diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 05:26:55 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 05:26:55 -0700 |
| commit | 71cdd34180fee1456e97b1fd3183e97dbdb0840c (patch) | |
| tree | f656da864c07bc03d3a2d3e954bd80eb7224c85a /6092-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '6092-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 6092-h/6092-h.htm | 8891 |
1 files changed, 8891 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/6092-h/6092-h.htm b/6092-h/6092-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9b97322 --- /dev/null +++ b/6092-h/6092-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,8891 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" /> +<title>The Fair Haven, by Samuel Butler</title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + P { margin-top: .75em; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + P.gutsumm { margin-left: 5%;} + P.poetry {margin-left: 3%; } + .GutSmall { font-size: 0.7em; } + H1, H2 { + text-align: center; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + } + H3, H4, H5 { + text-align: center; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 1em; + } + BODY{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + table { border-collapse: collapse; } +table {margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto;} + td { vertical-align: top; border: 1px solid black;} + td p { margin: 0.2em; } + .blkquot {margin-left: 4em; margin-right: 4em;} /* block indent */ + + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + + .pagenum {position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: small; + text-align: right; + font-weight: normal; + color: gray; + } + img { border: none; } + img.dc { float: left; width: 50px; height: 50px; } + p.gutindent { margin-left: 2em; } + div.gapspace { height: 0.8em; } + div.gapline { height: 0.8em; width: 100%; border-top: 1px solid;} + div.gapmediumline { height: 0.3em; width: 40%; margin-left:30%; + border-top: 1px solid; } + div.gapmediumdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 40%; margin-left:30%; + border-top: 1px solid; border-bottom: 1px solid;} + div.gapshortdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%; + margin-left: 40%; border-top: 1px solid; + border-bottom: 1px solid; } + div.gapdoubleline { height: 0.3em; width: 50%; + margin-left: 25%; border-top: 1px solid; + border-bottom: 1px solid;} + div.gapshortline { height: 0.3em; width: 20%; margin-left:40%; + border-top: 1px solid; } + .citation {vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: none;} + img.floatleft { float: left; + margin-right: 1em; + margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + img.floatright { float: right; + margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 0.5em; + margin-bottom: 0.5em; } + img.clearcenter {display: block; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; margin-top: 0.5em; + margin-bottom: 0.5em} + --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> +</head> +<body> +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Fair Haven, by Samuel Butler, Edited by +R. A. Streatfeild + + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + + + + +Title: The Fair Haven + + +Author: Samuel Butler + +Editor: R. A. Streatfeild + +Release Date: July 30, 2014 [eBook #6092] +[This file was first posted on November 4, 2002] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-646-US (US-ASCII) + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE FAIR HAVEN*** +</pre> +<p>Transcribed from the 1913 A. C. Fifield edition by David +Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org</p> +<h1>The Fair Haven</h1> +<p style="text-align: center"><i>A Work in Defence of the +Miraculous Element</i><br /> +<i>in our Lord’s Ministry upon Earth</i>, <i>both as +against</i><br /> +<i>Rationalistic Impugners and certain Orthodox Defenders</i>,<br +/> +<i>by the late John Pickard Owen</i>, <i>with a Memoir</i><br /> +<i>of the Author by William Bickersteth Owen</i>.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">By</p> +<p style="text-align: center"><b>Samuel Butler</b></p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">Author of +“Erewhon”</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall"><span +class="smcap">Op</span></span><span class="GutSmall">. +2</span></p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center"><i>Now Reset</i>; <i>and +Edited</i>, <i>with an Introduction</i>,<br /> +<i>by R. A. Streatfeild</i></p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center">London<br /> +A. C. Fifield, 13 Clifford’s Inn, E.C.<br /> +1913</p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center"><span class="GutSmall">WILLIAM +BRENDON AND SON, LTD., PRINTERS, PLYMOUTH</span></p> +<p style="text-align: center"><span +class="GutSmall">Contents</span></p> +<table> +<tr> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p>Introduction by R. A. Streatfeild</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#pageix">ix</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p>Butler’s Preface to the Second Edition</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#pagexv">xv</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p>Memoir of the late John Pickard Owen</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page1">1</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p><span class="GutSmall">CHAPTER</span></p> +</td> +<td colspan="2"><p style="text-align: right"> </p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">I.</p> +</td> +<td><p>Introduction</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page61">61</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">II.</p> +</td> +<td><p>Strauss and the Hallucination Theory</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page83">83</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">III.</p> +</td> +<td><p>The Character and Conversion of St. Paul</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page105">105</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">IV.</p> +</td> +<td><p>Paul’s Testimony considered</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page120">120</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">V.</p> +</td> +<td><p>A Consideration of Certain Ill-judged Methods of +Defence</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page134">134</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">VI.</p> +</td> +<td><p>More Disingenuousness</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page153">153</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">VII.</p> +</td> +<td><p>Difficulties felt by our Opponents</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page170">170</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">VIII.</p> +</td> +<td><p>The Preceding Chapter Continued</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page194">194</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">IX.</p> +</td> +<td><p>The Christ-Ideal</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page230">230</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p style="text-align: right">X.</p> +</td> +<td><p>Conclusion</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page255">255</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td><p> </p> +</td> +<td><p>Appendix</p> +</td> +<td><p style="text-align: right"><span class="indexpageno"><a +href="#page273">273</a></span></p> +</td> +</tr> +</table> +<h2><a name="pageix"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +ix</span>INTRODUCTION<br /> +By R. A. Streatfeild</h2> +<p><span class="smcap">The</span> demand for a new edition of +<i>The Fair Haven</i> gives me an opportunity of saying a few +words about the genesis of what, though not one of the most +popular of Samuel Butler’s books, is certainly one of the +most characteristic. Few of his works, indeed, show more +strikingly his brilliant powers as a controversialist and his +implacable determination to get at the truth of whatever engaged +his attention.</p> +<p>To find the germ of <i>The Fair Haven</i> we should probably +have to go back to the year 1858, when Butler, after taking his +degree at Cambridge, was preparing himself for holy orders by +acting as a kind of lay curate in a London parish. Butler +never took things for granted, and he felt it to be his duty to +examine independently a good many points of Christian dogma which +most candidates for ordination accept as matters of course. +The result of his investigations was that he eventually declined +to take orders at all. One of the stones upon which he then +stumbled was the efficacy of infant baptism, and I have no doubt +that another was the miraculous element of Christianity, which, +it will be remembered, was the cause of grievous searchings of +heart to Ernest Pontifex in Butler’s semi-autobiographical +novel, <i>The Way of All Flesh</i>. While Butler was in New +Zealand (1859–64) he had leisure for prosecuting his +Biblical studies, the result of which he published in 1865, after +his return to England, in an anonymous pamphlet entitled +“The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as given +by the Four Evangelists critically examined.” This +pamphlet passed unnoticed; probably only a few copies were +printed and it is now extremely rare. After the publication +of <i>Erewhon</i> in 1872, Butler returned once more to theology, +and made his anonymous pamphlet the basis of the far more +elaborate <i>Fair Haven</i>, which was originally published as +the posthumous work of a certain John Pickard Owen, preceded by a +memoir of the deceased author by his supposed brother, William +Bickersteth Owen. It is possible that the memoir was the +fruit of a suggestion made by Miss Savage, an able and witty +woman with whom Butler corresponded at the time. Miss +Savage was so much impressed by the narrative power displayed in +<i>Erewhon</i> that she urged Butler to write a novel, and we +shall probably not be far wrong in regarding the biography of +John Pickard Owen as Butler’s trial trip in the art of +fiction—a prelude to <i>The Way of All Flesh</i>, which he +began in 1873.</p> +<p>It has often been supposed that the elaborate paraphernalia of +mystification which Butler used in <i>The Fair Haven</i> was +deliberately designed in order to hoax the public. I do not +believe that this was the case. Butler, I feel convinced, +provided an ironical framework for his arguments merely that he +might render them more effective than they had been when plainly +stated in the pamphlet of 1865. He fully expected his +readers to comprehend his irony, and he anticipated that some at +any rate of them would keenly resent it. Writing to Miss +Savage in March, 1873 (shortly before the publication of the +book), he said: “I should hope that attacks on <i>The Fair +Haven</i> will give me an opportunity of excusing myself, and if +so I shall endeavour that the excuse may be worse than the fault +it is intended to excuse.” A few days later he +referred to the difficulties that he had encountered in getting +the book accepted by a publisher: “— were frightened +and even considered the scheme of the book unjustifiable. +— urged me, as politely as he could, not to do it, and +evidently thinks I shall get myself into disgrace even among +freethinkers. It’s all nonsense. I dare say I +shall get into a row—at least I hope I shall.” +Evidently there is here no anticipation of <i>The Fair Haven</i> +being misunderstood. Misunderstood, however, it was, not +only by reviewers, some of whom greeted it solemnly as a defence +of orthodoxy, but by divines of high standing, such as the late +Canon Ainger, who sent it to a friend whom he wished to +convert. This was more than Butler could resist, and he +hastened to issue a second edition bearing his name and +accompanied by a preface in which the deceived elect were held up +to ridicule.</p> +<p>Butler used to maintain that <i>The Fair Haven</i> did his +reputation no harm. Writing in 1901, he said:</p> +<p>“<i>The Fair Haven</i> got me into no social disgrace +that I have ever been able to discover. I might attack +Christianity as much as I chose and nobody cared one straw; but +when I attacked Darwin it was a different matter. For many +years <i>Evolution</i>, <i>Old and New</i>, and <i>Unconscious +Memory</i> made a shipwreck of my literary prospects. I am +only now beginning to emerge from the literary and social injury +which those two perfectly righteous books inflicted on me. +I dare say they abound with small faults of taste, but I rejoice +in having written both of them.”</p> +<p>Very likely Butler was right as to the social side of the +question, but I am convinced that <i>The Fair Haven</i> did him +grave harm in the literary world. Reviewers fought shy of +him for the rest of his life. They had been taken in once, +and they took very good care that they should not be taken in +again. The word went forth that Butler was not to be taken +seriously, whatever he wrote, and the results of the decree were +apparent in the conspiracy of silence that greeted not only his +books on evolution, but his Homeric works, his writings on art, +and his edition of Shakespeare’s sonnets. Now that he +has passed beyond controversies and mystifications, and now that +his other works are appreciated at their true value, it is not +too much to hope that tardy justice will be accorded also to +<i>The Fair Haven</i>. It is true that the subject is no +longer the burning question that it was forty years ago. In +the early seventies theological polemics were fashionable. +Books like Seeley’s <i>Ecce Homo</i> and Matthew +Arnold’s <i>Literature and Dogma</i> were eagerly devoured +by readers of all classes. Nowadays we take but a languid +interest in the problems that disturbed our grandfathers, and +most of us have settled down into what Disraeli described as the +religion of all sensible men, which no sensible man ever talks +about. There is, however, in <i>The Fair Haven</i> a good +deal more than theological controversy, and our Laodicean age +will appreciate Butler’s humour and irony if it cares +little for his polemics. <i>The Fair Haven</i> scandalised +a good many people when it first appeared, but I am not afraid of +its scandalising anybody now. I should be sorry, +nevertheless, if it gave any reader a false impression of +Butler’s Christianity, and I think I cannot do better than +conclude with a passage from one of his essays which represents +his attitude to religion perhaps more faithfully than anything in +<i>The Fair Haven</i>: “What, after all, is the essence of +Christianity? What is the kernel of the nut? Surely +common sense and cheerfulness, with unflinching opposition to the +charlatanisms and Pharisaisms of a man’s own times. +The essence of Christianity lies neither in dogma, nor yet in +abnormally holy life, but in faith in an unseen world, in doing +one’s duty, in speaking the truth, in finding the true life +rather in others than in oneself, and in the certain hope that he +who loses his life on these behalfs finds more than he has +lost. What can Agnosticism do against such Christianity as +this? I should be shocked if anything I had ever written or +shall ever write should seem to make light of these +things.”</p> +<p style="text-align: right">R. A. <span +class="smcap">Streatfeild</span>.</p> +<p><i>August</i>, 1913.</p> +<h2><a name="pagexv"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +xv</span>Butler’s Preface to the Second Edition</h2> +<p><span class="smcap">The</span> occasion of a Second Edition of +<i>The Fair Haven</i> enables me to thank the public and my +critics for the favourable reception which has been accorded to +the First Edition. I had feared that the freedom with which +I had exposed certain untenable positions taken by Defenders of +Christianity might have given offence to some reviewers, but no +complaint has reached me from any quarter on the score of my not +having put the best possible case for the evidence in favour of +the miraculous element in Christ’s teaching—nor can I +believe that I should have failed to hear of it, if my book had +been open to exception on this ground.</p> +<p>An apology is perhaps due for the adoption of a pseudonym, and +even more so for the creation of two such characters as <span +class="smcap">John Pickard Owen</span> and his brother. Why +could I not, it may be asked, have said all that I had to say in +my own proper person?</p> +<p>Are there not real ills of life enough already? Is there +not a “lo here!” from this school with its gushing +“earnestness,” it distinctions without differences, +its gnat strainings and camel swallowings, its pretence of +grappling with a question while resolutely bent upon shirking it, +its dust throwing and mystification, its concealment of its own +ineffable insincerity under an air of ineffable candour? Is +there not a “lo there!” from that other school with +its bituminous atmosphere of exclusiveness and self-laudatory +dilettanteism? Is there not enough actual exposition of +boredom come over us from many quarters without drawing for new +bores upon the imagination? It is true I gave a single drop +of comfort. <span class="smcap">John Pickard Owen</span> +was dead. But his having ceased to exist (to use the +impious phraseology of the present day) did not cancel the fact +of his having once existed. That he should have ever been +born gave proof of potentialities in Nature which could not be +regarded lightly. What hybrids might not be in store for us +next? Moreover, though <span class="smcap">John +Pickard</span> was dead, <span class="smcap">William +Bickersteth</span> was still living, and might at any moment +rekindle his burning and shining lamp of persistent +self-satisfaction. Even though the <span +class="smcap">Owens</span> had actually existed, should not their +existence have been ignored as a disgrace to Nature? Who +then could be justified in creating them when they did not +exist?</p> +<p>I am afraid I must offer an apology rather than an +excuse. The fact is that I was in a very awkward +position. My previous work, <i>Erewhon</i>, had failed to +give satisfaction to certain ultra-orthodox Christians, who +imagined that they could detect an analogy between the English +Church and the Erewhonian Musical Banks. It is +inconceivable how they can have got hold of this idea; but I was +given to understand that I should find it far from easy to +dispossess them of the notion that something in the way of satire +had been intended. There were other parts of the book which +had also been excepted to, and altogether I had reason to believe +that if I defended Christianity in my own name I should not find +<i>Erewhon</i> any addition to the weight which my remarks might +otherwise carry. If I had been suspected of satire once, I +might be suspected again with no greater reason. Instead of +calmly reviewing the arguments which I adduced, <i>The Rock</i> +might have raised a cry of <i>non tali auxilio</i>. It must +always be remembered that besides the legitimate investors in +Christian stocks, if so homely a metaphor may be pardoned, there +are unscrupulous persons whose profession it is to be bulls, +bears, stags, and I know not what other creatures of the various +Christian markets. It is all nonsense about hawks not +picking out each other’s eyes—there is nothing they +like better. I feared <i>The Guardian</i>, <i>The +Record</i>, <i>The John Bull</i>, etc., lest they should suggest +that from a bear I now turned bull with a view to an eventual +bishopric. Such insinuations would have impaired the value +of <i>The Fair Haven</i> as an anchorage for well-meaning +people. I therefore resolved to obey the injunction of the +Gentile Apostle and avoid all appearance of evil, by dissociating +myself from the author of <i>Erewhon</i> as completely as +possible. At the moment of my resolution <span +class="smcap">John Pickard Owen</span> came to my assistance; I +felt that he was the sort of man I wanted, but that he was hardly +sufficient in himself. I therefore summoned his +brother. The pair have served their purpose; a year +nowadays produces great changes in men’s thoughts +concerning Christianity, and the little matter of <i>Erewhon</i> +having quite blown over I feel that I may safely appear in my +true colours as the champion of orthodoxy, discard the <span +class="smcap">Owens</span> as other than mouthpieces, and relieve +the public from uneasiness as to any further writings from the +pen of the surviving brother.</p> +<p>Nevertheless I am bound to own that, in spite of a generally +favourable opinion, my critics have not been unanimous in their +interpretation of <i>The Fair Haven</i>. Thus, <i>The +Rock</i> (April 25, 1873, and May 9, 1873), says that the work is +“an extraordinary one, whether regarded as a biographical +record or a theological treatise. Indeed the importance of +the volume compels us to depart from our custom of reviewing with +brevity works entrusted to us, and we shall in two consecutive +numbers of <i>The Rock</i> lay before its readers what appear to +us to be the merits and demerits of this posthumous +production.”</p> +<p style="text-align: center">* * * * *</p> +<p>“His exhibition of the certain proofs furnished of the +Resurrection of our Lord is certainly masterly and +convincing.”</p> +<p style="text-align: center">* * * * *</p> +<p>“To the sincerely inquiring doubter, the striking way in +which the truth of the Resurrection is exhibited must be most +beneficial, but such a character we are compelled to believe is +rare among those of the schools of neology.”</p> +<p style="text-align: center">* * * * *</p> +<p>“Mr. <span class="smcap">Owen’s</span> exposition +and refutation of the hallucination and mythical theories of +Strauss and his followers is most admirable, and all should read +it who desire to know exactly what excuses men make for their +incredulity. The work also contains many beautiful passages +on the discomfort of unbelief, and the holy pleasure of a settled +faith, which cannot fail to benefit the reader.”</p> +<p>On the other hand, in spite of all my precautions, the same +misfortune which overtook <i>Erewhon</i> has also come upon +<i>The Fair Haven</i>. It has been suspected of a satirical +purpose. The author of a pamphlet entitled <i>Jesus versus +Christianity</i> says:—</p> +<p>“<i>The Fair Haven</i> is an ironical defence of +orthodoxy at the expense of the whole mass of Church tenet and +dogma, the character of Christ only excepted. Such at least +is our reading of it, though critics of the <i>Rock</i> and +<i>Record</i> order have accepted the book as a serious defence +of Christianity, and proclaimed it as a most valuable +contribution in aid of the faith. Affecting an orthodox +standpoint it most bitterly reproaches all previous apologists +for the lack of candour with which they have ignored or explained +away insuperable difficulties and attached undue value to +coincidences real or imagined. One and all they have, the +author declares, been at best, but zealous ‘liars for +God,’ or what to them was more than God, their own +religious system. This must go on no longer. We, as +Christians having a sound cause, need not fear to let the truth +be known. He proceeds accordingly to set forth the truth as +he finds it in the New Testament; and in a masterly analysis of +the account of the Resurrection, which he selects as the +principal crucial miracle, involving all other miracles, he shows +how slender is the foundation on which the whole fabric of +supernatural theology has been reared.”</p> +<p style="text-align: center">* * * * *</p> +<p>“As told by our author the whole affords an exquisite +example of the natural growth of a legend.”</p> +<p style="text-align: center">* * * * *</p> +<p>“If the reader can once fully grasp the intention of the +style, and its affectation of the tone of indignant orthodoxy, +and perceive also how utterly destructive are its ‘candid +admissions’ to the whole fabric of supernaturalism, he will +enjoy a rare treat. It is not however for the purpose of +recommending what we at least regard as a piece of exquisite +humour, that we call attention to <i>The Fair Haven</i>, but +&c. &c.”</p> +<p style="text-align: center">* * * * *</p> +<p>This is very dreadful; but what can one do?</p> +<p>Again, <i>The Scotsman</i> speaks of the writer as being +“throughout in downright almost pathetic +earnestness.” While <i>The National Reformer</i> +seems to be in doubt whether the book is a covert attack upon +Christianity or a serious defence of it, but declares that both +orthodox and unorthodox will find matter requiring thought and +answer.</p> +<p>I am not responsible for the interpretations of my +readers. It is only natural that the same work should +present a very different aspect according as it is approached +from one side or the other. There is only one way out of +it—that the reader should kindly interpret according to his +own fancies. If he will do this the book is sure to please +him. I have done the best I can for all parties, and feel +justified in appealing to the existence of the widely conflicting +opinions which I have quoted, as a proof that the balance has +been evenly held, and that I was justified in calling the book a +defence—both as against impugners and defenders.</p> +<p style="text-align: right">S. <span +class="smcap">Butler</span>.</p> +<p><i>Oct.</i> 8, 1873.</p> +<h2><a name="page1"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 1</span>Memoir +of<br /> +The late John Pickard Owen</h2> +<h3>Chapter I</h3> +<p><span class="smcap">The</span> subject of this Memoir, and +Author of the work which follows it, was born in Goodge Street, +Tottenham Court Road, London, on the 5th of February, 1832. +He was my elder brother by about eighteen months. Our +father and mother had once been rich, but through a succession of +unavoidable misfortunes they were left with but a very moderate +income when my brother and myself were about three and four years +old. My father died some five or six years afterwards, and +we only recollected him as a singularly gentle and humorous +playmate who doted upon us both and never spoke unkindly. +The charm of such a recollection can never be dispelled; both my +brother and myself returned his love with interest, and cherished +his memory with the most affectionate regret, from the day on +which he left us till the time came that the one of us was again +to see him face to face. So sweet and winning was his +nature that his slightest wish was our law—and whenever we +pleased him, no matter how little, he never failed to thank us as +though we had done him a service which we should have had a +perfect right to withhold. How proud were we upon any of +these occasions, and how we courted the opportunity of being +thanked! He did indeed well know the art of becoming +idolised by his children, and dearly did he prize the results of +his own proficiency; yet truly there was no art about it; all +arose spontaneously from the wellspring of a sympathetic nature +which knew how to feel as others felt, whether old or young, rich +or poor, wise or foolish. On one point alone did he neglect +us—I refer to our religious education. On all other +matters he was the kindest and most careful teacher in the +world. Love and gratitude be to his memory!</p> +<p>My mother loved us no less ardently than my father, but she +was of a quicker temper, and less adept at conciliating +affection. She must have been exceedingly handsome when she +was young, and was still comely when we first remembered her; she +was also highly accomplished, but she felt my father’s loss +of fortune more keenly than my father himself, and it preyed upon +her mind, though rather for our sake than for her own. Had +we not known my father we should have loved her better than any +one in the world, but affection goes by comparison, and my father +spoiled us for any one but himself; indeed, in after life, I +remember my mother’s telling me, with many tears, how +jealous she had often been of the love we bore him, and how mean +she had thought it of him to entrust all scolding or repression +to her, so that he might have more than his due share of our +affection. Not that I believe my father did this +consciously; still, he so greatly hated scolding that I dare say +we might often have got off scot free when we really deserved +reproof had not my mother undertaken the <i>onus</i> of scolding +us herself. We therefore naturally feared her more than my +father, and fearing more we loved less. For as love casteth +out fear, so fear love.</p> +<p>This must have been hard to bear, and my mother scarcely knew +the way to bear it. She tried to upbraid us, in little +ways, into loving her as much as my father; the more she tried +this, the less we could succeed in doing it; and so on and so on +in a fashion which need not be detailed. Not but what we +really loved her deeply, while her affection for us was +unsurpassable still, we loved her less than we loved my father, +and this was the grievance.</p> +<p>My father entrusted our religious education entirely to my +mother. He was himself, I am assured, of a deeply religious +turn of mind, and a thoroughly consistent member of the Church of +England; but he conceived, and perhaps rightly, that it is the +mother who should first teach her children to lift their hands in +prayer, and impart to them a knowledge of the One in whom we live +and move and have our being. My mother accepted the task +gladly, for in spite of a certain narrowness of view—the +natural but deplorable result of her earlier +surroundings—she was one of the most truly pious women whom +I have ever known; unfortunately for herself and us she had been +trained in the lowest school of Evangelical literalism—a +school which in after life both my brother and myself came to +regard as the main obstacle to the complete overthrow of +unbelief; we therefore looked upon it with something stronger +than aversion, and for my own part I still deem it perhaps the +most insidious enemy which the cause of Christ has ever +encountered. But of this more hereafter.</p> +<p>My mother, as I said, threw her whole soul into the work of +our religious education. Whatever she believed she believed +literally, and, if I may say so, with a harshness of realisation +which left very little scope for imagination or mystery. +Her plans of Heaven and solutions of life’s enigmas were +direct and forcible, but they could only be reconciled with +certain obvious facts—such as the omnipotence and +all-goodness of God—by leaving many things absolutely out +of sight. And this my mother succeeded effectually in +doing. She never doubted that her opinions comprised the +truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; she therefore +made haste to sow the good seed in our tender minds, and so far +succeeded that when my brother was four years old he could repeat +the Apostles’ Creed, the General Confession, and the +Lord’s Prayer without a blunder. My mother made +herself believe that he delighted in them; but, alas! it was far +otherwise; for, strange as it may appear concerning one whose +later life was a continual prayer, in childhood he detested +nothing so much as being made to pray and to learn his +Catechism. In this I am sorry to say we were both heartily +of a mind. As for Sunday, the less said the better.</p> +<p>I have already hinted (but as a warning to other parents I had +better, perhaps, express myself more plainly), that this aversion +was probably the result of my mother’s undue eagerness to +reap an artificial fruit of lip service, which could have little +meaning to the heart of one so young. I believe that the +severe check which the natural growth of faith experienced in my +brother’s case was due almost entirely to this cause, and +to the school of literalism in which he had been trained; but, +however this may be, we both of us hated being made to say our +prayers—morning and evening it was our one bugbear, and we +would avoid it, as indeed children generally will, by every +artifice which we could employ. Thus we were in the habit +of feigning to be asleep shortly before prayer time, and would +gratefully hear my father tell my mother that it was a shame to +wake us; whereon he would carry us up to bed in a state +apparently of the profoundest slumber when we were really wide +awake and in great fear of detection. For we knew how to +pretend to be asleep, but we did not know how we ought to wake +again; there was nothing for it therefore when we were once +committed, but to go on sleeping till we were fairly undressed +and put to bed, and could wake up safely in the dark. But +deceit is never long successful, and we were at last +ignominiously exposed.</p> +<p>It happened one evening that my mother suspected my brother +John, and tried to open his little hands which were lying clasped +in front of him. Now my brother was as yet very crude and +inconsistent in his theories concerning sleep, and had no +conception of what a real sleeper would do under these +circumstances. Fear deprived him of his powers of +reflection, and he thus unfortunately concluded that because +sleepers, so far as he had observed them, were always motionless, +therefore, they must be quite rigid and incapable of motion, and +indeed that any movement, under any circumstances (for from his +earliest childhood he liked to carry his theories to their +legitimate conclusion), would be physically impossible for one +who was really sleeping; forgetful, oh! unhappy one, of the +flexibility of his own body on being carried upstairs, and, more +unhappy still, ignorant of the art of waking. He, +therefore, clenched his fingers harder and harder as he felt my +mother trying to unfold them while his head hung listless, and +his eyes were closed I as though he were sleeping sweetly. +It is needless to detail the agony of shame that followed. +My mother begged my father to box his ears, which my father +flatly refused to do. Then she boxed them herself, and +there followed a scene and a day or two of disgrace for both of +us.</p> +<p>Shortly after this there happened another misadventure. +A lady came to stay with my mother, and was to sleep in a bed +that had been brought into our nursery, for my father’s +fortunes had already failed, and we were living in a humble +way. We were still but four and five years old, so the +arrangement was not unnatural, and it was assumed that we should +be asleep before the lady went to bed, and be downstairs before +she would get up in the morning. But the arrival of this +lady and her being put to sleep in the nursery were great events +to us in those days, and being particularly wanted to go to +sleep, we of course sat up in bed talking and keeping ourselves +awake till she should come upstairs. Perhaps we had fancied +that she would give us something, but if so we were +disappointed. However, whether this was the case or not, we +were wide awake when our visitor came to bed, and having no +particular object to gain, we made no pretence of sleeping. +The lady kissed us both, told us to lie still and go to sleep +like good children, and then began doing her hair.</p> +<p>I remember that this was the occasion on which my brother +discovered a good many things in connection with the fair sex +which had hitherto been beyond his ken; more especially that the +mass of petticoats and clothes which envelop the female form were +not, as he expressed it to me, “all solid woman,” but +that women were not in reality more substantially built than men, +and had legs as much as he had, a fact which he had never yet +realised. On this he for a long time considered them as +impostors, who had wronged him by leading him to suppose that +they had far more “body in them” (so he said), than +he now found they had. This was a sort of thing which he +regarded with stern moral reprobation. If he had been old +enough to have a solicitor I believe he would have put the matter +into his hands, as well as certain other things which had lately +troubled him. For but recently my mother had bought a fowl, +and he had seen it plucked, and the inside taken out; his +irritation had been extreme on discovering that fowls were not +all solid flesh, but that their insides—and these formed, +as it appeared to him, an enormous percentage of the +bird—were perfectly useless. He was now beginning to +understand that sheep and cows were also hollow as far as good +meat was concerned; the flesh they had was only a mouthful in +comparison with what they ought to have considering their +apparent bulk—insignificant, mere skin and bone covering a +cavern. What right had they, or anything else, to assert +themselves as so big, and prove so empty? And now this +discovery of woman’s falsehood was quite too much for +him. The world itself was hollow, made up of shams and +delusions, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.</p> +<p>Truly a prosaic young gentleman enough. Everything with +him was to be exactly in all its parts what it appeared on the +face of it, and everything was to go on doing exactly what it had +been doing hitherto. If a thing looked solid, it was to be +very solid; if hollow, very hollow; nothing was to be half and +half, and nothing was to change unless he had himself already +become accustomed to its times and manners of changing; there +were to be no exceptions and no contradictions; all things were +to be perfectly consistent, and all premises to be carried with +extremest rigour to their legitimate conclusions. Heaven +was to be very neat (for he was always tidy himself), and free +from sudden shocks to the nervous system, such as those caused by +dogs barking at him, or cows driven in the streets. God was +to resemble my father, and the Holy Spirit to bear some sort of +indistinct analogy to my mother.</p> +<p>Such were the ideal theories of his +childhood—unconsciously formed, but very firmly believed +in. As he grew up he made such modifications as were forced +upon him by enlarged perceptions, but every modification was an +effort to him, in spite of a continual and successful resistance +to what he recognised as his initial mental defect.</p> +<p>I may perhaps be allowed to say here, in reference to a remark +in the preceding paragraph, that both my brother and myself used +to notice it as an almost invariable rule that children’s +earliest ideas of God are modelled upon the character of their +father—if they have one. Should the father be kind, +considerate, full of the warmest love, fond of showing it, and +reserved only about his displeasure, the child having learned to +look upon God as His Heavenly Father through the Lord’s +Prayer and our Church Services, will feel towards God as he does +towards his own father; this conception will stick to a man for +years and years after he has attained manhood—probably it +will never leave him. For all children love their fathers +and mothers, if these last will only let them; it is not a little +unkindness that will kill so hardy a plant as the love of a child +for its parents. Nature has allowed ample margin for many +blunders, provided there be a genuine desire on the +parent’s part to make the child feel that he is loved, and +that his natural feelings are respected. This is all the +religious education which a child should have. As he grows +older he will then turn naturally to the waters of life, and +thirst after them of his own accord by reason of the spiritual +refreshment which they, and they only, can afford. +Otherwise he will shrink from them, on account of his +recollection of the way in which he was led down to drink against +his will, and perhaps with harshness, when all the analogies with +which he was acquainted pointed in the direction of their being +unpleasant and unwholesome. So soul-satisfying is family +affection to a child, that he who has once enjoyed it cannot bear +to be deprived of the hope that he is possessed in Heaven of a +parent who is like his earthly father—of a friend and +counsellor who will never, never fail him. There is no such +religious nor moral education as kindly genial treatment and a +good example; all else may then be let alone till the child is +old enough to feel the want of it. It is true that the seed +will thus be sown late, but in what a soil! On the other +hand, if a man has found his earthly father harsh and +uncongenial, his conception of his Heavenly Parent will be +painful. He will begin by seeing God as an exaggerated +likeness of his father. He will therefore shrink from +Him. The rottenness of stillborn love in the heart of a +child poisons the blood of the soul, and hence, later, crime.</p> +<p>To return, however, to the lady. When she had put on her +night-gown, she knelt down by her bedside and, to our +consternation, began to say her prayers. This was a cruel +blow to both of us; we had always been under the impression that +grownup people were not made to say their prayers, and the idea +of any one saying them of his or her own accord had never +occurred to us as possible. Of course the lady would not +say her prayers if she were not obliged; and yet she did say +them; therefore she must be obliged to say them; therefore we +should be obliged to say them, and this was a very great +disappointment. Awe-struck and open-mouthed we listened +while the lady prayed in sonorous accents, for many things which +I do not now remember, and finally for my father and mother and +for both of us—shortly afterwards she rose, blew out the +light and got into bed. Every word that she said had +confirmed our worst apprehensions; it was just what we had been +taught to say ourselves.</p> +<p>Next morning we compared notes and drew the most painful +inferences; but in the course of the day our spirits +rallied. We agreed that there were many mysteries in +connection with life and things which it was high time to +unravel, and that an opportunity was now afforded us which might +not readily occur again. All we had to do was to be true to +ourselves and equal to the occasion. We laid our plans with +great astuteness. We would be fast asleep when the lady +came up to bed, but our heads should be turned in the direction +of her bed, and covered with clothes, all but a single +peep-hole. My brother, as the eldest, had clearly a right +to be nearest the lady, but I could see very well, and could +depend on his reporting faithfully whatever should escape me.</p> +<p>There was no chance of her giving us anything—if she had +meant to do so she would have done it sooner; she might, indeed, +consider the moment of her departure as the most auspicious for +this purpose, but then she was not going yet, and the interval +was at our own disposal. We spent the afternoon in trying +to learn to snore, but we were not certain about it, and in the +end regretfully concluded that as snoring was not <i>de +rigueur</i> we had better dispense with it.</p> +<p>We were put to bed; the light was taken away; we were told to +go to sleep, and promised faithfully that we would do so; the +tongue indeed swore, but the mind was unsworn. It was +agreed that we should keep pinching one another to prevent our +going to sleep. We did so at frequent intervals; at last +our patience was rewarded with the heavy creak, as of a stout +elderly lady labouring up the stairs, and presently our victim +entered.</p> +<p>To cut a long story short, the lady on satisfying herself that +we were asleep, never said her prayers at all; during the +remainder of her visit whenever she found us awake she always +said them, but when she thought we were asleep, she never +prayed. It is needless to add that we had the matter out +with her before she left, and that the consequences were +unpleasant for all parties; they added to the troubles in which +we were already involved as to our prayers, and were indirectly +among the earliest causes which led my brother to look with +scepticism upon religion.</p> +<p>For a while, however, all went on as though nothing had +happened. An effect of distrust, indeed, remained after the +cause had been forgotten, but my brother was still too young to +oppose anything that my mother told him, and to all outward +appearance he grew in grace no less rapidly than in stature.</p> +<p>For years we led a quiet and eventless life, broken only by +the one great sorrow of our father’s death. Shortly +after this we were sent to a day school in Bloomsbury. We +were neither of us very happy there, but my brother, who always +took kindly to his books, picked up a fair knowledge of Latin and +Greek; he also learned to draw, and to exercise himself a little +in English composition. When I was about fourteen my mother +capitalised a part of her income and started me off to America, +where she had friends who could give me a helping hand; by their +kindness I was enabled, after an absence of twenty years, to +return with a handsome income, but not, alas, before the death of +my mother.</p> +<p>Up to the time of my departure my mother continued to read the +Bible with us and explain it. She had become deeply +impressed with the millenarian fervour which laid hold of so many +some twenty-five or thirty years ago. The Apocalypse was +perhaps her favourite book in the Bible, and she was imbued with +the fullest conviction that all the threatened horrors with which +it teems were upon the eve of their accomplishment. The +year eighteen hundred and forty-eight was to be (as indeed it +was) a time of general bloodshed and confusion, while in eighteen +hundred and sixty-six, should it please God to spare her, her +eyes would be gladdened by the visible descent of the Son of Man +with a shout, with the voice of the Archangel, with the trump of +God; and the dead in Christ should rise first; then she, as one +of them that were alive, would be caught up with other saints +into the air, and would possibly receive while rising some +distinguishing token of confidence and approbation which should +fall with due impressiveness upon the surrounding multitude; then +would come the consummation of all things, and she would be ever +with the Lord. She died peaceably in her bed before she +could know that a commercial panic was the nearest approach to +the fulfilment of prophecy which the year eighteen hundred and +sixty-six brought forth.</p> +<p>These opinions of my mother’s were positively +disastrous—injuring her naturally healthy and vigorous mind +by leading her to indulge in all manner of dreamy and fanciful +interpretations of Scripture, which any but the most narrow +literalist would feel at once to be untenable. Thus several +times she expressed to us her conviction that my brother and +myself were to be the two witnesses mentioned in the eleventh +chapter of the Book of Revelation, and dilated upon the +gratification she should experience upon finding that we had +indeed been reserved for a position of such distinction. We +were as yet mere children, and naturally took all for granted +that our mother told us; we therefore made a careful examination +of the passage which threw light upon our future; but on finding +that the prospect was gloomy and full of bloodshed we protested +against the honours which were intended for us, more especially +when we reflected that the mother of the two witnesses was not +menaced in Scripture with any particular discomfort. If we +were to be martyrs, my mother ought to wish to be a martyr too, +whereas nothing was farther from her intention. Her notion +clearly was that we were to be massacred somewhere in the streets +of London, in consequence of the anti-Christian machinations of +the Pope; that after lying about unburied for three days and a +half we were to come to life again; and, finally, that we should +conspicuously ascend to heaven, in front, perhaps, of the +Foundling Hospital.</p> +<p>She was not herself indeed to share either our martyrdom or +our glorification, but was to survive us many years on earth, +living in an odour of great sanctity and reflected splendour, as +the central and most august figure in a select society. She +would perhaps be able indirectly, through her sons’ +influence with the Almighty, to have a voice in most of the +arrangements both of this world and of the next. If all +this were to come true (and things seemed very like it), those +friends who had neglected us in our adversity would not find it +too easy to be restored to favour, however greatly they might +desire it—that is to say, they would not have found it too +easy in the case of one less magnanimous and spiritually-minded +than herself. My mother said but little of the above +directly, but the fragments which occasionally escaped her were +pregnant, and on looking back it is easy to perceive that she +must have been building one of the most stupendous aerial fabrics +that have ever been reared.</p> +<p>I have given the above in its more amusing aspect, and am half +afraid that I may appear to be making a jest of weakness on the +part of one of the most devotedly unselfish mothers who have ever +existed. But one can love while smiling, and the very +wildness of my mother’s dream serves to show how entirely +her whole soul was occupied with the things which are +above. To her, religion was all in all; the earth was but a +place of pilgrimage—only so far important as it was a +possible road to heaven. She impressed this upon both of us +by every word and action—instant in season and out of +season, so that she might fill us more deeply with a sense of +God. But the inevitable consequences happened; my mother +had aimed too high and had overshot her mark. The influence +indeed of her guileless and unworldly nature remained impressed +upon my brother even during the time of his extremest unbelief +(perhaps his ultimate safety is in the main referable to this +cause, and to the happy memories of my father, which had +predisposed him to love God), but my mother had insisted on the +most minute verbal accuracy of every part of the Bible; she had +also dwelt upon the duty of independent research, and on the +necessity of giving up everything rather than assent to things +which our conscience did not assent to. No one could have +more effectually taught us to try <i>to think</i> the truth, and +we had taken her at her word because our hearts told us that she +was right. But she required three incompatible +things. When my brother grew older he came to feel that +independent and unflinching examination, with a determination to +abide by the results, would lead him to reject the point which to +my mother was more important than any other—I mean the +absolute accuracy of the Gospel records. My mother was +inexpressibly shocked at hearing my brother doubt the +authenticity of the Epistle to the Hebrews; and then, as it +appeared to him, she tried to make him violate the duties of +examination and candour which he had learnt too thoroughly to +unlearn. Thereon came pain and an estrangement which was +none the less profound for being mutually concealed.</p> +<p>This estrangement was the gradual work of some five or six +years, during which my brother was between eleven and seventeen +years old. At seventeen, I am told that he was remarkably +well informed and clever. His manners were, like my +father’s, singularly genial, and his appearance very +prepossessing. He had as yet no doubt concerning the +soundness of any fundamental Christian doctrine, but his mind was +too active to allow of his being contented with my mother’s +child-like faith. There were points on which he did not +indeed doubt, but which it would none the less be interesting to +consider; such for example as the perfectibility of the +regenerate Christian, and the meaning of the mysterious central +chapters of the Epistle to the Romans. He was engaged in +these researches though still only a boy, when an event occurred +which gave the first real shock to his faith.</p> +<p>He was accustomed to teach in a school for the poorest +children every Sunday afternoon, a task for which his patience +and good temper well fitted him. On one occasion, however, +while he was explaining the effect of baptism to one of his +favourite pupils, he discovered to his great surprise that the +boy had never been baptised. He pushed his inquiries +further, and found that out of the fifteen boys in his class only +five had been baptised, and, not only so, but that no difference +in disposition or conduct could be discovered between the +regenerate boys and the unregenerate. The good and bad boys +were distributed in proportions equal to the respective numbers +of the baptised and unbaptised. In spite of a certain +impetuosity of natural character, he was also of a matter-of-fact +and experimental turn of mind; he therefore went through the +whole school, which numbered about a hundred boys, and found out +who had been baptised and who had not. The same results +appeared. The majority had not been baptised; yet the good +and bad dispositions were so distributed as to preclude all +possibility of maintaining that the baptised boys were better +than the unbaptised.</p> +<p>The reader may smile at the idea of any one’s faith +being troubled by a fact of which the explanation is so obvious, +but in truth my brother was seriously and painfully +shocked. The teacher to whom he applied for a solution of +the difficulty was not a man of any real power, and reported my +brother to the rector for having disturbed the school by his +inquiries. The rector was old and self-opinionated; the +difficulty, indeed, was plainly as new to him as it had been to +my brother, but instead of saying so at once, and referring to +any recognised theological authority, he tried to put him off +with words which seemed intended to silence him rather than to +satisfy him; finally he lost his temper, and my brother fell +under suspicion of unorthodoxy.</p> +<p>This kind of treatment might answer with some people, but not +with my brother. He alludes to it resentfully in the +introductory chapter of his book. He became suspicious that +a preconceived opinion was being defended at the expense of +honest scrutiny, and was thus driven upon his own unaided +investigation. The result may be guessed: he began to go +astray, and strayed further and further. The children of +God, he reasoned, the members of Christ and inheritors of the +kingdom of Heaven, were no more spiritually minded than the +children of the world and the devil. Was then the grace of +God a gift which left no trace whatever upon those who were +possessed of it—a thing the presence or absence of which +might be ascertained by consulting the parish registry, but was +not discernible in conduct? The grace of man was more +clearly perceptible than this. Assuredly there must be a +screw loose somewhere, which, for aught he knew, might be +jeopardising the salvation of all Christendom. Where then +was this loose screw to be found?</p> +<p>He concluded after some months of reflection that the mischief +was caused by the system of sponsors and by infant baptism. +He therefore, to my mother’s inexpressible grief, joined +the Baptists and was immersed in a pond near Dorking. With +the Baptists he remained quiet about three months, and then began +to quarrel with his instructors as to their doctrine of +predestination. Shortly afterwards he came accidentally +upon a fascinating stranger who was no less struck with my +brother than my brother with him, and this gentleman, who turned +out to be a Roman Catholic missionary, landed him in the Church +of Rome, where he felt sure that he had now found rest for his +soul. But here, too, he was mistaken; after about two years +he rebelled against the stifling of all free inquiry; on this +rebellion the flood-gates of scepticism were opened, and he was +soon battling with unbelief. He then fell in with one who +was a pure Deist, and was shorn of every shred of dogma which he +had ever held, except a belief in the personality and providence +of the Creator.</p> +<p>On reviewing his letters written to me about this time, I am +painfully struck with the manner in which they show that all +these pitiable vagaries were to be traced to a single +cause—a cause which still exists to the misleading of +hundreds of thousands, and which, I fear, seems likely to +continue in full force for many a year to come—I mean, to a +false system of training which teaches people to regard +Christianity as a thing one and indivisible, to be accepted +entirely in the strictest reading of the letter, or to be +rejected as absolutely untrue. The fact is, that all +permanent truth is as one of those coal measures, a seam of which +lies near the surface, and even crops up above the ground, but +which is generally of an inferior quality and soon worked out; +beneath it there comes a layer of sand and clay, and then at last +the true seam of precious quality and in virtually inexhaustible +supply. The truth which is on the surface is rarely the +whole truth. It is seldom until this has been worked out +and done with—as in the case of the apparent flatness of +the earth—that unchangeable truth is discovered. It +is the glory of the Lord to conceal a matter: it is the glory of +the king to find it out. If my brother, from whom I have +taken the above illustration, had had some judicious and +wide-minded friend to correct and supplement the mainly admirable +principles which had been instilled into him by my mother, he +would have been saved years of spiritual wandering; but, as it +was, he fell in with one after another, each in his own way as +literal and unspiritual as the other—each impressed with +one aspect of religious truth, and with one only. In the +end he became perhaps the widest-minded and most original thinker +whom I have ever met; but no one from his early manhood could +have augured this result; on the contrary, he shewed every sign +of being likely to develop into one of those who can never see +more than one side of a question at a time, in spite of their +seeing that side with singular clearness of mental vision. +In after life, he often met with mere lads who seemed to him to +be years and years in advance of what he had been at their age, +and would say, smiling, “With a great sum obtained I this +freedom; but thou wast free-born.”</p> +<p>Yet when one comes to think of it, a late development and +laborious growth are generally more fruitful than those which are +over-early luxuriant. Drawing an illustration from the art +of painting, with which he was well acquainted, my brother used +to say that all the greatest painters had begun with a hard and +precise manner from which they had only broken after several +years of effort; and that in like manner all the early schools +were founded upon definiteness of outline to the exclusion of +truth of effect. This may be true; but in my +brother’s case there was something even more unpromising +than this; there was a commonness, so to speak, of mental +execution, from which no one could have foreseen his +after-emancipation. Yet in the course of time he was indeed +emancipated to the very uttermost, while his bonds will, I firmly +trust, be found to have been of inestimable service to the whole +human race.</p> +<p>For although it was so many years before he was enabled to see +the Christian scheme <i>as a whole</i>, or even to conceive the +idea that there was any whole at all, other than each one of the +stages of opinion through which he was at the time passing; yet +when the idea was at length presented to him by one whom I must +not name, the discarded fragments of his faith assumed shape, and +formed themselves into a consistently organised scheme. +Then became apparent the value of his knowledge of the details of +so many different sides of Christian verity. Buried in the +details, he had hitherto ignored the fact that they were only the +unessential developments of certain component parts. +Awakening to the perception of the whole after an intimate +acquaintance with the details, he was able to realise the +position and meaning of all that he had hitherto experienced in a +way which has been vouchsafed to few, if any others.</p> +<p>Thus he became truly a broad Churchman. Not broad in the +ordinary and ill-considered use of the term (for the broad +Churchman is as little able to sympathise with Romanists, extreme +High Churchmen and Dissenters, as these are with himself—he +is only one of a sect which is called by the name broad, though +it is no broader than its own base), but in the true sense of +being able to believe in the naturalness, legitimacy, and truth +<i>quâ</i> Christianity even of those doctrines which seem +to stand most widely and irreconcilably asunder.</p> +<h3>Chapter II</h3> +<p><span class="smcap">But</span> it was impossible that a mind +of such activity should have gone over so much ground, and yet in +the end returned to the same position as that from which it +started.</p> +<p>So far was this from being the case that the Christianity of +his maturer life would be considered dangerously heterodox by +those who belong to any of the more definite or precise schools +of theological thought. He was as one who has made the +circuit of a mountain, and yet been ascending during the whole +time of his doing so: such a person finds himself upon the same +side as at first, but upon a greatly higher level. The +peaks which had seemed the most important when he was in the +valley were now dwarfed to their true proportions by colossal +cloud-capped masses whose very existence could not have been +suspected from beneath: and again, other points which had seemed +among the lowest turned out to be the very highest of +all—as the Finster-Aarhorn, which hides itself away in the +centre of the Bernese Alps, is never seen to be the greatest till +one is high and far off.