Lecture  V – The Patristic Writings

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” – 1 Thess. 5:21.

      The words of my text will serve as an appropriate motto to this and the following Lectures, in the first three of which I propose to examine the evidence of the miracles in the New Testament, as it is set forth in our popular evidential treatises; and to point out those additional lines of defence which the exigencies of modern thought have rendered necessary for strengthening our position where it is defective.  In the treatment of this subject, I shall adhere closely to the principle laid down by Our Lord, that the Scribe who is well instructed in the things of the kingdom of heaven should bring out of his treasures things both new and old.  I shall therefore adopt the old as far as it is applicable to the present aspects of thought, and strengthen it by the new whenever this is rendered necessary by the alteration in the character both of the attack and the defence.

      On the a priori question respecting the possibility of miracles, it will be unnecessary for me to enter in these Lectures.  This subject has been already so fully discussed, that after the vast amount of intellectual labour which has been expended on it, it is surely not too much to assume that some points in the controversy must be considered by all reasonable men as settled.  I am therefore quite willing to accept the positions which have been laid down on this subject by Mr. Mill in his Logic and in his posthumous Essays.  We may do this the more readily, because unbelievers cannot dispute his competency to take a complete survey of the entire question; and all his intellectual bearings were adverse to revealed religion.  The principles which I shall assume as fully established are as follows:–

      1. In all reasonings about miracles it is necessary to assume the existence of a God who is a moral and personal Being.  No weight of evidence can prove the performance of a miracle to any one who affirms that we have no sufficient proof of His existence.  To such a person, even if a miracle were attested as a fact, it would simply be an unusual event, the occurrence of which he would ascribe to some force in nature with which he was unacquainted.

      2. If the existence of a God who is a moral and personal Being, is assumed as proved, the affirmation that miracles are impossible is no longer tenable; for the very supposition itself presupposes a cause which is adequate to perform them; or, to express the same truth in other words, the idea of a miracle violates no law of causation.  Theists therefore have two alternatives to choose from, viz., a supernatural, or an unknown natural agency; and in forming their judgment, a most important consideration must be, the character of God and the conformity of the supposed occurrence to that character.

      3. The occurrence of an extraordinary event, such as a miracle, viewed simply as a phenomenon, can be satisfactorily certified by our senses, or by testimony.  Consequently Hume’s arguments, by which he endeavoured to prove that no amount of evidence can establish the performance of miracles, may be safely dismissed as either harmless truisms or exploded fallacies.*

      *The author of Supernatural Religion has endeavoured to reconstruct Hume’s argument against Mill; but the attempt is a hopeless failure.  It is quite true that there is a sense in which miracles are contrary to experience, i.e. they are not ordinary occurrences; for if they were, they would lose their character as miracles; but Hume’s argument, if it is valid against miracles because they are contrary to past experience, would be equally valid against every fresh addition to that experience, for all such additions must be facts of which men have had no prior experience.

      4. That as the forces of the Universe, and the order of nature must be manifestations of the divine will, their invariability renders the occurrence of miracles highly improbable.*  To overcome this improbability, it is necessary to adduce some adequate reason why the Creator has deviated from the observed course of action which, except in the specific case of an alleged miracle, prior experience proves to have been His universal rule.

      *Two views may be taken of the forces of the Universe, which are both consistent with theism.  The first considers them as directly emanating from the energy of the divine mind, and the result of God’s immanence in Nature.  Contemplated thus, they are manifestations of the divine activity; and their laws, or invariable sequences, of the divine will.  This is the view which underlies the entire Bible, which contemplates the activities of nature as the energies of God.  The second is the mechanical theory, which affirms that matter and force have been called into separate and permanent existence by the Creator, and have been so constituted by Him as to work out an infinite number of results with the precision of a machine so perfect that after it has been once constructed and set in action it will never require any fresh interference on His part to regulate its motions.  The latter is the popular scientific theory of the day, and if true, it renders a miracle far more improbable than it would be on the assumption of the truth of the former.  Still, even assuming the former as the true view, the fact that as far as human observation has gone, God has always energized in conformity with invariable law, lays it open to question whether it is in conformity with His character to act in any other manner, and consequently it becomes necessary that some adequate reason should be assigned why He has deviated in any particular case from His ordinary course of action, before such deviation can be rendered credible.

      5. That as the order of nature is the rule of the divine acting in the Universe, and as that order is invariable, the evidence necessary to prove the occurrence of a miracle must be far stronger than that which is required in the case of an ordinary event.

      6. If adequate proof can be afforded of the existence of a God who cares for man, and if we take into consideration the miserable and degraded condition in which so large a portion of the human race unquestionably are, some interference in their favour, in addition to God’s ordinary providence, may be regarded as probable; and so far the antecedent improbability of miracles, if a necessary part of such an interference, is diminished.  In estimating the degree of this probability, we need not accept Mr. Mill’s terrific indictment against nature and against man, as a true account of the actualities of things.*  If only one fourth part of it is true (and it is an undeniable fact that a large amount of physical evil, and a still greater amount of moral evil, prevails), the general principle must be considered to be established; and so far the a priori difficulties which lie against such special interventions as miracles, are diminished.

      *“Man,” says Mr. Mill, “viewed as a simple production of nature, has in him but one good thing, the capacity of improvement; he is naturally devoid of a sense of truth, a coward, cruel, selfish, and even a lover of dirt.  The truth is,” says he, “ there is hardly a point of excellence belonging to human character which is not decidedly repugnant to the untutored feelings of human nature.” ... “ Whatever good thing man now possesses, either in himself or in his outward surroundings, he has attained not from the gift of nature, but from his having conquered and subdued her.”  It will be useless to quote more to a similar purport.  The impression which is produced on the mind by this portion of the Essay is, that we are in the presence, not of the calm philosopher, but of one of the extremest school of Calvinistic theologians.  If this statement, however, is only true to the degree which I have stated in the text, and assuming that a God exists who cares for man, it is hardly possible that the argument for some additional interference in his favour on the part of God could have been put more forcibly.  Surely if man is naturally as bad as Mr. Mill represents him, the mere fact of his having succeeded in improving himself to the degree which he has, is a very near approach to a miracle.

      These points being assumed as true, the amount of proof which can be justly demanded of us for the miracles of Christianity becomes clear.  It is not enough to affirm that an equally strong attestation can be adduced for them as for the ordinary facts of history.  Even extraordinary events require a stronger attestation than ordinary ones.  Far more must this be the case with miracles, when they are alleged as the credentials of a divine Revelation.  The distinction in point of attestation which we justly require for miracles compared with ordinary events, receives a striking illustration in the history of Herodotus.  His history, as we know, contains accounts of a large number of supernatural occurrences, which are closely interwoven with his narratives of ordinary events.  While we readily accept the latter, we summarily reject the former, although as far as we have any means of judging, they rest on the same testimony as the facts.  Thus with respect to the battles of Salamis and Mycale, we accept the chief incidents as historical, while we attribute the accounts of the supernatural ones either to legendary invention, or the excited imaginations of the combatants; although as a bare question of attestation, there can be little doubt that the historian derived his accounts of both from the same authorities.*  A similar course we habitually pursue in daily life with all reputed miracles.  We justly consider that the evidence requires to be submitted to a very close scrutiny, before it can claim acceptance.  The necessity of this has been greatly increased by the large number of fictitious miracles with which history abounds, some of which rest on a far stronger amount of attestation than would be necessary to establish the occurrence of ordinary events.  But if I have been successful in the preceding Lectures in proving the superhuman action of Jesus Christ in the history of the past and in the facts of the present, our a priori difficulties will not only be diminished, but will absolutely disappear, and we shall be fully justified in accepting a number of supernatural occurrences in connection with His earthly manifestation, on the same attestation as we do ordinary facts.

