,the ,supernatural in the ,new ,testament ,possible1 ,credible1 and ,historical ,or3 ,an ,examination of the ,validity of ,some ,recent ,objections ,against ,christianity as a ,divine ,revelation ,by the ,rev4 ,charles ,a4 ,row1 ,m4,a4 ,prebendary of ,st4 ,paul's ,author of 8,the ,jesus of the ,evangelists10 8,the ,nature and ,extent of ,divine ,inspiration10 8,the ,moral ,teaching of the ,new ,testament10 ,etc4 ,london ,frederic ,norgate #ahge ,,contents ,dedication4 ,chapter ,i4 ,introduction4 ,the ,position of the ,controversy ,between the ,opponents and the ,defenders of ,christianity4 ,chapter ,,ii4 ,definitions of ,terms4 ,chapter ,,iii4 ,the ,supernatural ,elements ,contained in the ,new ,testament3 ,in ,what ,do ,they ,consist8 ,and ,what ,view ,do ,its ,writers ,take ,respecting ,them8 ,chapter ,,iv4 ,miracles1 ,what ,do ,they ,prove8 ,chapter ,v4 ,the ,antecedent ,improbability of ,miracles4--,the ,unknown and ,unknowable ,god4 ,chapter ,,vi4 ,the ,objection ,that ,miracles ,are ,contrary ,to ,reason ,considered4 ,chapter ,,vii4 ,the ,allegation ,that ,no ,testimony ,can ,prove ,the ,truth ,of ,a ,supernatural ,event4 ,chapter ,,viii4 ,the ,objection ,that ,the ,defenders ,of ,christianity ,assume ,certain ,facts ,the ,truth ,of ,which ,can ,only ,be ,known ,by ,revelation1 ,and ,then ,reason ,from ,those ,facts ,to ,the ,truth ,of ,the ,bible1 ,considered4 ,chapter ,,ix4 ,demoniacal ,miracles--,general ,considerations4 ,chapter ,x4 ,the ,existence ,and ,miracles ,of ,satan4 ,chapter ,,xi4 ,possession3 ,is ,the ,theory ,that ,it ,was ,madness ,subversive ,of ,the ,historical ,value ,of ,the ,gospels ,or ,inconsistent ,with ,the ,veracity ,of ,christ8 ,chapter ,,xii4 ,possession1 ,if ,an ,objective ,reality1 ,neither ,incredible ,nor ,contrary ,to ,the ,ascertained ,truths ,of ,mental ,science4 ,chapter ,,xiii4 ,the ,alleged ,credulity ,of ,the ,followers ,of ,jesus4 ,chapter ,,xiv4 ,the ,love ,of ,the ,marvellous--,its ,bearing ,on ,the ,value ,of ,testimony ,to ,miracles4 ,chapter ,,xv4 ,our ,summary ,rejection ,of ,current ,supernaturalism ,considered ,in ,its ,bearing ,on ,the ,evidence ,for ,miracles4 ,chapter ,,xvi4 ,general ,objections ,to ,miracles ,as ,credentials ,of ,a ,revelation4 ,chapter ,,xvii4 ,the ,historical ,evidence ,on ,which ,the ,great ,facts ,of ,christianity ,rest--,general ,considerations4 ,chapter ,,xviii4 ,the ,testimony ,of ,the ,church1 ,and ,of ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles1 ,to ,the ,facts ,of ,primitive ,christianity4 ,their ,historical ,value ,considered4 ,chapter ,,xix4 ,the ,evidence ,furnished ,by ,the ,epistles ,to ,the ,facts ,of ,our ,lord's ,life1 ,and ,to ,the ,truth ,of ,the ,resurrection4 ,chapter ,,xx4 ,the ,resurrection ,of ,jesus ,christ ,an ,historical ,fact4 ,chapter ,,xxi4 ,the ,historical ,value ,of ,the ,gospels ,as ,deduced ,from ,previous ,considerations4 ,chapter ,,xxii4 ,the ,historical ,character ,of ,the ,gospels ,as ,deduced ,from ,their ,internal ,structure4 ,footnotes ,cover ,art ,transcriber's ,note3 ,the above cover image was produced by the submitter at ,distributed ,proofreaders1 and is being placed into the public domain4 ,,dedication4 ,to ,the ,committee ,of ,the ,christian ,evidence ,society4 ,my ,lords and ,gentlemen1 ,having undertaken to compose this work at your request1 ,i beg permission to dedicate it to you4 ,in doing so ,i feel that it is a duty which ,i owe both to you and to myself that ,i should state the position which we respectively occupy with regard to it4 ,your responsibility is confined to having requested me to compose a work in refutation of certain principles now widely disseminated1 which impugn the supernatural elements contained in the ,new ,testament4 ,for the contents of the work and for the mode of treatment ,i alone am responsible4 ,when ,i considered the position of the present controversy1 ,i felt that it was impossible to treat the subject satisfactorily except on the principle that the responsibility for the mode of conducting the argument and of answering the objections should rest with the writer alone4 ,in dealing with a subject so complicated1 involving as it does questions of philosophy and science as well as the principles of historical criticism1 ,i can scarcely venture to hope that every position which ,i have taken will prove acceptable to all the various shades of theological thought4 ,i have endeavoured to take such as seemed to me to be logically defensible without any reference to particular schools of theological opinion4 ,as the entire question is essentially historical1 ,i have done my utmost to exclude from it all discussions that are strictly theological4 ,modern unbelief however puts in two objections which if valid render all historical evidence in proof of the occurrence of miracles nugatory1 namely that they are both impossible and incredible4 ,in meeting these ,i have been compelled to appeal to what appear to me to be the principles of a sound philosophy4 ,in all other respects ,i have viewed the question before me as exclusively one of historical evidence4 ,if the ,resurrection of our ,lord is an actual occurrence1 it follows that ,christianity must be a divine revelation4 ,if it is not1 no amount of other evidence will avail to prove it to be so4 ,as it has been strongly affirmed that for this great fact1 which constitutes the central position of ,christianity1 the historical evidence is worthless1 ,i have devoted the latter portion of this volume to the consideration of this question1 with a view of putting before the reader the value of the ,new ,testament when contemplated as simple history4 ,using the ,epistles as the foundation of my argument1 ,i have endeavoured to prove that the greatest of all the miracles recorded in the ,gospels rests on an attestation that is unsurpassed by any event recorded in history4 ,for this purpose ,i have used the ,epistles as simple historical documents1 and ,i have claimed for them precisely the same value which is conceded to other writings of a similar description4 ,the feeling among ,christians that these writings contain the great principles of the ,christian faith has occasioned it to be overlooked that they are also contemporary historical documents of the highest order4 ,as such ,i have used them in proof of the great facts of ,christianity1 above all in proof of the greatest of them1 the ,resurrection of our ,lord4 ,with these observations ,i now present you the following work1 with the hope that it may prove the means of removing many of the difficulties with which recent controversial writers have endeavoured to obscure the subject4 ,trusting that it maybe accepted by the great ,head of the ,church1 the reality of whose life and teaching as they are recorded in the ,gospels it is designed to establish1 ,i remain1 my ,lords and ,gentlemen1 ,your's faithfully1 ,c4 ,a4 ,row4 ,london1 ,january1 #ahge4 ,,chapter ,i4 ,,introduction4 ,,the ,,position ,,of ,,the ,,controversy ,,between ,,the ,,opponents ,,and ,,the ,,defenders ,,of ,,christianity4 ,although every portion of the ,bible is vehemently assailed by the various forms of modern ,scepticism1 it is clear that the real turning point of the controversy between those who affirm that ,god has made a supernatural revelation of himself to mankind1 and those who deny it1 centres in those portions of the ,new ,testament which affirm the presence of the supernatural4 ,the question may be still further narrowed into the inquiry whether the person and actions of ,jesus ,christ1 as they are depicted in the ,gospels1 are historical facts1 or fictitious inventions4 ,if the opponents of ,revelation can prove that they are the latter1 the entire controversy will end in their favour4 ,it would in that case be utterly useless to attempt to defend any other portion of the ,bible2 and the controversy respecting the ,old ,testament becomes a mere waste of labour4 ,if1 on the other hand1 ,christians can prove that the narratives of the four ,gospels1 or even of any one of them1 are a true representation of historical facts1 then it is certain that ,god has made a revelation of himself1 notwithstanding the objections which may be urged against certain positions which have been taken by ,ecclesiastical ,christianity1 and the difficulties by which certain questions connected with the ,old ,testament are surrounded4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that the historical truth of the facts narrated in the ,gospels constitutes the central position of the entire controversy4 ,it is not my purpose on the present occasion to discuss the general question1 whether the delineation of ,jesus ,christ which the ,gospels contain is one of an ideal or an historical person4 ,that question ,i have already considered in 8,the ,jesus of the ,evangelists40 ,but as the various forms of modern unbelief are making the most strenuous efforts to prove that the supernatural elements of the ,new ,testament are hopelessly incredible1 and that the attestation on which the supernatural occurrences mentioned in it rests1 is simply worthless1 it is my intention to devote the present volume to the consideration of this special subject1 and to examine the question of miracles1 and their historical credibility4 ,modern scepticism makes with respect to supernatural occurrences 7under which more general term ,i include the miracles of the ,new ,testament71 the three following assertions1 and endeavours to substantiate them by every available argument3 #ast4 ,that all supernatural occurrences are impossible4 #bnd4 ,that1 if not impossible1 they are incredible2 that is1 that they are contrary to reason4 #crd4 ,that those which are narrated in the ,new ,testament are devoid of any adequate historical attestation1 and owe their origin to the inventive powers of the mythic and legendary spirit4 ,it is my purpose1 in the course of the present work1 to traverse each of these three positions1 and to show3 #ast4 ,that miracles and supernatural occurrences are not impossible2 and that the arguments by which this has been attempted to be established are wholly inconclusive4 #bnd4 ,that they are neither incredible1 nor contrary to reason2 but are entirely consistent with its dictates4 #crd1 ,that the greatest of all the miracles which are recorded in the ,new ,testament1 and which1 if an actual historical occurrence1 is sufficient to carry with it all the others1 the resurrection of ,jesus ,christ1 rests on the highest form of historical testimony4 ,such is my position4 ,a recent writer1 who has ably advocated the principles of modern scepticism1 the author of 8,supernatural ,religion10 has in the opening passage of his work clearly placed before us the real point at issue4 ,he states the case as follows3 8,on the very threshold of inquiry into the origin and true character of ,christianity we are brought face to face with the supernatural4 ,it is impossible1 without totally setting aside its peculiar and indispensable claim to be a direct external revelation from ,god of truths which otherwise human reason could not have discovered1 to treat ,ecclesiastical ,christianity as a form of religion developed by the wisdom of man4 ,not only in form does it profess to be the result of divine communication1 but in its very essence1 in its principal dogmas it is either superhuman or untenable4 ,there is no question here of mere accessories1 which are comparatively unimportant1 and do not necessarily affect the essential matter1 but we have to do with a scheme of religion claiming to be miraculous in all points1 in form1 in essence1 and in evidence4 ,this religion cannot be accepted without an emphatic belief in supernatural interposition1 and it is absurd to imagine that its dogmas can be held1 whilst the miraculous is rejected4 ,those who profess to hold the religion1 whilst they discredit the supernatural element1 and they are many at the present day1 have widely receded from ,ecclesiastical ,christianity4 ,it is most important that the inseparable connection of the miraculous with the origin1 doctrines1 and the evidence of ,christianity should be clearly understood1 in order that inquiry may pursue a logical and consistent course40--,supernatural ,religion1 page #a47a7 ,i fully accept all the chief positions laid down in this passage as an adequate statement of the points at issue between those who affirm and those who deny that ,christianity is a divine revelation4 ,a few minor points require a slight modification1 as incurring the danger of confusing ideas that ought to be carefully distinguished4 ,the writer before me also raises no minor issue4 ,although the work is entitled 8,supernatural ,religion1 or an inquiry into the reality of divine revelation10 its object1 which is consistently carried out throughout it1 is to impugn the historical character of the ,gospels1 and to prove that the supernatural occurrences which are recorded in them are fictitious4 ,the title of the work might have justified the writer in assailing other portions of the ,bible2 but he clearly sees that to adopt this course is only to attack the outworks of ,christianity1 and to leave the key of the entire position unassailed4 ,in doing so he has pursued a far nobler course than that which has been adopted by many of the opponents of the ,christian faith4 ,he has directed his attack against the very centre of the ,christian position1 the historical credibility of the supernatural actions attributed to ,jesus ,christ in the ,gospels1 being well aware that a successful assault on this position will involve the capture of all the outworks by which it is supposed to be protected2 while it by no means follows that a successful assault on any of the latter involves the capture of the citadel itself4 ,this writer does not take up a bye question1 but he goes direct to the foundation on which ,christianity rests4 ,in doing so1 it must be acknowledged that he has taken a straightforward course1 and one which must bring the question of the truth or falsehood of ,christianity to a direct issue4 ,i fully agree with the chief position taken in the quotation before us1 that ,christianity involves the presence of the supernatural and the superhuman1 what in fact is generally designated as the miraculous1 or it is nothing4 ,to remove these elements out of the pages of the ,new ,testament1 is not to retain the same religion1 but to manufacture another quite different and distinct from it4 ,in the first place1 we have the great central figure in the ,gospels1 the divine person of ,jesus ,christ our ,lord1 and the entire body of his actions and his teaching4 ,he1 although depicted as human1 is at the same time depicted as superhuman and supernatural1 not merely in his miraculous works1 but in his entire character4 ,to remove the divine lineaments of ,jesus ,christ out of the ,gospels is simply to destroy them4 ,besides this1 we have a large number of miraculous actions attributed to him4 ,these are inextricably interwoven with the entire narrative1 which1 when they are taken away1 loses all cohesion4 ,lives of ,jesus which have been set forth1 deprived of their supernatural and superhuman elements1 are in fact nothing better than a new ,gospel composed out of the subjective consciousness of the writers4 ,various attempts have been made to pare down the supernatural and superhuman elements in the ,gospels to the smallest possible dimensions4 ,still they obstinately persist in remaining4 ,if everything else is struck out of the ,gospels1 except their moral teaching1 we are left in the presence of teaching which is raised at an immense elevation above the thoughts and conceptions of the age that produced it2 and of a teacher1 who while distinguished by the marks of preeminent holiness and greatness of mind1 is also distinguished by a degree of selfassertion in his utterances of moral truth1 which is without parallel1 even among the most presumptuous of men4 ,deal with the ,gospels as we will1 while we allow any portions of them to remain as historical1 we are still in the presence of the superhuman4 ,as the narrative now stands it is at least harmonious4 ,the lofty pretensions of the teacher bear the most intimate correlation to the supernatural and superhuman facts that are reported of him4 ,the one are the complement of the other4 ,if the facts are true1 the lofty self assertion of the teacher is justified2 if they are not true1 his pretensions conflict with the entire conception of his holiness and elevation of mind4 ,the use which a wide spread school of modern criticism so freely makes of the critical dissecting knife1 for the purpose of amputating the supernatural from the ,gospels1 can only be attended by the fatal termination of destroying the entire ,gospels as of the smallest historical value4 ,it is marvellous that persons who retain any respect for ,christianity as a system of religious and moral teaching1 should have attempted to throw discredit on this element in the ,gospels with a view of saving the remainder4 ,nor is the case different with the other portions of the ,new ,testament4 ,christianity1 as enunciated by its writers1 does not profess merely to teach a new and improved system of morality4 ,if this was its only pretension1 it would certainly have but little claim to be viewed as a divine revelation4 ,in morals its teaching is both unsystematic and fragmentary2 though it is an unquestionable fact1 that a great system of moral teaching may be deduced from the principles it unfolds4 ,but if one thing is plainer than another on the face of the ,new ,testament1 it is that the great purpose sought to be effected by ,christianity is to impart a new moral and spiritual power to mankind4 ,it professes to be1 not a body of moral rules1 but a mighty moral force1 which is concentrated in the person of its ,founder4 ,the acceptance of it had generated a new power or energy1 a moral and spiritual life1 which raised those who had embraced it above their former selves2 and which it professes to be able to impart to all time4 ,this supernatural element1 concentrated as ,i have said that it is in the person of its founder1 runs through the entire epistles1 and constitutes their most distinguishing feature4 ,if the supernatural elements in the person of ,jesus ,christ be removed from their teaching nothing remains but a number of moral precepts robbed of all their vitality4 ,in one word1 the whole system of teaching simply collapses4 ,in a similar manner1 if we eliminate every thing supernatural out of the ,new ,testament1 with a view of arriving at a residuum of truth1 we are brought into immediate contact with the most unique fact in the history of man1 the creation of the ,church of ,jesus ,christ1 the greatest institution which has ever affected the destinies of our race1 and which has for eighteen centuries exerted a most commanding influence on human happiness and civilization4 ,this is professedly based on a miraculous fact1 the ,resurrection of ,jesus ,christ4 ,if1 therefore1 we remove the supernatural elements out of ,christianity1 this institution1 mighty for good in its influence on the progress of our race1 has been based on an unreality and a delusion4 ,here again we encounter something which has very much the appearance of the supernatural4 ,on these accounts1 therefore1 ,i cordially accept the position which is laid down by the author of 8,supernatural ,religion0 as a correct statement of the case1 that ,christianity involves the presence of the ,supernatural1 or it is nothing4 ,we must either defend the chief supernatural elements of the ,new ,testament or abandon it as worthless4 ,but there is an expression which occurs in this quotation1 and which is frequently made use of in subsequent parts of the work1 which requires consideration1 8,ecclesiastical ,christianity40 ,what is intended by it8 ,the meaning is nowhere defined1 and unless we come to a clear understanding with respect to it1 we shall be in danger of complicating the entire question4 ,the expression is ambiguous4 ,if by it is meant any other form of thought1 than that which is contained in the pages of the ,new ,testament2 if1 in fact1 by it is intended a systematic arrangement of doctrinal truth1 which has been elaborated at a subsequent period1 ,i emphatically assert that those who are called upon to defend the divine character of the ,christian ,revelation have nothing to do with it4 ,the only thing which those who maintain that the ,new ,testament contains a divine revelation can be called on to defend1 is the express statements of the book itself1 and not a system of thought which subsequent writers may have attempted to deduce from it4 ,this point is so important1 that ,i must make the position which ,i intend taking with respect to it clear4 ,it involves the distinction between revelation and theology4 ,the religious and moral teaching which is contained in the ,new ,testament is in a very unsystematic form4 ,not one of its writings is a formal treatise on theology1 nor does one of them contain a systematised statement of what constitutes ,christianity4 ,its teaching of religious truth is incidental1 and is called forth by the special circumstances of the writer4 ,the plain fact is that four of the writings which comprise the ,new ,testament are religions memoirs4 ,one is an historical account of the foundation of the ,church4 ,twentyone are letters1 written to different ,churches and individuals1 and all called forth by special emergencies4 ,these all partake of the historical character4 ,the only one which does not participate in this character is the ,apocalypse1 which1 being a vision1 is utterly unlike a formal or systematic treatise on ,christianity4 ,the result of the form in which the ,new ,testament is composed is that its definite teaching is always incidental1 called forth to meet special circumstances and occasions in the history of ,churches and individuals1 and never formal4 ,it is also universally couched in popular1 as distinct from scientific or technical language4 ,not one of its writers makes an attempt to formulate a system of ,christian theology4 ,the person of ,jesus ,christ constitutes ,christianity in its truest and highest sense4 ,three of the ,gospels embody the traditionary teaching of the ,church on this subject4 ,the fourth is the work of an independent writer4 ,the epistles may be received as a set of incidental commentaries on the person and work of ,jesus ,christ1 called forth by the special occasions which gave them birth1 and embodying the author's general views as to his work and teaching as adapted to a number of special circumstances and occasions4 ,between the contents of the ,new ,testament and what is commonly understood by ,ecclesiastical ,christianity the difference is extremely wide4 ,the ,new ,testament contains a divine revelation4 ,ecclesiastical ,christianity is a body of religious teaching in which ,christianity has been attempted to be presented in a systematised form1 or1 in other words1 it is a theology more or less complete4 ,it is necessary that we should have a clear appreciation of the difference4 ,theology is an attempt of the human intellect to present to us the truths communicated in ,revelation in a systematised form4 ,it is in fact the result of the human reason investigating the facts and statements of ,revelation4 ,theology therefore is a simple creation of human reason erected on the facts of divine revelation4 ,as such it is subject to all the errors and imperfections to which our rational powers are obnoxious4 ,it can claim no infallibility more than any other rational action of the human mind4 ,theology is a science1 and is subject to the imperfections to which all other sciences are liable4 ,it stands to the facts of ,christianity in the same relation as philosophy and physical science stand to the works of nature4 ,in the one the human intellect investigates the divine revelation contained in the works of nature1 and endeavours to systematise its truths3 in the other it does the same with respect to the divine revelation which in accordance with the assertions of the ,new ,testament has been made in the person of ,jesus ,christ4 ,what ,i am desirous of drawing attention to is that theology is not revelation4 ,systems of theology may be accurate deductions of reason from ,revelation2 or they may be inaccurate and imperfect ones4 ,it is very possible that a system of theology which has been evolved by human reason1 although it may have attained a wide acceptance1 may be as inadequate an explanation of the facts of revelation1 as the ,ptolemaic system of astronomy was of the facts of the material universe4 ,objections which were raised against the latter were no real objections against the structure of the universe itself4 ,in the same way objections which may be raised against a particular system of theology1 may leave the great facts of revelation entirely untouched4 ,if we look into the history of ,christianity1 we shall find that as soon as the ,church began to consolidate itself into a distinct community1 the reason of man began to exert itself on the facts of revelation1 and to attempt to reduce its teaching to a systematic form4 ,from this source have sprung all the various systems of theology which have from time to time predominated in the ,church4 ,it has been a plant of gradual growth1 and as such may bear a fair comparison with the slow growth of philosophy or physical science4 ,such an action of reason on the facts of revelation was inevitable and entirely legitimate4 ,what ,i am desirous of guarding against is the idea that when reason is exerted on the facts of revelation1 it is more infallible than when exerted on any other subjects which come under its cognisance4 ,i am not ignorant that there is another theory respecting the nature of theology4 ,a large branch of the ,christian ,church holds that a body of dogmatic statements has been handed down traditionally from the ,apostles and other inspired teachers1 which has been embodied in the system of theology which is accepted by this ,church1 and that this was intended to be an authoritative statement of the facts of the ,christian revelation4 ,it is also part of the same theory that the ,church as a collective body has in all ages possessed an inspiration1 which enables it to affirm authoritatively and dogmatically1 what is and what is not ,christian doctrine1 and that which it thus authoritatively affirms to be so1 must be accepted as a portion of the ,christian revelation as much as the contents of the ,new ,testament itself4 ,i fully admit that those who assume a position of this kind are bound to act consistently1 and to defend every statement in their dogmatic creeds as an integral portion of ,christianity4 ,nor is it less certain1 if this principle is true1 that if any portion of such dogmatic creeds can be successfully assailed as contrary to reason1 as for instance the formulated doctrine of transubstantiation1 it would imperil the position of ,christianity itself4 ,those1 however1 who have taken such positions1 must be left to take the consequences of them4 ,it is not my intention in undertaking to defend the historical truth of the supernatural elements in the ,new ,testament1 to burden myself with an armour which seems only fitted to crash beneath its weight the person who attempts to use it4 ,it has been necessary to be explicit on this point1 in order that the argument may be kept free from all adventitious issues4 ,the introduction into it of the expression1 8,ecclesiastical ,christianity10 brings with it no inconsiderable danger of diverting our attention from what is the real point of controversy4 ,i must therefore repeat it4 ,ecclesiastical ,christianity is a development made by reason from the facts of the ,new ,testament1 and is a thing which is entirely distinct from the contents of the ,new ,testament4 ,with its affirmations therefore ,i have nothing to do in the present discussion4 ,it will not be my duty to examine into its positions1 with a view of ascertaining whether they are developments of ,christian teaching which can be logically deduced from its pages2 still less to accept and to defend them as authoritative statements of its meaning4 ,in defending the ,new ,testament as containing a divine revelation1 ,i have only to do with the contents and assertions of the book itself1 and with nothing outside its pages4 ,what others may have propounded respecting its meaning can form no legitimate portion of the present controversy4 ,the real point at issue is one which is simple and distinct4 ,it is1 are the supernatural incidents recorded in it historical events or fictitious inventions8 ,as that is the question before us1 ,i must decline to allow any other issue to be substituted in the place of it4 ,our inquiry is one which is strictly historical4 ,another statement made by the author before me requires qualification4 ,he says that 8,christianity is a scheme of religion which claims to be miraculous in all points1 in form1 in essence1 and in evidence40 ,this statement ,i must controvert4 ,christianity does not profess to be divine on all points4 ,on the contrary1 it contains a divine and a human element so intimately united1 that it is impossible to separate the one from the other4 ,it is also far from clear to me how it can be miraculous in form when it is contained in a body of historical writings4 ,i shall have occasion to show hereafter1 that although miracles form an important portion of the attestation on which it rests1 they are not the only one4 ,with these qualifications ,i fully accept the position taken by this writer as a correct statement of the points at issue between those who affirm1 and those who deny the claims of ,christianity to be a divine revelation1 and accept his challenge to defend the supernatural elements in the ,new ,testament1 or to abandon it as worthless4 ,to maintain that any of its dogmas can be accepted as true while its miraculous elements are abandoned seems to me to involve a question which is hopelessly illogical4 ,modern unbelief rejects every supernatural occurrence as utterly incredible4 ,before proceeding to examine into the grounds of this1 it will be necessary to lay down definitely the bearing of the present argument on the principles of atheism1 pantheism1 and theism4 ,as far as the impossibility of supernatural occurrences is concerned1 pantheism and atheism occupy precisely the same grounds4 ,if either of them propounds a true theory of the universe1 any supernatural occurrence1 which necessarily implies a supernatural agent to bring it about1 is impossible1 and the entire controversy as to whether miracles have ever been actually performed is a foregone conclusion4 ,modern atheism1 while it does not venture in categorical terms to affirm that no ,god exists1 definitely asserts that there is no evidence that there is one4 ,it follows that if there is no evidence that there is a ,god1 there can be no evidence that a miracle ever has been performed1 for the very idea of a miracle implies the idea of a ,god to work one4 ,if therefore atheism is true1 all controversy about miracles is useless4 ,they are simply impossible1 and to inquire whether an impossible event has happened is absurd4 ,to such a person the historical enquiry1 as far as a miracle is concerned1 must be a foregone conclusion4 ,it might have a little interest as a matter of curiosity2 but even if the most unequivocal evidence could be adduced that an occurrence such as we call supernatural had taken place1 the utmost that it could prove would be that some most extraordinary and abnormal fact had taken place in nature of which we did not know the cause4 ,but to prove a miracle to any person who consistently denies that he has any evidence that any being exists which is not a portion of and included in the material universe1 or developed out of it1 is impossible4 ,nor does the case differ in any material sense with pantheism4 ,when we have got rid of its hazy mysticism1 and applied to it clear principles of logic1 its affirmation is that ,god and the ,universe are one1 and that all past and present forms of existence have been the result of the ,universe1 i4e4 ,god1 everlastingly developing himself in conformity with immutable law4 ,all things which either have existed or exist are as many manifestations of ,god1 who is in fact an infinite impersonal ,proteus1 ever changing in his outward form4 ,from him1 or to speak more correctly1 from it 7for he is no person71 all things have issued as mere phenomenal babbles of the passing moment1 and by it will be again swallowed up in neverending succession4 ,such a ,god must be devoid of everything which we understand by personality1 intelligence1 wisdom1 volition or a moral nature4 ,it is evident therefore that to a person who logically and consistently holds these views the occurrence of a miracle is no less an impossibility than it is to an atheist1 for the conception of a miracle involves the presence of personality1 intelligence1 and power at the disposal of volition4 ,all that the strongest evidence could prove to those who hold such principles1 is that some abnormal event had taken place of which the cause was unknown4 ,it is evident1 therefore1 that the only course which can be pursued with a professed atheist or pantheist1 is to grapple with him on the evidences of theism1 and to endeavour to prove the existence of a ,god possessed of personality1 intelligence1 volition1 and adequate power1 before we attempt to deal with the evidences of miracles4 ,until we have convinced him of this all our reasonings must be in vain4 ,there are four modes of reasoning by which the being of a ,god may be established4 ,i will simply enumerate them4 ,first1 the argument which is founded on the principle of causation2 second1 that which rests on the order of the universe2 third1 that from its innumerable adaptations2 fourth1 that which is derived from the moral nature and personality of man4 ,if the argument from causation fails to prove to those with whom we are reasoning that the finite causes in the universe must have a first cause from whence they have originated2 if that from the orderly arrangements in the universe fails to prove that there must be an intelligent being who produced them2 if its innumerable adaptations fail to establish the presence of a presiding mind2 and if the moral nature of man fails to prove that must be a moral being from whom that nature emanated1 and of whom it is the image1 it follows that the minds must be so differently constituted as to offer no common ground or basis of reasoning on this question4 ,the whole involves an essential difference of principle1 which no argumentation can really reach4 ,to attempt to prove to a mind of this description the occurrence of a miracle1 is simply a waste of labour4 ,a work1 therefore1 on the subject of miracles can only be addressed to theists1 because the very conception of a miracle involves the existence of a personal ,god4 ,to take this for granted in reasoning with a pantheist or atheist is simply to assume the point at issue4 ,it is perfectly true1 that a legitimate body of reasoning may be constructed1 if the pantheist or the atheist agrees to assume that a ,god exists for the purpose of supplying a basis for the argument4 ,we may then reason with him precisely in the same way as we would with a theist4 ,but the contest will be with one who has clad himself in armour which no weapon at our disposal can penetrate4 ,after the strongest amount of historical evidence has been adduced1 and after all alleged difficulties have been answered1 he simply falls back on his atheism or his pantheism1 which assumes that all supernatural occurrences must be impossible1 and therefore that alleged instances of them are delusions4 ,this is not unfrequently the case in the present controversy4 ,a considerable number of objections which are urged against the supernatural elements of ,christianity1 derive whatever cogency they possess from the assumption that there is a ,god who is the moral ,governor of the universe4 ,these are not unfrequently urged by persons who deny the possibility of miracles on atheistic or pantheistic grounds4 ,it is perfectly fair to reason against ,christianity on these grounds2 it is equally so for a person who holds these opinions1 to attempt to prove that the historical evidence adduced in proof of the miracles recorded in the ,new ,testament is worthless as an additional reason why men should cease to believe in them4 ,but it is not conducive to the interests of truth to urge objections which have no reality except on the supposition that a ,god exists who is the moral ,governor of the universe1 and then to fall back on reasonings whose whole force is dependent on the data furnished by pantheism or atheism4 ,i shall have occasion to notice a remarkable instance of this involved mode of reasoning hereafter4 ,i shall now proceed briefly to state the mode in which ,i propose to treat the present subject4 ,the point which ,i have to defend is not any conceivable body of miracles or their evidential value1 but specially the supernatural occurrences recorded in the ,new ,testament4 ,i must therefore endeavour to ascertain what is the extent of the supernaturalism asserted in the ,new ,testament1 and what is the degree of evidential value which its writers claim for it4 ,it has been asserted by many writers that the sole and only evidence of a revelation must be a miraculous testimony4 ,whether this be so or not1 this is not the place to enquire4 ,but in relation to the present controversy the plain and obvious course is to ask the writers of the ,new ,testament what is the precise evidential value of the supernatural occurrences which they have narrated4 ,this is far preferable to falling back on any assertions of modern writers1 however eminent1 on this subject4 ,they may have overestimated1 or underestimated their evidential value4 ,the writers of the ,new ,testament must be held responsible1 not for the assertions of others1 but only for their own4 ,i must therefore carefully consider what it is that they affirm to be proved by miracles4 ,one primary objection against the possibility of miracles is founded on that peculiar form of theoretic belief1 which affirms that both philosophy1 science1 and religion alike point to the existence of a ,cause of the ,universe1 which is the source of all the forces which exist1 and of which the various phenomena of the universe are manifestations1 and designates this cause by the name of ,god4 ,but while it concedes his existence1 it proclaims him to be ,unknown and ,unknowable4 ,if this position is correct1 the inference seems inevitable1 that any thing like a real revelation of him is impossible4 ,it will be necessary therefore for me to examine into the validity of this position4 ,a vast variety of arguments have been adduced both on philosophic grounds and from the principles established by physical science1 for the purpose of proving that the occurrence of any supernatural event is contrary to our reason4 ,if this be true1 it is a fatal objection against the entire mass of supernatural occurrences that are recorded in the ,new ,testament4 ,the most important points of these reasonings will require a careful consideration4 ,a very important objection has been urged against the ,christian mode of conducting the argument from miracles4 ,it is alleged that it involves reasoning in a vicious circle1 and that ,christian apologists endeavour to prove the truth of doctrines which utterly transcend reason by miraculous evidence1 and then endeavour to prove the truth of the miracles by the doctrines4 ,if this allegation is true1 it is no doubt a fatal objection to the argument4 ,i shall endeavour to show that it is founded on a misapprehension of the entire subject4 ,an attempt has been made to reaffirm the validity of ,hume's argument that no amount of evidence can avail to prove the reality of a miracle unless the falsehood of the evidence is more miraculous than the alleged miracle4 ,it will be necessary to consider the validity of the positions which have been lately assumed respecting it4 ,a very formidable objection has been urged against the truth of the supernatural occurrences recorded in the ,new ,testament on the ground that the followers of ,jesus were a prey to a number of the most grotesque beliefs respecting the action of demons1 and that their superstition and credulity on this point was of so extreme a character as to deprive their historical testimony1 on the subject of the supernatural of all value4 ,as this objection is not only one which is widely extended1 but has been urged with great force by the author of 8,supernatural ,religion10 ,i shall devote four chapters of this work to the examination of the question of possession and demoniacal action as far as it affects the present controversy4 ,the entire school of modern unbelief found a very considerable portion of their arguments against the historical character of the ,gospels1 on the alleged credulity and superstition of the followers of our ,lord4 ,this is alleged to have been of a most profound character1 and it forms the weapon which is perhaps in most constant use with the assailants of ,christianity4 ,all difficulties which beset their arguments are met by attributing the most unbounded credulity1 superstition and enthusiasm to the followers of ,jesus4 ,it has also been urged that the belief in supernatural occurrences has been so general1 that it renders the attestation of miracles to a revelation invalid4 ,i purpose examining into the validity of this objection4 ,as this may be said to be the key of the position occupied by modern unbelief1 ,i must examine into the reality of the affirmation1 and also how far the love of the marvellous in mankind affects the credit of the testimony to miracles4 ,this ,i propose discussing in two distinct chapters4 ,it is an unquestionable fact that in these days we summarily reject whole masses of alleged supernatural occurrences1 as utterly incredible1 without inquiry into the testimony on which they rest4 ,it will be necessary to inquire into the grounds on which we do this1 and how far it affects the credibility of the miracles recorded in the ,new ,testament4 ,the historical value of the testimony which has been adduced for the truth of the miracles recorded in the ,new ,testament1 has been assailed by every weapon which criticism can supply4 ,it is affirmed in the strongest manner that they are utterly devoid of all reliable historical evidence4 ,the ,gospels are pronounced to consist of a bundle of myths and legends1 with only a few grains of historic truth hidden beneath them4 ,they are affirmed to be late compositions1 and that we are utterly devoid of all contemporaneous attestation for the facts recorded in them1 and that the true account of the origin of ,christianity is buried beneath a mass of fiction4 ,if this be true1 there cannot be a doubt that it is a most serious allegation1 which affects the entire ,christian position4 ,it is further urged that while the defenders of ,christianity publish works in which they attempt to prove that miracles are possible and credible1 they carefully avoid grappling with the real point of the whole question by showing that any historical evidence can be produced for a single miracle recorded in the ,gospels1 which will stand the test of such historical criticism1 and it is loudly proclaimed that no real evidence can be made forthcoming4 ,such a charge as this1 it is impossible to pass over in silence4 ,i propose1 therefore1 to examine into the general truth of these allegations1 and to consider the nature of the historical evidence which unbelief1 after it has exhausted all its powers of criticism1 still leaves us unquestionably in possession of4 ,this consists of the epistles of the ,new ,testament viewed as historical documents4 ,their value as such has been greatly overlooked by both sides to the controversy1 especially by the ,christian side4 ,christians have been in the habit of viewing them as inspired compositions1 and have studied them almost exclusively on account of the doctrinal and moral teaching which they contain1 and each sect has viewed them as a kind of armoury from which to draw weapons for the establishing its own particular opinions4 ,in doing this they have forgotten that they are also historical documents of the highest order1 the great majority of which even the opponents of ,christianity concede to have been composed prior to the conclusion of the first century of the ,christian era1 and many of them at a much earlier period4 ,of these writings four are universally admitted to be genuine1 and to have been composed prior to the year #fj of our era4 ,four more are genuine beyond all reasonable doubt1 and of two more the evidence in favour of their authenticity is very strong4 ,the ,apocalypse1 which is also admitted to be genuine1 although not strictly an historical document1 can be rendered valuable for the purposes of history4 ,of the remaining writings the genuineness is disputed2 but whether genuine or not1 it is impossible to deny their antiquity1 and that they are faithful representations of the ideas of those who wrote them4 ,in fact the names of their authors are of no great importance in the present controversy1 when the writings themselves bear so decisively the marks of originality4 ,thus the epistle of ,james1 by whomsoever written1 bears the most unquestionable marks of the most primitive antiquity4 ,it is in fact a document of the earliest form of ,christianity1--in one word1 the ,jewish form1 before the ,church was finally separated from the synagogue4 ,such are our historical materials4 ,little justice has been done to their value in the writings of ,christian apologists4 ,as included in the ,canon of the ,new ,testament1 it has been for the most part the practice to view them as standing in need of defence1 rather than as being the mainstay of the argument for historical ,christianity1 and constituting its central position4 ,it will be admitted that it will be impossible for me to do full justice to such a subject in a work like the present4 ,to bring out all the treasures of evidence respecting primitive ,christianity1 and the foundation of the ,christian ,church which these writings contain1 the whole subject would require to be unfolded in a distinct and separate treatise exclusively devoted to the subject4 ,still1 however1 this work would be very incomplete if ,i did not accept the challenge so boldly thrown down to us1 and show that ,christianity rests on an historical attestation of the highest order4 ,to this ,i propose devoting the six concluding chapters of this work4 ,i intend1 therefore1 in the first place to examine the value of the historical documents of the ,new ,testament1 and show that several of the epistles take rank as the highest form of historical documents1 and present us with what is to all intents and purposes a large mass of contemporaneous evidence as to the primitive beliefs1 and the original foundation of the ,christian ,church4 ,in doing so ,i propose to treat them in the same manner as all other similar historical documents are treated4 ,i shall then show that these documents afford a substantial testimony to all the great facts of ,christianity1 and especially to the existence of miraculous powers in the ,church1 and that the various ,churches were from the very earliest period in possession of an oral account of the actions and teachings of ,jesus ,christ substantially the same as that which is now embodied in the ,gospels2 and that this oral ,gospel was habitually used for the purposes of instruction4 ,further1 that this oral ,gospel was a substantial embodiment of the beliefs of the primitive followers of ,jesus1 and that the ,church as a community was a body especially adapted for handing down correctly the account of the primitive beliefs respecting its origin1 and that the peculiar position in which it was placed compelled it to do so4 ,i shall further show on the evidence furnished by those epistles1 the genuineness of which unbelievers do not dispute1 that from the earliest commencement of ,christianity the whole body of believers1 without distinction of sect or party1 believed in the resurrection of ,jesus ,christ as a fact1 and viewed it not only as the groundwork on which ,christianity rested1 but as the one sole and only reason for the existence of the ,christian ,church4 ,i shall be able also to prove on the same evidence that a considerable number of the followers of ,jesus were persuaded that they had seen him alive after his crucifixion1 and that his appearance was an actual resurrection from the dead4 ,the same writings prove to demonstration that this was the universal belief of the whole ,christian community1 and that the ,church was established on its basis4 ,these things being established as the basis for my reasonings1 ,i shall proceed to prove that it is impossible that these beliefs of the ,church could have owed their origin to any possible form of delusion2 but that the resurrection of ,jesus ,christ was an historical fact1 and that no other supposition can give an adequate account of the phenomenon4 ,having proved that the greatest of all the miracles which are recorded in the ,gospels is an historical fact1 ,i have got rid of the priori difficulty with which the acceptance of the ,gospels as genuine historical accounts is attended2 but further1 if it is an historical fact that ,jesus ,christ really rose from the dead1 it is in the highest degree probable that other supernatural occurrences would be connected with his person4 ,i shall therefore proceed to restore the ,gospels to their place as history1 and to show that even on the principles of the opponents of ,christianity1 they have every claim to be accepted as true accounts of the action and teaching of ,jesus ,christ as it was transmitted by the different ,churches1 partly in an oral1 and partly in a written form4 ,i shall also show that even if they were composed at the late dates which are assigned to them by opponents1 they were yet written within the period which is strictly historical1 while tradition was fresh and reminiscences vivid1 and long before it was possible that a great mass of facts which must have formed the basis of the existence of the ,christian ,church could have been superseded by a number of mythic and legendary creations4 ,having placed these facts on a firm foundation1 ,i shall proceed to consider their accounts of the ,resurrection of ,jesus ,christ1 and to estimate its historical nature4 ,the proof that the greatest miracle recorded in the ,gospels1 the ,resurrection of ,jesus ,christ1 is an event which has really occurred1 places the remainder of them in point of credibility in the same position as the facts of ordinary history2 and they must be accepted and regarded in conformity with the usual methods of testing evidence4 ,,chapter ,,ii4 ,,definitions ,,of ,,terms4 ,nothing has more contributed to import an almost hopeless confusion of thought into the entire controversy about miracles than the ambiguous senses in which the most important terms connected with it have been employed1 both by theologians and men of science1 by the defenders of revelation as well as by its opponents4 ,of these terms the words 8nature10 8natural01 8law10 8force10 8supernatural10 8superhuman10 8miracle10 and 8miraculous10 are the most conspicuous4 ,it is quite clear that unless we use these terms in a definite and uniform sense1 we shall be fighting the air4 ,the neglect to do so has thrown the greatest obscurity over the entire subject4 ,this vague and uncertain use of them is not confined to writers on theological subjects1 but is diffused over a large number of scientific works4 ,my object in the present chapter will be1 not to lay down strictly accurate definitions of all the terms used in the controversy 7for this in the present state of thought on the subject is hardly possible7 but to endeavour to assign a definite meaning to those which it will be necessary for me to employ1 and to draw attention to some of the fallacies which a vague use of language has introduced4 ,first3 ,no terms are more frequently used in this controversy than the words 8nature0 and 8natural40 ,they are constantly used as if their meaning was definite and invariable4 ,nothing is more common than to use the expression 8laws of nature10 and to speak of miracles as involving contradictions1 violations1 and suspensions of the laws and order of nature1 as though there was no danger of our falling into fallacies of reasoning by classing wholly different orders of phenomena under a common name4 ,what do we mean by the terms 8nature0 and 8natural08 ,it is evident that no satisfactory result can come from reasonings on this subject1 unless the parties to the discussion agree to attach to those words a steady and consistent meaning4 ,are we in fact under the expression 8nature0 to include both matter and its phenomena1 and mind and its phenomena8 ,is nature to include all things which exist1 including their causes2 laws1 and forces2 or is it to be restricted to matter1 its laws and forces8 ,or is it to include all things that exist1 except ,god8 ,i need hardly observe that the laying down some clear and definite principles on this subject is vital to the present controversy4 ,again3 ,what do we mean by the laws of nature8 ,how do we distinguish between the laws and the forces of nature8 ,do the laws of nature1 in the sense in which that expression is used by science1 possess any efficient power whatever2 or ought not efficiency to be predicated only of the forces of nature1 and never of its laws8 ,or when we speak of the forces of nature1 do we recognise any distinction between material and moral forces1 or do we confound phenomena so utterly differing in outward character1 and on whose difference some of the most important points of the controversy about miracles rest1 under a common name8 ,what again do we mean by the order of nature8 ,is it its material order2 or does it include the order of the moral universe8 ,until we can agree to attach a definite meaning to these expressions1 to argue that miracles are contrary to nature1 or involve a suspension of its laws1 or a violation of its order1 or even to affirm the contrary position1 is fighting the air4 ,yet this ,i may almost say is the present aspect of the controversy4 ,again3 ,what do we intend1 when we use the different expressions1 8miracles10 8supernatural10 8superhuman10 or events occurring out of the order of nature8 ,it is evident that whether they point to any real distinctions or not1 it is necessary to employ them with consistency4 ,the mere enumeration of these questions makes it clear that by a vague and indefinite use of terms1 or by attaching to them meanings which they cannot accurately be made to bear1 we may unconsciously assume the entire question at issue4 ,first3 ,with respect to the terms 8nature0 and 8natural40 ,what do we include under them8 ,bishop ,butler considers that the latter term is satisfied by attaching to it the meaning 8usual40 ,nature then would mean the ordinary course of things4 ,but such a meaning would by no means satisfy the requirements of modern science1 philosophy1 or theology4 ,one obvious sense to attach to the word 8nature0 is to use it to denote the entire mass of phenomena as contemplated by physical science4 ,in this point of view it would include matter1 its forces1 and its laws1 and embrace the entire range of those phenomena and forces where action is necessary2 and into the conception of which neither volition nor freedom enters4 ,if 8nature0 and 8natural0 had been used only in this sense1 it would have saved us from a great mass of inconclusive reasoning4 ,but this is far from being the case4 ,not only are they used to include matter1 its laws and forces1 but also the whole phenomena of mind4 ,to this use of the terms the ,duke of ,argyll has given no inconsiderable countenance in his admirable work1 8,the ,reign of ,law10 especially in the sixth chapter4 ,he uses the term law as alike applicable to the operations of mind and matter1 and this of course implies that the whole of our mental phenomena form a portion of nature and its order4 ,he is led to this1 among other considerations1 by the use which we make of the word 8natural0 as applied to the results of all kinds of mental operations4 ,the question may fairly be asked1 ,are not the works wrought by man in nature1 or is not the building of its nest by a bird1 or of its comb by the bee1 a natural operation8 ,if so1 man1 bird1 and bee1 must form a portion of nature1 and their various actions1 of its order4 ,in a popular point of view such expressions involve no difficulty1 and as a mere verbal distinction the whole question would not be worth the labour of discussion4 ,but in a question like the one now under consideration1 which requires the utmost accuracy both of thought and reasoning1 the case is far different4 ,the classing together of phenomena which differ so entirely as mind and matter1 under a common term1 leads to the inference that there is no essential difference between them1 which involves at the outset a petitio principii of the entire question under definition4 ,i shall have occasion repeatedly to point out in the course of this work the number of fallacious reasonings which have been introduced into the question about the possibility and the credibility of miracles by thus including under a common term phenomena utterly different in character4 ,it would be far better to get rid of words so vague as 8nature0 and 8natural0 in this discussion1 and substitute for them terms of which it is impossible to mistake the meaning1 than to employ them in senses which are simply ambiguous and misleading4 ,but of this more hereafter4 ,what then are we to do with man8 ,is he a part of nature and its order8 ,i reply that man is within material nature as far as regards his bodily organization2 but that he is outside1 or above it1 and belongs to a different order1 as far as his rational action1 his volition1 and his moral powers are concerned4 ,all that ,i am contending for is that a clear distinction must be preserved between the necessary action of the forces of material nature1 and the voluntary action of man2 and that terms must be used which accurately denote this distinction4 ,matter1 its forces and laws1 involve the conception of necessary action4 ,they act in a particular manner because they cannot help so acting4 ,with action purely intellectual ,i am not concerned1 but all moral action is voluntary4 ,man as an agent can act or forbear acting2 matter cannot4 ,this distinction is of the highest importance1 and must not be lost sight of behind a confused use of such terms as natural1 law1 force1 or order of nature1 applied indeterminately to the necessary action of material agents1 and the voluntary action of moral ones4 ,it will doubtless be objected by a certain order of philosophy that all mental and moral force is only some special modification of material force1 and consequently that there is no distinction between material and moral action1 or between material and moral force1 and that the words 8nature0 and 8natural0 are correctly applied to both alike1 as being simple manifestations of the same original force4 ,to this it will be sufficient to reply1 first3 that this is an assertion only1 and never has been nor can be proved4 ,secondly3 that it contradicts the highest of all our certitudes1 the direct testimony of consciousness1 which affirms that we live under a law of freedom1 wholly different from the necessary laws of material nature4 ,thirdly3 that it contradicts the universal experience of mankind1 as embodied in the primary laws of human language and human thought4 ,to assume this at the commencement of the argument is to take for granted the point which requires to be proved4 ,it would be quite out of place in a treatise like the present to attempt to discuss the question of the origin of the free agency and the moral nature of man4 ,it is sufficient for the purpose to observe that1 however voluntary agency may have originated1 it is a simple fact that it exists in the universe1 and that its phenomena belong to an order of its own4 ,it is no mere theory1 but a fact1 that man not only is capable of modifying the action of the forces of the material universe1 but that he has modified them1 and has produced results utterly different from those which would have followed from their simple action4 ,to use terms in this controversy which overlook this plain and obvious fact1 can lead to no satisfactory result4 ,are then the actions of man1 the bird1 and the bee1 properly designated as natural8 ,in a popular use of language the question may be one purely verbal2 but when we are dealing with subjects requiring accurate thought1 it is in the highest degree necessary to use language which does not confound the distinct phenomena of mind and matter under a common designation4 ,both together compose the universe2 but each belongs to a different order of phenomena4 ,the whole difficulty proceeds from the fact that both material forces which act in conformity with necessary laws1 and moral ones which act in conformity with those of freedom1 are united in the person of man4 ,another order of thought uses the term 8nature0 as including everything that exists1 even ,god2 or in other words1 it affirms that every thing which has existed and exists is a manifestation of ,him4 ,as this theory involves the denial of the personality of the ,divine ,being1 it stands excluded from the question under consideration1 namely1 the credibility of miracles1 which is utterly irrelevant1 except on the assumption of the existence of a personal ,god4 ,it ought to be observed1 however1 that while theism affirms that ,god and the universe1 whether material or moral1 are distinct1 it fully recognises the fact that ,god is immanent in both the worlds of mind and matter1 while at the same time he transcends them both4 ,this is an important consideration1 which is too often overlooked by both parties to the discussion4 ,secondly3 a still greater confusion has been introduced by a vague and indefinite use of the term 8law10 and by confusing a number of utterly diverse phenomena under the designation of the 8laws of nature40 ,it is absolutely necessary to trace this fallacy to its source4 ,the ,duke of ,argyll tells us in his 8,reign of ,law0 that there are five different senses at least in which this word is habitually used even in scientific writings4 ,they are as follows3-- 8,first1 we have law as applied simply to an observed order of facts40 8,secondly1 to that order as involving the action of some force or forces of which nothing more can be known40 8,thirdly1 as applied to individual forces1 the measure of whose operation has been more or less defined or ascertained40 8,fourthly1 as applied to those combinations of forces which have reference to the fulfilment of purposes or the discharge of functions40 8,fifthly1 as applied to abstract conceptions of the mind--not corresponding with any actual phenomena1 but deduced therefrom as axioms of thought1 necessary to an understanding of them4 ,law1 in this sense1 is a reduction of the phenomena1 not merely to an order of facts1 but to an order of thought40 8,these leading significations of the word ,law10 says the ,duke1 8all circle round the three great questions which science asks of nature1 the what1 the how1 and the why40 8,what are the facts in their established order80 8,how1 i4e4 from what physical causes does that order come to be8 ,what relation do they bear to purpose1 to the fulfilment of intention1 to the discharge of function80 ,such are the multiform acceptations attached by scientific men to the term 8law10 yet the ,duke is not quite certain whether they may not be even more numerous4 ,it is evident that if they are all imported into the question of the credibility of miracles1 our position must resemble that of persons who are compelled to fight in the dark2 and that the question whether an occurrence is natural or supernatural1 whether it is contrary to1 or a violation of the laws of nature1 or above nature1 and many others which enter into this controversy must be without definite meaning4 ,it is clear that unless we can restrict the word 8law0 to one1 or at most1 two definite meanings1 we shall get into hopeless confusion1 or to speak more correctly1 we shall open the gate wide for the introduction of any number of fallacies4 ,the primary conception implied by the term 8law0 is unquestionably one which is strictly applicable to man and his actions1 and can only be applied metaphorically1 and in some systems of thought after a considerable change of meaning1 to the facts and phenomena of the material universe4 ,a law is a rule of action for human conduct and nothing more4 ,such rules of conduct for the most part presuppose that they are imposed by some external authority1 which has the right or the power to enforce obedience to them2 or else that the person obeying them has an inward feeling that it is right to do so1 and knows that his conscience will reproach him for the omission4 ,but law1 strictly speaking1 is simply the rule of action itself1 as for instance1 an ,act of ,parliament2 but as in practice all such rules are enforced by a sanction of some kind1 our conception of a law is also united with that of a lawgiver1 who has both the right and the power to enforce it4 ,it follows therefore that such a conception is essentially a moral one4 ,it is also intimately united with the knowledge that we possess the power to act or forbear acting in conformity with its dictates1 and1 if we prefer it1 of taking the consequences of disobedience4 ,but when such a conception is transferred to material nature it loses a considerable portion of its original significancy4 ,in its application therefore to physical science1 it may with strict propriety be used to denote an invariable order of events3 and if the human analogy could hold in physics it might be used to include the power which originated and enforced them4 ,but as the consideration of will or purpose forms no portion of strictly physical science1 and is expressly excluded from it1 the term law as used by it ought to denote the invariable order of sequences1 and not to include the forces which generate them4 ,unless this distinction is carefully observed1 we shall be in danger of introducing into our reasonings human analogies to which there is nothing corresponding in nature viewed as a mere body of unintelligent forces4 ,the use of the term 8law0 in physical science ought to be confined to denote the invariable sequences of the material phenomena4 ,physicists profess to know nothing of efficient causation2 or of a lawgiver standing outside his laws and possessing power to enforce them4 ,the whole question of intelligent agency or purpose lies in a region outside their province4 ,law1 as far as physical science is acquainted with it1 can consist only of a set of antecedents1 followed by an invariable set of consequents4 ,of any inherent efficacy in these antecedents to produce their consequents1 it can affirm nothing4 ,a very popular philosophy even denies the power of the human mind to penetrate beyond this1 and affirms that its entire knowledge is limited to phenomena4 ,but physical science also deals with forces4 ,these1 and not its laws1 are its true principles of causation4 ,mere invariable sequences can effect nothing2 but forces1 such as gravitation1 heat1 electricity1 and the entire body of chemical forces1 or whatever force they may ultimately be resolved into1 can effect much4 ,they are in fact the antecedents of which the invariable order of events are the consequents4 ,respecting the ultimate principle of force1 or what is its real nature1 or how it is directed1 or came to be1 physical science is silent4 ,all that it can do is to observe the order of their occurrence1 measure their quantities1 and tabulate their results4 ,by this means it rises to the conception of what are called the laws of nature4 ,if in the present controversy the word law had been used in this sense only1 it would have been wholly unexceptionable4 ,but it becomes far otherwise when the idea of force or efficiency is introduced into it4 ,nothing is more common in the reasonings of those who attempt to prove that miracles are impossible1 than to import into the term law the idea of force1 or efficient causation1 even at the very time when the presence of intelligent action is denied4 ,it is this which imparts to this class of reasonings their entire speciousness4 ,the laws of material nature are continually spoken of as though they were forces which are energetic in the universe1 and to the energy of which all things owe their present form2 or in other words1 it is assumed that the laws of nature are causes which have produced by their unintelligent action the present order of the universe4 ,nothing however can be clearer than that a law of nature1 in the sense in which purely physical science can take cognizance of one1 can effectuate nothing4 ,what can an invariable order of sequences effect8 ,before the idea of efficiency can be attached to law1 the conception of force must be introduced into it4 ,modern controversy1 however1 is constantly in the habit of speaking of the laws of nature as though they were efficient agents4 ,we hear of creation by law1 evolution by law1 of results brought about by the action of invariable laws1 and a countless number of assertions of a similar description4 ,to such expressions in a popular sense when no accuracy of expression is required1 there is no objection2 but when they are introduced into the controversy respecting the credibility of miracles1 they create nothing but confusion4 ,what is really meant is1 that such results are brought about by the action of forces which act in conformity with invariable laws1 but the idea of intelligence and volition is carefully excluded from the conception4 ,it is clearly inaccurate to speak of laws reigning4 ,laws do not reign even in political societies2 but only the power which is able to enact and enforce them4 ,in material nature the only things which possess efficiency are its forces4 ,there can be no objection to the use of the expression1 8the laws of mind10 when care is taken to use language which clearly distinguishes between them and unintelligent and necessary sequences of material nature4 ,but when the term 8law0 is without any qualification applied to both sets of phenomena alike1 it is certain either to lead to fallacious reasoning1 or to involve the assumption of the point at issue4 ,whatever may be the origin of the moral and spiritual in man1 it is certain that as they at present exist in him1 they stand out in the strongest contrast with the forces which act upon material things1 and with the laws of their action4 ,nothing can be more entirely different in character than the force of gravitation and the principles of volition and selfconsciousness1 or than the unconscious forces of material nature and those principles which constitute our rationality4 ,if we affirm that the forces of mind act in conformity with law1 it ought to be clearly understood that they act in conformity with a law of their own1 which affords free action to the principle of volition4 ,otherwise there is the greatest danger that the expression will involve the covert assumption of the truth of the doctrine of philosophical necessity1 or in other words1 that all mental and material forces are of the same character1 that is to say1 that they are both equally necessary4 ,this involves the assumption of the very point on which the entire controversy turns1 for if moral and material forces and laws are all alike1 it destroys the conception of a ,god1 and the significance of a miracle4 ,this brings us to the conception of force1 what is it8 ,various definitions of it have been given sufficiently accurate for practical purposes4 ,it should be observed however that physical science can know nothing of it except as a phenomenon4 ,the determination of its nature1 and its ultimate cause lie entirely beyond its limits4 ,many facts respecting it1 have been ascertained and tabulated4 ,many of its manifestations1 which bear a different phenomenal aspect1 it has ascertained to be capable of transmutation into one another4 ,but it must never be forgotten that it is able to affirm nothing respecting the source in which the forces of the universe originate4 ,all that it can affirm is1 that they do exist4 ,the original conception of force is one1 however1 which we derive1 not from the material universe1 but from the action of our own minds4 ,we are conscious that we are efficient agents1 and that definite results follow the action of our wills4 ,this gives us the conception of force4 ,we apply it in a metaphorical sense to certain things which we observe in the material universe and call them forces1 having abstracted from our primary idea of force the conception of volition4 ,but all that we really know about force tends to prove that its origin is mental and not material4 ,it is of the utmost importance to preserve a clear distinction between the unconscious forces of matter and the intelligent ones of mind2 otherwise we shall inevitably be misled by such expressions as 8the forces of nature40 ,it is impossible to argue the question unless the distinction is admitted as a fact1 whatever theory may be held about their origin4 ,it is absurd to confound principles so distinct as heat1 or gravitation1 or electricity1 with those which produce the most disinterested moral actions1 and designate them by the common term 8natural forces40 ,in common language we are in no danger of error when we speak of the force of conscience1 or the force of a motive2 but in discussions like the present1 where such expressions really involve the assumption of the whole controversy1 it is absurd to classify such phenomena1 and the unintelligent forces of matter under a common designation1 unless it can be demonstrated that they are all manifestations of the same power4 ,we come now to the much vexed question as to the meaning to be attached to the words 8miracle0 and 8miraculous20 and the terms closely allied to them1 8supernatural0 and 8superhuman40 ,is there any valid distinction between miracles and supernatural occurrences8 ,are1 in fact1 all miracles supernatural occurrences1 and all supernatural occurrences miracles8 ,the determination of this question is closely connected with an important point which will be considered hereafter1 viz41 whether a miracle could have any evidential value if it were brought about by a special adaptation of the known or unknown forces of material nature4 ,let it be observed that we are not discussing this question as a purely abstract one1 but in reference to the truth of ,christianity4 ,what miracles may be in themselves1 ,i shall not inquire2 but in relation to the question before us1 what we mean when we call an occurrence a miracle ought to be made sufficiently clear and distinct4 ,in this controversy it would greatly tend to precision if we used the term 8miracle0 as distinguished from an occurrence which is supernatural or superhuman1 to denote only those supernatural occurrences which have an evidential value in connection with the evidences of a divine revelation1 since there may be supernatural occurrences which would not be in any proper sense evidential4 ,but the further question arises1 ,is it necessary in order to constitute an event a miracle that it should be one which transcends the known or the unknown forces of material nature to have produced8 ,it is clear that to constitute an event a miracle it must involve supernatural or superhuman agency of some kind2 that is to say1 it must be either supernatural in the mode of its production as an objective fact1 or superhuman in its productive elements1 by which ,i mean1 that it must be preceded by an announcement that it is going to occur1 which must be beyond the sphere of human knowledge4 ,in order to render a supernatural event evidential1 or in other words to constitute it a miracle1 it must not only consist of an external objective fact1 but its occurrence must be unknown beforehand1 and take place at the bidding of the agent4 ,such previous announcement1 or prediction1 is necessary to render even a supernatural occurrence in the strictest sense of the word a miracle4 ,the prediction of some occurrence in physical nature previously unknown may therefore convert such an event into an evidential miracle1 although the occurrence itself as a mere objective fact may have been brought about by some known or unknown forces of material nature4 ,to render it such it would be necessary that the knowledge of the occurrence should be clearly beyond the bounds of existing knowledge4 ,thus1 if any person1 when the science of astronomy was utterly unknown1 had announced beforehand the day and the hour of the occurrence of the next two transits of ,venus1 and the various places on the earth's surface in which they would be visible1 and if the events had taken place accordingly1 this would have unquestionably proved the presence of superhuman knowledge4 ,the only question which in such a case would require to be determined would be whether such a knowledge must have been communicated by ,god1 or by some being inferior to ,god4 ,as however none of the miracles recorded in the ,new ,testament have the smallest appearance of being of this character1 ,i need not further discuss a supposed case4 ,my only reason for referring to it is1 that if it is supposable that any of the miracles recorded in the ,new ,testament could1 at some future day1 be shown to have been due to a combination of physical forces1 their occurring instantly at the direct command of the agent would still give them an evidential value4 ,but it is clear that the miracles recorded in the ,new ,testament1 if caused by material forces at all1 could not have been due to their ordinary action4 ,they must have been due either to an unknown combination of known forces1 or to the calling of unknown forces into activity1 or to the immediate agency of the divine mind4 ,it is clear therefore that their occurrence as objective facts proves the presence of mind acting in some way on the material forces of nature4 ,to determine the mode in which this action mast have taken place has nothing to do with the question of miracles1 or the reality of their occurrence4 ,a miracle therefore may1 for all practical purposes of this argument1 be defined as an occurrence which cannot be effectuated by the ordinary action of the known material forces of the ,universe1 and could only have been brought about by the agency of intelligent volition2 and which is preceded by an announcement on the part of the agent that it is about to happen or takes place directly on his bidding4 ,the latter element1 as ,i have observed1 is essential to constitute the occurrence an evidential miracle4 ,otherwise in our ignorance of what unknown forces may exist in the universe1 we could have no certainty that the event was not a mere unusual occurrence effected by some already existing but unknown forces4 ,to the highest form of the miracles in the ,new ,testament1 however1 such an idea would be inapplicable4 ,it may perhaps here be objected that in laying down this definition of a miracle1 ,i have not sufficiently identified its performance with the governing power of the universe1 i4e4 ,god2 but that if supernatural agents exist1 inferior to ,god1 it may be due to their operation2 and consequently that it may not be evidential of a divine commission4 ,this objection will be fully considered in a subsequent portion of this work4 ,a supernatural event is one which exceeds and which cannot be effected by any force existing in material nature4 ,but there must always be a difficulty in determining whether an occurrence1 viewed as a bare objective fact1 belongs to that class of events which is supernatural1 or only to that which is unusual4 ,this will always be the case until our knowledge of the forces of the universe is so complete that we can ascertain for certain what are the limits of their possible action1 and whether it is possible to bring into action any forces that may exist1 but are unknown to us4 ,in strict language therefore1 it is impossible to be certain whether an occurrence1 as a bare objective fact1 is supernatural1 until we are acquainted with the possible action of every force that exists in the universe4 ,this difficulty1 however1 is one that is entirely theoretical1 and has not the smallest practical importance with respect to the miracles of the ,new ,testament4 ,men have had several thousand years' experience of what can be effected by the ordinary forces of material nature4 ,occurrences which lie beyond their power to effectuate prove the presence of intelligence and volition4 ,the introduction of an unknown force can only be accomplished by a being who1 although he may be immanent in nature1 is yet capable of controlling its material forces4 ,occurrences therefore which transcend the power of the known forces existing in the universe to accomplish1 whether they are material or human1 may for all practical purposes be viewed as supernatural2 that is to say1 they denote the presence and agency of a being who is possessed of power1 intelligence1 and volition4 ,whether that being be human1 superhuman1 or divine1 must be determined by an intelligent exercise of our reason4 ,it is useless to discuss this question further4 ,we are dealing with a very definite question1 the miraculous events recorded in the ,gospels4 ,with respect to the great majority of them1 there can be no doubt as to their being supernatural occurrences1 if they took place precisely as they are recorded4 ,we know enough of the ordinary forces of material nature to be certain that the instantaneous cure of a blind or leprous man by a word does not lie within the sphere of their operation4 ,such an event must denote the special interposition of an extremely high degree of intelligence and power4 ,common sense will affirm that it could only be brought about by the intervention of the supreme power of the universe1 i4e4 ,god4 ,in this sense every supernatural occurrence may be said to be likewise evidential1 when we have ascertained for certain that it is due to supernatural causes1 and that it cannot have been brought about by the action of unintelligent forces1 or by those which are capable of being modified by the agency of man4 ,but in that case it would only prove the presence and intervention of a being who is capable of controlling the unintelligent forces of nature4 ,the real difficulty1 as ,i have observed1 is to prove the supernatural nature of the occurrence4 ,but although1 if it was certainly supernatural1 it would prove the intervention of a supernatural agent1 it would say nothing as to the purpose for which such an intervention took place4 ,it follows therefore1 that to constitute a supernatural occurrence in the strict sense of the term a miracle1 it must take place after an announcement that it is going to happen1 and take place at the bidding of the agent who performs it4 ,it is highly important1 in considering the miracles of the ,gospels1 that the distinction between a merely supernatural event and an evidential miracle should be kept steadily in view4 ,all creative acts would be supernatural events1 but they would not necessarily be evidential miracles4 ,the incarnation1 and other occurrences mentioned in the ,new ,testament1 are supernatural ones2 but to mix them up with evidential miracles is simply to invite confusion of thought4 ,another class of supernatural occurrences mentioned in the ,new ,testament seem to have been wrought1 not for purposes directly evidential1 but to awaken attention2 and another class of supernatural endowments were vouchsafed1 to render it possible to lay deep in human society the foundations of the ,church as a visible and permanent institution4 ,such occurrences are not directly but indirectly evidential1 and it will be necessary carefully to distinguish between them and occurrences brought about for directly evidential purposes4 ,to keep this distinction clear1 ,i shall designate the last by the term 8miracle40 ,a miracle is supernatural in two ways3 namely1 in the agency which produced the objective fact1 and in the announcement of its occurrence4 ,the common definition of a miracle1 as a violation or a suspension of the laws of nature1 is open to very grave objections4 ,the question1 as ,i have observed1 at once arises1 what is included under nature8 ,it also assumes that we are acquainted with the mode in which miraculous agency must be exerted2 which we are not4 ,other definitions which have been proposed take for granted positions which those who undertake to prove the credibility of miracles ought never to concede4 ,the plain fact is1 that we are simply ignorant of the mode in which ,god acts on material nature2 and every definition must be faulty which assumes that we have that knowledge4 ,to say that miracles must involve even a suspension of the laws of nature introduces a needless difficulty4 ,no law or force of nature need be suspended in its action to render the occurrence of a supernatural event possible4 ,all that is necessary is that forces should be introduced which are capable of overbalancing the action of opposing forces4 ,it is extremely inaccurate to affirm that the force of gravitation must be suspended in order to render possible either walking on the water1 or an ascent into the sky4 ,it is equally unwise and unphilosophical to affirm that ,god cannot work a miracle by the use of intermediate agencies1 i4e4 by the partial employment of the forces of the material universe4 ,it is true that in most of the miracles recorded in the ,new ,testament we cannot affirm the use of such media1 although we observe an economy in the use of divine power3 i4e4 no power is exerted beyond that which is necessary to produce the particular result in question4 ,but in the ,old ,testament the use of such media is unquestionably affirmed4 ,to lay down in our definition of a miracle a particular theory as to the mode in which it must be accomplished1 involves the whole subject in needless difficulties4 ,this question has been obscured by representing a miracle as performed by the intervention of a higher law1 superseding the action of a lower one4 ,this introduces the conception of force into the idea of law1 and leads to confusion of thought4 ,laws1 or the invariable sequences between phenomena1 are neither forces nor powers4 ,the counteraction of one force by another is an event of daily occurrence4 ,all that is needful for the working of a miracle is the intervention of a force or mental energy which is capable of acting on matter1 and of overbalancing those ordinary forces which would produce a contrary result4 ,it has also been urged that miracles may obey a law of miracles4 ,the best illustration of this idea is that which has been supplied from the supposed operations of ,mr4 ,babbage's calculating machine4 ,he supposes that a machine might be constructed which could go on grinding out a particular set of results for a long1 yet definite period of time2 then by the operation of the same machine1 that a fresh order might be introduced2 and afterwards that it might revert to the original one2 and that this operation might be continued for ever4 ,if therefore the great ,author of nature had so planned the machine of the universe that whenever a miracle was requisite in ,his scheme of ,providence this abnormal event occurred1 like the new series introduced into the calculating mill1 in that case miracles might be said to follow a definite law1 which might be designated the law and order of miraculous intervention4 ,it is impossible to deny the ingenuity of this theory1 but unfortunately it is not only one which takes for granted that the perfection of mechanical contrivance is the only thing that the ,creator had in view in the production of the universe1 but even if this were an unquestionable fact1 it could afford us no help with respect to all the most important miracles recorded in the ,new ,testament4 ,how is it possible1 ,i ask1 to account for many of our ,lord's miracles on such a supposition8 ,it is expressly affirmed that this supernatural energy was frequently made to depend on the faith of the person who invoked ,his help4 ,could any miracle working mill be even conceived of1 which could bring out1 as part of the normal law of its operations1 the cure of blind1 deaf1 and leprous men by a word1 or effectuate ,his own resurrection from the dead1 or ascension into ,heaven8 ,such occurrences could not be produced by the action of any machine which has the smallest analogy to a calculating mill4 ,but further3 such an operation would be impotent to answer the purposes of a miracle1 unless the particular result was announced beforehand by one who was completely ignorant that the machine was capable of producing such extraordinary results4 ,this ignorance would likewise have to be extended to those to whom the announcement was made4 ,it would also be necessary that the announcer should proclaim that on a particular day and hour the machine would grind out the particular result of the cure of a blind man1 or a resurrection from the dead4 ,the ability to do this would be utterly abnormal1 and impossible ever to be ground out by the selfacting agency of any conceivable machine1 however cleverly constructed4 ,mr4 ,babbage's miracleworking mill1 however ingenious a conception1 must therefore be dismissed as incapable of affording us the smallest help in the present argument4 ,the term 8superhuman0 remains to be considered4 ,it need not detain us long4 ,superhuman implies a result brought about by the intervention of a being superior to man4 ,whether such an agent be divine or otherwise can only be determined by the exercise of our reason4 ,it has been objected that the agency which produces an earthquake is a superhuman agency1 that is1 it exceeds the powers of man to produce it4 ,granted3 but this has no bearing on the subject under discussion4 ,when we use the word 8superhuman0 we always mean by it1 not the action of the unintelligent forces of material nature1 but of a being possessed of intelligence and will4 ,there is a large number of other subjects having an intimate bearing on the correct definition of the terms habitually used in this controversy1 and which greatly modify their meaning4 ,these however will best be considered when ,i enter on the direct discussion of the possibility and the credibility of miracles4 ,,chapter ,,iii4 ,,the ,,supernatural ,,elements ,,contained ,,in ,,the ,,new ,,testament3 ,,in ,,what ,,do ,,they ,,consist8 ,,and ,,what ,,view ,,do ,,its ,,writers ,,take ,,respecting ,,them8 ,before entering on the general question of miracles1 it is only reasonable to inquire of the writers of the ,new ,testament what they have to say on the subject4 ,their opinion of the nature and character of the supernatural occurrences which they have reported is certainly of more value than that of all other writers put together4 ,st4 ,john and ,st4 ,paul must have been in the habit of coming in contact with unbelievers4 ,it would be most important if we could ascertain the mode adopted by them of commending ,christianity to their acceptance1 and what use was made by them of the supernatural power with which they professed to be endowed4 ,first3 ,it is impossible to read the ,new ,testament without arriving at the conclusion that the superhuman character which is ascribed to ,jesus ,christ is perfectly unique1 and differs entirely from that which is ascribed to any other person4 ,others wrought miracles2 but they were men like ourselves4 ,but in the person of ,jesus ,christ the supernatural is represented as inherent4 ,to say that he possessed the power of working miracles1 is an inadequate statement of the fact4 ,although he embodies the perfection of human nature with all its finite limitations1 the supernatural and the divine take up their abode in his personality4 ,whenever our ,lord is represented as working miracles1 he is always represented as performing them by a power which was inherent in himself4 ,this is never once attributed to his followers4 ,the supernatural action which is ascribed to ,jesus ,christ must be viewed1 as a case distinct and separate1 by itself4 ,the miracles performed by him are not only evidential1 but also portions of his supernatural manifestation4 ,according to the author of the fourth ,gospel1 our ,lord himself rarely designated them by either of the three terms by which miracles are usually designated in the ,new ,testament1 viz41 signs1 wonders1 and mighty works 71 1 74 ,he almost uniformly called them 8,works0 774 ,an important distinction is here intended4 ,our ,lord did not view his miracles as a separate class of actions by themselves1 but as portions of his ordinary superhuman working1 and as having a distinct relation to his entire character4 ,four passages will be sufficient to show this clearly4 8,the works that ,i do in my ,father's name1 they bear witness of me40 8,my ,father worketh hitherto1 and ,i work40 8,if ye believe not me1 believe the works40 8,many good works have ,i showed you from my ,father2 for which of those works do ye stone me80 ,when contemplated by others only1 they assume the form of signs and wonders3 8,except ye see signs and wonders1 ye will not believe40 ,it is highly important that we should keep steadily in view that the divine character attributed to ,jesus is by no means restricted to the performance of miracles2 but that it extends throughout his entire working1 and that the two together constitute an harmonious whole4 ,it pertains no less to its moral and spiritual aspects1 than to the displays which he made of a power capable of controlling nature4 ,even in this portion of his working1 he draws special attention to its moral and spiritual aspects4 ,according to his view of his own mighty works1 they not only exhibited a power of controlling nature1 but were uniformly invested with a moral and spiritual environment4 ,throughout the ,gospels he is represented as exhibiting a greatness and dignity1 a purity1 holiness1 humility and benevolence1 so far transcending that of other men1 as to constitute him what may be almost designated a moral and spiritual miracle4 ,perfection in the moral and spiritual world is as essentially superhuman1 as power over nature is supernatural4 ,in considering the miracles which have been attributed to ,jesus ,christ1 it is important to bear in mind the manner in which they stand related to his entire superhuman character4 ,otherwise we shall fail to observe the double aspect which they bear4 ,they were manifestations of the divine1 which dwelt within him1 and also they possessed an evidential value4 ,i shall occasionally use the term 8superhuman0 instead of 8divine10 as applied to ,jesus ,christ1 because for the purposes of this argument it will be unnecessary for me to define the precise degree of divine character which the evangelists intended to attribute to him4 ,to ascertain this is the proper function of the theologian1 by comparing together the facts and statements of the ,new ,testament4 ,it is sufficient for my present purpose to observe that the perusal of the ,gospels leaves the inevitable impression on the mind that it was the purpose of their writers to depict a divine character in union with a human one--a supernatural power acting within the regions of the natural4 ,this covers alike the aspects of character presented of him both in the ,synoptic and the ,johannine ,gospels4 ,although our ,lord speaks of his actions by the common name of 8works0 771 when the sacred authors speak generally of miracles1 they apply to them1 as ,i have observed1 three distinct terms1 signs1 mighty works1 and wonders 71 1 74 ,each of these denotes different aspects in which they contemplated miracles4 ,the sign included the supernatural fact wrought on external nature with the whole of its moral environment4 ,in this point of view1 the 8sign0 was the direct proof of a divine mission4 ,it is worthy of observation that the author of the fourth ,gospel has uniformly described the supernatural actions which he has ascribed to ,jesus ,christ by this term4 ,the expression 8mighty works0 is intended to bring under our notice the power which was displayed in the performance of a miracle1 thereby directly connecting it with a superhuman agency4 ,the term 8wonder0 contemplates a supernatural event in its simple aspect as an occurrence preeminently fitted to command attention to the person who was capable of performing it4 ,we may therefore conclude that the writers of the ,new ,testament considered that these were the three special functions of miracles4 ,it is quite possible that the same miracle might have fulfilled all three at the same time3 but as three such functions of supernatural occurrences are distinctly stated1 it is quite conceivable that there were occasions when they were limited to some one of these in particular4 ,it is evident that our ,lord attached the highest importance to a miracle contemplated as a 8sign10 i4e4 to the moral environment with which it was connected4 ,this1 although more definitely brought out in ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 is also distinctly borne witness to by the ,synoptics4 ,it forms the ground of the reiterated refusal of our ,lord to comply with the demand of the ,pharisees that he would show some sign from heaven1 as a proof of his divine mission4 ,his miracles combined in one the two conceptions of signs and mighty works4 ,none of them were mere prodigies devoid of a moral aspect4 ,it is worthy of consideration whether our ,lord's primary purpose in performing supernatural actions was always directly evidential4 ,i have already drawn attention to their twofold aspect1 as divine manifestations1 and as evidential miracles4 ,a considerable number of the miracles recorded in the ,gospels are represented as performed by him because he was moved with compassion4 ,these evidently belong to the former class of his supernatural workings4 ,but although this was their primary object it did not deprive them of an evidential value4 ,but there is also another remarkable class of supernatural actions attributed to him1 viz41 those in which he is recorded to have expressly forbidden the persons whom he healed to publish the fact4 ,as it is evident that these miracles could only have become extensively known by the persons cured disobeying his orders1 it is clear that they could not have been directly performed for evidential purposes1 but were the manifestations of the divine which resided in his person4 ,such are the supernatural actions attributed to ,jesus ,christ in the ,new ,testament1 respecting which as a whole1 whether performed for purposes avowedly evidential or not1 he himself affirms1 that they bore witness of him1 that the ,father had sent him4 ,two other classes of miracles1 affirmed to have been performed by his followers1 require notice4 ,the whole of these are stated to have been performed by a delegated power and commission4 ,the great majority of them are described as having been performed in the name of ,jesus ,christ4 ,they are affirmed to have been performed for two purposes2 to prove the divine commission of those who wrought them1 and to attest the reality of their ,master's resurrection1 by giving exhibitions of his present power4 ,these therefore are distinctly affirmed to have been evidential miracles4 ,a few others were providential interferences in favour of the infant ,church4 ,there is also another class of supernatural actions referred to in the ,acts of the ,apostles1 such as the passing of ,st4 ,peter's shadow1 and the supposed supernatural effects resulting from it1 and the conveyance from ,st4 ,paul's person of handkerchiefs and aprons to the sick1 and one or two other instances4 ,these involve special manifestations of supernatural power1 and belong to supernatural occurrences in their aspect of wonders1 or very extraordinary events1 and as such were specially adapted for drawing attention to the message of the ,apostles4 ,but the ,new ,testament also affirms another and very peculiar form of the manifestation of the supernatural1 as then actually existing in the ,apostolic ,church4 ,i need hardly say that ,i allude to the various gifts of the ,spirit1 with which large numbers of its members believed themselves to be endowed4 ,i shall not consider them any further here1 as it will be necessary for me to enter largely on the subject in a subsequent portion of this work4 ,their use and purpose was to lay deep the foundations of the ,christian ,church4 ,all that will be necessary in this place is to draw attention to them as a distinct order of supernatural manifestations1 to the existence of which the writers of the ,new ,testament are pledged4 ,there is also one further form of supernatural manifestation affirmed by them1 namely1 a great moral and spiritual transformation effected in those who cordially embraced the ,gospel4 ,this is most positively stated by ,st4 ,paul to have been a fact constantly taking place under his own observation4 ,it is only necessary for me to notice its existence1 as it is a form of supernatural manifestation1 the truth or falsehood of which forms no portion of the present controversy4 ,such then are the various forms of the supernatural1 to the existence of which the writers of the ,new ,testament are pledged as objective facts4 ,to these only1 and not to any conceivable or possible ones1 is the defender of ,christianity committed4 ,if their occurrence can be shown to have been impossible1 either on grounds of science or philosophy1 or because human testimony is of so fallible a character that it cannot establish the truth of a supernatural occurrence1 it follows that the whole of ,christianity must have been an invention of a purely human origin1 that it can have no claim to the designation of a divine revelation1 and that it is hardly possible to free its inventors from the charge of fraud4 ,no mere paring down of its supernatural elements will enable us to escape from this conclusion4 ,i must now proceed to consider whether the writers of the ,new ,testament rest the truth of ,christianity on the evidence of miracles alone1 and what position they occupy respecting it4 ,if we assume for the sake of argument that the fourth ,gospel is the work of the ,apostle ,john1 it is evident that neither ,jesus ,christ nor the ,apostle accepted the theory which has been propounded by some divines1 and readily accepted by unbelievers1 that the evidence of his divine mission was exclusively founded on the testimony of miracles4 ,to state the point distinctly3--,this ,gospel places the evidence afforded by our ,lord's own divine person1 i4e4 the moral evidence of his mission1 in the first rank1 and his miraculous works in the second4 ,as this is a point of considerable importance1 and one to which its proper weight has been seldom attached1 ,i will enumerate the chief statements made in this ,gospel on this subject4 ,first3 ,the author of the ,gospel directly affirms that ,jesus is 8the light of men20 and he himself distinctly affirms of himself1 8,he that seeth me seeth ,him that sent me40 8,i am come a light into the world1 that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness40 7,john xii4 #de1 #df47 ,again1 8,i am the light of the world2 he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness1 but shall have the light of life40 7,john viii4 #ab47 ,it is impossible to read these and kindred passages without feeling that our ,lord appealed to something else besides his miraculous works1 viewed as mere objective facts1 as a proof of his divine mission4 ,he evidently places the highest proof of it in his great moral and spiritual manifestation4 ,he asserts the possession of an inherent illumination in his own divine ,person in union with the great truths which he enunciated1 and the entire course of his divine working4 ,to a mind capable of appreciating a manifestation of holiness1 his person and divine working would be selfevidential4 8,he that seeth me1 seeth ,him that sent me40 ,it is evident therefore that he considered the moral aspect of even his supernatural works as an important portion of the evidence that he came from ,god4 ,the fourth chapter of this ,gospel contains an account of our ,lord's visit to the ,samaritans4 ,he performed no miracle on this occasion4 ,the ,evangelist tells us that many of them accepted him as the ,messiah2 and expressly states that they affirmed that this was not on account of the report of the woman as to his supernatural insight into her character2 but because they themselves had heard him1 and on this account they had arrived at the persuasion that was the ,christ4 ,there was something therefore in his moral manifestation1 even apart from his miracles1 which produced this persuasion4 ,the ,evangelist accepts this position as a correct one4 ,he has even gone further1 and has attributed it in the same chapter to our ,lord himself4 ,he makes him address the nobleman who came to solicit his interference in behalf of his sick son with these remarkable words3 8,except ye see signs and wonders1 ye will not believe40 7,john iv4 #dh47 ,these words can only imply that1 in the opinion of the speaker1 there was a moral and spiritual attestation of his divine mission1 which stood higher than objective miracles2 and that those who witnessed it ought to have received it as such4 ,in ,john vi4 #cj1 ff41 a remarkable dialogue is described as taking place between our ,lord and the ,jews on this very subject4 ,the ,jews demand of him to work some distinct sign in proof of his divine mission4 ,let it be observed that the demand of a sign1 here stated to have been made1 is of precisely the same character as similar statements which are made by the ,synoptics on the same subject1 and shows that a common conception1 underlies them all4 8,what sign10 say they1 8showest thou then1 that we may see and believe thee8 what dost thou work80 ,they then proceed to define the particular sign which they wish to see exhibited1 by making an invidious comparison between his miracles and those of ,moses1 viewed as mere objective facts4 ,in reply our ,lord does not appeal directly to even the miracle of which the ,evangelist had just described the performance2 but throughout the remainder of the chapter1 he proceeds to draw attention to the moral and spiritual aspects of his working4 8,moses gave you not that bread from ,heaven2 but my ,father giveth you the true bread from ,heaven2 for the bread of ,god is he which cometh down from ,heaven1 and giveth life unto the world10 c4 ,in chapter vii4 7#ag1 #ah7 our ,lord affirms3 8,if any man will do his will1 he shall know of the doctrine1 whether it be of ,god1 or whether ,i speak of myself4 ,he that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory2 but he that seeketh his glory that sent him1 the same is true1 and no unrighteousness is in him40 ,here the affirmation is clear and distinct that there is a moral and spiritual element in our ,lord's person and teaching1 which jointly with his miraculous works bear witness to his divine character4 ,the testimony given by the one is convergent with that of the other4 ,this the following affirmation of our ,lord most strongly asserts4 8,i am one who bear witness of myself1 and the ,father who sent me hath borne witness of me10 that is to say1 ,his moral and spiritual manifestation is in a certain sense evidential2 and the ,father who sent him bore a concurrent testimony of his supernatural work4 ,on similar principles our ,lord reasons with the ,jews in the eighth chapter of this ,gospel4 ,in reply to the charge that he performed miracles by the aid of the evil one he affirms1 that his own absolute sinlessness1 constitutes a complete answer to it4 8,which of you convinceth me of sin8 and if ,i say the truth why do ye not believe me80 7v4 #df47 ,we have here a direct appeal to men's moral and spiritual perception1 as an independent witness to the truth of his teaching2 and the affirmation that a being who is not simply good and holy1 but perfectly sinless1 is worthy of absolute credence4 ,in other words1 he does not rest the truth of his teaching on miracles wrought to confirm his different utterances1 but on the inherent truthfulness of a sinless character4 ,the moral aspect of his works is the predominant one4 ,in the fourteenth chapter of this ,gospel we have the following remarkable declaration1 which puts the whole subject in the clearest light4 ,philip says to him2 8,show us the ,father1 and it sufficeth us40 ,jesus said unto him1 8,have ,i been so long time with you1 and yet hast thou not known me1 ,philip8 ,he that hath seen me hath seen the ,father3 ,believest thou not that ,i am in the ,father1 and the ,father in me8 ,the words that ,i speak unto you1 ,i speak not of myself2 but the ,father that dwelleth in me1 he doeth the works4 ,believe me that ,i am in the ,father1 and the ,father in me1 or else believe me for the very works' sake40 7vs4 #haa47 ,this passage contains several most important considerations directly bearing on this subject4 ,i will mention them in order4 ,first-- ,philip asks for his complete conviction1 a visible miracle in the form of an appearance of ,god1 such as was recorded in the ,old ,testament as having taken place at ,sinai4 ,secondly4 ,our ,lord affirms that the manifestations of his character made in his person and work during his previous acquaintance with him were the truest manifestations of the person1 character and being of the ,father4 ,thirdly4 ,that the words which he spake and his entire working1 possessed an evidential character as proving that he came from the ,father3 and that his moral and spiritual perfections were such as to entitle his affirmation to be received on his own word4 ,fourthly4 ,that if ,philip was unable to receive them on this evidence1 which occupied the highest place1 then he was entitled to be believed on the evidence of his supernatural works1 8,if ye believe not me1 believe the works40 ,this entire passage makes it clear that in the mind of our ,lord the moral evidence afforded by him constituted a most important portion of the attestation of his divine mission4 ,nor was its value confined to those who witnessed it during the time of his personal ministry1 but he viewed it as extending to all time4 ,this is made clear by his reply to ,thomas in reference to his demand to be allowed to handle his risen body4 8,thomas1 because thou hast seen me1 thou hast believed1 ,blessed are they who have not seen1 and yet have believed40 7xx4 #bi47 ,with these statements before us1 unless we reject the authority of this ,gospel1 it is clear that those ,christian writers who have asserted that the evidence of the ,christian revelation rests exclusively on miracles as objective facts are in error4 ,but the same ,gospel refers us no less distinctly to the miracles of our ,lord as very important evidences of his divine mission1 although they are subordinated to those we have been considering4 ,one or two further references will be sufficient4 ,we have several declarations on this subject in the fifth chapter4 8,my ,father worketh hitherto1 and ,i work4 ,the ,son can do nothing of himself1 but what he seeth the ,father do2 for whatsoever things he doeth1 these also doeth the ,son likewise40 7vs4 #ag1 #ai47 8,the works which the ,father hath given me to finish1 the same works that ,i do bear witness of me that the ,father hath sent me40 7ver4 #cf47 ,here a plain parallel is drawn between the whole course of our ,lord's working and that of the ,father4 ,in this working he evidently intended to include his miracles4 ,taken in combination with his entire character the speaker affirms that they form a conclusive proof that the ,father had sent him4 ,he subsequently draws attention to the evidence afforded by his miracles as such1 8and the ,father himself which hath sent me hath borne witness of me40 7ver4 #cg47 ,so again in the tenth chapter1 8,the works that ,i do in my ,father's name1 they bear witness of me10 7ver4 #be47 ,a little further on the moral aspect of his miracles1 and their close connection with his entire working is distinctly brought forward4 8,many good works have ,i showed you from my ,father2 for which of those works do ye stone me80 7vs #cg1 #ch47 8,if ,i do not the works of my ,father1 believe me not1 but if ,i do1 though ye believe not me1 believe the works1 that ye may know and believe1 that the ,father is in me1 and ,i in him40 7vs4 #cg1 #ch47 ,no words can bring out more strongly the weight which our ,lord attached to the moral aspect of his miracles as proofs of his divine mission4 ,in the fifteenth chapter we have our ,lord's own reflections on the evidences which he had afforded of his ,messianic character1 during his entire ministry4 8,if ,i had not done among them the works which none other man did1 they had not had sin2 but now they have both seen and hated both me and my ,father40 7ver4 #bd47 ,here the miracles are classed with the other exhibitions of our ,lord's divine character2 and attention is especially drawn to the moral aspect of his entire working as in the highest degree evidential4 8,they have seen and hated both me and my ,father40 ,it is worthy of remark that while our ,lord uniformly spoke of his miracles as part of his general working1 by which he manifested his divine character1 the ,evangelist himself almost invariably calls them 8signs40 ,this is brought out when he gives us his own reflections on the results of his public ministry4 8,though he had done so many signs7#b7 before them yet they believed not on him40 7xii4 #cg47 ,so again1 8many other signs truly did ,jesus in the presence of his disciples1 which are not written in this book3 but these are written that ye might believe that ,jesus is the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god40 7xx4 #cj1 #ca47 ,in both these passages our ,lord's miracles are evidently referred to4 ,they are pronounced to be both evidential of his divine mission1 and at the same time to be manifestations of his character4 ,the ,evangelist while contemplating them as miracles never loses sight of their moral aspect4 ,in the ,synoptic ,gospels one allusion is made to the evidential purpose of a particular miracle which is worthy of notice4 ,generally speaking they are viewed by the authors of these ,gospels as simple manifestations of his divine character4 ,on this occasion1 when his power to forgive sins was questioned1 he directly performed a miracle to prove that he possessed it4 8,but that ye may know that the ,son of ,man hath power on earth to forgive sins1 he saith to the sick of the palsy1 ,i say unto thee1 arise1 and take up thy bed and go thy way into thine house40 ,in this case it is clear that the purpose of performing the miracle was not to prove the truth of any doctrinal statement which he had made2 but to establish the reality of his divine authority and commission4 ,while it is quite true that the authors of the ,synoptic ,gospels have not enunciated the purpose of our ,lord's miracles in the formal manner in which it is done in ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 it is clear that they must have taken the same view of their general character4 ,in fact the evidential purpose of their performance is less clearly stated in them than in the fourth ,gospel4 ,all four ,gospels view his miracles only as a portion of his superhuman manifestation1 and are ignorant of that broad distinction which has been laid down between them and the other portions of his divine working4 ,they are in fact included under it2 and it is the concurrence of both together1 and the moral aspect thereby impressed on the whole1 which proves him to be the ,christ4 ,it has been important to ascertain what are the views of the writers of the ,new ,testament on this subject1 because it has been strongly asserted by authors on both sides of the controversy that the doctrines of ,christianity are proved by miracles1 and that they can rest for their attestation on no other evidence4 ,the precise value of this position ,i will consider in the following chapter4 ,it must1 however1 be observed that this is not the view taken by the writers of the ,new ,testament4 ,there is not a single miracle recorded in it which is alleged to have been performed with the direct purpose of proving the truth of a single doctrine properly so called4 ,those wrought by our ,lord are uniformly represented as having been performed in proof of his divine mission1 or as an essential portion of the manifestation of the divine which dwelt within him4 ,as such they were signs1 precisely in the same manner as the performance of those actions which can only be performed by man are signs2 that is1 they are proofs of the presence of man4 ,in the same manner the actions performed by our ,lord are signs and proofs of the presence of the divine man ,jesus ,christ4 ,if our ,lord was in truth what he asserted himself to be1 supernatural manifestations would be the concomitants of his presence4 ,in exact conformity with these facts as we find them in the ,gospels is the direct dogmatic statement made by the author of the ,epistle to the ,hebrews on this subject4 ,after having asserted in the first chapter that divine revelation is made in the person of ,jesus ,christ1 and that ,god speaks to man under the ,christian dispensation 8in him1 who is the brightness of his glory1 and the express image of his person1 and upholding all things by the word of his power10 the author proceeds to compare it with the former dispensation1 and to give us his views of the evidence on which it rests4 8,how10 says he1 8shall we escape1 if we neglect so great salvation2 which at the first began to be spoken by the ,lord1 and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him4 ,god also bearing them witness both by signs and wonders1 and with divers miracles and gifts of the ,holy ,ghost1 according to his own will40 7ii4 #c1 #d47 ,these words distinctly inform us what were the writer's opinions as to the nature of the evidences on which ,christianity rests4 ,first1 it reposes on the testimony of ,christ respecting himself4 ,secondly1 it is confirmed by a number of miracles wrought by ,god4 ,this view is strictly in accordance with our ,lord's own affirmation respecting it as recorded in the fourth ,gospel1 8,i am one that bear witness of myself1 and the ,father that sent me hath borne witness of me40 7viii4 #ah47 ,with respect to numerous miracles recorded in the ,acts of the ,apostles1 they are affirmed to have been performed for purposes directly evidential1 not however to prove the truth of any doctrine1 but of our ,lord's ,messianic character4 ,the affirmations on this point are express4 8,in the name of ,jesus ,christ of ,nazareth1 rise up and walk40 7iii4 #f47 8,his name1 through faith in his name1 hath made this man strong40 7iii4 #af47 8,therefore let all the house of ,israel know assuredly1 that ,god hath made that same ,jesus whom ye have crucified1 both ,lord and ,christ40 7ii4 #cf47 ,of the fact of the resurrection1 they affirm that they were witnesses2 and that the miraculous powers imparted to them were the consequence of that event1 and a proof of its truth4 ,the nature of the other supernatural occurrences affirmed in the ,new ,testament must be fully considered hereafter4 ,there remain however two further statements1 made by the sacred writers respecting this subject1 which require to be briefly noticed here4 ,first1 although the ,gospels affirm that ,john the ,baptist had a divine commission to announce the immediate setting up of the kingdom of the ,messiah1 and even to point him out1 they expressly assert that he performed no objective miracle in confirmation of it4 ,his prophetical assertions rested for their verification on their fulfilment only1 i4e4 on the immediate appearance of a person who united in himself all the attributes of the ,messiah4 ,the following was the line of argument adopted by those who believed his testimony3 8,john did no miracle1 but all things that ,john spoke of this man were true40 ,secondly1 while in the ,apostolic ,epistles1 miracles are stated to have been performed by our ,lord1 and supernatural powers no less clearly asserted to have been at that very time actually present in the ,church1 there is only one miracle which is directly referred to in proof of the divine mission of ,christ4 ,i need not say that this is the greatest of all the miracles recorded in the ,gospels1 viz4 his resurrection from the dead4 ,on this their unanimous testimony affirms that ,christianity rests4 ,this is the one final and decisive proof of our ,lord's divine mission4 ,on its truth they affirm that their claims as divine teachers stand or fall4 ,his resurrection from the dead puts all his other miracles in the back ground in point of evidential value4 ,according to their statements it constitutes the one great assurance that ,god has given unto all men that ,jesus of ,nazareth is ,lord and ,christ4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that if this one miracle can be proved to have been an historical fact1 it carries with it the entire force of all the remaining miracles of the ,new ,testament4 ,but it leaves entirely untouched the moral aspects of our ,lord's divine character4 ,these1 ,i may say1 constitute a standing miracle which will continue to speak for itself in all time4 ,this evidence is again and again referred to by the writers of the ,apostolic ,epistles4 ,the two constitute one harmonious whole4 ,to the latter of these it is impossible to do more than refer in the present work2 ,i have already devoted a distinct volume to the examination of its evidential value1 in which ,i have examined ,christ's witness to himself2 here ,i must confine myself to the consideration of the witness borne to him by the ,father4 ,,chapter ,,iv4 ,,miracles1 ,,what ,,do ,,they ,,prove8 ,having considered the direct assertions in the ,new ,testament in reference to the supernatural1 it will be necessary to take a brief view of the question in relation to modern difficulties and objections4 ,the following subjects present themselves for our consideration3-- #ast4 ,to what extent1 and in what sense are miracles the proofs of a revelation8 #bnd4 ,are supernatural occurrences devoid of all moral environment capable of affording such proof8 #crd4 ,can doctrinal statements or moral truths be proved by miracles8 #dth4 ,are miracles objects of faith merely1 or if not1 how are they related to our reason2 and if in any sense they are objects of faith1 how can they be the media of proof8 ,it will be evident that these questions will immediately lay open a number of the most important considerations4 ,they can only be adequately dealt with in the subsequent portions of this work4 ,the natural place to discuss them will be when ,i come to consider the objections that can be urged against the possibility and credibility of miracles4 ,a few preliminary observations1 however1 will be necessary for the purpose of putting the reader in possession of some of the most important points of debate and of the positions which ,i intend to assume respecting them4 ,they will also help to clear the way for the solution of the various difficulties by which the subject has been attempted to be obscured4 ,the manner in which ,christianity claims to be a divine revelation1 as we have seen in the former chapter1 in its most proper and distinctive sense is that the person of ,jesus ,christ constitutes that revelation4 ,it is the manifestation of the divine character and perfections by means of the various acts and deeds of his earthly life and ministry4 ,it is a revelation of the divine shining forth in the human4 ,i have already adduced some of the affirmations of the sacred writers on this subject4 ,it would be easy to multiply them indefinitely4 ,perhaps it would be impossible to express the position which they take on this subject in more distinct language than by citing two brief passages in ,st4 ,paul's epistle to the ,colossians3 8,who is10 says the ,apostle1 8the image of the invisible ,god20 8in him dwelleth all the fulness of the ,godhead bodily40 ,both passages affirm1 as the writer's view1 that all revelation is made in the person of ,jesus ,christ4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that the ,christian revelation in its highest sense is not a body of abstract dogmas1 but that it consists of an objective fact1 the ,incarnation4 ,as ,god has manifested his eternal power and ,godhead in the material creation1 so he has manifested himself as a moral and spiritual being1 #ast1 imperfectly in the moral nature of man1 and afterwards perfectly1 in the perfect man who unites in himself the divine and human1 ,jesus ,christ4 ,god1 when he effected the work of creation1 made a manifestation of himself which chiefly revealed his power and wisdom4 ,when he effected the ,incarnation he made an additional manifestation of himself which chiefly revealed his moral character and perfections4 ,the four ,gospels contain the historical account of this manifestation1 as made in the actions and teaching of ,jesus ,christ4 ,as this revelation consists of a number of historical facts1 all that was necessary was that his life and actions should be correctly reported4 ,the remaining books of the ,new ,testament are historical in character1 with one exception1 and as far as they treat of doctrines1 they may be viewed as commentaries on the ,divine fact of the ,incarnation4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that the essence of ,christianity consists of a superhuman or divine fact1 the ,incarnation4 ,in this point of view the supernatural is not only a concomitant of ,christianity1 but it constitutes its essence4 ,it is the manifestation of a supernatural and superhuman being appearing within the sphere of the natural and the human4 ,it cannot be too carefully observed throughout this entire controversy that the character which is ascribed to ,jesus ,christ1 while it embraces every perfection of man1 is no less superhuman than the powers which are attributed to him are supernatural4 ,in this sense the supernatural is not merely an evidence of revelation1 but its essence4 ,the ,incarnation has frequently been designated a miracle4 ,to do so seems to me to incur the danger of involving the whole controversy in confusion of thought4 ,in a loose way of speaking1 the creative acts of ,god may be called miracles3 that is1 they involve a deviation from the previous order of existing things1 and the introduction of a new one2 all such results are unquestionable manifestations of supernatural agency1 but they differ wholly in conception from what we usually designate by the term miracle4 ,the ,incarnation1 therefore1 ought not to be placed on the same footing as miracles1 which are supernatural occurrences1 having a definite evidential value1 but with ,god's creative acts1 being the highest manifestation of himself which he has made to man4 ,it is perfectly true1 as ,i have already observed1 that the miracles of ,jesus ,christ stand in a double aspect1 as part of his supernatural manifestation1 and as possessing an evidential value4 ,it is clear1 therefore1 that a supernatural event such as the ,incarnation1 if evidential1 can only be selfevidential4 ,it was not wrought for the purpose of proving anything4 ,but1 as we have seen1 the sacred writers and our ,lord himself assert that in a certain sense it was selfevidential4 8,for the life was manifested1 and we have seen it and bear witness1 and show unto you that eternal life which was with the ,father and was manifested unto us40 ,a recent writer affirms that ,christianity professes to be a revelation of supernatural truths utterly inconceivable to reason1 and that such truths can only be proved by miracles4 ,i can understand what is meant by a truth derived from a supernatural source of information1 or one respecting a supernatural being or occurrence3 but what a supernatural truth can be contradistinguished from other kinds of truth is far from evident4 ,revelation may disclose truths which reason alone would have been unable to discover2 but this does not make the truths themselves1 when they are discovered1 either supernatural or incomprehensible4 ,i will now proceed to consider whether there is any real ground for affirming that occurrences which we designate as miracles are the only proofs of a divine revelation4 ,the same writer1 whose object is to prove that ,christianity is utterly destitute of all claims to our acceptance as a divine revelation1 endeavours to show that miracles1 viewed as bare objective facts1 are the only evidence which can substantiate such a mass of incredible assertions as those contained in the ,new ,testament1 and that their moral environment cannot be taken into account in estimating their evidential value4 ,for this purpose he quotes the following passage from ,dr4 ,mozley's ,bampton ,lectures3 8,dr4 ,mozley10 says he1 8supposes the case1 that if a person of evident integrity and loftiness of character had appeared eighteen centuries ago announcing himself as preexisting from all eternity1 the ,son of ,god1 the maker of the world1 who had come down from heaven1 and had assumed the nature of man1 in order to be the ,lamb of ,god that taketh away the sins of the world1 and so on1 enumerating the other doctrines of ,christianity2 ,dr4 ,mozley then adds1 what would be the inevitable conclusion of sober reason respecting that person8 ,the necessary conclusion of sober reason would be that he was disordered in his understanding4444 ,by no rational being would a just and a benevolent life be accepted as a proof of such announcements4 ,miracles are the necessary complements of the truth of such announcements1 which without them are powerless and abortive1 the fragments of a design which is nothing unless it is the whole4 ,they are necessary to the justification of such announcements1 which unless they are supernatural truth are the wildest delusions40--,supernatural ,religion4 ,in justice to ,dr4 ,mozley1 the passage which is omitted in this citation from his lectures ought to be quoted4 ,it is as follows3 8,what other decision could be come to when a man1 looking like one of our own selves1 and only exemplifying in his life and circumstances the ordinary course of nature1 said this about himself1 but that when reason had lost its balance a dream of supernatural and unearthly1 grandeur might be the result40--,bampton ,lectures4 ,some expressions in this passage leave it open to the assumption which this writer wishes to fasten on it that ,dr4 ,mozley intended to affirm that the only adequate proof of such affirmations as were made by ,jesus ,christ respecting himself would have been visible miracles wrought in confirmation of them4 ,this1 however1 is not necessarily its meaning1 for the omitted passage above cited1 distinctly affirms that the person who is supposed to make such assertions is only an ordinary good and holy but imperfect man4 ,but the assertions in question were not made by an ordinary man like ourselves1 but by one who is described as possessed of superhuman greatness and holiness and of profound spiritual insight into truth4 ,he is uniformly depicted as speaking with the fulness of knowledge of the subject on which he speaks4 ,i cannot therefore admit1 supposing the character of ,jesus to have been historical1 that if he had made such assertions respecting himself prior to the performance of his first miracle at ,cana1 they would have been utterly unworthy of serious attention4 ,it must be readily admitted that if they had been affirmed of himself by an ordinary man like ourselves1 no affirmation of his would have been a guarantee of their truth1 for the simple reason that they would have been selfcontradictory4 ,nor would the performance of a miracle have made them one atom more credible4 ,but the credibility of such an assertion1 if it had been made by such a person as ,jesus ,christ even prior to his performance of a single miracle1 is a wholly different question4 ,it follows1 therefore1 on the supposition that the delineation given us in the ,gospels is that of an historical reality1 that his assertions respecting himself would stand in a wholly different position from those of any other man4 ,he could neither deceive nor be deceived4 ,when he made assertions respecting himself he must have known whether they were true4 ,the assertions of such a person therefore would be worthy of all acceptation4 ,miracles are not the means of substantiating assertions respecting the truth of unseen realities1 nor are they used for such purposes in the ,new ,testament4 ,the whole question is one of adequate knowledge4 ,if we have the means of knowing that a person has a complete acquaintance with truths of which we are ignorant1 we can rationally accept them as true on his assurance that they are so1 exactly on the same principles as we accept the truths of physical science although we ourselves are ignorant of the processes by which they are arrived at4 ,to state the position generally1 it is quite rational to accept the affirmations of those who possess full knowledge of any subject of which we ourselves are profoundly ignorant4 ,the only thing necessary is to attain an assurance that the knowledge of our informant is adequate to justify his assertions4 ,it is on the ground of the fulness of his knowledge that we accept the assertions of ,jesus ,christ1 and not because he wrought a miracle for the purpose of proving that his assertions were true4 ,let us now consider in what sense miracles are a proof of the truth of a divine revelation4 ,i lay down that the proper function of miracles is to establish the truth of a divine commission4 ,from this we argue to the truth of the assertions of the persons who are intrusted with it4 ,if an ordinary man1 such as a prophet or an apostle1 were to affirm that he had a communication from ,god which he was directed to make to others1 or in other words that he had a divine commission1 it is evident that no one would be bound to believe him on his mere affirmation4 ,the simple and obvious reply would be1 ,give us some proof of the reality of the fact4 ,your claim is far too lofty to be admitted as valid on your simple affirmation4 ,the question then is1 how is such a claim to be tested8 ,i reply by the person who makes it performing some action which is adequate to prove that the ,great ,governor of the ,universe ratifies this claim4 ,he must do something analogous to what all persons who claim to be acting under commissions from others do1 i4e4 he must produce some direct and formal credentials from the authority in whose name he claims to be acting4 ,in this case the authority is ,god4 ,he must therefore perform some action which directly identifies himself with ,god4 ,how is this to be accomplished8 ,i answer by the performance of an unequivocal miracle which will directly connect him with the ,great ,governor of the ,universe4 ,i say unequivocal miracle1 because if there were any doubt as to its supernatural character it would be useless4 ,nor would it be of any avail if it were a bare objective fact in external nature1 devoid of its moral and spiritual environment4 ,what is required is some direct manifestation of the divine on the sphere of the human and the natural4 ,it must1 in fact1 exactly fulfil the character so often assigned to miracles in the ,gospels4 ,it must be a 1 or indication of the presence of ,god1 resembling as it were the ,great ,seal which is affixed to state documents as the final mark of sovereign authority4 ,of such a character are all the chief miracles recorded in the ,gospels4 ,the question about miracles has been beclouded by debating it in an abstract instead of in a concrete form2 thus forgetting that it is not every conceivable form of alleged supernatural occurrence with which we have to deal1 but the miracles recorded in the ,new ,testament4 ,by discussing it in this form it has been possible to raise a number of difficulties which may be abstractedly conceivable1 but which have no bearing whatever on the miracles in question4 ,thus it has been frequently urged that to enable us to be certain that an alleged miracle is really due to supernatural agency1 a jury of savants ought to be impanelled1 before whom the worker of the miracle should exhibit his miraculous operation4 ,they are to subject it to a variety of scientific tests4 ,even then if they have failed to discover error1 they are to demand a second and a third performance1 in order that it may be again and again submitted to the same process of scientific scrutiny4 ,until miracles can be submitted to and verified by tests of this description they have been affirmed to be unworthy of credit1 even on the strongest ordinary testimony4 ,i shall discuss this and kindred questions more fully in the subsequent portions of this volume1 when ,i consider the nature of the evidence which is adequate to prove the performance of a miracle4 ,for the present ,i shall only observe that the entire plausibility of this position arises from its being stated in an abstract or general form4 ,we cannot help seeing in reference to the chief miracles recorded in the ,new ,testament1 such as the care of blind1 lame or leprous persons1 instantaneously by a word or a touch1 that common sense is fully adequate to determine that such occurrences must belong to the regions of the supernatural and to no other4 ,two things are necessary to establish the reality of a supposed miracle4 ,first1 that the alleged fact should not only have been brought about by supernatural causes but previously announced by him who performs it3 secondly1 that the fact actually happened as it appeared to happen4 ,there can be no doubt that the power of juggling and sleight of hand1 to perform actions which would be supernatural1 if they were only what they appear to be1 is considerable1 and the difficulty of detection is great4 ,enthusiasm also when once excited1 is capable of generating various unreal appearances which if actual1 would be supernatural4 ,it is also mighty in those regions where the union takes place between mind and matter1 but the chief miracles recorded in the ,gospels belong to a wholly different order of occurrence4 ,if they took place as they are reported1 no one possessed of common sense can doubt as to whether they were due to supernatural agency4 ,it is no less clear that such miracles were occurrences in which successful imposture was impossible4 ,what is required to prove them is the evidence of common sense1 and not of scientific analysis4 ,let it be observed that it is not my intention to affirm that the whole of the supernaturalism recorded in the ,new ,testament is of the same unequivocal character4 ,the evidential value of a miracle viewed as a matter of common sense maybe briefly stated thus4 ,a person comes to me who affirms that he has a divine message to communicate4 ,i ask him to prove it4 ,he lays his hand on one whom ,i have known to be blind for the last twenty years1 tells him in the name of ,jesus ,christ to receive his sight1 and he forthwith receives it4 ,there is probably no person gifted with ordinary understanding who would not consider such an act to be an adequate proof of divine agency1 all theoretical or metaphysical difficulties to the contrary notwithstanding4 ,it will doubtless be objected that such an act would prove only the presence of a superhuman instead of a divine power4 ,this point will be fully considered hereafter4 ,for my present purpose it will be sufficient to fall back on the decision of common sense1 that he who can restore sight to the sightless eyeball1 by no other apparent instrumentality than a word or a touch1 can be no other than the ,maker of the ,universe4 ,i must now consider whether supernatural occurrences devoid of all moral environment1 are capable of proving a divine commission4 ,it has frequently been the habit1 both of the opponents and the defenders of ,christianity1 to discuss the subject of the evidential value of miracles apart from all reference to their moral environment4 ,as1 however1 the overwhelming majority of the miracles recorded in the ,new ,testament profess such an environment1 the question of the value of supposed miracles which are destitute of it1 forms no legitimate portion of the subject before us4 ,what might or might not be proved by them1 even if it could be determined satisfactorily1 is quite foreign to the present discussion1 which is limited to the truth or falsehood of those contained in the ,new ,testament4 ,the most important of these are not mere displays of power1 but have an unquestionable moral environment impressed upon them1 and they profess to have been wrought for a definite end and purpose4 ,this is less distinctly marked in some of the miracles recorded in the ,old ,testament1 but with them ,i have no present concern4 ,it will be sufficient to observe that while many of them were unquestionably performed in attestation of a divine mission1 as a class they bear another distinctive purpose1 viz4 that of correcting the polytheistic tendencies of the age4 ,hence their leading impress is that of power4 ,the necessity of counteracting the tendency which ,i have referred to1 rendered it necessary emphatically to assert the ,lordship of one ,god over universal nature1 in opposition to that conception of it so widely diffused throughout the ancient world1 which saw a distinct power exerted in every combination of material forces4 ,the very conception of a miracle as a supernatural occurrence1 brought about for the purpose of authenticating a revelation1 distinguishes such an action from one which involves only a simple exhibition of power4 ,all acts of moral agents must display a purpose of some kind4 ,no conception of ,god is of the smallest religious value which does not contemplate him as being a moral agent and a being on whose actions a moral character of some kind must be impressed4 ,consequently an act entirely devoid of all moral aspect cannot prove that it has resulted from direct divine intervention4 ,the difficulty has originated from dividing into three separate parts an action which is essentially one1 and contemplating separately the objective fact in the supernatural action1 the circumstances attending its performance1 and the purpose for which it was performed4 ,it is the union of all these which constitutes the occurrence in question an evidential miracle4 ,let me now offer a few observations on a very important point for our consideration4 ,can abstract doctrinal statements or moral truths be proved by miracles8 ,i have already observed that as far as the miracles of the ,new ,testament were wrought for directly evidential purposes1 they were performed1 not to prove particular doctrines1 but as the credentials of a divine mission1 or that they formed a part of the superhuman manifestation of our ,lord4 ,the apparent exceptions are those which were performed to attract attention to the divine message1 to assist in the foundation of the ,church1 or to bear witness to the truth of the ,resurrection4 ,these last were in fact attestations to the reality of the ,messianic character of ,jesus ,christ1 which is the highest conceivable form of a divine mission1 on which miracle the truth of ,christianity is directly pledged by the sacred writers4 ,a mere statement of the facts of the ,new ,testament is a practical solution of the difficulty4 ,it nowhere affirms that a miracle was ever performed to bear witness to the truth of an abstract doctrine4 ,i will now endeavour to lay down some general principles as to the relation in which doctrinal statements stand to supernatural manifestations4 ,as on such a subject it will be impossible to lay down a general rule which will be applicable to every supernatural event1 it will be necessary to consider each case by itself4 ,first1 that of our ,lord4 ,we believe his statements about unknown truths1 on the ground that he was perfectly veracious1 and had the most perfect knowledge of the subject on which he spoke4 ,the actions which he performed 7,i mean by these1 not his miracles merely1 but the entire course of his working7 are evidences of his divine character4 ,he himself avers that he possessed the most intimate knowledge of ,god1 and of the great realities of the spiritual world4 8,we speak10 says he1 8that we do know1 and testify that we have seen40 8,i speak that which ,i have seen with my ,father40 ,throughout the ,synoptics likewise he is represented as having the most entire knowledge of both spiritual and moral truth1 and as teaching direct from his own insight4 ,we believe the assertions1 not because he confirmed their truth by the performance of a miracle1 but because he afforded evidence that he was a veracious witness1 and fully acquainted with the subject on which he spoke4 ,his miraculous actions proved that he was ,god's messenger1 and as such were additional attestations to his veracity4 ,the acceptance of such affirmations as worthy of the highest credit may be correctly designated as acts of faith2 but let us never forget that such acts of faith are also high exercises of reason4 ,writers in opposition to ,christianity are never wearied in running a contrast between reason and faith1 and in representing the two as standing in opposition to each other1 and belonging to wholly different regions of thought4 ,nor can it be denied that they have received much encouragement to do this by the indistinct or misleading statements of some ,christian writers on the subject4 ,between them no little confusion has been introduced into the controversy1 and a general idea has become prevalent that reason and faith are two distinct1 if not opposing faculties1 each of which acts within a subject matter of its own4 ,the effect of this confusion has been disastrous4 ,my contention is that faith is only another name for reason when operating on a particular class of phenomena4 ,to enter on an elaborate proof of this would be out of place here2 a few illustrations must therefore suffice4 ,to accept information from persons who have knowledge of subjects which we have not studied1 or who have mental powers of insight or perception of which we are destitute1 or who have seen phenomena which we have not seen1 is an act in conformity with our highest reason4 ,a constant effort has been made by unbelievers to confound faith with credulity3 ,faith is not credulity1 but the acceptance of truth on adequate evidence1 and the rejection of mere affirmation1 when the evidence is inadequate4 ,on the other hand multitudes of ,christians have assiduously laboured to decry reason as the instrument for the investigation of truth4 ,i admit that it is not a perfect instrument1 but it is the only one which we have4 ,the light of a candle may not be all that we can wish1 but if we have no other we shall not improve our condition by extinguishing it4 ,let me illustrate this subject by a few examples4 ,we believe the assertions of ,dr4 ,livingstone about the interior of ,africa1 although we have no means of verifying them by ocular observation1 because we know that he has travelled there1 and we are persuaded that he is a veracious witness4 ,we accept the higher truths of astronomy1 not because we have studied them1 or are even able to appreciate the nature of the processes by which they have been arrived at1 but because they are affirmed by persons who have afforded evidence that they possess a high order of knowledge on that subject4 ,the same is true throughout the whole of the higher departments of science4 ,we may call this an act of faith if we like1 but it is also an act of our reason4 ,the same thing is true throughout every department of human knowledge4 ,it is astonishing how small a part of it is the result of our own personal observation4 ,it follows therefore that the attempts which are so constantly made to separate faith and reason1 and to erect an impassable wall between them1 are suicidal alike both to faith and reason4 ,as therefore we accept the affirmations of others on subjects within the limits of their own knowledge1 although we ourselves are ignorant of the processes by which it has been arrived at1 so we accept the affirmations of such a person as the ,jesus of the ,evangelists on those subjects on which he affirms that he possesses the fullest knowledge4 ,but it will be objected that some of these assertions are made respecting high mysteries incomprehensible to the human intellect4 ,can we accept such truths8 ,i answer that we are only capable of accepting propositions the two terms of which we are able to comprehend with more or less distinctness4 ,nothing has been the subject of greater abuse than the word 8mystery0 in connection with revelation4 ,it is frequently represented as denoting something which from end to end is utterly incomprehensible1 like the unknowable ,god of a certain system of philosophy4 ,in the ,new ,testament the meaning of the word 8mystery0 is not an incomprehensible proposition1 but a truth which once was hidden in the divine counsels1 and has been revealed by the ,gospel4 ,that which is actually unthinkable is incapable of affirmation or denial4 ,none of the affirmations of ,jesus ,christ partake of this character4 ,they are mysteries only in the sense that they ran up into spheres of thought which transcend the limits of human knowledge4 ,but this is done by all ultimate philosophical and scientific truths4 ,if it be urged that some of them are difficult or incapable of definition1 the same is true of not a few of the conceptions of science4 ,it is also true that they respect truths with which we could not be acquainted apart from such a revelation as that made in the person of ,jesus ,christ2 but this is true of the phenomena of ,creation likewise4 ,we do not acquire a knowledge of its phenomena by reasoning1 but by observation1 or from the statements of others when they lie beyond the limits of our own observation4 ,the ,incarnation1 including as it does the divine actions and the teaching of ,jesus ,christ1 is not the revelation of a dogma1 but the manifestation of a new fact4 ,this fact1 like all other phenomena1 although undiscoverable by our reasoning powers without the exercise of observation1 becomes after observation a fact on which reason may justly exercise its powers4 ,if he be really what he professed to be1 then his statements about himself give as an account of his previous history1 before he came under human observation4 ,let me now consider the relation in which miracles stand to the affirmations of those who claimed a commission from ,jesus ,christ to publish his religion in the world1 and to lay the foundation of the ,church4 ,i must here also adhere to my original position that miraculous powers are never described in the ,new ,testament as being used for the direct proof of dogmas1 but for the proof of the ,messianic character of ,jesus ,christ1 or of the divine commission of those who wrought them4 ,the truth of the assertions of its writers rests on no other foundation than the fulness of their knowledge of the subjects on which they spake1 whether acquired by ordinary or by supernatural means1 and on their veracity1 when they affirm that particular truths were within the limits of their knowledge4 ,thus ,st4 ,paul claims acceptance for the things which he asserted because he had been taught them by ,revelation from ,jesus ,christ1 not because he had proved their truth1 by working miracles in confirmation of them4 ,this course is uniformly adopted by him throughout his epistles4 ,the object of the mighty works that were wrought by him was to prove his own apostleship or the fact of the resurrection4 ,i must not allow myself to enter on the question of inspiration1 its nature and limitations1 or the degree of supernatural guidance afforded to the apostles and their followers4 ,such an inquiry would be foreign to the present subject1 which is strictly historical4 ,it is of course a direct and necessary inference that when the miracles proved the reality of the commission of those who performed them1 they also proved that they were fully instructed in its terms1 and entitled to credit within its limits4 ,but the extent of their enlightenment can only be inferred from the nature of the commission itself1 and from the facts and phenomena of the ,new ,testament4 ,it has been an idea widely spread that inspiration must confer a general infallibility4 ,the inference that a man is rendered infallible in general matters because he is invested with a limited and definite commission1 and with endowments adequate to render him competent to fulfil the purposes of his mission1 is one which the premises will not justify4 ,the utmost that the possession of such a commission can prove is that its possessor is enlightened up to its subject matter1 but no further4 ,but in the present discussion ,i need not go beyond the affirmations of the ,new ,testament4 ,the actions performed by ,jesus ,christ proved him to be the ,messiah4 ,the miracles wrought by the apostles1 were performed either to prove the fact of his resurrection1 i4e4 that he was the ,messiah1 or their own divine mission1 which was dependent on its truth1 or to draw attention to their message4 ,the supernatural gifts so frequently referred to in the epistles1 are affirmed to have been designed for the building up of the ,church into a distinct community1 and when that purpose was accomplished they were to cease4 ,being functional1 the enlightenment communicated by them was necessarily limited to the special subject matter on which they were exercised4 ,in this point of view miracles may be viewed as attestations of the veracity of the persons who performed them1 and of the sufficiency of their knowledge on the subjects they were specially commissioned to communicate4 ,but the question still remains for consideration1 ,can miracles prove moral truths8 ,i answer emphatically in the negative4 ,if dogmas1 which may be viewed as intellectual truths1 are incapable of a direct proof by miracles1 still more so are moral truths4 ,such truths can rest only on a moral basis4 ,with respect to the miracles recorded in the ,new ,testament1 the question is nugatory1 for it nowhere affirms that its miracles were wrought for such a purpose4 ,it is true that ,jesus ,christ1 as the great legislator of the kingdom of heaven1 gave an authoritative utterance to many moral precepts as the laws of his kingdom4 ,this royal right of legislation was inherent in his ,messiahship4 ,but to give utterance to moral truths in a legislative capacity1 has no connection with attempting to prove them by authority4 ,ordinary human legislation has its authoritative utterances4 ,but when it does this1 it does not rest the truths themselves on authority1 or base them on adventitious testimony4 ,our ,lord and his apostles uniformly appealed to the internal perceptions of our moral and spiritual nature as the only ground on which moral obligation rests4 ,let it be observed1 however1 that this by no means presupposes the truth of the absurd proposition1 that every man1 however imperfect or degraded1 is capable of reasoning out all moral truth for himself4 ,on the contrary1 definite moral knowledge requires to be communicated1 as all other kinds of knowledge4 ,its great principles require to be enunciated1 and to be worked out to their special applications4 ,but the principles themselves1 as far as their binding power is concerned1 must ultimately rest on the internal perceptions of our moral and spiritual being4 ,a miracle1 therefore1 can communicate to them no higher degree of certainty or obligation4 ,the only thing which it can aid in establishing is1 that one invested with a divine commission may have a right to claim obedience to special precepts on the authority of ,god1 in whom all moral obligation centres4 ,but even in this case1 the ground on which the obligation rests is a moral one1 which no miracle can possibly prove or even confirm4 ,a moral teacher can only appeal to that in man which we variously designate as conscience1 moral sense1 or the principles which are the foundation of our moral perceptions4 ,the fact that many men through a long course of evil get morally blinded does not alter the case4 ,it only exemplifies a remarkable saying of our ,lord1 8,if the light that is in thee be darkness1 how great is that darkness40 ,when the light within us has become darkness1 there is nothing left to which an appeal to the sense of duty or obligation can be made4 ,the objection urged against ,christianity1 that because a miracle cannot prove a moral truth it is therefore useless1 is quite beyond the question at issue4 ,the special function of the ,christian revelation is one far higher than the mere laying down of rules for the regulation of human conduct4 ,its great purpose is to impart to man a moral and spiritual power1 which is able to make obedience to the moral law a possibility2 to supply a motive of sufficient potency to make us capable of resisting the vehemence of our passions2 and one which is able to lift the morally degraded from their degradation1 and to strengthen the holy in their holiness4 ,according to the teaching of the ,new ,testament1 this constitutes the great distinctive purpose of ,christianity1 and the end of all divine revelation4 ,this most important truth has been greatly overlooked in the present controversy4 ,it entirely disposes of the objection that if moral truth cannot be proved by miracles1 they must be valueless4 ,to such a revelation the presence of the supernatural is essential4 ,but it by no means follows because miracles are unable to impart to us a sense of moral obligation1 that a duly commissioned moral teacher would be useless4 ,they might prove his superior knowledge1 or as attesting a divine commission1 enable him to bring obligations already existing to bear on the mind with superior power4 ,thus it by no means follows that because men possess in their mental constitution the great principles on which scientific truths are based1 each man is able to reason them out for himself4 ,the most highly gifted man would make slow progress without a teacher4 ,as ,i have already observed1 moral truth is capable of being taught like all other truth2 and although a miracle cannot prove it1 it may establish the fact that the worker of one is a man eminently entitled to be heard on the great subjects of moral obligation1 or that he is able to communicate knowledge which is capable of acting mightily on our moral being4 ,i must now proceed to offer a few observations on the question1 ,are miracles objects of faith8 and if they are so in any sense1 how can they be the media of proof of a revelation8 ,the author of 8,supernatural ,religion0 starts the following difficulty in connection with this subject3 8,consciousness of the difficulties which beset miracles in the present age has led many able men to deal thus illogically with them1 and to represent them alternately as evidence and as objects of faith40 ,he then proceeds to refer to ,dr4 ,arnold1 ,professor ,baden ,powell1 and ,archbishop ,trench1 as having been in various degrees guilty of making this confusion4 ,i am not prepared to deny that many ,christian writers have expressed themselves with great indistinctness on this subject1 especially in works where miracles have been only referred to incidentally1 and which only partially treat of the supernatural elements of ,christianity4 ,this question will be discussed more fully when we consider his definite objections2 but it will tend to a clearer understanding of the subject if in the present place1 ,i lay down the following propositions3-- ,i4 ,that it is impossible to believe in any assertion which contradicts the first principles of our reason1 even if it were supposable that a miracle could be wrought in confirmation of it4 ,,ii4 ,that1 although the illumination which reason imparts is imperfect1 yet as it is the only instrument that we possess for the investigation of truth1 attempts to disparage it are absurd4 ,,iii4 ,so far is faith from standing in opposition to reason1 that it is a legitimate branch of it when exercised on a special subject matter4 ,,iv4 ,that beliefs which reason refuses to authorise do not originate in faith but in credulity4 ,v4 ,that even those who entertain irrational convictions are compelled to base them on evidence of some kind which is satisfactory to themselves3 that is to say1 on the dictates of their own imperfect reason4 ,,vi4 ,that1 while we can believe in nothing that is contrary to our reason1 yet it is perfectly rational to believe in many things which our reason would have been unable to discover4 ,,vii4 ,that extraordinary facts which lie beyond the limits of human experience are not contrary to our reason3 and it is perfectly rational to believe them whenever they are adequately attested4 ,,viii4 ,that a large portion of our beliefs on subjects scientific1 philosophical1 historical1 moral1 and religious1 rest on testimony2 the belief in them is highly rational1 when the knowledge of those from whom we derive our information is adequate3 and consequently that faith is a principle coextensive with the activities of the human mind1 and is by no means confined to subjects simply religious1 however intimately it may be connected with them4 ,a few brief observations will suffice in this part of our subject4 ,it will be observed that ,i have included under the term 8reason0 the whole of our mental processes which are necessary for the cognition and the discovery of truth4 ,these include1 not only our powers of inductive and deductive reasoning1 but our intuitions1 our forms of thought1 those powers of our mind1 which whether intuitional or instinctive1 form the foundation of many of our most important convictions and our moral conceptions4 ,these constitute our reason as distinct from our reasoning powers4 ,no little confusion has been introduced into this controversy from the want of attending to this distinction4 ,it has been asserted that we can accept things as matters of faith which to our reason would be utterly incredible4 ,this assertion has arisen from the confusion of things which differ widely1 viz4 things which our reason might have been unable to discover1 but which when discovered may be perfectly rational1 and things directly contradictory to reason4 ,the existence for example of a square circle is a thing absolutely incredible1 and while thus contradictory to reason1 it is impossible to accept it by faith4 ,so would any doctrine which in a similar manner contradicted the first principles of our rational convictions4 ,no more pernicious principle can be laid down than that things which are contradictory to our reason can be accepted by the principle of faith4 ,such a principle would divide the human mind into two hostile camps1 and if carried to its logical consequences1 must land us in universal scepticism4 ,it by no means follows that things which transcend our rational powers to discover must be contrary to our reason when they have been discovered4 ,we can only arrive at the knowledge of unknown facts by observation1 or accept them on the testimony of others4 ,until they have been brought within our knowledge in this way1 no amount of reasoning could lead to their discovery4 ,in a similar manner with respect to several of the facts in the ,new ,testament connected with the ,incarnation1 our reason might never have discovered them1 but when they have been discovered1 they may form suitable subjects on which to exert its energies4 ,the whole of the confusion in which this question has become involved has originated in the assumption that faith is a faculty of the mind distinct and separate from our reason1 and in a certain sense opposed to it2 and that things which cannot be subjects of rational conviction may yet be the objects of faith4 ,whatever opinions may have been held by divines upon this subject1 ,i can discover nothing which countenances them in the ,new ,testament4 ,to what class of truths is the word 8faith0 properly applied8 ,i answer to those which we accept on testimony4 ,it has been asserted that some of the first principles of our rational convictions1 such as our belief in the existence of an external world1 or in the truth of experience1 is an act of faith4 ,this1 however1 is to introduce a confusion of thought4 ,such convictions can be only acts of faith as far as we believe in ourselves4 ,viewing faith as the acceptance of truth on adequate testimony1 it follows that all our knowledge of things1 whether natural or supernatural1 that is not the result of the action of our own minds1 but which we accept on the testimony of others1 is an act of faith4 ,our acceptance of them depends on the validity of the testimony that can be adduced for them4 ,the important question for determination is1 is the subject on which it is given within the knowledge of the informant8 ,if it respects a fact1 has he witnessed it1 or received it from others who have8 ,are his powers of observation good and his judgment sound8 ,is he worthy of credit8 ,the determination of these and similar points is the proper office of our rational powers1 yet the acceptance of the fact is an act of faith4 ,when our reason is satisfied on all these points1 faith becomes an act of reason4 ,to assert that the acceptance of supernatural facts belongs to a faculty of our minds which we designate faith1 and that our acceptance of others is the result of the action of our reason1 is to lay down a distinction entirely of our own creation4 ,in both cases the evidences must form the subject of rational investigation1 and they must be accepted or rejected as they approve themselves to our reason4 ,it will perhaps be urged1 that the acceptance of propositions1 such as the doctrinal statements of the ,new ,testament1 is an act of faith which stands out in manifest contradistinction to an act of reason4 ,it would be so unquestionably1 if we accepted them on insufficient evidence2 but when we do so with the knowledge that others have a full acquaintance with the subject on which they speak1 it is in the highest degree rational to accept and to act on their testimony4 ,a large portion of the business of life is conducted on this principle4 ,a man is ignorant on some subject1 or he distrusts his own judgment respecting it3 he consults one who knows1 or on whose judgment he relies4 ,for example3 let us suppose that ,i have a bottle full of a certain substance2 ,i do not know whether it is a medicine that ,i am in need of1 or a deadly poison4 ,i consult my chemist1 and without hesitation ,i act on his opinion4 ,in all such cases 7and they are spread over the entire sphere of life7 we act on faith2 but it is a faith which is in conformity with the dictates of reason4 ,the function of the latter is to ascertain the adequate knowledge and the veracity of the person whose assurance we accept4 ,if it is a rational act thus to receive truths on the testimony of man1 whose knowledge must be imperfect1 it must be still more so to accept them on the authority of him who knows all things1 i4e4 ,god4 ,i am aware that certain writers have given such a representation of faith as to produce the impression that it is one of its special functions to accept certain dogmas1 the terms of which are extremely obscure1 or absolutely incomprehensible4 ,but no rational evidence can be adduced in support of this position4 ,to exert actual belief in a proposition the terms of which are incomprehensible1 is an impossibility1 and we only deceive ourselves when we imagine that we can4 ,all that we can do in such cases is to repeat words1 but if they have no definite meaning we cannot believe them3 for the act of faith or conviction is founded on the affirmation that the two terms of a particular proposition agree4 ,it is quite true that the facts and statements of the ,new ,testament run up into principles which transcend our limited power of reason2 but this is common to it1 and every system of science or philosophy2 and forms no peculiarity of religion4 ,i am far from wishing to affirm that theologians have not fallen into this practice2 but my concern is not with them1 but with the statements of the ,new ,testament4 ,one of the most important acquisitions made to our mental science in the present day is that we have ascertained that there are limits to our mental powers beyond which we cannot penetrate4 ,this was imperfectly realized by many of the reasoners of earlier times1 and the result has been that they have fallen into a hazy mysticism1 or logomachy4 ,equally pernicious is the view that there is something particularly meritorious in accepting truth on little or no evidence1 and that to do so is a high act of faith4 ,not only is this founded on no rational principle1 but it is entirely unsupported by any account of faith as given in the ,new ,testament1 which again and again assumes the contrary position4 ,faith is the acceptance of truths which lie beyond the sphere of our personal knowledge on an adequate attestation4 ,if an astronomer should happen to be ignorant of chemistry1 and accept its truths on the testimony of one who was an eminent master of it1 this would constitute an act of faith4 ,surely such an act is one which is highly rational4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that although our belief in miracles being founded1 as it now must be1 on testimony1 is an act of faith1 yet it is also an act of our reason4 ,it is1 therefore1 by no means absurd to speak of miracles as objects of faith1 and at the same time as possessing an evidential value4 ,we accept them as we do all other adequately attested facts1 and reason on them in the same manner as we do on other facts4 ,this is the precise course which will be pursued by the overwhelming majority of astronomers who will be unable to witness the coming transit of ,venus4 ,they will accept the facts on adequate testimony1 and afterwards use them as media of proof4 ,,chapter ,v4 ,,the ,,antecedent ,,improbability ,,of ,,miracles4--,,the ,,unknown ,,and ,,unknowable ,,god4 ,the proof on priori grounds that an event is either possible or probable1 cannot establish that it has actually occurred4 ,this must rest on its own particular evidence4 ,to prove that a revelation is both possible and probable1 and that it ought to be evidenced by miracles1 may form an essential portion of our general argument1 because the degree of probability of the occurrence of a particular fact affects the amount of positive evidence necessary to establish its truth4 ,but the proof that a revelation has actually been given1 or a miracle wrought1 can only be effected through the same media as those through which other facts are established4 ,to prove that a revelation is probable will not be of the smallest avail to prove that one has been actually given1 without adequate proof of the fact itself4 ,still the examination of the antecedent question is in this case particularly important1 because modern unbelief boldly affirms that a revelation and its attestation of miracles are both impossible and incredible4 ,if this can be demonstrated1 the discussion of the evidence that can be adduced for them as facts is a useless expenditure of our reasoning powers2 for no evidence can prove the occurrence of that which is impossible4 ,it may be assumed1 however1 that those who make this affirmation are not quite satisfied as to the cogency of their reasonings2 because1 after having demonstrated1 as they allege1 that miracles are impossible1 they proceed to attack the evidence of those narrated in the ,gospels1 and pronounce it worthless4 ,as1 therefore1 the opponents of ,christianity boldly affirm that both a supernatural revelation and miracles are impossible1 it is necessary that the defender of ,christianity should examine the validity of the assertion4 ,our opponents constantly charge us with reasoning in a circle1 or assuming the fact which ought to be proved4 ,to avoid even the appearance of this1 ,i lay down the following positions3-- ,if direct atheism is a just conclusion from the phenomena of the ,universe1 it follows that a divine revelation is impossible4 ,nor are miracles in any proper sense of the word less so1 because they are not merely facts occurring in external nature1 but facts in the production of which we recognize intelligence and will4 ,with the principles of atheism the occurrence of an extraordinary event is quite compatible1 because as it cannot rise to any higher knowledge than that of phenomena1 the knowledge of the invariability of past phenomena is incapable of giving the fact that all future phenomena will resemble the past4 ,still the occurrence of a fact1 however extraordinary1 would not constitute a miracle1 and would prove only the existence of an unknown force in the universe1 or the predominance of chance4 ,the same remark is equally applicable to that form of modern atheism which does not affirm that no ,god exists1 but contents itself with the denial that there is any evidence that there is one4 ,nor is the case altogether different with regard to pantheism4 ,according to this system1 ,god is only another name for nature1 which works out every form of fleeting existence for itself in an unceasing round of unconscious selfevolution4 ,the essence of its affirmation is1 that ,god has no conscious personal existence1 but that ,he is only another name for the blind unconscious forces of the universe4 ,such a being 7if it is possible to conceive of it as a being at all1 or as a unity7 is everlastingly making a revelation of itself by a ceaseless evolution of phenomena1 the result of the blind action of its inherent forces4 ,but to whom8 ,obviously only to beings capable of reason and consciousness1 whom it 7,i dare not say1 ,he7 has evolved out of its own bosom1 and will again resolve into unconsciousness4 ,prior to their evolution this mighty must have been everlastingly making manifestations of itself1 without a single being in existence capable of recognizing them4 ,whatever be the result of such theories in a logical point of view1 it is evident that if pantheism be a rational account of the order of the universe1 a revelation and miracles1 in any sense in which such terms can bear meaning1 are impossible4 ,no less applicable is the same remark to that form of pantheism held by ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer1 which1 while it affirms the existence of a cause of all things1 as alike required by the demands of philosophy1 science1 and religion1 yet affirms that ,he is unknown and unknowable1 and that every thing which is knowable1 although a manifestation of that great unknown cause1 yet conveys no idea of ,him that the intellect can apprehend4 ,in one word1 the unknown cause of all things is inconceivable1 and incapable of becoming the subject of rational thought4 ,the intellect cannot help assuming the existence of this cause of all things2 but all that it can affirm of him is1 that ,he is unknown and unknowable2 and that everything within the bounds of our knowledge1 though it may represent some mode of his existence1 cannot be he1 or like him4 ,with respect to this theory1 while it cleverly evades some of the harsher difficulties of pantheism and atheism1 it is not too much to say that it is a civil way of bowing ,god out of the universe1 of which ,he is alleged to be the cause4 ,he can neither be a person1 nor have wisdom1 nor be benevolent1 nor be capable of conscious selfmanifestation2 because all these conceptions are limited and finite4 ,all that we can know of ,him is1 that such a cause exists beyond present phenomena2 and that we are condemned respecting ,him1 to a profound and perpetual ignorance4 ,it is possible to designate such a being by the name of ,god1 but it would be to use the term in a sense peculiar to those who thus employ it4 ,such a ,god is a bare abstract conception of the intellect1 void of all moral value4 ,it is sufficient for my present purpose to observe that it is impossible for the unknown and the unknowable to make a revelation of himself4 ,consequently ,st4 ,paul's affirmation with respect to the unknown ,god at ,athens1 8,whom therefore ye ignorantly worship1 ,him declare ,i unto you0 7,acts xvii4 #bc71 is untrue4 ,to such a ,god a revelation of ,himself1 and miracles to confirm it1 are alike impossible4 ,it is evident1 therefore1 that if either of these principles can be demonstrated to be a true account of the nature of things1 all further discussion as to the truth of a revelation or of miracles is useless4 ,let us take the most favourable hypothesis1 that of ,mr4 ,spencer4 ,it concedes that the necessities of reason compel us to assume the existence of an unknown cause of all things1 which may be called ,god4 ,but ,he is unknowable2 ,he is inscrutable4 ,no conception of ,him can be realized in thought2 it follows1 therefore1 that no revelation of such a being can be made to the finite intellect of man1 for if a revelation of ,him could be made1 ,he cannot be unknowable4 ,this being so1 the person who attempts to reason out the truth of ,christianity is placed under a difficulty4 ,christianity assumes the existence of a personal ,god1 possessed of moral attributes4 ,this is the very truth1 the evidence of which these systems assert to be wanting4 ,the ,christian advocate1 therefore1 has only two courses before him3 ,first1 ,to assume1 in conformity with the all but universal belief of mankind1 that a personal ,god exists2 and then to argue for the truth of ,christianity1 and to answer the objections urged against it4 ,when we do this1 objectors affirm that we beg the question4 ,or1 ,secondly1 ,to prove the existence of a personal ,god2 and then to argue for the truth of revelation4 ,if he adopts the latter course1 he is compelled to adduce the proof on which the belief in theism rests1 and to answer the objections to it--or1 in other words1 to compose a bulky volume1 before he can get at the immediate subject of inquiry4 ,now ,i affirm that the defender of ,christianity is no more open to the charge of begging the question when he assumes the existence of a personal ,god as the foundation of his reasonings1 than the author of a treatise on trigonometry is1 who takes for granted the truth of ,euclid's propositions4 ,the author of the work to which ,i have already referred does his utmost to fasten on the modern defenders of ,christianity the charge that they begin and end in assumptions4 ,i will not deny that much ambiguous language has been used on this subject1 but ,i trust ,i shall show that the charge is utterly unfounded4 ,i must briefly notice a few of his reasonings4 ,at page #fh he writes as follows3 8,dr4 ,mozley is well aware that the assumption of a #8personal' ,god is not susceptible of proof2 indeed1 this is admitted in the statement that the definition is an assumption40 ,an assumption1 ,i ask1 in what sense8 ,is it a simple assumption without evidence1 taken for granted for the bare purposes of argument2 or is it one which1 though taken for granted in the present case1 rests on a substantial basis of evidence previously established1 and which bears the same relation to the question of miracles which the truths of ,euclid do to those of trigonometry8 ,the latter is the fact though the mode in which the writer puts it implies the former4 ,without referring to the authority of any particular author1 is he not fully aware that theists maintain that their belief in a ,personal ,god rests on a basis of proof which commends itself to their reason8 ,have not numbers of men1 endowed with the highest powers of intellect1 accepted it as satisfactory8 ,yet he seeks to imply that1 after all1 it is an assumption4 ,it is true that in the argument for miracles we take it for granted2 but we do so1 because the proof has commended itself to our highest reason4 ,i admit that ,dr4 ,mozley has used1 in speaking of this subject1 language which ,i cannot but think is wanting in precision4 ,still it does not bear the meaning that this author seeks to fasten on it4 8,it is then to be admitted10 says he1 8that historically1 and looking to the general actual reception of it1 this conception of ,god was derived from revelation4 ,not from the first dawn of history to the spread of ,christianity in the world do we see in mankind at large any belief in such a ,being40 ,the learned author then states1 at considerable length1 the philosophic and vulgar views entertained of ,god1 and shows their inadequacy and imperfection1 and concludes as follows3 8,but although this conception of the ,deity has been received through the channel of the ,bible1 what communicates a truth is one thing1 what proves it is another40 ,he then proceeds to summarize the general proof4 ,i cannot think this statement altogether free from ambiguity4 ,whatever may have been the precise forms in which the ideas of the vulgar or the philosopher were embodied1 there is strong proof that a higher and better conception of ,god1 though indefinite and indistinct1 underlay them all4 ,the most degraded polytheist has indistinct conceptions of a ,supreme ,god above all the degraded objects of his worship4 ,it seems to me impossible that such a conception of ,god can have been attained from revelation4 ,it may1 in a certain sense1 be said1 looking at the precise form in which it is embodied1 that it has been derived by us historically from the ,jewish race4 ,but it must have had a prior origin4 ,st4 ,paul considered that the material universe manifested ,his eternal power and ,godhead4 ,the primitive form of all the great oriental religions contained in them the idea of ,god4 ,it is simply absurd to affirm that they derived it from the ,bible4 ,it is true that the existence of a primitive revelation anterior to the ,bible has often been assumed to account for this knowledge1 but this is a bare assumption of which we have no proof1 and whose only basis is conjecture4 ,judaism and ,christianity have been instrumental in widely spreading correct conceptions of the ,deity and dissipating false ones4 ,yet if the conception had not existed in the mind at least implicitly1 no formal revelation could have put it there1 for every such revelation must be conveyed in language1 and all language is meaningless1 unless the mind can realize its conceptions4 ,the assertion1 therefore1 that the conception of ,god has been first communicated through the channel of the ,bible1 and is afterwards proved by reason1 seems to me to be one not devoid of danger4 ,on the contrary1 our belief that ,god exists is the very precondition of our being able to believe that ,he has revealed ,himself4 ,this conception revelation may modify1 invest with a higher moral character1 and import into it definiteness and precision1 but it cannot create it4 ,it is on such grounds that the author in question seeks to involve his reasoning and that of all other defenders of ,christianity in a vicious circle4 ,i fully admit that the conception of ,god has been elevated and purified by the influence of ,christianity1 and that the teaching of ,christianity on this subject is in conformity with our highest reason4 ,but it is absurd to affirm that this is reasoning in a circle1 and that the ,christian argument involves reasoning from ,theism to ,christianity and from ,christianity back to ,theism4 ,the following passage1 cited by ,professor ,mozley from ,baden ,powell1 is referred to by this author as a proof that all our reasonings on this subject are a simple argument from reason to revelation1 and from revelation to reason4 ,the passage itself is a clear statement of the grounds of the charge1 and requires our careful consideration4 8,everybody may collect from the order and harmony of the physical universe the existence of a ,god2 but in acknowledging a ,god1 we do not thereby acknowledge this peculiar or doctrinal conception of a ,god4 ,we see in the structure of nature a mind1 a universal mind1 but still a mind which only operates and expresses itself by law4 ,nature only does and can inform us of mind in nature2 but in no other sense does nature witness to the existence of an omnipotent ,supreme ,being4 ,of a universal mind out of nature1 nature says nothing2 and of an omnipotence which does not possess an inherent limit in nature1 she says nothing either4 ,and therefore that conception of a supreme ,being which represents ,him as a spirit independent of the physical universe1 and able from a standingpoint external to nature1 to interrupt its order1 is a conception of ,god for which we must go elsewhere4 ,that conception is attained from revelation1 which is asserted to be proved by miracles4 ,but that being the case1 this doctrine of theism rests itself upon miracles1 and therefore miracles cannot rest on this doctrine of theism40 ,it will be necessary carefully to point out the inaccurate reasoning of this passage4 ,first3 ,the author speaks of nature as another expression for the forces1 laws1 and phenomena of the physical universe1 and for these alone4 ,to this ,i have no objection1 for it would greatly conduce to clearness if it was always confined to this meaning4 ,but while he uses it thus1 he nowhere tells us in what relation man1 including his faculties1 intellectual and moral1 and above all1 his will1 stands to nature4 ,are they included in1 or excluded from it8 ,do they1 or do they not1 form a part of it8 ,if they are included in nature1 then there are other facts in nature bearing on the being of a ,god1 beyond those on which the author reasons4 ,if they are excluded1 then the reasoning is inadequate to sustain his conclusion4 ,our reasonings respecting ,god are founded not only on the forces and laws of physical nature1 but on man1 his reason1 his conscience1 and his will4 ,what makes this fallacy the more plausible is that the term nature is very frequently used to include man1 as well as the forces and laws of the material universe4 ,as far as the physical universe is concerned1 the mind infers the existence of a ,god from its order and its harmonies2 that is to say1 having observed that order and harmony have been produced by intelligence within the sphere of our own observation1 and being deeply convinced on other grounds of reasoning that they are incapable of resulting from any other source1 we infer that the results we behold in nature are due to a similar principle which we experience in ourselves4 ,such an inference is not due to simple observation of the order of the universe only1 but unites with it an act of reasoning founded on our own selfconscious being4 ,but the intelligence which produces order1 as far as we are cognisant of it1 is invariably united with will4 ,we therefore infer from the order and harmonies of nature1 not simply the conception of a ,god1 such as the ,god of pantheism2 but1 if they are valid to prove anything at all1 of a ,god who is possessed of intelligence adequate to arrange the order1 and of purpose adequate for its production4 ,if the inference of the existence of a ,god from the works of nature is valid1 it must be of a ,god possessed of the attributes in question1 for all our inferences on such a subject derive their validity from applying to them the analogies of our reason4 ,it is quite true that in the structure of the material universe we see only the indications of a mind operating and expressing itself by law2 that is to say1 we observe in the physical universe no instances of its violation4 ,but ,,we1 that is the reasoning1 rational beings1 whether existing in nature or outside it1 have inferred from the structure of the universe the existence of mind1 and we know of no mind which is not possessed of conscious intelligence and will4 ,if our reasoning from the order of the material universe is valid to prove the presence of mind1 which is a conception entirely derived from our consciousness of ourselves1 it must be equally so to prove the existence of purpose and volition1 for we know nothing of mind which is devoid of these attributes4 ,the material universe proves that its order and harmony is the result of the action of mind2 but it cannot prove that the mind which produced this order and harmony is unable to introduce a different one4 ,but if our minds form part of nature1 then they are a proof that the author of nature has produced something else in nature besides the order and harmonies of the physical universe4 ,if they are outside nature1 then we have direct evidence of the existence of beings outside and above nature1 i4e4 above the physical forces of the universe4 ,it follows that if finite beings possessed of intelligence and will1 exist within nature or without it1 a ,god who possesses similar powers may exist also4 ,in a narrow and restricted sense it may be quite true that nature1 i4e4 matter and its phenomena1 only informs us of the presence of mind in nature1 the partner and correlative of organized matter4 ,but let us here guard against a latent fallacy in this mode of statement4 ,we learn the presence of mind1 not from material nature1 but by the application of our own reason to the investigation of what its phenomena denote4 ,this is overlooked in the above argument4 ,it is perfectly true that as a mere matter of phenomenal appearance1 we do not actually behold in natural phenomena manifestations of mind acting outside nature4 ,in fact we do not see mind at all1 but simply infer its presence from the phenomena before us through the agency of our own reason2 and this inference carries along with it all the other attributes of mind4 ,the writer before me is one of those who affirm that the utmost our minds can infer from the contemplation of nature1 in which he includes every species of vital organism1 is the presence of order and harmony2 and that any inference that its phenomena testify to the presence of adaptation1 contrivance and design is invalid4 ,i reply that this affirmation is only valid on the assumption of a principle which altogether denies that from natural phenomena we can infer the existence of mind4 ,but we also observe in natural phenomena1 and above all in animal and vegetable structures1 that the results effected are produced1 not by simple forces1 but by the careful adjustment of many1 or by one counteracting and qualifying the action of another1 and by forces intersecting one another at precisely the right time and place4 ,had any of these occurred otherwise1 the result would have been different4 ,throughout nature we observe innumerable instances in which various forces have thus combined to produce a definite result4 ,this we usually designate by the word 8adaptation40 ,adaptation implies intelligence and purpose4 ,we are quite as much justified in ascribing this purpose to the power manifested in nature1 as any other quality whatever1 even the possession of mind4 ,i fully concede that natural phenomena and even the phenomena of the mind of man1 only testify directly to the existence of a power adequate to their production1 and that we cannot directly infer from them the presence of omnipotence4 ,but this is to quarrel about words4 ,for the power manifested in nature and in man is so great that the human mind can make no distinction between it and omnipotence2 or in other words1 it justly infers from its manifestations that the power which could originate this universe and all things in it must be capable of effecting anything which is possible4 ,to this mind1 whether in or out of nature1 our reason ascribes the attributes of intelligence and will4 ,such a power it is incapable of conceiving as inherent in material forces2 it therefore assumes that this power exists outside nature1 and is capable of controlling it4 ,it follows therefore that the reasoning is fallacious1 which asserts that the conception of a supreme ,being which represents ,him as a spirit independent of the physical universe1 and able from a standingpoint external to nature to interrupt its order1 is a conception which we must seek from revelation1 and cannot be arrived at by any exertion of our rational powers on the facts of nature and of man4 ,its apparent plausibility has arisen solely from ignoring the presence of man1 either in nature or outside it1 and neglecting to take the facts of human nature1 man's reason1 conscience and will1 into consideration4 ,to affirm that1 independently of man's moral and intellectual being1 physical nature1 its forces and laws1 can prove nothing1 is a simple platitude4 ,we have not to go to revelation for the principles on which we reason1 but to man1 and the phenomena of his rational1 selfconscious1 and voluntary agency4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that the affirmation that in conducting the ,christian argument we reason from ,god to miracles and from miracles to ,god1 is utterly disproved4 ,yet the writer before me has ventured to affirm that1 when we commence with the being of a personal ,god as the groundwork of our reasonings1 we begin and end with a bare assumption4 ,the philosophical writings of ,dr4 ,mansel are also pressed into the service for the purpose of discrediting the evidences of ,christianity1 and1 ,i own1 with considerably greater reason4 ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer has also invoked them in confirmation of his theory that ,god is unknown and unknowable4 ,he refers to them in the following words3 8,here ,i cannot do better than avail myself of the demonstration which ,mr4 ,mansel1 carrying out in detail the doctrine of ,sir ,w4 ,hamilton1 has given us in his #8,limits of ,religious ,thought4' ,and ,i gladly do this1 not only because his mode of presentation cannot be improved1 but because writing as he does in defence of current theology1 his reasonings will be more acceptable to the majority of readers40 ,before referring to ,dr4 ,mansel as an unquestionable authority on this subject1 it would only have been candid in both writers to have informed their readers that not only have his principles been repudiated by a considerable number of ,christian writers as unsound1 but they have been carefully examined by that eminent atheistic philosopher1 ,mr4 ,mill1 who gives it as his deliberate opinion that they are founded on fallacious principles4 ,it is absurd to urge principles1 though they have been maintained by an eminent ,christian writer1 which an eminent unbeliever has pronounced unsound1 as a clear and conclusive argument against ,christianity4 ,the work of ,dr4 ,mansel may be described as an attempt to prove the truth of ,christianity on the principles of the most sceptical philosophy4 ,it may be briefly stated thus3 ,reason is incapable of forming any idea of ,god as ,he is1 whether as the ,infinite1 the ,absolute1 or the first ,cause4 ,all the conceptions which we can frame on the subject are mutually self destructive4 ,on similar principles our conceptions of ,his moral attributes are wholly inadequate to inform us of ,his real perfections4 ,it by no means follows that our human conception of benevolence or justice is a measure of the divine benevolence1 or of divine justice2 and so of ,his other attributes4 ,it is affirmed that because they are the attributes of an infinite ,being1 they lie beyond the possibility of being realized in human thought4 ,consequently1 holiness in ,god may admit of very different manifestations from holiness in man4 ,upon these principles1 which affirm the inadequacy of the human intellect1 even to conceive of anything as it exists in ,god1 it follows that our only possible conceptions of ,god are relative2 or1 to use the word chosen by the author in relation to ,christianity1 regulative2 i4e4 fitted to regulate our conduct1 but not to illuminate our understanding4 ,upon the assumption that reason1 when it attempts to analyse our ideas of the ,infinite1 the ,absolute1 or the first ,cause1 lands us in hopeless contradictions1 ,dr4 ,mansel arrives at the conclusion that it is incapable of forming any conception of ,god as he actually exists4 ,it follows as a necessary consequence from this1 that even by revelation we are only capable of attaining relative ideas of ,him1 and that these relative ideas do not represent ,his real nature1 but are only regulative of conduct1 i4e4 we are to act upon them as if they were true4 ,e4g4 ,god is revealed as holy4 ,our only conception of holiness is our human conception of it4 ,but we cannot know that this is an adequate measure of the divine holiness4 ,god is declared to be benevolent4 ,we have no conception of benevolence but that which is derived from the human mind4 ,so likewise with respect to justice4 ,but benevolence and justice as they exist in ,god may differ from these qualities as they exist in man4 ,the same thing follows as a necessary conclusion from ,dr4 ,mansel's premises with respect to all the other attributes of ,god4 ,nothing will better illustrate the position to which this argument reduces us than to apply it to the truthfulness or veracity of ,god4 ,all that we know about truthfulness is as it exists in finite beings1 that is1 in men4 ,but ,god is an infinite being4 ,it follows therefore that truthfulness in man is no adequate representation of truthfulness as it exists in ,god1 that is to say1 that the divine veracity may differ from our human conception of it4 ,this is certainly a very startling position4 ,if1 therefore1 these principles are correct1 acquiescence on the part of man in the divine character is impossible4 ,it is impossible to love a being who does not present to us the aspect of loveliness2 or to reverence one who does not present to us an aspect capable of exciting this emotion2 or to feel trust in a being of whose justice we have no certainty that it resembles our conception of justice2 or to rely on the promises of one whose veracity may differ from our own4 ,such feelings cannot be made to order4 ,they can only be generated by the contemplation of a being who is holy1 benevolent1 just1 and true1 in the ordinary acceptation of these words4 ,they cannot be excited by any merely regulative ideas4 ,we love1 reverence1 and trust1 not ideas or conceptions1 but persons1 possessing moral attributes4 ,but on the principle of merely regulative ideas of ,god1 the assertion that 8,god is love10 loses all its value1 if ,god is not what ,i mean by love1 but1 because he is infinite1 he may be something else1 ,i know not what2 and thus the great precept of the moral law1 8,thou shalt love the ,lord thy ,god with all thy heart1 mind1 soul1 and strength10 becomes meaningless4 ,such devotion of our entire nature cannot be created by the mere command to render it4 ,it can only be rendered to a being whose claims over us we both feel and know to be an absolute reality1 and to whom on the conviction of their reality we can offer ourselves up a voluntary sacrifice4 ,but if we cannot know ,him as ,he is1 how is the fire of devotion to ,him to be kindled in our hearts8 ,how shall we trust in ,him8 ,how shall we acquiesce in ,his character8 ,how shall we worship ,him1 how shall we adore ,him1 if it is true that the justice1 benevolence1 or holiness of the divine character may not resemble our conception of them8 ,nay1 more3 the theory in question lays the axe to the root of the ,christian revelation itself4 ,there is no affirmation of the ,new ,testament more decisive than that ,jesus ,christ in ,his divine and human personality is the image of the invisible ,god1 as far as ,his moral perfections are concerned4 ,are the perfections of the character of ,jesus ,christ only regulative1 or are they real representations of these attributes as they exist in ,god8 ,are the divine attributes of holiness1 benevolence1 or justice1 adequately represented by the manifestations of them1 as made by ,jesus ,christ8 ,if we accept the testimony of ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 our ,lord himself has expressly affirmed1 8,he that hath seen me hath seen the ,father0 7,john xiv4 #i74 ,but this is impossible if our conceptions of ,god's moral attributes are only regulative1 and if the human idea of holiness is no adequate representation of the divine4 ,however erroneous a system may be1 yet if it has been elaborated by a powerful mind1 it has generally some foundation in reason1 and ,i am far from affirming that1 with considerable qualifications1 some important elements of truth may not be found in that of ,dr4 ,mansel4 ,it is well that we should be made to feel that there are limits of thought beyond which the human mind cannot penetrate1 and that there are profundities of metaphysics which an imperfect measuringline cannot reach4 ,but placing the matter as he has1 the ,christian apologist may well feel indebted to ,mr4 ,mill for his crushing demolition of the dangerous portions of ,dr4 ,mansel's system4 ,when unbelievers quote the authority of ,dr4 ,mansel1 why do they not also tell their readers that there was at least one unbeliever of very high logical power1 who wrote against the validity of his system4 ,it is one thing to affirm that we cannot penetrate to the depths of the ,deity1 and that after we have raised our thoughts to the highest1 there is something higher still2 and quite another to affirm that our highest thoughts of him have no validity2 or1 to use the terms of a fashionable philosophy1 that ,god is unknown and unknowable1 that no true conception of ,him can be formed in thought2 in one word1 that he is absolutely unthinkable4 ,the difficulties of this subject have arisen mainly from discussing it in terms of pure abstractions1 instead of embodying them in a concrete form4 ,it is impossible in this place to enter on the profound depths involved in these questions2 but a few observations will be necessary for the purpose of clearing away the difficulties in which our opponents seek to involve the subject of miracles4 ,i shall confine myself to our conceptions of the ,infinite4 ,it is affirmed that no conception of the infinite can be framed in thought2 that it is therefore unthinkable1 and transcends the limits of human knowledge2 that it is a negation2 and that therefore our reason is unable to affirm anything respecting it2 that the idea of personality is incompatible with that of infinity2 and that therefore when we speak of ,god as a person who possesses infinite perfections1 we enter on a region where human thought is invalid1 and respecting which all affirmation involves a contradiction4 ,but when we are told that the infinite transcends thought1 we are entitled to demand that we should not be kept playing with an abstraction1 and to ask1 what is infinite8 ,in what sense does it transcend thought8 ,does this mean that it is absolutely unthinkable2 or only partially so2 or that our conception of it is imperfect8 ,is it simply unknowable1 or does it consist of something which we know1 plus something that has not come within the limits of our knowledge1 but which something is of a similar character to the known8 ,it will be at once seen that the determination of these questions is at the root of the whole controversy4 ,if then by the infinite we mean something known plus something unknown1 to speak of ,god as unknowable and unthinkable is absurd4 ,our knowledge of ,him may not be full1 but yet real so far as it goes4 ,when it is affirmed that ,god is a being who exists1 but is unthinkable by man1 the effect is to place ,him beyond the bounds of human knowledge1 and thereby free us from all necessity of troubling ourselves about ,him4 ,we know that ,he exists in the profundities of the unknown2 and that is all4 ,for the purposes of thought and of morality1 ,he is thus made of less value than an algebraic x4 ,when it is affirmed that the infinite is unknowable1 ,i again ask1 what infinite8 ,the infinite as an abstract idea has no real existence2 but something that is infinite4 ,the conception itself is an essentially quantitative conception1 and is only strictly applicable to number and extension4 ,when ,i speak therefore of an infinite number1 what do ,i mean8 ,the only answer possible is1 8,the greatest number ,i can conceive1 plus all possible number without limit40 ,does my adding on the latter factor invalidate the reality of my conception of the former8 ,is that which is added on anything else than number8 ,surely here ,i have a valid conception4 ,the same is true when we speak of the infinity of space4 ,i mean by it the greatest space ,i can conceive1 plus space without limit4 ,is the idea of space rendered unthinkable1 because ,i add the conception of space without limit8 ,does it cease to be space8 ,but space is conceivable4 ,it follows therefore that neither infinite number nor infinite extension is absolutely unthinkable4 ,we speak of the infinite divisibility of matter4 ,does matter1 because it goes on to be divided for ever1 cease to be matter8 ,in the same manner we speak of ,god1 and call ,him infinite4 ,it would be far more correct to speak of ,him as a ,being who has infinite attributes4 ,here1 however1 if accuracy of thought is to be preserved1 a distinction must be made4 ,some attributes of ,god may be viewed as quantitative2 others cannot4 ,it is to the former only that the term infinite properly applies4 ,a moral attribute cannot have a quantitative measure applied to it4 ,it is therefore not infinite1 but perfect4 ,when we speak of ,god as a being possessed of infinite power1 what do we mean8 ,the thing intended is1 that ,he is a being who possesses such power as enabled ,him to create the universe1 and that ,he is capable of exerting every other degree of power which is possible4 ,we may call this1 if we like1 power without limit2 though there is always one limit to possible power1 viz41 that of working contradictions4 ,of course we are ignorant of what are the limits of possible power4 ,but when we make this addition to our finite conception1 we mean by it power similar to that exhibited in the universe--it and all other power beyond it4 ,must such a conception be banished outside the limits of rational thought8 ,is the idea of a being who possesses power sufficient to build the universe1 and all possible power besides1 unthinkable8 ,again1 we speak of ,god as infinitely wise4 ,what do we mean by it8 ,we affirm that ,he knows all things actual and possible4 ,the knowledge is none the less knowledge1 because to the knowledge of the actual we add on the knowledge of the possible4 ,such a being is certainly not unthinkable4 ,again3 ,god is often spoken of1 not only as a being possessing infinite attributes and perfections1 but as the ,infinite ,being4 ,here the attempt is made to entangle us in a puzzle4 ,it is argued3 if ,he be the infinite ,being1 there can be no being beyond ,him4 ,he must therefore include all being1 both actual and possible4 ,if this be so1 ,he must also include the finite1 otherwise there would be a being which is not included in infinite being--or in other words1 being without limit would not include all being1 which is selfcontradictory4 ,several other selfcontradictions may be easily adduced by reasoning on the same principles4 ,i reply that the term 8,being0 is used here in a sense so intensely abstract1 that we have removed it out of all those conceptions of which quantity can legitimately be predicated4 ,of material being we can affirm that it is quantitative1 but of no other4 ,the adding on the word 8infinite10 and calling ,god the infinite ,being1 is to use words which have no validity as conceptions4 ,but it is also common to speak of ,god's moral attributes as infinite1 such as ,his benevolence1 holiness1 justice and truth4 ,this again is inaccurate1 and its result is to plunge us into hopeless confusion of thought4 ,such attributes admit of no quantitative measures4 ,they are perfect1 not infinite4 ,to speak of ,god's truthfulness as infinite is simply absurd4 ,a thing is true1 or not true4 ,a moral being is truthful or not truthful4 ,benevolence may be perfect or imperfect2 but it cannot be measured by number or by line4 ,these conceptions can only mean what we mean by them1 and nothing else1 even when applied to ,god1 or we are attempting to pass off forged notes for genuine ones4 ,the only possible additional idea which we introduce when thus ascribing them to ,god1 is that in ,him they are perfect1 free from the imperfections with which they exist in us4 ,to affirm that when we say that ,god is perfectly benevolent1 or perfectly truthful1 we introduce into the conception1 as applied to ,him1 a new factor1 beyond the meaning of benevolence and truthfulness as used in human language1 and that this new factor can make the divine benevolence different from our human conception of it1 or can lead ,god to actions which man can by no possibility view as benevolent or true2 and then to say that ,god is benevolent or true1 is an abuse of language1 or1 to use ,mr4 ,mill's words1 an offensive flattery4 ,but it has been urged that the moral attributes of ,god1 even if we view them not as infinite but as perfect1 must be beyond the limits of human thought1 and therefore may produce results different in character from the corresponding principles in man1 because they are the attributes of an infinite being4 ,i have already disposed of this objection4 ,benevolence1 holiness1 and truth cannot be other than benevolence1 holiness1 and truth1 to whatever being we may attribute them4 ,it is therefore no necessary consequence1 because we ascribe to ,god some attributes which are infinite1 and others which are perfect1 that ,god must therefore be unknowable or unthinkable4 ,we may know much about ,him1 without knowing all things4 ,our not knowing all about things does not render them either unknowable or unthinkable4 ,our knowledge may be imperfect2 but as far as it goes it maybe real4 ,if we were to affirm that we only know that which we know perfectly1 or were unable to reason on imperfect knowledge1 mental progress would be brought to a standstill4 ,nor is it right to affirm that we are only reasoning in a circle when we reason from ,his moral attributes as displayed in the government of the world in favour of the probability of a revelation2 or if because a revelation which claims to be from ,god1 bears the impress of ,his character1 we employ this fact as an evidence that it comes from ,him4 ,to affirm that ,he is unknowable or unthinkable is to proclaim that man has no concern with ,god1 and that all revelation is impossible2 therefore1 the objections urged against the evidence of supernatural religion on these grounds are untenable4 ,but there are the difficulties about the ,absolute and the ,first ,cause4 ,it has been urged that the ,absolute is that which is out of relation to every thing else--perfectly independent in itself4 ,it is argued1 therefore1 if ,god be this ,absolute1 he cannot be the first ,cause1 because a cause can only be a cause by its being in relation to that of which it is the cause4 ,for similar reasons1 if he be the first ,cause1 ,he cannot be the ,absolute4 ,but as ,he is both1 ,he must therefore be unknowable and unthinkable4 ,it is impossible in a treatise like this to enter into such profound metaphysical questions4 ,for my present purpose1 ,i can safely refer to ,mr4 ,mill's discussion on this subject4 ,as far as the views in question bear adversely on ,christian evidence1 he has sufficiently refuted them4 ,it is not fair for unbelievers to put forth these positions as subversive of ,christianity1 without answering the reasonings of so eminent an unbeliever as ,mr4 ,mill in proof of their inconclusiveness1 or even alluding to the fact that he has pronounced them untenable4 ,there is no point which reasoners of this class have laboured more diligently to prove than that it is impossible for human reason to think of ,god as a person4 ,the assumption of the personality of ,god is the foundation of the ,christian argument1 without which1 even if the occurrence of miracles could be proved as objective facts1 they would have no evidential value4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that if our only mode of attaining the knowledge of the personality of ,god be from revelation1 we are arguing in a vicious circle4 ,briefly stated1 the argument of unbelief is as follows3 ,god is the infinite ,being4 ,personality is a conception which necessarily involves the finite4 ,therefore it cannot be predicated of an infinite ,being4 ,it follows therefore that to speak of ,god as infinite1 and at the same time as a person1 involves a contradiction4 ,it is an unquestionable fact that the only beings whom we are directly acquainted with as persons are finite beings1 i4e4 men4 ,no less certain is it that the only beings whom we know to be possessed of wisdom and intelligence are finite beings1 i4e4 men1 and those various classes of animals by which the latter quality is manifested4 ,the argument is equally valid for proving that wisdom and intelligence can only belong to finite beings2 and consequently that the existence of wisdom and intelligence in the first ,cause of all things is inconceivable1 and the assumption that ,he is wise and intelligent is a contradiction4 ,the same argument is no less valid against ascribing any moral perfection to ,him1 or in fact any other1 for all our knowledge of such things is both in itself finite1 and derived from finite beings4 ,but it even goes further than this4 ,if1 as the positive philosophy lays down1 our real knowledge of things is confined to direct subjects of cognition2 as the only beings which we know to be possessed of wisdom and intelligence are men and animals1 it is quite contrary to sound reasoning to infer that these qualities can be possessed by any other class of finite beings4 ,to do so is to transfer human conceptions to beings who are not human4 ,equally valid would be the reasoning of an animal1 if he could reason on the subject1 as for instance a horse or a dog1 that the existence of wisdom and intelligence beyond his own limited sphere was an unwarrantable assumption4 ,pantheists have also propounded theories on the assumption of the existence in nature of an unconscious wisdom and intelligence4 ,this assumption is open to the most formidable objections2 but even on their own principles it is utterly invalid2 for if on the grounds which they allege it is impossible to ascribe personality to ,god1 the same reasonings are equally valid against ascribing wisdom and intelligence to unconscious nature4 ,i conclude1 therefore1 that it by no means follows because our direct knowledge of personality is confined to human beings1 and is derived from them1 that personality itself cannot be conceived of as a property belonging to any other than human beings4 ,it is absurd to maintain that the qualities of things must be confined to those things from which we learn their existence4 ,but it will be objected that the very essential notion of personality is limitation2 consequently that although it may be conceived of as belonging to limited beings1 it transcends the power of thought to conceive of it as the attribute of a being who is unlimited or infinite2 that is to say1 that although it lies within the power of thought to conceive of the ,being who had adequate power to build the universe as a ,person1 because the power may be a limited power1 yet when ,i ascribe to ,him beyond this the possession of all possible power1 the conception of personality becomes unthinkable4 ,this is the real meaning of the affirmation1 unless our reasonings are to be confined within the region of abstractions4 ,but we have no assurance that such reasonings are valid1 unless we can bring them to the test of some concrete form of thought4 ,next3 ,it by no means follows because our conception of personality is derived from finite beings1 that it is necessarily limited to them2 and that it cannot be thought of in connection with a being1 some of whose attributes are infinite and others perfect2 in other words1 that the idea of finiteness is necessarily involved in that of personality4 ,what are the conceptions that make up the idea of our own personality8 ,i reply1 the power to affirm 8,i0 of one's own being--the possession of will--the power of selfconsciousness1 and these in union with rationality4 ,these conceptions we undoubtedly derive from the contemplation of our own finite being1 but there is nothing in them which is necessarily limited to the finite4 ,if the conception of an infinite being is possible 7and the fact that it is so constantly introduced into this controversy proves that it is possible71 then there is no reason why these conceptions1 which certainly contain in them nothing quantitative1 should not be applicable to such a being4 ,the real fact is1 these conceptions are not inherently finite1 because they have nothing in them of a quantitative character1--they are only derived from a being whose manifestation in space we conceive of under the form of limitation1 and whose attributes are neither infinite nor perfect4 ,i must call attention to the remark already made that the correct representation of ,god in thought is not that of a pure abstraction1 the infinite ,being1 but of a being who possesses attributes1 some of which are infinite and others perfect4 ,to affirm that such a being is a person1 is not to attempt to think that which is unthinkable4 ,when we affirm that ,god possesses the power adequate to build the universe1 and all possible power beside1 we do not ascribe to ,him that of which it is impossible to predicate the possession of will or selfconsciousness4 ,when we affirm that such a being exists now1 that he has existed in all past known times1 and that no limits in point of time are conceivable of him1 there is nothing contradictory in ascribing to such a ,being personality4 ,it is quite thinkable that an ultimate particle may never have had a beginning and never will have an end2 no less so is it that such a particle may be possessed of personality1 for it is finite4 ,surely therefore there is nothing in the ascription to ,god of existence without beginning and without end1 which destroys the idea of ,his personality4 ,it has been necessary to enter thus far into this subject1 because in reasoning on the ,christian revelation we must assume the existence of a personal ,god1 unless all such treatises1 in addition to their own proper subjectmatter1 must likewise contain an elaborate work on the principles of theism1 and a refutation of those of pantheism and atheism4 ,the defender of ,christianity is charged with reasoning in a circle1 as though he first assumed the existence of a personal ,god1 and then derived the idea of his existence from revelation4 ,this charge would undoubtedly be true if the idea of ,god being a person is unthinkable4 ,i am at a loss to conceive how it becomes one atom more thinkable if communicated by a revelation4 ,much obscurity has undoubtedly been thrown on this subject by ,christian writers who have fancied that the more they can invalidate our reason the greater gain accrues to ,revelation4 ,this is not only unwise but irrational4 ,our reason doubtless is but an imperfect light1 but its extinction is to leave us to grope in darkness4 ,i affirm therefore that the assumption of the divine personality as the groundwork of our argument involves no petitio principii1 or reasoning in a circle4 ,one more remark and ,i will bring this portion of the subject to a close4 ,the affirmation made by this philosophy that certain things are unthinkable is fallacious4 ,what do we mean by 8unthinkable08 ,it may mean many things2 first1 that the subject cannot be made in any sense an object of thought4 ,this1 in fact1 is the only legitimate use of the word4 ,but in this sense the affirmation cannot be true of even ,mr4 ,herbert ,spencer's unknown and unknowable ,god1 for it is evident that he does manage to reason and think about him somehow4 ,it may mean a being respecting whom we may know much and attain a knowledge continually progressing1 but respecting whom there is much which is unknown4 ,this unknown is called unthinkable4 ,but it is not unthinkable4 ,it has only not yet become the subject of our knowledge1 and is no more unthinkable than any other unknown truth4 ,or that may be pronounced to be unthinkable respecting which our conceptions are wanting in definiteness and precision4 ,but to designate such things as unthinkable is an abuse of language4 ,or that may be designated as unthinkable of which our conceptions fail fully to represent the reality4 ,as far as they go1 they may be true1 but there may be something beyond of a similar kind1 which they do not embrace4 ,this is the only sense in which it can be affirmed that ,god is unthinkable1 but the assertion is altogether misleading4 ,the only correct meaning of the expression is when some particular thing is affirmed to exist and at the same time contradictions coexist in it4 ,the actual coexistence of these two contradictions is unthinkable1 but nothing more4 ,thus the existence of a round square is unthinkable1 so would the affirmation that the divine power was at the same time both limited and unlimited4 ,but in no other sense is a conception unthinkable4 ,to affirm that the cause of all things is unthinkable because our conceptions of ,him do not measure the entire depths of ,his being is simply misleading4 ,i have gone into this question because it is evident that if ,god is unthinkable a revelation of ,him is impossible1 and if a revelation of ,him is impossible1 all miracles affirmed to have been wrought in attestation of one must be delusions4 ,,chapter ,,vi4 ,,the ,,objection ,,that ,,miracles ,,are ,,contrary ,,to ,,reason ,,considered4 ,under this head are included the whole of that class of objections which extend from the direct assertion of the impossibility of miracles to the affirmation that even if their possibility is conceded1 they are so extremely improbable that it is a violation of the first principles of our reason to believe in their actual occurrence4 ,they are alleged to be violations and contradictions of the laws of nature1 and as such to be incredible1 as the stability of its laws is founded on a universal experience4 ,this unquestionably forms the most formidable difficulty in the way of the acceptance of miracles1 as actual occurrences1 at the present day1 and therefore demands a careful consideration4 ,the question of the abstract impossibility of miracles need not occupy us long4 ,such an affirmation can only be made on the assumption that our reason is inadequate to affirm the existence of such a being as a personal ,god4 ,if this can be established1 the whole argument is ended for all practical purposes4 ,it may be conceded that the occurrence of some anomalous event as a bare objective fact is quite possible1 even on the principles of pantheism or atheism4 ,but such objective fact would be no miracle in any sense in which the word can be used in this discussion4 ,if the evidence was sufficiently strong to attest it as a fact1 it would be explicable on the supposition of some unknown force in nature1 or even as a purely chance occurrence4 ,a miracle1 in any sense in which it enters into the present argument1 is not only an abnormal objective fact1 but one which takes place at the bidding of a moral agent4 ,it is the union of these two which imparts to a miracle any power to attest a revelation4 ,if1 therefore1 there is no evidence of the existence of a ,god1 miracles may be pronounced impossible for all practical purposes in this controversy1 and we need not further discuss the question4 ,the whole argument as to whether the occurrence of a miracle is or is not contrary to reason must proceed on the assumption of the existence of a personal ,god4 ,it is also a proposition so clear as to render all proof of it superfluous1 that if a personal ,god exists who has created the universe and governs it by ,his ,providence1 miracles are possible4 ,first1 ,i observe that a miracle cannot be pronounced incredible1 on the ground that it is an effect without an adequate cause4 ,on this point ,i may refer to the high authority of ,mr4 ,mill1 that the idea of a miracle contradicts no law of causation4 8,in order10 says he1 8that any alleged fact should be contradictory to a law of causation1 the allegation must be not simply that the cause existed without being followed by the effect1 for that would be no uncommon occurrence1 but that this happened in the absence of any adequate counteracting cause4 ,now in the case of an alleged miracle the objection is the very opposite of this4 ,it is that the effect was defeated1 not in the absence1 but in consequence1 of a counteracting cause1 viz41 a direct interposition of an act of will of some being who has power over nature2 and in particular of a being whose will being assumed to have induced all the causes1 with the powers by which they produce their effects1 may well be supposed able to counteract them40 7,logic1 vol4 ii4 p4 #afg47 ,a miracle therefore may not be the result of the action of any force which falls within the range of our knowledge4 ,it may be necessary for its performance to neutralize the action of all existing forces by the calling into energy of more powerful ones4 ,but their operation need not even be suspended4 ,an adequate force1 or power1 or cause 7it matters not by what name we call it7 is present to effectuate the result2 viz4 the power which rules the universe1 i4e4 ,god4 ,as ,mr4 ,mill justly observes1 the only question which can be raised if the existence of ,god is assumed1 is1 not the want of the presence of an adequate cause1 for the supposition pre supposes the presence of one1 but the want of will on the part of ,god to bring about the result4 ,thus it may be fairly argued that ,god will not work a miracle1 from the fact that ,he has not done so in the course of previous observation4 ,it has been frequently affirmed that a miracle is an act which is contrary to the laws of nature1 or a violation of them1 or a suspension of them1 or a violation of the order of nature2 and that its occurrence is therefore incredible1 as being contrary to reason4 ,a miracle need involve neither of these4 ,the laws of nature as conceived by physical science are a set of antecedents followed by a set of invariable consequents4 ,a miracle does not interfere with this4 ,its very conception involves a new antecedent followed by its consequent4 ,the utmost that can be urged is that we have never before witnessed the presence of that particular antecedent and consequent1 or that the antecedents which we have witnessed have been followed by totally different consequents4 ,the only mode in which such a law could be violated would be1 if a particular antecedent was present and no other capable of modifying its action1 and it failed to be attended with its proper consequent4 ,but this is not involved in the conception of a miracle4 ,let us now suppose that the expression 8laws of nature0 is extended so as to comprise the forces of nature as well as its invariable sequences4 ,such a use of the term is very common4 ,in this point of view1 it is impossible to affirm that the laws of nature are violated by the performance of a miracle4 ,this could only be the case if they were made to produce the opposite results to those which they actually produce4 ,thus1 if a boiler were filled with water and a fire kindled under it1 and no other force was present capable of neutralizing the action of the fire2 if1 instead of the temperature of the water being raised1 it gradually froze1 there would be a clear violation of the laws of nature1 i4e4 its forces would cease to produce their usual results4 ,but there is nothing in the idea of a miracle that involves this4 ,it postulates the presence of a force or forces which are adequate to counteract the action of those already in existence1 and to produce the adequate result4 ,it will be objected that we have never recognized the existence of such forces in our previous experience4 ,such an objection would be valid only on the assumption that there is no force in the universe besides those which have been already recognized by us4 ,this1 however1 science will in the present state of our knowledge hardly venture to affirm4 ,besides1 it is contrary to the supposition with which we started1 viz4 the existence of a power able to control nature1 that is1 ,god4 ,nor is the assertion correct that the performance of a miracle necessarily involves even a suspension of the laws of nature4 ,this may be the mode of the divine acting2 but it is most important to observe that it by no means follows that it must be so4 ,a miracle may be performed by the introduction of a force which has sufficient power to counteract the forces of nature even while they are in the fullest operation4 ,to take an illustration3 ,it has been frequently said that the force of gravity must have been suspended in favour of ,peter's body when he walked on the water1 and in favour of that of our ,lord when he ascended into heaven4 ,but this is by no means the case4 ,the mere suspension of the law of gravitation would not in either case have effected the results in question4 ,the presence of other forces was necessary4 ,the law of gravitation might have been in the fullest operation1 and the miracle might have been performed by the action of other forces adequate to neutralize it4 ,the narrative itself implies that this force was so far from being suspended1 that it was in full operation at the time when the miracle was performed1 for the moment the power which supported ,peter's body ceased to act he began to sink4 ,but further3 even if we assume that any natural forces have been suspended in the performance of a miracle1 we are not called on to assume their general suspension1 but only in favour of the particular case in question4 ,this observation is rendered necessary because it has been frequently urged against the possibility of miracles that their performance must have thrown the whole mechanism of the universe into confusion1 and involved an extensive reconstruction of the processes of nature4 ,this would unquestionably be the case if the working of a miracle involved the difficulty in question4 ,but ,i have shown that it need not involve even the suspension of any natural law whatever1 and if such suspension took place in any particular case1 the force might have been acting with full energy everywhere else4 ,the counteraction or modification of one force by the agency of another is an event which we witness every day4 ,the force of gravity is in the fullest operation whenever we lift a weight from the ground--it is not suspended for a single moment4 ,the ability to modify the results of the action of one force by the agency of another1 or to combine many forces so as to produce a definite result1 constitutes the essence of all mechanical contrivance4 ,the selfdetermining power of the human will is that which calls all these particular modifications of existing forces into activity4 ,by means of it1 the entire aspect of external nature has been changed from the appearance which it would have presented1 if no other agency had existed besides the forces of nature which belong to matter4 ,man has been a power manifested in the midst of them4 ,i am quite aware that he can create no new force1 and that he can only control or modify the action of those which exist1 but is never capable of suspending them4 ,yet this power has produced marvellous results on the external world1 so that it presents a wholly different aspect from that which it would have done if the forces of nature had simply continued acting uncontrolled by the influence of mind4 ,even in material nature itself1 we meet with repeated instances of such modifications of the results of one force by the action of another1 as for example when the force of gravitation is counteracted by that of magnetism1 or of capillary attraction4 ,the action of no force is suspended1 it is only modified4 ,the assertion therefore is inaccurate which affirms that the performance of a miracle involves the suspension of a single force in nature4 ,it is consequently so far no violation of any natural law4 ,all that the idea of it involves is the presence of a force which is capable in a particular instance of counteracting the action of those forces which would produce a contrary result if left to themselves4 ,it is quite unnecessary for us to determine1 in reference to the subject under consideration1 whether the result may be brought about by a combination of forces which energize within the visible sphere of things1 or by bringing into action some latent force1 or one which only occasionally manifests itself1 or by the immediate action of the divine mind1 which1 having in itself all the forces necessary to produce the universe1 must possess those which are necessary to effect the miracle4 ,it is a fact worthy of observation that in