</p> +<p>Thus he felt no sort of fear or repugnance in admitting that +the New Testament writings, as we now have them, are not by any +means accurate records of the events which they profess to +chronicle. This, which few English Churchmen would be +prepared to admit, was to him so much of an axiom that he +despaired of seeing any sound theological structure raised until +it was universally recognised.</p> +<p>And here he would probably meet with sympathy from the more +advanced thinkers within the body of the Church, but so far as I +know, he stood alone as recognising the wisdom of the Divine +counsels in having ordained the wide and apparently +irreconcilable divergencies of doctrine and character which we +find assigned to Christ in the Gospels, and as finding his faith +confirmed, not by the supposition that both the portraits drawn +of Christ are objectively true, but <i>that both are objectively +inaccurate</i>, <i>and that the Almighty intended they should be +inaccurate</i>, inasmuch as the true spiritual conception in the +mind of man could be indirectly more certainly engendered by a +strife, a warring, a clashing, so to speak, of versions, all of +them distorting slightly some one or other of the features of the +original, than directly by the most absolutely correct impression +which human language could convey. Even the most perfect +human speech, as has been often pointed out, is a very gross and +imperfect vehicle of thought. I remember once hearing him +say that it was not till he was nearly thirty that he discovered +“what thick and sticky fluids were air and water,” +how crass and dull in comparison with other more subtle fluids; +he added that speech had no less deceived him, seeming, as it +did, to be such a perfect messenger of thought, and being after +all nothing but a shuffler and a loiterer.</p> +<p>With most men the Gospels are true in spite of their +discrepancies and inconsistencies; with him Christianity, as +distinguished from a bare belief in the objectively historical +character of each part of the Gospels, was true because of these +very discrepancies; as his conceptions of the Divine manner of +working became wider, the very forces which had at one time +shaken his faith to its foundations established it anew upon a +firmer and broader base. He was gradually led to feel that +the ideal presented by the life and death of our Saviour could +never have been accepted by Jews at all, if its whole purport had +been made intelligible during the Redeemer’s life-time; +that in order to insure its acceptance by a nucleus of followers +it must have been endowed with a more local aspect than it was +intended afterwards to wear; yet that, for the sake of its +subsequent universal value, the destruction of that local +complexion was indispensable; that the corruptions inseparable +from <i>vivâ voce</i> communication and imperfect education +were the means adopted by the Creator to blur the details of the +ideal, and give it that breadth which could not be otherwise +obtainable—and that thus the value of the ideal was +indefinitely enhanced, and <i>designedly enhanced</i>, alike by +the waste of time and by its incrustations; that all ideals gain +by a certain amount of vagueness, which allows the beholder to +fill in the details according to his own spiritual needs, and +that no ideal can be truly universal and permanents unless it +have an elasticity which will allow of this process in the minds +of those who contemplate it; that it cannot become thus elastic +unless by the loss of no inconsiderable amount of detail, and +that thus the half, as Dr. Arnold used to say, “becomes +greater than the whole,” the sketch more preciously +suggestive than the photograph. Hence far from deploring +the fragmentary, confused, and contradictory condition of the +Gospel records, he saw in this condition the means whereby alone +the human mind could have been enabled to conceive—not the +precise nature of Christ—but <i>the highest ideal of which +each individual Christian soul was capable</i>. As soon as +he had grasped these conceptions, which will be found more fully +developed in one of the later chapters of his book, the spell of +unbelief was broken.</p> +<p>But, once broken, it was dissolved utterly and entirely; he +could allow himself to contemplate fearlessly all sorts of issues +from which one whose experiences had been less varied would have +shrunk. He was free of the enemy’s camp, and could go +hither and thither whithersoever he would. The very points +which to others were insuperable difficulties were to him +foundation-stones of faith. For example, to the objection +that if in the present state of the records no clear conception +of the nature of Christ’s life and teaching could be +formed, we should be compelled to take one for our model of whom +we knew little or nothing certain, I have heard him answer, +“And so much the better for us all. The truth, if +read by the light of man’s imperfect understanding, would +have been falser to him than any falsehood. It would have +been truth no longer. <i>Better be led aright by an error +which is so adjusted as to compensate for the errors in +man’s powers of understanding</i>, <i>than be misled by a +truth which can never be translated from objectivity to +subjectivity</i>. In such a case, it is the error which is +the truth and the truth the error.”</p> +<p>Fearless himself, he could not understand the fears felt by +others; and this was perhaps his greatest sympathetic +weakness. He was impatient of the subterfuges with which +untenable interpretations of Scripture were defended, and of the +disingenuousness of certain harmonists; indeed, the mention of +the word harmony was enough to kindle an outbreak of righteous +anger, which would sometimes go to the utmost limit of +righteousness. “Harmonies!” he would exclaim, +“the sweetest harmonies are those which are most full of +discords, and the discords of one generation of musicians become +heavenly music in the hands of their successors. Which of +the great musicians has not enriched his art not only by the +discovery of new harmonies, but by proving that sounds which are +actually inharmonious are nevertheless essentially and eternally +delightful? What an outcry has there not always been +against the ‘unwarrantable licence’ with the rules of +harmony whenever a Beethoven or a Mozart has broken through any +of the trammels which have been regarded as the safeguards of the +art, instead of in their true light of fetters, and how +gratefully have succeeding musicians acquiesced in and adopted +the innovation.” Then would follow a tirade with +illustration upon illustration, comparison of this passage with +that, and an exhaustive demonstration that one or other, or both, +could have had no sort of possible foundation in fact; he could +only see that the persons from whom he differed were defending +something which was untrue and which they ought to have known to +be untrue, but he could not see that people ought to know many +things which they do not know.</p> +<p>Had he himself seen all that he ought to have been able to see +from his own standpoints? Can any of us do so? The +force of early bias and education, the force of intellectual +surroundings, the force of natural timidity, the force of +dulness, were things which he could appreciate and make allowance +for in any other age, and among any other people than his own; +but as belonging to England and the Nineteenth Century they had +no place in his theory of Nature; they were inconceivable, +unnatural, unpardonable, whenever they came into contact with the +subject of Christian evidences. Deplorable, indeed, they +are, but this was just the sort of word to which he could not +confine himself. The criticisms upon the late Dean +Alford’s notes, which will be given in the sequel, display +this sort of temper; they are not entirely his own, but he +adopted them and endorsed them with a warmth which we cannot but +feel to be unnecessary, not to say more. Yet I am free to +confess that whatever editorial licence I could venture to take +has been taken in the direction of lenity.</p> +<p>On the whole, however, he valued Dean Alford’s work very +highly, giving him great praise for the candour with which he not +unfrequently set the harmonists aside. For example, in his +notes upon the discrepancies between St. Luke’s and St. +Matthew’s accounts of the early life of our Lord, the Dean +openly avows that it is quite beyond his purpose to attempt to +reconcile the two. “This part of the Gospel +history,” he writes, “is one where the harmonists, by +their arbitrary reconcilement of the two accounts, have given +great advantage to the enemies of the faith. <i>As the two +accounts now stand</i>, it is wholly impossible to suggest any +satisfactory method of <i>uniting them</i>, every one who has +attempted it has in some part or other of his hypothesis violated +probability and common sense,” but in spite of this, the +Dean had no hesitation in accepting both the accounts. With +reference to this the author of <i>The Jesus of History</i> +(Williams and Norgate, 1866)—a work to which my brother +admitted himself to be under very great obligations, and which he +greatly admired, in spite of his utter dissent from the main +conclusion arrived at, has the following note:—</p> +<p>“Dean Alford, N.T. for English readers, admits that the +narratives as they stand are contradictory, but he believes +both. He is even severe upon the harmonists who attempt to +frame schemes of reconciliation between the two, on account of +the triumph they thus furnish to the ‘enemies of the +faith,’ a phrase which seems to imply all who believe less +than he does. The Dean, however, forgets that the faith +which can believe two (apparently) contradictory propositions in +matters of fact is a very rare gift, and that for one who is so +endowed there are thousands who can be satisfied with a plausible +though demonstrably false explanation. To the latter class +the despised harmonists render a real service.”</p> +<p>Upon this note my brother was very severe. In a letter, +dated Dec. 18, 1866, addressed to a friend who had alluded to it, +and expressed his concurrence with it as in the main just, my +brother wrote: “You are wrong about the note in <i>The +Jesus of History</i>, there is more of the Christianity of the +future in Dean Alford’s indifference to the harmony between +the discordant accounts of Luke and Matthew than there would have +been <i>even in the most convincing and satisfactory</i> +explanation of the way in which they came to differ. No +such explanation is possible; both the Dean and the author of +<i>The Jesus of History</i> were very well aware of this, but the +latter is unjust in assuming that his opponent was not alive to +the absurdity of appearing to believe two contradictory +propositions at one and the same time. The Dean takes very +good care that he shall not appear to do this, for it is +perfectly plain to any careful reader that he must really believe +that one or both narratives are inaccurate, inasmuch as the +differences between them are too great to allow of reconciliation +by a supposed suppression of detail.</p> +<p>“This, though not said so clearly as it should have +been, is yet virtually implied in the admission that no sort of +fact which could by any possibility be admitted as reconciling +them had ever occurred to human ingenuity; what, then, Dean +Alford must have really felt was that the spiritual value of each +account was no less precious for not being in strict accordance +with the other; that the objective truth lies somewhere between +them, and is of very little importance, being long dead and +buried, and living in its results only, in comparison with the +subjective truth conveyed by both the narratives, which lives in +our hearts independently of precise knowledge concerning the +actual facts. Moreover, that though both accounts may +perhaps be inaccurate, yet that <i>a very little</i> natural +inaccuracy on the part of each writer would throw them apparently +very wide asunder, that such inaccuracies are easily to be +accounted for, and would, in fact, be inevitable in the sixty +years of oral communication which elapsed between the birth of +our Lord and the writing of the first Gospel, and again in the +eighty or ninety years prior to the third, so that the details of +the facts connected with the conception, birth, genealogy, and +earliest history of our Saviour are irrecoverable—a general +impression being alone possible, or indeed desirable.</p> +<p>“It might perhaps have been more satisfactory if Dean +Alford had expressed the above more plainly; but if he had done +this, who would have read his book? Where would have been +that influence in the direction of truly liberal Christianity +which has been so potent during the last twenty years? As +it was, the freedom with which the Dean wrote was the cause of no +inconsiderable scandal. Or, again, he may not have been +fully conscious of his own position: few men are; he had taken +the right one, but more perhaps by spiritual instinct than by +conscious and deliberate exercise of his intellectual +faculties. Finally, compromise is not a matter of good +policy only, it is a solemn duty in the interests of Christian +peace, and this not in minor matters only—we can all do +this much—but in those concerning which we feel most +strongly, for here the sacrifice is greatest and most acceptable +to God. There are, of course, limits to this, and Dean +Alford may have carried compromise too far in the present +instance, but it is very transparent. The narrowness which +leads the author of <i>The Jesus of History</i> to strain at such +a gnat is the secret of his inability to accept the divinity and +miracles of our Lord, and has marred the most exhaustively +critical exegesis of the life and death of our Saviour with an +impotent conclusion.”</p> +<p>It is strange that one who could write thus should +occasionally have shown himself so little able to apply his own +principles. He seems to have been alternately under the +influence of two conflicting spirits—at one time writing as +though there were nothing precious under the sun except logic, +consistency, and precision, and breathing fire and smoke against +even very trifling deviations from the path of exact +criticism—at another, leading the reader almost to believe +that he disregarded the value of any objective truth, and +speaking of endeavour after accuracy in terms that are positively +contemptuous. Whenever he was in the one mood he seemed to +forget the possibility of any other; so much so that I have +sometimes thought that he did this deliberately and for the same +reasons as those which led Adam Smith to exclude one set of +premises in his <i>Theory of Moral Sentiments</i> and another in +his <i>Wealth of Nations</i>. I believe, however, that the +explanation lies in the fact that my brother was inclined to +underrate the importance of belief in the objective truth of any +other individual features in the life of our Lord than his +Resurrection and Ascension. All else seemed dwarfed by the +side of these events. His whole soul was so concentrated +upon the centre of the circle that he forgot the circumference, +or left it out of sight. Nothing less than the strictest +objective truth as to the main facts of the Resurrection and +Ascension would content him; the other miracles and the life and +teaching of our Lord might then be left open; whatever view was +taken of them by each individual Christian was probably the one +most desirable for the spiritual wellbeing of each.</p> +<p>Even as regards the Resurrection and Ascension, he did not +greatly value the detail. Provided these facts were so +established that they could never henceforth be controverted, he +thought that the less detail the broader and more universally +acceptable would be the effect. Hence, when Dean +Alford’s notes seemed to jeopardise the evidences for these +things, he could brook no trifling; for unless Christ actually +died and actually came to life again, he saw no escape from an +utter denial of any but natural religion. Christ would have +been no more to him than Socrates or Shakespeare, except in so +far as his teaching was more spiritual. The triune nature +of the Deity—the Resurrection from the dead—the hope +of Heaven and salutary fear of Hell—all would go but for +the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ; nothing would +remain except a sense of the Divine as a substitute for God, and +the current feeling of one’s peers as the chief moral check +upon misconduct. Indeed, we have seen this view openly +advocated by a recent writer, and set forth in the very plainest +terms. My brother did not live to see it, but if he had, he +would have recognised the fulfilment of his own prophecies as to +what must be the inevitable sequel of a denial of our +Lord’s Resurrection.</p> +<p>It will be seen therefore that he was in no danger of being +carried away by a “pet theory.” Where light and +definition were essential, he would sacrifice nothing of either; +but he was jealous for his highest light, and felt “that +the whole effect of the Christian scheme was indefinitely +heightened by keeping all other lights +subordinate”—this at least was the illustration which +he often used concerning it. But as there were limits to +the value of light and “finding”—limits which +had been far exceeded, with the result of an unnatural forcing of +the lights, and an effect of garishness and unreality—so +there were limits to the as yet unrecognised preciousness of +“losing” and obscurity; these limits he placed at the +objectivity of our Lord’s Resurrection and Ascension. +Let there be light enough to show these things, and the rest +would gain by being in half-tone and shadow.</p> +<p>His facility of illustration was simply marvellous. From +his conversation any one would have thought that he was +acquainted with all manner of arts and sciences of which he knew +little or nothing. It is true, as has been said already, +that he had had some practice in the art of painting, and was an +enthusiastic admirer of the masterpieces of Raphael, Titian, +Guido, Domenichino, and others; but he could never have been +called a painter; for music he had considerable feeling; I think +he must have known thorough-bass, but it was hard to say what he +did or did not know. Of science he was almost entirely +ignorant, yet he had assimilated a quantity of stray facts, and +whatever he assimilated seemed to agree with him and nourish his +mental being. But though his acquaintance with any one art +or science must be allowed to have been superficial only, he had +an astonishing perception of the relative bearings of facts which +seemed at first sight to be quite beyond the range of one +another, and of the relations between the sciences generally; it +was this which gave him his felicity and fecundity of +illustration—a gift which he never abused. He +delighted in its use for the purpose of carrying a clear +impression of his meaning to the mind of another, but I never +remember to have heard him mistake illustration for argument, nor +endeavour to mislead an adversary by a fascinating but irrelevant +simile. The subtlety of his mind was a more serious source +of danger to him, though I do not know that he greatly lost by it +in comparison with what he gained; his sense, however, of +distinctions was so fine that it would sometimes distract his +attention from points of infinitely greater importance in +connection with his subject than the particular distinction which +he was trying to establish at the moment.</p> +<p>The reader may be glad to know what my brother felt about +retaining the unhistoric passages of Scripture. Would he +wish to see them sought for and sifted out? Or, again, what +would he propose concerning such of the parables as are +acknowledged by every liberal Churchman to be immoral, as, for +instance, the story of Dives and Lazarus and the Unjust +Steward—parables which can never have been spoken by our +Lord, at any rate not in their present shape? And here we +have a remarkable instance of his moderation and truly English +good sense. “Do not touch one word of them,” +was his often-repeated exclamation. “If not directly +inspired by the mouth of God they have been indirectly inspired +by the force of events, and the force of events is the power and +manifestation of God; they could not have been allowed to come +into their present position if they had not been recognised in +the counsels of the Almighty as being of indirect service to +mankind; there is a subjective truth conveyed even by these +parables to the minds of many, that enables them to lay hold of +other and objective truths which they could not else have +grasped.</p> +<p>“There can be no question that the communistic +utterances of the third gospel, as distinguished from St. +Matthew’s more spiritual and doubtless more historic +rendering of the same teaching, have been of inestimable service +to Christianity. Christ is not for the whole only, but also +for them that are sick, for the ill-instructed and what we are +pleased to call ‘dangerous’ classes, as well as for +the more sober thinkers. To how many do the words, +‘Blessed be ye poor: for your’s is the kingdom of +Heaven’ (Luke vi., 20), carry a comfort which could never +be given by the ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit’ of +Matthew v., 3. In Matthew we find, ‘Blessed are the +poor in spirit: for their’s is the kingdom of Heaven. +Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. +Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. +Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: +for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for +they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for +they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they +shall be called the children of God. Blessed are they which +are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for their’s +is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall +revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil +against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding +glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they +the prophets which were before you.’ In Luke we read, +‘Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be +filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. . +. . But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received +your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall +hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and +weep. Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! +for so did <i>their</i> fathers to the false prophets,’ +where even the grammar of the last sentence, independently of the +substance, is such as it is impossible to ascribe to our Lord +himself.</p> +<p>“The ‘upper’ classes naturally turn to the +version of Matthew, but the ‘lower,’ no less +naturally to that of Luke, nor is it likely that the ideal of +Christ would be one-tenth part so dear to them had not this +provision for them been made, not by the direct teaching of the +Saviour, but by the indirect inspiration of such events as were +seen by the Almighty to be necessary for the full development of +the highest ideal of which mankind was capable. All that we +have in the New Testament is the inspired word, directly or +indirectly, of God, the unhistoric no less than the historic; it +is for us to take spiritual sustenance from whatever meats we +find prepared for us, not to order the removal of this or that +dish; the coarser meats are for the coarser natures; as they grow +in grace they will turn from these to the finer: let us ourselves +partake of that which we find best suited to us, but do not let +us grudge to others the provision that God has set before +them. There are many things which though not objectively +true are nevertheless subjectively true to those who can receive +them; and subjective truth is universally felt to be even higher +than objective, as may be shown by the acknowledged duty of +obeying our consciences (which is the right <i>to us</i>) rather +than any dictate of man however much more objectively true. +It is that which is true <i>to us</i> that we are bound each one +of us to seek and follow.”</p> +<p>Having heard him thus far, and being unable to understand, +much less to sympathise with teaching so utterly foreign to +anything which I had heard elsewhere, I said to him, +“Either our Lord did say the words assigned to him by St. +Luke or he did not. If he did, as they stand they are bad, +and any one who heard them for the first time would say that they +were bad; if he did not, then we ought not to allow them to +remain in our Bibles to the misleading of people who will thus +believe that God is telling them what he never did tell +them—to the misleading of the poor, whom even in low +self-interest we are bound to instruct as fully and truthfully as +we can.”</p> +<p>He smiled and answered, “That is the Peter Bell view of +the matter. I thought so once, as, indeed, no one can know +better than yourself.”</p> +<p>The expression upon his face as he said this was sufficient to +show the clearness of his present perception, nevertheless I was +anxious to get to the root of the matter, and said that if our +Lord never uttered these words their being attributed to him must +be due to fraud; to pious fraud, but still to fraud.</p> +<p>“Not so,” he answered, “it is due to the +weakness of man’s powers of memory and communication, and +perhaps in some measure to unconscious inspiration. +Moreover, even though wrong of some sort may have had its share +in the origin of certain of the sayings ascribed to our Saviour, +yet their removal now that they have been consecrated by time +would be a still greater wrong. Would you defend the +spoliation of the monasteries, or the confiscation of the abbey +lands? I take it no—still less would you restore the +monasteries or take back the lands; a consecrated change becomes +a new departure; accept it and turn it to the best +advantage. These are things to which the theory of the +Church concerning lay baptism is strictly applicable. +<i>Fieri non debet</i>, <i>factum valet</i>. If in our +narrow and unsympathetic strivings after precision we should +remove the hallowed imperfections whereby time has set the glory +of his seal upon the gospels as well as upon all other aged +things, not for twenty generations will they resume that +ineffable and inviolable aspect which our fussy meddlesomeness +will have disturbed. Let them alone. It is as they +stand that they have saved the world.</p> +<p>“No change is good unless it is imperatively called +for. Not even the Reformation was good; it is good now; I +acquiesce in it, as I do in anything which in itself not vital +has received the sanction of many generations of my +countrymen. It is sanction which sanctifieth in matters of +this kind. I would no more undo the Reformation now than I +would have helped it forward in the sixteenth century. +Leave the historic, the unhistoric, and the doubtful to grow +together until the harvest: that which is not vital will perish +and rot unnoticed when it has ceased to have vitality; it is +living till it has done this. Note how the very passages +which you would condemn have died out of the regard of any but +the poor. Who quotes them? Who appeals to them? +Who believes in them? Who indeed except the poorest of the +poor attaches the smallest weight to them whatever? To us +they are dead, and other passages will die to us in like manner, +noiselessly and almost imperceptibly, as the services for the +fifth of November died out of the Prayer Book. One day the +fruit will be hanging upon the tree, as it has hung for months, +the next it will be lying upon the ground. It is not ripe +until it has fallen of itself, or with the gentlest shaking; use +no violence towards it, confident that you cannot hurry the +ripening, and that if shaken down unripe the fruit will be +worthless. Christianity must have contained the seeds of +growth within itself, even to the shedding of many of its present +dogmas. If the dogmas fall quietly in their maturity, the +precious seed of truth (which will be found in the heart of every +dogma that has been able to take living hold upon the +world’s imagination) will quicken and spring up in its own +time: strike at the fruit too soon and the seed will +die.”</p> +<p>I should be sorry to convey an impression that I am +responsible for, or that I entirely agree with, the defence of +the unhistoric which I have here recorded. I have given it +in my capacity of editor and in some sort biographer, but am far +from being prepared to maintain that it is likely, or indeed +ought, to meet with the approval of any considerable number of +Christians. But, surely, in these days of +self-mystification it is refreshing to see the boldness with +which my brother thought, and the freedom with which he +contemplated all sorts of issues which are too generally +avoided. What temptation would have been felt by many to +soften down the inconsistencies and contradictions of the +Gospels. How few are those who will venture to follow the +lead of scientific criticism, and admit what every scholar must +well know to be indisputable. Yet if a man will not do +this, he shows that he has greater faith in falsehood than in +truth.</p> +<h3>Chapter III</h3> +<p><span class="smcap">On</span> my brother’s death I came +into possession of several of his early commonplace books filled +with sketches for articles; some of these are more developed than +others, but they are all of them fragmentary. I do not +think that the reader will fail to be interested with the insight +into my brother’s spiritual and intellectual progress which +a few extracts from these writings will afford, and have +therefore, after some hesitation, decided in favour of making +them public, though well aware that my brother would never have +done so. They are too exaggerated to be dangerous, being so +obviously unfair as to carry their own antidote. The reader +will not fail to notice the growth not only in thought but also +in literary style which is displayed by my brother’s later +writings.</p> +<p>In reference to the very subject of the parables above alluded +to, he had written during his time of unbelief:—“Why +are we to interpret so literally all passages about the guilt of +unbelief, and insist upon the historical character of every +miraculous account, while we are indignant if any one demands an +equally literal rendering of the precepts concerning human +conduct? He that hath two coats is not to give to him that +hath none: this would be ‘visionary,’ +‘utopian,’ ‘wholly unpractical,’ and so +forth. Or, again, he that is smitten on the one cheek is +not to turn the other to the smiter, but to hand the offender +over to the law; nor are the commands relative to indifference as +to the morrow and a neglect of ordinary prudence to be taken as +they stand; nor yet the warnings against praying in public; nor +can the parables, any one of them, be interpreted strictly with +advantage to human welfare, except perhaps that of the Good +Samaritan; nor the Sermon on the Mount, save in such passages as +were already the common property of mankind before the coming of +Christ. The parables which every one praises are in reality +very bad: the Unjust Steward, the Labourers in the Vineyard, the +Prodigal Son, Dives and Lazarus, the Sower and the Seed, the Wise +and Foolish Virgins, the Marriage Garment, the Man who planted a +Vineyard, are all either grossly immoral, or tend to engender a +very low estimate of the character of God—an estimate far +below the standard of the best earthly kings; where they are not +immoral, or do not tend to degrade the character of God, they are +the merest commonplaces imaginable, such as one is astonished to +see people accept as having been first taught by Christ. +Such maxims as those which inculcate conciliation and a +forgiveness of injuries (wherever practicable) are certainly +good, but the world does not owe their discovery to Christ, and +they have had little place in the practice of his followers.</p> +<p>“It is impossible to say that as a matter of fact the +English people forgive their enemies more freely now than the +Romans did, we will say in the time of Augustus. The value +of generosity and magnanimity was perfectly well known among the +ancients, nor do these qualities assume any nobler guise in the +teaching of Christ than they did in that of the ancient heathen +philosophers. On the contrary, they have no direct +equivalent in Christian thought or phraseology. They are +heathen words drawn from a heathen language, and instinct with +the same heathen ideas of high spirit and good birth as belonged +to them in the Latin language; they are no part or parcel of +Christianity, and are not only independent of it, but savour +distinctly of the flesh as opposed to the spirit, and are hence +more or less antagonistic to it, until they have undergone a +certain modification and transformation—until, that is to +say, they have been mulcted of their more frank and genial +elements. The nearest approach to them in Christian phrase +is ‘self-denial,’ but the sound of this word kindles +no smile of pleasure like that kindled by the ideas of generosity +and nobility of conduct. At the thought of self-denial we +feel good, but uncomfortable, and as though on the point of +performing some disagreeable duty which we think we ought to +pretend to like, but which we do not like. At the thought +of generosity, we feel as one who is going to share in a +delightfully exhilarating but arduous pastime—full of the +most pleasurable excitement. On the mention of the word +generosity we feel as if we were going out hunting; at the word +‘self-denial,’ as if we were getting ready to go to +church. Generosity turns well-doing into a pleasure, +self-denial into a duty, as of a servant under compulsion.</p> +<p>“There are people who will deny this, but there are +people who will deny anything. There are some who will say +that St. Paul would not have condemned the Falstaff plays, +<i>Twelfth Night</i>, <i>The Tempest</i>, <i>A Midsummer +Night’s Dream</i>, and almost everything that Shakspeare +ever wrote; but there is no arguing against this. +‘Every man,’ said Dr. Johnson, ‘has a right to +his own opinion, and every one else has a right to knock him down +for it.’ But even granting that generosity and high +spirit have made some progress since the days of Christ, +allowance must be made for the lapse of two thousand years, +during which time it is only reasonable to suppose that an +advance would have been made in civilisation—and hence in +the direction of clemency and forbearance—whether +Christianity had been preached or not, but no one can show that +the modern English, if superior to the ancients in these +respects, show any greater superiority than may be ascribed +justly to centuries of established order and good +government.”</p> +<p style="text-align: center">* * * * *</p> +<p>“Again, as to the ideal presented by the character of +Christ, about which so much has been written; is it one which +would meet with all this admiration if it were presented to us +now for the first time? Surely it offers but a peevish view +of life and things in comparison with that offered by other +highest ideals—the old Roman and Greek ideals, the Italian +ideal, and the Shakespearian ideal.”</p> +<p style="text-align: center">* * * * *</p> +<p>“As with the parables so with the Sermon on the +Mount—where it is not commonplace it is immoral, and +<i>vice versâ</i>; the admiration which is so freely +lavished upon the teachings of Jesus Christ turns out to be but +of the same kind as that bestowed upon certain modern writers, +who have made great reputations by telling people what they +perfectly well knew; and were in no particular danger of +forgetting. There is, however, this excuse for those who +have been carried away with such musical but untruthful sentences +as ‘Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be +comforted,’ namely, that they have not come to the subject +with unbiassed minds. It is one thing to see no merit in a +picture, and another to see no merit in a picture when one is +told that it is by Raphael; we are few of us able to stand +against the <i>prestige</i> of a great name; our self-love is +alarmed lest we should be deficient in taste, or, worse still, +lest we should be considered to be so; as if it could matter to +any right-minded person whether the world considered him to be of +good taste or not, in comparison with the keeping of his own soul +truthful to itself.</p> +<p>“But if this holds good about things which are purely +matters of taste, how much more does it do so concerning those +who make a distinct claim upon us for moral approbation or the +reverse? Such a claim is most imperatively made by the +teaching of Jesus Christ: are we then content to answer in the +words of others—words to which we have no title of our +own—or shall we strip ourselves of preconceived opinion, +and come to the question with minds that are truly candid? +Whoever shrinks from this is a liar to his own self, and as such, +the worst and most dangerous of liars. He is as one who +sits in an impregnable citadel and trembles in a time of +peace—so great a coward as not even to feel safe when he is +in his own keeping. How loose of soul if he knows that his +own keeping is worthless, how aspen-hearted if he fears lest +others should find him out and hurt him for communing truthfully +with himself!</p> +<p style="text-align: center">* * * * *</p> +<p>“That a man should lie to others if he hopes to gain +something considerable—this is reckoned cheating, robbing, +fraudulent dealing, or whatever it may be; but it is an +intelligible offence in comparison with the allowing oneself to +be deceived. So in like manner with being bored. The +man who lets himself be bored is even more contemptible than the +bore. He who puts up with shoddy pictures, shoddy music, +shoddy morality, shoddy society, is more despicable than he who +is the prime agent in any of these things. He has less to +gain, and probably deceives himself more; so that he commits the +greater crime for the less reward. And I say emphatically +that the morality which most men profess to hold as a Divine +revelation was a shoddy morality, which would neither wash nor +wear, but was woven together from a tissue of dreams and +blunders, and steeped in blood more virulent than the blood of +Nessus.</p> +<p>“Oh! if men would but leave off lying to +themselves! If they would but learn the sacredness of their +own likes and dislikes, and exercise their moral discrimination, +making it clear to themselves what it is that they really love +and venerate. There is no such enemy to mankind as moral +cowardice. A downright vulgar self-interested and +unblushing liar is a higher being than the moral cur whose likes +and dislikes are at the beck and call of bullies that stand +between him and his own soul; such a creature gives up the most +sacred of all his rights for something more unsubstantial than a +mess of pottage—a mental serf too abject even to know that +he is being wronged. Wretched emasculator of his own +reason, whose jejune timidity and want of vitality are thus +omnipresent in the most secret chambers of his heart!</p> +<p>“We can forgive a man for almost any falsehood provided +we feel that he was under strong temptation and well knew that he +was deceiving. He has done wrong—still we can +understand it, and he may yet have some useful stuff about +him—but what can we feel towards one who for a small motive +tells lies even to himself, and does not know that he is +lying? What useless rotten fig-wood lumber must not such a +thing be made of, and what lies will there not come out of it, +falling in every direction upon all who come within its +reach. The common self-deceiver of modern society is a more +dangerous and contemptible object than almost any ordinary felon, +a matter upon which those who do not deceive themselves need no +enlightenment.”</p> +<p style="text-align: center">* * * * *</p> +<p>“But why insist so strongly on the literal +interpretation of one part of the sayings of Christ, and be so +elastic about that of the passages which inculcate more than +those ordinary precepts which all had agreed upon as early as the +days of Solomon and probably earlier? We have cut down +Christianity so as to make it appear to sanction our own +conventions; but we have not altered our conventions so as to +bring them into harmony with Christianity. We do not give +to him that asketh; we take good care to avoid him; yet if the +precept meant only that we should be liberal in assisting +others—it wanted no enforcing: the probability is that it +had been enforced too much rather than too little already; the +more literally it has been followed the more terrible has the +mischief been; the saying only becomes harmless when regarded as +a mere convention. So with most parts of Christ’s +teaching. It is only conventional Christianity which will +stand a man in good stead to live by; true Christianity will +never do so. Men have tried it and found it fail; or, +rather, its inevitable failure was so obvious that no age or +country has ever been mad enough to carry it out in such a manner +as would have satisfied its founders. So said Dean Swift in +his <i>Argument against abolishing Christianity</i>. +‘I hope,’ he writes, ‘no reader imagines me so +weak as to stand up in defence of real Christianity, such as used +in primitive times’ (if we may believe the authors of those +ages) ‘to have an influence upon men’s beliefs and +actions. To offer at the restoring of that would be, +indeed, a wild project; it would be to dig up foundations, to +destroy at one blow all the wit and half the learning of the +kingdom, to break the entire frame and constitution of things, to +ruin trade, extinguish arts and sciences, with the professors of +them; in short, to turn our courts of exchange and shops into +deserts; and would be full as absurd as the proposal of Horace +where he advises the Romans all in a body to leave their city, +and to seek a new seat in some remote part of the world by way of +cure for the corruption of their manners.</p> +<p>“‘Therefore, I think this caution was in itself +altogether unnecessary (which I have inserted only to prevent all +possibility of cavilling), since every candid reader will easily +understand my discourse to be intended only in defence of nominal +Christianity, the other having been for some time wholly laid +aside by general consent as utterly inconsistent with our present +schemes of wealth and power.’</p> +<p>“Yet but for these schemes of wealth and power the world +would relapse into barbarianism; it is they and not Christianity +which have created and preserved civilisation. And what if +some unhappy wretch, with a serious turn of mind and no sense of +the ridiculous, takes all this talk about Christianity in sober +earnest, and tries to act upon it? Into what misery may he +not easily fall, and with what life-long errors may he not +embitter the lives of his children!</p> +<p style="text-align: center">* * * * *</p> +<p>“Again, we do not cut off our right hand nor pluck out +our eyes if they offend us; we conventionalise our +interpretations of these sayings at our will and pleasure; we do +take heed for the morrow, and should be inconceivably wicked and +foolish were we not to do so; we do gather up riches, and indeed +we do most things which the experience of mankind has taught us +to be to our advantage, quite irrespectively of any precept of +Christianity for or against. But why say that it is +Christianity which is our chief guide, when the words of Christ +point in such a very different direction from that which we have +seen fit to take? Perhaps it is in order to compensate for +our laxity of interpretation upon these points that we are so +rigid in stickling for accuracy upon those which make no demand +upon our comfort or convenience? Thus, though we +conventionalise practice, we never conventionalise dogma. +Here, indeed, we stickle for the letter most inflexibly; yet one +would have thought that we might have had greater licence to +modify the latter than the former. If we say that the +teaching of Christ is not to be taken according to its +import—why give it so much importance? Teaching by +exaggeration is not a satisfactory method, nor one worthy of a +being higher than man; it might have been well once, and in the +East, but it is not well now. It induces more and more of +that jarring and straining of our moral faculties, of which much +is unavoidable in the existing complex condition of affairs, but +of which the less the better. At present the tug of +professed principles in one direction, and of necessary practice +in the other, causes the same sort of wear and tear in our moral +gear as is caused to a steam-engine by continually reversing it +when it is going it at full speed. No mechanism can stand +it.”</p> +<p>The above extracts (written when he was about twenty-three +years old) may serve to show how utter was the subversion of his +faith. His mind was indeed in darkness! Who could +have hoped that so brilliant a day should have succeeded to the +gloom of such mistrust? Yet as upon a winter’s +morning in November when the sun rises red through the smoke, and +presently the fog spreads its curtain of thick darkness over the +city, and then there comes a single breath of wind from some more +generous quarter, whereupon the blessed sun shines again, and the +gloom is gone; or, again, as when the warm south-west wind comes +up breathing kindness from the sea, unheralded, suspected, when +the earth is in her saddest frost, and on the instant all the +lands are thawed and opened to the genial influences of a sweet +springful whisper—so thawed his heart, and the seed which +had lain dormant in its fertile soil sprang up, grew, ripened, +and brought forth an abundant harvest.</p> +<p>Indeed now that the result has been made plain we can perhaps +feel that his scepticism was precisely of that nature which +should have given the greatest ground for hope. He was a +genuine lover of truth in so far as he could see it.</p> +<p>His lights were dim, but such as they were he walked according +to them, and hence they burnt ever more and more clearly, till in +later life they served to show him what is vouchsafed to such men +and to such only—the enormity of his own mistakes. +Better that a man should feel the divergence between Christian +theory and Christian practice, that he should be shocked at +it—even to the breaking away utterly from the theory until +he has arrived at a wider comprehension of its scope—than +that he should be indifferent to the divergence and make no +effort to bring his principles and practice into harmony with one +another. A true lover of consistency, it was intolerable to +him to say one thing with his lips and another with his +actions. As long as this is true concerning any man, his +friends may feel sure that the hand of the Lord is with him, +though the signs thereof be hidden from mortal eyesight.</p> +<h3>Chapter IV</h3> +<p><span class="smcap">During</span> the dark and unhappy time +when he had, as it seems to me, bullied himself, or been bullied +into infidelity, he had been utterly unable to realise the +importance even of such a self-evident fact as that our Lord +addressing an Eastern people would speak in such a way as Eastern +people would best understand; it took him years to appreciate +this. He could not see that modes of thought are as much +part of a language as the grammar and words which compose it, and +that before a passage can be said to be translated from one +language into another it is often not the words only which must +be rendered, but the thought itself which must be transformed; to +a people habituated to exaggeration a saying which was not +exaggerated would have been pointless—so weak as to arrest +the attention of no one; in order to translate it into such words +as should carry precisely the same meaning to colder and more +temperate minds, the words would often have to be left out of +sight altogether, and a new sentence or perhaps even simile or +metaphor substituted; this is plainly out of the question, and +therefore the best course is that which has been taken, +<i>i.e.</i>, to render the words as accurately as possible, and +leave the reader to modify the meaning. But it was years +before my brother could be got to feel this, nor did he ever do +so fully, simple and obvious though it must appear to most +people, until he had learned to recognise the value of a certain +amount of inaccuracy and inconsistency in everything which is not +comprehended in mechanics or the exact sciences. “It +is this,” he used to say, “which gives artistic or +spiritual value as contrasted with mechanical +precision.”</p> +<p>In inaccuracy and inconsistency, therefore (within certain +limits), my brother saw the means whereby our minds are kept from +regarding things as rigidly and immutably fixed which are not yet +fully understood, and perhaps may never be so while we are in our +present state of probation. Life is not one of the exact +sciences, living is essentially an art and not a science. +Every thing addressed to human minds at all must be more or less +of a compromise; thus, to take a very old illustration, even the +definitions of a point and a line—the fundamental things in +the most exact of the sciences—are mere compromises. +A point is supposed to have neither length, breadth, nor +thickness—this in theory, but in practice unless a point +have a little of all these things there is nothing there. +So with a line; a line is supposed to have length, but no +breadth, yet in practice we never saw a line which had not +breadth. What inconsistency is there here, in requiring us +to conceive something which we cannot conceive, and which can +have no existence, before we go on to the investigation of the +laws whereby the earth can alone be measured and the orbits of +the planets determined. I do not think that this +illustration was presented to my brother’s mind while he +was young, but I am sure that if it had been it would have made +him miserable. He would have had no confidence in +mathematics, and would very likely have made a furious attack +upon Newton and Galileo, and been firmly convinced that he was +discomfiting them. Indeed I cannot forget a certain look of +bewilderment which came over his face when the idea was put +before him, I imagine, for the first time. Fortunately he +had so grown that the right inference was now in no danger of +being missed. He did not conclude that because the +evidences for mathematics were founded upon compromises and +definitions which are inaccurate—therefore that mathematics +were false, or that there were no mathematics, but he learnt to +feel that there might be other things which were no less +indisputable than mathematics, and which might also be founded on +facts for which the evidences were not wholly free from +inconsistencies and inaccuracies.</p> +<p>To some he might appear to be approaching too nearly to the +“Sed tu vera puta” argument of Juvenal. I +greatly fear that an attempt may be made to misrepresent him as +taking this line; that is to say, as accepting Christianity on +the ground of the excellence of its moral teaching, and looking +upon it as, indeed, a superstition, but salutary for women and +young people. Hardly anything would have shocked him more +profoundly. This doctrine with its plausible show of +morality appeared to him to be, perhaps, the most gross of all +immoralities, inasmuch as it cuts the ground from under the feet +of truth, luring the world farther and farther from the only true +salvation—the careful study of facts and of the safest +inferences that may be drawn from them. Every fact was to +him a part of nature, a thing sacred, pregnant with Divine +teaching of some sort, as being the expression of Divine +will. It was through facts that he saw God; to tamper with +facts was, in his view, to deface the countenance of the +Almighty. To say that such and such was so and so, when the +speaker did not believe it, was to lead people to worship a false +God instead of a true one; an +ειδωλον; setting them, +to quote the words of the Psalmist, “a-whoring after their +own imaginations.” He saw the Divine presence in +everything—the evil as well as the good; the evil being the +expression of the Divine will that such and such courses should +not go unpunished, but bring pain and misery which should deter +others from following them, and the good being his sign of +approbation. There was nothing good for man to know which +could not be deduced from facts. This was the only sound +basis of knowledge, and to found things upon fiction which could +be made to stand upon facts was to try and build upon a +quicksand.</p> +<p>He, therefore, loathed the reasoning of Juvenal with all the +intensity of his nature. It was because he believed that +the Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord were just as much +matters of actual history as the assassination of Julius +Cæsar, and that they happened precisely in the same way as +every daily event happens at present—that he accepted the +Christian scheme in its essentials. Then came the +details. Were these also objectively true? He +answered, “Certainly not in every case.” He +would not for the world have had any one believe that he so +considered them; but having made it perfectly clear that he was +not going to deceive himself, he set himself to derive whatever +spiritual comfort he could from them, just as he would from any +noble fiction or work of art, which, while not professing to be +historical, was instinct with the soul of genius. That +there were unhistorical passages in the New Testament was to him +a fact; therefore it was to be studied as an expression of the +Divine will. What could be the meaning of it? That we +should consider them as true? Assuredly not this. +Then what else? This—that we should accept as +subjectively true whatever we found spiritually precious, and be +at liberty to leave all the rest alone—the unhistoric +element having been introduced purposely for the sake of giving +greater scope and latitude to the value of the ideal.</p> +<p>Of course one who was so firmly persuaded of the objective +truth of the Resurrection and Ascension could be in no sort of +danger of relapsing into infidelity as long as his reason +remained. During the years of his illness his mind was +clearly impaired, and no longer under his own control; but while +his senses were his own it was absolutely impossible that he +could be shaken by discrepancies and inconsistencies in the +gospels. What small and trifling things are such +discrepancies by the side of the great central miracle of the +Resurrection! Nevertheless their existence was +indisputable, and was no less indisputably a cause of stumbling +to many, as it had been to himself. His experience of his +own sufferings as an unbeliever gave him a keener sympathy with +those who were in that distressing condition than could be felt +by any one who had not so suffered, and fitted him, perhaps, more +than any one who has yet lived to be the interpreter of +Christianity to the Rationalist, and of Rationalism to the +Christian. This, accordingly, was the task to which he set +himself, having been singularly adapted for it by Nature, and as +singularly disciplined by events.</p> +<p>It seemed to him that the first thing was to make the two +parties understand one another—a thing which had never yet +been done, but which was not at all impossible. For +Protestantism is raised essentially upon a Rationalistic +base. When we come to a definition of Rationalism nothing +can be plainer than that it demands no scepticism from any one +which an English Protestant would not approve of. It is +another matter with the Church of Rome. That Church openly +declares it as an axiom that religion and reason have nothing to +do with one another, and that religion, though in flat +contradiction to reason, should yet be accepted from the hands of +a certain order as an act of unquestioning faith. The line +of separation therefore between the Romanist and the Rationalist +is clear, and definitely bars any possibility of arrangement +between the two. Not so with the Protestant, who as +heartily as the Rationalist admits that nothing is required to be +believed by man except such things as can be reasonably +proved—i.e., proved to the satisfaction of the +reason. No Protestant would say that the Christian scheme +ought to be accepted in spite of its being contrary to reason; we +say that Christianity is to be believed because it can be shewn +to follow as the necessary consequence of using our reason +rightly. We should be shocked at being supposed to maintain +otherwise. Yet this is pure Rationalism. The +Rationalist would require nothing more; he demurs to Christianity +because he maintains that if we bring our reason to bear upon the +evidences which are brought forward in support of it, we are +compelled to reject it; but he would accept it without hesitation +if he believed that it could be sustained by arguments which +ought to carry conviction to the reason. Thus both are +agreed in principle that if the evidences of Christianity satisfy +human reason, then Christianity should be received, but that on +any other supposition it should be rejected.</p> +<p>Here then, he said, we have a common starting-point and the +main principle of Rationalism turns out to be nothing but what we +all readily admit, and with which we and our fathers have been as +familiar for centuries as with the air we breathe. Every +Protestant is a Rationalist, or else he ought to be ashamed of +himself. Does he want to be called an +“Irrationalist”? Hardly—yet if he is not +a Rationalist what else can he be? No: the difference +between us is one of detail, not of principle. This is a +great step gained.</p> +<p>The next thing therefore was to make each party understand the +view which the other took concerning the position which they had +agreed to hold in common. There was no work, so far as he +knew, which would be accepted both by Christians and unbelievers +as containing a fair statement of the arguments of the two +contending parties: every book which he had yet seen upon either +side seemed written with the view of maintaining that its own +side could hold no wrong, and the other no right: neither party +seemed to think that they had anything to learn from the other, +and neither that any considerable addition to their knowledge of +the truth was either possible or desirable. Each was in +possession of truth already, and all who did not see and feel +this must be either wilfully blinded, or intensely stupid, or +hypocrites.</p> +<p>So long as people carried on a discussion thus, what agreement +was possible between them? Yet where, upon the Christian +side, was the attempt to grapple with the real difficulties now +felt by unbelievers? Simply nowhere. All that had +been done hitherto was antiquated. Modern Christianity +seemed to shrink from grappling with modern Rationalism, and +displayed a timidity which could not be accounted for except by +the supposition of secret misgiving that certain things were +being defended which could not be defended fairly. This was +quite intolerable; a misgiving was a warning voice from God, +which should be attended to as a man valued his soul. On +the other hand, the conviction reasonably entertained by +unbelievers that they were right on many not inconsiderable +details of the dispute, and that so-called orthodox Christians in +their hearts knew it but would not own it—or that if they +did not know it, they were only in ignorance because it suited +their purpose to be so—this conviction gave an overweening +self-confidence to infidels, as though they must be right in the +whole because they were so in part; they therefore blinded +themselves to all the more fundamental arguments in support of +Christianity, because certain shallow ones had been put forward +in the front rank, and been far too obstinately defended. +They thus regarded the question too superficially, and had erred +even more through pride of intellect and conceit than their +opponents through timidity.</p> +<p>What then was to be done? Surely this; to explain the +two contending parties to one another; to show to Rationalists +that Christians are right upon Rationalistic principles in all +the more important of their allegations; that is to say, to +establish the Resurrection and Ascension of the Redeemer upon a +basis which should satisfy the most imperious demands of modern +criticism. This would form the first and most important +part of the task. Then should follow a no less convincing +proof that Rationalists are right in demurring to the historical +accuracy of much which has been too obstinately defended by +so-called orthodox writers. This would be the second +part. Was there not reason to hope that when this was done +the two parties might understand one another, and meet in a +common Christianity? He believed that there was, and that +the ground had been already cleared for such mutual compromise as +might be accepted by both sides, not from policy but +conviction. Therefore he began writing the book which it +has devolved upon myself to edit, and which must now speak for +itself. For him it was to suffer and to labour; almost on +the very instant of his having done enough to express his meaning +he was removed from all further power of usefulness.