diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/fhvn10h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/fhvn10h.htm | 7623 |
1 files changed, 7623 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/fhvn10h.htm b/old/fhvn10h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..70c8f37 --- /dev/null +++ b/old/fhvn10h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,7623 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> +<html> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" /> +<title>The Fair Haven</title> +</head> +<body> +<h2> +<a href="#startoftext">The Fair Haven, by Samuel Butler</a> +</h2> +<pre> +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Fair Haven, by Samuel Butler +(#12 in our series by Samuel Butler) + +Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the +copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing +this or any other Project Gutenberg eBook. + +This header should be the first thing seen when viewing this Project +Gutenberg file. Please do not remove it. Do not change or edit the +header without written permission. + +Please read the "legal small print," and other information about the +eBook and Project Gutenberg at the bottom of this file. Included is +important information about your specific rights and restrictions in +how the file may be used. You can also find out about how to make a +donation to Project Gutenberg, and how to get involved. + + +**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts** + +**eBooks Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971** + +*****These eBooks Were Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!***** + + +Title: The Fair Haven + +Author: Samuel Butler + +Release Date: July, 2004 [EBook #6092] +[Yes, we are more than one year ahead of schedule] +[This file was first posted on November 4, 2002] + +Edition: 10 + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ASCII +</pre> +<p><a name="startoftext"></a></p> +<p>Transcribed from the 1913 A. C. Fifield edition by David Price, email +ccx074@coventry.ac.uk</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines4"><br /><br /><br /><br /></div> +<h1>THE FAIR HAVEN<br />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.</h1> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines3"><br /><br /><br /></div> +<h2>INTRODUCTION BY R. A. STREATFEILD</h2> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>The demand for a new edition of <i>The Fair Haven</i> gives me an +opportunity of saying a few words about the genesis of what, though +not one of the most popular of Samuel Butler’s books, is certainly +one of the most characteristic. Few of his works, indeed, show +more strikingly his brilliant powers as a controversialist and his implacable +determination to get at the truth of whatever engaged his attention.</p> +<p>To find the germ of <i>The Fair Haven</i> we should probably have +to go back to the year 1858, when Butler, after taking his degree at +Cambridge, was preparing himself for holy orders by acting as a kind +of lay curate in a London parish. Butler never took things for +granted, and he felt it to be his duty to examine independently a good +many points of Christian dogma which most candidates for ordination +accept as matters of course. The result of his investigations +was that he eventually declined to take orders at all. One of +the stones upon which he then stumbled was the efficacy of infant baptism, +and I have no doubt that another was the miraculous element of Christianity, +which, it will be remembered, was the cause of grievous searchings of +heart to Ernest Pontifex in Butler’s semi-autobiographical novel, +<i>The Way of All Flesh</i>. While Butler was in New Zealand (1859-64) +he had leisure for prosecuting his Biblical studies, the result of which +he published in 1865, after his return to England, in an anonymous pamphlet +entitled “The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as +given by the Four Evangelists critically examined.” This +pamphlet passed unnoticed; probably only a few copies were printed and +it is now extremely rare. After the publication of <i>Erewhon</i> +in 1872, Butler returned once more to theology, and made his anonymous +pamphlet the basis of the far more elaborate <i>Fair Haven</i>, which +was originally published as the posthumous work of a certain John Pickard +Owen, preceded by a memoir of the deceased author by his supposed brother, +William Bickersteth Owen. It is possible that the memoir was the +fruit of a suggestion made by Miss Savage, an able and witty woman with +whom Butler corresponded at the time. Miss Savage was so much +impressed by the narrative power displayed in <i>Erewhon</i> that she +urged Butler to write a novel, and we shall probably not be far wrong +in regarding the biography of John Pickard Owen as Butler’s trial +trip in the art of fiction - a prelude to <i>The Way of All Flesh</i>, +which he began in 1873.</p> +<p>It has often been supposed that the elaborate paraphernalia of mystification +which Butler used in <i>The Fair Haven</i> was deliberately designed +in order to hoax the public. I do not believe that this was the +case. Butler, I feel convinced, provided an ironical framework +for his arguments merely that he might render them more effective than +they had been when plainly stated in the pamphlet of 1865. He +fully expected his readers to comprehend his irony, and he anticipated +that some at any rate of them would keenly resent it. Writing +to Miss Savage in March, 1873 (shortly before the publication of the +book), he said: “I should hope that attacks on <i>The Fair Haven</i> +will give me an opportunity of excusing myself, and if so I shall endeavour +that the excuse may be worse than the fault it is intended to excuse.” +A few days later he referred to the difficulties that he had encountered +in getting the book accepted by a publisher: “ --- were frightened +and even considered the scheme of the book unjustifiable. --- +urged me, as politely as he could, not to do it, and evidently thinks +I shall get myself into disgrace even among freethinkers. It’s +all nonsense. I dare say I shall get into a row - at least I hope +I shall.” Evidently there is here no anticipation of <i>The +Fair Haven</i> being misunderstood. Misunderstood, however, it +was, not only by reviewers, some of whom greeted it solemnly as a defence +of orthodoxy, but by divines of high standing, such as the late Canon +Ainger, who sent it to a friend whom he wished to convert. This +was more than Butler could resist, and he hastened to issue a second +edition bearing his name and accompanied by a preface in which the deceived +elect were held up to ridicule.</p> +<p>Butler used to maintain that <i>The Fair Haven</i> did his reputation +no harm. Writing in 1901, he said:</p> +<p>“<i>The Fair Haven</i> got me into no social disgrace that +I have ever been able to discover. I might attack Christianity +as much as I chose and nobody cared one straw; but when I attacked Darwin +it was a different matter. For many years <i>Evolution, Old and +New</i>, and <i>Unconscious Memory</i> made a shipwreck of my literary +prospects. I am only now beginning to emerge from the literary +and social injury which those two perfectly righteous books inflicted +on me. I dare say they abound with small faults of taste, but +I rejoice in having written both of them.”</p> +<p>Very likely Butler was right as to the social side of the question, +but I am convinced that <i>The Fair Haven</i> did him grave harm in +the literary world. Reviewers fought shy of him for the rest of +his life. They had been taken in once, and they took very good +care that they should not be taken in again. The word went forth +that Butler was not to be taken seriously, whatever he wrote, and the +results of the decree were apparent in the conspiracy of silence that +greeted not only his books on evolution, but his Homeric works, his +writings on art, and his edition of Shakespeare’s sonnets. +Now that he has passed beyond controversies and mystifications, and +now that his other works are appreciated at their true value, it is +not too much to hope that tardy justice will be accorded also to <i>The +Fair Haven</i>. It is true that the subject is no longer the burning +question that it was forty years ago. In the early seventies theological +polemics were fashionable. Books like Seeley’s <i>Ecce Homo</i> +and Matthew Arnold’s <i>Literature and Dogma</i> were eagerly +devoured by readers of all classes. Nowadays we take but a languid +interest in the problems that disturbed our grandfathers, and most of +us have settled down into what Disraeli described as the religion of +all sensible men, which no sensible man ever talks about. There +is, however, in <i>The Fair Haven</i> a good deal more than theological +controversy, and our Laodicean age will appreciate Butler’s humour +and irony if it cares little for his polemics. <i>The Fair Haven</i> +scandalised a good many people when it first appeared, but I am not +afraid of its scandalising anybody now. I should be sorry, nevertheless, +if it gave any reader a false impression of Butler’s Christianity, +and I think I cannot do better than conclude with a passage from one +of his essays which represents his attitude to religion perhaps more +faithfully than anything in <i>The Fair Haven</i>: “What, after +all, is the essence of Christianity? What is the kernel of the +nut? Surely common sense and cheerfulness, with unflinching opposition +to the charlatanisms and Pharisaisms of a man’s own times. +The essence of Christianity lies neither in dogma, nor yet in abnormally +holy life, but in faith in an unseen world, in doing one’s duty, +in speaking the truth, in finding the true life rather in others than +in oneself, and in the certain hope that he who loses his life on these +behalfs finds more than he has lost. What can Agnosticism do against +such Christianity as this? I should be shocked if anything I had +ever written or shall ever write should seem to make light of these +things.”</p> +<p>R. A. STREATFEILD.<br /><i>August</i>, 1913.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<h2>BUTLER’S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION</h2> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>The occasion of a Second Edition of <i>The Fair Haven</i> enables +me to thank the public and my critics for the favourable reception which +has been accorded to the First Edition. I had feared that the +freedom with which I had exposed certain untenable positions taken by +Defenders of Christianity might have given offence to some reviewers, +but no complaint has reached me from any quarter on the score of my +not having put the best possible case for the evidence in favour of +the miraculous element in Christ’s teaching - nor can I believe +that I should have failed to hear of it, if my book had been open to +exception on this ground.</p> +<p>An apology is perhaps due for the adoption of a pseudonym, and even +more so for the creation of two such characters as 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?</p> +<p>Are there not real ills of life enough already? Is there not +a “lo here!” from this school with its gushing “earnestness,” +it distinctions without differences, its gnat strainings and camel swallowings, +its pretence of grappling with a question while resolutely bent upon +shirking it, its dust throwing and mystification, its concealment of +its own ineffable insincerity under an air of ineffable candour? +Is there not a “lo there!” from that other school with its +bituminous atmosphere of exclusiveness and self-laudatory dilettanteism? +Is there not enough actual exposition of boredom come over us from many +quarters without drawing for new bores upon the imagination? It +is true I gave a single drop of comfort. 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?</p> +<p>I am afraid I must offer an apology rather than an excuse. +The fact is that I was in a very awkward position. My previous +work, <i>Erewhon</i>, had failed to give satisfaction to certain ultra-orthodox +Christians, who imagined that they could detect an analogy between the +English Church and the Erewhonian Musical Banks. It is inconceivable +how they can have got hold of this idea; but I was given to understand +that I should find it far from easy to dispossess them of the notion +that something in the way of satire had been intended. There were +other parts of the book which had also been excepted to, and altogether +I had reason to believe that if I defended Christianity in my own name +I should not find <i>Erewhon</i> any addition to the weight which my +remarks might otherwise carry. If I had been suspected of satire +once, I might be suspected again with no greater reason. Instead +of calmly reviewing the arguments which I adduced, <i>The Rock</i> might +have raised a cry of <i>non tali auxilio</i>. It must always be +remembered that besides the legitimate investors in Christian stocks, +if so homely a metaphor may be pardoned, there are unscrupulous persons +whose profession it is to be bulls, bears, stags, and I know not what +other creatures of the various Christian markets. It is all nonsense +about hawks not picking out each other’s eyes - there is nothing +they like better. I feared <i>The Guardian, The Record, The John +Bull</i>, etc., lest they should suggest that from a bear I now turned +bull with a view to an eventual bishopric. Such insinuations would +have impaired the value of <i>The Fair Haven</i> as an anchorage for +well-meaning people. I therefore resolved to obey the injunction +of the Gentile Apostle and avoid all appearance of evil, by dissociating +myself from the author of <i>Erewhon</i> as completely as possible. +At the moment of my resolution 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 <i>Erewhon</i> having quite blown over I feel that I may safely appear +in my true colours as the champion of orthodoxy, discard the OWENS as +other than mouthpieces, and relieve the public from uneasiness as to +any further writings from the pen of the surviving brother.</p> +<p>Nevertheless I am bound to own that, in spite of a generally favourable +opinion, my critics have not been unanimous in their interpretation +of <i>The Fair Haven</i>. Thus, <i>The Rock</i> (April 25, 1873, +and May 9, 1873), says that the work is “an extraordinary one, +whether regarded as a biographical record or a theological treatise. +Indeed the importance of the volume compels us to depart from our custom +of reviewing with brevity works entrusted to us, and we shall in two +consecutive numbers of <i>The Rock</i> lay before its readers what appear +to us to be the merits and demerits of this posthumous production.”</p> +<p>* * * * *</p> +<p>“His exhibition of the certain proofs furnished of the Resurrection +of our Lord is certainly masterly and convincing.”</p> +<p>* * * * *</p> +<p>“To the sincerely inquiring doubter, the striking way in which +the truth of the Resurrection is exhibited must be most beneficial, +but such a character we are compelled to believe is rare among those +of the schools of neology.”</p> +<p>* * * * *</p> +<p>“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.”</p> +<p>On the other hand, in spite of all my precautions, the same misfortune +which overtook <i>Erewhon</i> has also come upon <i>The Fair Haven</i>. +It has been suspected of a satirical purpose. The author of a +pamphlet entitled <i>Jesus versus Christianity</i> says:-</p> +<p>“<i>The Fair Haven</i> is an ironical defence of orthodoxy +at the expense of the whole mass of Church tenet and dogma, the character +of Christ only excepted. Such at least is our reading of it, though +critics of the <i>Rock</i> and <i>Record</i> order have accepted the +book as a serious defence of Christianity, and proclaimed it as a most +valuable contribution in aid of the faith. Affecting an orthodox +standpoint it most bitterly reproaches all previous apologists for the +lack of candour with which they have ignored or explained away insuperable +difficulties and attached undue value to coincidences real or imagined. +One and all they have, the author declares, been at best, but zealous +‘liars for God,’ or what to them was more than God, their +own religious system. This must go on no longer. We, as +Christians having a sound cause, need not fear to let the truth be known. +He proceeds accordingly to set forth the truth as he finds it in the +New Testament; and in a masterly analysis of the account of the Resurrection, +which he selects as the principal crucial miracle, involving all other +miracles, he shows how slender is the foundation on which the whole +fabric of supernatural theology has been reared.”</p> +<p>* * * * *</p> +<p>“As told by our author the whole affords an exquisite example +of the natural growth of a legend.”</p> +<p>* * * * *</p> +<p>“If the reader can once fully grasp the intention of the style, +and its affectation of the tone of indignant orthodoxy, and perceive +also how utterly destructive are its ‘candid admissions’ +to the whole fabric of supernaturalism, he will enjoy a rare treat. +It is not however for the purpose of recommending what we at least regard +as a piece of exquisite humour, that we call attention to <i>The Fair +Haven</i>, but &c. &c.”</p> +<p>* * * * *</p> +<p>This is very dreadful; but what can one do?</p> +<p>Again, <i>The Scotsman</i> speaks of the writer as being “throughout +in downright almost pathetic earnestness.” While <i>The +National Reformer</i> seems to be in doubt whether the book is a covert +attack upon Christianity or a serious defence of it, but declares that +both orthodox and unorthodox will find matter requiring thought and +answer.</p> +<p>I am not responsible for the interpretations of my readers. +It is only natural that the same work should present a very different +aspect according as it is approached from one side or the other. +There is only one way out of it - that the reader should kindly interpret +according to his own fancies. If he will do this the book is sure +to please him. I have done the best I can for all parties, and +feel justified in appealing to the existence of the widely conflicting +opinions which I have quoted, as a proof that the balance has been evenly +held, and that I was justified in calling the book a defence - both +as against impugners and defenders.</p> +<p>S. BUTLER.<br /><i>Oct</i>. 8, 1873.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines3"><br /><br /><br /></div> +<h2>MEMOIR OF THE LATE JOHN PICKARD OWEN</h2> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<h3>CHAPTER I</h3> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>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!</p> +<p>My mother loved us no less ardently than my father, but she was of +a quicker temper, and less adept at conciliating affection. She +must have been exceedingly handsome when she was young, and was still +comely when we first remembered her; she was also highly accomplished, +but she felt my father’s loss of fortune more keenly than my father +himself, and it preyed upon her mind, though rather for our sake than +for her own. Had we not known my father we should have loved her +better than any one in the world, but affection goes by comparison, +and my father spoiled us for any one but himself; indeed, in after life, +I remember my mother’s telling me, with many tears, how jealous +she had often been of the love we bore him, and how mean she had thought +it of him to entrust all scolding or repression to her, so that he might +have more than his due share of our affection. Not that I believe +my father did this consciously; still, he so greatly hated scolding +that I dare say we might often have got off scot free when we really +deserved reproof had not my mother undertaken the <i>onus</i> of scolding +us herself. We therefore naturally feared her more than my father, +and fearing more we loved less. For as love casteth out fear, +so fear love.</p> +<p>This must have been hard to bear, and my mother scarcely knew the +way to bear it. She tried to upbraid us, in little ways, into +loving her as much as my father; the more she tried this, the less we +could succeed in doing it; and so on and so on in a fashion which need +not be detailed. Not but what we really loved her deeply, while +her affection for us was unsurpassable still, we loved her less than +we loved my father, and this was the grievance.</p> +<p>My father entrusted our religious education entirely to my mother. +He was himself, I am assured, of a deeply religious turn of mind, and +a thoroughly consistent member of the Church of England; but he conceived, +and perhaps rightly, that it is the mother who should first teach her +children to lift their hands in prayer, and impart to them a knowledge +of the One in whom we live and move and have our being. My mother +accepted the task gladly, for in spite of a certain narrowness of view +- the natural but deplorable result of her earlier surroundings - she +was one of the most truly pious women whom I have ever known; unfortunately +for herself and us she had been trained in the lowest school of Evangelical +literalism - a school which in after life both my brother and myself +came to regard as the main obstacle to the complete overthrow of unbelief; +we therefore looked upon it with something stronger than aversion, and +for my own part I still deem it perhaps the most insidious enemy which +the cause of Christ has ever encountered. But of this more hereafter.</p> +<p>My mother, as I said, threw her whole soul into the work of our religious +education. Whatever she believed she believed literally, and, +if I may say so, with a harshness of realisation which left very little +scope for imagination or mystery. Her plans of Heaven and solutions +of life’s enigmas were direct and forcible, but they could only +be reconciled with certain obvious facts - such as the omnipotence and +all-goodness of God - by leaving many things absolutely out of sight. +And this my mother succeeded effectually in doing. She never doubted +that her opinions comprised the truth, the whole truth, and nothing +but the truth; she therefore made haste to sow the good seed in our +tender minds, and so far succeeded that when my brother was four years +old he could repeat the Apostles’ Creed, the General Confession, +and the Lord’s Prayer without a blunder. My mother made +herself believe that he delighted in them; but, alas! it was far otherwise; +for, strange as it may appear concerning one whose later life was a +continual prayer, in childhood he detested nothing so much as being +made to pray and to learn his Catechism. In this I am sorry to +say we were both heartily of a mind. As for Sunday, the less said +the better.</p> +<p>I have already hinted (but as a warning to other parents I had better, +perhaps, express myself more plainly), that this aversion was probably +the result of my mother’s undue eagerness to reap an artificial +fruit of lip service, which could have little meaning to the heart of +one so young. I believe that the severe check which the natural +growth of faith experienced in my brother’s case was due almost +entirely to this cause, and to the school of literalism in which he +had been trained; but, however this may be, we both of us hated being +made to say our prayers - morning and evening it was our one bugbear, +and we would avoid it, as indeed children generally will, by every artifice +which we could employ. Thus we were in the habit of feigning to +be asleep shortly before prayer time, and would gratefully hear my father +tell my mother that it was a shame to wake us; whereon he would carry +us up to bed in a state apparently of the profoundest slumber when we +were really wide awake and in great fear of detection. For we +knew how to pretend to be asleep, but we did not know how we ought to +wake again; there was nothing for it therefore when we were once committed, +but to go on sleeping till we were fairly undressed and put to bed, +and could wake up safely in the dark. But deceit is never long +successful, and we were at last ignominiously exposed.</p> +<p>It happened one evening that my mother suspected my brother John, +and tried to open his little hands which were lying clasped in front +of him. Now my brother was as yet very crude and inconsistent +in his theories concerning sleep, and had no conception of what a real +sleeper would do under these circumstances. Fear deprived him +of his powers of reflection, and he thus unfortunately concluded that +because sleepers, so far as he had observed them, were always motionless, +therefore, they must be quite rigid and incapable of motion, and indeed +that any movement, under any circumstances (for from his earliest childhood +he liked to carry his theories to their legitimate conclusion), would +be physically impossible for one who was really sleeping; forgetful, +oh! unhappy one, of the flexibility of his own body on being carried +upstairs, and, more unhappy still, ignorant of the art of waking. +He, therefore, clenched his fingers harder and harder as he felt my +mother trying to unfold them while his head hung listless, and his eyes +were closed I as though he were sleeping sweetly. It is needless +to detail the agony of shame that followed. My mother begged my +father to box his ears, which my father flatly refused to do. +Then she boxed them herself, and there followed a scene and a day or +two of disgrace for both of us.</p> +<p>Shortly after this there happened another misadventure. A lady +came to stay with my mother, and was to sleep in a bed that had been +brought into our nursery, for my father’s fortunes had already +failed, and we were living in a humble way. We were still but +four and five years old, so the arrangement was not unnatural, and it +was assumed that we should be asleep before the lady went to bed, and +be downstairs before she would get up in the morning. But the +arrival of this lady and her being put to sleep in the nursery were +great events to us in those days, and being particularly wanted to go +to sleep, we of course sat up in bed talking and keeping ourselves awake +till she should come upstairs. Perhaps we had fancied that she +would give us something, but if so we were disappointed. However, +whether this was the case or not, we were wide awake when our visitor +came to bed, and having no particular object to gain, we made no pretence +of sleeping. The lady kissed us both, told us to lie still and +go to sleep like good children, and then began doing her hair.</p> +<p>I remember that this was the occasion on which my brother discovered +a good many things in connection with the fair sex which had hitherto +been beyond his ken; more especially that the mass of petticoats and +clothes which envelop the female form were not, as he expressed it to +me, “all solid woman,” but that women were not in reality +more substantially built than men, and had legs as much as he had, a +fact which he had never yet realised. On this he for a long time +considered them as impostors, who had wronged him by leading him to +suppose that they had far more “body in them” (so he said), +than he now found they had. This was a sort of thing which he +regarded with stern moral reprobation. If he had been old enough +to have a solicitor I believe he would have put the matter into his +hands, as well as certain other things which had lately troubled him. +For but recently my mother had bought a fowl, and he had seen it plucked, +and the inside taken out; his irritation had been extreme on discovering +that fowls were not all solid flesh, but that their insides - and these +formed, as it appeared to him, an enormous percentage of the bird - +were perfectly useless. He was now beginning to understand that +sheep and cows were also hollow as far as good meat was concerned; the +flesh they had was only a mouthful in comparison with what they ought +to have considering their apparent bulk - insignificant, mere skin and +bone covering a cavern. What right had they, or anything else, +to assert themselves as so big, and prove so empty? And now this +discovery of woman’s falsehood was quite too much for him. +The world itself was hollow, made up of shams and delusions, full of +sound and fury signifying nothing.</p> +<p>Truly a prosaic young gentleman enough. Everything with him +was to be exactly in all its parts what it appeared on the face of it, +and everything was to go on doing exactly what it had been doing hitherto. +If a thing looked solid, it was to be very solid; if hollow, very hollow; +nothing was to be half and half, and nothing was to change unless he +had himself already become accustomed to its times and manners of changing; +there were to be no exceptions and no contradictions; all things were +to be perfectly consistent, and all premises to be carried with extremest +rigour to their legitimate conclusions. Heaven was to be very +neat (for he was always tidy himself), and free from sudden shocks to +the nervous system, such as those caused by dogs barking at him, or +cows driven in the streets. God was to resemble my father, and +the Holy Spirit to bear some sort of indistinct analogy to my mother.</p> +<p>Such were the ideal theories of his childhood - unconsciously formed, +but very firmly believed in. As he grew up he made such modifications +as were forced upon him by enlarged perceptions, but every modification +was an effort to him, in spite of a continual and successful resistance +to what he recognised as his initial mental defect.</p> +<p>I may perhaps be allowed to say here, in reference to a remark in +the preceding paragraph, that both my brother and myself used to notice +it as an almost invariable rule that children’s earliest ideas +of God are modelled upon the character of their father - if they have +one. Should the father be kind, considerate, full of the warmest +love, fond of showing it, and reserved only about his displeasure, the +child having learned to look upon God as His Heavenly Father through +the Lord’s Prayer and our Church Services, will feel towards God +as he does towards his own father; this conception will stick to a man +for years and years after he has attained manhood - probably it will +never leave him. For all children love their fathers and mothers, +if these last will only let them; it is not a little unkindness that +will kill so hardy a plant as the love of a child for its parents. +Nature has allowed ample margin for many blunders, provided there be +a genuine desire on the parent’s part to make the child feel that +he is loved, and that his natural feelings are respected. This +is all the religious education which a child should have. As he +grows older he will then turn naturally to the waters of life, and thirst +after them of his own accord by reason of the spiritual refreshment +which they, and they only, can afford. Otherwise he will shrink +from them, on account of his recollection of the way in which he was +led down to drink against his will, and perhaps with harshness, when +all the analogies with which he was acquainted pointed in the direction +of their being unpleasant and unwholesome. So soul-satisfying +is family affection to a child, that he who has once enjoyed it cannot +bear to be deprived of the hope that he is possessed in Heaven of a +parent who is like his earthly father - of a friend and counsellor who +will never, never fail him. There is no such religious nor moral +education as kindly genial treatment and a good example; all else may +then be let alone till the child is old enough to feel the want of it. +It is true that the seed will thus be sown late, but in what a soil! +On the other hand, if a man has found his earthly father harsh and uncongenial, +his conception of his Heavenly Parent will be painful. He will +begin by seeing God as an exaggerated likeness of his father. +He will therefore shrink from Him. The rottenness of stillborn +love in the heart of a child poisons the blood of the soul, and hence, +later, crime.</p> +<p>To return, however, to the lady. When she had put on her night-gown, +she knelt down by her bedside and, to our consternation, began to say +her prayers. This was a cruel blow to both of us; we had always +been under the impression that grownup people were not made to say their +prayers, and the idea of any one saying them of his or her own accord +had never occurred to us as possible. Of course the lady would +not say her prayers if she were not obliged; and yet she did say them; +therefore she must be obliged to say them; therefore we should be obliged +to say them, and this was a very great disappointment. Awe-struck +and open-mouthed we listened while the lady prayed in sonorous accents, +for many things which I do not now remember, and finally for my father +and mother and for both of us - shortly afterwards she rose, blew out +the light and got into bed. Every word that she said had confirmed +our worst apprehensions; it was just what we had been taught to say +ourselves.</p> +<p>Next morning we compared notes and drew the most painful inferences; +but in the course of the day our spirits rallied. We agreed that +there were many mysteries in connection with life and things which it +was high time to unravel, and that an opportunity was now afforded us +which might not readily occur again. All we had to do was to be +true to ourselves and equal to the occasion. We laid our plans +with great astuteness. We would be fast asleep when the lady came +up to bed, but our heads should be turned in the direction of her bed, +and covered with clothes, all but a single peep-hole. My brother, +as the eldest, had clearly a right to be nearest the lady, but I could +see very well, and could depend on his reporting faithfully whatever +should escape me.</p> +<p>There was no chance of her giving us anything - if she had meant +to do so she would have done it sooner; she might, indeed, consider +the moment of her departure as the most auspicious for this purpose, +but then she was not going yet, and the interval was at our own disposal. +We spent the afternoon in trying to learn to snore, but we were not +certain about it, and in the end regretfully concluded that as snoring +was not <i>de rigueur</i> we had better dispense with it.</p> +<p>We were put to bed; the light was taken away; we were told to go +to sleep, and promised faithfully that we would do so; the tongue indeed +swore, but the mind was unsworn. It was agreed that we should +keep pinching one another to prevent our going to sleep. We did +so at frequent intervals; at last our patience was rewarded with the +heavy creak, as of a stout elderly lady labouring up the stairs, and +presently our victim entered.</p> +<p>To cut a long story short, the lady on satisfying herself that we +were asleep, never said her prayers at all; during the remainder of +her visit whenever she found us awake she always said them, but when +she thought we were asleep, she never prayed. It is needless to +add that we had the matter out with her before she left, and that the +consequences were unpleasant for all parties; they added to the troubles +in which we were already involved as to our prayers, and were indirectly +among the earliest causes which led my brother to look with scepticism +upon religion.</p> +<p>For a while, however, all went on as though nothing had happened. +An effect of distrust, indeed, remained after the cause had been forgotten, +but my brother was still too young to oppose anything that my mother +told him, and to all outward appearance he grew in grace no less rapidly +than in stature.</p> +<p>For years we led a quiet and eventless life, broken only by the one +great sorrow of our father’s death. Shortly after this we +were sent to a day school in Bloomsbury. We were neither of us +very happy there, but my brother, who always took kindly to his books, +picked up a fair knowledge of Latin and Greek; he also learned to draw, +and to exercise himself a little in English composition. When +I was about fourteen my mother capitalised a part of her income and +started me off to America, where she had friends who could give me a +helping hand; by their kindness I was enabled, after an absence of twenty +years, to return with a handsome income, but not, alas, before the death +of my mother.</p> +<p>Up to the time of my departure my mother continued to read the Bible +with us and explain it. She had become deeply impressed with the +millenarian fervour which laid hold of so many some twenty-five or thirty +years ago. The Apocalypse was perhaps her favourite book in the +Bible, and she was imbued with the fullest conviction that all the threatened +horrors with which it teems were upon the eve of their accomplishment. +The year eighteen hundred and forty-eight was to be (as indeed it was) +a time of general bloodshed and confusion, while in eighteen hundred +and sixty-six, should it please God to spare her, her eyes would be +gladdened by the visible descent of the Son of Man with a shout, with +the voice of the Archangel, with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ +should rise first; then she, as one of them that were alive, would be +caught up with other saints into the air, and would possibly receive +while rising some distinguishing token of confidence and approbation +which should fall with due impressiveness upon the surrounding multitude; +then would come the consummation of all things, and she would be ever +with the Lord. She died peaceably in her bed before she could +know that a commercial panic was the nearest approach to the fulfilment +of prophecy which the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six brought forth.</p> +<p>These opinions of my mother’s were positively disastrous - +injuring her naturally healthy and vigorous mind by leading her to indulge +in all manner of dreamy and fanciful interpretations of Scripture, which +any but the most narrow literalist would feel at once to be untenable. +Thus several times she expressed to us her conviction that my brother +and myself were to be the two witnesses mentioned in the eleventh chapter +of the Book of Revelation, and dilated upon the gratification she should +experience upon finding that we had indeed been reserved for a position +of such distinction. We were as yet mere children, and naturally +took all for granted that our mother told us; we therefore made a careful +examination of the passage which threw light upon our future; but on +finding that the prospect was gloomy and full of bloodshed we protested +against the honours which were intended for us, more especially when +we reflected that the mother of the two witnesses was not menaced in +Scripture with any particular discomfort. If we were to be martyrs, +my mother ought to wish to be a martyr too, whereas nothing was farther +from her intention. Her notion clearly was that we were to be +massacred somewhere in the streets of London, in consequence of the +anti-Christian machinations of the Pope; that after lying about unburied +for three days and a half we were to come to life again; and, finally, +that we should conspicuously ascend to heaven, in front, perhaps, of +the Foundling Hospital.</p> +<p>She was not herself indeed to share either our martyrdom or our glorification, +but was to survive us many years on earth, living in an odour of great +sanctity and reflected splendour, as the central and most august figure +in a select society. She would perhaps be able indirectly, through +her sons’ influence with the Almighty, to have a voice in most +of the arrangements both of this world and of the next. If all +this were to come true (and things seemed very like it), those friends +who had neglected us in our adversity would not find it too easy to +be restored to favour, however greatly they might desire it - that is +to say, they would not have found it too easy in the case of one less +magnanimous and spiritually-minded than herself. My mother said +but little of the above directly, but the fragments which occasionally +escaped her were pregnant, and on looking back it is easy to perceive +that she must have been building one of the most stupendous aerial fabrics +that have ever been reared.</p> +<p>I have given the above in its more amusing aspect, and am half afraid +that I may appear to be making a jest of weakness on the part of one +of the most devotedly unselfish mothers who have ever existed. +But one can love while smiling, and the very wildness of my mother’s +dream serves to show how entirely her whole soul was occupied with the +things which are above. To her, religion was all in all; the earth +was but a place of pilgrimage - only so far important as it was a possible +road to heaven. She impressed this upon both of us by every word +and action - instant in season and out of season, so that she might +fill us more deeply with a sense of God. But the inevitable consequences +happened; my mother had aimed too high and had overshot her mark. +The influence indeed of her guileless and unworldly nature remained +impressed upon my brother even during the time of his extremest unbelief +(perhaps his ultimate safety is in the main referable to this cause, +and to the happy memories of my father, which had predisposed him to +love God), but my mother had insisted on the most minute verbal accuracy +of every part of the Bible; she had also dwelt upon the duty of independent +research, and on the necessity of giving up everything rather than assent +to things which our conscience did not assent to. No one could +have more effectually taught us to try <i>to think</i> the truth, and +we had taken her at her word because our hearts told us that she was +right. But she required three incompatible things. When +my brother grew older he came to feel that independent and unflinching +examination, with a determination to abide by the results, would lead +him to reject the point which to my mother was more important than any +other - I mean the absolute accuracy of the Gospel records. My +mother was inexpressibly shocked at hearing my brother doubt the authenticity +of the Epistle to the Hebrews; and then, as it appeared to him, she +tried to make him violate the duties of examination and candour which +he had learnt too thoroughly to unlearn. Thereon came pain and +an estrangement which was none the less profound for being mutually +concealed.</p> +<p>This estrangement was the gradual work of some five or six years, +during which my brother was between eleven and seventeen years old. +At seventeen, I am told that he was remarkably well informed and clever. +His manners were, like my father’s, singularly genial, and his +appearance very prepossessing. He had as yet no doubt concerning +the soundness of any fundamental Christian doctrine, but his mind was +too active to allow of his being contented with my mother’s child-like +faith. There were points on which he did not indeed doubt, but +which it would none the less be interesting to consider; such for example +as the perfectibility of the regenerate Christian, and the meaning of +the mysterious central chapters of the Epistle to the Romans. +He was engaged in these researches though still only a boy, when an +event occurred which gave the first real shock to his faith.</p> +<p>He was accustomed to teach in a school for the poorest children every +Sunday afternoon, a task for which his patience and good temper well +fitted him. On one occasion, however, while he was explaining +the effect of baptism to one of his favourite pupils, he discovered +to his great surprise that the boy had never been baptised. He +pushed his inquiries further, and found that out of the fifteen boys +in his class only five had been baptised, and, not only so, but that +no difference in disposition or conduct could be discovered between +the regenerate boys and the unregenerate. The good and bad boys +were distributed in proportions equal to the respective numbers of the +baptised and unbaptised. In spite of a certain impetuosity of +natural character, he was also of a matter-of-fact and experimental +turn of mind; he therefore went through the whole school, which numbered +about a hundred boys, and found out who had been baptised and who had +not. The same results appeared. The majority had not been +baptised; yet the good and bad dispositions were so distributed as to +preclude all possibility of maintaining that the baptised boys were +better than the unbaptised.</p> +<p>The reader may smile at the idea of any one’s faith being troubled +by a fact of which the explanation is so obvious, but in truth my brother +was seriously and painfully shocked. The teacher to whom he applied +for a solution of the difficulty was not a man of any real power, and +reported my brother to the rector for having disturbed the school by +his inquiries. The rector was old and self-opinionated; the difficulty, +indeed, was plainly as new to him as it had been to my brother, but +instead of saying so at once, and referring to any recognised theological +authority, he tried to put him off with words which seemed intended +to silence him rather than to satisfy him; finally he lost his temper, +and my brother fell under suspicion of unorthodoxy.</p> +<p>This kind of treatment might answer with some people, but not with +my brother. He alludes to it resentfully in the introductory chapter +of his book. He became suspicious that a preconceived opinion +was being defended at the expense of honest scrutiny, and was thus driven +upon his own unaided investigation. The result may be guessed: +he began to go astray, and strayed further and further. The children +of God, he reasoned, the members of Christ and inheritors of the kingdom +of Heaven, were no more spiritually minded than the children of the +world and the devil. Was then the grace of God a gift which left +no trace whatever upon those who were possessed of it - a thing the +presence or absence of which might be ascertained by consulting the +parish registry, but was not discernible in conduct? The grace +of man was more clearly perceptible than this. Assuredly there +must be a screw loose somewhere, which, for aught he knew, might be +jeopardising the salvation of all Christendom. Where then was +this loose screw to be found?</p> +<p>He concluded after some months of reflection that the mischief was +caused by the system of sponsors and by infant baptism. He therefore, +to my mother’s inexpressible grief, joined the Baptists and was +immersed in a pond near Dorking. With the Baptists he remained +quiet about three months, and then began to quarrel with his instructors +as to their doctrine of predestination. Shortly afterwards he +came accidentally upon a fascinating stranger who was no less struck +with my brother than my brother with him, and this gentleman, who turned +out to be a Roman Catholic missionary, landed him in the Church of Rome, +where he felt sure that he had now found rest for his soul. But +here, too, he was mistaken; after about two years he rebelled against +the stifling of all free inquiry; on this rebellion the flood-gates +of scepticism were opened, and he was soon battling with unbelief. +He then fell in with one who was a pure Deist, and was shorn of every +shred of dogma which he had ever held, except a belief in the personality +and providence of the Creator.</p> +<p>On reviewing his letters written to me about this time, I am painfully +struck with the manner in which they show that all these pitiable vagaries +were to be traced to a single cause - a cause which still exists to +the misleading of hundreds of thousands, and which, I fear, seems likely +to continue in full force for many a year to come - I mean, to a false +system of training which teaches people to regard Christianity as a +thing one and indivisible, to be accepted entirely in the strictest +reading of the letter, or to be rejected as absolutely untrue. +The fact is, that all permanent truth is as one of those coal measures, +a seam of which lies near the surface, and even crops up above the ground, +but which is generally of an inferior quality and soon worked out; beneath +it there comes a layer of sand and clay, and then at last the true seam +of precious quality and in virtually inexhaustible supply. The +truth which is on the surface is rarely the whole truth. It is +seldom until this has been worked out and done with - as in the case +of the apparent flatness of the earth - that unchangeable truth is discovered. +It is the glory of the Lord to conceal a matter: it is the glory of +the king to find it out. If my brother, from whom I have taken +the above illustration, had had some judicious and wide-minded friend +to correct and supplement the mainly admirable principles which had +been instilled into him by my mother, he would have been saved years +of spiritual wandering; but, as it was, he fell in with one after another, +each in his own way as literal and unspiritual as the other - each impressed +with one aspect of religious truth, and with one only. In the +end he became perhaps the widest-minded and most original thinker whom +I have ever met; but no one from his early manhood could have augured +this result; on the contrary, he shewed every sign of being likely to +develop into one of those who can never see more than one side of a +question at a time, in spite of their seeing that side with singular +clearness of mental vision. In after life, he often met with mere +lads who seemed to him to be years and years in advance of what he had +been at their age, and would say, smiling, “With a great sum obtained +I this freedom; but thou wast free-born.”</p> +<p>Yet when one comes to think of it, a late development and laborious +growth are generally more fruitful than those which are over-early luxuriant. +Drawing an illustration from the art of painting, with which he was +well acquainted, my brother used to say that all the greatest painters +had begun with a hard and precise manner from which they had only broken +after several years of effort; and that in like manner all the early +schools were founded upon definiteness of outline to the exclusion of +truth of effect. This may be true; but in my brother’s case +there was something even more unpromising than this; there was a commonness, +so to speak, of mental execution, from which no one could have foreseen +his after-emancipation. Yet in the course of time he was indeed +emancipated to the very uttermost, while his bonds will, I firmly trust, +be found to have been of inestimable service to the whole human race.</p> +<p>For although it was so many years before he was enabled to see the +Christian scheme <i>as a whole</i>, or even to conceive the idea that +there was any whole at all, other than each one of the stages of opinion +through which he was at the time passing; yet when the idea was at length +presented to him by one whom I must not name, the discarded fragments +of his faith assumed shape, and formed themselves into a consistently +organised scheme. Then became apparent the value of his knowledge +of the details of so many different sides of Christian verity. +Buried in the details, he had hitherto ignored the fact that they were +only the unessential developments of certain component parts. +Awakening to the perception of the whole after an intimate acquaintance +with the details, he was able to realise the position and meaning of +all that he had hitherto experienced in a way which has been vouchsafed +to few, if any others.</p> +<p>Thus he became truly a broad Churchman. Not broad in the ordinary +and ill-considered use of the term (for the broad Churchman is as little +able to sympathise with Romanists, extreme High Churchmen and Dissenters, +as these are with himself - he is only one of a sect which is called +by the name broad, though it is no broader than its own base), but in +the true sense of being able to believe in the naturalness, legitimacy, +and truth <i>quâ</i> Christianity even of those doctrines which +seem to stand most widely and irreconcilably asunder.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<h3>CHAPTER II</h3> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>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.</p> +<p>So far was this from being the case that the Christianity of his +maturer life would be considered dangerously heterodox by those who +belong to any of the more definite or precise schools of theological +thought. He was as one who has made the circuit of a mountain, +and yet been ascending during the whole time of his doing so: such a +person finds himself upon the same side as at first, but upon a greatly +higher level. The peaks which had seemed the most important when +he was in the valley were now dwarfed to their true proportions by colossal +cloud-capped masses whose very existence could not have been suspected +from beneath: and again, other points which had seemed among the lowest +turned out to be the very highest of all - as the Finster-Aarhorn, which +hides itself away in the centre of the Bernese Alps, is never seen to +be the greatest till one is high and far off.</p> +<p>Thus he felt no sort of fear or repugnance in admitting that the +New Testament writings, as we now have them, are not by any means accurate +records of the events which they profess to chronicle. This, which +few English Churchmen would be prepared to admit, was to him so much +of an axiom that he despaired of seeing any sound theological structure +raised until it was universally recognised.</p> +<p>And here he would probably meet with sympathy from the more advanced +thinkers within the body of the Church, but so far as I know, he stood +alone as recognising the wisdom of the Divine counsels in having ordained +the wide and apparently irreconcilable divergencies of doctrine and +character which we find assigned to Christ in the Gospels, and as finding +his faith confirmed, not by the supposition that both the portraits +drawn of Christ are objectively true, but <i>that both are objectively +inaccurate, and that the Almighty intended they should be inaccurate</i>, +inasmuch as the true spiritual conception in the mind of man could be +indirectly more certainly engendered by a strife, a warring, a clashing, +so to speak, of versions, all of them distorting slightly some one or +other of the features of the original, than directly by the most absolutely +correct impression which human language could convey. Even the +most perfect human speech, as has been often pointed out, is a very +gross and imperfect vehicle of thought. I remember once hearing +him say that it was not till he was nearly thirty that he discovered +“what thick and sticky fluids were air and water,” how crass +and dull in comparison with other more subtle fluids; he added that +speech had no less deceived him, seeming, as it did, to be such a perfect +messenger of thought, and being after all nothing but a shuffler and +a loiterer.</p> +<p>With most men the Gospels are true in spite of their discrepancies +and inconsistencies; with him Christianity, as distinguished from a +bare belief in the objectively historical character of each part of +the Gospels, was true because of these very discrepancies; as his conceptions +of the Divine manner of working became wider, the very forces which +had at one time shaken his faith to its foundations established it anew +upon a firmer and broader base. He was gradually led to feel that +the ideal presented by the life and death of our Saviour could never +have been accepted by Jews at all, if its whole purport had been made +intelligible during the Redeemer’s life-time; that in order to +insure its acceptance by a nucleus of followers it must have been endowed +with a more local aspect than it was intended afterwards to wear; yet +that, for the sake of its subsequent universal value, the destruction +of that local complexion was indispensable; that the corruptions inseparable +from <i>vivâ voce</i> communication and imperfect education were +the means adopted by the Creator to blur the details of the ideal, and +give it that breadth which could not be otherwise obtainable - and that +thus the value of the ideal was indefinitely enhanced, and <i>designedly +enhanced</i>, alike by the waste of time and by its incrustations; that +all ideals gain by a certain amount of vagueness, which allows the beholder +to fill in the details according to his own spiritual needs, and that +no ideal can be truly universal and permanents unless it have an elasticity +which will allow of this process in the minds of those who contemplate +it; that it cannot become thus elastic unless by the loss of no inconsiderable +amount of detail, and that thus the half, as Dr. Arnold used to say, +“becomes greater than the whole,” the sketch more preciously +suggestive than the photograph. Hence far from deploring the fragmentary, +confused, and contradictory condition of the Gospel records, he saw +in this condition the means whereby alone the human mind could have +been enabled to conceive - not the precise nature of Christ - but <i>the +highest ideal of which each individual Christian soul was capable</i>. +As soon as he had grasped these conceptions, which will be found more +fully developed in one of the later chapters of his book, the spell +of unbelief was broken.</p> +<p>But, once broken, it was dissolved utterly and entirely; he could +allow himself to contemplate fearlessly all sorts of issues from which +one whose experiences had been less varied would have shrunk. +He was free of the enemy’s camp, and could go hither and thither +whithersoever he would. The very points which to others were insuperable +difficulties were to him foundation-stones of faith. For example, +to the objection that if in the present state of the records no clear +conception of the nature of Christ’s life and teaching could be +formed, we should be compelled to take one for our model of whom we +knew little or nothing certain, I have heard him answer, “And +so much the better for us all. The truth, if read by the light +of man’s imperfect understanding, would have been falser to him +than any falsehood. It would have been truth no longer. +<i>Better be led aright by an error which is so</i> <i>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</i>. In such a case, it is the error which is +the truth and the truth the error.</p> +<p>Fearless himself, he could not understand the fears felt by others; +and this was perhaps his greatest sympathetic weakness. He was +impatient of the subterfuges with which untenable interpretations of +Scripture were defended, and of the disingenuousness of certain harmonists; +indeed, the mention of the word harmony was enough to kindle an outbreak +of righteous anger, which would sometimes go to the utmost limit of +righteousness. “Harmonies!” he would exclaim, “the +sweetest harmonies are those which are most full of discords, and the +discords of one generation of musicians become heavenly music in the +hands of their successors. Which of the great musicians has not +enriched his art not only by the discovery of new harmonies, but by +proving that sounds which are actually inharmonious are nevertheless +essentially and eternally delightful? What an outcry has there +not always been against the ‘unwarrantable licence’ with +the rules of harmony whenever a Beethoven or a Mozart has broken through +any of the trammels which have been regarded as the safeguards of the +art, instead of in their true light of fetters, and how gratefully have +succeeding musicians acquiesced in and adopted the innovation.” +Then would follow a tirade with illustration upon illustration, comparison +of this passage with that, and an exhaustive demonstration that one +or other, or both, could have had no sort of possible foundation in +fact; he could only see that the persons from whom he differed were +defending something which was untrue and which they ought to have known +to be untrue, but he could not see that people ought to know many things +which they do not know.</p> +<p>Had he himself seen all that he ought to have been able to see from +his own standpoints? Can any of us do so? The force of early +bias and education, the force of intellectual surroundings, the force +of natural timidity, the force of dulness, were things which he could +appreciate and make allowance for in any other age, and among any other +people than his own; but as belonging to England and the Nineteenth +Century they had no place in his theory of Nature; they were inconceivable, +unnatural, unpardonable, whenever they came into contact with the subject +of Christian evidences. Deplorable, indeed, they are, but this +was just the sort of word to which he could not confine himself. +The criticisms upon the late Dean Alford’s notes, which will be +given in the sequel, display this sort of temper; they are not entirely +his own, but he adopted them and endorsed them with a warmth which we +cannot but feel to be unnecessary, not to say more. Yet I am free +to confess that whatever editorial licence I could venture to take has +been taken in the direction of lenity.