of both. A couple of
examples must suffice here. The first refers to the
accusation brought against Christ of destroying and
rebuilding the Temple in three days. This is aUuded
to by both St. Matthew and St. Mark ; but St. John
alone records the words on which it was founded,
though he does not himself mention the charge, and
quotes the words in quite a different connection.1
The other example refers to feeding the five thousand,
which is the only miracle the Four Gospels have in
common.2 St. Mark says that this occurred in a desert
place, where Christ had gone to rest for a while, and to
avoid the crowd of persons who were coming and going
at Capernaum. But he gives no hint as to- why there
was this crowd just at that time. St. John says
1 Matt. 26. 6i ; Mark 14. 58 ; John 2. 19.
2 Matt. 14. 13 ; Mark 6. 31 ; Luke 9. 10 ; John 6. 4.

THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 345
nothing about this temporary seclusion, nor of the
great crowd which occasioned it ; but he happens to
mention, what fully explains both, that it was shortly
before the Passover. Now we know from Josephus
and other sources that at the Passover enormous
multitudes flocked to Jerusalem from aU sides, so
that Capernaum, which lay on a main road from the
north, would naturally be thronged with persons
' coming and going '; and this explains everything,
even the little detail, as to the people sitting on the
green grass, for grass is only green in Palestine in the
spring, i.e., at the time of the Passover.
But can anyone think that the writer of the Fourth
Gospel purposely made his account to harmonise with
the others, and yet left the agreement so incidental
that not one reader in a thousand ever discovers it ?
The only reasonable explanation is that the event was
actually true, and that both writers had independent
knowledge of this.
The objection, then, as to the connection of the
Fourth Gospel with the Synoptic ones must be put
aside. It was plainly meant to supplement them, and
it shows not a different Christ, but a different aspect
of the same Christ ; while the slight discrepancies,
especially when combined with the undesigned coinci
dences, support its genuineness.
(3.) Its connection with the Book of Revelation.
The other objection is perhaps a more important
one. The Book of Revelation is now generally ad
mitted to be the work of St. John. Indeed, the
evidence in favour of this is very strong, both internal

346 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xv.
and external, since it is expressly assigned to St. John
by Justin Martyr,1 and its date is generally fixed at
a.d. 68 ; though some critics still prefer a.d. 95, which
is the date apparently given by Irenaeus. And yet it is
said it cannot be by the same writer as the Fourth
Gospel for three reasons. The, first is, that while the
Gospel is anonymous, the Revelation is not so. But
this is easily explained, since in the Old Testament the
Historical Books are nearly always anonymous, and
the Prophetical ones never so ; and a Jew might
naturally follow this example.
Secondly, there is a considerable difference in style.
But this is partly accounted for by the difference in
subject-matter ; the Gospel being a plain historical
narrative, and the Revelation a prophetical vision.
And the same writer, when treating of a different
subject, or writing for a different purpose, or even at
a different time of life, often uses a different style.
The third reason is that the Greek of the Revelation
is very abrupt, with numerous faults of grammar, and
quite unlike that of the Gospel, which is in good Greek.
And therefore it is urged a Galilean fisherman like
St. John, though he might have been sufficiently
educated (as his father was well off, and kept servants)2
to have written the former, could scarcely have
written the latter. But considering that some parts
of the Revelation (Chap. 18 for instance) are in very
good Greek, many critics consider that the abruptness
of other parts was intentional, with a view of imitating
the vigorous style of the Old Testament Prophets. But
1 Dial., 81. 2 Mark 1. 20.

THE GOSPELS : INTERNAL EVIDENCE. 347
perhaps a better explanation is that the Revelation
was written by St. John himself, as he is not likely to
have had friends in Patmos ; and when writing the
Gospel in his old age, he had the assistance of a Greek
disciple. ,
On the other side, it must be remembered that
though the two books are different in language, they
are the same in their teaching ; for (as just said) the
characteristic doctrine of the Fourth Gospel, that of
the Divinity of Christ, is asserted almost as plainly
in the Revelation. And even the striking expression
that Christ is the Logos, or Word, occurs in both the
books, though it is not found elsewhere in the New
Testament, except in one of St. John's Epistles.1 It
was evidently a favourite term with this Apostle,
though it is worth noting that he never puts it into
the mouth of Christ Himself, as an unscrupulous
writer might have done.
On the whole, then, this objection is not an insuper
able one, while, as already shown, the Fourth Gospel
has very strong internal marks of genuineness. And
when we combine these with the equally strong
external testimony, it forces us to conclude that
St. John was the author. This. Gospel, then, like the
Synoptic ones, must be considered authentic ; indeed,
the evidence in favour of them all is overwhelming.
1 John 1. 1 ; 1 John 1. 1 ; Rev. 19. 13.

CHAPTER XVI.
THAT THE GOSPELS ARE AUTHENTIC FROM THE
EVIDENCE OF THE ACTS.
Importance of the Acts, as it is by the writer of the Third Gospel.
(A) Its Accuracy.
Three examples of this :
(i.) The titles of various rulers.
(2.) The riot at Ephesus.
(3.) The agreement with St. Paul's Epistles.
(B.) Its Unity.
The We sections are not by a different author.
(C.) Its Authorship.
The writer was a companion of St. Paul, and a medical
man ; and hence probably St. Luke.
(D.) Its Date.
There are strong reasons for fixing this at the close' of
St. Paul's imprisonment at Rome, a.d. 60 ; and this
shows an earlier date for all the Synoptic Gospels.
We have now to consider an argument of great
importance derived from the Acts of the Apostles.
This book is universally admitted to be by the same
writer as the Third Gospel, as is indeed obvious from
the manner in which both are addressed to TheophUus,
from the former treatise being mentioned in the opening
verse of the Acts, and from the perfect agreement in
style and language. Hence arguments for or against
348

THE GOSPELS : EVIDENCE OF ACTS. 349
the antiquity of the Acts affect the Third Gospel also,
and therefore, to some extent, all the Synoptic Gospels.
And though the external testimony to the book is not
so strong as that to the Gospels, it has very strong
internal marks of genuineness.
(A.) Its Accuracy.
And first as to its extreme accuracy. This book,
unlike the Gospels, deals with a large number of public
men and places, many of which are well known to us
from secular history, while inscriptions referring to
others have been recently discovered. It is thus liable
to be detected at every step if inaccurate ; and yet,
with the doubtful exception of the date of the rebellion
of Theudas, and some details as to the death of Herod
Agrippa,1 no error can be discovered. As this is prac
tically undisputed, we need not discuss the evidence in
detail, but will give three examples only.
(1.) The titles of various rulers.
And we will commence with the titles given to differ
ent rulers. As is well known, the Roman provinces
were of two kinds, imperial and senatorial, the former
being governed by proprcetors, or when less important
by procurators, and the latter by proconsuls, though
they frequently changed hands. Moreover, indi
vidual places had often special names for their rulers ;
and yet in every case the writer of the Acts (though
his allusions are quite incidental) always uses the
proper title.
For example,2 the ruler at Cyprus is styled proconsul.
1 Acts 5. 36 ; 12. 21-23 ; Josephus, Antiq., xx. 5 ; xix. 8.
2 Acts 13. 7 ; 18. 12 ; 19. 38 ; 23. 26 ; 26. 30 ; 28. 7.

350 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvr.
This used to be thought a mistake, but we now know
that it is correct ; for though Cyprus had previously
belonged to the Emperor, it had been exchanged with
the Senate for another province before the time in
question. And an inscription1 found there at Soli has
the words in Greek, Paulus proconsul, probably the
Sergius Paulus of the Acts. Cyprus, it may be added,
subsequently changed hands again.
In the same way Gallio is correctly described as pro
consul of Achaia. For though this province was
imperial up to a.d. 44, and independent after a.d. 66, it
was senatorial in between, when the writer referred
to it. And an inscription, recently found at Delphi,
shows that Gallio was proconsul in a.d. 52, which
agrees very well with the chronology of the Acts.2 At
Ephesus the mention of proconsul is equally correct ;
and so also is the title of governor or procurator, applied
to both Felix and Festus ; while at Malta we read of
the chief-man ; the accuracy of which title is also proved
by inscriptions, though as far as we know it was
peculiar to that island.3
Again, Herod Agrippa, shortly before his death, is
styled king. Now we learn from other sources that
he had this title for the last three years of his govern
ment (a.d. 41-44), though there had been no king in
Judaea for the previous thirty years, nor for many
centuries afterwards. Moreover, his son is also called
1 Cyprus, by Cesnola (London, 1877), p. 425.
2 Quoted from M. E. Bourguet in Palestine Exploration Quarterly,
January, 1908.
3 Boeckh's Corp. Ins. Lat. X., No. 7495 ; Corp. Ins. Gr., No.
5754-

THE GOSPELS : EVIDENCE OF ACTS. 35 1
King Agrippa, though it is implied that he was not
king of Judaea, which was governed by Festus, but of
some other provinces. And yet he seems to have held
some official position in regard to the Jews, since
Festus laid Paul's case before him, as if he were entitled
to hear it. And aU this is quite correct ; for Agrippa,
though King of Chalcis, and not Judaea, was yet (being
a Jew) entrusted by the Emperor with the management
of the Jewish Temple and Treasury, and the choice of
the High Priests, and was thus- a good deal mixed up
in Jewish affairs.1 And equally correct is the remark
able fact that he used to have his sister Bernice acting
with him on public occasions.2
These notices of the Herods are all confirmed by
Josephus, but the view, advocated by a few critics,
that the writer of the Acts got his information .from
Josephus, and therefore wrote after a.d. ioo, is quite
untenable. It would only account for a small part of
his accuracy, and would make it more than ever
difficult to account for the remainder ; not to mention
the discrepancies as to Theudas, and the death of
Herod, where he disagrees with Josephus in several
particulars. Again, the names prcetors and lictors for the magis
trates and sergeants at Philippi are probably correct,
since that was a Roman colony, though they would not
be correct elsewhere. At Thessalonica, on the other
hand, the magistrates are called politarchs, translated
1 Acts 12. i, 20 ; 25. 13, 14 ; Josephus, Antiq., xviii., 6, xix. 5 ;
xx. 1, 8, 9.
2 Acts 25. 13, 23 ; Josephus, Wars, ii. 16 ; Life, xi.

352 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvi.
' rulers of the city.'1 This name does not occur in
any classical author in this form, and consequently
the writer of the Acts used to be accused of a blunder
here. His critics were unaware that an old arch was
standing all the time at this very place, the modern
Salonica, with an inscription containing this very word,
saying it was built when certain men were the poli
tarchs. The arch was destroyed in 1876, but the
stone containing the inscription was preserved, and is
now in the British Museum.2 And since then other
inscriptions have been found, showing that the term
was in use all through the first century.
Nor is this accuracy confined to well-known places on
the coast ; it extends wherever the narrative extends,
even to the interior of Asia Minor. Thus at Iconium,3
though the rulers are not mentioned, the people are
correctly called Greeks, that being a Greek city ; while
at the adjacent towns of Antioch and Lystra (the site
of which latter was only identified in 1885), they are -
with equal correctiveness called the multitude, a term
which frequently occurs in the inscriptions there. It
is also worth noting that according to the writer,
Lystra was a city of Lycaonia, but Iconium was not,
and it has been recently proved that this was correct ;
and it is interesting, because many classical authors
wrongly assign Iconium to Lycaonia ; and on the other
hand Lystra, though belonging to that province in the
first century, was separated from it early in the
1 Acts 16. 22, 35 ; 17. 6.
2 In the Central Hall, near the Library.
3 Acts 14. i-ii.

THE GOSPELS : EVIDENCE OF ACTS. 353
second; so that a late writer, or one ignorant of the
locality, could easily have made a mistake in either
case.1
^ (2.) The riot at Ephesus.
As a second example we will take the account of
the riot at Ephesus. AU the allusions here to the wor
ship of Diana, including her image believed to have
fallen from heaven (perhaps a meteorite roughly cut
into shape), her magnificent shrine, the small silver
models of this which were used as charms, her wide
spread worship, and the fanatical devotion of her
worshippers, are all in strict agreement with what we
know from other sources.
Moreover, inscriptions discovered there have con
firmed the narrative in a remarkable manner. They
have shown that the theatre was the recognised place
of public meeting ; that there were certain officers
(who presided at games, etc.) called asiarchs ; that
another well-known Ephesian officer was called the
town-clerk; that Ephesus had the curious designation
of temple-keeper of Diana (long thought to be a diffi
culty) ; that temple-robbing and blasphemy were both
crimes which were specially recognised by the Ephesian
laws ; and that the term regular assembly was a technical
one in use at Ephesus.2 All this minute accuracy is
hard to explain unless the narrative came from one
1 Paper by Sir W. Ramsay in Transactions of Victoria Institute,
vol. xxxix., 1907, pp. 209-210 ; and article Iconium in Hastings'
Diet, of the Bible.
2 Comp. Acts. 19. 29-39 ; with inscriptions found in the Great
Theatre. Wood's Discoveries at Ephesus, 1877, pp. 43, 47, 53, 51,
15. 39- 23

354 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvi.
who was present during the riot, and recorded what he
actually saw and heard.
(3.) The agreement with St. Paul's Epistles.
Our third example shall be of a different kind
from the preceding. If we compare the biography
of St. Paul given in the Acts with the letters of that
Apostle, many of them written to the very Churches
and persons described there, we shall find a complete
though unobtrusive agreement .between them. These
undesigned coincidences are both numerous and striking,
and very unlikely to have been deliberately arranged.
Here we must confine ourselves to a single Epistle,
and select that to the Romans, which is one of those
universally admitted to be genuine. Though not
actually dated, it was evidently written at the close
of St. Paul's second visit to Greece ; and therefore, if
mentioned in the Acts, would come in at 20. 3 ; and
its incidental notices are all consistent with this time
and place.
Thus St. Paul says that he was going up to Jerusalem,
with alms from Macedonia and Achaia for the poor in
that city. Now in the Acts it is stated that St. Paul
had just passed through these provinces, and was on
his way to Jerusalem, though there is. no mention
about the alms here. But it happens to be alluded to
some chapters later, without, however, mentioning -
then where the alms came from.1
We also learn that St. Paul's missionary travels up
till now had extended from Jerusalem as far as Illyri-
cum. Now Illyricum is not once mentioned in the
1 Rom. 15. 25, 26 ; Acts 19. 21 ; 24. 17.

THE GOSPELS : EVIDENCE OF ACTS. 355
Acts ; so there can be no intentional agreement here,
but yet there is agreement. For we gather from
various places that St. Paul had preached from Jeru
salem all through what we now call Asia Minor, and
just before the date of this Epistle had gone through
Macedonia, which was his limit in this direction. And
as this was the adjacent province to IUyricum, it
exactly agrees with the Epistle.1
Among other points of agreement may be mentioned
St. Paul's friendship with PrisciUa and Aquila, who
had now apparently returned to Rome ; that he had
himself long wished to visit Rome, and intended doing
so after his visit to Jerusalem ;2 that his feelings
were very despondent as he set out on his return
journey to the latter city, having doubts as to what
would befall him there ; and that Timothy, Gaius, and
Sosipater among others were with him when he wrote.3
In regard to all these passages, it should be noticed
that the coincidence is in every case undesigned. This
is the whole point of the argument, though, unfortu
nately, just aUuding to the statements as we have done
here, often gives the idea that they are identical, and
might easily be copied one from the other. But if
anyone will take the trouble to compare the paraUel
statements with their contexts, he will see that this
is out of the question. In other words, the writer of
the Acts, whoever he was, did not get his information
on these points from this Epistle, but had independent
1 Rom. 15. 19 ; Acts 20. 2.
2 Rom. 15. 23, 25 ; 16. 3 ; Acts 18. 2 ; 19. 21.
3 Rom. 15. 30 ; 16. 21-23 ; Acts 20. 4, 22.
23—2

356 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvi.
knowledge of them. And if so, considering that they
include St. Paul's plans and feelings, as well as the
extent of his travels, etc., it follows that he must have
been an intimate friend of his. And, as before said,
this is a mere sample of the evidence.
While, however, there are thus numerous slight and
undesigned coincidences, several more obvious ones
do not occur ; and there are even some apparent dis
crepancies between the Acts and Galatians. These
can indeed be reconciled. But what if they could not ?
A late writer must have known Galatians, and must
have known that his readers knew it too ; and is he
likely to have seemed to contradict it ?
We may now sum up the evidence as to the accuracy
of the Acts. The above instances are only specimens
of many which might be given. The writer knew
about Jerusalem and Athens just as well as about
Ephesus. While his account of St. Paul's voyage from
Caesarea to Italy, including as it does the description
of a variety of places, the climate, and prevailing winds
of the Mediterranean, and the phrases and customs of
seamen, is so accurate, that critics of all schools have
admitted that he is describing a voyage he had
actuaUy experienced. In short, the Book of the Acts
is full of correct details throughout, and it is hard to
believe that anyone but a contemporary could have
written it.
(B.) Its Unity.
We have next to consider whether the book was the
work of a single man or a compilation. As is well
known, certain portions are written in the first person

THE GOSPELS : EVIDENCE OF ACTS. 357
plural, and are commonly called the ' We ' sections.1
The most obvious explanation of this, and the one
generaUy adopted, is that the writer was a companion
of St. Paul during these portions of his travels ; and
the internal evidence is strongly in favour of a common
authorship for these sections and the rest of the book.
In the first place, the language is extremely similar,
there being numerous coincidences in style, and the
use in common of over forty important words and
expressions, which do not occur elsewhere in the New
Testament except in the Third Gospel. This is in fact
so striking that those who maintain a different author
ship admit that the compiler who incorporated the
earlier We sections in his own narrative re-wrote them
to some extent in his own style. But this would
require great literary skill on his part, and it is incon
ceivable that he should have allowed the We to remain
at all. It is clearly the first thing he would have
altered. Some critics, indeed, such as Harnack,
would even go further, and say that the agreement in
style is so extremely close, that they must not only have
been written by the same man, but at about the same
time.2 There are also slight historical connections between
the two portions. For example, in the earlier chapters
several incidents are recorded, in which Philip, one of
the Seven, was concerned ; and why should these have
been selected ? The writer was not present himself,
and many far more important events must have oc-
1 Acts 16. 9-40 ; 20. 5—21. 18 ; 27. 1— 28. 16.
2 Luke the Physician, translated by Wilkinson, 1907, p. 53.

358 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap..xvi.
curred, of which he gives no account. But a casual
verse in the We sections explains everything : the
writer, we are told, stayed many days with Philip,
and of course learnt these particulars then. And as
it seems to have been his rule only to record what he
knew for certain, he might well have left out other
and more important events, of which he had not such
accurate knowledge.1 And the earlier reference to
Philip which ends with the apparently pointless remark
that he came to Ccesarea, without saying why or where
fore, is also explained, since this was the place at which
the writer afterwards met him.
With all this evidence, then, in favour of the unity
of the book, why, it may be asked, do some critics
wish to split it up ? The reason is of course to get
rid of any .contemporary evidence as to Miracles.
The book as a whole records numerous miracles, and
yet its marks of genuineness in some places are too
strong to be denied. Accordingly, the We sections
which have perhaps the stronger marks of genuineness,
and certainly the fewer miracles, are alone allowed to
be authentic. Here, it is said, we have the original
non-miraculous diary of one of St. Paul's companions,
which some writer of the second century published
with many marvellous additions of his own, besides
re-writing the whole in his own style.
But this theory cannot possibly be accepted. It is,
in the first place, improbable, because such a diary is not
likely to have remained unknown for so many years,
that a late writer could publish an ' improved ' edition
1 Acts 6. 5 ; 8. 5-13, 26-40 ; 21. 10 ; Luke 1. 3.

J THE GOSPELS : EVIDENCE OF ACTS. 3ig
of it without anyone detecting the fraud; Next, it is
from its own point of view inadequate, because, as a
matter of fact, the We sections do contain some
miracles -1 while many of the others, such as the riot at
Ephesus, bear equally strong marks of genuineness.
While, lastly, it is opposed to all the evidence, because
there is not only the universal testimony of antiquity
in favour of the unity of the book, but, as we have
seen, the book itself bears strong marks of unity
throughout. (C.) Its Authorship.
Now, if we admit the accuracy and unity of the
book, there is little difficulty in deciding on its author
ship. From the We sections we learn that the writer
was a companion of St. Paul in many of his travels*
including his voyage to Rome, where he apparently
stayed with him two years. There is also another
reason for thinking that the writer was a personal
friend of St. Paul, and this is from his account of St.
Paul's speeches. For we have numerous letters of this
Apostle, and thus know his style and language well,
and on examining the speeches attributed to him all
through the Acts, we find they are thoroughly Pauline
in character. In particular may be mentioned his
speech -at Athens, which so closely resembles the style
of St. Paul, that even hostile critics have been forced
to admit its genuineness, though it does not occur in
the We sections.
And yet, strange to say, the writer does not appear
to have known St. Paul's Epistles, at least there are
L Acts 16. 18, 26 ; 28. 6, 8-9.

360 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvi.
no obvious quotations from them, and in his biography
of St. Paul he never once alludes to his having written
any letters at all. This latter circumstance alone
points to the great antiquity of the book, and when
combined with the former, it clearly shows that the
writer's acquaintance with St. Paul's language was
derived not from his letters, but from himself ; in other
words, that he was his intimate friend.
But it is urged on the other side that some of these
speeches also show traces of the writer's own language.
But what if they do ? Would it not be only natural
for a writer who heard St. Paul's speeches, and after
wards wrote them down from short notes or memory,
to have occasionally introduced an expression of his
own ; more especially as the recorded speeches can only
be abstracts of what was actually said ? St. Paul, for
instance, at Athens is not likely to have spoken for
less than half an hour ; whereas his speech in the Acts
would not take three minutes.1 And if anyone will
try and reduce a half-hour's speech to three minutes, he
will see that it is almost impossible to give a connected
and fair outline of the speech, without introducing some
extra words.
We also learn indirectly from the book itself that
the writer was a medical man. The evidence for this
is overwhelming, but as the fact is 'generally admitted,
we need not discuss it at length. Suffice it to say,
that 201 places have been counted in the Acts, and
252 in the Third Gospel, where words and expressions
occur which are specially, and many of them ex-
1 Acts 17. 22-31.

THE GOSPELS : EVIDENCE OF ACTS. 361
clusively, used by Greek medical writers, and which,
with few exceptions, do not occur elsewhere in the New
Testament.1 For instance, we read of the many proofs
of the resurrection ; the word translated proofs being
frequently used by medical writers to express the in
fallible symptoms of a disease, in opposition to its mere
signs, which may be doubtful, and they expressly give
it this meaning. And we read of the restoration of all
things ; the word translated restoration being the regular
medical term for a complete recovery of body or limb.2
From internal evidence, then, we conclude that the
writer was an intimate friend of St. Paul and a medical
man ; and from one of St. Paul's Epistles we learn his
name, Luke the beloved physician.3 In confirmation of
this it may be mentioned that both this Epistle and
that to Philemon, where St. Paul also names Luke as
his companion, appear to have been written from
Rome, when, as we know, the writer of the Acts was
with him. And he seems to have remained with him
to the last, only Luke is with me* And yet this beloved
and ever-faithful friend of St. Paul is not once named in
, the Acts, which would be most unUkely unless he were
the author himself ; while many other friends of St.
Paul are mentioned, and in such a way as to show that
they could not be the writer.5
Moreover the authorship of the book (as well as that
of the Third Gospel) must have been well known from
the very beginning, for Theophilus to whom it was
1 Hobart's Medical Language of St. Luke (1882) ; some of his
examples are rather doubtful.
2 Acts 1. 3 ; 3. 21. a Col. 4. 14 ; Philemon 24.
4 2 Tim. 4. 1 1. 6 Acts 15. 22 ; 20. 4.

362 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. XVI.
addressed was evidently a prominent convert, and he
must have known from whom the book came (even if
for some reason this was not stated in the super
scription), and is not likely to have kept it secret.
And therefore the universal belief of the Church in the
second century, as witnessed to by Irenaeus and the
Muratorian canon, which always ascribed it to St. Luke,
and never ascribed it to anyone else, is specially
important ; and affords a strong additional argument in
favour of his being the author.
(D.) Its Date.
And the date of the book can also be fixed with
tolerable certainty. It is implied in its abrupt ending,
The last thing it narrates is St. Paul's living at Rome,
two years before his trial (a.d. 58-60). x It says nothing
about this trial, nor of St. Paul's release, nor of his
subsequent travels, nor of his second trial and martyr
dom (probably under Nero, a.d. 64) ; though had it
been written after these events, it could hardly have
failed to record them, more especially as the martyr
dom of St. Peter and St. Paul, which, according to
early authorities, occurred together at Rome, would.
have formed such a suitable conclusion for a work
chiefly concerned with their labours.
On the other hand, the abrupt ending of the book
is at once accounted for if we assume that it was written
at that time, about a.d. 60, by St. Luke, who did not
relate anything further, because nothing further had
1 The date previously given, a.d. 61-63, is now generally ad
mitted to be three years too late. Rackham's Commentary on the
Acts, 1901, p. lxvii.

THE GOSPELS : EVIDENCE OF ACTS. 363
then occurred. And it is obvious that these two years
would not only have formed a most suitable period for
its compilation, but that he is very likely to have sent
it to his friend Theophilus just before the trial, perhaps
somewhat hurriedly, not knowing whether it might not
involve his own death, as well as that of St. Paul.
And this would also account for the great prominence
given to the events of the immediately preceding years
in chapters 20. to 28., which is quite unintelligible,
unless the book was written soon afterwards. They
were nothing like as important as the events of the
next few years, as to which the writer says nothing.
And why should he go through the earlier stages of
St. Paul's arrest and trial, so carefully, step by step,
from Lysias to Felix, from Felix to Festus, and then
to Agrippa, and on to Rome ; and then when he comes
to the crisis, and the Apostle is about to appear before
Caesar, suddenly break off, without ever giving a hint
as to which way it was decided ? Everyone must feel
how tantalising it is ; and how unlikely he is to have
stopped here, if he could have gone on. And the fact
. that the journey to Rome itself, especially the ship
wreck, is described with such minute and graphic
details, also supports the view that it must have been
written down very soon afterwards. And then the
great similarity of language throughout the book, to
which we have already alluded, is in favour of its all
having been written at the same time.
Moreover the writer's attitude towards the Roman
Government affords another strong argument in favour
of an early date. For the Roman judges and officials

364 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvi.
are always represented as treating the Christians with
fairness, and even kindness ; and the writer leaves
St. Paul appealing to Caesar, with every hope of a
favourable verdict. There is no sign of bitterness or
ill-feeling anywhere. And all this would have been
most unlikely after the great persecution in a.d. 64 ;
when, as we learn from the Book of Revelation (admit
ting its early date), the Christians regarded Rome with
the utmost horror, as drunk with the blood of the martyrs.
Compare the somewhat similar case of the Indian
Mutiny. Can we imagine an Englishman in India
writing soon after the Mutiny a history, say of Cawn-
pore, up to 1854, and then closing it, without ever
letting a hint fall that he was aware of the terrible
tragedy which happened in 1857, or showing the
slightest ill-feeling towards its perpetrators ? The only
reasonable conclusion would be that such a history
must have been written before the Mutiny. In the
same way the Acts must have been written before
Nero's great persecution.
And the same sort of argument is afforded by the
destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. Had the book
been written after this, it is strange that the writer
should seem to be entirely unaware of it ; more especi
ally as it had so close a bearing on the events described
in the Acts, such as the Jewish law not being binding
on Gentile Christians. And it is the more significant,
because he records the prophecy of the event in his
Gospel,1 but nowhere hints that the prophecy had ever
been fulfiUed. 1 Luke 19. 43.

THE GOSPELS : EVIDENCE OF ACTS. 365
Many critics, it is true, who maintain a subsequent
date, say that the writer intended to complete his
history in a Third Volume. But though this would
account for his not actually recording later events, it
would not account for his writing as if ignorant of
them ; nor would it account for his giving such undue
prominence to the events in Chapters 20. to 28., and
his tone of friendship towards the Roman authorities,
to which we have just alluded. Moreover this Third
Volume is a pure conjecture. No trace of it exists, nor
is there any reference to it in early writers.
It is also worth mentioning that though St. Luke
speaks of the Caesars, Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius,
by name,1 and though he is so careful in other places
always to give the names of the public men he alludes
to, he never tells us who was the Caesar (Nero) that is
referred to in the latter part of the Acts, and before
whom St. Paul was going to be tried.2 How easily
anyone writing in Nero's reign might omit to do this
scarcely needs pointing out.
On the whole then there is very strong evidence in
favour of the Acts of the Apostles having been written
by St. Luke about a.d. 60 ; and this of course proves
an earlier date for St. Luke's Gospel. And this again
proves a still earlier date for St. Mark's Gospel, which
is now generally admitted to be the source from
which St. -Luke got his portion of the so-called Triple
Tradition. And it is very probable that St. Matthew's
Gospel was also earlier than St. Luke's.. The evidence
1 Luke 2. 1 ; 3. 1 ; Acts 11. 28 ; 18. 2.
2 Acts 26. 32 ; 27. 24 ; 28. 19.

366 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvi.
of the Acts then, while confirming our previous con
clusion that the Synoptic Gospels were certainly
written before a.d. 70, enables us to add with some
confidence (at least it seems so to the present writer)
that they were also written before a.d. 60.1 It has of
course no direct bearing on the date of St. John's
Gospel. 1 This is a little earlier than most critics would admit, though
some would of course place them earlier still ; thus Canon Birks,
who discusses the subject at great length, dates them all between
a.d. 42-51 (Hors Evangelical, 1892 edit., pp. 259, 281, 293).

CHAPTER XVII.1
THAT THEREFORE THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST IS
PROBABLY TRUE.
Importance of the Resurrection, the third day.
(A.) The Narratives.
Table of Christ's appearances.
(i.) Discrepancies.
(2.) Omissions.
(3.) Agreements.
(4.) Signs of early date.
(B.) The Witnesses.
Now the value of all testimony depends on four questions
concerning the witnesses, and in this case the denial of
each corresponds to the four chief alternative theories.
(1.) Their veracity. Did they speak the truth as far as
they knew it ? They had no motive for preaching the
Resurrection unless they believed it, while their conduct
and sufferings showed them to be thoroughly convinced
of it ; so we may dismiss the Falsehood Theory.
(2.) Their knowledge. Had they the means of knowing
the truth ? Amply sufficient means were within then-
reach, and they were quite competent to use them ; so
the Legend Theory must also be dismissed.
(3.) Their investigation. Did they avail themselves of
these means ? Possibly they did not, from their excited
state of mind. This is the Vision Theory, which, how
ever, has enormous difficulties.
1 This chapter can be obtained separately, having been reprinted
by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, price 6d.
3^7

368 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.
(4.) Their reasoning. Did they draw the right conclu
sion ? Might not Christ's appearances be explained by
His not having died ? This Swoon Theory has also
enormous difficulties.
(C.) Conclusion. The alleged difficulties of the Christian Theory.
We decided in the previous chapters that the Four
Gospels, and also the Acts of the Apostles, were
authentic ; that is to say, they were actually written
by the persons to whom they are commonly ascribed.
And to these may be added the four great Epistles of
St. Paul and the Revelation of St. John, which, as
before said, are admitted to be genuine by critics of all
schools. We have thus direct testimony as to the
alleged teaching and miracles of Christ, that is to say,
the testimony of contemporaries, some of whom must
have known Him well. St. Matthew and St. John were
two of His Apostles ; St. Mark and St. Luke had ex
ceptionally good means of knowing the truth, and
may perhaps have had some slight knowledge of
Christ themselves ; as had also St. Paul.1
We have now to consider the value of their testimony,
more especially as to the Resurrection of Christ, which
fact, either real or supposed, was the foundation of
Christianity. This is plain not only from the Gospels,
but still more from the Acts, where we have numerous
short speeches by the Apostles, given under various
circumstances, and to various audiences, including
Jewish Councillors, Greek philosophers, and Roman
governors. And in nearly all of them the Resurrection
of Christ is not only positively asserted, but is empha-
1 2 Cor. 5. 16.

THE RESURRECTION. 369
sised as a fact established by indisputable evidence
and as being the foundation of Christianity.1 It is
even said that it was the special duty of an apostle
to bear witness to it ; and St. Paul seems to have
been aware of this, since, in maintaining his apostle
ship, he is careful to show that he was thus qualified,
and for himself he makes it the sine qua non of his teach
ing.2 It is certain, then, that the first preachers of
Christianity preached the Resurrection of Christ.
And it is equally certain that they preached that it
occurred on the third day, counting from the Cruci
fixion.3 This also is stated not only in the Gospels,
but by St. Paul ; who in one place bases his whole
argument on the fact that the Body of Christ (unlike
that of David) saw no corruption, a point also alluded
to by St. Peter, and implying a Resurrection in a few
days.4 While if further evidence is required, the
establishment of the first day of the week as the Lord's
Day — the Christian Sunday — seems to put the matter
beyond dispute. We may say then with confidence,
that wherever the Resurrection was believed, the fact
that it occurred on the third day — the day on which
they found the Tomb empty, and saw (or thought they
saw) His first appearances — was believed also. The.
two invariably went together. But was this belief
1 Acts 2. 24; 3. 15; 4. 10; 5. 30; 10. 40; 13. 30; 17. 31 ;
26. 6, 23.
2 Acts 1. 22 ; 1 Cor. 9. 1 ; 15. 12-19.
3 Sometimes described as aper three days, but that the two ex
pressions are meant to be synonymous is clear from Matt. 27. 63-64,
where Christ's saying that He would rise again after three days is
given as the reason for guarding the sepulchre until the third day.
4 1 Cor. 15. 4 ; Acts 13. 35-37 ; 2. 31..
24

370 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.
justified ? This is the question we have to consider ;
and we will first examine the narratives of the Resurrec
tion, and then the testimony of its first witnesses.
(A.) The Narratives of the Resurrection.
Now we have five different accounts of the Resurrec
tion ; and these are so thoroughly independent that
not one of them can be regarded as the source of any
of the others. Little stress, however, can be laid on
St. Mark's account, as the genuineness of the last verses
is doubtful ; but it anyhow represents a very early
Christian belief, Aristion being sometimes named as
the author. On the other hand, St. Paul's account,
which is perhaps the strongest, is universally allowed
to have been written within thirty years of the event ;
the most probable date for which is a.d. 29, and for the
Epistle a.d. 54. And it should be noticed that St. Paul
expressly reminds the Corinthians that what he here
relates concerning the Resurrection is what he preached
to them on his first visit (about a.d. 49), and that' as
they had received it 'from him, so he had himself
received it from others at a still earlier date.
And we can even fix this date approximately, for two
of the appearances he records are to St. Peter and
St. James ; and he happens to mention elsewhere that
these were the two Apostles he met at Jerusalem,
three years after his conversion (a.d. 35, or earlier) j1
so he doubtless heard the whole account then, even if
he had not heard it before.2 And this was certainly
within ten years — probably within seven years — of the
1 Harnack dates it a.d. 30, a year after the Crucifixion.
* Gal. 1. 19.

THE RESURRECTION. 37I
Crucifixion. More ancient testimony than this can
scarcely be desired. And if anything could add to
its importance it would be St. Paul's own declaration
that in this respect his teaching was the same as that
of the original Apostles : Whether then it be I or they, so
we preach and so ye believed.1
We need not quote the various accounts here, but
the table given on p. 372 exhibits them in a con
venient form for reference.
Altogether Christ seems to have been seen on
thirteen different occasions, though there may have
been others, which are not recorded (they are perhaps
hinted at in Acts 1. 3 ; 13. 31 ; John 20. 30). It is
doubtful however if (viii.) and (ix.) in the following list
are separate appearances, as St. Matthew says that when
the Eleven saw him, they worshipped Him, but some
doubted ; which probably means that some others who
were present (i.e., some of the five hundred) doubted
at first if it was really He, owing to His being some way
off, as it was before He came to them. Indeed if there
were only eleven present, they need scarcely have gone
to a mountain to meet Christ, a room would have been
large enough. But if there were several hundred, col
lected from the surrounding villages, an open hill
(possibly the one where Christ had so often taught
before) would be a convenient meeting-place.
On the other hand, the appearance to the five hun
dred must have been in Galilee, as there were not so
many disciples in Jerusalem,2 and it must have been
by appointment, as they could hardly have come to-
1 1 Cor. 15. 11. 2 Acts 1. 15.
24—2

372

THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.

TABLE OF CHRIST'S APPEARANCES.

Empty tomb visite'd"!
by women . . /
And by Apostles .
Then Christ was seen
by (in or near Jeru-

(i)
("¦)
(iii.) (iv.)

(v.)

(vi.)

St. Mary Mag
dalene . . .
Several women
St. Peter. . .
Cleopas and'
another, per
haps St. Luke,
at Emmaus mj
The Apostles*)
and others'
(less St.,
Thomas) . . J
The Apostles 1
(with St.
Thomas) . . J

In Galilee —
(vii.) Seven Apostles'!
at Sea of \
Tiberias . . J
(viii.) The Apostles in"|
Galilee . . /
(ix.) Over 500 persons
(x.) St. James . .
Sack at Jerusalem —
(xi.) The Apostles at\
Jerusalem . /
(xii.) The Apostles!
and others at I
Bethany . . J
(xiii.) St. Paul . . .

28. 1-8

15.5

9-10

16-20

-»{

9-11

12-13

14'

1. 15-1*

19-20

24 i-n,
22-23
12, 24

34
13-35
36-43

John.

44-49
50-53

¦20. 1-2
3-IO

19-25

26-29

21. 1-23

Acts.
1-4-5
1. 6-11, 22
9, 3-9

THE RESURRECTION. 373
gether by accident ; and they are not likely to have come
together at all without the Apostles having collected
them ; and all this is an additional reason for identifying
it with that recorded by St. Matthew.
It will next be noticed that the appearances form
three groups. First a group in or near Jerusalem,
which was chiefly to the Twelve Apostles, and extended
over eight days. Secondly a group in Galilee, the most
important being that to the five hundred brethren,
which was a sort of farewell to His Galilean disciples.
This was accompanied, or just preceded, by the
appearance to the Apostles ; and probably preceded a
few days by that on the Lake, when Christ may have
pointed out the mountain where He would appear,
and told them when to collect the brethren. And
thirdly a group back again at Jerusalem, chiefly to the
Twelve, but including others,1 and ending with the
Ascension, or farewell to His Jerusalem disciples. And
though this double fareweU is sometimes thought to be
a difficulty, yet as Christ's Resurrection was meant to
be the proof of His mission, it seems only natural that
He should have appeared again to all His disciples, and
have taken leave of them, both those in Galilee, and
those at Jerusalem, the Apostles themselves being of
course present on each occasion.
Passing on now to examine the narratives more
closely, the first thing that strikes one is that they
contain frequent discrepancies and omissions, as well
as of course numerous agreements ; while another point,
equally important, but not equally obvious, is that they
1 Acts 1. 22.

374 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.
also contain several signs of early date ; so we will
consider these in turn.
(i.) Discrepancies.
Now that there is a difficulty in reconciling the
accounts, everyone must admit, but this seems to be
chiefly due to the Evangelists (especially St. Mark and
St. Luke) recording separate appearances as if they
were continuous. But they do much the same in the
rest of their Gospels, often recording separate sayings
of Christ as if they were one discourse ; and even in
closely-connected passages a break has sometimes to be
assumed. Take for instance : — Then the master of the
house said to his servant, Go out quickly, etc. And the
servant said, Lord what thou didst command is done.1
These words seem to follow each other immediately ; but
yet it is obvious that there was an interval between
them. And the common expression, And behold, which
occurs in Matt. 24. 9 (see R.V.), and which certainly
seems to imply a close connection, need not really do
so, from the way in which it is used elsewhere.2
And therefore it is quite possible for the closing
verses of St. Mark and St. Luke to contain words spoken
on different occasions. And St. Luke himself implies
that they do, for though in his Gospel he describes the
appearances as if they all occurred in a few hours
(which, however, would place the Ascension in the
middle of the night, which is scarcely probable), yet
in the Acts he says there were forty days between them.
He seems to have thought it unnecessary in his Gospel
to explain that they were at different times ; and if the
1 Luke 14. 21-22. 2 E.g., Matt. 2. i ; 15. 22 ; 19. 6.

THE RESURRECTION. 375
other Evangelists did the same, it would account for
most, though not all, of the discrepancies between
them. These discrepancies, however, are often much ex
aggerated. Take for instance No. (v.) in the previous
list. St. Luke and St. John evidently refer to the same
occasion, as it was on the evening of the Resurrection
day ; and yet one says the Apostles were terrified, and
thought they saw a spirit ; while the other says they
were glad. Can both be true ? Certainly they can, if
we assume (as is most natural) that the Apostles were
at first terrified, and thought they saw a spirit ; but
were afterwards glad, when on Christ's showing them
His hands and side, they were at last convinced
that it was really Himself. And He may then have
upbraided them for their unbelief as recorded by
St. Mark.
And it is surprising to find how slight remarks in the
narratives themselves sometimes help to reconcile
them. Thus St. John writes as if Mary Magdalene
alone came to the Tomb, and rushed off without looking
in ; but her subsequent words, we know not where they
have laid Him, show that there were others with her,
and that they had looked in and found the Body gone,
which agrees with the other Gospels. Later on, of
course, she was alone, but then she uses the words. I
know not.1 And St. Luke's calling the heavenly
visitors men in one verse and angels in another, explains
how both terms might be used by the other Evangelists.2
A more important difficulty is caused by Christ's
1 John 20. i, 2, 13. 2 Luke 24. 4, 23.

376 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.
command to the women, that they and the Apostles
were to proceed to Galilee to meet Him, when, as He
knew, He was going to appear to them in Jerusalem the
same day. The most probable explanation is that the
interview in Galilee was the one intended all along, in
fact we are definitely told so.1 But when the women,
in consequence of the Angel's message, and after they
had recovered from their fright (which at first made
them run away and say nothing to anyone)2 went and
told the Apostles to go there, they were disbelieved.3
This naturally reacted on the women, who also began
to doubt, and returned to the sepulchre to make
further inquiries, none of them having the slightest
intention of proceeding to Galilee.
Under these circumstances, something more was
necessary, so Christ appeared first to Mary Magdalene,
and then to her with the other Mary, when He told
them Himself to warn the Apostles to proceed to
Galilee, which they again did, and were again dis
believed* Then He appeared to the two disciples who
had gone off to Emmaus, and when they came back,
and told the rest, they were also at first disbelieved.6
After this there was nothing for it, but for Christ to
appear to the Apostles Himself, and convince them
personally ; which He did, when most of them were
assembled together the same evening. And He may
then have told them to remain in Jerusalem, tUl they
were all convinced, as they could scarcely have been
expected to collect the five hundred brethren for the
1 Mark 14. 28. 2 Mark 16. 8. 3 Luke 24. 11.
4 Mark 16. Ji, 6 Mark 16. 13.

THE RESURRECTION. 377
meeting in Galilee, so long as they kept disputing
among themselves, as to whether He had really risen.
And it was thus another week before the last sceptic
(St. Thomas) was convinced, and they finally started
for Galilee. These discrepancies then are not nearly
so serious as is commonly supposed.
(2.) Omissions.
With regard to the omissions, none of our lists are at
all complete, and this is often thought to be a diffi
culty. But as far as the Gospels are concerned, the
writers nowhere profess to give a complete list of
Christ's appearances, any more than of His parables,
or His miracles ; they only record selected instances ;
and not knowing the circumstances under which they
wrots, it is often difficult for us to justify their selection.
Why, for instance, should only one Gospel (the Third)
record such a beautiful parable as that of the Prodigal
Son ; or only one (the Fourth) such a striking miracle
as that of the raising of Lazarus ?
In the present case, however, their choice seems to
be quite inteUigible. Thus St. Matthew closes his
Gospel, which is concerned chiefly with the Galilean
ministry, with the appearance of Christ on the moun
tain in Galilee ; St. John, whose Gospel is concerned
with the Judaean ministry, ended his (before the last
chapter was added) with some of the appearances in
Jerusalem ; while St. Luke, who was more of an
historian, and wrote everything in order,1 though he
describes most in detail the appearance to the two
disciples at Emmaus (which is only natural if he was
1 Luke 1. 3.

378 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvn.
one of them) , is yet careful to carry his narrative right
on to the Ascension.
And therefore, though they only record certain
appearances, they may have known of the others ; and
there can be little doubt that they did. St. John, for
instance, though he does not record the Ascension,
must certainly have known of it, as he refers to it
twice in his own Gospel, in the words, if ye should
behold the Son of Man ascending, and I ascend unto my
Father ; the former passage clearly showing that it was
to be a visible ascent, and that the Apostles were to see
it. And St. Luke, though he does not record an
appearance to St. Peter, incidentaUy alludes to it.1
On the other hand, St. Paul's list certainly looks as
if it was meant to be complete ; and this is no doubt
a real difficulty. Surely, it is said, if the other appear
ances had occurred, or were even supposed to have
occurred, when St. Paul wrote, he would have heard
of them ; and if he had heard of them, he would have
mentioned them, as he was evidently trying to make
out as strong a case as he could. He might perhaps
have omitted the appearances to women, as their
evidence was not considered of much value at the
time, and they were not witnesses of the Resurrection,
in the sense he alludes to (i.e., persons who went about
preaching it) ;2 but why should he have omitted the rest?
There is however a fairly good explanation. The
appearances it will be remembered form three groups.
Now St. Paul mentions two individual appearances,
those to St. Peter and St. James ; and this was doubt-
1 John 6. 62 ; 20. 17 ; Luke 24. 34. 2 1 Cor. 15. 14-15.