      *Large numbers of the subordinate incidents beyond all question rest on a very inadequate attestation, and not a few of them are simply impossible.  (See Cox’s History of Greece.)  This writer however carries the principles of historical scepticism to unjustifiable lengths when he claims the right of rejecting nearly every narrative as unhistorical which serves as an illustration of the theological bias of Herodotus, that a divine Nemesis rules in the affairs of men.  The particular form in which it is placed before us by the historian, is no doubt a part of his theological bias; and not a few of the events narrated by him have received a colouring in conformity with it.  But the principle which underlies the Greek conception of a divine Nemesis, that the overbearing arrogance of man will sooner or later receive a downfall, is part of the moral order of the Universe; and it is absurd to reject all narratives as unhistorical which illustrate it.  Perhaps no better illustration of the doctrine can be found than in the career and downfall of Napoleon the First; yet if the principles on which Mr. Cox throws suspicion on several narratives are valid, the history of his rise and fall will have to be rejected by historical critics in the future as being the creation of particular theological bias, of which they are a perfect illustration.  Similar principles are applied by the tendency School of critics to the New Testament, and the attempt is made to explain away its historical character on the same grounds.  Mr. Cox however admits that all the great events of the history rest on an historical basis, and this is all that we require for the Christian argument.  It is an unquestionable fact, however, that we reject the miraculous incidents, although they rest on precisely the same testimony as the facts which we accept as historical.  This is quite sufficient to show that the observation which has been often made, that the miracles of the Bible are as strongly attested as the ordinary facts of history, does not meet the requirements of the case.

      Let me therefore briefly state the points which I have proved in the present Lectures.

      1. It is an unquestionable fact that Jesus Christ has exerted a superhuman power in the moral and spiritual worlds during the last eighteen centuries of history; and that He is exerting this power at the present moment is a fact which is also capable of verification.

      2. The presence of a superhuman power in Jesus Christ is further proved by the fact that His teaching, which, if He was nothing but an ordinary man, must have been that of an uneducated Jewish peasant, brought up in the narrowest atmosphere of exclusiveness, has transcended that of all the great thinkers of the ancient world in its catholicity and its breadth; and especially by His having succeeded in bringing to bear on human nature a great moral and spiritual power, of the want of which the philosophers were profoundly conscious, but which they were wholly unable to create.  In one word, He has shown Himself to be the one great Catholic man, who alone has burst through all the conditions which were imposed on Him by the environment in which He was born and educated, and who has realized in His own person all the aspirations of human nature.

      3. Not only does the character depicted in the Gospels stand at an immeasurable height above all other men; but its unity proves it to be the delineation of an historical reality, and not a fictitious creation.

      4. That in the person and work of Jesus Christ are realized the aspirations of an entire literature, extending over a space of a thousand years.  Its predictions receive in Him their fulfillment; its types their realization; He constitutes the ideal to which the whole system pointed; and not only so, but beyond the limits of the Jewish Church, realizes in His own person the inarticulate sighings and aspirations of human nature during the centuries of the past.

      These things being so, the conditions of the historical argument are changed.  The argument from miracles has no longer to support the entire weight of Christianity.  But while it is removed from the forefront of our evidential position, the a priori difficulty arising from the abstract improbability of miracles is converted into a probability in their favour; in other words, it is far more probable that a person who has exerted such a superhuman influence one the moral and spiritual worlds, should have manifested a corresponding power over the forces of the material Universe, than that He should have only acted on them in the same manner as they are acted on by ordinary men.  Consequently the whole question of the performance of miracles becomes one of adequate attestation.

      The order of our argument therefore must be as follows:–

      First: The evidence of the superhuman action of Jesus Christ in the history of the past, and in the facts of the present.

      Secondly: The direct historical evidence which can be adduced in support of the events recorded in the Gospels.

      III.  Let us few consider what are the links in the old evidential argument which the results of modern criticism have proved to be either weak or defective.  We must ascertain where the defects exist, before it is possible to strengthen the points where our position is weak.

      In examining this subject I assume that Paley’s argument is the model and ideal of modern evidential treatises; for not only has it been prescribed by nearly every bishop on the bench for the last half century, as a work to be studied by the candidates for holy orders, but it has occupied the chief place in the theological curriculum of our sister University during the same period.  In addition to this, nearly all our other evidential treatises have been intended either to supplement, or to strengthen the line of argument which Paley has taken.  This being so, the question becomes one of great importance, Is the form in which the argument for Christianity is presented in the “Evidences,” adequate to enable the Christian student to grapple with the varied forms of modern unbelief?

      I yield to none in my appreciation of the “Evidences.”  The reasoning is a model of clearness and precision; but it is directed against a wholly different form of unbelief from that with which we have at present to contend.  Its chief aim was to meet the Scepticism of the last century; and consequently to prove that Christianity did not originate in an imposture.  Against this form of unbelief the argument is perfect; and from this ground it has been thoroughly and completely driven, and so far we may pronounce the work to have been a great success; for no unbeliever who values his reputation, would now venture to affirm that the origin of Christianity has been due to a consciously concocted fraud.  But the line of attack has since been completely changed.  We have had mythic theories; legendary theories; theories of tendencies; theories of evolution, which account for the origin of Christianity as the natural result of the forces which energize in man; and the theory of visions in all its multiform aspects, backed up by all the resources of modern criticism, and a searching investigation of the documents of primitive Christianity.  All these have been propounded as affording a rational account of the origin of Christianity, and of the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ.

      It is no disparagement to Paley’s great work to say that it is not adequate as a reply to these various theories and objections raised by modern unbelief.  Further; his argument fails to meet the attacks which modern criticism has directed against the Synoptic Gospels, nor does it even touch those which are connected with the fourth Gospel.  If it were otherwise its author must have been gifted with a superhuman insight into the future, for the chief of our modern difficulties were unknown when Paley wrote.  The change in the line of the attack necessitates a corresponding change in that of the defence; it will therefore be necessary to particularize a few of the points where his argument is inadequate to our present needs.

      The first defect which I shall notice in relation to the present aspect of the controversy between Christianity and unbelief is the undue prominence which he gives to the argument from miracles, on which the claims of Christianity as a divine revelation have been almost exclusively based.  Many of the points considered in the preceding Lectures have been referred to by him, but the place which they occupy is entirely subordinate to this its main position.  The principle which underlies the “Evidences,” and most modern evidential works is, that the Christian Revelation consists of a number of dogmatic statements, not otherwise discoverable by reason, and of moral precepts, rather than a body of historical facts.  Of such a revelation, it is evident that miracles must form the sole attestation.  But as it is allowed on all hands that they have long since ceased to be performed, the only course new remaining to us for proving their occurrence, is by a long chain of literary evidence.  Cnsequently, the evidences of Christianity resolve themselves into a literary problem, which consists in the balancing of a large number of historical probabilities.*

      *The value of miracles as the evidence of a revelation, is unquestionably weakened by lapse of time.  It is one thing to witness the performance of a miracle; it is quite another thing to accept its truth as the result of carefully testing a long chain of historical testimony.  Those who witnessed them could judge of their real character; we have not only to do this, but to estimate the value of the testimony on which they rest.  Our position is even less favourable than that of the generation of Christians who succeeded that which witnessed them.  They had means of forming a judgment, and possessed au amount of evidence which now no longer exists.  It therefore by no means follows, even if it could be shown that the writers of the New Testament attached a very High importance to miracles as proofs of a divine commission, that they must have an equal value for us, when a large portion of the evidence on which they originally rested has ceased to exist.  The course of time, however, has given us an ample compensation in the fullness of the evidence which it has it has afforded of the superhuman power residing in Christianity.

      I have already pointed out that this line of argument is inadequate to meet the requirements of modern thought.  But in addition to this, it is attended with an obvious danger.  It at once brings the inquirer face to face with the whole mass of difficulties and complicated questions which have been suggested in reference to miracles, a thorough investigation of which is thereby rendered absolutely necessary as a Preliminary to the acceptance of Christianity.  I think that I shall not be making too strong an assertion, when I express an opinion that the solution of these difficulties in Part II of Paley’s work is inadequate to meet the objections of modern times; and that they require a far deeper handling than they have received from him.

      But in addition to this, his historical argument, model of clearness as it is, really consists of a very complicated chain of literary evidence, demanding a far more profound sifting than it was supposed to do when first propounded by him.  It even requires a considerable amount of special training to enable the student to estimate its validity; and some of the links in it modern criticism has shown to be less reliable than they were considered by Paley.  It will be sufficient, if I draw attention to a few only of the weaker points.

      The main stress of Paley’s argument rests on the following proposition: – “That there is satisfactory evidence that many professing to be original witnesses of the Christian miracles passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered; and solely in consequence of their belief of these accounts; and that they also submitted from the same motives to new rules of conduct.”