</p> +<p>On the whole, however, he valued Dean Alford’s work very highly, +giving him great praise for the candour with which he not unfrequently +set the harmonists aside. For example, in his notes upon the discrepancies +between St. Luke’s and St. Matthew’s accounts of the early +life of our Lord, the Dean openly avows that it is quite beyond his +purpose to attempt to reconcile the two. “This part of the +Gospel history,” he writes, “is one where the harmonists, +by their arbitrary reconcilement of the two accounts, have given great +advantage to the enemies of the faith. <i>As the two accounts +now stand</i>, it is wholly impossible to suggest any satisfactory method +of <i>uniting them</i>, every one who has attempted it has in some part +or other of his hypothesis violated probability and common sense,” +but in spite of this, the Dean had no hesitation in accepting both the +accounts. With reference to this the author of <i>The Jesus of +History</i> (Williams and Norgate, 1866) - a work to which my brother +admitted himself to be under very great obligations, and which he greatly +admired, in spite of his utter dissent from the main conclusion arrived +at, has the following note:-</p> +<p>“Dean Alford, N.T. for English readers, admits that the narratives +as they stand are contradictory, but he believes both. He is even +severe upon the harmonists who attempt to frame schemes of reconciliation +between the two, on account of the triumph they thus furnish to the +‘enemies of the faith,’ a phrase which seems to imply all +who believe less than he does. The Dean, however, forgets that +the faith which can believe two (apparently) contradictory propositions +in matters of fact is a very rare gift, and that for one who is so endowed +there are thousands who can be satisfied with a plausible though demonstrably +false explanation. To the latter class the despised harmonists +render a real service.”</p> +<p>Upon this note my brother was very severe. In a letter, dated +Dec. 18, 1866, addressed to a friend who had alluded to it, and expressed +his concurrence with it as in the main just, my brother wrote: “You +are wrong about the note in <i>The Jesus of History</i>, there is more +of the Christianity of the future in Dean Alford’s indifference +to the harmony between the discordant accounts of Luke and Matthew than +there would have been <i>even in the most convincing and satisfactory</i> +explanation of the way in which they came to differ. No such explanation +is possible; both the Dean and the author of <i>The Jesus of History</i> +were very well aware of this, but the latter is unjust in assuming that +his opponent was not alive to the absurdity of appearing to believe +two contradictory propositions at one and the same time. The Dean +takes very good care that he shall not appear to do this, for it is +perfectly plain to any careful reader that he must really believe that +one or both narratives are inaccurate, inasmuch as the differences between +them are too great to allow of reconciliation by a supposed suppression +of detail.</p> +<p>“This, though not said so clearly as it should have been, is +yet virtually implied in the admission that no sort of fact which could +by any possibility be admitted as reconciling them had ever occurred +to human ingenuity; what, then, Dean Alford must have really felt was +that the spiritual value of each account was no less precious for not +being in strict accordance with the other; that the objective truth +lies somewhere between them, and is of very little importance, being +long dead and buried, and living in its results only, in comparison +with the subjective truth conveyed by both the narratives, which lives +in our hearts independently of precise knowledge concerning the actual +facts. Moreover, that though both accounts may perhaps be inaccurate, +yet that <i>a very little</i> natural inaccuracy on the part of each +writer would throw them apparently very wide asunder, that such inaccuracies +are easily to be accounted for, and would, in fact, be inevitable in +the sixty years of oral communication which elapsed between the birth +of our Lord and the writing of the first Gospel, and again in the eighty +or ninety years prior to the third, so that the details of the facts +connected with the conception, birth, genealogy, and earliest history +of our Saviour are irrecoverable - a general impression being alone +possible, or indeed desirable.</p> +<p>“It might perhaps have been more satisfactory if Dean Alford +had expressed the above more plainly; but if he had done this, who would +have read his book? Where would have been that influence in the +direction of truly liberal Christianity which has been so potent during +the last twenty years? As it was, the freedom with which the Dean +wrote was the cause of no inconsiderable scandal. Or, again, he +may not have been fully conscious of his own position: few men are; +he had taken the right one, but more perhaps by spiritual instinct than +by conscious and deliberate exercise of his intellectual faculties. +Finally, compromise is not a matter of good policy only, it is a solemn +duty in the interests of Christian peace, and this not in minor matters +only - we can all do this much - but in those concerning which we feel +most strongly, for here the sacrifice is greatest and most acceptable +to God. There are, of course, limits to this, and Dean Alford +may have carried compromise too far in the present instance, but it +is very transparent. The narrowness which leads the author of +<i>The Jesus of History</i> to strain at such a gnat is the secret of +his inability to accept the divinity and miracles of our Lord, and has +marred the most exhaustively critical exegesis of the life and death +of our Saviour with an impotent conclusion.”</p> +<p>It is strange that one who could write thus should occasionally have +shown himself so little able to apply his own principles. He seems +to have been alternately under the influence of two conflicting spirits +- at one time writing as though there were nothing precious under the +sun except logic, consistency, and precision, and breathing fire and +smoke against even very trifling deviations from the path of exact criticism +- at another, leading the reader almost to believe that he disregarded +the value of any objective truth, and speaking of endeavour after accuracy +in terms that are positively contemptuous. Whenever he was in +the one mood he seemed to forget the possibility of any other; so much +so that I have sometimes thought that he did this deliberately and for +the same reasons as those which led Adam Smith to exclude one set of +premises in his <i>Theory of Moral Sentiments</i> and another in his +<i>Wealth of Nations</i>. I believe, however, that the explanation +lies in the fact that my brother was inclined to underrate the importance +of belief in the objective truth of any other individual features in +the life of our Lord than his Resurrection and Ascension. All +else seemed dwarfed by the side of these events. His whole soul +was so concentrated upon the centre of the circle that he forgot the +circumference, or left it out of sight. Nothing less than the +strictest objective truth as to the main facts of the Resurrection and +Ascension would content him; the other miracles and the life and teaching +of our Lord might then be left open; whatever view was taken of them +by each individual Christian was probably the one most desirable for +the spiritual wellbeing of each.</p> +<p>Even as regards the Resurrection and Ascension, he did not greatly +value the detail. Provided these facts were so established that +they could never henceforth be controverted, he thought that the less +detail the broader and more universally acceptable would be the effect. +Hence, when Dean Alford’s notes seemed to jeopardise the evidences +for these things, he could brook no trifling; for unless Christ actually +died and actually came to life again, he saw no escape from an utter +denial of any but natural religion. Christ would have been no +more to him than Socrates or Shakespeare, except in so far as his teaching +was more spiritual. The triune nature of the Deity - the Resurrection +from the dead - the hope of Heaven and salutary fear of Hell - all would +go but for the Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ; nothing would +remain except a sense of the Divine as a substitute for God, and the +current feeling of one’s peers as the chief moral check upon misconduct. +Indeed, we have seen this view openly advocated by a recent writer, +and set forth in the very plainest terms. My brother did not live +to see it, but if he had, he would have recognised the fulfilment of +his own prophecies as to what must be the inevitable sequel of a denial +of our Lord’s Resurrection.</p> +<p>It will be seen therefore that he was in no danger of being carried +away by a “pet theory.” Where light and definition +were essential, he would sacrifice nothing of either; but he was jealous +for his highest light, and felt “that the whole effect of the +Christian scheme was indefinitely heightened by keeping all other lights +subordinate” - this at least was the illustration which he often +used concerning it. But as there were limits to the value of light +and “finding” - limits which had been far exceeded, with +the result of an unnatural forcing of the lights, and an effect of garishness +and unreality - so there were limits to the as yet unrecognised preciousness +of “losing” and obscurity; these limits he placed at the +objectivity of our Lord’s Resurrection and Ascension. Let +there be light enough to show these things, and the rest would gain +by being in half-tone and shadow.</p> +<p>His facility of illustration was simply marvellous. From his +conversation any one would have thought that he was acquainted with +all manner of arts and sciences of which he knew little or nothing. +It is true, as has been said already, that he had had some practice +in the art of painting, and was an enthusiastic admirer of the masterpieces +of Raphael, Titian, Guido, Domenichino, and others; but he could never +have been called a painter; for music he had considerable feeling; I +think he must have known thorough-bass, but it was hard to say what +he did or did not know. Of science he was almost entirely ignorant, +yet he had assimilated a quantity of stray facts, and whatever he assimilated +seemed to agree with him and nourish his mental being. But though +his acquaintance with any one art or science must be allowed to have +been superficial only, he had an astonishing perception of the relative +bearings of facts which seemed at first sight to be quite beyond the +range of one another, and of the relations between the sciences generally; +it was this which gave him his felicity and fecundity of illustration +- a gift which he never abused. He delighted in its use for the +purpose of carrying a clear impression of his meaning to the mind of +another, but I never remember to have heard him mistake illustration +for argument, nor endeavour to mislead an adversary by a fascinating +but irrelevant simile. The subtlety of his mind was a more serious +source of danger to him, though I do not know that he greatly lost by +it in comparison with what he gained; his sense, however, of distinctions +was so fine that it would sometimes distract his attention from points +of infinitely greater importance in connection with his subject than +the particular distinction which he was trying to establish at the moment.</p> +<p>The reader may be glad to know what my brother felt about retaining +the unhistoric passages of Scripture. Would he wish to see them +sought for and sifted out? Or, again, what would he propose concerning +such of the parables as are acknowledged by every liberal Churchman +to be immoral, as, for instance, the story of Dives and Lazarus and +the Unjust Steward - parables which can never have been spoken by our +Lord, at any rate not in their present shape? And here we have +a remarkable instance of his moderation and truly English good sense. +“Do not touch one word of them,” was his often-repeated +exclamation. “If not directly inspired by the mouth of God +they have been indirectly inspired by the force of events, and the force +of events is the power and manifestation of God; they could not have +been allowed to come into their present position if they had not been +recognised in the counsels of the Almighty as being of indirect service +to mankind; there is a subjective truth conveyed even by these parables +to the minds of many, that enables them to lay hold of other and objective +truths which they could not else have grasped.</p> +<p>“There can be no question that the communistic utterances of +the third gospel, as distinguished from St. Matthew’s more spiritual +and doubtless more historic rendering of the same teaching, have been +of inestimable service to Christianity. Christ is not for the +whole only, but also for them that are sick, for the ill-instructed +and what we are pleased to call ‘dangerous’ classes, as +well as for the more sober thinkers. To how many do the words, +‘Blessed be ye poor: for your’s is the kingdom of Heaven’ +(Luke vi., 20), carry a comfort which could never be given by the ‘Blessed +are the poor in spirit’ of Matthew v., 3. In Matthew we +find, ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit: for their’s is the +kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall +be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the +earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: +for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall +obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see +God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the +children of God. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ +sake: for their’s is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are +ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all +manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and +be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted +they the prophets which were before you.’ In Luke we read, +‘Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. +Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh. . . . But woe +unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. +Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you +that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep. Woe unto you, when +all men shall speak well of you! for so did <i>their</i> fathers to +the false prophets,’ where even the grammar of the last sentence, +independently of the substance, is such as it is impossible to ascribe +to our Lord himself.</p> +<p>“The ‘upper’ classes naturally turn to the version +of Matthew, but the ‘lower,’ no less naturally to that of +Luke, nor is it likely that the ideal of Christ would be one-tenth part +so dear to them had not this provision for them been made, not by the +direct teaching of the Saviour, but by the indirect inspiration of such +events as were seen by the Almighty to be necessary for the full development +of the highest ideal of which mankind was capable. All that we +have in the New Testament is the inspired word, directly or indirectly, +of God, the unhistoric no less than the historic; it is for us to take +spiritual sustenance from whatever meats we find prepared for us, not +to order the removal of this or that dish; the coarser meats are for +the coarser natures; as they grow in grace they will turn from these +to the finer: let us ourselves partake of that which we find best suited +to us, but do not let us grudge to others the provision that God has +set before them. There are many things which though not objectively +true are nevertheless subjectively true to those who can receive them; +and subjective truth is universally felt to be even higher than objective, +as may be shown by the acknowledged duty of obeying our consciences +(which is the right <i>to us</i>) rather than any dictate of man however +much more objectively true. It is that which is true <i>to us</i> +that we are bound each one of us to seek and follow.”</p> +<p>Having heard him thus far, and being unable to understand, much less +to sympathise with teaching so utterly foreign to anything which I had +heard elsewhere, I said to him, “Either our Lord did say the words +assigned to him by St. Luke or he did not. If he did, as they +stand they are bad, and any one who heard them for the first time would +say that they were bad; if he did not, then we ought not to allow them +to remain in our Bibles to the misleading of people who will thus believe +that God is telling them what he never did tell them - to the misleading +of the poor, whom even in low self-interest we are bound to instruct +as fully and truthfully as we can.”</p> +<p>He smiled and answered, “That is the Peter Bell view of the +matter. I thought so once, as, indeed, no one can know better +than yourself.”</p> +<p>The expression upon his face as he said this was sufficient to show +the clearness of his present perception, nevertheless I was anxious +to get to the root of the matter, and said that if our Lord never uttered +these words their being attributed to him must be due to fraud; to pious +fraud, but still to fraud.</p> +<p>“Not so,” he answered, “it is due to the weakness +of man’s powers of memory and communication, and perhaps in some +measure to unconscious inspiration. Moreover, even though wrong +of some sort may have had its share in the origin of certain of the +sayings ascribed to our Saviour, yet their removal now that they have +been consecrated by time would be a still greater wrong. Would +you defend the spoliation of the monasteries, or the confiscation of +the abbey lands? I take it no - still less would you restore the +monasteries or take back the lands; a consecrated change becomes a new +departure; accept it and turn it to the best advantage. These +are things to which the theory of the Church concerning lay baptism +is strictly applicable. <i>Fieri non debet, factum valet</i>. +If in our narrow and unsympathetic strivings after precision we should +remove the hallowed imperfections whereby time has set the glory of +his seal upon the gospels as well as upon all other aged things, not +for twenty generations will they resume that ineffable and inviolable +aspect which our fussy meddlesomeness will have disturbed. Let +them alone. It is as they stand that they have saved the world.</p> +<p>“No change is good unless it is imperatively called for. +Not even the Reformation was good; it is good now; I acquiesce in it, +as I do in anything which in itself not vital has received the sanction +of many generations of my countrymen. It is sanction which sanctifieth +in matters of this kind. I would no more undo the Reformation +now than I would have helped it forward in the sixteenth century. +Leave the historic, the unhistoric, and the doubtful to grow together +until the harvest: that which is not vital will perish and rot unnoticed +when it has ceased to have vitality; it is living till it has done this. +Note how the very passages which you would condemn have died out of +the regard of any but the poor. Who quotes them? Who appeals +to them? Who believes in them? Who indeed except the poorest +of the poor attaches the smallest weight to them whatever? To +us they are dead, and other passages will die to us in like manner, +noiselessly and almost imperceptibly, as the services for the fifth +of November died out of the Prayer Book. One day the fruit will +be hanging upon the tree, as it has hung for months, the next it will +be lying upon the ground. It is not ripe until it has fallen of +itself, or with the gentlest shaking; use no violence towards it, confident +that you cannot hurry the ripening, and that if shaken down unripe the +fruit will be worthless. Christianity must have contained the +seeds of growth within itself, even to the shedding of many of its present +dogmas. If the dogmas fall quietly in their maturity, the precious +seed of truth (which will be found in the heart of every dogma that +has been able to take living hold upon the world’s imagination) +will quicken and spring up in its own time: strike at the fruit too +soon and the seed will die.”</p> +<p>I should be sorry to convey an impression that I am responsible for, +or that I entirely agree with, the defence of the unhistoric which I +have here recorded. I have given it in my capacity of editor and +in some sort biographer, but am far from being prepared to maintain +that it is likely, or indeed ought, to meet with the approval of any +considerable number of Christians. But, surely, in these days +of self-mystification it is refreshing to see the boldness with which +my brother thought, and the freedom with which he contemplated all sorts +of issues which are too generally avoided. What temptation would +have been felt by many to soften down the inconsistencies and contradictions +of the Gospels. How few are those who will venture to follow the +lead of scientific criticism, and admit what every scholar must well +know to be indisputable. Yet if a man will not do this, he shows +that he has greater faith in falsehood than in truth.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<h3>CHAPTER III</h3> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>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.</p> +<p>In reference to the very subject of the parables above alluded to, +he had written during his time of unbelief:- “Why are we to interpret +so literally all passages about the guilt of unbelief, and insist upon +the historical character of every miraculous account, while we are indignant +if any one demands an equally literal rendering of the precepts concerning +human conduct? He that hath two coats is not to give to him that +hath none: this would be ‘visionary,’ ‘utopian,’ +‘wholly unpractical,’ and so forth. Or, again, he +that is smitten on the one cheek is not to turn the other to the smiter, +but to hand the offender over to the law; nor are the commands relative +to indifference as to the morrow and a neglect of ordinary prudence +to be taken as they stand; nor yet the warnings against praying in public; +nor can the parables, any one of them, be interpreted strictly with +advantage to human welfare, except perhaps that of the Good Samaritan; +nor the Sermon on the Mount, save in such passages as were already the +common property of mankind before the coming of Christ. The parables +which every one praises are in reality very bad: the Unjust Steward, +the Labourers in the Vineyard, the Prodigal Son, Dives and Lazarus, +the Sower and the Seed, the Wise and Foolish Virgins, the Marriage Garment, +the Man who planted a Vineyard, are all either grossly immoral, or tend +to engender a very low estimate of the character of God - an estimate +far below the standard of the best earthly kings; where they are not +immoral, or do not tend to degrade the character of God, they are the +merest commonplaces imaginable, such as one is astonished to see people +accept as having been first taught by Christ. Such maxims as those +which inculcate conciliation and a forgiveness of injuries (wherever +practicable) are certainly good, but the world does not owe their discovery +to Christ, and they have had little place in the practice of his followers.</p> +<p>“It is impossible to say that as a matter of fact the English +people forgive their enemies more freely now than the Romans did, we +will say in the time of Augustus. The value of generosity and +magnanimity was perfectly well known among the ancients, nor do these +qualities assume any nobler guise in the teaching of Christ than they +did in that of the ancient heathen philosophers. On the contrary, +they have no direct equivalent in Christian thought or phraseology. +They are heathen words drawn from a heathen language, and instinct with +the same heathen ideas of high spirit and good birth as belonged to +them in the Latin language; they are no part or parcel of Christianity, +and are not only independent of it, but savour distinctly of the flesh +as opposed to the spirit, and are hence more or less antagonistic to +it, until they have undergone a certain modification and transformation +- until, that is to say, they have been mulcted of their more frank +and genial elements. The nearest approach to them in Christian +phrase is ‘self-denial,’ but the sound of this word kindles +no smile of pleasure like that kindled by the ideas of generosity and +nobility of conduct. At the thought of self-denial we feel good, +but uncomfortable, and as though on the point of performing some disagreeable +duty which we think we ought to pretend to like, but which we do not +like. At the thought of generosity, we feel as one who is going +to share in a delightfully exhilarating but arduous pastime - full of +the most pleasurable excitement. On the mention of the word generosity +we feel as if we were going out hunting; at the word ‘self-denial,’ +as if we were getting ready to go to church. Generosity turns +well-doing into a pleasure, self-denial into a duty, as of a servant +under compulsion.</p> +<p>“There are people who will deny this, but there are people +who will deny anything. There are some who will say that St. Paul +would not have condemned the Falstaff plays, <i>Twelfth Night, The Tempest, +A Midsummer Night’s Dream</i>, and almost everything that Shakspeare +ever wrote; but there is no arguing against this. ‘Every +man,’ said Dr. Johnson, ‘has a right to his own opinion, +and every one else has a right to knock him down for it.’ +But even granting that generosity and high spirit have made some progress +since the days of Christ, allowance must be made for the lapse of two +thousand years, during which time it is only reasonable to suppose that +an advance would have been made in civilisation - and hence in the direction +of clemency and forbearance - whether Christianity had been preached +or not, but no one can show that the modern English, if superior to +the ancients in these respects, show any greater superiority than may +be ascribed justly to centuries of established order and good government.”</p> +<p>* * * * *</p> +<p>“Again, as to the ideal presented by the character of Christ, +about which so much has been written; is it one which would meet with +all this admiration if it were presented to us now for the first time? +Surely it offers but a peevish view of life and things in comparison +with that offered by other highest ideals - the old Roman and Greek +ideals, the Italian ideal, and the Shakespearian ideal.”</p> +<p>* * * * *</p> +<p>“As with the parables so with the Sermon on the Mount - where +it is not commonplace it is immoral, and <i>vice versâ</i>; the +admiration which is so freely lavished upon the teachings of Jesus Christ +turns out to be but of the same kind as that bestowed upon certain modern +writers, who have made great reputations by telling people what they +perfectly well knew; and were in no particular danger of forgetting. +There is, however, this excuse for those who have been carried away +with such musical but untruthful sentences as ‘Blessed are they +that mourn: for they shall be comforted,’ namely, that they have +not come to the subject with unbiassed minds. It is one thing +to see no merit in a picture, and another to see no merit in a picture +when one is told that it is by Raphael; we are few of us able to stand +against the <i>prestige</i> of a great name; our self-love is alarmed +lest we should be deficient in taste, or, worse still, lest we should +be considered to be so; as if it could matter to any right-minded person +whether the world considered him to be of good taste or not, in comparison +with the keeping of his own soul truthful to itself.</p> +<p>“But if this holds good about things which are purely matters +of taste, how much more does it do so concerning those who make a distinct +claim upon us for moral approbation or the reverse? Such a claim +is most imperatively made by the teaching of Jesus Christ: are we then +content to answer in the words of others - words to which we have no +title of our own - or shall we strip ourselves of preconceived opinion, +and come to the question with minds that are truly candid? Whoever +shrinks from this is a liar to his own self, and as such, the worst +and most dangerous of liars. He is as one who sits in an impregnable +citadel and trembles in a time of peace - so great a coward as not even +to feel safe when he is in his own keeping. How loose of soul +if he knows that his own keeping is worthless, how aspen-hearted if +he fears lest others should find him out and hurt him for communing +truthfully with himself!</p> +<p>* * * * *</p> +<p>“That a man should lie to others if he hopes to gain something +considerable - this is reckoned cheating, robbing, fraudulent dealing, +or whatever it may be; but it is an intelligible offence in comparison +with the allowing oneself to be deceived. So in like manner with +being bored. The man who lets himself be bored is even more contemptible +than the bore. He who puts up with shoddy pictures, shoddy music, +shoddy morality, shoddy society, is more despicable than he who is the +prime agent in any of these things. He has less to gain, and probably +deceives himself more; so that he commits the greater crime for the +less reward. And I say emphatically that the morality which most +men profess to hold as a Divine revelation was a shoddy morality, which +would neither wash nor wear, but was woven together from a tissue of +dreams and blunders, and steeped in blood more virulent than the blood +of Nessus.</p> +<p>“Oh! if men would but leave off lying to themselves! +If they would but learn the sacredness of their own likes and dislikes, +and exercise their moral discrimination, making it clear to themselves +what it is that they really love and venerate. There is no such +enemy to mankind as moral cowardice. A downright vulgar self-interested +and unblushing liar is a higher being than the moral cur whose likes +and dislikes are at the beck and call of bullies that stand between +him and his own soul; such a creature gives up the most sacred of all +his rights for something more unsubstantial than a mess of pottage - +a mental serf too abject even to know that he is being wronged. +Wretched emasculator of his own reason, whose jejune timidity and want +of vitality are thus omnipresent in the most secret chambers of his +heart!</p> +<p>“We can forgive a man for almost any falsehood provided we +feel that he was under strong temptation and well knew that he was deceiving. +He has done wrong - still we can understand it, and he may yet have +some useful stuff about him - but what can we feel towards one who for +a small motive tells lies even to himself, and does not know that he +is lying? What useless rotten fig-wood lumber must not such a +thing be made of, and what lies will there not come out of it, falling +in every direction upon all who come within its reach. The common +self-deceiver of modern society is a more dangerous and contemptible +object than almost any ordinary felon, a matter upon which those who +do not deceive themselves need no enlightenment.”</p> +<p>* * * * *</p> +<p>“But why insist so strongly on the literal interpretation of +one part of the sayings of Christ, and be so elastic about that of the +passages which inculcate more than those ordinary precepts which all +had agreed upon as early as the days of Solomon and probably earlier? +We have cut down Christianity so as to make it appear to sanction our +own conventions; but we have not altered our conventions so as to bring +them into harmony with Christianity. We do not give to him that +asketh; we take good care to avoid him; yet if the precept meant only +that we should be liberal in assisting others - it wanted no enforcing: +the probability is that it had been enforced too much rather than too +little already; the more literally it has been followed the more terrible +has the mischief been; the saying only becomes harmless when regarded +as a mere convention. So with most parts of Christ’s teaching. +It is only conventional Christianity which will stand a man in good +stead to live by; true Christianity will never do so. Men have +tried it and found it fail; or, rather, its inevitable failure was so +obvious that no age or country has ever been mad enough to carry it +out in such a manner as would have satisfied its founders. So +said Dean Swift in his <i>Argument against abolishing Christianity</i>. +‘I hope,’ he writes, ‘no reader imagines me so weak +as to stand up in defence of real Christianity, such as used in primitive +times’ (if we may believe the authors of those ages) ‘to +have an influence upon men’s beliefs and actions. To offer +at the restoring of that would be, indeed, a wild project; it would +be to dig up foundations, to destroy at one blow all the wit and half +the learning of the kingdom, to break the entire frame and constitution +of things, to ruin trade, extinguish arts and sciences, with the professors +of them; in short, to turn our courts of exchange and shops into deserts; +and would be full as absurd as the proposal of Horace where he advises +the Romans all in a body to leave their city, and to seek a new seat +in some remote part of the world by way of cure for the corruption of +their manners.</p> +<p>“‘Therefore, I think this caution was in itself altogether +unnecessary (which I have inserted only to prevent all possibility of +cavilling), since every candid reader will easily understand my discourse +to be intended only in defence of nominal Christianity, the other having +been for some time wholly laid aside by general consent as utterly inconsistent +with our present schemes of wealth and power.’</p> +<p>“Yet but for these schemes of wealth and power the world would +relapse into barbarianism; it is they and not Christianity which have +created and preserved civilisation. And what if some unhappy wretch, +with a serious turn of mind and no sense of the ridiculous, takes all +this talk about Christianity in sober earnest, and tries to act upon +it? Into what misery may he not easily fall, and with what life-long +errors may he not embitter the lives of his children!</p> +<p>* * * * *</p> +<p>“Again, we do not cut off our right hand nor pluck out our +eyes if they offend us; we conventionalise our interpretations of these +sayings at our will and pleasure; we do take heed for the morrow, and +should be inconceivably wicked and foolish were we not to do so; we +do gather up riches, and indeed we do most things which the experience +of mankind has taught us to be to our advantage, quite irrespectively +of any precept of Christianity for or against. But why say that +it is Christianity which is our chief guide, when the words of Christ +point in such a very different direction from that which we have seen +fit to take? Perhaps it is in order to compensate for our laxity +of interpretation upon these points that we are so rigid in stickling +for accuracy upon those which make no demand upon our comfort or convenience? +Thus, though we conventionalise practice, we never conventionalise dogma. +Here, indeed, we stickle for the letter most inflexibly; yet one would +have thought that we might have had greater licence to modify the latter +than the former. If we say that the teaching of Christ is not +to be taken according to its import - why give it so much importance? +Teaching by exaggeration is not a satisfactory method, nor one worthy +of a being higher than man; it might have been well once, and in the +East, but it is not well now. It induces more and more of that +jarring and straining of our moral faculties, of which much is unavoidable +in the existing complex condition of affairs, but of which the less +the better. At present the tug of professed principles in one +direction, and of necessary practice in the other, causes the same sort +of wear and tear in our moral gear as is caused to a steam-engine by +continually reversing it when it is going it at full speed. No +mechanism can stand it.”</p> +<p>The above extracts (written when he was about twenty-three years +old) may serve to show how utter was the subversion of his faith. +His mind was indeed in darkness! Who could have hoped that so +brilliant a day should have succeeded to the gloom of such mistrust? +Yet as upon a winter’s morning in November when the sun rises +red through the smoke, and presently the fog spreads its curtain of +thick darkness over the city, and then there comes a single breath of +wind from some more generous quarter, whereupon the blessed sun shines +again, and the gloom is gone; or, again, as when the warm south-west +wind comes up breathing kindness from the sea, unheralded, suspected, +when the earth is in her saddest frost, and on the instant all the lands +are thawed and opened to the genial influences of a sweet springful +whisper - so thawed his heart, and the seed which had lain dormant in +its fertile soil sprang up, grew, ripened, and brought forth an abundant +harvest.</p> +<p>Indeed now that the result has been made plain we can perhaps feel +that his scepticism was precisely of that nature which should have given +the greatest ground for hope. He was a genuine lover of truth +in so far as he could see it.</p> +<p>His lights were dim, but such as they were he walked according to +them, and hence they burnt ever more and more clearly, till in later +life they served to show him what is vouchsafed to such men and to such +only - the enormity of his own mistakes. Better that a man should +feel the divergence between Christian theory and Christian practice, +that he should be shocked at it - even to the breaking away utterly +from the theory until he has arrived at a wider comprehension of its +scope - than that he should be indifferent to the divergence and make +no effort to bring his principles and practice into harmony with one +another. A true lover of consistency, it was intolerable to him +to say one thing with his lips and another with his actions. As +long as this is true concerning any man, his friends may feel sure that +the hand of the Lord is with him, though the signs thereof be hidden +from mortal eyesight.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<h3>CHAPTER IV</h3> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>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>i.e</i>., to render the words as accurately +as possible, and leave the reader to modify the meaning. But it +was years before my brother could be got to feel this, nor did he ever +do so fully, simple and obvious though it must appear to most people, +until he had learned to recognise the value of a certain amount of inaccuracy +and inconsistency in everything which is not comprehended in mechanics +or the exact sciences. “It is this,” he used to say, +“which gives artistic or spiritual value as contrasted with mechanical +precision.”</p> +<p>In inaccuracy and inconsistency, therefore (within certain limits), +my brother saw the means whereby our minds are kept from regarding things +as rigidly and immutably fixed which are not yet fully understood, and +perhaps may never be so while we are in our present state of probation. +Life is not one of the exact sciences, living is essentially an art +and not a science. Every thing addressed to human minds at all +must be more or less of a compromise; thus, to take a very old illustration, +even the definitions of a point and a line - the fundamental things +in the most exact of the sciences - are mere compromises. A point +is supposed to have neither length, breadth, nor thickness - this in +theory, but in practice unless a point have a little of all these things +there is nothing there. So with a line; a line is supposed to +have length, but no breadth, yet in practice we never saw a line which +had not breadth. What inconsistency is there here, in requiring +us to conceive something which we cannot conceive, and which can have +no existence, before we go on to the investigation of the laws whereby +the earth can alone be measured and the orbits of the planets determined. +I do not think that this illustration was presented to my brother’s +mind while he was young, but I am sure that if it had been it would +have made him miserable. He would have had no confidence in mathematics, +and would very likely have made a furious attack upon Newton and Galileo, +and been firmly convinced that he was discomfiting them. Indeed +I cannot forget a certain look of bewilderment which came over his face +when the idea was put before him, I imagine, for the first time. +Fortunately he had so grown that the right inference was now in no danger +of being missed. He did not conclude that because the evidences +for mathematics were founded upon compromises and definitions which +are inaccurate - therefore that mathematics were false, or that there +were no mathematics, but he learnt to feel that there might be other +things which were no less indisputable than mathematics, and which might +also be founded on facts for which the evidences were not wholly free +from inconsistencies and inaccuracies.</p> +<p>To some he might appear to be approaching too nearly to the “Sed +tu vera puta” argument of Juvenal. I greatly fear that an +attempt may be made to misrepresent him as taking this line; that is +to say, as accepting Christianity on the ground of the excellence of +its moral teaching, and looking upon it as, indeed, a superstition, +but salutary for women and young people. Hardly anything would +have shocked him more profoundly. This doctrine with its plausible +show of morality appeared to him to be, perhaps, the most gross of all +immoralities, inasmuch as it cuts the ground from under the feet of +truth, luring the world farther and farther from the only true salvation +- the careful study of facts and of the safest inferences that may be +drawn from them. Every fact was to him a part of nature, a thing +sacred, pregnant with Divine teaching of some sort, as being the expression +of Divine will. It was through facts that he saw God; to tamper +with facts was, in his view, to deface the countenance of the Almighty. +To say that such and such was so and so, when the speaker did not believe +it, was to lead people to worship a false God instead of a true one; +an ειδωλον; setting them, +to quote the words of the Psalmist, “a-whoring after their own +imaginations.” He saw the Divine presence in everything +- the evil as well as the good; the evil being the expression of the +Divine will that such and such courses should not go unpunished, but +bring pain and misery which should deter others from following them, +and the good being his sign of approbation. There was nothing +good for man to know which could not be deduced from facts. This +was the only sound basis of knowledge, and to found things upon fiction +which could be made to stand upon facts was to try and build upon a +quicksand.</p> +<p>He, therefore, loathed the reasoning of Juvenal with all the intensity +of his nature. It was because he believed that the Resurrection +and Ascension of our Lord were just as much matters of actual history +as the assassination of Julius Cæsar, and that they happened precisely +in the same way as every daily event happens at present - that he accepted +the Christian scheme in its essentials. Then came the details. +Were these also objectively true? He answered, “Certainly +not in every case.” He would not for the world have had +any one believe that he so considered them; but having made it perfectly +clear that he was not going to deceive himself, he set himself to derive +whatever spiritual comfort he could from them, just as he would from +any noble fiction or work of art, which, while not professing to be +historical, was instinct with the soul of genius. That there were +unhistorical passages in the New Testament was to him a fact; therefore +it was to be studied as an expression of the Divine will. What +could be the meaning of it? That we should consider them as true? +Assuredly not this. Then what else? This - that we should +accept as subjectively true whatever we found spiritually precious, +and be at liberty to leave all the rest alone - the unhistoric element +having been introduced purposely for the sake of giving greater scope +and latitude to the value of the ideal.</p> +<p>Of course one who was so firmly persuaded of the objective truth +of the Resurrection and Ascension could be in no sort of danger of relapsing +into infidelity as long as his reason remained. During the years +of his illness his mind was clearly impaired, and no longer under his +own control; but while his senses were his own it was absolutely impossible +that he could be shaken by discrepancies and inconsistencies in the +gospels. What small and trifling things are such discrepancies +by the side of the great central miracle of the Resurrection! +Nevertheless their existence was indisputable, and was no less indisputably +a cause of stumbling to many, as it had been to himself. His experience +of his own sufferings as an unbeliever gave him a keener sympathy with +those who were in that distressing condition than could be felt by any +one who had not so suffered, and fitted him, perhaps, more than any +one who has yet lived to be the interpreter of Christianity to the Rationalist, +and of Rationalism to the Christian. This, accordingly, was the +task to which he set himself, having been singularly adapted for it +by Nature, and as singularly disciplined by events.</p> +<p>It seemed to him that the first thing was to make the two parties +understand one another - a thing which had never yet been done, but +which was not at all impossible. For Protestantism is raised essentially +upon a Rationalistic base. When we come to a definition of Rationalism +nothing can be plainer than that it demands no scepticism from any one +which an English Protestant would not approve of. It is another +matter with the Church of Rome. That Church openly declares it +as an axiom that religion and reason have nothing to do with one another, +and that religion, though in flat contradiction to reason, should yet +be accepted from the hands of a certain order as an act of unquestioning +faith. The line of separation therefore between the Romanist and +the Rationalist is clear, and definitely bars any possibility of arrangement +between the two. Not so with the Protestant, who as heartily as +the Rationalist admits that nothing is required to be believed by man +except such things as can be reasonably proved - i.e., proved to the +satisfaction of the reason. No Protestant would say that the Christian +scheme ought to be accepted in spite of its being contrary to reason; +we say that Christianity is to be believed because it can be shewn to +follow as the necessary consequence of using our reason rightly. +We should be shocked at being supposed to maintain otherwise. +Yet this is pure Rationalism. The Rationalist would require nothing +more; he demurs to Christianity because he maintains that if we bring +our reason to bear upon the evidences which are brought forward in support +of it, we are compelled to reject it; but he would accept it without +hesitation if he believed that it could be sustained by arguments which +ought to carry conviction to the reason. Thus both are agreed +in principle that if the evidences of Christianity satisfy human reason, +then Christianity should be received, but that on any other supposition +it should be rejected.</p> +<p>Here then, he said, we have a common starting-point and the main +principle of Rationalism turns out to be nothing but what we all readily +admit, and with which we and our fathers have been as familiar for centuries +as with the air we breathe. Every Protestant is a Rationalist, +or else he ought to be ashamed of himself. Does he want to be +called an “Irrationalist”? Hardly - yet if he is not +a Rationalist what else can he be? No: the difference between +us is one of detail, not of principle. This is a great step gained.</p> +<p>The next thing therefore was to make each party understand the view +which the other took concerning the position which they had agreed to +hold in common. There was no work, so far as he knew, which would +be accepted both by Christians and unbelievers as containing a fair +statement of the arguments of the two contending parties: every book +which he had yet seen upon either side seemed written with the view +of maintaining that its own side could hold no wrong, and the other +no right: neither party seemed to think that they had anything to learn +from the other, and neither that any considerable addition to their +knowledge of the truth was either possible or desirable. Each +was in possession of truth already, and all who did not see and feel +this must be either wilfully blinded, or intensely stupid, or hypocrites.</p> +<p>So long as people carried on a discussion thus, what agreement was +possible between them? Yet where, upon the Christian side, was +the attempt to grapple with the real difficulties now felt by unbelievers? +Simply nowhere. All that had been done hitherto was antiquated. +Modern Christianity seemed to shrink from grappling with modern Rationalism, +and displayed a timidity which could not be accounted for except by +the supposition of secret misgiving that certain things were being defended +which could not be defended fairly. This was quite intolerable; +a misgiving was a warning voice from God, which should be attended to +as a man valued his soul. On the other hand, the conviction reasonably +entertained by unbelievers that they were right on many not inconsiderable +details of the dispute, and that so-called orthodox Christians in their +hearts knew it but would not own it - or that if they did not know it, +they were only in ignorance because it suited their purpose to be so +- this conviction gave an overweening self-confidence to infidels, as +though they must be right in the whole because they were so in part; +they therefore blinded themselves to all the more fundamental arguments +in support of Christianity, because certain shallow ones had been put +forward in the front rank, and been far too obstinately defended. +They thus regarded the question too superficially, and had erred even +more through pride of intellect and conceit than their opponents through +timidity.</p> +<p>What then was to be done? Surely this; to explain the two contending +parties to one another; to show to Rationalists that Christians are +right upon Rationalistic principles in all the more important of their +allegations; that is to say, to establish the Resurrection and Ascension +of the Redeemer upon a basis which should satisfy the most imperious +demands of modern criticism. This would form the first and most +important part of the task. Then should follow a no less convincing +proof that Rationalists are right in demurring to the historical accuracy +of much which has been too obstinately defended by so-called orthodox +writers. This would be the second part. Was there not reason +to hope that when this was done the two parties might understand one +another, and meet in a common Christianity? He believed that there +was, and that the ground had been already cleared for such mutual compromise +as might be accepted by both sides, not from policy but conviction. +Therefore he began writing the book which it has devolved upon myself +to edit, and which must now speak for itself. For him it was to +suffer and to labour; almost on the very instant of his having done +enough to express his meaning he was removed from all further power +of usefulness.</p> +<p>The happy change from unbelief to faith had already taken place some +three or four years before my return from America. With it had +also come that sudden development of intellectual and spiritual power +which so greatly astonished even those who had known him best. +The whole man seemed changed - to have become possessed of an unusually +capacious mind, instead of one which was acute, but acute only. +On looking over the earlier letters which I received from him when I +was in America, I can hardly believe that they should have been written +by the same person as the one to whom, in spite of not a few great mental +defects, I afterwards owed more spiritual enrichment than I have owed +to any other person. Yet so it was. It came upon me imperceptibly +that I had been very stupid in not discovering that my brother was a +genius; but hardly had I made the discovery, and hardly had the fragment +which follows this memoir received its present shape, when his overworked +brain gave way and he fell into a state little better than idiocy. +His originally cheerful spirits left him, and were succeeded by a religious +melancholy which nothing could disturb. He became incapable either +of mental or physical exertion, and was pronounced by the best physicians +to be suffering from some obscure disease of the brain brought on by +excitement and undue mental tension: in this state he continued for +about four years, and died peacefully, but still as one in the profoundest +melancholy, on the 15th of March, 1872, aged 40.</p> +<p>Always hopeful that his health would one day be restored, I never +ventured to propose that I should edit his book during his own life-time. +On his death I found his papers in the most deplorable confusion. +The following chapters had alone received anything like a presentable +shape - and these providentially are the most essential.</p> +<p>A dream is a dream only, yet sometimes there follows a fulfilment +which bears a strange resemblance to the thing dreamt of. No one +now believes that the Book of Revelation is to be taken as foretelling +events which will happen in the same way as the massacre, for instance, +of St. Bartholomew, indeed it is doubtful how far the whole is not to +be interpreted as an allegory, descriptive of spiritual revolutions; +yet surely my mother’s dream as to the future of one, at least, +of her sons has been strangely verified, and it is believed that the +reader when he lays down this volume will feel that there have been +few more potent witnesses to the truth of Christ than John Pickard Owen.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines3"><br /><br /><br /></div> +<h2>THE FAIR HAVEN</h2> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines3"><br /><br /><br /></div> +<h3>CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION</h3> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>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.</p> +<p>Now, granting readily that in some minds there is a certain wilful +and prejudiced self-blindness which no reasoning can overcome, and granting +also that men very much preoccupied with any one pursuit (more especially +a scientific one) will be apt to give but scant and divided attention +to arguments upon other subjects such as religion or politics, nevertheless +we have so many opponents who profess to have made a serious study of +Christian evidences, and against whose opinion no exception can be fairly +taken, that it seems as though we were bound either to admit that our +demonstrations require rearrangement and reconsideration, or to take +the Roman position, and maintain that revelation is no fit subject for +evidence but is to be accepted upon authority. This last position +will be rejected at once by nine-tenths of Englishmen. But upon +rejecting it we look in vain for a work which shall appear to have any +such success in arresting infidelity as attended the works of Butler +and Paley in the last century. In their own day these two great +men stemmed the current of infidelity: but no modern writers have succeeded +in doing so, and it will scarcely be said that either Butler or Paley +set at rest the many serious and inevitable questions in connection +with Christianity which have arisen during the last fifty years. +We could hardly expect one of the more intelligent students at Oxford +or Cambridge to find his mind set once and for ever free from all rising +doubt either by the <i>Analogy</i> or the <i>Evidences</i>. Suppose, +for example, that he has been misled by the German writers of the Tübingen +school, how will either of the above-named writers help him? On +the contrary, they will do him harm, for they will not meet the requirements +of the case, and the inference is too readily drawn that nothing else +can do so. It need hardly be insisted upon that this inference +is a most unfair one, but surely the blame of its being drawn rests +in some measure at the door of those whose want of thoroughness has +left people under the impression that no more can be said than what +has been said already.</p> +<p>It is the object, therefore, of this book to contribute towards establishing +Christian evidences upon a more secure and self-evident base than any +upon which they are made to rest at present, so far, that is to say, +as a work which deliberately excludes whole fields of Christian evidence +can tend towards so great a consummation. In spite of the narrow +limits within which I have resolved to keep my treatment of the subject, +I trust that I may be able to produce such an effect upon the minds +of those who are in doubt concerning the evidences for the hope that +is in them, that henceforward they shall never doubt again. I +am not sanguine enough to suppose that I shall be able to induce certain +eminent naturalists and philosophers to reopen a question which they +have probably long laid aside as settled; unfortunately it is not in +any but the very noblest Christian natures to do this, nevertheless, +could they be persuaded to read these pages I believe that they would +find so much which would be new to them, that their prejudices would +be greatly shaken. To the younger band of scientific investigators +I appeal more hopefully.</p> +<p>It may be asked why not have undertaken the whole subject and devoted +a life-time to writing an exhaustive work? The answer suggests +itself that the believer is in no want of such a book, while the unbeliever +would be repelled by its size. Assuredly there can be no doubt +as to the value of a great work which should meet objections derived +from certain recent scientific theories, and confute opponents who have +arisen since the death of our two great apologists, but as a preliminary +to this a smaller and more elementary book seems called for, which shall +give the main outlines of our position with such boldness and effectiveness +as to arrest the attention of any unbeliever into whose hands it may +fall, and induce him to look further into what else may be urged upon +the Christian side. We are bound to adapt our means to our ends, +and shall have a better chance of gaining the ear of our adversaries +if we can offer them a short and pregnant book than if we come to them +with a long one from which whole chapters might be pruned. We +have to bring the Christian religion to men who will look at no book +which cannot be read in a railway train or in an arm-chair; it is most +deplorable that this should be the case, nevertheless it is indisputably +a fact, and as such must be attended to by all who hope to be of use +in bringing about a better state of things. And let me add that +never yet was there a time when it so much behoved all who are impressed +with the vital power of religion to bestir themselves; for the symptoms +of a general indifference, not to say hostility, must be admitted to +be widely diffused, in spite of an imposing array of facts which can +be brought forward to the contrary; and not only this, but the stream +of infidelity seems making more havoc yearly, as it might naturally +be expected to do, when met by no new works of any real strength or +permanence.</p> +<p>Bearing in mind, therefore, the necessity for prompt action, it seemed +best to take the most overwhelming of all miracles - the Resurrection +of our Lord Jesus Christ, and show that it can be so substantiated that +no reasonable man should doubt it. This I have therefore attempted, +and I humbly trust that the reader will feel that I have not only attempted +it, but done it, once and for all so clearly and satisfactorily and +with such an unflinching examination of the most advanced arguments +of unbelievers, that the question can never be raised hereafter by any +candid mind, or at any rate not until science has been made to rest +on different grounds from those on which she rests at present.