THE RESURRECTION. 379
less because he had had such vivid accounts of them
from the men themselves, who it will be remembered
were the two Apostles he first met at Jerusalem ; for
we may be sure if they had not told him, he would not
have accepted it from anyone else. But he seems to
refer to the others in these groups, first to the Twelve
(at Jerusalem), then to the five hundred brethren (in
Galilee), and then to all the Apostles, evidently meaning
more than the Twelve (back again at Jerusalem). But
by so doing, he does not limit it to only one appearance
in each group. In the same way a man might say
that on returning to England he saw first his parents,
then his brothers, then his cousins ; though he had
seen his parents on two days a week apart, his brothers
for only a few hours, and his cousins for several
successive days.
And the fact that St. Paul, in one of his speeches in
the Acts,1 expressly says that Christ was seen for many
days at Jerusalem, strongly confirms this view ; that
in his Epistle he is mentioning the appearances by
groups, rather than every single one ; wishing to
emphasise the number of men who had seen Christ,
rather than the number of times they had seen Him ;
and if so it does away with the difficulty.
(3.) Agreements.
Against these discrepancies and omissions moreover,
must be set the fact of substantial agreement ; for all
the more important points — the third day, the empty
tomb, the first appearance being in Jerusalem, and the
slowness of belief on the part of some of the disciples —
1 Acts 13. 31.

380 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvh.
are vouched for by every Evangelist. And further they
all agree in not giving (what imaginary accounts might
well have contained) any description of the Resurrection
itself, any appearance of Christ to His enemies, or any
information as to the other world ; which last would
have been so eagerly welcomed, and could have been
so easily invented.
And the order in which the appearances are placed
is also the same in every account, that to St. Mary
Magdalene for instance (wherever it occurs) being
always placed first, that to St. Peter next, that to
Cleopas next, then that to the Twelve, etc. And this
is the more remarkable because the narratives are so
obviously independent, and the order is not at all a
likely one. Writers of fiction, for instance, would
never have made Christ first appear to so little known
a person as Mary Magdalene, rather than to His Mother
or His Apostles.
Moreover the narratives often help to explain one
another in details. Thus, ' to take a few examples,
St. Luke says that Peter was the disciple who ran to the
Tomb on hearing of the Angel's message, without how
ever giving any reason why he should have been the
one to go. But St. Mark, though he does not mention
the visit of Peter, records that the message had been
specially addressed to him ; and this of course explains
his going. St. Luke, it may be added, in the subse
quent words, certain of them that were with us,1 implies
that at least one other disciple went with him, which
agrees with St. John. 1 Luke 24. 24.

THE RESURRECTION. 38 1
Again St. Matthew narrates that when Christ ap
peared to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, He
was at once recognised, held by the feet, and wor
shipped ; and they do not seem to have been at all sur
prised at meeting Him near the Tomb, in spite of the
Angel's message that they should go to Galilee to see
Him. Evidently something must have occurred be
tween, making a break in the narrative after v. 8,
which (as before said) is quite possible. And from the
other Evangelists we learn what this was. For St. John
describes an appearance to Mary Magdalene alone,
when she was rebuked for wishing to touch Him,
apparently in the old familiar way, with the mere
human title of Rabbi, and without any act of reverence ;
and St. Mark says this was the first appearance. If
then a few minutes later, she, in company with the
other Mary, saw Christ again, it would quite account
for their absence of surprise at meeting Him, and also
for their altered behaviour in prostrating themselves
to the ground, and being in consequence permitted to
hold Him by the feet, and worship Him.
Once more St. Luke says that when Christ appeared
to the Apostles, He was mistaken for a spirit ; but he
gives no reason for this, and it was apparently the only
occasion on which it occurred. St. John however,
though he does not mention the incident, fully explains
it ; for he says that the doors were shut for fear of the
Jews ; and obviously if Christ suddenly appeared
within closed doors, it would account for their thinking
that He must be a spirit. On the other hand, St. John
speaks of Christ's showing them His hands and side

382 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.
though without giving any reason for this, but St.
Luke's statement that they at first took Him for a
spirit ; and that He did this to convince them of His
identity, quite accounts for it ; so each of the narratives
helps to explain the other.
Again St. Mark (or perhaps Aristion) records Christ
as saying, after His command to preach the Gospel to
all the world, ' He that believeth and is baptised shall
be saved,' though without any previous reference to
baptism. But St. Matthew says the command was
not only to make disciples of all nations, but to baptise
them as well, and this of course explains the other
passage, though curiously enough St. Matthew himself
does not refer to it.
And then as to the appearance to the five hundred
brethren recorded by St. Paul. None of the Evange
lists mention this, but it explains a good deal that they
do mention. Thus St. John alludes to the Apostles
being in Galilee, instead of (as we should have expected)
staying in Jerusalem, but he gives no hint as to why
they went there. Nor do St. Matthew and St. Mark,
who say Christ told them to go there, give any hint as
to why He told them ; but this appearance to the five
hundred, who had to be collected in Galilee, explains
everything. It also accounts for St. Luke's omission
of Galilee among the places where the Apostles them
selves had to preach the Resurrection ; as there were so
many witnesses there already.1
Now of course too much stress must not be laid on
small details like these, but still the fact that such
1 Acts 1. 8.

THE RESURRECTION. 383
short accounts should explain one another in so many
ways is a distinct evidence of truthfulness. Legendary
accounts of fictitious events would not be likely to
do so.
(4.) Signs of early date.
Lastly, it is interesting to note that these accounts,
especiaUy those in the Synoptics, bear signs of an
"extremely early, if not a contemporary date. Thus
St. Peter is still called by his old name of Simon, and it
is the last occasion when that name is used, without
explaining to whom it refers ; St. Paul, some years
later, though alluding to this same appearance, calling
him by what was then his usual name of Cephas or
Peter. Whilst St. John, writing many years after
wards, though he is equally accurate as to Simon being
the name in use at the time, thinks it necessary to
explain who was meant by it (' Jesus saith to Simon
Peter, Simon son of John, lovest thou Me P').1
Again, the Apostles are represented as still expecting
the kingdom of Israel to be restored ; which was an
error on their part, that could scarcely have been worth
inventing after the Ascension.2
Moreover (and this is very significant) they are
spoken of as the Eleven, though they could only have
had this title for just these few weeks.3 And the fact
of their having had it seems to have been soon for
gotten : for St. Paul even when alluding to this very
time prefers to call them by the familiar title of the
Twelve, which was equaUy correct, as we are specially
1 Luke 24. 34 ; John 21. 15. 2 Acts 1. 6 ; Luke 24. 21.
3 Matt. 28. 16 ; Mark 16. 14 ; Luke 24. 9, 33.

384 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.
told that St. Matthias, who was afterwards elected as
the twelfth, had been with them all along.1 And there
fore the use of the former term in the Synoptic Gospels
seems to show that the original narratives were either
written at the time, or at least by men who took part
in those momentous events, and from whose memories
the terms then in use (though only for a few weeks),
were not easily effaced.
And for all we know the account in the Fourth Gospel
(though not published till long afterwards) may also
have been written down at the time ; and it certainly
bears strong marks of truthfulness. In particular may
be mentioned the extremely graphic way in which some
of the events are described, such as the visit of the
disciples to the empty Tomb, and the appearance by
the sea of Tiberias. It is difficult to believe that the
writer was not present himself on each occasion, being
of course the unnamed disciple whom Jesus loved.
And the subsequent reference to the manner of St.
Peter's death is so very obscure, that it could hardly
have been composed as a pretended prophecy after the
event. Again, the kind of Resurrection asserted (though no
doubt presenting great difficulties) is strongly suggestive
of a contemporary date. It was not as said before
(Chapter XIII.), a resuscitation of Christ's natural
body (as in the case of Lazarus, etc.), but His rising
again in a body which combined material and spiritual
properties in a remarkable manner. And there was
nothing in the Old Testament, or anywhere else, to
1 Acts 1. 22 ; 1 Cor. 15. 5.

THE RESURRECTION. 385
suggest such a Resurrection as this ; it was quite unique.
Indeed the combination of these properties is so
extremely puzzling,' that it is hard to see how anything
but .actual experience (or what they believed to be
such) could ever have induced men to. record it.
And the fact of the narratives not reproducing
St. Paul's list of appearances, or making any attempt
to agree with it, is another strong argument in favour
of their early date. For had they been written after
his Epistle got into circulation, they are not likely to
have disregarded it in so important a matter ; unless
of course they were written by men, like St. John,
whose authority no one would question.
Lastly, the utter absence of any attempt at harmonis
ing the narratives, or avoiding the apparent dis
crepancies between them, also points to their extreme
antiquity. The writers indeed seem to narrate just
what they believed to have happened, often mentioning
the most trivial circumstances, and without ever
attempting to meet difficulties or objections. And
though such disjointed accounts might well have been
written by the actual witnesses of a stupendous
miracle, they are not such as would have been deliber
ately invented ; nor are they like the embodiment of
subsequent legends and myths. In short these narra
tives appear throughout to be thoroughly trustworthy.
(B.) The Witnesses of the Resurrection.
We pass on now from the narrative of the Resur
rection to consider the testimony of its First Witnesses,
that is to say of those persons who saw, or said they saw,
Christ alive after His Crucifixion. This will include
25

386 the truth of Christianity. chap. xvh.
the twelve Apostles, and over 500 other Christians,
most of whom St. Paul declares were stiU alive when he
wrote, and evidently able to confirm what he said. And
before discussing in detail the value of their testimony,
it may be well to glance at certain general rules in
regard to all testimony. If, then, a person plainly
asserts that an event took place, before we believe
that it did take place, we must inquire first as to
his Veracity : did he speak the truth as far as he knew
it ? Next as to his Knowledge : had he the means of
knowing the truth ? Next as to his Investigation :
did he avail himself of those means ? And lastly,
as to his Reasoning : did he draw the right con
clusion ?
The following example will show the sense in which
these terms' are used. Suppose a person said that he
went to London yesterday. Usually his veracity only
need be determined. But now suppose he were blind,
then we should have to assure ourselves of his know
ledge : had he the means of knowing whether the place
was London or not ? And granting that he had such
means — as, for instance, if trustworthy friends accom
panied him — we might still have to inquire as to his
investigation : did he avail himself of those means ?
Possibly he felt sure it was London, and never asked
his friends. Or again, suppose the person was a child ;
then his reasoning must be determined : was he suffi
ciently educated to draw the right conclusion from
what he saw and heard ?
And it should be noticed that all possible ways of
denying the truth of a statement can be brought under

THE RESURRECTION.

387

one or other of these heads. For if a man's statement
is not true, it must be either : —

Intentionally false

(had not the means^
of knowing the V
truth J

=want of Veracity.
=want of Knowledge.

Unintentionally false, in which'
case he either

had the means,
and either

did not use-! =want of Investiga-
them j tion.
or
used them ^
wrongly / "

=want of Reasoning.

From this it is clear that for anyone to deny a man's
statement without disputing either his veracity, know
ledge, investigation, or reasoning, is very like denying
that one given angle is greater than another without
disputing that it is neither equal to it nor less than
it. We have now to apply these general rules to the
testimony in favour of the Resurrection of Christ.
And, as we shall see, the denial of these four points
corresponds to the four chief alternative theories.
(1.) The Veracity of the witnesses.
Now, that the first witnesses all asserted that Christ
rose from the dead and appeared to them is, as we have
seen, indisputable ; so obviously the first question is as
to their veracity : did they really believe this them
selves ? To deny this would be to adopt the Falsehood
Theory, which is that they were deliberate impostors,
who, knowing and believing that their Master did not
rise from the dead, yet spent their whole lives in trying
to persuade people that He did. And, as we shall see,
25—2

388 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.
their motives, their conduct, and especiaUy their
sufferings, are all strongly opposed to such a theory.
And first as to their motives. Had they any interest
in asserting that Christ rose from the dead unless they
really believed it ? Merely to say that they could have
had no interest, would be to understate the argument,
for every motive told the other way. They were a
mere handful of men, so few or so faint-hearted that
they could not prevent their Master being crucified.
What chance was there then of persuading the world
that He had risen from the dead, and why should they
have embarked on such a hopeless scheme ? Nothing
but the most firm conviction of their Lord's Resurrec
tion, and therefore of supernatural assistance, would
ever have induced men to have ventured on it. If
they believed the Resurrection to be true, then, and
only then, would they have had any motive whatever
for preaching it. While, then, it is plain that the
Apostles were not unbiassed witnesses, in the sense of
witnesses who had no personal interest in the matter,
it is equally plain that their evidence is the more
valuable on this account, as all their interest was the
•other way.
Next as to their conduct, did this show that they
really believed what they preached ? And here also
the evidence is overwhelming. It is admitted by
everyone that when their Master was crucified His
foUowers were filled with gloom and despair. This
was only natural. But in a few days this sorrow was
changed to intense joy and confidence. They preached
the Resurrection in the very place where He was

THE RESURRECTION. 389
crucified, and boldly went forth to convert the world
in His name. It is clear that before such a mar
vellous change could take place they must at least
have thought they had, what St. Luke asserts they
actuaUy did have, many proofs of the Resurrection.1
To them, at all events, the evidence must have seemed
conclusive, or Christianity would have perished on
Calvary. Moreover, in preaching such an extraordinary fact,
especially in cultured cities like Rome and Corinth, the
first witnesses would have been subjected to more than
usual cross-examination. Some at least in every city
would have used all possible means of finding out the
truth, and impostors could hardly have stood, or with
stood, such an inquiry. And yet St. Paul's Epistles
prove that within thirty years the Resurrection was
believed by numbers of men in these distant cities.
And what is very important, it was believed by educated
men, for his method of reasoning, especially in his
Epistle to the Romans, shows that he thought his
readers quite able to follow a difficult argument.
But even this is not all, for the conduct of the first
witnesses in preaching the new religion exposed them
to lifelong suffering and persecution. And this is very
important, since voluntary suffering in any form, but
especially in its extreme form of martyrdom, seems
conclusive as to a man's veracity. Persons do not
suffer for what they believe to be false ; they must
have believed it to be true, though this does not of
course prove that it actually was true. And here is
1 Acts 1. 3.

390 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.
the answer to the common objection, that since all
religions have had their martyrs, this kind of evidence
proves nothing. On the contrary, it does prove some
thing, though it does not prove everything. It does
not prove that what the man died for was true, but it
does prove that he believed it to be true. It is there
fore a conclusive test as to his veracity.
What evidence have we, then, that the first witnesses
suffered for the truth of what they preached ? The
evidence is complete and overwhelming, both from the
Gospels,1 the Acts, and St. Paul's Epistles. We need
only refer to these latter, as their genuineness is un
disputed. St. Paul then, in one place, gives a list of
the actual sufferings he had undergone ; he alludes to
them in numerous other places, and as if they were
the common lot of all Christians at the time ; and in
one passage he expressly includes the other Apostles
with himself in the long list of sufferings he describes,
which he says had made them a spectacle to the whole
world. While he elsewhere alludes to the sufferings
of the Christians at a still earlier time, for he assures
us that he himself before his conversion persecuted
the Church beyond measure, and made havoc of it.2
And, if further evidence is required, the Epistle of
Clement of Rome, admittedly genuine, and written
about a.d. 96, bears witness to the sufferings and mar
tyrdoms of St. Peter and St. Paul, probably under
Nero, a.d. 64 ; and Tacitus also records the cruel
persecution the Christians then endured.3
1 Matt. 10. 17 ; Mark 13. 9 ; Luke 21. 12 ; John 16. 2.
2 E.g., 2 Cor. 11. 24-27 ; Rom. 8. 35 ; 1 Cor. 4. 9-13 ; Gal. 1. 13-
3 Tac. Annals, Bk. xv., ch. 44.

THE RESURRECTION. 39I
There can be thus no doubt as to the constant
sufferings of the first witnesses. And it is equally
certain that men do not choose a life of suffering
except upon conviction. The men, therefore, who did
this must have believed their religion to be true, and
this always included the Resurrection of Christ as a
fundamental part. In short, their conduct is alone
sufficient to prove their veracity, for impostors would
not have behaved as they behaved. We conclude
therefore that when they asserted that Christ rose from
the dead, they were asserting what they honestly
believed, whether rightly or wrongly, to be true.
And it should be noticed, as this belief was due, not
to any a priori reasoning, but resulted simply from the
witnesses believing that they actually saw Christ
alive after His death, we must further conclude that
they honestly believed in the appearances of Christ
as recorded by themselves in the New Testament ;
in other words, these accounts are not intentionally
false. So much for the veracity of the witnesses. It is not,
as a rule, denied by modern opponents of the Resurrec
tion ; but in early times, when men ought to have
known best, it was evidently thought to be the only
possible alternative. St. Paul declares emphatically
that unless Christ had risen, he and the other Apostles
were false witnesses, in plain words liars.1 That was
the only choice. They were either saying what they
knew to be true, or what they knew to be false. And
the idea of there being some mistake about it, due to
1 1 Cor. 15. 1 5.

392 THE , TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.
visions, or swoons, or anything else, never seems to
have occurred to anyone.
(2.) The Knowledge of the witnesses.
We pass on now to their knowledge : had they the
means of knowing whether Christ rose from the dead ?
To deny this would be to adopt the Legend Theory,
which is that our Gospels are not authentic, but merely
record subsequent legends, and therefore we cannot say
whether the first witnesses had or had not the means
of knowing the truth. But this is most unlikely, for
Christianity spread with great rapidity, both in Italy-
Greece, Asia Minor and elsewhere ; and it is hard to
see how any later and legendary account of Christ's
life should have been accepted by all these scattered
Christian communities, if it differed materially from
what they had heard at the first. While if we admit
the authenticity of our Gospels, and the veracity of
their writers, (both of which have been admitted,) the
Legend Theory is out of the question.
They asserted, it will be remembered, that Christ's
Body, not His Spirit, appeared to them after the
crucifixion ; and from their own accounts it is clear-
that they had ample means of finding out if this was
true. Whether they used these means, and actually
did find out, is, of course, another question ; but as
to sufficient means being, available, and their being
quite competent to use them if they liked, there
can be no doubt whatever. As has been well said, it
was not one person, but many who saw Him ; they
saw Him not only separately, but together ; not only
for a moment, but for a long time ; not only by night,

THE RESURRECTION. 393
but by day ; not only at a distance, but near ; not only
once, but several times ; and they not only saw Him,
but touched Him, walked with Him, conversed with
Him, spoke to Him, heard Him answer, ate with Him,
and examined His Body to satisfy their doubts. In
fact, according to their own accounts, Christ seems to
have convinced them in every way in which conviction
was possible that He had risen from the dead.
And even if we deny the authenticity of the Gospels
the Legend Theory is still untenable. For St. Paul
mentions several of the appearances, and as this was
within a few years of the events, there was no time
for the growth of legends. Nor was there any chance
of the accounts being altered (as so often happens)
in passing through a number of lips ; for St. Paul, as
we have shown, heard of the appearances direct from
those who saw them ; and if so, it matters little whether
his Epistle was written ten years, or twenty years after
wards. And though he does not give any of the
details there, he must certainly have done so in his
preaching ; and no one can doubt that they were of the
same kind, as those recorded in the Gospels. Moreover,
being an educated man, he is not likely to have been
taken in by imposture, while his language implies that
he had carefully investigated the fact, and was evidently
weU aware of the difficulty it involved ; and of the
great responsibility of asserting it if untrue. His
testimony is thus very valuable from every point of
view, and is absolutely fatal to the Legend Theory.
(3.) The Investigation of the witnesses.
By the investigation of a witness is meant, as before

394 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.
explained, his availing himself of the means he had of
ascertaining the truth or otherwise of what he stated.
And in the present case everything was in favour of the
witnesses doing this. For the Resurrection of Christ
was an event of supreme importance to the witnesses
themselves, who were prepared to risk their lives for it ;
while its truth or otherwise could easily have been
ascertained, and they had ample means of doing so.
If, then, we deny their investigation, it must be because
of their supposed state of mind, their enthusiasm, or
their excitement, or something of that kind.
This would be to adopt what is caUed the Vision
Theory, which is that the Apostles so expected their
Lord to appear to them after His death, and kept so
dwelling on the thought of Him, as though unseen, yet
perhaps very near to them, that after a time they
thought they actually saw Him, and that He had
really risen from the dead. The wish was, in fact,
father to the thought ; so that when a supposed appear
ance took place, they were so filled with joy at their
Master's presence, that they neglected to ascertain
whether the appearance they saw was real, or only
due to their own fancy.
With regard to this theory, we must at once admit
that it is possible for an honest man to mistake a
phantom of his own brain, arising from some diseased
state of the mind or body, for a reality in the outer
world. Such subjective visions are by no means un
heard of, though they are not common. And of course
the great argument in its favour is that it professes
to account for the aUeged Resurrection, without on the

THE RESURRECTION. 395
one hand admitting its truth, or on the other that
the witnesses were deliberate impostors. Here, it is
urged, is a way of avoiding both difficulties, by allowing
that the witnesses honestly believed all they said,
only they were mistaken in supposing the appearances
to be real, when they were merely due to their own
imagination. Let us how consider how this Vision Theory would
suit the accounts of the Resurrection written by the
witnesses themselves. As will be seen, we might
almost imagine that they had been written on purpose
to contradict it. To begin with, the writers were not
unacquainted with visions, and occasionally record
them as happening to themselves or others. But
then they always use suitable expressions, such as
faUing into a trance.1 No such language is used in
the Gospels to describe the appearances of Christ,
which are always recorded as if they were actual
matters of fact.
While as to St. Paul, he never confuses the revela
tions and visions, which he sometimes had,2 with the
one great appearance of Christ to him, at the com
mencement of his ministry near Damascus, which
qualified him to be an Apostle ;3 and which he evidently
considered to be an actual appearance of Christ's
Body, not His Spirit. For when he says that Christ
died, and was buried, and rose again, and appeared to
Cephas, etc., he must mean Christ's Body (for a Spirit
1 Acts 10. io ; 9, io ; 16. 9, etc.
2 E.g., 2 Cor. 12. 1 ; Acts 22. 17.
3 1 Cor. 9. 1 ; Gal. 1. 17.

396 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.
cannot be buried), and he must mean that it was
the same Body that died and was buried, that after
wards left the tomb, rose again, and appeared to them,
including himself. And even in the one case, where he
alludes to this as a heavenly vision,1 he cites it as
proving that it is not incredible that God should raise
the dead ; which again shows that what he thought he
saw, was a Body that had risen from the grave. Indeed
the very word resurrection would be meaningless if
applied to a spirit ; for that only can rise again, which
has been laid down in the tomb.
In addition to which, as said before, he contrasts the
Body of Christ, which saw no corruption, with that of
David, which did see corruption. From all of which
it is abundantly clear that St. Paul, like the Four
Evangelists, believed in what is called the physical
resurrection, in the sense that Christ's Body was re
animated and left the grave ; though, like them, he
also believed that it was no longer a natural body,
bound by the ordinary laws of nature, but that it
shared to some extent the properties of spirits.
Secondly, it is plain from all the accounts that the
Apostles did not expect the Resurrection, and were
much surprised at it, though they afterwards remem
bered that Christ had foretold it. This is shown, not
only by the Christians bringing spices, etc., to em
balm the Body,2 and persons do not embalm a body
unless they expect it to remain in the grave ; but also
by the account of the appearances themselves. With
regard to some of these we have no details, and so no
1 Acts 26. 8, 19. 2 Mark 16. 1 ; Luke 24. 1.

THE RESURRECTION. 397
means of judging ; but wherever we have, with the
single exception of that on the mountain in Galilee,
(and possibly that to the two Marys), Christ's appear
ance was whoUy unexpected. No one was looking for
it, no one was anticipating it. Nor were the appear
ances of such a kind as would have been suggested
by enthusiasm. Many of them were simple, plain,
and almost trivial in their character, very different
from what enthusiasm would have suggested. And
even those that were otherwise, were still not such as
the Apostles would be likely to have imagined. Is it
likely, for instance, that with aU their hopes of a re
stored Jewish kingdom, they should have imagined a
Vision telling them to go and baptize all the nations ?
In the next place, subjective visions, due to enthu
siasm, would not have started so soon as the third
day. It would have required a much longer interval
for the disciples' to have got over the utter confusion
caused by the crucifixion, and to realise (perhaps by
studying the old prophecies) that this humiliation was,
after aU, part of God's scheme, and was to be followed
by a Resurrection. Nor again would such visions have
only lasted for a short time ; and yet with the single
exception of that to St. Paul, they were all over in a
few weeks, though the enthusiasm of the witnesses
lasted through life. Thus the appearances beginning
so soon, and ending so soon, are alike strongly opposed
to the Vision Theory.
Fourthly, and this is very remarkable, when Christ
appeared to His disciples, He was often not recognised
at first. This was the case with St. Mary Magdalene,

398 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.
with Cleopas and his companion, and with the disciples
at Tiberias. But it is plain that, if they so hoped and
expected to see their risen Master, that they eventually
fancied they did see Him, they would at once have
recognised Him. Their not doing so is quite incom
patible with the Vision Theory, and hence, if this
theory is true, the record of these appearances at least
must be intentionally false, for in each case His not
being recognised is an essential part of the incident.
Fifthly, we are repeatedly told that at first some
of the disciples disbelieved or doubted the Resurrec
tion.1 This is an important point, since it shows that
opinions were divided on the subject, and therefore
makes it almost certain that they would have used
what means they had of finding out the truth. More
over, some of them remained doubtful even after the
others were persuaded, St. Thomas in particular re
quiring the most convincing proof. His state of
mind was certainly .not that of an enthusiast, since,
instead of being so convinced of the Resurrection as
to have imagined it, he could with great difficulty be
got to believe it. Indeed, according to these accounts,
scarcely one of the first witnesses believed the Resurrec
tion till the belief was almost forced on him. If, then,
the Vision Theory is true, this necessitates an additional
portion of our accounts being altogether untrue.
Sixthly, subjective visions do not occur to different
persons simultaneously. A man's private illusions (like
his dreams) are his own. A lot of men do not simul
taneously dream the same dream, still less do they
1 Matt. 28. 17 ; Mark 16. 11-14 ; Luke 24. 11, 37 ; John 20. 25.

THE RESURRECTION. 399
simultaneously see the same subjective vision — at
least a vision like that here referred to, of a person
moving about among them, talking to them, etc.
This is quite different from Constantine's army thinking
that they saw a luminous cross in the sky, or a body of
Spanish troops that they saw their patron (St. James)
riding at their head, or anything of that kind, several
instances of which are known.
But a subjective vision, at all resembling what is
described in the Gospels, is extremely rare. It may
perhaps happen to one person in ten thousand once in
his life. It is difficult to believe that even two persons
should be so affected at the same time, while the idea
that a dozen or more men should simultaneously see
such a subjective vision is out of the question. And
theGospels, it maybe added, always imply that Christ
was visible to all present (though some of them doubted
as to His identity) which was not as a rule the case in
other alleged visions.
But seventhly, this hypothesis does not account for
many of the actual facts recorded — facts concerning
which, unless the writings are intentionally false, there
could be no doubt whatever. Persons could not have
honestly believed that they went to the Tomb, and
found it empty, if the Body was there all the time ;
nor that they touched their Master, i.e., took hold of
His feet, if He existed only in their imagination, for
the attempt to touch Him would at once have shown
them their mistake. Nor could they have seen Him
eat food, for a subjective vision, like a dream, would
not explain the disappearance of the food. Nor again

400 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.
could a mere vision take bread and fish, and give it
them to eat.1
Moreover, how are we to account for visionary con
versations ? And yet these occurred on every occasion.
Christ never merely appeared, and then vanished.
He always spoke, and often for a considerable time,
giving detailed instructions ; and can we imagine any
one believing a mere vision to have done all this ?
Is it possible, for instance, that the appearance along
the road to Emmaus could have been only a vision ?
In regard to all these particulars, then, and many more,
the Vision Theory is hopelessly untenable.
Lastly, there is one other great difficulty which is
inherent in the Vision Theory, and does not depend on
any of our accounts, and this is the fact of the Jews
not being able to produce the dead Body of Christ,
though His burial-place was well known, and close at
hand. For no amount of enthusiasm could go so far
as to say that a man's body was restored to life (ate,
talked, and walked), if the corpse was lying before them
all the time. So the presence or absence of the Body
seems alike fatal to the theory of subjective visions
due to enthusiasm. If it could have been found the
Jews would have produced it, rather than invent the
story about its being stolen ; and- if it could not be
found, fraud, not enthusiasm, must have made away
with it.
With regard to this story, it may be noticed that
St. Matthew says it was current among the Jews ; and
Justin Martyr, himself a native of Palestine, alludes
1 Matt. 28. 9 ; Luke 24. 43 ; John 21. 13 ; Acts 10. 41.

THE RESURRECTION. 4OI
to it as still in circulation in his day.1 And it is also
intrinsically . probable, for the Jews are not likely to
have made no attempt whatever to dispute the alleged
Resurrection ; and yet, if they were unable to produce
the Body, there was obviously nothing else for them to
say. There can thus be no doubt that some such story
existed, though the other Evangelists, who wrote for
Gentiles, and not Jews, do not refer to it.
But its weakness is self-evident. For the guard of
soldiers could scarcely have seen the disciples come
and steal the Body ; and if they said that it was stolen
while they slept, they plainly could not tell whether this
was true, or whether Christ had come forth of His own
accord. Moreover that a whole guard (especially of
Roman soldiers with their strict discipline),2 who were
put there on purpose to keep the Body, should really
have gone to sleep, and allowed it to be stolen, and this
in spite of the noise caused by rolling away the great
stone, is anyhow most improbable. Nor again is it
likely if the Body was hurriedly stolen, that the grave
clothes should have been so carefuUy left behind ; and
yet this is a detail too insignificant to have been worth
inventing.3 All, then, that the story proves is this (but this it
does prove unquestionably) , that though the Body was
purposely guarded, yet when it was wanted it was
gone, and could not be found. And this is a strong
argument not only against the Vision Theory, but
against every theory except the Christian one. For
1 Justin, Dial., 108. 2 Matt. 28. 14.
3 Luke 24. 12 ; John 20. 7. 26

402 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.
when the Resurrection was first announced, the most
obvious and decisive answer would have been for the
Jews to have produced the dead Body ; and their not
being able to do so strongly supports the Christian
account. Indeed, the empty Tomb, together with the
failure of all attempts to account for it, was doubtless
one of the reasons why the Apostles obtained so many
converts the first day they preached the Resurrection.1
And we must remember the obtaining of converts,
i.e., the founding of Christianity, is, after all, the fact
that has to be explained. And even if the Vision
Theory could account for the Apostles themselves
believing that they had seen Christ, it would not
account for their being able to convince others of this
belief, (especially if the Body was still in the tomb,)
and to found the Church on such a basis. For a mere
vision, like a ghost story, would begin and end in
nothing, and if the Resurrection also began in nothing
how are we to account for its ending in so much ?
Moreover, a mistaken belief in Christ's Resurrection
would only, at most, have brought them back to their
former hopes and opinions about Him. It might
have convinced them that He was the Messiah of the
Jews, but not that He was the Saviour of the world.
This required not only the Resurrection, but the
subsequent teaching of Christ, — at least such is the ex
planation we have of it, and it is difficult to see how
else it can be accounted for.2
Summing up these arguments, then, we conclude
that the Vision Theory is most improbable in any case,
1 Acts 2. 41. 2 Matt 28. 18-20 ; Mark 16. 15 ; Luke 24. 47.

Ill ="
THE RESURRECTION. 403
and can only be accepted at all by admitting that
nearly the whole of our accounts are not only untrue,
but intentionally so. But on such a supposition it is
quite needless. Its object was to explain the alleged
Resurrection without impugning the veracity of the
writers, and this it is quite unable to do. In short, if
the writers honestly believed the accounts as we have
them, or indeed any other accounts at aU resembling
them, the Vision Theory is out of the question.
It does not even account satisfactorily for the one
appearance, that to St. Paul, which it might be thought
capable of explaining. Physical blindness does not
result from a subjective vision, and to say that in his
case the wish was father to the thought, and that his
expectation and hope of seeing Christ eventually made
him think that he did see Him, is absurd. Here was
the case of an avowed enemy and' a man of great
inteUectual power who was converted solely by the
appearance of Christ. And as he had access to all
existing evidence on both sides, and had everything to
lose and nothing to gain from the change, his con
version alone is a strong argument in favour of the
Resurrection, more especially as the fact itself is
beyond dispute.
Before passing on, we must just glance at a modifi
cation of the Vision Theory, that has been suggested
in recent years ; which is that the Apostles saw real
visions, miraculously sent by God, to persuade them to
go oh preaching the Gospel. But this theory has nearly
all the difficulties of the ordinary Vision Theory and
many more besides ; for it admits the supernatural, 26 — 2

404 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.
and yet these divinely sent visions were such as to
mislead the Apostles, and to make them think that
Christ's Body had risen from the grave, and saw no
corruption, when in reality it was still decaying in the
tomb ! It seems scarcely necessary to discuss such a
view. Surely if God worked a miracle at all, or gave
a supernatural vision, it would be to convince men of
what was true, not of what was false.
(4.) The Reasoning of the witnesses.
Lastly, there is the question of reasoning. AUowing
that the Apostles really saw Christ alive, after His
Crucifixion, did they draw the right conclusion in
thinking that He had risen from the dead ? The
opposite theory is that Christ did not die, but only
fainted on the cross, and being taken down, slowly
recovered. And in support of this Swoon Theory, it
is urged that death after crucifixion did not usually
ensue so quickly, since we are told that Pilate marvelled
if He were already dead ; and that He might easily have
been mistaken for dead, as no accurate tests were
known in those days. Moreover, as He was then placed
in a cool rock cave, a return to consciousness would
probably ensue, when, of course, He would come forth
and visit His friends. And they, superstitious men,
looking upon their Master as in some sense divine, and
perhaps half expecting the Resurrection, would at
once conclude that He had risen from the dead. And
being very faint, He would probably ask for something
to eat, which is what He did according to St. Luke,
and not venture to appear publicly to the Jews.
Neither of these two last points, it is urged, is satis-

THE RESURRECTION. 405
factorily explained on the supposition of a real resur
rection of a Divine Christ.
Now in regard to this theory, it must be admitted
that men have sometimes (when carefuUy attended to
by friends) recovered after crucifixion. And the
chief argument in its favour is, of course, the same as
that in favour of the Vision Theory. It professes to
account for the recorded appearances, without admit
ting either the truth of the Resurrection, or deliberate
falsehood on the part of the witnesses, who, according
to this theory, were themselves deceived in thinking
that Christ had risen from the dead, when in reality
He had never died. They could not therefore have
helped in restoring Him to consciousness ; He must
have recovered by Himself. This is essential to the
theory ; for if, after Christ was taken down from the
Cross, and handed over to His friends, they had found
that life was not extinct, and by careful tending and
nourishing had gradually restored Him, this would
indeed account for the appearances in a certain sense ;
but only by admitting that the Christians were im
postors in saying that He had risen from the dead, well
knowing that He had never died, and that aU their
stories about visits to the tomb were merely intended
to deceive. But if we admit this, no such theory is
necessary. How then would this theory suit the facts of the case ?
While admitting its credibility, it is hard to find words
to express its great improbability. It has immense
difficulties, many of them peculiarly its own. And
first as to Christ Himself. He must have been ex-

406 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.
tremely exhausted after aU the ill-treatment He had
received ; indeed, the piercing of His side with a spear
would probably of itself have caused death. And yet
in this exhausted state He is supposed not only to have
recovered consciousness, but to have been able to
come out of the tomb by Himself, rolling away the
large stone, which would have been speciaUy difficult
from the inside. And then, instead of creeping about
weak and ill, and wanting nursing and medical treat
ment. He must have walked over twelve mUes, to
Emmaus and back — and this with pierced feet1 — and
have appeared the same evening to His disciples so
completely recovered that they, instead of looking
upon Him as still half-dead, imagined that He had
conquered death, and was indeed the Prince of Life.
All this implies a rapid recovery on the part of Christ,
and an amount of credulity on that of the Apostles,
which are alike inconceivable.
And it is equally unlikely that so many persons, both
friends and foes, should have mistaken Christ for dead.
And yet according to this theory the guard entrusted
with the execution, who must have had a good deal of
experience in such matters ; the centurion, who was
sent for by Pilate on purpose to ascertain this very
point ; the Christians, who took down the body, carried
it to the sepulchre, and wrapped it in linen cloths ;
and the Jews, who asked for a night-guard ; must all
1 The feet being pierced is often disputed, but St. Luke (who
probably knew more about crucifixion than we do), evidently
thought they were ; for he records Christ as saying, See my hands
and my feet that it is I myself, which implies that His hands and
feet would identify Him.

THE RESURRECTION. 407
have honestly believed that Christ was dead when
He was not. Moreover, the sepulchre was carefully
guarded by His enemies for the express purpose of
securing the Body. How then did they let it escape ?
If they were not asleep at the time, they must either
have done this willingly, .because they were bribed ;
or else, unwillingly, because they could not help it,
being overcome by supernatural power ;x and either
alternative is fatal to the Swoon Theory.
This theory also requires not only that the Apostles
should have been deceived in thinking that Christ had
risen from the dead, but that Christ Himself should
have countenanced the deception, or He would have
explained the truth to His disciples. He is thus made
to be a deceiver instead of His Apostles, which all will
admit to be most improbable. And yet the only other
alternative is even more so, which is that Christ was
Himself mistaken in thinking that He had really died,
when He had not.
Moreover, what became of Him afterwards ? If
He died again within a few weeks, His disciples could
scarcely have thought Him the Prince of Life, who had
the keys of Death and of Hades ;2 and if He continued
to live, where did He go to ? And He must anyhow
have died again at some time, and His real tomb is
sure to have been much venerated by His followers ;
and it is difficult to believe that no tradition of it
should have remained, sufficient at all events to prevent
the belief in the Ascension.
But perhaps the chief argument against this theory
1 Matt. 28. 4. 2 Acts 3. 15 ; Rev. 1. 18.

408 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.
is that it does not account for many of the actual facts
recorded ; such as Christ passing through closed doors,
and vanishing at pleasure, as well as His Ascension.
These details present no difficulty on the Vision
Theory, nor on that of deliberate falsehood, but they
are inconsistent with the present one. And though
it accounts to some extent for the empty Tomb, it
does not account for the grave-clothes being there ;
for if Christ had come out of the Tomb by Himself,
He could scarcely have left His clothes behind ; not
to mention the difficulty of taking them off, caused
by the adhesive myrrh, which would have stuck them
together and to the Body.1 So that the discarded
grave-clothes are fatal to this, as to every other theory,
except the Christian one ; and yet it was a simple matter
of fact, as to which there could be no possible mistake.
Either the clothes were there, or else the persons who
said they saw them were telling a falsehood.
Moreover, in any case Christ could not have walked
to Emmaus and back, or appeared to the Apostles in
His grave-clothes, so He must have obtained some others
somewhere, and where did they come from ? His
enemies are not likely to have supplied them, and if
His friends did, it makes it more than ever difficult to
believe that they were not aware of the fraud. And
yet if they were aware of it, it is strange that the truth
never leaked out afterwards.
Our conclusion, then, in regard to this Swoon Theory
is precisely the same as that in regard to the Vision
Theory, though for different reasons. It is that the
1 John 19. 39.

THE RESURRECTION. 409
theory is very improbable in any case, and only tenable
at all by supposing a large part of our present narra
tives to be intentionally false. But then such a theory
is quite needless.
(C.) Conclusion.
Before concluding this chapter a few remarks may
be made on the alleged difficulties of the Christian
theory. There is only one of any consequence, which
is how such a miracle as the Resurrection could occur
at all, and probably nine out of ten men who disbelieve
it, do so for this reason. It is not that the evidence
for it is insufficient, (they have perhaps never ex
amined it,) but that no conceivable evidence would be
sufficient to establish such an event. Miracles, they
say, are incredible, they cannot happen, and that settles
the point ; for it is of course easier to believe any
explanation, visions, swoons, or anything else, than
the occurrence of that which cannot happen.
But if we admit that miracles - are not incredible ;
(Chapter VII.) and that though under ordinary circum
stances, a dead man coming to life again would be so
extremely improbable as to be practicaUy incredible ;
yet as these were not ordinary circumstances, and
Christ was not an ordinary man, but, as we shall see,
an absolutely unique Man, claiming moreover to be
Divine, and having a mass of powerful evidence both
from His own Character, from previous Prophecies,
and from subsequent History, to support His claims ;
then that He should rise from the dead, as a proof that
these claims were well-founded, does not seem so very
improbable after all.

410 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY- chap. xvii.
And granting this, the other difficulties are mostly
unimportant. That a divine Christ, who was pleased
to re-assume His human body, should be able to come
out of the tomb, in spite of the stone and the guard,
presents no difficulty ; nor that He should appear and
disappear at pleasure, and in such a form, and in such
dress, as to be recognised or not as He wished (see
Chapter XIII.). And His asking for something to
eat was obviously to satisfy His disciples of the reality
of His risen Body, and thus disprove the Vision Theory,
which they were rather inclined to adopt.
There is, however, still one obj ection which may be
thought worth notice. It is Christ's not appearing
publicly to the Jews. Why, it is asked, did Christ
only appear to believers ? Surely this is very sus
picious. If He really did rise from the dead, and
wished the world to believe it, why did He not settle
the point by going publicly into Jerusalem ? He would
thus have completely triumphed over His enemies,
and saved His followers many sufferings.
In answer to this objection it may be pointed out in
the first place that the wording is somewhat ambiguous
and misleading. It is of course admitted that Christ
only appeared to those who had been His friends before
His death (except St. Paul) , and not to His enemies, or
even to indifferent persons. But as to the fact of His
Resurrection, those to whom He appeared were not
believers : it was only His repeated appearances that
made them so. And every person to whom Christ
appeared, no matter how unwiUing he was to admit the
Resurrection (e.g., St. Thomas), was eventually com-

THE RESURRECTION. 4II
pellecfto do so, simply because the evidence was, or at
all events seemed to him to be, overwhelming. Nor
is there any reason for thinking that Christ ever wished
to triumph over His enemies ; that may be reserved
for the next world, here He only- wishes to save
them. Secondly, it is at least open to doubt whether it
would have settled the point if Christ had gone publicly
into Jerusalem. No doubt the Jews who saw Him
would have been convinced by it, but the nation as a
whole might, or might not, have embraced Christianity,
If they did not, which is the more probable on the
Christian view, since they had already rejected many
other miracles, the evidence in favour of the Resur
rection would have been weakened enormously. A
public entry into Jerusalem which did not convince
the nation, but which, for example, they ascribed to
a pretender, would have been worse than useless
evidentially. If, on the other hand, the Jewish nation had em
braced Christianity, it is still doubtful whether the
evidence would have been stronger than it is at present.
No doubt the early Christians would have been saved
many sufferings ; but for this very reason their evidence
would be the less valuable, for we should have no satis
factory proof of their veracity. Moreover, it would
have greatly weakened the force of Prophecy, since,
in the absence of ancient manuscripts, the assertion
that the old Jewish prophecies had been tampered
with, to make them suit their Christian interpreta
tion, would be difficult to disprove. But now these

412 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvii.
prophecies have been preserved by hostile librarians,
and are thus beyond suspicion. It is hence very
doubtful whether Christ's going publicly into Jeru
salem would have strengthened the total evidence in
favour of Christianity.
But thirdly, even admitting that it would, what
then ? Can we say that it ought to have taken place,
or that its not doing so renders the alleged Resurrec
tion improbable ? Certainly not ; for the evidence in
favour of the Resurrection is already amply sufficient
to justify anyone in believing it. And if so, the
absence of stiU stronger evidence is no reason for
disregarding what we have. And, however strong
the evidence was, some men might always say it ought
to be stronger.
Moreover, to get the world to believe in the Resurrec
tion required not only evidence, but missionaries,
that is,- men who were so absolutely convinced of its
truth, as to be willing to spend their whole lives in
witnessing for it, in all lands and at all costs. And the
chief object of the Appearances may have been to
produce such men ; and it is obvious that (apart from
a miraculous conversion like St. Paul's) there could
not have been more than a few of them.
For only a few could have conversed with Christ,
and ate with Him after His Death, so as to be quite
certain that He was then alive ; only a few could have
known Him so intimately before, as to be quite certain
that it was really He, and only a few had loved Him
so dearly as to be willing to give up everything for His
sake. So there were only a few suitable witnesses

THE RESURRECTION. 413
avaUable. And Christ's frequently appearing to these
few, in the private and intimate manner recorded in
the Gospels, was evidently more Ukely to turn them
into ardent missionaries (which it actually did) than
any public appearance. This objection, then, cannot
be maintained.
In conclusion, it seems scarcely necessary to sum
up the arguments in this chapter. .Suffice it to say we
first examined the narratives of the Resurrection, and
decided that they had every appearance of being
thoroughly truthful. And we have since discussed
at some length the veracity, knowledge, investigation,
and reasoning of its first witnesses, and not one of these
points can be fairly doubted. In fact the evidence in
favour of each is overwhelming. And yet, as before
shown, unless we dispute one of these points, we are
bound to admit that the Resurrection was true.