the case of the miracles recorded in the ,bible1 the materials out of which the new results were produced already existed in nature1 as in the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes4 ,no act of creation was necessary4 ,all that was required was the presence of a force or forces1 able to build up these materials into the forms in question4 ,god does this in ordinary course by what we designate natural forces1 by means of which corn is grown and flesh produced4 ,can it be pretended that no other forces are under the control of1 or exist in ,god1 which are able to produce these results in a different manner1 even while the ordinary forces of nature continue in activity8 ,it has been further urged that a miracle involves a violation of the laws of nature1 because as it cannot be effected by any of the forces of nature with which we are acquainted1 the presence of an unknown force adequate to produce one must be a violation of the laws of nature4 ,i reply that any apparent force which this objection may possess is due to an ambiguous use of the word 8law40 ,it is here used to denote the order of the various occurrences in nature1 and not its antecedents and invariable consequents4 ,if there are forces in nature beyond those with which we are acquainted1 how can their action be a violation of nature's order8 ,if ,god is always present energizing in nature's forces1 how can any fresh putting forth of his energy be a violation of nature's laws8 ,in a certain sense of the words the order of nature may be said to be violated whenever one of its forces is modified by the action of another1 that is to say1 an order of events results from the modified action different from that which would have resulted from the unmodified one4 ,in this sense man is daily violating the order of nature4 ,but this has no bearing whatever on the question at issue4 ,it will perhaps be urged that the resurrection of a dead man1 or the cure of a man born blind by a word is a violation of the laws of nature4 ,whether this be so can only be determined when we are acquainted with the means by which such an event may be brought about4 ,the assertion itself is a mere general statement that1 as far as human observation has gone1 dead men have never returned to life2 and that blindness has never been cured at any person's command4 ,but with respect to a resurrection it may be objected that it is an observed fact amounting to a complete induction1 that all men die and that after death has taken place it is a fact no less universal that with the exception of a few alleged instances to the contrary no resurrection has ever taken place4 ,it may therefore be said to be a law of nature that all men die1 and that death is followed by no resurrection4 ,this1 however1 if put into other language amounts to the following proposition4 ,that it is a law of nature that these results must follow1 as long as the present forces which we observe and no others are in energy4 ,but it would cease to be so as soon as any others capable of producing such a result were brought into activity4 ,the truth is that death is a phenomenon which is caused by the joint action of a multitude of natural forces4 ,but if these were overborne by any force of nature1 or by the ,author of nature calling any unknown force into activity1 or even by the energy of his own creative will1 it would be absurd to call such an event either a violation of the laws or of the order of nature1 and therefore to affirm that it was incredible4 ,death is the result of the action of the natural forces which we observe around us4 ,no natural force with which we are acquainted can effect a resurrection4 ,if it be affirmed that in this sense a resurrection is contrary to the laws and order of nature1 the expression is ambiguous and misleading1 for it is intended to be inferred that such a violation would be contrary to reason and therefore incredible4 ,but the affirmation that a miracle is contrary to the order of nature requires further consideration4 ,what do we intend to affirm when we speak of an order of nature or of an event being contrary to it8 ,in a scientific sense the order of nature can only mean the results of forces energizing in conformity with invariable law4 ,every event which occurs is the result of a combination of such forces and the product of their joint action4 ,these results necessarily follow an orderly arrangement2 i4e4 the orderly result always occurs when precisely the same antecedents and no other are present1 and is invariably altered whenever the antecedents are modified to the precise extent of the modification4 ,as far then as the results in nature are the effect of known forces unmodified in their action by other forces1 they follow a definite order4 ,thus all the motions of the heavenly bodies present themselves to the scientific mind as the perfection of order1 because they are the results of the action of known forces acting in conformity with invariable law4 ,whenever a fact is observed which deviates from the order which these known forces would produce1 the action of another force which has hitherto been unknown is inferred4 ,the order of nature therefore means that the same forces always produce the same results4 ,there is nothing inconsistent with this in the correct conception of a miracle4 ,viewed as a physical event only1 it would be due to the action of a force which has hitherto been outside the sphere of our observation4 ,it is clear therefore that whenever a fresh combination of forces takes place1 their combined action will modify the result1 and a very different order of events will take place from that which would have resulted from their unmodified action4 ,such modification therefore must produce a different order of nature from that which would have otherwise resulted4 ,but such modifications frequently take place through the agency of man4 ,it therefore follows that man has the power of effecting modifications in the order of nature1 without causing any violation of nature's laws4 ,but various other influences1 and among them those usually designated as chances1 exert a powerful influence in changing the order of nature4 ,it is necessary that its forces should not only be combined1 but combined at the right time and place1 or the effect which is due to their combination will not take place2 i4e4 a different order of natural events would have happened4 ,an illustration will make this clear4 ,let us take the case of a disintegrating rock2 according as the different forces1 which act on it1 meet at the suitable time and place1 the progress of disintegration is greatly lengthened or shortened4 ,such concurrences of events are what we view as pure contingencies4 ,e4g4 water penetrates into one of its fissures2 this takes place in summer1 and no appreciable result follows4 ,but if in winter a frost happens immediately afterwards1 it will produce an order of events widely different from that which would have happened if either no rain had fallen or frost occurred4 ,by their joint agency the fissure is widened1 or the rock split asunder4 ,it follows therefore that the concurrence of these two forces is necessary at a particular time and place to produce the particular result4 ,such concurrences1 though due to natural causes1 are what we call fortuitous4 ,yet their occurrence or non occurrence occasions a different order of natural events4 ,further1 let us suppose that a bird with a seed in its mouth1 in the course of its flight casually drops it into a fissure in the rock1 which has been opened by the frost2 and also that another concurrence of forces has supplied the conditions suitable for its taking root and growth4 ,this produces a new series of events1 which occasions a more rapid disintegration1 and modifies the whole of the results which follow4 ,if the casual act of the bird had taken place at any other time or place1 the whole series would have been different1 varying with the causes which produced the seed1 and the contingencies which brought the bird to the spot1 and induced it to drop it4 ,let us now suppose that man with his rational agency intervenes4 ,he deliberately watches for the prospect of a frosty night1 pours water into the fissures1 and plants seeds in fissures where he knows that suitable material has been prepared for their growth4 ,here a new order of events has been introduced1 which1 originating in human agency1 entirely modify the order of the results4 ,it is important to observe that all theories which attempt to account for the production of living organisms by the principle of development are compelled at almost every step of the process to postulate the concurrence of forces of this description at the suitable time and place to render their production possible4 ,these must have taken place in past time in numbers passing all comprehension4 ,in the case of many vegetable structures the result has been entirely modified by the contingency of some insect choosing to enter one flower and not to enter another2 and according as this takes place a wholly different order of events follows4 ,whether we choose to designate such concurrences of events at the suitable time and place fortuitous or not1 the law which regulates them is wholly unknown1 even if they are regulated by law4 ,so far it is impossible to affirm that these results follow a known and definite order in nature4 ,the concurrence of two or more such causes introduces a new series1 and occasions a break in the previously existing order of nature4 ,still more completely has this happened when man with his reason and powers of volition is introduced on the scene4 ,it will doubtless be objected by our materialistic philosophers1 that the forces which energize in mind act with the same uniformity as those that energize in matter1 and that volition exerts no appreciable influence on the results of our actions4 ,these theories1 however1 contradict the experience of an overwhelming majority of mankind4 ,such as do so require that the strongest proof should be given before their truth can be considered as established4 ,such proof certainly yet remains to be given4 ,its advocates1 however1 tell us that it will be forthcoming at some future time4 ,in the meanwhile the fact is sufficient for our purpose that man is capable of acting on nature and of producing most important changes in the results of the action of its forces4 ,this being so1 it is certain that an order of events takes place through the interference of man1 quite different from that which would have taken place apart from his interference4 ,but these interferences take place in conformity with no known law1 and their results occasion a break in the previously existing series of events1 by the introduction of a new one4 ,man1 therefore1 is capable of interfering with and effecting changes in the order of nature4 ,it will be objected that all the agencies by which such results are brought about are forces energizing in nature in conformity with invariable law1 and consequently that the order of nature is preserved intact4 ,it is unquestionably true that the actual forces at work are forces in nature4 ,but there is another principle at work which interferes with the regular course of their action1 and brings out a series of results quite different to that which would have been produced if they had not been interfered with4 ,this is man's reason and intelligent volition4 ,it is impossible to reduce the action of this to any known law of invariable sequence4 ,it follows therefore that man is a power either in or out of nature1 which is capable of interfering with the order of the results of its material forces1 or1 in the language of those with whom ,i am reasoning1 of violating the order of nature4 ,but it will be further objected that man in his action on nature can only use or combine such natural forces as come within his knowledge2 and this proves nothing about the possibility of the action of a power outside nature which is able to employ its known and unknown forces for the purpose of producing such results as miracles4 ,i answer that this objection can have no validity unless it is first assumed that man is a portion of nature in the sense in which we are now speaking of it4 ,but the proof of this has certainly yet to be given4 ,by the word 8nature10 as it is used by this philosophy1 is meant the sum total of known material forces1 acting on matter in conformity with invariable laws2 that is to say1 of forces which are devoid of intelligence and volition4 ,it is impossible in this sense of the word to include man in it1 until his entire intellectual and moral being can be shown to be the result of material forces4 ,nor even if this could be done1 would it avail for the present argument2 for however it may have originated1 man's power to modify the action of material forces is an existing fact1 and produces results quite different in kind from the action of the unintelligent forces of nature4 ,the fact that the mind acts through a material organism1 and is incapable of calling into existence any new force1 does not alter the position above taken4 ,i am quite ready to take either of the following alternatives4 ,man is either in nature1 or he is outside of it4 ,if he is in it1 then a power exists within it which is capable of compelling its unintelligent forces to effectuate the determinations of rational volition4 ,if he is outside nature1 then a power exists outside it which is capable of effectuating these results4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that in either case a power exists which is capable of modifying the order of nature4 ,now it would be absurd to deny that whatever man can effect1 ,god is able also to effect2 and that ,he is so much the more able1 in proportion as ,his knowledge is more perfect4 ,whether1 therefore1 ,god works in nature1 or outside it1 a power exists which is capable of varying the order of nature without interrupting the action of any of its forces1 or violating its laws4 ,he also must have other forces at ,his command beyond those which are known to man1 and can combine them and thereby modify their action in conformity with ,his pleasure4 ,he must also be the primary force everywhere underlying nature1 which imparts to every other force its energy and power4 ,it follows that ,he can work a miracle without even suspending any of the existing forces of nature1 and that the allegation that miracles are contrary to reason1 because they are contrary to nature1 and a violation of its laws and order1 is disproved4 ,i will now proceed to adduce examples of these contradictions to our reason which are said to be involved in the occurrence of a miracle1 for the purpose of illustrating the confusion arising from the various senses in which the words 8nature0 and 8natural law10 and other similar expressions have been employed4 ,although the instances will be taken from the opponents of ,revelation1 ,i by no means wish to imply that they alone have been guilty of this ambiguous use of language4 ,its defenders are equally obnoxious to the charge4 ,after quoting a brief passage from ,dr4 ,newman1 the author of 8,supernatural ,religion0 urges the following objections3 8,miracles are here described as #8beside1 beyond1 and above' nature1 but a moment's consideration will show that in so far as these terms have any meaning at all1 they are simply evasions1 and not solutions of a difficulty4 ,if the course of nature be interrupted in any way1 whether the interruption be said to proceed from some cause which is said to be beyond1 or beside1 or above nature1 it is certain that the interruption is not caused by nature itself2 and every disturbance of the order of nature1 call it by whatsoever name we may1 is contrary to nature1 whose chief characteristic is invariability of law4 ,it is clearly unnatural for the ordinary course of nature to be disturbed1 and indeed were this not the case1 the disturbance would be no miracle at all40 ,it is by no means my purpose to defend ,dr4 ,newman's use of the expressions1 8natural10 8beside nature10 8beyond nature10 or 8above nature40 ,but while the author criticises ,dr4 ,newman1 it is clear that in this passage he has fallen into a number of very singular confusions of thought4 ,first3 ,the words 8nature0 and 8natural10 are used as though they had one clear1 simple1 and invariable meaning1 whereas in this passage they are used so as to include phenomena which widely differ from one another4 ,we are not told what is included under the term 8nature10 whether it is restricted to matter1 its forces1 and its laws1 or whether it also includes mind and all its phenomena4 ,when we speak of interruptions in the order of nature1 we usually intend it to be assumed that volition is the cause of these interruptions4 ,this being so1 the author has included in nature phenomena which differ so widely from one another as those of mind and matter4 ,he then speaks of the chief characteristic of nature being invariability of law4 ,the laws and forces which regulate matter are distinguished by this invariability4 ,but the action of mind is very different4 ,all men habitually speak of some portions of it as capricious4 ,whether they are so or not1 nothing is more certain than that many of our mental phenomena have not been reduced to the action of known laws4 ,when1 therefore1 such expressions as 8beside1 beyond1 and above nature10 and 8natural10 are used1 ,i ask what nature is intended8 ,is it matter1 its forces and laws2 or mind1 including the principle of volition2 or both8 ,if man is included in nature1 then there is a power in nature which is capable of controlling other portions of nature1 and even of acting on itself4 ,if man is excluded from nature1 then there must exist a power outside nature1 which is 8beyond and above nature10 and is capable of acting on it4 ,but if by nature is meant the sum total of all the forces which exist1 whether material or immaterial1 then it is clear that a power must exist in nature which is capable of controlling the forces of material nature1 and of compelling them to effectuate its purposes4 ,whichever point of view we take of it1 the objection falls to the ground4 ,but1 says the author1 8,if the course of nature be interrupted in any way1 whether the interruption proceed from a cause beyond1 beside1 or above nature1 such interruption cannot be caused by nature2 and every disturbance in the order of nature is contrary to nature40 ,this passage seems to imply that an interruption in the order of nature cannot proceed from nature itself4 ,but this is certainly incorrect4 ,natural forces1 that is to say1 material ones1 modify one another2 and by their combined action1 they produce a series of events quite different from what would be the result of their separate action4 ,such a new series of events is to all intents and purposes an interruption of the previous order of nature and the introduction of a new one4 ,such results are produced by fortuitous combinations taking place1 in the manner which ,i have already illustrated1 at the right time and place4 ,the fortuitous combination of forces in nature is capable of producing a new order 8contrary to0 the previous order of nature4 ,this1 as ,i have shown1 is still more evidently the case if we include the phenomena of mind in nature4 ,but it is affirmed1 8if the interruption be due to a cause either beyond1 beside1 or above nature1 the interruption cannot be caused by nature40 ,this is of course a selfevident truth4 ,but then it is inferred that such interruption is a disturbance of the order of nature2 and that every disturbance of its order is contrary to nature4 ,the inference which the reader is left to draw1 and which is directly stated in other parts of the work1 is1 that what is contrary to nature is contrary to reason2 that a miracle is thus contrary to nature1 and therefore contrary to reason4 ,i observe that1 although the interruption here referred to cannot be caused by nature 7for it is contrary to the conditions of the case that it should be71 yet it by no means follows that it is a breach of the order of nature in any other sense than that which ,i have already discussed4 ,such disturbances occur every day4 ,it is1 therefore1 misleading to designate them as contrary to nature1 as they neither necessarily suspend any natural force nor violate any natural law4 ,i have already proved that there is nothing in such disturbances1 or1 if we persist in so designating them violations of the order of nature1 that is contrary to reason4 ,such a use of the terms 8course and order of nature0 is full of ambiguities and certain to betray us into fallacious reasonings4 ,but1 adds the writer1 8it is clearly unnatural that the ordinary course of nature should be disturbed40 ,here the ambiguity of the expressions used1 and the consequent fallacy of the reasonings1 are brought to a culmination4 ,what1 ,i ask1 is intended by the ordinary course of nature8 ,is it the invariable action of its forces1 or the invariable sequences of their results1 or the orderly arrangement of its parts2 or does it include mind and all its phenomena1 of the precise nature of the forces1 laws and order of which we are ignorant1 and its action on the physical universe8 ,what1 again1 is the precise meaning which can be attached to the word 8unnatural0 in such a context1 where it is evident that its meaning must vary according as we include in nature one1 several1 or all of these phenomena8 ,if by the word 8unnatural0 the meaning intended to be conveyed is unusual or impossible1 it is then clearly not unnatural that the course of nature should be interrupted in the manner ,i have previously pointed out4 ,nor if man is included in nature1 is it unnatural that the results produced by its physical forces should be greatly modified by his action8 ,the remark of the author in connection with this subject is perfectly true1 that a grain could never of itself1 nor according to the law of natural development1 issue in a loaf of bread2 but it is wholly aside from the issue which he raises4 ,it is unquestionable that forces purely physical could not effect this result2 but does it follow from this that the production of a loaf of bread is an event contrary to nature8 ,the result can only be produced by the combination and controlling of a number of material forces by human reason4 ,the grain of wheat must be planted by man at the proper season4 ,it must be cared for by him4 ,various physical forces must contribute to the growth and development of the plant4 ,the ears produced must be reaped in harvesttime4 ,this process must be repeated until the grains are sufficient in number to produce our intended loaf4 ,then they must be threshed1 ground1 prepared for the oven1 baked4 ,in one word1 the miller and the baker must be invoked to control1 combine1 modify and give a new direction to the forces of nature under the direction of intelligence4 ,all this involves something more than the action of material forces4 ,the forces of nature carry on the work to a certain point4 ,then man takes it up and interrupts their order1 although he does so by compelling other forces to effectuate the purposes of his will4 ,the ordinary course of material nature is disturbed in the production of a loaf of bread4 ,a new order of events is introduced4 ,man is either within or without nature4 ,in either case a power exists which is capable of producing innovations in its order4 ,but how stands the case of the feeding of five thousand persons on seven loaves and two fishes8 ,the seven loaves and two fishes had been previously produced1 by the action of material forces out of materials already existing in the ground1 in water1 and in the air4 ,of such materials there was abundance at hand to produce the requisite amount of food for the feeding of the multitude4 ,the only question was how to build them up into the forms of bread and fish4 ,there was no occasion to create one single particle of matter4 ,as to the nature of the forces employed to work the miracle the narrative says nothing4 ,nor does it imply that one of the ordinary forces of nature was suspended on the occasion4 ,all that it asserts is the presence of a force adequate to build up the materials already existing into the forms of bread and fish1 that force being ,god4 ,in the manufacture of the loaves and in the catching of the fish1 man had interfered with nature's order by the blending of her powers4 ,god interfered with nature's order at a higher stage by building up the particular forms of bread and fish out of materials already in existence1 by means of forces differing from those which come under our cognisance4 ,the act of man is evidence of the presence of a being who is able to control the forces of external nature for his own purposes4 ,the miracle would be evidence of the presence of a ,being who is able to exert a mightier influence over them in order to effect his own4 ,equal ambiguity prevails in the use of the term 8law40 ,what do we mean by law when we apply the term to nature8 ,in physical philosophy1 the ,duke of ,argyll tells us it is used in a great variety of senses4 ,its proper meaning is to denote an invariable sequence of phenomena4 ,it is frequently made to include the conception of the forces at work which produce the phenomena4 ,this ambiguous use of the word has been a source of endless confusion4 ,the following quotation will furnish us with an example3-- 8,if in animated beings we have the solitary instance of an efficient cause acting among the forces of nature and possessing the power of initiation1 this efficient cause produces no disturbance of physical law4 ,its existence is as much a recognised part of the infinite variety of form within the order of nature1 as the existence of a crystal or a plant2 and although the character of the force exercised by it may not be clearly understood1 its effects are regulated by the same laws as govern all the other forces of nature4 ,if the laws of matter are suspended by the laws of life1 each time an animated being moves any part of its body1 one physical law is suspended in precisely the same manner and to an equivalent degree1 each time another physical law is called into action4 ,the law of gravitation1 for instance1 is suspended by the law of magnetism each time a magnet suspends a weight in the air4 ,in each case a law is successfully resisted precisely to the extent of the force employed4444 ,no exercise of will can overcome the law of gravitation or any other law to a greater extent than the actual force exerted1 any more than a magnetic current can do so beyond the action of the battery4 ,will has no power against exhaustion4 ,even ,moses in the sublimest moments of faith could not hold up his arms to heaven after his physical force was consumed40 ,p4 #dd1 vol4 i4 ,first3 it is alleged 8that an efficient cause0 7man for example7 8acting among the forces of nature1 and possessing the power of initiation1 produces no disturbance of physical law40 ,what is here meant by disturbance of physical law8 ,it is plain that physical forces would work out a wholly different result apart from the action of man upon them4 ,though he suspends no physical force1 the action of man has produced an order of events in nature different from that which would have taken place without it1 but by balancing one against the other he modifies their action4 ,what is more1 he possesses a power of selfdetermination4 ,other forces are unintelligent4 ,man is an intelligent force capable of introducing an order of nature quite different from that which the material forces of nature would have produced without his intervention4 ,next3 we are told that the existence of man 8is as much a recognised part of the infinite variety of form within the order of nature as the existence of a plant or a crystal40 ,i again ask1 what nature8 ,is the order spoken of that of blind unintelligent forces1 or does it include intelligence and free agency8 ,unless man is a blind unintelligent force1 although he be supposed to exist within nature1 he belongs to an order wholly different from that of a plant or a crystal4 ,to assert the contrary is to assume the whole question4 ,the results produced by intelligent volition differ completely in character from those effected by the unintelligent forces of nature4 ,the one follows an order of necessity3 the other of freedom4 ,the affirmation that the results of the latter belong to the same order as those of the former is directly contrary to facts4 ,again3 8the laws of matter are suspended by the laws of life40 ,if laws are the invariable sequences of phenomena how is it possible that one law can suspend another law8 ,it is not even true that one force can suspend another force4 ,all that it can do is to neutralize its action4 ,physical philosophy is constantly attributing to laws what can only be true of forces1 and even frequently ascribes to them what is only true of intelligent forces4 ,it must never be overlooked in this controversy that the laws of nature can effectuate nothing4 ,forces1 not laws1 produce results4 ,the following sentence will be a correct expression of a truth1 if we substitute 8force0 for 8law30 8,the law of gravitation is overcome by the law of magnetism each time a magnet suspends a weight in the air40 ,immediately after1 we are told that the arm falls in obedience to law4 ,it falls by the force of gravitation4 ,when theologians use metaphors of this description they are charged with anthropomorphism4 ,such a charge is equally valid against the language in which physical philosophy expresses itself4 ,again3 ,the author affirms 8that the solitary instance of an efficient cause1 if it be distinguished from the other forces of nature by the possession of an initiatory impulse1 is from the moment when that power is exerted subject to physical laws like all other forces2 and there is no instance producible1 or even logically conceivable1 of any power whose effects are opposed to the ultimate ruling of the laws of nature4 ,the occurrence of anything opposed to these laws is incredible40 p4 #dh4 ,what is meant1 ,i ask1 by 8the intimate ruling of the laws of nature08 ,even if we substitute forces for laws1 the meaning is sufficiently obscure4 ,probably the expression is intended to mean the combined result effected by the energy of all the forces in nature4 ,if these include all mental as well as all material forces1 then the assertion is a simple truism1 that nothing can be contrary to itself4 ,but if they exclude mental force1 then the results which they produce are clearly opposed to the ultimate ruling of the forces of unintelligent nature4 ,numerous instances are not only logically conceivable1 but actually producible4 ,the occurrence1 therefore1 of anything opposed to the ultimate rulings of these unintelligent physical forces is not incredible4 ,it is perfectly true that man can only produce results through the agency of these physical forces2 but he can modify their results1 and so use them as to make them the means of effectuating his purposes4 ,it is quite true that nothing can occur opposed to the forces of nature2 that is to say1 that1 while the force of gravitation is in energy1 and no other force is present capable of overcoming its power1 the ascension of a human body into heaven is impossible4 ,but who has ever affirmed that it was possible8 ,those who affirm that an ascension has taken place1 also assert that another force was in active energy1 which was capable of counteracting the force of gravitation4 ,this assertion1 therefore1 is totally irrelevant to the point at issue4 ,the consideration of the next question before us may very properly be introduced1 by quoting the following passage of the same author3 8,our highest attainable conception of infinite power and wisdom is based on the universality and invariability of law1 and inexorably excludes as unworthy and anthropomorphistic any idea of its fitful suspension40 ,this at once raises the very important question1 whether there is anything in the performance of a miracle inconsistent with the divine character and perfections4 ,it has been often alleged by those who deny the possibility of miracles1 that ,god energizes in the universe in conformity with invariable laws1 which express the uniform mode of the divine working4 ,from these1 as the result of his wisdom1 ,he will never deviate4 ,to alter or vary from this mode of acting implies that the machinery of the universe1 through which ,he acts1 is imperfect4 ,the supposition that ,he has worked a miracle therefore involves the assumption that ,he has ceased from one mode of action and adopted another2 or1 in other words1 that the forces of the universe fail to effectuate his purposes2 or that the whole machine has got out of order and requires rectification4 ,any action of this kind in the case of a ,being possessed of all power1 is a reflection both on his wisdom and his immutability4 ,still further3 it is affirmed by some that the love of order is an attribute so inherent in ,deity1 that it is inconceivable that any alteration in the existing order of the universe should take place under his government4 ,one objection raised in the above quotation ,i may dismiss summarily1 viz4 the idea that ,god interposes with any fitful interventions in the universe4 ,the idea of fitful intervention is quite foreign to the conception of a miracle1 which is described in the ,new ,testament as one of the means by which he realizes his deliberate purposes4 ,i shall elsewhere disprove the allegation that ,revelation is an intervention of the ,creator to rectify a miscarriage in his creative work4 ,it will also be desirable in this place to answer the charge of anthropomorphism so frequently urged against the defenders of ,christianity4 ,when they speak of ,god as a person1 they are charged with manufacturing a gigantic man4 ,when they ascribe to ,him a moral character1 or describe ,him as acting in nature1 they are then accused of making a ,god out of a number of conceptions which are purely human4 ,this fault1 if it be one1 must be shared alike by philosophers1 men of science1 and theologians4 ,the plain fact is1 that man has no conceptions but human ones4 ,to abandon these is to cease to think altogether4 ,when philosophers and men of science speak of nature1 they are obliged to apply to it conceptions which are strictly true only of man4 ,we are obliged to do precisely the same with respect to ,god4 ,so far all thought1 the most elevated and the most ordinary1 is anthropomorphic4 ,the term can be fairly used as a reproach only when certain material conceptions or degraded passions are directly affirmed to exist in the divine mind4 ,the author1 in the following passage1 places the objection before us in a still more striking light3 8,being therefore limited to reason for our feeble conceptions of the divine ,being of which we are capable1 and reason being totally opposed to an order of nature so imperfect as to require or permit repeated interference1 and rejecting the supposition of arbitrary suspension of law1 such a conception of the ,deity as is proposed by theologians must be pronounced irrational1 and derogatory to the wisdom and perfection which we recognize in the invariable order of nature4 ,it is impossible for us to conceive the supreme ,being acting otherwise than we actually see in nature2 and if we recognize in the universe the operation of his infinite wisdom and power1 it is in the immutable order and regularity of all phenomena1 and the eternal prevalence of law that we see their highest manifestation40 ,it is asserted by this writer and a great number of others1 that the most perfect conception of the universe is that of a machine1 which when once set into action shall go on eternally grinding out its results without the smallest occasion for the intervention of its ,maker4 ,according to this view1 all the ,he has to do for the future after the machine is once set into operation1 is to retire from the scene of ,his creative work1 and to contemplate the results of its wonderful operations4 ,any intervention on ,his part would imply a defect in the construction of the machine4 ,it follows therefore that the most perfect conception of ,god 7if there be one7 is that of a perfect mechanist and chemist1 who has originally formed matter with its properties and forces acting in conformity with invariable law1 and that this has been done by ,him with such perfection1 that they have gone on ever since evolving whatever has existed1 without the need of ,his intervention or supervision2 or to put it in other words1 after the original act of creation1 ,his presence in the universe may be dispensed with as unnecessary4 ,the universe is therefore a selfacting machine which goes on in an eternal series of selfevolutions4 ,such a conception may be the most worthy one that we can form of a perfect mechanist or chemist1 though it may be doubtful how far the idea of having his services dispensed with for the future would be wholly satisfactory to him4 ,it is far from clear1 however1 that it is the most perfect conception we can form of ,god4 ,the creations of the mechanist and of the chemist are destitute alike of feeling1 reason and volition1 a moral nature1 conscience1 and spiritual affections4 ,they may therefore when completed be left to themselves2 and the more perfect the irrational machine may be1 the more perfectly it will grind out its results4 ,but many of the constructions of ,god possess attributes1 which exhibit other qualities in their maker than those of a perfect mechanist or chemist4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that this is not the most perfect nor the most worthy conception which we can form of ,god4 ,but it will be objected that even if we concede that the ,creator is ever present energizing in the works of nature1 and even if the forces of nature are viewed as the expressions of ,his energy1 ,his action in conformity with unchanging order is the worthiest conception of ,him1 and to assert that ,he ever has varied from this mode of action is to degrade ,him4 ,such being the case1 to affirm that miracles have been wrought by ,him1 is to introduce a degraded view of the character of ,god1 one alike inconsistent with ,his wisdom1 immutability and power4 ,i reply3 that the objection overlooks the existence of purpose in the divine mind1 and that it may not be confined to the realization of a mechanical result4 ,the purpose or idea of creation in ,god includes the production of both the material and the moral worlds4 ,if this be so1 one harmonious purpose1 including the divine manifestations1 both in the material and moral universe1 may be carried out by a succession of progressive manifestations1 each forming a portion of one great divine plan4 ,a miracle1 therefore1 as a part of such a moral intervention1 would be no interruption of the orderly action of the divine mind1 but a portion of it4 ,but further3 if ,god exists1 ,he must have other attributes besides those of a mechanist or a chemist4 ,he has created not only the material universe1 but a moral one4 ,god1 therefore1 must be a moral being1 and a person1 for moral attributes can only be conceived of as belonging to a being who is possessed of personality4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that manifestations of ,himself1 under aspects suitable to moral beings1 are as much to be expected as manifestations of ,his power or of ,his wisdom addressed to an intellectual nature4 ,the supposition1 therefore1 that all ,his manifestations can only be made through the laws of material nature1 and in an unchanging series1 and that it is not a portion of ,his purpose to manifest ,himself as a moral being1 is only valid on the denial that ,he is one4 ,it involves the absurdity of denying to ,god that freedom from the trammels of necessary law which as matter of fact ,he has bestowed on man4 ,if therefore ,god be a moral being and not an impersonal force1 it is perfectly consistent with the highest conceptions of ,him1 that ,he should manifest ,himself in the moral as well as in the material universe4 ,this is the more necessary1 because philosophy is never wearied with telling us1 that we can know little or nothing of ,his moral attributes from material nature4 ,as a part of such manifestation a miracle is addressed to our highest reason4 ,it is absurd to argue on the assumption that there is a ,god1 and then to found our reasonings on principles which are inconsistent with it4 ,if there is a ,god1 ,he must be the creator of the universe4 ,it must1 therefore1 have been consistent with ,his perfection and immutability to create4 ,it follows1 therefore1 even on the assumption of the truth of the ,darwinian theory of creation1 that a new order must have been introduced1 when ,god first breathed life into the lowest forms of matter4 ,but if ,he introduced a new order then1 that is to say1 when ,he first deviated from the previous order of ,his existence1 and performed ,his first creative act1 how can it possibly be contrary to reason to affirm that ,he has repeated it4 ,a miracle would be such a repetition1 or1 in other words1 the introduction of a new series of events4 ,i fully admit that reason is opposed to the supposition of such an order of nature as to require repeated interferences with it1 assuming that what is intended is a frequent meddling with it to set it right1 not constant presence and superintendence4 ,still more is it opposed to the idea of arbitrary interruption of law4 ,the entire validity of these reasonings which we have been considering proceeds on the assumption that the argument requires this4 ,i care not what some ,christian apologists may have said on this subject4 ,the ,new ,testament affirms in the most unequivocal language that revelation is the steady carrying out of a predetermined purpose in ,god to make a manifestation of ,himself not only to man1 but to other rational beings besides man4 ,the objection therefore falls to the ground4 ,the assertion that it is impossible to conceive of the supreme ,being acting otherwise than we see him act in nature1 may be met by a direct denial4 ,on the contrary the presence of evil1 moral and physical1 forms the greatest difficulty connected with the belief in theism4 ,the elder ,mill was so capable of conceiving that if a supreme ,being existed1 the order of the universe would have been so wholly different from its present order1 that it led him to affirm that the proof of ,his existence was altogether wanting47#c7 ,but intelligent ,christians fully recognize in the immutable order and regularity of the universe and the eternal prevalence of law1 the operation of ,his infinite wisdom and power4 ,unless there was such a general regularity and order in the universe1 the evidential force of miracles would be deprived of all value4 ,it follows therefore1 whichever views we may take of the mode in which a miracle may be performed1 that there is nothing in the idea of it which is contrary to our reason4 ,whenever it is affirmed to be so1 the assertion originates in an ambiguity in the use of terms1 or in partial views of nature1 or of the mode of the divine working1 or from confounding under a common name phenomena so different in character as those of mind and matter1 or by making assumptions respecting the divine operations which contradict the laws of the universe1 or respecting the divine character1 which reason refuses to endorse4 ,how far the known or unknown forces of nature may be employed in the performance of a miracle is an abstract question that we have no means of determining4 ,the agency of some of the known forces of nature is unequivocally asserted in the ,old ,testament to have been the media employed in the performance of some of its miracles4 ,no such affirmation is made in the ,new ,testament4 ,still there is not one word to imply that any of the forces of material nature were for a single moment suspended in their action4 ,the only assertion made is the presence and active energy of a force capable of producing them4 ,that force is the ,creator of the universe bearing witness to the divine mission of ,jesus ,christ4 8,the ,father himself1 which hath sent me1 hath borne witness of me40 8,the works which the ,father hath given me to finish1 the same works that ,i do1 bear witness of me1 that the ,father hath sent me40 7,john v4 #cf1 #cg47 ,,chapter ,,vii4 ,,the ,,allegation ,,that ,,no ,,testimony ,,can ,,prove ,,the ,,truth ,,of ,a ,,supernatural ,,event4 ,hume's position1 which affirmed that it is impossible to prove the truth of a supernatural event by any amount of testimony however strong1 is certainly one of the most plausible that have ever been assumed by unbelief4 ,stated briefly and in his own words1 it is as follows3 8,a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature2 and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws1 the proof against a miracle from the nature of the fact is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined40 ,again3 8,no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony is of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish40 ,the fallacy of these positions1 notwithstanding the plausible arguments by which they are supported1 has already been pointed out by a multitude of writers4 ,mr4 ,mill himself has practically abandoned ,hume's argument as either a harmless truism1 or1 in another point of view1 one that requires to be modified to such an extent as to deprive it of any real cogency4 ,under ordinary circumstances1 therefore1 it might be passed over in silence4 ,but the author of 8,supernatural ,religion0 has endeavoured to rehabilitate it even against ,mr4 ,mill4 ,he affirms that ,christian 8,apologists find it much more convenient to evade the simple but effective arguments of ,hume1 than to answer them2 and where it is possible1 they dismiss them with a sneer1 and hasten on to less dangerous ground40 ,he then endeavours to show that ,mr4 ,mill has been partly misapprehended1 and is partly inaccurate2 and he proceeds to address himself to ,paley's argument against ,hume1 as though it was relied on by modern apologists as entirely conclusive4 ,no other writer is even noticed by him4 ,in the recent work of the late ,mr4 ,warington1 8,can ,i believe in miracles80 one chapter is devoted to the calm and dispassionate examination of ,hume's argument4 ,it is perhaps the ablest dissection of it in existence4 ,yet this writer1 who charges ,christian apologists with evasion1 and even with getting rid of its force by a sneer1 has left ,mr4 ,warington's crushing reply to ,hume completely unnoticed4 ,the position taken by him renders a few general observations necessary4 ,as it will be useless to repeat arguments that have been fully elaborated elsewhere1 ,i shall content myself with briefly stating the positions which have been firmly established on this subject4 ,first3 ,experience consists of two kinds2 #ast1 ,that which has fallen under our own direct cognizance1 which from the nature of the case must have been very limited4 #b;dly1 ,the general experience of all other men1 as far as we have the means of knowing it4 ,this latter experience we become acquainted with exclusively by testimony1 and it rests entirely on its validity4 ,the two together constitute what we mean when we say that a thing is1 or is not1 contrary to experience4 ,secondly3 ,there is a sense in which miracles are contrary to our experience4 ,they would be destitute of all evidential value1 if they were not so4 ,but while this is freely admitted1 we must lay down clearly in what sense we use the words4 ,they are not so1 in the sense that we have had direct evidence of their nonoccurrence4 ,they are contrary to our experience only in the sense that we have never witnessed them1 and that the order of events which we have witnessed is always different2 for instance1 we have witnessed as a matter of experience that men die1 and that none return again to life2 or that blind men1 when cured1 are never cured by a word or a touch4 ,in this sense alone it is that the resurrection of a dead man1 and the cure of a blind man by a touch1 is contrary to our experience4 ,thirdly3 ,it is not true that an occurrence which in this sense is contrary to our experience cannot be believed on adequate testimony4 ,if it were so1 all additions to our knowledge that lie beyond the limits of our past experience1 ought to be rejected4 ,every extraordinary occurrence must be at once pronounced incredible4 ,fourthly3 ,the experience of one age differs from that of another4 ,that which lies outside the experience of one century becomes within the experience of the next4 ,the truth is that the sum of human experience is receiving continual additions1 in proportion as the sphere of observation enlarges4 ,if it is true that we ought to reject everything contrary to experience1 it follows that if many of the inventions of the present age had been reported in a previous one1 they ought to have been rejected as incredible4 ,for example3 if a century ago it had been affirmed that a message had actually been conveyed one thousand miles in five minutes1 the assertion ought on this principle to have been rejected as contrary to the universal experience of mankind4 ,in an earlier age1 no miracle could have been more difficult to believe4 ,yet although contrary to prior experience1 it has been established as a fact4 ,the principle1 therefore1 as laid down by ,hume1 leads to an absurd conclusion4 ,fifthly3 ,the experience of each individual is limited by his own observation and what he has learned respecting that of others4 ,this constitutes as far as he is concerned the experience of mankind4 ,now1 under the ,equator the experience of man is that each day and night is twelve hours long4 ,neither he1 nor his ancestors1 nor any person whom he trusts1 have ever had any other experience than this4 ,to him1 therefore1 the affirmation that there is a place on the earth where each day and night is six months long1 is contrary to experience1 and ought to be rejected as a fable4 ,sixthly3 ,if we confine experience to scientific experience1 extraordinary discoveries are made and facts established in one age which are contrary to that of a former one4 ,on this principle1 the ground on which ,herodotus rejected the story of the ,phnician navigators that they had sailed round ,africa was satisfactory4 ,it was contrary to his experience that they should have seen the sun in the position in which they affirmed that they had seen it1 though it is not contrary to ours4 ,seventhly3 ,miracles viewed as mere phenomena stand on exactly the same ground as very unusual occurrences1 or very wonderful discoveries4 ,as far as they are contrary to past experience1 they are alike credible or incredible4 ,they are events of which the cause is unknown1 but may or may not hereafter be discovered4 ,it is quite true that any extraordinary phenomenon requires a stronger testimony to render it credible than an ordinary occurrence4 ,but this involves no question of abstract possibility or impossibility1 but is one purely of evidence1 each case having to be decided on its own merits4 ,it must be carefully observed that when we affirm that this or that matter lies within human knowledge1 or is contrary to it1 experience has to do with phenomena alone4 ,all questions of causation lie entirely beyond its cognizance4 ,eighthly3 ,the moment we view an event otherwise than as a mere phenomenon1 and take into consideration the causes producing it1 however unusual it may be1 it is impossible to affirm that it is contrary to experience4 ,when we take these into consideration the entire character of the event is at once changed1 and the probability of the occurrence must be estimated on wholly different grounds4 ,under such circumstances1 an extremely improbable event1 which we might otherwise justly reject as contrary to experience1 becomes simply one of which we have had no experience4 ,thus it is contrary to experience that men can live for one hour under water1 but when we take into consideration and thoroughly understand the contrivance of the divingbell1 the event becomes one of a different order from that of which we supposed that we had experience4 ,before this apparatus was invented1 the assertion that men could live an hour under water would have been rejected as fabulous4 ,the invention has introduced a fresh condition into the case4 ,the event has now become a portion of our experience2 but prior to the discovery of the apparatus it was merely an event lying outside our experience1 and not to be rejected as being contrary to it4 ,in a similar way1 a miracle1 as a mere phenomenon1 may be said to be contrary to our experience2 but the moment that we take into account its true character1 viz4 that its very conception implies the presence of a force of some kind with which we were previously unacquainted1 then such an event is no longer one which we can pronounce contrary to our experience1 but merely one which lies beyond or outside it4 ,in the case of miracles1 therefore1 the position of ,hume is inapplicable4 ,ninthly3 ,it is not true that in estimating the truth of testimony1 we simply balance probability1 against probability1 as stated in ,hume's argument4 ,the form in which it has been put by him is too abstract to admit of application to individual cases2 nor does any man1 in estimating the truth of testimony for practical purposes1 set down and deliberately balance probabilities against probabilities4 ,the whole process is of a far more instantaneous character1 and a number of minute considerations are involved1 which do not admit of statement in the form of general propositions4 ,thus1 if an event lying outside my present experience is reported to me by a friend on whose veracity and powers of judgment ,i have implicit reliance1 ,i accept the truth of his statement1 notwithstanding a great degree of abstract improbability2 it being assumed that the event was one in which it was impossible that he should be deceived4 ,in estimating this latter point1 we never balance the probabilities as to the truth or falsehood of human testimony1 but we consider the individual circumstances of the case1 whether they are of such a nature that our friend could be deceived about them4 ,if on consideration we are convinced that deception was impossible1 we yield assent to his known veracity1 although1 as far as we know1 the event reported by him has never before come within the range of human experience4 ,let me remove the question from an abstract into a concrete form4 ,there are numberless events in which it happens that men of unquestionable judgment and veracity are deceived4 ,there are others in which no deception can be possible4 ,an instance of one class is the alleged case of persons living a considerable time without food4 ,here astuteness may impose on the vigilance of the most wary4 ,take1 on the other hand1 the case of a man born blind4 ,one informant1 on whose veracity we have the fullest reliance1 tells us that he has known the man from his birth2 that1 up to a certain day1 his blindness was established beyond all reasonable doubt to every one who knew him1 that on that day1 he saw a person touch the eyes of the blind man1 who not only instantly received his sight1 but could use his eyes as perfectly as those who had enjoyed the use of them from birth4 ,i admit that this case is a supposed one1 and does not exactly represent any case recorded in the ,gospels4 ,but though an assumed one1 it is perfectly valid for the purposes of argument4 ,in it deception would be impossible4 ,if all this was affirmed to have come under the direct knowledge of one1 of whose veracity and judgment we were assured1 we should accept his statement as true1 without balancing the abstract probability of the truth of evidence against the probability of its falsity1 although the event narrated lay outside the range of our experience4 ,our knowledge of the judgment and veracity of the informant is the essential element in judging of the truth of evidence4 ,it is only when our means of forming this judgment are deficient that we attempt to balance abstract probabilities4 ,tenthly3 ,the question of the truth of testimony as against past experience and the alleged greater probability that testimony should be false1 than that past experience should be unreliable1 is greatly modified by the consideration that an overwhelming amount of the sum total of past experience rests for its acceptance on the validity of testimony itself4 ,that portion which is not the result of our own individual experience rests for its truth exclusively on the validity of human testimony1 and must be unreliable in proportion as testimony is invalid4 ,it must be observed1 however1 that ,i by no means deny that testimony is much more frequently invalid in its narrations of extraordinary events than of ordinary ones4 ,eleventhly3 ,while it is freely conceded that the evidence to prove the truth of a very extraordinary occurrence must be far stronger than that which is required to prove an ordinary one1 it must never be forgotten that the amount of evidence necessary to prove any particular fact always varies with the amount of the antecedent probability of its occurrence4 ,the very same action may be credible or otherwise1 just in proportion as we can discern an adequate purpose for its performance1 or infer the presence of a particular motive4 ,if1 for example1 it were reported that a man of the highest character had been seen during the hours of early morning issuing from one of the lowest haunts of vice in ,london1 those who knew him well would require an overwhelming amount of evidence to establish the truth of the assertion4 ,they would undoubtedly fall back on the question of abstract probability1 and argue that it was more likely that it was either a case of mistaken identity 7a very common error71 or a deliberate falsehood1 than that the statement should be true4 ,but1 if1 on the contrary1 it could be shown that he had been sent for to visit a dying person1 and had gone at his particular request1 the whole of the antecedent improbability would vanish1 and the otherwise incredible testimony would become perfectly credible4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that the credibility of testimony varies with our knowledge of the motive for the performance of the action4 ,this consideration ought to have due weight in considering the evidence of miracles4 ,viewed as mere phenomena1 their abstract improbability is great4 ,when they are viewed as deviations from the ordinary course of nature1 their improbability becomes still greater4 ,but those who believe in the existence of a personal ,god energizing in the universe at every moment1 and in every place1 postulate the presence of a force fully adequate to work them1 for this is involved in the idea of ,god4 ,but the question arises1 ,will ,he8 ,until a wellattested miracle has actually been performed1 the antecedent probability derived from our experience of the order of nature is against the supposition that ,he will1 and throws on the reporter the necessity of giving a stronger proof than we require for an ordinary fact4 ,but in proportion as we can show that it is probable that ,god will make a revelation1 the antecedent improbability of a miracle is diminished2 and if it can be shown that it is very probable that ,he will do so1 it wholly disappears4 ,it will be readily admitted that such an argument can only have weight with a believer in the existence of a ,god1 who is the moral ,governor of the ,universe4 ,to him1 however1 it is of the utmost value1 for on the supposition in question1 the probability of some higher manifestation of the divine character than that displayed in the material universe does not rest on theory1 but on the facts of man and his condition4 ,looking at the past history of the world1 it is matter of fact that ,god has made higher and higher manifestations of himself4 ,so far it is antecedently probable that ,he will continue to do so4 ,his last manifestation has been in the production of a being possessed of a moral nature1 with powers capable of immense elevation4 ,it is also no theory1 but a fact1 that this moral being now is1 and ever has been within the historical periods in a state of great imperfection4 ,it is therefore highly probable that the ,creator will adopt means for elevating the moral being whom ,he has created1 and that ,he will effect this by acting1 not on matter1 but on mind4 ,contemplating the actual state of man1 the known law of the ,creator's previous action1 and the moral character of ,god1 the antecedent probability that ,god will make a further manifestation of himself is established quite independently of the facts or assertions in the ,bible4 ,twelfthly3 ,whatever be the supposed antecedent improbability of an occurrence1 it is capable of being overcome by an amount of evidence which can leave no reasonable doubt in a mind endowed with common sense4 ,theoretical objections may be adduced against any evidence which can be brought in proof of particular facts1 but the ultimate appeal must be1 not to a multitude of abstract theories1 but to the common sense of mankind4 ,of this character is all historical evidence4 ,it rests on the same principles as those which guide us in the affairs of daily life4 ,there is a certain amount of evidence which leaves no doubt on the common sense of mankind1 although it may be open to many theoretical objections4 ,such evidence is capable of proving a fact against a very high degree of antecedent improbability4 ,mr4 ,mill may be considered as a witness whose predilections were all in favour of unbelief4 ,yet his clear logical mind has led him to state the case fairly as far as the priori probability or improbability of miracles is concerned4 ,his conclusions are adverse to the position assumed by the author of 8,supernatural ,religion40 ,i will briefly state the most important of ,mr4 ,mill's positions4 ,first4 ,he points out that a miracle involves nothing contradictory to any law of causation4 ,he well remarks that to prove such a contradiction1 it is not only necessary that the cause should exist without producing the effect1 but that no contravening cause should be present4 ,but the very idea of a miracle presupposes an adequate contravening cause1 i4e4 ,god4 ,the possibility of a miracle therefore cannot be denied on the ground that it does not presuppose the presence of a force adequate to produce it4 ,mr4 ,mill states1 8,of the adequacy of that cause1 if present1 there can be no doubt1 and the only antecedent improbability that can be objected to a miracle1 is the improbability that any such cause existed10 that is to say1 the whole controversy resolves itself into the question between ,pantheism and ,atheism on the one hand1 and ,theism on the other4 ,secondly4 ,he observes3 8,all therefore that ,hume has made out1 and this he must be considered to have made out1 is1 that 7at least in the imperfect state of our knowledge of natural agencies1 which leaves it always possible that some of the physical antecedents may have been hidden from us7 no evidence can prove a miracle to any one who did not previously believe in the existence of a being or beings with supernatural power1 or who believes himself to have full proof that the character of the being whom he recognises is inconsistent with his having seen fit to interfere on the occasion in question4 ,if we do not already believe in supernatural agencies1 no miracle can prove to us their existence4 ,the miracle itself1 considered as an extraordinary fact1 may be satisfactorily certified by our senses1 or by testimony2 but nothing can ever prove that it is a miracle3 there is still another possible hypothesis1 that of its being the result of some unknown cause2 and this possibility cannot be so completely shut out1 as to leave no alternative but that of admitting the existence of a being superior to nature4 ,those1 however1 who already believe in such a being have two hypotheses to choose from1 a supernatural and an unknown natural agency2 and they have to judge which of the two is the most probable in this particular case40 ,it is impossible to deny that this is a correct statement of the question4 ,hume's position is a generalized statement1 that no evidence can establish the reality of a miracle1 on the ground that our experience of the uniformity of nature's laws is so firm and unalterable1 that no amount of testimony can establish a fact in opposition to it2 or as he elsewhere puts it1 8unless the testimony be of such a kind1 that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish40 ,he affirms this to be equally true on the principles of ,atheism1 ,pantheism1 or ,theism1 for the only thing that he takes into account is the inadequacy of the testimony1 and not the inadequacy of the cause4 ,mr4 ,mill therefore says correctly that all that this argument avails to prove is1 that it is impossible to prove a miracle1 except to persons who are already convinced that a being or beings exist who are possessed of supernatural powers1 and that it is in conformity with their character to work one4 ,if this is the only intelligible meaning of ,hume's position 7and it is evident that it is71 it reduces his argument against miracles to a very harmless one4 ,the conception of a miracle as distinct from an unusual phenomenon implies purpose4 ,purpose is only conceivable of a being possessed of personality and will4 ,to those therefore who either deny the existence of any such being higher than man1 or who affirm that we have no evidence of his existence1 it is impossible to prove a miracle as a miracle4 ,the utmost that could be done would be to prove that an event had taken place in nature which in the present state of our knowledge could be assigned to no known cause4 ,in such a case the ,pantheist and the ,atheist have always the alternative of believing that the event in question must be due to the operation of some unknown force in nature1 but which in the gradual development of knowledge we may hereafter be able to detect4 ,this is a position that no defender of revelation worthy of the name can be anxious to dispute4 ,let it further be observed that ,mr4 ,mill does not deny1 but affirms1 that the occurrence of an extraordinary event analogous to a miracle viewed simply as a phenomenon1 may be satisfactorily certified by our senses or by testimony4 ,to affirm the contrary would be simply absurd1 as involving the stereotyping of human thought1 and making the wisdom of our ancestors the only standard of truth4 ,there was a time when the earth was believed to be an extended plain4 ,if at that time any one had asserted that by continually sailing westward he had at last arrived at the place from which he started1 or1 in other words1 had circumnavigated the globe1 this affirmation ought to have been rejected1 not only as founded on testimony contrary to all previous experience1 but as intrinsically impossible4 ,yet if ,hume's dictum has any value as an argument against the possibility of a miracle1 it must affirm the impossibility of establishing such an occurrence by any amount of evidence whatever4 ,mr4 ,mill's mind was far too logical not to perceive that such a position is altogether untenable4 ,mr4 ,mill1 however1 affirms that there is one ground on which the argument might be tenable against a theist1 not because the evidence is insufficient to prove the occurrence of an extraordinary fact1 as a mere phenomenon1 but because it could not prove it to be a miracle4 ,it is not only necessary1 says he1 in order to render this proof valid1 that one should believe in the existence of a supernatural being who is able to bring about the occurrence1 but also that 8the character of this ,being is not inconsistent with his having seen fit to interfere on the occasion in question40 ,thus a man may be a believer in the existence of ,god1 and yet be persuaded that it was not consistent with his character to interfere with the course of natural phenomena at all1 or in such a manner as the conception of a miracle presupposes4 ,to such a theist the utmost that evidence could prove would be1 that the extraordinary event had been brought about by the action of an unknown force4 ,again1 the same principle acts1 and acts reasonably1 on the minds of multitudes of intelligent ,christians1 who summarily reject a certain class of reported miracles without inquiring into their evidence1 on the ground that the working of such miracles is inconsistent with their conceptions of the divine character2 that is to say1 they think it more probable that the stories should be untrue1 than that ,god should work in the way in question4 ,but to give this argument any validity against the miracles wrought in attestation of ,christianity1 it must be proved that it is inconsistent with the divine character to make a revelation1 or to introduce a deviation from what is to us the ordinary mode of ,his working2 or that the miracles recorded in the ,gospels are repugnant to the character of ,god4 ,mr4 ,mill's general position is therefore incontrovertible1 that those who believe in the existence of ,god 8have two hypotheses to choose from1 viz4 a supernatural1 or an unknown natural agency20 and that they must judge which of these two is the more probable2 and that1 in forming their judgment1 a most important consideration must be the character of ,god1 and the conformity of the supposed event to that character4 ,this position every intelligent ,christian will readily accept4 ,mr4 ,mill adds3 8,but with the knowledge which we now possess of the general uniformity of the course of nature1 religion1 following in the wake of science1 has been compelled to acknowledge the government of the universe1 as being on the whole carried on by general laws1 and not by special interpositions4 ,to whosoever holds this belief1 there is a general presumption against any supposition of divine agency1 not operating through general laws2 or1 in other words1 there is an antecedent improbability in every miracle1 which in order to outweigh it1 requires an extraordinary strength of antecedent probability derived from the special circumstances of the case40 ,these observations require consideration4 ,there is no doubt that the polytheistic religions postulated the existence of a vast number of superhuman beings by whose agency and caprice many natural occurrences were brought about4 ,such a belief indicates a very imperfect conception of 8order0 in nature4 ,but these supposed interferences with it would by no means realize the notion of what we now designate a miracle1 the very idea of which implies an order in nature to which the miracle forms an exception4 ,if there is no order in nature1 there can be no miracle4 ,the ,hebrew monotheism involved conceptions directly opposite to this4 ,it viewed the action of ,god as the foundation of all the forces in nature4 ,whilst above and outside nature1 ,he was everywhere present in nature4 ,its forces were the expressions of the energy of ,his will4 ,its order 7for the ,hebrew recognised a high order in nature7 was the result of ,his good pleasure1 and due to ,his constant working4 ,in the ,old ,testament the commonest events in nature are no less ascribed to ,god than those which we designate miraculous4 ,a ,hebrew never conceived of a miracle as a deviation from the divine order1 but as a consistent carrying out of a divine purpose in the government of the world4 ,a modern conception of theism differs from this in supposing that there are certain forces in material nature which1 when once called into action1 go on energizing without any direct intervention of ,god4 ,but when this conception comes to be minutely analysed1 if we believe in a ,god1 it is impossible to conceive of force1 at least in its ultimate form1 except as a direct expression of the divine energy4 ,science has so far modified religious thought on this subject1 that while it still continues to hold that the various forces in nature are modes of the divine acting1 it nevertheless believes that ,god does not deviate from his predetermined course for the purpose of meeting what we are pleased to call special contingencies4 ,the divine action is1 in fact1 not altered to meet man's convenience1 and ,his government is carried on as far as it lies within our cognisance by the general forces of nature4 ,god acts in nature in conformity with a definite law1 and from that ,he will not deviate1 whatever consequences man's ignorance or disregard of his mode of action may bring upon him4 ,mr4 ,mill observes that to any person holding this belief1 there is a general presumption against any supposition of divine agency1 not operating through general laws4 ,that is to say1 we have had a constant experience of his acting through general laws2 and no experience of his acting otherwise4 ,but the idea of a revelation introduces a factor into the case1 entirely different from anything of which we have had previous experience4 ,it forms part of a great purpose existing in the divine mind1 and is in its nature analogous to the first introduction of life1 or the first creation of a free moral agent4 ,respecting the laws by which ,god regulates his creative acts1 we are ignorant4 ,yet the theist firmly believes in creative acts of some kind1 and that they are regulated by law4 ,in this ignorance of ,god's law of creation1 it is impossible to affirm that it is antecedently improbable that in making a fresh manifestation of himself1 he will operate only through those general laws1 which are the ordinary manifestations of his will4 ,there is some want of clearness in ,mr4 ,mill's expression1 that in order to outweigh the antecedent improbability of miracles1 arising from those modes of the divine action which fall within the limits of our experience1 an extraordinary strength of antecedent probability1 derived from the special circumstances of the case1 is required4 ,if by this antecedent probability he means something such as has been above referred to1 there can be no objection to his statement4 ,he ought to have observed1 however1 that the antecedent improbability which may be supposed to belong to miracles1 only attaches to them while contemplated as phenomena1 and that such an improbability readily yields to positive evidence4 ,this is virtually admitted in a subsequent sentence4 8,according as this circumstance1 viz4 the unknown cause1 not having previously manifested itself in action1 or the falsity of the testimony1 appears more improbable2 that is1 conflicts with an approximate generalization of a higher order1 we believe the testimony or disbelieve it with a stronger or weaker degree of conviction1 according to the preponderance1 at least until we have sifted the matter further40 8,this10 says the author of 8,supernatural ,religion10 8is precisely ,hume's argument1 weakened by the introduction of reservations which have no cogency40 ,we say1 this is precisely what ,hume's argument is not1 for1 if it be valid1 the whole question of miracles may be summarily dismissed without any inquiry into the evidence on which they rest4 ,still1 however1 as the author affirms and endeavours to prove that ,mr4 ,mill's position leave ,hume's argument untouched1 a few further observations will be necessary4 ,hume's statement is1 8,a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature1 and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws1 the proof against a miracle from the nature of the fact1 is as entire as any argument from experience which can possibly be imagined40 ,i reply1 that the conception of a miracle does not involve any necessary violation of the laws of nature4 ,all that it implies is the presence of another force different from those which have come under our cognisance3 and this may act so as to produce the miracle without violating one of nature's laws4 ,but1 it is added1 8uniform and unalterable experience has established these laws40 ,what has this experience really established8 ,it is this1 and this only1 ,given the presence of certain forces1 and no others1 certain results invariably follow4 ,but experience cannot tell us anything1 as to what would be the law of nature1 if some other force were in action2 nor is it able to say one word as to the nonexistence of any force which has not come under its observation4 ,abstractedly1 it is true that the argument against a miracle is as entire as any argument from experience can be imagined1 because experience really supplies us with no basis for argumentation in the case4 ,prior to the invention of railways and the discovery of the uses to which steam can be applied1 the argument from experience was equally valid against the possibility of travelling in a carriage not propelled by animal force4 ,in each case a new force enters into the conditions1 of which experience is unable to take cognisance4 8,why is it more probable that all men must die80 asks this writer1 8or that lead cannot of itself remain suspended in the air2 or that fire consumes wood1 and is extinguished by water1 unless it be that these events are found agreeable to nature1 and there is required a violation of its laws1 or in other words1 a miracle1 to prevent them80 ,i answer that it is probable that all men must die1 because we observe under the action of the known forces of nature that all men do die4 ,but this says nothing as to what must take place if another force was present2 or a combination of existing forces was discovered sufficiently potent to counteract the action of those which in the present state of things bring about the dissolution of man's frame4 ,there is no necessity1 for the purpose of effecting this1 that one of the existing forces should be suspended4 ,the time was1 when certain forms of disease invariably resulted in death4 ,the advance of medical science has averted this result4 ,ought the discovery to have been rejected because it pretended to produce a fact contrary to prior experience8 ,are any of the laws of nature violated1 or are its forces suspended in such a case8 ,what has taken place8 ,man has discovered agencies which have neutralized the effect of other agencies4 ,our belief that all men must die rests on the assumption that no force can or will at any future time be brought into action which will counteract the forces now in operation by which that event is produced4 ,the same remark applies to the other three cases4 ,to the second of them the author has himself supplied the answer3 8,lead cannot of itself remain suspended in the air40 ,doubtless1 it cannot of itself4 ,who ever supposed that it could8 ,but it can be suspended when a force adequate to counteract that of gravitation is present4 ,so fire will always consume wood1 or be extinguished by water1 as long as no other forces but the usual ones are in operation4 ,but man has already invented the means of producing combustion under water4 ,no violation of nature's laws is required in any of these cases4 ,nor is there any required in a miracle4 ,the fact is1 that there is an assumption in all arguments of this kind1 which for obvious reasons is not openly avowed1 but which alone imparts to them an apparent validity4 8,no such force can exist10 which translated into other language is identical with the proposition1 8,there is no ,god40 ,to keep this assumption in the background1 when the very basis of the argument for miracles is the assumption that there is one1 is a course which can lead to no good result4 ,but the author remarks further3 8,there must1 therefore1 be a uniform experience against every miraculous event1 otherwise the event could not merit that appellation4 ,and as a uniform experience amounts to a proof1 there is hence a direct and full proof from the nature of the fact1 against the existence of any miracle2 nor can such a proof be destroyed1 or the miracle rendered credible1 by any opposite proof which is superior40 ,here again we encounter the same faults of reasoning1 which amount to a virtual assumption of the point at issue4 8,there must be a uniform experience against any miraculous event1 otherwise it would not merit the appellation--doubtless40 ,but what is the nature of this uniform experience8 ,exactly this1 that the ordinary forces acting around us being present1 and none other1 the event has not1 and therefore cannot take place4 ,but this is not involved in the idea of a miracle4 ,it assumes the presence of another force1 viz4 ,god4 ,but what then8 ,the objector will urge that we have had no experience of the existence of any such force4 ,is it to be urged1 that no force can exist1 except those of which we have had experience1 or any combination of forces now in action1 different from the present8 ,the men of a former century were equally entitled to make the same assumption4 ,if they had done so1 it would follow1 that if the discoverers of ,america had found our present railway system in full operation1 and reported it to be so1 the contemporaries of ,columbus would have been justified in treating him as an impostor4 ,but the author further observes3 8,mr4 ,mill qualifies his admission respecting the effect of the alleged counteracting cause1 by the all important words #8if present2' for in order to be valid1 the reality of the alleged counteracting cause must be established1 which is impossible2 therefore the objection falls to the ground4 ,no one knows better than ,mr4 ,mill1 that the assertion of a personal deity working miracles1 upon which a miracle is allowed for a moment to come into court1 cannot be proved2 and therefore1 that it cannot stand in opposition to a complete induction which ,hume takes as his standard40 ,this passage strikes us as an extraordinary one to have been written by any one who possesses the logical powers of the author4 ,we are dealing with a formal argument with a view of testing its validity1 we have the fullest right to test it by a supposed case4 ,that supposed case is the presence of an unknown cause1 or an unknown combination of known causes1 or the presence of a personal deity4 ,if the argument breaks down under the application of these tests1 it is worthless4 ,does the author mean to say1 that it is necessary to prove every assumption to be a fact1 before it can be used in argument8 ,how about the assumptions in ,euclid8 ,i submit that the reasoning is by no means vitiated by the assumption1 and consequently that by the application of the same principles of reasoning1 ,hume's argument falls to pieces4 ,in one sense the words 8if present0 are all important1 yet it is not necessary to prove the fact in order to establish the validity of the reasoning1 which is entirely independent of the truth of the assumption4 ,has the author never heard of contingent reasoning in which both antecedent and consequent may be false1 but the proposition valid8 8,no one knows10 again says the author1 8better than ,mr4 ,mill1 that the allegation of a personal ,god working miracles1 upon which a miracle is for a moment allowed to come into court1 cannot be proved40 ,it seems then after all that we are reasoning with a person who rejects theism2 although he has been dealing with the question on principles which assume its truth4 ,in arguing a question of this kind it is necessary to be consistent1 and take our stand either on the principles of theism1 or on those of pantheism or atheism1 and not to fall back on either as the exigencies of the case demand4 ,least of all should this be done by a writer who charges the defenders of ,christianity with shifting their ground to suit the necessities of their argument4 ,but is the case correctly stated8 ,no doubt that the conception of a personal ,god is essential to it4 ,but that of a personal ,god actually working miracles forms no portion of it4 ,if this were assumed1 the entire reasoning would be a petitio principii4 ,we are considering whether miracles are possible2 or if1 supposing one to be wrought1 it can be established by evidence4 ,all that we assume is1 that ,god can work miracles1 not that ,he has wrought them4 ,whether we can prove by good evidence that ,he has wrought miracles1 is quite independent of the present question4 8,no one knows better than ,mr4 ,mill1 that the assertion of a personal deity working miracles cannot be proved40 ,it is perfectly true that ,mr4 ,mill believed that the evidence adduced to prove the being of a personal ,god was insufficient1 and that respecting the origin of all things1 nothing can be known4 ,but yet it is impossible to treat the existence of a personal ,god as a bare assumption4 8,it is impossible to be proved10 says the author4 ,but to whom8 ,to minds constituted like ,mr4 ,mill's4 ,the evidence that a personal ,god exists has appeared irresistible to an overwhelming majority of mankind1 including a great majority of minds gifted with equal1 and even with greater powers than that of ,mr4 ,mill4 ,one might imagine from the mode in which this point is here represented1 that the belief in the existence of a personal ,god was exploded among all men of intellect1 and that the proofs adduced for it were unworthy of attention4 ,surely the question of miracles has a legitimate place in the court which tries the issue of their truth or falsehood4 ,one more point requires notice4 ,hume says1 8,though the being1 to whom the miracle is attributed be in this case ,almighty1 it does not on that account become a whit more probable1 since it is impossible for us to know the attributes or actions of such a being1 otherwise than from the experience which we have of his productions in the usual course of nature40 ,this position involves an evident fallacy4 ,it is also one which underlies one or two of the statements of ,mr4 ,mill1 whose philosophical theory of necessity was one almost certain to involve him in it4 ,the statement is1 that it is impossible to know either the attributes or the actions of such a being1 except from our experience of his productions in the course of nature4 ,what is the course of nature here intended8 does it include mind as well as matter8 ,if the former is included1 and we attain our knowledge of ,god from that source--and every theist maintains that our chief knowledge of ,god is derived from it--then the experience we have of man leads us to infer the presence of certain moral attributes in ,god2 and there is nothing in that experience which renders the performance of a miracle inconceivable or impossible--but as far as that experience is concerned1 it is rendered antecedently probable4 ,what is included1 ,i again ask1 in nature8 ,are we1 the percipient beings ourselves8 ,whether we are regarded as included or excluded from nature1 it is evident that a considerable portion of our knowledge of the divine character is derived from the contemplation of our own being4 ,god is more manifested in our rationality1 8personality10 freedom1 and conscience1 than in the material forces and laws of nature4 ,to perform a miracle therefore is consistent with what we know of ,his character4 ,these observations will render it unnecessary for me to examine in detail the writer's observations on ,paley's arguments against ,hume4 ,even if his arguments are not perfectly conclusive1 their failure does not establish the truth of ,hume's positions1 or invalidate the refutation of them by others4 ,as the object of this author is to reestablish the validity of ,hume's argument1 he ought not to have confined himself to ,paley1 whose mind was little adapted to the investigation of purely logical or metaphysical questions1 but to have noticed the argument of the numerous subsequent writers who have more fully handled the subject4 ,,chapter ,,viii4 ,,the ,,objection ,,that ,,the ,,defenders ,,of ,,christianity ,,assume ,,certain ,,facts ,,the ,,truth ,,of ,,which ,,can ,,only ,,be ,,known ,,by ,,revelation1 ,,and ,,then ,,reason ,,from ,,those ,,facts ,,to ,,the ,,truth ,,of ,,the ,,bible1 ,,considered4 ,it has been objected that the very idea of such a revelation as that of ,christianity implies a defect on the part of the ,creator in the original construction of the ,universe1 and that ,he has been under the necessity of interposing for the purpose of correcting this defect4 ,it is affirmed that divines endeavour to prove that a revelation was probable by first assuming a number of the most irrational propositions1 which1 if true1 can only be proved to be so by the authority of the ,bible1 and then arguing back again that it is highly probable that ,god would interfere to remedy the defects of his creative work by a supernatural revelation2 in other words1 that they assume a state of things which reason would pronounce to be incredible1 unless their truth was asserted in the ,bible1 and then argue on the principles of that reason whose validity they deny1 that it is probable that the ,creator would interfere to remedy a state of things the existence of which reason pronounces to be incredible4 ,the author of 8,supernatural ,religion0 has strongly urged this argument1 and placed the difficulty clearly before us4 ,although the entire passage is too long for quotation1 yet as it is important that we should have the question which he raises before us in his own words1 ,i will cite a portion of it4 8,here again the argument is based on an assumption4 ,the supposition of a divine design in a revelation is the result of a foregone conclusion in its favour1 and not suggested by antecedent probability4 ,divines assume that a communication of this nature is in accordance with reason1 and was necessary for the salvation of the human race simply because they believe that it took place1 and no evidence worthy of the name is ever offered in support of the assumption4 ,a revelation having1 it is supposed1 been made1 that revelation is consequently supposed to have been contemplated1 and to have justified any suspension of the order of nature4 ,the proposition for which evidence is demanded is necessarily employed as evidence for itself4 ,the considerations involved in the assumption of the necessity and reasonableness of such a revelation1 however1 are antecedently incredible and contrary to reason4 ,we are asked to believe that ,god made man in ,his own image1 pure and sinless1 and intended him to continue so2 but scarcely had ,his noblest work left the hand of his ,creator1 than man was tempted into sin by ,satan1 the allpowerful and persistent enemy of ,god1 whose existence and antagonism to a being in whose eyes sin is an abomination1 are not accounted for and are incredible4 ,adam's fall brought a curse upon the earth1 and incurred the penalty of death for himself and for the whole of his posterity4 ,the human race thus created perfect and without sin1 thus disappointed the expectations of the ,creator1 and became daily more wicked1 the evil spirit having succeeded in frustrating the designs of the ,almighty1 so that ,god repented that he had made man1 and at length he destroyed by a deluge all the inhabitants of the earth1 with the exception of eight persons who feared him4 ,this sweeping purification1 however1 was as futile as the original design1 and the race of man soon became more wicked than ever40 ,here follows a statement of what may be regarded as a plan of salvation as held by some modern ,churches1 and the apparent contradiction of the whole to the divine character and perfections is elaborately pointed out4 ,he then concludes as follows3 8,we are asked to believe in the frustration of the divine design of creation1 and in the fall of man into a state of wickedness hateful to ,god1 requiring and justifying the divine design of a revelation1 and such a revelation as this1 as a preliminary to the further proposition that on the supposition of such a design miracles would not be contrary to reason40 ,to this follows an elaborate piece of reasoning1 by which the author attempts to prove that every proposition in this socalled plan of salvation is thoroughly contrary to reason4 ,the general positions laid down in this passage 7omitting points of detail7 are as follows3 ,certain incredible occurrences in the past history of man are assumed by divines to be facts on the authority of the ,bible4 ,these include the complete breaking down of the divine plan in the creation of man through the agency of a being who has frustrated the purposes of the ,almighty4 ,next it is asserted on the same authority that another series of events has taken place which are in the highest degree contrary to reason1 for the purpose of remedying this failure of the original plan4 ,then it is alleged that the probability of a divine interference1 in order to remedy a state of things which reason pronounces to be incredible1 is argued on the authority of reason for the purpose of proving the occurrence of another state of things equally repugnant to reason4 ,such a line of argument is affirmed to begin in irrational assumptions1 and to terminate in a vicious circle4 ,i have before observed that the work from which the above passage is taken1 although entitled 8,supernatural ,religion1 or an inquiry into the reality of ,divine ,revelation10 is really an attack on the central position of the ,new ,testament1 the historical value of the ,gospels4 ,in taking this course the author raises an intelligible issue instead of spreading the argument over an endless mass of controversial matter4 ,if the historical character of the ,gospels cannot be maintained1 the whole controversy as to whether ,christianity is a divine revelation is ended4 ,this forms the key of the ,christian position1 to which the other parts of the controversy stand in the relation of mere outworks4 ,if the events recorded in the ,gospels are historical1 ,christianity must be a divine revelation1 notwithstanding the difficulties connected with certain statements of the ,old ,testament4 ,the real point at issue between those who believe and those who deny that ,god has made a supernatural revelation of ,himself1 is confined to the following question3 ,are the contents of the ,gospels historically credible8 ,is the character of ,jesus ,christ as depicted in them the delineation of an ideal conception or of an historical reality8 ,the author discerns clearly that this is the turning point of the controversy1 and has accordingly addressed himself to prove that the ,gospels are valueless as historical documents4 ,this line of argument is candid1 and one which1 if adhered to1 will save an immense expenditure of reasoning power4 ,now the question of the historical character of the ,gospels is quite distinct from that of the truth or falsehood of any system of ,ecclesiastical ,christianity1 which asserts that its theology is a deduction from the ,gospels and the other portions of the ,new ,testament4 ,it is not revelation itself but a system erected by the application of reason to the facts of revelation4 ,it is most important that this distinction should be kept in view4 ,the truth is1 that the facts of revelation stand in the same relation to theology as the facts of nature do to physical science4 ,incorrect reasonings respecting both the one and the other are alike possible4 ,the ,ptolemaic theory was propounded as an adequate solution of the facts and phenomena of the universe1 and although utterly incorrect in all its parts1 it for ages held unlimited sway over the human mind4 ,in a similar manner various theories have been propounded as solutions of the facts of revelation1 but it by no means follows because they have attained a wide acceptance that they afford the true solution4 ,in examining the claims of the ,gospels to be viewed as historical1 it is quite as much out of place to make them responsible for all the theories which ,ecclesiastical ,christianity has propounded respecting the plan of salvation1 as it would be to make the facts and phenomena of the universe answerable for all the theories which have been propounded for their solution4 ,in examining the claims of the ,gospels to be accepted as historical documents1 it is most unreasonable to make them responsible for theories which were not formulated in the ,church until centuries after their publication4 ,most of the positions affirmed in the above quotation were not formulated until a late period of the ,church's history4 ,certainly they are nowhere directly laid down in the ,new ,testament4 ,the utmost which can be asserted of them is1 that they are alleged to be derived inferentially from its teaching4 ,they form no portion of the ,apostles' or of the ,nicene ,creeds1 which are the only formularies outside of the ,new ,testament which can be represented as embodying the creed of the universal ,church4 ,nor can they be found even in the ,athanasian creed4 ,in discussing the claims of the ,gospels to be esteemed as historical1 they can only be made fairly responsible for what they actually contain4 ,to bring into such a controversy positions only affirmed in recent attempts to formulate a body of ,christian doctrine1 as though they had any bearing on the claims of the ,new ,testament to be viewed as containing a divine revelation1 can lead to no satisfactory result4 ,i now return to the consideration of the difficulties above referred to4 ,it is important to take a careful survey of the entire question1 because they are not only put with great force in the passage which ,i have quoted1 but ,i believe that in different forms they weigh heavily on the minds of many thoughtful men4 ,i will first offer a few observations on the general principle4 ,nothing is easier than to affirm that the introduction of moral evil into the universe is a marring of the ,creator's plan in its formation4 ,the argument is founded on the supposition that an ,almighty ,god exists1 who is wise1 holy1 and benevolent1 and who intended to manifest these attributes through the rational beings which he has created4 ,it is affirmed that the existence of moral evil in man is a failure of this purpose on the part of ,god4 ,but it is the most certain of facts that moral evil does exist in the world1 and that it exists quite independently of ,christianity4 ,the objection therefore is not one directed solely against the ,christianity of the ,new ,testament1 but bears with equal weight against every form of theism1 which admits that the universe has been created1 and is governed by a ,god who is almighty1 wise1 holy1 and benevolent4 ,if there be a ,god who is the ,creator of the ,universe1 it is clear that ,he must have been the ,creator of man1 and that man could only have come into being in conformity with ,his pleasure4 ,now1 if we decline to admit that man was created morally perfect1 yet as he must have been created a moral agent1 it is clear that the first man must have sprung into being either with the moral faculties of a savage1 or in some intermediate condition between these and a state of moral perfection4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that man must have been made capable of moral progress4 ,this is affirmed by all those who assert that he was first produced in a savage state4 ,but the possibility of moral progress involves also the possibility of retrogression4 ,the truth of this is borne witness to by the most palpable facts of daily experience4 ,men of the highest mental powers are capable of abusing them to the worst purposes1 and thus of sinking fearfully low in the moral scale4 ,the case of a man like ,fouch will illustrate my argument1 a man gifted with high intellectual powers1 but who sunk into the lowest condition of moral turpitude4 ,such a man is incomparably worse than the first original savage4 ,i submit1 therefore1 that whatever view we may take of the condition in which man was originally created1 even if he were created a savage1 yet he was made a moral being capable of elevation or degradation2 and that1 to use a human metaphor1 the purpose of a holy ,god must have been his elevation4 ,yet this involves the possibility of his moral degradation4 ,this degradation has also become a fact4 ,it is clear1 therefore1 that the difficulty is one which is inseparable from every possible form of theistic belief1 and is no peculiarity of ,christianity4 ,i shall not attempt to enter on so profound a question as the origin of evil1 and how its existence is consistent with the perfection of a holy ,god4 ,it is a subject quite beyond the issue before us1 and lies not at the foundations of ,christianity1 but of theism1 the truth of which is taken for granted in the objections which the author adduces against the popular view of the scriptural account2 for if there is no ,god the objections are valueless4 ,still he ought to have informed his readers that it is urged as a partial explanation of those difficulties by the defenders of ,christianity1 that it is highly probable that the creation of a moral being possessed of free agency1 but who at the same time is not capable of sinking into a state of moral degradation1 involves as great a contradiction as the conception of a circle which should possess the property of concavity and not of convexity4 ,no rational man believes that it is within the compass1 even of omnipotence1 to work contradictions4 ,if this be so1 it follows that the possibility of the existence of moral evil is a necessary condition of the existence of free agency4 ,the production of a free moral agent capable of yielding a willing obedience to the moral law is a more glorious work than anything in the material universe1 even than that universe itself4 ,it might1 therefore1 have been the good pleasure of the wise1 holy1 and benevolent ,creator to create free moral agents1 even if it involved the existence of moral evil4 ,i am far from propounding this as a complete solution of the difficulty1 but when it is thus used unsparingly against ,christianity1 it would have been only candid to have told the reader that it bore with equal weight against every form of theism1 and to have given the partial explanation which has been propounded by theologians4 ,in reply to the definite statements before us1 ,i affirm that nowhere in the ,gospels1 or in any other portion of the ,new ,testament is it asserted or even implied that revelation was rendered necessary by the frustration of the divine purpose in creation1 or that redemption was a kind of afterthought in the divine mind rendered necessary by such a failure4 ,on the contrary1 the synoptic ,gospels make no affirmation whatever on the subject4 ,the fourth ,gospel contains several statements about the end and purposes of the ,incarnation1 but of a description totally different from those which are alleged in the above quotation to constitute the groundwork of ,christianity4 ,as ,i have already shown1 the ,gospel of ,st4 ,john speaks of its great purpose as being a revelation of the moral character of ,god in the person of ,jesus ,christ4 ,according to its theology ,god has already manifested himself in creation2 in the ,gospel ,he makes a still higher and nobler manifestation of ,his moral character in the person of our ,lord4 ,the author of the first ,epistle ascribed to ,st4 ,john1 whom ,i must assume to have been the author of the ,gospel1 makes the following direct affirmation on the subject4 8,that which was from the beginning1 which we have heard1 which we have seen with our eyes1 which we have looked upon1 and our hands have handled of the word of life2 for the life was manifested1 and we have seen it1 and bear witness1 and show unto you that eternal life which was with the ,father and was manifested unto us2 that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you1 that ye also may have fellowship with us3 and truly our fellowship is with the ,father and with his ,son ,jesus ,christ40 ,in these words it is evidently the intention of the writer to set forth the divine purpose of the ,incarnation4 ,it is true that in other passages he assumes the existence of evil in the universe1 and declares it to be the work of the devil1 and that one of the purposes of this divine manifestation was its destruction4 ,still he drops no hint of any failure in the ,creation1 or that it was the purpose of the ,incarnation to mend a marred scheme4 ,on the contrary1 the great truth set forth in the ,epistle and in the ,gospel is that ,creation and ,redemption form portions of one great whole2 and that the latter is a manifestation of the divine glories beyond ,god's previous manifestations of himself1 whether in creation or in history4 ,similar are the views of the ,apostle ,paul4 ,according to him1 while many other purposes were effected by the ,incarnation1 there is one great purpose running through all divine revelation4 ,in several passages he affirms that its influence extends far beyond that which it exerts on the race of man4 ,he again and again asserts that it was the gradual unfolding of an idea or purpose which existed from eternity in the divine mind4 ,thus he writes3 8,and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in ,god who created all things by ,jesus ,christ1 to the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the ,church the manifold wisdom of ,god1 according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in ,christ ,jesus our ,lord40 7,eph4 iii4 and ix47 8,having made known to us the mystery of ,his will1 according to ,his good pleasure1 which ,he purposed in ,himself1 that in the dispensation of the fulness of times ,he might gather in one all things in ,christ1 both which are in heaven and in earth1 even in ,him40 7,eph4 i4 #i1 #aj47 8,and having made peace by the blood of ,his cross1 by ,him to reconcile all things unto ,himself3 by ,him1 ,i say1 whether they be things in earth or things in heaven40 7,col4 i4 #bj47 ,i fully admit that the ,apostle affirms that the design of bringing man into union with ,god was a portion of this purpose4 ,nothing however is more foreign to the ideas of ,st4 ,paul than that revelation is an afterthought adopted as a remedy for a marred plan4 ,nor are the views of the other writers of the ,new ,testament different4 ,st4 ,peter tells us that the angels desire to look into the redemption wrought by ,christ4 ,st4 ,james assures us that1 8known unto ,god are all ,his works from the foundation of the world40 ,the author of the ,epistle to the ,hebrews speaks to the same effect3 8,god1 who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers in 7by7 the prophets1 hath in these last days spoken unto us in ,his ,son40 ,so far from its being the idea of the sacred writers that redemption is an afterthought designed to remedy the failure of the original purpose of creation1 that both of them are viewed as parts of the same whole2 both are purposes which have existed in the divine mind during the eternal ages1 and have been gradually evolved in time4 ,nothing is further from their mind than that the divine mode of working is by fits or starts1 or sudden interventions4 ,man was the last form of life which ,god has introduced into the world1 and in that sense ,he is said to have rested from ,his creative work4 ,but ,god is no less distinctly affirmed to be always working in nature and in providence1 so that ,sabbath days form no exception3 8,my ,father worketh hitherto and ,i work40 ,such being the views of the writers of the ,new ,testament on this subject1 the whole of those objections1 as far as they are founded on the assertion that revelation is intended to remedy the failure of ,god's creative purpose1 fall to the ground4 ,my present supposition is that ,i am reasoning with believers in theism4 ,if ,god has gradually evolved creation1 each successive stage of the evolution forms a part of one great and comprehensive whole4 ,at each stage the work is incomplete1 but its incompleteness is no proof of failure4 ,a period has existed when the only beings in the world were devoid of rationality4 ,if an objector could have contemplated it in this stage1 he might have urged that the plan of creation was a failure1 while in reality it was only incomplete4 ,man came in at the next stage of the great design4 ,the next stage1 according to the ,new ,testament1 is the ,incarnation of the ,son of ,god1 intended as a higher manifestation of the moral glories of the ,creator for the purpose of raising man to a higher moral and spiritual elevation4 ,to the attainment of this purpose all the previous events in man's history have been made subservient4 ,surely those persons with whom ,i am reasoning ought to be the last to object that there is anything inconsistent with the divine character in such a gradual unfolding of the divine purposes4 ,we might as well object that every advancing stage of the great design of ,creation was introduced to remedy a preceding defect as assert that ,christianity originated in this cause4 ,the world was in a most unfinished state when it was only tenanted by the lower forms of life1 and great fault might have been found with its construction4 ,but a higher came1 and a higher1 then man1 then ,christ our ,lord1 the second ,adam1 as ,st4 ,paul designates him1 8from heaven heavenly40 ,whatever may have been the assertions of certain classes of theologians who have attempted to fathom the divine mind by their own short sounding line1 the sacred writers take no narrow view of the purposes of the ,incarnation4 ,it is declared that they will be realized in the yet distant future1 towards which consummation they are gradually being carried out in time4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that the ,new ,testament affirms that a purpose is consistently carried out in the history of redemption far different from that which has been here placed before us as the assumptions of ,ecclesiastical ,christianity4 ,the author has placed these in their most objectionable form2 and if ,christian apologists have affirmed on such premises as those above stated that a divine interposition was rendered probable1 ,i shall not attempt to defend them4 ,to establish the probability of a revelation additional to that afforded by creation we have no occasion to appeal to theories1 but to facts4 ,the existing moral and spiritual condition of mankind is universally admitted to be imperfect4 ,both believers and unbelievers in revelation alike acknowledge that the attempt to improve it is desirable4 ,no less certain is it that man possesses faculties which can only receive their perfect development in a higher condition of things than the present4 ,these as much point to a higher development of man as the organization of the lower forms of animal life points to the higher and more perfect ones4 ,if1 therefore1 ,god be the ,creator and moral ,governor of the world1 a further manifestation of ,him is rendered highly probable4 ,this probability may be reasoned out by analogies in the history of the past4 ,higher developments from lower forms have been the rule4 ,are they then to cease with man in his present state of imperfection8 ,how man came to be thus imperfect1 how his moral degradation has originated1 is a question which does not fall within the present argument4 ,it is a fact1 by whatever theory it may be attempted to be accounted for4 ,if a rational being had existed in those ages during which there was manifested nothing but the lower forms of life1 and had come to the conclusion that the world as it then existed was the work of an intelligent ,creator1 he would have pronounced it highly probable that the resources of creative power would yet receive a more glorious manifestation4 ,when vertebrate life was first introduced into the world1 a careful examination of the state of things would have led to a similar conclusion4 ,but the lower forms of vertebrate life are typical of the higher1 and the higher point to man4 ,before man entered the world a being capable of comprehending the condition of things as then existing would have pronounced it highly probable that there would be yet a further manifestation of creative energy1 and that the work required for its consummation the production of rationality4 ,such and far more numerous have been the actual stages of creative action4 ,are we entitled to call them a failure because they were relatively imperfect1 or any fresh intervention of divine power an interference to remedy a previous failure8 ,on the contrary1 these socalled interventions are the persistent carrying out of a determined purpose4 ,the acts of ,deity are inaccurately designated interventions4 ,he is always working with the most perfect knowledge of the means which ,he employs1 and the most perfect controul over them4 ,failure with ,him is impossible4 ,the word 8intervention0 as applied to the operations of ,god conveys the idea of a machine which ,he originally constructed1 and then left to its own operations4 ,such a machine will in course of time get out of order1 or perform its work imperfectly1 and require to be supplemented by additional contrivances4 ,thus when the clock ceases to go there arises a necessity for the intervention of the clockmaker4 ,he constructs his clock and leaves it to itself4 ,but creation is no mere machine2 the ,divine worker is always present in ,his works4 ,the last idea which would have occurred to the authors of the ,bible was that ,god was obliged to be making a number of special interventions to cure defects in the results of ,his operations4 ,as the ,bible cannot help using the language of man1 expressions derived from the defects of human language are at times used in it1 but the one prevalent idea is that ,god is always present working in the kingdoms of nature and of grace1 that all ,his actions are the constant carrying out of a predetermined purpose1 and that with ,him is no variableness neither shadow of turning4 ,if the possibility of the introduction of moral evil into the universe is a necessary condition of the creation of a free moral agent1 or in other words1 if the contrary supposition involves a contradiction1 the ,creator must have viewed the production of such a free agent as so desirable1 that it formed a part of ,his purpose to create him notwithstanding this possibility4 ,if then moral evil became a fact1 it involved no failure in the purposes of ,god4 ,he must have viewed the existence of such beings as desirable1 even if this contingency became a fact4 ,why1 ,i ask1 may not a further manifestation of ,himself1 by means of which moral evil might be reduced to the smallest dimensions1 or even ultimately removed1 while freedom is still preserved1 form a portion of the same great purpose of the divine mind8 ,if this be possible1 the assertion that ,redemption is a special intervention of ,god for the purpose of remedying the breaking down of his creative plan1 is disproved1 and with it all the other inferences of the numerous writers whose views ,i am considering4 ,in affirming the probability of a revelation1 the ,christian apologist need not go beyond the region of actual facts4 ,he has no occasion to rest his proof on any statement made by a supposed revelation the truth of which is the point at issue4 ,to do so would be to assume the thing which requires to be proved4 ,but facts as they exist1 independently of any statements in the ,bible1 are quite sufficient4 ,man exists4 ,he is possessed of powers and aspirations which this state of things does not gratify4 ,he is capable of moral action1 and there is something within him which affirms that he ought to obey the moral law4 ,yet its realization by him is of the most imperfect character4 ,does the actual condition of man afford satisfaction even to the unbeliever1 account for it as he may8 ,is there not a great amount of moral evil in the world8 ,do not considerable numbers of men1 instead of progressing to higher degrees of moral perfection degenerate through various stages of moral corruption8 ,does not moral evil cause a great amount of physical suffering8 ,are not vast numbers of men the prey of ignorance and superstition--great evils doubtless1 and of which unbelievers heavily complain8 ,in one word1 when we contemplate the present condition of mankind1 does not the sternest reason affirm that it is inconceivable that this can be the final condition of ,god's creative work8 ,yet these things are no theories but obvious facts1 and on the supposition on which we are reasoning1 facts in the universe of ,god4 ,it follows therefore1 that facts such as these1 when contemplated by reason1 establish the probability1 nay almost the certainty of a further divine action4 ,of course this is based on the assumption that there is a wise and holy ,god who is the author of the universe1 but both the opponents and believers in revelation can only argue this subject at all on