      There can be no doubt that, if this point can be established, it forms the strongest evidence that the miracles were not the deliberate inventions of the persons who professed to have witnessed them; or, in other words, it proves the perfect sincerity of their belief in them.  But unfortunately martyr testimony, although a perfect guarantee against fraud, is far from being a safeguard against delusion.  On the contrary the spirit which makes a man a martyr is by no means the most favourable for the calm investigation of facts.*  If we were investigating the truth or falsehood of a modern miracle, we should consider the readiness of those who declared that they had witnessed it, to attest the truth of it by their lives, as a fully satisfactory proof of their honesty.  But when the question is, whether the alleged miracle be a real fact or the result of some hallucination, we should greatly prefer the judgment of twelve men, who united scientific attainments with sound common sense, to that of twelve martyrs.  Now the ground which is taken by modern unbelief is, that Christianity originated, not in an imposture, but in a delusion; consequently Paley’s argument, though perfectly valid as a reply to the objections which he had specifically in view, does not meet the modern affirmation, that the miracles of the New Testament, as far as they are not legends, originated in the enthusiastic temperament of the simple minded followers of Jesus, who, under the influence of certain mental prepossessions, gave a miraculous colouring to facts which were really not miraculous, in a manner somewhat similar to those which are alleged to have occurred at the martyrdom of Polycarp;** above all, that the belief in the great miracle of the Resurreetion originated in His followers having mistaken certain subjective impressions, the creations of their own heated imaginations, for objective realities.  Against delusions of this kind, it is clear that martyr testimony is no effectual guarantee; nor is Paley’s further position, “that in consequence of their belief, they submitted to new rules of conduct.”

      *It is quite clear that the spirit which makes a man a martyr is no effectual guarantee against the action of the three principles of prepossession, fixed idea, and expectancy, which Dr. Carpenter has pointed out as the originating cause of a large number of delusions, under the influence of which those subject to them have mistaken subjective impressions for external realities.  It is equally certain that the readiness to encounter persecution and martyrdom in attestation of their truth would be no guarantee of their objective reality.  All that it would guarantee would be the sincerity of their beliefs, but of this we have ample proof in the case of persons who have mistaken a number of mental hallucinations for objective realities.

      **It is impossible to accept the occurrences which are alleged to have taken place on this occasion as objective realities.  With the exception of the voice from heaven they differ wholly in character from those which are recorded in the New Testament.  Stephen, the proto-martyr of the Christian Church, is described as being favoured with a vision of the risen Jesus, just before he surrendered his life as a sacrifice in his Master’s cause; but no audible words of encouragement were heard either by him or by others.  The Christians who were present at the martyrdom of Polycarp were no doubt in a very excited state, and their condition of mind was that which is best suited for viewing the various occurrences in the light of their subjective impressions.  Of this kind are the supposed voice from heaven, which may have grown out of an exhortation addressed to Polycarp by some Christian, the account about the dove, the peculiar form taken by the flames, and their inability to consume the body, its colour, and the sweet scent which issued from it, the necessity of the executioner stabbing him (which after all might have been an act of mercy), and the extinction of the fire by the large quantity of the blood which issued from the body.  All these things might easily have originated in facts which were coloured by their own heated imaginations.  While they bear a close resemblance to a large number of legendary miracles they differ wholly in character from those recorded in the New Testament.

      But there are several difficulties connected with the details of his argument, which modern criticism has brought to light.  What the argument renders absolutely necessary is, that we should get at the actual testimony of the original witnesses (otherwise it would be impossible to form a judgment as to their competency), and prove that they exposed themselves to persecution and martyrdom, as a consequence of this belief.  This imposed on Paley the necessity of establishing the authenticity of the different books of the New Testament, and above all, of the Gospels, as containing the records of the miracles, by an intricate chain of literary evidence consisting of quotations from the Fathers.  How far these quotations will support the weight which the form of his argument imposes on them, I will consider presently.

      Further: Paley speaks of twelve witnesses, by whom he means the twelve Apostles; but even if his proof was fully adequate to demonstrate that the Gospels were written by the persons whose names they bear, this would only put us in possession of the direct testimony of two of them; and would leave us still in the dark as to their competency to judge of the reality of the miracles recorded by them.  Let it be observed that these remarks are made on the supposition that miracles constitute the sole attestation of Christianity.  If this be so, it is evident, when we consider all the difficulties which modern thought has suggested in connection with the subject, that the testimony of two witnesses only is insufficient for their proof.

      To enable us to get at anything like the conjoint testimony of the twelve Apostles, it is necessary to adduce the strongest evidence of the historical character of the earlier chapters of the Acts of the Apostles, for it is here only that we meet with anything which can be designated their conjoint testimony to the Resurrection, of which the author informs us that they affirmed the reality, and that they encountered great dangers and sufferings in consequence of their belief in it.  But if the entire weight of the Christian argument is made to rest on this, it becomes necessary to establish the authenticity of these chapters by evidence, amounting to a moral demonstration; otherwise, as far as our controversy with modern unbelief is concerned, the argument would be a near approach to a petitio principii.  If this could be established beyond the possibility of question, it would of course prove that the Apostles testified to the truth of the Resurrection, and that the Jewish rulers did their best to suppress the belief; but even this would not settle the question as to whether the belief was not the result of some form of mental hallucination.  I think it must be admitted that if we view the question simply as a matter of literary evidence, the proof which is adduced by Paley is not sufficiently strong to bear the entire weight of the Christian argument.

      But this brings us into the presence of another serious difficulty.

      The form of the argument, which rests the truth of Christianity exclusively on its miraculous attestation, renders it necessary, not only to prove the truth of the miracles by evidence of the highest order, but also that all other miraculous narratives rest on an inferior order of attestation.  Hence the necessity of Paley’s second proposition, “That there is not satisfactory evidence, that persons pretending to be original witnesses of other similar miracles, have acted in the same manner in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief in these accounts.”

      This proposition, it is true, does not affirm the falsehood of all other miracles except those which arc alleged to have been performed in proof of Christianity; all that it does is to throw discredit on them as resting on an inferior degree of evidence.  But this is not enough: for if miracles are to be accepted as the sole adequate attestation of a divine revelation, it is necessary to prove, either that all other miracles are untrue, or that they bear some distinguishing mark, which proves that they could not have been wrought by the finger of God, since, if they served other purposes than such attestation, they would no longer be alone adequate to prove it.  But as we have seen, martyr testimony is no guarantee against sincere delusion.  Consequently this is no reply to the objection that there are other miraculous narratives, which rest on a very high form of attestation, and of the truth of which those who have reported them have been firmly persuaded, but which are nevertheless utterly devoid of all objective reality; and that the same cause which has created the belief in these, may have generated the belief in the Resurrection.  I think it is undeniable, if the whole question be viewed as one of attestation pure and simple, that there are other miraculous narratives which rest on one of a very high order,* and that it is no answer to it to affirm that the witnesses have not confirmed their testimony by martyrdom, which after all is a proof of sincerity, but of nothing more.

      *Among these may be enumerated the long list of miracles recorded by Augustine, whose honesty cannot be called in question.  One of these is the miracle alleged to have been wrought on the blind man at Milan by the relics of St. Gervasius and St. Protasius.  Augustine tells us that he was present in the city at the time, and that large numbers of persons witnessed it.  The truth of this miracle and of the strange circumstances attending the discovery of the Martyr’s bones is also distinctly asserted by St. Ambrose, one of the chief actors in the scene, in a letter to his sister.  Although it is impossible to accept the account of the discovery of the relics of the Martyrs, and of the cures effected by touching them, yet it cannot be denied, that viewing it as a mere question of attestation, it rests on one of a very high order.  Either the actors in it must have been under some form of mental delusion or the reporters were honest, they must have been the victims of a carefully got up imposture.  Substantial accounts of a large number of other miracles occurring within his own diocese are given by Augustine, one of which he may be said to have partially witnessed, and that he believed in their reality is beyond all question.  The attestation of the existence of the Stigmata of St. Francis of Assisi is also of a very high order.  St. Bernard likewise speaks of miracles as actually performed by himself.  Coming nearer to our own times, we have a large number of miracles connected with the Moravians, which, as far as mere attestation is concerned, rest on a very strong one.  Wesley also believed that he performed miracles; and connected with him we have a strongly attested demoniacal miracle, which occurred at his father’s rectory, the evidence of which is preserved in the family letters, and is accepted by Southey as conclusive of the fact.  Again: the attestation which has been given to the recent miracles in France is very strong, and to many of the phenomena of spiritualism still stronger.  In most of these cases the real question is whether those who have reported them have not mistaken subjective impressions for external realities; and in some instances perhaps been imposed on by the fraud of others.