CHAPTER XVIII.
THAT THE OTHER NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES ARE
PROBABLY TRUE.
(A.) Their Credibility.
They present few difficulties, except the casting out of Evil
Spirits, considered in detail.
(B.) Their Apparent Truthfulness.
(i.) General marks of truthfulness.
(2.) Special marks of truthfulness.
(C.) Their Publicity.
(1.) They are said to have occurred in public.
(2.) They were publicly appealed to.
(3.) They were never disputed at the time.
(4.) The silence of classical writers.
(5.) Futile attempts to explain them away.
(D.) Conclusion. Objection, why are there no miracles now ?
Having discussed in the last chapter the Resurrection
of Christ, we pass on now to the other New Testament
miracles, and will consider in turn their credibility,
their apparent truthfulness, and their publicity ; and
will then conclude by noticing an important objection.
(A.) Their Credibility.
Now with one exception, the casting out of evil
spirits, the miracles present scarcely any difficulty,
414

CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 415
provided of course miracles at all are credible, which
we have already admitted in Chapter VII. Most of
them, especiaUy those of healing, were very suitable
from a moral point of view, while that they were as
serted to be evidential of Christ's mission is beyond
dispute. Not only do all the Evangelists declare this,
but Christ Himself, though He refused to work a
miracle when challenged to do so — He would not work
one to order, as we might say — yet appealed to His
public miracles in the most emphatic manner. Thus,
when the Baptist sent messengers to inquire whether
He was the Messiah, His only answer was, ' Go your
way, and tell John the things which ye do hear and see ;
the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the
lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are
raised up,'1 etc.
And He afterwards condemned Chorazin, and other
cities, in the strongest terms, because, although He
had done so many miracles there, they had not re
pented ; which again shows both the publicity of the
miracles, and their intended evidential value.2 And
the passage is speciaUy important, as its genuineness
is confirmed by the fact that not a single miracle is
recorded as having been worked at Chorazin. And
yet, if the Evangelists (or anyone else) had invented
the saying, they would surely have invented some
miracles there to justify it. If on the other hand they
did not invent it, and the words were actually spoken
by Christ, is it conceivable that He should have blamed
1 Matt. 11. 4 ; Luke 7. 22 ; see also Mark 2. 10.
2 Matt. 11. 21-24; Luke 10- 13-15.

416 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xviii.
these cities for not believing on Him in spite of His
miracles, if He had done no miracles ?
We pass on now to the casting out of evil spirits;
and as the whole subj ect of the existence and influence
of spirits or angels is often thought to present great
difficulties, we will briefly examine it. And first, as
to the existence of angels. There is no difficulty here.
For the whole analogy of nature would teach us that
as there are numerous beings in the scale of life below
man, so there would be some beings above man— that
is to say, between him and the Supreme Being. And
this is rendered stiU more probable when we reflect on
the small gaps there are in the descending scale, and the
enormous gap there would be in the ascending scale if
man were the next highest being in the universe to God.
And that these higher beings should be entirely
spiritual, i.e., without material bodies, and therefore
beyond scientific discovery, is not improbable. Indeed,
considering that man's superiority to lower beings lies
in the very fact of his having a semi-spiritual nature,
the idea that higher beings may be entirely spiritual
is even probable. And that they should have as great,
if not greater, inteUectual and moral faculties than
man seems certain ; for otherwise they would not be
higher beings at all. And this necessitates their having
free will, with the option of choosing good or evil.
And that, like men, some should choose one, and some
the other, seems equaUy probable. Hence the existence
of both good and evil angels presents no difficulty.
Secondly, as to their influence. Now that good
angels should wish to influence men for good, and

CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 417
might occasionally be employed by God for that pur
pose, scarcely seems improbable. And on the other
hand, that evil angels should wish to act, as evil men
act, in tempting others to do wrong, is only what we
should expect. And that they should be able to do this
is quite credible ; for the whole analogy of nature shows
that higher beings are always able to influence lower
ones. While that God should aUow them to do so is
no harder to believe than that He should allow evil
men to do the same. There is thus no difficulty on
prima facie grounds as to what is called demoniacal
temptation. .
_ But it may still be objected that we have no actual
evidence of the influence of angels at the present day.
But this is at least open to doubt. For what evidence
could we expect to have ? We could not expect to
have any physical sensation, or anything capable of
scientific investigation, for angels are by hypothesis
spiritual beings. If, then, they were to influence man,
say, by tempting him to do evil, all we could know
would be the sudden presence of some wicked or evil
thought in our minds, without, as far as we could
judge, any previous cause for it. And who will assert
that this is unknown, or that, if known, it does not
constitute aU the proof we could expect of the action
of an evil spirit ?
Next as to demoniacal possession. Though our igno
rance on the subject is admittedly great, there is nothing
incredible here. Indeed, the accounts of mesmerism
at the present day, though they cannot always be
trusted, seem to show that even one man may so
27

418 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xviii.
entirely possess the mind and will of another as to
make him do whatever he wishes. And it is certainly
not more difficult to believe that this power may in
certain cases be exercised by an evil spirit. And even
the curious fact, mentioned in the Gospels, that the
man seems at times to be able to act and speak for
himself, apart from the spirit who possesses him, is
quite analogous to instances of double consciousness, as
they are called, at the present day. And much the
same may be said of some of the other symptoms which
resemble certain forms of madness ; though, as the
patients are now kept under restraint in civilised
countries, they have not the same notoriety.
But it may be said, why ascribe this madness to an
evil spirit ? But why not ? Madness often follows
the frequent yielding to certain temptations, such as
drunkenness or impurity ; and that it may really be
due to the action of an evil spirit, (an unclean spirit
is the significant term used in the Gospels,) and be the
appropriate punishment for yielding -to his temptation,
is certainly not incredible. And if so, considering the
grossly immoral state of the wojld at the Christian
era, we cannot be surprised at such cases being far
more common then than now. And the writers, it may
be added, do not (like some early nations) attribute all
maladies to evil spirits, for we read of men having fever
and palsy, as well as being blind, lame, deaf and dumb,
without any hint of its being due to an evil spirit.
And this shows that they were quite able to distinguish
between the two. Lastly, the cure of demoniacal
possession presents as a miracle no difficulty whatever.

CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 419
There is, however, an undoubted difficulty in regard
to animals being thus afflicted. But as we have only
a single example of this, the swine at Gadara, it is little
more than a one-text difficulty.1 Still it is a difficulty,
and I have never seen a satisfactory explanation
of it ; though our ignorance about animals, combined
with the fact that they resemble man in so many
respects, prevents us from saying that it is absolutely
incredible. Two other difficulties in regard to this miracle may
be noticed in passing. The first is on the ground of
injustice, as Christ allowed the swine to be destroyed,
without apparently making any compensation to their
owners. But if He were really the Divine Being He
claimed to be, the world and all it contained belonged
to Him ; and His allowing the swine to be destroyed by
evil spirits was no more unjust than His allowing them
to die by disease or in any other manner. And it had
the advantage of proving conclusively that it was a
genuine miracle, for the swine could not have been
confederate in any fraud, or in a case of (so-caUed)
natural healing.
The second objection refers to the swine being kept
at all, considering the abhorrence in which they were
held by the Jews. But we happen to know from
Josephus that Gadara was one of the few Grecian
cities in the country ; so this is really an evidence of
truthfulness.2 For if the Evangelist had invented
the story it is most unlikely that he should have
1 Matt. 8. 28-34; Mark 5. 1-17 ; Luke 8. 26-40.
2 Antiq., xvii. 11.
27 — 2

420 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xviii.

selected a Grecian city for the miracle ;
and still more unlikely that he should have done so
knowingly, and yet without giving a hint that this
explained the presence of the swine, but leaving his
readers to discover it for themselves. And it is also
an evidence of truthfulness that the recorded effect of
the miracle, on the multitude, was merely that they
asked Christ to go away. Writers of fiction would
hardly have arranged it thus.
Lastly, we must remember that all the Christian
miracles lose a great deal of their improbability when
we remember the unique position of Christ. And what
would be incredible, if told of another man, who had
done nothing to alter the history of the world, may
be credible of Him. We decide, then, that aU the New
Testament miracles are credible ; we have next to
consider whether they are true.
(B.) Their Apparent Truthfulness.
Now the testimony in favour of these miracles is
very similar to that in favour of the Resurrection of
Christ. They are recorded by the same writers and
in the same books, and everything points to these
accounts being trustworthy. To put it shortly, the
writers had no motive for recording the miracles unless
they believed them to be true, and they had ample
means of finding out whether they were true or not ;
while many of them are such as cannot possibly be
explained by want of investigation or an error in
reasoning. Moreover, as we shall see, they contain
numerous marks of truthfulness. These may be
divided into two classes, general, or those affecting the

CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 421
miracles as a whole, and special, or those affecting
particular miracles, or sayings about them ; and we will
consider each in turn.
(1.) General marks of truthfulness.
Among these we may notice first the extremely
simple and graphic way in which many of the miracles
are described, such as the curing of the man who was
born blind, with the repeated questioning of the man
himself.1 It is difficult to think that it does not come
from an eyewitness. And the same may be said of a
large number of the miracles in the New Testament.
Secondly, the kind of miracles ascribed to Christ
seem (as far as we can judge) to be worthy of Him.
They were to benefit persons, not to injure them, and
they are a great contrast to the imaginary miracles
ascribed to Him in the Apocryphal Gospels. It is
difficult without long quotations to give anyone an
idea of how extremely puerile these are ; when for
instance Christ was a child, we read of His making
clay birds fly, of His turning children into kids for
refusing to play with Him, and of His cursing a boy
who had run against Him, and who thereupon fell down
dead.2 How different such miracles are from those in
our Gospels scarcely needs pointing out.
Thirdly, the miracles are closely interwoven with the
moral teaching of Christ, and it is difficult either to
separate the two or to believe the whole account to be
fictitious. His wonderful works and His wonderful
words involve each other, and form together an
1 John 9. 8-34.
2 Gospel of the Infancy, chapters xv., xvii., xix.

422 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xviii.
harmonious whole, which is too life-like to be
imaginary. Indeed, a life of Christ without His
miracles would be as unintelligible as a life of Napoleon
without his campaigns. Thus not only are the great
facts of Christianity (such as the Incarnation and the
Resurrection) themselves miracles, but its lesser facts
and moral teaching are so mixed up with miracles,
that a non-miraculous Christianity would be like a
contradiction in terms. And it is interesting to note
in this connection that St. Mark's Gospel, which is
generally admitted to be the earliest of the Synoptics,
contains the largest proportion of miracles (eighteen
miracles to four parables). As we should expect, it
was Christ's miracles, rather than His teaching, which
first attracted attention.
Fourthly, there was a great variety in ,the miracles.
They were of various kinds, worked in various places,
before various witnesses, and with various details and
characteristics ; in public as well as in private, in the
cities as well as in the country, in groups as well as
singly ; when watched by enemies as well as among
friends ; unsolicited as well as when asked for ; affecting
men as well as women ; the rich as well as the poor, the
educated as- well as the ignorant, Gentiles as weU as
Jews, at a distance as well as near, after due notice as
well as suddenly, on nature as well as on man — in fact,
according to our accounts, it is difficult to imagine any
miracles that could have been more absolutely
convincing.
* Fifthly, many of the miracles were of a permanent
character, and such as could be examined, and re-

CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 423
examined, again and again. When, for instance, a
man who had long been lame, or deaf, or blind, was
restored to health, the villagers, as weU as the man him
self, could aU certify as to the cure "for years to come.
And miracles such as these are obviously of much
greater value than what we may call momentary
miracles, (such as St. Peter's finding the coin in the
fish's mouth) where the only possible evidence is that
of the immediate beholders.
Lastly, and this is very remarkable, the Evangelists
nearly always relate that Christ worked His miracles
by His own authority ; whereas the Old Testament
prophets, with scarcely an exception, worked theirs
by cahing upon God. Take for instance the parallel
cases of raising a widow's son.1 Elijah prays earnestly
that God would restore the child to life ; Christ merely
gives the command, I say unto thee, Arise. The differ
ence between the two is very striking, and is of itself
a strong argument in favour of Christ's miracles ; for
had the Evangelists invented them, it is scarcely
conceivable that they should not have modelled them
on those of the Old Testament. But instead of this,
they describe them as worked in a new and unpre
cedented manner, and , one which must at the time
have seemed most presumptuous. (Compare the way
in which the prophets taught, Thus saith the Lord,
with that of Christ, Verily I say unto you.)
The Gospel miracles then, from the graphic way in
which they are described ; the absence in them of any
thing puerile or unworthy ; their close connection with
1 1 Kings 17. 21 ; Luke 7. 14. ,

424 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xviii.
the moral teaching of Christ ; their variety ; their
permanence, and above all from the authoritative way
in which they are said to have been worked ; have
every appearance of being truthfully recorded.
(2.) Special marks of truthfulness.
Moreover several individual miracles, and sayings
about them, are of such a kind as could scarcely have
been invented.1 Take, for instance, the raising of the
daughter of Jairus. Now of course any writer, wishing
to magnify the power of Christ, might have invented
this or any other miracle. But if so, he is not likely
to have put into the mouth of Christ Himself the words,
The child is not dead but sleepeth. These words seem to
imply that Christ did not consider it a miracle, and
whatever difficulties they present they certainly bear
the marks of genuineness. And the same may be said
of the miracle of healing the blind man at Bethsaida,
which is recorded as if it was a partial failure at first.
Christians in later times would scarcely have invented
such a miracle as this to ascribe to their Master.
Nor again are they likely to have said that His power
of working miracles was so often conditional on the faith
of the person to be healed, so much so that in one town
He could do scarcely any miracles because of their un
belief.2 This is not the sort of legend that would have
grown up round a deified Hero ; it bears unmistakably
the mark of genuineness. But if the writer had good
means of knowing that .Christ could do no miracles in
one place, because of their unbelief, had he not equaUy
1 Mark 5. 39 ; 8. 23.
2 Mark 6. 5-6 ; Matt. 13. 58 ; 9. 22, 29.

CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 425
good means of knowing that Christ could, and did, do
miracles in other places ?
And what shall we say of Christ's frequent commands
to keep His miracles secret P1 There may have been
reasons for this in every case, but Christ's followers (who
presumably recorded the miracles to get them .known)
are not likely to have invented, and put into His mouth
the command to keep them secret ; nor is Christ likely
to have given it, if there had been no miracles to keep
secret. And then there is the striking passage where Christ
warned His hearers that even working miracles in His
name, without a good life, would not ensure their
salvation.2 This occurs in one of His most character
istic discourses, the Sermon on the Mount, and it is
hard to doubt its genuineness. But even if we do, it is
not likely that Christ's followers would have thought of
inventing such a warning, if as a matter of fact no one
ever did work miracles in His name.
And much the same may be said of another passage
(whether written by St. Mark, or Aristion, matters not)
where Christ announced that all believers would be able
to work miracles.3 If He said so, He must surely have
been able to work them Himself ; and if He did not say
so, His foUowers must have been able to work them,
or their inventing such a promise would merely have
shown that they were, not believers. On the whole,
then, as said before, the accounts of the New Testament
miracles have every appearance of being thoroughly
truthful. 1 E.g., Mark 5. 43 ; 7. 36. 2 Matt. 7. 22. 3 Mark 16. 17.

426 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xvih.
(C.) Their Publicity.
But the most important point has still to be noticed,
which is the aUeged publicity of these miracles ; and
as this renders the testimony in their -favour peculiarly
strong, we must examine it at some length.
(i.) They are said to have occurred in public.
To begin with, many of the miracles are stated to
have been worked openly, and before crowds of people,
the names of the places where they occurred, and
even of. the persons concerned, such as Jairus, (a ruler
of the synagogue) Bartimseus, Lazarus (a man weU-
known to the Jewish authorities), and Malchus, (a
servant of the High Priest) being often given; and
hence if untrue, they could have been at once refuted.
Take for instance the feeding of the five thousand,
near the Sea of Tiberias. This miracle is recorded in
each of the Four Gospels ; it forms part of the so-called
Triple Tradition, and must therefore have been written
down very soon after the event, when a large number
of the five thousand were still alive. Now is it con
ceivable that anyone would have ventured to make up
such an account, even twenty years afterwards, if
nothing of the kind had taken place ? And if he had done
so, would not his story have been instantly refuted?
And of course the same argument applies in other
cases ; both in regard to the Gospel miracles, and also
in regard to those in the Acts, several of which concern
prominent officials, such as the pro-consul, Sergius
Paulus, at Cyprus, the gaoler at Philippi, and the chief
man, Publius, at Malta. And it is hard to over
estimate the enormous difficulty of thus asserting public

* CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 427
miracles, with the names of persons, and places, if none
occurred ; and yet the early Christians asserted such
miracles from the very first.
They also declared that the miracles were not only
much talked about and discussed, but that several of
those which occurred at Jerusalem were at once
officially investigated on the spot by the Jewish rulers,
who made the most searching inquiries about them.
And this also is not likely to have been asserted, unless
it was the case ; and not likely to have been the case,
if there had been no miracles.1
(2.) They were publicly appealed to.
Moreover, these public miracles were publicly ap
pealed to by the early Christians. According to the
Acts, this was done in the very first public sermon,
that at Pentecost, by St. Peter, who reminds his hearers
that they had themselves seen the miracles (even as ye
yourselves know) , as well as in one other speech at least.2
And this is specially important, because even hostile
critics, who deny the authenticity of the Acts, yet admit
that these speeches date from an extremely early time.
And if so, it shows conclusively that some of Christ's
immediate followers not only believed themselves that
He had worked miracles, but spoke as if their opponents
believed it too.
That they are not more frequently alluded to is not
surprising, when we remember that, according to the
writer, and he was an undoubted eye-witness in some
cases,3 (as they occur in the We sections,) the Apostles
1 E.g., John 9. 13-34 ; Acts 4. 5-22. 2 Acts 2. 22 ; 10. 38.
3 Acts 16. 16-18 ; 28. 2-10.

428 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.* chap, xviii.
themselves worked miracles, and therefore there was
no occasion for them to appeal to those of Christ as
proving the truth of what they preached. Their own
miracles were quite sufficient to convince anyone who
was open to this kind of proof. But stiU the important
fact remains that in the first recorded Christian sermon
the public miracles 'of Christ are publicly appealed to ;
and this was within a few months of their occurrence,
and at Jerusalem, where the statement, if untrue, could
have been more easily refuted than anywhere else.
Passing on now to St. Paul's Epistles ; it is true that
they do not contain any reference to Christ's miracles,
except of course the Resurrection. But as they were
not written to convert heathens, but to instruct those
who were already Christians, there is nothing surprising
in this ; and they do not mention any of His parables
either. On the other hand, they do contain direct
reference to Apostolic miracles. St. Paul in two of his
undisputed Epistles positively asserts that he had
worked miracles himself ; and he uses the same three
words, signs, wonders, and mighty works, which are
used in the Gospels to describe the miracles of Christ.1
The second passage is extremely important, since he
speaks of them as the signs of an apostle, and caUs upon
his opponents at Corinth to admit that he was an
apostle because he had worked these miracles ; and
this implies not only that the miracles were publicly
performed, but that his readers as weU as himself
believed that the power of working miracles belonged
to all the Apostles. And it will be noticed that he is
1 Rom. 15. 18, 19 ; 2 Cor. 12. 12 ; see also Gal. 3. 5.

CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 429
addressing the very persons among whom he declares
he had worked the miracles ; which makes it almost
inconceivable that his claim was unfounded, quite
apart from the difficulty of believing that such a man
as St. Paul would wilfully make a false statement.
And this is indirect testimony to Christ's miracles as
well, for if St. Paul believed that he had worked
miracles himself, he must surely have believed that his
Master had done the same. And as he was often at
Jerusalem,1 he had ample means of knowing.
Moreover, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews
also aUudes to miracles, which were worked by the
immediate foUowers of Christ, and in order to bear
witness to the truth of what they taught. And he
seems to imply that this evidence had convinced him
self, and those to whom he wrote.2 From all this
it foUows that the first preachers of Christianity not
only appealed to Christ's miracles, but also to their
own, in support of their claims. And, as just said,
how they could have done this, if they worked no
miracles, is not easy to understand.
We next come to a class of writings where we should
expect to find Christ's miracles alluded to, and these
are the first Christian Apologies. Nor are we disap
pointed. The three earliest of these, of which we have
any knowledge, were written by Quadratus, Aristides,
and Justin. Quadratus addressed his Apology to the
Emperor Hadrian (117-138 a.d.), and in a passage,
preserved by Eusebius, he lays stress on what we have
caUed the permanent character of Christ's miracles.
1 Acts 7. 58 ; 22. 3 ; Gal. 1. 18. 2 Heb." 2. 4.

430 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xviii.
His words are : ' The works of our Saviour were
always conspicuous, for they were real ; both they
that were healed and they that were raised from the
dead were seen, not only when they were healed or
raised, but for a long time afterwards ; not only whilst
He dwelt on this earth, but also after His departure,
and for a good while after it, insomuch as that some of
them have reached to our times.'1
Aristides of Athens wrote about the same time
(125 a.d.). He bases his defence of Christianity on
its moral character ; and as it was often attacked for
being immoral as well as irrational, there is nothing
surprising in this. But though he does not appeal to
any public miracles, yet as before said (Chapter XIV.)
he asserts the Divinity, Incarnation, Virgin-birth,
Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ.
Lastly, Justin in his Apology to the Emperor
Antoninus (138-161 a.d.) not only specifies many of
Christ's miracles, but also says generally that Christ
' healed those who were maimed, and deaf, and lame
in body from their birth, causing them to leap, to hear,
and to see by His word. And having raised the dead,
and causing them to live, by His deeds He compeUed
the men who lived at that time to recognise Him.
But though they saw such works, they asserted it was
magical art. For they dared to call Him a magician
and a deceiver of the people.'2 Justin, however, does
not base his argument on miracles, but chiefly on
prophecy, because, as he tells us again, the former
might be ascribed to magical arts. Thus two out of
1 Eusebius, Hist., iv. 3. 2 Dial., 69 ; Apol. I. 30.

CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 431
the three earliest apologists appealed to Christ's
miracles in the most public manner possible when
addressing the Emperor.
(3.) They were never disputed at the time.
But now comes another important point. Though
these public miracles were publicly appealed to by
the early Christians, and though written accounts of
them were in circulation very soon after they are
alleged to have occurred, yet, as far as we know, no
refuting evidence was produced, certainly none has
been preserved. And this is the more remarkable
since they are said to have been worked among enemies
as well as friends. They were thus open to the hostile
criticism of an entire nation ; and we may be sure the
bitter opponents of Christ, who had brought about His
death, would have exposed them if they could ; and yet,
as far as we know, they were never disputed. On the
contrary, judging by the only evidence we have, they
seem to have been admitted both by Jews and heathens ;
though, of course, they both denied their evidential
value. The Jews did this by ascribing them to diabolical
agency. And though this was a very strange expedient,
considering that their effect was obviously good and
not evil, they had really no alternative. Being Mono-
theists, if they denied that they were worked by God,
they were bound to ascribe them to the Devil, for
these were the only supernatural powers they believed
in ; though of course both of these had subordinate
angels under them. But we may ask, would the Jews
have adopted such an expedient had there been any

432 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xviii.
possibility of denying their occurrence ? And yet
that they did adopt it can scarcely be disputed. It
is positively asserted in each of the Synoptic Gospels ;x
and it is hardly conceivable that Christians should
have reported such a horrible insinuation as that their
Master was an agent of the Evil One, unless it had been
made. From this it follows that the Jews admitted
the Christian miracles, but denied their evidential
value by adopting the violent, though in their case
only possible, alternative of ascribing them to the
Devil. But why, it may be asked, if the Jews admitted
Christ's miracles, did they not acknowledge His
claims ? The answer is very instructive. The Jews
as a nation no doubt admitted His miracles, and were
in consequence quite wiUing to acknowledge Him as
the Messiah. The multitude, we read, wished to make
Him a king by force, escorted Him triumphantly into
Jerusalem, and were so attached to His cause that
the authorities were afraid to arrest Him openly.
But, as we shall see in Chapter XX., He claimed to
be far more than the Jewish Messiah : He claimed to
be God. Now, as just said, the Jews were firmly de
voted to Monotheism ; anyone, therefore, who claimed
to be God was of necessity in their eyes a blasphemer.
And the chief priests, knowing this, not only accused
Christ of blasphemy, but actually got Him to assert
His Divine claims on His trial. This at once detached
the multitude from His side ; and though, only a few
days before, they hailed Him as the Son of David, they
1 Matt. 12. 24 ; Mark 3. 22 ; Luke 11. 15.

s CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 433
now with perfect consistency demanded His death.
However much they were convinced of His miracles
they were still more convinced of Monotheism. And
therefore, if a man who worked miracles asserted that he
was God, they could only ascribe them to the Devil.
On the other hand, the Heathen were in no such
dilemma. They believed in a variety of gods, many
of whom were favourable to mankind, and could be
invoked by magic. And therefore they could con
sistently ascribe the miracles to some of these lesser
deities, or, in popular language, to magic. And we
have abundant evidence that they did so. As we
have seen, it is expressly asserted by Justin, who in
consequence preferred the argument from prophecy ;
and Irenaeus did the same, and for avowedly the same
reason.1 Moreover, Celsus, the most important opponent of
Christianity in the second century, also adopted this
view. His works are now lost, but Origen in answering
him frequently and positively asserts it. For instance,
' Celsus, moreover, unable to resist the miracles which
Jesus is reported to have performed, has already on
several occasions spoken of them slanderously as works
of sorcery.' And elsewhere he quotes the explanation
of Celsus, which was that Jesus, ' having been brought
up as an illegitimate child, and having served for hire
in Egypt, and then coming to the knowledge of certain
miraculous powers, returned from thence to his own
country, and by means of those powers proclaimed
himself a God.'2 And though Celsus lived some years
1 Bk. ii. 32. 2 Origen cont. Cels., i. 38 ; ii. 48.
28

434 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xviii.
after the time in question, it is most unlikely, if the
early opponents of Christianity had denied that the
miracles occurred, that its later opponents should have
given up this strong line of defence, and have adopted
the far weaker one that they did occur but were due to
magic. Moreover, the Jewish Talmud also asserts that
Christ's miracles were due to the magic which He learnt
in Egypt, so there can be no doubt that this was a
common explanation of them, and therefore the fact
that He worked miracles must have been commonly
admitted.1 And this is also shown by another Jewish
legend in the Sepher Toldeth Yehsu, that Christ obtained
His power of working miracles by hiding Himself in the
temple, and finding out the Sacred Name ; which again. .
shows that the miracles themselves were not denied ;2
though the Jews in later times seemed unwilling to
ascribe them direct to the Devil.
And that the heathen admitted the miracles may
also be inferred from a passage in Justin, who says
in his Apolpgy (addressed to the Roman Emperor and
the Senate) that they can learn that Christ worked
miracles (healing the lame, dumb, and blind, cleansing
the lepers, and raising the dead) by consulting the Acts
of Pontius Pilate ; which certainly implies that some
such document (whether authentic or not) then existed
at Rome, and that it contained a reference to the
miracles.3 1 Edersheim's ' Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah,' 1901, vol. ii.,
p. 772, gives a reference to the Tractate Shabbath, p. 104.
2 Quoted in ' Essays and Reviews,' 12th edit., 1865, p. 139.
3 Apol. I. 35, 48.

CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 435
We must next notice a well-known, though perhaps
spurious, passage in Josephus, which describes Christ
as a ' wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for
he was a doer of wonderful works.' It then alludes to
His alleged Resurrection, and ends with the curious
remark, ' The tribe of Christians, so named from him,
are not extinct at this day.'1 The wonderful works
here referred to were evidently superhuman, i.e.,
miraculous, since it was in consequence of these that
the writer doubted whether it was lawful to call Him
a Man. And though the authenticity of the passage
has been much disputed, it matters little for our present
purpose. For no Christian would have described his
religion as a sect not yet extinct. So if not the words
of Josephus, they must be the addition of a Jewish or
Roman editor ; but this is equally good evidence that
the non-Christians living at the time did not deny that
the miracles actually occurred.
Now the above passages show beyond doubt that
it was possible for men in those days to admit that
Christ worked miracles without becoming .Christians,
saying they were due either to the Devil or to magic.
Such attempts at getting out of the difficulty are now
universaUy condemned, and anyone who admits the
miracles admits the religion they were meant to attest.
(4.) The silence of classical writers.
The only argument on the other side is from the
silence of classical writers. Had the miracles really
occurred, it is said, especially in such a well-known
place as Palestine, the writers of the day would have
1 Antiq., xviii. 3.
28—2

436 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xviii.
been full of them. But, with the single exception of
Tacitus, they do not even allude to Christianity, and
he dismisses it with contempt as a pernicious super
stition.1 Now these words of Tacitus show that he had never
studied the subject, for whatever may be said against
the religion, it certainly was not pernicious ; so that
he must have rejected Christianity without examination.
And if the other classical writers did the same, there
is nothing remarkable in their not alluding to it. If,
on the other hand, they rej ected it after examination-^
if, that is, they considered its alleged miracles, and
were not convinced by them — they would probably
have noticed it. What then the objection amounts to
is this, that the writers in question did not think the
Christian miracles worth inquiring about. And this
is doubtless true, for aUeged miracles were common
enough in those days ; but we have not a single instance
of a writer who did inquire about them, and was not
convinced of their truth.
It may, of course, be replied that some of the events
ought anyhow to be alluded to, more especially the
three hours' darkness over all the land at the time of the
Crucifixion. And if this extended over the whole of
Palestine, it is certainly strange that it should not be
noticed in secular history. But it may only refer to
the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Compare the case
of the slaughter of the Infants at Bethlehem and in
all the borders thereof, which evidently does not include
Jerusalem, only five miles distant, and must therefore
1 Tac. Annals, Bk. xv., ch. 44.

CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 437
have been limited to near the viUage. In the same
way if the darkness was limited to the neighbourhood
of Jerusalem there is nothing surprising in its not
being aUuded to by any except Christian writers, for
whom of course its occurring at this time gave it a
special significance.
And though the fact just alluded to, of alleged
miracles being then so common, is often appealed to
as discrediting those of Christ, it really does nothing of
the kind. It merely makes us examine the evidence
for them more carefully. For if miracles are not only
(as shown in Chapter VII.) the most suitable signs to
attest a Revelation, but were especially suitable at
that time, as they were just the sort of signs which were
then required and expected (and in consequence often
invented by impostors), is there anything surprising
in Christ's giving such signs ? Is it not rather what
we should expect, in the same way that to convince
a foreigner one would naturally use the language he
understood best ?
Of course it may be said that this craving for miracles
would very likely have led to their being ascribed to
Christ, even had He never worked them, or pretended
to work them ; and this is no doubt possible. But as
they were not ascribed to St. John the Baptist — the
second Elijah — the very man for whom they would
have seemed so appropriate ; nor later on to the pre
tended Jewish Messiah, Barcochba, in the second
century, it is scarcely probable.
It should also be noticed that in some respects the
testimony of Christian writers is more valuable than

438 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xviii.
that of Jewish or heathen ones ; for none of the writers
of that century were born Christians. They were all
unbelievers before they were believers ; and if such
testimony from unbelievers would be valuable, it is
still more so from those who showed how thoroughly
convinced they were of its truth by becoming be
lievers. In fact, the best Jewish or heathen evidence
conceivable is that of well-educated men, like St. Paul
ahd St. Luke, who, on the strength of it, became
Christians. While, lastly, it must be remembered that the argu
ment from silence is proverbially unsound. We have,
for instance, over two hundred and forty letters of
the younger Pliny, and in only one of these does he
mention Christianity. Suppose this one had been lost,
what a strong argument could have been formed
against the spread of Christianity from the silence of
Pliny, and yet this one shows its marvellous progress
(see Chapter XXL).
This objection, then, is quite insufficient to out
weigh the positive testimony on the other side, and
we are forced back to the conclusion that the actual
occurrence of the Christian miracles was never dis
puted at the time, either by Jews or heathens. And
considering their alleged publicity, this is a strong
additional argument in their favour.
(5.) Futile attempts to explain them away.
We must next notice certain RationaUstic explana
tions which have been given of the miracles. It was
hardly to be expected that, with such strong evidence
in their favour, the modern opponents of Christianity

7 CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 439
would merely assert that the accounts were pure
fiction from beginning to end. Attempts have of
course been made to explain the miracles in such a
way that, while depriving them of any supernatural
character, it may yet be admitted that some such
events occurred which gave rise to the Christian
accounts. For instance, Christ's walking on the sea is
explained as His walking on a ridge of sand or rock
running out just under the water ; the raising of
Lazarus as his having been buried alive ; and feeding
the five thousand as nothing more than the example
of Christ and His Apostles, who so freely shared their
small supply with those around them that it induced
others to do the same, and thus eventually everyone
had a little.
We will consider a single example in detail, and select
the raising of Lazarus. And if we take the explanation
of this that was formerly offered by Renan, we shall
probably have before us the best non-miraculous
account that can be given of it.1 Renan, then, ad
mitted that something which was at the time regarded
as a miracle occurred at Bethany ; but he explained
it thus : Christ's friends, he says, were very anxious
that He should perform some striking miracle, or what
seemed to be such, for the sake of impressing the multi
tude. And he then proceeds, ' Perhaps Lazarus, still
pale from his sickness, caused himself to be swathed
in grave-clothes, as one dead, and shut up in his
family tomb,' etc. In other words, Lazarus had him-
1 Renan's Life of Jesus, translated by Wilbour, New York, 1864,
pp. 304, 305. He afterwards abandoned this theory, I believe.

440 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xviii.
self buried alive, and ' then, when Christ was sum
moned and the stone rolled away, he of course came
forth ; and the crowd at once believed that he had
risen from the dead.
Now in discussing this theory it seems hard to find
words to express its great improbability. Is it likely
that the simple household at Bethany should ever
have thought of such an elaborate fraud ? If they
believed Christ capable of working a real miracle,
what need was there for a sham one ? and if they
did not believe it, why did they wish other people to
believe it ? Again, is it likely that Lazarus should
have consented to sham being dead, especially when
recovering from a real illness ? Once more, is it likely
that the fraud could have been carried out successfully
at the time ; and that the truth should never have
leaked out afterwards, especially as the event was
much talked about, and seems to have led to Christ's
being apprehended,1 though this would probably have
occurred in any case ?2 And above all, is it likely
that Christ Himself would have countenanced such a
monstrous imposture ?
Such a theory, then, would require the very strongest
evidence to support it ; but there is no evidence at
all, either strong or weak. The most that can be said
for it is that, according to some critics, it is the best
way of accounting for the story in our Gospel, assuming
a real miracle to be out of the question. And the fact
that even this extraordinary theory is considered more
likely than that the whole " story should be fiction,
1 John 11. 53; 12. 9. 2 John-5. 18; 7. 32; 8. 59; 10. 39; 11.8.

CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 44I
shows what overwhelming evidence there is in favour
of our Gospel history.
Of course it may stiU be objected that if the miracle
really occurred, it ought to have been aUuded to by
the other Evangelists. But they nowhere profess to
record all the miracles, indeed they tell us themselves
that there were some instances even of raising the
dead which they did not record j1 so they may have
omitted this one too. And they probably knew of it,
as it alone explains the sudden burst of enthusiasm
with which Christ was received at Jerusalem, and
which they all record, but do not account for.2
Lastly, it must be remembered that the Christian
explanation has but one difficulty, the antecedent or
philosophical one, for all the miracles. Once admit
this, and twenty miracles are no more difficult to
believe than two. On the other hand, the difficulties
of the Rationalistic explanations are all cumulative.
If, for instance, the raising of Lazarus is explained by
his having been buried alive, it does not account for
Christ walking on the sea. If this is explained by
there being a ridge of sand running out under the
water, it does not account for feeding the five thousand,
and so on indefinitely. In short, the difficulties attend
ing such explanations are not only great for each
individual miracle, but are all cumulative ; and there
fore taken together they are quite insuperable.
(D.) Conclusion.
Before concluding this chapter there is an important
objection still to be considered. Why, it is said, are
1 Matt. 10. 8 ; 11. 4 ; Luke 7. 22; 2 E.g., Mark 11. 9.

442 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xviii.
there no miracles now, when they- could be properly
tested ? If they were really employed by God as helps
to the spread of His religion, why should they not
have accompanied it all along, as it is said they did
the Jewish religion ? They are surely wanted for the
support of Christianity at the present day ; and if
God were, after due warning, to work a public and
indisputable miracle every half-century, all the other
evidences of Christianity might be dispensed with.
The answer to this objection is that the Christian
revelation does not claim to be an intermittent one,
like the Jewish, but a final and complete revelation,
made once for all by Christ and His disciples ; and
that therefore, as there is to be no fresh revelation,
there can be no fresh miracles — that is, evidential
miracles — to attest it. The question of other miracles,
such as those alleged to have taken place at various
periods of Church History, and which were, as a rule,
for the benefit of persons already Christians, need not
be considered here. If true, they would of course
tend to prove the New Testament ones ; and if untrue,
they would not disprove them, any more than imita
tion diamonds would disprove the existence of real
diamonds. Of course, it may be replied that God might still
work a miracle now by a man, who stated that it
was not to authenticate anything fresh which he said
himself, but merely to confirm what the Founder of
Christianity had said. And this is no doubt possible,
but we have not in the whole Bible a single instance of
such a miracle, i.e., a miracle not to authenticate some

» CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 443
new message from God, but one that had been delivered
centuries before. On the contrary, according to the
Bible, a messenger from God always brings his own
credentials, even though, as in the case of a prophecy,
they may not be verified till afterwards. And what
reason have we for thinking that God would change
His method now ?
Moreover, the method is a most natural one. When
the Revelation was first given, i.e., when Christianity
was first preached, the Church was weak, and had to
fight its way in a hostile world, so it had the occasional
assistance of miracles. When it became strong, they
were no longer necessary, and no longer occurred.
They had already done all that was required. Their
object was to establish the truth of Christianity, and
this is precisely what they did. The evidence they
afforded was so powerful that a hostile world found
it irresistible. And it is, to say the least, extremely
doubtful whether, if God were to work a miracle now,
it would convince everybody.
This objection, then, must be put aside, and we
therefore conclude, on reviewing the whole chapter,
that the New Testament miracles- are not only credible,
but that there is extremely strong evidence in their
favour. In particular, their aUeged publicity, com
bined with the utter absence of any attempt at
disproving them, form together a very powerful argu
ment. And it is doubtful whether any other religion,
except, of course, the Jewish, has ever claimed to have
been attested by public evidential miracles. Chris
tianity thus rests upon a unique foundation. Unhke

444 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xviii.
other religions, it appealed at first not to abstract
reasoning, or moral consciousness, or physical force,
but to miraculous events, of the truth or falsehood of
which others could judge. They did judge, and they
were convinced. We decide, then, that the New Testa
ment miracles are probably true.

CHAPTER XIX.
THAT THE JEWISH PROPHECIES CONFIRM THE TRUTH
OF CHRISTIANITY.
(A.) The Passion Prophecy of Isaiah.
(i.) The historical agreement, very striking.
(2.) The doctrinal agreement, equally so.
(3.) The modern Jewish interpretation, quite untenable.
(B.) The. Psalm of the Crucifixion.
(1.) Its close agreement, all through.
(2.) Some objections, unimportant.
(C.) The Divinity of the Messiah.
At least three distinct prophecies of this ; and it is also
involved in some hints as to the Doctrine of the Trinity.
(D.) Conclusion. Why are not the prophecies plainer ? Cumulative nature
of the evidence.
We propose to consider in this chapter the argument
from Prophecy. Now it is a remarkable and undisputed
fact that for many centuries before the Christian era
it was foretold that one of the Jewish nation should
be a blessing to all mankind: This promise is recorded
as having been made both to Abraham, to Isaac, and
to Jacob j1 and as a matter of fact, Christianity was
founded by a Jew, and has undoubtedly been a blessing
to the human race. This is at least a remarkable co
incidence ; and it is to be noticed that, as we proceed
1 Gen. 22. 18 ; 26. 4 ; 28. 14.
445

446 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xix.
in the Old Testament, the statements about this future
Messiah gradually become clearer and fuller, till at last,
in the Prophets, we find whole chapters referring to Him,
which Christians assert were actually fulfilled in Christ.
This argument is plainly of the utmost importance,
and must therefore be examined at some length.
Fortunately it is much simplified for two reasons. The
first is that the question of dates is altogether excluded.
As a rule, the most important point in an alleged
prophecy is to show that it was written before its
fulfilment. But here this is undisputed, since every
one admits that the whole of the Old Testament, except
some of the apocryphal books, was written before
the time of Christ. The second is, that the writings
have been preserved by the Jews themselves, who,
being adverse to the claims of Christianity, are hostile
librarians, so we may be sure that not a single altera
tion in favour of Christianity has crept in anywhere.
We will now proceed to examine some of the strongest
prophecies, avoiding all those that were only fulfilled
in a figurative, or spiritual, sense ; and selecting whole
passages rather than single texts, which, however
applicable to Christ, might also be applicable to some
one else, such as His being preceded by a messenger,
or His working miracles.1- And we will first discuss
somewhat fully both the great Passion Prophecy of
Isaiah, and the well-known Psalm of the Crucifixion ;
then we wUl examine more briefly a group of prophecies
referring to the Divinity of the Messiah ; and will con
clude by considering an important objection.
1 Mal. 3. i ; 4. 5 ; Isa. 35. 5-6.

CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 447
(A.) The Passion Prophecy of Isaiah (52. 13-53. 12).
It may be pointed out at starting that there are no
variations in translation worth speaking of, and that
no one denies the antiquity of the passage. Moreover,
it is taken from a writing avowedly prophetic. There
is scarcely any doubt that the writer thought, and
intended his readers to think, that he was foreteUing
future events. And it forms one complete whole,
closely connected together and not mixed up with
any other subject.- And so in regard to its fulfilment,
most of the details mentioned below occurred within
a few hours. We wUl consider first the historical, and
then the doctrinal agreement.
(1.) The Historical Agreement.
With regard to this, the following is the translation
from the Revised Version, together with the corre
sponding events. It will be observed that the suffer
ings of the Messiah are usually expressed in the past
tense, and His triumph in the future, the prophet
placing himself, as it were, between the two. This
seems to have been to emphasise the fact that the
sufferings were the cause of the triumph, which could
not be so graphically expressed in any other way.
But the Hebrew tenses are rather uncertain, and
what is translated as past in the Revised Version is
translated as future in the Authorised Version (e.g.,
the first part of 53. 2).
52. 13. ' Behold, my servant The excellence of Christ's
shall deal wisely, he shall be ex- teaching and conduct is now
alted and lifted up, and shall be generally admitted ; while His
very high. exalted position as the object
of worship by millions of men
cannot be disputed.

448

THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.

chap, xix.

14. ' Like as many were as-
tonied at thee (his visage was so
marred more than any man, and
his form more than the sons of
men) so shall he sprinkle many
nations ;
15. ' Kings shall shut their
mouths at him : for that which
had not been told them shall
they see ; and that which they
had not heard shall they under
stand.

53. 1 . ' Who hath believed our
report ? and to whom hath the
arm of the Lord been revealed ?

2. ' For he grew up before him
as a tender plant, and as a root
out of a dry ground : he hath
no form nor comeliness ;

And yet at the time of His
death, which was in public so
that many saw Him, the cruel
treatment He had received
(crowning with thorns, scourg
ing, etc.) must have terribly dis
figured His face and bodv.
But just as men were then
astonished at the greatness of
His sufferings, so are they now
at the greatness of His triumph ;
even Gentile kings are silent
with reverence,1 when contem
plating such an unheard-of story.
which they, unlike the Jews, had
never had announced to them
beforehand by prophecy.
Indeed the account of His life,
which the prophet is about to de
clare, is so marvellous that it can
scarcely be believed. The Arm (or
Power) of the Lord probably ref ers
to the Messiah, who would be
recognised by hardly anyone.2
This was because He lived at a
place (Nazareth) which was al
ways regarded as dry ground so
far as anything good was con
cerned ; and His appearance was'
humble and devoid of any out
ward splendour, such as might
have been expected in the Mes
siah. And these it should be
noticed were the very reasons the
Jews themselves gave for not
believing on Him.3 While the
phrase ' He grew up before Him
as a tender plant,' imphes that
God had taken a special interest
in Him from His birth, as a gar
dener would in a choice flower,
and prepared Him for His work.

Comp. Job 29. 9. 2 Isa. 40. 10 ; 51. 9 ; 1 Cor. 1. 24.
3 John 1. 46 ; 7. 52 ; Mark 6 3.

CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES.

449

and when we see him, there is no
beauty that we should desire
bim.

3. ' He was despised, and re
jected of men ; a man of sorrows,
and acquainted with grief : and
as one from whom men hide their
face he was despised, and we
esteemed him not.

4. ' Surely he hath borne our
griefs, and carried our sorrows :
yet we did esteem him stricken,
smitten of God, and afflicted.

5. ' But he was wounded for
our transgressions, he was bruised
for our iniquities : the chastise
ment of our peace was upon him ;
and with his stripes we are healed.
6. ' All we like sheep have
gone astray ; we have turned
every one to his own way ; and
the Lord hath laid on him the
iniquity of us all.
7. ' He was oppressed, yet he
humbled himself and opened not
his mouth ; as a, lamb that is
led to the slaughter, and as a
sheep that before her shearers is
dumb ; yea, he opened not his
mouth. 8. ' By oppression and judg
ment he was taken away ; and as
for his generation, who among
them considered that he was cut
off out of the land of the living ?

This is very appropriate to the
time of His Passion, when Pilate
presented Him to the people,
only in such a state (crowned
with thorns, etc.) that when they
saw Him they did not desire
Him. But they at once rejected Him
(as they had done often before)
and asked for Barabbas instead ;
while He was despised and
scorned by the soldiers at His
trial, and by the Chief Priests
and Rulers when He hung upon
the Cross.
And His life was not only one
of grief and sorrow, but such a
death seemed to show that He
was accursed of God, for the
Jews so regarded anyone who
was crucified.1
The scourging and other ill-
treatment is here alluded to.