the supposition that ,god exists4 ,any fresh mode of divine action will probably differ from the preceding ones1 because man exists as a moral and spiritual being4 ,it is therefore probable that such divine action will be moral rather than physical2 or1 in other words1 the divine purpose of creation includes within it a yet further manifestation of the divine character and perfections4 ,this is what the ,new ,testament affirms to have taken place in the ,incarnation4 ,this is my position4 ,i shall only add one or two more brief remarks4 ,those who charge theologians with making unfounded assumptions should be guiltless of making them themselves4 ,the warning against falling into this error may be profitably taken to heart by both parties to this controversy4 ,it is affirmed that the constitution of nature bears everywhere the indications of systematic upward progression4 ,i ask1 is this systematic upward progression everywhere true of man8 ,are there no where indications of retrogression8 ,europeans generally during the last two thousand years have progressed1 although even this is not universally true1 for some of the fine arts attained to greater perfection in the ancient than in the modern world4 ,but has the ,hindoo race progressed during the last three thousand years8 ,have the ,chinese8 ,is it not true that the progress of these two races has been one of considerable retrogression8 ,where is the progress made by the ,negro races from the first dawnings of their history8 ,yet these three races form more than half of the human family4 ,again1 have the ,arab races progressed since the days of ,abraham8 ,are the ,mahommedan races in a state of gradual improvement8 ,these are questions to which a definite answer must be returned before the proposition above referred to can be esteemed a solution of all the problems of human history4 ,it will perhaps be replied that nature is gradually extinguishing these unprogressive races1 under the pressure of her inexorable laws4 ,yet they constitute an overwhelming majority of the human race1 and it is strange to talk of this progressive improvement of the human race as a great law of nature1 if the mode of improvement be the extinction of the great majority of mankind4 ,but are the ,hindoo1 ,chinese1 ,negro1 and other unprogressive races less numerous than they were three thousand years ago8 ,the evidence is all the other way4 ,we want present facts and not theories of the future4 ,it has been affirmed1 that 8,the survival of the fittest is the stern law of nature4 ,the invariable action of law of itself eliminates the unfit4 ,progress is necessary to existence4 ,extinction is the doom of ,retrogression40 ,these assertions may receive their fulfilment in some period of the distant future1 but they certainly do not agree with the past history of man4 ,whatever progress the ,european races may be capable of1 certain conditions of climate form an inexorable barrier to their supplanting the ,negro1 the ,hindoo1 or the ,chinese1 and we know that ,european blood in certain climates has actually degenerated4 ,again1 it is stated 8that the highest effect contemplated by the supposed revelation is to bring man into harmony with law2 and this is insured by law acting on intelligence1 and even on instinct40 ,where1 ,i ask1 is the proof of this derived from the history of man8 ,is the moral condition of the races above referred to higher than it was three thousand years ago8 ,did the moral condition of the ,greek race progress or retrograde during the four centuries which preceded the ,advent8 ,which was the more elevated condition of ,roman morality1 that of the century which preceded and followed the conquest of ,italy1 or that of the empire and its crumbling institutions8 ,again1 we are told that 8there is not in reality a gradation of breach of law that is not followed by an equivalent gradation of punishment40 ,this may be the case in some ,utopia in which the author lives1 but it certainly neither is nor ever has been the condition of this world4 ,does villany1 ,i ask1 always receive adequate punishment in this world8 ,it has been the all but universal opinion of mankind that it does not4 ,did not ,fouch die quietly in his bed1 possessed of wealth and honours1 and a darkened conscience8 ,did not ,philip ,,ii4 of ,spain1 after all his crimes1 die under the delusions of selfapprobation8 ,in a controversy like this the most confident assertions will not supply the want of facts on which to ground our reasonings4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that the assertion that the ,christian argument involves reasoning in a circle1 or else that it assumes the point at issue1 is disproved4 ,,chapter ,,ix4 ,,demoniacal ,,miracles--,,general ,,considerations4 ,it has been objected that the admission which the ,new ,testament is alleged to make as to the reality of demoniacal miracles weakens1 if it does not destroy1 the value of miracles as an attestation of a revelation4 ,in order to do full justice to the force of this objection ,i will state it in the words of the author of 8,supernatural ,religion30-- 8,the necessity of asserting the dependence of miracles on doctrines is thrust upon divines by the circumstance1 that the ,bible narrates so many cases of false miracles1 and contains so many warnings against them40 8,the first thought which must occur to any unprejudiced mind is amazement that an ,almighty ,god should select as a guarantee of his supposed communications signs and wonders which can be so easily imitated by others1 that there must always be a doubt whether the message be from the kingdom of heaven1 or from the kingdom of lies4 ,it seems priori absolutely incredible that a divine revelation which is so important1 and which it is intended that man should believe1 should be made in such obscure language1 and with such doubtful attestation4 ,that heaven should condescend to use the same arguments as hell1 and with so little difference in the degree of the power exhibited1 that man can scarcely1 if at all1 discriminate between them1 is a theory of the most startling description40 8,does not the necessity of this theory of false miracles1 of the power of ,god thus placed on a level with the power of ,satan1 in a matter where the distinct purpose is to authenticate by miraculous testimony a miraculous revelation1 rather betray the unreality of miracles altogether1 and indicate that the idea of such supernatural intervention originates solely from the superstitious ignorance of men in ages when every phase of nature was attributed to direct supernatural interference1 and ascribed with arbitrary promptness to ,god or to the devil8 ,it is certain that as miracles are represented as being common both to ,god and ,satan1 they cannot be considered as a distinctive attestation of a divine revelation40 ,after quoting ,dr4 ,mozley to the effect that 8,miraculous evidence cannot oblige us to accept any doctrine contrary to our moral nature0--an abstractly true statement1 but quite inapplicable to the ,new ,testament1 which no where affirms that miracles have been wrought in attestation of doctrines--the author continues3 8,the assertion that evidence emanating from ,god is in some cases to be rejected is a monstrous proposition2 and the evidential force of miracles is totally destroyed by the logical inference from it1 and from the double character of miracles as ,divine and ,satanic2 that ,god is not only capable of exerting supernatural power to attest what is true1 but that ,satan equally possesses and exercises the same power in opposition to ,god for purposes of deception4 ,if miraculous evidence is indifferently employed to certify truth and error1 it is at once degraded by such common service into contempt40 ,these passages put us in possession of the author's views1 and perhaps it would be impossible to state the objections more strongly4 ,i have quoted them thus fully1 not only as embodying the views of this particular writer1 but as placing before us in a clear and distinct light the chief objections which can be urged against the attestation that miracles give to the truth of the ,christian revelation1 on the assumption that demoniacal miracles have been performed1 or even on the admission that they are possible4 ,before ,i enter on the general question1 ,i must briefly draw attention to the statements and assumptions contained in this remarkable passage4 #a4 ,the assertion that miracles are alleged in proof of doctrines1 and that divines1 when the necessities of their position compel them1 affirm the direct converse of this1 viz4 that miracles are dependent for their truth on doctrines1 is an entire misapprehension of the ,christian argument4 ,its true position will be discussed in a subsequent chapter4 #b4 ,the assertion that the miracles of ,almighty ,god can be imitated by ,satan is a gratuitous assumption4 ,nowhere is this affirmed in the ,new ,testament4 ,on the contrary1 our ,lord uniformly declares that ,his works were clearly distinguishable from the working of ,satan1 and could only maliciously be confounded with them4 #c4 ,while the ,bible speaks of false miracles1 its language is quite consistent with the fact that they were impositions practised on the senses1 like the acts of jugglers4 #d4 ,the word 8miracle0 is here used to denote a supernatural fact in external nature devoid of all moral environment4 ,i have already pointed out the inaccuracy of this position2 and shall have much to say on this subject hereafter4 ,to strip a superhuman occurrence of its moral aspect is simply to assume the question at issue4 #e4 ,it is not correct that the essence of a miracle consists in the degree of power manifested in the performance of the outward act4 ,the performance of a miracle does not necessarily involve a greater exertion of power than is manifested in the ordinary occurrences of nature4 ,a miracle is not only an act of power1 but it involves the elements of prediction and of purpose4 #f4 ,the affirmation that the ,christian argument involves the position that heaven must condescend to use the same arguments as hell1 if demoniacal possession is supposed to be possible1 is altogether inaccurate4 #g4 ,the ,christian argument nowhere involves the assumption that evidence emanating from ,god is under certain circumstances to be rejected4 ,it is quite conceivable that a real miracle may have been wrought1 which was adequately attested when it was performed1 but that the evidence has become imperfect by lapse of time4 #h4 ,even if it be supposed that demoniacal miracles are possible1 there is nothing in that assumption which renders it necessary to take for granted that ,satan is allowed to ramble over the universe and work miracles at his pleasure1 and to imitate the miracles of ,god4 ,the ,new ,testament uniformly asserts that whatever agency he can exert is a permitted one1 which is confined within definite limits4 ,in considering the question of demoniacal miracles it must be kept in mind that the language employed by the writers of the ,bible is invariably phenomenal4 ,they describe events as they appeared to the eye of the beholder4 ,hence it by no means follows1 when they refer to the arts of magic and other similar practices which were so prevalent in the ancient world1 and say that the magicians did such and such things1 that they meant to affirm the reality of their performance4 ,their language is always taken from the observer's point of view4 ,as far as he saw1 they did so4 ,we frequently speak in the same way of modern feats of conjurors4 ,thus1 when it is said that the magicians brought forth frogs1 the language is quite consistent with the act being a delusion successfully practised on the senses4 ,it is affirmed by the author that the ,bible asserts the reality of such miracles4 ,i reply that it makes no such assertion1 but merely describes them as they appeared to the eye of the beholder4 ,its strong denunciations of such practices is no evidence that they were anything else than deceptions which the performers endeavoured to palm off for wicked purposes4 ,the precept of ,moses1 8,thou shalt not suffer a witch to live10 has been urged as affording proof that the ,bible in unqualified terms asserts the reality of witchcraft4 ,whether the art was real or simulated1 the sentence of the lawgiver would have been equally just1 for impostors who practise such arts for the purpose of delusion1 are far more injurious to society than many kinds of criminals who have undergone the severest punishment4 ,in the ,new ,testament 8lying wonders0 are occasionally referred to4 ,the expression may legitimately mean one of two things1 either a supernatural act performed for the attestation or propagation of a lie1 or an apparent miracle1 which is in itself a lie4 ,it cannot be denied that the language of the ,new ,testament will honestly bear this interpretation4 ,i will quote the strongest passage to be found in it4 ,st4 ,paul1 writing to the ,thessalonians1 in speaking of the manifestation of a great anti christian power1 says1 8,whose coming is after the working of ,satan1 with all power1 and signs1 and lying wonders1 and with all the deceivableness of unrighteousness1 in them that perish1 because they receive not the love of the truth that they might be saved40 ,this language is quite consistent with the idea that the works here spoken of were not supernatural1 but deceptions wrought for the propagation of a system of falsehood4 ,there can be no question that impositions of this kind have been systematically practised in later times in support of a great system of ecclesiastical power1 and to attest doctrines in connection with it4 ,but it is worthy of observation that the demoniacal supernaturalism which we read of in the ,new ,testament1 is not represented as having been employed for the attestation of any system of doctrine whatever4 ,elymas1 the sorcerer1 practised his art for the purpose of establishing an influence over ,sergius ,paulus1 but for aught that appears he was a simple impostor4 ,all the other cases of ,satanic supernaturalism referred to in the ,gospels resolve themselves into cases of possession1 or the occasional production of a disease4 ,it is further to be observed that nowhere throughout the ,new ,testament is a miracle1 properly so called1 ascribed to ,satanic action4 ,possession is a phenomenon entirely different from a miracle4 ,i admit that there is one apparent exception1 namely in the history of our ,lord's temptation4 ,this if it is intended to be a description of an objective fact1 is undoubtedly an instance of direct interference with the action of the forces of nature2 ,satan is here represented as possessing and exercising the power of counteracting the force of gravitation by transporting the body of our ,lord from place to place4 ,as this is the one solitary instance in the ,new ,testament in which such power is ascribed to him1 it demands especial consideration4 ,we are told that during one period of his temptation our ,lord was carried by ,satan to an exceeding high mountain2 and again1 that he was placed on a pinnacle of the temple4 ,these acts involve such an exercise of supernatural power as may justly be put in comparison with his walking on the water4 ,it becomes therefore a very important question whether this account is intended to be taken as a literal narrative4 ,the fact of its being the only recorded instance of its kind affords a contrary presumption1 for if the writers had believed that there was nothing in such interference with the physical forces inconsistent with the ordinary course of ,satanic action it is hardly possible that they could have viewed this as a solitary instance of the exercise of such power1 especially when the case of the demoniacs afforded so many opportunities for its manifestation4 ,it is clear from the narrative itself that the only source of information regarding the temptation must have been an account given by our ,lord himself to his disciples1 as it was an occurrence of which there could have been no witnesses4 ,otherwise it must be assumed to be a mere fiction4 ,it is also clear that the three temptations into which the narrative is divided are intended to describe three great crises through which our ,lord's mind passed4 ,according to ,mark's account he is represented as undergoing temptations during the whole period of forty days4 ,matthew and ,luke present us with the general results of the entire temptation4 ,if our ,lord gave an account of it to his disciples1 there can be no reason why he should not have embodied its results in a narrative form1 as is the course which he adopted in his parables4 ,if the parables were not usually introduced with the formula 8he spake a parable10 we might easily mistake them also for narratives of actual occurrences4 ,but although this is the usual form1 it is not the only one1 as appears in the parable of ,dives and ,lazarus4 ,it is therefore quite conceivable that on giving his disciples an account of the crises through which his mind passed during the period of the temptation he may have put it into a parabolic form1 of which himself was the centre1 as one which would be most adapted to the level of their apprehensions2 otherwise it would have assumed the character of a number of abstract disquisitions4 ,but we are not left to infer from mere probabilities that the narrative was not intended to be understood literally4 ,one portion of it places it beyond doubt that it was intended to contain a visionary or parabolic element of some kind4 ,in the account of the temptation to fall down and worship ,satan1 it is expressly stated that the ,devil transported our ,lord to an exceeding high mountain1 and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them4 ,the narrative of ,luke adds that all this was done in a moment of time1 which shows clearly that it was not intended to be from one end to the other a literal statement of facts4 ,it is therefore absolutely necessary to assume the presence of a visionary element somewhere2 the only question is1 where1 and to what extent8 ,if we attach the meaning usually assigned by the writers in the ,new ,testament to the word 8world10 it is impossible to imagine that any amount of credulity can have believed that there was any mountain from whose top such a view could have been attained by the unaided power of the human eye4 ,but further1 it is asserted not only that the kingdoms of the world were rendered visible1 but their glory2 that is to say1 the spectator was able to see their great cities1 their buildings1 and all their signs of outward magnificence1 for the sight of their glory was obviously intended to add force to the temptation4 ,yet even the most credulous people possess some moderately correct idea as to the extent of view which the eye can reach and would feel quite certain that without the interposition of a miracle such a survey in a moment of time would be impossible4 ,it may probably be urged by some that the first part of the account only is intended to be a description of an objective fact1 and that the last temptation was visionary4 ,to this ,i reply that the entire narrative is couched in language of fact1 and the latter portion quite as much so as the former4 ,besides1 if the sight of the kingdoms of the world and their glory was a visionary representation1 then the reason for conveying ,jesus to a lofty mountain ceases1 for such a vision might equally well have been presented to him in a plain2 whereas if we take it as an account of a literal fact1 it is clear that the reason for conveying him to the mountain was to afford him an extensive view4 ,it is therefore impossible to draw a distinction between the two portions of the narrative4 ,every consideration therefore proves that the entire narrative is either parabolic or an account of a visionary transaction1 precisely similar to many of those described in the ,old ,testament1 and not of an actual occurrence4 ,this being so1 we arrive at the inference that nowhere in the ,new ,testament is ,satanic influence described as interfering with the ordinary action of the forces of nature1 by a direct exertion of power4 ,it may however be objected that there were probably reasons why he was permitted to do so on this particular occasion2 but on such a question ,i shall not enter4 ,i shall only repeat that it is impossible to view the latter portion of the narrative as an account of an objective fact2 and this being the case it is far more probable that the whole partakes of the same character4 ,at any rate it is the single instance in the ,new ,testament in which the possession of such power is ascribed to ,satan4 ,this has a very important bearing on the argument4 ,the author affirms that the writers of the ,new ,testament attributed to ,satan a general power of interfering with the forces of nature1 and of working miracles which may fairly be contrasted with the miracles of ,god4 ,but whatever may have been the opinions of others on this subject1 it is clear that such opinions were not held by them4 ,if they had believed that ,satanic agency was constantly exerted in the affairs of the visible universe1 there is every reason why they should have invented numerous stories of this description1 and ascribed them to ,satanic intervention4 ,the writer to whom ,i am referring1 urges in the strongest manner1 that the belief in magic1 and in frequent exertions of demoniacal power over the external universe1 was universal among the ,jews at the time of the ,advent4 ,to prove this1 he has adduced a number of opinions entertained by the writers of the ,talmud and others1 involving the most grovelling superstitions1 and asserts that indications of the same are to be found in the ,gospels4 ,as an instance1 he favours us with the following story told by ,josephus1 who declares that he was an eyewitness of the fact4 8,josephus had seen a countryman of his own1 named ,eliezer1 release people possessed of devils in the presence of the ,emperor ,vespasian and his sons1 and of his army4 ,he put a ring containing one of the roots prescribed by ,solomon1 into the nose of a demoniac1 and drew the demon out of his nostrils1 and in the name of ,solomon1 and reciting one of his incantations1 he adjured him to return no more4 ,in order to demonstrate to the spectators that he had power to cast out demons1 ,eliezer was accustomed to set a pitcher of water a little way off1 and he commanded the demon1 as he left the body of the man1 to overturn it1 by which means the skill and wisdom of ,solomon was made very manifest40 ,the object for which this and kindred stories are referred to1 is to prove that the ,jewish mind was so intensely credulous and superstitious on the subject of demoniacal action at the time of our ,lord1 that there was nothing so monstrous1 which it was not in the habit of accepting as fact4 ,we are also repeatedly informed that the followers of ,jesus shared in this unbounded credulity4 ,it may be even inferred from the assertion before us1 that they were far more credulous4 ,the argument which this writer adduces is plausible1 and it may be stated thus4 ,if a writer like ,josephus1 who was extensively acquainted with ,greek literature1 and the ,talmudists who belonged to the lite of the nation1 could narrate such follies as facts1 what must have been the beliefs of the vulgar herd8 ,we must not forget that the followers of ,jesus were chiefly from the lower orders4 8,the common people heard him gladly40 ,the inference which the reader is allowed to draw is that they must have been addicted to yet more gross credulity4 ,what were the reasons which induced ,josephus1 a man who had seen the wide world1 to relate this monstrous story ,i shall not inquire4 ,one can hardly believe that he was a dupe2 his reporting it1 however1 no more proves that such beliefs were universal when he wrote1 than the existence of a wide spread spiritualistic literature proves that a belief in spiritrapping prevails generally among all classes of society at the present day1 although many of the believers in spiritualism belong to the educated classes1 and readily accept absurdities which the sound sense of multitudes of artisans would immediately repudiate4 ,the argument before me tells in a direction precisely opposite to that which is intended by those who have invoked it1 and it is marvellous that they do not perceive that it is destructive of their own case4 ,i put it as follows3 ,if the authors of the ,gospels entertained the views of demoniacal agency which this author represents them to have held1 their narratives1 which directly lead them to refer to that subject1 would have contained numerous references to stories of the type of that quoted from ,josephus4 ,let me illustrate this argument by an example4 ,the ,arabs and other ,orientals believe in the power of demons and magicians over external nature4 ,they consider this action to be of frequent occurrence4 ,their literature therefore abounds with accounts of such monstrous interventions4 ,but the ,gospels1 with the exception of the history of the ,temptation1 do not contain an account of a single marvel wrought by the agency of demons on external nature4 ,demoniacal agency is repeatedly mentioned by them2 but it belongs to an order of phenomena of an entirely different character4 ,what1 ,i ask1 is the only legitimate inference8 ,that the authors of the ,gospels were free from the superstitions in question4 ,before going further it will be necessary to ascertain what is the precise nature and character of that demoniacal supernaturalism which is apparently asserted in the pages of the ,new ,testament4 ,without doing so1 it will be impossible to form a correct opinion on the subject under consideration4 ,the ,new ,testament apparently ascribes to ,satanic agency not only a power of suggesting temptations to the minds of men1 but also in certain cases of depriving them of the supremacy of their wills1 of enslaving their intellectual and moral powers1 of interfering with the use of their bodily organs1 and1 in one instance1 of imparting an unusual strength4 ,these phenomena constitute what is designated as 8possession10 and bear no inconsiderable resemblance to different forms of insanity4 ,but the ,new ,testament also makes mention of lunacy as well as possession4 ,how far they were distinguishable from each other we have no sufficient data to enable us to determine4 ,at one time they are spoken of as the same disease2 at others they are clearly distinguished from each other4 ,the language of the ,gospels seems to imply that some maladies were believed to be produced by the influence of possession4 ,in one or two instances language is used which may imply that a bodily disease was brought on by ,satanic agency without actual possession4 ,whatever may have been the belief of the ,jews on this subject1 it is certain that the cases referred to in the ,gospels are very few2 and although the mention of diseases is very common1 nothing is said about their being due to demoniacal influence4 ,not a single case occurs in which ordinary accidents are referred to this influence1 although such is affirmed to have been the common belief of the ,jews4 ,in the ,acts of the ,apostles only two cases of possession are mentioned1 one that of the damsel at ,philippi1 and the other the occasion when certain ,jewish exorcists undertook to exorcise demoniacs at ,ephesus in the name of ,jesus4 ,the former case is of some importance4 ,the girl is described as possessed by a spirit of ,pytho1 i4e4 she pretended to practise the art of divination by the inspiration of the god ,apollo1 and in many respects she practised the arts of the modern fortuneteller4 ,such persons were not uncommon at the time4 ,the ,pythia at ,delphi professed to prophesy under the influence of a similar inspiration4 ,whatever may have been the real causes by which this mental condition was brought about1 the paroxysms were so real that one is recorded to have died under their influence4 ,her state when under prophetic influence1 is described as one of phrensied excitement4 ,st4 ,paul is represented by the historian as addressing himself to the spirit1 and commanding him to come out in the name of ,jesus ,christ4 ,the powers of such persons were confined to diving into the secrets of the future2 but to other kinds of supernatural power they made no claims4 ,if the language here employed be other than phenomenal1 it seems to imply that in ,st4 ,paul's opinion certain practices of the ancient world which were far from uncommon1 were connected with demoniacal agency4 ,these were usually combined with certain forms of religious phrensy1 such as even in the present day manifest themselves in connection with the more degraded forms of religion4 ,at no period was this class of phenomena more prevalent than during the century which preceded1 and that which followed the ,advent1 when human nature was stirred to its profoundest depths4 ,there are also a few passages in ,st4 ,paul's writings which seem to affirm a connection between demoniacal agency and pagan worship4 ,whatever may have been his own opinions on this subject1 it is evident that the action which he supposed to have been exerted was entirely mental4 ,not one word is uttered by him which implies that he regarded this mode of demoniacal action as involving a power of interfering with the forces of the material universe4 ,such is a general statement of the facts as they appear in the ,new ,testament in connection with possession1 and demoniacal action4 ,it has been necessary thus distinctly to state them1 in order that we may keep the subject clear of all adventitious issues with which it has been attempted to obscure it4 ,that form of demoniacal action involved in the supposed power possessed by demons of tempting men to evil does not fall within the limits of the present controversy4 ,but the opponents of ,christianity are not content to reason on the facts respecting demoniacal action as they are presented to us in the pages of the ,new ,testament4 ,they charge its writers with a number of the most grotesque beliefs on this subject1 for which the book itself furnishes us with no evidence4 ,this course has been taken for the purpose of fastening on them a boundless credulity1 and thereby destroying their claim to be accepted as credible reporters of historical facts4 ,i will cite one or two examples of this mode of reasoning1 in order that we may be able to form a correct estimate of its value4 ,after having given a detailed account of a number of monstrous beliefs gleaned from the ,talmud and other sources respecting angels1 the author of 8,supernatural ,religion0 then proceeds3 8,the belief in demons at the time of ,jesus was equally emphatic and comprehensive1 and we need not mention also that the ,new ,testament is full of it4 ,they are in the air1 on earth1 in the bodies of men and animals1 and even at the bottom of the sea4 ,they are the offspring of the fallen angels who loved the daughters of men4 ,they have wings like angels1 and can fly from one place in the earth to another4 ,they attain a knowledge of the future by listening behind the veil of the temple of ,god4 ,their numbers are infinite4 ,the earth is so full of them1 that if man had the power to see1 he could not exist on account of them2 there are more demons than men1 and they are about as close as the earth thrown up out of a new made grave4 ,it is stated that each man had #aj1jjj demons on his right hand1 and #ajjj on his left4444 ,the crush on the ,sabbath in the synagogue arises from them2 also the dresses of the ,rabbins become so soon worn through their rubbing2 in like manner also they cause the tottering of the feet4 ,he who wishes to discover these spirits must take sifted ashes1 and strew them about his bed1 and he will perceive their footprints upon them like a cock's tread40 ,here follow a number of the most ineffable absurdities1 unsurpassed by anything contained in the ,arabian ,nights1 which ,i need not cite4 ,the author then proceeds3 8,demons1 however1 take more especial delight in foul and offensive places1 and an evil spirit inhabits every private closet in the world4 ,demons haunt deserted places1 ruins1 graves1 and certain kinds of trees4 ,we find indications of these superstitions throughout the ,gospels4 ,the possessed are represented as dwelling among the tombs1 and being driven by unclean spirits into the wilderness1 and the demons can find no rest in clean places4 ,demons also frequented springs and fountains4 ,the episode of the angel who was said to descend at certain times and trouble the water of the pool of ,bethesda1 so that he that first stepped in was healed of whatsoever disease he had1 may be mentioned here in passing1 although the passage is not found in the older manuscripts of the fourth ,gospel1 and was certainly a late addition40 ,here follow further citations of ,rabbinical absurdities4 ,the author then proceeds3 8,the ,talmud and other ,rabbinical writings are full of references to demoniacal possession1 but we need not enter into details on this point1 as the ,new ,testament itself presents sufficient evidence respecting it4 ,not only could one spirit enter into a body1 but many took possession of the same individual4 ,there are many instances mentioned in the ,gospels1 such as ,mary ,magdalene1 out of whom went seven demons 7 71 and the man whose name was legion1 because many demons 7 7 had entered into him4 ,demons likewise entered into the bodies of animals1 and in the narrative to which we have just referred1 the demons1 on being expelled from the man1 requested to be allowed to enter into the herd of swine1 which being permitted1 #8the demons went out of the man into the swine1 and the herd ran violently down the cliff into the lake and were drowned1' the evil spirits1 as usual1 taking pleasure only in the destruction and injury of man and beast4 ,besides possession1 all the diseases of men and animals are ascribed to the action of the devil and demons4 ,in the ,gospel1 for instance1 the woman with a spirit of infirmity is described as bound by ,satan1 although the case was not one of demoniacal possession40 ,the author then proceeds to enumerate a large number of grotesque beliefs as held by the ,jews at the time of the ,advent4 ,i regret the necessity which has compelled me to cite so lengthy a passage1 but it is absolutely necessary that the reader should be enabled to see1 beyond the possibility of misapprehension1 the nature of the objections which are urged against the historical credibility of the ,gospels1 and the reasonings by which they are attempted to be supported4 ,the general principle that underlies them may be stated in a few words1 that the followers of ,jesus and the authors of the ,gospels were a prey to such a multitude of degrading superstitions on the subject of demonology as wholly to destroy the value of their historical testimony4 ,the effect of this passage with its context is to produce the impression on the mind of the reader1 not only that these absurd beliefs were generally entertained by the ,jews at the time of the ,advent1 but that they constituted the form of thought of the followers of ,jesus4 ,it may be urged that the object of the author is to prove the general superstition of the times2 and that he does not intend to affirm that it was shared in by every one of the followers of ,jesus4 ,this may be correct2 but if it is not intended to be asserted that the followers of ,jesus were the prey of equal superstitions1 the reference to this mass of credulity can have no bearing on the present argument1 and is simply misleading4 ,to what purpose1 ,i ask1 is it made1 unless it is intended to implicate our ,lord's followers in these beliefs8 ,unless it were so1 the fact that others entertained them would not in the smallest degree affect the value of their historical testimony4 ,but on this point we are not left to inferences2 not only are passages in the ,gospels referred to1 but we are repeatedly informed that the followers of ,jesus did share in these popular delusions4 ,the position1 therefore1 which is taken by the author is clear4 ,his readers are invited to believe that the followers of our ,lord were a prey to the belief in a number of ineffable absurdities respecting demons such as he has enumerated4 ,if this can be established1 the conclusion is inevitable1 that their historical testimony is valueless4 ,let us now consider the mode in which the proof of this is attempted to be established4 ,the authorities quoted are chiefly the ,talmudical writers2 that is to say1 persons who wrote as late as from ,a4,d4 #bjj to ,a4,d4 #ejj1 are cited as the proof that such opinions were universally entertained by the ,jews in the time of ,jesus ,christ4 ,equally valid would it be to quote the writers of modern spiritualism to prove that such opinions were held by our ancestors in the time of the ,stuarts or the ,plantagenets4 ,on the strength of this and kindred evidence1 such opinions are ascribed to the original propagators of ,christianity1 and to the authors of the ,gospels4 ,but this is not all4 ,the only correct method of ascertaining the superstition and credulity of any particular writer is carefully to examine the contents of his book1 and to note the various instances which we find in it of what we consider to be superstitions2 and then proceed to estimate their value1 and1 if needful1 to compare them with other contemporary authorities4 ,this course1 however1 is not that pursued by this writer4 ,on the contrary1 he quotes the absurdities which we have seen from the ,talmudical writers1 and refers in the midst of them to nearly every passage in the ,gospels which can be made to bear even a remote reference to the views in question4 ,i submit that such a mode of reasoning is not conducive to the interests of truth4 ,a few examples of this mode of conducting the argument require notice4 ,after referring to a number of monstrous superstitions1 he tells us that the ,jews believed that 8demons took especial delight in foul and offensive places1 and that an evil spirit inhabits every private closet in the world4 ,demons haunted deserted places1 ruins1 graves1 and certain kinds of trees4 ,we find indications of these superstitions throughout the ,gospels4 ,the possessed are represented as dwelling among the tombs1 and as being driven by unclean spirits into the wilderness1 and demons can find no rest in clean places40 8,we find indications of these superstitions throughout the ,gospels40 ,to this observation ,i invite the reader's attention4 ,is it meant to be affirmed that any indication can be found in the ,gospels that the writers believed that a demon inhabited every private closet in the world8 ,two instances only are referred to in the text1 in one of which the demoniac of ,gadara is represented as dwelling among the tombs1 and as having been driven into the wilderness2 and the other the parable of the unclean spirit going out of the man1 and finding no rest when walking through dry places4 ,do these two cases prove the truth of the sweeping assertions above referred to8 ,does the parabolic representation that the expelled demon found no rest in dry or clean places prove that the disciples of ,jesus believed that they took especial delight in foul or offensive ones8 ,does the fact that the demoniac of ,gadara had been driven by the evil spirit into the wilderness prove that it was a universal belief that deserts and graves were haunted by demons8 ,in proof also of these assertions we are referred in a note to five passages in the ,gospels1 viz4 ,matt4 viii4 #bh2 xii4 #dc2 ,mark v4 #ce2 ,luke viii4 #bgbi2 xi4 #bd4 ,five passages are very few to justify the assertion that we find indications of these superstitions throughout the ,gospels4 ,on examining them1 however1 the five references are reduced to two1 three belong to the account of the demoniac at ,gadara1 reported by each of the ,synoptics2 and two to the twofold report of the same parable as given by ,matthew and ,luke6 ,this is a very slender foundation on which to ground the assertion that the followers of ,jesus believed that 8demons took especial delight in foul and offensive places1 that they inhabited every private closet in the world1 and that they haunted deserted places1 graves1 ruins1 and certain kinds of trees1 and that we find indications of these superstitions throughout the ,gospels40 ,still more extraordinary is the next reference4 8,demons haunted springs and fountains10 says the author4 ,to this he adds1 8the episode of the angel who was said to descend at certain seasons and trouble the water of the pool of ,bethesda1 so that he who first stepped in was cured of whatsoever disease he had1 may be mentioned in passing40 ,why1 ,i ask1 mention it at all8 ,is the visit of an angel to this particular pool for the purpose of working a miracle1 a proof that the followers of our ,lord believed that demons inhabited springs and fountains8 ,but our astonishment at the author's reference to it is increased when we read the following words3 8,although the passage is not found in the oldest manuscripts of the ,fourth ,gospel1 and it is certainly a late interpolation40 ,i must put the question again in real earnestness4 ,this being so1 why mention it here8 ,the author admits that it formed no portion of the original ,gospel of ,st4 ,john1 and that it is certainly a late interpolation4 ,now the ,gospel of ,st4 ,john1 according to the opinion of the most eminent unbelievers1 was not published before ,a4,d4 #agj4 ,if this was the case 7the author himself evidently assigns to its composition a very late date7 a late interpolation could not have found its way into its pages until about the year #bej1 at the earliest #bjj4 ,what then is the nature of the reasoning before us8 ,we are referred for proof that the followers of ,jesus held these opinions to an authority which the author himself admits to have been a late interpolation1 which could not have been introduced into this ,gospel earlier than #ahj years after the ministry of our ,lord1 as a proof that his original followers believed that demons inhabited springs and fountains4 ,such reasonings furnish their own refutation4 ,the exposure of one more fallacy of this description will be sufficient4 ,we are told that1 8,not only one evil spirit entered into a body1 but many took possession of the same individual4 ,there are many instances mentioned in the ,gospels1 such as ,mary ,magdalene1 out of whom went seven demons1 and the man whose name was legion1 because many demons had entered into him40 ,i ask1 where are these 8many instances08 ,the plain fact must be stated1 that the two here referred to1 constitute the only ones which are mentioned as facts by the ,evangelists4 ,besides these there is the parable of the unclean spirit going out of the man above alluded to1 who1 when he could find no rest returned to his former habitation in company with seven other spirits more wicked than himself4 ,it should be observed that in two of the cases the number given is the mystical number 8,seven02 and that one of them occurs in a parable1 the moral of which is1 to warn the ,jews1 that although they had got rid of the evil spirit of idolatry1 they were in danger of falling into the greater evil of ,phariseeism and hypocrisy4 ,but to return to the argument4 ,the great mass of the author's citations for the purpose of proving that the ,jews at the time of the ,advent1 and among them the followers of ,jesus1 were a prey to these grotesque beliefs respecting the action of demons1 are made from authors who are separated by an interval of centuries from the ministry of our ,lord4 ,i submit1 therefore1 that such authorities are utterly valueless to prove that ,his disciples and early followers were a prey to these gross delusions4 ,nor has he adduced an atom of valid proof from the ,new ,testament itself4 ,the references above referred to have either been made in a most careless manner1 or have been used to assist in proving a foregone conclusion4 ,but let us suppose for the sake of argument that the ,jews at the time of our ,lord did generally entertain these monstrous demoniacal beliefs3 to what conclusion1 ,i ask1 would such a fact1 if true1 indubitably point8 ,credulous and superstitions people1 invariably invent stories that are the counterparts of their own credulity4 ,this is proved by the whole mass of existing mythology4 ,mythological inventions give us the precise measure of the beliefs of those who have originated them4 ,if then the demonology of those who have elaborated these portions of the ,gospels was of the character that this writer and others assert it to have been1 the ,gospels would have contained an embodiment of such demoniacal beliefs as those which the author has so industriously collected1 and has endeavoured to fasten upon their writers4 ,now the idea of demonology having been present in the minds of the writers1 it is obvious that they did not omit all reference to these absurd beliefs1 merely because they were outside the subject on which they were writing4 ,but while demoniacal action is repeatedly alluded to1 it is an undeniable fact that no stories of the description given by this writer are to be found in them4 ,the author therefore has furnished the most conclusive proof1 without intending to do so1 that these forms of thought1 to whomsoever else they may have appertained1 were neither those of the original followers of ,jesus1 nor of the authors of the ,gospels4 ,it follows therefore that this attempt to prove that the followers of our ,lord and the authors of the ,gospels were a prey to such a mass of grotesque beliefs respecting demons1 as to invalidate their historical testimony1 falls to the ground1 and that the data on which this has been attempted to be established1 afford proof on the contrary that they did not entertain the beliefs in question4 ,,chapter ,x4 ,,the ,,existence ,,and ,,miracles ,,of ,,satan4 ,i fully admit that a difficulty is involved in the idea that a being like ,satan is permitted to perform actions which bear even a remote analogy to divine miracles4 ,i have already shown that the ,new ,testament only apparently ascribes to him a supernatural action of a very limited and special kind1 differing widely from our usual conception of a miracle4 ,i now proceed to inquire how far this limited action1 thus attributed to him1 if we suppose that possession was an objective fact1 and not a form of madness1 interferes with the validity of the attestation of miracles to the ,christian revelation4 ,the existence of a being like ,satan is alleged as constituting an enormous difficulty against the statements of the ,new ,testament4 ,a numerous class of writers dismiss the idea of his existence as unworthy of serious argument1 and endeavour to dispose of it with a sneer4 ,this world however contains numerous analogous cases of very evil men endowed with the highest mental powers1 who have exerted the most injurious influences on others4 ,their existence is a fact2 and the difficulties attending it cannot be got rid of by any kind of evasion4 ,the objections that have been urged in connection with this subject are not founded on the facts of the moral universe as they exist2 but on priori principles alone4 ,it has been affirmed to be incredible that ,almighty ,god should have permitted the existence of such a being as ,satan2 or if his existence is permitted1 that he can be allowed to interfere in the affairs of men4 ,in dealing with this question it is evident that ,i must proceed on the supposition that ,i am reasoning with theists only4 ,the whole question is irrelevant on the principles of ,pantheism or ,atheism1 or1 to put the case more distinctly1 on such principles there is no greater difficulty in supposing that nature has evolved evil beings superior to men in their faculties and powers in some other part of the universe1 than that it has evolved evil men1 who are gifted with high forms of intelligence in this2 or even that such beings should be capable of interfering in human affairs4 ,if ,pantheism or ,atheism is a correct account of the facts of the universe1 it is impossible to say what kind of beings nature may have evolved in the past1 or may evolve in the future from her prolific womb4 ,but if it is once conceded that a personal ,god exists1 who is the moral ,governor of the ,universe1 the affirmation that the existence of such beings is inconsistent with his attributes1 is only another form of asserting that the existence of moral evil is incompatible with them4 ,the ground of its existence has been a problem1 into which the human mind has striven to penetrate from the earliest dawn of thought1 without ever approaching to its solution2 but into this question it is useless to enter4 ,in the present argument we are dealing with facts1 and the existence of aggravated forms of moral evil in the universe is a fact4 ,if there be a ,god1 it must be consistent with his attributes4 ,the real difficulty lies in its existence at all in the universe of a ,god who is allpowerful and good4 ,but since it does exist1 the existence of a being like ,satan is a mere question of degree4 ,it is an unquestionable fact1 whether we can explain it or not1 that many men of the worst moral principles have been gifted with the highest intellectual powers1 and have been placed in positions in society which have enabled them to inflict the greatest evil on others4 ,history is full of such cases4 ,the most extreme forms of human corruption have been not inaptly designated as 8,satanic40 ,if therefore under the moral government of ,god it is a fact that such forms of human wickedness exist2 and if it is supposable1 that there are other rational beings in the universe endowed with higher powers than man1 how can it be inconceivable that they may differ in moral character1 precisely in the same way as men do2 and that some may be eminently virtuous1 and others fearfully corrupt8 ,it is clear that the difficulty centres in the existence of moral evil in the universe of a ,god who is possessed of almighty power1 and perfect holiness and goodness4 ,why has ,he permitted it8 ,is its existence a necessary condition of the creation of a free moral agent8 ,if so1 might not the amount of it have been greatly diminished8 ,the utmost light that reason can throw on these questions consists of a few very imperfect glimmerings4 ,the fact is undeniable1 that a large mass of moral evil exists1 and in very fearful forms4 ,if there be a ,creator of the universe1 it is plain that the present state of things must be consistent with his attributes4 ,the only mode of escaping from this difficulty is by taking refuge in the vastly greater ones of pantheism or atheism4 ,many theists1 pressed by these difficulties1 have attempted to evade them by endeavouring to reduce the amount of moral evil in the universe1 the existence of which they cannot deny1 to indefinitely small proportions1 and then affirming that it will be ultimately swallowed up in the ocean of universal good4 ,but the mere diminishing of its amount by no means solves the difficulty4 ,the real question is1 how has it come even into temporary existence8 ,but there is also a still more grave objection to this course of reasoning4 ,it renders it necessary that we should close our eyes to the most obvious facts4 ,so far is it from being the case that the amount of moral evil in the world is small1 that it is very large4 ,this fact is indisputable4 ,the whole course of history tells us that it has existed in all past ages and in very aggravated forms4 ,to try to get rid of the difficulty in this manner is simply to close our eyes1 and refuse to see it4 ,but not only does moral1 but physical evil exist4 ,this is another unquestionable fact1 and its existence bears directly on my argument4 ,many and vain have been the attempts to explain it away4 ,it has been affirmed that pain after all is no such great matter4 ,i strongly suspect that those who have asserted this1 have experienced but little of it4 ,it is true that it may ultimately result in good under ,god's government1 but taken by itself1 it is undeniably an evil4 ,do not frightful sufferings abound8 ,do not most painful diseases afflict our frames8 ,is it not possible to suffer terribly from causes quite independent of our own conduct8 ,is not a great earthquake a terrible calamity to those who suffer from its effects1 although it may be attended with beneficial results to those who do not8 ,pains may be said to be useful warnings2 but surely the warning might have been given without the extremity of the suffering4 ,they are also affirmed to be the penalties of ignorance1 and this may be partially true3 but the ignorance is in a vast majority of cases unavoidable4 ,it is a simple fact1 that a great amount of physical suffering exists1 the reason of which we are wholly unable to explain4 ,but further3 moral evil propagates itself1 and inflicts calamities on those who are not implicated in its guilt4 ,is it not true that men have existed both in the ancient and modern world1 whose actions have inflicted the greatest evils on mankind for generation after generation8 ,can any one doubt that descendants suffer for the sins of remote ancestors1 and children for those of their parents8 ,facts are facts1 and they will not become less so by our refusing to look at them4 ,the evil wrought by such a man as ,philip ,,ii4 of ,spain1 is a fact1 and it has extended its baneful influence to our own times4 ,is not a large portion of the evils under which ,france has groaned1 traceable to the misdeeds of two of her sovereigns8 ,these were quietly sleeping in their graves1 when the evils they had occasioned burst on the head of their guiltless successor4 ,but it is needless to quote examples4 ,history is one long succession of them4 ,whether we like it or not1 the old saying is an accurate account of the moral order of the universe as it exists1 8,visiting the sins of the fathers on the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me1 and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me1 and keep my commandments40 ,these are facts which the theist equally with the ,christian must face1 for they exist in the universe of that ,god1 in whose moral perfections both believe4 ,i repeat1 therefore1 that the only way of escaping from them is by rushing into the far greater difficulties of pantheism or atheism4 ,these reasonings might be indefinitely extended4 ,the result which follows from them is clear1 that if we attempt to reason from abstract principles to the constitution of a universe1 we shall produce one utterly unlike that which actually exists4 ,it follows1 that as they cannot account for the facts of the universe1 as they come under our observation1 they are unsafe guides on all similar questions4 ,consequently they are unable to show that the existence of evil beings possessed of superhuman powers1 is inconsistent with the perfections of ,god4 ,nor is there any greater force in the objection1 that if such beings exist at all1 it is inconsistent with our conceptions of the divine government1 that they should be allowed to interfere in the affairs of men4 ,i reply1 that it is equally inconceivable1 that ,god should have allowed a man1 to whom he has imparted the greatest mental endowments1 and whom he has placed in an elevated position in society1 who lived centuries ago1 to exert an evil influence on the present generation4 ,the difficulty that a powerful influence for evil can be exerted by men on those who have never seen them1 and of whose existence they have never heard1 is just as great as the one under consideration4 ,yet it is one of the most undeniable of facts1 that men do exert the most powerful influence on one another1 and that such influence can be exerted by generations long since passed away on those who live ages afterwards2 and that it can be exerted unconsciously4 ,i am far from wishing to deny1 that the difficulty is a real one4 ,on the contrary1 ,i fully admit it2 and that it is one which our present faculties are unable to explain4 ,but it is one which is not peculiar to ,christianity1 nor has it originated in it4 ,the interference of superhuman beings in human affairs for the purposes of evil1 would be only another form of the same difficulty4 ,precisely similar reasonings to those which have been employed to prove that the existence of a being like ,satan is impossible1 when they are applied to other subjects1 bring us into direct collision with realities4 ,there can be no doubt1 that if the constitution of the universe had been placed in our hands1 its phenomena would have been very different4 ,but our function is a far humbler one4 ,it is not to erect a universe according to our conceptions of what is best1 but to learn the order of that in which we live1 and to accept facts on sufficient evidence1 however strongly they may conflict with abstract theories4 ,i now proceed to consider the real difficulty connected with this subject1 and which has been very strongly urged by the author of 8,supernatural ,religion40 ,it is this4 8,if it is conceivable that beings exist who possess superhuman knowledge and power2 and that they are capable of interfering as the ,new ,testament affirms1 in the affairs of men1 how can the performance of a miracle be the guarantee of a divine commission8 ,may not inferior agents1 who possess superhuman knowledge and power1 be able to produce results which would to all outward appearance be miraculous8 ,might not an evil being1 who was possessed of the highest intelligence like ,satan1 perform such actions as would be equivalent to miracles1 for the purpose of authenticating falsehoods8 ,all that such actions prove is the presence of superhuman knowledge and power2 but they would leave it quite uncertain whether the power was divine or ,satanic40 ,such is the objection1 and it demands an adequate solution4 ,i reply1 that if we view the question merely as an abstract one1 it is quite possible1 if a superhuman being of high intelligence is permitted to interfere in the affairs of men1 that he should be able to perform actions which might have all the appearance of being supernatural4 ,such results might be even brought about by a superior acquaintance with the existing forces of nature1 and by a successful combination of them1 without the introduction of any new force whatever4 ,for such results we need not invoke the aid of a supernatural being4 ,they have been frequently effected by a superior human intelligence acting on an inferior one4 ,we all know how ,columbus used his superior knowledge of astronomy1 to predict an eclipse1 and the ignorant natives of ,america mistook this as denoting the presence of a superhuman being4 ,such results may be always produced1 when superior knowledge acts on ignorance2 and such is the origin of no inconsiderable number of impositions which have been practised on mankind4 ,it is therefore quite conceivable1 as an abstract question1 that as men who possess a very superior intelligence1 are capable of producing results which to an inferior intelligence would have the appearance of being supernatural1 without really being so1 in the same manner1 if ,satan is supposed to possess an intelligence greater than that of the wisest of mankind1 and if his interference in human affairs is permitted1 he may be able to perform actions which would have the appearance of being supernatural1 by a skilful use of the existing forces of nature4 ,but to such power there must be a limit4 ,there are certain results which plainly lie beyond the power of any mere combination of the forces of nature to produce4 ,of these1 many of the miracles recorded in the ,gospels are instances1 such as the cure of blind or leprous men by no other visible instrumentality than a word or a touch4 ,actions of this kind differ wholly in character from those which we are now considering4 ,if a miracle was a more objective fact taking place in external nature1 and nothing more1 it might be open to question whether its performance was owing to supernatural agency1 or to some combination of known or unknown forces4 ,but the miracles with which we are concerned in this controversy1 involve a great deal more than more objective facts in material nature4 ,but assuming1 as ,i cannot help doing in an argument like the present1 the existence of a ,god1 who is the ,creator and ,governor of the universe1 the question is not a mere abstract one1 what a ,being like ,satan1 if he is supposed to exist1 might be capable of doing2 but it becomes entirely one of permitted agency4 ,it is plain1 that if there is a ,god1 every being in the universe1 however powerful or intelligent1 can only act within a certain definite sphere of operation1 which the ,governor of the universe has assigned to him4 ,within what limits then is he allowed act8 ,are subordinate agents permitted to interfere with the material forces of external nature8 and if so1 within what bounds8 ,can they wander over the universe at their mere will and pleasure1 and interfere with its operations8 ,how far is their interference permitted in the moral and spiritual worlds8 ,the question before as is even reduced to one of far narrower limits4 ,our only direct knowledge of the existence of such an agency is derived from ,revelation4 ,the real point therefore which concerns us is1 to what extent is such permitted agency affirmed in the ,new ,testament4 ,do the ,satanic interventions there described interfere with divine miracles as attestations of a divine commission8 ,we have nothing whatever to do with abstract propositions or with what ,rabbinical writers may have affirmed on this subject1 but with the assertions of the ,new ,testament alone4 ,if there is a ,god1 it is certain that the present order of nature must be a manifestation of ,his will4 ,so must be the energy of its forces in conformity with invariable law4 ,whatever power ,he has delegated to subordinate agents1 must form a portion of this universal order1 and be exercised in conformity with the divine purposes4 ,it is inconceivable that subordinate agents can be allowed to break in upon it at their will and pleasure1 for the general permanence of its order forms an essential condition for the exercise of moral agency4 ,if they are allowed to do so1 it must be only within clear and definite limits1 which ultimately effectuate the purposes of the ,creator4 ,such is the nature of the power which man can exert over material nature4 ,it can only modify results1 by giving a new direction to its forces4 ,in the case of man this power is limited to the world in which he lives4 ,in a similar manner1 if beings superior to him in power and intelligence exist1 their interference must be subject to definite limitations4 ,such is the uniform affirmation of the writers of the ,new ,testament4 ,even if we take their language in the most literal sense1 the supernatural interventions which they attribute to ,satan1 are confined to a very definite order of phenomena4 ,in one word1 the sacred writers have described ,satanic intervention as limited to the world of mind2 and as capable1 through its action on the mind1 of producing certain results on the bodily organization4 ,to this there is one exception1 the apparent ascription of a few diseases to ,satanic agency4 ,this ,i shall consider hereafter4 ,it is a remarkable fact1 and one worthy of particular attention1 that the supernatural action attributed to ,satan in the ,new ,testament1 with the exception above referred to1 is a mental one4 ,it is through the action on men's minds alone1 that demoniacal agency produces any results on their bodily frame4 ,no direct action on the material forces of nature is ever attributed to it4 ,we find nothing in the smallest degree resembling the act of a demon overturning a pitcher of water4 ,the kind of influence attributed to ,satan is of a similar character1 though much higher in degree1 to that which one man can exert over another4 ,one man of superior mental power is capable of exerting an influence over a weaker mind to such a degree1 as almost to enthral it4 ,we call this a species of fascination4 ,in the ,new ,testament the similar but mightier ,satanic influence is ,possession4 ,one mind1 by getting a powerful hold on another1 can exert an influence on the body1 as in mesmerism4 ,the ,satanic influence exerted in possession is only a more powerful one4 ,it is certain that the extent to which one human mind can act on another is bounded by no narrow limits2 what is more1 it is one which is frequently exerted for evil4 ,it is evidently within the purposes of the ,creator to permit this4 ,why it is allowed to the extent to which it is1 is beyond our powers to discover4 ,but the wide extent to which it not only can be1 but actually is exerted1 is a fact that cannot be denied4 ,it is also an influence that can be exerted secretly4 ,the difference between this power and that which is supposed to be attributed to ,satan in the ,new ,testament is far more one of degree than of kind2 and the latter is one which is bounded by clear and definite limits4 ,between a ,satanic possession and a miracle performed by ,jesus the distinction is unmistakable4 ,it follows from the foregoing considerations1 that the ,satanic supernaturalism1 which we have to consider1 as far as if stands in opposition to the miracles of ,god1 is reduced to very narrow limits4 ,it consists almost exclusively of possession and its phenomena4 ,no other kind of action bearing even a remote analogy to a miracle1 with the single exception of the history of the temptation1 is anywhere attributed to ,satan in the ,new ,testament4 ,in estimating the evidential character of miracles1 it has been a far too common practice with those who deny the historical character of the ,gospels1 to keep out of view their moral aspect as an important portion of their evidential value4 ,it has been affirmed that a miracle must be estimated as an act of power quite apart from its moral impress4 ,the author before me even goes the length of supposing1 that1 if ,satan is as cunning as he is represented in the ,new ,testament1 he may even turn himself into an angel of light and perform works bearing the impress of holiness for the purpose of furthering the interests of the kingdom of lies4 ,such an idea receives no countenance from anything which is affirmed by ,st4 ,paul4 ,the passage in which allusion is made to ,satan transforming himself into an angel of light is as follows3 8,for such are false apostles1 deceitful workers1 transforming themselves into the apostles of ,christ4 ,and no marvel1 for ,satan himself is transformed into an angel of light4 ,therefore it is no great thing if his ministers should be transformed as the ministers of righteousness40 ,it is quite clear that nothing was further from the ,apostle's mind than the idea of ,satanic miracles bearing the impress of holiness as wrought in support of the kingdom of falsehood4 ,he is simply speaking of ,judaizing teachers1 who claimed the support of apostolical authority1 for the purpose of disseminating their unchristian views4 ,the idea is absurd and ridiculous1 but we know that it occurred to the opponents of our ,lord1 who charged him with working miracles by ,satanic agency4 ,the special instance in which they made this charge was that of his supposed expulsion of demons4 ,our ,lord met it by the decisive argument1 8,how can ,satan cast out ,satan8 ,if ,satan be divided against himself1 how shall his kingdom stand80 ,in a word1 he appealed to the moral aspect of his miracles as a convincing proof that their accusation could only have been instigated by deliberate malice4 ,the same objection was doubtless urged against his other miracles1 although it is nowhere stated in express terms in the ,gospels4 ,but whatever absurd beliefs may have been entertained by the learned ,rabbis1 they were easily met by the common sense of the people4 8,we know10 said the ,rabbis1 8that this man is a sinner40 8,how can a man that is a sinner perform such miracles80 is the reply4 8,whether he be a sinner1 ,i know not1 but one thing ,i know1 that whereas ,i was blind1 now ,i see40 8,can a devil open the eyes of the blind80 ,it is evident that the difficulties suggested by the author of 8,supernatural ,religion0 as to the evidential value of miracles being nullified by the views which prevailed respecting demoniacal action were not appreciated when the fourth ,gospel was composed1 although according to this theory they ought to have been at that time in full force4 ,but apart from the peculiar character ascribed to ,satanic supernaturalism in the ,new ,testament1 the entire idea that there could have been any danger of confounding ,satanic miracles with the miracles of ,god1 rests on the fallacy of confounding a mere objective fact with an action of a moral agent4 ,a miracle does not consist merely in the outward event1 which is caused by him1 but in the occurrence united with the character and purpose of the agent4 ,the actions of holy beings must bear the impress of their holiness2 those of evil ones1 of the contrary4 ,if1 therefore1 evil moral agents are capable of performing actions which are analogous to miracles1 they cannot fail to be stamped with the evil of their characters4 ,such would always form a discriminating mark between ,divine and ,satanic miracles1 even on the supposition that the latter are possible4 ,this precisely represents the case as it stands in the ,new ,testament4 ,all the miracles alleged to have been wrought by ,god1 bear a definite impress of character and purpose4 ,the supernaturalism ascribed to ,satan is no less definitely marked4 ,the one clearly comes from above4 ,the indications that the other1 if real1 must have come from below1 are equally distinct4 ,the moral impress which the two series of events bear1 is fully sufficient to discriminate the one from the other4 ,the attempt to distinguish between the miraculous act and its moral environment1 is absurd4 ,it has been affirmed that one miraculous act is as good as another1 quite apart from the circumstances with which they are attended4 ,such a principle would destroy the distinction between a highly meritorious act and the foulest crime4 ,a1 for example1 has killed ,b4 ,the outward act may be the same2 but the accompanying circumstances make all the distinction between a justifiable homicide1 and a most atrocious murder4 ,it is ridiculous to affirm that principles which are legitimate in common life become invalid only when they are applied to the evidences of ,christianity4 ,why1 in the name of common sense1 may not one miracle be as clearly distinguishable from another by its moral environment1 as an event in ordinary life is similarly distinguished8 ,the affirmation1 therefore1 that the supposition of the possibility of ,satanic miracles must invalidate the miracles of ,god is absurd4 ,our ,lord1 therefore1 was right in appealing to the character of his works as affording a conclusive proof of the source whence they originated1 and in contrasting them with the species of supernaturalism which was popularly attributed to ,satan4 8,how can ,satan cast out ,satan8 ,if ,i do not the works of my ,father1 believe me not2 but if ,i do1 though ye believe not me1 believe the works1 that ye may see and believe that the ,father is in me and ,i in ,him40 ,this is conclusive reasoning4 ,it is only possible to darken the question by treating it as one of bare possibilities1 as to what kind of actions a being like ,satan might be capable of performing1 if he is allowed to interfere with the arrangements of the universe at his pleasure4 ,such a supposition is foreign to the question at issue1 which is whether the supernaturalism which the ,new ,testament is supposed to attribute to him can interfere with the evidential value of the miracles wrought by ,jesus4 ,my reply is1 ,examine and compare the two4 ,when this has been done1 no doubt can remain on any reasonable mind that the latter1 if real1 are from above2 and the former from below4 ,the affirmation therefore that if ,satanic miracles1 such as possession1 are possible1 it invalidates the evidence of those wrought by ,god in attestation of the truth of a divine commission is disproved4 ,equally invalid is the objection against a miraculous attestation to a divine commission1 on the ground that such testimony can be easily imitated4 ,i reply1 that the great mass of the miracles recorded in the ,new ,testament do not easily admit of a fraudulent imitation4 ,i by no means deny that the art of legerdemain is capable of producing results which to an ignorant observer have the appearance of being supernatural4 ,but this class of actions bears not the smallest analogy to the miracles recorded in the ,new ,testament4 ,no art of legerdemain can persuade a man who has been for many years blind to believe that he has recovered his sight1 and enable him to act accordingly4 ,but it has been argued2 if ,god is the moral ,governor of the universe1 is ,he not bound to prevent a being like ,satan from acting for the purposes of evil in the affairs of men8 ,this question may be best answered by asking another4 ,is ,he not equally bound to hinder evil men from exerting such terrible influences on others1 even long after they are dead8 ,is ,he not bound to hinder the possibility of the bringing up of children by their parents in various forms of vice1 so as to render them in after life1 more wicked than themselves8 ,yet it is an indubitable fact that such an influence is exerted under the moral government of ,god4 ,human life abounds with such cases1 which bear a close analogy to ,satanic action exerted in the affairs of men4 ,when we can fully fathom the reason for the permission of the one1 we shall have made considerable progress in understanding those of the other4 ,the case may be simply stated4 ,there are difficulties in the moral government of the universe1 into the grounds of which we cannot penetrate4 ,these press equally on every form of theism4 ,the ,satanic supernaturalism described in the ,new ,testament presents a precisely analogous difficulty4 ,this therefore can form no reason why one who believes that ,god is the moral ,governor of the universe1 as it now exists1 should reject ,christianity because the difficulties are of a similar order1 and press equally on both4 ,the only escape from them1 as ,i have already said1 is the inevitable position assumed by atheism1 or pantheism1 and the dreary prospect which they afford to the aspirations of the human mind4 ,,chapter ,,xi4 ,,possession3 ,,is ,,the ,,theory ,,that ,,it ,,was ,,madness ,,subversive ,,of ,,the ,,historical ,,value ,,of ,,the ,,gospels ,,or ,,inconsistent ,,with ,,the ,,veracity ,,of ,,christ8 ,there can be no doubt that the subject of possession is attended with real difficulties1 whichever view we may take of its actual character4 ,the symptoms which are alleged to have accompanied it present many of the usual phenomena of madness4 ,no possession is believed to take place now1 but such phenomena are attributed to causes purely natural4 ,the supposed possessions therefore which are mentioned in the ,new ,testament or in other ancient writings are said to be due only to ignorance of natural causes4 ,many very eminent defenders of ,christianity have been so deeply impressed by these and other reasons that they have admitted that possession is only a form of madness1 and that the language respecting it in the ,new ,testament is based on the current ideas of the day4 ,it is desirable that the difficulty should be put in the strongest light4 ,i will therefore state it in the words of the author of 8,supernatural ,religion40 8,it would be an insult to the understanding of those who are considering this question1 to pause here to prove that the historical books of the ,new ,testament1 speak in the clearest and most unmistakable terms of actual demoniacal possession40 ,now what has become of this theory of disease8 ,the ,archbishop of ,dublin is probably the only one who asserts the reality of demoniacal possession formerly1 and in the present day2 and in this way we must say that he is consistent4 ,dean ,milman1 on the other hand1 who spoke with the enlightenment of the #aith century1 8has no scruple in averring his opinion on the subject of demoniacal possession to be that of ,joseph ,mede1 ,lardner1 ,dr4 ,mead1 ,paley1 and all the learned modern writers4 ,it was a kind of insanity1 and nothing is more probable than that lunacy would take the turn1 and speak the language of the prevailing superstition of the times40 ,the ,dean1 as well as 8all the learned modern writers0 to whom he refers1 felt the difficulty1 but in seeking to evade it1 they sacrifice the ,gospels4 ,they overlook the fact1 that the writers of these narratives1 not only themselves adopt 8the prevailing superstition of the times10 but represent ,jesus as doing so with equal completeness4 ,there is no possibility1 for instance1 of evading such statements as those in the miracle of the country of the ,gadarenes1 where the objectivity of the demons is so fully recognised1 that on being cast out of the man1 they are represented as requesting to be allowed to go into the herd of swine1 and being permitted by ,jesus to do so1 the entry of the demons into the swine is at once signalised by the herd running violently down the cliff into the lake and being drowned4 7p4 #aca47 ,the author might have strengthened his case1 as far as modern authorities are concerned1 by drawing attention to the fact1 that even ,dr4 ,farrar1 who seems to maintain the objective reality of demoniacal possessions in his recently published 8,life of ,christ10 admits that in the statement that the demons locally passed from the man into the swine1 some inaccuracy has crept into the narrative of the ,evangelists4 ,it will be at once seen that the allimportant point in this objection is the apparent acceptance by our ,lord of demoniacal possession1 as being a correct account of an objective fact4 ,i fully agree with this writer1 that those who affirm that it was madness and nothing else are bound1 when they propose this solution of the difficulty1 to point out distinctly how it affects the question of our ,lord's veracity1 and the historical character of the ,gospels4 ,in approaching this question1 let me at once observe that while ,i entertain a definite opinion as to the nature of the inspiration of the ,new ,testament derived not from priori assumptions1 but from a careful study of its facts and phenomena1 yet the question at issue is not what is the nature or the extent of the inspiration1 but the reality of the supernatural events recorded in the ,gospels4 ,this issue is one which is purely historical1 and therefore ,i have simply to examine it on historical grounds1 and not to defend any particular theory of inspiration4 ,our business is first to ascertain what are the facts of the ,new ,testament which are supported by historical evidence2 when we have ascertained these1 we shall be in a position to propound a theory of inspiration in accordance with the facts and assertions2 still1 however1 it will be necessary to find out how a certain state of the facts will affect the character which the ,gospels attribute to our ,lord4 ,the following facts are plain on the surface of the ,gospels4 ,first1 that the followers of our ,lord believed that the demoniacal possessions there recorded were objective facts1 and not mere forms of disease4 ,secondly1 that our ,lord himself1 if the words attributed to ,him are correctly reported1 used language which seems to imply that ,he shared in this belief4 ,thirdly1 that in a particular instance1 not only do the ,evangelists affirm that our ,lord addressed a demoniac1 but also the demons who possessed him1 and that ,he permitted their departure into a herd of swine1 thereby apparently confirming the objective reality of the possession4 ,the question is a far more serious one1 as it affects our ,lord1 than those on whose reports the statements of the ,gospels are founded4 ,he is represented as being a divine person1 and as possessed in ,his human nature1 not of infinite but of superhuman knowledge4 ,his apparent sanction of an erroneous view is therefore a very different thing from the apparent sanction of it by an author of a ,gospel1 or from the mistaken views which his followers might have entertained as to the causes of a bodily disease4 ,i should find no difficulty in adopting the theory of the eminent writers above named1 that the demoniacal possessions mentioned in the ,new ,testament1 were nothing but forms of insanity1 if it were not that our ,lord has apparently recognised their reality4 ,it has been urged that if possession was nothing but insanity1 there is an end of the miracle4 ,but this is not the case1 for the cure of a madman is quite as much a supernatural act as the expulsion of a demon4 ,let me now assume for argument's sake1 that possession was simple madness4 ,how does such a supposition affect the veracity of the authors of the ,gospels1 and their judgment as credible historians of the events of our ,lord's life8 ,if we assume that possession was madness1 it is evident from the language which the ,evangelists have employed that they must have shared in the ignorance of the times in which they lived as to the true causes of the complaint4 ,when however we speak of the ignorance of any particular period1 it should be observed that the expression is an indefinite one4 ,we have no right to impute to any body of authors opinions on particular subjects of which their writings contain no traces4 ,it has been affirmed1 as we have seen1 that the ,jews of the apostolic age held a number of opinions on the subject of possession of the most grotesque and monstrous description4 ,i have already shown that to impute these opinions to them1 when no trace of them can be found in their writings is a most unfair mode of reasoning4 ,when1 therefore1 ,i use the expression that they must have shared in the ignorance of the age respecting the causes of this disease1 ,i must guard against the danger of ascribing to them a greater degree of ignorance than that which they have actually shown4 ,the expression1 8ignorance of the age10 denotes no uniform quantity of ignorance shared in by every individual alike4 ,in an ignorant or superstitious age1 one person may be far more so than another4 ,it is quite conceivable that two thousand years hence human improvement may have become so great1 that those who live in the present century may be designated as ignorant4 ,it may be hereafter asserted that such writers as ,huxley1 ,tyndall1 ,herbert ,spencer1 and ,mill shared in the ignorance of the age in which they lived on some important physical facts4 ,but from this it would be absurd to draw the conclusion that they were believers in the alleged facts of spiritualism because large numbers of their contemporaries were known to have believed in them1 and spiritualistic publications enjoy a large circulation both in ,europe and ,america in this nineteenth century4 ,as far as the ,evangelists are concerned1 the supposition that ,i am now considering involves nothing more than that they held a false theory as to the cause of a particular form of disease1 and that they have used language respecting it that embodies this theory4 ,in this point of view they would not differ from writers of every age who have entertained false theories as to the causes of physical phenomena4 ,in such cases it is easy to separate the fact from the incorrect view as to what were the causes of that fact4 ,ancient philosophical writers held many false theories as to the place of the local habitation in our bodies of certain affections of our moral nature4 ,these can be traced very distinctly in the language of the present day4 ,thus we say that a man is devoid of heart1 and talk of making appeals to the heart4 ,these1 and multitudes of similar expressions which occur both in ancient and modern writings1 involve false philosophical theories2 but it is easy to separate the facts intended from the theories4 ,thus1 if the authors of the ,gospels inform us that our ,lord cured a demoniac1 and give an account of the demoniac's outcries1 as though they were the utterances of a demon1 we have only to substitute madman for demoniac1 and the correct state of the case is easily discovered4 ,the real difficulty which is felt on this subject1 arises not from the narratives as ordinary histories1 but on the supposition that the writers possessed an inspiration which ought to have guarded them from such errors4 ,popular theories of inspiration unquestionably render such an assumption necessary1 but ,i can see no ground for it1 either in the statements of the ,gospels1 or any other portion of the ,new ,testament4 ,nowhere is it affirmed that its writers were to be guided into all truth1 scientific1 philosophical1 or even historical4 ,all that is affirmed is that they possessed a degree of supernatural enlightenment adequate to communicate the ,christian revelation to mankind4 ,neither is there a hint given1 nor can a fact be adduced1 to show that their supernatural illumination extended beyond this4 ,the spiritual gifts bestowed no enlightenment beyond the special function of those gifts4 ,this the affirmation of ,st4 ,paul in the ,epistles to the ,corinthians makes clear4 ,a person having the gift of tongues1 if he had not also that of interpretation was unable to interpret his own utterances1 and the possession of the high gift of prophecy by no means exempted the possessor from the danger of using it in a manner to create confusion in the ,church4 ,even the highest apostolic gifts conferred no infallibility1 but were strictly limited to their proper functions of communicating the great truths of the ,christian revelation4 ,the idea that they conferred a general infallibility is no statement of the ,new ,testament1 but a pure figment of the imagination4 ,it therefore by no means follows because the writers of the ,new ,testament had an illumination sufficient for their functions that they had any other than their ordinary enlightenment beyond that limit4 ,they might have been good teachers of religious truth1 and yet utterly ignorant of physical science4 ,the assertion may be correct that ,st4 ,luke possessed a supernatural guidance sufficient to enable him to compose the third ,gospel1 and yet it may be no less true1 that as a physician he had no medical knowledge beyond that of his time1 and that he shared in all its errors as to the causes and cure of physical disease4 ,a man may be a good physician of the soul1 and at the same time a very ignorant physician of the body4 ,it is quite conceivable1 therefore1 even if the ,evangelists or those followers of ,christ from whom they derived their accounts possessed various degrees of supernatural enlightenment on matters directly affecting ,christianity1 that they possessed none whatever as to the causes of disease1 and that they may have viewed madness as a result of demoniacal action1 and described it accordingly4 ,the facts would remain the same2 the symptoms might have been exhibited1 and the cure actually effected4 ,but the ,new ,testament likewise affirms that our ,lord imparted to ,his followers the power of expelling demons1 as well as that of healing diseases4 ,now1 on the supposition that these demoniacs were simple maniacs1 how does this affect the credibility of the narrative8 ,i reply that during the mission of the ,apostles and the ,seventy 7for these are the cases alluded to7 there is no promise made them of supernatural enlightenment4 ,they were simply sent out to announce a specific fact1 the near approach and setting up of the kingdom of heaven1 and to work miracles in confirmation of it4 ,it is true that in ,his address to them1 our ,lord told them that a time was coming when they would have to testify to ,him before princes and kings1 and that ,he promises them1 that they should receive supernatural assistance1 suitable to the emergency4 ,but this never arose during the mission in question4 ,they were commanded to cure the reputed demoniac in confirmation of their mission4 ,this would be an equally miraculous sign whether he was one possessed or a simple maniac4 ,in this case1 therefore1 there was no reason why they should be supernaturally enlightened as to the causes of this disease1 more than of any other4 ,no doubt the theories then prevalent as to the causes of disease generally were very faulty4 ,it could not be otherwise in the state of medical science at that period4 ,so they must always have been while such a truth as the circulation of the blood was unknown4 ,but the object of ,christianity was not to communicate scientific knowledge1 or to teach the true causes of disease1 but to discover truths mightily operative in the moral and spiritual worlds4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that the ignorance of the disciples as to the actual causes of mania no more affects the credibility of the narrative than their ignorance of the causes of paralysis or leprosy4 ,it is also evident from the statements of the ,gospels1 that there were a considerable number of persons who practised exorcisms of various kinds1 and who fully believed that the persons on whom they operated were possessed by demons4 ,it seems also probable from the allusions made to them1 that these exorcisms were occasionally successful in effecting a cure2 and it may be1 more frequently1 in mitigating the symptoms4 ,this1 however1 was not always the case2 for the ,evangelists describe the disciples as entirely unsuccessful in the case of the child1 out of whom they invoked the demon to depart in the name of ,jesus4 ,it is worthy of observation1 that in this instance1 the father of the demoniac describes his son's case as a combination of lunacy and possession1 8,he is lunatic and sore vexed40 ,their failure is directly attributed to want of faith1 i4e4 that there was something wanting in their mental state which prevented them from exerting the requisite influence over the lunatic youth4 ,the want of success with which exorcists were not unfrequently attended is strikingly set before us in the account given in the ,acts of the ,apostles1 of the attempt made by certain ,jewish exorcists to cure the demoniac at ,ephesus4 ,in this case it not only ended in a complete failure1 but in an aggravation of the malady4 ,now when we consider the various forms which mania assumes1 it is quite credible that exorcisms may have exerted a favourable influence on it1 altogether apart from any supernatural power possessed by the operator4 ,it is clear that the supposed maniacs imagined themselves under the influence of demoniacal possession4 ,when we consider the powerful influence that one mind is capable of exerting over another under these circumstances we can see that the presence of superior mental power was an influence exactly suited to produce a favourable result4 ,in our modern treatment of mania 7whatever may be the opinions as to its physical origin7 it is now universally admitted that moral means are the most efficacious4 ,some obvious physical causes can be dealt with and removed1 while others cannot4 ,but the most successful operator on these forms of lunacy is he who applies to them the most effective moral treatment1 under which in many cases its symptoms have gradually disappeared4 ,one of these modes of treatment is never to cross the patient on the subject of his delusions4 ,nothing is more remarkable than the influence which the efficient practitioner can exert over persons suffering from these forms of madness1 by the mere energy of his will2 a display of mental power analogous to that of strong faith4 ,this will often produce a calm among maniacs which persons of inferior endowments utterly fail to excite4 ,it is an unquestionable fact that high mental and moral power is capable of producing striking results on different forms of maniacal disease4 ,this being so1 it follows that exorcists might be capable of exerting upon maniacs a powerful influence favourable to cure4 ,in the ancient world the usual treatment was that of extreme harshness4 ,the demoniac of ,gadara had been bound with chains and fetters4 ,this is now known to have a direct tendency to aggravate the disease1 rather than to cure it4 ,it is no wonder1 therefore1 if the exorcist1 by adopting an opposite mode of treatment1 and even by sympathizing with the sufferer's delusions1 was capable of alleviating the symptoms of the complaint1 if not of effecting a cure4 ,the whole result may have been due to moral influence and spiritual power1 which may have been taken for the expulsion of a demon4 ,in whatever way it was effected1 the cure or the alleviation was no less real4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that the exorcists of the ancient world were far from necessarily being a set of impostors1 even on the supposition that possession was simple mania4 ,they may have been able to effect real alleviations or even cures of the complaint1 although they were ignorant as to its cause1 or how their exertions produced a successful result4 ,there is nothing inconsistent with their general honesty1 if they themselves were under the belief that they were expelling demons1 while they were really curing ordinary mania4 ,it should also be observed1 that a real power of exerting an influence on madmen was one which in those times of ignorance1 both of mental and physical science1 admitted of fearful abuse1 and if exercised for evil purposes1 was capable of producing many of the worst results with which the practice of witchcraft and sorcery have been attended4 ,a large portion of these latter operations no doubt resulted from the successful practice of ocular deception1 but another portion of them unquestionably resulted from the mighty influences that a powerful mind can exert over a weak1 imaginative1 and superstitious one4 ,there are many depths of human nature into which science has as yet failed to penetrate2 and among these are the entire phenomena of mania and religious frenzy4 ,these facts and considerations are sufficient to vindicate the credibility of the writers of the ,new ,testament in their statement1 that a power of exorcism was known and exercised in their time1 and that its exercise was at times attended with favourable results4 ,the statement on this subject attributed to our ,lord1 8,if ,i by ,satan cast out devils1 by whom do your sons cast them out8 therefore shall they be your judges10 is plainly an ad hominem argument4 ,it amounts to no more than this2 ,you ,pharisees accuse me of casting out demons through ,beelzebub4 ,you assert that your disciples exercise a power of exorcism2 and that they do this in virtue of a divine power communicated to them4 ,on what principle of common sense can you affirm that the power which ,i exercise is demoniacal1 and that which your disciples exercise is divine8--,there is no assertion made one way or the other as to the reality of the acts in question2 nor is there any difficulty in supposing that our ,lord recognised that some of the influences thus exerted were genuine4 ,i have hitherto1 in treating this part of the subject1 been dealing with the supposition that our ,lord's disciples mistook maniacs for demoniacs1 and the consequences of such a mistake on the authenticity of the ,gospel narratives4 ,i must now address myself to the far more important question as to the consequences which follow from our ,lord's apparent recognition of the existence of demoniacal possession on the supposition that it was simple mania4 ,the facts as they appear in the ,gospels are unmistakable4 ,it was the distinct opinion of their authors that our ,lord recognised the phenomena which they have reported as the results of demoniacal possession and not of simple mania4 ,in proof of this it will be needless to refer to every instance they have recorded4 ,the account of the demoniac at ,gadara and that of the lunatic youth are among the most remarkable1 and on them the case may be allowed to rest4 ,in the former case the words of ,st4 ,mark1 whose description of the scene abounds in those details which are rarely seen except in narratives derived from direct ocular testimony1 are3 8,and all the demons besought him1 saying1 ,send us into the swine that we may enter into them4 ,and forthwith ,jesus gave them leave4 ,and the unclean spirits went out and entered into the swine1 c40 ,in the case of the demoniac child the ,evangelist describes the ,apostles as asking ,jesus1 8,why could not we cast him out80 ,the following words are ascribed to our ,lord3 8,this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting40 ,it is undeniable1 therefore1 that the ,evangelists have ascribed to ,jesus a belief in the reality of demoniacal possession4 ,i am not concerned in the present argument with the words and actions which they have attributed to the demoniacs2 but with the words and actions attributed to ,jesus4 ,we know that some madmen labour under the delusion1 not only that they are emperors and kings1 but even in a few instances that they are ,god himself4 ,this being so1 it is quite possible that a maniac may confuse his personality with one or more demons2 and speak and act consistently with the delusion4 ,the maniacs may have given utterance to exclamations resulting from mere delusions2 but the ,evangelists in recording these utterances gave simple statements of facts4 ,it is quite possible1 that the demoniac of ,gadara may have imagined himself possessed by a legion of demons1 and have spoken and acted accordingly1 whilst he was at the same time labouring under simple mania4 ,now1 on the assumption that possession was simple mania and nothing more1 the following suppositions are the only possible ones4 ,first1 that our ,lord really distinguished between mania and possession2 but that the ,evangelists have inaccurately reported his words and actions1 through the media of their own subjective impressions1 or1 in short1 have attributed to ,him language that ,he did not really utter4 ,second1 that our ,lord knew that possession was a form of mania1 and adopted the current notions of the time in speaking of it1 and that the words were really uttered by ,him4 ,third1 that with similar knowledge1 ,he adopted the language in question as part of the curative process4 ,fourth1 that ,he accepted the validity of the distinction1 and that it was a real one during those times4 ,these alternatives demand our careful consideration1 not for the purpose of determining which is the correct one1 but of estimating the results which flow from either of them on the central character of the ,gospels4 ,the position which ,i take must be clearly stated4 ,it is this3 ,if possession be mania1 there is nothing in the language which the ,evangelists have attributed to our ,lord which compromises the truthfulness of his character4 ,if1 on the other hand1 we assume that possession was an objective fact1 there is nothing in our existing scientific knowledge of the human mind which proves that the possessions of the ,new ,testament were impossible4 ,let us consider the first alternative4 ,a careful examination of the phenomena presented by the synoptic ,gospels leads to the irresistible conclusion that they largely consist of accounts which had been handed down by oral tradition1 for a considerable time prior to their being committed to writing1 and that these have been in various degrees supplemented by information derived from other sources4 ,assuming this to have been the case it gives an adequate account of the differences of form which they present1 their variations in minor circumstances1 and that most remarkable of all their phenomena1 the samenesses of expression interwoven with considerable diversities1 which is presented alike by the parallel narratives and discourses4 ,the threefold and more frequently twofold form in which several of the discourses have been handed down to us1 prevent us from believing that these discourses were intended to be rigid reproductions of the verbal utterances of our ,lord4 ,all they can be is an accurate account of the sense and very frequently of his words4 ,the important question for our present consideration is1 ,have the ,evangelists1 in reporting the discourses of ,jesus1 imparted to them a colouring derived from their own subjective impressions or do they accurately convey to us his meaning and his meaning only8 ,or with respect to the point before us1 ,have the ,evangelists in reporting the utterances of ,jesus to the demoniacs and his observations on possession to his disciples given us the substance of what ,he actually said1 or their own impressions of what ,he might have said8 ,i reply1 the internal grounds for assuming their accuracy are strong4 ,this is vouched for by the fact that while we have a three or twofold report of the same discourse1 varying very considerably in words and arrangement1 and while we have whole sentences in one ,evangelist which materially aid in determining the meaning1 either omitted in one or inserted in another1 still with all these variations in expression1 the variations in sense are of the smallest possible importance4 ,this being the case the whole aspect of the discourses leads us to infer that they are altogether unaffected by the subjective impressions of those who reported them4 ,they are indelibly stamped with the mind of ,jesus himself and with his alone4 ,there are many points on which his teaching ran strongly counter to the subjective impressions of those who reported it4 ,here then if such impressions had intruded themselves we should be certain to find indications of such intrusion1 and that in no doubtful form4 ,but there are none4 ,the theory therefore of the introduction of the subjective impressions of the followers of our ,lord into the discourses has no foundation in their contents1 and therefore it is wholly illegitimate to assume it for the solution of a difficulty4 ,the phenomena which distinguish ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel strongly display the marks of autoptic testimony4 ,this greatly increases the difficulty of the supposition in question1 for these expressions are found in that ,gospel1 and in it we also find the remarkable saying1 8,this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting40 ,it seems therefore impossible to doubt the ,evangelist's assertion that such words were uttered by our ,lord4 ,but ,i must now inquire whether ,dr4 ,farrar's supposition is tenable1 that some misapprehension has crept into the narrative when it affirms that the demons in objective reality left the body of the man and entered into the swine4 ,i answer that there is nothing in the ,evangelists which requires us to consider their words as an accurately scientific statement of the mode in which the demon acted on the mind of the possessed4 ,it is true that they repeatedly say that they entered in and out of the man1 but this may well be in conformity with popular ideas on the subject1 without intending to assert as a scientific fact1 that the demons made either the body or the spirit of the man their local habitation4 ,the ,new ,testament attempts to determine nothing respecting the modus operandi of spirits4 ,god is said to dwell in a holy man1 but it is ridiculous to affirm that the omnipresent ,spirit makes the man his local habitation4 ,there is a case in point as to the use of such language in the narrative of the woman who was healed of the issue of blood4 ,the effect produced on her is described by our ,lord and the ,evangelists by the words 8,power 77 has gone out of me40 ,yet no one who considers the mode in which the ,gospels are composed1 will affirm that our ,lord by using these words intended to convey a scientific truth as to his modus operandi in performing the miracle1 or that it was actually performed by some subtle emanation called 8,power10 which issued from his person4 ,with those who assume that neither our ,lord nor his ,apostles could use popular expressions of this kind1 but were bound to use terms of strict scientific accuracy all reasoning is thrown away4 ,if the strictest verbal accuracy must be observed on every occasion it would be incorrect to say that a physician has cured a lunatic1 for the idea on which the term lunacy is founded is scientifically inaccurate4 ,it follows therefore that the terms which are so constantly applied to demons in the ,new ,testament1 that they entered into1 departed out of1 or possessed a man may well be popular expressions1 denoting that they exerted a mighty1 nay1 an overwhelming influence upon him1 which in the shattered state of his physical or moral condition he was unable to shake off1 without determining anything as to the mode in which that influence was exerted4 ,thus1 in ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 the devil is described as having put it 77 into the heart of ,judas ,iscariot to betray our ,lord4 ,after the giving of the sop1 ,satan is said to have entered into him4 ,surely the only fact which these words are intended to convey is that ,judas allowed his whole moral and spiritual being to be overpowered by the influence of the evil one4 ,it is quite possible that the ,evangelists might have thought that the influence was exerted by actually going in or coming out of a man4 ,but this is a mere physical theory as to the mode of action1 and certainly is not a point on which the writings of the ,new ,testament anywhere affirm that a supernatural knowledge was imparted to their authors4 ,it follows therefore that the expressions 8going out from the man10 and 8entering into the swine10 may only denote the cessation of the influence of the demons over the man1 and its exertion on the swine1 without determining the mode in which that influence was exerted4 ,surely when our ,lord promised that ,he would come to the man who loved him and make his abode with him1 that did not imply a local indwelling of his person but an indwelling of influence4 ,with such expressions in abundance before us1 in which it is obvious that they were never intended to denote anything local1 it is absurd to fix it on the sacred writers in this particular case4 ,they nowhere assert that the demons were seen to pass from the man and enter the swine4 ,it was simply a matter of inference from the facts which they witnessed that they had done so4 ,the man ceased to rave and became a rational creature4 ,the swine rushed down into the lake and perished4 ,they also affirm that the result took place by the permission of ,jesus4 ,yet it is somewhat remarkable that it is only ,matthew who attributes to him the word 8,go40 ,mark and ,luke only mention the request of the demons1 and the result which followed4 ,there is nothing therefore derogatory to the character of the ,evangelists as historians in supposing that the facts received a colouring from their own subjective impressions1 though it would be so if under such circumstances they had allowed those impressions to assign a different meaning to our ,lord's words from that which he actually conveyed4 ,this conclusion at which we have arrived1 that our ,lord's meaning is accurately reported by the ,evangelists1 disposes of the first alternative4 ,we will now proceed to examine the second1 viz41 that our ,lord knew that possession was mania1 and that ,he adopted the current notions of the times in speaking of it4 ,the all important question is1 how far does this affect his veracity8 ,on this point ,archbishop ,trench has laid down the following position broadly3 8,if ,jesus knew that the ,jewish belief in demoniacal possession was baseless and that ,satan did not exercise such power over the bodies or spirits of men there would be in such language that absence of agreement between thoughts and words in which the essence of a lie consists40 ,if this position is correct it involves a principle far more extensive than the case immediately before us4 ,it is nothing less than that our ,lord neither in his formal teaching nor in his conversation should have used language which was other than scientifically correct4 ,it might be argued1 that if ,he had done so ,he would have lent his sanction to the error which it involved4 ,even if the principle thus laid down could be confined to religious truth 7which it cannot71 it would then have been necessary that whenever the current ideas1 or the mode of conception of the day contained an assumption involving an incorrect theory or endangering a religious error1 our ,lord ought to have corrected it in the course of his teaching4 ,if we admit that demoniacal possession was a real agency there can be no doubt that the ,jews would confound many cases of ordinary mania with it4 ,this being so1 if the principle is correct1 our ,lord ought to have pointed out the distinction4 ,again1 even if it is assumed that demoniacal agency was sometimes manifested in the phenomena of witchcraft1 there can be no doubt that much of it was due to human imposture4 ,on the principle laid down by the ,archbishop our ,lord ought to have corrected every error that was prevalent on that subject4 ,on the same principle it would have been impossible for him to have used an ad hominem argument or in fact any form of expression founded on an erroneous conception4 ,it is therefore evident that the principle1 if accepted at all1 can only be accepted under very considerable qualifications1 or we shall convert our ,lord from the revealer of truth and teacher of ,christianity into one whose duty it was to combat every erroneous opinion of the day4 ,on such a theory it is difficult to see how our ,lord was not bound to correct every erroneous opinion then current respecting the first and second chapters of ,genesis1 and to point out their true relation to the modern discoveries of geology1 for ,he expressly referred to the second chapter in his teaching4 ,he also referred to the flood1 respecting which many erroneous opinions were undoubtedly current4 ,if the principle is good it might be urged that ,he sanctioned those errors by his silence4 ,the same principle must also have been applicable to many other erroneous opinions which the ,jews entertained respecting the interpretation of the ,old ,testament4 ,in fact it would be difficult to assign any limits to our ,lord's duty of correcting popular errors which had any kind of bearing on religious truth4 ,but to return to the demoniacs4 ,is there any thing inconsistent with our ,lord's truthfulness1 if we suppose that they were lunatics and nothing more1 in his using the current language of the day respecting them8 ,let it be observed that two considerations are really involved2 first1 our ,lord is represented as conversing directly with the demoniac4 ,secondly1 ,he also occasionally speaks of demoniacal possession in his ordinary teaching in the current language of the day4 ,now if it be admitted to be consistent with his truthfulness to address such language to the maniac1 is it equally so to employ such language in his discourses to others8 ,i observe first1 that if possession was mania1 the real ground of the popular error was an erroneous opinion as to the cause of a natural disorder4 ,the popular belief in fact ascribed it to supernatural instead of natural causes4 ,so far1 but no farther1 it touched religious questions4 ,to correct the error involved not merely the teaching of religious truth1 but in this particular case the enunciation of sounder principles of mental philosophy4 ,i think that ,i may fearlessly affirm that the teaching of scientific truth1 either mental or material1 did not come within the scope of our ,lord's divine mission4 ,political truth is a part of moral truth1 and moral truth is closely allied to religious truth4 ,now although ,christianity is a power which will ultimately reform the political world1 our ,lord expressly affirmed that it was no part of his mission to enunciate political truth4 ,in the same manner it may have formed no direct portion of his mission to teach correct views respecting the origin of mania1 or to counteract the opinions which ascribed it to supernatural causes4 ,if this principle is correct1 there is nothing inconsistent with his truthfulness if when our ,lord conversed with a supposed demoniac1 ,he addressed him in language which took for granted the truth of his delusions4 ,even if it is supposed that truthfulness required that ,he should have exposed a popular delusion1 surely it was no occasion for doing so1 when ,he was addressing a madman4 ,who would affirm that a physician is wanting in truthfulness if he addresses his patient in terms of his own delusions1 or imagines that it is his duty to enter into a discussion with a madman as to the causes of his malady8 ,on these principles it is quite consistent with our ,lord's truthfulness to suppose that the dialogue with the demoniac of ,gadara actually occurred1 while ,he himself knew that possession was nothing but mania4 ,let us suppose that the man was a raving madman4 ,he had been treated cruelly4 ,he rushed towards ,jesus and was awed by the greatness of his character4 ,the dialogue takes place1 as it is described by the ,evangelist4 ,i see no want of truthfulness on our ,lord's part1 nor can ,i conceive any necessity for explaining to the man that he was not possessed by a multitude of demons2 or if the madman requested that the demons by whom he imagined himself possessed might be allowed to go into the swine1 that our ,lord should explain to him that it was impossible that they should do so because the idea of the demoniac was a delusion4 ,the case would be one of confused or double personality1 and accordingly the narrator has described the demons and the man as alternately speaking1 and our ,lord as addressing them4 ,in such a case the form of the narrative would be modified by the subjective impressions of the narrator4 ,but the words which our ,lord is described as addressing to the demoniac lad also require consideration4 ,st4 ,mark describes them as follows4 ,jesus rebuked the foul spirit1 saying unto him1 8,thou deaf and dumb spirit1 ,i charge thee come out of him1 and enter no more into him2 and the spirit cried1 and rent him sore and came out of him40 ,let us suppose that the disease was mania1 and that our ,lord knew it to be so1 but that the father1 as well as the maniac and the others who were present believed that it was caused by the action of an evil spirit4 ,what was there inconsistent with veracity in addressing the maniac in terms of his own delusions8 ,if it is urged that the belief in possession was a superstition1 and that to use such language tended to confirm the belief1 ,i reply that if we assume that our ,lord was bound not to use the language which was common among his hearers in speaking of such diseases1 or that ,he ought to have given explanations of their true causes1 then we assume that his character as a revealer of ,christianity rendered it necessary that in the course of his public ministry ,he should correct all the errors which ,he encountered1 and never use language which had originated in them4 ,the words which are ascribed to our ,lord by the ,evangelist when ,he stilled the tempest will throw light on this subject4 ,st4 ,mark gives them as follows3 8,he rebuked the winds and said to the sea1 ,peace1 be still40 ,the word here rendered 8,be still0 is in the ,greek far more emphatic1 ,be gagged 774 ,in the case of the demoniac our ,lord is represented as rebuking the evil spirit4 ,here ,he rebukes the waves4 ,now it is only possible to rebuke rational agents4 ,such an expression would therefore be only accurate if addressed to a being who was capable of hearing it1 and who was uttering load cries4 ,it may be objected that the expression favours the notion that the speaker supposed the roaring of the waves to be the voice of an evil spirit1 who was exciting the tempest1 or1 in other words1 that ,he gave countenance to the heathen belief1 that it was the voice of olus1 the spirit of the storm4 ,whatever amount of superstition may be attributed to the ,jews at the time of the ,advent1 it will scarcely be urged that the followers of ,jesus attributed the roaring of the gale to the voice of a demon4 ,still it may be urged on the principles above referred to that the words uttered by our ,lord tended to confirm superstitions notions as to the nature and origin of storms4 ,i argue1 on the other hand1 that these expressions prove indisputably that the language used by ,him was not always intended to be a literal description of fact1 any more than the