diff options
Diffstat (limited to '6092-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 6092-0.txt | 8045 |
1 files changed, 8045 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/6092-0.txt b/6092-0.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..9a7ac8b --- /dev/null +++ b/6092-0.txt @@ -0,0 +1,8045 @@ +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: UTF-8 + + +***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE FAIR HAVEN*** + + +Transcribed from the 1913 A. C. Fifield edition by David Price, email +ccx074@pglaf.org + + + + + + The Fair Haven + + + _A Work in Defence of the Miraculous Element_ + _in our Lord’s Ministry upon Earth_, _both as against_ + _Rationalistic Impugners and certain Orthodox Defenders_, + _by the late John Pickard Owen_, _with a Memoir_ + _of the Author by William Bickersteth Owen_. + + By + + Samuel Butler + + Author of “Erewhon” + + OP. 2 + + * * * * * + + _Now Reset_; _and Edited_, _with an Introduction_, + _by R. A. Streatfeild_ + + * * * * * + + London + A. C. Fifield, 13 Clifford’s Inn, E.C. + 1913 + + * * * * * + + WILLIAM BRENDON AND SON, LTD., PRINTERS, PLYMOUTH + + Contents + + Introduction by R. A. Streatfeild ix + Butler’s Preface to the Second Edition xv + Memoir of the late John Pickard Owen 1 +CHAPTER + I. Introduction 61 + II. Strauss and the Hallucination Theory 83 + III. The Character and Conversion of St. Paul 105 + IV. Paul’s Testimony considered 120 + V. A Consideration of Certain Ill-judged Methods 134 + of Defence + VI. More Disingenuousness 153 + VII. Difficulties felt by our Opponents 170 + VIII. The Preceding Chapter Continued 194 + IX. The Christ-Ideal 230 + X. Conclusion 255 + Appendix 273 + + + + +INTRODUCTION +By R. A. Streatfeild + + +THE demand for a new edition of _The Fair Haven_ 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. + +To find the germ of _The Fair Haven_ 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, _The Way of All Flesh_. 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 +_Erewhon_ in 1872, Butler returned once more to theology, and made his +anonymous pamphlet the basis of the far more elaborate _Fair Haven_, +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 _Erewhon_ 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 _The Way of All Flesh_, which he began in +1873. + +It has often been supposed that the elaborate paraphernalia of +mystification which Butler used in _The Fair Haven_ 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 _The Fair Haven_ 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 _The +Fair Haven_ 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. + +Butler used to maintain that _The Fair Haven_ did his reputation no harm. +Writing in 1901, he said: + +“_The Fair Haven_ 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 _Evolution_, _Old and New_, and _Unconscious +Memory_ 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.” + +Very likely Butler was right as to the social side of the question, but I +am convinced that _The Fair Haven_ 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 _The Fair Haven_. 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 +_Ecce Homo_ and Matthew Arnold’s _Literature and Dogma_ 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 _The Fair Haven_ 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. _The Fair Haven_ 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 _The Fair +Haven_: “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.” + + R. A. STREATFEILD. + +_August_, 1913. + + + + +Butler’s Preface to the Second Edition + + +THE occasion of a Second Edition of _The Fair Haven_ 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. + +An apology is perhaps due for the adoption of a pseudonym, and even more +so for the creation of two such characters as JOHN PICKARD OWEN and his +brother. Why could I not, it may be asked, have said all that I had to +say in my own proper person? + +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. JOHN PICKARD OWEN 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 JOHN PICKARD was dead, WILLIAM BICKERSTETH was still living, and +might at any moment rekindle his burning and shining lamp of persistent +self-satisfaction. Even though the OWENS 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? + +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, _Erewhon_, 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 _Erewhon_ 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, _The +Rock_ might have raised a cry of _non tali auxilio_. 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 _The Guardian_, _The Record_, _The John Bull_, 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 _The Fair Haven_ 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 +_Erewhon_ as completely as possible. At the moment of my resolution JOHN +PICKARD OWEN 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 _Erewhon_ having quite blown over +I feel that I may safely appear in my true colours as the champion of +orthodoxy, discard the OWENS as other than mouthpieces, and relieve the +public from uneasiness as to any further writings from the pen of the +surviving brother. + +Nevertheless I am bound to own that, in spite of a generally favourable +opinion, my critics have not been unanimous in their interpretation of +_The Fair Haven_. Thus, _The Rock_ (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 _The +Rock_ lay before its readers what appear to us to be the merits and +demerits of this posthumous production.” + + * * * * * + +“His exhibition of the certain proofs furnished of the Resurrection of +our Lord is certainly masterly and convincing.” + + * * * * * + +“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.” + + * * * * * + +“Mr. OWEN’S 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.” + +On the other hand, in spite of all my precautions, the same misfortune +which overtook _Erewhon_ has also come upon _The Fair Haven_. It has +been suspected of a satirical purpose. The author of a pamphlet entitled +_Jesus versus Christianity_ says:— + +“_The Fair Haven_ 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 +_Rock_ and _Record_ 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.” + + * * * * * + +“As told by our author the whole affords an exquisite example of the +natural growth of a legend.” + + * * * * * + +“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 _The Fair Haven_, but &c. &c.” + + * * * * * + +This is very dreadful; but what can one do? + +Again, _The Scotsman_ speaks of the writer as being “throughout in +downright almost pathetic earnestness.” While _The National Reformer_ +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. + +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. + + S. BUTLER. + +_Oct._ 8, 1873. + + + + +Memoir of +The late John Pickard Owen + + +Chapter I + + +THE 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! + +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 _onus_ 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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _de rigueur_ +we had better dispense with it. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _to think_ 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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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.” + +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. + +For although it was so many years before he was enabled to see the +Christian scheme _as a whole_, 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. + +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 +_quâ_ Christianity even of those doctrines which seem to stand most +widely and irreconcilably asunder. + + + +Chapter II + + +BUT 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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _that both are objectively +inaccurate_, _and that the Almighty intended they should be inaccurate_, +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. + +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 _vivâ voce_ +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 _designedly enhanced_, 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 _the highest ideal of which +each individual Christian soul was capable_. 