</p> +<p>The happy change from unbelief to faith had already taken +place some three or four years before my return from +America. With it had also come that sudden development of +intellectual and spiritual power which so greatly astonished even +those who had known him best. The whole man seemed +changed—to have become possessed of an unusually capacious +mind, instead of one which was acute, but acute only. On +looking over the earlier letters which I received from him when I +was in America, I can hardly believe that they should have been +written by the same person as the one to whom, in spite of not a +few great mental defects, I afterwards owed more spiritual +enrichment than I have owed to any other person. Yet so it +was. It came upon me imperceptibly that I had been very +stupid in not discovering that my brother was a genius; but +hardly had I made the discovery, and hardly had the fragment +which follows this memoir received its present shape, when his +overworked brain gave way and he fell into a state little better +than idiocy. His originally cheerful spirits left him, and +were succeeded by a religious melancholy which nothing could +disturb. He became incapable either of mental or physical +exertion, and was pronounced by the best physicians to be +suffering from some obscure disease of the brain brought on by +excitement and undue mental tension: in this state he continued +for about four years, and died peacefully, but still as one in +the profoundest melancholy, on the 15th of March, 1872, aged +40.</p> +<p>Always hopeful that his health would one day be restored, I +never ventured to propose that I should edit his book during his +own life-time. On his death I found his papers in the most +deplorable confusion. The following chapters had alone +received anything like a presentable shape—and these +providentially are the most essential.</p> +<p>A dream is a dream only, yet sometimes there follows a +fulfilment which bears a strange resemblance to the thing dreamt +of. No one now believes that the Book of Revelation is to +be taken as foretelling events which will happen in the same way +as the massacre, for instance, of St. Bartholomew, indeed it is +doubtful how far the whole is not to be interpreted as an +allegory, descriptive of spiritual revolutions; yet surely my +mother’s dream as to the future of one, at least, of her +sons has been strangely verified, and it is believed that the +reader when he lays down this volume will feel that there have +been few more potent witnesses to the truth of Christ than John +Pickard Owen.</p> +<h2><a name="page61"></a><span class="pagenum">p. 61</span>The +Fair Haven</h2> +<h3>Chapter I<br /> +Introduction</h3> +<p><span class="smcap">It</span> is to be feared that there is no +work upon the evidences of our faith, which is as satisfactory in +its completeness and convincing power as we have a right to +expect when we consider the paramount importance of the subject +and the activity of our enemies. Otherwise why should there +be no sign of yielding on the part of so many sincere and eminent +men who have heard all that has been said upon the Christian side +and are yet not convinced by it? We cannot think that the +many philosophers who make no secret of their opposition to the +Christian religion are unacquainted with the works of Butler and +Paley—of Mansel and Liddon. This cannot be: they must +be acquainted with them, and find them fail.</p> +<p>Now, granting readily that in some minds there is a certain +wilful and prejudiced self-blindness which no reasoning can +overcome, and granting also that men very much preoccupied with +any one pursuit (more especially a scientific one) will be apt to +give but scant and divided attention to arguments upon other +subjects such as religion or politics, nevertheless we have so +many opponents who profess to have made a serious study of +Christian evidences, and against whose opinion no exception can +be fairly taken, that it seems as though we were bound either to +admit that our demonstrations require rearrangement and +reconsideration, or to take the Roman position, and maintain that +revelation is no fit subject for evidence but is to be accepted +upon authority. This last position will be rejected at once +by nine-tenths of Englishmen. But upon rejecting it we look +in vain for a work which shall appear to have any such success in +arresting infidelity as attended the works of Butler and Paley in +the last century. In their own day these two great men +stemmed the current of infidelity: but no modern writers have +succeeded in doing so, and it will scarcely be said that either +Butler or Paley set at rest the many serious and inevitable +questions in connection with Christianity which have arisen +during the last fifty years. We could hardly expect one of +the more intelligent students at Oxford or Cambridge to find his +mind set once and for ever free from all rising doubt either by +the <i>Analogy</i> or the <i>Evidences</i>. Suppose, for +example, that he has been misled by the German writers of the +Tübingen school, how will either of the above-named writers +help him? On the contrary, they will do him harm, for they +will not meet the requirements of the case, and the inference is +too readily drawn that nothing else can do so. It need +hardly be insisted upon that this inference is a most unfair one, +but surely the blame of its being drawn rests in some measure at +the door of those whose want of thoroughness has left people +under the impression that no more can be said than what has been +said already.</p> +<p>It is the object, therefore, of this book to contribute +towards establishing Christian evidences upon a more secure and +self-evident base than any upon which they are made to rest at +present, so far, that is to say, as a work which deliberately +excludes whole fields of Christian evidence can tend towards so +great a consummation. In spite of the narrow limits within +which I have resolved to keep my treatment of the subject, I +trust that I may be able to produce such an effect upon the minds +of those who are in doubt concerning the evidences for the hope +that is in them, that henceforward they shall never doubt +again. I am not sanguine enough to suppose that I shall be +able to induce certain eminent naturalists and philosophers to +reopen a question which they have probably long laid aside as +settled; unfortunately it is not in any but the very noblest +Christian natures to do this, nevertheless, could they be +persuaded to read these pages I believe that they would find so +much which would be new to them, that their prejudices would be +greatly shaken. To the younger band of scientific +investigators I appeal more hopefully.</p> +<p>It may be asked why not have undertaken the whole subject and +devoted a life-time to writing an exhaustive work? The +answer suggests itself that the believer is in no want of such a +book, while the unbeliever would be repelled by its size. +Assuredly there can be no doubt as to the value of a great work +which should meet objections derived from certain recent +scientific theories, and confute opponents who have arisen since +the death of our two great apologists, but as a preliminary to +this a smaller and more elementary book seems called for, which +shall give the main outlines of our position with such boldness +and effectiveness as to arrest the attention of any unbeliever +into whose hands it may fall, and induce him to look further into +what else may be urged upon the Christian side. We are +bound to adapt our means to our ends, and shall have a better +chance of gaining the ear of our adversaries if we can offer them +a short and pregnant book than if we come to them with a long one +from which whole chapters might be pruned. We have to bring +the Christian religion to men who will look at no book which +cannot be read in a railway train or in an arm-chair; it is most +deplorable that this should be the case, nevertheless it is +indisputably a fact, and as such must be attended to by all who +hope to be of use in bringing about a better state of +things. And let me add that never yet was there a time when +it so much behoved all who are impressed with the vital power of +religion to bestir themselves; for the symptoms of a general +indifference, not to say hostility, must be admitted to be widely +diffused, in spite of an imposing array of facts which can be +brought forward to the contrary; and not only this, but the +stream of infidelity seems making more havoc yearly, as it might +naturally be expected to do, when met by no new works of any real +strength or permanence.</p> +<p>Bearing in mind, therefore, the necessity for prompt action, +it seemed best to take the most overwhelming of all +miracles—the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and +show that it can be so substantiated that no reasonable man +should doubt it. This I have therefore attempted, and I +humbly trust that the reader will feel that I have not only +attempted it, but done it, once and for all so clearly and +satisfactorily and with such an unflinching examination of the +most advanced arguments of unbelievers, that the question can +never be raised hereafter by any candid mind, or at any rate not +until science has been made to rest on different grounds from +those on which she rests at present.</p> +<p>But the truth of our Lord’s resurrection having been +once established, what need to encumber this book with further +evidences of the miraculous element in his ministry? The +other miracles can be no insuperable difficulty to one who +accepts the Resurrection. It is true that as Christians we +cannot dwell too minutely upon every act and incident in the life +of the Redeemer, but unhappily we have to deal with those who are +not Christians, and must consider rather what we can get them to +take than what we should like to give them: “Be ye wise as +serpents and harmless as doves,” saith the Saviour. A +single miracle is as good as twenty, provided that it be well +established, and can be shewn to be so: it is here that even the +ablest of our apologists have too often failed; they have +professed to substantiate the historical accuracy of all the +recorded miracles and sayings of our Lord, with a result which is +in some instances feeble and conventional, and occasionally even +unfair (oh! what suicidal folly is there in even the remotest +semblance of unfairness), instead of devoting themselves to +throwing a flood of brilliancy upon the most important features +and leaving the others to shine out in the light reflected from +these. Even granting that some of the miracles recorded of +our Lord are apocryphal, what of that? We do not rest upon +them: we have enough and more than enough without them, and can +afford to take the line of saying to the unbeliever, +“Disbelieve this miracle or that if you find that you +cannot accept it, but believe in the Resurrection, of which we +will put forward such ample proofs that no healthy reason can +withstand them, and, having accepted the Resurrection, admit it +as the manifestation of supernatural power, the existence of +which can thus no longer be denied.”</p> +<p>Does not the reader feel that there is a ring of truth and +candour about this which must carry more weight with an opponent +than any strained defence of such a doubtful miracle as the +healing of the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda? We +weight ourselves as against our opponents by trying to defend too +much; no matter how sound and able the defence of one part of the +Christian scheme may have been, its effect is often marred by +contiguity with argument which the writer himself must have +suspected, or even known, to be ingenious rather than sound: the +moment that this is felt in any book its value with an opponent +is at an end, for he must be continually in doubt whether the +spirit which he has detected here or there may not be existing +and at work in a hundred other places where he has not detected +it. What carries weight with an antagonist is the feeling +that his position has been mastered and his difficulties grasped +with thoroughness and candour.</p> +<p>On this point I am qualified to speak from long and bitter +experience. I say that want of candour and the failure to +grasp the position occupied, however untenably, by unbelievers is +the chief cause of the continuance of unbelief. When this +cause has been removed unbelief will die a natural death. +For years I was myself a believer in nothing beyond the +personality and providence of God: yet I feel (not without a +certain sense of bitterness, which I know that I should not feel +but cannot utterly subdue) that if my first doubts had been met +with patient endeavour to understand their nature and if I had +felt that the one in whom I confided had been ready to go to the +root of the matter, and even to yield up the convictions of a +life-time could it be shewn that they were unsafely founded, my +doubts would have been resolved in an hour or two’s quiet +conversation, and would at once have had the effect, which they +have only had after long suffering and unrest, of confirming me +in my allegiance to Christ. But I was met with anger and +impatience. There was an instinct which told me that my +opponent had never heard a syllable against his own convictions, +and was determined not to hear one: on this I assumed rashly that +he must have good reason for his resolution; and doubt ripened +into unbelief. Oh! what years of heart-burning and utter +drifting followed. Yet when I was at last brought within +the influence of one who not only believed all that my first +opponent did, but who also knew that the more light was thrown +upon it the more clearly would its truth be made apparent—a +man who talked with me as though he was anxious that I should +convince him if he were in error, not as though bent on making me +believe whatever habit and circumstances had imposed as a formula +upon himself—my heart softened at once, and the dry places +of my soul were watered.</p> +<p>The above may seem too purely personal to warrant its +introduction here, yet the experience is one which should not be +without its value to others. Its effect upon myself has +been to give me an unutterable longing to save others from +sufferings like my own; I know so well where it is that, to use a +homely metaphor, the shoe pinches. And it is chiefly +here—in the fact that the unbeliever does not feel as +though we really wanted to understand him. This feeling is +in many cases lamentably well founded. No one likes hearing +doubt thrown upon anything which he regards as settled beyond +dispute, and this, happily, is what most men feel concerning +Christianity. Again, indolence or impotence of mind +indisposes many to intellectual effort; others are pained by +coming into contact with anything which derogates from the glory +due to the great sacrifice of Christ, or to his Divine nature, +and lastly not a few are withheld by moral cowardice from daring +to bestow the pains upon the unbeliever which his condition +requires. But from whichever of these sources the +disinclination to understand him comes, its effect is equally +disastrous to the unbeliever. People do not mind a +difference of opinion, if they feel that the one who differs from +them has got a firm grasp of their position; or again, if they +feel that he is trying to understand them but fails from some +defect either of intellect or education, even in this case they +are not pained by opposition. What injures their moral +nature and hardens their hearts is the conviction that another +could understand them if he chose, but does not choose, and yet +none the less condemns them. On this they become imbued +with that bitterness against Christianity which is noticeable in +so many free-thinkers.</p> +<p>Can we greatly wonder? For, sad though the admission be, +it is only justice to admit that we Christians have been too +often contented to accept our faith without knowing its grounds, +in which case it is more by luck than by cunning that we are +Christians at all, and our faith will be in continual +danger. The greater number even of those who have +undertaken to defend the Christian faith have been sadly inclined +to avoid a difficulty rather than to face it, unless it is so +easy as to be no real difficulty at all. I do not say that +this is unnatural, for the Christian writer must be deeply +impressed with the sinfulness of unbelief, and will therefore be +anxious to avoid raising doubts which will probably never yet +have occurred to his reader, and might possibly never do so; nor +does there at first sight appear to be much advantage in raising +difficulties for the sole purpose of removing them; nevertheless +I cannot think that if either Butler or Paley could have foreseen +the continuance of unbelief, and the ruin of so many souls whom +Christ died to save, they would have been contented to act so +almost entirely upon the defensive.</p> +<p>Yet it is impossible not to feel that we in their place should +have done as they did. Infidelity was still in its infancy: +the nature of the disease was hardly yet understood; and there +seemed reason to fear lest it might be aggravated by the very +means taken to cure it; it seemed safer therefore in the first +instance to confine attention to the matter actually in debate, +and leave it to time to suggest a more active treatment should +the course first tried prove unsatisfactory. Who can be +surprised that the earlier apologists should have felt thus in +the presence of an enemy whose novelty made him appear more +portentous than he can ever seem to ourselves? They were +bound to venture nothing rashly; what they did they did, for +their own age, thoroughly; we owe it to their cautious pioneering +that we so know the weakness of our opponents and our own +strength as to be able to do fearlessly what may well have seemed +perilous to our forefathers: nevertheless it is easy to be wise +after the event, and to regret that a bolder course was not taken +at the outset. If Butler and Paley had fought as men eager +for the fray, as men who smelt the battle from afar, it is +impossible to believe that infidelity could have lasted as long +as it has. What can be done now could have been done just +as effectively then, and though we cannot be surprised at the +caution shewn at first, we are bound to deplore it as +short-sighted.</p> +<p>The question, however, for ourselves is not what dead men +might have done better long ago, but what living men and women +can do most wisely now; and in answer to it I would say that +there is no policy so unwise as fear in a good cause: the bold +course is also the wise one; it consists in being on the lookout +for objections, in finding the very best that can be found and +stating them in their most intelligible form, in shewing what are +the logical consequences of unbelief, and thus carrying the war +into the enemy’s country; in fighting with the most +chivalrous generosity and a determination to take no advantage +which is not according to the rules of war most strictly +interpreted against ourselves, but within such an interpretation +showing no quarter. This is the bold course and the true +course: it will beget a confidence which can never be felt in the +wariness, however well-intentioned, of the old defenders.</p> +<p>Let me, therefore, beg the reader to follow me patiently while +I do my best to put before him the main difficulties felt by +unbelievers. When he is once acquainted with these he will +run in no danger of confirming doubt through his fear in turning +away from it in the first instance. How many die hardened +unbelievers through the treatment which they have received from +those to whom their Christianity has been a matter of +circumstances and habit only? Hell is no fiction. +Who, without bitter sorrow, can reflect upon the agonies even of +a single soul as being due to the selfishness or cowardice of +others? Awful thought! Yet it is one which is daily +realised in the case of thousands.</p> +<p>In the commonest justice to brethren, however sinful, each one +of us who tries to lead them to the Saviour is bound not only to +shew them the whole strength of our own arguments, but to make +them see that we understand the whole strength of theirs; for men +will not seriously listen to those whom they believe to know one +side of a question only. It is this which makes the +educated infidel so hard to deal with; he knows very well that an +intelligent apprehension of the position held by an opponent is +indispensable for profitable discussion; but he very rarely meets +with this in the case of those Christians who try to argue with +him; he therefore soon acquires a habit of avoiding the subject +of religion, and can seldom be induced to enter upon an argument +which he is convinced can lead to nothing.</p> +<p>He who would cure a disease must first know what it is, and he +who would convert an infidel must know what it is that he is to +be converted from, as well as what he is to be led to; nothing +can be laid hold of unless its whereabouts is known. It is +deplorable that such commonplaces should be wanted; but, alas! it +is impossible to do without them. People have taken a panic +on the subject of infidelity as though it were so infectious that +the very nurses and doctors should run away from those afflicted +with it; but such conduct is no less absurd than cruel and +disgraceful. <i>Infidelity is only infectious when it is +not understood</i>. The smallest reflection should suffice +to remind us that a faith which has satisfied the most brilliant +and profound of human intellects for nearly two thousand years +must have had very sure foundations, and that any digging about +them for the purpose of demonstrating their depth and solidity, +will result, not in their disturbance, but in its being made +clear to every eye that they are laid upon a rock which nothing +can shake—that they do indeed satisfy every demand of human +reason, which suffers violence not from those who accept the +scheme of the Christian redemption, but from those who reject +it.</p> +<p>This being the case, and that it is so will, I believe, appear +with great clearness in the following pages, what need to shrink +from the just and charitable course of understanding the nature +of what is urged by those who differ from us? How can we +hope to bring them to be of one mind in Christ Jesus with +ourselves, unless we can resolve their difficulties and explain +them? And how can we resolve their difficulties until we +know what they are? Infidelity is as a reeking fever den, +which none can enter safely without due precautions, but the +taking these precautions is within our own power; we can all rely +upon the blessed promises of the Saviour that he will not desert +us in our hour of need if we will only truly seek him; there is +more infidelity in this shrinking and fear of investigation than +in almost any open denial of Christ; the one who refuses to +examine the doubts felt by another, and is prevented from making +any effort to remove them through fear lest he should come to +share them, shews either that he has no faith in the power of +Christianity to stand examination, or that he has no faith in the +promises of God to guide him into all truth. In either case +he is hardly less an unbeliever than those whom he condemns.</p> +<p>Let the reader therefore understand that he will here find no +attempt to conceal the full strength of the arguments relied on +by unbelievers. This manner of substantiating the truth of +Christianity has unhappily been tried already; it has been tried +and has failed as it was bound to fail. Infidelity lives +upon concealment. Shew it in broad daylight, hold it up +before the world and make its hideousness manifest to +all—then, and not till then, will the hours of unbelief be +numbered. <i>We</i> have been the mainstay of unbelief +through our timidity. Far be it from me, therefore, that I +should help any unbeliever by concealing his case for him. +This were the most cruel kindness. On the contrary, I shall +insist upon all his arguments and state them, if I may say so +without presumption, more clearly than they have ever been stated +within the same limits. No one knows what they are better +than I do. No one was at one time more firmly persuaded +that they were sound. May it be found that no one has so +well known how also to refute them.</p> +<p>The reader must not therefore expect to find fictitious +difficulties in the way of accepting Christianity set up with one +hand in order to be knocked down again with the other: he will +find the most powerful arguments against all that he holds most +sacred insisted on with the same clearness as those on his own +side; it is only by placing the two contending opinions side by +side in their utmost development that the strength of our own can +be made apparent. Those who wish to cry peace, peace, when +there is no peace, those who would take their faith by fashion as +the take their clothes, those who doubt the strength of their own +cause and do not in their heart of heart believe that +Christianity will stand investigation, those, again, who care not +who may go to Hell provided they are comfortably sure of going to +Heaven themselves, such persons may complain of the line which I +am about to take. They on the other hand whose faith is +such that it knows no fear of criticism, and they whose love for +Christ leads them to regard the bringing of lost souls into his +flock as the highest earthly happiness—such will admit +gladly that I have been right in tearing aside the veil from +infidelity and displaying it uncloaked by the side of faith +itself.</p> +<p>At the same time I am bound to confess that I never should +have been able to see the expediency, not to say the absolute +necessity for such a course, unless I had been myself for many +years an unbeliever. It is this experience, so bitterly +painful, that has made me feel so strongly as to the only manner +in which others can be brought from darkness into light. +The wisdom of the Almighty recognised that if man was to be saved +it must be done by the assumption of man’s nature on the +part of the Deity. God must make himself man, or man could +never learn the nature and attributes of God. Let us then +follow the sublime example of the incarnation, and make ourselves +as unbelievers that we may teach unbelievers to believe. If +Paley and Butler had only been <i>real infidels</i> for a single +year, instead of taking the thoughts and reasonings of their +opponents at second-hand, what a difference should we not have +seen in the nature of their work. Alas! their clear and +powerful intellects had been trained early in the severest +exercises; they could not be misled by any of the sophistries of +their opponents; but, on the other hand, never having been misled +they knew not the thread of the labyrinth as one who has been +shut up therein.</p> +<p>I should also warn the reader of another matter. He must +not expect to find that I can maintain everything which he could +perhaps desire to see maintained. I can prove, to such a +high degree of presumption as shall amount virtually to +demonstration, that our Lord died upon the cross, rose again from +the dead upon the third day, and ascended into Heaven: but I +cannot prove that none of the accounts of these events which have +come down to us have suffered from the hand of time: on the +contrary, I must own that the reasons which led me to conclude +that there must be confusion in some of the accounts of the +Resurrection continue in full force with me even now. I see +no way of escaping from this conclusion: but it seems equally +strange that the Christian should have such an indomitable +repugnance to accept it, and that the unbeliever should conceive +that it inflicts any damage whatever upon the Christian +evidences. Perhaps the error of each confirms that of the +other, as will appear hereafter.</p> +<p>I have spoken hitherto as though I were writing only for men, +but the help of good women can never be so precious as in the +salvation of human souls; if there is one work for which women +are better fitted than another, it is that of arresting the +progress of unbelief. Can there be a nobler one? +Their superior tact and quickness give them a great advantage +over men; men will listen to them when they would turn away from +one of their own sex; and though I am well aware that courtesy is +no argument, yet the natural politeness shewn by a man to a woman +will compel attention to what falls from her lips, and will thus +perhaps be the means of bringing him into contact with Divine +truths which would never otherwise have reached him. Yet +this is a work from which too many women recoil in +horror—they know that they can do nothing unless they are +intimately acquainted with the opinions of those from whom they +differ, and from such an intimacy they believe that they are +right in shrinking.</p> +<p>Oh, my sisters, my sisters, ye who go into the foulest dens of +disease and vice, fearless of the pestilence and of man’s +brutality, ye whose whole lives bear witness to the cross of +Christ and the efficacy of the Divine love, did one of you ever +fear being corrupted by the vice with which you came in +contact? Is there one of you who fears to examine why it is +that even the most specious form of vice is vicious? You +fear not infection here, for you know that you are on sure +ground, and that there is no form of vice of which the +viciousness is not clearly provable; but can you doubt that the +foundation of your faith is sure also, and can you not see that +your cowardice in not daring to examine the foul and +soul-destroying den of infidelity is a stumbling-block to those +who have not yet known their Saviour? Your fear is as the +fear of children who dare not go in the dark; but alas! the +unbeliever does not understand it thus. He says that your +fear is not of the darkness but of the light, and that you dare +not search lest you should find that which would make against +you. Hideous blasphemy against the Lord! But is not +the sin to be laid partly at the door of those whose cowardice +has given occasion for it?</p> +<p>Is there none of you who knows that as to the pure all things +are pure, so to the true and loyal heart all things will confirm +its faith? You shrink from this last trial of your +allegiance, partly from the pain of even seeing the wounds of +your Redeemer laid open—of even hearing the words of those +enemies who have traduced him and crucified him afresh—but +you lose the last and highest of the prizes, for great as is your +faith now, be very sure that from this crowning proof of your +devotion you would emerge with greater still.</p> +<p>Has none of you seen a savage dog barking and tearing at the +end of his chain as though he were longing to devour you, and yet +if you have gone bravely up to him and bade him be still, he is +cowed and never barks again? Such is the genius of +infidelity; it loves to threaten those who retreat, yet it +shrinks daunted back from those who meet it boldly; it is the +lack of boldness on the part of the Christian which gives it all +its power; when Christians are strong in the strength of their +own cause infidels will know their impotence, but as long as +there are cowards there will be those who prey upon cowardice, +and as long as those who should defend the cross of Christ hide +themselves behind battlements, so long will the enemy come up to +the very walls of the defence and trouble them that are +within. The above words must have sounded harsh and will I +fear have given pain to many a tender heart which is conscious of +the depth of its own love for the Redeemer, and would be shocked +at the thought that anything had been neglected in his service, +but has not the voice of such a heart returned answer to itself +that what I have written is just?</p> +<p>Again, I have been told by some that they have been aware of +the necessity of doing their best towards putting a stop to +infidelity, and that they have been unceasing in their prayers +for friends or husbands or relations who know not Christ, but +that with prayers their efforts have ended. Now, there can +be no one in the whole world who has had more signal proofs of +the efficacy of prayer than the writer of these pages, but he +would lie if he were to say that prayer was ever answered when it +was only another name for idleness, a cloak for the avoidance of +obvious duty. God is no helper of the indolent and the +coward; if this were so, what need to work at all? Why not +sit still, and trust in prayer for everything? No; to the +women who have prayed, and prayed only, the answer is ready at +hand, that work without prayer is bad, but prayer without work +worse. Let them do their own utmost in the way of sowing, +planting, and watering, and then let them pray to God that he +will vouchsafe them the increase; but they can no more expect the +increase to be of God’s free gift without the toil of +sowing than did the blessed Apostle St. Paul. If God did +not convert the heathen for Paul and Apollos in answer to their +prayers alone, how can we expect that he will convert the infidel +for ourselves, unless we have first followed in the footsteps of +the Apostles? The sin of infidelity will rest upon us and +our children until we have done our best to shake it off; and +this not timidly and disingenuously as those who fear for the +result, but with the certainty that it is the infidel and not the +Christian who need fear investigation, if the investigation only +goes deep enough. Herein has lain our error, we have feared +to allow the unbeliever to put forth all his strength lest it +should prove stronger than we thought it was, when in truth the +world would only have known the sooner of its weakness; and this +shall now at last be abundantly shewn, for, as I said above, I +will help no infidel by concealing his case; it shall appear in +full, and as nearly in his own words as the limits at my disposal +will allow. Out of his own mouth shall he be condemned, and +yet, I trust, not condemned alone; but converted as I myself, and +by the same irresistible chain of purest reason; one thing only +is wanted on the part of the reader, it is this, the desire to +attain truth regardless of past prejudices.</p> +<p>If an unbeliever has made up his mind that we must be wrong, +without having heard our side, and if he presumes to neglect the +most ordinary precaution against error—that of +understanding the position of an opponent—I can do nothing +with him or for him. No man can make another see, if the +other persists in shutting his eyes and bandaging them: if it is +a victory to be able to say that they cannot see the truth under +these circumstances, the victory is with our opponents; but for +those who can lay their hands upon their heart and say truly +before God and man that they care nothing for the maintenance of +their own opinions, but only that they may come to know the +truth, for such I can do much. I can put the matter before +them in so clear a light that they shall never doubt +hereafter.</p> +<p>Never was there a time when such an exposition was wanted so +much as now. The specious plausibilities of a +pseudo-science have led hundreds of thousands into error; the +misapplication of geology has ensnared a host of victims, and a +still greater misapplication of natural history seems likely to +devour those whom the perversion of geology has spared. Not +that I have a word to say against <i>true</i> science: true +science can never be an enemy of the Bible, which is the +text-book of the science of the salvation of human souls as +written by the great Creator and Redeemer of the soul itself, but +the Enemy of Mankind is never idle, and no sooner does God +vouchsafe to us any clearer illumination of his purposes and +manner of working, than the Evil One sets himself to consider how +he can turn the blessing into a curse; and by the all-wise +dispensation of Providence he is allowed so much triumph as that +he shall sift the wise from the foolish, the faithful from the +traitors. God knoweth his own. Still there is no +surer mark that one is among the number of those whom he hath +chosen than the desire to bring all to share in the gracious +promises which he has vouchsafed to those that will take +advantage of them; and there are few more certain signs of +reprobation than indifference as to the existence of unbelief, +and faint-heartedness in trying to remove it. It is the +duty of all those who love Christ to lead their brethren to love +him also; but how can they hope to succeed in this until they +understand the grounds on which he is rejected?</p> +<p>For there <i>are</i> grounds, insufficient ones, untenable +ones, grounds which a little loving patience and, if I may be +allowed the word, ingenuity, will shew to be utterly rotten; but +as long as their rottenness is only to be asserted and not +proved, so long will deluded people build upon them in fancied +security. As yet the proof has never been made sufficiently +clear. If displayed sufficiently for one age it has been +necessary to do the work again for the next. As soon as the +errors of one set of people have been made apparent, another set +has arisen with fresh objections, or the old fallacies have +reappeared in another shape. It is not too much to say that +it has never yet been so clearly proved that Christ rose again +from the dead, that a jury of educated Englishmen should be +compelled to assent to it, even though they had never before +heard of Christianity. This therefore it is my object to do +once and for ever now.</p> +<p>It is not for me to pry into the motives of the Almighty, nor +to inquire why it is that for nearly two thousand years the +perfection of proof should never have been duly produced, but if +I dare hazard an opinion I should say that such proof was never +necessary until now, but that it has lain ready to be produced at +a moment’s notice on the arrival of the fitting time. +In the early stages of the Church the <i>vivâ voce</i> +testimony of the Apostles was still so near that its force was in +no way spent; from those times until recently the universality of +belief was such that proof was hardly needed; it is only for a +hundred years or so (which in the sight of God are but as +yesterday) that infidelity has made real progress. Then God +raised his hand in wrath; revolution taught men to see the nature +of unbelief and the world shrank back in horror; the time of fear +passed by; unbelief has again raised itself; whereon we can see +that other and even more fearful revolutions <a +name="citation82"></a><a href="#footnote82" +class="citation">[82]</a> are daily threatening. What +country is safe? In what part of the world do not men feel +an uneasy foreboding of the wrath which will surely come if they +do not repent and turn unto the Lord their God? Go where we +will we are conscious of that heaviness and oppression which is +the precursor of the hurricane and the earthquake; none escape +it: an all-pervading sense of rottenness and fearful waiting upon +judgment is upon the hearts of all men. May it not be that +this awe and silence have been ordained in order that the still +small voice of the Lord may be the more clearly heard and +welcomed as salvation? Is it not possible that the infinite +mercy of God is determined to give mankind one last chance, +before the day of that coming which no creature may abide? +I dare not answer: yet I know well that the fire burneth within +me, and that night and day I take no rest but am consumed until +the work committed to me is done, that I may be clear from the +blood of all men.</p> +<h3><a name="page83"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +83</span>Chapter II<br /> +Strauss and the Hallucination Theory</h3> +<p><span class="smcap">It</span> has been well established by +Paley, and indeed has seldom been denied, that within a very few +years of Christ’s crucifixion a large number of people +believed that he had risen from the dead. They believed +that after having suffered actual death he rose to actual life, +as a man who could eat and drink and talk, who could be seen and +handled. Some who held this were near relations of Christ, +some had known him intimately for a considerable time before his +crucifixion, many must have known him well by sight, but all were +unanimous in their assertion that they had seen him alive after +he had been dead, and in consequence of this belief they adopted +a new mode of life, abandoning in many cases every other earthly +consideration save that of bearing witness to what they had known +and seen. I have not thought it worth while to waste time +and space by introducing actual proof of the above. This +will be found in Paley’s opening chapters, to which the +reader is referred.</p> +<p>How then did this intensity of conviction come about? +Differ as they might and did upon many of the questions arising +out of the main fact which they taught, as to the fact itself +they differed not in the least degree. In their own +life-time and in that of those who could confute them their story +gained the adherence of a very large and ever increasing +number. If it could be shewn that the belief in +Christ’s reappearance did not arise until after the death +of those who were said to have seen him, when actions and +teachings might have been imputed to them which were not theirs, +the case would then be different; but this cannot be done; there +is nothing in history better established than that the men who +said that they had seen Christ alive after he had been dead, were +themselves the first to lay aside all else in order to maintain +their assertion. If it could be maintained that they taught +what they did in order to sanction laxity of morals, the case +would again be changed. But this too is impossible. +They taught what they did because of the intensity of their own +conviction and from no other motive whatsoever.</p> +<p>What then can that thing have been which made these men so +beyond all measure and one-mindedly certain? Were they thus +before the Crucifixion? Far otherwise. Yet the men +who fled in the hour of their master’s peril betrayed no +signs of flinching when their own was no less imminent. How +came it that the cowardice and fretfulness of the Gospels should +be transformed into the lion-hearted steadfastness of the +Acts?</p> +<p>The Crucifixion had intervened. Yes, but surely +something more than the Crucifixion. Can we believe that if +their experience of Christ had ended with the Cross, the Apostles +would have been in that state of mind which should compel them to +leave all else for the sake of preaching what he had taught +them? It is a hard thing for a man to change the scheme of +his life; yet this is not a case of one man but of many, who +became changed as if struck with an enchanter’s wand, and +who, though many, were as one in the vehemence with which they +protested that their master had reappeared to them alive. +Their converse with Christ did not probably last above a year or +two, and was interrupted by frequent absence. If Christ had +died once and for all upon the Cross, Christianity must have died +with him; but it did not die; nay, it did not begin to live with +full energy until after its founder had been crucified. We +must ask again, what could that thing have been which turned +these querulous and faint-hearted followers into the most earnest +and successful body of propagandists which the world has ever +seen, if it was not that which they said it was—namely, +that Christ had reappeared to them alive after they had +themselves known him to be dead? This would account for the +change in them, but is there anything else that will?</p> +<p>They had such ample opportunities of knowing the truth that +the supposition of mistake is fraught with the greatest +difficulties; they gave such guarantees of sincerity as that none +have given greater; their unanimity is perfect; there is not the +faintest trace of any difference of opinion amongst them as to +the main fact of the Resurrection. These are things which +never have been and never can be denied, but if they do not form +strong <i>primâ facie</i> ground for believing in the truth +and actuality of Christ’s Resurrection, what is there which +will amount to a <i>primâ facie</i> case for anything +whatever?</p> +<p>Nevertheless the matter does not rest here. While there +exists the faintest possibility of mistake we may be sure that we +shall deal most wisely by examining its character and +value. Let us inquire therefore whether there are any +circumstances which seem to indicate that the early Christians +might have been mistaken, and been firmly persuaded that they had +seen Christ alive, although in point of fact they had not really +seen him? Men have been very positive and very sincere +about things wherein we should have conceived mistake impossible, +and yet they have been utterly mistaken. A strong +predisposition, a rare coincidence, an unwonted natural +phenomenon, a hundred other causes, may turn sound judgments +awry, and we dare not assume forthwith that the first disciples +of Christ were superior to influences which have misled many who +have had better chances of withstanding them. Visions and +hallucinations are not uncommon even now. How easily belief +in a supernatural occurrence obtains among the peasantry of +Italy, Ireland, Belgium, France, and Spain; and how much more +easily would it do so among Jews in the days of Christ, when +belief in supernatural interferences with this world’s +economy was, so to speak, omnipresent. Means of +communication, that is to say of verification, were few, and the +tone of men’s minds as regards accuracy of all kinds was +utterly different from that of our own; science existed not even +in name as the thing we now mean by it; few could read and fewer +write, so that a story could seldom be confined to its original +limits; error, therefore, had much chance and truth little as +compared with our own times. What more is needed to make us +feel how possible it was for the purest and most honest of men to +become parents of all fallacy?</p> +<p>Strauss believes this to have been the case. He supposes +that the earliest Christians were under hallucination when they +thought that they had seen Christ alive after his Crucifixion; in +other words, that they never saw him at all, but only thought +that they had done so. He does not imagine that they +conceived this idea at once, but that it grew up gradually in the +course of a few years, and that those who came under its +influence antedated it unconsciously afterwards. He appears +to believe that within a few months of the Crucifixion, and in +consequence of some unexplained combination of internal and +external causes, some one of the Apostles came to be impressed +with the notion that he had seen Christ alive; the impression, +however made, was exceedingly strong, and was communicated as +soon as might be to some other or others of the Apostles: the +idea was welcome—as giving life to a hope which had been +fondly cherished; each inflamed the imagination of the other, +until the original basis of the conception slipped unconsciously +from recollection, while the intensity of the conviction itself +became stronger and stronger the more often the story was +repeated. Strauss supposes that on seeing the firm +conviction of two or three who had hitherto been leaders among +them, the other Apostles took heart, and that thus the body grew +together again perhaps within a twelve-month of the +Crucifixion. According to him, the idea of the Resurrection +having been once started, and having once taken root, the soil +was so congenial that it grew apace; the rest of the Apostles, +perhaps assembled together in a high state of mental enthusiasm +and excitement, conceived that they saw Christ enter the room in +which they were sitting and afford some manifest proof of life +and identity; or some one else may have enlarged a less +extraordinary story to these dimensions, so that in a short time +it passed current everywhere (there have been instances of +delusions quite as extraordinary gaining a foothold among men +whose sincerity is not to be disputed), and finally they +conceived that these appearances of their master had commenced a +few months—and what is a few months?—earlier than +they actually had, so that the first appearance was soon looked +upon as having been vouchsafed within three days of the +Crucifixion.</p> +<p>The above is not in Strauss’s words, but it is a careful +<i>résumé</i> of what I gather to be his conception +of the origin of the belief in the Resurrection of Christ. +The belief, and the intensity of the belief, need explanation; +the supernatural explanation, as we should ourselves readily +admit, cannot be accepted unless all others are found wanting; he +therefore, if I understand him rightly, puts forward the above as +being a reasonable and natural solution of the +difficulty—the only solution which does not fail upon +examination, and therefore the one which should be +accepted. It is founded upon the affection which the +Apostles had borne towards their master, and their unwillingness +to give up their hope that they had been chosen, as the favoured +lieutenants of the promised Messiah.</p> +<p>No man would be willing to give up such hope easily; all men +would readily welcome its renewal; it was easy in the then +intellectual condition of Palestine for hallucination to +originate, and still easier for it to spread; the story touched +the hearts of men too nearly to render its propagation +difficult. Men and women like believing in the marvellous, +for it brings the chance of good fortune nearer to their own +doors; but how much more so when they are themselves closely +connected with the central figure of the marvel, and when it +appears to give a clue to the solution of that mystery which all +would pry into if they could—our future after death? +There can be no great cause for wonder that an hallucination +which arose under such conditions as these should have gained +ground and conquered all opposition, even though its origin may +be traced to the brain of but a single person.</p> +<p>He would be a bold man who should say that this was +impossible; nevertheless it cannot be accepted. For, in the +first place, we collect most certainly from the Gospel records +that the Apostles were <i>not</i> a compact and devoted body of +adherents at the time of the Crucifixion; yet it is hard to see +how Strauss’s hallucination theory can be accepted, unless +this was the case. If Strauss believed the earliest +followers of Christ to have been already immovably fixed in their +belief that he was the Son of God—the promised Messiah, of +whom they were themselves the especially chosen +ministers—if he considered that they believed in their +master as the worker of innumerable miracles which they had +themselves witnessed; as one whom they had seen raise others from +death to life, and whom, therefore, death could not be expected +to control—if he held the followers of Christ to have been +in this frame of mind at the time of the Crucifixion, it might be +intelligible that he should suppose the strength of their faith +to have engendered an imaginary reappearance in order to save +them from the conclusion that their hopes had been without +foundation; that, in point of fact, they should have accepted a +new delusion in order to prop up an old one; but we know very +well that Strauss does not accept this position. He denies +that the Apostles had seen any miracles; independently therefore +of the many and unmistakable traces of their having been but +partial and wavering adherents, which have made it a matter of +common belief among those who have studied the New Testament that +the faith of the Apostles was unsteadfast before the Crucifixion, +he must have other and stronger reasons for thinking that this +was so, inasmuch as he does not look upon them as men who had +seen our Lord raise any one from the dead, nor restore the eyes +of the blind.</p> +<p>According to him, they may have seen Christ exercise unusual +power over the insane, and temporary alleviations of sickness, +due perhaps to mental excitement, may have taken place in their +presence and passed for miracles; he would doubt how far they had +even seen this much, for he would insist on many passages in the +Gospels which would point in the direction of our Lord’s +never having professed to work a single miracle; but even though +he granted that they had seen certain extraordinary cases of +healing, there is no amount of testimony which would for a moment +satisfy him of their having seen more. <i>We</i> see the +Apostles as men who before the Crucifixion had seen Lazarus +raised from death to life after the corruption of the grave had +begun its work, and who had seen sight given to one that had been +born sightless; as men who had seen miracle after miracle, with +every loophole for escape from a belief in the miraculous +carefully excluded; who had seen their master walking upon the +sea, and bidding the winds be still; our difficulty therefore is +to understand the incredulity of the Apostles as displayed +abundantly in the Gospels; but Strauss can have none such; for he +must see them as men over whom the influence of their master had +been purely personal, and due to nothing more than to a strength +and beauty of character which his followers very imperfectly +understood. <i>He</i> does not believe that Lazarus was +raised at all, or that the man who had been born blind ever +existed; he considers the fourth gospel, which alone records +these events, to be the work of a later age, and not to be +depended on for facts, save here and there; certainly not where +the facts recorded are miraculous. He must therefore be +even more ready than we are to admit that the faith of the +Apostles was weak before the Crucifixion; but whether he is or +not, we have it on the highest authority that their faith was not +strong enough to maintain them at the very first approach of +danger, nor to have given them any hope whatever that our Lord +should rise again; whereas for Strauss’s theory to hold +good, it must already have been in a white heat of +enthusiasm.</p> +<p>But even granting that this was so—in the face of all +the evidence we can reach—men so honest and sincere as the +Apostles proved themselves to be, would have taken other ground +than the assertion that their master had reappeared to them +alive, unless some very extraordinary occurrences had led them to +believe that they had indeed seen him. If their faith was +glowing and intense at the time of the Crucifixion—so +intense that they believed in Christ as much, or nearly as much, +after the Crucifixion as before it (and unless this were so the +hallucinations could never have arisen at all, or at any rate +could never have been so unanimously accepted)—it would +have been so intense as to stand in no need of a +reappearance. In this case, if they had found that their +master did not return to them, the Apostles would probably have +accepted the position that he had, contrary to their expectation, +been put to a violent death; they would, perhaps, have come +sooner or later to the conclusion that he was immediately on +death received into Heaven, and was sitting on the right hand of +God; while some extraordinary dream might have been construed +into a revelation of the fact with the manner of its occurrence, +and been soon generally believed; but the idea of our +Lord’s return to earth in a gross material body whereon the +wounds were still unhealed, was perhaps the last thing that would +have suggested itself to them by way of hallucination. If +their faith had been great enough, and their spirits high enough +to have allowed hallucination to originate at all, their +imagination would have presented them at once with a glorious +throne, and the splendours of the highest Heaven as appearing +through the opened firmament; it would not surely have rested +satisfied with a man whose hands and side were wounded, and who +could eat of a piece of broiled fish and of an honeycomb. A +fabric so utterly baseless as the reappearances of our Lord (on +the supposition of their being unhistoric) would have been built +of gaudier materials. To repeat, it seems impossible that +the Apostles should have attempted to connect their +hallucinations circumstantially and historically with the events +which had immediately preceded them. Hallucination would +have been conscious of a hiatus and not have tried to bridge it +over. It would not have developed the idea of our +Lord’s return to this grovelling and unworthy earth prior +to his assumption into glory, unless those who were under its +influence had either seen other resurrections from the +dead—in which case there is no difficulty attaching to the +Resurrection of our Lord himself—or been forced into +believing it by the evidence of their own senses; this, on the +supposition that the devotion of the first disciples was intense +before the Crucifixion; but if, on the other hand, they were at +that time anything but steadfast, as both <i>a priori</i> and +<i>a posteriori</i> evidence would seem to indicate, if they were +few and wavering, and if what little faith they had was shaken to +its foundations and apparently at an end for ever with the death +of Christ, it becomes indeed difficult to see how the idea of his +return to earth alive could have ever struck even a single one of +them, much less that hallucinations which could have had no +origin but in the disordered brain of some one member of the +Apostolic body, should in a short time have been accepted by all +as by one man without a shadow of dissension, and been strong +enough to convert them, as was said above, into the most earnest +and successful body of propagandists that the world has ever +seen.</p> +<p>Truly this is not too much to say of them; and yet we are +asked to believe that this faith, so intensely energetic, grew +out of one which can hardly be called a faith at all, in +consequence of day-dreams whose existence presupposes a faith +hardly if any less intense than that which it is supposed to have +engendered. Are we not warranted in asserting that a +movement which is confined to a few wavering followers, and which +receives any very decisive check, which scatters and demoralises +the few who have already joined it, will be absolutely sure to +die a speedy natural death unless something utterly strange and +new occurs to give it a fresh impetus? Such a resuscitating +influence would have been given to the Christian religion by the +reappearance of Christ alive. This would meet the +requirements of the case, for we can all feel that if we had +already half believed in some gifted friend as a messenger from +God, and if we had seen that friend put to death before our eyes, +and yet found that the grave had no power over him, but that he +could burst its bonds and show himself to us again unmistakably +alive, we should from that moment yield ourselves absolutely his; +but our faith would die with him unless it had been utter before +his death.</p> +<p>The devotion of the Apostles is explained by their belief in +the Resurrection, but their belief in the Resurrection is not +explained by a supposed hallucination; for their minds were not +in that state in which alone such a delusion could establish +itself firmly, and unless it were established firmly by the most +apparently irrefragable evidence of many persons, it would have +had no living energy. How an hallucination could occur in +the requisite strength to the requisite number of people is +neither explained nor explicable, except upon the supposition +that the Apostles were in a very different frame of mind at the +time of Christ’s Crucifixion from that which all the +evidence we can get would seem to indicate. If Strauss had +first made this point clear we could follow him. But he has +not done so.</p> +<p>Strauss says, the conception that Christ’s body had been +reawakened and changed, “a double miracle, exceeding far +what had occurred in the case of Enoch and Elijah, could only be +credible to one who saw in him a prophet far superior to +them”—<i>i.e.</i>, to one who notwithstanding his +death was persuaded that he was the Messiah: “this +conviction” (that a double miracle had been performed) +“was the first to which the Apostles had to attain in the +days of their humiliation after the Crucifixion.” +Yes—but how were they to attain to it, being now utterly +broken down and disillusioned? Strauss admits that before +they could have come to hold what he supposes them to have held, +they must have seen in Christ even after his Crucifixion a +prophet far greater than either Moses or Elias; whereas in point +of fact it is very doubtful whether they ever believed this much +of their master even before the Crucifixion, and hardly +questionable that after it they disbelieved in him almost +entirely, until he shewed himself to them alive. Is it +possible that from the dead embers of so weak a faith, so vast a +conflagration should have been kindled?</p> +<p>I submit, therefore, that independently of any direct evidence +as to the when and where of Christ’s reappearances, the +fact that the Apostles before the Crucifixion were irresolute, +and after it unspeakably resolute, affords strong ground for +believing that they must have seen something, or come to know +something, which to their minds was utterly overwhelming in its +convincing power: when we find the earliest and most trustworthy +records unanimously asserting that that something was the +reappearance of Christ alive, we feel that such a reappearance +was an adequate cause for the result actually produced; and when +we think over the condition of mind which both probability and +evidence assign to the Apostles, we also feel that no other +circumstance would have been adequate, nor even this unless the +proof had been such as none could reasonably escape from.