numerous similar addresses to the inanimate creation which we find in the ,psalms4 ,but in the case of the demoniac1 the real difficulty consists in the results which are alleged to have happened to the swine4 ,i have already obviated some portion of this as far as the form of the narrative is concerned4 ,but there remains the fact that the swine are stated to have rushed into the lake and perished4 ,as to the reality of such an occurrence there can have been no mistake4 ,the mere mode of expression offers no explanation1 nor can a mistake respecting such an occurrence have originated in any possible deception of the imagination4 ,if it was not a fact it must have been a fictitious invention4 ,can any explanation of it be given8 ,it has been suggested that the swine were driven down the cliff by the madman4 ,against this supposition1 it has been urged that no animals are less easily driven than swine4 ,how then could it have been possible to drive two thousand of them into the water8 ,but there is no necessity to assume that they were driven at all4 ,the scene as it is described by the ,evangelists was well calculated to inspire animals with fright4 ,it would however have been impossible to frighten two thousand of them4 ,granted3 but large herds of animals follow their leaders implicitly4 ,when under excitement one makes a leap1 the others will follow4 ,all that would have been necessary1 if we suppose that the herd was near the edge of the cliff1 was that the leaders should have received the requisite impulse from the madman1 and under its influence rushed wildly down the cliff1 and been followed by their companions4 ,but the case is different when our ,lord speaks to others1 and not to the demoniacs themselves4 ,his observations to the ,pharisees on this subject ,i have already considered4 ,there remains the striking one addressed to the disciples3 8,this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting40 ,the circumstances of the case are these4 ,the disciples had failed to cure the youth1 whether a demoniac or a simple lunatic4 ,they ask our ,lord why it was that they had failed4 ,he tells them that it was because of their unbelief4 ,now it is impossible for us to say what was the nature of the influence of faith in affecting miraculous cures1 and why the want of it prevented success4 ,it is sufficient to draw attention to the fact that it is uniformly laid down in the ,new ,testament1 that in the case of subordinate agents working miracles faith was necessary for their accomplishment4 ,our ,lord also usually required faith in the recipients of his cures1 but not always4 ,but to his disciples when they attempted to perform a miracle faith was indispensable to their success4 ,the question was not what was the nature of the disease1 but why in this particular case they had failed to cure it4 ,our ,lord replied that in this instance not only was faith necessary to effect the cure1 but a very unusual degree of it4 ,if the question had been what was the cause of the child's disease1 and if our ,lord know that it was not possession1 but mania1 it is quite possible that ,he would have refused to answer it1 as ,he did on other occasions when curious questions were put to him1 and would have deduced some moral lesson from the fact4 ,this it will be remembered was the course which ,he pursued when ,he was asked whether only a few would be saved4 ,but the inquiry was not what caused the disease1 but why the attempt to cure it had proved a failure4 ,such being the question1 there is nothing inconsistent with truthfulness in our ,lord's answer4 ,he avoided entering into an explanation as to what was a physical cause of the disease1 which was quite foreign to his divine mission4 ,he therefore simply told them that their failure was owing to their unbelief1 and then added1 in language couched in their own forms of thought1 and which would not therefore open a discussion on subjects foreign to the purposes of his mission1 8,this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting40 ,those who lay stress on difficulties of this kind are in the habit of overlooking the plain fact1 that our ,lord's teaching was specifically addressed to the living characters of the day1 and to their existing lines of thought1 and cannot without reference to them be directly translated into our own4 ,this remark is no less true of the moral teaching contained in the ,gospels1 than of their historical statements4 ,it is even more so1 for a great number of the moral precepts of ,christ cannot be applied as practical guides until they have been adapted to the altered conditions of thought and of society47#d7 ,they are in fact principles given in the form of precepts4 ,if our ,lord's words had been reported so as to make them square with the lines of thought of every age1 they would have given us1 not his actual teaching but a modification of it4 ,it is our duty by a careful study of the great principles on which it is based to apply it to our present wants4 ,it may appear to some far more desirable that it should have been capable of a direct instead of an indirect application1 yet the fact is as ,i have stated it4 ,want of attention to this has occasioned no inconsiderable number of the difficulties of the ,new ,testament4 ,one or two remarks will be all that is necessary for illustrating the position which some have adopted that our ,lord's mode of dealing with demoniacs was intended by ,him as part of the process of cure4 ,i should not have alluded to this subject at all unless the view in question had been propounded by a very eminent writer4 ,i have already considered its main principles under the previous head4 ,it ought to be observed that the care of demoniacs1 whatever view we may take of possession1 belongs to a class of our ,lord's miracles which are distinct from all others4 ,all the others are described as wrought on the human body1 or on external nature4 ,the ,evangelists do not record a single miracle beside these that was wrought on the human mind4 ,this is a remarkable fact4 ,in the course of his ministry ,he encountered every form of moral and spiritual disease1 from the weaknesses of his disciples and attached friends to the opposition of his most avowed enemies4 ,now1 although ,he emphatically asserted that ,he was the physician of the soul1 and although for the spiritual diseases of men ,he felt the most profound sympathy1 never once is ,jesus represented as exerting his supernatural power for their care4 ,on the contrary1 ,he is uniformly represented as having recourse to moral and spiritual means and not to miracles to effect it4 ,physical diseases ,he cures instantaneously1 moral ones slowly and with effort4 ,this fact is worthy of deep attention as showing that our ,lord uniformly acted in conformity with the laws of the moral universe4 ,if the ,gospels are fictions1 why is the ,great ,physician of ,souls never represented as performing a sudden or miraculous cure in the moral and spiritual worlds1 in the same manner as ,he does in the material8 ,the need of miraculous intervention to secure ,simon ,peter from the moral and spiritual danger which surrounded him was as great as to prevent him from sinking in the water4 ,yet no other than moral and spiritual influences were called into action4 ,the following is the bearing of this fact on the question before us4 ,if the cure of a demoniac was the expulsion of a demon1 it involved the liberation of a moral nature from its thraldom1 and at the same time the cure of the bodily organisation as far as its disordered condition enabled the demon to exert his power4 ,if1 on the other hand1 it was the cure of simple mania1 still the act had a direct bearing on the moral nature of the sufferer4 ,in either case the use of moral means as well as supernatural agency would be especially appropriate4 ,if demoniacs were madmen1 our ,lord was fully justified in displaying towards them the highest degree of sympathy1 and in bringing to bear on them the mighty moral and spiritual forces which abode in his lofty personality4 ,the same remark would be equally true if the sufferer was held in thrall by demoniacal power4 ,each class of miracles in the mode of their performance is exactly suited to the condition of those on whom our ,lord was operating4 ,on either supposition ,he was dealing not merely with physical forces1 but with moral agency1 and ,he dealt with it accordingly4 ,i conclude1 therefore1 that if it may be taken as established that possession involved nothing but simple mania1 there is nothing in the facts as they are recorded in the ,new ,testament inconsistent with that supposition1 or which affects the credit of the ,gospels as historical narratives4 ,nor are they inconsistent with the idea that their writers were favoured with such supernatural assistance in composing them as was adequate for the purpose of giving us such an account of the actions and teachings of ,jesus as was necessary for communicating all the great truths of the ,christian revelation4 ,nor is the supposition inconsistent1 as it has been alleged to be1 with ,his divine character and truthfulness4 ,i will examine in the next chapter the supposition that possession was not mania1 but an actual objective fact4 ,,chapter ,,xii4 ,,possession1 ,,if ,,an ,,objective ,,reality1 ,,neither ,,incredible ,,nor ,,contrary ,,to ,,the ,,ascertained ,,truths ,,of ,,mental ,,science4 ,i now proceed to the consideration of the remaining alternative1 the truth of which the form of the narrative seems most to favour1 viz41 that our ,lord accepted the distinction between possession and mania2 and that during those times possessions were actual occurrences4 ,in considering this subject1 it will be necessary to pay attention to the distinction to which ,i have referred in the previous chapter1 that even if many of the phenomena that accompanied possession were due to superhuman agency1 the ,gospels are by no means pledged to any particular theory of the modus operandi by which the phenomena were brought about4 ,what ,i mean is that these phenomena might have been due to a superhuman agency1 without involving the fact that the demon had a local habitation either in the body or the spirit of the man4 ,all that the ,gospels can be taken to affirm is1 that the evil spirit in some way or other1 of which we are ignorant1 held the man in a state of thraldom1 made his mental powers the subject of a divided consciousness1 overpowered the functions of his reason and his will1 and through his action on the mind used for his own purposes the organs of his body4 ,the writers of the ,new ,testament are pledged to no theory as to how such results were effected4 ,they have simply reported the phenomena as they presented themselves to their observation4 ,in doing this1 the language which they have employed denotes local habitation2 but the words used in stilling the storm make it quite clear that the literal meaning cannot be pressed4 ,considering the general character of these narratives1 it is impossible to pledge them to the particular mode in which these results were brought about4 ,one circumstance seems to militate against the supposition that possession involved nothing but simple mania1 namely1 the numbers of those who are spoken of as possessed4 ,if the ,gospel narratives are historical1 it would appear that such cases were numerous4 ,not only are several miracles of this description definitely recorded1 but the ,evangelists several times affirm that our ,lord cured demoniacs in considerable numbers1 without furnishing us with the details4 ,now it is difficult to believe that maniacs existed in such large numbers in a country of the size and population of ,juda4 ,yet all the phenomena of possession point to maniacal1 and not to harmless lunacy4 ,the number of the cases of mania that occur bears but a small proportion to those of the latter form of derangement4 ,it is true that at times of popular excitement various forms and numerous cases of frenzy manifest themselves2 but these differ from mania1 though they not unfrequently terminate in it4 ,i have made these observations1 because1 in discussing such a subject1 it is only right to state fully the difficulties with which particular theories are attended4 ,it is very probable1 however1 that as the symptoms so closely resembled each other1 many cases of actual mania would be confounded in popular estimation with possession1 and1 therefore1 that cases of actual possession may not have been so numerous as at first sight would appear4 ,on the supposition that possession was a reality1 we have no means of determining what moral or physical preconditions were necessary for its manifestation4 ,it is clear that the authors of the ,gospels must have considered that it was owing to some predisposing causes1 physical or moral1 though they have not described them4 ,unless this was the case1 the evil1 instead of being partial1 would have been universal4 ,various moral causes would naturally form a suitable precondition for its manifestation4 ,there can be no doubt that a number of vices1 when indulged in beyond a certain point1 reduce man's moral being to a wreck and render him obnoxious to the action of external agency4 ,the power of selfcontrol may be indefinitely weakened4 ,if vice is carried to its extreme forms1 it produces phenomena hardly1 if at all1 distinguishable from madness4 ,such a state of man's moral nature would form a suitable precondition to enable a superhuman being to overpower the reason and the will1 the supremacy of which was already impaired by an influence from within4 ,in such cases possession would have been rendered possible by a man's selfinduced moral corruption4 ,the testimony of history proves that during the century which preceded and that which followed the ,advent1 the state of moral corruption was extreme4 ,men were sated with the old1 and craving for new and unheard of forms of sensual gratification4 ,the old class of ideas1 moral and religious1 were gradually dying out1 and men were eagerly seeking for something to fill the void4 ,there consequently never was a time when a greater number of abnormal forms of thought burst on the human mind1 which was shaken to its utmost depths4 ,the outbreak of fanaticism combined with moral wickedness1 which displayed itself forty years after in the ,jewish war of independence1 is probably without a parallel in the history of man4 ,for this there must have been years of preparation4 ,a somewhat similar state of things existed in the ,pagan world1 which led to the production of numerous religious charlatans and impostors4 ,the times were characterised by an extravagance of thought on almost every subject1 philosophy itself forming no exception4 ,such an abnormal mental condition was peculiarly suited to the reception of external mental influences1 if we suppose them possible4 ,but ,i am bound to admit that the facts recorded in the ,gospels prove that possession was not always the result of moral degradation4 ,this is proved by the case of the youth1 whose possession the father directly connects with lunacy1 and says that it had seized him from a child4 ,in this case the cause which rendered the possession possible must have been physical1 probably a derangement of the nervous system4 ,if ,i understand rightly the position which is taken by those who affirm that possession was mania1 and nothing else1 it is as follows4 ,it is alleged that at certain periods of history1 the belief in possession has been widely spread4 ,possessions are unknown in modern times2 and all the instances which have been alleged are either cases of mania or delusion4 ,the belief in it has gradually died away as knowledge has advanced4 ,in former times it generated a number of grotesque stories1 which were pure inventions of the imagination heated by enthusiasm4 ,such facts as were real may be referred to madness as their cause4 ,the others are simply disbelieved4 ,under the influence of increasing knowledge1 there has arisen a widespread belief in modern times1 that there is nothing superhuman in the causes of such phenomena1 but that they are due to influences existing within the mind itself4 ,this1 as it is affirmed1 being true of all the alleged instances of possession in the modern world1 it is inferred that similar ones in the ancient world are equally unreal2 and if we had the requisite data before us1 we should be able to refer them all to ordinary human causes4 ,with respect to the general fact1 there can be no doubt that advancing knowledge has caused a general disbelief in the reality of any modern form of possession1 or of witchcraft4 ,the supreme grotesqueness of the phenomena of the latter has caused the belief in it to perish under the influence of common sense1 aided by an increased acquaintance with sound principles of causation1 and the stability of the operations of nature4 ,still it is incorrect to affirm that the prevalence of such beliefs has been due to no other cause than universal ignorance4 ,the belief in witchcraft produced its most unhappy results during the reigns of ,elizabeth and the ,stuarts1 in the very age of ,bacon1 ,shakespeare1 and ,raleigh4 ,such beliefs originate in certain principles of our minds whose gratification consists in the contemplation of the marvellous1 the action of which ,i shall consider hereafter4 ,they have existed in every condition of society1 and only changed the form of their manifestation4 ,those who boast of our freedom from such delusions1 owing to the superior light of the nineteenth century1 seem to have forgotten the existence at the present day of a belief in spiritualism1 which is little1 if at all1 less absurd than witchcraft1 though the former has encountered a less severe treatment than the latter4 ,this has been more due to the improvement of our humanity than to our knowledge of physical science4 ,it is a fact that spiritualism is believed in by multitudes2 and its votaries belong far more to the cultivated class of society than to the ignorant and the vulgar4 ,what the witch mania was to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries1 spiritualism is to the nineteenth4 ,it is the peculiar form rather than the possibility of such delusions that has passed away4 ,it should be observed also that the demoniacal supernaturalism of the monastic writers1 and of the middle ages1 differs from that of the ,new ,testament to such a degree that they cannot fairly be compared4 ,in the former the apparition of demons and departed spirits was a thing of constant occurrence2 in the latter1 never4 ,to the monks the devil was continually appearing in the most phantastic forms1 and performing the most grotesque miracles4 ,to this form of demonology modern spiritualism can put in very strong claims to be esteemed the genuine successor4 ,the heated imagination of even such a man as ,luther suggested to him that he saw ,satan in visible reality4 ,it is worthy of remark that ,st4 ,paul knew nothing of visible ,satanic manifestations4 ,with him they were invariably spiritual4 ,it is important to keep steadily in view the fact1 that the ,new ,testament invariably represents possession as consisting in the action of a stronger mind on a weaker one4 ,the influence which the demon exerted on the bodily organs might have been effected through the agency of the man himself4 ,it is never described as involving a visible manifestation of the demon1 but his action is one which is purely mental and spiritual4 ,his presence and his departure were simply judged of by their effects4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that the denial of the possibility of an influence of this kind must rest on a very wide principle4 ,it cannot be confined to such action alone1 but must go to the extent of denying the possibility of the action of all spiritual beings on the mind of man4 ,the only principle on which the denial can rest is1 that our mental science has so far succeeded in analyzing all the past and present operations of the human mind1 that it is justified in affirming that they all originate entirely within the mind itself2 and are never brought about by an action on it from without by any invisible agent4 ,if this is the principle on which the denial rests1 it will be equally valid to exclude the action of ,god on our minds1 as well as that of all other invisible beings4 ,it will doubtless be urged that it is only intended to deny the action of invisible evil beings4 ,but if it is true that our mental philosophy has ascertained that all our thoughts originate either in the mind itself1 or in the mind acted on by external nature1 or by other men1 the principle must be valid for proving that all other spiritual agency exerted on the mind is impossible1 and that all supposed instances of it are delusions4 ,it is impossible on this principle to exclude the evil agency1 and not to exclude the good also4 ,it is evident that this principle is far too broad to be used for the purpose of affirming the impossibility of the action of external evil agents only4 ,it is based on the supposition that our mental philosophy is so complete as to be able to assign even the most abnormal portions of our mental action to definite and known forces1 all of which originate within the mind itself1 and are never due to external influences4 ,if mental philosophy could establish this as a fact1 it would doubtless prove that possession was impossible2 but it could prove a great deal more1 even that ,god never acted on or influenced the spirit of man4 ,but if there is any one phenomenon of the mind1 of the origin of which we are ignorant1 the whole principle is vitiated1 for that very phenomenon may be caused by the action of an external power4 ,the real point of the controversy therefore is1 ,is our mental science thus complete8 ,has it been able to reduce all our mental phenomena1 including the most abnormal of them1 to the action of known forces8 ,has it analyzed our mental powers to their inmost depths8 ,until it has done this1 it is impossible to affirm that the abnormal actions of the mind may not be occasioned by an external agency4 ,it will probably be urged1 that although our philosophy has not yet succeeded in assigning all our mental phenomena to the action of known forces1 it hopes to accomplish this hereafter2 and that its past conquests ought to be accepted as a pledge of its future performances2 and that the time will certainly come1 when it will be able to refer every mental phenomenon to a cause originating in the mind itself1 and acting in conformity with invariable law4 ,promises1 however1 are not performances2 what is requisite to impart validity to wide affirmations is present actual knowledge1 not the hope that future scientific conquests will be extended over the entire regions of the unknown4 ,science professes to walk by sight and not by faith4 ,in a subject of this kind it is most unphilosophical to assume that the possibilities of the future are the realities of the present2 and to enunciate propositions whose validity rests solely on the fact that they are so4 ,i will now definitely state the principle which can alone give any scientific value to the assertion1 that such demoniacal action as that which is described in the ,new ,testament1 is unbelievable4 ,it is as follows3 that we have so completely ascertained the nature of the forces which act on our minds1 and the laws which regulate them1 that we know as a scientifically established truth1 that they all originate either in our own mental organization1 or in the action of other men on our minds4 ,the statement of the principle in this distinct form at once shows that it is invalid4 ,it is impossible for one moment to affirm that our knowledge is so complete1 that we have a scientific acquaintance with the causes of all our varied mental phenomena1 and the laws which regulate them4 ,we have ascertained the nature of several of our mental processes2 but how small a portion of man's mental activity do they embrace4 ,i need only particularize a few of which we are in complete ignorance1 as to the forces which generate them1 and the laws which regulate their action4 ,first1 with respect to ,genius4 ,genius is a mental power which manifests itself only on rare occasions4 ,who can affirm that we have ascertained the law which regulates its birth8 ,we may judge from analogy that this1 as other things1 follows a law of some kind2 but respecting the causes which give it birth our philosophy is profoundly ignorant4 ,nor have we any knowledge of its mode of action4 ,it manifests itself in various forms4 ,there is the genius which makes the poet1 the philosopher1 the scientific discoverer1 the orator1 the politician1 and many others4 ,how those who are possessed of this power effectuate their mental operations1 or how their great ideas originate in their minds is a subject which exceeds the limits of our scientific knowledge4 ,take for example the genius of the poet4 ,whence came1 and what was the nature of that intuitive power with which ,shakespeare was endowed1 or how was it called into exercise8 ,we call such powers intuitions4 ,we say that a great poet is endowed with a species of inspiration4 ,what is this but to confess our entire ignorance both of the origin and the mode of his mental operations4 ,probably the poet himself would be unable to give us any analysis of the origin of his own thoughts1 or of the laws that regulate them4 ,how then can we venture to affirm that they must all originate in the mind itself1 and not be due to the action of some external power8 ,the habit of speaking of his inspirations1 from which scientific men are not exempt1 proves our complete ignorance both of its nature and origin4 ,but to descend to a humbler sphere--our own minds4 ,we are all conscious that thoughts rush into them in a most unbidden manner1 and that we pass through mental states which our analysis is unable to explain4 ,can any man affirm1 however deep may be his philosophy1 that the known laws of association of ideas are adequate to account for all the mental phenomena of which he has been conscious8 ,who has not had experience of severe efforts to realize something in thought1 which have ended in failure1 and that the right thing has suddenly come into his mind uncalled and unbidden8 ,not unfrequently has a sudden thought entered the mind 7we know not whence it came7 which has entirely changed the whole current of a previous life4 ,still more frequently has a happy idea occurred to us1 the origin of which it is impossible to trace4 ,who again has not had experience of the sudden rushing of a temptation into his mind with an all but overwhelming force1 even while his thoughts were occupied with subjects in no way allied to the suggestion8 ,many of our mental phenomena may be explained by the principle of association of ideas and other known mental powers2 but who can venture to affirm that they are adequate to account for all the various states of which he has been conscious1 or that some of them have not originated in suggestions from without8 ,scientific knowledge is certainly able to make no such affirmation4 ,next3 there are numerous abnormal conditions to which the mind is unquestionably subject4 ,who will venture to affirm that he has penetrated to their depths1 or ascertained the laws which regulate their action8 ,these have a most important bearing on the present subject4 ,they are best designated by the term phrenzy4 ,their aspect is very varied4 ,they differ in many respects from mania1 though they are closely allied to it4 ,they are confined to no one race of men1 but are coextensive with human nature4 ,they were prevalent in the ancient world1 and connected with various forms of religious belief4 ,they display themselves with peculiar violence in the religious rites of savages4 ,in ,oriental countries at the present day1 they frequently manifest themselves and assume a great variety of aspects4 ,examples might be easily adduced4 ,the phrenzied fanatic often presents indications of his mind being acted on by an overwhelming external influence2 and when under the influence of the rites of a degraded religion1 the symptoms present no little resemblance to those which accompanied demoniacal possession4 ,i have no wish to affirm that such phenomena must be due to an action of this kind1 but to draw attention to the fact that we are ignorant of the power in which they originate1 and that such being the case1 it is quite possible that their most violent and terrible forms may be aroused by the influence of a power external to the mind itself4 ,equally ignorant are we of the causes of even their milder manifestations4 ,whatever may be the hopes which are entertained of the future triumphs of science1 it is not too much to assert1 that it has not yet reduced these abnormal conditions of the mind to any thing like a scientific law1 and that it has not succeeded in tracing the phenomena to the exclusive operation of a force acting within the mind itself4 ,in truth our mental science is ignorant of their causes3 and for aught that it can affirm to the contrary1 many of them may be due to causes human1 superhuman1 or a combination of the two4 ,in cases where we are profoundly ignorant1 dogmatical assertions should be carefully avoided4 ,while such phenomena are incapable of explanation by the action of known mental forces1 the students of mental science are not justified in affirming that possession contradicts its known truths4 ,i fully admit1 however1 that there is a system of professed mental science1 which1 if its truth could be proved1 would establish the fact that possession was impossible4 ,i need hardly say that ,i allude to that which affirms that thought is the result of a function of the brain1 and nothing else4 ,according to the views of these philosophers1 the brain secretes thought as a gland secretes its own peculiar secretion4 ,until this philosophy has succeeded in proving the truth of its first principles1 it is useless to consider its bearing on this particular question4 ,there is another abnormal mental condition1 the existence of which is unquestionable1 and which has a close connection with the present question1 namely1 the ecstatic state4 ,the forms in which this has manifested itself have been extremely various1 and it is impossible for any one to assert that our mental philosophy has fully fathomed them1 and has succeeded in assigning them to forces originating within the mind itself4 ,on the contrary it is not too much to affirm that it has as yet wholly failed to analyze its nature1 or to account for the abnormal powers displayed by the mind when in this condition4 ,in the ancient world this state of mind was closely connected with the manifestations of the prophetic power1 the reality of which was recognized by many of its philosophers4 ,it will of course be observed that ,i am not speaking of this power as it existed in the ,jewish church1 but of its supposed manifestations in the heathen world4 ,similar ecstatic states have frequently displayed themselves in modern times4 ,when in this condition the mind is especially liable to be acted on by external influences4 ,is it possible1 ,i ask1 in the present state of our mental philosophy1 to assert that we know their nature1 or the forces which produce them8 ,the ecstatic in union with a phrenzied state of the mind was apparently the condition of the ,delphian priestess when she delivered oracles to those who consulted her4 ,according to all the accounts that we possess1 she presented the appearance of being subject to an overpowering external influence4 ,every other description which we possess of the manifestation of this prophetic power1 7and we have several7 describes it as presenting phenomena closely allied to raving madness1 an influence of some kind apparently overpowering the prophet's personality4 ,until the forces which produced these phenomena in the ancient world1 and the somewhat similar ones which have been manifested in modern times1 can be shown to owe their origin to forces originating in the mind itself1 and to nothing else1 it is absurd to affirm that such a phenomenon as possession is in contradiction to our scientific knowledge of the human mind4 ,there is another point which demands our attention1 namely1 the close connection between the extreme forms of moral wickedness1 and madness4 ,it is an unquestionable fact that nothing is more difficult than to draw the precise line where moral wickedness ends1 and madness begins4 ,in their great outlines they are easily distinguishable1 but in the more advanced stages of moral evil1 the one passes into the other by insensible degrees4 ,so difficult is it to lay down the precise line which separates them1 that scientific men are not wanting1 who affirm that every extreme case of moral wickedness is a species of mania4 ,consistently with this theory frequent efforts are made to save the most abandoned criminals from the consequences of their crimes4 ,if the principle is correct1 it is impossible not to assign lesser degrees of moral evil to the same cause4 ,such a principle logically leads to the denial of any distinction between moral and physical action4 ,happily however1 although this conclusion is one which has been arrived at by a considerable number of physicists1 it is one which the common sense of mankind steadily refuses to accept4 ,it is sufficient for the present purpose1 that extreme forms of moral evil shade off into mania by insensible degrees2 and that ultimately they are capable of producing insanity4 ,if insanity can be produced by moral causes1 it follows that a superhuman influence powerful for evil1 acting on a degraded moral nature1 may be attended with a similar result1 and produce such a phenomenon as possession4 ,but further3 while madness is produced by physical causes1 it is a certain fact that it is frequently occasioned by causes purely mental4 ,of this the instances are innumerable4 ,these mental causes react on the brain and the nervous system2 and thus they superinduce disease on those parts of our bodily organization by means of which the mind exercises its powers4 ,still the disease itself originates in causes that are not seated in the body1 but in the mind4 ,the mind is therefore capable of acting powerfully on our bodily frame4 ,if therefore possession be viewed as the action of one mind on another1 there is no reason why it should not be able to superinduce those forms of bodily derangement which exhibited themselves in the demoniacs by the simple action of the mind upon the body4 ,the mental causes capable of producing mania are1 as we know1 of a varied description2 and among them is the action and influence which one mind is capable of exerting on another4 ,as1 therefore1 in certain states of our minds1 or of our nervous system1 mania with all its results can be produced by the simple action of mind on mind1 and through the action of the mind disorder may be produced in our bodily organization1 there can be no reason why possession with all its attendant phenomena should not originate in similar causes4 ,there is nothing to imply that the superhuman agency manifested in possession was directly exerted on the body of the possessed4 ,an agency which was entirely mental was fully adequate to produce all the phenomena with which it was accompanied4 ,in cases of mania produced by mental action the removal of the exciting cause is the precondition of its cure1 and in many cases effects it4 ,similarly1 in cases of possession the removal of the exciting cause would produce similar results4 ,it follows1 therefore1 from the foregoing considerations1 that the allegation that the possessions described in the ,new ,testament are incredible1 because they contradict the known truths of mental science1 is disproved4 ,the question really resolves itself into the following one3 ,do evil beings1 other than men1 exist in the universe8 ,or1 if they exist1 is it credible that they are allowed to interfere in the affairs of men8 ,this question we have already considered in a former chapter1 and we have arrived at the conclusion that if we free ourselves from the trammels of priori theories1 and judge only by the facts of the universe as it exists1 neither their existence nor their intervention in human affairs is contrary to our reason4 ,two things1 however1 must be steadily kept in mind4 ,first3 that if such interventions in human affairs are facts1 the agency which can be exerted is only a permitted agency1 and only capable of being exerted in subordination to the divine purposes in the government of the universe4 ,a large number of the difficulties with which the subject is attended have originated in the wholly inaccurate idea that a power is attributed in the ,new ,testament to ,satan1 of interfering both in the material and the moral universe at his own will and pleasure4 ,this1 however1 is altogether contrary to the fact4 ,whatever power is attributed to him is an entirely permitted one1 and exercised in subordination to the general purposes of ,god4 ,secondly1 that although the disorder in the moral world might lead us to suspect the presence of an evil agency1 different from that of man2 yet as it is not a visible one1 but confined to the regions of the mind1 it is one which cannot come under our distinct observation1 and could therefore only become known to us by revelation4 ,one more difficulty has to be considered4 ,it is alleged that possession never takes place now4 ,it is therefore inferred that it never took place at all4 ,i reply first1 if we grant that demoniacal action1 in the form of possession has now ceased1 it by no means follows that it was not once real4 ,the objection overlooks the fact that its action was a permitted one2 and could only be exercised within the limits assigned to it4 ,there may have been reasons at the time of the ,advent why the exercise of a ,satanic agency should be permitted at that particular period to a greater extent than it ever has been before or since4 ,secondly3 certain moral and physical conditions were necessary for its exercise4 ,these may be no longer in existence1 but they may have passed away with many other abnormal conditions of human nature which existed in the ancient world4 ,thirdly3 it is not possible to affirm with certainty that1 even at the present day1 no supernatural agencies bearing an analogy to possession1 are exerted on the mind4 ,this will be only possible1 when all those abnormal phenomena which manifest themselves in connection with various debased forms of religion and other cases of phrenzied excitement can be traced to known forces1 originating solely in the mind itself4 ,there is one further objection which requires a brief consideration4 ,it is urged that the writers of the ,new ,testament entertained the belief1 that diseases were generally occasioned by demoniacal action1 quite independently of possession2 and that this belief has received the sanction of our ,lord4 ,one case only is alleged in proof of this1 that of the woman with the spirit of infirmity4 ,she was no demoniac1 but an ordinary diseased person1 and the disease is asserted to have been occasioned by demoniacal action4 ,i reply1 that considering the large number of diseases of various kinds mentioned in the ,new ,testament1 in none of which is there any allusion to demoniacal agency as their cause1 a single example is a narrow foundation on which to build the affirmation that the followers of our ,lord held such a theory as to the origin of disease in general4 ,i admit that disorganization of the bodily functions is mentioned among the phenomena of possession4 ,but this differs widely from a bodily evil superinduced without the agency of possession4 ,let us inquire whether the special instance affords any justification for this wide assertion4 ,the ,evangelist states that the woman was bowed down by a spirit of infirmity1 and could in no wise lift herself up4 ,here it is just as absurd to fasten on him the intention to describe a scientific fact1 as when on another occasion it is said that 8power0 went out of our ,lord 8and healed them all40 ,the one stands on the same ground as the other4 ,in effecting the cure1 our ,lord uses the words1 8,woman1 thou art loosed from thine infirmity40 ,here there is no reference to ,satanic agency whatever4 ,the only mention of it occurs in his argument with the ruler of the synagogue on the lawfulness of effecting such cures on the ,sabbath day4 ,the words are1 8,thou hypocrite1 ought not this woman1 who is a daughter of ,abraham1 whom ,satan hath bound1 lo1 these eighteen years1 to be loosed from this bond on the ,sabbath day80 ,these words are addressed to the ruler in answer to the objection that our ,lord was no prophet1 because he effected his cures on the ,sabbath4 ,if so1 as the reality of the miracle was not denied1 it was intended to be implied that it had been wrought by the power of ,satan1 of which the violation of the ,sabbath was the proof4 ,the real point of controversy therefore was the lawfulness of effecting cures on this day1 not the ,satanic origin of the complaint4 ,was there any conceivable reason why our ,lord should not discuss the point with the ruler on his own principles8 ,why was it necessary to raise a wholly different issue1 viz4 the ,satanic or non,satanic origin of the disease1 instead of confining it strictly to the point1 which was the allimportant one1 that ,his curing this woman on the ,sabbath day was so far from being a proof that ,he did not come from ,god1 that it was a strong reason for believing that ,he did so8 ,to have entered on a discussion as to what was the cause of the complaint1 would not only have diverted attention from the real question1 but would have introduced one wholly foreign to the purposes of ,his divine mission4 ,two suppositions only are possible respecting possession4 ,it must have been either a form of madness produced by natural causes1 or a manifestation of superhuman power4 ,as the facts on which a judgment can be formed are meagre1 ,i have not ventured to determine which of these two theories is alone consistent with the facts and phenomena of the ,new ,testament4 ,i have therefore taken either alternative1 and shown1 that neither does the theory that it was mania interfere with the claims of the ,gospels to be accepted as historical documents1 nor is the language attributed to our ,lord contrary to the truthfulness of ,his character2 nor does the supposition that it was due to superhuman causes contradict the established truths of mental science4 ,,chapter ,,xiii4 ,,the ,,alleged ,,credulity ,,of ,,the ,,followers ,,of ,,jesus4 ,the allegation that the followers of ,jesus1 and the early ,christians generally1 were a body of intensely credulous and superstitious people1 may be considered as not only the stronghold of those who impugn the historical character of the ,gospels1 but also as the arsenal from which they draw no small number of their weapons of attack4 ,a credulity which knew no limits is liberally ascribed to them as showing how every miraculous narrative might have been invented4 ,they have even been credited with a facility of inventing fictions1 and then deluding themselves into the belief that they were facts which they had actually witnessed4 ,thus it has been asserted that it was their firm belief that the ,messiah ought to have wrought miracles2 that ,jesus himself may not even have professed to perform them2 but that the fervid imaginations of ,his followers invented a set of miracles1 attributed them to ,him1 and ended with the belief that they had seen ,him perform them4 ,on the other hand1 whenever these objectors are pressed by a difficulty in accounting for the origin of particular phenomena in the ,gospels1 they retire on the credulity of the followers of ,jesus as into a kind of citadel1 in which they consider themselves so strongly entrenched that they may defy every attack4 ,there is also another important purpose which it is made to serve4 ,it is asserted that it renders worthless the testimony of the followers of ,jesus as to the actual occurrence of miracles4 ,the allegation takes two forms3 #ast4 ,that the followers of ,jesus were the prey of a credulity and superstition which greatly exceeded the limits of the ordinary credulity of mankind2 and that therefore the value of their historical testimony is destroyed4 #bnd4 ,that the ordinary credulity of mankind with respect to the occurrence of supernatural events is so great and widespread1 as to render the invention of miraculous narratives easy1 and to destroy the credit of all narratives containing them4 ,i propose to consider these subjects in this and the following chapter4 ,nothing is easier than to charge a body of men with intense credulity and superstition4 ,before1 however1 such charges deserve to have any notice taken of them1 they should be substantiated by direct proof4 ,it is impossible to meet them if urged in a mere general form4 ,fortunately1 the author of 8,supernatural ,religion0 makes a number of specific and definite charges1 in which he endeavours to fasten an unspeakable degree of credulity and superstition on the immediate followers of ,jesus and the authors of the ,gospels1 and refers to authorities in support of his assertions4 ,i will state his general position in his own words4 8,we have given a most imperfect sketch of some of the opinions and superstitions prevalent at the time of ,jesus1 and when the books of the ,new ,testament were written4 ,these1 as we have seen1 are continued with little or no modification throughout the first centuries of our era4 ,it must however be remembered that the few details that we have given1 omitting much of the grosser particulars1 are the views absolutely expressed by the most educated and intelligent part of the community2 and that it would have required infinitely darker colours adequately to have portrayed the dense ignorance and superstition of the mass of the ,jews4 ,it is impossible to receive the report of supposed marvellous occurrences from an age and people like this1 without the gravest suspicion4 ,miracles which spring from such a hotbed of superstition are too natural in such a soil to be the object of surprise2 and in losing their exceptional character1 their claims on attention are proportionally weakened1 if not altogether destroyed4 ,preternatural interference with the affairs of life and with the phenomena of nature was the rule in those days1 not the exception1 and miracles in fact had apparently lost all novelty1 and through familiarity had become degraded into mere commonplace40 8,there can be no doubt that the writers of the ,new ,testament shared in the popular superstitions of the ,jews40 ,before proceeding further1 ,i must draw the reader's attention to three affirmations in this important passage4 #ast4 ,that the educated ,jews of the time of ,jesus were a prey to the superstitions in question4 #bnd4 ,that the common class of ,jews were a prey to yet grosser superstitious4 #crd4 ,that the followers of ,jesus1 who were chiefly ,jews of the lower classes1 and the authors of the ,gospels1 shared in these superstitions4 ,the author devotes not less than fifty pages to a minute description of the superstitions of the educated classes4 ,these are alleged to have been of so gross a nature1 that the reader will get but a very imperfect conception of the point at issue1 unless ,i give a brief sketch of some of them4 ,i4 ,the ,jews are affirmed to have believed in an innumerable multitude of angels1 whose agency was continually displayed in the ordinary phenomena of nature4 ,they presided over and energized in its ordinary operations1 as for instance1 in thunder1 lightning1 the winds1 the seas1 frost1 hail1 rain1 mists1 heat1 light1 c42 heaven and earth in fact are filled with them1 and they are also continually busying themselves in human affairs1 of which minute details are given4 ,,ii4 ,they are alleged to have believed in a demonology of the most phantastic description4 ,to this ,i have elsewhere sufficiently alluded4 ,,iii4 ,they are likewise affirmed to have believed that the sun1 moon and stars are rational beings1 and traces of this belief are distinctly affirmed to exist in the ,new ,testament4 ,,iv4 ,the belief in sorcery1 witchcraft and magic is affirmed to have been universal among them4 ,to give the reader an idea of the grossness of these beliefs1 to which even the educated classes are affirmed to have been a prey1 ,i must quote the following passage3 8,amulets consisting of seals1 or pieces of paper1 with charms written upon them1 were hung round the necks of the sick1 and considered efficacious for their cure4 ,charms1 spells and mutterings were constantly said over wounds1 against unlucky meetings1 to make people sleep1 to heal diseases1 and to avert enchantments2 against mad dogs for instance1 against the demon of blindness and the like1 as well as formul for averting the evil eye1 and mutterings over diseases40 ,here follow several pages of unutterable absurdities4 ,it is not too much to say1 that there was hardly an occurrence in nature1 and hardly an event of daily life1 which was not influenced by these supernatural powers1 and very frequently in a manner unspeakably grotesque4 ,if such were the beliefs of educated people1 urges the author 7and he tells us that he has omitted the grosser forms of them71 what must have been those of the lower orders1 and the extent of their degraded superstition8 ,it must be kept constantly in mind that the followers of ,jesus chiefly consisted of persons taken from the lower strata of society4 ,but the author in express words charges them with sharing in such beliefs4 ,if they did not1 the reference to them would have no bearing on the argument4 ,we have therefore in this portion of the work a definite issue raised for our consideration4 ,it is no vague charge of general boundless credulity and superstition1 such as is generally urged against the followers of ,jesus and the authors of the ,gospels4 ,it is presented to us in a clear and definite form4 ,i fully allow that if this charge could be substantiated1 it would deprive the ,evangelists of all historical credit4 ,the issue which is thus raised is consequently one of the highest importance4 ,it will be necessary therefore for us carefully to examine the mode in which it is attempted to establish the truth of these charges4 ,the process is an extremely singular one4 ,when we have a set of writings before us and endeavour to estimate the amount of credulity and superstition to which their authors were a prey1 the only legitimate mode of proceeding is to subject these writings to a thorough and minute examination as to the indications of credulity and superstition contained in them4 ,having done this1 it then becomes our duty to ascertain the amount of general good sense or the want of it which is displayed by them in these or in other subjects1 and then to form a general conclusion by fairly balancing the indications of credulity and good sense against each other4 ,the author1 however1 seems not to have had the smallest idea that it is the duty of the critic to ascertain what are the facts of the case as presented by the writings1 and to form a general conclusion by a careful review of the entire evidence4 ,on the contrary1 his mode of reasoning is to quote a number of opinions held by various writers1 widely separated from each other in time1 to charge them on the contemporaries of our ,lord1 and refer to nearly every passage in the ,new ,testament which has even the remotest bearing on the subject1 for the purpose of fastening these superstitions on the followers of ,jesus4 ,such a mode of reasoning can only avail to establish a foregone conclusion4 ,again3 ,in forming a judgment on such a subject1 it also behoves us most carefully to consider whether the subjectmatter of the writings is or is not of such a character1 that if their authors had been addicted to such gross superstitions1 there would not of necessity have been frequent examples of them in their pages8 ,also whether the absence of such references1 when the subject on which they were writing was certain to have suggested them to their minds1 does not constitute a strong proof that these superstitions were not held by them8 ,in one word1 it is absurd to attempt to charge writers with boundless credulity and superstition1 on the ground that a multitude of grotesque beliefs were prevalent in their day4 ,no author can be held responsible for beliefs other than those which appear in his pages1 especially when subjectmatter of his writings would have been certain to call them into activity if he had entertained them4 ,the course pursued by the author is directly opposite to this4 ,he has been compelled to adopt it1 because it is the only method by which extreme credulity and superstition can be fastened on the writers of the ,gospels4 ,the available contemporary literature1 besides that contained in the ,new ,testament1 which can throw light on the opinions of the followers of ,jesus1 is very small4 ,the point which requires proof is that the entire ,jewish nation1 without any exception1 was a prey to the basest superstition and credulity4 ,unless this can be established1 the charge against the authors of the ,gospels falls to the ground1 except so far as it can be proved by the ,gospels themselves4 ,the contemporary proof of it1 however1 failing1 he endeavours to substantiate his position by quoting the opinions of writers separated from the times of ,jesus by several centuries1 and affirming that they were held by the entire body of ,his contemporaries4 ,such a mode of reasoning is useless to support anything but a foregone conclusion4 ,a brief reference to the authorities relied upon will at once expose the fallacy of the argument4 ,first1 certain differences existing between the ,septuagint and the ,hebrew ,scriptures are pressed into the service1 which are no instances of either credulity or superstition4 ,then the frequent idolatries which prevailed among the ,jews prior to the captivity are adduced as a proof of the superstitious tendencies of the ,jewish mind1 as if superstitions prevalent at the time of ,becket were any evidence of the condition of ,english thought at the present day4 ,next the absurdities in the ,apocryphal ,book of ,tobit are put in as evidence1 although the contrary evidence afforded by the other books of the ,apocrypha1 which contain no traces of such superstitions1 is left without mention4 ,the writings of an ,assyrian ,jew who lived about three hundred and fifty years before the ,christian era are about as valid to prove the opinions held by ,christ and his followers as the opinions of ,cicero would be in evidence of the beliefs of ,constantine4 ,then reference is made to the angelology and demonology contained in the writings of ,philo1 who was unquestionably a contemporary of our ,lord2 but not the smallest hint is given to the reader that he was deeply tinged with the principles of the ,neo,platonic philosophy1 a mode of thought wholly alien from that of the ,palestinian ,jews1 or that ,philo was himself an ,alexandrian ,jew4 ,next the book of ,enoch is quoted1 which 7whenever it was written1 for its date is uncertain7 is unquestionably not the work of a ,palestinian ,jew4 ,this book1 which is an ,apocalypse1 contains a monstrous angelology and demonology1 and abounds with extravagances4 ,although part of it was written prior to the ,advent1 other portions are clearly subsequent to it4 ,its author is unknown2 but it is highly probable from certain resemblances of expression between it and the ,new ,testament1 that he was acquainted with portions of the latter2 or1 to state the theory of unbelievers1 that the authors of the ,new ,testament borrowed from it4 ,if this view is true1 then it is evident that they must have rejected its angelology and demonology1 for that contained in the ,new ,testament is utterly dissimilar in character to that which we read in the book of ,enoch4 ,as far1 therefore1 as the evidence of this book is concerned1 it affords a distinct proof that they were not a prey to its monstrous superstitions4 ,this remark is equally applicable to the book of ,tobit1 and the writings of ,philo4 ,but there is a reference made to ,philo which deserves particular notice as an exemplification of the mode adopted by those who endeavour to fix the charge of unbounded credulity on the authors of the ,gospels4 ,i cite the author4 8,the belief that the sun1 moon and stars were living entities possessed of souls was generally held by the ,jews at the beginning of our era1 along with ,greek philosophers1 and we shall presently see it expressed by the fathers4 ,philo ,judus considers the stars spiritual beings full of virtue and perfection1 and that to them is granted lordship over other heavenly bodies1 not absolute1 but as viceroys under the ,supreme ,being4 ,we find a similar view expressed regarding the nature of the stars in the ,apocalypse1 and it constantly occurs in the ,talmud and ,targums40 8,we find10 says the author1 8a similar view expressed regarding the nature of the stars in the ,apocalypse10 i4e4 that the stars are spiritual beings full of virtue and perfection1 and that they hold lordship over other heavenly bodies4 ,no quotation is made from this book1 but four passages are referred to in a note as proving this4 ,they are as follows3 8,the mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand1 and the seven golden candlesticks4 ,the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches1 and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches40 7,rev4 i4 #bj47 ,with as good reason may it be said that the book of ,revelation teaches the rationality of candlesticks4 8,these things saith ,he that hath the seven ,spirits of ,god1 and the seven stars40 7,rev4 iii4 #a47 ,it is difficult to see how this proves that the author of the ,revelation was of opinion that the stars were rational entities4 ,the next passage referred to 7,rev4 iv4 #e7 makes no mention of stars at all1 but of 8seven lamps of fire burning before the throne1 which are the seven ,spirits of ,god40 ,the last reference is3 8,i saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth2 and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit40 7,rev4 ix4 #a47 ,here a star is spoken of as a living agent2 but to refer in proof of this to a book which is full of symbols and is an avowed vision is ridiculous and misleading4 ,on the contrary1 the ,new ,testament supplies the most unquestionable evidence that its writers were free from this superstition1 into which even philosophers had fallen4 ,the next writer referred to1 to prove that the followers of ,jesus were a prey to credulity and superstition1 is ,josephus1 in his narrative of the signs which preceded the destruction of ,jerusalem4 ,to what extent ,josephus embellished these signs may be a question4 ,most of them have a very heathen aspect1 and it is unquestionable that he was much disposed to conciliate his heathen readers4 ,it is sufficient to observe that the pages of the ,new ,testament contain nothing resembling them4 ,but the chief source whence these ineffable puerilities are derived1 and charged on the contemporaries of our ,lord1 and through them on the writers of the ,new ,testament1 is the ,talmud4 ,probably there are no writings in existence from which a more monstrous set of absurdities can be collected than from those of the ,talmudists4 ,but how does this prove that this mass of nonsense was believed in by the ,jewish nation in our ,lord's day8 ,one portion of the ,talmud1 the ,mishna1 was composed between ,a4,d4 #ahj and ,a4,d4 #bjj1 or some years after the date assigned by unbelievers to the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,the lateness of this date is urged by them as conclusive proof that that ,gospel does not embody the real traditions of the early followers of ,jesus4 ,how then can it be urged with any thing like consistency that the ,mishna adequately represents their views respecting the order of nature8 ,but the other portion of the ,talmud1 the ,gemara1 was not put forth in a written form prior to ,a4,d4 #ejj4 ,to quote works thus remote in time as proofs of the superstitions of the followers of ,jesus1 is to adopt a course which if applied generally to history1 would reduce it to a tissue of falsehoods4 ,bishop ,jewell was a believer in witchcraft2 but it would be absurd if some future writer were to quote the writings of modern spiritualists as a proof that he believed in their doctrines4 ,nor is it true that the opinions of the masses of a nation are at all adequately represented by those of its learned men1 especially when learning1 as in the case in question1 assumed the most unbounded licence of speculation4 ,in most cases the common sense of the masses who are brought into contact with the hard facts of daily life will preserve them from puerilities1 into which learning1 which draws exclusively on the imagination1 is certain to fall4 ,there is sufficient evidence of the superstition of the masses during the middle ages2 but nothing would be more absurd than to quote some monstrous opinions held by the great scholastic writers to prove that they were the current opinions of the vulgar4 ,yet the principle here adopted is to adduce opinions propounded by learned writers1 who lived centuries afterwards1 as a proof that they were current among the entire ,jewish race at the time of ,jesus ,christ4 ,the remaining references in proof of this position are still more noteworthy4 ,to establish the superstition of the ,jews at the time of the ,advent1 a set of opinions are adduced which were held by ,christian ,fathers1 whose writings cover a period of not less than four centuries4 ,a list of them will be sufficient4 ,the apocryphal ,barnabas and ,hermas1 ,justin ,martyr1 ,theophilus1 ,clement of ,alexandria1 ,tatian1 ,tertullian1 ,cyprian1 ,origen1 ,augustine1 ,jerome1 ,chrysostom1 ,lactantius1 ,eusebius1 and ,cyril of ,jerusalem4 ,a number of grotesque opinions are collected from these writers1 as though they could have any possible bearing on the question whether the followers of ,jesus were able correctly to report what they saw and heard4 ,i submit therefore that the facts adduced utterly fail to establish the charge of intense superstition and credulity against the followers of ,jesus4 ,but ,i go further1 and affirm that they furnish the means of giving a most conclusive proof of the contrary4 ,these quotations furnish us with a clear and conclusive proof1 which is also furnished by the entire range of literature1 that when writers are the prey of a definite class of superstitions1 their pages will afford abundant evidence not only of their existence1 but of their nature and character4 ,this1 of course1 must be qualified by the supposition that the subjectmatter on which they wrote is one suitable to call their latent superstitions into activity4 ,this always happens when the works are of a religious character4 ,in such cases they will faithfully reflect the superstitions entertained by their authors4 ,this is preeminently the case with all the writings in question4 ,they are all on religious subjects1 on which they allowed their imaginations to run riot4 ,they entertained a number of grotesque opinions1 and accordingly we find in their writings a grotesque supernaturalism1 exactly corresponding to the peculiar ideas of each individual writer4 ,on the principle that 8out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh10 we may be quite certain that when an author is extremely credulous and superstitious1 it will find expression in his pages whenever he is writing on a subject on which his imagination gives scope to exhibit them4 ,i put the argument as follows3 all writers exhibit in their pages the superstitions to which they are a prey4 ,the writers of the ,new ,testament do not exhibit the superstitions in question4 ,it follows therefore that from these particular superstitions they are free4 ,consequently the charge against them of intense superstition and credulity falls to the ground1 as far as it rests on the evidence in question4 ,the amount of subjectmatter in the ,new ,testament which1 independently of a general belief in miracles1 the opponents of ,christianity can designate as superstitious1 is of a very limited and definite nature4 ,it may be said to be almost exclusively confined to a belief in the reality of possession2--a few cases of disease occasioned by ,satanic agency2--an occasional intervention of angels1 and their power to act on nature2--and perhaps that demonology and heathenism were in some way connected with each other4 ,this is the sum total of such beliefs which appear on the face of the ,new ,testament4 ,they appear in unequal degrees in the works of different writers2 and viewing them as mere human compositions1 we have no right to charge on one writer the beliefs of another4 ,the book of ,revelation1 and its imagery as professedly merely seen in a vision1 cannot fairly be introduced into this controversy4 ,if then we concede1 for the sake of argument1 that the ,jews in the time of ,christ were a prey to the extravagant superstitions referred to2 if they believed that the whole course of nature and human life was incessantly interfered with by an army of spirits in numbers passing all comprehension1 and that these interferences were of the most grotesque and phantastic character2 if they universally believed in magic1 charms and incantations1 the nonappearance of such phenomena in the pages of the ,new ,testament is a proof that its authors were not a prey to the current superstitions of the day4 ,no inconsiderable number of supernatural events are recorded in their pages1 but unbelief itself is compelled to admit that they are all of a dignified character1 with perhaps the exception of the entrance of the demons into the swine1 and the discovery of the piece of money in the mouth of the fish4 ,from what is monstrous1 grotesque and phantastic1 they are absolutely free4 ,if it be conceded1 for the sake of argument1 that miracles are possible1 then it cannot be denied that those of the ,new ,testament1 taken as a whole1 stand out in marked contrast to the current supernaturalism of superstition4 ,their whole conception is lofty2 there is in them nothing mean or contemptible2 they subserve a great purpose2 they are worthy of that great character to whom they are ascribed1 ,jesus ,christ4 ,i put the question boldly3 how is it1 if the followers of ,jesus were a prey to the degrading superstitions above referred to1 that we find no indications of them in their pages8 ,also3 how is it possible that men of such a character should have invented such a number of noble creations8 ,let unbelievers account for this on any principle which a sound philosophy can recognise4 ,but further3 the ,gospels mention a certain number of possessions1 and their cures effected by our ,lord4 ,here then we are in the very presence of a demonology such as was actually believed in by the followers of ,jesus4 ,here1 therefore1 is the very condition of mind and outward circumstances where1 if they had been a prey to the phantastic and disgusting beliefs about demons above referred to1 such beliefs would certainly have made their appearance in their pages4 ,but1 as ,i have shown1 the demonology of the ,gospels stands in marked contrast to that of the ,talmud1 of ,josephus1 and of the ,christian ,fathers4 ,we have no fumigations of demoniacs with the liver of a fish1 we hear nothing of a demon drawn out of a man's nose1 and overturning a basin of water1 nothing of a demon inhabiting every private closet4 ,on the contrary1 their action is described as mental1 and1 through the mind1 affecting the body1 with the exception of a few doubtful cases4 ,i am not here arguing whether a belief in the reality of demoniacal possession is a superstition or not4 ,but ,i affirm that if the writers of the ,new ,testament had been a prey to the superstitions with which they are charged1 these are the narratives in which they could not have failed to make their appearance4 ,again3 ,it has been affirmed that they held a monstrous angelology4 ,i reply that although angels are unquestionably stated to have appeared1 and their existence is affirmed by the writers of the ,new ,testament1 still their recorded appearances are rare4 ,they are confined to a few very remarkable occasions1 viz43 the ,annunciation and birth of our ,lord1 the temptation1 the agony in the garden1 and the resurrection4 ,surely this does not look as if the authors of the ,gospels thought that they were always interfering with the course of nature or the events of life4 ,in the ,acts of the ,apostles1 they appear at the ,ascension2 once to liberate ,st4 ,peter1 and at another time the ,apostles1 from prison2 to direct ,philip to preach to the eunuch2 twice in a vision to ,st4 ,paul2 and ,herod ,agrippa is also said to have been smitten by the ministry of an angel4 ,there were certainly many occasions when1 if the writers had believed in the habitual intervention of angels1 we should have found them introduced4 ,thus an angel is not sent to deliver ,paul from prison1 or to still the tempest1 but simply to assure him of his safety4 ,st4 ,paul enumerates in a passage of some length the various dangers which beset him in his missions1 especially mentioning the perils he encountered in travel4 ,but neither he nor ,st4 ,luke once refers to an angelic intervention in his favour4 ,in numerous passages he refers to dangers and persecutions which he encountered4 ,but it is our ,lord1 and not angels1 who delivered him4 ,is this consistent with a belief in their habitual intervention in nature8 ,if he was the visionary which he has been asserted to have been1 would he not have been continually seeing visions of angels for his protection8 ,in ,st4 ,paul's writings we are in the presence of documents which are in the highest degree historical4 ,even those who endeavour to prove that the ,gospels and the ,acts were not written until the second century1 are obliged to allow that at least four of the most important of his letters were written within #cj years after the ,crucifixion1 and that the evidence that four of the remainder are his1 vastly preponderates4 ,here then we are in the presence of historical documents of the highest order1 compared with which such a writing as the book of ,enoch is worthless1 and the ,talmud and the ,fathers are modern compositions4 ,what light then do these letters throw on the opinions of ,st4 ,paul and the ,pauline ,churches8 ,much every way3 they let us into the secret of their inner life4 ,they tell us that these ,christians thought they possessed certain supernatural gifts2 that ,st4 ,paul asserted that he wrought miracles2 that demons by an invisible agency tempted men to sin1 and opposed the progress of the ,gospel2 but beyond this there is scarcely a trace of angelology or demonology in them4 ,with these epistles in our hands1 is it credible that their writer1 or those to whom he wrote1 held a multitude of monstrous and phantastic beliefs on this subject8 ,are not these writings characterized by supreme good sense8 ,do they not in this point of view marvellously contrast even with those of the earliest ,fathers8 ,the writer undoubtedly believed that unseen spiritual agencies were capable of acting on the mind of man1 and that they were active agents in the production of moral evil2 but where is the evidence that he considered that external nature was under their control1 or that they made themselves visible to the mortal eye8 ,although he affirms that he possessed a supernatural illumination on religious subjects1 only on two occasions does he refer to visions as actually seen by him2 and he directly affirms that he had the power of distinguishing the ecstatic from the ordinary condition of his mind4 ,even with the aid of the ,acts of the ,apostles1 we can only add a few more to the number4 ,surely this is not the mental condition of a man who was a prey to unbounded superstition4 ,contrast the amount of good sense in the epistles of ,st4 ,paul with an equal number of consecutive pages from the ,fathers and the ,talmud1 and the difference is enormous4 ,where are the ineffable puerilities found in these writings even hinted at in those of ,st4 ,paul8 ,again3 if we include in our examination the other writings of the ,new ,testament1 they wholly fail to supply us with any evidence of the superstition or credulity of their authors4 ,on the contrary they are characterized by the marks of uniform good sense4 ,it will be doubtless objected that they1 as well as ,st4 ,paul1 were bad logicians1 and that their applications of the ,old ,testament ,scriptures are inapt3 but this does not affect their trustworthiness as historians4 ,they were undoubtedly men of great religious fervour1 yet they are both sparing in the use of miracles1 and when they report them1 the miraculous action is never represented as extending beyond the necessities of the case4 ,their miracles consist of simple acts1 as for instance the cure of diseases1 but all marvellous superadditions are wanting4 ,it has been urged that in comparing the miracles of the ,gospels with other miraculous narratives1 we have no right to do more than compare the external miracle of the one with the external miracle of the other2 as for instance a resurrection with a resurrection1 or a cure of blindness recorded in one with a similar case recorded in another2 and not to take into account either the external circumstances or the moral aspect of the miracle4 ,i have elsewhere proved that this position is untenable4 ,but for the purpose of the argument let us here assume that all the circumstances may be the invention of the narrator4 ,if it be so1 it proves at any rate the soundness of his judgment and the elevation of his ideas1 i4e4 that it is impossible that he could have been either intensely superstitious or credulous4 ,how is it possible1 ,i ask1 for minds which were a prey to such monstrous beliefs as those which we have been considering1 to have dramatized miraculous narratives of the elevated type of those contained in the ,gospels8 ,would not all the circumstances with which they invested them be the counterpart of their own degraded conceptions8 ,but there is one most distinctive phenomenon presented by the ,gospels which affords a conclusive proof that neither their authors nor the followers of ,jesus could have been a prey to either degrading superstition or credulous fanaticism4 ,i allude to the fact that1 whatever theory may be propounded to account for their origin1 the ,gospels1 as a matter of fact1 unquestionably contain a delineation of the greatest of all characters1 whether actual or ideal1 that of ,jesus ,christ4 ,i shall hereafter draw attention to the portraiture of this character for the purpose of proving that they are veritable historical documents4 ,in this place ,i refer to it simply for the purpose of proving that their authors and those who invented the alleged fictions of which their contents consist1 were possessed of a soundness of judgment which is wholly inconsistent with the truth of the assertion that they were a prey to boundless superstition or credulity4 ,for the purpose of the argument ,i must assume that this character is a fictitious one1 because to assume that it is a delineation of an actual historical character1 would be to take for granted the entire question at issue4 ,if the ,jesus of the ,evangelists is an historical personage1 there can be no doubt respecting the claims of the ,gospel to be a divine revelation4 ,but even if we make the assumption above mentioned1 it is quite clear that those persons who invented the character1 or who put it together out of the number of legendary stories floating about in the ,church1 must have been possessed of a sound judgment1 and the highest appreciation of what was great and noble4 ,the character we have before us1 and it is confessedly the noblest which can be found either in history or fiction4 ,the inventors1 whoever they were1 have succeeded in portraying a great harmonious whole4 ,such a character could only have been delineated by men possessed of sound discriminating judgment4 ,the more the ,gospels are depreciated as histories the more does this depreciation establish the credit of their authors as the successful delineators of an ideal character1 to which they have succeeded in imparting a naturalness which men of the most exalted genius have mistaken for an historical reality4 ,they must have been1 therefore1 consummate masters of the art of ideal delineation4 ,the mental powers adequate to effect such results are those of high genius1 to which in this case must have been added a very elevated conception of morality4 ,such mental qualities are never exhibited by men who are the prey of gross credulity and superstition4 ,the great ideal delineations of poets have been only capable of being produced by the lite of the human race4 ,on the other hand1 if we assume that the character is a fictitious one1 and its inventors men of the mental calibre which they are affirmed to have been by those against whom ,i am reasoning1 it would have been inevitable that its proportions should be marred by the introduction into it of traits marked by meanness1 puerility1 and monstrosity4 ,in support of this assertion we have no occasion to appeal to theories but to facts4 ,happily antiquity has preserved to us several delineations of a mythical ,jesus on which the inventors have stamped the most unmistakable impress of their own credulity and superstition4 ,i need not say that ,i allude to the ,apocryphal ,gospels1 the delineations of ,jesus which they contain1 and above all to their miraculous narratives4 ,those who reiterate these charges against the authors of the ,canonical ,gospels1 are very slow to draw attention to their bearing on this portion of the argument4 ,in the ,apocryphal ,gospels we are brought face to face with the legendary spirit exerting itself in the invention of miraculous stories4 ,there can be no doubt that their authors were both extremely credulous and superstitious2 and their miraculous narratives give us the precise measure of their credulity4 ,there is every reason to believe that two of these compositions were written as early as the second century4 ,what1 ,i ask1 is the general character of the miracles which they have attributed to ,jesus8 ,there can be only one answer4 ,they are mean1 ridiculous1 degraded1 burlesque1 destitute of all trait of moral grandeur4 ,if the authors of the four ,gospels1 or the inventors of their miraculous narratives1 whoever they may have been1 had been a prey to similar credulity and superstition1 the marks of them would have been indelibly stamped on their pages4 ,these documents also contain accounts of miracles wrought by ,jesus1 some of which1 as bare facts1 are precisely the same as some recorded in the ,canonical ,gospels1 i4e4 they contain accounts of resurrections from the dead1 and the cure of diseases4 ,i ask1 do their accompanying circumstances and moral aspect stand as nothing in our estimate of the credibility of their authors8 ,compare the account of the resurrection of ,lazarus1 or that of our ,lord himself1 with the resurrections in the ,apocryphal ,gospels1 and mark the difference4 ,compare likewise the other miracles1 which1 as bare facts1 resemble one another4 ,the one have the stamp of historical probability1 and precisely fit in with the lofty character of ,jesus2 the other of an unbelievable legend1 in which the character is degraded to a level with the conceptions of the inventors4 ,let not unbelievers1 therefore1 decline to grapple with the question4 ,let them cease to pass it over in silence4 ,i propose to them the following questions for solution4 ,if both sets of ,gospels originated with minds intensely credulous and superstitious1 whence has come the difference between them8 ,why is the one set of miracles dignified1 and the other mean8 ,whence the entire difference of their moral aspect8 ,why is the ,jesus of the ,canonical ,gospels the most elevated personage in history1 and the ,jesus of the ,apocryphal ones1 one of the most mean and silly8 ,if two of the ,apocryphal and the four ,canonical ,gospels are the production of the superstition and credulity of the same century1 whence the marvellous contrast between them8 ,which of the ,fathers of the second or third century was equal to the task of reducing a mass of floating legends1 the creations of numbers of superstitious men1 into their present form1 as they stand in our ,canonical ,gospels8 ,would they not certainly have coloured the events with their own absurdities8 ,if1 on the other hand1 it be allowed that the ,canonical ,gospels are the production of the first century1 and the ,apocryphal ,gospels of subsequent ones1 how came the credulous followers of ,jesus to produce fictions dramatized with such admirable taste in the first century1 and the same spirit in subsequent centuries to present so striking a contrast8 ,the only possible answer which can be returned to these questions is that the phenomena of the ,canonical ,gospels are inconsistent with the supposition that their miraculous narratives are the invention of men who were the prey either of credulity or dense superstition2 they must have been men well able to distinguish between a genuine miracle and a mythic parody of one4 ,but it has been urged that the dignified character of ,jesus induced the compilers of our present ,gospels to select all the miraculous stories of a high type which were current in the hotbed of ,christian fanaticism1 and to attribute them to ,jesus1 and to suppress all of a contrary description4 ,if this be the true solution of the facts1 then it certainly follows that the compilers of the ,gospels must have been free from the superstitions of the times in which they lived4 ,otherwise1 how came they to select all the elevated stories and attribute them to ,jesus1 and to consign those of a lower type to a wellmerited oblivion8 ,is it not a fact that credulous and superstitious people have often attributed what is contemptible and mean to elevated characters8 ,let the ,apocryphal ,gospels bear witness4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that even on this supposition the question must be decided in favour of the authors of our present ,canonical ,gospels1 that they must have been free from the degraded superstitious to which their fellowbelievers were a prey4 ,but there is yet another problem1 even if we assume the above supposition to be true1 which urgently demands solution4 ,if1 among the mass of legends with which the history of ,jesus was incrusted1 a certain portion of the miraculous stories were of an elevated type1 who among ,his credulous and superstitious followers were the inventors of them8 ,were they men of like credulity with the remainder8 ,there are only two alternatives4 ,they were1 or they were not4 ,if they were1 ,i ask1 how came they to invent elevated stories8 ,if they were not1 then it follows that there were persons among ,his followers who were neither intensely credulous nor superstitious4 ,if the latter be the alternative adopted1 then the theory which ,i have been considering1 which attributes to the followers of ,jesus such a degree of those qualities as to render their historical testimony valueless1 falls to the ground4 ,it follows1 therefore1 on a careful consideration of the position1 that the data on which the charge which we have been considering is made against the followers of ,jesus and the authors of the ,gospels utterly fail to establish it2 and that the phenomena of the ,new ,testament prove the contrary to have been the fact4 ,,chapter ,,xiv4 ,,the ,,love ,,of ,,the ,,marvellous--,,its ,,bearing ,,on ,,the ,,value ,,of ,,testimony ,,to ,,miracles4 ,it has been objected that the love of the marvellous has in every age constituted so remarkable a phase of human nature as greatly to weaken1 if not entirely to invalidate the testimony to the performance of miracles4 ,it is alleged that the great historians of ancient times have recorded a number of supernatural occurrences which are now summarily rejected as incredible3 and it is therefore argued that all narratives of miraculous occurrences must share the same fate4 ,this objection differs from that which ,i have considered in the former chapter1 in that it avoids the necessity of imputing to the followers of ,jesus and the authors of the ,gospels a degree of superstition and credulity greatly in excess of that which characterizes the majority of mankind4 ,it will be therefore necessary to give this subject a careful consideration4 ,it is an unquestionable fact that the human mind has been in all ages disposed to accept a number of narratives of supernatural occurrences upon very insufficient testimony1 and which the principles of sound reason lead us to reject as untrue4 ,such beliefs have been peculiar to no one period of the world's history1 but have been coextensive with the human race2 and they form one of the most remarkable facts in our nature4 ,many of the ancient historians have reported such occurrences without apparent suspicion2 or if they entertained any doubts respecting their truth1 they did not venture even to whisper them into the popular ear4 ,what is still more2 eminent men of the ancient world did not scruple to act in matters of this kind a part which they knew to be deceptive1 because they held the opinion that such beliefs1 though they might be laughed at by philosophers1 were necessary to act as restraints on the vulgar4 ,thus we know1 on the most indubitable authority1 that a ,roman ,augur could gravely act his part before the public at the very time that he was secretly laughing in his sleeve at the ridiculousness of his art4 ,it does not therefore follow because the ancient historians have reported numbers of occurrences of this nature with considerable gravity1 that they accepted them as facts4 ,they were frequently influenced by the spirit of accommodation1 thinking it necessary for the welfare of society to keep up the vulgar ideas on the subject4 ,it would be inaccurate therefore to attribute all the accounts of such things which we meet with in ancient writers to simple credulity1 or to infer from them that they did not believe in an inviolable order of nature of some kind4 ,with respect to the arts of magic1 however1 one feels that even the greatest of the ancient writers contemplated them with a kind of bated breath4 ,this would appear to have been the state of mind even of ,tacitus1 with one exception the greatest historian of the ancient world1 and one who was intimately acquainted with the various systems of its philosophy4 ,conscious as he was that vast numbers of the professors of magic were impostors1 he seems hardly able to realize the fact that the whole art was a delusion4 ,it has been affirmed that the progress of physical science has destroyed in this nineteenth century all belief in the actual occurrence of the supernatural1 and that it now prevails only in some of the dark corners of ,christendom4 ,the widespread belief in the phenomena of spiritualism1 which is certainly very far from being confined to religious men1 and from which some students of physical science have not been exempt1 is a striking proof of the contrary4 ,all that can be affirmed with truth is that1 in these modern times1 these forms of belief have taken a new direction4 ,modern science has done much to establish and spread the belief that the operations of all natural1 i4e4 material forces are uniform4 ,many of its students have even brought themselves to the belief that the occurrence of any event whose existence is due to the action of any other than the known forces of nature1 is impossible3 though this is far from being the invariable1 and is certainly not the necessary result of its study4 ,still1 probably1 the most ardent votary of these opinions would find it difficult to keep himself wholly free from terrors arising from unseen causes1 if they were aroused by a suitable apparatus4 ,the study of physical science is far from being a universal safeguard against the invasions of superstition4 ,its causes lie far more deeply rooted in our nature than the principles of physical science can reach4 ,nor is it able to guard against an extravagant use of the imagination4 ,whether1 in the present state of our philosophy1 we have fully penetrated to the depths of this principle thus working in the mind of man1 may admit of doubt2 but its presence there1 as an essential portion of our nature1 is an unquestionable fact4 ,we are not without the means of getting a general idea of its character4 ,it is doubtless intimately connected with those principles of our nature which constitute man a religious being1 and which form a fundamental part of his mental constitution4 ,as such it must1 like all our other faculties1 have a legitimate and an illegitimate action4 ,it points1 as we shall see1 to the existence of the supernatural4 ,a rational religion forms the object for its appropriate exercise4 ,whenever man has been destitute of this1 and his reason has been weak1 this principle1 devoid of its proper object1 has always manifested itself in various forms of extravagance4 ,so powerful is it in the human mind that even avowed atheism has not been proof against its power4 ,julius ,csar was an atheist1 and possessed one of the most powerful minds that ever inhabited the human frame4 ,yet1 on the great day of his triumph1 he ascended the steps of the ,capitol for the purpose of averting an avenging ,nemesis4 ,napoleon the ,first was no atheist1 though few persons who have ever lived have been more free from the restraints of religion or superstition4 ,although he possessed a mighty intellect and was no stranger to the truths of modern science1 yet even he believed in his star4 ,many other instances of men of powerful intellect who disbelieved in religion1 yet who entertained singular superstitions1 might be easily adduced4 ,i refer to them for the purpose of proving that the principle out of which such things originate must be one which is deepseated in the nature of man1 and therefore an essential portion of it4 ,if it is founded on a fundamental principle of our mental constitution1 it follows that it must have a legitimate subjectmatter on which to exercise its powers1 and that the abnormal forms of it which are so frequently manifested are the results of some disorder in its action4 ,what then is its nature8 ,there are certain principles deeplyseated within us1 which form as definite a portion of ourselves as even our rational faculties1 and which directly prompt to the belief in the supernatural1 and therefore point to its existence4 ,among these1 the faculties of imagination1 wonder1 reverence and awe1 hold a conspicuous place4 ,it is impossible to deny that they form portions of the actual constitution of our minds1 however we may account for their origin4 ,is it then our duty to eradicate them because they prompt us to the belief in something which transcends the visible order of nature8 ,this will hardly be affirmed by the most thoroughgoing sceptic2 for if it be our duty to do so1 the human mind must be a mass of disorder in the midst of a universe of order4 ,if we were to make the attempt 7for indeed it has been attempted7 the result would be to upset the balance of our mental constitution1 and it would terminate in failure4 ,human nature1 taken as it is1 constitutes a whole4 ,these faculties hold in it a place subordinate to reason and to conscience4 ,when our rational1 our imaginative1 and our moral powers act harmoniously together1 they constitute man a religious being4 ,but1 for the purposes of the present argument1 ,i have simply to draw attention to the fact that imagination1 wonder1 reverence and awe form an essential portion of our being4 ,it would be in the highest degree undesirable to get rid of them1 even if we were able4 ,how mighty is the influence of the first of these principles6 ,it lies at the foundation of everything that is great and noble in man4 ,to it are due the magnificent creations of poetry2 in fact everything which adorns life1 and much of that which raises us above the mechanical forces of nature4 ,destitute of it1 our reason could not act2 nay1 it could not even exist2 and we should be reduced to the mere mechanical action of the understanding1 the wheels of which would be in danger of rusting4 ,nor has the faculty of wonder a less definite place in our being4 ,it is closely connected with our imagination1 which supplies it with objects fitted to excite it1 and ought to be exercised under the guidance of reason4 ,its object is the great and the vast1 shall ,i not say1 the infinite8 ,regulated by reason and united with awe1 it produces reverence4 ,reverence points to the existence of some object which is really worthy of veneration4 ,veneration can only be legitimately exercised on that which is truly venerable4 ,as such it directly points to a personal ,god1 and refuses to rest in anything short of ,him as able fully to gratify its aspirations4 ,viewing them as a whole1 the legitimate object of these faculties1 and the subject from which they can receive their fullest gratification1 is that ,great ,being who everywhere manifests ,himself in this glorious universe4 ,but when man has ceased to contemplate in nature a rational power guiding and controlling it1 the principle of wonder has frequently prompted him to gratify its aspirations by peopling it with a multitude of phantastic creations4 ,when under the influence of awe1 he has contemplated it in its terrible aspects1 unguided by a being who possesses a moral character1 these feelings have prompted the imagination to fill it with beings who excite the feeling of superstitious dread4 ,although the vastness of the material universe and the energy of its forces can excite the feeling of wonder1 yet that of reverence refuses to find in the mere extension of space1 or the might of material forces1 any object adequate to its demands4 ,the vastness of the material universe may fill the mind with wonder and admiration2 but even wonder refuses to rest satisfied with a vastness of which the limits are known4 ,it demands something which is conceivable1 which yet runs up into the regions of the inconceivable4 ,but even here the feeling of reverence can find nothing on which to energize4 ,it directly points to a moral being in whom it can find a centre1 and it will find its gratification in nothing short of one4 ,to talk1 as many ,pantheists do1 of feeling reverence for an impersonal ,universe1 is a misuse of language4 ,what6 to reverence a ,being1 if the impersonal ,universe can be called a ,being1 which is everlastingly casting up the bubbles of existence in the form of moral agents1 and is everlastingly devouring them1 devoid alike of consciousness1 volition1 and a moral nature6 ,it follows1 therefore1 if these principles form a constituent portion of our nature1 that like all our other faculties1 they must admit of a right and a perverted use4 ,it is therefore absurd to lay down as a general principle1 because they admit of an illegitimate use1 that the whole class of phenomena connected with them are worthy of nothing but summary rejection1 without exercising our reason on the evidence on which they stand4 ,all that their existence can prove in reference to this subject is something which is very like a truism2 that mankind1 being liable to all kinds of mistakes and errors1 and having frequently fallen into them1 no class of phenomena ought to be accepted as facts1 until evidence of their occurrence has been adduced which is capable of satisfying our reason4 ,but this is a very harmless proposition4 ,there can be no doubt that to a perverted use of these faculties is due the belief in a kind of current supernaturalism1 which in various forms runs through the entire history of man4 ,this has owed its origin to the efforts of the imagination to supply objects for its gratification when the reason is feeble and the moral faculties have become perverted4 ,hence the readiness of large masses of mankind to accept narratives of marvels without regard to the evidence on which they rest4 ,they are accepted simply as gratifying the principle of wonder4 ,this is the cause of what ,i have designated by the term 8,current ,supernaturalism40 ,but because all our faculties admit of abuse1 and the higher they are1 the greater1 this forms no reason for rejecting their legitimate use1 or the entire subjectmatter on which they operate4 ,as ,i have observed1 the principle is found energizing wherever man exists4 ,although in one age it may be more active than in another1 it is alike the inheritance of the civilized man and the savage4 ,it has displayed itself in the creations of the poet and the writer of fiction2 in the various forms of religious thought2 in the production of ghoststories and pictures of the under world2 in the creation of the various forms of demonology1 witchcraft and magic2 in the milder form of fairytales2 in charms and incantations1 and in efforts to pry into the future4 ,even in philosophy and science we may trace its influence1 not only in aiding and suggesting their great discoveries1 but in propounding multitudes of startling theories1 erected on the smallest basis of fact4 ,these not only gratify this feeling1 but promise an apparently royal road to knowledge1 which avoids the long and tedious one of only propounding theories after a careful investigation of facts4 ,but in the regions of intellectual pursuit1 its abnormal manifestations are preeminently in the science of historical criticism1 in those numerous departments of historical inquiry where the facts are few and vague4 ,here nothing is easier than to supply the absence of facts by theory1 and to erect a magnificent edifice on a foundation of sand4 ,the ancient soothsayer gratified vulgar curiosity by guessing at the events of the future4 ,there is a species of modern soothsaying which expends its energies in guessing at the events of the past4 ,such guessing presents an unspeakable fascination to a large number of minds1 by its happy mixture of fiction and fact1 and is the true analogue to many of the forms of ancient thought4 ,it has been necessary to draw attention to these things for the purpose of proving the widespread influence of this principle on human nature4 ,its action has manifested itself in different forms in different ages2 but the cause is the same in all1 the existence in man of a principle which points to the existence of ,god1 and which can only receive its adequate gratification in ,him4 ,the action of similar principles produces in man the love of the extraordinary1 the unusual and the novel4 ,this is so powerful that unless it is kept in subordination to reason1 it produces a number of fictitious beliefs4 ,so strong is it1 that it may be truly said of large numbers of mankind that they spend all the time which they are not compelled to devote to the serious realities of life1 in little else than hearing and speaking of some new thing4 ,it is undoubtedly the cause of a large number of fictitious beliefs1 and produces1 in minds where the rational powers are weak1 a ready acceptance of the unusual1 the strange1 and the wonderful4 ,the same principle1 acting in conjunction with others1 when uncontrolled by reason1 has occasioned many of the exaggerations which are to be found in history4 ,still1 as one of the fundamental principles of our minds1 it cannot but have a legitimate sphere of action4 ,united with curiosity1 it is the chief source of all mental activity4 ,it is that which produces the earnest desire to penetrate into the regions of the unknown4 ,as such1 it is essential to the activity of our rational faculties1 and has been the exciting cause which has rendered all our great discoveries possible4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that if these principles form part of our mental constitution1 the objection that they destroy the value of miracles as a testimony to a revelation is absurd4 ,we might as well argue that because the love of the marvellous has generated a belief in a number of fictions as facts in ordinary history1 it invalidates its testimony to events which have really happened1 or renders all unusual occurrences incredible4 ,i will illustrate this by an example4 ,herodotus tells us in his history that there were certain tribes who dwelt in wooden habitations erected over lakes1 and he gives us several particulars as to their manner of life4 ,this fact1 until a comparatively recent period1 might have been pronounced incredible1 and have been supposed to have originated in the simple love of the marvellous1 either in the author or in his informants4 ,i own that when ,i first read the historian1 this was the opinion which ,i formed respecting it4 ,but we now know that he reported an actual fact4 ,on the other hand it is certain that a great portion of the details of the ,scythian expedition of ,darius must have originated in the undue activity of the mental faculties to which ,i have referred1 i4e4 that they are inventions4 ,but if the principle of summarily rejecting narratives of events which lie beyond our experience is valid1 because the abnormal activity of certain faculties has urged men to invent1 and believe in a multitude of fictions1 the account of the lakedwellings given by the historian ought to have been rejected as equally unworthy of credit1 with some of the occurrences of the ,scythian expedition4 ,it is impossible to deal with the events of history on any general priori principles2 they must stand or fall on their own intrinsic evidence4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that if these principles admit of an abnormal action1 we are still by no means justified in a summary rejection of all unusual occurrences4 ,it only forms an adequate reason for closely scrutinizing the evidence on which the credibility of history rests4 ,the faculty of imagination1 instigated by that of wonder1 has produced widespread beliefs in a mass of supernatural events which are utterly incredible4 ,but as that faculty must have a legitimate action somewhere1 it is clear that its abuse can be no valid reason for the rejection of all supernatural occurrences1 unless for other reasons they are proved to be incredible4 ,the whole must be a question of evidence and of reason4 ,if it formed a valid ground for the rejection of miracles1 it is clear that the principle on which it is founded cannot be confined to any such narrow limits1 but must have a wide and general application1 and extend to all that is wonderful and unusual4 ,it is an unquestionable fact that a large proportion of mankind in every age have eagerly sought the means of affording gratification to the feeling of wonder1 and that this has been the means of introducing into history a considerable number of fictions of various kinds4 ,but does this invalidate its testimony8 ,does it justify us in rejecting whole classes of phenomena as unworthy of consideration8 ,we have already seen that whatever principle is applied to miracles must be equally applied to all extraordinary events1 because as phenomena there is no difference between them4 ,we admit that many fictions have got into history4 ,these it is the duty of the critical historian to detect and displace4 ,will anyone affirm that their introduction invalidates the events in the history of the past1 which rest on an adequate attestation8 ,what that is1 ,i shall consider hereafter4 ,whatever effect this may have exerted on the minor details of history1 will anyone affirm that its great outlines do not rest on a substantial basis of truth8 ,it is impossible to lay down on these subjects a wide and comprehensive canon which will save us the trouble of careful and accurate investigation4 ,all reports of extraordinary events1 marvels1 and miracles1 must stand or fall with the adequacy of the evidence which can be adduced for their occurrence1 and cannot be decided by any artificial rule4 ,if the evidence is good1 they must be accepted1 notwithstanding the fact that extensive classes of marvels have been accepted by mankind on testimony wholly insufficient to establish their truth4 ,if the evidence fails1 they must be regarded as the result of the abnormal exercise of faculties which yet have a legitimate place in our mental constitution4 ,nothing is more common than the assertion that at certain periods of history1 mankind have been ignorant that there is an order in nature2 and that this ignorance has given these faculties such unbounded play as to render all reports of supernatural occurrences unworthy of credit1 notwithstanding any amount of evidence which may be alleged in their favour4 ,it is urged that1 if men are ignorant that there is an order in nature1 to such a state of mind nothing would be really supernatural2 but every event1 whether supernatural or otherwise1 would be viewed as a matter of ordinary occurrence4 ,to this state of mind a miracle would convey no meaning1 and therefore it would be valueless as evidence of a divine revelation4 ,in other words1 it has been affirmed that there have been certain conditions of mankind in which the love of the marvellous has been so powerful1 and the action of reason so weak1 as to destroy all sense of the distinction between a natural and a supernatural occurrence4 ,i reply that the ,christian revelation was not addressed to such a condition of the human mind4 ,on the contrary1 it was made after a long course of preparation for its introduction4 ,after the whole course of previous history1 under the controlling providence of ,god1 had prepared the way for ,his ,advent1 ,jesus ,christ appeared4 ,the ,gospel was not preached to men in the lowest state of barbarism1 but to civilized man4 ,what may have been the ideas of degraded savages1 at some early period of the history of our race1 it will be needless to inquire4 ,with mankind in such a condition we have nothing to do in the present controversy1 but with the state of thought in the ,roman ,empire during the first century of our era4 ,this was no period of mental darkness or of boundless credulity4 ,in the early ages1 when every phenomenon of nature was viewed as due to the action of some capricious god1 the belief in an order of nature must have been in a high degree vague and uncertain4 ,but such a state of things1 whatever it might once have been1 had long since passed away4 ,the period of history now under consideration was one of widespread intelligence1 varying greatly in different parts of the empire1 but still one of intelligence and civilization4 ,it is impossible for men to attain a degree of progress necessary for the existence of civilization1 and still to remain ignorant that a large class of natural occurrences follow an order which does not admit of deviation4 ,civilization would be impossible unless this were generally recognized4 ,it is in fact founded on its recognition4 ,at the same time1 there is a class of phenomena which are not recognized by the ordinary mind as following a definite order4 ,it is within this alone that the beliefs of current supernaturalism exert their activity4 ,but the supernatural occurrences narrated in the ,new ,testament do not belong to this ambiguous order of events1 and are therefore unaffected by them4 ,there is a large class of events which civilized man cannot help recognizing as belonging to a definite order and sequence1 and where the belief in the marvellous exerts little or no influence4 ,the violation of this order he views as impossible4 ,thus he cannot fail to recognize the fact that men cannot walk on the water without support2 that thousands of persons cannot be fed by a few loaves and fishes2 that diseases never leave us instantaneously by no other agency than that of a touch or a word2 and that men who have been actually dead have never returned to life4 ,no amount of the love of the marvellous has ever induced men to consider such occurrences possible4 ,whatever may have been the current supernaturalism of the ancient world1 it did not embody beliefs of this description4 ,this is proved by the entire course of ancient history4 ,its supernaturalism is of a wholly different order4 ,the love of the marvellous1 therefore1 has never so confounded the distinction between the natural and the supernatural among civilized men1 as to have deprived a miracle of its significance4 ,such an assertion respecting any part of the ,roman ,empire1 during the century which preceded and that which followed the ,advent1 would be contrary to fact4 ,on the contrary1 certain classes of events which were reported to have happened1 were invariably believed to have been really supernatural4 ,they were so far from being considered as devoid of meaning1 that persons supposed to be skilled in the art of interpreting them were habitually consulted as to what they were intended to denote4 ,the only exceptions to this were those occurrences which were supposed to have been brought about by the art of magic4 ,these seem to have been viewed as in some measure due to the existence of occult powers in nature1 the results of which the professors of the art had succeeded in mastering4 ,it may be safely affirmed that at no portion of this period was the love of the marvellous so prevalent in any portion of the ,roman ,empire as to have deprived a real miracle of its signification4 ,it follows therefore that it is impossible to lay down any abstract rule which will save us the trouble of investigating the evidence of miracles1 because mankind has in all ages been greatly influenced by the love of the marvellous1 and under its influence has invented a number of occurrences which reason pronounces incredible4 ,the action of this principle is far from being confined to subjects connected with religion1 but extends over the whole range of literature4 ,while it is quite true that1 under the influence of various principles of this description1 numbers of fictions have been reported by ancient historians1 this forms a valid reason only for rejecting those which rest on no adequate attestation4 ,the adoption of the other principle would render all knowledge of the past impossible4 ,all the faculties of our minds admit of a legitimate and an illegitimate use4 ,to reject the results of the right use of our faculties1 because they are capable of a wrong one1 is absurd4 ,but an opposite view may be taken of the entire question1 and one which is dictated by the principles of reason4 ,several principles in man directly point to the existence of the supernatural4 ,among these veneration and conscience occupy a conspicuous place4 ,these acting in conjunction with reason constitute man a religious being4 ,man alone of all living beings is capable of religion4 ,the principle of reverence finds its only adequate gratification in the contemplation of moral perfection4 ,moral perfection is inconceivable where personality and volition are not4 ,this principle therefore forms the counterpart in man which is directly correlated to the being and the perfections of a personal ,god4 ,it follows that instead of these principles invalidating the existence of the supernatural1 they establish it4 ,the conception of immensity is the adequate subjectmatter on which our faculty of wonder works4 ,the highest conception of greatness is realized in ,god4 ,in ,him therefore this faculty receives its most perfect realization4 ,reverence points to greatness united with supreme moral goodness4 ,the imperfection of man will not satisfy it4 ,it therefore impels man to bow down before the throne of ,one who transcends the imperfections of the created universe4 ,if there be a personal ,god1 supremely good1 who is the ,creator and moral ,governor of the universe1 nothing is more in conformity with our highest reason than that ,he should make a further manifestation of ,himself to man1 in addition to that which ,he has made in the material universe4 ,,chapter ,,xv4 ,,our ,,summary ,,rejection ,,of ,,current ,,supernaturalism ,,considered ,,in ,,its ,,bearing ,,on ,,the ,,evidence ,,for ,,miracles4 ,there can be no doubt that there is an enormous mass of supernatural beliefs which we feel at once justified in rejecting without troubling ourselves to inquire into the evidence on which they rest4 ,others also we reject because on investigation we find them altogether destitute of evidence4 ,others again which rest on evidence which would be sufficient to establish an ordinary fact1 we reject notwithstanding this attestation1 on the ground of their inherent improbability4 ,it has been objected that our summary rejection of the great mass of current supernaturalism puts the case of miracles out of court1 and renders them so improbable1 that it is unnecessary minutely to examine the evidence which can be adduced in support of them4 ,i propose therefore in this chapter to consider the reasons for our summary rejection of the great mass of current supernaturalism1 and its bearing on the credibility of the miracles in the ,new ,testament4 ,first3 ,i observe that the stories of current supernaturalism are not the only ones which we reject in a summary manner4 ,we treat in the same way a great number of other stories which offend against the principles of common sense4 ,it is clear that in these latter cases1 we do not reject them merely because they are supernatural1 but because they are generally incredible4 ,the fact therefore that we thus reject a number of absurd narratives without inquiry into the evidence on which they rest1 cannot be urged as a reason for rejecting other occurrences which are not involved in any such absurdity4 ,if the principle is valid against miracles1 it must be equally so against other extensive classes of facts4 ,to assert that miracles are thus absurd or ridiculous is to assume the point which ought to be proved4 ,secondly3 ,we reject the great mass of current supernaturalism because it is unable to assign any adequate reason for its existence4 ,when it is alleged that a miracle has been performed as an attestation of a revelation1 if it forms a necessary portion of such attestation1 this is an adequate reason for the miracle4 ,but the great mass of current supernaturalism is utterly unable to assign any reason for its existence2 or if reasons have been given1 they are quite inadequate4 ,of this the case of magic is an example4 ,if it were a reality1 it would not only interfere with the order of nature1 but no reason could be given for this interference4 ,if1 on the other hand1 its phenomena were alleged to be due to secret forces in nature1 then they would belong to an order of grotesque and monstrous phenomena1 which we are justified at once in refusing to believe to be due to the action of intelligence or goodness2 and on the supposition that there is a moral ,governor of the universe1 it is utterly incredible that they would occur either by his agency or with his permission4 ,perhaps the best attested occurrences of current supernaturalism are the phenomena of spiritualism4 ,it will tend to the illustration of this subject1 if we consider the grounds on which we reject a large portion of its reported phenomena quite irrespectively of the evidence produced in favour of their reality1 and ascribe the belief in them to the effect of an excited imagination1 and in some cases to imposture4 ,in considering this subject1 it is not necessary to examine whether the phenomena alleged by spiritualists1 if true1 would be really supernatural1 or belong to an order of nature hitherto unknown4 ,many of the manifestations of spiritualism possess a grotesqueness which we see in no other class of natural phenomena4 ,if they are alleged to be the results of the action of natural forces previously unknown1 then they must belong to a class of forces which contrast in a most remarkable degree with all known ones2 that is to say1 the known and the unknown forces of nature must be utterly out of harmony with one another4 ,i am now speaking on the supposition that such forces are merely natural ones1 not under the guidance of intelligence4 ,in that case they must have been always in existence1 only latent2 yet they now for the first time manifest themselves under very special circumstances and conditions1 such as are highly favourable to the existence of delusion4 ,the abnormal character of these phenomena1 so entirely at variance with the known order of nature1 forms the strongest ground for the conviction