,,opinions ,,of ,,the ,,press4 ,secular4 ',the book is a distinctly readable one4'--,glasgow ,herald1 ,september #ah1 #aijb4 ',really excellent little work4'--,daily ,news1 ,september #bf1 #aijb4 ',we cannot commend it too highly4'--,western ,morning ,news1 ,january #b1 #aijc4 ',carefully thought-out little work 444 written with frank and tolerant impartiality4'--,standard1 ,may #bf1 #aije4 ',the arguments are admirably marshalled2 difficulties are not evaded1 but met fairly4'--,westminster ,review1 ,august1 #aije4 ',we welcome a new edition4444 ,the appeal of the book is evidently one to common sense1 and the success it has met is fully deserved4 ,there is a healthy lay atmosphere about ,colonel ,turton's arguments which renders them1 we fancy1 peculiarly effective4'--,pall ,mall ,gazette1 ,march #aa1 #aijg4 ',it is difficult to know whether to admire most the logical precision with which he marshals his facts1 and enforces his conclusions1 or the charming candour1 and freshness of style1 which make his book so readable4'--,liverpool ,daily ,post1 ,march #ad1 #aijg4 ',this is a new edition1 thoroughly revised1 of ,,lieutenant-,,colonel ,,turton',s famous book4444 ,we are specially struck with the detached manner in which he examines the case2 he holds the scales evenly1 and is not rhetorical4 ,anyone who has any power of reasoning at all can follow him clearly from start to finish4'--,bristol ,times and ,mirror1 ,february #ah1 #aijg4 ',it is a book for the hour1 and needs to be circulated by thousands 444 straightforward1 manly1 and convincing4'--,schoolmaster1 ,march #bg1 #aiji4 ,church of ,england4 ',the book is of considerable value to everyone who is concerned with the controversy on ,christian ,evidences2 it presents a perfect storehouse of facts and the conclusions which may be legitimately drawn from them4'--,church ,times1 ,november #b1 #aijj4 ',we have already expressed our high opinion of this work--the author of which1 it may be mentioned1 is serving in ,south ,africa4'--,guardian1 ,october #ag1 #aijj4 ',this thoughtful and convincing treatise4444 ,we are glad to be able to give our good word for the book1 which should be found in the catalogue of every public library in the kingdom4 ,it is a volume admirably suited for a gift-book to young men4 ,it furnishes an armoury of invincible weapons against the scepticism and semi-scepticism which are rampant among us4'--,english ,churchman1 ,november #a1 #aijj4 ',this very excellent volume4444 ,we strongly recommend this book to the clergy for their own use and for lending to thoughtful and painstaking readers4'--,church ,union ,gazette1 ,january1 #aija4 ',it is one of the best books of its class1 readable1 candid1 convincing1 and thorough4 ,it would be cheering news to hear that it had been widely read4 ,the book will continue to make its way2 and all ,christians will rejoice that it should do so4'--,church ,intelligencer1 ,october1 #aije4 ',we give a hearty welcome to this revised edition4 ,it is admirably suited for general use4'--,churchman1 ,february1 #aiji4 ',this is a textbook on ,christian ,evidence we would readily place in the hands of the lay worker as an essential part of his equipment4'--,lay ,reader1 ,december1 #aiab4 ',there is no padding1 and no unnecessary rhetoric4 ,all the available space is filled with good solid reasoning1 put in simple language which an intelligent artisan can follow as easily as an educated person4'--,church ,family ,newspaper1 ,october #c1 #aijb4 ',throughout the book the reader will be delighted with the sanity and level-headedness of the writer1 whose frequent appeals to common sense are remarkably telling and effective4'--,birmingham ,diocesan ,magazine1 ,october1 #aijg4 ',the brilliancy of the author does not consist in his rhetoric or appeal1 but in the really brilliant fairness which he displays towards the other side1 in the accuracy with which he analyses each situation1 and in the clear and simple arguments which he adduces4'--,church ,standard1 ,january1 #aijf4 ',personally1 we have never met with any book which can be more confidently recommended4'--,church ,army ,review1 ,december1 #aiab4 ',this is the kind of book which strengthens believers and makes converts4 ,it is one which should be placed within the reach of every lad at that period of his life when he begins to think for himself4'--,the 7,church ,lads'7 ,brigade1 ,october1 #aije4 ,roman ,catholic4 ',we most heartily wish that a copy of it could be found in the library of every ,catholic family1 school1 and institution4'--,catholic ,times1 ,january1 #aiji 7sixth notice74 ',this excellent book1 444 well written1 attractive in its style1 clearly thought out1 and convincing4'--,tablet1 ,august #bi1 #aijc4 ',this is a work of uncommon merit4444 ,the style is clear and makes for pleasant reading4 ,we wish many of our ,catholic young men would try and analyse a chapter in ,,colonel ,,turton',s helpful defence of ,christianity4'--,universe1 ,july #ba1 #aije4 ',having read and thoroughly approved every page of the book1 we can well believe that many clergy and teachers are finding it a useful compendium of replies to all the chief arguments advanced against ,christianity4 ,though written by a non-,catholic1 we can most strongly recommend it as a book of the highest merit4'--,catholic ,herald1 ,february #ai1 #aiji4 ',a capital book already much used by priests in this country1 and to be found upon the shelves of very many of our clerical libraries4 ,but we wish that the ,catholic paterfamilias would procure it too1 and recommend it to his boys 444 ,there is a masculine ring about it1 and no shuffling over difficulties4'--,catholic ,fireside1 ,march #bc1 #aijg4 ,presbyterian4 ',one does not know what to admire most in the book--the accurate knowledge gathered from so many fields1 the clear reasoning1 the sound judgment1 or the fine spirit which animates the whole4'--,christian ,leader1 ,june #ae1 #aije4 ',admirably arranged and clearly expressed4'--,weekly ,leader1 ,october #f1 #aijb4 ',one of the best books of its kind4'--,st4 ,andrew1 ,june #a1 #aije4 ',this is an admirable summary4 ,it is clear1 simple1 and well arranged 444 ,the style also makes it extremely readable4'--,presbyterian1 ,march1 #aijf4 ,nonconformist4 ',he is eminently fair to opponents1 clear in statement1 and convincing in argument for his own case1 and his standpoint1 is unmistakably evangelical4 ,his style suits his work1 being calm1 lucid1 and simple4'--,methodist ,times1 ,august #bb1 #aija4 ',is a tried favourite1 and has served the ,kingdom in many lands4 ,there is no book of the class known to us so complete and conclusive4'--,methodist ,recorder1 ,february #bh1 #aijg4 ',it deserves all the good that has been said of it4'--,united ,methodist1 ,november #ai1 #aijh4 ',one characteristic may be singled out for notice--the writer's extraordinary alertness in the use of the most recent material4 ,he seems to be continually on the watch for discoveries and suggestions1 and to be able to utilise them promptly and skilfully4'--,baptist1 ,january #ba1 #aiji4 ',on the whole1 it is the best popular summary that we have met4 ,it excels in definiteness of purpose1 in clearness of statement1 in moderation1 and in conciseness4'--,baptist ,times1 ,october #bd1 #aijb4 ',the book is one that every young man would do well to read4 ,its absolute fairness1 convincing logic1 and withal extreme simplicity are such as cannot fail to establish the faith of multitudes4' ,y4,m4,c4,a4 ,review1 ,december1 #aiab4 ',the author's line of argument is irresistible in its rugged force4 444 ,a fascinating book4'--,social ,gazette 7,salvation ,army71 ,april #bg1 #aijg4 ,agnostic4 ',again1 as in #aijb1 we commend ,,lieutenant-,,colonel ,,turton',s book as a handy epitome of nearly all conceivable arguments in support of ,christianity4 ,the twenty-four chapters champion twenty-four propositions1 and the whole thing is worked out as systematically as a problem in a successful student's honours paper4 444,however1 it is of no avail to argue such points with our well-meaning and unimaginative ,lieutenant-,colonel2 and we will merely remark that he is quite a gentleman1 and uses no disdainful language towards the poor ,agnostic4'--,literary ,guide and ,rationalistic ,review1 ,march1 #aijg4 ',this remarkable volume contains over #ejj pages1 with scarcely a dull one among them4 ,the author's easy flow of unlaboured thought1 his facility of expression1 and his fine gift of exposition1 carry the reader on in spite of himself4444 ,differ as we may from much that is in the gallant ,colonel's volume1 we gladly pay him the respect due to frankness1 cleverness1 and transparency of mind and motive1 and thank him for putting his own side of a great subject so simply and interestingly1 and without prejudice or bitterness4'--,new ,age1 ,august #c1 #aije4 ,,the ,,truth ,,of ,,christianity ,,the ,,truth ,,of ,,christianity ,,being ,,an ,examination of the ,more ,important ,arguments ,for and ,against ,believing in that ,religion ,,compiled ,,from ,,various ,,sources ,,by ,,lt4-,,col4 ,w4 ,h4 ,,turton1 ,d4,s4,o4 ,,late ,,royal ,,engineers ,,ninth ,,edition ,,fortieth ,,thousand 7,carefully revised throughout7 ,,london ,,wells ,,gardner1 ,,darton ,,co41 ,,ltd4 #c ,,and #d1 ,,paternoster ,,buildings1 ,e4,c4 ,,and #dd1 ,,victoria ,,street1 ,s4,w4 #aiai ,first ,edition published ,oct41 #ahie4 #a1jjj copies4 ,cheap ,oct41 #ahig4 ,third carefully revised ,sept41 #aijj4 #a1jjj ,fourth ,mar41 #aijb4 #b1jjj ,fifth ,mar41 #aije4 #c1jjj ,sixth ,jan41 #aijg4 #e1jjj ,seventh ,nov41 #aijh4 #h1jjj ,eighth ,nov41 #aiab4 #aj1jjj ,ninth ,oct41 #aiai4 #aj1jjj ,,translations3 ,japanese ,edition published ,dec41 #aiaj4 #ejj copies4 ,italian ,oct41 #aiae4 #a1jjj ,chinese shortened ,june1 #aiai4 #a1jjj ,arabic ,oct41 #aiai4 #a1jjj ,,preface ,,to ,,ninth ,,edition4 ,i have again carefully revised the whole book4 ,some additions have been made here and there1 especially in ,chapter ,,xix42 but as a rule the alterations have been merely to shorten and condense the arguments where this could be done without spoiling them1 and to simplify the language as much as possible4 ,the book is thus shorter1 and ,i hope simpler than any previous edition4 ,another slight improvement1 which will commend itself to most purchasers1 is reducing the price to #bs4 net4 ,the work1 as before stated1 lays no claim to originality1 and ,i have not hesitated to borrow arguments and illustrations from any source4 ,the references to the ,bible are all to the ,revised ,version4 ,w4 ,h4 ,t4 #bi1 ,,caledonia ,,place1 ,,clifton1 ,,bristol1 ,october #a1 #aiai4 ,,contents ,,part ,i4 ,,natural ,,religion4 ,,chapter ,,page ,i4 ,,that ,,the ,,universe ,,had ,a ,,creator #c ,,ii4 ,,that ,,the ,,creator ,,designed ,,the ,,universe #aj ,,iii4 ,,that ,,the ,,existence ,,of ,,god ,,is ,,extremely ,,probable #cj ,,iv4 ,,that ,,man ,,is ,a ,,free ,,and ,,responsible ,,being #ch ,v4 ,,that ,,god ,,takes ,,an ,,interest ,,in ,,man',s ,,welfare #eg ,,vi4 ,,that ,,god ,,might ,,make ,,some ,,revelation ,,to ,,man #hb ,,vii4 ,,that ,a ,,miraculous ,,revelation ,,is ,,credible #ih ,,part ,,ii4 ,,the ,,jewish ,,religion4 ,,viii4 ,,that ,,the ,,account ,,of ,,the ,,creation ,,was ,,divinely ,,revealed #aag ,,ix4 ,,that ,,its ,,origin ,,was ,,confirmed ,,by ,,miracles #acg ,x4 ,,that ,,its ,,history ,,was ,,confirmed ,,by ,,miracles #afg ,,xi4 ,,that ,,its ,,history ,,was ,,confirmed ,,by ,,prophecies #ahf ,,xii4 ,,that ,,the ,,jewish ,,religion ,,is ,,probably ,,true #bja ,,part ,,iii4 ,,the ,,christian ,,religion4 ,,xiii4 ,,that ,,the ,,christian ,,religion ,,is ,,credible #bba ,,xiv4 ,,that ,,the ,,four ,,gospels ,,are ,,genuine ,,from ,,external ,,testimony #beb ,,xv4 ,,that ,,the ,,gospels ,,are ,,genuine ,,from ,,internal ,,evidence #bfe ,,xvi4 ,,that ,,the ,,gospels ,,are ,,genuine ,,from ,,the ,,evidence ,,of ,,the ,,acts #bhg ,,xvii4 ,,that ,,the ,,resurrection ,,of ,,christ ,,is ,,probably ,,true #cja ,,xviii4 ,,that ,,the ,,failure ,,of ,,other ,,explanations ,,increases ,,this ,,probability #cbd ,,xix4 ,,that ,,the ,,other ,,new ,,testament ,,miracles ,,are ,,probably ,,true #cdi ,,xx4 ,,that ,,the ,,jewish ,,prophecies ,,confirm ,,the ,,truth ,,of ,,christianity #cgd ,,xxi4 ,,that ,,the ,,character ,,of ,,christ ,,confirms ,,the ,,truth ,,of ,,christianity #cif ,,xxii4 ,,that ,,the ,,history ,,of ,,christianity ,,confirms ,,its ,,truth #dae ,,xxiii4 ,,that ,,on ,,the ,,whole ,,the ,,other ,,evidence ,,supports ,,this ,,conclusion #dcf ,,xxiv4 ,,that ,,the ,,three ,,creeds ,,are ,,deducible ,,from ,,the ,,new ,,testament #deh ,,xxv4 ,,that ,,the ,,truth ,,of ,,the ,,christian ,,religion ,,is ,,extremely ,,probable #dhc ,,index ,,of ,,texts #die ,,index ,,of ,,subjects #ejb ,,part ,i4 ,,natural ,,religion4 ,,chap4 ,i4 ,,that ,,the ,,universe ,,had ,a ,,creator4 ,,ii4 ,,that ,,the ,,creator ,,designed ,,the ,,universe4 ,,iii4 ,,that ,,the ,,existence ,,of ,,god ,,is ,,extremely ,,probable4 ,,iv4 ,,that ,,man ,,is ,a ,,free ,,and ,,responsible ,,being4 ,v4 ,,that ,,god ,,takes ,,an ,,interest ,,in ,,man',s ,,welfare4 ,,vi4 ,,that ,,god ,,might ,,make ,,some ,,revelation ,,to ,,man4 ,,vii4 ,,that ,a ,,miraculous ,,revelation ,,is ,,credible4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,,that ,,the ,,universe ,,had ,a ,,creator 7,a47 ,,the ,,origin ,,of ,,the ,,universe4 ,explanation of the universe1 its origin1 a ,free ,force4 7#a47 ,the ,philosophical ,argument4 ,if the universe had not an origin1 all events must have occurred before1 and this seems incredible4 7#b47 ,the ,scientific ,argument4 ,from the process of evolution and the degradation of energy4 7,b47 ,,the ,,creator ,,of ,,the ,,universe4 ,the ,single ,supernatural ,cause1 which originated it4 ,it is proposed in this ,essay to consider the reasons for and against believing in the truth of ,christianity1 meaning by that term1 as will be explained later on 7,chapter ,,xiii471 the doctrines contained in the ,three ,creeds4 ,for convenience the subject has been divided into three ,parts1 ,natural ,religion1 the ,jewish ,religion1 and the ,christian ,religion2 but the second of these may be omitted by anyone not specially interested in that subject4 ,at present we are considering ,natural ,religion only1 which deals with the great questions of the ,existence of ,god1 and the probability1 or otherwise1 of ,his making some ,revelation to man4 ,and we will commence at the very beginning1 though the first chapter will unfortunately have to be rather technical4 7,a47 ,,the ,,origin ,,of ,,the ,,universe4 ,now by the universe is meant the material universe1 which includes everything that exists 7earth1 sun1 stars1 and all they contain71 with the exception of immaterial or spiritual beings1 if there are any such4 ,and by this universe having had an origin is meant that it was at some time acted on by a ,free ,force1 that is to say1 by a force which does not always act the same under the same circumstances1 but which can act or not as it pleases4 ,no doubt such a force would be totally different from all the known forces of nature2 but there is no difficulty in understanding what is meant by the term1 since man himself seems to possess such a force in his own free will4 ,he seems for instance to be able to raise his hand1 or not1 as he likes4 ,we are not1 of course1 assuming that man's will is really free1 but merely that the idea of a free force1 able to act or not as it pleases1 is well known and generally understood4 ,hence the statement that the universe had an origin means that at some time or other it was acted on by such a ,free ,force2 in other words1 it has not existed for ever under the fixed and invariable forces of nature1 and without any external interference4 ,we have now to consider the two arguments in favour of this1 which may be called the ,philosophical and the ,scientific argument4 7#a47 ,the ,philosophical ,argument4 ,by this is meant that1 when we reflect on the subject1 it seems inevitable that if the universe had not an origin1 all present events must have occurred before4 ,the reason for thinking this is1 that if all free force is excluded1 it is plain that matter must be eternal1 since its coming into existence at any time could not have been a necessity1 and must therefore have been due to some free force4 ,it is equally plain that what we call the forces of nature and the properties of matter must also be eternal1 since any alteration in them at any time would also have required a free force4 ,and from this it follows that no new event can happen now4 ,for every event which the forces of nature could possibly bring about of themselves would1 since they have been acting from eternity1 have been brought about long ago4 ,therefore present events are not new1 but must have occurred before4 ,this is no doubt a possible theory4 ,for example1 if we assume that the universe will in process of time work itself back into precisely the same condition in which it was long ago as a nebula or anything else1 when it will begin again precisely the same changes as before2 then1 and only then1 is it possible that it has been going on doing so from all eternity4 ,but this theory1 though possible1 is certainly not credible4 ,for it requires that all events1 past1 present1 and future1 down to the minutest detail1 have occurred1 and will occur1 over and over again4 ,they must1 in fact1 form a recurring series4 ,and when applied to a single example1 say the history of the human race1 this is seen to be quite incredible4 ,we must hence conclude that the universe has not existed for ever under the fixed forces of nature1 and without any external interference2 in other words1 that it had an origin4 ,no doubt there are difficulties in regard to this theory also1 but they are mostly due to our ignorance4 ,we may not know1 for instance1 whether matter itself is eternal4 ,nor may we know why1 if a free force once acted on the universe1 it never apparently does so at present1 and still less can we picture to ourselves what such a force would be like2 though the difficulty here is no greater than that of picturing a force which is not free1 say gravity4 ,but our ignorance about all this is no reason for doubting what we do know4 ,and it appears to the writer that we do know that1 unless present events have occurred before1 which seems incredible1 the universe cannot have existed for ever without some ,free ,force having acted on it at some time4 ,in short1 it seems less difficult to believe that the universe had an origin than to believe that it had not4 7#b47 ,the ,scientific ,argument4 ,and this conclusion is greatly strengthened by two scientific theories now generally accepted--that of the process of evolution and the degradation of energy2 both of which seem to show that the universe had a beginning4 ,the first subject1 that of ,evolution1 will be discussed more fully in the next chapter4 ,all that need be said here is1 that the atoms of the universe1 with their evolving properties1 cannot have existed eternally2 for then the course of evolution would have commenced in the eternal past1 and would therefore have been finished now4 ,but this is certainly not the case1 and evolution is still in progress1 or at all events was so a few thousand years ago2 and a state of progress cannot be eternal4 ,it thus differs from a mere state of change which as we have seen1 might be eternal1 if the changes were recurring4 ,but a state of progress1 in which the changes are not recurring1 but all tend in one direction1 can never be eternal4 ,it must have had a commencement4 ,and this commencement cannot have been a necessity1 so it must have been due to some ,free ,force4 ,in short1 evolution requires a previous ,evolver2 since it cannot have been going on for ever1 and it cannot have started itself4 ,the other theory1 that of the ,degradation of ,energy1 is that all energy 7motion1 etc47 tends to heat2 the simplest instance being that of two bodies hitting each other when a certain amount of motion is lost1 and a corresponding amount of heat is produced4 ,and heat tends to be equally distributed4 ,the heat1 for instance1 which is now stored up in the sun will in process of time be distributed throughout space1 and the same applies to the whole universe2 so that everything will eventually have the same temperature4 ,and though this may take millions of years1 they are yet nothing to eternity4 ,therefore1 if the universe with all its present forces has existed from eternity1 and without any external interference1 it must have been reduced to this state long ago4 ,so if this theory is correct 7and the only reason for doubting it1 is the curious behaviour of radium71 it seems not only probable1 but certain1 that the universe had an origin4 ,but an objection has now to be considered4 ,it may be said that the above reasoning is merely another form of the old argument1 ',everything must have a cause1 and therefore there must have been a ,first ,cause2' the obvious answer to which is1 that then this ,first ,cause must also have had a cause1 and so on indefinitely4 ,but this is not the case2 for the alleged ,first ,cause is of a different kind from all the others4 ,it is a ,free ,cause1 whereas natural causes are not free1 but are themselves effects of other natural causes2 and these1 again1 of previous ones4 ,what we want is a cause which is not also an effect1 in other words1 a cause which is not moved by anything else1 but is moved by itself1 or ,free4 ,when once we get to such a cause as this1 there is no need for a previous one4 ,this objection1 then1 cannot be maintained1 and we therefore decide that the universe had an origin4 ,and all we know at present about the ,force which originated it1 is that it was a ,free ,force4 ,and the conclusion at which we have arrived may be concisely expressed by saying1 that before all natural causes which acted necessarily1 there was a ,first ,cause which acted voluntarily4 7,b47 ,,the ,,creator ,,of ,,the ,,universe4 ,we have next to consider what else we can ascertain in regard to this ,first ,cause4 ,to begin with it can scarcely be disputed at the present day that it was a ,single ,cause1 as modern science has completely established the unity which pervades the universe4 ,we know for instance that the same materials are used everywhere1 many of the elements which exist on this earth being also found in the sun and stars4 ,then there is the force of gravity1 which is all-embracing1 and applies equally to the most distant stars1 and to the most minute objects on this earth2 and many other examples might be given4 ,but it is scarcely necessary1 as everyone now admits that the universe 7as the word implies7 is one whole1 and this plainly points to a ,single ,first ,cause4 ,nor can it be disputed that this ,first ,cause was ,supernatural1 which merely means that it differs from natural forces in being free2 for this is exactly what we have shown4 ,it was thus no kind of gravitation1 or electricity1 or anything of that sort4 ,all these and all similar forces would always act the same under the same conditions2 while the ,force we are considering was of a different kind4 ,it was a ,free ,force1 a ,force which voluntarily chose to originate the universe at a certain time4 ,and such a ,force must clearly have been ,supernatural4 ,in conclusion we will call this ,single ,supernatural ,cause1 which originated the universe1 its ,creator4 ,and if it be objected that the universe may have had no origin1 owing to some ,free ,force having been always acting on it1 such a ,force must also be ,single and ,supernatural1 and may equally well be called its ,creator4 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,that ,,the ,,creator ,,designed ,,the ,,universe4 ,design means voluntary action1 combined with foreknowledge4 7,a47 ,,evidence ,,of ,,design4 ,seems overwhelming throughout organic nature2 and we are not appealing to it to show the ,creator's existence1 but merely ,his foreknowledge4 7#a47 ,the example of a watch3 its marks of design show that it had a maker who foresaw its use4 7#b47 ,the example of an eye3 this also has marks of design1 and must also have had a ,designer4 7#c47 ,the evidence cumulative4 7,b47 ,,the ,,evolution ,,objection4 7#a47 ,the meaning of ,evolution3 it is a process1 not a cause4 7#b47 ,the effect of ,evolution on the present argument3 it increases the evidence for design4 7,c47 ,,the ,,free ,,will ,,objection4 7#a47 ,its great improbability3 for several reasons4 7#b47 ,free ,will and ,foreknowledge not inconsistent2 so the chief argument in its favour cannot be maintained4 ,conclusion4 ,having decided that the universe had a ,creator1 we have next to examine whether the ,creator designed the universe4 ,now by ,design is meant any voluntary action1 combined with foreknowledge of the results that will follow from such action4 ,so when the ,creator originated the universe1 if ,he foreknew the results of ,his action1 it would be to design those results1 as the word is here used4 ,and these include1 either directly or indirectly1 the whole course of the universe1 everything that exists1 or that ever has existed in the world4 ,by the word foreknew it is not meant that the ,creator necessarily thought of all future events1 however insignificant1 such as the position of the leaves on each tree2 but merely that ,he was able to foresee any of them ,he wished1 and in this sense foreknew them4 ,compare the case of memory2 a man may be able to remember a thousand events in his life2 but they are not all before his mind's eye at the same time1 and the insignificant ones may never be4 ,in the same way the ,creator may have been able to foresee all future events in the world's history without actually thinking about them4 ,at all events1 this is the kind of foresight1 or rather foreknowledge1 which is meant to be included in the term design4 7,a47 ,,evidence ,,of ,,design4 ,passing on now to the evidence of design1 this is of the most varied kind1 especially throughout organic nature1 where we find countless objects1 which seem to point to the foresight of the ,cause which produced them4 ,the evidence is indeed so vast that it is difficult to deal with it satisfactorily4 ,perhaps the best way will be to follow the well-known watch argument of ,paley1 first showing by the example of a watch what it is that constitutes marks of design2 next1 how a single organ1 say the human eye1 possesses these marks2 and then1 the cumulative nature of the evidence4 7#a47 ,the example of a watch4 ,now1 when we examine a watch1 we see that it has marks of design1 because the several parts are put together for a purpose4 ,they are so shaped and arranged as to produce motion1 and this motion is so regulated as to point out the hour of the day4 ,while1 if they had been differently shaped or differently arranged1 either no motion at all would have been produced1 or none which would have answered the same purpose4 ,and from this1 we may infer two things4 ,the first is that the watch had a maker somewhere and at some time2 and the second is that this maker understood its construction1 and designed it for the purpose which it actually serves4 ,these conclusions1 it will be noticed1 would not be altered by the fact that we had never seen a watch made2 never knew a man capable of making one2 and had no idea how the work could be done4 ,all this would only exalt our opinion of the unknown watchmaker's skill1 but would raise no doubt in our minds either as to his existence1 or as to his having made the watch for the purpose of telling the time4 ,nor should we feel that the watch was explained by being told that every part of it worked in strict accordance with natural laws1 and could not possibly move otherwise than it did2 in fact1 that there was no design to account for4 ,we should feel that1 though the action of every part might be in strict accordance with law1 yet the fact that all these parts agreed in this one particular1 that they all helped to enable the watch to tell the time1 did show design somewhere4 ,in other words1 we should feel that the properties of matter could only partly account for the watch1 and that it required a skilful watchmaker as well1 who made use of these properties so as to enable the watch to tell the time4 ,now suppose on further investigation we found that the watch also possessed the unexpected property of producing in the course of its movements another watch very like itself4 ,it might1 for instance1 contain a mould in which the new works were cast1 and some machinery which fitted them together4 ,what effect would this have on our former conclusions8 ,it would plainly increase our admiration for the watch1 and for the skill of its unknown maker4 ,if without this extra property1 the watch required a skilful maker1 still more would it do so with it4 ,and this conclusion would not be altered by the fact that very possibly the watch we were examining was itself produced in this way from some previous one1 and perhaps that from another4 ,we should feel that1 though each watch might be thus produced from a previous one1 it was in no sense designed by it4 ,and hence this would not in any way weaken our conviction as to the existence of a watchmaker somewhere and at some time who designed the whole series4 ,this1 then1 is the watch argument4 ,wherever we find marks of design1 there must be a designer somewhere2 and this conclusion cannot be altered by any other considerations whatever4 ,if1 then1 we find in nature any objects showing marks of design1 the obvious inference is that they also had a designer4 ,and this inference1 it should be noticed1 does not depend on any supposed analogy between the works of man and the works of nature4 ,the example of the watch is merely given as an example1 to show clearly what the design argument is2 but the argument itself would be just as sound if man never had made1 and never could make1 any object showing marks of design4 ,moreover1 to complete the example1 we must assume that the existence of the watchmaker1 and the fact of his having made the watch1 are already admitted for other reasons4 ,and we are only appealing to these marks of design to show that when he made the watch1 he must have known that it would be able to tell the time1 and presumably made it for that purpose4 ,and in this case the inference seems1 if possible1 to be still stronger4 7#b47 ,the example of an eye4 ,we will next consider the human eye as an example of natural organs showing marks of design4 ,it is a well-known instance1 but none the worse on that account4 ,now1 in order to see anything clearly1 it is necessary that an image or picture of it should be formed at the back of the eye1 that is1 on the retina from whence the impression is communicated to the brain4 ,and the eye is an instrument used for producing this picture1 and in some respects very similar to a telescope4 ,and its marks of design are abundant and overwhelming4 ,to begin with1 in both the eye and the telescope the rays of light have to be refracted1 so as to produce a distinct image2 and the lens1 and humours in the eye1 which effect this1 somewhat resemble the lenses of a telescope4 ,while the different humours through which the rays pass1 prevent them from being partly split up into different colours4 ,the same difficulty had of course to be overcome in telescopes1 and this does not seem to have been effected till it occurred to some one to imitate in glasses made from different materials the effect of the different humours in the eye4#a ,footnote #a3 ,encyc4 ,brit41 #ith edit41 vol4 xxiii41 p4 #acg4 ,in the next place1 the eye has to be suited to perceive objects at different distances1 varying from inches to miles4 ,in telescopes this would be done either by putting in another lens1 or by some focussing arrangement4 ,in the eye it is effected by slightly altering the shape of the lens1 making it more or less convex4 ,a landscape of several miles is thus brought within a space of half an inch in diameter1 though the objects it contains1 at least the larger ones1 are all preserved1 and can each be distinguished in its size1 shape1 colour1 and position4 ,yet the same eye that can do this can read a book at the distance of a few inches4 ,again1 the eye has to be adapted to different degrees of light4 ,this is effected by the iris1 which is a kind of screen in the shape of a ring1 capable of expanding or contracting so as to alter the size of the central hole or pupil1 yet always retaining its circular form4 ,moreover1 it is somehow or other self-adjusting2 for if the light is too strong1 the pupil at once contracts4 ,it is needless to point out how useful such a contrivance would be in photography1 and how much we should admire the skill of its inventor4 ,again1 the eye can perceive objects in different directions2 for it is so constructed that it can turn with the greatest rapidity right or left1 up or down1 without moving the head4 ,it is also provided in duplicate1 the two eyes being so arranged that though each can see separately should the other get injured1 they can1 as a rule1 see together with perfect harmony4 ,lastly1 our admiration for the eye is still further increased when we remember that it was formed before birth4 ,it was what is called a prospective organ1 of no use at the time when it was made2 and this1 when carefully considered1 shows design more plainly than anything else4 ,on the whole1 then1 the eye appears to be an optical instrument of great ingenuity2 and the conclusion that it must have been made by someone1 and that whoever made it must have known and designed its use1 seems inevitable4 ,these conclusions1 it will be noticed1 like the similar ones in regard to the watch1 are not affected by our ignorance on many points4 ,we may have no idea as to how an eye can be made1 and yet feel certain that1 as it exists1 it must have been made by someone1 and that its maker designed it for the purpose it serves4 ,nor should we feel that the eye is explained by being told that every part of it has been produced in strict accordance with natural laws1 and could not have been otherwise2 in fact1 that there is no design to account for4 ,no doubt every single part has been thus produced1 and if it stood alone there might be little to account for4 ,but it does not stand alone4 ,all the various and complicated parts of the eye agree in this one remarkable point1 and in this one only1 that they all help to enable man to see2 and it is this that requires explanation4 ,we feel that there must be some connection between the cause which brought all these parts together and the fact of man's seeing4 ,in other words1 the result must have been designed4 ,nor does the fact that every organism in nature is produced from a previous one of the same kind alter this conclusion4 ,indeed1 as was shown with reference to the watch1 it can only increase our admiration for the skill which must have been spent on the first organism of each kind4 ,moreover1 no part of the design can be attributed to the parents4 ,if1 for instance1 the eyes of a child show design1 it is not due to the intelligence or designing power of its father and mother4 ,they have not calculated the proper shape for the lens1 or the mechanism of the iris1 and as a rule know nothing whatever about it4 ,and the same applies to their parents1 so that our going back ever so far in this way brings us no nearer to what we are in search of4 ,the design is still unaccounted for1 we still want a designer4 ,we hence conclude that the marks of design in the eye afford1 at all events1 what seems to be a very strong argument in favour of a ,designer4 ,and if only one eye existed in the universe1 and there were no other mark of design in nature1 this conclusion would be none the less clear4 7#c47 ,the evidence cumulative4 ,but the argument is far stronger than this4 ,it is cumulative in a triple sense4 ,to begin with1 an eye is found not in one man only1 but in millions of men1 each separately showing marks of design1 and each separately requiring a designer4 ,secondly1 the human eye is only one example out of hundreds in the human body4 ,the ear or the mouth would lead to the same conclusion1 and so would the lungs or the heart4 ,while1 thirdly1 human beings are but one out of many thousands of organisms in nature1 all bearing marks of design1 and showing in some cases an even greater ingenuity than in the human eye4 ,of course1 as a rule1 the lower organisms1 being less complicated than the higher ones1 have less striking marks of design1 but their existence is equally clear2 the flowers of plants affording some well-known examples4 ,nor is this all1 for even the world itself bears traces of having been designed4 ,had it been a mere chaos1 we might have thought that the ,creator was unaware of what would be the result of ,his action4 ,but a planet like our earth1 so admirably adapted for the support of life1 can scarcely have been brought about by accident4 ,we conclude then1 on reviewing the whole subject1 that there are countless objects in nature1 more especially organs like the eye1 which bear strong marks of having been designed4 ,and then the ,unity of ,nature1 and the fact that all its parts act on one another in so many ways 7the eye for instance being useless without light71 shows that if anything has been designed1 everything has been designed4 ,now there are two1 and only two1 important objections to this argument1 which may be called the ,evolution and the ,free ,will objection4 7,b47 ,,the ,,evolution ,,objection4 ,the first objection is that the whole of nature has been brought about in accordance with fixed laws by the process of ,evolution4 ,therefore1 though it is possible the ,creator may have foreseen everything that exists2 yet the apparent marks of design in nature1 being all the necessary results of these laws1 do not afford any evidence that ,he actually did so4 ,and before discussing this objection we must first consider what we mean by laws of nature and natural forces4 ,now by a law of nature is meant any regular1 or uniform action which we observe in nature4 ,for example1 it is called a law1 or rule of nature that 7with certain exceptions7 heat should expand bodies1 which merely means that we see that it does so4 ,in other words1 we observe that heat is followed by expansion1 and we therefore assume that the one is the cause of the other4 ,but calling it a law of nature for heat to expand bodies1 does not in any way account for its doing so4 ,and the same is true in other cases1 so that a law of nature explains nothing1 it is merely a summary of the facts to be explained4 ,it should also be noticed that a law of nature effects nothing4 ,it has no coercive1 or compelling power whatever4 ,the law of gravitation1 for instance1 has never moved a planet1 any more than the rules of navigation have steered a ship4 ,in each case it is some power or force acting according to law which does it4 ,and natural forces are those which1 as far as we know1 always act according to some fixed law4 ,they have no freedom of choice1 they cannot act or not as they like2 they must always and everywhere act the same under the same circumstances4 ,we pass on now to the subject of ,evolution1 first considering its meaning1 and then its effect on the present argument4 7#a47 ,the meaning of ,evolution4 ,now by the term ,evolution is meant to be included the processes of ,organic ,evolution1 ,natural ,selection1 and the ,survival of the ,fittest4 ,the former may be described as meaning that all the different forms of life now existing1 or that ever have existed on this earth1 are the descendants of earlier and less developed forms1 and those again of simpler ones2 and so on1 till we get back to the earliest form of life1 whatever that may have been4 ,and the theories of ,natural ,selection and the ,survival of the ,fittest explain how this may have taken place4 ,for among the slight modifications that would most likely occur in every organism1 those1 and only those1 would be perpetuated which were of advantage to it in the struggle for existence4 ,and they would in time1 it is assumed1 become hereditary in its descendants1 and thus higher forms of life would be gradually produced4 ,and the value of these theories is that they show how ,organic ,evolution may have taken place without involving any sudden change1 such as a monkey giving birth to a man4 ,we must remember1 however1 that the subject is far from settled2 and even now naturalists are beginning to doubt whether all the modifications were in reality very slight4 ,but still1 speaking broadly1 this is the theory we have to discuss4 ,it will1 of course1 be noticed that ,evolution is thus a process1 and not a cause4 ,it is the method in which certain changes have been brought about1 and not the cause which brings them about4 ,every slight modification must have been caused somehow4 ,when such modifications were caused1 then ,natural ,selection can explain how the useful ones alone were perpetuated1 but it cannot explain how the modifications themselves arose4 ,on the contrary1 it supposes them as already existing1 otherwise there would be nothing to select from4 ,natural ,selection1 then1 rather weeds than plants1 and would be better described as ,natural ,rejection4 ,it merely shows how1 as a rule1 among the various modifications in an organism1 some good and some bad1 the useless ones would disappear1 and the useful ones would remain2 in other words1 how the fittest would survive4 ,but this survival of the fittest does not explain in the slightest degree how the fitness arose4 ,if1 as an extreme example1 out of a hundred animals1 fifty had eyes and fifty had not1 it is easy to understand how those that had eyes would be more likely to have descendants2 but this does not explain how they first got eyes4 ,and the same applies in other cases4 ,how1 then1 did the variations in each organism first arise8 ,in common language they may be ascribed to chance2 but1 strictly speaking1 such a thing is impossible4 ,the word chance is merely a convenient term for the results of certain forces of nature when we are unable to calculate them4 ,chance1 then1 must be excluded2 and there seem to be only two alternatives4 ,either the organisms in nature possessed free will1 and acted as they did voluntarily2 or else they did not possess free will1 and acted as they did necessarily4 ,the former theory will be examined later on2 the latter is the one we are now considering4 7#b47 ,the effect of ,evolution4 ,how then would this theory affect our previous conclusion that the ,creator designed all the organs of nature1 such as the eye1 and hence presumably the whole of the universe8 ,as we shall see1 it only confirms it4 ,for to put it plainly1 if all free will on the part of the organisms is excluded1 so that they were all bound to act exactly as they did1 it is clear that the earth and all it contains is like a vast mass of machinery4 ,and however complicated its parts1 and however much they may act on one another1 and however long they may take in doing so1 yet if in the end they produce an organ showing design1 this must have been foreseen and intended by the ,maker of the machinery4 ,in the same way if a mass of machinery after working for a long time eventually turned out a watch1 we should have no hesitation in saying that whoever made the machinery1 and set it going1 intended it to do so4 ,and is the inference less clear1 if it not only turned out a watch1 but a watchmaker as well1 and everything else that exists on this planet8 ,all then that evolution does is this4 ,it shows that the whole of nature forms such a long and continuous process2 that if the end has been foreseen at all1 it must have been foreseen from the beginning4 ,in other words1 just as the ,unity of ,nature shows that if anything has been designed1 everything has been designed2 so ,evolution shows that if it has been designed at all1 it has been designed from the beginning4 ,we must hence conclude that the organs in nature1 such as the eye1 which undoubtedly show design1 were not designed separately or as after-thoughts1 but were all included in one grand design from the beginning4 ,and this can only increase our admiration for the ,designer4 ,thus evolution1 even in its most extreme and automatic form1 cannot get rid of a ,designer4 ,still less can it do so1 if 7as is probable7 it is not automatic at all2 but is due to the continuous action of the ,creator1 who is what is called immanent in nature1 and directs every step4 ,it should be noticed1 moreover1 that in one respect evolution rather increases the evidence of design4 ,for if1 to take a single example1 a human hand has been evolved from a monkey's foot merely by the monkey using it as a hand1 and taking hold of things2 it increases the amount of design which must have been spent on the foot to enable it to do so4 ,and if all the organs in nature have been evolved in this way from simpler ones1 it increases the amount of design which must have been spent on those simpler ones to an extent which is practically infinite4 ,thus ,evolution implies a previous ,involution2 since all forms of life must have been involved in the first form before they could be evolved from it2 so that creation by evolution is more wonderful than creation by direct manufacture4 ,and it seems to many to be a far nobler conception of the ,creator that ,he should obtain all the results ,he desired1 by one grand system of evolution1 rather than by a large number of separate creations4 ,for then the method in which the results were obtained would be as marvellous1 and show as much wisdom and foresight as the results themselves2 and each would be worthy of the other4 ,evolution1 then1 seems to be the highest form of creation2 and so far from destroying the present argument1 it only destroys its difficulties1 by showing that every single part of every single organism may have been designed1 and yet in a manner worthy of the great ,creator4 ,nor is the conclusion altered if we carry back the process of evolution1 and assume that the earliest form of life was itself evolved from some previous form of inanimate matter2 and this again from a simpler one1 and so on till we get back to the original form of matter1 whatever that may have been4 ,for if the results as we now see them show design1 then the argument for a ,designer is not weakened1 but our ideas of ,his skill are still further increased1 if we believe that they were already secured when our earth was merely a nebula4 7,c47 ,the ,free ,will ,objection4 ,we have1 lastly1 to consider the other1 and more important objection1 that arising from ,free ,will4 ,why1 it is urged1 may not all organisms in nature have possessed free will within certain limits1 and have selected those forms which suited them best8 ,for example1 referring to the case of a watch1 if telling the time were of any advantage to the watch itself1 and if the spring1 wheels1 and hands possessed free will2 then it might be thought that they had formed themselves into that arrangement which suited them best4 ,and if so1 the idea that the watchmaker foresaw and intended them to adopt this arrangement seems unnecessary4 ,now1 in the case before us1 as the organs showing design in nature1 such as the eye1 always conduce to the welfare of their possessor1 the objection is certainly worth considering4 ,but as we shall see1 it is most improbable1 while the chief argument in its favour cannot be maintained4 ,it need scarcely be pointed out that we are not assuming that the organisms have free will1 but merely admitting that they may have it2 and if anyone denies this1 the objection1 as far as he is concerned1 falls to the ground at once4 7#a47 ,its great improbability4 ,this is apparent because low down in the scale of nature 7plants1 trees1 etc471 the free will of the organisms1 if they have any1 must be extremely limited2 yet they bear unmistakable marks of design4 ,while1 in higher beings which have 7or may have7 an undoubted free will1 it is hard to believe that it can effect anything like what is required4 ,would1 for instance1 wishing to see or trying to see1 even if blind animals were capable of either1 have ever given them eyes8 ,and the same applies in other cases4 ,it is hence most improbable that the marks of design in nature are due to the organisms themselves1 rather than to their ,creator4 ,but there is one important argument on the other side1 which1 if it could be maintained1 would be sufficient to outweigh all this improbability4 ,it is1 that some beings1 such as man1 do1 as a matter of fact1 possess a free will1 and that man can and does alter his condition1 to a slight extent1 by using that free will4 ,therefore1 it is said1 it is impossible for the ,creator to have foreknown what man's condition would be1 because free will and foreknowledge are necessarily inconsistent4 ,but this latter point is disputed4 7#b47 ,free ,will and ,foreknowledge not inconsistent4 ,now1 although at first sight freedom of action seems inconsistent with any foreknowledge of what that action will be1 yet on closer examination this will be found to be at least doubtful4 ,for our own experience seems to show that in some cases1 at all events1 it is not in the nature of things impossible to know how a free being will act4 ,for example1 ,i myself may know how1 under given external conditions1 ,i will act to-morrow4 ,never being sure of these1 ,i cannot be said to actually foreknow the event2 so that foreknowing with man is never more than foreguessing4 ,but ,i may be quite sure how1 under given conditions1 ,i will act4 ,for instance1 ,i may know that1 provided ,i keep in good health1 provided ,i receive no news from anyone1 provided1 etc1 ,i will go to my office some time to-morrow morning4 ,yet ,i feel equally sure that this foreknowledge of mine does not prevent the act when it comes from being quite free on my part4 ,my knowing this evening what ,i will do to-morrow does not oblige me to do it4 ,my foreknowledge of the event does not bring the event about4 ,it is in no sense its cause4 ,the act when it comes is due to my own free will1 ,i merely foreknow what use ,i will make of my freedom4 ,and these are probably the common feelings of mankind on the subject4 ,it seems1 then1 that my foreknowledge need not be inconsistent with my free will4 ,and hence1 if ,i tell someone else how ,i will act1 his foreknowledge would not be inconsistent with my free will4 ,so that in some cases1 and under given conditions1 it does not seem impossible for a man to foreknow how another man will act1 yet without interfering with his freedom4 ,in short1 free will does not seem to be necessarily inconsistent with the foreknowledge even of man1 though it is always practically so1 owing to man's imperfect knowledge of the surrounding circumstances4 ,but the ,creator knows1 or may know1 these circumstances fully1 therefore it must be still less inconsistent with ,his foreknowledge4 ,of course it may be said that if the ,creator foreknows how ,i will act to-morrow1 ,i am certain to act in that way2 and this is doubtless true4 ,but it does not follow that ,i need act in that way2 for certainty is not the same as necessity4 ,this is obvious enough in regard to a past event4 ,i certainly did it1 but ,i need not have done it2 and it may be equally true in regard to a future event4 ,i will certainly do it1 but ,i need not do it4 ,therefore the ,creator may know that ,i will do it1 though it will still be free on my part4 ,and this is strongly confirmed when we reflect that the difficulty of knowing how a free being will act1 however great in itself1 seems as nothing compared with the difficulty of creating a free being4 ,apart from experience1 we should probably have thought this to be impossible4 ,yet man has been created somehow4 ,is it then unlikely that the ,being who was able to overcome the greater difficulty1 and create a free man1 should also be able to overcome the lesser difficulty1 and foreknow how he would act8 ,moreover1 if free will and foreknowledge are always and necessarily inconsistent1 then the ,creator cannot have any foreknowledge of ,his ,own acts1 or else they are not free on ,his part2 neither of which seems at all probable4 ,we are not1 of course1 arguing from this that ,he actually does foreknow how ,he will act ,himself1 or how a free man will act1 but only that it is not in the nature of things impossible that ,he should do so2 in other words1 that free will and foreknowledge are not necessarily inconsistent4 ,and this is precisely what we had to show4 ,the marks of design in nature afford what seems to be overwhelming evidence in favour of the foreknowledge of the ,creator4 ,the objection we are considering is that1 in spite of all this evidence1 we must still deny it1 because some of the organisms in nature1 such as man1 possess a free will2 and therefore any foreknowledge is in the nature of things impossible4 ,and the instant it is shown that such foreknowledge is not impossible1 the objection falls to the ground4 ,we may now sum up the argument in this chapter4 ,we first explained that by ,design was meant any voluntary action combined with foreknowledge of the results of that action4 ,we next considered the evidence for design in nature1 taking1 as a single example1 the human eye4 ,and this evidence appeared complete and overwhelming2 more especially as we were not appealing to it to show the existence of a ,creator1 which is already admitted1 but merely ,his foreknowledge4 ,and we have since considered the two apparent objections to this argument arising from ,evolution and ,free ,will4 ,but when carefully examined1 the former only strengthens the argument1 while the latter does not weaken it4 ,we therefore conclude1 on reviewing the whole subject1 that the ,creator designed the universe4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,that ,,the ,,existence ,,of ,,god ,,is ,,extremely ,,probable4 7,a47 ,,meaning ,,of ,,the ,,term ,,god4 ,the ,personal ,being who designed and created the universe4 7,b47 ,,two ,,of ,,god',s ,,attributes4 ,wisdom and ,power4 ,he is also ,omnipresent4 7,c47 ,,the ,,objection ,,that ,,god ,,is ,,unknowable4 ,this is partly true2 but everything is unknowable in its real nature1 though in each case the partial knowledge we can obtain is all we require4 7,d47 ,,summary ,,of ,,argument4 ,the position in the argument at which we have now arrived is this4 ,we showed in the last chapter that the ,creator designed the universe2 in other words1 that when he created it1 ,he foreknew its future history4 ,and from this the next step1 as to the existence of ,god1 is quite plain2 in fact1 it is merely a question of words4 7,a47 ,,meaning ,,of ,,the ,,term ,,god4 ,now any being who is able to design we will call a personal being4 ,and ,,god is the name given to the ,personal ,being who designed and created the universe4 ,but it ought to be noticed1 before we pass on1 that the term personal being is also applied to man1 and is said by many writers to involve the three ideas of thought1 desire1 and will4 ,but these seem to be all included in design2 for if ,i design anything1 ,i must first of all think of it1 then wish it1 and then accomplish it4 ,we will examine in the next chapter whether man is a personal being as we have used the term2 but if we admit that he is1 we have another and independent argument in favour of the ,creator being so too4 ,for the ,creator has somehow or other produced man1 with all his attributes2 so ,he cannot be a mere impersonal ,being or ,force1 since a cause must be able to account for its effect4 ,and a free and intelligent man cannot be due to a ,force1 which is neither free nor intelligent4 ,therefore1 if man is a personal being1 it follows that man's ,maker must be so too4 ,it should also be noticed that man's mind and spirit1 which make him a personal being1 cannot be discovered by any physical means4 ,and this meets the objection that we cannot discover ,god by any physical means4 ,it would be much more surprising if we could4 ,but though the telescope can find no ,god in the heavens1 just as the microscope can find no mind in man1 the existence of each may be quite certain for other reasons4 ,in popular language1 all we can see is the house1 not the tenant1 in either case4 7,b74 ,,two ,,of ,,god',s ,,attributes4 ,we must next notice somewhat carefully two of ,god's attributes1 ,wisdom and ,power4 ,both of these are involved in the idea of a ,personal ,being able to design4 ,for design1 as used in this ,essay1 means originating or freely doing anything1 as well as previously planning it4 ,therefore1 if we use the word1 as is often done1 for planning alone1 we must remember that a personal being is one who can both design and accomplish4 ,the former implies a mind able to form some plan1 and the latter a free force1 or will1 able to carry it out4 ,so a personal being must of necessity have wisdom to design and power to accomplish4 ,and considering the vastness of the universe and the variety of its organisms1 it seems only reasonable to conclude that the ,creator possesses these attributes to the greatest possible extent1 so that ,he is both ,omniscient and ,omnipotent4 ,it is important1 however1 to notice the meaning given to these words4 ,by ,omniscient1 then1 we mean possessing all possible knowledge4 ,now the only knowledge which might be thought impossible is how a free being would act in the future1 and we have already shown that such knowledge is not in the nature of things impossible2 so there does not seem to be any necessary restriction here4 ,but with ,omnipotent the case is different4 ,this means1 as just said1 possessing all possible power2 that is to say1 being able to do anything which is not impossible4 ,of course some ,christians may be inclined to answer1 that with ,god all things are possible2 but as ,he who said so began one of ,his own prayers with the words if it be possible1 this cannot be taken in its widest sense4#b ,and provided the word impossible is used in its strict meaning1 we have no reason for thinking that ,god could do impossible things2 such as make a triangle with the properties of a circle1 or allow a man a free choice between two alternatives1 and yet force him to choose one of them4 ,these1 then1 are two of the great attributes of ,god1 ,wisdom and ,power4 ,there is a third1 which will be considered in ,chapter ,v4 ,footnote #b3 ,matt4 #ai4 #bf2 #bf4 #ci4 ,it should also be noticed that besides being the ,designer and ,creator of the universe in the past1 ,god seems to be also its ,preserver at the present1 being1 in fact1 the ,omnipresent ,power which is still working throughout nature4 ,that there is such a ,power can scarcely be denied 7however hard it may be to realise71 and that it is the same as the ,creating ,power is plainly the most probable view4 ,god is thus the ,cause of all natural forces now1 just as ,he was their ,creator in times past2 and what are called secondary or natural causes1 have probably no existence4 ,they may1 indeed1 be called secondary forces1 but they are not causes at all in the strict sense2 for a cause must be free1 it must have the power of initiative4 ,thus man's free will1 if it is free1 would be a real secondary cause1 but the forces of nature are mere links in a chain of events1 each of which is bound to follow the previous one4 ,this is often spoken of as the ,divine ,immanence in nature1 and means little else than the ,omnipresence of a ,personal ,god--the all-pervading influence of ,one 'who is never so far off as even to be called near4' 7,c47 ,,the ,,objection ,,that ,,god ,,is ,,unknowable4 ,we must lastly consider an important objection which may be made to the whole of these chapters4 ,it may be said that the human mind is unable to argue about the ,first ,cause1 because we have no faculties for comprehending the ,infinite2 or1 as it is commonly expressed1 because ,god is ,unknowable4 ,now this objection is partly true4 ,there is a sense in which all will admit that ,god is ,unknowable4 ,his existence and attributes are too great for any human mind to comprehend entirely1 or for any human language to express completely and accurately4 ,therefore our statements on the subject are at best only approximations to the truth4 ,we can apprehend ,his existence1 but we cannot comprehend it1 and ,god in ,his true nature is certainly ,unknowable4 ,but1 strictly speaking1 it is the same with everything4 ,man in his true nature is also unknowable1 yet we know something about man4 ,so1 again1 the forces of nature are all unseen and unknowable in themselves1 yet from their effects we know something about them4 ,and even matter when reduced to atoms1 or electrons1 or anything else1 is still a mystery1 yet we know a good deal about matter4 ,and in each case this knowledge is not incorrect because it is incomplete4 ,why1 then1 should the fact of ,god being in ,his true nature unknowable prevent our having some real1 though partial1 knowledge of ,him8 ,in short1 we may know something about ,god1 though we cannot know everything about ,him4 ,and it should be noticed that ,natural ,religion and ,natural ,science are alike in this respect--they are both founded on inferences drawn from the observed facts of nature4 ,for example1 we observe the motion of falling bodies1 and infer the existence of some force1 gravity1 to account for this4 ,similarly1 we observe the marks of design in nature1 and infer the existence1 or at least foresight1 of some ,being who designed them4 ,in neither case have we any direct knowledge as to the cause of what we see4 ,and in some respects ,religion is not so unknowable as ,science4 ,for our own1 real or apparent1 mind and free will do give us some kind of idea as to the existence of a personal being1 apart from what he does2 while of a natural force1 such as gravity1 apart from its effects1 we can form no idea whatever4 ,thus our knowledge of every subject is but partial1 and it finally leads us into the ,unknowable4 ,but now comes the important point4 ,this partial knowledge1 which is all we can obtain in either ,science or ,religion1 is all we require4 ,it is not a perfect knowledge1 but it is sufficient for all practical purposes4 ,whatever the force of gravity may be in itself1 we know what it is to us4 ,we know that if we jump off a cliff we shall fall to the ground4 ,and so in regard to ,religion4 ,whatever ,god may be in ,himself1 we know what ,he is to us4 ,we know that ,he is our ,maker1 and therefore1 as will be shown in the next chapter1 ,he is the ,being to whom we are responsible4 ,this is the practical knowledge which we require1 and this is the knowledge which we can obtain4 ,moreover1 though our reason may be to some extent unfit to judge of such matters1 the vast importance of the subject seems to demand our coming to some conclusion one way or the other4 ,this is especially the case because important results affecting a man's daily life follow from his deciding that there is a ,god1 and to leave the question undecided is practically the same as deciding that there is not a ,god4 ,in the same way1 if a ship were in danger of sinking1 and a steamer also in distress offered to take off the passengers1 for one of them to say that he did not know whether it was safer to go in the steamer or not1 and would therefore do nothing and stay where he was1 would be practically the same as deciding not to go in the steamer4 ,so in the case before us4 ,to refuse to decide the question because of the supposed inadequacy of human reason is practically the same as to deny the existence of ,god4 ,still1 it may be urged1 granting that our reason must decide the question one way or the other1 and granting that our reason seems to force us to conclude in the existence of ,god1 are there not great difficulties in honestly believing this conclusion8 ,no doubt there are1 and no thoughtful man would think of ignoring them4 ,but after all it is only a choice of difficulties2 and1 as we have shown1 there is less difficulty in believing what we have here maintained than the contrary4 ,it is less difficult1 for instance1 to believe that the universe had an origin1 than to believe that it had not4 ,similarly as to the existence of ,god2 the theory is not free from difficulties1 but1 with all its difficulties1 it is still by far the most probable theory to explain the origin and present state of the universe4 ,we therefore decide1 judging by reason alone 7which is the line adopted in this ,essay71 that the existence of ,god is extremely probable4 7,d47 ,,summary ,,of ,,argument4 ,in conclusion1 we will repeat very briefly1 the main line of argument thus far4 ,to begin with1 in the present universe we observe a succession of changes4 ,if these changes are not recurring1 which seems incredible1 they must have had a commencement2 and this is supported by the theories of ,evolution and the ,degradation of ,energy4 ,therefore1 as this commencement cannot have been a necessity1 it must have been due to some ,free ,force4 ,and a ,free ,force must be a ,supernatural ,force1 since natural forces are not free1 but always act according to some fixed law1 while the unity of nature points to its being a ,single ,supernatural ,force1 which we called the ,creator4 ,next1 it follows that the ,creator must have foreknown the consequences of ,his acts1 judging by the marks of design which they present4 ,and this conclusion was shown to be not inconsistent with either the process of evolution1 or the existence of free will in man or other beings4 ,hence ,he must have been a ,personal ,being1 possessing both ,wisdom to design1 and ,power to accomplish4 ,or the whole argument may be repeated in an even shorter form4 ,the universe 7in its present condition7 has not existed always1 it is therefore an effect1--something that has been effected1 or brought about somehow2 and therefore like every effect1 it must have had a ,cause4 ,then since the effect shows a certain unity throughout1 the ,cause must have been ,one4 ,since the effect shows in some parts evidence of having been planned and arranged1 the capacity for planning and arranging must have existed in the ,cause4 ,in other words1 a universe showing marks of design is the effect1 and nothing less than a ,personal ,being who designed it can be the ,cause4 ,and ,,god is the name given to this ,personal ,being4 ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,that ,,man ,,is ,a ,,free ,,and ,,responsible ,,being4 7,a47 ,,man',s ,,mental ,,attributes4 ,man possesses a mind as well as a body2 the opposite theory1 materialism1 has great difficulties4 7,b47 ,,man',s ,,moral ,,attributes4 7#a47 ,man possesses a will4 7#b47 ,man's acts are partly determined by his will4 7#c47 ,man's will is free4 7#d47 ,man knows that his will is free2 and this enables him to design1 and makes him a personal being4 7#e47 ,man's responsibility for his acts4 7#f47 ,man's moral sense of right and wrong2 which enables him to distinguish the quality of acts1 and makes him a moral being4 7#g47 ,man's conscience1 by which he can judge of this quality in some cases4 7,c47 ,,difference ,,between ,,animals ,,and ,,men4 ,there is a great mental difference1 though probably only of degree2 and entire moral difference1 since animals1 even if free1 do not possess a known freedom1 and are hence not personal beings4 7,d47 ,,conclusion4 ,man consists of three parts1 body1 mind1 and spirit3 his unique position4 ,having decided on the ,existence of ,god1 which is the great truth of ,natural ,religion1 the question now arises whether1 if nature can lead us so far1 there is no means of getting further4 ,no one will deny that further knowledge is desirable1 both as to ,god1 ourselves1 and our future destiny1 and is there no means of obtaining it8 ,and this brings us to the subject of ,revealed ,religion1 that is to say1 of ,god's making some ,revelation to man4 ,and the probability of this will depend partly on the character of man--is he a being at all worthy of a revelation2 and partly on the ,character of ,god--is ,he a ,being at all likely to make one8 ,the former question alone will be discussed in this chapter1 and we will consider man's mental and moral attributes separately4 ,nothing need be said about his bodily or physical characteristics1 as they have no bearing on the present argument4 7,a47 ,,man',s ,,mental ,,attributes4 ,by these are meant man's thoughts and feelings1 and that they are different from the matter composing his body seems self-evident4 ,matter possesses size1 weight1 colour1 shape1 and hardness4 ,mind does not possess any of these4 ,they have no conceivable meaning when applied to thoughts and feelings4 ,yet both mind and matter exist in man4 ,we each feel conscious that we have something which thinks1 and which we call mind2 as well as something which moves1 and which we call matter 7i4e41 our bodies72 and that these are absolutely distinct from one another4 ,and from the nature of the case this inherent conviction is all we can appeal to4 ,for mind1 if it exists at all1 being different from matter1 is beyond the reach of ordinary scientific discovery4 ,we cannot however be more certain of anything than of these inherent convictions1 which form the basis of all our knowledge4 ,even the propositions of ,euclid are only deductions from some other of our convictions1 such as that the whole is greater than its part4 ,still the difficulty of understanding this compound nature in man1 part mind and part body1 has led some persons to adopt the theory of materialism4 ,according to this there is no such thing as mind2 what we call thoughts and feelings being merely complicated motions of the molecules of the brain4 ,now1 that the mind and brain are closely associated together none will deny1 but it does not follow that they are identical4 ,the brain may be merely the instrument of the mind through which it acts4 ,and though1 as far as we know1 the mind can never act without the brain1 it may certainly have a separate existence1 and possibly1 under different conditions1 may be able to act separately4 ,it is in fact no more difficult to conceive of thought without a brain1 than to conceive of thought with a brain4 ,all we can say is1 that within the range of our experience the two seem to be somehow connected together4 ,recent investigations1 however1 in what is called telepathy 7or thought-transference7 seem to show that in some cases one mind can influence another at a distance1 and without any material connection4 ,and this 7if admitted7 proves that the mind is something more than a mere collection of particles of matter4 ,moreover materialism1 to be consistent1 must deny not only that man has a mind1 but that he has anything immaterial at all2 he must be matter in motion1 and nothing else4 ,but this is disproved by our memory1 which convinces us that we are the same persons now as we were ten years ago2 yet we know that every particle of our bodies1 including our brains1 has changed in the interval4 ,we must then have something immaterial which survives1 in spite of everything material changing4 ,the case1 it should be noticed1 is not like that of a tree1 which may be popularly said to be the same now as it was ten years ago1 though every particle of it has changed in the interval4 ,for as far as we know1 the tree has nothing which connects its present state with its former state1 it has no memory of what happened to it then4 ,we have1 that is just the difference4 ,we can remember now what happened to us ten years ago1 though our bodies now do not contain a single atom or molecule which they did then4 ,we must1 therefore1 have something else besides atoms and molecules1 in other words1 something immaterial2 and if so1 there is an end of materialism in its only logical form4 ,this theory then cannot possibly be accepted1 and we must abide by our inherent conviction that we have a mind as well as a body4 ,this is an ultimate fact in human nature2 and we are as certain of it as we are of anything1 though like some other ultimate facts it has to be assumed1 because it can be neither proved nor doubted4 7,b47 ,,man',s ,,moral ,,attributes4 ,we pass on now to man's moral attributes1 which we will consider in detail4 7#a47 ,man possesses a will4 ,in the first place man possesses what1 in common language1 is called a will4 ,strictly speaking1 of course1 the will is not anything independent of the man1 which he possesses1 as he might possess a dog2 it is the man himself who wills1 or who possesses the power of willing4 ,but the common language is so generally understood1 that it will be used here4 ,now the chief reason for believing that man has a will is his own inherent conviction4 ,he feels certain that he does possess a will which is distinct from his body and his mind1 though closely associated with both1 and apparently to some extent controlling both4 ,for example1 ,i may resolve to raise my hand1 and then do it2 or ,i may resolve to think out a problem1 and then do it4 ,in each case the will is felt to be something distinct from the subsequent bodily or mental action4 7#b47 ,man's acts are partly determined by his will4 ,in the next place1 a man's acts 7and also his thoughts7 are partly determined by his will4 ,by this is meant that a man's will is able to move his limbs1 so that1 for instance1 he can raise his hand when he wishes1 and this gives him the power of determining his acts4 ,it is not meant that a man's will can move his limbs directly2 his limbs are moved by his muscles1 which are directed by his nerves1 and these by certain motions in the brain4 ,all that the will can do is to give a particular direction to these motions1 which1 combined with various other forces1 brings about the observed result4 ,now we have in favour of this action of the human will on the human body the universal experience of mankind1 which is that a man can somehow or other move his limbs at pleasure4 ,indeed1 the question whether a man can walk across the room when he wishes1 seems to most people to admit of a convincing answer3 solvitur ambulando4 ,but still1 the action of will on matter seems so improbable1 and so difficult to understand1 that attempts have naturally been made to find some other explanation4 ,but no satisfactory one can be suggested4 ,for my wishing to move my body1 is followed by my moving it so frequently and so universally1 that there must be some connection between them4 ,and though we cannot imagine how a mere wish can move particles of matter 7in the brain or anywhere else71 it is just as hard to imagine how the movement of particles of matter can produce a wish4 ,the latter theory is no easier to understand than the other2 and1 as just said1 it is opposed to the daily experience of mankind1 which is that a man's will can1 somehow or other1 move his limbs1 and hence determine his acts4 7#c47 ,man's will is free4 ,it must next be noticed that man's will is a free will1 and this is a most important point4 ,it is quite distinct from the previous question4 ,then we decided that a man's raising his hand1 for instance1 was the result of his wishing to do so4 ,we have now to consider whether this wish was free on the man's part1 or whether he could not help it2 the latter view being called that of ,necessity1 or ,determinism1 and meaning that a man's acts are necessarily determined1 and not free4 ,of course everyone admits that there are limits to human freedom4 ,a man cannot always raise his hand when he likes1 it may be paralyzed4 ,the important point is whether he is ever free2 and there are two main arguments on each side4 ,now the great argument in favour of free will is1 again1 our own inherent conviction4 ,it is one of the most universal1 and one of the most certain1 beliefs of mankind that he has free will4 ,this belief is forced upon him by his own daily experience4 ,he feels1 for instance1 that he is free to raise his hand or not4 ,and what is more1 he can verify the fact by actually raising it1 whenever he likes2 so it is literally true to say that the conviction rests on the daily experience of the human race4 ,and to many1 this argument alone seems conclusive4 ,but1 as a matter of fact1 it is fully confirmed by human conduct4 ,for a man's conduct is variable and quite unlike the uniformity which we find in chemistry and physics1 where there is no free force1 and everything is brought about in accordance with fixed laws4 ,so we seem to require some free force in man to account for his variable conduct4 ,these1 then1 are the two arguments in favour of free will--man's inherent conviction1 confirmed by his variable conduct2 and no more powerful arguments can be imagined4 ,on the other hand1 the chief argument against human freedom is that it would be an anomaly in nature2 since natural forces always act in the same way1 and any free force1 able to act or not as it likes1 is quite unknown4 ,if1 then1 man possesses such a force1 no matter how limited it may be1 he is partly1 at least1 a supernatural being1 not bound by fixed laws4 ,now all this may be admitted1 but what then8 ,why should not man be a partly supernatural being8 ,god1 ,who has made man1 is ,supernatural2 ,he possesses free will1 and ,he might1 if ,he thought fit1 bestow some of this attribute on man1 allowing him1 that is to say1 within certain limits1 to act in one way or another4 ,no doubt1 to persons who study physical science alone1 the existence of any free force in man seems most improbable4 ,but1 on the other hand1 to those who study the actions of men1 such as barristers1 soldiers1 or politicians1 the idea that man is a mere machine seems equally improbable4 ,and does not the same principle apply in other cases8 ,suppose1 for instance1 that a man were to study inorganic chemistry alone1 living on an island where vegetation was unknown1 would not a tree be a complete anomaly to him8 ,yet trees exist and have to be allowed for4 ,in the same way man's free will may be an anomaly1 but the evidence for it is overwhelming4 ,moreover1 the anomaly is greatly lessened by the fact that man already occupies a very anomalous position4 ,for as we have seen1 his acts are often determined by his will1 and this is utterly unlike anything that we find elsewhere in nature4 ,indeed the action of a will is as great an anomaly as its freedom2 and with the possible exception of animals 7see further on7 we have no experience whatever of a will that can act and is not free4 ,therefore claiming freedom for a man1 is not like claiming freedom for a mineral1 or a plant4 ,he is anyhow a unique being1 by far the highest and most important on this planet2 and that he should be partly supernatural as well does not seem so very unlikely after all4 ,we must also remember that we know more about ourselves where we are conscious of freedom1 than we do about the surrounding universe1 where we infer a rigid uniformity4 ,indeed1 our own free will is the only force of which we have any direct knowledge1 and the so-called forces of nature1 such as gravity1 are1 strictly speaking1 only assumptions which we make to account for observed facts4 ,and1 as we have shown1 even these forces seem to have originated in the ,free ,will of the ,creator2 so as far as we can judge1 free will1 of some kind is the ultimate cause of all force4 ,the other important argument against free will is that it would be inconsistent with what is called the ,conservation of ,energy1 since it is said any voluntary act would involve the creation of energy4 ,but this is at least doubtful2 for the will might be free as to its acts1 were it only able to control energy without producing it4 ,and it could do this if it possessed the power of altering either the time1 or the direction of force2 deciding1 for instance1 whether to raise my hand now1 or a minute hence1 or whether to raise my right hand or my left4 ,and if it possessed either of these powers1 it could turn the latent force1 which a man possesses1 into actual motion when and how it pleased4 ,and it would thus be free as to its acts1 without creating any energy at all4 ,we therefore decide on reviewing the whole subject1 that man's will is free2 since this alone agrees with his own inherent conviction1 and fully accounts for his variable conduct4 ,while1 on the other hand1 though an anomaly in nature1 it is not on that account incredible2 nor is it inconsistent with the conservation of energy4 7#d47 ,man knows that his will is free4 ,having now decided that man's will is free1 little need be said about the next point1 which is that man knows that his will is free1 since1 as we have shown1 this is the chief argument for admitting its freedom4 ,there are1 however1 many other arguments for proving that man believes that he has a free will1 for it is shown by his acts4 ,it is this known freedom which enables a man to set before him an end1 and deliberately work towards it2 in other words1 it enables him to design1 and makes him a personal being1 as we have used the term4 ,and it is needless to point out that the evidence of human design is universal4 ,again1 human language affords a conclusive proof that man has always and everywhere believed himself to be free2 for such terms as ,i will1 ,i choose1 ,i decide1 exist in all languages4 ,however1 we need not pursue this subject1 since it is undisputed that man believes that he has a free will2 and it is taken for granted in all human affairs4 7#e47 ,man's responsibility for his acts4 ,by this is meant that a man is responsible for the way in which he uses his freedom2 and this seems to follow at once from his knowing that he is free4 ,moreover1 a sense of responsibility is among the inherent convictions of mankind4 ,of course1 there may be exceptions to this as to most other rules2 but taking mankind as a whole1 he certainly believes in his own responsibility4 ,he also believes that this responsibility is in the first place to ,god1 or some other supernatural ,being4 ,no doubt he is also responsible to his fellow-men1 more especially to those among whom he is living2 but a moment's reflection will show that this is not the leading idea4 ,for a man must in the first place be responsible to his ,maker rather than to his fellow-men4 ,in the same way a child is first of all responsible to his parents1 and then1 secondly and consequently1 to his brothers and sisters4 ,therefore1 because ,god has made us1 we are responsible to ,him2 and because ,he has placed us among other men1 and presumably wishes us to take some part in human society1 we are in a lesser degree responsible to them also4 ,so the brotherhood of man1 as it is called1 naturally follows from the ,fatherhood of ,god4 7#f47 ,man's moral sense of right and wrong4 ,in the next place1 man has the remarkable faculty of distinguishing the quality of acts which are free1 regarding some as right and others as wrong1 the latter being called sins4 ,and it may be noticed in passing1 that the existence of moral evil or sin seems to many to be an additional argument in favour of man's freedom2 otherwise ,god would be the sole author of man's misdeeds4 ,of course1 in this case1 they would not be really sins1 for if man has no free will1 he is a mere machine1 and can no more sin against ,god 7or man either7 than a watch can sin against its maker4 ,such a man might be imperfect1 and so might a watch1 but he could not be wicked2 yet few will say that there are no wicked men in the world4 ,now we will call a being who is thus able to distinguish the quality of acts a moral being4 ,man is therefore a moral being1 having this moral sense1 as it is called1 of distinguishing right from wrong4 ,it will perhaps make the meaning of this moral sense plainer if we compare it with one of man's other senses1 say that of sight4 ,the one1 then1 distinguishes right from wrong1 just as the other distinguishes red from yellow1 or blue from green4 ,and as man's sense of colours is not disproved by one man thinking a colour blue which another thinks green--or his sense of taste1 by one man thinking a taste nice1 which another thinks nasty--so his moral sense is not disproved by one man thinking an act right which another thinks wrong4 ,moreover this sense of right and wrong is quite distinct from the pleasant or unpleasant consequences which are associated with certain acts4 ,for instance1 ,i may avoid putting my hand into hot water1 because ,i remember having done so before1 and it was painful2 but this is quite different from avoiding an act because it is wrong4 ,it is also quite distinct from expediency1 or the idea of benefiting by an act4 ,for an act may not benefit us at all1 or may even injure us1 and yet it may be right4 ,in short1 'fifty experiences of what is pleasant or what is profitable do not1 and cannot1 make one conviction of what is right'2 the ideas differ in kind2 and not merely in degree4 7#g47 ,man's conscience4 ,lastly1 as to man's conscience4 ,this is often confused with his moral sense1 but a little reflection will show that the two are distinct4 ,for a man might possess a moral sense1 and be able to classify acts as right or wrong1 yet have no direct means of knowing to which class any particular act belonged4 ,he might have to work this out by reasoning2 and in difficult cases we sometimes do so4 ,but as a rule this is unnecessary4 ,for mankind possesses a very remarkable something1 called a conscience1 which tells him at once1 and without either argument or reasoning1 that certain acts are right and others wrong4 ,conscience is thus like an organ of the moral sense1 and may be compared to the eye or organ of sight2 for just as the eye perceives that certain colours are red and others blue1 so conscience perceives that certain acts are right and others wrong4 ,in each case the perception is almost instantaneous1 and quite distinct from any kind of reasoning4 ,conscience1 it will be noticed1 does not make the act right or wrong1 any more than the eye makes the colour red or blue2 it merely tells us what acts are right and what wrong4 ,it is thus an intermediary between ,someone else and ourselves2 and this ,someone else can only be ,god1 ,who gave us our conscience1 so that in popular language it may be called the ,voice of ,god4 ,and it tells us we ought to act right1 because this is the way in which ,god wishes us to act4 ,now that mankind possesses a conscience is indisputable4 ,it is shared alike by young and old1 rich and poor1 educated and uneducated4 ,it has existed in all ages1 countries and races4 ,we all have it1 and what is very remarkable it seems to be independent of our will1 and not at our disposal4 ,we do not correct it1 but it corrects us2 for it not only tells us what acts are right and what wrong1 but it approves definitely of our doing the former1 and disapproves just as definitely of our doing the latter4 ,indeed1 one of the most striking effects of conscience is this feeling of remorse or self-condemnation after wrong-doing2 and such a feeling is practically universal4 ,and if it be objected that one man's conscience may say that an act is right1 which another man's conscience says is wrong1 we must remember that the decision of a man's conscience1 only refers to the man himself4 ,it tells a man what is right for him1 with his knowledge and surroundings1 and it is quite possible that this may be wrong for another man4 ,these1 then1 are the moral attributes of the human race1 and it follows at once that man is a free and responsible being4 ,but as this conclusion is often disputed1 because of the similarity between animals and men1 and the difficulty of admitting that they also are free and responsible beings1 or else of showing where the distinction lies1 we must examine this subject4 7,c47 ,,difference ,,between ,,animals ,,and ,,men4 ,now the bodily difference between certain animals and men is admittedly small2 and though the accompanying mental difference is enormous1 it is probably only one of degree2 for all animals seem1 to some slight extent1 to possess a mind1 which enables them at least to feel conscious of pleasure and pain4 ,we must therefore pass on to the moral attributes of animals2 and as we know nothing as to their feelings on the subject1 it is difficult to say 7referring to the first three points7 whether they have a free will or not4 ,of course1 if they have not1 that would be a clear distinction between animals and men4 ,but we have no right to assume this1 and there is a good deal to be said on the other side1 at least in regard to the higher animals1 so the question had better be left open4 ,but with regard to the next point1 that of known freedom1 we are on surer ground2 for the proof of man's believing himself to be free does not depend solely on his own feelings4 ,it is shown by his acts1 as it enables him to design1 and it is doubtful if there is anything corresponding to this in animals4 ,for though many of their works show design somewhere1 it does not seem to be due to them4 ,this kind of unconscious designing 7which strange to say is most apparent in the lower forms of animal life7 is called instinct1 and there are at least three reasons for thinking that it differs from real design implying forethought4 ,the first is1 that1 if these works were due to the design of the animals themselves1 they must possess intellectual powers of a very high order4 ,take1 for instance1 the well known example of the cells of bees4 ,these are built on the most perfect mathematical principles1 the three rhombs which close the hexagonal columns having the exact angles so as to contain the greatest amount of honey1 with the least expenditure of wax4 ,and as we require advanced mathematics and a book of logarithms to work out such problems1 it is hard to see how the bees can do it4 ,nor is heredity of any use1 for the bees which build cells are all workers 7as they are called7 and have no descendants2 while those which have descendants are either drones or queens1 and these do no building4 ,thus the cells are built by bees1 none of whose ancestors have ever built cells2 so the design cannot be ascribed to anything they have inherited from their parents4#c ,secondly1 animals are only able to design in a few special cases1 and in other respects they often act with the greatest stupidity4 ,a bee1 for example1 with all its mathematics1 cannot very often1 if it has flown in through an open window1 retrace its way1 but will buzz helplessly against another which is shut4 ,footnote #c3 ,encyc4 ,brit41 #ith edit41 vol4 iii41 pp4 #dij1 #dhd4 ,the angles are #aji #bh' and #gj #cb'4 ,thirdly1 the instincts of animals are practically the same1 always and everywhere4 ,they are not more advanced in some countries1 than in others2 or in some individuals1 than in others4 ,they are not even more advanced as time goes on4 ,the last cell built by a bee is no better than the first1 and no better1 as far as we know1 than cells built by bees thousands of years ago2 while the young of animals1 without any experience to guide them1 have the same instincts as the old4 ,clearly1 then1 an animal's instinct is born with it1 and not acquired2 and therefore1 any apparent design there may be in what is done by instinct cannot be attributed to the animal itself1 any more than the design shown in its eyes1 but to its ,maker4 ,so far all is plain4 ,it may1 however1 be urged that in some of the higher animals1 especially those in contact with man1 we do find certain acts which seem to imply forethought and design4 ,a dog1 for example1 will bury a bone one day1 and go and look for it the next4 ,but when once it is admitted that what are apparently far more striking instances of design are to be explained by instinct1 it seems better to explain them all in the same way4 ,and this is confirmed by the fact that even the higher animals do not appear to have any idea of responsibility1 or any sense of right and wrong1 which in man are the result of his known freedom4 ,of course1 this also may be disputed1 since as we punish a dog for doing what we dislike1 it looks as if we held it responsible for the act4 ,but this does not follow4 ,we punish the dog to prevent its repeating the act4 ,and it may avoid doing so1 because its memory associates the act with pain1 and not because it feels responsible for it1 or considers it to be wrong4 ,while in the vast majority of cases we never think of holding an animal responsible for its acts1 or look upon its injuring anyone as a sin4 ,we conclude1 then1 that moral attributes form the great distinction between animals and men2 because though animals have1 or may have1 a free will1 it is not a known freedom1 so they are not able1 like men1 to design1 and are hence not personal beings4 ,two further remarks may be made before leaving this subject4 ,the first is1 that though there are difficulties in placing this known freedom as the difference between animals and men1 there are as great1 if not greater1 difficulties in placing it anywhere else4 ,if we say that an ape or a dog can design1 the difficulty is not lessened2 it is merely transferred lower down the scale4 ,can a jellyfish design8 ,the momentous attribute of known freedom must begin somewhere2 and it seems less difficult to place it between animals and men than anywhere else4 ,the second and more important point is1 that our ignorance about animals is no reason for doubting what we do know about man4 ,to do this would be most illogical4 ,indeed1 we might as well deny that a man could see1 or hear1 because there are difficulties in deciding where sight and hearing commence in the scale of animal life4 7,d47 ,,conclusion4 ,we may now conclude this chapter4 ,with regard to man1 it is clear that his bodily1 mental1 and moral attributes are quite distinct4 ,a man may be strong in body1 yet of weak intellectual power2 or he may have a great intellect1 yet be of weak moral character4 ,this makes it probable that human nature consists of three parts--body1 mind1 and spirit2 the mind corresponding to the mental reasoning part of man1 and the spirit to the free moral part1 the word soul being often used for either of these latter4 ,and the difference between animals and men is probably that the former have no spirits1 but only bodies and 7undeveloped7 minds4 ,all life on this planet would then form three great groups--vegetation1 consisting of matter alone2 animals1 of matter and mind2 man1 of matter1 mind1 and spirit4 ,and from this it seems to follow that while a man's body may 7conceivably7 have been evolved from any other form of matter1 and his mind from any other form of mind1 yet his spirit is essentially distinct1 and cannot have been evolved from anything else4 ,moreover1 as a man's body and mind are both 7to some extent7 under the known control of his free will1 or spirit1 this latter must be looked upon as his real self4 ,thus he is not1 strictly speaking1 an organism at all1 but a free being served by organs both of body and mind4 ,they are his2 they do not constitute him4 ,he is the personal being1 who controls both4 ,in other words man is a spirit1 and has a body and mind4 ,and our present conclusion is quite plain4 ,we have shown that man is a free being1 his freedom distinguishing him from natural forces1 and making him in part supernatural4 ,and he is a responsible being1 his responsibility being due to his known freedom1 and distinguishing him from animals4 ,he has thus a unique position4 ,nothing else on this planet resembles him1 and in his attribute of known freedom which enables him to design1 and makes him a personal being1 he resembles ,god alone4 ,,chapter ,v4 ,,that ,,god ,,takes ,,an ,,interest ,,in ,,man',s ,,welfare4 7,a47 ,,the ,,evidence ,,in ,,its ,,favour4 ,since ,god is a ,moral as well as a ,personal ,being1 ,he must be capable of caring for all ,his creatures2 and we have abundant evidence that ,he does so1 especially for man4 ,but there are two great difficulties4 7,b47 ,,the ,,insignificance ,,of ,,man4 7#a47 ,some counter-arguments1 showing that even if insignificant1 ,god might still care for him4 7#b47 ,man's real importance1 due to his mind and spirit4 7#c47 ,the supposed inhabitants of other planets4 7,c47 ,,the ,,existence ,,of ,,evil4 7#a47 ,physical evil in animals4 ,the objection that it is vast in amount1 wholly unmerited1 and perfectly useless1 cannot be maintained4 7#b47 ,physical evil in man4 ,several ways of lessening the difficulty4 ,its explanation seems to be that ,god's designing evil does not mean ,his desiring it1 as it is essential for forming a man's character4 7#c47 ,moral evil in man4 ,the possibility of this is essential to free will2 and wicked men are as necessary as any other form of evil4 7,d47 ,,conclusion4 ,god's ,goodness includes ,beneficence and ,righteousness4 ,having discussed in the last chapter the character of man1 we have next to consider1 as far as we have any means of doing so1 the ,character of ,god2 more especially whether ,he seems to take any interest in man's welfare4 ,and we will first examine the evidence in favour of this2 then the two arguments on the other side from the insignificance of man1 and the existence of evil2 and will conclude by considering in what sense the term ,goodness can be ascribed to ,god4 7,a47 ,,the ,,evidence ,,in ,,its ,,favour4 ,to begin with1 ,god is certainly capable of taking an interest in man's welfare1 for ,he is not only a ,personal ,being1 but also a ,moral ,being4 ,this follows at once from what may be called the moral argument for the ,existence of ,god1 or that depending on man's free will4 ,it is briefly this1 that no combination of natural forces1 which are uniform and always act the same under the same circumstances1 can ever produce a free force1 able to act or not as it likes4 ,the idea seems inconceivable4 ,if1 then1 man possesses such a force1 which we have already admitted1 it cannot have come from any natural forces1 nor can it have made itself1 so it must have been derived from some previous free force1 and this1 again1 from a previous one1 and so on till we finally arrive at a ,free ,force1 which was not derived from any other1 but which existed eternally4 ,and this1 it will be remembered1 was precisely the conclusion we reached in ,chapter ,i41 though from quite a different argument4 ,and then it follows that this ,free ,force1 or ,free ,being1 must know that ,he is free2 and must therefore be a moral ,being1 able to distinguish the quality of acts as right or wrong4 ,indeed1 the mere fact that man possesses this remarkable faculty makes it certain that man's ,maker must possess it too4 ,now a personal and moral ,god must clearly be able to take an interest in the welfare of ,his creatures2 and there is abundant evidence that ,he actually does so4 ,for everywhere in nature1 and especially in man1 we meet with marks1 not only of design1 but of beneficent design--that is to say of design tending to the welfare and happiness of the beings in question4 ,take1 for instance1 the human eye1 which we considered in ,chapter ,,ii4 ,everyone will admit that this conduces very greatly to man's happiness2 and therefore the conclusion that ,god1 when ,he designed the eye1 did so with the object of benefiting man seems irresistible4 ,nor is this altered by the fact that the eye has a few defects1 in being liable to various kinds of disease4 ,for no one can think that it was made for the sake of these defects4 ,it was evidently made to see1 and not to ache4 ,that it does ache now and then is in all probability due to its being such a complicated instrument2 and perhaps also to its being often used too much4 ,but it may be said1 beneficial organs like the eye1 though they abound throughout nature1 are not the only ones we meet with4 ,there are others1 like the claws and teeth of wild animals1 which are just the opposite1 and seem designed to give pain to other creatures4 ,but this is quite untenable4 ,they were plainly designed to enable the animal to secure its food1 and are perhaps necessary for that purpose1 and they all tend to the welfare of their possessor1 and sometimes also to that of their victim1 as it hastens death4 ,there is not1 in fact1 a single organ in nature the object of which is to produce pain4 ,where pain is produced it is merely a sort of by-product4 ,thus far then1 we are quite justified in concluding that ,god takes an interest in man's welfare4 ,but there are two great difficulties4 7,b47 ,,the ,,insignificance ,,of ,,man4 ,the first is from the apparent insignificance of man4 ,for though he is doubtless by far the most important being on this planet1 and endowed with some of the ,divine attributes1 yet1 after all how utterly insignificant he is in comparison with his ,maker4 ,this is no new difficulty1#d but modern science has increased its force by showing that our earth is only one among the planets which go round the sun1 while the sun itself is only one among many millions of stars4 ,and1 we may ask1 is it likely that the ,god ,who rules these millions of stars should take any interest in the beings on a small planet like our earth8 ,footnote #d3 ,ps4 #h4 #c1 #d4 ,this is the difficulty we have to face2 but a good deal depends on the way in which it is stated4 ,would it not be better to argue from the known to the unknown1 and ask--,is it likely that the ,god ,who has made this earth1 and ,who we know 7from the marks of design7 takes an interest in its inhabitants1 should be also the ,ruler of the distant stars8 ,and when so stated1 the unity of nature compels us to say that it is not only likely1 but practically certain4 ,however1 we will discuss the subject more in detail1 first considering some counter-arguments1 which show that even if man were insignificant ,god might still care for him2 then man's real importance2 and lastly1 the question of other planets being inhabited4 7#a47 ,some ,counter-arguments4 ,to begin with1 though it seems unlikely that ,god should take any interest in such insignificant beings as us men1 it also seems unlikely that ,he should ever have designed and created such beings4 ,yet ,he has done so4 ,and having created them1 there is at most only a slight additional improbability1 if any at all1 that ,he should take an interest in their welfare4 ,and this is especially the case when we remember that man is not only the highest and noblest being on this planet1 but as far as we know on any planet4 ,therefore though we may be quite unworthy of ,god's care1 we do not know of any other being who is more worthy of it4 ,and it is most unlikely that a ,creator would not take an interest in any of ,his works4 ,next1 as to the analogy of nature4 ,here we find nothing resembling a neglect of small things4 ,on the contrary1 everything1 down to the minutest insect1 seems finished with as much perfection as if it alone existed in the universe4 ,and this is surely what we should expect4 ,for true greatness does not exist in despising that which is small2 and it may be a very part of ,god's infinite greatness that nothing should be too small for ,him to care about1 just as nothing is too large4 ,and while a ,being1 ,who can govern the universe1 and attend to