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. + +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. _Better be +led aright by an error which is so adjusted as to compensate for the +errors in man’s powers of understanding_, _than be misled by a truth +which can never be translated from objectivity to subjectivity_. In such +a case, it is the error which is the truth and the truth the error.” + +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. + +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. + +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. +_As the two accounts now stand_, it is wholly impossible to suggest any +satisfactory method of _uniting them_, 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 _The Jesus of +History_ (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:— + +“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.” + +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 _The Jesus of History_, 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 _even in the most convincing and satisfactory_ explanation of the +way in which they came to differ. No such explanation is possible; both +the Dean and the author of _The Jesus of History_ 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. + +“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 +_a very little_ 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. + +“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 _The Jesus of History_ 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.” + +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 +_Theory of Moral Sentiments_ and another in his _Wealth of Nations_. 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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +“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 _their_ +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. + +“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 _to us_) rather than any +dictate of man however much more objectively true. It is that which is +true _to us_ that we are bound each one of us to seek and follow.” + +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.” + +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.” + +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. + +“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. _Fieri non debet_, _factum valet_. 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. + +“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.” + +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. + + + +Chapter III + + +ON 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. + +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. + +“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. + +“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, _Twelfth Night_, _The Tempest_, _A +Midsummer Night’s Dream_, 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.” + + * * * * * + +“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.” + + * * * * * + +“As with the parables so with the Sermon on the Mount—where it is not +commonplace it is immoral, and _vice versâ_; 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 _prestige_ 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. + +“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! + + * * * * * + +“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. + +“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! + +“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.” + + * * * * * + +“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 _Argument against abolishing Christianity_. ‘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. + +“‘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.’ + +“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! + + * * * * * + +“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.” + +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. + +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. + +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. + + + +Chapter IV + + +DURING 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.e._, 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.” + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + + + + +The Fair Haven + + +Chapter I +Introduction + + +IT 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. + +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 _Analogy_ or +the _Evidences_. 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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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.” + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. _Infidelity is only infectious when it is not understood_. +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. + +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. + +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. +_We_ 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. + +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. + +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 _real +infidels_ 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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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 _true_ 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? + +For there _are_ 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. + +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 _vivâ voce_ +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 {82} 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. + + + +Chapter II +Strauss and the Hallucination Theory + + +IT 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. + +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. + +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? + +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? + +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 _primâ facie_ ground for believing in the truth and +actuality of Christ’s Resurrection, what is there which will amount to a +_primâ facie_ case for anything whatever? + +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? + +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. + +The above is not in Strauss’s words, but it is a careful _résumé_ 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. + +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. + +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 _not_ 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. + +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. _We_ 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. _He_ 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. + +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 _a priori_ and _a +posteriori_ 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. + +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. + +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. + +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.e._, 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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _would_ it have been believed? +Or at any rate have been believed so utterly? + +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 _did_ 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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +It is now incumbent upon us to examine the testimony of St. Paul, to +which I would propose to devote a separate chapter. + + + +Chapter III +The Character and Conversion of St. Paul + + +SETTING 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. + +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 _of their own weight alone_, _and +without miraculous assistance_, _they succeeded in convincing the most +bitter_, _and at the same time the ablest_, _of their opponents_? 