</p> +<p>But the truth of our Lord’s resurrection having been once established, +what need to encumber this book with further evidences of the miraculous +element in his ministry? The other miracles can be no insuperable +difficulty to one who accepts the Resurrection. It is true that +as Christians we cannot dwell too minutely upon every act and incident +in the life of the Redeemer, but unhappily we have to deal with those +who are not Christians, and must consider rather what we can get them +to take than what we should like to give them: “Be ye wise as +serpents and harmless as doves,” saith the Saviour. A single +miracle is as good as twenty, provided that it be well established, +and can be shewn to be so: it is here that even the ablest of our apologists +have too often failed; they have professed to substantiate the historical +accuracy of all the recorded miracles and sayings of our Lord, with +a result which is in some instances feeble and conventional, and occasionally +even unfair (oh! what suicidal folly is there in even the remotest semblance +of unfairness), instead of devoting themselves to throwing a flood of +brilliancy upon the most important features and leaving the others to +shine out in the light reflected from these. Even granting that +some of the miracles recorded of our Lord are apocryphal, what of that? +We do not rest upon them: we have enough and more than enough without +them, and can afford to take the line of saying to the unbeliever, “Disbelieve +this miracle or that if you find that you cannot accept it, but believe +in the Resurrection, of which we will put forward such ample proofs +that no healthy reason can withstand them, and, having accepted the +Resurrection, admit it as the manifestation of supernatural power, the +existence of which can thus no longer be denied.”</p> +<p>Does not the reader feel that there is a ring of truth and candour +about this which must carry more weight with an opponent than any strained +defence of such a doubtful miracle as the healing of the impotent man +at the pool of Bethesda? We weight ourselves as against our opponents +by trying to defend too much; no matter how sound and able the defence +of one part of the Christian scheme may have been, its effect is often +marred by contiguity with argument which the writer himself must have +suspected, or even known, to be ingenious rather than sound: the moment +that this is felt in any book its value with an opponent is at an end, +for he must be continually in doubt whether the spirit which he has +detected here or there may not be existing and at work in a hundred +other places where he has not detected it. What carries weight +with an antagonist is the feeling that his position has been mastered +and his difficulties grasped with thoroughness and candour.</p> +<p>On this point I am qualified to speak from long and bitter experience. +I say that want of candour and the failure to grasp the position occupied, +however untenably, by unbelievers is the chief cause of the continuance +of unbelief. When this cause has been removed unbelief will die +a natural death. For years I was myself a believer in nothing +beyond the personality and providence of God: yet I feel (not without +a certain sense of bitterness, which I know that I should not feel but +cannot utterly subdue) that if my first doubts had been met with patient +endeavour to understand their nature and if I had felt that the one +in whom I confided had been ready to go to the root of the matter, and +even to yield up the convictions of a life-time could it be shewn that +they were unsafely founded, my doubts would have been resolved in an +hour or two’s quiet conversation, and would at once have had the +effect, which they have only had after long suffering and unrest, of +confirming me in my allegiance to Christ. But I was met with anger +and impatience. There was an instinct which told me that my opponent +had never heard a syllable against his own convictions, and was determined +not to hear one: on this I assumed rashly that he must have good reason +for his resolution; and doubt ripened into unbelief. Oh! what +years of heart-burning and utter drifting followed. Yet when I +was at last brought within the influence of one who not only believed +all that my first opponent did, but who also knew that the more light +was thrown upon it the more clearly would its truth be made apparent +- a man who talked with me as though he was anxious that I should convince +him if he were in error, not as though bent on making me believe whatever +habit and circumstances had imposed as a formula upon himself - my heart +softened at once, and the dry places of my soul were watered.</p> +<p>The above may seem too purely personal to warrant its introduction +here, yet the experience is one which should not be without its value +to others. Its effect upon myself has been to give me an unutterable +longing to save others from sufferings like my own; I know so well where +it is that, to use a homely metaphor, the shoe pinches. And it +is chiefly here - in the fact that the unbeliever does not feel as though +we really wanted to understand him. This feeling is in many cases +lamentably well founded. No one likes hearing doubt thrown upon +anything which he regards as settled beyond dispute, and this, happily, +is what most men feel concerning Christianity. Again, indolence +or impotence of mind indisposes many to intellectual effort; others +are pained by coming into contact with anything which derogates from +the glory due to the great sacrifice of Christ, or to his Divine nature, +and lastly not a few are withheld by moral cowardice from daring to +bestow the pains upon the unbeliever which his condition requires. +But from whichever of these sources the disinclination to understand +him comes, its effect is equally disastrous to the unbeliever. +People do not mind a difference of opinion, if they feel that the one +who differs from them has got a firm grasp of their position; or again, +if they feel that he is trying to understand them but fails from some +defect either of intellect or education, even in this case they are +not pained by opposition. What injures their moral nature and +hardens their hearts is the conviction that another could understand +them if he chose, but does not choose, and yet none the less condemns +them. On this they become imbued with that bitterness against +Christianity which is noticeable in so many free-thinkers.</p> +<p>Can we greatly wonder? For, sad though the admission be, it +is only justice to admit that we Christians have been too often contented +to accept our faith without knowing its grounds, in which case it is +more by luck than by cunning that we are Christians at all, and our +faith will be in continual danger. The greater number even of +those who have undertaken to defend the Christian faith have been sadly +inclined to avoid a difficulty rather than to face it, unless it is +so easy as to be no real difficulty at all. I do not say that +this is unnatural, for the Christian writer must be deeply impressed +with the sinfulness of unbelief, and will therefore be anxious to avoid +raising doubts which will probably never yet have occurred to his reader, +and might possibly never do so; nor does there at first sight appear +to be much advantage in raising difficulties for the sole purpose of +removing them; nevertheless I cannot think that if either Butler or +Paley could have foreseen the continuance of unbelief, and the ruin +of so many souls whom Christ died to save, they would have been contented +to act so almost entirely upon the defensive.</p> +<p>Yet it is impossible not to feel that we in their place should have +done as they did. Infidelity was still in its infancy: the nature +of the disease was hardly yet understood; and there seemed reason to +fear lest it might be aggravated by the very means taken to cure it; +it seemed safer therefore in the first instance to confine attention +to the matter actually in debate, and leave it to time to suggest a +more active treatment should the course first tried prove unsatisfactory. +Who can be surprised that the earlier apologists should have felt thus +in the presence of an enemy whose novelty made him appear more portentous +than he can ever seem to ourselves? They were bound to venture +nothing rashly; what they did they did, for their own age, thoroughly; +we owe it to their cautious pioneering that we so know the weakness +of our opponents and our own strength as to be able to do fearlessly +what may well have seemed perilous to our forefathers: nevertheless +it is easy to be wise after the event, and to regret that a bolder course +was not taken at the outset. If Butler and Paley had fought as +men eager for the fray, as men who smelt the battle from afar, it is +impossible to believe that infidelity could have lasted as long as it +has. What can be done now could have been done just as effectively +then, and though we cannot be surprised at the caution shewn at first, +we are bound to deplore it as short-sighted.</p> +<p>The question, however, for ourselves is not what dead men might have +done better long ago, but what living men and women can do most wisely +now; and in answer to it I would say that there is no policy so unwise +as fear in a good cause: the bold course is also the wise one; it consists +in being on the lookout for objections, in finding the very best that +can be found and stating them in their most intelligible form, in shewing +what are the logical consequences of unbelief, and thus carrying the +war into the enemy’s country; in fighting with the most chivalrous +generosity and a determination to take no advantage which is not according +to the rules of war most strictly interpreted against ourselves, but +within such an interpretation showing no quarter. This is the +bold course and the true course: it will beget a confidence which can +never be felt in the wariness, however well-intentioned, of the old +defenders.</p> +<p>Let me, therefore, beg the reader to follow me patiently while I +do my best to put before him the main difficulties felt by unbelievers. +When he is once acquainted with these he will run in no danger of confirming +doubt through his fear in turning away from it in the first instance. +How many die hardened unbelievers through the treatment which they have +received from those to whom their Christianity has been a matter of +circumstances and habit only? Hell is no fiction. Who, without +bitter sorrow, can reflect upon the agonies even of a single soul as +being due to the selfishness or cowardice of others? Awful thought! +Yet it is one which is daily realised in the case of thousands.</p> +<p>In the commonest justice to brethren, however sinful, each one of +us who tries to lead them to the Saviour is bound not only to shew them +the whole strength of our own arguments, but to make them see that we +understand the whole strength of theirs; for men will not seriously +listen to those whom they believe to know one side of a question only. +It is this which makes the educated infidel so hard to deal with; he +knows very well that an intelligent apprehension of the position held +by an opponent is indispensable for profitable discussion; but he very +rarely meets with this in the case of those Christians who try to argue +with him; he therefore soon acquires a habit of avoiding the subject +of religion, and can seldom be induced to enter upon an argument which +he is convinced can lead to nothing.</p> +<p>He who would cure a disease must first know what it is, and he who +would convert an infidel must know what it is that he is to be converted +from, as well as what he is to be led to; nothing can be laid hold of +unless its whereabouts is known. It is deplorable that such commonplaces +should be wanted; but, alas! it is impossible to do without them. +People have taken a panic on the subject of infidelity as though it +were so infectious that the very nurses and doctors should run away +from those afflicted with it; but such conduct is no less absurd than +cruel and disgraceful. <i>Infidelity is only infectious when it +is not understood</i>. The smallest reflection should suffice +to remind us that a faith which has satisfied the most brilliant and +profound of human intellects for nearly two thousand years must have +had very sure foundations, and that any digging about them for the purpose +of demonstrating their depth and solidity, will result, not in their +disturbance, but in its being made clear to every eye that they are +laid upon a rock which nothing can shake - that they do indeed satisfy +every demand of human reason, which suffers violence not from those +who accept the scheme of the Christian redemption, but from those who +reject it.</p> +<p>This being the case, and that it is so will, I believe, appear with +great clearness in the following pages, what need to shrink from the +just and charitable course of understanding the nature of what is urged +by those who differ from us? How can we hope to bring them to +be of one mind in Christ Jesus with ourselves, unless we can resolve +their difficulties and explain them? And how can we resolve their +difficulties until we know what they are? Infidelity is as a reeking +fever den, which none can enter safely without due precautions, but +the taking these precautions is within our own power; we can all rely +upon the blessed promises of the Saviour that he will not desert us +in our hour of need if we will only truly seek him; there is more infidelity +in this shrinking and fear of investigation than in almost any open +denial of Christ; the one who refuses to examine the doubts felt by +another, and is prevented from making any effort to remove them through +fear lest he should come to share them, shews either that he has no +faith in the power of Christianity to stand examination, or that he +has no faith in the promises of God to guide him into all truth. +In either case he is hardly less an unbeliever than those whom he condemns.</p> +<p>Let the reader therefore understand that he will here find no attempt +to conceal the full strength of the arguments relied on by unbelievers. +This manner of substantiating the truth of Christianity has unhappily +been tried already; it has been tried and has failed as it was bound +to fail. Infidelity lives upon concealment. Shew it in broad +daylight, hold it up before the world and make its hideousness manifest +to all - then, and not till then, will the hours of unbelief be numbered. +<i>We</i> have been the mainstay of unbelief through our timidity. +Far be it from me, therefore, that I should help any unbeliever by concealing +his case for him. This were the most cruel kindness. On +the contrary, I shall insist upon all his arguments and state them, +if I may say so without presumption, more clearly than they have ever +been stated within the same limits. No one knows what they are +better than I do. No one was at one time more firmly persuaded +that they were sound. May it be found that no one has so well +known how also to refute them.</p> +<p>The reader must not therefore expect to find fictitious difficulties +in the way of accepting Christianity set up with one hand in order to +be knocked down again with the other: he will find the most powerful +arguments against all that he holds most sacred insisted on with the +same clearness as those on his own side; it is only by placing the two +contending opinions side by side in their utmost development that the +strength of our own can be made apparent. Those who wish to cry +peace, peace, when there is no peace, those who would take their faith +by fashion as the take their clothes, those who doubt the strength of +their own cause and do not in their heart of heart believe that Christianity +will stand investigation, those, again, who care not who may go to Hell +provided they are comfortably sure of going to Heaven themselves, such +persons may complain of the line which I am about to take. They +on the other hand whose faith is such that it knows no fear of criticism, +and they whose love for Christ leads them to regard the bringing of +lost souls into his flock as the highest earthly happiness - such will +admit gladly that I have been right in tearing aside the veil from infidelity +and displaying it uncloaked by the side of faith itself.</p> +<p>At the same time I am bound to confess that I never should have been +able to see the expediency, not to say the absolute necessity for such +a course, unless I had been myself for many years an unbeliever. +It is this experience, so bitterly painful, that has made me feel so +strongly as to the only manner in which others can be brought from darkness +into light. The wisdom of the Almighty recognised that if man +was to be saved it must be done by the assumption of man’s nature +on the part of the Deity. God must make himself man, or man could +never learn the nature and attributes of God. Let us then follow +the sublime example of the incarnation, and make ourselves as unbelievers +that we may teach unbelievers to believe. If Paley and Butler +had only been <i>real infidels</i> for a single year, instead of taking +the thoughts and reasonings of their opponents at second-hand, what +a difference should we not have seen in the nature of their work. +Alas! their clear and powerful intellects had been trained early in +the severest exercises; they could not be misled by any of the sophistries +of their opponents; but, on the other hand, never having been misled +they knew not the thread of the labyrinth as one who has been shut up +therein.</p> +<p>I should also warn the reader of another matter. He must not +expect to find that I can maintain everything which he could perhaps +desire to see maintained. I can prove, to such a high degree of +presumption as shall amount virtually to demonstration, that our Lord +died upon the cross, rose again from the dead upon the third day, and +ascended into Heaven: but I cannot prove that none of the accounts of +these events which have come down to us have suffered from the hand +of time: on the contrary, I must own that the reasons which led me to +conclude that there must be confusion in some of the accounts of the +Resurrection continue in full force with me even now. I see no +way of escaping from this conclusion: but it seems equally strange that +the Christian should have such an indomitable repugnance to accept it, +and that the unbeliever should conceive that it inflicts any damage +whatever upon the Christian evidences. Perhaps the error of each +confirms that of the other, as will appear hereafter.</p> +<p>I have spoken hitherto as though I were writing only for men, but +the help of good women can never be so precious as in the salvation +of human souls; if there is one work for which women are better fitted +than another, it is that of arresting the progress of unbelief. +Can there be a nobler one? Their superior tact and quickness give +them a great advantage over men; men will listen to them when they would +turn away from one of their own sex; and though I am well aware that +courtesy is no argument, yet the natural politeness shewn by a man to +a woman will compel attention to what falls from her lips, and will +thus perhaps be the means of bringing him into contact with Divine truths +which would never otherwise have reached him. Yet this is a work +from which too many women recoil in horror - they know that they can +do nothing unless they are intimately acquainted with the opinions of +those from whom they differ, and from such an intimacy they believe +that they are right in shrinking.</p> +<p>Oh, my sisters, my sisters, ye who go into the foulest dens of disease +and vice, fearless of the pestilence and of man’s brutality, ye +whose whole lives bear witness to the cross of Christ and the efficacy +of the Divine love, did one of you ever fear being corrupted by the +vice with which you came in contact? Is there one of you who fears +to examine why it is that even the most specious form of vice is vicious? +You fear not infection here, for you know that you are on sure ground, +and that there is no form of vice of which the viciousness is not clearly +provable; but can you doubt that the foundation of your faith is sure +also, and can you not see that your cowardice in not daring to examine +the foul and soul-destroying den of infidelity is a stumbling-block +to those who have not yet known their Saviour? Your fear is as +the fear of children who dare not go in the dark; but alas! the unbeliever +does not understand it thus. He says that your fear is not of +the darkness but of the light, and that you dare not search lest you +should find that which would make against you. Hideous blasphemy +against the Lord! But is not the sin to be laid partly at the +door of those whose cowardice has given occasion for it?</p> +<p>Is there none of you who knows that as to the pure all things are +pure, so to the true and loyal heart all things will confirm its faith? +You shrink from this last trial of your allegiance, partly from the +pain of even seeing the wounds of your Redeemer laid open - of even +hearing the words of those enemies who have traduced him and crucified +him afresh - but you lose the last and highest of the prizes, for great +as is your faith now, be very sure that from this crowning proof of +your devotion you would emerge with greater still.</p> +<p>Has none of you seen a savage dog barking and tearing at the end +of his chain as though he were longing to devour you, and yet if you +have gone bravely up to him and bade him be still, he is cowed and never +barks again? Such is the genius of infidelity; it loves to threaten +those who retreat, yet it shrinks daunted back from those who meet it +boldly; it is the lack of boldness on the part of the Christian which +gives it all its power; when Christians are strong in the strength of +their own cause infidels will know their impotence, but as long as there +are cowards there will be those who prey upon cowardice, and as long +as those who should defend the cross of Christ hide themselves behind +battlements, so long will the enemy come up to the very walls of the +defence and trouble them that are within. The above words must +have sounded harsh and will I fear have given pain to many a tender +heart which is conscious of the depth of its own love for the Redeemer, +and would be shocked at the thought that anything had been neglected +in his service, but has not the voice of such a heart returned answer +to itself that what I have written is just?</p> +<p>Again, I have been told by some that they have been aware of the +necessity of doing their best towards putting a stop to infidelity, +and that they have been unceasing in their prayers for friends or husbands +or relations who know not Christ, but that with prayers their efforts +have ended. Now, there can be no one in the whole world who has +had more signal proofs of the efficacy of prayer than the writer of +these pages, but he would lie if he were to say that prayer was ever +answered when it was only another name for idleness, a cloak for the +avoidance of obvious duty. God is no helper of the indolent and +the coward; if this were so, what need to work at all? Why not +sit still, and trust in prayer for everything? No; to the women +who have prayed, and prayed only, the answer is ready at hand, that +work without prayer is bad, but prayer without work worse. Let +them do their own utmost in the way of sowing, planting, and watering, +and then let them pray to God that he will vouchsafe them the increase; +but they can no more expect the increase to be of God’s free gift +without the toil of sowing than did the blessed Apostle St. Paul. +If God did not convert the heathen for Paul and Apollos in answer to +their prayers alone, how can we expect that he will convert the infidel +for ourselves, unless we have first followed in the footsteps of the +Apostles? The sin of infidelity will rest upon us and our children +until we have done our best to shake it off; and this not timidly and +disingenuously as those who fear for the result, but with the certainty +that it is the infidel and not the Christian who need fear investigation, +if the investigation only goes deep enough. Herein has lain our +error, we have feared to allow the unbeliever to put forth all his strength +lest it should prove stronger than we thought it was, when in truth +the world would only have known the sooner of its weakness; and this +shall now at last be abundantly shewn, for, as I said above, I will +help no infidel by concealing his case; it shall appear in full, and +as nearly in his own words as the limits at my disposal will allow. +Out of his own mouth shall he be condemned, and yet, I trust, not condemned +alone; but converted as I myself, and by the same irresistible chain +of purest reason; one thing only is wanted on the part of the reader, +it is this, the desire to attain truth regardless of past prejudices.</p> +<p>If an unbeliever has made up his mind that we must be wrong, without +having heard our side, and if he presumes to neglect the most ordinary +precaution against error - that of understanding the position of an +opponent - I can do nothing with him or for him. No man can make +another see, if the other persists in shutting his eyes and bandaging +them: if it is a victory to be able to say that they cannot see the +truth under these circumstances, the victory is with our opponents; +but for those who can lay their hands upon their heart and say truly +before God and man that they care nothing for the maintenance of their +own opinions, but only that they may come to know the truth, for such +I can do much. I can put the matter before them in so clear a +light that they shall never doubt hereafter.</p> +<p>Never was there a time when such an exposition was wanted so much +as now. The specious plausibilities of a pseudo-science have led +hundreds of thousands into error; the misapplication of geology has +ensnared a host of victims, and a still greater misapplication of natural +history seems likely to devour those whom the perversion of geology +has spared. Not that I have a word to say against <i>true</i> +science: true science can never be an enemy of the Bible, which is the +text-book of the science of the salvation of human souls as written +by the great Creator and Redeemer of the soul itself, but the Enemy +of Mankind is never idle, and no sooner does God vouchsafe to us any +clearer illumination of his purposes and manner of working, than the +Evil One sets himself to consider how he can turn the blessing into +a curse; and by the all-wise dispensation of Providence he is allowed +so much triumph as that he shall sift the wise from the foolish, the +faithful from the traitors. God knoweth his own. Still there +is no surer mark that one is among the number of those whom he hath +chosen than the desire to bring all to share in the gracious promises +which he has vouchsafed to those that will take advantage of them; and +there are few more certain signs of reprobation than indifference as +to the existence of unbelief, and faint-heartedness in trying to remove +it. It is the duty of all those who love Christ to lead their +brethren to love him also; but how can they hope to succeed in this +until they understand the grounds on which he is rejected?</p> +<p>For there <i>are</i> grounds, insufficient ones, untenable ones, +grounds which a little loving patience and, if I may be allowed the +word, ingenuity, will shew to be utterly rotten; but as long as their +rottenness is only to be asserted and not proved, so long will deluded +people build upon them in fancied security. As yet the proof has +never been made sufficiently clear. If displayed sufficiently +for one age it has been necessary to do the work again for the next. +As soon as the errors of one set of people have been made apparent, +another set has arisen with fresh objections, or the old fallacies have +reappeared in another shape. It is not too much to say that it +has never yet been so clearly proved that Christ rose again from the +dead, that a jury of educated Englishmen should be compelled to assent +to it, even though they had never before heard of Christianity. +This therefore it is my object to do once and for ever now.</p> +<p>It is not for me to pry into the motives of the Almighty, nor to +inquire why it is that for nearly two thousand years the perfection +of proof should never have been duly produced, but if I dare hazard +an opinion I should say that such proof was never necessary until now, +but that it has lain ready to be produced at a moment’s notice +on the arrival of the fitting time. In the early stages of the +Church the <i>vivâ voce</i> testimony of the Apostles was still +so near that its force was in no way spent; from those times until recently +the universality of belief was such that proof was hardly needed; it +is only for a hundred years or so (which in the sight of God are but +as yesterday) that infidelity has made real progress. Then God +raised his hand in wrath; revolution taught men to see the nature of +unbelief and the world shrank back in horror; the time of fear passed +by; unbelief has again raised itself; whereon we can see that other +and even more fearful revolutions <a name="citation1"></a><a href="#footnote1">{1}</a> +are daily threatening. What country is safe? In what part +of the world do not men feel an uneasy foreboding of the wrath which +will surely come if they do not repent and turn unto the Lord their +God? Go where we will we are conscious of that heaviness and oppression +which is the precursor of the hurricane and the earthquake; none escape +it: an all-pervading sense of rottenness and fearful waiting upon judgment +is upon the hearts of all men. May it not be that this awe and +silence have been ordained in order that the still small voice of the +Lord may be the more clearly heard and welcomed as salvation? +Is it not possible that the infinite mercy of God is determined to give +mankind one last chance, before the day of that coming which no creature +may abide? I dare not answer: yet I know well that the fire burneth +within me, and that night and day I take no rest but am consumed until +the work committed to me is done, that I may be clear from the blood +of all men.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<h3>CHAPTER II - STRAUSS AND THE HALLUCINATION THEORY</h3> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>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.</p> +<p>How then did this intensity of conviction come about? Differ +as they might and did upon many of the questions arising out of the +main fact which they taught, as to the fact itself they differed not +in the least degree. In their own life-time and in that of those +who could confute them their story gained the adherence of a very large +and ever increasing number. If it could be shewn that the belief +in Christ’s reappearance did not arise until after the death of +those who were said to have seen him, when actions and teachings might +have been imputed to them which were not theirs, the case would then +be different; but this cannot be done; there is nothing in history better +established than that the men who said that they had seen Christ alive +after he had been dead, were themselves the first to lay aside all else +in order to maintain their assertion. If it could be maintained +that they taught what they did in order to sanction laxity of morals, +the case would again be changed. But this too is impossible. +They taught what they did because of the intensity of their own conviction +and from no other motive whatsoever.</p> +<p>What then can that thing have been which made these men so beyond +all measure and one-mindedly certain? Were they thus before the +Crucifixion? Far otherwise. Yet the men who fled in the +hour of their master’s peril betrayed no signs of flinching when +their own was no less imminent. How came it that the cowardice +and fretfulness of the Gospels should be transformed into the lion-hearted +steadfastness of the Acts?</p> +<p>The Crucifixion had intervened. Yes, but surely something more +than the Crucifixion. Can we believe that if their experience +of Christ had ended with the Cross, the Apostles would have been in +that state of mind which should compel them to leave all else for the +sake of preaching what he had taught them? It is a hard thing +for a man to change the scheme of his life; yet this is not a case of +one man but of many, who became changed as if struck with an enchanter’s +wand, and who, though many, were as one in the vehemence with which +they protested that their master had reappeared to them alive. +Their converse with Christ did not probably last above a year or two, +and was interrupted by frequent absence. If Christ had died once +and for all upon the Cross, Christianity must have died with him; but +it did not die; nay, it did not begin to live with full energy until +after its founder had been crucified. We must ask again, what +could that thing have been which turned these querulous and faint-hearted +followers into the most earnest and successful body of propagandists +which the world has ever seen, if it was not that which they said it +was - namely, that Christ had reappeared to them alive after they had +themselves known him to be dead? This would account for the change +in them, but is there anything else that will?</p> +<p>They had such ample opportunities of knowing the truth that the supposition +of mistake is fraught with the greatest difficulties; they gave such +guarantees of sincerity as that none have given greater; their unanimity +is perfect; there is not the faintest trace of any difference of opinion +amongst them as to the main fact of the Resurrection. These are +things which never have been and never can be denied, but if they do +not form strong <i>primâ facie</i> ground for believing in the +truth and actuality of Christ’s Resurrection, what is there which +will amount to a <i>primâ facie</i> case for anything whatever?</p> +<p>Nevertheless the matter does not rest here. While there exists +the faintest possibility of mistake we may be sure that we shall deal +most wisely by examining its character and value. Let us inquire +therefore whether there are any circumstances which seem to indicate +that the early Christians might have been mistaken, and been firmly +persuaded that they had seen Christ alive, although in point of fact +they had not really seen him? Men have been very positive and +very sincere about things wherein we should have conceived mistake impossible, +and yet they have been utterly mistaken. A strong predisposition, +a rare coincidence, an unwonted natural phenomenon, a hundred other +causes, may turn sound judgments awry, and we dare not assume forthwith +that the first disciples of Christ were superior to influences which +have misled many who have had better chances of withstanding them. +Visions and hallucinations are not uncommon even now. How easily +belief in a supernatural occurrence obtains among the peasantry of Italy, +Ireland, Belgium, France, and Spain; and how much more easily would +it do so among Jews in the days of Christ, when belief in supernatural +interferences with this world’s economy was, so to speak, omnipresent. +Means of communication, that is to say of verification, were few, and +the tone of men’s minds as regards accuracy of all kinds was utterly +different from that of our own; science existed not even in name as +the thing we now mean by it; few could read and fewer write, so that +a story could seldom be confined to its original limits; error, therefore, +had much chance and truth little as compared with our own times. +What more is needed to make us feel how possible it was for the purest +and most honest of men to become parents of all fallacy?</p> +<p>Strauss believes this to have been the case. He supposes that +the earliest Christians were under hallucination when they thought that +they had seen Christ alive after his Crucifixion; in other words, that +they never saw him at all, but only thought that they had done so. +He does not imagine that they conceived this idea at once, but that +it grew up gradually in the course of a few years, and that those who +came under its influence antedated it unconsciously afterwards. +He appears to believe that within a few months of the Crucifixion, and +in consequence of some unexplained combination of internal and external +causes, some one of the Apostles came to be impressed with the notion +that he had seen Christ alive; the impression, however made, was exceedingly +strong, and was communicated as soon as might be to some other or others +of the Apostles: the idea was welcome - as giving life to a hope which +had been fondly cherished; each inflamed the imagination of the other, +until the original basis of the conception slipped unconsciously from +recollection, while the intensity of the conviction itself became stronger +and stronger the more often the story was repeated. Strauss supposes +that on seeing the firm conviction of two or three who had hitherto +been leaders among them, the other Apostles took heart, and that thus +the body grew together again perhaps within a twelve-month of the Crucifixion. +According to him, the idea of the Resurrection having been once started, +and having once taken root, the soil was so congenial that it grew apace; +the rest of the Apostles, perhaps assembled together in a high state +of mental enthusiasm and excitement, conceived that they saw Christ +enter the room in which they were sitting and afford some manifest proof +of life and identity; or some one else may have enlarged a less extraordinary +story to these dimensions, so that in a short time it passed current +everywhere (there have been instances of delusions quite as extraordinary +gaining a foothold among men whose sincerity is not to be disputed), +and finally they conceived that these appearances of their master had +commenced a few months - and what is a few months? - earlier than they +actually had, so that the first appearance was soon looked upon as having +been vouchsafed within three days of the Crucifixion.</p> +<p>The above is not in Strauss’s words, but it is a careful <i>résumé</i> +of what I gather to be his conception of the origin of the belief in +the Resurrection of Christ. The belief, and the intensity of the +belief, need explanation; the supernatural explanation, as we should +ourselves readily admit, cannot be accepted unless all others are found +wanting; he therefore, if I understand him rightly, puts forward the +above as being a reasonable and natural solution of the difficulty - +the only solution which does not fail upon examination, and therefore +the one which should be accepted. It is founded upon the affection +which the Apostles had borne towards their master, and their unwillingness +to give up their hope that they had been chosen, as the favoured lieutenants +of the promised Messiah.</p> +<p>No man would be willing to give up such hope easily; all men would +readily welcome its renewal; it was easy in the then intellectual condition +of Palestine for hallucination to originate, and still easier for it +to spread; the story touched the hearts of men too nearly to render +its propagation difficult. Men and women like believing in the +marvellous, for it brings the chance of good fortune nearer to their +own doors; but how much more so when they are themselves closely connected +with the central figure of the marvel, and when it appears to give a +clue to the solution of that mystery which all would pry into if they +could - our future after death? There can be no great cause for +wonder that an hallucination which arose under such conditions as these +should have gained ground and conquered all opposition, even though +its origin may be traced to the brain of but a single person.</p> +<p>He would be a bold man who should say that this was impossible; nevertheless +it cannot be accepted. For, in the first place, we collect most +certainly from the Gospel records that the Apostles were <i>not</i> +a compact and devoted body of adherents at the time of the Crucifixion; +yet it is hard to see how Strauss’s hallucination theory can be +accepted, unless this was the case. If Strauss believed the earliest +followers of Christ to have been already immovably fixed in their belief +that he was the Son of God - the promised Messiah, of whom they were +themselves the especially chosen ministers - if he considered that they +believed in their master as the worker of innumerable miracles which +they had themselves witnessed; as one whom they had seen raise others +from death to life, and whom, therefore, death could not be expected +to control - if he held the followers of Christ to have been in this +frame of mind at the time of the Crucifixion, it might be intelligible +that he should suppose the strength of their faith to have engendered +an imaginary reappearance in order to save them from the conclusion +that their hopes had been without foundation; that, in point of fact, +they should have accepted a new delusion in order to prop up an old +one; but we know very well that Strauss does not accept this position. +He denies that the Apostles had seen any miracles; independently therefore +of the many and unmistakable traces of their having been but partial +and wavering adherents, which have made it a matter of common belief +among those who have studied the New Testament that the faith of the +Apostles was unsteadfast before the Crucifixion, he must have other +and stronger reasons for thinking that this was so, inasmuch as he does +not look upon them as men who had seen our Lord raise any one from the +dead, nor restore the eyes of the blind.</p> +<p>According to him, they may have seen Christ exercise unusual power +over the insane, and temporary alleviations of sickness, due perhaps +to mental excitement, may have taken place in their presence and passed +for miracles; he would doubt how far they had even seen this much, for +he would insist on many passages in the Gospels which would point in +the direction of our Lord’s never having professed to work a single +miracle; but even though he granted that they had seen certain extraordinary +cases of healing, there is no amount of testimony which would for a +moment satisfy him of their having seen more. <i>We</i> see the +Apostles as men who before the Crucifixion had seen Lazarus raised from +death to life after the corruption of the grave had begun its work, +and who had seen sight given to one that had been born sightless; as +men who had seen miracle after miracle, with every loophole for escape +from a belief in the miraculous carefully excluded; who had seen their +master walking upon the sea, and bidding the winds be still; our difficulty +therefore is to understand the incredulity of the Apostles as displayed +abundantly in the Gospels; but Strauss can have none such; for he must +see them as men over whom the influence of their master had been purely +personal, and due to nothing more than to a strength and beauty of character +which his followers very imperfectly understood. <i>He</i> does +not believe that Lazarus was raised at all, or that the man who had +been born blind ever existed; he considers the fourth gospel, which +alone records these events, to be the work of a later age, and not to +be depended on for facts, save here and there; certainly not where the +facts recorded are miraculous. He must therefore be even more +ready than we are to admit that the faith of the Apostles was weak before +the Crucifixion; but whether he is or not, we have it on the highest +authority that their faith was not strong enough to maintain them at +the very first approach of danger, nor to have given them any hope whatever +that our Lord should rise again; whereas for Strauss’s theory +to hold good, it must already have been in a white heat of enthusiasm.</p> +<p>But even granting that this was so - in the face of all the evidence +we can reach - men so honest and sincere as the Apostles proved themselves +to be, would have taken other ground than the assertion that their master +had reappeared to them alive, unless some very extraordinary occurrences +had led them to believe that they had indeed seen him. If their +faith was glowing and intense at the time of the Crucifixion - so intense +that they believed in Christ as much, or nearly as much, after the Crucifixion +as before it (and unless this were so the hallucinations could never +have arisen at all, or at any rate could never have been so unanimously +accepted) - it would have been so intense as to stand in no need of +a reappearance. In this case, if they had found that their master +did not return to them, the Apostles would probably have accepted the +position that he had, contrary to their expectation, been put to a violent +death; they would, perhaps, have come sooner or later to the conclusion +that he was immediately on death received into Heaven, and was sitting +on the right hand of God; while some extraordinary dream might have +been construed into a revelation of the fact with the manner of its +occurrence, and been soon generally believed; but the idea of our Lord’s +return to earth in a gross material body whereon the wounds were still +unhealed, was perhaps the last thing that would have suggested itself +to them by way of hallucination. If their faith had been great +enough, and their spirits high enough to have allowed hallucination +to originate at all, their imagination would have presented them at +once with a glorious throne, and the splendours of the highest Heaven +as appearing through the opened firmament; it would not surely have +rested satisfied with a man whose hands and side were wounded, and who +could eat of a piece of broiled fish and of an honeycomb. A fabric +so utterly baseless as the reappearances of our Lord (on the supposition +of their being unhistoric) would have been built of gaudier materials. +To repeat, it seems impossible that the Apostles should have attempted +to connect their hallucinations circumstantially and historically with +the events which had immediately preceded them. Hallucination +would have been conscious of a hiatus and not have tried to bridge it +over. It would not have developed the idea of our Lord’s +return to this grovelling and unworthy earth prior to his assumption +into glory, unless those who were under its influence had either seen +other resurrections from the dead - in which case there is no difficulty +attaching to the Resurrection of our Lord himself - or been forced into +believing it by the evidence of their own senses; this, on the supposition +that the devotion of the first disciples was intense before the Crucifixion; +but if, on the other hand, they were at that time anything but steadfast, +as both <i>a priori</i> and <i>a posteriori</i> evidence would seem +to indicate, if they were few and wavering, and if what little faith +they had was shaken to its foundations and apparently at an end for +ever with the death of Christ, it becomes indeed difficult to see how +the idea of his return to earth alive could have ever struck even a +single one of them, much less that hallucinations which could have had +no origin but in the disordered brain of some one member of the Apostolic +body, should in a short time have been accepted by all as by one man +without a shadow of dissension, and been strong enough to convert them, +as was said above, into the most earnest and successful body of propagandists +that the world has ever seen.</p> +<p>Truly this is not too much to say of them; and yet we are asked to +believe that this faith, so intensely energetic, grew out of one which +can hardly be called a faith at all, in consequence of day-dreams whose +existence presupposes a faith hardly if any less intense than that which +it is supposed to have engendered. Are we not warranted in asserting +that a movement which is confined to a few wavering followers, and which +receives any very decisive check, which scatters and demoralises the +few who have already joined it, will be absolutely sure to die a speedy +natural death unless something utterly strange and new occurs to give +it a fresh impetus? Such a resuscitating influence would have +been given to the Christian religion by the reappearance of Christ alive. +This would meet the requirements of the case, for we can all feel that +if we had already half believed in some gifted friend as a messenger +from God, and if we had seen that friend put to death before our eyes, +and yet found that the grave had no power over him, but that he could +burst its bonds and show himself to us again unmistakably alive, we +should from that moment yield ourselves absolutely his; but our faith +would die with him unless it had been utter before his death.</p> +<p>The devotion of the Apostles is explained by their belief in the +Resurrection, but their belief in the Resurrection is not explained +by a supposed hallucination; for their minds were not in that state +in which alone such a delusion could establish itself firmly, and unless +it were established firmly by the most apparently irrefragable evidence +of many persons, it would have had no living energy. How an hallucination +could occur in the requisite strength to the requisite number of people +is neither explained nor explicable, except upon the supposition that +the Apostles were in a very different frame of mind at the time of Christ’s +Crucifixion from that which all the evidence we can get would seem to +indicate. If Strauss had first made this point clear we could +follow him. But he has not done so.</p> +<p>Strauss says, the conception that Christ’s body had been reawakened +and changed, “a double miracle, exceeding far what had occurred +in the case of Enoch and Elijah, could only be credible to one who saw +in him a prophet far superior to them” - <i>i.e</i>., to one who +notwithstanding his death was persuaded that he was the Messiah: “this +conviction” (that a double miracle had been performed) “was +the first to which the Apostles had to attain in the days of their humiliation +after the Crucifixion.” Yes - but how were they to attain +to it, being now utterly broken down and disillusioned? Strauss +admits that before they could have come to hold what he supposes them +to have held, they must have seen in Christ even after his Crucifixion +a prophet far greater than either Moses or Elias; whereas in point of +fact it is very doubtful whether they ever believed this much of their +master even before the Crucifixion, and hardly questionable that after +it they disbelieved in him almost entirely, until he shewed himself +to them alive. Is it possible that from the dead embers of so +weak a faith, so vast a conflagration should have been kindled?</p> +<p>I submit, therefore, that independently of any direct evidence as +to the when and where of Christ’s reappearances, the fact that +the Apostles before the Crucifixion were irresolute, and after it unspeakably +resolute, affords strong ground for believing that they must have seen +something, or come to know something, which to their minds was utterly +overwhelming in its convincing power: when we find the earliest and +most trustworthy records unanimously asserting that that something was +the reappearance of Christ alive, we feel that such a reappearance was +an adequate cause for the result actually produced; and when we think +over the condition of mind which both probability and evidence assign +to the Apostles, we also feel that no other circumstance would have +been adequate, nor even this unless the proof had been such as none +could reasonably escape from.</p> +<p>Again, Strauss’s supposition that the Apostles antedated their +hallucinations suggests no less difficulty. Suppose that, after +all, Strauss is right, and that there was no actual reappearance; whatever +it was that led the Apostles to believe in such reappearance must have +been, judging by its effect, intense and memorable: it must have been +as a shock obliterating everything save the memory of itself and the +things connected with it: the time and manner of such a shock could +never have been forgotten, nor misplaced without deliberate intention +to deceive, and no one will impute any such intention to the Apostles.</p> +<p>It may be said that if they were capable of believing in the reality +of their visions they would be also capable of antedating them; this +is true; but the double supposition of self-delusion, first in seeing +the visions at all, and then in unconsciously antedating them, reduces +the Apostles to such an exceedingly low level of intelligence and trustworthiness, +that no good and permanent work could come from such persons; the men +who could be weak enough, and crazed enough, if the reader will pardon +the expression, to do as Strauss suggests, could never have carried +their work through in the way they did. Such men would have wrecked +their undertaking a hundred times over in the perils which awaited it +upon every side; they would have become victims of their own fancies +and desires, with little or no other grounds than these for any opinions +they might hold or teach: from such a condition of mind they must have +gone on to one still worse; and their tenets would have perished with +them, if not sooner.</p> +<p>Again, as regards this antedating; unless the visions happened at +once, it is inconceivable that they should have happened at all. +Strauss believes that the disciples fled in their first terror to their +homes: that when there, “outside the range to which the power +of the enemies and murderers of their master extended, the spell of +terror and consternation which had been laid upon their minds gave way,” +and that under the circumstances a reaction up to the point at which +they might have visions of Christ is capable of explanation. The +answer to this is that it is indeed likely that the spell of terror +would give way when they found themselves safe at home, but that it +is not at all likely that any reaction would take place in favour of +one to whom their allegiance had never been thorough, and whom they +supposed to have met with a violent and accursed end. It might +be easy to imagine such a reaction if we did not also attempt to imagine +the circumstances that must have preceded it; the moment we try to do +this, we find it to be an impossibility. If once the Apostles +had been dispersed, and had returned home to their former avocations +without having seen or heard anything of their master’s return +to earth, all their expectations would have been ended; they would have +remained peaceable fishermen for the rest of their lives, and been cured +once and for ever of their enthusiasm.</p> +<p>Can we believe that the disciples, returning to Galilee in fear, +and bereaved of that master mind which had kept them from falling out +with one another, would have remained a united and enthusiastic body? +Strauss admits that their enthusiasm was for the time ended. Is +it then likely that they would have remained in any sense united, or +is it not much more likely that they would have shunned each other and +disliked allusions to the past? What but Christ’s actual +reappearance could rekindle this dead enthusiasm, and fan it to such +a burning heat? Suppose that one or two disciples recovered faith +and courage, the majority would never do so. If Christ himself +with the magic of his presence could not weld them into a devoted and +harmonious company, would the rumour arising at a later time that some +one had seen him after death, be acceptable enough to make the others +believe that they too had actually seen and handled him? Perhaps +- if the rumour was believed. But <i>would</i> it have been believed? +Or at any rate have been believed so utterly?</p> +<p>We cannot think it. For the belief and assertion are absolutely +without trace of dissent within the Christian body, and that body was +in the first instance composed entirely of the very persons who had +known and followed Christ before the Crucifixion. If some of the +original twelve had remained aloof and disputed the reappearances of +Christ, is it possible that no trace of such dissension should appear +in the Epistles of St. Paul? Paul differed widely enough from +those who were Apostles before him, and his language concerning them +is occasionally that of ill-concealed contempt and hatred rather than +of affection; but is there a word or hint which would seem to indicate +that a single one of those who had the best means of knowing doubted +the Resurrection? There is nothing of the kind; on the contrary, +whatever we find is such as to make us feel perfectly sure that none +of them <i>did</i> doubt it. Is it then possible that this unanimity +should have sprung from the original hallucinations of a small minority? +True - it is plain from the Epistle to the Corinthians that there were +some of Paul’s contemporaries who denied the Resurrection. +But who were they? We should expect that many among the more educated +Gentile converts would throw doubt upon so stupendous a miracle, but +is there anything which would point in the direction of these doubts +having been held within the original body of those who said that they +had seen Christ alive? By the eleven, or by the five hundred who +saw him at once? There is not one single syllable. Those +who heard the story second-hand would doubtless some of them attempt +to explain away its miraculous character, but if it had been founded +on hallucination it is not from these alone that the doubts would have +come.</p> +<p>Something is imperatively demanded in order to account for the intensity +of conviction manifested by the earliest Christians shortly after the +Crucifixion; for until that time they were far from being firmly convinced, +and the Crucifixion was the very last thing to have convinced them. +Given (to speak of our Lord as he must probably appear to Strauss) an +unusually gifted teacher of a noble and beautiful character: given also, +a small body of adherents who were inclined to adopt him as their master +and to regard him as the coming liberator, but who were nevertheless +far from settled in their conviction: given such a man and such followers: +the teacher is put to a shameful death about two years after they had +first known him, and the followers forsake him instantly: surely without +his reappearing in some way upon the scene they would have concluded +that their doubts had been right and their hopes without foundation: +but if he reappeared, their faith would, for the first time, become +intense, all-absorbing. Surely also they might be trusted to know +whether they had really seen their master return to them or not, and +not to sacrifice themselves in every way, and spend their whole lives +in bearing testimony to pure hallucination?</p> +<p>There is one other point on which a few words will be necessary, +before we proceed to the arguments in favour of the objective character +of Christ’s Resurrection as derivable from the conversion and +testimony of St. Paul. It is this. Strauss and those who +agree with him will perhaps maintain that the Apostles were in truth +wholly devoted to Christ before the Crucifixion, but that the Evangelists +have represented them as being only half-hearted, in order to heighten +the effect of their subsequent intense devotion. But this looks +like falling into the very error which Rationalists condemn most loudly +when it comes from so-called orthodox writers. They complain, +and with too much justice, that our apologists have made “anything +out of anything.” Yet if the Apostles were not unsteadfast, +and did not desert their master in his hour of peril, and if all the +accounts of Christ’s reappearances are the creations of disordered +fancy, we may as well at once declare the Evangelists to be worthless +as historians, and had better give up all attempt at the construction +of history with their assistance. We cannot take whatever we wish, +and leave whatever we wish, and alter whatever we wish. If we +admit that upon the whole the Gospel writings or at any rate the first +three Gospels, contain a considerable amount of historic matter, we +should also arrive at some general principles by which we will consistently +abide in separating the historic from the unhistoric. We cannot +deal with them arbitrarily, accepting whatever fits in with our fancies, +and rejecting whatever is at variance with them.</p> +<p>Now can it be maintained that the Evangelists would be so likely +to overrate the half-heartedness of the Apostles, that we should look +with suspicion upon the many and very plain indications of their having +been only half-hearted? Certainly not. If there was any +likelihood of a tendency one way or the other it would be in the direction +of overrating their faith. Would not the unbelief of the Apostles +in the face of all the recorded miracles be a most damaging thing in +the eyes of the unconverted? Would not the Apostles themselves, +after they were once firmly convinced, be inclined to think that they +had from the first believed more firmly than they really had done? +This at least would be in accordance with the natural promptings of +human instinct: we are all of us apt to be wise after the event, and +are far more prone to dwell upon things which seem to give some colour +to a pretence of prescience, than upon those which force from us a confession +of our own stupidity. It might seem a damaging thing that the +Apostles should have doubted as much as long as they clearly did; would +then the Evangelists go out of their way to introduce more signs of +hesitation? Would any one suggest that the signs of doubt and +wavering had been overrated, unless there were some theory or other +to be supported, in order to account for which this overrating was necessary? +Would the opinion that the want of faith had been exaggerated arise +prior to the formation of a theory, or subsequently? This is the +fairest test; let the reader apply it for himself.