that they cannot be the results of the action of unknown natural forces4 ,it would require an overwhelming amount of evidence to convince us that these two sets of natural forces1 distinguishable by the strongest possible contrasts1 7viz4 those which produce the visible phenomena of nature1 and those which produce another class1 intermittent in their action1 of which grotesqueness and monstrosity are the most striking characteristics1 and which only manifest their existence under circumstances calculated to throw a suspicion on their reality71 can be the results of the action of forces which have been present in nature during all past time4 ,but further3 these phenomena1 if natural1 must belong to an order of nature which is not only unlike the visible order1 but would throw its action into confusion4 ,i am here reasoning on the supposition that the moral order of the universe is due to the action of nothing but physical forces4 ,if this be so1 it must form a portion of the existing order of nature4 ,but the forces which1 on the supposition of the truth of spiritualism1 must be capable of being brought into activity1 would interrupt that moral order of which we are actually conscious4 ,their action1 if real1 would interrupt the entire course of the moral world4 ,no man would be safe from their intrusion4 ,even in our deepest retirement we should never be free from the invasion of their prying curiosity4 ,such a power would be incompatible with the moral order of society4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that an unknown order of nature1 presenting the most violent contrast to the visible one1 whose phenomena do not follow an invariable but an intermittent law1 and are only alleged to manifest themselves under conditions favourable to imposture1 possesses such a degree of inherent improbability as to justify its rejection1 even by those who recognise the action of none but material forces in the universe4 ,but to those who recognise the present order of nature as due to the action of a wise and intelligent ,creator1 it becomes absolutely incredible that forces such as the phenomena of spiritualism require for their production1 can form a portion of that order which ,he has created1 as they contradict every conception which we can rationally form of his character4 ,but if these phenomena are viewed as due to the action of supernatural agency1 the reality of their occurrence becomes still more inconceivable4 ,if such agency is capable of being exerted1 we can only conceive that its exertion is permitted for the realization of some known end4 ,yet the phenomena of spiritualism serve no purpose whatever4 ,spiritualists have been holding their sances for many years2 but no one practical result has yet been realized by them4 ,the spirits of the departed have been invoked1 but they have never yet given a single useful response4 ,surely if there be a spirit world1 its occupations cannot be the production of the abnormal1 the mean and the grotesque4 ,its employments must possess some pretensions to be esteemed dignified4 ,it has been alleged that such manifestations help to convince the incredulous of the reality of the immortality of man4 ,on the contrary1 the idea that spirits can be guilty of such phantastic tricks can only help to throw discredit on the doctrine4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that if the phenomena of spiritualism are viewed as due to supernatural causes1 it is utterly incredible either that the ,governor of the ,universe would permit such a course of action1 or that the spirits themselves1 unless deprived of reason1 would exhibit themselves in such a variety of phantastic forms1 and for no other apparent purpose than to effect a number of capricious interferences with the visible order of nature4 ,this incredibility is so great as to entitle us summarily to reject the idea that the reputed phenomena can be actual occurrences4 ,in addition to this1 the alleged manifestations are made under circumstances preeminently suited to excite suspicion4 ,the phenomena of modern spiritualism are a fair illustration of the general character of the current supernaturalism of the ancient world4 ,it was for the most part equally senseless and absurd4 ,the attestation to its actual occurrence was of a very inferior character to that which can be urged in favour of the alleged facts of spiritualism4 ,i have merely taken notice of these latter as an illustration of the general aspect of the phenomena of current supernaturalism1 and as placing before us the reasons which fully justify us in rejecting a large portion of it without minutely inquiring into its evidence4 ,i will now proceed to contrast the entire mass of current supernaturalism with the miracles of the ,new ,testament for the purpose of still further illustrating the grounds on which we reject it1 while we claim for the latter that their reality must be tested by the evidence which can be adduced in favour of their actual occurrence4 ,let me again draw attention to the fact that the only correct conception of a miracle in connection with this controversy1 is that of an event wrought in external nature with a definite moral aim and purpose4 ,extraordinary events1 to which no such moral aim and purpose can be assigned1 may be unusual occurrences1 but are in no proper sense of the words evidential miracles4 ,an isolated occurrence of an extraordinary nature1 and an event marked with a definite moral purpose1 are two wholly different things4 ,the one may be credible1 and the other wholly incredible4 ,we habitually recognise the distinction in ordinary life1 and it entirely affects our judgment of the probability of an event4 ,we esteem the action of a particular person quite credible under one set of circumstances1 which we should reject as incredible under another4 ,thus if we were informed that a friend with whom we were intimately acquainted1 had precipitated himself from a height into the water1 supposing him to be sane1 we should not believe it4 ,but if we received the information that he had done it to save a person from drowning1 and we knew that he was a man of courage1 we should accept the fact without the smallest hesitation4 ,on this account1 therefore1 the moral aspect of the alleged miracle is of the utmost importance2 and it is necessary for its correct conception that it should not only be an extraordinary occurrence in external nature1 but that it should take place at the bidding of another1 and in order to render it credible1 that it should be calculated to effectuate some definite moral purpose4 ,alleged supernatural events1 which are destitute of these accompaniments1 are always liable to a very high degree of priori suspicion4 ,in fact it would be difficult to prove them to be supernatural4 ,all that could be affirmed respecting them would be that they were very unusual occurrences1 which it was impossible to account for by the action of any known force4 ,if the universe is under the government of ,god1 all supernatural action must either be the result of ,his agency or permission4 ,if ,he interferes with the order of occurrences1 it is evident that such interference cannot be capricious1 but must have a definite purpose4 ,we are justified1 therefore1 in refusing to accept occurrences as supernatural1 which are destitute of all appearance of purpose in their performance4 ,but further3 the alleged miracle must be consistent with the character of ,god1 before it is possible to attribute it to ,him as wrought by ,his direct agency4 ,this rests on the same principle on which we refuse to credit the reports of actions performed by men which are contradictory to their well known characters4 ,but this is far more certain with respect to ,god than it can be of man4 ,human characters can at best be but imperfectly known1 and there are unseen depths in the human heart which sometimes render actions possible1 which stand in striking contrast to the general character of the agents4 ,to state the truth generally1 as it is impossible that man can act in opposition to the inmost principles of his moral being1 so in a far higher degree is it impossible that ,god can contradict the perfections of ,his moral nature4 ,this being so1 it follows that we are entitled to reject all miracles alleged to have been wrought by ,god1 which are contrary to ,his moral attributes2 all which are low1 mean1 or grotesque1 and unfitted to realize an elevated moral purpose4 ,it will here be objected that if these positions are true1 demoniacal miracles are rendered impossible4 ,i have already pointed out that if demoniacal supernaturalism is affirmed in the ,new ,testament to be an actuality1 its action is described as being limited to the human mind1 and that whatever permitted activity is conceded to it1 always bears the most distinctive marks of being from beneath4 ,there is no possibility of mistaking between such supernatural occurrences and the miracles of ,god4 ,such then are our general principles1 the truth of which can hardly be contested4 ,if they are true1 the great mass of current supernaturalism is worthy of rejection for the following reasons4 #a4 ,while it claims to be the result of supernatural agency1 it is destitute of all definite moral purpose1 and such moral impress as it bears is mean and degraded4 ,what end1 ,i ask1 was it designed to serve8 ,it involved an almost continual interference with the order of nature2 or if at times it claimed to be due to occult forces1 they were only suited to confound the visible order of the universe4 ,i am reasoning on the supposition that there is a ,god who rules the world4 ,this being so1 it is impossible to conceive that such a mode of acting can be ,his4 ,under this head of supernaturalism fall all the monstrous and the grotesque1 and the entire range of magical phenomena4 #b4 ,the whole range of ancient supernaturalism is in contradiction to everything which we can conceive of the moral character of ,god4 ,let us take as an illustration the phenomena of ,soothsaying4 ,who can believe that ,god employed the entrails of slaughtered beasts as the means of revealing the future8 or that it was consistent with his character to manifest his will through a multitude of monstrous portents8 ,there is perhaps not a single occurrence of ancient supernaturalism which does not offend against our primary conception of the ,divine character2 and1 therefore1 the whole is worthy of summary rejection4 #c4 ,ancient supernaturalism assigned its occurrences to no cause adequate to produce them4 ,those who asserted its reality1 referred it to the action of deities who possessed very limited power1 or to occult powers in nature4 ,such occult powers we now know to have no existence1 and the power attributed to the supposed deities was far too limited to be capable of producing the results in question4 ,all reputed events1 the alleged cause of which is unable to produce them1 we are entitled to reject without further investigation4 #d4 ,a large amount of ancient supernaturalism rested on no evidence whatever4 ,of those portions for which any reasons were alleged1 the evidence itself was of a character exactly suited to discredit it4 ,of this kind was the whole of the supernaturalism connected with the state religions4 ,these were in the hands of men who used them for the purpose of acting on the vulgar1 and who therefore readily accepted the report of anything1 however incredible1 which could subserve their end4 ,other portions were palpable impostures worked for the basest and most selfish purposes4 ,a very brief acquaintance with the nature of the evidence on which it rests is sufficient to justify us in rejecting it without entering on any inquiry as to its details4 ,such being the general character of ancient supernaturalism1 it is absurd to argue that its existence is a reason for rejecting along with it another order of supernaturalism1 which stands contrasted with it in every particular4 ,we might as well urge the existence of a vast number of counterfeits as a reason for rejecting everything which is genuine4 ,we do not reject it because it is supernatural1 but because it is utterly incredible4 ,a statement of a few particulars will exhibit the contrast between it and the supernaturalism of the ,new ,testament in a striking point of view4 #a4 ,christian supernaturalism alleges that its occurrences are the result of the action of a force which1 if present1 is certainly adequate to produce them4 ,ancient supernaturalism alleges no cause whatever1 or one wholly inadequate4 #b4 ,christian supernaturalism alleges a perfectly adequate purpose for its production2 that purpose being the attestation of the divine mission of ,jesus4 ,ancient supernaturalism alleges either no purpose at all1 or a degraded one4 #c4 ,christian supernaturalism is made to centre around the greatest and most exalted character that has ever appeared in history4 ,ancient supernaturalism1 instead of being connected with the most eminent characters of the times1 directly connects itself with the most questionable4 #d4 ,christian supernaturalism is stamped throughout with a high moral character and aspect4 ,this is wholly wanting in the supernaturalism of the ancient world4 #e4 ,christian supernaturalism belongs to an elevated order and type2 the objects realized by it were for the most part benevolent4 ,the mode of its action was dignified and the effects produced by it were instantaneous1 following directly on the word of the agent4 ,the mode in which its miracles were performed is characterized by the utmost simplicity1 destitute alike of anything scenic or fantastic1 entirely in harmony with the great character who performed them4 ,the supernaturalism of the ancient world is marked by the opposite characteristics4 #f4 ,christian supernaturalism1 or to speak more correctly1 the greatest supernatural occurrence which ,christianity records1 namely the ,resurrection of ,christ1 has not only left a mighty impression on history1 but has created a civilization of its own which embraces all the progressive nations of the world1 and exerts a powerful influence even on those who deny its truth4 ,the only result wrought by the supernaturalism of the ancient world was the moral degradation of those among whom it prevailed4 #g4 ,the supernaturalism of ,christianity rests on an attestation which even unbelievers would allow to be quite sufficient to establish the truth of any ordinary facts4 ,the other rests either on no testimony at all1 or on one which is open to the gravest suspicion4 ,such are some of the striking contrasts which distinguish the supernaturalism of the ,new ,testament from that of the ancient world4 ,when two series of events present such opposite features1 it is the duty of a sound philosophy to trace these distinctions to their causes1 and to show what is the nature of the forces which have impressed on each series its own peculiar characteristics4 ,instead of this1 however1 we are invited to pronounce both alike incredible2 that is to say1 because one series of events is deeply impressed with characteristics which render them incredible1 we are invited to pronounce a similar condemnation on another series1 which is distinguished by the most opposite features1 and which has only this point in common with the former1 that both belong to an order of events which we designate as supernatural4 ,nothing can be more unphilosophical than such a mode of reasoning4 ,we reject the one series in a mass1 not because the events which it contains are supernatural1 but because they are absolutely incredible4 ,a similar rule we apply to ordinary1 no less than supernatural occurrences4 ,but it will doubtless be objected that there is another series of supernatural occurrences which rational men1 with a few exceptions1 greet with an equally summary rejection1 viz4 the long series of ecclesiastical miracles which extends in an almost unbroken succession from the second century of our era nearly to the present day4 ,these1 it has been urged1 are alleged to have been wrought in attestation of ,christianity1 and bear some remarkable analogy1 as facts wrought in external nature1 to the miracles recorded in the ,gospels4 ,it is argued that if we reject the one1 we are for the same reason bound to reject the others4 ,the following points may be considered as admitted4 ,first2 ,that every century from the second downwards has been characterized by a considerable amount of pretension to the possession of supernatural power2 and during this period one section of the ,christian ,church claims to have actually wrought miracles4 ,secondly2 ,several of these miracles1 viewed merely as phenomena in outward nature1 are precisely similar to those recorded in the ,new ,testament4 ,thirdly2 ,when a miracle is alleged to have been performed at the present day1 as has recently been the case in a neighbouring country1 not only all unbelievers in the possibility of supernatural occurrences1 but also all rational ,christians concur in its summary rejection1 not merely on the ground that the evidence is insufficient1 but that the event is in itself incredible4 ,fourthly2 ,that rational men reject in a similar manner and for similar reasons the great mass of ecclesiastical miracles as unworthy of serious inquiry into their attestation4 ,with respect to the second point1 ,i have already observed that if we view miracles merely as phenomena in external nature1 and if a similar belief in a current supernaturalism1 which we have seen to be one of the phenomena of human nature1 prevailed in the ,church1 it was to be expected that the current forms of ecclesiastical supernaturalism would adopt those of the ,new ,testament for their basis1 and consequently that it would abound in narratives of resurrections from the dead and the cures of various diseases4 ,this is actually the case4 ,it may also not only excite our wonder that the model was not far more exactly copied1 but that ecclesiastical1 and especially monkish miracles1 which constitute an overwhelming majority of the miracles of ,church history1 abound so largely in features which stand in such marked contrast to the miracles of the ,new ,testament1 their peculiar characteristics being the same as those of ancient supernaturalism1 viz4 the monstrous and the grotesque4 ,this point is one which demands the serious consideration of unbelievers2 for if1 as they aver1 they are both due to the action of the same causes1 this diversity requires to be accounted for4 ,the truth is1 that with the exception that both series contain reports of miracles which are similar or mere objective occurrences1 in other respects their characteristics differ widely4 ,with respect to the fact that rational men concur in the rejection of modern miracles1 it should be observed that this is not because all supernatural events are believed to be incredible2 but because the reputed events themselves possess characteristics which excite in us the gravest suspicions of their truth2 and especially because by far the greatest number of them are well known not to have originated in mere credulity1 but in actual imposture4 ,men or communities who have once lent themselves to the deliberate coining of miracles1 are of blasted reputations1 and whenever marvellous occurrences are reported by such persons1 we are justified in rejecting them without further inquiry4 ,it is evident that these are the grounds on which such stories are rejected1 and not simply because they are supernatural1 since those who believe in the supernaturalism of the ,new ,testament concur with those who disbelieve in it1 in thus rejecting them4 ,i must now briefly consider the general grounds on which we reject the great mass of ecclesiastical miracles1 while we accept those in the ,gospels as actual occurrences4 ,the general ground of our rejection of them is precisely the same as that on which we reject the supernaturalism of the ancient world4 ,the only thing which distinguishes them from the latter1 is that they contain a number of events which viewed as bare facts are similar to those recorded in the ,gospels4 ,in every other respect the contrast is complete4 ,i shall only draw attention to a few considerations which might otherwise escape the notice of the reader4 ,the ecclesiastical miracles were not wrought in attestation that the person working them had a divine commission1 but that a divine power permanently abode in the ,church4 ,the qualification which was thought necessary for the exhibition of this power was the possession of a great degree of reputed sanctity4 ,the exercise of miraculous power was supposed to prove1 not that its possessor had a divine commission1 but that he was a saint4 ,the saint was supposed to have in himself some inherent power of working miracles1 bearing a considerable analogy to that which the woman with the issue of blood believed to be possessed by our ,lord4 ,a miraculous power in the shape of a virtue issued from the saint4 ,hence the supernatural power which was ascribed to dead men's bones and to relics4 ,such a supernatural power is devoid of everything which presupposes a divine purpose1 and of all evidential value4 ,its frequency would destroy the nature of a miracle as an attestation of a divine commission1 and involve an interference with the order of nature1 which would destroy the sense of its regularity1 the knowledge of which is so essential to our well being1 as well as to the conception of a miracle4 ,moreover1 the supernatural agency is not supposed to be due to the direct intervention of ,god1 but to some imaginary virtue residing in man4 ,the ecclesiastical miracles of which we have anything like a detailed account1 when they are not simply regarded as due to the direct sanctity of the person performing them1 are never alleged to be performed in proof of a divine commission2 but when they are asserted to have been evidential1 they are affirmed to have been wrought in proof of some doctrine1 or in favour of some particular party in the ,church2 or1 what invests them with a still greater degree of suspicion1 in favour of the power of a particular order4 ,the last class of alleged miracles may at once be dismissed as due to simple imposture4 ,the first are strongly contrasted with those of the ,new ,testament1 where we cannot find the account of a single miracle wrought in attestation of a doctrine1 the one or two apparent exceptions being really performed to attest a divine commission4 ,but when a miracle is wrought to prove an irrational doctrine1 the credibility of the miracle perishes with the truth of the doctrine4 ,we are1 therefore1 justified in rejecting the miracles whenever we have sufficient evidence that the doctrines which they were alleged to attest are untrue4 ,again3 whenever a particular party alleges a divine attestation in its favour1 its character may be known by its works4 ,the parties in the ,church who have claimed such miraculous attestation1 have proved by their actions that the idea of a divine interference in their favour is incredible1 as being inconsistent with the divine character4 ,it is perfectly true that at the present day all rational men1 with few exceptions1 concur in rejecting almost the entire mass of ecclesiastical miracles4 ,they do this1 however1 not because they believe miracles to be impossible1 but because they are persuaded that ,god will not work one on a light or trivial occasion1 and because the great mass of such pretended miracles are characterised by marks which are inconsistent with the idea that they have been wrought by ,god4 ,with our larger acquaintance with the order of nature1 we no longer believe that it is possible for miracles to be wrought by any inherent virtue in things themselves1 but that if performed at all1 it can only be by the direct agency or permission of the ,author of ,nature4 ,in a word1 the general incredibility of the ecclesiastical miracles1 and their repugnance to our conception of the mode of the divine acting is the reason why we reject them altogether4 ,it is also unquestionably true that at the present day a great majority even of religious persons would receive with no little incredulity the report of a miracle1 while such incredulity would not have existed at a former period4 ,this is due to two causes3 first1 our increased knowledge of the permanence of the forces of material ,nature2 and secondly1 our belief that supernatural occurrences can only take place by the direct agency and permission of ,god1 and not by means of my supernatural power inherent in particular persons4 ,from this we draw the inference that almost all the alleged ecclesiastical miracles must be rejected as inconsistent with the divine character4 ,we are of opinion1 therefore1 that a miracle wrought for any other purpose than the attestation of a revelation is not credible2 and as from the nature of the case revelations must be rare1 we summarily reject all reports of supernatural occurrences as impostures1 or the offspring of a heated and undisciplined imagination4 ,now although this is generally the case1 yet it is unquestionable that if a miracle was reported to us with a preeminently strong attestation1 no rational person would refuse to give a serious consideration to the evidence merely because the event was supernatural4 ,a reported miracle would doubtless be attended with no inconsiderable degree of antecedent improbability2 but if a man with whom we were intimately acquainted1 of sound intellect1 and high moral character were to allege that he had performed an act which1 if real1 must have been indisputably miraculous1 it would be altogether irrational to reject his assertion summarily as unworthy of consideration merely because in all ages miraculous stories have been extensively believed4 ,the application of such a principle would lead us into the grossest error4 ,this question has a very important bearing on the subject before us4 ,it has been alleged that while nothing has been more common than the ascription of miracles to eminent men1 it is impossible to find a man of sound judgment and high moral character who has deliberately affirmed that he has performed one himself4 ,that such affirmations have been very rare is certain1 and for the simple reason1 that miracles have been very rare occurrences4 ,but the assertion that no such cases are to be found is inaccurate4 ,one1 at all events1 exists1 although probably the only one1 but it is that of a man of the most undoubted veracity1 the ,apostle ,paul4 ,as ,i have already observed1 four of the most important writings which have been attributed to him are admitted by a vast majority of those unbelievers who are competent to form an opinion on the subject1 to be his genuine productions4 ,these are before us1 and we can form from them a full judgment as to the character of the man4 ,in them he distinctly tells us that he performed miracles4 ,he writes3 8,i have therefore whereof ,i may glory in those things which pertain to ,god4 ,for ,i will not dare to speak of any of those things which ,christ hath not wrought by me to make the ,gentiles obedient by word and deed1 through mighty signs and wonders1 by the power of the ,spirit of ,god2 so that from ,jerusalem1 and round about unto ,illyricum1 ,i have fully preached the ,gospel of ,christ40 7,rom4 xv4 #ah1 #ai47 ,here at least we have a direct affirmation on the subject4 ,it is not the only one made by him4 ,but there is also one which is equivalent to another affirmation made by ,one whom unbelievers must admit to have been the greatest man who ever lived1 ,jesus ,christ ,himself4 ,those with whom ,i am reasoning allow that the discourses in the ,synoptic ,gospels are accounts of ,his real utterances4 ,in them ,he directly affirms that ,he performed miracles4 ,even those against whose opinions ,i am arguing1 will concede that the characters of ,christ and ,st4 ,paul stand at the greatest height of moral elevation4 ,if there are any other persons whose utterances have been handed down to us1 who have deliberately made this affirmation1 their numbers are unquestionably few4 ,certainly no other thoroughly great and elevated character has done so4 ,this is a remarkable fact and well worthy of consideration4 ,while many of the ,fathers have affirmed that miracles were performed by others1 not one of them has affirmed that he has wrought any himself4 ,the supernaturalism of the ,new ,testament differs1 as we have seen1 from all other alleged kinds of supernatural occurrences4 ,it differs moreover in this respect1 that one of the persons through whose agency these miracles are declared to have been performed1 has made a deliberate affirmation that he wrought them2 and that the founder of ,christianity1 in recorded utterances which are admitted to be genuine1 has likewise asserted that miracles were wrought by ,him4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that our summary rejection of all the current supernaturalism which has been alleged to have taken place at various periods of history1 is quite consistent with our accepting as true the series of supernatural events recorded in the ,new ,testament1 which are distinguished by characteristics of an entirely different order4 ,,chapter ,,xvi4 ,,general ,,objections ,,to ,,miracles ,,as ,,credentials ,,of ,a ,,revelation4 ,while considering this subject1 it will be necessary to keep steadily in view that miracles are not alleged in the ,new ,testament to have been performed to prove the truth of doctrines1 but that a particular person possesses a divine commission2 or in attestation of particular facts1 such as the ,resurrection of ,jesus ,christ4 ,the truth of a divine commission being established1 it follows that the divinelyappointed messenger must have some message to communicate4 ,we further infer that ,god will not intrust a message to any person whom ,he has not previously fully enlightened as to the subject which he has to communicate1 and who would not truthfully communicate the message with which he is intrusted4 ,a miracle is therefore not only an attestation to the divine commission of the person performing one1 but also to the adequate information and veracity of the messenger4 ,although a miracle is not wrought to prove the truth of a particular doctrine1 but that a particular person is intrusted with a divine commission1 we accept a doctrinal statement as true1 when made by a messenger thus attested1 within the limits of the message with which he affirms himself to be intrusted1 on the ground that such a messenger must both be truthful1 and possess adequate knowledge4 ,in other words1 our belief in the doctrinal statement does not rest on the miracle1 but on the veracity of ,god4 ,this is the affirmation made in the ,new ,testament respecting the most important class of the miracles which it records4 ,as ,i have elsewhere observed1 not a single instance occurs in it of a miracle wrought for the purpose of proving that a doctrine is true4 ,our ,lord's distinct affirmation is1 8,the same works that ,i do1 bear witness of me that the ,father hath sent me40 7,john v4 #cf47 8,if ,i say the truth1 why do ye not believe me80 7,john viii4 #df47 ,the miracles which are alleged to have been performed by the ,apostles for directly evidential purposes1 were wrought in proof of the ,resurrection of ,christ1 and of their own divine commission1 which directly depended on it4 ,let it also be observed that it by no means follows that every miracle recorded in the ,new ,testament was performed exclusively for evidential purposes4 ,this point ,i shall consider hereafter4 ,if these principles are correct1 they will at once dispose of two objections which are alleged against miracles3 first1 that they cannot prove a doctrine2 and secondly1 that they cannot prove a moral truth4 ,i fully accept the statement that moral truths cannot be proved by the evidence of miracles1 but must rest on their own inherent evidence2 and that all positive duties rest on the command of ,god1 to whom we feel1 on other grounds1 that all love1 reverence1 and adoration are due4 ,the truth of doctrines also cannot be established by the performance of a miracle2 but when we accept them on external authority1 they rest on the testimony of ,god1 and our full persuasion that ,he must be in possession of all truth4 ,although1 therefore1 ,i accept as correct these principles1 on which the objection is founded1 they have no bearing on the point at issue2 for the ,new ,testament nowhere affirms that its miracles were wrought to prove either doctrinal statements or moral truths1 but facts4 #a4 ,it is objected that the prevalence of supernatural beliefs renders the existence of miracles 8so hackneyed as scarcely to attract the notice of the nation to whom the ,christian revelation was in the first instance addressed40 7,supernatural ,religion47 ,i reply that this objection contains two inaccuracies4 ,first1 it is not true that the miracles of ,jesus scarcely attracted the notice of those among whom they were performed4 ,the only authority on this point is the ,new ,testament itself1 and this assertion contradicts its express statements4 ,numerous passages in the ,gospels directly affirm that the miracles of our ,lord attracted very general attention1 and produced a profound astonishment2 and that those who had witnessed them considered that there was a wide distinction between them and the miraculous pretensions then current4 ,his fame is represented as having been spread by them in regions beyond ,palestine2 and great multitudes are stated to have collected1 both for the purpose of hearing ,him and of being healed of their diseases4 ,the fourth ,gospel represents our ,lord as rebuking the multitudes1 for attending on ,him for sordid purposes4 ,it is quite true1 that notwithstanding the miracles1 the body of the ,jewish nation ultimately rejected ,christianity1 though the epistles bear witness that the ,jewish element which was attracted into the ,christian ,church was large4 ,the assertion1 therefore1 is simply contrary to fact1 that miracles were in those days so common and hackneyed as to attract little or no attention to him who professed to work them4 ,equally inaccurate is the assertion that the evidence of miracles as the attestation to a revelation was a 8hackneyed0 one4 ,the ,old ,testament professed to rest on miraculous evidence4 ,this being the case1 the ,jews were fully entitled to expect that if ,god made a further revelation of ,his will1 it would be accompanied by a miraculous attestation4 ,but ,judaism was the only religion of the ancient world which professed to be founded on the evidence of miracles4 ,a belief in a current supernaturalism was no doubt mixed up with the ancient religions1 but its wonders were not alleged to have been wrought in attestation of the fact that they were revelations1 nor even as attestations to their truth4 ,the religion of the ,greeks possessed both priests and prophets2 but they performed no miracles in attestation of a divine commission4 ,the only attestation of this kind which they claimed was the utterance of obscure or mendacious oracles4 ,i am not aware that anyone who pretended to be a revealer of the divine will in ancient times ever professed to perform visible and palpable miracles in proof of his assertions4 ,similar is the position of the old religions which still exist in the modern world4 ,many of them abound in stories of the most fantastic manifestations of their gods in ancient times4 ,their votaries believe in the efficacy of magic1 charms1 and incantations4 ,but none of these things have been affirmed to have been wrought in attestation of a divine commission4 ,mahometanism claims1 in the strictest sense1 to be a divine revelation2 yet the ,koran even offers apologies for the fact that its founder wrought no miracles in attestation of his claim to be a divine messenger4 ,so far therefore is it from being the fact that miracles are so generally alleged by religions in vindication of their claim to be revelations1 that ,judaism and ,christianity are absolutely unique in this respect4 ,the idea of working a miracle in attestation of a divine commission is so far from being a 8hackneyed0 one1 that it has the strongest claims to originality4 #b4 ,it is urged by the same writer that 8every marvel and every narrative of supernatural interference seemed a matter of course to the superstitious credulity of the age4 ,however much miracles are the exception to the order of nature1 they have always been the rule in the history of ignorance4 ,in fact the excess of belief in them throughout many centuries of darkness1 is almost fatal to their claims to credence now4 ,they have been limited to periods of ignorance and superstition1 and are unknown to ages of enlightenment4 ,the ,christian miracles are rendered almost as suspicious from their place in a long series of similar occurrences1 as they are by their being exceptions to the sequence of natural phenomena4 ,it would be extraordinary if cycles of miracles occurring before and since those of the ,gospels1 and in connection with every religion1 could be repudiated as fables1 and these alone maintained as genuine40 ,the principles which ,i have laid down in a former chapter fully meet the chief points raised in these objections4 ,a few additional observations on them1 therefore1 are all that will be necessary4 ,first3 the assertion that every marvel or narrative of supernatural interference seemed a matter of course to the superstitious credulity of the age1 is inaccurate4 ,if they had been of habitual or constant occurrence1 they would have ceased to be marvels at all4 ,in such a case the trade of the impostor would have gone1 for it would not have paid him4 ,the entire plausibility of such reasonings arises from confounding under a common name phenomena wholly different in character4 ,i ask emphatically1 did the current supernaturalism of any age or nation accept as matters of course such events as the resurrection of ,christ1 or the cure of a blind man1 or a man full of leprosy1 by a word or a touch8 ,have not heathen writers pronounced actual resurrections from the dead to be impossibilities8 ,were such occurrences ever believed to be within the power of magic to effect8 ,belief in the possibility of such occurrences became current only under the influence of ,christianity4 #b4 ,it is not correct to assert that the belief in miracles has been confined to ages of ignorance4 ,will it be affirmed that the most flourishing period of ,grecian literature was an age of ignorance8 ,yet a belief in a current supernaturalism prevailed in it4 ,was the ,augustan age an age of ignorance8 ,both ages were ignorant of physical science3 but during few periods has the human intellect been equally active4 ,each age contained men endowed with common sense sufficient to make them adequate judges whether the supernatural occurrences above referred to were possible or not4 #c4 ,it is inaccurate to affirm that the ,christian miracles are interposed between two similar series of supernatural occurrences4 ,there is only one point in common between them2 the claim to be supernatural4 ,as ,i have proved1 in every other respect they are strongly contrasted4 ,it is1 therefore1 by no means extraordinary that a series of supernatural occurrences1 which have the highest moral impress1 and possess other distinguishing characteristics1 should be true2 and that the others1 one of which took place before and the other after that in question1 and which are stamped with the very opposite characteristics1 should be false4 ,the same author adduces the following objections1 as lying at the root of miraculous testimony to a revelation3 8,surely supernatural evidence of so common and prodigal a nature betrays great want of force and divine originality4 ,how could that be considered as special evidence for a new revelation1 which was already so well known to all the world1 and which was scattered broadcast over so many centuries1 as well as successfully simulated by ,satan40 ,again3 8,instead of a few evidential miracles taking place at one epoch of history1 and filling the world with surprise at such novel and exceptional phenomena1 we find miracles represented as taking place in all ages and in all countries4 ,the ,gospel miracles are set in the midst of a series of similar wonders which commenced many centuries before the dawn of ,christianity1 and continued without interruption fifteen centuries after it4 ,no divine originality characterized the evidence selected to accredit the divine revelation40 7,p4 #aib47 ,i reply1 ,first3 ,it behoves those who except against the plan of attesting a divine revelation by miracles1 to inform us in what other way it is possible that the truth of a divine commission can be attested4 ,it is doubtless possible for ,god to make a special revelation of ,his will to each individual man2 yet even this would involve supernatural agency of some kind2 and it is very questionable whether to do so would be consistent with the plan of ,god's moral government which comes under our actual observation4 ,but the ,christian revelation is founded on the idea of making a divine manifestation additional to1 and of a different order from1 that which is made by the created universe2 and not simply of imparting so much additional information to each individual4 ,this manifestation professes to be made by the ,incarnation4 ,how1 ,i ask1 was such a manifestation to be made except by a supernatural action of some kind8 ,it is clear1 therefore1 that every manifestation of ,god differing from that made by the ordinary forces of nature1 or by the moral nature of man1 must be supernatural4 ,there can be no doubt as to the means which must be employed4 ,the only question which can be raised is one which ,i have considered elsewhere1 namely3 whether it is the purpose of ,god to make such a manifestation of ,himself4 ,it will be objected that such a manifestation might have been made self evident to the moral nature of man1 and consequently it would have required no additional attestation4 ,to this ,i reply that1 on the supposition that it is ,god's purpose to make such an additional manifestation of ,himself1 ,he must be allowed to be the only adequate judge of the right mode of accomplishing it4 ,but even if a revelation involved no such manifestation of ,god1 but only a communication of truth to man1 it is incumbent on those who object to its attestation by miracles1 to find some other method by which the reality of a divine commission could be attested1 and to show that this mode would be preferable to an attestation by miracles4 ,but further3 if we regard a miracle as a supernatural occurrence wrought in attestation of a divine commission1 which is the unquestionable aspect of a considerable number of those recorded in the ,new ,testament1 the fact that there was a widespread belief in the existence of supernatural events is far from interfering with its efficacy4 ,what did the current beliefs imply8 ,that there existed beings1 other than the blind forces of nature1 who interfered in human affairs2 and that they were in some way or other capable of communicating with man4 ,what is the very conception implied by a revelation8 ,that a ,god exists1 who is the moral ,governor of the universe1 who cares for man1 and is capable of holding communications with him4 ,both conceptions rest on a common ground--the existence of supernatural beings capable of manifesting themselves by outward indications4 ,why then should not the moral ,governor of the universe1 if it was ,his purpose to make a revelation1 employ media1 which were all but universally recognized8 ,no inconsiderable number of the objections of unbelievers rest on the assumption1 that if there be a ,god1 it is derogatory to ,his character to suppose that ,he is capable of condescending to the weaknesses and imperfections of man4 ,a ,god who neither will nor can do so may be a very grand conception2 but one who is very ill adapted to the wants of human nature1 and who is incapable of exciting human sympathies4 ,the only thing that would be necessary1 on the supposition that it was ,his purpose to make such a revelation1 would be that ,his mode of manifesting ,his presence should be one clearly distinguishable from the events of current supernaturalism4 ,what was requisite would have been to afford evidence that the manifestation in question was due to no other being than ,himself2 that is to say1 that the miracles should bear the unquestionable impress of ,his own perfections4 ,the subject of alleged demoniacal miracles ,i have considered elsewhere4 ,the simple question before us is--,are the supernatural events recorded in the ,gospels clearly distinguishable in their general character from the supernaturalism which was current previous to the ,advent8 ,i have already shown that it contains no doubtful indications as to who the agent must have been1 if we suppose the facts to have been actual occurrences4 ,but further3 if the objection has any validity1 it presupposes that ,god ought not to make a revelation in ages of superstition and ignorance2 but must wait until knowledge has cleared away the mists of ignorance and error1 and supplied us with the means of infallibly discriminating between true miracles and false ones2 or1 in other words1 we must wait for the muchtalkedof jury of scientific men1 who can submit ,his alleged miracles to the whole range of scientific tests4 ,happily1 however1 ,god has gifted a considerable number of men with common sense1 which is quite adequate to determine whether a certain class of events wrought under certain circumstances are miraculous operations1 or mere natural occurrences1 or due to imposture4 ,if this be so1 what is there1 ,i ask1 unworthy of ,god1 in making a revelation at such times as man stands in special need of one8 ,it is further objected that a miraculous attestation to a divine commission shows a want of force and divine originality4 ,i ask1 how8 ,the fact is that with the exception of ,judaism1 no ancient religion professed to be so attested2 and the ,jew would naturally expect that any fresh revelation would be attested in a manner similar to that which he believed in as divine4 ,the objection that because the belief in supernaturalism was so general1 therefore miracles must be worthless as evidence1 ,i have already shown to be fallacious4 ,but it is also objected3 8,instead of a few evidential miracles taking place at one particular period of history and filling the world with surprise at such novel and exceptional phenomena1 we find them represented as taking place in all ages and in all countries40 ,this is the old objection of the ,jews who demanded of our ,lord a sign from ,heaven4 ,both demand a particular class and order of miracle1 viz43 something stupendous1 or terrific4 ,the value of each objection lies in conceiving of a miracle as a mere objective fact in external nature1 stript of all its moral accompaniments4 ,in one word1 it contemplates the miracle in its most vulgar aspect1 as a bare act of power1 a portent1 a prodigy4 ,a great light everywhere appearing in the heavens might have appeared to vulgar minds a greater miracle1 and have attracted more attention than the cure of a man full of leprosy by the utterance of a word4 ,but it would not have presented stronger evidences of having been wrought by the power of ,god4 ,but with respect to the general question1 ,i ask1 ,is not the resurrection of ,jesus ,christ in every respect an exceptional event8 ,where are resurrections to be found in the history of current supernaturalism8 ,who ever pretended1 before or since1 to have a divine commission which was attested by his own resurrection from the dead8 ,this miracle is at any rate absolutely unique2 and it must never be forgotten that it is the only one recorded in the ,new ,testament on the truth of which its writers stake the claim of ,christianity to be regarded as a divine revelation4 ,although they refer to other miracles1 wonders and signs which ,god wrought by ,him1 yet whenever they adduce the full and conclusive evidence of ,his divine mission1 they always appeal to the fact that ,god had raised ,him from the dead4 ,but a further objection is urged as invalidating this kind of testimony3 8,at the very time when the knowledge of the laws of nature began to render men capable of judging of the reality of miracles1 these wonders entirely ceased4 ,this extraordinary cessation of miracles at a time when their evidence ought to have acquired value from an appeal to persons capable of appreciating them1 is perfectly unintelligible1 if they are viewed as the supernatural credentials of a divine revelation40 ,this passage contains several fallacies4 ,one1 to which ,i have repeatedly drawn attention1 runs through it1 viz41 the classing together every kind of alleged supernatural occurrence1 from the miracles of ,jesus to the fantastic performances of the magician1 as though they all stood on the same level4 ,i need not further allude to the fallacy of such reasoning4 #b4 ,it is affirmed that miracles entirely ceased when the knowledge of the laws of nature began to render men capable of judging of their reality4 ,i conclude that by the word 8miracles0 in this passage1 the author means ecclesiastical miracles1 viz41 those which have been alleged to be wrought in attestation of the established system of belief4 ,if it is meant to be asserted that all belief in a current supernaturalism has now ceased1 the affirmation is inaccurate1 as the widespread belief in spiritualism abundantly testifies4 ,but if the assertion is intended to be confined to ecclesiastical miracles1 it involves an inaccuracy as to a matter of history4 ,they had become thoroughly discredited long before the birth of modern physical science4 ,the cure of blind and leprous persons by a touch1 or the feeding of five thousand persons on seven loaves and a few fishes1 require nothing else than sound common sense for the appreciation of their supernatural character1 or the testing of their reality4 ,the assertion1 therefore1 that miracles ceased precisely at the time when their evidence would have been most valuable1 by their being able to be tested by those persons best capable of appreciating them1 is entirely inaccurate4 ,i fully admit that a belief in a current supernaturalism1 as for instance in the absurdities of witchcraft1 survived the ,reformation4 ,what the ,reformation destroyed was a belief in a divine order of miracles wrought in support of an ecclesiastical system4 ,the belief in this current supernaturalism has been gradually diminishing ever since1 under the combined influence of the increase of the knowledge of physical science1 and common sense4 ,the objection raised is simply irrelevant to the point at issue4 ,but there is another subject which demands consideration4 ,hitherto we have been dealing with the evidential character of miracles4 ,but although all miracles have an evidential value1 if they can be adequately attested1 it by no means follows that every miracle recorded in the ,new ,testament was intended to subserve this purpose alone4 ,it was necessary not only that a revelation should be communicated1 and receive an adequate attestation1 but that it should be propagated among mankind4 ,to render this possible1 it was necessary that its messengers should be armed with some means of insuring that their message should be heard with attention4 ,there was also another object to be effected2 namely1 the establishment in the world of that great institution1 the ,christian ,church1 which was intended so largely to influence its destinies4 ,it will be quite clear to any person who carefully considers the various supernatural occurrences recorded in the ,new ,testament that they are not all of equal evidential value4 ,the highest class of them are directly affirmed to have been performed for the purpose of attesting the divine mission of ,jesus ,christ1 and as a portion of ,his supernatural manifestation4 ,to this class belong the miracles wrought by ,himself1 and several of those performed by the ,apostles4 ,but there is another class referred to in the ,acts of the ,apostles1 of which the primary object seems to have been to awaken attention to the ,apostolic message1 though even these were not destitute of evidential value4 ,there is also another order of manifestations frequently referred to in the ,epistles1 viz41 the supernatural gifts of the ,spirit1 one of the declared purposes of which was to lay deep the foundations of the ,christian ,church4 ,as divine interpositions1 they were all to a certain extent evidential2 but it will be important to observe that there is an order of supernatural manifestations mentioned in the ,new ,testament1 whose apparent primary intention was to subserve a different purpose4 ,let it be observed therefore1 that at the introduction of ,christianity1 two distinct purposes had to be effected3 first1 to attest the truth of the revelation2 secondly1 to establish the ,church4 ,i will briefly draw attention to this latter portion of the subject1 as far as it affects certain portions of the supernatural action affirmed in the ,new ,testament4 ,i allude to a certain class of miracles1 such as the cure of the cripple at ,lystra1 those wrought by the passing of ,peter's shadow1 and by garments brought from ,paul's person1 and some others2 also to the entire class of the supernatural gifts mentioned in the ,acts of the ,apostles1 and so frequently referred to in the ,epistles4 ,one of the greatest difficulties which beset the missionary is to obtain a hearing in the midst of the hostile elements by which he is surrounded4 ,yet to obtain this is the necessary condition of carrying on his work4 ,in this respect1 the modern missionary possesses great advantages compared with the primitive missionary of ,christianity4 ,he belongs to a superior civilization1 and is therefore able to bring to bear the whole force of a higher on a lower one4 ,this was exactly reversed in the case of the primitive missionaries4 ,instead of being able to bring to bear the prestige of a high civilization on those among whom they laboured1 they belonged to a despised race2 or if the missionary himself was a member of the race whom he addressed1 he belonged to the lower sections of society4 ,how was this enormous deficiency to be supplied8 ,how was a man thus despised to obtain a hearing for the message with which he was charged8 ,the ,new ,testament affirms that the deficiency was supplied by imparting to the early ,church a certain number of supernatural endowments1 which1 when once communicated1 acted like our ordinary faculties2 also that a supernatural gift of curing certain diseases was imparted to particular individuals1 a gift which was exactly suited to obtain an attentive hearing for their message4 ,among the supernatural gifts which ,st4 ,paul affirms to have been communicated to the ,church1 there were two of which he asserts that the operation was distinct1 but which are merged in the modern idea of miracles4 ,these he designated by the expressions 1 or the inworking of powers2 and 1 endowments of healing powers4 ,the distinction in function between these powers is affirmed by him no less than three times2 what it consisted in1 we are only able to judge from the terms themselves1 and the nature of the case4 ,there is every probability that the distinction points to a higher and a lower exercise of supernatural power2 the one being the evidential miracle properly so called1 and the other a supernatural knowledge of how to effect cures--a gift which would be exactly suited to enable the missionary to obtain that attentive hearing of his message which he so urgently required4 ,the ,epistle of ,st4 ,james furnishes us with a general idea of the nature of the gift1 when he directs1 that in case a person was sick1 the elders of the ,church were to be sent for1 who were to pray over the sick man1 and anoint him with oil in the name of the ,lord2 8,and the prayer of faith10 says he1 8shall save the sick2 and the ,lord shall raise him up40 7,james v4 #ae47 ,the whole description points to a cure which1 although in a measure supernatural1 was not instantaneous2 the latter point being one which would be required to make a miracle in the proper sense of the word evidential4 ,a power of effecting cures1 however1 whether by a knowledge of natural means supernaturally acquired1 or by supernatural agency1 would be one which would obtain for the despised ,jewish missionary a hearing in ,gentile cities1 which otherwise he would be unable to obtain4 ,to such a class of supernatural operations would belong such cures as those effected by the conveyance of handkerchiefs and aprons from ,st4 ,paul's body to the sick4 ,these are only asserted to have taken place on one occasion1 at ,ephesus1 a city greatly addicted to the arts of magic4 ,they were adapted to the circumstances of the place1 where the ,apostle had to encounter a particular form of supernaturalism2 and they would have been exactly suited to meet the difficulty in question4 ,the historian tells us that the success was great1 for many of those who had used magical arts came forward and confessed their deeds1 collected together their magical books1 which were worth a considerable sum of money1 and publicly burned them4 ,the same observations apply to ,peter's shadow4 ,although the historian does not tell us that cures were wrought by it1 yet the narrative presupposes that a large outburst of supernatural power took place in connection with ,peter's person4 ,although the cure of the cripple at ,lystra belongs to a class of miracles which is strictly evidential1 yet the immediate occasion of its performance seems to have been with the view of arousing the attention of an ignorant heathen population4 ,but not only had a revelation to be communicated and attested1 not only had converts to be made and instructed1 but it was also necessary that the foundations of the ,church1 the visible kingdom of ,christ1 should be firmly laid1 and that it should be established among the visible institutions of the earth4 ,sufficient attention has not been paid to this portion of the subject in considering the question of supernatural intervention4 ,the establishment of the ,church as a visible institution1 which was intended gradually to leaven mankind with the great principles of ,his revelation1 is again and again affirmed by ,jesus ,christ to have been one of the great purposes of ,his coming4 ,a description of its character and functions forms the subject of no inconsiderable number of ,his parables1 and it is the great end and purpose for which ,he gave the great final ,apostolic commission to go and gather it together out of all the nations of the earth4 ,the ,church of ,christ had therefore to be formed into a community out of the most heterogeneous elements4 ,it was destined not for a momentary existence1 but for a continuous growth1 so as to leaven human nature with its influences4 ,the creation of such a society was a conception so bold that it had never previously entered the head of either poet or philosopher4 ,those with whom ,i am reasoning will not deny that the attempt was a very arduous1 and to all appearance a most chimerical one4 ,yet it is the most certain of facts that the ,church of ,christ is now in the nineteenth century of its existence4 ,the boldness of the undertaking will be more fully estimated when we reflect that the ,church was intended to be a society which1 while existing in the world1 should differ in its essential character from all the other societies on the earth4 ,its action was to be entirely spiritual and moral4 ,its founder intended it to be invested with no coercive powers4 ,the appeal was to be1 not to force1 but to conscience4 ,those who offered to enroll themselves as the subjects of ,christ's spiritual kingdom had to be formed into a social organization4 ,unless this could be effected1 one of the great objects for which the revelation was given must have proved a failure4 ,the elements of which it had to be composed were of the most unpromising description4 ,the first converts consisted of no small number of ,jews and proselytes1 who were extensively leavened with the narrowest prejudices of ,judaism4 ,when the ,gentiles began to join the new community1 its members were chiefly derived from the lower ranks of society1 including a considerable number of slaves4 ,the infant ,church embraced a great diversity of opinions and characters4 ,when converts were made1 the time for their instruction was short4 ,yet such an institution had to contend with mighty civilization1 the habits and prejudices of existing society1 the selfinterest of a corrupt religion1 and the opposition of a powerful government4 ,such were some of the difficulties which had to be surmounted before this new institution could be firmly planted among the existing societies of the world1 and expand itself with the life which was peculiarly its own4 ,if the primitive followers of ,jesus were animated by the credulous superstition which unbelievers delight in attributing to them1 none should be better qualified than they to form a judgment of the difficulties which must have beset their path4 ,yet these have been surmounted4 ,to this fact the vigorous life of the ,church during eighteen centuries testifies4 ,it has not only held its ground1 but it has succeeded in leavening all existing civilizations with its influences4 ,how has this been accomplished8 ,the ,apostolic ,epistles return an answer4 ,they affirm that the early converts were endowed with a number of supernatural gifts1 exactly fitted to qualify them for the various functions which they were called upon to discharge4 ,i subjoin a list of them1 as they are directly affirmed by ,st4 ,paul to be then existing in the ,corinthian ,church4 ,they were nine in number1 each of which is asserted by him to have had a distinct and separate function and subjectmatter3 the gifts of wisdom1 knowledge1 faith1 working of miracles1 endowments of healing powers1 prophecy1 discerning of spirits1 tongues1 and interpretation4 ,it does not appear whether this last is meant to be exhaustive of the supernatural mental endowments which the members of the early churches supposed themselves to possess1 or whether they were varied for the purpose of meeting particular exigences4 ,nor do ,i ask those with whom ,i am reasoning to accept this statement as a true account of an objective fact2 but only that they were supposed to be so by the ,apostle and those to whom he wrote4 ,it is plain1 however1 that these supernatural endowments1 if real1 were precisely such as the ,church was in urgent need of1 as the instrumentality for welding together the discordant elements of which it was composed1 and enabling it firmly to plant itself in the soil of human nature4 ,these supernatural gifts of the ,spirit1 with two exceptions1 produced no results on external nature4 ,they constituted enlargements of the powers of the human mind4 ,as such1 they cannot with strict propriety be said to belong to the class of evidential miracles1 although like all other supernatural operations of which ,god is the ,author1 they cannot fail to be indirectly evidential4 ,it is important to observe that they belong to a separate class of supernatural phenomena1 which were as necessary in reference to the ,christian revelation1 contemplating as it did the institution of a divine society1 as the order of supernatural manifestations which directly attested the divine mission of ,jesus ,christ and ,his ,apostles4 ,if this was their end and purpose we can understand why they were withdrawn at a very early period1 before they could be submitted to the tests of our modern savants4 ,they were given for a special purpose1 and they were withdrawn when they had accomplished it4 ,the ,apostle who affirms their existence asserts that they were not intended permanently to continue in the ,church4 ,there is one more allegation which is occasionally urged against the miracles of the ,new ,testament1 and which ,i must briefly consider4 ,it is alleged that pious frauds have been very general in all ages of ,christian history2 that many good men have not hesitated to participate in them2 and that literary forgeries were very abundant in the first ages of ,christianity1 and were even common in the days of the ,apostles4 ,it is insinuated that this state of mind throws great suspicion on the alleged miracles of the apostolic age4 ,as the charge of pious fraud is not made against ,jesus himself or his immediate followers1 it is difficult to meet so indefinite an objection4 ,it seems to be put in to add force to others1 rather than for its intrinsic value4 ,modern unbelievers express a nearly unanimous concurrence in endeavouring to account for the miracles of the ,new ,testament1 by assuming that the followers of ,jesus were the victims of the most intense enthusiasm1 superstition1 and credulity4 ,it is difficult to comprehend1 on the assumption that the existence of the supernatural portions of the ,new ,testament is due to these causes1 how direct fraud could have anything to do with the concoction of these miraculous stories4 ,intense enthusiasm and fanaticism1 and deliberate fraud1 are usually opposite poles of character2 and if we call in one to account for these miracles1 we must exclude the other from exerting an influence on their origination4 ,to make the charge of any avail against the narratives of the ,gospel1 it is necessary not to prove that pious frauds were common in the second1 third1 or fourth century1 or even in the first1 but to establish directly either that ,jesus professed to work miracles while ,he knew that they were not such1 or that ,his followers deliberately invented a number of miraculous stories and attributed them to ,him1 well knowing that ,he had performed none4 ,the charge that the miracles of the ,new ,testament originated in enthusiasm and credulity is a definite one1 and can be definitely met4 ,so is the one that they originated in deliberate fraud4 ,so would be the charge that the innocent followers of ,jesus were imposed upon by fraudulent impostors4 ,but to combine the charge of intense enthusiasm and credulity with that of conscious fraud1 is a mode of reasoning which contains the grounds of its own refutation4 ,it is no doubt a fact1 that the practice of literary forgery was not unknown to the early ages of ,christianity4 ,st4 ,paul seems to have thought that there were in the world impostors daring enough to attempt to forge a letter in his name1 and to try to foist it on the churches which he had planted1 as a genuine production4 ,but the existence of such impostors has no bearing whatever on the question whether the miracles recorded in the ,new ,testament are facts or fiction4 ,did not ,st4 ,paul himself assert that he had performed miracles8 ,was he an impostor8 ,did he not believe that ,jesus ,christ in veritable reality rose from the dead8 ,what have such beliefs to do with the existence of a set of daring literary impostors8 ,happily1 however1 the whole of this class of ancient writers were utter bunglers in the art of fictitious composition4 ,it is a universal characteristic of them1 that they were entirely unable to throw themselves into the spirit of former times1 or of the persons whose names they assumed4 ,in their references to history1 geography1 manners1 customs1 and character1 they lay themselves open at almost every point to certain detection4 ,there is good reason for believing that no forger or writer of fiction in the ancient world has succeeded in his art4 ,in investing fiction with apparent probability1 the modern world has completely outstript the ancient4 ,still1 however1 even in the most perfect works1 when the fictions are extended over a wide sphere of action1 no amount of genius will protect a writer from leaving some weak point unguarded4 ,it is probably not too much to say that neither in ancient nor modern times1 has a fictitious work or a forgery been able to maintain its ground against the apparatus which can be brought to bear on it by a sound and rational criticism4 ,most of the other objections which are adduced against the miracles of the ,new ,testament have been answered in principle under the foregoing heads4 ,i must now adduce some of the most important considerations which prove them to have been historical facts4 ,,chapter ,,xvii4 ,,the ,,historical ,,evidence ,,on ,,which ,,the ,,great ,,facts ,,of ,,christianity ,,rest--,,general ,,considerations4 ,it has been urged by opponents1 that the defenders of historical ,christianity rest content with endeavouring to prove that miracles are possible or probable2 but that they neglect an allimportant part of their duty1 viz43 that of adducing historical proof that miracles have been actually performed4 ,if the fact is as here stated1 there can be no doubt that works which profess to discuss the subject of miracles1 and omit to give a clear statement of the chief points of the evidence which can be adduced to prove that they have actually occurred1 must be unsatisfactory4 ,to answer the objections which are urged to prove that miracles are impossible1 or which affirm on general principles that all evidence in their favour is unworthy of credit1 is an essential preliminary to the consideration of the historical evidence which can be adduced to prove their actual occurrence4 ,but to afford proof1 that as facts they rest upon an adequate attestation1 is the essential duty of every one who asserts their reality4 ,to this portion of the work ,i will now proceed to address myself4 ,what then is the position occupied by the ,christian advocate8 ,is it requisite in order to establish the truth of ,christianity1 that he should give an historical proof of everyone of the miracles recorded in the ,new ,testament8 ,i answer this question emphatically in the negative1 and for the following reason4 ,the ,new ,testament itself1 while it affirm that many miracles have been performed1 rests the truth of ,christianity on one miracle alone1 the ,resurrection of ,jesus ,christ from the dead4 ,this is the great event which1 according to the ,acts of the ,apostles1 the early missionaries urged as the distinctive proof of their ,master's divine mission4 ,the views expressed in the ,apostolic ,epistles are precisely similar4 ,in them1 the entire evidence of the truth of our ,lord's divine mission is made to centre in the fact of ,his resurrection4 ,not only is the great fact referred to either directly or indirectly in almost every page1 but ,st4 ,paul has distinctly rested the truth of ,christianity on the reality of its occurrence4 ,such a statement is made respecting no other miraculous event recorded in the ,new ,testament4 ,it is the miracle of miracles1 unique and alone1 by which the seal of ,god was affixed to the divine mission of ,jesus ,christ4 ,it formed the locus standi of the ,church1 and the sole ground of its existence4 ,if it was not an objective fact1 those who testified to its occurrence must have been false witnesses1 and the whole of ,christianity either a delusion or an imposture4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that this great miracle forms the very key of the ,christian position4 ,everything else is an outwork1 an important one it may be1 but yet an outwork4 ,if this position can be successfully assailed1 the entire fortress of ,christianity must surrender at discretion4 ,if1 on the other hand1 the most determined unbeliever could be convinced that there is good historical evidence that ,jesus ,christ rose from the dead1 he would find no difficulty in accepting the ,gospels as historical documents1 and the whole priori objection against them would disappear4 ,again3 ,if the ,resurrection of ,christ is a fact1 ,christianity must be a divine revelation4 ,the perfect historical accuracy of the ,gospels in minute details may be still open to question2 deep thought and careful investigation may be necessary for ascertaining the precise amount of truth communicated by that revelation2 past ages may have erred in its interpretation1 or in their deductions from it2 many questions as to the relation in which revelation stands to science or history may be open ones--all this is both conceivable and possible--but still1 if ,jesus ,christ rose from the dead1 his entire manifestation1 work1 and teaching1 must be a communication from ,god to man4 ,this then is my position4 ,the real question stands within very narrow limits4 ,the miracle that requires strong historical proof is the ,resurrection4 ,the other supernatural occurrences recorded in the ,gospels are important portions of the revelation made by ,christ4 ,they were important evidences to those who witnessed them4 ,but to us in these latter times the one great question is3 ,is the ,resurrection capable of being established as an actual occurrence8 ,if it is1 it will carry with it all the others4 ,if it is not1 the proof of the others will fall along with it4 ,let us examine the historical conditions of the case4 ,christianity differs from all other religions in professing not to consist of a mass of abstract dogmatic statements1 but to be founded on1 and largely to consist of1 a number of historical facts4 ,there are unquestionably a considerable number of dogmatic statements in the pages of the ,new ,testament2 but they profess to grow out of the facts and to be explanations of them4 ,the facts form1 so to say1 the essence of the religion4 ,the ,christianity of the ,new ,testament is a growth which encircles itself around the person of its founder in a manner in which no other system of thought or religion1 which has existed among men1 has ever done4 ,if we take the person of ,jesus ,christ out of the ,new ,testament1 the whole system of its teaching crumbles into nothingness4 ,if we remove the person of its founder from every other system of human thought--its great religions form no exception--the system remains intact4 ,this is a very striking peculiarity in ,christianity4 ,in this respect it stands absolutely unique4 ,but as ,christianity is founded on an historical person1 who lived in a particular age1 so ,he is the founder of a great historical institution1 the ,christian ,church4 ,this institution differs from every other society which has ever existed1 in that both its origination and its continued existence are inextricably bound up with the person of its founder4 ,other societies could exist even if it could be proved that their reputed founders were creations of the imagination2 but this would be fatal to the life of the ,church of ,christ4 ,if it could be proved that ,jesus ,christ was a myth1 or nothing but a learned ,rabbi1 the ,christian ,church1 mighty society as it is1 would certainly collapse4 ,the ,christian ,church without ,christ would be far more out of place than the play of ,hamlet with the part of ,hamlet omitted4 ,in this respect it is a institution unique among all those which the world has ever seen1 whether political or religious4 ,this great society1 which now comprehends a vast majority of the intelligence of mankind1 and all the progressive nations of the world1 had a definite beginning in historical times4 ,it differs wholly from a philosophic sect1 whose bond of union consists in the acceptance of a body of dogmatic teaching4 ,it is and ever has been an organized society with specific purposes and aims1 and one which has ever meditated schemes of conquest4 ,it differs widely from all political institutions1 and yet ever since its birth it has taken a place beside them4 ,the origin of this society is not lost1 like that of many others1 in the mists of the hoary past4 ,history enables us to assign a definite time when this society was certainly not in existence4 ,it no less definitely marks out a period when it not only was in existence1 but had entered on a condition of active growth4 ,its origin did not take place in the cloud land of the mythic or the semimythic period of history1 but in the reign of ,tiberius ,csar1 and in a country occupied by ,roman garrisons1 and presided over by ,roman governors4 ,it will be objected that our only accounts of the causes which led to the organization of this society are writings composed by its own members4 ,in this there is nothing peculiar2 for until societies have grown sufficiently powerful to attract the attention of the world outside them1 there can be no other source of information4 ,still the fact can be ascertained on the most unquestionable authority1 that at a certain date this society was not in existence1 and that within a certain number of years afterwards1 it was not only in existence1 but rapidly increasing2 and that it originated in ,jesus ,christ1 who was put to death by the ,roman government4 ,this society1 therefore1 came into existence at a definite period of time4 ,its early writers give us an account of how it originated4 ,they affirm that its founder was ,jesus ,christ2 and that1 having been interrupted by ,his death1 it was called into a new existence by ,his resurrection4 ,to this great event they most positively affirm that the origin of the ,church1 as an institution1 was due4 ,to the belief in it as a fact1 it has certainly owed its gradual enlargement1 until it has attained its present dimensions after more than eighteen centuries of existence4 ,to this belief is due the great moral power which it has exercised on mankind2 and if its members could be persuaded that the belief in the ,resurrection of its founder was a mere delusion1 great as this society is1 it would certainly perish4 ,there are five facts connected with the origin of this society1 which no one who believes in the possibility of historic truth will dispute4 ,first3 ,that at the year ,a4,d4 #be1 this society had no existence4 ,secondly3 ,that in ,a4,d4 #dj1 it was in a state of vigorous growth4 ,thirdly3 ,that it was founded by ,jesus ,christ4 ,fourthly3 ,that ,his crucifixion by the ,roman government caused its temporary collapse4 ,fifthly3 ,that an event of some kind1 which took place shortly after ,his death1 imparted to it a new vitality1 which it has never lost to the present hour1 and which has caused it to exert a mightier influence on mankind than any other community1 whether political or religious1 that has ever existed4 ,the problem1 therefore1 which history has to solve1 is to account for the renewed life1 the marvellous progress1 the intense vitality of this society1 and the mighty influence which it has exerted on the destinies of mankind2 originating as it did in the smallest possible beginnings1 and in a manner differing from all other existing institutions4 ,the ,christian ,church has propounded1 from the first commencement of its renewed life1 its own solution of this problem4 ,it is3 that its founder1 after having been crucified1 rose again from the dead4 ,this account has this clear and obvious advantage1 that if it be true1 it sufficiently accounts for all the phenomena whose existence we have to solve4 ,his resurrection was a power adequate to revive the society after its temporary collapse1 to impart to it its mighty moral and spiritual energy1 and to impress on the original work and teaching of ,jesus1 a new and peculiar aspect4 ,in short1 assuming the ,resurrection to have been a fact1 it assigns a cause adequate to account for all the phenomena which have been presented by the ,church4 ,here then we have firm ground on which to take our stand2 viz41 the belief of this society as to its origin1 capable of being traced historically to the first hour of its renewed life1 and which also1 if true1 affords a rational account of it4 ,but further2 besides this account which the ,church has given of its own origin1 there is no rival account of it in existence4 ,as far as historical documents are concerned1 there is no other4 ,all others are founded on conjecture4 ,our opponents1 however1 affirm that the alleged fact which the ,church asserts to have been the cause of its existence is incredible1 because all miracles are impossible4 ,then1 leaving priori grounds1 they also affirm that the evidence to prove the ,resurrection to have been an historical fact is insufficient for the purpose4 ,the ,church1 however1 is clearly in possession of a vantageground1 from which it is not easy to dislodge her4 ,the cause which she alleges is adequate to account for all the phenomena4 ,the onus probandi therefore clearly rests on the opponents of ,christianity4 ,if they deny the truth of the fact which the ,church has ever handed down as the true account of her origin1 they are bound not only to show that it is devoid of historical attestation1 but to propound a theory which will adequately account for all the facts to which history testifies4 ,it is clear that nothing short of this is required of them as philosophical historians4 ,certain facts are plain and undeniable4 ,a society1 of a very special character1 sprang into existence at a definite point of history1 and has exerted a mightier influence than any other on the destinies of man4 ,if therefore they reject the account which the ,church herself gives1 they are bound to supply a rational account of how this great society came into being2 how the phenomena which constitute its history have been brought about2 and what it was that imparted to it its vitality and power4 ,we are in the presence of the greatest institution with which history is acquainted1 founded as it is on the greatest ideal conception 7if it is not historical7 which the human mind has ever succeeded in inventing4 ,both these came into existence1 not in pre historic times1 but in the midst of a period of contemporaneous history4 ,respecting the times1 the modes of thought1 and the general character of the period1 we have extensive historical data4 ,the religious1 moral1 and philosophical opinions1 and the general line of thought1 are well known4 ,the various forces which were then in activity we are able to appreciate4 ,with all these data before him1 it is incumbent on the philosophical historian to give us an account of the moral and religious forces in activity at this period1 which were capable of creating the ,christian ,church1 and generating its conception of the ideal ,christ4 ,if it is alleged that after the utmost investigation it is impossible to account for their origin by the action of any known moral or spiritual forces acting on the human mind1 this would be at once to confess that the origin of ,christianity and the ,church is entirely abnormal1 or in other words1 that it is a moral and spiritual miracle4 ,to do unbelievers justice1 they have not been slow to recognize the fact that if they reject the account which the ,church has given of its origin1 they are bound to give us a rational one of how ,christianity came into existence4 ,accordingly1 theory after theory has been propounded on this subject4 ,no intellectual exertion has been spared to point out how ,christianity and the ,church have succeeded in getting into existence1 and in effecting their religious and moral conquests1 by forces purely human1 and without the aid of any supernatural intervention4 ,one thing respecting these theories is worthy of particular attention4 ,no unbeliever has as yet been able to suggest one which has succeeded in commanding1 ,i will not say the universal1 but even the general assent of the unbelieving world4 ,theory after theory has been propounded and abandoned4 ,it is therefore clear that the difficulty of accounting for the origin of ,christianity and the ,church through the action of the ordinary forces that operate on the human mind1 is extreme4 ,there is no analogous case in the whole history of man4 ,let me briefly enumerate the chief principles which have been invoked to aid in the solution of this problem4 ,first1 it has been attempted to get rid of the supernatural elements contained in the ,gospels by representing them as distorted representations of real facts4 ,this has been justly abandoned as childish4 ,then came the mythic and legendary theories4 ,these1 having been found inadequate1 have been supplemented by various theories of development of ideas2 and the supposition of a violent party spirit existing in the ,church1 which under the influence of a spirit of accommodation produced various compromises2 a mass of varied and often contending opinions seething in the bosom of a society continually threatened with disruption1 until they somehow succeeded in welding themselves together2 enthusiasm1 fanaticism1 boundless credulity1 aided by a prodigious power of mythic and legendary invention1 and whenever occasion so required1 the presence of a moral atmosphere1 which on great emergencies did not shrink from deliberate imposture4 ,all these1 in ever varying degrees and proportions1 have been pressed into the service of creating the ,church1 the ideal ,christ1 and the ,christianity of the ,new ,testament4 ,it is impossible in a work like the present to examine these various theories1 and show their inadequacy as philosophical explanations of the fact4 ,this ,i have already done in a former work17#e7 to which ,i must refer the reader for their refutation4 ,a few observations only will be necessary in this place4 ,first3 ,the positions taken by unbelievers are theories1 which rest on the smallest basis of historical evidence4 ,i readily admit that where there is a known fact1 but the recollection of the events which would give an account of its origin has perished1 if a theory can be propounded which fully accounts for the fact1 then it has a right to take its place as an historical event which rests on evidence of the highest probability4 ,an example derived from the mode in which the study of comparative philology discloses the history of the past will explain my meaning4 ,we have before us the facts of language4 ,the history of those who formerly used it has perished2 the accounts of their migrations have nowhere been preserved4 ,but certain facts of comparative philology justify the assumption that certain primitive races of men must have migrated in particular directions4 ,these assumed migrations are really a theory1 but one which is exactly adequate to account for the facts which language unquestionably presents4 ,thus the facts of the ,indo,germanic languages justify the assumption that in the prehistoric ages1 migrations westward must have taken place1 of which history contains no record4 ,still the theory affords so perfect an explanation of the facts1 that the occurrence of the migrations is as certain as if they had been recorded by contemporaneous writers4 ,on similar grounds it has been inferred with a degree of probability so high as to be equal to certainty1 that a language earlier than the ,sanskrit1 and from which both it and the ,indo,germanic family of languages have been derived1 was spoken by a previous race4 ,investigations of this kind are largely adding to our historical knowledge4 ,let us observe the basis on which such arguments rest4 ,in all these cases we have before us not mere conjectures1 but a distinct and positive fact1 or set of facts4 ,the connecting links are missing4 ,by the aid of conjecture we propound a theory2 or in other words1 we suppose a set of events to have occurred1 which1 if they really happened1 would be adequate to account for the facts in question4 ,when they thus account for them1 and for them alone1 and no other conjectural occurrence will do so1 the assumed fact is fully entitled to take its place in history as an event which has actually happened4 ,the reason of this is1 that it can stand the test of historical verification4 ,a problem similar to that above referred to is the one which those who deny the historical truth of the ,gospels are called upon to solve4 ,we are in the presence of certain unquestionable historical facts1 viz41 the five above referred to1 and many others4 ,the denial of the truth of the ,christian account leaves them without the connecting link which once united them4 ,what was that link8 ,it can only be supplied by conjecture4 ,but to enable such a conjectural fact or facts to take rank as historical events1 they must be adequate to account for the facts1 and be true to human nature1 and to the circumstances of the case2 in other words1 they must be capable of enduring a rigid historical verification4 ,theories which cannot endure this are no better than ropes of sand4 ,this is the character of the theories which have been propounded to account for the ,christianity of the ,new ,testament4 ,let me illustrate this by one of the favourite theories used by unbelievers for this purpose4 ,we are told that a number of extremely hostile factions divided the primitive ,church4 ,of these the followers of ,james1 ,peter1 and ,paul may be taken as fairly representative4 ,these were in a state of great hostility to each other1 and went on gradually elaborating a ,christianity that was in conformity with their own views and tastes4 ,after a while it occurred to these hostile parties that it would be advantageous to compromise their differences4 ,an influential person1 such as we may suppose the author of the ,acts of the ,apostles to have been1 composed a history1 for the purpose of making matters smooth1 and to afford a common ground of union among the contending factions4 ,this process was repeated as often as was necessary2 and in good time1 by the aid of myth and legend1 and the whole of the needful apparatus1 appeared the ,christianity of the ,new ,testament1 and the ,church was consolidated out of these varied elements4 ,such theories grievously offend against the logic of history1 and are in direct variance with the facts of human life4 ,we are here in the midst of a whole mass of conjectural facts1 each of which is imagined to account for the existence of the other2 and the whole of them taken together fail to give an adequate solution of the phenomena before us4 ,they are both untrue to human nature and unable to account for either the facts of ,christianity or the existence of the ,church4 ,i must content myself with selecting one of them for illustration4 ,we are asked to believe that the ,church was divided into a number of parties1 the opposition between whom was violent2 and that these effected a number of compromises1 out of which was ultimately evolved a common ,christianity4 ,this result is in direct contradiction to the testimony of the religious history of man4 ,religious parties do not effect compromises1 but go on contending and widening their differences1 until their enthusiasm wears out and they die of inanition4 ,to this the history of all sects bears ample testimony1 and the greater the enthusiasm and not unfrequently the lesser the grounds of difference1 the greater the animosity4 ,compromises between hostile sects1 in the rare cases in which they have taken place1 have been brought about by means of external coercion4 ,the religious history of mankind presents no example of furious religious parties1 while animated by a living enthusiasm1 voluntarily coalescing on the general principle of compromise4 ,witness the unsuccessful attempts at compromise between the ,eastern and ,western ,churches1 even when it was urged by the strongest external pressure4 ,witness the sects which grew out of the ,reformation4 ,compromises have frequently originated among politicians1 but these have in vain tried their healing influences among contending sects4 ,occasionally they have been brought about by the aid of pressure exerted by the temporal power1 as in the ,church of ,england4 ,nothing more strongly illustrates the difficulty with which compromise between religious parties can be effected than the failure of the attempts to reconcile the ,church of ,england and the ,methodists4 ,the compromiser who will effect this union exists only in the hopes of the future4 ,but we need not confine ourselves to the manifestations of sectarian spirit in connection with ,christianity4 ,the ,mahometan ,church is also divided by sectarian differences4 ,is there any tendency to produce a common ,mahometanism1 erected on the basis of compromise8 ,do ,buddhism and ,brahminism show any disposition to compromise their differences by fusing them into a common ,pantheism which shall suit both parties8 ,the idea of producing a ,christianity by a succession of happy compromises entered into by violently hostile parties in the early ,church1 is a dream which1 however plausible it may have seemed in the closet1 is rudely dissipated the moment we come in contact with the stern realities of life4 ,but further3 the wide separation of the early ,churches from each other2 and1 according to the opinions of those against whom ,i am reasoning1 their want of a governing power acknowledged by all1 must have rendered agreement on the basis of mutual compromise impossible4 ,compromises are the results of considerations of policy1 and are unheard of among fanatics1 such as my opponents assert the early followers of ,jesus to have been4 ,but what further renders this theory untenable is1 that it is compelled to imagine a number of developments accompanied by corresponding compromises between hostile parties1 before we can succeed in evolving the ,christianity of the ,new ,testament4 ,not only does it contradict the history of man2 not only is it an assumption made to form the connecting link between other established facts1 but it is itself founded on other assumptions4 ,among these are the assertions made as to the evidence of the party spirit existing in the ,church1 and the opposition between its leaders4 ,party spirit we know to have existed1 but not with the violence which this theory is compelled to postulate4 ,the statement also that the doctrinal opposition between these parties was of so declared a type is not founded on the evidence that we possess1 but on a highly exaggerated view of it1 distorted for the purpose of adding strength to the theory2 or1 in other words1 it is founded on a set of unwarranted assumptions4 ,the passages in the ,new ,testament alleged to prove the declared opposition between the leaders of the ,church1 which this theory is compelled to pre suppose1 can only be made to do so by taking it for granted that they do4 ,for example1 the assertion that the person denounced in the ,epistles to the ,seven ,churches in the book of ,revelation1 is ,st4 ,paul1 is a simply gratuitous one1 the only evidence for which is the will and pleasure of those who make it4 ,the theory1 therefore1 not only contradicts the history of man1 but is based upon a number of alleged facts which are either absolute assumptions or exaggerations1 and fail to give any account of the origin of ,christianity which will stand the test of the scrutiny of a sound philosophy4 ,the mythic and legendary theories are equally unable to account for the facts as they stand in the ,new ,testament4 ,i cannot here attempt to follow them in their innumerable windings4 ,taken by themselves they are not now accepted as adequate accounts of them1 but other theories are called in to aid them4 ,still1 whatever assistance these are supposed to impart1 myth and legend must always hold a prominent place in the systems of those who endeavour to account for the origin of the ,gospels on purely human principles4 ,as they contain a large supernatural element1 it is certain that if this is not historical1 it must have originated in some species of fiction1 i4e4 either in the mythic and legendary spirit1 or in pure invention4 ,hence the use of myths and legends must always be freely invoked by those who1 while they deny the historical character of the ,gospels1 do not go to the length of accusing the original followers of ,jesus of deliberate invention4 ,i must here draw attention to one particular portion of the evidence1 the full significance of which ,i have described elsewhere4 ,whatever opinions may be formed as to the unhistorical character of the ,gospels1 there is one fact respecting them as to which believers and unbelievers must alike agree1 namely that they contain a delineation of the most perfect conception ever formed by the mind of man1 the character of ,jesus ,christ4 ,there it is1 beyond the power of contradiction2 the overwhelming majority of men possessed of the most powerful minds have recognized it as the greatest of ideals1 as well as the millions of ordinary men to whom it has been the object of supreme admiration and attraction4 ,the following questions respecting it therefore urgently demand an answer4 ,if the ,gospels are a mere collection of mythic and legendary stories1 generated and put together in the manner affirmed by those who deny their historical character1 how got this great character there8 ,if the fables of which they are composed are the inventions of many minds1 whence its unity8 ,if their inventors were credulous enthusiasts and fanatics1 whence its perfection8 ,if they were implicated in all the superstitions of the age1 whence its moral elevation8 ,of what order of thought then existing is it the embodiment8 ,how could the credulity which was necessary for the acceptance of such fictions1 or how could the spirit which invented them1 have conceived these moral elements8 ,there the character is--let us be distinctly informed how it was put together2 how much of it is fact1 and how much fiction2 how the fictions were welded together with the facts so as to compose the whole2 and what class or order of minds in the early ,church was equal to its elaboration4 ,this delineation must have been made at an early period1 and could not have been a late invention2 for it is substantially the same as that contained in those ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul1 which are acknowledged to have been written within thirty years of the date of the ,crucifixion4 ,a distinct answer to these questions is demanded of those who affirm that the ,gospels have no value as histories4 ,it is impossible to deny that they have a most important bearing on the present question4 ,why do not unbelievers set themselves to grapple with this problem8 ,but the value to be assigned to the ,gospels as histories must be a matter for subsequent consideration4 ,at present ,i need simply draw attention to the fact that while the opponents of ,christianity fully recognize the necessity of propounding a rational theory of its origin1 the more we examine their various theories in detail1 the more apparent becomes their inadequacy to account for the phenomena4 ,the fact1 already alluded to1 that unbelievers cannot come to any agreement among themselves on this subject1 shows that they find the problem extremely difficult of solution4 ,the plausibility of their theories is due to the abstract and general form in which they are presented4 ,various causes are held up without any discrimination as to what each of them is capable of effecting2 and the wishedfor result is ascribed to their combined action4 ,but when we analyse the various forces at their command1 ascertain the mode of their action1 the difficulties they would have to encounter before they could effectuate their results1 and examine whether they are true to the facts of human nature as testified to by the long course of history1 it is not too much to affirm that all the investigations of unbelievers have completely failed to give an account of the origin of ,christianity which can take the place of that handed down to us by the ,church4 ,until this can be given1 notwithstanding all the expenditure of intellect on the question1 we are justified in affirming that the problem is insoluble1 although ,christianity originated in a period unquestionably historical1 in the midst of the ,roman ,empire over which it rapidly spread1 despite the opposition of the government and the entire organization of society4 ,before proceeding to the direct considerations by which the great fact of ,christianity is attested1 ,i must take a general glance at the nature of the materials which we have at our command1 and at their historical value4 ,i shall take as my startingpoint the five facts already mentioned1 the historical certainty of which it is needless to prove4 ,my startingpoint1 therefore1 is the continuous existence of the ,church1 which came into being at a definite period of time1 to which it can be traced up in one unbroken succession4 ,this society has always affirmed that its corporate existence1 as well as the life of its individual members1 is due to the ,resurrection of its founder4 ,i shall also carefully examine and estimate the contemporaneous evidence afforded by the ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul1 especially those which are acknowledged to be genuine1 as well as that of the other writings of the ,new ,testament1 for the purpose of estimating the value of their testimony on this subject4 ,even if some of these writings are not allowed by unbelievers to be the productions of the persons whose names they bear1 still they are all of a very early date1 and unquestionably reflect the thoughts and ideas of those who wrote them1 and of the persons to whom they are addressed4 ,but before ,i enter on my immediate subject1 it will be necessary to lay down the leading principles of historical evidence1 and to estimate the value of tradition as a testimony to historical facts4 ,i am fully prepared to abide by the chief principles laid down by ,sir ,g4 ,c4 ,lewis on this subject in his great work on the ,credibility of ,early ,roman ,history4 ,they are generally considered to be sufficiently severe and exacting4 ,by many they are viewed as of far too stringent a character4 ,the evidence on which the great fact of the ,resurrection rests1 will endure their most rigid application4 ,they have this great advantage1 that they are laid down for the investigation of a subject purely secular1 with which religion has nothing to do4 ,they are therefore wholly free from religious bias1 and are simply the principles for testing the claims of ordinary facts on our belief4 ,if the chief facts of ,christianity can stand this scrutiny1 it is impossible to affirm that they are not supported by the strongest historical testimony4 #a4 ,every alleged fact1 in order to be entitled to our belief1 must be shown to rest on direct contemporaneous testimony1 or that which is its historical equivalent4 ,this rule is by no means intended to affirm that every fact for which contemporaneous testimony can be adduced is true2 but only that it is to be accepted as such when there is no reason for disbelieving it4 ,we must have some means to enable us to form a judgment of the knowledge and veracity of the informant4 ,it remains for consideration1 when the direct testimony of a contemporary is not to be had1 as must be frequently the case with events long past1 what may be considered as its historical equivalent8 ,it must be kept in mind that one of the most valuable forms of contemporaneous testimony1 if not the most valuable of all1 is a set of letters which contain various and definite allusions to the current events1 habits1 and modes of thought of the time4 ,for certain purposes these are far more valuable than formal histories4 ,the latter are frequently written under the influence of party spirit1 partiality1 or bias4 ,the writer of a history is usually on his guard1 has carefully considered what he says1 and affords us but little opportunity of interrogating him4 ,but the writer of a letter1 unless he has special reasons for being guarded1 places before his correspondent his entire mind4 ,we are therefore capable of interrogating him4 ,he often lets us into the secret causes of events4 ,he also makes a number of incidental allusions to events which are passing4 ,these form testimony of a most valuable kind4 ,we can in a manner almost converse with him4 ,as a confirmation of the facts which formal histories narrate1 and as letting us into the secret springs of events1 a series of letters1 written by persons who were actively engaged in them1 are historical documents of the highest order4 ,their value is increased when they bear all the appearance of coming from the writer's heart4 ,nothing is more striking than the happy results which have accrued from the extensive use made by modern historians of original correspondence4 ,it is not too much to say that it has largely modified our view of events1 as they have been reported in formal histories4 ,another very high form of contemporaneous testimony is the existence of institutions and monuments which can be certainly traced up to a particular period1 and which owed their existence to events of that period4 ,these form a species of living witnesses to the truth of the facts out of which they have originated1 and as far as their testimony goes1 it is incapable of falsehood4 ,the most valuable testimony of this kind is a great institution of which we possess definite evidence that it originated in a particular event1 or in the belief of it4 ,this kind of evidence ,christianity possesses in the highest form1 in the continued existence of that great institution1 the ,christian ,church4 #b4 ,testimony has a general credibility1 subject of course to the knowledge and honesty of the informant1 when the reports are derived from those who lived during the generation in which a particular event occurred1 supposing it to have been one of sufficient notoriety to attract attention1 and that the reporter possessed adequate means of information1 and investigated it with sufficient care4 ,we are always justified in assuming that he tells the truth unless there are reasons for suspecting the contrary4 #c4 ,narratives of events which a man has heard from his father or his contemporaries1 but which happened before his own recollection1 are for the purpose of history1 7but subject to the requisite qualifications7 fair representations of contemporaneous testimony4 ,history admits hearsay testimony under proper restrictions4 ,the knowledge of the past would be impossible1 if it were to allow itself to be fettered by the technical rules which have been introduced into the administration of justice4 ,the allimportant considerations with the historian1 are the notoriety of the fact and the truthfulness of the informant4 ,facts that a man may have heard detailed by his grandfather or his contemporaries as having happened in their time stand as representations of contemporaneous testimony in the same position as those derived from the earlier generation4 #d4 ,but when a third stage is interposed in the transmission of events1 as for instance when we learn from our fathers or grandfathers what they have learnt from theirs1 an element of uncertainty is introduced4 ,still an historian1 writing after such an interval of time1 if he sifted evidence with care1 would be able to report with accuracy all the great events1 whatever difficulty he might have in ascertaining the minor details4 ,within this period abundance of sources of accurate information exist on all points of importance1 although the details gradually fade out of people's recollections4 ,after this interval1 the accounts of events are likely to receive a certain amount of colouring1 according to the prejudices of the narrators2 but the interval is too short1 and the remembrance of them too recent1 to allow of their becoming incrusted with important mythical additions4 ,all the materials for investigation are in existence1 and within the reach of the honest historian4 ,he might find difficulty in arranging the details in historical sequence2 but if he does not give an accurate account of the great outlines1 it is owing1 not to the want of historical materials1 but to the absence of a desire to investigate and report the truth4 #e4 ,the limits of time during which tradition can be considered as a sufficiently accurate medium for preserving the memory of events1 may be put generally at from one hundred to one hundred and twenty years4 ,within this period careful investigation and inquiry will enable the historian to report the main features of events with substantial truth1 from the testimony of those who were contemporaries1 or who derived their information from those who were4 ,beyond this period1 when the knowledge of occurrences has to pass through three or four media of transmission1 tradition becomes an uncertain and untrustworthy informant1 and after the lapse of a greater interval1 it is utterly unreliable1 affording no means of checking the introduction of legendary narratives4 ,there may be a few exceptional cases which have impressed themselves deeply on the public recollection4 ,occasionally the protracted lives of a few individuals may lengthen the period of trustworthy transmission1 but this is an event of such rare occurrence as but slightly to modify the general rule4 ,it must be observed that there are two cases in which the traditional knowledge of events is transmitted with far more accuracy1 and over far longer intervals of time than in ordinary ones1 viz41 those of families which have an historical importance derived from the actions of their ancestors1 and those of bodies of men who have a kind of corporate life1 succeeding one another in unbroken succession1 especially when this corporate life is founded on the events themselves4 ,this latter case presents the means best adapted for the traditionary transmission of facts1 and one in which it is hardly possible that they should fail of being accurately transmitted within a reasonable interval of time4 ,this was precisely the position occupied by the ,christian ,church during the first century of its existence respecting the chief events in the life of its founder4 ,an example will illustrate this3 ,if there had been no written memorials of the life of ,john ,wesley1 there can be no doubt that the society which he founded would have handed down to the present day an account of the chief events of his life1 which would have been accurate in its main outlines4 ,thousands of persons are now living who have conversed with those who have heard him preach2 ,i myself have done so4 ,it would therefore be impossible to impose upon them a wholly mythic account in place of that which would have been handed down by the ,wesleyan body4 ,yet this society is founded on a set of dogmas1 not on the historical facts of its founder's life4 ,the ,christian ,church therefore was in a far superior position for preserving a substantially accurate account of the chief events in the life of ,jesus ,christ1 yet the interval which separates us from the death of ,wesley is greater than that which elapsed between the death of ,christ1 and the publication of the latest of the ,synoptic ,gospels1 even if we accept the dates which are assigned to them by our opponents4 #f4 ,when the knowledge of past events has perished1 it is impossible to re construct them by the aid of conjecture1 except within the limits to which ,i have previously alluded4 ,these limits must be strictly defined1 otherwise that which is propounded as history becomes nothing else than a statement of our subjective impressions4 ,conjectures which cannot stand the test of historical verification cannot be accepted as facts of history4 ,nothing is easier than1 when facts are wanting1 to invent them1 and thus bridge over the intervals which lie between others1 the connecting links of which have perished4 ,but how are we to know that such conjectural events were real facts1 and not mere creations of the imagination8 ,clearly this can be determined in no other way than by subjecting them to a rigid verification4 ,if they will not endure this1 they must be rejected4 ,historical conjectures have no higher claims for acceptance than scientific ones4 ,both must be subject to the same tests1 and must share the same fate4 ,i do not deny that many such conjectures may have a considerable degree of plausibility2 but1 unless we rigidly reject from the rank of historic facts those that break down under the test of verification1 histories will be converted into novels or poems4 ,if our knowledge of the connecting links between events in the history of the past has perished1 we shall not improve it by imagining facts1 and calling the result by the name of history4 ,we cannot be too guarded in this particular subject1 because an almost boundless license has been introduced into the present controversy4 ,pure creations of the imagination1 which it is impossible to verify1 are constantly propounded as facts in the history of the past4 ,i by no means wish to deny that both parties must plead guilty to the charge of this species of historical forgery4 ,the fact may be unpleasant1 but we shall do no good by refusing to recognize it4 ,when the knowledge of past events has perished1 and our conjectures break down under the test of verification1 we have nothing to do but to remain content with our ignorance4 ,if these principles are correct1 a considerable number of recently published lives of ,jesus1 and other similar compositions1 have no claim to the designation of historical writings4 ,they are mere novels evolved out of the selfconsciousness of their authors4 ,they are nothing but simple imaginations of what1 under certain conjectural circumstances1 might have happened1 but are destitute of all evidence that they actually occurred4 ,if history is thus degraded1 it must become devoid of all scientific value4 ,i have pressed this point because nowhere is this license of conjectural guessing at events more largely indulged in1 than in questions connected with the ,bible and its criticism4 ,,chapter ,,xviii4 ,,the ,,testimony ,,of ,,the ,,church1 ,,and ,,of ,,st4 ,,paul',s ,,epistles1 ,,to ,,the ,,facts ,,of ,,primitive ,,christianity4 ,,their ,,historical ,,value ,,considered4 ,i have in the preceding chapter drawn attention to the chief principles of historical evidence1 and to the importance of certain classes of historical documents2 also to the important bearing which the continued existence of a great institution like the ,christian ,church has on this subject1 especially as its origin can be traced up to a definite period of history4 ,i have further shown that as the ,church gives a definite account of its origin1 which1 if true1 is an adequate one2 it is incumbent on those who reject this account to propound another which shall be able to stand the application of the principles of a sound philosophy of human nature4 ,i must now consider the evidence which the existence of the ,church as a visible institution1 and the ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul1 afford to the great facts on which ,christianity is based4 ,if it can be proved beyond question that the ,church immediately after it assumed a distinctive form not only believed in the ,resurrection of ,jesus ,christ1 as one among many miraculous facts1 but affirmed that the belief in its truth was the one sole ground of its corporate existence1 within a very short interval after the date of ,his crucifixion1 it must be admitted1 even by unbelievers1 to involve a question of the most serious importance4 ,it proves for certain that the belief in one miracle1 and that the greatest of all recorded in the ,gospels1 was neither a mythic nor a legendary creation4 ,it further follows that if the original followers of ,jesus thought that ,he had risen from the dead1 it may be taken as a moral certainty that they must have believed that other supernatural actions were performed by ,him during ,his life4 ,the solution which unbelievers propound as the account of the origin of the miraculous narratives in the ,gospels is that they are a gradual creation of a mythic and legendary spirit4 ,hence their efforts to assign them to the latest possible date4 ,if their publication can be deferred to the early years of the second century1 they consider that this would afford the requisite time for surrounding the history of ,jesus with a halo of mythic and legendary environment4 ,but if it can be shown that the newborn ,christian ,church1 within a short interval after the ,crucifixion1 affirmed that the sole ground of its renewed life was the belief in the ,resurrection of its founder1 the possibility that such belief could have been either mythic or legendary is taken away4 ,whatever may be urged about the other parts of the story1 there remains one miracle 7and that the greatest of all71 which it is impossible to affirm to have been either a mythical or a legendary creation4 ,if the ,church accepted it as the sole ground of its existence1 and if that belief can be traced to the hour of its birth1 it must have been due either to some species of delusion1 or to a fact4 ,if ,jesus was thus believed to have risen from the dead1 