      The fact is, that the miraculous narratives examined by Paley are not the best attested ones of their kind.  It is needless however to cite examples from the past.  We are at the present moment confronted by a number of similar phenomena, which as long as the question is viewed as one of simple attestation, unquestionably rest on testimony of a very high order; I allude to the phenomena of spiritualism.*  The objective reality of a considerable number of phenomena, such as according to our views would constitute miracles, is not only attested by numbers of men of cultivated intellects, but even by several who have a practical acquaintance with the laws of evidence, and have occupied important judicial positions, and even by men eminent for their attainments in modern science, who must be fully acquainted with the principles of scientific verification, and the sincerity of whose convictions cannot be doubted.  I will only refer to one of these latter – Mr. Wallace.  In his work on this subject he tells us that he was once a perfect Sadducee as to his belief in a spiritual world; but that he has been led to accept the reality of its existence by the stern logic of facts.**  Yet most of us will be of opinion that his belief in the objective reality of the phenomena which he is firmly persuaded that he has witnessed is the result of some species of mental hallucination.  If it be urged that the spiritualistic phenomena are discredited by the large amount of fraud with which they have been united, the same is equally true of miracles, for the number of supposed miracles which have originated in fraud is very large.  Cases of this kind prove that if the belief in miraculous narratives is made to rest on attestation, and nothing else, there are not a few instances in which a very high form of it is certainly not wanting, and which cannot be discredited on the simple ground that the witnesses have not sealed their testimony by their blood.

      *I am aware that a large number of the most intelligent spiritualists affirm that the spiritualistic phenomena are part of the existing order of nature, and consequently are not miraculous.  To persons, however, who do not hold their views, it is impossible to discriminate between them and miracles.  Supposing their opinions to be correct, it would destroy the evidential character of miracles altogether.

      **Mr. Wallace’s conversion to the belief in the existence of a spiritual world, has left him as far as ever from the acceptance of Christianity as a divine revelation.  He even considers that many of the miracles of the Gospels are explicable on spiritualistic principles.

      The entire history of the witch mania is also another striking illustration of the difficulty in question.  Not only was the evidence sufficient to induce juries to convict and judges, among whom must be numbered so eminent a man as Sir M. Hale, to condemn to death multitudes of unfortunate persons, but many of the victims themselves confessed the reality of the crime for which they suffered.  Yet few of us at the present day will be of opinion that the facts testified to were objectively real; and consequently the only mode of accounting for the belief in them is to attribute them to some form of mental hallucination.

      But apart from all these considerations, the following objection against this mode of putting the argument requires our serious consideration.  It renders it necessary that the inquirer should enter on an investigation of a highly complicated character, viz. an inquiry into the validity of the evidence on which a large number of well attested miraculous narratives rest, with a view of laying down a clear line of discrimination between their attestation and that of the miraculous narratives both of the Old and New Testaments.

      There is another point in which the argument, as it has been laid down by Paley, is clearly inadequate to meet the exigencies of the present controversy, if we rely on it alone, and unsupported by other considerations; I allude to that portion of it which rests the question of the authenticity of the Gospels on our ability to furnish proof of it from the writings of the Fathers, either by their direct mention of them as the works of those persons whose names they bear, or by adducing unquestionable quotations from them in the remnants of patristic literature.  This opens one of the most complicated questions of modern controversy; and the form of Paley’s argument, rendering it necessary as it does, to establish the authenticity of the Gospels by a mass of evidence which is purely literary, requires that our proof of it should be little short of a moral demonstration.  I think we must admit that this portion of his reasoning is far from being conclusive, and that even some of the authorities referred to are of a doubtful character.  Nor can we wonder that it is so; for historical criticism, even if it can be said to have been born, was only in its infancy when this work was composed.  It has since grown up to become a science of the highest importance, and has applied all the resources at its command to the investigation of those documents of Christian antiquity which the ravages of time have spared, more especially to that of the writings of the Fathers of the first two centuries, the various books of the New Testament, and, above all, the four Gospels.  We need not wonder, therefore if several of the proofs relied on by him as affording unquestionable evidence of the authenticity of the Gospels are of doubtful validity.  Thus it unfortunately happens that where the exigencies of modern thought require that our historical evidences should be the strongest, viz. from A.D. 30 to A.D. 150, or during the 130 years which followed the Crucifixion, is precisely the point where Paley’s argument is the weakest, and where we are in urgent need of something which will supply the deficiencies of his system.  For this purpose I shall endeavour to construct a line of argument from the patristic writings more efficacious than that which has hitherto been adopted.  Above all, I shall appeal to the evidence afforded by the Pauline Epistles as historical documents of the highest order, and claim for the existence of the Church as a corporate Society a far higher value than has been hitherto assigned to it in our evidential treatises.  All these considerations, the value of which Paley has greatly overlooked, are most important at the present time.

      III.  I now proceed to take a brief survey of our position as far as it respects the literary evidence which can be adduced for the authenticity of our Gospels, and then devote the remainder of this and the whole of the two next Lectures to supplementing the defects of our evidential argument.  This is of the highest importance at the present time, because the utmost efforts of unbelief are directed to prove that the Gospels are compositions of a comparatively late date; and it is generally taken for granted that if this can be established, or even if it cannot be certainly proved that they were composed by the authors whose names they bear, it is destructive of the Christian position.  I shall use as the groundwork of my remarks on the present state of the evidence, Mr. Sanday’s recently published work, The Gospels in the Second Century.  I take this work in preference to others because the candour and fairness with which he has treated the subject have received high commendations from several of the influential organs of unbelief in this country.

      Let me first point out where the difficulty lies.  In order to give full force to the argument in its existing form, we require to prove two things.

      First.  That the Gospels were written by the persons whose names they bear.  If this can be done, it will be impossible to date the publication of the Synoptics later than the year A.D. 70; i.e. they must have been composed within forty years after the termination of Our Lord’s ministry; and that of the fourth Gospel later than the last ten years of the first century.

      Secondly.  That it is impossible that the facts of the life of Jesus can have become obscured during this short interval by the introduction of a mass of legendary matter into their pages.

      The proof of the first point is made to depend in our common evidential treatises on the supposed citations from the Gospels in the writings of the Fathers.  It happens, however, that the alleged citations from them in the earlier Fathers are extremely inexact, and not one of our Gospels is referred to by name.  Consequently this opens a literary problem of very considerable complexity, as to whether their citations and references are beyond all reasonable question made to our present Gospels, or to other documents then in circulation.

      One point, however, is absolutely certain, and must, therefore, form our starting point in this inquiry.  The great Church writers who flourished towards the end of the second century – Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian – not only recognized the Gospels as the compositions of the persons whose names they bear, but they referred to them as writings of canonical authority, quite as much as we do at the present day.  Here, then, we are in open daylight.  But this leaves an interval of not less than one hundred and fifty years between the Fathers above-mentioned and Our Lord’s ministry, and nearly one hundred and twenty between it and the supposed publication of the Gospels, which it is necessary to bridge over with the requisite literary testimony as to their authorship, date, and the authority assigned to them.  This constitutes our difficulty; for the testimony grows more dim in proportion as we ascend upwards, affording a very strong probability that the earlier writers read and quoted from some of our Gospels; but still, except in a few cases, and those the latest in point of date, not amounting to so complete a proof as to place the fact beyond all reasonable question.

      Further.  The period, which cannot be placed at less than thirty years, intervening between the publication of the Synoptic Gospels and the first Christian writing not included in the canon, viz. the first epistle of Clement, affords no attestation whatever, unless it be one or two very doubtful quotations in St. Paul’s Epistles, which are inadequate to prove that he either read or cited from any one of our present Gospels.

      Such is the interval of time which it is necessary to cover with literary evidence in proof that the Gospels are the works of the persons whose names they bear.  Let me briefly set before you what our evidence is valid to prove.

      I.  Mr. Sanday has established on clear and incontrovertible evidence that the Gospel used by Marcion was a mutilated version of our present Luke; and that the latter has not been framed out of the former, as a number of persistent efforts have been made to prove.  I refer with great pleasure to his masterly argument on this subject, which must be considered to have settled the question.  Assuming therefore that the date of Marcion’s Gospel cannot be placed later than A.D. 140, it becomes certain that St. Luke’s Gospel must have been in existence early in the second century.