</p> +<p>On the other hand, there are many reasons which should incline us +to believe that, before the Resurrection, the Apostles were less convinced +than is generally supposed, but it would be dangerous to depart either +to the right hand or to the left of that which we find actually recorded, +namely, that in the main the Apostles were prepared to accept Christ +before the Crucifixion, but that they were by no means resolute and +devoted followers. I submit that this is a fair rendering of the +spirit of what we find in the Gospels. It is just because Strauss +has chosen to depart from it that he has found himself involved in the +maze of self-contradiction through which we have been trying to follow +him. There is no position so absurd that it cannot be easily made +to look plausible, if the strictly scientific method of investigation +is once departed from.</p> +<p>But if I had been in Strauss’s place, and had wished to make +out a case against Christianity without much heed of facts, I should +not have done it by a theory of hallucinations. A much prettier, +more novel and more sensational opening for such an attempt is afforded +by an attack upon the Crucifixion itself. A very neat theory might +be made, that there may have been some disturbance at one of the Jewish +passovers, during which some persons were crucified as an example by +the Romans: that during this time Christ happened to be missing; that +he reappeared, and finally departed, whither, no man can say: that the +Apostles, after his last disappearance, remembering that he had been +absent during the tumult, little by little worked themselves up into +the belief that on his reappearance they had seen wounds upon him, and +that the details of the Crucifixion were afterwards revealed in a vision +to some favoured believer, until in the course of a few years the narrative +assumed its present shape: that then the reappearance of Christ was +denied among the Jews, while the Crucifixion as attaching disgrace to +him was not disputed, and that it thus became so generally accepted +as to find its way into Pliny and Josephus. This tissue of absurdity +may serve as an example of what the unlicensed indulgence of theory +might lead to; but truly it would be found quite as easy of belief as +that the early Christian faith in the Resurrection was due to hallucination +only.</p> +<p>Considering, then, that Christianity was not crushed but overran +the most civilised portions of the world; that St. Paul was undoubtedly +early told, in such a manner as for him to be thoroughly convinced of +the fact, that on some few but sufficient occasions Christ was seen +alive after he had been crucified; that the general belief in the reappearance +of our Lord was so strong that those who had the best means of judging +gave up all else to preach it, with a unanimity and singleness of purpose +which is irreconcilable with hallucination; that all our records most +definitely insist upon this belief and that there is no trace of its +ever having been disputed among the Jewish Christians, it seems hard +to see how we can escape from admitting that Jesus Christ was crucified, +dead, and buried, and yet that he was verily and indeed seen alive again +by those who expected nothing less, but who, being once convinced, turned +the whole world after them.</p> +<p>It is now incumbent upon us to examine the testimony of St. Paul, +to which I would propose to devote a separate chapter.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<h3>CHAPTER III - THE CHARACTER AND CONVERSION OF ST. PAUL</h3> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>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.</p> +<p>Now even supposing that the miraculous account of Paul’s conversion +is entirely devoid of foundation, or again, as I believe myself, that +the story given in the Acts is not correctly placed, but refers to the +vision alluded to by Paul himself (I. Cor. xv.), and to events which +happened, not coincidently with his conversion, but some years after +it - does not the importance of the conversion itself rather gain than +lose in consequence? A charge of unimportant inaccuracy may be +thus sustained against one who wrote in a most inaccurate age; but what +is this in comparison with the testimony borne to the strength of the +Christian evidences by the supposition that <i>of their own weight alone, +and without miraculous assistance, they succeeded in convincing the +most bitter, and at the same time the ablest, of their opponents</i>? +This is very pregnant. No man likes to abandon the side which +he has once taken. The spectacle of a man committing himself deeply +to his original party, changing without rhyme or reason, and then remaining +for the rest of his life the most devoted and courageous adherent of +all that he had opposed, without a single human inducement to make him +do so, is one which has never been witnessed since man was man. +When men who have been committed deeply and spontaneously to one cause, +leave it for another, they do so either because facts have come to their +knowledge which are new to them and which they cannot resist, or because +their temporal interests urge them, or from caprice: but if they change +from caprice in important matters and after many pledges given, they +will change from caprice again: they will not remain for twenty-five +or thirty years without changing a jot of their capriciously formed +opinions. We are therefore warranted in assuming that St. Paul’s +conversion to Christianity was not dictated by caprice: it was not dictated +by self-interest: it must therefore have sprung from the weight of certain +new facts which overbore all the resistance which he could make to them.</p> +<p>What then could these facts have been?</p> +<p>Paul’s conduct as a Jew was logical and consistent: he did +what any seriously-minded man who had been strictly brought up would +have done in his situation. Instead of half believing what he +had been taught, he believed it wholly. Christianity was cutting +at the root of what was in his day accepted as fundamental: it was therefore +perfectly natural that he should set himself to attack it. There +is nothing against him in this beyond the fact of his having done it, +as far as we can see, with much cruelty. Yet though cruel, he +was cruel from the best of motives - the stamping out of an error which +was harmful to the service of God; and cruelty was not then what it +is now: the age was not sensitive and the lot of all was harder. +From the first he proved himself to be a man of great strength of character, +and like many such, deeply convinced of the soundness of his opinions, +and deeply impressed with the belief that nothing could be good which +did not also commend itself as good to him. He tested the truth +of his earlier convictions not by external standards, but by the internal +standard of their own strength and purity - a fearful error which but +for God’s mercy towards him would have made him no less wicked +than well-intentioned.</p> +<p>Even after having been convinced by a weight of evidence which no +prejudice could resist, and after thus attaining to a higher conception +of right and truth and goodness than was possible to him as a Jew, there +remained not a few traces of the old character. Opposition beyond +certain limits was a thing which to the end of his life he could not +brook. It is not too much to say that he regarded the other Apostles +- and was regarded by them - with suspicion and dislike; even if an +angel from Heaven had preached any other doctrine than what Paul preached, +the angel was to be accursed (Gal. i., 8), and it is not probable that +he regarded his fellow Apostles as teaching the same doctrine as himself, +or that he would have allowed them greater licence than an angel. +It is plain from his undoubted Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians +that the other Apostles, no less than his converts, exceedingly well +knew that he was not a man to be trifled with. If the arm of the +law had been as much on his side after his conversion as before it, +it would have gone hardly with dissenters; they would have been treated +with politic tenderness the moment that they yielded, but woe betide +them if they presumed on having any very decided opinions of their own.</p> +<p>On the other hand, his sagacity is beyond dispute; it is certain +that his perception of what the Gentile converts could and could not +bear was the main proximate cause of the spread of Christianity. +He prevented it from becoming a mere Jewish sect, and it has been well +said that but for him the Jews would now be Christians, and the Gentiles +unbelievers. Who can doubt his tact and forbearance, where matters +not essential were concerned? His strength in not yielding a fraction +upon vital points was matched only by his suppleness and conciliatory +bearing upon all others. To use his own words, he did indeed become +“all things to all men” if by any means he could gain some, +and the probability is that he pushed this principle to its extreme +(see Acts xxi., 20-26).</p> +<p>Now when we see a man so strong and yet so yielding - the writer +moreover of letters which shew an intellect at once very vigorous and +very subtle (not to say more of them), and when we know that there was +no amount of hardship, pain, and indignity, which he did not bear and +count as gain in the service of Jesus Christ; when we also remember +that he continued thus for all the known years of his life after his +conversion, can we think that that conversion could have been the result +of anything even approaching to caprice? Or again, is it likely +that it could have been due to contact with the hallucinations of his +despised and hated enemies? Paul the Christian appears to be the +same sort of man in most respects as Paul the Jew, yet can we imagine +Paul the Christian as being converted from Christianity to some other +creed, by the infection of hallucinations? On the contrary, no +man would more quickly have come to the bottom of them, and assigned +them to diabolical agency. What then can that thing have been, +which wrenched the strong and able man from all that had the greatest +hold upon him, and fixed him for the rest of his life as the most self-sacrificing +champion of Christianity? In answer to this question we might +say, that it is of no great importance how the change was made, inasmuch +as the fact of its having been made at all is sufficiently pregnant. +Nevertheless it will be interesting to follow Strauss in his remarks +upon the account given in the Acts, and I am bound to add that I think +he has made out his case. Strange! that he should have failed +to see that the evidences in support of the Resurrection are incalculably +strengthened by his having done so. How short-sighted is mere +ingenuity! And how weak and cowardly are they who shut their eyes +to facts because they happen to come from an opponent!</p> +<p>Strauss, however, writes as follows:- “That we are not bound +to the individual features of the account in the Acts is shewn by comparing +it with the substance of the statement twice repeated in the language +of Paul himself: for there we find that the author’s own account +is not accurate, and that he attributed no importance to a few variations +more or less. Not only is it said on one occasion that the attendants +stood dumb-foundered: on another that they fell with Paul to the ground; +on one occasion that they heard the voice but saw no one; on another +that they saw the light but did not hear the voice of him who spoke +with Paul: but also the speech of Jesus himself, in the third repetition, +gets the well known addition about “kicking against the pricks,” +to say nothing of the fact that the appointment to the Apostleship of +the Gentiles, which according to the two earlier accounts was made partly +by Ananias, partly on the occasion of a subsequent vision in the Temple +at Jerusalem, is in this last account incorporated in the speech of +Jesus. There is no occasion to derive the three accounts of this +occurrence in the Acts from different sources, and even in this case +one must suppose that the author of the Acts must have remarked and +reconciled the discrepancies; that he did not do so, or rather that +without following his own earlier narrative he repeated it in an arbitrary +form, proves to us how careless the New Testament writers are about +details of this kind, important as they are to one who strives after +strict historical accuracy.</p> +<p>“But even if the author of the Acts had gone more accurately +to work, still he was not an eye witness, scarcely even a writer who +took the history from the narrative of an eye witness. Even if +we consider the person who in different places comprehends himself and +the Apostle Paul under the word ‘we’ or ‘us’ +to have been the composer of the whole work, that person was not on +the occasion of the occurrence before Damascus as yet in the company +of the Apostle. Into this he did not enter until much later, in +the Troad, on the Apostle’s second missionary journey (Acts xvi., +10). But that hypothesis with regard to the author of the Acts +of the Apostles is, moreover, as we have seen above, erroneous. +He only worked up into different passages of his composition the memoranda +of a temporary companion of the Apostle about the journeys performed +in his company, and we are therefore not justified in considering the +narrator to have been an eye witness in those passages and sections +in which the ‘we’ is wanting. Now among these is found +the very section in which appear the two accounts of his conversion +which Paul gives, first, to the Jewish people in Jerusalem, secondly, +to Agrippa and Festus in Cæsarea. The last occasion on which +the ‘we’ was found was xxi., 18, that of the visit of Paul +to James, and it does not appear again until xxvii., 1, when the subject +is the Apostle’s embarkation for Italy. Nothing therefore +compels us to assume that we have in the reports of these speeches the +account of any one who had been a party to the hearing of them, and, +in them, Paul’s own narrative of the occurrences that took place +on his conversion.”</p> +<p>The belief in the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures having been +long given up by all who have considered the awful consequences which +it entails, the Bible records have been opened to modern criticism:- +the result has been that their general accuracy is amply proved, while +at the same time the writers must be admitted to have fallen in with +the feelings and customs of their own times, and must accordingly be +allowed to have been occasionally guilty of what would in our own age +be called inaccuracies. There is no dependence to be placed on +the verbal, or indeed the substantial, accuracy of any ancient speeches, +except those which we know to have been reported <i>verbatim</i>, they +were (as with the Herodotean and Thucydidean speeches) in most cases +the invention of the historian himself, as being what seemed most appropriate +to be said by one in the position of the speaker. Reporting was +a rare art among the ancients, and was confined to a few great centres +of intellectual activity; accuracy, moreover, was not held to be of +the same importance as at the present day. Yet without accurate +reporting a speech perishes as soon as it is uttered, except in so far +as it lives in the actions of those who hear it. Even a hundred +years ago the invention of speeches was considered a matter of course, +as in the well-known case of Dr. Johnson, than whom none could be more +conscientious, and - according to his lights - accurate. I may +perhaps be pardoned for quoting the passage in full from Boswell, who +gives it on the authority of Mr. John Nichols; the italics are mine. +“He said that the Parliamentary debates were the only part of +his writings which then gave him any compunction: <i>but that at the +time he wrote them he had no conception that he was imposing upon the +world, though they were frequently written from very slender materials, +and often from none at all - the mere coinage of his own imagination. +He</i> never wrote any part of his works with equal velocity. +(Boswell’s <i>Life of Johnson</i>, chap. lxxxii.)</p> +<p>This is an extreme case, yet there can be no question about its truth. +It is only one among the very many examples which could be adduced in +order to shew that the appreciation of the value of accuracy is a thing +of modern date only - a thing which we owe mainly to the chemical and +mechanical sciences, wherein the inestimable difference between precision +and inaccuracy became most speedily apparent. If the reader will +pardon an apparent digression, I would remark that that sort of care +is wanted on behalf of Christianity with which a cashier in a bank counts +out the money that he tenders - counting it and recounting it as though +he could never be sure enough before he allowed it to leave his hands. +This caution would have saved the wasting of many lives, and the breaking +of many hearts.</p> +<p>We, on the other hand, however reckless we may be ourselves, are +in the habit of assuming that any historian whom we may have occasion +to consult, and on whose testimony we would fain rely, must have himself +weighed and re-weighed his words as the cashier his money; an error +which arises from want of that sympathy which should make us bear constantly +in mind what lights men had, under what influences they wrote, and what +we should ourselves have done had we been so placed as they. But +if any will maintain that though the general run of ancient speeches +were, as those supposed to have been reported by Johnson, pure invention, +yet that it is not likely that one reporting the words of Almighty God +should have failed to feel the awful responsibility of his position, +we can only answer that the writer of the Acts did most indisputably +so fail, as is shewn by the various reports of those words which he +has himself given: if he could in the innocency of his heart do this, +and at one time report the Almighty as saying this, and at another that, +as though, more or less, this or that were a matter of no moment, what +certainty can we have concerning such a man that inaccuracy shall not +elsewhere be found in him? None. He is a warped mirror which +will distort every object that it reflects.</p> +<p>It follows, then, that from the Acts of the Apostles we have no data +for arriving at any conclusion as to the manner of Paul’s change +of faith, nor the circumstances connected with it. To us the accounts +there given should be simply non-existent; but this is not easy, for +we have heard them too often and from too early an age to be able to +escape their influence; yet we must assuredly ignore them if we are +anxious to arrive at truth. We cannot let the story told in the +Acts enter into any judgement which we may form concerning Paul’s +character. The desire to represent him as having been converted +by miracle was very natural. He himself tells us that he saw visions, +and received his apostleship by revelation - not necessarily at the +time of, or immediately after, his conversion, but still at some period +or other in his life; it would be the most natural thing in the world +for the writer of the Acts to connect some version of one of these visions +with the conversion itself: the dramatic effect would be heightened +by making the change, while the change itself would be utterly unimportant +in the eyes of such a writer; be this however as it may, we are only +now concerned with the fact that we know nothing about Paul’s +conversion from the Acts of the Apostles, which should make us believe +that that conversion was wrought in him by any other means, than by +such an irresistible pressure of evidence as no sane person could withstand.</p> +<p>From the Apostle’s own writings we can glean nothing about +his conversion which would point in the direction of its having been +sudden or miraculous. It is true that in the Epistle to the Galatians +he says, “After it had pleased God to reveal his Son in me,” +but this expression does not preclude the supposition that his conversion +may have been led up to by a gradual process, the culmination of which +(if that) he alone regarded as miraculous. Thus we are forced +to admit that we know nothing from any source concerning the manner +and circumstances of St. Paul’s change from Judaism to Christianity, +and we can only conclude therefore that he changed because he found +the weight of the evidence to be greater than he could resist. +And this, as we have seen, is an exceedingly telling fact. The +probability is, that coming much into contact with Christians through +his persecution of them, and submitting them to the severest questioning, +he found that they were in all respects sober plainspoken men, that +their conviction was intense, their story coherent, and the doctrines +which they had received simple and ennobling; that these results of +many inquisitions were so unvarying that he found conviction stealing +gradually upon him against his will; common honesty compelled him to +inquire further; the answers pointed invariably in one direction only; +until at length he found himself utterly unable to resist the weight +of evidence which he had collected, and resolved, perhaps at the last +suddenly, to yield himself a convert to Christianity.</p> +<p>Strauss says that, “in the presence of the believers in Jesus,” +the conviction that he was a false teacher - an impostor - “must +have become every day more doubtful to him. They considered it +not only publicly honourable to be as convinced of his Resurrection +as they were of their own life - but they shewed also a state of mind, +a quiet peace, a tranquil cheerfulness, even under suffering, which +put to shame the restless and joyless zeal of their persecutor. +Could <i>he</i> have been a false teacher who had adherents such as +these? Could that have been a false pretence which gave such rest +and security? on the one hand, he saw the new sect, in spite of all +persecutions, nay, in consequence of them, extending their influence +wider and wider round them; on the other, as their persecutor, he felt +that inward tranquillity growing less and less which he could observe +in so many ways in the persecuted. We cannot therefore be surprised +if in hours of inward despondency and unhappiness he put to himself +the question, ‘Who after all is right, thou, or the crucified +Galilean about whom these men are so enthusiastic?’ And +when he had got as far as this, the result, with his bodily and mental +characteristics, naturally followed in an ecstasy in which the very +same Christ whom up to this time he had so passionately persecuted, +appeared to him in all the glory of which his adherents spoke so much, +shewed him the perversity and folly of his conduct, and called him to +come over to his service.”</p> +<p>The above comes simply to this, that Paul in his constant contact +with Christians found that they had more to say for themselves than +he could answer, and should, one would have thought, have suggested +to Strauss what he supposes to have occurred to Paul, namely, that it +was not likely that these men had made a mistake in thinking that they +had seen Christ alive after his Crucifixion. There can be no doubt +about Strauss’s being right as to the Christian intensity of conviction, +strenuousness of assertion, and readiness to suffer for the sake of +their faith in Christ; and these are the main points with which we are +concerned. We arrive therefore at the conclusion that the first +Christians were sufficiently unanimous, coherent and undaunted to convince +the foremost of their enemies. They were not so <i>before</i> +the Crucifixion; they could not certainly have been made so by the Crucifixion +alone; something beyond the Crucifixion must have occurred to give them +such a moral ascendancy as should suffice to generate a revulsion of +feeling in the mind of the persecuting Saul. Strauss asks us to +believe that this missing something is to be found in the hallucinations +of two or three men whose names have not been recorded and who have +left no mark of their own. Is there any occasion for answer?</p> +<p>It is inconceivable that he who could write the Epistle to the Romans +should not also have been as able as any man who ever lived to question +the early believers as to their converse with Christ, and to report +faithfully the substance of what they told him. That he knew the +other Apostles, that he went up to Jerusalem to hold conferences with +them, that he abode fifteen days with St. Peter - as he tells us, in +order “to question him” - these things are certain. +The Greek word ιστορησαι +is a very suggestive one. It is so easy to make too much out of +anything that I hardly dare to say how strongly the use of the verb +ιστορειν suggests to me “getting +at the facts of the case,” “questioning as to how things +happened,” yet such would be the most obvious meaning of the word +from which our own “history” and “story” are +derived. Fifteen days was time enough to give Paul the means of +coming to an understanding with Peter as to what the value of Peter’s +story was, nor can we believe that Paul should not both receive and +transmit perfectly all that he was then told. In fact, without +supposing these men to be so utterly visionary that nothing durable +could come out of them, there is no escape from holding that Peter was +justified in firmly believing that he had seen Christ alive within a +very few days of the Crucifixion, that he succeeded also in satisfying +Paul that this belief was well-founded, and that in the account of Christ’s +reappearances, as given I. Cor. xv., we have a virtually <i>verbatim</i> +report of what Paul heard from Peter and the other Apostles. Of +course the possibility remains that Paul may have been too easily satisfied, +and not have cross-examined Peter as closely as he might have done. +But then Paul was converted <i>before</i> this interview; and this implies +that he had already found a general consent among the Christians whom +he had met with, that the story which he afterwards heard from Peter +(or one to the same effect) was true. Whence then the unanimity +of this belief? Strauss answers as before - from the hallucinations +of an originally small minority. We can only again reply that +for the reasons already given we find it quite impossible to agree with +him.</p> +<p>[The quotation from Strauss given in this chapter will be found pp. +414, 415, 420, of the first volume of the English translation, published +by Williams and Norgate, 1865. I believe that my brother intended +to make a fresh translation from the original passages, but he never +carried out his intention, and in his MS. the page of the English translation +with the first and last words of each passage are alone given. +I could hardly venture to undertake the responsibility of making a fresh +translation myself, and have therefore adhered almost word for word +to the published English translation - here and there, however, a trifling +alteration was really irresistible on the scores alike of euphony and +clearness. - W. B. O.]</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<h3>CHAPTER IV - PAUL’S TESTIMONY CONSIDERED</h3> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>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.</p> +<p>But, the change in Paul’s mind being thus referred to causes +which preclude all possibility of hallucination or ecstasy on his own +part, it becomes unnecessary to discuss the attempts which have been +made to explain away the miraculous character of the account given in +the Acts. I believe that this account is founded upon fact, and +that it is derived from some description furnished by St. Paul himself +of the vision mentioned, I. Cor. xv., which again is very possibly the +same as that of II. Cor. xii. For the purposes of the present +investigation, however, the whole story must be set aside. At +the same time it should be borne in mind, that any detraction from the +historical accuracy of the writer of the Acts, is more than compensated +for, by the additional weight given to the conversion of St. Paul, whom +we are now able to regard as having been converted by evidence which +was in itself overpowering, and which did not stand in need of any miraculous +interference in order to confirm it.</p> +<p>It is important to observe that the testimony of Paul should carry +more weight with those who are bent upon close critical investigation +than that even of the Evangelists. St. Paul is one whom we know, +and know well. No syllable of suspicion has ever been breathed, +even in Germany, against the first four of the Epistles which have been +generally assigned to him; friends and foes of Christianity are alike +agreed to accept them as the genuine work of the Apostle. Few +figures, therefore, in ancient history stand out more clearly revealed +to us than that of St. Paul, whereas a thick veil of darkness hangs +over that of each one of the Evangelists. Who St. Matthew was, +and whether the gospel that we have is an original work, or a translation +(as would appear from Papias, our highest authority), and how far it +has been modified in translation, are things which we shall never know. +The Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke are involved in even greater obscurity. +The authorship, date, and origin of the fourth Gospel have been, and +are being, even more hotly contested than those of the other three, +and all that can be affirmed with certainty concerning it is, that no +trace of its existence can be found before the latter half of the second +century, and that the spirit of the work itself is eminently anti-Judaistic, +whereas St. John appears both from the Gospels and from St. Paul’s +Epistles to have been a pillar of Judaism.</p> +<p>With St. Paul all is changed: we not only know him better than we +know nine-tenths of our own most eminent countrymen of the last century, +but we feel a confidence in him which grows greater and greater the +more we study his character. He combines to perfection the qualities +that make a good witness - capacity and integrity: add to this that +his conclusions were forced upon him. We therefore feel that, +whereas from a scientific point of view, the Gospel narratives can only +be considered as the testimony of early and sincere writers of whom +we know little or nothing, yet that in the evidence of St. Paul we find +the missing link which connects us securely with actual eye-witnesses +and gives us a confidence in the general accuracy of the Gospels which +they could never of themselves alone have imparted. We could indeed +ill spare either the testimony of the Evangelists or that of St. Paul, +but if we were obliged to content ourselves with one only, we should +choose the Apostle.</p> +<p>Turning then to the evidence of St. Paul as derivable from I. Cor. +xv. we find the following:</p> +<p>“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I +preached unto you, which also ye have received and wherein ye stand. +By which also ye are saved if ye keep in memory what I preached unto +you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you +first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our +sins according to the Scriptures: and that He was buried, and that He +rose again the third day according to the Scriptures; and that He was +seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that He was seen of above +five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater portion remain unto +this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that He was seen +of James; then of all the Apostles. And last of all He was seen +of me also, as of one born out of due time.”</p> +<p>In the first place we must notice Paul’s assertion that the +Gospel which he was then writing was identical with that which he had +originally preached. We may assume that each of the appearances +of Christ here mentioned had in Paul’s mind a definite time and +place, derived from the account which he had received and which probably +led to his conversion; the words “that which I also received” +surely imply “that which I also received <i>in the first instance</i>”: +now we know from his own mouth (Gal. i., 16, 17) that <i>after</i> his +conversion he “conferred not with flesh and blood” - “neither,” +he continues, “went I up to Jerusalem to them which were Apostles +before me, but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus: +then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see (ιστορησαι) +Peter, and abode with him fifteen days, but others of the Apostles saw +I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” Since, then, +he must have heard <i>some</i> story concerning Christ’s reappearances +before his conversion and subsequent sojourn in Arabia, and since he +had heard nothing from eye-witnesses until the time of his going up +to Jerusalem three years later, it is probable that the account quoted +above is the substance of what he found persisted in by the Christians +whom he was persecuting at Damascus, and was at length compelled to +believe. But this is very unimportant: it is more to the point +to insist upon the fact that St. Paul must have received the account +given I. Cor. xv., 3-8 within a very few years of the Crucifixion itself, +and that it was subsequently confirmed to him by Peter, and probably +by James and John, during his stay of fifteen days in Peter’s +house.</p> +<p>This account can have been nothing new even then, for it is plain +that at the time of Paul’s conversion the Christian Church had +spread far: Paul speaks of <i>returning</i> to Damascus, as though the +writer of the Acts was right as regards the place of his conversion; +but the fact of there having been a church in Damascus of sufficient +importance for Paul to go thither to persecute it, involves the lapse +of considerable time since the original promulgation of our Lord’s +Resurrection, and throws back the origin of the belief in that event +to a time closely consequent upon the Crucifixion itself.</p> +<p>Now Paul informs us that he was told (we may assume by Peter and +James) that Christ first reappeared <i>within three days of the Crucifixion</i>. +There is no sufficient reason for doubting this; and one fact of weekly +recurrence even to this day, affords it striking confirmation - I refer +to the institution of Sunday as the Lord’s day. We know +that the observance of this day in commemoration of the Resurrection +was a very early practice, nor is there anything which would seem to +throw doubt upon the fact of the first “Sunday” having been +also the Sunday of the Resurrection. Another confirmation of the +early date assigned to the Resurrection by St. Paul, is to be found +in the fact that every instinct would warn the Apostles <i>against</i> +the third day as being dangerously early, and as opening a door for +the denial of the completeness of the death. The fortieth day +would far more naturally have been chosen.</p> +<p>Turning now from the question of the date of the first reappearance +to what is told us of the reappearances themselves, we find that the +earliest was vouchsafed to St. Peter, which is at first sight opposed +to the Evangelistic records; but this is a discrepancy upon which no +stress should be laid; St. Paul might well be aware that Mary Magdalene +was the first to look upon her risen Lord, and yet have preferred to +dwell upon the more widely known names of Peter and his fellow Apostles. +The facts are probably these, that our Lord first shewed Himself to +the women, but that Peter was the first of the Apostolic body to see +Him; it was natural that if our Lord did not choose to show Himself +to the Apostles without preparation, Peter should have been chosen as +the one best fitted to prepare them: Peter probably collected the other +Apostles, and then the Redeemer shewed Himself alive to all together. +This is what we should gather from St. Paul’s narrative; a narrative +which it would seem arbitrary to set aside in the face of St. Paul’s +character, opportunities and antecedent prejudices against Christianity +- in the face also of the unanimity of all the records we have, as well +as of the fact that the Christian religion triumphed, and of the endless +difficulties attendant on the hallucination theory.</p> +<p>We conclude therefore that Paul was satisfied by sufficient evidence +that our Lord had appeared to Peter on the third day after the Crucifixion, +nor can any reasonable doubt be thrown upon the other appearances of +which he tells us. It is true that on the occasion of his visit +to Peter he saw none other of the Apostles save James - but there is +nothing to lead us to suppose that there was any want of unanimity among +them: no trace of this has come down to us, and would surely have done +so if it had existed. If any dependence at all is to be placed +on the writers of the New Testament it did not exist. Stronger +evidence than this unanimity it would be hard to find.</p> +<p>Another most noticeable feature is the fewness of the recorded appearances +of Christ. They commenced according to Paul (and this is virtually +according to Peter and James) immediately after the Crucifixion. +Paul mentions only five appearances: this does not preclude the supposition +that he knew of more, nor that the women who came to the sepulchre had +also seen Him, but it does seem to imply that the reappearances were +few in number, and that they continued only for a very short time. +They were sufficient for their purpose: one of preparation to Peter +- another to the Apostles - another to the outside world, and then one +or two more - but still not more than enough to establish the fact beyond +all possibility of dispute. The writer of the Acts tells us that +Christ was seen for a space of forty days - presumably not every day, +but from time to time. Now forty days is a mystical period, and +one which may mean either more or less, within a week or two, than the +precise time stated; it seems upon the whole most reasonable to conclude +that the reappearances recorded by Paul, and some few others not recorded, +extended over a period of one or two months after the Crucifixion, and +that they then came to an end; for there can be no doubt that St. Paul +conceived them as having ended with the appearance to the assembled +Apostles mentioned I. Cor. xv., 7, and, though he does not say so expressly, +there is that in the context which suggests their having been confined +to a short space of time.</p> +<p>It is perfectly clear that St. Paul did not believe that any one +had seen Christ in the interval between the last recorded appearance +to the eleven, and the vision granted to himself. The words “and +last of all he was seen also of me <i>as of one born out of due time</i>” +point strongly in the direction of a lapse of some years between the +second appearance to the eleven and his own vision. This confirms +and is confirmed by the writer of the Acts. St. Paul never could +have used the words quoted above, if he had held that the appearances +which he records had been spread over a space of years intervening between +the Crucifixion and his own vision. Where would be the force of +“born out of due time” unless the time of the previous appearances +had long passed by? But if, at the time of St. Paul’s conversion, +it was already many years since the last occasion upon which Christ +had been seen by his disciples, we find ourselves driven back to a time +closely consequent upon the Crucifixion as the only possible date of +the reappearances. But this is in itself sufficient condemnation +of Strauss’s theory: that theory requires considerable time for +the development of a perfectly unanimous and harmonious belief in the +hallucinations, while every particle of evidence which we can get points +in the direction of the belief in the Resurrection having followed very +closely upon the Crucifixion.</p> +<p>To repeat: had the reappearances been due to hallucination only, +they would neither have been so few in number nor have come to an end +so soon. When once the mind has begun to run riot in hallucination, +it is prodigal of its own inventions. Favoured believers would +have been constantly seeing Christ even up to the time of Paul’s +letter to the Corinthians, and the Apostle would have written that even +then Christ was still occasionally seen of those who trusted in him, +and served him faithfully. But we meet with nothing of the sort: +we are told that Christ was seen a few times shortly after the Crucifixion, +then <i>after a lapse of several years</i> (I am surely warranted in +saying this) Paul himself saw Him - but no one in the interval, and +no one afterwards. This is not the manner of the hallucinations +of uneducated people. It is altogether too sober: the state of +mind from which alone so baseless a delusion could spring, is one which +never could have been contented with the results which were evidently +all, or nearly all, that Paul knew of. St. Paul’s words +cannot be set aside without more cause than Strauss has shewn: instead +of betraying a tendency towards exaggeration, they contain nothing whatever, +with the exception of his own vision, that is not imperatively demanded +in order to account for the rise and spread of Christianity.</p> +<p>Concerning that vision Strauss writes as follows:</p> +<p>“With regard to the appearance he (Paul) witnessed - he uses +the same word (ωφθη) as with regard to the others: +he places it in the same category with them only in the last place, +as he names himself the last of the Apostles, but in exactly the same +rank with the others. Thus much, therefore, Paul knew - or supposed +- that the appearances which the elder disciples had seen soon after +the Resurrection of Jesus had been of the same kind as that which had +been, only later, vouchsafed to himself. Of what sort then was +this?”</p> +<p>I confess that I am wholly unable to feel the force of the above. +Strauss says that Paul’s vision was ecstatic - subjective and +not objective - that Paul thought he saw Christ, although he never really +saw him. But, says Strauss, he uses the same word for his own +vision and for the appearances to the earlier Apostles: it is plain +therefore that he did not suppose the earlier Apostles to have seen +Christ in the same sort of way in which they saw themselves and other +people, but to have seen him as Paul himself did, <i>i.e</i>., by supernatural +revelation.</p> +<p>But would it not be more fair to say that Paul’s using the +same word for all the appearances - his own vision included - implies +that he considered this last to have been no less real than those vouchsafed +earlier, though he may have been perfectly well aware that it was different +in kind? The use of the same word for all the appearances is quite +compatible with a belief in Paul’s mind that the manner in which +he saw Christ was different from that in which the Apostles had seen +him: indeed, so long as he believed that he had seen Christ no less +really than the others, one cannot see why he should have used any other +word for his own vision than that which he had applied to the others: +we should even expect that he would do so, and should be surprised at +his having done otherwise. That Paul did believe in the reality +of his own vision is indisputable, and his use of the word ωφθη +was probably dictated by a desire to assert this belief in the strongest +possible way, and to place his own vision in the same category with +others, which were so universally known among Christians to have been +material and objective, that there was no occasion to say so. +Nevertheless there is that in Paul’s words on which Strauss does +not dwell, but which cannot be passed over without notice. Paul +does not simply say, “and last of all he was seen also of me” +- but he adds the words “as of one born out of due time.”</p> +<p>It is impossible to say decisively that this addition implies that +Paul recognised a difference in kind between the appearances, inasmuch +as the words added may only refer to time - still they would explain +the possible use of [ωφθη] in a somewhat different +sense, and I cannot but think that they will suggest this possibility +to the reader. They will make him feel, if he does not feel it +without them, how strained a proceeding it is to bind Paul down to a +rigorously identical meaning on every occasion on which the same word +came from his pen, and to maintain that because he once uses it on the +occasion of an appearance which he held to be vouchsafed by revelation, +therefore, wherever else he uses it, he must have intended to refer +to something seen by revelation: the words “as of one born out +of due time” imply the utterly unlooked for and transcendent nature +of the favour, and suggest, even though they do not compel, the inference +that while the other Apostles had seen Christ in the common course of +nature, as a visible tangible being before their waking eyes, he had +himself seen Him not less truly, but still only by special and unlooked +for revelation. If such thoughts were in his mind he would not +probably have expressed them farther than by the touching words which +he has added concerning his own vision. So much for the objection +that the evidence of Paul concerning the earlier appearances is impaired +by his having used the same word for them, and for the appearance to +himself. It only remains therefore to review in brief the general +bearings of Paul’s testimony as given I. Cor. xv., 1-8.</p> +<p>Firstly, there is the early commencement of the reappearances: this +is incompatible with hallucination, for the hallucination must be supposed +to have occurred when most easy to refute, and when the spell of shame +and fear was laid most heavily upon the Apostles. Strauss maintains +that the appearances were unconsciously antedated by Peter; we can only +say that the circumstances of the case, as entered into more fully above, +render this very improbable; that if Peter told Paul that he saw Christ +on the third day after the Crucifixion, he probably firmly believed +that he did see Him; and that if he believed this, he was also probably +right in so believing.</p> +<p>Secondly, there is the fact that the reappearances were few, and +extended over a short time only. Had they been due to hallucination +there would have been no limit either to their number or duration. +Paul seems to have had no idea that there ever had been, or ever would +be, successors to the five hundred brethren who saw Christ at one time. +Some were fallen asleep - the rest would in time follow them. +It is incredible that men should have so lost all count of fact, so +debauched their perception of external objects, so steeped themselves +in belief in dreams which had no foundation but in their own disordered +brains, as to have turned the whole world after them by the sheer force +of their conviction of the truth of their delusions, and yet that suddenly, +within a few weeks from the commencement of this intoxication, they +should have come to a dead stop and given no further sign of like extravagance. +The hallucinations must have been so baseless, and would argue such +an utter subordination of judgement to imagination, that instead of +ceasing they must infallibly have ended in riot and disorganisation; +the fact that they did cease (which cannot be denied) and that they +were followed by no disorder, but by a solemn sober steadfastness of +purpose, as of reasonable men in deadly earnest about a matter which +had come to their knowledge, and which they held it vital for all to +know - this fact alone would be sufficient to overthrow the hallucination +theory. Such intemperance could never have begotten such temperance: +from such a frame of mind as Strauss assigns to the Apostles no religion +could have come which should satisfy the highest spiritual needs of +the most civilised nations of the earth for nearly two thousand years.</p> +<p>When, therefore, we look at the want of faith of the Apostles before +the Crucifixion, and to their subsequent intense devotion; at their +unanimity at their general sobriety; at the fact that they succeeded +in convincing the ablest of their enemies and ultimately the whole of +Europe; at the undeviating consent of all the records we have; at the +early date at which the reappearances commenced, - at their small number +and short duration - things so foreign to the nature of hallucination; +at the excellent opportunities which Paul had for knowing what he tells +us; at the plain manner in which he tells it, and the more than proof +which he gave of his own conviction of its truth; at the impossibility +of accounting for the rise of Christianity without the reappearance +of its Founder after His Crucifixion; when we look at all these things +we shall admit that it is impossible to avoid the belief that after +having died, Christ <i>did</i> reappear to his disciples, and that in +this fact we have the only intelligible explanation of the triumph of +Christianity.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<h3>CHAPTER V - A CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN ILL-JUDGED METHODS OF DEFENCE</h3> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>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.</p> +<p>What then does the reader think? Was the attack so dangerous, +or the defence so far to seek? I believe he will agree with me +that the combat was one of no great danger when it was once fairly entered +upon. But the wonder, and, let me add, the disgrace, to English +divines, is that the battle should have been shirked so long. +What is it that has made the name of Strauss so terrible to the ears +of English Churchmen? Surely nothing but the ominous silence which +has been maintained concerning him in almost all quarters of our Church. +For what can he say or do against the other miracles if he be powerless +against the Resurrection? He can make sentences which sound plausible, +but that is no great feat. Can he show that there is any <i>a +priori</i> improbability whatever, in the fact of miracles having been +wrought by one who died and rose from the dead? If a man did this +it is a small thing that he should also walk upon the waves and command +the winds. But if there is no <i>a priori</i> difficulty with +regard to these miracles, there is certainly none other.</p> +<p>Let this, however, for the present pass, only let me beg of the reader +to have patience while I follow out the plan which I have pursued up +to the present point, and proceed to examine certain difficulties of +another character. I propose to do so with the same unflinching +examination as heretofore, concealing nothing that has been said, or +that can be said; going out of my way to find arguments for opponents, +if I do not think that they have put forward all that from their own +point of view they might have done, and careless how many difficulties +I may bring before the reader which may never yet have occurred to him, +provided I feel that I can also shew him how little occasion there is +to fear them.</p> +<p>I must, however, maintain two propositions, which may perhaps be +unfamiliar to some of those who have not as yet given more than a conventional +and superficial attention to the Scriptural records, but which will +meet with ready assent from all whose studies have been deeper. +Fain would I avoid paining even a single reader, but I am convinced +that the arresting of infidelity depends mainly upon the general recognition +of two broad facts. The first is this - that the Apostles, even +after they had received the gift of the Holy Spirit were still fallible +though holy men; the second - that there are certain passages in each +of the Gospels as we now have them, which were not originally to be +found therein, and others which, though genuine, are still not historic. +This much of concession we must be prepared to make, and we shall find +(as in the case of the conversion of St. Paul) that our position is +indefinitely strengthened by doing so.</p> +<p>When shall we Christians learn that the truest ground is also the +strongest? We may be sure that until we have done so we shall +find a host of enemies who will say that truth is not ours. It +is we who have created infidelity, and who are responsible for it. +<i>We</i> are the true infidels, for we have not sufficient faith in +our own creed to believe that it will bear the removal of the incrustations +of time and superstition. When men see our cowardice, what can +they think but that we must know that we have cause to be afraid? +We drive men into unbelief in spite of themselves, by our tenacious +adherence to opinions which every unprejudiced person must see at a +glance that we cannot rightfully defend, and then we pride ourselves +upon our love for Christ and our hatred of His enemies. If Christ +accepts this kind of love He is not such as He has declared Himself.</p> +<p>We mistake our love of our own immediate ease for the love of Christ, +and our hatred of every opinion which is strange to us, for zeal against +His enemies. If those to whom the unfamiliarity of an opinion +or its inconvenience to themselves is a test of its hatefulness to Christ, +had been born Jews, they would have crucified Him whom they imagine +that they are now serving: if Turks, they would have massacred both +Jew and Christian; if Papists at the time of the Reformation they would +have persecuted Protestants: if Protestants, under Elizabeth, Papists. +Truth is to them an accident of birth and training, and the Christian +faith is in their eyes true because these accidents, as far as they +are concerned, have decided in its favour. But such persons are +not Christians. It is they who crucify Christ, who drive men from +coming to Him whose every instinct would lead them to love and worship +Him, but who are warned off by observing the crowd of sycophants and +time-servers who presume to call Him Lord.</p> +<p>But to look at the matter from another point of view; when there +is a long sustained contest between two bodies of capable and seriously +disposed people, (and none can deny that many of our adversaries have +been both one and the other), and when this contest shews no sign of +healing, but rather widens from generation to generation, and each party +accuses the other of disingenuousness, obstinacy and other like serious +defects of mind - it may be certainly assumed that the truth lies wholly +with neither side, but that each should make some concessions to the +other. A third party sees this at a glance, and is amazed because +neither of the disputants can perceive that his opponent must be possessed +of some truths, in spite of his trying to defend other positions which +are indefensible. Strange! that a thing which it seems so easy +to avoid, should so seldom be avoided! Homer said well:</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>“Perish strife, both from among gods and men,<br />And wrath +which maketh even him that is considerate, cruel,<br />Which getteth +up in the heart of a man like smoke,<br />And the taste thereof is sweeter +than drops of honey.”</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>But strife can never cease without concessions upon both sides. +We agree to this readily in the abstract, but we seldom do so when any +given concession is in question. We are all for concession in +the general, but for none in the particular, as people who say that +they will retrench when they are living beyond their income, but will +not consent to any proposed retrenchment. Thus many shake their +heads and say that it is impossible to live in the present age and not +be aware of many difficulties in connection with the Christian religion; +they have studied the question more deeply than perhaps the unbeliever +imagines; and having said this much they give themselves credit for +being wide-minded, liberal and above vulgar prejudices: but when pressed +as to this or that particular difficulty, and asked to own that such +and such an objection of the infidel’s needs explanation, they +will have none of it, and will in nine cases out of ten betray by their +answers that they neither know nor want to know what the infidel means, +but on the contrary that they are resolute to remain in ignorance. +I know this kind of liberality exceedingly well, and have ever found +it to harbour more selfishness, idleness, cowardice and stupidity than +does open bigotry. The bigot is generally better than his expressed +opinions, these people are invariably worse than theirs.</p> +<p>The above principle has been largely applied in the writings of so-called +orthodox commentators, not unfrequently even by men who might have been +assumed to be above condescending to such trickery. A great preface +concerning candour, with a flourish of trumpets in the praise of truth, +seems to have exhausted every atom of truth and candour from the work +that follows it.</p> +<p>It will be said that I ought not to make use of language such as +this without bringing forward examples. I shall therefore adduce +them.</p> +<p>One of the most serious difficulties to the unbeliever is the inextricable +confusion in which the accounts of the Resurrection have reached us: +no one can reconcile these accounts with one another, not only in minute +particulars, but in matters on which it is of the highest importance +to come to a clear understanding. Thus, to omit all notice of +many other discrepancies, the accounts of Mark, Luke, and John concur +in stating that when the women came to the tomb of Jesus very early +on the Sunday morning, they found it <i>already empty</i>: the stone +was gone when they came there, and, according to John, there was not +even an angelic vision for some time afterwards. There is nothing +in any of these three accounts to preclude the possibility of the stone’s +having been removed within an hour or two of the body’s having +been laid in the tomb.</p> +<p>But when we turn to Matthew we find all changed: we are told that +the stone was gone <i>not</i> when the women came, but that on their +arrival there was a great earthquake, and that an angel came down from +Heaven, and rolled away the stone, <i>and sat upon it</i>, and that +the guard who had been set over the tomb (of whom we hear nothing from +any of the other evangelists) became as dead men while the angel addressed +the women.</p> +<p>Now this is not one of those cases in which the supposition can be +tolerated that all would be clear if the whole facts of the case were +known to us. No additional facts can make it come about that the +tomb should have been sealed and guarded, and yet <i>not</i> sealed +and guarded; that the same women, at the same time and place, should +have witnessed an earthquake, and yet <i>not</i> witnessed one; have +found a stone already gone from a tomb, and yet <i>not</i> found it +gone; have seen it rolled away, and <i>not</i> seen it, and so on; those +who say that we should find no difficulty if we knew <i>all</i> the +facts are still careful to abstain from any example (so far as I know) +of the sort of additional facts which would serve their purpose. +They cannot give one; any mind which is truly candid - white - not scrawled +and scribbled over till no character is decipherable - will feel at +once that the only question to be raised is, which is the more correct +account of the Resurrection - Matthew’s or those given by the +other three Evangelists? How far is Matthew’s account true, +and how far is it exaggerated? For there must be either exaggeration +or invention somewhere. It is inconceivable that the other writers +should have known the story told by Matthew, and yet not only made no +allusion to it, but introduced matter which flatly contradicts it, and +it is also inconceivable that the story should be true, and yet that +the other writers should not have known it.