</p> +<p>Again, Strauss’s supposition that the Apostles antedated +their hallucinations suggests no less difficulty. Suppose +that, after all, Strauss is right, and that there was no actual +reappearance; whatever it was that led the Apostles to believe in +such reappearance must have been, judging by its effect, intense +and memorable: it must have been as a shock obliterating +everything save the memory of itself and the things connected +with it: the time and manner of such a shock could never have +been forgotten, nor misplaced without deliberate intention to +deceive, and no one will impute any such intention to the +Apostles.</p> +<p>It may be said that if they were capable of believing in the +reality of their visions they would be also capable of antedating +them; this is true; but the double supposition of self-delusion, +first in seeing the visions at all, and then in unconsciously +antedating them, reduces the Apostles to such an exceedingly low +level of intelligence and trustworthiness, that no good and +permanent work could come from such persons; the men who could be +weak enough, and crazed enough, if the reader will pardon the +expression, to do as Strauss suggests, could never have carried +their work through in the way they did. Such men would have +wrecked their undertaking a hundred times over in the perils +which awaited it upon every side; they would have become victims +of their own fancies and desires, with little or no other grounds +than these for any opinions they might hold or teach: from such a +condition of mind they must have gone on to one still worse; and +their tenets would have perished with them, if not sooner.</p> +<p>Again, as regards this antedating; unless the visions happened +at once, it is inconceivable that they should have happened at +all. Strauss believes that the disciples fled in their +first terror to their homes: that when there, “outside the +range to which the power of the enemies and murderers of their +master extended, the spell of terror and consternation which had +been laid upon their minds gave way,” and that under the +circumstances a reaction up to the point at which they might have +visions of Christ is capable of explanation. The answer to +this is that it is indeed likely that the spell of terror would +give way when they found themselves safe at home, but that it is +not at all likely that any reaction would take place in favour of +one to whom their allegiance had never been thorough, and whom +they supposed to have met with a violent and accursed end. +It might be easy to imagine such a reaction if we did not also +attempt to imagine the circumstances that must have preceded it; +the moment we try to do this, we find it to be an +impossibility. If once the Apostles had been dispersed, and +had returned home to their former avocations without having seen +or heard anything of their master’s return to earth, all +their expectations would have been ended; they would have +remained peaceable fishermen for the rest of their lives, and +been cured once and for ever of their enthusiasm.</p> +<p>Can we believe that the disciples, returning to Galilee in +fear, and bereaved of that master mind which had kept them from +falling out with one another, would have remained a united and +enthusiastic body? Strauss admits that their enthusiasm was +for the time ended. Is it then likely that they would have +remained in any sense united, or is it not much more likely that +they would have shunned each other and disliked allusions to the +past? What but Christ’s actual reappearance could +rekindle this dead enthusiasm, and fan it to such a burning +heat? Suppose that one or two disciples recovered faith and +courage, the majority would never do so. If Christ himself +with the magic of his presence could not weld them into a devoted +and harmonious company, would the rumour arising at a later time +that some one had seen him after death, be acceptable enough to +make the others believe that they too had actually seen and +handled him? Perhaps—if the rumour was +believed. But <i>would</i> it have been believed? Or +at any rate have been believed so utterly?</p> +<p>We cannot think it. For the belief and assertion are +absolutely without trace of dissent within the Christian body, +and that body was in the first instance composed entirely of the +very persons who had known and followed Christ before the +Crucifixion. If some of the original twelve had remained +aloof and disputed the reappearances of Christ, is it possible +that no trace of such dissension should appear in the Epistles of +St. Paul? Paul differed widely enough from those who were +Apostles before him, and his language concerning them is +occasionally that of ill-concealed contempt and hatred rather +than of affection; but is there a word or hint which would seem +to indicate that a single one of those who had the best means of +knowing doubted the Resurrection? There is nothing of the +kind; on the contrary, whatever we find is such as to make us +feel perfectly sure that none of them <i>did</i> doubt it. +Is it then possible that this unanimity should have sprung from +the original hallucinations of a small minority? +True—it is plain from the Epistle to the Corinthians that +there were some of Paul’s contemporaries who denied the +Resurrection. But who were they? We should expect +that many among the more educated Gentile converts would throw +doubt upon so stupendous a miracle, but is there anything which +would point in the direction of these doubts having been held +within the original body of those who said that they had seen +Christ alive? By the eleven, or by the five hundred who saw +him at once? There is not one single syllable. Those +who heard the story second-hand would doubtless some of them +attempt to explain away its miraculous character, but if it had +been founded on hallucination it is not from these alone that the +doubts would have come.</p> +<p>Something is imperatively demanded in order to account for the +intensity of conviction manifested by the earliest Christians +shortly after the Crucifixion; for until that time they were far +from being firmly convinced, and the Crucifixion was the very +last thing to have convinced them. Given (to speak of our +Lord as he must probably appear to Strauss) an unusually gifted +teacher of a noble and beautiful character: given also, a small +body of adherents who were inclined to adopt him as their master +and to regard him as the coming liberator, but who were +nevertheless far from settled in their conviction: given such a +man and such followers: the teacher is put to a shameful death +about two years after they had first known him, and the followers +forsake him instantly: surely without his reappearing in some way +upon the scene they would have concluded that their doubts had +been right and their hopes without foundation: but if he +reappeared, their faith would, for the first time, become +intense, all-absorbing. Surely also they might be trusted +to know whether they had really seen their master return to them +or not, and not to sacrifice themselves in every way, and spend +their whole lives in bearing testimony to pure hallucination?</p> +<p>There is one other point on which a few words will be +necessary, before we proceed to the arguments in favour of the +objective character of Christ’s Resurrection as derivable +from the conversion and testimony of St. Paul. It is +this. Strauss and those who agree with him will perhaps +maintain that the Apostles were in truth wholly devoted to Christ +before the Crucifixion, but that the Evangelists have represented +them as being only half-hearted, in order to heighten the effect +of their subsequent intense devotion. But this looks like +falling into the very error which Rationalists condemn most +loudly when it comes from so-called orthodox writers. They +complain, and with too much justice, that our apologists have +made “anything out of anything.” Yet if the +Apostles were not unsteadfast, and did not desert their master in +his hour of peril, and if all the accounts of Christ’s +reappearances are the creations of disordered fancy, we may as +well at once declare the Evangelists to be worthless as +historians, and had better give up all attempt at the +construction of history with their assistance. We cannot +take whatever we wish, and leave whatever we wish, and alter +whatever we wish. If we admit that upon the whole the +Gospel writings or at any rate the first three Gospels, contain a +considerable amount of historic matter, we should also arrive at +some general principles by which we will consistently abide in +separating the historic from the unhistoric. We cannot deal +with them arbitrarily, accepting whatever fits in with our +fancies, and rejecting whatever is at variance with them.</p> +<p>Now can it be maintained that the Evangelists would be so +likely to overrate the half-heartedness of the Apostles, that we +should look with suspicion upon the many and very plain +indications of their having been only half-hearted? +Certainly not. If there was any likelihood of a tendency +one way or the other it would be in the direction of overrating +their faith. Would not the unbelief of the Apostles in the +face of all the recorded miracles be a most damaging thing in the +eyes of the unconverted? Would not the Apostles themselves, +after they were once firmly convinced, be inclined to think that +they had from the first believed more firmly than they really had +done? This at least would be in accordance with the natural +promptings of human instinct: we are all of us apt to be wise +after the event, and are far more prone to dwell upon things +which seem to give some colour to a pretence of prescience, than +upon those which force from us a confession of our own +stupidity. It might seem a damaging thing that the Apostles +should have doubted as much as long as they clearly did; would +then the Evangelists go out of their way to introduce more signs +of hesitation? Would any one suggest that the signs of +doubt and wavering had been overrated, unless there were some +theory or other to be supported, in order to account for which +this overrating was necessary? Would the opinion that the +want of faith had been exaggerated arise prior to the formation +of a theory, or subsequently? This is the fairest test; let +the reader apply it for himself.</p> +<p>On the other hand, there are many reasons which should incline +us to believe that, before the Resurrection, the Apostles were +less convinced than is generally supposed, but it would be +dangerous to depart either to the right hand or to the left of +that which we find actually recorded, namely, that in the main +the Apostles were prepared to accept Christ before the +Crucifixion, but that they were by no means resolute and devoted +followers. I submit that this is a fair rendering of the +spirit of what we find in the Gospels. It is just because +Strauss has chosen to depart from it that he has found himself +involved in the maze of self-contradiction through which we have +been trying to follow him. There is no position so absurd +that it cannot be easily made to look plausible, if the strictly +scientific method of investigation is once departed from.</p> +<p>But if I had been in Strauss’s place, and had wished to +make out a case against Christianity without much heed of facts, +I should not have done it by a theory of hallucinations. A +much prettier, more novel and more sensational opening for such +an attempt is afforded by an attack upon the Crucifixion +itself. A very neat theory might be made, that there may +have been some disturbance at one of the Jewish passovers, during +which some persons were crucified as an example by the Romans: +that during this time Christ happened to be missing; that he +reappeared, and finally departed, whither, no man can say: that +the Apostles, after his last disappearance, remembering that he +had been absent during the tumult, little by little worked +themselves up into the belief that on his reappearance they had +seen wounds upon him, and that the details of the Crucifixion +were afterwards revealed in a vision to some favoured believer, +until in the course of a few years the narrative assumed its +present shape: that then the reappearance of Christ was denied +among the Jews, while the Crucifixion as attaching disgrace to +him was not disputed, and that it thus became so generally +accepted as to find its way into Pliny and Josephus. This +tissue of absurdity may serve as an example of what the +unlicensed indulgence of theory might lead to; but truly it would +be found quite as easy of belief as that the early Christian +faith in the Resurrection was due to hallucination only.</p> +<p>Considering, then, that Christianity was not crushed but +overran the most civilised portions of the world; that St. Paul +was undoubtedly early told, in such a manner as for him to be +thoroughly convinced of the fact, that on some few but sufficient +occasions Christ was seen alive after he had been crucified; that +the general belief in the reappearance of our Lord was so strong +that those who had the best means of judging gave up all else to +preach it, with a unanimity and singleness of purpose which is +irreconcilable with hallucination; that all our records most +definitely insist upon this belief and that there is no trace of +its ever having been disputed among the Jewish Christians, it +seems hard to see how we can escape from admitting that Jesus +Christ was crucified, dead, and buried, and yet that he was +verily and indeed seen alive again by those who expected nothing +less, but who, being once convinced, turned the whole world after +them.</p> +<p>It is now incumbent upon us to examine the testimony of St. +Paul, to which I would propose to devote a separate chapter.</p> +<h3><a name="page105"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +105</span>Chapter III<br /> +The Character and Conversion of St. Paul</h3> +<p><span class="smcap">Setting</span> aside for the present the +story of St. Paul’s conversion as given in the Acts of the +Apostles—for I am bound to admit that there are +circumstances in connection with that account which throw doubt +upon its historical accuracy—and looking at the broad facts +only, we are struck at once with the following obvious +reflection, namely, that Paul was an able man, a cultivated man, +and a bitter opponent of Christianity; but that in spite of the +strength of his original prejudices, he came to see what he +thought convincing reasons for going over to the camp of his +enemies. He went over, and with the result we are all +familiar.</p> +<p>Now even supposing that the miraculous account of Paul’s +conversion is entirely devoid of foundation, or again, as I +believe myself, that the story given in the Acts is not correctly +placed, but refers to the vision alluded to by Paul himself (I. +Cor. xv.), and to events which happened, not coincidently with +his conversion, but some years after it—does not the +importance of the conversion itself rather gain than lose in +consequence? A charge of unimportant inaccuracy may be thus +sustained against one who wrote in a most inaccurate age; but +what is this in comparison with the testimony borne to the +strength of the Christian evidences by the supposition that <i>of +their own weight alone</i>, <i>and without miraculous +assistance</i>, <i>they succeeded in convincing the most +bitter</i>, <i>and at the same time the ablest</i>, <i>of their +opponents</i>? This is very pregnant. No man likes to +abandon the side which he has once taken. The spectacle of +a man committing himself deeply to his original party, changing +without rhyme or reason, and then remaining for the rest of his +life the most devoted and courageous adherent of all that he had +opposed, without a single human inducement to make him do so, is +one which has never been witnessed since man was man. When +men who have been committed deeply and spontaneously to one +cause, leave it for another, they do so either because facts have +come to their knowledge which are new to them and which they +cannot resist, or because their temporal interests urge them, or +from caprice: but if they change from caprice in important +matters and after many pledges given, they will change from +caprice again: they will not remain for twenty-five or thirty +years without changing a jot of their capriciously formed +opinions. We are therefore warranted in assuming that St. +Paul’s conversion to Christianity was not dictated by +caprice: it was not dictated by self-interest: it must therefore +have sprung from the weight of certain new facts which overbore +all the resistance which he could make to them.</p> +<p>What then could these facts have been?</p> +<p>Paul’s conduct as a Jew was logical and consistent: he +did what any seriously-minded man who had been strictly brought +up would have done in his situation. Instead of half +believing what he had been taught, he believed it wholly. +Christianity was cutting at the root of what was in his day +accepted as fundamental: it was therefore perfectly natural that +he should set himself to attack it. There is nothing +against him in this beyond the fact of his having done it, as far +as we can see, with much cruelty. Yet though cruel, he was +cruel from the best of motives—the stamping out of an error +which was harmful to the service of God; and cruelty was not then +what it is now: the age was not sensitive and the lot of all was +harder. From the first he proved himself to be a man of +great strength of character, and like many such, deeply convinced +of the soundness of his opinions, and deeply impressed with the +belief that nothing could be good which did not also commend +itself as good to him. He tested the truth of his earlier +convictions not by external standards, but by the internal +standard of their own strength and purity—a fearful error +which but for God’s mercy towards him would have made him +no less wicked than well-intentioned.</p> +<p>Even after having been convinced by a weight of evidence which +no prejudice could resist, and after thus attaining to a higher +conception of right and truth and goodness than was possible to +him as a Jew, there remained not a few traces of the old +character. Opposition beyond certain limits was a thing +which to the end of his life he could not brook. It is not +too much to say that he regarded the other Apostles—and was +regarded by them—with suspicion and dislike; even if an +angel from Heaven had preached any other doctrine than what Paul +preached, the angel was to be accursed (Gal. i., 8), and it is +not probable that he regarded his fellow Apostles as teaching the +same doctrine as himself, or that he would have allowed them +greater licence than an angel. It is plain from his +undoubted Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians that the +other Apostles, no less than his converts, exceedingly well knew +that he was not a man to be trifled with. If the arm of the +law had been as much on his side after his conversion as before +it, it would have gone hardly with dissenters; they would have +been treated with politic tenderness the moment that they +yielded, but woe betide them if they presumed on having any very +decided opinions of their own.</p> +<p>On the other hand, his sagacity is beyond dispute; it is +certain that his perception of what the Gentile converts could +and could not bear was the main proximate cause of the spread of +Christianity. He prevented it from becoming a mere Jewish +sect, and it has been well said that but for him the Jews would +now be Christians, and the Gentiles unbelievers. Who can +doubt his tact and forbearance, where matters not essential were +concerned? His strength in not yielding a fraction upon +vital points was matched only by his suppleness and conciliatory +bearing upon all others. To use his own words, he did +indeed become “all things to all men” if by any means +he could gain some, and the probability is that he pushed this +principle to its extreme (see Acts xxi., 20–26).</p> +<p>Now when we see a man so strong and yet so yielding—the +writer moreover of letters which shew an intellect at once very +vigorous and very subtle (not to say more of them), and when we +know that there was no amount of hardship, pain, and indignity, +which he did not bear and count as gain in the service of Jesus +Christ; when we also remember that he continued thus for all the +known years of his life after his conversion, can we think that +that conversion could have been the result of anything even +approaching to caprice? Or again, is it likely that it +could have been due to contact with the hallucinations of his +despised and hated enemies? Paul the Christian appears to +be the same sort of man in most respects as Paul the Jew, yet can +we imagine Paul the Christian as being converted from +Christianity to some other creed, by the infection of +hallucinations? On the contrary, no man would more quickly +have come to the bottom of them, and assigned them to diabolical +agency. What then can that thing have been, which wrenched +the strong and able man from all that had the greatest hold upon +him, and fixed him for the rest of his life as the most +self-sacrificing champion of Christianity? In answer to +this question we might say, that it is of no great importance how +the change was made, inasmuch as the fact of its having been made +at all is sufficiently pregnant. Nevertheless it will be +interesting to follow Strauss in his remarks upon the account +given in the Acts, and I am bound to add that I think he has made +out his case. Strange! that he should have failed to see +that the evidences in support of the Resurrection are +incalculably strengthened by his having done so. How +short-sighted is mere ingenuity! And how weak and cowardly +are they who shut their eyes to facts because they happen to come +from an opponent!</p> +<p>Strauss, however, writes as follows:—“That we are +not bound to the individual features of the account in the Acts +is shewn by comparing it with the substance of the statement +twice repeated in the language of Paul himself: for there we find +that the author’s own account is not accurate, and that he +attributed no importance to a few variations more or less. +Not only is it said on one occasion that the attendants stood +dumb-foundered: on another that they fell with Paul to the +ground; on one occasion that they heard the voice but saw no one; +on another that they saw the light but did not hear the voice of +him who spoke with Paul: but also the speech of Jesus himself, in +the third repetition, gets the well known addition about +“kicking against the pricks,” to say nothing of the +fact that the appointment to the Apostleship of the Gentiles, +which according to the two earlier accounts was made partly by +Ananias, partly on the occasion of a subsequent vision in the +Temple at Jerusalem, is in this last account incorporated in the +speech of Jesus. There is no occasion to derive the three +accounts of this occurrence in the Acts from different sources, +and even in this case one must suppose that the author of the +Acts must have remarked and reconciled the discrepancies; that he +did not do so, or rather that without following his own earlier +narrative he repeated it in an arbitrary form, proves to us how +careless the New Testament writers are about details of this +kind, important as they are to one who strives after strict +historical accuracy.</p> +<p>“But even if the author of the Acts had gone more +accurately to work, still he was not an eye witness, scarcely +even a writer who took the history from the narrative of an eye +witness. Even if we consider the person who in different +places comprehends himself and the Apostle Paul under the word +‘we’ or ‘us’ to have been the composer of +the whole work, that person was not on the occasion of the +occurrence before Damascus as yet in the company of the +Apostle. Into this he did not enter until much later, in +the Troad, on the Apostle’s second missionary journey (Acts +xvi., 10). But that hypothesis with regard to the author of +the Acts of the Apostles is, moreover, as we have seen above, +erroneous. He only worked up into different passages of his +composition the memoranda of a temporary companion of the Apostle +about the journeys performed in his company, and we are therefore +not justified in considering the narrator to have been an eye +witness in those passages and sections in which the +‘we’ is wanting. Now among these is found the +very section in which appear the two accounts of his conversion +which Paul gives, first, to the Jewish people in Jerusalem, +secondly, to Agrippa and Festus in Cæsarea. The last +occasion on which the ‘we’ was found was xxi., 18, +that of the visit of Paul to James, and it does not appear again +until xxvii., 1, when the subject is the Apostle’s +embarkation for Italy. Nothing therefore compels us to +assume that we have in the reports of these speeches the account +of any one who had been a party to the hearing of them, and, in +them, Paul’s own narrative of the occurrences that took +place on his conversion.”</p> +<p>The belief in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures having +been long given up by all who have considered the awful +consequences which it entails, the Bible records have been opened +to modern criticism:—the result has been that their general +accuracy is amply proved, while at the same time the writers must +be admitted to have fallen in with the feelings and customs of +their own times, and must accordingly be allowed to have been +occasionally guilty of what would in our own age be called +inaccuracies. There is no dependence to be placed on the +verbal, or indeed the substantial, accuracy of any ancient +speeches, except those which we know to have been reported +<i>verbatim</i>, they were (as with the Herodotean and +Thucydidean speeches) in most cases the invention of the +historian himself, as being what seemed most appropriate to be +said by one in the position of the speaker. Reporting was a +rare art among the ancients, and was confined to a few great +centres of intellectual activity; accuracy, moreover, was not +held to be of the same importance as at the present day. +Yet without accurate reporting a speech perishes as soon as it is +uttered, except in so far as it lives in the actions of those who +hear it. Even a hundred years ago the invention of speeches +was considered a matter of course, as in the well-known case of +Dr. Johnson, than whom none could be more conscientious, +and—according to his lights—accurate. I may +perhaps be pardoned for quoting the passage in full from Boswell, +who gives it on the authority of Mr. John Nichols; the italics +are mine. “He said that the Parliamentary debates +were the only part of his writings which then gave him any +compunction: <i>but that at the time he wrote them he had no +conception that he was imposing upon the world</i>, <i>though +they were frequently written from very slender materials</i>, +<i>and often from none at all—the mere coinage of his own +imagination</i>. He never wrote any part of his works with +equal velocity.” (Boswell’s <i>Life of +Johnson</i>, chap. lxxxii.)</p> +<p>This is an extreme case, yet there can be no question about +its truth. It is only one among the very many examples +which could be adduced in order to shew that the appreciation of +the value of accuracy is a thing of modern date only—a +thing which we owe mainly to the chemical and mechanical +sciences, wherein the inestimable difference between precision +and inaccuracy became most speedily apparent. If the reader +will pardon an apparent digression, I would remark that that sort +of care is wanted on behalf of Christianity with which a cashier +in a bank counts out the money that he tenders—counting it +and recounting it as though he could never be sure enough before +he allowed it to leave his hands. This caution would have +saved the wasting of many lives, and the breaking of many +hearts.</p> +<p>We, on the other hand, however reckless we may be ourselves, +are in the habit of assuming that any historian whom we may have +occasion to consult, and on whose testimony we would fain rely, +must have himself weighed and re-weighed his words as the cashier +his money; an error which arises from want of that sympathy which +should make us bear constantly in mind what lights men had, under +what influences they wrote, and what we should ourselves have +done had we been so placed as they. But if any will +maintain that though the general run of ancient speeches were, as +those supposed to have been reported by Johnson, pure invention, +yet that it is not likely that one reporting the words of +Almighty God should have failed to feel the awful responsibility +of his position, we can only answer that the writer of the Acts +did most indisputably so fail, as is shewn by the various reports +of those words which he has himself given: if he could in the +innocency of his heart do this, and at one time report the +Almighty as saying this, and at another that, as though, more or +less, this or that were a matter of no moment, what certainty can +we have concerning such a man that inaccuracy shall not elsewhere +be found in him? None. He is a warped mirror which +will distort every object that it reflects.</p> +<p>It follows, then, that from the Acts of the Apostles we have +no data for arriving at any conclusion as to the manner of +Paul’s change of faith, nor the circumstances connected +with it. To us the accounts there given should be simply +non-existent; but this is not easy, for we have heard them too +often and from too early an age to be able to escape their +influence; yet we must assuredly ignore them if we are anxious to +arrive at truth. We cannot let the story told in the Acts +enter into any judgement which we may form concerning +Paul’s character. The desire to represent him as +having been converted by miracle was very natural. He +himself tells us that he saw visions, and received his +apostleship by revelation—not necessarily at the time of, +or immediately after, his conversion, but still at some period or +other in his life; it would be the most natural thing in the +world for the writer of the Acts to connect some version of one +of these visions with the conversion itself: the dramatic effect +would be heightened by making the change, while the change itself +would be utterly unimportant in the eyes of such a writer; be +this however as it may, we are only now concerned with the fact +that we know nothing about Paul’s conversion from the Acts +of the Apostles, which should make us believe that that +conversion was wrought in him by any other means, than by such an +irresistible pressure of evidence as no sane person could +withstand.</p> +<p>From the Apostle’s own writings we can glean nothing +about his conversion which would point in the direction of its +having been sudden or miraculous. It is true that in the +Epistle to the Galatians he says, “After it had pleased God +to reveal his Son in me,” but this expression does not +preclude the supposition that his conversion may have been led up +to by a gradual process, the culmination of which (if that) he +alone regarded as miraculous. Thus we are forced to admit +that we know nothing from any source concerning the manner and +circumstances of St. Paul’s change from Judaism to +Christianity, and we can only conclude therefore that he changed +because he found the weight of the evidence to be greater than he +could resist. And this, as we have seen, is an exceedingly +telling fact. The probability is, that coming much into +contact with Christians through his persecution of them, and +submitting them to the severest questioning, he found that they +were in all respects sober plainspoken men, that their conviction +was intense, their story coherent, and the doctrines which they +had received simple and ennobling; that these results of many +inquisitions were so unvarying that he found conviction stealing +gradually upon him against his will; common honesty compelled him +to inquire further; the answers pointed invariably in one +direction only; until at length he found himself utterly unable +to resist the weight of evidence which he had collected, and +resolved, perhaps at the last suddenly, to yield himself a +convert to Christianity.</p> +<p>Strauss says that, “in the presence of the believers in +Jesus,” the conviction that he was a false teacher—an +impostor—“must have become every day more doubtful to +him. They considered it not only publicly honourable to be +as convinced of his Resurrection as they were of their own +life—but they shewed also a state of mind, a quiet peace, a +tranquil cheerfulness, even under suffering, which put to shame +the restless and joyless zeal of their persecutor. Could +<i>he</i> have been a false teacher who had adherents such as +these? Could that have been a false pretence which gave +such rest and security? on the one hand, he saw the new sect, in +spite of all persecutions, nay, in consequence of them, extending +their influence wider and wider round them; on the other, as +their persecutor, he felt that inward tranquillity growing less +and less which he could observe in so many ways in the +persecuted. We cannot therefore be surprised if in hours of +inward despondency and unhappiness he put to himself the +question, ‘Who after all is right, thou, or the crucified +Galilean about whom these men are so enthusiastic?’ +And when he had got as far as this, the result, with his bodily +and mental characteristics, naturally followed in an ecstasy in +which the very same Christ whom up to this time he had so +passionately persecuted, appeared to him in all the glory of +which his adherents spoke so much, shewed him the perversity and +folly of his conduct, and called him to come over to his +service.”</p> +<p>The above comes simply to this, that Paul in his constant +contact with Christians found that they had more to say for +themselves than he could answer, and should, one would have +thought, have suggested to Strauss what he supposes to have +occurred to Paul, namely, that it was not likely that these men +had made a mistake in thinking that they had seen Christ alive +after his Crucifixion. There can be no doubt about +Strauss’s being right as to the Christian intensity of +conviction, strenuousness of assertion, and readiness to suffer +for the sake of their faith in Christ; and these are the main +points with which we are concerned. We arrive therefore at +the conclusion that the first Christians were sufficiently +unanimous, coherent and undaunted to convince the foremost of +their enemies. They were not so <i>before</i> the +Crucifixion; they could not certainly have been made so by the +Crucifixion alone; something beyond the Crucifixion must have +occurred to give them such a moral ascendancy as should suffice +to generate a revulsion of feeling in the mind of the persecuting +Saul. Strauss asks us to believe that this missing +something is to be found in the hallucinations of two or three +men whose names have not been recorded and who have left no mark +of their own. Is there any occasion for answer?</p> +<p>It is inconceivable that he who could write the Epistle to the +Romans should not also have been as able as any man who ever +lived to question the early believers as to their converse with +Christ, and to report faithfully the substance of what they told +him. That he knew the other Apostles, that he went up to +Jerusalem to hold conferences with them, that he abode fifteen +days with St. Peter—as he tells us, in order “to +question him”—these things are certain. The +Greek word +ιστορησαι is a +very suggestive one. It is so easy to make too much out of +anything that I hardly dare to say how strongly the use of the +verb ιστορειν suggests +to me “getting at the facts of the case,” +“questioning as to how things happened,” yet such +would be the most obvious meaning of the word from which our own +“history” and “story” are derived. +Fifteen days was time enough to give Paul the means of coming to +an understanding with Peter as to what the value of Peter’s +story was, nor can we believe that Paul should not both receive +and transmit perfectly all that he was then told. In fact, +without supposing these men to be so utterly visionary that +nothing durable could come out of them, there is no escape from +holding that Peter was justified in firmly believing that he had +seen Christ alive within a very few days of the Crucifixion, that +he succeeded also in satisfying Paul that this belief was +well-founded, and that in the account of Christ’s +reappearances, as given I. Cor. xv., we have a virtually +<i>verbatim</i> report of what Paul heard from Peter and the +other Apostles. Of course the possibility remains that Paul +may have been too easily satisfied, and not have cross-examined +Peter as closely as he might have done. But then Paul was +converted <i>before</i> this interview; and this implies that he +had already found a general consent among the Christians whom he +had met with, that the story which he afterwards heard from Peter +(or one to the same effect) was true. Whence then the +unanimity of this belief? Strauss answers as +before—from the hallucinations of an originally small +minority. We can only again reply that for the reasons +already given we find it quite impossible to agree with him.</p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p>[The quotation from Strauss given in this chapter will be +found pp. 414, 415, 420, of the first volume of the English +translation, published by Williams and Norgate, 1865. I +believe that my brother intended to make a fresh translation from +the original passages, but he never carried out his intention, +and in his MS. the page of the English translation with the first +and last words of each passage are alone given. I could +hardly venture to undertake the responsibility of making a fresh +translation myself, and have therefore adhered almost word for +word to the published English translation—here and there, +however, a trifling alteration was really irresistible on the +scores alike of euphony and clearness.—W. B. O.]</p> +<h3><a name="page120"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +120</span>Chapter IV<br /> +Paul’s Testimony Considered</h3> +<p><span class="smcap">Enough</span> has perhaps been said to +cause the reader to agree with the view of St. Paul’s +conversion taken above—that is to say, to make him regard +the conversion as mainly, if not entirely, due to the weight of +evidence afforded by the courage and consistency of the early +Christians.</p> +<p>But, the change in Paul’s mind being thus referred to +causes which preclude all possibility of hallucination or ecstasy +on his own part, it becomes unnecessary to discuss the attempts +which have been made to explain away the miraculous character of +the account given in the Acts. I believe that this account +is founded upon fact, and that it is derived from some +description furnished by St. Paul himself of the vision +mentioned, I. Cor. xv., which again is very possibly the same as +that of II. Cor. xii. For the purposes of the present +investigation, however, the whole story must be set aside. +At the same time it should be borne in mind, that any detraction +from the historical accuracy of the writer of the Acts, is more +than compensated for, by the additional weight given to the +conversion of St. Paul, whom we are now able to regard as having +been converted by evidence which was in itself overpowering, and +which did not stand in need of any miraculous interference in +order to confirm it.</p> +<p>It is important to observe that the testimony of Paul should +carry more weight with those who are bent upon close critical +investigation than that even of the Evangelists. St. Paul +is one whom we know, and know well. No syllable of +suspicion has ever been breathed, even in Germany, against the +first four of the Epistles which have been generally assigned to +him; friends and foes of Christianity are alike agreed to accept +them as the genuine work of the Apostle. Few figures, +therefore, in ancient history stand out more clearly revealed to +us than that of St. Paul, whereas a thick veil of darkness hangs +over that of each one of the Evangelists. Who St. Matthew +was, and whether the gospel that we have is an original work, or +a translation (as would appear from Papias, our highest +authority), and how far it has been modified in translation, are +things which we shall never know. The Gospels of St. Mark +and St. Luke are involved in even greater obscurity. The +authorship, date, and origin of the fourth Gospel have been, and +are being, even more hotly contested than those of the other +three, and all that can be affirmed with certainty concerning it +is, that no trace of its existence can be found before the latter +half of the second century, and that the spirit of the work +itself is eminently anti-Judaistic, whereas St. John appears both +from the Gospels and from St. Paul’s Epistles to have been +a pillar of Judaism.</p> +<p>With St. Paul all is changed: we not only know him better than +we know nine-tenths of our own most eminent countrymen of the +last century, but we feel a confidence in him which grows greater +and greater the more we study his character. He combines to +perfection the qualities that make a good witness—capacity +and integrity: add to this that his conclusions were forced upon +him. We therefore feel that, whereas from a scientific +point of view, the Gospel narratives can only be considered as +the testimony of early and sincere writers of whom we know little +or nothing, yet that in the evidence of St. Paul we find the +missing link which connects us securely with actual eye-witnesses +and gives us a confidence in the general accuracy of the Gospels +which they could never of themselves alone have imparted. +We could indeed ill spare either the testimony of the Evangelists +or that of St. Paul, but if we were obliged to content ourselves +with one only, we should choose the Apostle.</p> +<p>Turning then to the evidence of St. Paul as derivable from I. +Cor. xv. we find the following:</p> +<p>“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which +I preached unto you, which also ye have received and wherein ye +stand. By which also ye are saved if ye keep in memory what +I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I +delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how +that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures: and +that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day +according to the Scriptures; and that He was seen of Cephas, then +of the twelve: after that He was seen of above five hundred +brethren at once; of whom the greater portion remain unto this +present, but some are fallen asleep. After that He was seen +of James; then of all the Apostles. And last of all He was +seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.”</p> +<p>In the first place we must notice Paul’s assertion that +the Gospel which he was then writing was identical with that +which he had originally preached. We may assume that each +of the appearances of Christ here mentioned had in Paul’s +mind a definite time and place, derived from the account which he +had received and which probably led to his conversion; the words +“that which I also received” surely imply “that +which I also received <i>in the first instance</i>”: now we +know from his own mouth (Gal. i., 16, 17) that <i>after</i> his +conversion he “conferred not with flesh and +blood”—“neither,” he continues, +“went I up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles before +me, but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus: +then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see +(ιστορησαι) +Peter, and abode with him fifteen days, but others of the +Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s +brother.” Since, then, he must have heard <i>some</i> +story concerning Christ’s reappearances before his +conversion and subsequent sojourn in Arabia, and since he had +heard nothing from eye-witnesses until the time of his going up +to Jerusalem three years later, it is probable that the account +quoted above is the substance of what he found persisted in by +the Christians whom he was persecuting at Damascus, and was at +length compelled to believe. But this is very unimportant: +it is more to the point to insist upon the fact that St. Paul +must have received the account given I. Cor. xv., 3–8 +within a very few years of the Crucifixion itself, and that it +was subsequently confirmed to him by Peter, and probably by James +and John, during his stay of fifteen days in Peter’s +house.</p> +<p>This account can have been nothing new even then, for it is +plain that at the time of Paul’s conversion the Christian +Church had spread far: Paul speaks of <i>returning</i> to +Damascus, as though the writer of the Acts was right as regards +the place of his conversion; but the fact of there having been a +church in Damascus of sufficient importance for Paul to go +thither to persecute it, involves the lapse of considerable time +since the original promulgation of our Lord’s Resurrection, +and throws back the origin of the belief in that event to a time +closely consequent upon the Crucifixion itself.</p> +<p>Now Paul informs us that he was told (we may assume by Peter +and James) that Christ first reappeared <i>within three days of +the Crucifixion</i>. There is no sufficient reason for +doubting this; and one fact of weekly recurrence even to this +day, affords it striking confirmation—I refer to the +institution of Sunday as the Lord’s day. We know that +the observance of this day in commemoration of the Resurrection +was a very early practice, nor is there anything which would seem +to throw doubt upon the fact of the first “Sunday” +having been also the Sunday of the Resurrection. Another +confirmation of the early date assigned to the Resurrection by +St. Paul, is to be found in the fact that every instinct would +warn the Apostles <i>against</i> the third day as being +dangerously early, and as opening a door for the denial of the +completeness of the death. The fortieth day would far more +naturally have been chosen.</p> +<p>Turning now from the question of the date of the first +reappearance to what is told us of the reappearances themselves, +we find that the earliest was vouchsafed to St. Peter, which is +at first sight opposed to the Evangelistic records; but this is a +discrepancy upon which no stress should be laid; St. Paul might +well be aware that Mary Magdalene was the first to look upon her +risen Lord, and yet have preferred to dwell upon the more widely +known names of Peter and his fellow Apostles. The facts are +probably these, that our Lord first shewed Himself to the women, +but that Peter was the first of the Apostolic body to see Him; it +was natural that if our Lord did not choose to show Himself to +the Apostles without preparation, Peter should have been chosen +as the one best fitted to prepare them: Peter probably collected +the other Apostles, and then the Redeemer shewed Himself alive to +all together. This is what we should gather from St. +Paul’s narrative; a narrative which it would seem arbitrary +to set aside in the face of St. Paul’s character, +opportunities and antecedent prejudices against +Christianity—in the face also of the unanimity of all the +records we have, as well as of the fact that the Christian +religion triumphed, and of the endless difficulties attendant on +the hallucination theory.</p> +<p>We conclude therefore that Paul was satisfied by sufficient +evidence that our Lord had appeared to Peter on the third day +after the Crucifixion, nor can any reasonable doubt be thrown +upon the other appearances of which he tells us. It is true +that on the occasion of his visit to Peter he saw none other of +the Apostles save James—but there is nothing to lead us to +suppose that there was any want of unanimity among them: no trace +of this has come down to us, and would surely have done so if it +had existed. If any dependence at all is to be placed on +the writers of the New Testament it did not exist. Stronger +evidence than this unanimity it would be hard to find.</p> +<p>Another most noticeable feature is the fewness of the recorded +appearances of Christ. They commenced according to Paul +(and this is virtually according to Peter and James) immediately +after the Crucifixion. Paul mentions only five appearances: +this does not preclude the supposition that he knew of more, nor +that the women who came to the sepulchre had also seen Him, but +it does seem to imply that the reappearances were few in number, +and that they continued only for a very short time. They +were sufficient for their purpose: one of preparation to +Peter—another to the Apostles—another to the outside +world, and then one or two more—but still not more than +enough to establish the fact beyond all possibility of +dispute. The writer of the Acts tells us that Christ was +seen for a space of forty days—presumably not every day, +but from time to time. Now forty days is a mystical period, +and one which may mean either more or less, within a week or two, +than the precise time stated; it seems upon the whole most +reasonable to conclude that the reappearances recorded by Paul, +and some few others not recorded, extended over a period of one +or two months after the Crucifixion, and that they then came to +an end; for there can be no doubt that St. Paul conceived them as +having ended with the appearance to the assembled Apostles +mentioned I. Cor. xv., 7, and, though he does not say so +expressly, there is that in the context which suggests their +having been confined to a short space of time.</p> +<p>It is perfectly clear that St. Paul did not believe that any +one had seen Christ in the interval between the last recorded +appearance to the eleven, and the vision granted to +himself. The words “and last of all he was seen also +of me <i>as of one born out of due time</i>” point strongly +in the direction of a lapse of some years between the second +appearance to the eleven and his own vision. This confirms +and is confirmed by the writer of the Acts. St. Paul never +could have used the words quoted above, if he had held that the +appearances which he records had been spread over a space of +years intervening between the Crucifixion and his own +vision. Where would be the force of “born out of due +time” unless the time of the previous appearances had long +passed by? But if, at the time of St. Paul’s +conversion, it was already many years since the last occasion +upon which Christ had been seen by his disciples, we find +ourselves driven back to a time closely consequent upon the +Crucifixion as the only possible date of the reappearances. +But this is in itself sufficient condemnation of Strauss’s +theory: that theory requires considerable time for the +development of a perfectly unanimous and harmonious belief in the +hallucinations, while every particle of evidence which we can get +points in the direction of the belief in the Resurrection having +followed very closely upon the Crucifixion.</p> +<p>To repeat: had the reappearances been due to hallucination +only, they would neither have been so few in number nor have come +to an end so soon. When once the mind has begun to run riot +in hallucination, it is prodigal of its own inventions. +Favoured believers would have been constantly seeing Christ even +up to the time of Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, and the +Apostle would have written that even then Christ was still +occasionally seen of those who trusted in him, and served him +faithfully. But we meet with nothing of the sort: we are +told that Christ was seen a few times shortly after the +Crucifixion, then <i>after a lapse of several years</i> (I am +surely warranted in saying this) Paul himself saw Him—but +no one in the interval, and no one afterwards. This is not +the manner of the hallucinations of uneducated people. It +is altogether too sober: the state of mind from which alone so +baseless a delusion could spring, is one which never could have +been contented with the results which were evidently all, or +nearly all, that Paul knew of. St. Paul’s words +cannot be set aside without more cause than Strauss has shewn: +instead of betraying a tendency towards exaggeration, they +contain nothing whatever, with the exception of his own vision, +that is not imperatively demanded in order to account for the +rise and spread of Christianity.</p> +<p>Concerning that vision Strauss writes as follows:</p> +<p>“With regard to the appearance he (Paul) +witnessed—he uses the same word (ωφθη) +as with regard to the others: he places it in the same category +with them only in the last place, as he names himself the last of +the Apostles, but in exactly the same rank with the others. +Thus much, therefore, Paul knew—or supposed—that the +appearances which the elder disciples had seen soon after the +Resurrection of Jesus had been of the same kind as that which had +been, only later, vouchsafed to himself. Of what sort then +was this?”</p> +<p>I confess that I am wholly unable to feel the force of the +above. Strauss says that Paul’s vision was +ecstatic—subjective and not objective—that Paul +thought he saw Christ, although he never really saw him. +But, says Strauss, he uses the same word for his own vision and +for the appearances to the earlier Apostles: it is plain +therefore that he did not suppose the earlier Apostles to have +seen Christ in the same sort of way in which they saw themselves +and other people, but to have seen him as Paul himself did, +<i>i.e.</i>, by supernatural revelation.</p> +<p>But would it not be more fair to say that Paul’s using +the same word for all the appearances—his own vision +included—implies that he considered this last to have been +no less real than those vouchsafed earlier, though he may have +been perfectly well aware that it was different in kind? +The use of the same word for all the appearances is quite +compatible with a belief in Paul’s mind that the manner in +which he saw Christ was different from that in which the Apostles +had seen him: indeed, so long as he believed that he had seen +Christ no less really than the others, one cannot see why he +should have used any other word for his own vision than that +which he had applied to the others: we should even expect that he +would do so, and should be surprised at his having done +otherwise. That Paul did believe in the reality of his own +vision is indisputable, and his use of the word +ωφθη was probably dictated by a desire to +assert this belief in the strongest possible way, and to place +his own vision in the same category with others, which were so +universally known among Christians to have been material and +objective, that there was no occasion to say so. +Nevertheless there is that in Paul’s words on which Strauss +does not dwell, but which cannot be passed over without +notice. Paul does not simply say, “and last of all he +was seen also of me”—but he adds the words “as +of one born out of due time.”</p> +<p>It is impossible to say decisively that this addition implies +that Paul recognised a difference in kind between the +appearances, inasmuch as the words added may only refer to +time—still they would explain the possible use of +[ωφθη] in a somewhat different sense, and I +cannot but think that they will suggest this possibility to the +reader. They will make him feel, if he does not feel it +without them, how strained a proceeding it is to bind Paul down +to a rigorously identical meaning on every occasion on which the +same word came from his pen, and to maintain that because he once +uses it on the occasion of an appearance which he held to be +vouchsafed by revelation, therefore, wherever else he uses it, he +must have intended to refer to something seen by revelation: the +words “as of one born out of due time” imply the +utterly unlooked for and transcendent nature of the favour, and +suggest, even though they do not compel, the inference that while +the other Apostles had seen Christ in the common course of +nature, as a visible tangible being before their waking eyes, he +had himself seen Him not less truly, but still only by special +and unlooked for revelation. If such thoughts were in his +mind he would not probably have expressed them farther than by +the touching words which he has added concerning his own +vision. So much for the objection that the evidence of Paul +concerning the earlier appearances is impaired by his having used +the same word for them, and for the appearance to himself. +It only remains therefore to review in brief the general bearings +of Paul’s testimony as given I. Cor. xv., 1–8.</p> +<p>Firstly, there is the early commencement of the reappearances: +this is incompatible with hallucination, for the hallucination +must be supposed to have occurred when most easy to refute, and +when the spell of shame and fear was laid most heavily upon the +Apostles. Strauss maintains that the appearances were +unconsciously antedated by Peter; we can only say that the +circumstances of the case, as entered into more fully above, +render this very improbable; that if Peter told Paul that he saw +Christ on the third day after the Crucifixion, he probably firmly +believed that he did see Him; and that if he believed this, he +was also probably right in so believing.</p> +<p>Secondly, there is the fact that the reappearances were few, +and extended over a short time only. Had they been due to +hallucination there would have been no limit either to their +number or duration. Paul seems to have had no idea that +there ever had been, or ever would be, successors to the five +hundred brethren who saw Christ at one time. Some were +fallen asleep—the rest would in time follow them. It +is incredible that men should have so lost all count of fact, so +debauched their perception of external objects, so steeped +themselves in belief in dreams which had no foundation but in +their own disordered brains, as to have turned the whole world +after them by the sheer force of their conviction of the truth of +their delusions, and yet that suddenly, within a few weeks from +the commencement of this intoxication, they should have come to a +dead stop and given no further sign of like extravagance. +The hallucinations must have been so baseless, and would argue +such an utter subordination of judgement to imagination, that +instead of ceasing they must infallibly have ended in riot and +disorganisation; the fact that they did cease (which cannot be +denied) and that they were followed by no disorder, but by a +solemn sober steadfastness of purpose, as of reasonable men in +deadly earnest about a matter which had come to their knowledge, +and which they held it vital for all to know—this fact +alone would be sufficient to overthrow the hallucination +theory. Such intemperance could never have begotten such +temperance: from such a frame of mind as Strauss assigns to the +Apostles no religion could have come which should satisfy the +highest spiritual needs of the most civilised nations of the +earth for nearly two thousand years.</p> +<p>When, therefore, we look at the want of faith of the Apostles +before the Crucifixion, and to their subsequent intense devotion; +at their unanimity at their general sobriety; at the fact that +they succeeded in convincing the ablest of their enemies and +ultimately the whole of Europe; at the undeviating consent of all +the records we have; at the early date at which the reappearances +commenced,—at their small number and short +duration—things so foreign to the nature of hallucination; +at the excellent opportunities which Paul had for knowing what he +tells us; at the plain manner in which he tells it, and the more +than proof which he gave of his own conviction of its truth; at +the impossibility of accounting for the rise of Christianity +without the reappearance of its Founder after His Crucifixion; +when we look at all these things we shall admit that it is +impossible to avoid the belief that after having died, Christ +<i>did</i> reappear to his disciples, and that in this fact we +have the only intelligible explanation of the triumph of +Christianity.</p> +<h3><a name="page134"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +134</span>Chapter V<br /> +A Consideration of Certain Ill-Judged<br /> +Methods of Defence</h3> +<p><span class="smcap">The</span> reader has now heard the utmost +that can be said against the historic character of the +Resurrection by the ablest of its impugners. I know of +nothing in any of Strauss’s works which can be considered +as doing better justice to his opinions than the passages which I +have quoted and, I trust, refuted. I have quoted fully, and +have kept nothing in the background. If I had known of +anything stronger against the Resurrection from any other source, +I should certainly have produced it. I have answered in +outline only, but I do not believe that I have passed any +difficulty on one side.