Christ, who is frequently
called the Lamb of God, not
only bore His ill-treatment with
the utmost patience, but refused
to plead at His trial, to the utter
astonishment of Pilate.2
He was not killed accident
ally, nor by the mob, but had a,
judicial trial ; and was most
unjustly condemned. While
few, if any, of His contempor-

1 Deut. 21. 23 ; Gal. 3. 13.

2 Matt. 27. 14-

29

450

THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xix.

for the transgression of my
people was he stricken (or to
whom the stroke was due, margin,
and American R.V.).
9. ' And they made his grave
with the wicked, and with the
rich in his death ;

although he had done no vio
lence, neither was any deceit in
his mouth.
10. ' Yet it pleased the Lord
to bruise him ; he hath put him
to grief : when thou shalt make
his soul an offering for sin, he
shall see his seed, he shall pro
long his days, and the pleasure
of the Lord shall prosper in his
hand.

11. ' He shall see of the travail
of his soul, and shall be satisfied :
by his knowledge shall my right
eous servant justify many • and
he shall bear their iniquities.

aries understood that His death
was for the sins of the people,
to whom the punishment was
really due.
He was appointed to die be
tween two robbers, and would
doubtless have been buried with
ordinary criminals, had not
Joseph of Arimathea intervened ;
when, in strange contrast with
His ignominious death, He was
honourably buried by the rich
(Joseph and Nicodemus), with
costly spices, and in a rich man's
tomb.1 Although His judge repeatedly
declared that He was innocent ;
as did also His fellow-sufferer,
the centurion, and his betrayer.
Yet after His death He was to
see His seed, and prolong His
days, i.e., rise again from the
dead. The word seed can
scarcely mean literal children,
since He was to obtain them by
His death. And as it is some
times used in Isaiah for a class of
people,2 it doubtless has this
meaning here, and refers prim
arily to the spiritual children, or
disciples, whom Christ saw after
His Resurrection.
And this is strongly confirmed
by their being called the travail of
His soul, not body ; an expres
sion which also implies that He
had some intense mental struggle
comparable to the bodily pains
of childbirth ; which is very suit
able to the mental agony which
Christ endured, both in the Gar
den and on the Cross.3

Matt. 27. 57 ; John 19. 39. 2 Isa. 1. 4 ; 14. 20 ; 57. 4-
3 Mark 14. 36 ; 15. 34.

CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES.

451

12. ' Therefore will I divide His subsequent triumph in
him a portion with the great, and the Christian Church is here
shall he divide the spoil with the alluded to. While the closing
strong ; because he poured out words exactly agree with His
his soul unto death, and was dying a shameful death between
numbered with the transgressors : two robbers ; and yet praying for
yet he bare the sin of many, and His murderers, ' Father, forgive
made intercession for the trans- them.'
gressors.' It seems hardly necessary to insist on the agreement
shown above ; it is indisputable. The sufferings and
the triumph of the future Redeemer are foretold with
equal confidence and with equal clearness, thou gh they
might well have seemed incompatible.
(2.) The Doctrinal Agreement.
We pass on now to the doctrinal agreement, for the
significance of the passage does not depend on these
prophecies alone, though they are sufficiently remark
able, but on the meaning which the writer assigns to
the great tragedy. It is the Christian doctrine con
cerning Christ's death, and not merely the events
attending it, which is here insisted on. This will be
best shown by adopting the previous method of
paraUel columns, showing in the first the chief points
in the Christian doctrine, and in the other the prophet's
words corresponding to them.
All mankind are sinners. ' All we like sheep have gone
astray ; we have turned every
one to his own way.'
Christ alone was sinless. ' My righteous servant.'
' He had done no violence,
neither was any deceit in his
mouth.'
He suffered not for His own ' Surely he hath borne our
sins, but for those of others, griefs, and carried our sorrows.'
29 — 2

452

THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xix.

Nor was this the mere accidental
suffering of an innocent man for
a guilty one ; it was a great
work of atonement, an offering
for sin. This is the central
feature of the Christian doctrine,
and it is strongly emphasised in
the prophecy, which is above all
the account of a Saviour.

And it involved not only bodily
suffering, but mental and spiri
tual as well, due to His thus
bearing the sins of the world.
And this Atonement was the
fulfilment of all the Old Jewish
sacrifices ; so that there was a
special fitness in Christ's being
put to death at the time of the
Jewish Passover.

And yet it availed not only for
the Jews, but for all mankind.

Moreover, Christ's sacrifice was
voluntary. He said that He
freely laid down His life, no one
took it from Him ; and that

' He was wounded for our
transgressions, he was bruised
for our iniquities ; the chastise
ment of our peace (i.e., which
procured our peace) was upon
him ; and with his stripes we are
healed.' ' The Lord hath laid on him
the iniquity of us all.'
' For the transgression of my
people was he stricken.'
' When thou shalt make his
soul an offering for sin.'
' And he shall bear their
iniquities.' ' He bare the sin of many.'
' The travail of his soul.'
' He poured out his soul unto
death.' This is shown by the sacri
ficial language employed. Thus
the offering for sin is the same
word as that used in Leviticus
and elsewhere for the guilt-
offering (or trespass-offering,
A. V.). While the curious ex
pression ' So shall he sprinkle
many nations ' evidently refers
to the sprinkling of the blood
in the Jewish sacrifices (e.g.,
Lev. 16. 14-19), as the same
word is used, and means cleans
ing them from sin.
The many nations must in
clude Gentiles as well as Jews-;
and that a Jew should have
prophesied this is very remark
able, considering their exclusive
ness. ' He poured out his soul unto
death.' This implies that the
act was voluntary, or it would
be ' He died,' or ' He was put to

CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES.

453

though His soul was sorrowful
unto death, still this was the ob
ject for which He had come.
(John 10. 1 8 ; 12. 37 ; Matt.
26. 38).

And yet it was in a certain
sense by God's appointment, and
acceptable to Him.
. In consequence of this free
offering of Himself, Christ
founded His Church, a mighty
empire, able to hold its own with
the kingdoms of the world.
And His Church has been most
successful in winning souls to
God, which is pre-eminently
what God wishes.
Moreover, Christ foresaw these
fruits of His Passion, and was
satisfied with them.
Lastly, Christians are justified
only by Christ's Atonement.

death.' And this is rendered
still clearer from the context.
It was because He did this that
He was to divide the spoil, etc.
His death was thus the condition
of His victory, and must clearly
have been voluntary. And the
same is shown by the expression
He humbled Himself, which also
implies that the humiliation was
voluntary, i.e., He let Himself be
humbled. ' Yet it pleased the Lord to
bruise him ; he hath put him to
grief.' ' Therefore will I divide him
a portion with the great, and he
shall divide the spoil with the
strong.' ' He shall be exalted and lifted
up, and shall be very high.'
' The pleasure of the Lord shall
prosper in his hand.'

' He shall see his seed.'
' He shall see of the travail
of his soul and shall be satisfied.'
' By his knowledge (or by the
knowledge of himself, American
R.V.) shall my righteous servant
justify many : and he shall bear
their iniquities.'

All this, it is plain, exactly suits the Christ of
Christendom ; and it is equally plain that it does
not and cannot suit anyone else, since many of the
Christian doctrines are quite unique, and have no
parallel in the Jewish or any other religion. This is
indeed so striking, that if anyone acquainted with
Christianity, but unacquainted with Isaiah, came across

454 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xix.
the passage for the first time, he would probably ascribe
it to one of St: Paul's Epistles. And certain it is that
every word of it might be found there with perfect
fitness. (3.) The modern Jewish interpretation.
Now, what can be said on the other side ? Many
of the ancient Jews interpreted the passage as re
ferring to their future Messiah j1 but the modern Jews
explain it as referring to the Jewish nation, which they
say is -here personified as a single man, the Servant of
the Lord. And it must of course be admitted that
Isaiah does frequently speak of the Jews as God's
servant, (e.g., ' But thou Israel, my servant, and Jacob
whom I have chosen,')2 though he nowhere else uses
the term ' my righteous servant,' which he does here,
and which would be obviously inapplicable to the
nation. But it is important to remember that this prophecy
does not stand alone, and a little before we read in a
similar passage, ' And now saith the Lord that formed
me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob
again to him, and that Israel be gathered unto him :
(for I am honourable in the eyes of the Lord, and my
God is become my strength :) yea, he saith, It is too
light a thing that thou shouldest be my servant to
raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the pre
served of Israel : I will also give thee for a light to the
Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the
1 References are given in Edersheim's ' Life and Times of Jesus
the Messiah,' 1901, vol. ii., p. 727 ; and i., p. "52.
2 Isa. 41. 8.

CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 455
end of the earth. Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer
of Israel, and His Holy One, to him whom man de-
spiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant
of rulers : Kings shall see and arise ; princes, and they
shall worship.'1
Here it wiU be noticed the Lord's servant is twice
distinguished from both Jacob and Israel, and evidently
means the Messiah ; while His life-long preparation for
His work, His sinlessness (implied in His being honour
able in the sight of God) , His bringing salvation to the
Gentiles, as well as to the Jews, His humiliation in
being despised of men and abhorred of the Jewish
nation, and His subsequent triumph, even Gentile
Kings submitting themselves to Him ; are all alluded
to, much as they are in the present passage.
Again in two other passages, at least, the Lord's
servant is clearly a person, real or imaginary, and not
a nation. Could the following verse, for instance,
(closely fulfilled by the way in Christ,) have been
possibly intended for the Jewish nation ? ' I gave my
back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that
plucked off the hair, I hid not my face from shame and
spitting.'2 No doubt there is a difficulty in the prophet thus
passing from one meaning of the word servant to
another, and various attempts have been made to
explain it ; but it does not alter the fact that he does
so. Perhaps the best explanation is that Israel was
intended to be God's servant, but owing to their sins
became unfitted ; when God promised to raise up here-
1 Isa. 49. 5-7. 2 Isa. 50. 6-io ; 42. i-6.

456 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xix.
after a righteous servant, who should do all His pleasure,
and atone for Israel's failure. And we must remember
the term Servant is applied to the Messiah by Zechariah
(My Servant, the Branch) and also in the New Testa
ment.1 Moreover, the Jewish interpretation not only leaves
all the minuter details of the prophecy unexplained
and inexplicable, but ignores its very essence, which,
as before said, is the atoning character of the suffer
ings. No one can say that the sufferings of the Jews
were voluntary, or that they were not for their own
sins, but for those of other people, which were in con
sequence atoned for. Or, to put the argument in
other words, if the He refers to the Jewish nation, to
whom does the our refer in such sentences as He was
wounded for our transgressions ? This interpretation
then is hopelessly untenable, and the passage either
means what Christians assert or it means nothing.
In conclusion, it must be again pointed out that all
these minute historical details attending Christ's death,
and all these remarkable Christian doctrines concern
ing it, are all found within fifteen verses of a writing
, avowedly prophetic, and written many centuries before
the time of Christ. It would be hard to over-estimate
the great improbability of all these coincidences
being due to chance ; indeed, such a conclusion seems
incredible. (B.) The Psalm of the Crucifixion (Ps. 22.).
We pass on now to another most remarkable pro
phecy ; for this well-known Psalm describes what can
1 Zech. 3. 8 ; Acts 3. 13 ; Phil. 2. 7.

christian prophecies. 457
only be regarded as a crucifixion. The decisive verse
is of course, They pierced my hands and my feet ; but
even apart from this, the various sufferings described
cannot be all endured in any other form of death, such
as stoning, beheading, etc. ; and the Psalm agrees with
the Death of Christ, both in its numerous detaUs, and
in its whole scope and meaning. We will therefore
consider this close agreement first, and then some of
the chief objections.
(i.) Its close agreement.
We need not quote the Psalm at length, as it is so
weU known ; but wUl point out the agreement verse
by verse.
Ver. i. His feeling forsaken by God, and using these actual
words : ' My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?'
2. as well as praying for deliverance during the previous
night j1
3-5. though He belonged to God's chosen people, the Jews,
whose fathers had so often been helped by God before.
6. His pitiable condition in being exposed to the scorn and
reproach of men, and despised of the people, appar
ently for some hours.
7. The manner in which they mocked Him, shaking the
head, etc.,
8. and the exact words they used : He trusted on the Lord
that He would deliver him, let Him deliver him seeing
He delighteth in him (margin). These words show that
the speakers themselves were Jews, and that He was
thus put to death among His own nation. And the
last clause can only be meant ironically in the sense
that the Sufferer claimed that God delighted in him,
claimed, that is, in some special sense to be God's
beloved Son.2
9. And, as a matter of fact, God had specially watched
over Him from His infancy ;
' Mark 14. 35 ; Heb. 5. 7. 2 Matt. 27. 43.

458 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xix.
io. and His whole life had been dedicated to Him ; so that
He could say that God had been His God,' even from
His birth.1 The human mother, it will be noticed, is
more than once alluded to, but there is no hint that
He ever had a human father.
n. His being abandoned by His disciples, and left without
a helper ;
12. though surrounded by His enemies, described as bulls
¦ of Bashan ; a curious term used elsewhere for the un
just rulers of the people,2 and therefore very applicable
to the chief priests and rulers, who had so unjustly
procured His condemnation ;
13. and who now stood round the Cross reviling Hira,3
gaping with the mouth being a. common expression of
contempt.4 The custom of thus speaking of men as if
they were animals, which seems to us so extraordinary,
was thoroughly Eastern, and occurs repeatedly in the
Bible.
14. His side being pierced, so that there poured out a quan
tity of watery fluid (mixed with clots of blood), the
probable cause of this — the rupture of the heart6 —
being also hinted at ; while Plis bones were almost
dislocated, by the weight of the suspended Body.
15. His suffering exhaustion, and extreme thirst, immedi
ately before His death.6
16. His being crucified (i.e., His hands and feet being
pierced) , the men who did this being here called dogs ;
a term of reproach used by Christ Himself for the
Gentiles, in distinction to the Jews,7 and thus very
appropriate to the Gentile (Roman) soldiers who cruci
fied Him.
17. And they also exposed His Body, so that His bones
stood out in relief. And they then stood watching
Him;
18. and divided His garments among them, casting lots for
one of them.
1 Comp. Isa. 49. 5. 2 Amos 4. 1 ; Ezek. 39. 18.
3 Matt. 27. 41 ; Luke 23. 35.
4 E.g., Job 16. 10 ; Lam. 2. 16.
6 See ' The Physical Cause of the Death of Christ,' by Dr. Synies
Thompson, 1904.
6 Lam. 4. 4 ¦ John 19. 28-30. 7 Matt. 15. 26.

CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 459
19-21. Then follows a short prayer, with the assurance of de
hverance. The term sword, as it occurs in connection
with the dog, aud the lion's mouth, need not be pressed
literally ; but may be used here (as in other cases)1
for any violent death.
22. And now the strain suddenly changes, the Sufferer is
somehow restored to life, and He at once declares
God's name unto His brethren. And yet as they were
Jews, they must have known God's name before, so
it probably means telling them something further
about it. And this exactly corresponds with Christ's
now declaring for the first time God's true and com
plete Name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, unto His
brethren, as He calls them, the Apostles.2
23. Moreover, His deliverance is of world-wide significance,
and great blessings are to follow from it. These
commence with the Jews ;
24. and are somehow connected with God's not having
despised, but having accepted, His sufferings.
25. And they include a reference to some vows (meaning un
certain) ;
26. and to a wonderful feast of which the poor, or meek, are
to eat and be satisfied, because (unlike an ordinary
meal) it is connected with their living for ever. It is
hence often thought to refer to the Holy Communion,
to which the same language seems applied ; ' He that
eateth this Bread shall live for ever.'5
27. And the blessings then extend to the Gentile nations
also, even to the most distant parts of the world, who
are now to become worshippers of the true God, Jehovah.
28. To Whom the whole earth, both the Jewish kingdom,
and the Gentile nations, really belongs.
29. And the rich all over the earth, Gentiles as well as Jews,
are also to eat of this strange feast (so it cannot be a
literal meal at Jerusalem) and to worship Him, who
is the God of living and dead.
30. After this we read of a seed serving Him, probably used
here, as in Isaiah, of successive generations of dis
ciples, each of which is to tell of this wonderful deliver
ance to the next ;
1 Comp. 2 Sam. 11. 24 ; 12. 9. 2 Matt. 28. 10, 19 ; John 17. 26.
3 John 6. 58.

460 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xix.
31. And so on to generations that are yet unborn. While
the closing words, He hSth done it (R. V.) are
often taken as referring to the whole Psalm, and
meaning that the work of suffering and atonement
was now complete, It is done I1 and they would thus
correspond to Christ's closing words on the Cross, It
is finished.
Everyone must admit that the agreement all
through is very remarkable ; though of course there
are some objections.
(2.) Some objections.
The first is that there is nothing to show that the
writer meant the Psalm to refer to the Messiah at aU,
though, strange to say, some of the Jews so interpreted
it ;2 and therefore if there is an agreement, it is at
most only a chance coincidence. But the idea of all
these coincidences being due to chance is most im
probable. And there certainly is some indication that
it refers to the Messiah, since it leads up to the con
version of the Gentiles, which the other Jewish prophets
always associate with the times of the Messiah ; and
this is very significant.
Moreover, if the Psalm does not refer to Christ, it
is difficult to see to whom it does refer, since it is quite
inapplicable to David, or Hezekiah, or anyone else at
that time ; as crucifixion was not a Jewish punish
ment, though dead bodies were sometimes hung on
trees.3 And yet, as just said, verses 7-8 clearly show
1 Hengstenberg, Commentary on the Psalms, 1867, vol. i., pp. 364,
396. 2 Edersheim, vol. ii., 718, 732 ; Hengstenberg, Christology of O.T.,
1847, p. 80.
3 E.g., Deut. 21. 22 ; Josh. 10. 26 ; 2 Sam. 4. 12.

CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 461
that the Sufferer was put to death among Jews. This
strange anomaly exactly suits the time of Christ,
when Judsea was a Roman province, so that a Jew
might be put to death among his own countrymen,
but not in the Jewish manner by stoning, but by
crucifixion. Many of the details also are quite inapplicable.
David, for instance, never had his garments divided
among his enemies ; and yet (even apart from our
Gospels) there can be no doubt that the garments of
Christ were so divided, as the clothes of a prisoner
were the usual perquisites of the guard who executed
him. And any such reference (to David, etc.) is rendered
still more improbable, because the sufferer appears to
have no consciousness of sin, and never laments his
own wickedness, as the psalmists so frequently do
when writing about themselves. And here also the
Psalm is entirely applicable to Christ, since His un
consciousness of sin was (as we shall see in the next
chapter) one of the most striking features in His
character. Nor again did the deliverance of David
in any way lead to the conversion of the Gentiles, which,
as just said, is the grand climax of the Psalm, and
which alone excludes all other interpretations.
-But in any case this objection (which is also made to
other Old Testament prophecies) is unsound; for it
simply begs the question as to who was their real
author. Was it the human prophet, or was it God Who
inspired the prophet to write as he did ? And the
prophets themselves emphatically declared that it was

462 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xix.
the latter. They did not claim to be specially gifted
men, but merely the mouthpiece of Jehovah. The
word of the Lord came unto them, or a vision was
granted unto them, and they had to proclaim it. And
therefore there is no reason for thinking that they
either knew, or thought they knew, the whole meaning
of their prophecies ; and the objection falls to the
ground at once.1 And though the present Psalm is
not avowedly prophetic, yet as it actually suits the
life of Christ in so many particulars, we seem bound to
consider it so.
Secondly, it is said that some of the clauses, especially
that about the vows in verse 25, do not seem to be
applicable to Christ. But even if we admit this, it
does not destroy the striking agreement in other
places ; just as a man's portrait may seem to us to be
defective in some respects, and yet we may have no
doubt that it is his portrait. Perhaps the best ex
planation as to the vows is that it was the custom
among the Jews, when in trouble, to vow that if de
livered, they would offer a sacrifice to the Lord, which
was afterwards given as a feast to the poor. And
therefore as the present feast is obviously not a literal
one, the vows need not be taken literally either.
The third objection is, that some of the events
fulfiUing this, and other Old Testament prophecies,
never happened, but were purposely invented. This,
however, destroys altogether the moral character of
the Evangelists, who are supposed to tell deliberate
falsehoods, in order to get a pretended fulfilment of
1 1 Pet. 1. 10-11.

CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 463
an old prophecy. And the difficulty of admitting this
is very great. Moreover, such explanations can only
apply to a very few cases ; since, as a rule, the events
occurred in public, and must therefore have been well
known at the time.
And even in those cases where the event was so
trivial, that it might possibly have been invented, such
an explanation is often untenable. Take, for example,
the manner in which Christ on the cross was mocked
by His enemies, who said, ' He trusted in God, let him
deliver him now if he desireth him.'1 A more probable
incident under the circumstances can scarcely be
imagined, the chief priests quoting the familiar lan
guage (just as men sometimes quote the Bible now)
without thinking of its real significance. But, sup
posing the words were never uttered, is it conceivable
that the Evangelist should have invented them merely
to get a pretended fulfilment of this Psalm, where the
Crucified One is mocked with these identical words,
and yet have never pointed out the fulfilment himself,
but have trusted to the chance of his readers discover
ing it ?
None of these objections, then, are of much im
portance ; while the agreement of the Psalm with the
events attending the death and Resurrection of Christ,
seems, as in the previous case, to be far too exact to be
accidental.
(C.) The Divinity of the Messiah.
Our last example shall be of a different kind from the
others. It is that there exist in the Old Testament
1 Matt. 27. 43.

464 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xix.
several passages which, taken in their plain literal
meaning, state or imply that the future Messiah was to
be not only Superhuman, but Divine. And considering
the strong Monotheism of the Jews this is very remark
able. The following are three of the most important : —
' For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given ;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder : and
his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty
God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.'1 Here we
have a plain statement of the Divinity of One Who
should be born a child. The two words translated
Mighty God are incapable of any other translation ;
and no other is suggested for them in the margin of
either the Authorised or Revised Version, while the
same two words occur in the next chapter, where they
plainly mean Mighty God and nothing else. Moreover,
the term Everlasting Father is literally Father of
Eternity (see margin) and means the Eternal One.
This is another divine title, and does not conflict with
the Christian doctrine that it was the Son, and not the
Father, Who became Incarnate. And it is significant
that a few verses before it is implied that the Ministry
of this future Messiah should commence in the land of
Zebulon, and Naphtali, by the Sea of Galilee ; where,
as a matter of fact, Christ's Ministry did commence.2
' But thou, Bethlehem Ephrathah, which art little
to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shaU
one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel ;
whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.'3
Here we have a prophecy of the birth of One who had
1 Isa. 9. 6 ; 10. 21. 2 Isa. 9. 1-2. 3 Mic 5. 2.

CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 465
existed from everlasting ; thus showing the Pre-exist
ence "and apparent Divinity of the Messiah, who was
to be born at Bethlehem, where, again, as a matter of
fact, Christ actually was born.
' Awake, 0 sword, against my shepherd, and against
the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts.'1
The word translated fellow is only found elsewhere in
Leviticus, where it is used eleven times, and is usually
translated neighbour, and always implies an equality
between the two persons.2 Thus God speaks of the
Shepherd who was to be slain with the sword (a term,
as before said, used for any violent death), as equal
with Himself, and yet at the same time Man ; and,
therefore, no one but a Messiah who is both God and
Man — Fellow-God as well as fellow-man — can satisfy
the language.
And here again the reference to Christ is confirmed
by the fact that not merely one, but a whole series of
incidents in His Passion are also alluded to, in some of
which His Divinity is likewise asserted. Thus He
is introduced as the King of the Jews (or of Jerusalem3),
which was emphatically His title at Passiontide ; for
He was welcomed as such by the multitude, claimed
to be such at His trial, was referred to as such by Pilate,
was allowed to be such by those present, and as such
was condemned, mocked, and crucified.4 And the
same verse foretells the humble manner in which He
1 Zech. 13. 7.
2 Lev. 6. 2 ; 18. 20 ; 19. 11, 15,. 17 ; 24. 19 ; 25. 14, 15, 17.
3 Zech. 9. .9-1 1.
* E.g., Luke 19. 38; Mark 15. 2, 9, 12; John 19. 16; Mark
15- 30, 37-
30

466 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xix.
(the Righteous Saviour) rode into Jerusalem on an
ass, as well as the rejoicing with which He was received ;
and this is followed by a reference to His future world
wide, though peaceful, dominion, and the new Covenant
which He made by His blood.1
Later on we have the fact that He (the Lord
Jehovah) should be sold for thirty pieces of silver,
the money being cast down in the House of the Lord,"
and afterwards given to the potter ; and also that He
(again the Lord Jehovah) should have His Side
pierced ; His Atonement for Sin ; His having (appar
ently) cast out unclean spirits ; His hands being
wounded, and His being forsaken by His disciples.2
These are, it is true, expressed in figurative language,
and often mixed up with other subjects, so that no
single instance affords of itself a strong argument ;
though the frequent repetition of the phrase in that day,
which occurs seventeen times in these chapters (9-14),
shows that there must be some real connection between
them. And, anyhow, the fact of their all occurring so
close together, and all leading up to the violent death
of a man, who was yet the fellow, or equal, with God, can
scarcely be due to accident. While a few verses
further on there is a. significant reference to the de
struction of Jerusalem (the previous siege, and its
horrors, having been already alluded to), and also to
the conversion of the Gentiles, the Lord Jehovah being
recognised as King over all the earth.3
The Divinity of the Messiah is also involved in some
1 Mark 14. 24. 2 Zech. 11. 12-13 ; 12. 10; 13. 1-7.
3 Zech. 14. 2, 9; 12. 2; 11. 9.

CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 467
hints which occur in the Old Testament as to the
doctrine of the Trinity. This claims to be a fuller and
more complete view of the Deity than the Monotheism
of the Jews ; but in no way inconsistent with it, for
Christianity equaUy asserts that there is but one God ;
though it also affirms that in this Godhead there are
three distinct Persons.
Now it is, to say the least, a remarkable fact that
this doctrine seems hinted at in the Old Testament.
For instance, the Hebrew word for God, Elohim, is a
plural word, though, strange to say, it generally takes
a singular adjective and verb. Thus if we tried to
represent it in EngUsh, the first verse of the Bible would
read, ' In the beginning the Gods, He created the
heaven and the earth.' Attempts have of course
been made to reduce the significance of this by pointing
out that a few other Hebrew words, such as lord and
master, sometimes do the same, or by regarding it as
a survival from some previous polytheistic religion,
or else as being the plural of Majesty, a sort of royal
We. This latter, however, does not seem to have been
in use in early times, and never occurs in the Bible,
where kings always speak of themselves in the
singular.1 But anyhow the fact remains that the Jews used a
plural name for God with a singular verb. And this
is rendered all the more striking because it often
occurs in connection with another name, Jehovah,
which is always singular ; thus Jehovah Elohim,
literally the Lord the Gods. The latter word, it may
1 E.g., Gen. 41. 41 ; Ezra 6. 12 ; Dan. 4. 6.
30—2

468 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xix.
be added, when used of false gods, takes a plural
verb. Moreover, the Deity is at times represented as
speaking in the plural number.1 For instance, He
says, Let us make man in our image, as if consulting
with other Persons of the Godhead ; since it is obvious
that the expression cannot refer to angels, or other
beings, who are themselves created, and not fellow
Creators. And yet just afterwards we read, ' God
made man in his own image,' thus showing a unity as
well as a plurality in the Godhead. Another and still
more remarkable expression is, ' Behold, the man is
become as one of us.' This cannot possibly be ex
plained as a ' plural of Majesty'; for though a king
might speak of himself as We or Us, no king ever
spoke of himself as one of Us. Such an expression can
only be used when there are other persons of similar
rank with the speaker ; and therefore when used by
God, it necessarily implies that there are other Divine
Persons. So again God is represented as saying,
' Whom shall I send, and who will go for us ?' which
also seems to indicate a plurality in unity ; while the
preceding thrice Holy points to this being a Trinity.2
The existence of such passages seems to require some
explanation, and Christianity alone can explain them.
(D.) Conclusion.
Before concluding this chapter there is an important
objection still to be considered. Why, it is said, if
these prophecies really refer to Christ, are they not
plainer ? Surely if God wished to foretell the future,
1 Gen. 1. 26 ; 3. 22 ; 11. 7. 2 Isa. 6. 8.

CHRISTIAN PROPHECIES. 469
He would have done it better than this ; and a few
words added here and there would have made the
reference to Christ indisputable. No doubt they would,
but possibly God did not wish to make the reference
indisputable. And perhaps if the prophecies had been
plainer, they would have prevented their own fulfil
ment. Had the Jews known for certain that Christ was
their Messiah, they could scarcely have crucified Him ;
and it seems to many that the prophecies are already
about as plain as they could be without doing this.
Moreover, the prophets, as far as we can judge, did
not receive their revelations audibly and in a connected
manner, but fell into a trance when they saw visions.
And this explains many of the peculiarities of their
writings. Future events are often represented in the
present or past tense ; future persons are addressed,
and even pointed to as if on a stage (Behold, etc.) ;
while at other times they are represented as speaking ;
all of which tends to some obscurity. The important
point, however, is not whether the prophecies might
not have been plainer, but whether they are not already
too plain to be accidental.
Lastly, we must notice the cumulative nature of the
evidence. We have only examined a few instances,
but, as said before, Messianic prophecies of some kind.
more or less distinct, occur at intervals all through the
Old Testament. And though some of those commonly
brought forward seem weak and fanciful, there are still
numbers of others which are not. And here as else
where this has a double bearing on the argument.
In the first place, it does not at all increase the

470 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xix.
difficulty of the Christian interpretation ; for twenty
prophecies are practically no more difficult to admit
than two. Indeed, the fact that instead of being a few
isolated examples, they form a complete series, rather
lessens the difficulty than otherwise.
On the other hand, it increases the difficulty of
any other interpretation enormously ; for twenty
prophecies are far more difficult to deny than two. If
one is explained as a lucky coincidence, this will not
account for the next ; if that is got rid of by some
unnatural interpretation of the words, it will not
account for the third, and so on indefinitely. The
difficulties are thus not only great in themselves, but
are aU cumulative ; and hence together they seem
insuperable. Anyhow, it is clear that these Prophecies
afford a strong additional argument in favour of
Christianity.

CHAPTER XX.
THAT THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST CONFIRMS THE TRUTH
OF CHRISTIANITY.
The character of Christ can only be deduced from the New Testa
ment, any other Christ being purely imaginary.
(A.) His Teaching.
(i.) Its admitted excellence.
(2.) Two slight objections.
(3.) His unconsciousness of sin ; so He must have been a
perfect Man.
(B.) His Claims.
He asserted —
(1.) That He was Superhuman — claiming to be the Ruler,
Redeemer, and Final Judge of the world.
(2.) That He was Divine — claiming an Equality, Unity,
and Pre-existence with God.
(3.) And this is how all His contemporaries, both friends
and foes, understood Him.
(C.) The Great Alternative.
Christ cannot, therefore, have been merely a good man ;
He was either God, as He claimed to be, or else a bad
man, for making such claims. But the latter view is
disproved by His Moral Character.
In this chapter we propose to consider the Character
of Christ, and its bearing on the truth of Christianity.
Now our knowledge of Christ's character can only be
derived from the four Gospels ; indeed, a Christ with
47*

472 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY; CHAP. xx.
any other character assigned to Him is a purely
imaginary being, and might as well be called by some
other name. Taking, then, the Gospels as our guide,
what is the character of Christ ? Obviously this can
be best deduced from His own recorded teaching and
claims, both of which are fortunately given at great
length ; so we will consider these first, and then the
great alternative which they force upon us.
(A.) The Teaching of Christ.
Under this head we will first notice the admitted
excellence of Christ's teaching, then two objections
which are sometimes made, and lastly His unconscious
ness of sin.
(i.) Its admitted excellence.
To begin with, the excellence of Christ's moral
teaching hardly needs to be insisted on at the present
day ; it is that now acknowledged by the civilised
world. And rationalists as well as Christians have
exhausted language to proclaim its merits. For in
stance, to quote a few examples : —
' Religion cannot be said to have made a bad choice
in pitching on this man as the ideal representative and
guide of humanity ; nor even now would it be easy,
even for an unbeliever, to find a better translation of
the rule of virtue from the abstract into the concrete,
than to endeavour so to live that Christ should approve
our life.'—/. S. Mill.1
' Jesus remains to humanity an inexhaustible source
of moral regenerations.' And again, ' In Him is con-
1 ' Nature, the Unity of Religion and Theism,' 2nd edit., 1874
P- 255-

CHRIST S CHARACTER. 473
densed all that is -good and lofty in our nature.' —
E. Renan.1
' The teaching of Jesus, however, carried morality
to the sublimest point attained, or even attainable,
by humanity.' And again, ' He presented the rare
spectacle of a Ufe, so far as we can estimate it, uniformly
noble and consistent with His own lofty principles.' —
Author of ' Supernatural Religion.'2
' It was reserved for Christianity to present to the
world an ideal character, which, through all the changes
of eighteen centuries, has inspired the hearts of men
with an impassioned love ; has shown itself capable of
acting on all ages, nations, temperaments, and con
ditions ; has been not only the highest pattern of
virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice ; and
has exercised so deep an influence that it may be
truly said that the simple record of three short years of
active life has done more to regenerate and to soften
mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers, and
all the exhortations of moralists.' — W. E. H. Lecky.3
These quotations are only samples of many which
might be given ; but it is practically undisputed that
the morality taught by Christ is the best the world has
ever seen. And it is also undisputed that His life was
in entire harmony with His teaching. *He lived, as far
as we can judge, a holy and blameless life, and His
character has never been surpassed in history or fiction.
He had no prototype, and has had no successor.
1 'Life of Jesus,' New York, 1864, pp. 370, 375.
2 2nd edit., vol. ii., p. 487.
3 ' History of European Morals,' 3rd edit., 1877, vol. ii., p. 8.

474 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xx.
(2.) Two slight objections.
There are, however, two slight objections. The first
is that Christ's teaching was not original; and,
strictly speaking, this is perhaps true. Something
similar to all He taught has been discovered in more
ancient times, either in Egypt, India, China, or else
where. But this hardly affects the argument. An un
learned Jew living at Nazareth cannot be supposed to
have derived his teaching from the works of Confucius,
Zoroaster, and others, while it is a vast improvement
on all of them put together.
The important point is, that there was nothing among
the Jews of His own time which could have produced,
or even have invented, such a character. He was
immeasurably better than all His contemporaries, and
the attempts of some critics to show that His teaching
was only a little superior to that of the Jewish Rabbis,
from whom He is supposed to have learnt it, fail hope
lessly. For if the teaching was so similar, why has the
effect been so different ? All the Rabbis put together
have not exerted an influence on the world a thousandth
part that of Christ.
The second objection refers to certain portions of
Christ's teaching. For example, He advocates the
non-resistance of evil, and seems to place virginity
above marriage to an exaggerated extent.1 I have
never seen a satisfactory explanation of the latter
passage ; but it is obvious on the face of it that it
cannot be meant for universal application, or it would
lead to the extinction of the human race. It can only
1 Matt. 5. 39 ; 19. 12.

CHRIST'S CHARACTER. 475
be a counsel of perfection, similar to that of giving away
the whole of one's property.
Again, several of the parables are said to be unjust,
such as that of the wedding garment, the workmen
in the vineyard, and the unrighteous steward. But
parables cannot be pressed literally, and the interpre
tation put on these by different writers is so various
that no valid objection can be founded on them. We
will, however, consider the last, which is the one most
often objected to.
Here it will be remembered that though the steward
had been apparently guilty of dishonesty, he was com
mended because he had done wisely.1 But the idea
that the parable was meant to advocate dishonesty is
out of the question. Nor is the explanation hard to
find. Suppose at the present day an ingenious robbery
was committed, and a person said that he could not
help admiring the scoundrel for his cleverness. This
would not imply an approval of dishonesty, for two
reasons ; partly because the man was still called a
scoundrel, and partly because he was not praised as a
whole, but a particular part of his conduct was singled
out for admiration, which was not his dishonesty but
his cleverness. So in the case before us. The steward
was still called unrighteous, and only a part of his
conduct was singled out for commendation, which was
not his dishonesty but his wisdom. The obvious
meaning is that wisdom is so desirable that it is to be
commended even in worldly matters, and even in a
bad cause ; and therefore still more to be aimed at in
1 Luke 16. 8.

476 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xx.
religious matters, and in a good cause. This objection,
then, is quite untenable. The difficulties we meet with
are merely like spots on the sun, and would scarcely
be thought difficulties in any other religion.
(3.) Christ's unconsciousness of sin.
A most remarkable point has now to be noticed. It
is that, notwithstanding His perfect moral teaching,
there is not in the character of Christ the slightest
consciousness of sin. In all His numerous discourses,
and even in His prayers, there is not a single word
which implies that He thought He ever had done,
or ever could do, anything wrong Himself. He is
indeed most careful to avoid implying this, even inci
dentally. Thus He does not say, ' If we forgive men
their trespasses,' etc., but ' If ye,' as the former might
imply that He, as weU as they, had need of the Father's
forgiveness.1 And He never even prayed (so far as we
know) with His disciples ; His prayers as the Sinless
One were so different from theirs as sinners, that they
could not be blended together. Moreover, though
He blamed self-righteousness in others, and exhorted
them to repentance, He never hinted that He had any
need of it Himself.
And all this is the more striking when we reflect
that good men are, as a rule, most conscious of their
faults. But yet here was One who carried moral
goodness to its utmost limit, whose precepts are ad
mittedly perfect, and yet who never for a moment
thought that He was not fulfilling them Himself.
Such a character is absolutely unique in the world's
1 Matt. 6. 14.

CHRIST'S CHARACTER. 477
history. It can only be explained by saying that
Christ was not only a good man, but a perfect man,
since goodness without perfection would only have
made Him more conscious of the faults He had. And
yet if we admit this, we must admit more ; for per
fection is not a human attribute, and needs a good deal
of accounting for.
(B.) The Claims of Christ.
We pass on now to the claims of Christ ; and His
high moral character would plainly lead us to place
the utmost confidence in what He said about Himself.
Unfortunately, His statements are so well known that
it is hard to appreciate their real force and significance.
What, we must ask, would they have sounded like,
and what would they have meant, when first uttered ?
For He claimed, as. we shall see, to be both Super
human and Divine ; and this is how all His con
temporaries, both friends and foes, understood Him.
And though it is impossible to add to the marvel of
such claims, yet the fact that nothing in any way re
sembling them is to be found among the Jewish
Prophets helps us at least to realise their uniqueness.
(1.) His Claim to be Superhuman.
This is shown by three main arguments, for Christ
declared that He was the Ruler, Redeemer, and final
Judge of the world. In the first place, Christ claimed
to be the Ruler of the world, saying in so many words
that all things had been delivered unto Him, and that
He possessed all authority, both in heaven and on
earth. Moreover, this dominion was to be equally com
plete over the hearts of His followers. Their loyalty

478 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xx.
to Him was the one thing needful ; and He claimed
absolute self-surrender, even to giving up all human
ties, however close.1
Secondly, Christ claimed to be the Redeemer of the
world. He distinctly asserted that He came to give
His life a ransom for many, and that His blood was
shed for the remission of sins.2
Thirdly, Christ claimed to be the final Judge of the
world. This stupendous claim alone shows that He
considered Himself quite above and distinct from the
rest of mankind. While they were all to be judged
according to their works, He was to be the Judge
Himself, coming in the clouds of heaven with thousands
of angels. And His decision was to be final and with
out appeal, and apparently based on a man's behaviour
towards Himself. And this tremendous claim, be it
observed, does not depend on single texts or passages,
but occurs all through the Synoptic Gospels.3 Through
out the whole of His Ministry — from His Sermon on
the Mount to His trial before Caiaphas — He per
sistently asserted that He was to be the final Judge of
the world. It is hardly credible that a mere man,
however presumptuous, should ever have made such a
claim as this. Can we imagine anyone doing so at the
present day ? and what should we think of him if he did?
The above passages show clearly the Superhuman
character of Christ. They are, however, just capable
of an Arian interpretation, which is, that though Christ
1 Matt. 11. 27 ; 28. 18 ; Luke 10. 22 ; Matt. 10. 37.
2 Matt. 20. 28 ; 26. 28 ; Mark 10. 45 ; 14. 24.
3 Matt. 7. 22; 10. 32; 13. 41 ; 16. 13-16, 27; 19. 28; 24. 30;
25. 31 -46 ; 26. 64 ; and similar passages in the other Gospels.

CHRIST S CHARACTER. 479
was far above men, and even angels, yet He was not,
strictly speaking, God. But this opinion has few sup
porters at the present day ; and persons who now
admit that Christ was Superhuman generally admit
that He was Divine, which, as we shall see, He also
claimed to be.
(2.) His Claim to be Divine.
Like the preceding, this is shown by three main
arguments ; for Christ declared His Equality, Unity,
and Pre-existence with God. In the first place, Christ
claimed an Equality with God. He distinctly asserted
that the same honour should be given to Himself as to
God the Father ; that men should believe in Him as
well as in God ; that He and the Father would to
gether dwell in the souls of men ; and that He, like the
Father, had the power of sending the Holy Spirit of
God.1 He also ordered that men were to be baptized
into His Name as well as into that of the Father, and
promised that whenever and wherever His disciples
were gathered together, He would be in the midst of
them, even unto the end of the world, thus assuming a
divine omnipresence.2
Secondly, Christ claimed a Unity with God. He did
not assert that He was another God, but said distinctly
that He and. the Father were One ; that He was in the
Father, and the Father in Him ; that whoever beheld
Him beheld the Father ; and that whoever had seen
Him had seen the Father.3 These latter texts cannot,
1 John 5. 23 ; 14. 1, 23 ; 16. 7 ; sec also 5. 18.
2 Matt. 18. 20 ; 28. 19, 20.
3 John 10. 30 ; 17. 21 ; 12. 45 ; 14. 9, 10.

480 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xx.
of course, be pressed literally, as few would maintain
that Christ was really God the Father. But just as if
a human father and son were extremely alike, we might
say that if you had seen the son, you had seen the
father ; so if Christ was truly God — God the Son — the
express image of His Father, the same language might
be used. It would at least be intelligible. But it
would be quite unintelligible, if Christ was merely a
good man. Can we imagine the best man that ever
lived saying, If you have seen me, you have seen
God? Thirdly, Christ claimed a Pre-existence with God.
He asserted that He had descended out of heaven ;
that He had come down from heaven ; that He came
out from the Father and was come into the world ;
and that even before its creation He had shared God's
glory.1 And in another passage, ' Before Abraham was,
I am,'2 He not only claims pre-existence to Abraham,
but implies that this was an eternal existence, irrespec
tive of time, since the words are not, Before Abraham
was I was, but I am. While, the use of this latter
phrase, which was the solemn name God gave Himself
in the Old Testament, shows that the Speaker wished
to represent Himself as being God.
The above passages show plainly that Christ claimed
to be Divine. On the other side we have the passage
where He obj ects to the ruler calling Him good, saying
that the word was only applicable to God.3 But here
He was probably not denying that He really was good,
1 John 3. 13 ; 6. 38 ; 16. 28 ; 17. 5.
2 John 8. 58 ; Exod. 3. 14. 3 Luke 18. 19.

CHRIST'S CHARACTER. 481
but merely showing the inconsistency of anyone calling
Him so, who was not one of His disciples, and did not
acknowledge His Divine claims. And it is interesting
to note that when thus regarded as a mere earthly
teacher, Christ refused to be called good.
Some other texts are often quoted, but they obvi
ously refer to Christ's human nature alone, and will be
examined in Chapter XXIII. We need not consider
them here, for if (as Christians believe) Christ was both
God and Man, there is no difficulty in the fact that He
should sometimes speak of Himself as Divine, and
sometimes as human. It is precisely what we should
expect on the Christian theory, though of course on
any other it introduces an element of inconsistency
into His character. Anyhow, it does not alter the fact
that Christ did repeatedly claim to be both superhuman
and Divine.
(3.) How these Claims were understood at the time.
We have now to consider how these claims were
understood at the time. And first, as to Christ's
friends. We have overwhelming evidence that after
His Resurrection all the disciples and early Christians
believed their Master to be both superhuman and
Divine. And to realise the full significance of this,
we must remember that they were not polytheists, who
did not mind how many gods they believed in, and
were willing to deify Roman Emperors or anyone else ;
but they were strict monotheists. They firmly believed
that there was only one God, and yet they firmly be
lieved that Christ was Divine. This is shown throughout
the New Testament. 3i

482 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xx
For instance, the authors of the Synoptic Gospels
record His miraculous Birth, Resurrection, and Ascen
sion, as well as His numerous miracles, and other signs
of Divine power. And, as we have before pointed out,
they always relate that Christ performed His miracles
by His own authority, which seems to imply His
Divinity, especially when combined with the fact that
He could confer the power of working miracles on
others.1 And as to the Fourth Gospel, it begins with asserting
Christ's Divinity in express terms, saying that the
Word, who afterwards became flesh, was God. And
it appropriately ended, before the last chapter was
added, with St. Thomas declaring this same belief,
when he addressed Christ as my Lord and my God,
which titles He fully accepted.2 And yet immediately
afterwards, the author says he wrote his Gospel to
convince men that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of
God. Evidently then this expression, the Son of God,
meant to him, and therefore presumably to other New
Testament writers, who use it frequently, that Christ
was truly God — God the Son — my Lord and my God —
in the fullest and most complete sense.
It is also worth noting that several passages, which
in the Old Testament refer to Jehovah, are in the
Gospels applied to Christ. Thus we read how, on one
occasion, Isaiah saw the glory of the Lord of Hosts ;
and St. John quotes some of the words, saying that
Isaiah spoke them, when he saw Christ's glory.3 In
1 Matt. 10. 8 ; Luke 9. 1. 2,John 1. 1 ; 20. 28.
3 Isa. 6. 1-10 ; John 12. 41.