its millions of stars1 is no doubt great--inconceivably great2 yet ,he is surely greater still--inconceivably greater--if ,he can also attend to our little planet1 and its inhabitants2 and can do this so thoroughly1 as not only to take an interest in the human race1 but in the welfare of each one of its members4 ,and the whole analogy of nature is in favour of ,his doing so2 for the forces of nature never deal with matter in bulk1 but with each particle separately4 ,a stone1 for instance1 is attracted to the ground1 because1 and only because1 each particle of it is so attracted4 ,in the same way if ,god takes an interest in the human race 7and1 as just said1 it is hard to imagine ,his not doing so1 since it is ,his noblest work7 it may be because1 and only because1 ,he takes an interest in each individual member of it4 ,thirdly1 the difficulty of thus believing that ,god takes an interest in the daily life of an individual man1 though undoubtedly great1 is really no more than that of believing that ,he knows about it4 ,for if ,he knows about it1 why should ,he not care about it8 ,yet1 as said in ,chapter ,,ii41 a world like ours cannot have been made without both knowledge1 and foreknowledge1 on the part of its ,maker4 ,and though we might at first be inclined to limit this to important matters1 a little consideration will show that such a distinction is untenable2 and that if ,god knows anything1 ,he knows everything4 ,and if ,he knows everything1 why should ,he not care about everything8 ,fourthly1 and this is very important1 whether we are insignificant or not1 we are each of us unique4 ,we are not like particles of matter4 ,millions of these are 7or may be7 exactly alike1 but no two men are exactly alike2 not even to the same extent as plants and animals4 ,for each man is a separate spirit1 a personal being distinct from all else in the world4 ,and since he possesses a free will1 his character is also distinct2 for this depends to a large extent on how he uses his free will1 what he says1 and what he does1 day by day4 ,so it is out of the question to think that any two men are exactly alike4 ,and this is the common belief of mankind1 for however much we may think other people alike1 we each feel sure that there is no one else in the world exactly like ourselves4 ,nor can there be4 ,for though ,god might1 if ,he chose1 make two trees exactly alike1 or two men exactly alike in their external features1 ,he could not make them alike in their character4 ,for this1 as just said1 depends on their own free use of their own free will2 and if ,god were to force them to decide in the same way1 they would cease to be free4 ,and from this it follows that each man is not only unique1 but irreplaceable4 ,no other can be made like him4 ,therefore1 as we each have something special about us1 ,god may take a special interest in each of us4 ,doubtless such an idea seems very wonderful2 but no one who has any knowledge of the marvels of nature will think it1 on that account1 incredible4 ,indeed1 from one point of view1 it is only what we should expect4 ,for we all know how a naturalist will value a unique specimen1 which cannot be replaced1 in spite of its having some defects4 ,and if each man is really unique1 and irreplaceable1 why may not the ,god of ,nature value him too 7in spite of his faults71 and take an interest in his welfare8 ,then1 fifthly1 as to the discoveries of science1 there is here also a good deal to be said on the other side4 ,for though the telescope has shown us that our world is like a mere drop in the ocean1 the microscope has shown us a new world in each drop2 and the infinitely little1 as it is called1 is as wonderful as the infinitely great1 and man still occupies a sort of central position4 ,when1 for instance1 we examine a single organ1 say the human eye1 we find that it consists of an immense number of parts1 each of which is seen to be more and more complicated the more we are able to magnify it1 and so on without apparently any limit4 ,and this makes it more than ever likely that the ,god1 ,who has shown such marvellous skill in the various organs of a man's body1 should care for the man himself1 the personal and moral being1 who possesses these organs4 ,nor is the argument weakened by the fact that the organs of animals also show a wonderful amount of design1 for as far as we know1 in their case1 there is no personal and moral being to care about4 ,again1 science has not only shown us the magnitude of the universe1 and that there are millions of stars1 millions of miles apart1 but it has also shown us its unity1 and that all its parts are closely connected together4 ,and certainly the idea that the ,god1 ,who rules these stars1 should take an interest in us men1 is no harder to believe than that the gases1 which are burning in these stars1 should influence our spectroscopes4 ,yet they do2 so if this were all1 it would still lessen the difficulty a good deal4 7#b47 ,man's real importance4 ,but this is not all1 for science has also taught us a great deal about man himself1 and his long development2 which has a most important bearing on the argument4 ,for we now know that our earth has existed for thousands of centuries1 gradually evolving higher and higher forms of life1 all leading up to man1 who is the heir of all the ages1 the inheritor of all that is useful and best in his long line of ancestors4 ,and 7what is very important7 organic evolution seems obliged to stop here4 ,man is not merely a link in a series leading on to still more perfect beings1 but he is the end of the series4 ,in all probability there will never be a higher being on the earth1 for the causes which have produced his evolution thus far1 can carry it no further4 ,when1 for instance1 man acquired an erect position1 there was an end to any further improvement in that respect4 ,when he took to wearing clothes1 there was an end to the body becoming hardier and stronger through exposure4 ,when he took to using weapons and inventing machinery1 mere physical strength was no longer essential1 and could no longer be increased4 ,in short1 when ,evolution began to take a mental turn1 there was an end to bodily development4 ,henceforth there was to be no evolution of any higher being1 but rather the gradual perfecting of this one being1 by mental and moral1 and not physical improvements4 ,man is thus not only the highest being that ever has been evolved1 but1 as far as we can judge1 the highest being that ever will be evolved on this earth4 ,so the vast scheme of evolution1 inconceivable alike in magnitude1 in duration1 and in complexity1 is all seen to be one plan1 with man apparently at the end of it4 ,and consequently1 as everything was designed by ,god1 he must have been the foreknown and intended end1 from the very beginning2 the first thought in creation1 as well as the last4 ,and when we thus regard man as the goal towards which nature has all along tended1 and therefore as the chief object which ,god--the ,author of ,nature--had in view all the time1 it seems to increase his importance tenfold2 and shows conclusively that in ,god's sight he must be anything but insignificant4 ,nor is it difficult to suggest a reason for this4 ,for man1 as we know1 has a mind1 as well as a body2 and though the discoveries of science have in some respects lessened the importance of his body1 by showing its evolution from other animals2 they have at the same time increased that of his mind1 for it is his mind that has discovered them4 ,and every fresh discovery man makes can only exalt him still higher for making it2 so that the mind of man now shows him to be a far nobler being than could possibly have been imagined some centuries ago4 ,and certainly1 a mind that can discover the motions of distant stars1 and the elements of which they are composed1 cannot be thought insignificant4 ,in fact1 in one respect man is greater than any of the stars2 for he can think about them1 but they cannot think about him4 ,moreover1 man has not only a mind1 but also a spirit1 or free will1 able to act right or wrong4 ,and even his acting wrong1 however sad it may be in other respects1 is a powerful witness to his greatness2 for who but a great being could act in opposition to the will of the ,almighty8 ,but then2 if his acting wrong proves his greatness1 still more does his acting right4 ,indeed 7if we were not so far from it ourselves7 we should probably see that moral perfection1 or always acting right1 though one might act wrong1 is the noblest thing in the whole universe2 and as far above mental greatness1 as this latter is above mere physical strength4 ,but though we cannot properly appreciate it1 ,god can4 ,he is ,himself a ,spirit1 and therefore1 in ,his sight1 a man possessing a mind and spirit1 and thus made to some extent in ,his own image1 and capable of developing moral perfection1 may be of more value 7because more like ,himself7 than a universe of dead matter4 ,in the same way 7to quote a well-known analogy7 a king will value his child more than his palace3 for the simple reason that the child is more like himself4 ,thus persons are always more valuable than things4 ,and they are incomparably more valuable1 for they have nothing in common by which they can be compared4 ,we cannot class an astronomer with his telescopes1 or say that one geologist is worth so many fossils1 or one bricklayer so many bricks4 ,and this being so1 what shall we say of the millions of men who have lived1 and are now living1 on this earth8 ,surely their welfare cannot be thought insignificant by anyone1 least of all by their ,creator4 7#c47 ,the supposed inhabitants of other planets4 ,but it may be said1 what about other planets8 ,are not some of these inhabited1 and does not this weaken the argument a good deal1 and show that ,god cannot take any special interest in man1 or other beings on this earth8 ,now there is1 of course1 no reason why ,god should take any special interest in the beings on this planet1 more than in similar beings on other planets1 if such exist2 but this is very doubtful4 ,for modern science has shown that not only are the same materials found in the other planets 7and also in the fixed stars7 as are found here2 but that natural laws1 such as those of gravity1 light1 and heat1 are the same throughout the entire universe4 ,and this makes it probable that the laws of life are also the same2 so that if living beings exist on other planets1 we should expect them to be somewhat similar to the living beings here2 and to have been evolved in a somewhat similar manner4 ,and this requires that a large number of favourable circumstances1 such as a moderate temperature1 a suitable atmosphere1 sufficient water1 etc41 should all be found on some other planet1 not only now1 but during the long ages which 7judging by this earth7 appear necessary for the development of the higher forms of life2 and this certainly seems unlikely4 ,on the other hand1 it is difficult to believe that ,god would create an immense number of suns or stars1 many of which have probably planets round them1 if only one out of the whole series was to be inhabited by personal beings4 ,but however strange this may seem to us1 it entirely agrees with ,god's methods in nature1 where what seems to be needless waste is the universal rule4 ,so this is not an insuperable difficulty4 ,the question1 however1 may well be left open1 for even if other planets are inhabited1 there is no reason why ,god should not take an interest--and perhaps a great interest--in their inhabitants1 as well as in ourselves2 since all ,his capacities are boundless1 and even the smallest part of infinity may be very large4 7,c47 ,,the ,,existence ,,of ,,evil4 ,we now come to the other1 and perhaps more important1 difficulty--that arising from the existence of evil4 ,this term in its widest sense includes both pain1 which affects a man's body2 sorrow1 which affects his mind2 and sin1 which affects his spirit4 ,the two former may be called physical evil1 and apply also to animals2 while the latter is moral evil1 and applies only to man4 ,and as the world is full of pain1 sorrow1 and sin1 one may naturally ask how could it have been designed and created by a ,god ,who cares for the welfare of ,his creatures8 ,or1 to put the objection in other words1 does not the existence of this evil show that ,god either could not or would not prevent it8 ,if ,he could not1 he is not ,all-,powerful2 if ,he would not1 ,he is not ,all-,good4 ,this is an undoubted difficulty2 and we will examine it in detail1 both as it affects animals and men4 7#a47 ,physical evil in animals4 ,the objection here is that animals of all kinds suffer a vast amount of pain and misery1 which is wholly unmerited and perfectly useless2 since1 having no moral nature1 they can neither deserve pain nor profit by it4 ,we will consider these points in turn4 ,and first1 as to the amount which animals suffer4 ,one animal does not suffer more because a million suffer likewise1 so we must consider the suffering as it affects the individual1 and not the total amount4 ,and as to its extent we know but little4 ,that animals appear to suffer greatly1 e4g41 a mouse being caught by a cat1 is obvious2 but how far they really suffer is doubtful1 as their feelings are probably far less sensitive than those of man2 so it is quite misleading to think what we should feel like in similar circumstances4 ,this is indeed evident when we reflect that suffering is connected with the brain1 as is shown by the fact that savages suffer much less than civilised nations4 ,and therefore we should expect animals1 whose mental development is far less advanced1 to suffer still less2 while the lower forms of life we should not expect to suffer at all4 ,and this is confirmed by observation1 as several facts have been noticed which almost force us to this conclusion4 ,a crab1 for instance1 will continue to eat1 and apparently relish1 a smaller crab1 while being itself slowly devoured by a larger one2 and this shows that the crab can feel scarcely any pain1 since the almost universal effect of pain is to destroy the pleasure of eating4 ,and many other instances are known4#e ,footnote #e3 ,transactions of ,victoria ,institute1 vol4 xxv41 #ahia1 p4 #beg4 ,moreover1 animals1 except domestic ones which are partly trained and civilised1 appear to have no anticipation of suffering1 and no power of concentrating their thoughts upon it1 which increases it so greatly in man4 ,and assuming1 with reference to the above example1 that the mouse is not to live for ever1 its being destroyed by a cat is at most a very short misery1 and perhaps involving altogether less pain than if it died from disease or old age4 ,indeed few things could be worse than for old and weak animals to be left to themselves1 and gradually die of starvation4 ,and we must remember1 in a state of nature1 with uncertain meals the cat would never play at capturing the mouse1 thus giving it needless and repeated sufferings1 but it would kill it at once4 ,then as to the so-called struggle for existence4 ,it is nothing like what is commonly supposed1 as has been recognised by leading naturalists4 ,thus ,darwin says3--',when we reflect on this struggle we may console ourselves with the full belief that the war of nature is not incessant1 that no fear is felt1 that death is generally prompt1 and that the vigorous1 the healthy1 and the happy survive and multiply4' ,and ,wallace says3--',the popular idea of the struggle for existence entailing misery and pain on the animal world is the very reverse of the truth4 ,what it really brings about is the maximum of life1 and of the enjoyment of life1 with the minimum of suffering and pain4'#f ,on the whole1 then1 it seems probable that pain among animals is far less than is commonly assumed1 and in the lower forms of life almost entirely absent4 ,footnote #f3 ,c4 ,darwin4 ,origin of ,species4 #fth edit41 #ahhh1 p4 #if4 ,a4 ,r4 ,wallace4 ,darwinism1 #ahhi1 p4 #dj4 ,still it may be said1 this only lessens the difficulty2 for why should animals suffer pain at all8 ,as far as we can judge1 it is wholly unmerited1 since1 having no moral nature1 and therefore no responsibility1 they cannot have done anything wrong to deserve it4 ,but then1 the pleasure which they enjoy is also unmerited4 ,the two must in all fairness be taken together1 and as a matter of fact1 animals seem to have a much greater amount of pleasure than of pain4 ,their life 7except when ill-treated by man7 is1 as a rule1 one of continual enjoyment1 and probably1 at any given moment1 the number of animals of any particular kind that are happy is incomparably greater than those that are miserable4 ,in short1 health and happiness is the rule1 sickness and pain the exception4 ,nor can it be said that pain is useless to animals2 for though they have no moral nature to be improved1 they have a physical nature to be preserved and transmitted1 and the sense of pain may be essential for this4 ,it is indeed a kind of sentry1 warning them of dangers1 which might otherwise lead to their destruction4 ,if for example1 animals felt no pain from excessive heat1 they might not escape when a forest was burning2 or1 if they felt no pain from hunger1 they might die of starvation4 ,thus pain is1 in reality1 a preservative of life2 and it is often not an evil at all2 so no part of this objection can be maintained4 7#b47 ,physical evil in man4 ,we now pass on to the case of man4 ,there is unfortunately no doubt about the suffering which he endures4 ,the struggling lives1 the painful diseases1 the lingering deaths1 not to mention accidents of all kinds1 are but too evident4 ,and we may ask1 would an ,omnipotent ,god1 ,who cared for man's welfare1 have ever designed all this8 ,now it is important to remember that a great deal of physical evil originates in moral evil1 which will be considered later on4 ,by far the greater part of the pain and misery which men endure is brought about by their own wickedness and folly1 or by that of their fellow-men4 ,the recent war--worse in extent1 though not worse in kind1 than all previous wars--has been a terrible example of this4 ,but it was man's doing1 not ,god's2 and man alone must be blamed for it4 ,in the next place1 many of the so-called evils of life do not involve any actual suffering4 ,if for instance a man loses the sight of one eye1 he need not have any pain2 and were he originally blind the possession of even one eye would have been thought a priceless blessing4 ,again1 however great may be the sufferings of life1 they cannot be as great as its joys1 since nearly everyone wishes to go on living4 ,while it is undeniable that human pain1 like that of animals1 is most useful1 serving to warn men of dangers and diseases1 which would otherwise lead to their destruction4 ,moreover1 in a material world like ours1 if the forces of nature act according to fixed laws1 a certain amount of suffering seems inevitable4 ,if1 for example1 the force of gravity always acts as it does1 it will occasionally cause a tower to fall and injure someone4 ,such an event could only be avoided by ,god's continually interfering with these forces4 ,but this would render all human life a hopeless confusion4 ,while1 at present1 owing to these forces being invariable1 a great deal of the evil which might otherwise result from them can be foreseen and avoided4 ,if1 however1 men will not avoid it1--if1 for instance1 in spite of the numerous eruptions of ,vesuvius1 they still choose to go and live on its slopes1--it is hard to see how they can blame anyone but themselves4 ,in the same way1 if a man chooses to sit on the safety valve of an engine1 it is his own fault if he gets blown up4 ,and even in other cases1 when the evil cannot be foreseen1 as in an unexpected earthquake1 it is at least open to doubt whether it is any worse for a number of men to die like this1 suddenly and together1 than that they should all die in the usual way1 slowly1 one by one1 and often after a long illness4 ,it of course appeals more to the imagination1 but it probably involves less suffering4 ,thus we may say that human suffering1 excluding that due to man himself1 is by no means so great as it seems2 that it is1 as a rule1 more than counter-balanced by human happiness2 and that a certain amount seems not only useful1 but in a world like ours inevitable4 ,but though all these considerations are undoubtedly true1 and undoubtedly lessen the difficulty1 they do not remove it altogether4 ,the following appears to be the true explanation3 that though ,god foreknew all this suffering when ,he created the world1 and in this sense designed it1 ,he need not have desired it1 but may have desired something else1 for the attainment of which1 this suffering was a necessary condition4 ,and this something else must obviously have been the training and perfecting of man's character2 for which1 some kind of suffering seems essential4 ,for if there were no suffering in the world1 there could be no fortitude1 no bravery1 no patience1 no compassion1 no sympathy with others1 no self-sacrifice for their good--nothing1 in fact1 that constitutes the highest type of man4 ,in other words1 a being such as man1 can only be made perfect through suffering4 ,therefore this suffering implies no defect in ,god's design4 ,it is a means1 and1 as far as we can judge1 the only possible means for developing the highest and noblest character in man1 such a character indeed as alone makes him worthy of admiration4 ,moreover1 a man's character can only be formed by himself1 it cannot be given him ready-made1 for then it would not be his character at all2 and it can only be formed gradually1 it cannot be done all at once4 ,therefore1 if ,god wishes a man to have the special character acquired by constantly bearing suffering1 it can only be obtained by constantly giving him suffering to bear4 ,here1 then1 we have the most probable explanation of the physical evils which man endures4 ,their object is to develop and perfect his character2 and as this is a good object1 and as it cannot be obtained in any other way1 they may well have been designed by a good ,god4 7#c47 ,moral evil in man4 ,but we now come to the most difficult part of the subject1 the existence of moral evil in man4 ,this1 as before said1 is the chief cause of human misery1 and might it not have been avoided8 ,in other words1 could not all sin have been excluded from the world8 ,but assuming man to be a free being1 it could not have been avoided1 for freedom is always liable to abuse4 ,therefore1 if ,god decided that man was to be free in some cases to act right or wrong1 it necessarily follows that he may act wrong4 ,no ,omnipotence could possibly alter this without destroying man's freedom4 ,hence1 though ,god designed all the moral evil in the world1 ,he need not have desired it1 but 7as before7 may have desired some totally different object1 for the attainment of which1 this evil was a necessary condition4 ,nor1 again1 is it difficult to suggest what this object may have been4 ,for unless man is a free being1 he can be little better than a machine--a correctly-behaved machine1 no doubt1 and one able to talk and think1 but still only a machine4 ,and ,god may not have wished that man1 who is1 as far as we know1 ,his highest and noblest work1 should be only a machine4 ,indeed1 the superiority of free men who act right1 though they might act wrong1 to mere machines is obvious to everyone2 and it may far outweigh the disadvantage that some of them should act wrong4 ,therefore1 though we have to pay dearly for freedom1 it is well worth the price2 and the infinite value of goodness1 as it is called1 may justify1 though nothing else could1 the risks involved in giving man a free will4 ,nor is there anything unlikely in the ,creator thus caring about the conduct of ,his creatures4 ,we certainly should not admire an earthly ruler who regarded traitors to his cause1 and his most faithful adherents with the same indifference2 or an earthly parent who did not care whether his children obeyed him or not4 ,why1 then1 should we think that ,god1 ,who has not only given us free will1 but also a conscience by which to know what is right 7i4e41 what is ,his will71 should yet be indifferent as to whether we do it or not8 ,everything points the other way1 that ,god1 ,who is a ,moral ,being1 and ,who has made us moral beings also1 wishes us to freely act right4 ,therefore ,he allows us to act wrong1 with all the misery it involves1 in order to render possible our thus freely choosing to act right4 ,or to put the argument in other words1 a free being is far higher than a being who is not free1 and yet a free being cannot exist without the possibility of his acting wrong4 ,so1 however strange the conclusion appears1 moral evil1 or at least its possibility1 is essential to the universe1 if it is to be worthy of its ,creator1 if1 that is1 it is to contain beings of the highest order--persons and not things4 ,or1 to put it still shorter1 if ,god is good1 it is only natural that ,he should create beings capable of goodness1 and therefore of necessity capable of badness1 for the two must go together4 ,and if it be still urged that1 as ,god foreknew how men would use their freedom1 ,he need not have created those who would habitually use it wrongly2 in other words1 there might be no wicked men in the world1 the answer is obvious4 ,wicked men are as necessary as any other form of evil to test a man's character1 and to develop moral perfection4 ,for just as physical evil1 pain1 suffering1 etc41 can alone render possible certain physical virtues1 such as fortitude and patience2 so moral evil1 or sin1 can alone render possible certain moral virtues4 ,if1 for instance1 there were no sin in the world there could be no forbearance with the faults of others1 no moral courage in standing alone for an unpopular cause1 no forgiveness of injuries1 nor 7what is perhaps the highest of all virtues7 any rendering good for evil4 ,these require not merely the possibility1 but the actual existence of sin1 and they would all be unattainable if we had nothing but physical evils to contend with1 and there were only good men in the world4 ,the case then stands thus4 ,evil men are essential to an evil world4 ,an evil world is essential to proving a man's character4 ,proving a man's character is essential to his freely choosing to serve ,god2 and his freely choosing to serve ,god seems essential to his being such a servant as ,god would care to have4 ,one other point should be noticed before we conclude4 ,it is that with regard to the conduct of free beings1 foreknowing is not the same as foreordaining4 ,god may have foreknown how a man would use or misuse his freedom1 but without foreordaining or compelling him to do either4 ,in the same way1 in human affairs it is possible in some cases1 and to some extent1 to foreknow what a man will do1 but without in any way compelling him to do it4 ,this is a most important distinction1 and we have no reason for thinking that ,god foreordained any man to misuse his freedom1 though ,he may have foreknown that he would do so4#g ,footnote #g3 ,of course if ,god creates a man1 foreknowing how he will act1 ,he may1 in a certain sense1 be said to foreordain it as well2 compare ,rom4 #h4 #bi4 ,whom ,he foreknew1 ,he also foreordained4 7,d47 ,,conclusion4 ,we may now sum up the argument in this chapter4 ,we first showed that ,god is not only able to take an interest in man's welfare2 but that the marks of beneficent design afford abundant evidence that ,he actually does so4 ,on the other hand1 the so-called insignificance of man is more apparent than real1 since his position at the end of evolution shows his great importance2 while his mind and spirit fully account for this1 and prove him to be an altogether unique being1 certainly in regard to this earth1 and perhaps in regard to the universe4 ,and as to the existence of evil1 it is undeniable that ,god must have foreknown all the evil in the world when ,he created it2 and in this sense ,he designed it4 ,but ,he may also have foreknown that it is only temporary1 and that it will lead to a more than compensating permanent good1 which could not be obtained in any other way4 ,for the evils in this world need not be ends1 but may be only means to ends2 and1 for all we know1 they may be the very best means for obtaining the very best ends4 ,indeed1 as before said1 they seem to be not only the best1 but the only possible means for developing all that is highest and noblest in man4 ,we conclude1 then1 that though ,god designed both the evil and the good in the world1 ,he need not have desired both3 and there are indications in nature sufficient to show that the good is what ,he desired1 and the evil is only its inevitable companion4 ,this conclusion is often expressed by saying that ,goodness is an attribute of ,god2 and the word may certainly be admitted4 ,indeed if ,god is not good1 ,he has made a being1 in this respect1 nobler than ,himself2 since some men1 in spite of their faults1 are undoubtedly good4 ,but it is important to notice the sense in which the word is used1 and in which alone it is true4 ,by ,god's goodness1 then1 or by ,his taking an interest in man's welfare1 is not meant a mere universal beneficence1 or wishing to make everyone as happy as possible1 without regard to his conduct4 ,the existence of evil seems fatal to such a theory as this4 ,but rather ,god wishes to promote man's welfare in the truest and best way1 not by giving him everything he likes1 but by training and developing his character4 ,god is thus not only beneficent1 but righteous also4 ,and ,he therefore wishes man to be not only happy1 but righteous also4 ,and ,he therefore of necessity 7as a man cannot be made righteous against his will7 gives him free will1 with the option of being unrighteous1 and consequently unhappy4 ,so this view of ,god's character1 combining beneficence with righteousness1 not only accounts for the marks of beneficent design all through nature1 but also for the existence of evil1 especially moral evil1 in man1 and seems the only way of reconciling them4 ,in short1 beneficence and righteousness are both good1 and the ,goodness of ,god includes both4 ,now if we admit that goodness is an attribute of ,god1 the analogy from ,his other attributes would show that ,he possesses it in its highest perfection4 ,he is thus a ,being not only of infinite ,power and ,wisdom1 but also of perfect ,goodness--the word 'perfect' being obviously more suitable for a moral quality like goodness1 than 'infinite' would be4 ,and it will be noticed that these three great attributes of ,god correspond to the three chief arguments for ,his existence4 ,the first1 or that from the universe requiring an adequate ,cause1 proves an ,all-,powerful ,creator2 the second1 or that from its having been designed1 proves that ,he is ,all-,wise2 and the third1 or that from human nature1 proves that ,he is ,all-,good4 ,they also correspond to some extent to the three aspects under which we considered man's character in the last chapter2 so we arrive at the grand conclusion that ,god is physically ,all-,powerful1 mentally ,all-,wise1 and morally ,all-,good4 ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,,that ,,god ,,might ,,make ,,some ,,revelation ,,to ,,man4 ,this depends chiefly on man's future destiny4 7,a47 ,,the ,,immortality ,,of ,,man4 ,by this is meant the personal immortality of man's spirit1 and there are four chief arguments in its favour3 7#a47 ,from his unique position4 7#b47 ,from his unjust treatment4 7#c47 ,from his vast capabilities4 7#d47 ,from his inherent belief4 7#e47 ,counter-arguments4 7,b47 ,,the ,,probability ,,of ,a ,,revelation4 7#a47 ,from ,god's character2 since ,he would be likely to benefit man4 7#b47 ,from man's character2 since he desires it1 and his unique position makes him not altogether unworthy of it4 7#c47 ,two difficulties3 a revelation is said to be unjust1 if only given to certain men2 and anyhow incredible unless quite convincing4 ,but neither of these can be maintained4 ,we decided in the last two chapters that man is a free and responsible being1 and that ,god takes an interest in his welfare4 ,we now come to the subject of a ,revelation1 by which is meant any superhuman knowledge directly imparted by ,god to man4 ,and by superhuman knowledge is meant any knowledge which man could not obtain for himself2 such as ,god's object in creating him1 ,his wishes in regard to his conduct1 or any past or future events of which he would otherwise be ignorant4 ,and that ,god could1 if ,he chose1 impart such knowledge1 either by visions1 or dreams1 or in some other way1 can scarcely be disputed4 ,nor will anyone affirm 7least of all an ,agnostic7 that we know enough about ,god to be quite sure that ,he never would choose to do so4 ,therefore a revelation is certainly possible2 but is it at all probable8 ,this is what we have to examine4 ,and as the answer to it will depend to a great extent on man's future destiny1 we will first consider the question of his ,immortality1 and then the probability1 or otherwise1 of ,god's making a ,revelation to him4 7,a47 ,,the ,,immortality ,,of ,,man4 ,by this is meant the immortality of man's spirit4 ,and if we admit 7as was admitted in ,chapter ,,iv47 that man is a compound being1 consisting of a free and partly supernatural spirit1 his real self1 which controls his body and mind2 what becomes of this spirit at death8 ,we know what becomes of the body3 the various molecules are arranged in other groups1 and the natural forces are changed into other natural forces4 ,nothing is lost or annihilated4 ,but what becomes of the spirit8 ,if this is a free supernatural force1 the idea that it should perish altogether1 when the accompanying natural forces are re-arranged at death1 is most unlikely4 ,indeed the apparent indestructibility of matter points to a corresponding immortality of spirit4 ,no doubt ,god could1 if ,he chose1 destroy either1 just as ,he could create either2 but without some supernatural interference1 the creation or destruction of either seems incredible4 ,yet if a man's spirit is not destroyed1 it must survive2 for it does not seem to have any separate parts into which it can be split up like a man's body4 ,therefore1 as it cannot undergo the only kind of death of which we have any knowledge 7which is this re-arrangement of separate parts71 it may survive for ever4 ,and there are four chief arguments in favour of this personal immortality of man2--those derived from his unique position2 his unjust treatment2 his vast capabilities2 and his inherent belief4 ,we will consider each in turn1 and then see what can be said on the other side4 7#a47 ,from his unique position4 ,the first argument is from man's unique position1 more especially when we regard him as the last and noblest result of the vast scheme of evolution1 which has been in progress here for so many thousands of years4 ,for such a vast scheme1 like everything else1 requires not only a cause1 but a purpose2 and however much evolution can explain1 it cannot explain itself4 ,why should there have been any evolution at all8 ,why should a universe of dead matter have ever produced life8 ,there must have been some motive in all this1 and what adequate motive can be suggested8 ,we can only look for an answer in man1 who is not only the highest creature on this planet1 but as far as we know on any planet2 so here if anywhere we must find the explanation4 ,evolution would then have ,god for its ,cause1 and man for its purpose--an undoubtedly adequate ,cause1 but is it an adequate purpose8 ,for the human race cannot exist for ever as it is4 ,everything points to this earth sooner or later falling into the sun1 when all forms of life must cease4 ,therefore1 if man is not immortal1 the whole of evolution which has led up to him as its final end will still have had no permanent result4 ,and no result which is not permanent seems altogether worthy of the ,eternal ,god1 the ,author of this evolution4 ,but if1 on the other hand1 man is immortal2 and if this earth1 with its strange mixture of good and evil1 is a suitable place in which to test and form his character2 and if perhaps ,god wishes hereafter to be surrounded by men who have stood the test1 and have formed their character in accordance with ,his ,will2 then it may lead to a permanent result4 ,and then its creation would not be such a hopeless mystery as on the opposite theory2 for the perfecting of immortal beings seems an object worthy even of ,god4 ,thus if we deny the immortality of man1 the whole of evolution becomes meaningless1 and nature is a riddle without a solution4 ,but if we admit it1 there is at least the possibility of a satisfactory answer4 ,for then1 as just said1 nature is seen to be only a means to an end--a temporary 7though perhaps necessary7 means to a permanent end--the end being to produce man 7a free being71 and then to provide a suitable place for his moral training4 ,and this will enable him1 if he wishes1 from being a free man1 to become also a righteous man1 that is1 a man who acts right1 though he might act wrong1 and thus to some extent worthy to share in his ,maker's immortality4 ,and we must remember1 man could not have been created righteous1 using the word in its strict sense4 ,he might have been created perfect 7like a machine71 or innocent 7like a child71 but to be righteous requires1 as just said1 his own co-operation--his continually choosing to act right1 though he might act wrong4 ,and this of necessity is a slow process1 with some failures4 ,but the end aimed at is a permanent1 and therefore perhaps an adequate1 end2 and the present world seems exactly suited to attain this end1 as it affords a man boundless opportunities 7every day1 if he likes to use them7 of acting right1 though he might act wrong4 ,we thus seem forced to the conclusion--however strange it may appear--that the gradual training and perfecting of man is the only adequate explanation of the world1 the real object of its long evolution4 ,yet1 if he is not immortal1 this object can never be attained1 for no one reaches moral perfection here2 while even if they did1 it would only last for a short time4 ,and we may ask1 is it likely that such a vast scheme should end in failure1 or at most in only a temporary success8 ,is it not rather probable that if man is the end of evolution1 then ,god1 the ,author of evolution1 must value him2 and if ,god values him1 ,he is not likely to let him perish for ever4 ,in short 7as it has been well put71 such vast progress from such small beginnings points to an end proportionately great1 and this involves the immortality of man4 ,on the whole1 then1 we may say in the words of ,romanes1 one of the great champions of evolution1 that 'only by means of this theory of probation is it possible to give any meaning to the world1 i4e41 any raison d'tre of human existence4'#h ,footnote #h3 ,thoughts on ,religion1 #ahie1 p4 #adb4 7#b47 ,from his unjust treatment4 ,the second argument is from man's unjust treatment in this world4 ,for as we saw in the last chapter1 ,god is a ,moral ,being1 able to distinguish right from wrong2 and1 as far as we can judge1 ,he is ,one ,who will always act right ,himself4 ,yet ,his treatment of men in this world seems most unjust4 ,wicked men are allowed to prosper by their wickedness1 good men suffer unjustly1 while some men's lives seem to be nothing but suffering2 and how is this to be accounted for8 ,there is here again one1 and only one1 satisfactory explanation1 which is that this life is not the whole of man's existence1 but only a preparation for a future life--a short trial for a long hereafter4 ,and1 looked at from this point of view1 the most apparently miserable lives may afford as valuable training1 perhaps more so1 than the outwardly happy ones4 ,the temptation to dishonesty1 for example1 can be as well resisted by a poor man who is only tempted to steal sixpence1 as by a rich man who is tempted to embezzle a thousand pounds4 ,and if resisting such a temptation helps to form a man's character1 as it certainly does1 and hence1 perhaps1 to fit him for a better life hereafter1 this can be as well done in the one case as in the other4 ,and the same principle applies universally2 even a child has his temptations1 which are very real to the child1 though they may seem ridiculous to us4 ,so if this life is intended as a time of probation in which to form a man's character1 we cannot imagine a better system or one more admirably adapted to the end in view4 ,and we must remember a man's character is the thing most worth forming1 since 7as far as we can judge7 it is his only permanent possession4 ,all else will be surrendered at death1 but his character will last as long as the man himself1 and hence perhaps for ever4 ,nor is this all1 for these trials and sufferings themselves may be the very means of adding to man's future happiness4 ,the joy of having resisted temptation1 for instance1 would be impossible if men were never tempted2 and the joy of rescuing others from suffering and sin1 and thus perhaps making everlasting friendships1 would be impossible if there were no suffering1 and no sin4 ,and the same applies in other cases4 ,so man's probation in this life1 with its incessant battle against evil1 may 7for all we know7 increase his future happiness in a way which nothing else could possibly do1 and to an extent of which we can form no conception4 ,no pain or suffering1 then1 can be looked upon as useless1 and no position in this world as one to be despised2 in short1 to anyone who believes in a future state1 life is always worth living4 ,and we may be sure that in a future state every injustice will be made good1 and all wrongs will be righted4 7#c47 ,from his vast capabilities4 ,the third argument is from man's vast capabilities4 ,for he does not seem adapted to this life only1 but has aspirations and longings far beyond it4 ,his powers seem capable of continual and almost endless development4 ,nearly all men wish for immortality4 ,this life does not seem to satisfy them entirely4 ,for instance1 men1 especially scientific men1 have a longing after knowledge which can never be fully realised in this world4 ,a man's capacities are thus out of all proportion to his destiny1 if this life is all2 and to many it seems improbable that the ,creator should have endowed men with such needless and useless capacities4 ,and this is strongly confirmed by the analogy of nature4 ,for example1 a bird in an egg shows rudimentary organs which cannot be used as long as it remains in the egg2 and this of itself is a proof that it is intended some day to leave the egg4 ,on the other hand1 a full-grown bird seems to be entirely adapted to its present state1 and not to have any longing after1 or capacity for1 any higher state2 therefore we may infer that no higher state is intended for it4 ,and by the same reasoning we may infer that some higher state is intended for man1 as his mental and spiritual nature is not entirely satisfied by his present life4 ,in short1 all animals seem made for this world alone1 and man is the only unsatisfied being in the universe4 ,moreover1 the period of preparation in a man's life seems out of all proportion to the time prepared for1 if death ends all4 ,the development in a man's moral character often continues till nearly the close of his life4 ,his character has then reached maturity4 ,but for what is it matured8 ,surely not for immediate destruction4 ,must not the wise ,creator1 ,who designed everything else with such marvellous skill1 have intended something better for ,his noblest creatures than mere boundless capabilities1 unsatisfied longings1 and a lifelong preparation all for nothing8 7#d47 ,from his inherent belief4 ,the fourth argument is from man's belief in immortality4 ,for such a belief has existed among men in nearly every age and country1 learned and ignorant1 civilised and uncivilised4 ,it was implied by the pre-historic men who buried food and weapons with their dead1 and it was maintained by such philosophers as ,socrates and ,plato1 and how are we to account for it8 ,it cannot have arisen from experience2 and the attempts to explain it as due to the desire which men have for immortality1 or to someone occasionally dreaming that he sees a departed friend1 are quite inadequate4 ,desire is not conviction1 and dreams are notoriously untrustworthy4 ,they might account for an individual here and there entertaining this belief1 but not for mankind always and everywhere doing so2 especially in face of the apparent contradiction afforded by every grave4 ,the belief1 then1 seems intuitive1 and an inherent part of human nature2 and we may ask1 is it likely that ,god should have implanted such a strange belief in man if it were erroneous8 ,these1 then1 are the four great arguments in favour of man's immortality--those derived from his unique position2 his unjust treatment2 his vast capabilities2 and his inherent belief4 ,and with the doubtful exception of the second1 not one of them applies to animals2 so the common objection1 that if man is immortal1 animals must be so too1 is quite untenable4 7#e47 ,counter-arguments4 ,on the other hand1 the great and only important argument against man's immortality is that his spirit seems to be inseparably connected with his body4 ,as far as we can judge1 it is born with the body2 it often inherits the moral character of its parents1 just as the body inherits bodily diseases2 it certainly develops and matures with the body2 and in most cases it seems to gradually decay with the body2 therefore it is inferred the two perish together4 ,but this does not follow2 since1 as said in ,chapter ,,iv41 it is not the same body 7in the sense of the same material particles7 with which the spirit is united1 even in this life4 ,it is united to a continually changing body1 yet it always survives4 ,so it is not unlikely that it may survive the still greater change at death4 ,moreover1 it is united to the body as its master1 not its servant4 ,it is1 as already shown1 a free spirit2 and it decides to a great extent what the body shall say1 and what it shall do4 ,it thus uses the body as a means1 or instrument1 by which to act in the outer world2 and therefore1 of course1 when the instrument gets out of order1 its actions will become confused1 but without implying that the spirit itself is so4 ,in the same way1 if we shut up a clerk in a telegraph office1 as soon as his instruments get out of order1 the messages he sends1 which are his only means of communicating with the outer world1 will become confused1 and finally cease1 but without implying that there is anything wrong with the clerk himself4 ,and this is confirmed by the fact that instances are known in which a man's intellect and will have remained quite vigorous all through a mortal sickness1 and up to the very moment of death2 so the gradual decay of the body does not necessarily involve that of the mind and spirit4 ,while in states which somewhat resemble death1 when1 for instance1 the body is fast asleep1 or rendered unconscious by an accident1 the mind and spirit are often peculiarly active1 as in dreams4 ,therefore1 when the body is really dead1 the spirit may 7for all we know7 not only survive1 but be endowed with still greater powers4 ,on the whole1 then1 this is not an insuperable difficulty2 while the previous arguments render the idea of a future life distinctly probable4 ,and this has1 of course1 a most important bearing on our next question2 indeed1 it is scarcely too much to say that the probability of a revelation depends on that of a future life4 ,for if death ends all1 man's existence is so short that a revelation can scarcely be thought probable2 but if he is to live for ever1 the case is very different4 7,b47 ,,the ,,probability ,,of ,a ,,revelation4 ,now 7assuming man to be immortal7 a revelation1 from whichever side we regard it1 appears to be somewhat probable4 ,for ,god is a ,being1 ,who seems likely to make a revelation2 and man is a being exactly fitted to receive one2 so we will consider these points first1 and then the chief difficulties4 7#a47 ,from ,god's character4 ,now we have already shown that ,god takes an interest in man's welfare1 being not only beneficent1 but righteous2 and that ,he apparently wishes to train and develop man's character1 so that he may be righteous also4 ,and from this we may infer that if a revelation would benefit man1 and thus help him to be righteous also1 it would not be improbable for ,god to make one4 ,and that the knowledge given by a revelation might influence him in this way cannot be denied2 for1 as a matter of fact1 such knowledge1 either real or pretended1 has had precisely this effect on millions of men4 ,we may also infer from ,god's methods in nature1 which are those of slow development1 that if ,he made a revelation at all it would be done gradually4 ,at first it would be very simple1 and such as could be transmitted orally4 ,then when man acquired the art of writing1 and could thus hand it on accurately1 a more definite revelation might be given4 ,and this again might become more and more perfect1 as man himself became more perfect4 ,we obviously do not know enough to speak with confidence1 but still ,god's character1 so far as we can judge of it1 seems to be in favour of ,his making some revelation--and that a progressive revelation--to man4 7#b47 ,from man's character4 ,passing on now to man's character1 we find that he has been given a nature exactly fitted to receive a revelation4 ,for religion of some kind is1 and always has been1 practically universal2 and nearly all important religions have rested on real or pretended revelations from ,god1 and have been accepted in consequence4 ,in other words the nature of man has everywhere led him to seek for1 demand1 and1 if need be1 imagine a revelation from ,god4 ,nor is this in any way surprising1 for a thoughtful man cannot help wishing to know why he is placed in this world2 why he is given free will2 how he is meant to use his freedom2 and what future1 if any1 is in store for him hereafter3 in short1 what was ,god's object in creating him4 ,it seems of all knowledge to be the highest1 the noblest1 the most worth knowing4 ,and therefore as this result of man's nature was not only brought about by ,god1 but must have been foreknown1 and intended by ,him1 it is not improbable that ,he should satisfy it2 especially as it cannot be satisfied in any other way1 for the knowledge being superhuman1 is out of man's own reach4 ,and it may be added1 the more we realise this1 and feel that ,god is ,unknowable1 in the sense that we can gain no satisfactory knowledge about ,him by human science and reasoning1 so much the more likely does it seem that ,he should give us such knowledge by revelation4 ,and all this is strengthened when we consider man's unique position to which we have already alluded4 ,for if we admit that the creation and perfecting of man is the chief object the ,creator had in view for so many thousands of years1 it does not seem unlikely that ,he might wish to hold some communication with him4 ,in fact1 as the whole of nature shows design or purpose2 and as man occupies a special place in nature2 we may fairly conclude that ,god has some special purpose in regard to man1 and1 for all we know1 ,he may have something special to tell him about it4 ,we conclude then that man's character1 and the unique position he occupies on this earth1 is a strong argument in favour of his receiving some revelation from ,god4 7#c47 ,two difficulties4 ,but now for the other side4 ,there are two chief difficulties4 ,the first is on the ground of injustice2 since any revelation1 it is said1 would imply a partiality to the men or nation to whom it was given1 and would therefore be unjust to the rest of mankind4 ,but this is quite untenable1 for ,god's other benefits are not bestowed impartially4 ,on the contrary1 pleasure and pain1 good and evil1 are never equally distributed in this world4 ,what seems to be partiality and favouritism is the rule everywhere1 and this without any apparent merit on the part of the men concerned4 ,moreover1 the advantages of a revelation may not concern this world only4 ,and all who believe in a future life are convinced of ,god's justice1 and that men will only be judged according to the knowledge of ,his ,will which they possessed1 or might have possessed had they chosen1 and not according to any higher standard which was out of their reach4 ,the other and more important difficulty is1 that if ,god gave a revelation at all1 it would be absolutely convincing4 ,everything that ,god does ,he does well2 and we cannot1 it is urged1 imagine ,his making a revelation to man1 and yet doing it so imperfectly as to leave men in doubt as to whether ,he had done it or not4 ,for this would imply that ,he either could not1 or would not1 make the evidence sufficient to ensure conviction1 neither of which is credible4 ,now1 though all this seems very probable1 a moment's reflection will show that it is not conclusive2 for exactly the same may be said in regard to the whole of ,natural ,religion4 ,is it likely1 for instance1 that ,god should create free and responsible men1 and yet give them such insufficient evidence about it1 that while many are fully convinced1 others deny not only their own freedom and responsibility1 but even the existence of the ,god ,who made them8 ,yet ,he has done so4 ,therefore there is nothing improbable in the evidence for a revelation1 if one were given1 being of a similar character4 ,indeed1 there is much to be said in favour of its being so1 since in most other matters man is left a free choice4 ,he is often able to find out how he ought to think and how he ought to act1 but he is not forced to do either4 ,and ,god may have wished that the same rule should be followed in regard to a revelation1 and that man should be left free to believe it or not1 just as he is left free to act on it or not1 if he does believe it1 and just as he is left free to choose right or wrong in other cases4 ,therefore we cannot say that no revelation can come from ,god unless the evidence for it is overwhelming4 ,it would doubtless be sufficient to convince a man if he took the trouble to examine it carefully2 only it need not be such as to compel conviction4 ,what kind of evidence we may expect will be considered in the next chapter4 ,neither of these difficulties1 then1 is at all serious2 and we are forced back to the conclusion that1 provided man is immortal1 a revelation seems for several reasons to be somewhat probable4 ,to put it shortly1 if ,god is good and really cares for man's welfare1 it seems unlikely that ,he should withhold from him that knowledge which is the highest1 the noblest1 and the most longed for2--the knowledge of ,himself4 ,while1 if man is a free and immortal being1 occupying a unique position in the world1 and intended to live for ever1 it seems unlikely that he should be told nothing1 and therefore know nothing1 as to why he was created1 or what is his future destiny4 ,thus when we consider both ,god's character and man's character1 it seems on the whole to be somewhat probable1 that ,god would make a revelation to man2 telling him how he ought to use his freedom in this world1 and possibly what future is in store for him hereafter4 ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,,that ,a ,,miraculous ,,revelation ,,is ,,credible4 ,a ,divine messenger would probably have credentials4 7,a47 ,,superhuman ,,signs4 ,these include superhuman knowledge1 afterwards verified 7such as prophecy71 and superhuman coincidences2 and there is nothing incredible in either4 7,b47 ,,supernatural ,,signs1 or ,miracles4 ,these are 'marvels specially worked by ,god as signs to confirm a revelation4' ,this definition is threefold1 referring to their outward appearance1 cause1 and purpose4 7#a47 ,miracles as marvels3 though they seem to be contrary to experience1 they are not really so1 for we have no experience of the proper kind to refer to4 7#b47 ,miracles as special works of ,god3 they only interfere with the uniformity of nature in the same way that human works interfere with it4 7#c47 ,miracles as signs3 there is nothing to show that they are inconsistent with ,god's ,character4 ,we decided in the last chapter that it was somewhat probable for ,god to make a revelation to man1 that is to say1 to certain men1 for them to make known to others4 ,and if so1 it is also probable that these men would have some means of showing that the knowledge had come from ,god and not from themselves4 ,in other words1 if ,god sends a message to man1 it is probable that the messenger would have credentials4 ,and this is especially so when we remember that men have often appeared in the world's history who professed to have a revelation from ,god1 and have misled mankind in consequence4 ,is it not probable1 then1 that if ,god really did give a revelation1 ,he would take care that ,his true messengers should have credentials which would distinguish them from all the others8 ,these credentials1 then1 or signs1 must plainly be such as could not be imitated by man2 and must therefore of necessity be superhuman1 if not supernatural4 ,so we may divide them into these two classes2 and we have now to consider whether they are credible4 ,by this is meant something more than merely possible2 for the possibility of such signs follows at once from the existence of ,god4 ,but are they credible8 is there1 that is1 at least a slight chance that they would occur8 7,a47 ,,superhuman ,,signs4 ,these include1 to begin with1 superhuman knowledge1 which can be afterwards verified1 such as prophecy4 ,and there is no difficulty here1 provided we admit a revelation at all4 ,the only possible objection refers to prophecies regarding human conduct2 which it may be said would interfere with man's freedom4 ,but this is only part of the more general objection that any foreknowledge on ,god's part would interfere with man's freedom1 which we have already considered in ,chapter ,,ii42 and there is no special difficulty in regard to prophecies4 ,in every case1 as said before1 ,god merely foreknows the use man will make of his freedom4 ,therefore the event will not occur because it was foretold1 but rather it was foretold because ,god knew that it would occur4 ,superhuman coincidences form another1 and very important class of superhuman signs4 ,in these a man's acts or sayings are confirmed by natural events coinciding with them in a remarkable manner4 ,for example1 suppose a prophet claimed to have a revelation from ,god2 and1 as a proof of this1 invited the people to witness a sacrifice on a cloudless day4 ,he then killed an animal1 and placed it on an altar of stones1 but put no fire under it1 and even threw water over it4 ,suddenly1 however1 a thunderstorm arose1 and the sacrifice was struck by lightning4 ,now the thunderstorm might have arisen and the lightning might have struck on that particular spot1 in strict accordance with natural laws4 ,yet the coincidence of this occurring just when and where the prophet wanted it1 would tend strongly to show that ,god1 ,who must have foreknown and designed the coincidence1 meant to confirm what the prophet said4 ,or1 to put the argument in other words1 the lightning would seem to have struck the sacrifice on purpose2 and therefore such events have been popularly described as natural forces acting rationally4 ,of course1 as a rule1 the forces of nature do not act rationally4 ,a falling meteorite1 for instance1 does not go a yard out of its way to kill anyone1 or to spare him4 ,man1 on the other hand1 does act rationally4 ,his acts are directed for a purpose1 and thus show design4 ,and1 in the events we are considering1 the forces of nature seem also to act with a purpose2 and this makes it probable that the ,author of these forces was really acting with this purpose4 ,in short1 the events seem to have been not only superhuman1 but designed coincidences4 ,and they present no difficulty whatever from a scientific point of view1 as they are part of the ordinary course of nature4 ,of course1 the value of such coincidences varies greatly according to whether the event is of a usual or unusual character4 ,in the latter case1 more especially if the event is very unusual or the coincidence very striking1 they are popularly called miracles4 ,and they may have considerable value1 though there is always a slight chance of the agreement being1 as we might say1 accidental4 7,b47 ,,supernatural ,,signs4 ,we pass on now to supernatural signs or ,miracles in the strict sense2 which we will define as marvels specially worked by ,god as signs to confirm a revelation4 ,this definition has1 of course1 been chosen so as to suit the miracles recorded in the ,bible1 and it is really threefold4 ,in the first place1 a miracle is described as to its outward appearance4 ,it is a marvel--that is to say1 a strange and unusual event1 which we cannot account for1 and which thus attracts attention4 ,secondly1 it is described as to its cause4 ,this marvel is said to have been specially worked by ,god--that is to say1 by some action on ,his part different from ,his usual action in nature4 ,while1 lastly1 it is described as to its purpose2 it is a marvel worked by ,god as a sign to confirm a revelation4 ,the first of these aspects is expressed in the ,old ,testament by the word wonder1 the second by such phrases as ,god's mighty hand or outstretched arm1 and the third by the word sign2 all these terms being often used together4 ,while in the ,new ,testament the words used are wonders1 mighty works1 and signs1 which again exactly correspond to these three aspects of the miracles4 ,and it should be noticed these aspects are not chosen merely to suit the present argument1 since other events can and ought to be looked at in the same way1 not as mere facts1 but also with reference to their alleged cause and purpose4 ,and to show the great importance of this1 we will consider an event from modern history2 and select the well-known example of the ,mont ,cenis ,tunnel4 ,suppose1 then1 that anyone heard of this as a marvel only1 the cause and purpose being left out of account4 ,suppose1 that is1 he heard that a small straight cavity of uniform size1 and several miles long1 had been formed under a range of mountains2 and that it had begun as two cavities1 one from each end1 which after years of growth1 had exactly met in the middle4 ,he would at once pronounce the event incredible1 for the cavity is quite unlike all natural cavities4 ,but now suppose the next point1 as to its cause1 to be introduced4 ,it is said to be something more than a natural cavity1 and to be the work of man4 ,all previous difficulties would now vanish1 but fresh ones would arise4 ,for numbers of men must have worked together for years to excavate such a cavity1 and from what we know of human nature1 men will only do this for commercial or profitable ends1 and not for boring useless holes through mountains2 so the event is still practically incredible4 ,but now suppose the last point of purpose to be introduced4 ,it is said that this is not a mere useless hole bored through a mountain2 but a hole bored for a particular purpose2 it is1 in fact1 a railway tunnel4 ,then all difficulties would disappear4 ,of course1 whether we believe the tunnel was actually made depends upon what evidence we have2 but it is clear that when we consider the cause by which1 and the purpose for which1 it is said to have been made1 there is nothing incredible about it4 ,now a similar method must be adopted in regard to miracles4 ,they must not be regarded simply as marvels1 but as marvels said to have been brought about by an adequate cause1 and for a sufficient purpose4 ,and it is just these elements of cause and purpose which may make the marvels credible4 ,we will consider these points in turn4 7#a47 ,miracles as marvels4 ,the first aspect of miracles is that of marvels4 ,as such1 they are events which seem to be contrary to our experience--contrary1 that is1 to what our experience of apparently similar events would lead us to expect4 ,suppose1 for instance1 it were stated that on one occasion three men were thrown into a furnace1 but instead of being burnt to death they walked about1 and in a few minutes came out alive and unhurt4 ,such a marvel would be contrary to our experience1 and that it would be therefore very improbable is obvious4 ,but is this improbability sufficient in all cases to make the event incredible1 no matter what testimony there may be in its favour8 ,hume's argument that it is sufficient is well known4 ,he says we can only judge of the probability of anything1 whether it be the occurrence of an event1 or the truthfulness of the narrator1 by experience4 ,and as it is contrary to experience for miracles to be true1 but not contrary to experience for testimony to be false1 the balance of probability must always be against the miracle4 ,but of course this reasoning1 if true1 must apply to all alleged events which are contrary to experience2 and yet such events have occurred by the thousand4 ,let us take a single example4 ,everyone has had some experience as to how far it is possible to hear the human voice distinctly1 and till the last half century1 the limit has always been fixed at a few hundred yards4 ,now1 suppose anyone were told for the first time that it was possible to speak right across ,england1 he would justly say that it was utterly contrary to experience4 ,no one1 he would think1 could possibly speak loud enough to be heard even twenty miles away4 ,but ought he to add that it was therefore incredible8 ,from this it is clear that there must be some flaw in ,hume's argument2 and it is easily discovered4 ,for the argument regards the event only as a marvel1 and without reference to its cause4 ,but we have no right to leave this out of account1 nor do we in ordinary affairs4 ,when anyone first hears of a marvel1 he does not merely compare it with his previous experience1 and then come to a decision2 in which case1 as ,hume supposes1 it might be always against the marvel4 ,but he first inquires how this strange event is said to have been brought about4 ,for if any cause is stated to have been at work as to the influence of which he knows nothing1 then he has no experience of the proper kind to appeal to4 ,there is the testimony in favour of the event as before2 and if he disbelieves it1 he does so1 not because it is contrary to his experience1 but because he thinks the supposed cause either did not exist1 or would not have had the effect asserted4 ,a reference to the previous example will make this quite plain4 ,when the man first heard of persons talking across ,england1 instead of at once declaring it incredible1 he would1 if a reasonable man1 inquire as to the cause of this4 ,he would then be told that a wire was stretched across ,england with an instrument called a telephone at each end4 ,now1 as to the possibility or adequacy of such a contrivance he might doubt a good deal2 but one thing would be quite clear1 that this was a case to which his experience1 however large1 did not apply4 ,here1 then1 is the explanation of ,hume's argument4 ,so long as a marvel1 contrary to experience1 is regarded only as a marvel1 the probability must be always against its truth4 ,but if we inquire as to how it was brought about1 and find that some cause is said to have been at work1 as to the influence of which we are ignorant1 then the argument is no longer applicable4 ,we have simply no experience of the proper kind to appeal to4 ,now this is precisely the case with regard to miracles4 ,as marvels they seem contrary to experience2 but they claim to have a special cause1 to be specially worked by ,god--that is to say1 by some action on ,his part different from ,his usual action in nature2 and of the influence of this cause we have no experience whatever4 ,we may1 of course1 deny its existence or doubt its adequacy2 but the argument1 that the event is contrary to experience1 vanishes4 ,it is clear then that the fact of miracles appearing to be contrary to experience is no reason for disbelieving them1 though it might be a reason for disbelieving other alleged marvels1 because they claim to have a special cause1 by which to account for this special character4 ,we have now to examine whether this special cause really existed--that is to say1 we pass on to the second aspect of the miracles2 our conclusion thus far being that they are credible as marvels1 if it be credible that they were specially worked by ,god4 7#b47 ,miracles as special works of ,god4 ,now1 any special action on ,god's part is often thought to present great difficulties1 as interfering with the uniformity of nature4 ,but1 as we shall see1 it would only interfere with it in the same way that human action interferes with it4 ,neither of them violates the laws of nature1 though both are able to bring about results which nature of itself could not have brought about4 ,in the case of human action this is quite obvious4 ,suppose1 for example1 a clock with an iron pendulum is placed on a table and keeps perfect time4 ,suddenly1 without anyone touching it1 it begins to gain rapidly1 and then1 after a short time1 goes on as before4 ,to anyone unacquainted with the cause1 this would appear a marvel3 and might even be thought incredible1 as 7assuming the clock to be properly constructed7 it would seem to imply some alteration in the laws of motion1 or the force of gravity4 ,yet we know a man can easily produce such a marvel by holding a magnet under the table4 ,the disturbing cause1 it will be noticed1 was not really the magnet1 which always acts according to law2 nor the hand which held it2 but the action of the human will on matter4 ,this took place in the man's brain1 and enabled him to move first his hand1 and then the magnet4 ,thus we may say the marvel was produced by natural means supernaturally applied2 for the magnet was undoubtedly a natural means1 yet nature of itself would never have used it in the way described4 ,it required something above nature 7something super-natural7 and this was the free will of man4 ,now1 miracles claim to have been produced in a somewhat similar1 though to us unknown1 manner by the action of ,god's ,will on matter1 that is to say1 by natural means supernaturally applied2 and1 if so1 they are certainly credible1 under this head4 ,for we know that ,god has the power of acting on matter1 and that ,he used it once in creating the universe1 so ,he might use it again if ,he thought fit4 ,moreover1 ,god's knowledge of the laws of nature is complete1 while man's is only partial4 ,as1 then1 man1 with his limited power over nature and partial knowledge of its laws1 can produce marvels so unlike nature's ordinary course 7a steam engine1 for instance71 yet without violating any of its laws2 still more can ,god1 ,who has complete power over nature1 and complete knowledge of its laws4 ,for to deny this would be to deny to ,god the power which we concede to man2 and which we must remember1 ,god ,himself has given to man4 ,and this would lead to the strange conclusion that ,god has enabled man to do what ,he cannot do ,himself4 ,no doubt we cannot imagine how ,god can exert ,his ,will over matter1 but neither can we imagine how we can do it ourselves4 ,the difficulty is as great in the one case as in the other4 ,from this it is clear that miracles need not violate natural laws4 ,and though at first one might be inclined to dispute this with regard to particular miracles2 the statement is quite correct1 provided we make due allowance for our own ignorance4 ,take1 for example1 the supposed case of the men in the furnace4 ,we certainly do not know how their bodies were kept cool1 but we cannot say it was impossible4 ,for extreme heat1 and even extreme cold1 may be very close together1 as is shown by the well-known experiment of freezing mercury inside a red-hot crucible4 ,as a mere marvel this is quite as wonderful as the men in the furnace2 and an ignorant man would probably pronounce both to be equally incredible4 ,or1 to take another example1 suppose it were said that on one occasion a few loaves of bread were miraculously increased so as to feed some thousands of persons3 could we say that this must have violated natural laws8 ,certainly not1 for bread is composed of carbon1 and other elements1 which were in abundance all round4 ,and though we only know one way of forming them into bread1 which is by means of a living plant1 we cannot say that this is the only method4 ,indeed1 there is nothing incredible in substances like bread being made artificially some day4 ,of course in all marvels produced by man1 we know the special cause at work1 but this does not justify us in saying that in a miracle1 merely because we do not know it1 the laws of nature must be violated4 ,moreover there is much to be said in favour of what is usually called ,god's immanence in nature1 but which would perhaps be better described as nature's immanence in ,god4#i ,this means that all natural forces are due to the present and immediate action of ,god's ,will2 and if it is correct1 it greatly lessens the difficulty as to miracles4 ,for then there would be no interference with nature at all1 leave alone violating its laws1 ,god would be working there all the time1 only in a miracle ,he would not be working in exactly the same way as in ordinary events4 ,footnote #i3 ,acts #ag4 #bh2 ,col4 #a4 #ag4 ,but in any case there is1 as we have shown1 nothing incredible in the way in which miracles are said to be caused1 provided it is credible that ,god should wish to use ,his power over nature in the assumed manner2 for natural forces are anyhow ,his servants1 not ,his masters4 ,and this brings us to the third aspect of the miracles2 for whether ,god would wish to act in a certain way depends of course on what purpose ,he had in doing so4 7#c47 ,miracles as signs4 ,now the purpose for which miracles are said to be worked is as signs to confirm a revelation4 ,therefore1 since we have already shown that it is somewhat probable that ,god would make a revelation1 we have now only to inquire whether miracles are suitable means for confirming it4 ,and they appear to be the most suitable means possible2 for they would both attract men's attention to the revelation1 and also convince them of its superhuman character2 which are precisely the two points required4 ,it may still be objected1 however1 that ,god's character1 as shown by nature1 is ,unchangeable2 and therefore it is most improbable that ,he would at times act in a special manner with regard to natural events4 ,and the more nature is studied the stronger does this objection appear2 since there are thousands of cases1 such as storms and earthquakes1 when it seems to us that a slight interference with nature would be most beneficial to man1 yet it never occurs4 ,or the objection may be otherwise expressed by saying that a miracle would reflect on either the ,wisdom or the ,power of ,god2 since1 if ,all-,wise1 ,he would have foreseen the occasion1 and if ,all-,powerful1 ,he would have provided for it2 so any subsequent interference with nature is something like having to remedy a fault4 ,this is no doubt the most serious objection to miracles1 but it is by no means insuperable4 ,for1 to begin with1 ,god is a ,free ,being1 ,who does not always act the same 7,chapter ,i474 ,and when we turn to the only other free being we know of1 which is man himself1 what do we find8 ,a man may1 as a rule1 act uniformly1 yet on some special occasion1 and for some special reason1 he may1 and often does1 act differently2 and why should not ,god do the same8 ,indeed the only changelessness in a man which we could admire1 would be that of moral character1 always and invariably acting right4 ,and for all we know the changelessness of ,god may be only of such a kind1 and this certainly would not prevent ,him from acting in some special manner1 in order to obtain some special purpose4 ,secondly1 in the case before us1 it is even probable that ,he would do so1 since the chief object of the miracles could not have been obtained by the ordinary course of nature1 though their immediate effects might have been4 ,for example1 instead of healing men miraculously1 they might be healed naturally2 but then there would be no evidence that the healer was sent by ,god1 and was speaking in ,his name4 ,in short1 the messenger would be without credentials2 and1 as we have already shown1 this seems unlikely4 ,thirdly1 though miracles do not show ,god's changelessness in the same manner as the unchanging course of nature1 they are not inconsistent with it4 ,for no one supposes them to be after-thoughts with ,god1 but to have been planned from the very beginning4 ,and if ,god always intended to make a revelation to man1 and always intended that when ,he did so1 ,he would confirm it by miracles1 they would involve no inconsistency or change on ,his part4 ,fourthly1 there may be some other attributes of ,god which miracles show1 and which the ordinary course of nature does not2 such as ,his superiority over nature itself on the one hand1 and the interest ,he takes in man on the other4 ,one object of a revelation might be to convince man that though ,god was the ,ruler of the ,universe1 ,he yet cared for man's happiness and valued his affections4 ,and how could such a revelation as this1 be better confirmed than by an 7apparent7 interference with nature for the benefit of man4 ,for this would show1 as nothing else could show1 both that there was a ,being above nature1 and that ,he cared for man more than ,he cared for nature4 ,and it entirely agrees with what we decided in the last chapter1 that the whole of nature seems to be only a means to an end1 the end being the moral training of man1 enabling1 that is1 a free man to become a righteous man4 ,and if so1 it is out of the question to think that in order to further this end--the very end for which nature itself exists--,god might not1 if ,he thought fit1 interfere with the course of nature4 ,we may therefore answer the objection in one sentence1 ,god is ,all-,good1 as well as ,all-,wise1 and ,all-,powerful2 and ,his ,goodness might induce ,him to use miracles1 though by ,his ,wisdom and ,power ,he might have dispensed with them4 ,we may now sum up the present argument4 ,we showed that miracles are credible both as marvels and as special works of ,god1 if it be credible that they were brought about as signs to confirm a revelation4 ,and we have now shown that1 supposing ,god to make a revelation1 which we have already admitted1 there is nothing inconsistent with ,his character as far as we know it1 and therefore nothing in the slightest degree incredible1 in ,his using such signs1 as one of the means of confirming its truth4 ,on the whole1 then1 we conclude that a ,miraculous ,revelation is certainly credible4 ,whether one has ever been made will be discussed in the following chapters4 ,,part ,,ii4 ,,the ,,jewish ,,religion4 ,,chap4 ,,viii4 ,,that ,,the ,,account ,,of ,,the ,,creation ,,was ,,divinely ,,revealed4 ,,ix4 ,,that ,,its ,,origin ,,was ,,confirmed ,,by ,,miracles4 ,x4 ,,that ,,its ,,history ,,was ,,confirmed ,,by ,,miracles4 ,,xi4 ,,that ,,its ,,history ,,was ,,also ,,confirmed ,,by ,,prophecies4 ,,xii4 ,,that ,,the ,,jewish ,,religion ,,is ,,probably ,,true4 ,,chapter ,,viii4 ,,that ,,the ,,account ,,of ,,the ,,creation ,,was ,,divinely ,,revealed4 7,a47 ,,its ,,general ,,principles4 7#a47 ,its pure ,monotheism2 admittedly true4 7#b47 ,its seven days need not be taken literally4 7#c47 ,its gradual development2 admittedly true4 7,b47 ,,its ,,detailed ,,order4 7#a47 ,the earliest state of the earth4 7#b47 ,light4 7#c47 ,the ,firmament4 7#d47 ,dry ,land4 7#e47 ,vegetation4 7#f47 ,the ,sun and ,moon4 7#g47 ,fishes and ,birds4 7#h47 ,land ,animals4 7#i47 ,man4 7,c47 ,,conclusion4 ,the accuracy of the narrative points to its having been ,divinely revealed4 ,having decided in the previous chapters on the ,existence of ,god1 and that it was credible that ,he might make a miraculous ,revelation to man2 we pass on now to the ,jewish ,religion1 which 7as well as the ,christian7 actually claims to be such a ,revelation4 ,and the first argument we have to consider in its favour is that afforded by the opening chapter of ,genesis4 ,it is urged that this account of the ,creation must have been ,divinely revealed1 since it contains a substantially correct account of events which could not have been otherwise known at the time4 ,what then we have to examine is1 whether this narrative is nearer the truth1 as we now know it from geology and other sciences1 than could have been the case1 if written by a man ignorant of these sciences4 ,and the ancient narratives of ,babylonia1 ,india1 ,persia1 and elsewhere1 show how far from the truth mere human conjecture on such a subject is likely to be4 ,while if we admit a revelation at all1 there is nothing improbable in some account of the creation of the world having been revealed to man very early in his history1 and being accurately preserved by the ,jews1 while only distorted versions of it occur among other nations4 ,indeed considering the common custom among ancient nations of worshipping the heavenly bodies1 animals1 etc41 no subject could have been more suited for a first revelation than the statement in simple language that all these were created by one supreme ,god4 ,we will now consider the general principles of the narrative1 and then its detailed order4 7,a47 ,,its ,,general ,,principles4 ,the most important of these are its pure ,monotheism1 its seven days1 and its gradual development1 each of which we will notice in turn4 7#a47 ,its pure ,monotheism4 ,this alone renders it almost1 if not quite1 unique among similar narratives4 ,according to the writer1 the whole universe1 including sun1 moon1 and stars1 was all due to one ,god4 ,and this is obvious enough now1 but it was not so when the narrative was written4 ,for other ancient accounts are either ,pantheistic1 and confuse ,god with the universe2 or ,dualistic1 and assume two eternal principles of good and evil2 or ,polytheistic1 and make the universe the work of several gods4 ,the ,jewish writer1 on the other hand1 has kept clear of all these theories2 and he is admittedly right and all the others wrong4 7#b47 ,its seven days4 ,next as to the seven days4 ,now it is generally assumed1 doubtless from their being referred to in the ,fourth ,commandment1 that the writer intended these days to be ordinary days of twenty-four hours each1 but this is at least doubtful4 ,for ordinary days depend on the sun1 and would therefore have been impossible before the formation of the sun on the fourth day2 as the writer himself implies1 when he says that the division of time into days and years was due to the sun4 ,then there is the difficulty as to the seventh day1 when ,god rested from all ,his work4 ,this1 it will be remembered had no close1 or evening1 and it is implied that it has continued ever since4 ,for if ,god only rested for twenty-four hours1 and then set to work again it would not have been a rest from all ,his work4 ,but in this case1 the seventh day would represent a long period of time1 and if so the other days would probably do the same4 ,moreover the writer1 or compiler1 of this very narrative1 after describing the creation in six days1 says it all occurred in one day1#aj so he could scarcely have thought the days to be literal4 ,footnote #aj3 ,gen4 #b4 #d4 ,there are thus great difficulties from the narrative itself in taking the word day in its ordinary sense2 and it seems better to consider it 7like so many terms in the ,bible7 as a human analogy applied to ,god4 ,then ,god's days must be understood in the same way as ,god's eyes or ,god's hands2 and this removes all difficulties4 ,none of these terms are of course literally true1 but they represent the truth to man in such a way that he can to some extent understand it4 ,for example1 the phrase that ,god gained the victory by ,his own right hand clearly means that ,he gained it not with the assistance of others1 or with the help of weapons1 but simply by ,his own unaided inherent strength4 ,it was such a victory as might in a man be described as gained by his own right hand4 ,and the same may be said of the passage1 ,the eyes of the ,lord are over the righteous1 and ,his ears are open unto their prayers1 and many others which occur in the ,bible4 ,the terms hands1 eyes1 and ears1 when applied to ,god1 are thus human analogies1 which must not be taken literally4 ,and in one passage at least the word day is used in a similar sense2 for we read ,hast thou eyes of flesh or seest thou as man seeth8 ,are thy days as the days of man1 or thy years as man's days8#aa ,here it will be noticed days and years are applied to ,god in precisely the same manner as eyes and seeing4 ,footnote #aa3 ,job #aj4 #d1 #e4 ,moreover similar terms occur all through the present narrative4 ,even the simple words ,god said cannot be taken literally1 for there was no one to speak to4 ,they must be meant in the sense that ,god thought1 or that ,god willed4 ,and we have no more right to suppose the days to be literal days than to suppose that ,god literally spoke4 ,what we are to suppose in the one case is that ,god--the ,almighty ,one1 for whom nothing is too hard--created all things in such a way as might to man be best represented by a simple word of command4 ,and what we are to suppose in the other case1 is that ,god--the ,eternal ,one1 to whom a thousand years are but as yesterday--created all things in such periods of time as might to man be best represented by six days4 ,vast as the universe was1 man was to regard it as being to ,god no more than a week's work to himself4 ,in short1 the time of creation1 however long in itself1 was utterly insignificant in its relation to ,god2 to ,him each stage was a mere day4 ,and this it may be added1 is not a purely modern theory1 made to reconcile the narrative with science2 for the ,greek ,jew1 ,philo1 born about ,b4,c4 #bj1 who knew nothing of geology1 ridicules the idea of the days of ,genesis being literal1 or representing any definite periods of time4#ab ,footnote #ab3 ,works of ,philo ,judus1 ,first book of ,allegories of the ,sacred ,laws1 ,yonge's translation1 #ahed1 vol4 i41 p4 #eb4 7#c47 ,its gradual development4 ,next1 it must be noticed that1 according to ,genesis1 ,god did not create a perfect world all at once1 but slowly built it up step by step4 ,at first the earth was waste and void1 and only after it had passed through several stages did it become fully inhabited4 ,moreover1 at every step 7with two exceptions1 the firmament and man1 noticed later on71 ,god examined the work and pronounced it good4 ,he seems thus to have discerned a beauty and excellence in each stage2 though it was not till the close of the whole work that ,he was completely satisfied1 and pronounced it all very good4 ,and the narrative appears to be quite correct4 ,for geology shows that the formation of the earth1 with its various inhabitants1 was a gradual process1 not accomplished all at once1 but slowly step by step1 through successive ages4 ,and it also shows that these ages were of such magnitude and importance that we cannot regard them as mere preparations for man's coming1 but as having a beauty and excellence of their own1 so that they well deserved to be called good4 ,but we may ask1 how did the writer of ,genesis know all this8 ,and then as to the way in which this development was brought about4 ,according to ,genesis1 each stage was due to what we may call a ,special ,divine force1 represented by a word of command from ,god4 ,and this also seems correct1 for we cannot otherwise account for the first appearance of the various groups1 such as plants1 animals1 and men4 ,it is not disputed that these various stages may have been evolved from the previous ones1 e4g41 the living from the not-living1 which the narrative itself suggests in the words1 ,let the earth put forth grass2 and also at its close1 when it speaks of the generations of the heaven and of the earth2 which implies some kind of organic descent1 or evolution4 ,indeed the common expression that ,god made1 is probably used in the sense of evolved2 since the same word is employed in ver4 ,,ii of fruit-trees making fruit 7translated bearing or yielding fruit72 yet we know they do not make fruit suddenly out of nothing1 but slowly produce it4 ,what is disputed is1 that this evolution took place merely under the influence of natural development1 and without the additional influence of a new ,divine force4 ,and considering that all attempts to effect a similar transition now have failed completely1 it is not unreasonable to suppose that there was some other and special ,cause at work then4 ,nor is it easy to see how some of the changes could have been otherwise produced4 ,take1 for instance1 this very subject of the origin of life4 ,as far as we know1 the only natural mode in which life can begin is from a living parent1 yet there was a time when there were no living parents on this earth4 ,how1 then1 could it have originated1 except by some process other than natural1 i4e41 supernatural8 ,or1 again1 to take another instance1 when the first free being1 whether animal or man1 appeared on this planet1 a force totally different from all natural forces was introduced1 and one which could not have been derived from them alone4 ,and then there is another1 and very interesting point1 to notice4 ,it is that according to ,genesis1 these steps were not all of equal importance4 ,for while it describes most of them by the word made1 which1 as just said1 seems to mean here evolved2 on three occasions1 and only three1 it uses the word create4 ,these refer to the origin of the universe1 of animal life 7fishes and birds71 and of man4 ,and this is very significant1 when we remember that these correspond to the beginning of matter1 mind1 and spirit2 and are therefore 7as said in ,chapter ,,iv47 just the three places where something altogether new was introduced2 which could not1 as far as we can see1 have been evolved from anything else4 ,and this double method of producing1 partly by creating1 and partly by making or evolving1 is again referred to at the close of the narrative1 where we read that ,god rested from all ,his work1 which ,he had created and made4 ,so much for the general principles of the narrative1 we pass on now to its detailed order4 7,b47 ,,its ,,detailed ,,order4 ,it will be remembered that in ,genesis1 after describing the earliest state of the earth1 there are eight stages in its development2 two of which occurred on the third1 and two on the sixth1 day4 ,we have thus altogether nine subjects to examine4 7#a47 ,the earliest state of the earth4 ,now according to ,genesis1 the earth was at first waste and void and in darkness1 and apparently surrounded by the waters4 ,and if we adopt the usual nebula theory1 and refer this to the first period after it became a separate planet1 and had cooled so as not to give out any light itself1 these statements seem quite correct4 ,for we know from geology that the earth was then waste and void as far as any form of life was concerned1 while it was probably surrounded by a dense mass of clouds and vapours sufficient to produce darkness4 ,genesis then starts from the right starting-point1 but again we must ask1 how did the writer know this8 7#b47 ,light4 ,the first step in the development of the earth was1 we are told1 the introduction of light4 ,that this is what ,genesis means seems plain1 for the light must refer to the darkness of the previous verse1 and that referred to the earth4 ,as to whether light previously existed in other parts of the universe1 ,genesis says nothing1 it is only concerned with this earth4 ,and in the development of this earth1 light 7which in nature always includes heat7 must obviously have come first4 ,for on it depend the changes in temperature1 which lead to the formation of winds1 clouds1 and rain2 while it also supplies the physical power that is necessary for the life of plants and animals2 so in placing light as the first step1 ,genesis is certainly correct4 ,of course1 the source of light at this early period was the remainder of the nebula from which our planet was thrown off4 ,it was thus spread over an immense space1 instead of being concentrated like that of our present sun2 and probably only reached the earth through a partial clearing of the clouds just alluded to4 7#c47 ,the firmament4 ,the next step was separating the waters above 7i4e41 these dense clouds7 from the waters below which are stated to be the seas 7v4 #i-aj7 and forming between them a firmament or expanse 7see margin71 that is to say1 the air4 ,the idea that the writer thought this expanse meant a solid plane holding up the waters above 7because it is perhaps derived from a word meaning firm or solid7 is scarcely tenable4 ,for the firmament was called heaven1 and the upper waters1 above this heaven1 must mean the sources from which the rain usually comes1 since it is called rain from heaven4#ac ,and these sources are easily seen to be clouds2 and no one could have thought that a solid firmament was between the clouds1 and the seas4 ,footnote #ac3 ,deut4 #aa4 #aa4 ,moreover this same word heaven 7though used in various senses7 is translated air later on in this very narrative when it speaks of fowls of the air 7verses #bf-bh1 #cj74 ,and it also occurs in other passages1 in some of which it cannot possibly mean anything but the air1 e4g41 'any winged fowl that flieth in the heaven1' and 'the way of an eagle in the air1'#ad which is an additional reason for thinking that it means the air here4 ,footnote #ad3 ,deut4 #d4 #ag2 ,prov4 #cj4 #ai4 ,and the omission1 before noticed1 to say that ,god saw that the firmament was good1 is quite natural1 if this means only the air1 i4e41 the space between the clouds and the seas2 just as an artist1 though he might examine his pictures to see that they were good1 would not examine the spaces between them4 ,but it is difficult to account for1 if it means a solid firmament1 which would seem to require ,god's approval like everything else4 ,on the other side1 we have the expression about opening the windows of heaven when it rained at the time of the ,flood1#ae which is sometimes thought to imply openings in a solid firmament4 ,but it need not be taken literally1 any more than that about the doors of the sea2#af especially as in another place the heavens dropping water is explained as meaning that the clouds dropped it4#ag ,and since ,god promised that in future when a cloud was seen it should not cause another flood1#ah it is clear that the flood was thought to have come from the clouds1 and not from any openings in a solid reservoir in the sky4 ,footnote #ae3 ,gen4 #g4 #aa2 #b ,kings #g4 #b2 ,mal4 #c4 #aj4 ,footnote #af3 ,job #ch4 #h-aa4 ,footnote #ag3 ,judges #e4 #d 7,r4,v474 ,footnote #ah3 ,gen4 #i4 #ad4 ,there is also the passage about the sun and moon being set in the firmament4 ,but the writer cannot have meant they were fastened to the firmament1 since the moon keeps changing its position relatively to the sun1 just as a rainbow often does in regard to the cloud in which it is also said to be set4#ai ,of course their being in the firmament at all1 is not correct if this means only the air4 ,but the word may be used here in a wider sense1 like the ,english word heaven1 to include both the air1 and the space beyond4 ,for we speak of the clouds of heaven1 and the stars of heaven1 and in neither case with any idea of their being heaved up1 which is said to be the literal meaning of the word4 ,and in its primary sense1 as we have shown1 the firmament or expanse between the upper and lower waters 7the clouds and the seas7 must mean the air4 ,and the order in which this is placed after light1 and before plants and animals is obviously correct4 ,footnote #ai3 ,gen4 #i4 #ac4 7#d47 ,dry land4 ,we now come to an important point1 the appearance of dry land4 ,according to ,genesis1 there was not always dry land on the earth2 the whole of it was originally covered by the waters4 ,and science shows that this was probably the case2 the earth being at first surrounded by watery vapours1 which gradually condensed and formed a kind of universal ocean4 ,and then1 when the surface became irregular1 through its contracting and crumpling up1 the water would collect in the hollows1 forming seas1 and dry land would appear elsewhere4 ,but how was it possible for the writer of ,genesis to know all this8 ,there is nothing in the present aspect of nature to suggest that there was once a time when there was no dry land2 and if it was a guess on his part1 it was1 to say the least1 a very remarkable one4 7#e47 ,vegetation4 ,we next come to vegetation2 and it is placed in exactly its right position4 ,for it requires four things3 soil1 air1 water1 and light including heat2 and these were the four things which then existed4 ,the narrative1 it will be noticed1 speaks of three groups1 grass1 herbs1 and fruit-trees2 and it seems to imply that they appeared at the same time4 ,but since its general plan is that of a series of events1 the other view1 that they appeared successively1 is at least tenable4 ,there is1 however1 this difficulty4 ,none of these groups were complete before the following periods4 ,some plants1 for instance 7including both herbs and fruit-trees71 appeared long after the commencement of fishes and birds1 and similarly some fishes and birds after the commencement of land-animals4 ,but the difficulty is due to the fact that the classes overlap to a large extent4 ,and the order given in ,genesis is nearer the truth than any other would be4 ,had the writer1 for example1 placed them plants1 animals1 birds1 fishes2 he would have been quite wrong4 ,as it is1 by placing them plants1 fishes1 birds1 animals1 he is as near the truth as he can be1 if classes which really overlap have to be arranged in a consecutive narrative4 7#f47 ,the sun and moon4 ,we next come to the formation 7that is the making1 or evolving7 of the sun and moon4 ,the stars are also mentioned1 but it is not said that they were made on the fourth day1 and they are not alluded to in the opening command4 ,now1 this alleged formation of the sun after that of light is certainly the most striking point in the narrative1 and was long thought to be a difficulty4 ,but science has now shown that it is correct4 ,however strange we may think it1 light did undoubtedly exist long before the sun4 ,in other words1 the original nebula of our solar system was luminous1 and lighted the earth1 long before it contracted into a body with a definite outline1 and producing such an intense and concentrated light1 as could be called a sun4 ,and since the earth would cool much quicker than the large nebula from which it was thrown off1 vegetation might commence here before the nebula had become a sun1 though this latter point is doubtful4 ,two objections have now to be noticed4 ,the first refers to the moon1 which must have been thrown off from the earth long before the dry land and vegetation appeared2 and being so small1 would have consolidated sooner4 ,but when considered only as lights1 as they are in the narrative1 it is quite correct to place the moon with the sun2 since moonlight is merely reflected sunlight1 and must obviously have commenced at the same time4 ,the other objection is1 that according to ,genesis1 the earth seems to be the centre of everything1 and even the sun exists solely for the sake of lighting the earth4 ,but 7as before pointed out7 the narrative is only concerned with this earth2 and while we know that sunlight is of use to the inhabitants of our planet1 we do not know that it serves any other useful purpose4 ,these1 however1 are but minor matters2 the important point1 as before said1 is that ,genesis places the formation of the sun after that of light4 ,this must have appeared when it was written1 and for thousands of years afterwards1 an obvious absurdity1 since everyone could see that the sun was the source of light4 ,we now know that it is correct4 ,but how could the writer have known it1 unless it had been divinely revealed8 7#g47 ,fishes and birds4 ,we next come to fishes and birds1 which formed the commencement of animal life1 and thus involved the beginning of mind in some form2 so ,genesis 7as before said7 appropriately uses the word create in regard to them4 ,it is not clear whether the narrative means that they appeared at the same time1 or successively1 though here1 as in other cases1 the latter is the more probable4 ,and science entirely agrees in thus placing fishes before birds and both of these after plants4 ,this latter point indeed must be obvious to every naturalist1 since the food of all animals is derived1 either directly or indirectly1 from the vegetable world4 ,and ,genesis is equally correct in emphasising the great abundance of marine life at this period--the waters were to swarm with swarms of living creatures 7,r4,v4 ,margin71 and also in specially alluding to the great sea-monsters 7wrongly translated whales in ,a4,v471 since these huge saurians were a striking feature of the time4 ,the ,hebrew word is said to mean elongated or stretched-out creatures1 and as several of them were over #ej feet long1 no more suitable term can be imagined4 ,but again we must ask how did the writer know that such creatures were ever plentiful enough1 or important enough1 to deserve this special mention8 ,what are called invertebrate animals1 such as insects1 and shell-fish1 do not seem to be included in the narrative4 ,but it never claims to describe everything that was created2 and its extreme brevity1 combined with the insignificance of these creatures1 may well account for their being omitted4 7#h47 ,land animals4 ,we next come to land animals1 which we are told the earth was to bring forth4 ,as however it is said in the next verse that ,god made 7or evolved7 these creatures1 this need not mean that they were produced directly from the earth1 as in the case of plants4 ,and the position in which they are placed1 after fishes and birds and before man1 is again correct4 ,it is true that a few animals such as kangaroos1 seem to have appeared as early as birds1 but land animals as a whole undoubtedly succeeded them4 ,three classes are mentioned1 beasts of the earth1 cattle1 and creeping things1 probably small animals1 since another ,hebrew word is used for them1 later on1 which is said elsewhere to include weasels and mice4#bj ,footnote #bj3 ,gen4 #g4 #ba2 ,lev4 #aa4 #bi4 7#i47 ,man4 ,last of all we come to the creation of man4 ,four points have to be noticed here4 ,the first refers to the time of man's appearance1 which everyone now admits was not till towards the close of the ,tertiary or most recent group of strata2 so ,genesis is quite correct in placing him last of all4 ,as to the actual date1 it says nothing2 for its chronology only leads back to