      II.  Another inference applicable to the three Synoptics, proves that their publication cannot have taken place at a later date.  The citations from them in the three Fathers above referred to, prove that their text was in a condition so extremely faulty, as to render it incredible that such corruptions can have been introduced into it in a less period than sixty or seventy years from the date of their first publication, which must consequently have taken place not later than the early part of the second century.  This is a very strong point of the evidence.  The only difficulty respecting it is, that it requires a special course of study for its due appreciation.

      III.  Two Gospels bearing the same name as two of the Synoptics are directly referred to by Papias.*  If this reference could be shown to have been made to our present Gospels of Matthew and Mark, it would prove that in the judgment of this Father, they were the works of the persons whose names they bear; and supposing his judgment to be trustworthy, it would prove that they were published at the date which has been usually assigned to them.  But here our evidence is anything but conclusive.  Not to enter on the vast controversy which has taken place over this passage, one thing respecting it is absolutely certain: The Matthew with which Papias was acquainted was according to his express statement written in Hebrew.  Our Matthew is no less certainly written in Greek.  Papias, it is true, has been affirmed to have been a man of small intellect; but however this may have been, it cannot have been so small that, supposing he had ever seen St. Matthew’s Gospel, he was unable to distinguish between the Hebrew and the Greek character.  His subsequent affirmation also, that each interpreted it as he was able, seems decisive that he could never have seen a Greek copy.  To meet this difficulty, the assumption has been made that our present Greek Matthew is a translation from the Hebrew.  Such an inference however rests on a very uncertain foundation, because our Matthew has all the appearance of being an original composition.  The difficulty is also greatly increased by a careful analysis of the narrative portions.  These bear few indications of being the work of an eyewitness, even less than some portions of Luke, which is confessedly a compilation, and form a striking contrast to the Gospels of Mark and John.*  Candour, therefore, requires us to admit that Papias was not aware of the existence of a Greek Matthew; and that the proof that our present Matthew is a translation from the Hebrew of Papias is inconclusive.  It is highly probable that it has grown out of it: but if the argument is to sustain the weight which has been imposed on it, we want something stronger than probabilities of this description, which after all are little better than mere conjectures.

      *The following is Papias’s statement: – “Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew tongue, and every one interpreted them as he was able.  Mark as the interpreter of Peter, wrote them accurately, though not in order, all that he remembered that was said or done by Christ.  For he neither heard the Lord, nor attended upon Him ; but later, as I have said, upon Peter, who taught according to the occasion, and not as composing a connected narrative of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark made no mistake in writing down some things as he remembered them.  For he took care of one thing, not to omit any of the particulars that he had heard, or to falsify any part of them.”

      **The Gospel of St. Mark supplies us with the best means of instituting this comparison, because so large a portion of its narratives run parallel to those in Matthew, which is not the case with the fourth Gospel.  The phenomenon which strikes the reader of Matthew is that, except in a few cases, such as the accounts of the Transfiguration, the history of the woman of Canaan, the Crucifixion, and the order of the Baptist, there is a total absence of minute detail.  This is carried to such an extent in some of his narratives, such as the account of the cure of the woman with the issue of blood, as to leave us ignorant of the precise character of the facts.  This is exactly reversed in Mark.  His narrative is extremely rich in minute details, and in such touches as would naturally form portions of an account by an eyewitness of the scenes which he describes.  It is also very remarkable that these touches are so closely interwoven with the structure of the narrative as to be inseparable from it.  It is simply inconceivable that the author of our present Mark, be he who he may, had a narrative resembling that of Matthew before him, and that in composing his Gospel, the deliberately inserted those graphic touches which distinguish nearly all its narratives.  Not only would the difficulty of doing this be extreme, but the idea that he has done so is totally inconsistent with the honesty of the author, for the only source from which he could have derived them must have been deliberate invention.  The tradition, however, which is mentioned by Papias, that Mark derived his facts from the teaching of Peter, and consequently that his share in the composition of this Gospel was chiefly to impart to his materials their present arrangement, forms an adequate explanation of the phenomena before us; for it is a simple matter of fact that nearly in every case where we can ascertain either from this or the other Gospels, that Peter was present at an occurrence, the narrative in Mark gives us a graphic description of it, such as an eyewitness of Peter’s temperament would be likely to supply.  On the other hand, it is no less inconceivable that the narrative as it stands in Matthew can have been constructed by a person who had an outline before him at all resembling our present Mark; for in that case he must have deliberately struck out nearly all the graphic touches.  Not only could no purpose have been effected by doing this, but the person who did it must have been absolutely devoid of taste.  The idea which has been so often propounded, that one of these Gospels can have formed the basis on which the other has been constructed, is in direct contradiction to the phenomena which they present.  One thing however must be admitted, the narrative portions of St. Matthew present few of the distinguishing traits of autoptic testimony.

      The identity of the Mark of Papias with our Mark is far more probable, although it cannot be asserted positively; still I think that the probability is considerably higher than that which is assigned to it by Mr. Sanday.*

      *The two chief difficulties attending the identification of our present Mark with the Mark of Papias are – First: that Papias affirms that the Mark with which he was acquainted was not written in order, whereas ours follows an orderly arrangement.  Secondly: it is argued from the number of cases in which Matthew and Luke are in agreement, and Mark at variance, in their use of particular forms of expression, that our present Mark cannot form one of the original documents on which our Synoptics are based, and consequently that it is not the Mark of Papias.  This second reason seems to me to be inconclusive; for our Mark may be the Mark of Papias, and yet not be one of the documents which are supposed to have formed the basis of the Synoptic narrative.  Such documents may be sought for in memoranda used by the original missionaries of the Christian Church, and which by frequent use had become thoroughly impressed upon their memories.  The first objection, however, is a more serious one.  Mr. Sanday justly assumes that the most natural meaning of the words “in order” is “in chronological order.”  Still they are applicable to any kind of orderly arrangement, as is shown by their use in the preface of St. Luke’s Gospel; for it is hardly possible that its author can have meant by this expression to affirm that he has in all cases followed the strict chronological order.  But there is a looseness about the expression in Papias which renders it possible to apply the words to the arrangement of the discourses which Mark has incorporated into his Gospel, rather than to the events.  It is true that in the sentence where these words occur, Papias states that Mark wrote down accurately, but not in order, all that he remembered that was said or done by Christ.  But in the second sentence he describes Peter, from whom he says that Mark derived his materials, as teaching according to the occasion, and “not as composing a connected narrative of the Lord’s discourses.”  A loose writer like Papias might have had them latter in view when he said that Mark had not followed an orderly arrangement in the composition of his Gospel.

      It will be unnecessary for me to pause over the other remnants of the Patristic writings, or the testimony afforded by the early heretics, which, as far as it goes, is very valuable, further than to observe that while they render it highly probable that the authors used one or more of our present Gospels, they do not establish the fact beyond all reasonable question.  The evidence seems very nearly conclusive with respect to the author of the Clementine Homilies, still it must be allowed that the probability, though high, is in no case so strong as to amount to a moral demonstration.  The whole of the evidence, however, if taken together, may be considered as establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the Synoptics were in existence during the first twenty years of the second century.

      IV.  I will now offer a few remarks on the evidence furnished by the writings of Justin Martyr and the Apostolical Fathers.

      The writings of Justin not only exceed in bulk all the remains of Christian literature previous to his time, but their references to the actions and teaching of Our Lord are exceedingly numerous.  Assuming that his writings were composed not later than A.D. 145 to A.D. 150, and that his recollection was good for thirty years earlier, his testimony becomes valid for the belief in the facts as it existed in the Church from eighty to eighty-five years after the termination of Our Lord’s ministry.  This brings us within the range of trustworthy historical tradition.  Of this testimony I shall make a very important use presently.  I have here only to do with it as far as it bears on the date and authorship of the Gospels.

      One thing the testimony of Justin places beyond the possibility of dispute, viz. that he derived his information, not merely from oral traditions handed down in the Church, but from written documents of some kind, which he designates “Memoirs of the Apostles,” and occasionally, “Gospels,” and which he tells us that the Church was in the habit of publicly reading.  It is also no less certain that in his time these memoirs did not stand on the same level in point of authority as the Old Testament Scriptures.*  The important question is, can they be identified with our present Gospels?  If they could, this would not only afford evidence of their composition before the commencement of the second century, but it would go far to establish the fact that they were the compositions of the writers whose names they bear.  In effecting this identification, the difficulty is caused by the inexactitude of the quotations, which it must be remembered, extends, although not in the same degree, to his unquestionable citations from the Old Testament Scriptures.