</p> +<p>What then does the reader think? Was the attack so +dangerous, or the defence so far to seek? I believe he will +agree with me that the combat was one of no great danger when it +was once fairly entered upon. But the wonder, and, let me +add, the disgrace, to English divines, is that the battle should +have been shirked so long. What is it that has made the +name of Strauss so terrible to the ears of English +Churchmen? Surely nothing but the ominous silence which has +been maintained concerning him in almost all quarters of our +Church. For what can he say or do against the other +miracles if he be powerless against the Resurrection? He +can make sentences which sound plausible, but that is no great +feat. Can he show that there is any <i>a priori</i> +improbability whatever, in the fact of miracles having been +wrought by one who died and rose from the dead? If a man +did this it is a small thing that he should also walk upon the +waves and command the winds. But if there is no <i>a +priori</i> difficulty with regard to these miracles, there is +certainly none other.</p> +<p>Let this, however, for the present pass, only let me beg of +the reader to have patience while I follow out the plan which I +have pursued up to the present point, and proceed to examine +certain difficulties of another character. I propose to do +so with the same unflinching examination as heretofore, +concealing nothing that has been said, or that can be said; going +out of my way to find arguments for opponents, if I do not think +that they have put forward all that from their own point of view +they might have done, and careless how many difficulties I may +bring before the reader which may never yet have occurred to him, +provided I feel that I can also shew him how little occasion +there is to fear them.</p> +<p>I must, however, maintain two propositions, which may perhaps +be unfamiliar to some of those who have not as yet given more +than a conventional and superficial attention to the Scriptural +records, but which will meet with ready assent from all whose +studies have been deeper. Fain would I avoid paining even a +single reader, but I am convinced that the arresting of +infidelity depends mainly upon the general recognition of two +broad facts. The first is this—that the Apostles, +even after they had received the gift of the Holy Spirit were +still fallible though holy men; the second—that there are +certain passages in each of the Gospels as we now have them, +which were not originally to be found therein, and others which, +though genuine, are still not historic. This much of +concession we must be prepared to make, and we shall find (as in +the case of the conversion of St. Paul) that our position is +indefinitely strengthened by doing so.</p> +<p>When shall we Christians learn that the truest ground is also +the strongest? We may be sure that until we have done so we +shall find a host of enemies who will say that truth is not +ours. It is we who have created infidelity, and who are +responsible for it. <i>We</i> are the true infidels, for we +have not sufficient faith in our own creed to believe that it +will bear the removal of the incrustations of time and +superstition. When men see our cowardice, what can they +think but that we must know that we have cause to be +afraid? We drive men into unbelief in spite of themselves, +by our tenacious adherence to opinions which every unprejudiced +person must see at a glance that we cannot rightfully defend, and +then we pride ourselves upon our love for Christ and our hatred +of His enemies. If Christ accepts this kind of love He is +not such as He has declared Himself.</p> +<p>We mistake our love of our own immediate ease for the love of +Christ, and our hatred of every opinion which is strange to us, +for zeal against His enemies. If those to whom the +unfamiliarity of an opinion or its inconvenience to themselves is +a test of its hatefulness to Christ, had been born Jews, they +would have crucified Him whom they imagine that they are now +serving: if Turks, they would have massacred both Jew and +Christian; if Papists at the time of the Reformation they would +have persecuted Protestants: if Protestants, under Elizabeth, +Papists. Truth is to them an accident of birth and +training, and the Christian faith is in their eyes true because +these accidents, as far as they are concerned, have decided in +its favour. But such persons are not Christians. It +is they who crucify Christ, who drive men from coming to Him +whose every instinct would lead them to love and worship Him, but +who are warned off by observing the crowd of sycophants and +time-servers who presume to call Him Lord.</p> +<p>But to look at the matter from another point of view; when +there is a long sustained contest between two bodies of capable +and seriously disposed people, (and none can deny that many of +our adversaries have been both one and the other), and when this +contest shews no sign of healing, but rather widens from +generation to generation, and each party accuses the other of +disingenuousness, obstinacy and other like serious defects of +mind—it may be certainly assumed that the truth lies wholly +with neither side, but that each should make some concessions to +the other. A third party sees this at a glance, and is +amazed because neither of the disputants can perceive that his +opponent must be possessed of some truths, in spite of his trying +to defend other positions which are indefensible. Strange! +that a thing which it seems so easy to avoid, should so seldom be +avoided! Homer said well:</p> +<blockquote><p>“Perish strife, both from among gods and +men,<br /> +And wrath which maketh even him that is considerate, cruel,<br /> +Which getteth up in the heart of a man like smoke,<br /> +And the taste thereof is sweeter than drops of honey.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>But strife can never cease without concessions upon both +sides. We agree to this readily in the abstract, but we +seldom do so when any given concession is in question. We +are all for concession in the general, but for none in the +particular, as people who say that they will retrench when they +are living beyond their income, but will not consent to any +proposed retrenchment. Thus many shake their heads and say +that it is impossible to live in the present age and not be aware +of many difficulties in connection with the Christian religion; +they have studied the question more deeply than perhaps the +unbeliever imagines; and having said this much they give +themselves credit for being wide-minded, liberal and above vulgar +prejudices: but when pressed as to this or that particular +difficulty, and asked to own that such and such an objection of +the infidel’s needs explanation, they will have none of it, +and will in nine cases out of ten betray by their answers that +they neither know nor want to know what the infidel means, but on +the contrary that they are resolute to remain in ignorance. +I know this kind of liberality exceedingly well, and have ever +found it to harbour more selfishness, idleness, cowardice and +stupidity than does open bigotry. The bigot is generally +better than his expressed opinions, these people are invariably +worse than theirs.</p> +<p>The above principle has been largely applied in the writings +of so-called orthodox commentators, not unfrequently even by men +who might have been assumed to be above condescending to such +trickery. A great preface concerning candour, with a +flourish of trumpets in the praise of truth, seems to have +exhausted every atom of truth and candour from the work that +follows it.</p> +<p>It will be said that I ought not to make use of language such +as this without bringing forward examples. I shall +therefore adduce them.</p> +<p>One of the most serious difficulties to the unbeliever is the +inextricable confusion in which the accounts of the Resurrection +have reached us: no one can reconcile these accounts with one +another, not only in minute particulars, but in matters on which +it is of the highest importance to come to a clear +understanding. Thus, to omit all notice of many other +discrepancies, the accounts of Mark, Luke, and John concur in +stating that when the women came to the tomb of Jesus very early +on the Sunday morning, they found it <i>already empty</i>: the +stone was gone when they came there, and, according to John, +there was not even an angelic vision for some time +afterwards. There is nothing in any of these three accounts +to preclude the possibility of the stone’s having been +removed within an hour or two of the body’s having been +laid in the tomb.</p> +<p>But when we turn to Matthew we find all changed: we are told +that the stone was gone <i>not</i> when the women came, but that +on their arrival there was a great earthquake, and that an angel +came down from Heaven, and rolled away the stone, <i>and sat upon +it</i>, and that the guard who had been set over the tomb (of +whom we hear nothing from any of the other evangelists) became as +dead men while the angel addressed the women.</p> +<p>Now this is not one of those cases in which the supposition +can be tolerated that all would be clear if the whole facts of +the case were known to us. No additional facts can make it +come about that the tomb should have been sealed and guarded, and +yet <i>not</i> sealed and guarded; that the same women, at the +same time and place, should have witnessed an earthquake, and yet +<i>not</i> witnessed one; have found a stone already gone from a +tomb, and yet <i>not</i> found it gone; have seen it rolled away, +and <i>not</i> seen it, and so on; those who say that we should +find no difficulty if we knew <i>all</i> the facts are still +careful to abstain from any example (so far as I know) of the +sort of additional facts which would serve their purpose. +They cannot give one; any mind which is truly +candid—white—not scrawled and scribbled over till no +character is decipherable—will feel at once that the only +question to be raised is, which is the more correct account of +the Resurrection—Matthew’s or those given by the +other three Evangelists? How far is Matthew’s account +true, and how far is it exaggerated? For there must be +either exaggeration or invention somewhere. It is +inconceivable that the other writers should have known the story +told by Matthew, and yet not only made no allusion to it, but +introduced matter which flatly contradicts it, and it is also +inconceivable that the story should be true, and yet that the +other writers should not have known it.</p> +<p>This is how the difficulty stands—a difficulty which +vanishes in a moment if it be rightly dealt with, but which, when +treated after our unskilful English method, becomes capable of +doing inconceivable mischief to the Christian religion. Let +us see then what Dean Alford—a writer whose professions of +candour and talk about the duty of unflinching examination leave +nothing to be desired—has to say upon this point. I +will first quote the passage in full from Matthew, and then give +the Dean’s note. I have drawn the greater part of the +comments that will follow it from an anonymous pamphlet <a +name="citation141"></a><a href="#footnote141" +class="citation">[141]</a> upon the Resurrection, dated 1865, but +without a publisher’s name, so that I presume it must have +been printed for private circulation only.</p> +<p>St. Matthew’s account runs:—</p> +<blockquote><p>“Now the next day, that followed the day of +the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together +unto Pilate, saying, ‘Sir, we remember that that deceiver +said, while he was yet alive, “After three days I will rise +again.” Command therefore that the sepulchre be made +sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night and +steal him away and say unto the people, “He is risen from +the dead:” so the last error shall be worse than the +first.’ Pilate said unto them, ‘Ye have a +watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.’ So +they went and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone and +setting a watch. In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to +dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and +the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was +a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from +heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat +upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his +raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, +and became as dead men. And the angel answered and said +unto the women, ‘Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek +Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is +risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord +lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is +risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into +Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told +you.’ And they departed quickly from the sepulchre +with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples +word. And as they went to tell his disciples, Jesus met +them, saying, ‘All hail.’ And they came and +held him by the feet, and worshipped him (<i>cf.</i> John xx., +16, 17). Then said Jesus unto them, ‘Be not afraid: +go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall +they see me.’ Now when they were going, behold, some +of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief +priests all the things that were done. And when they were +assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large +money unto the soldiers, saying, ‘Say ye, His disciples +came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if +this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him and +secure you.’ So they took the money, and did as they +were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews +until this day.”</p> +</blockquote> +<p>Let us turn now to the Dean’s note on Matt. xxvii., +62–66.</p> +<p>With regard to the setting of the watch and sealing of the +stone, he tells us that the narrative following (<i>i.e.</i>, the +account of the guard and the earthquake) “has been much +impugned and its historical accuracy very generally given up even +by the best of the German commentators (Olshausen, Meyer; also De +Wette, Hase, and others). The chief difficulties found in +it seem to be: (1) How should the chief priests, &c., <i>know +of His having said</i> ‘in three days I will rise +again,’ when the saying was hid even from His own +disciples? The answer to this is easy. The +<i>meaning</i> of the saying may have been, and was hid from the +disciples; <i>but the fact of its having been said</i> could be +no secret. Not to lay any stress on John ii., 19 (Jesus +answered and said unto them, ‘Destroy this temple and in +three days I will build it up’), we have the direct +prophecy of Matt. xii., 40 (‘For as Jonah was three days +and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of +Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth): +besides this there would be a rumour current, through the +intercourse of the Apostles with others, that He had been in the +habit of so saying. (From what source can Dean Alford know +that our Lord <i>was</i> in the habit of so saying? What +particle of authority is there for this alleged habit of our +Lord?) As to the <i>understanding</i> of the words we must +remember that <i>hatred is keener sighted than love</i>: that the +<i>raising of Lazarus</i> would shew <i>what sort of a thing +rising from the dead was to be</i>; and the fulfilment of the +Lord’s announcement of his <i>crucifixion</i> would +naturally lead them to look further to <i>what more</i> he had +announced. (2) How should the women who were solicitous about the +<i>removal</i> of the stone not have been still more so about its +being sealed and a guard set? The answer to this last has +been given above—<i>they were not aware of the circumstance +because the guard was not set till the evening before</i>. +There would be no need of the application before the <i>approach +of the third day</i>—it is only made for a watch, +εως της +τρίτης +ημέρας (ver. 64), and it is not +probable that the circumstance would transpire that +night—certainly it seems not to have done so. (3) That +Gamaliel was of the council, and if such a thing as this and its +sequel (chap. xxviii., 11–15) had really happened, he need +not have expressed himself doubtfully (Acts v., 39), but would +have been certain that this was from God. But, first, it +does not necessarily follow that <i>every member</i> of the +Sanhedrim was present, and applied to Pilate, or even had they +done so, that all bore a part in the act of xxviii., 12” +(the bribing of the guard to silence). “One who like +Joseph had not consented to the deed before—and we may +safely say that there were others such—would naturally +withdraw himself from further proceedings against the person of +Jesus. (4) Had this been so the three other Evangelists would not +have passed over so important a testimony to the +Resurrection. But surely we cannot argue in this +way—for thus every important fact narrated by <i>one +Evangelist alone</i> must be rejected, e.g. (which stands in much +the same relation), <i>the satisfaction of Thomas—another +such narrations</i>. <i>Till we know more about the +circumstances under which</i>, <i>and the scope with which</i>, +<i>each Gospel was compiled</i>, <i>all a priori arguments of +this kind are good for nothing</i>.”</p> +<p>(The italics in the above, and throughout the notes quoted, +are the Dean’s, unless it is expressly stated +otherwise.)</p> +<p>I will now proceed to consider this defence of Matthew’s +accuracy against the objections of the German commentators.</p> +<p>I. The German commentators maintain that the chief +priests are not likely to have known of any prophecy of +Christ’s Resurrection when His own disciples had evidently +heard of nothing to this effect. Dean Alford’s answer +amounts to this:—</p> +<p>1. They had heard the words but did not understand their +meaning; hatred enabled the chief priests to see clearly what +love did not reveal to the understanding of the Apostles. +True, according to Matthew, Christ had said that as Jonah was +three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so the +Son of Man should be three days and three nights in the heart of +the earth; but it would be only hatred which would suggest the +interpretation of so obscure a prophecy: love would not be +sufficiently keen-sighted to understand it.</p> +<p>But in the first place I would urge that if the Apostles had +ever heard any words capable of suggesting the idea that Christ +should rise, after they had already seen the raising of Lazarus, +on whom corruption had begun its work, they <i>must</i> have +expected the Resurrection. After having seen so stupendous +a miracle, any one would expect anything which was even suggested +by the One who had performed it. And, secondly, hatred is +not keener sighted than love.</p> +<p>2. Dean Alford says that the raising of Lazarus would +shew the chief priests what sort of a thing the Resurrection from +the dead was to be, and that the fulfilment of Christ’s +prophecy concerning his Crucifixion would naturally lead them to +look further to what else he had announced.</p> +<p>But, if the raising of Lazarus would shew the chief priests +what sort of thing the Resurrection was to be, it would shew the +Apostles also; and again if the fulfilment of the prophecy of the +Crucifixion would lead the chief priests to look further to the +fulfilment of the prophecy of the Resurrection, so would it lead +the Apostles; this supposition of one set of men who can see +everything, and of another with precisely the same opportunities +and no less interest, who can see nothing, is vastly convenient +upon the stage, but it is not supported by a reference to Nature; +self-interest would have opened the eyes of the Apostles.</p> +<p>II. The German commentators ask how was it possible that +the women who were solicitous about the removal of the stone, +should not be still more so about “its being sealed and a +guard set?” If the German commentators have asked +their question in this shape, they have asked it badly, and Dean +Alford’s answer is sufficient: they might have asked, how +the other three writers could all tell us that the stone was +already gone when the women got there, and yet Matthew’s +story be true? and how Matthew’s story could be true +without the other writers having known it? and how the other +writers could have introduced matter contradictory to it, if they +had known it to be true?</p> +<p>III. The German commentators say that in the Acts of the +Apostles we find Gamaliel expressing himself as doubtful whether +or no Christianity was of God, whereas had he known the facts +related by Matthew he could have had no doubt at all. He +must have <i>known</i> that Christianity was of God.</p> +<p>Dean Alford answers that perhaps Gamaliel was not there. +To which I would rejoin that though Gamaliel might have had no +hand in the bribery, supposing it to have taken place, it is +inconceivable that such a story should have not reached him; the +matter could never have been kept so quiet but that it must have +leaked out. Men are not so utterly bad or so utterly +foolish as Dean Alford seems to imply; and whether Gamaliel was +or was not present when the guard were bribed, he must have been +equally aware of the fact before making the speech which is +assigned to him in the Acts.</p> +<p>IV. The German commentators argue from the silence of +the other Evangelists: Dean Alford replies by denying that this +silence is any argument: but I would answer, that on a matter +which the other three writers must have known to have been of +such intense interest, their silence is a conclusive proof either +of their ignorance or their indolence as historians. Dean +Alford has well substantiated the independence of the four +narratives, he has well proved that the writer of the fourth +Gospel could never have seen the other Gospels, and yet he +supposes that that writer either did not know the facts related +by Matthew, or thought it unnecessary to allude to them. +Neither of these suppositions is tenable: but there would +nevertheless be a shadow of ground for Dean Alford to stand upon +if the other Evangelists were simply silent: but why does he omit +all notice of their introducing matter which is absolutely +incompatible with Matthew’s accuracy?</p> +<p>There is one other consideration which must suggest itself to +the reader in connection with this story of the guard. It +refers to the conduct of the chief priests and the soldiers +themselves. The conduct assigned to the chief priests in +bribing the guard to lie against one whom they must by this time +have known to be under supernatural protection, is contrary to +human nature. The chief priests (according to Matthew) knew +that Christ had said he should rise: in spite of their being well +aware that Christ had raised Lazarus from the dead but very +recently they did not believe that he <i>would</i> rise, but +feared (so Matthew says) that the Apostles would steal the body +and pretend a resurrection: up to this point we admit that the +story, though very improbable, is still possible: but when we +read of their bribing the guards to tell a lie under such +circumstances as those which we are told had just occurred, we +say that such conduct is impossible: men are too great cowards to +be capable of it. The same applies to the soldiers: they +would never dare to run counter to an agency which had nearly +killed them with fright on that very selfsame morning. Let +any man put himself in their position: let him remember that +these soldiers were previously no enemies to Christ, nor, as far +as we can judge, is it likely that they were a gang of +double-dyed villains: but even if they were, they would not have +dared to act as Matthew says they acted.</p> +<p>And now let us turn to another note of Dean +Alford’s.</p> +<p>Speaking of the independence of the four narratives (in his +note on Matt. xxviii., 1–10) and referring to their +“minor discrepancies,” the Dean says, +“<i>Supposing us to be acquainted with every thing said and +done in its order and exactness</i>, <i>we should doubtless be +able to reconcile</i>, <i>or account for</i>, <i>the present +forms of the narratives</i>; but not having this key to the +harmonising of them, all attempts to do so in minute particulars +must be full of arbitrary assumptions, and carry no certainty +with them: and I may remark that <i>of all harmonies</i> those of +the <i>incidents of these chapters</i> are to me the <i>most +unsatisfactory</i>. Giving their compilers all credit for +the best intentions, I confess they seem to me to <i>weaken</i> +instead of strengthening the evidence, which now rests (speaking +merely <i>objectively</i>) on the unexceptionable testimony of +three independent narrators, and one who besides was an eye +witness of much that happened. If we are to compare the +four and ask which is to be taken as most nearly reporting the +<i>exact</i> words and incidents, on this there can, I think, be +no doubt. On internal as well as external ground <i>that of +John</i> takes the <i>highest place</i>, but not of course to the +exclusion of those parts of the narrative which he <i>does not +touch</i>.”</p> +<p>Surely the above is a very extraordinary note. The +difficulty of the irreconcilable differences between the four +narratives is not met nor attempted to be met: the Dean seems to +consider the attempt as hopeless: no one, according to him, has +been as yet successful, neither can he see any prospect of +succeeding better himself: the expedient therefore which he +proposes is that the whole should be taken on trust; that it +should be assumed that no discrepancy which could not be +accounted for would be found, if the facts were known in the +exact order in which they occurred. In other words, he +leaves the difficulty where it was. Yet surely it is a very +grave one. The same events are recorded by three writers +(one being professedly an eye-witness, and the others independent +writers), in a way which is virtually the same, in spite of some +unimportant variations in the manner of telling it, while a +fourth gives a totally different and irreconcilable account; the +matter stands in such confusion at present that even Dean Alford +admits that any attempt to reconcile the differences leaves them +in worse confusion than ever; the ablest and most spiritually +minded of the German commentators suggest a way of escape; +nevertheless, according to the Dean we are not to profit by it, +but shall avoid the difficulty better by a simpler +process—the process of passing it over.</p> +<p>A man does well to be angry when he sees so solemn and +momentous a subject treated thus. What is trifling if this +is not trifling? What is disingenuousness if not +this? It involves some trouble and apparent danger to admit +that the same thing has happened to the Christian records which +has happened to all others—<i>i.e.</i>, that they have +suffered—miraculously little, but still something—at +the hands of time; people would have to familiarise themselves +with new ideas, and this can seldom be done without a certain +amount of wrangling, disturbance, and unsettling of comfortable +ease: it is therefore by all means and at all risks to be +avoided. Who can doubt that some such feeling as this was +in Dean Alford’s mind when the notes above criticised were +written? Yet what are the means taken to avoid the +recognition of obvious truth? They are disingenuous in the +very highest degree. Can this prosper? Not if Christ +is true.</p> +<p>What is the practical result? The loss of many souls who +would gladly come to the Saviour, but who are frightened off by +seeing the manner in which his case is defended. And what +after all is the danger that would follow upon candour? +None. Not one particle. Nevertheless, danger or no +danger, we are bound to speak the truth. We have nothing to +do with consequences and moral tendencies and risk to this or +that fundamental principle of our belief, nor yet with the +possibility of lurid lights being thrown here or there. +What are these things to us? They are not our business or +concern, but rest with the Being who has required of <i>us</i> +that we should reverently, patiently, unostentatiously, yet +resolutely, strive to find out what things are true and what +false, and that we should give up all, rather than forsake our +own convictions concerning the truth.</p> +<p>This is our plain and immediate duty, in pursuance of which we +proceed to set aside the account of the Resurrection given in St. +Matthew’s Gospel. That account must be looked upon as +the invention of some copyist, or possibly of the translator of +the original work, at a time when men who had been eye-witnesses +to the actual facts of the Resurrection were becoming scarce, and +when it was felt that some more unmistakably miraculous account +than that given in the other three Gospels would be a comfort and +encouragement to succeeding generations. We, however, must +now follow the example of “even the best” of the +German commentators, and discard it as soon as possible. On +having done this the whole difficulty of the confusion of the +four accounts of the Resurrection vanishes like smoke, and we +find ourselves with three independent writers whose differences +are exactly those which we might expect, considering the time and +circumstances in which they wrote, but which are still so +trifling as to disturb no man’s faith.</p> +<h3><a name="page153"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +153</span>Chapter VI<br /> +More Disingenuousness</h3> +<p>[Here, perhaps, will be the fittest place for introducing a +letter to my brother from a gentleman who is well known to the +public, but who does not authorise me to give his name. I +found this letter among my brother’s papers, endorsed with +the words “this must be attended to,” but with +nothing more. I imagine that my brother would have +incorporated the substance of his correspondent’s letter +into this or the preceding chapter, but not venturing to do so +myself, I have thought it best to give the letter and extract in +full, and thus to let them speak for themselves.—W. B. +O.]</p> +<p style="text-align: right">June 15, 1868.</p> +<p>My dear Owen,</p> +<p>Your brother has told me what you are doing, and the general +line of your argument. I am sorry that you should be doing +it, for I need not tell you that I do not and cannot sympathise +with the great and unexpected change in your opinions. You +are the last man in the world from whom I should have expected +such a change: but, as you well know, you are also the last man +in the world whose sincerity in making it I should be inclined to +question. May you find peace and happiness in whatever +opinions you adopt, and let me trust also that you will never +forget the lessons of toleration which you learnt as the disciple +of what you will perhaps hardly pardon me for calling a freer and +happier school of thought than the one to which you now believe +yourself to belong.</p> +<p>Your brother tells me that you are ill; I need not say that I +am sorry, and that I should not trouble you with any personal +matter—I write solely in reference to the work which I hear +that you have undertaken, and which I am given to understand +consists mainly in the endeavour to conquer unbelief, by really +entering into the difficulties felt by unbelievers. The +scheme is a good one <i>if thoroughly carried out</i>. We +imagine that we stand in no danger from any such course as this, +and should heartily welcome any book which tried to grapple with +us, even though it were to compel us to admit a great deal more +than I at present think it likely that even you can extort from +us. Much more should we welcome a work which made people +understand us better than they do; this would indeed confer a +lasting benefit both upon them and us.</p> +<p>However, I know you wish to do your work thoroughly; I want, +therefore, to make a trifling suggestion which you will take +<i>pro tanto</i>: it is this:—Paley, in his third book, +professes to give “a brief consideration of some popular +objections,” and begins Chap. I. with “The +discrepancies between the several Gospels.”</p> +<p>Now, I know you have a Paley, but I know also that you are +ill, and that people who are ill like being saved from small +exertions. I have, therefore, bought a second-hand Paley +for a shilling, and have cut out the chapter to which I +especially want to call your attention. Will you kindly +read it through from beginning to end?</p> +<p>Is it fair? Is the statement of our objections anything +like what we should put forward ourselves? And can you +believe that Paley with his profoundly critical instinct, and +really great knowledge of the New Testament, should not have been +perfectly well aware that he was misrepresenting and ignoring the +objections which he professed to be removing?</p> +<p>He must have known very well that the principle of +confirmation by discrepancy is one of very limited application, +and that it will not cover anything approaching to such wide +divergencies as those which are presented to us in the +Gospels. Besides, how <i>can</i> he talk about +Matthew’s object as he does, and yet omit all allusion to +the wide and important differences between his account of the +Resurrection, and those of Mark, Luke, and John? Very few +know what those differences really are, in spite of their having +the Bible always open to them. I suppose that Paley felt +pretty sure that his readers would be aware of no difficulty +unless he chose to put them up to it, and wisely declined to do +so. Very prudent, but very (as it seems to me) +wicked. Now don’t do this yourself. If you are +going to meet us, meet us fairly, and let us have our say. +Don’t pretend to let us have our say while taking good care +that we get no chance of saying it. I know you +won’t.</p> +<p>However, will you point out Paley’s unfairness in +heading this part of his work “A brief consideration of +some popular objections,” and then proceeding to give a +chapter on “the discrepancies between the several +Gospels,” without going into the details of any of those +important discrepancies which can have been known to none better +than himself? This is the only place, so far as I remember, +in his whole book, where he even touches upon the discrepancies +in the Gospels. Does he do so as a man who felt that they +were unimportant and could be approached with safety, or as one +who is determined to carry the reader’s attention away from +them, and fix it upon something else by a <i>coup de +main</i>?</p> +<p>This chapter alone has always convinced me that Paley did not +believe in his own book. No one could have rested satisfied +with it for moment, if he felt that he was on really strong +ground. Besides, how insufficient for their purpose are his +examples of discrepancies which do not impair the credibility of +the main fact recorded!</p> +<p>How would it have been if Lord Clarendon and three other +historians had each told us that the Marquis of Argyll <i>came to +life again after being beheaded</i>, and then set to work to +contradict each other hopelessly as to the manner of his +reappearance? How if Burnet, Woodrow, and Heath had given +an account which was not at all incompatible with a natural +explanation of the whole matter, while Clarendon gave a +circumstantial story in flat contradiction to all the others, and +carefully excluded any but a supernatural explanation? +Ought we to, or should we, allow the discrepancies to pass +unchallenged? Not for an hour—if indeed we did not +rather order the whole story out of court at once, as too wildly +improbable to deserve a hearing.</p> +<p>You will, I know, see all this, and a great deal more, and +will point it better than I can. Let me as an old friend +entreat you not to pass this over, but to allow me to continue to +think of you as I always have thought of you hitherto, namely, as +the most impartial disputant in the world.—Yours, +&c.</p> + +<div class="gapshortline"> </div> +<p style="text-align: center">(<i>Extract from Paley’s</i> +“<i>Evidences</i>.”—<i>Part III.</i>, +<i>Chapter 1</i>. “<i>The Discrepancies between the +Gospels</i>.”)</p> +<p>“I know not a more rash or unphilosophical conduct of +the understanding, than to reject the substance of a story, by +reason of some diversity in the circumstances with which it is +related. The usual character of human testimony is +substantial truth under circumstantial variety. This is +what the daily experience of courts of justice teaches. +When accounts of a transaction come from the mouths of different +witnesses, it is seldom that it is not possible to pick out +apparent or real inconsistencies between them. These +inconsistencies are studiously displayed by an adverse pleader, +but oftentimes with little impression upon the minds of the +judges. On the contrary, close and minute agreement induces +the suspicion of confederacy and fraud. When written +histories touch upon the same scenes of action, the comparison +almost always affords ground for a like reflection. +Numerous and sometimes important variations present themselves; +not seldom, also, absolute and final contradictions; yet neither +one nor the other are deemed sufficient to shake the credibility +of the main fact. The embassy of the Jews to deprecate the +execution of Claudian’s order to place his statue in their +temple Philo places in harvest, Josephus in seed-time, both +contemporary writers. No reader is led by this +inconsistency to doubt whether such an embassy was sent, or +whether such an order was given. Our own history supplies +examples of the same kind. In the account of the Marquis of +Argyll’s death in the reign of Charles II., we have a very +remarkable contradiction. Lord Clarendon relates that he +was condemned to be hanged, which was performed the same day; on +the contrary, Burnet, Woodrow, Heath, Echard, concur in stating +that he was condemned upon the Saturday, and executed upon a +Monday. <a name="citation158a"></a><a href="#footnote158a" +class="citation">[158a]</a> Was any reader of English +history ever sceptic enough to raise from hence a question, +whether the Marquis of Argyll was executed or not? Yet this +ought to be left in uncertainty, according to the principles upon +which the Christian religion has sometimes been attacked. +Dr. Middleton contended that the different hours of the day +assigned to the Crucifixion of Christ by John and the other +Evangelists, did not admit of the reconcilement which learned men +had proposed; and then concludes the discussion with this hard +remark: ‘We must be forced, with several of the critics, to +leave the difficulty just as we found it, chargeable with all the +consequences of manifest inconsistency.’ <a +name="citation158b"></a><a href="#footnote158b" +class="citation">[158b]</a> But what are these +consequences? By no means the discrediting of the history +as to the principal fact, by a repugnancy (even supposing that +repugnancy not to be resolvable into different modes of +computation) in the time of the day in which it is said to have +taken place.</p> +<p>“A great deal of the discrepancy observable in the +Gospels arises from <i>omission</i>; from a fact or a passage of +Christ’s life being noticed by one writer, which is +unnoticed by another. Now, omission is at all times a very +uncertain ground of objection. We perceive it not only in +the comparison of different writers, but even in the same writer, +when compared with himself. There are a great many +particulars, and some of them of importance, mentioned by +Josephus in his Antiquities, which as we should have supposed, +ought to have been put down by him in their place in the Jewish +Wars. <a name="citation159a"></a><a href="#footnote159a" +class="citation">[159a]</a> Suetonius, Tacitus, Dion +Cassius have all three written of the reign of Tiberius. +Each has mentioned many things omitted by the rest, <a +name="citation159b"></a><a href="#footnote159b" +class="citation">[159b]</a> yet no objection is from thence taken +to the respective credit of their histories. We have in our +own times, if there were not something indecorous in the +comparison, the life of an eminent person, written by three of +his friends, in which there is very great variety in the +incidents selected by them, some apparent, and perhaps some real, +contradictions: yet without any impeachment of the substantial +truth of their accounts, of the authenticity of the books, of the +competent information or general fidelity of the writers.</p> +<p>“But these discrepancies will be still more numerous, +when men do not write histories, but <i>memoirs</i>; which is +perhaps the true name and proper description of our Gospels; that +is, when they do not undertake, or ever meant to deliver, in +order of time, a regular and complete account of <i>all</i> the +things of importance which the person who is the subject of their +history did or said; but only, out of many similar ones, to give +such passages, or such actions and discourses, as offered +themselves more immediately to their attention, came in the way +of their enquiries, occurred to their recollection, or were +suggested by their <i>particular design</i> at the time of +writing.</p> +<p>“This particular design may appear sometimes, but not +always, nor often. Thus I think that the particular design +which St. Matthew had in view whilst he was writing the history +of the Resurrection, was to attest the faithful performance of +Christ’s promise to his disciples to go before them into +Galilee; because he alone, except Mark, who seems to have taken +it from him, has recorded this promise, and he alone has confined +his narrative to that single appearance to the disciples which +fulfilled it. It was the preconcerted, the great and most +public manifestation of our Lord’s person. It was the +thing which dwelt upon St. Matthew’s mind, and he adapted +his narrative to it. But, that there is nothing in St. +Matthew’s language which negatives other appearances, or +which imports that this his appearance to his disciples in +Galilee, in pursuance of his promise, was his first or only +appearance, is made pretty evident by St. Mark’s Gospel, +which uses the same terms concerning the appearance in Galilee as +St. Matthew uses, yet itself records two other appearances prior +to this: ‘Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he +goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said +unto you’ (xvi., 7). We might be apt to infer from +these words, that this was the <i>first</i> time they were to see +him: at least, we might infer it with as much reason as we draw +the inference from the same words in Matthew; yet the historian +himself did not perceive that he was leading his readers to any +such conclusion, for in the twelfth and two following verses of +this chapter, he informs us of two appearances, which, by +comparing the order of events, are shown to have been prior to +the appearance in Galilee. ‘He appeared in another +form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country: +and they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they +them. Afterward He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at +meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief, because they +believed not them which had seen Him after He was +risen.’ Probably the same observation, concerning the +<i>particular design</i> which guided the historian, may be of +use in comparing many other passages of the Gospels.”</p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p>[My brother’s work, which has been interrupted by the +letter and extract just given, will now be continued. What +follows should be considered as coming immediately after the +preceding chapter.—W. B. O.]</p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p><span class="smcap">But</span> there is a much worse set of +notes than those on the twenty-eighth chapter of St. Matthew, and +so important is it that we should put an end to such a style of +argument, and get into a manner which shall commend itself to +sincere and able adversaries, that I shall not apologise for +giving them in full here. They refer to the spear wound +recorded in St. John’s Gospel as having been inflicted upon +the body of our Lord.</p> +<p>The passage in St. John’s Gospel stands thus (John xix., +32–37)—“Then came the soldiers and brake the +legs of the first and of the other which was crucified with +Him. But when they came to Jesus and saw that He was dead +already they brake not His legs: but one of the soldiers with a +spear pierced His side, and forthwith came there out blood and +water. And he that saw it bare record, and we know that his +record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true that ye might +believe. For these things were done that the Scripture +should be fulfilled, ‘A bone of Him shall not be +broken’ and again another Scripture saith, ‘They +shall look on Him whom they pierced.’”</p> +<p>In his note upon the thirty-fourth verse Dean Alford +writes—“The lance must have penetrated deep, for the +object was to <i>ensure</i> death.” Now what warrant +is there for either of these assertions? We are told that +the soldiers saw that our Lord was dead already, and that for +this reason they did not break his legs: if there had been any +doubt about His being dead can we believe that they would have +hesitated? There is ample proof of the completeness of the +death in the fact that those whose business it was to assure +themselves of its having taken place were so satisfied that they +would be at no further trouble; what need to kill a dead +man? If there had been any question as to the possibility +of life remaining, it would not have been resolved by the thrust +of the spear, but in a way which we must shudder to think +of. It is most painful to have had to write the foregoing +lines, but are they not called for when we see a man so well +intentioned and so widely read as the late Dean Alford +condescending to argument which must only weaken the strength of +his cause in the eyes of those who have not yet been brought to +know the blessings and comfort of Christianity? From the +words of St. John no one can say whether the wound was a deep +one, or why it was given—yet the Dean continues, “and +see John xx., 27,” thereby implying that the wound must +have been large enough for Thomas to get his hand into it, +because our Lord says, “reach hither thine hand and thrust +it into my side.” This is simply shocking. +Words cannot be pressed in this way. Dean Alford then says +that the spear was thrust “probably into the <i>left</i> +side on account of the position of the soldier” (no one can +arrive at the position of the soldier, and no one would attempt +to do so, unless actuated by a nervous anxiety to direct the +spear into the heart of the Redeemer), “and of what +followed” (the Dean here implies that the water must have +come from the pericardium; yet in his next note we are led to +infer that he rejects this supposition, inasmuch as the quantity +of water would have been “so small as to have scarcely been +observed”). Is this fair and manly argument, and can +it have any other effect than to increase the scepticism of those +who doubt?</p> +<p>Here this note ends. The next begins upon the words +“blood and water.”</p> +<p>“The spear,” says the Dean, “perhaps pierced +the pericardium or envelope of the heart” (but why +introduce a “perhaps” when there is ample proof of +the death without it?), “in which case a liquid answering +to the description of water may have” (<i>may</i> have) +“flowed with the blood, but the quantity would have been so +small as scarcely to have been observed” (yet in the +preceding note he has led us to suppose that he thinks the water +“probably” came from near the heart). “It +is scarcely possible that the separation of the blood into +placenta and serum should have taken place so soon, or that if it +had, it should have been described by an observe as blood and +water. It is more probable that the fact here so strongly +testified was a consequence of the extreme exhaustion of the body +of the Redeemer.” (Now if this is the case, the +spear-wound does not prove the death of Him on whom it was +inflicted, and Dean Alford has weakened a strong case for +nothing.) “The medical opinions on the subject are +very various and by no means satisfactory.” +Satisfactory! What does Dean Alford mean by +satisfactory? If the evidence does not go to prove that the +spear-wound must have been necessarily fatal why not have said so +at once, and have let the whole matter rest in the obscurity from +which no human being can remove it. The wound may have been +severe or may not have been severe, it may have been given in +mere wanton mockery of the dead King of the Jews, for the +indignity’s sake: or it may have been the savage thrust of +an implacable foe, who would rejoice at the mutilation of the +dead body of his enemy: none can say of what nature it was, nor +why it was given; but the object of its having been recorded is +no mystery, for we are expressly told that it was in order to +shew <i>that prophecy was thus fulfilled</i>: the Evangelist +tells us so in the plainest language: he even goes farther, for +he says that these things were <i>done</i> for this end (not only +that they were <i>recorded</i>)—so that the primary motive +of the Almighty in causing the soldier to be inspired with a +desire to inflict the wound is thus graciously vouchsafed to us, +and we have no reason to harrow our feelings by supposing that a +deeper thrust was given than would suffice for the fulfilment of +the prophecy. May we not then well rest thankful with the +knowledge which the Holy Spirit has seen fit to impart to us, +without causing the weak brother to offend by our special +pleading?</p> +<p>The reader has now seen the two first of Dean Alford’s +notes upon this subject, and I trust he will feel that I have +used no greater plainness, and spoken with no greater severity +than the case not only justifies but demands. We can hardly +suppose that the Dean himself is not firmly convinced that our +Lord died upon the Cross, but there are millions who are not +convinced, and whose conviction should be the nearest wish of +every Christian heart. How deeply, therefore, should we not +grieve at meeting with a style of argument from the pen of one of +our foremost champions, which can have no effect but that of +making the sceptic suspect that the evidences for the death of +our Lord are felt, even by Christians, to be insufficient. +For this is what it comes to.</p> +<p>Let us, however, go on to the note on John xix., 35, that is +to say on St. John’s emphatic assertion of the truth of +what he is recording. The note stands thus, “This +emphatic assertion of the fact seems rather to regard the whole +incident than the mere outflowing of the blood and water. +It was the object of John to shew that the Lord’s body was +a <i>real body</i> and <i>underwent real death</i>.” +(This is not John’s own account—supposing that John +is the writer of the fourth Gospel—either of his own object +in recording, or yet of the object of the wound’s having +been inflicted; his words, as we have seen above, run +thus:—“and he that saw it bare record, and we know +that his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true that +ye might believe. <i>For these things were done that the +Scripture should be fulfilled</i> which saith ‘a bone of +him shall not be broken,’ and, again, another Scripture +saith, ‘they shall look upon’ him whom they +pierced.’” Who shall dare to say that St. John +had any other object than to show that the event which he relates +had been long foreseen, and foretold by the words of the +Almighty?) And both these were shewn by what took place, +<i>not so much by the phenomenon of the water and +blood</i>” (then here we have it admitted that so much +disingenuousness has been resorted to for no advantage, inasmuch +as the fact of the water and blood having flowed is not <i>per +se</i> proof of a necessarily fatal wound) “as by the +infliction of such a wound” (Such a wound! What can +be the meaning of this? What has Dean Alford made clear +about the wound? We know absolutely nothing about the +severity or intention of the wound, and it is mere baseless +conjecture and assumption to say that we do; neither do we know +anything concerning its effect unless it be shewn that the +issuing of the blood and water <i>prove</i> that death must have +ensued, and this Dean Alford has just virtually admitted to be +not shewn), after which, <i>even if death had not taken place +before</i> (this is intolerable), <i>there could not by any +possibility be life remaining</i>.” (The italics on +this page are mine.)</p> +<p>With this climax of presumptuous assertion these disgraceful +notes are ended. They have shewn clearly that the wound +does not in itself prove the death: they shew no less clearly +that the Dean does not consider that the death is proved beyond +possibility of doubt <i>without</i> the wound; what therefore +should be the legitimate conclusion? Surely that we have no +proof of the completeness of Christ’s death upon the +Cross—or in other words no proof of His having died at +all! Couple this with the notes upon the Resurrection +considered above, and we feel rather as though we were in the +hands of some Jesuitical unbeliever, who was trying to undermine +our faith in our most precious convictions under the guise of +defending them, than in those of one whom it is almost impossible +to suspect of such any design. What should we say if we had +found Newton, Adam Smith or Darwin, arguing for their opinions +thus? What should we think concerning any scientific cause +which we found thus defended? We should exceedingly well +know that it was lost. And yet our leading theologians are +to be applauded and set in high places for condescending to such +sharp practice as would be despised even by a disreputable +attorney, as too transparently shallow to be of the smallest use +to him.</p> +<p>After all that has been said either by Dean Alford or any one +else, we know nothing more than what we are told by the Apostle, +namely, that immediately before being taken down from the Cross +our Lord’s body was wounded more severely, or less +severely, as the case may be, with the point of a spear, that +from this wound there flowed something which to the eyes of the +writer resembled blood and water, and that the whole was done in +order that a well-known prophecy might be fulfilled. Yet +his sentences in reference to this fact being ended, without his +having added one iota to our knowledge upon the subject, the Dean +gravely winds up by throwing a doubt upon the certainty of our +Lord’s death which was not felt by a single one of those +upon the spot, and resting his clenching proof of its having +taken place upon a wound, which he has just virtually admitted to +have not been necessarily fatal. Nothing can be more +deplorable either as morality or policy.</p> +<p>Yet the Dean is justified by the event. One would have +thought he could have been guilty of nothing short of infatuation +in hoping that the above notes would pass muster with any +ordinarily intelligent person, but he knew that he might safely +trust to the force of habit and prejudice in the minds of his +readers, and his confidence has not been misplaced. Of all +those engaged in the training of our young men for Holy Orders, +of all our Bishops and clergy and tutors at colleges, whose very +profession it is to be lovers of truth and candour, who are paid +for being so, and who are mere shams and wolves in sheep’s +clothing if they are not ever on the look-out for falsehood, to +make war upon it as the enemy of our souls—not one, +<i>no</i>, <i>not a single one</i>, so far as I know, has raised +his voice in protest. If a man has not lost his power of +weeping let him weep for this; if there is any who realises the +crime of self-deception, as perhaps the most subtle and hideous +of all forms of sin, let him lift up his voice and proclaim it +now; for the times are not of peace, but of a sowing of wind for +the reaping of whirlwinds, and of the calm that is the centre of +the hurricane.</p> +<p>Either Christianity is the truth of truths—the one which +should in this world overmaster all others in the thoughts of all +men, and compared with which all other truths are insignificant +except as grouping themselves around it—or it is at the +best a mistake which should be set right as soon as +possible. There is no middle course. Either Jesus +Christ was the Son of God, or He was not. If He was, His +great Father forbid that we should juggle in order to prove Him +so—that we should higgle for an inch of wound more, or an +inch less, and haggle for the root νυy in the Greek +word ενυξε. Better admit that +the death of Christ must be ever a matter of doubt, should so +great a sacrifice be demanded of us, than go near to the handling +of a lie in order to make assurance doubly sure. No +truthful mind can doubt that the cause of Christ is far better +served by exposing an insufficient argument than by silently +passing it over, or else that the cause of Christ is one to be +attacked and not defended.</p> +<h3><a name="page170"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +170</span>Chapter VII<br /> +Difficulties felt by our Opponents</h3> +<p><span class="smcap">There</span> are some who avoid all close +examination into the circumstances attendant upon the death of +our Lord, using the plea that however excellent a quality +intellect may be, and however desirable that the facts connected +with the Crucifixion should be intelligently considered, yet that +after all it is spiritual insight which is wanted for a just +appreciation of spiritual truths, and that the way to be +preserved from error is to cultivate holiness and purity of +life. This is well for those who are already satisfied with +the evidences for their convictions. We could hardly give +them any better advice than simply to “depart from evil, do +good, seek peace and ensue it” (Psalm xxxiv., 14), if we +could only make sure that their duty would never lead them into +contact with those who hold the external evidences of +Christianity to be insufficient. When, however, they meet +with any of these unhappy persons they will find their influence +for good paralysed; for unbelievers do not understand what is +meant by appealing to their spiritual insight as a thing which +can in any way affect the evidence for or against an alleged fact +in history—or at any rate as forming evidence for a fact +which they believe to be in itself improbable and unsupported by +external proof. They have not got any spiritual insight in +matters of this sort; nor, indeed, do they recognise what is +meant by the words at all, unless they be interpreted as +self-respect and regard for the feelings and usages of other +people. What spiritual insight they have, they express by +the very nearly synonymous terms, “current feeling,” +or “common sense,” and however deep their reverence +for these things may be, they will never admit that goodness or +right feeling can guide them into intuitive accuracy upon a +matter of history. On the contrary, in any such case they +believe that sentiment is likely to mislead, and that the +well-disciplined intellect is alone trustworthy. The +question is, whether it is worth while to try and rescue those +who are in this condition or not. If it <i>is</i> worth +while, we must deal with them according to their sense of right +and not ours: in other words, if we meet with an unbeliever we +must not expect him to accept our faith unless we take much pains +with him, and are prepared to make great sacrifice of our own +peace and patience.</p> +<p>Yet how many shrink from this, and think that they are doing +God service by shrinking; the only thing from which they should +really shrink, is the falsehood which has overlaid the best +established fact in all history with so much sophistry, that even +our own side has come to fear that there must be something +lurking behind which will not bear daylight; to such a pass have +we been brought by the desire to prove too much.</p> +<p>Now for the comfort of those who may feel an uneasy sense of +dread, as though any close examination of the events connected +with the Crucifixion might end in suggesting a natural instead of +a miraculous explanation of the Resurrection, for the comfort of +such—and they indeed stand in need of comfort—let me +say at once that the ablest of our adversaries would tell them +that they need be under no such fear. Strauss himself +admits that our Lord died upon the Cross; he does not even +attempt to dispute it, but writes as though he were well aware +that there was no room for any difference of opinion about the +matter. He has therefore been compelled to adopt the +hallucination theory, with a result which we have already +considered. Yet who can question that Strauss would have +maintained the position that our Lord did not die upon the Cross, +unless he had felt that it was one in which he would not be able +to secure the support even of those who were inclined to +disbelieve? We cannot doubt that the conviction of the +reality of our Lord’s death has been forced upon him by a +weight of testimony which, like St. Paul, he has found himself +utterly unable to resist.</p> +<p>Here then, we might almost pause. Strauss admits that +our Lord died upon the Cross. Yet can the reader help +feeling that the vindication of the reality of our Lord’s +reappearances, and the refutation of Strauss’s theories +with which this work opened, was triumphant and conclusive? +Then what follows? That Christ died and rose again! +The central fact of our faith is proved. It is proved +externally by the most solid and irrefragable proofs, such as +should appeal even to minds which reject all spiritual evidence, +and recognise no canons of investigation but those of the purest +reason.