the creation of ,adam in chapter #b1 and not to that of the human race 7male and female7 in chapter #a4 ,and it is implied in several places1 that there were men before ,adam#ba and this was in consequence maintained by some writers long before geology was thought of4#bb ,we need not therefore discuss the difficulties connected with the story of ,adam and ,eve1 as to which the present writer has never seen a satisfactory explanation4 ,footnote #ba3 ,gen4 #d4 #ac-ag1 #bf2 #f4 #b-d4 ,footnote #bb3 ,e4g41 ,peyreyrius1 ,a4,d4 #afee1 quoted in the ,speaker's ,commentary4 ,secondly1 the creation of man is represented as of an altogether higher order1 than any of the previous ones1 since ,god did not say1 ,let the earth bring forth a thinking animal or anything of that kind1 but ',let us make man4' ,and this also is quite correct1 for man1 as we know 7,chapter ,,iv47 has a free will1 which makes him a personal being1 and therefore far above everything else on this planet4 ,and when we consider the vast possibilities1 involved in the creation of such a being1--able to act right or wrong1 and therefore able1 if he wishes1 to act in opposition to the will of his ,maker1 thus bringing sin into the world with all its consequent miseries1--it seems only suitable that such a momentous step should have been taken with apparent deliberation and in a manner different from all the others4 ,and it explains why no such expression as after its kind1 which is so frequently used of plants and animals1 is ever applied to man2 for he is not one of a kind in the same sense4 ,each man is unique1 a separate personal being1 distinct from all else in the world1 and not 7like a tree for instance7 merely one example of a certain way in which molecules may be grouped4 ,it also explains why man 7unlike plants1 animals1 etc47 is not said to have been created good4 ,for goodness in a free being must include moral goodness1 or righteousness2 and1 as explained in ,chapter ,,vi41 man could not have been created righteous4 ,he might have been created perfect1 like a machine1 or innocent1 like a child1 but to be righteous requires his own co-operation1 his freely choosing to act right1 though he might act wrong4 ,no doubt he was made in a condition perfectly suited for the exercise of his free choice2 but this seems included in ,god's final approval of the whole creation that it was all very good4 ,thirdly we are told that man 7and man alone7 was created in the image of ,god4 ,and once more the narrative is quite correct2 for that which distinguishes man from the rest of creation is his free will1 to which we have just alluded4 ,and that which distinguishes ,god's action from all natural forces is also ,his freedom1 7,chapter ,i474 ,so it is perfectly true to say that man was created in the image of ,god1 since the special attribute which separates him from all else on this planet is precisely the attribute of ,god ,himself4 ,and here we may notice in passing1 that though ,god intended man to be both in ,his image and likeness2 ,he only created him in ,his image 7vv4 #bf1 #bg74 ,and the reason is probably that while image means resemblance in nature 7possessing free will1 etc471 likeness means resemblance in character#bc 7always acting right74 ,therefore1 of course1 though ,god wished man to be both in ,his image and likeness1 ,he could only create him in ,his image2 the other point1 that of likeness in character1 depending 7as just said7 on the free will of the man himself4 ,footnote #bc3 ,the ,hebrew word appears to be sometimes used in this sense4 ,e4g41 ,ps4 #eh4 #d2 ,isa4 #ac4 #d4 ,in one brief reference in ,gen4 #e4 #a-b1 when speaking of ,adam1 likeness is used where we should have expected image2 though even here it is not said that man was created in ,god's likeness1 but merely that he was so made4 ,the fourth1 and last point is that though the writer assigns to man this unique position1 he does not give him1 as we might have expected1 a day to himself1 but connects him with land animals1 as both appearing on the sixth day4 ,and this also seems correct1 for in spite of his immense superiority1 man1 in his physical nature1 is closely connected with animals4 ,therefore the writer appropriately uses both words1 made and created1 in regard to him4 ,the former shows that in one respect 7as to his body7 he was evolved like the rest of nature2 the latter1 that in another respect 7as to his spirit7 he was essentially distinct4 7,c47 ,,conclusion4 ,we have now discussed the narrative at some length1 and 7omitting details7 it shows three great periods of life4 ,each of these has a leading characteristic2 that of the third day being vegetation2 that of the fifth day fishes and birds1 special mention being made of great sea-monsters2 and that of the sixth day land animals1 and at its close man4 ,and though these groups overlap to a large extent1 yet speaking broadly1 the three periods in ,geology have much the same characteristics4 ,the ,primary is distinguished by its vegetation 7e4g41 the coal beds72 the ,secondary by its saurians1 or great sea-monsters2 and the ,tertiary by its land animals1 and at its close 7now often called the ,quaternary7 by man4 ,the harmony between the two is1 to say the least1 remarkable4 ,and the theory of ,evolution which like geology1 was unknown when the narrative was written1 also supports it1 as has been admitted by some of its leading exponents4 ,thus ,romanes once said1 and as if the fact was undisputed1 ',the order in which the flora and fauna are said1 by the ,mosaic account1 to have appeared upon the earth corresponds with that which the theory of ,evolution requires1 and the evidence of geology proves4'#bd ,we decide1 then1 that the order of creation1 as given in ,genesis1 is in most cases certainly1 and in all cases probably1 correct4 ,footnote #bd3 ,nature1 #aath ,august1 #ahha4 ,and this is plainly of the utmost importance1 for the points of agreement between ,genesis and science are far too many1 and far too unlikely to be due to accident4 ,they are far too many2 for the chance against eight events being put down in their correct order by guesswork is #dj1cai to #a4 ,and they are far too unlikely2 for what could have induced an ignorant man to say that light came before the sun1 or that the earth once existed without any dry land8 ,moreover1 the general principles of the narrative1 especially its pure ,monotheism and its gradual development1 are very strongly in its favour4 ,and so are some individual points1 such as the idea of creation1 in its strict sense1 being limited to matter1 mind1 and spirit4 ,while our admiration for it is still further increased by its extreme conciseness and simplicity4 ,seldom1 indeed1 has such a mass of information been condensed into as few lines2 and seldom has such a difficult subject been treated so accurately yet in such simple and popular language4 ,now what conclusion can be drawn from all this8 ,there seem to be only two alternatives3 either the writer1 whoever he was1 knew as much about science as we do1 or else the knowledge was revealed to him by ,god4 ,and if we admit a revelation at all1 the latter certainly seems the less improbable4 ,and this1 it may be added1 was the opinion of the great geologist ,dana1 who said 7after carefully considering the subject7 that the coincidences between the narrative1 and the history of the earth as derived from nature1 were such as to imply its ,divine origin4#be ,we therefore conclude that this account of the creation was ,divinely revealed4 ,footnote #be3 ,bibliotheca ,sacra1 ,april1 #ahhe1 p4 #bbd4 ,,chapter ,,ix4 ,,that ,,its ,,origin ,,was ,,confirmed ,,by ,,miracles4 ,importance of the ,pentateuch1 as the only record of the origin of the ,jewish ,religion4 7,a47 ,,its ,,egyptian ,,references4 ,these are very strongly in favour of its early date2 7#a47 ,in the history of ,joseph4 7#b47 ,in the history of ,moses4 7#c47 ,in the laws and addresses4 7,b47 ,,its ,,laws4 ,these are also in favour of its early date3 7#a47 ,the subjects dealt with4 7#b47 ,their connection with the history4 7#c47 ,their wording4 7,c47 ,,the ,,theory ,,of ,a ,,late-,,date4 ,there are four chief arguments in favour of this1 but they are not at all convincing3 7#a47 ,the language of the ,pentateuch4 7#b47 ,its composite character4 7#c47 ,its laws being unknown in later times4 7#d47 ,the finding of ,deuteronomy4 7,d47 ,,conclusion4 ,the ,pentateuch was probably written1 as it claims to be1 by ,moses2 and we must therefore admit the miracles of the ,exodus4 ,we pass on now to the origin of the ,jewish ,religion--that is to say1 the events connected with the ,exodus from ,egypt4 ,and as the only account we have of these is contained in the ,pentateuch1 we must examine this book carefully4 ,is it a trustworthy1 and1 on the whole1 accurate account of the events which it records8 ,and this depends chiefly on its date4 ,is it a contemporary document1 written by1 or in the time of1 ,moses8 ,and modern discoveries have at least shown that it may be so4 ,for ,egypt was then in such a civilised state1 that it is practically certain that ,moses1 and the other leaders of ,israel1 could have written had they chosen4 ,and as they somehow or other brought the people out of ,egypt1 it is extremely probable that they would have recorded it4 ,but did they1 and do we possess this record in the ,pentateuch8 ,this is the question we have to decide2 and we will first consider the ,egyptian references in the ,pentateuch1 and then its ,laws1 both of which are very strongly in favour of an early date4 ,then we will see what can be said for the opposite theory1 or that of a late-date2 and lastly1 the conclusion to be drawn from admitting its genuineness4 7,a47 ,,its ,,egyptian ,,references4 ,now a considerable part of the ,pentateuch deals with ,egyptian matters1 and it appears to be written with correct details throughout4 ,this would of course be only natural in a contemporary writer living in ,egypt1 but would be most unlikely for a late writer in ,canaan4 ,the question is therefore of great importance in deciding on the date of the book2 so we will first consider these ,egyptian references 7as they are called7 in the history of ,joseph1 then in that of ,moses1 and then in the laws and addresses4 ,they cannot of course be properly appreciated without some knowledge of ancient ,egypt1 but they are far too important to be omitted4 ,it is disappointing to have to add that the evidence is almost entirely indirect1 but up to the present no reference to either ,joseph1 or ,moses1 has been found on the ,egyptian monuments1 and none to the ,israelites themselves that are at all conclusive4 7#a47 ,in the history of ,joseph4 ,to begin with1 there are three cases where it is sometimes said that the writer seems not to have been a contemporary1 since ,egyptian customs are there explained1 as if unknown to the reader4 ,these are their eating at different tables from the ,hebrews1 their dislike of shepherds1 and their habit of embalming4#bf ,but the inference from the first two is extremely doubtful2 though that from the third is rather in favour of a late date4 ,there is not1 however1 a single word here 7or anywhere else7 which is incorrect for ,egypt1 or which shows that the writer himself was unaware of its customs4 ,footnote #bf3 ,gen4 #dc4 #cb2 #df4 #cd2 #ej4 #c4 ,on the other hand1 there is abundant evidence in favour of a contemporary date4 ,the ,pharaoh is generally thought to be ,apepi ,,ii41 who belonged to a foreign dynasty of ,shepherd ,kings1 probably ,asiatic tribes like the ,israelites themselves4 ,and this will explain the evident surprise felt by the writer that one of his chief officers should be an ,egyptian1 which seems so puzzling to the ordinary reader4#bg ,it will also account for ,joseph and his brethren being so well received1 and for their telling him so candidly ,that they were shepherds1 though they knew that shepherds were hated by the ,egyptians4 ,had the ,pharaoh himself been an ,egyptian1 this was hardly the way to secure his favour4 ,footnote #bg3 ,gen4 #ci4 #a4 ,we will now consider a single chapter in detail1 and select ,gen4 #da2 nearly every incident in which shows a knowledge of ancient ,egypt3 ,ver4 #a4 ,to begin with1 the words ,pharaoh and the river 7i4e41 the ,nile71 though they are the proper ,egyptian names1 seem to have been adopted in ,hebrew1 and occur all through the ,old ,testament2 so they afford no indication of date4 #b-d4 ,the dreams1 however1 are peculiarly ,egyptian4 ,cattle along the river bank1 and feeding on the reed-grass 7an ,egyptian word for an ,egyptian plant71 was a common sight in that country1 but must have been almost unknown in ,canaan4 ,and their coming up out of the river was specially suitable1 as they represented the years of plenty and famine1 which in ,egypt depend entirely on the rise of the ,nile4 #e-g4 ,in the same way wheat with several ears is known to have been produced in ,egypt2 but is nowhere mentioned as grown in ,canaan4 #h4 ,moreover1 we know that the ,pharaohs attached great importance to dreams1 and used to consult their magicians and wise men when in doubt2 both these classes being often mentioned--and mentioned together--on the monuments4 #i-ab4 ,we also know that there were officials corresponding to the chief butler and the chief baker4 ,and a reference has even been found to the curious custom of the former giving the ,king fresh grape-juice1 squeezed into a cup 7,gen4 #dj4 #aa71 which is not likely to have been known to anyone out of ,egypt4 #ac4 ,and hanging the chief baker evidently means1 from ,gen4 #dj4 #ai1 hanging up the dead body1 after he had been beheaded2 which latter was an ,egyptian1 and not a ,jewish1 punishment4 #ad4 ,next we are told1 that when ,joseph was hurriedly sent for by ,pharaoh1 he yet stopped to shave4 ,and this was only natural1 as the upper class of ,egyptians always shaved2 but it would scarcely have occurred to anyone in ,canaan1 as the ,israelites always wore beards4#bh ,footnote #bh3 #b ,sam4 #aj4 #e4 #ce4 ,so again the custom of laying up corn in storehouses1 to provide against the frequent famines1 and for taxation1 was thoroughly ,egyptian1 the ,superintendent of the ,granaries being a well-known official4 ,but as far as we know nothing of the kind existed in ,canaan4 #ci4 ,we then come to the promotion of ,joseph2 and several instances are known of foreigners1 and even slaves1 being promoted to high offices in ,egypt4 #dj4 ,and the monuments show that it was the regular ,egyptian custom to have a ,superintendent1 who should be over the house4 #db4 ,joseph is then given ,pharaoh's signet ring1 the use of which1 at this early period1 has been fully confirmed by the inscriptions4 ,and he also receives fine linen 7an ,egyptian word being used for this7 and a gold chain about his neck4 ,this latter was a peculiarly ,egyptian decoration1 being called receiving gold1 and is continually alluded to on the monuments4 ,and a specimen may be seen in the ,cairo ,museum1 which happens to date from about the time of ,joseph4 #dc-dd4 ,and the apparently insignificant detail that ,joseph rode in a chariot 7implying horses7 is also interesting1 since1 as far as we know1 horses had only recently been introduced into ,egypt by the ,shepherd ,kings4 ,and had they been mentioned earlier--as1 for instance1 among the presents given to ,abraham#bi--;it would have been incorrect4 ,and the expression ,abrech1 translated ,bow the knee1 is probably an ,egyptian word 7,margin ,r4,v474 ,footnote #bi3 ,gen4 #ab4 #af4 #de4 ,we also know that when foreigners rose to great importance in ,egypt they were often given a new name4 ,and ,joseph's new name1 ,zaphenathpaneah1 7probably meaning ,head of the ,college of ,magicians1 a title he had just earned#cj7 as well as ,asenath1 and ,potiphera1 are all genuine ,egyptian names2 though 7with the exception of ,asenath7 they have not at present been found as early as the time of ,joseph4 ,footnote #cj3 ,h4 ,e4 ,naville1 ,professor of ,egyptology1 at the ,university of ,geneva1 ',archology of the ,old ,testament1' #aiac1 p4 #hj4 #di4 ,lastly1 the usual ,egyptian custom 7as shown by the monuments7 of having a scribe to count the quantity of corn as it is stored1 is incidentally implied in the statement that on this occasion1 owing to its great abundance1 ,joseph had to leave off numbering it4 ,thus everything in this chapter1 and the same may be said of many others1 is perfectly correct for ,egypt2 though much of it would be incorrect for ,canaan1 and is not likely to have been known to anyone living there4 ,yet the writer not only knows it1 but takes for granted that his readers know it too1 as he never explains anything4 ,so the narrative is not likely to have been written after the time of ,moses1 when the ,israelites left ,egypt4 ,and this1 it may be added1 is the opinion of many who have made a special study of ancient ,egypt4 ,thus ,prof4 ,naville declares ',i do not hesitate to say that he 7,moses7 was the only author who could have written the history of ,joseph1 such as we have it4'#ca ,footnote #ca3 ,transactions of ,victoria ,institute1 vol4 xlvii41 #aiae1 p4 #cee4 ,there is also evidence of quite another kind that this latter part of ,genesis was written in ,egypt4 ,this is afforded by six passages1 where1 after the name of a place1 is added some such phrase as which is in ,canaan4#cb ,yet there do not appear to be any other places of the same name liable to be confused with these4 ,when then would it be necessary to explain to the ,israelites that these places1 ,shechem1 etc41 were in ,canaan8 ,certainly not after the conquest1 when they were living there1 and it was obvious to everyone2 so we must refer them to the time when they were in ,egypt4 ,footnote #cb3 ,gen4 #bc4 #b1 #ai2 #cc4 #ah2 #ce4 #f2 #dh4 #c2 #di4 #cj4 ,and this is strongly confirmed by a little remark as to the desert of ,shur1 which lies between ,egypt and ,canaan1 and which is described as being before ,egypt as thou goest towards ,assyria4#cc ,clearly then this also must have been written in ,egypt1 since only to a person living there would ,shur be on the way to ,assyria4 ,footnote #cc3 ,gen4 #be4 #ah4 ,and the same may be said of the curious custom of first asking after a person's health1 and then1 if he is still alive4#cd ,this was thoroughly ,egyptian1 as some exactly similar cases have been found in a papyrus dated in the eighth year of ,menephthah1 generally thought to be the ,pharaoh of the ,exodus4#ce ,but it is scarcely likely to have been adopted by a writer in ,canaan1 as it makes the narrative seem so ridiculous4 ,footnote #cd3 ,gen4 #dc4 #bg-bh4 ,footnote #ce3 ,chabas1 ,mlanges gyptologiques1 ,third ,series1 vol4 ii41 ,paris1 #ahgc1 p4 #aeb4 7#b47 ,in the history of ,moses4 ,secondly1 as to the history of ,moses4 ,the name itself is ,egyptian2#cf and his being placed in an ark of papyrus smeared with bitumen was quite suited to ,egypt1 where both materials were commonly used1 but would have been most unsuitable anywhere else4 ,and several of the words used here1 as well as in other parts of the ,pentateuch1 show that the writer was well acquainted with the ,egyptian language4 ,in this single verse for instance1 there are as many as six ,egyptian words1 ark1 papyrus1 pitch1 flags1 brick1 and river2 though some of these were also used in ,hebrew4#cg ,then as to the ,israelites making bricks with straw4 ,this is interesting1 because we know from the monuments that straw was often used for the purpose1 the ,nile mud not holding together without it1 and that its absence was looked upon as a hardship4 ,so here again the narrative suits ,egypt1 and not ,canaan2 where as far as we know1 bricks were never made with straw4 ,and it so happens that we have a little direct evidence here4 ,for some excavations were made at ,tel-el-,muskhuta in #ahhc2 which turns out to be ,pithom1 one of the store cities said to have been built by the ,israelites4#ch ,and nearly its whole extent is occupied by large brick stores2 some of the bricks being made with straw1 some with fragments of reed or stubble used instead1 and some without any straw at all4 ,while1 unlike the usual ,egyptian custom1 the walls are built with mortar2 all of which exactly agrees with the narrative4#ci ,footnote #cf3 ,driver's ,exodus1 #aiaa1 p4 #aa4 ,footnote #cg3 ,exod4 #b4 #c4 ,footnote #ch3 ,exod4 #a4 #aa4 ,transactions of ,victoria ,institute1 vol4 xviii41 p4 #he4 ,footnote #ci3 ,exod4 #a4 #ad2 #e4 #ab4 ,next1 as to the ,ten ,plagues4 ,there is much local colouring here1 and hardly one of them would have been suitable in ,canaan4 ,moreover1 the order in which they come is very significant1 as it makes them agree with the natural calamities of ,egypt4 7i47 ,the water being turned into blood cannot1 of course1 be taken literally1 any more than when ,joel speaks of the moon being turned into blood4#dj ,it refers to the reddish colour1 which is often seen in the ,nile about the end of ,june2 though it is not as a rule sufficient to kill the fish1 or render the water unfit to drink4 ,and the mention of vessels of wood and stone#da is interesting1 as it was the custom in ,egypt to purify the ,nile water by letting it stand in such vessels2 and the writer evidently knew this1 and took for granted that his readers knew it too1 though it seems to have been peculiar to that country4 ,footnote #dj3 ,joel #b4 #ca4 ,footnote #da3 ,exod4 #g4 #ai4 7ii47 ,frogs are most troublesome in ,september4 7iii47 ,lice1 perhaps mosquitoes or gnats1 and 7iv47 ,flies1 are usually worst in ,october4 7v47 ,murrain among the cattle1 and 7vi47 ,boils cannot be identified for certain1 but their coming on just after the preceding plagues is most natural1 considering what we now know1 as to the important part taken by mosquitoes and flies in spreading disease4 7vii47 ,the hail must have occurred about the end of ,january1 as the barley was then in the ear1 but the wheat not grown up2 and severe hailstorms have been known in ,egypt at that time4 7viii47 ,locusts are known to have visited ,egypt terribly in ,march1 which seems the time intended1 as the leaves were then young4 7ix47 ,the darkness which might be felt was probably due to the desert wind1 which blows at intervals after the end of ,march1 and sometimes brings with it such clouds of sand as to darken the atmosphere4#db ,and curiously enough it often moves in a narrow belt1 so that the land may be dark in one place1 and light in another close by1 as recorded in the narrative4 ,footnote #db3 ,i have noticed the same in the ,transvaal1 in particular a sandstorm at ,christiana1 on #bjth ,october1 #aijj1 which so darkened the sky that for about a quarter of an hour ,i had to light a candle4 7x47 ,the death of the firstborn1 which occurred in ,april 7,abib71 was evidently not a natural calamity4 ,but what is specially interesting is the statement against all the gods of ,egypt ,i will execute judgments1 without any explanation being given of what is meant by this4#dc ,it refers to the ,egyptian custom of worshipping living animals1 the firstborn of which were also to die2 but this would only be familiar to a writer in ,egypt1 since1 as far as we know1 such worship was never practised in ,canaan4 ,the agreement all through is most remarkable1 and strongly in favour of a contemporary date4 ,footnote #dc3 ,exod4 #ab4 #ab2 ,num4 #cc4 #d4 7#c47 ,in the laws and addresses4 ,and the same familiarity with ,egypt is shown in the subsequent laws and addresses of the ,pentateuch4 ,thus we read of laws being written on the doorposts and gates of houses1 and on great stones covered with plaster1 both of which were undoubtedly ,egyptian customs2 and the latter was not1 as far as we know1 common elsewhere4#dd ,similarly the ,egyptian habit of writing persons' names on sticks1 was evidently familiar to the writer4#de ,and so was the curious custom of placing food for the dead1#df which was common in ,egypt1 though it never prevailed among the ,israelites4 ,footnote #dd3 ,deut4 #f4 #i2 #aa4 #bj2 #bg4 #b4 ,footnote #de3 ,num4 #ag4 #b4 ,footnote #df3 ,deut4 #bf4 #ad4 ,again the ordinary food of the people in ,egypt is given as fish1 cucumbers1 melons1 leeks1 onions1 and garlic1 all of which were commonly eaten there4#dg ,but as the ,hebrew names of four out of the five vegetables do not occur elsewhere in the ,bible1 they could scarcely have been very common in ,canaan2 while none of the characteristic productions of that land1 such as honey1 milk1 butter1 figs1 raisins1 almonds1 and olives1 are mentioned4 ,the list is1 as it ought to be1 thoroughly ,egyptian4 ,footnote #dg3 ,num4 #aa4 #e4 ,it must next be noticed that a large part of the religious worship prescribed in the ,pentateuch was obviously borrowed from ,egypt2 the most striking instance being that of the ark4 ,a sacred ark is seen on ,egyptian monuments long before the ,exodus1 and is sometimes surmounted by winged figures resembling the cherubim4#dh ,and the materials said to have been used for this worship are precisely such as the ,israelites might have then employed4 ,the ark1 for instance1 and also the tabernacle were not made of cedar1 or of fir1 or of olive1 as would probably have been the case in ,canaan 7for these were the materials used in the ,temple7#di but of shittim1 i4e41 acacia which is very common near ,sinai1 though scarcely ever used in ,canaan4 ,and the other materials were goats' hair1 rams' skins1 sealskins 7or porpoise skins7 from the ,red ,sea1 and gold1 silver1 brass1 precious stones1 and fine linen from the ,egyptian spoils2 the latter1 as before said1 being an ,egyptian word4#ej ,there is no mistake anywhere1 such as a late writer might have made4 ,footnote #dh3 ,comp4 ,exod4 #be4 #ac-ah4 ,footnote #di3 #a ,kings #f4 #ad-cf4 ,footnote #ej3 ,exod4 #be4 #c-aj4 ,moreover1 in other places1 the writer of the ,pentateuch frequently assumes that his readers know ,egypt as well as himself4 ,thus the people are twice reminded of the diseases they had in ,egypt--'the evil diseases of ,egypt which thou knowest' or 'which thou wast afraid of'--and they are warned that if they deserve it1 ,god will punish them with the same diseases again4#ea ,but such a warning would have been quite useless many centuries later in ,canaan2 just as it would be useless to warn an ,englishman now of the diseases of ,normandy1 which thou wast afraid of1 if this referred to some diseases our ancestors had before they left ,normandy in the eleventh century4 ,such words must clearly have been written soon afterwards4 ,similarly the people are urged to be kind to strangers1 and to love them as themselves1 because they knew the heart of a stranger1 having been strangers in the land of ,egypt4 ,and this again could scarcely have been written centuries after they left ,egypt4#eb ,footnote #ea3 ,deut4 #g4 #ae2 #bh4 #fj4 ,footnote #eb3 ,exod4 #bc4 #i2 ,lev4 #ai4 #cd4 ,elsewhere the writer describes the climate and productions of ,canaan2 and with a view to their being better understood1 he contrasts them with those of ,egypt4#ec ,obviously1 then1 the people are once more supposed to know ,egypt1 and not to know ,canaan4 ,for instance1 ,canaan is described as a country of hills and valleys1 and consequently of running brooks2 and not like ,egypt where they had to water the land with their feet4 ,but no explanation is given of this4 ,it probably refers to the water-wheels1 which were necessary for raising water in a flat country like ,egypt1 and which were worked by men's feet4 ,but can we imagine a late writer in ,canaan using such a phrase without explaining it8 ,on the other hand1 if the words were spoken by ,moses1 all is clear2 no explanation was given1 because 7for persons who had just left ,egypt7 none was needed4 ,footnote #ec3 ,deut4 #h4 #g-aj2 #aa4 #aj-ab4 ,on the whole1 then1 it is plain that when ,egyptian matters are referred to in the ,pentateuch1 we find the most thorough familiarity with native customs1 seasons1 etc41 though these are often quite different from those of ,canaan4 ,and we therefore seem forced to conclude that the writer was a contemporary who lived in ,egypt1 and knew the country intimately1 and as we have shown1 he evidently wrote for persons who had only recently come from there4 7,b47 ,,its ,,laws4 ,we pass on now to the ,laws of the ,pentateuch1 which are found in the middle of ,exodus1 and occupy the greater part of the remaining books4 ,and as we shall see1 they also 7quite apart from their references to ,egypt7 bear strong marks of a contemporary origin4 7#a47 ,the subjects dealt with4 ,in the first place several of the laws refer exclusively to the time when the ,israelites lived in the desert1 and would have been of no use whatever after they settled in ,canaan4 ,among these are the laws regarding the camp and order of march4#ed ,full particulars are given as to the exact position of every tribe1 and how the ,levites were to carry the ,tabernacle4 ,and what could have been the object of inventing such laws in later times1 when1 as far as we know1 the people never encamped or marched in this manner8 ,footnote #ed3 ,num4 #a4 #dg--d4 #di4 ,then there is the extraordinary law as to the slaughter of animals4 ,it is stated in ,leviticus that every ox1 lamb1 or goat1 intended for food1 was to be first brought to the ,tabernacle1 as a kind of offering1 and there killed4 ,but plainly this could only have been done1 when the people were in the desert1 living round the ,tabernacle4 ,so when the law is again referred to in ,deuteronomy1 just before they entered ,canaan1 it is modified by saying that those living at a distance might kill their animals at home4#ee ,footnote #ee3 ,lev4 #ag4 #c2 ,deut4 #ab4 #ba4 ,moreover1 some of the other laws1 though applicable to ,canaan1 are of such a character as to be strongly in favour of an early date4 ,take1 for instance1 the remarkable law about land1 that every person who bought an estate was to restore it to its original owner in the year of ,jubilee1 the price decreasing according to the nearness of this year4#ef ,how could anyone in later times have made such a law1 and yet assert that it had been issued by ,moses centuries before1 though no one had ever heard of it8 ,footnote #ef3 ,lev4 #be4 #ac4 ,or take the law about the ,levites4#eg ,they1 it will be remembered1 had no separate territory like the other tribes1 but were given some special cities4 ,and it is scarcely likely that such a curious arrangement could have been made at any time except that of the conquest of ,canaan2 still less that it could have been made centuries afterwards1 and yet ascribed to ,moses1 without everyone at once declaring it to be spurious4 ,footnote #eg3 ,num4 #ce4 #a-h4 7#b47 ,their connection with the history4 ,it must next be noticed that the laws are not arranged in any regular order1 but are closely connected with the history2 many of them being dated1 both as to time and place4 ,for instance1 ',the ,lord spake unto ,moses in the ,wilderness of ,sinai1 in the first month of the second year after they were come out of the land of ,egypt1 saying1' etc4#eh ,and several others are associated with the events which led to their being made2 and these are often of such a trivial nature1 that it is hard to imagine their being invented4#ei ,thus the ,pentateuch shows1 not a complete code of laws1 but one that was formed gradually1 and in close connection with the history4 ,footnote #eh3 ,num4 #i4 #a2 #a4 #a2 ,deut4 #a4 #c2 see also ,lev4 #g4 #ch2 #af4 #a2 #be4 #a2 #bf4 #df2 #bg4 #cd2 ,num4 #a4 #a2 #c4 #ad2 #cc4 #ej2 #ce4 #a2 ,deut4 #d4 #df2 #bi4 #a4 ,footnote #ei3 ,lev4 #bd4 #ae2 ,num4 #i4 #aj2 #ae4 #ce2 #bg4 #h2 #cf4 #h4 ,and this is confirmed by the fact that in some cases the same laws are referred to both in ,leviticus1 7near the beginning7 and in ,deuteronomy 7at the end7 of the forty years in the ,desert1 but with slight differences between them4 ,and these exactly correspond to such a difference in date4 ,one instance1 that referring to the slaughter of animals1 has been already alluded to4 ,another has to do with the animals1 which might1 and might not1 be eaten4 ,leviticus includes among the former1 several kinds of locusts1 and among the latter the mouse1 weasel1 and lizard2 all of which ,deuteronomy omits4 ,clearly then1 when ,leviticus was written1 the people were in the desert1 and there was a lack of animal food1 which might tempt them to eat locusts or mice2 but when ,deuteronomy was written1 animal food was plentiful1 and laws as to these were quite unnecessary4 ,in each of these cases1 then1 and there are others like them1 the differences must be due either to the various laws dating from the times they profess to1 when all is plain and consistent2 or else to the carefully planned work of some late writer1 who was trying in this way to pretend that they did4 ,still more important is the fact that in several places stress is laid on the people's personal knowledge of the events referred to2 e4g41 ',the ,lord made not this covenant with our fathers1 but with us1 even us1 who are all of us here alive this day4'#fj ,and what is more1 this personal knowledge is often appealed to as a special reason for obeying the laws4#fa ,for instance1 ',i speak not with your children which have not known1 and which have not seen the chastisement of the ,lord1 444 but your eyes have seen all the great work of the ,lord which ,he did4 ,therefore shall ye keep all the commandments1' etc4 ,plainly this would have had no force in later times2 indeed it would have provided an excuse for not obeying the laws1 since the people of those days had no personal knowledge of the events referred to4 ,and we may ask1 is it likely that a late author1 who falsely ascribed his laws to ,moses1 in order to get them obeyed1 should yet put into the mouth of ,moses himself an excuse for not obeying them8 ,footnote #fj3 ,deut4 #e4 #c2 #bd4 #i1 #ah1 #bb2 #be4 #ag4 ,footnote #fa3 ,deut4 #aa4 #b-h2 #d4 #c-ae2 #bi4 #b-i4 ,moreover1 combined with this assumed personal knowledge on the part of the people there is a clear indication of personal authority on the part of the writer4 ,the later prophets always speak in ,god's name1 and such expressions as ,thus saith the ,lord1 ,hear ye the word of the ,lord1 are extremely common1 occurring altogether over #hjj times4 ,but in the laws of the ,pentateuch nothing of the kind is found4 ,they are delivered by ,moses in his own name1 often with the simple words1 ,i command thee1 which occur thirty times in ,deuteronomy4 ,and1 of course1 if the laws are genuine1 there is nothing surprising in this1 as ,moses had been the great leader of the people1 for forty years2 but a late author would scarcely have adopted a style so different from that of all the other prophets4 7#c47 ,their wording4 ,lastly we must consider the wording of the laws2 and this also is strongly in favour of a contemporary origin4 ,thus1 as many as sixteen of them1 which have special reference to ,canaan1 begin with some such phrase as when ye be come into the land of ,canaan1#fb which plainly supposes that the people were not there already4 ,and the same may be said of numerous other laws1 which the people are told to obey when they enter into ,canaan2 or are even urged to obey in order that they may enter in1 both of which again1 imply that they were not there already4#fc ,while several of the laws refer to the camp1 and sometimes to tents1 in such a way as to show that when they were written1 the people were still living in a camp4#fd ,footnote #fb3 ,exod4 #ab4 #be2 #ac4 #aa2 ,lev4 #ad4 #cd2 #ai4 #bc2 #bc4 #aj2 #be4 #b2 ,num4 #ae4 #b1 #ah2 #ce4 #aj2 ,deut4 #g4 #a2 #ab4 #a1 #aj1 #bi2 #ag4 #ad2 #ah4 #i2 #bf4 #a4 ,footnote #fc3 ,e4g41 ,deut4 #d4 #a1 #e1 #ad2 #e4 #ca2 #f4 #a1 #ah2 #h4 #a4 ,footnote #fd3 ,e4g41 ,exod4 #bi4 #ad2 ,lev4 #d4 #ab2 #f4 #aa2 #ac4 #df2 #ad4 #c2 #af4 #bf2 #ag4 #c2 ,num4 #e4 #b2 #ai4 #c1 #ad4 ,the wording1 then1 of all these laws bears unmistakable signs of contemporary origin4 ,of course1 these signs may have been inserted in later laws to give them an air of genuineness1 but they cannot be explained in any other way4 ,therefore the laws must be either of contemporary date1 or else deliberate frauds4 ,no innocent mistake in ascribing old laws to ,moses1 can possibly explain such language as this2 either it was the natural result of the laws being genuine1 or else it was adopted on purpose to mislead4 ,nor can the difficulty be got over by introducing a number of compilers and editors4 ,for each individual law1 if it falsely claims to date from before the conquest of ,canaan 7and1 as we have seen1 numbers and numbers of laws do so claim1 ,when ye be come into the land of ,canaan1 etc471 must have been made by someone4 ,and this someone1 though he really wrote it after the conquest of ,canaan1 must have inserted these words to make it appear that it was written before4 ,practically1 then1 as just said1 there are but two alternatives--that of genuine laws written in the time of ,moses1 and that of deliberate frauds4 ,and bearing this in mind1 we must ask1 is it likely that men with such a passion for truth and righteousness as the ,jewish prophets--men who themselves so denounced lying and deception in every form#fe--should have spent their time in composing such forgeries8 ,could they1 moreover1 have done it so skillfully1 as the laws contain the strongest marks of genuineness2 and could they have done it so successfully as never to have been detected at the time8 ,this is the great moral difficulty in assigning these laws to a later age1 and to many it seems insuperable4 ,footnote #fe3 ,jer4 #h4 #h2 #ad4 #ad2 ,ezek4 #ac4 #g4 ,we have thus two very strong arguments in favour of an early date for the ,pentateuch3 one derived from its ,egyptian references1 the other from its ,laws4 ,the former shows that no ,israelite in later times could have written the book2 and the latter that he would not have done so1 if he could4 7,c47 ,,the ,,theory ,,of ,a ,,late ,,date4 ,we pass on now to the opposite theory1 or that of a late date4 ,according to this the ,pentateuch1 though no doubt containing older traditions1 and fragments of older documents1 was not written till many centuries after the death of ,moses4 ,and the four chief arguments in its favour are based on the language of the ,pentateuch1 its composite character1 its laws being unknown in later times1 and the finding of ,deuteronomy in the reign of ,josiah4 ,we will examine each in turn4 7#a47 ,the language of the ,pentateuch4 ,now in general character the language of the ,pentateuch undoubtedly resembles that of some of the prophets1 such as ,jeremiah2 so it is assumed that it must date from about the same time4 ,but unfortunately critics who maintain this view do not admit that we have any ,hebrew documents of a much earlier date1 with which to compare it4 ,therefore we have no means of knowing how much the language altered1 so this of itself proves little4 ,but it is further said that we have three actual signs of late date4 ,the first is that the word for west in the ,pentateuch really means the sea1 7i4e41 the ,mediterranean7 and hence1 it is urged1 the writer's standpoint must have been that of ,canaan1 and the books must have been written after the settlement in that country4 ,but1 very possibly the word was in use before the time of ,abraham1 when the sea actually was to the west4 ,and in later years a ,hebrew1 writing in ,egypt or anywhere else1 would naturally use the word1 without thinking that it was inappropriate to that particular place4 ,the second expression is beyond ,jordan1 which is often used to denote the eastern bank2 so here again1 it is urged1 the writer's standpoint must have been that of ,canaan4 ,but this is also untenable4 ,for the same term is also used for the western bank in several places1#ff and sometimes for both banks in the same chapter4#fg ,the third is ,joseph's speaking of ,canaan as the land of the ,hebrews1 long before they settled there1 which is difficult to explain on any theory1 but rather in favour of a late date4#fh ,footnote #ff3 ,e4g41 ,deut4 #aa4 #cj2 ,josh4 #ab4 #g4 ,footnote #fg3 ,e4g41 eastern in ,deut4 #c4 #h2 ,josh4 #i4 #aj2 and western in ,deut4 #c4 #bj1 #be2 ,josh4 #i4 #a4 ,footnote #fh3 ,gen4 #dj4 #ae4 ,on the other hand1 the language contains several signs of early date1 though most of these can only be understood by a ,hebrew scholar1 which the present writer does not profess to be4 ,but a couple of examples may be given which are plain to the ordinary reader4 ,thus the pronoun for he is used in the ,pentateuch both for male and female2 while in the later writings it is confined to males1 the females being expressed by a derived form which is very seldom used in the ,pentateuch4 ,similarly1 the word for youth is used in the ,pentateuch for both sexes1 though afterwards restricted to males1 the female being again expressed by a derived form4 ,these differences1 though small1 are very significant1 and they clearly show that the language was at a less developed1 and therefore earlier1 stage in the ,pentateuch than in the rest of the ,old ,testament4 7#b47 ,its composite character4 ,the next argument is that the ,pentateuch seems to have had several authors2 since the same words1 or groups of words1 occur in different passages all through the book4 ,and this1 combined with slight variations of style1 and other peculiarities1 have led some critics to split up the book into a number of different writings1 which they assign to a number of unknown writers from the ninth century ,b4,c4 onwards4 ,for instance1 to take a passage where only three writers are supposed to be involved1 ,exod4 #g4 #ad-be4 ,these twelve verses seem to the ordinary reader a straightforward narrative1 but they have been thus split up4#fi ,verses #ai1 #bb1 and parts of #bj1 #ba1 are assigned to ,p1 the supposed writer of the ,priestly ,code of ,laws2 v4 #bd and parts of #ag1 #bj1 #ba1 to ,e2 and the remainder to ,j2 the two latter writers being thus named from their generally speaking of the ,deity as ,elohim and ,jehovah 7translated ,god1 and ,lord7 respectively4 ,footnote #fi3 ,driver's ,introduction to ,literature of ,old ,testament1 sixth edition1 #ahig1 p4 #bd4 ,a slightly different division is given in his ,exodus1 #aiaa1 p4 #ei4 ,fortunately1 we need not discuss the minute and complicated arguments on which all this rests1 for the idea of any writings being so hopelessly mixed together is most improbable4 ,while it has been shown in recent years to be very doubtful whether these names1 ,elohim and ,jehovah1 occurred in the original ,hebrew1 in the same places as they do now4#gj ,and if they did not1 the theory loses one of its chief supports4 ,footnote #gj3 ,the ,name of ,god in ,the ,pentateuch by ,troelstra2 translated by ,mc,clure1 #aiab ,and in any case there are at least four plain and simple arguments against it4 ,the first is that the ,egyptian references1 to which we have already alluded extend to all the parts ,j1 ,e1 and ,p2 as well as to ,deuteronomy1 which these critics assign to yet another author ,d4 ,they are thus like an ,egyptian water-mark running all through the ,pentateuch4 ,and while it is difficult enough to believe that even one writer in ,canaan should have possessed this intimate knowledge of ,egypt1 it is far more difficult to believe that four should have done so4 ,the second is that all the writers must have been equally dishonest1 for they all contain passages1 which they assert were written by ,moses 7see further on74 ,and here again it is hard to believe1 that even one writer 7leave alone four7 should have been so utterly unscrupulous4 ,the third is that the curious custom of ,god speaking of ,himself in the plural number1 which would be strange in any case1 and is especially so considering the strong ,monotheism of the ,jews1 is also common to both ,j and ,p4#ga ,and so is the puzzling statement that it was ,god ,himself ,who hardened ,pharaoh's heart1 which is also found in ,e4#gb ,footnote #ga3 ,gen4 #a4 #bf 7,p73 #c4 #bb 7,j74 ,footnote #gb3 ,exod4 #d4 #ba 7,e73 #g4 #c 7,p473 #aj4 #a 7,j74 ,the fourth is that parallel passages to the supposed two narratives of the ,flood1 ascribed to ,j and ,p 7and which are thought to occur alternately nineteen times in ,gen4 #g4 #h47 have been found together in an old ,babylonian story of the ,flood1 centuries before the time of ,moses2 and also in layers corresponding to ,j and ,p4#gc ,and this alone seems fatal to the idea that ,j and ,p were originally separate narratives that were afterward combined in our ,genesis4 ,footnote #gc3 ,sayce's ,monument ,facts1 #aijd1 p4 #bj2 ,driver's ,book of ,genesis1 #aije1 pp4 #hi-ie1 #ajg4 ,of course those who maintain that ,moses wrote the ,pentateuch1 quite admit that he made use of previous documents1 one of which1 the book of the ,wars of the ,lord1 he actually quotes4#gd ,nor is it denied that some additions have been made since his time1 the most important being the list of kings1 who are said to have reigned in ,edom before there reigned any king over the children of ,israel4#ge ,and this brings the passage down to the time of ,saul at least who was ,israel's first king4 ,but it is probably a later insertion1 since these kings are referred to in a different way from the dukes1 who precede and follow them4 ,and the same may be said of a few other passages#gf such as that the ,canaanite was then in the land1 which must clearly have been written after the ,israelites conquered the country4 ,but they can all be omitted without breaking the continuity of the narrative4 ,footnote #gd3 ,num4 #ba4 #ad4 ,footnote #ge3 ,gen4 #cf4 #ca-ci4 ,footnote #gf3 ,gen4 #ab4 #f2 #ac4 #g2 ,exod4 #af4 #cf2 ,deut4 #b4 #aj-ab1 #bj-bc2 #c4 #ad4 7#c47 ,its laws being unknown in later times4 ,passing on now to the third argument for a late date1 it is urged that the laws of the ,pentateuch cannot really have been written by ,moses1 since1 judging from the other ,old ,testament ,books1 they seem to have been unknown for many centuries after his time4 ,but this is scarcely correct1 for even the earliest books1 ,joshua and ,judges contain some references to a written law of ,moses2#gg while both in ,judges and #a ,samuel there are numerous agreements between what is described there1 and what is commanded in the ,pentateuch4#gh ,and similar evidence is afforded by the later books1 ,david1 for instance1 alluding to the written law of ,moses1 as if it was well known4#gi ,so in regard to the prophets4 ,two of the earliest of these are ,hosea and ,amos2 and they both contain frequent points of agreement2#hj as well as one reference to a large number of written laws4#ha ,footnote #gg3 ,joshua #a4 #g1 #h2 #h4 #ca1 #cb2 #bc4 #f2 #bd1 #bf4 ,judges #c4 #d4 ,footnote #gh3 ,judges #bj4 #bg1 #bh2 #ba4 #ai2 #a ,sam4 #b4 #ab-cj2 #c4 #c2 #d4 #d2 #f4 #ae2 #ad4 #c4 ,footnote #gi3 #a ,kings #b4 #c4 #b ,kings #ad4 #f4 ,footnote #hj3 ,hos4 #d4 #d-f2 #h4 #a1 #ac2 #i4 #d2 #ab4 #i2 ,amos #b4 #d1 #aa2 #d4 #d1 #e2 #e4 #ba-be2 #h4 #e4 ,footnote #ha3 ,hos4 #h4 #ab 7,r4,v474 ,on the other side1 we have the statement in ,jeremiah1 that ,god did not command the ,israelites concerning burnt-offerings1 and sacrifices1 when ,he brought them out of ,egypt4#hb ,but the next verse certainly implies that it was placing these before obedience that ,god condemned4 ,and ,hosea in a similar passage declares this to be the case1 and that ,god's not desiring sacrifice means ,his not caring so much about it1 as about other things4#hc ,it is also urged that there were practices which are inconsistent with these laws2 the most important being that the sacrifices were not limited to one place1 or the offerers to priests4 ,as to the former1 the principle of the law was that the place of sacrifice should be of ,divine appointment1 where ,god had chosen to record ,his name1 7i4e41 where the ark was71 and not selected by the worshippers themselves4#hd ,in ,exodus it is naturally implied that there should be many such places1 as the ,israelites were then only beginning their wanderings2 and in ,deuteronomy that there should be only one1 as they were then about to enter ,canaan4 ,footnote #hb3 ,jer4 #g4 #bb4 ,footnote #hc3 ,hosea #f4 #f2 #a ,sam4 #ae4 #bb4 ,footnote #hd3 ,exod4 #bj4 #bd2 ,deut4 #ab4 #e4 ,but for many years1 owing to the unsettled state of the country1 and the ark having been captured by the ,philistines1 the law could not be obeyed4 ,when however1 the people had rest from their enemies 7which was the condition laid down in ,deuteronomy7 and the temple was built at ,jerusalem1 the law was fully recognised4 ,after this the worship at high places is spoken of as a sin1 while ,hezekiah is commended for destroying these places1 and for keeping the commandments which the ,lord commanded ,moses4#he ,footnote #he3 #a ,kings #c4 #b2 #bb4 #dc2 #b ,kings #ah4 #d-f4 ,the discovery1 however in #aijg1 that there was a ,jewish ,temple of ,jehovah at ,elephantine1 near ,assouan in ,egypt1 with sacrifices1 as early as the sixth century ,b4,c41 and that it had apparently the approval of the authorities at ,jerusalem1 makes it doubtful if the law as to the one sanctuary was ever thought to be absolutely binding4 ,as to the other point--the sacrifices not being offered only by priests--there is an apparent discrepancy in the ,pentateuch itself2 since ,deuteronomy 7unlike the other books7 seems in one passage to recognise that ,levites might perform priestly duties4#hf ,various explanations have been given of this1 though ,i do not know of one that is quite satisfactory4 ,there are also a few cases1 where men who were neither priests1 nor ,levites1 such as ,gideon1 ,david1 and ,elijah1 are said to have offered sacrifices4#hg ,but these were all under special circumstances1 and in some of them the sacrifice was directly ordered by ,god4 ,there is thus nothing like sufficient evidence to show that the laws of the ,pentateuch were not known in later days1 but merely that they were often not obeyed4 ,footnote #hf3 ,deut4 #ah4 #f-h4 ,footnote #hg3 ,e4g41 ,judges #f4 #bf2 #b ,sam4 #bd4 #ah2 #a ,kings #ah4 #cb4 7#d47 ,the finding of ,deuteronomy4 ,lastly we have the finding of the ,book of the ,law 7probably ,deuteronomy7 when the temple was being repaired in the reign of ,josiah1 about #fba ,b4,c41 which is regarded by some critics as its first publication4#hh ,but this is a needless assumption1 for there is no hint that either the king or the people were surprised at such a book being found1 but merely at what it contained4 ,and as they proceeded at once to carry out its directions1 it rather shows that they knew there was such a book all the time1 only they had never before read it4 ,and this is easily accounted for1 as most copies would have been destroyed by the previous wicked kings4#hi ,on the other hand1 an altogether new book is not likely to have gained such immediate and ready obedience2 not to mention the great improbability of such an audacious fraud never being detected at the time4 ,footnote #hh3 #b ,kings #bb4 ,footnote #hi3 #b ,kings #ba4 #b1 #ba4 ,nor is it easy to see why1 if ,deuteronomy was written at a late date1 it should have contained so many obsolete and useless instructions2 such as the order to destroy the ,canaanites1 when there were scarcely any ,canaanites left to destroy4#ij ,yet the people are not only told to destroy them1 but to do it gradually1 so that the wild beasts may not become too numerous2#ia which shows that the passage was written centuries before the time of ,josiah1 when there was no more danger from wild beasts than from ,canaanites4 ,nor is it likely1 if ,deuteronomy was written at that time1 when ,jerusalem claimed to be the central sanctuary1 that the city itself should never once be named in the book1 or even alluded to4 ,footnote #ij3 ,deut4 #g4 #b2 #bj4 #ag4 ,footnote #ia3 ,deut4 #g4 #bb4 ,moreover1 discoveries in ,egypt have shown that in early times religious writings were sometimes buried in the foundations1 or lower walls of important temples2 where they were found centuries afterwards when the temples were being repaired2 so the account1 as we have it in the ,bible1 is both natural and probable4#ib ,footnote #ib3 ,e4 ,naville1 ,discovery of the ,book of the ,law1 #aiaa1 pp4 #d-aj4 ,on the whole1 then1 none of these arguments for a late date are at all conclusive1 and we therefore decide that this theory is not only very improbable in any case1 but quite untenable in face of the strong evidence on the other side4 7,d47 ,,conclusion4 ,having thus shown that the ,pentateuch appears to date from the time of ,moses1 it only remains to consider its authorship1 and the witness it bears to the miracles of the ,exodus4 ,now that the greater part should have been written by ,moses himself is plainly the most probable view4 ,and this is strongly confirmed by the book itself2 for a large part of it distinctly claims to have been written by ,moses4 ,it is not merely that this title is given in a heading1 or opening verse1 which might easily have been added in later times4 ,but it is asserted1 positively and repeatedly1 all through the book itself1 both in ,exodus1 ,numbers1 and ,deuteronomy1 that many of the events1 and laws referred to 7often including several chapters7 were actually written down by ,moses4#ic ,this is an important point1 and it must be allowed great weight4 ,footnote #ic3 ,exod4 #ag4 #ad2 #bd4 #d2 #cd4 #bg2 ,num4 #cc4 #b2 #cf4 #ac2 ,deut4 #ca4 #i1 #bb1 #bd4 ,the first two passages in ,exod4 are assigned to the supposed ,e1 the third to ,j1 those in ,num4 to ,p1 and those in ,deut4 to ,d4 ,and the first passage1 that ,moses was to write the threat against ,amalek in a book1 is specially interesting2 because we cannot think that the book contained nothing but this single sentence4 ,it evidently means in the book 7see ,american ,r4 ,v471 implying that a regular journal was kept1 in which important events were recorded4 ,and this is confirmed by another of the passages1 which says that ,moses wrote down something that occurred the same day2#id and by another which gives a long and uninteresting list of journeys in the ,desert1#ie which certainly looks like an official record kept at the time4 ,while the concluding passage relates how ,moses1 when he had finished writing the book1 gave it to the ,levites to keep beside the ark1 in order to preserve it1 and anything more precise than this can scarcely be imagined4#if ,footnote #id3 ,deut4 #ca4 #bb2 comp4 ,exod4 #bd4 #d4 ,footnote #ie3 ,num4 #cc4 ,footnote #if3 ,deut4 #ca4 #bd-bf4 ,moreover1 the frequent references of ,moses to his own exclusion from ,canaan1 and his pathetic prayer on the subject1 have a very genuine tone about them4#ig ,and his bitter complaint that ,god had broken ,his promise1 and not delivered the people1#ih could scarcely have been written by anyone but himself2 especially after the conquest of ,canaan1 when it was so obviously untrue4 ,footnote #ig3 ,e4g41 ,deut4 #c4 #bc-bf2 #a4 #cg2 #d4 #ba2 #ca4 #b4 ,footnote #ih3 ,exod4 #e4 #bc4 ,and his authorship is further confirmed by the fact that so little is said in his praise4 ,his faults are indeed narrated quite candidly1 but nothing is said in admiration of the great leader's courage1 and ability1 till the closing chapter of ,deuteronomy4 ,this was evidently written by someone else1 and shows what we might have expected had the earlier part been the work of anyone but ,moses himself4 ,nor is there anything surprising in his writing in the third person1 as numbers of other men--,csar1 for instance--have done the same4 ,but now comes the important point4 ,fortunately it can be stated in a few words4 ,if the ,pentateuch is a contemporary document1 probably written by ,moses1 can we reject the miracles which it records8 ,can we imagine1 for instance1 a contemporary writer describing the ,ten ,plagues1 or the ,passage of the ,red ,sea1 if nothing of the kind had occurred8 ,the events1 if true1 must have been well known at the time2 and if untrue1 no contemporary would have thought of inventing them4 ,we therefore conclude1 on reviewing the whole chapter1 that the origin of the ,jewish religion was confirmed by miracles4 ,,chapter ,x4 ,,that ,,its ,,history ,,was ,,confirmed ,,by ,,miracles4 7,a47 ,,the ,,later ,,old ,,testament ,,books4 7#a47 ,undesigned agreements2 the rebellion of ,korah4 7#b47 ,alleged mistakes2 unimportant4 7#c47 ,modern discoveries2 these support their accuracy4 7,b47 ,,the ,,old ,,testament ,,miracles4 7#a47 ,their credibility2 this can scarcely be disputed1 if miracles at all are credible2 the silence of the sun and moon1 two other difficulties4 7#b47 ,their truthfulness2 list of eight public miracles1 two examples1 ,elijah's sacrifice on ,mount ,carmel1 and the destruction of the ,assyrian army1 considered in detail2 conclusion4 ,having now examined the origin of the ,jewish ,religion1 we have next to consider its history2 which also claims to have been confirmed by miracles4 ,so we will first notice 7very briefly7 the ,old ,testament ,books1 from ,joshua onwards2 and then consider some of the ,miracles which they record4 7,a47 ,,the ,,later ,,old ,,testament ,,books4 ,now1 the arguments for1 and against the genuineness of these ,books need not be discussed at length1 since we have already decided in favour of that of the ,pentateuch1 and most critics who admit the one1 admit the other4 ,but a few remarks may be made on three subjects1 those of undesigned agreements1 the importance of which is not obvious at first sight2 the alleged mistakes in the ,old ,testament2 and the effect of modern discoveries4 7#a47 ,undesigned agreements4 ,now1 if we find two statements regarding an event1 or series of events1 which1 though not identical1 are yet perfectly consistent1 this agreement must be either accidental or not accidental4 ,and supposing it to be too minute in detail to be accidental it shows that the statements are somehow connected together4 ,of course1 if the events are true1 each writer may know them independently1 and their statements would thus be in perfect1 though unintentional agreement4 ,but if the events are not true1 then either one writer must have made his account agree with the other1 or else both must have derived their information from a common source4 ,in the former case1 there would be intentional agreement between the writers2 in the latter1 between the various parts of the original account4 ,in any case1 there would be designed agreement somewhere2 for1 to put it shortly1 the events1 being imaginary1 would not fit together of necessity1 nor by accident1 which is excluded1 and hence must do so by design4 ,this has been otherwise expressed by saying that truth is necessarily consistent1 but falsehood is not so2 therefore1 while consistency in truth may be undesigned1 consistency in falsehood can only result from design4 ,and from this it follows that an undesigned agreement between two statements--provided of course it is too minute to be accidental--is a sure sign of truthfulness4 ,it shows1 moreover1 that both writers had independent knowledge of the event1 and were both telling the truth4 ,and of course the same argument applies if the two statements are made by the same writer1 though in this case there is a greater probability that the agreement is not undesigned4 ,we will now consider a single example in detail1 and select that referring to the rebellion of ,korah1 ,dathan1 and ,abiram1 as it is connected with an important miracle4 ,korah1 we are told1#ii belonged to the family of ,kohath and the other two to that of ,reuben2 and from incidental notices in another part of the book1 we learn the position of the tents of these men4 ,the former was to the south of the central ,tabernacle1 or ,tent of ,meeting1 on an inner line of tents1 while the latter were also to the south1 though on an outer line of tents4 ,footnote #ii3 ,num4 #af2 #b4 #aj1 #ag2 #c4 #bi4 ,this explains how1 when ,moses was talking to ,korah1 he had to send for ,dathan and ,abiram1 and how next morning he left the central ,tabernacle1 where the men had assembled to offer incense1 7and where they were afterwards destroyed1 probably by lightning7 and went unto ,dathan and ,abiram 7vv4 #h-be74 ,it explains how1 later on1 the tents of ,dathan and ,abiram are twice mentioned1 while that of the leading conspirator1 ,korah1 is strangely omitted4 ,it explains how the families of these two were destroyed1 though no mention is made of that of ,korah2 since the destruction was probably limited to the tents of ,dathan and ,abiram1 who were brothers1 and the small tabernacle they had erected alongside1 and from which alone the people were told to depart 7vv4 #bf1 #bg74 ,we may therefore conclude that ,korah's family was not destroyed1 since their tent was at some distance4 ,and this accounts for what some have thought to be a discrepancy in another passage1 where we read that the sons of ,korah did not die2 as well as for ,dathan and ,abiram1 being mentioned alone later on4#ajj ,in fact1 the position of these tents is the key to the whole narrative1 though we are left to discover it for ourselves4 ,footnote #ajj3 ,num4 #bf4 #aa2 ,deut4 #aa4 #f4 ,now if the account is true and written by a contemporary1 all is plain2 for truth1 as said before1 is necessarily consistent4 ,but if the story is a late fiction1 all this agreement in various places is1 to say the least1 very remarkable4 ,can we imagine a writer of fiction accidentally arranging these details in different parts of his book1 which fit together so perfectly8 ,or can we imagine his doing so intentionally1 and yet never hinting at the agreement himself1 but leaving it so unapparent that not one reader in a thousand ever discovers it8 ,this single instance may be taken as a sample of numerous others which have been noticed all through the ,old ,testament2 and they certainly tend to show its accuracy4 7#b47 ,alleged mistakes4 ,we pass on now to the alleged mistakes in the ,old ,testament1 and considering the long period covered1 and the variety of subjects dealt with1 and often the same subject by various writers1 the number of even apparent discrepancies is not very great4 ,and it is beyond dispute that many of these can be explained satisfactorily1 and doubtless many others could be so1 if our knowledge were more complete4 ,moreover1 they are1 as a rule1 numerical mistakes1 such as the incredibly large numbers in some places1#aja and the rather discordant chronology in ,kings and ,chronicles4 ,but the former may be due to some error in copying1 and the latter to the different ways of counting a king's reign4 ,footnote #aja3 ,num4 #bf4 #aa2 ,deut4 #aa4 #f4 ,the only mistake of any real importance refers to the large numbers of the ,israelites1 who are said to have left ,egypt1--some #fjj1jjj men1 besides children1 or probably over two million altogether4 ,for on two subsequent occasions1 when the census of the tribes is given1 it totals up to about the same number4#ajb ,this is no doubt a serious difficulty2 as anyone can see1 who will take the trouble to calculate the space they would require on the march1 or in camp4 ,if we assume1 for instance1 that they crossed the arm of the ,red ,sea in1 say1 forty parallel columns1 these would still have to be of enormous length to contain #ej1jjj persons each1 with their flocks and herds4 ,footnote #ajb3 ,exod4 #ab4 #cg4 ,num4 #a4 #bf4 ,perhaps the best explanation is that suggested by ,professor ,flinders ,petrie1 that the word translated thousands should be families1#ajc so that the tribe of ,reuben1 for instance1#ajd instead of having forty-six thousand five hundred men1 would have forty-six families1 7making about7 five hundred men4 ,the chief arguments in favour of this are1 first1 that the same word is used in ,judges #f4 #ae1 where it so obviously means family and not thousand1 that it is so translated in both the ,authorised and ,revised ,versions4 ,footnote #ajc3 ,egypt and ,israel1 #aiaa1 p4 #dc4 ,footnote #ajd3 ,num4 #a4 #ba4 ,and secondly1 it would account for the remarkable fact that though there were twelve tribes1 and they were each counted twice1 yet the number of the hundreds is never #j1 #a1 #h or #i2 but always one of the other six digits4 ,it is extremely unlikely 7practically incredible7#aje that this would occur in an ordinary census1 but the proposed theory explains it at once4 ,for the hundreds could scarcely be #j1 or #a1 as this would mean too few men in a family2 or #h or #i1 which would mean too many2 while the other digits always work out to what 7allowing for servants7 is a reasonable proportion1 from #e to #ag4 ,on this theory the number of men would be reduced to #e1fjj1 which is much more intelligible4 ,but some other passages scarcely seem capable of this interpretation1 so it must be admitted that the number forms a difficulty1 whatever view we adopt4 ,footnote #aje3 ,the chance of its occurring would be only 7#f_/aj7bd or less than #a in #bjj1jjj4 7#c47 ,modern discoveries4 ,lastly1 as to the effect of modern discoveries on the accuracy of the ,old ,testament4 ,in the case of the ,pentateuch1 as we have seen1 there is very little direct evidence either way2 but it is different in regard to some of the later books4 ,in the first place1 and this is very important1 modern discoveries have shown that the period of ,jewish history from the time of ,moses onwards was distinctly a literary age4 ,in ,egypt1 ,babylonia1 ,syria1 and elsewhere1 it was the custom1 and had been for centuries1 to record all important events1 at least all those that were creditable to the people concerned2 so it is almost certain that the ,jews1 like the surrounding nations1 had their historians4 ,in every age conquerors have loved to record their conquests1 and why should the ,jews alone have been an exception8 ,yet the historical books of the ,old ,testament have no competitors4 ,if1 then1 we deny that these are in the main a contemporary record1 we must either assume that the ,jews1 unlike the surrounding nations1 had no contemporary historians1 which is most unlikely2 as well as being contrary to the ,books themselves1 where the recorders are frequently mentioned1 even by name4#ajf ,or else we must assume that their works were replaced in later days by other and less reliable accounts1 which were universally mistaken for the originals1 and this seems equally improbable4 ,footnote #ajf3 ,e4g41 #b ,sam4 #h4 #af2 #b ,kings #ah4 #ah2 #b ,chron4 #cd4 #h4 ,passing on now to the evidence in detail1 it may be divided into two classes1 geographical and historical4 ,in the first place the geography of ,palestine has been shown to be minutely accurate4 ,but this does not prove the ,old ,testament ,books to be genuine1 but merely that they were written by ,jews who knew the country intimately4 ,it helps1 however1 in some cases to remove apparent difficulties4 ,thus the discoveries at ,jericho1 in #aijh1 have shown that the place was merely a small fortified hill1 the length of the surrounding wall being about half a mile1 so there was no difficulty in the ,israelites walking round it seven times in the day4#ajg ,and much the same may be said of the historical notices4 ,the monumental records of the ,kings of ,judah and ,israel have not at present been discovered1 but we can often check the history by the records of other countries4 ,and these are as a rule in perfect agreement1 not only as to the actual facts1 but as to the society1 customs1 and state of civilisation1 of the period4 ,indeed1 in some cases where this was formerly disputed1 as in the importance assigned to the ,hittites1 it has been fully justified by modern discoveries4#ajh ,but this again does not prove the genuineness of the ,books1 though it certainly raises a probability in their favour4 ,footnote #ajg3 ,josh4 #f4 #ae4 ,footnote #ajh3 #a ,kings #aj4 #bi2 #b ,kings #g4 #f4 ,sometimes1 however1 the evidence is stronger than this1 one of the best known instances being ,daniel's mention of ,belshazzar4#aji ,he states that the last king of ,babylon was ,nebuchadnezzar's son1 or grandson 7margin1 ,a4,v47 called ,belshazzar1 who was slain at night when the city was captured 7about ,b4,c4 #ech74 ,but according to ,berosus1 who wrote about the third century ,b4,c41 all this appears to be wrong4 ,the last king of ,babylon was a usurper called ,nabonidus1 and any such person as ,belshazzar is quite unknown4 ,and so matters remained till some cuneiform inscriptions were discovered at ,mugheir in #ahed4 ,footnote #aji3 ,dan4 #e4 #a4 ,from these it appears that ,belshazzar was the eldest son of ,nabonidus1 and was apparently associated with him in the government4 ,and an inscription recently found at ,erech shows that this was the case for several years4#aaj ,there is no proof that he ever had the title of ,king1 unless he is the same as one ,mardukshazzar1 about this time 7not otherwise identified71 which is not unlikely1 as we know ,marduk was sometimes called ,bel--i4e41 ,baal1 or ,lord4 ,and another inscription1 somewhat mutilated1 seems to show that he was slain at ,babylon in a night assault on the city 7or some portion of it7 as described by ,daniel1 some months after ,nabonidus had been taken prisoner4#aaa ,as to his relationship with ,nebuchadnezzar perhaps his mother 7or grandmother7 was a royal princess4 ,and there certainly seems to have been some connection between the families1 as we know from the inscriptions that he had a brother called ,nebuchadnezzar4 ,footnote #aaj3 ,expository ,times1 ,april1 #aiae4 ,comp4 ,dan4 #h4 #a4 ,footnote #aaa3 ,transactions of ,victoria ,institute1 vol4 xxxviii41 #aijf1 p4 #bh2 vol4 xlvi41 #aiad1 p4 #ad4 ,now1 of course1 if ,daniel himself wrote the book1 he would have known all about ,belshazzar1 however soon afterwards it was forgotten4 ,but1 if the book is a late fiction1 written by a ,jew in ,palestine about ,b4,c4 #afj1 which is the rationalistic theory1 as the wars between ,egypt and ,syria up to that date are clearly foretold1 how did he know the name of ,belshazzar at all1 or anything about him1 when such a person was unknown to previous historians8 ,plainly then1 this is a distinct argument in favour of the contemporary date of the book4#aab ,footnote #aab3 ,it is worth noting that this rationalistic theory1 which was generally accepted by the so-called ,higher ,critics1 has now become so difficult to maintain in the face of archology that ,dr4 ,pinches1 ,lecturer in ,assyriology at ,university ,college1 ,london1 said recently ',i am glad to think with regard to the ,book of ,daniel that the ,higher ,criticism is in fact buried4' ,transactions of ,victoria ,institute1 vol4 xlix41 #aiag1 p4 #ace4 ,and much the same may be said of ,isaiah's mention of ,sargon of ,assyria1 who is stated to have taken ,ashdod4 ,yet the very existence of such a king was unknown to secular history1 till the last century2 when his palace was discovered at ,khorsabad1 with inscriptions recording1 among other things1 his capture of ,ashdod4#aac ,footnote #aac3 ,isa4 #bj4 #a4 ,orr's ,problem of ,old ,test41 #aijf1 p4 #cii4 ,two other cases are of special interest1 because the monuments seemed at first to show that the ,bible was wrong4 ,one of these refers to a so-called ,pul1 ,king of ,assyria2#aad but when the list of ,assyrian monarchs was discovered1 no such king could be found4 ,it looked like a serious discrepancy1 and was even spoken of as 'almost the only important historical difficulty' between the ,bible and the monuments4#aae ,but it has now been discovered that ,pulu was the original name of a usurper1 who changed it to ,tiglath ,pileser ,,iii4 on ascending the throne2 though he was still sometimes called ,pulu4#aaf ,this not only removes the difficulty1 but tends to show the early date of the narrative2 for a late writer would probably have called him by his better-known name4 ,footnote #aad3 #b ,kings #ae4 #ai4 ,footnote #aae3 ,rawlinson1 ,historical ,illustrations of the ,old ,testament1 #ahga1 p4 #aba4 ,footnote #aaf3 ,hastings1 ,dict4 of the ,bible1 vol4 iv41 p4 #gfa4 ,the other instance refers to ,jehu1 who is stated in the ,assyrian inscriptions to be the son of ,omri2 though according to the ,bible he was no relation whatever4 ,but it has now been shown that the words translated son of ,omri may only mean of the land or house of ,omri1 which is a common ,assyrian name for the kingdom of ,israel4#aag ,footnote #aag3 ,driver1 ,schweich ,lecture1 #aijh1 p4 #ag4 ,as a last example we will take the dates given for the ,fall of the two capital cities1 ,samaria and ,jerusalem4 ,these were calculated long ago 7margin1 ,a4,v47 from a number of statements in the ,bible1 giving the lengths of different reigns1 etc41 at ,b4,c4 #gba and #ehh respectively4#aah ,and now the inscriptions from ,assyria and ,babylonia fix the former at ,b4,c4 #gbb and the latter at #ehf4aai ,everyone must admit that these are remarkable agreements1 considering the way in which they have had to be calculated4 ,footnote #aah3 #b ,kings #ag4 #f2 #be4 #c4 ,footnote #aai3 ,hastings1 ,dict4 of the ,bible1 vol4 i41 p4 #dja4 ,we have now briefly considered the ,books of the ,old ,testament1 both as to their undesigned agreements1 which are very interesting2 their alleged mistakes1 which are unimportant2 and the effect of modern discoveries1 which has undoubtedly been to support their accuracy4 ,what1 then1 is the value of the evidence they afford as to the history of the ,jewish ,religion having been confirmed by miracles8 7,b47 ,,the ,,old ,,testament ,,miracles4 ,we will include under this term superhuman coincidences as well as miracles in the strict sense2 and they occur all through the historical books of the ,old ,testament4 ,a few of them have been already noticed in the last chapter1 but we must now discuss them more fully1 first considering whether they are credible1 and then whether they are true4 7#a47 ,their credibility4 ,now this can scarcely be disputed1 provided miracles at all are credible1 which we have already admitted1 since scientific difficulties affect all miracles equally2 and of course the ,superhuman ,coincidences have no difficulties of this kind whatever4 ,among these may be mentioned most of the ,ten ,plagues1 the destruction of ,korah1 the falling of the walls of ,jericho1 probably due to an earthquake2 the lightning which struck ,elijah's sacrifice2 and many others4 ,the ,passage of the ,red ,sea1 for instance1 almost certainly belongs to this class4 ,the water1 we are told1 was driven back by a strong east wind1 lasting all night2 and this was doubtless due to natural forces1 though1 in common with other natural events 7such as the growth of grass#abj71 it is in the ,bible ascribed to ,god4 ,and the statement1 the waters were a wall unto them1 need not be pressed literally1 so as to mean that they stood upright4 ,it may only mean here1 as it obviously does in some other cases1 that the waters were a defence on each side1 and secured them from flank attacks4#aba ,and as they must have advanced in several parallel columns1 probably half a mile wide1 this certainly seems the more likely view4 ,footnote #abj3 ,ps4 #adg4 #h-i4 ,footnote #aba3 ,exod4 #ad4 #ba1 #bb2 ,nahum #c4 #h2 #a ,sam4 #be4 #af4 ,and what makes it still more probable is that much the same thing occurred in this very neighbourhood in recent times4 ,for in ,january1 #ahhb1 a large expanse of water1 about #e feet deep1 near the ,suez ,canal1 was exposed to such a strong gale 7also from the east7 that next morning it had been entirely driven away1 and men were walking about on the mud1 where the day before the fishing-boats had been floating4#abb ,moreover1 on this theory1 the miracle would not lose any of its evidential value4 ,for the fact of such a strip of dry land being formed just when and where the ,israelites so much wanted it1 and then being suddenly covered again1 through the wind changing round to the west 7which it must have done for the dead ,egyptians to have been cast up on the east side7#abc1 would be a coincidence far too improbable to be accidental4 ,footnote #abb3 ,transactions of ,victoria ,institute1 vol4 xxviii41 #ahid1 p4 #bfh4 ,it is vouched for by ,major-,general ,tulloch1 who was there on duty at the time4 ,footnote #abc3 ,exod4 #ad4 #cj4 ,another well known miracle1 which probably belongs to this class1 is the 'silence' 7or standing still7 of the sun and moon4#abd ,this is often thought to mean that the earth's rotation was stopped1 so that the sun and moon apparently stood still4 ,but a miracle on so vast a scale1 was quite needless for the destruction of a few ,canaanites1 and there is another1 and far better explanation4 ,footnote #abd3 ,josh4 #aj4 #ab-ad4 ,it is that the miracle1 instead of being one of prolonged light1 the sun remaining visible after it should have set1 was really one of prolonged darkness4 ,the sun1 which had been hidden by thick clouds1 was just about to shine forth1 when ,joshua prayed to the ,lord that it might be silent1 i4e41 remain obscured behind the clouds1 which it did during the rest of the day4 ,the ,hebrew seems capable of either meaning4 ,for the important word translated stand still is literally be silent 7see margin71 both in verses #ab and #ac2 and while this would be most suitable to the sun's remaining obscured by clouds during the day1 it could scarcely be used of its continuing to shine at night4 ,on the other hand1 the rest of the passage seems to favour the ordinary view4 ,but if we admit that this is what ,joshua prayed for1 that the sun and moon should remain silent or obscured1 the rest of the passage can only mean that this is what took place4 ,and it may be mentioned that1 as early as the fourteenth century1 a ,jewish writer ,levi ben ,gershon maintained that the words did not mean that the sun and moon literally stood still1 or in any way altered their motion2 though it is only fair to add that this was not the general view4#abe ,footnote #abe3 ,numerous quotations are given in ',a ,misunderstood ,miracle1' by ,rev4 ,a4 ,s4 ,palmer1 #ahhg1 pp4 #ajc-ajg4 ,moreover1 even if the word did mean stand still1 ,joshua would only be likely to have asked for the sun and moon to stand still1 if they were apparently moving4 ,and they only move fast enough to be apparent when they are just coming out from behind a dense bank of clouds1 due1 of course1 to the clouds really moving4 ,and to stand still in such a case1 would mean to stay behind the clouds1 and remain obscured1 the same sense as before4 ,and the words could then have had an immediate effect2 visible at once to all the people1 which certainly seems implied in the narrative1 and which would not have been the case on the ordinary view4 ,assuming1 then1 that either meaning is possible1 a prolonged darkness is much the more probable for three reasons4 ,to begin with1 the miracle must have occurred in the early morning1 ,gibeon1 where the sun was1 being to the south east of ,beth-horon1 the scene of the incident4 ,and it is most unlikely that ,joshua1 with the enemy already defeated1 and nearly all the day before him1 should have wished to have it prolonged4 ,secondly1 just before the miracle there had been a very heavy thunderstorm1 involving 7as here required7 thick clouds and a dark sky2 and this is stated to have been the chief cause of the enemy's defeat4 ,so ,joshua is more likely to have asked for a continuance of this storm1 i4e41 for prolonged darkness1 than for light4 ,thirdly1 the moon is mentioned as well as the sun1 and1 if ,joshua wanted darkness1 both would have to be silent2 but if he wanted light1 the mention of the moon was quite unnecessary4 ,on the whole1 then1 the miracle seems to have been a superhuman coincidence between a prayer of ,joshua and an extraordinary and unique thunderstorm1 which caused the sun to remain silent or invisible all day4 ,and if the ,canaanites were sun-worshippers 7as many think probable71 it was most suitable that at the time of their great battle with the ,israelites1 the sun should have been obscured the whole day1 and it naturally led to their utter confusion4 ,before passing on1 we may notice two objections of a more general character1 that are often made to the ,jewish miracles4 ,the first is that some of them were very trivial1 such as ,elisha's purifying the waters of ,jericho1 increasing the widow's oil1 and making the iron axe-head to float2#abf and hence it is urged they are most improbable4 ,and no doubt they would be so1 if we regard them as mere acts of kindness to individual persons4 ,but if we regard them as so many signs to the ,israelites 7and through them to the rest of the world71 that ,elisha was ,god's prophet2 and that ,god was not a far-off ,god1 but ,one ,who knew about and cared about the every-day troubles of ,his people1 they were certainly not inappropriate4 ,indeed1 if this was the end in view1 they were just the kind of miracles most likely to attain it4 ,footnote #abf3 #b ,kings #b4 #bb2 #d4 #f2 #f4 #f4 ,the second and more important objection would destroy1 or at least lessen1 the value of all the miracles4 ,they could not1 it is urged1 have really confirmed a revelation from ,god1 since the same writers who describe them1 also describe other miracles1 which1 they say1 were worked in opposition to ,god's agents4 ,but if we exclude some doubtful cases1 we have only one instance to judge by4 ,it is that of the magicians of ,egypt1 who imitated some of the earlier miracles of ,moses and ,aaron2 and here the inference is uncertain4 ,for we are told that this was due to their enchantments 7or secret arts1 margin ,r4,v471 a term which might very possibly cover some feat of jugglery2 as they knew beforehand what was wanted1 and had time to prepare4 ,while the fact that they tried and failed to imitate the next plague1 which they frankly confessed was a ,divine miracle1 makes this a very probable solution4#abg ,footnote #abg3 ,exod4 #g4 #aa1 #bb2 #h4 #g1 #ah1 #ai4 ,we decide1 then1 that none of the ,jewish miracles can be pronounced incredible2 though some of them no doubt seem1 at first sight1 very improbable4 7#b47 ,their truthfulness4 ,now1 of course1 the miracles vary greatly in evidential value1 the following being eight of the most important3 ,the destruction of ,korah1 ,num4 #af4 ,the passage of the ,jordan1 ,josh4 #c4 #ad-ag4 ,the capture of ,jericho1 ,josh4 #f4 #f-bj4 ,elijah's sacrifice on ,mount ,carmel1 #a ,kings #ah4 #ag-dj4 ,the cure of ,naaman's leprosy1 #b ,kings #e4 #aj-bg4 ,the destruction of the ,assyrian army1 #b ,kings #ai4 #ce4 ,the shadow on the dial1 #b ,kings #bj4 #h-aa4 ,the three men in the furnace1 ,dan4 #c4 #bj-bg4 ,we will examine a couple of instances in detail and select first ,elijah's sacrifice on ,mount ,carmel4 ,this is said to have occurred on the most public occasion possible1 before the ,king of ,israel and thousands of spectators4 ,and as a miracle1 or rather superhuman coincidence1 it presents no difficulty whatever4 ,the lightning which struck the sacrifice was doubtless due to natural causes2 yet1 as before explained 7,chapter ,,vii471 this would not interfere with its evidential value4 ,moreover1 it was avowedly a test case to definitely settle whether ,jehovah was the true ,god or not4 ,the nation1 we learn1 had long been in an undecided state4 ,some were worshippers of ,jehovah1 others of ,baal2 and these rival sacrifices were suggested for the express purpose of settling the point4 ,so1 if miracles at all are credible1 there could not have been a more suitable occasion for one2 while it was1 for the time at least1 thoroughly successful4 ,all present were convinced that ,jehovah was the true ,god1 and1 in accordance with the national law1 the false prophets of ,baal were immediately put to death4 ,now could any writer have described all this1 even a century afterwards1 if nothing of the kind had occurred8 ,the event1 if true1 must have been well known1 and remembered2 and if untrue1 no one living near the time and place would have thought of inventing it4 ,and 7what renders the argument still stronger7 all this is stated to have occurred1 not among savages1 but among a fairly civilised nation and in a literary age4 ,next as to the destruction of the ,assyrian army4 ,here it will be remembered that when ,sennacherib came to attack ,jerusalem1 he publicly1 and in the most insulting manner1 defied the ,god of ,israel to deliver the city out of his hand 7probably about ,b4,c4 #gja74abh ,we then read how ,isaiah declared that ,god accepted the challenge1 and would defend ,jerusalem1 and would not allow it to be destroyed4 ',i will defend this city to save it1 for mine own sake1 and for my servant ,david's sake4' ,and the sacredness of the city is very strongly insisted on4 ,footnote #abh3 #b ,kings #ah4 #bh-ce2 #ai4 #aj1 #cd4 ,now it is inconceivable that this could have been written after ,jerusalem had been captured by ,nebuchadnezzar in ,b4,c4 #eih2 though there is no real inconsistency in ,god's preserving the city in the one case1 and not in the other4 ,for ,nebuchadnezzar is always represented as being1 though unconsciously1 ,god's servant in punishing the ,jews2 while ,sennacherib openly defied ,jehovah4 ,then comes the sudden destruction of the ,assyrian army1 probably by pestilence2#abi and the extreme fitness of this1 after ,sennacherib's challenge1 must be obvious to everyone4 ,moreover1 such a very public event1 if untrue1 could not have been recorded till long afterwards2 yet1 as we have seen1 the narrative could not have been written long afterwards4 ,sennacherib does not of course allude to it himself in his inscriptions1 for kings never like to record their own defeats2 but this is no reason for doubting that it occurred1 especially as it is confirmed by the ,babylonian historian ,berosus4#acj ,and even ,sennacherib himself1 though he mentions the campaign1 and says that he shut up ,hezekiah in ,jerusalem1 never claims to have taken the city4 ,footnote #abi3 ,comp4 #b ,kings #ai4 #ce2 #a ,chron4 #ba4 #ab4 ,footnote #acj3 ,quoted by ,josephus1 ,antiq4 x4 #a4 ,we need not examine the other miracles in detail1 since the argument is much the same in every case4 ,they are all said to have occurred on important and critical occasions when1 if we admit miracles at all1 they would be most suitable4 ,they are all said to have been public miracles1 either actually worked before crowds of persons1 or else so affecting public men that their truth or otherwise must have been well-known at the time4 ,and they were all of such a kind that any mistake or fraud as to their occurrence was out of the question4 ,it is1 then1 on the face of it1 most unlikely that miracles1 such as these1 should have been recorded unless they were true4 ,indeed1 if the ,old ,testament books were written by contemporaries1 or even within a century of the events they relate1 it is very difficult to deny their occurrence4 ,we decide1 therefore1 that the history of the ,jewish ,religion was confirmed by miracles4 ,,chapter ,,xi4 ,,that ,,its ,,history ,,was ,,confirmed ,,by ,,prophecies4 7,a47 ,,general ,,prophecies4 ,three examples considered3 7#a47 ,the desolation of ,assyria and ,babylonia4 7#b47 ,the degradation of ,egypt4 7#c47 ,the dispersion of the ,jews1 including the ,roman siege of ,jerusalem4 7,b47 ,,special ,,prophecies4 ,list of eight important ones3 a single example1 the destruction of ,jerusalem by the ,babylonians considered in detail2 some general remarks4 7,c47 ,,conclusion4 ,the cumulative nature of the evidence4 ,we pass on now to the ,jewish ,prophecies4 ,it should be explained at starting that the word prophecy is used here in the sense of prediction2 and not as it often is1 in the ,bible1 to include various kinds of teaching4 ,and the prophecies may be divided into two classes1 general and special4 7,a47 ,,general ,,prophecies4 ,we will consider the ,general ,prophecies first1 the most important of which concern the ,jews themselves1 and their great neighbours ,assyria and ,babylonia1 on the one hand1 and ,egypt on the other4 ,all these nations had existed for centuries1 and there was nothing to indicate what was to be their future2 yet the prophets foretold it1 and with remarkable accuracy4 7#a47 ,the desolation of ,assyria and ,babylonia4 ,and first as to ,assyria and ,babylonia4 ,the future of these countries was to be utter desolation4 ,the kingdoms were to be destroyed1 the land was to become a wilderness1 and the cities to be entirely forsaken4 ,we read repeatedly that they were to be desolate for ever2 and though this cannot be pressed as meaning literally for all eternity1 it certainly implies a long duration4#aca ,a single passage referring to each may be quoted at length4 ,footnote #aca3 ,isa4 #ac4 #ai-bb2 #ad4 #bb1 #bc2 ,jer4 #ej4 #ac1 #ci1 #dj2 #ea4 #bf1 #cg1 #dc2 ,nahum #c4 #g2 ,zeph4 #b4 #ac-ad4 ,thus ,zephaniah says of ,assyria1 ',and he will stretch out his hand against the north1 and destroy ,assyria2 and will make ,nineveh a desolation1 and dry like the wilderness4 ,and herds shall lie down in the midst of her1 all the beasts of the nations2 both the pelican and the porcupine shall lodge in the chapiters thereof the capitals of the fallen columns3 their voice shall sing in the windows2 desolation shall be in the thresholds3 for he hath laid bare the cedar work4' ,and ,isaiah says of ,babylon1 ',and ,babylon1 the glory of kingdoms1 the beauty of the ,chaldean's pride1 shall be as when ,god overthrew ,sodom and ,gomorrah4 ,it shall never be inhabited1 neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation2 neither shall the ,arabian pitch tent there2 neither shall shepherds make their flocks to lie down there4 ,but wild beasts of the desert shall lie there2 and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures2 and ostriches shall dwell there1 and satyrs or goats shall dance there4 ,and wolves shall cry in their castles1 and jackals in the pleasant palaces3 and her time is near to come1 and her days shall not be prolonged4' ,it seems needless to comment on prophecies so plain and straightforward4 ,nor need we insist at any length on their exact fulfilment2 it is obvious to everyone4 ,for two thousand years history has verified them4 ,the utter desolation of these countries is without a parallel3 the empires have vanished1 the once populous land is deserted1 and the cities are heaps of ruins1 often the dens of wild beasts1--lions1 hynas1 and jackals having all been seen among the ruins of ,babylon4 ,in short1 the prophecies have been fulfilled in a manner which is1 to say the least1 very remarkable4 7#b47 ,the degradation of ,egypt4 ,next as to ,egypt4 ,the future foretold of this country was not desolation but degradation4 ,ezekiel tells us it was to become a base kingdom1 and he adds1 ',it shall be the basest of the kingdoms2 neither shall it any more lift itself up above the nations3 and ,i will diminish them1 that they shall no more rule over the nations4'#acb ,and here also prophecy has been turned into history4 ,the permanent degradation of ,egypt is a striking fact which cannot be disputed4 ,when the prophets wrote1 ,egypt had on the whole been a powerful and independent kingdom for some thousands of years3 but it has never been so since4 ,persians1 ,greeks1 ,romans1 ,byzantine ,greeks1 ,saracens1 ,memlooks1 ,turks1 and we may now add ,british1 have in turn been its masters2 but it has been the master of no one4 ,it has never more ruled over the nations as it used to do for so many centuries4 ,its history in this respect has been unique--an unparalleled period of prosperity followed by an unparalleled period of degradation4 ,footnote #acb3 ,ezek4 #bi4 #ae4 ,with such an obvious fulfilment of the main prophecy1 it seems needless to insist on any of its details1 though some of these are sufficiently striking4 ,thus1 we are told1 ,her cities shall be in the midst of the cities that are wasted4#acc ,and though it is doubtful to what period this refers1 no more accurate description can be given of the present cities of ,egypt1 such as ,cairo1 than that they are in the midst of the cities that are wasted1 such as ,memphis1 ,bubastis1 and ,tanis4 ,while a few verses farther on we read1 ,there shall be no more a prince out of the land of ,egypt2 yet1 when this passage was written1 there had been independent ,egyptian sovereigns1 off and on1 from the very dawn of history4 ,but there have been none since4 ,stress1 however1 is not laid on details like these1 some of which are admittedly obscure1 such as the forty years' desolation of the land with the scattering of its inhabitants2#acd but rather on the broad fact that ,egypt was not to be destroyed like ,assyria and ,babylonia1 but to be degraded1 and that this has actually been its history4 ,footnote #acc3 ,ezek4 #cj4 #g1 #ac4 ,footnote #acd3 ,ezek4 #bi4 #aa-ac4 7#c47 ,the dispersion of the ,jews4 ,lastly1 as to the ,jews4 ,their future was to be neither desolation1 nor degradation1 but dispersion4 ,this is asserted over and over again4 ,they were to be scattered among the nations1 and dispersed through the countries2 to be wanderers among the nations2 sifted among all nations2 tossed to and fro among all the kingdoms of the earth2 and scattered among all peoples from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth4#ace ,footnote #ace3 ,ezek4 #bb4 #ae2 ,hos4 #i4 #ag2 ,amos #i4 #i2 ,deut4 #bh4 #be1 #fd2 see also ,deut4 #d4 #bg2 ,neh4 #a4 #h2 ,jer4 #i4 #af4 ,moreover1 in their dispersion they were to be subjected to continual suffering and persecution4 ,they were to become a proverb1 and a byword among all people4 ,their curses were to be upon them1 for a sign and for a wonder1 and upon their seed for ever4 ,they were to have a yoke of iron upon their necks2 and to have the sword drawn out after them in all lands1 etc4 ,yet1 in spite of all this1 they were not to be absorbed into other nations1 but to remain distinct4 ,they and their seed for ever were to be a separate people1 a sign and a wonder at all times2 and ,god would never make a full end of them1 as ,he would of the nations among whom they were scattered4 ,indeed heaven and earth were to pass away1 rather than the ,jews cease to be a distinct people4#acf ,footnote #acf3 ,deut4 #bh4 #cg1 #df1 #dh2 ,lev4 #bf4 #cc2 ,jer4 #bd4 #i2 #bi4 #ah2 #cj4 #aa2 #ca4 #ce-cg4 ,and here again history has exactly agreed with prophecy4 ,the fate of the ,jews1 since the destruction of ,jerusalem in ,a4,d4 #gj1 has actually been dispersion1 and this to an extent which is quite unique4 ,it has been combined1 moreover1 with incessant suffering and persecution1 yet they have always remained a separate people4 ,the ,jews are still everywhere1 though the ,jewish nation is nowhere4 ,they are present in all countries1 but with a home in none1 having been literally scattered among the nations4 ,we will now examine a single passage in detail1 and select the latter part of ,deut4 #bh4 ,the whole chapter is indeed full of prophecies as to the future condition of the ,jews1 some of which seem to point to the ,babylonian captivity1 7e4g41 v4 #cf72 but after this we come to another and final catastrophe in v4 #di4 ,this evidently begins a fresh subject1 which is continued without a break till the end of the chapter4 ,and it is specially interesting because1 not only is the world-wide dispersion of the ,jews1 and their continual sufferings1 clearly foretold2 but also the previous war which led up to it4 ,we have1 as is well known1 a full account of this in the history of ,josephus1 and as he never alludes to the prophecy himself 7except in the most general terms71 his evidence is above suspicion4 ,ver4 #di4 ,first of all the conquerors themselves are described as a nation from far1 from the end of the earth1 as the eagle flieth1 a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand1 etc4 ,and this is very applicable to the ,romans1 whose general1 ,vespasian1 had come from ,britain1 and their troops from various countries1 who had the eagle as their standard1 and whose language1 ,latin1 was unknown to most of the ,jews4 #ej4 ,and the merciless way in which these fierce warriors were to spare neither old nor young was painfully true in their treatment of the ,jews4 #ea4 ,and they also of course destroyed or confiscated their property4 #eb4 ,then the war is foretold as one of sieges 7he shall besiege thee in all thy gates71 rather than of open battles4 ,and this was certainly the case1 since a large number of towns1 including ,jotapata1 ,gamala1 ,masada1 and ,jerusalem itself1 suffered terrible sieges4 ,and these were to be continued till the high walls came down1 which is very appropriate to the ,roman battering rams that were actually used at all these places4 #ec4 ,then we have the dreadful famine1 due to the severity 7or straitness7 of the siege1 evidently the great siege1 that of ,jerusalem4 ,this is strongly insisted on1 being repeated three times1 and it was to drive the wretched inhabitants to cannibalism of the most revolting kind1 which it actually did4 #ed4 ,it was also to lead to considerable strife within the city2 even between members of the same family4 ,and this1 though by no means common in all sieges1 was abundantly fulfilled in the case of ,jerusalem4 #ee4 ,and they were to grudge their nearest relatives a morsel of food2 which again exactly agrees with ,josephus1 who says that parents would fight with their own children for pieces of food4 #ef4 ,and all this was to be the fate1 not only of the poor2 but1 what is very remarkable1 and perhaps unique in the world's history1 of the wealthy also4 ,it was even to include one instance at least 7perhaps several7 of a lady of high position4 ,she is described as not setting her foot upon the ground2 which means that she was accustomed to be carried about in a chair1 or ride on an ass2 and was therefore rich enough to buy anything that could be bought4 #eg4 ,and she was to eat her own children secretly4 ,here was the climax of their sufferings4 ,yet this very detail1 so unlikely to have occurred1 and so unlikely to have been discovered if it did occur 7as it was to be done secretly71 is fully confirmed by ,josephus4 ,for he mentions one instance that actually was discovered1 in which a lady eminent for her family and wealth 7,mary1 the daughter of ,eleazar7 had secretly eaten half her own child4#acg ,footnote #acg3 ,wars1 vi4 #c4 #eh4 ,and these miseries were to come upon the ,jews for their disobedience of ,god's laws2 and again ,josephus says that their wickedness at this time was so great that if the ,romans had not destroyed their city1 he thinks it would have been swallowed up by the earth4#ach ,footnote3 #ach3 ,wars1 v4 #ac4 #ei4 ,moreover1 the plagues of themselves1 and of their seed1 were to be wonderful1 even great plagues1 and of long continuance4 ,and no one who has read the account of the siege1 and the subsequent treatment of the ,jews1 will think the description at all exaggerated4 #fj4 ,and the people are specially threatened with the diseases of ,egypt1 which thou wast afraid of1 and this1 as said in ,chapter ,,ix41 implies that the passage was written soon after the people left ,egypt1 and therefore centuries before any siege or dispersion4 #fa4 ,and it was to end1 as it actually did end1 in the destruction of the nation1 until thou be destroyed4 #fb4 ,while the ,jews that survived were to be left comparatively few in number2 which was certainly the case1 even allowing that the statement of ,josephus that #fjj1jjj perished in the siege may be an exaggeration4 #fc4 ,and these were to be forcibly expelled from the land of ,canaan1 which they were just about to conquer4 ,and they actually were so expelled by the ,romans1 partly after this war1 and still more so after their rebellion in ,a4,d4 #acd1 when for many centuries scarcely any ,jews were allowed to live in their own country1 an event probably unique in history4 #fd4 ,but instead of being taken away to a single nation1 as at the ,babylonian captivity1 they were now to be scattered over the whole world1 among all peoples1 from one end of the earth1 even unto the other end of the earth4 ,and how marvellously this has been fulfilled is obvious to everyone4 ,no mention is made of a king here1 as in ver4 #cf2 so while that suits the ,babylonian captivity1 this suits the later dispersion1 though in each case there is a reference to their serving other gods1 for which it must be admitted there is very little evidence4 #fe4 ,then we have the further sufferings that the ,jews were to undergo in their dispersion4 ,among these nations they were to find no ease1 nor rest for the sole of their foot1 but were to have a trembling heart1 and failing of eyes1 and pining of soul4 ,and here1 again1 the event is as strange as the prophecy4 ,nowhere else shall we find a parallel to it4 ,for centuries the ,jews were not only persecuted1 but were often expelled from one country to another1 so that they found no rest anywhere1 but were driven from city to city1 and from kingdom to kingdom4 #ff4 ,and their life was to hang in doubt night and day2 #fg4 ,and they were to be in a continual state of fear and alarm2 all of which was completely fulfilled4 #fh4 ,lastly1 we read1 that some of the ,jews1 instead of being dispersed1 were to be brought to ,egypt again with ships1 and to be in bondage there4 ,and this also came true1 after the siege1 when many of the ,jews were sold for slaves1 and sent to the mines in ,egypt1 probably in slave ships4 ,everyone must admit that the agreement all through is very remarkable2 in fact1 the prophecies about the dispersion of the ,jews--and we have only examined a single instance in detail--are even more striking than those about the desolation of ,assyria and ,babylonia1 or the degradation of ,egypt4 ,and to fully realise their importance1 let us suppose that anyone now were to foretell the future of three great nations1 saying that one was to be utterly destroyed1 and the land desolated2 another to sink to be a base kingdom2 and the third to be conquered and its inhabitants forcibly expelled1 and scattered over the whole world4 ,what chance would there be of any one of the prophecies 7leave alone all three7 coming true1 and remaining true for two thousand years8 ,yet this would be but a similar case4 ,what conclusion1 then1 must be drawn from all these prophecies1 so clear in their general meaning1 so distinctive in their character1 so minute in many of their details1 so unlikely at the time they were written1 and yet one and all so exactly fulfilled8 ,there appear to be only three alternatives4 ,either they must have been random guesses1 which certainly seems incredible4 ,or else they must have been due to deep foresight on the part of the writers1 which seems equally so2 for the writers had had no experience of the permanent desolation of great empires like ,assyria and ,babylonia1 while as to the fate of ,egypt and the ,jews themselves1 history afforded no parallel4 ,or else1 lastly1 the writers must have had revealed to them what the future of these nations would be2 in which case1 and in which case alone1 all is plain4 7,b47 ,,special ,,prophecies4 ,we pass on now to the ,special ,prophecies4 ,these are found all through the ,old ,testament1 the following being eight