Christ's character. 483
the same way the Synoptic Gospels refer the prophecy
as to the messenger of the Lord our God, to the messenger
of Christ.1
With regard to the Acts a counter - argument is
sometimes drawn from St. Peter's speaking of Christ
as ' a man approved of God unto you by mighty
works,' etc., thus •implying, it is urged, that St. Peter
did not know Him to be more than man.2 But as he
says he was only appealing to what his hear ers knew
to be true (even as ye yourselves know), how else could
he have put it ? His hearers did not know that Christ
was God ; they did know that He was a man approved
of God by many wonderful miracles, because they had
seen them. Moreover, in other places the Acts bear
strong witness to the Divinity of Christ, both directly
as when St. Paul speaks of the Church of God which
He purchased with His own blood,3 and indirectly as
when the Apostles are represented as working their
miracles, not in the Name of God the Father, but in
that of Christ. 4
Next, as to the Book of Revelation. The evidence
this affords is important, because many critics5 who
dispute the genuineness of the Gospels and Acts, yet
aUow that this Book was written by St. John. And
if so, it shows conclusively that one at least of Christ's
intimate followers firmly believed in His Divinity. For
he not only speaks of Him as the object of universal
worship both in heaven and on earth, but describes
1 Isa. 40. 3 ; Matt. 3. 3 ; Mark 1. 3 ; Luke 3. 4.
2 Acts 2. 22. 3 Acts 20. 28.
4 E.g., Acts 3. 6 ; 4. 10.
5 E.g., the author of 'Supernatural Religion.'
31—2

484 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xx.
Him as the First and the Last, which is the title used'
by God in the Old Testament, and which is plainly
inapplicable to anyone else.1 And we may ask, is it
conceivable that an intimate friend of Christ should
have believed him to be the Everlasting God, unless
He had claimed to be so Himself, and had supported
His claim by working miracles, and rising from the
dead ? Is it not, rather, certain that nothing but
the most overwhelming proof would ever have con
vinced a Jew (of all persons) that a fellow Man, with
whom he had lived for years, and whom he had seen
put to death (and that in the very way which the Jews
considered accursed of God), was Himself the Lord
Jehovah.2 Equally important evidence is afforded by St. Paul's
Epistles. For though he is not likely to have known
Christ intimately, he must have been acquainted with
numbers who did. And his early conversion, before
a.d. 35, together with the fact that he had previously
persecuted the Church at Jerusalem, and afterwards
visited some of the Apostles there, must have made
him well acquainted with the Christian doctrines from
the very first. Indeed, he tells us himself, that when
he visited the Apostles, he laid before them the Gospel
which he preached, so as to make sure that it was
the same as what they preached.3 And all through
his Epistles he bears witness to the superhuman
character of Christ ; declaring, among other things,
His sinlessness, and that He is the Ruler, Redeemer,
1 Rev. 1. 17, 18 ; 2. 8 ; 5 11-14 ; 22. 12, 13 ; Isa. 44. 6.
2 Deut. 21. 23 ; Gal. 3. 13 3 Gal. 2. 2, 9.

CHRIST'S CHARACTER. 485
and final Judge of the world, as well as being its
Creator.1 He also bears witness to His Divine character ; for
he asserts more than once that God sent His Son into
the world, thus showing the pre-existence of Christ.
And he implies the same when he says that though
Christ 'was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor;'
the latter words referring to His condescension in
becoming Man, when as God He had possessed all
riches.2 While in other passages he asserts His
Divinity in so many words, saying that He is over all,
God blessed for ever ; that we shall all stand before the
Judgment-seat of God, which elsewhere he calls the
Judgment-seat of Christ ; that He was originally in the
form of God (i.e., in a state of Deity), and on an
equality with God, before He became incarnate, and
took the form of Man ; that in Him dwells all the ful
ness of the Godhead bodily ; that He is our great God
and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for us ;
and that the Psalmist prophesied of Him when he
said, ' Thy throne, 0 God, is for ever and ever.'3
This latter passage, from the Hebrews, was perhaps
not written by St. Paul, but this makes it all the more
valuable, as the Epistle is generally dated, from in
ternal evidence, before the destruction of Jerusalem,
a.d. 70 ; and we have thus another early witness to
the Divinity of Christ ; — and a valuable one too, for
1 2 Cor. 5. 16, 21 ; Rom. 14. 9 ; 1 Cor. 15. 3 ; 2 Cor. 5. 10 ; Col.
1. 16.
2 Rom. 8. 3 ; Gal. 4. 4 ; 2 Cor. 8. 9.
3 Rom. 9. 5 ; 14. 10 ; 2 Cor. 5. 10 ; Phil. 2. 6 ; Col. 2. 9 ; Titus
2. 13 ; Heb. 1. 8.

486 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xx.
he distinctly implies that there was nothing new in the
doctrine, but that it had been believed by Christians
from the very first.1
The most important text on the other side is where
St. Paul says there is one God the Father, and one Lord
Jesus Christ,2 which is quoted in the Nicene Creed.
But though the statement is a difficult one, it cannot
be pressed as implying that Christ is not God ; for if
so it would equally imply that the Father was not Lord,
which few would contend was St. Paul's meaning.
With regard to the above passages, many of which
occur in the admittedly genuine Epistles, it is important
to notice that the allusions are all incidental. St. Paul
does not attempt to prove the superhuman and Divine
character of Christ, but refers to it as if it were undis
puted. He evidently believed it himself, and took for
granted that his readers did so too. And his readers
were not private individuals, but large bodies of Chris
tians. They included his own converts at Corinth and
elsewhere, the converts of other Apostles at Rome,
which was a place he had not then visited, and a
strong party of opponents in Galatia, with whom he
was arguing. It is clear, then, that these doctrines
were not peculiar to St. Paul, but were the common
property of all Christians from the earliest times. And
when combined with the previous evidence, this leaves
no doubt as to how Christ's friends understood His
claims. Whatever they may have thought of them
before the Resurrection, that event convinced them that
they were true, and they never hesitated in this belief.
1 Heb. 2. 1-4 ; 4. 14. 2 1 Cor. 8. 6 ; Eph. 4. 4-6.

Christ's character. 487
But next as to Christ's foes. The evidence here is
equaUy convincing. In St. John's Gospel we read
that on several occasions during His life, when Christ
asserted His superhuman and Divine character, the
Jews wanted to kill Him in consequence ; often avow
ing their reason for doing so with the utmost frankness.
' For a good work we stone thee not, bu t for blasphemy
and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself
God.'1 And in thus doing they were only acting in
accordance with their law, which expressly commanded
a blasphemer to be stoned.
In none of these instances, it is to be noticed, did
Christ repudiate the claims attributed to Him, or say
He had been misunderstood. In fact, in only one case
did He offer any explanation whatever. He then ap
pealed to the passage in the Old Testament, ' I said,
Ye are gods,' and asserted that He was much better
entitled to the term, since He was sent into the world
by the Father, and did the works of the Father. And
He then reasserted His unity with the Father, which
was the very point objected to. by the Jews.
Moreover, not only during His life did Christ make
these claims to be Divine, but He persevered with them
even when it brought about His death. It is undis
puted that the Jews judged Him worthy of death for
blasphemy, and for nothing else. This is the teaching
not of one Gospel alone, but of each of the four.2
Every biography of Christ we possess represents this
as the real charge against Him ; though, of course,
1 John 10. 33 ; see also 5. 18 ; 8. 59 ; 11. 8 ; Lev. 24. 16.
2 Matt. 26. 65 ; Mark 14. 64 ; Luke 22. 71 ; John 19. 7.

488 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xx.
when tried before the Roman governor that of dis
loyalty to Csesar was brought up as well.
There is but one conclusion to be drawn from all
this. It is that Christ did really claim to be both
superhuman and Divine ; that He deliberately and
repeatedly asserted these claims during His life ; that
the hostility of the Jews was thereby aroused, who
frequently wanted to kill Him ; that He never repudi
ated these claims, but, on the contrary, persevered
with them to the end ; and was finally put to death
in consequence.
(C.) The Great Alternative.
We pass on now to the great alternative, which is
forced upon us by combining the teaching and the
claims of Christ. Before pointing out its importance,
we must notice a favourite method of trying to evade
the difficulty, which is by saying that the teaching of
Christ occurs in the Synoptic Gospels, and the claims
in the Fourth ; so that if we deny the accuracy of this
single Gospel the difficulty is solved. But unfortu
nately for this objection, though the Divine claims
occur chiefly in the Fourth Gospel, the superhuman
claims are most prominent in the other three ; and we
have purposely chosen all the passages illustrating
them from the Synoptic Gospels alone. And these
claims are equally fatal to His moral character if He
were only a man. For no good man, and indeed very
few bad ones, could be so fearfully presumptuous as
to claim to be the absolute Ruler of the world, still
less to be its Redeemer, and, least of all, to be its one
and only Judge hereafter.

CHRIST'S CHARACTER. 489
This objection, then, must be put aside, and we are
forced to conclude that the perfect moral teaching of
Christ was accompanied by continual assertions of His
own superhuman and Divine character. And as this
is a point about which He must have known, it is
clear that the statements must have been either true
or intentionally false. He must, therefore, have been
Divine, or else a deliberate impostor. In other words,
the Christ of the Gospels — and history knows of no
other — could not have been merely a good man. He
was either God as He claimed to be, or else a bad man
for making such claims. This is the Great Alternative.
Moreover, it is absolutely unique in the world's
history. The founders of other religions may have
had great moral virtues, and may yet have taught
erroneous doctrines ; but, as a rule, there is no reason
for doubting their sincerity ; they believed what they
said. Of course there have been religious impostors as
well, but then their moral character was at fault. In
Christ alone we have a Man Whose moral character and
teaching have fascinated the world for centuries ; and
yet Who, unless His own claims were true, must have
been guilty of the grossest egotism, falsehood, and
blasphemy. This is the only logical conclusion to be
drawn from the facts we have been considering, and'
aU attempts to evade it fail hopelessly.
Now what effect has this on our present inquiry as
to the truth of Christianity ? Plainly it affords a
strong argument in its favour. For the moral teaching
of its Founder is shown to be not only the most perfect
the world has ever seen, but combined with a sense of

490 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xx.
entire sinlessness which is absolutely unique among
men. Both of these, however, are combined with
claims to a superhuman and Divine character, which,
unless they are correct, place their Author at the
opposite extreme of the moral scale. In short, unless
Christianity is true, its Founder must have been not
only the very best of men, but also one of the very
worst ; and this is a dilemma from which there is no
escape.

• CHAPTER XXI.
THAT THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY ALSO CONFIRMS
ITS TRUTH.
(A.) Its Early Triumphs.
(i.) Its enormous difficulties.
(2.) Its marvellous success.
(3.) The so-called natural causes of success : they all imply
the truth of the Religion.
(4.) Contrast with Mahometanism.
(B.) Its Subsequent History.
(1.) Its vitality in the past ; very remarkable.
(2.) Its effect at the present ; very beneficial.
(3.) Its prospects in the future ; very hopeful. Objection
from Rationalism ; but this is no new difficulty,
while it shows the strength of Christianity, and
being only destructive, can never take its place.
(C.) Conclusion. The history of Christianity, which seems to have been
foreknown to its Founder, affords a strong argument in
its favour.
The argument we have next to consider is that derived
from the History of Christianity. This religion, it
must be remembered, originated, spread over, and
finally conquered the civilised world in an historical
age. And since the fact of this conquest can neither
be disputed nor ignored, it must be accounted for.
How is it that an obscure Jewish Peasant, who was
491

492 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxi.
crucified as a malefactor, some nineteen centuries ago,
should now be worshipped, by over three hundred
miUion persons, including all the most civilised nations
of the world ? As a mere historical problem, this
requires some solution, for an effect in History, as
elsewhere, must have an adequate cause. And it is
scarcely too much to say that this is the most remark
able effect in the history of mankind. Here, then, is
the subject we have to discuss ; and we will first con
sider the early triumphs of Christianity, and then its
subsequent history.
(A) Its Early Triumphs.
Now it seems hard to exaggerate either the enormous
difficulties the Religion had to overcome, or its mar
vellous success in overcoming them.
(i.) Its enormous difficulties.
In the first place, we must consider the immense
difficulties of founding such a religion as Christianity.
Our familiarity with the subj ect prevents us from fully
realising this, so perhaps an analogy will help to make
it clear. Suppose, then, that missionaries now appeared
in the cities of Europe, in London and Edinburgh, for
example, and preached that an obscure peasant, who
had been put to death somewhere in Persia as a male
factor, had risen from the dead, and was the God of
heaven and earth. What chance would they have of
making a single convert ? And yet the enterprise of
first preaching Christianity at Rome or Athens must
have been very similar to this, only far more dangerous.
Indeed, it is hard to over-estimate the difficulties of
founding a religion whose principal doctrine was that

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 493
of a crucified Saviour. And be it remembered, this
doctrine was never shirked by the early Christians ;
St. Paul preached it boldly, though admitting that it
was a stumbling-block to the Jews and foolishness to
the Gentiles.1 And all this took place among highly
civilised nations, and in a literary, one might almost
say a rationalistic, age ; when the old pagan religions
were being abandoned, because men could no longer
believe in them. What, then, must have been the
difficulty of introducing a new Religion, which was
(apparently) more absurd than any of them, and wor
shipped One Who had been crucified ?
Moreover, Christianity had many other difficulties to
contend with. It was anti-Jewish in its comprehen
siveness, for it abolished all their religious rights and
privileges, and proclaimed that the despised Gentiles
were henceforth to be their equals. It was anti-Pagan
in its absolute claims ; for it was a religion which could
stand no rival, and its success meant the destruction of
every heathen altar, the execration of every heathen
god. And it could be easily represented as anti-
Roman ; for one of the charges brought against its
Founder was that of disloyalty to Caesar, and a simUar
charge was made against its preachers at Thessalonica.
Lastly, it had as great difficulties to contend with
from a moral point of view. For Christianity was a
religion of self-denial and self-sacrifice, and such a re
ligion does not naturaUy commend itself to mankind.
Moreover, this aspect of the Religion was always
brought prominently forward by its preachers. A
1 1 Cor. 1. 23.

494 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxi.
forsaking of sin was its moral requisite, just as a belief
in Christ's atonement for sin was its mental requisite ;
and the difficulty of either alone might well have
seemed insuperable.
(2.) Its marvellous success.
And yet, in spite of every difficulty; Christianity
prevailed. The new religion spread with great rapidity.
This we learn not only from Christian writers, who
might be thought to exaggerate, but from impartial
men such as Suetonius, Tacitus, and the younger Pliny.
The former says that in the reign of Claudius (a.d. 41-
54) the Jews in Rome, stirred up by one Chrestus (i.e.,
Christian Jews), were so numerous that the Emperor
thought it expedient to banish them ; Tacitus says
that at the time of the great fire (a.d. 64) a vast mul
titude of Christians were discovered at Rome ; while
Pliny, one of the Roman governors in Asia Minor,
complained to the Emperor Trajan that the Christians
were so numerous that the temples had long been
deserted, though at the time he wrote (a.d. 105) they
were being frequented again. And he also bears
witness to the exemplary lives of the Christians, who
he says included men of every rank, in life, their in
vincible fidelity to their religion, and the divine wor
ship they paid to Christ. And as the religion did not
originate in either Rome or Asia Minor, Christians were
presumably as numerous elsewhere.
Nor can it be said that they were only to be found
among the poor and ignorant ; for not only have we
the testimony of Pliny just alluded to, but the undis
puted Epistles of St. Paul, such as that to the Romans,

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 495
show (as pointed out in Chapter XVII.) that he thought
his readers well educated, and quite able to follow a
difficult argument.
And even the passage that not many mighty, not
many noble, were Christians,1 which is often quoted
in an opposite sense, really supports this view ; for
it implies that though not many, there were certainly
some, to whom these terms might be "applied. While
elsewhere we have the names of some eminent con
verts, such as Erastus the chamberlain of the city at
Corinth, Dionysius the Areopagite at Athens, and
Theophilus a man of high rank (as is shown by the title
Most excellent) ; none of whom are likely to have
; accepted Christianity without strong evidence.2
Now what was the cause of this wonderful progress ?
It is easy to say what was not its cause. Physical force
and the authority of the Government had nothing to
do with it. Its missionaries did not preach sword in
hand, nor were they backed up by the civil power. All
they did, all they could do, was to appeal to man's
reason and conscience, and this appeal was successful.
And we learn from the Christians themselves, e.g., in
the Acts, that there were two main reasons for this.
The first was the confident appeal to the facts of
Christianity, such as the Resurrection of Christ, as
undisputed and indisputable ; and the second was the
occasional aid of miracles. And the more we reflect on
the subject, the more difficult it is to account for it
without at least one of these causes. For the spread of
Christianity was not like that of a mere philosophy, or
1 i Cor. 1. 26. 2 Rom. 16. 23 ; Acts 17. 34 ; 1- 1 .' 23- 26 ; 24- 3-

496 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxi.
system of ethics, or scientific theory. It depended
entirely on certain alleged matters of fact, which facts
were quite recent at the time of its origin, occurred at
the very place where it was first preached, and were
open to the hostile criticism of an entire nation. This,
it is needless to add, is without a parallel in history.
But it is said, notwithstanding this rapid progress at
first, Christianity took nearly three centuries to conquer
the civilised world. Undoubtedly it did, but the
significance of the conquest is not diminished by this.
It is rather increased when we remember that at
intervals all through this period the Church suffered
the fiercest persecution. That it should have survived
such a fearfully prolonged struggle, and have finaUy
conquered, does but show its inherent strength. We
may look in vain for any analogy to this in the rest of
history. No other religion has ever withstood such
persistent attacks ; no other religion has ever obtained
such a complete and almost incredible triumph, the
Emperor of the civilised world being brought to wor
ship One Who had been crucified as a malefactor. In
short, the progress of Christianity was as unique as
its origin, and can only be satisfactorily accounted for
by its truth.
(3.) The so-called natural causes of success.
We must next glance at some natural causes which
have been alleged as accounting for the wonderful
spread of Christianity. Those brought forward by
Gibbon in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
(Chapter XV.) are five in number ; and he seems to
think that when combined, they will account for the

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 497
spread of Christianity. But, in the first place, how are
we to account for their combination ? They are of the
most varied character, and even assuming for the
moment that they had the result claimed for them, the
fact that such various causes should all unite at the
same time to favour Christianity seems a coincidence
far too remarkable to be accidental. Moreover, when
we examine them in detail, it will be found that they
one and all imply the truth of the religion.
The five causes are, first, the intense zeal of the early
Christians. And doubtless this was a most important
element in spreading their religion. But what gave
them this intense zeal ? What was it that made them
so fearfuUy in earnest about their new religion, that
they broke from all earthly ties and faced a life of
suffering, and a death of martyrdom in preaching it ?
There can be but one answer to this question. It was
because they were so absolutely convinced of its truth.
It was vouched for by what they considered over
whelming evidence, so they willingly risked everything
for it. Their zeal, then, is but evidence for their con
viction, and their conviction is but evidence for the
truth of what they were convinced of ; and valuable
evidence, too, for they plainly had much better means
of knowing about it than we can possibly have.
Secondly, we have the doctrine of a future life, with
rewards and punishments. And doubtless this also
had much to do with the success of Christianity. A
longing for immortality seems inherent in man, and
the vague guesses of heathen philosophers were quite
unable to satisfy this. It might be true that men
32

498 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxi.
should rise again, but that was all they could say.
Christianity alone, resting on the actual fact of Christ's
Resurrection, said it was true ; so here men found the
assurance they wanted. But is it likely that Chris
tianity should have so thoroughly satisfied them in this
respect had there been any real doubt as to Christ's
Resurrection ?
Thirdly, come the miracles ascribed to the early
Christians. Gibbon's argument here is more difficult
to follow. If these miracles were actually true, of
course they would have greatly assisted the new
religion ; but then they would have been, not a natural
but a supernatural cause of success. If on the other
hand, the miracles were false, it is hard to see how the
early Christians could have helped their religion by
claiming miraculous powers which they did not possess,
and which their contemporaries must have known they
did not possess.
Fourthly, we have the pure morality taught and
practised by the early Christians. And this had, of
course, much to do with helping their religion. But
again we must ask, what was it that enabled the
Christians alone in that age of vice and wickedness to
lead pure lives ? They ascribed it themselves to the
example and power of their Founder, and nothing else
can really account for it. Christian morality cannot
be a stream without a source, and no other source can
be assigned to it. But could a mere human teacher
have had this more than human influence over thou
sands of converts, most of whom had never seen him ?
Lastly, comes the union and discipline of the early

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 499
Church. This may have helped Christianity in the
later stages of the struggle, but could obviously have
been of little use at the commencement. Moreover,
why should Christians of various nations and classes
have been so thoroughly united in this one matter
unless they were convinced of its overwhelming im
portance ? On the whole, then, these so-called natural
causes are only secondary causes in the strict sense of
the term. The truth of the religion is what they all
imply, and this is the real cause which alone can account
for its success. j
A better way of explaining the spread of Christianity,
though still inadequate, is now often adopted ; which
is by saying that it arose at a favourable crisis. The
dispersion of the Jews throughout the known world
would, it is urged, have facilitated the spread of a
religion founded by Jews. The speculations of the
Greeks as to a Divine Word, or Logos, would have pre
vented the doctrines of the Trinity, and the Incarna
tion, from forming any great difficulty to the learned
classes. While the mass of the people were disgusted
with the old mythologies of Greece and Rome. These
were dying out, because they failed to satisfy human
nature, and men were longing for something better.
They wanted, as men always will want, a religion ; but
they wanted it free from the absurdities and immo
ralities of Pagan worship. Christianity then appeared,
and as it was found by many to meet the demand, it
naturally succeeded.
But in answer to this it must be remembered that
Christianity was not a philosophy founded at Rome or
32—2

500 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxi.
Athens, in which case it might perhaps be said that
the demand caused the supply ; but it arose as a smaU
Jewish sect, basing its doctrines on the actual life of
its Founder. While the fierce persecutions it had to
endure show that it did not obviously meet the re
quirements of the day, even apart from the tremendous
difficulties involved in the worship of the Crucified.
But now suppose, for the sake of argument, that this
had been otherwise, and that the world was so suited
to receive Christianity as to account for its rapid
spread ; would the inference be against its Divine
origin ? Certainly not ; for the agreement in this case
would be far too close to be accidental. It would show
design, and precisely such design as we should expect
if the Religion were true. Anyone who believes in the
Divine government of the world would naturally expect
the true Religion to be introduced at a suitable time ;
and thus the correspondence would merely show that
the God Who rules in history is also the God Who
introduced Christianity. So here again the proposed
explanation, even if admitted, does but imply the truth
of the Religion.
(4.) Contrast with Mahometanism.
And this conclusion is rendered still stronger when
we contrast the spread of Christianity with that of
Mahometanism. For here we have the one example
history affords of the spread of a religion which can
be compared with that of Christianity. And yet the
contrast between the two is very marked, whether we
consider their method of progress or their alleged
evidence of truthfulness.

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 501
And first as to the method of progress. For thirteen
years Mahomet appealed to man's reason alone, and
made remarkably few converts. After this failure of
peaceful means he appealed to force, and from this
time his religion spread rapidly. But its progress has
no analogy whatever to that of Christianity, as the
means employed were just the opposite. In the
one case, all we have to account for is that Mahomet
should be able to collect an army,, that that army
should conquer, and that the conquered should adopt
the religion of their conquerors, about which they were
often given no option. Conquest and conversion went
together, and there is scarcely an instance in history of
a nation embracing the Mahometan religion, without
being first conquered by a Mahometan army. And
as Mahomet appealed at times to the lower passions
of men, allowing, for instance, himself and his fol
lowers several wives, his success is not very surprising.
In the spread of Christianity, on the other hand, no
force whatever was employed, and, as we have seen,
it had enormous difficulties to contend with. The
contrast, then, between the two is just what we should
expect between the natural and the supernatural
spread of a religion, the one advancing by worldly
power, the other in spite of it.
But an even greater contrast has still to be noticed,
which is that Mahomet did not appeal to evidential
miracles in support of his claims— that is, to outward
matters of fact capable of being judged of by other
people. And this is the more remarkable since he
refers to the miracles of previous prophets, including

502 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxi.
those of Christ, as authentic,1 but never pretends to
have worked any himself. The obvious conclusion is
that he felt, as all men must feel, the overwhelming
difficulty of asserting public miracles if none occurred,
and he therefore appealed to force, because he had
nothing else to appeal to. And yet that the first
preachers of Christianity asserted such miracles is, as
we have seen, undeniable. They were not advocates
of a creed, but witnesses for certain facts, such as
the Resurrection and other miracles, which they
believed they actually saw. There is nothing corre
sponding to this in regard to Mahometanism or any
other religion. It may still be said that Mahometanism
shows that a religion can make rapid progress without
miracles. Of course it does ; and so does Buddhism,
which also spread rapidly. But it does not show
that a religion which, like Christianity, claims to rest
on miracles can make its way if those miracles are
false. (B.) Its Subsequent History.
We pass on now from the early triumphs of Christi
anity to its subsequent history, and will consider in
turn its past vitality, its present effect, and its future
prospects. (i.) Its vitality in the past.
To begin with, a strong argument in its favour is its
vitality. It has survived in spite of external assaults
and internal schisms, and its spread and continuity can
only be satisfactorily accounted for by its truth. This
is an argument the force of which increases as time
1 Koran, Sura. v.

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 503
goes on, and fresh difficulties are encountered and
overcome. Of course it may be said this is merely a
case of survival of the fittest, and only shows that of
aU early religions Christianity is the one most fitted to
survive. But this is only another way of saying that
it is the one most adapted to human nature, which, if
true, is a strong argument in its favour.
Moreover, the social state of the world has changed
immensely, and yet Christianity has always kept in
touch with it. It has shown itself suitable for different
ages, countries, and social conditions, and, unlike
other religions, is still in sympathy with the highest
forms of civilisation. In short, Christianity has kept
possession of the civilised world for over fifteen cen-
'turies, and is as vigorous in its age as in its youth.
Its long reign is indeed so familiar to us that there is
a danger of missing its importance. Can we imagine
a man now who should found a religion which well-
nigh two thousand years hence should be still flourish
ing, still aggressive, and still recognising him not only
as its founder but its God ? And yet this would be
but a parallel case to that of Christianity. Amid all
the changes in history it alone has remained un
changed. Its doctrines, at least the important ones,
contained in the Creeds, have been the same century
after century, and its Founder is still worshipped by
millions. (2.) Its effect at the present.
In close connection with the history of Christianity
comes its effect on the world. A religion which has
reigned so long, and over the most civilised nations,

504 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxi.
must necessarily have had some influence for good or
evil. And with regard to Christianity there can be
little doubt as to the answer. The present state of the
civilised world is a standing witness to its benefits,
since nearly all our moral superiority to the nations of
old is due to this religion.
For example, it has entirely altered the position of
women, who are no longer looked down upon as they
used to be. It has also altered the position of children,
who were formerly considered as property, and at the
disposal of their parents, infanticide being of course
common. Again, it has changed our ideas as to the
sick, a hospital being almost entirely a Christian in
vention. It has also changed our ideas about work.
In all the nations of antiquity, and in non-Christian
countries of the present day, a workman is looked
down upon. Once more, it has created a respect for
human life as such, and apart from the position of
the individual person, which was unknown in ancient
times. In short, our acknowledgment of what are
called the rights of man is almost entirely due to
Christianity. Nor is there anything surprising in this ;
for the common Fatherhood of God and the common
love of Christ naturally afford the strongest argument
for the common rights of man. And though Chris
tianity did not, and could not at first, suppress slavery
and war, it greatly mitigated their evils from the
beginning, and is slowly destroying them.
These are but samples of the effects of Christianity ;
and that they are really such, and are not merely due
to civilisation, is shown conclusively by ancient Rome.

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 505
Here civilisation was carried to a great height, and
literature and the fine arts flourished ; and yet all the
time there were the greatest moral vices, not to men
tion the barbarous treatment of captives and the
combats of gladiators. And though, no doubt, various
causes have contributed to the improvement of man
kind, the teaching of Christ has certainly been the
- most important. The obvious and public good which
Christianity has done is thus indisputable.
Moreover, another, and perhaps the greater, part of
its influence is of such a kind as not to appear much in
" history. Christianity may have promoted the happi
ness, increased the virtues, and lessened the vices of
millions of men in their private lives without history
recording it. Nor can it be doubted that it actually
has done so from the very commencement. For the
undisputed Epistles of St. Paul show that many of his
converts were reclaimed from the vilest wickedness.1
But it may be said, though Christianity has done so
much good, has it not also done some harm ? What
about the religious wars and persecutions in the
¦Middle Ages ? But with regard to the wars, religion
was, as a rule, the excuse rather than the cause ; for
had Christianity never been heard of, there would
doubtless have been numerous wars in the Middle Ages,
as in all other ages. With regard to the persecutions,
they must, of course, be both admitted and deplored ;
but we may ask, what religion except Christianity
could have been mixed up with such persecutions, and
yet have escaped the odium of mankind ? Christianity
1 E.g., 1 Cor. 6. 9-1 1.

506 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxi.
has done so, because men have seen that it was not the
religion itself, but its false friends who were responsible
for the persecutions. The important fact is that the
New Testament, unlike the Koran,1 does not authorise,
still less command, the employment of force in gaining
converts. We now turn to another aspect of the subject. Not
only has Christianity done much good in the past, but
it is doing much good at the present. This also is
beyond dispute ; everyone can verify the fact for him
self. Thousands of men and women spend their
lives in self-sacrifice among the poor and sick solely
for the sake of Christ. Of course, it may be said that
all this is folly, and that we ought to try and benefit
our fellow-men for their own sake, or for the sake of
the State. But, whether folly or not, the fact remains.
The vast majority of those who visit the poor and sick-
do not do so for the sake of the State, or even mainly
for the sake of the poor themselves, but from avowedly
Christian motives. They beheve that Christ loves these
poor, and therefore they love them too, and willingly
spend their lives in trying to help them.
And it is also a fact that this strange attraction
which Christ exercises over the hearts of men is
unique in history. Can we imagine anyone spending
his life in visiting the sick in some large town, and
saying that he is doing it for the love of David, or of
Plato, or of Mahomet ? And yet all through the
civilised world thousands are doing it for the love of
Christ. And this influence, be it observed, is not like
1 Koran, Sura. viii. 12 ; ix. 5 ; xlvii. 4.

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 507
that of other great men, local and temporary, but
world-wide and permanent. Christ is thus not only,
as we saw in the last chapter, the holiest of men, but
the mightiest of men also ; the Man in short who has
most influenced mankind. And with trifling excep
tions, few will dispute that this influence has been
wholly for good. So that the belief in the God Incar
nate has done more to improve the world, than the
belief in the God of Nature, or the God of the Jews,
or any other religion past or present. And therefore,
judged by its fruits, Christianity is a religion which
might very reasonably have had a divine origin.
On the other hand, it must be admitted that though
Christianity has done so much good, it has not entirely
reformed the world ; and its failure to do this, after
trying for so many centuries, is thought by some to
be adverse to its claims. But others think that its
partial success and partial failure are just what we
should expect if it were true. And what is more to
the point, this seems to have been expected by its
Founder, for He always implied that the good and
the evil — the wheat and the tares — were to be mixed
together until the end of the world. Moreover, reform
ing this world is not the sole object of Christianity.
Its chief purpose is to prepare men for another world ;
and therefore, until we know the condition of its
adherents in the future state, we cannot say how far
it has been successful. While as to its so-called
failure, this has been entirely due to the inconsistency
of its adherents. If all men were Christians, and all
Christians lived up to the religion they professed, there

508 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxi.
would be little to complain of even in this imperfect
world. On the whole, then, the effect of Christianity is
distinctly in its favour. It has done much good, and
will probably do more as time goes on ; though it has
not entirely reformed the world, and probably never
will. But the good it has done is an actual fact
which cannot be disputed, while the counter-argument
that it ought to have done more good is at least open
to doubt.
(3.) Its prospects in the future.
Lastly, the spread of Christianity seems likely to
continue, and some day we may expect to see it
universally professed in the world, as it is in Western
Europe at the present time, though, of course, -there
will always be individuals who dissent from it. The.
reasons for this confident hope are, that, speaking
broadly, Christian nations alone are extending their
influence. If, as is sometimes said, Christianity only
rules in three continents out of five (Europe, America,
and Australia), it is equally true that the. future of
the world seems to depend on these continents alone.
Japan may, of course, be quoted as an exception, but
strange to say Japan seems to be becoming Christian.
And to this must be added the fact that Christian
missions are now being revived to a large extent,
and, though they are not always successful, yet, taken
together, they secure a good many converts. More
over, there is no other side to this argument. It is
not that Christianity is being adopted in some countries
and renounced in others. The gains, whether great or

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 509
smaU, are all net profits. With one exception, there is
not a single instance for many centuries of a nation or
tribe which once adopted Christianity changing its
religion to anything else. And the exception, that of
France at the time of the Revolution, strikingly proves
the rule ; for the change could not be maintained, and
in a few years Christianity reasserted itself throughout
the country.
But an important objection has now to be examined .
It is said that in Christian countries an increasingly
large number of men either openly reject Christianity
or give it a mere nominal approval. This may be
called the objection from the spread of Rationalism,
and it is an important one, because it is an attempt to
meet Christianity with its own weapons, an appeal to
reason. Of course it must be remembered that a great
deal of the infidelity of the present day is not caused
by reasoning at all, but by the want of it ; and it is
• hopeless to argue against this.. For how can men be
convinced of Christianity or anything else if they will
not take the trouble to examine its claims ?
But putting aside this class, for whom the present
Essay is obviously not intended, there are still many
men who may fairly be called Rationalists — men, that
is, who have studied both sides of the subject, and
whose reasoning leads them to reject Christianity.
They admit that there is evidence in its favour, but
they say that it is far from convincing. And it is
believed by many that Rationalism is spreading at the
present day, and will ultimately become common
among thoughtful men. Now, of course, the whole of

510 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxi.
this Essay is really an attempt to meet this objection,
and to show that, when carefully considered, the argu
ments in favour of Christianity far outweigh those
against it. But three additional remarks may be
made here.
The first is, that this is no new difficulty. Rational
ism has existed ever since the Middle Ages, and was-
most aggressive and most confident in the eighteenth
century, as a single quotation will show. Bishop
Butler in the preface to his Analogy of Religion, 1736,
says, ' It has come, I know not how, to be taken for
granted, by many persons, that Christianity is not so
much as a subj ect of inquiry, but that it is now at length
discovered to be fictitious. And accordingly they treat
it as if, in the present, age, this were an agreed point
among aU people of discernment ; and nothing re
mained but to set it up as a principal subject of mirth
and ridicule, as it were by way of reprisals for its having
so long interrupted the. pleasures of the world.' It is
now nearly two centuries since these words were written,
and Christianity is still flourishing ! And there
fore, as all previous attacks have proved futile, there
is no reason to believe that the present one will be
more successful.
Secondly, these continued assaults on Christianity
afford in one respect additional evidence in its favour ;
since they show, as nothing but repeated attacks could
show, its indestructibility. Had Christianity never been
assailed, its strength would never have been apparent ;
but now we know that, try as men will for centuries,
they cannot get rid of this religion.

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 511
Lastly, it must be remembered that Rationalism is
all destructive and not constructive. It can show
many reasons for not believing in Christianity, but it
can give the world nothing which can in any way
take its place. It has no satisfactory solution for
the great problems of life. Why does man exist at
all ? Why has he got free will ? What is the meaning
of sin ? Is there any forgiveness for sin ? What is
the meaning of death ? Is there any life beyond
death ? Is there a judgment ? Can we dare to face
it ? Shall we recognise those whom we have loved
on earth ? In short, what is man's destiny here and
hereafter ? These are the questions which always
have interested, and always will interest, mankind.
Rationalists may say that the Christian answer to
them is incorrect ; but they can offer no other which
is worth a moment's consideration.
(C.) Conclusion.
Before concluding this chapter one other point of
some importance has to be noticed. It is that the
early history of Christianity, with its continual triumph
amidst continual persecution, seems to have been fore
known to its Founder, as well as His own marvellous
influence in the world.
These prophecies of Christ concerning His own
religion are certainly very striking. We find, on the
one hand, a most absolute conviction as to the triumph
of His Church, and that its enemies would never prevail
against it. And on the other, an equaUy certain con
viction as to the constant sufferings of its members,
who were to expect life-long persecution and the

512 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxi.
universal hatred of mankind.1 And yet these strange
prophecies of continual success amidst continual
suffering were for three centuries as strangely fulfilled.
Moreover, Christ's assertions regarding His own
influence in the world are equally remarkable. We
will give but two examples.2 He said, And I, if I
be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto Myself.
He was lifted up on the cross, and, however strange
we may think it, miUions of men have in consequence
been drawn to Him with passionate devotion. Again,
He said, I am the light of the world. And now, after
eighteen centuries, both friends and foes admit that
His is the teaching which has illuminated and regene
rated mankind. Had He been a mere Jewish peasant,
the utterance of such prophecies as these seems almost
as incredible as their fulfilment. But what shall we
say when they were both uttered and fulfilled ? Have
we not here an argument in favour of Christianity,
the strength of which it is hard to estimate ? Nor can
we get out of the difficulty by denying the authenticity'
of the passages ; for they would be quite as remarkable
if invented by an evangelist as if uttered by Christ
Himself. We may now sum up this chapter on the History of
Christianity. We have considered its early triumphs,
and its subsequent history ; and each of these is, strictly
speaking, unique, and each is inexplicable on purely
natural grounds. But undoubtedly the more impor
tant is the marvellous success of Christianity at first,
in spite of the great difficulties it had to encounter ;
1 E.g., Matt. 10. 17, 22 ; 16. 18. 2 John 8. 12 ; 12. 32.

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY. 513
and, as we have seen, all natural explanations of this
fail hopelessly.
The historical argument, then, leads us back to
miracles ; for every other explanation of the first
triumph of Christianity is found to be inadequate.
While, on the other hand, the establishment of the
Christian religion is precisely such an event as we
should expect if the miracles were true. And it need
hardly be added that true miracles, not false ones, are
required to bear such a superstructure. The most
holy and the most powerful religion the world has ever
seen cannot have been founded on falsehood or fable.
In other words, if we deny that the Christian miracles
occurred, and take from Christ all that is superhuman,
we cannot imagine Him as the Founder of Christianity.
There would be an obvious disproportion between
cause and effect. While, as a matter of fact, it was
not a natural Christ, but a supernatural Christ —
the Christ of the Gospels — who won the heart of man
kind, and conquered the world. We seem thus forced
to the conclusion that the only thing which can
account for the history of Christianity is its truth.
Anyhow, it is plain that its history affords a strong
additional argument in its favour.

33

CHAPTER XXII.
THAT ON THE WHOLE THE OTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTS
TIIIS CONCLUSION.
Miscellaneous arguments for and against Christianity.
(A.) Christianity and the Bible.
The existence of slight errors in the Bible cannot be dis
puted, but they are quite unimportant, since the writers
make no claim to Verbal Inspiration.
(B.) Christianity and Prayer.
Its universality. There are, however, three objections.
It is said to be —
(i.) Scientifically incredible, as inconsistent with the
uniformity of nature.
(2.) Morally wrong, as impugning the power, wisdom, and
goodness of God.
(3.) Practically useless, as shown by statistics ; but none
of these can be maintained.
(C.) Christianity and Human Nature.
It is adapted to human nature ; for it meets to a great
extent the inherent cravings of mankind, especially in
regard to sorrow and sin, death and eternity. The
objection as to selfishness.
(D.) Christianity and other Religions.
Their comparative study ; the Krishna myth ; the Horus
myth ; the uniqueness of Christianity. The objection
that religion depends on race and climate.
We propose in this chapter to consider some of the
remaining arguments for and against Christianity.
514

OTHER EVIDENCE. 515
Fortunately, there are only four of anything like
sufficient importance to appreciably affect the general
conclusion. These arise from the relation of Christi
anity to the Bible, to prayer, to human nature, and to
other religions ; and we will examine each in turn.
(A.) Christianity and the Bible.
Now it is only natural that a coUection of books
' like the Bible, treating of such a variety of subjects, and
scattered through so many centuries, should be liable
to much criticism on the one hand, and have much to
be said in its favour on the other. A good deal of the
evidence in its favour we have already considered, and
also several arguments against it. But there is still
one important and very common objection to be dis
cussed. It is that several slight mistakes and dis
crepancies exist in the Bible (which we have already
admitted in Chapters X. and XV.) ; and yet it is
essential for the Christian religion that the whole Book
should be strictly true, since its authors were verbally
inspired. But this latter point is disputed.
To prevent confusion, we must carefuUy distinguish
between Revelation and Inspiration. By the former is
meant, as said in Chapter VI., any superhuman know
ledge directly imparted by God to man ; and by the
latter, any superhuman guidance vouchsafed to man
in recording this or anything else. And if such
guidance extends to the very words used, thus securing
the writer against any mistake, however trivial, it is
called verbal inspiration. Is, then, such inspiration in
any way essential to Christianity ? Certainly not ;
for the Three Creeds do not say a word about inspira-
33—2

516 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxii".
tion from beginning to end, and even the writers of the
Bible themselves, though of course they claim divine
authority for their revelations and for their religious
teaching, do not claim to be verbaUy inspired.
Some texts, it is true, seem to imply this at first sight,
but none of them are reaUy conclusive. Perhaps the
strongest is where St. Paul says that he speaks ' not
in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the
Spirit teacheth.'1 And even here the inference is doubt
ful ; for in the previous chapter we find the word of the
cross, meaning the doctrine or teaching of the cross,
not the actual noun ; while just before St. Paul admits
that he is making a mistake, as he afterwards corrects
it ; and in another chapter he distinctly says that he
is speaking ' not after the Lord, but as in foolishness.'
And though this latter passage implies inspiration of
some kind elsewhere, it need not be verbal inspiration,
nor need it extend to secular subjects.
We conclude, then, that slight historical or other
errors in the Bible are no valid argument against
Christianity. The Book, like many others, may be
substantially true, without being infaUible. It is not,
of course, meant that the Bible is not inspired at aU.
The Church has always believed it to be so, and there
are strong reasons for this belief. But the question is
one for Christians only, it does not concern unbelievers
in Christianity, and is not essential to the religion or
to its proofs. If the Bible is as trustworthy a record
1 i Cor. 2. 13 ; 1. 18, 14-16 ; 2 Cor. 11. 17 ; see also Matt. 10. 19 ;
John 14. 26 ; Gal. 3. 16 ; Heb. 1. 5-12 ; 3. 7 ; 2 Tim. 3. 16 ; 2 Pet.
1. 21.

OTHER EVIDENCE. 517
of the facts it relates as any ordinary History of
England, that is sufficient, indeed far more than
sufiicient, to prove Christianity without any inspira
tion at all.
(B.) Christianity and Prayer.
We next come to the subject of Prayer. Now the
Christian, in common with most other religions, asserts
the value of prayer not only for obtaining what are
called spiritual blessings, but also as a means of influ
encing natural events. And yet prayer with such an
object is said by many to be scientifically incredible,
morally wrong, and practically useless. So we will
first glance at the universality of the custom, and then
consider these objections in turn.
Now, prayer of some kind is, and always has been,
the universal rule in almost every religion. It is
practically co-extensive with the human race. No one
can point to its inventor, no one can point to a time
when men did not pray. Missionaries have not to
teach savages to pray, but merely to Whom to pray. In
short, prayer of some kind seems universal, just as man's
moral sense of right and wrong is universal, though
of course each is capable of being trained and perfected.
And its intrinsic vitality is such that it has everywhere
stood its ground for thousands of years. Nor is it in
any way like an animal's cry of pain when hurt, which,
though universal, means nothing ; for this of course
resembles a man's cry of pain, and has no connection
with prayer whatever.
If, then, prayer is a delusion, it is a very remarkable
one, especially as in most ancient religions prayer was

5l8 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxii.
made to false gods who could not answer it ; and yet
in spite of every faUure, the belief in prayer has always
remained. Men have always preferred to think that
the failure was due to their own unworthiness, rather
than give up the belief in a God Who answers prayer.
And this universality of the custom is alone a strong
argument in its favour ; for it seems most unlikely
that God should have implanted in mankind a universal
habit of asking if He never intended to answer. We
pass on now to the objections.
(i.) Scientific objection.
In the first place, it is said that answers to prayer are
scientifically incredible, since they would involve God's
interfering with the course of nature, or, in popular
language, working miracles. The most probable ex
planation is, that they are only a particular class of
superhuman coincidences (see Chapter VII.). According
to this theory, God, knowing beforehand that the prayer
would be offered, arranged beforehand to answer it.
Thus the prayer was not a direct cause of the event
which fulfilled it, but it might still have been an in
direct cause. For had the man not prayed, God,
foreknowing this, might have arranged for the corre
sponding event not to have happened. Of course, at
the time when the prayer was offered, the event might
have been, and probably was, a natural consequence of
previous events, and so could not have been avoided
except by some special action on God's part. Yet, as
just shown, the prayer might stUl have been indirectly
the cause of its own fulfilment.
And the same argument applies even to the most

OTHER EVIDENCE.