</p> +<p>But anything and everything is believable concerning one whose +resurrection from death to life has been established. What +need, then, to enter upon any consideration of the other +miracles? Of the Ascension? Of the descent of the +Holy Spirit? Who can feel difficulty about these +things? Would not the miracle rather be that they should +<i>not</i> have happened! May we not now let the wings of +our soul expand, and soar into the heaven of heavens, to the +footstool of the Throne of Grace, secure that we have earned the +right to hope and to glory by having consented to the pain of +understanding?</p> +<p>We may: and I have given the reader this foretaste of the +prize which he may justly claim, lest he should be swallowed up +in overmuch grief at the journey which is yet before him ere he +shall have done all which may justly be required of him. +For it is not enough that his own sense of security should be +perfected. This is well; but let him also think of +others.</p> +<p>What then is their main difficulty, now that it has been shewn +that the reappearances of our Lord were not due to +hallucination?</p> +<p>I propose to shew this by collecting from all the sources with +which I was familiar in former years, and throwing the whole +together as if it were my own. I shall spare no pains to +make the argument tell with as much force as fairness will +allow. I shall be compelled to be very brief, but the +unbeliever will not, I hope, feel that anything of importance to +his side has been passed over. The believer, on the other +hand, will be thankful both to know the worst and to see how +shallow and impotent it will appear when it comes to be +tested. Oh! that this had been done at the beginning of the +controversy, instead of (as I heartily trust) at the end of +it.</p> +<p>Our opponents, therefore, may be supposed to speak somewhat +after the following manner:—“Granted,” they +will say, “for the sake of argument, that Jesus Christ did +reappear alive after his Crucifixion; it does not follow that we +should at once necessarily admit that his reappearance was due to +miracle. What was enough, and reasonably enough, to make +the first Christians accept the Resurrection, and hence the other +miracles of Christ, is not enough and ought not to be enough to +make men do so now. If we were to hear now of the +reappearance of a man who had been believed to be dead, our first +impulse would be to learn the when and where of the death, and +the when and where of the first reappearance. What had been +the nature of the death? What conclusive proof was there +that the death had been actual and complete? What +examination had been made of the body? And to whom had it +been delivered on the completeness of the death having been +established? How long had the body been in the +grave—if buried? What was the condition of the grave +on its being first revisited? It is plain to any one that +at the present day we should ask the above questions with the +most jealous scrutiny and that our opinion of the character of +the reappearance would depend upon the answers which could be +given to them.</p> +<p>“But it is no less plain that the distance of the +supposed event from our own time and country is no bar to the +necessity for the same questions being as jealously asked +concerning it, as would be asked if it were alleged to have +happened recently and nearer home. On the contrary, +distance of time and space introduces an additional necessity for +caution. It is one thing to know that the first Christians +unanimously believed that their master had miraculously risen +from death to life; it is another to know their reasons for so +thinking. Times have changed, and tests of truth are +infinitely better understood, so that the reasonable of those +days is reasonable to us no longer. Nor would it be enough +that the answers given could be just strained into so much +agreement with one another as to allow of a <i>modus vivendi</i> +between them, <i>and not to exclude the possibility of death</i>, +<i>they must exclude all possibility of life having remained</i>, +or we should not hesitate for a moment about refusing to believe +that the reappearance had been miraculous: indeed, so long as any +chink or cranny or loophole for escape from the miraculous was +afforded to us, we should unhesitatingly escape by it; this, at +least, is the course which would be adopted by any judge and jury +of sensible men if such a case were to come before their +unprejudiced minds in the common course of affairs.</p> +<p>“We should not refuse to believe in a miracle even now, +if it were supported by such evidence as was considered to be +conclusive by the bench of judges and by the leading scientific +men of the day: in such a case as this we should feel bound to +accept it; but we cannot believe in a miracle, no matter how +deeply it has been engrained into the creeds of the civilised +world, merely because it was believed by ‘unlettered +fishermen’ two thousand years ago. This is not a +source from which such an event as a miracle should be received +without the closest investigation. We know, indeed, that +the Apostles were sincere men, and that they firmly believed that +Jesus Christ had risen from the dead; their lives prove their +faith; but we cannot forget that the fact itself of +Christ’s having been crucified and afterwards seen alive, +would be enough, under the circumstances, to incline the men of +that day to believe that he had died and had been miraculously +restored to life, although we should ourselves be bound to make a +far more searching inquiry before we could arrive at any such +conclusion. A miracle was not and could not be to them, +what it is and ought to be to ourselves—a matter to be +regarded <i>a priori</i> with the very gravest suspicion. +To them it was what it is now to the lower and more ignorant +classes of Irish, French, Spanish and Italian peasants: that is +to say, a thing which was always more or less likely to happen, +and which hardly demanded more than a <i>primâ facie</i> +case in order to establish its credibility. If we would +know what the Apostles felt concerning a miracle, we must ask +ourselves how the more ignorant peasants of to-day feel: if we do +this we shall have to admit that a miracle might have been +accepted upon very insufficient grounds, and that, once accepted, +it would not have had one-hundredth part so good a chance of +being refuted as it would have now.</p> +<p>“It should be borne in mind, and is too often lost sight +of, that <i>we have no account of the Resurrection from any +source whatever</i>. We have accounts of the visit of +certain women to a tomb which they found empty; but this is not +an account of a resurrection. We are told that Jesus Christ +was seen alive after being thought to have been dead, but this +again is not an account of a resurrection. It is a +statement of a fact, but it is not an account of the +circumstances which attended that fact. In the story told +by Matthew we have what comes nearest to an account of the +Resurrection, but even here the principal figure is wanting; the +angel rolls away the stone and sits upon it, but we hear nothing +about the body of Christ emerging from the tomb; we only meet +with this, when we come to the Italian painters.</p> +<p>“Moreover, St. Matthew’s account is utterly +incredible from first to last; we are therefore thrown back upon +the other three Evangelists, none of whom professes to give us +the smallest information as to the time and manner of +Christ’s Resurrection. <i>There is nothing in any of +their accounts to preclude his having risen within two hours from +his having been laid in the tomb</i>.</p> +<p>“If a man of note were condemned to death, crucified and +afterwards seen alive, the almost instantaneous conclusion in the +days of the Apostles, and in such minds as theirs, would be that +he had risen from the dead; but the almost instantaneous +conclusion now, among all whose judgement would carry the +smallest weight, would be that he had never died—that there +must have been some mistake. Children and inexperienced +persons believe readily in all manner of improbabilities and +impossibilities, which when they become older and wiser they +cannot conceive their having ever seriously accepted. As +with men, so with ages; an unusual train of events brings about +unusual results, whereon the childlike age turns instinctively to +miracle for a solution of the difficulty. In the days of +Christ men would ask for evidence of the Crucifixion and the +reappearance; when these two points had been established they +would have been satisfied—not unnaturally—that a +great miracle had been performed: but no sane man would be +contented now with the evidence that was sufficient then, any +more than he would be content to accept many things which a child +must take upon authority, and authority only. <i>We</i> +ought to require the most ample evidence that not only the +appearance of death, but death itself, must have inevitably +ensued upon the Crucifixion, and if this were not forthcoming we +should not for a moment hesitate about refusing to believe that +the reappearance was miraculous.</p> +<p>“And this is what would most assuredly be done now by +impartial examiners—by men of scientific mind who had no +wish either to believe or disbelieve except according to the +evidence; but even now, if their affections and their hopes of a +glorious kingdom in a world beyond the grave were enlisted on the +side of the miracle, it would go hard with the judgement of most +men. How much more would this be so, if they had believed +from earliest childhood that miracles were still occasionally +worked in England, and that a few generations ago they had been +much more signal and common?</p> +<p>“Can we wonder then, if we ourselves feel so strongly +concerning events which are hull down upon the horizon of time, +that those who lived in the very thick of them should have been +possessed with an all absorbing ecstasy or even frenzy of +excitement? Assuredly there is no blame on the score of +credulity to be attached to those who propagated the Christian +religion, but the beliefs which were natural and lawful to them, +are, if natural, yet not lawful to ourselves: they should be +resisted: they are neither right nor wise, and do not form any +legitimate ground for faith: if faith means only the believing +facts of history upon insufficient evidence, we deny the merit of +faith; on the contrary, we regard it as one of the most +deplorable of all errors—as sapping the foundations of all +the moral and intellectual faculties. It is grossly immoral +to violate one’s inner sense of truth by assenting to +things which, though they may appear to be supported by much, are +still not supported by enough. The man who can knowingly +submit to such a derogation from the rights of his self-respect, +deserves the injury to his mental eye-sight which such a course +will surely bring with it. But the mischief will +unfortunately not be confined to himself; it will devolve upon +all who are ill-fated enough to be in his power; he will be +reckless of the harm he works them, provided he can keep its +consequences from being immediately offensive to himself. +No: if a good thing can be believed legitimately, let us believe +it and be thankful, otherwise the goodness will have departed out +of it; it is no longer ours; we have no right to it, and shall +suffer for it, we and our children, if we try to keep it. +It has been said that the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the +children’s teeth are set on edge, but, more truly, it is +the eating of sweet and stolen fruit by the fathers that sets the +teeth of the children jarring. Let those who love their +children look to this, for on their own account they may be +mainly trusted to avoid the sour. Hitherto the intensity of +the belief of the Apostles has been the mainstay of our own +belief. But that mainstay is now no longer strong +enough. A rehearing of the evidence is imperatively +demanded, that it may either be confirmed or +overthrown.”</p> +<p>It cannot be denied that there is much in the above with which +all true Christians will agree, and little to find fault with +except the self-complacency which would seem to imply that common +sense and plain dealing belong exclusively to the unbelieving +side. It is time that this spirit should be protested +against not in word only but in deed. The fact is, that +both we and our opponents are agreed that nothing should be +believed unless it can be proved to be true. We repudiate +the idea that faith means the accepting historical facts upon +evidence which is insufficient to establish them. We do not +call this faith; we call it credulity, and oppose it to the +utmost of our power.</p> +<p>Our opponents imply that we regard as a virtue well-pleasing +in the sight of God, and dignify with the name of faith, a state +of mind which turns out to be nothing but a willingness to stand +by all sorts of wildly improbable stories which have reached us +from a remote age and country, and which, if true, must lead us +to think otherwise of the whole course of nature than we should +think if we were left to ourselves. This accusation is +utterly false and groundless. Faith is the “evidence +of things not seen,” but it is not “insufficient +evidence for things alleged to have been seen.” It is +“the substance of things hoped for,” but +“reasonably hoped for” was unquestionably intended by +the Apostle. We base our faith in the deeper mysteries of +our religion, as in the nature of the Trinity and the sacramental +graces, upon the certainty that other things which are within the +grasp of our reason can be shewn to be beyond dispute. We +know that Christ died and rose again; therefore we believe +whatever He sees fit to tell us, and follow Him, or endeavour to +follow Him, whereinsoever He commands us, but we are not required +to take both the commands of the Mediator <i>and His +credentials</i> upon faith. It is because certain things +within our comprehension are capable of the most irrefragable +proof, that certain others out of it may justly be required to be +believed, and indeed cannot be disbelieved without contumacy and +presumption. And this applies to a certain extent to the +credentials also: for although no man should be captious, nor ask +for more evidence than would satisfy a well-disciplined mind +concerning the truth of any ordinary fact (as one who not +contented with the evidence of a seal, a handwriting and a matter +not at variance with probability, would nevertheless refuse to +act upon instructions because he had not with his own eyes +actually seen the sender write and sign and seal), yet it is both +reasonable and indeed necessary that a certain amount of care +should be taken before the credentials are accepted. If our +opponents mean no more than this we are at one with them, and may +allow them to proceed.</p> +<p>“Turn then,” they say, “to the account of +the events which are alleged to have happened upon the morning of +the Resurrection, as given in the fourth Gospel: and assume for +the sake of the argument that that account, if not from +John’s own hand, is nevertheless from a Johannean source, +and virtually the work of the Apostle. The account runs as +follows:</p> +<p>“‘The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene +while it was yet dark unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone +taken away from the sepulchre. Then she runneth and cometh +to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and +saith unto them, ‘They have taken away the Lord out of the +sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid Him.’ +Peter therefore went forth and that other disciple, and came to +the sepulchre. So they both ran together: and the other +disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. +And he stooping down and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying, +yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him +and went into the sepulchre and seeth the linen clothes lie, and +the napkin that was about His head not lying with the linen +clothes but wrapped together in a place by itself. Then +went in also that other disciple, which came first to the +sepulchre, and he saw and believed. For as yet they knew +not the Scripture that he must rise from the dead. Then the +disciples went away again to their own home. But Mary stood +without at the sepulchre weeping; and as she wept, she stooped +down, and looked into the sepulchre, and seeth two angels in +white sitting, the one at the head, the other at the feet, where +the body of Jesus had lain, and they say unto her, ‘Woman, +why weepest thou?’ She saith unto them, +‘Because they have taken away my Lord and I know not where +they have laid him.’”</p> +<p>“Then Mary sees Jesus himself, but does not at first +recognise him.</p> +<p>“Now, let us see what the above amounts to, and, +dividing it into two parts, let us examine first what we are told +as having come actually under John’s own observation, and, +secondly, what happened afterwards.</p> +<p>I. “It is clear that Mary had seen nothing +miraculous before she came running to the two Apostles, Peter and +John. She had found the tomb empty when she reached +it. She did not know where the body of her Lord then was, +<i>nor was there anything to shew how long it had been +removed</i>: all she knew was that within thirty-six hours from +the time of its having been laid in the tomb it had disappeared, +but how much earlier it had been gone neither did she know, nor +shall we. Peter and John went into the sepulchre and +thoroughly examined it: they saw no angel, nor anything +approaching to the miraculous, simply the grave clothes (<i>which +were probably of white linen</i>), lying <i>in two separate +places</i>. Then, <i>and not till then</i>, do they appear +to have entertained their first belief or hope that Christ might +have risen from the dead.</p> +<p>“This is plain and credible; but it amounts to an empty +tomb, and to an empty tomb only.</p> +<p>“Here, for a moment, we must pause. Had these men +but a few weeks previously seen Lazarus raised from the +corruption of the grave—to say nothing of other +resurrections from the dead? Had they seen their master +override every known natural law, and prove that, as far as he +was concerned, all human experience was worthless, by walking +upon rough water, by actually talking to a storm of wind and +making it listen to him, by feeding thousands with a few loaves, +and causing the fragments that remained after all had eaten, to +be more than the food originally provided? Had they seen +events of this kind continually happening for a space of some two +years, and finally had they seen their master transfigured, +conversing with the greatest of their prophets (men who had been +dead for ages), and recognised by a voice from heaven as the Son +of the Almighty, and had they also heard anything approaching to +an announcement that he should himself rise from the +dead—or had they not? They might have seen the +raising of Lazarus and the rest of the miracles, but might not +have anticipated that Christ himself would rise, for want of any +announcement that this should be so; or, again, they might have +heard a prophecy of his Resurrection from the lips of Christ, but +disbelieved it for the want of any previous miracles which should +convince them that the prophecy came from no ordinary person; so +that their not having expected the Resurrection is explicable by +giving up either the prophecies, or the miracles, but it is +impossible to believe that <i>in spite both of the miracles and +the prophecies</i>, the Apostles should have been still without +any expectation of the Resurrection. If they had both seen +the miracles and heard the prophecies, they must have been in a +state of inconceivably agitated excitement in anticipation of +their master’s reappearance. And this they were not; +on the contrary, they were expecting nothing of the kind. +The condition of mind ascribed to them considering their supposed +surroundings, is one which belongs to the drama only; it is not +of nature: it is so utterly at variance with all human experience +that it should be dismissed at once as incredible.</p> +<p>“But it is very credible if Christ was seen alive after +his Crucifixion, and his reappearance, though due to natural +causes, was once believed to be miraculous, that this one +seemingly well substantiated miracle should become the parent of +all the others, and of the prophecies of the Resurrection. +Thirty years in all probability elapsed between the reappearances +of Christ and the earliest of the four Gospels; thirty years of +oral communication and spiritual enthusiasm, among an oriental +people, and in an unscientific age; an age by which the idea of +an interference with the modes of the universe from a point +outside of itself, was taken as a matter of course; an age which +believed in an anthropomorphic Deity who had back parts, which +Moses had been allowed to see through the hand of God; an age +which, over and above all this, was at the time especially +convulsed with expectations of deliverance from the Roman +yoke. Have we not here a soil suitable for the growth of +miracles, if the seed once fell upon it? Under such +conditions they would even spring up of themselves, seedless.</p> +<p>“Once let the reappearances of Christ have been believed +to be miraculous (and under all the circumstances they might +easily have been believed to be so, though due to natural +causes), and it is not wonderful that, in such an age and among +such a people, the other miracles and the prophecies of the +Resurrection should have become current within thirty +years. Even we ourselves, with all our incalculably greater +advantages, could not withstand so great a temptation to let our +wish become father to our thoughts. If we had been the +especially favoured friends of one whom we believed to have died, +but who yet was not to beholden by death, no matter how careful +and judicially minded we might be by nature, we should be blind +to everything except the fact that we had once been the chosen +companions of an immortal. There lives no one who could +withstand the intoxication of such an idea. A single +well-substantiated miracle in the present day, even though we had +not seen it ourselves, would uproot the hedges of our caution; it +would rob us of that sense of the continuity of nature, in which +our judgements are, consciously or unconsciously, anchored; but +if we were very closely connected with it in our own persons, we +should dwell upon the recollection of it and on little else.</p> +<p>“Few of us can realise what happened so very long +ago. Men believe in the Christian miracles, though they +would reject the notion of a modern miracle almost with ridicule, +and would hardly even examine the evidence in its favour. +But the Christian miracles stand in their minds as things apart; +their <i>prestige</i> is greater than that attaching to any other +events in the whole history of mankind. They are hallowed +by the unhesitating belief of many, many generations. Every +circumstance which should induce us to bow to their authority +surrounds them with a bulwark of defences which may make us well +believe that they must be impregnable, and sacred from +attack. Small wonder then that the many should still +believe them. Nevertheless they do not believe them so +fully, nor nearly so fully, as they think they do. For even +the strongest imagination can travel but a very little way beyond +a man’s own experience; it will not bear the burden of +carrying him to a remote age and country; it will flag, wander +and dream; it will not answer truly, but will lay hold of the +most obvious absurdity, and present it impudently to its tired +master, who will accept it gladly and have done with it. +Even recollection fails, but how much more imagination! It +is a high flight of imagination to be able to realise how weak +imagination is.</p> +<p>“We cannot therefore judge what would be the effect of +immediate contact even with the wild hope of a miracle, from our +conventional acceptance of the Christian miracles. If we +would realise this we must look to modern alleged +miracles—to the enthusiasm of the Irish and American +revivals, when mind inflames mind till strong men burst into +hysterical tears like children; we must look for it in the effect +produced by the supposed Irvingite miracles on those who believed +in them, or in the miracles that followed the Port Royal miracle +of the holy thorn. There never was a miracle solitary yet: +one will soon become the parent of many. The minds of those +who have believed in a single miracle as having come within their +own experience become ecstatic; so deeply impressed are they with +the momentous character of what they have known, that their power +of enlisting sympathy becomes immeasurably greater than that of +men who have never believed themselves to have come into contact +with the miraculous; their deep conviction carries others along +with it, and so the belief is strengthened till adverse +influences check it, or till it reaches a pitch of grotesque +horror, as in the case of the later Jansenist miracles. +There is nothing, therefore, extraordinary in the gradual +development within thirty years of all the Christian miracles, if +the Resurrection were once held to be well substantiated; and +there is nothing wonderful, under the circumstances, in the +reappearance of Christ alive after his Crucifixion having been +assigned to miracle. He had already made sufficient +impression upon his followers to require but little help from +circumstances. He had not so impressed them as to want +<i>no</i> help from any supposed miracle, but nevertheless any +strange event in connection with him would pass muster, with +little or no examination, as being miraculous. He had +undoubtedly professed himself to be, and had been half accepted +as, the promised Messiah. He had no less undoubtedly +appeared to be dead, and had been believed to be so both by +friends and foes. Let us also grant that he reappeared +alive. Would it, then, be very astonishing that the little +missing link in the completeness of the chain of +evidence—<i>absolute certainty concerning the actuality of +the death</i>—should have been allowed to drop out of +sight?</p> +<p>“Round such a centre, and in such an age, the other +miracles would spring up spontaneously, and be accepted the +moment that they arose; there is nothing in this which is foreign +to the known tendencies of the human mind, but there would be +something utterly foreign to all we know of human nature, in the +fact of men not anticipating that Christ would rise, if they had +already seen him raise others from the dead and work the miracles +ascribed to him, and if they had also heard him prophesy that he +should himself rise from the dead. In fact nothing can +explain the universally recorded incredulity of the Apostles as +to the reappearance of Christ, except the fact that they had +never seen him work a single miracle, or else that they had never +heard him say anything which could lead them to suppose that he +was to rise from the dead.</p> +<p>“We are therefore not unwilling to accept the facts +recorded in the fourth Gospel, in so far as they inform us of +things which came under the knowledge of the writer. Mary +found the tomb empty. Ignorant alike of what had taken +place and of what was going to happen, she came to Peter and John +to tell them that the body was gone; this was all she knew. +The two go to the tomb, and find all as Mary had said; on this it +is not impossible that a wild dream of hope may have flashed upon +their minds, that the aspirations which they had already indulged +in were to prove well founded. Within an hour or two Christ +was seen alive, nor can we wonder if the years which intervened +between the morning of the Resurrection and the writing of the +fourth Gospel, should have sufficed to make the writer believe +that John had had an actual belief in the Resurrection, while in +truth he had only wildly hoped it. This much is at any rate +plain, that neither he nor Peter had as yet heard any clearly +intelligible prophecy that their master should rise from the +dead. Whatever subsequent interpretation may have been +given to some of the sayings of Jesus Christ, no saying was yet +known which would of itself have suggested any such +inference. We may justly doubt the caution and accuracy of +the first founders of Christianity, without, even in our hearts, +for one moment impugning the honesty of their intentions. +We are ready to admit that had we been in their places we should +in all likelihood have felt, believed, and, we will hope, acted +as they did; but we cannot and will not admit, in the face of so +much evidence to the contrary, that they were superior to the +intelligence of their times, or, in other words, that they were +capable critics of an event, in which both their feelings and the +<i>primâ facie</i> view of the facts would be so likely to +mislead them.</p> +<p>II. “Turning now to the narrative of what passed +when Peter and John were gone, we find that Mary, stooping down, +looked through her tears into the darkness of the tomb, and saw +two angels clothed in white, who asked her why she wept. We +must remember the wide difference between believing what the +writer of the fourth Gospel tells us that John saw, and what he +tells us that Mary Magdalene saw. All we know on this point +is that he believed that Mary had spoken truly. Peter and +John were men, they went into the tomb itself, and we may say for +a certainty that they saw no angel, nor indeed anything at all, +but the grave clothes (<i>which were probably of white +linen</i>), lying <i>in two separate places</i> within it. +Mary was a woman—a woman whose parallel we must look for +among Spanish or Italian women of the lower orders at the present +day; she had, we are elsewhere told, been at one time possessed +with devils; she was in a state of tearful excitement, and +looking through her tears from light into comparative +darkness. Is it possible not to remember what Peter and +John <i>did</i> see when they were in the tomb? Is it +possible not to surmise that Mary in good truth saw nothing +more? She thought she saw more, but the excitement under +which she was labouring at the time, an excitement which would +increase tenfold after she had seen Christ (as she did +immediately afterwards and before she had had time to tell her +story), would easily distort either her vision or her memory, or +both.</p> +<p>“The evidence of women of her class—especially +when they are highly excited—is not to be relied upon in a +matter of such importance and difficulty as a miracle. Who +would dare to insist upon such evidence now? And why should +it be considered as any more trustworthy eighteen hundred years +ago? We are indeed told that the angels spoke to her; but +the speech was very short; the angels simply ask her why she +weeps; she answers them as though it were the common question of +common people, and then leaves them. This is in itself +incredible; but it is not incredible that if Mary looking into +the tomb saw two white objects within, she should have drawn back +affrighted, and that her imagination, thrown into a fever by her +subsequent interview with Christ, should have rendered her +utterly incapable of recollecting the true facts of the case; or, +again, it is not incredible that she should have been believed to +have seen things which she never did see. All we can say +for certain is that before the fourth Gospel was written, and +probably shortly after the first reappearance of Christ, Mary +Magdalene believed, or was thought to have believed, that she had +seen angels in the tomb; and this being so, the development of +the short and pointless question attributed to +them—possibly as much due to the eager cross-questioning of +others as to Mary herself—is not surprising.</p> +<p>“Before the Sunday of the Resurrection was over, the +facts as derivable from the fourth Gospel would stand thus. +Jesus Christ, who was supposed to have been verily and indeed +dead, was known to be alive again. He had been seen, and +heard to speak. He had been seen by those who were already +prepared to accept him as their leader, and whose previous +education, and tone of mind, would lead them rather to an excess +of faith in a miracle, than of scepticism concerning its +miraculous character. The Apostles would be in no impartial +nor sceptical mood when they saw that Christ was alive. The +miracle was too near themselves—too fascinating in its +supposed consequences for themselves—to allow of their +going into curious questions about the completeness of the +death. The Master whom they had loved, and in whom they had +hoped, had been crucified and was alive again. Is it a +harsh or strained supposition, that what would have assuredly +been enough for ourselves, if we had known and loved Christ and +had been attuned in mind as the Apostles were, should also have +been enough for them? Who can say so? The nature of +our belief in our Master would have been changed once and for +ever; and so we find it to have been with the Christian +Apostles.</p> +<p>“Over and above the reappearance of Christ, there would +also be a report (probably current upon the very Sunday of the +Resurrection), that Mary Magdalene had seen a vision of angels in +the tomb in which Christ’s body had been laid; and this, +though a matter of small moment in comparison with the +reappearance of Christ himself, will nevertheless concern us +nearly when we come to consider the narratives of the other +Evangelists.”</p> +<h3><a name="page194"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +194</span>Chapter VIII<br /> +The Preceding Chapter Continued</h3> +<p>“<span class="smcap">Let</span> us now turn to +Luke. His account runs as follows:—</p> +<p>“‘Now upon the first day of the week, very early +in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre bringing the spices +which they had prepared, and certain others with them. +<i>And they found the stone rolled away from the +sepulchre</i>. <i>And they entered in</i>, <i>and found not +the body of the Lord Jesus</i>. And it came to pass as they +were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in +shining garments, <i>and as they were afraid</i>, <i>and bowed +their faces to the earth</i>, they said unto them, “<i>Why +seek ye the living among the dead</i>? He is not here, but +is risen: <i>remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in +Galilee</i>, saying, ‘<i>The Son of Man must be delivered +into the hands of sinful men and be crucified</i>, <i>and the +third day rise again</i>.” <i>And they remembered his +words</i>, and returned from the sepulchre, and told all these +things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary +Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other +women that were with them which told these things unto the +Apostles. <i>And their words seemed unto them as idle +tales</i>, <i>and they believed them not</i>. Then arose +Peter, and went unto the sepulchre: and, stooping down, he beheld +the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed wondering in +himself at that which was come to pass.’</p> +<p>“When we compare this account with John’s we are +at once struck with the resemblances and the discrepancies. +Luke and John indeed are both agreed that Christ was seen alive +after the Crucifixion. Both agree that the tomb was found +empty very early on the Sunday morning (<i>i.e.</i>, within +thirty-six hours of the deposition from the Cross), and neither +writer affords us any clue whatever as to the time and manner of +the removal of the body; but here the resemblances end; the +angelic vision of Mary, seen <i>after</i> Peter and John had +departed from the tomb, and seen apparently by Mary alone, in +Luke finds its way into the van of the narrative, and Peter is +represented as having gone to the tomb, <i>not in consequence of +having been simply told that the body of Christ was missing</i>, +<i>but because he refused to believe the miraculous story which +was told him by the women</i>. In the fourth Gospel we +heard of no miraculous story being carried by Mary to Peter and +John. The angels instead of being seen by one person only, +as would have appeared from the fourth Gospel, are now seen <i>by +many</i>; and the women instead of being almost stolidly +indifferent to the presence of supernatural beings, are afraid, +and bow down their faces to the earth; instead of merely wanting +to be informed why Mary was weeping, the angels speak with +definite point, and as angels might be expected to speak; they +allude, also, to past prophecy, which the women at once +remember.</p> +<p>“Strange, that they should want reminding! And +stranger still that a few verses lower down we should find the +Apostles remembering no prophetic saying, but regarding the story +of the women as mere idle tales. What shall we say? +Are not these differences precisely similar to those which we are +continually meeting with, when a case of exaggeration comes +before us? Can we accept <i>both</i> the stories? Is +this one of those cases in which all would be made clear if we +did but know <i>all</i> the facts, or is it rather one in which +we can understand how easily the story given by the one writer +might become distorted into the version of the other? Does +it seem in any way improbable that within the forty years or so +between the occurrences recorded by John and the writing of +Luke’s Gospel, the apparently trifling, yet truly most +important, differences between the two writers should have been +developed?</p> +<p>“No one will venture to say that the facts, upon the +face of them, do not strongly suggest such an inference, and +that, too, with no conscious fraud on the part of any of those +through whose mouths the story must have passed. If the +fourth Gospel be assigned to John (and if it is <i>not</i> +assigned to John the difficulties on the Christian side become so +great that the cause may be declared lost), his story is that of +a principal actor and eye-witness; it bears every impress of +truth and none of exaggeration upon any point which came under +his own observation. Even when he tells of what Mary +Magdalene said she saw, we see the myth in its earliest and +crudest form; there is no attempt at circumstance in connection +with it, and abundant reason for suspecting its supernatural +character is given along with it; reason which to our minds is at +any rate sufficient to make us doubt it, but which would +naturally have no weight whatever with John after he had once +seen Christ alive, or indeed with us if we had been in his +place. It is not to be wondered at that in such times many +a fresh bud should be grafted on to the original story; indeed it +was simply inevitable that this should have been the case. +No one would mean to deceive, but we know how, among uneducated +and enthusiastic persons, the marvellous has an irresistible +tendency to become more marvellous still; and, as far as we can +gather, all the causes which bring this about were more actively +at work shortly after the time of Christ’s first +reappearance than at any other time which can be readily called +to mind. The main facts, as we derive them from the consent +of <i>both</i> writers, were simply these:—That the tomb of +Christ was found unexpectedly empty on the Sunday morning; that +this fact was reported to the Apostles; that Peter went into the +tomb and saw the linen clothes laid by themselves; that Mary +Magdalene said that she had seen angels; and that eventually +Christ shewed himself undoubtedly alive. Both writers agree +so far, but it is impossible to say that they agree farther.</p> +<p>“Some may say that it is of little moment whether the +angels appeared first or last; whether they were seen by many or +by one; whether, if seen only by one, that one had previously +been insane; whether they spoke as angels might be expected to +speak, <i>i.e.</i>, to the point, and are shewn to have been +recognised as angels by the fear which their appearance caused; +or whether they caused no alarm, and said nothing which was in +the least equal to the occasion. But most men will feel +that the whole complexion of the story changes according to the +answers which can be made to these very questions. Surely +they will also begin to feel a strong suspicion that the story +told by Luke is one which has not lost in the telling. How +natural was it that the angelic vision should find its way into +the foreground of the picture, and receive those little +circumstantial details of which it appeared most to stand in +need; how desirable also that the testimony of Mary should be +corroborated by that of others who were with her, and out of whom +no devils had been cast. The first Christians would not +have been men and women at all unless they had felt thus; but +they <i>were</i> men and women, and hence they acted after the +fashion of their age and unconsciously exaggerated; the only +wonder is that they did not exaggerate more, for we must remember +that even though the Apostles themselves be supposed to have been +more judicially unimpassioned and less liable to inaccuracy than +we have reason to believe they were, yet that from the very +earliest ages of the Church there would be some converts of an +inferior stamp. No matter how small a society is, there +will be bad in it as well as good—there was a Judas even in +the twelve.</p> +<p>“But to speak less harshly, there must from the first +have been some converts who would be capable of reporting +incautiously; visions and dreams were vouchsafed to many, and not +a few marvels may be referable to this source; there is no +trusting an age in which men are liable to give a supernatural +interpretation to an extraordinary dream, nor is there any end to +what may come of it, if people begin seriously confounding their +sleeping and waking impressions. In such times, then, Luke +may have said with a clear conscience that he had carefully +sifted the truth of what he wrote; but the world has not passed +through the last two thousand years in vain, and we are bound to +insist upon a higher standard of credibility. Luke would +believe at once, and as a matter of course, things which we +should as a matter of course reject; yet it is probable that he +too had heard much that he rejected; he seems to have been +dissatisfied with all the records with the existence of which he +was aware; the account which he gives is possibly derived from +some very early report; even if this report arose at Jerusalem, +and within a week after the Crucifixion, it might well be very +inaccurate, though apparently supported by excellent authority, +so that there is no necessity for charging Luke with unusual +credulity. No one can be expected to be greatly in advance +of his surroundings; it is well for every one except himself if +he should happen to be so, but no man is to be blamed if he is +not; it is enough to save him if he is fairly up to the standard +of his own times. ‘Morality’ is rather of the +custom which <i>is</i>, than of the custom which ought to be.</p> +<p>“Turning now to the account of Mark, we find the +following:—</p> +<p>“‘And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, +and Mary the mother of James, and Salome had bought sweet spices +that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the +morning, the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre +at the rising of the sun. And they said among +themselves,</p> +<p>“Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the +sepulchre?” And when they looked they saw that the +stone was rolled away; for it was very great. And entering +into the sepulchre they saw <i>a young man</i> sitting on the +right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were +affrighted. And he saith unto them, “Be not +affrighted; ye seek Jesus of Nazareth which was crucified; he is +risen; he is not here; behold the place where they laid +him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he +goeth before you into Galilee: there ye shall see him, as he said +unto you.” And they went out quickly, and fled from +the sepulchre; <i>for they trembled and were amazed</i>, +<i>neither said they any thing to any man</i>, <i>for they were +afraid</i>. Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of +the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had +cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been +with him as they mourned and wept. And they, when they +heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, <i>believed +not</i>.’</p> +<p>“Here we have substantially the same version as that +given by Luke; there is only one angel mentioned, but it may be +said that it is possible that there may have been another who is +not mentioned, inasmuch as he remained silent; the angelic +vision, however, is again brought into the foreground of the +story and the fear of the women is even more strongly insisted on +than it was in Luke. The angel reminds the women that +Christ had said that he should be seen by his Apostles in +Galilee, of which saying we again find that the Apostles seem to +have had no recollection. The linen clothes have quite +dropped out of the story, and we can detect no trace of Peter and +John’s visit to the tomb, but it is remarkable that the +women are represented as not having said anything about the +presence of the angel immediately on their having seen him; and +this fact, which might be in itself suspicious, is apologised for +on the score of fear, notwithstanding that their silence was a +direct violation of the command of the being whom they so greatly +feared. We should have expected that if they had feared him +so much they would have done as he told them, but here again +everybody seems to act as in a dream or drama, in defiance of all +the ordinary principles of human action.</p> +<p>“Throughout the preceding paragraph we have assumed that +Mark intended his readers to understand that the young man seen +in the tomb was an angel; but, after all, this is rather a bold +assumption. On what grounds is it supported? Because +Luke tells us that when the women reached the tomb they found +<i>two</i> white angels within it, are we therefore to conclude +that Mark, who wrote many years earlier, and as far as we can +gather with much greater historical accuracy, must have meant an +angel when he spoke of a ‘young man’? Yet this +can be the only reason, unless the young man’s having worn +a long white robe is considered as sufficient cause for believing +him to have been an angel; and this, again, is rather a bold +assumption. But if St. Mark meant no more than he said, and +when he wrote of a ‘young man’ intended to convey the +idea of a young man and of nothing more, what becomes of the +angelic visions at the tomb of Christ? For St. +Matthew’s account is wholly untenable; St. Luke is a much +later writer, who must have got all his materials second or third +hand; and although we granted, and are inclined to believe, that +the accounts of the visits of Mary Magdalene, and subsequently of +Peter and John to the tomb, which are given in the fourth Gospel, +are from a Johannean source, if we were asked our reasons for +this belief, we should be very hard put to it to give them. +Nevertheless we think it probable.</p> +<p>“But take it either way; if the account in the fourth +Gospel is supposed to have been derived from the Apostle John, we +have already seen that there is nothing miraculous about it, so +far as it deals with what came under John’s own +observation; if, on the other hand, it is <i>not</i> authentic we +are thrown back upon St. Mark as incomparably our best authority +for the facts that occurred on the Sunday after the Crucifixion, +and he tells us of nothing but a tomb found empty, with the +exception that there was a young man in it who wore a long white +dress and told the women to tell the Apostles to go to Galilee, +where they should see Christ. On the strength of this we +are asked to believe that the reappearance of Christ alive, after +a hurried crucifixion, must have been due to supernatural causes, +and supernatural causes only! It will be easily seen what a +number of threads might be taken up at this point, and followed +with not uninteresting results. For the sake, however, of +brevity, we grant it as most probable that St. Mark meant the +young man said to have been seen in the tomb, to be considered as +an angel; but we must also express our conviction that this +supposed angelic vision is a misplaced offshoot of the report +that Mary Magdalene had seen angels in the tomb after Peter and +John had left it.</p> +<p>“It is possible that Mark’s account may be the +most historic of all those that we have; but we incline to think +otherwise, inasmuch as the angelic vision placed in the +foreground by Mark and Luke, would not be likely to find its way +into the background again, as it does in the fourth Gospel, +unless in consequence of really authentic information; no +unnecessary detraction from the miraculous element is conceivable +as coming from the writer who has handed down to us the story of +the raising of Lazarus, where we have, indeed, <i>a real account +of a resurrection</i>, the continuity of the evidence being +unbroken, and every link in the chain forged fast and strong, +even to the unwrapping of the grave clothes from the body as it +emerged from the sepulchre. Is it possible that the writer +may have given the story of the raising of Lazarus (of which we +find no trace except in the fourth Gospel), because he felt that +in giving the Apostolic version with absolute or substantial +accuracy, he was so weakening the miraculous element in +connection with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ himself, that it +became necessary to introduce an incontrovertible account of the +resurrection of some other person, which should do, as it were, +vicarious duty?</p> +<p>“Nevertheless there are some points on which all the +three writers are agreed: we have the same substratum of facts, +namely, <i>the tomb found already empty when the women reached +it</i>, a confused and contradictory report of an angel or angels +seen within it, and the subsequent reappearance of Christ. +Not one of the three writers affords us the slightest clue as to +the time and manner of the removal of the body from the tomb; +there is nothing in any of the narratives which is incompatible +with its having been taken away on the very night of the +Crucifixion itself.</p> +<p>“Is this a case in which the defenders of Christianity +would clamour for <i>all</i> the facts, unless they exceedingly +well knew that there was no chance of their getting them? +<i>All</i> the facts, indeed—what tricks does our +imagination play us! One would have thought that there were +quite enough facts given as the matter stands to make the +defenders of Christianity wish that there were not so many; and +then for them to say that if we had more, those that we have +would become less contradictory! What right have they to +assume that if they had all the facts, the accounts of the +Resurrection would cease to puzzle us, more than we have to say +that if we had all the facts, we should find these accounts even +more inexplicable than we do at present? Had <i>we</i> +argued thus we should have been accused of shameless impudence; +of a desire to maintain any position in which we happened to find +ourselves, and by which we made money, regardless of every common +principle of truth or honour, or whatever else makes the +difference between upright men and self-deceivers.</p> +<p>“It may be said by some that the discrepancies between +the three accounts given above are discrepancies concerning +details only, but that all three writers agree about the +‘main fact.’ We are continually hearing about +this ‘main fact,’ but nobody is good enough to tell +us precisely what fact is meant. Is the main fact the fact +that Jesus Christ was crucified? Then no one denies +it. We all admit that Jesus Christ was crucified. Or, +is it that he was seen alive several times after the +Crucifixion? This also we are not disposed to deny. +We believe that there is a considerable preponderance of evidence +in its favour. But if the ‘main fact’ turns out +to be that Christ was crucified, <i>died</i>, and then came to +life again, we admit that here too all the writers are agreed, +but we cannot find with any certainty that one of them was +present when Christ died or when his body was taken down from the +Cross, or that there was any such examination of the body as +would be absolutely necessary in order to prove that a man had +been dead who was afterwards seen alive. If Christ +reappeared alive, there is not only no tittle of evidence in +support of his death which would be allowed for a moment in an +English court of justice, but there is an overwhelming amount of +evidence which points inexorably in the direction of his never +having died. If he reappeared, there is no evidence of his +having died. If he did not reappear, there is no evidence +of his having risen from the dead.</p> +<p>“We are inclined, however, as has been said already, to +believe that Jesus Christ really did reappear shortly after the +Crucifixion, and that his reappearance, though due to natural +causes, was conceived to be miraculous. We believe also +that Mary fancied that she had seen angels in the tomb, and +openly said that she had done so; who would doubt her when so far +greater a marvel than this had been made palpably manifest to +all? Who would care to inquire very particularly whether +there were two angels or only one? Whether there were other +women with Mary or whether she was quite alone? Who would +compare notes about the exact moment of their appearing, and what +strictly accurate account of their words could be expected in the +ferment of such excitement and such ignorance? Any speech +which sounded tolerably plausible would be accepted under the +circumstances, and none will complain of Mark as having wilfully +attempted to deceive, any more than he will of Luke: the +amplification of the story was inevitable, and the very candour +and innocence with which the writers leave loophole after +loophole for escape from the miraculous, is alone sufficient +proof of their sincerity; nevertheless, it is also proof that +they were all more or less inaccurate; we can only say in their +defence, that in the reappearance of Christ himself we find +abundant palliation of their inaccuracy. Given one great +miracle, proved with a sufficiency of evidence for the capacities +and proclivities of the age, and the rest is easy. The +groundwork of the after-structure of the other miracles is to be +found in the fact that Christ was crucified, and was afterwards +seen alive.”</p> +<p>There is no occasion for me to examine St. Matthew’s +account of the Resurrection in company with the unhappy men whose +views I have been endeavouring to represent above. For +reasons which have already been sufficiently dwelt upon I freely +own that I agree with them in rejecting it. I shall +therefore admit that the story of the sealing of the tomb, and +setting of the guard, the earthquake, the descent of the angel +from Heaven, his rolling away the stone, sitting upon it, and +addressing the women therefrom, is to be treated for all +controversial purposes as though it had never been written. +By this admission, I confess to complete ignorance of the time +when the stone was removed from the mouth of the tomb, or the +hour when the Redeemer rose. I should add that I agree with +our opponents in believing that our Lord never foretold His +Resurrection to the Apostles. But how little does it matter +whether He foretold His Resurrection or not, and whether He rose +at one hour or another. It is enough for me that he rose at +all; for the rest I care not.</p> +<p>“Yet, see,” our opponents will exclaim in answer, +“what a mighty river has come from a little spring. +We heard first of two men going into an empty tomb, finding two +bundles of grave clothes, and departing. Then there comes a +certain person, concerning whom we are elsewhere told a fact +which leaves us with a very uncomfortable impression, and +<i>she</i> sees, not two bundles of grave clothes, but two white +angels, who ask a dreamy pointless question, and receive an +appropriate answer. Then we find the time of this +apparition shifted; it is placed in the front, not in the +background, and is seen by many, instead of being vouchsafed to +no one but to a weeping woman looking into the bottom of a +tomb. The speech of the angels, also, becomes effective, +and the linen clothes drop out of sight entirely, unless some +faint trace of them is to be found in the ‘long white +garment’ which Mark tells us was worn by the young man who +was in the tomb when the women reached it. Finally, we have +a guard set upon the tomb, and the stone which was rolled in +front of it is sealed; the angel <i>is seen to descend from +Heaven</i>, to roll away the stone, and sit upon it, and there is +a great earthquake. Oh! how things grow, how things +grow! And, oh! how people believe!</p> +<p>“See by what easy stages the story has grown up from the +smallest seed, as the mustard tree in the parable, and how the +account given by Matthew changes the whole complexion of the +events. And see how this account has been dwelt upon to the +exclusion of the others by the great painters and sculptors from +whom, consciously or unconsciously, our ideas of the Christian +era are chiefly drawn. Yes. These men have been the +most potent of theologians, for their theology has reached and +touched most widely. We have mistaken their echo of the +sound for the sound itself, and what was to them an aspiration, +has, alas! been to us in the place of science and reality.</p> +<p>“Truly the ease with which the plainest inferences from +the Gospel narratives have been overlooked is the best apology +for those who have attributed unnatural blindness to the +Apostles. If we are so blind, why not they also? A +pertinent question, but one which raises more difficulties than +it solves. The seeing of truth is as the finding of gold in +far countries, where the shepherd has drunk of the stream and +used it daily to cleanse the sweat of his brow, and recked little +of the treasure which lay abundantly concealed therein, until one +luckier than his fellows espies it, and the world comes flocking +thither. So with truth; a little care, a little patience, a +little sympathy, and the wonder is that it should have lain +hidden even from the merest child, not that it should now be +manifest.</p> +<p>“How early must it have been objected that there was no +evidence that the tomb had not been tampered with (not by the +Apostles, for they were scattered, and of him who laid the body +in the tomb—Joseph of Arimathæa—we hear no +more) and that the body had been delivered not to enemies, but +friends; how natural that so desirable an addition to the +completeness of the evidences in favour of a miraculous +Resurrection should have been early and eagerly accepted. +Would not twenty years of oral communication and Spanish or +Italian excitability suffice for the rooting of such a +story? Yet, as far as we can gather, the Gospel according +to St. Matthew was even then unwritten. And who was +Matthew? And what was his original Gospel?</p> +<p>“There is one part of his story, and one only, which +will stand the test of criticism, and that is this:—That +the saying that the disciples came by night and stole the body of +Jesus away was current among the Jews, at the time when the +Gospel which we now have appeared. Not that they did +so—no one will believe this; but the allegation of the +rumour (which would hardly have been ventured unless it would +command assent as true) points in the direction of search having +been made for the body of Jesus—and made in vain.</p> +<p>“We have now seen that there is no evidence worth the +name, for any miracle in connection with the tomb of +Christ. He probably reappeared alive, but not with any +circumstances which we are justified in regarding as +supernatural. We are therefore at length led to a +consideration of the Crucifixion itself. Is there evidence +for more than this—that Christ was crucified, was +afterwards seen alive, and that this was regarded by his first +followers as a sufficient proof of his having risen from the +dead? This would account for the rise of Christianity, and +for all the other miracles. Take the following passage from +Gibbon:—‘The grave and learned Augustine, whose +understanding scarcely admits the excuse of credulity, has +attested the innumerable prodigies which were worked in Africa by +the relics of St. Stephen, and this marvellous narrative is +inserted in the elaborate work of “The City of God,” +which the Bishop designed as a solid and immortal proof of the +truth of Christianity. Augustine solemnly declares that he +had selected those miracles only which had been publicly +certified by persons who were either the objects or the +spectators of the powers of the martyr. Many prodigies were +omitted or forgotten, and Hippo had been less favourably treated +than the other cities of the province, yet the Bishop enumerates +above seventy miracles, of which three were resurrections from +the dead, within the limits of his own diocese. If we +enlarge our view to all the dioceses and all the saints of the +Christian world, it will not be easy to calculate the fables and +errors which issued from this inexhaustible source. But we +may surely be allowed to observe that a miracle in that age of +superstition and credulity lost its name and its merits, since it +could hardly be considered as a deviation from the established +laws of Nature.’