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. + +What then could these facts have been? + +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. + +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. + +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). + +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! + +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. + +“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.” + +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 _verbatim_, 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: _but that at +the time he wrote them he had no conception that he was imposing upon the +world_, _though they were frequently written from very slender +materials_, _and often from none at all—the mere coinage of his own +imagination_. He never wrote any part of his works with equal velocity.” +(Boswell’s _Life of Johnson_, chap. lxxxii.) + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _he_ 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.” + +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 _before_ 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? + +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 _verbatim_ 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 _before_ 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. + + * * * * * + +[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.] + + + +Chapter IV +Paul’s Testimony Considered + + +ENOUGH 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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +Turning then to the evidence of St. Paul as derivable from I. Cor. xv. we +find the following: + +“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.” + +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 _in the first instance_”: now we know from his own mouth (Gal. +i., 16, 17) that _after_ 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 _some_ 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. + +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 _returning_ 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. + +Now Paul informs us that he was told (we may assume by Peter and James) +that Christ first reappeared _within three days of the Crucifixion_. +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 _against_ 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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _as of one born out of due time_” 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. + +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 _after a lapse of several +years_ (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. + +Concerning that vision Strauss writes as follows: + +“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?” + +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.e._, by supernatural revelation. + +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.” + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _did_ reappear to his disciples, and that in this fact we have the +only intelligible explanation of the triumph of Christianity. + + + +Chapter V +A Consideration of Certain Ill-Judged +Methods of Defence + + +THE 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. + +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 _a priori_ 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 _a priori_ difficulty +with regard to these miracles, there is certainly none other. + +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. + +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. + +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. _We_ 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. + +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. + +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: + + “Perish strife, both from among gods and men, + And wrath which maketh even him that is considerate, cruel, + Which getteth up in the heart of a man like smoke, + And the taste thereof is sweeter than drops of honey.” + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _already empty_: 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. + +But when we turn to Matthew we find all changed: we are told that the +stone was gone _not_ 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, _and sat upon it_, 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. + +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 _not_ sealed and guarded; +that the same women, at the same time and place, should have witnessed an +earthquake, and yet _not_ witnessed one; have found a stone already gone +from a tomb, and yet _not_ found it gone; have seen it rolled away, and +_not_ seen it, and so on; those who say that we should find no difficulty +if we knew _all_ 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. + +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 {141} upon the Resurrection, dated 1865, but without a +publisher’s name, so that I presume it must have been printed for private +circulation only. + +St. Matthew’s account runs:— + + “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 (_cf._ + 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.” + +Let us turn now to the Dean’s note on Matt. xxvii., 62–66. + +With regard to the setting of the watch and sealing of the stone, he +tells us that the narrative following (_i.e._, 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., _know of His having said_ ‘in three days I will rise again,’ when +the saying was hid even from His own disciples? The answer to this is +easy. The _meaning_ of the saying may have been, and was hid from the +disciples; _but the fact of its having been said_ 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 _was_ in the habit of so saying? What particle of +authority is there for this alleged habit of our Lord?) As to the +_understanding_ of the words we must remember that _hatred is keener +sighted than love_: that the _raising of Lazarus_ would shew _what sort +of a thing rising from the dead was to be_; and the fulfilment of the +Lord’s announcement of his _crucifixion_ would naturally lead them to +look further to _what more_ he had announced. (2) How should the women +who were solicitous about the _removal_ 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—_they were not aware of the circumstance because the +guard was not set till the evening before_. There would be no need of +the application before the _approach of the third day_—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 _every member_ 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 _one Evangelist alone_ must be rejected, e.g. +(which stands in much the same relation), _the satisfaction of +Thomas—another such narrations_. _Till we know more about the +circumstances under which_, _and the scope with which_, _each Gospel was +compiled_, _all a priori arguments of this kind are good for nothing_.” + +(The italics in the above, and throughout the notes quoted, are the +Dean’s, unless it is expressly stated otherwise.) + +I will now proceed to consider this defence of Matthew’s accuracy against +the objections of the German commentators. + +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:— + +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. + +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 _must_ 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. + +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. + +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. + +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? + +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 _known_ that Christianity was of +God. + +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. + +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? + +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 _would_ 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. + +And now let us turn to another note of Dean Alford’s. + +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, “_Supposing us to be acquainted with every thing said and done in +its order and exactness_, _we should doubtless be able to reconcile_, _or +account for_, _the present forms of the narratives_; 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 _of all harmonies_ those of the +_incidents of these chapters_ are to me the _most unsatisfactory_. +Giving their compilers all credit for the best intentions, I confess they +seem to me to _weaken_ instead of strengthening the evidence, which now +rests (speaking merely _objectively_) 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 _exact_ words and incidents, on this +there can, I think, be no doubt. On internal as well as external ground +_that of John_ takes the _highest place_, but not of course to the +exclusion of those parts of the narrative which he _does not touch_.” + +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. + +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.e._, 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. + +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 _us_ +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. + +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. + + + +Chapter VI +More Disingenuousness + + +[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.] + + June 15, 1868. + +My dear Owen, + +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. + +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 _if thoroughly carried out_. 