      *The mode in which these “memoirs of the Apostles” are referred to by Justin renders it impossible that at the time when he wrote they could have been recent compositions.  They had already attained such notoriety as to be publicly read in the Church.  His mode of speaking of them justifies us in inferring that this had been the case from his earliest recollections; and that the practice was no recent innovation.  It is certain therefore that they must have been published several years earlier, as it could be only by gradual steps that they could obtain the currency requisite to entitle them to this distinction.  Doubtless the Christian community possessed the means of bringing a work – such a work as a gospel – into earlier notice than it could obtain under ordinary circumstances.  Still a considerable interval of time must have been necessary, before a book which professed to be a “Memoir of the Apostles” could have established its reputation so firmly as to be publicly read in the Church.  It is hardly possible therefore that Justin’s “Memoirs” can have been published later than the last ten or fifteen years of the first century.

      Another fact the writings of Justin establish beyond all doubt.  If the memoirs of the Apostles were not our three Synoptics, they must have been writings which bore the closest possible resemblance to them.

      The following is the general conclusion on which we may safely rest.  The writings of Justin establish to a very high degree of probability, although not to absolute certainty, that among the documents used by him were one or more of our present Gospels.  It is also very probable, but yet not absolutely certain, that he used one or more documents besides these, which are no longer extant.

      V.  As we ascend upwards our evidence becomes less distinct.  Our materials become few and meagre.  Some of the earlier writings, once accepted as genuine, and referred to as such by Paley, are now with great reason rejected as spurious.  Still they are not altogether without value, for their early date is unquestionable; but the evidence to be derived from them requires for its due appreciation such an amount of skill in textual criticism as can only be acquired by a long course of special study, to which few persons have either the leisure or the inclination to devote themselves.  The references, as far as they go, are to the same facts and teaching as those in our present Gospels; and only to a very inconsiderable number in which they differ from them.  But whether these references are made to them, or to other documents closely resembling them, or whether the information was derived from traditions of a similar character, the inexactitude of the citations prevents us from determining with certainty.  Still the balance of evidence is in favour of the assumption that these writers used one or more of Our present Gospels.  If we could be certain that Clement of Rome, Polycarp, or Ignatius, used our Gospels, it would go far to establish the date which has been usually assigned to them.  But as they do not directly refer to written documents, it must be admitted that their information may have been equally well derived from the traditions of the Church.  As a testimony to the existence either of traditions or of documents which substantially agreed with the contents of the Synoptics, their references are invaluable, for this they establish beyond a question.

      Such then is the position in which the testimony of the Fathers leaves us as to the date and authorship of the Gospels.  Let me briefly summarise it.

      It establishes the fact that those who flourished as late as 160 years after the events recorded in them, accepted them as indubitable authorities respecting the actions and teaching of Our Lord, and as written by the persons whose names they bear; but this leaves the question open, as to how far we can rely on their critical judgment.  The evidence afforded by the earlier writers amounts only to a very high degree of probability, which diminishes in force as we ascend upwards, and will in no case carry us higher than the last ten years of the first century.  But our greatest difficulty is this, that the evidence is made up of the balance of so large a number of intricate probabilities which vary greatly in weight, as to require an intellect highly trained in such studies, to estimate them at their proper value; and it is moreover a kind of evidence, which will be estimated differently by different persons.  It must be conceded therefore, that our evidence that the Synoptics were written prior to the year A.D. 70, and the Gospel of St. John about A.D. 90, by the authors whose names they bear, if we rely exclusively on the literary testimony furnished by the writings of the Fathers, amounts not to certainty, but only to a high degree of probability.*  Such a fact, I think, fully justifies me in placing another kind of evidence in the forefront of the Christian argument.

      *It has been affirmed by Bishop Butler that probable evidence constitutes the very guide of life.  The truth of this I fully admit; but it is a kind of probable evidence which those who are guided by it are capable of weighing and judging.  This renders the maxim in a great measure inapplicable to the kind of evidence which we are now considering.  Even the great majority of educated men are very imperfect judges of its value, because a special training in this class of historical studies is necessary for its due appreciation.  The ordinary class of minds can form respecting it little or no judgment of their own, and are therefore compelled to accept it, if they accept it at all, in reliance on the judgment of those who are more learned than themselves.  But in this particular case, the value of the judgment of the learned is greatly weakened in the eyes of ordinary men, because those who should be guides are at issue among themselves as to the importance which they assign to the evidence in question.  The whole tendency of thought in modern times is to require evidence in religious matters on which men can exercise some judgment of their own.  Scientific judgments are in numerous cases accepted without this, because many of them admit of verification in our actual experience, which imparts a credibility to the assertions of eminent professors on subjects which lie beyond its range; but the case is wholly different with respect to religious truth.

      Such being the position in which our purely literary evidence leaves us, it becomes a question of the highest importance whether we have made the best possible use of the historical materials which we possess?  I cannot think that we have.  On the contrary, I am satisfied that they can be made to afford a far more conclusive proof of the truth of the supernatural events recorded in the Gospels, than any amount of mere citations from the Fathers, and of complicated reasonings upon them.  I therefore proceed to address myself to the reconstructive portion of the argument.

      I observe, in the first place, that far too much importance has been attached on both sides to these citations, as if the life of Christianity depended on them.  They are doubtless very interesting in reference to many important questions of theology; but with regard to the truth or falsehood of the great facts on which Christianity is based, their value has been greatly overestimated.  We have abundance of materials for proving that the general contents of the Gospels are trustworthy accounts of the traditions which were handed down by the primitive followers of Jesus, and the value of the evidence would be only slightly increased, if we could determine with certainty their genuineness and the date of publication.  I do not deny that our ability to prove that they were published between the years A.D. 60 and A.D. 90, and written by the authors to whom they have been ascribed, would strengthen the evidence; but that which we possess is so strong that we can well afford to dispense with this additional confirmation.  If this be so, it is surely unwise on the part of the defenders of Christianity, to rest their case exclusively on evidence which consists of a balance of intricate probabilities, when it is in our power to base it on that which amounts to a moral certainty.

      Let us then for the purpose of the present argument lay aside the question whether the references to the actions and the teaching of our Lord, which are contained in the remains of the Patristic and heretical writings prior to the year 180, afford a valid proof that the authors used our present Gospels.  One thing, however, these writings establish beyond all doubt, viz, that their authors used written documents of some kind, whether our Gospels or others.  It is also no less certain that these documents contained an account which (whatever may have been its minor variations) was for all practical purposes the same as that which we read in the Synoptics.  The actions and sayings attributed to our Lord in all the existing remains of Christian literature between A.D. 90 and A.D. 180, the complete counterparts of which cannot be found in our present Gospels, are about twelve in number.  It follows, therefore, whatever the documents may have been, to which the fathers referred, or whatever traditional sources of information they may have possessed, that the facts at their command were for all the purposes of history the same as those of our present Gospels, and that the minor differences in words and language are not worthy taking into account in a controversy which is simply historical.

      As the writings of Justin Martyr are by far the most extensive of those which have come down to us, I will use them as a crucial test of the value of my position.  His references to events in the Evangelical History, and to the teaching of Our Lord are very numerous; and he states distinctly that he made use of documents which he designates  “Memoirs of the Apostles,” and occasionally “Gospels.”  Were they our Gospels?  It is too much to affirm positively that they were.  But one thing his writings prove to be an actual certainty.  Whatever documents he may have used, their contents must have borne the closest resemblance to those of our present Gospels.*

      *Such variations as the assertion that our Lord was born in a cave instead of in a stable, and the addition to the narrative of the baptism of the appearance of a bright light shining in the Jordan, &c., are really so inconsiderable as to be unworthy of serious notice.  Two things are indisputable: first, that Justin’s facts, with the exception of a few trifling variations of this description, are our facts; and secondly, that the teaching which he attributes to our Lord, although varied in words, is for all practical purposes identical with that in the Synoptic Gospels.  The references to the Fourth Gospel are more remote and uncertain, although even here it is evident that he accepted many of its fundamental principles.

      Let us assume that the actual references in Justin to events in the Evangelical history, are about two hundred in number, which will be a close approximation to the truth.*  Of these one hundred and ninety-six are for all practical purposes the same as those which we read in the Evangelists.  The remaining four are references to some unimportant facts which we do not find in their pages; it follows therefore that the facts referred to by Justin, but not recorded in the Gospels, stand to those which are recorded, in the proportion of only two to ninety-eight.  What more can be required for our purpose?  What more important historical result will be arrived at, by engaging in minute discussions as to whether the references in Justin do or do not prove that the documents which he used, were our four Evangelists, when it is an actual certainty that if not the same, they so clearly resembled them as to vary only to an inappreciable extent?