519

extreme case, when the prayer is made after the event.
Suppose, for instance, a man heard of the loss of a ship
in which his son was travelling, and prayed for his
safety. That safety, as far as the shipwreck was con
cerned, must have been decided before the father
prayed. But yet, as everything was foreknown to God,
his subsequent prayer might not have been useless ;
since, if God. had not known that the father would have
prayed, He might not have brought about the son's
safety. Of course, it may be said that this is making the
cause come after the effect, and is therefore absurd.
No doubt it would be so if merely physical forces were
involved ; but when we are dealing with personal
beings, able to foresee and to act accordingly, there is
nothing impossible in a cause happening after what was
in a certain sense its effect. For instance, my going
for a holiday next week may be the cause of my
working hard this week ; though, strictly speaking, it
is my foreknowledge of the intended holiday, and some
action I took in consequence, that produced the effect.
So in the case before us. Strictly speaking, it is God's
foreknowledge that the prayer would be offered, and
some action He took in consequence, which produced
the effect ; but for all practical purposes this is the
same as if the prayer produced it. And therefore this
theory does not detract from the value and importance
of prayer any more than God's foreknowledge in other
respects makes human conduct of no importance. In
every case God foreknows the result, not in spite of, but
because He also foreknows, the man's conduct on which

520 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxii.
it depends. And of course if we admit what is called
God's Immanence in nature, and that everything that
occurs is due to the present and immediate action of
His Will (Chapter VII.), it greatly lessens any remaining
difficulty there may be in regard to prayer.
From this it is plain that answers to prayer may,
without losing their significance, be regarded as super
human coincidences ; and, if so, they do not involve
any interference with the ordinary course of nature,
and all scientific difficulties are at an end.
(2.) Moral objection.
Next as to the moral difficulties. Prayer, it is said,
is morally wrong, since it impugns each of the three
great attributes of God. It impugns His Power, by
implying that He is partially under the control of
men ; His Wisdom, by implying that He has to be
informed of what we want ; and His Goodness, by
implying, that He cannot be trusted to act- for the best
without our interference.
And first, as to God's Power. No one who prays
supposes that God is under the control of his prayers,
but merely that He may freely choose to be influenced
by them. Insignificant as man is in comparison
with his Maker, we have already shown that God
takes an interest in his welfare. And admitting this,
there is nothing improbable in His being influenced
by a man's prayer. Nor is this in any way trying to
persuade Him to change His Will, since everything
was foreknown to God ; and therefore the prayer,
with all it involved, may have been part of His Will
from all eternity.

OTHER EVIDENCE. 521
Secondly, as to God's Wisdom. No one who prays
supposes that prayer is for the information of God,
or for arousing His sympathy, but merely that it is
the way which He has Himself chosen for us to show
our trust in Him. Nor is there anything unlikely
in this ; for God is a Personal Being possessing Free
' Will, and therefore an appeal to this Free Will cannot
be thought unfitting. It shows our belief in His
Personality, and is a strong help to us in trying to
realise it.
Thirdly, as to God's Goodness. As a matter of fact,
God does not wait for us to pray to send most of His
blessings. The vast majority of them come without
our co-operation, but a few of them are said to be
conditional on our praying. And this is quite con
sistent with perfect goodness. Human analogy seems
decisive on the point. A father may know what his
child wants, may be quite willing to supply that want,
and may yet choose to wait tiU the child asks him.
And why ? Simply because supplying his wants is
not the whole object the father has in view. He also
wishes to train the child's character ; to teach him to
rely upon and trust his father, and to develop his con
fidence and gratitude. And all this would be obviously
unattainable if the father supplied his wants as a
machine would do ; in which case the child might
perhaps forget that his father was not a machine.
Now, for all we know, precisely the same may be
the case with regard to prayer. God may wish not
only to supply man's wants, but also to train and
develop his character. Indeed, as shown in Chapter V.,

522 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxii.
the existence of evil seems to force us to this very
conclusion. And if so, it is out of the question to say
that His not bestowing some blessings till they are
asked for is incompatible with perfect goodness. It
may be, and probably is, a very sign of that goodness.
For, as already said, God's goodness does not consist
of simple beneficence, but also of righteousness. And,
as a general rule, it certainly seems right that those
who believe in God and take the trouble to ask for
His blessings should be the ones to receive them. The
objection, then, that prayer is morally wrong cannot
be maintained from any point of view.
It is, however, only fair to add that a certain class
of prayers would be wrong. We have no right to pray
for miracles, e.g., for water to run uphill, or for a dead
man to come to life again ; though we have a right to
pray for any ordinary event, such as rain or recovery
from sickness. The reason for this distinction is
obvious. A miracle is, in popular language, something
contrary to the order of nature ; and as the order of
nature is merely the Will of Him who ordered nature,
it would be contrary to God's Will. And we cannot
ask God to act contrary to what we believe to be His
Will. Of course it may be said that to pray for rain when
otherwise it would not have rained really involves a
miracle, for it is asking God to interfere with the
ordinary course of nature. But here everything de
pends on the saving clause when otherwise it would not
have rained. If we knew this for certain, it would be
wrong to pray for rain : not knowing it for certain,

OTHER EVIDENCE. 523
it is not wrong. And as we do know for certain that
water will not run uphill without a miracle, it is always
wrong to pray for that. In the same way we may
pray for fruitful crops, because it is plainly God's
Will that mankind should be nourished ; but we may
not pray to be able to live without food, since this is
plainly not God's Will. Of course, in the Bible, miracles
were sometimes prayed for, but only by persons who
acted under Divine guidance ; and this affords no
argument for our doing so.
(3.) Practical Objection.
Lastly, it is said, even admitting that prayers might
be answered, yet we have abundant evidence that
they never are ; so that prayer at the present day
is useless. But there are some obvious difficulties
here ; for no one asserts that all prayers are answered.
Various conditions have to be fulfilled, many of which
apply equally to prayers to an earthly ruler. For
instance, a person must not only believe in God, but
also in His power and willingness to answer prayers ;
and the answer must be of such a kind that he may
legitimately pray for it. Moreover, he must be trying
to lead such a life as God wishes him to lead, and also
be honestly exerting himself to gain the required end ;
for prayer cannot be looked upon as a substitute for
work. And this prevents our deciding the question by
experiment, as is sometimes urged. Why not, it is
said, settle the question once for aU by a test case ?
But this is impossible, since in the vast majority of
cases we cannot say whether the above conditions are

524 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxii.
fulfilled or not ; and even if we could, it would still
be impracticable. For prayer is the earnest entreaty
that God would grant something we earnestly desire ;
and if used as an experiment, it ceases to be genuine
prayer altogether. And even an earthly ruler would
have too much self-respect to answer prayers made in
such a spirit.
But it is further urged that though we cannot decide
by experiment, we can by observation. But the facts
adduced can be explained on either theory. Suppose,
for instance, an epidemic breaks out, and prayer is at
once made that it may cease ; but instead of ceasing,
it continues for a week, and kills a hundred persons.
How do we know that but for the prayers it might
not have continued for a month, and killed a thou
sand persons ? And the same argument applies in other
cases. Against these various objections must be weighed
the fact that an immense number of men of many ages
and countries, and of undoubted intelligence and
integrity, have asserted that their prayers have been
answered ; and the cumulative value of this evidence
is very great. While of course, to those who possess
it, the conviction that certain events happened, not
accidentally, as we should say, but in answer to some
prayer, is absolutely convincing. It resembles in this
respect the conviction that a man's acts are determined
by his free wiU, and not of necessity.
Having now decided that there is nothing incredible
in prayers being answered, that they are not wrong,
while many of those who ought to know best assert

OTHER EVIDENCE. 525
that they are not useless, it is plain that no argument
against the Christian religion can' be sustained on this
subject. And that is the question we are considering.
We are not appealing to answers to prayer as having
any evidential value, which in the vast majority of
cases they have not, but merely showing that, accord
ing to both science and experience, the subject is an
open one.
(C.) Christianity and Human Nature.
The next subject we have to consider is a very im
portant one, the adaptation of Christianity to human
nature. To begin with, it is undeniable that Christi
anity appeals very strongly to some at least among
every class of men. The poor value it as much as the
rich, and the ignorant as much as the learned ; children
can partly understand it, and philosophers can do no
more. And this is not only the case at the present
time, but it has been so among all the changing con
ditions of society for eighteen centuries.
Now, when we inquire into the reason of this power
ful hold which Christianity has on so many men, we
find it is because it meets certain inherent cravings in
human nature. Some of these, such as man's belief
in prayer, and his sense of responsibility, are of course
satisfied by any form of Theism. So also is his idea
of justice, which requires virtue and vice to be suitably
rewarded hereafter, since they are not here. But man's
nature has many other cravings besides these; and
yet Christianity seems to satisfy it everywhere.
In the first place, it assures us of what we all wish
to know, that God takes an interest in us men. This

526 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxii.
is of course a truth of Natural Religion, but it is a
truth which the progress of science, especiaUy astro
nomy, makes it increasingly difficult to believe. There
are, as we have seen, several considerations which
lessen the difficulty (Chap. V.), but Christianity, if
once accepted, removes it altogether. For if the Ruler
of the Universe chose to become incarnate on this
planet, then all thought of our insignificance is at an
end. And when we contemplate the distant stars, we
are overwhelmed with a sense not of the littleness of
man, but of the greatness of the love of God, Who for
our sakes was pleased to become Man Himself.
And this also justifies us in regarding God as our
Father in heaven, Who cares for us, and watches over
us as an earthly father would do. Such a view of the
Deity may be called anthropomorphic, but it is the
only one that satisfies human nature. And Chris
tianity gives us the longed-for assurance that however
inadequate it may be, it cannot be wrong, since it is
the way in which God Himself wishes us to regard
Him. We will now consider four points in detail and select
Sorrow and Sin, Death and Eternity. The three first,
and possibly the fourth, aU have to be faced ; they
are the common heritage of all mankind. And while
Rationalism does not help us to face any of them,
and mere Theism leaves much in uncertainty, Chris
tianity meets the needs of mankind throughout, or at
all events far better than any other religion.
And first, as to Sorrow. It is indisputable that in
this life man has to bear a great deal of sorrow and

'm other evidence. 527
suffering ; and it is also indisputable that when in
sorrow he instinctively longs for someone who can both
sympathise with him and help him. An impersonal
God can of course, do neither ; indeed we might as
weU go for comfort to the force of gravity. And
though a personal God can help us, we do not feel
sure that He can sympathise with us. On the other
hand, fellow-men can sympathise, but they cannot
always help. In Christ alone we have a Being Who
seems to entirely satisfy human nature ; for being Man,
He can sympathise with all human sorrow, and being
God, He can alleviate it. So here Christianity sup
plies a universal want. Of course, the doctrine of the
Incarnation also satisfies mankind in other respects,
especially in presenting him with a worthy Object for
his affections, and with a perfect Example ; but these
points have been already touched upon in Chapter XIII.
And next, as to Sin. Here again the facts are prac
tically undisputed. Man's sense of sin is universal, so
also is his belief in the justice of God ; and therefore
in aU ages man has longed for some means oi pro
pitiating the Deity. The widespread custom of sacri
fice is a conclusive proof of this. It shows both man's
inherent sense of guilt and also his inherent sense of
the need of expiation. And yet, wherever Christianity
has been accepted, such sacrifices have been abandoned.
It is scarcely necessary to point out the reason for
this. The Christian doctrine of the Atonement entirely
satisfies these cravings of mankind. It admits the fact
of sin ; it provides a sufficient Sacrifice for sin, which
man could never provide of himself, and it thus assures

528 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxii.
him of complete forgiveness. And yet, as shown in
Chapter XIII., it does all this without in any way
minimising the guilt of sin, or allowing man to sin on
with impunity, but rather by magnifying it to an
extent which no other religion has done, since it shows
that it required an Infinite Sacrifice, that of God Him
self, to ensure its forgiveness. Moreover, Christianity
shows that sin is not a necessity in human nature ; for
it alone of all religions can point to One Who, though
tempted as we are, was yet without sin. And Chris
tians assert, and they surely ought to know best, that
this example of Christ is a strong help in enabling
them to resist sin.
Next, as to Death. Here again the facts are undis
puted. Few persons like to contemplate their own
death, while some even shrink from it in horror, and
yet it is the one event to which we may look forward
with certainty. But is there a life after death ? Most
men long for it, and most religions have tried to
satisfy this longing in one way or another, but only
with partial success. The higher nature of man revolts
against any mere material or sensual heaven such as
Mahomet imagined, a sort of continuation of the so-
called pleasures of this life without its pains. On the
other hand, a purely spiritual heaven does not satisfy
mankind either ; for a man longs to know that he will
be able to recognise again those whom he has loved on
earth. This is indeed one of our deepest, strongest,
and most universal longings (who is there that has not
felt it ?), and yet there must always be some doubt as
to recognising a disembodied spirit. And here again

OTHER EVIDENCE. 529
the Christian doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body
alone satisfies the cravings of mankind ; for all doubt
is now at an end. The risen body will define and
localise man's spirit then, just as the natural body does
now ; and though there will be a great change, it wUl
not prevent recognition. Even the Apostles, though
unprepared for it, and though themselves unaware of
what a risen body was like, were soon able to recognise
Christ after His Resurrection.
There is, of course, the well-known difficulty as to
the period of life of the risen body. A man, it is said,
would only be recognised by his grandfather, if he
remained a chUd ; and by his grandson, if he were an
old man. But the difficulty is not so great as it seems ;
for in this life a man who has not seen his son, since he
was a child, may not be able to recognise him in later
years, in the sense of knowing him at sight. But he
may be immensely pleased to meet him again, and live
near him, especially if in the meanwhile the son had
done well, and been a credit to his father. Moreover,
the risen body will show us, for the first time, what the
man really is, when all the accidental surroundings
with which he is now associated, such as wealth or
poverty, have been removed, and his character is at
length perfected. And perhaps we shall then see that
the various states in which he has lived here, as chUd,
boy, or man, were only imperfect approximations to
this, and that all that is good in any of them — the
affection of chUdhood, the activity of boyhood, and
the mature judgment of manhood — will be combined
in the risen body. 34

530 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxii.
And though it is somewhat tantalising not to know
more about the future life, very possibly the
reason why we are not told more is that we should be
unable to understand it if we were. Even in this
world it is doubtful if a savage or a young child could
understand the intellectual life of a civilised man,
however carefully it might be explained to him ; and
practically certain that an ape could not. And for all
we know our own future life may be as much beyond
our 'present understanding. It is the Great Surprise in
store for us all. But however much we may be changed,
our personal identity will still remain, / shall be I, and
you will be you, with much the same characters as we
have now. This is the important point, and of this we
may be quite certain.
And lastly, as to Eternity. Christianity, it is true,
can say little here, but that little is full of hope. It
opens up boundless possibilities, far more than any other
form of Theism. For by the Incarnation human nature
has been united" to the Divine, and thus raised to a
position second only to that of God Himself. No
destiny, then, that can be imagined is too great for
man. Created or evolved (it matters not which) in the
image of the Triune God, with a supernatural freedom
of choice, his nature united to God's by the Incarnation,
his sins forgiven through the Atonement, his body
purified and spiritualised at its Resurrection — surely
the end of all this cannot be any mere monotonous
existence, but rather one of ceaseless joy and activity.
'Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard ' what those joys are,
but doubtless they will be as far above anything we

i OTHER EVIDENCE. 531
can imagine as the life of a butterfly is above the
imagination of a chrysalis.
Now the conclusion to be drawn from all this is quite
plain. Christianity is so adapted to man's nature that
it probably came from the Author of man's nature ;
just as if a complicated key fits a complicated lock, it
was probably made by the locksmith. Or, to put the
same conclusion in other words, Christ satisfies the
whole nature of man because He is its Creator. And
considering that Christianity claims to be meant for all
mankind, and that the vast majority of men have
neither time nor ability to investigate its proofs, the
fact of its thus appealing direct to human nature is
certainly a strong argument in its favour ; though, like
all arguments which depend on a man's own feelings,
it is not well suited for controversy. Suffice it to say,
that many men, who are quite able to appreciate the
force of other arguments in favour of Christianity, such
as we have examined in this Essay, yet assert that to
them this is an even stronger proof.
But we must now consider an objection. It is, that
Christianity is really a selfish religion, looking only for
future rewards, and teaching men to follow virtue, not
for virtue's sake, but solely with a view to their own
advantage here or hereafter. But this is an entire
mistake, though a very common one. The Christian's
motive, jn trying to lead such a life as God wishes
him to lead, is simply love. He has, as already said,
an overwhelming sense of God's love to him. And
though, doubtless, leading a good life will bring
with it some future reward, yet this is not the true
34—2

532 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxii.
motive for leading it. Compare the case of a young
child trying to please his parents simply because he
loves them. It would be unjust to call this selfish
ness, though it may be quite true that the parents
would do much for the child later on in life, which they
would not have done had the child never shown them
any affection.
Or again to take another example, if a young man
puts aside a certain amount of his earnings for his old
age, when he will be unable to work, though he may
do this expressly for his own benefit, it is scarcely
selfishness. It would be better described as thrift,
and is worthy of all praise. So again, for a man to
strive to subdue his evil passions is certainly not
selfishness, though it is equally certain that it will be
to his own advantage. Selfishness is having regard to
one's own advantage at the expense of that of other
people. But any idea of this kind is quite inapplicable
to a Christian's striving after his own salvation. The
Great Ambition, as it is called, is one which all may
entertain, all may work for, and all may realise.
Still, it may be urged, is not the hope of future
reward meant to influence men at all ? No doubt it
is to some extent. But what then ? Hope, however
we may explain it, is a powerful fact in human nature,
and therefore Christianity, by partly appealing to this
motive, does but show how fully adapted it is to human
nature. It provides the highest motive of love for
those able to appreciate it ; the lower motive of hope
of future reward for the many who would not be
reached by the former ; and, it may be added, the stul

OTHER EVIDENCE. 533
lower motive of fear of future punishment for those
who could not be otherwise influenced. This objec
tion, then, as to selfishness is quite untenable.
(D). Christianity and other Religions.
We have lastly to consider the relation in which
Christianity stands to other religions ; and this is the
more important because an argument said to be
adverse to Christianity is derived from their comparative
study. In far more ancient religions, it is alleged, we
find similar doctrines to those of the Trinity, the
Incarnation, and the Atonement. These are, in fact,
mere revivals of doctrines once common in various
countries : and this is fatal to the claim of Christianity
to be the one and only true Religion.
But as to the doctrine of the Trinity, it is really
unique. Many other religions had three gods, a kind
of triad ; but this was merely a form of Polytheism.
And though these gods were often addressed indis
criminately by the same titles, there does not appear
to have been anything resembling the Christian idea
of the Triune God.
Next, as to the Incarnation. This is said to resemble
simUar doctrines of other ancient religions, more
especially the incarnation of Krishna, since in this case,
besides the main fact of Krishna being believed to be
an incarnation of the supreme god Vishnu, he is
recorded to have worked various miracles similar to
those of Christ, and to have claimed an equally abso
lute devotion from his followers. Most critics, how
ever, now place these legends some centuries later than
the Christian era ; and considering the early spread of

534 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxii.
Christianity in India, and the similarity in name be
tween Krishna and Christ, they may be only distorted
versions of the Gospel story.
But even were they earlier than Christianity, it
would still seem impossible for them to have influenced
it. Not only is there the geographical difficulty —
India being many hundreds of miles from Palestine
and with little communication between them — but
there is a stUl greater moral difficulty. For the
miracles and occasional lofty teaching of Krishna are
associated all along with a most immoral character.
In the Gospels, on the other hand, they occur among
suitable antecedents and suitable consequents ; they
form perfect parts of a perfect whole. A single example
will illustrate this difference. In the Purana, Krishna
is related to have healed a deformed woman, almost
identical with the story in Luke 13. But it is added
he made her beautiful as well as whole, and subse
quently spent the night with her in immorality. Few
will contend that this was the origin of the Gospel
story ; and it is but one instance out of many.1
Any resemblance, then, there may be between the
Incarnation of Krishna and that of Christ cannot be
due to Christianity having borrowed from the earlier
religion. A far better explanation is to be found in
the fact that man has almost always believed that God
takes an interest in his welfare. And this inherent
belief has naturaUy led him to imagine an incarnation,
since this was the most fitting method by which God
could make Himself known to man. And then this
1 Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xxi., p. 169.

OTHER EVIDENCE. 535
supposed incarnation was of course attended by various
miracles of healing, somewhat similar to those of Christ,
though often mixed up with immoral ideas, from which
the Christian doctrine is entirely free.
Lastly, as to the doctrine of the Atonement, especially
the mediatorial character of Christ. This also is said to
resemble far more ancient legends. Thus in Babylonia
there was the supreme god Ea and his son Merodach,
who was the mediator between God and man, and to
whom men offered their prayers, which he presented to
his father. But perhaps the most striking resemblance
is with the Horus myth of ancient Egypt.
Now, although this doctrine, like most others in the
Egyptian religion, is very confused, the leading idea
seems to have been that Horus was the only son of
the supreme god Osiris,, and came on earth long ago,
before the time of man. He was always looked upon
as the champion of right against wrong, and nothing
but lofty and noble actions are ascribed to him. With
regard to mankind, he became their deliverer and
justifier. The -soul after death was supposed to pass
through a sort of Purgatory, where various dangers
were overcome by the help of Horus, and finally, when
judged before Osiris, he interceded for the faithful
soul and ensured its salvation. And what makes the
resemblance to Christianity all the more striking are
the titles ascribed to Horus. Thus he is called the
Only Begotten Son of the Father, the Word of the Father,
the Justifier of the Righteous, the Eternal King, etc.
But the titles of Horus are almost infinite in number,
and very contradictory, and therefore, while some of

536 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxii.
them bear such a striking resemblance to those of
Christ, others do not ; while many of them are also
applied to the other gods.1
But still this does not affect the mediatorial character
of Horus, which undoubtedly bears a strong resem
blance to that of Christ. But what is the cause of
this similarity ? Not surely that the Christian doctrine
was founded on that of Horus. The whole origin of
Christianity negatives such a view. As in the previous
case, there is another and far better solution. For
what was the origin of the Egyptian doctrine itself ?
It was simply this. The ancient Egyptians were
deeply impressed with a sense of the justice of God ;
the immortality of man ; his responsibility, involving
a future judgment ; and his sinfulness, which naturally
led him to long for some mediator with the just Judge
he would have to face hereafter. Given these four
ideas — and they are all elementary principles of
Natural Theology — and Horus was merely an imaginary
being, whom the Egyptians invented to satisfy them.
And therefore, if these ideas are true and if Christianity
is the true religion which really does satisfy them,
that Horus should to some extent resemble Christ
was inevitable. Thus, the Horus myth only proves
how deeply rooted in the human mind is the idea of a
mediator between God and man.
Now what general conclusion can be drawn from all
this ? It is scarcely conceivable that the early Chris
tians founded their Religion upon a careful piecing
together of fables from India, Egypt, and elsewhere,
1 Transactions of Victoria Institute, vol. xii., p. 52.

OTHER EVIDENCE. 537
And it must be remembered, the doctrines of the
Incarnation and the Atonement were not slowly
evolved, but were essential features in Christianity
from the very first. They are both strongly empha
sised in the admittedly genuine Epistles of St. Paul.
These earlier fables, then, can only be looked upon as
accidental or designed foreshadowings of Christianity.
In the former case, they prove nothing either way ;
in the latter, they afford additional evidence in its
favour. Moreover, while admitting these resemblances, we
must not forget the uniqueness of Christianity. For it
alone of all religions seems to offer anything like an
adequate solution of the great problems of life, which
we glanced at near the end of the last chapter. And
these are questions which have always interested
mankind, and all religions have tried to solve them,
and yet the only solution worth considering is that of
Christianity. We have still one other objection to consider under
this head. It is said that religion, after all, is merely a
matter of race and climate, like the colour of one's skin ;
and that the most ardent advocate of Christianity,
had he been born in Arabia or Tibet, would be just as
convinced of Mahometanism or Buddhism. And there-
fore,'it is urged, all religions are equally true or false.
But the fallacy of this objection is obvious, for it applies
equally well to other subjects. Take astronomy, for
instance. A man living in Europe is convinced that
the earth goes round the sun ; but had he lived in
Tibet, he might be equally convinced that the sun goes

538 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxii.
round the earth ; and had he lived elsewhere, that the
sun was a living being which had to be worshipped.
But this does not show that all these theories are
equally true or false. The European astronomer is
convinced, and rightly so, that his theory is the only
true one, and confidently looks forward to the time
when it will be universally accepted . In the same way,
the Christian is convinced that his Religion is the only
true one, and, as shown in the last chapter, confidently
looks forward to the time when it will be the only one
recognised. Moreover, this objection does not account for the
founding of a religion at all. When Christianity was
first preached, it was not a matter of race and climate
for men to accept it ; and even now it is only partly
true. No doubt a man who has been brought up a
Christian does believe it at first because he is told to ;
but it is the same with regard to other kinds of know
ledge. In science, for instance, a man has often to
take its principles on trust to start with, and then, by
gradually applying them to various facts, he arrives
at an independent conviction of their truth. And
so in regard to Christianity. Its doctrines are first
received pn authority ; then comes the period of ex
perience, when they are found to explain the various
facts of life ; and lastly, the rational conviction. Take,
for example, the subject of prayer. Probably most
men who believe in the efficacy of prayer did so at first
because they were taught it. Then came the period
of experience, when they found that, as a matter of
fact, their prayers were answered ; and lastly, the

OTHER EVIDENCE. 539
rational conviction. And it is the same with other
subjects. This objection, then, is quite untenable.
On the whole, then, it is evident that the comparative
'study of religions, so far from being adverse to Chris
tianity, is distinctly in its favour ; for it shows, as
nothing but a comparative study could show, its
striking superiority. Human nature is always the
same, and in so far as other religions have satisfied
human nature, they have resembled Christianity ;
while, on the other hand, Christianity differs from them
in being free from their various absurdities and contra
dictions, as well as from their tendency to degenerate,
and having instead a moral character of admitted
excellence, and powerful evidence by which to establish
its actual truth. In short, other religions are human,
and therefore, as man is a mixture of good and evil,
they contain some good (what we now call Natural
Religion) and some evil. But Christianity is super
human, and therefore contains all the good they do,
with much more besides, and with none of their evU.
This completes a brief examination of the more
important additional arguments for and against
Christianity.

CHAPTER XXIII.
THAT THE THREE CREEDS ARE DEDUCIBLE FROM THE
NEW TESTAMENT.
Only three Doctrines can be disputed.
(A.) The Doctrine of the Trinity.
In addition to belief in God the Father, the New Testa
ment teaches —
(i.) The Divinity of Christ.
(2.) The Divinity of the Holy Spirit ; so there are
(3.) Three Divine Persons and yet but One God.
(B.) The Final State of the Wicked.
The only possible alternatives are :
(1.) Their endless misery: very strong texts in favour of
this ; its difficulties considered.
(2.) Their endless happiness : most improbable.
(3.) Their annihilation : not perhaps unlikely in some
cases. On the whole the statement of the Creed
seems fully justified.
(C.) The Importance of a Right Belief.
This is strongly insisted on in the warning clauses of the
Athanasian Creed.
(1.) Their meaning.
(2.) Their truthfulness : they merely repeat similar warn
ings in the New Testament.
(3.) The objection as to Dogmatism considered in detail.
We have now reached the last stage in our inquiry.
We have shown in the preceding chapters that there is
very strong evidence in favour of what may be called,
54°

THE THREE CREEDS. 54I
and what we have called in a general sense, Christianity
or the Christian Religion — i.e., the Religion founded by
Christ and taught in the New Testament. We have,
lastly, to inquire, is this Religion correctly summarised
in the doctrines and statements of the Three Creeds ?
We must, therefore, examine these doctrines again,
but from a totally different standpoint from that in
Chapter XIII. We then considered their antecedent
credibility ; but now, admitting this, and admitting
that the New Testament contains a revelation from
God, we have merely to see whether the Creeds are
fairly deducible from it.
And it is obvious that, while every precaution should
be taken to test the credentials of an alleged messenger
from God, we have often no sufficient data from which
to argue as to the contents of his message. The most
unlikely doctrines must therefore be at once accepted,
if we are satisfied that they were revealed by God.
And this greatly simplifies our present inquiry, for
most of the statements in the Creeds are merely copied
or abridged from the New Testament, and hence they
need not be discussed at all. There are, however, three
doctrines in the Athanasian Creed which are sometimes
said not to be contained in the New Testament. These
refer to the Trinity ; the Final State of the Wicked ;
and the importance of a Right Belief ; and we wUl
examine each in turn.
(A) The" Doctrine of the Trinity.
Now, although there are no statements in the New
Testament identical with those in the Creed, yet the
latter are merely logical deductions from the former.

542 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xxiii.
For the New Testament asserts that, besides God the
Father, there are two other Divine Persons, Christ and
the Holy Spirit, and yet but one God.
(i.) The Divinity of Christ.
This has already been discussed in Chapter XX.,
where we showed that Christ claimed to be not only
Superhuman, but Divine ; and that this is how all His
contemporaries, both friends and foes, understood Him.
And the doctrine is also frequently asserted by St. Paul,
and St. John, as well as being implied in some of the
Jewish prophecies concerning the Messiah (Chapter
XIX.), so that it is clear from the Bible that Christ was
truly God. It is none the less clear that He was truly
Man, for He suffered hunger, thirst, weariness, and even
death ; and at times His manhood is insisted on in
a way which might even be thought to conflict with
His Godhead.
For instance, He said, ' I go unto the Father ; for the
Father is greater than I '; and ' I ascend unto my
Father and your Father, and my God and your God.'1
But both these passages clearly refer to His human,
nature alone, for it was in His human nature alone that
He was ever absent from the Father. In His Divine
Nature He was of course Omnipresent, and therefore
already in heaven. Moreover, even here He carefully
distinguishes His own relationship to God from that of
His disciples. For though He teaches them to say our
Father, yet when including Himself with them, He
does not here or anywhere else say our Father, or our
God ; but always emphasises His own peculiar position.
1 John 14. 28 ; 20. 17.

THE THREE CREEDS. 543
While we may ask in regard to the first passage,
would anyone but God have thought it necessary
to explain that God the Father was greater than
Himself ?
Again St. Luke says that Christ advanced in wisdom,1
which might be thought to disprove His Divine Omni
science. But the context shows that this also refers to
His human nature alone, for we read ' He advanced in
wisdom and stature.' Moreover, even apart from the
context, if once we admit that Christ was both Divine
and human, we must of course refer any particular
statement to that nature to which it is applicable.
And this explains several difficult passages such as
that the Son (apparently the Son of God) does not
know the Day of Judgment, or that the Lord of Glory
was crucified ; or (conversely) that the Son of Man
came down from heaven.2 Such texts, then, do but
support the statement in the Creed, that while Christ
was equal to the Father in regard to His Godhead, He
was inferior to the Father in regard to His Manhood.
He was thus not a kind of intermediate Being, who was
partly Divine and partly human, but He was wholly
Divine and wholly human ; or, as the Creed says,
perfect God and perfect Man.
(2.) The Divinity of the Holy Spirit.
This also follows at once from the New Testament.
For the Holy Spirit is called by Divine names, such as
God and Lord ; he is given Divine attributes, such as
Eternity and Omniscience ; He is asserted to be the
source of Revelation ; He is identified with Jehovah,
1 Luke 2. 52. 2 Mark 13. 32 ; 1 Cor. 2. 8 ; John 3. 13.

544 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xxiii.
the Lord of Hosts, of the Old Testament ; and blas
phemy against Him is said to be the worst of aU
sins.1 And yet, on the other hand, it is equally clear that
He is a distinct Person : for, to quote a decisive text,2
Christ prays the Father to send His disciples another
Comforter when He goes away ; thus showing that the
Holy Spirit is a separate Person, both from the Father
and the Son. And the same is apparent from many
other passages, when carefully examined ; for personal
actions, such as teaching and guiding, are continually
ascribed to Him ; and the masculine pronoun is regu
larly used, ' He shall teach you all things,' etc. More-
• over, we are told that the Spirit makes intercession for
us, so He must be a different Person from the Father,
with Whom He intercedes ; and also that He dis
tributes certain gifts even as He will, so He must be
distinct from these spiritual blessings, which He is able
to distribute as He thinks fit.3 And though He is
sometimes spoken of as a Gift from God, yet as Christ
is spoken of in the same way, this cannot be held to.
disprove His Personality.4
No doubt the actual word Person is not applied to
the Holy Spirit, just as it is not applied to either the
Father or the Son, but it cannot be thought inappro-
1 Acts 5. 3, 4 ; 2 Cor. 3. 17 ; Heb. 9. 14 ; 1 Cor. 2. 10 ; Acts 1. 16 ;
28. 25 ; Isa. 6. 5-10 ; Mark 3. 29.
2 John 14. 16.
3 Rom. 8. 26 ; 1 Cor. 12. 11. The unfortunate addition of the
Filioque Clause to the Nicene Creed is a purely theological question,
and need not be considered here.
* Acts 2. 38 ; John 3. 16.

THE THREE CREEDS. 545
priate, since the relations between them closely re
semble those between human persons, as they love
one another, speak to one another, and apply to one
another the personal pronouns I, Thou, and He.
(3.) Three Divine Persons and yet but one God.
It is clear, then, from the New Testament, that the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all Persons,
and all Divine ; and yet its whole teaching is opposed
to Polytheism. On the contrary, the Unity of the
Godhead is at times asserted with the utmost clear
ness ; and that this is not done more frequently cannot
be wondered at when we remember that most of the
writers were Jews, to whom Monotheism was almost
an axiom. Now the only means of reconciling all this
is by the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity.
And this is plainly hinted at in the New Testament
itself, for the Three Persons are often closely associated
together, as for instance in the text just alluded to
(which is only one of a series),1 where Christ prays
the Father to give His disciples another Comforter.
Quite naturally, then, just before His Ascension, He
completed all this earlier teaching by finally, and for
ever, coupling the Three Persons together, when He
commanded that all Christians were to be baptized
into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost.2 And this alone is sufficient to prove the
doctrine, for it shows that there are Three distinct
Persons, and that each is divine, for who but God could
be thus associated with God ? While the expression into
the name and not names, implies a unity in this Trinity.
1 John 14. 16, 26; 15. 26; 16. 7. 2 Matt. 28. 19.
35

54^ THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xxiii.
But this is not all, for Christian converts must have
received some instruction as to Who these Persons
were, into whose Name they were going to be baptized.
And therefore belief in the Trinity was not merely a
doctrine of Christianity, but the doctrine of Christianity
from the very first ; the one (and as far as we know the
only) doctrine, which had to be preached to all con
verts before even they could be baptized.
And we happen to have indirect evidence from the
Acts, that this Trinitarian form was actually used.
A casual reader of the Book might think that belief in
the Lord (Jesus) was the only requisite for Baptism.
But we are told in one place that wrien St. Paul was at
Ephesus, he found some disciples who said they knew
nothing about the Holy Ghost. He at once asks in
astonishment, ' Into what then were ye baptized P'1
Obviously, then, the baptism to which St. Paul was
accustomed must have been into the name of the Holy
Ghost, as well as into the name of the Lord Jesus.
And as the Father's name could scarcely have been
omitted, we have each of the Three Persons ; and the
agreement (evidently undesigned) between this passage
and the Gospel is a strong argument in favour of the
accuracy of both. And yet immediately afterwards we
are told that they were baptized into the Name of the
Lord Jesus. In the same way the ' Teaching of the
Twelve ' once speaks of baptism as into the Name of
the Lord ; and twice as into the Name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.2 The former seems
to have been only a short way of describing Christian
1 Acts 19. 3. 2 Teaching, chaps, vii. and ix.

THE THREE CREEDS.

547

baptism, (in distinction to that of the Jews or of
St. John the Baptist,) while the latter represented the
actual words used.1
SimUarly St. Paul sometimes closes his Epistles with
the shorter form of blessing, The grace of the Lord
Jesus Christ be with you ; and once with the longer
form, The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love
of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost be with
you all.2 This latter passage, the authenticity of which
is undisputed, is of course extremely important, in fact
like the preceding one it is practically conclusive ;
for again we must ask, who but God could be thus
associated with God ? If Christ was a mere human
prophet, like Isaiah for instance ; and the Holy Spirit
a mere impersonal influence ; what strange language
it would be. Can we imagine anyone blessing his
converts with, The grace of Isaiah, the love of God,
and the fellowship of a holy influence ? God, it will
be noticed, being placed between the other two, so there
can be no ascending or descending scale, they must
all be equal. (Compare the way in which St. Paul so
often associates together the Father and Christ, some
times the one, and sometimes the other, being placed
first).3 And as St. Paul takes for granted that his readers
would understand his meaning, it implies that they
had had some previous Trinitarian teaching, which
must clearly have been given them by St. Paul him-
1 Comp. Acts 2. 38 ; 8. 16 ; 1 Cor. 10. 2.
2 1 Cor. 16. 23 ; Rom. 16. 20 ; Gal. 6. 18 ; 2 Cor. 13. 14.
3 E.g., 1 Thess. 3. 4 ; ^ Thess. 2. 16.
35—2

548 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xxiii.
self on his first visit. And at that early date (about
A.D. 49) such teaching could scarcely have originated
except from what Christ Himself had taught. This
passage, then, implies more than it says, and needs
explanation ; and as far as we know the former one
alone can explain it.
And of course the same is true, though to a lesser
degree, of numerous other Trinitarian passages, which
occur all through the Epistles, including the earliest
(1 Thess., about a.d. 49) 1 Nowhere do the writers
seem to be elaborating a doctrine, or to be explaining
anything new to their converts ; but rather to be
touching incidentally on a truth, with which all Chris
tians were of course familiar. Indeed, the very fact
of their never attempting to explain or defend the
doctrine, shows conclusively that it did not originate
with them. Persons do not preach a new doctrine
without a word of explanation or comment, and as if
everyone already believed it.
Thus, to put it shortly, according to the New Testa
ment, there are three distinct Persons ; each is God,
each is Lord,' each is Eternal, each is Omniscient, each
performs Divine acts, into the Name of each converts
are baptized, each is referred to in Blessing ; and yet
there is but One God. This is what the Bible says,
and the Creed says no more, though it says it in more
scientific language.
And if we like to come beyond the New Testament,
the earliest writer whose date is undisputed, Glement
1 E.g., 1 Cor. 12. 4-6 ; Eph. 3. 14-17 ; 4. 4-6 ; 1 Thess. 1. 3-5 ;
2 Thess. 2. 13-14 ; 1 Peter 1. 2 ; Jude 20-21.

THE THREE CREEDS. 549
of Rome, a.d. 96, uses these striking words in the con
cluding portion of his Epistle (only recovered in 1875),
As God liveth, and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the
Holy Ghost live ; and this certainly implies the Trini
tarian doctrine. And so do numerous passages in
Ignatius, a.d. no, such as that we are to be established
in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit ; and
that the Apostles were subject to Christ, and to the
Father and to the Spirit.1 While some years later
Justin shows that Baptism in the Triune Name was
then, and had been for a long time, in common use.2
And this is important as confirming the previous state
ment of the Teaching. And it is hard to see how
Christians, early in the second century, should not
only have used this form themselves, but have accepted
the statement in the Gospel, that it had been instituted
by Christ, if they had known that in the interval a
different one had been used by the Apostles. And yet
if it had been used, they must have known it ; for the
manner of admitting converts was not like some obscure
rite or doctrine, which concerned only a few, and might
be generally unknown ; but from the nature of the case
it must have been well known to all the early Christians,
most of whom were converts themselves. There can
thus be little doubt that the doctrine of the Trinity,
though perhaps in an undeveloped form, was the belief
of Christians from the very first.
(B.) The Final State of the Wicked.
We pass on now to what is perhaps (however we
regard it) the most difficult of all subjects, the final
1 Ignatius to Magnesians, ch. xiii. 2 Apol. 1. 61.

550 the truth of Christianity, chap. xxm.
state of the wicked. The Creed asserts that all men
are to rise again with their bodies, and be judged
according to their works ; and that then, they that have
done good shall go into life everlasting ; and they that
have done evil into everlasting fire. This latter expres
sion can scarcely be taken literally, since it is often
associated in the Bible with another — the worm that
dieth not — which can scarcely be literal ; and is said to
have been prepared for evil spirits who have no material
bodies. Moreover, the joys of heaven are also repre
sented by such terms as attending a wedding, feasting
with Abraham, and wearing crowns, which can scarcely
be literal. Probably we are at present unable to under
stand the realities in either case, and therefore figures
of some kind have to be employed ; and those suggestive
of gladness and happiness are of course chosen for the
one, and those suggestive of pain and woe for the
other. But the language certainly implies some form of
endless misery ; and as there are obvious difficulties
in accepting such a view, we must discuss the subject
at some length. It may be pointed out at starting
that we have only three theories to choose from ; for
unless the wicked are to be in a continual state of
change, which seems almost incredible (for a state of
change cannot go on for ever unless it is recurring)
they must finally : —
Exist for ever in misery = their endless misery ;
Exist for ever in happiness = their endless happiness ;
Or not exist for ever = their annihilation.

THE THREE CREEDS. 55l
(i.) Their endless misery.
And first as to their endless misery. It would be
difficult to exaggerate the strength of the texts in
favour of this. We are told that the wicked, or at all
events some of them, are to awake to shame and ever
lasting contempt ; that they are to be cast into the
eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels ; that
they are to go away into eternal punishment ; that they
are guilty of an eternal sin ; that their worm dieth not
and the fire is not quenched, and that they are to be
cast into the lake of fire, there to be tormented day and
night for ever and ever.1 The fourth of these texts is
perhaps the most important, since Christ uses the same
word for eternal punishment as for eternal life ; and
therefore, though the Greek word does not necessarUy
mean endless, it certainly seems to do so here. While
in Daniel the same Hebrew word is used for the ever-
lastingliie of the righteous, and the everlasting contempt
of the wicked ; which again shows that they must be
of equal duration.
Moreover the doctrine is implied in numerous other
passages all through the New Testament. For in
stance, to take the first Gospel, we read of the broad
way leading to destruction, with no hint that it
eventually joins the narrow way leading to life ; of
those who think they will be accepted at the last, but
wUl be sternly rejected ; of the disinherited children
cast into outer darkness, when others enter into heaven ;
of those whom Christ will deny before His Father ;
1 Dan. 12. 2 ; Matt. 18. 8 ; 25. 41, 46 ; Mark 3. 29 ; 9. 48 ; Rev.
14. 11 ; 20. 15.

552 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xxiii.
and of the wicked who at the end of the world are to
be cast into the furnace of fire, where there shall be
weeping and gnashing of teeth, so obviously the firei
will not destroy them (and cannot therefore be literal),'
while there is no hint that their weeping is to be only
temporary. We also read of the man whose condition was so
hopeless, that it would have been good for him not to
have been born ; and of the sin which . shall not be
forgiven neither in this world nor in that which is to
come, and an unforgiven sin implies the existence of
the sinner who is unforgiven, and therefore a sin which
is for ever unforgiven implies the existence of the
sinner for ever, and must for ever exclude him from
heaven.1 And as just said, similar teaching is found
all through the New Testament, so the Scriptural
doctrine on the subject seems about as clear as it
can be.
And yet everyone must admit that there are great
difficulties in accepting it. For the endless misery of
the wicked seems, at all events at first sight, to be
inconsistent with the great attributes of God, especially
His power, His justice, and His mercy, as well as with
the endless happiness of the righteous. So we will
consider these- points in turn.
The first objection refers to God's power. The
eternal existence of sinners against God means, it is
said, the never-ending conflict between good and evil ;
and this is most improbable. No doubt it seems so ;
but, after all, the real mystery is that evil should ever
1 Matt. 7. 13, 23 ; 8. 12 ; 10. 33 ; 13. 42, 50 ; 26. 24 ; 12. 31, 32.