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. + +However, I know you wish to do your work thoroughly; I want, therefore, +to make a trifling suggestion which you will take _pro tanto_: 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.” + +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? + +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? + +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 _can_ 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. + +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 _coup de main_? + +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! + +How would it have been if Lord Clarendon and three other historians had +each told us that the Marquis of Argyll _came to life again after being +beheaded_, 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. + +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. + + * * * * * + + (_Extract from Paley’s_ “_Evidences_.”—_Part III._, _Chapter 1_. “_The + Discrepancies between the Gospels_.”) + +“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. {158a} 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.’ {158b} 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. + +“A great deal of the discrepancy observable in the Gospels arises from +_omission_; 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. {159a} Suetonius, Tacitus, Dion Cassius have all +three written of the reign of Tiberius. Each has mentioned many things +omitted by the rest, {159b} 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. + +“But these discrepancies will be still more numerous, when men do not +write histories, but _memoirs_; 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 +_all_ 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 _particular +design_ at the time of writing. + +“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 +_first_ 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 _particular design_ which guided the +historian, may be of use in comparing many other passages of the +Gospels.” + + * * * * * + +[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.] + + * * * * * + +BUT 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. + +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.’” + +In his note upon the thirty-fourth verse Dean Alford writes—“The lance +must have penetrated deep, for the object was to _ensure_ 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 _left_ 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? + +Here this note ends. The next begins upon the words “blood and water.” + +“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” (_may_ 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 +_that prophecy was thus fulfilled_: the Evangelist tells us so in the +plainest language: he even goes farther, for he says that these things +were _done_ for this end (not only that they were _recorded_)—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? + +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. + +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 +_real body_ and _underwent real death_.” (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. _For these things were done +that the Scripture should be fulfilled_ 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, _not so much by the phenomenon of +the water and blood_” (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 _per se_ 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 _prove_ that +death must have ensued, and this Dean Alford has just virtually admitted +to be not shewn), after which, _even if death had not taken place before_ +(this is intolerable), _there could not by any possibility be life +remaining_.” (The italics on this page are mine.) + +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 _without_ 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. + +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. + +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, _no_, _not a single one_, 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. + +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. + + + +Chapter VII +Difficulties felt by our Opponents + + +THERE 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 _is_ 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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _not_ 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? + +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. + +What then is their main difficulty, now that it has been shewn that the +reappearances of our Lord were not due to hallucination? + +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. + +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. + +“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 _modus vivendi_ between them, +_and not to exclude the possibility of death_, _they must exclude all +possibility of life having remained_, 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. + +“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 _a priori_ 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 _primâ facie_ 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. + +“It should be borne in mind, and is too often lost sight of, that _we +have no account of the Resurrection from any source whatever_. 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. + +“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. _There is nothing in any of their +accounts to preclude his having risen within two hours from his having +been laid in the tomb_. + +“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. _We_ 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. + +“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? + +“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.” + +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. + +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 _and His credentials_ 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. + +“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: + +“‘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.’” + +“Then Mary sees Jesus himself, but does not at first recognise him. + +“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. + +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, _nor was there anything to shew how long it had been removed_: +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 (_which were +probably of white linen_), lying _in two separate places_. Then, _and +not till then_, do they appear to have entertained their first belief or +hope that Christ might have risen from the dead. + +“This is plain and credible; but it amounts to an empty tomb, and to an +empty tomb only. + +“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 _in spite both of the miracles and the prophecies_, 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. + +“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. + +“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. + +“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 _prestige_ 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. + +“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 _no_ 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—_absolute certainty concerning the actuality of the +death_—should have been allowed to drop out of sight? + +“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. + +“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 _primâ facie_ view of the facts would be so likely +to mislead them. + +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 (_which +were probably of white linen_), lying _in two separate places_ 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 _did_ 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. + +“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. + +“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. + +“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.” + + + +Chapter VIII +The Preceding Chapter Continued + + +“LET us now turn to Luke. His account runs as follows:— + +“‘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 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 unto them as +idle tales_, _and they believed them not_. 