—(Gibbon’s <i>Decline and +Fall</i>, chap. xxviii., sec. 2).</p> +<p>“Who believes in the miracles, or who would dare to +quote them? Yet on what better foundation do those of the +New Testament rest? For the death of Christ there is no +evidence at all. There is evidence that he was believed to +have been dead (under circumstances where a misapprehension was +singularly likely to arise), by men whose minds were altogether +in a different <i>clef</i> to ours as regards the miraculous, and +whom we cannot therefore fairly judge by any modern +standard. We cannot judge <i>them</i>, but we are bound to +weigh the facts which they relate, not in their balance, but in +our own. It is not what might have seemed reasonably +believable to them, but what is reasonably believable in our own +more enlightened age which can be alone accepted sinlessly by +ourselves. Men’s modes of thought concerning facts +change from age to age; but the facts change not at all, and it +is of them that we are called to judge.</p> +<p>“We turn to the fourth Gospel, as that from which we +shall derive the most accurate knowledge of the facts connected +with the Crucifixion. Here we find that it was about twelve +o’clock when Pilate brought out Christ for the last time; +the dialogue that followed, the preparations for the Crucifixion, +and the leading Christ outside the city to the place where the +Crucifixion was to take place, could hardly have occupied less +than an hour. By six o’clock (by consent of all +writers) the body was entombed, so that the actual time during +which Christ hung upon the cross was little more than four +hours. Let us be thankful to hope that the time of +suffering may have been so short—but say five hours, say +six, say whatever the reader chooses, the Crucifixion was +avowedly too hurried for death in an ordinary case to have +ensued. The thieves had to be killed, as yet alive. +Immediately before being taken down from the cross the body was +delivered to friends. Within thirty-six hours afterwards +the tomb in which it had been laid was discovered to have been +opened; for how long it had been open we do not know, but a few +hours later Christ was seen alive.</p> +<p>“Let it be remembered also that the fact of the body +having been delivered to Joseph <i>before</i> the taking down +from the cross, greatly enhanced the chance of an escape from +death, inasmuch as the duties of the soldiers would have ended +with the presentation of the order from Pilate. If any +faint symptom of returning animation shewed itself in consequence +of the mere change of position and the inevitable shock attendant +upon being moved, the soldiers would not know it; their task was +ended, and they would not be likely either to wish, or to be +allowed, to have anything to do with the matter. Joseph +appears to have been a rich man, and would be followed by +attendants. Moreover, although we are told by Mark that +Pilate sent for the centurion to inquire whether Christ was dead, +yet the same writer also tells us that this centurion had already +come to the conclusion that Christ was the Son of God, a +statement which is supported by the accounts of Matthew and Luke; +Mark is the only Evangelist who tells us that the centurion +<i>was</i> sent for, but even granting that this was so, would +not one who had already recognised Christ as the Son of God be +inclined to give him every assistance in his power? He +would be frightened, and anxious to get the body down from the +cross as fast as possible. So long as Christ appeared to be +dead, there would be no unnecessary obstacle thrown in the way of +the delivery of the body to Joseph, by a centurion who believed +that he had been helping to crucify the Son of God. Besides +Joseph was rich, and rich people have many ways of getting their +wishes attended to.</p> +<p>“We know of no one as assisting at the taking down or +the removal of the body, except Joseph of Arimathæa, for +the presence of Nicodemus, and indeed his existence, rests upon +the slenderest evidence. None of the Apostles appear to +have had anything to do with the deposition, nor yet the women +who had come from Galilee, who are represented as seeing where +the body was laid (and by Luke as seeing <i>how</i> it was laid), +but do not seem to have come into close contact with the +body.</p> +<p>“Would any modern jury of intelligent men believe under +similar circumstances that the death had been actual and +complete? Would they not regard—and ought they not to +regard—reappearance as constituting ample proof that there +had been no death? Most assuredly, unless Christ had had +his head cut off, or had been seen to be burnt to ashes. +Again, if unexceptionable medical testimony as to the +completeness of the death had reached us, there would be no help +for it; we should have to admit that something had happened which +was at variance with all our experience of the course of nature; +or again if his legs had been broken, or his feet pierced, we +could say nothing; but what irreparable mischief is done to any +vital function of the body by the mere act of crucifixion? +The feet were not always, ‘nor perhaps generally,’ +pierced (so Dean Alford tells us, quoting from Justin Martyr), +nor is there a particle of evidence to shew that any exception +was made in the present instance. A man who is crucified +dies from sheer exhaustion, so that it cannot be deemed +improbable that he might swoon away, and that every outward +appearance of death might precede death by several hours.</p> +<p>“Are we to suppose that a handful of ignorant soldiers +should be above error, when we remember that men have been left +for dead, been laid out for burial and buried by their best +friends—nay, that they have over and over again been +pronounced dead by skilled physicians, when the facilities for +knowing the truth were far greater, and when a mistake was much +less likely to occur, than at the hurried Crucifixion of Jesus +Christ? The soldiers would apply no polished mirror to the +lips, nor make use of any of those tests which, under the +circumstances, would be absolutely necessary before life could be +pronounced to be extinct; they would see that the body was +lifeless, inanimate, to all outward appearance like the few other +dead bodies which they had probably observed closely; with this +they would rest contented.</p> +<p>“It is true, they probably believed Christ to be dead at +the time they handed over the body to his friends, and if we had +heard nothing more of the matter we might assume that they were +right; but the reappearance of Christ alive changes the whole +complexion of the story. It is not very likely that the +Roman soldiers would have been mistaken in believing him to be +dead, unless the hurry of the whole affair, and the order from +Pilate, had disposed them to carelessness, and to getting the +matter done as fast as possible; but it is much less likely that +a dead man should come to life again than that a mistake should +have been made about his having being dead. The latter is +an event which probably happens every week in one part of the +world or another; the former has never yet been known.</p> +<p>“It is not probable that a man officially executed +should escape death; but that a <i>dead man</i> should escape +from it is more improbable still; in addition to the enormous +preponderance of probability on the side of Christ’s never +having died which arises from this consideration alone, we are +told many facts which greatly lessen the improbability of his +having escaped death, inasmuch as the Crucifixion was hurried, +and the body was immediately delivered to friends without the +known destruction of any organic function, and while still +hanging upon the cross.</p> +<p>“Joseph and Nicodemus (supposing that Nicodemus was +indeed a party to the entombment) may be believed to have thought +that Christ was dead when they received the body, but they could +not refuse him their assistance when they found out their +mistake, nor, again, could they forfeit their high position by +allowing it to be known that they had restored the life of one +who was so obnoxious to the authorities. They would be in a +very difficult position, and would take the prudent course of +backing out of the matter at the first moment that humanity would +allow, of leaving the rest to chance, and of keeping their own +counsel. It is noticeable that we never hear of them again; +for there were no two people in the world better able to know +whether the Resurrection was miraculous or not, and none who +would be more deeply interested in favour of the miracle. +They had been faithful when the Apostles themselves had failed, +and if their faith had been so strong while everything pointed in +the direction of the utter collapse of Christianity, what would +it be, according to every natural impulse of self-approbation, +when so transcendent a miracle as a resurrection had been worked +almost upon their own premises, and upon one whose remains they +had generously taken under their protection at a time when no +others had ventured to shew them respect?</p> +<p>“We should have fancied that Mary would have run to +Joseph and Nicodemus, not to the Apostles; that Joseph and +Nicodemus would then have sent for the Apostles, or that, to say +the least of it, we should have heard of these two persons as +having been prominent members of the Church at Jerusalem; but +here again the experience of the ordinary course of nature fails +us, and we do not find another word or hint concerning +them. This may be the result of accident, but if so, it is +a very unfortunate accident, and we have already had a great deal +too much of unfortunate accidents, and of truths which <i>may</i> +be truths, but which are uncommonly like exaggeration. +Stories are like people, whom we judge of in no small degree by +the dress they wear, the company they keep, and that subtle +indefinable something which we call their expression.</p> +<p>“Nevertheless, there arise the questions how far the +spear wound recorded by the writer of the fourth Gospel must be +regarded, firstly, as an actual occurrence, and, secondly, as +having been necessarily fatal, for unless these things are shewn +to be indisputable we have seen that the balance of probability +lies greatly in favour of Christ’s having escaped with +life. If, however, it can be proved that it is a matter of +certainty both that the wound was actually inflicted, and that +death must have inevitably followed, then the death of Christ is +proved. The Resurrection becomes supernatural; the +Ascension forthwith ceases to be marvellous; the Miraculous +Conception, the Temptation in the Wilderness, all the other +miracles of Christ and his Apostles, become believable at once +upon so signal a failure of human experience; human experience +ceases to be a guide at all, inasmuch as it is found to fail on +the very point where it has been always considered to be most +firmly established—the remorselessness of the grip of +death. But before we can consent to part with the firm +ground on which we tread, in the confidence of which we live, +move, and have our being—the trust in the established +experience of countless ages—we must prove the infliction +of the wound and its necessarily fatal character beyond all +possibility of mistake. We cannot be expected to reject a +natural solution of an event however mysterious, and to adopt a +supernatural in its place, so long as there is any element of +doubt upon the supernatural side.</p> +<p>“The natural solution of the origin of belief in the +Resurrection lies very ready to our hands; once admit that Christ +was crucified hurriedly, that there is no proof of the +destruction of any organic function of the body, that the body +itself was immediately delivered to friends, and that thirty-six +hours afterwards Christ was seen alive, and it is impossible to +understand how any human being can doubt what he ought to +think. We must own also that once let Joseph have kept his +own counsel (and he had a great stake to lose if he did +<i>not</i> keep it), once let the Apostles believe that +Christ’s restoration to life was miraculous (and under the +circumstances they would be sure to think so), and their reason +would be so unsettled that in a very short time all the +recognised and all the apocryphal miracles of Christ would pass +current with them without a shadow of difficulty.”</p> +<p>It will be observed that throughout both this and the +preceding chapter I have been dealing with those of our opponents +who, while admitting the reappearances of our Lord, ascribe them +to natural causes only. I consider this position to be only +second in importance to the one taken by Strauss, and as perhaps +in some respects capable of being supported with an even greater +outward appearance of probability. I therefore resolved to +combat it, and as a preliminary to this, have taken care that it +shall be stated in the clearest and most definite manner +possible. But it is plain that those who accept the fact +that our Lord reappeared after the Crucifixion differ hardly less +widely from Strauss than they do from ourselves; it will +therefore be expedient to shew how they maintain their ground +against so formidable an antagonist. Let it be remembered +that Strauss and his followers admit that <i>the Death</i> of our +Lord is proved, while those of our opponents who would deny this, +nevertheless admit that we can establish <i>the +reappearances</i>; it follows therefore that each of our most +important propositions is admitted by one section or other of the +enemy, and each section would probably be heartily glad to be +able to deny what it admits. Can there be any doubt about +the significance of this fact? Would not a little +reflection be likely to suggest to the distracted host of our +adversaries that each of its two halves is right, as <i>far as it +goes</i>, but that agreement will only be possible between them +when each party has learnt that it is in possession of only half +the truth, and has come to admit both the <i>Death of our Lord +and His Resurrection</i>?</p> +<p>Returning, however, to the manner in which the section of our +opponents with whom I am now dealing meet Strauss, they may be +supposed to speak as follows:—</p> +<p>“Strauss believes that Christ died, and says (<i>New +Life of Jesus</i>, Vol. I., p. 411) that ‘the account of +the Evangelists of the death of Jesus is clear, unanimous, and +connected.’ If this means that the Evangelists would +certainly know whether Christ died or not, we demur to it at +once. Strauss would himself admit that not one of the +writers who have recorded the facts connected with the +Crucifixion was an eyewitness of that event, and he must also be +aware that the very utmost which any of these writers can have +<i>known</i>, was <i>that Christ was believed to have been +dead</i>. It is strange to see Strauss so suddenly struck +with the clearness, unanimity, and connectedness of the +Evangelists. In the very next sentence he goes on to say, +‘Equally fragmentary, full of contradiction and obscurity, +is all that they tell us of the opportunities of observing him +which his adherents are supposed to have had after his +resurrection.’ Now, this seems very unfair, for, +after all, the gospel writers are quite as unanimous in asserting +the main fact that Christ reappeared, as they are in asserting +that he died; they would seem to be just as ‘clear, +unanimous, and connected,’ about the former event as the +latter (for the accounts of the Crucifixion vary not a little), +and they must have had infinitely better means of knowing whether +Christ reappeared than whether he had actually died. There +is not the same scope for variation in the bare assertion that a +man died, as there is in the narration of his sayings and doings +upon the several occasions of his reappearance. Besides, in +support of the reappearances, we have the evidence of Paul, who, +though not an eye-witness, was well acquainted with those who +were; whereas no man can make more out of the facts recorded +concerning the death of Jesus, than that he was believed to be +dead under circumstances in which mistake might easily arise, +that there is no reason to think that any organic function of the +body had been destroyed at the time that it was delivered over to +friends, and that none of those who testified to Christ’s +death appear to have verified their statement by personal +inspection of the body. On these points the Evangelists do +indeed appear to be ‘clear, unanimous, and +connected.’</p> +<p>“Later on Strauss is even more unsatisfactory, for on +the page which follows the one above quoted from, he writes: +‘Besides which, it is quite evident that this (the natural) +view of the resurrection of Jesus, apart from the difficulties in +which it is involved, does not even solve the problem which is +here under consideration: the origin, that is, of the Christian +Church by faith in the miraculous resurrection of the +Messiah. It is impossible that a being who had stolen +half-dead out of a sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, +wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening, +and indulgence, and who still, at last, yielded to his +sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that +he was a conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life, +an impression which lay at the bottom of their future +ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the +impression which he had made upon them in life and in death; at +the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by +no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have +elevated their reverence into worship.’</p> +<p>“Now, the fallacy in the above is obvious; it assumes +that <i>Christ</i> was in such a state as to be compelled to +creep about, weak and ill, &c., and ultimately to die from +the effects of his sufferings; whereas there is not a word of +evidence in support of all this. He may have been weak and +ill when he forbade Mary to touch him, on the first occasion of +his being seen alive; but it would be hard to prove even this, +and on no subsequent occasion does he shew any sign of +weakness. The supposition that he died of the effects of +his sufferings is quite gratuitous; one would like to know where +Strauss got it from. He <i>may</i> have done so, or he may +have been assassinated by some one commissioned by the Jewish +Sanhedrim, or he may have felt that his work was done, and that +any further interference upon his part would only mar it, and +therefore resolved upon withdrawing himself from Palestine for +ever, or Joseph of Arimathæa may have feared the revolution +which he saw approaching—or twenty things besides might +account for Christ’s final disappearance. The only +thing, however, which we can say with any certainty is that he +disappeared, and that there is no reason to believe that he died +of his wounds. All over and above this is guesswork.</p> +<p>“Again, if Christ on reappearing had continued in daily +intercourse with his disciples, it might have been impossible +that they should not find out that he was in all respects like +themselves. But he seems to have been careful to avoid +seeing them much. Paul only mentions five reappearances, +only one of which was to any considerable number of people. +According also to the gospel writers, the reappearances were few; +they were without preparation, and nothing seems to have been +known of where he resided between each visit; this rarity and +mysteriousness of the reappearances of Christ (whether dictated +by fear of his enemies or by policy) would heighten their effect, +and prevent the Apostles from knowing much more about their +master than the simple fact that he was indisputably alive. +They saw enough to assure them of this, but they did not see +enough to prevent their being able to regard their master as a +conqueror over death and the grave, even though it could be shewn +(which certainly cannot be done) that he continued in infirm +health, and ultimately died of his wounds.</p> +<p>“If the Apostles had been highly educated English or +German Professors, it might be hard to believe them capable of +making any mistake; but they were nothing of the kind; they were +ignorant Eastern peasants, living in the very thick of every +conceivable kind of delusive influence. Strauss himself +supposes their minds to have been so weak and unhinged that they +became easy victims to hallucination. But if this was the +case, they would be liable to other kinds of credulity, and it +seems strange that one who would bring them down so low, should +be here so suddenly jealous for their intelligence. There +is no reason to suppose that Christ <i>was</i> weak and ill after +the first day or two, any more than there is for believing that +he died of his wounds. This being so, is it not more simple +and natural to believe that the Apostles were really misled by a +solid substratum of strange events—a substratum which seems +to be supported by all the evidence which we can get—than +that the whole story of the appearances of Christ after the +Crucifixion should be due to baseless dreams and fancies? +At any rate, if the Apostles could be misled by hallucination, +much more might they be misled by a natural reappearance, which +looked not unlike a supernatural one.</p> +<p>“The belief in the miraculous character of the +Resurrection is the central point of the whole Christian +system. Let this be once believed, and considering the +times, which, it must always be remembered, were in respect of +credulity widely different from our own, considering the previous +hopes and expectations of the Apostles, considering their +education, Oriental modes of thought and speech, familiarity with +the ideas of miracle and demonology, and unfamiliarity with the +ideas of accuracy and science, and considering also the +unquestionable beauty and wisdom of much which is recorded as +having been taught by Christ, and the really remarkable +circumstances of the case—we say, once let the Resurrection +be believed to be miraculous, and the rest is clear; there is no +further mystery about the origin of the Christian religion.</p> +<p>“So the matter has now come to this pass, that we are to +jeopardise our faith in all human experience, if we are unable to +see our way clearly out of a few words about a spear wound, +recorded as having been inflicted in a distant country nearly two +thousand years ago, by a writer concerning whom we are entirely +ignorant, and whose connection with any eye-witness of the events +which he records is a matter of pure conjecture. We will +see about this hereafter; all that is necessary now is to make +sure that we do not jeopardise it, if we <i>do</i> see a way of +escape, and this assuredly exists.”</p> +<p>I will not pain either the reader or myself by a +recapitulation of the arguments which have led our opponents as +well as the Dean of Canterbury, and I may add, with due apology, +myself, to conclude that nothing is known as to the severity or +purpose of the spear wound. The case, therefore, of our +adversaries will rest thus:—that there is not only no +sufficient reason for believing that Christ died upon the cross, +but that there are the strongest conceivable reasons for +believing that He did not die; that the shortness of time during +which He remained upon the cross, the immediate delivery of the +body to friends, and, above all, the subsequent reappearance +alive, are ample grounds for arriving at such a conclusion. +They add further that it would seem a monstrous supposition to +believe that a good and merciful God should have designed to +redeem the world by the infliction of such awful misery upon His +own Son, and yet determined to condemn every one who did not +believe in this design, in spite of such a deficiency of evidence +that disbelief would appear to be a moral obligation. No +good God, they say, would have left a matter of such unutterable +importance in a state of such miserable uncertainty, when the +addition of a very small amount of testimony would have been +sufficient to establish it.</p> +<p>In the two following chapters I shall show the futility and +irrelevancy of the above reasoning—if, indeed, that can be +called reasoning which is from first to last essentially +unreasonable. Plausible as, in parts, it may have appeared, +I have little doubt that the reader will have already detected +the greater number of the fallacies which underlie it. But +before I can allow myself to enter upon the welcome task of +refutation, a few more words from our opponents will yet be +necessary. However strongly I disapprove of their views, I +trust they will admit that I have throughout expressed them as +one who thoroughly understands them. I am convinced that +the course I have taken is the only one which can lead to their +being brought into the way of truth, and I mean to persevere in +it until I have explained the views which they take concerning +our Lord’s Ascension, with no less clearness than I shewed +forth their opinions concerning the Resurrection.</p> +<p>“In St. Matthew’s Gospel,” they will say, +“we find no trace whatever of any story concerning the +Ascension. The writer had either never heard anything about +the matter at all, or did not consider it of sufficient +importance to deserve notice.</p> +<p>“Dean Alford, indeed, maintains otherwise. In his +notes on the words, ‘And lo! I am with you always +unto the end of the world,’ he says, ‘These words +imply and set forth the Ascension’; it is true that he +adds, ‘the manner of which is not related by the +Evangelist’: but how do the words quoted, ‘imply and +set forth’ the Ascension? They imply a belief that +Christ’s spirit would be present with his disciples to the +end of time; but how do they set forth the fact that his body was +seen by a number of people to rise into the air and actually to +mount up far into the region of the clouds?</p> +<p>“The fact is simply this—and nobody can know it +better than Dean Alford—that Matthew tells us nothing about +the Ascension.</p> +<p>“The last verses of Mark’s Gospel are admitted by +Dean Alford himself to be not genuine, but even in these the +subject is dismissed in a single verse, and although it is stated +that Christ was received into Heaven, there is not a single word +to imply that any one was supposed to have seen him actually on +his way thither.</p> +<p>“The author of the fourth Gospel is also silent +concerning the Ascension. There is not a word, nor hint, +nor faintest trace of any knowledge of the fact, unless an +allusion be detected in the words, ‘What and if ye shall +see the Son of Man ascending where he was before?’ (John +vi., 62) in reference to which passage Dean Alford, in his note +on Luke xxiv., 52, writes as follows:—‘And might not +we have concluded from the wording of John vi., 62, that our Lord +must have intended an ascension <i>insight of some of those to +whom he spoke</i>, and that the Evangelist <i>gives that +hint</i>, <i>by recording those words without comment</i>, +<i>that he had seen it</i>?’ That is to say, we are +to conclude that the writer of the fourth Gospel actually +<i>saw</i> the Ascension, because he tells us that Christ uttered +the words, ‘What and if ye shall see the Son of Man +ascending where he was before?’</p> +<p>“But who <i>was</i> the author of the fourth +Gospel? And what reason is there for thinking that that +work is genuine? Let us make another extract from Dean +Alford. In his prolegomena, chapter v., section 6, on the +genuineness of the fourth Gospel, he writes:—‘Neither +Papias, who carefully sought out all that Apostles and Apostolic +men had related regarding the life of Christ; nor Polycarp, who +was himself a disciple of the Apostle John; nor Barnabas, nor +Clement of Rome, in their epistles; nor, lastly, Ignatius (in his +genuine writings), makes any mention of, or allusion to, this +gospel. <i>So that in the most ancient circle of +ecclesiastical testimony</i>, <i>it appears to be unknown or not +recognised</i>.’ We may add that there is no trace of +its existence before the latter half of the second century, and +that the internal evidence against its genuineness appears to be +more and more conclusive the more it is examined.</p> +<p>“St. Paul, when enumerating the last appearances of his +master, in a passage where the absence of any allusion to the +Ascension is almost conclusive as to his never having heard a +word about it, is also silent. In no part of his genuine +writings does he give any sign of his having been aware that any +story was in existence as to the manner in which Christ was +received into Heaven.</p> +<p>“Where, then, does the story come from, if neither +Matthew, Mark, John, nor Paul appear to have heard of it?</p> +<p>“It comes from a single verse in St. Luke’s +Gospel—written more than half a century after the supposed +event, when few, or more probably none, of those who were +supposed to have seen it were either living or within reach to +contradict it. Luke writes (xxiv., 51), ‘And it came +to pass that while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and +carried up into Heaven.’ This is the only account of +the Ascension given in any part of the Gospels which can be +considered genuine. It gives Bethany as the place of the +miracle, whereas, if Dean Alford is right in saying that the +words of Matthew ‘set forth’ the Ascension, they set +it forth as having taken place on a mountain in Galilee. +But here, as elsewhere, all is haze and contradiction. +Perhaps some Christian writers will maintain that it happened +both at Bethany and in Galilee.</p> +<p>“In his subsequent work, written some sixty or seventy +years after the Ascension, St. Luke gives us that more detailed +account which is commonly present to the imagination of all men +(thanks to the Italian painters), when the Ascension is alluded +to. The details, it would seem, came to his knowledge after +he had written his Gospel, and many a long year after Matthew and +Mark and Paul had written. How he came by the additional +details we do not know. Nobody seems to care to know. +He must have had them revealed to him, or been told them by some +one, and that some one, whoever he was, doubtless knew what he +was saying, and all Europe at one time believed the story, and +this is sufficient proof that mistake was impossible.</p> +<p>“It is indisputable that from the very earliest ages of +the Church there existed a belief that Christ was at the right +hand of God; but no one who professes to have seen him on his way +thither has left a single word of record. It is easy to +believe that the facts may have been revealed in a night vision, +or communicated in one or other of the many ways in which +extraordinary circumstances <i>are</i> communicated, during the +years of oral communication and enthusiasm which elapsed between +the supposed Ascension of Christ and the writing of Luke’s +second work. It is not surprising that a firm belief in +Christ’s having survived death should have arisen in +consequence of the actual circumstances connected with the +Crucifixion and entombment. Was it then strange that this +should develop itself into the belief that he was now in Heaven, +sitting at the right hand of God the Father? And finally +was it strange that a circumstantial account of the manner in +which he left this earth should be eagerly accepted?”</p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p>[In an appendix at the end of the book I have given the +extracts from the Gospels which are necessary for a full +comprehension of the preceding chapters.—W. B. O.]</p> +<h3><a name="page230"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +230</span>Chapter IX<br /> +The Christ-Ideal</h3> +<p>I <span class="smcap">have</span> completed a task painful to +myself and the reader. Painful to myself inasmuch as I am +humiliated upon remembering the power which arguments, so shallow +and so easily to be refuted, once had upon me; painful to the +reader, as everything must be painful which even appears to throw +doubt upon the most sublime event that has happened in human +history. How little does all that has been written above +touch the real question at issue, yet, what self-discipline and +mental training is required before we learn to distinguish the +essential from the unessential.</p> +<p>Before, however, we come to close quarters with our opponents +concerning the views put forward in the preceding chapters, it +will be well to consider two questions of the gravest and most +interesting character, questions which will probably have already +occurred to the reader with such force as to demand immediate +answer. They are these.</p> +<p>Firstly, what will be the consequences of admitting any +considerable deviation from historical accuracy on the part of +the sacred writers?</p> +<p>Secondly, how can it be conceivable that God should have +permitted inaccuracy or obscurity in the evidence concerning the +Divine commission of His Son?</p> +<p>If God so loved the World that He sent His only begotten Son +into it to rescue those who believed in Him from destruction, how +is it credible that He should not have so arranged matters as +that all should find it easy to believe? If He wanted to +save mankind and knew that the only way in which mankind could be +saved was by believing certain facts, how can it be that the +records of the facts should have been allowed to fall into +confusion?</p> +<p>To both these questions I trust that the following answers may +appear conclusive.</p> +<p>I. As regards the consequences which may be supposed to +follow upon giving up any part of the sacred writings, no matter +how seemingly unimportant, it is undoubtedly true that to many +minds they have appeared too dangerous to be even +contemplated. Thus through fear of some supposed +unutterable consequences which would happen to the cause of truth +if truth were spoken, people profess to believe in the +genuineness of many passages in the Bible which are universally +acknowledged by competent judges of every shade of theological +opinion to be interpolations into the original text. To say +nothing of the Old Testament, where many whole books are of +disputed genuineness or authenticity, there are portions of the +New which none will seriously defend;—for example, the last +verses of St. Mark’s Gospel,—containing, as they do, +the sentence of damnation against all who do not +believe—the second half of the third, and the whole of the +fourth verse of the fifth chapter of St. John’s Gospel, the +story of the woman taken in adultery, and probably the whole of +the last chapter of St. John’s Gospel, not to mention the +Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles to Timothy, Titus, and to +the Ephesians, the Epistles of Peter and James, the famous verses +as to the three witnesses in the First Epistle of St. John, and +perhaps also the book of Revelation. These are passages and +works about which there is either no doubt at all as to their not +being genuine, or over which there hangs so much uncertainty that +no dependence can be placed upon them.</p> +<p>But over and above these, there are not a few parts of each of +the Gospels which, though of undisputed genuineness, cannot be +accepted as historical; thus the account of the Resurrection +given by St. Matthew, and parts of those by Luke and Mark, the +cursing of the barren fig-tree, and the prophecies of His +Resurrection ascribed to our Lord Himself, will not stand the +tests of criticism which we are bound to apply to them if we are +to exercise the right of private judgement; instead of handing +ourselves over to a priesthood as the sole custodians and +interpreters of the Bible. It has been said by some that +the miracle of the penny found in the fish’s mouth should +be included in the above category, but it should be remembered +that we have only the injunction of our Lord to St. Peter that he +should catch the fish and the promise that he should find the +penny in its mouth, but that we have no account of the sequel, it +is therefore possible that in the event of St. Peter’s +faith having failed him he may have procured the money from some +other source, and that thus the miracle, though undoubtedly +intended, was never actually performed. How unnecessary +therefore as well as presumptuous are the Rationalistic +interpretations which have been put upon the event by certain +German writers!</p> +<p>Now there are few, if any, who would be so illiberal as to +wish for the exclusion from the sacred volume of all those books +or passages which, though neither genuine nor perhaps edifying, +have remained in the Canon of Scripture for many centuries. +Any serious attempt to reconstruct the Canon would raise a +theological storm which would not subside in this century. +The work could never be done perfectly, and even if it could, it +would have to be done at the expense of tearing all Christendom +in pieces. The passages do little or no harm where they +are, and have received the sanction of time; let them therefore +by all means remain in their present position. But the +question is still forced upon us whether the consequences of +openly admitting the certain spuriousness of many passages, and +the questionable nature of others as regards morality, +genuineness and authenticity, should be feared as being likely to +prejudice the main doctrines of Christianity.</p> +<p>The answer is very plain. He who has vouchsafed to us +the Christian dispensation may be safely trusted to provide that +no harm shall happen, either to it or to us, from an honest +endeavour to attain the truth concerning it. What have we +to do with consequences? These are in the hands of +God. Our duty is to seek out the truth in prayer and +humility, and when we believe that we have found it, to cleave to +it through evil and good report; <i>to fail in this is to fail in +faith</i>; to fail in faith is to be an infidel. Those who +suppose that it is wiser to gloss over this or that, and who +consider it “injudicious” to announce the whole truth +in connection with Christianity, should have learnt by this time +that no admission which can by any possibility be required of +them can be so perilous to the cause of Christ as the appearance +of shirking investigation. It has already been insisted +upon that cowardice is at the root of the infidelity which we see +around us; the want of faith in the power of truth which exists +in certain pious but timid hearts has begotten utter unbelief in +the minds of all superficial investigators into Christian +evidences. Such persons see that the defenders have +something in the background, something which they would cling to +although they are secretly aware that they cannot justly claim +it. This is enough for many, and hence more harm is done by +fear than could ever have been done by boldness. Boldness +goes out into the fight, and if in the wrong gets slain, +childless. Fear stays at home and is prolific of a brood of +falsehoods.</p> +<p>It is immoral to regard consequences at all, where truth and +justice are concerned; the being impregnated with this conviction +to the inmost core of one’s heart is an axiom of common +honesty—one of the essential features which distinguish a +good man from a bad one. Nevertheless, to make it plain +that the consequences of outspoken truthfulness in connection +with the scriptural writings would have no harmful effect +whatever, but would, on the contrary, be of the utmost service as +removing a stumbling-block from the way of many—let us for +the moment suppose that very much more would have to be given up +than can ever be demanded.</p> +<p>Suppose we were driven to admit that nothing in the life of +our Lord can be certainly depended upon beyond the facts that He +was begotten by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary; that He worked +many miracles upon earth, and delivered St. Matthew’s +version of the sermon on the mount and most of the parables as we +now have them; finally, that He was crucified, dead, and buried, +that He rose again from the dead upon the third day, and ascended +unto Heaven. Granting for the sake of argument that we +could rely on no other facts, what would follow? Nothing +which could in any way impair the living power of +Christianity.</p> +<p>The essentials of Christianity, <i>i.e.</i>, a belief in the +Divinity of the Saviour and in His Resurrection and Ascension, +have stood, and will stand, for ever against any attacks that can +be made upon them, and these are probably the only facts in which +belief has ever been absolutely necessary for salvation; the +answer, therefore, to the question what ill consequences would +arise from the open avowal of things which every student must +know to be the fact concerning the biblical writings is that +there would be none at all. The Christ-ideal which, after +all, is the soul and spirit of Christianity would remain +precisely where it was, while its recognition would be far more +general, owing to the departure on the part of its apologists +from certain lines of defence which are irreconcilable with the +ideal itself.</p> +<p>II. Returning to the objection how it could be possible +that God should have left the records of our Lord’s history +in such a vague and fragmentary condition, if it were really of +such intense importance for the world to understand it and +believe in it, we find ourselves face to face with a question of +far greater importance and difficulty.</p> +<p>The old theory that God desired to test our faith, and that +there would be no merit in believing if the evidence were such as +to commend itself at once to our understanding, is one which need +only be stated to be set aside. It is blasphemy against the +goodness of God to suppose that He has thus laid as it were an +ambuscade for man, and will only let him escape on condition of +his consenting to violate one of the very most precious of +God’s own gifts. There is an ingenious cruelty about +such conduct which it is revolting even to imagine. Indeed, +the whole theory reduces our Heavenly Father to a level of wisdom +and goodness far below our own; and this is sufficient answer to +it.</p> +<p>But when, turning aside from the above, we try to adopt some +other and more reasonable view, we naturally set ourselves to +consider why the Almighty should have required belief in the +Divinity of His Son from man. What is there in this belief +on man’s part which can be so grateful to God that He +should make it a <i>sine quâ non</i> for man’s +salvation? As regards Himself, how can it matter to Him +what man should think of Him? Nay, it must be for +man’s own good that the belief is demanded.</p> +<p>And why? Surely we can see plainly that it is the beauty +of the Christ-ideal which constitutes the working power of +Christianity over the hearts and lives of men, leading them to +that highest of all worships which consists in imitation. +Now the sanction which is given to this ideal by belief in the +Divinity of our Lord, raises it at once above all possibility of +criticism. If it had not been so sanctioned it might have +been considered open to improvement; one critic would have had +this, and another that; comparison would have been made with +ideals of purely human origin such as the Greek ideal, +exemplified in the work of Phidias, and in later times with the +mediæval Italian ideal, as deducible from the best +fifteenth and early sixteenth Italian painting and sculpture, the +Madonnas of Bellini and Raphael, or the St. George of Donatello; +or again with the ideal derivable from the works of our own +Shakespeare, and there are some even now among those who deny the +Divinity of Christ who will profess that each one of these ideals +is more universal, more fitted for the spiritual food of a man, +and indeed actually higher, than that presented by the life and +death of our Saviour. But once let the Divine origin of +this last ideal be admitted, and there can be no further +uncertainty; hence the absolute necessity for belief in +Christ’s Divinity as closing the most important of all +questions, Whereunto should a man endeavour to liken both himself +and his children?</p> +<p>Seeing then that we have reasonable ground for thinking that +belief in the Divinity of our Lord is mainly required of us in +order to exalt our sense of the paramount importance of following +and obeying the life and commands of Christ, it is natural also +to suppose <i>that whatever may have happened to the records of +that life</i> should have been ordained with a view to the +enhancing of the preciousness of the ideal.</p> +<p>Now, the fragmentary character, and the partial +obscurity—I might have almost written, the incomparable +<i>chiaroscuro</i>—of the Evangelistic writings have added +to the value of our Lord’s character as an ideal, not only +in the case of Christians, but as bringing the Christ-ideal +within the reach and comprehension of an infinitely greater +number of minds than it could ever otherwise have appealed +to. It is true that those who are insensible to spiritual +influences, and whose materialistic instinct leads them to deny +everything which is not as clearly demonstrable by external +evidence as a fact in chemistry, geography, or mathematics, will +fail to find the hardness, definition, tightness, and, let me +add, littleness of outline, in which their souls delight; they +will find rather the gloom and gleam of Rembrandt, or the golden +twilight of the Venetians, the losing and the finding, and the +infinite liberty of shadow; and this they hate, inasmuch as it +taxes their imagination, which is no less deficient than their +power of sympathy; they would have all found, as in one of those +laboured pictures wherein each form is as an inflated bladder +and, has its own uncompromising outline remorselessly insisted +upon.</p> +<p>Looking to the ideals of purely human creation which have come +down to us from old times, do we find that the Theseus suffers +because we are unable to realise to ourselves the precise +features of the original? Or again do the works of John +Bellini suffer because the hand of the painter was less dexterous +than his intention pure? It is not what a man has actually +put upon his canvas, but what he makes us feel that he felt, +which makes the difference between good and bad in +painting. Bellini’s hand was cunning enough to make +us feel what he intended, and did his utmost to realise; but he +has not realised it, and the same hallowing effect which has been +wrought upon the Theseus by decay (to the enlarging of its +spiritual influence), has been wrought upon the work of Bellini +by incapacity—the incapacity of the painter to utter +perfectly the perfect thought which was within. The early +Italian paintings have that stamp of individuality upon them +which assures us that they are not only portraits, but as +faithful portraits as the painter could make them, more than this +we know not, but more is unnecessary.</p> +<p>Do we not detect an analogy to this in the records of the +Evangelists? Do we not see the child-like unself-seeking +work of earnest and loving hearts, whose innocence and simplicity +more than atone for their many shortcomings, their distorted +renderings, and their omissions? We can see <i>through</i> +these things as through a glass darkly, or as one looking upon +some ineffable masterpiece of Venetian portraiture by the fading +light of an autumnal evening, when the beauty of the picture is +enhanced a hundredfold by the gloom and mystery of dusk. We +may indeed see less of the actual lineaments themselves, but the +echo is ever more spiritually tuneful than the sound, and the +echo we find within us. Our imagination is in closer +communion with our longings than the hand of any painter.</p> +<p>Those who relish definition, and definition only, are indeed +kept away from Christianity by the present condition of the +records, but even if the life of our Lord had been so definitely +rendered as to find a place in their system, would it have +greatly served their souls? And would it not repel hundreds +and thousands of others, who find in the suggestiveness of the +sketch a completeness of satisfaction, which no photographic +reproduction could have given? The above may be difficult +to understand, but let me earnestly implore the reader to +endeavour to master its import.</p> +<p>People misunderstand the aim and scope of religion. +Religion is only intended to guide men in those matters upon +which science is silent. God illumines us by science as +with a mechanical draughtsman’s plan; He illumines us in +the Gospels as by the drawing of a great artist. We cannot +build a “Great Eastern” from the drawings of the +artist, but what poetical feeling, what true spiritual emotion +was ever kindled by a mechanical drawing? How cold and dead +were science unless supplemented by art and by religion! +Not joined with them, for the merest touch of these things +impairs scientific value—which depends essentially upon +accuracy, and not upon any feeling for the beautiful and +lovable. In like manner the merest touch of science chills +the warmth of sentiment—the spiritual life. The +mechanical drawing is spoiled by being made artistic, and the +work of the artist by becoming mechanical. The aim of the +one is to teach men how to construct, of the other how to +feel.</p> +<p>For the due conservation therefore of both the essential +requisites of human well-being—science, and +religion—it is requisite that they be kept asunder and +reserved for separate use at different times. Religion is +the mistress of the arts, and every art which does not serve +religion truly is doomed to perish as a lying and unprofitable +servant. Science is external to religion, being a separate +dispensation, a distinct revelation to mankind, whereby we are +put into full present possession of more and more of God’s +modes of dealing with material things, according as we become +more fitted to receive them through the apprehension of those +modes which have been already laid open to us.</p> +<p>We ought not therefore to have expected scientific accuracy +from the Gospel records—much less should we be required to +believe that such accuracy exists. Does any great artist +ever dream of aiming directly at imitation? He aims at +representation—not at imitation. In order to attain +true mastery here, he must spend years in learning how to see; +and then no less time in learning how <i>not</i> to see. +Finally, he learns how to translate. Take Turner for +example. Who conveys so living an impression of the face of +nature? Yet go up to his canvas and what does one find +thereon? Imitation? Nay—blotches and daubs of +paint; the combination of these daubs, each one in itself when +taken alone absolutely untrue, forms an impression which is quite +truthful. No combination of minute truths in a picture will +give so faithful a representation of nature as a wisely arranged +tissue of untruths.</p> +<p>Absolute reproduction is impossible even to the +photograph. The work of a great artist is far more truthful +than any photograph; but not even the greatest artist can convey +to our minds the whole truth of nature; no human hand nor +pigments can expound all that lies hidden in +“Nature’s infinite book of secrecy”; the utmost +that can be done is to convey an impression, and if the +impression is to be conveyed truthfully, the means must often be +of the most unforeseen character. The old Pre-Raphaelites +aimed at absolute reproduction. They were succeeded by a +race of men who saw all that their predecessors had seen, but +also something higher. The Van Eycks and Memling paved the +way for painters who found their highest representatives in +Rubens, Vandyke, and Rembrandt—the mightiest of them +all. Giovanni Bellini, Carpaccio and Mantegna were +succeeded by Titian, Giorgione, and Tintoretto; Perugino was +succeeded by Raphael. It is everywhere the same story; a +reverend but child-like worship of the letter, followed by a +manful apprehension of the spirit, and, alas! in due time by an +almost total disregard of the letter; then rant and cant and +bombast, till the value of the letter is reasserted. In +theology the early men are represented by the Evangelicals, the +times of utter decadence by infidelity—the middle race of +giants is yet to come, and will be found in those who, while +seeing something far beyond either minute accuracy or minute +inaccuracy, are yet fully alive both to the letter and to the +spirit of the Gospels.</p> +<p>Again, do not the seeming wrongs which the greatest ideals of +purely human origin have suffered at the hands of time, add to +their value instead of detracting from it? Is it not +probable that if we were to see the glorious fragments from the +Parthenon, the Theseus and the Ilyssus, or even the Venus of +Milo, in their original and unmutilated condition, we should find +that they appealed to us much less forcibly than they do at +present? All ideals gain by vagueness and lose by +definition, inasmuch as more scope is left for the imagination of +the beholder, who can thus fill in the missing detail according +to his own spiritual needs. This is how it comes that +nothing which is recent, whether animate or inanimate, can serve +as an ideal unless it is adorned by more than common mystery and +uncertainty. A new Cathedral is necessarily very +ugly. There is too much found and too little lost. +Much less could an absolutely perfect Being be of the highest +value as an ideal, as long as He could be clearly seen, for it is +impossible that He could be known as perfect by imperfect men, +and His very perfections must perforce appear as blemishes to any +but perfect critics. To give therefore an impression of +perfection, to create an absolutely unsurpassable ideal, it +became essential that the actual image of the original should +become blurred and lost, whereon the beholder now supplies from +his own imagination that which is <i>to him</i> more perfect than +the original, though objectively it must be infinitely less +so.</p> +<p>It is probably to this cause that the incredulity of the +Apostles during our Lord’s life-time must be +assigned. The ideal was too near them, and too far above +their comprehension; for it must be always remembered that the +convincing power of miracles in the days of the Apostles must +have been greatly weakened by the current belief in their being +events of no very unusual occurrence, and in the existence both +of good and evil spirits who could take possession of men and +compel them to do their bidding. A resurrection from the +dead or a restoration of sight to the blind, must have seemed +even less portentous to them, than an unusually skilful treatment +of disease by a physician is to us. We can therefore +understand how it happened that the faith of the Apostles was so +little to be depended upon even up to the Crucifixion, inasmuch +as the convincing power of miracles had been already, so to +speak, exhausted, a fact which may perhaps explain the early +withdrawal of the power to work them; we cannot indeed believe +that it could have been so far weakened as to make the Apostles +disregard the prophecies of their Master that He should rise from +the dead, if He had ever uttered them, and we have already seen +reason to think that these prophecies are the <i>ex post +facto</i> handiwork of time; but the incredulity of the +disciples, when seen through the light now thrown upon it, loses +that wholly inexplicable character which it would otherwise +bear.</p> +<p>But to return to the subject of the ideal presented by the +life and death of our Lord. In the earliest days of the +Church there can have been no want of the most complete and +irrefragable evidence for the objective reality of the miracles, +and especially of the Resurrection and Ascension. The +character of Christ would also stand out revealed to all, with +the most copious fulness of detail. The limits within which +so sharply defined an ideal could be acceptable were narrow, but +as the radius of Christian influence increased, so also would the +vagueness and elasticity of the ideal; and as the elasticity of +the ideal, so also the range of its influence.</p> +<p>A beneficent and truly marvellous provision for the greater +complexity of man’s spiritual needs was thus provided by a +gradual loss of detail and gain of breadth. Enough evidence +was given in the first instance to secure authoritative sanction +for the ideal. During the first thirty or forty years after +the death of our Lord no one could be in want of evidence, and +the guilt of unbelief is therefore brought prominently +forward. Then came the loss of detail which was necessary +in order to secure the universal acceptability of the ideal; but +the same causes which blurred the distinctness of the features, +involved the inevitable blurring of no small portions of the +external evidences whereby the Divine origin of the ideal was +established. The primary external evidence became less and +less capable of compelling instantaneous assent, according as it +was less wanted, owing to the greater mass of secondary evidence, +and to the growth of appreciation of the internal evidences, a +growth which would be fostered by the growing adaptability of the +ideal.</p> +<p>Some thirty or forty years, then, from the death of our +Saviour the case would stand thus. The Christ-ideal would +have become infinitely more vague, and hence infinitely more +universal: but the causes which had thus added to its value would +also have destroyed whatever primary evidence was superabundant, +and the vagueness which had overspread the ideal would have +extended itself in some measure over the evidences which had +established its Divine origin.</p> +<p>But there would of course be limits to the gain caused by +decay. Time came when there would be danger of too much +vagueness in the ideal, and too little distinctness in the +evidences. It became necessary therefore to provide against +this danger.</p> +<p><i>Precisely at that epoch the Gospels made their +appearance</i>. Not simultaneously, not in concert, and not +in perfect harmony with each other, yet with the error +distributed skilfully among them, as in a well-tuned instrument +wherein each string is purposely something out of tune with every +other. Their divergence of aim, and different authorship, +secured the necessary breadth of effect when the accounts were +viewed together; their universal recognition afforded the +necessary permanency, and arrested further decay. If I may +be pardoned for using another illustration, I would say that as +the roundness of the stereoscopic image can only be attained by +the combination of two distinct pictures, neither of them in +perfect harmony with the other, so the highest possible +conception of Christ, cannot otherwise be produced than through +the discrepancies of the Gospels.</p> +<p>From the moment of the appearing of the Gospels, and, I should +add, of the Epistles of St. Paul, the external evidences of +Christianity became secured from further change; as they were +then, so are they now, they can neither be added to nor +subtracted from; they have lain as it were sleeping, till the +time should come to awaken them. And the time is surely +now, for there has arisen a very numerous and increasing class of +persons, whose habits of mind unfit them for appreciating the +value of vagueness, but who have each one of them a soul which +may be lost or saved, and on whose behalf the evidences for the +authority whereby the Christ-ideal is sanctioned, should be +restored to something like their former sharpness. +Christianity contains provision for all needs upon their +arising. The work of restoration is easy. It demands +this much only—the recognition that time has made +incrustations upon some parts of the evidences, and that it has +destroyed others; when this is admitted, it becomes easy, after a +little practice, to detect the parts that have been added, and to +remove them, the parts that are wanting, and to supply +them. Only let this be done outside the pages of the Bible +itself, and not to the disturbance of their present form and +arrangement.</p> +<p>The above explanation of the causes for the obscurity which +rests upon much of our Lord’s life and teaching, may give +us ground for hoping that some of those who have failed to feel +the force of the external evidences hitherto, may yet be saved, +provided they have fully recognised the Christ-ideal and +endeavoured to imitate it, although irrespectively of any belief +in its historical character.</p> +<p>It is reasonable to suppose that the duty of belief was so +imperatively insisted upon, in order that the ideal might thus be +exalted above controversy, and made more sacred in the eyes of +men than it could have been if referable to a purely human +source. May not, then, one who recognises the ideal as his +<i>summum bonum</i> find grace although he knows not, or even +cares not, how it should have come to be so? For even a +sceptic who regarded the whole New Testament as a work of art, a +poem, a pure fiction from beginning to end, and who revered it +for its intrinsic beauty only, as though it were a picture or +statue, even such a person might well find that it engendered in +him an ideal of goodness and power and love and human sympathy, +which could be derived from no other source. If, then, our +blessed Lord so causes the sun of His righteousness to shine upon +these men, shall we presume to say that He will not in another +world restore them to that full communion with Himself which can +only come from a belief in His Divinity?