THE THREE CREEDS. 553
have had a beginning, not that it should never have
an endi And if the free will of man or other beings is
able to account for the former, may it not account for
the latter also ? The final state of the wicked, we
must remember, is but one of a series of difficulties
connected with human freedom, and by no means the
greatest. That God could create a free man at all,
that He could foresee how he would use his freedom,
that He should allow him to use it wrongly, thus
involving himself and others in misery, and that this
misery should last for ever, are all to a great extent
beyond our comprehension. But if we admit the first
three, and they must be admitted, the last is certainly
not incredible.
The second and commonest objection refers to God's
justice. The suffering, it is said, would be out of all
proportion to the offence. Man's life is brief at the
most, and every sin in this world cannot deserve
countless years of misery in the next. In short, a
man's sin here must anyhow be finite, while endless
misery, however slight, would be infinite. But very
possibly, being sinners ourselves, we do not realise the
magnitude of sin, more especially its far-reaching and
permanent effect on the character of others, who in
their turn may influence others also, and so on in
definitely. In this way the consequences of sin may
really be endless, and therefore infinite, and if so its
guilt may be infinite too.
Moreover, it is a needless assumption that endless
misery is for a man's sins here only. Why may not
the wicked go on sinning eternally ? They must cer-

554 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xxiii.
tainly have the power of doing so, for the option of
acting, or at all events thinking right or wrong, seems
essential to free will ; and if we deny them their free
wUl, they are no longer men but mere machines. And
it even seems probable that they would do so ; for all
our experience of human character is that it tends to a
final permanence, of good or bad, which nothing can
alter. By doing good, men become good — evil gradu
ally- loses its influence over them. And then, when
their character is fixed, they wUl be incapable of being
attracted by evil ; and they will in consequence remain
(and this without any effort or struggle on their part)
for ever good, and therefore for ever happy. And
similarly with regard to the wicked. By committing
sin men become sinful, and when their character is
fixed they may remain for ever sinful, and therefore
for ever miserable. In each case the man's conduct
wUl be always free, but his character, and therefore
the use which he makes of his freedom, wUl have
become fixed.
Still, it may be said that to create men at all with
the possibility of such a future before them, and
depending on the short probation in this world, would
be an act of injustice. But then the possibUity of
endless happiness is also before them,- and also de
pending on the same short probation. And as men
are given free will, with the option of choosing one. or
the other, there is nothing unjust in the results being
so tremendous on either side. Anyhow, the fact of a
long future, depending on a very short period, is in
entire agreement with God's methods in nature, where,

/ THE THREE CREEDS. 555
for instance, the shape of a tree for centuries is fixed
during the short time it is growing.
Nor does the fact of God's foreknowledge as to how
each man wUl act alter the case or cause any injustice.
For, as said in Chapter II. , it does not interfere with
man's freedom. God merely foreknows the use man
will make of his freedom. And therefore His know
ing beforehand that a man will commit a murder does
not make it unjust to punish him for doing so. And
the same rule applies universally ; so that although
God foreknows that the wicked will be lost, they will
not be lost because God foreknows it. They will be
lost because of their own wilful abuse of their own
free will ; and God foreknows both this, and its conse
quences. The third objection refers to God's mercy. Surely.
it is said, God would never punish men unless there
were a chance of improving them. But in answer to
this we must remember that God's mercy is consistent
with a great deal of misery here, which is often un
deserved ; so why may it not be consistent with misery
hereafter, which by hypothesis will be deserved ? And
some future punishment for wicked men, who have
been prosperous in this life, seems required by our
sense of justice.
Moreover, the misery of the wicked may not be
inflicted at all like an arbitrary punishment, but may
be self-produced and come as a necessary result of
their own acts, being, in fact, the consequence rather
than the punishment of sin. And there is much to
be said in favour of this view, since it is the way in

556 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xxiii.
which God punishes men in this world. Suppose, for
instance, a man repeatedly gives way to drink, he will
have the natural punishment (which is really God's
punishment, Who is the Author of Nature) of becom
ing an habitual drunkard, and very possibly miserable
for the rest of his life. It is the necessary consequence
of his sin ; and the extent of his misery wUl, as a rule,
be in exact proportion to the extent of his sin. And
therefore, if a man is to suffer hereafter for other sins,
we should expect this suffering to come in the same
way, and to be the natural, and perhaps unavoidable,
consequence of the sin itself.
Nor is it difficult to suggest how this may be. For
the endless misery of the wicked may be to a great
extent remorse and regret at having made themselves
unfit to share in the joys of heaven. And until we
know the greatness of those joys, we cannot know the
greatness of this suffering. But it wUl certainly be
aggravated by the knowledge that it was the result of
their own deliberate choice of sin, after they had been
repeatedly warned of its necessary consequences. And
assuming that the joys of heaven are endless, and
that the existence of the wicked outside heaven is
also endless, this must plainly be an endless source of
misery. And the fact that it is the same Christ who
has taught us (more than anyone else) the mercy and
love of God, who has also taught us the endless misery
of the wicked, is an additional reason for thinking
that the two must really be compatible.
The fourth and last objection refers to man rather
than God. It is that the endless misery of the wicked

THE THREE CREEDS.

557

would destroy the happiness of the righteous ; for how
'could a man enjoy heaven if he knew that his own
father and mother were in endless and hopeless misery
elsewhere ? Of course, if we deny him his memory, and
say he does not remember them, it destroys his identity,
and he is to all intents -and purposes a different man.
I have not met with any satisfactory answer to this
difficulty. But it may be pointed out that memory is
never more than partial. No one remembers all the
friends he has met ; and possibly persons in heaven
may remember and recognise those they meet there,
without being troubled by the thought of absent ones.
And even if they should remember the others and know
their fate, they will certainly know their character also,
and that their fate was deserved. And this may alter
their feelings in regard to them, as it often does now,
if we find that one of our friends has behaved in a
mean and disgraceful manner. While, lastly, the joys
and activities of heaven may be so engrossing as not to
leave any time for useless regrets.
Reviewing aU these objections, it must be admitted
that the endless misery of the wicked seems improb
able, but it is certainly not incredible. For to put it
shortly, our knowledge of human nature convinces us
that, out of a large number of wicked men, some at
all events will continue to be wicked, i.e., to commit
sin as long as they live. Hence, if they live for ever,
they wUl sin for ever. And if they sin for ever, it is
not only just, but perhaps inevitable, that they should
be miserable for ever. And if so, the endless misery
of the wicked does not reflect on either the power,

558 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xxiii.
justice, or mercy of God, and, as said above, is cer
tainly not incredible.
(2). Their endless happiness.
We pass on now to the next theory, that of their
endless happiness. This is often called Universalism,
and means that, after some suitable punishment, all
the wicked will be finally reconciled to God, and in
popular language, go to. heaven. And there are
several texts which are more or less in favour of
this view.1 The strongest is perhaps where it is
said that God is the Saviour of all men, specially
of them that believe ; thus implying that He is also,
though in a lesser degree, the Saviour of those who do
not believe. But how are we to reconcUe these pas
sages with the far stronger texts before alluded to ?*
The most probable explanation is that they are merely
general statements, indicating the final destiny of the
vast majority of mankind, but that there are excep
tions to this as to most other rules. And the Creed,
it should be noticed, nowhere implies that most men
will be lost ; it may be only a few obstinate sinners.
Moreover, there is this further difficulty : what is to
become of the evU angels ? If we are to admit endless
misery for these, why not for man ? And yet the
Bible gives no hint that the Devil is to be eventually
reconcUed to God.
There is also another great difficulty, for we cannot
think that the wicked will be allowed to go on sinning
in heaven, so they must finally cease to commit sin.
Many wUl no doubt do this voluntarily, and their case
1 E.g., Col. 1. 20 ; 1 Tim. 4. 10 ; 1 John 2. 2 ; Rev. 5. 13.

THE THREE CREEDS. 559
presents little difficulty ; but what about the remainder?
If they must finally forsake sin, whether they like it or
not, it destroys their free wUl, and leads to compulsory
goodness, which is very like a contradiction in terms.
For goodness cannot be ascribed to mere machines
without free will, which only act under compulsion ;
and yet on this theory the men would be nothing
more. In fact, the wicked men would in reality have
been destroyed, and a good piece of mechanism created
instead ; and this scarcely seems a probable theory.
(3). Their annihilation.
Lastly, as to the other and only possible alternative,
the annihilation or final destruction of the wicked.
This may be more accurately described as their failure
to obtain everlasting life. Immortality is here regarded
not as the attribute of all men, but as being conditional
on a man's fulfilling certain duties and developing a
certain character in this life. And the wicked, not
having done this, will eventually be destroyed and
cease to exist. Numerous texts can be quoted in
favour of this theory.1 And it is also supported by the
analogy of nature : for if an organism or a species
is a failure, it eventually ceases to be. It is not kept
alive for ever as a disfigurement to the world.
This theory, no doubt, presents less moral difficulties
than either of the others, but it is not free from them.
For are the wicked to be punished after death previous
to their annihilation ? If they are not, justice is
not satisfied ; and while excessive punishment seems
a reflection on God's character, no punishment at all
1 E.g., John 6. 51 ; 17. 3 ; Rom. 6. 23 ; Matt. 10. 28.

560 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xxiii.
for prosperous sinners seems equally so. And yet, on
the other hand, any punishment which precedes an-
nihUation seems merely vindictive, and of no possible
use. Anyhow, this theory cannot be said to be so
probable as to render any other incredible. And of
the two other possible theories, the endless misery of
the wicked seems on the whole less difficult to believe
than their endless happiness ; whUe, as we have seen,
it is also the one most strongly supported by Scripture.
And therefore, the Athanasian Creed, in asserting this
doctrine seems fully justified.
One remark may however be made in conclusion,
and it brings a little comfort into this saddest of all
truths. It is that whatever doubt may exist as to
the future state of the wicked, of one thing we may
be quite sure — that their punishment wUl not be in
excess of what they deserve. They wUl be equitably
dealt with ; and every merciful allowance will be made
for circumstances, including the inherent weakness of
human nature. Christianity indeed seems to empha
sise this more than any other religion, since men are
to be judged -not by the Father, but by the Son;
apparently for the very reason that, being Man, He can
sympathise with human weakness.1 And after the
judgment, persons will enjoy heaven just in proportion
as their lives on earth have rendered them capable of
doing so, while the misery of the lost wiU also be in
exact proportion to what they deserve.
(C). The Importance of a Right Belief.
The last doctrine to be considered is that of the
1 John 5. 27.

THE THREE CREEDS. 561
importance of a Right Belief. This is strongly in
sisted on in the warning clauses of the Athanasian
Creed ; so we will first consider their meaning, then
their truthfulness, and lastly, the objection as to
dogmatism. (1.) The meaning of these clauses.
Before discussing this, it may be pointed out that
they are often called the damnatory or uncharitable
clauses ; but both these terms are somewhat mis
leading. For the Church does not condemn anyone
by these clauses, but merely declares that certain
persons will be condemned by God, which is a very
different thing. No one desires their condemnation,
but the contrary ; and therefore, believing the danger
to be a fact, it is stated in the hope that persons
may in consequence avoid it. An analogy may help
to illustrate this distinction. Suppose a despotic
ruler in some island were to put up a notice that
anyone walking along a certain part of the coast would
be arrested and shot ; this might well be called un
charitable. But now, suppose the notice was that,
owing to there being quicksands along that part of
the coast, anyone walking there would be drowned ;
this might be untrue, but it could scarcely be called
uncharitable. And similarly with the Athanasian
Creed. Its warnings (whether true or false) are in
no sense uncharitable. They are also quite different
from some of the Psalms (e.g., 109.), where the writer
does not merely state that the wicked will be miserable,
but prays that they may be so. This no doubt seems
uncharitable, but there is nothing like it in the Creed.
36

562 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xxiii.
What the Creed asserts is that holding (or retaining
hold of) the Catholic Faith, especially the doctrines
of the Trinity and the Incarnation, is necessary to
salvation (vv. 1, 28, 29, 42) ; and that those who do
not keep (or preserve) this Faith will -perish everlast
ingly (v. 2). This word keep, it should be noticed,
implies previous possession, since a man cannot keep
what he never had ; so the verse is obviously inapplic
able to heathens, infidels, or even nominal Christians,
who have never really held the Catholic Faith. " It
refers only to apostates — to those who, having once
held the Faith, do not keep it ; and all will admit that
the position of an apostate is not like that of another.
man. Moreover, there can be little doubt that the
apostasy. here referred to was not that due to intel
lectual doubt, but rather to giving way, under
persecution. For the Gothic conquerors of Southern
Europe, where the Creed was composed about the
fifth century, were all Arians, and they much perse
cuted the Catholics. And therefore a statement of
what the Catholic Faith really was (in opposition to
Arianism) might well contain warnings as to the
great danger of abandoning it under trial and persecu
tion.1 The exact meaning of to perish is no doubt much
disputed, both here, and in the similar passage in the
Gospel, where Christ says that all who believe on Him
shall not perish, but have eternal (or everlasting) life ;
which certainly implies that those who disbelieve, or
cease to believe, shall perish, and shall not have ever-
1 Bishop Dowden, Helps from History, 1897, p. 8.

THE THREE CREEDS. 563
lasting life, i.e., shall perish everlastingly.1 But what
ever Christ meant by these words, the Creed means
too, neither more nor less ; and they certainly need
not mean the same as going into everlasting fire, which
the Creed expressly limits to those who have done
evil. The words would be quite satisfied by annihila
tion, or even by a permanent failure to obtain the joys
of heaven, without actually ceasing to exist.
Combining these statements then, we arrive at the
following result : that holding the Catholic Faith and
living a good life are both necessary to salvation or
endless happiness in its fuUest sense ; that a bad life
leads to endless misery ; and that apostasy leads to
perishing everlastingly. But as to what will be the
fate of those who, though they have never held the
Faith, yet lead a good life, the Creed says nothing.
These, then, are the warning clauses ; and it need only
be added that it is nowhere implied that belief in
these clauses themselves is necessary to salvation, but
only belief in the great Christian Doctrines, such as the
Trinity, and the Incarnation.
(2.) The truthfulness of these clauses.
Having thus shown what the warning clauses actually
mean, we have next to consider whether they are true.
Now, it is plain from the nature of the case that man
can know nothing on such a subject, except what is
revealed by God. Is then this doctrine stated or
implied in the New Testament ? Certainly it is, since
belief in Christ is everywhere laid down as necessary to
salvation. He is not one Saviour among many, nor is
1 John 3. 16.
36—2

564 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xxiii.
Christianity one means among many of getting to
heaven. But Christianity is always represented as the
only means, and Christ as the only Saviour. We have
already alluded to one text on this subject ; and we
will now quote five others, each from a different
writer. We are told that while he that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved, he that disbelieveth shaU be
condemned ; that unless men believe in Christ they
shall die in their sins ; that His is the only Name
under heaven wherein men can be saved ; that public
confession of Him as Lord, together with belief in His
Resurrection, leads to salvation, and that His Blood
alone can redeem us from our sins.1
And the early Christians acted in entire accordance
with this. When, for instance, the gaoler at Philippi
asked St. Paul, What must I do to be saved ? the answer
was, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved.2
Repentance, baptism, and amendment of life, would
of course follow in due time, but first of all, before all
other things, it was necessary that he should believe in
Christ. This was the great essential.
Now it is obvious that the belief in Christ, which is
thus everywhere insisted on, must mean believing the
truth about Christ, and not -a false belief. If, then,
the statements in the Creed represent the truth about
Christ, as we have shown they do, then belief in these
is necessary to salvation. And the truth about Christ
must include His relationship to God the Father, i.e.,
the doctrine of the Trinity ; so that the warning clauses
1 Mark 16. 16 ; John 8. 24 ; Acts 4. 12 ; Rom. 10. 9 ; 1 Pet. 1. 19.
2 Acts 16. 31.

THE THREE CREEDS. 565
as to the importance of a right belief (including, we
may add the danger of apostasy),1 seem fully justified
by Scripture.
Four further remarks may be made before leaving
this subject. The first is that the Creed is addressed
to Christians only. This is clear not only from its
history, for it was composed solely for Christians, but
also from the opening sentence, Quicunque vult salvus
esse, which means literally, ' Whoever wishes to be
saved '; and this takes for granted that the persons
addressed have heard of salvation. It cannot there
fore be held to refer to any but Christians, no matter
how general the language may be. In the same way
a royal proclamation might contain the words every
man, but they would only refer to the king's own
subjects and not to foreigners.
As to what wUl be the future of heathen, and pre-
Christian races, the Creed says nothing, and we know
nothing. Many think that the joys of heaven will be
spiritual joys, of an altogether higher order than any
thing we can imagine ; and such as are only possible
for persons possessing a spiritual life, i.e., those who
have been born again in Theological language. And
that therefore persons without this life, such as the
heathen, cannot possibly share in these joys (i.e., can
not be saved in the fullest sense), just as an animal,
without an intellect, cannot share in intellectual joys.
But they may yet, if they have lived good lives accord
ing to their conscience, enjoy the fullest amount of
natural happiness, in what we may call a lower heaven,
1 Heb. 6. 4-6 ; 2 Pet. 2. 21.

566 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xxiii.
and without feeling any disappointment at not having
these higher spiritual joys. But this is only a con
jecture. Others take a more hopeful view, and think that
the Gospel will be preached to the heathen in the
Intermediate State between Death and Judgment, with
out, however, involving any fresh probation on their
part ; since, as far as we know, man's probation can
only take place when he is man, that is, when his spirit
and body are united together ; and we are specially
told that he is to be judged for things done in the
body.1 In the Intermediate State, he is not man, but
spirit only. And assuming, as is probable, that the
heathen have sufficient opportunities in this life for
testing their character, those who have done good wUl
of course accept the revelation of Christ when offered
to them and wUl thus be eventually in the same position
as Christians. But this again is only a conjecture.
Secondly, among Christians the Creed is intended
chiefly for theologians. This is plain from its technical
language, and it seems only fair to assume that chUdren
and unlearned persons belonging to a Church holding
these doctrines would be considered as believing them,
unless they actually disbelieved them. But though a
child's belief,2 which has nothing intellectual about it,
and is merely trust and love, may be sufficient for a
child, and for those with child-like intellects, some
thing more may reasonably be, expected from well-
instructed Christians. And this is that they should
believe these doctrines rightly (v. 29), though this is a
1 2 Cor. 5. 10. 2 Matt. 18. 6.

THE THREE CREEDS. 567
most unfortunate translation of the Latin word
fideliter, as it seems to connect it with the right faith
of the following verse. It would be better rendered
by faithfully, as it is in v. 42, or heartily. A heartfelt
belief in ,the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarna
tion — a belief which has no reservation in it, no
' perhaps ' about it — a belief which leads to worship,
for ' the Catholic Faith is that we worship one God ': —
is what the Creed says is so essential, rather than a
correct, or scientifically accurate one, though this
latter, this right faith (fides recta) is fully described
for the benefit of theologians, and to prevent a recur
rence of old and oft-refuted errors.
Thirdly, the statements in the Creed are only general
rules ; and here as elsewhere there may be exceptions
to such rules. Of course it may be said that these
ought to be hinted at in the Creed itself, and doubtless
many would prefer this being done. But strictly
speaking we have no right to make any exceptions to
God's rules, though God Himself can of course do so.
And therefore as the New Testament lays down that
belief in Christ is necessary to salvation, this must be
stated plainly ; though we may both hope and believe
that God will make exceptions wherever unbelief or
misbelief has not been due to a person's own fault.
Lastly, it seems certain that persons in heaven must
believe the truth about God. Indeed, we can scarcely
imagine their holdmg erroneous ideas on such a sub
ject. If, then, the statements in the Creed represent
the truth about God, and if persons who go to heaven
must believe the truth about God, it foUows as a

568 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xxiii.
logical necessity that no person can go to heaven who
does not believe these statements ; in other words, that
except a man believe the Catholic Faith he cannot be
saved. Our conclusion, then, as to the warning clauses
is this, that if the other statements in the Creed are true,
these clauses do not present any great difficulty,
(3.) The objection as to dogmatism.
An important objection has stUl to be considered.
It is that the Athanasian Creed dogmatises too much.
Granting, it is said, that all its doctrines are deducible
from the New Testament, yet why not be content with
the simpler statements in the Apostles' and Nicene
Creeds ? These were sufficient for the Church for
several centuries, so why not leave other matters open
for discussion, instead of treating them as closed ques
tions ? We will consider these four points in turn.
And first as to dogmatism. Christian dogmatism has
been well defined as devotion to truth for truth's sake ;
since what but a love of truth could induce men to
argue about such questions as the Filioque clause ?
And truth, it should be noticed, is necessarily exclu
sive. If I believe a certain statement to be true, it is
not uncharitable, but merely logical, to say that every
statement inconsistent with it is false. Now on every
other subject which influences our conduct, e.g.,
diseases, science, etc., it is admitted to be of great
importance that we should know the truth and act
accordingly. Why, then, should it be thought that
in Religion alone this is immaterial, and that a false
Creed is as good as the true one, if a man honestly
believes it ?

THE THREE CREEDS. 569
Moreover, a certain amount of dogmatism in matters
of Religion seems essential. No man can intelligently
serve or pray to a God of whose Nature he has formed
no conception, and the moment he begins to form such
a concepton he is beset by difficulties. Take for
example what some will consider the simplest possible
prayer, May God forgive my sins for Christ's sake.
Who, we may ask, is God ; who is Christ ; what is the
relation between them ; why should One be asked to
forgive for the sake of the Other ; and what would
happen if the sins were not forgiven ? Such difficulties
cannot be avoided ; and if the statements in the
Athanasian Creed are their true solution, the more
clearly this is stated the better, no matter how difficult
they may be.
In the next place, it is very doubtful whether the
earlier Creeds are simpler and more easy to believe than
the Athanasian. To a thoughtful reader it may well
seem otherwise. For example, referring to the Trinity,
the Apostles' Creed teaches us to believe in God the
Father, in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy
Ghost, but it does not attempt to answer the simplest
questions concerning them. Are they, for instance, all
three Persons ? if so, are they all three Divine ? and if
so, are they three Gods ? And the Nicene Creed is
even more puzzling, for it first asserts that there is one
God the Father, and soon afterwards it says that the
Son is also God. And so in regard to the Holy Spirit,
He is called the Lord, and yet it has been already stated
that there is only one Lord Jesus Christ. How can
all this be reconciled ?

570 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap, xxiii.
And much the same applies to the future state of
the wicked. The two earlier Creeds assert the resur
rection of the body, and the life everlasting ; and
assuming that both the good and the bad share in
the resurrection, do they both share in the life ever
lasting ? And if not, what is to become of the bad ?
These and many other questions are suggested by the
earlier Creeds, and answered by the Athanasian.
And to many it seems easier to believe the Creed
which answers difficulties, than those which merely
suggest them.
And it was for this very purpose of answering
difficulties, not making them, that the Athanasian
Creed was composed. Men would not accept the bare
statements of the earlier Creeds without explanation
or comment. They would have them explained, or
else would explain them for themselves. And it was
to prevent their doing this wrongly that the true
explanation was finaUy adopted by the Church. The
Creed, then, was not composed for the sake of assert
ing any new docrtines, still less as implying that those
previously received were not sufficient, but merely to
prevent them from being misunderstood. All the
doctrines, as we have seen, are contained in the New
Testament, and they were in consequence always
believed by Christians. But it was not tUl after
much controversy that men learnt to express this
belief with scientific clearness and precision.
And lastly, as to these doctrines being closed ques
tions. They are closed questions in much the same
way as the Copernican theory in astronomy is- a

THE THREE CREEDS. 571
closed question. That is to say, they have been
thoroughly discussed, and (to those who believe the
New Testament) the evidence in their favour is over
whelming. Of course anyone may go over the proofs
again for himself, and if he wants to have an intelligent
belief he should do so ; but as a rule of conduct the
subject cannot be re-opened.
And it should be noticed that the Church, in thus
treating certain questions as closed for its members,
is only acting as other societies would do. Would a
society of engineers, for instance, allow one of their
members to construct an iron bridge on the supposi
tion that the expansion of iron by heat was an open
question, which he might, or might not, think worth
allowing for ? Or would a society of doctors allow
one of their members to attend patients if he asserted
that whether scarlet fever was infectious or not was
an open question, which each patient might decide for
himself ? In short, well-ascertained truth, or what is
believed to be such, in every department of knowledge
is looked upon as a closed question ; and it must remain
so, unless some important fresh evidence is produced.
But with regard to the Creeds, no fresh evidence can
be produced, unless God were to give a fresh Revela
tion. And, therefore, from the nature of the case they
are closed questions in an even stricter sense than
ascertained truths on other subjects.
This concludes a brief examination of the doctrines
contained in the Three Creeds, and all of them are
either contained in, or logically deducible from, the
New Testament.

CHAPTER XXIV.
THAT THEREFORE THE TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN
RELIGION IS EXTREMELY PROBABLE.
(A.) The Evidences of Christianity.
One remaining objection, why are there so many difficulties,
and no more obvious proof ? considered in detail.
(B.) Summary and Conclusion.
We have now examined all the more important argu
ments for and against the truth of Christianity. Many
of them, as we have seen, are of great complexity, and
we have often been obliged to consider a few examples
only of various classes of facts ; but it is hoped that
no important argument on either side has been entirely
overlooked. One remaining objection has still to be
considered. (A) The Evidences of Christianity.
Does not, it is urged, this very fact of itself form a
difficulty ? Can an ordinary man be expected to
ponder over arguments, objections, and counter-argu
ments by the dozen, even supposing the balance of
probability to be in favour of the Religion ? Surely, if
Christianity were true, and God wished men to believe
it, there would not be so many difficulties. He would
have provided an easier way of proving it than this ;
572

TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 573
or, at all events, if this elaborate argument were gone
into, the inference in its favour would be simply over
whelming. This is a difficulty felt perhaps by some
who have read the present Essay ; fortunately it can
be answered satisfactorily.
And first, as to there being so many difficulties.
Several of these are simply due to the evidence in
favour of Christianity being so strong. If, for example,
we had only one Gospel instead of four, the difficulties
caused by the discrepancies between them would dis
appear, but the argument in favour of Christianity
would not be strengthened in consequence. But still
putting aside these, it must be admitted that there are
many difficulties connected with the Religion.
But what is the cause of this ? It is the very magni
tude of the Christian Religion which opens the way for
so many attacks. A religion which claims to be the
only true one in the world ; to have been founded by
God Himself ; to have been prepared for by prophecies
and introduced by miracles ; to be the pivot on which
history turns — all previous history leading up to it, and
aU subsequent history being moulded by it ; to be suit
able for all ages and countries ; to hold the key to all
mental and moral problems ; to be man's guide and
comfort in this life, and his only hope for the next ; —
such a religion must be assailable at a great many
points. But provided all these assaults can be repelled,
provided this long frontier-line, so to speak, can be
properly defended, it does not show the weakness of
the religion ; on the contrary, it shows its enormous
strength. A religion which made less claims would, no

574 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxiv.
doubt have less difficulties ; but it would be less likely
to be the true one. If God became Incarnate, no claims
can be too vast for the Religion He founded. And to
many this ineffable greatness of Christianity, so far from
being a difficulty, constitutes one of its greatest charms.
And next, as to there being no easier means of proof.
It is a simple matter of fact that the vast majority of
men, both educated and uneducated, who believe in
Christianity, have not arrived at this belief through a
long line of reasoning, such as is summarised in this
Essay. They assert that there is an easier road to it."
They say that God has given them a faculty of Faith,
which, though it may be hard to explain, just as
man's free will is hard to explain, does give them
the most perfect conviction of the truth of Christianity.
And starting with this inward conviction, it is con
firmed, they, say, by their daily experience just as a
man's belief in his free will is confirmed by his daily
experience ; though doubtless the actual facts of life
may be otherwise explained in each case. Of course,
this appeal to faith is no argument to those who do not
possess it. On the other hand, to those who do possess
it, no arguments can appreciably weaken or strengthen
it. It is a thing sui generis, and absolutely convincing.
It may be pointed out, however, that if man is a
partly spiritual as well as a partly material being,
which we have already admitted, the existence of some
spiritual sense or faculty by which to appreciate
spiritual truths, just as the body has material senses
by which to appreciate material objects, is not on prima
facie grounds incredible. And this is what faith claims

TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 575
to be ; it is a means of spiritual discernment, and may
be compared to eyesight. It does not enable us to
believe what we might otherwise think to be untrue ;
but it enables us to know for certain, what we might
otherwise think to be only probable (e.g., the existence
of God). In the same way a blind man might, by
feeling, think it probable that there were a certain
number of pictures in a room, but could he see he would
know for certain. And just as a man, who had always
been blind, ought not to reject the testimony of those
who see, so a man who has no faith ought not to reject
the testimony of those who have.
Still, it may be asked, why should some persons be
given this faculty of faith, while others are not ? The
subject is no doubt a difficult one, but it is only part of
a more general difficulty : why should any of God's
blessing be unequally distributed in this world ? And
yet they are. Doubtless if we knew more about man's
future destiny we should see there was no real injustice
in either case. But the subject need not be further
considered here, since, as said above, no arguments can
prove or disprove Christianity to those who believe by
faith. But now comes the most important part of the objec
tion. Granting, it is said, that the subject is necessarily
a difficult one, and demands a long investigation, yet
when we do go through the arguments on both sides,
the conclusion is not irresistible. In short, why are not
the evidences in favour of Christianity stronger? Of
course they might be so, but we have no reason for
thinking they would be. In our ordinary daily life we

576 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxiv.
have never absolute certainty to guide us, but only
various degrees of probability. Moreover, in Natural
Theology the reasons for believing in a Personal God
and the responsibility of man, though to most persons
quite convincing, are certainly not irresistible, since, as
a matter of fact, some men resist them. And if God
intends us to act upon such evidence in common life,
and also with regard to the great truths of Natural
Theology, why should He not do the same with regard
to Christianity ? He seems, if we may use the word,
to respect man's momentous attribute of free wUl even
in matters of Religion ; and therefore in His sight a
right belief, like right conduct, may be of no value un
less it is more or less voluntary. It is to be a virtue,
rather than a necessity. And this fully accounts for
the evidences of Christianity not being overwhelming.
They are amply sufficient to -justify conviction ; but
they are not, and were probably never meant to be,
sufficient to compel it.
If, however — and this is a matter of practical impor
tance — they are strong enough to show that the Re
ligion is probably true, a man who admits this is obvi
ously bound to accept it. He cannot adopt a neutral
attitude, because the evidence is not demonstrative;
for, as we have said, in every other subject probabUity,
not certainty, is the guide of life ; and why should
religion alone be different ? And then, if he accepts
it, he is obviously bound to try and live accordingly,
no matter what the sacrifice may be ; for Christianity,
if it is worth anything, is worth everything. Such
tremendous truths cannot be half acted on if believed,

TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 577
any more than they can be half believed ; it must be a
case of all for all.
Lastly, it may be pointed out that though perhaps
the evidences of Christianity are not so strong as we
should expect, they are of precisely such a kind as
we should expect. It was prepared for by prophecy ;
introduced by miracles ; has influenced the world ever
since ; and in addition to all external evidences, strongly
appeals to human nature. On the other hand, the
Christian doctrines are not what we should have antici
pated. Thus the former are level with man's under
standing, whUe the latter are far above it. And this
would be only natural if Christianity were a revelation
from God. Its doctrines would be above human reason ;
its evidences would appeal to human reason.
And as we should also expect, its evidences exhibit
each of the three great attributes of the Deity. His
Omnipotence is shown in the miracles, His Omniscience
in the prophecies, and His perfect Goodness in the
Character of Christ ; so that, judged by its evidences,
this Religion is one which might very reasonably have
come from the God Who is AU-Powerful, All- Wise, and
All-Good.
(B.) Summary and Conclusion.
It now only remains to give a summary of the
previous chapters, and then point out the final choice
of difficulties.
In Chapter XIII. we considered the credibility of the
Christian Religion, and decided that some of its leading
doctrines, especially those referring to the Incarnation
and the Atonement, seemed to be most improbable. 37

578 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxiv.
This is what may be called the philosophical objection
to Christian tiy. All that can be said on the other side
is practically this, that we have no adequate means of
judging ; and that when we apply similar reasoning to
subjects about which we do know, such as the freedom
of man or the existence of evil, it generally leads us
wrong. But still the fact remains that the Religion
appears most improbable.
In Chapter XIV. we considered the external testimony
to the Four Gospels, and decided that there was ex
tremely strong testimony in favour of their authen
ticity. At the close of the second century they held
the same place among Christians as they do at present ;
during the middle of that century Justin shows that
they were publicly read, together with the Old Testa
ment Scriptures ; while the few earlier writers whose
works have come down to us, also seem to have known
them. In Chapter XV. we considered their internal evidence
and found that it strongly supported the above con
clusion ; so that combining the two, we have an almost
overwhelming argument in favour of -their genuineness.
In Chapter XVI. we considered a collateral argument
of great importance, derived from the Acts of the
Apostles. There are strong reasons for fixing the date
of this book at a.d. 60 ; and if so it proves a stUl
earlier date for the first three Gospels.
In Chapter XVII. we considered the evidence derived
from the Gospels, and the undisputed Epistles of St.
Paul, to the Resurrection of Christ, and we decided that
it had every appearance of being thoroughly trust-

TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 579
worthy. The narratives themselves seemed to be
simply and candidly written. And the testimony of
the witnesses was then subjected to the most minute
and searching inquiry, their Veracity, Knowledge,
Investigation, and Reasoning being separately con
sidered ; and each was found to be supported by what
seemed to be irresistible evidence. So we must either
accept this evidence or dispute it, in defiance of all the
rules of probabUity, and solely because of the miraculous
nature of the event vouched for.
In Chapter XVIII. we considered the other New
Testament Miracles, and came to the conclusion that
they also were probably true. Indeed, from their
alleged publicity, together with the fact that their
occurrence was, as far as we know, never disputed at
the time, either by Jews or heathens, the evidence in
their favour is extremely strong.
In Chapter XIX. we considered the argument from
Prophecy ; and discussed in detail the great Passion
Prophecy of Isaiah, and the Psalm of the Crucifixion,
and then briefly alluded to several others. And we
pointed out how completely these prophecies were one
and all fulfilled in the Christ of the Gospels, and how
utterly impossible it was to find any other fulfilment
of them. So here again the choice lies between accept
ing these prophecies, or disputing them simply because
they are prophecies. In other words, we must face the
phUosophical difficulty of believing in Divine Fore
knowledge, or else what we may call the mental diffi
culty of believing that all these coincidences were due
to chance. 37-2

580 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxiv.
In Chapter XX. we considered the Character of
Christ, and found that this also afforded strong evi
dence in favour of Christianity. For the admitted
excellence of Christ's moral character seems quite in
consistent with deliberate falsehood on His part. And
yet He kept asserting His superhuman and Divine
Nature with the utmost emphasis, and was finally put
to death in consequence. Here, then, once more we
have the same choice before us ; we must either face
the philosophical difficulty of believing in Christ's
Divinity, or else the moral difficulty of believing that
the best moral teaching the world has ever had was
the outcome of a life saturated with falsehood and
presumption. In Chapter XXI. we considered the History of
Christianity, and found that its marvellous progress at
first, in spite of its enormous difficulties, and without
the use of any force, could only be accounted for by its
truth. So here for the last time we have the same
alternatives to choose from. We must either face the
phUosophical difficulty of believing in the supernatural
origin and spread of Christianity, or else the historical
difficulty of believing that its first preachers were able
to convince men without evidence, conquer them with
out force, and found the greatest kingdom the world
has ever seen on claims which at the time everyone
must have known to be untrue.
In Chapter XXII. we considered the other evidence
on the subject, and glanced at various arguments for
and against Christianity, such as its connection with
the Bible and with prayer, its adaptation to human

TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 581
nature, and its relation to other religions ; but all of
comparative unimportance.
Lastly, in Chapter XXIII. we decided that the Three
Creeds are deducible from the New Testament ; so that
the religion which has all this evidence in its favour is
the Christian Religion as here defined.
From the above summary it will be seen that there
is only one important argument against Christianity,
and this is the antecedent or philosophical one. The
Religion itself, its doctrines, its claims, its miraculous
origin, all seem most improbable. Thus the objections
to Christianity all lie on the surface. They are obvious
and palpable to everyone. They are admittedly great,
but they wUl not become greater, and may become less
as time goes on ; for the whole tendency of modern
science is to decrease the value of a priori reasoning, on
which alone these difficulties are founded.
On the other hand, the arguments in its favour have
often to be sought for ; but when found they are seen
to be stronger and stronger the more they are ex
amined. There are four main arguments. These are
of a widely different character, and each appeals most
strongly to a certain class of minds, so each is often
spoken of as the chief argument for Christianity, but
they are probably of equal value. They may be con
veniently called the argument from Miracles, includ
ing of course the Resurrection of Christ, from Prophecy,
from Christ's Character, and from History. And it will
be noticed they mutually support one another.
Miracles, for instance, are less difficult to believe
when it is seen that they were to inaugurate a religion

582 THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY. chap. xxiv.
which has for centuries exercised a greater influence
on mankind than anything else ; and prophecies
become stronger when it is seen that the Life foretold
was one that had such supreme and far-reaching effects.
Now, it is important to remember that the actual
facts on which these arguments rest are in each case
absolutely unique. Once, and only once in the history
of the world, have men appeared who asserted that
they were actual witnesses of miracles, and who faced
all forms of suffering and death solely in consequence
of this. Again, once, and only once in the history of
the world, has a long series of prophecies, uttered many
centuries apart, united in a single Person, in whom
they one and all find a complete fulfilment. Yet
again, once, and only once in the history of the world,
has a Man appeared of faultless moral character, who
asserted that He was also God, and who boldly claimed
all that this stupendous assertion involved, and sub
mitted to the consequences. While, lastly, once, and
only once in the history of the world, has a Religion,
most improbable in itself, and without using any force,
succeeded in conquering nation after nation.
These, then, are the four chief arguments on the
subject, and in every case we have the same choice
before us. We must either face the philosophical
difficulties in accepting Christianity, or the mental,
moral and historical difficulties in rejecting it. There
is no neutral ground, no possibUity of avoiding both
sets of difficulties. But the difficulties on the one side
concern what we do not know — God's purpose in
creating man — and may be due to our ignorance only.

TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 583
The difficulties on the other side concern what we do
know. They are practical, they are derived from
experience. We do know that men will not lay down
their lives for what they believe to be false, and that
the first preachers of Christianity must have known
whether it was false or not. We do know that pro
phecies uttered at random through centuries would
not all unite in a single Person. We do know that
even moderately good men do not make extravagant
claims. And we do know that no natural causes can
account for such a religion as Christianity obtaining
such a triumph as it did.
The choice, then, seems to lie between what we may
call unknown difficulties and known ones. The un
known difficulty of believing that the Infinite God
could so love man as to humble Himself even to death
to win man's love ; and the known difficulty of be
lieving that evidence so vast and so various, so cumu
lative and so apparently irresistible, could all unite in
making a monstrous falsehood appear to be a momen
tous truth. Between these two sets of difficulties we
have to make our choice. But to those who agree with
the previous chapters of this Essay the choice cannot
be doubtful. For here, as with Theism, our beliefs
. must foUow the line of least resistance ; and, as we
have shown, however hard it is to believe Christianity,
it is harder stUl to disbelieve it. This, then, is our
final conclusion, that the truth of the Christian religion
is extremely probable, because, to put it shortly, though
the difficulties of accepting Christianity are great, the
difficulties of rejecting it are far greater-

INDEX OF TEXTS.

Genesis.

A.

i

,,

24 .

„

26 .

2.

,,

4 •

3.

22

4.

15-17

6.

2, 4 ¦

7.

21

7-8

9.

13 •

11.

7 •

12.

3

,,

6

13.

7

14.

22 .
18.
25 •
21.
33 •
22.
?)
18 '.
23.
2, 19
25.
18 .
26.
4 ¦
28.
14 .
33.
18 .
35.
6 .
36.
29-43
,,
31-39
37.
7 •
39.
9 •
41.
43.
27-28
,,
32 .
46.
34 •
48.
3 •
26
133
246 152
468 153141
468 154154
152185 145
468 237 186
186186
246248246
242445 163164
445
445 163163186186165
248
162, 467 164161161163
584
PAGE
PAGE
49.
30 .
163
34.
20 .
242
50.
3
l6l
,,
27 .
1(50
36-39.
172
Exodus.
1.
ii, 14
197
Leviticus.
2.
3
171
4.
12
I,80
,,
12
193
6.
2
465
3.
14 . 246
480
,,
¦ 11
ISO
5.
7, 12
I64
7.
38 .
174
12 .
197
11.
I78
,,
23 •
193
,,
29 .
152
7.
11, 17
214
13.
46 .
180
,,
14-25
184
14.
3
180
,,
19 .
I65
,,
34
180
8.
2, 7, 18, 19
214
16.
1
174
,,
15. 32
242
,,
14, 19
452
,,
26 .
166
M
26 .
180
9.
34 •
242
17.
i-7 •
I78
10.
3
242
,,
3
180
12.
1
174
18-20.
244
,,
12 .
166
18.
20 .
465
,,
25 •
180
,,
20-25
242
,,
37 •
195
,,
28 .
241
13.
11
180
19.
11, 15, 17.
464
,,
13 ¦
242
,,
23 •
ISO
14.
4
242
23.
10 .
180
,,
21, 22
194
24.
15 •
174
,,
30 .
195
,,
16 .
487
16.
36 .
186
tl
19 ¦
464
17.
14 •
160
25.
1
174
20.
24 .
190
2
180
21.
2, 16
244
,,
13 ¦
173
22.
29. 3°
242
,,
14. 15. 17-
464
23.
9
I69
,,
41 .
244
24.
4
l60
26.
33
223
25.
I-IO
I69
,,
46 .
174
25-28.
172
27.
28, 29
242
29.
14 .
180
,,
34 ¦
174
INDEX OF TEXTS.

385

Numbers

2.

5.9.
11.15.
16.17.18. 19.
21.23.26.27. 33.

35.

1
21
47-4. 49
10, 17
33 •
14 .
29 .
2 1 10 .
5 •
2, 18
35 •
2 15 •
3. 14
14 .
19 ¦
11

2
4 50
1 1-810

36. 8

195174195172
202 173174
202 180 174
174168 180
174
202, 214 167
242
. 180
. 186
. 246
¦ 195
. 203
¦ 174
• 173160
166
• 174174
¦ 174
. 180
• 174

Deuteronomy.

337 ¦
10-12
20-23
8, 20, 25
H ¦
23-261. 5. H
3-15
21
27 39
4633i 1, ii
5
9

174192
1871S7183
187192180'75
192
223245 174i/5
180180
248 168

10.11.

12.

13.14.17.18.

20.21.24.
25.26.27.28.

29.31.
32.33.33,

22 13-4 1519
17-10
5
82 2-7
68, 23
10-12
20 30 .
1, 10, 29
5 21, 22
31

i-3
14
1-8
9 22 i/
22
239, 18
16
171
2 i-7

449

25-64 37, 46, 48
60 .
1
2-9 •
29, 22, 24
827 •
34. .
Joshua.
7, 8, 13
14-17

PAGE II7
180192I69117180
170
241 I78
117 175
20S 180 I7C)168
183180
190 I78
242
2152 3.2
I78 180
177 180
232 192
460484 175
192175
180168168191
224 223
223 169
174 175
192160
238246 I87

l8S
214

6.

6-20

PAGE 214

9.

I, IO

¦ 183

10.

12-14

. 2IO

,,

26

. 46O

12.

7

183

24.

26 .
Judges.

188

6.

15 •

196

,,

26

191

11.

39 •

242

18.

3i ¦

188

20.

27, 28

188

21.

19
I. Samuei

188

1.

3. 24

188

2.

12-30

188

3.

3

188

4.

4

188

6.

15 •

188

,,

19

205

12.

6

149

15.

22 .

I89

25.

16 .

194

II. Samuel.

4.

12

46O

7.

12-17

228

10.

5

l62

11.

24

459

12.

9 I. Kings.

459

2.

3

189

3.

2

190

8.

27 •

246

9.

4, 5 •

228

11.

2

192

, ,

3°. 40

229

12.

24 .

229

13.

2

229

14.

15 .

229

17.

21

423

18.

17-40

214

,,

27

245

20.

3° •

205

22.

43 ¦

190

586

INDEX OF TEXTS.

II. Kings

PAGE

Psalms.

PAGE

40.

28 .

TAGE 247

2.

22 .

213

8.

3. 4 ¦

73

..

3

483
4.
6 .
213
22.
457
41.
8
454
5.
10-27
214
22.
27 .
251
"
22
232
6.
13.
621
213213
78.86.
9
167
251
42.
44.
1-6 .
6 8
455
484
14.
6
192
90.
2
246
232
18.
4-6 .
17 •
190
2l6
94.
4 •
9
137
246
45.
287
229246
19.
15-18
245
102.
18 .
142
>•
15
247
,,
34 •
2l6
104.
126
48.
3-5 ¦
232
,,
35 •
214
105.
167
• •
12
246
20.
8-11 21
4, 229
109.
561
49.
5
458
"
11 .
17 •
230229
115.119.
4-8 !
245
205
50.
5-7
6-10
455455
22.
191
139.
2
246
51.
9
448
23.
15, 16
229
7
246
52.
13-53,
12
447
24.
'3 •
216
147.
126
54.
16 .
142
25.
9
216
148.
5 •
6 .
246246
57.
4
450
I
Chronicles.
Jeremiah
28.
9
248
Proverbs
7.
8.
9.
22
8 16 .
189181
223
29.
11
246
3.
19 •
246
15.
3-
246
14.
14 .
181
11
. Chronicles.
16.
4
246
23.
24
246
14.
8, 9
205
24,
9
223
20.
6
238 323
26.
8-16
229
24.
20 .
ECCLESIAST
ss.
29.
IO .
229
32.
24. 31
229
12.
14 .
248
32.
18 .
17 •
223246
Ezra.
Isaiah.
46.50.
19 ¦
13. 39.
40
222219
6.
12 .
467
1.
6.
4 I-IO
450482
51.
26, 37,
43
219
Nehemiab
.
,,
5-10
544
Lamentations.
1.
9.
86
223
246
7.8.
8 .
8, 9
4 •
468 229
229
2.4.
16 .
4
458 458
Job.
9.
1, 2
6 .
464464
Ezekiel.
2.
6
246
10.
21
464
11.
5
246
10.
4, 5 •
137
11.
9
251
13.
7
181
11.
7
247
13.
19-22
219
21.
30 .
142
12.
10 .
246
14.
20 .
450
22.
15 •
223
16.
10
458
,,
22, 23
219
29.
11-13
222
26.
14
247
20.
1
209
,,
15 •
221
29.
9
448
28.
29 •
246
30.
7 ¦
221
34.
19 •
248
35.
5-6 •
446
,,
13-16
222
36.
26 .
246
37.
16 .
238
, ,
23, 26
222
37.
16
246
40.
IO .
44.8
39.
18 .
458
INDEX OF TEXTS.

587

Daniel.

3.

20-27

. 214

4.

6

¦ 4^7

9.

26 .

. 229

11.

. 229

12.

2

• 55i

Hosea.

2.

ii

. 188

3.

4

. 188

4.

4-6

. 188

6.

6

188, 189

8.

1, 12

13 . 188

9.

4

. 188

17

. 223

12.

9

. 188

588

INDEX OP TEXTS.

9.
10.
11.
13.

14.
15.
10.

3.

43 3 5-6
3i
36
23 32
1
48
4523
9 2432
24 283536
515864
2, 9, 12
30, 37
34
1 .
8 11-131 1-14
H
15 •
16
17
18 .