of the most important4 ,the fact that ,david's throne should always be held by his descendants1 i4e41 till the captivity1 about #dej years2#aci and its fulfilment is specially remarkable when contrasted with the rival kingdom of ,samaria1 where the dynasty changed eight or nine times in #bej years4 ,footnote #aci3 #b ,sam4 #g4 #ab-af2 #a ,kings #i4 #d1 #e4 ,the division of the kingdom into ten and two tribes1 evidently announced at the time1 since ,jeroboam had to go away in consequence1 and apparently the reason why the rebels were not attacked4#adj ,footnote #adj3 #a ,kings #aa4 #ca1 #dj2 #ab4 #bd4 ,the destruction1 rebuilding1 and final destruction of the ,temple2 the first of these prophecies being made so publicly that it caused quite a commotion1 and nearly cost the prophet his life4#ada ,footnote #ada3 ,jer4 #bf4 #h-af2 ,isa4 #dd4 #bh2 ,dan4 #i4 #bf4 ,the destruction of the altar at ,bethel1 which was set up as a rival to that at ,jerusalem2 publicly announced some centuries before1 including the name of the destroyer4#adb ,footnote #adb3 #a ,kings #ac4 #b2 #b ,kings #bc4 #ae1 #af4 ,the destruction of ,israel by the ,assyrians4#adc ,footnote #adc3 #a ,kings #ad4 #ae2 ,isa4 #h4 #d4 ,the destruction of ,jerusalem by the ,babylonians4#add ,footnote #add3 #b ,kings #bj4 #ag4 ,the captivity of the ,jews1 including its duration of seventy years1 their most unlikely restoration1 and the name of the restorer4#ade ,footnote #ade3 ,jer4 #bi4 #aj2 ,isa4 #dd4 #bh4 ,the wars between ,syria and ,egypt4#adf ,footnote #adf3 ,dan4 #aa4 ,we will examine a single instance in detail1 and select that referring to the destruction of ,jerusalem by the ,babylonians1 as this is connected with one of the miracles mentioned in the last chapter1 the shadow on the dial4 ,now1 it will be remembered that1 on one occasion1 the ,jewish ,king ,hezekiah was seriously ill1 and on being told of his unexpected recovery1 he naturally asked for a sign4 ,and then in accordance with his demand the shadow on his dial went back ten steps4#adg ,footnote #adg3 #b ,kings #bj4 #h-aa 7margin1 ,r4,v472 ,isa4 #ch4 #h4 ,this dial was evidently a flight of steps1 with some object on the top1 perhaps an obelisk1 which threw a shadow on a gradually increasing number of these as the sun set4 ,and a sudden vibration of the ground1 due perhaps to an earthquake1 and causing the obelisk to slope to one side1 would quite account for the shadow going backward1 and leaving some of the steps which it had covered4 ,and the narrative certainly implies that the effect was sudden1 and apparently limited to this one dial4 ,it seems1 however1 to have attracted considerable attention2 since messengers came from ,babylon to enquire about it1 and to congratulate the ,king on his recovery4#adh ,and if the sloping obelisk1 and perhaps broken steps1 were still visible1 this would be much more natural than if there was nothing left for them to see4 ,though in any case1 as they called it the wonder that was done in the land1 it evidently was not noticed elsewhere1 and must have been due to some local cause4 ,and we may ask1 how could any writer have asserted all this1 even a century afterwards1 if no such sign had occurred8 ,footnote #adh3 #b ,chron4 #cb4 #bd1 #ca4 ,we are then told that ,hezekiah showed these messengers all his treasures1 which leads up to the prophecy that the treasures should be carried away and ,jerusalem destroyed by these very ,babylonians4 ,this is introduced in the most natural way possible1 as a rebuke to the king for his proud display2 and it is difficult to consider it a later insertion4 ,yet the event could not have been humanly foreseen4 ,for ,babylon was then but a comparatively small and friendly nation1 shortly to be absorbed into ,assyria 7in ,b4,c4 #fhi71 and only when it regained its independence nearly a century later did it become strong enough to cause any fear to the ,jews4 ,we need not discuss the other prophecies at length1 since that they all refer to the events in question is generally admitted4 ,indeed1 in some cases1 owing to the mention of names and details1 it can scarcely be denied4 ,therefore those who disbelieve in prophecy have no alternative but to say that they were all written after the event4 ,at this lapse of time it is difficult to prove or disprove such a statement4 ,but it must be remembered that to say that any apparent prophecies were written after the event is not merely to destroy their superhuman character1 and bring them down to the level of ordinary writings1 but far below it4 ,for ordinary writings do not contain wilful falsehoods1 yet every pretended prophecy written after the event cannot possibly be regarded in any other light4 ,the choice then lies between real prophecies and wilful forgeries4 ,there is no other alternative4 ,and bearing this in mind1 we must ask1 is it likely that men of such high moral character as the ,jewish prophets would have been guilty of such gross imposture8 ,is it likely that1 if guilty of it1 they would have been able to pass it off successfully on the whole nation8 ,and is it likely that they would have had any sufficient motive to induce them to make the attempt8 ,moreover1 many of these prophecies are stated to have been made in public1 and to have been talked about1 and well known long before their fulfilment4 ,and it is hard to see how this could have been asserted unless it was the case1 or how it could have been the case unless they were superhuman4 ,it should also be noticed that in ,deuteronomy the occurrence of some definite and specified event is given as the test of a prophet1 and one of the later prophets 7,isaiah7 appeals to this very test4 ,for he challenges the false prophets to foretell future events1 and repeatedly declares that this was the mark of a true prophet4#adi ,and it is inconceivable that men should thus court defeat by themselves proposing a test which would have shown that they were nothing more than impostors4 ,yet this would have been the case if all their so-called prophecies had been written after the events4 ,footnote #adi3 ,deut4 #ah4 #bb2 ,isa4 #da4 #bb2 #dd4 #h2 #dh4 #c-e2 see also ,deut4 #ac4 #a-c4 7,c47 ,,conclusion4 ,in concluding this chapter1 we must notice the cumulative nature of the evidence4 ,the prophecies we have referred to1 like the miracles in the last chapter1 are but specimens1 a few out of many which might be given4 ,this is very important1 and its bearing on our present argument is naturally twofold4 ,in the first place1 it does not increase1 and in some respects rather decreases1 the difficulty of believing them to be true1 for thirty miracles or prophecies1 provided they occur on suitable occasions1 are scarcely more difficult to believe than three4 ,and the number recorded in the ,old ,testament shows that1 instead of being mere isolated marvels1 they form a complete series4 ,their object was to instruct the ,jews1 and through them the rest of the world1 in the great truths of ,natural ,religion1 such as the existence of ,one ,supreme ,god1 ,who was shown to be ,all-,powerful by the miracles1 ,all-,wise by the prophecies1 and ,all-,good by ,his rewarding and punishing men and nations alike for their deeds4 ,and when we thus regard them as confirming a ,revelation1 which was for the benefit of the whole human race1 they lose a good deal of their improbability4 ,indeed many who now believe ,natural ,religion alone1 and reject all revelation1 would probably never have believed even this1 but for the ,bible4 ,on the other hand1 the number and variety of these alleged events greatly increases the difficulty of any other explanation2 for thirty miracles or prophecies are far more difficult to disbelieve than three4 ,a successful fraud might take place once1 but not often4 ,an imitation miracle might be practised once1 but not often4 ,spurious prophecies might be mistaken for genuine once1 but not often4 ,yet1 if none of these events are true1 such frauds and such deceptions must have been practised1 and practised successfully1 over and over again4 ,in fact1 the ,old ,testament must be a collection of the most dishonest books ever written1 for it is full of miracles and prophecies from beginning to end2 and it is hard to exaggerate the immense moral difficulty which this involves4 ,many of the ,jewish prophets1 as before said1 teach the highest moral virtues2 and the ,jewish religion1 especially in its later days1 is admittedly of high moral character4 ,it seems1 then1 to be almost incredible that its sacred writings should be merely a collection of spurious prophecies uttered after the event1 and false miracles which never occurred4 ,we therefore decide in this chapter that the history of the ,jewish religion was confirmed by prophecies4 ,,chapter ,,xii4 ,,that ,,the ,,jewish ,,religion ,,is ,,probably ,,true4 ,only two subjects remain to be discussed4 7,a47 ,,the ,,existence ,,of ,,angels4 ,no difficulty here1 nor as to their influence4 7,b47 ,,the ,,character ,,of ,,god4 ,the ,jewish idea of ,god often thought to be defective4 7#a47 ,its partiality2 but any revelation must be more or less partial4 7#b47 ,its human element2 we must1 however1 use analogies of some kind when speaking of ,god1 and human analogies are the least inappropriate4 7#c47 ,its moral defects2 since ,god is shown as approving of wicked men1 ordering wicked deeds1 and sanctioning wicked customs2 but these difficulties are not so great as they seem4 7#d47 ,its general excellence4 ,on the other hand1 the ,jews firmly believed in ,monotheism1 and had the highest mental and moral conception of ,god2 so that their ,god was the true ,god1 the ,god of ,natural ,religion4 7,c47 ,,conclusion4 ,four further arguments2 the ,jewish ,religion is probably true4 ,we have been considering in the previous chapters several strong arguments in favour of the ,jewish ,religion2 and before concluding we must of course notice any adverse arguments which we have not already dealt with4 ,the only two of any importance refer to the ,existence of ,angels1 and the ,character ascribed to ,god2 so we will consider these first1 and then conclude with some general remarks4 7,a47 ,,the ,,existence ,,of ,,angels4 ,now the ,old ,testament always takes for granted the existence and influence of angels1 yet at the present day this is often thought to be a difficulty4 ,but as to the mere existence of angels1 there is no difficulty whatever4 ,for the whole analogy of nature would teach us that since there are numerous beings in the scale of life below man1 so there would be some beings above man--that is to say1 between him and the ,supreme ,being4 ,and this is rendered still more probable when we reflect on the small intervals there are in the descending scale1 and the immense interval there would be in the ascending scale if man were the next highest being in the universe to ,god4 ,and that these higher beings should be entirely spiritual1 i4e41 without material bodies1 and therefore beyond scientific discovery1 is not improbable4 ,indeed1 considering that man's superiority to lower beings lies in this very fact of his having a partly spiritual nature1 the idea that higher beings may be entirely spiritual is even probable4 ,and though it is difficult for us to imagine how angels can see1 or hear without a material body1 it is really no more difficult than imagining how we can do it with a body4 ,take for instance the case of seeing4 ,neither the eye nor the brain sees1 they are mere collections of molecules of matter1 and how can a molecule see anything8 ,it is the man himself1 the personal being1 who in some mysterious way sees by means of both eyes and brain2 and for all we know he might see just as well without them4 ,and the same applies in other cases4 ,then that angels should have as great1 if not greater1 intellectual and moral faculties than man seems certain2 otherwise they would not be higher beings at all4 ,and this necessitates their having free will1 with the option of choosing good or evil4 ,and that1 like men1 some should choose one1 and some the other1 seems equally probable4 ,hence the existence of both good and evil angels presents no difficulty4 ,and that the good angels should have a leader1 or captain 7called in the ,old ,testament1 ,michael71 and that the evil angels should have one too 7called ,satan7 is only what we should expect4 ,next1 as to their influence4 ,now that good angels should wish to influence men for good1 and might occasionally be employed by ,god for that purpose1 scarcely seems improbable4 ,while1 on the other hand1 that evil angels should wish to act1 as evil men act1 in tempting others to do wrong1 is again only what we should expect4 ,and that ,god should allow them to do so is no harder to believe than that ,he should allow evil men to do the same4 ,it may still be objected however that we have no actual evidence as to the influence of angels at the present day4 ,but this is at least doubtful4 ,for what evidence could we expect to have8 ,we could not expect to have any physical sensation1 or anything capable of scientific investigation1 for angels1 if they exist at all1 are spiritual beings4 ,if1 then1 they were to influence man1 say1 by tempting him to do evil1 all we could know would be the sudden presence of some evil thought in our minds1 without1 as far as we could judge1 any previous cause for it4 ,and who will assert that this is an unknown experience8 ,yet if it is known1 does it not constitute all the proof we could expect of the action of an evil spirit8 ,and of course the same applies to good spirits4 ,there is thus no difficulty as to the existence1 and influence of angels4 7,b47 ,,the ,,character ,,of ,,god4 ,we pass on now to the ,character ascribed to ,god in the ,old ,testament1 first considering its difficulties1 under the three heads of its partiality1 its human element1 and its moral defects2 and then what can be said on the other side as to its general excellence4 7#a47 ,its partiality4 ,the objection here is that ,god is the just ,god of all mankind1 and it is therefore incredible that ,he should have selected a single nation like the ,jews to be ,his special favourites1 more particularly as ,his alleged attempt to make them a holy people proved such a hopeless failure4 ,while it is further urged that the very fact of the ,jews believing ,jehovah to be their special ,god shows that they regarded ,him as a mere national ,god1 bearing the same relation to themselves as the gods of other nations did to them4 ,but1 as said in ,chapter ,,vi41 any revelation implies a certain partiality to the men or nation to whom it is given2 though it is not on that account incredible4 ,and there is certainly no reason why the ,jews should not have been the nation chosen1 and some slight reason why they should2 for their ancestor ,abraham was not selected without a cause4 ,he did1 partly at least1 deserve it1 since1 judging by the only accounts we have1 he showed the most perfect obedience to ,god in his willingness to sacrifice ,isaac4 ,it must also be remembered that ,god's so-called partiality to the ,jews did not imply any indulgence to them in the sense of overlooking their faults4 ,on the contrary1 ,he is represented all along as blaming and punishing them1 just as much as other nations1 for their sins4 ,next1 as to ,god's purpose in regard to the ,jews having been a failure4 ,this is only partly true4 ,no doubt they were1 on the whole1 a sinful nation2 but they were not worse than1 or even so bad as1 the nations around them2 it was only the fact of their being the chosen race that made their sins so serious4 ,they had free will1 just as men have now2 and if they chose to misuse their freedom and act wrong1 that was not ,god's fault4 ,moreover1 the ,jewish nation was not selected merely for its own sake1 but for the sake of all mankind2 as is expressly stated at the very commencement1 ',in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed4'#aej ,thus ,god did not select the ,jews1 and reject other nations2 but ,he selected the ,jews in order that through them ,he might bless other nations4 ,the religious welfare of the whole world was ,god's purpose from the beginning2 and the ,jews were merely the means chosen for bringing it about4 ,and to a great extent the purpose has been fulfilled2 for however sinful the nation may have been1 they preserved and handed on ,god's revelation1 and the ,old ,testament remains1 and will always remain1 as a permanent and priceless treasure of religion4 ,footnote #aej3 ,gen4 #ab4 #c4 ,the last part of the objection may be dismissed at once4 ,for if the ,jews regarded ,jehovah as their special ,god1 it was merely because ,he had specially selected them to be ,his people4 ,he must therefore have had a power of choice1 and might1 if ,he pleased1 have selected some other nation1 so ,he could not have been a mere national ,god1 but the ,god of all nations with power to select among them4 ,and this is distinctly asserted by many of the writers4#aea ,footnote #aea3 ,e4g41 ,exod4 #ai4 #e2 ,deut4 #cb4 #h2 #b ,chron4 #bj4 #f2 ,isa4 #cg4 #af4 ,we conclude1 then1 that ,god's so-called partiality to the ,jews does not1 when carefully considered1 form a great difficulty4 ,to put it shortly1 if a revelation is given at all1 some individuals must be selected to receive it2 if it is given gradually 7and ,god's methods in nature are always those of gradual development7 these men would probably belong to a single nation2 and if one nation had to be selected1 there is no reason why the ,jews should not have been the one chosen4 ,while1 if they were selected for the purpose of handing on ,god's revelation to the world at large1 the purpose has been completely successful4 7#b47 ,its human element4 ,the next difficulty1 is that the ,jewish idea of ,god was thoroughly human1 the ,deity being represented as a great ,man1 with human form1 feelings1 attributes1 and imperfections4 ,thus ,he has hands and arms1 eyes and ears2 ,he is at times glad or sorry1 angry or jealous2 ,he moves about from place to place2 and sometimes repents of what ,he has done1 thus showing1 it is urged1 a want of foresight1 on ,his part4 ,and all this is plainly inconsistent with the character of the immaterial1 omnipresent1 omniscient ,god of ,nature4 ,the answer to this objection is twofold4 ,in the first place1 we must of necessity use analogies of some kind when speaking of ,god1 and human analogies are not only the easiest to understand1 but are also the least inappropriate1 since1 as we have shown1 man resembles ,god in that he is a personal and moral being4 ,therefore likening ,god to man is not so degrading as likening ,him to mere natural forces4 ,such expressions1 then1 must always be considered as descriptions drawn from human analogies1 which must not be pressed literally4 ,while1 secondly1 it is plain that the ,jewish writers themselves so understood them1 for they elsewhere describe the ,deity in the most exalted language1 as will be shown later on4 ,and this is strongly confirmed by the remarkable fact that the ,jews1 unlike other ancient nations1 had no material idol or representation of their ,god4 ,inside both the tabernacle and the temple there was the holy of holies with the mercy seat1 but no one sat on it4 ,an empty throne was all that the shrine contained4 ,their ,jehovah was essentially an invisible ,god1 who could not be represented by any human or other form2 and this alone seems a sufficient answer to the present objection4 7#c47 ,its moral defects4 ,lastly as to the supposed moral defects in ,god's ,character4 ,the three most important are that ,god is frequently represented as approving of wicked men1 as ordering wicked deeds1 and even in ,his own laws as sanctioning wicked customs4 ,we will consider these points in turn4 ,and first as to ,god's approving of wicked men2 that is1 of men who committed the greatest crimes1 such as ,jacob and ,david4 ,this is easily answered1 since approving of a man does not mean approving of everything he does4 ,the case of ,david affords a convincing example of this2 for though he is represented as a man after ,god's own heart1 yet we are told that ,god was so extremely displeased with one of his acts that ,he punished him for it severely1 in causing his child to die4 ,in the same way no one supposes that ,god approved of ,jacob because of his treachery1 but in spite of it2 and even in his treachery1 he was only carrying out 7and with apparent reluctance7 the orders of his mother4#aeb ,moreover1 in estimating a man's character1 his education and surroundings have always to be taken into account4 ,and if the conduct of one man living in an immoral age is far better than that of his contemporaries1 he may be worthy of praise1 though similar conduct at the present day might not deserve it4 ,footnote #aeb3 ,gen4 #bg4 #h-ac4 ,and if it be asked what there was in the character of these men1 and many others1 to counterbalance their obvious crimes1 the answer is plain2 it was their intense belief in the spiritual world4 ,the existence of ,one ,supreme ,god1 and their personal responsibility to ,him1 were realities to them all through life2 so1 in spite of many faults1 they still deserved to be praised4 ,next as to ,god's ordering wicked deeds4 ,in all cases of this kind it is important to distinguish between a man's personal acts1 and his official ones4 ,at the present day the judge who condemns a criminal1 and the executioner who hangs him are not looked upon as murderers4 ,and the same principle applies universally4 ,now in the ,old ,testament the ,jews are represented as living under the immediate rule of ,god4 ,therefore when a man1 or body of men1 had to be punished for their crimes1 ,he commanded some prophet or king1 or perhaps the whole people1 to carry out the sentence4 ,and of course1 if they failed to do so they were blamed1 just as we should blame a hangman at the present day who failed to do his duty4 ,thus1 in the case of destroying the ,canaanites1 which is the instance most often objected to1 the people were told1 in the plainest terms1 that they were only acting as ,god's ministers1 and that if they became as bad as the ,canaanites1 who were a horribly polluted race1 ,god would have them destroyed as well4#aec ,footnote #aec3 ,e4g41 ,lev4 #ah4 #ba-bh2 ,deut4 #i4 #e4 ,a more serious objection is that ,god is occasionally represented as if ,he ,himself caused men to do wrong1 such as ,his hardening ,pharaoh's heart4#aed ,but1 as we shall see later on1 the ,bible often speaks of everything that occurs1 whether good or evil1 as being1 in a certain sense1 ,god's doing4 ,and since the writer asserts more than once that ,pharaoh hardened his own heart1 there can be little doubt that he intended the two expressions to mean the same4 ,indeed the whole narrative represents ,pharaoh as extremely obstinate in the matter1 refusing to listen even to his own people4#aee ,footnote #aed3 ,e4g41 ,exod4 #ad4 #d4 ,footnote #aee3 ,exod4 #h4 #ae1 #cb2 #i4 #cd2 #aj4 #c1 #g4 ,thirdly1 as to ,god's sanctioning wicked customs4 ,the most important is that of human sacrifice2 but it is very doubtful whether the passages relied on do sanction this custom2#aef since it is clearly laid down elsewhere that the firstborn of men are never to be sacrificed1 but are always to be redeemed4#aeg ,moreover human sacrifices among other nations are strongly condemned1 in one passage ,jehovah expressly saying that they were not to be offered to ,him4#aeh ,it is1 however1 further urged that we have two actual instances of such sacrifices in regard to ,isaac and ,jephthah4#aei ,but ,jephthah had evidently no idea when he made his vow that it would involve the sacrifice of his daughter2 and there is nothing to show that it was in any way acceptable to ,god4 ,footnote #aef3 ,exod4 #bb4 #bi1 #cj2 ,lev4 #bg4 #bh1 #bi4 ,footnote #aeg3 ,exod4 #ac4 #ac2 #cd4 #bj2 ,num4 #ah4 #ae4 ,footnote #aeh3 ,deut4 #ab4 #ca4 ,footnote #aei3 ,gen4 #bb2 ,judg4 #aa4 #ci4 ,in the case of ,isaac we have the one instance in which ,god did order a human sacrifice2 but then ,he specially intervened to prevent the order from being carried out4 ,and the whole affair1 the command and the counter-command1 must of course be taken together4 ,it was required to test ,abraham's faith to the utmost1 therefore as he most valued his son1 he was told to offer him4 ,and since children were then universally regarded as property1 and at the absolute disposal of their parents1 human sacrifices being by no means uncommon1 the command1 however distressing to his heart1 would have formed no difficulty to his conscience4 ,but when his faith was found equal to the trial1 ,god intervened1 as ,he had of course intended doing all along1 to prevent ,isaac from being actually slain4 ,with regard to the other practices1 such as slavery1 and polygamy1 it is undisputed that they were recognised by the ,jewish laws2 but none of them were instituted by these laws4 ,the ,pentateuch neither commands them1 nor commends them2 it merely mentions them1 and1 as a rule1 to guard against their abuse4 ,take1 for instance1 the case of slavery4 ,the custom was1 and had been for ages1 universal4 ,all that the laws did was to recognise its existence and to provide certain safeguards2 making kidnapping1 for instance1 a capital offence1 and in some cases ordering the release of slaves every seventh year4#afj ,footnote #afj3 ,exod4 #ba4 #b1 #af2 ,lev4 #be4 #da4 ,on the other hand1 many worse customs existed at the time which the ,jewish laws did absolutely forbid2#afa and they also introduced a code of morals1 summed up in the ,decalogue1 of such permanent value that it has been practically accepted by the civilised world4 ,while the highest of all virtues1 that of doing good to one's enemies1 which was scarcely known among other nations1 is positively enjoined in the ,pentateuch4#afb ,footnote #afa3 ,e4g41 ,lev4 #ah-bj4 ,footnote #afb3 ,exod4 #bc4 #d-e4 7#d47 ,its general excellence4 ,having now discussed at some length the alleged difficulties in ,god's character1 it is only fair to see what can be said on the other side4 ,and much indeed may be said2 for the ,jewish conception of the ,deity1 when considered as a whole1 and apart from these special difficulties1 was one of the noblest ever formed by man4 ,to begin with1 the ,jews firmly believed in ,monotheism1 or the existence of ,one ,supreme ,god4 ,this was the essence of their religion4 ,it is stamped on the first page of ,genesis2 it is implied in the ,decalogue2 it occurs all through the historical books2 and it is emphasised in the ,psalms and ,prophets2 in fact they were never without it4 ,and in this respect the ,jews stood alone among the surrounding nations4 ,some others1 it is true1 believed in a god who was more or less ,supreme2 but they always associated with him a number of lesser deities which really turned their religion into ,polytheism4 ,with the ,jews it was not so4 ,their ,jehovah had neither rivals nor assistants4 ,there were no inferior gods1 still less goddesses4 ,he was the one and only ,god2 and as for the so-called gods of other nations1 they either did not believe in their existence1 or thought them utterly contemptible1 and even ridiculed the idea of their having the slightest power4#afc ,and it may be added1 this is a subject on which the ,jews have become the teachers of the world1 for both the great monotheistic ,religions of the present day1 ,christianity and ,mohammedanism1 have been derived from them4 ,footnote #afc3 ,deut4 #d4 #ci2 #a ,kings #ah4 #bg2 #b ,kings #ai4 #ae-ah2 ,ps4 #aae4 #d-h4 ,moreover1 the great problem of the ,existence of ,evil never led the ,jews1 as it did some other nations1 into ,dualism1 or the belief in an independent ,evil ,power4 ,difficult as the problem was1 the ,jews never hesitated in their belief that there was but ,one ,supreme ,god1 and that everything that existed1 whether good or evil1 existed by ,his permission1 and was in a certain sense ,his doing4#afd ,and they gave to ,him the very highest attributes4 ,footnote #afd3 ,isa4 #de4 #g2 ,prov4 #af4 #d2 ,amos #c4 #f4 ,they described ,him as ,omnipotent2 the ,creator1 ,preserver1 and ,possessor of all things1 the ,cause of all nature1 the ,sustainer of all life1 ,almighty in power1 and for ,whom nothing is too hard4#afe ,footnote #afe3 ,gen4 #a4 #a2 ,neh4 #i4 #f2 ,gen4 #ad4 #bb2 ,amos #e4 #h2 ,job #ab4 #aj2 #a ,chron4 #bi4 #aa2 ,jer4 #cb4 #ag4 ,they described ,him as ,omniscient2 infinite in understanding1 wonderful in counsel1 perfect in knowledge1 declaring the end from the beginning1 knowing and foreknowing even the thoughts of men4#aff ,footnote #aff3 ,ps4 #adg4 #e2 ,isa4 #bh4 #bi2 ,job #cg4 #af2 ,isa4 #df4 #aj2 ,ezek4 #aa4 #e4 ,ps4 #aci4 #b4 ,they described ,him as ,omnipresent2 filling ,heaven and earth1 though contained by neither1 existing everywhere1 and from ,whom escape is impossible4#afg ,footnote #afg3 ,jer4 #bc4 #bd2 #a ,kings #h4 #bg2 ,prov4 #ae4 #c2 ,ps4 #aci4 #g4 ,they described ,him as ,eternal2 the ,eternal ,god1 the ,everlasting ,god1 ,god from everlasting to everlasting1 ,whose years are unsearchable1 the ,first and the ,last4#afh ,footnote #afh3 ,deut4 #cc4 #bg2 ,gen4 #ba4 #cc2 ,ps4 #ij4 #b2 ,job #cf4 #bf2 ,isa4 #dh4 #ab4 ,they described ,him as ,unchangeable2 the same at all times1 ruling nature by fixed laws1 and with ,whom a change of purpose is impossible4#afi ,footnote #afi3 ,mal4 #c4 #f2 ,ps4 #adh4 #f2 ,num4 #bc4 #ai4 ,and lastly1 they described ,him as in ,his true nature ,unknowable2 a hidden ,god1 far above human understanding4#agj ,this will be enough to show the lofty mental conception which the ,jews formed of the ,deity4 ,footnote #agj3 ,isa4 #de4 #ae2 ,job #aa4 #g4 ,now for their moral conception4 ,they believed their ,god to be not only infinite in power and wisdom1 but1 what is more remarkable1 they ascribed to ,him the highest moral character4 ,he was not only a beneficent ,god1 ,whose blessings were unnumbered1 but ,he was also a righteous ,god4 ,his very ,name was ,holy1 and ,his hatred of evil is emphasised all through to such an extent that at times it forms a difficulty1 as in the case of the ,canaanites4 ,thus the goodness they ascribed to ,god was a combination of beneficence and righteousness very similar to what we discussed in ,chapter ,v4 ,moreover1 in this respect the ,god of the ,jews was a striking contrast to the gods of other nations4 ,we have only to compare ,jehovah with ,moloch and ,baal1 or with the ,egyptian gods1 ,ptah and ,ra1 or with the classical gods1 ,jupiter and ,saturn1 and the superiority of the ,jewish conception of the ,deity is beyond dispute4 ,in particular it may be mentioned that among other nations1 even the god they worshipped as ,supreme always had a female companion4 ,thus we have ,baal and ,astaroth1 ,osiris and ,isis1 ,jupiter and ,juno1 and many others4 ,it is needless to point out how easily such an idea led to immorality being mixed up with religion1 a vice from which the ,jews were absolutely free4 ,indeed1 few things are more remarkable1 even with this remarkable people1 than that in the innermost shrine of their temple1 in the ark just below the mercy-seat1 there was a code of moral laws1 the ,ten ,commandments4 ,this was the very centre of their religion1 theirgreatest treasure2 and they believed them to have been written by ,god ,himself4 ,nor can it be said that this high conception of the ,deity was confined to the later period of ,jewish history4 ,for the above texts have been purposely selected from all through the ,old ,testament1 and even ,abraham1 the remote ancestor of the ,jews1 seems to have looked upon it as self-evident that ,jehovah1 the ,judge of all the earth1 should do right4#aga ,no wonder1 then1 believing in such a perfect ,being as this1 the ,jews1 in contrast with most other nations1 thought that their first and great commandment was to love ,god rather than to fear ,him1 that they were each individually responsible to ,him for their conduct1 and that every sin was a sin against ,god1 ,who was a ,searcher of hearts1 and the impartial ,judge of all men4#agb ,so much1 then1 for the ,jewish conception of the ,deity when considered as a whole and apart from special difficulties4 ,footnote #aga3 ,gen4 #ah4 #be4 ,footnote #agb3 ,deut4 #f4 #e2 ,eccles4 #ab4 #ad2 ,gen4 #ci4 #i2 #a ,chron4 #bh4 #i2 ,job #cd4 #ai4 ,and from this it follows that the ,jewish ,god1 ,jehovah1 was the true ,god1 the ,god of ,natural ,religion1 the ,being ,who is ,all-,powerful1 ,all-,wise1 and ,all-,good4 ,yet strange to say the ,jews were not a more advanced nation than those around them4 ,on the contrary1 in the arts both of peace and war they were vastly inferior to the great nations of antiquity1 but in their conception of the ,deity they were vastly superior2 or1 as it has been otherwise expressed1 they were men in religion1 though children in everything else4 ,and this appears to many to be a strong argument in favour of their religion4 ,for unless it had been revealed to them1 it is not likely that the ,jews alone among ancient nations would have had such a true conception of the ,deity4 ,and unless they were in some special sense ,god's people1 it is not likely that they alone would have worshipped ,him4 7,c47 ,,conclusion4 ,before concluding this chapter1 we must notice four arguments of a more general character2 all of which are undisputed1 and all of which are distinctly in favour of the ,jewish ,religion4 ,the first is that the ,jews are all descended from one man1 ,abraham4 ,they have always maintained this themselves1 and there seems no reason to doubt it4 ,yet it is very remarkable4 ,there are now about sixteen hundred million persons in the world1 and if there were at the time of ,abraham 7say7 one million men 7i4e41 males71 each of these would1 on an average1 have #a1fjj descendants now4#agc ,but the ,jews now number1 not #a1fjj1 but over #ab1jjj1jjj4 ,this extraordinary posterity would be strange in any case1 but is doubly so1 considering that it was foretold4 ,it was part of the great promise made to ,abraham1 for his great faith1 that his seed should be as the stars of heaven1 and as the sand which is upon the sea-shore for multitude4#agd ,footnote #agc3 ,i4e41 descendants in the male line2 descendants through daughters are of course not counted4 ,footnote #agd3 ,gen4 #bb4 #ag4 ,the second is that the ,jews are anyhow a unique nation4 ,for centuries1 though scattered throughout the world1 they have been held together by their religion4 ,and according to the ,bible1 their religion was given them for this very purpose1 it was to make them a peculiar people1 unlike everyone else4#age ,if then it was1 as far as it went1 the true religion1 revealed by ,god1 the fact is explicable2 but if it was nothing better than other ancient and false religions1 it is hopelessly inexplicable4 ,footnote #age3 ,deut4 #ad4 #b2 #bf4 #ah4 ,the third is that the early history of the ,jews1 either real or supposed1 has exerted a greater and more beneficial influence on the world for the last thousand years1 than that of all the great nations of antiquity put together4 ,millions of men have been helped to resist sin by the ,psalms of ,david1 and the stories of ,elijah1 ,daniel1 etc41 over whom the histories of ,egypt and ,assyria1 ,greece1 and ,rome1 have had no influence whatever4 ,and the effect of the ,religion being thus unique1 makes it probable that its cause was unique also2 in other words1 that it was ,divinely revealed4 ,the fourth is that the ,jews themselves always prophesied that their ,god1 ,jehovah1 would one day be universally acknowledged4#agf ,and 7however strange we may think it7 this has actually been the case2 and the ,god of this small and insignificant tribe--the ,god of ,israel--is now worshipped by millions and millions of men 7,christians7 of every race1 language1 and country1 throughout the civilised world4 ,these are facts that need explanation1 and the ,truth of the ,jewish ,religion seems alone able to explain them4 ,footnote #agf3 ,e4g41 ,ps4 #bb4 #bg2 #hf4 #i2 ,isa4 #aa4 #i2 ,zeph4 #b4 #aa4 ,in conclusion1 we will just sum up the arguments in these chapters4 ,we have shown that there are strong reasons for thinking that the account of the ,creation was ,divinely revealed2 that the origin of the ,jewish religion was confirmed by miracles2 and that its history was confirmed both by miracles and prophecies4 ,and it should be noticed1 each of these arguments is independent of the others4 ,so the evidence is all cumulative and far more than sufficient to outweigh the improbability of the religion1 due to its apparent partiality1 which is the most important argument on the opposite side4 ,moreover1 we know so little as to why man was created1 or what future1 ,god intended for him1 that it is not easy to say whether the religion is really so improbable after all4 ,on the other hand1 the evidence in its favour is plain1 direct1 and unmistakable4 ,and we therefore decide that the ,jewish ,religion is probably true4 ,,part ,,iii4 ,,the ,,christian ,,religion4 ,,chap4 ,,xiii4 ,,that ,,the ,,christian ,,religion ,,is ,,credible4 ,,xiv4 ,,that ,,the ,,four ,,gospels ,,are ,,genuine ,,from ,,external ,,testimony4 ,,xv4 ,,that ,,the ,,gospels ,,are ,,genuine ,,from ,,internal ,,evidence4 ,,xvi4 ,,that ,,the ,,gospels ,,are ,,genuine ,,from ,,the ,,evidence ,,of ,,the ,,acts4 ,,xvii4 ,,that ,,the ,,resurrection ,,of ,,christ ,,is ,,probably ,,true4 ,,xviii4 ,,that ,,the ,,failure ,,of ,,other ,,explanations ,,increases ,,this ,,probability4 ,,xix4 ,,that ,,the ,,other ,,new ,,testament ,,miracles ,,are ,,probably ,,true4 ,,xx4 ,,that ,,the ,,jewish ,,prophecies ,,confirm ,,the ,,truth ,,of ,,christianity4 ,,xxi4 ,,that ,,the ,,character ,,of ,,christ ,,confirms ,,the ,,truth ,,of ,,christianity4 ,,xxii4 ,,that ,,the ,,history ,,of ,,christianity ,,confirms ,,its ,,truth4 ,,xxiii4 ,,that ,,on ,,the ,,whole ,,the ,,other ,,evidence ,,supports ,,this ,,conclusion4 ,,xxiv4 ,,that ,,the ,,three ,,creeds ,,are ,,deducible ,,from ,,the ,,new ,,testament4 ,,xxv4 ,,that ,,the ,,truth ,,of ,,the ,,christian ,,religion ,,is ,,extremely ,,probable4 ,,chapter ,,xiii4 ,,that ,,the ,,christian ,,religion ,,is ,,credible4 ,by the ,christian ,religion is meant the ,three ,creeds1 its four great doctrines4 7,a47 ,,the ,,trinity4 7#a47 ,its meaning2 ,three ,persons in ,one ,nature4 7#b47 ,its credibility2 this must be admitted4 7#c47 ,its probability more likely than simple ,theism4 7,b47 ,,the ,,incarnation4 7#a47 ,its difficulties2 not insuperable4 7#b47 ,its motive2 ,god1 it is said1 loves man1 and wishes man to love ,him1 not improbable for several reasons4 7#c47 ,its historical position4 7,c47 ,,the ,,atonement4 ,the common objections do not apply because of the willingness of the ,victim4 7#a47 ,as to the ,victim2 it does away with the injustice4 7#b47 ,as to the ,judge2 it appeals to ,his mercy not justice4 7#c47 ,as to the sinner2 it has no bad influence4 7,d47 ,,the ,,resurrection4 7#a47 ,christ's ,resurrection2 not incredible1 for we have no experience to judge by4 7#b47 ,man's resurrection2 not incredible1 for the same body need not involve the same molecules4 7,e47 ,,conclusion4 ,three considerations which show that the ,christian ,religion1 though improbable1 is certainly not incredible4 ,we pass on now to the ,christian ,religion1 by which we mean the facts and doctrines contained in the ,three ,creeds1 commonly1 though perhaps incorrectly1 called the ,apostles'1 the ,nicene1 and the ,athanasian4 ,and1 as these doctrines are of such vast importance1 and of so wonderful a character1 we must first consider whether they are credible4 ,is it conceivable that such doctrines should be true1 no matter what evidence they may have in their favour8 ,in this chapter1 therefore1 we shall deal chiefly with the difficulties of ,christianity4 ,now its four great and characteristic doctrines are those of the ,trinity1 the ,incarnation1 the ,atonement1 and the ,resurrection4 ,we will examine each in turn1 and then conclude with a few general remarks4 7,a47 ,,the ,,trinity4 ,to begin with1 the ,christian religion differs from all others in its idea of the nature of ,god4 ,according to ,christianity1 the ,deity exists in some mysterious manner as a ,trinity of ,persons in a ,unity of ,nature2 so we will first consider the meaning of this doctrine1 then its credibility1 and lastly its probability4 ,it is not1 as some people suppose1 a kind of intellectual puzzle1 but a statement which1 whether true or false1 is fairly intelligible1 provided1 of course1 due attention is given to the meaning of the words employed4 7#a47 ,its meaning4 ,in the first place1 we must carefully distinguish between ,person and ,substance2 this is the key to the whole question4 ,the former has been already considered in ,chapters ,,iii4 and ,,iv41 though it must be remembered that this term1 like all others1 when applied to ,god1 cannot mean exactly the same as it does when applied to man4 ,all we can say is that1 on the whole1 it seems the least inappropriate word4 ,the latter is a little misleading1 since it is not the modern ,english word substance1 but a ,latin translation of a ,greek word1 which would be better rendered by nature or essence4 ,but though difficult to explain1 its meaning is tolerably clear4 ,take1 for instance1 though the analogy must not be pressed too far1 the case of three men2 each is a distinct human person1 but they all have a common human nature4 ,this human nature1 which may also be called human substance 7in its old sense71 humanity1 or manhood1 has of course no existence apart from the men whose nature it is2 it is merely that which they each possess in common1 and the possession of which makes each of them a man4 ,and hence1 any attribute belonging to human nature would belong to each of the three men1 so that each would be mortal1 each subject to growth1 etc4 ,each would in fact possess the complete human nature1 yet together there would not be three human natures1 but only one4 ,bearing this in mind1 let us now turn to the doctrine of the ,trinity4 ,this is expressed in vv4 #c-f of the ,athanasian ,creed as follows3-- #c4 ',the ,catholic ,faith is this1 that we worship one ,god in ,trinity1 and ,trinity in ,unity4 #d4 ',neither confounding the ,persons1 nor dividing the ,substance4 #e4 ',for there is one ,person of the ,father1 another of the ,son1 and another of the ,holy ,ghost4 #f4 ',but the ,godhead of the ,father1 of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost1 is all one1 the ,glory equal1 the ,majesty co-eternal4' ,here1 it will be noticed1 vv4 #e and #f give the reasons for v4 #d1 so that the ,godhead in v4 #f is1 as we should have expected1 the same as the ,divine ,substance or ,nature in v4 #d4 ,thus the meaning is as follows3-- ,we must worship one ,god 7as to ,nature7 in ,trinity 7of ,persons7 and ,trinity 7of ,persons7 in ,unity 7of ,nature72 neither confusing the ,persons1 for each is distinct2 nor dividing the ,nature1 for it is all one4 ,thus far there is no intellectual difficulty in the statements of the ,creed4 ,we do not mean that there is no difficulty in believing them to be true1 or in accurately defining the terms used2 but that1 as statements1 their meaning is quite intelligible4 ,we now pass on to the following verses which are deductions from this1 and show that as each of the three ,persons possesses the ,divine ,nature1 all attributes of the ,godhead 7i4e41 of this one ,divine ,nature7 are possessed by each of the three4 ,each is therefore eternal1 and yet there is only one eternal ,nature4 ,but this is expressed in a peculiarly short and abrupt manner4 ,no one1 of course1 supposes that ,god is ,three in the same sense in which ,he is ,one1 but the ,creed does not sufficiently guard against this1 perhaps because it never occurred to its author that anyone would think it meant such an obvious absurdity4 ,moreover1 even grammatically the verses are not very clear4 ,for the various terms uncreate1 incomprehensible 7i4e41 boundless1 or omnipresent71 eternal1 almighty1 ,god1 and ,lord are used as if they were adjectives in the first part of each sentence1 and nouns in the latter part4 ,but we must remember these verses do not stand alone4 ,if they did1 they might perhaps be thought unintelligible4 ,but they do not4 ,as just said1 they are deductions from the previous statement of the doctrine of the ,trinity2 and1 therefore1 they must in all fairness be interpreted so as to agree with that doctrine1 not to contradict it4 ,and the previous verses 7#c-f7 show clearly that where three are spoken of1 it refers to ,persons2 and where one is spoken of1 it refers to ,substance or ,nature4 ,it must however be admitted that the names of these ,divine ,persons imply some closer union between them than that of merely possessing in common one ,divine ,nature4 ,for they are not independent names like those of different men or of heathen gods1 each of whom might exist separately2 but they are all relative names1 each implying the others4 ,thus the ,father implies the ,son1 for how can there be a ,father1 unless there is a ,son 7or at least a child78 ,and of course an ,eternal ,father implies an ,eternal ,son1 so any idea that the ,father must have lived first1 as in the case of a human father and son1 is out of the question4 ,similarly the ,son implies the ,father1 and the ,spirit implies ,him whose ,spirit ,he is4 ,and though these names are no doubt very inadequate2 they yet show that the three ,persons are of the same ,nature1 which is the important point4 ,we conclude then that the ,doctrine of the ,trinity means the existence of three ,divine ,persons1 each possessing in its completeness the one ,divine ,nature2 and closely united together2 though in a manner1 which is to us unknown4 7#b47 ,its credibility4 ,having now discussed the meaning of the ,christian doctrine1 we have next to consider whether it is credible4 ,it must of course be admitted that the doctrine is very mysterious1 and though fairly intelligible as a doctrine1 is extremely hard to realise 7indeed some might say inconceivable7 when we try to picture to ourselves what the doctrine actually means4 ,but we must remember that the nature of ,god is anyhow almost inconceivable1 even as simple ,theism4 ,we cannot picture to ourselves a ,being ,who is omnipresent1--in this room1 for instance1 as well as on distant stars4 ,nor can we imagine a ,being ,who is grieved every time we commit sin1 for if so1 considering the number of people in the world1 ,he must be grieved many thousands of times every second2 as well as being glad whenever anyone resists sin1 also1 let us hope1 several thousand times a second4 ,all this may be true1 just as the marvels of science--the ether1 for instance1 which is also omnipresent1 and has millions of vibrations every second--may be true1 but our minds are quite unable to realise any of them4 ,thus1 as said in ,chapter ,,iii41 though we have ample means of knowing what ,god is in ,his relation to us as our ,creator and ,judge1 yet as to ,his real nature we know next to nothing4 ,nor is this surprising when we remember that the only being who in any way resembles ,god is man2 and man's nature1 notwithstanding all our opportunities of studying it1 still remains a mystery4 ,now ,christianity does attempt 7in its doctrine of the ,trinity7 to state what ,god is in ,himself1 and without any reference to ourselves1 or to nature2 and that this should be to a great extent inconceivable to our minds seems inevitable4 ,for the nature of ,god must be beyond human understanding1 just as the nature of a man is beyond the understanding of animals2 though they may realise what he is to them1 in his power or his kindness4 ,and for all we know1 ,trinity in ,unity1 like omnipresence1 may be one of the unique attributes of ,god1 which cannot be understood 7because it cannot be shared7 by anyone else4 ,therefore the mysteriousness of the ,christian doctrine is no reason for thinking it incredible4 ,nor is it inconsistent with ,natural ,religion1 for though this shows the ,unity of ,god1 it is only a unity of outward action4 ,it does not1 and cannot tell us what this one ,god is in ,himself1 whether1 for instance1 ,he exists as one or more ,persons4 ,in the same way 7if we may without irreverence take a homely illustration7 a number of letters might be so extremely alike as to show that they were all written by one man4 ,but this would not tell us what the man was in himself1 whether1 for instance1 he had a free will1 as well as a body and mind2 or how these were related to one another4 ,hence ,natural ,religion can in no way conflict with ,christianity4 7#c47 ,its probability4 ,but we may go further than this1 and say that the ,christian doctrine of ,three ,divine ,persons is 7when carefully considered7 less difficult to believe than the ,unitarian doctrine of only ,one4 ,for this latter leads to the conclusion1 either that ,god must have been a solitary ,god dwelling alone from all eternity1 before the creation of the world2 or else that the world itself 7or some part of it7 must have been eternal1 and have formed a kind of companion4 ,and each of these theories has great difficulties4 ,take for instance the attributes of ,power and ,wisdom1 both of which1 as we have seen1 must of necessity belong to ,god4 ,how could a solitary ,god dwelling alone before the ,creation of the world have been able to exercise either ,his ,power or ,his ,wisdom8 ,as far as we can judge1 ,his ,power could have produced nothing1 ,his ,wisdom could have thought of nothing4 ,he would have been a potential ,god only1 with all ,his capacities unrealised4 ,and such a view seems quite incredible4 ,yet the only alternative--that the world itself is eternal--though it gets over this difficulty1 is still inadequate4 ,for as we have seen ,god possesses moral attributes as well1 such as ,goodness4 ,and all moral attributes--everything connected with right and wrong--can only be thought of as existing between two persons4 ,we cannot be good to an atom of hydrogen1 or unjust to a molecule of water4 ,we can it is true be kind to animals1 but this is simply because they resemble personal beings in having a capacity for pleasure and pain4 ,but moral attributes in their highest perfection can only exist between two persons4 ,therefore as the eternal ,god possesses1 and must always have possessed1 such attributes1 it seems to require some other eternal ,person4 ,the argument is perhaps a difficult one to follow1 but a single example will make it plain4 ,take the attribute of love4 ,this requires at least two persons--one to love1 the other to be loved4 ,therefore if love has always been one of ,god's attributes1 there must always have been some other person to be loved4 ,and the idea that ,god might have been eternally creating persons1 like men or angels1 as objects of ,his love1 though perhaps attractive1 is still inadequate4 ,for love in its perfection can only exist between two beings of the same nature4 ,a man cannot love his dog1 in the same way that he can love his son4 ,in short1 personality1 involving as it does moral attributes like love1 implies fellowship1 or the existence of other and similar persons4 ,yet1 when we think of the meaning of the term ,god1 ,his omnipresence and omnipotence1 it seems impossible that there can be more than one4 ,we must then believe in at least two ,eternal and ,divine ,persons1 yet in but one ,god2 and the ,christian doctrine of the ,trinity in ,unity1 with all its difficulties1 still seems the least difficult explanation4 ,but this is not all1 for ,natural ,religion itself leads us to look upon ,god in three distinct ways1 which correspond to the three chief arguments for ,his existence4 7,chaps4 ,i41 ,,ii41 and ,v47 ,thus we may think of ,him as the ,eternal1 ,self-,existent ,one1 altogether independent of the world--the ,all-,powerful ,first ,cause required to account for it4 ,or we may think of ,him in ,his relation to the world1 as its ,maker and ,evolver1 working everywhere1 in everything and through everything1--the ,all-,wise ,designer required by nature4 ,or we may think of ,him in ,his relation to ourselves as a ,spirit holding intercourse with our spirits1 and telling us what is right--the ,all-,good ,moral ,god required by conscience4 ,and how well this agrees with the ,christian doctrine scarcely needs pointing out2 the ,father the ,source of all1 the ,son by ,whom all things were made1 and the ,spirit bearing witness with our spirits2 and yet not three ,gods1 but one ,god4 ,on the whole1 then1 we decide that the ,doctrine of the ,trinity is certainly credible and perhaps even probable4 ,for to put it shortly1 ,nature forces us to believe in a personal ,god2 yet1 when we reflect on the subject1 the idea of a personal ,god1 ,who is only one ,person1 seems scarcely tenable2 since 7as said above7 personality implies fellowship4 7,b47 ,,the ,,incarnation4 ,we next come to the doctrine of the ,incarnation2 which however is so clearly stated in the ,athanasian ,creed1 that its meaning is quite plain4 ,god the ,son1 we are told1 the second ,person of the ,trinity1 was pleased to become ,man and to be born of the ,virgin ,mary1 so that ,he is now both ,god and ,man4 ,he is ,god 7from all eternity7 of the ,substance or ,nature of ,his ,divine ,father1 and ,man 7since the ,incarnation7 of the ,substance or ,nature of ,his human ,mother4 ,he is thus complete ,god and complete ,man2 equal to the ,father in regard to ,his ,godhead1 for ,he is of the same ,nature2 and inferior to the ,father1 in regard to ,his ,manhood1 for human nature must be inferior to the ,divine4 ,moreover1 though ,he possesses these two ,natures1 they are not changed one into the other1 or confused together2 but each remains distinct1 though both are united in ,his ,one ,person4 ,this is in brief the doctrine of the ,incarnation2 and we will first consider its difficulties1 then its motive1 and lastly its historical position4 7#a47 ,its difficulties4 ,the first of these is that the ,incarnation would be a change in the existence of ,god1 ,who is the changeless ,one4 ,he1 it is urged1 is always the same1 while an ,incarnation would imply that at some particular time and place a momentous change occurred1 and for ever afterwards ,god became different from what ,he had been for ever before4 ,this is no doubt a serious difficulty1 but it must not be exaggerated4 ,for an ,incarnation would not1 strictly speaking1 involve any change in the ,divine ,nature itself4 ,god the ,son remained completely and entirely ,god all the time1 ,he was not 7as just said7 in any way changed into a man1 only ,he united to ,himself a human nature as well4 ,and perhaps if we knew more about the nature of ,god1 and also about that of man 7who we must remember was made to some extent in ,god's image1 and this perhaps with a view to the ,incarnation71 we should see that it was just as natural for ,god to become ,man1 as it was for ,god to create man4 ,we have really nothing to argue from4 ,an ,incarnation seems improbable1 and that is all we can say4 ,but if it took place at all1 there is nothing surprising in this planet being the one chosen for it4 ,indeed1 as far as we know1 it is the only one that could be chosen1 since it is the only one which contains personal beings in whom ,god could become incarnate4 ,of course other planets may contain such beings2 but as said before 7,chapter ,v47 this is only a conjecture1 and in the light of recent investigations not a very probable one4 ,while if they do contain such beings1 these may not have sinned1 in which case our little world1 with its erring inhabitants1 would be like the lost sheep in the parable1 the only one which the ,ruler of the ,universe had come to save4 ,the second difficulty is1 that the ,incarnation would lead to a compound ,being1 who is both ,divine and human at the same time1 and this is often thought to be incredible4 ,but here the answer is obvious1 and is suggested by the ,creed itself4 ,man himself is a compound being2 he is the union of a material body and an immaterial spirit1 in a single person4 ,his spirit is in fact incarnate in his body4 ,we cannot explain it1 but so it is4 ,and the ,incarnation in which ,christians believe is the union of the ,divine ,nature and the human nature in a single ,person4 ,both appear equally improbable1 and equally inconceivable to our minds1 if we try and think out all that they involve2 but as the one is actually true1 the other is certainly not incredible4 ,the third and last of these difficulties refers to the miraculous ,virgin-birth4 ,but if we admit the possibility of an ,incarnation1 no method of bringing it about can be pronounced incredible4 ,the event1 if true1 is necessarily unique1 and cannot be supposed to come under the ordinary laws of nature4 ,for it was not the birth of a new being 7as in the case of ordinary men71 but an already existing ,being entering into new conditions4 ,and we have no experience of this whatever4 ,indeed1 that a child born in the usual way should be the ,eternal ,god1 is just as miraculous1 and just as far removed from our experience1 as if ,he were born in any other way4 ,while considering that one object of the ,incarnation was to promote moral virtues in man1 such as purity1 the virgin-birth was most suitable1 and formed an appropriate beginning for a sinless life4 7#b47 ,its motive4 ,but we now come to a more important point1 for the ,incarnation1 if true1 must have been the most momentous event in the world's history2 and can we even imagine a sufficient reason for it8 ,god we may be sure does not act without motives1 and what adequate motive can be suggested for the ,incarnation8 ,now the alleged motive1 indeed the very foundation of ,christianity1 is that ,god loves man2 and as a natural consequence wishes man to love ,him4 ,is this then incredible1 or even improbable8 ,certainly not1 for several reasons4 ,to begin with1 as we have already shown1 ,god is a ,personal and ,moral ,being1 ,who cares for the welfare of ,his creatures1 more especially for man4 ,and this1 allowing for the imperfection of human language1 may be described as ,god's loving man1 since disinterested love for another cannot be thought an unworthy attribute to ascribe to ,god4 ,on the other hand1 man is also a personal and moral being1 able to some extent to love ,god in return4 ,and to this must be added the fact that man1 at least some men1 do not seem altogether unworthy of ,god's love1 while we certainly do not know of any other being who is more worthy of it4 ,moreover1 considering the admitted resemblance between ,god and man1 the analogy of human parents loving their children is not inappropriate4 ,indeed it is specially suitable1 since here also we have a relationship between two personal and moral beings1 one of whom is the producer 7though not in this case the creator7 of the other4 ,and human parents often love their children intensely1 and will sometimes even die for them2 while1 as a rule1 the better the parents are the more they love their children1 and this in spite of the children having many faults4 ,is it1 then1 unlikely that the ,creator may love ,his children also1 and that human love may be only a reflection of this--another instance of how man was made in the image of ,god8 ,the evidence we have may be slight1 but it all points the same way4 ,now1 if it be admitted that ,god loves man1 we have plainly no means of estimating the extent of this love4 ,but by comparing the other attributes of ,god1 such as ,his wisdom and ,his power1 with the similar attributes of man1 we should expect ,god's love to be infinitely greater than any human love2 so great indeed that ,he would be willing to make any sacrifice in order to gain what is the object in all love1 that it should be returned4 ,might not then ,god's love induce ,him to become man1 so that ,he might the more easily win man's love8 ,and we must remember that man's love1 like his will1 is free4 ,compulsory love is in the nature of things impossible4 ,a man can only love1 what he can if he chooses hate4 ,therefore ,god cannot force man to love ,him1 ,he can only induce him2 and how can ,he do this better than by an ,incarnation8 ,for it would show1 as nothing else could show1 that ,god's love is a self-sacrificing love2 and this is the highest form of love4 ,indeed1 if it were not so1 in other words1 if ,god's love cost ,him nothing1 it would be inferior in this respect to that of many men4 ,but if1 on the other hand1 ,god's love involved self-sacrifice2--if it led to ,calvary--then it is the highest possible form of love4 ,and then we see that ,god's attributes are all1 so to speak1 on the same scale2 and ,his ,goodness is as far above any human goodness1 as the ,power which rules the universe is above any human power2 or the ,wisdom which designed all nature is above any human wisdom4 ,hence1 if the ,incarnation still seems inconceivable1 may it not be simply because the love of ,god1 like ,his other attributes1 is so inconceivably greater than anything we can imagine8 ,moreover a self-sacrificing love is the form1 which is most likely to lead to its being returned4 ,and experience proves that this has actually been the case4 ,the condescending love of ,christ in ,his life1 and still more in ,his death1 forms an overpowering motive which1 when once realised1 has always been irresistible4 ,but more than this4 ,not only does the ,incarnation afford the strongest possible motive for man to love ,god1 but it enables him to do so in a way which nothing else could4 ,man1 it is true1 often longs for some means of intercourse1 or communion with his ,maker1 yet this seems impossible4 ,the gulf which separates the ,creator from the creature is infinite1 and can never be bridged over by man1 or even by an angel1 or other intermediate being4 ,for a bridge must of necessity touch both sides2 so if the gulf is to be bridged at all1 it can only be by ,one ,who is at the same time both ,god and ,man4 ,thus the ,incarnation brings ,god1 if we may use the expression1 within man's reach1 so that the latter has no mere abstract and invisible ,being to love1 but a definite ,person1 ,whose ,character he can appreciate1 and ,whose conduct he can to some extent follow4 ,in short1 the ,incarnation provides man with a worthy ,being for his love and devotion1 yet with a ,being ,whom he can partly at least understand and partly imitate4 ,and he is thus able to become in a still truer sense a child of ,god2 or1 as it is commonly expressed1 ,god became ,man in order that man might become as far as possible1 like ,god4 ,and this brings us to another aspect of the ,incarnation4 ,christ's life was meant to be an example to man1 and it is clear that a perfect example could only be given by a ,being ,who is both ,god and ,man4 ,for ,god alone is above human imitation1 and even the best of men have many faults2 so that from the nature of the case1 ,christ1 and ,christ alone1 can provide us with a perfect example1 for being ,man ,he is capable of imitation1 and being ,god ,he is worthy of it4 ,now what follows from this8 ,if ,christ's life was meant to be an example to man1 it was essential that it should be one of suffering1 or the example would have lost more than half its value4 ,man does not want to be shown how to live in prosperity1 but how to live in adversity1 and how to suffer patiently4 ,the desertion of friends1 the malice of enemies1 and a cruel death are the occasional lot of mankind4 ,they are perhaps the hardest things a man has to bear in this world1 and they have often had to be borne by the followers of ,christ4 ,is it incredible1 then1 that ,he should have given them an example of the perfect way of doing so2 gently rebuking ,his friends1 praying for ,his murderers1 and acting throughout as only a perfect man could act8 ,no doubt such a life and death seem at first sight degrading to the ,deity4 ,but strictly speaking1 suffering1 if borne voluntarily and for the benefit of others1 is not degrading2 especially if the benefit could not be obtained in any other way4 ,when we consider all this1 it is plain that many reasons can be given for the ,incarnation4 ,of course it may be replied that they are not adequate2 but we have no means of knowing whether ,god would consider them adequate or not4 ,his ideas are not like ours2 for what adequate motive can we suggest for ,his creating man at all8 ,yet ,he has done so4 ,and having created him and given him free will1 and man having misused his freedom1 all of which is admitted1 then that ,god should endeavour to restore man cannot be thought incredible4 ,indeed it seems almost due to ,himself that ,he should try and prevent ,his noblest work from being a failure4 ,and if in addition to this ,god loves man still1 in spite of his sins1 then some intervention on his account seems almost probable4 7#c47 ,its historical position4 ,it may still be objected that if the above reasons are really sufficient to account for the ,incarnation1 it ought to have taken place near the commencement of man's history4 ,and no doubt when we contemplate the great antiquity of man1 this often seems a difficulty4 ,but we have very little to judge by1 and that little does not support the objection4 ,for in nature ,god seems always to work by the slow and tedious process of evolution1 not attaining what ,he wanted all at once1 but by gradual development4 ,therefore1 if ,he revealed ,himself to man1 we should expect it to be by the same method4 ,at first it would be indistinctly1 as in ,natural ,religion2 which dates back to pre-historic times1 since the burial customs show a belief in a future life4 ,then it would be more clearly1 as in the ,jewish ,religion2 and finally it might be by becoming ,man ,himself1 as in the ,christian ,religion4 ,according to ,christianity1 the whole previous history of the world was a preparation for the ,incarnation4 ,but only when the preparation was complete1 when the fullness of the time came1 as ,st4 ,paul expresses it1#agg did it take place4 ,and it has certainly proved1 as we should have expected1 an epoch-making event4 ,in all probability the history of the world will always be considered relatively to it in years ,b4,c4 and ,a4,d4 ,and very possibly it has a significance far beyond man or even this planet4 ,for we must remember1 man is not merely a link in a series of created beings indefinitely improving1 but1 as shown in ,chapter ,v41 he is the end of the series1 the last stage in evolution1 the highest organised being that will ever appear on this planet1 or1 as far as we know1 on any planet4 ,footnote #agg3 ,gal4 #d4 #d4 ,therefore1 man's rank in the universe is not affected by the insignificance of this earth4 ,where else shall we find a personal being with attributes superior to those of man8 ,where else indeed shall we find a personal being at all8 ,the only answer ,science can give is nowhere4 ,but if so1 man's position in the universe is one of unique pre-eminence4 ,and it is this inherent greatness of man1 as it has been called1 which justifies the ,incarnation4 ,he is worthy that ,thou should'st do this for him4 ,moreover when we consider ,god the ,son as the ,divine ,person who is specially immanent in nature1 and who has been evolving the universe through countless ages from its original matter into higher and higher forms of life1 there seems a special fitness in its leading up to such a climax as the ,incarnation4 ,for then by becoming ,man1 ,he united ,himself with matter in its highest and most perfect form4 ,thus the ,incarnation1 like the ,nebula theory in astronomy1 or the process of ,evolution1 if once accepted1 throws a new light on the entire universe2 and it has thus a grandeur and impressiveness about it1 which to some minds is very attractive4 ,on the whole1 then1 we decide that the doctrine is certainly not incredible1 though it no doubt seems improbable4 7,c47 ,,the ,,atonement4 ,we pass on now to the doctrine of the ,atonement1 which is that ,christ's death was in some sense a sacrifice for sin1 and thus reconciled 7or made 'at-one'7 ,god the ,father and sinful man4 ,and though not actually stated in the ,creeds1 it is implied in the words1 ,was crucified also for us1 and ,who suffered for our salvation4 ,the chief difficulty is of course on moral grounds4 ,the idea of atonement1 it is said1 or of one man being made to suffer as a substitute for another1 and thus appeasing the ,deity1 was well-nigh universal in early times1 and is so still among savage nations4 ,such a sacrifice1 however1 is a great injustice to the victim2 it ascribes an unworthy character to ,god1 as a ,judge1 ,who can be satisfied with the punishment of an innocent man in place of the guilty one2 and it has a bad influence on the sinner1 allowing him to sin on with impunity1 provided he can find another substitute when needed4 ,the answer to this difficulty is1 that it takes no account of the most important part of the ,christian doctrine1 which is the willingness of the ,victim4 ,according to ,christianity1 ,christ was a willing ,sacrifice1 ,who freely laid down ,his life2#agh while the human sacrifices just alluded to were not willing sacrifices1 since the victims had no option in the matter4 ,and1 as we shall see1 this alters the case completely both in regard to the victim himself1 the judge1 and the sinner4 ,footnote #agh3 ,e4g41 ,john #aj4 #ah4 7#a47 ,as to the ,victim4 ,it is plain that his willingness does away with the injustice altogether4 ,there is no injustice in accepting a volunteer for any painful office1 provided he thoroughly knows what he is doing1 for he need not undertake it unless he likes4 ,if1 on the other hand1 we deny the voluntary and sacrificial character of ,christ's death1 and regard ,him as merely a good man1 then there certainly was injustice--and very great injustice too1 that such a noble life should have ended in such a shameful death4 7#b47 ,as to the ,judge4 ,next as to the ,judge4 ,it will be seen that a willing sacrifice1 though it does not satisfy his justice1 makes a strong appeal to his mercy2 at least it would do so in human cases4 ,suppose for instance a judge had before him a criminal who well deserved to be punished1 but a good man1 perhaps the judge's own son1 came forward1 and not only interceded for the prisoner1 but was so devotedly attached to him as to offer to bear his punishment 7pay his fine1 for instance71 this would certainly influence the judge in his favour4 ,it would show that he was not so hopelessly bad after all4 ,mercy and justice are thus both facts of human nature2 and it is also a fact of human nature1 that the voluntary suffering1 or willingness to suffer1 of a good man for a criminal whom he deeply loves1 does incline man to mercy rather than justice4 ,now1 have we any reason for thinking that ,god also combines1 in their highest forms1 these two attributes of mercy and justice8 ,certainly we have2 for1 as shown in ,chapter ,v41 the goodness of ,god includes both beneficence and righteousness2 and these general terms1 when applied to the case of judging sinners1 closely correspond to mercy and justice4 ,god1 as we have seen1 combines both1 and both are required by the ,christian doctrine4 ,mercy alone would have forgiven men without any atonement2 justice alone would not have forgiven them at all4 ,but ,god is both merciful and just1 and therefore the idea that voluntary atonement might incline ,him to mercy rather than justice does not seem incredible4 ,and this is precisely the ,christian doctrine4 ,the mercy of ,god the ,father is obtained for sinful man by ,christ's generous sacrifice of ,himself on man's behalf2 so that1 to put it shortly1 ,god forgives sins for ,christ's sake4 ,and it should be noticed1 the idea of sins being forgiven which occurs all through the ,new ,testament1 and is alluded to in the ,apostles' ,creed1 shows that ,christ's ,atonement was not that of a mere substitute1 for then no forgiveness would have been necessary4 ,if1 for example1 ,i owe a man a sum of money1 and a friend pays it for me1 ,i do not ask the man to forgive me the debt2 ,i have no need of any forgiveness4 ,but if1 instead of paying it1 he merely intercedes for me1 then the man may forgive me the debt for my friend's sake4 ,and in this way1 though ,christ did not1 strictly speaking1 bear man's punishment 7which would have been eternal separation from ,god71 ,his sufferings and death may yet have procured man's pardon2 ,he suffered on our behalf1 though not in our stead4 ,and some ,atonement was certainly necessary to show ,god's hatred for sin1 and to prevent ,his ,character from being misunderstood in this respect4 ,and it probably would have been so1 if men had been forgiven without any ,atonement1 when they might have thought that sin was not such a very serious affair after all4 7#c47 ,as to the sinner4 ,lastly1 the willingness of the victim affects the sinner also4 ,for if the changed attitude of the judge is due1 not to his justice being satisfied1 but to his mercy being appealed to1 this is plainly conditional on a moral change in the sinner himself4 ,a good man suffering for a criminal would not alter our feelings towards him1 if he still chose to remain a criminal4 ,and this exactly agrees with the ,christian doctrine1 which is that sinners cannot expect to avail themselves of ,christ's ,atonement if they wilfully continue in sin2 so that repentance is a necessary condition of forgiveness4 ,therefore instead of having a bad influence on the sinners themselves2 it has precisely the opposite effect4 ,and what we should thus expect theoretically has been amply confirmed by experience4 ,no one will deny that ,christians in all ages have been devotedly attached to the doctrine of the ,atonement4 ,they have asserted that it is the cause of all their joy in this world1 and all their hope for the next4 ,yet1 so far from having had a bad influence1 it has led them to the most noble and self-sacrificing lives4 ,it has saved them from sin1 and not only the penalties of sin1 and this is exactly what was required4 ,the greatness of man's sin1 and the misery it causes in the world1 are but too evident1 apart from ,christianity4 ,man is indeed both the glory and the scandal of the universe--the glory in what he was evidently intended to be1 and the scandal in what1 through sin1 he actually became4 ,and the ,atonement was a 'vast remedy for this vast evil4' ,and if we admit the end1 that man had to be redeemed from sin1 impressed with the guilt of sin1 and helped to resist sin2 we cannot deny the appropriateness of the means1 which1 as a matter of fact1 has so often brought it about4 ,this completes a brief examination of the moral difficulties connected with the ,atonement2 and it is clear that the willingness of the ,victim makes the whole difference1 whether we regard them as referring to the ,victim himself1 the ,judge1 or the sinner4 7,d47 ,,the ,,resurrection4 ,the last great ,christian doctrine is that of the ,resurrection4 ,according to ,christianity1 all men are to rise again1 with their bodies partly changed and rendered incorruptible2 and the ,resurrection of ,christ's ,body was both a pledge of this1 and also to some extent an example of what a risen body would be like4 ,he was thus1 as the ,bible says1 the firstborn from the dead4#agi ,now this word firstborn implies1 to begin with1 that none had been so born before1 the cases of ,lazarus1 etc41 being those of resuscitation and not resurrection2 they lived again to die again1 and their bodies were unchanged4 ,and it implies1 secondly1 that others would be so born afterwards1 so that our risen bodies will resemble ,his4 ,the ,resurrection of ,christ is thus represented not as something altogether exceptional and unique1 but rather as the first instance of what will one day be the universal rule4 ,it shows us the last stage in man's long development1 what he is intended to become when he is at length perfected4 ,we will therefore consider first ,christ's ,resurrection1 and then man's resurrection4 ,footnote #agi3 ,col4 #a4 #ah2 ,rev4 #a4 #e2 #a ,cor4 #ae4 #bj2 ,acts4 #bf4 #bc4 7#a47 ,christ's ,resurrection4 ,now according to the ,gospels1 ,christ's ,risen ,body combined material and immaterial properties in a remarkable manner4 ,thus ,he could be touched and eat food1 and yet apparently pass through closed doors and vanish at pleasure2 and this is often thought to be incredible4 ,but strictly speaking it is not incredible2 since no material substance 7a door or anything else7 is solid4 ,there are always spaces between the molecules2 so that for one such body to pass through another is no more difficult to imagine1 than for one regiment to march through another on parade4 ,and if a regiment contained anything like as many men1 as there are molecules in a door1 it would probably look just as solid4 ,moreover ,christ's risen ,body1 though possessing some material properties1 is represented to have been spiritual as well4 ,and the nearest approach to a spiritual substance of which we have any scientific knowledge is the ether1 and this also seems to combine material and immaterial properties1 being in some respects more like a solid than a gas4 ,yet it can pass through all material substances2 and this certainly prevents us from saying that it is incredible that ,christ's spiritual ,body should pass through closed doors4 ,indeed for all we know1 it may be one of the properties of spiritual beings1 that they can pass through material substances 7just as the ,x-rays can7 and be generally invisible2 yet be able1 if they wish1 to assume some of the properties of matter1 such as becoming visible or audible4 ,in fact1 unless they were able to do this1 it is hard to see how they could manifest themselves at all4 ,and a slight alteration in the waves of light coming from a body would make it visible or not to the human eye4 ,and it is out of the question to say that ,god--the ,omnipotent ,one--could not produce such a change in a spiritual body4 ,while for such a body to become tangible1 or to take food1 is not really more wonderful 7though it seems so7 than for it to become visible or audible2 since when once we pass the boundary between the natural and the supernatural everything is mysterious4 ,it may of course be replied that though all this is not perhaps incredible1 it is still most improbable2 and no doubt it is4 ,but what then8 ,we have no adequate means of judging1 for the fact1 if true1 is1 up to the present1 unique4 ,it implies a new mode of existence which is neither spiritual nor material1 though possessing some of the properties of each1 and of which we have no experience whatever4 ,so we are naturally unable to understand it4 ,but assuming the ,resurrection of ,christ to be otherwise credible1 as it certainly is if we admit ,his ,incarnation and ,death1 we cannot call it incredible1 merely because the properties of ,his risen ,body are said to be different from those of ordinary human bodies1 and in some respects to resemble those of spirits4 ,it is in fact only what we should expect4 7#b47 ,man's ,resurrection4 ,next as to man's resurrection4 ,the ,christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body must not be confused with that of the immortality of the spirit1 discussed in ,chapter ,,vi41 which is common to many religions1 and is certainly not improbable4 ,but two objections may be made to the resurrection of the body4 ,the first is that it is impossible1 since the human body decomposes after death1 and its molecules may afterwards form a part of other bodies2 so1 if all men were to rise again at the same time1 those molecules would have to be in two places at once4 ,but the fallacy here is obvious1 for the molecules composing a man's body are continually changing during life1 and it is probable that every one of them is changed in a few years2 yet the identity of the body is not destroyed4 ,this identity depends not on the identity of the molecules1 but on their relative position and numbers so that a man's body in this respect is like a whirlpool in a stream1 the water composing which is continually changing1 though the whirlpool itself remains4 ,therefore the resurrection need not be a resurrection of relics1 as it is sometimes called4 ,no doubt in the case of ,christ it was so1 and perhaps it will be so in the case of some ,christians1 only it need not be so2 and this removes at once the apparent impossibility of the doctrine4 ,secondly1 it may still be objected that the doctrine is extremely improbable4 ,and no doubt it seems so4 ,but once more we have no adequate means of judging4 ,apart from experience1 how very unlikely it would be that a seed when buried in the ground should develop into a plant2 or that plants and trees1 after being apparently dead all through the winter1 should blossom again in the spring4 ,thus everything connected with life is so mysterious that we can decide nothing except by experience4 ,and therefore we cannot say what may1 or may not happen in some future state1 of which we have no experience whatever4 ,indeed1 if man's spirit is immortal1 the fact that it is associated with a body during its life on this earth makes it not unlikely that it will be associated with a body of some kind during its future life4 ,and that this body should be partly spiritual1 and so resemble ,christ's risen body1 is again only what we should expect4 ,thus1 on the whole1 the doctrine of the ,resurrection is certainly credible4 7,e47 ,,conclusion4 ,we have now examined the four great doctrines of ,christianity1 the others either following directly from these1 or not presenting any difficulty4 ,and though1 as we have shown1 not one of these doctrines can be pronounced incredible1 yet some of them1 especially those of the ,incarnation and the ,atonement1 certainly seem improbable4 ,this must be fully and freely admitted4 ,at the same time1 it is only fair to remember that this improbability is distinctly lessened by the three following considerations4 ,first1 in regard to all these doctrines we have no adequate means of deciding what is or is not probable4 ,reason cannot judge where it has nothing to judge by2 and apart from ,christianity itself1 we know next to nothing as to what was ,god's object in creating man4 ,if1 then1 these doctrines are true1 their truth depends not on reason1 but on revelation4 ,all reason can do is to examine most carefully the evidence in favour of the alleged revelation4 ,of this we should expect it to be able to judge1 but not of the doctrines themselves4 ,we are hence in a region where we cannot trust to our own sense of the fitness of things2 and therefore the ,christian doctrines must not be condemned merely because we think them contrary to our reason4 ,moreover many thoughtful men 7including ,agnostics7 do not consider them so4 ,thus the late ,professor ,huxley once wrote1 ',i have not the slightest objection to offer a priori to all the propositions of the ,three ,creeds4 ,the mysteries of the ,church are child's play compared with the mysteries of ,nature4'#ahj ,footnote #ahj3 ,quoted with his permission in ,bishop ,gore's ,bampton ,lectures1 #ahia1 p4 #bdg1 #ahih edition4 ,and this brings us to the next point1 which is that many other facts which are actually true appear equally improbable at first sight2 such1 for instance1 as the existence of the ether1 or the growth of plants4 ,apart from experience1 what an overwhelming argument could be made out against such facts as these4 ,yet they concern subjects which are to a great extent within our comprehension1 while ,christianity has to do with the nature and character of a ,god ,who is admittedly beyond our comprehension4 ,may not the difficulties in both cases1 but especially in regard to the latter1 be due to our ignorance only8 ,the ,christian doctrines1 we must remember1 do not claim to have been revealed in all their bearings1 but only in so far as they concern ourselves4 ,thirdly1 it should be noticed that1 though individually these doctrines may seem improbable1 yet1 when considered as a whole1 as in all fairness they ought to be1 there is a complete harmony between them4 ,their improbability is not cumulative4 ,on the contrary1 one often helps to explain the difficulties of another4 ,this has been recognised by most writers1 including many who can scarcely be called theologians4 ,thus the great ,napoleon is reported to have said1 ',if once the ,divine character of ,christ is admitted1 ,christian doctrine exhibits the precision and clearness of algebra2 so that we are struck with admiration at its scientific connection and unity4'#aha ,footnote #aha3 ,beauterne1 ,sentiment de ,napoleon #a;er sur le ,christianisme1 new edition1 ,paris1 #ahfd1 p4 #aaj4 ,in conclusion1 it must be again pointed out that we are only now considering the credibility of ,christianity1 and not trying to make out that it appears a probable religion1 at first sight1 which it plainly does not4 ,only its improbability is not so extremely great as to make it useless to consider the evidence in its favour4 ,this is especially so when we remember that this improbability must have seemed far greater when ,christianity was first preached than it does now1 when we are so accustomed to the religion4 ,yet1 as a matter of fact1 the evidence in its favour did outweigh every difficulty1 and finally convince the civilised world4 ,what this evidence is we proceed to inquire4 ,,chapter ,,xiv4 ,,that ,,the ,,four ,,gospels ,,are ,,genuine ,,from ,,external ,,testimony4 7,a47 ,,the ,,undisputed ,,testimony4 ,end of second century2 ,irenus1 his evidence of great value4 7,b47 ,,the ,,almost ,,undisputed ,,testimony4 7#a47 ,justin ,martyr1 ,a4,d4 #aej1 refers to some ,apostolic ,memoirs1 which were publicly read among ,christians2 and his quotations show that these were our ,four ,gospels4 7#b47 ,tatian1 ,justin's disciple1 ,a4,d4 #age1 wrote the ,diatessaron1 or harmony of ,four ,gospels4 7#c47 ,marcion1 ,a4,d4 #adj1 wrote a ,gospel based on ,st4 ,luke's4 7,c47 ,,the ,,disputed ,,testimony4 7#a47 ,papias1 mentions the first two ,gospels by name4 7#b47 ,aristides1 ,a4,d4 #abe1 alludes to some ,gospel as well known4 7#c47 ,the ,apostolic ,fathers1 ,polycarp1 ,ignatius1 ,clement1 ,barnabas1 and the ,teaching of the ,twelve1 seem to contain references to our ,gospels4 ,having shown in the last chapter that the ,christian ,religion is credible1 we have next to consider what evidence there is in its favour4 ,now that it was founded on the alleged miracles and teaching of ,christ1 and chiefly on ,his ,resurrection1 is admitted by everyone4 ,so we must first examine whether we have any trustworthy testimony as to these events2 more especially whether the ,four ,gospels1 which appear to contain such testimony1 are genuine4 ,by the ,four ,gospels1 we of course mean those commonly ascribed to ,,ss4 ,matthew1 ,mark1 ,luke1 and ,john2 and by their being genuine1 we mean that they were written1 or compiled by those persons4 ,and we will first consider the external testimony borne by early ,christian writers to these ,gospels1 leaving the internal evidence from the ,books themselves for the next chapter4 ,it may be mentioned at starting that we have no complete manuscripts of the ,gospels earlier than the beginning of the fourth century2 but there is nothing surprising in this1 as for the first two centuries books were generally written on papyrus1 an extremely fragile material4 ,therefore1 with the exception of some fragments preserved in ,egypt1 all documents of this period have entirely perished4 ,a much better material1 vellum1 began to take the place of papyrus in the third century2 but did not come into common use till the fourth4 ,moreover1 during the persecutions1 which occurred at intervals up to the fourth century1 all ,christian writings were specially sought for1 and destroyed4 ,so the absence of earlier manuscripts though very unfortunate1 is not perhaps unnatural2 and it is anyhow no worse than in the case of classical works4 ,i have seen it stated1 for instance1 that there are no manuscripts of either ,cicero1 ,csar1 ,tacitus1 or ,josephus1 within #hjj years of their time4 7,a47 ,,the ,,undisputed ,,testimony4 ,passing on now to the testimony of early writers2 we need not begin later than the end of the second century2 since it is admitted by everyone that our ,four ,gospels were then well known4 ,they were continually quoted by ,christian writers2 they were universally ascribed to the authors we now ascribe them to2 and they were always considered to be in some sense divinely inspired4 ,as this is undisputed1 we need not discuss the evidence2 but one writer deserves to be mentioned1 which is ,irenus1 ,bishop of ,lyons4 ,his works date from about ,a4,d4 #ahe2 and he not only quotes the ,gospels frequently 7about #ejj times altogether71 but shows there were only four of acknowledged authority4 ,since the fanciful analogies he gives for this1 likening the four ,gospels to the four rivers in ,paradise1 and the four quarters of the globe1 render it certain that the fact of there being four1 neither more nor less1 must have been undisputed in his day4 ,moreover he had excellent means of knowing the truth2 for he was born in ,asia ,minor1 about ,a4,d4 #acj1 and brought up under ,polycarp1 ,bishop of ,smyrna4 ,and in later years he tells us how well he remembered his teacher4 ',i can even describe the place where the blessed ,polycarp used to sit and discourse--his going out1 too1 and his coming in--his general mode of life and personal appearance1 together with the discourses which he delivered to the people2 also how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with ,john1 and with the rest of those who had seen the ,lord2 and how he would call their words to remembrance4'#ahb ,footnote #ahb3 ,irenus1 ,fragment of ,epistle to ,florinus4 ,the translations here and elsewhere are from the ,ante-,nicene ,christian ,library4 ,the importance of this passage1 especially in regard to the ,fourth ,gospel1 can scarcely be exaggerated4 ,for is it conceivable that ,irenus would have ascribed it to ,st4 ,john1 unless his teacher ,polycarp had done the same8 ,or is it conceivable that ,polycarp1 who personally knew ,st4 ,john1 could have been mistaken in the matter8 ,the difficulties of either alternative are very great2 yet there is no other1 unless we admit that ,st4 ,john was the author4 ,it should also be noticed that ,irenus1 when discussing two readings of ,rev4 #ac4 #ah1 supports one of them by saying that it is found in all the most approved and ancient copies2 and was also maintained by men who saw ,john face to face4#ahc ,he had thus some idea as to the value of evidence2 and he is not likely to have written as he did about the ,four ,gospels1 unless he had seen of them equally approved and ancient copies4 ,footnote #ahc3 ,irenus1 ,bk4 #e4 #cj4 7,b47 ,,the ,,almost ,,undisputed ,,testimony4 ,we next come to the testimony of some earlier writers1 which was formerly much disputed1 but is now admitted by nearly all critics4 7#a47 ,justin ,martyr4 ,by far the most important of these is ,justin ,martyr2 whose works--two ,apologies 7or books written in defence of ,christianity7 and a ,dialogue--date from about ,a4,d4 #ade-ej4 ,he was no ordinary convert1 but a philosopher1 and says that before he became a ,christian1 he studied various philosophical systems and found them unsatisfactory2 so we may be sure that he did not accept ,christianity without making some inquiries as to the facts on which it rested4#ahd ,and as his father and grandfather were natives of ,palestine1 where he was born1 he had ample means of finding out the truth4 ,footnote #ahd3 ,dial41 #b4 ,now ,justin does not allude to any of the ,evangelists by name1 but he frequently quotes from the ',memoirs of the ,apostles1' which he says were sometimes called ,gospels1#ahe and were publicly read and explained in the churches1 together with the ,old ,testament ,prophets4 ,and he gives no hint that this was a local or recent practice1 but implies that it was the universal and well-established custom4 ,these ,memoirs1 he tells us1#ahf were written by the ,apostles and their followers1 which exactly suits our present ,gospels1 two of which are ascribed to ,apostles 7,st4 ,matthew and ,st4 ,john71 and the other two to their immediate followers 7,st4 ,mark and ,st4 ,luke74 ,and as ,justin was writing for unbelievers1 not ,christians1 there is nothing strange in his not mentioning the names of the individual writers4 ,footnote #ahe3 ,apol4 #a4 #ff2 ,dial41 #ajj4 ,footnote #ahf3 ,dial41 #ajc4 ,he has altogether about sixty quotations from these ,memoirs1 and they describe precisely those events in the life of ,christ2 which are recorded in our ,gospels1 with scarcely any addition4 ,very few of the quotations however are verbally accurate1 and this used to be thought a difficulty4 ,but as ,justin sometimes quotes the same passage differently1 it is clear that he was relying on his memory2 and had not looked up the reference1 which in those days of manuscripts1 without concordances1 must have been a tedious process4 ,also when quoting the ,old ,testament1 he is almost equally inaccurate4 ,moreover later writers1 such as ,irenus1 who avowedly quoted from our ,gospels1 are also inaccurate in small details4 ,it is hence practically certain that ,justin was quoting from these ,gospels4 7#b47 ,tatian4 ,and this is strongly confirmed by ,justin's disciple1 ,tatian4 ,he wrote a book about ,a4,d4 #age1 discovered last century1 called the ,diatessaron1 which1 as its name implies1 was a kind of harmony of ,four ,gospels4 ,it was based chiefly on ,st4 ,matthew's1 the events peculiar to the others being introduced in various places4 ,and its containing nearly the whole of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel is satisfactory2 because it so happens that ,justin has fewer quotations from that ,gospel1 than from the other three4 ,we may say then with confidence1 that our four ,gospels were well known to ,christians1 and highly valued by them1 in the middle of the second century4 7#c47 ,marcion4 ,another important witness is ,marcion4 ,he wrote 7not later than ,a4,d4 #adj71 a kind of ,gospel1 so similar to ,st4 ,luke's that one was evidently based on the other4 ,and though his actual work is lost1 ,tertullian 7about ,a4,d4 #bjj7 quotes it so fully that it is fairly well-known2 and that ,st4 ,luke's is the earlier is now admitted by critics of all schools4 ,therefore as ,matthew and ,mark are generally allowed to be earlier than ,luke1 this shows that all these ,gospels were in circulation before ,a4,d4 #adj4 7,c47 ,,the ,,disputed ,,testimony4 ,we pass on now to the testimony of still earlier writers1 all of which is more or less disputed by some critics4 7#a47 ,papias4 ,and first as to ,papias4 ,he was bishop of ,hierapolis in ,asia ,minor 7about a hundred miles from ,ephesus7 early in the second century2 and only a few fragments of his writings have been preserved by ,irenus and ,eusebius4 ,we learn from the former that he was a disciple of ,st4 ,john and a companion of ,polycarp2 and considering that ,irenus was himself ,polycarp's pupil1 there is no reason to doubt this4#ahg ,now ,papias tells us himself what were his sources of information3 ',if1 then1 anyone who had attended on the elders came1 ,i asked minutely after their sayings1--what ,andrew or ,peter said1 or what was said by ,philip1 or by ,thomas1 or by ,james1 or by ,john1 or by ,matthew1 or by any other of the ,lord's disciples3 which things ,aristion and the presbyter ,john1 the disciples of the ,lord1 say4 ,for ,i imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice4' ,footnote #ahg3 ,irenus1 ,bk4 #e4 #cc4 ,he had thus very good means of knowing the truth1 for though the ,apostles themselves were dead1 two of ,christ's disciples 7,aristion and the presbyter ,john7 were still alive when he made his inquiries4 ,and he refers to the first two ,gospels by name4 ,he says1 ',matthew put together the oracles in the ,hebrew language1 and each one interpreted them as best he could4' ,and ',mark1 having become the interpreter of ,peter1 wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered4 ,it was not1 however1 in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of ,christ4 ,for he neither heard the ,lord nor accompanied ,him4 ,but afterwards1 as ,i said1 he accompanied ,peter4'#ahh ,footnote #ahh3 ,eusebius1 ,hist41 iii4 #ci4 ,and his testimony in regard to ,st4 ,matthew is specially important1 because in the passage just quoted he says that he had spoken to those who had known ,st4 ,matthew personally2 and had carefully questioned them about what he had said4 ,and this makes it difficult to believe that he should have been mistaken as to his having written the ,gospel4 ,nor is it likely that the work of ,st4 ,matthew known to ,papias was different from the ,gospel which we now have1 and which was so frequently quoted by ,justin a few years later4 ,whether ,papias was acquainted with the ,third and ,fourth ,gospels cannot be decided for certain1 unless his works should be recovered2 but there are slight indications that he knew them4 7#b47 ,aristides4 ,next as to ,aristides4 ,he was a philosopher at ,athens1 and addressed an ,apology to the ,emperor1 ,hadrian1 in ,a4,d4 #abe1 which was recovered in #ahhi4 ,he has no quotation from the ,gospels1 but what is equally important1 he gives a summary of ,christian doctrine1 including the ,divinity1 ,incarnation1 ,virgin-,birth1 ,resurrection and ,ascension of ,christ2 and says that it is taught in the ,gospel1 where men can read it for themselves4 ,and this shows that some ,gospel1 containing this teaching1 was then in existence1 and easily accessible4 7#c47 ,the ,apostolic ,fathers4 ,the last group of writers to be examined are those who lived soon after the ,apostles4 ,the chief of these are ,polycarp of ,smyrna1 the disciple of ,st4 ,john1 martyred in ,a4,d4 #aee1 when he had been a ,christian #hf years2 ,ignatius of ,antioch1 also martyred in his old age1 about ,a4,d4 #aaj2 ,clement of ,rome1 perhaps the companion of ,st4 ,paul2#ahi and the writers of the so-called ,epistle of ,barnabas1 and ,teaching of the ,twelve ,apostles4 ,their dates are not known for certain1 but it is now generally admitted by rationalists as well as ,christians that they all wrote before ,a4,d4 #abj1 and probably before #aaj4 ,thus the ,encyclopdia ,biblica 7article ,gospels7 dates their works1 ,polycarp #aaj2 ,ignatius 7#g ,epistles7 before #aaj2 ,barnabas1 probably before #ajj2 ,clement #ie2 ,teaching #hj-ajj4 ,footnote #ahi3 ,phil4 #d4 #c4 ,now none of these writers mention the ,gospels by name2 but this is no argument to show that they were not quoting them1 because the same writers1 when admittedly quoting ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles1 also do it at times1 without in any way referring to him4 ,and later ,christian writers do precisely the same2 the ,gospels are often not quoted by name1 but their language is continually employed1 much as it is by preachers at the present day4 ,if1 then1 we find in these writers passages similar to those in our ,gospels1 the inference is that they are quoting from them2 and1 as a matter of fact1 we do find such passages1 though they are not numerous4 ,a single example may be given from each4 ,polycarp4 ',but being mindful of what the ,lord said in ,his teaching2 ,judge not1 that ye be not judged2 forgive1 and it shall be forgiven unto you2 be merciful1 that ye may obtain mercy2 with what measure ye mete1 it shall be measured to you again2 and once more1 ,blessed are the poor1 and those that are persecuted for righteousness' sake1 for theirs is the kingdom of ,god4'#aij ,footnote #aij3 ,polycarp1 ch4 ii42 ,luke #f4 #cf-ch2 ,matt4 #e4 #c1 #aj4 ,ignatius4 ',for ,i know that after ,his ,resurrection also1 ,he was still possessed of flesh1 and ,i believe that ,he is so now4 ,when1 for instance1 ,he came to those who were with ,peter1 ,he said to them1 ,lay hold1 handle ,me1 and see that ,i am not an incorporeal spirit4'#aia ,footnote #aia3 ,ignatius to ,smyrnans1 ch4 iii42 ,luke #bd4 #ci4 ,barnabas4 ',let us beware lest we be found1 as it is written1 ,many are called1 but few are chosen4'#aib ,footnote #aib3 ,barnabas1 ch4 iv42 ,matt4 #bb4 #ad4 ,clement4 ',remember the words of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 how ,he said1 ,woe to that man6 ,it were better for him that he had never been born1 than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my elect4 ,yea1 it were better for him that a millstone should be hung about 7his neck71 and he should be sunk in the depths of the sea1 than that he should cast a stumbling-block before one of my little ones4'#aic ,footnote #aic3 ,clement1 ch4 xlvi42 ,luke #ag4 #a4 #b4 ,teaching4 ',having said beforehand all these things1 baptize ye in the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost in living water4'#aid ,footnote #aid3 ,teaching1 ch4 vii42 ,matt4 #bh4 #ai4 ,the passage from ,barnabas deserves special mention1 since here we have words which only occur in our ,gospels1 introduced with the phrase as it is written1 which is only used of ,scripture quotations4 ,and this shows conclusively that at the time of the writer1 some ,gospel containing these words must have been well known1 and considered of high authority4 ,and the attempts to explain it away as being from the ,book of ,esdras1#aie where the words are1 ',there be many created1 but few shall be saved2' or else as an error on the part of the writer1 who thought they came somewhere in the ,old ,testament1 are quite inadmissible4 ,footnote #aie3 #b ,esdr4 #h4 #c4 ,but it may be said1 may not all these quotations be from some ,lost ,gospel8 ,of course they may4 ,it is always possible to refer quotations not to the only book in which we know they do occur1 but to some imaginary book in which they might occur4 ,there is1 however1 no need to do so in this case1 as all the evidence points the other way4 ,though1 even if we do1 it does not materially affect the argument2 for while it weakens the evidence for our ,gospels1 it increases that for the facts which they record2 and this is the important point4 ,suppose1 for instance1 the passage in ,ignatius was not taken from ,st4 ,luke's1 but from some ,lost ,gospel4 ,it could not then be quoted to show that ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel was known to ,ignatius4 ,but it would afford additional evidence that ,christ really did rise from the dead1 that when ,he appeared to ,his ,apostles1 they at first thought ,he was a spirit2 and that ,he took the obvious means of convincing them1 by asking them to handle ,his ,body4 ,all this would then be vouched for1 not only by ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel2 but also by some other early ,christian writing1 which as ,ignatius quotes it in ,a4,d4 #aaj must certainly have been written in the first century1 and must have been considered by him as conclusive evidence4 ,for he is careful to distinguish between what he thus knows 7that ,christ had a ,body after ,his ,resurrection7 and what