      *There are more ways than one in which these references may be counted.  According to some methods the number might be considerably augmented.  The number stated in the test may be taken as a minimum.

      But I go a step further, and affirm, that even if it could be proved, that Justin made use of several documents which were not our Gospels, it would only strengthen our position.  It may seem almost a paradox, but I would say, the more he used the better.  Let us suppose that his “Memoirs of the Apostles,” instead of being confined to our four Evangelists, were not less than twelve in number, what would follow?  The more numerous the documents which he had before him, the more certain it would be that they embodied the various forms of the traditions which were current in the Church during the time in which he lived.  Our knowledge of the real facts of history is far more certain when we possess several authorities than when we are obliged to trust to one only.  Thus the large number of the narratives of the murder of Thomas à Becket, puts us in full possession of what were the actual occurrences, a knowledge which we should fail to obtain from any one single record.*

      *Thus for our knowledge of the details of the Persian wars, we are almost exclusively dependent on the History of Herodotus, our other informants having lived at times comparatively remote from the events.  With how much greater certainty should we now be able to reconstruct the history of these wars, and to solve a number of difficulties in his narrative, if twelve persons, instead of a single individual had gleaned up the different anecdotes, which were floating about in traditionary recollections of the generation which immediately followed them.  All subsequent history bears witness to the inaccuracy of the accounts for which we are dependent on a single narrator.  In this, above all other branches of knowledge, the old adage is true, “in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.”

      Let us suppose, then, that Justin had a large number of documents before him, and that his citations do not enable us positively to identify any one of them with either of our present Gospels, what would this prove?  It would establish on incontestable evidence that the documents which he used must have agreed in ascribing to Jesus similar actions, and a similar teaching, to those which are attributed to Him by the Evangelists, and that the accounts then current differed from them in the proportion of two to ninety-eight.  It is marvellous when we consider the nearness of the time when Justin lived to Our Lord’s ministry, that he should have preserved so few incidents respecting it, which vary from those in our Gospels, rather than that those to which he has referred should present the slight variations they do; for it is an interval within which traditionary reminiscences must have possessed all their freshness.  Nothing can give us a stronger sense of this than the simple reflection that the period of his distinct historical recollections was separated from the close of the ministry of Jesus by the same interval which separates us from the death of the founder of Wesleyanism.  It is impossible but that traditionary reminiscences must then have been numerous.  Papias even declares his preference for them as compared with written accounts.  The most probable solution of the fact that Justin’s references to anything outside our Gospels are so few is that he must have assigned to them a paramount authority; and this constitutes one of the strongest proofs that he actually used them.

      The remarks which are true of Justin are equally so of all the earlier Christian writings which have been preserved which are not included in the Canon.  Let it be granted, for the sake of argument, that the passages in them which bear a close resemblance to corresponding ones in our Gospels do not prove that their authors were acquainted with them.  Still they prove beyond the power of contradiction not only that either the written documents, or the traditions of Our Lord’s ministry with which their authors were acquainted, contained statements of a character precisely similar to those in the Evangelists, but that the number of the other incidents or sayings, not included in them, which they accepted as genuine, were very inconsiderable.  These considerations prove that the traditions embodied in our Gospels must have been fully accepted in the Church as the groundwork of its faith, either in a written or an oral form during the last twenty years of the first century; or in other words, that they were separated from the events themselves by a period of only fifty years.  With such evidence in our hands, it is simply useless to spend our time in endeavouring to determine whether the references in question prove that the Fathers were acquainted with our Gospels, and quoted from them.  To represent that the proof of this is vital to Christianity is not only needless but highly dangerous.

      The point at issue is a purely historical one.  It is simply this: Are the accounts of the actions and the teaching of Jesus Christ as we read them in our Gospels substantially the same as those which were reported by His primitive followers and by the eyewitnesses of His ministry?  If this be so, it follows that the subject which we have to consider is, not whether the Synoptic Gospels are the writings of Matthew, Mark, and Luke respectively, concerning whom our information is but scanty;* but whether their contents are truthful embodiments of the traditions of the ministry of Our Lord, as they were handed down by His primitive disciples.  On this the controversy really turns.  Do these Gospels practically embody these traditions, or are they made up of a number of later mythic and legendary additions, which have obscured the real history?

      *If we could prove that the first Gospel was written by St. Matthew, this would establish the fact that the incidents recorded in it were accepted by one of the original Apostles; but as we know nothing of St. Matthew except from the Gospel itself, it would afford no assistance in meeting the modern objection, that the belief in the miracles was the result of mistaken judgment, or of some form of mental hallucination, although it would be fatal to the belief in their legendary origin.  This argument will be still more applicable to Mark and Luke, who were not original witnesses of the events which they narrate, although St. Mark’s Gospel would have all the value of authentic testimony, if it could be proved that its contents represented the preaching of St. Peter.  Yet even this would leave the question as to the competency of their judgment, or whether the belief in the miracles, especially that of the Resurrection, originated in mental hallucination, entirely open.

      The nature of the case renders it certain that during the early years of the existence of the Church, the facts of Our Lord’s ministry must have been handed down by His followers in an oral form.  The all-important question is, not whether every one of the facts recorded in the Gospels is narrated with minute accuracy; but whether they can be relied on for the practical purposes of history, as an embodiment of these traditions.  I do not say, that if we could establish this, it would prove the facts to have been actual occurrences; for it would be still open to the supposition that His followers might have been deceived as to the nature of the events which they supposed themselves to have witnessed.  But it would prove that they accepted them as the veritable facts on the belief in which the Church was founded, and the question whether they were the victims of delusion must be settled on other principles.

      This portion of the Patristic evidence, which is of a very simple character, and is one which the most ordinary student can easily verify for himself, establishes conclusively the following points.

      First, that the traditions of the Church respecting the actions and teaching of Our Lord, whether they existed in a written or an oral form, were at the conclusion of the first century, substantially the same as those which we read in the Synoptics, the variations being so inconsiderable, that for historical purposes they may be safely disregarded.

      Secondly: if there was a different class of traditions floating about in the Church, and modelled on the conceptions involved in the stories contained in the Apocryphal Gospels, that the writers of this early Christian literature did not attach any value to them; and that they must have accepted the one as an account of the genuine actions and teaching of their Master, and have rejected the other as a fabulous addition.

      From these two conclusions it follows:–

      First: that no legendary matter worthy of the notice of the historian, which was invented as late as the last ten years of the first century, has been incorporated into the narratives of the Synoptics.

      Secondly; That the traditions of the same period attributed to Jesus a number of miraculous actions, nearly all of them identical, and all of them of the same character as those which are contained in our Gospels, and wholly differing in type and conception from those which are narrated in the Apocryphal ones.

      Thirdly; that the religious and moral teaching, which these traditions attributed to Him, whatever slight variations it may have contained, is for all practical purposes the same as that which we read in the Synoptics.

      Fourthly: that if the narrative of the Synoptics consists of a mass of legendary matter, these legends must have grown up between A.D. 30, and A.D. 90, or during the 60 years which followed the conclusion of our Lord’s ministry.  This interval I shall fully cover by the aid of the Pauline epistles in my next Lecture.

      The importance of one element in the historical inquiry has been greatly overlooked both by the opponents and the defenders of Christianity; I mean, the existence of the Church as a visible society; and the guarantee which this affords of the accurate transmission of the facts on which it was founded, and the degree in which it renders it impossible, that the traditions of the primitive followers of Jesus should at this early period of its history, have been superseded by a set of legendary inventions, which obscured the true facts of its Founder’s life.  The whole question has been discussed as though it were a purely literary one, in which a complicated mass of testimony consisting of a number of minute probabilities has to be carefully estimated.

      The facts of Christianity are not like the ordinary facts of history.  They differ from them in this, that not only do they form the foundation on which the Church of Jesus Christ has been erected, but that a constant preservation of the knowledge of them is a necessary condition of its continued existence – they form in fact the sole principle of its cohesion as a society, and the mainspring of the religious life of its individual members.  In this respect the Church differs from every human institution in that it has not only been founded by Jesus Christ, but has been built on Him, He being at the same time both its foundation and chief cornerstone.*  The facts of its founder’s life first brought the Society into being; an acquaintance with them was essential to that continuous growth, which it has exhibited from the first dawn of its existence to the present hour, and if they could be proved to be fabulous inventions, its destruction would be inevitable.