425448424344
425424330
330551
478 330390333
332
34i, 543
466, 478
• 376
• 457
330, 450
• 334 344
• 487
465
. 465 22.

33o, 450
• 396
• 376
• 376
• 398
• 383
. 402 564
• 425
. 512

Luke.

1-4

68-79 I
2
52 .
I
2
4

5.

27 ¦

6.

36-38

7.

14 •

,,

22 .

329
• 334
358, 377327
328365
323
543
322, 324,365 322
483 33i
322
315
• 423
415, 44i

10.

11.
13.
14.
16.
17.
is.
19.
21.

23.

24.

26-40 I 10 .
27 .
53 •
13-15
21, 22
223815
3i
21-22 34

1-2
619
38
43 12
2127
/I
7 35
1
4, 23
9, 33
11 11, 37
12
18
21
2434
43
47 39

378

PAGE 419
482 344
330
322
415 341
478 342
432 331
534374
342
4753i6 330
480
465 364390
333
332
487 322
45S 396375
383376
398
401 334
3*3380383
400
402 315

John.

1 H ¦
20-2729-2. 1
46 .
6 12 .
1.3 •
17, 22
19 ¦

347. 482
• 337308
• 337
¦ 448 335
• 337
¦ 335
• 337
¦ 344

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

3-5 13
16
24
27

18 440, 479, 487

23
27
4 32-66
38

PAGE
• 336
¦ 308
480, 543
544, 563
341
337

42 5158
62
27, 32
37
52
122458
59 •
8-34 13-34
1822
30
33
39
2 8 53
55
6 9 3234
3741
45 118
281, 23
9, 10
16 .
16, 26
26 .
28 .
5 •

70

42

479 560
335, 344337
480 34i559
459 378
33s
440 335

512564
480
440, 487
421
427
'¦79, 453 335
479487
44034i
440, 487
440 335
337
440 512
33<^
453
482
479335335337
479
479 544
545
516 542
283

INDEX OF TEXTS.

589

15.16.

17.

18.19.

20.

21.

26 2 7 17
28 3 52126287 16
28-30 3i 35
37 391, 2
7 '7
25 28 303112 13 14 15

13

PAGE 545
390
479, 545337
480 559
480479 459 335
487 465458 335 337335
408, 450 375
401
378, 542 398
482 37i343337.
400 361 383

Acts.

5. 6. 7.

9.
10.

11. 12.

13.

14.15. 16.

17.

3 361, 37L

15
16

5.

22 .
24 .
3i ¦
38 •
41 .
6 .
13 ¦
15 •
215-22 10 .
12 .
37
3, 4
3°

495 3«9383382 37i544
22 369, 373, 384
427, 483
. 369
• 369
544, 547
. 402483
• 456
369, 407
. 361
. 427
369, 483
• 564 334
• 544
. 369

18. 19.

20.

23.

26-40

3637
5585-13 16
1010 38
404128 1 1, 20
12
21-27 3°31 35-37
1-11
229 9-40 16-18 18, 26
22, 35
3i
6 22- 28 3134
2 12
321 29-3938
2 4 4, 22
5-21, 1
28 103 17
24 26 3 17
13, H

37

349 324358
429 358 547 395 395
427 369
400 365322 35i 334 349349 369 379369352 361 395357
427 359352 564352 360 1263^9
495
, 365349 546
354, 355353 349355 361 355 357
483 358
429 395 324
349, 495 495
• 354
23 35i

355

PAGE

26.

6, 23

• 369

tl

8, 19

¦ 396

,,

30 ¦

• 349

lt

32 •

¦ 365

27.

i-28,

16 . 357

,,

24 .

• 365

28.

2-10

¦ 427

,,

6, 8, 9 359

7 •

• 349

,,

19 .

¦ 365

,,

25 •

• 544

Roiv
ANS.
6.
23 •
• 559
8.
3
¦ 485
,,
26 .
• 544
,,
35 •
¦ 390
9.
5
• 485
10.
9
• 564
14.
9
• 485
IO
• 485
15.
18, 19 . 428
19
• 355
23, 2
5, 3° 355
lt
25, 2
6 . 354
16.
3
• 355
20
• 547
((
21-23 ;-
,,
23
• 495
I
Corinthians.
1.
i4-i(
i . 516
18
• • 5i6
23
• 493
24
• 448
26
. 495
2.
8
. 543
"
IO
¦ 544
13
¦ 5i6
4.
9-13
390
6.
9-1 1
505
8.
6
. 486
9.
1
369, 395
10.
2
• 547
11.
23-2
5 . 327
12.
4-6
548
11
. 544
15
1-8
. 327, 372
3
• 485
4
. 369
5
384
,,
11
¦ 37i
M <"¦¦¦"¦ ¦¦¦
. 7: -
•*.'"'". 'V" ¦'.
590
INDEX OF TEXTS.
PAGE
PAGE
PAGE
15.
12-1
? • 3^9
Colossians
2.
4 •
• 429
,,
14, i
5 ¦ 378
1.
16 .
485
3.
7 •
. 516
,,
15
• 39i
,,
17
126
5.
7 •
• 457
,,
20
. 285
18
285
6.
-4-6 .
• 565
16.
^3
• 547
20
558
9.
14 ¦
• 544
II
. Corinthians.
2.
9
485
4.
H ¦
. 486
3.
5.
17
IO
• 544
485, 566
4.
10
14
334
334
,361
I. Peter
16
368, 485
1.
2
• 548
21
. 485
I.
Thessalonians.
,,
10-11
. 462
8.
9
• 485
1.
3-5 •
548
,,
19 ¦
• 564
11.
17
. . 516
3.
4
547
5.
13 •
. 312
,,
24-27. • 39°
12.
1
¦ 395
II.
Thessalonians.
II. Peter.
,,
12
. 428
1.
21
. 516
. 565
13.
14
• 547
2.
13-H 16 .
548547
2.
21
Galatians.
1.
13
• 390
I. Timothy.
I. John.
"
1718
• 395
¦ 429
4.
10 .
558
1.
2.
1 - 337, 347
2 . .558
,,
19
• 37°
2.
2, 9
¦ 484
II. Timothy
Jude.
3.
5
. 428
3.
16 .
516
20-21
548
,,
13
449, 484
4.
11
361
,,
16
• 516
Revelation.
4.
6.
4 18
277, 485
• 547
Titus.
1.
5 •
285
2.
13 ¦
485
,,
17, 18
484
Ephe
SIANS.
,,
18
407
3.
H-17
• 548
Philemon.
2.
8
484
4.
4-6 .
486, 548
24 •
36i
,,
11-14
484
,,
15-it
> ¦ 283
13.
14.
13 •
18 .
11
558
Philii
'PIANS.
Hebrews.
3°3 551
347
2.
6 .
• 485
1.
5-12
516
19.
13 •
,,
7 •
¦ 456
,,
8 .
485
20.
15 •
55i
4.
3
¦ 314
2.
i-4 •
486
22.
12, 13
484
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Abraham, trust in God 236
 promises to
Account of creation .
Acts of Apostles
 extreme accuracy
 unity
— — authorship
 medical language
 date-.
 abrupt ending .
 attitude to Romans
 to Fall of Jerusalem
 third volume
 and Christ's Divinity
 of Pilate .
Adam and Eve .
Agrippa, called King
Ambition, the great .
Amraphel, or Hammurabi
Analogies and illustrations
 watch .showing design
 mass of machinery
 house and tenant
 ship in distress .
 bird in egg
 telegraph clerk .
 as to revelation
 Mont Cenis tunnel
 telephone .
¦ — — clock and magnet
 ¦ diseases of Normandy
 solar radiance .
 similar letters .
 man's nature
 parents, children
— — paying a debt .
 vine and branches
 body and limbs
— — whirlpool .
 Indian Mutiny .
 journey to London .
 foreigner's speech
 man's portrait .

PAGE
• 243
445 133
348349
356359
360362362
363364365
483434 154
350 532 186 13
25 35
4i
102
104 106"7
120122
169
260263
270
272 281
283283288 364
386
437
462

PAGE
Analogies and illustrations :
 ingenious robbery . 475
 founding a religion . 492
 going for holiday . 519
 as to prayer . .521
 key fitting lock . . 531
 astronomy . . 537
 quicksands . . 561
.  royal proclamation 565
 infectious diseases . 571
 long frontier line . 573
Angels, existence . .416
 influence . . . 416
 casting out evil . 416
 not fellow-creators . 468
 their future state 551,558
Animals, their creation . 152
 difference from man . 63
 cannot know man 262
 not immortal . .104
 their sufferings . . 81
Annihilation of wicked . 559
Anthropomorphism . 238
Antioch in Pisidia . 352
Antiquity of man . . 153
Apocryphal Gospels, late . 318
 not inspired . . 303
 as to the Childhood . 305
— — and miracles . . 42 1
Apostasy, under trial . 562
Apostles' Creed, Trinity . 569
Apostolic Fathers . . 314
 the Virgin Birth 318
 miracles . . . 428
Aquila and Priscilla . -355
Archaeology and O. Test. 205
Archaisms in Pentateuch . 183
Arianism . . 478
Aristides . 313. 43°
Aristion . . 37°, 425
Ark . • 168
Ascension, the . . . 378
Ashdod, taken by Sargon . 208

591

592

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Assyria, prophecies as to 219
 army destroyed . 216
Athanasian Creed, warnings 561
 dogmatism . .568
Atonement, doctrine of 278
 its naturalness . . 283
 Christ not a Third 283
 prophecies as to . 451
 and human nature . 527
 and other religions . 535

Baal and Jehovah .

215

Baalbec, inscription at

324

Babylonia, prophecies

219

 messengers from

230

Baker, the chief

162

Baptism, Voice at Christ's

33i

Baptismal formula .

545

 witness of St. Paul .

546

 of Teaching 3 1 1

, 546

 of Justin .

549

Baptist, John the, not so

named in Fourth

Gospel

339

 his imprisonment

341

 and Christ's miracles

415

 did none himself

437

Barcochba

437

Barnabas, epistle of .

3H

Bartimaeus

426

Bashan, bulls of

458

Battering-rams

225

Baur, as to miracles .

297

 St. Paul's Epistles .

327

Beauterne as to Napoleon

293

Bees, cells of , .

64

Belief, importance of

560

 virtue not necessity .

576

Belshazzar

207

Beneficence in Nature

•72

 and Righteousness .

93

 in Jewish Religion

247

 and in Christian

281

Bernice

351

Berosus, as to Nabonidus .

207

 as to Sennacherib

217

Bethel, altar at

229

Bethlehem, Birth at

464

 infants at .

436

Bethsaida, miracle at

424

' Beyond Jordan '

183

Bible, mistakes in O. Test.

204

 in N. Test.

33i

— — inspiration

515

PAGE
Bible source of Nat. Theo
logy
Blood and water
Bourguet .
Bread, miracle as to .
Brotherhood of man
ButlerBy-product, pain is a
C/Esar, no early MSS.
Caesarea, Philip at .
Cain ....
Canaan, its peculiarities
Canaanites destroyed
Cannibalism at Jerusalem .
Capernaum, visit to .
Carnivorous animals
Cause, must be free .
Cells of bees
Celsus, Christ's miracles
Cenisj tunnel in Mont
Census of Israelites .¦
 at Christ's birth
ChabasChance, really impossible .
Changelessness, moral
Chiefman of Malta . 35c
Child of God, man is a
Child's belief .
 temptations
Chorazin, its significance
Christ, His character
 teaching .
 sinlessness
 in Old Test. . 45
 claims
 hard sayings-
 discourses .
 Divinity .
 His own claims
 seeing Him seeing God 480
 witness of Synoptists 482
 of St. John
 St. Peter's language .
 of Revelation .
 of St. Paul's Epistles
 of Hebrews
 of Early Fathers
 of Aristides
 of Christ's enemies
 of Pliny
 of Jewish prophecies .
 Man as well as God 481, 542
 influence in world . 512

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

593

Christ, prophecies as to
 representative Man .
 the perfect Example .
 the Jewish Messiah .
 the only Saviour
Christianity, meaning of
 its leading doctrines
 its improbability
 preparation for
 based on Resurrec
tion
 public miracles . 426, 513
 its early triumphs . 492
 subsequent history .
 effect on world .
 future prospects
 its indestructibility .
 and Bible .
 and prayer
— — • and human nature .
 and other religions
 its uniqueness .
 its evidences
 its ineffable greatness
 no half measures
Classical writers, miracles .
 no early MSS. .
Claudius .
Clean and unclean animals
Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Rome, witness
to Gospels
 early martyrdoms
 doctrine of Trinity .
Cleopas . . -334
Clock and magnet
Closed questions
Coincidences, superhuman
or designed .
 (see Undesigned)
Conclusion in search of pre
mises ....
Conscience, man has
 an intermediary
 the Voice of God
Conservation of energy
 and man's will .
Constantine's vision .
Copyists of Bible, accuracy
Crabs, and sense of pain
Creation ..
 the greatest miracle .
 account of, in Genesis
— '¦ — days of

445 283 274
446 564
3, 255256291
499 368

502 503508
510515517 525
533537 572574
576
435 300
494 178
3123i4 3905 48
372122570H5

299 61 71
267 7
57
399
204 82 4
123133
135

71,

PAGE
Creation and evolution . 28
 not out of nothing . 142
Creator, meaning of term . 9
Credentials, of messenger . 114
Credible, meaning of 114
Creeping things . . 152
Crucifixion, Psalm of the . 456
 no Jewish punishment 460
Cyprus, proconsul at . 350
Cyrenius (see Quirinius)
Damnatory clauses . 561
Daniel, Book of . . 207
Darkness over land 436
David, character . . 240
 not subject of Ps. 22 . 460
Days of creation . 135
Dead, offerings for . .167
Death ... 528
Decalogue, its excellence . 244
 witness to Exodus . 197
 preserved in Temple . 248
Definitions, credible . 114
 design . . .11
 dogmatism . .568
 evidential miracles . 116
 evolution . .22
 free force 4
 inspiration 5 1 5
 instinct . 64
 law of nature . 22
 material universe . 3
 natural force . . 22
 omnipotence . 37
 omniscience . . 37
 origin ... 4
 personal being . . 34
 representative terms . 135
 revelation . . 95
 supernatural force . 9
Deism .... 267
Delphi, inscription . . 350
Demoniacal possession . 417
Desert, of Shur . . .164
 laws suitable for . 172
 journeys in . 173
 wind . . 1.66
Design, meaning of . . 11
 evidence in a watch 1 3
 in an eye . . . 16
 throughout nature . 20
 beneficent . . 72
 need not be desire . 86
 man can . . -58
38

594

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Design, animals cannot . 64
 and instinct . . 64
Determinism . . -52
Deuteronomy, finding of 191
Diabolical miracles . .213
Dial, shadow on . . 229
Diana of Ephesus . -353
Diatessaron of Tatian . 309
Didache (see Teaching)
Didrachma . . 322
Diet in Egypt . . .168
Difficulties, known and un
known . . . 583
 not explained, as to
Adam and Eve . 154
 number of Israelites . 195
 diabolical miracles . 213
 serving other Gods 226
 swine at Gadara . 419
 vows in Ps. 22 . . 462
 virginity . . . 474
 endless misery . -557
Dionysius the Areopagite . 495
Discoveries, modern . . 205
Discrepancies in Gospels 33L 343
— — as to Resurrection . 374
 essential agreement . 379
Diseases of Egypt . 169, 226
Dispersion of Jews . 223, 250
Dissipation of energy . 7
Dogmatism, objection to 568
Dogs, term for Gentiles . 458
Double consciousness . 418
 farewell, Christ's . 373
Dreams of Pharaoh . .162
Driver, Prof. . . 185, 186
Dry land, appearance of . 145
Dualism, and evil . . 81
 in ancient religions . 139
 unknown to Jews . 245
¦  and endless misery . 552
Eagle, Roman ensign . 224
Earth likened to machine 2 5
Earthquakes ... 86
Ebal, altar on Mount . 191
Edersheim, as to Lysanias 324
 Jews and Isaiah . 454
 Jews and Psalm 22 . 460
 and Christ's miracles 434
Edomite kings, list, of . 186
Effect, the world is an . 43
Egypt, prophecies as to . 221

Egypt, magicians of .
 diseases of

169

PAGE 214226 166
535 161170
227 323 383
215212213
467 167396
408 55i 77
5753
353

 gods of
 religion of .
 and the Pentateuch
 language of
 Jews return to .
 periodical census
Eleven, the, ancient term
Elijah's sacrifice . 115,
Elisha, trivial miracles of .
 his bones .
Elohim ....
Embalming in Egypt
 Christ's Body .
Emmaus . . . 400
Endless misery .
Energy, dissipation of
 conservation of
—  and free will
Environment .
Ephesus, riot at
Epistles of St. Paul, four
admittedly genuine 327
 witness to some early
Gospels . . 327
 St. John's Gospel . 343
 accuracy of Acts . 354
 the Resurrection . 369
 sufferings of Chris
tians . . .390
 Christian miracles . 428
 Divinity of Christ . 485
 doctrine of Trinity . 547
 spread of Christianity 494
 its moral effect . . 505
Erastus of Corinth . -495
' Essays and Reviews ' . 434
Eternal punishment . -551
Eternity . . 290, 530
Euclid . . . 46, 49
Eusebius, as to Papias . 312
 Quadratus . . 430
 flight to Pella . . 333
Evangelists, could write 334, 346
 thoroughly truthful . 329
 had known Christ . 368
 and miracles . .329
Everlasting Father, and Son 260
 in Isaiah . . . 464
Evidences, Christian . 572
Evil, existence of .80
 physical . . 8 1 , 84
 moral . . 87

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

595

Evil, Jewish idea of .
 men .
 ¦ spirits
Evolution, meaning of
 requires a Cause
 requires a Designer
 requires a motive
 implies Involution
 and human will

5i

PAGE 245 90
4l6 22 7
26
47 28 54
78
97 28 7677
278 238
446 139
299 119
480 241 16

727J-
26

 • and mind .
 and immortality
 a form of creation ¦ .
 leads up to man
 shows his importance
 and the Incarnation .
 in revelation . 106
 in prophecies
 in account of Creation
Excuses and reasons .
Experience and miracles .
' Express image ' of God .
Exterminating Canaanites
Eye, its marks of design .
 not explained by evo
lution .
 shows beneficence
 its imperfections
 rudimentary
Ezekiel, prophecy of Egypt

Faith, faculty of . -574
 a virtue . . . 576
 and miracles . . 424
False belief . . .568
Falsehood theory of Resur
rection . . .387
 motives of witnesses . 388
 their conduct . . 388
 their sufferings . . 389
 not now adopted . 391
 only old alternative . 391
Famine in Egypt . . 163
 at Jerusalem . .225
Farewell, Christ's, Galilee . 373
 Jerusalem . . 373
Feeding the 5,000, credible 124
 in triple tradition . 325
 undesigned coinci
dence . . 344
 a public miracle . 426
 rationalistic view 439
Feet pierced . . • 4°6
Felix and Festus . 350, 363
' Fellow,' meaning of . 465

PAGE
Filioque clause . . 544,568
Final state of wicked . 549
Firmament, or expanse 144
— ¦ — ¦ not said to be good . 144
Firstborn from dead . 285
 death of the . .166
First Cause . 9
 must be single . 9
 ¦ supernatural . . 9
 needed no cause 8
First witnesses of the Re
surrection . . .385
Fishes and birds . 150
Five hundred, appearance 382
Flood, parallel passages . 185
Forces and causes . 38, 57
Foreknowledge, free will 31
 and omniscience . 37
 and prophecies . . 114
 and prayer . . 519
 and endless misery . 555
 differs from foresight 1 2
 from foreordaining . 91
 in man, f oreguessing . 3 1
Forgiveness of sins . .281
Fourth Commandment,
and days of creation . 137
Fourth Gospel, authenticity 335
 and Synoptics . . 340
 and Revelation . 345
 author, St. John . 329
Free force, meaning of . 4
Free will, foreknowledge . 3 1
 r of man . 5 2
 of animals . . 63
 of angels . .416
 its introduction . 141
 makes evil possible . 88
 difficulties as to . 553
 in religious belief . 576
Future life (see Immortality
and Resurrection)
Gadara, miracle at . 325, 419
Galatians and Acts . -356
Galilee, appearance in . 376
Gallio, proconsul . . 35°
Gamala, siege . . .225
Generations, meaning . 141
Genesis, creation in . 133
 days of . • 135
 refers to Egypt . 161
 partly written there . 163
Gentiles, conversion 455,459, 466-
38—2

596

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

PAGE 458 206 138
496 34

Gentiles called dogs .
Geography of Palestine
Geology and Genesis
Gibbon and Christianity .
God, meaning of term
 argument from causa
tion
 from design
 moral argument
 three combined 93
 no physical means of
discovering .
 a Personal Being
 who loves man .
 Power 37, 246, 264, 520, 552
 Wisdom 37, 246, 264, 521
 Goodness 92, 247, 265, 280, 521
 if good, very good 88
 bearing on miracles
 and on the Trinity
 emphasized by Chris
tianity .
 three attributes com
bined 93, 130, 233, 273
— Justice . 236, 282,
- and Mercy

4
11
70
267 35
34
271

130
265 273

,577 553
555280
282265 74
526

 bearing on Atonement
 Love . . 265
 bearing on Trinity .
 Greatness .
 Fatherhood
 Omnipresence . 39, 246
 Providence . 232
 Unknowable 39, 247, 262
 bearing on revelation 109
 Unchangeable . 127, 246
 bearing on miracles . 127
 and the Incarnation . 269
 Eternal . . 246
 Invisible . . 37
 Creator of Universe . 9
 its Maintainer . 38
 Author of nature 116
 Jewish idea of . 213,236
 man responsible to . 59
 faith in . . .574
 (see Immanence)
 (see Trinity)
Goodness, God's 92, 247, 265
 if good, very good . 88
 man's ... 59
 depends on free will . 87
 its infinite value , 89

Gospels, the Four . 295
 external testimony
 internal evidence
 evidence of Acts
 not full biographies
 alterations in text
 apocryphal
 of St. Peter
 (see Synoptics, Fourth)
Governor, title of
Gradual development (see
Evolution)
Grave-clothes at the Tomb
 their importance
Gravity, force, universal
 known by effects
 an assumption
Great ambition
 alternative
 surprise
Greek philosophy
Green grass, mentioned
Guard at the Tomb .

Hammurabi's laws
Happiness, unconscious .
Hard sayings of Christ
Harnack, unity of Acts
Heathen, their future state
Heaven
Hebrews, Epistle, miracles
 Christ's Divinity
Hengstenberg .
Heredity .
Herod, Agrippa, death of
 called king
 the Great .
Hezekiah's sickness .
 not subject of Ps. 22,
High Priests
Historical evidence .
Holy Spirit, the
 Divinity of
 a gift from God
Horus myth, and Christ
Human sacrifices in O.T.
 and Atonement
Hume on experience
Hurtful organs, in nature
Huxley on the Creeds
Iconium .
Idealism .
Identity personal

320
295 320348
377300
3°3310
35°

401
408 9
4i 57
532
488 530
499 345
401 186 85
330357565
290
429 485
460 53
349
350321
229
460 322386
266 543
544535
242279 119 73
292
352 4648

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

597

Idols, none among Jews .

239

Ignatius ....

314

 knowing, believing .

317

— — as to Trinity

549

Illusions, not simultaneous

398

Illyricum ....

354

Immanence, God's, anc

Evolution

26

 and secondary forces

38

 and miracles

125

 as well as Transcen

dent

267

— — and the Incarnation

278

 and prayer

520

 and in man

267

Immortality man's .

96

 from unique position

97

 unjust treatment

100

 vast capabilities

IOI

— — inherent belief .

103

 counter-arguments

104

 and human nature

528

 in Egyptian religion i

57,535

Impossible, meaning of

38

Incarnation, doctrine of

268

 its difficulties .

269

 its motive .

271

 historical position

276

 not taught by Philo

308

 and human nature

52.7

 and other religions

533

Indian Mutiny .

364

Infants at Bethlehem

436

Infinitely little .

• 75

Inhabitants, other planets

79

Inherent convictions, man's 46

 as to mind

48

 personal identity
 free will .

48

53

 responsibility .

59

 sin .

59

 immortality

103

 prayer

5i7

Inscriptions at Khorsabad

209

 Tivoli

323

 Baalbec .

324

 Soli, Cyprus

35°

 Delphi

35o

 Malta

35°

 Thessalonica

352

 Lystra

352

— — Ephesus .

353

 as to Belshazzar

207

Insignificance of man

73

PAGE
Inspiration, meaning of . 515
Instincts of animals . 21, 64
Intermediate State . 566
Invertebrates, in Genesis . 151
Invisibility of God . . 39
Involution and evolution . 28
Irenaeus, and Gospels . 301
 Polycarp and miracles 302
 Papias . . .311
 date of St. Mark . 312
 of Revelation . . 346
 authorship of Acts . 362
 rests on prophecy . 433
 silence of Eusebius . 312
Iris, complexity of . -76
Isaac, sacrifice of 236, 243
Isaiah, mentions Sargon . 208
 test of a prophet . 232
 prophecy of Babylon 220
 of Jerusalem . 230
 of the Messiah . . 447
 of His Divinity . . 464
 implies the Trinity . 468
Israelites, great number . 195

Jacob's character . . 240
Jairus' daughter . 424, 426
Japan, becoming Christian 508
Jashar, book of
Jehovah, meaning of word
 Elohim
 adored by millions .
 and Christ
Jephthah's daughter
Jeroboam's rebellion
Jerusalem, first destruc
tion foretold
 and second . 224, 332
 later than Gospels . 332
 later than Acts
 hint to leave
Jewish Prophecies, Egypt
 Assyria
 Babylonia
 the Jews .
 Jehovah universally
worshipped .
 the Messiah
Jewish Religion, its origin
 its partiality
 its miracles
 its prophecies .
 influence in world
 and Natural Theology

211246
467 251
482 242 229
229

364333
221
219 219
223 251
445 159
236 209
218 250249

598

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Jews, dispersion of
 use of term
John, St., his call
 author of Gospel
 (see Baptist)
Jordan, beyond
Joseph in Egypt
Josephus,, witness to Acts
 Acts not indebted to
 as to Sennacherib
 as to Theudas
 Jewish prophecies
 accuracy of Gospels
 date of the taxing
 swine at Gadara
 Christ's miracles
Josiah and Deuteronomy
Jotapata, siege of
Journeys in Desert .
Jubilee, year of
Judges and Pentateuch
Justice, God's . 236, 28
Justin, witness to Gospels
 Book of Revelation
 guard at Tomb .
 Christ's miracles
 .preferred prophecy 43°
 Acts of Pilate .
 doctrine of Trinity

223, 250 335 338
339

183161
35i
35i217 349
224 321
323
419435 191
225 173
173188553304346
400430
433 434 549

King of the Jews . . 465
Kings did not use plural . 467
Knowledge, partial, in
Natural Theology . 40
 and in Christianity . 292
Korah, rebellion of . . 202
Koran, Christ's miracles . 502
 authorises force . 506
Krishna myth, and Christ . 533

Land animals .
Laws, of nature
 in Pentateuch .
 of Hammurabi .
Laymen offering sacrifice
Lazarus, raising of .
 only in one Gospel 377, 426
 how explained away . 439
Lecky, on Christ's teaching
Legend theory of Resurrec
tion . . . 392
 disproved by Gospels 392
•  and St. Paul's Epistles 393

152 22
171186191
285

473

PAGE

Legislation, Jewish .

.

171

Levites

174

177

 their cities

174

Life, origin of, in Genesis .

I46

 science and

HI
Light before the sun
147
Line of least, resistance
42
583
Logos doctrine .
308
 in Revelation .
.
347
 among Greeks .
499
Lord and God .
482
Lord's Day
369
 Prayer
316
Lost Gospel
306
3i6
Love, of God
265
282
 must be free .
272
 motive of Religion
.
53i
Luke, St., a doctor .
360
 wrote Gospel
334
 wrote Acts
361
 perhaps at Emmaus .
334
 witnessed miracles
427
Luminiferous aether . 9,
262
286
Lycaonia, the cities of
352
Lysanias .
324
Lystra, inscriptions at
352
Magicians of Egypt
Magnet and clock ' .
Mahometanism unlike Christianity .
 and Christ's miracles
 authorises force
 idea of heaven .
Maladies in Gospels .
Malchus ....
Malta, title ' chiefman '
Man, mental attributes
 moral attributes
214 122
245 500502
. 506
• 528
. 418
. 426
• 35°
¦ 45
• 49
48, 104
• 52
• 58
• 59
61, 71
moral 58, 60
bearing on revelation 106
 on Christianity . . 278
 his unique position 56, 77
 due to mind and spirit 78
 bearing on his import
ance ... 78
 on immortality . 97
 on revelation . ,109
 memory
 free will
 responsibility
¦  moral sense
 conscience
 personal and
INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

599

Man, each man unique . 75,156
 end of Creation . 69,140
 also its first thought .
 his probation .
 but one probation
 apparent insignifi
cance
 real importance
 bearing on Incarna
tion
 immortality of spirit
 resurrection of body .
 creation in Genesis .
 not created righteous 99, 155
 antiquity . 153, 277
 differs from animals .
 not a reasoning ani
mal
 resembles God
68, 71, 106, 155
 bearmg on anthropo
morphism
 on the Incarnation .
 his ignorance 6
 bearing on miracles
— — and on Christianity
Marcion, Luke's Gospel
Mark, St., wrote Gospel
 ¦ quite able to do so .
— — earliest of Four 326
 at Gethsemane .
 witness to miracles .
MarsupialsMarthaMaterial universe, meaning
Materialism . . 47, 5 1
 and memory . 48, 104
Matter, perhaps eternal 6, 142
 indestructible . . 96
Matthew, St., wrote Gospel 334

78
98
566 73
76
277 96
288 152

63
153
2722 39
269
19, 39
124
291 3"9334334365334
442 152
342 3

quite able to do so
 value of testimony
Medical language in Acts
Memory ... 48,
 in heaven .
Memphis, prophecy as to
Menephthah Mercy, God's .
Merodach, and atonement
Mesmerism
Messiah, Jewish
Meteorite .
Micah, prophecy of

334
368360 104
557
222 164
555535
417 445 353
464

PAGE
Microscope . . -75
Mill, on Christ's teaching . 472
Mind of man . . 20, 45
 shows his importance 78
Miracles, Evidential . 116
 as marvels . .119
 and experience . . 119
 as special works . 122
 as signs . . 126
 not mere wonders 117,118
 not after-thoughts . 129
 natural means super
naturally applied . 123
 morally probable . 1 30
 in Jewish religion . 209
 their publicity . .217
 trivial miracles . 212
 diabolical miracles 213
 in Christian religion . 414
 their credibility . 414
 not worked to order . 415
 • apparent truthfulness 420
 not puerile . .421
 their variety . . 422
 their permanence . 422
 order to keep secret . 425
 their publicity . _ 426
 names often given . ' 426
 peculiarity of Christ's 423
 conditional on faith . 424
 officially investigated 427
 St. Peter's appeal 427
 Jewish testimony 434
 Acts of Pilate . 434
 alleged craving for . 437
 how explained away . 438
 Apostolic, St. Paul's . 428
 in the Acts . -358
 witnessed by St. Luke 427
 by writer of Hebrews 429
 in Christ's Name . 483
 helped Christianity . 498
 heathen . . . 437
 Mahomet did none . 502
 not to be prayed for . 522
 later Christian . . 442
Missionaries and Resurrec
tion . . .412
Missions . . . 508
Monism .... 46
Monotheism, of Jews . 245
'  at time of Christ 431, 545
 in account of Creation 139
 Christianity form of . 467

6oo

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Moral sense . . -59
 • difficulties in O. Test. 239
 in Nat. Theology 86, 249
 in N. Testament . 474
Morality, Christian . . 498
Moses and Pentateuch . 192
 history of . . . 1 64
Mountains, flight to . . 333
Muratorian, Canon . .303, 362
Mutiny, Indian . . . 364
Myrrh .... 408

NabonidusNames, Egyptian
 ¦ in N. Test, miracles .
 of eminent converts .
 and titles in Acts
Napoleon, on Christianity .
 his campaigns .
NathanielNatural means, supernatu
rally applied .
Natural Selection (see Evo
lution)
Natural Theology, only
partly known 40
 = depends on proba
bility . 42, no
 influence on masses .
 in Jewish religion
 in Egyptian religion .
 in other religions
 in neolithic times
 moral difficulties
 and the Bible

207 170
426
495 349293422338 123

292

 and unity of God
 leads to Revelation
Nature, its unity
 its laws
 its forces .
 acting rationally
 its uniformity .
 its mysteries
 its perfection .
 care of individuals
 a means to an end
 bearing on miracles
 immanence in God
 and prayer
 analogy, as to angels
 man's future life
 man's resurrection
 short probation
 his annihilation

576 108
249 536
539
107, 277
80, 249233263 45
9, 2122

22
"5122
291 74
75
98
130125
518
416 102
288 5545 59

PAGE
Nazareth, dry ground . 448
Nebuchadnezzar . 207, 216
Nebula theory . . .143
Necessity, doctrine of . 52
Neolithic men, future life . 103
 ^- Natural Theology 107, 277
Nero, his persecution . 364
 not named in Acts . 365
Nineveh, men of . 331
Numbers in O. Test. 195, 204
Obedience and sacrifice . 189
Obelisks, or pillars . .190
Old Testament, genuine . 199
 alleged mistakes . 204
 miracles . . . 209
 prophecies . .218
 moral difficulties . 239
Omer . . 187
Omnipotence . . 37, 246
Omnipresence . 38, 246
Omniscience . . 37, 246
Origen and Celsus . . 433
Origin of universe . 3
 in Genesis . . .142
 of Jewish religion . 159
 of Christian religion . 368
Pain (see Evil)
Paley, watch argument . 1 3
Palestine, Government . 321
Pantheism . . 139, 267
Papias as to Gospels . 311
Papyrus, used for writing . 300
Parables, teaching by . 331
 ¦ some objected to . 475
Partiality in revelation . no
 to Jews . . . 236
Passion, Christ's, foretold . 447
Paul, St., conversion 370, 403
 vision hypothesis 396, 403
 his speeches . - 3 59
 (see Epistles)
Pella, Christians flee to . 333
Pentateuch, importance . 160
 claims to be Mosaic . i6o
 language . . .182
 Egypticity . . 161
 laws . . . .171
 date and author . 192
 late-date theory . 182
Perish, its meaning, . . 562
Persecutions, religious . 505
 of Jews . . .223
 of Christians . 389

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

601

Person, not in N.Test.
Personal Being, meaning .
 God is a .
 difficulty of Theism .
 solved by Christianity
 man is a .
 animals are not
Peter, St., called Simon
 connection with Mark
 appearance to .
 appeal to miracles 427
 death
 apocryphal Gospel
Petrie, Prof., as to Exodus
PeyreyriusPharaoh's dreams
 vacillation
 heart hardened
Philip, the Apostle
Philip, one of the Seven
Philippi, praetors, lictors
 gaoler at . . 426
Philo, days of Genesis
 Logos doctrine
Pilate, governor
 apocryphal Acts of
PinchesPithom, discoveries at
Plagues, the ten
 superhuman coinci
dences .
 and magicians .
Planets, inhabited (?)
 not by sinners (?)
Pliny, numerous letters
 spread of Christianity
 among all classes
 Christ's Divinity
Plural of majesty
Politarchs Polycarp of Smyrna
 witness to miracles
 to Gospels
Polytheism . 139
Praetors and lictors .
Prayer, subject of
 and experiment

¦ and experience

 and dogmatism
 after the event .
Pre-Adamite men
Priests and Levites .
Priscilla and Aquila .
Probability, guide of life

PAGE 544 34 3435
264 58
66
383312
3S3
,483 384 310 195154162167
242 33835735i 564 137
308 322
434 208 197165 194
214 79
270
438494
494 494467 35i
301 302315
245 35i
512523
538569519 154177
355576

Proconsul and other terms 349
Prodigal Son, only in Luke 377
Prophecy, credible . . 114
 in Old Testament . 218
 word of Jehovah 462
 its moral use . 232
 as to Christ . . 445
 why not plainer . 468
 His own influence . 512
Prospective organs . 18,27
Providence, God's . .232
Psalm of the Crucifixion . 456
Publius, chief man . 350, 426
Quadratus, as to miracles 429

3i

308

Quirinius, his census
Quotations, Barnabas
 Baur
 Butler
 Clement .
 Eusebius
 Huxley
 Ignatius .
 Irenaeus
 Josephus
 Justin
 Lecky
 Mill .
 Napoleon .
 Origen
 Papias
 Polycarp .
 Quadratus
 Ramsay .
 Renan . 29
 Romanes .
 Spencer
 Strauss
 ' Supernatural Reli
gion ' . . 298, 473
 ' Teaching of Twelve ' 316
Rabbi Levi Ben Gershon
Rabbis, the Jewish .
Ramsay, as to census
 early Gospels .
 Lycaonia .
Rationalism, spread of
 and miracles . 297
Reason cannot judge of
Christian doctrines 291
 but can of evidences . 577
Recognition, hereafter . 528
Recurring series of events . 4
Red Sea, passage of . . 194

306, 323
• 316
297 510316430
292 315302
435430 473
472 293
• 433
• 3"
¦ 315
430 328
439, 473
100, 157
• 36
297

21 1
474 323328353 509
438

602

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

PAGE
Religions, heathen . . 247
Remorse .... 62
Renan, as to miracles . 298
 St. Paul's Epistles . 327
 raising of Lazarus . 439
 Christ's character . 472
Repentance . . . 284
Representative, terms 135, 239
 necessity of . .239
 Man, Christ the . 283
Responsibility of man . 58
Resurrection, doctrine of . 285
 applies to a body . 396
 not resuscitation . 285
 evidence of Christ's . 367
 wanted Missionaries . 412
 a physical fact . . 396
 not really unique . 286
 table of appearances . 372
 three groups . . 373
 the narratives . . 370
 their discrepancies . 374
 their agreements . 379
 omissions . . . 377
 signs of early date . 383
 the real difficulty . 409
 man's . . . 288
 not of relics . 288
 the period of life . 529
 the Sreat surprise . 5 30
 and human nature . 528
 material images . 550
Revelation, meaning of . 95
 possible ... 96
 probable .
 progressive
 after writing
 must be partial no
 evidence inconclusive
 how bestowed .
 miraculous
 not Inspiration .
.  Book of, and Gospel
 and the Acts

105107107
236 no
469 H3
515345 364
483 560

 Divinity of Christ
Right belief, importance of
Risen Body difficulties 286, 385
 . record of eyewitnesses 383
Roman, provinces . . 349
 siege of Jerusalem . 224
 Government and
Christians . . 363
Romanes, man's probation 100
 accuracy of Genesis , 257

Rontgen rays . . .286
Rudimentary organs . 26
Sacrifices, heathen . 527
 human . . . 242
Salvation, not selfishness . 531
Samaritans and Jews . 322
Samuel and Pentateuch . 188
Sanctuary, the one . .190
Sand-storms and darkness 166
Sargon, named in Isaiah . 208
Secondary forces . . 38
Seed, may be disciples 450, 459
Selfishness, objection as to 532
Sennacherib . . .216
Sentinel, pain a kind of . 84
Sepher Toldeth Yeshu . 434
Sergius Paulus . . 350, 426
Servant, the Lord's . . 454
Shadow on dial . . 229
Shaving in Egypt . .162
Shepherd, the Lord's . 465
Shur, desert of . .164
Siege of Jerusalem foretold
by Moses . 224
 and by Christ . .332
Signet ring, in Egypt . 163
Signs, superhuman . . 114
 supernatural . . 116
Silence, argument from 188, 435
 of sun and moon . 210
Simon, shows early date . 383
Simultaneous visions . 398
Sin, its meaning , . 59
 not imperfection . 60
 involves free will . 60
 reason for it . 88
 necessary for some
virtues ... 90
 its universality . . 527
 its remedy . 275,285
 eternal . . -553
Sinai . . .169
Sinlessness of Christ . . 476
 foretold by Isaiah . 45 1
 implied in Ps. 22 .461
Slaughter of animals . 178
Slavery in early times . 244
Solar radiance . . . 261
Soli, inscription at . -35°
Solon, and Greek laws . 181
Son of God, significance 283, 482
Sorrow, human , .526

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

603

PAGE
South, Queen of the . 331
Specialists and the Bible . 296
Spectroscopes ... 76
Spencer, on personality . 36
Spiritual beings . 286, 416
Strauss, as to miracles . 297
 St. Paul's Epistles . 327
Substance, meaning of . 256
Suetonius . . 494
Sufferings of animals . 81
 of men ... 84
 and future happiness 101
 of Jews . . . 223
 of Christians . . 389
Sun and moon, creation 147
 not in firmament . 145
 silence of . . . 210
Superhuman signs . . 114
 men in furnace . . 119
 coincidences . . 115
 passage of Red Sea . 1 94
— destruction of Korah 202
¦ of Assyrian army 216

 silence of sun
 Elijah's sacrifice
 shadow on dial
• and prayer

210215229 5i8 9
5 5

Supernatural force .
 man partly
' Supernatural Religion,'
as to miracles . 298
 Marcion and St. Luke 310
 St. Paul's Epistles . 327
¦  Christ's character . 473
Surprise, the great . . 530
Survival of fittest (see Evo
lution)
Swine at Gadara . 325, 419
Swoon theory of Resurrec
tion . . . 404
 its improbabilities . 405
 what became of Christ 407
¦  cannot explain facts . 408
 the grave-clothes . 408
Sword, a violent death 459, 465
Syene, temple at . .190
Synoptic Gospels, accuracy 321
 discrepancies
 sources
 apparently truthful .
 probable date . 332,
 authors
 and Fourth

Divinity of Christ

33i
32532936533434°
4S2

TabernacleTable of Christ's appear
ances
Tacitus, Nero's persecu
tion
 spread of Christianity
 his contempt for it .
Talmud, as to miracles
Tatian, his Diatessaron
Teaching of Twelve 314,
 and the Trinity
Tel-el-MuskhutaTelephone, analogy .
Telescope and eye
 discoveries of .
Ten Commandments (see
Decalogue)
Ten Plagues
 superhuman coinci
dences .
 and magicians
Tertullian
Testimony and experience
 its value .
Text of Gospels
Thebes, prophecy as to
Theophilus, and Acts
Thessalonica, politarchs
Theudas, date of
Third Day, importance
 and Vision Theory
 volume of Acts
Thomas, St., and Resurrec
tion
 and Christ's Divinity
Thousands or families
Three Creeds
 days and third day
Three men in furnace
Titles of various rulers
Tomb, the empty
 visit of disciples
 guard at . .
Town Clerk of Ephesus
Trials here, future reward
Trinity, Doctrine of the .
 its credibility .
 and Nat. Theology
 peculiarly Christian
 hinted at in Old Test.
 deducible from N. T.
 implied by Clement .
 by Ignatius
 by the Teaching

172
372 390
494 436
434 3093i6 548 197 120 16
75

165 194
214 305 119
386
300
222 32735i349369397365398
482 195
540369 "9
349
402 384
401 353 101
256 261263 533
467 54i
549 549546

604

INDEX OF SUBJECTS.

Trinity, and by Justin . 549
— ¦ — • form of Monotheism . 467
Triple tradition in Gospels 325
Unconscious happiness 85
Undesigned coincidences . 201
 examples, Korah . 202
 slaughter of animals . 178
 call of St. John . 338
 destroying Temple . 344
 feeding the 5,000 . 344
 Acts and Epistles 354
 swine at Gadara . 419
 mocking the Crucified 463
 baptismal formula . 546
Uniformity of nature . 122
 and prayer . .518
Union, Christ and believers 283
Uniqueness of man . 77
 of each man . . 75
 of the Incarnation . 271
 of Christianity . 537
Unitarianism . . . 263
Unity of nature . 9
Universalism . . -558
 man not a machine . 559
Universe, its origin . 3, 142
 its magnitude . 76
 bearing on man 73, 526
 • an effect ... 43
Unknowable, everything is 40
Unrighteous steward 475
Vegetation in Genesis . 146
Vellum used for writing . 300
Veracity of witnesses . 387
 the only alternative . 391
Verbal inspiration . * 515
Vessels of wood . . 165
Vesuvius, eruption of . 86
' Victoria Institute, ' pain . 82
 fishes and birds . 151
 Red Sea . . .194
 Pithom . . .197
 Belshazzar . . 208
 Lystra . . -353
 Krishna myth . -534
 Horus myth 536

Vine- and branches
Virgin Birth, unique
 and Justin
 ¦ Apostolic Fathers
 Aristides .
Vision theory of Resurrec
tion
 contradicts language
 • which implies reani-
mation .
 visions1 not expected .
 began too soon .
 ended too soon .
 Christ not recognised
 Apostles doubtful
 seen simultaneously .
 cannot explain facts .
 what became of Body
 or appearance to Paul
 real visions
Volition, source of all force
Vows in Ps. 22 .
Voyage, St. Paul's . 356,
Walking on sea, Christ's .
Warnings of Athanasian
Creed ....
' Wars of the Lord,' quoted
' Waste and void ' in Gen.
Watch showing design
Water-wheels, Egyptian .
' We sections ' of Acts
' Westward,' use of term
-Wheat, seven-eared
Whirlpool Wicked men, their use
 not machines .
 final state .
Wisdom, God's . 37, 246,
Word or Logos .
 in Revelation
 among Greeks .
Writing, early use of 160,
 wanted for revelation

WELLS GARDNER, DAKTON A*'-* CO., LTD., LONDON

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 9906

I