</p> +<p>This is how the difficulty stands - a difficulty which vanishes in +a moment if it be rightly dealt with, but which, when treated after +our unskilful English method, becomes capable of doing inconceivable +mischief to the Christian religion. Let us see then what Dean +Alford - a writer whose professions of candour and talk about the duty +of unflinching examination leave nothing to be desired - has to say +upon this point. I will first quote the passage in full from Matthew, +and then give the Dean’s note. I have drawn the greater +part of the comments that will follow it from an anonymous pamphlet +<a name="citation2"></a><a href="#footnote2">{2}</a> upon the Resurrection, +dated 1865, but without a publisher’s name, so that I presume +it must have been printed for private circulation only.</p> +<p>St. Matthew’s account runs:-</p> +<p>“Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, +the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, saying, ‘Sir, +we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, “After +three days I will rise again.” Command therefore that the +sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come +by night and steal him away and say unto the people, “He is risen +from the dead:” so the last error shall be worse than the first.’ +Pilate said unto them, ‘Ye have a watch: go your way, make it +as sure as ye can.’ So they went and made the sepulchre +sure, sealing the stone and setting a watch. In the end of the +Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the week, came +Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, +there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from +heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon +it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white +as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead +men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, ‘Fear +not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He +is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place +where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that +he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; +there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.’ And they departed +quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring +his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, Jesus +met them, saying, ‘All hail.’ And they came and held +him by the feet, and worshipped him (<i>cf</i>. John xx., 16, 17). +Then said Jesus unto them, ‘Be not afraid: go tell my brethren +that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.’ +Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, +and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. +And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, +they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, ‘Say ye, His +disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And +if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him and +secure you.’ So they took the money, and did as they were +taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this +day.”</p> +<p>Let us turn now to the Dean’s note on Matt. xxvii., 62-66.</p> +<p>With regard to the setting of the watch and sealing of the stone, +he tells us that the narrative following (<i>i.e</i>., the account of +the guard and the earthquake) “has been much impugned and its +historical accuracy very generally given up even by the best of the +German commentators (Olshausen, Meyer; also De Wette, Hase, and others). +The chief difficulties found in it seem to be: (1) How should the chief +priests, &c., <i>know of His having said</i> ‘in three days +I will rise again,’ when the saying was hid even from His own +disciples? The answer to this is easy. The <i>meaning</i> +of the saying may have been, and was hid from the disciples; <i>but +the fact of its having been said</i> could be no secret. Not to +lay any stress on John ii., 19 (Jesus answered and said unto them, ‘Destroy +this temple and in three days I will build it up’), we have the +direct prophecy of Matt. xii., 40 (‘For as Jonah was three days +and three nights in the whale’s belly, so shall the Son of Man +be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth): besides this +there would be a rumour current, through the intercourse of the Apostles +with others, that He had been in the habit of so saying. (From +what source can Dean Alford know that our Lord <i>was</i> in the habit +of so saying? What particle of authority is there for this alleged +habit of our Lord?) As to the <i>understanding</i> of the words +we must remember that <i>hatred is keener sighted than love</i>: that +the <i>raising of Lazarus</i> would shew <i>what sort of a thing rising +from the dead was to be</i>; and the fulfilment of the Lord’s +announcement of his <i>crucifixion</i> would naturally lead them to +look further to <i>what more</i> he had announced. (2) How should the +women who were solicitous about the <i>removal</i> of the stone not +have been still more so about its being sealed and a guard set? +The answer to this last has been given above - <i>they</i> <i>were not +aware of the circumstance because the guard was not set till the evening +before</i>. There would be no need of the application before the +<i>approach of the third day</i> - it is only made for a watch, εως +της τριτης ημερας +(ver. 64), and it is not probable that the circumstance would transpire +that night - certainly it seems not to have done so. (3) That Gamaliel +was of the council, and if such a thing as this and its sequel (chap. +xxviii., 11-15) had really happened, he need not have expressed himself +doubtfully (Acts v., 39), but would have been certain that this was +from God. But, first, it does not necessarily follow that <i>every +member</i> of the Sanhedrim was present, and applied to Pilate, or even +had they done so, that all bore a part in the act of xxviii., 12” +(the bribing of the guard to silence). “One who like Joseph +had not consented to the deed before - and we may safely say that there +were others such - would naturally withdraw himself from further proceedings +against the person of Jesus. (4) Had this been so the three other Evangelists +would not have passed over so important a testimony to the Resurrection. +But surely we cannot argue in this way - for thus every important fact +narrated by <i>one Evangelist alone</i> must be rejected, e.g. (which +stands in much the same relation), <i>the satisfaction of Thomas - another +such narrations. 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</i>.”</p> +<p>(The italics in the above, and throughout the notes quoted, are the +Dean’s, unless it is expressly stated otherwise.)</p> +<p>I will now proceed to consider this defence of Matthew’s accuracy +against the objections of the German commentators.</p> +<p>I. The German commentators maintain that the chief priests +are not likely to have known of any prophecy of Christ’s Resurrection +when His own disciples had evidently heard of nothing to this effect. +Dean Alford’s answer amounts to this:-</p> +<p>1. They had heard the words but did not understand their meaning; +hatred enabled the chief priests to see clearly what love did not reveal +to the understanding of the Apostles. True, according to Matthew, +Christ had said that as Jonah was three days and three nights in the +whale’s belly, so the Son of Man should be three days and three +nights in the heart of the earth; but it would be only hatred which +would suggest the interpretation of so obscure a prophecy: love would +not be sufficiently keen-sighted to understand it.</p> +<p>But in the first place I would urge that if the Apostles had ever +heard any words capable of suggesting the idea that Christ should rise, +after they had already seen the raising of Lazarus, on whom corruption +had begun its work, they <i>must</i> have expected the Resurrection. +After having seen so stupendous a miracle, any one would expect anything +which was even suggested by the One who had performed it. And, +secondly, hatred is not keener sighted than love.</p> +<p>2. Dean Alford says that the raising of Lazarus would shew +the chief priests what sort of a thing the Resurrection from the dead +was to be, and that the fulfilment of Christ’s prophecy concerning +his Crucifixion would naturally lead them to look further to what else +he had announced.</p> +<p>But, if the raising of Lazarus would shew the chief priests what +sort of thing the Resurrection was to be, it would shew the Apostles +also; and again if the fulfilment of the prophecy of the Crucifixion +would lead the chief priests to look further to the fulfilment of the +prophecy of the Resurrection, so would it lead the Apostles; this supposition +of one set of men who can see everything, and of another with precisely +the same opportunities and no less interest, who can see nothing, is +vastly convenient upon the stage, but it is not supported by a reference +to Nature; self-interest would have opened the eyes of the Apostles.</p> +<p>II. The German commentators ask how was it possible that the +women who were solicitous about the removal of the stone, should not +be still more so about “its being sealed and a guard set?” +If the German commentators have asked their question in this shape, +they have asked it badly, and Dean Alford’s answer is sufficient: +they might have asked, how the other three writers could all tell us +that the stone was already gone when the women got there, and yet Matthew’s +story be true? and how Matthew’s story could be true without the +other writers having known it? and how the other writers could have +introduced matter contradictory to it, if they had known it to be true?</p> +<p>III. The German commentators say that in the Acts of the Apostles +we find Gamaliel expressing himself as doubtful whether or no Christianity +was of God, whereas had he known the facts related by Matthew he could +have had no doubt at all. He must have <i>known</i> that Christianity +was of God.</p> +<p>Dean Alford answers that perhaps Gamaliel was not there. To +which I would rejoin that though Gamaliel might have had no hand in +the bribery, supposing it to have taken place, it is inconceivable that +such a story should have not reached him; the matter could never have +been kept so quiet but that it must have leaked out. Men are not +so utterly bad or so utterly foolish as Dean Alford seems to imply; +and whether Gamaliel was or was not present when the guard were bribed, +he must have been equally aware of the fact before making the speech +which is assigned to him in the Acts.</p> +<p>IV. The German commentators argue from the silence of the other +Evangelists: Dean Alford replies by denying that this silence is any +argument: but I would answer, that on a matter which the other three +writers must have known to have been of such intense interest, their +silence is a conclusive proof either of their ignorance or their indolence +as historians. Dean Alford has well substantiated the independence +of the four narratives, he has well proved that the writer of the fourth +Gospel could never have seen the other Gospels, and yet he supposes +that that writer either did not know the facts related by Matthew, or +thought it unnecessary to allude to them. Neither of these suppositions +is tenable: but there would nevertheless be a shadow of ground for Dean +Alford to stand upon if the other Evangelists were simply silent: but +why does he omit all notice of their introducing matter which is absolutely +incompatible with Matthew’s accuracy?</p> +<p>There is one other consideration which must suggest itself to the +reader in connection with this story of the guard. It refers to +the conduct of the chief priests and the soldiers themselves. +The conduct assigned to the chief priests in bribing the guard to lie +against one whom they must by this time have known to be under supernatural +protection, is contrary to human nature. The chief priests (according +to Matthew) knew that Christ had said he should rise: in spite of their +being well aware that Christ had raised Lazarus from the dead but very +recently they did not believe that he <i>would</i> rise, but feared +(so Matthew says) that the Apostles would steal the body and pretend +a resurrection: up to this point we admit that the story, though very +improbable, is still possible: but when we read of their bribing the +guards to tell a lie under such circumstances as those which we are +told had just occurred, we say that such conduct is impossible: men +are too great cowards to be capable of it. The same applies to +the soldiers: they would never dare to run counter to an agency which +had nearly killed them with fright on that very selfsame morning. +Let any man put himself in their position: let him remember that these +soldiers were previously no enemies to Christ, nor, as far as we can +judge, is it likely that they were a gang of double-dyed villains: but +even if they were, they would not have dared to act as Matthew says +they acted.</p> +<p>And now let us turn to another note of Dean Alford’s.</p> +<p>Speaking of the independence of the four narratives (in his note +on Matt. xxviii., 1-10) and referring to their “minor discrepancies,” +the Dean says <i>Supposing us to be acquainted with every thing said +and done in its order and exactness, we should doubtless be able to +reconcile, or account for, the present forms of the narratives</i>; +but not having this key to the harmonising of them, all attempts to +do so in minute particulars must be full of arbitrary assumptions, and +carry no certainty with them: and I may remark that <i>of all harmonies</i> +those of the <i>incidents of these chapters</i> are to me the <i>most +unsatisfactory</i>. Giving their compilers all credit for the +best intentions, I confess they seem to me to <i>weaken</i> instead +of strengthening the evidence, which now rests (speaking merely <i>objectively</i>) +on the unexceptionable testimony of three independent narrators, and +one who besides was an eye witness of much that happened. If we +are to compare the four and ask which is to be taken as most nearly +reporting the <i>exact</i> words and incidents, on this there can, I +think, be no doubt. On internal as well as external ground <i>that +of John</i> takes the <i>highest place</i>, but not of course to the +exclusion of those parts of the narrative which he <i>does not touch</i>.”</p> +<p>Surely the above is a very extraordinary note. The difficulty +of the irreconcilable differences between the four narratives is not +met nor attempted to be met: the Dean seems to consider the attempt +as hopeless: no one, according to him, has been as yet successful, neither +can he see any prospect of succeeding better himself: the expedient +therefore which he proposes is that the whole should be taken on trust; +that it should be assumed that no discrepancy which could not be accounted +for would be found, if the facts were known in the exact order in which +they occurred. In other words, he leaves the difficulty where +it was. Yet surely it is a very grave one. The same events +are recorded by three writers (one being professedly an eye-witness, +and the others independent writers), in a way which is virtually the +same, in spite of some unimportant variations in the manner of telling +it, while a fourth gives a totally different and irreconcilable account; +the matter stands in such confusion at present that even Dean Alford +admits that any attempt to reconcile the differences leaves them in +worse confusion than ever; the ablest and most spiritually minded of +the German commentators suggest a way of escape; nevertheless, according +to the Dean we are not to profit by it, but shall avoid the difficulty +better by a simpler process - the process of passing it over.</p> +<p>A man does well to be angry when he sees so solemn and momentous +a subject treated thus. What is trifling if this is not trifling? +What is disingenuousness if not this? It involves some trouble +and apparent danger to admit that the same thing has happened to the +Christian records which has happened to all others<i> - i.e</i>., that +they have suffered - miraculously little, but still something - at the +hands of time; people would have to familiarise themselves with new +ideas, and this can seldom be done without a certain amount of wrangling, +disturbance, and unsettling of comfortable ease: it is therefore by +all means and at all risks to be avoided. Who can doubt that some +such feeling as this was in Dean Alford’s mind when the notes +above criticised were written? Yet what are the means taken to +avoid the recognition of obvious truth? They are disingenuous +in the very highest degree. Can this prosper? Not if Christ +is true.</p> +<p>What is the practical result? The loss of many souls who would +gladly come to the Saviour, but who are frightened off by seeing the +manner in which his case is defended. And what after all is the +danger that would follow upon candour? None. Not one particle. +Nevertheless, danger or no danger, we are bound to speak the truth. +We have nothing to do with consequences and moral tendencies and risk +to this or that fundamental principle of our belief, nor yet with the +possibility of lurid lights being thrown here or there. What are +these things to us? They are not our business or concern, but +rest with the Being who has required of <i>us</i> that we should reverently, +patiently, unostentatiously, yet resolutely, strive to find out what +things are true and what false, and that we should give up all, rather +than forsake our own convictions concerning the truth.</p> +<p>This is our plain and immediate duty, in pursuance of which we proceed +to set aside the account of the Resurrection given in St. Matthew’s +Gospel. That account must be looked upon as the invention of some +copyist, or possibly of the translator of the original work, at a time +when men who had been eye-witnesses to the actual facts of the Resurrection +were becoming scarce, and when it was felt that some more unmistakably +miraculous account than that given in the other three Gospels would +be a comfort and encouragement to succeeding generations. We, +however, must now follow the example of “even the best” +of the German commentators, and discard it as soon as possible. +On having done this the whole difficulty of the confusion of the four +accounts of the Resurrection vanishes like smoke, and we find ourselves +with three independent writers whose differences are exactly those which +we might expect, considering the time and circumstances in which they +wrote, but which are still so trifling as to disturb no man’s +faith.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<h3>CHAPTER VI - MORE DISINGENUOUSNESS</h3> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>[Here, perhaps, will be the fittest place for introducing a letter +to my brother from a gentleman who is well known to the public, but +who does not authorise me to give his name. I found this letter +among my brother’s papers, endorsed with the words “this +must be attended to,” but with nothing more. I imagine that +my brother would have incorporated the substance of his correspondent’s +letter into this or the preceding chapter, but not venturing to do so +myself, I have thought it best to give the letter and extract in full, +and thus to let them speak for themselves. - W. B. O.]</p> +<p>June 15, 1868.</p> +<p>My dear Owen,</p> +<p>Your brother has told me what you are doing, and the general line +of your argument. I am sorry that you should be doing it, for +I need not tell you that I do not and cannot sympathise with the great +and unexpected change in your opinions. You are the last man in +the world from whom I should have expected such a change: but, as you +well know, you are also the last man in the world whose sincerity in +making it I should be inclined to question. May you find peace +and happiness in whatever opinions you adopt, and let me trust also +that you will never forget the lessons of toleration which you learnt +as the disciple of what you will perhaps hardly pardon me for calling +a freer and happier school of thought than the one to which you now +believe yourself to belong.</p> +<p>Your brother tells me that you are ill; I need not say that I am +sorry, and that I should not trouble you with any personal matter - +I write solely in reference to the work which I hear that you have undertaken, +and which I am given to understand consists mainly in the endeavour +to conquer unbelief, by really entering into the difficulties felt by +unbelievers. The scheme is a good one <i>if thoroughly carried +out</i>. We imagine that we stand in no danger from any such course +as this, and should heartily welcome any book which tried to grapple +with us, even though it were to compel us to admit a great deal more +than I at present think it likely that even you can extort from us. +Much more should we welcome a work which made people understand us better +than they do; this would indeed confer a lasting benefit both upon them +and us.</p> +<p>However, I know you wish to do your work thoroughly; I want, therefore, +to make a trifling suggestion which you will take <i>pro tanto</i>: +it is this:-Paley, in his third book, professes to give “a brief +consideration of some popular objections,” and begins Chap. +I. with “The discrepancies between the several Gospels.”</p> +<p>Now, I know you have a Paley, but I know also that you are ill, and +that people who are ill like being saved from small exertions. +I have, therefore, bought a second-hand Paley for a shilling, and have +cut out the chapter to which I especially want to call your attention. +Will you kindly read it through from beginning to end?</p> +<p>Is it fair? Is the statement of our objections anything like +what we should put forward ourselves? And can you believe that +Paley with his profoundly critical instinct, and really great knowledge +of the New Testament, should not have been perfectly well aware that +he was misrepresenting and ignoring the objections which he professed +to be removing?</p> +<p>He must have known very well that the principle of confirmation by +discrepancy is one of very limited application, and that it will not +cover anything approaching to such wide divergencies as those which +are presented to us in the Gospels. Besides, how <i>can</i> he +talk about Matthew’s object as he does, and yet omit all allusion +to the wide and important differences between his account of the Resurrection, +and those of Mark, Luke, and John? Very few know what those differences +really are, in spite of their having the Bible always open to them. +I suppose that Paley felt pretty sure that his readers would be aware +of no difficulty unless he chose to put them up to it, and wisely declined +to do so. Very prudent, but very (as it seems to me) wicked. +Now don’t do this yourself. If you are going to meet us, +meet us fairly, and let us have our say. Don’t pretend to +let us have our say while taking good care that we get no chance of +saying it. I know you won’t.</p> +<p>However, will you point out Paley’s unfairness in heading this +part of his work “A brief consideration of some popular objections,” +and then proceeding to give a chapter on “the discrepancies between +the several Gospels,” without going into the details of any of +those important discrepancies which can have been known to none better +than himself? This is the only place, so far as I remember, in +his whole book, where he even touches upon the discrepancies in the +Gospels. Does he do so as a man who felt that they were unimportant +and could be approached with safety, or as one who is determined to +carry the reader’s attention away from them, and fix it upon something +else by a <i>coup de main</i>?</p> +<p>This chapter alone has always convinced me that Paley did not believe +in his own book. No one could have rested satisfied with it for +moment, if he felt that he was on really strong ground. Besides, +how insufficient for their purpose are his examples of discrepancies +which do not impair the credibility of the main fact recorded!</p> +<p>How would it have been if Lord Clarendon and three other historians +had each told us that the Marquis of Argyll <i>came to life again after +being beheaded</i>, and then set to work to contradict each other hopelessly +as to the manner of his reappearance? How if Burnet, Woodrow, +and Heath had given an account which was not at all incompatible with +a natural explanation of the whole matter, while Clarendon gave a circumstantial +story in flat contradiction to all the others, and carefully excluded +any but a supernatural explanation? Ought we to, or should we, +allow the discrepancies to pass unchallenged? Not for an hour +- if indeed we did not rather order the whole story out of court at +once, as too wildly improbable to deserve a hearing.</p> +<p>You will, I know, see all this, and a great deal more, and will point +it better than I can. Let me as an old friend entreat you not +to pass this over, but to allow me to continue to think of you as I +always have thought of you hitherto, namely, as the most impartial disputant +in the world. - Yours, &c.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>(<i>Extract from Paley’s</i> “<i>Evidences.” - +Part III., Chapter 1</i>. “<i>The Discrepancies between +the Gospels</i>.”)</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>“I know not a more rash or unphilosophical conduct of the understanding, +than to reject the substance of a story, by reason of some diversity +in the circumstances with which it is related. The usual character +of human testimony is substantial truth under circumstantial variety. +This is what the daily experience of courts of justice teaches. +When accounts of a transaction come from the mouths of different witnesses, +it is seldom that it is not possible to pick out apparent or real inconsistencies +between them. These inconsistencies are studiously displayed by +an adverse pleader, but oftentimes with little impression upon the minds +of the judges. On the contrary, close and minute agreement induces +the suspicion of confederacy and fraud. When written histories +touch upon the same scenes of action, the comparison almost always affords +ground for a like reflection. Numerous and sometimes important +variations present themselves; not seldom, also, absolute and final +contradictions; yet neither one nor the other are deemed sufficient +to shake the credibility of the main fact. The embassy of the +Jews to deprecate the execution of Claudian’s order to place his +statue in their temple Philo places in harvest, Josephus in seed-time, +both contemporary writers. No reader is led by this inconsistency +to doubt whether such an embassy was sent, or whether such an order +was given. Our own history supplies examples of the same kind. +In the account of the Marquis of Argyll’s death in the reign of +Charles II., we have a very remarkable contradiction. Lord Clarendon +relates that he was condemned to be hanged, which was performed the +same day; on the contrary, Burnet, Woodrow, Heath, Echard, concur in +stating that he was condemned upon the Saturday, and executed upon a +Monday. <a name="citation3"></a><a href="#footnote3">{3}</a> Was +any reader of English history ever sceptic enough to raise from hence +a question, whether the Marquis of Argyll was executed or not? +Yet this ought to be left in uncertainty, according to the principles +upon which the Christian religion has sometimes been attacked. +Dr. Middleton contended that the different hours of the day assigned +to the Crucifixion of Christ by John and the other Evangelists, did +not admit of the reconcilement which learned men had proposed; and then +concludes the discussion with this hard remark: ‘We must be forced, +with several of the critics, to leave the difficulty just as we found +it, chargeable with all the consequences of manifest inconsistency.’ +<a name="citation4"></a><a href="#footnote4">{4}</a> But what +are these consequences? By no means the discrediting of the history +as to the principal fact, by a repugnancy (even supposing that repugnancy +not to be resolvable into different modes of computation) in the time +of the day in which it is said to have taken place.</p> +<p>A great deal of the discrepancy observable in the Gospels arises +from <i>omission</i>; from a fact or a passage of Christ’s life +being noticed by one writer, which is unnoticed by another. Now, +omission is at all times a very uncertain ground of objection. +We perceive it not only in the comparison of different writers, but +even in the same writer, when compared with himself. There are +a great many particulars, and some of them of importance, mentioned +by Josephus in his Antiquities, which as we should have supposed, ought +to have been put down by him in their place in the Jewish Wars. <a name="citation5"></a><a href="#footnote5">{5}</a> +Suetonius, Tacitus, Dion Cassius have all three written of the reign +of Tiberius. Each has mentioned many things omitted by the rest, +<a name="citation6"></a><a href="#footnote6">{6}</a> yet no objection +is from thence taken to the respective credit of their histories. +We have in our own times, if there were not something indecorous in +the comparison, the life of an eminent person, written by three of his +friends, in which there is very great variety in the incidents selected +by them, some apparent, and perhaps some real, contradictions: yet without +any impeachment of the substantial truth of their accounts, of the authenticity +of the books, of the competent information or general fidelity of the +writers.</p> +<p>But these discrepancies will be still more numerous, when men do +not write histories, but <i>memoirs</i>; which is perhaps the true name +and proper description of our Gospels; that is, when they do not undertake, +or ever meant to deliver, in order of time, a regular and complete account +of <i>all</i> the things of importance which the person who is the subject +of their history did or said; but only, out of many similar ones, to +give such passages, or such actions and discourses, as offered themselves +more immediately to their attention, came in the way of their enquiries, +occurred to their recollection, or were suggested by their <i>particular +design</i> at the time of writing.</p> +<p>This particular design may appear sometimes, but not always, nor +often. Thus I think that the particular design which St. Matthew +had in view whilst he was writing the history of the Resurrection, was +to attest the faithful performance of Christ’s promise to his +disciples to go before them into Galilee; because he alone, except Mark, +who seems to have taken it from him, has recorded this promise, and +he alone has confined his narrative to that single appearance to the +disciples which fulfilled it. It was the preconcerted, the great +and most public manifestation of our Lord’s person. It was +the thing which dwelt upon St. Matthew’s mind, and he adapted +his narrative to it. But, that there is nothing in St. Matthew’s +language which negatives other appearances, or which imports that this +his appearance to his disciples in Galilee, in pursuance of his promise, +was his first or only appearance, is made pretty evident by St. Mark’s +Gospel, which uses the same terms concerning the appearance in Galilee +as St. Matthew uses, yet itself records two other appearances prior +to this: ‘Go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth +before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you’ +(xvi., 7). We might be apt to infer from these words, that this +was the <i>first</i> time they were to see him: at least, we might infer +it with as much reason as we draw the inference from the same words +in Matthew; yet the historian himself did not perceive that he was leading +his readers to any such conclusion, for in the twelfth and two following +verses of this chapter, he informs us of two appearances, which, by +comparing the order of events, are shown to have been prior to the appearance +in Galilee. ‘He appeared in another form unto two of them, +as they walked, and went into the country: and they went and told it +unto the residue: neither believed they them. Afterward He appeared +unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief, +because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen.’ +Probably the same observation, concerning the <i>particular design</i> +which guided the historian, may be of use in comparing many other passages +of the Gospels.”</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>[My brother’s work, which has been interrupted by the letter +and extract just given, will now be continued. What follows should +be considered as coming immediately after the preceding chapter. - W. +B. O.]</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>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.</p> +<p>The passage in St. John’s Gospel stands thus (John xix., 32-37) +- “Then came the soldiers and brake the legs of the first and +of the other which was crucified with Him. But when they came +to Jesus and saw that He was dead already they brake not His legs: but +one of the soldiers with a spear pierced His side, and forthwith came +there out blood and water. And he that saw it bare record, and +we know that his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith true that +ye might believe. For these things were done that the Scripture +should be fulfilled, ‘A bone of Him shall not be broken’ +and again another Scripture saith, ‘They shall look on Him whom +they pierced.’</p> +<p>In his note upon the thirty-fourth verse Dean Alford writes - “The +lance must have penetrated deep, for the object was to <i>ensure</i> +death.” Now what warrant is there for either of these assertions? +We are told that the soldiers saw that our Lord was dead already, and +that for this reason they did not break his legs: if there had been +any doubt about His being dead can we believe that they would have hesitated? +There is ample proof of the completeness of the death in the fact that +those whose business it was to assure themselves of its having taken +place were so satisfied that they would be at no further trouble; what +need to kill a dead man? If there had been any question as to +the possibility of life remaining, it would not have been resolved by +the thrust of the spear, but in a way which we must shudder to think +of. It is most painful to have had to write the foregoing lines, +but are they not called for when we see a man so well intentioned and +so widely read as the late Dean Alford condescending to argument which +must only weaken the strength of his cause in the eyes of those who +have not yet been brought to know the blessings and comfort of Christianity? +From the words of St. John no one can say whether the wound was a deep +one, or why it was given - yet the Dean continues, “and see John +xx., 27,” thereby implying that the wound must have been large +enough for Thomas to get his hand into it, because our Lord says, “reach +hither thine hand and thrust it into my side.” This is simply +shocking. Words cannot be pressed in this way. Dean Alford +then says that the spear was thrust “probably into the <i>left</i> +side on account of the position of the soldier” (no one can arrive +at the position of the soldier, and no one would attempt to do so, unless +actuated by a nervous anxiety to direct the spear into the heart of +the Redeemer), “and of what followed” (the Dean here implies +that the water must have come from the pericardium; yet in his next +note we are led to infer that he rejects this supposition, inasmuch +as the quantity of water would have been “so small as to have +scarcely been observed”). Is this fair and manly argument, +and can it have any other effect than to increase the scepticism of +those who doubt?</p> +<p>Here this note ends. The next begins upon the words “blood +and water.”</p> +<p>“The spear,” says the Dean, “perhaps pierced the +pericardium or envelope of the heart” (but why introduce a “perhaps” +when there is ample proof of the death without it?), “in which +case a liquid answering to the description of water may have” +(<i>may</i> have) “flowed with the blood, but the quantity would +have been so small as scarcely to have been observed” (yet in +the preceding note he has led us to suppose that he thinks the water +“probably came from near the heart). “It is scarcely +possible that the separation of the blood into placenta and serum should +have taken place so soon, or that if it had, it should have been described +by an observe as blood and water. It is more probable that the +fact here so strongly testified was a consequence of the extreme exhaustion +of the body of the Redeemer.” (Now if this is the case, +the spear-wound does not prove the death of Him on whom it was inflicted, +and Dean Alford has weakened a strong case for nothing.) “The +medical opinions on the subject are very various and by no means satisfactory.” +Satisfactory! What does Dean Alford mean by satisfactory? +If the evidence does not go to prove that the spear-wound must have +been necessarily fatal why not have said so at once, and have let the +whole matter rest in the obscurity from which no human being can remove +it. The wound may have been severe or may not have been severe, +it may have been given in mere wanton mockery of the dead King of the +Jews, for the indignity’s sake: or it may have been the savage +thrust of an implacable foe, who would rejoice at the mutilation of +the dead body of his enemy: none can say of what nature it was, nor +why it was given; but the object of its having been recorded is no mystery, +for we are expressly told that it was in order to shew <i>that prophecy +was thus fulfilled</i>: the Evangelist tells us so in the plainest language: +he even goes farther, for he says that these things were <i>done</i> +for this end (not only that they were <i>recorded</i>) - so that the +primary motive of the Almighty in causing the soldier to be inspired +with a desire to inflict the wound is thus graciously vouchsafed to +us, and we have no reason to harrow our feelings by supposing that a +deeper thrust was given than would suffice for the fulfilment of the +prophecy. May we not then well rest thankful with the knowledge +which the Holy Spirit has seen fit to impart to us, without causing +the weak brother to offend by our special pleading?</p> +<p>The reader has now seen the two first of Dean Alford’s notes +upon this subject, and I trust he will feel that I have used no greater +plainness, and spoken with no greater severity than the case not only +justifies but demands. We can hardly suppose that the Dean himself +is not firmly convinced that our Lord died upon the Cross, but there +are millions who are not convinced, and whose conviction should be the +nearest wish of every Christian heart. How deeply, therefore, +should we not grieve at meeting with a style of argument from the pen +of one of our foremost champions, which can have no effect but that +of making the sceptic suspect that the evidences for the death of our +Lord are felt, even by Christians, to be insufficient. For this +is what it comes to.</p> +<p>Let us, however, go on to the note on John xix., 35, that is to say +on St. John’s emphatic assertion of the truth of what he is recording. +The note stands thus, “This emphatic assertion of the fact seems +rather to regard the whole incident than the mere outflowing of the +blood and water. It was the object of John to shew that the Lord’s +body was a <i>real body</i> and <i>underwent real death</i>. (This +is not John’s own account - supposing that John is the writer +of the fourth Gospel - either of his own object in recording, or yet +of the object of the wound’s having been inflicted; his words, +as we have seen above, run thus:- “and he that saw it bare record, +and we know that his record is true; and he knoweth that he saith true +that ye might believe. <i>For these things were done that the +Scripture should be fulfilled</i> which saith ‘a bone of him shall +not be broken,’ and, again, another Scripture saith, ‘they +shall look upon’ him whom they pierced.’” Who +shall dare to say that St. John had any other object than to show that +the event which he relates had been long foreseen, and foretold by the +words of the Almighty?) And both these were shewn by what took +place, <i>not so much by the phenomenon of the water and blood</i>” +(then here we have it admitted that so much disingenuousness has been +resorted to for no advantage, inasmuch as the fact of the water and +blood having flowed is not <i>per se</i> proof of a necessarily fatal +wound) “as by the infliction of such a wound” (Such a wound! +What can be the meaning of this? What has Dean Alford made clear +about the wound? We know absolutely nothing about the severity +or intention of the wound, and it is mere baseless conjecture and assumption +to say that we do; neither do we know anything concerning its effect +unless it be shewn that the issuing of the blood and water <i>prove</i> +that death must have ensued, and this Dean Alford has just virtually +admitted to be not shewn), after which, <i>even if death had not taken +place before</i> (this is intolerable), <i>there could not by any possibility +be life remaining</i>.” (The italics on this page are mine.)</p> +<p>With this climax of presumptuous assertion these disgraceful notes +are ended. They have shewn clearly that the wound does not in +itself prove the death: they shew no less clearly that the Dean does +not consider that the death is proved beyond possibility of doubt <i>without</i> +the wound; what therefore should be the legitimate conclusion? +Surely that we have no proof of the completeness of Christ’s death +upon the Cross - or in other words no proof of His having died at all! +Couple this with the notes upon the Resurrection considered above, and +we feel rather as though we were in the hands of some Jesuitical unbeliever, +who was trying to undermine our faith in our most precious convictions +under the guise of defending them, than in those of one whom it is almost +impossible to suspect of such any design. What should we say if +we had found Newton, Adam Smith or Darwin, arguing for their opinions +thus? What should we think concerning any scientific cause which +we found thus defended? We should exceedingly well know that it +was lost. And yet our leading theologians are to be applauded +and set in high places for condescending to such sharp practice as would +be despised even by a disreputable attorney, as too transparently shallow +to be of the smallest use to him.</p> +<p>After all that has been said either by Dean Alford or any one else, +we know nothing more than what we are told by the Apostle, namely, that +immediately before being taken down from the Cross our Lord’s +body was wounded more severely, or less severely, as the case may be, +with the point of a spear, that from this wound there flowed something +which to the eyes of the writer resembled blood and water, and that +the whole was done in order that a well-known prophecy might be fulfilled. +Yet his sentences in reference to this fact being ended, without his +having added one iota to our knowledge upon the subject, the Dean gravely +winds up by throwing a doubt upon the certainty of our Lord’s +death which was not felt by a single one of those upon the spot, and +resting his clenching proof of its having taken place upon a wound, +which he has just virtually admitted to have not been necessarily fatal. +Nothing can be more deplorable either as morality or policy.</p> +<p>Yet the Dean is justified by the event. One would have thought +he could have been guilty of nothing short of infatuation in hoping +that the above notes would pass muster with any ordinarily intelligent +person, but he knew that he might safely trust to the force of habit +and prejudice in the minds of his readers, and his confidence has not +been misplaced. Of all those engaged in the training of our young +men for Holy Orders, of all our Bishops and clergy and tutors at colleges, +whose very profession it is to be lovers of truth and candour, who are +paid for being so, and who are mere shams and wolves in sheep’s +clothing if they are not ever on the look-out for falsehood, to make +war upon it as the enemy of our souls - not one, <i>no, not a single +one</i>, so far as I know, has raised his voice in protest. If +a man has not lost his power of weeping let him weep for this; if there +is any who realises the crime of self-deception, as perhaps the most +subtle and hideous of all forms of sin, let him lift up his voice and +proclaim it now; for the times are not of peace, but of a sowing of +wind for the reaping of whirlwinds, and of the calm that is the centre +of the hurricane.</p> +<p>Either Christianity is the truth of truths - the one which should +in this world overmaster all others in the thoughts of all men, and +compared with which all other truths are insignificant except as grouping +themselves around it - or it is at the best a mistake which should be +set right as soon as possible. There is no middle course. +Either Jesus Christ was the Son of God, or He was not. If He was, +His great Father forbid that we should juggle in order to prove Him +so - that we should higgle for an inch of wound more, or an inch less, +and haggle for the root νυy in the Greek word ενυξε. +Better admit that the death of Christ must be ever a matter of doubt, +should so great a sacrifice be demanded of us, than go near to the handling +of a lie in order to make assurance doubly sure. No truthful mind +can doubt that the cause of Christ is far better served by exposing +an insufficient argument than by silently passing it over, or else that +the cause of Christ is one to be attacked and not defended.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<h3>CHAPTER VII - DIFFICULTIES FELT BY OUR OPPONENTS</h3> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>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 <i>is</i> worth while, we +must deal with them according to their sense of right and not ours: +in other words, if we meet with an unbeliever we must not expect him +to accept our faith unless we take much pains with him, and are prepared +to make great sacrifice of our own peace and patience.</p> +<p>Yet how many shrink from this, and think that they are doing God +service by shrinking; the only thing from which they should really shrink, +is the falsehood which has overlaid the best established fact in all +history with so much sophistry, that even our own side has come to fear +that there must be something lurking behind which will not bear daylight; +to such a pass have we been brought by the desire to prove too much.</p> +<p>Now for the comfort of those who may feel an uneasy sense of dread, +as though any close examination of the events connected with the Crucifixion +might end in suggesting a natural instead of a miraculous explanation +of the Resurrection, for the comfort of such - and they indeed stand +in need of comfort - let me say at once that the ablest of our adversaries +would tell them that they need be under no such fear. Strauss +himself admits that our Lord died upon the Cross; he does not even attempt +to dispute it, but writes as though he were well aware that there was +no room for any difference of opinion about the matter. He has +therefore been compelled to adopt the hallucination theory, with a result +which we have already considered. Yet who can question that Strauss +would have maintained the position that our Lord did not die upon the +Cross, unless he had felt that it was one in which he would not be able +to secure the support even of those who were inclined to disbelieve? +We cannot doubt that the conviction of the reality of our Lord’s +death has been forced upon him by a weight of testimony which, like +St. Paul, he has found himself utterly unable to resist.</p> +<p>Here then, we might almost pause. Strauss admits that our Lord +died upon the Cross. Yet can the reader help feeling that the +vindication of the reality of our Lord’s reappearances, and the +refutation of Strauss’s theories with which this work opened, +was triumphant and conclusive? Then what follows? That Christ +died and rose again! The central fact of our faith is proved. +It is proved externally by the most solid and irrefragable proofs, such +as should appeal even to minds which reject all spiritual evidence, +and recognise no canons of investigation but those of the purest reason.</p> +<p>But anything and everything is believable concerning one whose resurrection +from death to life has been established. What need, then, to enter +upon any consideration of the other miracles? Of the Ascension? +Of the descent of the Holy Spirit? Who can feel difficulty about +these things? Would not the miracle rather be that they should +<i>not</i> have happened! May we not now let the wings of our +soul expand, and soar into the heaven of heavens, to the footstool of +the Throne of Grace, secure that we have earned the right to hope and +to glory by having consented to the pain of understanding?</p> +<p>We may: and I have given the reader this foretaste of the prize which +he may justly claim, lest he should be swallowed up in overmuch grief +at the journey which is yet before him ere he shall have done all which +may justly be required of him. For it is not enough that his own +sense of security should be perfected. This is well; but let him +also think of others.</p> +<p>What then is their main difficulty, now that it has been shewn that +the reappearances of our Lord were not due to hallucination?</p> +<p>I propose to shew this by collecting from all the sources with which +I was familiar in former years, and throwing the whole together as if +it were my own. I shall spare no pains to make the argument tell +with as much force as fairness will allow. I shall be compelled +to be very brief, but the unbeliever will not, I hope, feel that anything +of importance to his side has been passed over. The believer, +on the other hand, will be thankful both to know the worst and to see +how shallow and impotent it will appear when it comes to be tested. +Oh! that this had been done at the beginning of the controversy, instead +of (as I heartily trust) at the end of it.</p> +<p>Our opponents, therefore, may be supposed to speak somewhat after +the following manner:- “Granted,” they will say, “for +the sake of argument, that Jesus Christ did reappear alive after his +Crucifixion; it does not follow that we should at once necessarily admit +that his reappearance was due to miracle. What was enough, and +reasonably enough, to make the first Christians accept the Resurrection, +and hence the other miracles of Christ, is not enough and ought not +to be enough to make men do so now. If we were to hear now of +the reappearance of a man who had been believed to be dead, our first +impulse would be to learn the when and where of the death, and the when +and where of the first reappearance. What had been the nature +of the death? What conclusive proof was there that the death had +been actual and complete? What examination had been made of the +body? And to whom had it been delivered on the completeness of +the death having been established? How long had the body been +in the grave - if buried? What was the condition of the grave +on its being first revisited? It is plain to any one that at the +present day we should ask the above questions with the most jealous +scrutiny and that our opinion of the character of the reappearance would +depend upon the answers which could be given to them.</p> +<p>“But it is no less plain that the distance of the supposed +event from our own time and country is no bar to the necessity for the +same questions being as jealously asked concerning it, as would be asked +if it were alleged to have happened recently and nearer home. +On the contrary, distance of time and space introduces an additional +necessity for caution. It is one thing to know that the first +Christians unanimously believed that their master had miraculously risen +from death to life; it is another to know their reasons for so thinking. +Times have changed, and tests of truth are infinitely better understood, +so that the reasonable of those days is reasonable to us no longer. +Nor would it be enough that the answers given could be just strained +into so much agreement with one another as to allow of a <i>modus vivendi</i> +between them, <i>and not to exclude the possibility of death, they must +exclude all possibility of life having remained</i>, or we should not +hesitate for a moment about refusing to believe that the reappearance +had been miraculous: indeed, so long as any chink or cranny or loophole +for escape from the miraculous was afforded to us, we should unhesitatingly +escape by it; this, at least, is the course which would be adopted by +any judge and jury of sensible men if such a case were to come before +their unprejudiced minds in the common course of affairs.</p> +<p>“We should not refuse to believe in a miracle even now, if +it were supported by such evidence as was considered to be conclusive +by the bench of judges and by the leading scientific men of the day: +in such a case as this we should feel bound to accept it; but we cannot +believe in a miracle, no matter how deeply it has been engrained into +the creeds of the civilised world, merely because it was believed by +‘unlettered fishermen’ two thousand years ago. This +is not a source from which such an event as a miracle should be received +without the closest investigation. We know, indeed, that the Apostles +were sincere men, and that they firmly believed that Jesus Christ had +risen from the dead; their lives prove their faith; but we cannot forget +that the fact itself of Christ’s having been crucified and afterwards +seen alive, would be enough, under the circumstances, to incline the +men of that day to believe that he had died and had been miraculously +restored to life, although we should ourselves be bound to make a far +more searching inquiry before we could arrive at any such conclusion. +A miracle was not and could not be to them, what it is and ought to +be to ourselves - a matter to be regarded <i>a priori</i> with the very +gravest suspicion. To them it was what it is now to the lower +and more ignorant classes of Irish, French, Spanish and Italian peasants: +that is to say, a thing which was always more or less likely to happen, +and which hardly demanded more than a <i>primâ facie</i> case +in order to establish its credibility. If we would know what the +Apostles felt concerning a miracle, we must ask ourselves how the more +ignorant peasants of to-day feel: if we do this we shall have to admit +that a miracle might have been accepted upon very insufficient grounds, +and that, once accepted, it would not have had one-hundredth part so +good a chance of being refuted as it would have now.</p> +<p>“It should be borne in mind, and is too often lost sight of, +that <i>we have no account of the Resurrection from any source whatever</i>. +We have accounts of the visit of certain women to a tomb which they +found empty; but this is not an account of a resurrection. We +are told that Jesus Christ was seen alive after being thought to have +been dead, but this again is not an account of a resurrection. +It is a statement of a fact, but it is not an account of the circumstances +which attended that fact. In the story told by Matthew we have +what comes nearest to an account of the Resurrection, but even here +the principal figure is wanting; the angel rolls away the stone and +sits upon it, but we hear nothing about the body of Christ emerging +from the tomb; we only meet with this, when we come to the Italian painters.</p> +<p>“Moreover, St. Matthew’s account is utterly incredible +from first to last; we are therefore thrown back upon the other three +Evangelists, none of whom professes to give us the smallest information +as to the time and manner of Christ’s Resurrection. <i>There +is nothing in any of their accounts to preclude his having risen within +two hours from his having been laid in the tomb.</i></p> +<p>“If a man of note were condemned to death, crucified and afterwards +seen alive, the almost instantaneous conclusion in the days of the Apostles, +and in such minds as theirs, would be that he had risen from the dead; +but the almost instantaneous conclusion now, among all whose judgement +would carry the smallest weight, would be that he had never died - that +there must have been some mistake. Children and inexperienced +persons believe readily in all manner of improbabilities and impossibilities, +which when they become older and wiser they cannot conceive their having +ever seriously accepted. As with men, so with ages; an unusual +train of events brings about unusual results, whereon the childlike +age turns instinctively to miracle for a solution of the difficulty. +In the days of Christ men would ask for evidence of the Crucifixion +and the reappearance; when these two points had been established they +would have been satisfied - not unnaturally - that a great miracle had +been performed: but no sane man would be contented now with the evidence +that was sufficient then, any more than he would be content to accept +many things which a child must take upon authority, and authority only. +<i>We</i> ought to require the most ample evidence that not only the +appearance of death, but death itself, must have inevitably ensued upon +the Crucifixion, and if this were not forthcoming we should not for +a moment hesitate about refusing to believe that the reappearance was +miraculous.</p> +<p>“And this is what would most assuredly be done now by impartial +examiners - by men of scientific mind who had no wish either to believe +or disbelieve except according to the evidence; but even now, if their +affections and their hopes of a glorious kingdom in a world beyond the +grave were enlisted on the side of the miracle, it would go hard with +the judgement of most men. How much more would this be so, if +they had believed from earliest childhood that miracles were still occasionally +worked in England, and that a few generations ago they had been much +more signal and common?</p> +<p>“Can we wonder then, if we ourselves feel so strongly concerning +events which are hull down upon the horizon of time, that those who +lived in the very thick of them should have been possessed with an all +absorbing ecstasy or even frenzy of excitement? Assuredly there +is no blame on the score of credulity to be attached to those who propagated +the Christian religion, but the beliefs which were natural and lawful +to them, are, if natural, yet not lawful to ourselves: they should be +resisted: they are neither right nor wise, and do not form any legitimate +ground for faith: if faith means only the believing facts of history +upon insufficient evidence, we deny the merit of faith; on the contrary, +we regard it as one of the most deplorable of all errors - as sapping +the foundations of all the moral and intellectual faculties. It +is grossly immoral to violate one’s inner sense of truth by assenting +to things which, though they may appear to be supported by much, are +still not supported by enough. The man who can knowingly submit +to such a derogation from the rights of his self-respect, deserves the +injury to his mental eye-sight which such a course will surely bring +with it. But the mischief will unfortunately not be confined to +himself; it will devolve upon all who are ill-fated enough to be in +his power; he will be reckless of the harm he works them, provided he +can keep its consequences from being immediately offensive to himself. +No: if a good thing can be believed legitimately, let us believe it +and be thankful, otherwise the goodness will have departed out of it; +it is no longer ours; we have no right to it, and shall suffer for it, +we and our children, if we try to keep it. It has been said that +the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are +set on edge, but, more truly, it is the eating of sweet and stolen fruit +by the fathers that sets the teeth of the children jarring. Let +those who love their children look to this, for on their own account +they may be mainly trusted to avoid the sour. Hitherto the intensity +of the belief of the Apostles has been the mainstay of our own belief. +But that mainstay is now no longer strong enough. A rehearing +of the evidence is imperatively demanded, that it may either be confirmed +or overthrown.”</p> +<p>It cannot be denied that there is much in the above with which all +true Christians will agree, and little to find fault with except the +self-complacency which would seem to imply that common sense and plain +dealing belong exclusively to the unbelieving side. It is time +that this spirit should be protested against not in word only but in +deed. The fact is, that both we and our opponents are agreed that +nothing should be believed unless it can be proved to be true. +We repudiate the idea that faith means the accepting historical facts +upon evidence which is insufficient to establish them. We do not +call this faith; we call it credulity, and oppose it to the utmost of +our power.