it is useless to assign the belief in ,his other miracles to a later legendary spirit4 ,but further3 ,the ,church1 within a short number of years from the date of its birth1 must have had all the consciousness that it was a young society4 ,it was engaged in a constant struggle for existence1 and had before it the alternative of enlarging its numbers1 or perishing4 ,a new society constantly struggling for existence could not fail within this interval of time to have the most lively consciousness of what it was to which it owed its origin1 and which formed the bond of union among its members4 ,it must have been to them a constantly recurring thought4 ,every one must have known that it was an alleged miraculous fact1 a supposed ,resurrection of one who had been crucified4 ,was it possible for the members of such a society to avoid looking back with anxiety on the alleged ground of its existence8 ,it was no dogma capable of endless discussion1 but a fact4 ,the bond of union was allegiance to a living person4 ,is it conceivable that this person was not the object of daily interest to its members1 or that they did not make ,his history the subject of earnest inquiry8 ,can we suppose for one moment that any of them were ignorant of or had forgotten the grounds on which they had joined the new community1 or which formed the basis of its life8 ,the recollections of the members of a society which is only between twenty and thirty years old must be fresh4 ,but it may be said1 these people were very credulous4 ,be it so4 ,credulous people placed in the circumstances of the ,christian ,church are never deficient in curiosity4 ,even if the belief in the ,resurrection of ,jesus had originated in credulity1 the first principles of human nature would have urged them to get all the information which they could respecting it4 ,they were in the exact position to enable them to do this4 ,within ten1 twenty1 thirty1 or forty years1 there must have been plenty of information at hand to enable them to ascertain whether the society to which they belonged did or did not owe its existence to this belief1 and to get full information as to the general outline of the story on which it was founded4 ,it is impossible for members of a society whose origin was so recent to have remained ignorant of the circumstances which gave it birth4 ,they must have been handed down by a lively tradition4 ,i conclude therefore1 that it would have been simply impossible for the members of the ,church1 within this short time1 to be mistaken as to whether its existence and continued life was due to the belief that its founder had risen from the dead1 or whether ,he was supposed to have worked miracles during ,his life2 and that its belief could not have been due to mythic or legendary causes4 ,the question before us then1 becomes clear and definite1 freed from the vagueness with which it has been endeavoured to obscure it4 ,if it can be proved that the ,christian ,church owed its origin to its belief in the ,resurrection of ,jesus ,christ1 and that its renewed life began within the briefest interval after ,his crucifixion1 the whole discussion becomes narrowed into the following issue3 ,is it possible that such a belief1 within so short a time after ,his death1 could have originated in a fiction8 ,three alternatives are open for our acceptance1 and three only2 either3 ,jesus did not really die1 while his followers supposed that ,he had1 and they mistook some appearance of ,him after ,his crucifixion for a resurrection3 ,or they imagined that ,he appeared to some of them after ,his death1 but the appearance was a delusion of their imaginations3 ,or ,he rose from the dead as an objective fact4 ,other alternatives there are none2 and with respect to this particular miracle1 the whole apparatus of myth1 legend1 development and compromise1 which is so liberally used to account for the supernatural portions of the ,gospels1 is simply worthless as a rational account of the origin of the story4 ,a very bold affirmation has been made1 that no contemporary testimony can be adduced for the performance of any miracle recorded in the ,new ,testament4 ,this assertion is founded on the supposition that none of the ,gospels can be proved to have been written earlier than the end of the first1 or the beginning of the second century4 ,it is alleged that they are of very uncertain authorship1 that two of them do not profess to communicate anything but secondhand information2 and the proof of the early composition of the other two utterly fails4 ,the three first ,gospels being thus quietly assigned to the region of myths and legends1 and the fourth affirmed to be a forgery1 it is asserted that contemporary evidence for the truth of the supernatural narratives of the ,gospels wholly disappears4 ,what then is contemporaneous testimony to a fact8 ,few persons who actually witness events compose histories of them4 ,there is scarcely an account of a great battle which has been composed by the general who commanded in it2 and when such accounts have been published by persons who were actually present1 they could have witnessed but a small portion of the events which they describe4 ,such is the case with the great mass of facts which constitute the history of the past4 ,the chief actors in them are seldom the historians4 ,but although such persons rarely compose narratives of events at which they were actually present1 yet it is quite possible to possess testimony which for all practical purposes is of equal value4 ,as ,i have already pointed out1 such testimony consists of historical documents composed by persons who lived during the time in question1 and who had ample means of procuring information from those who must have known the truth of the occurrences4 ,we possess contemporaneous testimony of the highest order in the ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul4 ,i have already observed that no documents are of higher historical value than letters composed by persons actively engaged in the events to which they refer4 ,i must now point out specifically the importance of these letters as historical documents4 ,first3 four of the longest of them are admitted1 by every school of unbelievers1 who have given any consideration to the subject1 to be the genuine productions of the ,apostle4 ,the evidence1 both external and internal1 of his authorship1 is of the highest character4 ,if it is not valid to prove that they were written by him1 all historical certitude is rendered impossible4 ,they are the two to the ,corinthians1 and those addressed to the ,romans and the ,galatians4 ,their importance is greatly enhanced by their presenting to us a more distinct picture of the innermost life of the ,apostle than any others which have been attributed to him4 ,to these may be added four more1 viz4 the two to the ,thessalonians1 and those to the ,philippians and to ,philemon1 which1 although doubted by some1 are yet fully admitted by other unbelievers1 among whom is ,renan1 to be genuine4 ,the internal evidence that the ,epistles to the ,philippians and to ,philemon were written by the same person who composed those to the ,corinthians and ,galatians1 is as strong as such evidence can possibly be4 ,the whole form of thought is instinct with the presence of the same mind4 ,nor can the two to the ,thessalonians admit of any reasonable doubt4 ,to these follow the two to the ,colossians and the ,ephesians1 for which the evidence is certainly less strong2 but ,renan admits that it greatly preponderates on the side of their being genuine productions of ,st4 ,paul4 ,altogether1 then1 we have eight letters which are undoubtedly his1 and two more which are probably so2 instinct with his mind1 and placing before us a vivid picture of the innermost life of the early ,church4 ,secondly1 as to their date4 ,six of them were unquestionably written within twentyeight years after the crucifixion1 by the most active agent in the propagation of ,christianity1 who had been employed in this work for a period of at least eighteen years previously4 ,let us consider what such a period of time really means4 ,twentyeight years is about the period which lies between the present year and the repeal of the cornlaws4 ,while some of those who effected it have passed away1 many of those who took a most active part in it are still living4 ,all the events connected with it lie within the period of the most lively historical recollection4 ,many persons are still alive who can look back with the most perfect reminiscence to the great events of the anticornlaw agitation4 ,while these persons live1 it will be impossible to encircle the chief actors in it with a halo of myth or legend4 ,in precisely the same position must multitudes have stood to the ministry of ,jesus ,christ1 and the foundation of the ,christian ,church1 when these ,epistles were written4 ,the fact is worthy of our deepest attention1 that when we read these letters and the various statements they contain1 we are in the immediate presence of some of the most important events in history4 ,although ,st4 ,paul had never seen ,jesus himself1 yet his age was such when he wrote these letters1 that his recollection was good for many years before the commencement of ,his ministry4 ,great numbers of persons also were alive whose recollections of events that occurred at a much earlier date must have been distinct and clear4 ,with the early followers of ,jesus he had for not less than twenty years every facility for holding communication4 ,is it to be believed that a man whose entire being was swallowed up in one continuous sacrifice of himself to ,jesus ,christ1 and who was penetrated with the profoundest love towards ,him1 had not accurately informed himself of the great facts of ,his earthly life1 when during the last twenty years he had enjoyed every means of obtaining information from ,his followers1 and previously had investigated it with the keen scent of an angry persecutor8 ,the idea is incredible4 ,in these letters of ,st4 ,paul therefore1 as far as they throw light on this subject1 we are in the presence of contemporaneous historical evidence of the highest order4 ,thirdly3 ,although these letters were written within so brief an interval after the ,crucifixion as from twentyfive to thirty years1 yet they afford evidence which carries us up to a much earlier period4 ,st4 ,paul's conversion dates at least eighteen years earlier than the earliest of them4 ,his testimony therefore is good as to the general nature of the beliefs of the ,christian ,church during the whole period of his ministry4 ,it proves1 among many other things1 this allimportant point1 that the ,resurrection of ,christ was believed by the whole ,christian community1 and formed the groundwork of the existence of the ,church1 within less than ten years after the crucifixion4 ,but the ,apostle's hostile connection with the ,christian sect dates still earlier4 ,as a persecutor he must have ascertained what were the leading subjects of the ,christian belief1 and must have subjected the whole matter to a rigid investigation4 ,above all1 he could not have failed to know whether the belief in the ,resurrection of ,christ was or was not from its commencement the ground of the renewed life of the ,christian ,church4 ,every consideration must have induced him when a persecutor to make this entire question the subject of a most careful investigation4 ,nothing was more important than that he should ascertain whether any considerable interval had elapsed between the ,crucifixion of ,christ and the propagation of the report of ,his ,resurrection2 and his means of ascertaining the truth about it must have been complete4 ,to determine this for certain would have been most important in his work of convicting the founders of the new sect of imposture2 for if any considerable time had elapsed between the death and reported resurrection1 it would have afforded that of which all the theories of unbelief stand in need1 a sufficient interval for the delusion to grow and propagate itself2 or1 if the belief was the result of fraud1 for the imposition to be concocted and spread4 ,st4 ,paul's testimony therefore affords the most conclusive proof that the belief in the ,resurrection as a fact was contemporaneous with the foundation of the ,church2 that it was the cause of its renewed vitality2 that no interval could have elapsed between the death of ,jesus and ,his reported resurrection1 sufficient for the growth of myth or legend1 the fabrication of an imposture1 or the gradual spreading of the hallucinations of a single individual among a multitude of persons4 ,in one word1 if the belief in the ,resurrection originated in the conversion of some subjective delusion into an objective fact1 it must have been one which spread with incomprehensible rapidity4 ,these letters also form the most convincing proof1 not only that the ,resurrection was universally believed as a fact by the communities to which they were addressed1 but that it was accepted by the individual members of these ,churches from the first commencement of their ,christianity4 ,although two of these ,churches had been planted by ,st4 ,paul1 that of the ,romans was not planted by him1 and was of considerable standing when he wrote the letter4 ,its fame had spread throughout the whole ,christian world4 ,everything in the ,epistle denotes that its ,christianity was of no recent growth4 ,many of these ,churches1 especially the ,jewish portions of them1 could carry their recollections up to a much earlier time4 ,it should be carefully observed that the interval of twenty eight years from the foundation of a sect is a period wholly insufficient for the growth of an hereditary and otiose faith4 ,the majority of the members of these ,churches were beyond all doubt actual converts1 who had once been either ,jews or ,pagans4 ,however credulous we may suppose them to have been1 their conversion must have been due to an inquiry of some kind4 ,the short period which had elapsed since the foundation of the ,church and the supreme interest which the whole of the events and circumstances must have excited in the converts1 were precisely what was requisite for preserving traditionary recollections with the utmost soundness4 ,there could have been no doubt in any of their minds whether or not the belief in the ,resurrection was the groundwork of their ,christianity4 ,they must have known therefore whether it was a story which had gradually spread1 or had existed from the beginning2 or whether the peculiar form of it was an invention of ,st4 ,paul2 or whether it was the foundation of the convictions of those by whom they had been converted4 ,the manner in which the fact of the ,resurrection is referred to in these ,epistles proves that the belief was of no recent growth1 but had existed from the beginning4 ,the ,epistle to the ,romans opens with these words3--8,concerning ,his ,son ,jesus ,christ 444 who was declared to be the ,son of ,god with power1 according to the ,spirit of holiness1 by the resurrection from the dead40 ,it is impossible that a writer could have made such a reference as this at the opening of his letter1 unless he had been certain that the belief in the ,resurrection had been accepted as a fact by those whom he addressed1 and by the whole ,christian community with whom they were acquainted4 ,but further3 it is utterly incredible that if the converts accepted the fact of the ,resurrection of ,jesus ,christ as the foundation of their ,christianity1 they should have contentedly remained ignorant of the facts of ,his previous history1 at a period when there must have been abundant means of obtaining an acquaintance with it4 ,fourthly3 the value of these letters as historical documents is greatly increased by the fact that a strong spirit of party existed in the ,churches4 ,none are more ready to accept the fact that the ,church was divided into a number of parties than the opponents of ,christianity4 ,not only have they admitted it1 but for their own purposes they have greatly exaggerated it4 ,but it is a weapon which can be used in defence of ,christianity more efficaciously than in opposition to it4 ,it is clear on the face of these letters not only that the ,churches were divided into parties1 but that partyspirit existed in them with considerable violence4 ,it is needless for the purpose of the present argument to ascertain the number of the parties into which some of the ,churches were divided2 but these letters1 confirmed as they are by incidental references in the ,acts of the ,apostles1 leave no doubt that the opposition between ,st4 ,paul and those who followed his teaching1 and a powerful ,judaizing party in the ,church1 was of a very decided character2 that this party had a great dislike to the person of the ,apostle2 and that he himself denounced them as corrupters of the fundamental principles of the ,gospel4 ,they make it quite clear that even in the ,churches of which he was the founder1 the ,apostle was far from having it all his own way4 ,judaizing teachers had made very considerable progress in alienating the ,galatian ,churches from him4 ,his letter to these ,churches discusses the entire question between him and his opponents1 who actually went the length of denying his apostolical authority4 ,in the ,church of ,corinth also there was a powerful ,judaizing party1 who affirmed that he was no true ,apostle4 ,in this ,church there were also other parties who designated themselves by the names of particular leaders in various degrees of opposition to ,st4 ,paul4 ,it is evident that these parties must have derived their views of ,christianity from a source quite independent of the ,apostle4 ,portions of the first and not less than half of the second ,epistle are occupied by ,st4 ,paul in setting forth his claims in opposition to these leaders4 ,it is altogether a mistake to suppose that these ,churches were disposed to accept his assertions without question1 as equivalent to oracles from ,heaven4 ,on the contrary1 ,judaizing teachers habitually followed his steps1 and to some extent succeeded in subverting the faith even of his own converts4 ,nothing can more enhance the value of these letters as historical documents than the existence of this partyspirit in the ,churches to which they were addressed4 ,if ,st4 ,paul had written them to none but devoted admirers1 as is frequently the case with the leaders of religious sects1 his assertions might have been open to grave suspicion4 ,it might have been urged that such persons were ready to accept anything and everything which he affirmed4 ,but nothing is more keeneyed than religious partyspirit in detecting and denouncing the false positions of an opponent1 even when it is sufficiently ready to accept everything which makes in its own favour4 ,so strong was the opposition to the ,apostle1 that in two of these ,churches1 as we have seen1 a powerful party existed who went the extreme length of denying his right to the apostolic office4 ,yet these letters were not only intended to be read to the whole ,church1 but portions of them are directly addressed to the opponents in question4 ,what guarantee of the truthfulness of statements can compare with this8 ,the ,apostle's letters are openly read in the presence of the opposing party1 before the assembled ,church1 challenging them to impugn his statements4 ,it will perhaps be objected that we have no record of the discussion which followed the reading of his letters1 and of the results attending it4 ,the second ,epistle to the ,corinthians has preserved some of those results1 though it is plain that an opposing party still continued4 ,this ,epistle is a very strenuous attack on them4 ,the man who had the moral courage to write such letters as the second to the ,corinthians and that to the ,galatians1 to be openly read in the presence of his adversaries1 must have been well assured of the goodness of his cause4 ,common sense alone would have suggested to him not to make in them statements which were sure to receive direct and instant contradiction4 ,it is clear1 therefore1 that certain points on which these letters make very definite statements must have been held in common by ,st4 ,paul and his opponents4 ,if it had not been so1 it is impossible that the letters could have been written in their present form4 ,the ,christianity on which the two parties agreed beyond all doubt1 concentrated itself around the ,messianic character of ,jesus4 ,the letters themselves make the points on which they disagreed sufficiently obvious1 centering as they did on the necessity of observing the rites of the ,mosaic law in the ,christian ,church4 ,but the ,epistles contain a vast number of allusions to other subjects1 not a few of which are of a very incidental character4 ,what is the only legitimate inference which can be deduced from this circumstance8 ,obviously that the ,apostle wrote them with the fullest conviction that his statements on these subjects would be accepted by his opponents as part of their joint belief2 and not only by them1 but by all the members of the ,church4 ,it is inconceivable that a man of the mental calibre of ,st4 ,paul should have written letters such as those to the ,corinthians and ,galatians1 abounding as they do with references to facts and doctrines1 if he had not been fully persuaded that they constituted the common faith of himself and those to whom he wrote4 ,it is impossible to overestimate the historical importance of letters like these1 when in this incidental manner they contain numerous references to facts and opinions1 and to the actual controversies then existing in the ,church4 ,the form in which they are made constitute us almost as adequate judges of their value as if we were able to interrogate their author4 ,we have him1 in fact1 in the witnessbox before us1 and can narrowly scrutinize his mental character4 ,they can leave no doubt on our minds as to whether the allusions were incidental1 or made for a purpose4 ,the value of letters1 written by persons who have impressed on them the image of their own inner life and character1 and referring at the same time to current events and opinions1 is now universally acknowledged as the best means of correcting the mistakes and misrepresentations of formal histories4 ,but when we take into consideration that these letters of ,st4 ,paul are outpourings of his inmost mind1 intended not only for admiring friends1 but for scrutinizing opponents1 we have before us historical evidence of the highest order4 ,fifthly3 ,the ,apostle presents himself to us in these letters in the fullest outbursts of his heart4 ,we have the whole man before us1 intellectually1 morally1 and religiously4 ,probably no eight letters exist in all literature1 from which it is possible to construct in equal fulness the mental portraiture of the writer4 ,nowhere can we find stronger bursts of feeling4 ,he was a man of deep sensibility1 united with the firmest resolve4 ,his sacrifice of self1 and complete freedom from all selfish aims1 is exceeded by only one character in history4 ,who can read these letters through1 and question the sincerity of the writer8 ,can any one believe that he was not true to his convictions1 or that he was capable of deliberately stating what he knew to be false8 ,if the facts were not as he has stated them1 the only possible alternative is that he was the prey of an hallucination4 ,yet in every detail of business1 and in disposing of all practical questions1 his judgment was of the soundest character4 ,there is one remarkable fact which these letters bring out distinctly1 which is probably true of no other man that ever lived4 ,the ,apostle claimed to decide certain questions authoritatively in virtue of a divine guidance which he possessed4 ,he gave that decision on two points1 having the closest bearing on the daily life of the ,christians of that day1 and which excited deep conscientious scruples4 ,these were3 whether the obligation of observing certain days was binding on the ,christian conscience1 and whether it was unlawful to eat meat which had been offered in sacrifice to a heathen god4 ,on each of these points he gives his own apostolical decision2 yet in the very act of doing so1 he directly enjoins that the conscientious scruples of those who could not acquiesce in it should be respected4 ,can this be said of any other man who thought that he possessed a supernatural guidance8 ,enthusiastic he was2 but his was an enthusiasm which did not blind his judgment4 ,he was a man1 too1 of a highly delicate mind1 yet capable of using a refined sarcasm in dealing with his opponents4 ,we have the whole man before us1 and his entire character renders him a witness of the highest order4 ,as modern unbelievers refuse to allow us to appeal to the ,gospels as historical documents1 it becomes a matter of the highest importance to ascertain what facts in connection with the origin of ,christianity and the beliefs of the earliest followers of ,jesus can be established with the aid of these letters4 ,unbelievers cannot dispute that they are the authentic writings of the most active agent in the propagation of ,christianity1 who has contributed more to its permanent establishment than any other of the disciples of ,jesus4 ,this being so1 it is impossible to deny that they are contemporary historical records of the highest value4 ,our opponents demand contemporary testimony1 and we present them with the ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul4 ,in pursuing this argument1 it will be my duty to forget that we ,christians consider that the man who wrote them had a supernatural guidance1 and to use them as ,i would the letters of ,cicero4 ,i will proceed to examine their testimony4 ,first3 ,it has been asserted1 with a view of weakening the evidence of the supernatural portions of the ,new ,testament1 that although its writers have reported miracles as wrought by others1 not one of them has affirmed that he himself ever performed one4 ,i reply that ,st4 ,paul distinctly affirms that he believed he wrought miracles4 8,truly10 says he1 8the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience1 in signs1 and wonders1 and mighty deeds40 7#b ,cor4 xii4 #ab47 ,he here affirms that such a power was possessed not only by himself1 but by other ,apostles also4 ,the power to perform 8signs1 wonders1 and mighty deeds0 was directly connected with the apostolic office4 ,again1 he says to the ,galatians 7iii4 #e71 8,he that ministereth to you the ,spirit1 and worketh miracles among you40 ,in this reference he evidently means himself1 and affirms that he had performed miracles in ,galatia4 ,in the ,epistle to the ,romans he makes the following affirmation3 8,for ,i will not dare to speak of any of those things which ,christ hath not wrought by me1 to make the ,gentiles obedient1 by word and deed1 through mighty signs and wonders1 by the power of the ,spirit of ,god2 so that from ,jerusalem1 and round about unto ,illyricum1 ,i have fully preached the ,gospel of ,christ40 7,rom4 xv4 #ah1 #ai47 ,here then we have ,st4 ,paul's direct affirmation that in his own opinion1 throughout the mission in question1 he had been in the habit of performing 8mighty signs and wonders40 ,after these passages it is needless to quote further4 ,the ,apostle deliberately affirms to the ,corinthians and ,galatians that he performed miracles1 and the whole passage makes it clear that he supposed they would fully recognize the fact of his having done so4 ,of course this affirmation does not prove that they were real miracles2 but it does prove that he and those to whom he wrote thought that they were so4 ,not less distinct is his affirmation to the ,romans4 ,these passages further distinctly prove that it was an accepted belief in the ,churches when the ,apostle wrote1 and even at a much earlier period1 that supernatural manifestations attended the early preaching of ,christianity4 ,it follows therefore that the invention of miraculous stories was not due to a later mythic and legendary spirit4 ,this the statement made by the ,apostle in his ,epistle to the ,romans distinctly proves2 for he evidently considered that he had been in the habit of performing miracles up to the very time when he wrote the letter1 and during the whole course of his preceding ministry4 ,also the affirmation that miracles were the signs of an ,apostle1 and admitted to be such1 is a strong corroboration of the statement made by the ,synoptics that our ,lord was supposed to have conferred such powers on the ,apostles2 and as it is simply incredible that any should have believed that ,he conferred on the ,apostles powers which ,he did not exercise himself1 it carries up the belief of the ,church that ,jesus was a professed worker of miracles to the very first years of ,christianity4 ,i am quite aware that these beliefs of the ,church do not prove these miracles to have been real ones4 ,but they do prove that the belief in their actual performance was contemporary with the birth of ,christianity itself4 ,they therefore could not have originated1 as the opponents of ,christianity are never weary of assuming1 in a mythic or legendary spirit2 for myths and legends require a considerable time to grow2 and it is impossible that they can encircle an eminent character with an unreal halo till after those who witnessed his actions and personally know him are silent in the grave4 ,but in the case before us we have affirmations of ,st4 ,paul respecting himself1 which put the whole apparatus of myths and legends out of the question4 ,if then this belief in the manifestation of a supernatural power in connection with ,christianity dates thus early1 there are only three modes in which it is possible to account for it1 viz4 that it was due to deliberate and conscious imposture2 or that ,jesus and ,his immediate followers laboured under a delusion when they thought that they performed miracles2 or that they were really wrought4 ,as no one nowadays pretends to maintain the truth of the first alternative1 we may dismiss it from further consideration4 ,but it will be asserted that ,st4 ,paul does not mention any specific miracles which he considered that he had performed1 and that his statements are merely general4 ,i reply that such a mode of statement is precisely what we should expect to find in a letter of this kind1 and is just the one which would be adopted by a person who was satisfied that those to whom he was writing were as firmly convinced of the fact as he was himself4444 ,a formal and distinct description of the miracles which he had performed would have been quite out of place in a reference of this kind1 and would have implied that doubts respecting them existed on one side or the other4 ,besides1 the words which he uses embrace all the different expressions by which the various kinds and aspects of miracles are designated in the ,new ,testament4 ,secondly3 ,these letters also afford unquestionable evidence that at the time when they were written both the writer and those to whom he addressed them1 were firmly convinced that there was then actively operating in the ,church a number of supernatural manifestations of a very peculiar character1 and widely different from any species of supernatural belief which has been current before or since4 ,i allude to the gifts of the ,spirit1 to which the ,apostle has so frequently alluded in these ,epistles1 and of the nature of which he has in those to the ,corinthians given a distinct account1 together with definite rules to regulate their use4 ,the reason why he has given us a far more definite account of this class of manifestations than of the other is obvious4 ,in the ,church in question they had become the subjects of ambitious rivalry1 and under its influence some of them had been perverted to pernicious uses4 ,the whole subject is definitely treated of in the #abth1 #acth1 and #adth chapters of the first ,epistle to the ,corinthians1 besides a number of distinct references to it in other portions of his writings4 ,these assertions on the part of ,st4 ,paul that both he and those to whom he wrote were fully of opinion that supernatural powers were then manifested in the ,church1 are so clear that they require a most careful consideration4 ,the following points respecting them are proved by this ,epistle4 #a4 ,that ,st4 ,paul1 and the various parties in the ,corinthian ,church1 however much they might disagree on other points1 fully believed that these supernatural powers were then and there manifesting themselves in the ,church4 ,this belief might have been a delusion1 but the letter proves beyond doubt that it was entertained by the whole ,church1 including all its various parties4 #b4 ,that these gifts were earnestly coveted by the various members of this ,church2 that many of them made a very ostentatious use of them2 and that stringent rules were required to prevent their use from degenerating into an abuse4 #c4 ,nine of these supernatural endowments are enumerated by the ,apostle4 ,it is not clear whether the list is intended to be exhaustive4 ,probably it is not2 but it is evident that the writer intended to enumerate the chief of them4 ,they are as follows3 the gifts of wisdom1 knowledge1 faith2 gifts of healing 7 72 working of miracles 7 72 the gift of prophecy1 those of discerning spirits2 tongues and interpretation4 ,this list of gifts in a slightly altered form is repeated no less than three times in the same chapter4 ,they are affirmed to be supernatural endowments1 qualifying the possessor for distinct functions in the ,church4 ,it is worthy of particular remark1 as showing how free the ,apostle was from contemplating the subject with the eye of a credulous enthusiast1 that he distinctly asserts that they were designed for a definite purpose only1 and that when that was effected they were to cease4 ,a fanatic would certainly have considered that they were destined to continue for ever4 ,this point is worthy of our deepest attention4 #d4 ,the existence of a marked distinction between these gifts is definitely affirmed by the ,apostle4 ,they were not confined to a particular order of men1 but were spread over the entire community4 ,they also differed not only in kind but in degree4 ,some of them subserved higher1 others humbler purposes4 ,the reason for which they were given was the building up of the ,church into a distinctive community4 ,when that was effected they were to cease4 #e4 ,the ,apostle also most carefully points out that a distinction of function existed between these various supernatural endowments4 ,this is a very important consideration4 ,whether we view them as realities1 or as delusions1 it is plain that this distinction of function must have pointed to some corresponding facts well known in the ,church1 at the time when the ,epistles were written4 ,the possession of one of them by no means implied that of another1 although the subjectmatter upon which they operated was closely akin4 ,thus the possession of the gift of tongues 7whatever it may have been71 did not imply the possession of the gift of interpretation4 ,on the contrary1 the rules which the ,apostle gives for the regulation of those gifts1 as well as his statements respecting them1 prove that they were a set of distinct manifestations1 and were possessed very often by different persons1 and that the presence of the one power by no means implied that of the other4 ,this must unquestionably point to the existence of a remarkable phenomenon of some kind4 ,even if it is supposed that ,st4 ,paul and those to whom he wrote were labouring under a delusion1 it proves that the ,apostle possessed a power of discrimination which is not exhibited by an ordinary enthusiast or fanatic4 ,a distinction which ,st4 ,paul affirms to have existed between two of these gifts1 viz4 between the gifts of healing and of miracles1 deserves special attention4 ,that a real distinction existed between them is affirmed three times over in the same chapter4 ,both of these gifts1 according to our present mode of viewing the subject1 would be confounded under the designation of a power of working miracles4 ,but it is clear from the ,apostle's statement1 that he1 and those to whom he wrote1 saw an appreciable distinction between them4 8,to another10 says he1 8are given the gifts of healing by the same ,spirit2 to another the working of miracles40 8,but all these worketh that one and the selfsame ,spirit1 dividing to every man severally as he will40 7#a ,cor4 xii4 #iaa47 ,again1 in summing up their relative importance1 he says3 8thirdly teachers1 after that miracles1 then gifts of healing10 7ver4 #bh72 and again1 as qualifying individuals for particular offices3 8,are all apostles8 are all prophets8 are all workers of miracles8 ,have all the gifts of healing80 7ver4 #bi1 #cj47 ,now although we may deny that these phenomena were supernatural in their character1 it is plain that there must have been something in existence in this ,church corresponding to them1 and of which they were the supposed manifestation4 ,the ,apostle and those to whom be wrote evidently understood one another4 ,what this distinction was it is now impossible accurately to determine4 ,as ,i have already observed1 it probably had reference to a higher and lower class of miracles2 those which were in the proper sense evidential2 and those which might in various degrees have resembled the act mentioned by ,st4 ,james1 the anointing a sick man with oil in the name of the ,lord1 the offering fervent prayer for his recovery1 and the gradual cure of his complaint4 ,such would belong to a lower class of miracles to which ,i have elsewhere alluded1 as rather fitted to procure a favourable attention to the missionary than for evidential purposes4 ,be the distinction what it may1 and even supposing that ,st4 ,paul and the ,corinthians were under a delusion as to their supernatural character1 it is plain that some real difference1 which was clearly distinguishable1 must have existed in the outward manifestations4 ,this is a fact of very considerable importance1 as it proves that both the ,apostle and the ,corinthians were in a state of mind in which they were capable of exercising a clear discrimination between these gifts1 which is the last thing of which visionary and credulous enthusiasts ever think4 #f4 ,these gifts were likewise clearly separate in respect to the subject matter on which they operated4 ,the ,apostle and the ,corinthians supposed that they communicated a supernatural illumination of some kind2 but the illumination conferred by one might leave the possessor completely in the dark with respect to the special subjectmatter of the other4 ,this is definitely affirmed with respect to the gift of tongues1 and interpretation4 ,a person might possess the former and yet be altogether destitute of the latter4 ,there can be no doubt that the same analogy ran through them all4 ,this is affirmed when ,st4 ,paul asserts that all these gifts were the work of one and the same ,spirit dividing to every man severally as he will 7#a ,cor4 xii71 and is implied by the comparison which he institutes between them and the members of the human body and their respective functions4 ,thus3 the power of seeing furnishes no information in matters of sound2 nor the latter on the perceptions we derive through the sense of smell4 ,equally functional were these gifts1 each being confined to its own proper subjectmatter4 ,if the idea was that the possessor had an inspiration1 as far as respects the subjectmatter of his gift1 it conferred on him no supernatural knowledge on matters outside its special function4 ,thus a man who had the gift of tongues might remain perfectly ignorant of the interpretation of them1 if he had not the latter gift4 ,one who possessed the power of discerning of spirits might have been destitute of the power of working miracles4 ,one who had the gift of prophecy might have had no illumination with respect to that special knowledge which was conferred by the gift of wisdom4 ,the inspiration which was supposed to be conferred by them1 conferred no general infallibility--it was strictly functional and did not extend beyond the limits of the gift4 ,all these points are of the highest importance in an historical point of view4 ,whether we think that ,st4 ,paul and the ,corinthians were1 or were not1 under delusions about this matter1 they clearly prove that there must have been phenomena of some kind which were supposed to be the results of the gifts in question2 and that the persons who believed that they possessed them exercised a discriminating judgment respecting them4 ,it is no less clear that they did believe that they actually possessed them4 ,some of them were of such a nature that it is difficult to comprehend how the possessor could be under delusion on the subject4 ,take for example the power of discerning spirits4 ,once the possessor had it not4 ,afterwards he must have believed that he possessed a supernatural insight into the character of others4 ,it is difficult to comprehend how a man's consciousness could be deceived on a point like this4 ,he must have surely known whether within a definite period of time he had obtained an insight into character1 which he did not possess before4 ,everywhere in the account given us of these gifts we seem to be dealing with facts4 ,the distinctions laid down as existing between them1 and the separateness of their functions are truly philosophical1 supposing the gifts to have been real1 and were the last things which were likely to have occurred to credulous enthusiasts4 #g4 ,these gifts admitted of being abused4 ,the possession of them was not sufficient to confer any infallibility in the use of them4 ,this fact is worthy of deep attention1 not only as pointing to the reality of the manifestations but to the soundness of the ,apostle's judgment4 ,if these gifts had been mere inventions of a credulous imagination they would have been represented as guarded from the possibility of abuse by the supernatural power in which they originated4 ,even at the present day it is a very common idea that the gift of inspiration cannot possibly be a functional one which is limited to a definite subjectmatter1 but that it must confer a general infallibility4 ,very different were the views of ,st4 ,paul and of the ,churches to which he wrote4 ,the ,apostle was of opinion that when they had been once conferred1 they were subject to the control of the will1 and capable of a good or bad use in the same manner as our ordinary faculties4 ,his statement is clear that in this ,church they were used in a manner little conducive to edification4 ,in order to suppress this abuse he adopted some stringent rules4 ,no person was to be allowed in the congregation to use the gift of tongues 7a gift which he was so far from underrating that he thanked ,god that he possessed it more largely than any other member of the ,church71 unless there was some one present who had the gift of interpretation4 ,the gift of prophecy held the second rank in point of importance4 ,yet from the eagerness of its possessors to use it1 confusion arose in the congregation2 and the ,apostle was compelled to prescribe rules for limiting its exercise and enforcing order among the prophets4 ,the more the account is studied the stronger must be the conviction that it points to actual phenomena1 which were exhibited in the ,apostolic ,churches2 and that ,st4 ,paul1 in his description of them1 exhibits the strongest indications of a sound judgment4 ,such were the phenomena which the ,apostle1 and those to whom he wrote1 considered to be supernatural manifestations4 ,i observe respecting them3 ,first3 ,that it is clear that when ,st4 ,paul wrote these ,epistles1 both he and those whom he addressed were fully persuaded that certain supernatural manifestations were then habitually present in the ,church4 ,it is impossible to attribute this belief to the presence of the mythic or legendary spirit4 ,secondly3 ,it is clear from other statements in the ,epistles1 not only that ,st4 ,paul firmly believed that he himself was endowed with several of these supernatural gifts1 but that he had been the means of imparting them to others4 ,thirdly3 ,if we consider the nature of some of these gifts1 it is difficult to conceive that a man like ,st4 ,paul could have been deceived respecting their reality4 ,several of them involved accessions of mental power1 as for example the gift of wisdom1 knowledge1 and discerning of spirits4 ,he must have known that at one time he had nothing but his natural endowments4 ,at a later period he must have believed that his wisdom1 knowledge1 and power of discerning character was increased4 ,these must have been definite facts of his mental consciousness4 ,it is difficult to conceive how delusion was possible1 when in his treatment of the entire subject he displays such clear indications of sound judgment and common sense4 ,fourthly3 ,it is necessary to suppose not only that ,st4 ,paul was a prey to delusion on this subject--if we deny that the gifts were real--but that a similar delusion was spread over the entire ,church4 ,its individual members believed that they possessed them1 no less than the ,apostle4 ,those who possessed only the lower gifts were emulously desirous of possessing the higher ones4 ,they also made an ostentatious use of them4 ,such are not the phenomena presented by enthusiasm4 ,was it possible that considerable numbers of persons should be deceived in supposing that they had acquired particular mental endowments of which they well knew that they had been previously destitute8 ,fifthly3 ,while the phenomena under consideration were unquestionably believed both by ,st4 ,paul and the ,corinthian ,church to be supernatural manifestations1 yet it is a supernaturalism which differs in its entire aspect and character from any other which has been believed in by man4 ,we may wander over the entire regions of history and fable1 and we shall fail to find any belief in the supernatural1 bearing the smallest resemblance to it4 ,it is most definitely contrasted with that which has been ascribed to the contemporaries of our ,lord2 and which ,i have considered in the earlier portions of this work4 ,whence has come this most striking contrast8 ,if ,st4 ,paul and the members of the ,corinthian ,church were a prey to the superstitious beliefs above referred to1 how was it possible for them to have considered themselves to be living in the midst of an atmosphere which presented so marvellous a contrast4 ,the gifts1 if real1 were precisely suited to the wants of the ,church1 for building it up into the great institution which it became4 ,it required accessions to its numbers from the populations in the midst of which it lived4 ,the two miraculous gifts1 even if they were not evidential1 were fitted to draw attention to its claims4 ,collected as its members were from ,judaism and ,heathenism1 without sufficient means for their definite instruction1 those who performed this office were qualified for it by two gifts conferring various degrees of enlightenment4 ,then there was the prophet1 who as an inspired preacher expounded and enforced the truths of ,christianity4 ,its members were illqualified for public offices1 owing to the low condition of the society from which they sprang4 ,here again were two mental endowments to supply the need1 the power of discerning spirits and the supernatural gift of faith4 ,all these gifts here enumerated1 were the very endowments suited for the building up of a body of converts taken from such unpromising sources1 into the great society to which it speedily grew4 ,a new society had to be formed of a wholly different character from any previously existing4 ,it was designed to leaven by new influences the state of religious1 moral1 and political thought out of which it originated4 ,the old social organization met it with determined opposition4 ,the problem was how was it to be erected on such a basis as would give it permanence8 ,the ,church of ,jesus ,christ was to be a new moral creation in the midst of effete society4 ,an extensive communication of endowments1 such as are referred to in the ,pauline ,epistles1 was the very thing which was requisite to accomplish this purpose4 ,it came into existence2 it grew2 it struggled2 it conquered2 it subverted the old forms of civilization2 it created new ones4 ,these are facts which require to be accounted for4 ,the forces referred to in these ,epistles as in active energy before the eyes of ,st4 ,paul and the members of these ,churches1 were adequate to have effected this4 ,without some such moral creation attending the first planting of ,christianity1 the formation of this unique society out of the various elements of which it was composed1 and their welding together into an organization instinct with life1 which has imbued with its principles all existing institutions1 must remain a problem which baffles all the attempts of philosophy to solve4 ,lastly3 ,these letters prove on the highest historical evidence that a supernatural power was believed to be manifested in the ,church at the date of their composition1 wholly different from any kind of ordinary current supernatural belief4 ,through the ,acts of the ,apostles1 its existence can be traced up to a still earlier period4 ,two of these gifts1 but two only1 involved a power which we should now designate as essentially miraculous4 ,this being so1 the testimony of ,st4 ,paul1 involving as it does that of the entire ,church1 is express as to the belief of contemporaries that miracles were actually performed4 ,we can trace this belief up to the first origin of ,christianity4 ,if ,jesus was believed to have endowed ,his followers with this power1 it is impossible to believe that ,he was not supposed to have possessed it himself4 ,these ,epistles therefore are evidence that the earliest followers of ,jesus believed that ,he was a worker of miracles4 ,so far the proof is complete that the ascription of miracles to ,jesus and ,his original followers was not due to the imagination of subsequent generations4 ,the careful perusal of these ,epistles can leave only one impression on the mind of the reader1 that he is in the presence of facts of an unquestionably historical character4 ,,chapter ,,xix4 ,,the ,,evidence ,,furnished ,,by ,,the ,,epistles ,,to ,,the ,,facts ,,of ,,our ,,lord',s ,,life1 ,,and ,,to ,,the ,,truth ,,of ,,the ,,resurrection4 ,i have proved in the last chapter that ,st4 ,paul and those to whom he wrote his ,epistles firmly believed that a number of supernatural manifestations were displaying themselves in the ,church under their immediate observation1 and that their presence can be traced up to a much earlier date4 ,i have also shown that ,st4 ,paul asserts in the most positive language that he was persuaded that he wrought miracles during the whole course of his mission4 ,it is therefore in the highest degree probable that the servant was convinced that he did by the divine power of his ,master that which he believed that his ,master had accomplished before him2 in other words1 that he was a worker of miracles4 ,but as it has been asserted that ,st4 ,paul knew only of a divine1 and scarcely anything of a human ,jesus1 that is to say1 that he was to a great extent ignorant of the events of our ,lord's life1 ,i must inquire what light the ,epistles throw on this subject2 for if it can be shown that ,st4 ,paul allowed himself to be ignorant of the human life of ,jesus1 it lowers the value of his testimony to the fact of the ,resurrection4 ,the ground of this affirmation is that the direct references to the events of our ,lord's life are few1 and that he chiefly dwells on the glorified aspect of it after ,his ,resurrection4 ,the only passage1 as far as ,i am aware1 which has been adduced as proving this strange position is the following3--8,he died for all1 that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves1 but unto him which died for them and rose again4 ,wherefore1 henceforth know we no man after the flesh2 yea1 though we have known ,christ after the flesh1 yet now henceforth know we him no more4 ,therefore1 if any man be in ,christ1 he is a new creature3 old things are passed away2 behold all things are become new40 #b ,cor4 v4 #aeag4 ,the utmost that this passage can be made to prove is1 that the belief in the ,resurrection of ,christ had thrown an entirely new aspect over ,his human life4 ,the persons who had witnessed it had not seen its true significance4 ,this is what the ,synoptic ,gospels plainly affirm to have been the case even with the ,apostles during ,his public ministry4 ,they had witnessed the events1 but they had failed to penetrate into their inner life4 ,this is what the ,apostle means by 8knowing ,christ after the flesh10 i4e4 according to the uniform meaning of that expression in the ,new ,testament1 the knowing the events of ,his life merely externally1 as so many bare objective facts devoid of spiritual significance4 ,this he affirms would be the mode in which neither he nor the ,church would in future contemplate this subject4 ,the very words which he uses imply that he and others had had this knowledge of ,jesus4 ,but such a knowledge would have been impossible without an intimate acquaintance with the events of ,his human life4 ,what he affirms is1 that he will contemplate them in future in their moral and religions aspect4 ,the affirmation that ,st4 ,paul was not thoroughly acquainted with the details of our ,lord's ministry1 and that after his conversion he was simply absorbed in the contemplation of a divine ,christ is incredible4 ,when we are asked to accept a startling proposition1 it is necessary that it should not offend against the first principles of human nature4 ,that a man like ,st4 ,paul did not make accurate inquiries into the facts of his ,master's life is inconceivable4 ,in his eyes ,his human was the manifestation of ,his divine life4 ,did not the persecutor ,saul thoroughly inform himself respecting the life and actions of ,him whose divine mission he denied1 and whom he believed to be an impostor8 ,was not this the obvious course to take1 in order to enable him to expose imposition1 and to destroy the ,church8 ,on the other hand1 the converted ,paul was animated by a more intense love for ,jesus than one man ever felt for another4 ,is it conceivable that such love did not impel him to treasure up in his bosom every reminiscence which fell within his reach1 and to inquire with the most profound interest into the life and actions of him who was become the object of his adoration8 ,is it conceivable that the man who was incessantly inquiring into the condition of his converts1 made no inquiry about the life and actions of his ,master8 ,the position of ,st4 ,paul1 the ardour of his temperament1 the fierceness of his opposition1 and the intense selfsacrifice with which he afterwards consecrated himself to ,jesus ,christ1 falling into communication as he must with persons who had witnessed ,his earthly ministry1 are sufficient proof that the ,apostle had used every available means of becoming acquainted with the facts of ,his life4 ,but in the ,epistles themselves1 although owing to the circumstances which called them forth1 they contain few direct references to it1 the indirect allusions are quite sufficient to prove that ,st4 ,paul and those whom he addressed1 were in possession of a number of facts respecting their ,master's life which formed the subject of a common ,christology4 ,i am quite ready to admit that when the ,apostle wrote1 none of our present ,gospels were in existence4 ,the converts had to receive their instruction orally1 or from short written memoranda4 ,but instruction of some kind they must have had4 ,without it1 converts from ,paganism could have known nothing about ,him to whom in the act of joining the ,church they professed allegiance2 ,jewish converts living in ,gentile cities1 but little4 ,as ,christianity was not a mere body of dogmas1 like a philosophy1 but consisted in direct adhesion to a person1 it is clear that it could not be propagated at all without at the same time communicating information respecting ,his history4 ,the early missionaries announced that ,jesus was the ,christ4 ,such an announcement would have been meaningless unless they had given an account of who ,jesus was1 what ,he had done to claim the homage of those addressed1 and what was the nature of ,his office4 ,these considerations establish the fact that an oral account of ,his life must have been handed down in the ,church prior to the publication of written ,gospels1 sufficiently definite to constitute the ,christianity of the converts4 ,the intimations contained in the ,epistles prove that such was the fact4 ,first let us consider ,st4 ,paul's own positive assertions4 ,the most important is in #a ,cor4 xv4 8,moreover1 brethren1 ,i declare unto you 71 ,i remind you of1 or refresh your memories respecting7 the ,gospel 7 7 which ,i preached unto you1 which also ye have received1 and wherein ye stand2 by which also ye are saved1 if ye keep in memory what ,i preached unto you1 unless ye have believed in vain4 ,for ,i delivered unto you first of all 7 1 as matter of prime importance7 that which ,i also received1 how that ,christ died for our sins according to the ,scriptures2 and that ,he was buried1 and that ,he rose again the third day according to the ,scriptures40 ,let it be observed that the subject which the ,apostle was here discussing with certain members of this ,church--the possibility of a resurrection of the dead--led him to refer to the first principles of ,christianity as he had taught them4 ,they denied the truth of a material resurrection4 ,st4 ,paul draws their attention to the fact that ,christianity as taught by him consisted of a body of facts4 ,the following points are clearly deducible from the passage before us4 #a4 ,the 1 or message of good news1 which the ,apostle had announced at his first preaching at ,corinth1 consisted of a body of facts as distinct from mere doctrinal teachings2 and that whatever doctrines he taught were built on them as a foundation4 #b4 ,among the facts of prime importance which he announced1 was the death1 burial1 and resurrection of ,christ4 #c4 ,he states that in his preaching there were matters of prime importance1 of which ,christ's death and resurrection was one4 ,it follows therefore that there were other matters of prime importance1 which his present argument did not require him to notice4 ,this is obvious from the nature of the case3 the announcement of ,christ's death and resurrection would have been scarcely intelligible without the addition of a great many other facts to give it meaning4 ,but further1 the assertion that there were facts of prime importance1 implies that there were also points of secondary importance1 which he must have announced likewise1 or in other words1 that the ,gospel which he proclaimed must have consisted of an account1 more or less full1 of the human life of ,jesus4 #d4 ,this account the ,apostle says that he delivered to the ,corinthian ,church4 ,the words imply that he committed it in a formal manner to their keeping1 as the ground of their ,christian instruction4 ,this he likewise affirms that he had no less formally received4 #e4 ,as his statement respecting the ,resurrection is somewhat minute1 the inference is1 that the other facts of prime importance were communicated with equal detail4 ,it is also fairly presumable that in his oral communications the ,apostle did not give a bare list of the appearances of ,jesus after his ,resurrection1 but a detailed account of them2 and so with respect to his other facts4 ,this his converts would naturally have required him to do1 if we suppose that they were only animated by common curiosity4 ,the less important facts would be necessary to connect together those of primary importance4 ,in short1 the ,apostle's narrative must have been what we may call a brief ,gospel4 #f4 ,as ,st4 ,paul states that one of the facts which he committed to the ,church was that ,christ died for our sins1 it follows that he must have given an account of his death more or less resembling those in our present ,gospels4 #g4 ,one of the great facts which he delivered to the ,church1 was that of the ,resurrection of ,christ4 ,this is the great miracle of ,christianity2 the one to which it is expressly affirmed that the ,church owes its being4 ,the ,apostle's ,gospel therefore contained a detailed account of one great miracle4 ,it is also fairly presumable that among his other facts of primary or secondary importance were accounts of supernatural occurrences in the life of ,jesus4 #h4 ,the ,apostle does not leave us without the means of judging respecting the amount of matter in these narratives of events in the life of ,christ which he committed to the ,church4 ,he has given us 7in #a ,cor4 xi4 #bcbe7 a formal account of the institution of our ,lord's ,supper1 quite as full as that contained in either of our ,gospels4 ,this account he prefaces by the same words which we have already considered1 as denoting the form or mode in which he received it1 and delivered it to the ,church3 8,for ,i have received of the ,lord that which also ,i delivered unto you1 that the ,lord ,jesus the same night in which ,he was betrayed took bread2 and when ,he had given thanks ,he brake it1 and said1 ,take1 eat2 this is ,my body which is broken for you4 ,this do in remembrance of ,me4 ,after the same manner also ,he took the cup1 when ,he had supped1 saying1 ,this cup is the ,new ,testament in ,my blood3 this do ye as oft as ye drink it1 in remembrance of me40 ,this account varies in words1 but it is equal in minuteness1 and substantially agrees with those in our present ,gospels2 although it more nearly approaches1 while it is not precisely identical with that of ,luke1 who is asserted in the ,acts to have been the companion of the ,apostle4 ,judging therefore by this example1 the historical details which ,st4 ,paul committed to the ,church respecting the life of ,jesus must have been of considerable minuteness4 #h4 ,another fact in the life of our ,lord is directly referred to in these letters1 ,his descent from the family of ,david4 8,who was made10 says the ,apostle1 8of the seed of ,david1 according to the flesh1 and declared to be the ,son of ,god with power according to the spirit of holiness1 by the resurrection from the dead40 ,these words prove that ,st4 ,paul was in possession of an account of the birth of ,jesus1 which in this particular point was in agreement with that in ,st4 ,matthew's and ,st4 ,luke's ,gospels1 and that it was known to the members of the ,church at ,rome1 and received by them as true4 ,he does not positively affirm that the birth was supernatural2 but his language clearly implies it4 ,it would be absurd in speaking of an ordinary human birth to say that the person born was descended from his ancestors1 8according to the flesh40 ,the natural meaning of such an expression is that both the writer and those whom he was addressing were well acquainted with an account of the supernatural birth of ,jesus1 and accepted it as true4 ,so far their accounts and that in the ,gospels agreed in the main issue4 #i4 ,one more reference must be added3 8,jesus ,christ10 says the ,apostle1 8was made a minister of the circumcision for the truth of ,god1 to confirm the promises made unto the fathers2 and that the ,gentiles might glorify ,god for ,his mercy40 ,this passage not only proves that the ,apostle and those to whom he wrote were in possession of an account of the circumcision of ,christ1 but also that they well knew that ,his ministry had been confined to the ,jewish people1 but with the ultimate purpose of ,his being manifested to the ,gentiles4 ,in these particulars it exactly corresponded with the account given in our ,gospels4 #aj4 ,there are also several passages in which the ,apostle directly refers to our ,lord's teaching1 and clearly distinguishes it from his own4 ,these references uniformly agree with that which is attributed to ,jesus in the ,synoptic ,gospels1 and prove that the ,apostle and the ,church were in possession of details of it4 ,such are the direct references to the life of ,jesus in these ,epistles4 ,but there are numerous indirect references which prove that the ,apostle and those to whom he wrote must have been acquainted with accounts of the life of its ,founder1 which went into a considerable degree of detail4 ,i shall give a few instances3 #a4 ,his preaching of the ,gospel to the ,thessalonians is described as a proclamation that ,jesus was the ,christ or ,messiah4 ,in one of the ,epistles to this ,church he speaks of them as having been so powerfully influenced that in consequence of it 8they had turned to ,god from idols to serve the living and true ,god10 and 8as having become followers of him and of the ,lord40 ,among persons thus utterly ignorant of ,christianity1 as they were when he first preached to them1 it would have been impossible to make an announcement of this kind1 or to set forth the ,messianic claims of ,jesus1 without laying before them a great many of the details of ,his human life4 ,the expression above quoted1 implies clearly that he had put his converts in possession of such an account of the life of ,christ as to enable them to become 8followers of the ,lord40 #b4 ,these ,epistles contain many definite assertions as to the duty of imitating ,christ4 8,put ye on the ,lord ,jesus ,christ20 8,as many as have been baptized into ,christ have put on ,christ20 8,let every one of us please his brother for his good unto edification1 for even so ,christ pleased not himself20 8,the ,god of patience and consolation grant you to be like minded one toward another1 according to ,christ ,jesus20 8,i beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of ,christ20 8,ye have not so learned ,christ20 8,be ye followers of me1 as ,i am of ,christ40 ,many other similar expressions might be cited1 but these are sufficient4 ,first3 ,i observe that the exhortation to put on the character of another is meaningless1 unless the persons so exhorted were known to have been thoroughly acquainted with the life and actions of him whom they are urged to imitate4 ,the same observation is true when we are deliberately recommended to make another person our example4 ,again1 the exhortation to lay ourselves out in efforts to please others for their good to edification1 on the ground that ,christ pleased not himself1 would be without meaning1 unless the writer felt assured that those whom he addressed were in possession of facts in the life of ,christ1 which exhibited ,him in the character of a sacrificer of self4 ,so again1 the exhortation to patience1 after the example of ,christ1 is founded on the assumption that those whom the ,apostle was addressing were acquainted with details which exhibited him as a model of patience4 ,the same remark is true with respect to the entreaty addressed to the ,corinthians by the meekness and gentleness of ,christ4 ,they must have been acquainted with actions of ,his which exhibited ,him as supremely meek and gentle4 ,these and other indirect references form an indisputable proof that the churches to whom ,st4 ,paul wrote must have been in possession of a very considerable number of details of the human life of ,jesus1 in which a large portion of the instruction given to those ,churches consisted4 ,this imparts to them a far higher value than if they had been direct4 ,it is the mode universally adopted in genuine letters1 where the writer1 and those to whom he writes1 are freely communicating to each other their inmost thoughts4 ,when one party is firmly persuaded that the other is well acquainted with a certain set of events1 they never detail them formally1 but simply refer to them in passing allusions4 ,such allusions are the strongest possible evidence that the events in question are the common property of the writer and of those whom he is addressing4 ,the whole of these ,epistles contain a continuous body of references to the various aspects of our ,lord's divine and human character as it is depicted in the four ,gospels4 ,the references to the former are very numerous4 ,they contain a ,christianity of so advanced a character as to resemble in all its great features that which we read of in ,st4 ,john's ,gospel1 and which are only distinguishable from it1 if distinguishable at all1 by the aid of minute criticism4 ,i have treated this subject at length in another work in reference to its evidential value1 and therefore need not discuss it here4 ,i shall only observe that the incidental references in these ,epistles to these subjects form the strongest historical proofs that ,st4 ,paul and those to whom he wrote were in possession of a sufficient number of facts respecting the life of ,jesus to enable them to found on them a definite ,christology2 and that there must have been well known in the ,churches a general outline of ,his human life1 which must have been to their members as recent converts a subject of the profoundest interest4 ,i fully admit that if ,paul and the early ,christians1 while centering their highest affections on the glorified ,christ1 had been contented to remain in ignorance of the facts of ,his human life1 the value of their testimony to the truth of the ,resurrection would have been greatly weakened4 ,but the supposition is not only untrue to human nature1 but is contradicted by the facts of the ,epistles1 which it is impossible not to admit as documents of the highest historical value4 ,i will now proceed to examine the evidence which these ,epistles afford to the truth of the ,resurrection4 ,the references which they contain to this great miracle of ,christianity are extremely numerous1 occurring in some form or other in almost every page4 ,shall ,i not say that their entire contents are written on the supposition of its reality8 ,they are of the most direct as well as of the most incidental character4 ,they make it clear that the belief in it lay at the foundation of the existence of the ,church2 that it was that which was supposed to communicate its moral power to ,christianity1 and that it was the source of the new spiritual life of every individual believer4 ,in the following passage ,st4 ,paul distinctly pledges the truth of ,christianity on the reality of the fact3 8,and if ,christ be not risen1 then is our preaching vain1 and your faith is also vain2 yea1 and we are found false witnesses of ,god2 because we have testified of ,god that he raised up ,christ1 whom he raised not up1 if so be that the dead rise not1 444 and if ,christ be not raised1 your faith is vain2 ye are yet in your sins4 ,then they also which are fallen asleep in ,christ are perished4 ,if in this life only we have hope in ,christ1 we are of all men most miserable40 7#a ,cor4 xv4 #ad1 etc47 ,whatever opinion may be formed as to the genuineness of the other writings of the ,new ,testament1 they give one consistent testimony that the belief in the ,resurrection was coextensive with the ,church1 and constituted the only ground of its existence4 ,how could it be otherwise8 ,the ,church1 as a community1 was founded on the belief of the personal ,messiahship of ,christ2 a dead ,messiah would have been utterly worthless to it4 ,without a living ,messiah to form its centre the whole superstructure must collapse4 ,the following are some of the most important points which these letters prove as matters of fact respecting the ,resurrection4 ,first3 ,that the belief in it was coextensive with the entire ,church4 ,it was not the belief of any single party in it1 but of the whole community4 ,this they establish on the most indisputable evidence4 ,the existence of various parties in the ,church in direct opposition to ,st4 ,paul proves beyond the possibility of contradiction that it was the one belief respecting which there was not the smallest diversity of opinion4 ,if these parties had not existed1 it might have been urged with some degree of plausibility that the testimony of these letters was inconclusive1 because all the members of the ,churches received servilely whatever ,st4 ,paul chose to dictate4 ,but as we have already seen1 a powerful party existed in both the ,corinthian and ,galatian ,churches1 who summarily rejected his claim to apostolic authority1 maintaining that the twelve were the only genuine ,apostles4 ,nevertheless1 the ,epistles make it clear that they must have believed in the ,resurrection quite as strongly as ,st4 ,paul did himself4 ,let us suppose for a moment that they doubted it4 ,how is it conceivable that ,st4 ,paul should have addressed to them such letters as those to the ,corinthians1 abounding everywhere with both direct and incidental allusions to it as an acknowledged truth and as the foundation of his reasonings8 ,would anyone in his senses have thus exposed himself to instant denunciation if he had supposed that there was the smallest doubt respecting its reality in the minds of his opponents8 ,would they not at once1 if they had entertained it1 have made short work with the ,apostle and his reasonings8 ,but the point is almost too clear to need any argument4 ,in one of the passages where he is discussing with them the reality of his apostleship he urges as the foundation of his claim to this office3 8,have not ,i seen ,jesus ,christ our ,lord80 ,this reasoning is evidently founded on the supposition that all the other ,apostles professed to have seen ,him2 and that none could have a valid claim to the office who had not seen ,him4 ,but ,paul could only have seen ,christ after the ,resurrection2 and it was in virtue of an appointment from the risen ,jesus that he claimed to hold the office4 ,if there had been the smallest doubt in the minds of his opponents as to the reality of the ,resurrection1 or if they had not been persuaded that the ,apostles1 whose claims they set up against those of ,st4 ,paul1 affirmed that they had seen ,him also1 this would at once have settled the controversy and covered the ,apostle with confusion before the assembled ,church4 ,but if this reasoning requires any additional confirmation1 it is afforded by the ,epistle to the ,galatians4 ,the opposition leaders in this ,church were yet more hostile to ,st4 ,paul than those at ,corinth4 ,his denunciation of them is very severe4 ,they are described as 8false apostles1 deceitful workers10 and subverters of the ,gospel4 ,yet in the very opening words of his address to this ,church in which he thus sharply denounces his opponents1 the ,apostle writes3 8,paul1 an ,apostle1 not of man nor by man1 but by ,jesus ,christ1 and ,god the ,father who raised him from the dead40 ,is it conceivable1 ,i ask1 that ,st4 ,paul should have used such language1 under such circumstances1 in addressing this ,church1 unless he was absolutely certain that his opponents accepted the ,resurrection of ,christ as a fact8 ,we shall see hereafter that these assertions and allusions of the ,apostle not only prove that the ,resurrection was believed in by every section of the ,christian community at the time when he wrote these letters1 but that they enable us to carry up the date of this belief to the very commencement of ,christianity4 ,secondly3 ,the ,epistle to the ,romans sets before us the state of this belief in a ,church which ,st4 ,paul had not visited4 ,of the exact date of the foundation of this ,church we have no record2 but the entire contents of the ,epistle prove that it had been in existence for many years before the ,apostle addressed to them this letter4 ,the general impression produced by it is that this was one of the most important ,christian communities then in existence4 ,we learn from it that among its members were persons attached to the household of ,nero4 ,as the intercourse between ,rome and ,juda was very considerable1 there can be no doubt that the ,church originated at an early period1 either by ,christian ,jews visiting the imperial city1 or by ,roman ,jews visiting ,juda and having thus become converted4 ,at any rate its ,christianity must have been derived from a source entirely independent of ,st4 ,paul4 ,the evidence afforded by this ,epistle as to the importance and universal prevalence of the belief in the ,resurrection1 and to its early origin is conclusive4 ,the allusions to it are more numerous than in any other of ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles4 ,most of them are of an entirely incidental character1 and their general nature proves beyond the possibility of question that both the writer and those to whom he wrote must have viewed the fact as the fundamental groundwork of ,christianity4 ,the reference to a few passages will render this point indubitable4 ,an allusion of a most incidental character as forming the ground of the writer's apostleship occurs in the very opening words of the ,epistle3 8,and declared to be the ,son of ,god with power1 according to the ,spirit of holiness1 by the resurrection from the dead2 by whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for his name40 ,it is inconceivable that ,st4 ,paul should have thus addressed a body of strangers1 at the very commencement of his letter1 unless he had been certain that they accepted this belief as an unquestionable fact4 ,besides several references in the intermediate chapters1 there are three allusions to it in the sixth chapter of the most incidental character1 in which the belief in the ,resurrection is directly connected with baptism1 and affirmed to lie at the very foundation of ,christianity1 and to be the divine power exhibited in the renewed ,christian life4 8,know ye not that as many of us as were baptized into ,jesus ,christ1 were baptized into his death8 ,therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death1 that like as ,christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the ,father1 even we also should walk in newness of life4 ,for if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death1 we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection3 knowing this1 that our old man is crucified with him1 that the body of sin might be destroyed1 that henceforth we should not serve sin4 ,for he that is dead is freed from sin4 ,now if we be dead with ,christ1 we believe we shall also live with him3 knowing that ,christ being raised from the dead dieth no more2 death hath no more dominion over him4 ,for in that ,he died1 ,he died unto sin once2 but in that ,he liveth1 ,he liveth unto ,god4 ,likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin1 but alive unto ,god through ,jesus ,christ our ,lord40 ,it is impossible to read this passage without feeling that it is conclusive of the question before us3 the whole community to whom it was addressed must have accepted the ,resurrection as a fact1 and that acceptance must have been contemporary with the very commencement of their ,christianity4 ,a portion of the baptismal rite to which they had all submitted was viewed by them as symbolical of their ,master's death3 the other portion1 of ,his ,resurrection4 ,his death and resurrection were considered by them as setting forth their cessation from their old habits1 principles and character1 in which they had lived as ,jews or ,pagans2 and their entrance into that new moral life into which they were brought by ,christianity4 ,the ,apostle directly appeals to the recollection of those whom he is addressing1 to say whether it was not a certain fact that their entire ,christianity1 including all its moral influence1 centered in this truth4 ,his words therefore carry this belief up to the first origin of this ,church4 ,they go1 moreover1 a step further1 and involve the belief and testimony of those by whom its first members had been converted4 ,but further3 the ,apostle1 throughout this chapter1 speaks of the ,resurrection of ,christ as being the great moral and spiritual power of ,christianity4 ,the members of the ,church had entered on a new moral and religious life4 ,they had died to their former sinful habits and practices4 ,they were living to ,god1 and were reaping the fruits of holiness instead of receiving the wages of sin4 ,that these facts were true1 the ,apostle appeals to their consciousness to witness4 ,was this a fact or was it not8 ,it would have been impossible for ,st4 ,paul to write in this manner unless he had been assured that those to whom he wrote thought so4 ,this power had for its centre the belief in the ,resurrection of ,christ4 ,it was caused by their connection with ,him as a living person to whom all their regards were due4 ,it is impossible to have stronger historical evidence that this belief was esteemed by the ,church to be fundamental to ,christianity when this letter was written4 ,i shall therefore only quote two more passages as showing the purely incidental character of the allusions3-- 8,who shall lay anything to the charge of ,god's elect8 ,it is ,god that justifieth2 who is he that condemneth8 ,it is ,christ that died1 yea rather1 that is risen again1 who is even at the right hand of ,god1 who also maketh intercession for us4 ,who shall separate us from the love of ,christ80 7,rom4 viii4 #ch1 c47 ,again3 8,he that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the ,lord2 and he that regardeth not the day1 to the ,lord he doth not regard it4 ,he that eateth1 eateth to the ,lord1 for he giveth ,god thanks2 and he that eateth not1 to the ,lord he eateth not1 and giveth ,god thanks4 ,for none of us liveth to himself1 and no man dieth to himself4 ,for whether we live1 we live unto the ,lord2 and whether we die1 we die unto the ,lord4444 ,for to this end ,christ both died and rose1 and revived1 that ,he might be ,lord both of the dead and living40 ,it is impossible that any words could make it clearer than these do that the belief in the ,resurrection formed the centre of the daily life of ,christians at the time when the ,apostle was writing4 ,the ,christian was a man who was consecrated to the service of ,christ as to a living person1 who had a right to his supreme regard4 ,it is therefore established beyond the possibility of a doubt that the belief in the ,resurrection of ,christ was universal in the ,church when ,st4 ,paul wrote these letters1 i4e4 within less than thirty years after the event4 ,at this period of time the traditional recollection of it1 according to the principles laid down by ,sir ,g4 ,c4 ,lewis1 would have formed the best material for history4 ,all the other writings of the ,new ,testament1 whatever be their supposed date1 give a uniform testimony in complete agreement with this4 ,one of them demands a special notice--the book of ,revelation4 ,unbelievers do not dispute that this is a contemporaneous document1 the work of the ,apostle ,john1 and freely use it to support their own theories as to the intensity of the opposition between the ,jewish ,apostles and ,st4 ,paul4 ,i am quite sensible that a book which is professedly an apocalypse must be used with caution as an historical document1 or we may fall into numerous errors in drawing inferences from obscure allusions contained in visions4 ,but if there is one point more than another which this book makes clear1 it is the strength of the author's belief in the ,resurrection of ,jesus4 ,the frequent allusions to it1 and to ,jesus as being the ,christ1 put this beyond all dispute4 ,we have here the testimony of a book which unbelievers concur in considering to have been composed not later than a year after the death of ,nero1 and allow it to be the one solitary writing in the ,new ,testament composed by one of the twelve ,apostles4 ,according to the opinions of the opponents of the historical character of the ,gospels1 ,st4 ,john was the most ,judaizing of the original apostles of ,christ4 ,of this they think that they discern very distinct traces in the book of ,revelation4 ,his opposition to ,st4 ,paul was in their opinion extreme2 and they think that he is actually referred to in the second and third chapters as teaching the ,jewish ,christians to apostatize4 ,to discuss the truth or falsehood of these opinions can form no portion of the present work2 but it is plain that in either case we cannot have a more unexceptionable witness4 ,if these views are correct1 the ,apostle may be considered as the spokesman of the ,jewish ,christians4 ,at any rate he was one of the original followers of ,jesus4 ,now there is no book in the ,new ,testament which testifies more strongly to the completeness of the belief in the ,resurrection of ,christ1 and of ,his continued ,messianic life in the heavenly world4 ,the writer had conversed with ,him before ,his crucifixion4 ,the vision is to a considerable extent a description of ,his resurrection life4 ,this testimony alone carries with it the belief of the primitive ,church at ,jerusalem1 and proves that on this point at least they and ,st4 ,paul were at one4 ,this his ,epistles place beyond the possibility of question4 ,the parties in opposition were beyond all doubt ,judaizing ,christians4 ,according to those against whom ,i am reasoning1 they represented the opinions and claimed to act under the authority of ,st4 ,james and the ,church at ,jerusalem4 ,but as these ,judaizing teachers were at one with ,paul about the fact of the ,resurrection1 it follows that the leaders of that ,church concurred with him in opinion also4 ,if their opposition was as strenuous as has been attested1 if there had been any difference between ,st4 ,paul and the twelve on so fundamental a point1 it is impossible that they could have avoided adducing it to the ,apostle's prejudice4 ,the strength of ,st4 ,paul's assurance1 that there was no diversity of opinion in the ,church respecting this fact is remarkably illustrated by a passage in #a ,cor4 xv4 ,had it not been so1 his reasoning would have been simply absurd4 ,there were persons in that ,church who denied the fact of a future ,resurrection4 ,yet they must have admitted the truth of the ,resurrection of ,christ4 ,this is clear from the following words3--8,if there be no resurrection of the dead1 then is ,christ not risen40 ,the reply to this argument is so obvious that it could not have escaped the dullest apprehension2 if those who denied the reality of a future resurrection of the dead had entertained the smallest doubt as to the ,resurrection of ,christ1 they would have had nothing to do but to affirm that the fact was doubtful1 and the whole argument would fall to pieces4 ,on the contrary1 however1 ,st4 ,paul thought that they were so fully persuaded of the truth of ,christ's ,resurrection1 that he could safely use the fact to prove the possibility of that future resurrection which they denied4 ,it is clear1 that unless the belief was of the firmest character1 no logical position could be more dangerous than this line of argument4 ,the ,epistle to the ,romans establishes the same conclusion4 ,the belief of this ,church in the ,resurrection as the fundamental fact of ,christianity can be traced up1 as ,i have already observed1 not only to the commencement of their own ,christianity1 which was palpably of many years' standing1 but even to the birth of ,christianity itself4 ,of this1 one brief incidental allusion offers decisive proof3 8,salute10 says ,st4 ,paul1 8,andronicus and ,junia1 my kinsmen1 and my fellowprisoners1 who were of note among the ,apostles1 who were also in ,christ before me40 ,this passage makes the following points clear4 ,andronicus and ,junia were converted to ,christianity before ,st4 ,paul1 i4e4 within less than ten years from the date of the ,crucifixion4 ,they must therefore have been members of the ,jerusalem ,church4 ,they were of note among the ,apostles4 ,this expression cannot mean less than that they were highly esteemed by the original twelve1 and by the leaders of the ,church at ,jerusalem4 ,yet the ,apostle wrote this ,epistle in the fullest confidence that they would accept his ,christology1 including his account of the ,resurrection4 ,this proves that both they and the ,church at ,jerusalem1 including all its chief leaders1 accepted the ,resurrection as a fact within a very short interval after its supposed date4 ,but it does more3 it proves that its importance as vital to ,christianity was fully recognized2 or1 in other words1 it proves that the belief must have been contemporaneous with the origin of the ,church4 ,equally decisive is the proof afforded by the ,epistle to the ,galatians4 ,it mentions two visits which the writer made to ,jerusalem4 ,one in which he paid ,peter a visit of fifteen days1 during which time he communicated with ,james4 ,on the second occasion he went up to ,jerusalem as a member of an embassy from the ,church at ,antioch1 for the purpose of settling points under dispute between the ,jewish and ,gentile converts4 ,on this occasion he tells us that he had a formal interview with the leaders of the ,jewish ,church1 of which ,peter1 ,james1 and ,john were esteemed the pillars4 ,he expressly informs us that he communicated to them the leading points of the ,gospel which he preached among the ,gentiles2 and that he received from them the right hand of fellowship1 which can only mean that they sanctioned his views and fundamental principles4 ,it is true that the ,resurrection is not expressly mentioned as one of these2 but it is impossible that the statement that he communicated his ,gospel to them can be true1 if this was not one of the facts which he imparted to them4 ,it is a very important fact1 and worthy of special notice1 that in the account given in the ,epistle to the ,corinthians of the appearances of ,jesus after ,his ,resurrection1 ,st4 ,paul expressly affirms that the risen ,jesus was seen by ,peter and by ,james2 the latter appearance being mentioned nowhere else3 and the former only referred to in the exclamation which greeted ,cleopas and his companion on their return from ,emmaus4 ,it seems1 therefore1 morally certain that ,st4 ,paul had heard an account of these two appearances from the ,apostles in question4 ,if so1 it brings us directly into contact with two of the most important of the apostolic body1 who must have believed that they had actually seen him4 ,respecting the belief of ,st4 ,john1 the third pillar of the ,church at ,jerusalem1 the testimony of the book of ,revelation leaves no room for doubt4 ,these writings enable us to affirm that three of the original ,apostles believed that they had seen ,jesus1 risen from the dead4 ,it is evident1 therefore1 that this brings us into the presence of historical evidence of the first order1 quite independently of the affirmations of the ,gospels4 ,if the first ,epistle of ,st4 ,peter is genuine 7and there is nothing but surmises and priori assumptions about the opposition of his views to those of ,st4 ,paul on which the doubts respecting its genuineness are based7 then we have the affirmation of the fulness of his belief in the ,resurrection under his own hand4 ,besides the strong external testimony that it was written by ,st4 ,peter1 there is one proof of its genuineness which is almost conclusive1 and to which sufficient weight has not been attached by either the defenders or the opponents of ,christianity4 ,it is hardly possible to read this ,epistle carefully without feeling that the writer of it is the same man as the ,peter of the ,gospels2 the one being separated from the other by a considerable interval of time2 the ,peter of the ,epistle being in fact a mellowed form of the ,peter of the ,gospels4 ,but this has not only a direct bearing on the evidence of the ,resurrection1 but also a most important one1 which ,i shall notice hereafter1 on the historical character of the ,gospels themselves4 ,one more writing of the ,new ,testament must be alluded to1 because whoever was its author it belongs to a school of thought distinct from the other writings of the ,new ,testament4 ,i need hardly say that ,i allude to the ,epistle to the ,hebrews4 ,the testimony of this writing to the fact that the belief in the ,resurrection of ,jesus was fundamental to ,christianity is no less decisive2 it not only proves what were the individual opinions of the writer1 but of the school of ,christian thought for whom it was intended4 ,it affords abundant proof that the writer knew that their opinions on the subject were entirely in accordance with his own4 ,i have now shown on the strongest historical evidence that it is impossible that the belief in the ,resurrection can have grown up slowly and only succeeded in gradually establishing itself4 ,on the contrary1 ,i have proved that it was coeval with the birth of the ,church1 and that it formed the one sole ground of its existence4 ,i have also proved that the belief in it was universal1 and that it was accepted by the entire ,christian community without distinction of party2 and that their belief can be traced up as the sole cause of the renewed life of the ,church after the crucifixion4 ,i shall consider in the following chapter the bearing of these facts on the truth of the ,resurrection1 and show that the facts before us are inconsistent with any other supposition but that of its objective occurrence1 and that it is impossible to account for it by any theory which endeavours to explain it on the supposition that the belief originated in the credulity and enthusiasm of the followers of ,jesus4 ,,chapter ,,xx4 ,,the ,,resurrection ,,of ,,jesus ,,christ ,,an ,,historical ,,fact4 ,i have proved in the preceding chapter1 on the testimony of the highest order of historical evidence3-- #a4 ,that the belief in the ,resurrection of ,jesus was universal in the ,church when ,st4 ,paul wrote these ,epistles4 #b4 ,that this belief was held by every section in the ,church1 by the strongest opponents no less than by the admiring friends of ,st4 ,paul4 #c4 ,that the ,churches holding this belief were separated from each other by a wide geographical area1 and consisted of a great diversity of character1 thereby affording the greatest obstacle to the spreading of an absurd story4 #d4 ,that these ,churches did not merely accept the ,resurrection as a bare fact1 but that they considered that their existence as communities was based on its truth4 #e4 ,that they viewed the fact of the ,resurrection not only as the great bond of union1 but as the source of the moral power of the ,christianity which they professed1 and fully believed that their acceptance of it had exercised a mighty influence in turning them from the low and debasing pursuits of their previous life4 #f4 ,that their belief in the ,resurrection was closely bound up with all the pursuits of their daily life4 #g4 ,that these ,epistles not only afford indisputable proof that this state of things existed in the ,churches within less than twentyeight years after the crucifixion1 but they no less clearly show that the earliest ,christian communities1 such as the ,churches of ,antioch and ,jerusalem1 entertained similar beliefs4 #h4 ,that it is an unquestionable historical fact that the belief in the ,resurrection was coeval with the restored life of the ,church which had been extinguished by the crucifixion4 #i4 ,that the three pillar ,apostles of the ,church of ,jerusalem believed that they had seen ,jesus after ,his ,resurrection1 and that the entire body entertained a similar opinion4 #aj4 ,that as late as ,a4,d4 #eg or #eh more than #bej persons were still living who believed that they had seen ,jesus after ,his ,resurrection2 and that originally more than five hundred persons entertained a similar persuasion4 ,such are plain facts of history4 ,the question now before us is1 how are they to be accounted for8 ,only three possible alternatives present themselves4 ,either3 ,some of the followers of ,jesus must have fancied that they saw ,him risen from the dead1 and have communicated this delusion to the rest4 ,or3 ,that ,he did not actually die1 when ,he was supposed to have done so2 and that ,his subsequent appearance1 when partially recovered1 was mistaken for a resurrection4 ,or3 ,that ,he rose from the dead in veritable reality1 and was seen by ,his followers1 and conversed with them4 ,i omit another possible supposition1 that the belief in the ,resurrection was due to a deliberate fraud1 because no one capable of appreciating moral or historical evidence ventures to affirm it4 ,the idea that the greatest and purest of human institutions can owe its origin to a deliberate imposture is a libel on human nature4 ,around one or other of these alternatives the contest lies4 ,it is useless to attempt to becloud the question with a number of barren and indefinite generalities1 such as myths and legends1 vague charges of enthusiasm1 fanaticism1 and credulity1 or general assertions of developments brought about by a succession of compromises between hostile parties4 ,we are here in the presence of stern historical facts1 which require a clear and definite solution4 ,the ,christian ,church exists as a fact4 ,we can trace it up to its first origin4 ,it asserts that its existence is due to the ,resurrection of ,jesus ,christ1 and to nothing else4 ,if unbelievers affirm that the fact is false1 they are bound to offer some theory which is true to human nature1 and lies within the possibilities of things1 to show us how this belief originated1 and how it was able to consolidate the life of this new community4 ,the idea that the greatest moral power which has ever appeared among mankind has had no other origin than a baseless delusion is supremely melancholy4 ,that ,christianity has been such a moral power will be disputed by few2 and a large number of unbelievers will allow that notwithstanding the faults which they attribute to it1 nothing has equally contributed to the civilization and elevation of the race4 ,yet if it be a delusion1 it must be recognised as such1 and we must submit to our hard fate4 ,still it is a terrible proposition to realize1 that the noblest of human institutions has originated in a lie1 even if it be one which was not deliberately intended as such4 ,it is evident that however great may be the general credulity of mankind1 it is a very difficult matter to get any number of men to accept as a fact the assertion that a person who has actually died has returned again to bodily life4 ,such a belief will only be effected by the production of evidence which1 if not true1 is at all events in the highest degree plausible4 ,this1 as ,i have already observed1 is fully established by the history of the past1 for however numerous the narratives of marvellous occurrences may be1 whether in histories or fictions1 it is next to impossible to find reports of beliefs in the actual occurrence of a resurrection1 or even in the possibility of one prior to that of ,jesus ,christ4 ,now ,st4 ,paul's conversion cannot be dated later than within ten years of the crucifixion2 most probably it was earlier4 ,it is clear that1 prior to his conversion1 communities of ,jewish ,christians must have existed in considerable numbers--in such numbers1 in fact1 as to raise his wrath and indignation to the highest point4 ,the spirit of persecution is aroused by a sense of danger4 ,it is clear1 therefore1 from the fact of the persecution1 that the persons in power saw danger from the progress of the new sect1 and that its numbers most have been considerable4 ,from ,st4 ,paul's testimony1 it is also certain that ,christianity had spread at least to one place beyond ,juda4 ,the inference1 therefore1 seems irresistible that in the period which elapsed between the crucifixion and ,st4 ,paul's conversion1 the number of the believers in the ,resurrection of ,jesus had increased to several thousands4 ,those1 therefore1 against whom ,i am reasoning1 cannot help admitting that an interval of eight or ten years is a very short one for the conversion of such a large number of persons to the belief that a man who had been publicly executed1 in the very city in which many of them lived1 had been restored to life4 ,it is impossible that this belief could have been entertained by only a few solitary individuals who treasured it up secretly in their bosoms4 ,on the contrary1 the conditions of the case prove that it must have spread rapidly4 ,it was not sufficient for the creation of the ,church that a few solitary enthusiasts should believe that their ,master was risen from the dead1 but it was necessary that the ,society1 which ,jesus had formed in his lifetime1 should be immediately reorganized on the basis of this belief4 ,the belief in the ,messiahship of ,jesus constituted the original bond of union4 ,a dead ,messiah was1 in the eyes of a ,jew1 an absurdity2 still more so one who had been publicly crucified4 ,with the death of ,jesus1 therefore1 the bond of union among ,his followers must have been severed4 ,unless the ,church was to perish in ,his grave1 it was absolutely necessary that it should be reconstructed on the basis of ,his renewed life4 ,the slowness with which any large number of even credulous people will accept the fact of a resurrection from the dead1 must have formed an obstacle1 the force of which it is impossible to overestimate4 ,yet the work was done1 and1 within a period of seven or eight years1 the belief had spread so widely that its adherents could be numbered by thousands4 ,the truth of the ,resurrection1 founded on the direct testimony of a considerable number of persons who had had sufficient opportunity of testing it by the evidence of their senses1 would fully account for the rapid growth of the belief4 ,if1 however1 it originated in the brain of one or two crazed fanatics1 if the belief of so prodigious an event could propagate itself at all1 a considerable interval of time was absolutely necessary for its doing so4 ,the memory of the ,crucifixion was fresh and recent4 ,what would have been the natural effect of announcing the fact of ,his ,resurrection8 ,incredulity6 ,what has become of ,his body8 ,why does ,he not appear to ,his former friends8 ,the strangeness of the event must have prompted even the most credulous to make some inquiry about the matter1 and the inquiry must have dissipated the delusion4 ,such a belief could only readily propagate itself after recent memories had grown dim1 and a long interval of time had elapsed1 sufficient for the ,founder of ,christianity to become surrounded with a halo of imaginary glory4 ,let us now consider the position in which the followers of ,jesus must have found themselves on the night of the ,crucifixion1 and during the following days4 ,their hopes had been based on ,him as the ,messiah1 who was to reign in the kingdom promised by the prophets2 and they expected important places in that kingdom as the reward of their fidelity4 ,these hopes must have been annihilated4 ,the ,messiah whom they expected to reign had perished at the hands of ,his enemies4 ,what was to be hoped for more8 ,many could not help thinking that he had been a selfdeceiver1 if not an impostor4 ,was there any ground for hoping that ,he could be raised from the dead8 ,many of the prophets of the ancient ,church had perished by the authority of former governments1 or by the violence of the mob4 ,but ,god had never interfered to vindicate the cause of one of them by raising him from the dead4 ,the utmost that ,he had done was to raise up some new prophet to take his place4 ,but this man was more than a prophet--he was the ,messiah4 ,did not all the old prophets promise ,him a kingdom and a glory and a mighty triumph8 ,yet ,he had been cut off by ,his enemies1 instead of triumphing over them2 and ,his dead body was silent in the grave4 ,any hint that the ,gospels allege ,jesus to have given ,his followers of ,his own ,resurrection is1 according to the theory of those with whom ,i am reasoning1 a late invention4 ,on the days1 therefore1 which followed the ,crucifixion1 the ,church must have presented the stillness of death1 broken only by a few utterances of loving despair4 ,but the ,church did not perish2 it set itself to the work of reconstruction4 ,it expanded and grew4 ,within the space of eight years after the ,crucifixion1 the believers in the ,resurrection could be numbered by thousands4 ,this is an indisputable fact4 ,again it expanded and grew1 and it never ceased to grow until in less than three hundred years after the public execution of its ,founder by the authority of the ,roman government1 one of its professed adherents mounted the imperial throne1 and found its strength sufficient to enable him to make it one of the institutions of the ,state4 ,these facts are without a parallel in history4 ,how are they to be accounted for8 ,the followers of ,jesus affirmed that their ,master rose from the dead2 and that ,he thus resumed ,his place as the ,messiah of ,his ,church4 ,unbelievers1 in the face of the evidence before us1 cannot deny that the great body of ,his followers must have believed that ,he had done so within the short interval of a few months after ,his public execution4 ,our documents on this point are distinct and definite4 ,they affirm that ,he was not only seen but handled by many of ,his disciples after ,his ,resurrection1 that ,he ate with them1 and that they had interviews with ,him individually and collectively4 ,i must now examine the alternative positions2 and first1 that ,his supposed appearances were delusions of the imagination4 ,the loose and general affirmation has been made that the followers of ,jesus were so enthusiastically attached to ,him that the idea of ,his death was simply unbearable1 and that they attempted to get rid of the fact by supposing that ,he had risen from the dead4 ,i reply first3 that all such general statements are worthless4 ,we have specific facts before us2 and these can only be accounted for by facts which are equally definite1 and not mere fancies4 ,the assertion before me is not only a bare supposition without one atom of evidence to rest upon1 but it contradicts all the known facts of the case4 ,so far is it from having been the case that the disciples were in such a state of enthusiastic exultation1 that our own documents inform us that they had fallen into the lowest state of despondency4 ,but further3 when a theory is propounded to account for an historical fact1 the possibility of the supposition must be supported by some analogous cases in the history of man1 more or less resembling it4 ,all theories which are devoid of this support are worthless as history4 ,let those1 therefore1 who would urge this on our acceptance as an account of the origin of the greatest event in history1 show that something like it has occurred in the records of the past4 ,let them show us one instance of a body of men whose enthusiasm for their leader was so great that1 when he had been put to death by the authority of the government of the country1 they got over this by fancying that he had been raised from the dead1 and then took to persuading others of its truth4 ,the enthusiasm of followers for their leaders has urged them to form plots1 and even to make attempts to rescue them from the hands of their enemies4 ,such enthusiasm1 however1 is not even hinted at in the case of the disciples of ,christ4 ,no whisper of tradition has reached us that any of them formed a plot1 or made a solitary attempt to rescue their ,master4 ,are we then to believe that they imagined a resurrection to repair the damage of ,his ,crucifixion8 ,such imaginative conceits would never have made a single convert to their story4 ,they left their ,master to perish in ,his agony1 and when ,he had expired under the hands of ,his executioners1 restored ,him to an ideal life by imagining that ,he was risen from the dead4 ,such fictions may be safely dismissed without further notice4 ,secondly3 ,let us suppose that some one of ,his disciples thought that he actually saw ,him1 and in the height of his enthusiasm converted a fancy into a fact2 and persuaded the other disciples that ,he was risen from the dead3 that these too1 in turn1 were wrought up into so high a state of enthusiasm that they likewise fancied that they saw ,him3 thus the delusion spread4 ,i reply3-- ,first3 ,as ,i have already observed1 we are entitled to demand that some analogous case should be adduced before we can be rationally asked to accept such theories as to the solution of an unquestionable historical fact4 ,surely1 if such are the workings of human nature under influences so general as enthusiasm and credulity1 some similar occurrence must be no uncommon event in history4 ,let one therefore be adduced4 ,secondly3 ,nothing is easier to affirm than that some credulous and enthusiastic follower of ,jesus mistook a fancy of his imagination for a fact1 thought that he had seen ,him alive1 and communicated his enthusiasm to the rest4 ,whatever may be said as to the possibility in fits of enthusiasm of a few halfcrazy fanatics mistaking fancies for facts1 it is clear that to communicate this enthusiasm to others is a very difficult undertaking1 especially when they are in a depressed state of mind4 ,as ,i have already shown1 it is in the highest degree difficult1 if not impossible1 to persuade even very credulous persons of the occurrence of an actual resurrection1 as all history and fiction prior to the ,advent testify4 ,a case of a person who professed to have seen1 touched1 conversed1 and eaten with one who was raised from the dead is not on record4 ,the belief in ghost stories and apparitions of the departed is to be met with at every turn4 ,sorcery professed to be able to bring departed spirits from the underworld1 but it never attempted to restore to life a body which once was dead4 ,between these two classes of facts the distinction is most important4 ,the enthusiasm or credulity which easily creates the one belief1 refuses to accept the other4 ,what we have to account for in this case is1 not that some imaginative follower thought that he had seen the spirit of the crucified ,jesus1 come from the underworld to make a communication to his followers1 and that the other disciples credulously accepted the report3 but that the appearance was that of his body restored to the functions of animal life--in one word1 a ,resurrection1 able to repair the damage which had been occasioned by his ,crucifixion4 ,but for the purpose of arguing the question we must suppose that some one of the enthusiastic followers of ,jesus fancied that he saw ,him after ,his death1 and mistook that fancy for a fact4 ,i own that it is very difficult even to assume the existence of enthusiasm in the present instance1 because all the known facts as well as the conditions of the case prove that whatever enthusiasm had once existed1 it was at a very low ebb on the morning of the supposed ,resurrection4 ,still1 however1 the assumption must be made1 or argument will be impossible4 ,as one enthusiast will be as good as another1 let us assume that our supposed enthusiast was ,mary ,magdalene1 who went early to the sepulchre1 found the stone gone1 saw the gardener in the dim light1 mistook him for ,jesus1 and went and told her friends that she had seen ,him risen from the dead3 or to put the case more simply1 that her excited brain created some spectral illusion2 and that under its influence she thought she saw ,him1 and proceeded to convey the report to her friends4 ,it at once strikes us as most unaccountable that1 enthusiastic as she must have been1 she did not do something to assure herself of the reality of the bodily presence of her ,master4 ,it was hard even for an enthusiast to believe that it was ,he4 ,if she had spoken1 and it was the gardener1 she would have been at once cured of her delusion4 ,if she had attempted to embrace ,him and it had been a phantom1 the same result would have followed4 ,surely the intensity of her love1 however credulous or fanatical she might be1 would not have allowed her to leave the spot without some suitable demonstration4 ,equally incredible is it that she should have left ,him1 without inquiring whither ,he intended to betake ,himself1 or obtaining the promise of some future meeting at which ,his disconcerted friends might see ,him4 ,however enthusiastic she may have been1 it is simply untrue to human nature1 that she should have thought that her much loved ,master had appeared to her in bodily reality1 and that she should neither have spoken to ,him1 touched ,him1 nor endeavoured to ascertain the place of ,his proposed retreat1 nor what ,his intentions were about the future4 ,if she had done any of these things1 it would have dissipated her delusions4 ,let us suppose1 however1 that all these difficulties do not exist1 and that she is gone to publish among the friends of ,jesus that she had seen ,him risen from the dead4 ,his death had proved to them a stunning blow2 but let us suppose that they were still eagerly desirous of the occurrence of something which might renew their old faith in their ,master's ,messiahship4 ,it is clear that nothing short of a belief in ,his resurrection could have accomplished this4 ,yet however desirous they may have been of ,his return to life1 they were confronted with the stern fact that ,he had been publicly executed1 and that the credulity of the past had not succeeded in restoring dead men to life4 ,their despondency occasioned by the events of the last three days was extreme4 ,let us suppose that ,mary ,magdalene rushes in with the announcement3 8,i have seen the ,lord1--the tomb is empty1--,he is risen from the dead40 ,however desirous they might be that the news should be true1 it is evident that such an announcement must have filled the minds of even the most credulous with astonishment4 ,what6 not the apparition of ,his departed spirit1 but a bodily reality1 the very man himself8 ,is it possible that none of them suspected that it was the dream of an enthusiastic woman8 ,is it conceivable that men or women1 passionately attached to their ,master1 asked her no questions about the interview2 what ,he had said to her2 where ,he was to be found8 ,some replies to these and kindred questions were inevitable2 and unless they were distinct and satisfactory1 the rising enthusiasm must have been checked4 ,is it true to human nature that the most enthusiastic credulity could have accepted these things as facts1 or that the dead ,jesus could have straightway assumed ,his place of ,messianic dignity in their minds1 if ,he had made no appointment where ,he could meet ,his friends2 or if that appointment was created by the imagination of the ,magdalene1 but when tested by the attempt to see him1 it proved a delusion8 ,but even credulity1 when united with profound love and attachment to a departed friend1 must have some farther satisfaction than a fancied sight4 ,if the disciples1 in the height of their enthusiasm1 imagined that they saw ,him1 they surely would have spoken to ,him4 ,could they have helped embracing ,him on his return to life after ,his cruel sufferings and ignominious death8 ,above all1 what about the future8 ,was ,he going to teach again in public8 ,was ,he not going to bring confusion on ,his enemies8 ,was ,he actually going to retire from public view out of their way8 ,and if ,he did so1 what about ,his ,messianic claims8 ,who was to head the party for the future8 ,could they have no secret interviews with ,him8 ,if ,he henceforth retired into obscurity1 what announcement were ,his friends to make to ,his opponents8 ,the most fanatical enthusiasts must have asked some of these questions4 ,either no answer was returned1 and the delusions must have been immediately dispelled2 or the enthusiasm which generated a phantom1 and mistook it for a reality1 invented an answer likewise4 ,any reply which fell short of a promise to appear for the future at their head1 and either convince or confound ,his adversaries1 must have extinguished their belief in ,his ,messiahship4 ,they either fancied they saw ,him again1 or they did not4 ,if the former was the case1 they must have had repeated interviews1 all created by the imagination1 at which something definite must have been supposed to have passed sufficient to establish the belief that ,he was a ,messiah returned to them from the grave4 ,if ,his old ,messianic character had ceased1 some definite plan must have been propounded of the mode in which ,he was going to enter on a new one4 ,if1 however1 we accept the alternative that ,he saw them no more1 we shall possibly be told that ,his followers accounted for ,his absence by imagining that ,he had for a time been taken up into heaven1 whence ,he was shortly coming again to destroy ,his enemies4 ,but in that case it must have been a cruel blow to enthusiastic love4 ,what6 their much loved ,master1 for whom they had sacrificed their all1 to afford them