he merely believes 7that ,he has one now74 ,and the same applies in other cases4 ,and if it be further urged that these writers would have referred more frequently to the ,gospels1 had they really known them1 we must remember that their writings are generally short2 and while a single quotation proves the previous existence of the document quoted1 ten pages without a quotation do not disprove it4 ,moreover when they refer to the sayings of ,christ1 or the events of ,his life1 they always do so without the slightest hesitation2 as if everyone acknowledged them to be true4 ,and as we have seen1 their allusions often begin with the words remember or be mindful of1 clearly showing that they expected their readers to know them already4 ,hence some books must then have existed which were well known1 containing a life of ,christ2 and the improbability of these having perished1 and a fresh set of ,gospels having been published in a few years1 is very great4 ,and the evidence in regard to the ,third ,gospel is particularly strong1 since it was addressed to ,theophilus1 who was clearly a prominent convert2 and he must have known from whom the book came1 even if for some reason this was not stated in the heading4 ,and as he is not likely to have kept it secret1 the authorship of the book must have been well known to ,christians from the very beginning4 ,therefore the testimony of early writers1 like ,irenus1 who always ascribed it to ,st4 ,luke1 becomes of exceptional value2 and makes it almost certain that he was the author4 ,we may now sum up the external testimony to the ,four ,gospels4 ,it shows that at the beginning of the second century they were well known to ,christian writers1 and this alone would necessitate their having been written in the first century1 or at all events before ,a4,d4 #aaj4 ,and thanks to modern discoveries1 especially that of the ,diatessaron1 this is now generally admitted4 ,it may indeed be considered as one of the definite results of recent controversies4 ,but if so1 it is1 to say the least1 distinctly probable that they were written by the men to whom they have been universally ascribed4 ,we have thus strong external testimony in favour of the genuineness of the ,four ,gospels4 ,,chapter ,,xv4 ,,that ,,the ,,gospels ,,are ,,genuine ,,from ,,internal ,,evidence4 7,a47 ,,the ,,first ,,three ,,gospels4 7#a47 ,their general accuracy2 this is shown by secular history1 where they can be tested4 7#b47 ,their sources2 the triple tradition2 other early documents4 7#c47 ,their probable date2 before the destruction of ,jerusalem1 ,a4,d4 #gj4 7,b47 ,,the ,,fourth ,,gospel4 7#a47 ,its authorship4 ,the writer appears to have lived in the first century1 and to have been an eye-witness of what he describes2 so probably ,st4 ,john4 7#b47 ,its connection with the other ,gospels4 ,it was meant to supplement them2 and it does not show a different ,christ1 either in language or character4 7#c47 ,its connection with the ,book of ,revelation4 ,this admitted to be by ,st4 ,john1 and the ,gospel was probably by the same author4 ,having decided in the last chapter that the ,four ,gospels are probably genuine from external testimony1 we pass on now to the internal evidence1 which1 it will be seen1 strongly supports this conclusion4 ,for convenience we will examine the first ,three1 commonly called the ,synoptic ,gospels1 separately from the ,fourth1 which is of a different character4 7,a47 ,,the ,,first ,,three ,,gospels4 ,in dealing with these ,gospels1 we will first consider their general accuracy1 then their sources1 and then their probable date4 7#a47 ,their general accuracy4 ,it is now admitted by everyone that the writers show a thorough acquaintance with ,palestine both as to its geography1 history1 and people1 especially the political and social state of the country in the half-century preceding the fall of ,jerusalem 7,a4,d4 #gj74 ,the ,jewish historian ,josephus1 who wrote about ,a4,d4 #ie1 gives us a vivid description of this2 and everything we read in the ,gospels is in entire agreement with it4 ,in regard to the actual events recorded1 we have1 as a rule1 no other account1 but where we have1 with the doubtful exception of the enrolment under ,quirinius1 their accuracy is fully confirmed4 ,according to ,st4 ,luke#aif this enrolment occurred while ,herod was king1 and therefore not later than what we now call ,b4,c4 #d1 when ,herod died2 but1 according to ,josephus and other authorities1 ,quirinius was ,governor of ,syria1 and carried out his taxing in ,a4,d4 #f4 ,footnote #aif3 ,luke #b4 #b 7,r4,v474 ,this used to be thought one of the most serious mistakes in the ,bible1 but modern discoveries have shown that it is probably correct4 ,to begin with1 an inscription was found at ,tivoli in #agfd1 which shows that ,quirinius was twice ,governor of ,syria1 or at least held some important office there4 ,and this has been confirmed quite recently by an inscription found at ,antioch1 which shows that the former time was about ,b4,c4 #g4aig ,there is thus very likely an end of that difficulty1 though it must be admitted that it would place the birth of ,christ a little earlier than the usually accepted ,b4,c4 #d1 which however some critics think probable for other reasons4 ,footnote #aig3 ,ramsay1 ',bearing of ,recent ,discovery on ,new ,testament4' #aiae1 p4 #bhe-bib4 ,next it will be noticed that ,st4 ,luke says that this was the first enrolment1 implying that he knew of others2 and discoveries in ,egypt have confirmed this in a remarkable manner4 ,for they have shown that it was the custom of the ,romans to have a periodical enrolment of that country 7and therefore presumably of the adjacent country of ,syria7 every fourteen years4 ,some of the actual census papers have been found for ,a4,d4 #bj1 #dh1 #fb1 #gf1 etc41 and it is extremely probable that the system started in ,b4,c4 #i-h1 though the first enrolment may have been delayed a few years in ,palestine1 which was partly independent4 ,and ,st4 ,luke's statement that everyone had to go to his own city1 which was long thought to be a difficulty1 has been partly confirmed as well4 ,for a decree has been discovered in ,egypt1 dated in the seventh year of ,trajan 7,a4,d4 #ajd71 ordering all persons to return to their own districts before the approaching census1#aih which is worded as if it were the usual custom4 ,the next census in ,a4,d4 #f1 which is the one referred to by ,josephus1 is also mentioned by ,st4 ,luke2#aii but he knew1 what his critics did not1 that it was only one of a series1 and that the first of the series took place at an earlier date4 ,footnote #aih3 ,ramsay1 p4 #bei4 ,footnote #aii3 ,acts4 #e4 #cg4 ,curiously enough1 there used to be a very similar error1 charged against ,st4 ,luke1 in regard to ,lysanias2 whom he says was tetrarch of ,abilene1 a district near ,damascus1 in the fifteenth year of ,tiberius1 about ,a4,d4 #bg4bjj ,yet the only ruler of this name known to history in those parts was a king1 who was killed in ,b4,c4 #cd4 ,but inscriptions found at ,baalbec1 and ,abila 7the latter dating somewhere between ,a4,d4 #ad-bi7 show that there was a second ,lysanias1 hitherto unknown1 who is expressly called the tetrarch and who is now admitted to be the one referred to by ,st4 ,luke4#bja ,on the whole then1 these ,gospels1 wherever we have any means of testing them by secular history1 appear to be substantially accurate4 ,footnote #bjj3 ,luke #c4 #a4 ,footnote #bja3 ,boeckh's ,corp4 ,ins4 ,gr41 ,no4 #debc2 ,ramsay1 ',bearing of ,recent ,discovery on ,new ,testament4' #aiae1 p4 #bih4 ,but it may be said1 do not the ,gospels themselves contradict one another in some places1 and if so they cannot all be correct8 ,now that there are some apparent contradictions1 especially in the narratives of the ,resurrection 7see ,chapter ,,xvii471 must of course be admitted2 but many of these can be explained satisfactorily1 and those which cannot are as a rule quite trivial4 ,for example1#bjb ,st4 ,matthew relates that at ,christ's ,baptism the ,voice from ,heaven said1 ',this is my beloved ,son in whom ,i am well pleased2' and the other ,evangelists1 ',thou art my beloved ,son1 in thee ,i am well pleased4' ,there is a clear verbal discrepancy1 whatever words were used1 or in whatever language they were spoken4 ,again1 ,st4 ,matthew records the passage about the ,queen of the ,south as being spoken just after1 and ,st4 ,luke as just before1 the similar passage about the men of ,nineveh1 though both can hardly be correct4 ,such mistakes as these1 however1 do not interfere with the substantial accuracy of the narratives4 ,footnote #bjb3 ,matt4 #c4 #ag2 #ab4 #db2 ,mark #a4 #aa2 ,luke #c4 #bb2 #aa4 #ca4 7#b47 ,their sources4 ,now the first three ,gospels have1 as is well known1 a number of identical passages1 which must plainly be due to copying in some form1 either two ,evangelists copying the third1 or all three some earlier document4 ,the portion they have in common 7often called the ,triple ,tradition7 includes some of the parables of ,christ1 and several of ,his miracles1 such as calming the storm1 feeding the five thousand1 curing the man at ,gadara1 and raising the daughter of ,jairus4 ,if1 as is probable1 it represents the testimony of a single witness1 there is little difficulty in identifying him with ,st4 ,peter4 ,but it is most unlikely for the whole of this earlier document to have been included in three separate ,gospels2 it is sure to have contained something that was only copied by one or two4 ,therefore most scholars are now of opinion that the so-called ,triple ,tradition was merely our ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel1 practically all of which was copied1 either by ,st4 ,matthew or ,st4 ,luke1 if not by both4 ,and this is certainly probable1 for the many graphic details in this ,gospel show that it must date from an extremely early time2 so it was most likely known to the other ,evangelists4 ,it would also agree with the statement of ,papias 7quoted in the last chapter7 that ,st4 ,mark got his information from ,st4 ,peter4 ,and as some of it has to do with events1 such as the ,transfiguration1 when ,st4 ,peter was present1 and ,st4 ,matthew was not1 there is nothing improbable in ,st4 ,matthew 7as well as ,st4 ,luke7 including part of it in his ,gospel4 ,this however is not all2 for our first and third ,gospels also contain a good deal in common1 which is not in ,mark1 and this looks like another older document1 often called ',q' from the ,german ,quelle1 meaning 'source4' ,it consists chiefly of discourses and parables1 though including at least one miracle1 that of healing the centurion's servant1 and is admitted by most critics to date from before ,a4,d4 #ej4 ,but here again1 it is unlikely for the whole of this earlier document to have been included in two separate ,gospels1 it is sure to have contained something else besides4 ,moreover1 as thus restored 7from ,matthew and ,luke7 it is obviously incomplete4 ,it contains scarcely any narrative to explain how the discourses arose1 and of necessity it omits everything in ,christ's life which is recorded by ,st4 ,mark as well1 for this has been already assigned to the so-called ,triple ,tradition4 ,therefore when it was complete1 it must have contained a good deal more1 which may well have been the remainder of our ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel4 ,st4 ,luke would then have only included a part of what ,st4 ,matthew wrote1 just as they both only included a part of what ,st4 ,mark wrote4 ,and the supposed second document would be our ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel1 just as the supposed ,triple ,tradition is now thought to be our ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,there are difficulties on every theory1 but on the whole this seems as satisfactory as any other1 and it accounts fairly well for the first two ,gospels4 ,but the third ,gospel requires further explanation1 for besides what is copied from the other two1 it contains a good deal of additional matter1 such as the parable of the ,prodigal ,son1 which ,st4 ,luke must have got from some other source4 ,while he expressly says that many had written before himself2 so there were several such sources in existence4 ,and this was only natural1 for the ,christian religion spread rapidly1 and ,st4 ,luke himself shows us what its converts were taught4 ,for he says that he only wrote his ,gospel to convince ,theophilus of the things about which he had already been instructed4#bjc ,clearly then the course of instruction must have included what the ,gospel included2 and this was the whole of ,christ's life1 from ,his ,virgin-,birth to ,his ,ascension4 ,it is hence probable that from the very first ,christian teachers had some account of that life4 ,footnote #bjc3 ,luke #a4 #a-d4 ,and this probability becomes almost a certainty in the light of modern discoveries4 ,for quantities of old papyri have been found in ,egypt1 which show that at the time of ,christ1 writing was in common use among all classes2 soldiers1 farmers1 servants1 schoolboys1 were all accustomed to write4 ,therefore1 as it has been well said1 'so far as antecedent probability goes1 founded on the general character of preceding and contemporary society1 the first ,christian account of the circumstances connected with the death of ,jesus must be presumed to have been written in the year when ,jesus died4'#bjd ,and since ,st4 ,luke1 when he was at ,jerusalem met several of the elders there1 including ,christ's brother1 ,st4 ,james1#bje he probably had access to all existing documents4 ,footnote #bjd3 ,ramsay1 ,transactions of ,victoria ,institute1 vol4 xxxix41 #aijg1 p4 #bjc4 ,footnote #bje3 ,acts #ba4 #ah4 ,there is thus no reason to doubt his own statement1 that he had ample means of knowing the truth1 from the beginning4 ,and this1 he says1 was the very reason why he determined to write2 so a more trustworthy historian can scarcely be imagined4#bjf ,fortunately1 however1 though dividing the ,gospels into their original parts is an interesting study1 it is in no way essential to our present argument4 ,footnote #bjf3 ,luke #a4 #b-c4 7#c47 ,their probable date4 ,we now come to the probable date of the first three ,gospels2 and there are strong reasons for fixing this before the fall of ,jerusalem1 in ,a4,d4 #gj4 ,in the first place several subjects are discussed1 such as the lawfulness of the ,jews paying tribute to ,csar1#bjg which would have had no interest after that event4 ,and that conversations on such subjects should have been composed in later days1 or even thought worth recording1 is most unlikely4 ,nor are ,christ's instructions as to what persons should do when they bring their gifts to the altar1 likely to have been recorded after the altar1 and everything connected with it1 had been totally destroyed4#bjh ,footnote #bjg3 ,matt4 #bb4 #ag4 ,footnote #bjh3 ,matt4 #e4 #bd4 ,secondly1 nearly all the parables of ,christ have very strong marks of truthfulness1 as they are thoroughly natural in character1 and suit the customs and scenery of ,palestine4 ,moreover1 they are unique in ,christian literature4 ,however strange we may think it1 the early ,christians never seem to have adopted ,christ's method of teaching by parables4 ,yet1 if they had composed these parables1 instead of merely recording them1 they would doubtless have composed others like them4 ,it is hence probable that these discourses are genuine2 and1 if so1 they must obviously have been written down very soon afterwards4 ,thirdly1 there are a few passages which deserve special mention4 ,two of these are ,christ's saying that 7apparently7 there would not be time to go through the cities of ,israel before ,his ,second ,coming2 and that some of ,his hearers would not die till the end of the world4#bji ,that such statements should have been composed in later years is out of the question2 so we can only conclude that they were actually spoken by ,christ4 ,and they show that the ,gospels must not only have been written when some of ,christ's hearers were still alive1 but that they could not have been revised afterwards2 or the passages would not have been allowed to remain as they are4 ,footnote #bji3 ,matt4 #aj4 #bc2 #af4 #bh2 ,mark #i4 #a2 ,luke #i4 #bg2 but some other texts imply the contrary--e4g41 ,matt4 #ba4 #dc2 ,mark #ac4 #g1 #aj2 #ad4 #i2 ,luke #ba4 #bd4 ,another is the statement that the potter's field was called the field of blood unto this day2#baj which could scarcely have been written when the whole city was little more than a heap of ruins4 ,of course1 on the other hand1 it could not have been written immediately after the time of ,christ1 but twenty years would probably be a sufficient interval4 ,footnote #baj3 ,matt4 #bg4 #h2 see also #bh4 #ae4 ,fourthly1 there is the prophetic description of the fall of ,jerusalem itself1 which seems confused by the ,evangelists with that of the ,day of ,judgment1 ,st4 ,matthew saying1 and both the others implying1 that the one would immediately follow the other4#baa ,had the ,gospels been written after the former event1 it is almost certain that the writers would have distinguished between the two2 indeed1 their not doing so is scarcely intelligible1 unless we assume that when they wrote1 both events were still future4 ,footnote #baa3 ,matt4 #bd4 #c1 #bi2 ,mark #ac4 #bd2 ,luke #ba4 #bg4 ,and this is confirmed by the curious hint given to the readers both in ,matthew and ,mark to understand1 and act on ,christ's advice1 and leave the city and go to the mountains1 before the siege became too severe4#bab ,plainly such a warning could not have been written after the siege1 when it would have been useless4 ,it must have been written before2 so if it is a later insertion1 as it seems to be1 it proves a still earlier date for the rest of the chapter4 ,moreover1 none of the ,evangelists have altered the passage1 as later writers might have done1 to make it agree with the event2 since as far as we know1 the ,christians did not go to the mountains1 but to ,pella1 a city in the ,jordan valley4#bac ,footnote #bab3 ,matt4 #bd4 #af2 ,mark #ac4 #ad2 ,luke #ba4 #ba4 ,footnote #bac3 ,eusebius1 ,hist41 iii4 #e4 ,st4 ,luke1 it will be noticed1 omits the hint just referred to1 and as his account of ,christ's prophecy of the siege is rather more detailed than the others1 it is sometimes thought to have been written after the event4 ,but this is a needless assumption1 for the hint would have been quite useless to ,theophilus1 to whom the ,gospel was addressed2 and the prophecy is anyhow no closer than that in ,deut4 #bh41 which everyone admits was written centuries before 7,chapter ,,xi474 ,on the whole1 then1 everything points to our first three ,gospels having been written some years before the destruction of ,jerusalem1 ,a4,d4 #gj2 and most likely by the ,evangelists1 to whom they have been universally ascribed4 ,it may also be added1 in regard to the ,evangelists themselves1 ,st4 ,matthew the ,apostle was a publican or tax-collector1 so just the sort of person to keep records1 in either ,greek or ,hebrew4#bad ,st4 ,mark came of a wealthy family1 as his relative1 ,barnabas1 had some property2 and his mother1 ,mary1 had a large house at ,jerusalem1 where ,christians used to assemble1 and where it has been thought the ,last ,supper was held4#bae ,and the young man who followed from here to ,gethsemane was probably ,st4 ,mark himself1 or he would not have recorded such a trivial incident4#baf ,footnote #bad3 ,matt4 #i4 #i4 ,footnote #bae3 ,acts #d4 #cg2 #ab4 #ab2 #a4 #ac2 ,col4 #d4 #aj4 ,footnote #baf3 ,mark #ad4 #ea4 ,and ,st4 ,luke1 as we shall see in the next chapter1 was a doctor1 who says he got his information from eye-witnesses4 ,and if he was the companion of ,cleopas1 as is perhaps probable 7for such a graphic narrative must have come from one who was present1 yet the language is thoroughly that of ,st4 ,luke71 he would also have had some slight knowledge of ,christ himself4#bag ,and in similar cases where ,st4 ,john speaks of two disciples1 but gives the name of only one1 it is practically certain that he himself was the other4#bah ,moreover ,st4 ,luke says that his ,gospel1 which only goes as far as the ,ascension1 was about those matters which have been fulfilled among us#bai 7i4e41 which have occurred among us71 and this implies that it was written in ,palestine at a very early date1 and that ,st4 ,luke himself was there during at least part of the time referred to4 ,footnote #bag3 ,luke #bd4 #ah2 ,expositor1 ,feb41 #aijd4 ,footnote #bah3 ,john #a4 #dj2 #ah4 #ae4 ,footnote #bai3 ,luke #a4 #a4 7,r4,v474 ,a short paper on ,fulfilled among us1 by the present writer1 appeared in the ,churchman1 ,aug4 #aiad4 ,all three must thus have been well-educated men1 and quite in a position to write ,gospels if they wanted to4 ,while as none of them seem to have taken a prominent part in the founding of ,christianity1 there was no reason for ascribing the ,gospels to them1 rather than to such great men as ,st4 ,peter and ,st4 ,paul1 unless they actually wrote them4 7,b47 ,,the ,,fourth ,,gospel4 ,we pass on now to the ,fourth ,gospel1 and will first examine the internal arguments as to its authorship1 which are strongly in favour of its being the work of ,st4 ,john2 and then the two arguments on the opposite side1 said to be derived from its connection with the other ,gospels1 and the ,book of ,revelation4 7#a47 ,its authorship4 ,to begin with1 the writer appears to have lived in the first century4 ,this is probable from his intimate acquaintance with ,jerusalem1 and as before said that city was only a heap of ruins after ,a4,d4 #gj4 ,thus he speaks of ,bethesda1 the pool near the sheep-gate1 having five porches2 of ,solomon's porch2 of the pool of ,siloam2 and of the ,temple1 with its treasury2 its oxen1 sheep1 and doves for sacrifice2 and its money-changers for changing foreign money into ,jewish1 in which alone the ,temple tax could be paid4 ,and his mention of ,bethesda is specially interesting as he uses the present tense1 ,there is in ,jerusalem1 etc41 implying that the gate and porches were still standing 7and therefore the city not yet destroyed7 when he wrote4#bbj ,footnote #bbj3 ,john #e4 #b4 ,secondly1 the writer appears to have been an eye-witness of what he describes4 ,he twice asserts this himself1 as well as in an ,epistle which is generally admitted to be by the same writer1 where he declares that he had both seen1 heard1 and touched his ,master4#bba ,so1 if this is not true1 the work must be a deliberate forgery2 which is certainly improbable4 ,moreover1 he frequently identifies himself with the ,twelve ,apostles1 recording their feelings and reflections in a way which would be very unlikely for any late writer to have thought of4 ,would a late writer1 for instance1 have thought of inventing questions which the ,apostles wanted to ask their ,master1 but were afraid to do so8 ,or would he have thought it worth repeating so often that they did not understand at the time the real significance of the events they took part in8#bbb ,footnote #bba3 ,john #a4 #ad2 #ai4 #ce2 #a ,john #a4 #a4 ,footnote #bbb3 ,e4g41 ,john #b4 #ag1 #bb2 #d4 #bg2 #ac4 #bh2 #af4 #ag4 ,the author is also very particular as to times and places4 ,take1 for instance1 the passage #a4 #bi-b4 #ab1 with its expressions ,on the morrow1 ,again on the morrow1 ,about the tenth hour1 ,on the morrow1 ,and the third day1 ,and there they abode not many days4 ,it reads like extracts from an old diary1 and why should all these insignificant details be recorded8 ,what did it matter half a century later whether it was the same day1 or on the morrow1 or the third day2 or whether they stayed many days in ,capernaum1 or only a few2 as no hint is given as to why they went there1 or what they did8 ,the only reasonable explanation is that the writer was present himself 7being of course the unnamed companion of ,st4 ,andrew72 that this was the turning-point in his life when he first saw his ,lord2 and that therefore he loved to recall every detail4 ,and it may be noticed in passing that this passage explains an apparent difficulty in the other ,gospels1 where it is stated that these ,apostles were called to follow ,christ1 after the death of ,st4 ,john the ,baptist2 though with a suddenness and ready obedience on their part1 which is hard to believe4#bbc ,but we here learn that they had already been with ,christ some months before1 in company with the ,baptist1 so they were doubtless prepared for the call when it came4 ,and the passage1 like many others1 bears internal marks of truthfulness4 ,in particular may be mentioned the words of ,nathanael1 ,thou art the ,son of ,god1 thou art the ,king of ,israel1 implying that the latter title was at least as honourable as the former4 ,no ,christian in later times1 when ,christ was obviously not the ,king of ,israel 7except in a purely spiritual sense71 and when the title ,son of ,god had come to mean so much more than it ever did to the ,jews1 would have arranged it thus4 ,footnote #bbc3 ,e4g41 ,mark #a4 #ad-bj4 ,lastly1 if we admit that the writer was an eye-witness1 it can hardly be disputed that he was the ,apostle ,st4 ,john4 ,indeed1 were he anyone else1 it is strange that an ,apostle of such importance should not be once mentioned throughout the ,gospel4 ,it is also significant that the other ,john1 who is described in the first three ,gospels as ,john the ,baptist1 to distinguish him from the ,apostle1 is here called merely ,john4 ,no confusion could arise if1 and only if1 the writer himself were the ,apostle ,john4 ,while still more important is the fact that at the close of the ,gospel1 we have a solemn declaration made by the author's own friends that he was the disciple whom ,jesus loved 7admitted by nearly everyone to be ,st4 ,john71 that he had witnessed the things he wrote about1 and that what he said was true4 ,and testimony more ancient or more conclusive can scarcely be imagined4 ,with regard to the date of the book1 we can say little for certain4 ,but the extreme care which is taken in these closing verses to explain exactly what ,christ did1 and did not say1 as to ,st4 ,john's dying1 before ,his coming again1 seems to imply that the matter was still undecided1 in other words that ,st4 ,john was still alive1 though very old1 when they were written4 ,and if so the ,gospel must have been published 7probably in some ,gentile city1 like ,ephesus1 from the way the ,jews are spoken of7#bbd towards the close of the first century2 though a large part of it may have been written in the shape of notes1 etc41 long before4 ,footnote #bbd3 ,e4g41 ,john #b4 #ac2 #e4 #a2 #f4 #d4 7#b47 ,its connection with the other ,gospels4 ,but1 as before said1 there are two arguments against the genuineness of this ,gospel4 ,the first is that the ,christ of the ,fourth ,gospel is almost a different person from the ,christ of the other three4 ,the events of ,his life are different1 ,his language is different1 and ,his character is different2 while1 when the ,gospels cover the same ground1 there are discrepancies between them4 ,but every part of this objection admits of a satisfactory answer4 ,to begin with1 the fact that the ,fourth ,gospel narrates different events in the life of ,christ from what we find in the other three must of course be admitted4 ,but what then8 ,why should not one biography of ,christ narrate certain events in ,his life1 which the writer thought important1 but which had been omitted in previous accounts8 ,this is what occurs frequently at the present day1 and why should it not have occurred then8 ,the ,fourth ,gospel may have been written on purpose to supplement some other accounts4 ,and there is strong evidence from the book itself that this was actually the case4 ,for the writer refers to many events without describing them1 and in such a way as to show that he thought his readers knew about them4 ,he assumes1 for instance1 that they know about ,st4 ,john the ,baptist being imprisoned1 about ,joseph being the supposed father of ,christ1 and about the appointment of the ,twelve4#bbe ,it is probable then that the ,gospel was written for well-instructed ,christians1 who possessed some other accounts of ,christ's life4 ,and everything points to these being our first three ,gospels4 ,footnote #bbe3 ,john #c4 #bd2 #f4 #db1 #gj4 ,then as to the language ascribed to ,christ in the ,fourth ,gospel being different from that in the others4 ,this is no doubt partly true1 especially in regard to ,his speaking of ,himself as the ,son1 in the same way in which ,god is the ,father4 ,but it so happens that we have in these other ,gospels at least three similar passages#bbf which show that ,christ did occasionally speak in this way4 ,and there is no reason why ,st4 ,john should not have preserved such discourses because the other ,evangelists had omitted to do so4 ,on the other hand1 the title ,son of ,man 7applied to ,christ7 occurs repeatedly in all the ,gospels1 though strange to say only in the mouth of ,christ ,himself4 ,this is a striking detail1 in which ,st4 ,john entirely agrees with the other ,evangelists4 ,footnote #bbf3 ,matt4 #aa4 #be-bg2 #bd4 #cf2 #bh4 #ai2 ,mark #ac4 #cb2 ,luke #aj4 #ba1 #bb4 ,the next part of the objection is that the ,character assigned to ,christ in the ,fourth ,gospel is different from that in the other three2 since instead of teaching moral virtues as in the ,sermon on the ,mount1 ,he keeps asserting ,his own ,divine nature4 ,and this also is partly true1 for the ,fourth ,gospel shows the ,divinity of ,christ more directly than the others1 which only imply it 7,chapter ,,xxi474 ,and very probably the writer did so on purpose1 thinking that this aspect of ,christ's character had not been sufficiently emphasised in the previous accounts4 ,indeed1 he implies it himself1 for he says that he omitted much that he might have inserted1 and merely recorded what he did in order to convince his readers that ,jesus was the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god4#bbg ,footnote #bbg3 ,john #bj4 #ca4 ,but no argument for a late date can be drawn from this4 ,because four of ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles 7i4e4 ,rom42 #a ,cor42 #b ,cor42 and ,gal47 which have been admitted to be genuine by critics of all schools1 describe exactly the same ,christ as we find in the ,fourth ,gospel1 speaking of ,his ,divinity1 ,pre-existence1 and ,incarnation 7,chapter ,,xxi474 ,and from the way in which ,st4 ,paul alludes to these doctrines he evidently considered them the common belief of all ,christians when he wrote1 about ,a4,d4 #ee4 ,so the fact of the ,fourth ,gospel laying stress on these doctrines is no reason whatever against either its genuineness or its early date4 ,indeed1 it seems to supply just those discourses of ,christ which are necessary to account for ,st4 ,paul's language4 ,lastly1 as to the discrepancies4 ,the one most often alleged is that according to the first three ,gospels 7in opposition to the ,fourth7 ,christ's ministry never reached ,jerusalem till just before ,his death4 ,but this is a mistake1 for though they do not relate ,his attendance at the ,jewish feasts1 like ,st4 ,john does1 they imply by the word often 7',how often would ,i have gathered thy children1'#bbh etc47 that ,he had frequently visited the city1 and preached there4 ,and one of them also refers to an earlier visit of ,christ1 to ,martha and ,mary1 which shows that ,he had been to ,bethany 7close to ,jerusalem7 some time before4#bbi ,footnote #bbh3 ,matt4 #bc4 #cg2 ,luke #ac4 #cd4 ,footnote #bbi3 ,luke #aj4 #ch4 ,another difficulty 7it is scarcely a discrepancy7 is the fact that such a striking miracle as the raising of ,lazarus1 which is described in the ,fourth ,gospel1 should have been omitted in the other three4 ,it is certainly strange1 but these ,evangelists themselves tell us there were other instances of raising the dead1 which they do not record1#bcj and they probably knew of it1 as it alone explains the great enthusiasm with which ,christ was received at ,jerusalem4 ,this they all relate1 and ,st4 ,luke's saying that it was due to the mighty works1 which the people had seen1 implies that there had been some striking miracles in the neighbourhood4#bca ,footnote #bcj3 ,matt4 #aj4 #h2 #aa4 #e2 ,luke #g4 #bb4 ,footnote #bca3 ,luke #ai4 #cg4 ,on the other hand1 there are several undesigned agreements between the ,gospels1 which are a strong argument in favour of their accuracy4 ,take1 for instance1 the accusation brought against ,christ of destroying the ,temple1 and rebuilding it in three days4 ,this is alluded to both by ,st4 ,matthew and ,st4 ,mark2 but ,st4 ,john alone records the words on which it was founded1 though he does not mention the charge1 and quotes the words in quite a different connection4#bcb ,footnote #bcb3 ,matt4 #bf4 #fa2 ,mark #ad4 #eh2 ,john #b4 #ai4 ,or take the ,feeding of the five thousand4#bcc ,st4 ,mark says that this occurred in a desert place1 where ,christ had gone for a short rest1 and to avoid the crowd of persons who were coming and going at ,capernaum4 ,but he gives no hint as to why there was this crowd just at that time4 ,st4 ,john says nothing about ,christ's going to the desert1 nor of the crowd which occasioned it2 but he happens to mention1 what fully explains both1 that it was shortly before the ,passover4 ,now we know that at the time of the ,passover numbers of people came to ,jerusalem from all parts2 so ,capernaum1 which lay on a main road from the north1 would naturally be crowded with persons coming and going4 ,and this explains everything2 even ,st4 ,mark's little detail1 as to the people sitting on the green grass1 for grass is only green in ,palestine in the spring1 i4e41 at the time of the ,passover4 ,but can anyone think that the writer of the ,fourth ,gospel purposely made his account to agree with the others1 yet did this in such a way that not one reader in a hundred ever discovers it8 ,the only reasonable explanation is that the event was true1 and that both writers had independent knowledge of it4 ,footnote #bcc3 ,matt4 #ad4 #ac2 ,mark #f4 #ca2 ,luke #i4 #aj2 ,john #f4 #d4 ,the objection1 then1 as to the connection of the ,fourth ,gospel with the other three must be put aside4 ,it was plainly meant to supplement them2 and it shows not a different ,christ1 either in language or character1 but merely a different aspect of the same ,christ1 while the slight discrepancies1 especially when combined with the undesigned coincidences1 rather support its genuineness4 7#c47 ,its connection with the ,book of ,revelation4 ,we pass on now to the other argument4 ,the ,book of ,revelation is generally admitted to be the work of ,st4 ,john1 and it is ascribed to him by ,justin ,martyr4#bcd ,its date is usually fixed at ,a4,d4 #fh2 though many critics prefer ,a4,d4 #ie1 which is the date given by ,irenus4 ,footnote #bcd3 ,dial41 #ha4 ,yet it is said it cannot be by the same writer as the ,fourth ,gospel because the ,greek is so different1 that of the ,revelation being very abrupt1 with numerous faults of grammar1 while the ,gospel is in good ,greek4 ,therefore it is urged that a ,galilean fisherman like ,st4 ,john1 though he might have been sufficiently educated to have written the former1 as his father was well off and kept servants1 and he himself was a friend of the ,high ,priest1#bce could scarcely have written the latter4 ,various explanations have been given of this4 ,perhaps the best is that the ,revelation was written by ,st4 ,john himself1 since he is not likely to have had friends in ,patmos2 and that when writing the ,gospel he had the assistance of a ,greek disciple4 ,footnote #bce3 ,mark #a4 #bj2 ,john #ah4 #ae4 ,on the other side1 it must be remembered that though the two books are different in language1 they are the same in their teaching2 for the great doctrine of the ,fourth ,gospel1 that of the ,divinity of ,christ1 is asserted almost as plainly in the ,revelation4 ,and even the striking expression that ,christ is the ,logos1 or ,word1 occurs in both books1 though it is not found elsewhere in the ,new ,testament1 except in one of ,st4 ,john's ,epistles4#bcf ,and the same may be said of another striking expression1 that ,christ is the ,lamb1 which also occurs in the ,gospel and ,revelation1 though not elsewhere in the ,new ,testament4#bcg ,this similarity in doctrine is indeed so marked that it strongly suggests the same authorship2 and if so1 it makes it practically certain that the ,fourth ,gospel was written by ,st4 ,john4 ,footnote #bcf3 ,john #a4 #a2 #a ,john #a4 #a2 ,rev4 #ai4 #ac4 ,footnote #bcg3 ,john #a4 #bi1 #cf2 ,rev4 #f4 #a2 #ad4 #a4 ,on the whole1 then1 these objections are not serious2 while1 as already shown1 the ,fourth ,gospel has very strong internal marks of genuineness4 ,and when we combine these with the equally strong external testimony1 it forces us to conclude that ,st4 ,john was the author4 ,this ,gospel1 then1 like the other three1 must be considered genuine2 indeed1 the evidence in favour of them all is overwhelming4 ,,chapter ,,xvi4 ,,that ,,the ,,gospels ,,are ,,genuine ,,from ,,the ,,evidence ,,of ,,the ,,acts4 ,importance of the ,acts1 as it is by the writer of the ,third ,gospel4 7,a47 ,,its ,,accuracy4 ,three examples of this3 7#a47 ,the titles of different rulers4 7#b47 ,the riot at ,ephesus4 7#c47 ,the agreement with ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles4 7,b47 ,,its ,,authorship4 ,the writer was a companion of ,st4 ,paul1 and a medical man2 so probably ,st4 ,luke4 7,c47 ,,its ,,date4 ,there are strong reasons for fixing this at the close of ,st4 ,paul's imprisonment at ,rome1 about ,a4,d4 #fj2 and this points to an earlier date for the first three ,gospels4 ,we have next to consider an argument of great importance derived from the ,acts of the ,apostles4 ,this book is universally admitted to be by the same writer as the ,third ,gospel1 as is indeed obvious from the manner in which both are addressed to ,theophilus1 from the former treatise being mentioned in the opening verse of the ,acts1 and from the perfect agreement in style and language4 ,hence arguments for or against the antiquity of the ,acts affect the ,third ,gospel also1 and therefore1 to some extent1 the ,first and ,second as well4 ,so we will consider first its accuracy1 then its authorship1 and lastly its date4 7,a47 ,,its ,,accuracy4 ,now1 this book1 unlike the ,gospels1 deals with a large number of public men and places1 many of which are well known from secular history1 while inscriptions referring to others have been recently discovered4 ,it is thus liable to be detected at every step if inaccurate2 yet1 with the doubtful exception of the date of the rebellion of ,theudas1 and some details as to the death of ,herod ,agrippa1 no error can be discovered4 ,as this is practically undisputed1 we need not discuss the evidence in detail1 but will give three examples4 7#a47 ,the titles of different rulers4 ,we will commence with the titles given to different rulers4 ,as is well known1 the ,roman provinces were of two kinds1 some belonging to the ,emperor1 and some to the ,senate4 ,the former were governed by proprtors1 or when less important by procurators1 and the latter by proconsuls1 though they frequently changed hands4 ,moreover1 individual places had often special names for their rulers2 yet in every case the writer of the ,acts uses the proper title4 ,for example1 the ruler at ,cyprus is rightly called proconsul4#bch ,this used to be thought a mistake1 but we now know that it is correct2 for though ,cyprus had previously belonged to the ,emperor1 it had been exchanged with the ,senate for another province before the time in question4 ,and an inscription#bci found there at ,soli has the words in ,greek1 ,paulus proconsul1 probably the ,sergius ,paulus of the ,acts4 ,cyprus1 it may be added1 subsequently changed hands again4 ,footnote #bch3 ,acts4 #ac4 #g4 ,footnote #bci3 ,cyprus1 by ,cesnola 7,london1 #ahgg71 p4 #dbe4 ,in the same way ,gallio is correctly described as proconsul of ,achaia4#bdj ,for though this province belonged to the ,emperor for some years before ,a4,d4 #dd1 and was independent after ,a4,d4 #ff1 it belonged to the ,senate in the interval1 when the writer referred to it4 ,and an inscription1 recently found at ,delphi1 shows that ,gallio was proconsul in ,a4,d4 #eb1 which agrees well with the chronology of the ,acts4#bda ,equally correct is the title of governor or procurator1 applied to both ,felix and ,festus4#bdb ,while it is satisfactory to add that the title lord1 addressed to the ,emperor ,nero1 which used to be thought rather a difficulty1 as it was not known to have been adopted till the time of ,domitian 7,a4,d4 #ha-if71 has now been found in papyri of the age of ,nero4#bdc ,footnote #bdj3 ,acts #ah4 #ab4 ,footnote #bda3 ,palestine ,exploration ,quarterly1 ,july1 #aiac4 ,footnote #bdb3 ,acts #ai4 #ch2 #bc4 #bf2 #bf4 #cj4 ,footnote #bdc3 ,acts #be4 #bf2 ,deissman1 ,new ,light on the ,new ,testament1 #aijg1 p4 #hj4 ,again1 ,herod 7i4e41 ,agrippa ,i47 shortly before his death1 is styled king4#bdd ,now we learn from other sources that he had this title for the last three years of his government 7,a4,d4 #da-dd71 though there had been no king in ,juda for the previous thirty years1 nor for many centuries afterwards4 ,footnote #bdd3 ,acts #ab4 #a2 ,josephus1 ,antiq41 xviii4 #f1 xix4 #e4 ,moreover1 his son is also called ,king ,agrippa1 though it is implied that he was not king of ,juda1 which was governed by ,festus1 but of some other province4 ,yet1 strange to say1 he seems to have held some official position in regard to the ,jews1 since ,festus laid ,paul's case before him1 as if he were in some way entitled to hear it4#bde ,and all this is quite correct2 for ,agrippa1 though ,king of ,chalcis1 and not ,juda1 was yet 7being a ,jew7 entrusted by the ,emperor with the management of the ,jewish ,temple and ,treasury1 and the choice of the ,high ,priests1 so he was a good deal mixed up in ,jewish affairs4#bdf ,and this1 though only a trifle1 is interesting2 because a late writer1 who had taken the trouble to study the subject1 and find out the position ,agrippa occupied1 is not likely to have shown his knowledge in such a casual way4 ,scarcely anyone notices it4 ,and equally correct is the remarkable fact that his sister ,bernice used to act with him on public occasions4#bdg ,footnote #bde3 ,acts #be4 #ac1 #ad4 ,footnote #bdf3 ,josephus1 ,antiq41 xx41 #a1 #h1 #i4 ,footnote #bdg3 ,acts #be4 #bc2 ,josephus1 ,wars1 ii4 #af2 ,life1 xi4 ,again at ,malta we read of the chief-man ,publius2 the accuracy of which title 7for it is a title1 and does not mean merely the most important man7 is also proved by inscriptions1 though as far as we know it was peculiar to that island4#bdh ,at ,thessalonica1 on the other hand1 the magistrates have the curious title of politarchs1 translated 'rulers of the city4'#bdi ,this name does not occur in any classical author in this form1 so the writer of the ,acts used to be accused of a blunder here4 ,his critics were unaware that an old arch was standing all the time at this very place1 the modern ,salonica1 with an inscription containing this very word1 saying it was built when certain men were the politarchs4 ,the arch was destroyed in #ahgf1 but the stone containing the inscription was preserved1 and is now in the ,british ,museum4#bej ,and since then other inscriptions have been found1 showing that the term was in use all through the first century4 ,footnote #bdh3 ,acts #bh4 #g2 ,boeckh's ,corp4 ,ins4 ,lat4 ,x41 ,no4 #gdie2 ,corp4 ,ins4 ,gr41 ,no4 #eged4 ,footnote #bdi3 ,acts #ag4 #f4 ,footnote #bej3 ,in the ,central ,hall1 near the ,library4 ,nor is this accuracy confined to well-known places on the coast2 it extends wherever the narrative extends1 even to the interior of ,asia ,minor4 ,for though the rulers there are not mentioned1 the writer was evidently well acquainted with the places he refers to4 ,take ,lystra1 for instance4#bea ,according to the writer1 it was a city of ,lycaonia1 though the adjacent town of ,iconium was not1 and this has been recently proved to be correct4 ,and it is interesting1 because many classical authors wrongly assign ,iconium to ,lycaonia2 while ,lystra1 though belonging to that province in the first century1 was separated from it early in the second2 so a late writer1 or one ignorant of the locality1 might easily have made a mistake in either case4 ,and an inscription found near ,lystra1 in #aiji1 shows that the two gods1 ,jupiter and ,mercury 7i4e41 ,zeus and ,hermes7 were commonly associated together by the inhabitants1 as they are represented to be in the ,acts4 ,footnote #bea3 ,acts #ad4 #a-ab2 ,ramsay1 ,bearing of ,recent ,discovery on ,new ,testament1 #aiae1 pp4 #dh-fc4 7#b47 ,the riot at ,ephesus4 ,as a second example we will take the account of the riot at ,ephesus4 ,all the allusions here to the worship of ,diana1 including her image believed to have fallen from heaven 7perhaps a meteorite roughly cut into shape71 her magnificent shrine1 the small silver models of this1 her widespread worship1 and the fanatical devotion of her worshippers1 are all in strict agreement with what we know from other sources4 ,moreover1 inscriptions discovered there have confirmed the narrative to a remarkable extent4 ,they have shown that the theatre was the recognised place of public meeting2 that there were certain officers 7who presided at the games1 etc47 called asiarchs2 that another well-known ,ephesian officer was called the town-clerk2 that ,ephesus had the curious designation of temple-keeper of ,diana 7long thought to be a difficulty72 that temple-robbing and blasphemy were both crimes which were specially recognised by the ,ephesian laws2 and that the term regular assembly was a technical one in use at ,ephesus4#beb ,the reference to the town-clerk is particularly interesting1 because what is recorded of him is said to agree with the duties of the town-clerk at ,ephesus1 though not with those of the same official elsewhere4#bec ,all this minute accuracy is hard to explain unless the narrative came from one who was present during the riot1 and recorded what he actually saw and heard4 ,footnote #beb3 ,comp4 ,acts #ai4 #bi-ci2 with inscriptions found in the ,great ,theatre4 ,wood's ,discoveries at ,ephesus1 #ahgg1 pp4 #dc1 #dg1 #ec1 #ea1 #ae1 #ci4 ,footnote #bec3 ,harnack1 ,the ,acts of the ,apostles1 translated by ,wilkinson1 #aiji1 p4 #fc4 7#c47 ,the agreement with ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles4 ,our third example shall be of a different kind4 ,it is that if we compare the biography of ,st4 ,paul given in the ,acts with the letters of that ,apostle1 many of them written to the very ,churches and persons described there1 we shall find numerous undesigned agreements between them4 ,and these1 as before explained 7,chapter ,x47 form a strong argument in favour of the accuracy of both4 ,take1 for instance1 the ,epistle to the ,romans4 ,though not dated1 it was evidently written at the close of ,st4 ,paul's second visit to ,greece2 and therefore1 if mentioned in the ,acts1 it would come in at ,chapter #bj4 #c4 ,and the following are two1 out of the numerous points of agreement4 ,the first is ,st4 ,paul's saying that he was going to ,jerusalem1 with alms from ,macedonia and ,achaia for the poor in that city4 ,now in the ,acts it is stated that ,st4 ,paul had just passed through these provinces1 and was on his way to ,jerusalem1 though there is no mention about the alms there4 ,but it happens to be alluded to some chapters later1 without1 however1 mentioning then where the alms came from4#bed ,the agreement is complete though it is certainly not designed4 ,footnote #bed3 ,rom4 #ae4 #be1 #bf2 ,acts #ai4 #ba2 #bd4 #ag4 ,the other refers to ,st4 ,paul's travels1 which he says extended from ,jerusalem as far as ,illyricum4 ,now ,illyricum is not once mentioned in the ,acts2 so there can be no intentional agreement here4 ,and yet there is agreement4 ,for we learn from various places that ,st4 ,paul had gone from ,jerusalem all through what we now call ,asia ,minor1 and just before the date of this ,epistle had passed through ,macedonia1 which was his limit in this direction4 ,and as this was the next province to ,illyricum1 it exactly agrees with the ,epistle4#bee ,footnote #bee3 ,rom4 #ae4 #ai2 ,acts #bj4 #b4 ,we may now sum up the evidence as to the accuracy of the ,acts4 ,the above instances are only specimens of many which might be given4 ,the writer knew about ,jerusalem and ,athens just as well as about ,ephesus4 ,while his account of ,st4 ,paul's voyage from ,csarea to ,italy1 including as it does1 references to a number of places2 to the climate1 and prevailing winds of the ,mediterranean2 and to the phrases and customs of seamen1 is so accurate1 that critics of all schools have admitted that he is describing a voyage he had actually made4 ,in short1 the ,book of the ,acts is full of correct details throughout1 and it is hard to believe that anyone but a contemporary could have written it4 7,b47 ,,its ,,authorship4 ,now if we admit the general accuracy of the book1 there is little difficulty in deciding on its authorship4 ,as is well known1 certain portions of it 7describing some of ,st4 ,paul's travels1 including his voyage to ,italy7 are written in the first person plural1 and are commonly called the ,we sections4#bef ,this shows that the writer was a companion of ,st4 ,paul at that time2 and then the great similarity in language1 between these sections and the rest of the book1 shows that they had the same author4 ,for they are both written in the same style1 and they both contain over forty important words and expressions1 which do not occur elsewhere in the ,new ,testament1 except in the ,third ,gospel4 ,this is indeed so striking that it practically settles the point4#beg ,footnote #bef3 ,acts #af4 #i-dj2 #bj4 #e-ba4 #ah2 #bg4 #a-bh4 #af4 ,footnote #beg3 ,harnack1 ,luke the ,physician1 translated by ,wilkinson1 #aijg1 p4 #ec4 ,but there are also slight historical connections between the two portions4 ,for example1 in the earlier chapters some incidents are recorded1 in which a certain ,philip 7one of the ,seven7 was concerned2 and why should these have been selected8 ,the writer was not present himself1 and many far more important events must have occurred1 of which he gives no account4 ,but a casual verse in the ,we sections explains everything3 the writer1 we are told1 stayed many days with ,philip1 and of course learnt these particulars then4 ,and as it seems to have been his rule only to record what he knew for certain1 he might well have left out other and more important events1 of which he had not such accurate knowledge4#beh ,and the earlier reference1 which ends with the apparently pointless remark that ,philip came to ,csarea1 without saying why or wherefore1 is also explained1 since this was the place where the writer afterwards met him4 ,it is then practically certain that the whole book was written by one man1 and that he was a companion of ,st4 ,paul in many of his travels4 ,footnote #beh3 ,acts #f4 #e2 #h4 #e1 #bf1 #dj2 #ba4 #aj42 ,luke #a4 #c4 ,it is also practically certain that he was a medical man4 ,the evidence for this is overwhelming1 but as the fact is generally admitted1 we need not discuss it at length4 ,all we need say is that #bja places have been counted in the ,acts1 and #beb in the ,third ,gospel1 where words and expressions occur which are specially1 and many of them exclusively1 used by ,greek medical writers1 and which1 with few exceptions1 do not occur elsewhere1 in the ,new ,testament4#bei ,for instance1 we read of the many proofs of the ,resurrection2 the word translated proofs being frequently used by medical writers to express the infallible symptoms of a disease1 as distinct from its mere signs1 which may be doubtful1 and they expressly give it this meaning4 ,and we read of the restoration of all things2 the word translated restoration being the regular medical term for a complete recovery of a man's body or limb4#bfj ,footnote #bei3 ,hobart's ,medical ,language of ,st4 ,luke 7#ahhb72 some of his examples are rather doubtful4 ,footnote #bfj3 ,acts #a4 #c2 #c4 #ba4 ,we conclude then1 from the book itself1 that the writer was an intimate friend of ,st4 ,paul and a medical man2 and from one of ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles we learn his name1 ,luke the beloved physician4#bfa ,and this is confirmed by the fact that both this ,epistle and that to ,philemon1 where ,st4 ,paul also names ,luke as his companion1 appear to have been written from ,rome1 when1 as we know1 the writer of the ,acts was with him4 ,and he seems to have remained with him to the last1 only ,luke is with me4#bfb ,yet this beloved and ever-faithful friend of ,st4 ,paul is not once named in the ,acts1 which would be most unlikely unless he were the author4 ,footnote #bfa3 ,col4 #d4 #ad2 ,philemon #bd4 ,footnote #bfb3 #b ,tim4 #d4 #aa4 7,c47 ,,its ,,date4 ,the date of the book can also be fixed with tolerable certainty4 ,it is implied in its abrupt ending4 ,the last thing it narrates is ,st4 ,paul's living at ,rome1 two years before his expected trial 7,a4,d4 #eh-fj74bfc ,it says nothing about this trial1 nor of ,st4 ,paul's release1 nor of his subsequent travels1 nor of his second trial and martyrdom 7probably under ,nero1 ,a4,d4 #fd72 though had it been written after these events1 it could hardly have failed to record them4 ,this is especially the case as the martyrdom of ,st4 ,peter and ,st4 ,paul1 which1 according to early authorities1 occurred together at ,rome1 would have formed such a suitable conclusion for a work chiefly concerned with their labours4 ,footnote #bfc3 ,rackham's ,commentary on the ,acts1 #aija1 p4 lxvii2 many place it a year or two later1 some a little earlier4 ,on the other hand1 the abrupt ending of the book is at once accounted for if it was written at that time1 about ,a4,d4 #fj1 by ,st4 ,luke1 who did not relate anything further1 because nothing further had then occurred4 ,and it is obvious that these two years would not only have formed a most suitable period for its compilation1 but that he is very likely to have sent it to his friend ,theophilus just before the trial1 perhaps somewhat hurriedly1 not knowing whether it might not involve his own death1 as well as that of ,st4 ,paul4 ,this would also account for the great prominence given to the events of the immediately preceding years in ,chapters #bj4 to #bh41 which is quite unintelligible1 unless the book was written soon afterwards4 ,they were nothing like as important as the events of the next few years1 about which the writer says nothing4 ,and why should he go through the earlier stages of ,st4 ,paul's arrest and trial1 so carefully1 step by step1 from ,lysias to ,felix1 from ,felix to ,festus1 and then to ,agrippa1 and on to ,rome2 and then when he comes to the crisis1 and the ,apostle is about to appear before ,csar1 suddenly break off1 without giving a hint as to which way it was decided8 ,everyone must feel how tantalising it is2 and how unlikely he is to have stopped here1 if he could have gone on4 ,this abrupt ending1 then1 is the great argument for dating the book about ,a4,d4 #fj2 but it is supported by several others4 ,in the first place1 the journey to ,rome itself1 especially the shipwreck1 is described with such minute and graphic details1 that it seems likely to have been written down very soon afterwards1 probably in that city4 ,secondly1 the ,roman judges and officials are always represented as treating the ,christians with fairness1 and even kindness2 and the writer leaves ,st4 ,paul appealing to ,csar1 with every hope of a favourable verdict4 ,there is no sign of bitterness or ill-feeling anywhere4 ,and all this would have been most unlikely after the great persecution in ,a4,d4 #fd2 when ,christians regarded ,rome with the utmost horror4#bfd ,compare the somewhat similar case of the ,indian ,mutiny4 ,can we imagine an ,englishman in ,india writing soon after the ,mutiny a history1 say of ,cawnpore1 up to #ahed1 and then closing it1 without ever letting a hint fall that he was aware of the terrible tragedy which happened in #aheg1 or showing the slightest ill-feeling towards its perpetrators8 ,the only reasonable conclusion would be that such a history must have been written before the ,mutiny4 ,in the same way the ,acts must have been written before ,nero's great persecution4 ,footnote #bfd3 ,e4g41 ,rev4 #ag4 #f4 ,thirdly1 the same sort of argument is afforded by the destruction of ,jerusalem in ,a4,d4 #gj4 ,had the book been written after this1 it is strange that the writer should seem to be entirely unaware of it2 more especially as it had so close a bearing on the events described in the ,acts1 such as the ,jewish law not being binding on ,gentile ,christians4 ,and it is the more significant1 because he records the prophecy of the event in his ,gospel1#bfe but nowhere hints that the prophecy had been fulfilled4 ,footnote #bfe3 ,luke #ai4 #dc4 ,lastly1 an early date is implied by the passage1 where ,st4 ,paul tells his friends near ,ephesus1 that they would not see him again4 ,it was quite natural for him to have said so at the time1 as his feelings were very despondent2 but no one1 writing many years later1 would have recorded it without comment2 since it is almost certain that ,st4 ,paul1 after his release from ,rome1 did revisit ,ephesus4#bff ,footnote #bff3 ,acts #bj4 #be1 #ch2 #b ,tim4 #d4 #bj4 ,on the whole1 then1 there is very strong evidence in favour of the ,acts of the ,apostles having been written by ,st4 ,luke about ,a4,d4 #fj2 and this of course proves an earlier date for ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel4 ,and this again proves a still earlier one for ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel1 which is now generally admitted to have been written before ,st4 ,luke's2 and probably for ,st4 ,matthew's as well4 ,the evidence of the ,acts1 then1 while confirming our previous conclusion that the first three ,gospels were certainly written before ,a4,d4 #gj1 enables us to add with some confidence that they were also written before ,a4,d4 #fj4 ,and1 it may be added1 ,prof4 ,harnack1 who long maintained the opposite view1 has at last accepted this early date for all these ,gospels4#bfg ,the book has of course no direct bearing on the date of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel4 ,footnote #bfg3 ,date of ,acts1 and ,synoptic ,gospels1 translated by ,wilkinson1 #aiaa1 pp4 #ii1 #acc1 #acd4 ,some writers would place them still earlier4 ,thus ,canon ,birks1 dates them all between ,a4,d4 #db-ea1 and he gives strong reasons for thinking that ,st4 ,luke1 and his ,gospel1 are referred to in #b ,cor4 #h4 #ah4 7,hor ,evangelic1 #ahib1 edit41 pp4 #bei1 #bha1 #bic72 and ,archdeacon ,allen places the second ,gospel1 about ,a4,d4 #dd1 and the first about ,a4,d4 #ej4 7,introduction to the ,books of the ,new ,testament1 #aiac1 p4 #ac47 ,,chapter ,,xvii4 ,,that ,,the ,,resurrection ,,of ,,christ ,,is ,,probably ,,true4 7,a47 ,,its ,,importance4 ,the third day1 the empty tomb4 7,b47 ,,the ,,narratives4 ,the various accounts1 table of ,christ's appearances1 the three groups1 the double farewell4 7,c47 ,,their ,,difficulties4 7#a47 ,discrepancies2 often due to the appearances being placed together2 the disciples going to ,galilee4 7#b47 ,omissions2 the ,gospels only record selected instances1 and ,st4 ,paul refers to them in groups4 7,d47 ,,their ,,truthfulness4 7#a47 ,agreements2 very important4 7#b47 ,mutual explanations2 very numerous4 7#c47 ,signs of early date2 very interesting4 ,conclusion1 the narratives appear to be thoroughly trustworthy4 ,we decided in the previous chapters that the ,four ,gospels1 and also the ,acts of the ,apostles1 were genuine2 that is to say1 they were written by the persons to whom they are commonly ascribed4 ,and to these may be added the four great ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul1 and the ,revelation of ,st4 ,john1 which1 as before said1 are admitted to be genuine by critics of all schools4 ,we have thus direct testimony as to the life of ,christ1 that is to say1 the testimony of contemporaries1 some of whom must have known ,him well4 ,st4 ,matthew and ,st4 ,john were two of ,his ,apostles2 ,st4 ,mark and ,st4 ,luke had exceptionally good means of knowing the truth1 and may perhaps have had some slight knowledge of ,christ themselves1 as had also ,st4 ,paul4#bfh ,we have now to examine the value of this testimony1 more especially as to the ,resurrection of ,christ4 ,so in the present chapter we will consider the importance of the ,resurrection1 and the narratives we have of it2 both as to their difficulties1 and their truthfulness2 and in the next the various alternative theories4 ,footnote #bfh3 #b ,cor4 #e4 #af4 7,a47 ,,its ,,importance4 ,in the first place1 we cannot overestimate the importance of the ,resurrection1 for this fact1 either real or supposed1 was the foundation of ,christianity4 ,this is plain not only from the ,gospels1 but still more from the ,acts1 where we have numerous short speeches by the ,apostles1 given under various circumstances1 and to various audiences1 including ,jewish ,councillors1 ,greek philosophers1 and ,roman governors4 ,and in nearly all of them the ,resurrection of ,christ is not only positively asserted1 but is emphasised as a fact established by indisputable evidence and as being the foundation of ,christianity4#bfi ,it is even said that it was the special duty of an apostle to bear witness to it2 and ,st4 ,paul seems to have been aware of this1 since1 when claiming to be an apostle1 he is careful to show that he was thus qualified4 ,and for himself he makes it the basis of all his teaching1 if ,christ hath not been raised1 then is our preaching vain4#bgj ,it is certain1 then1 that the first preachers of ,christianity preached the ,resurrection of ,christ4 ,footnote #bfi3 ,acts #b4 #bd2 #d4 #aj2 #e4 #cj2 #aj4 #dj2 #ac4 #cj2 #ag4 #ca2 #bf4 #bc4 ,footnote #bgj3 ,acts #a4 #bb2 #a ,cor4 #i4 #a2 #ae4 #ad-ag4 ,it is equally certain that they preached that it occurred on the third day1 counting from the ,crucifixion4#bga ,this also is stated not only in the ,gospels1 but by ,st4 ,paul2 who in one place bases his whole argument on the fact that the ,body of ,christ 7unlike that of ,david7 saw no corruption1 a point also alluded to by ,st4 ,peter1 and implying a ,resurrection in a few days4#bgb ,while if further evidence is required1 the fact that this third day 7the first day of the week7 became the ,lord's ,day--the ,christian ,sunday--seems to put the matter beyond dispute4 ,footnote #bga3 ,sometimes described as after three days1 but that the two expressions are intended to mean the same is clear from ,matt4 #bg4 #fc-fd1 where ,christ's saying that ,he would rise again after three days is given as the reason for guarding the sepulchre until the third day4 ,in the same way after eight days evidently means on the eighth day 7,john #bj4 #bf74 ,footnote #bgb3 #a ,cor4 #ae4 #d2 ,acts #ac4 #ce-cg2 #b4 #ca4 ,once more it is certain that the ,christians believed that this ,resurrection was one of ,christ's ,body1 not ,his ,spirit4 ,this again is clear not only from the ,gospels1 which all speak of the empty tomb2 but also from ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles4 ,for when he says that ,christ died1 and was buried1 and was raised on the third day1 and appeared to ,cephas1 etc41 he must mean ,christ's ,body 7for a ,spirit cannot be buried72 and he must mean that it was the same ,body that died and was buried1 that was afterwards raised1 and appeared to them1 including himself4#bgc ,christ's being raised1 it will be noticed1 was distinct from1 and previous to1 ,his appearing to anyone1 just as in the ,gospels the empty tomb is always mentioned before any of the appearances4 ,footnote #bgc3 #a ,cor4 #ae4 #c-e4 ,and even in the one case1 where ,st4 ,paul alludes to what he saw as a heavenly vision1 he refers to it in order to prove that it is not incredible that ,god should raise the dead2#bgd which again shows that he thought it was a ,body1 for a ,spirit cannot be raised from the dead4 ,and his specifying the third day makes this 7if possible7 still plainer1 for the life of the spirit after death does not commence on the third day2 nor would it have prevented ,christ's ,body from seeing corruption4 ,footnote #bgd3 ,acts #bf4 #ai1 #h4 ,from all this it is abundantly clear that ,st4 ,paul1 like the ,four ,evangelists1 and the other ,apostles1 believed in what is called the physical ,resurrection1 in the sense that ,christ's ,body was restored to life1 and left the tomb4 ,though like them1 he also believed that it was no longer a natural body1 bound by the ordinary laws of nature1 but that it had been partly changed as well1 so that it shared to some extent the properties of spirits4 ,nor is his statement that flesh and blood cannot inherit the ,kingdom of ,god1 opposed to this4#bge ,for when he uses the same expression elsewhere 7e4g41 ,i conferred not with flesh and blood7#bgf it is evidently not used in a literal sense4 ,it does not mean flesh and blood1 in the same way in which we might speak of bones and muscles4 ,it means men4 ,so his meaning here is probably that mere men--human beings as such--cannot inherit the future life of glory4 ,their bodies will first have to be changed1 and made incorruptible2 but they will still be bodies4 ,and as just said1 ,st4 ,paul is quite definite as to its being the ,body of ,christ that was buried1 that was afterwards raised on the third day4 ,footnote #bge3 ,cor4 #ae4 #ej4 ,footnote #bgf3 ,gal4 #a4 #af2 ,eph4 #f4 #ab2 comp4 ,matt4 #af4 #ag4 ,we may say1 then1 with confidence1 that wherever the ,resurrection was believed1 the fact that it occurred on the third day1 and the fact that it was a physical ,resurrection1 involving the empty tomb1 was believed also4 ,the three invariably went together4 ,but was this belief justified8 ,this is the question we have to discuss4 7,b47 ,,the ,,narratives4 ,now we have five different accounts of the ,resurrection2 and these are so thoroughly independent that not one of them can be regarded as the source of any of the others4 ,little stress1 however1 can be laid on the latter part of ,st4 ,mark's account1 as the genuineness of the last twelve verses is doubtful2 but it anyhow represents a very early ,christian belief1 ,aristion being sometimes named as the author4 ,and even the earlier part is conclusive as to the empty tomb1 and the promised appearance in ,galilee4 ,on the other hand1 ,st4 ,paul's account1 which is perhaps the strongest1 is universally allowed to have been written within thirty years of the event2 the most probable date for which is ,a4,d4 #bi or #cj1 and for the ,epistle ,a4,d4 #ee4 ,and it should be noticed that ,st4 ,paul reminds the ,corinthians that what he here says about the ,resurrection is what he preached to them on his first visit 7about ,a4,d4 #ej71 and that as they had received it from him1 so he had himself received it from others at a still earlier date4#bgg ,footnote #bgg3 #a ,cor4 #ae4 #a-c4 ,and we can even fix this date approximately1 for two of the appearances he records were to ,st4 ,peter and ,st4 ,james2 and he happens to mention elsewhere#bgh that these were the two ,apostles he met at ,jerusalem1 three years after his conversion 7,a4,d4 #ce1 or earlier72 so he doubtless heard the whole account then1 even if he had not heard it before4 ,and this was certainly within ten years--probably within seven years--of the ,crucifixion4 ,more ancient testimony than this can scarcely be desired4 ,and if anything could add to its importance it would be ,st4 ,paul's own statement that in this respect his teaching was the same as that of the original ,apostles3 ,whether then it be ,i or they1 so we preach and so ye believed4#bgi ,footnote #bgh3 ,gal4 #a4 #ai4 ,footnote #bgi3 #a ,cor4 #ae4 #aa4 ,we need not quote the various accounts here1 but the accompanying table gives them in a convenient form for reference4 ,altogether ,christ seems to have been seen on thirteen different occasions2 and there may have been others1 which are not recorded1 though they are perhaps hinted at4#bhj ,footnote #bhj3 ,acts #a4 #c2 #ac4 #ca2 ,john #bj4 #cj4 ,it is doubtful however if the eighth appearance was separate from the ninth1 for ,st4 ,matthew says that when the ,eleven saw ,him1 on the mountain in ,galilee1 as ,he had appointed1 they worshipped ,him1 but some doubted4 ,this some can scarcely mean some of the ,eleven1 who had just worshipped4 ,it probably refers to some others who were present 7i4e41 some of the five hundred7 who doubted at first if it was really ,he1 as ,he was some way off1 and it was before ,he came to them4 ,and since the command to preach the ,gospel to all the world1 which ,st4 ,matthew records1 was probably addressed to the ,eleven only1 it will account for his not mentioning that others were present4 ,in the same way ,st4 ,luke relates the ,ascension1 as if only the ,eleven were there1 though it is clear from his own narrative that he knew there were others with them2 since he afterwards records ,st4 ,peter as saying so4#bha ,footnote #bha3 ,acts #a4 #a-ac2 #bb-bc4 ,on the other hand1 the appearance to the five hundred must have been on a mountain1 or some other open space1 as a room would not have been large enough4 ,it must have been in ,galilee1 as there were not so many disciples in ,jerusalem4#bhb ,it must have been by appointment1 as they could hardly have come together by accident2 and they are not likely to have come together at all unless the ,eleven had collected them4 ,and all this is an additional reason for identifying it with that recorded by ,st4 ,matthew4 ,footnote #bhb3 ,acts #a4 #ae4 ,it must next be noticed that the appearances form three groups4 ,first a group in or near ,jerusalem1 which was chiefly to the ,twelve ,apostles1 and extended over eight days4 ,secondly a group in ,galilee1 the most important being that to the five hundred1 which was a sort of farewell to ,his ,galilean disciples4 ,and thirdly to a group back again at ,jerusalem1 chiefly to the ,twelve1 but including others1 and ending with the ,ascension1 or farewell to ,his ,judan disciples4 ,,table ,,of ,,christ',s ,,appearances4 ---------------------------------------- ------------------------ #a ,cor4,matt4 ,mark4 ,luke4 ,john4 ---------------------------------------- ------------------------ ,empty tomb visited #bd4 #a-aa1 by women 44 #bh4 #a-haf4 #a-h #bb-bc #bj4 #a-b ,and by ,apostles 44 44 44 #ab1 #bd #c-aj ,an appearance in ,galilee foretold 44 #g #af4 #g 44 44 ,then ,christ was seen ,in or near ,jerusalem1 by 7i47 ,mary ,magdalene 44 44 #i-aa 44 #aa-ah 7ii47 ,the two ,marys 44 #i-aj 44 44 44 7iii47 ,st4 ,peter #ae4 #e 44 44 #cd 44 7 iv47 ,cleopas and another1 perhaps ,st4 ,luke1 at ,emmaus 44 44 #ab-ac #ac-ce 44 7v47 ,the ,apostles and others 7without ,st4 ,thomas7 #e 44 #ad #cf-dc #ai-be 7vi47 ,the ,apostles 7with ,st4 ,thomas7 44 44 44 44 #bf-bi ,in ,galilee1 by 7vii47 ,seven ,apostles on the ,lake 44 44 44 44 #ba4 #a-bc 7viii47 ,the ,apostles on the mountain 44 #af-bj #ae-ah 44 44 7ix47 ,over #ejj persons #f 44 44 44 44 7x47 ,st4 ,james #g 44 44 44 44 ,back at ,jerusalem1 by ,acts4 7xi47 ,the ,apostles at ,jerusalem 44 44 44 #dd-di #a4 #d-e 7xii47 ,the ,apostles and others at ,bethany #g 44 #ai-bj #ej-ec #f-aa1 #bb 7xiii47 ,st4 ,paul #h 44 44 44 #i4 #c-i ---------------------------------------- ------------------------ ,and though this double farewell is sometimes thought to be a difficulty1 yet as ,christ's ,resurrection was meant to be the proof of ,his mission1 it seems only natural that ,he should have appeared again to all ,his disciples1 and have taken leave of them2 both those in ,galilee1 and those at ,jerusalem1 the ,apostles themselves being of course present on each occasion4 ,and as the words when they were come together imply that the meeting in ,jerusalem1 like that in ,galilee1 had been previously announced1 all the ,judan disciples may well have been there2 and this we know was the case with ,matthias1 ,justus1 and others4#bhc ,footnote #bhc3 ,acts #a4 #f1 #bb4 7,c47 ,,their ,,difficulties4 ,passing on now to the difficulties in the narratives2 they may be conveniently placed under the two heads of discrepancies and omissions4 7#a47 ,discrepancies4 ,these seem to be chiefly due to two of the ,evangelists1 ,st4 ,mark and ,st4 ,luke1 recording separate appearances as if they were continuous4 ,but it so happens that they do much the same in the rest of their ,gospels1 often recording separate sayings of ,christ as if they were one discourse2 and even in closely-connected passages a break has sometimes to be assumed4#bhd ,while in these very narratives1 ,st4 ,luke describes an appearance at ,jerusalem in ,acts #a4 #d1 and continues without any change of place till v4 #ab1 when he says they returned to ,jerusalem4 ,plainly he is here grouping together words spoken on different occasions4 ,footnote #bhd3 ,e4g41 in ,luke #ad4 #ba-bb4 ,therefore he may have done the same at the end of his ,gospel4 ,indeed1 it is almost certain that he did1 otherwise we should have to place the ,ascension in the middle of the night1 which is scarcely probable4 ,moreover1 in the ,acts he expressly says that the appearances lasted forty days2 and he quotes ,st4 ,paul1 as saying that they lasted many days4#bhe ,he seems to have thought it unnecessary in his ,gospel to explain that they were at different times2 and if ,st4 ,mark did the same1 it would account for most1 though not all1 of the discrepancies between them4 ,footnote #bhe3 ,acts #a4 #c2 #ac4 #ca4 ,these discrepancies1 however1 are often much exaggerated4 ,take for instance the fifth appearance in the previous list4 ,st4 ,luke and ,st4 ,john evidently refer to the same occasion1 as it was on the evening of ,easter ,day2 yet one says the ,apostles were terrified1 and thought they saw a spirit2 while the other says they were glad4 ,can both be true8 ,certainly they can1 if we assume 7as is most natural7 that the ,apostles were at first terrified1 and thought they saw a spirit2 but were afterwards glad1 when on ,christ's showing them ,his hands and side1 they were convinced that it was really ,himself4 ,and ,he may then have reproached them for their unbelief as recorded by ,st4 ,mark4 ,or take the case of the ,angels at the ,tomb4 ,these are referred to by every ,evangelist1 though some call them men 7in white or dazzling apparel7 and others angels4 ,but as ,st4 ,luke uses both words1#bhf and as angels are not likely to have appeared in any but a human form1 there is no real difficulty here4 ,while if the second angel was not always visible1 it would account for some of the ,evangelists speaking of only one4 ,and it may be mentioned in passing1 that one of the angels is said to have been seen by the ,roman soldiers as well1 who went and told the ,jews about it4#bhg ,and this is not likely to have been asserted within twenty years unless it had been the case1 as the ,jews would have contradicted it4 ,yet if it was the case1 it affords an additional argument for the ,resurrection1 and one derived from ,christ's enemies1 not ,his friends4 ,footnote #bhf3 ,luke #bd4 #d1 #bc4 ,similarly ,gabriel is called a man in ,dan4 #i4 #ba1 and an angel in ,luke #a4 #be4 ,footnote #bhg3 ,matt4 #bh4 #d1 #aa4 ,a more important difficulty is caused by ,christ's command to the women1 that they and the ,apostles were to proceed to ,galilee to meet ,him1 when1 as ,he knew1 ,he was going to appear to them in ,jerusalem the same day4 ,the most probable explanation is that the meeting in ,galilee was the one intended all along1 in fact we are definitely told so4#bhh ,but when the women1 in consequence of the ,angel's message1 and after they had recovered from their fright 7which at first made them run away and say nothing to anyone71#bhi went and told the ,apostles to go there1 they were disbelieved4#bij ,this naturally made the women doubt too1 so they returned to the grave to make further inquiries1 none of them having the slightest intention of going to ,galilee4 ,footnote #bhh3 ,mark #ad4 #bh4 ,footnote #bhi3 ,mark #af4 #h4 ,footnote #bij3 ,luke #bd4 #aa4 ,under these circumstances1 something more was necessary1 so ,christ appeared first to ,mary ,magdalene1 and then to her with the other ,mary1 when ,he told them ,himself to warn the ,apostles to proceed to ,galilee1 which they again did1 and were again disbelieved4#bia ,then ,he appeared to the two disciples on the way to ,emmaus1 and when they came back1 and told the rest1 they were also at first disbelieved2 the ,apostles1 though now admitting that ,christ had been seen by ,st4 ,peter1 still denying such a bodily resurrection 7able to eat food1 etc47 as they described4#bib ,footnote #bia3 ,mark #af4 #aa4 ,footnote #bib3 ,mark #af4 #ac2 ,luke #bd4 #cd4 ,after this there was nothing for it1 but for ,christ to appear to the ,apostles ,himself1 and convince them personally by eating food in their presence1 which ,he did1 when most of them were assembled together the same evening4 ,and ,he may then have told them to remain in ,jerusalem till they were all convinced1 as they could scarcely have been expected to collect the five hundred for the meeting in ,galilee1 so long as they kept disputing among themselves as to whether ,he had really risen4 ,and it was thus another week before the last sceptic 7,st4 ,thomas7 was convinced1 and they finally started for ,galilee4 ,these discrepancies then are not nearly so serious as is commonly supposed4 7#b47 ,omissions4 ,with regard to the omissions1 none of our lists are at all complete1 and this is often thought to be a difficulty4 ,but as far as the ,gospels are concerned1 the writers nowhere profess to give a complete list of ,christ's appearances1 any more than of ,his parables1 or ,his miracles2 they only record 7as one of them tells us7#bic selected instances4 ,and in the present case their choice is quite intelligible4 ,thus ,st4 ,matthew closes his ,gospel1 which is concerned chiefly with the ,galilean ministry1 with the farewell meeting in ,galilee2 ,st4 ,john1 whose ,gospel is concerned chiefly with the ,judan ministry1 ended his 7before the last chapter was added1 which seems a sort of appendix7 with some of the appearances in ,jerusalem4 ,while ,st4 ,luke1 who was more of an historian1 and wrote everything in order1#bid though he describes most in detail the appearance to the two disciples at ,emmaus 7which is only natural if he was one of them71 is yet careful to carry his narrative right on to the ,ascension4 ,therefore1 though they only record certain appearances1 they may well have known of the others2 and there can be little doubt that they did4 ,footnote #bic3 ,john #bj4 #cj4 ,footnote #bid3 ,luke #a4 #c4 ,thus1 ,st4 ,matthew speaks of the ,eleven meeting ,christ by appointment1 so he must have known of some interview when this appointment was made1 7perhaps the one on the ,lake71 as the messages to the women did not fix either the time or place4#bie ,in the same way ,st4 ,mark must have known of a meeting in ,galilee1 as he refers to it himself1 and ,st4 ,luke of an appearance to ,st4 ,peter4#bif ,while ,st4 ,john1 though he does not record the ,ascension1 must certainly have known of it1 as he refers to it twice in the words1 if ye should behold the ,son of ,man ascending1 and ,i ascend unto ,my ,father1 the former passage clearly showing that it was to be a visible ascent1 and that the ,apostles were to see it4#big ,plainly1 then1 the ,evangelists did not relate every appearance they knew of1 and the objection as far as they are concerned1 may be dismissed at once4 ,footnote #bie3 ,matt4 #bh4 #af1 #g1 #aj4 ,footnote #bif3 ,mark #af4 #g2 ,luke #bd4 #cd4 ,footnote #big3 ,john #f4 #fb2 #bj4 #ag4 ,on the other hand1 ,st4 ,paul's list certainly looks as if it were meant to be complete2 and this is no doubt a real difficulty4 ,surely1 it is said1 if the other appearances had occurred1 or were even supposed to have occurred1 when ,st4 ,paul wrote1 he would have heard of them2 and if he had heard of them1 he would have mentioned them1 as he was evidently trying to make out as strong a case as he could4 ,he might perhaps have omitted the appearances to women1 as their testimony was not considered of much value at the time2 and they were not witnesses of the ,resurrection1 in the sense he alludes to--i4e41 persons who went about preaching it2#bih but why should he have omitted the rest8 ,footnote #bih3 #a ,cor4 #ae4 #aa4 ,there is however a fairly good explanation4 ,the appearances it will be remembered form three groups4 ,now ,st4 ,paul mentions two appearances to individual ,apostles--,st4 ,peter and ,st4 ,james2 and this was doubtless because he had had such vivid accounts of them from the men themselves1 when he met them at ,jerusalem4 ,for we may be sure that if they had not told him1 he would not have accepted it from anyone else4 ,but he seems to refer to the others in these groups1 first to the ,twelve 7at ,jerusalem71 then to the five hundred 7in ,galilee71 and then to all the ,apostles1 evidently meaning more than the ,twelve 7back again at ,jerusalem74 ,but by so doing1 he does not limit it to only one appearance in each group4 ,in the same way a man might say that on returning to ,england he saw first his parents1 then his brothers1 then his cousins2 though he had seen his parents on two days a week apart1 his brothers for only a few hours1 and his cousins for several successive days4 ,and the fact that ,st4 ,paul1 in one of his speeches in the ,acts1#bii expressly says that ,christ was seen for many days at ,jerusalem1 strongly confirms this view4 ,we conclude1 then1 that in his ,epistle he is mentioning the appearances by groups1 rather than every single one2 wishing to emphasise the number of men who had seen ,christ1 rather than the number of times they had seen ,him2 and if so it does away with the difficulty4 ,none of these objections1 then1 are of much importance4 ,footnote #bii3 ,acts #ac4 #ca4 7,d47 ,,their ,,truthfulness4 ,turning now to the other side1 the narratives bear abundant marks of truthfulness4 ,these we will consider under the three heads of agreements1 mutual explanations1 and signs of early date4 7#a47 ,agreements4 ,in the first place it is important to notice that in spite of the discrepancies and omissions just alluded to1 there is an extraordinary amount of agreement in the narratives4 ,for all the more important points--the third day1 the empty tomb1 the visit of the women1 the angelic message1 the first appearance being in ,jerusalem1 the incredulity of some of the disciples1 and ,christ's not only appearing1 but speaking as well1 and this in the presence of all the ,apostles--are all vouched for by every ,evangelist4 ,they also agree in saying that the ,apostles remained in ,jerusalem after ,christ's arrest1 and did not as we might have expected return at once to ,galilee8 ,for the last two ,gospels expressly state that they were in ,jerusalem on ,easter ,day2 and the first two imply it1 or how could the women have been told to take them a message to go to ,galilee8 ,further they all agree in not giving 7what imaginary accounts might well have contained7 any description of the ,resurrection itself1 any appearance of ,christ to ,his enemies2 or any information as to the other world1 though this last would have been so eagerly welcomed1 and could have been so easily invented4 ,moreover the order in which the appearances are placed is also the same in every account1 that to ,mary ,magdalene for instance 7wherever it occurs7 being1 always placed first1 that to ,st4 ,peter next1 that to ,cleopas next1 then that to the ,twelve1 etc4 ,and this is the more remarkable because the narratives are so obviously independent1 and the order is not at all a likely one4 ,writers of fiction1 for instance1 would never have made ,christ first appear to so little known a person as ,mary ,magdalene1 rather than to ,his ,mother or ,his ,apostles4 ,once more the narratives all agree in the extreme calmness with which they are written4 ,one would have thought it almost impossible for anyone after relating the story of the ,cross1 to have avoided some word of triumph1 or exultation1 in regard to the ,resurrection and ,ascension4 ,but nothing of the kind is found4 ,the writers record them1 like the rest of the history1 as simple matters of fact1 apparently regarding them as the natural close for such a ,life1 and calling for no comment4 ,how unlikely this would be in legendary accounts scarcely needs pointing out4 ,it may also be added 7though it does not concern these actual narratives7 that the ,evangelists all agree in saying that ,christ had prophesied ,his own ,resurrection4#cjj ,and while this does not of course prove it to have been true1 it yet forms a difficulty on any other theory4 ,footnote #cjj3 ,e4g41 ,matt4 #af4 #ba2 ,mark #i4 #ca2 ,luke #ah4 #cc2 ,john #b4 #ai-ba4 7#b47 ,mutual explanations4 ,in the next place it is surprising to find how often a slight remark in one of the narratives will help to explain some apparent improbability1 or difficulty in another4 ,and since1 as just said1 the narratives are quite independent1 and were certainly not written to explain one another2 such indications of truthfulness are of great value4 ,we will therefore consider several examples4#cja ,footnote #cja3 ,these and some others are discussed in a paper in the ,expositor1 ,may1 #aiji1 by the present writer4 ,to begin with1 ,st4 ,john records ,mary ,magdalene as visiting the empty ,tomb1 and then telling the disciples we know not where they have laid ,him4 ,but to whom does the we refer1 as she was apparently alone all the time8 ,st4 ,john does not explain matters2 but the other ,evangelists do4 ,for they say that though ,mary ,magdalene was the leader of the party1 and is always named first1 yet as a matter of fact there were other women with her2 and this accounts for the we4 ,later on no doubt she was alone2 but then she uses the words ,i know not4#cjb ,footnote #cjb3 ,john #bj4 #b1 #ac4 ,secondly1 ,st4 ,luke says that ,peter was the disciple who ran to the tomb on hearing of the ,angel's message1 without however giving any reason why he should have been the one to go4 ,but ,st4 ,mark1 though he does not mention the visit of ,peter1 records that the message had been specially addressed to him2 and ,st4 ,john says that ,mary ,magdalene had specially informed him2 and this of course explains his going4 ,st4 ,luke1 it may be added1 in the subsequent words1 certain of them that were with us1#cjc implies that at least one other disciple went with him1 which agrees with ,st4 ,john4 ,footnote #cjc3 ,luke #bd4 #bd4 ,st4 ,luke then says that when ,peter arrived at the tomb1 he saw the linen cloths by themselves1 and went home wondering4 ,this seems only a trifle1 but what does it mean8 ,st4 ,luke does not explain matters1 but ,st4 ,john does2 for he describes how the cloths were arranged4 ,this was in a way which showed that the ,body could not have been hurriedly stolen1 but had apparently vanished without disturbing them4 ,it convinced ,st4 ,john that the disappearance was supernatural1 and would quite account for ,st4 ,peter's wondering4#cjd ,footnote #cjd3 ,luke #bd4 #ab2 ,john #bj4 #f-h4 ,again1 ,st4 ,matthew narrates that when ,christ appeared to ,mary ,magdalene1 and the other ,mary1 ,he was at once recognised1 held by the feet1 and worshipped4 ,and they do not seem to have been at all surprised at meeting ,him near the tomb1 in spite of the ,angel's message that they should go to ,galilee to see ,him4 ,evidently something must have occurred between1 making a break in the narrative after v4 #h1 which is quite possible1 for the words1 ,and behold 7,rev4 ,vers47 do not always imply a close connection4#cje ,and from the other ,evangelists we learn what this was4 ,for ,st4 ,john describes an appearance to ,mary ,magdalene alone1 when she was rebuked for wishing to touch ,him1 apparently in the old familiar way1 and without any act of reverence2 and ,st4 ,mark says this was the first appearance4 ,if then a few minutes later1 she1 in company with the other ,mary1 saw ,christ again1 it would quite account for their not being surprised at meeting ,him1 and also for their altered behaviour in prostrating themselves to the ground1 and being in consequence permitted to hold ,him by the feet1 and worship ,him4 ,footnote #cje3 ,e4g41 ,matt4 #b4 #a4 ,once more ,st4 ,luke says that when ,christ appeared to the ,apostles in the evening1 ,he was mistaken for a spirit2 but he gives no reason for this1 and it was apparently the only occasion on which it occurred4 ,st4 ,john however1 though he does not mention the incident1 fully explains it2 for he says that the doors were shut for fear of the ,jews2 and obviously if ,christ suddenly appeared within closed doors1 it would account for their thinking that ,he must be a spirit4 ,on the other hand1 ,st4 ,john speaks of ,christ's showing them ,his hands 7and also ,his side7 though without giving any reason for this4 ,but ,st4 ,luke's statement that they at first took ,him for a spirit1 and that ,he did this to convince them of ,his identity1 quite accounts for it2 so each of the narratives helps to explain the other4 ,but this is not all1 for ,st4 ,luke then adds that as they still disbelieved1 ,christ asked if they had anything to eat 7i4e41 if they would give ,him something to eat7 and they at once offered ,him a piece of broiled fish4 ,but he gives no hint as to why they happened to have any fish ready4 ,st4 ,mark however1 though he does not mention either the request1 nor its response1 fully explains both2 for he says they were sitting at meat at the time1 probably just concluding their evening meal4 ,and all this still further explains ,st4 ,john's narrative1 that ,christ said to them again1 the second time1 ,peace be unto you2 which would be much more natural if something had occurred between1 than if 7as ,st4 ,john implies7 it was just after the first time4 ,again1 ,st4 ,mark records ,christ as saying1 after ,his command to preach the ,gospel to all the world1 ',he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved1' though without any previous reference to baptism4 ,but ,st4 ,matthew says the command was not only to make disciples of all nations1 but to baptise them as well1 and this of course explains the other passage1 though curiously enough ,st4 ,matthew himself does not refer to it4 ,and then as to the appearance to the five hundred recorded by ,st4 ,paul4 ,none of the ,evangelists mention this1 but it explains a good deal that they do mention4 ,thus ,st4 ,john alludes to the ,apostles being in ,galilee1 7instead of staying in ,jerusalem7 after the ,resurrection1 but he gives no hint as to why they went there4 ,nor do ,st4 ,matthew and ,st4 ,mark1 who say ,christ told them to go there1 give any hint as to why ,he told them2 but this appearance to the five hundred1 who had to be collected in ,galilee1 explains everything4 ,it also accounts for ,st4 ,matthew's curious remark 7before noticed7 that when the ,eleven saw ,christ in ,galilee1 they worshipped ,him1 but some doubted4 ,and it probably explains ,st4 ,luke's omission of ,galilee among the places where the ,apostles themselves had to preach the ,resurrection2 as there were so many witnesses there already4#cjf ,footnote #cjf3 ,acts #a4 #h4 ,now of course too much stress must not be laid on small details like these1 but still the fact that such short and independent accounts should explain one another in so many ways is a distinct evidence of truthfulness4 ,legendary accounts of fictitious events would not be likely to do so4 7#c47 ,signs of early date4 ,in conclusion1 it is interesting to note that these accounts1 especially those in the first three ,gospels1 show signs of an extremely early1 if not a contemporary date4 ,thus ,st4 ,peter is still called by his old name of ,simon1#cjg and it is the last occasion when that name is used1 without explaining to whom it refers2 ,st4 ,paul1 some years later1 though alluding to this same appearance1 calling him by what was then his usual name of ,cephas or ,peter4 ,whilst ,st4 ,john1 writing many years afterwards1 though he is equally accurate as to ,simon being the name in use at the time1 thinks it necessary to explain who was meant by it 7',jesus saith to ,simon ,peter1 ,simon son of ,john1 lovest thou ,me8'74#cjh ,footnote #cjg3 ,luke #bd4 #cd4 ,footnote #cjh3 ,john #ba4 #ae2 comp4 ,acts4 #ae4 #g1 #ad4 ,similarly the ,apostles are still spoken of as the ,eleven1 though they could only have had this title for just these few weeks4#cji ,and the fact of their having had it seems to have been soon forgotten4 ,for ,st4 ,paul even when alluding to this very time prefers to call them by the familiar title of the ,twelve1 which was equally correct1 as we are specially told that ,st4 ,matthias1 who was afterwards chosen as the twelfth1 had been with them all along4#caj ,footnote #cji3 ,mark #af4 #ad2 ,luke #bd4 #i1 #cc4 ,footnote #caj3 ,acts #a4 #bb2 #a ,cor4 #ae4 #e4 ,there are also some incidental remarks in the narratives1 which seem so natural1 and yet so unlikely to have been invented4 ,thus we read that on one occasion after ,christ appeared to the ,apostles1 they still disbelieved for joy2 and on another1 that though they knew it was the ,lord1 they yet wanted to ask ,him ,who art ,thou8#caa ,such bewildered feelings are quite intelligible at the time1 but are not likely to have been thought of afterwards4 ,footnote #caa3 ,luke #bd4 #da2 ,john #ba4 #ab4 ,moreover the kind of ,resurrection asserted 7though no doubt presenting great difficulties7 is strongly in favour of a contemporary date4 ,for it was not 7as said in ,chapter ,,xiii47 a mere resuscitation of ,christ's natural body1 but ,his rising again in a body which combined material and spiritual properties in a remarkable manner4 ,and there was nothing in the ,old ,testament1 or anywhere else1 to suggest such a ,resurrection as this2 it was quite unique4 ,indeed the combination of these properties--and they occur in the same ,gospel--is so extremely puzzling1 that it is hard to see how anything but actual experience 7or what they believed to be such7 could ever have induced men to record it4 ,and much the same may be said of their ascribing an altered appearance to ,christ's ,body1 so that ,he was often not recognised at first4 ,late writers are not likely to have imagined this4 ,lastly1 the utter absence of any attempt at harmonising the narratives1 or avoiding the apparent discrepancies between them1 also points to their extreme antiquity4 ,the writers in fact seem to narrate just what they believed to have happened1 often mentioning the most trivial circumstances1 and without ever attempting to meet difficulties or objections4 ,and while such disconnected accounts might well have been written by the actual witnesses of a wonderful miracle1 they are not such as would have been deliberately invented2 nor are they like subsequent legends and myths4 ,these narratives then appear throughout to be thoroughly trustworthy2 and we therefore decide that the ,resurrection of ,christ is probably true4 ,in the next chapter we will consider the various alternative theories4 ,,chapter ,,xviii ,,that ,,the ,,failure ,,of ,,other ,,explanations ,,increases ,,this ,,probability4 ,the first witnesses of the ,resurrection4 ,the value of all testimony depends on four questions about the witnesses1 and here the denial of each corresponds to the four chief alternative theories4 7,a47 ,,the ,,falsehood ,,theory4 ,this would be to deny their veracity1 and say that they did not speak the truth1 as far as they knew it4 ,but it is disproved by their motives1 their conduct1 and their sufferings4 7,b47 ,,the ,,legend ,,theory4 ,this would be to deny their knowledge1 and say that they had not the means of knowing the truth4 ,but amply sufficient means were within their reach1 and they were quite competent to use them4 7,c47 ,,the ,,vision ,,theory4 ,this would be to deny their investigation1 and say that they were too excited to avail themselves of these means4 ,but this theory has immense difficulties4 7#a47 ,arguments in its favour4 7#b47 ,arguments against it4 7#c47 ,its failure to account for the facts4 7#d47 ,the theory of real visions4 7,d47 ,,the ,,swoon ,,theory4 ,this would be to deny their reasoning1 and say that they did not draw the right conclusion1 since ,christ's appearances were due to ,his not having died4 ,but this theory also has immense difficulties4 7,e47 ,,conclusion4 ,the alleged difficulties of the ,christian ,theory1 extremely strong argument in favour of the ,resurrection4 ,we decided in the last chapter that the ,resurrection of ,christ was probably true2 that is to say1 we carefully examined the various narratives1 and came to the conclusion that they had every appearance of being candidly and truthfully written4 ,we have now to consider1 more in detail1 the testimony of its first witnesses4 ,and1 as we shall see1 this affords strong additional evidence in its favour2 since all attempts to account for this testimony1 without admitting its truth1 fail hopelessly4 ,by the first witnesses1 we mean those persons who saw1 or said they saw1 ,christ alive after ,his ,crucifixion4 ,this will include the twelve ,apostles1 and over #ejj other ,christians1 most of whom ,st4 ,paul says were still alive when he wrote4 ,it will also include two persons1 who at the time were not ,christians1--,st4 ,paul himself1 an avowed enemy1 and ,st4 ,james who1 though he was ,christ's brother1 does not seem to have believed in ,him4#cab ,footnote #cab3 ,john #g4 #e4 ,and before discussing the value of their testimony1 it may be well to glance at some general rules in regard to all testimony4 ,if1 then1 a person plainly asserts that a certain event took place1 before we believe that it did take place1 we must inquire first as to his ,veracity3 did he speak the truth as far as he knew it8 ,next as to his ,knowledge3 had he the means of knowing the truth8 ,next as to his ,investigation3 did he avail himself of those means8 ,and lastly1 as to his ,reasoning3 did he draw the right conclusion8 ,and all possible ways of denying the truth of a man's statement can be brought under one or other of these heads4 ,for if it is not true1 it must be either3-- ,intentionally false want of ,veracity4 had not the means of or knowing the want of ,knowledge4 truth ,unintentionally false1 in which or did not want of ,investigation4 case he either use them had the means1 or and either used them wrongly want of ,reasoning4 ,from this it is clear that for anyone to deny a man's statement1 without disputing either his veracity1 knowledge1 investigation1 or reasoning1 is very like denying that one angle is greater than another1 without disputing that it is neither equal to it1 nor less than it4 ,we have now to apply these general rules to the testimony in favour of the ,resurrection of ,christ4 ,and1 as we shall see1 the denial of these four points corresponds to the four chief alternative theories1 which1 may be called the ,falsehood1 the ,legend1 the ,vision1 and the ,swoon ,theory4 7,a47 ,,the ,,falsehood ,,theory4 ,we will begin with the ,falsehood ,theory4 ,this would be to deny the veracity of the witnesses1 and say that though they asserted that ,christ rose from the dead1 and appeared to them1 they did not really believe it4 ,in other words they were deliberate impostors1 who1 knowing that their ,master did not rise from the dead1 yet spent their whole lives in trying to persuade people that ,he did4 ,and1 as we shall see1 their motives1 their conduct1 and their sufferings1 are all strongly opposed to such a theory4 ,and first as to their motives1 had they any interest in asserting that ,christ rose from the dead unless they really believed it8 ,clearly they had not1 for they were so few or so faint-hearted that they could not prevent their ,master being crucified4 ,what chance was there then of persuading the world that ,he had risen from the dead1 and why should they have embarked on such a hopeless scheme8 ,nothing indeed but the most firm conviction of their ,lord's ,resurrection1 and therefore of supernatural assistance1 would ever have induced men to have ventured on it4 ,if they believed the ,resurrection to be true1 then1 and only then1 would they have had any motive whatever for preaching it4 ,next as to their conduct1 did this show that they really believed what they preached8 ,and here also the evidence is overwhelming4 ,when their ,master was crucified ,his followers were naturally filled with gloom and despair2 but in a few days this was changed to intense joy and confidence4 ,they preached the ,resurrection in the very place where ,he was crucified1 and boldly went forth to convert the world in ,his name4 ,it is clear that before such a marvellous change could take place they must at least have thought they had1 what ,st4 ,luke asserts they actually did have1 many proofs of the ,resurrection4#cac ,to them1 at all events1 the evidence must haveseemed conclusive1 or ,christianity would have perished on ,calvary4 ,footnote #cac3 ,acts #a4 #c4 ,lastly as to their sufferings4 ,this is the most important point1 since voluntary suffering in any form1 but especially in its extreme form of martyrdom1 seems conclusive as to a man's veracity4 ,persons do not suffer for what they believe to be false2 they must have believed it to be true1 though this does not of course prove that it actually was true4 ,and here is the answer to the common objection1 that since all religions have had their martyrs1 this kind of evidence proves nothing4 ,on the contrary1 it does prove something1 though it does not prove everything4 ,it does not prove that what the man died for was true1 but it does prove that he believed it to be true4 ,it is therefore a conclusive test as to his veracity4 ,what evidence have we1 then1 that the first witnesses suffered for the truth of what they preached8 ,and once more the evidence is complete and overwhelming1 both from the ,acts and ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles4 ,we need only refer to these latter1 as their genuineness is undisputed4 ,st4 ,paul then1 in one place1 gives a list of the actual sufferings he had undergone2 he alludes to them in numerous other places1 and often as if they were the common experience of all ,christians at the time2 and in one passage he expressly includes the other ,apostles with himself in the long list of sufferings he describes4 ,while he elsewhere declares that at a still earlier time1 before his conversion1 he himself persecuted the ,christians beyond measure4#cad ,footnote #cad3 #b ,cor4 #aa4 #bd-bg2 ,rom4 #h4 #ce2 #a ,cor4 #d4 #i-ac2 ,gal4 #a4 #ac4 ,there can thus be no doubt as to the continual sufferings of the first witnesses1 and1 as just said1 it is a decisive proof of their veracity4 ,we conclude therefore that when they asserted that ,christ rose from