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.’ + +“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.e._, 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 +_after_ 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, _not in consequence of +having been simply told that the body of Christ was missing_, _but +because he refused to believe the miraculous story which was told him by +the women_. 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 _by many_; 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. + +“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 _both_ the stories? Is this one of those cases in +which all would be made clear if we did but know _all_ 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? + +“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 +_not_ 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 _both_ 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. + +“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.e._, 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 _were_ 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. + +“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 +_is_, than of the custom which ought to be. + +“Turning now to the account of Mark, we find the following:— + +“‘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 ye shall 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 any thing to any man_, +_for they were afraid_. 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, _believed not_.’ + +“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. + +“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 _two_ 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. + +“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 _not_ +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. + +“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, _a real account of a resurrection_, 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? + +“Nevertheless there are some points on which all the three writers are +agreed: we have the same substratum of facts, namely, _the tomb found +already empty when the women reached it_, 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. + +“Is this a case in which the defenders of Christianity would clamour for +_all_ the facts, unless they exceedingly well knew that there was no +chance of their getting them? _All_ 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 _we_ 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. + +“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, _died_, 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. + +“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.” + +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. + +“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 _she_ +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 _is seen to descend from Heaven_, 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! + +“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. + +“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. + +“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? + +“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. + +“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 _Decline and Fall_, chap. xxviii., sec. 2). + +“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 _clef_ to ours as regards the miraculous, and whom we cannot +therefore fairly judge by any modern standard. We cannot judge _them_, +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. + +“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. + +“Let it be remembered also that the fact of the body having been +delivered to Joseph _before_ 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 _was_ 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. + +“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 _how_ it was laid), but do not +seem to have come into close contact with the body. + +“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. + +“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. + +“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. + +“It is not probable that a man officially executed should escape death; +but that a _dead man_ 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. + +“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? + +“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 _may_ 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. + +“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. + +“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 _not_ 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.” + +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 _the Death_ of our Lord is +proved, while those of our opponents who would deny this, nevertheless +admit that we can establish _the reappearances_; 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 _far as it goes_, 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 _Death of our Lord +and His Resurrection_? + +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:— + +“Strauss believes that Christ died, and says (_New Life of Jesus_, 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 _known_, was _that Christ was believed to have been dead_. 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.’ + +“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.’ + +“Now, the fallacy in the above is obvious; it assumes that _Christ_ 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 _may_ 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. + +“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. + +“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 _was_ +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. + +“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. + +“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 _do_ see a way of +escape, and this assuredly exists.” + +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. + +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. + +“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. + +“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? + +“The fact is simply this—and nobody can know it better than Dean +Alford—that Matthew tells us nothing about the Ascension. + +“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. + +“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 _insight of +some of those to whom he spoke_, and that the Evangelist _gives that +hint_, _by recording those words without comment_, _that he had seen +it_?’ That is to say, we are to conclude that the writer of the fourth +Gospel actually _saw_ 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?’ + +“But who _was_ 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. _So that in the most ancient circle of +ecclesiastical testimony_, _it appears to be unknown or not recognised_.’ +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. + +“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. + +“Where, then, does the story come from, if neither Matthew, Mark, John, +nor Paul appear to have heard of it? + +“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. + +“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. + +“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 _are_ 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?” + + * * * * * + +[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.] + + + +Chapter IX +The Christ-Ideal + + +I HAVE 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. + +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. + +Firstly, what will be the consequences of admitting any considerable +deviation from historical accuracy on the part of the sacred writers? + +Secondly, how can it be conceivable that God should have permitted +inaccuracy or obscurity in the evidence concerning the Divine commission +of His Son? + +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? + +To both these questions I trust that the following answers may appear +conclusive. + +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. + +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! + +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. + +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; _to fail in this is to fail in faith_; 