</p> +<p>We can understand that it should have been impossible to +proclaim this in the earliest ages of the Church, inasmuch as no +weakening of the sanctions of the ideal could be tolerated, but +are we bound to extend the operation of the many passages +condemnatory of unbelief to a time so remote as our own, and to +circumstances so widely different from those under which they +were uttered? Do we so extend the command not to eat things +strangled or blood, or the assertion of St. Paul that the +unmarried state is higher than the married? May we not +therefore hope that certain kinds of unbelief have become less +hateful in the sight of God inasmuch as they are less dangerous +to the universal acceptance of our Lord as the one model for the +imitation of all men? For, after all, it is not belief in +the facts which constitutes the essence of Christianity, but +rather the being so impregnated with love at the contemplation of +Christ that imitation becomes almost instinctive; this it is +which draws the hearts of men to God the Father, far more than +any intellectual belief that God sent our Lord into the world, +ordaining that he should be crucified and rise from the +dead. Christianity is addressed rather to the infinite +spirit of man than to his finite intelligence, and the believing +in Christ through love is more precious in the sight of God than +any loving through belief. May we not hope, then, that +those whose love is great may in the end find acceptance, though +their belief is small? We dare not answer this positively; +but we know that there are times of transition in the clearness +of the Christian evidences as in all else, and the treatment of +those whose lot is cast in such times will surely not escape the +consideration of our Heavenly Father.</p> +<p>But with reference to the many-sidedness of the Christ-ideal, +as having been part of the design of God, and not attainable +otherwise than as the creation of destruction—as coming out +of the waste of time—it is clear that the perception of +such a design could only be an offspring of modern thought; the +conception of such an apparently self-frustrating scheme could +only arise in minds which were familiar with the manner in which +it is necessary “to hound nature in her wanderings” +before her feints can be eluded, and her prevarications brought +to book. A deep distrust of the over-obvious is wanted, +before men can be brought to turn aside from objections which at +the first blush appear to be very serious, and to take refuge in +solutions which seem harder than the problems which they are +intended to solve. What a shock must the discovery of the +rotation of the earth have given to the moral sense of the age in +which it was made. How it contradicted all human +experience. How it must have outraged common sense. +How it must have encouraged scepticism even about the most +obvious truths of morality. No question could henceforth be +considered settled; everything seemed to require reopening; for +if man had once been deceived by Nature so entirely, if he had +been so utterly led astray and deluded by the plausibility of her +pretence that the earth was immovably fixed, what else, that +seemed no less incontrovertible, might not prove no less +false?</p> +<p>It is probable that the opposition to Galileo on the part of +the Roman church was as much due to some such feelings as these, +as to theological objections; the discovery was felt to unsettle +not only the foundations of the earth, but those of every branch +of human knowledge and polity, and hence to be an outrage upon +morality itself. A man has no right to be very much in +advance of other people; he is as a sheep, which may lead the +mob, but must not stray forward a quarter of a mile in front of +it; if he does this, he must be rounded up again, no matter how +right may have been his direction. He has no right to be +right, unless he can get a certain following to keep him company; +the shock to morality and the encouragement to lawlessness do +more harm than his discovery can atone for. Let him hold +himself back till he can get one or two more to come with +him. In like manner, had reflections as to the advantage +gained by the Christ ideal in consequence of the inaccuracies and +inconsistencies of the Gospels—reflections which must now +occur to any one—been put forward a hundred years ago, they +would have met justly with the severest condemnation. But +now, even those to whom they may not have occurred already will +have little difficulty in admitting their force.</p> +<p>But be this as it may, it is certain that the inability to +understand how the sense of Christ in the souls of men could be +strengthened by the loss of much knowledge of His character, and +of the facts connected with His history, lies at the root of the +error even of the Apostle St. Paul, who exclaims with his usual +fervour, but with less than his usual wisdom, “Has Christ +been divided?” (I. Cor. i., 13). “Yea,” +we may make answer, “He is divided and is yet divisible +that all may share in Him.” St. Paul himself had +realised that it was the spiritual value of the Christ-ideal +which was the purifier and refresher of our souls, inasmuch as he +elsewhere declares that even though he had known Christ Himself +after the flesh, he knew Him no more; the spiritual Christ, that +is to say the spirit of Christ as recognisable by the spirits of +men, was to him all in all. But he lived too near the days +of our Lord for a full comprehension of the Christian scheme, and +it is possible that had he known Christ after the flesh, his soul +might have been less capable of recognising the spiritual +essence, rather than more so. Have we here a faint +glimmering of the motive of the Almighty in not having allowed +the Gentile Apostle to see Christ after the flesh? We +cannot say. But we may say this much with certainty, that +had he been living now, St. Paul would have rejoiced at the +many-sidedness of Christ, which he appears to have hardly +recognised in his own life-time.</p> +<p>The apparently contradictory portraits of our Lord which we +find in the Gospels—so long a stumbling-block to +unbelievers—are now seen to be the very means which enable +men of all ranks, and all shades of opinion, to accept Christ as +their ideal; they are like the sea, which from having seemed the +most impassable of all objects, turns out to be the greatest +highway of communication. To the artisan, for instance, who +may have long been out of work, or who may have suffered from the +greed and selfishness of his employers, or again, to the farm +labourer who has been discharged perhaps at the approach of +winter, the parable of “the Labourers in the +Vineyard” offers itself as a divinely sanctioned picture of +the dealings of God with man; few but those who have mixed much +with the less educated classes, can have any idea of the +priceless comfort which this parable affords daily to those whose +lot it has been to remain unemployed when their more fortunate +brethren have been in full work. How many of the poor, +again, are drawn to Christianity by the parable of Dives and +Lazarus. How many a humble-minded Christian while +reflecting upon the hardness of his lot, and tempted to cast a +longing eye upon the luxuries which are at the command of his +richer neighbours, is restrained from seriously coveting them, by +remembering the awful fate of Dives, and the happy future which +was in store for Lazarus. “Dives,” they +exclaim, “in his life-time possessed good things and in +like manner Lazarus evil things, but now the one is comforted in +the bosom of Abraham, and the other tormented in a lake of +fire.” They remember, also, that it is easier for a +camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to +enter into the kingdom of Heaven.</p> +<p>It has been said by some that the poor are thus encouraged to +gloat over the future misery of the rich, and that many of the +sayings ascribed to our Lord have an unhealthy influence over +their minds. I remember to have thought so once myself, but +I have seen reason to change my mind. Hope is given by +these sayings to many whose lives would be otherwise very nearly +hopeless, and though I fully grant that the parable of Dives and +Lazarus can only afford comfort to the very poor, yet it is most +certain that it <i>does</i> afford comfort to this numerous +class, and helps to keep them contented with many things which +they would not otherwise endure.</p> +<p>On the other hand, though the poor are first provided for, the +rich are not left without their full share of consolation. +Joseph of Arimathæa was rich, and modern criticism forbids +us to believe that the parable of Dives and Lazarus was ever +actually spoken by our Lord—at any rate not in its present +form. Neither are the children of the rich forgotten; the +son who repents at length of a course of extravagant or riotous +living is encouraged to return to virtue, and to seek +reconciliation with his father, by reflecting upon the parable of +the Prodigal Son, wherein he will find an everlasting model for +the conduct of all earthly fathers. I will say nothing of +the parable of the Unjust Steward, for it is one of which the +interpretation is most uncertain; nevertheless I am sure that it +affords comfort to a very large number of persons.</p> +<p>Christ came not to the whole, but to those that were sick; he +came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. +Even our fallen sisters are remembered in the story of the woman +taken in adultery, which reminds them that they can only be +condemned justly by those who are without sin. It is to the +poor, the weak, the ignorant and the infirm that Christianity +appeals most strongly, and to whose needs it is most especially +adapted—but these form by far the greater portion of +mankind. “Blessed are they that mourn!” +Whose sorrow is not assuaged by the mere sound of these +words? Who again is not reassured by being reminded that +our Heavenly Father feeds the sparrows and clothes the lilies of +the field, and that if we will only seek the kingdom of God and +His righteousness we need take no heed for the morrow what we +shall eat, and what we shall drink, nor wherewithal we shall be +clothed. God will provide these things for us if we are +true Christians, whether we take heed concerning them or +not. “I have been young and now am old,” saith +the Psalmist, “yet never saw I the righteous forsaken nor +his seed begging their bread.”</p> +<p>How infinitely nobler and more soul-satisfying is the ideal of +the Christian saint with wasted limbs, and clothed in the garb of +poverty—his upturned eyes piercing the very heavens in the +ecstasy of a divine despair—than any of the fleshly ideals +of gross human conception such as have already been alluded +to. If a man does not feel this instinctively for himself, +let him test it thus—whom does his heart of hearts tell him +that his son will be most like God in resembling? The +Theseus? The Discobolus? or the St. Peters and St. Pauls of +Guido and Domenichino? Who can hesitate for a moment as to +which ideal presents the higher development of human +nature? And this I take it should suffice; the natural +instinct which draws us to the Christ-ideal in preference to all +others as soon as it has been once presented to us, is a +sufficient guarantee of its being the one most tending to the +general well-being of the world.</p> +<h3><a name="page255"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +255</span>Chapter X<br /> +Conclusion</h3> +<p><span class="smcap">It</span> only remains to return to the +seventh and eighth chapters, and to pass in review the reasons +which will lead us to reject the conclusions therein expressed by +our opponents.</p> +<p>These conclusions have no real bearing upon the question at +issue. Our opponents can make out a strong case, so long as +they confine themselves to maintaining that exaggeration has to a +certain extent impaired the historic value of some of the Gospel +records of the Resurrection. They have made out this much, +but have they made out more? They have mistaken the +question—which is this—“Did Jesus Christ die +and rise from the dead?” And in the place of it they +have raised another, namely, “Has there been any inaccuracy +in the records of the time and manner of His +reappearing?”</p> +<p>Our error has been that instead of demurring to the relevancy +of the issue raised by our opponents, we have accepted it. +We have thus placed ourselves in a false position, and have +encouraged our opponents by doing so. We have undertaken to +fight them upon ground of their own choosing. We have been +discomfited; but instead of owning to our defeat, and beginning +the battle anew from a fresh base of operations, we have declared +that we have not been defeated; hence those lamentable and +suicidal attempts at disingenuous reasoning which we have seen +reason to condemn so strongly in the works of Dean Alford and +others. How deplorable, how unchristian they are!</p> +<p>The moment that we take a truer ground, the conditions of the +strife change. The same spirit of candid criticism which +led us to reject the account of Matthew <i>in toto</i>, will make +it easy for us to admit that those of Mark, Luke, and John, may +not be so accurate as we could have wished, and yet to feel that +our cause has sustained no injury. There are probably very +few who would pin their faith to the fact that Julius Cæsar +fell exactly at the feet of Pompey’s statue, or that he +uttered the words “Et tu, Brute.” Yet there are +still fewer who would dispute the fact that Julius Caesar was +assassinated by conspirators of whom Brutus and Cassius were +among the leaders. As long as we can be sure that our Lord +<i>died and rose from the dead</i>, we may leave it to our +opponents to contend about the details of the manner in which +each event took place.</p> +<p>We had thought that these details were known, and so thinking, +we had a certain consolation in realising to ourselves the +precise manner in which every incident occurred; yet on +reflection we must feel that the desire to realise is of the +essence of idolatry, which, not content with knowing that there +is a God, will be satisfied with nothing if it has not an effigy +of His face and figure. If it has not this it falls +straight-way to the denial of God’s existence, being unable +to conceive how a Being should exist and yet be incapable of +representation. We are as those who would fall down and +worship the idol; our opponents, as those who upon the +destruction of the idol would say that there was no God.</p> +<p>We have met sceptics hitherto by adhering to the opinions as +to the necessity of accuracy which prevailed among our +forefathers, and instead of saying, “You are right—we +do <i>not</i> know all that we thought we did—nevertheless +we know enough—we know the fact, though the manner of the +fact be hidden,” we have preferred to say, “You are +mistaken, our severe outline, our hard-and-fast lines are all +perfectly accurate, there is not a detail of our theories which +we are not prepared to stand by.” On this comes +recrimination and mutual anger, and the strife grows hotter and +hotter.</p> +<p>Let us now rather say to the unbeliever, “We do not deny +the truth of much which you assert. We give up +Matthew’s account of the Resurrection; we may perhaps +accept parts of those of Mark and Luke and John, but it is +impossible to say which parts, unless those in which all three +agree with one another; and this being so, it becomes wiser to +regard all the accounts as early and precious memorials of the +certainty felt by the Apostles that Christ died and rose again, +but as having little historic value with regard to the time and +manner of the Resurrection.”</p> +<p>Once take this ground, and instead of demurring to the truth +of many of the assertions of our opponents, demur to their +relevancy, and the unbeliever will find the ground cut away from +under his feet independently of the fact that the reasonableness +of the concession, and the discovery that we are not fighting +merely to maintain a position, will incline him to calmness and +to the reconsideration of his own opinions—which will in +itself be a great gain—he will soon perceive that we are +really standing upon firm ground, from which no enemy can +dislodge us. The discovery that we know less of the time +and manner of our Lord’s death and Resurrection than we +thought we did, does not invalidate a single one of the +irresistible arguments whereby we can establish the fact of His +having died and risen again. The reader will now perhaps +begin to perceive that the sad division between Christians and +unbelievers has been one of those common cases in which both are +right and both wrong; Christians being right in their chief +assertion, and wrong in standing out for the accuracy of their +details, while unbelievers are right in denying that our details +are accurate, but wrong in drawing the inference that because +certain facts have been inaccurately recorded, therefore certain +others never happened at all. Both the errors are natural; +it is high time, however, that upon both sides they should be +recognised and avoided.</p> +<p>But as regards the demolition of the structure raised in the +seventh and eighth chapters of this book, whereinsoever, that is +to say, it seems to menace the more vital part of our faith, the +ease with which this will effected may perhaps lead the reader to +think that I have not fulfilled the promise made in the outset, +and have failed to put the best possible case for our +opponents. This supposition would be unjust; I have done +the very best for them that I could. For it is plain that +they can only take one of two positions, namely, <i>either</i> +that Christ really died upon the Cross but was never seen alive +again afterwards at all, and that the stories of His having been +so seen are purely mythical, <i>or</i>, if they admit that He was +seen alive after His Crucifixion, they must deny the completeness +of the death; in other words, if they are to escape miracle, they +must either deny the reappearances or the death.</p> +<p>Now in the commencement of this work I dealt with those who +deny that our Lord rose from the dead, and as the exponent of +those who take this view I selected Strauss, who is undoubtedly +the ablest writer they have. Whether I shewed sufficient +reason for thinking that his theory was unsound must remain for +the decision of the reader, but I certainly believe that I +succeeded in doing so. Perhaps the ablest of all the +writers who have treated the facts given us in the Gospels from +the Rationalistic point of view, is the author of an anonymous +work called <i>The Jesus of History</i> (Williams and Norgate, +1866); but this writer (and it is a characteristic feature of the +Rationalistic school to become vague precisely at this very +point) leaves us entirely in doubt as to whether he accepts the +reappearances of Christ or not, and his treatment of the facts +connected both with the Crucifixion and Resurrection is less +definite than that of any other part of the life of our +Lord. He does not seem to see his own way clearly, and +appears to consider that it must for ever remain a matter of +doubt whether the Death of Christ or His reappearance is to be +rejected.</p> +<p>It is evident that it was most desirable to examine +<i>both</i> sets of arguments, <i>i.e.</i>, those against the +Resurrection, and those against the completeness of the Death; I +have therefore mainly drawn the opinions of those who deny the +Death from the same pamphlet as that from which I drew the +criticisms on Dean Alford’s notes. I know of no other +English work, indeed, in which whatever can be said against us +upon this all-important head has been put forward, and was +therefore compelled to draw from this source, or to invent the +arguments for our opponents, which would have subjected me to the +accusation of stating them in such way as should best suit my own +purpose. The reader, however, must now feel that since +there can be no other position taken but one or other of the two +alluded to above, and since the one taken by Strauss has been +shewn to be untenable, there remains nothing but to shew that the +other is untenable also, whereupon it will follow that our +Saviour did actually die, and did actually shew Himself +subsequently alive; and this amounts to a demonstration of the +miraculous character of the Resurrection. If, then, this +one miracle be established, I think it unnecessary to defend the +others, because I cannot think that any will attack them.</p> +<p>But, as has been seen already, Strauss admits that our Lord +died upon the Cross, and denies the reality of the +reappearances. It is not probable that Strauss would have +taken refuge in the hallucination theory if he had felt that +there was the remotest chance of successfully denying our +Lord’s death; for the difficulties of his present position +are overwhelming, as was fully pointed out in the second, third, +and fourth chapters of this work. I regret, however, to say +that I can nowhere find any detailed account of the reasons which +have led him to feel so positively about our Lord’s +Death. Such reasons must undoubtedly be at his command, or +he would indisputably have referred the Resurrection to natural +causes. Is it possible that he has thought it better to +keep them to himself, as proving the Death of our Lord <i>too</i> +convincingly? If so, the course which he has adopted is a +cruel one.</p> +<p>We must endeavour, however, to dispense with Strauss’s +assistance, and will proceed to inquire what it is that those who +deny the Death of our Lord, call upon us to reject.</p> +<p>I regret to pass so quickly over one great field of evidence +which in justice to myself I must allude to, though I cannot +dwell upon it, for in the outset I declared that I would confine +myself to the historical evidence, and to this only. I +refer to spiritual insight; to the testimony borne by the souls +of living persons, who from personal experience <i>know</i> that +their Redeemer liveth, and that though worms destroy this body, +yet in their flesh shall they see God. How many thousands +are there in the world at this moment, who have known Christ as a +personal friend and comforter, and who can testify to the work +which He has wrought upon them! I cannot pass over such +testimony as this in silence. I must assign it a foremost +place in reviewing the reasons for holding that our hope is not +in vain, but I may not dwell upon it, inasmuch as it would carry +no weight with those for whom this work is designed, I mean with +those to whom this precious experience of Christ has not yet been +vouchsafed. Such persons require the external evidence to +be made clear to demonstration before they will trust themselves +to listen to the voices of hope or fear, and it is of no use +appealing to the knowledge and hopes of others without making it +clear upon what that knowledge and those hopes are +grounded. Nevertheless, I may be allowed to point out that +those who deny the Death and Resurrection of our Lord, call upon +us to believe that an immense multitude of most truthful and +estimable people are no less deceivers of their own selves and +others, than Mohammedans, Jews and Buddhists are. How many +do we not each of us know to whom Christ is the spiritual meat +and drink of their whole lives. Yet our opponents call upon +us to ignore all this, and to refer the emotions and elation of +soul, which the love of Christ kindles in his true followers, to +an inheritance of delusion and blunder. Truly a melancholy +outlook.</p> +<p>Again, let a man travel over England, North, South, East, and +West, and in his whole journey he shall hardly find a single spot +from which he cannot see one or several churches. There is +hardly a hamlet which is not also a centre for the celebration of +our Redemption by the Death and Resurrection of Christ. Not +one of these churches, say the Rationalists, not one of the +clergymen who minister therein, not one single village school in +all England, but must be regarded as a fountain of error, if not +of deliberate falsehood. Look where they may, they cannot +escape from the signs of a vital belief in the +Resurrection. All these signs, they will tell us, are signs +of superstition only; it is superstition which they celebrate and +would confirm; they are founded upon fanaticism, or at the best +upon sheer delusion; they poison the fountain heads of moral and +intellectual well-being, by teaching men to set human experience +on the one side, and to refer their conduct to the supposed will +of a personal anthropomorphic God who was actually once a +baby—who was born of one of his own creatures—and who +is now locally and corporeally in Heaven, “of reasonable +soul and <i>human flesh</i> subsisting.”</p> +<p>Thus do our opponents taunt us, but when we think not only of +the present day, but of the nearly two thousand years during +which Christianity has flourished, not in England only, but over +all Europe, that is to say, over the quarter of the globe which +is most civilised, and whose civilisation is in itself proof both +of capacity to judge and of having judged rightly—what an +awful admission do unbelievers require us to make, when they bid +us think that all these ages and countries have gone astray to +the imagining of a vain thing. All the self-sacrifice of +the holiest men for sixty generations, all the wars that have +been waged for the sake of Christ and His truth, all the money +spent upon churches, clergy, monasteries and religious education, +all the blood of martyrs, all the celibacy of priests and nuns, +all the self-denying lives of those who are now ministers of the +Gospel—according to the Rationalist, no part of all this +devotion to the cause of Christ has had any justifiable base on +actual fact. The bare contemplation of such a stupendous +misapplication of self-sacrifice and energy, should be enough to +prevent any one from ever smiling again to whose mind such a +deplorable view was present: we wonder that our opponents do not +shrink back appalled from the contemplation of a picture which +they must regard as containing so much of sin, impudence and +folly; yet it is to the contemplation of such a picture, and to a +belief in its truthfulness to nature, that they would invite us; +they cannot even see a clergyman without saying to themselves, +“There goes one whose trade is the promotion of error; +whose whole life is devoted to the upholding of the +untrue.” To them the sight of people flocking to a +church must be as painful as it would be to us to see a +congregation of Jews or Mohammedans: they ought to have no +happiness in life so long as they believe that the vast majority +of their fellow-countrymen are so lamentably deluded; yet they +would call on us to join them, and half despise us upon our +refusing to do so.</p> +<p>But upon this view also I may not dwell; it would have been +easy and I think not unprofitable, had my aim been different, to +have drawn an ampler picture of the heart-rending amount of +falsehood, stupidity, cruelty and folly which must be referable +to a belief in Christianity, if, as our opponents maintain, there +is no solid ground for believing it; but my present purpose is to +prove that there <i>is</i> such ground, and having said enough to +shew that I do not ignore the fields of evidence which lie beyond +the purpose of my work, I will return to the Crucifixion and +Resurrection.</p> +<p>What, then, let me ask of freethinkers, <i>became of Christ +eventually</i>? Several answers may be made to this +question, <i>but there is none but the one given in Scripture +which will set it at rest</i>. Thus it has been said that +Christ survived the Cross, lingered for a few weeks, and in the +end succumbed to the injuries which He had sustained. On +this there arises the question, did the Apostles know of His +death? And if so, were they likely to mistake the +reappearance of a dying man, so shattered and weak as He must +have been, for the glory of an immortal being? We know that +people can idealise a great deal, but they cannot idealise as +much as this. The Apostles cannot have known of any death +of Christ except His Death upon the Cross, and it is not credible +that if He had died from the effects of the Crucifixion the +Apostles should not have been aware of it. No one will +pretend that they were, so it is needless to discuss this theory +further.</p> +<p>It has also been said that our Lord, having seen the effect of +His reappearance on the Apostles, considered that further +converse with them would only weaken it; and that He may have +therefore thought it wiser to withdraw Himself finally from them, +and to leave His teaching in their hands, with the certainty that +it would never henceforth be lost sight of; but this view is +inconsistent with the character which even our adversaries +themselves assign to our Saviour. The idea is one which +might occur to a theorist sitting in his study, and enlightened +by a knowledge of events, but it would not suggest itself to a +leader in the heat of action.</p> +<p>Another supposition has been that our Lord on recovering +consciousness after He had been left alone in the tomb, or +perhaps even before Joseph had gone, may have been unable to +realise to Himself the nature of the events that had befallen +Him, and may have actually believed that He had been dead, and +been miraculously restored to life; that He may yet have felt a +natural fear of again falling into the hands of His enemies; and +partly from this cause, and partly through awe at the miracle +that He supposed had been worked upon Him, have only shewn +Himself to His disciples hurriedly, in secret, and on rare +occasions, spending the greater part of His time in some one or +other of the secret places of resort, in which He had been wont +to live apart from the Apostles before the Crucifixion.</p> +<p>I have known it urged that our Lord never said or even thought +that He had risen from the dead, but shewed Himself alive +secretly and fearfully, and bade His disciples follow Him to +Galilee, where He might, and perhaps did, appear more openly, +though still rarely and with caution; that the rarity and mystery +of the reappearances would add to the impression of a miraculous +resurrection which had instantly presented itself to the minds of +the Apostles on seeing Christ alive; that this impression alone +would prevent them from heeding facts which must have been +obvious to any whose minds were not already unhinged by the +knowledge that Christ was alive, and by the belief that He had +been dead; and that they would be blinded by awe, which awe would +be increased by the rarity of the reappearances—a rarity +that was in reality due, perhaps to fear, perhaps to +self-delusion, perhaps to both, but which was none the less +politic for not having been dictated by policy; finally that the +report of Christ’s having been seen alive reached the Chief +Priests (or perhaps Joseph of Arimathæa), and that they +determined at all hazards to nip the coming mischief in the bud; +that they therefore watched their opportunity, and got rid of so +probable a cause of disturbance by the knife of the assassin, or +induced Him to depart by threats, which He did not venture to +resist.</p> +<p>But if our Lord was secretly assassinated how could it have +happened that the body should never have been found, and +produced, when the Apostles began declaring publicly that Christ +had risen? What could be easier than to bring it forward +and settle the whole matter? It cannot be doubted that the +body must have been looked for when the Apostles began publishing +their story; we saw reason for believing this when we considered +the account of the Resurrection given by St. Matthew. +<i>Now those that hide can find</i>; and if the enemies of Christ +had got rid of Him by foul play, they would know very well where +to lay their hands upon that which would be the death blow to +Christianity. If then Christ did not go away of His own +accord, as feeling that His teaching would be better preserved by +His absence, and if He did not die from wounds received upon the +Cross, and if He was not assassinated secretly, what remains as +the most reasonable view to be taken concerning His +disappearance? Surely the one that <i>was</i> taken; the +view which commended itself to those who were best able to +judge—namely, <i>that He had ascended bodily into Heaven +and was sitting at the right hand of God the Father</i>.</p> +<p>Where else could He be?</p> +<p>For that He disappeared, and disappeared finally, within six +weeks of the Crucifixion must be considered certain; there is no +one who will be bold enough even to hazard a conjecture that the +appearance of Christ alluded to by St. Paul, as having been +vouchsafed to him some years later, was that of the living +Christ, who had chosen upon this one occasion to depart from the +seclusion and secrecy which he had maintained hitherto. But +if Christ was still living on earth, how was it possible that no +human being should have the smallest clue to His +whereabouts? If He was dead how is it that no one should +have produced the body? Such a mysterious and total +disappearance, even in the face of great jeopardy, has never yet +been known, and can only be satisfactorily explained by adopting +the belief which has prevailed for nearly the last two thousand +years, and which will prevail more and more triumphantly so long +as the world shall last—the belief that Christ was restored +to the glory which He had shared with the Father, as soon as ever +He had given sufficient proofs of His being alive to ensure the +devotion of His followers.</p> +<p>Before we can reject the supernatural solution of a mystery +otherwise inexplicable, we should have some natural explanation +which will meet the requirements of the case. A confession +of ignorance is not enough here. <i>We</i> are <i>not</i> +ignorant; we <i>know</i> that Christ died, inasmuch as we have +the testimony of all the four Evangelists to this effect, the +testimony of the Apostle Paul, and through him that of all the +other Apostles; we have also the certainty that the centurion in +charge of the soldiers at the Crucifixion would not have +committed so grave a breach of discipline as the delivery of the +body to Joseph and Nicodemus, unless he had felt quite sure that +life was extinct; and finally we have the testimony of the Church +for sixty generations, and that of myriads now living, whose +experience assures them that Christ died and rose from the dead; +in addition to this tremendous body of evidence we have also the +story of the spear wound recorded in a Gospel which even our +opponents believe to be from a Johannean source in its later +chapters; and though, as has been already stated, this wound +cannot be insisted upon as in itself sufficient to prove our +Lord’s death, yet it must assuredly be allowed its due +weight in reviewing the evidence. The unbeliever cannot +surely have considered how shallow are all the arguments which he +can produce, in comparison with those that make against +him. He cannot say that I have not done him justice, and I +feel confident that when he reconsiders the matter in that spirit +of humility without which he cannot hope to be guided to a true +conclusion, he will feel sure that Strauss is right in believing +that the death of our Lord cannot be seriously called in +question.</p> +<p>But this being so, the reappearances, which we have seen to be +established by the collapse of the hallucination theory, must be +referred to supernatural or miraculous agency; that is to say, +our Lord died and rose again on the third day, according to the +Scriptures. Whereon His disappearance some six weeks later +must be looked upon very differently from that of any ordinary +person. If our Lord could have been shewn to have been a +mere man, who had escaped death only by a hair’s breadth, +but still escaped it, perhaps some one of the theories for His +disappearance, or some combination of them, or some other +explanation which has not yet been thought of, might be held to +be sufficient; but in the case of One who died and rose from the +dead, there is no theory which will stand, except the one which +it has been reserved for our own lawless and self-seeking times +to question. Through the light of the Resurrection the +Ascension is clearly seen.</p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p>My task is now completed. In an age when Rationalism has +become recognised as the only basis upon which faith can rest +securely, I have established the Christian faith upon a +Rationalistic basis.</p> +<p>I have made no concession to Rationalism which did not place +all the vital parts of Christianity in a far stronger position +than they were in before, yet I have conceded everything which a +sincere Rationalist is likely to desire. I have cleared the +ground for reconciliation. It only remains for the two +contending parties to come forward and occupy it in peace +jointly. May it be mine to see the day when all traces of +disagreement have been long obliterated!</p> +<p>To the unbeliever I can say, “Never yet in any work upon +the Christian side have your difficulties been so fully and +fairly stated; never yet has orthodox disingenuousness been so +unsparingly exposed.” To the Christian I can say with +no less justice, “Never yet have the true reasons for the +discrepancies in the Gospels been so put forward as to enable us +to look these discrepancies boldly in the face, and to thank God +for having graciously allowed them to exist.” I do +not say this in any spirit of self-glorification. We are +children of the hour, and creatures of our surroundings. As +it has been given unto us, so will it be required at our hands, +and we are at best unprofitable servants. Nevertheless I +cannot refrain from expressing my gratitude at having been born +in an age when Christianity and Rationalism are not only ceasing +to appear antagonistic to one another, <i>but have each become +essential to the very existence of the other</i>. May the +reader feel this no less strongly than I do, and may he also feel +that I have supplied the missing element which could alone cause +them to combine. If he asks me what element I allude to, I +answer Candour. This is the pilot that has taken us safely +into the Fair Haven of universal brotherhood in Christ.</p> +<h3><a name="page273"></a><span class="pagenum">p. +273</span>Appendix</h3> +<h4>I<br /> +The Burial</h4> +<p style="text-align: center">(John xix. 38–42)</p> +<p>And after this Joseph of Arimathæa, being a disciple of +Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he +might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him +leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus. +And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus +by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an +hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and +wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the +Jews is to bury. Now in the place where he was crucified +there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein +was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus therefore +because of the Jews’ preparation day; for the sepulchre was +nigh at hand.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">(Luke xxiii. 50–56)</p> +<p>And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and +he was a good man, and a just: (the same had not consented to the +counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathæa, a city of +the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God. +This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. +And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a +sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was +laid. And that day was the preparation, and the sabbath +drew on. And the women also, which came with him from +Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his +body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and +ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the +commandment.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">(Mark xv. 42–47)</p> +<p>And now when the even was come, because it was the +preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of +Arimathæa, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for +the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and +craved the body of Jesus. And Pilate marvelled if he were +already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him +whether he had been any while dead. And when he knew it of +the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. And he bought +fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and +laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled +a stone unto the door of the sepulchre. And Mary Magdalene +and Mary the mother of Joseph beheld where he was laid.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">(Matthew xxvii. 57–61)</p> +<p>When the even was come, there came a rich man of +Arimathæa, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ +disciple. He went to Pilate, and begged the body of +Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be +delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped +it in a clean linen cloth. And laid it in his own new tomb, +which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to +the door of the sepulchre, and departed. And there was Mary +Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the +sepulchre.</p> +<h4>II<br /> +The Guard set upon the Tomb<br /> +(<i>Peculiar to Matthew</i>)</h4> +<p style="text-align: center">(Matthew xxvii. 62–66)</p> +<p>Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, +the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate. +Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was +yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command +therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, +lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say +unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error +shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto them, Ye +have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. So +they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and +setting a watch.</p> +<h4>III<br /> +Visit of Mary Magdalene, and Others, to the Tomb</h4> +<p style="text-align: center">(John xx. 1–13)</p> +<p>The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it +was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away +from the sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon +Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith +unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, +and we know not where they have laid him. Peter therefore +went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the +sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other +disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. +And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes +lying; yet went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter +following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen +clothes lie. And the napkin, that was about his head, not +lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by +itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which came +first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For as +yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the +dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own +home. But Mary stood without the sepulchre weeping: and as +she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre, And +seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the +other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain. And +they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto +them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where +they have laid him.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">(Luke xxiv. 1–12)</p> +<p>Now upon the first day of the week very early in the morning, +they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had +prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the +stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, +and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to +pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men +stood by them in shining garments: and as they were afraid, and +bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why +seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is +risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, +saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful +men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And +they remembered his words, and returned from the sepulchre, and +told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. +It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, +and other women that were with them, which told these things unto +the apostles. And their words seemed to them as idle tales, +and they believed them not. Then arose Peter, and ran unto +the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes +laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that +which was come to pass.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">(Mark xvi. 1–8)</p> +<p>And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the +mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they +might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning +the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the +rising of the sun. And they said among themselves, Who +shall roll us away the stone from the door of the +sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone +was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into +the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, +clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. +And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of +Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: +behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell +his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: +there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. And they went +out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and +were amazed: neither said they anything to any man; for they were +afraid.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">(Matthew xxviii. 1–8)</p> +<p>In the end of the sabbath, as it began to draw toward the +first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to +see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great +earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and +came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon +it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment +white as snow, and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and +became as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto +the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was +crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he +said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go +quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; +and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see +him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from +the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his +disciples word.</p> +<h4>IV<br /> +Appearance of Christ to Mary Magdalene and Others</h4> +<p style="text-align: center">(John xx. 14–18)</p> +<p>And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw +Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith +unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou? +She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if +thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and +I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She +turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, +Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not +yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto +them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, +and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples +that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things +unto her.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">(Mark xvi. 9–11)</p> +<p>Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he +appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven +devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, +as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard +that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">(Matthew xxvii. 9–10)</p> +<p>And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met +them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the +feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not +afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there +shall they see me.</p> +<h4>V<br /> +The Bribing of the Guard<br /> +(<i>Peculiar to Matthew</i>)</h4> +<p style="text-align: center">(Matthew xxviii. 11–15)</p> +<p>Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into +the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that +were done. And when they were assembled with the elders, +and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers, +saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away +while we slept. And if this come to the governor’s +ears, we will persuade him, and secure you. So they took +the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is +commonly reported among the Jews until this day.</p> +<h4>VI<br /> +Appearance to Cleopas (and James?)</h4> +<p style="text-align: center">(Luke xxiv. 13–35)</p> +<p>And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village +called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore +furlongs. And they talked together of all these things +which had happened. And it came to pass, that, while they +communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went +with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not +know him. And he said unto them, What manner of +communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, +and are sad? And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, +answering said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, +and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in +these days? And he said unto them, What things? And +they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a +prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: +And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be +condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we trusted +that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside +all this, to-day is the third day since these things were +done. Yea, and certain women also of our company made us +astonished, which were early at the sepulchre; and when they +found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a +vision of angels, which said that he was alive, and certain of +them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even +so as the women had said: but him they saw not. Then he +said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that +the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these +things, and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses +and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the +scriptures the things concerning himself. And they drew +nigh unto the village, whither they went: and he made as though +he would have gone further. But they constrained him, +saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is +far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And it +came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and +blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes +were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their +sight. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn +within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he +opened to us the scriptures? And they rose up the same +hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered +together, and them that were with them, saying, The Lord is risen +indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what +things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in +breaking of bread.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">(Mark xvi. 12–13)</p> +<p>After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as +they walked, and went into the country. And they went and +told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.</p> +<h4>VII<br /> +Appearance to the Apostles<br /> +(<i>Twice in John</i>)</h4> +<p style="text-align: center">(John xx. 19–29)</p> +<p>Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, +when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for +fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith +unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he +shewed them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples +glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them +again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even, so +send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, +and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose +soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose +soever sins ye retain, they are retained. But Thomas, one +of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus +came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have +seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in +his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the +print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not +believe. And after eight days again his disciples were +within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being +shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. +Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my +hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and +be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and +said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, +Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed +are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.</p> + +<div class="gapspace"> </div> +<p>[I have not quoted the twenty-first chapter of St. +John’s Gospel on account of its exceedingly doubtful +genuineness.—W. B. O.]</p> +<p style="text-align: center">(Luke xxiv. 36–49)</p> +<p>And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of +them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were +terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a +spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why +do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my +feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see; for a spirit hath +not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had +thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And +while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto +them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a +broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did +eat before them. And he said unto them, These are the words +which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things +must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in +the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me. Then opened +he their understanding, that they might understand the +scriptures. And said unto them, Thus it is written, and +thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the +third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be +preached in his name among all nations, beginning at +Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, +behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in +the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on +high.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">(Mark xvi. 14–18)</p> +<p>Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and +upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because +they believed not them which had seen him after he was +risen. And he saith unto them, Go ye into all the world, +and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth +and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall +be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; +In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new +tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any +deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the +sick, and they shall recover.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">(Matthew xviii. 16–20)</p> +<p>Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a +mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw +him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came +and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven +and in earth, go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing +them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy +Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have +commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of +the world. Amen.</p> +<h4>VIII<br /> +The Ascension</h4> +<p style="text-align: center">(Luke xxiv. 50–53)</p> +<p>And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his +hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he +blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into +heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem +with great joy. And were continually in the temple, +praising and blessing God. Amen.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">(Mark xvi. 19–20)</p> +<p>So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received +up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they +went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, +and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.</p> +<p style="text-align: center">(Acts i. 1–12)</p> +<p>The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that +Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was +taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given +commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen. To whom +also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible +proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things +pertaining to the kingdom of God: and, being assembled together +with them, commanded them that they should not depart from +Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith +he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with +water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days +hence. When they therefore were come together, they asked +of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the +kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you +to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in +his own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the +Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me +both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and +unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had +spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a +cloud received him out of their sight, And while they looked +stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by +them in white apparel; Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why +stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, which is +taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye +have seen him go into heaven. Then returned they unto +Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a +sabbath day’s journey.</p> +<h4>IX<br /> +St. Paul’s account of our Lord’s Reappearances</h4> +<p style="text-align: center">(I. Corinthians xv. 3–8)</p> +<p>For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also +received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the +scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the +third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of +Cephas, then of the twelve; after that he was seen of above five +hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto +this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he +was seen of James: then of all the apostles. And last of +all he was seen of me also as of one born out of due time.</p> +<h2>FOOTNOTES</h2> +<p><a name="footnote82"></a><a href="#citation82" +class="footnote">[82]</a> It should be borne in mind that +this passage was written five or six years ago, before the +commencement of the Franco-Prussian war, What would my brother +have said had he been able to comprehend the events of 1870 and +1871?—W. B. O.</p> +<p><a name="footnote141"></a><a href="#citation141" +class="footnote">[141]</a> This pamphlet was by Butler +himself.</p> +<p><a name="footnote158a"></a><a href="#citation158a" +class="footnote">[158a]</a> See Biog. Britann.</p> +<p><a name="footnote158b"></a><a href="#citation158b" +class="footnote">[158b]</a> Middleton’s Reflections +answered by Benson. Hist. Christ, vol. iii., p. 50.</p> +<p><a name="footnote159a"></a><a href="#citation159a" +class="footnote">[159a]</a> Lardner, part I., vol. ii., p. +135 et seq.</p> +<p><a name="footnote159b"></a><a href="#citation159b" +class="footnote">[159b]</a> Ibid., part I., vol. ii., p. +742.</p> +<p>***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE FAIR HAVEN***</p> +<pre> + + +***** This file should be named 6092-h.htm or 6092-h.zip****** + + +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: +http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/6/0/9/6092 + + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at + www.gutenberg.org/license. + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 +North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email +contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the +Foundation's web site and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. +</pre></body> +</html> |