the dead1 they were asserting what they honestly believed whether rightly or wrongly1 to be true4 ,and as this belief was due1 simply to the witnesses believing that they saw ,christ alive after ,his death2 we must further conclude that they honestly believed in the appearances of ,christ as recorded by themselves1 and their friends1 in the ,new ,testament4 ,in other words1 these accounts are not intentionally false4 ,so much for the veracity of the witnesses4 ,it is not1 as a rule1 denied by modern opponents of the ,resurrection2 but in early times1 when men ought to have known best1 it was evidently thought to be the only alternative4 ,st4 ,paul declares emphatically that unless ,christ had risen1 he and the other ,apostles were false witnesses1 in plain words liars4#cae ,that was the only choice4 ,they were either saying what they knew to be true1 or what they knew to be false4 ,and the idea of there being some mistake about it1 due to visions1 or swoons1 or anything else1 never seems to have occurred to anyone4 ,footnote #cae3 #a ,cor4 #ae4 #ae4 7,b47 ,,the ,,legend ,,theory4 ,we pass on now to the ,legend ,theory4 ,this would be to deny the knowledge of the witnesses3 and say that our ,gospels are not genuine1 but merely record subsequent legends2 so we cannot tell whether the first witnesses had1 or had not1 the means of knowing the truth4 ,but if we admit the genuineness of our ,gospels1 and the veracity of their writers 7both of which have been admitted71 the ,legend ,theory is out of the question4 ,they asserted1 it will be remembered1 that ,christ's ,body1 not ,his ,spirit1 appeared to them1 after the crucifixion2 and from their own accounts it is clear that they had ample means of finding out if this was true4 ,whether they used these means1 and actually did find out1 is1 of course1 another question2 but as to sufficient means being available1 and their being quite competent to use them if they liked1 there can be no doubt whatever4 ,as has been well said1 it was not one person who saw ,him1 but many2 they saw ,him not only separately1 but together2 not only for a moment1 but for a long time2 not only by night1 but by day2 not only at a distance1 but near2 not only once1 but several times4 ,and they not only saw ,him1 but they touched ,him1 walked with ,him1 conversed with ,him1 ate with ,him1 and examined ,his ,body to satisfy their doubts4 ,in fact1 according to their own accounts1 ,christ seems to have convinced them in every way in which conviction was possible that ,he had really risen from the dead4 ,and even apart from our ,gospels1 the ,legend ,theory is still untenable4 ,for ,st4 ,paul mentions several of the appearances1 and as this was within a few years of the events1 there was no time for the growth of legends4 ,moreover he heard of them direct from those who saw them1 ,st4 ,peter1 ,st4 ,james1 etc41 so he must have known the circumstances under which they occurred1 and1 being an educated man1 is not likely to have been taken in by any imposture4 ,while his saying that some of the five hundred had died1 though most of them were still alive when he wrote1 implies that he had also made some enquiries about that appearance4 ,his testimony is thus very valuable from every point of view1 and absolutely fatal to the ,legend ,theory4 7,c47 ,,the ,,vision ,,theory4 ,we now come to the ,vision ,theory4 ,this would be to deny the investigation of the witnesses2 and say that they were so excited1 or so enthusiastic1 or perhaps so stupid1 that they did not avail themselves of the ample means they had of finding out the truth4 ,in other words they so expected their ,lord to appear to them after ,his death1 and kept so dwelling on the thought of ,him1 as though unseen1 yet perhaps very near to them1 that after a time they fancied they actually saw ,him1 and that ,he had risen from the dead4 ,the wish was1 in fact1 father to the thought2 so that when a supposed appearance took place1 they were so filled with joy at their ,master's presence1 that they neglected to ascertain whether the appearance they saw was real1 or only due to their own fancy4 ,such is the theory2 though it is often modified in regard to particular appearances1 by ascribing them to dreams1 or to someone being mistaken for ,christ4 ,and as it is at present the favourite one with those who reject the ,resurrection1 we must examine it carefully2 first considering the arguments in its favour1 then those against it1 then its failure to account for the facts recorded1 and lastly what is known as the theory of real visions4 7#a47 ,arguments in its favour4 ,now we must at once admit that it is possible for an honest man to mistake a phantom of his own brain1 arising from some diseased state of the mind or body1 for a reality in the outer world4 ,such subjective visions1 as they are called1 are by no means unheard of1 though they are not common4 ,and of course the great1 if not the only argument in its favour is that it professes to account for the alleged ,resurrection1 without on the one hand admitting its truth1 or on the other that the witnesses were deliberate impostors4 ,here1 it is urged1 is a way of avoiding both difficulties1 by allowing that the witnesses honestly believed all they said1 only they were mistaken in supposing the appearances to be real1 when they were merely due to their own imagination4 ,and undoubtedly the fact that men have often thought they saw ghosts1 visions1 etc41 when there was really nothing to see1 gives it some support4 7#b47 ,arguments against it4 ,let us now consider how this ,vision ,theory would suit the accounts of the ,resurrection written by the witnesses themselves1 and their friends4 ,as will be seen1 we might almost imagine that they had been written on purpose to contradict it4 ,to begin with1 the writers were not unacquainted with visions1 and occasionally record them as happening to themselves or others4 ,but then they always use suitable expressions1 such as falling into a trance4#caf ,no such language is used in the ,gospels to describe the appearances of ,christ1 which are always recorded as if they were actual matters of fact4 ,while as to ,st4 ,paul1 he never confuses the revelations and visions1 which he sometimes had1 with the one great appearance of ,christ to him near ,damascus1 which qualified him to be an ,apostle4#cag ,footnote #caf3 ,e4g41 ,acts #aj4 #aj2 #i4 #aj2 #af4 #i4 ,footnote #cag3 #a ,cor4 #i4 #a2 #ae4 #h2 ,gal4 #a4 #af-ag4 ,secondly1 the appearances did not take place 7as visions might have been expected to do1 and generally did7#cah when the disciples were engaged in prayer1 or in worship4 ,but it was during their ordinary everyday occupations2 when for instance they were going for a walk1 or sitting at supper1 or out fishing4 ,and they were often simple1 plain1 and almost trivial in their character1 very different from what enthusiasts would have imagined4 ,footnote #cah3 ,e4g41 ,acts #aj4 #cj2 #aa4 #e2 #bb4 #ag4 ,thirdly1 subjective visions due to enthusiasm1 would not have started so soon after the ,crucifixion as the third day4 ,it would have required a much longer time for the disciples to have got over their utter confusion1 and to have realised 7perhaps by studying the old prophecies7 that this humiliation was1 after all1 part of ,god's scheme1 and was to be followed by a ,resurrection4 ,nor again would such visions have only lasted for a short time2 yet with the single exception of that to ,st4 ,paul1 they were all over in a few weeks1 though the enthusiasm of the witnesses lasted through life4 ,fourthly1 it is plain from all the accounts that the ,apostles did not expect the ,resurrection1 and were much surprised at it1 though they afterwards remembered that ,christ had foretold it4 ,this is shown1 not only by the ,christians bringing spices1 to embalm the ,body1 and persons do not embalm a body unless they expect it to remain in the grave2 but also by the account of the appearances themselves4 ,for with the exception of the two farewell meetings 7and possibly that to the two ,marys71 ,christ's appearance was wholly unexpected4 ,no one was looking for it1 no one was anticipating it4 ,when for instance ,mary ,magdalene found the tomb empty1 it never even occurred to her that ,he had come to life again1 she merely thought the ,body had been removed4 ,fifthly1 and this is very remarkable1 when ,christ did appear1 ,he was often not recognised4 ,this was the case with ,mary ,magdalene1 with ,cleopas and his companion1 and with the disciples at ,tiberias4 ,but it is plain that1 if they so hoped to see their risen ,master1 that they eventually fancied they did see ,him1 they would at once have recognised ,him2 and their not doing so is quite inconsistent with the ,vision ,theory4 ,sixthly1 we are repeatedly told that at first some of the disciples disbelieved or doubted the ,resurrection4#cai ,this is an important point1 since it shows that opinions were divided on the subject1 and therefore makes it almost certain that they would have used what means they had of finding out the truth4 ,and a visit to the grave would have shown them at once whether the ,body was there1 or not3 and they are not likely to have preached the ,resurrection1 without first ascertaining the point4 ,moreover1 some of them remained doubtful even after the others were persuaded1 ,st4 ,thomas in particular requiring the most convincing proof4 ,his state of mind was certainly not that of an enthusiast1 since1 instead of being so convinced of the ,resurrection as to have imagined it1 he could with great difficulty be got to believe it4 ,indeed1 according to these accounts1 scarcely one of the witnesses believed the ,resurrection till the belief was almost forced on him4 ,footnote #cai3 ,matt4 #bh4 #ag2 ,mark #af4 #aa-ad2 ,luke #bd4 #aa1 #cg2 ,john #bj4 #be4 ,seventhly1 subjective visions do not occur to different persons simultaneously4 ,a man's private illusions 7like his dreams7 are his own4 ,a number of men do not simultaneously dream the same dream1 still less do they simultaneously see the same subjective vision--at least a vision like that here referred to1 of a person moving about among them1 and speaking to them4 ,this is quite different from ,constantine's army thinking that they saw a luminous cross in the sky1 or a body of ,spanish troops that they saw their patron 7,st4 ,james7 riding at their head1 or anything of that kind2 several instances of which are known4 ,but a subjective vision1 at all resembling what is described in the ,gospels1 is extremely rare4 ,it may perhaps happen to one person in ten thousand once in his life4 ,it is difficult to believe that even two persons should have such an experience at the same time1 while the idea that a dozen or more men should simultaneously see such a subjective vision is out of the question4 ,and the ,gospels1 it may be added1 always imply that ,christ was visible to all present 7though some of them doubted as to ,his identity71 which was not1 as a rule1 the case in other alleged visions4 ,eighthly1 how are we to account for visionary conversations8 ,yet these occurred on every occasion4 ,christ never merely appeared1 and then vanished4 ,he always spoke1 and often for a considerable time1 giving detailed instructions2 and can we imagine anyone believing a mere vision to have done all this8 ,is it possible1 for instance1 for ,st4 ,thomas to have believed that ,christ conversed with him1 and for the other ,apostles1 who were all present1 to have believed it too1 if the whole affair was only a vision8 ,indeed1 conversations in the presence of others seem peculiarly hard to explain as visions1 yet they are mentioned more than once4 ,for all these reasons then--because the appearances are not described in suitable language1 did not occur on suitable occasions1 began and ended too soon1 were not expected1 were not recognised1 were not believed1 occurred simultaneously1 and always included conversations as well--the ,vision ,theory is to say the least extremely improbable4 7#c47 ,its failure to account for the facts4 ,but this is not all2 the ,theory is not only improbable1 it does not account for the actual facts recorded--facts concerning which1 unless the writings are intentionally false1 there could be no doubt whatever4 ,a vision1 for instance1 could not have rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb1 yet this is vouched for by every ,evangelist4 ,again1 persons could not have honestly believed that they went to the tomb1 and found it empty1 if the ,body was there all the time4 ,and this also is vouched for by every ,evangelist4 ,nor could they have thought that they touched their ,master1 i4e41 took hold of ,his feet1 if ,he existed only in their imagination2 for the attempt to touch ,him would at once have shown them their mistake4#cbj ,nor could they have seen ,him eat food1 for a vision1 like a dream1 would not explain the disappearance of the food4 ,nor again could a mere vision take bread1 and on another occasion bread and fish1 and give it them to eat4#cba ,in regard to all these particulars1 then1 the ,vision ,theory is hopelessly untenable4 ,footnote #cbj3 ,matt4 #bh4 #i4 ,footnote #cba3 ,luke #bd4 #cj1 #dc2 ,john #ba4 #ac2 ,acts #aj4 #da4 ,there is also the great difficulty as to what became of the dead ,body of ,christ4 ,for if it was still in the grave1 the ,jews would have produced it1 rather than invent the story about its being stolen2 and if it was not in the grave1 its removal could not have been due to visions4 ,with regard to this story it may be noticed that ,st4 ,matthew says it was spread abroad among the ,jews2 and ,justin ,martyr1 himself a native of ,palestine1 also alludes to it4 ,for he says that the ,jews sent men all over the world to proclaim that the disciples stole the ,body at night2#cbb so there can be no doubt that some such story existed4 ,footnote #cbb3 ,matt4 #bh4 #ae2 ,justin1 ,dial41 #ajh4 ,but its weakness is self-evident4 ,for if the soldiers 7who were probably posted on the ,saturday evening1 and thus not known to the women7 were1 as they said1 asleep at the time1 how could they tell whether the disciples had stolen the ,body1 or whether ,christ had come forth of ,his own accord8 ,moreover that ,roman soldiers1 with their strict discipline1 who were put there on purpose to keep the ,body1 should really have gone to sleep1 and allowed it to be stolen1 is most improbable4 ,and though it seems unlikely that they could have been bribed to say they were asleep1 if they were not1 as it was a capital offence2 we must remember that they were already liable to death2 since they had left the tomb1 and the ,body was gone4 ,so whether they were asleep1 or awake1 at the time mattered little4 ,and in any case1 the fact of their having left it 7which is plain from all the accounts7 shows that something very extraordinary must have happened4 ,all1 then1 that the story proves is this 7but this it does prove unquestionably71 that though the ,body was guarded1 yet when it was wanted it was gone1 and could not be found4 ,and this is a strong argument not only against the ,vision ,theory1 but against every theory except the ,christian one4 ,for when the ,resurrection was first announced1 the most obvious and decisive answer would have been for the ,jews to have produced the dead ,body2 and their not doing this strongly supports the ,christian account4 ,indeed1 the empty tomb1 together with the failure of all attempts to account for it1 was doubtless one of the reasons why the ,apostles gained so many converts the first day they preached the ,resurrection4#cbc ,footnote #cbc3 ,acts #b4 #da4 ,lastly1 we must remember that this gaining of converts1 i4e41 the founding of ,christianity1 is1 after all1 the great fact that has to be explained4 ,and even if the ,vision ,theory could account for the ,apostles themselves believing that they had seen ,christ1 it would not account for their being able to convince others of this belief1 especially if the ,body was still in the tomb4 ,for a mere vision1 like a ghost story1 would begin and end in nothing2 and if the ,resurrection also began in nothing1 how are we to account for its ending in so much8 ,summing up these arguments1 then1 we conclude that the ,vision ,theory is most improbable in any case2 and can only be accepted at all by admitting that nearly the whole of our accounts are not only untrue1 but intentionally so4 ,but then it is quite needless4 ,its object was to explain the alleged ,resurrection without disputing the veracity of the writers1 and this it is quite unable to do4 ,in short1 if the writers honestly believed the accounts as we have them1 or indeed any other accounts at all resembling them1 the ,vision ,theory is out of the question4 ,it does not even account satisfactorily for the one appearance1 that to ,st4 ,paul1 which it might be thought capable of explaining4 ,for his companions as well as himself saw the ,light and 7apparently7 heard the ,voice1 though not the actual words4#cbd ,and how could a subjective vision of ,st4 ,paul have thus affected all his companions8 ,moreover physical blindness does not result from such a vision1 and to say that in his case the wish was father to the thought1 and that his expectation and hope of seeing ,christ eventually made him think that he did see ,him1 is absurd4 ,for even when he did see ,him1 he did not recognise ,him2 but had to ask ,who art ,thou1 ,lord8 ,here then was the case of an avowed enemy1 and a man of great intellectual power1 who was converted1 and that against his will1 solely by the appearance of ,christ4 ,and as he had access to all existing evidence on both sides1 and had everything to lose and nothing to gain from the change1 his conversion alone is a strong argument in favour of the ,resurrection1 more especially as the fact itself is beyond dispute4 ,footnote #cbd3 ,acts #i4 #g2 #bb4 #i2 #bf4 #ac1 #ad4 7#d47 ,the ,theory of real visions4 ,before passing on1 we must just glance at a modification of the ,vision ,theory1 that has been suggested in recent years2 which is that the ,apostles saw real visions1 miraculously sent by ,god1 to persuade them to go on preaching the ,gospel4 ,and no doubt this theory avoids many of the difficulties of the ordinary ,vision ,theory1 especially in regard to the appearances beginning so soon as the third day1 their not being expected1 and their occurring simultaneously4 ,but it has even greater difficulties of its own4 ,for it admits the supernatural1 and yet these divinely sent visions were such as to mislead the ,apostles1 and to make them think that ,christ's ,body had risen from the grave1 and saw no corruption1 when in reality it was still decaying in the tomb4 ,and this alone is fatal to the theory4 ,for if ,god gave a supernatural vision1 it would certainly be to convince men of what was true1 not of what was false4 ,and even a real miracle is easier to believe1 than that ,god should found ,his ,church on a false one4 ,moreover supernatural visions are just as unable as natural ones to account for the facts recorded1 such as the rolling away of the stone1 the empty tomb1 the holding of ,christ by ,his feet1 or the disappearance of the food4 ,while the great difficulty as to what became of the dead ,body1 applies to this as much as to the ordinary ,vision ,theory4 7,d47 ,,the ,,swoon ,,theory4 ,lastly we come to the ,swoon ,theory4 ,this would be to deny the reasoning of the witnesses2 and say that though they saw ,christ alive after ,his ,crucifixion1 they did not draw the right conclusion in thinking that ,he had risen from the dead1 since as a matter of fact ,he had never died1 but had only fainted on the ,cross4 ,and in support of this1 it is urged that death after crucifixion did not generally occur so quickly1 since ,pilate marvelled if ,he were already dead2 and that ,he might easily have been mistaken for dead1 as no accurate tests were known in those days4 ,while the blood coming out of ,his side is also appealed to1 because blood does not flow from a dead body4 ,moreover1 as ,he was then placed in a cool rock cave1 with aromatic spices1 ,he would probably recover consciousness2 when ,he would come forth and visit ,his friends1 and ask for something to eat3 which is what ,he did according to ,st4 ,luke4 ,and they1 superstitious men1 looking upon their ,master as in some sense ,divine1 and perhaps half expecting the ,resurrection1 would at once conclude that ,he had risen from the dead2 especially if they had already heard that the tomb was empty4 ,and the chief argument in favour of the theory is1 of course1 the same as that in favour of the ,vision ,theory4 ,it professes to account for the recorded appearances1 without admitting either the truth of the ,resurrection1 or deliberate falsehood on the part of the witnesses2 who1 according to this theory1 were themselves mistaken in thinking that ,christ had risen from the dead1 when in reality ,he had never died4 ,they could not therefore have helped in restoring ,him2 ,he must have recovered by ,himself4 ,this is essential to the theory2 so it is quite unlike a case recorded by ,josephus1 where a man who had been crucified1 and taken down alive1 was gradually restored by a doctor4#cbe ,footnote #cbe3 ,josephus1 ,life1 #ge4 ,how then would this theory suit the facts of the case8 ,while admitting its possibility1 it is hard to find words to express its great improbability4 ,it has immense difficulties1 many of them peculiarly its own4 ,and first as to ,christ ,himself4 ,he must have been extremely exhausted after all the ill-treatment ,he had received1 yet ,he is supposed not only to have recovered consciousness1 but to have come out of the tomb by ,himself1 rolling away the large stone4 ,and then1 instead of creeping about weak and ill1 and requiring nursing and medical treatment1 ,he must have walked over twelve miles--and this with pierced feet#cbf--to ,emmaus and back4 ,and the same evening ,he must have appeared to ,his disciples so completely recovered that they1 instead of looking upon ,him as still half-dead1 thought that ,he had conquered death1 and was indeed the ,prince of ,life4 ,all this implies such a rapid recovery as is quite incredible4 ,footnote #cbf3 ,the feet being pierced is often disputed1 but ,st4 ,luke 7who probably knew more about crucifixion than we do7 evidently thought they were2 for he records ,christ as saying1 ,see my hands and my feet that it is ,i myself1 which implies that ,his hands and feet would identify ,him4 ,next as to the piercing of ,his side with a spear4#cbg ,this is recorded by an eye-witness1 and would doubtless of itself have caused death1 though ,st4 ,john's statement that ,he was dead already seems the more probable4 ,nor did the blood coming out1 in any way1 disprove this4 ,for blood 7as long as it remains liquid7 will of course flow out downwards from any body1 just as other liquids would do4 ,only when a person is alive1 the action of the heart will make it flow out upwards as well4 ,footnote #cbg3 ,john #ai4 #cd4 ,again1 it is most unlikely that so many persons1 both friends and foes1 should have mistaken ,christ for dead4 ,yet according to this theory the soldiers entrusted with the execution1 who must have had a good deal of experience in such matters2 the centurion1 who was sent for by ,pilate on purpose to ascertain this very point2 the ,christians1 who took down the ,body and wrapped it in linen cloths2 and the ,jews1 who are not likely to have left their ,victim without making sure of the fact1 must all have honestly believed that ,christ was dead when ,he was not4 ,moreover1 the tomb was carefully guarded by ,his enemies for the express purpose of securing the ,body4 ,how then did they let it escape8 ,if they were not asleep at the time1 they must either have done this willingly1 because they were bribed2 or unwillingly1 because they could not help it1 being overcome by some supernatural ,power2 and either alternative is fatal to the ,swoon ,theory4 ,this theory also requires not only that the ,apostles should have been mistaken in thinking that ,christ had risen from the dead1 but that ,christ ,himself should have countenanced the mistake2 or ,he would have explained the truth to ,his disciples4 ,he is thus made to be a deceiver instead of ,his ,apostles1 which all will admit to be most improbable4 ,and then1 what became of ,him afterwards8 ,if ,he died again within a few weeks1 ,his disciples could scarcely have thought ,him the ,prince of ,life1 who had the keys of ,death and of ,hades2#cbh and if ,he continued to live1 where did ,he go to8 ,moreover ,he must have died again at some time1 and ,his real tomb is sure to have been much venerated by ,his followers2 and it would have prevented any belief in the ,ascension4 ,yet as said before 7,chapter ,,xv471 this seems to have formed a part of ,christian instruction from the very first4 ,footnote #cbh3 ,acts #c4 #ae2 ,rev4 #a4 #ah4 ,but perhaps the chief argument against this theory is that it does not account for many of the actual facts recorded2 such as ,christ passing through closed doors1 ,his vanishing at pleasure1 and ,his ,ascension4 ,these details present no difficulty on the ,vision ,theory1 nor on that of deliberate falsehood2 but they are inconsistent with the present one4 ,and though it accounts to some extent for the empty tomb2 it does not account for the angels being there1 announcing the ,resurrection4 ,nor does it account for the grave-clothes being so carefully left behind4 ,for if ,christ had come out of the tomb by ,himself1 ,he could scarcely have left ,his clothes behind2 not to mention the difficulty of taking them off1 caused by the adhesive myrrh1 which would have stuck them together1 and to the ,body4 ,these grave-clothes are thus fatal to this1 as to every other theory1 except the ,christian one2 yet it was a simple matter of fact1 as to which there could be no possible mistake4 ,either the clothes were there1 or else the persons who said they saw them were telling a falsehood4 ,moreover1 in any case ,christ could not have walked to ,emmaus and back1 or appeared to the ,apostles1 or to anyone else1 in ,his grave-clothes1 so ,he must have obtained some others1 and how did ,he get them8 ,his enemies are not likely to have supplied them1 and if ,his friends did1 they must have been aware of the fraud4 ,on the whole then1 we decide that the ,swoon ,theory1 like the ,vision ,theory1 is very improbable in any case1 and only tenable at all by supposing a large part of our narratives to be intentionally false4 ,but then it is quite needless4 7,e47 ,,conclusion4 ,before concluding this chapter a few remarks may be made on the alleged difficulties of the ,christian theory4 ,there are only two of any importance4 ,the first is that the ,resurrection would be a miracle1 and probably nine out of ten men who disbelieve it1 do so for this reason4 ,it is not that the evidence for it is insufficient 7they have perhaps never examined it7 but that no conceivable evidence would be sufficient to establish such an event4 ,miracles1 they say1 are incredible1 they cannot happen1 and that settles the point2 for it is of course easier to believe any explanation1 visions1 swoons1 or anything else1 than the occurrence of that which cannot happen4 ,but we have already admitted1 in ,chapter ,,vii41 that miracles are not incredible4 ,and though no doubt1 under ordinary circumstances1 a dead man coming to life again would be so extremely improbable as to be practically incredible2 yet these were not ordinary circumstances1 and ,christ was not an ordinary man4 ,on the contrary1 as we shall see1 ,he was an absolutely unique ,man1 claiming moreover to be ,divine1 and having a mass of powerful evidence both from ,his own ,character1 from previous ,prophecies1 and from subsequent ,history1 to support ,his claims4 ,therefore that ,he should rise from the dead1 as a proof that these claims were well-founded1 does not seem so very improbable after all4 ,the other difficulty refers to ,christ's not appearing publicly to the ,jews4 ,why1 it is asked1 did ,he only appear to ,his own disciples8 ,surely this is very suspicious4 ,if ,he really did rise from the dead1 and wished the world to believe it1 why did ,he not settle the point by going publicly into ,jerusalem8 ,but we cannot feel sure that this would have settled the point4 ,no doubt the ,jews who saw ,him would have been convinced1 but the nation as a whole might1 or might not1 have accepted ,christianity4 ,if they did not1 saying for instance it was due to a pretender1 it would have been worse than useless4 ,while if they did1 the ,romans would very likely have looked upon it as a national insurrection1 and its progress would have been more than ever difficult4 ,it would also have greatly weakened the force of ,prophecy2 since1 in the absence of ancient manuscripts1 people might think that the old ,jewish prophecies had been tampered with1 to make them suit their ,christian interpretation4 ,but now these prophecies1 having been preserved by men who are opposed to ,christianity1 are above suspicion4 ,moreover1 to get the world to believe in the ,resurrection required not only evidence1 but missionaries1 that is to say1 men who were so absolutely convinced of its truth1 as to be willing to spend their whole lives in witnessing for it1 in all lands and at all costs4 ,and the chief object of the appearances may have been to produce such men2 and it is obvious that 7apart from a miraculous conversion like ,st4 ,paul's7 there could not have been more than a few of them4 ,for only a few could have conversed with ,christ1 and eaten with ,him after ,his death1 so as to be quite certain that ,he was then alive2 only a few could have known ,him so intimately before1 as to be quite certain that it was really ,he1 and only a few had loved ,him so dearly as to be willing to give up everything for ,his sake4 ,in short1 there were only a few suitable witnesses available4 ,and ,christ's frequently appearing to these few--the chosen witnesses as they are called#cbi--;in the private and intimate manner recorded in the ,gospels1 was evidently more likely to turn them into ardent missionaries 7which it actually did7 than any public appearance4 ,indeed it so often happens that what everybody should do1 nobody does2 that it may be doubted whether ,christ's publicly appearing to a number of persons in ,jerusalem would have induced even one of them to have faced a life of suffering1 and a death of martyrdom1 in spreading the news4 ,this objection1 then1 cannot be maintained4 ,footnote #cbi3 ,acts #aj4 #da4 ,in conclusion1 it seems scarcely necessary to sum up the arguments in this chapter4 ,we have discussed at some length the veracity1 knowledge1 investigation1 and reasoning of the first witnesses of the ,resurrection2 and as we have seen1 not one of these points can be fairly doubted4 ,in fact the evidence in favour of each is overwhelming4 ,therefore the alternative theories--the ,falsehood1 the ,legend1 the ,vision1 and the ,swoon ,theory--which are founded on denying these points1 are all untenable4 ,and this greatly supports the conclusion we arrived at in the last chapter2 so that combining the two2 we have an extremely strong argument in favour of the ,resurrection of ,christ4 ,,chapter ,,xix4 ,,that ,,the ,,other ,,new ,,testament ,,miracles ,,are ,,probably ,,true4 7,a47 ,,their ,,credibility4 ,they present few difficulties2 the casting out of evil spirits4 7,b47 ,,their ,,truthfulness4 7#a47 ,general marks of truthfulness4 7#b47 ,special marks of truthfulness4 7,c47 ,,their ,,publicity4 7#a47 ,they occurred in public4 7#b47 ,they were publicly appealed to4 7#c47 ,they were never disputed4 7#d47 ,the silence of classical writers4 7,d47 ,,conclusion4 ,futile attempts to explain them away1 the subject of modern miracles4 ,having discussed in the last two chapters the ,resurrection of ,christ1 we pass on now to the other ,new ,testament miracles1 and will consider in turn their credibility1 their truthfulness1 and their publicity4 7,a47 ,,their ,,credibility4 ,now with one exception1 the casting out of evil spirits1 the miracles present scarcely any difficulty provided miracles at all are credible1 which we have already admitted4 ,most of them1 especially those of healing1 were very suitable from a moral point of view1 while that they were meant to confirm ,christ's teaching and claims is beyond dispute4 ,not only do all the ,evangelists declare this1 but ,christ ,himself though ,he refused to work a miracle when challenged to do so--,he would not work one to order1 as we might say--yet appealed to ,his public miracles in the most emphatic manner4 ,thus1 when ,st4 ,john the ,baptist sent messengers to inquire whether ,he was the ,messiah1 ,his only answer was1 ',go your way1 and tell ,john the things which ye do hear and see2 the blind receive their sight1 and the lame walk1 the lepers are cleansed1 and the deaf hear1 and the dead are raised up1'#ccj etc4 ,and this is specially important because ,christians would not have invented an incident which shows that ,christ's own messenger had 7apparently7 lost faith in ,him4 ,yet it is not easy to separate his question from the reply which it received2 while if we admit that ,christ gave this reply1 it seems to settle the question as to ,his working miracles4 ,footnote #ccj3 ,matt4 #aa4 #d2 ,luke #g4 #bb2 see also ,mark #b4 #aj2 ,john #e4 #cf4 ,and ,he afterwards condemned ,chorazin1 and other cities1 in the strongest terms1 because1 although ,he had done so many miracles there1 they had not repented2 which again shows both the publicity of the miracles1 and their intended evidential value4#cca ,and this passage also is very important1 since its genuineness is confirmed by the fact that not a single miracle is recorded as having been worked at ,chorazin4 ,yet1 if the ,evangelists 7or anyone else7 had invented the saying1 they would surely have invented some miracles there to justify it4 ,if on the other hand1 they did not invent it1 and the words were actually spoken by ,christ1 is it conceivable that ,he should have blamed these cities for not believing on ,him in spite of ,his miracles1 if ,he had done no miracles8 ,footnote #cca3 ,matt4 #aa4 #ba-bd2 ,luke #aj4 #ac-ae4 ,both this passage1 and the last1 belong to ,q1 the supposed earliest source of our ,gospels4 ,we pass on now to the casting out of evil spirits1 which implies that persons may sometimes be possessed by such spirits1 and this is often thought to be a difficulty4 ,but though our ignorance on the subject is undoubtedly great1 there is nothing incredible here4 ,for we have already admitted the influence of such spirits 7,chapter ,,xii471 and what is called possession is merely an extreme form of influence4 ,indeed1 the accounts of mesmerism at the present day1 though they cannot always be trusted1 seem to show that even one man may so entirely possess the mind and will of another as to make him do whatever he wishes4 ,and it is certainly no more difficult to believe that this power may in some cases be exercised by an evil spirit4 ,with regard to the outward symptoms mentioned in the ,gospels1 they seem to have resembled certain forms of madness2 though1 as the patients are now kept under restraint in civilised countries1 they have not the same notoriety4 ,but it may be said1 why ascribe this madness to an evil spirit8 ,but why not8 ,madness often follows the frequent yielding to certain temptations1 such as drunkenness or impurity2 and that it may really be due to the action of an evil spirit 7an unclean spirit is the significant term used in the ,gospels7 and be the appropriate punishment for yielding to his temptation1 is certainty not incredible4 ,and if so1 considering the immoral state of the world at the time of ,christ1 we cannot be surprised at such cases being far more common then than now4 ,and the writers1 it may be added1 do not 7like some early nations7 attribute all maladies to evil spirits1 for we read of men having fever and palsy1 as well as being blind1 lame1 deaf1 and dumb1 without any hint of its being due to an evil spirit2 so they were quite able to distinguish between the two4 ,there is1 however1 one instance--the swine at ,gadara--of animals being thus afflicted1#ccb which undoubtedly forms a difficulty1 and ,i have never seen a satisfactory explanation of it4 ,but still our ignorance about animals1 combined with the fact that they resemble man in so many respects1 prevents us from saying that it is absolutely incredible4 ,and as to the alleged injustice of the miracle 7which is often objected to7 we must remember that if ,christ were the ,divine ,being ,he claimed to be1 the world and all it contained belonged to ,him2 so ,his allowing the swine to be destroyed by evil spirits was no more unjust to their owners1 than if ,he had allowed them to die by disease4 ,footnote #ccb3 ,matt4 #h4 #cj-cb2 ,mark #e4 #aa-ac2 ,luke #h4 #cb-cc4 ,lastly1 all the ,christian miracles lose a great deal of their improbability when we consider the unique position of ,christ4 ,and what would be incredible1 if told of another man who had done nothing to alter the history of the world1 may easily be credible of ,him4 ,we decide1 then1 that all the ,new ,testament miracles are credible3 we have next to consider whether they are true4 7,b47 ,,their ,,truthfulness4 ,now the testimony in favour of these miracles is very similar to that in favour of the ,resurrection of ,christ4 ,they are recorded by the same writers and in the same books1 and everything points to these accounts being trustworthy4 ,to put it shortly1 the writers had no motive for recording the miracles unless they believed them to be true1 and they had ample means of finding out whether they were true or not2 while many of them are such as cannot possibly be explained by want of investigation1 or an error in reasoning4 ,moreover1 as we shall see1 they contain numerous marks of truthfulness4 ,these may be divided into two classes1 general1 or those which concern the miracles as a whole2 and special1 or those which concern individual miracles1 or sayings about them2 and we will consider each in turn4 7#a47 ,general marks of truthfulness4 ,among these we may notice first the extremely simple and graphic way in which many of the miracles are described1 such as the curing of the man who was born blind1 with the repeated questioning of the man himself4#ccc ,then there is the raising of the daughter of ,jairus1 and the curing of the man who was deaf and had a difficulty in speaking1 both of which are described with the most minute details1 including the actual ,aramaic words spoken by ,christ4#ccd ,it is difficult to think that they do not come from eye-witnesses4 ,and the same may be said of a large number of the miracles4 ,footnote #ccc3 ,john #i4 #h-cd4 ,footnote #ccd3 ,mark #e4 #da2 #g4 #cd4 ,secondly1 the kind of miracles ascribed to ,christ seem 7as far as we can judge7 to be worthy of ,him4 ,they were not for ,his own benefit1 but for that of other people1 and they are a great contrast to the imaginary miracles ascribed to ,him in the ,apocryphal ,gospels1 most of which are extremely childish4 ,when for instance ,christ was a boy1 we read of ,his making clay birds fly2 of ,his turning children into kids for refusing to play with ,him2 and of ,his cursing another boy who had run against ,him1 and who in consequence fell down dead4#cce ,how different such miracles are from those in our ,gospels scarcely needs pointing out4 ,nor is the case of the barren fig-tree1 so often objected to1 an exception4 ,for the tree itself could have felt no injury1 and as far as we know1 its destruction injured no one else4 ,footnote #cce3 ,gospel of the ,infancy1 chapters xv41 xvii41 xix4 ,thirdly1 the miracles are closely connected with the moral teaching of ,christ1 and it is difficult either to separate the two1 or to believe the whole account to be fictitious4 ,his wonderful works1 and ,his wonderful words involve each other1 and form together an harmonious whole1 which is too life-like to be imaginary4 ,indeed1 a life of ,christ without ,his miracles would be as unintelligible as a life of ,napoleon without his campaigns4 ,and it is interesting to note in this connection that our earliest ,gospel1 ,st4 ,mark's1 contains 7in proportion to its length7 the most miracles4 ,as we should expect1 it was ,christ's miracles1 rather than ,his moral teaching1 which first attracted attention4 ,fourthly1 the miracles were as a rule miracles of healing3 that is to say1 of restoring something to its natural state1 such as making blind eyes see2 and not doing something unnatural1 such as giving a man a third eye4 ,miracles of either kind would of course show superhuman power2 but the former are obviously the more suited to the ,god of ,nature4 ,and this naturalness of the miracles1 as we may call it1 seems to many a strong argument in their favour4 ,fifthly1 there were an immense number of miracles1 the ones recorded being mere examples of those that were actually worked4 ,thus in ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel we are told that on one occasion1 ,christ healed many who were sick with divers diseases2 on another that ,he had healed so many1 that those with plagues pressed upon ,him to touch ,him2 and on another that everywhere ,he went1 into the villages1 cities1 or country1 the sick were laid out1 so that they might touch ,his garment1 and as many as touched ,him were made whole4#ccf ,footnote #ccf3 ,mark #a4 #cd2 #c4 #aj2 #f4 #ef ,sixthly1 there was a great variety in the miracles4 ,they were of various kinds1 worked in various places1 before various witnesses1 and with various details and characteristics4 ,they occurred in public as well as in private2 in the towns as well as in the country2 at sea as well as on land2 in groups as well as singly2 at a distance as well as near2 after due notice as well as suddenly2 when watched by enemies as well as among friends2 unsolicited as well as when asked for2 in times of joy1 and in times of sorrow4 ,they were worked on the blind as well as the deaf2 the lame as well as the dumb2 the leprous as well as the palsied2 the dead as well as the living4 ,they concerned men as well as women2 the rich as well as the poor2 the educated as well as the ignorant2 the young as well as the old2 multitudes as well as individuals2 ,gentiles as well as ,jews2 nature as well as man--in fact1 according to our accounts1 it is difficult to imagine any miracles that could have been more absolutely convincing4 ,seventhly1 the miracles of ,christ were 7with trifling exceptions7 worked suddenly4 ,they were not like gradual cures1 or slow recoveries1 but they were done in a moment4 ,the blind man immediately received his sight2 the palsied immediately took up his couch3 the leper was straightway cleansed2 the infirm was straightway made whole2 the dead immediately rose up1 etc4#ccg ,this was evidently a striking feature in the miracles1 and the ,evangelists seem to have been much impressed by it4 ,footnote #ccg3 ,luke #ah4 #dc2 #e4 #be2 ,mark #a4 #db2 ,matt4 #h4 #c2 ,john #e4 #i2 ,luke #h4 #ee4 ,eighthly1 many of the miracles were of a permanent character1 and such as could be examined again and again4 ,when1 for instance1 a man who had long been lame1 or deaf1 or blind1 was restored to health1 the villagers1 as well as the man himself1 could certify to the cure for years to come4 ,and miracles such as these are obviously of much greater value than what we may call momentary miracles 7such as ,christ's calming the storm7 where the only possible evidence is that of the actual spectators4 ,lastly1 and this is very remarkable1 the ,evangelists nearly always relate that ,christ worked ,his miracles by ,his own authority3 while the ,old ,testament prophets1 with scarcely an exception1 worked theirs by calling upon ,god4 ,take for instance the similar cases of raising a widow's son4#cch ,elijah prays earnestly that ,god would restore the child to life2 ,christ merely gives the command1 ,i say unto thee1 ,arise4 ,the difference between the two is very striking1 and is of itself a strong argument in favour of ,christ's miracles2 for had the ,evangelists invented them1 they would certainly have made them resemble those of the ,old ,testament4 ,but instead of this1 they describe them as worked in a new and unprecedented manner1 and one which must at the time have seemed most presumptuous4 ,footnote #cch3 #a ,kings #ag4 #ba2 ,luke #g4 #ad4 ,the ,gospel miracles then1 from the simple and graphic way in which they are described2 their not containing anything childish or unworthy2 their close connection with the moral teaching of ,christ2 their naturalness2 their number2 their variety2 their suddenness2 their permanence2 and above all from the authoritative way in which they are said to have been worked2 have every appearance of being truth fully recorded4 7#b47 ,special marks of truthfulness4 ,moreover several individual miracles1 and sayings about them1 are of such a kind as could scarcely have been invented4 ,take1 for instance1 the raising of the daughter of ,jairus4#cci ,now of course anyone1 wishing to magnify the power of ,christ1 might have invented this or any other miracle4 ,but if so1 he is not likely to have put into the mouth of ,christ ,himself the words1 ,the child is not dead but sleepeth4 ,these words seem to imply that ,christ did not consider it a miracle2 and though we may be able to explain them1 by the similar words used in regard to ,lazarus1#cdj they certainly bear the marks of genuineness4 ,footnote #cci3 ,mark #e4 #ci4 ,footnote #cdj3 ,john #aa4 #aa4 ,we are also told1 more than once1 that ,christ's power of working miracles was conditional on the faith of the person to be healed1 so that in one place ,he could do scarcely any miracles because of their unbelief4#cda ,this is not the sort of legend that would have grown up round a glorified ,hero2 it bears unmistakably the mark of truthfulness4 ,but then if the writer had good means of knowing that ,christ could do no miracles in one place1 because of their unbelief2 had he not equally good means of knowing that ,christ could1 and did1 do miracles in other places8 ,footnote #cda3 ,matt4 #ac4 #eh2 ,mark #f4 #e-f2 ,luke #ah4 #db4 ,and what shall we say of ,christ's frequent commands to keep ,his miracles secret8#cdb ,there were doubtless reasons for this in every case2 but ,christ's followers1 who presumably recorded the miracles in order to get them known1 are not likely to have invented1 and put into ,his mouth the command to keep them secret4 ,nor is ,christ likely to have given it1 had there been no miracles to keep secret4 ,nor again is anyone likely to have added1 unless it was the case1 that the command was generally disobeyed4 ,this seems surprising1 yet it is very true to human nature that a man who had been suddenly cured of a long complaint1 should insist on talking about it4 ,footnote #cdb3 ,e4g41 ,mark #c4 #ab2 #e4 #dc2 #g4 #cf4 ,in the same way the discussions about working miracles on the ,sabbath ,day have a very genuine tone about them and it is difficult to imagine them to be inventions4#cdc ,yet such discussions could not have arisen1 if there had been no miracles on the ,sabbath1 or any other day4 ,footnote #cdc3 ,mark #c4 #a-e2 ,luke #ac4 #aj-ag2 ,john #e4 #i-af2 #i4 #ad-af4 ,then there is the striking passage where ,christ warned ,his hearers that even working miracles in ,his name1 without a good life1 would not ensure their salvation4#cdd ,this occurs in one of ,his most characteristic discourses1 the ,sermon on the ,mount1 and it is hard to doubt its genuineness4 ,but even if we do1 it is not likely that ,christ's followers would have invented such a warning1 if as a matter of fact no one ever did work miracles in ,his name4 ,footnote #cdd3 ,matt4 #g4 #bb4 ,and much the same may be said of another passage where ,christ is recorded as saying that all believers would be able to work miracles4#cde ,if ,he said so1 ,he must surely have been able to work them ,himself2 and if ,he did not say so1 ,his followers must have been able to work them1 or their inventing such a promise would merely have shown that they were not believers4 ,on the whole1 then1 as said before1 the accounts of the ,new ,testament miracles have every appearance of being thoroughly truthful4 ,footnote #cde3 ,mark #af4 #ag4 7,c47 ,,their ,,publicity4 ,but the most important point has still to be noticed1 which is the alleged publicity of these miracles2 and as this renders the testimony in their favour peculiarly strong1 we must examine it at some length4 7#a47 ,they occurred in public4 ,to begin with1 according to our ,gospels1 all the miracles of ,christ occurred during ,his public ministry1 when ,he was well known1 that at ,cana being definitely called the first4#cdf ,and as they were meant to confirm ,his teaching and claims1 it was only natural for them to begin when ,his teaching began4 ,but if they had been invented1 or had grown up as legends1 some at least would have been ascribed to ,his earlier years 7as they are in the ,apocryphal ,gospels7 when there was less chance of their being disputed4 ,footnote #cdf3 ,john #b4 #aa4 ,moreover1 many of them are stated to have been worked openly1 and before crowds of people1 including ,scribes1 ,pharisees1 and lawyers4#cdg ,and the names of the places where they occurred1 and even of the persons concerned1 are given in some cases4 ,among these were ,jairus1 a ruler of the synagogue2 ,lazarus1 a well known man at ,bethany2 ,malchus1 a servant of the ,high ,priest2 and the centurion at ,capernaum1 who1 though his name is not given1 must have been well known to the ,jews1 as he had built them a synagogue4 ,while the miracles recorded in the ,acts concern such prominent persons as the proconsul1 ,sergius ,paulus1 at ,cyprus1 and the chief man1 ,publius1 at ,malta4 ,and it is hard to overestimate the immense difficulty of thus asserting public miracles1 with the names of persons1 and places1 if none occurred2 yet the early ,christians asserted such miracles from the very first4 ,footnote #cdg3 ,e4g41 ,luke #e4 #ag-ba4 ,take for instance the feeding of the five thousand1 near the ,lake of ,galilee4 ,this is recorded in the earliest ,gospel1 ,st4 ,mark's1 and must therefore have been written down very soon after the event1 when a large number of the five thousand were still alive4 ,now is it conceivable that anyone would have ventured to make up such an account1 even twenty years afterwards1 if nothing of the kind had occurred8 ,and if he had done so1 would not his story have been instantly refuted8 ,or take the case of healing the centurion's servant at ,capernaum4 ,this1 as before said1 belongs to ,q1 the supposed source common to ,matthew and ,luke1 and admitted by most critics to date from before ,a4,d4 #ej4 ,and how could such a story have been current within twenty years of the event1 if nothing of the kind had occurred8 ,it is also declared that the miracles were much talked about at the time1 and caused widespread astonishment4 ,the people marvelled at them1 they wondered1 they were amazed1 they were beyond measure astonished1 there had been nothing like them since the world began4#cdh ,the miracles were in fact the talk of the whole neighbourhood4 ,and we are told that in consequence several of those which occurred at ,jerusalem were at once officially investigated by the ,jewish rulers1 who made the most searching inquiries about them2#cdi and in two instances1 at least1 publicly admitted them to be true4#cej ,and this also is not likely to have been asserted1 unless it was the case2 and not likely to have been the case1 if there had been no miracles4 ,footnote #cdh3 ,matt4 #i4 #cc2 #ae4 #ca2 ,mark #e4 #db2 #g4 #cg2 ,john #i4 #cb4 ,footnote #cdi3 ,e4g41 ,john #i4 #ac-cd2 ,acts #d4 #e-bb4 ,footnote #cej3 ,john #aa4 #dg2 ,acts #d4 #af4 7#b47 ,they were publicly appealed to4 ,moreover1 these public miracles were publicly appealed to by the early ,christians4 ,according to the ,acts1 this was done in the very first public address1 that at ,pentecost1 by ,st4 ,peter1 who reminds his hearers that they had themselves seen the miracles 7even as ye yourselves know71 as well as in one other speech at least4#cea ,and this is important1 because even those critics1 who deny the genuineness of the ,acts1 yet admit that these speeches date from a very early time4 ,and if so1 it shows conclusively that some of ,christ's immediate followers not only believed themselves that ,he had worked miracles1 but spoke as if their opponents believed it too4 ,footnote #cea3 ,acts #b4 #bb2 #aj4 #ch4 ,that they are not more frequently alluded to in the ,acts is not surprising1 when we remember that1 according to the writer1--and he was an eye-witness in some cases1 as they occur in the ,we sections1#ceb--the ,apostles themselves worked miracles4 ,there was thus no occasion for them to appeal to those of ,christ as proving the truth of what they preached2 their own miracles being quite sufficient to convince anyone who was open to this kind of proof4 ,but still the important fact remains that in the first recorded ,christian address the public miracles of ,christ were publicly appealed to4 ,and this was within a few months of their occurrence2 and at ,jerusalem1 where the statement1 if untrue1 could have been more easily refuted than anywhere else4 ,footnote #ceb3 ,acts #af4 #ah1 #bf2 #bh4 #f1 #h-i4 ,passing on to ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles2 it is true that they do not contain any reference to ,christ's miracles1 except of course the ,resurrection4 ,but as they were not written to convert heathens1 but to instruct those who were already ,christians1 there is nothing surprising in this2 and they do not mention any of ,his parables either4 ,on the other hand1 they do contain direct reference to ,apostolic miracles4 ,st4 ,paul in two of his undisputed ,epistles positively asserts that he had worked miracles himself2 and he uses the same three words1 signs1 wonders1 and mighty works1 which are used in the ,gospels to describe the miracles of ,christ4#cec ,footnote #cec3 ,rom4 #ae4 #ah1 #ai2 #b ,cor4 #ab4 #ab4 ,the second passage is extremely important1 since he speaks of them as the signs of an apostle2 and calls upon his opponents at ,corinth to admit that he was an apostle because he had worked these miracles4 ,and this implies not only that the miracles were done in public1 but that his readers as well as himself believed that the power of working miracles belonged to all the ,apostles4 ,and it will be noticed that he is addressing the very persons among whom he declares he had worked the miracles2 which makes it almost inconceivable that his claim was unfounded1 quite apart from the difficulty of believing that such a man as ,st4 ,paul would wilfully make a false statement4 ,from all this it follows that the first preachers of ,christianity not only appealed to ,christ's miracles2 but also to their own1 in support of their claims4 ,and1 as just said1 how they could have done so1 if they worked no miracles1 is not easy to understand4 ,we next come to a class of writings where we should expect to find ,christ's miracles alluded to1 and these are the first ,christian ,apologies4 ,nor are we disappointed4 ,the three earliest1 of which we have any knowledge1 were by ,quadratus1 ,aristides1 and ,justin2 the first two being presented to the ,emperor ,hadrian1 when he visited ,athens1 ,a4,d4 #abe4 ,quadratus1 in a passage preserved by ,eusebius1 lays stress on what we have called the permanent character of ,christ's miracles4 ,he says3 ',the works of our ,saviour were always conspicuous1 for they were real2 both they that were healed and they that were raised from the dead were seen1 not only when they were healed or raised1 but for a long time afterwards2 not only whilst ,he dwelt on this earth1 but also after ,his departure1 and for a good while after it1 insomuch that some of them have reached to our times4'#ced ,footnote #ced3 ,eusebius1 ,hist41 iv4 #c4 ,aristides bases his defence of ,christianity on its moral character1 and does not appeal to any public miracles1 though as before said 7,chapter ,,xiv47 he asserts the ,divinity1 ,incarnation1 ,virgin-birth1 ,resurrection1 and ,ascension of ,christ4 ,lastly1 ,justin1 about ,a4,d4 #aej1 not only specifies many of ,christ's miracles2 but also says in general terms that ,he 'healed those who were maimed1 and deaf1 and lame in body from their birth1 causing them to leap1 to hear1 and to see by ,his word4 ,and having raised the dead1 and causing them to live1 by ,his deeds ,he compelled the men who lived at that time to recognise ,him4 ,but though they saw such works1 they asserted it was magical art4'#cee ,justin1 however1 does not base his argument on miracles1 but on prophecy1 because1 as he tells us again1 the former might be ascribed to magic4 ,footnote #cee3 ,dial41 #fi2 ,apol4 #a4 #cj4 ,but still1 the actual occurrence of the miracles1 he evidently thought to be indisputable4 ,he even says that the ,emperor and ,senate can learn for themselves that ,christ worked miracles 7healing the lame1 dumb1 and blind1 cleansing the lepers1 and raising the dead7 by consulting the ,acts of ,pilate4#cef ,and this certainly implies that such a document1 whether genuine or not1 then existed in ,rome2 and that it contained an account of the miracles4 ,thus two out of the three earliest writers in defence of ,christianity appealed to ,christ's miracles1 in the most public manner possible1 when addressing the ,emperor4 ,footnote #cef3 ,apol4 #a4 #dh1 #ce4 7#c47 ,they were never disputed4 ,but now comes another important point4 ,though these public miracles were publicly appealed to by the early ,christians1 and though written accounts of them were in circulation very soon after they are stated to have occurred2 yet1 as far as we know1 they were never disputed4 ,and this is the more remarkable1 since they are said to have been worked among enemies as well as friends4 ,they were thus peculiarly open to hostile criticism2 and we may be sure that the bitter opponents of ,christ1 who had brought about ,his death1 would have exposed them if they could4 ,yet1 as just said1 they were never disputed1 either by ,jews or ,gentiles2 though1 of course1 they both denied their evidential value4 ,the ,jews--that is to say the ,scribes and ,pharisees--did this1 by ascribing them to the ,evil ,one4 ,and though this was a very strange expedient1 as their effect was obviously good1 and not evil1 they had really no alternative4 ,the common people were much impressed by the miracles1 and were anxious to welcome ,christ as their ,messiah2#ceg yet the ,pharisees decided that such a man as this--so unlike what they expected--could not possibly be their ,messiah4 ,they had then to explain away the miracles somehow4 ,and since they denied that they were worked by ,god1 they were bound to ascribe them to the ,devil1 for these were the only supernatural powers they believed in2 though of course both of these had subordinate angels under them4 ,but we may ask1 would the ,jews have adopted such an expedient had there been any possibility of denying that the miracles occurred8 ,yet that they did adopt it can scarcely be disputed4 ,it is positively asserted in each of the first three ,gospels2#ceh and ,christians are not likely to have reported such a horrible suggestion as that their ,master was an agent of the ,evil ,one1 unless it had been made4 ,footnote #ceg3 ,john #f4 #ae2 ,mark #aa4 #aj4 ,footnote #ceh3 ,matt4 #i4 #cd2 #ab4 #bd2 ,mark #c4 #bb2 ,luke #aa4 #ae4 ,the ,gentiles on the other hand1 believed in a variety of gods1 many of whom were favourable to mankind1 and could be invoked by magic2 so they could consistently ascribe the miracles to some of these lesser deities2 or1 in popular language1 to magic4 ,and we have abundant evidence that they did so4 ,as we have seen1 it is expressly asserted by ,justin1 who in consequence preferred the argument from prophecy2 and ,irenus did the same1 and for avowedly the same reason4#cei ,footnote #cei3 ,bk4 ii4 #cb4 ,moreover1 ,celsus1 the most important opponent of ,christianity in the second century1 also adopted this view4 ,his works are now lost1 but ,origen in answering him frequently and positively asserts it2 saying that he often spoke of the miracles as works of sorcery4#cfj ,and though ,celsus lived some years after the time in question1 it is most unlikely1 if the early opponents of ,christianity had denied that the miracles occurred1 that its later opponents should have given up this strong line of defence1 and have adopted the far weaker one that they did occur1 but were due to magic4 ,we are quite justified1 then1 in saying that ,christ's miracles were not disputed at the time1 and considering their alleged publicity1 this is a strong additional argument in their favour4 ,footnote #cfj3 ,origen cont4 ,cels41 i4 #ch2 ii4 #dh4 7#d47 ,the silence of classical writers4 ,all that can be said on the other side is from the silence of classical writers4 ,had the miracles really occurred1 it is said1 especially in such a well-known place as ,palestine1 the writers of the day would have been full of them4 ,yet1 with the single exception of ,tacitus1 they do not even allude to ,christianity2 and he dismisses it with contempt as a pernicious superstition4#cfa ,footnote #cfa3 ,tacitus ,annals4 ,bk4 xv41 ch4 #dd4 ,now these words of ,tacitus show that he had never studied the subject1 for whatever may be said against the religion1 it certainly was not pernicious2 so he must have rejected ,christianity without examination4 ,and if the other classical writers did the same1 there is nothing remarkable in their not alluding to it4 ,alleged marvels were common enough in those days1 and they probably did not think the ,christian miracles worth inquiring about4 ,but we do not know of any writer who did inquire about them1 and was not convinced of their truth4 ,it may1 of course1 be replied that some of the events ought anyhow to be alluded to1 such as the darkness over all the land at the time of the ,crucifixion4 ,and if this extended over the whole of ,palestine1 it is certainly strange that it should not be noticed4 ,but it may only refer to the neighbourhood of ,jerusalem4 ,compare the expression all the country of ,juda#cfb 7when referring to the people being baptized7 which is evidently not meant to be taken literally4 ,and if the darkness was limited to the neighbourhood of ,jerusalem1 there is nothing surprising in its not being recorded by any except ,christians1 for whom of course it had a special significance4 ,footnote #cfb3 ,mark #a4 #e4 ,it should also be noticed that in some respects the testimony of ,christian writers is more valuable than that of either ,jews or ,gentiles3 since none of the writers of that country were brought up as ,christians4 ,they were all unbelievers before they were believers2 and if such testimony from unbelievers would be valuable1 it is still more so from those who showed how thoroughly convinced they were of its truth by becoming believers4 ,indeed1 the best ,jewish or ,gentile evidence conceivable is that of well-educated men1 like ,st4 ,paul and ,st4 ,luke1 who1 on the strength of it1 became ,christians4 ,lastly1 it must be remembered that the argument from silence is proverbially unsound4 ,we have1 for instance1 over two hundred letters of the younger ,pliny1 and in only one of these does he mention ,christianity4 ,suppose this one had been lost1 what a strong argument could have been formed against the spread of ,christianity from the silence of ,pliny1 yet this one shows its marvellous progress 7see ,chapter ,,xxii474 ,this objection1 then1 is quite insufficient to outweigh the positive testimony in favour of the miracles1 to which we have already alluded4 7,d47 ,,conclusion4 ,in conclusion we must notice certain rationalistic explanations which have been given of the miracles4 ,it was hardly to be expected that1 with such strong evidence in their favour1 the modern opponents of ,christianity would merely assert that the accounts were pure fiction from beginning to end4 ,attempts have of course been made to explain the miracles in such a way that1 while depriving them of any supernatural character1 it may yet be admitted that some such events occurred1 which gave rise to the ,christian accounts4 ,the miracles of healing are perhaps the easiest to explain in this way1 as some wonderful instances of sudden1 though natural1 cures have been known4 ,but it is doubtful whether any of ,christ's miracles were of such a kind1 for ,st4 ,paul is careful to distinguish between gifts of healing and working of miracles4#cfc ,both were evidently known to the early ,church1 and known to be different4 ,footnote #cfc3 #a ,cor4 #ab4 #i-aj1 #bh4 ,and of course no such explanations will apply to most of the miracles1 which have to be got rid of in various other ways4 ,thus ,christ's walking on the sea is explained as ,his walking on a ridge of sand or rock running out just under the water2 the raising of ,lazarus as his having had himself buried alive1 so that when ,christ came1 there might be a pretended miracle2#cfd and feeding the five thousand as nothing more than the example of ,christ and ,his friends1 who so freely shared their small supply with those around them1 that others did the same1 and thus everyone had a little4 ,it seems scarcely necessary to discuss these theories in detail1 as they are all most improbable4 ,footnote #cfd3 ,this extraordinary theory was maintained by ,rnan in the earlier editions of his ,life of ,jesus1 though he afterwards abandoned it4 ,moreover1 their difficulties are all cumulative4 ,the ,christian explanation has but one difficulty for all the miracles1 which is that they are miracles1 and involve the supernatural4 ,once admit this1 and twenty miracles 7provided they occur on suitable occasions7 are no more difficult to believe than two4 ,but the difficulties of these explanations are all cumulative4 ,if for instance1 the raising of ,lazarus is explained by his having been buried alive1 it does not account for ,christ's walking on the sea4 ,if this is explained by the supposed ridge of sand1 it does not account for feeding the five thousand1 etc4 ,thus each difficulty has to be added to all the others1 so taken together they are quite insuperable4 ,one other point has still to be considered1 which is the subject of modern miracles4 ,why1 it is said1 are there no miracles now1 when they could be properly tested8 ,if they were really employed by ,god as helps to the spread of ,his religion1 why should they not have accompanied it at intervals all along1 as it is said they did the ,jewish religion8 ,they are surely wanted for the support of ,christianity at the present day2 and if ,god were1 after due warning1 to work a public and indisputable miracle every half-century1 all the other evidences of ,christianity might be dispensed with4 ,the answer to this objection is that the ,christian revelation does not claim to be a gradual one1 like the ,jewish2 but a final and complete revelation1 made once for all through ,christ and ,his ,apostles4 ,therefore1 as there is to be no fresh revelation1 there can be no fresh miracles to confirm it4 ,the question of other miracles1 such as those which are said to have been worked by ,christians at various periods1 need not be considered here4 ,if true1 they would of course tend to prove the ,new ,testament ones2 while1 if untrue1 they would not disprove them1 any more than imitation diamonds would disprove the existence of real diamonds4 ,of course1 it may be replied that ,god might still work a miracle now by a man1 who stated that it was not to confirm anything that he said himself1 but merely what the ,founder of ,christianity had said2 and this is no doubt possible4 ,but it would be a different method from that recorded in the ,bible1 where a messenger from ,god always brings his own credentials1 even though1 as in the case of a prophecy1 they may not be verified till afterwards4 ,and what reason have we for thinking that ,god would change ,his method now8 ,it is also very doubtful whether a public miracle at the present day1 would convince everybody4 ,this objection1 then1 must be put aside1 and we therefore conclude1 on reviewing the whole subject1 that the ,new ,testament miracles are not only credible1 but that there is extremely strong evidence in their favour4 ,indeed their marks of truthfulness1 combined with their alleged publicity1 form together a very powerful argument4 ,and it is rendered all the stronger by their having been so thoroughly successful4 ,their object was to establish the truth of ,christianity1 and this is precisely what they did4 ,the evidence they afforded was so decisive1 that a hostile world found it irresistible4 ,moreover it is doubtful whether any other religion1 except1 of course1 the ,jewish1 has ever claimed to have been confirmed by public miracles4 ,christianity thus rests upon a unique foundation4 ,unlike other religions1 it appealed at first not to abstract reasoning1 or moral consciousness1 or physical force1 but to miraculous events1 of the truth or falsehood of which others could judge4 ,they did judge1 and they were convinced4 ,we decide1 then1 that the ,new ,testament miracles are probably true4 ,,chapter ,,xx4 ,,that ,,the ,,jewish ,,prophecies ,,confirm ,,the ,,truth ,,of ,,christianity4 7,a47 ,,isaiah',s ,,prophecy ,,of ,,the ,,lord',s ,,servant4 7#a47 ,the historical agreement1 very striking4 7#b47 ,the doctrinal agreement1 equally so4 7#c47 ,the modern ,jewish interpretation1 quite untenable4 7,b47 ,,the ,,psalm ,,of ,,the ,,crucifixion4 7#a47 ,its close agreement1 all through4 7#b47 ,two objections1 unimportant4 7,c47 ,,the ,,divinity ,,of ,,the ,,messiah4 ,at least three prophecies of this2 it is also involved in some hints as to the ,doctrine of the ,trinity4 7,d47 ,,conclusion4 ,why are not the prophecies plainer8 ,cumulative nature of the evidence4 ,we propose to consider in this chapter what is called the argument from ,prophecy1 using the word1 as we did in ,chapter ,,xi41 in the sense of prediction4 ,now it is a remarkable and undisputed fact that for many centuries before the time of ,christ1 it was foretold that a member of the ,jewish nation--small and insignificant though it was--should be a blessing to all mankind4 ,this promise is recorded as having been made both to ,abraham1 to ,isaac1 and to ,jacob2#cfe and as a matter of fact1 ,christianity was founded by a ,jew1 and has undoubtedly been a blessing to the human race4 ,this is at least a remarkable coincidence4 ,and as we proceed in the ,old ,testament1 the statements about this future ,messiah become clearer and fuller1 till at last1 in the ,prophets1 we find whole chapters referring to ,him1 which ,christians assert were fulfilled in ,christ4 ,footnote #cfe3 ,gen4 #bb4 #ah2 #bf4 #d2 #bh4ad4 ,this argument is plainly of the utmost importance4 ,fortunately it is much simplified by the question of dates being altogether excluded4 ,as a rule1 the most important point in an alleged prophecy is to show that it was written before its fulfilment4 ,but here this is undisputed1 since everyone admits that the whole of the ,old ,testament1 except some of the apocryphal books1 was written before the time of ,christ4 ,and as the writings have been preserved by the ,jews themselves1 who are opposed to the claims of ,christianity1 we may be sure that not a single alteration in its favour has been made anywhere4 ,we will now examine a few of the strongest prophecies1 avoiding all those that were only fulfilled in a figurative1 or spiritual sense2 and selecting whole passages rather than single texts4 ,for though many of these latter are very applicable to ,christ1 they might also be applicable to someone else4 ,so we will first discuss somewhat fully ,isaiah's prophecy of the ,lord's ,servant1 and the ,psalm of the ,crucifixion2 and then examine more briefly a group of prophecies referring to the ,divinity of the ,messiah4 7,a47 ,,isaiah',s ,,prophecy ,,of ,,the ,,lord',s ,,servant 7#eb4 #ac-ec4 #ab74 ,it may be pointed out at starting that no one denies the antiquity of the passage1 even if it was not written by ,isaiah4 ,and it forms a complete whole1 closely connected together and not mixed up with any other subject4 ,so in regard to its fulfilment1 most of the details mentioned occurred within a few hours4 ,we will consider first the historical1 and then the doctrinal agreement4 7#a47 ,the ,historical ,agreement4 ,with regard to this1 the following is the translation from the ,revised ,version1 together with the corresponding events4 ,it will be observed that the sufferings of the ,servant are usually expressed in the past tense1 and his triumph in the future1 the prophet placing himself1 as it were1 between the two4 ,but the ,hebrew tenses are rather uncertain1 and what is translated as past in the ,revised ,version is translated as future in the ,authorised 7e4g41 #ec4 #b74 #eb4 #ac4 ',behold1 my servant shall deal wisely1 he shall be exalted and lifted up1 and shall be very high4 ,the excellence of ,christ's teaching and conduct is now generally admitted2 while as to ,his exalted position1 ,he is worshipped by millions of men4 #ad4 ',like as many were astonied at thee 7his visage was so marred more than any man1 and his form more than the sons of men7 so shall he sprinkle many nations2 ,yet at the time of ,his death1 which was public so that many saw ,him1 the cruel treatment ,he had received must have terribly disfigured ,his face and body4 #ae4 ',kings shall shut their mouths at him3 for that which had not been told them shall they see2 and that which they had not heard shall they understand4 ,but now even ,kings are silent with reverence1#cff when contemplating such a wonderful life4 ,footnote #cff3 ,comp4 ,job #bi4 #i4 #ec4 #a4 ',who hath believed our report8 'and to whom hath the arm of the ,lord been revealed8 ,indeed what the prophet is about to declare1 is so marvellous that it can scarcely be believed4 ,the ,arm of the ,lord evidently means some instrument1 or ,person1 which ,god uses for ,his work1 as a man might use his arm4#cfg ,and here it must be a ,person1 from the following words1 ',for he grew up1' etc4 ,it is thus a most suitable term for the ,messiah1 who was to be recognised by hardly anyone4 #b4 ',for he grew up before him as a tender plant1 and as a root out of a dry ground3 he hath no form nor comeliness2 and when we see him1 there is no beauty that we should desire him4 ,this was because ,he lived at a place 7,nazareth7 which was always regarded as dry ground so far as anything good was concerned4#cfh ,moreover1 ,his appearance was humble1 and when at ,his trial1 ,pilate presented ,him to the people1 they did not desire ,him4 #c4 ',he was despised1 and rejected of men2 a man of sorrows1 and acquainted with grief3 and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised1 and we esteemed him not4 ,but they at once rejected ,him as they had done often before4 #d4 ',surely he hath borne our griefs1 and carried our sorrows3 yet we did esteem him stricken1 smitten of ,god1 and afflicted4 ,while ,his life was not only one of grief and sorrow1 but such a death seemed to show that ,he was accursed of ,god1 for the ,jews so regarded anyone who was crucified4#cfi #e4 ',but he was wounded for our transgressions1 he was bruised for our iniquities3 the chastisement of our peace was upon him2 and with his stripes we are healed4 ,the scourging and other ill-treatment is here referred to2 including probably the nails1 and spear1 for the word translated wounded is literally pierced4 ,footnote #cfg3 ,comp4 ,isa4 #dj4 #aj2 #ea4 #i4 ,footnote #cfh3 ,john #a4 #df4 ,footnote #cfi3 ,deut4 #ba4 #bc2 ,gal4 #c4 #ac4 #f4 ',all we like sheep have gone astray2 we have turned every one to his own way2 and the ,lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all4 #g4 ',he was oppressed1 yet he humbled himself and opened not his mouth2 as a lamb that is led to the slaughter1 and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb2 yea1 he opened not his mouth4 ,christ1 who is sometimes called the ,lamb of ,god1 not only bore ,his ill-treatment patiently1 but refused to plead at either of ,his trials 7the verse repeats twice ,he opened not ,his mouth7 to the utter astonishment of ,his judges4#cgj #h4 ',by oppression and judgment he was taken away2 and as for his generation1 who among them considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living8 for the transgression of my people was he stricken4 ,he was not killed accidentally1 or by the mob1 but had a judicial trial2 and was most unjustly condemned4 ,while few1 if any1 of ,his contemporaries understood the real meaning of ,his death4 #i4 ',and they made his grave with the wicked1 and with the rich in his death 7i4e41 when he was dead4 ,comp4 ,ps4 #f4 #h72 although he had done no violence1 neither was any deceit in his mouth4 ,he was appointed to die between two robbers1 and would doubtless have been buried with them1 had not ,joseph of ,arimathea intervened2 when1 in strange contrast with ,his ignominious death1 ,he was honourably buried1 with costly spices1 and in a rich man's tomb4 ,although ,his judge repeatedly declared that ,he was innocent4 #aj4 ',yet it pleased the ,lord to bruise him2 he hath put him to grief3 when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin1 he shall see his seed1 he shall prolong his days1 and the pleasure of the ,lord shall prosper in his hand4 ,yet after ,his death ,he was to see ,his seed1 and prolong ,his days1 i4e41 rise again from the dead4 ,the word seed cannot mean here1 actual children1#cga since ,he was to obtain them by ,his death4 ,but it may well refer to the disciples1 whom ,christ saw after ,his ,resurrection1 and called ,his children4#cgb ,footnote #cgj3 ,matt4 #bf4 #fb2 #bg4 #ad4 ,footnote #cga3 ,comp4 ,isa4 #a4 #d4 ,footnote #cgb3 ,mark #aj4 #bd2 ,john #ba4 #e4 #aa4 ',he shall see of the travail of his soul1 and shall be satisfied3 by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many3 and he shall bear their iniquities4 ,and this is confirmed by their being spoken of as the travail of ,his soul1 not body4 ,while the latter expression also implies that ,he had had some intense mental struggle comparable to the bodily pains of childbirth2 which is very suitable to ,his mental agony in the ,garden and on the ,cross4 #ab4 ',therefore will ,i divide him a portion with the great1 and he shall divide the spoil with the strong2 because he poured out his soul unto death1 and was numbered with the transgressors3 yet he bare the sin of many1 and made intercession for the transgressors4' ,his subsequent triumph in the ,christian ,church is here alluded to4 ,this implies that ,his sufferings were of some duration2 and is thus very appropriate to a lingering death like crucifixion4 ,while the closing words exactly agree with ,his dying a shameful death between two robbers2 yet praying for ,his murderers1 ',father1 forgive them4' ,it seems hardly necessary to insist on the agreement shown above2 it is indisputable4 ,the sufferings and the triumph of the ,lord's ,servant are foretold with equal confidence and with equal clearness1 though they might well have seemed incompatible4 7#b47 ,the ,doctrinal ,agreement4 ,but the significance of the passage does not depend on these prophecies alone1 though they are sufficiently remarkable1 but on the meaning which the writer assigns to the great tragedy4 ,it is the ,christian doctrine concerning ,christ's death1 and not merely the events attending it1 which is here insisted on4 ,this will be best shown by adopting the previous method of parallel columns1 showing in the first the six chief points in the ,christian doctrine1 and in the other the prophet's words corresponding to them4 ,all mankind are sinners4 ',all we like sheep have gone astray4' ,christ alone was sinless4 ',my righteous servant4' ',he had done no violence1 neither was any deceit in his mouth4' ,he suffered not for ,his own sins1 but for those of others4 ,nor was this the mere accidental suffering of an innocent man for a guilty one2 it was a great work of atonement1 an offering for sin4 ,this is the central feature of the ,christian doctrine1 and it is asserted over and over again in the prophecy1 which is above all that of a ,saviour4 ',surely he hath borne our griefs1 and carried our sorrows4' ',he was wounded for our transgressions1 he was bruised for our iniquities2 the chastisement of 7i4e41 which procured7 our peace was upon him2 and with his stripes we are healed4' ',the ,lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all4' ',for the transgression of my people was he stricken4' ',thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin4' ',he shall bear their iniquities4' ',he bare the sin of many4' ,and this ,atonement was the fulfilment of the old ,jewish sacrifices2 especially that of the ,paschal ,lamb2 so there was a special fitness in ,christ's being put to death at the time of the ,passover4 ,this is shown by the language employed1 the offering for sin being the same word as that used for the old guilt-offering4#cgc ,and the curious expression ,so shall he sprinkle many nations evidently refers to the sprinkling of the blood in the ,jewish sacrifices1 as the same word is used1 and means cleansing them from sin4#cgd ,yet it availed not only for the ,jews1 but for all mankind4 ,the many nations must include ,gentiles as well as ,jews4 ,lastly1 ,christ's sacrifice was voluntary2 ,he freely laid down ',he poured out his soul unto death1' implies that the act was ,footnote #cgc3 ,e4g41 ,lev4 #g4 #a4 ,footnote #cgd3 ,e4g41 ,lev4 #af4 #ai4 ,his life1 no one took it from ,him 7,john #aj4 #ah74 voluntary1 and this is rendered still clearer from the context2 for it was because ,he did this that ,he was to divide the spoil1 etc4 ,and the words ,he humbled ,himself1 also imply that the humiliation was voluntary4 ,all this1 it is plain1 exactly suits the ,christ in whom ,christians believe2 and it does not and cannot suit anyone else1 since several of the ,christian doctrines are quite unique1 and do not occur in the ,jewish or any other religion4 ,this is indeed so striking1 that if anyone acquainted with ,christianity1 but unacquainted with ,isaiah1 came across the passage for the first time1 he would probably refer it to one of ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles4 ,and every word of it might be found there with perfect fitness4 7#c47 ,the modern ,jewish interpretation4 ,now1 what can be said on the other side8 ,many of the ancient ,jews interpreted the passage as referring to their future ,messiah2#cge but the modern ,jews 7and most critics who disbelieve in prophecy7 refer it to the ,jewish nation1 or to the religious part of it1 which they say is here personified as a single man1 the ,servant of the ,lord4 ,and it must of course be admitted that ,isaiah does frequently speak of the ,jews as ,god's servant 7e4g41 ',but thou ,israel1 my servant1 and ,jacob whom ,i have chosen1'7#cgf though he nowhere else uses the term 'my righteous servant1' which he does here1 and which would have been inapplicable to the nation4 ,footnote #cge3 ,references are given in ,edersheim's ',life and ,times of ,jesus the ,messiah1' #aija1 vol4 ii41 p4 #gbg4 ,footnote #cgf3 ,isa4 #da4 #h4 ,but it is important to remember that this prophecy does not stand alone1 and a little before1 we read in a similar passage1 ',it is too light a thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of ,jacob1 and to restore the preserved of ,israel3 ,i will also give thee for a light to the ,gentiles1 that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth4 ,thus saith the ,lord1 the ,redeemer of ,israel1 and his ,holy ,one1 to him whom man despiseth1 to him whom the nation abhorreth1 to a servant of rulers3 ,kings shall see and arise2 princes1 and they shall worship4'#cgg ,footnote #cgg3 ,isa4 #di4 #f-g2 comp4 #db4 #a-f4 ,here it will be noticed the ,lord's servant is clearly distinguished from both ,jacob and ,israel1 and evidently means the ,messiah4 ,while ,his bringing salvation to the ,gentiles1 as well as to the ,jews2 ,his humiliation in being despised by men and hated by the ,jewish nation2 and ,his subsequent triumph1 even ,kings submitting themselves to ,him2 are all alluded to1 much as they are in the present passage4 ,no doubt there is a difficulty in the prophet thus passing from one meaning of the word servant to another 7especially1 in a closely connected passage71#cgh and various attempts have been made to explain it2 but it does not alter the fact that he does so4 ,perhaps the best explanation is that ,israel was intended to be ,god's ,servant1 but owing to their sins became unfitted2 when ,god promised in the future to raise up a righteous servant1 who should do all ,his pleasure and atone for ,israel's failure4 ,and1 it may be added1 the term ,servant is applied to the ,messiah both by ,ezekiel and ,zechariah1 as well as in the ,new ,testament4#cgi ,footnote #cgh3 ,isa4 #di4 #c1 #e4 ,footnote #cgi3 ,ezek4 #cd4 #bc2 ,zech4 #c4 #h2 ,acts #c4 #ac 7,r4,v474 ,moreover1 the ,jewish interpretation not only leaves all the details of the prophecy unexplained and inexplicable1 but ignores its very essence1 which1 as before said1 is the atoning character of the sufferings4 ,no one can say that the sufferings of the ,jews were voluntary1 or that they were not for their own sins1 but for those of other people1 which were in consequence atoned for4 ,or1 to put the argument in other words1 if the ,he refers to the ,jewish nation1 to whom does the our refer in such sentences as ,he was wounded for our transgressions8 ,while v4 #h expressly says that the ,jews 7,god's people7 were not the sufferers1 but those for whom ,he suffered4 7,for the transgression of my people was he stricken47 ,this interpretation then is hopelessly untenable1 and the passage either means what ,christians assert1 or it means nothing4 ,in conclusion1 it must be again pointed out that all these minute historical details attending ,christ's death1 and all these remarkable ,christian doctrines concerning it1 are all found within fifteen verses of a writing many centuries older than the time of ,christ4 ,it would be hard to over-estimate the great improbability of all this being due to chance2 indeed1 such a conclusion seems incredible4 7,b47 ,,the ,,psalm ,,of ,,the ,,crucifixion 7,ps4 #bb74chj ,footnote #chj3 ,this is discussed more fully in an article in the ,churchman1 ,april1 #aiab1 by the present writer4 ,we pass on now to another most remarkable prophecy2 for this well-known ,psalm describes what can only be regarded as a crucifixion4 ,the decisive verse is of course1 ,they pierced my hands and my feet2 but even apart from this1 the various sufferings described cannot all be endured in any other form of death1 such as stoning or beheading4 ,and the ,psalm agrees with the ,death of ,christ1 both in its numerous details1 and in its whole scope and meaning4 ,we will therefore consider this close agreement first1 and then some of the objections4 7#a47 ,its close agreement4 ,we need not quote the ,psalm1 as it is so well known2 but will point out the agreement verse by verse4 ,ver4 #a4 ,his feeling forsaken by ,god1 and using these actual words3 ',my ,god1 my ,god1 why hast thou forsaken me8' #b4 as well as praying for deliverance during the previous night2 #c4 though in spite of ,his sufferings1 ,he casts no reproach upon ,god4 #d4 ,his belonging to ,god's chosen people1 the ,jews1 so that ,he could speak of our fathers2 #e4 who had so often been helped by ,god before4 #f4 ,his pitiable condition in being exposed to the scorn and reproach of men1 and despised by the people4 #g4 ,his being lifted up to die in public1 so that those who passed by could see ,him2 and the way in which they mocked ,him1 shaking their heads1 etc4 #h4 ,the exact words they used3 ,he trusted on the ,lord that ,he would deliver him1 let ,him deliver him seeing ,he delighteth in him 7margin74 ,these words show that the speakers themselves were ,jews1 and that ,he was thus put to death among ,his own nation4 ,and the last clause can only be meant ironically in the sense that the ,sufferer claimed that ,god delighted in him1 claimed1 that is1 in some special sense to be beloved by ,god4 #i4 ,and1 as a matter of fact1 ,god had always watched over ,him1 and had saved ,him in ,his infancy from being slain by ,herod4 #aj4 ,and in return ,his whole life had been dedicated to ,god2 so that ,he could say that ,god had been ,his ,god1 even from ,his birth4 #aa4 ,his being abandoned by ,his disciples1 and left without a helper2 #ab4 though surrounded by ,his enemies1 described as bulls of ,bashan4 ,this curious term is used elsewhere for the unjust rulers of the people1#cha and was therefore very applicable to the chief priests and rulers1 who had so unjustly condemned ,him1 and now stood round the ,cross reviling ,him4 ,footnote #cha3 ,amos4 #d4 #a4 #ac4 ,and they continually insulted ,him1 gaping with the mouth being a common expression of contempt2#chb ravening appropriate to the way in which they had thirsted for ,his blood before ,pilate2 and roaring to the great noise and tumult made at the time4 ,footnote #chb3 ,e4g41 ,job #af4 #aj4 #ad4 ,his side being pierced1 so that there poured out a quantity of watery fluid 7mixed with clots of blood71 the probable cause of this--the rupture of the heart#chc--;being also hinted at2 while ,his bones were nearly out of joint1 through the weight of the suspended ,body4 ,footnote #chc3 ,see ',the ,physical ,cause of the ,death of ,christ1' by ,dr4 ,symes ,thompson1 #aijd4 #ae4 ,his suffering extreme weakness1 and extreme thirst1 immediately before ,his death4#chd ,footnote #chd3 ,lam4 #d4 #d2 ,john #ai4 #bh-cj4 #af4 ,his being crucified 7i4e41 ,his hands and feet being pierced71 the men who did this being here called dogs4 ,they seem to have been a special set of men1 different from the ,jews who had before been mocking ,him4 ,and as this was the very term used by ,christ ,himself for the ,gentiles1 in distinction to the ,jews1#che it was peculiarly appropriate to the ,gentile 7,roman7 soldiers who crucified ,him4 ,footnote #che3 ,matt4 #ae4 #bf4 #ag4 ,and they also exposed and stretched out ,his ,body1 so that the bones stood out in relief4 ,and they then stood watching ,him2 #ah4 and divided ,his garments among them1 casting lots for one of them4 #ai4 ,then follows a short prayer4 #bj4 ,the term sword1 like the dog1 the lion's mouth1 and the wild oxen1 need not be pressed literally2 but may be used here 7as in other places7#chf for any violent death4 ,and in the ,new ,testament it seems employed for all punishments1 including probably a death by crucifixion 7,st4 ,peter's74#chg ,footnote #chf3 ,comp4 #b ,sam4 #aa4 #bd2 #ab4 #i4 ,footnote #chg3 ,rom4 #ac4 #d2 ,matt4 #bf4 #eb4 #ba4 ,yet in spite of ,his troubles1 and even death1 ,he feels sure of deliverance4 #bb4 ,and now the strain suddenly changes1 the ,sufferer is restored to life and freedom and at once declares ,god's name unto ,his brethren4 ,and this exactly agrees with ,christ's now declaring for the first time ,god's complete ,name of1 ,father1 ,son1 and ,holy ,ghost1 unto ,his brethren1 as ,he calls them1 the ,apostles4#chh ,while if we identify this appearance with that to the five hundred1 it was literally in the midst of the congregation--in the presence1 that is1 of the first large ,christian assembly4 ,footnote #chh3 ,matt4 #bh4 #aj1 #ai4 #bc4 ,moreover1 ,his deliverance is of world-wide significance1 and great blessings are to follow from it4 ,these commence with the ,jews1 who were to praise and glorify ,god2 though with a strange feeling of awe and fear2 all of which was exactly fulfilled4#chi ,footnote #chi3 ,acts #b4 #dc-dg4 #bd4 ,and the blessings are somehow connected with ,god's not having despised1 but having accepted1 ,his sufferings4 #be4 ,and they include a reference to some vows 7meaning uncertain72 #bf4 and to a wonderful feast generally thought to refer to the ,holy ,communion4 #bg4 ,and the blessings then extend to the ,gentile nations also1 even to the most distant parts of the world1 who are now to become worshippers of the true ,god1 ,jehovah4 ,and1 as a matter of fact1 ,christians exist in all known countries1 and wherever there are ,christians1 ,jehovah is worshipped4 #bh4 ,to ,whom the whole earth1 both the ,jewish kingdom and the ,gentile nations1 really belongs4 #bi4 ,and to ,whom everyone will eventually bow down4 #cj4 ,after this we read of a seed serving ,him1 probably used here1 as in ,isaiah1 for disciples1 each generation of whom is to tell of this wonderful deliverance to the next4 ,and this they have been doing for eighteen centuries4 #ca4 ,and so they will continue doing to generations that are yet unborn4 ,while the closing words1 ,he hath done it 7,r4,v47 are often taken as referring to the whole ,psalm1 meaning that the work of suffering and atonement was now complete1 ,it is done2#cij and they would thus correspond to ,christ's closing words on the ,cross1 ,it it finished4 ,footnote #cij3 ,hengstenberg1 ,commentary on ,psalms1 #ahfg1 vol4 i41 #cif4 ,everyone must admit that the agreement all through is very remarkable2 though there are two slight objections4 7#b47 ,two objections4 ,the first is that there is nothing to show that the writer meant the ,psalm to refer to the ,messiah at all1 though1 strange to say1 some of the ,jews so interpreted it2#cia therefore if there is an agreement1 it is at most only a chance coincidence4 ,but the idea of all these coincidences being due to chance is most improbable4 ,and there certainly is some indication that it refers to the ,messiah1 since1 as we have seen1 it leads up to the conversion of the ,gentiles1 which the other ,jewish prophets always associate with the times of the ,messiah4 ,footnote #cia3 ,edersheim1 #aija1 vol4 ii41 #gac4 ,moreover1 if the ,psalm does not refer to ,christ1 it is difficult to see to whom it does refer1 since it is quite inapplicable to ,david1 or ,hezekiah1 or anyone else at that time2 as crucifixion was not a ,jewish punishment1 though dead bodies were sometimes hung on trees4 ,yet1 as just said1 verses #g-h show that the ,sufferer was put to death among his own nation4 ,this strange anomaly of a ,jew being put to death among ,jews1 though not in the ,jewish manner by stoning1 but by crucifixion1 exactly suits the time of ,christ1 when ,juda was a ,roman province1 and crucifixion a ,roman punishment4 ,many of the details also are quite inapplicable4 ,david1 for instance1 never had his garments divided among his enemies2 yet 7even apart from our ,gospels7 there can be little doubt that the garments of ,christ were so divided1 as the clothes of a prisoner were usually taken by the guard who executed him4 ,and any such reference 7to ,david1 etc47 is rendered still more improbable1 because the sufferer appears to have no sense of sin1 and never laments his own wickedness1 as the writers so frequently do when speaking about themselves4 ,and here also the ,psalm is entirely applicable to ,christ1 since 7as we shall see in the next chapter7 ,his sinlessness was a striking feature in ,his character4 ,nor again did the deliverance of ,david in any way lead to the conversion of the ,gentiles1 which1 as just said1 is the grand climax of the ,psalm1 and excludes all other interpretations4 ,but in any case this objection 7which is also made to other ,old ,testament prophecies7 cannot be maintained2 for who1 we must ask1 was their real author8 ,was it the human prophet1 or was it ,god ,who inspired the prophet to write as he did8 ,and the prophets themselves emphatically declared that it was the latter4 ,the word of the ,lord came unto them1 or a vision was granted unto them1 and they had to proclaim it1 whether they liked it or not4 ,in fact1 as ,st4 ,matthew says1 it was not really the prophet who spoke1 but ,god1 who spoke through the prophet4#cib ,there is thus no reason for thinking that they either knew1 or thought they knew1 the whole meaning of their prophecies2 and the objection may be dismissed at once4 ,footnote #cib3 ,e4g41 ,matt4 #a4 #bb4 ,the second objection is1 that some of the events fulfilling this1 and other ,old ,testament prophecies1 never occurred1 but were purposely invented4 ,this1 however1 destroys altogether the moral character of the ,evangelists1 who are supposed to tell deliberate falsehoods1 in order to get a pretended fulfilment of an old prophecy4 ,and the difficulty of admitting this is very great4 ,moreover1 such explanations can only apply to a very few cases2 since1 as a rule1 the events occurred in public1 and must therefore have been well known at the time4 ,and even in those cases where the event was so trivial1 that it might possibly have been invented1 such an explanation is often untenable4 ,take1 for example1 the manner in which ,christ on the cross was mocked by ,his enemies1 who said1 ',he trusted in ,god1 let him deliver him now if he desireth him4'#cic ,a more probable incident under the circumstances can scarcely be imagined1 the chief priests quoting the familiar language 7just as men sometimes quote the ,bible now7 without thinking of its real significance4 ,but1 supposing the words were never uttered1 is it conceivable that the ,evangelist 7or anyone else7 would have invented them in order to get a pretended fulfilment of this ,psalm1 where the ,crucified ,one is mocked with almost identical words2 yet have never pointed out the fulfilment himself1 but have trusted to the chance of his readers discovering it8 ,footnote #cic3 ,matt4 #bg4 #dc4 ,neither of these objections1 then1 is of much importance2 while the agreement of the ,psalm with the events attending the death and ,resurrection of ,christ1 seems1 as in the previous case1 to be far too exact to be accidental4 7,c47 ,,the ,,divinity ,,of ,,the ,,messiah4 ,our last example shall be of a different kind from the others4 ,it is that the ,old ,testament contains several passages which show that the future ,messiah was to be not only ,superhuman1 but ,divine4 ,and considering the strong ,monotheism of the ,jews this is very remarkable4 ,the following are three of the most important3-- ',for unto us a child is born1 unto us a son is given2 and the government shall be upon his shoulder3 and his name shall be called ,wonderful1 ,counsellor1 ,mighty ,god1 ,everlasting ,father1 ,prince of ,peace4'#cid ,here we have a plain statement of the ,divinity of ,one ,who should be born a child4 ,the two words translated ,mighty ,god are incapable of any other translation1 and no other is suggested for them in the margin of either the ,authorised or ,revised ,version2 while the same two words occur in the next chapter1 where they plainly mean ,mighty ,god and nothing else4 ,moreover1 the term ,everlasting ,father is literally ,father of ,eternity 7see margin7 and means the ,eternal ,one4 ,this is another divine title1 and does not conflict with the ,christian doctrine that it was the ,son1 and not the ,father1 ,who became ,incarnate4 ,while the following words1 that of the increase of ,his government there shall be no end1 and that it should be established for ever1 also point to a ,divine ,ruler1 in spite of the reference to ,david's throne4 ,and it is significant that a few verses before it is implied that the ,ministry of this future ,messiah should commence in the land of ,zebulon1 and ,naphtali1 by the ,sea of ,galilee2 where1 as a matter of fact1 ,christ's ,ministry did commence4 ,footnote #cid3 ,isa4 #i4 #f2 #aj4 #ba2 #i4 #a-b4 ',but thou1 ,bethlehem ,ephrathah1 which art little to be among the thousands of ,judah1 out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in ,israel2 whose goings forth are from of old1 from everlasting4'#cie ,here we have a prophecy of the birth of ,one who had existed from everlasting2 thus showing the ,pre-existence and apparent ,divinity of the ,messiah1 who was to be born at ,bethlehem1 where1 again1 as a matter of fact1 ,christ actually was born4 ,footnote #cie3 ,mic4 #e4 #b4 ',awake1 ,o sword1 against my shepherd1 and against the man that is my fellow1 saith the ,lord of hosts4'#cif ,the word translated fellow is only found elsewhere in ,leviticus1 where it is usually translated neighbour1 and always implies an equality between the two persons4#cig ,thus ,god speaks of the ,shepherd who was to be slain with the sword 7a term1 as before said1 used for any violent death71 as equal with ,himself1 and yet at the same time ,man2 so no one but a ,messiah who is both ,god and ,man--,fellow-,god as well as fellow-man--can satisfy the language4 ,footnote #cif3 ,zech4 #ac4 #g4 ,footnote #cig3 ,lev4 #f4 #b2 #ah4 #bj2 #ai4 #aa1 #ae1 #ag2 #bd4 #ai2 #be4 #ad1 #ae1 #ag4 ,and here again the reference to ,christ is confirmed by the fact that several incidents in ,his ,passion are alluded to1 in some of which ,his ,divinity is likewise asserted4 ,the most important are the way in which ,he 7the ,just ,saviour7 rode into ,jerusalem on an ass2 and the rejoicing with which ,he was received1 when the people welcomed ,him as their ,king4 ,and the fact that ,he 7the ,lord ,jehovah7 should be sold for thirty pieces of silver1 the money being cast down in the ,house of the ,lord1 and afterwards given to the potter2 and also that ,he 7again the ,lord ,jehovah7 should be pierced4#cih ,these are1 it is true1 expressed in figurative language1 and often mixed up with other subjects2 so no instance by itself1 affords a strong argument4 ,but still their all occurring so close together1 and all leading up to the violent death of a man1 who was yet the fellow1 or equal1 with ,god1 can scarcely be accidental4 ,while the prophecy1 like so many others1 ends with the conversion of the ,gentiles1 the ,lord ,jehovah being recognised as ,king over all the earth2 which seems to place the ,messianic character beyond dispute4 ,footnote #cih3 ,zech4 #i4 #i2 #aa4 #ab-ac2 #ab4 #aj2 #ad4 #i2 ,luke #ai4 #cg-ch4 ,the ,divinity of the ,messiah is also involved in some hints which occur in the ,old ,testament as to the doctrine of the ,trinity4 ,for instance1 the ,hebrew word for ,god1 ,elohim1 is a plural word1 though1 strange to say1 it generally takes a singular adjective1 and verb4 ,thus if we tried to represent it in ,english1 the first verse of the ,bible would read1 ',in the beginning the ,gods1 ,he created the heaven and the earth4' ,attempts have of course been made to reduce the significance of this by pointing out that a few other ,hebrew words1 such as lord and master1 sometimes do the same2 or by regarding it as a survival from some previous polytheistic religion2 or else as being what is called the plural of ,majesty1 a sort of royal ,we4 ,this1 however1 does not seem to have been in use in early times1 and never occurs in the ,bible1 where kings always speak of themselves in the singular4#cii ,anyhow it is very remarkable that the ,jews should have used a plural word for ,god with a singular verb2 especially