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. + +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. + +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. + +The essentials of Christianity, _i.e._, 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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _sine quâ non_ 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. + +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? + +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 _that whatever may have +happened to the records of that life_ should have been ordained with a +view to the enhancing of the preciousness of the ideal. + +Now, the fragmentary character, and the partial obscurity—I might have +almost written, the incomparable _chiaroscuro_—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. + +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. + +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 _through_ 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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _not_ 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. + +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. + +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 _to him_ more perfect than the original, though objectively it +must be infinitely less so. + +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 _ex post +facto_ 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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +_Precisely at that epoch the Gospels made their appearance_. 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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _summum bonum_ 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? + +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. + +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? + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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 _does_ afford comfort to this numerous class, and helps +to keep them contented with many things which they would not otherwise +endure. + +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. + +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.” + +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. + + + +Chapter X +Conclusion + + +IT 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. + +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?” + +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! + +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 _in toto_, 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 _died and rose from the dead_, we may leave it to our opponents to +contend about the details of the manner in which each event took place. + +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. + +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 _not_ 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. + +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.” + +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. + +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, _either_ 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, _or_, 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. + +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 +_The Jesus of History_ (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. + +It is evident that it was most desirable to examine _both_ sets of +arguments, _i.e._, 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. + +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 _too_ convincingly? If +so, the course which he has adopted is a cruel one. + +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. + +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 _know_ 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. + +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 _human flesh_ subsisting.” + +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. + +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 _is_ 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. + +What, then, let me ask of freethinkers, _became of Christ eventually_? +Several answers may be made to this question, _but there is none but the +one given in Scripture which will set it at rest_. 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. + +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. + +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. + +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. + +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. _Now +those that hide can find_; 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 _was_ taken; the view which commended +itself to those who were best able to judge—namely, _that He had ascended +bodily into Heaven and was sitting at the right hand of God the Father_. + +Where else could He be? + +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. + +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. +_We_ are _not_ ignorant; we _know_ 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. + +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. + + * * * * * + +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. + +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! + +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, _but have each become essential to +the very existence of the other_. 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. + + + +Appendix + + +I +The Burial + + + (John xix. 38–42) + +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. + + (Luke xxiii. 50–56) + +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. + + (Mark xv. 42–47) + +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. + + (Matthew xxvii. 57–61) + +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. + + +II +The Guard set upon the Tomb +(_Peculiar to Matthew_) + + + (Matthew xxvii. 62–66) + +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. + + +III +Visit of Mary Magdalene, and Others, to the Tomb + + + (John xx. 1–13) + +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. + + (Luke xxiv. 1–12) + +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. + + (Mark xvi. 1–8) + +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. + + (Matthew xxviii. 1–8) + +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. + + +IV +Appearance of Christ to Mary Magdalene and Others + + + (John xx. 14–18) + +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. + + (Mark xvi. 9–11) + +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. + + (Matthew xxvii. 9–10) + +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. + + +V +The Bribing of the Guard +(_Peculiar to Matthew_) + + + (Matthew xxviii. 11–15) + +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. + + +VI +Appearance to Cleopas (and James?) + + + (Luke xxiv. 13–35) + +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. + + (Mark xvi. 12–13) + +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. + + +VII +Appearance to the Apostles +(_Twice in John_) + + + (John xx. 19–29) + +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. + + * * * * * + +[I have not quoted the twenty-first chapter of St. John’s Gospel on +account of its exceedingly doubtful genuineness.—W. B. O.] + + (Luke xxiv. 36–49) + +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. + + (Mark xvi. 14–18) + +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. + + (Matthew xviii. 16–20) + +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. + + +VIII +The Ascension + + + (Luke xxiv. 50–53) + +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. + + (Mark xvi. 19–20) + +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. + + (Acts i. 1–12) + +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. + + +IX +St. Paul’s account of our Lord’s Reappearances + + + (I. Corinthians xv. 3–8) + +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. + + + + +FOOTNOTES + + +{82} 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. + +{141} This pamphlet was by Butler himself. + +{158a} See Biog. Britann. + +{158b} Middleton’s Reflections answered by Benson. Hist. Christ, vol. +iii., p. 50. + +{159a} Lardner, part I., vol. ii., p. 135 et seq. + +{159b} Ibid., part I., vol. ii., p. 742. + + + + +***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE FAIR HAVEN*** + + +******* This file should be named 6092-0.txt or 6092-0.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. |