</p> +<p>Our opponents imply that we regard as a virtue well-pleasing in the +sight of God, and dignify with the name of faith, a state of mind which +turns out to be nothing but a willingness to stand by all sorts of wildly +improbable stories which have reached us from a remote age and country, +and which, if true, must lead us to think otherwise of the whole course +of nature than we should think if we were left to ourselves. This +accusation is utterly false and groundless. Faith is the “evidence +of things not seen,” but it is not “insufficient evidence +for things alleged to have been seen.” It is “the +substance of things hoped for,” but “reasonably hoped for” +was unquestionably intended by the Apostle. We base our faith +in the deeper mysteries of our religion, as in the nature of the Trinity +and the sacramental graces, upon the certainty that other things which +are within the grasp of our reason can be shewn to be beyond dispute. +We know that Christ died and rose again; therefore we believe whatever +He sees fit to tell us, and follow Him, or endeavour to follow Him, +whereinsoever He commands us, but we are not required to take both the +commands of the Mediator <i>and His credentials</i> upon faith. +It is because certain things within our comprehension are capable of +the most irrefragable proof, that certain others out of it may justly +be required to be believed, and indeed cannot be disbelieved without +contumacy and presumption. And this applies to a certain extent +to the credentials also: for although no man should be captious, nor +ask for more evidence than would satisfy a well-disciplined mind concerning +the truth of any ordinary fact (as one who not contented with the evidence +of a seal, a handwriting and a matter not at variance with probability, +would nevertheless refuse to act upon instructions because he had not +with his own eyes actually seen the sender write and sign and seal), +yet it is both reasonable and indeed necessary that a certain amount +of care should be taken before the credentials are accepted. If +our opponents mean no more than this we are at one with them, and may +allow them to proceed.</p> +<p>“Turn then,” they say, “to the account of the events +which are alleged to have happened upon the morning of the Resurrection, +as given in the fourth Gospel: and assume for the sake of the argument +that that account, if not from John’s own hand, is nevertheless +from a Johannean source, and virtually the work of the Apostle. +The account runs as follows:</p> +<p>“‘The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene while +it was yet dark unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from +the sepulchre. Then she runneth and cometh to Simon Peter and +to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, ‘They +have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where +they have laid Him.’ Peter therefore went forth and that +other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they both ran together: +and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. +And he stooping down and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying, yet +went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him and went +into the sepulchre and seeth the linen clothes lie, and the napkin that +was about His head not lying with the linen clothes but wrapped together +in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, which +came first to the sepulchre, and he saw and believed. For as yet +they knew not the Scripture that he must rise from the dead. Then +the disciples went away again to their own home. But Mary stood +without at the sepulchre weeping; and as she wept, she stooped down, +and looked into the sepulchre, and seeth two angels in white sitting, +the one at the head, the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus +had lain, and they say unto her, ‘Woman, why weepest thou?’ +She saith unto them, ‘Because they have taken away my Lord and +I know not where they have laid him.’”</p> +<p>“Then Mary sees Jesus himself, but does not at first recognise +him.</p> +<p>“Now, let us see what the above amounts to, and, dividing it +into two parts, let us examine first what we are told as having come +actually under John’s own observation, and, secondly, what happened +afterwards.</p> +<p>I. “It is clear that Mary had seen nothing miraculous +before she came running to the two Apostles, Peter and John. She +had found the tomb empty when she reached it. She did not know +where the body of her Lord then was, <i>nor was there anything to shew +how long it had been removed</i>: all she knew was that within thirty-six +hours from the time of its having been laid in the tomb it had disappeared, +but how much earlier it had been gone neither did she know, nor shall +we. Peter and John went into the sepulchre and thoroughly examined +it: they saw no angel, nor anything approaching to the miraculous, simply +the grave clothes <i>(which were probably of white linen</i>), lying +<i>in two separate places</i>. Then, <i>and not till then</i>, +do they appear to have entertained their first belief or hope that Christ +might have risen from the dead.</p> +<p>“This is plain and credible; but it amounts to an empty tomb, +and to an empty tomb only.</p> +<p>“Here, for a moment, we must pause. Had these men but +a few weeks previously seen Lazarus raised from the corruption of the +grave - to say nothing of other resurrections from the dead? Had +they seen their master override every known natural law, and prove that, +as far as he was concerned, all human experience was worthless, by walking +upon rough water, by actually talking to a storm of wind and making +it listen to him, by feeding thousands with a few loaves, and causing +the fragments that remained after all had eaten, to be more than the +food originally provided? Had they seen events of this kind continually +happening for a space of some two years, and finally had they seen their +master transfigured, conversing with the greatest of their prophets +(men who had been dead for ages), and recognised by a voice from heaven +as the Son of the Almighty, and had they also heard anything approaching +to an announcement that he should himself rise from the dead - or had +they not? They might have seen the raising of Lazarus and the +rest of the miracles, but might not have anticipated that Christ himself +would rise, for want of any announcement that this should be so; or, +again, they might have heard a prophecy of his Resurrection from the +lips of Christ, but disbelieved it for the want of any previous miracles +which should convince them that the prophecy came from no ordinary person; +so that their not having expected the Resurrection is explicable by +giving up either the prophecies, or the miracles, but it is impossible +to believe that <i>in spite both of the miracles and the prophecies</i>, +the Apostles should have been still without any expectation of the Resurrection. +If they had both seen the miracles and heard the prophecies, they must +have been in a state of inconceivably agitated excitement in anticipation +of their master’s reappearance. And this they were not; +on the contrary, they were expecting nothing of the kind. The +condition of mind ascribed to them considering their supposed surroundings, +is one which belongs to the drama only; it is not of nature: it is so +utterly at variance with all human experience that it should be dismissed +at once as incredible.</p> +<p>“But it is very credible if Christ was seen alive after his +Crucifixion, and his reappearance, though due to natural causes, was +once believed to be miraculous, that this one seemingly well substantiated +miracle should become the parent of all the others, and of the prophecies +of the Resurrection. Thirty years in all probability elapsed between +the reappearances of Christ and the earliest of the four Gospels; thirty +years of oral communication and spiritual enthusiasm, among an oriental +people, and in an unscientific age; an age by which the idea of an interference +with the modes of the universe from a point outside of itself, was taken +as a matter of course; an age which believed in an anthropomorphic Deity +who had back parts, which Moses had been allowed to see through the +hand of God; an age which, over and above all this, was at the time +especially convulsed with expectations of deliverance from the Roman +yoke. Have we not here a soil suitable for the growth of miracles, +if the seed once fell upon it? Under such conditions they would +even spring up of themselves, seedless.</p> +<p>“Once let the reappearances of Christ have been believed to +be miraculous (and under all the circumstances they might easily have +been believed to be so, though due to natural causes), and it is not +wonderful that, in such an age and among such a people, the other miracles +and the prophecies of the Resurrection should have become current within +thirty years. Even we ourselves, with all our incalculably greater +advantages, could not withstand so great a temptation to let our wish +become father to our thoughts. If we had been the especially favoured +friends of one whom we believed to have died, but who yet was not to +beholden by death, no matter how careful and judicially minded we might +be by nature, we should be blind to everything except the fact that +we had once been the chosen companions of an immortal. There lives +no one who could withstand the intoxication of such an idea. A +single well-substantiated miracle in the present day, even though we +had not seen it ourselves, would uproot the hedges of our caution; it +would rob us of that sense of the continuity of nature, in which our +judgements are, consciously or unconsciously, anchored; but if we were +very closely connected with it in our own persons, we should dwell upon +the recollection of it and on little else.</p> +<p>“Few of us can realise what happened so very long ago. +Men believe in the Christian miracles, though they would reject the +notion of a modern miracle almost with ridicule, and would hardly even +examine the evidence in its favour. But the Christian miracles +stand in their minds as things apart; their <i>prestige</i> is greater +than that attaching to any other events in the whole history of mankind. +They are hallowed by the unhesitating belief of many, many generations. +Every circumstance which should induce us to bow to their authority +surrounds them with a bulwark of defences which may make us well believe +that they must be impregnable, and sacred from attack. Small wonder +then that the many should still believe them. Nevertheless they +do not believe them so fully, nor nearly so fully, as they think they +do. For even the strongest imagination can travel but a very little +way beyond a man’s own experience; it will not bear the burden +of carrying him to a remote age and country; it will flag, wander and +dream; it will not answer truly, but will lay hold of the most obvious +absurdity, and present it impudently to its tired master, who will accept +it gladly and have done with it. Even recollection fails, but +how much more imagination! It is a high flight of imagination +to be able to realise how weak imagination is.</p> +<p>“We cannot therefore judge what would be the effect of immediate +contact even with the wild hope of a miracle, from our conventional +acceptance of the Christian miracles. If we would realise this +we must look to modern alleged miracles - to the enthusiasm of the Irish +and American revivals, when mind inflames mind till strong men burst +into hysterical tears like children; we must look for it in the effect +produced by the supposed Irvingite miracles on those who believed in +them, or in the miracles that followed the Port Royal miracle of the +holy thorn. There never was a miracle solitary yet: one will soon +become the parent of many. The minds of those who have believed +in a single miracle as having come within their own experience become +ecstatic; so deeply impressed are they with the momentous character +of what they have known, that their power of enlisting sympathy becomes +immeasurably greater than that of men who have never believed themselves +to have come into contact with the miraculous; their deep conviction +carries others along with it, and so the belief is strengthened till +adverse influences check it, or till it reaches a pitch of grotesque +horror, as in the case of the later Jansenist miracles. There +is nothing, therefore, extraordinary in the gradual development within +thirty years of all the Christian miracles, if the Resurrection were +once held to be well substantiated; and there is nothing wonderful, +under the circumstances, in the reappearance of Christ alive after his +Crucifixion having been assigned to miracle. He had already made +sufficient impression upon his followers to require but little help +from circumstances. He had not so impressed them as to want <i>no</i> +help from any supposed miracle, but nevertheless any strange event in +connection with him would pass muster, with little or no examination, +as being miraculous. He had undoubtedly professed himself to be, +and had been half accepted as, the promised Messiah. He had no +less undoubtedly appeared to be dead, and had been believed to be so +both by friends and foes. Let us also grant that he reappeared +alive. Would it, then, be very astonishing that the little missing +link in the completeness of the chain of evidence - <i>absolute certainty +concerning the actuality of the death</i> - should have been allowed +to drop out of sight?</p> +<p>“Round such a centre, and in such an age, the other miracles +would spring up spontaneously, and be accepted the moment that they +arose; there is nothing in this which is foreign to the known tendencies +of the human mind, but there would be something utterly foreign to all +we know of human nature, in the fact of men not anticipating that Christ +would rise, if they had already seen him raise others from the dead +and work the miracles ascribed to him, and if they had also heard him +prophesy that he should himself rise from the dead. In fact nothing +can explain the universally recorded incredulity of the Apostles as +to the reappearance of Christ, except the fact that they had never seen +him work a single miracle, or else that they had never heard him say +anything which could lead them to suppose that he was to rise from the +dead.</p> +<p>“We are therefore not unwilling to accept the facts recorded +in the fourth Gospel, in so far as they inform us of things which came +under the knowledge of the writer. Mary found the tomb empty. +Ignorant alike of what had taken place and of what was going to happen, +she came to Peter and John to tell them that the body was gone; this +was all she knew. The two go to the tomb, and find all as Mary +had said; on this it is not impossible that a wild dream of hope may +have flashed upon their minds, that the aspirations which they had already +indulged in were to prove well founded. Within an hour or two +Christ was seen alive, nor can we wonder if the years which intervened +between the morning of the Resurrection and the writing of the fourth +Gospel, should have sufficed to make the writer believe that John had +had an actual belief in the Resurrection, while in truth he had only +wildly hoped it. This much is at any rate plain, that neither +he nor Peter had as yet heard any clearly intelligible prophecy that +their master should rise from the dead. Whatever subsequent interpretation +may have been given to some of the sayings of Jesus Christ, no saying +was yet known which would of itself have suggested any such inference. +We may justly doubt the caution and accuracy of the first founders of +Christianity, without, even in our hearts, for one moment impugning +the honesty of their intentions. We are ready to admit that had +we been in their places we should in all likelihood have felt, believed, +and, we will hope, acted as they did; but we cannot and will not admit, +in the face of so much evidence to the contrary, that they were superior +to the intelligence of their times, or, in other words, that they were +capable critics of an event, in which both their feelings and the <i>primâ +facie</i> view of the facts would be so likely to mislead them.</p> +<p>II. “Turning now to the narrative of what passed when +Peter and John were gone, we find that Mary, stooping down, looked through +her tears into the darkness of the tomb, and saw two angels clothed +in white, who asked her why she wept. We must remember the wide +difference between believing what the writer of the fourth Gospel tells +us that John saw, and what he tells us that Mary Magdalene saw. +All we know on this point is that he believed that Mary had spoken truly. +Peter and John were men, they went into the tomb itself, and we may +say for a certainty that they saw no angel, nor indeed anything at all, +but the grave clothes <i>(which were probably of white linen</i>), lying +<i>in two separate places</i> within it. Mary was a woman - a +woman whose parallel we must look for among Spanish or Italian women +of the lower orders at the present day; she had, we are elsewhere told, +been at one time possessed with devils; she was in a state of tearful +excitement, and looking through her tears from light into comparative +darkness. Is it possible not to remember what Peter and John <i>did</i> +see when they were in the tomb? Is it possible not to surmise +that Mary in good truth saw nothing more? She thought she saw +more, but the excitement under which she was labouring at the time, +an excitement which would increase tenfold after she had seen Christ +(as she did immediately afterwards and before she had had time to tell +her story), would easily distort either her vision or her memory, or +both.</p> +<p>“The evidence of women of her class - especially when they +are highly excited - is not to be relied upon in a matter of such importance +and difficulty as a miracle. Who would dare to insist upon such +evidence now? And why should it be considered as any more trustworthy +eighteen hundred years ago? We are indeed told that the angels +spoke to her; but the speech was very short; the angels simply ask her +why she weeps; she answers them as though it were the common question +of common people, and then leaves them. This is in itself incredible; +but it is not incredible that if Mary looking into the tomb saw two +white objects within, she should have drawn back affrighted, and that +her imagination, thrown into a fever by her subsequent interview with +Christ, should have rendered her utterly incapable of recollecting the +true facts of the case; or, again, it is not incredible that she should +have been believed to have seen things which she never did see. +All we can say for certain is that before the fourth Gospel was written, +and probably shortly after the first reappearance of Christ, Mary Magdalene +believed, or was thought to have believed, that she had seen angels +in the tomb; and this being so, the development of the short and pointless +question attributed to them - possibly as much due to the eager cross-questioning +of others as to Mary herself - is not surprising.</p> +<p>“Before the Sunday of the Resurrection was over, the facts +as derivable from the fourth Gospel would stand thus. Jesus Christ, +who was supposed to have been verily and indeed dead, was known to be +alive again. He had been seen, and heard to speak. He had +been seen by those who were already prepared to accept him as their +leader, and whose previous education, and tone of mind, would lead them +rather to an excess of faith in a miracle, than of scepticism concerning +its miraculous character. The Apostles would be in no impartial +nor sceptical mood when they saw that Christ was alive. The miracle +was too near themselves - too fascinating in its supposed consequences +for themselves - to allow of their going into curious questions about +the completeness of the death. The Master whom they had loved, +and in whom they had hoped, had been crucified and was alive again. +Is it a harsh or strained supposition, that what would have assuredly +been enough for ourselves, if we had known and loved Christ and had +been attuned in mind as the Apostles were, should also have been enough +for them? Who can say so? The nature of our belief in our +Master would have been changed once and for ever; and so we find it +to have been with the Christian Apostles.</p> +<p>“Over and above the reappearance of Christ, there would also +be a report (probably current upon the very Sunday of the Resurrection), +that Mary Magdalene had seen a vision of angels in the tomb in which +Christ’s body had been laid; and this, though a matter of small +moment in comparison with the reappearance of Christ himself, will nevertheless +concern us nearly when we come to consider the narratives of the other +Evangelists.”</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<h3>CHAPTER VIII - THE PRECEDING CHAPTER CONTINUED</h3> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>“Let us now turn to Luke. His account runs as follows:-</p> +<p>“‘Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the +morning, they came unto the sepulchre bringing the spices which they +had prepared, and certain others with them. <i>And they found +the stone rolled away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, +and found not the body of the Lord Jesus</i>. And it came to pass +as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them +in shining garments, <i>and as they were afraid, and bowed their faces +to the earth</i>, they said unto them, “<i>Why seek ye the living +among the dead</i>? He is not here, but is risen: <i>remember +how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee</i>, saying, <i>‘The +Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified, +and the third day rise again</i>.” <i>And they remembered +his words</i>, and returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things +unto the eleven, and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene and +Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with +them which told these things unto the Apostles. <i>And their words +seemed unto them as idle tales, and they believed them not</i>. +Then arose Peter, and went unto the sepulchre: and, stooping down, he +beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed wondering +in himself at that which was come to pass.’</p> +<p>“When we compare this account with John’s we are at once +struck with the resemblances and the discrepancies. Luke and John +indeed are both agreed that Christ was seen alive after the Crucifixion. +Both agree that the tomb was found empty very early on the Sunday morning +<i>(i.e</i>., within thirty-six hours of the deposition from the Cross), +and neither writer affords us any clue whatever as to the time and manner +of the removal of the body; but here the resemblances end; the angelic +vision of Mary, seen <i>after</i> Peter and John had departed from the +tomb, and seen apparently by Mary alone, in Luke finds its way into +the van of the narrative, and Peter is represented as having gone to +the tomb, <i>not in consequence of having been simply told that the +body of Christ was missing, but because he refused to believe the miraculous +story which was told him by the women</i>. In the fourth Gospel +we heard of no miraculous story being carried by Mary to Peter and John. +The angels instead of being seen by one person only, as would have appeared +from the fourth Gospel, are now seen <i>by many</i>; and the women instead +of being almost stolidly indifferent to the presence of supernatural +beings, are afraid, and bow down their faces to the earth; instead of +merely wanting to be informed why Mary was weeping, the angels speak +with definite point, and as angels might be expected to speak; they +allude, also, to past prophecy, which the women at once remember.</p> +<p>“Strange, that they should want reminding! And stranger +still that a few verses lower down we should find the Apostles remembering +no prophetic saying, but regarding the story of the women as mere idle +tales. What shall we say? Are not these differences precisely +similar to those which we are continually meeting with, when a case +of exaggeration comes before us? Can we accept <i>both</i> the +stories? Is this one of those cases in which all would be made +clear if we did but know <i>all</i> the facts, or is it rather one in +which we can understand how easily the story given by the one writer +might become distorted into the version of the other? Does it +seem in any way improbable that within the forty years or so between +the occurrences recorded by John and the writing of Luke’s Gospel, +the apparently trifling, yet truly most important, differences between +the two writers should have been developed?</p> +<p>“No one will venture to say that the facts, upon the face of +them, do not strongly suggest such an inference, and that, too, with +no conscious fraud on the part of any of those through whose mouths +the story must have passed. If the fourth Gospel be assigned to +John (and if it is <i>not</i> assigned to John the difficulties on the +Christian side become so great that the cause may be declared lost), +his story is that of a principal actor and eye-witness; it bears every +impress of truth and none of exaggeration upon any point which came +under his own observation. Even when he tells of what Mary Magdalene +said she saw, we see the myth in its earliest and crudest form; there +is no attempt at circumstance in connection with it, and abundant reason +for suspecting its supernatural character is given along with it; reason +which to our minds is at any rate sufficient to make us doubt it, but +which would naturally have no weight whatever with John after he had +once seen Christ alive, or indeed with us if we had been in his place. +It is not to be wondered at that in such times many a fresh bud should +be grafted on to the original story; indeed it was simply inevitable +that this should have been the case. No one would mean to deceive, +but we know how, among uneducated and enthusiastic persons, the marvellous +has an irresistible tendency to become more marvellous still; and, as +far as we can gather, all the causes which bring this about were more +actively at work shortly after the time of Christ’s first reappearance +than at any other time which can be readily called to mind. The +main facts, as we derive them from the consent of <i>both</i> writers, +were simply these:- That the tomb of Christ was found unexpectedly empty +on the Sunday morning; that this fact was reported to the Apostles; +that Peter went into the tomb and saw the linen clothes laid by themselves; +that Mary Magdalene said that she had seen angels; and that eventually +Christ shewed himself undoubtedly alive. Both writers agree so +far, but it is impossible to say that they agree farther.</p> +<p>“Some may say that it is of little moment whether the angels +appeared first or last; whether they were seen by many or by one; whether, +if seen only by one, that one had previously been insane; whether they +spoke as angels might be expected to speak, <i>i.e</i>., to the point, +and are shewn to have been recognised as angels by the fear which their +appearance caused; or whether they caused no alarm, and said nothing +which was in the least equal to the occasion. But most men will +feel that the whole complexion of the story changes according to the +answers which can be made to these very questions. Surely they +will also begin to feel a strong suspicion that the story told by Luke +is one which has not lost in the telling. How natural was it that +the angelic vision should find its way into the foreground of the picture, +and receive those little circumstantial details of which it appeared +most to stand in need; how desirable also that the testimony of Mary +should be corroborated by that of others who were with her, and out +of whom no devils had been cast. The first Christians would not +have been men and women at all unless they had felt thus; but they <i>were</i> +men and women, and hence they acted after the fashion of their age and +unconsciously exaggerated; the only wonder is that they did not exaggerate +more, for we must remember that even though the Apostles themselves +be supposed to have been more judicially unimpassioned and less liable +to inaccuracy than we have reason to believe they were, yet that from +the very earliest ages of the Church there would be some converts of +an inferior stamp. No matter how small a society is, there will +be bad in it as well as good - there was a Judas even in the twelve.</p> +<p>“But to speak less harshly, there must from the first have +been some converts who would be capable of reporting incautiously; visions +and dreams were vouchsafed to many, and not a few marvels may be referable +to this source; there is no trusting an age in which men are liable +to give a supernatural interpretation to an extraordinary dream, nor +is there any end to what may come of it, if people begin seriously confounding +their sleeping and waking impressions. In such times, then, Luke +may have said with a clear conscience that he had carefully sifted the +truth of what he wrote; but the world has not passed through the last +two thousand years in vain, and we are bound to insist upon a higher +standard of credibility. Luke would believe at once, and as a +matter of course, things which we should as a matter of course reject; +yet it is probable that he too had heard much that he rejected; he seems +to have been dissatisfied with all the records with the existence of +which he was aware; the account which he gives is possibly derived from +some very early report; even if this report arose at Jerusalem, and +within a week after the Crucifixion, it might well be very inaccurate, +though apparently supported by excellent authority, so that there is +no necessity for charging Luke with unusual credulity. No one +can be expected to be greatly in advance of his surroundings; it is +well for every one except himself if he should happen to be so, but +no man is to be blamed if he is not; it is enough to save him if he +is fairly up to the standard of his own times. ‘Morality’ +is rather of the custom which <i>is</i>, than of the custom which ought +to be.</p> +<p>“Turning now to the account of Mark, we find the following:-</p> +<p>“‘And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and +Mary the mother of James, and Salome had bought sweet spices that they +might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning, the +first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of +the sun. And they said among themselves,</p> +<p>“Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?” +And when they looked they saw that the stone was rolled away; for it +was very great. And entering into the sepulchre they saw <i>a +young man</i> sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; +and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, “Be not +affrighted; ye seek Jesus of Nazareth which was crucified; he is risen; +he is not here; behold the place where they laid him. But go your +way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: +there ye shall see him, as he said unto you.” And they went +out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; <i>for they trembled and were +amazed, neither said they any thing to any man, for they were afraid</i>. +Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared +first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. +And she went and told them that had been with him as they mourned and +wept. And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been +seen of her, <i>believed not</i>.’</p> +<p>“Here we have substantially the same version as that given +by Luke; there is only one angel mentioned, but it may be said that +it is possible that there may have been another who is not mentioned, +inasmuch as he remained silent; the angelic vision, however, is again +brought into the foreground of the story and the fear of the women is +even more strongly insisted on than it was in Luke. The angel +reminds the women that Christ had said that he should be seen by his +Apostles in Galilee, of which saying we again find that the Apostles +seem to have had no recollection. The linen clothes have quite +dropped out of the story, and we can detect no trace of Peter and John’s +visit to the tomb, but it is remarkable that the women are represented +as not having said anything about the presence of the angel immediately +on their having seen him; and this fact, which might be in itself suspicious, +is apologised for on the score of fear, notwithstanding that their silence +was a direct violation of the command of the being whom they so greatly +feared. We should have expected that if they had feared him so +much they would have done as he told them, but here again everybody +seems to act as in a dream or drama, in defiance of all the ordinary +principles of human action.</p> +<p>“Throughout the preceding paragraph we have assumed that Mark +intended his readers to understand that the young man seen in the tomb +was an angel; but, after all, this is rather a bold assumption. +On what grounds is it supported? Because Luke tells us that when +the women reached the tomb they found <i>two</i> white angels within +it, are we therefore to conclude that Mark, who wrote many years earlier, +and as far as we can gather with much greater historical accuracy, must +have meant an angel when he spoke of a ‘young man’? +Yet this can be the only reason, unless the young man’s having +worn a long white robe is considered as sufficient cause for believing +him to have been an angel; and this, again, is rather a bold assumption. +But if St. Mark meant no more than he said, and when he wrote of a ‘young +man’ intended to convey the idea of a young man and of nothing +more, what becomes of the angelic visions at the tomb of Christ? +For St. Matthew’s account is wholly untenable; St. Luke is a much +later writer, who must have got all his materials second or third hand; +and although we granted, and are inclined to believe, that the accounts +of the visits of Mary Magdalene, and subsequently of Peter and John +to the tomb, which are given in the fourth Gospel, are from a Johannean +source, if we were asked our reasons for this belief, we should be very +hard put to it to give them. Nevertheless we think it probable.</p> +<p>“But take it either way; if the account in the fourth Gospel +is supposed to have been derived from the Apostle John, we have already +seen that there is nothing miraculous about it, so far as it deals with +what came under John’s own observation; if, on the other hand, +it is <i>not</i> authentic we are thrown back upon St. Mark as incomparably +our best authority for the facts that occurred on the Sunday after the +Crucifixion, and he tells us of nothing but a tomb found empty, with +the exception that there was a young man in it who wore a long white +dress and told the women to tell the Apostles to go to Galilee, where +they should see Christ. On the strength of this we are asked to +believe that the reappearance of Christ alive, after a hurried crucifixion, +must have been due to supernatural causes, and supernatural causes only! +It will be easily seen what a number of threads might be taken up at +this point, and followed with not uninteresting results. For the +sake, however, of brevity, we grant it as most probable that St. Mark +meant the young man said to have been seen in the tomb, to be considered +as an angel; but we must also express our conviction that this supposed +angelic vision is a misplaced offshoot of the report that Mary Magdalene +had seen angels in the tomb after Peter and John had left it.</p> +<p>“It is possible that Mark’s account may be the most historic +of all those that we have; but we incline to think otherwise, inasmuch +as the angelic vision placed in the foreground by Mark and Luke, would +not be likely to find its way into the background again, as it does +in the fourth Gospel, unless in consequence of really authentic information; +no unnecessary detraction from the miraculous element is conceivable +as coming from the writer who has handed down to us the story of the +raising of Lazarus, where we have, indeed, <i>a real account of a resurrection</i>, +the continuity of the evidence being unbroken, and every link in the +chain forged fast and strong, even to the unwrapping of the grave clothes +from the body as it emerged from the sepulchre. Is it possible +that the writer may have given the story of the raising of Lazarus (of +which we find no trace except in the fourth Gospel), because he felt +that in giving the Apostolic version with absolute or substantial accuracy, +he was so weakening the miraculous element in connection with the Resurrection +of Jesus Christ himself, that it became necessary to introduce an incontrovertible +account of the resurrection of some other person, which should do, as +it were, vicarious duty?</p> +<p>“Nevertheless there are some points on which all the three +writers are agreed: we have the same substratum of facts, namely, <i>the +tomb found already empty when the women reached it</i>, a confused and +contradictory report of an angel or angels seen within it, and the subsequent +reappearance of Christ. Not one of the three writers affords us +the slightest clue as to the time and manner of the removal of the body +from the tomb; there is nothing in any of the narratives which is incompatible +with its having been taken away on the very night of the Crucifixion +itself.</p> +<p>“Is this a case in which the defenders of Christianity would +clamour for <i>all</i> the facts, unless they exceedingly well knew +that there was no chance of their getting them? <i>All</i> the +facts, indeed - what tricks does our imagination play us! One +would have thought that there were quite enough facts given as the matter +stands to make the defenders of Christianity wish that there were not +so many; and then for them to say that if we had more, those that we +have would become less contradictory! What right have they to +assume that if they had all the facts, the accounts of the Resurrection +would cease to puzzle us, more than we have to say that if we had all +the facts, we should find these accounts even more inexplicable than +we do at present? Had <i>we</i> argued thus we should have been +accused of shameless impudence; of a desire to maintain any position +in which we happened to find ourselves, and by which we made money, +regardless of every common principle of truth or honour, or whatever +else makes the difference between upright men and self-deceivers.</p> +<p>“It may be said by some that the discrepancies between the +three accounts given above are discrepancies concerning details only, +but that all three writers agree about the ‘main fact.’ +We are continually hearing about this ‘main fact,’ but nobody +is good enough to tell us precisely what fact is meant. Is the +main fact the fact that Jesus Christ was crucified? Then no one +denies it. We all admit that Jesus Christ was crucified. +Or, is it that he was seen alive several times after the Crucifixion? +This also we are not disposed to deny. We believe that there is +a considerable preponderance of evidence in its favour. But if +the ‘main fact’ turns out to be that Christ was crucified, +<i>died</i>, and then came to life again, we admit that here too all +the writers are agreed, but we cannot find with any certainty that one +of them was present when Christ died or when his body was taken down +from the Cross, or that there was any such examination of the body as +would be absolutely necessary in order to prove that a man had been +dead who was afterwards seen alive. If Christ reappeared alive, +there is not only no tittle of evidence in support of his death which +would be allowed for a moment in an English court of justice, but there +is an overwhelming amount of evidence which points inexorably in the +direction of his never having died. If he reappeared, there is +no evidence of his having died. If he did not reappear, there +is no evidence of his having risen from the dead.</p> +<p>“We are inclined, however, as has been said already, to believe +that Jesus Christ really did reappear shortly after the Crucifixion, +and that his reappearance, though due to natural causes, was conceived +to be miraculous. We believe also that Mary fancied that she had +seen angels in the tomb, and openly said that she had done so; who would +doubt her when so far greater a marvel than this had been made palpably +manifest to all? Who would care to inquire very particularly whether +there were two angels or only one? Whether there were other women +with Mary or whether she was quite alone? Who would compare notes +about the exact moment of their appearing, and what strictly accurate +account of their words could be expected in the ferment of such excitement +and such ignorance? Any speech which sounded tolerably plausible +would be accepted under the circumstances, and none will complain of +Mark as having wilfully attempted to deceive, any more than he will +of Luke: the amplification of the story was inevitable, and the very +candour and innocence with which the writers leave loophole after loophole +for escape from the miraculous, is alone sufficient proof of their sincerity; +nevertheless, it is also proof that they were all more or less inaccurate; +we can only say in their defence, that in the reappearance of Christ +himself we find abundant palliation of their inaccuracy. Given +one great miracle, proved with a sufficiency of evidence for the capacities +and proclivities of the age, and the rest is easy. The groundwork +of the after-structure of the other miracles is to be found in the fact +that Christ was crucified, and was afterwards seen alive.”</p> +<p>There is no occasion for me to examine St. Matthew’s account +of the Resurrection in company with the unhappy men whose views I have +been endeavouring to represent above. For reasons which have already +been sufficiently dwelt upon I freely own that I agree with them in +rejecting it. I shall therefore admit that the story of the sealing +of the tomb, and setting of the guard, the earthquake, the descent of +the angel from Heaven, his rolling away the stone, sitting upon it, +and addressing the women therefrom, is to be treated for all controversial +purposes as though it had never been written. By this admission, +I confess to complete ignorance of the time when the stone was removed +from the mouth of the tomb, or the hour when the Redeemer rose. +I should add that I agree with our opponents in believing that our Lord +never foretold His Resurrection to the Apostles. But how little +does it matter whether He foretold His Resurrection or not, and whether +He rose at one hour or another. It is enough for me that he rose +at all; for the rest I care not.</p> +<p>“Yet, see,” our opponents will exclaim in answer, “what +a mighty river has come from a little spring. We heard first of +two men going into an empty tomb, finding two bundles of grave clothes, +and departing. Then there comes a certain person, concerning whom +we are elsewhere told a fact which leaves us with a very uncomfortable +impression, and <i>she</i> sees, not two bundles of grave clothes, but +two white angels, who ask a dreamy pointless question, and receive an +appropriate answer. Then we find the time of this apparition shifted; +it is placed in the front, not in the background, and is seen by many, +instead of being vouchsafed to no one but to a weeping woman looking +into the bottom of a tomb. The speech of the angels, also, becomes +effective, and the linen clothes drop out of sight entirely, unless +some faint trace of them is to be found in the ‘long white garment’ +which Mark tells us was worn by the young man who was in the tomb when +the women reached it. Finally, we have a guard set upon the tomb, +and the stone which was rolled in front of it is sealed; the angel <i>is +seen to descend from Heaven</i>, to roll away the stone, and sit upon +it, and there is a great earthquake. Oh! how things grow, how +things grow! And, oh! how people believe!</p> +<p>“See by what easy stages the story has grown up from the smallest +seed, as the mustard tree in the parable, and how the account given +by Matthew changes the whole complexion of the events. And see +how this account has been dwelt upon to the exclusion of the others +by the great painters and sculptors from whom, consciously or unconsciously, +our ideas of the Christian era are chiefly drawn. Yes. These +men have been the most potent of theologians, for their theology has +reached and touched most widely. We have mistaken their echo of +the sound for the sound itself, and what was to them an aspiration, +has, alas! been to us in the place of science and reality.</p> +<p>“Truly the ease with which the plainest inferences from the +Gospel narratives have been overlooked is the best apology for those +who have attributed unnatural blindness to the Apostles. If we +are so blind, why not they also? A pertinent question, but one +which raises more difficulties than it solves. The seeing of truth +is as the finding of gold in far countries, where the shepherd has drunk +of the stream and used it daily to cleanse the sweat of his brow, and +recked little of the treasure which lay abundantly concealed therein, +until one luckier than his fellows espies it, and the world comes flocking +thither. So with truth; a little care, a little patience, a little +sympathy, and the wonder is that it should have lain hidden even from +the merest child, not that it should now be manifest.</p> +<p>“How early must it have been objected that there was no evidence +that the tomb had not been tampered with (not by the Apostles, for they +were scattered, and of him who laid the body in the tomb - Joseph of +Arimathæa - we hear no more) and that the body had been delivered +not to enemies, but friends; how natural that so desirable an addition +to the completeness of the evidences in favour of a miraculous Resurrection +should have been early and eagerly accepted. Would not twenty +years of oral communication and Spanish or Italian excitability suffice +for the rooting of such a story? Yet, as far as we can gather, +the Gospel according to St. Matthew was even then unwritten. And +who was Matthew? And what was his original Gospel?</p> +<p>“There is one part of his story, and one only, which will stand +the test of criticism, and that is this:- That the saying that the disciples +came by night and stole the body of Jesus away was current among the +Jews, at the time when the Gospel which we now have appeared. +Not that they did so - no one will believe this; but the allegation +of the rumour (which would hardly have been ventured unless it would +command assent as true) points in the direction of search having been +made for the body of Jesus - and made in vain.</p> +<p>“We have now seen that there is no evidence worth the name, +for any miracle in connection with the tomb of Christ. He probably +reappeared alive, but not with any circumstances which we are justified +in regarding as supernatural. We are therefore at length led to +a consideration of the Crucifixion itself. Is there evidence for +more than this - that Christ was crucified, was afterwards seen alive, +and that this was regarded by his first followers as a sufficient proof +of his having risen from the dead? This would account for the +rise of Christianity, and for all the other miracles. Take the +following passage from Gibbon:- ‘The grave and learned Augustine, +whose understanding scarcely admits the excuse of credulity, has attested +the innumerable prodigies which were worked in Africa by the relics +of St. Stephen, and this marvellous narrative is inserted in the elaborate +work of “The City of God,” which the Bishop designed as +a solid and immortal proof of the truth of Christianity. Augustine +solemnly declares that he had selected those miracles only which had +been publicly certified by persons who were either the objects or the +spectators of the powers of the martyr. Many prodigies were omitted +or forgotten, and Hippo had been less favourably treated than the other +cities of the province, yet the Bishop enumerates above seventy miracles, +of which three were resurrections from the dead, within the limits of +his own diocese. If we enlarge our view to all the dioceses and +all the saints of the Christian world, it will not be easy to calculate +the fables and errors which issued from this inexhaustible source. +But we may surely be allowed to observe that a miracle in that age of +superstition and credulity lost its name and its merits, since it could +hardly be considered as a deviation from the established laws of Nature.’ +- (Gibbon’s <i>Decline and Fall</i>, chap. xxviii., sec. 2).</p> +<p>“Who believes in the miracles, or who would dare to quote them? +Yet on what better foundation do those of the New Testament rest? +For the death of Christ there is no evidence at all. There is +evidence that he was believed to have been dead (under circumstances +where a misapprehension was singularly likely to arise), by men whose +minds were altogether in a different <i>clef</i> to ours as regards +the miraculous, and whom we cannot therefore fairly judge by any modern +standard. We cannot judge <i>them</i>, but we are bound to weigh +the facts which they relate, not in their balance, but in our own. +It is not what might have seemed reasonably believable to them, but +what is reasonably believable in our own more enlightened age which +can be alone accepted sinlessly by ourselves. Men’s modes +of thought concerning facts change from age to age; but the facts change +not at all, and it is of them that we are called to judge.</p> +<p>“We turn to the fourth Gospel, as that from which we shall +derive the most accurate knowledge of the facts connected with the Crucifixion. +Here we find that it was about twelve o’clock when Pilate brought +out Christ for the last time; the dialogue that followed, the preparations +for the Crucifixion, and the leading Christ outside the city to the +place where the Crucifixion was to take place, could hardly have occupied +less than an hour. By six o’clock (by consent of all writers) +the body was entombed, so that the actual time during which Christ hung +upon the cross was little more than four hours. Let us be thankful +to hope that the time of suffering may have been so short - but say +five hours, say six, say whatever the reader chooses, the Crucifixion +was avowedly too hurried for death in an ordinary case to have ensued. +The thieves had to be killed, as yet alive. Immediately before +being taken down from the cross the body was delivered to friends. +Within thirty-six hours afterwards the tomb in which it had been laid +was discovered to have been opened; for how long it had been open we +do not know, but a few hours later Christ was seen alive.</p> +<p>“Let it be remembered also that the fact of the body having +been delivered to Joseph <i>before</i> the taking down from the cross, +greatly enhanced the chance of an escape from death, inasmuch as the +duties of the soldiers would have ended with the presentation of the +order from Pilate. If any faint symptom of returning animation +shewed itself in consequence of the mere change of position and the +inevitable shock attendant upon being moved, the soldiers would not +know it; their task was ended, and they would not be likely either to +wish, or to be allowed, to have anything to do with the matter. +Joseph appears to have been a rich man, and would be followed by attendants. +Moreover, although we are told by Mark that Pilate sent for the centurion +to inquire whether Christ was dead, yet the same writer also tells us +that this centurion had already come to the conclusion that Christ was +the Son of God, a statement which is supported by the accounts of Matthew +and Luke; Mark is the only Evangelist who tells us that the centurion +<i>was</i> sent for, but even granting that this was so, would not one +who had already recognised Christ as the Son of God be inclined to give +him every assistance in his power? He would be frightened, and +anxious to get the body down from the cross as fast as possible. +So long as Christ appeared to be dead, there would be no unnecessary +obstacle thrown in the way of the delivery of the body to Joseph, by +a centurion who believed that he had been helping to crucify the Son +of God. Besides Joseph was rich, and rich people have many ways +of getting their wishes attended to.</p> +<p>“We know of no one as assisting at the taking down or the removal +of the body, except Joseph of Arimathæa, for the presence of Nicodemus, +and indeed his existence, rests upon the slenderest evidence. +None of the Apostles appear to have had anything to do with the deposition, +nor yet the women who had come from Galilee, who are represented as +seeing where the body was laid (and by Luke as seeing <i>how</i> it +was laid), but do not seem to have come into close contact with the +body.</p> +<p>“Would any modern jury of intelligent men believe under similar +circumstances that the death had been actual and complete? Would +they not regard - and ought they not to regard - reappearance as constituting +ample proof that there had been no death? Most assuredly, unless +Christ had had his head cut off, or had been seen to be burnt to ashes. +Again, if unexceptionable medical testimony as to the completeness of +the death had reached us, there would be no help for it; we should have +to admit that something had happened which was at variance with all +our experience of the course of nature; or again if his legs had been +broken, or his feet pierced, we could say nothing; but what irreparable +mischief is done to any vital function of the body by the mere act of +crucifixion? The feet were not always, ‘nor perhaps generally,’ +pierced (so Dean Alford tells us, quoting from Justin Martyr), nor is +there a particle of evidence to shew that any exception was made in +the present instance. A man who is crucified dies from sheer exhaustion, +so that it cannot be deemed improbable that he might swoon away, and +that every outward appearance of death might precede death by several +hours.</p> +<p>“Are we to suppose that a handful of ignorant soldiers should +be above error, when we remember that men have been left for dead, been +laid out for burial and buried by their best friends - nay, that they +have over and over again been pronounced dead by skilled physicians, +when the facilities for knowing the truth were far greater, and when +a mistake was much less likely to occur, than at the hurried Crucifixion +of Jesus Christ? The soldiers would apply no polished mirror to +the lips, nor make use of any of those tests which, under the circumstances, +would be absolutely necessary before life could be pronounced to be +extinct; they would see that the body was lifeless, inanimate, to all +outward appearance like the few other dead bodies which they had probably +observed closely; with this they would rest contented.</p> +<p>“It is true, they probably believed Christ to be dead at the +time they handed over the body to his friends, and if we had heard nothing +more of the matter we might assume that they were right; but the reappearance +of Christ alive changes the whole complexion of the story. It +is not very likely that the Roman soldiers would have been mistaken +in believing him to be dead, unless the hurry of the whole affair, and +the order from Pilate, had disposed them to carelessness, and to getting +the matter done as fast as possible; but it is much less likely that +a dead man should come to life again than that a mistake should have +been made about his having being dead. The latter is an event +which probably happens every week in one part of the world or another; +the former has never yet been known.</p> +<p>“It is not probable that a man officially executed should escape +death; but that a <i>dead man</i> should escape from it is more improbable +still; in addition to the enormous preponderance of probability on the +side of Christ’s never having died which arises from this consideration +alone, we are told many facts which greatly lessen the improbability +of his having escaped death, inasmuch as the Crucifixion was hurried, +and the body was immediately delivered to friends without the known +destruction of any organic function, and while still hanging upon the +cross.</p> +<p>“Joseph and Nicodemus (supposing that Nicodemus was indeed +a party to the entombment) may be believed to have thought that Christ +was dead when they received the body, but they could not refuse him +their assistance when they found out their mistake, nor, again, could +they forfeit their high position by allowing it to be known that they +had restored the life of one who was so obnoxious to the authorities. +They would be in a very difficult position, and would take the prudent +course of backing out of the matter at the first moment that humanity +would allow, of leaving the rest to chance, and of keeping their own +counsel. It is noticeable that we never hear of them again; for +there were no two people in the world better able to know whether the +Resurrection was miraculous or not, and none who would be more deeply +interested in favour of the miracle. They had been faithful when +the Apostles themselves had failed, and if their faith had been so strong +while everything pointed in the direction of the utter collapse of Christianity, +what would it be, according to every natural impulse of self-approbation, +when so transcendent a miracle as a resurrection had been worked almost +upon their own premises, and upon one whose remains they had generously +taken under their protection at a time when no others had ventured to +shew them respect?</p> +<p>“We should have fancied that Mary would have run to Joseph +and Nicodemus, not to the Apostles; that Joseph and Nicodemus would +then have sent for the Apostles, or that, to say the least of it, we +should have heard of these two persons as having been prominent members +of the Church at Jerusalem; but here again the experience of the ordinary +course of nature fails us, and we do not find another word or hint concerning +them. This may be the result of accident, but if so, it is a very +unfortunate accident, and we have already had a great deal too much +of unfortunate accidents, and of truths which <i>may</i> be truths, +but which are uncommonly like exaggeration. Stories are like people, +whom we judge of in no small degree by the dress they wear, the company +they keep, and that subtle indefinable something which we call their +expression.</p> +<p>“Nevertheless, there arise the questions how far the spear +wound recorded by the writer of the fourth Gospel must be regarded, +firstly, as an actual occurrence, and, secondly, as having been necessarily +fatal, for unless these things are shewn to be indisputable we have +seen that the balance of probability lies greatly in favour of Christ’s +having escaped with life. If, however, it can be proved that it +is a matter of certainty both that the wound was actually inflicted, +and that death must have inevitably followed, then the death of Christ +is proved. The Resurrection becomes supernatural; the Ascension +forthwith ceases to be marvellous; the Miraculous Conception, the Temptation +in the Wilderness, all the other miracles of Christ and his Apostles, +become believable at once upon so signal a failure of human experience; +human experience ceases to be a guide at all, inasmuch as it is found +to fail on the very point where it has been always considered to be +most firmly established - the remorselessness of the grip of death. +But before we can consent to part with the firm ground on which we tread, +in the confidence of which we live, move, and have our being - the trust +in the established experience of countless ages - we must prove the +infliction of the wound and its necessarily fatal character beyond all +possibility of mistake. We cannot be expected to reject a natural +solution of an event however mysterious, and to adopt a supernatural +in its place, so long as there is any element of doubt upon the supernatural +side.</p> +<p>“The natural solution of the origin of belief in the Resurrection +lies very ready to our hands; once admit that Christ was crucified hurriedly, +that there is no proof of the destruction of any organic function of +the body, that the body itself was immediately delivered to friends, +and that thirty-six hours afterwards Christ was seen alive, and it is +impossible to understand how any human being can doubt what he ought +to think. We must own also that once let Joseph have kept his +own counsel (and he had a great stake to lose if he did <i>not</i> keep +it), once let the Apostles believe that Christ’s restoration to +life was miraculous (and under the circumstances they would be sure +to think so), and their reason would be so unsettled that in a very +short time all the recognised and all the apocryphal miracles of Christ +would pass current with them without a shadow of difficulty.”