as the same word1 when used of false gods1 takes a plural verb4 ,footnote #cii3 ,e4g41 ,gen4 #da4 #da2 ,ezra #f4 #ab2 #g4 #ba2 ,dan4 #d4 #f4 ,moreover1 ,god is at times represented as speaking in the plural1#djj saying1 for instance1 ,let us make man in our image1 as if consulting with other ,divine ,persons2 since it is obvious that the expression cannot refer to angels1 who are themselves created1 and not fellow ,creators4 ,yet just afterwards we read1 ',god created man in his own image1' thus implying that there is still but one ,god4 ,another and even more remarkable expression is1 ,behold1 the man is become as one of us4 ,this cannot possibly be the plural of ,majesty2 for though a king might speak of himself as ,we or ,us1 no king ever spoke of himself as one of ,us4 ,such an expression can only be used when there are other persons of similar rank with the speaker2 therefore when used by ,god1 it shows conclusively that there are other ,divine ,persons4 ,so again when ,god says1 ',whom shall ,i send1 and who will go for us8' it implies that ,he is both one1 and more than one2 which the previous thrice ,holy1 points to as being a ,trinity4#dja ,the existence of such passages seems to require some explanation1 and ,christianity alone can explain them4 ,footnote #djj3 ,gen4 #a4 #bf2 #c4 #bb2 #aa4 #g4 ,footnote #dja3 ,isa4 #f4 #h4 7,d47 ,,conclusion4 ,before concluding this chapter there is still one objection to be considered4 ,why1 it is said1 if these prophecies really refer to ,christ1 are they not plainer8 ,surely if ,god wished to foretell the future1 ,he would have done it better than this3 and a few words added here and there would have made the reference to ,christ indisputable4 ,no doubt they would2 but possibly ,god did not wish to make the reference indisputable4 ,moreover1 if the prophecies had been plainer1 they might have prevented their own fulfilment4 ,had the ,jews known for certain that ,christ was their ,messiah1 they could scarcely have crucified ,him2 and it seems to many that the prophecies are already about as plain as they could be without doing this4 ,the important point1 however1 is not whether the prophecies might not have been plainer1 but whether they are not already too plain to be accidental4 ,lastly1 we must notice the cumulative nature of the evidence4 ,we have only examined a few instances1 but1 as said before1 ,messianic prophecies of some kind more or less distinct1 occur at intervals all through the ,old ,testament4 ,and though some of those commonly brought forward seem weak and fanciful1 there are numbers of others which are not4 ,and here1 as elsewhere1 this has a double bearing on the argument4 ,in the first place1 it does not at all increase the difficulty of the ,christian interpretation2 for twenty prophecies are practically no more difficult to admit than two4 ,indeed1 the fact that instead of being a few isolated examples1 they form a complete series1 rather lessens the difficulty than otherwise4 ,on the other hand1 it greatly increases the difficulty of any other interpretation2 for twenty prophecies are far more difficult to deny than two4 ,if one is explained as a lucky coincidence1 it will not account for the next2 if that is got rid of by some unnatural interpretation of the words1 it will not account for the third1 and so on indefinitely4 ,the difficulties are thus not only great in themselves1 but are all cumulative2 and hence together they seem insuperable4 ,anyhow1 it is clear that these ,prophecies form another strong argument in favour of ,christianity4 ,,chapter ,,xxi4 ,,that ,,the ,,character ,,of ,,christ ,,confirms ,,the ,,truth ,,of ,,christianity4 ,the character of ,christ can only be deduced from the ,new ,testament1 any other ,christ being purely imaginary4 7,a47 ,,the ,,teaching ,,of ,,christ4 7#a47 ,its admitted excellence4 7#b47 ,two objections4 7#c47 ,his sinlessness4 7,b47 ,,the ,,claims ,,of ,,christ4 7#a47 ,his claim to be ,superhuman--declaring that ,he was the ,ruler1 ,redeemer1 and final ,judge of the world4 7#b47 ,his claim to be ,divine--declaring ,his ,equality1 ,unity1 and ,pre-existence with ,god4 7#c47 ,how these claims were understood at the time1 both by friends and foes4 7,c47 ,,the ,,great ,,alternative4 ,christ cannot1 therefore1 have been merely a good man2 ,he was either ,god1 as ,he claimed to be1 or else a bad man1 for making such claims4 ,but the latter view is disproved by ,his ,moral ,character4 ,in this chapter we propose to consider the ,character of ,christ1 and its bearing on the truth of ,christianity4 ,now our knowledge of ,christ's character can only be derived from the four ,gospels2 indeed1 a ,christ with any other character assigned to ,him is a purely imaginary being1 and might as well be called by some other name4 ,taking1 then1 the ,gospels as our guide1 what is the character of ,christ8 ,clearly this can be best deduced from ,his own teaching and claims1 both of which are fortunately given at some length2 so we will consider these first1 and then the great alternative which they force upon us4 7,a47 ,,the ,,teaching ,,of ,,christ4 ,under this head1 we will first notice the admitted excellence of ,christ's teaching1 then some objections which are often made1 and lastly ,his sinlessness4 7#a47 ,its admitted excellence4 ,to begin with1 the excellence of ,christ's moral teaching hardly needs to be insisted on at the present day1 and rationalists as well as ,christians have proclaimed its merits4 ,for instance1 to quote a few examples3-- ',religion cannot be said to have made a bad choice in pitching on this man as the ideal representative and guide of humanity2 nor even now would it be easy1 even for an unbeliever1 to find a better translation of the rule of virtue from the abstract into the concrete1 than to endeavour so to live that ,christ should approve our life4'--,j4 ,s4 ,mill4#djb ,footnote #djb3 ,nature1 the ,utility of ,religion and ,theism1 #bnd edit41 #ahgd1 p4 #bee4 ',jesus remains to humanity an inexhaustible source of moral regenerations4' ,and again1 ',in ,him is condensed all that is good and lofty in our nature4'--,e4 ,renan4#djc ,footnote #djc3 ,life of ,jesus1 translated by ,wilbour1 ,new ,york1 #ahfd1 pp4 #cgj1 #cge4 ',it was reserved for ,christianity to present to the world an ideal character1 which1 through all the changes of eighteen centuries1 has inspired the hearts of men with an impassioned love2 has shown itself capable of acting on all ages1 nations1 temperaments1 and conditions2 has been not only the highest pattern of virtue1 but the strongest incentive to its practice2 and has exercised so deep an influence that it may be truly said that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers1 and all the exhortations of moralists4'--,w4 ,e4 ,h4 ,lecky4#djd ,footnote #djd3 ,history of ,european ,morals1 #crd edit41 #ahgg1 vol4 ii41 p4 #h4 ,these quotations are only examples of many which might be given2 but it is practically undisputed that the morality taught by ,christ is the best the world has ever seen4 ,it is also undisputed that ,his life was in entire harmony with ,his teaching4 ,he lived1 as far as we can judge1 a holy and blameless life1 and ,his character has never been surpassed either in history or fiction4 7#b47 ,two objections4 ,there are1 however1 two slight objections4 ,the first is that ,christ's teaching was not original2 and1 strictly speaking1 this is perhaps true4 ,something similar to all ,he taught has been discovered in more ancient times1 either in ,egypt1 ,india1 ,china1 or elsewhere4 ,but this hardly affects the argument4 ,an unlearned ,jew living at ,nazareth cannot be supposed to have derived his teaching from these sources2 and it is a great improvement on all of them put together4 ,the important point is1 that there was nothing among the ,jews of ,his own time which could have produced1 or even have invented1 such a character4 ,he was immeasurably better than ,his contemporaries1 and all of them put together have not exerted an influence on the world a thousandth part that of ,christ4 ,the second objection refers to certain portions of ,christ's teaching4 ,for example1 ,he urges men not to resist evil1 and seems to place virginity above marriage to an exaggerated extent4#dje ,i have never seen a satisfactory explanation of the latter passage2 but it is obvious on the face of it that it cannot be meant for universal application1 or it would lead to the extinction of the human race4 ,footnote #dje3 ,matt4 #e4 #ci2 #ai4 #ab4 ,again1 several of the parables are said to be unjust such as that of the workmen in the vineyard1 the unrighteous steward1 and the wedding garment4 ,but parables must not be pressed literally1 and very different interpretations have been put on these4 ,however1 we will consider the two last1 which are those most often objected to4 ,with regard to the ,unrighteous ,steward1 though apparently he had been guilty of dishonesty1 we are told that his lord commended him1 because he had done wisely4#djf ,but no one can think that his lord commended him1 because he had just cheated him4 ,so if his conduct was really dishonest 7about which scholars are by no means agreed7 we can only suppose that in spite of this1 his lord commended him1 because of his wisdom4 ,in the same way1 if an ingenious robbery were committed at the present day1 even the man robbed1 might say that he could not help admiring the scoundrel for his cleverness4 ,the meaning then appears to be that wisdom is so desirable that it is to be commended even in worldly matters1 and even in a bad cause2 and therefore of course still more to be aimed at in religious matters1 and in a good cause4 ,footnote #djf3 ,luke #af4 #h4 ,next as to the ,wedding ,garment4 ,it is distinctly implied that there was only one man without it1#djg so obviously the first point to determine is how the other men got their garments4 ,they could not have had them out in the roads1 and there was no time to go home and get them1 even if they possessed any4 ,it follows then that they must each have been provided with a suitable garment 7probably a cloak1 worn over their other clothes7 when they reached the palace4 ,this appears to have been an eastern custom1#djh and if one of them refused to put it on1 he would certainly deserve to be excluded from the feast4 ,thus the object of the parable seems to be to show that ,god's blessings can only be obtained on ,god's terms 7e4g4 forgiveness on repentance71 though there is no hardship in this1 as ,he has ,himself given us grace to comply with these terms1 if we like4 ,neither of these objections1 then1 is of much importance4 ,footnote #djg3 ,matt4 #bb4 #aa4 ,footnote #djh3 ,archb4 ,trench1 ,notes on the ,parables1 #ahgj1 p4 #bcd4 7#c47 ,his sinlessness4 ,a most remarkable point has now to be noticed4 ,it is that1 notwithstanding ,his perfect moral teaching1 there is not in the character of ,christ the slightest consciousness of sin4 ,in all ,his numerous discourses1 and even in ,his prayers1 there is not a single word which implies that ,he thought ,he ever had done1 or ever could do1 anything wrong ,himself4 ,he is indeed most careful to avoid implying this1 even incidentally4 ,thus ,he does not tell ,his disciples1 ',if we forgive men their trespasses1' etc41 but ',if ye1' as the former might imply that ,he1 as well as they1 had need of the ,father's forgiveness4#dji ,nor did ,he ever regret anything that ,he had done1 or ever wish that ,he had acted otherwise4 ,and though ,he blamed self-righteousness in others1 and urged them to repentance1 ,he never hinted that ,he had any need of it ,himself2 in fact1 ,he expressly denied it1 for ,he said that ,he always did those things that were pleasing to ,god4#daj ,footnote #dji3 ,matt4 #f4 #ad4 ,footnote #daj3 ,john #h4 #bi4 ,and this is the more striking when we reflect that good men are1 as a rule1 most conscious of their faults4 ,yet here was ,one who carried moral goodness to its utmost limit1 whose precepts are admittedly perfect1 but who never for a moment thought that ,he was not fulfilling them ,himself4 ,such a character is absolutely unique in the world's history4 ,it can only be explained by saying that ,christ was not merely a good man1 but a perfect man1 since goodness without perfection would only have made ,him more conscious of the faults ,he had4 ,yet if we admit this1 we must admit more2 for perfection is not a human attribute1 and a sinless life needs a good deal to account for it4 7,b47 ,,the ,,claims ,,of ,,christ4 ,we pass on now to the claims of ,christ2 and ,his high moral character would plainly lead us to place the utmost confidence in what ,he said about ,himself4 ,and as we shall see ,he claimed to be both ,superhuman and ,divine2 and this is how all ,his contemporaries1 both friends and foes1 understood ,him4 ,and though it is impossible to add to the marvel of such claims1 yet the fact that nothing in any way resembling them is to be found among the ,jewish ,prophets helps us1 at least1 to realise their uniqueness4 ,many of them are spoken concerning the ,son of ,man2 but there can be no doubt whatever that by this title ,christ means ,himself4#daa ,footnote #daa3 ,e4g41 ,matt4 #af4 #ac1 #af4 7#a47 ,his ,claim to be ,superhuman4 ,this is shown by three main arguments1 for ,christ declared that ,he was the ,ruler1 ,redeemer1 and final ,judge of the world4 ,in the first place1 ,he claimed to be the ,ruler of the world1 saying in so many words that all things had been delivered unto ,him1 and that ,he possessed all authority1 both in heaven and on earth4#dab ,moreover1 ,his dominion was to be not only universal1 but it was to last for ever2 since after this world had come to an end1 the future ,kingdom of ,heaven was still to be ,his ,kingdom1 its angels were to be ,his angels1 and its citizens ,his elect4#dac ,footnote #dab3 ,matt4 #aa4 #bg2 #bh4 #ah2 ,luke #aj4 #bb4 ,footnote #dac3 ,matt4 #ac4 #da2 #bd4 #ca4 ,secondly1 ,christ claimed to be the ,redeemer of the world4 ,he distinctly asserted that ,he came to give ,his life a ransom for many1 and that ,his blood was shed for the remission of sins4 ,and the importance ,he attached to this is shown by the fact that ,he instituted a special rite 7the ,holy ,communion7 on purpose to commemorate it4#dad ,footnote #dad3 ,matt4 #bj4 #bh2 #bf4 #bh2 ,mark #aj4 #de2 #ad4 #bd2 ,luke #bb4 #ai4 ,thirdly1 ,christ claimed to be the final ,judge of the world4 ,this tremendous claim alone shows that ,he considered ,himself quite above and distinct from the rest of mankind4 ,while they were all to be judged according to their works1 ,he was to be the ,judge ,himself1 coming in the clouds of heaven with thousands of angels4 ,and ,his decision was to be final and without appeal4 ,moreover1 this astonishing claim does not depend on single texts or passages1 but occurs all through the first three ,gospels4#dae ,during the whole of ,his ,ministry--from ,his ,sermon on the ,mount to ,his trial before ,caiaphas--,he persistently asserted that ,he was to be the final ,judge of the world4 ,it is hardly credible that a mere man1 however presumptuous1 should ever have made such a claim as this4 ,can we imagine anyone doing so at the present day8 and what should we think of him if he did8 ,footnote #dae3 ,matt4 #g4 #bb2 #aj4 #cb2 #ac4 #da2 #af4 #bg2 #ai4 #bh2 #bd4 #cj2 #be4 #ca-df2 #bf4 #fd2 and similar passages in the other ,gospels4 7#b47 ,his ,claim to be ,divine4 ,like the preceding1 this is shown by three main arguments2 for ,christ declared ,his ,equality1 ,unity1 and ,pre-existence with ,god4 ,in the first place1 ,christ claimed ,equality with ,god4 ,he said that the same honour should be given to ,himself as to ,god the ,father2 that men should believe in ,him as well as in ,god2 that ,he and the ,father would together dwell in the souls of men2 and that ,he1 like the ,father1 had the power of sending the ,holy ,spirit of ,god4#daf ,he also commanded men to be baptized into ,his ,name as well as into that of the ,father2 and promised that whenever and wherever ,his disciples were gathered together1 ,he would be in the midst of them1 even unto the end of the world1 which1 cannot be true of anyone but ,god4#dag ,footnote #daf3 ,john #e4 #bc2 #ad4 #a1 #bc2 #af4 #g4 ,footnote #dag3 ,matt4 #ah4 #bj2 #bh4 #ai1 #bj4 ,secondly1 ,christ claimed ,unity with ,god4 ,he did not say that ,he was another ,god1 but that ,he and the ,father were ,one2 that ,he was in the ,father1 and the ,father in ,him2 that whoever beheld ,him beheld the ,father2 that whoever had seen ,him had seen the ,father4#dah ,these latter texts cannot1 of course1 be pressed literally1 as few would maintain that ,christ was really ,god the ,father4 ,but just as if a human father and son were extremely alike1 we might say that if you had seen the son1 you had seen the father2 so if ,christ was truly ,god--,god the ,son--the very image of ,his ,father1#dai the same language might be used4 ,it would at least be intelligible4 ,but it would be quite unintelligible1 if ,christ had been merely a good man4 ,can we imagine the best man that ever lived saying1 ,if you have seen me1 you have seen ,god8 ,footnote #dah3 ,john #aj4 #cj2 #ag4 #ba2 #ab4 #de2 #ad4 #i4 ,footnote #dai3 ,heb4 #a4 #c4 ,thirdly1 ,christ claimed ,pre-existence with ,god4 ,he said that ,he had descended out of heaven2 that ,he had come down from heaven2 that ,he came out from the ,father and was come into the world2 and that even before its creation ,he had shared ,god's glory4#dbj ,while in another passage1 ',before ,abraham was1 ,i am1'#dba ,he not only said that ,he existed before ,abraham1 but by using the words ,i am instead of ,i was1 ,he seemed to identify ,himself with ,jehovah1 the great ,i am1 of the ,old ,testament4#dbb ,footnote #dbj3 ,john #c4 #ac2 #f4 #ch2 #af4 #bh2 #ag4 #e4 ,footnote #dba3 ,john #h4 #eh4 ,footnote #dbb3 ,exod4 #c4 #ad4 ,turning now to the other side1 there are four passages in which ,christ seems to disclaim being ,divine4 ,the most important is where ,he says that the ,son 7i4e4 ,himself7 does not know the time of the future ,judgment2#dbc and the present writer has never seen a really satisfactory explanation of this4 ,but it may be pointed out that if we admit that ,christ was both ,divine and human1 it is only fair to refer any particular statement to that nature1 to which it is applicable2 even though the wording seems to suggest the opposite4 ,in the same way1 the passage1 that the ,lord of ,glory was crucified#dbd can only refer to ,christ in ,his human nature1 and not in ,his ,divine nature1 as the ,lord of ,glory4 ,and in ,his human nature ,christ may have been ignorant of the time of the future ,judgment1 just as in ,his human nature ,he increased in wisdom and stature4#dbe ,footnote #dbc3 ,mark #ac4 #cb4 ,footnote #dbd3 #a ,cor4 #b4 #h4 ,footnote #dbe3 ,luke #b4 #eb4 ,then we have the passage where a ruler addresses ,christ as ',good ,master1' and ,christ demurs to this1 saying that the word was only applicable to ,god4#dbf ,and how1 it is asked1 could ,he have done so1 if ,he had been both good and ,god8 ,the best explanation seems to be that among the ,jews1 it was the custom never to address a ,teacher 7or ,rabbi7 as ,good4 ,they said ,god was 'the ,good ,one of the world'2 it was one of ,his titles4#dbg ,therefore as the ruler had no means of knowing that ,christ was ,god1 he was not justified in thus addressing ,him as ,good4 ,footnote #dbf3 ,mark #aj4 #ah4 ,footnote #dbg3 ,edersheim's ,life and ,times of the ,messiah1 vol4 ii41 p4 #cci4 ,the remaining two passages1 ',i go unto the ,father2 for the ,father is greater than ,i'2 and ',i ascend unto my ,father and your ,father1 and my ,god and your ,god1'#dbh are easier to explain1 since here it is obvious that they refer to ,christ's human nature alone1 as it was in ,his human nature alone that ,he was ever absent from the ,father4 ,and even here ,he carefully distinguishes ,his own relationship to ,god from that of ,his disciples4 ,for though ,he teaches them to say our ,father1 yet when including ,himself with them1 ,he does not here or anywhere else say our ,father1 or our ,god2 but always emphasises ,his own peculiar position4 ,while we may ask in regard to the first passage1 would anyone but ,god have thought it necessary to explain that ,god the ,father was greater than ,himself8 ,anyhow1 these passages do not alter the fact that ,christ did repeatedly claim to be both superhuman and ,divine4 ,footnote #dbh3 ,john #ad4 #bh2 #bj4 #ag4 7#c47 ,how these ,claims were understood at the time4 ,we have now to consider how these claims were understood at the time4 ,and first1 as to ,christ's friends4 ,we have overwhelming evidence that after ,his ,resurrection all the disciples and early ,christians believed their ,master to be both superhuman and ,divine4 ,and to realise the full significance of this1 we must remember that they were not polytheists1 who did not mind how many gods they believed in1 and were willing to worship ,roman ,emperors or anyone else2 but they were strict monotheists4 ,they firmly believed that there was only one ,god1 yet they firmly believed that ,christ was ,divine4 ,this is shown throughout the ,new ,testament4 ,thus the writers of the first three ,gospels1 though they usually record the events of ,christ's life without comment1 yet in one passage identify ,him with the ,god of the ,old ,testament1 referring the prophecy about the messenger of the ,lord our ,god to the messenger of ,christ4#dbi ,and as to the ,fourth ,gospel1 it begins with asserting ,christ's ,divinity in the plainest terms1 saying that the ,word1 who afterwards became flesh1 was ,god4 ,and it appropriately ended1 before the last chapter was added1 with ,st4 ,thomas declaring this same belief1 when he addressed ,christ as my ,lord and my ,god1 which titles ,he fully accepted4#dcj ,yet immediately afterwards1 the author says he wrote his ,gospel to convince men that ,jesus was the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god4 ,evidently then this expression1 the ,son of ,god1 meant to him1 and therefore presumably to other ,new ,testament writers1 who use it frequently1 that ,christ was truly ,god--,god the ,son--my ,lord and my ,god--in the fullest and most complete sense4 ,footnote #dbi3 ,isa4 #dj4 #c2 ,matt4 #c4 #c2 ,mark #a4 #c2 ,luke #c4 #d4 ,footnote #dcj3 ,john #a4 #a2 #bj4 #bh4 ,with regard to the ,acts an argument on the other side is sometimes drawn from ,st4 ,peter's speaking of ,christ as 'a man approved of ,god unto you by mighty works1' thus implying1 it is urged1 that ,st4 ,peter did not know ,him to be more than man4#dca ,but since he says he was only appealing to what his hearers knew to be true 7even as ye yourselves know71 how else could he have put it8 ,his hearers did not know that ,christ was ,god2 they did know that ,he was a man approved of ,god by many wonderful miracles1 because they had seen them4 ,moreover1 in other places the ,acts bear strong witness to the ,divinity of ,christ1 as for instance when ,st4 ,paul speaks of the ,church of ,god which ,he purchased with ,his own blood1 or ,st4 ,stephen says ,lord ,jesus receive my spirit2 or when the ,apostles are represented as working their miracles1 not in the name of ,god the ,father1 but in that of ,christ4#dcb ,footnote #dca3 ,acts #b4 #bb4 ,footnote #dcb3 ,acts #bj4 #bh2 #g4 #ei2 #c4 #f2 #d4 #aj4 ,next1 as to the ,book of ,revelation4 ,the evidence this affords is important1 because nearly all critics admit that it was written by ,st4 ,john4 ,and if so1 it shows conclusively that one at least of ,christ's intimate followers firmly believed in ,his ,divinity4 ,for he not only speaks of ,him as being universally worshipped both in heaven and on earth1 but describes ,him as the ,first and the ,last1 which is a title used by ,god in the ,old ,testament1 and is plainly inapplicable to anyone else4#dcc ,and we may ask1 is it conceivable that an intimate friend of ,christ should have believed ,him to be the ,everlasting ,god1 unless ,he had claimed to be so ,himself1 and had supported ,his claim by working miracles1 and rising from the dead8 ,is it not1 rather1 certain that nothing but the most overwhelming proof would ever have convinced a ,jew 7of all persons7 that a fellow ,man1 with whom he had lived for years1 and whom he had then seen put to death as a malefactor1 was ,himself the ,lord ,jehovah1 the ,first and the ,last8 ,footnote #dcc3 ,rev4 #e4 #aa-ad2 #a4 #ag1 #ah2 #b4 #h2 #bb4 #ac2 ,isa4 #dd4 #f4 ,but it is urged on the other side1 that the writer also calls ,him the beginning of the ,creation of ,god1 as if ,he had been merely the first ,being created4#dcd ,but the previous passages clearly show that this was not his meaning4 ,it was rather that ,christ was the beginning of creation1 because ,he was its ,source and ,agent2 ,he by whom1 as the same writer declares1 all things were made4 ,and elsewhere a similar title is given ,him for this identical reason1 as ,he is called the first-born of all creation1 because all things have been created through ,him4#dce ,footnote #dcd3 ,rev4 #c4 #ad2 ,footnote #dce3 ,john #a4 #c2 ,col4 #a4 #ae1 #af4 ,equally important evidence is afforded by ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles4 ,for though he is not likely to have known ,christ intimately1 he must have been acquainted with numbers who did1 including1 as he says1 ,james the ,lord's brother4#dcf ,and his early conversion1 before ,a4,d4 #ce1 together with the fact that he had previously persecuted the ,church at ,jerusalem1 and afterwards visited some of the ,apostles there1 must have made him well acquainted with the ,christian doctrines from the very first4 ,moreover he tells us himself that the faith which he taught was the same as that which he had previously persecuted2 and that when he visited the ,apostles he laid before them the ,gospel he preached1 evidently to make sure that it agreed with what they preached4#dcg ,footnote #dcf3 ,gal4 #a4 #ai4 ,footnote #dcg3 ,gal4 #a4 #bc2 #b4 #b4 ,there can thus be no doubt that the ,christianity of ,st4 ,paul was the same as that of the ,twelve4 ,and all through his ,epistles he bears witness to the superhuman character of ,christ2 declaring1 among other things1 ,his sinlessness1 and that ,he is the ,ruler1 ,redeemer1 and final ,judge of the world4#dch ,footnote #dch3 #b ,cor4 #e4 #ba2 ,rom4 #ad4 #i2 #a ,cor4 #ae4 #c2 #b ,cor4 #e4 #aj4 ,he also bears witness to ,his ,divine character1 saying in so many words that ,he is over all1 ,god blessed for ever2 that we shall all stand before the ,judgment-seat of ,god1 which elsewhere he calls the ,judgment-seat of ,christ2 that ,he was originally in the form of ,god 7i4e41 in a state of ,deity71 and on an equality with ,god1 before ,he became incarnate1 and took the form of ,man2 that in ,him dwells all the fullness of the ,godhead bodily2 that ,he is our great ,god and ,saviour ,jesus ,christ1 ,who gave ,himself for us2 and that the ,psalmist prophesied of ,him when he said1 ',thy throne1 ,o ,god1 is for ever and ever4'#dci ,this last passage1 from the ,hebrews1 was perhaps not written by ,st4 ,paul1 but this makes it all the more valuable1 as the ,epistle is generally dated1 from internal evidence1 before the destruction of ,jerusalem1 ,a4,d4 #gj2 and we have thus another early witness to the ,divinity of ,christ4 ,footnote #dci3 ,rom4 #i4 #e2 #ad4 #aj2 #b ,cor4 #e4 #aj2 ,phil4 #b4 #f2 ,col4 #b4 #i2 ,titus #b4 #ac2 ,heb4 #a4 #h4 ,the most important text on the other side is where ,st4 ,paul says there is one ,god the ,father1 and one ,lord ,jesus ,christ1#ddj which is quoted in the ,nicene ,creed4 ,but though the statement is a difficult one1 it cannot be pressed as implying that ,christ is not ,god2 for if so it would equally imply that the ,father was not ,lord1 which few would contend was ,st4 ,paul's meaning4 ,footnote #ddj3 #a ,cor4 #h4 #f2 ,comp4 ,eph4 #d4 #d-f4 ,with regard to the above passages1 it is important to notice that the allusions are all incidental4 ,st4 ,paul does not attempt to prove the superhuman and ,divine character of ,christ1 but refers to it as if it were undisputed4 ,he evidently believed it himself1 and took for granted that his readers did so too4 ,and his readers included not only his own converts at ,corinth and elsewhere1 but the converts of other ,apostles at ,rome1 which was a place he had not then visited1 and a strong party of opponents in ,galatia1 with whom he was arguing4 ,it is clear1 then1 that these doctrines were not peculiar to ,st4 ,paul1 but were the common property of all ,christians from the earliest times4 ,and when combined with the previous evidence1 this leaves no doubt as to how ,christ's friends understood ,his claims4 ,whatever they may have thought of them before the ,resurrection1 that event convinced them that they were true1 and they never hesitated in this belief4 ,next as to ,christ's foes4 ,the evidence here is equally convincing4 ,in ,st4 ,john's ,gospel we read that on several occasions during ,his life1 when ,christ asserted ,his superhuman and ,divine character1 the ,jews wanted to kill ,him in consequence2 often avowing their reason for doing so with the utmost frankness4 ',for a good work we stone thee not1 but for blasphemy and because that thou1 being a man1 makest thyself ,god4'#dda ,and in thus doing they were only acting in accordance with their law1 which commanded a blasphemer to be stoned4#ddb ,footnote #dda3 ,john #aj4 #cc2 #e4 #ah2 #h4 #ei2 #aa4 #h4 ,footnote #ddb3 ,lev4 #bd4 #af4 ,in none of these instances did ,christ repudiate the claims attributed to ,him1 or say ,he had been misunderstood4 ,in fact1 only once did ,he offer any explanation at all4 ,he then appealed to the passage in the ,old ,testament1 ',i said1 ,ye are gods1'#ddc and asserted that ,he was much better entitled to the term1 since ,he was sent into the world by the ,father1 and did the works of the ,father4 ,after which ,he again asserted ,his unity with the ,father1 which was the very point objected to by the ,jews4 ,footnote #ddc3 ,ps4 #hb4 #f4 ,moreover1 not only during ,his life did ,christ make these claims to be ,divine1 but ,he persevered with them even when it brought about ,his death4 ,it is undisputed that the ,jews condemned ,him for blasphemy1 and for nothing else4 ,this is the teaching not of one ,gospel alone1 but of each of the four4#ddd ,every biography of ,christ that we possess represents this as the real charge against ,him2 though1 of course1 when tried before the ,roman governor that of disloyalty to ,csar was brought forward as well4 ,footnote #ddd3 ,matt4 #bf4 #fe2 ,mark #ad4 #fd2 ,luke #bb4 #ga2 ,john #ai4 #g4 ,there is only one conclusion to be drawn from all this4 ,it is that ,christ did really claim to be both superhuman and ,divine2 that ,he deliberately and repeatedly asserted these claims during ,his life2 that this provoked the hostility of the ,jews1 who frequently wanted to kill ,him2 that ,he never repudiated these claims1 but persevered with them to the end2 and was finally put to death in consequence4 7,c47 ,,the ,,great ,,alternative4 ,we pass on now to the great alternative1 which is forced upon us by combining the teaching and the claims of ,christ4 ,before pointing out its importance we must notice a favourite method of trying to get out of the difficulty1 which is by saying that the teaching of ,christ occurs in the first three ,gospels1 and the claims in the ,fourth2 so if we deny the accuracy of this single ,gospel the difficulty is removed4 ,but unfortunately for this objection1 though the ,divine claims occur chiefly in the ,fourth ,gospel1 the superhuman ones are most prominent in the other three2 and we have purposely chosen all the passages illustrating them from these ,gospels alone4 ,and what is more1 they occur in all the supposed sources of these ,gospels--the so-called ,triple ,tradition1 the source common to ,matthew and ,luke1 etc4 ,everywhere from the earliest record to the latest1 ,christ is represented as claiming to be superhuman4 ,and such claims are equally fatal to ,his moral character if ,he were only a man4 ,for no good man1 and indeed very few bad ones1 could be so fearfully presumptuous as to claim to be the absolute ,ruler of the world1 still less to be its ,redeemer1 and1 least of all1 to be its one and only ,judge hereafter4 ,this objection1 then1 cannot be maintained1 and we are forced to conclude that the perfect moral teaching of ,christ was accompanied by continual assertions of ,his own superhuman and ,divine character4 ,and as this was a point about which ,he must have known1 it is clear that the statements must have been either true or intentionally false4 ,he must1 therefore1 have been ,divine1 or else a deliberate impostor4 ,in other words1 the ,christ of the ,gospels--and history knows of no other--could not have been merely a good man4 ,he was either ,god as ,he claimed to be1 or else a bad man for making such claims4 ,this is the ,great ,alternative4 ,moreover1 it is absolutely unique in the world's history4 ,nowhere else shall we find a parallel to it4 ,in ,christ--and in ,christ alone--we have a ,man ,whose moral character and teaching have fascinated the world for centuries2 and yet ,who1 unless ,his own claims were true1 must have been guilty of the greatest falsehood1 and blasphemy4 ,this is the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the facts we have been considering1 and all attempts to avoid it fail hopelessly4 ,now what effect has this on our present inquiry as to the truth of ,christianity8 ,plainly it forms another strong argument in its favour4 ,for the moral teaching of its ,founder is shown to be not only the most perfect the world has ever seen1 but it is combined with a sense of entire sinlessness which is absolutely unique among men4 ,both of these1 however1 are also combined with claims to a superhuman and ,divine character1 which1 if they are not correct1 can only be described as impious1 and profane4 ,therefore1 unless ,christianity is true1 its ,founder must have been not only the very best of men2 but also one of the very worst2 and this is a dilemma from which there is no escape4 ,,chapter ,,xxii4 ,,that ,,the ,,history ,,of ,,christianity ,,confirms ,,its ,,truth4 7,a47 ,,its ,,early ,,triumphs4 7#a47 ,its immense difficulties4 7#b47 ,its marvellous success4 7#c47 ,the so-called natural causes of success3 they all imply the truth of the ,religion4 7#d47 ,contrast with ,mohammedanism4 7,b47 ,,its ,,later ,,history4 7#a47 ,its vitality in the past2 very remarkable4 7#b47 ,its effect at the present2 very beneficial4 7#c47 ,its prospects in the future2 very hopeful4 7#d47 ,the spread of ,rationalism2 but this is no new difficulty1 while it shows the strength of ,christianity1 and being only destructive1 can never take its place4 7,c47 ,,conclusion4 ,the history of ,christianity1 which seems to have been foreknown to its ,founder1 forms another strong argument in its favour4 ,the argument we have next to consider is that derived from the ,history of ,christianity4 ,this religion1 it must be remembered1 originated1 spread over1 and finally conquered the civilised world in an historical age4 ,and since the fact of this conquest can neither be disputed nor ignored1 it must be accounted for4 ,how is it that an obscure ,jewish ,peasant1 who was crucified as a malefactor1 some nineteen centuries ago1 should now be worshipped1 by over five hundred million persons1 including all the most civilised nations of the world8 ,as a mere historical problem1 this requires some solution1 for an effect in history1 as elsewhere1 must have an adequate cause4 ,and it is scarcely too much to say that this is the most remarkable effect in the history of mankind4 ,here1 then1 is the subject we have to discuss2 and we will first consider the early triumphs of ,christianity1 and then its later history4 7,a47 ,,its ,,early ,,triumphs4 ,now it seems hard to exaggerate either the immense difficulties the religion had to overcome1 or its marvellous success in overcoming them4 7#a47 ,its immense difficulties4 ,in the first place1 we must consider the immense difficulties of founding such a religion as ,christianity4 ,our familiarity with the subject prevents us from fully realising this1 so perhaps an analogy will help to make it clear4 ,suppose1 then1 that missionaries now appeared in the cities of ,europe1 in ,london and ,edinburgh1 for example1 and preached that an obscure peasant1 who had been put to death somewhere in ,persia as a malefactor1 had risen from the dead1 and was the ,god of heaven and earth4 ,what chance would they have of making a single convert8 ,yet the first preaching of ,christianity at ,rome or ,athens must have been very similar to this1 only far more dangerous4 ,indeed1 it is hard to over-estimate the difficulties of founding a religion1 the principal doctrine of which1--and one that the ,christians so boldly proclaimed1--was that of a crucified ,saviour4#dde ,footnote #dde3 #a ,cor4 #a4 #bc4 ,and all this took place among civilised nations1 and in a literary1 one might almost say a rationalistic1 age2 when the old pagan religions were being abandoned1 because men could no longer believe in them4 ,what1 then1 must have been the difficulty of introducing a new religion1 which was 7apparently7 more absurd than any of them1 and which worshipped ,one ,who had been crucified8 ,christianity had1 of course1 many other difficulties to contend with especially in regard to its absolute claims2 for it was a religion which could stand no rival1 and its success meant the destruction of every heathen altar4 ,but these sink into insignificance1 compared with the great difficulty of the ,cross4 7#b47 ,its marvellous success4 ,yet1 in spite of every difficulty1 ,christianity prevailed4 ,the new religion spread with great rapidity4 ,this we learn not only from ,christian writers1 who might be thought to exaggerate2 but from impartial men such as ,suetonius and ,tacitus4 ,the former says that in the reign of ,claudius 7,a4,d4 #da-ed7 the ,jews in ,rome1 stirred up by one ,chrestus 7i4e41 ,christian ,jews71 were so numerous that the ,emperor thought it expedient to banish them2 and the latter that at the time of the great fire 7,a4,d4 #fd7 large numbers of ,christians were discovered at ,rome4 ,while some years later ,pliny1 one of the ,roman governors in ,asia ,minor1 complained to the ,emperor ,trajan that the ,christians were so numerous that the temples had long been deserted1 though at the time he wrote 7,a4,d4 #aab7 they were being frequented again4 ,he also bears witness to the exemplary lives of the ,christians1 their steadfastness in their religion1 and the divine worship they paid to ,christ4 ,and as the religion did not originate in either ,rome or ,asia ,minor1 ,christians were presumably as numerous elsewhere4 ,nor can it be said that they were only to be found among the poor and ignorant4 ,for ,pliny himself admits that they included men of every rank in life2 and the undisputed ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul1 such as that to the ,romans 7about ,a4,d4 #ee71 show that he thought his readers well educated1 and quite able to follow a difficult argument4 ,moreover1 according to the ,acts1 the people were by no means willing to accept ,christianity without inquiry2 and ,st4 ,paul was obliged in consequence to have long discussions on the subject4 ,this was especially the case at ,ephesus1 where he reasoned daily in one of the schools1 for about two years1#ddf which does not look as if his followers were only among the poor and ignorant4 ,while elsewhere we have the names of some eminent converts4 ,footnote #ddf3 ,acts #ai4 #i-aj2 #ag4 #ag4 ,among these may be mentioned ,erastus the treasurer of the city at ,corinth2 and ,crispus1 the ruler of the ,synagogue there2 ,dionysius1 the ,areopagite at ,athens2 ,manaen1 the foster-brother of ,herod the tetrarch2 ,apollos1 a learned ,jew of ,alexandria1 who had made a special study of the ,scriptures2 and ,theophilus1 a man of high rank 7as is shown by the title ,most excellent71 none of whom are likely to have accepted the religion of the ,crucified1 without very strong evidence4#ddg ,and recent discoveries in the catacombs have made it probable that a distinguished ,roman lady1 ,pomponia ,grcina 7wife of the ,general ,aulus ,plautius7 who ,tacitus says was accused in ,a4,d4 #eg of having adopted a foreign superstition1 was also a ,christian4#ddh ,footnote #ddg3 ,rom4 #af4 #bc2 ,acts #ah4 #h2 #ag4 #cd2 #ac4 #a2 #ah4 #bd2 #a4 #a2 comp4 #bc4 #bf2 #bd4 #c4 ,footnote #ddh3 ,j4 ,orr1 ,hist4 and ,lit4 of early ,church1 #aiac1 p4 #dc4 ,tacitus1 ,annals1 ,bk4 xiii41 ch4 #cb4 ,now what was the cause of this wonderful progress8 ,it is easy to say what was not its cause4 ,physical force and the authority of the ,government had nothing to do with it4 ,its missionaries did not preach with sword in hand1 nor were they backed up by the civil power4 ,all they did1 all they could do1 was to appeal to man's reason and conscience1 and this appeal was successful4 ,and we learn from the ,christians' themselves1 e4g41 in the ,acts1 that there were two main reasons for this4 ,the first was the confident appeal to the facts of ,christianity1 such as the ,resurrection of ,christ1 as undisputed and indisputable2 and the second was the occasional aid of miracles4 ,and the more we reflect on the subject1 the more difficult it is to account for it1 without at least one of these causes4 ,for the spread of ,christianity was not like that of a mere philosophy1 or system of morals4 ,it depended entirely on certain alleged matters of fact1 which facts were quite recent at the time of its origin1 occurred at the very place where it was first preached1 and were open to the hostile criticism of an entire nation4 ,this1 it is needless to say1 is without a parallel in history4 ,but it may be said1 notwithstanding this rapid progress at first1 ,christianity took nearly three centuries to conquer the civilised world4 ,undoubtedly it did1 but the significance of the conquest is not diminished by this4 ,it is rather increased when we remember that at intervals all through this period the ,religion suffered the fiercest persecution4 ,that it should have survived such a fearfully prolonged struggle1 and have finally conquered1 does but show its inherent strength4 ,we may look in vain for anything like this in the rest of history4 ,no other religion has ever withstood such persistent attacks2 no other religion has ever obtained such a complete and almost incredible triumph1 the ,emperor of the civilised world being brought to worship ,one ,who had been put to death as a malefactor4 ,in short1 the progress of ,christianity was as unique as its origin1 and can only be satisfactorily accounted for by its truth4 7#c47 ,the so-called natural causes of success4 ,we must next glance at some natural causes which have been alleged as accounting for the wonderful spread of ,christianity4 ,those brought forward by ,gibbon in his ,decline and ,fall of the ,roman ,empire 7,chapter ,,xv47 are five in number4 ,the first is the intense zeal of the early ,christians4 ,and doubtless this was a most important element in spreading their religion4 ,but what gave them this intense zeal8 ,what was it that made them so fearfully in earnest about their new religion1 that they faced a life of suffering1 and a death of martyrdom in preaching it8 ,there can be but one answer4 ,it was because they were so absolutely convinced of its truth4 ,it was vouched for by what they considered overwhelming evidence1 so they willingly risked everything for it4 ,their zeal1 then1 is but evidence for their conviction1 and their conviction is but evidence for the truth of what they were convinced of2 and valuable evidence too1 for they plainly had much better means of knowing about it1 than any that we can have4 ,secondly1 there is the doctrine of a future life2 and doubtless this also had much to do with the success of ,christianity4 ,a longing for immortality seems inherent in man1 and the vague guesses of philosophers were quite unable to satisfy this4 ,it might be true that men should live again1 but that was all they could say4 ,christianity alone1 resting on the actual fact of ,christ's ,resurrection1 said it was true2 so here men found the assurance they wanted4 ,but is it likely that ,christianity should have so thoroughly satisfied them in this respect1 had there been any real doubt as to ,christ's ,resurrection8 ,thirdly1 we have the miracles ascribed to the early ,christians4 ,gibbon's argument here is more difficult to follow4 ,of course if these miracles were true1 they would have greatly assisted the new religion2 but then they would have been1 not a natural but a supernatural cause of success4 ,if on the other hand1 the miracles were false1 it is hard to see how the early ,christians could have helped their religion by claiming miraculous powers which they did not possess1 and which their contemporaries must have known that they did not possess4 ,fourthly1 we have the pure morality taught and practised by the early ,christians4 ,and no doubt this had something to do with helping their religion4 ,but again we must ask1 what was it that enabled the ,christians alone in that age of vice and wickedness to lead pure lives8 ,they ascribed it themselves to the example and power of their ,founder1 and nothing else can account for it4 ,christian morality cannot be a stream without a source1 and no other source can be assigned to it4 ,but could a mere human ,teacher have had this more than human influence over thousands of converts1 most of whom had never seen him8 ,lastly1 comes the union and discipline of the early ,church4 ,this may have helped ,christianity in the later stages of the struggle1 but could obviously have been of little use at the commencement4 ,moreover1 why should ,christians of various nations and classes have been so thoroughly united on this one subject1 unless they were convinced of its overwhelming importance8 ,on the whole1 then1 these so-called natural causes of success are at most only secondary causes2 the truth of the religion is what they all imply1 and this is the real cause which alone can account for its success4 ,a better way of explaining the spread of ,christianity1 which is now often adopted1 is by saying that it arose at a favourable crisis4 ,the dispersion of the ,jews throughout the known world would1 it is urged1 have facilitated the spread of a religion founded by ,jews4 ,the speculations of the ,greeks as to a ,divine ,word1 or ,logos1 would have prevented the doctrines of the ,trinity1 and the ,incarnation1 from forming any great difficulty to the learned classes4 ,while the mass of the people were disgusted with the old mythologies of ,greece and ,rome4 ,these were dying out1 because they failed to satisfy human nature1 and men were longing for something better4 ,they wanted1 as men always will want1 a religion2 but they wanted it free from the absurdities and immoralities of ,pagan worship4 ,christianity then appeared1 and as it was found by many to meet the demand1 it naturally succeeded4 ,in answer to this it must be remembered that ,christianity was not a religion founded at ,rome or ,athens1 in which case it might perhaps be said that the demand caused the supply2 but it arose as a small ,jewish sect in ,palestine4 ,while the fierce persecutions it had to endure show that it did not obviously meet the requirements of the day1 even apart from the tremendous difficulties involved in the worship of the ,crucified4 ,but now suppose1 for the sake of argument1 that this had been otherwise1 and that the world was so suited to receive ,christianity as to account for its rapid spread2 would the inference be against its ,divine origin8 ,certainly not2 for the agreement in this case would be far too close to be accidental4 ,it must have been designed4 ,and it would thus show that the ,god ,who rules in history1 is also the ,god ,who introduced ,christianity4 ,so here again the proposed explanation1 even if admitted1 does but imply the truth of the religion4 7#d47 ,contrast with ,mohammedanism4 ,and this conclusion is rendered still stronger when we contrast the progress of ,christianity with that of ,mohammedanism4 ,for here we have the one example that history affords of the spread of a religion which can be compared with that of ,christianity4 ,yet the contrast between the two is very marked1 whether we consider the means by which they were spread1 or their alleged evidence of truthfulness4 ,for ,mohammed did not appeal to reason1 but to force1 and all we have to account for is that he should be able to collect an army1 that this army should conquer1 and that the conquered should adopt the religion of their conquerors1 about which they were often given no option4 ,in the spread of ,christianity1 on the other hand1 no force whatever was employed1 and it had immense difficulties to contend with4 ,in fact it carried a cross instead of a sword4 ,thus the contrast between the two is just what we should expect between the natural and the supernatural spread of a religion1 the one advancing by worldly power1 the other in spite of it4 ,but an even greater contrast has still to be noticed1 which is that ,mohammed did not appeal to any miracles in support of his claims--that is1 to outward matters of fact which could be judged of by other people4 ,and this is the more remarkable since he refers to the miracles of previous prophets1 including those of ,christ1 as authentic1#ddi but never claims to have worked any himself4 ,the obvious conclusion is that he felt1 as all men must feel1 the overwhelming difficulty of asserting public miracles if none occurred1 and he therefore appealed to force1 because he had nothing better to appeal to4 ,yet1 as we have seen1 the early ,christians asserted such miracles from the first4 ,they were not advocates of a creed1 but witnesses for certain facts1 such as the ,resurrection and other miracles which they believed they actually saw2 and there is nothing corresponding to this in regard to ,mohammedanism1 or any other religion4 ,it may of course be said that ,mohammedanism shows that a religion can make rapid progress without miracles4 ,no doubt it does2 and so does ,buddhism1 which also spread rapidly4 ,but it does not show that a religion which1 like ,christianity1 claims to rest on miracles1 can make its way if those miracles are false4 ,footnote #ddi3 ,koran1 ,sura v4 7,b47 ,,its ,,later ,,history4 ,we pass on now from the early triumphs of ,christianity to its later history1 and will consider in turn its past vitality1 its present effect1 and its future prospects4 7#a47 ,its vitality in the past4 ,to begin with1 a strong argument in favour of ,christianity is its vitality4 ,it has survived in spite of external assaults and internal divisions2 and its spread and continuity can only be satisfactorily accounted for by its truth4 ,this is an argument the force of which increases as times goes on1 and fresh difficulties are encountered and overcome4 ,moreover1 the social state of the world has changed immensely1 yet ,christianity has always kept in touch with it4 ,it has shown itself suitable for different ages1 countries1 and social conditions2 and1 unlike other religions1 is still in sympathy with the highest forms of civilisation4 ,in short1 ,christianity has kept possession of the civilised world for sixteen centuries1 and is as vigorous in its age as in its youth4 ,its long reign is indeed so familiar to us that there is a danger of not noticing its importance4 ,can we imagine a man now who should found a religion1 which nearly two thousand years hence should be still flourishing1 still spreading1 and still recognising him not only as its founder but its ,god8 ,yet this would be but a similar case to that of ,christianity4 ,amid all the changes in history it alone has remained unchanged4 ,its doctrines1 at least the essential ones1 contained in the ,creeds1 have been the same1 century after century1 and its ,founder is still worshipped by millions4 7#b47 ,its effect at the present4 ,in close connection with the history of ,christianity comes its effect on the world4 ,a religion which has reigned so long1 and over the most civilised nations1 must of necessity have had some influence for good or evil4 ,and with regard to ,christianity there can be little doubt as to the answer4 ,the present state of the civilised world is a standing witness to its benefits1 since nearly all our moral superiority to the nations of old is due to this religion4 ,for example1 it has entirely altered the position of women1 who are no longer looked down upon as they used to be4 ,it has also altered the position of children1 who were formerly considered as property1 and at the disposal of their parents1 infanticide being of course common4 ,again1 it has changed our ideas as to the sick1 a hospital being almost entirely a ,christian institution4 ,it has also changed our ideas about work4 ,in all the nations of antiquity1 and in heathen countries at the present day1 a workman is looked down upon4 ,but to ,christians1 who believe that ,god ,himself worked in a carpenter's shop1 all work is ennobled4 ,once more1 it has created a respect for human life as such1 and apart from the position of the individual person1 which was unknown in ancient times4 ,in short1 our acknowledgement of what are called the rights of man is almost entirely due to ,christianity4 ,nor is there anything surprising in this2 for the common ,fatherhood of ,god and the common love of ,christ naturally afford the strongest argument for the common rights of man4 ,in ,christ1 as ,st4 ,paul expresses it1 there can be neither bond1 nor free2 male nor female2 for all are equal4#dej ,the good which ,christianity has done is thus indisputable4 ,footnote #dej3 ,gal4 #c4 #bh4 ,but it may be said1 has it not also done some harm8 ,what about the religious wars and persecutions in the ,middle ,ages8 ,with regard to the wars1 however1 religion was1 as a rule1 the excuse rather than the cause2 for had ,christianity never been heard of1 there would doubtless have been wars in the ,middle ,ages1 as in all other ages4 ,with regard to the persecutions1 they must be both admitted and deplored2 but we may ask1 what religion except ,christianity could have been mixed up with such persecutions1 and yet have escaped the odium of mankind8 ,christianity has done so1 because men have seen that it was not the religion itself1 but its false friends who were responsible for the persecutions4 ,the important point is that the ,new ,testament1 unlike the ,koran1#dea does not authorise1 still less command1 the employment of force in gaining converts4 ,footnote #dea3 ,koran1 ,sura viii4 #ab2 ix4 #e2 xlvii4 #d4 ,we now turn to another aspect of the subject4 ,not only has ,christianity done much good in the past1 but it is doing much good at the present4 ,this also is beyond dispute2 anyone can verify the fact for himself4 ,thousands of men and women spend their lives in self-sacrifice among the poor and sick solely for the sake of ,christ4 ,of course1 it may be said that all this is folly and that we ought to try and benefit our fellow-men for their own sake or for the sake of the ,state4 ,but1 whether folly or not1 the fact remains4 ,the vast majority of those who visit the poor and sick 7,sisters of ,mercy for instance7 do not do so for the sake of the ,state1 or even mainly for the sake of the poor themselves1 but from avowedly ,christian motives4 ,they believe that ,christ loves these poor1 and therefore they love them too1 and willingly spend their lives in trying to help them4 ,it is also a fact that this strange attraction which ,christ exercises1 over the hearts of men is unique in history4 ,can we imagine anyone spending his life in visiting the sick in some large town1 and saying that he is doing it for the love of ,david1 or of ,plato1 or of ,mohammed8 ,yet all through the civilised world thousands are doing it for the love of ,christ4 ,and this influence1 be it observed1 is not like that of other great men1 local and temporary1 but world-wide and permanent4 ,christ is thus not only1 as we saw in the last chapter1 the holiest of men1 but the mightiest of men also2 the ,man in short who has most influenced mankind4 ,and1 with trifling exceptions1 few will dispute that this influence has been wholly for good4 ,so judged by its fruits1 ,christianity is a religion which might very reasonably have had a ,divine origin4 ,on the other hand1 it must be admitted that though ,christianity has done so much good1 it has not entirely reformed the world1--it has not even stopped wars among ,christian nations--and its failure to do this1 after trying for so many centuries1 is thought by some to be adverse to its claims4 ,but others think that its partial success and partial failure are just what we should expect if it were true4 ,and what is more to the point1 this seems to have been expected by its ,founder1 for ,he always implied that the good and the evil--the wheat and the tares--were to be mixed together until the end of the world4 ,moreover1 its failure has been due almost entirely to the inconsistency of its adherents4 ,if all men were ,christians1 and all ,christians lived up to the religion they professed1 there would be little to complain of1 even in this imperfect world4 ,on the whole1 then1 the effect of ,christianity is distinctly in its favour4 ,it has done much good1 and will probably do more as time goes on2 though it has not entirely reformed the world1 and probably never will4 ,but the good it has done is an actual fact which cannot be disputed1 while the argument that it ought to have done more good is at least open to doubt4 7#c47 ,its prospects in the future4 ,lastly1 the spread of ,christianity seems likely to continue1 and some day we may expect to see it universally professed in the world1 as it is in ,western ,europe at the present time1 though1 of course1 there will always be individuals who dissent from it4 ,the reasons for this confident hope are1 that1 speaking broadly1 ,christian nations alone are extending their influence4 ,japan may1 of course1 be quoted as an exception1 but strange to say ,japan seems to be becoming ,christian4 ,and to this must be added the fact that ,christian missions are now being revived to a large extent2 and1 though they are not always successful1 yet1 taken together1 they secure a good many converts4 ,moreover1 there is no other side to this argument4 ,it is not that ,christianity is being adopted in some countries but renounced in others4 ,the gains1 whether great or small1 are all net profits4 ,with one exception1 there is not a single instance for many centuries of a nation or tribe which once adopted ,christianity changing its religion to anything else4 ,and the exception1 that of ,france at the time of the ,revolution1 strikingly proves the rule2 for the change could not be maintained1 and in a few years ,christianity again asserted itself throughout the country4 7#d47 ,the spread of ,rationalism4 ,but an important objection has now to be examined4 ,it is said that even in ,christian countries an increasingly large number of men either openly reject ,christianity1 or give it at most a mere nominal approval4 ,this may be called the objection from the spread of ,rationalism1 and it is an important one1 because it is an attempt to meet ,christianity with its own weapons1 by appealing to reason4 ,of course it must be remembered that a great deal of the infidelity of the present day is not due to reasoning at all1 but to the want of it2 and it is hopeless to argue against this4 ,for how can men be convinced of ,christianity1 or anything else1 if they will not take the trouble to examine its claims8 ,but putting aside this class1 there are still many men who may fairly be called ,rationalists--men1 that is1 who have studied both sides of the subject1 and whose reasoning leads them to reject ,christianity4 ,they admit that there is evidence in its favour1 but they say that it is far from convincing4 ,and it is believed by many that ,rationalism is spreading at the present day1 and will eventually become common among thoughtful men4 ,now1 of course1 the whole of this ,essay is really an attempt to meet this objection1 and to show that1 when carefully considered1 the arguments in favour of ,christianity far outweigh those against it4 ,but three additional remarks may be made here4 ,the first is1 that this is no new difficulty4 ,rationalism has existed ever since the ,middle ,ages1 and was most aggressive and most confident in the eighteenth century1 as a single quotation will show4 ,bishop ,butler in the preface to his ,analogy of ,religion1 #agcf1 says1 ',it has come1 ,i know not how1 to be taken for granted1 by many persons1 that ,christianity is not so much as a subject of inquiry1 but that it is now at length discovered to be fictitious4 ,and accordingly they treat it as if1 in the present age1 this were an agreed point among all people of discernment2 and nothing remained but to set it up as a principal subject of mirth and ridicule1 as it were by way of reprisals for its having so long interrupted the pleasures of the world4' ,it is now nearly two centuries since these words were written1 and ,christianity is still flourishing6 ,therefore1 as all previous attacks have proved futile1 there is no reason to believe that the present one will be more successful4 ,secondly1 these continued assaults on ,christianity afford in one respect additional evidence in its favour2 since they show1 as nothing but repeated attacks could show1 its indestructibility4 ,had ,christianity never been assailed1 its strength would never have been apparent2 but now we know that1 try as men will for centuries1 they cannot get rid of this religion4 ,thirdly1 it must be remembered that ,rationalism is all destructive and not constructive4 ,it can show many reasons for not believing in ,christianity1 but it can give the world nothing which can in any way take its place4 ,it has no satisfactory solution for the great problems of life4 ,why does man exist at all8 ,why has he got free will8 ,what is the meaning of sin8 ,is there any forgiveness for sin8 ,what is the meaning of death8 ,is there any life beyond death8 ,is there a judgment8 ,can we dare to face it8 ,shall we recognise those whom we have loved on earth8 ,in short1 what is man's destiny here and hereafter8 ,these are the questions which always have interested1 and always will interest1 mankind4 ,rationalists may say that the ,christian answer to them is incorrect2 but they can offer no other which is worth a moment's consideration4 7,c47 ,,conclusion4 ,before concluding this chapter one other point of some importance has to be noticed4 ,it is that the early history of ,christianity with its continual triumph amidst continual persecution1 seems to have been foreknown to its ,founder2 as well as ,his own marvellous influence in the world4 ,these prophecies of ,christ concerning ,his own religion are certainly very striking4 ,we find1 on the one hand1 a most absolute conviction as to the triumph of ,his ,church4 ,it was to spread far and wide2 its missionaries were to go into all the world and make disciples of all the nations1 and its enemies would never prevail against it4#deb ,and on the other1 there is an equally certain conviction as to the constant sufferings of its members1 who were to expect life-long persecution and the universal hatred of mankind4#dec ,footnote #deb3 ,mark #af4 #ae2 ,matt4 #bh4 #ai2 #af4 #ah4 ,footnote #dec3 ,e4g41 ,matt4 #aj4 #ag1 #bb4 ,yet these strange prophecies of continual success amidst continual suffering were for three centuries as strangely fulfilled1 including even the little detail that ,christ's followers were to be hated for ,his name's sake4#ded ,since as a matter of fact they were often persecuted for the mere name1 and it was this that made them so indignant4 ,thus ,justin says1 ',you receive the name as proof against us4444 ,if any deny the name you acquit him as having no evidence against him4'#dee ,as ,christ foretold1 it was literally for ,his name's sake4 ,footnote #ded3 ,mark #ac4 #ac4 ,footnote #dee3 ,justin1 ,apol4 #a4 #d2 #a ,peter #d4 #ad4 ,moreover1 ,christ's assertions regarding ,his own influence in the world are equally remarkable4 ,we will give but two examples4#def ,he said1 ,and ,i1 if ,i be lifted up from the earth1 will draw all men unto ,myself4 ,he was lifted up on the cross1 and1 however strange we may think it1 millions of men have in consequence been drawn to ,him with passionate devotion4 ,again1 ,he said1 ,i am the light of the world4 ,and now1 after nearly nineteen centuries1 both friends and foes admit that ,his is the teaching which has enlightened and purified mankind4 ,had ,he been a mere ,jewish peasant1 ,his making such prophecies as these seems almost as incredible as their fulfilment4 ,but what shall we say when they were both made and fulfilled8 ,have we not here a powerful argument in favour of ,christianity8 ,nor can we get out of the difficulty by denying the genuineness of the passages2 for they would be quite as remarkable if invented by an evangelist1 as if spoken by ,christ ,himself4 ,footnote #def3 ,john #ab4 #cb2 #h4 #ab4 ,we may now sum up this chapter on the ,history of ,christianity4 ,we have considered in turn1 both its early triumphs1 and its later history2 and each of these is1 strictly speaking1 unique1 and each is inexplicable on purely natural grounds4 ,but undoubtedly the more important is the marvellous success of ,christianity at first1 in spite of the immense difficulties it had to encounter2 and1 as we have seen1 all natural explanations of this fail hopelessly4 ,the historical argument1 then1 leads us back to miracles2 for every other explanation of the first triumph of ,christianity is found to be inadequate4 ,while1 on the other hand1 the establishment of the ,christian religion is just what we should expect if the miracles were true4 ,and of course true miracles1 not false ones1 are required to account for it4 ,the most holy and the most powerful religion the world has ever seen cannot have been founded on falsehood or fable4 ,in other words1 if we deny that the ,christian miracles occurred1 and take from ,christ all that is superhuman1 we cannot imagine ,him as the ,founder of ,christianity4 ,there would be an obvious want of proportion between cause and effect4 ,and1 as a matter of fact1 it was not a natural ,christ1 but a supernatural ,christ--the ,christ of the ,gospels--who won the heart of mankind1 and conquered the world4 ,we seem thus forced to the conclusion that the only thing which can account for the history of ,christianity is its truth4 ,anyhow1 it is plain that its ,history forms another strong argument in its favour4 ,,chapter ,,xxiii4 ,,that ,,on ,,the ,,whole ,,the ,,other ,,evidence ,,supports ,,this ,,conclusion4 ,additional arguments for and against ,christianity4 7,a47 ,,christianity ,,and ,,prayer4 ,its universality4 ,there are1 however1 three difficulties3 7#a47 ,scientific difficulty2 said to be incredible1 as interfering with the course of nature4 7#b47 ,moral difficulty2 said to be wrong1 as inconsistent with the power1 wisdom1 and goodness of ,god4 7#c47 ,practical difficulty2 said to be useless1 as shown by observation2 but none of these can be maintained4 7,b47 ,,christianity ,,and ,,human ,,nature4 ,it is adapted to human nature2 for it meets to a great extent the inherent cravings of mankind1 especially in regard to sorrow and sin1 death and eternity4 ,the objection as to selfishness4 7,c47 ,,christianity ,,and ,,other ,,religions4 ,their comparative study2 the ,krishna myth2 the ,horus myth4 ,conclusion4 ,we propose in this chapter to consider some of the remaining arguments for and against ,christianity4 ,fortunately1 there are only three of anything like sufficient importance to affect the general conclusion4 ,these arise from the relation of ,christianity to prayer1 to human nature1 and to other religions2 and we will examine each in turn4 ,we need not discuss mere ,bible difficulties1 as they are called2 for though some of these are fatal to the theory of ,verbal ,inspiration1 or that every word of the ,bible is true2 this is now held by scarcely anyone4 ,and if the ,book is as trustworthy a record of the facts it relates1 as an ordinary ,history of ,england1 that is amply sufficient to prove ,christianity4 ,nor1 on the other hand1 need we discuss further evidence in favour of the ,bible4 ,but as we considered what it says about the creation of the world1 we may just notice in passing what it says about its end4 ,there will be a great noise1 the elements will be dissolved with fervent heat1 and the earth1 and all it contains will be burned up4#deg ,everyone now admits that this is true1 for our planet will1 sooner or later1 fall into the sun1 when all these results will follow4 ,but 7apart from ,revelation7 how could the writer have known it8 ,there is nothing in the present aspect of the earth to suggest that it will one day be burned up1 and considering the amount of water it contains1 the idea might well seem incredible4 ,we pass on now to the subject of ,prayer4 ,footnote #deg3 #b ,peter #c4 #aj4 7,a47 ,,christianity ,,and ,,prayer4 ,now the ,christian1 in common with most other religions1 asserts the value of prayer not only for obtaining what are called spiritual blessings1 but also as a means of influencing natural events4 ,yet prayer with such an object is said by many to be scientifically incredible1 morally wrong1 and practically useless4 ,so we will first glance at the universality of the custom1 and then consider these difficulties4 ,now1 prayer of some kind is1 and always has been1 the universal rule in almost every religion4 ,it is found wherever mankind is found4 ,no one can point to its inventor1 no one can point to a time when men did not pray4 ,missionaries have not to teach their converts to pray1 but merely to ,whom to pray4 ,in short1 prayer of some kind seems universal1 just as man's sense of right and wrong is universal1 though each is capable of being trained and perfected4 ,nor is it in any way like an animal's cry of pain when hurt1 which1 though universal1 means nothing2 for this of course resembles a man's cry of pain1 and has no connection with prayer whatever4 ,if1 then1 prayer is a delusion1 it is to say the least a very remarkable one1 especially as in most ancient religions prayer was made to false gods who could not answer it2 yet in spite of every failure1 the belief in prayer has always remained4 ,men have always preferred to think that the failure was due to their own unworthiness1 rather than give up the belief in a ,god ,who answers prayer4 ,and this universality of the custom is a strong argument in its favour2 for it seems most unlikely that ,god should have implanted in mankind a universal habit of asking if ,he never intended to answer4 ,we pass on now to the difficulties4 7#a47 ,scientific difficulty4 ,in the first place1 it is said that answers to prayer are scientifically incredible1 since they would involve ,god's interfering with the course of nature1 or1 in popular language1 working miracles4 ,the most probable explanation is1 that they are only a particular class of superhuman coincidences 7,chapter ,,vii474 ,according to this theory1 ,god1 knowing beforehand that the prayer would be offered1 arranged beforehand to answer it4 ,thus the prayer was not a direct cause of the event which fulfilled it1 but it may still have been an indirect cause4 ,for had the man not prayed1 ,god1 foreknowing this1 might not have arranged for the event to have happened4 ,and the same is true even when the prayer is made after the event4 ,suppose1 for instance1 a man heard of the loss of a ship in which his son was travelling1 and prayed for his safety4 ,that safety1 as far as the shipwreck was concerned1 must have been decided before the father prayed4 ,yet1 as everything was foreknown to ,god1 his subsequent prayer might not have been useless2 since1 if ,god had not known that the father would have prayed1 ,he might not have brought about the son's safety4 ,of course1 it may be said that this is making the cause come after the effect1 and is therefore absurd4 ,no doubt it would be so if merely physical forces were involved2 but when we are dealing with personal beings1 able to foresee and act accordingly1 there is nothing impossible in a cause happening after what was in a certain sense its effect4 ,for instance1 my going for a holiday next week may be the cause of my working hard this2 though1 strictly speaking1 it is my foreknowledge of the intended holiday1 that leads to my working hard4 ,so in the case before us4 ,it is ,god's foreknowledge that the prayer will be offered1 that leads ,him to answer it2 but for all practical purposes this is the same as if the prayer itself did so4 ,therefore this theory does not detract from the value and importance of prayer any more than ,god's foreknowledge in other respects makes human conduct of no importance4 ,in every case ,god foreknows the result1 not in spite of1 but because ,he also foreknows1 the man's conduct on which it depends4 ,while if we admit what is called ,god's ,immanence in nature1 and that everything that occurs is due to the present and immediate action of ,his ,will 7,chapter ,,vii471 it greatly lessens any remaining difficulty there may be in regard to prayer4 ,from this it is plain that answers to prayer may1 without losing their value1 be regarded as superhuman coincidences2 and1 if so1 they do not involve any interference with the ordinary course of nature1 and all scientific difficulties are at an end4 7#b47 ,moral difficulty4 ,in the next place1 prayer is said to be morally wrong1 since it is inconsistent with each of the three great attributes of ,god4 ,it is inconsistent with ,his ,power1 by implying that ,he is partly under the control of men2 with ,his ,wisdom1 by implying that ,he has to be informed of what we want2 and with ,his ,goodness1 by implying that ,he cannot be trusted to act for the best1 without our interference4 ,but with regard to ,god's ,power1 no one who prays supposes that ,god is under the control of his prayers1 but merely that ,he may freely choose to be influenced by them4 ,insignificant as man is in comparison with his ,maker1 we have already shown that ,god takes an interest in his welfare4 ,and admitting this1 there is nothing improbable in ,his being influenced by a man's prayer4 ,nor is this in any way trying to persuade ,him to change ,his ,will1 since as everything was foreknown to ,god1 the prayer with all it involved1 may have been part of ,his ,will from all eternity4 ,nor does it reflect on ,his ,wisdom1 for no one who prays supposes that prayer is for the information of ,god1 but merely that it is the way in which ,he wishes us to show our trust in ,him4 ,and then1 as to ,god's ,goodness4 ,as a matter of fact1 ,god does not wait for us to pray before sending most of ,his blessings2 but a few of them are said to be conditional on our praying4 ,and this is quite consistent with perfect goodness4 ,human analogy seems decisive on the point4 ,a father may know what his child wants1 may be quite willing to supply that want1 and may yet choose to wait till the child asks him4 ,and why8 ,simply because supplying his wants is not the whole object the father has in view4 ,he also wishes to train the child's character2 to teach him to rely upon and trust his father1 and to develop his confidence and gratitude4 ,and all this would be unattainable if the father supplied his wants as a machine would do2 in which case the child might perhaps forget that his father was not a machine4 ,now1 for all we know1 precisely the same may be the case with regard to prayer4 ,god may wish not only to supply man's wants1 but also to train and develop his character4 ,indeed1 as shown in ,chapter ,v41 the existence of evil seems to force us to this very conclusion4 ,and if so1 it is out of the question to say that ,his not giving some blessings till they are asked for is inconsistent with perfect goodness4 ,it may be a very proof of that goodness4 ,for1 as already said1 ,god's goodness does not consist of simple beneficence1 but also of righteousness4 ,and1 as a general rule1 it certainly seems right that those who believe in ,god1 and take the trouble to ask for ,his blessings1 should be the ones to receive them4 ,and here we may notice another moral difficulty1 which is sometimes felt in regard to prayers for others4 ,they are said to be unjust1 since one man's success would often mean another's failure4 ,suppose1 for instance1 a man is going in for a competitive examination1 say a scholarship or a clerkship2 and a friend of his prays that he may get it4 ,of course in most cases this will not affect the issue2 but all who believe in the power of prayer must admit that in some cases it will4 ,yet is not this hard on the next competitor1 who loses the scholarship in consequence8 ,it certainly seems so4 ,but it is only part of a more general difficulty4 ,for suppose the man's friend instead of praying for him1 sent him some money to enable him to have a tutor4 ,is not this equally hard on the other man8 ,yet no one will say that his having the tutor could not affect the result2 or that his friend acted unfairly in sending him the money4 ,so in regard to prayer4 ,indeed of all ways of helping a friend1 praying for him seems the fairest2 since it is appealing to a ,being1 ,who we know will always act fairly2 and will not grant the petition1 unless it is just and right to do so4 ,the objection1 then1 that prayer is morally wrong cannot be maintained from any point of view4 ,it is1 however1 only fair to add that a certain class of prayers would be wrong4 ,we have no right to pray for miracles1 e4g41 for water to run uphill1 or for a dead man to come to life again2 though we have a right to pray for any ordinary event1 such as rain or recovery from sickness4 ,the reason for this distinction is obvious4 ,a miracle is1 in popular language1 something contrary to the order of nature2 and as the order of nature is merely the ,will of ,him who ordered nature1 it would be contrary to ,god's ,will4 ,and we must not ask ,god to act contrary to what we believe to be ,his ,will4 ,of course it may be said that to pray for rain1 when otherwise it would not have rained1 really involves a miracle4 ,but here everything depends on the words when otherwise it would not have rained4 ,if we knew this for certain1 it would be wrong to pray for rain 7just as it would be wrong for the father to pray for his son's safety after hearing that he had been drowned7 not knowing it for certain1 it is not wrong4 ,therefore as we do know for certain that water will not run uphill without a miracle1 it is always wrong to pray for that4 ,in the same way we may pray for fruitful crops1 because it is plainly ,god's ,will that mankind should be nourished2 but we may not pray to be able to live without food1 since this is plainly not ,god's ,will4 ,no doubt1 in the ,bible1 miracles were sometimes prayed for1 but only by persons who acted under special ,divine ,guidance2 and this affords no argument for our doing so4 7#c47 ,practical difficulty4 ,lastly1 it is said1 even admitting that prayers might be answered1 yet we have abundant evidence that they never are2 so that prayer at the present day is useless4 ,but several points have to be noticed here2 for no one asserts that all prayers are answered4 ,various conditions have to be fulfilled4 ,a person1 for instance1 must not only believe in ,god1 and in ,his power and willingness to answer prayers2 but the answer must be of such a kind that it would be right to pray for it4 ,moreover1 he must be trying to lead such a life as ,god wishes him to lead2 and also be honestly exerting himself to gain the required end1 for prayer cannot be looked upon as a substitute for work4 ,and this prevents our deciding the question by experiment1 as is sometimes urged4 ,why not1 it is said1 settle the question once for all by a test case8 ,but this is impossible1 since in the vast majority of cases we cannot say whether the above conditions are fulfilled or not2 and even if we could1 it would still be impracticable4 ,for prayer is the earnest entreaty that ,god would grant something we earnestly desire2 and if used as an experiment1 it ceases to be genuine prayer altogether4 ,but it is further urged that though we cannot decide by experiment we can by observation4 ,the facts1 however1 can be explained on either theory4 ,suppose1 for instance1 an epidemic breaks out1 and prayer is at once made that it may cease2 but instead of ceasing1 it continues for a week1 and kills a hundred persons4 ,how do we know that but for the prayers it might not have continued for a month and killed a thousand8 ,and the same argument applies in other cases4 ,against these various objections we must remember that an immense number of men of many ages and countries1 and of undoubted honesty and intelligence have asserted that their prayers have been answered2 and the cumulative value of this evidence is very great4 ,while1 to those who possess it1 the conviction that certain events happened1 not accidentally1 as we might say1 but in answer to some prayer1 is absolutely convincing4 ,none of these difficulties1 then1 can be maintained4 ,there is nothing incredible in prayers being answered1 they are not wrong1 and many of those who ought to know best 7i4e41 those who pray7 assert that they are not useless4 7,b47 ,,christianity ,,and ,,human ,,nature4 ,the next subject we have to consider is a very important one1 the adaptation of ,christianity to human nature4 ,to begin with1 it is undeniable that ,christianity appeals very strongly to some1 at least1 among every class of men4 ,the poor value it as much as the rich1 the ignorant as much as the learned2 children can partly understand it1 and philosophers can do no more4 ,and this is not only the case at the present time1 but it has been so among all the changing conditions of society for eighteen centuries4 ,now1 when we inquire into the reason of this powerful hold which ,christianity has on so many men1 we find it is because it meets certain inherent cravings of human nature4 ,some of these1 such as man's belief in prayer1 and his sense of responsibility1 are of course satisfied by any form of ,theism4 ,so also is his idea of justice1 which requires virtue and vice to be suitably rewarded hereafter1 since they are not here4 ,but man's nature has many other cravings besides these2 yet ,christianity seems to satisfy it everywhere4 ,we will consider four points in detail and select ,sorrow and ,sin1 ,death and ,eternity4 ,the first three1 and possibly the fourth1 all have to be faced2 they are the common heritage of all mankind4 ,and while ,rationalism does not help us to face any of them1 and ,natural ,religion leaves much in uncertainty1 ,christianity meets the needs of mankind throughout1 or at all events far better than any other religion4 ,and first1 as to ,sorrow4 ,it is indisputable that in this life man has to bear a great deal of sorrow and suffering2 and it is also indisputable that when in sorrow he longs for someone who can both sympathise with him1 and help him4 ,an impersonal ,god can1 of course1 do neither2 indeed1 we might as well go for comfort to the force of gravity4 ,and though a personal ,god can help us1 we do not feel sure that ,he can sympathise with us4 ,on the other hand1 fellow-men can sympathise1 but they cannot always help4 ,in ,christ alone we have a ,being ,who entirely satisfies human nature2 for being ,man1 ,he can sympathise with human sorrow1 and being ,god1 ,he can alleviate it4 ,so here ,christianity supplies a universal want ,of course1 the doctrine of the ,incarnation also satisfies mankind in other respects1 especially in presenting him with a worthy ,being for his affections1 and with a perfect ,example2 but these points have been already noticed in ,chapter ,,xiii4 ,next1 as to ,sin4 ,here again the facts are practically undisputed4 ,man's sense of sin is universal1 so also is his belief in the justice of ,god2 and therefore in all ages man has longed for some means of appeasing the ,deity4 ,the widespread custom of sacrifice is a conclusive proof of this4 ,yet1 wherever ,christianity has been accepted1 such sacrifices have been abandoned4 ,it is scarcely necessary to point out the reason for this4 ,the ,christian doctrine of the ,atonement entirely satisfies these cravings of mankind4 ,it admits the fact of sin2 it provides a sufficient ,sacrifice for sin1 which man could never provide for himself1 and it thus assures him of complete forgiveness4 ,yet1 as shown in ,chapter ,,xiii41 it does all this without in any way lessening the guilt of sin1 or allowing man to sin on with impunity2 for it makes repentance an essential condition of forgiveness4 ,moreover1 ,christianity proves that sin is not a necessity in human nature2 for it alone of all religions can point to ,one ,who1 though tempted as we are1 was yet without sin4 ,and ,christ's temptations were probably greater than any that we can have4 ,for it is only when a man resists a temptation that he feels its full force1 just as only those trees that were not blown down1 felt the full force of the gale4 ,therefore ,christ alone1 because ,he was sinless1 can have felt the full force of every temptation4 ,and ,christians assert1 and they surely ought to know best1 that this example of ,christ is a strong help in enabling them to resist temptation4 ,next1 as to ,death4 ,here again the facts are undisputed4 ,few persons like to contemplate their own death1 yet it is the one event to which we may look forward with certainty4 ,but is there a life after death8 ,most men long for it1 and most religions have tried to satisfy this longing in one way or another1 but only with partial success4 ,the higher nature of man revolts against any mere material or sensual heaven1 while a purely spiritual heaven does not satisfy him either2 for a man longs to know that he will be able to recognise again those whom he has loved on earth4 ,this is indeed one of our deepest1 strongest1 and most universal longings 7who is there that has not felt it871 yet there must always be some doubt as to recognising a spirit4 ,and here again the ,christian doctrine of the ,resurrection of the ,body alone satisfies the cravings of mankind2 for all doubt is now at an end4 ,the risen body will define and localise man's spirit then1 just as the natural body does now2 and though there will be a great change1 it will not prevent recognition4 ,even the ,apostles1 though unprepared for it1 and though themselves unaware of what a risen body was like1 were soon able to recognise ,christ after ,his ,resurrection4 ,there is1 of course1 the well-known difficulty as to the period of life of the risen body4 ,a man1 it is said1 would only be recognised by his grandfather1 if he remained a child2 and by his grandson1 if he were an old man4 ,but the difficulty is not so great as it seems2 for in this life a man who has not seen his son1 since he was a child1 may not be able to recognise him in later years1 in the sense of knowing him by sight4 ,but he may be immensely pleased to meet him again1 and live near him1 especially if in the meanwhile the son had done well1 and been a credit to his father4 ,moreover1 the risen body will show us1 for the first time1 what a man really is1 when his accidental surroundings1 such as wealth or poverty1 have been removed2 and his character is at length perfected4 ,and perhaps we shall then see that all that is best in the various states in which he has lived here--the affection of childhood1 the activity of boyhood1 and the mature judgment of manhood--will be combined in the risen body4 ,and though it is somewhat tantalising not to know more about this future life1 very possibly we are not told more1 because we should not be able to understand it if we were4 ,even in this world it is doubtful if a savage or a young child could understand the intellectual life of a civilised man1 however carefully it might be explained to him2 and practically certain that an ape could not4 ,and for all we know our own future life may be as far beyond our present understanding4 ,it is the ,great ,surprise in store for us all4 ,but however much we may be changed1 our personal identity will still remain1 ,i shall be ,i1 and you will be you1 with much the same characters as we have at present4 ,this is the important point1 and of this we may be quite sure4 ,lastly1 as to ,eternity4 ,christianity1 it is true1 can say little here1 but that little is full of hope4 ,it opens up boundless possibilities1 far more than any other religion4 ,for by the ,incarnation human nature has been united to the ,divine1 and thus raised to a position second only to that of ,god ,himself4 ,no destiny1 then1 that can be imagined is too great for man4 ,created in the image of the ,triune ,god1 with a supernatural freedom of choice2 his nature united to ,god's by the ,incarnation2 his sins forgiven through the ,atonement2 his body purified and spiritualised at its ,resurrection--surely the end of all this cannot be any mere monotonous existence1 but rather one of ceaseless joy and activity4 ,heaven has been called the last act in ,god's drama of the universe4 ,and considering the magnitude of the previous acts--the formation of the solar system1 the development of organic life1 etc4--we should expect this last act to be on a scale equally vast and magnificent1 and as far above anything we can imagine as the life of a butterfly is above the imagination of a chrysalis4 ,now the conclusion to be drawn from all this is quite plain4 ,christianity is so adapted to man's nature that it probably came from the ,author of man's nature2 just as if a complicated key fits a complicated lock1 it was probably made by the same locksmith4 ,and since ,christianity is meant for all mankind1 and the vast majority of men have neither time nor ability to examine its proofs1 the fact of its thus appealing direct to human nature is certainly a strong argument in its favour4 ,but we must now consider an objection4 ,it is1 that ,christianity is really a selfish religion1 looking only for future rewards1 and teaching men to follow virtue1 not for virtue's sake1 but solely with a view to their own advantage4 ,but this is an entire mistake1 though a very common one4 ,the ,christian's motive1 in trying to lead such a life as ,god wishes him to lead1 is simply love4 ,he has1 as already said1 an overwhelming sense of ,god's love to him4 ,and though1 doubtless1 leading a good life will bring with it some future reward1 yet this is not the true motive for leading it4 ,compare the case of a young child trying to please his parents simply because he loves them4 ,it would be unjust to call this selfishness1 though it may be quite true that the parents will do much for the child later on in life1 which they would not have done had the child never shown them any affection4 ,nor1 to take another example1 is it selfishness for a young man to put aside a certain amount of his earnings for his old age1 when he will be unable to work1 though it will certainly be to his own advantage4 ,selfishness is having regard to one's self1 at the expense of other people4 ,but this does not apply to a ,christian striving after his own salvation4 ,the ,great ,ambition1 as it is called1 is one which all may entertain1 all may work for1 and all may realise4 ,still1 it may be asked1 is not the hope of future reward meant to influence men at all8 ,no doubt it is to some extent4 ,but what then8 ,hope is undoubtedly a powerful motive in human nature1 and therefore ,christianity1 by partly appealing to this motive1 does but show how fully adapted it is to human nature4 ,it provides the highest motive of love for those able to appreciate it2 the lower motive of hope of future reward for the many who would not be reached by the former2 and we may add1 the still lower motive of fear of future punishment for those who could not be otherwise influenced4 ,this objection1 then1 as to selfishness is quite untenable4 7,c47 ,,christianity ,,and ,,other ,,religions4 ,we have lastly to consider the relation in which ,christianity stands to other religions2 since an argument against ,christianity is often drawn from their comparative study4 ,in far more ancient religions1 it is alleged1 we find similar doctrines to those of the ,trinity1 the ,incarnation1 the ,atonement1 and the ,resurrection2 and this is fatal to the claim of ,christianity to be the one and only true ,religion4 ,but as to the doctrine of the ,trinity1 it is really unique4 ,some other religions1 it is true1 had a group of three gods2 but this was merely a form of ,polytheism4 ,and though these gods were often addressed by the same titles1 there does not appear to have been anything resembling the ,christian idea of the ,triune ,god4 ,next1 as to the ,incarnation4 ,this is said to resemble similar doctrines of other ancient religions1 more especially the incarnation of ,krishna4 ,for though he was not 7as is sometimes asserted7 born of a virgin1 being the eighth son of his parents2#deh he is yet believed to have been in some sense an incarnation of the supreme god ,vishnu4 ,and he is recorded to have worked various miracles similar to those of ,christ1 and to have claimed an equally absolute devotion from his followers4 ,most scholars1 however1 now place these legends some centuries later than the ,christian era2 and considering the early spread of ,christianity in ,india1 and the similarity in name between ,krishna and ,christ1 they may be only distorted versions of the ,gospel story4 ,footnote #deh3 ,tisdall1 ,christianity and ,other ,faiths1 #aiab1 p4 #hi4 ,but even were they earlier than ,christianity1 it seems impossible for them to have influenced it4 ,for not only is ,india many hundreds of miles from ,palestine1 but there is also a great moral difficulty4 ,since the miracles and occasional lofty teaching of ,krishna are associated all along with a most immoral character4 ,in the ,gospels1 on the other hand1 they occur among suitable surroundings1 and form perfect parts of a perfect whole4 ,a single example will illustrate this difference4 ,on one occasion1 ,krishna is related to have healed a deformed woman1 very similar to the story in ,luke #ac4 ,but it is added he made her beautiful as well as whole1 and subsequently spent the night with her in immorality4 ,few will contend that this was the origin of the ,gospel story2 and it is but one instance out of many4#dei ,footnote #dei3 ,transactions of ,victoria ,institute1 vol4 xxi41 p4 #afi4 ,any resemblance1 then1 there may be between the ,incarnation of ,krishna and that of ,christ cannot be due to ,christianity having borrowed from the other religion4 ,a far better explanation is to be found in the fact that man has almost always believed that ,god takes an interest in his welfare4 ,and this inherent belief has naturally led him to imagine an incarnation1 since this was the most fitting method by which ,god could make ,himself known to man4 ,and then this supposed incarnation was of course attended by various miracles of healing1 somewhat similar to those of ,christ1 though often mixed up with immoral ideas1 from which the ,christian doctrine is entirely free4 ,next1 as to the ,atonement1 especially the position of ,christ1 as the ,mediator between ,god and man4 ,this also is said to resemble far older legends1 such as the ,horus myth of ancient ,egypt4 ,the leading idea here seems to have been that ,horus was the only son of the supreme ,god ,osiris1 and came on earth long ago1 before the time of man4 ,he was always looked upon as the champion of right against wrong1 and nothing but lofty and noble actions are ascribed to him4 ,with regard to mankind1 he became their deliverer and justifier4 ,the soul after death was supposed to pass through a sort of ,purgatory2 where various dangers were overcome by the help of ,horus2 and finally1 when judged before ,osiris1 he interceded for the faithful soul and ensured its salvation4 ,and what makes the resemblance to ,christianity all the more striking are the titles ascribed to ,horus2 such as the ,only ,begotten ,son of the ,father1 the ,word of the ,father1 the ,justifier of the ,righteous1 and the ,eternal ,king4 ,but the titles of ,horus are very numerous1 and very contradictory2 therefore1 while some of them bear such a striking resemblance to those of ,christ1 others do not2 and many of them are also applied to the other gods4#dfj ,footnote #dfj3 ,transactions of ,victoria ,institute1 vol4 xii41 p4 #eb4 ,but still the position of ,horus1 as a mediator between ,god and man1 undoubtedly resembles that of ,christ4 ,but what is the cause of this similarity8 ,not surely that the ,christian doctrine was founded on that of ,horus4 ,as in the previous case1 there is another and far better solution4 ,for what was the origin of the ,egyptian doctrine itself8 ,it was simply this4 ,the ancient ,egyptians firmly believed in the justice of ,god2 the immortality of man2 his responsibility1 involving a future judgment2 and his sinfulness1 which naturally made him long for some mediator with the just ,judge he would have to face hereafter4 ,given these four ideas--and they all belong to ,natural ,religion--and ,horus was merely an imaginary being1 who was thought to satisfy them4 ,hence1 if these ideas are true1 and if ,christianity is the true religion1 which really does satisfy them1 that ,horus should to some extent resemble ,christ seems inevitable4 ,thus the ,horus myth only proves how deeply rooted in the human mind is the idea of a mediator between ,god and man4 ,lastly1 as to the doctrine of the ,resurrection1 more especially that of ,christ4 ,numerous analogies have been suggested for this1 but none of them are at all satisfactory4 ,thus the ,egyptian god ,osiris is recorded as doing a great deal after his death2 but he is only supposed to have done this by living on in the spirit1 and there is no hint that his body was restored to life1 in the sense in which ,christ's was2 and the same may be said in other cases4#dfa ,while the way in which the educated ,athenians 7who must have known a good deal about heathen religions7 treated ,st4 ,paul1 when he proclaimed the ,resurrection of ,christ1 shows how absolutely novel they considered the doctrine4#dfb ,footnote #dfa3 ,tisdall1 ,christianity and ,other ,faiths1 #aiab1 p4 #aec4 ,footnote #dfb3 ,acts #ag4 #ai1 #cb2 #bf4h4 ,we must also remember that the ,christian doctrines of the ,incarnation1 the ,atonement1 and the ,resurrection1 were not slowly evolved1 but were essential features in ,christianity from the very first4 ,they are all strongly insisted on by ,st4 ,paul4 ,and this alone seems fatal to the idea of their having been derived from the myths of ,india1 ,egypt1 and elsewhere4 ,on the whole1 then1 it is evident that the comparative study of religions1 instead of being against ,christianity1 is distinctly in its favour2 for it shows1 as nothing but a comparative study could show1 its striking superiority4 ,human nature is always the same1 and in so far as other religions have satisfied human nature1 they have resembled ,christianity4 ,on the other hand1 ,christianity differs from them in being free from their various absurdities and contradictions1 as well as from their tendency to degenerate2 and having instead a moral character of admitted excellence1 and powerful evidence by which to establish its actual truth4 ,in short1 other religions are human2 and therefore1 as man is a mixture of good and evil1 they contain some good 7what we now call ,natural ,religion7 and some evil4 ,but ,christianity is superhuman2 and therefore contains all the good they do1 with much more besides1 and with none of their evil4 ,this completes a brief examination of the more important additional arguments for and against ,christianity4 ,,chapter ,,xxiv4 ,,that ,,the ,,three ,,creeds ,,are ,,deducible ,,from ,,the ,,new ,,testament4 ,only three ,doctrines can be disputed4 7,a47 ,,the ,,doctrine ,,of ,,the ,,trinity4 ,in addition to belief in ,god the ,father1 the ,new ,testament teaches-- 7#a47 ,the ,divinity of ,christ4 7#b47 ,the ,divinity of the ,holy ,spirit2 so there are 7#c47 ,three ,divine ,persons and yet but ,one ,god4 7,b47 ,,the ,,final ,,state ,,of ,,the ,,wicked4 ,the only alternatives are3 7#a47 ,their endless misery3 very strong texts in favour of this2 its difficulties considered4 7#b47 ,their endless happiness3 most improbable4 7#c47 ,their destruction3 more likely than the last1 but still improbable4 ,on the whole the statement of the ,creed seems fully justified4 7,c47 ,,the ,,importance ,,of ,a ,,true ,,belief4 ,this is strongly insisted on in the warning clauses of the ,athanasian ,creed4 7#a47 ,their meaning4 7#b47 ,their truthfulness3 they merely repeat similar warnings in the ,new ,testament4 7#c47 ,the objection as to dogmatism4 ,we have now reached the last stage in our inquiry4 ,we have shown in the previous chapters that there is very strong evidence in favour of what may be called in a general sense1 ,christianity or the ,christian ,religion--i4e41 the ,religion founded by ,christ and taught in the ,new ,testament4 ,we have1 lastly1 to inquire1 is this ,religion correctly summarised in the doctrines and statements of the ,three ,creeds8 ,and the only doctrines that can be disputed1 are found in the ,athanasian ,creed1 and refer to the ,trinity2 the ,final ,state of the ,wicked2 and the importance of a ,true ,belief3 each of which we will examine in turn4 7,a47 ,,the ,,doctrine ,,of ,,the ,,trinity4 ,now1 although there are no statements in the ,new ,testament identical with those in the ,creed1 yet the latter are merely logical deductions from the former4 ,for the ,new ,testament asserts that1 besides ,god the ,father1 there are two other ,divine ,persons1 ,christ and the ,holy ,spirit1 and yet but one ,god4 7#a47 ,the ,divinity of ,christ4 ,this has already been discussed in ,chapter ,,xxi41 where we showed that ,christ claimed to be not only ,superhuman1 but ,divine2 and that this is how ,his contemporaries1 both friends and foes1 understood ,him4 ,the doctrine is also asserted by ,st4 ,paul1 as well as by ,st4 ,john1 who in the opening verse of his ,gospel1 states it very concisely1 saying that the ,word 7i4e41 ,christ7 was with ,god1 implying a distinction of ,persons1 and was ,god1 implying a unity of ,nature2 which is the exact doctrine of the ,creed4 7#b47 ,the ,divinity of the ,holy ,spirit4 ,this also follows at once from the ,new ,testament4 ,for the ,holy ,spirit is called by ,divine names1 such as ,god and ,lord2 ,he is given ,divine attributes1 such as ,eternity and ,omniscience2 and ,he is identified with ,jehovah1 the ,lord of ,hosts1 of the ,old ,testament4#dfc ,footnote #dfc3 ,acts #e4 #c1 #d2 #b ,cor4 #c4ag2 ,heb4 #i4 #ad2 #a ,cor4 #b4 #aj2 ,acts #bh4 #be2 ,isa4 #f4 #e-aj4 ,and yet1 ,he is a distinct ,person3 for1 to quote a decisive text1#dfd ,christ prays the ,father to send ,his disciples another ,comforter when ,he goes away2 thus showing that the ,holy ,spirit is a different ,person1 both from the ,father and the ,son4 ,and elsewhere we are told that the ,spirit makes intercession for us1 which again shows that ,he must be a different ,person from the ,father1 with ,whom ,he intercedes4#dfe ,while in another passage blasphemy against the ,holy ,ghost is said to be the worst of all sins2#dff which shows both that ,he is a ,person1 or ,he could not be blasphemed2 and that ,he is ,god1 or blasphemy against ,god would be a greater sin4 ,footnote #dfd3 ,john #ad4 #af1 #bf2 #ae4 #bf4 ,footnote #dfe3 ,rom4 #h4 #bf4 ,footnote #dff3 ,matt4 #ab4 #ca1 #cb2 ,mark #c4 #bh1 #bi4 ,no doubt the actual word ,person is not applied to the ,holy ,spirit in the ,new ,testament1 just as it is not applied to either the ,father or the ,son1 but it cannot be thought inappropriate1 provided it is not taken in a literal1 or human sense4 ,for the relations between ,them closely resemble those between human persons1 as ,they love one another1 speak to one another1 and use the personal pronouns ,i1 ,thou1 ,he1 and ,we4 7#c47 ,three ,divine ,persons and yet but ,one ,god4 ,it is clear1 then1 from the ,new ,testament1 that the ,father1 the ,son1 and the ,holy ,spirit are all ,persons1 and all ,divine2 and yet the fact of there being but one ,god is at times plainly asserted4#dfg ,now the only means of reconciling all this is by the doctrine of the ,trinity in ,unity4 ,and this is plainly hinted at in the ,new ,testament itself1 for the ,three ,persons are often closely associated together1 as for instance in the text just alluded to1 where ,christ prays the ,father to give ,his disciples another ,comforter4 ,footnote #dfg3 ,mark #ab4 #bi2 #a ,cor4 #h4 #d4 ,quite naturally1 then1 just before ,his ,ascension1 ,christ completed this earlier teaching by finally1 and for ever1 joining the ,three ,persons together1 when ,he commanded ,christians to be baptized into the name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost4#dfh ,and this alone is sufficient to prove the doctrine1 for it shows that there are ,three distinct ,persons1 and that each is ,divine1 for who but ,god could be thus associated with ,god8 ,while the expression into the name and not names1 implies a unity in this ,trinity4 ,footnote #dfh3 ,matt4 #bh4 #ai4 ,and we happen to have indirect evidence from the ,acts1 that baptism was administered in this way4 ,for when ,st4 ,paul found some disciples1 who said they knew nothing about the ,holy ,ghost2 he at once asked1 ',into what then were ye baptized8'#dfi ,obviously1 then1 the baptism to which ,st4 ,paul was accustomed must have been into the name of the ,holy ,ghost1 as well as into that of ,christ2 and the ,father's name could scarcely have been omitted4 ,yet immediately afterwards we are told that they were baptized into the ,name of the ,lord ,jesus4 ,in the same way the ',teaching of the ,twelve' once speaks of baptism as into the ,name of the ,lord2 and twice as into the ,name of the ,father1 and of the ,son1 and of the ,holy ,ghost4#dgj ,the former seems to have been only a short way of describing ,christian baptism1 7in distinction from that of the ,jews1 or of ,st4 ,john the ,baptist71 while the latter represented the actual words used4#dga ,footnote #dfi3 ,acts #ai4 #c4 ,footnote #dgj3 ,teaching1 chaps4 vii4 and ix4 ,footnote #dga3 ,comp4 ,acts #b4 #ch2 #h4 #af2 #ah4 #be2 ,i ,cor4 #aj4 #b4 ,similarly ,st4 ,paul sometimes closes his ,epistles with the shorter form of blessing4 ,the grace of the ,lord ,jesus ,christ be with you2 once with an intermediate form1 naming the ,father and ,christ2 and once with the longer form1 ,the ,grace of the ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 and the love of ,god1 and the communion of the ,holy ,ghost be with you all4#dgb ,this latter passage1 the genuineness of which is undisputed1 is of course extremely important1 in fact like the preceding one it is practically conclusive2 for again we must ask1 who but ,god could be thus associated with ,god8 ,if ,christ were a mere human prophet1 like ,isaiah for instance2 and the ,holy ,spirit a mere influence for good2 what strange language it would be4 ,can we imagine anyone blessing his converts with1 ,the grace of ,isaiah1 the love of ,god1 and the fellowship of a holy influence--,god1 it will be noticed1 being placed between the other two1 so there can be no ascending or descending scale1 they must all be equal8 ,footnote #dgb3 #a ,cor4 #af4 #bc2 ,gal4 #f4 #ah2 ,eph4 #f4 #bc2 #b ,cor4 #ac4 #ad4 ,and as ,st4 ,paul takes for granted that his readers would understand his meaning1 it implies that they had had some previous teaching on the subject1 which must clearly have been given them by ,st4 ,paul himself on his first visit4 ,and at that early date 7about ,a4,d4 #ej7 such teaching could scarcely have originated except from what ,christ ,himself had taught4 ,this passage1 then1 implies more than it says1 and needs explanation2 and as far as we know the former one alone can explain it4 ,and of course the same is true1 though to a lesser degree1 of numerous other ,trinitarian passages which occur all through the ,epistles1 including the earliest 7#a ,thess41 about ,a4,d4 #ej74dgc ,nowhere do the writers seem to be explaining anything new to their converts2 but merely to be touching on a truth1 with which all ,christians were of course familiar4 ,indeed1 the very fact of their never attempting to explain or defend the doctrine1 shows conclusively that it did not originate with them4 ,persons do not preach a new doctrine without a word of explanation or comment1 as if every one already believed it4 ,footnote #dgc3 ,e4g41 ,rom4 #ae4 #cj2 ,eph4 #d4 #d-f2 #a ,thess4 #a4 #c-e2 #a ,peter #a4 #b2 ,jude #bj-ba4 ,thus1 to put it shortly1 according to the ,new ,testament1 there are ,three distinct ,persons2 each is ,god1 each is ,lord1 each is ,eternal1 each is ,omniscient1 into the ,name of each converts are baptized1 each is referred to in ,blessing2 and yet there is but ,one ,god4 ,this is what the ,bible says1 and the ,creed says the same1 though it says it in more logical language4 7,b47 ,,the ,,final ,,state ,,of ,,the ,,wicked4 ,we pass on now to what is perhaps the most difficult of all subjects1 the final state of the wicked4 ,the ,creed asserts that all men are to rise again with their bodies1 and be judged according to their works2 and that then1 they that have done good shall go into life everlasting2 and they that have done evil into everlasting fire4 ,this latter expression can scarcely be taken literally1 since it is associated in the ,bible with another--the worm that dieth not--which cannot be literal1 as worms do not live for ever1 and cannot live at all in fire4 ,while it is said to have been prepared for evil spirits who have no material bodies4 ,moreover1 the joys of heaven are also represented by terms which are clearly not literal2 such as attending a wedding1 feasting with ,abraham1 and wearing crowns4 ,probably we are not at present able to understand the realities in either case1 so figures of some kind have to be used2 and those associated with gladness and happiness are of course chosen for the one1 and those with pain and woe for the other4 ,but the language certainly implies some form of endless misery2 and as there are obvious difficulties in accepting such a view1 we must discuss the subject carefully4 ,it may be pointed out at starting that we have only three theories to choose from2 for unless the wicked are to be in a continual state of change1 which seems almost incredible 7for a state of change cannot go on for ever1 unless it is recurring7 they must finally either exist for ever in misery1 or exist for ever in happiness1 or be destroyed1 and not exist for ever4 7#a47 ,their endless misery4 ,it would be difficult to exaggerate the strength of the texts in favour of this4 ,we are told that the wicked1 or at all events some of them1 are to awake to shame and everlasting contempt2 that they are to be cast into the eternal fire2 that they are to depart into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels2 that they are to go away into eternal punishment2 that they are guilty of an eternal sin2 that their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched2 and that they are to be cast into the lake of fire1 there to be tormented day and night for ever and ever4#dgd ,the fourth of these texts is perhaps the most important1 since ,christ uses the same word for eternal punishment as for eternal life2 therefore1 though the ,greek word does not necessarily mean endless1 it certainly seems to do so here4 ,similarly in ,daniel the same ,hebrew word is used for the everlasting life of the righteous1 as for the everlasting contempt of the wicked4 ,moreover the doctrine is implied in numerous other passages2#dge so altogether the ,new ,testament teaching on the subject seems about as plain as it can be4 ,footnote #dgd3 ,dan4 #ab4 #b2 ,matt4 #ah4 #h2 #be4 #da1 #df2 ,mark #c4 #bi2 #i4 #dh2 ,rev4 #ad4 #aa2 #bj4 #ae4 ,footnote #dge3 ,e4g41 ,matt4 #g4 #ac1 #bc2 #h4 #ab2 #aj4 #cc2 #ab4 #cb2 #ac4 #db1 #ej1 etc4 ,yet everyone must admit that there are great difficulties in accepting it4 ,for the endless misery of the wicked appears to be inconsistent with the great attributes of ,god1 especially ,his power1 ,his justice1 and ,his mercy2 as well as with the endless happiness of the righteous4 ,we will consider these points in turn4 ,and first as to ,god's power4 ,the eternal existence of sinners against ,god means1 it is said1 a never-ending conflict between good and evil2 and this is most improbable4 ,no doubt it seems so1 but then the existence of evil at all is a difficulty2 yet as shown in ,chapter ,v4 it is essential for free will4 ,and the final state of the wicked is but one out of many difficulties connected with human freedom4 ,that ,god could create a free man at all2 that ,he could foresee how he would use his freedom2 that ,he should allow him to use it wrongly1 thus involving himself and others in misery2 and that this misery should last for ever2 are all to a great extent beyond our comprehension4 ,but as the first three must be admitted1 the last is certainly not incredible4 ,the second and commonest objection refers to ,god's justice4 ,the suffering1 it is said1 would be out of all proportion to the offence4 ,man's life is brief at the most1 and every sin in this world cannot deserve countless years of misery in the next4 ,in short1 a man's sin here must anyhow be finite1 while endless misery1 however slight1 would be infinite4 ,but very possibly1 being sinners ourselves1 we do not realise the magnitude of sin1 more especially its far-reaching and permanent effect on the character of others1 who in their turn may influence others also1 and so on indefinitely4 ,in this way the consequences of even a single sin may be endless1 and therefore infinite1 and if so its guilt may be infinite too4 ,and this also agrees with the analogy of nature4 ,for in nature nothing is forgotten1 and even a small act1 like planting a flower has 7almost7 endless consequences1 since the ground will never be exactly the same as if it had not been planted4 ,moreover1 we need not assume that endless misery is for a man's sins here only4 ,why may not the wicked go on sinning for ever8 ,they must certainly have the power of doing so1 for the option of acting1 or at all events of thinking right or wrong1 is essential to free will2 and if we deny them their free will1 they are no longer men but mere machines4 ,and it even seems probable that they would do so2 for all our experience of human character is that it tends to a final permanence1 of good or bad1 which nothing can alter4 ,by doing good1 men become good--evil gradually loses its influence over them4 ,and then1 when their character is fixed1 they will cease to be attracted by evil2 and they will in consequence remain 7and this without any effort or struggle on their part7 for ever good1 and therefore for ever happy4 ,similarly with regard to the wicked4 ,by committing sin men become sinful1 and then1 when their character is fixed1 they may remain for ever sinful1 and therefore for ever miserable4 ,in each case the man's conduct will be always free2 but his character1 and therefore the use which he makes of his freedom1 will have become fixed4 ,and perhaps one of the strongest motives for leading a good life here1 and thus forming a good character1 is the knowledge that1 whether good or bad1 it will be our character for all eternity4 ,no doubt it is an overwhelming thought that a man's endless happiness1 or misery should depend on his short probation in this world2 yet as he is given free will with the option of choosing one or the other1 there is nothing unjust in the results being so permanent4 ,and it entirely agrees with ,god's methods in nature1 where1 for instance1 the shape of a tree for centuries is fixed during the short time it is growing4 ,nor does the fact of ,god's foreknowledge as to how each man will act alter the case or cause any injustice1 since1 as said in ,chapter ,,ii41 it does not interfere with man's freedom4 ,god merely foreknows the use man will make of his freedom4 ,therefore ,his knowing beforehand that a man will commit a murder does not make it unjust to punish him for doing so4 ,and the same rule applies universally2 so that although ,god foreknows that the wicked will be lost1 they will not be lost because ,god foreknows it4 ,they will be lost because of their own wilful abuse of their own free will2 and ,god foreknows both this1 and its consequences4 ,the third objection refers to ,god's mercy4 ,surely1 it is said1 ,god would never punish men unless there were a chance of improving them2 so it is incredible that ,he should go on punishing them for ever4 ,but perhaps the future misery of the wicked may not be a punishment at all1 in the sense of being inflicted by ,god2 it may be the necessary result of their own acts1--the consequence rather than the punishment of sin4 ,or if we still use the word punishment1 we may say that they will be punished1 not so much for doing what they have done1 as by being what they have become4 ,it will be according to their works rather than because of them4#dgf ,footnote #dgf3 ,matt4 #af4 #bg2 ,rom4 #b4 #f4 ,and there is much to be said in favour of this view1 since it is the way in which ,god punishes men in this world4 ,suppose1 for instance1 a man repeatedly gives way to drink1 he will have the natural punishment 7which is really ,god's punishment1 ,who is the ,author of ,nature7 of being what he has become1 an habitual drunkard1 and very possibly miserable for the rest of his life4 ,it is the necessary consequence of his sin2 and the extent of his misery will1 as a rule1 be in exact proportion to the extent of his sin4 ,therefore1 if a man is to suffer hereafter for other sins1 we should expect this suffering to come in the same way2 and to be the natural1 and perhaps unavoidable1 consequence of the sin itself4 ,nor is it difficult to suggest how this may be4 ,for the endless misery of the wicked may be to a great extent mental1 rather than bodily--shame and everlasting contempt1 as ,daniel calls it4 ,they may be tormented by remorse and regret at having made themselves unfit to share in the joys of heaven4 ,and until we know the greatness of those joys1 we cannot know the greatness of this suffering4 ,but if the joys of heaven are endless1 and if the existence of the wicked outside heaven is also endless1 it must plainly be an endless source of misery4 ,while1 in conclusion1 the fact that it is the same ,christ who has taught us 7more than anyone else7 the mercy and love of ,god1 who has also taught us the endless misery of the wicked1 is an additional reason for thinking that the two cannot really be inconsistent4 ,the fourth and last objection refers to man rather than ,god4 ,it is that the endless misery of the wicked would destroy the happiness of the righteous2 for how could a man enjoy heaven if he knew that his own father and mother were in endless and hopeless misery elsewhere8 ,of course1 if we deny him his memory1 and say he does not remember them1 it destroys his identity1 and for all practical purposes1 he is a different man4 ,i have not met with any satisfactory answer to this difficulty4 ,but it may be pointed out that if he knows his parents' fate1 he will certainly know their character too1 and that their fate was deserved4 ,and this may alter his feelings in regard to them1 as it often does now1 if we find that one of our friends has behaved in a mean1 and disgraceful manner4 ,reviewing all these objections1 it must be admitted that the endless misery of the wicked seems improbable1 but it is certainly not incredible4 ,for1 to put it shortly1 our knowledge of human nature convinces us that1 out of a large number of wicked men1 some at all events will continue to be wicked1 i4e4 to commit sin as long as they live4 ,hence1 if they live for ever1 they will sin for ever4 ,and if they sin for ever1 it is not only just1 but perhaps inevitable1 that they should be miserable for ever4 ,and if so1 the endless misery of the wicked does not reflect on either the power1 justice1 or mercy of ,god1 and1 as said above1 is certainly not incredible4 7#b47 ,their endless happiness4 ,we pass on now to the next theory1 that of their endless happiness4 ,according to this1 all the wicked 7after some suitable punishment7 will at last be reconciled to ,god1 and in popular language1 go to heaven4 ,and there are several texts which are more or less in favour of this view4#dgg ,but how are we to reconcile these with the far stronger ones before alluded to8 ,the most probable explanation is that they are merely general statements1 indicating the final destiny of the vast majority of mankind1 but that there are exceptions to this as to most other rules4 ,and the ,creed nowhere implies that most men will be lost2 it may be only a few obstinate sinners4 ,footnote #dgg3 ,e4g41 ,col4 #a4 #bj2 #a ,tim4 #d4 #aj2 #a ,john #b4 #b2 ,rev4 #e4 #ac4 ,moreover1 we cannot think that the wicked will be allowed to go on sinning in heaven1 so if they go there1 they must finally cease to commit sin4 ,many may do this voluntarily1 but what about the remainder8 ,if they must finally forsake sin1 whether they like it or not1 it destroys their free will1 and leads to compulsory goodness1 which is very like a contradiction in terms4 ,for goodness cannot be ascribed to mere machines without free will1 which only act under compulsion2 yet on this theory the men would be nothing more4 ,in fact1 the wicked men would in reality have been destroyed1 and a good piece of mechanism created instead2 which scarcely seems a probable theory4 ,then there is this further difficulty3 what is to become of the evil angels8 ,if we have to admit endless misery for these1 why not for man8 ,yet the ,bible gives no hint that the ,devil will in the end be reconciled to ,god1 and go to heaven4 7#c47 ,their destruction4 ,lastly1 as to the other and only possible alternative1 the destruction of the wicked4 ,this may be better described as their failure to obtain everlasting life2 which is here regarded not as the attribute of all men1 but as being conditional on a man's fulfilling certain duties and developing a certain character in this life4 ,and the wicked1 not having done this1 will eventually be destroyed and cease to exist4 ,numerous texts can be quoted in favour of this theory4#dgh ,and it is also supported by the analogy of nature3 for if an organism or a species is a failure1 it eventually ceases to exist2 it is not kept alive for ever as a disfigurement to the world4 ,footnote #dgh3 ,e4g41 ,john #f4 #ea2 ,rom4 #f4 #bc2 ,matt4 #aj4 #bh4 ,this theory1 no doubt1 presents less moral difficulties than either of the others1 but it is not free from them4 ,for are the wicked to be punished after death previous to their destruction8 ,if they are not1 justice is not satisfied2 and while excessive punishment seems a reflection on ,god's character1 no punishment at all for sinners who have been successful in this world1 seems equally so4 ,yet1 on the other hand1 any punishment which precedes destruction seems merely vindictive1 and of no possible use4 ,each of these theories1 then1 appears improbable1 but the endless misery of the wicked is scarcely more so than the others1 and therefore1 as it is the one most strongly supported by the ,bible1 we seem bound to accept it4 ,one remark may however be made in conclusion1 and it brings a little comfort into this saddest of all truths4 ,it is that whatever doubt may exist as to the future state of the wicked1 of one thing we may be quite sure--that their punishment will not be in excess of what they deserve4 ,they will be treated fairly2 and every merciful allowance will be made for circumstances1 including the inherent weakness of human nature4 ,christianity indeed seems to emphasise this more than any other religion1 since men are to be judged not by the ,father1 but by the ,son2 apparently for this very reason that1 being ,man1 ,he can sympathise with human weakness4#dgi ,and after the judgment1 persons will enjoy heaven just in proportion as their lives on earth have rendered them capable of doing so1 while the misery of the lost will also be in exact proportion to what they deserve4 ,footnote #dgi3 ,john #e4 #bg4 7,c47 ,,the ,,importance ,,of ,a ,,true ,,belief4 ,the last doctrine to be considered is the importance of a ,true ,belief1 that is of believing the truth in regard to matters of religion4 ,this is strongly insisted on in the warning clauses of the ,athanasian ,creed2 so we will first consider their meaning1 then their truthfulness1 and lastly1 the objection as to dogmatism4 7#a47 ,their meaning4 ,before discussing this1 it may be pointed out that they are often called the damnatory or uncharitable clauses2 but both these terms are somewhat misleading4 ,for the ,creed does not condemn anyone by these clauses1 it merely declares that certain persons will be condemned by ,god1 which is a very different thing4 ,no one desires their condemnation1 but the contrary2 therefore1 believing the danger to be a fact1 it is stated in the hope that persons will in consequence avoid it4 ,an analogy may help to illustrate this distinction4 ,suppose a despotic ruler in some island were to put up a notice that anyone walking along a certain part of the coast would be arrested and shot2 this might well be called uncharitable4 ,but now1 suppose the notice was that1 owing to their being quicksands along that part of the coast1 anyone walking there would be drowned2 this might be untrue1 but it could scarcely be called uncharitable4 ,so in regard to the ,creed4 ,its warnings 7whether true or false7 are in no sense uncharitable2 and it no more consigns men to perdition 7as it is sometimes called7 for denying the faith1 than a doctor consigns men to die of fever for drinking bad water4 ,in each case they merely state what they believe will 7unfortunately7 be the result4 ,its warnings are also quite different from the ,let him be anathema of ,st4 ,paul1 as well as from some of the ,psalms1 where the writer does not merely state that the wicked will be miserable1 but prays that they may be so4#dhj ,this no doubt seems uncharitable1 but there is nothing like it in the ,creed4 ,footnote #dhj3 ,e4g41 ,gal4 #a4 #h-i2 ,ps4 #fi4 ,what the ,creed says is that holding1 or holding fast1#dha the ,catholic ,faith1 especially the doctrines of the ,trinity and the ,incarnation1 is necessary to salvation 7vv4 #a1 #bh1 #bi1 #db72 and that those who do not keep 7or hold fast7 this ,faith will perish everlastingly 7v4 #b74 ,the word keep1 it should be noticed1 implies previous possession1 since a man cannot keep what he never had2 so these verses are inapplicable to heathens1 infidels1 or even nominal ,christians who have never really held the ,faith4 ,they refer only to apostates--to those who1 having once held the ,faith1 do not keep it4 ,footnote #dha3 ,it is so translated in the revised version1 issued in ,november1 #aiji1 by a ,committee1 under the ,archbishop of ,canterbury4 ,moreover1 there can be little doubt that the apostasy here referred to was not that due to intellectual doubt1 but to giving way1 under persecution4 ,for the ,gothic conquerors of ,southern ,europe1 where the ,creed was composed about the fifth century1 were ,arians1 and they much persecuted the ,catholics4 ,so a statement of what the ,catholic ,faith really was 7in opposition to ,arianism7 might well contain warnings as to the great danger of abandoning it under trial and persecution4 ,in the same way ,christ warned ,his followers that if they denied ,him before men1 ,he would also deny them before ,his ,father4 ,and a time of persecution is distinctly implied in the ,creed itself4 ,for in ver4 #cj we are told that it is not enough to believe the faith1 it must be publicly confessed2 and even in ver4 #a1 the holding or holding fast1 suggests a temptation to surrender4 ,compare the passage3 ,thou holdest fast my name1 and didst not deny my faith3#dhb where in the ,latin translation 7the ,vulgate7 the same word is used for hold fast1 as occurs in the ,creed4 ,footnote #dhb3 ,rev4 #b4 #ac1 #be2 #c4 #aa2 #b ,tim4 #a4 #ac4 ,next as to the meaning of to perish4 ,this is no doubt much disputed1 both here1 and in the similar passage in the ,gospel1 where ,christ says that all who believe on ,him shall not perish1 but have eternal 7or everlasting7 life2 which certainly implies that those who disbelieve1 or cease to believe1 shall perish1 and shall not have everlasting life1 i4e41 shall perish everlastingly4#dhc ,but whatever ,christ meant by these words1 the ,creed means too1 neither more nor less4 ,taken by themselves1 they seem to point to the destruction of the wicked2 or perhaps only to their failure to obtain the joys of heaven1 without actually ceasing to exist4 ,footnote #dhc3 ,john #c4 #af4 ,but however this may be1 one thing is plain2 that1 according to the ,creed1 those who have been taught the truth about ,god1 7i4e41 the ,catholic ,faith71 must both lead a good life1 7fighting against sin1 etc471 and also hold fast1 or keep this faith1 if they wish to be saved4 ,and ,st4 ,paul evidently regarded these as the two essentials2 for at the close of his life1 he rejoiced because he had fought the good fight1 and kept the faith4#dhd ,footnote #dhd3 #b ,tim4 #d4 #g4 7#b47 ,their truthfulness4 ,having thus shown what the warning clauses actually mean1 we have next to consider whether they are true4 ,now1 it is plain from the nature of the case that we can know nothing on such a subject1 except what is revealed by ,god4 ,is then1 this doctrine stated or implied in the ,new ,testament8 ,certainly it is1 since belief in ,christ is everywhere laid down as necessary to salvation4 ,he is not one ,saviour among many1 nor is ,christianity one means among many of getting to heaven4 ,but ,christianity is always represented as the only means1 and ,christ as the only ,saviour4 ,we have already alluded to one text on this subject1 that about the perishing2 and we will now quote five others1 each from a different writer1 thus showing that the doctrine was not peculiar to any one ,apostle or ,evangelist4 ,we are told then1 that while he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved1 he that disbelieveth shall be condemned2 that unless men believe in ,christ they shall die in their sins2 that ,his is the only ,name under heaven wherein men can be saved2 that public confession of ,him as ,lord1 together with belief in ,his ,resurrection1 leads to salvation2 and that ,his ,blood alone can redeem us from our sins4#dhe ,footnote #dhe3 ,mark #af4 #af2 ,john #h4 #bd2 ,acts #d4 #ab2 ,rom4 #aj4 #i2 #a ,pet4 #a4 #ai4 ,and the early ,christians acted in entire accordance with this4 ,when1 for instance1 the gaoler at ,philippi asked ,st4 ,paul1 ,what must ,i do to be saved8 the answer was1 ,believe on the ,lord ,jesus1 and thou shalt be saved4#dhf ,repentance1 baptism1 and amendment of life1 would of course follow in due time2 but first of all1 before all other things1 it was necessary that he should believe in ,christ4 ,this was the great essential4 ,footnote #dhf3 ,acts #af4 #ca4 ,now it is obvious that the belief in ,christ1 which is thus everywhere insisted on1 must mean believing the truth about ,christ1 and not a false belief4 ,if1 then1 the statements in the ,creed represent the truth about ,christ1 as we have shown they do1 then belief in these is necessary to salvation4 ,and the ,bible1 like the ,creed1 expressly says that the great and fundamental truth about ,christ1 which we must both believe and confess1 is ,his ,incarnation1 that ,he is come in the flesh4#dhg ,and this involves ,his relationship to ,god the ,father1 and the doctrine of the ,trinity4 ,thus the warning clauses as to the importance of a true belief1 especially in regard to these two great doctrines1 seem fully justified4 ,footnote #dhg3 #a ,john #d4 #b-c4 ,three further remarks may be made before leaving this subject4 ,the first is that the ,creed is addressed to ,christians only4 ,this is clear from its opening sentence1 ,quicunque vult salvus esse1 which means literally1 ',whoever wishes to be saved'2 and this takes for granted that the persons addressed have heard of salvation4 ,and1 as we have shown1 the following words1 that they must hold fast or keep the ,faith1 also imply that they have been already taught it4 ,the ,creed cannot therefore be held to refer to any but ,christians1 no matter how general the language may be4 ,secondly1 among ,christians the ,creed is meant chiefly for theologians4 ,this is plain from its technical language1 which is so worded as to prevent a recurrence of several old errors4 ,and it seems only fair to assume that children and unlearned persons belonging to a ,church holding these doctrines would be considered as believing them4 ,but though a child's belief1#dhh which is merely trust and love1 may be sufficient for a child1 something more may reasonably be expected from well-instructed ,christians4 ,and this is that they should believe these doctrines rightly 7v4 #bi71 though this is a most unfortunate translation of the ,latin word fideliter1 as it seems to connect it with the right faith 7fides recta7 of the following verse4 ,it would be better rendered by faithfully1 as it is in v4 #bd1 or heartily4 ,thus a heartfelt belief in the doctrines of the ,trinity and the ,incarnation--a belief which leads at once to worship1 for 'the ,catholic ,faith is that we worship one ,god'3--is what the ,creed says is so essential4 ,footnote #dhh3 ,matt4 #ah4 #f4 ,lastly1 all these statements1 like so many passages in the ,bible1#dhi are only general rules2 to which there are often some exceptions4 ,and in the present case1 we may feel sure 7from other passages7#dij that ,god will make exceptions1 wherever unbelief or misbelief has not been due to a person's own fault4 ,our conclusion1 then1 as to the warning clauses is this2 that if the other statements of the ,creed are true 7as we have shown they are71 these clauses do not present any great difficulty4 ,footnote #dhi3 ,e4g41 #a ,cor4 #f4 #ab4 ,footnote #dij3 ,e4g41 #a ,tim4 #a4 #ac4 7#c47 ,the objection as to dogmatism4 ,an important objection has still to be considered4 ,it is that the ,athanasian ,creed dogmatises too much4 ,granting1 it is said1 that all its doctrines are contained in the ,new ,testament1 yet why not be content with the simpler statements in the ,apostles' and ,nicene ,creeds8 ,these were sufficient for the ,church for several centuries1 so why not leave other matters open for discussion1 instead of treating them as closed questions8 ,we will consider these points in turn4 ,and first as to dogmatism2 by which is meant the exact statement of any truth4 ,now on all other subjects which influence our conduct1 such as diseases or science1 it is admitted to be of great importance that we should know the truth1 and act accordingly4 ,why1 then1 should it be thought that in ,religion alone this is immaterial1 and that a false ,creed is as good as the true one1 if a man honestly believes it8 ,moreover1 a certain amount of dogmatism in matters of ,religion seems essential4 ,no one can intelligently serve or pray to a ,god of ,whose ,nature he has formed no idea1 and the moment he begins to form such an idea he is involved in difficulties4 ,take for example what some will consider a very simple prayer1 ,may ,god forgive my sins for ,christ's sake4 ,who1 we may ask1 is ,god2 who is ,christ2 what is the relation between them2 why should ,one be asked to forgive for the sake of the ,other2 and what would happen if the sins were not forgiven8 ,such difficulties cannot be avoided2 and if the statements in the ,athanasian ,creed are their true explanation1 the more clearly this is stated the better4 ,in the next place1 it is very doubtful whether the earlier ,creeds are simpler and more easy to believe than the ,athanasian4 ,to a thoughtful reader it may well seem otherwise4 ,for example1 referring to the ,trinity1 the ,apostles' ,creed teaches us to believe in ,god the ,father1 in ,his ,son ,jesus ,christ1 and in the ,holy ,ghost1 but it does not attempt to answer the simplest questions concerning ,them4 ,are ,they1 for instance1 all three ,persons8 if so1 are ,they all three ,divine8 and if so1 are ,they three ,gods8 ,and the ,nicene ,creed is even more puzzling1 for it first says that there is one ,god the ,father1 and soon afterwards that the ,son is also ,god4 ,so in regard to the ,holy ,spirit1 ,he is called the ,lord1 yet it has been already stated that there is only one ,lord ,jesus ,christ4 ,how can all this be reconciled8 ,and much the same applies to the future state of the wicked4 ,the two earlier ,creeds speak of the life everlasting 7for the good71 but what is to become of the bad8 ,these and many other questions are suggested by the earlier ,creeds1 and answered by the ,athanasian4 ,and to many it seems easier to believe the ,creed which answers difficulties1 than those which merely suggest them4 ,and it was for this very purpose of answering difficulties1 not making them1 that the ,athanasian ,creed was composed4 ,its object was not to assert any new doctrines1 or to suggest that those previously received were not sufficient1 but merely to explain them1 and to prevent them from being misunderstood4 ,all the doctrines1 as we have seen1 are contained in the ,new ,testament1 and they were in consequence always believed by ,christians4 ,but it was not till after much controversy that men learnt to express this belief with clearness and precision4 ,lastly1 as to these doctrines being closed questions4 ,they are closed questions in much the same way as the fact that the earth goes round the sun1 and not the sun round the earth1 is a closed question in astronomy4 ,that is to say1 they have been thoroughly discussed1 and 7to those who believe the ,new ,testament7 the evidence in their favour is overwhelming4 ,of course anyone may go over the proofs again for himself1 and if he wants to have an intelligent belief he should do so2 but as a rule of conduct the subject cannot be re-opened4 ,and it should be noticed that the ,church1 in thus treating certain questions as closed for its members1 is only acting as other societies would do4 ,would a society of engineers1 for instance1 allow one of its members to construct an iron bridge on the supposition that the expansion of iron by heat was an open question2 which he might1 or might not1 think worth allowing for8 ,or would a society of doctors allow one of its members to attend patients if he asserted that whether scarlet fever was infectious or not was an open question2 which each patient might decide for himself8 ,in short1 well-ascertained truth1 or what is believed to be such1 in every department of knowledge is looked upon as a closed question2 and it must remain so1 unless some important fresh evidence is produced4 ,but with regard to the ,creeds1 no fresh evidence can be produced1 unless ,god were to give a fresh ,revelation2 so1 from the nature of the case1 they are closed questions in an even stricter sense than ascertained truths on other subjects4 ,this concludes a brief examination of the doctrines of the ,three ,creeds1 and1 as we have seen1 they are all either contained in1 or logically deducible from1 the ,new ,testament4 ,,chapter ,,xxv4 ,,that ,,the ,,truth ,,of ,,the ,,christian ,,religion ,,is ,,extremely ,,probable4 7,a47 ,,the ,,evidences ,,of ,,christianity4 ,one remaining objection1 why are there so many difficulties1 and no more obvious proof8 considered in detail4 7,b47 ,,summary ,,and ,,conclusion4 ,we have now examined all the more important arguments for and against the ,truth of ,christianity4 ,many of them1 as we have seen1 involve a good deal of study1 and we have often been obliged to consider a few examples only of various classes of facts2 but it is hoped that no important argument on either side has been entirely overlooked4 ,one remaining objection has still to be considered4 7,a47 ,,the ,,evidences ,,of ,,christianity4 ,does not1 it is urged1 this very fact of itself form a difficulty8 ,can an ordinary man be expected to ponder over arguments1 objections1 and counter-arguments by the dozen1 even supposing the balance of probability to be in favour of the ,religion8 ,surely1 if ,christianity were true1 and ,god wished men to believe it1 there would not be so many difficulties4 ,he would have provided an easier way of proving it than this2 or1 at all events1 if this elaborate argument were examined1 the inference in its favour would be simply overwhelming4 ,this is a difficulty felt perhaps by some who have read the present ,essay2 fortunately it can be answered satisfactorily4 ,and first1 as to there being so many difficulties4 ,several of these are simply due to the evidence in favour of ,christianity being so strong4 ,if1 for instance1 we had only one ,gospel instead of four1 the difficulties caused by the discrepancies between them would disappear1 but the argument in favour of ,christianity would not be strengthened in consequence4 ,still putting aside these1 it must be admitted that there are many difficulties connected with the ,religion4 ,but what is the cause of this8 ,it is the very magnitude of the ,christian ,religion which opens the way for so many attacks4 ,a religion which claims to be the only true one in the world2 to have been founded by ,god ,himself2 to have been prepared for by prophecies and introduced by miracles2 to be the centre of the world's history1 all previous history leading up to it1 and all subsequent history being influenced by it2 to be suitable for all ages and countries2 to hold the key to all mental and moral problems2 to be man's guide and comfort in this life1 and his only hope for the next2--such a religion must be assailable at a great many points4 ,but provided all these assaults can be repelled1 provided this long frontier-line1 so to speak1 can be properly defended1 it does not show the weakness of the religion2 on the contrary1 it shows its enormous strength4 ,a religion which made less claims would1 no doubt1 have less difficulties2 but it would be less likely to be the true one4 ,if ,god became ,incarnate1 no claims can be too vast for the ,religion ,he founded4 ,and to many1 this unspeakable grandeur of ,christianity1 so far from being a difficulty1 constitutes one of its greatest charms4 ,next1 as to there being no easier means of proof4 ,it is a simple matter of fact that the vast majority of men1 both educated and uneducated1 who believe in ,christianity1 have not arrived at this belief by a long line of reasoning1 such as we have examined4 ,they assert that there is an easier way4 ,they say that ,god has given them a faculty of ,faith1 which1 though it may be hard to explain1 just as man's free will is hard to explain1 yet gives them the most certain conviction of the truth of ,christianity4 ,and starting with this inward conviction1 they say it is confirmed by their daily experience1 just as a man's belief in his free will is confirmed by his daily experience4 ,of course1 this appeal to faith is no argument to those who do not possess it4 ,on the other hand1 to those who do possess it1 no arguments can really weaken or strengthen it4 ,it is a thing by itself1 and absolutely convincing4 ,it may be pointed out1 however1 that if man is a partly spiritual as well as a partly material being1 which we have already admitted2 then the existence of some spiritual sense1 or faculty1 by which to perceive spiritual truths1 just as the body has material senses by which to perceive material objects1 cannot be thought incredible4 ,and this is what faith claims to be2 it is a means to spiritual discernment1 and may be compared to eyesight4 ,it does not enable us to believe what we might otherwise think to be untrue2 but it enables us to know for certain1 what we might otherwise think to be only probable 7e4g41 the existence of ,god74 ,in the same way a blind man might1 by feeling1 think it probable that there were a certain number of pictures in a room1 but if he could see1 he would know for certain4 ,and1 just as a man1 who had always been blind1 ought not to reject the testimony of those who see1 so a man who has no faith ought not to reject the testimony of those who have4 ,and the existence of such a faculty will account for the very different views taken of ,christianity by men of apparently equal intelligence and candour4 ,still1 it may be asked1 why should some persons be given this faculty of faith1 while others are not8 ,the subject is no doubt a difficult one4 ,but very possibly the faculty is latent in every one1 only it needs 7like other faculties7 to be exercised and developed4 ,and the man himself may be responsible for whether he takes suitable means 7prayer1 etc47 for doing this4 ,however1 we need not pursue this subject1 since1 as said above1 no arguments can prove1 or disprove ,christianity to those who believe by faith4 ,but now comes the most important part of the objection4 ,granting1 it is said1 that the subject is a difficult one1 and demands a long investigation1 yet when we do go through the arguments on both sides the conclusion is not irresistible4 ,in short1 why are not the evidences in favour of ,christianity stronger8 ,of course they might be so1 but we have no reason for thinking that they would be4 ,in our ordinary daily life we have never absolute certainty to guide us1 but only various degrees of probability4 ,and even1 in ,natural ,religion1 the reasons for believing in a ,personal ,god and the freedom and responsibility of man1 though to most people quite convincing1 are certainly not irresistible2 since1 as a matter of fact1 some men resist them4 ,and if ,god intends us to act on such evidence in common life1 and also with regard to the great truths of ,natural ,religion1 why should ,he not do the same with regard to ,christianity8 ,he seems1 if we may use the word1 to respect man's momentous attribute of free will even in matters of ,religion2 therefore in ,his sight a right belief1 like right conduct1 may be of no value unless it is more or less voluntary4 ,it is to be a virtue1 rather than a necessity4 ,and this fully accounts for the evidences of ,christianity not being overwhelming4 ,they are amply sufficient to justify anyone in believing it2 but they are not1 and were probably never meant to be1 sufficient to compel him to do so4 ,if1 however1--and this is a matter of practical importance--they are strong enough to show that the ,religion is probably true1 a man who admits this is obviously bound to accept it4 ,he cannot adopt a neutral attitude1 because the evidence is not conclusive2 since1 as just said1 in every other subject we have only probability1 not certainty1 to guide us2 and why should religion alone be different8 ,then1 if he accepts it1 he is obviously bound to try and live accordingly1 no matter what the sacrifice may be2 for ,christianity1 if it is worth anything1 is worth everything4 ,such tremendous truths cannot be half acted on if believed1 any more than they can be half believed2 it must be a case of all for all4 ,and then1 if he tries to live accordingly1 he may find 7as ,christians in all ages have found7 that for himself the probability becomes a certainty4 ,lastly1 it may be pointed out that though perhaps the evidences of ,christianity are not so strong as we should expect1 they are precisely of such a kind as we should expect2 for they exhibit each of the three great attributes of ,god4 ,his ,omnipotence is shown in the miracles1 ,his ,omniscience in the prophecies1 and ,his perfect ,goodness in the ,character of ,christ2 so that1 judged by its evidences1 ,christianity is a ,religion which might very reasonably have come from the ,god ,who is ,all-,powerful1 ,all-,wise1 and ,all-,good4 7,b47 ,,summary ,,and ,,conclusion4 ,it now only remains to give a summary of the previous chapters1 and then point out the final choice of difficulties4 ,in ,chapter ,,xiii4 we considered the credibility of the ,christian ,religion1 and decided that some of its leading doctrines1 especially those of the ,incarnation and the ,atonement1 seemed very improbable4 ,all that can be said on the other side is practically this1 that we have no adequate means of judging2 and that when we apply similar reasoning to subjects about which we do know1 such as the freedom of man or the existence of evil1 it generally leads us wrong4 ,but still the fact remains that the ,religion appears1 at first sight1 very improbable4 ,in ,chapter ,,xiv4 we considered the external testimony to the ,four ,gospels1 and decided that this was very strongly in their favour4 ,at the close of the second century they held the same position among ,christians as they do at present2 during the middle of that century ,justin shows that they were publicly read1 together with the ,old ,testament ,prophets2 while the few earlier writers whose works have come down to us also seem to have known them4 ,in ,chapter ,,xv4 we considered their internal evidence1 and found that it strongly supported the above conclusion2 so combining the two1 we have an almost overwhelming argument in favour of their genuineness4 ,in ,chapter ,,xvi4 we considered an additional argument of great importance1 derived from the ,acts of the ,apostles4 ,there are strong reasons for dating this book about ,a4,d4 #fj2 and if so it proves a still earlier date for the first three ,gospels4 ,in ,chapter ,,xvii4 we considered the ,resurrection of ,christ1 and the accounts we have of it in the ,four ,gospels4 ,and we decided that these ,narratives1 in spite of some obvious discrepancies and omissions had every appearance of being thoroughly trustworthy4 ,indeed their complete agreement in important points1 their mutual explanations1 and their signs of early date are all strongly in their favour4 ,in ,chapter ,,xviii4 we considered the testimony of the ,first ,witnesses1 and examined in detail their veracity1 knowledge1 investigation1 and reasoning2 and each seemed to be supported by irresistible evidence4 ,therefore the opposite theories1 which are based on denying these points1 and are called respectively the ,falsehood1 the ,legend1 the ,vision1 and the ,swoon ,theory1 are quite untenable4 ,so we must either accept the ,resurrection of ,christ2 or deny it1 in spite of all the evidence1 and solely because of the miraculous nature of the event4 ,in ,chapter ,,xix4 we considered the other ,new ,testament ,miracles1 and came to the conclusion that they also occurred4 ,indeed their marks of truthfulness1 and their publicity together with the fact that they were never disputed at the time1 make the evidence in their favour extremely strong4 ,in ,chapter ,,xx4 we considered the argument from ,prophecy2 and discussed in detail ,isaiah's ,prophecy of the ,lord's ,servant1 and the ,psalm of the ,crucifixion1 and then glanced at several others4 ,and we pointed out how completely these prophecies were fulfilled in ,christ1 and how utterly hopeless it was to find any other fulfilment of them4 ,so here again the choice lies between either accepting these prophecies1 or disputing them simply because they are prophecies1 and imply superhuman knowledge4 ,in other words1 we must either admit the marvel of a ,divine ,revelation1 or else we must face the mental difficulty of believing that all these coincidences were due to chance1 the improbability of which can scarcely be calculated4 ,in ,chapter ,,xxi4 we considered the ,character of ,christ2 and the admitted excellence of ,his moral teaching seems quite inconsistent with deliberate falsehood on ,his part4 ,yet ,he kept asserting ,his superhuman and ,divine ,nature1 and was finally put to death in consequence4 ,so here once more we have a similar choice before us4 ,we must either accept the ,divinity of ,christ1 with all the wonders it involves2 or else we must face the moral difficulty of believing that the best moral teaching the world has ever had1 was given by ,one1 whose own life was full of falsehood and presumption4 ,in ,chapter ,,xxii4 we considered the ,history of ,christianity1 and found that its marvellous progress at first1 in spite of its immense difficulties1 and without the use of any force1 could only be accounted for by its truth4 ,so here for the last time we have the same alternatives to choose from4 ,we must either admit the supernatural origin and spread of ,christianity2 or else we must face the historical difficulty of believing that its first preachers were able to convince men without evidence1 conquer them without force1 and found the greatest religion the world has ever seen on claims which at the time everyone must have known to be untrue4 ,in ,chapter ,,xxiii4 we considered the other evidence on the subject1 and briefly examined various arguments for and against ,christianity1 such as its connection with prayer2 its adaptation to human nature1 and its relation to other religions2 but all of comparative unimportance4 ,lastly1 in ,chapter ,,xxiv4 we decided that the ,three ,creeds were deducible from the ,new ,testament2 so the religion which has all this evidence in its favour is the ,christian ,religion1 as we have used the term4 ,from the above summary it will be seen that the arguments against ,christianity are all what may be called antecedent 7or a priori7 ones4 ,the ,religion itself1 its doctrines1 its claims1 its miraculous origin1 all seem most improbable4 ,thus the objections to ,christianity all lie on the surface4 ,they are obvious and palpable to everyone4 ,on the other hand1 the arguments in its favour have often to be sought for2 but when found they are seen to be stronger and stronger the more they are examined4 ,there are four main arguments4 ,these are of a widely different character1 and each appeals most strongly to a certain class of minds1 so each is often said to be the chief argument for ,christianity1 but they are probably of equal value4 ,they may be conveniently called the argument from ,miracles1 including of course the ,resurrection of ,christ2 from ,prophecy2 from ,christ's ,character2 and from ,history4 ,and it should be noticed in passing1 that they mutually support one another4 ,miracles1 for instance1 are less difficult to believe when it is seen that they were to establish a religion which has for centuries exercised a greater influence on mankind than anything else2 and prophecies become stronger when it is seen that the ,life foretold was one that had such supreme and far-reaching effects4 ,now1 it is important to remember that the actual facts on which these arguments rest are in each case absolutely unique4 ,once1 and only once in the history of the world1 have men appeared who asserted that they were actual witnesses of miracles1 and who faced all forms of suffering and death solely in consequence of this4 ,again1 once1 and only once in the history of the world1 has a long series of prophecies1 uttered many centuries apart1 united in a single ,person1 in whom they one and all find a complete fulfilment4 ,yet again1 once1 and only once in the history of the world1 has a ,man appeared of faultless moral character1 who asserted that ,he was also ,god1 and who boldly claimed all that this tremendous assertion involved1 and submitted to the consequences4 ,while1 lastly1 once1 and only once in the history of the world1 has a ,religion1 most improbable in itself1 and without using any force1 succeeded in conquering nation after nation4 ,these1 then1 are the four chief arguments on the subject1 and in every case we have the same choice before us4 ,we must either face the antecedent 7or a priori7 difficulties in accepting ,christianity1 or the mental1 moral and historical difficulties in rejecting it4 ,there is no neutral ground1 no possibility of avoiding both sets of difficulties4 ,but the difficulties on the one side concern what we do not know--,god's purpose in creating man--and may be due to our ignorance only4 ,the difficulties on the other side concern what we do know4 ,they are practical1 they are derived from experience4 ,we do know that men will not lay down their lives for what they believe to be false1 and that the first preachers of ,christianity must have known whether it was false or not4 ,we do know that prophecies uttered at random through centuries would not all unite in a single ,person4 ,we do know that even moderately good men do not make extravagant claims4 ,and we do know that no natural causes can account for such a religion as ,christianity obtaining such a triumph as it did4 ,the choice1 then1 seems to lie between what we may call unknown difficulties and known ones4 ,the unknown difficulty of believing that the ,eternal ,god could so love man as to humble ,himself even to death to win man's love2 and the known difficulty of believing that evidence so vast and so various1 so cumulative and so apparently irresistible1 could all unite in making a monstrous falsehood appear to be a momentous truth4 ,between these two sets of difficulties we have to make our choice4 ,but to those who agree with the previous chapters1 the choice cannot be doubtful2 for however hard it is to believe ,christianity1 it is1 as we have shown1 harder still to disbelieve it4 ,this1 then1 is our final conclusion1 that the truth of the ,christian religion is extremely probable1 because1 to put it shortly1 though the difficulties of accepting ,christianity are great1 the difficulties of rejecting it are far greater4 ,,index ,,of ,,texts4 ,,page ,,genesis4 #a4 #aag #a #bac #bf #aei1 #cic #b4 #acb #d #aai #c4 #bb #aei1 #cic #d4 #ac-ag1 #bf #acb #e4 #a-b #acd #f4 #b-d #acb #g4 #aa #abf #ba #acb #g-h4 #aei #i4 #ac-ad #abg #aa4 #g #cic #ab4 #c #bje #f #afj #af #ada #ac4 #g #afj #ad4 #bb #bac #ah4 #be #bae #ba4 #cc #bac #bb4 #baj #ag #bag #ah #cgd #bc4 #b1 #ai #adb #be4 #ah #adc #bf4 #d #cgd #bg4 #h-ac #bjh #cc4 #ah #adb #ce4 #f #adb #cf4 #ca-ci #aei #ci4 #a #aci #i #bae #dj4 #aa1 #ai #adj #ae #aef #da4 #adj #da #cic #dc4 #bg-bh #adc #cb #aci #df4 #cd #aci #dh4 #c #adb #di4 #cj #adb #ej4 #c #aci ,,exodus4 #a4 #aa #add #ad #add #b4 #c #add #c4 #ad #dje #d4 #ba #aei #e4 #ab #add #bc #afe #g4 #c #aei #aa1 #bb #ahb #ad-be #aeg #ai #ade #h4 #g1 #ah1 #ai #ahb #ae1 #cb #baj #i4 #cd #baj #aj4 #a #aei #c1 #g #baj #ab4 #ab #adf #be #aec #cg #aga #ac4 #aa #aec #ac #baj #ad4 #d #bji #ba1 #bb #agh #cj #agi #af4 #cf #afj #ag4 #ad #afd #ai4 #e #bjf #bj4 #bd #afa #ba4 #b1 #af #baa #bb4 #bi1 #cj #baj #bc4 #d-e #baa #bc4 #i #adh #bd4 #d #afd1 #afe #be4 #c-aj #adh #ac-ah #adg #bi4 #ad #aed #cd4 #bj #baj #bg #afd ,,leviticus4 #d4 #ab #aed #f4 #b #cib #aa #aed #g4 #a #chj #ch #aea #aa4 #bi #acb #ac4 #df #aed #ad4 #c #aed #cd #aec #af4 #a #aea #ai #chj #bf #aed #ag4 #c #aej1 #aed #ah-bj4 #baa #ah4 #bj #cib #ba-bh #bji #ai4 #aa1 #ae1 #ag #cib #bc #aea #cd #dab #bc4 #aj #aec #bd4 #ae #aea #af #dab #bd4 #ai #cib #be4 #a #aea #b #aec #ac #aej #ad1 #ae1 #ag #cib #da #baa #bf4 #cc #aij #bf4 #df #aea #bg4 #bh1 #bi #baj #cd #aea ,,numbers4 #a4 #aga #a #aea #ba #aga #dg-d1 #di #aej #b4 #aj1 #ag #afi #c4 #ad #aea #bi #afi #e4 #b #aed #i4 #a #aea #aj #aea #aa4 #e #adg #ae4 #b1 #ah #aec #ce #aea #af4 #afi1 #ahc #ag4 #b #adg #ah4 #ae #baj #ai4 #c1 #ad #aed #ba4 #ad #aei #bc4 #ai #bad #bf4 #aga #aa #agj #bg4 #h #aea #cc4 #afe #b #afd #d #adf #ej #aea #ce4 #a #aea #a-h #aej #aj #aec #cf4 #h #aea #ac #afd ,,deuteronomy4 #a4 #c #aea #cg #afe #b4 #aj-ab #afj #bj-bc #afj #c4 #h1 #bj1 #be #aef #ad #afj #bc-bf #afe #d4 #a1 #e1 #ad #aed #c-ae #aeb #ag #abf #ba #afe #bg #aij #ci #bab #d4 #df #aea #e4 #c #aeb #ca #aed #f4 #a1 #ah #aed #e #bae #i #adf #g4 #a #aec #b #afc #ae #adh #bb #afc #h4 #a #aed #g-aj #adh #i4 #e #bji #aa4 #b-h #aeb #f #agj #aj-ab #adh #aa #abf #bj #adf #cj #aef #ab4 #a1 #aj1 #bi #aec #e #afa #ba #aej #ca #baj #ac4 #a-c #aii #ad4 #b #baf #ag4 #ad #aec #ah4 #f-h #afb #i #aec #bb #aii #bj4 #ag #afc #ba4 #bc #cgg #bd4 #i1 #ah1 #bb #aeb #be4 #ag #aeb #bf4 #a #aec #ad #adg #ah #baf #bg4 #b #adf #bh4 #aia #be1 #fd #aij #cg1 #df1 #dh #aij #fj #adh #bi4 #a #aea #b-i #aeb #ca4 #b1 #bb1 #bd-bf #afe #i1 #bb1 #bd #afd #cb4 #h #bjf #cc4 #bg #abc ,,joshua4 #a4 #g1 #h #afj #c4 #ad-ag #ahc #f4 #f-bj #ahc #f4 #ae #agc #h4 #ca1 #cb #afj #i4 #a1 #aj #aef #aj4 #ab-ad #agi #ab4 #g #aef #bc4 #bf #afj #bd4 #bf #afj ,,judges4 #c4 #d #afj #e4 #d #abg #f4 #ae #aga #bf #afb #aa4 #ci #baj #bj4 #bg1 #bh #afj #ba4 #ai #afj ,i4 ,,samuel4 #b4 #ab-cj #afj #c4 #c #afj #d4 #d #afj #f4 #ae #afj #ai #aga #ad4 #c #afj #ae4 #bb #afa #be4 #af #agh ,,ii4 ,,samuel4 #g4 #ab-af #aie #h4 #af #agc #aj4 #e #ada #aa4 #bd #chf #ab4 #i #chf #bd4 #ah #afb ,i4 ,,kings4 #b4 #c #afj #c4 #b #afa #f4 #ad-cf #adg #h4 #bg #bac #i4 #d1 #e #aie #aj4 #bi #agd #aa4 #ca1 #dj #aie #ab4 #bd #aie #ac4 #b #aif #ad4 #ae #aif #ag4 #ba #ceg #ah4 #bg-dj #ahc #bg #bab #cb #afb #bj4 #cj #aga #bb4 #dc #afa ,,ii4 ,,kings4 #b4 #bb #aha #d4 #f #aha #e4 #aj-bg #ahc #f4 #f #aha #g4 #b #abf #f #agd #ad4 #f #afj #ae4 #ai #agf #ag4 #f #agg #ah4 #d-f #afa #bh-ce #ahd #ah #agc #ai4 #aj1 #cd #ahd #ae-ah #bab #ce #ahc1 #ahd #bj4 #h-aa #ahc1 #aif #ag #aif #ba4 #b1 #ba #afc #bb4 #afb #bc4 #ae1 #af #aif #be4 #c #agg ,i4 ,,chronicles4 #ba4 #ab #ahd #bh4 #i #bae #bi4 #aa #bac ,,ii4 ,,chronicles4 #ad4 #h1 #i #aga #bj4 #f #bjf #cb4 #bd1 #ca #aig #cd4 #h #agc ,,ezra4 #f4 #ab #cic #g4 #ba #cic ,,nehemiah4 #a4 #h #aij #i4 #f #bac ,,job4 #aj4 #d1 #e #abj #aa4 #g #bad #ab4 #aj #bac #af4 #aj #che #bi4 #i #cgf #cd4 #ai #bae #cf4 #bf #bac #cg4 #af #bac #cc4 #h-aa #abg ,,psalms4 #h4 #c1 #d #fj #bb4 #chd #bb4 #bg #bah #eh4 #d #acd #fi4 #dgd #hb4 #f #dab #hf4 #i #bah #ij4 #b #bac #aae4 #d-h #bab #aci4 #b #bac #g #bac #adg4 #e #bac #h-i #agh #adh4 #f #bad ,,proverbs4 #ae4 #c #bac #af4 #d #bac #cj4 #ai #abf ,,ecclesiastes4 #ab4 #ad #bae ,,isaiah4 #a4 #d #cgh #f4 #e-aj #dfj #h #cid #h4 #d #aif #i4 #a-b #cij #f #cij #aj4 #ba #cij #aa4 #i #bah #ac4 #d #acd #ai-bb #ahg #ad4 #bb1 #bc #ahg #bh4 #bi #bac #cg4 #af #bjf #ch4 #h #aif #dj4 #c #djg #aj #cgg #da4 #h #cha #bb #aii #db4 #a-f #chb #dd4 #f #djh #h #aii #bh #aif #de4 #g #bac #ae #bad #df4 #aj #bac #dh4 #c-e #aii #ab #bac #di4 #c-e #chb #f-g #chb #ea4 #i #cgg #eb4 #ac-ec1 #ab #cgf ,,jeremiah4 #g4 #bb #afa #h4 #h #aee #i4 #af #aij #ad4 #ad #aee #bc4 #bd #bac #bd4 #i #aij #bf4 #h-af #aif #bi4 #aj #aif #ah #aij #cj4 #aa #aij #ca4 #ce-cg #aij #cb4 #ag #bac #ej4 #ac1 #ci1 #dj #ahg ,,lamentations4 #d4 #d #che ,,ezekiel4 #aa4 #e #bac #ac4 #g #aee #bb4 #ae #aij #bi4 #aa-ac #ahi #ae #ahh #cj4 #g1 #ac #ahi #cd4 #bc #chc ,,daniel4 #c4 #bj-bg #ahc #d4 #f #cic #e4 #a #agd #h4 #a #agd #i4 #ba #caa #i4 #bf #aif #aa4 #aif #ab4 #b #dfe ,,hosea4 #d4 #d-f #afj #f4 #f #afa #h4 #a1 #ab1 #ac #afj #i4 #d #afj #ag #aij #ab4 #i #afj ,,joel4 #b4 #ca #ade ,,amos4 #b4 #d1 #aa #afj #c4 #f #bac #d4 #a #che #d1 #e #afj #e4 #h #bac #ba-be #afj #h4 #e #afj #i4 #i #aij ,,micah4 #e4 #b #cia ,,nahum4 #c4 #g #ahg #h #agh ,,zephaniah4 #b4 #aa #bah #b4 #ac-ad #ahg ,,zechariah4 #c4 #h #chc #i4 #i #cib #aa4 #ab-ac #cib #ab4 #aj #cib #ac4 #g #cib #ad4 #i #cib ,,malachi4 #c4 #f #bad #aj #abf ,,ii4 ,,esdras4 #h4 #c #bfb ,,matthew4 #a4 #bb #chi #b4 #a #cah #c4 #c #djg #ag #bfh #e4 #c1 #aj #bfa #bd #bgc #ci #cih #f4 #ad #dja #g4 #ac1 #bc #dfe #g4 #bb #cei1 #djc #h4 #c #cef #ab #dfe #cj-cb #ceb #i4 #i #bge #cc #cfa #cd #cfg #aj4 #h #bhc #ag1 #bb #dcc #bh #dgb #cb #djc #cc #dfe #aa4 #ba-bd #cej #d #cej #e #bhc #be-bg #bha #bg #djb #ab4 #bd #cfg #ca1 #cb #dfj #cb #dfe #db #bfh #ac4 #da #djb1 #djc #db1 #ej #dfe #eh #ceh #ad4 #ac #bhd #ae4 #bf #chf #af4 #ac-af #djb #ag #cjd #ah #dcc #ba #cag #bg #djc1 #dfh #bh #bgc #ah4 #f #dgh #h #dfe #bj #djd #ai4 #ab #cii #bf #cb #bh #djc #bj4 #bh #djb #ba4 #dc #bgc #bb4 #aa #djj #ad #bfa #ag #bgb #bc4 #cg #bhc #bd4 #c1 #bi #bgd #af #bgd #cj #djc #ca #djb #cf #bha #be4 #ca-df #djc #da1 #df #dfe #bf4 #bh #djb #ci #cb #eb #chf #fa #bhd #fb #cgh #fd #djc #fe #dab #bg4 #h #bgd #ad #cgh #bg4 #dc #cij #fc-fd #cjc #bh4 #d1 #aa #caa #af1 #g1 #aj #cac #i #ccg #aj1 #ai #chf #ae #bgd1 #ccg #ag #ccd #ah #djb #ai1 #bj #djd #ai #bfb1 #bha1 #dcc1 #dfa ,,mark4 #a4 #c #djg #e #cfh #aa #bfh #ad-bj #bgh #bj #bhe #cd #cee #db #cef #b4 #aj #cej #c4 #a-e #cei #aj #cee #ab #ceh #bb #cfg #bh1 #bi #dfj #bi #dfe #e4 #aa-ac #ceb #ci #ceh #da #ced #db #cfa #dc #ceh #f4 #e-f #ceh #ca #bhd #ef #cee #g4 #cd #ced #cf #ceh #cg #cfa #i4 #a #bgc #ca #cag #dh #dfe #aj4 #ah #dje #aj4 #bd #cgh #de #djb #aa4 #aj #cff #ab4 #bi #dfj #ac4 #g1 #aj #bgc #ac #dcc #ad #bgd #bd #bgd #cb #bha1 #dje #ad4 #i #bgc #bd #djb #bh #caa #ea #bge #eh #bhd #fd #dab #af4 #g #cac #h #caa #aa #cab #aa-ad #ccd #ac #cab #ad #cbb #ae #dcc #af #dgg #ag #cei ,,luke4 #a4 #a #bgf #a-d #bga #b-c #bgb #c #bie1cac #be #caa #b4 #b #bff #eb #dje #c4 #a #bfh #d #djg #bb #bfh #e4 #ag-ba #cfj #be #cef #f4 #cf-ch #bfa #g4 #ad #ceg #bb #bhc1 #cej #h4 #cb-cc #ceb #ee #cef #i4 #aj #bhd #bg #bgc #aj4 #ac-ae #cej #ba1 #bb #bha #bb #djb #ch #bhc #aa4 #ae #cfg #ca #bfh #ac4 #dec #aj-ag #cei #cd #bhc #ad4 #ba-bb #cji #af4 #h #cii #ag4 #a-b #bfa #ah4 #cc #cag #db #ceh #dc #cef #ai4 #cg #bhc #cg-ch #cib #dc #bii #ba4 #ba #bgd #bd #bgc #bg #bgd #bb4 #ai #djb #ga #dab #bd4 #d1 #bc #caa #i1 #cc #cbb #aa #caa #aa1 #cg #ccd #ab #cah #ah #bgf #bd #cah #cj1 #dc #ccg #cd #cab1 #cac1 #cba #da #cbb #ci #bfa ,,john4 #a4 #a #bhf1 #djg #c #dji #ad #bgg #bi-b1 #ab #bgh #bi1 #cf #bhf #dj #bgf #df #cgg #b4 #aa #cfj #ac #bhj #ag1 #bb #bgh #ai #bhd #ai-ba #cag #c4 #ac #djd #af #dgf #bd #bha #d4 #bg #bgh #e4 #a #bhj #b #bgg #i #cef #i-af #cei #ah #daa #e4 #bc #djc #bg #dgc #cf #cej #f4 #d #bhj1 #bhd #ae #cff #ch #djd #db1 #gj #bha #ea #dgb #fb #cad #g4 #e #cbe #h4 #ab #dcd #bd #dgg #bi #dja #eh #djd #ei #daa #i4 #h-cd #cec #ac-cd #cfb #ad-af #cei #cb #cfa #aj4 #ah #bda1 #cha #cj #djd #cc #daa #aa4 #h #daa #aa #ceh #dg #cfb #ab4 #cb #dcd #de #djd #ac4 #bh #bgh #ad4 #a1 #bc #djc #i #djd #af1 #bf #dfj #bh #djf #ae4 #bf #dfj #af4 #g #djc #ag #bgh #bh #djd #ag4 #e #djd #ba #djd #ah4 #ae #bgf1 #bhe #ai4 #g #dab #bh-cj #che #cd #cdc #ce #bgg #bj4 #b1 #ac #cah #f-h #cah #ag #cad1 #djf #be #ccd #bf #cjc #bh #djg #cj #cjf1 #cac #ca #bhb #ba4 #e #cgh #ba4 #ab #cbb #ac #ccg #ae #cbb ,,acts4 #a4 #a #dai #a-ac #cjg #c #bif1 #cjf1 #caj1 #cbg #f #cji #h #cba #ac #bge #ae #cjg #bb #cjc1 #cji1 #cbb #bb-bc #cjg #b4 #bb #cfb1 #djg #bd #cjb #ca #cjc #ch #dfb #da #cch #dc-dg #chf #c4 #f #djh #ac #chc #ae #cgi1 #cdd #ba #bif #d4 #e-bb #cfb #aj #cjb1 #djh #ab #dgg #af #cfb #cg #bge #e4 #c1 #d #dfj #cj #cjb #cg #bfg #f4 #e #bie #g4 #ei #djh #h4 #e1 #bf1 #dj #bie #af #dfb #i4 #g #cci #aj #ccb #aj4 #aj #ccb #cj #ccc #ch #cfb #dj #cjb #da #ccg1 #cdh #aa4 #e #ccc #ab4 #a #bhi #ab #bge #ac4 #a #dai #g #bhh #cj #cjb #ca #cjf1 #caj1 #cae #ce-cg #cjc #ad4 #a-ab #bia #ae4 #g1 #ad #cbb #af4 #i #ccb #i-dj #bid #ah1 #bf #cfb #ca #dgg #ag4 #f #bij #ag #dah #ai1 #cb #def #bh #aji #ca #cjb #cd #dai #ah4 #h1 #bd #dai #ab #bhi #be #dfb #ai4 #c #dfa #i-aj #dah #ba #bic #bi-ci #bib #ch #bhi #bj4 #b #bid #e-ba1 #ah #bid #be1 #ch #bii #bh #djh #ba4 #aj #bie #ah #bgb #bb4 #i #cci #ag #ccc #bc4 #bf #bhi1 #dai #bd4 #c #dai #ag #bic #be4 #ac1 #ad1 #bc #bij #bf #bhi #bf4 #bc #cjb #h #def #ai1 #h #cjd #ac1 #ad #cci #bc #bde #cj #bhi #bg4 #a-bh1 #af #bid #bh4 #f1 #h1 #i #cfb #g #bij #be #dfj ,,romans4 #b4 #f #dfh #f4 #bc #dgb #h4 #bf #dfj #h1 #bi #gh #ce #cbh #i4 #e #daj #aj4 #i #dgg #ac4 #d #chf #ad4 #i #daj #aj #daj #ae4 #ah1 #ai #cfc #ai #bid #be1 #bf #bic #cj #dfc #af4 #bc #dai ,i4 ,,corinthians4 #a4 #bc #dag #b4 #h #dje #aj #dfj #d4 #i-ac #cbh #f4 #ab #dgi #h4 #d #dfj #h4 #f #daj #i4 #a #cjc1 #ccc #aj4 #b #dfb #ab4 #i-aj1 #bh #cgj #ae4 #a-c #cjf #c #daj #d #cjc #c-e #cjd #e #cbb #h #ccc #aa #cjf1 #cad #ad-ag #cjc #ae #cbi #bj #bde #ej #cjd #af4 #bc #dfb ,,ii4 ,,corinthians4 #c4 #ag #dfj #e4 #aj #daj #af #cjb #ba #daj #h4 #ah #cjj #aa4 #bd-bg #cbh #ab4 #ab #cfc #ac4 #ad #dfb ,,galatians4 #a4 #h-i #dgd #ac #cbh #af #cjd #af-ag #ccc #ai #cjf1 #dji #bc #dji #b4 #b #dji #c4 #ac #cgg #bh #dbg #d4 #d #bci #f4 #ah #dfb ,,ephesians4 #d4 #d-f #daj1 #dfc #f4 #ab #cjd #bc #dfb ,,philippians4 #b4 #f #daj #d4 #c #bfj ,,colossians4 #a4 #ae-af #dji #ag #aji #ah #bde #bj #dga #b4 #i #daj #d4 #aj #bge #ad #bif ,i ,,thessalonians4 #a4 #c-e #dfc ,i ,,timothy4 #a4 #ac #dgi #d4 #aj #dga ,,ii ,,timothy4 #a4 #ac #dge #d4 #g #dgf #aa #bif #bj #bii ,,titus4 #b4 #ac #daj ,,philemon4 #bd #bif ,,hebrews4 #a4 #c #djd #h #daj #i4 #ad #dfj ,i ,,peter4 #a4 #b #dfc #ai #dgg #d4 #ad #dcd ,,ii ,,peter4 #c4 #aj #dcg ,i ,,john4 #a4 #a #bgg1 #bhf #b4 #b #dga #d4 #b-c #dgh ,,jude4 #bj-ba #dfc ,,revelation4 #a4 #e #bde #ag1 #ah #djh #ah #cdd #b4 #h #djh #ac1 #be #dge #c4 #aa #dge #ad #dji #e4 #aa-ad #djh #ac #dga #f4 #a #bhf #ac4 #ah #bee #ad4 #a #bhf #aa #dfe #ag4 #f #bih #ai4 #ac #bhf #bj4 #ae #dfe #bb4 #ac #djh ,,index ,,of ,,subjects4 ,,page ,abila1 inscription at1 #bfh ,abraham1 trust in ,god1 #bje1 #baj ---- promises to1 #cgd ,account of creation1 #aag ,acts of ,apostles1 #bhg ---- accuracy1 #bhh ---- authorship1 #bid ---- medical language1 #bif ---- date1 #big ---- and ,christ's ,divinity1 #djg ---- of ,pilate1 #cfe ,adam and ,eve1 #acb ,additions to ,pentateuch1 #aei ,agreements1 undesigned1 #afh ---- in ,gospels1 #cae ,agrippa1 called ,king1 #bhi ,amalek1 threat against1 #afd ,ambition1 the great1 #dea ,amos1 #afj ,analogies and illustrations3 ---- watch showing design1 #ab ---- mass of machinery1 #bb ---- house and tenant1 #ca ---- ship in distress1 #cf ---- king and child1 #fg ---- bird in egg1 #hi ---- telegraph clerk1 #ia ---- ,mont ,cenis tunnel1 #ajb ---- telephone1 #aje ---- clock and magnet1 #ajg ---- artist and pictures1 #abf ---- diseases of ,normandy1 #adh ---- similar letters1 #bbg ---- man's nature1 #bcb ---- parents and children1 #bcd ---- paying a debt1 #bdb ---- regiments crossing1 #bde ---- whirlpool1 #bdh ---- ,indian ,mutiny1 #bii ---- ingenious robbery1 #cii ---- founding a religion1 #daf ---- going for a holiday1 #dci ---- prayer to a father1 #dda ---- trees and storm1 #ddg ---- key fitting lock1 #dej ---- planting a flower1 #dff ---- quicksands1 #dgd ---- doctor and fever1 #dgd ---- scarlet fever1 #dhb ---- long frontier line1 #dhd ,angels1 their existence1 #bjb ---- their influence1 #bjc ---- at tomb1 #caj1 #cde ---- seen by the women1 #caj ---- and by soldiers1 #caa ---- not fellow-creators1 #cid ---- seeing and hearing1 #bjb ---- are ,christ's angels1 #djb ---- casting out evil1 #cea ,animals1 their creation1 #aca ---- difference from man1 #ea ---- cannot know man1 #bbg ---- not immortal1 #ia ---- their sufferings1 #fi ,antioch1 inscription at1 #bfg ,antiquity of man1 #acb ,apocryphal ,gospels1 #ced ,apollos of ,alexandria1 #dah ,apostasy1 under trial1 #dge ,apostolic ,fathers1 #bfj ,aramaic words of ,christ1 #ced ,archology and ,o4 ,test1 #agb ,arianism1 #dge ,aristides1 #bei1 #cfd ,aristion1 #beh1 #cje ,ark1 #adg ,arm of the ,lord1 #cgg ,artist and pictures1 #abf ,ascension1 the1 #cad ---- and early converts1 #cdd ,ashdod1 taken by ,sargon1 #agf ,assyria1 prophecies as to1 #ahg ---- army destroyed1 #ahd ,athanasian ,creed1 warnings1 #dgc ,athanasian ,creed1 implies persecution1 #dge ---- dogmatism1 #dgi ,atonement1 doctrine of1 #bdj ---- prophecies as to1 #cgi ---- and human nature1 #ddg ---- and other religions1 #ded ,baal and ,jehovah1 #ahc ,baalbec1 inscription at1 #bfh ,babylonia1 prophecies1 #ahg ---- messengers from1 #aig ,baker1 the chief1 #adj ,baptismal formula1 #dfa ---- witness of ,st4 ,paul1 #dfa ---- of ,teaching1 #bfb1 #dfa ,baptist 7see ,john71 #bgi ,barnabas1 epistle of1 #bfa ,bashan1 bulls of1 #che ,battering-rams1 #aib ,beauterne as to ,napoleon1 #bea ,bees1 cells of1 #eb ---- not due to heredity1 #ec ,belief1 importance of true1 #dgc ---- virtue not necessity1 #dhg ,belshazzar1 #agd ,beneficence in nature1 #ei ---- and righteousness1 #hj ---- in ,jewish ,religion1 #bad ---- and in ,christian1 #bdb ,bernice1 #bij ,berosus1 as to ,nabonidus1 #agd ---- as to ,sennacherib1 #ahe ,bethany1 #bhc ,bethel1 altar at1 #aif ,bethesda1 pool at1 #bgg ,bethlehem1 ,birth at1 #cia ',beyond ,jordan'1 #aef ,bible1 mistakes in ,o4 ,test41 #agj ---- in ,n4 ,test41 #bfh ---- inspiration1 #dcg ,bible and ,nat4 ,religion1 #bjj ,blasphemy against ,spirit1 #dfj ---- ,christ charged with1 #dab ,blood and water1 #cdc1 #che ,book of the ,law1 #afb ,books buried in temples1 #afc ,bread1 miracle as to1 #ajh ,bricks with straw1 #add ,brotherhood of man1 #dh ,butler1 #dca ,by-product1 pain is a1 #fj ,csar1 no early ,,mss41 #bec ,csarea1 ,philip at1 #bie ,calmness of ,evangelists1 #cag ,canaan1 its peculiarities1 #adh ,canaanites destroyed1 #bji ---- but done gradually1 #afc ,cannibalism at ,jerusalem1 #aib ,capernaum1 centurion at1 #cfj ,cats and mice1 #gj ,cause1 must be free1 #cc ,cells of bees1 #eb ---- built by workers1 #ec ,celsus1 ,christ's miracles1 #cfg ,cenis1 tunnel in ,mont1 #ajb ,census of ,israelites1 #aga ---- at ,christ's birth1 #bff ,centurion at ,capernaum1 #cfj ,certainty not necessity1 #bg ,chabas1 #adc ,chance1 really impossible1 #ba ,change of place in ,acts ,i1 #caj ,changelessness1 moral1 #aaa ,character of ,god1 #eh ---- of man1 #ci ---- its permanence1 #hh ,chiefman of ,malta1 #bij1 #cfa ,child of ,god1 man is a1 #bcf ,child's belief1 #dgh ---- temptations1 #hg ,chorazin1 its significance1 #cej ,christ1 ,his character1 #cif ---- teaching1 #cig ---- sinlessness1 #djj ---- in ,old ,test1 #chj1 #chh ---- always pleasing ,god1 #dja ---- claims1 #dja ---- sufferings unmerited1 #bda ---- ,his temptations1 #ddg ---- foretold ,resurrection1 #cag ---- beginning of creation1 #dji ---- seeing ,him seeing ,god1 #djd ---- influence in world1 #dcd ---- prophecies as to1 #cgd ---- the perfect ,example1 #bcf ---- the ,jewish ,messiah1 #cge ---- the ,paschal ,lamb1 #chj ---- the ,one ,mediator1 #ded ---- the only ,saviour1 #dgf ---- 7see ,divinity71 #djc1 #dei ,christiana1 sand storm1 #adf ,christianity1 meaning of1 #c1 #bba ---- its leading doctrines1 #bbb ---- its improbability1 #bdi1 #dhh ,christianity1 preparation for1 #dbb ---- based on miracles1 #dce ---- and the ,resurrection1 #cjb ---- its early triumphs1 #daf ---- its later history1 #dbe ---- effect on world1 #dbf ---- future prospects1 #dcj ---- its indestructibility1 #dcb ---- and prayer1 #dcg ---- and human nature1 #dde ---- and other religions1 #deb ---- its evidences1 #dhc ---- unspeakable grandeur1 #dhe ---- no half measures1 #dhh ,classical writers1 miracles1 #cfh ---- no early ,,mss41 #bec ,clement of ,rome1 ,gospels1 #bfa ,cleopas1 #bgf ,clock and magnet1 #ajg ,closed questions1 #dha ,coincidences1 superhuman1 #ajj ,communion1 ,holy1 #chf1 #djb ,conscience1 man has a1 #ej ---- the ,voice of ,god1 #ej ,conservation of energy1 #df ,constantine's vision1 #cce ,conversion1 ,st4 ,paul's1 #cjf ---- effect on companions1 #cci ---- ,christ unrecognised1 #cdj ,converts1 early1 #dah ,crabs1 and sense of pain1 #gj ,creation1 #d ---- account of1 in ,genesis1 #aag ---- days of1 #aai ---- on three occasions1 #abc1 #acf ---- and evolution1 #bd ,creator1 meaning of term1 #h ,credentials1 of messenger1 #ih ,credible1 meaning of1 #ii ,creeping things1 #aca ,crispus of ,corinth1 #dah ,crucifixion1 ,psalm of the1 #chd ---- no ,jewish punishment1 #chh ,cyprus1 proconsul at1 #bhh ,cyrenius 7see ,quirinius71 #bff ,damnatory clauses1 #dgc ,dana on ,genesis ,i1 #acf ,daniel1 ,book of1 #agd ,darkness over land1 #cfh ,darwin1 #ga ,david1 his character1 #bjh ---- not subject of ,ps4 #bb1 #chh ,days of creation1 #aai ,dead body of ,christ1 #ccg ---- offerings for1 #adg ,death1 #ddh ,decalogue1 its excellence1 #baa ---- preserved in temple1 #bae ,definitions1 credible1 #ii ---- design1 #aj ---- dogmatism1 #dgi ---- evolution1 #bj ---- free force1 #d ---- instinct1 #eb ---- law of nature1 #ai ---- material universe1 #d ---- miracles1 #aja ---- natural force1 #bj ---- omnipotence1 #cb ---- omniscience1 #cb ---- origin1 #d ---- personal being1 #cj ---- revelation1 #hb ---- supernatural force1 #i ,degradation of energy1 #g ,delphi1 inscription at1 #bhi ,demoniacal possession1 #cea ,desert1 of ,shur1 #adc ---- laws suitable for1 #adi ---- journeys in1 #afe ---- wind1 #ade ,design1 meaning of1 #aj ---- evidence in a watch1 #ab ---- in an eye1 #ad ---- throughout nature1 #ah ---- beneficent1 #ei ---- need not be desire1 #gd ---- man can1 #dg ---- animals cannot1 #eb ---- and instinct1 #eb ,destruction of ,canaanites1 #bji ---- done gradually1 #afc ---- of wicked1 #dga ,determinism1 #dc ,deuteronomy1 finding of1 #afb ,dial1 shadow on1 #aif ,diana of ,ephesus1 #bib ,diatessaron of ,tatian1 #beg ,diet in ,egypt1 #adg ,difficulties not explained ---- as to ,adam and ,eve1 #acb ---- number of ,israelites1 #aga ---- swine at ,gadara1 #ceb ---- vows in ,ps4 #bb1 #chf ---- virginity1 #cii ,difficulties1 endless misery1 #dgj ---- known and unknown1 #did ,dionysius the ,areopagite1 #dah ,discoveries1 modern1 #agb ,discrepancies in ,gospels1 #bfh ---- in ,fourth ,gospel1 #bhb ---- as to ,resurrection1 #cji ---- essential agreement1 #cae ,diseases of ,egypt1 #adh1 #aic ,dishonesty in ,e1 ,j1 ,p1 and ,d1 #aeh ,dispersion of ,jews1 #ahi1 #bag ,divinity of ,christ1 #djc1 #dei ---- witness of ,synoptists1 #djg ---- of ,st4 ,john1 #djg ---- of ,acts1 #djg ---- of ,revelation1 #djh ---- of ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles1 #dji ---- of ,hebrews1 #daj ---- of ,aristides1 #cfe ---- of ,christ's foes1 #daa ---- of ,pliny1 #dah ---- of ,jewish prophecies1 #cij ---- of ,holy ,spirit1 #dei ,dogmatism1 objection to1 #dgi ,dogs1 term for ,gentiles1 #che ,doors of the sea1 #abf ,doubts of ,resurrection1 #ccd ,dreams1 #ib ---- of ,pharaoh1 #adj ,driver1 #aeg1 #aei ,dry land1 appearance of1 #abg ,dualism in old religions1 #aai ---- unknown to ,jews1 #bac ---- and endless misery1 #dff ,eagle1 ,roman ensign1 #aia ,earth likened to machine1 #bb ,earthquakes1 #gd ,edersheim and ,isaiah1 #ec1 #cha ---- and ,psalm #bb1 #chg ,edomite kings1 list of1 #aei ,effect1 the world is an1 #cg ,egypt1 prophecies as to1 #ahh ---- magicians of1 #ahb ---- diseases of1 #adh1 #aic ---- gods of1 #adf ---- religion of1 #ded ---- and the ,pentateuch1 #ach ---- return of ,jews to1 #aid ---- periodical census1 #bfg ,elephantine1 temple at1 #afb ,eleven1 the1 ancient term1 #cbb ,elijah's sacrifice1 #ajj1 #ahc ,elisha1 trivial miracles of1 #aha ,elohim1 plural word1 #cic ,embalming ,christ's body1 #ccd ,emperor called lord1 #bhi ,encyclopdia ,britannica1 #ae1 #ec ,end of the world1 #dcg ,endless happiness1 #dgj ---- misery1 #dfd ,enemies1 doing good to1 #baa ,energy1 degradation of1 #g ---- conservation of1 #df ,ephesus1 riot at1 #bib ---- ,st4 ,paul's discussions1 #dah ---- farewell to friends1 #bii ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul1 four admittedly genuine1 #bhb ---- accuracy of ,acts1 #bic ---- the ,resurrection1 #cjc ---- ,st4 ,paul's sufferings1 #cbh ---- ,christian miracles1 #cfc ---- ,divinity of ,christ1 #daj ---- doctrine of ,trinity1 #dfb ---- spread of ,christianity1 #dah ,erastus of ,corinth1 #dah ,erech1 inscription at1 #agd ,erect position1 man's1 #fe ,eternal punishment1 #dfd ,eternity1 #dej ,ether1 #bbf1 #bdf ,euclid1 #dj ,eusebius1 as to ,papias1 #bei ---- ,quadratus1 #cfd ---- ,jews going to ,pella1 #bge ,evangelists educated1 #bge ---- had known ,christ1 #cjb ,everlasting ,father and ,son1 #bbe ---- in ,isaiah1 #cia ,everyone's work no one's1 #cdh ,evidences1 ,christian1 #dhc ,evil1 existence of1 #fi ---- physical1 #fi1 #gb ---- moral1 #ge ---- ,jewish idea of1 #bac ---- men1 #gg ---- spirits1 #cea ,evolution1 meaning of1 #bj ---- requires a ,cause1 #g ---- requires a ,designer1 #bc ---- requires a motive1 #hd ---- implies involution1 #bc ,evolution and mind1 #fe ---- and immortality1 #he ---- a form of creation1 #bd ---- leads up to man1 #fe ---- and the ,incarnation1 #bci ---- in revelation1 #ic1 #bjf ---- in prophecies1 #cge ---- in account of ,creation1 #abb ,experience and miracles1 #ajc ,eye1 its marks of design1 #ad ---- shows beneficence1 #ei ,ezekiel1 prophecy of ,egypt1 #ahh ,faith1 faculty of1 #dhe ---- and miracles1 #ceh ,falsehood ,theory1 the1 #cbf ---- not now adopted1 #cbi ,famines in ,egypt1 #ada ---- at ,jerusalem1 #aib ,farewell1 ,christ's double1 #cji ,feeding the #e1jjj credible1 #ajh ---- in triple tradition1 #bfi ---- undesigned coincidence1 #bhd ---- public miracle1 #cfa ---- rationalistic view1 #cgj ,feet pierced1 #cdc ,felix and ,festus1 #bhi ',fellow1' meaning of1 #cib ,fellowship and personality1 #bbi ,fig-tree1 the barren1 #ced ,final state of wicked1 #dfc ,firmament1 or expanse1 #abe ,firstborn from dead1 #bde ---- of ,creation1 #dji ---- death of the1 #adf ,first ,cause single1 #h ---- supernatural1 #i ---- needed no cause1 #h ,first ,witnesses1 the1 #cbe ,fishes and birds1 #acj ,five hundred1 appearance1 #cjg ---- explains ,gospels1 #cba ,flesh and blood1 #cjd ,flood1 parallel passages1 #aei ,forces and causes1 #cc ,foreknowledge1 free will1 #bf ---- and omniscience1 #cb ---- and prophecies1 #ii ---- and prayer1 #dci ---- and endless misery1 #dfh ---- differs from foresight1 #aa ---- from foreordaining1 #gh ---- in man1 foreguessing1 #bf ,forgiveness of sins1 #bdb ,fourth ,gospel1 authorship1 #bgg ---- and other three1 #bhj ---- and ,revelation1 #bhe ,free force1 meaning of a1 #d ,free will1 foreknowledge1 #bf ---- of man1 #dc ---- of animals1 #eb ---- of angels1 #bjc ---- source of all force1 #df ---- its introduction1 #abc ---- makes evil possible1 #gf ---- difficulties as to1 #dff ---- in religious belief1 #dhg ,fruit-trees making fruit1 #abb ,fulfilled among us1 #bgf ,future life 7see ,immortality and ,resurrection74 ,gabriel1 man and angel1 #caa ,gadara1 miracle at1 #bfi1 #ceb ,galilee1 appearance in1 #cjg ,gallio1 proconsul1 #bhi ,generations1 meaning1 #abb ,genesis1 the ,creation in1 #aag ---- refers to ,egypt1 #ach ---- partly written there1 #adb ,gentiles1 conversion1 #chj1 #chh1 #cic ---- called dogs1 #che ,geography of ,palestine1 #agc ,gibbon and ,christianity1 #dbj ,gifts brought to the altar1 #bgb ,god1 meaning of term1 #cj ---- argument from causation1 #d ---- from design1 #aj ---- moral argument1 #eh ---- three combined1 #ha1 #bbi ---- no physical proof1 #ca ---- a ,personal ,being1 #cj ---- who loves man1 #bcd ---- ,power1 #cb1 #bac1 #bbh1 #ddj1 #dfe ---- ,wisdom #cb1 #bac1 #bbh1 #dda ---- ,goodness1 #gi1 #bad1 #bbh1 #bdb1 #dda ---- bearing on miracles1 #aab ---- and on the ,trinity1 #bbi ---- emphasized by ,christianity1 #bce ---- three attributes combined1 #hj1 #aab1 #aii1 #bce1 #dhh ---- ,justice1 #bjd1 #dff ,god1 and ,mercy1 #dfh ---- bearing on ,atonement1 #bda ---- ,love1 #bbi ---- bearing on ,trinity1 #bbi ---- ,greatness1 #fa ---- ,omnipresence1 #cc1 #bac ---- ,unknowable1 #cc1 #bad1 #bbf ---- bearing on revelation1 #id ---- ,unchangeable1 #aaj1 #bad ---- bearing on miracles1 #aaj ---- and the ,incarnation1 #bca ---- ,omnipotent1 #cb ---- ,eternal1 #bac ---- ,creator of ,universe1 #h ---- and its ,preserver1 #cc ---- ,jewish idea of1 #bjd ---- faith in1 #dhf ---- 7see ,immanence7 ---- 7see ,trinity7 ,goodness1 ,god's1 #hj1 #bad1 #bbh ---- not below man's1 #hj1 #bce ---- man's1 #dh ---- depends on free will1 #gf ---- its infinite value1 #gf ,gospels1 the ,four1 #beb ---- external testimony1 #beb ---- internal evidence1 #bfe ---- evidence of ,acts1 #bhg ---- probable date1 #cjj ---- 7see ,synoptics1 ,fourth7 ,governor1 title of1 #bhi ,grape-juice in ,egypt1 #adj ,grave-clothes at tomb1 #cde ---- by themselves1 #cah ,gravity1 force1 universal1 #h ---- known by effects1 #ce ---- an assumption1 #df ,great ambition1 #dea ---- alternative1 #dac ---- surprise1 #ddi ,greek philosophy1 #dbc ,green grass1 mentioned1 #bhd ,guard at the tomb1 #ccg ,harnack1 unity of ,acts1 #bie ---- date of ,gospels1 #cjj ---- as to ,town ,clerk1 #bib ,healing1 gifts of1 #cgj ,hebrews1 ,christ's ,divinity1 #daj ---- land of the1 #aef ,hengstenberg1 #chg ,herod1 ,agrippa1 death of1 #bhh ,herod1 called king1 #bhi ,hezekiah1 his sickness1 #aif ---- not subject of ,ps4 #bb1 #chh ,hittites1 #agd ,holy ,communion1 #chf1 #djb ,holy ,spirit1 the1 #bcj ---- ,divinity of1 #dei ,horses1 time of ,joseph1 #ada ,horus myth1 and ,christ1 #ded ,human sacrifices in ,o4,t41 #baj ---- and ,atonement1 #bdj ,hume on experience1 #ajd ,hurtful organs in nature1 #ei ,huxley on the ,creeds1 #bdi ,iconium1 #bia ,ignatius1 #bfa ---- knowing1 believing1 #bfc ,illusions1 not simultaneous1 #cce ,illyricum1 #bic ,image and likeness1 #acd ,immanence1 ,god's1 #aji ---- and ,evolution1 #bc ---- and secondary forces1 #cc ---- and miracles1 #aji ---- and the ,incarnation1 #bci ---- and prayer1 #ddj ,immortality1 man's1 #hc ---- from unique position1 #hd ---- unjust treatment1 #hg ---- vast capabilities1 #hh ---- inherent belief1 #ij ---- counter-arguments1 #ia ---- and human nature1 #ddh ---- in ,egyptian religion1 #dee ,incarnation1 doctrine of1 #bcj ---- its difficulties1 #bca ---- its motive1 #bcc ---- historical position1 #bch ---- and evolution1 #bci ---- and human nature1 #ddg ---- and other religions1 #deb ,indian ,mutiny1 #bii ,infinitely little1 #fd ,inhabitants1 other planets1 #fg ,inherent convictions1 man's1 #ci ---- as to mind1 #da ---- free will1 #dd ---- responsibility1 #dg ---- sin1 #dh ---- immortality1 #ij ---- prayer1 #dch ,inscriptions at ,erech1 #agd ,inscriptions1 at ,mugheir1 #agd ----,khorsabad1 #agf ---- ,tivoli1 #bff ---- ,antioch1 #bfg ---- ,baalbec1 #bfh ---- ,abila1 #bfh ---- ,soli1 ,cyprus1 #bhi ---- ,delphi1 #bhi ---- ,malta1 #bij ---- ,thessalonica1 #bij ---- ,lystra1 #bia ---- ,ephesus1 #bib ,insignificance of man1 #fj ---- counter-arguments1 #fa ---- real importance1 #fd ,instincts of animals1 #eb ,invertebrates1 in ,genesis1 #aca ,involution and evolution1 #bc ,irenus and ,gospels1 #bed ---- ,polycarp1 #bed ---- ,papias1 #beh ---- date of ,revelation1 #bhe ---- value of prophecy1 #cfg ,isaac1 sacrifice of1 #baj ,isaiah1 mentions ,sargon1 #agf ---- test of a prophet1 #aii ---- prophecy of ,babylon1 #ahg ---- of ,jerusalem1 #aif ---- of the ,messiah1 #cgg ---- of ,his ,divinity1 #cia ---- implies the ,trinity1 #cid ,israel1 ,god's selection of1 #bjd ---- going through cities of1 #bgc ,israelites1 great number1 #aga ,jacob's character1 #bjh ,jairus' daughter1 #cec1 #ceh1 #cfj ,james1 ,st41 ,christ's brother1 #bgb ---- unbeliever1 #cbe ,japan1 becoming ,christian1 #dcj ,jehovah adored by millions1 #bah ---- identified with ,christ1 #djg ---- and with ,holy ,spirit1 #dfj ,jehu not son of ,omri1 #agf ,jephthah's daughter1 #baj ,jericho1 discoveries at1 #agc ,jeroboam's rebellion1 #aie ,jerusalem1 first destruction foretold1 #aif ---- accuracy of date1 #agg ---- and second1 #aia1 #bgd ---- later than ,gospels1 #bge ,jerusalem1 later than ,acts1 #bii ---- hint to leave1 #bgd ,jewish ,prophecies1 ,egypt1 #ahh ---- ,assyria1 #ahg ---- ,babylonia1 #ahg ---- dispersion of ,jews1 #ahi ---- the ,messiah1 #cgd ,jewish ,religion1 its origin1 #acg ---- its partiality1 #bjd ---- its miracles1 #agg ---- its prophecies1 #ahf ---- influence in world1 #bag ---- and ,natural ,religion1 #baf ,jews1 dispersion of1 #ahi ---- a peculiar people1 #bag ---- all from one man1 #baf ---- use of term1 #bhj ,john1 ,st41 his call1 #bgh ---- author of ,gospel1 #bgi ---- the ,baptist1 #bgi ---- and ,christ's miracles1 #cej ,jordan1 beyond1 #aef ,joseph in ,egypt1 #aci ,josephus1 witness to ,acts1 #bhi ---- as to ,sennacherib1 #ahe ---- as to crucifixion1 #cdb ---- siege of ,jerusalem1 #aia ---- date of the taxing1 #bff ,josiah and ,deuteronomy1 #afb ,journeys in ,desert1 #afe ,jubilee1 year of1 #aej ,judges and ,pentateuch1 #afj ,justice1 ,god's1 #bjd1 #dff ,justin1 witness to ,gospels1 #bee ---- ,book of ,revelation1 #bhe ---- guard at tomb1 #ccg ---- ,christ's miracles1 #cfe ---- prefers prophecy1 #cfe ---- the ,name1 persecuted1 #dcd ---- ,acts of ,pilate1 #cfe ,king of the ,jews1 #cib ,kings did not use plural1 #cic ,korah1 rebellion of1 #afi ,koran1 ,christ's miracles1 #dbd ---- authorises force1 #dbh ,krishna myth1 and ,christ1 #deb ,lamb of ,god1 #bhf ---- ,paschal1 #chj ,land animals1 #aca ,laws1 of nature1 #ai ---- in ,pentateuch1 #adi ,laymen offering sacrifice1 #afb ,lazarus1 raising of1 #cgj ---- only in one ,gospel1 #bhc ---- well-known man1 #cfj ---- case of resuscitation1 #bde ,lecky1 on ,christ's teaching1 #cih ,legend ,theory1 the1 #cbi ---- disproved by ,gospels1 #cbi ---- and ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles1 #ccj ,legislation1 ,jewish1 #adi ,levi ben ,gershon1 #ahj ,levites1 #aej1 #afb ,life1 origin of1 in ,genesis1 #abh ---- science and1 #abb ---- forms three groups1 #ee ,light before the sun1 #abi ,logos in ,revelation1 #bhf ---- among ,greeks1 #dbc ,lord1 and ,god1 #djg ---- title or emperor1 #bhi ,lord's ,day1 #cjc ---- ,servant1 the1 #cgf ,lost ,gospel1 #bfb ,love1 of ,god1 #bbi ---- must be free1 #bce ---- motive of ,religion1 #dea ,luke1 ,st41 a doctor1 #bif ---- wrote ,gospel1 #bge ---- wrote ,acts1 #bid ---- perhaps at ,emmaus1 #bgf ---- witnessed miracles1 #cfb ,lycaonia1 the cities of1 #bia ,lysanias1 #bfh ,lystra1 inscriptions at1 #bia ,magicians of ,egypt1 #ahb ,magnet and clock1 #ajg ,mohammedanism1 #bac ---- unlike ,christianity1 #dbd ---- and ,christ's miracles1 #dbd ---- authorises force1 #dbh ,malchus1 #cfj ,malta1 title 'chiefman'1 #bij ,man1 mental attributes1 #ci ---- moral attributes1 #da ---- memory1 #da ---- free will1 #dc ---- responsibility1 #dg ---- moral sense1 #dh ---- conscience1 #ej ---- personal being1 #dg ,man1 moral being1 #di ---- bearing on ,christianity1 #bci ---- his ,unique position1 #de1 #fe ---- due to mind1 and spirit1 #ff ---- greater than stars1 #ff ---- bearing on revelation1 #id ---- each man unique1 #fb1 #acc ---- and irreplaceable1 #fc ---- character1 permanent1 #hh ---- tripartite nature1 #ee ---- end of creation1 #fe1 #hd ---- also its first thought1 #ff ---- his probation1 #he ---- scandal of universe1 #bdd ---- seems insignificant1 #fj ---- real importance1 #fd ---- bearing on ,incarnation1 #bci ---- immortality of spirit1 #hc ---- resurrection of body1 #bdg ---- creation in ,genesis1 #acb ---- not created good1 #hf1 #acc ---- antiquity1 #acb ---- differs from animals1 #ea ---- his erect position1 #fe ---- resembles ,god1 #ef1 #acc1 #bcd ---- child of ,god1 #bcf ---- bearing on ,incarnation1 #bcb ---- his ignorance1 #f1 #ag1 #cd ---- bearing on miracles1 #ajh ---- and on ,christianity1 #bdi ,manaen1 #dah ,marcion1 ,luke's ,gospel1 #beg ,mardukshazzar1 #age ,mark1 ,st41 wrote ,gospel1 #bge ---- interpreter of ,peter1 #bei ---- earliest of ,four1 #bfi ---- at ,gethsemane1 #bge ---- witness to miracles1 #cee ---- their sitting at meat1 #cbj ,martha1 #bhc ,mary ,magd4 first witness1 #caf ---- not expecting it1 #ccd ,material universe1 meaning1 #d ,materialism1 #dj ,materials1 same everywhere1 #fh ,matter1 perhaps eternal1 #f ---- certainly a mystery1 #cd ---- indestructible1 #hc ---- not solid1 #bde ,matthew1 ,st41 wrote ,gospel1 #bge ,mediator1 ,christ the1 #ded ,medical language in ,acts1 #bif ,memory1 and materialism1 #da ---- in heaven1 #dgj ,menephthah1 #adc ,mercy1 ,god's1 #dfh ,mesmerism1 #cea ,messiah1 ,jewish1 #cgd ,meteorite1 #ajj1 #bib ,micah1 prophecy of1 #cia ,michael1 #bjc ,microscope1 #fd ,mill1 on ,christ's teaching1 #cig ,mind of man1 #ci ---- shows his importance1 #ff ,miracles1 #aja ---- as marvels1 #ajc ---- and experience1 #ajc ---- as special works1 #ajf ---- as signs1 #aaj ---- not mere wonders1 #aja1 #ajc ---- natural means supernaturally applied1 #ajg ---- in ,jewish religion1 #agg ---- to benefit mankind1 #bjj ---- their publicity1 #ahe ---- some seem trivial1 #aha ---- in ,christian religion1 #cdi ---- their credibility1 #cdi ---- not worked to order1 #cej ---- their truthfulness1 #cec ---- their naturalness1 #cee ---- their number1 #cee ---- their variety1 #cee ---- their suddenness1 #cef ---- their permanence1 #cef ---- order to keep secret1 #ceh ---- on the ,sabbath1 #cei ---- their publicity1 #cfj ---- names often given1 #cfj ---- caused astonishment1 #cfa ---- peculiarity of ,christ's1 #ceg ---- conditional on faith1 #ceh ---- publicly admitted1 #cfb ---- ,st4 ,peter's appeal to1 #cfb ---- and ,acts of ,pilate1 #cfe ---- how explained away1 #cfi ---- ,apostolic1 ,st4 ,paul's1 #cfc ---- witnessed by ,st4 ,luke1 #cfb ---- in ,christ's name1 #djh ---- helped ,christianity1 #dba ---- ,mohammed did none1 #dbd ,miracles1 not to be prayed for1 #ddc ---- later ,christian1 #cga ,missionaries and prayer1 #dch ---- of the ,resurrection1 #cdg ,missions1 #dcj ,mistakes in ,o4 ,test41 #agj ---- in ,n4 ,test41 #bfh ,monkey and evolution1 #bc ,monotheism1 of ,jews1 #bab ---- in account of creation1 #aah ,moral sense1 #dh ---- perfection1 #fg ---- difficulties in ,o4 ,test41 #bjh ---- in ,n4 ,testament1 #cii ,morality1 ,christian1 #dbb ,moses wrote ,pentateuch1 #afd ---- an ,egyptian name1 #adc ,mugheir1 inscription at1 #agd ,mutiny1 ,indian1 #bii ,mutual explanations1 #cag ,myrrh1 #cde ,nabonidus1 #agd ,name of ,christ persecuted1 #dcd ,names1 ,egyptian1 #adb ---- of ,god in ,o4 ,test41 #aeh ---- in ,n4 ,test4 miracles1 #cfj ---- of eminent converts1 #dah ---- and titles in ,acts1 #bhh ,napoleon1 on ,christianity1 #bea ,nathaniel1 #bgi ,natural means1 supernaturally applied1 #ajg ,natural forces1 #bj ---- ,selection1 #bj ---- ,rejection1 #ba ---- ,religion1 depends on1 probability1 #cf1 #if1 #dhg ---- only partly known1 #ce ---- in ,jewish religion1 #baf ---- in ,egyptian religion1 #dee ---- in other religions1 #deg ---- in prehistoric times1 #bch ---- moral difficulties1 #fi ---- and the ,bible1 #bjj ---- and unity of ,god1 #bbg ---- leads to ,revelation1 #ci ,nature1 its unity1 #h1 #ah ---- its laws1 #ai ---- its forces1 #bj ---- acting rationally1 #ajj ---- its uniformity1 #ajf ,nature1 its mysteries1 #bej ---- its perfection1 #fa ---- care of individuals1 #fb ---- a means to an end1 #he ---- bearing on miracles1 #aab ---- immanence in ,god1 #aji ---- forgets nothing1 #dff ---- analogy1 as to angels1 #bjb ---- man's future life1 #hi ---- man's resurrection1 #bdg ---- short probation1 #dfh ---- his destruction1 #dgb ,naville1 #afd ---- unity of ,genesis1 #adb ,nazareth1 dry ground1 #cgg ,nebuchadnezzar1 #agd1 #ahd ,nebula theory1 #abd ,necessity1 doctrine of1 #dc ---- and certainty1 #bg ,nero addressed as ,lord1 #bhi ---- his persecution1 #bih ,nineveh1 men of1 #bfi ,numbers in ,o4 ,test41 #aga ,obedience and sacrifice1 #afa ,old ,testament1 genuine1 #afg ---- alleged mistakes1 #agj ---- miracles1 #agg ---- prophecies1 #ahf ---- moral defects1 #bjh ,omnipotence1 #cb1 #bac ,omnipresence1 #cc1 #bac ,omniscience1 #cb1 #bac ,origen and ,celsus1 #cfg ,origin of universe1 #d ---- in ,genesis1 #aah ---- of life1 #abc ---- of ,jewish religion1 #acg ---- of ,christian religion1 #cja ,osiris1 #ded ,pain1 #fi1 #ga ---- not always an evil1 #gb ,paley1 watch argument1 #aa ,pantheism1 #aai ,papias as to ,gospels1 #beh ,papyri1 ,egyptian1 #bga1 #bhi ,papyrus used for writing1 #bec ,parables1 teaching by1 #bgc ---- some objected to1 #cii ---- ,unrighteous ,steward1 #cii ---- ,wedding ,garment1 #djj ,partiality in revelation1 #ie ,partiality to ,jews1 #bjd ,paul1 ,st41 conversion1 #cje1 #cci ---- teaching not new1 #dji ---- the two essentials1 #dgf ---- 7see ,epistles7 ,peace be unto you1 twice1 #cbj ,peculiar people1 ,jews a1 #bag ,pella1 ,christians go to1 #bge ,pentateuch1 importance1 #ach ---- claims to be ,mosaic1 #afd ---- language1 #aee ---- ,egyptian references1 #ach ---- laws1 #adi ---- date and author1 #afd ---- excellent morality1 #baa ---- theory of late date1 #aee ,perish1 its meaning1 #dge ,persecution for ,name1 #dcd ,persecutions1 religious1 #dbg ---- of ,jews1 #aij ---- of ,christians1 #cbh ---- implied in ,creed1 #dge ,person1 not in ,n4 ,test1 #dfj ,personal ,being1 meaning1 #cj ---- ,god is a1 #cj ---- man is a1 #dg ---- animals are not1 #ed ---- implies fellowship1 #bbi ,persons and things1 #fg ,peter1 ,st41 called ,simon1 #cba ---- connection with ,mark1 #bei ---- appeal to miracles1 #cfb1 #djh ,petrie1 as to ,exodus1 #aga ,peyreyrius1 #acb ,pharaoh's dreams1 #adj ---- heart hardened1 #bji ,philip1 one of the ,seven1 #bie ,philippi1 gaoler at1 #dgg ,philo1 days of ,genesis1 #aba ,pilate1 ,acts of1 #cfe ,pinches1 ,book of ,daniel1 #age ,pithom1 discoveries at1 #add ,plagues1 the ten1 #add ---- superhuman coincidences1 #agh ---- and magicians1 #ahb ,planets1 inhabited 7871 #fg ---- not by sinners 7871 #bcb ,pliny1 numerous letters1 #cfi ---- spread of ,christianity1 #dah ---- ,christ's ,divinity1 #dah ,plural of majesty1 #cic ---- in ,p and ,j1 #aei ,politarchs1 #bij ,polycarp of ,smyrna1 #bed ---- witness to ,gospels1 #bfa ,polytheism1 #aai1 #bab ,pomponia ,grcina1 #dai ,prayer1 subject of1 #dcg ---- and experiment1 #ddd ---- and observation1 #ddd ---- a simple1 #dhj ---- after the event1 #dci ---- for others1 #ddb ,pre-existence of ,christ1 #djd ---- in ,o4 ,test41 #cia ,prehistoric men1 future life1 #ij1 #bch ,priests and ,levites1 #afb ,probability1 guide of life1 #dhg ,proconsul and other terms1 #bhh ,prophecy1 credible1 #ii ---- in ,old ,testament1 #ahf ---- word of ,jehovah1 #chi ---- as to ,christ1 #cgd ---- ,his ,resurrection1 #cag ---- why not plainer1 #cid ---- ,his own influence1 #dcd ,prospective organs1 #af ,psalm of the ,crucifixion1 #chd ,publius1 chief man1 #bij1 #cfa ,pul of ,assyria1 #agf ',q' 7,quelle7 and ,gospels1 #bgj1 #cej1 #cfa ,quadratus1 as to miracles1 #cfd ,quirinius1 his census1 #bff ,quotations1 ,barnabas1 #bfa ---- ,butler1 #dca ---- ,clement1 #bfa ---- ,dana1 #acf ---- ,darwin1 #ga ---- ,eusebius1 #bei1 #cfd ---- ,huxley1 #bdi ---- ,ignatius1 #bfa ---- ,irenus1 #bed ---- ,justin1 #cfe ---- ,lecky1 #cih ---- ,mill1 #cig ---- ,napoleon1 #bej ---- ,naville1 #adb ---- ,papias1 #beh ---- ,pinches1 #age ---- ,polycarp1 #bfa ---- ,quadratus1 #cfd ---- ,ramsay1 #bgb ---- ,renan1 #cig ---- ,romanes1 #hg1 #ace ---- ,teaching of ,twelve1 #bfa ---- ,wallace1 #ga ,radium1 #g ,ramsey1 as to the census1 #bfg ---- ,lysanias1 #bfh ---- early ,gospels1 #bgb ---- ,lycaonia1 #bia ,rationalism1 spread of1 #dcj ---- and miracles1 #cfi ,rawlinson1 #agf ,reason cannot judge of ,christian doctrines1 #bdi ,recognition1 hereafter1 #ddh ,recorders in ,o4 ,test41 #agc ,recurring series of events1 #e ,red ,sea1 passage of1 #agh ,relics1 resurrection of1 #bdh ,remorse1 #ea ,renan1 raising of ,lazarus1 #cgj ---- ,christ's character1 #cig ,repentance1 #bdc ,responsibility of man1 #dg ,resurrection1 doctrine of1 #bdd ---- applies to a body1 #cjc ---- not resuscitation1 #bde1 #cbc ---- ,christ's1 #cja ---- falsehood theory1 #cbf ---- legend theory1 #cbi ---- vision theory1 #cca ---- swoon theory1 #cda ---- wanted missionaries1 #cdg ---- a physical fact1 #cjd ---- not really unique1 #bde ---- table of appearances1 #cjh ---- three groups1 #cjg ---- the narratives1 #cje ---- their discrepancies1 #cji ---- their agreements1 #cae ---- omissions1 #cab ---- signs of early date1 #cba ---- the real difficulty1 #cdf ---- in other religions1 #dee ---- man's1 #bdg ---- need not be of relics1 #bdh ---- the period of life1 #ddi ---- the great surprise1 #ddi ---- and human nature1 #ddh ---- terms not literal1 #dfd ,resuscitation1 #bde1 #cbc ,revelation1 meaning of1 #hb ---- possible1 #hc ---- probable1 #ib ---- progressive1 #ic ---- after writing1 #ic ---- must be partial1 #ie1 #bjd ---- evidence inconclusive1 #ie ---- miraculous1 #ih ---- ,book of1 and ,gospel1 #bhe ---- ,divinity of ,christ1 #djh ,risen ,body difficulties1 #bde ---- record of eyewitnesses1 #cbc ,roman provinces1 #bhh ---- siege of ,jerusalem1 #aia ---- ,state and ,christians1 #bih ,romanes1 man's probation1 #hg ---- accuracy of ,genesis1 #ace ,sabbath1 miracles on1 #cei ,sacrifices1 heathen1 #ddg ---- human1 in ,o4 ,test41 #baj ,salvation1 not selfishness1 #dea ,samaria1 date of fall1 #agg ,samuel and ,pentateuch1 #afj ,sanctuary1 the one1 #afa ,sand-storms and darkness1 #adf ,sargon1 named in ,isaiah1 #agf ,satan1 #bjc ,saurians1 #aca ,secondary forces1 #cc ,secrecy in ,christ's miracles1 #ceh ,seed1 may be disciples1 #cgh1 #chg ,selfishness1 objection as to1 #dea ,sennacherib1 #ahd ,sentry1 pain a kind of1 #gb ,sergius ,paulus1 #bhi1 #cfa ,servant1 the ,lord's1 #cgf ,seventh day1 the1 #aai ,shadow on dial1 #aif ,shaving in ,egypt1 #ada ,shepherd1 the ,lord's1 #cia ---- kings1 foreign1 #aci ,shur1 desert of1 #adc ,siege of ,jerusalem foretold by ,moses1 #aia ---- and by ,christ1 #bgd ,signet ring1 in ,egypt1 #ada ,signs1 superhuman1 #ii ---- supernatural1 #aja ,silence1 argument from1 #cfh ---- of sun and moon1 #agi ,simon1 shows early date1 #cba ,simultaneous visions1 #cce ,sin1 its meaning1 #dh ---- reason for it1 #gf ---- necessary for some virtues1 #gh ---- its universality1 #ddg ---- its remedy1 #bdd ---- eternal1 #dfg ,sinai1 #adg ,sinlessness of ,christ1 #djj ---- foretold by ,isaiah1 #chj ---- implied in ,ps4 #bb1 #chh ,slaughter of animals1 #aej ,slavery in early times1 #baa ,soli1 inscription at1 #bhi ,son of ,god1 means ,god the ,son1 #djg ---- of ,man in ,gospels1 #bha ,sorrow1 human1 #ddf ,sources of ,gospels1 #bfi1 #dac ,south1 ,queen of the1 #bfi ,spectroscopes1 #fd ,spirit1 man's1 #ee1 #ff ---- master of body1 #ia ,spiritual beings1 #bjb1 #cea ,standing still of sun1 #agi ,steward1 the ,unrighteous1 #cii ,stone at ,tomb1 #ccf ,straw in brick making1 #add ,struggle for life1 #ga ,substance1 meaning of1 #bbb ,suetonius1 #dag ,sufferings of animals1 #fi ---- of men1 #gb ---- and future happiness1 #hh ---- of ,jews1 #aij ---- of ,christians1 #cbh ,sun and moon formation1 #abi ---- silence of1 #agi ,sunday1 #cjc ,superhuman signs1 #ii ---- coincidences1 #ajj ---- passage of ,red ,sea1 #agh ---- destruction of ,korah1 #afi ---- of ,assyrian army1 #ahd ---- silence of sun1 #agi ---- ,elijah's sacrifice1 #ahc ---- shadow on dial1 #aif ---- and prayer1 #dci ,supernatural1 force1 #i ---- man partly1 #de ---- signs1 #aja ,surprise1 the great1 #ddi ,survival of fittest1 #bj ,swine at ,gadara1 #bfi1 #ceb ,swoon ,theory1 the1 #cda ,sword1 any violent death1 #chf ,synoptic ,gospels1 accuracy1 #bff ---- discrepancies1 #bff ---- sources1 #bfi ---- ministry in ,juda1 #bhb ---- probable date1 #bgb1 #cjj ---- authors1 #bge ---- and ,fourth1 #bhj ,table of ,appearances1 #cjh ,tacitus1 and ,christianity1 #dag ---- his contempt for it1 #cfh ,tatian1 the ,diatessaron1 #beg ,teaching of ,twelve1 #bfa ---- and the ,trinity1 #dfa ,tel-el-,muskhuta1 ruins1 #add ,telepathy1 #dj ,telephone1 #aje ,telescope and eye1 #ad ---- discoveries of1 #fd ,ten1 ,commandments1 #baa ---- ,plagues1 #add ---- superhuman coincidences1 #agh ---- and the magicians1 #ahb ,tertullian1 #beg ,testimony and experience1 #ajd ---- its value1 #cbe ,theophilus and ,gospel1 #bge ---- and ,acts1 #big ---- things taught to1 #bga ---- prominent convert1 #dah ,thessalonica1 politarchs1 #bij ,theudas1 date of1 #bhh ,third ,day1 importance1 #cjc ,thomas1 ,st41 ,resurrection1 #ccf ---- ,christ's ,divinity1 #djg ,thousands or families1 #aga ,three1 ,creeds1 #deh ---- men in furnace1 #ajc ,tisdall1 #dec1 #def ,titles of various rulers1 #bhh ,tomb1 the empty1 #cch ---- visit of disciples1 #cah ---- guard at1 #ccg ---- angels at1 #caj1 #cde ,town ,clerk of ,ephesus1 #bib ,trajan1 decree of1 #bfg ,transfiguration1 #bgj ,trials here1 future reward1 #hh ,trinity1 doctrine of the1 #bbb ---- its probability1 #bbh ---- peculiarly ,christian1 #deb ---- hinted at in ,old ,test41 #cic ---- contained in ,n4 ,test41 #dei ---- implied by ,teaching1 #dfa ,triple tradition in ,gospels1 #bfi ,troelstra1 #aeh ,true belief1 importance1 #dgc ---- a virtue1 #dhg ,undesigned agreements1 #afh ---- examples1 ,korah1 #afi ---- call of ,st4 ,john1 #bgh ---- destroying temple1 #bhc ---- feeding the #e1jjj1 #bhd ---- ,acts and ,epistles1 #bic ---- mocking the ,crucified1 #cij ---- baptismal formula1 #dfa ,uniformity of nature1 #ajf ---- and prayer1 #dch ,uniqueness of man1 #fe ---- of each man1 #fb ---- of the ,incarnation1 #bcc ,unitarianism1 #bbh ,unity of nature1 #h ,universalism1 #dgj ,universe1 its origin1 #d1 #aah ---- its magnitude1 #fd ---- bearing on man1 #fj ---- an effect1 #cg ,unknowable1 everything is1 #cd ,unrighteous ,steward1 #cii ,vellum used for writing1 #bec ,veracity of the witnesses1 #cbf ,verbal inspiration1 #dcg ,vessels of wood1 #ade ,vesuvius1 eruption of1 #gd ',victoria ,institute1' pain1 #gj ---- ,pithom1 #add ---- ,belshazzar1 #age ---- ,red ,sea1 #agi ---- earliest ,gospel1 #bgb ---- ,horus myth1 #dee ---- ,krishna myth1 #dec ,virgin ,birth1 unique1 #bcc ---- and ,aristides1 #cfe ---- not said of ,krishna1 #deb ,virtue1 the highest1 #gh1 #baa ,vision ,theory1 the1 #cca ---- arguments in favour1 #ccb ---- arguments against1 #ccb ---- does not explain facts1 #ccf ---- real visions1 #cdj ,voice from heaven1 #bfh ,voyage1 ,st4 ,paul's1 #bid ,walking on sea1 ,christ's1 #cgj ,wallace1 #ga ,warnings of the ,creed1 #dgc ,wars of the ,lord1 quoted1 #aei ,waste and void1 in ,gen41 #abd ,waste in nature1 #fh ,watch showing design1 #ab ,water-wheels1 ,egyptian1 #adi ',we' sections of ,acts1 #bid ,wedding ,garment1 the1 #djj ,west1 use of term1 #aef ,wheat1 several ears1 #adj ,whirlpool1 #bdh ,wicked men1 their use1 #gg ---- not machines1 #dh ---- final state1 #dfc ,will1 man's1 its action1 #db1 #de ---- its freedom1 #dc ,windows of heaven1 #abf ,wisdom1 ,god's1 #cb1 #bac1 #dda ,word or ,logos in ,revelation1 #bhf ---- among ,greeks1 #dbc ,world1 creation of the1 #d1 #aag ---- end of the1 #dcg ,wounded means pierced1 #cgg ,writing1 early use of1 #ach1 #agb ---- wanted for revelation1 #ic ,x-rays1 #bdf ,zeal of early ,christians1 #dbj ,zebulon1 prophecy as to1 #cia ,zechariah1 prophecies of1 #cib ,zeus and ,hermes1 #bia ,,printed ,,in ,,great ,,britain4 ,,wells ,,gardner1 ,,darton ,,and ,,co41 ,,ltd41 ,,london4 ,transcriber's ,notes ,some punctuation has been inserted to maintain consistency4 ,the reference in the index to page #eda was corrected to #dda4 ,spelling and hyphenation match the original text and may vary within the book4 ,the caret symbol 77 has been used to represent superscripts4 ,,oe ligatures have been changed to simple ,,oe in this text version4