one mute interview after ,his resurrection1 immediately to go into heaven1 and leave them without a head1 exposed to the assaults of the opponents who had murdered ,him8 ,but let us imagine all these difficulties got over1 and that they fancied that they caught one solitary glimpse of ,him1 and that ,he was taken up into heaven1 whence ,he would come again to revive ,his sinking cause4 ,was ,he to return in a few days1 or months1 or years8 ,if the days became months1 and the months years1 what was to be done with the ,church in the meantime8 ,was it to organize itself8 ,if so1 on what new basis8 ,was it to confront ,his foes8 ,was it to make converts2 or quietly to await ,his return8 ,if the latter1 as months and years passed away1 the ,church must have simply died of inanition1 and we should have heard no more of ,christianity4 ,if the former hypothesis be preferred1 then it is plain that ,his followers must have determined to start ,his ,messiahship on a new basis4 ,but what was this8 ,how was it to be propounded to the world8 ,how were ,his other disciples to be persuaded to accept it8 ,instead of an earthly1 the ,church for the future must be headed by a heavenly ,messiah1 who was coming at some future day to take vengeance on ,his foes4 ,such a change of tactics must have been resolved upon1 and that speedily2 the whole plan must have been conceived and executed by a few credulous enthusiasts1 or the belief in the ,messiahship of ,jesus must have been extinguished in ,his grave4 ,but further2 the necessity of converting the other disciples to this belief was most urgent2 for until this could be done1 the society was dissolving into its individual elements4 ,how was it to be accomplished8 ,it is easy to say that these enthusiasts communicated their enthusiasm to the rest4 ,but this little sentence conceals behind it whole mountains of difficulty4 ,every one to which ,i have already alluded1 must have had to be surmounted in each individual case4 ,there must have been many other disciples who dearly loved their ,master4 ,what must have been their feelings on hearing that ,he had appeared to only four or five of them1 and had gone up into heaven8 ,what6 ,he1 whom we loved1 who dearly loved us1 risen from the dead1 and gone to heaven without affording us the consolation of a parting interview8 ,such a thought was enough to chill all ordinary enthusiasm4 ,was ,his mother one of those who fancied they saw ,him come again from the grave8 ,if she was1 could she have been mistaken8 ,if she did not see ,him1 what must have been her feelings at the thought that ,he had left the world1 without allowing her to behold ,him8 ,what would have been the feelings of the women1 whose beneficence had contributed to ,his support1 or of ,his intimate friends among the ,apostles8 ,surely all these would have thought it more certain that their companions' report originated in a heated imagination1 than that ,jesus should have acted thus4 ,but the idea that a few fanatics only fancied that they saw ,jesus alive after ,his ,crucifixion is negatived by an historical fact distinctly affirmed by ,st4 ,paul in the face of his opponents in the ,corinthian ,church4 ,having mentioned ,his appearance to ,peter and the twelve1 ,st4 ,paul asserts3 8,after that1 ,he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once1 of whom the greater part remain unto this present1 but some are fallen asleep40 ,here then we are in possession of direct contemporaneous testimony4 ,this assertion is boldly made in the face of the powerful party who denied ,st4 ,paul's apostleship4 ,it is clear that if they had not believed in the truth of his assertion1 they would not have lost such an opportunity of throwing discredit upon him by convicting him of falsehood4 ,the ,apostle affirms in the presence of his adversaries that there were then living more than #bej persons who believed that they had seen ,jesus ,christ after ,he had risen from the dead2 and not only so1 but that upwards of #ejj persons had seen ,him on one and the same occasion4 ,if this assertion was false1 nothing was easier than for the opponents of the ,apostle to refute it4 ,on the supposition1 therefore1 that the belief in the ,resurrection originated in a delusion1 it must have been one on a prodigiously large scale4 ,unless ,st4 ,paul1 and the opposing section of the ,corinthian ,church1 who must have represented the opinions of the ,church at ,jerusalem1 were misinformed on this subject1 it is necessary to frame an hypothesis which shall not only account for three or four fanatics1 fancying that they saw ,jesus ,christ alive1 when it was nothing but the creation of a disordered imagination1 but for the fact that more than five hundred persons laboured under a similar delusion4 ,the assertion of the ,apostle is express1 not that more than five hundred persons were persuaded to believe that some others had seen ,jesus ,christ after ,he was risen from the dead1 but that they had actually seen ,him themselves4 ,the only way of evading the force of this testimony is either by directly impugning ,st4 ,paul's veracity1 or by supposing that he made an assertion based on a vulgar rumour4 ,the whole character of the ,apostle renders the supposition of a deliberate falsehood incredible1 besides the danger already alluded to of certain detection by his opponents4 ,nor is the other alternative more tenable1 that on such a subject he adopted a mere idle rumour4 ,no subject more occupied his mind than the ,resurrection of ,jesus ,christ4 ,for ,him he sacrificed everything4 ,to ,him he devoted his entire life4 ,is it conceivable that such a man would not1 under the influence of common curiosity1 have inquired into the alleged facts of his ,master's ,resurrection8 ,but these letters prove that he was a man of far more than ordinary curiosity4 ,it is clear from them that he kept himself acquainted with the details of the events which took place in the ,churches which he had planted4 ,messengers were sent by him to supply him with all necessary information4 ,even in so distant a ,church as that of ,rome1 which he had not even visited1 he knew no small number of the chief ,christians by name1 and took the deepest interest in their affairs4 ,are we to believe that such a man received such a fact connected with the dearest interests of his life without taking the trouble to ascertain its truth8 ,moreover1 his former character as a persecutor must have rendered it necessary that he should institute a diligent inquiry into the alleged ,resurrection of one whom he considered an impostor1 and whose adherents he was endeavouring to compel to renounce their allegiance4 ,we must1 therefore1 conclude that what ,st4 ,paul here affirms must have been true1 that on one definite occasion several hundreds of persons thought that they had seen ,jesus ,christ after ,he was risen from the dead4 ,but if it is in the highest degree difficult to account for the possibility of three or four of the disciples of ,jesus fancying they saw their risen ,master1 when they saw nothing but a creation of their own imagination1 what theory can be framed to account for the fact of several hundreds of persons having become the prey of a similar delusion8 ,large numbers of persons do not fall into delusions of this kind4 ,are we to suppose that some of them affirmed that some distant object which they saw was ,jesus1 and that the remainder accepted the assertion without inquiry8 ,if ,he had not come near to them1 would they not have rushed up to a man1 who was believed to have come up again from the grave1 and endeavoured to converse with him8 ,let all history be searched for any fact at all like this4 ,until something like it can be found1 we are justified in pronouncing such a delusion impossible4 ,nay3 however common the belief in ghost stories1 it would be impossible to find a case of several hundred persons who believed that1 on some one definite occasion1 when they were all assembled1 they had seen the ghost of a person who had recently been executed1 appear before them1 and on the strength of this belief1 constituted themselves into a new society2--a society which has endured through eighteen centuries8 ,however cynical our views may be1 it is impossible to believe that human nature is a lie4 ,again3 ,if for the purposes of the argument we accept the impossible supposition that a few deluded fanatics persuaded themselves that they had seen their ,master risen from the dead1 and that they set themselves to persuade others that this was a fact1 then it is clear that the wish of making converts to their belief must have been a very gradual and slow process4 ,this1 in the face of all the evidence supplied by history1 does not require further proof4 ,it would be impossible to make converts at all1 without adducing some overwhelming evidence of the truth of their assertion4 ,but on the supposition that it was a delusion of the imagination1 such evidence could not be forthcoming4 ,such beliefs are only possible after the lapse of very considerable intervals of time1 if they are possible even then4 ,but in the present case recollections were all fresh4 ,will the attempt to persuade persons who live in the city where a public execution has taken place1 that the man executed is alive again1 succeed8 ,will it succeed anywhere in the neighbourhood1 while the events are still in everybody's recollection8 ,living actors must have died out1 memories of the past must have become faint1 before such things can be made to wear even the semblance of possibility4 ,but the plain historical facts refuse to concede the requisite interval during which such a belief could slowly grow up4 ,while the belief was growing1 the ,church would have been perishing from want of a ,messiah to step into the place of the dead ,jesus4 ,on the contrary1 the growth of the belief was rapid4 ,the ,church speedily rose from its ruins4 ,before ,st4 ,paul's conversion1 it had increased to such numbers as to be worth persecuting4 ,there was a ,church at ,jerusalem2 there were ,churches in ,juda2 there were ,christians in ,damascus4 ,before this event the small knot of deluded fanatics had persuaded thousands2 they had formed the ,society which subverted the religion and institutions of the ,roman empire1 and of which all the progressive races of men profess--now in the #aith century of its existence--to be still members4 ,the facts of unquestionable history utterly refuse to the advocates of this theory the time necessary for imparting to it even a passing plausibility4 ,i infer1 therefore1 that the theory that one or more credulous enthusiasts among the disciples of ,jesus fancied that they saw their ,master risen from the dead1 while in reality they were labouring under some mental hallucination1 and that they communicated their enthusiasm to the rest1 and that these created the ,christian ,church1 is unsound in philosophy1 contradicts the facts of history1 and the phenomena of human nature1 as testified to by past experience1 and is destitute of the possibility of verification1 and also is contrary to analogy4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that this portion of the alternative before us must be pronounced utterly inadequate as a solution of the facts4 ,let us now consider the other alternative1 that ,jesus did not actually die1 but1 although ,he had been crucified1 escaped with ,his life2 that ,his disciples saw ,him after ,his crucifixion2 and1 being persuaded that ,he had expired1 mistook ,his appearance for a restoration to life4 ,this alternative need not detain us long4 ,it is involved in a considerable number of the difficulties which are connected with the assumption that some one or more of the disciples fancied that they saw ,him when they did not really see ,him1 and that they persuaded the others that ,he was risen from the dead4 ,these difficulties ,i have already disposed of4 ,but it has in addition some difficulties peculiarly its own1 which ,i will now briefly notice4 ,i admit that it was possible to recover from the effects of crucifixion1 if taken down from the cross in time4 ,this we learn from ,josephus1 who1 on his return one day from going to examine a place for the encampment of the ,roman forces1 found that three of his friends had been crucified during his absence4 ,by his entreaties1 he obtained the orders of ,titus for their being taken down4 ,two died under cure2 one recovered4 ,josephus is silent as to whether they had been scourged before they were crucified4 ,this was no doubt an important point in reference to the possibility of recovery4 ,such was the usual practice2 although when the ,romans crucified the ,jews in large numbers1 as they had now been in the habit of doing for some time1 it may be a question whether it was always inflicted4 ,these persons had probably been suspended on the cross for some hours before they were taken down4 ,they were treated with the utmost care1 with a view to their recovery2 yet two out of the three died4 ,such are the facts1 as related by ,josephus4 ,it has been suggested that ,jesus was only in a swoon when taken down from the cross2 that in the sepulchre ,he recovered ,his consciousness1 to which the large quantity of spices used at ,his burial might have contributed2 that ,he managed to creep out of the grave to some place of security1 where ,he was seen by a few of ,his disciples1 but that ,he died not long after4 ,this1 it is said1 the disciples mistook for a ,resurrection1 and that it formed the basis of the renewed life of the ,church4 ,let it be observed that there would be the same difficulties in reconstituting the ,church on such a basis1 and in procuring converts to this belief1 as there would have been on the other alternative1 which ,i have shown to be untenable4 ,these1 therefore1 ,i need not consider4 ,this theory presupposes not only that the body of ,jesus was interred1 but that it was committed to the custody of ,his friends4 ,this fact we have from the ,gospels2 as well as the additional fact that the time during which ,he was suspended on the cross did not exceed six hours at the utmost4 ,but we also learn from them that1 before ,pilate ordered the body to be delivered up1 he took care to ascertain1 from those in charge1 the certainty of the death2 and the fourth ,gospel affirms that one of the soldiers1 in order to remove all doubt on the subject1 pierced his side with a spear4 ,now without the aid of the ,gospels it would not have been known that the body was committed to the custody of ,his friends4 ,if1 therefore1 their historical testimony is good for this fact1 it is absurd to refuse them credence when they testify to the other facts4 ,we say distinctly3 if the truth of the one set of facts is denied1 because the ,gospels are unhistorical1 the truth of the other set 7for the ,gospels are the sole authorities7 must not be assumed on their testimony4 ,apart from this1 we are only at liberty to assume that the crucifixion was conducted in the usual manner2 and that the bodies were disposed of accordingly1 i4e4 that1 if the crucified persons were buried at all1 they were buried ignominiously4 ,it has also been affirmed that ,pilate sacrificed ,jesus by compulsion1 and that the centurion on guard was not illdisposed towards him4 ,this again1 ,i say1 we only learn from our present ,gospels1 and ,i must again protest against the practice of accepting their testimony on one side and ignoring it on the other4 ,the ,romans1 moreover1 were not the sort of men to allow a crucified victim to be taken down from the cross until they were well assured that he had hung there long enough to extinguish life2 and from the frequency of such executions they would learn how long it would require1 and what on such occasions were the symptoms of death2 nor did they concede to persons so executed an honourable burial4 ,but further3 ,it never occurred to the ,jews that it was possible that the crucified ,jesus had escaped with ,his life1 and that this fact was really at the bottom of the announcement of ,his resurrection4 ,if it was known to any person concerned that ,he had thus escaped1 nothing could have been more dangerous on the part of ,his followers than to announce that ,he was risen from the dead4 ,this was the very thing to promote inquiry1 and to arouse a suspicion among ,his enemies that ,he had not really died1 and thus to induce them to make every effort to ascertain the place of ,his retreat4 ,the quickest way to put an end to the story of the ,resurrection was to produce the living ,jesus1 weak and exhausted from ,his wounds2 or1 if ,he had really died1 to produce ,his body4 ,but not a single whisper has come down to us from the opponents of ,christianity that ,he did not really die4 ,if such an idea had afforded even a probable account of the story of the ,resurrection1 it would certainly have occurred to ,paul when a persecutor1 and he would have had recourse to it as a means of dissipating the delusion4 ,such are some of the first difficulties which surround this mode of accounting for the story of the ,resurrection4 ,a sepulchre was a place illfitted for a man1 exhausted by scourging and crucifixion1 to recover in2 nor was there a retreat at hand4 ,but1 as we scrutinize the matter more closely1 these difficulties become impossibilities4 ,it is clear that from the hour of ,his supposed death on the cross1 ,jesus disappears from history1 except in the form of ,jesus the ,messiah raised again from the dead1 the great ,founder of the ,christian ,church4 ,if1 therefore1 ,his supposed ,resurrection was nothing but a recovery from a swoon1 one of two things is certain3 either ,he died shortly after from exhaustion1 or ,he lived somewhere in deepest retirement1 only receiving visits from those of ,his followers who were in the secret1 and in due course ,he expired4 ,perhaps it may be urged that ,his friends succeeded in carrying ,him off into some distant country1 and that some one or more of ,his followers1 who had seen ,him slowly recovering1 mistook this for a resurrection1 and propagated the story4 ,we must keep steadily in view that what we have to account for is not a mere story of a resurrection propagated by a crazed fanatic1 but the erection of the ,christian ,church on its basis4 ,it is a plain fact that ,jesus appeared no more in public1 and that ,his earthly history ends with ,his crucifixion4 ,what became of ,him8 ,it is impossible to overestimate the importance of this question4 ,let us take the first supposition that ,he recovered from a swoon1 but died shortly afterwards from exhaustion4 ,this theory involves the necessity that some one or more of ,his followers should have seen ,him alive and dying of exhaustion4 ,was it possible1 ,i ask1 for the most deluded fanaticism to mistake such a condition for a resurrection from the dead8 ,was this a basis on which to revive the hopes of the disciples1 and to re construct the ,church8 ,would any amount of enthusiastic credulity mistake such a person for the ,messiah of the future8 ,if ,he died shortly afterwards1 what became of ,his ,messiahship8 ,did ,his other followers pay ,him no visits during ,his illness8 ,did they see ,him die1 or attend ,his burial8 ,surely such positions do not require serious argument4 ,but let us suppose that ,he recovered1 lived in retirement and only received the secret visits of a few followers1 and that out of this the story of the ,resurrection grew4 ,how grew8 ,i again ask4 ,such growths require considerable periods of time1 and these1 history utterly refuses to grant4 ,would it be possible1 ,i ask1 for any deluded follower to mistake such facts for a resurrection from the dead8 ,could ,jesus himself have so mistaken it8 or1 however well the secret might be kept1 would a ,messiah1 living in privacy1 out of the sight of friends and foes1 be a possible ,messiah1 who could impart a new life to the ,church8 ,in such a case it is impossible to exonerate the persons concerned from fraud1 even the ,great ,teacher himself4 ,are we to suppose that ,he himself actually mistook ,his recovery from a swoon for a resurrection1 and justified ,his followers in publishing a report of it8 ,why then did ,he not appear in public and assert ,his ,messianic claims8 ,but could ,his followers have persuaded themselves that a man who must have shown distinct indications of slow recovery1 and who never ventured to appear again in public1 was raised again from the dead to continue ,his ,messianic work8 ,if this is the true account of the matter1 it was not a delusion but an imposture4 ,if we suppose that a few friends only visited ,him1 what did ,his other disciples say about the matter8 ,did the few1 with the concurrence of their ,master1 propagate the belief that ,he was gone into heaven1 knowing that ,he was still on earth8 ,be these things as they may 7and those who have started the idea should solve it71 if the real basis of the story of the ,resurrection be a recovery from a swoon and a subsequent life of privacy1 ,jesus must have shared the common fate of humanity and died4 ,this must have been known to those with whom ,he lived2 it must have been known to those who visited ,him4 ,his death must have dispelled their delusions4 ,henceforth the propagation of their story must have been due to wilful fraud--a fraud for which it is impossible to assign a motive1 and which it is not the modern practice to charge on the first propagators of ,christianity4 ,the remaining supposition1 that ,jesus1 after having been seen by one or two of ,his followers alive and slowly recovering1 was conveyed away to some distant place1 where they saw ,him no more1 and that out of this grew the story of ,his ,resurrection and ,ascension into ,heaven1 is not only in itself intrinsically incredible1 but it offends against every one of the principles which ,i have established4 ,i need not1 therefore1 discuss it further4 ,the existence of the ,church is a fact4 ,it is professedly based on another fact1 namely1 the ,resurrection of ,christ4 ,if this be true1 it fully accounts for the existence1 origin1 and growth of the ,church4 ,no other theory can account for it4 ,the ,resurrection is a fact1 or a delusion4 ,if it is not a fact1 two suppositions respecting its origin are alone possible4 ,these have been proved1 on the strongest historical evidence1 to be impossible4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that the only remaining alternative is the true one3 that ,,jesus ,,christ ,,rose ,,from ,,the ,,dead4 ,its attestation is stronger than that of any other fact in history4 ,,chapter ,,xxi4 ,,the ,,historical ,,value ,,of ,,the ,,gospels ,,as ,,deduced ,,from ,,previous ,,considerations4 ,i have proved in the preceding chapters that one of the miracles recorded in the ,gospels is substantiated by the highest form of historical testimony1 on evidence quite independent of their contents4 ,i have adopted this course because unbelievers affirm that the miraculous narratives contained in them are alone sufficient to prove them to be unhistorical4 ,it has therefore become necessary to prove the truth of the greatest miracle which they narrate1 without any reference to their assertions4 ,christianity unquestionably existed before the ,gospels were written1 and the allimportant fact on which it rests can be substantiated without their aid1 on data which are conceded by our opponents4 ,its truth or falsehood therefore does not rest on any mere question as to what was their actual date1 or who were their authors4 ,still they are the only records of the life of ,jesus ,christ that the ,church possesses4 ,the question therefore as to whether they are true in all their chief outlines1 is one of such importance as to render a few observations on this subject indispensable4 ,there can be no doubt that no one would have ever thought of denying their general authenticity1 except on account of the miraculous narratives they contain4 ,this has made them the battlefield of ,christianity1 because it has been supposed that if their historical character can be shaken1 ,christianity would be disproved as resting on no other basis4 ,for this purpose every variation in them1 even the smallest1 has been noted1 and these variations have been magnified into contradictions4 ,there is no weapon which criticism has not employed for the purpose of impugning their veracity4 ,but the real ground of offence is the miraculous narrative4 ,as1 however1 ,i have proved that the most important miracle recorded in them can be established on grounds quite independent of their testimony1 we can now approach their consideration with this great antecedent difficulty removed4 ,if the ,resurrection of ,jesus is an actual occurrence1 the other miraculous events recorded in them no longer stand in the way of their acceptance as genuine histories4 ,this one miracle is sufficient to carry all the rest2 not1 of course1 that it proves that they occurred1 but it gets rid of the entire priori difficulty with which their acceptance is attended4 ,nay1 further1 if ,christ rose from the dead1 it is more probable than not1 that this was not the only miracle connected with ,him3 or1 in other words1 if the authors of the ,gospels attributed to ,him no other miraculous action1 it would rather afford a presumption against them as credible historians4 ,it follows therefore1 that although the proof of the ,resurrection does not by itself establish the reality of the other miracles recorded as having been performed by ,him1 it renders them so far probable1 that the same amount of evidence1 which is sufficient to establish the ordinary facts of history1 is sufficient to establish the general truth of the events recorded in the ,gospels4 ,i do not mean to affirm that some miracle may not have been incorrectly attributed to ,christ in the traditions of the ,church1 from which the narratives in the ,gospels have been derived1 in the same manner as some inaccurate reports of facts have obtained admission into ordinary histories4 ,but as these latter do not affect the general credibility of history1 so errors of this description would not affect the general credibility of the ,gospel narratives4 ,all that ,i claim for them is that they should be both alike tried by the historical canons of criticism applicable to the same species of documents4 ,let me state once for all the position that ,i occupy4 ,i am not called upon to prove that no error can have crept into their accounts2 that events are all arranged in their true order of sequence2 that variations do not exist in them which with our present knowledge of the details1 it is difficult to reconcile1 or even that the ,evangelists themselves may not have misconceived their true order1 or grouped them in one that was the result of religious considerations4 ,the determination of such questions may affect our views as to the nature of the inspiration under which we suppose the ,gospels to have been written1 but it is one wholly foreign to an historical discussion4 ,the question which ,i have to consider is1 not the extent of the inspiration of their authors2 but whether they do or do not contain genuine history2 and if they do1 to what class of historical writings they belong1 and to estimate their testimony accordingly4 ,i will consider this last question first4 ,the ,gospels most distinctly affirm that they do not belong to the class of professed histories1 but to that of memoirs4 ,this is a very important consideration2 for if they only claim to be memoirs and not histories it is absurd to demand of them an accuracy of arrangement and of detail1 which would be essential to a history1 but which forms no portion of the plan of a memoir4 ,but they not only affirm that they are memoirs1 but memoirs of a peculiar character2 that is to say1 religious memoirs1 composed with a double purpose1 viz4 that of setting forth the events of a life1 and at the same time of teaching a religion4 ,this point is so important1 and is so generally overlooked in the arguments both of those who affirm and of those who deny their historical character1 that it will be necessary to prove it4 ,it is not only evident from the general nature of their contents1 but three of the ,evangelists directly affirm it1 and two of them1 ,luke and ,john1 in express terms4 ,the former distinctly asserts that he composed his ,gospel in order that a person called 8,theophilus0 might know the certainty of the things in which he had been instructed4 8,forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth a declaration of these things that are most surely believed among us2 even as they delivered them unto us1 which from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of the word2 it seemed good to me also1 having perfect understanding of all things from the first1 to write unto thee in order1 most excellent ,theophilus1 that thou mightest know the certainty of those things in which thou hast been instructed40 7,luke i4 #ad47 ,here we have the purpose of the writer definitely affirmed4 ,it is to set forth a statement of the leading facts of the life of ,jesus1 for the purpose of communicating instruction in the ,christian religion4 ,in one word1 the author proposed to teach a religion by means of a narrative of facts4 ,it is hardly possible to give a more accurate description of a memoir as distinguished from a history4 ,he also tells us that he meant to compose it in an orderly arrangement1 but he does not tell us whether the order was intended to be strictly chronological1 or merely regulated by the avowed religious purpose of the work4 ,it is quite possible for a writer to adopt an orderly arrangement1 who arranges his matter as much by religious considerations as by chronological ones4 ,according to the statement of this preface1 the religious purpose is clearly the predominant one2 and it is therefore only reasonable to suppose that it has exerted considerable influence on the grouping4 ,we learn also from this preface that the things most surely believed among ,christians consisted of a number of facts1 which had been delivered to them by persons who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word4 ,several persons had already set forth written accounts of them before the author composed this ,gospel4 ,it is implied that he did so because he possessed better and more accurate sources of information than previous writers4 ,the object1 however1 is clear2 it was that ,theophilus might know the certainty of those things1 i4e4 the great facts on which the ,christianity1 in which he had been instructed1 was based4 ,the assertion of this religious purpose in the composition of the fourth ,gospel1 and that the materials are a selection from a large mass of others is even more distinct and definite4 8,many other signs truly did ,jesus in the presence of his disciples1 which are not written in this book1 but these are written that ye may believe that ,jesus is the ,christ1 the ,son of ,god1 and that believing ye may have life through his name40 7,john xx4 #cj1 #ca47 ,words could hardly have been framed which more definitely assert that this ,gospel is a memoir1 and not a history2 and that the religious purpose1 in its composition1 was the predominant idea of the writer4 ,the assertions of the author of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel1 although not equally full1 are sufficiently definite4 ,he designates it as 8,the beginning of the gladsome message of ,jesus ,christ1 the ,son of ,god40 ,here1 again1 the religious idea is plainly the predominant one in the writer's mind1 and the obvious conclusion is that he intended his work to be a memoir1 and not a history4 ,we have no such direct affirmation by the author of ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel1 unless the opening words1 8,the book of the generations of ,jesus ,christ1 the ,son of ,david1 the ,son of ,abraham10 are intended to cover the entire work4 ,the nature of its contents1 however1 leave not the smallest doubt that his design in writing was precisely the same as that of the other ,evangelists1 viz4 to teach ,christianity by setting forth a memoir of the life of ,jesus ,christ4 ,such1 then1 is the avowed purpose of the authors of the four ,gospels4 ,each of them is a religious memoir4 ,this being so1 it is absurd to demand of such writings what can only be found in regularly composed histories4 ,in what1 then1 does a history differ from a memoir8 ,the object of the historian is not only to give an account of the events which he narrates precisely as they occurred2 but the order of his narrative is regulated by the definite sequences of time and place4 ,the writer of a memoir1 on the contrary1 is not bound to observe this order1 but he is entitled to vary it in reference to the special object he has in view1 and the points which he requires to illustrate4 ,but the religious purpose is most definitely affirmed to have been the predominant one in the minds of the authors of the ,gospels4 ,it would therefore have an important influence on their arrangement of their materials4 ,we should expect to find them grouped far more in reference to this end1 than to the mere sequences of time and place4 ,when certain of the actions or portions of the teaching of our ,lord illustrated the particular subject which each ,evangelist had before him1 he would neglect the exact historical order1 and group them in reference to this special purpose4 ,in writings of this description1 therefore1 while all the chief points of his life and his discourses ought to present a substantial agreement1 we should naturally expect to find a considerable number of minor divergencies4 ,while we have the fullest right to expect that the facts will be accurately reported1 we have no right to demand that the writer should observe no other order in his narrative than the mere sequences of time and place4 ,it is on the assumption that the authors of the ,gospels intended to set forth an exact historical account of the ministry of ,christ1 instead of taking them for what they have affirmed them to be1 religious memoirs of that ministry1 that no inconsiderable number of their alleged discrepancies have originated4 ,the presence of variations1 or if it is preferred to call them contradictions1 in writings of this description by no means invalidates their historical character4 ,it has been well observed by a writer in the 8,westminster ,review10 that they are to be found in every historical writing from ,herodotus to ,mr4 ,froude4 ,as these discrepancies in the ,gospels are so largely dwelt on by unbelievers1 ,i subjoin a passage from ,dean ,stanley's account of the murder of ,thomas a ,becket1 in his 8,memorials of ,canterbury ,cathedral10 as showing the existence of such inaccuracies even in the accounts of persons who were actual eyewitnesses of events in which they were deeply interested4 ,speaking of the number of existing accounts of the murder1 he says3-- 8,of these thirty narrators1 four1 ,edward ,grimes1 ,william ,fitzstephen1 ,john of ,salisbury1 who unfortunately supplies but little1 and the anonymous author of the ,lambeth manuscript1 claim to have been eyewitnesses4 ,three others were monks of the convent1 and although not present at the massacre1 were probably somewhere in the precincts4 ,three others1 though not in ,england at the time1 had been on terms more or less intimate with ,becket1 and two of them seem to have taken the utmost pains to ascertain the truth of the facts which they narrate4 ,from these several accounts1 we can recover the particulars of the death of ,archbishop ,becket to the minutest details4 ,it is true that having been written by monastic and clerical historians1 after the national feeling had been raised to enthusiasm in his behalf1 allowance must be made for exaggeration1 suppression1 and every kind of false colouring which could set off their hero to advantage4 ,it is true1 also1 that in some points the various authorities are hopelessly irreconcilable4 ,but still a minute comparison of the narrators with each other1 and with the localities1 leads to a conviction that on the whole the facts have been substantially preserved2 and as often happens1 the truth can be ascertained in spite and even in consequence of attempts to distort and suppress it40 ,it is clear1 therefore1 that the presence of variations1 nay even hopeless contradictions in such narratives1 does not interfere with their general historical character4 ,it appears that from narratives which contain 8exaggeration1 suppression1 and every kind of false colouring10 we can ascertain the particulars of the death of ,becket to the minutest particular4 ,why do not unbelievers apply the same rule to the ,gospels8 ,why are their minor variations in details alleged to prove that the entire narrative is unhistorical8 ,one thing respecting them is clear3 instead of presenting indications of 8exaggeration1 suppression1 and false colouring10 they are characterized by a uniform sobriety in their statements4 ,they offer no comments1 and allow the facts to produce their own impression on the reader4 ,it follows therefore that if the ,gospels were ordinary biographies1 the variations in them would not interfere with their historical character1 and that differences in mere details would leave the main facts unaffected4 ,still more true is this with respect to memoirs1 and especially with those composed with the object of teaching a religion4 ,attention to this obvious fact will get rid of a large number of the objections which have been so pertinaciously urged against them4 ,with respect to their general credibility1 it is important to observe that even if the date of the ,synoptics be placed as late as that assigned to them by those critics who deny their historical character1 viz4 somewhere between ,a4,d4 #ij and #aae1 still the time when they must have been composed lies1 according to the rule of ,sir ,g4 ,c4 ,lewis1 within the period of trustworthy historical tradition4 ,in this case the earliest of them would bear date about sixty1 and the latest of them about eightyfive years after the events they narrate4 ,renan is of opinion that their internal evidence proves them to have been composed before the destruction of ,jerusalem4 ,be this as it may2 even at the date assigned to them by the most sceptical critics1 good traditionary information lay within the reach of their respective authors4 ,the interval is about the same in the one case as that which separates us from the invasion of ,france by the allies in #ahad1 and in the other case from the outbreak of the ,french ,revolution4 ,many persons are still alive who can remember the former event2 and although nearly everyone who could remember the latter has passed away1 yet large numbers of the existing generation1 whose recollections will be good for twenty years to come1 have conversed with those who took the deepest interest in the scenes in question4 ,while this generation lives1 it would be impossible for the whole outline of the facts to become falsified4 ,minor errors might creep into the details2 their precise order and sequence might not be accurately preserved2 yet their general outline would be handed down correctly1 and it would be impossible to hide the true history behind a set of legends4 ,if the authors of the ,synoptic ,gospels were only separated by this interval of time from the events that they narrate1 they must have had all the materials of true history within their reach4 ,persons must have been living when the first ,gospel was written who could accurately remember the events in question2 and even at the latest date which can be assigned to the other ,gospels1 large numbers of persons must have been living who had heard narratives of them from their fathers1 which1 as unspeakably interesting1 they would treasure up with the liveliest recollection4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that even if we assume the latest date which has been assigned for the publication of the ,synoptic ,gospels it lies considerably within the period of accurate historical recollection1 even if we suppose that their authors composed them from traditional sources only1 and were not assisted by written documents4 ,but the existence of documents is expressly asserted by the author of ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel4 ,and even if we were devoid of this testimony1 we might infer it from the inherent probability of the case4 ,this was inevitable1 as the basis of the religion was placed on a personal history4 ,the system of instruction must have involved a constant reference to the details of that history4 ,when1 therefore1 the members of the ,churches heard them from the lips of original witnesses1 the interest of the subject must have induced those who were able to write1 to compose brief memoranda for the purpose of assisting their recollections4 ,in this way a considerable amount of ,christian literature in connection with the life of ,jesus must have grown up in the course of years1 and the necessity for it would become the more urgent in proportion as the original disciples who had heard ,his discourses and seen ,his actions passed away from the scene4 ,this is exactly in conformity with the statement made by the author of ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel4 ,it is clear1 therefore1 that even if the publication of our present ,gospels did not take place before the time assigned to them by unbelievers1 the historical materials at the command of their authors must have been ample4 ,it would have been impossible that facts and legendary inventions should have become blended together within so short a period4 ,consequently nothing but neglect to use the materials at hand1 or a deliberate purpose of falsification could have prevented them from giving an account of the ministry of ,jesus which would be substantially accurate in all its main features4 ,if on the other hand we suppose these ,gospels to have been written for the purpose of falsification1 then their contradiction to the accounts which had been hitherto accepted by the ,church must have destroyed their credit4 ,it would have been impossible for the authors to have succeeded in concealing the facts behind a mass of myths and legends while they formed the very groundwork of the daily life of the community4 ,under the peculiar circumstances of the ,christians of the first century some portion of the events of the life and teaching of ,christ must have been brought to their minds every day4 ,the hostility of the ,pagan world around them was alone sufficient to ensure this4 ,moreover1 the religion was not one which was committed to the custody of a caste or priesthood2 but it appealed directly to the individual4 ,as distinguished from the other religions of the world ,christianity may be not incorrectly defined as the religion of the individual4 ,it awoke emotions of the profoundest nature in the hearts of even its humblest followers1 addressing itself both to their consciences and their affections4 ,these emotions were all centered in a personal life4 ,if one fact is more certain than another1 it is that ,jesus was viewed by the early ,christians as their religious ,king1 to whom they owed a personal allegiance4 ,this must have rendered it necessary for them to treasure up all the facts of ,his history with the deepest care4 ,further3 the early ,christians not only lived in the midst of a society extremely hostile to them1 but were also zealous proselyters4 ,this alone would have been sufficient to compel them to keep in lively remembrance the chief events in the history of ,jesus4 ,how else was it possible for them to persuade others that ,he was the ,christ8 ,the ,church was not a school of philosophy1 but consisted of a body of men whose bond of union was adherence to a leader4 ,to make converts to such a religion would have been impossible without an accurate acquaintance with the facts on which ,his claims were grounded4 ,corporate bodies possess a power of handing down a traditionary knowledge of events in a far greater degree than individuals4 ,the ,christian ,church consisted of a set of communities which had not only an individual1 but also the strongest corporate life4 ,although it contained no priesthood1 properly so called1 the cohesion of these communities1 placed as they were in the midst of a hostile population1 in ,jewish or ,gentile cities1 was of the strongest character1 and in proportion to their smallness1 the action of each individual member would be important4 ,each separate ,church therefore formed a corporation as opposed to the ,jewish and heathen world by which it was surrounded2 and each separate unit felt himself animated by a similar life1 which dictated to him the necessity of conquering or perishing4 ,from this arose an intense desire of making new converts and of increasing the number of the faithful4 ,how was this to be accomplished8 ,an organization was necessary4 ,each of the communities had one which was suitable to its need4 ,one of its most important functions must have been to instruct new converts in its principles1 and to keep actively burning the zeal of its original members4 ,but as the existence of the community was founded on an adhesion to a person1 the course of instruction must have consisted to a considerable extent of details of the actions and teaching of ,jesus4 8,how shall they believe on him of whom they have not heard80 was a pertinent question of ,st4 ,paul1 8or how shall they hear without a preacher80 ,no society has ever existed in the world which has had an equal inducement to hand down accurately the events of its founder's life1 or had equal facilities for detecting any attempt to substitute a fictitious account of him for the true one4 ,it follows therefore that at the period in question it would have been simply impossible that a fictitious or legendary account of the life of ,jesus should have taken the place of the one which these ,churches had accepted at the time when they first came into existence4 ,i have already proved that the ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul put it beyond the possibility of question that an account of the chief facts in the ministry of ,jesus formed the foundation of the religious life of the ,churches at the time when he wrote them1 and that it had done so from the first4 ,the difficulty therefore of introducing an entirely new version of it must have been insurmountable4 ,a doubtful fact or two might have become incorporated1 but while the religious life of the community was thus strong1 it would have been utterly impossible to give a new colouring to the whole4 ,but further3 this difficulty must have been greatly increased by the wide separation of such ,churches as those of ,rome1 ,corinth1 ,galatia1 ,jerusalem1 and others1 from one another4 ,each ,church must have had an account of its own of the chief facts of our ,lord's ministry4 ,if one of them could have been induced to accept a new set of facts1 there would have been the greatest difficulty in persuading the others to follow its example4 ,daily experience teaches us how very slow religious bodies are in changing the fundamental articles of their belief4 ,however much the sentiments of individuals may have changed1 the original confessions of faith are retained with the utmost tenacity1 even after they have ceased to embody the religious life of the community4 ,what confessions of faith are to modern ,churches1 the chief facts of the ministry of our ,lord must have been to the primitive one2 the only difference being that these latter lived with a far greater tenacity in the minds of the early ,christians than the former have in modern ,churches4 ,if therefore a single ,church could have been induced to accept a new version of its ,founder's life1 the separation of these different communities from one another1 would have placed an insuperable barrier in the way of imposing such an account on the other ,churches4 ,the inquiry must have at once arisen1 ,whence has this ,church derived its new ,gospel1 thus fundamentally different from that which has from the first formed the basis of our religious life8 ,it is clear therefore that even if we accept the latest date which had been assigned to the publication of the ,synoptic ,gospels1 their authors must have been in possession of abundance of materials for setting forth an account of the ministry of ,jesus1 which would have been correct in all its great outlines2 and that even if they had been so minded it would have been impossible for them to have succeeded in palming off a previously unknown set of facts in place of those which had hitherto formed the groundwork of the life of the different ,churches4 ,we have seen also that when ,st4 ,paul wrote his ,epistles1 the different ,churches were in possession of an outline of the ministry of ,jesus ,christ which contained within it1 as a matter of the highest importance1 the most remarkable miraculous fact which is recorded in the ,gospels4 ,is it to be believed that this was the only one2 or1 is it possible that a set of miraculous narratives could have succeeded in taking the place of the account of ,his life and teaching which was in possession of the ,churches1 within the interval of time which separates ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles from the publication of the first of the ,synoptic ,gospels8 ,i conclude1 therefore1 that the original narratives must have attributed a number of miracles to ,jesus ,christ2 that the accounts of them must have been handed down to the time when our opponents allow that the ,gospels were published1 and that by this means they have been incorporated into them4 ,not only has the alleged late date of the publication of the ,gospels been urged as a reason for discrediting them as reports of historical facts1 but also the uncertainty of their authorship4 ,it will not fall within the scope of this work to examine the value of the testimony by which each ,gospel has been assigned to its respective author4 ,it will be sufficient here to observe that it is as strong as that by which the authorship of any other ancient writing is ascertained4 ,the internal character of two of these ,gospels fully agrees with the traditionary account4 ,although the assertions of the early ,fathers vary as to the precise relation in which ,mark stood to ,peter1 the ancient traditions are unanimous in connecting him in some way or other with the ,apostle4 ,the phenomena of this ,gospel are precisely such as we should expect if this was the case4 ,in nearly every case where we can ascertain1 either from this or from one of the other ,gospels1 that ,peter was an eyewitness of an event recorded in it1 ,st4 ,mark gives precisely such a description of it as we might expect would be given by a man of the peculiar temperament of ,simon ,peter4 ,we know1 both from the ,acts of the ,apostles and from the ,epistles of ,st4 ,paul1 that ,st4 ,luke was a companion of that ,apostle4 ,the peculiarities of the ,gospel that bears his name are precisely such as we should have expected if its author was a companion of the great ,apostle of the ,gentiles4 ,there is also every reason for believing that ,luke was not an eyewitness of the ministry of ,jesus4 ,the author of the ,gospel affirms that he was not an eyewitness4 ,in conformity with this the ,gospel bears the most distinctive marks of compilation4 ,so far the internal structure of these two ,gospels entirely agrees with the external testimony as to their authorship4 ,we know also on the authority of the early ,fathers that ,matthew composed a ,gospel in the ,hebrew language which was designed for the use of ,jewish ,christians4 ,now whoever is the author of the present ,greek ,gospel which bears his name1 it is distinguished by precisely the same characteristics as those which are described as appertaining to the ,hebrew ,gospel of ,st4 ,matthew1 that is to say1 that the proportion which the discourses bear to the narrative portions of it is very large2 and its contents make it evident that it was chiefly designed for the use of ,christians of the ,jewish race4 ,if therefore our present ,gospel was not set forth by the ,apostle himself in ,greek1 both the external testimony and the internal evidence prove that it is a representation of its contents sufficiently accurate for all the practical purposes of history4 ,but the question as to the names of the persons who actually set forth our ,gospels has been made of far more importance than it deserves1 both by the defenders and the opponents of ,christianity4 ,the all important point is1 are they faithful accounts of the primitive traditions of the ,church respecting the chief events of its ,founder's ministry2 and were they composed within that period of time1 when the recollections of it must have been so fresh as to render it impossible to substitute a body of fictitious and legendary narratives in place of those which had been handed down in the ,church from the beginning8 ,unless we know enough about an author from external sources of information1 to enable us to form a definite opinion as to his judgment and means of information1 our mere knowledge of his name will help us little4 ,the information which ecclesiastical tradition affords us respecting the authors of the ,synoptic ,gospels is little beyond that which is contained in the ,new ,testament itself1 and is insufficient to enable us to form a judgment respecting their character4 ,that judgment must be formed exclusively from the writings themselves1 and can only be arrived at after a careful examination of their contents4 ,it will be urged that if our present ,greek ,matthew could be shown to have been the work of the ,apostle1 we should then have the testimony of an eye witness of the ministry of ,jesus2 and if we have no certain evidence that it was composed by him1 then none of the events recorded in the ,synoptics rest on autoptic testimony4 ,the truth of this position ,i entirely deny4 ,the real question is1 do the events recorded in them faithfully represent the traditions of the ,church8 ,have we evidence that the traditions which were current when these ,gospels were composed1 are accurate representations of the accounts of the ministry of ,jesus1 which were handed down by our ,lord's original disciples8 ,if so1 they must rest on autoptic testimony1 as they could only have been derived from our ,lord's companions4 ,the mere knowing the name of one of them1 unless we knew a great deal about his judgment and discretion1 is of far less importance than the assurance that we are in possession of the general testimony of the entire body4 ,nor does it necessarily follow that any one follower of ,jesus1 even an ,apostle1 was in constant attendance on ,his person4 ,we know from the ,gospels themselves that this was not always the case4 ,if such a person had narrated events which occurred during his absence1 he must have been indebted for his knowledge of them to the testimony of others4 ,if therefore the present ,greek ,matthew could be proved to be the work of the ,apostle1 still it by no means follows that he was an eyewitness of every one of the events recorded in it4 ,if1 however1 it was set forth in its present form by some other hand1 ,i fully admit that neither of the ,synoptics was composed by an ,apostle4 ,but this is a wholly different point from the consideration whether they do or do not embody the testimony of the eyewitnesses of the ministry of ,jesus ,christ4 ,this does not depend on our knowledge of the names of their respective authors1 but whether we have good evidence that they faithfully embody the primitive apostolical traditions4 ,a careful perusal of the ,synoptics will convince the reader that neither of them professes to embody a set of personal reminiscences4 ,on the contrary1 they bear the strongest indications of being a collection of apostolic traditions4 ,of this ,i shall offer distinctive proof in the next chapter4 ,the only ,gospel which embodies such personal reminiscences as indicate the authorship of an eyewitness is that of ,st4 ,john4 ,but the indications of the presence of an individual personality in ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel are almost entirely wanting4 ,in its general structure it forms a striking contrast to that of ,john4 ,supposing it to have been composed by the ,apostle1 he has entirely hidden his individuality in his narrative4 ,the question1 therefore1 really turns on the conclusion at which we are able to arrive as to whether the ,synoptic ,gospels are faithful representations of the primitive apostolic traditions4 ,i have proved that even at the latest date to which opponents assign their publication1 they must have been written within the period when all the requisite materials existed for composing a substantially correct account of all the leading facts2 that such a traditionary account was certainly handed down in the ,church2 that it formed the groundwork of its existence2 that it must have been derived from apostolic men1 who had ample means of knowing the facts2 that the ,church possessed the means of transmitting them accurately1 such as were never possessed by any other ,society2 and that it was under the necessity of doing so as the condition of its life2 and that while this account remained fresh in the recollections both of the community and of its individual members1 it would have been impossible to foist on them a fictitious story4 ,i shall now proceed to inquire how far the phenomena of the ,gospels tend to establish these positions4 ,,chapter ,,xxii4 ,,the ,,historical ,,character ,,of ,,the ,,gospels ,,as ,,deduced ,,from ,,their ,,internal ,,structure4 ,this subject is an extremely extensive one4 ,the utmost1 therefore1 that ,i can do is to notice a few of the most important points which bear on the argument4 ,i have already shown that the general principles of historical evidence point to the conclusion that the ,synoptic ,gospels are three different versions of the primitive apostolical traditions respecting the actions and the teaching of ,jesus ,christ1 and that even on the assumption that the dates assigned to them by the opponents are the correct ones 7which however ,i would by no means be understood as conceding1 for all the internal evidence points to a much earlier period71 they were still composed within the period when such traditions possess the highest historical value4 ,i must now inquire whether the general structure of these ,gospels confirms this conclusion4 ,the question therefore at once arises1 what is their general character8 ,do they present the marks of traditionary history2 or of being three works composed by three different authors1 who not only wrote independently of each other1 but who used no common source of information8 ,do their narratives present us with the characteristics of historical truth or of fictitious invention8 ,the facts before us are ample1 and they ought to enable us to return a definite answer to these questions4 ,the most remarkable trait which first strikes the reader is the presence of a common narrative interwoven with a considerable amount of matter peculiar to each ,gospel4 ,many of the events1 and several of the discourses are narrated by all three ,evangelists2 others by only two4 ,besides these common narratives and discourses1 which form the larger portion of the ,gospels1 each of them contains narratives and discourses peculiar to itself4 ,while they possess much that is common1 it is clear that each writer had a distinct object in view in the compilation of his ,gospel2 that of ,st4 ,matthew being chiefly designed for ,jewish ,christians2 that of ,st4 ,luke for ,gentile converts1 and that of ,st4 ,mark occupying an intermediate place between the two4 ,it was also obviously the object of the author of ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel to set forth the discourses2 of that of ,st4 ,mark's to give a graphic description of the actions of our ,lord4 ,each of these ,gospels is also distinguished by a number of minor peculiarities4 ,when the common narrative comes to be closely scrutinized1 it presents us with phenomena more remarkable than any that can be found elsewhere in literature4 ,these narratives are couched to a considerable extent in the same words and phrases1 closely interwoven with a number of most singular variations1 which have an important bearing on their historical character4 ,as far as the words are identical1 they force on us the conclusion that they must have been derived from some common origin4 ,these identities are more striking in the narrative than in the discourses4 ,three independent writers1 if they intended to hand down the general sense of a body of discourses1 on the supposition that they were in possession of accurate information1 would repeat them to a great extent in the same words4 ,but that three independent writers1 who used no common source of information in narrating the same occurrences1 should have employed the same words to the extent to which it has been done by the authors of these ,gospels is simply impossible4 ,but if they had all copied from the same document1 these identities of expression must inevitably have been more complete4 ,it would have been impossible that they could have been of the capricious character which they present to us in the pages of the ,evangelists4 ,even in the narratives1 frequent as is the use of the same words1 the variations are numerous2 nor are they much less so in the discourses4 ,they are of the most singular character1 and without the smallest apparent purpose4 ,sometimes they are simple changes in grammatical construction1 or a word of nearly the same meaning is substituted for another4 ,then we find one or more lines1 sometimes a whole sentence1 transposed4 ,sometimes words or lines which are inserted by one ,evangelist are omitted by another1 the omission obscuring1 and the insertion throwing light on the sense4 ,at other times1 a whole incident is omitted which1 if it had been inserted1 would have made an obscure context plain4 ,in the discourses it occasionally happens that a part of one which we read in the same context in another ,evangelist1 and which seems to be required by the connection1 is omitted1 when words of nearly the same import have been attributed to our ,lord elsewhere4 ,again3 sayings are reported in which1 while many words are the same1 others are varied without any conceivable reason for the variation4 ,in one or two instances1 when words are put into the mouths of persons different from those to whom they are attributed by another ,evangelist1 the grammatical structure is altered to suit the variation4 ,of this we have two remarkable examples in the account of the healing of the ,centurion's servant1 and in the narrative of the request which the two sons of ,zebedee and ,salome presented to our ,lord4 ,the words are precisely the same1 while the grammatical forms differ1 according as the one or the other is regarded as the speaker4 ,such are the chief phenomena4 ,but the full extent and character of these variations1 in the closest union as they are with identities of expression1 can only be appreciated by a careful comparison of the parallel narrative of the ,gospels4 ,numerous1 however1 as are the variations1 it must be observed that they exert scarcely any appreciable influence on the general sense4 ,they utterly negate the idea that they can have originated in any set or deliberate purpose4 ,let us take for example the account of the feeding of the five thousand4 ,the ,synoptics employ the very remarkable expression1 that after the performance of the miracle1 our ,lord constrained the disciples to embark1 without giving us a hint of the reason of so unusual an occurrence4 ,we turn to ,st4 ,john's ,gospel2 he says not one word about our ,lord's constraining the disciples to embark1 but tells us that the multitude were designing to come and take ,jesus by force and make ,him a king4 ,this notice1 which is of the most incidental character1 gives as the fullest explanation of an event which would otherwise have been extremely obscure4 ,but further3 in the account of the miracle itself1 one of the ,evangelists tells us1 that the numbers who were fed were about five thousand1 besides women and children4 ,how then were the numbers ascertained8 and how came it to pass that the men only were numbered1 and neither the women1 nor children8 ,another ,evangelist tells us that the multitude were directed to sit down in companies by hundreds and by fifties4 ,this at once explains how the numbers were arrived at4 ,but if this was the case1 how came it to be known that the men were about five thousand2 and how came it to pass1 that the women and children were excluded from the total enumeration8 ,here again another ,evangelist comes to our help2 and informs us that although the order was given to the whole multitude to sit down in companies1 those who actually did so were the not the 1 i4e4 that the men only sat down1 but the women and children did not4 ,this is told us in the most incidental form1 appearing only in the ,greek4 ,this last case is perhaps the most remarkable example in the ,gospels1 of the manner in which an incidental variation in one ,evangelist throws light on the obscurities of another4 ,can such a narrative be otherwise than historical8 ,this note of veracity is so entirely incidental that it has in all probability escaped the notice of nine hundred and ninetynine out of every thousand of its readers4 ,there are many others1 though less striking1 all of which are of the same incidental character1 and it is impossible to attribute them to design4 ,surely this can only have resulted from our being in the presence of facts and not of fiction4 ,but the variations in the discourses require a further notice4 ,when variations occur in highly important discourses1 it is open to the suspicion that they have originated in the deliberate purpose of giving a different doctrinal meaning to the words4 ,but when we closely examine those in the ,gospels1 although they are very numerous1 we find them of a purely incidental character1 exerting a very inconsiderable influence on the sense4 ,i am aware that attempts have been made to show that some few of these variations have originated in design2 but these attempts only prove the straits to which those who make them are driven4 ,thus in the account of the ,sermon on the ,mount as we read it in ,st4 ,matthew1 the passage runs3 8,blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven40 ,in the corresponding passage in ,st4 ,luke it runs3 8,blessed are ye poor10 i4e4 the poor people who were our ,lord's disciples1 for the ,evangelist expressly tells us that these words were addressed1 not to the multitude generally1 but to them4 ,the supposition that this variation indicates the presence of something resembling communistic views in the author of ,st4 ,luke's ,gospel is too absurd to be worthy of serious discussion4 ,taking them as a whole1 these discrepancies create no appreciable difference in the teaching of ,jesus as reported by the different ,evangelists4 ,one thing respecting them is clear--they bear the strongest testimony to the historical character of the writings which contain them4 ,it is simply inconceivable that the authors of the ,gospels made them deliberately4 ,they must have found them in the sources from which they drew their information4 ,they form one of the strongest proofs that neither a forger1 nor an accommodater of facts for the purpose of making them fit in with particular doctrinal theories1 has had any hand in originating them4 ,in simple changes in grammatical structure1 purpose or design is inconceivable4 ,but the variations in narratives1 such as those above referred to1 are even more important as constituting an attestation of their historical reality than variations in discourses4 ,four separate versions of a fictitious incident fail to clear up one another's obscurities4 ,but the ability to do so is the distinctive mark of imperfect narratives of facts1 told by different witnesses4 ,when two things of a complicated mechanical construction exactly dovetail into each other1 it is a proof that they have originated in the same mind4 ,in a similar manner1 when a number of distinct narratives1 each of which is more or less incomplete1 exactly fit into each other1 this constitutes a proof1 that they did not originate in a fiction but in a fact4 ,an illustration will aid in showing the force of this reasoning4 ,the early history of ,rome is unquestionably of a highly legendary character4 ,we have two versions of it1 one by ,livy1 and another by ,dionysius4 ,these writers do not give us direct accounts of the primitive legends1 but their narratives are compiled from authors of a much earlier date1 who first reduced them to writing4 ,still these historians may be viewed as substantially accurate reporters of the legendary history1 as it was compiled by the earlier writers4 ,an important question therefore arises1 does the twofold account which we possess of these legends1 after all the efforts made by ,livy and ,dionysius to weave them into a consistent whole1 bear the smallest analogy to the narratives contained in four ,evangelists8 ,it is clear that great disagreements existed among the original authorities4 ,let us take any account of the supposed events of three years--do the variations in the two accounts bear the smallest resemblance to the singular phenomena which we find in the ,evangelists8 ,will they dovetail into one another8 ,will the small additions in one throw light on the obscurities of the other8 ,do the speeches present any indications of being copies of a common original8 ,all these questions must be answered in the negative4 ,whence then comes this difference between the narratives of the ,evangelists and the legendary accounts of the origin of the ,roman power8 ,i answer1 because the one is founded on fact and the other on fiction4 ,it is not my intention to discuss the innumerable theories that have been propounded as to the origin of the ,gospels1 for the purpose of accounting for the common narrative1 its variations1 and the additions peculiar to each4 ,many of these theories violate the principle of common sense2 and if the contrary were not known to be the fact they would suggest the idea that their authors had never practised the art of literary composition4 ,among them ,i shall only notice the theories which suppose that the ,evangelists had before them one common document when writing their ,gospels2 or that one of them had before him the ,gospel of another2 that they deliberately copied the common words and phrases1 and no less deliberately made the alterations1 additions1 and transpositions which the common narrative presents4 ,let us take for an illustration the supposition that the author of ,mark's ,gospel had that of ,matthew before him1 or the converse4 ,in the one case he must have deliberately retained all the common words and phrases1 after making the most capricious variations and suppressions4 ,next1 he must have inserted all the little additions which distinguish the ,gospel of ,st4 ,mark from that of ,st4 ,matthew1 and made the requisite transpositions4 ,but what is still more remarkable1 he must also have taxed his invention to insert in the midst of its impersonal narrative all those graphic descriptions which impart to ,mark's ,gospel the appearance of ocular testimony4 ,besides all this he must of set purpose have omitted nearly all the discourses in which ,matthew's ,gospel is so full1 or have placed them in a different context4 ,if1 on the other hand1 we suppose that ,mark's ,gospel is the original and ,matthew's the copy1 the whole process must be reversed1 and above all the author must have deliberately struck out the graphic portions of ,mark1 except in one or two instances1 when he has added some of his own4 ,all theories which are founded on the supposition that the authors of either ,gospel used a common document and deliberately altered it1 or that one of them formed his ,gospel out of that of another by a number of additions and subtractions axe simply incredible4 ,but the common narrative exists with the identities of expression interwoven with its variations4 ,how are we to account for this remarkable fact8 ,the identities of expression must have had a common origin4 ,but what do the variations prove8 ,evidently that the narrative had passed through a period of oral transmission4 ,no other theory can adequately account for them4 ,such variations would naturally spring up in the course of oral transmission4 ,we have already seen that the circumstances of the ,church rendered such a mode of transmission necessary1 as details of our ,lord's life must have formed regular portions of ,christian instruction4 ,in doing this1 variations would inevitably arise4 ,after a while they would assume a distinctive type in different ,churches4 ,if then the ,synoptic narratives are three versions of an oral ,gospel handed down in as many ,churches1 and put together with additions by their respective authors1 this affords a reasonable explanation of the phenomena which the common narrative presents4 ,in this case the only thing which involves a difficulty is the large number of identities preserved by the ,evangelists4 ,this proves the strong hold which the words must have had on the minds of the members of the different ,churches4 ,the existence of a traditionary narrative is still further proved by the fourth ,gospel4 ,no one can deny that this is an independent record1 and that its origin must have been wholly different from that of the other three4 ,yet in those portions which cover common ground with the ,synoptics we meet with phenomena of a similar order1 all proving that there must have been a narrative in existence which had impressed itself indelibly on the mind of the ,church2 so much so that an entirely independent writer fell into the same mode of expression when his subject led him to narrate incidents common to the other three4 ,every consideration which can be brought to bear on this subject tends to prove the existence of a traditionary narrative of the actions and teaching of ,jesus which was handed down in the ,churches prior to the publication of either of the ,synoptic ,gospels1 and that their common matter must have passed through a period of oral transmission4 ,it follows therefore that our three ,synoptics are three different versions of the same oral ,gospel modified in the course of transmission and supplemented by additional information introduced by their respective authors4 ,we know as a fact that a traditionary narrative maintained its place in the ,church far into the second century4 ,papias deliberately expressed his preference for it as compared with written records2 and the writings of other ,fathers show their acquaintance with it4 ,it is clear therefore that a number of traditionary narratives existed in the ,church2 and that if a number of persons had set themselves to reduce these accounts to writing1 they would have presented phenomena analogous to those of the ,synoptic ,gospels4 ,i have also shown that these ,gospels present all the phenomena which distinguish this species of narrative4 ,the substantial agreement of the three1 both as to facts and as to the discourses1 is a guarantee that the actual traditions of the ,church have been accurately reported4 ,their diversities also afford the strongest proof that these reports were composed in perfect independence of each other4 ,it is remarkable that the great majority of those against whom ,i am reasoning admit that the discourses in the ,synoptic ,gospels are fairly accurate representations of the actual utterances of ,jesus1 although they must have passed through a period of oral transmission4 ,yet it is certain that the accurate transmission of discourses by oral tradition is far more difficult than that of a report of facts through the same medium4 ,the difficulty of preventing the intrusion of foreign elements is much greater4 ,slight alterations may materially affect their meaning4 ,yet the discourses recorded in the ,synoptics bear the indelible impress of a single mind1 that of ,jesus ,christ47#f7 ,it follows therefore that if the traditions of the ,church were able to hand down accurately the discourses of our ,lord until the time when they were reduced to writing1 still more easily would they transmit a correct account of ,his acts as narrated by ,his original followers4 ,except on account of the antecedent difficulty with which the miraculous element in the narrative is supposed to be attended1 it would be absurd to accept the one and to reject the other as mere legendary invention4 ,but having once established the fact of the ,resurrection1 the antecedent difficulty of the miracles is effectually disposed of1 and the facts resume their place in history4 ,it forms no objection to the general argument that some of the ,synoptics contain narratives of considerable length1 which are omitted by others4 ,it was precisely what was to be expected that the traditionary accounts would vary in this respect1 and have incidents reported by different witnesses of our ,lord's ministry incorporated into them4 ,they abound in the ,gospel of ,st4 ,luke1 who distinctly states that it is a compilation4 ,a careful study of the ,gospel of ,st4 ,matthew must lead to the conclusion that its narrative portions are derived from the same general sources as those of the other two4 ,we find in it precisely the same verbal identities which have been already noticed as affording proof of the existence of a common source of information1 and the same variations which prove that it must have passed through a period of oral transmission4 ,nor are the indications of autoptic testimony stronger in ,matthew than in the other two ,evangelists2 in fact1 they are less so than in ,mark4 ,the discourses in ,matthew1 viewed as a whole1 are a far more complete collection of the sayings of our ,lord1 than those in ,mark or ,luke4 ,it seems to have been one of the chief purposes of the author of this ,gospel to make a collection of them1 and to unite them by a brief narrative of events4 ,but even in the discourses1 some of the variations found in ,mark and ,luke possess stronger claims to be regarded as the original form of the utterances of our ,lord1 than the corresponding ones in ,matthew4 ,in the parts which are common to the ,synoptics1 they are evidently founded on one common source of information2 and in this respect neither of them can put in a higher claim to originality than the other4 ,such are some of the chief characteristics of these ,gospels1 which have the most intimate bearing on their claims to be regarded as genuine historical productions4 ,they are accounts of the traditions of the ,church respecting the life and teaching of its ,founder at the time when they were composed4 ,i have already shown1 that if they were composed at any time between the ministry of ,jesus ,christ and the first twenty years of the second century1 it would have been impossible to have substituted a legendary narrative for the account which was handed down in the ,church4 ,i am not concerned to prove that no inaccuracies could have crept into these traditionary accounts4 ,the only question of the smallest importance is1 are they substantially historical8 ,on this question mere minor details1 the order and arrangement of events1 or even the introduction of two or three erroneous accounts1 has no more bearing than it has on the general credit of other histories4 ,our question is1 what is their value as sources of history8 ,this must be kept perfectly distinct from the question as to the nature and extent of the inspiration of the writers4 ,with respect to a large number of alleged discrepancies1 their whole force as objections to the historical character of the ,gospels is disposed of by the simple consideration that their authors assert them to be memoirs1 and not histories4 ,no small number of others can be shown to exist only in the imagination of those who allege them4 ,a few real difficulties will probably remain2 but these no more invalidate their historical character1 than similar ones which are to be found in every writer 8from ,herodotus to ,mr4 ,froude40 ,it must not be forgotten that a careful examination of the ,gospels discloses a mass of additional evidence on this subject which is inconsistent with the idea that their narratives are a mere congeries of legendary inventions4 ,it would be impossible to investigate it in a work like the present1 or even to give an idea of its value1 as shown in the intimate acquaintance of the authors with the events1 ideas1 customs1 and general circumstances of the times4 ,to compose such stories out of any materials which could have been at his hand at the beginning of the second century1 supposing him to have been devoid of all personal knowledge on the subject1 would defy any modern writer of fiction1 even one possessed of the highest genius2 not to speak of the incompetence of the ancient world in this class of literature1 rendering the attempts of such writers as existed among the early ,christians simply hopeless4 ,there are two additional points to which ,i must draw attention here1 in the internal structure of the ,gospels1 as establishing their historical character4 ,the strongest evidence which the ,gospels afford of their being historical narratives is the unquestionable fact that they contain a delineation of the greatest of all characters1 ,jesus ,christ our ,lord4 ,this character is there depicted1 even in the opinion of unbelievers of the greatest eminence1 with a matchless perfection4 ,why will they not grapple with the question of its origin1 and show how it is possible that such a character should ever have found a place in the ,gospels1 on any theory which they have propounded to account for their origin8 ,it does not originate in any formal sketch or delineation4 ,this the ,evangelists have nowhere given4 ,it is the combined result of all the facts and the discourses which they contain4 ,the whole subject matter of the ,gospels is in fact the material out of which this great character is delineated4 ,how came it there if the ,gospels consist only of a mass of mythic and legendary stories which gradually accumulated in the ,church8 ,how is it possible that a bundle of legends thus thrown together can have created the perfect character of ,jesus ,christ1 forming1 as it does1 an harmonious whole8 ,how has it come to pass that the authors of our ,gospels1 if they each composed their narratives from a mass of fictions which grew up during a period of seventy years1 have each given us a delineation of the same ,jesus8 ,these are problems which have an intimate bearing on the question whether they belong to the order of historical or fictitious compositions1 but with which unbelief has hitherto most prudently declined to grapple4 ,i shall not pursue them further here1 as ,i have discussed them fully in the work already referred to1 and shown that the portraiture of ,jesus ,christ as delineated in our ,gospels is inconsistent with any theory of their origin which has been propounded by our opponents4 ,to this work ,i must refer the reader4 ,but there is a second character which is harmoniously delineated in the ,gospels1 to which ,i have not alluded in the work above referred to1 that of ,simon ,peter4 ,this character1 though a subordinate one1 is also a perfect delineation of its kind1 instinct with historic life4 ,it differs from that of ,jesus ,christ in being that of a purely human character1 possessed of many of the virtues and not a few of the frailties of ordinary human nature4 ,no student of the ,gospels can rise from their perusal without a lively conception of it4 ,if they are historical1 the account of the origin of this second character of which they present us so perfect a delineation is a very simple one4 ,it is that of a genuine man1 whose actions they have correctly recorded4 ,but if the ,gospels are such as my opponents affirm them to be1 ,i must earnestly put to them the question1 ,how came this character there also8 ,each ,gospel presents us with a delineation of ,peter4 ,in each the same living man is before us1 in all his virtues and in all his failings4 ,how1 ,i ask1 is it possible that the author of each ,gospel has succeeded in creating a character of ,simon ,peter--each true to nature and each manifestly a delineation of the same person--out of a number of fictions1 myths1 and legends8 ,can any one affirm that the ,peter of the ,gospels presents us with one single trait of a character formed by legend8 ,but the existence of this delineation in each of the ,gospels involves those with whom ,i am reasoning in a yet further difficulty4 ,the ,new ,testament contains a fifth delineation of the character of ,simon ,peter1 professedly drawn by himself4 ,i allude to his first ,epistle4 ,this unbelievers say is not his genuine production1 though the external evidence for it is strong4 ,in either case it will be equally available for my argument4 ,if it was written by him1 it is separated by an interval of from thirty to forty years from the ,peter of the ,gospels4 ,after such a period of time we ought to find the same substantial lineaments of character1 but chastened1 improved1 and softened by the influence of ,christianity4 ,this is precisely what we do find4 ,the ,peter of the ,epistle is the ,peter of the ,gospels1 in all the substantial elements of his character1 but raised to a greater moral elevation4 ,the ,peter of the ,gospels is the ,peter of youthful aspirations1 who has had little experience of the trials and struggles of human life4 ,the ,peter of the ,epistle while continually reminding us of the ,peter of the ,gospels1 is a deeply softened man1 with many of his infirmities changed into the graces to which they are allied4 ,now if the four ,peters of the ,gospels are fictions1 how have their inventors succeeded in delineating him true to his youthful character1 and true to human nature8 ,if1 on the other hand1 the ,peters of the ,gospels and of the ,epistle are all five creations of the imagination1 the difficulty is increased to impossibility4 ,how was it possible for the forger of the ,epistle to have delineated a ,peter who should be true to the legendary character of the ,peter of the ,gospels1 and at the same time such an improved version of it as would naturally result from the trials of between thirty and forty years spent in the service and in attempts to put in practice the teaching of his ,master8 ,it follows1 therefore1 that the five portraitures of ,simon ,peter presented us in the ,new ,testament1 are so many distinctive proofs that the ,gospels are historical realities1 and not the mere offspring of the imaginations of their respective authors4 ,i am now in a position to restore the ,gospels to their place in history1 and to estimate the value of their testimony4 ,the ,synoptics are so many versions of the traditions1 preserved in the different ,churches during the first century1 of that portion of the life and teaching of ,jesus which formed the groundwork of ,christianity4 ,such an account1 more or less full1 must have been handed down from the first origin of the ,church4 ,this account received enlargements from different narrators who had been witnesses of different events of our ,lord's life and ministry2 but so completely was it interwoven with the daily course of ,christian life1 that it is impossible that matters inconsistent with its fundamental conception can have become incorporated with it4 ,moreover1 the whole period lay within the limits of time during which traditions are strictly historical4 ,no community ever existed which had equal facilities for handing down accurately the events of its ,founder's life1 or had stronger inducements to do so4 ,the ,church was struggling for existence1 and seeking to assimilate to itself the elements by which it was surrounded4 ,this alone must have kept steadily in its memory the leading events of the life of ,jesus4 ,these1 as we have seen1 must also have formed the subjects in which its converts were habitually instructed4 ,jesus ,christ1 to use the expressive language of ,st4 ,paul1 must have been to the primitive ,christian community from the hour of its birth 8all and in all40 ,from the various direct and indirect references in ,st4 ,paul's ,epistles we can form a general idea of the life and teaching of ,jesus1 as it must have been accepted by the ,churches to which he wrote4 ,all the outlines furnished by these ,epistles may be traced in our present ,gospels4 ,if we descend to a still later period1 we shall find that accounts1 substantially the same1 were spread over the entire ,church4 ,even if it is true that the early ,ecclesiastical writers do not cite the ,gospels1 it is evident that they were in possession of accounts1 either written or unwritten1 which were for all practical purposes the same4 ,it follows1 therefore1 that as the ,synoptics contain three versions of the ministry of ,jesus which were handed down by the ,churches of the first century1 their claim to the character of historical documents substantially accurate in all their main features is unquestionable4 ,nothing is more lamentable than the manner in which a number of minute verbal questions have been introduced into this great controversy4 ,both parties have freely indulged in it4 ,the life of ,christianity has been made to depend on whether some passage in a particular ,father bears a precise verbal agreement with another passage to be found in our present ,gospels4 ,such matters may be interesting as mere literary questions1 but surely they are not worthy to be dignified by the title of historical ones4 ,to represent the life of ,christianity as depending on them1 is to leave the broad basis of historical investigation1 and descend to the mere technicalities of legal evidence1 by which the parties who are most capable of throwing light on the case are excluded from giving evidence at all1 while many minor points are debated with the utmost ardour4 ,i desire to express no opinion as to whether this is right or wrong in judicial processes2 but the principles of history are widely different4 ,all evidence must be accepted for what it is worth1 and for no more4 ,the issues are great ones1 and are not dependent on any mere set of barren technicalities4 ,christianity is not only one of the greatest facts in history1 but the greatest2 and its truth or falsehood can never be dependent on whether a passage more or less in ,justin ,martyr is an accurate citation of another in ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel4 ,the only questions of real importance are3 ,do the numerous references of the early ,christian writers to the life and teaching of ,jesus ,christ substantially agree with the accounts of that life and teaching given in our ,gospels8 ,do they contain any account which gives a really different version of it8 ,if such agreement exists1 although there may be minor differences1 the matter is settled as an historical question4 ,the ,gospels1 in all their great outlines1 are virtually accurate accounts of the traditions of the primitive ,church respecting the actions and the teaching of its ,founder1 and as such they satisfy all the conditions of history4 ,it is impossible that ,i should in this place enter on the question of the authorship or the date of the ,fourth ,gospel4 ,the literature on this subject would fill a library of no mean size4 ,i shall only refer to ,mr4 ,sanday's able vindication of its historical character4 ,one thing respecting it is clear4 ,it is either the veritable work of an eyewitness of the facts which it records1 or it is a consummate fiction1 such as can be found nowhere else1 either in the ancient or the modern world4 ,its author must have united a fixed determination to perpetrate a forgery on a most sacred subject1 with one of the loftiest ideals of morality1 and an inimitable power of simple description1 and of inventing fictitious scenes in a manner which is in the highest degree true to human nature4 ,if this work was really written by a person who was not a ,jew1 one hundred and fifty years after the events which are described in it1 and a century after the destruction of ,jerusalem1 the accuracy of its descriptions is one of the most singular phenomena in literary history4 ,wherever it runs parallel with the ,synoptic ,gospels1 it throws light on their obscurities without the smallest apparent intention of doing so4 ,in some places it helps to correct erroneous impressions into which the reader of the ,synoptic narratives might otherwise have fallen4 ,even in that most striking disagreement between them1 respecting the ,paschal character of the ,last ,supper1 we find in the ,synoptics hints which corroborate ,st4 ,john's account of it4 ,one simple alternative1 and one only1 lies before us2 either to accept this ,gospel as a history of the highest authority1 or to reject it as an audacious forgery4 ,it now remains for me very briefly to consider the value of the testimony of the ,gospels to the truth of the ,resurrection4 ,if one thing more than another is evident respecting them1 it is that they were not written for the purposes of controversy with unbelievers1 but for the instruction of ,christians4 ,it is certain that the last thing which occurred to their authors was to guard their narratives against possible objections4 ,this is made clear by every page4 ,at the time when they were composed1 the ,resurrection had long been accepted by the entire body of believers1 as the foundation of their faith4 ,it was therefore not necessary for the ,gospels to prove it1 as it would have been if they had been composed with a direct view to unbelievers4 ,this is a point which it is important to bear in mind in considering the nature of their testimony4 ,two of the narratives of it are entirely incidental2 and it is quite clear that their authors never intended to give an exhaustive account of the facts4 ,the other two1 though giving us more details1 participate largely in the same character4 ,it is impossible to read either narrative with care and not feel that it was never intended to be a systematic account of all the facts with which the author was acquainted respecting the ,resurrection4 ,it is objected against these narratives that they abound with variations1 amounting to contradictions4 ,the variations are unquestionable1 and it will readily be conceded that it is extremely difficult to piece together all the details of the existing accounts so as to weave them into an harmonious whole4 ,in fact they are inevitable whenever the incidents described are of exciting interest4 ,such must have been the character of those connected with the ,resurrection4 ,the chief difficulty is found in the details of the morning of that important day4 ,they are in an extremely fragmentary form1 and it is quite clear that we have not all the events before us4 ,if we had1 we should then be in a position to judge what is the precise nature of the variations in the minor details4 ,but even if contradictions could be proved to exist1 how does their presence invalidate the main facts1 whose truth is established by wholly independent testimony8 ,the only way in which it can be made to do so is by mixing up questions involving particular theories of inspiration with considerations purely historical4 ,such discrepancies exist in connection with some of the most important facts of history in their minor details1 without in the smallest degree invalidating their historical credibility4 ,this may be easily tested by examining a number of newspaper accounts of any exciting event1 which are derived from reporters entirely independent of each other4 ,one witnesses one thing1 and one another2 and it is often difficult to weave the whole into a perfectly consistent narrative4 ,no one can doubt that the morning of the ,resurrection must have been one in the last degree exciting to the disciples of our ,lord4 ,they were not mere reporters1 but persons profoundly interested in the various occurrences4 ,it would therefore have been inconsistent with the historical truth of their position1 if their narratives had presented us with no variations4 ,it is certain that several women accompanied our ,lord on ,his last journey to ,jerusalem4 ,what was more likely than that they would visit the sepulchre at different times1 and with different purposes8 ,can any one doubt that their excitement must have been great8 ,what conceivable difference can it make to the great fact of the ,resurrection1 that one account mentions two ,marys as going to the sepulchre2 that the second adds to these ,salome2 that the third mentions several women2 and that the fourth mentions ,mary ,magdalene alone8 ,there might have been1 as far as anything which appears in the narratives is concerned1 several different visits2 or the same person may have returned more than once4 ,or what is the use of urging that there is an apparent variation of about an hour between the different accounts1 as to the precise time when these visits were made8 ,do variations of this description1 which are found in accounts derived from eyewitnesses of ,louis ,,xvi's flight from ,paris1 in the smallest degree invalidate the fact8 ,or what conceivable difference does it make that one narrative represents the women as seeing one angel1 and another two2 and that one describes the appearance as taking place inside1 and another outside the sepulchre8 ,it is quite possible that all these accounts may be true1 and that these occurrences took place on different occasions4 ,if they were true1 nothing was more unlikely than that the women could have given an orderly narrative of them4 ,variations must occur in all reports of events when the witnesses see only a portion of them4 ,the great facts before us are plain and evident2 and unless they are falsehoods1 there could be no possibility of mistake respecting them4 ,different bodies of women found the sepulchre empty4 ,some of them affirmed that they had seen ,jesus risen from the dead1 and that ,he sent a message by them to ,his disciples4 ,peter and ,john visited the sepulchre1 and found it empty4 ,later in the same day1 ,peter affirmed that ,jesus ,christ appeared to him2 on which day also two other disciples affirmed that they had seen ,him on a journey1 at first without recognizing ,him1 but that they did so afterwards4 ,on the evening of the same day1 these two disciples1 ten of the ,apostles1 with other persons in company1 saw ,him in a body1 and were permitted to test the reality of ,his ,resurrection by handling ,his ,person1 and by seeing ,him eat4 ,about such facts there could be no mistake4 ,most of them were well known and accepted when ,st4 ,paul wrote his ,epistles1 when the means of testing their truth was ample4 ,we know on the same authority that the whole apostolic body asserted that they had seen the ,lord1 and that as many as five hundred other persons made a similar assertion4 ,these are the chief facts1 and a number of minor variations such as those above referred to cannot affect their credibility4 ,it has been objected that the author of ,st4 ,matthew's ,gospel was ignorant of some of these appearances4 ,on what ground is the objection made8 ,on the fact that he has not mentioned them8 ,does a writer always report all he knows1 especially when his writing is intended for the use of those who firmly believe the fact already8 ,nothing can exceed the fragmentary character of this portion of his narrative4 ,if this ,gospel was composed at the late period assigned to it by those against whom ,i am reasoning1 namely1 ,a4,d4 #ij1 it is incredible that these were the only facts known to the writer1 at least thirty years after ,st4 ,paul wrote his ,epistles4 ,the charge of ignorance might be sustained with far greater plausibility if it were admitted that ,st4 ,matthew was the author of this ,gospel1 because it might have been expected that he would mention the first occasion on which his ,master had appeared to him rather than the third4 ,but his authorship is denied1 and the publication of the ,gospel assigned to the last ten years of the century1 when it was impossible that the author1 whoever he may have been1 could be ignorant that it was alleged that our ,lord had appeared on other occasions besides those mentioned by him4 ,i will now consider the threefold account of the great appearance on the morning of ,easterday4 ,one of them is contained in the supplement to ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel2 the other two are those in ,luke and ,john4 ,let us first carefully observe the mode in which they are narrated in the supplement4 ,its author seems to have entertained a stronger view of the indisposition of the disciples to believe the truth of the ,resurrection than the other two narratives appear to warrant4 ,he first notices the appearance to ,mary ,magdalene on the morning of that day1 and says that the disciples refused to credit her report4 ,next1 he tells us of the appearance to the two disciples as they went into the country2 and states that on their return they told it to the remainder1 8,neither believed they them40 8,afterward10 he adds1 8he appeared to the eleven as they sat at meat1 and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart1 because they believed not those who had seen him after he was risen40 ,it is evident that the author of the supplement entertained a strong view of the incredulity of the disciples when their companions reported to them the fact of the ,resurrection4 ,let us now examine how the facts stand in ,luke's narrative4 ,it opens with a detailed account of the journey into the country of ,cleopas and his companion1 and of our ,lord's appearance to them4 ,our ,lord addresses them in the following words3 8,o fools and slow of heart10 7 1 7 8to believe all that the prophets have spoken40 ,after their recognition of ,jesus1 they are described as immediately returning to ,jerusalem1 8and find the eleven gathered together and those that were with them1 saying1 the ,lord is risen indeed1 and hath appeared unto ,simon40 8,and they0 7i4e4 ,cleopas and his companion7 8told what things were done on the way1 and how he was known unto them in the breaking of bread40 ,the narrative then proceeds3 8,and as they thus spake10 7i4e4 ,cleopas and his companion7 8,jesus himself stood in the midst of them1 and said unto them1 ,peace be unto you40 ,it then informs us that they were terrified and supposed that the appearance was that of a spirit4 ,on this our ,lord reasons with them3 8,why are ye troubled1 and why do thoughts arise in your hearts8 ,behold my hands and my feet that it is ,i myself1 for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have4 ,and when he had thus spoken1 he showed them his hands and his feet40 ,the writer then adds3 8,and when they yet believed not for joy and wondered1 he said unto them1 ,have ye here any meat8 ,and they gave him a piece of a broiled fish1 and of an honeycomb1 and he took it and did eat before them40 ,the author then proceeds with his narrative3 8,these are the words that ,i spake unto you1 while ,i was yet with you1 that all things might be fulfilled that are written in the law of ,moses1 and in the prophets and in the ,psalms concerning me40 ,and he adds3 8,then opened he their understanding1 that they might understand the ,scriptures40 ,the following is the account given of the same meeting in ,st4 ,john's ,gospel4 ,after having given a full description of the appearance to ,mary ,magdalene1 he thus describes our ,lord's appearance on the evening of ,easterday3 8,then the first day at evening1 being the first day of the week1 when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the ,jews1 came ,jesus and stood in the midst1 and said unto them1 ,peace be unto you4 ,and when he had so said1 he showed them his hands and his side4 ,then were the disciples glad when they saw the ,lord4 ,then said ,jesus unto them again1 ,peace be unto you3 as my ,father hath sent me1 even so send ,i you4 ,and when he had said this he breathed on them1 and said1 ,receive ye the ,holy ,ghost40 ,the difference between the supplement of ,mark's ,gospel and the narratives of ,luke and ,john is very remarkable4 ,are the variations such as would be found in different reports of a set of fictions1 or are they such as distinguish brief but inexact reports of actual occurrences8 ,this is a very important question4 ,first3 the three accounts bear the clearest indications of being independent4 ,it is incredible that any one of the three writers having before him one or both of the other two accounts should have composed his own as it now stands4 ,secondly3 the author of the supplement uses very strong language in describing the unbelief of the disciples4 ,he says that when they told it to the others1 they did not believe their report4 ,st4 ,luke1 on the other hand1 informs us that as soon as ,cleopas and his companion entered the room where on their return they found the ,apostles and others assembled together1 they were received with the exclamation3 8,the ,lord is risen indeed1 and hath appeared unto ,simon40 ,again3 the author of the supplement says that when ,jesus appeared to the eleven as they sat at meat 8he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart 7 7 because they did not believe them that had seen him after he was risen40 ,st4 ,luke tells us that not only were ,cleopas and his companion received with the joyful exclamation1 8,the ,lord is risen indeed10 but instead of upbraiding them ,jesus addressed them with the words 8,peace be unto you20 which is confirmed by the author of the fourth ,gospel1 who1 if ,st4 ,john was really the author1 must have been present4 ,in neither of these ,gospels is there one word of 8upbraiding the disciples with unbelief20 while both affirm that ,jesus proceeded to give them rational grounds for believing that ,he was actually risen from the dead1 by showing them1 according to one1 8his hands and his feet10 according to the other1 8his hands and his side40 ,it is quite probable that ,he may have done both4 ,st4 ,john adds1 8,then were the disciples glad when they saw the ,lord40 ,but ,st4 ,luke's account is more specific4 ,he tells us that immediately on ,his entry fear took possession of their minds4 8,they were terrified and affrighted10 and supposed that it might be a spirit1 and not ,jesus actually raised from the dead4 ,our ,lord therefore before showing them ,his hands and ,his feet proceeded to reason with them as to the reality of ,his appearance4 8,handle me and see1 for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have40 ,here there is nothing of reproach1 such as is suggested by the supplement to ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel4 ,yet there was incredulity of a certain kind in the room1 but not one which was worthy of reproach4 ,we learn from ,st4 ,luke that it was not the incredulity of unbelief1 but of joy2 in other words1 that the news seemed too good to be true1 and they dared scarcely trust the evidence of their senses4 ,on this however nothing in the form of a reproach passes the lips of ,jesus2 but for their further satisfaction1 he asks for food and eats it before them4 ,on all these points the narratives of ,st4 ,luke and ,st4 ,john throw light on each other1 as such accounts1 if founded on fact1 ought to do1 while their independence is indisputable4 ,according to those with whom ,i am reasoning1 the ,gospel of ,st4 ,john is much the latest written4 ,if therefore the author had borrowed from ,luke1 it is incredible that a writer who had such powers of setting forth fictions in the garb of facts1 should have omitted the other remarkable incidents mentioned by ,st4 ,luke1 and not have dressed them up with the art of which he was so consummate a master1 for these would have communicated a striking reality to the scenes4 ,it is therefore unquestionable that these two accounts present all the phenomena of history1 and none of those of fiction4 ,but how stands the continuation of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel1 which affirms that our ,lord upbraided the eleven with their unbelief and hardness of heart on the occasion of ,his appearance on ,easter evening8 ,the author of the supplement was probably not aware that ,cleopas and his companion were present in the room when our ,lord appeared to the eleven1 or even that others besides the eleven were present1 as is expressly affirmed by ,st4 ,luke to have been the case4 ,the impression which it leaves on the mind is that they reported the ,resurrection to the disciples generally on their return1 and that it was disbelieved by them1 and that the appearance to the eleven was a subsequent event4 ,we are now in a position to see how this misapprehension may have originated2 and that instead of invalidating the account1 it forms a strong confirmation of its truth4 ,there were persons in the room whom our ,lord had actually reproached for their unbelief1 viz4 ,cleopas and his companion2 though ,he reproached none who were present on the occasion of ,his appearance4 ,the words stated by ,st4 ,luke to have been used by ,him were1 1 8,o fools and slow of heart40 ,those used in ,st4 ,mark in describing the address to the eleven are 1 8,he upbraided their unbelief and hardness of heart40 ,the one expression is the very counterpart of the other4 ,there were persons present who had been thus reproached but a few hours before3 the author of the continuation was aware of the fact that some had been thus reproached1 and he supposed that the reproach was addressed to all the assembled disciples1 instead of the salutation of peace with its attendant circumstances4 ,then as to their having been received with expressions of incredulity on their return1 ,st4 ,luke tells us that they returned to ,jerusalem1 8and found the eleven gathered together1 and them that were with them40 ,now as they had set out early in the day1 it was necessary on their return that they should make some inquiry as to where the ,apostles were to be found4 ,in doing this it is probable enough that they went to inquire of some disciples who received their account with incredulity1 and that then this incredulity may through misapprehension have been transferred to the whole assembly4 ,i submit therefore that notwithstanding this disagreement between the three accounts1 that of the continuation of ,st4 ,mark's ,gospel gives a strong corroboration of the statements of the other two4 ,these are precisely the kind of variations which we find in reports of events after they have passed through a few stages of oral transmission4 ,the narratives of ,st4 ,luke and ,st4 ,john furnish us with one more very incidental confirmation of each other4 ,st4 ,luke informs us that on the occasion of this interview our ,lord 8opened their understanding1 that they might understand the ,scriptures40 ,st4 ,john says that 8,he breathed on them1 and said1 ,receive ye the ,holy ,ghost40 ,the words and the mode of expression differ greatly2 but both statements point to one and the same fact1 that on this occasion the persons present supposed that they received a supernatural enlightenment4 ,st4 ,luke describes the effect produced on the minds of the disciples2 ,st4 ,john gives the actual medium of its production4 ,coincidences of this kind prove that the narratives must be founded on facts1 and are beyond the skill of a forger to imitate4 ,i have now considered a few of the leading features of the ,gospels1 which establish the general historical character of their contents4 ,a close examination of them would put us in possession of a large amount of additional evidence1 but to enter on such an inquiry here would be inconsistent with the limits of the present work4 ,as ,i have already observed1 the minute scrutiny of a number of minor details1 as far as the great historical question is concerned1 would be a needless expenditure of labour4 ,the real question at issue is3 ,is the account of our ,lord's life and teaching1 as it is handed down in our present ,gospels1 substantially true in its great outlines1 or has one of a wholly different character been substituted for the true one1 and usurped its place in the teaching of the ,church8 ,on a broad question of this kind1 minor discrepancies in the accounts have no real bearing4 ,if the narrative is true in its great outlines1 it follows that our ,lord's character must have been beyond all question superhuman1 and justifies us in affirming that ,he must have been a 8teacher come from ,god40 ,such a conclusion will still leave open a number of questions of the deepest importance1 but they belong to the province of theology to investigate1 and form no necessary portion of an historical inquiry4 ,if the ,gospels in their broad outlines are historical2 above all1 if ,jesus ,christ rose from the dead1 it follows that the ,new ,testament must contain a divine revelation4 ,as this last fact forms the central position of ,christianity1 ,i have made its historical truth the chief subject of my investigation4 ,in doing this ,i have relied only on documents which are contained in the ,new ,testament itself1 and chiefly on those whose genuineness is conceded by opponents4 ,i have shown that no species of documents can possess a higher historical value than these1 and that the circumstances under which they were written1 the nature of their contents1 and the persons to whom they were addressed1 form an attestation to the truth of the facts asserted in them1 which is unrivalled in the whole course of literature4 ,by means of these ,i have firmly established the fact that the belief in the ,resurrection of ,jesus ,christ was the foundation on which the ,church rested as a community from the first dawning of its existence1 and the basis of the life of its individual members2 and that considerable numbers of the followers of ,jesus ,christ affirmed that they had seen and conversed with ,him after ,he had risen from the dead4 ,i have shown that these facts rest on the highest form of historical attestation4 ,this being so1 there can be only two alternatives respecting them4 ,either the belief in the ,resurrection was founded on the fact that ,he actually rose from the dead2 or it must have originated in the delusions of ,his followers4 ,i have shown that the various theories which have been propounded to account for it on the latter supposition1 when tested by the actual facts1 are untrue both to human nature and to the possibilities of the case4 ,from this it results1 as a necessary consequence1 that ,,jesus ,,christ ,,rose ,,from ,,the ,,dead4 ,if ,he rose from the dead1 the truth of ,his divine mission is established1 and ,his claim to be the ,king and supreme ,legislator of the ,church is vindicated4 ,this claim may be fully set forth in two sayings of ,his own1 recorded in ,st4 ,john's ,gospel3 8,i am the light of the world2 he that followeth ,me shall not walk in darkness1 but shall have the light of life40 7xiii4 #ab47 8,thou sayest that ,i am a king4 ,for this end was ,i born1 and for this cause came ,i into the world1 that ,i should bear witness unto the truth4 ,every one that is of the truth heareth my voice40 7xviii4 #cg47 ,the practical conclusion which this investigation suggests cannot be better expressed than in the words of the same divine ,teacher3 8,he that believeth1 believeth not on me1 but on ,him that sent me2 and he that seeth me seeth ,him that sent me4 ,i am come1 a light into the world1 that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness4 ,and if any man hear my words1 and believe not1 ,i judge him not2 for ,i came not to judge the world1 but to save the world4 ,he that rejecteth me1 and receiveth not my words1 hath one that judgeth him2 the word that ,i have spoken1 the same shall judge him in the last day40 ,,the ,,end4 ,,footnotes #a ,my quotations throughout this work are taken from the first edition4 ,the passage here quoted is somewhat altered in the third edition1 but not so as to affect the general meaning4 #b ,the word which is here translated in the ,a4 ,v4 8miracles0 is in the original 4 #c ,j4 ,s4 ,mill1 in his recently published essays1 considers this the most formidable objection against theism4 #d ,see for example1 ,matt4 v4 #cidb1 ,luke vi4 #bj1 #ba1 #bdbf1 and various others of a similar description4 #e 8,the ,jesus of the ,evangelists40 #f ,mr4 ,mill1 in his recently published ,essay on ,theism1 has strongly expressed his belief that these discourses are the veritable utterances of ,jesus4