</p> +<p>It will be observed that throughout both this and the preceding chapter +I have been dealing with those of our opponents who, while admitting +the reappearances of our Lord, ascribe them to natural causes only. +I consider this position to be only second in importance to the one +taken by Strauss, and as perhaps in some respects capable of being supported +with an even greater outward appearance of probability. I therefore +resolved to combat it, and as a preliminary to this, have taken care +that it shall be stated in the clearest and most definite manner possible. +But it is plain that those who accept the fact that our Lord reappeared +after the Crucifixion differ hardly less widely from Strauss than they +do from ourselves; it will therefore be expedient to shew how they maintain +their ground against so formidable an antagonist. Let it be remembered +that Strauss and his followers admit that <i>the Death</i> of our Lord +is proved, while those of our opponents who would deny this, nevertheless +admit that we can establish <i>the reappearances</i>; it follows therefore +that each of our most important propositions is admitted by one section +or other of the enemy, and each section would probably be heartily glad +to be able to deny what it admits. Can there be any doubt about +the significance of this fact? Would not a little reflection be +likely to suggest to the distracted host of our adversaries that each +of its two halves is right, as <i>far as it goes</i>, but that agreement +will only be possible between them when each party has learnt that it +is in possession of only half the truth, and has come to admit both +the <i>Death of our Lord and His Resurrection</i>?</p> +<p>Returning, however, to the manner in which the section of our opponents +with whom I am now dealing meet Strauss, they may be supposed to speak +as follows:-</p> +<p>“Strauss believes that Christ died, and says <i>(New Life of +Jesus</i>, Vol. I., p. 411) that ‘the account of the Evangelists +of the death of Jesus is clear, unanimous, and connected.’ +If this means that the Evangelists would certainly know whether Christ +died or not, we demur to it at once. Strauss would himself admit +that not one of the writers who have recorded the facts connected with +the Crucifixion was an eyewitness of that event, and he must also be +aware that the very utmost which any of these writers can have <i>known</i>, +was <i>that Christ was believed to have been. dead</i>. It is +strange to see Strauss so suddenly struck with the clearness, unanimity, +and connectedness of the Evangelists. In the very next sentence +he goes on to say, ‘Equally fragmentary, full of contradiction +and obscurity, is all that they tell us of the opportunities of observing +him which his adherents are supposed to have had after his resurrection.’ +Now, this seems very unfair, for, after all, the gospel writers are +quite as unanimous in asserting the main fact that Christ reappeared, +as they are in asserting that he died; they would seem to be just as +‘clear, unanimous, and connected,’ about the former event +as the latter (for the accounts of the Crucifixion vary not a little), +and they must have had infinitely better means of knowing whether Christ +reappeared than whether he had actually died. There is not the +same scope for variation in the bare assertion that a man died, as there +is in the narration of his sayings and doings upon the several occasions +of his reappearance. Besides, in support of the reappearances, +we have the evidence of Paul, who, though not an eye-witness, was well +acquainted with those who were; whereas no man can make more out of +the facts recorded concerning the death of Jesus, than that he was believed +to be dead under circumstances in which mistake might easily arise, +that there is no reason to think that any organic function of the body +had been destroyed at the time that it was delivered over to friends, +and that none of those who testified to Christ’s death appear +to have verified their statement by personal inspection of the body. +On these points the Evangelists do indeed appear to be ‘clear, +unanimous, and connected.’</p> +<p>“Later on Strauss is even more unsatisfactory, for on the page +which follows the one above quoted from, he writes: ‘Besides which, +it is quite evident that this (the natural) view of the resurrection +of Jesus, apart from the difficulties in which it is involved, does +not even solve the problem which is here under consideration: the origin, +that is, of the Christian Church by faith in the miraculous resurrection +of the Messiah. It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead +out of a sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, +who required bandaging, strengthening, and indulgence, and who still, +at last, yielded to his sufferings, could have given to the disciples +the impression that he was a conqueror over death and the grave, the +Prince of Life, an impression which lay at the bottom of their future +ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression +which he had made upon them in life and in death; at the most could +only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have +changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence +into worship.’</p> +<p>“Now, the fallacy in the above is obvious; it assumes that +<i>Christ</i> was in such a state as to be compelled to creep about, +weak and ill, &c., and ultimately to die from the effects of his +sufferings; whereas there is not a word of evidence in support of all +this. He may have been weak and ill when he forbade Mary to touch +him, on the first occasion of his being seen alive; but it would be +hard to prove even this, and on no subsequent occasion does he shew +any sign of weakness. The supposition that he died of the effects +of his sufferings is quite gratuitous; one would like to know where +Strauss got it from. He <i>may</i> have done so, or he may have +been assassinated by some one commissioned by the Jewish Sanhedrim, +or he may have felt that his work was done, and that any further interference +upon his part would only mar it, and therefore resolved upon withdrawing +himself from Palestine for ever, or Joseph of Arimathæa may have +feared the revolution which he saw approaching - or twenty things besides +might account for Christ’s final disappearance. The only +thing, however, which we can say with any certainty is that he disappeared, +and that there is no reason to believe that he died of his wounds. +All over and above this is guesswork.</p> +<p>“Again, if Christ on reappearing had continued in daily intercourse +with his disciples, it might have been impossible that they should not +find out that he was in all respects like themselves. But he seems +to have been careful to avoid seeing them much. Paul only mentions +five reappearances, only one of which was to any considerable number +of people. According also to the gospel writers, the reappearances +were few; they were without preparation, and nothing seems to have been +known of where he resided between each visit; this rarity and mysteriousness +of the reappearances of Christ (whether dictated by fear of his enemies +or by policy) would heighten their effect, and prevent the Apostles +from knowing much more about their master than the simple fact that +he was indisputably alive. They saw enough to assure them of this, +but they did not see enough to prevent their being able to regard their +master as a conqueror over death and the grave, even though it could +be shewn (which certainly cannot be done) that he continued in infirm +health, and ultimately died of his wounds.</p> +<p>“If the Apostles had been highly educated English or German +Professors, it might be hard to believe them capable of making any mistake; +but they were nothing of the kind; they were ignorant Eastern peasants, +living in the very thick of every conceivable kind of delusive influence. +Strauss himself supposes their minds to have been so weak and unhinged +that they became easy victims to hallucination. But if this was +the case, they would be liable to other kinds of credulity, and it seems +strange that one who would bring them down so low, should be here so +suddenly jealous for their intelligence. There is no reason to +suppose that Christ <i>was</i> weak and ill after the first day or two, +any more than there is for believing that he died of his wounds. +This being so, is it not more simple and natural to believe that the +Apostles were really misled by a solid substratum of strange events +- a substratum which seems to be supported by all the evidence which +we can get - than that the whole story of the appearances of Christ +after the Crucifixion should be due to baseless dreams and fancies? +At any rate, if the Apostles could be misled by hallucination, much +more might they be misled by a natural reappearance, which looked not +unlike a supernatural one.</p> +<p>“The belief in the miraculous character of the Resurrection +is the central point of the whole Christian system. Let this be +once believed, and considering the times, which, it must always be remembered, +were in respect of credulity widely different from our own, considering +the previous hopes and expectations of the Apostles, considering their +education, Oriental modes of thought and speech, familiarity with the +ideas of miracle and demonology, and unfamiliarity with the ideas of +accuracy and science, and considering also the unquestionable beauty +and wisdom of much which is recorded as having been taught by Christ, +and the really remarkable circumstances of the case - we say, once let +the Resurrection be believed to be miraculous, and the rest is clear; +there is no further mystery about the origin of the Christian religion.</p> +<p>“So the matter has now come to this pass, that we are to jeopardise +our faith in all human experience, if we are unable to see our way clearly +out of a few words about a spear wound, recorded as having been inflicted +in a distant country nearly two thousand years ago, by a writer concerning +whom we are entirely ignorant, and whose connection with any eye-witness +of the events which he records is a matter of pure conjecture. +We will see about this hereafter; all that is necessary now is to make +sure that we do not jeopardise it, if we <i>do</i> see a way of escape, +and this assuredly exists.”</p> +<p>I will not pain either the reader or myself by a recapitulation of +the arguments which have led our opponents as well as the Dean of Canterbury, +and I may add, with due apology, myself, to conclude that nothing is +known as to the severity or purpose of the spear wound. The case, +therefore, of our adversaries will rest thus:- that there is not only +no sufficient reason for believing that Christ died upon the cross, +but that there are the strongest conceivable reasons for believing that +He did not die; that the shortness of time during which He remained +upon the cross, the immediate delivery of the body to friends, and, +above all, the subsequent reappearance alive, are ample grounds for +arriving at such a conclusion. They add further that it would +seem a monstrous supposition to believe that a good and merciful God +should have designed to redeem the world by the infliction of such awful +misery upon His own Son, and yet determined to condemn every one who +did not believe in this design, in spite of such a deficiency of evidence +that disbelief would appear to be a moral obligation. No good +God, they say, would have left a matter of such unutterable importance +in a state of such miserable uncertainty, when the addition of a very +small amount of testimony would have been sufficient to establish it.</p> +<p>In the two following chapters I shall show the futility and irrelevancy +of the above reasoning - if, indeed, that can be called reasoning which +is from first to last essentially unreasonable. Plausible as, +in parts, it may have appeared, I have little doubt that the reader +will have already detected the greater number of the fallacies which +underlie it. But before I can allow myself to enter upon the welcome +task of refutation, a few more words from our opponents will yet be +necessary. However strongly I disapprove of their views, I trust +they will admit that I have throughout expressed them as one who thoroughly +understands them. I am convinced that the course I have taken +is the only one which can lead to their being brought into the way of +truth, and I mean to persevere in it until I have explained the views +which they take concerning our Lord’s Ascension, with no less +clearness than I shewed forth their opinions concerning the Resurrection.</p> +<p>“In St. Matthew’s Gospel,” they will say, “we +find no trace whatever of any story concerning the Ascension. +The writer had either never heard anything about the matter at all, +or did not consider it of sufficient importance to deserve notice.</p> +<p>“Dean Alford, indeed, maintains otherwise. In his notes +on the words, ‘And lo! I am with you always unto the end +of the world,’ he says, ‘These words imply and set forth +the Ascension’; it is true that he adds, ‘the manner of +which is not related by the Evangelist’: but how do the words +quoted, ‘imply and set forth’ the Ascension? They +imply a belief that Christ’s spirit would be present with his +disciples to the end of time; but how do they set forth the fact that +his body was seen by a number of people to rise into the air and actually +to mount up far into the region of the clouds?</p> +<p>“The fact is simply this - and nobody can know it better than +Dean Alford - that Matthew tells us nothing about the Ascension.</p> +<p>“The last verses of Mark’s Gospel are admitted by Dean +Alford himself to be not genuine, but even in these the subject is dismissed +in a single verse, and although it is stated that Christ was received +into Heaven, there is not a single word to imply that any one was supposed +to have seen him actually on his way thither.</p> +<p>“The author of the fourth Gospel is also silent concerning +the Ascension. There is not a word, nor hint, nor faintest trace +of any knowledge of the fact, unless an allusion be detected in the +words, ‘What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascending where +he was before?’ (John vi., 62) in reference to which passage Dean +Alford, in his note on Luke xxiv., 52, writes as follows:- ‘And +might not we have concluded from the wording of John vi., 62, that our +Lord must have intended an ascension <i>insight of some of those to +whom he spoke</i>, and that the Evangelist <i>gives that hint, by recording +those words without comment, that he had seen it</i>?’ That +is to say, we are to conclude that the writer of the fourth Gospel actually +<i>saw</i> the Ascension, because he tells us that Christ uttered the +words, ‘What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascending where +he was before?’</p> +<p>“But who <i>was</i> the author of the fourth Gospel? +And what reason is there for thinking that that work is genuine? +Let us make another extract from Dean Alford. In his prolegomena, +chapter v., section 6, on the genuineness of the fourth Gospel, he writes:- +‘Neither Papias, who carefully sought out all that Apostles and +Apostolic men had related regarding the life of Christ; nor Polycarp, +who was himself a disciple of the Apostle John; nor Barnabas, nor Clement +of Rome, in their epistles; nor, lastly, Ignatius (in his genuine writings), +makes any mention of, or allusion to, this gospel. <i>So that +in the most ancient circle of ecclesiastical testimony, it appears to +be unknown. or not recognised</i>.’ We may add that there +is no trace of its existence before the latter half of the second century, +and that the internal evidence against its genuineness appears to be +more and more conclusive the more it is examined.</p> +<p>“St. Paul, when enumerating the last appearances of his master, +in a passage where the absence of any allusion to the Ascension is almost +conclusive as to his never having heard a word about it, is also silent. +In no part of his genuine writings does he give any sign of his having +been aware that any story was in existence as to the manner in which +Christ was received into Heaven.</p> +<p>“Where, then, does the story come from, if neither Matthew, +Mark, John, nor Paul appear to have heard of it?</p> +<p>“It comes from a single verse in St. Luke’s Gospel - +written more than half a century after the supposed event, when few, +or more probably none, of those who were supposed to have seen it were +either living or within reach to contradict it. Luke writes (xxiv., +51), ‘And it came to pass that while he blessed them, he was parted +from them, and carried up into Heaven.’ This is the only +account of the Ascension given in any part of the Gospels which can +be considered genuine. It gives Bethany as the place of the miracle, +whereas, if Dean Alford is right in saying that the words of Matthew +‘set forth’ the Ascension, they set it forth as having taken +place on a mountain in Galilee. But here, as elsewhere, all is +haze and contradiction. Perhaps some Christian writers will maintain +that it happened both at Bethany and in Galilee.</p> +<p>“In his subsequent work, written some sixty or seventy years +after the Ascension, St. Luke gives us that more detailed account which +is commonly present to the imagination of all men (thanks to the Italian +painters), when the Ascension is alluded to. The details, it would +seem, came to his knowledge after he had written his Gospel, and many +a long year after Matthew and Mark and Paul had written. How he +came by the additional details we do not know. Nobody seems to +care to know. He must have had them revealed to him, or been told +them by some one, and that some one, whoever he was, doubtless knew +what he was saying, and all Europe at one time believed the story, and +this is sufficient proof that mistake was impossible.</p> +<p>“It is indisputable that from the very earliest ages of the +Church there existed a belief that Christ was at the right hand of God; +but no one who professes to have seen him on his way thither has left +a single word of record. It is easy to believe that the facts +may have been revealed in a night vision, or communicated in one or +other of the many ways in which extraordinary circumstances <i>are</i> +communicated, during the years of oral communication and enthusiasm +which elapsed between the supposed Ascension of Christ and the writing +of Luke’s second work. It is not surprising that a firm +belief in Christ’s having survived death should have arisen in +consequence of the actual circumstances connected with the Crucifixion +and entombment. Was it then strange that this should develop itself +into the belief that he was now in Heaven, sitting at the right hand +of God the Father? And finally was it strange that a circumstantial +account of the manner in which he left this earth should be eagerly +accepted?”</p> +<p>[In an appendix at the end of the book I have given the extracts +from the Gospels which are necessary for a full comprehension of the +preceding chapters. - W. B. O.]</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<h3>CHAPTER IX - THE CHRIST-IDEAL</h3> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>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.</p> +<p>Before, however, we come to close quarters with our opponents concerning +the views put forward in the preceding chapters, it will be well to +consider two questions of the gravest and most interesting character, +questions which will probably have already occurred to the reader with +such force as to demand immediate answer. They are these.</p> +<p>Firstly, what will be the consequences of admitting any considerable +deviation from historical accuracy on the part of the sacred writers?</p> +<p>Secondly, how can it be conceivable that God should have permitted +inaccuracy or obscurity in the evidence concerning the Divine commission +of His Son?</p> +<p>If God so loved the World that He sent His only begotten Son into +it to rescue those who believed in Him from destruction, how is it credible +that He should not have so arranged matters as that all should find +it easy to believe? If He wanted to save mankind and knew that +the only way in which mankind could be saved was by believing certain +facts, how can it be that the records of the facts should have been +allowed to fall into confusion?</p> +<p>To both these questions I trust that the following answers may appear +conclusive.</p> +<p>I. As regards the consequences which may be supposed to follow +upon giving up any part of the sacred writings, no matter how seemingly +unimportant, it is undoubtedly true that to many minds they have appeared +too dangerous to be even contemplated. Thus through fear of some +supposed unutterable consequences which would happen to the cause of +truth if truth were spoken, people profess to believe in the genuineness +of many passages in the Bible which are universally acknowledged by +competent judges of every shade of theological opinion to be interpolations +into the original text. To say nothing of the Old Testament, where +many whole books are of disputed genuineness or authenticity, there +are portions of the New which none will seriously defend; - for example, +the last verses of St. Mark’s Gospel, - containing, as they do, +the sentence of damnation against all who do not believe - the second +half of the third, and the whole of the fourth verse of the fifth chapter +of St. John’s Gospel, the story of the woman taken in adultery, +and probably the whole of the last chapter of St. John’s Gospel, +not to mention the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles to Timothy, +Titus, and to the Ephesians, the Epistles of Peter and James, the famous +verses as to the three witnesses in the First Epistle of St. John, and +perhaps also the book of Revelation. These are passages and works +about which there is either no doubt at all as to their not being genuine, +or over which there hangs so much uncertainty that no dependence can +be placed upon them.</p> +<p>But over and above these, there are not a few parts of each of the +Gospels which, though of undisputed genuineness, cannot be accepted +as historical; thus the account of the Resurrection given by St. Matthew, +and parts of those by Luke and Mark, the cursing of the barren fig-tree, +and the prophecies of His Resurrection ascribed to our Lord Himself, +will not stand the tests of criticism which we are bound to apply to +them if we are to exercise the right of private judgement; instead of +handing ourselves over to a priesthood as the sole custodians and interpreters +of the Bible. It has been said by some that the miracle of the +penny found in the fish’s mouth should be included in the above +category, but it should be remembered that we have only the injunction +of our Lord to St. Peter that he should catch the fish and the promise +that he should find the penny in its mouth, but that we have no account +of the sequel, it is therefore possible that in the event of St. Peter’s +faith having failed him he may have procured the money from some other +source, and that thus the miracle, though undoubtedly intended, was +never actually performed. How unnecessary therefore as well as +presumptuous are the Rationalistic interpretations which have been put +upon the event by certain German writers!</p> +<p>Now there are few, if any, who would be so illiberal as to wish for +the exclusion from the sacred volume of all those books or passages +which, though neither genuine nor perhaps edifying, have remained in +the Canon of Scripture for many centuries. Any serious attempt +to reconstruct the Canon would raise a theological storm which would +not subside in this century. The work could never be done perfectly, +and even if it could, it would have to be done at the expense of tearing +all Christendom in pieces. The passages do little or no harm where +they are, and have received the sanction of time; let them therefore +by all means remain in their present position. But the question +is still forced upon us whether the consequences of openly admitting +the certain spuriousness of many passages, and the questionable nature +of others as regards morality, genuineness and authenticity, should +be feared as being likely to prejudice the main doctrines of Christianity.</p> +<p>The answer is very plain. He who has vouchsafed to us the Christian +dispensation may be safely trusted to provide that no harm shall happen, +either to it or to us, from an honest endeavour to attain the truth +concerning it. What have we to do with consequences? These +are in the hands of God. Our duty is to seek out the truth in +prayer and humility, and when we believe that we have found it, to cleave +to it through evil and good report;<i> to fail in this is to fail in +faith</i>; to fail in faith is to be an infidel. Those who suppose +that it is wiser to gloss over this or that, and who consider it “injudicious” +to announce the whole truth in connection with Christianity, should +have learnt by this time that no admission which can by any possibility +be required of them can be so perilous to the cause of Christ as the +appearance of shirking investigation. It has already been insisted +upon that cowardice is at the root of the infidelity which we see around +us; the want of faith in the power of truth which exists in certain +pious but timid hearts has begotten utter unbelief in the minds of all +superficial investigators into Christian evidences. Such persons +see that the defenders have something in the background, something which +they would cling to although they are secretly aware that they cannot +justly claim it. This is enough for many, and hence more harm +is done by fear than could ever have been done by boldness. Boldness +goes out into the fight, and if in the wrong gets slain, childless. +Fear stays at home and is prolific of a brood of falsehoods.</p> +<p>It is immoral to regard consequences at all, where truth and justice +are concerned; the being impregnated with this conviction to the inmost +core of one’s heart is an axiom of common honesty - one of the +essential features which distinguish a good man from a bad one. +Nevertheless, to make it plain that the consequences of outspoken truthfulness +in connection with the scriptural writings would have no harmful effect +whatever, but would, on the contrary, be of the utmost service as removing +a stumbling-block from the way of many - let us for the moment suppose +that very much more would have to be given up than can ever be demanded.</p> +<p>Suppose we were driven to admit that nothing in the life of our Lord +can be certainly depended upon beyond the facts that He was begotten +by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary; that He worked many miracles upon +earth, and delivered St. Matthew’s version of the sermon on the +mount and most of the parables as we now have them; finally, that He +was crucified, dead, and buried, that He rose again from the dead upon +the third day, and ascended unto Heaven. Granting for the sake +of argument that we could rely on no other facts, what would follow? +Nothing which could in any way impair the living power of Christianity.</p> +<p>The essentials of Christianity, <i>i.e</i>., a belief in the Divinity +of the Saviour and in His Resurrection and Ascension, have stood, and +will stand, for ever against any attacks that can be made upon them, +and these are probably the only facts in which belief has ever been +absolutely necessary for salvation; the answer, therefore, to the question +what ill consequences would arise from the open avowal of things which +every student must know to be the fact concerning the biblical writings +is that there would be none at all. The Christ-ideal which, after +all, is the soul and spirit of Christianity would remain precisely where +it was, while its recognition would be far more general, owing to the +departure on the part of its apologists from certain lines of defence +which are irreconcilable with the ideal itself.</p> +<p>II. Returning to the objection how it could be possible that +God should have left the records of our Lord’s history in such +a vague and fragmentary condition, if it were really of such intense +importance for the world to understand it and believe in it, we find +ourselves face to face with a question of far greater importance and +difficulty.</p> +<p>The old theory that God desired to test our faith, and that there +would be no merit in believing if the evidence were such as to commend +itself at once to our understanding, is one which need only be stated +to be set aside. It is blasphemy against the goodness of God to +suppose that He has thus laid as it were an ambuscade for man, and will +only let him escape on condition of his consenting to violate one of +the very most precious of God’s own gifts. There is an ingenious +cruelty about such conduct which it is revolting even to imagine. +Indeed, the whole theory reduces our Heavenly Father to a level of wisdom +and goodness far below our own; and this is sufficient answer to it.</p> +<p>But when, turning aside from the above, we try to adopt some other +and more reasonable view, we naturally set ourselves to consider why +the Almighty should have required belief in the Divinity of His Son +from man. What is there in this belief on man’s part which +can be so grateful to God that He should make it a <i>sine quâ +non</i> for man’s salvation? As regards Himself, how can +it matter to Him what man should think of Him? Nay, it must be +for man’s own good that the belief is demanded.</p> +<p>And why? Surely we can see plainly that it is the beauty of +the Christ-ideal which constitutes the working power of Christianity +over the hearts and lives of men, leading them to that highest of all +worships which consists in imitation. Now the sanction which is +given to this ideal by belief in the Divinity of our Lord, raises it +at once above all possibility of criticism. If it had not been +so sanctioned it might have been considered open to improvement; one +critic would have had this, and another that; comparison would have +been made with ideals of purely human origin such as the Greek ideal, +exemplified in the work of Phidias, and in later times with the mediæval +Italian ideal, as deducible from the best fifteenth and early sixteenth +Italian painting and sculpture, the Madonnas of Bellini and Raphael, +or the St. George of Donatello; or again with the ideal derivable from +the works of our own Shakespeare, and there are some even now among +those who deny the Divinity of Christ who will profess that each one +of these ideals is more universal, more fitted for the spiritual food +of a man, and indeed actually higher, than that presented by the life +and death of our Saviour. But once let the Divine origin of this +last ideal be admitted, and there can be no further uncertainty; hence +the absolute necessity for belief in Christ’s Divinity as closing +the most important of all questions, Whereunto should a man endeavour +to liken both himself and his children?</p> +<p>Seeing then that we have reasonable ground for thinking that belief +in the Divinity of our Lord is mainly required of us in order to exalt +our sense of the paramount importance of following and obeying the life +and commands of Christ, it is natural also to suppose <i>that whatever +may have happened to the records of that life</i> should have been ordained +with a view to the enhancing of the preciousness of the ideal.</p> +<p>Now, the fragmentary character, and the partial obscurity - I might +have almost written, the incomparable <i>chiaroscuro</i> - of the Evangelistic +writings have added to the value of our Lord’s character as an +ideal, not only in the case of Christians, but as bringing the Christ-ideal +within the reach and comprehension of an infinitely greater number of +minds than it could ever otherwise have appealed to. It is true +that those who are insensible to spiritual influences, and whose materialistic +instinct leads them to deny everything which is not as clearly demonstrable +by external evidence as a fact in chemistry, geography, or mathematics, +will fail to find the hardness, definition, tightness, and, let me add, +littleness of outline, in which their souls delight; they will find +rather the gloom and gleam of Rembrandt, or the golden twilight of the +Venetians, the losing and the finding, and the infinite liberty of shadow; +and this they hate, inasmuch as it taxes their imagination, which is +no less deficient than their power of sympathy; they would have all +found, as in one of those laboured pictures wherein each form is as +an inflated bladder and, has its own uncompromising outline remorselessly +insisted upon.</p> +<p>Looking to the ideals of purely human creation which have come down +to us from old times, do we find that the Theseus suffers because we +are unable to realise to ourselves the precise features of the original? +Or again do the works of John Bellini suffer because the hand of the +painter was less dexterous than his intention pure? It is not +what a man has actually put upon his canvas, but what he makes us feel +that he felt, which makes the difference between good and bad in painting. +Bellini’s hand was cunning enough to make us feel what he intended, +and did his utmost to realise; but he has not realised it, and the same +hallowing effect which has been wrought upon the Theseus by decay (to +the enlarging of its spiritual influence), has been wrought upon the +work of Bellini by incapacity - the incapacity of the painter to utter +perfectly the perfect thought which was within. The early Italian +paintings have that stamp of individuality upon them which assures us +that they are not only portraits, but as faithful portraits as the painter +could make them, more than this we know not, but more is unnecessary.</p> +<p>Do we not detect an analogy to this in the records of the Evangelists? +Do we not see the child-like unself-seeking work of earnest and loving +hearts, whose innocence and simplicity more than atone for their many +shortcomings, their distorted renderings, and their omissions? +We can see <i>through</i> these things as through a glass darkly, or +as one looking upon some ineffable masterpiece of Venetian portraiture +by the fading light of an autumnal evening, when the beauty of the picture +is enhanced a hundredfold by the gloom and mystery of dusk. We +may indeed see less of the actual lineaments themselves, but the echo +is ever more spiritually tuneful than the sound, and the echo we find +within us. Our imagination is in closer communion with our longings +than the hand of any painter.</p> +<p>Those who relish definition, and definition only, are indeed kept +away from Christianity by the present condition of the records, but +even if the life of our Lord had been so definitely rendered as to find +a place in their system, would it have greatly served their souls? +And would it not repel hundreds and thousands of others, who find in +the suggestiveness of the sketch a completeness of satisfaction, which +no photographic reproduction could have given? The above may be +difficult to understand, but let me earnestly implore the reader to +endeavour to master its import.</p> +<p>People misunderstand the aim and scope of religion. Religion +is only intended to guide men in those matters upon which science is +silent. God illumines us by science as with a mechanical draughtsman’s +plan; He illumines us in the Gospels as by the drawing of a great artist. +We cannot build a “Great Eastern” from the drawings of the +artist, but what poetical feeling, what true spiritual emotion was ever +kindled by a mechanical drawing? How cold and dead were science +unless supplemented by art and by religion! Not joined with them, +for the merest touch of these things impairs scientific value - which +depends essentially upon accuracy, and not upon any feeling for the +beautiful and lovable. In like manner the merest touch of science +chills the warmth of sentiment - the spiritual life. The mechanical +drawing is spoiled by being made artistic, and the work of the artist +by becoming mechanical. The aim of the one is to teach men how +to construct, of the other how to feel.</p> +<p>For the due conservation therefore of both the essential requisites +of human well-being - science, and religion - it is requisite that they +be kept asunder and reserved for separate use at different times. +Religion is the mistress of the arts, and every art which does not serve +religion truly is doomed to perish as a lying and unprofitable servant. +Science is external to religion, being a separate dispensation, a distinct +revelation to mankind, whereby we are put into full present possession +of more and more of God’s modes of dealing with material things, +according as we become more fitted to receive them through the apprehension +of those modes which have been already laid open to us.</p> +<p>We ought not therefore to have expected scientific accuracy from +the Gospel records - much less should we be required to believe that +such accuracy exists. Does any great artist ever dream of aiming +directly at imitation? He aims at representation - not at imitation. +In order to attain true mastery here, he must spend years in learning +how to see; and then no less time in learning how <i>not</i> to see. +Finally, he learns how to translate. Take Turner for example. +Who conveys so living an impression of the face of nature? Yet +go up to his canvas and what does one find thereon? Imitation? +Nay - blotches and daubs of paint; the combination of these daubs, each +one in itself when taken alone absolutely untrue, forms an impression +which is quite truthful. No combination of minute truths in a +picture will give so faithful a representation of nature as a wisely +arranged tissue of untruths.</p> +<p>Absolute reproduction is impossible even to the photograph. +The work of a great artist is far more truthful than any photograph; +but not even the greatest artist can convey to our minds the whole truth +of nature; no human hand nor pigments can expound all that lies hidden +in “Nature’s infinite book of secrecy”; the utmost +that can be done is to convey an impression, and if the impression is +to be conveyed truthfully, the means must often be of the most unforeseen +character. The old Pre-Raphaelites aimed at absolute reproduction. +They were succeeded by a race of men who saw all that their predecessors +had seen, but also something higher. The Van Eycks and Memling +paved the way for painters who found their highest representatives in +Rubens, Vandyke, and Rembrandt - the mightiest of them all. Giovanni +Bellini, Carpaccio and Mantegna were succeeded by Titian, Giorgione, +and Tintoretto; Perugino was succeeded by Raphael. It is everywhere +the same story; a reverend but child-like worship of the letter, followed +by a manful apprehension of the spirit, and, alas! in due time by an +almost total disregard of the letter; then rant and cant and bombast, +till the value of the letter is reasserted. In theology the early +men are represented by the Evangelicals, the times of utter decadence +by infidelity - the middle race of giants is yet to come, and will be +found in those who, while seeing something far beyond either minute +accuracy or minute inaccuracy, are yet fully alive both to the letter +and to the spirit of the Gospels.</p> +<p>Again, do not the seeming wrongs which the greatest ideals of purely +human origin have suffered at the hands of time, add to their value +instead of detracting from it? Is it not probable that if we were +to see the glorious fragments from the Parthenon, the Theseus and the +Ilyssus, or even the Venus of Milo, in their original and unmutilated +condition, we should find that they appealed to us much less forcibly +than they do at present? All ideals gain by vagueness and lose +by definition, inasmuch as more scope is left for the imagination of +the beholder, who can thus fill in the missing detail according to his +own spiritual needs. This is how it comes that nothing which is +recent, whether animate or inanimate, can serve as an ideal unless it +is adorned by more than common mystery and uncertainty. A new +Cathedral is necessarily very ugly. There is too much found and +too little lost. Much less could an absolutely perfect Being be +of the highest value as an ideal, as long as He could be clearly seen, +for it is impossible that He could be known as perfect by imperfect +men, and His very perfections must perforce appear as blemishes to any +but perfect critics. To give therefore an impression of perfection, +to create an absolutely unsurpassable ideal, it became essential that +the actual image of the original should become blurred and lost, whereon +the beholder now supplies from his own imagination that which is <i>to +him</i> more perfect than the original, though objectively it must be +infinitely less so.</p> +<p>It is probably to this cause that the incredulity of the Apostles +during our Lord’s life-time must be assigned. The ideal +was too near them, and too far above their comprehension; for it must +be always remembered that the convincing power of miracles in the days +of the Apostles must have been greatly weakened by the current belief +in their being events of no very unusual occurrence, and in the existence +both of good and evil spirits who could take possession of men and compel +them to do their bidding. A resurrection from the dead or a restoration +of sight to the blind, must have seemed even less portentous to them, +than an unusually skilful treatment of disease by a physician is to +us. We can therefore understand how it happened that the faith +of the Apostles was so little to be depended upon even up to the Crucifixion, +inasmuch as the convincing power of miracles had been already, so to +speak, exhausted, a fact which may perhaps explain the early withdrawal +of the power to work them; we cannot indeed believe that it could have +been so far weakened as to make the Apostles disregard the prophecies +of their Master that He should rise from the dead, if He had ever uttered +them, and we have already seen reason to think that these prophecies +are the <i>ex post facto</i> handiwork of time; but the incredulity +of the disciples, when seen through the light now thrown upon it, loses +that wholly inexplicable character which it would otherwise bear.</p> +<p>But to return to the subject of the ideal presented by the life and +death of our Lord. In the earliest days of the Church there can +have been no want of the most complete and irrefragable evidence for +the objective reality of the miracles, and especially of the Resurrection +and Ascension. The character of Christ would also stand out revealed +to all, with the most copious fulness of detail. The limits within +which so sharply defined an ideal could be acceptable were narrow, but +as the radius of Christian influence increased, so also would the vagueness +and elasticity of the ideal; and as the elasticity of the ideal, so +also the range of its influence.</p> +<p>A beneficent and truly marvellous provision for the greater complexity +of man’s spiritual needs was thus provided by a gradual loss of +detail and gain of breadth. Enough evidence was given in the first +instance to secure authoritative sanction for the ideal. During +the first thirty or forty years after the death of our Lord no one could +be in want of evidence, and the guilt of unbelief is therefore brought +prominently forward. Then came the loss of detail which was necessary +in order to secure the universal acceptability of the ideal; but the +same causes which blurred the distinctness of the features, involved +the inevitable blurring of no small portions of the external evidences +whereby the Divine origin of the ideal was established. The primary +external evidence became less and less capable of compelling instantaneous +assent, according as it was less wanted, owing to the greater mass of +secondary evidence, and to the growth of appreciation of the internal +evidences, a growth which would be fostered by the growing adaptability +of the ideal.</p> +<p>Some thirty or forty years, then, from the death of our Saviour the +case would stand thus. The Christ-ideal would have become infinitely +more vague, and hence infinitely more universal: but the causes which +had thus added to its value would also have destroyed whatever primary +evidence was superabundant, and the vagueness which had overspread the +ideal would have extended itself in some measure over the evidences +which had established its Divine origin.</p> +<p>But there would of course be limits to the gain caused by decay. +Time came when there would be danger of too much vagueness in the ideal, +and too little distinctness in the evidences. It became necessary +therefore to provide against this danger.</p> +<p><i>Precisely at that epoch the Gospels made their appearance</i>. +Not simultaneously, not in concert, and not in perfect harmony with +each other, yet with the error distributed skilfully among them, as +in a well-tuned instrument wherein each string is purposely something +out of tune with every other. Their divergence of aim, and different +authorship, secured the necessary breadth of effect when the accounts +were viewed together; their universal recognition afforded the necessary +permanency, and arrested further decay. If I may be pardoned for +using another illustration, I would say that as the roundness of the +stereoscopic image can only be attained by the combination of two distinct +pictures, neither of them in perfect harmony with the other, so the +highest possible conception of Christ, cannot otherwise be produced +than through the discrepancies of the Gospels.</p> +<p>From the moment of the appearing of the Gospels, and, I should add, +of the Epistles of St. Paul, the external evidences of Christianity +became secured from further change; as they were then, so are they now, +they can neither be added to nor subtracted from; they have lain as +it were sleeping, till the time should come to awaken them. And +the time is surely now, for there has arisen a very numerous and increasing +class of persons, whose habits of mind unfit them for appreciating the +value of vagueness, but who have each one of them a soul which may be +lost or saved, and on whose behalf the evidences for the authority whereby +the Christ-ideal is sanctioned, should be restored to something like +their former sharpness. Christianity contains provision for all +needs upon their arising. The work of restoration is easy. +It demands this much only - the recognition that time has made incrustations +upon some parts of the evidences, and that it has destroyed others; +when this is admitted, it becomes easy, after a little practice, to +detect the parts that have been added, and to remove them, the parts +that are wanting, and to supply them. Only let this be done outside +the pages of the Bible itself, and not to the disturbance of their present +form and arrangement.</p> +<p>The above explanation of the causes for the obscurity which rests +upon much of our Lord’s life and teaching, may give us ground +for hoping that some of those who have failed to feel the force of the +external evidences hitherto, may yet be saved, provided they have fully +recognised the Christ-ideal and endeavoured to imitate it, although +irrespectively of any belief in its historical character.</p> +<p>It is reasonable to suppose that the duty of belief was so imperatively +insisted upon, in order that the ideal might thus be exalted above controversy, +and made more sacred in the eyes of men than it could have been if referable +to a purely human source. May not, then, one who recognises the +ideal as his <i>summum bonum</i> find grace although he knows not, or +even cares not, how it should have come to be so? For even a sceptic +who regarded the whole New Testament as a work of art, a poem, a pure +fiction from beginning to end, and who revered it for its intrinsic +beauty only, as though it were a picture or statue, even such a person +might well find that it engendered in him an ideal of goodness and power +and love and human sympathy, which could be derived from no other source. +If, then, our blessed Lord so causes the sun of His righteousness to +shine upon these men, shall we presume to say that He will not in another +world restore them to that full communion with Himself which can only +come from a belief in His Divinity?</p> +<p>We can understand that it should have been impossible to proclaim +this in the earliest ages of the Church, inasmuch as no weakening of +the sanctions of the ideal could be tolerated, but are we bound to extend +the operation of the many passages condemnatory of unbelief to a time +so remote as our own, and to circumstances so widely different from +those under which they were uttered? Do we so extend the command +not to eat things strangled or blood, or the assertion of St. Paul that +the unmarried state is higher than the married? May we not therefore +hope that certain kinds of unbelief have become less hateful in the +sight of God inasmuch as they are less dangerous to the universal acceptance +of our Lord as the one model for the imitation of all men? For, +after all, it is not belief in the facts which constitutes the essence +of Christianity, but rather the being so impregnated with love at the +contemplation of Christ that imitation becomes almost instinctive; this +it is which draws the hearts of men to God the Father, far more than +any intellectual belief that God sent our Lord into the world, ordaining +that he should be crucified and rise from the dead. Christianity +is addressed rather to the infinite spirit of man than to his finite +intelligence, and the believing in Christ through love is more precious +in the sight of God than any loving through belief. May we not +hope, then, that those whose love is great may in the end find acceptance, +though their belief is small? We dare not answer this positively; +but we know that there are times of transition in the clearness of the +Christian evidences as in all else, and the treatment of those whose +lot is cast in such times will surely not escape the consideration of +our Heavenly Father.</p> +<p>But with reference to the many-sidedness of the Christ-ideal, as +having been part of the design of God, and not attainable otherwise +than as the creation of destruction - as coming out of the waste of +time - it is clear that the perception of such a design could only be +an offspring of modern thought; the conception of such an apparently +self-frustrating scheme could only arise in minds which were familiar +with the manner in which it is necessary “to hound nature in her +wanderings” before her feints can be eluded, and her prevarications +brought to book. A deep distrust of the over-obvious is wanted, +before men can be brought to turn aside from objections which at the +first blush appear to be very serious, and to take refuge in solutions +which seem harder than the problems which they are intended to solve. +What a shock must the discovery of the rotation of the earth have given +to the moral sense of the age in which it was made. How it contradicted +all human experience. How it must have outraged common sense. +How it must have encouraged scepticism even about the most obvious truths +of morality. No question could henceforth be considered settled; +everything seemed to require reopening; for if man had once been deceived +by Nature so entirely, if he had been so utterly led astray and deluded +by the plausibility of her pretence that the earth was immovably fixed, +what else, that seemed no less incontrovertible, might not prove no +less false?</p> +<p>It is probable that the opposition to Galileo on the part of the +Roman church was as much due to some such feelings as these, as to theological +objections; the discovery was felt to unsettle not only the foundations +of the earth, but those of every branch of human knowledge and polity, +and hence to be an outrage upon morality itself. A man has no +right to be very much in advance of other people; he is as a sheep, +which may lead the mob, but must not stray forward a quarter of a mile +in front of it; if he does this, he must be rounded up again, no matter +how right may have been his direction. He has no right to be right, +unless he can get a certain following to keep him company; the shock +to morality and the encouragement to lawlessness do more harm than his +discovery can atone for. Let him hold himself back till he can +get one or two more to come with him. In like manner, had reflections +as to the advantage gained by the Christ ideal in consequence of the +inaccuracies and inconsistencies of the Gospels - reflections which +must now occur to any one - been put forward a hundred years ago, they +would have met justly with the severest condemnation. But now, +even those to whom they may not have occurred already will have little +difficulty in admitting their force.</p> +<p>But be this as it may, it is certain that the inability to understand +how the sense of Christ in the souls of men could be strengthened by +the loss of much knowledge of His character, and of the facts connected +with His history, lies at the root of the error even of the Apostle +St. Paul, who exclaims with his usual fervour, but with less than his +usual wisdom, “Has Christ been divided?” (I. Cor. i., 13). +“Yea,” we may make answer, “He is divided and is yet +divisible that all may share in Him.” St. Paul himself had +realised that it was the spiritual value of the Christ-ideal which was +the purifier and refresher of our souls, inasmuch as he elsewhere declares +that even though he had known Christ Himself after the flesh, he knew +Him no more; the spiritual Christ, that is to say the spirit of Christ +as recognisable by the spirits of men, was to him all in all. +But he lived too near the days of our Lord for a full comprehension +of the Christian scheme, and it is possible that had he known Christ +after the flesh, his soul might have been less capable of recognising +the spiritual essence, rather than more so. Have we here a faint +glimmering of the motive of the Almighty in not having allowed the Gentile +Apostle to see Christ after the flesh? We cannot say. But +we may say this much with certainty, that had he been living now, St. +Paul would have rejoiced at the many-sidedness of Christ, which he appears +to have hardly recognised in his own life-time.</p> +<p>The apparently contradictory portraits of our Lord which we find +in the Gospels - so long a stumbling-block to unbelievers - are now +seen to be the very means which enable men of all ranks, and all shades +of opinion, to accept Christ as their ideal; they are like the sea, +which from having seemed the most impassable of all objects, turns out +to be the greatest highway of communication. To the artisan, for +instance, who may have long been out of work, or who may have suffered +from the greed and selfishness of his employers, or again, to the farm +labourer who has been discharged perhaps at the approach of winter, +the parable of “the Labourers in the Vineyard” offers itself +as a divinely sanctioned picture of the dealings of God with man; few +but those who have mixed much with the less educated classes, can have +any idea of the priceless comfort which this parable affords daily to +those whose lot it has been to remain unemployed when their more fortunate +brethren have been in full work. How many of the poor, again, +are drawn to Christianity by the parable of Dives and Lazarus. +How many a humble-minded Christian while reflecting upon the hardness +of his lot, and tempted to cast a longing eye upon the luxuries which +are at the command of his richer neighbours, is restrained from seriously +coveting them, by remembering the awful fate of Dives, and the happy +future which was in store for Lazarus. “Dives,” they +exclaim, “in his life-time possessed good things and in like manner +Lazarus evil things, but now the one is comforted in the bosom of Abraham, +and the other tormented in a lake of fire.” They remember, +also, that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle +than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Heaven.</p> +<p>It has been said by some that the poor are thus encouraged to gloat +over the future misery of the rich, and that many of the sayings ascribed +to our Lord have an unhealthy influence over their minds. I remember +to have thought so once myself, but I have seen reason to change my +mind. Hope is given by these sayings to many whose lives would +be otherwise very nearly hopeless, and though I fully grant that the +parable of Dives and Lazarus can only afford comfort to the very poor, +yet it is most certain that it <i>does</i> afford comfort to this numerous +class, and helps to keep them contented with many things which they +would not otherwise endure.</p> +<p>On the other hand, though the poor are first provided for, the rich +are not left without their full share of consolation. Joseph of +Arimathæa was rich, and modern criticism forbids us to believe +that the parable of Dives and Lazarus was ever actually spoken by our +Lord - at any rate not in its present form. Neither are the children +of the rich forgotten; the son who repents at length of a course of +extravagant or riotous living is encouraged to return to virtue, and +to seek reconciliation with his father, by reflecting upon the parable +of the Prodigal Son, wherein he will find an everlasting model for the +conduct of all earthly fathers. I will say nothing of the parable +of the Unjust Steward, for it is one of which the interpretation is +most uncertain; nevertheless I am sure that it affords comfort to a +very large number of persons.</p> +<p>Christ came not to the whole, but to those that were sick; he came +not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance. Even our +fallen sisters are remembered in the story of the woman taken in adultery, +which reminds them that they can only be condemned justly by those who +are without sin. It is to the poor, the weak, the ignorant and +the infirm that Christianity appeals most strongly, and to whose needs +it is most especially adapted - but these form by far the greater portion +of mankind. “Blessed are they that mourn!” Whose +sorrow is not assuaged by the mere sound of these words? Who again +is not reassured by being reminded that our Heavenly Father feeds the +sparrows and clothes the lilies of the field, and that if we will only +seek the kingdom of God and His righteousness we need take no heed for +the morrow what we shall eat, and what we shall drink, nor wherewithal +we shall be clothed. God will provide these things for us if we +are true Christians, whether we take heed concerning them or not. +“I have been young and now am old,” saith the Psalmist, +“yet never saw I the righteous forsaken nor his seed begging their +bread.”</p> +<p>How infinitely nobler and more soul-satisfying is the ideal of the +Christian saint with wasted limbs, and clothed in the garb of poverty +- his upturned eyes piercing the very heavens in the ecstasy of a divine +despair - than any of the fleshly ideals of gross human conception such +as have already been alluded to. If a man does not feel this instinctively +for himself, let him test it thus - whom does his heart of hearts tell +him that his son will be most like God in resembling? The Theseus? +The Discobolus? or the St. Peters and St. Pauls of Guido and Domenichino? +Who can hesitate for a moment as to which ideal presents the higher +development of human nature? And this I take it should suffice; +the natural instinct which draws us to the Christ-ideal in preference +to all others as soon as it has been once presented to us, is a sufficient +guarantee of its being the one most tending to the general well-being +of the world.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<h3>CHAPTER X - CONCLUSION</h3> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>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.</p> +<p>These conclusions have no real bearing upon the question at issue. +Our opponents can make out a strong case, so long as they confine themselves +to maintaining that exaggeration has to a certain extent impaired the +historic value of some of the Gospel records of the Resurrection. +They have made out this much, but have they made out more? They +have mistaken the question - which is this - “Did Jesus Christ +die and rise from the dead?” And in the place of it they +have raised another, namely, “Has there been any inaccuracy in +the records of the time and manner of His reappearing?”</p> +<p>Our error has been that instead of demurring to the relevancy of +the issue raised by our opponents, we have accepted it. We have +thus placed ourselves in a false position, and have encouraged our opponents +by doing so. We have undertaken to fight them upon ground of their +own choosing. We have been discomfited; but instead of owning +to our defeat, and beginning the battle anew from a fresh base of operations, +we have declared that we have not been defeated; hence those lamentable +and suicidal attempts at disingenuous reasoning which we have seen reason +to condemn so strongly in the works of Dean Alford and others. +How deplorable, how unchristian they are!</p> +<p>The moment that we take a truer ground, the conditions of the strife +change. The same spirit of candid criticism which led us to reject +the account of Matthew <i>in toto</i>, will make it easy for us to admit +that those of Mark, Luke, and John, may not be so accurate as we could +have wished, and yet to feel that our cause has sustained no injury. +There are probably very few who would pin their faith to the fact that +Julius Cæsar fell exactly at the feet of Pompey’s statue, +or that he uttered the words “Et tu, Brute.” Yet there +are still fewer who would dispute the fact that Julius Caesar was assassinated +by conspirators of whom Brutus and Cassius were among the leaders. +As long as we can be sure that our Lord <i>died and rose from the dead</i>, +we may leave it to our opponents to contend about the details of the +manner in which each event took place.</p> +<p>We had thought that these details were known, and so thinking, we +had a certain consolation in realising to ourselves the precise manner +in which every incident occurred; yet on reflection we must feel that +the desire to realise is of the essence of idolatry, which, not content +with knowing that there is a God, will be satisfied with nothing if +it has not an effigy of His face and figure. If it has not this +it falls straight-way to the denial of God’s existence, being +unable to conceive how a Being should exist and yet be incapable of +representation. We are as those who would fall down and worship +the idol; our opponents, as those who upon the destruction of the idol +would say that there was no God.</p> +<p>We have met sceptics hitherto by adhering to the opinions as to the +necessity of accuracy which prevailed among our forefathers, and instead +of saying, “You are right - we do <i>not</i> know all that we +thought we did - nevertheless we know enough - we know the fact, though +the manner of the fact be hidden,” we have preferred to say, “You +are mistaken, our severe outline, our hard-and-fast lines are all perfectly +accurate, there is not a detail of our theories which we are not prepared +to stand by.” On this comes recrimination and mutual anger, +and the strife grows hotter and hotter.</p> +<p>Let us now rather say to the unbeliever, “We do not deny the +truth of much which you assert. We give up Matthew’s account +of the Resurrection; we may perhaps accept parts of those of Mark and +Luke and John, but it is impossible to say which parts, unless those +in which all three agree with one another; and this being so, it becomes +wiser to regard all the accounts as early and precious memorials of +the certainty felt by the Apostles that Christ died and rose again, +but as having little historic value with regard to the time and manner +of the Resurrection.”</p> +<p>Once take this ground, and instead of demurring to the truth of many +of the assertions of our opponents, demur to their relevancy, and the +unbeliever will find the ground cut away from under his feet independently +of the fact that the reasonableness of the concession, and the discovery +that we are not fighting merely to maintain a position, will incline +him to calmness and to the reconsideration of his own opinions - which +will in itself be a great gain - he will soon perceive that we are really +standing upon firm ground, from which no enemy can dislodge us. +The discovery that we know less of the time and manner of our Lord’s +death and Resurrection than we thought we did, does not invalidate a +single one of the irresistible arguments whereby we can establish the +fact of His having died and risen again. The reader will now perhaps +begin to perceive that the sad division between Christians and unbelievers +has been one of those common cases in which both are right and both +wrong; Christians being right in their chief assertion, and wrong in +standing out for the accuracy of their details, while unbelievers are +right in denying that our details are accurate, but wrong in drawing +the inference that because certain facts have been inaccurately recorded, +therefore certain others never happened at all. Both the errors +are natural; it is high time, however, that upon both sides they should +be recognised and avoided.</p> +<p>But as regards the demolition of the structure raised in the seventh +and eighth chapters of this book, whereinsoever, that is to say, it +seems to menace the more vital part of our faith, the ease with which +this will effected may perhaps lead the reader to think that I have +not fulfilled the promise made in the outset, and have failed to put +the best possible case for our opponents. This supposition would +be unjust; I have done the very best for them that I could. For +it is plain that they can only take one of two positions, namely, <i>either</i> +that Christ really died upon the Cross but was never seen alive again +afterwards at all, and that the stories of His having been so seen are +purely mythical, <i>or</i>, if they admit that He was seen alive after +His Crucifixion, they must deny the completeness of the death; in other +words, if they are to escape miracle, they must either deny the reappearances +or the death.</p> +<p>Now in the commencement of this work I dealt with those who deny +that our Lord rose from the dead, and as the exponent of those who take +this view I selected Strauss, who is undoubtedly the ablest writer they +have. Whether I shewed sufficient reason for thinking that his +theory was unsound must remain for the decision of the reader, but I +certainly believe that I succeeded in doing so. Perhaps the ablest +of all the writers who have treated the facts given us in the Gospels +from the Rationalistic point of view, is the author of an anonymous +work called <i>The Jesus of History</i> (Williams and Norgate, 1866); +but this writer (and it is a characteristic feature of the Rationalistic +school to become vague precisely at this very point) leaves us entirely +in doubt as to whether he accepts the reappearances of Christ or not, +and his treatment of the facts connected both with the Crucifixion and +Resurrection is less definite than that of any other part of the life +of our Lord. He does not seem to see his own way clearly, and +appears to consider that it must for ever remain a matter of doubt whether +the Death of Christ or His reappearance is to be rejected.</p> +<p>It is evident that it was most desirable to examine <i>both</i> sets +of arguments, <i>i.e</i>., those against the Resurrection, and those +against the completeness of the Death; I have therefore mainly drawn +the opinions of those who deny the Death from the same pamphlet as that +from which I drew the criticisms on Dean Alford’s notes. +I know of no other English work, indeed, in which whatever can be said +against us upon this all-important head has been put forward, and was +therefore compelled to draw from this source, or to invent the arguments +for our opponents, which would have subjected me to the accusation of +stating them in such way as should best suit my own purpose. The +reader, however, must now feel that since there can be no other position +taken but one or other of the two alluded to above, and since the one +taken by Strauss has been shewn to be untenable, there remains nothing +but to shew that the other is untenable also, whereupon it will follow +that our Saviour did actually die, and did actually shew Himself subsequently +alive; and this amounts to a demonstration of the miraculous character +of the Resurrection. If, then, this one miracle be established, +I think it unnecessary to defend the others, because I cannot think +that any will attack them.</p> +<p>But, as has been seen already, Strauss admits that our Lord died +upon the Cross, and denies the reality of the reappearances. It +is not probable that Strauss would have taken refuge in the hallucination +theory if he had felt that there was the remotest chance of successfully +denying our Lord’s death; for the difficulties of his present +position are overwhelming, as was fully pointed out in the second, third, +and fourth chapters of this work. I regret, however, to say that +I can nowhere find any detailed account of the reasons which have led +him to feel so positively about our Lord’s Death. Such reasons +must undoubtedly be at his command, or he would indisputably have referred +the Resurrection to natural causes. Is it possible that he has +thought it better to keep them to himself, as proving the Death of our +Lord <i>too</i> convincingly? If so, the course which he has adopted +is a cruel one.</p> +<p>We must endeavour, however, to dispense with Strauss’s assistance, +and will proceed to inquire what it is that those who deny the Death +of our Lord, call upon us to reject.</p> +<p>I regret to pass so quickly over one great field of evidence which +in justice to myself I must allude to, though I cannot dwell upon it, +for in the outset I declared that I would confine myself to the historical +evidence, and to this only. I refer to spiritual insight; to the +testimony borne by the souls of living persons, who from personal experience +<i>know</i> that their Redeemer liveth, and that though worms destroy +this body, yet in their flesh shall they see God. How many thousands +are there in the world at this moment, who have known Christ as a personal +friend and comforter, and who can testify to the work which He has wrought +upon them! I cannot pass over such testimony as this in silence. +I must assign it a foremost place in reviewing the reasons for holding +that our hope is not in vain, but I may not dwell upon it, inasmuch +as it would carry no weight with those for whom this work is designed, +I mean with those to whom this precious experience of Christ has not +yet been vouchsafed. Such persons require the external evidence +to be made clear to demonstration before they will trust themselves +to listen to the voices of hope or fear, and it is of no use appealing +to the knowledge and hopes of others without making it clear upon what +that knowledge and those hopes are grounded. Nevertheless, I may +be allowed to point out that those who deny the Death and Resurrection +of our Lord, call upon us to believe that an immense multitude of most +truthful and estimable people are no less deceivers of their own selves +and others, than Mohammedans, Jews and Buddhists are. How many +do we not each of us know to whom Christ is the spiritual meat and drink +of their whole lives. Yet our opponents call upon us to ignore +all this, and to refer the emotions and elation of soul, which the love +of Christ kindles in his true followers, to an inheritance of delusion +and blunder. Truly a melancholy outlook.</p> +<p>Again, let a man travel over England, North, South, East, and West, +and in his whole journey he shall hardly find a single spot from which +he cannot see one or several churches. There is hardly a hamlet +which is not also a centre for the celebration of our Redemption by +the Death and Resurrection of Christ. Not one of these churches, +say the Rationalists, not one of the clergymen who minister therein, +not one single village school in all England, but must be regarded as +a fountain of error, if not of deliberate falsehood. Look where +they may, they cannot escape from the signs of a vital belief in the +Resurrection. All these signs, they will tell us, are signs of +superstition only; it is superstition which they celebrate and would +confirm; they are founded upon fanaticism, or at the best upon sheer +delusion; they poison the fountain heads of moral and intellectual well-being, +by teaching men to set human experience on the one side, and to refer +their conduct to the supposed will of a personal anthropomorphic God +who was actually once a baby - who was born of one of his own creatures +- and who is now locally and corporeally in Heaven, “of reasonable +soul and <i>human flesh</i> subsisting.”</p> +<p>Thus do our opponents taunt us, but when we think not only of the +present day, but of the nearly two thousand years during which Christianity +has flourished, not in England only, but over all Europe, that is to +say, over the quarter of the globe which is most civilised, and whose +civilisation is in itself proof both of capacity to judge and of having +judged rightly - what an awful admission do unbelievers require us to +make, when they bid us think that all these ages and countries have +gone astray to the imagining of a vain thing. All the self-sacrifice +of the holiest men for sixty generations, all the wars that have been +waged for the sake of Christ and His truth, all the money spent upon +churches, clergy, monasteries and religious education, all the blood +of martyrs, all the celibacy of priests and nuns, all the self-denying +lives of those who are now ministers of the Gospel - according to the +Rationalist, no part of all this devotion to the cause of Christ has +had any justifiable base on actual fact. The bare contemplation +of such a stupendous misapplication of self-sacrifice and energy, should +be enough to prevent any one from ever smiling again to whose mind such +a deplorable view was present: we wonder that our opponents do not shrink +back appalled from the contemplation of a picture which they must regard +as containing so much of sin, impudence and folly; yet it is to the +contemplation of such a picture, and to a belief in its truthfulness +to nature, that they would invite us; they cannot even see a clergyman +without saying to themselves, “There goes one whose trade is the +promotion of error; whose whole life is devoted to the upholding of +the untrue.” To them the sight of people flocking to a church +must be as painful as it would be to us to see a congregation of Jews +or Mohammedans: they ought to have no happiness in life so long as they +believe that the vast majority of their fellow-countrymen are so lamentably +deluded; yet they would call on us to join them, and half despise us +upon our refusing to do so.</p> +<p>But upon this view also I may not dwell; it would have been easy +and I think not unprofitable, had my aim been different, to have drawn +an ampler picture of the heart-rending amount of falsehood, stupidity, +cruelty and folly which must be referable to a belief in Christianity, +if, as our opponents maintain, there is no solid ground for believing +it; but my present purpose is to prove that there <i>is</i> such ground, +and having said enough to shew that I do not ignore the fields of evidence +which lie beyond the purpose of my work, I will return to the Crucifixion +and Resurrection.</p> +<p>What, then, let me ask of freethinkers, <i>became of Christ eventually</i>? +Several answers may be made to this question, <i>but there is none but +the one given in Scripture which will set it at rest</i>. Thus +it has been said that Christ survived the Cross, lingered for a few +weeks, and in the end succumbed to the injuries which He had sustained. +On this there arises the question, did the Apostles know of His death? +And if so, were they likely to mistake the reappearance of a dying man, +so shattered and weak as He must have been, for the glory of an immortal +being? We know that people can idealise a great deal, but they +cannot idealise as much as this. The Apostles cannot have known +of any death of Christ except His Death upon the Cross, and it is not +credible that if He had died from the effects of the Crucifixion the +Apostles should not have been aware of it. No one will pretend +that they were, so it is needless to discuss this theory further.</p> +<p>It has also been said that our Lord, having seen the effect of His +reappearance on the Apostles, considered that further converse with +them would only weaken it; and that He may have therefore thought it +wiser to withdraw Himself finally from them, and to leave His teaching +in their hands, with the certainty that it would never henceforth be +lost sight of; but this view is inconsistent with the character which +even our adversaries themselves assign to our Saviour. The idea +is one which might occur to a theorist sitting in his study, and enlightened +by a knowledge of events, but it would not suggest itself to a leader +in the heat of action.</p> +<p>Another supposition has been that our Lord on recovering consciousness +after He had been left alone in the tomb, or perhaps even before Joseph +had gone, may have been unable to realise to Himself the nature of the +events that had befallen Him, and may have actually believed that He +had been dead, and been miraculously restored to life; that He may yet +have felt a natural fear of again falling into the hands of His enemies; +and partly from this cause, and partly through awe at the miracle that +He supposed had been worked upon Him, have only shewn Himself to His +disciples hurriedly, in secret, and on rare occasions, spending the +greater part of His time in some one or other of the secret places of +resort, in which He had been wont to live apart from the Apostles before +the Crucifixion.</p> +<p>I have known it urged that our Lord never said or even thought that +He had risen from the dead, but shewed Himself alive secretly and fearfully, +and bade His disciples follow Him to Galilee, where He might, and perhaps +did, appear more openly, though still rarely and with caution; that +the rarity and mystery of the reappearances would add to the impression +of a miraculous resurrection which had instantly presented itself to +the minds of the Apostles on seeing Christ alive; that this impression +alone would prevent them from heeding facts which must have been obvious +to any whose minds were not already unhinged by the knowledge that Christ +was alive, and by the belief that He had been dead; and that they would +be blinded by awe, which awe would be increased by the rarity of the +reappearances - a rarity that was in reality due, perhaps to fear, perhaps +to self-delusion, perhaps to both, but which was none the less politic +for not having been dictated by policy; finally that the report of Christ’s +having been seen alive reached the Chief Priests (or perhaps Joseph +of Arimathæa), and that they determined at all hazards to nip +the coming mischief in the bud; that they therefore watched their opportunity, +and got rid of so probable a cause of disturbance by the knife of the +assassin, or induced Him to depart by threats, which He did not venture +to resist.</p> +<p>But if our Lord was secretly assassinated how could it have happened +that the body should never have been found, and produced, when the Apostles +began declaring publicly that Christ had risen? What could be +easier than to bring it forward and settle the whole matter? It +cannot be doubted that the body must have been looked for when the Apostles +began publishing their story; we saw reason for believing this when +we considered the account of the Resurrection given by St. Matthew. +<i>Now those that hide can find</i>; and if the enemies of Christ had +got rid of Him by foul play, they would know very well where to lay +their hands upon that which would be the death blow to Christianity. +If then Christ did not go away of His own accord, as feeling that His +teaching would be better preserved by His absence, and if He did not +die from wounds received upon the Cross, and if He was not assassinated +secretly, what remains as the most reasonable view to be taken concerning +His disappearance? Surely the one that <i>was</i> taken; the view +which commended itself to those who were best able to judge - namely, +<i>that He had ascended bodily into Heaven and was sitting at the right +hand of God the Father.</i></p> +<p>Where else could He be?</p> +<p>For that He disappeared, and disappeared finally, within six weeks +of the Crucifixion must be considered certain; there is no one who will +be bold enough even to hazard a conjecture that the appearance of Christ +alluded to by St. Paul, as having been vouchsafed to him some years +later, was that of the living Christ, who had chosen upon this one occasion +to depart from the seclusion and secrecy which he had maintained hitherto. +But if Christ was still living on earth, how was it possible that no +human being should have the smallest clue to His whereabouts? +If He was dead how is it that no one should have produced the body? +Such a mysterious and total disappearance, even in the face of great +jeopardy, has never yet been known, and can only be satisfactorily explained +by adopting the belief which has prevailed for nearly the last two thousand +years, and which will prevail more and more triumphantly so long as +the world shall last - the belief that Christ was restored to the glory +which He had shared with the Father, as soon as ever He had given sufficient +proofs of His being alive to ensure the devotion of His followers.</p> +<p>Before we can reject the supernatural solution of a mystery otherwise +inexplicable, we should have some natural explanation which will meet +the requirements of the case. A confession of ignorance is not +enough here. <i>We</i> are <i>not</i> ignorant; we <i>know</i> +that Christ died, inasmuch as we have the testimony of all the four +Evangelists to this effect, the testimony of the Apostle Paul, and through +him that of all the other Apostles; we have also the certainty that +the centurion in charge of the soldiers at the Crucifixion would not +have committed so grave a breach of discipline as the delivery of the +body to Joseph and Nicodemus, unless he had felt quite sure that life +was extinct; and finally we have the testimony of the Church for sixty +generations, and that of myriads now living, whose experience assures +them that Christ died and rose from the dead; in addition to this tremendous +body of evidence we have also the story of the spear wound recorded +in a Gospel which even our opponents believe to be from a Johannean +source in its later chapters; and though, as has been already stated, +this wound cannot be insisted upon as in itself sufficient to prove +our Lord’s death, yet it must assuredly be allowed its due weight +in reviewing the evidence. The unbeliever cannot surely have considered +how shallow are all the arguments which he can produce, in comparison +with those that make against him. He cannot say that I have not +done him justice, and I feel confident that when he reconsiders the +matter in that spirit of humility without which he cannot hope to be +guided to a true conclusion, he will feel sure that Strauss is right +in believing that the death of our Lord cannot be seriously called in +question.</p> +<p>But this being so, the reappearances, which we have seen to be established +by the collapse of the hallucination theory, must be referred to supernatural +or miraculous agency; that is to say, our Lord died and rose again on +the third day, according to the Scriptures. Whereon His disappearance +some six weeks later must be looked upon very differently from that +of any ordinary person. If our Lord could have been shewn to have +been a mere man, who had escaped death only by a hair’s breadth, +but still escaped it, perhaps some one of the theories for His disappearance, +or some combination of them, or some other explanation which has not +yet been thought of, might be held to be sufficient; but in the case +of One who died and rose from the dead, there is no theory which will +stand, except the one which it has been reserved for our own lawless +and self-seeking times to question. Through the light of the Resurrection +the Ascension is clearly seen.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>My task is now completed. In an age when Rationalism has become +recognised as the only basis upon which faith can rest securely, I have +established the Christian faith upon a Rationalistic basis.</p> +<p>I have made no concession to Rationalism which did not place all +the vital parts of Christianity in a far stronger position than they +were in before, yet I have. conceded everything which a sincere Rationalist +is likely to desire. I have cleared the ground for reconciliation. +It only remains for the two contending parties to come forward and occupy +it in peace jointly. May it be mine to see the day when all traces +of disagreement have been long obliterated!</p> +<p>To the unbeliever I can say, “Never yet in any work upon the +Christian side have your difficulties been so fully and fairly stated; +never yet has orthodox disingenuousness been so unsparingly exposed.” +To the Christian I can say with no less justice, “Never yet have +the true reasons for the discrepancies in the Gospels been so put forward +as to enable us to look these discrepancies boldly in the face, and +to thank God for having graciously allowed them to exist.” +I do not say this in any spirit of self-glorification. We are +children of the hour, and creatures of our surroundings. As it +has been given unto us, so will it be required at our hands, and we +are at best unprofitable servants. Nevertheless I cannot refrain +from expressing my gratitude at having been born in an age when Christianity +and Rationalism are not only ceasing to appear antagonistic to one another, +<i>but have each become essential to the very existence of the other</i>. +May the reader feel this no less strongly than I do, and may he also +feel that I have supplied the missing element which could alone cause +them to combine. If he asks me what element I allude to, I answer +Candour. This is the pilot that has taken us safely into the Fair +Haven of universal brotherhood in Christ.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<h3>APPENDIX</h3> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>I - THE BURIAL</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>(John xix. 38-42)</p> +<p>And after this Joseph of Arimathæa, being a disciple of Jesus, +but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take +away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, +and took the body of Jesus. And there came also Nicodemus, which +at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh +and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body +of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner +of the Jews is to bury. Now in the place where he was crucified +there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never +man yet laid. There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews’ +preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.</p> +<p>(Luke xxiii. 50-56)</p> +<p>And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counsellor; and he was +a good man, and a just: (the same had not consented to the counsel and +deed of them;) he was of Arimathæa, a city of the Jews: who also +himself waited for the kingdom of God. This man went unto Pilate, +and begged the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and wrapped +it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein +never man before was laid. And that day was the preparation, and +the sabbath drew on. And the women also, which came with him from +Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulchre, and how his body +was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; +and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.</p> +<p>(Mark xv. 42-47)</p> +<p>And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that +is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathæa, an honourable +counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went +in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. And Pilate +marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, +he asked him whether he had been any while dead. And when he knew +it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. And he bought +fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid +him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone +unto the door of the sepulchre. And Mary Magdalene and Mary the +mother of Joseph beheld where he was laid.</p> +<p>(Matthew xxvii. 57-61)</p> +<p>When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathæa, +named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus’ disciple. He went +to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded +the body to be delivered. And when Joseph had taken the body, +he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth. And laid it in his own new +tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone +to the door of the sepulchre, and departed. And there was Mary +Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>II - THE GUARD SET UPON THE TOMB <i>(Peculiar to Matthew)</i></p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>(Matthew xxvii. 62-66)</p> +<p>Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief +priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate. Saying, Sir, +we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three +days I will rise again. Command therefore that the sepulchre be +made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and +steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: +so the last error shall be worse than the first. Pilate said unto +them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can. +So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting +a watch.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>III - VISIT OF MARY MAGDALENE, AND OTHERS, TO THE TOMB</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>(John xx. 1-13)</p> +<p>The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was +yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the +sepulchre. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to +the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have +taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they +have laid him. Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, +and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the +other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. +And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet +went he not in. Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went +into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie. And the napkin, +that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped +together in a place by itself. Then went in also that other disciple, +which came first to the sepulchre, and he saw, and believed. For +as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the +dead. Then the disciples went away again unto their own home. +But Mary stood without the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped +down, and looked into the sepulchre, And seeth two angels in white sitting, +the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus +had lain. And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? +She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know +not where they have laid him.</p> +<p>(Luke xxiv. 1-12)</p> +<p>Now upon the first day of the week very early in the morning, they +came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, +and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled +away from the sepulchre. And they entered in, and found not the +body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much +perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: +and as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they +said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not +here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in +Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of +sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And +they remembered his words, and returned from the sepulchre, and told +all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest. It was +Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other +women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. +And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them +not. Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping +down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, +wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.</p> +<p>(Mark xvi. 1-8)</p> +<p>And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother +of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come +and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of +the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. +And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from +the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that +the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering +into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, +clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And +he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which +was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they +laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he +goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto +you. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for +they trembled and were amazed: neither said they anything to any man; +for they were afraid.</p> +<p>(Matthew xxviii. 1-8)</p> +<p>In the end of the sabbath, as it began to draw toward the first day +of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. +And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord +descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, +and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment +white as snow, and for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became +as dead men. And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear +not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He +is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place +where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that +he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; +there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. And they departed +quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring +his disciples word.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>IV - APPEARANCE OF CHRIST TO MARY MAGDALENE AND OTHERS</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>(John xx. 14-18)</p> +<p>And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus +standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, +Woman, why weepest thou? Whom seekest thou? She, supposing +him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him +hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. +Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto +him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. Jesus saith unto her, Touch +me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, +and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to +my God, and your God. Mary Magdalene came and told the disciples +that she had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken these things unto +her.</p> +<p>(Mark xvi. 9-11)</p> +<p>Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared +first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. +And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and +wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had +been seen of her, believed not.</p> +<p>(Matthew xxvii. 9-10)</p> +<p>And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, +All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped +him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren +that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>V - THE BRIBING OF THE GUARD <i>(Peculiar to Matthew)</i></p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>(Matthew xxviii. 11-15)</p> +<p>Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the +city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done. +And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, +they gave large money unto the soldiers, saying, Say ye, His disciples +came by night, and stole him away while we slept. And if this +come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure +you. So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and +this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>VI - APPEARANCE TO CLEOPAS (AND JAMES?)</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>(Luke xxiv. 13-35)</p> +<p>And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, +which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they talked +together of all these things which had happened. And it came to +pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself +drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that +they should not know him. And he said unto them, What manner of +communications are these that ye have one to another, as ye walk, and +are sad? And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering +said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known +the things which are come to pass there in these days? And he +said unto them, What things? And they said unto him, Concerning +Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before +God and all the people: And how the chief priests and our rulers delivered +him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we trusted +that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside all +this, to-day is the third day since these things were done. Yea, +and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were +early at the sepulchre; and when they found not his body, they came, +saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that +he was alive, and certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, +and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not. +Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that +the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, +and to enter into his glory? And beginning at Moses and all the +prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning +himself. And they drew nigh unto the village, whither they went: +and he made as though he would have gone further. But they constrained +him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is +far spent. And he went in to tarry with them. And it came +to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, +and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they +knew him; and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one +to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us +by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? And they +rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven +gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, The Lord is +risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things +were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.</p> +<p>(Mark xvi. 12-13)</p> +<p>After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they +walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto +the residue: neither believed they them.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>VII - APPEARANCE TO THE APOSTLES (<i>Twice in John</i>)</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>(John xx. 19-29)</p> +<p>Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when +the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the +Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace +be unto you. And when he had so said, he shewed them his hands +and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the +Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my +Father hath sent me, even, so send I you. And when he had said +this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy +Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; +and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. But Thomas, +one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. +The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. +But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of +the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust +my hand into his side, I will not believe. And after eight days +again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, +the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto +you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold +my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and +be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said +unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because +thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not +seen, and yet have believed.</p> +<p>[I have not quoted the twenty-first chapter of St. John’s Gospel +on account of its exceedingly doubtful genuineness. - W. B. O.]</p> +<p>(Luke xxiv. 36-49)</p> +<p>And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, +and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified +and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And +he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in +your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; +handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see +me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands +and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, +he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a +piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, +and did eat before them. And he said unto them, These are the +words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things +must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the +prophets, and in the psalms concerning me. Then opened he their +understanding, that they might understand the scriptures. And +said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, +and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission +of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning +at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, +behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the +city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.</p> +<p>(Mark xvi. 14-18)</p> +<p>Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided +them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed +not them which had seen him after he was risen. And he saith unto +them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. +He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth +not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; +In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; +They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it +shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall +recover.</p> +<p>(Matthew xviii. 16-20)</p> +<p>Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain +where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped +him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, +All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, go ye therefore, +and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and +of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things +whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even +unto the end of the world. Amen.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>VIII - THE ASCENSION</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>(Luke xxiv. 50-53)</p> +<p>And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, +and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, +he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. And they +worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And +were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.</p> +<p>(Mark xvi. 19-20)</p> +<p>So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into +heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. And they went forth, +and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming +the word with signs following. Amen.</p> +<p>(Acts i. 1-12)</p> +<p>The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus +began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, +after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the +apostles whom he had chosen. To whom also he shewed himself alive +after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty +days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: and, +being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should +not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, +saith he, ye have heard of me. For John truly baptized with water, +but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. +When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, +wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And +he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, +which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive +power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses +unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and +unto the uttermost part of the earth. And when he had spoken these +things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him +out of their sight, And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as +he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; Which also +said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This +same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in +like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. Then returned +they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem +a sabbath day’s journey.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>IX - ST. PAUL’S ACCOUNT OF OUR LORD’S REAPPEARANCES</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines1"><br /></div> +<p>(I. Corinthians xv. 3-8)</p> +<p>For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, +how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that +he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the +scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; after +that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the +greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. +After that, he was seen of James: then of all the apostles. And +last of all he was seen of me also as of one born out of due time.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines2"><br /><br /></div> +<p>Footnotes:</p> +<p><a name="footnote1"></a><a href="#citation1">{1}</a> It should +be borne in mind that this passage was written five or six years ago, +before the commencement of the Franco-Prussian war, What would my brother +have said had he been able to comprehend the events of 1870 and 1871? +- W. B. O.</p> +<p><a name="footnote2"></a><a href="#citation2">{2}</a> This pamphlet +was by Butler himself.</p> +<p><a name="footnote3"></a><a href="#citation3">{3}</a> See Biog. +Britann.</p> +<p><a name="footnote4"></a><a href="#citation4">{4}</a> Middleton’s +Reflections answered by Benson. Hist. Christ, vol. iii., p. 50.</p> +<p><a name="footnote5"></a><a href="#citation5">{5}</a> Lardner, +part I., vol. ii., p. 135 et seq.</p> +<p><a name="footnote6"></a><a href="#citation6">{6}</a> Ibid., +part I., vol. ii., p. 742.</p> +<div class="GutenbergBlankLines3"><br /><br /><br /></div> +<p>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK, THE FAIR HAVEN ***</p> +<pre> + +******This file should be named fhvn10h.htm or fhvn10h.zip****** +Corrected EDITIONS of our EBooks get a new NUMBER, fhvn11h.htm +VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, fhvn10ah.htm + +Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the US +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we usually do not +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + +We are now trying to release all our eBooks one year in advance +of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing. +Please be encouraged to tell us about any error or corrections, +even years after the official publication date. + +Please note neither this listing nor its contents are final til +midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement. +The official release date of all Project Gutenberg eBooks is at +Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month. A +preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment +and editing by those who wish to do so. + +Most people start at our Web sites at: +http://gutenberg.net or +http://promo.net/pg + +These Web sites include award-winning information about Project +Gutenberg, including how to donate, how to help produce our new +eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter (free!). + + +Those of you who want to download any eBook before announcement +can get to them as follows, and just download by date. This is +also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the +indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an +announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter. + +http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext04 or +ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext04 + +Or /etext03, 02, 01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90 + +Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want, +as it appears in our Newsletters. + + +Information about Project Gutenberg (one page) + +We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work. The +time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours +to get any eBook selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright +searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc. Our +projected audience is one hundred million readers. If the value +per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2 +million dollars per hour in 2002 as we release over 100 new text +files per month: 1240 more eBooks in 2001 for a total of 4000+ +We are already on our way to trying for 2000 more eBooks in 2002 +If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total +will reach over half a trillion eBooks given away by year's end. + +The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away 1 Trillion eBooks! +This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers, +which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users. + +Here is the briefest record of our progress (* means estimated): + +eBooks Year Month + + 1 1971 July + 10 1991 January + 100 1994 January + 1000 1997 August + 1500 1998 October + 2000 1999 December + 2500 2000 December + 3000 2001 November + 4000 2001 October/November + 6000 2002 December* + 9000 2003 November* +10000 2004 January* + + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been created +to secure a future for Project Gutenberg into the next millennium. + +We need your donations more than ever! + +As of February, 2002, contributions are being solicited from people +and organizations in: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, +Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, +Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, +Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New +Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, +Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South +Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West +Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. + +We have filed in all 50 states now, but these are the only ones +that have responded. + +As the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list +will be made and fund raising will begin in the additional states. +Please feel free to ask to check the status of your state. + +In answer to various questions we have received on this: + +We are constantly working on finishing the paperwork to legally +request donations in all 50 states. If your state is not listed and +you would like to know if we have added it since the list you have, +just ask. + +While we cannot solicit donations from people in states where we are +not yet registered, we know of no prohibition against accepting +donations from donors in these states who approach us with an offer to +donate. + +International donations are accepted, but we don't know ANYTHING about +how to make them tax-deductible, or even if they CAN be made +deductible, and don't have the staff to handle it even if there are +ways. + +Donations by check or money order may be sent to: + +Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +PMB 113 +1739 University Ave. +Oxford, MS 38655-4109 + +Contact us if you want to arrange for a wire transfer or payment +method other than by check or money order. + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been approved by +the US Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN +[Employee Identification Number] 64-622154. Donations are +tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law. As fund-raising +requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be +made and fund-raising will begin in the additional states. + +We need your donations more than ever! + +You can get up to date donation information online at: + +http://www.gutenberg.net/donation.html + + +*** + +If you can't reach Project Gutenberg, +you can always email directly to: + +Michael S. Hart hart@pobox.com + +Prof. Hart will answer or forward your message. + +We would prefer to send you information by email. + + +**The Legal Small Print** + + +(Three Pages) + +***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS**START*** +Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers. +They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with +your copy of this eBook, even if you got it for free from +someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our +fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement +disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how +you may distribute copies of this eBook if you want to. + +*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS EBOOK +By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm +eBook, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept +this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive +a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this eBook by +sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person +you got it from. If you received this eBook on a physical +medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request. + +ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM EBOOKS +This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBooks, +is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart +through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project"). +Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright +on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and +distribute it in the United States without permission and +without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth +below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this eBook +under the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark. + +Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market +any commercial products without permission. + +To create these eBooks, the Project expends considerable +efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain +works. Despite these efforts, the Project's eBooks and any +medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other +things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other +intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged +disk or other eBook medium, a computer virus, or computer +codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. + +LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES +But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below, +[1] Michael Hart and the Foundation (and any other party you may +receive this eBook from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook) disclaims +all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including +legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR +UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT, +INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE +OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE +POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. + +If you discover a Defect in this eBook within 90 days of +receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) +you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that +time to the person you received it from. If you received it +on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and +such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement +copy. If you received it electronically, such person may +choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to +receive it electronically. + +THIS EBOOK IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS +TO THE EBOOK OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT +LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A +PARTICULAR PURPOSE. + +Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or +the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the +above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you +may have other legal rights. + +INDEMNITY +You will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation, +and its trustees and agents, and any volunteers associated +with the production and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm +texts harmless, from all liability, cost and expense, including +legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the +following that you do or cause: [1] distribution of this eBook, +[2] alteration, modification, or addition to the eBook, +or [3] any Defect. + +DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm" +You may distribute copies of this eBook electronically, or by +disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this +"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg, +or: + +[1] Only give exact copies of it. Among other things, this + requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the + eBook or this "small print!" statement. You may however, + if you wish, distribute this eBook in machine readable + binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form, + including any form resulting from conversion by word + processing or hypertext software, but only so long as + *EITHER*: + + [*] The eBook, when displayed, is clearly readable, and + does *not* contain characters other than those + intended by the author of the work, although tilde + (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may + be used to convey punctuation intended by the + author, and additional characters may be used to + indicate hypertext links; OR + + [*] The eBook may be readily converted by the reader at + no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent + form by the program that displays the eBook (as is + the case, for instance, with most word processors); + OR + + [*] You provide, or agree to also provide on request at + no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the + eBook in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC + or other equivalent proprietary form). + +[2] Honor the eBook refund and replacement provisions of this + "Small Print!" statement. + +[3] Pay a trademark license fee to the Foundation of 20% of the + gross profits you derive calculated using the method you + already use to calculate your applicable taxes. If you + don't derive profits, no royalty is due. Royalties are + payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation" + the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were + legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent + periodic) tax return. Please contact us beforehand to + let us know your plans and to work out the details. + +WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO? +Project Gutenberg is dedicated to increasing the number of +public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed +in machine readable form. + +The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time, +public domain materials, or royalty free copyright licenses. +Money should be paid to the: +"Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or +software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at: +hart@pobox.com + +[Portions of this eBook's header and trailer may be reprinted only +when distributed free of all fees. Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 by +Michael S. Hart. Project Gutenberg is a TradeMark and may not be +used in any sales of Project Gutenberg eBooks or other materials be +they hardware or software or any other related product without +express permission.] + +*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS*Ver.02/11/02*END* +</pre></body> +</html> |