      *The relation in which Jesus Christ stands to the Church, as distinct from that in which the founders of human institutions stand to the Societies which they have originated is best expressed in the words of the great Apostle “That we may grow up to Him who is the head in all things, even Christ.  From whom the whole body, fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, to the edifying of itself in love.”  Eph. 4:15, 16.  “He is the Head of the body, the Church,” Col. 1:18.  “As ye therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in Him, rooted and built up in Him, and stablished in the faith,” Col. 2:6, 9.  “And not holding the Head, from whom all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, increaseth with the increase of God,” Col. 2:19.  These and a vast number of other passages which might be easily quoted from the Apostle point out in clear and unmistakable language the difference of the relation in which the Christian Church stands to its Founder from that in which the founders of human Societies stand to theirs; and the constant necessity which it was under of preserving the great facts of His life and teaching in vivid remembrance.

      Another equally powerful reason for the accurate transmission of the traditions constantly in operation, was the necessity for making converts.  Consisting originally of a few hundred members, the Church has grown to its present dimensions by inducing others to join its ranks.  Unless it had been thus enlarged, the century which gave it birth must have witnessed its extinction.  What was the only mode in which converts could be made?  Only one answer is possible.  By persuading them that Jesus was the Christ.  To effect this two things were necessary.  First: to explain to the proposed convert the true meaning of the idea of the Christ.  Secondly: to set before him such facts in the history of Jesus as were sufficient to prove that He was the Christ.  This involved the necessity of keeping the record of such facts in constant remembrance.  It follows, therefore, that as the Church grew with great rapidity during the first three centuries of our era, its members must have been most active missionaries, and consequently that their motive for keeping in vivid recollection the chief events of their Master’s life must have been of the strongest character; and that this must have been in active operation during the entire period which elapsed between the conclusion of the ministry of Jesus Christ, and the period when I have proved from the testimony of the Fathers that the Church was in possession of an account of His actions and teaching, similar in its great outlines to that which is contained in the Synoptic Gospels.

      These considerations therefore make it certain, that the knowledge of the chief events of Our Lord’s ministry must have been handed down in the living recollections of the individual members of the Church in a stream of unbroken tradition; and it is immaterial for the present argument whether this was effected by the aid of written documents, by oral transmission, or by a union of both.*  The importance of this fact, of which so little account is made in our ordinary evidential treatises, can hardly be overestimated.

      *I use the word “tradition” as denoting that the events were not transmitted merely by the aid of written documents; but that they must have formed a portion of the living consciousness of the entire Christian community.

      Assuming these positions to have been established, the following conclusions necessarily result from them.  It would have been in the highest degree difficult, not to say, impossible, during the brief interval which separates Our Lord’s ministry from the end of the first century, to have imposed on any community of Christians a mass of legendary matter, of a character wholly different from those facts, on the belief in which the existence of the Church was originally founded, and which formed the moving spring of the daily life of its individual members, and which many of them had accepted as the ground of their conversion.  It is absolutely impossible that communities, like the Churches of the first century, living in a state of constant antagonism to their Jewish and pagan neighbours, and having to justify to themselves the grounds on which they had abandoned their former beliefs, could have become oblivious of those facts which had induced them to accept Jesus as the Messiah, and which had ever since formed the foundation of their religious life.  From these considerations it follows that the Church must have been possessed of a machinery for transmitting an account of the chief events of its Founder’s life, which was incomparably superior to that of every other form of traditionary history.

      This difficulty, in itself insuperable, is greatly increased by the number of the Christian communities, and the wide extent of territory over which they were scattered.  Even if we suppose such an imposition to have been possible in the members of a particular Church, it would have been impossible to extend it to any considerable number of them.  But as the patristic testimony is fully adequate to prove that a body of facts similar to those recorded in the Synoptic Gospels formed the foundation of the life of the entire Church at the conclusion of the first century, it follows that they must have been substantially the same as those which the original followers of Our Lord narrated as the chief events of His ministry, and the groundwork of the Christianity of the Churches which they planted.

      But in addition to these considerations, which are in themselves sufficiently weighty, the whole interval of time lies within the period of the most genuine and lively historical recollection.  It is one in fact which is completely covered by the lives of the actual witnesses of the facts, and of persons who heard the reports of them from those witnesses.  These various reasonings in the latter portion of this Lecture fully prove that the Synoptic Gospels do not consist of a mass of myths and legends invented between the years A.D. 80 and 170.  The still more important evidence furnished by the writings of St. Paul, I shall consider in the following Lecture.  In the meantime I will only press on your attention the importance of the Church as a witness to the facts of Christianity, as distinct from the mere literary evidence on which their truth has been almost exclusively rested, in the words of St. Paul, “The Church of the Living God is the pillar and ground of the truth.”

Lecture  VI – The Pauline Epistles

“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.”  1 Cor. 15:1–4.

      In my last Lecture I proved

      First: that the writings of the Fathers who flourished during the first sixty years of the second century afford incontestable evidence that prior to the end of the first century the Church was in possession of a body of traditions respecting the actions and teaching of its Founder, which were substantially the same as those contained in the Synoptic Gospels.  From this it followed as a necessary consequence, that no legendary narrative invented subsequently to A.D. 80, can have been incorporated into their pages.

      Secondly: that in the remains of the Patristic literature, the references to anything of which these Gospels do not contain a complete analogue are extremely few; and that only four or five of the incidents referred to in it belong to a type of actions differing from those which the Synoptics have attributed to Jesus.  From this it followed, that not only must the traditionary reminiscences of the Church within fifty years of its Founder’s death have contained the chief facts and sayings attributed to Our Lord in the Synoptics, but the whole of them must have been modelled on the same type; and further, if there were any in circulation of a different character, such, for instance, as those in the apocryphal Gospels, the Church must have rejected them as spurious.

      Thirdly: that the Christian Church was not only in a more favourable position for handing down a true account of the actions and sayings of its Founder than any other Society which has ever existed, but that the peculiarity of the circumstances in which it was placed must have compelled it to do so.

      These considerations afford a probability, amounting almost to a moral certainty, that during this period of fifty years, which intervenes between the termination of Our Lord’s ministry and the date of the historic testimony which we have adduced, no accumulation of legendary matter can have taken the place of that genuine account, which each Church must have received from its original founders as the ground of its existence, the source of the religious life of its individual members, and the bond of its cohesion.

      Further: as the different Christian communities were scattered over a wide extent of territorial space, that such a substitution, even if it could have occurred in the case of some one of the Churches, would have been absolutely impossible among any considerable number of them.

      This interval is so brief that it lies far within those limits during which traditionary reminiscences are trustworthy informants respecting the important facts of history, even when unsupported by written documents.  Minor details may undergo modifications according to the prepossessions of those who repeat them; but this does not affect the historical truth of the main facts.  If this is true of political events, in which the interest felt by individuals is comparatively small, how much more must it have been the case with those actions and sayings of Jesus, which formed the ground of the existence of the different Christian communities, and of their daily religious life.

      On the general question of the value of tradition as an historical informant, and the limits within which its testimony is to be relied on, I need not enter in this place.  The whole subject has been so fully discussed by Sir G. C. Lewis in his work on The Credibility of early Roman, History, as to render any observations of mine unnecessary.

      Assuming the validity of his principles, it would follow, that even if the Synoptic Gospels were published during the first twenty years of the second century, they would still lie within the period of genuine historical tradition, within which, though variations may arise on subordinate points, the recollection of important events still remains unimpaired.  But in the present case we have only to cover a period of fifty, or at most sixty years.  During this period the traditionary reminiscences of the Church must have been of a most vivid character.  If we assume that considerable numbers of its members who witnessed the events of Our Lord’s ministry were not older than himself, and that many of them were ten years younger, according to the average duration of human life, not a few of them must have survived till the last twenty years of the first century; and several of them even longer.  This being so, the numbers of those who had heard details of those facts which formed the ordinary subjects of Christian instruction, from those who had been eyewitnesses of them, must have been very considerable; and many of them must have been surviving, and in full possession of their faculties during the first twenty years of the second century.  Consequently during this period of time, there must have been ample means of obtaining information of the highest order, which would have rendered it impossible, while these persons lived, that the record of the chief incidents of Our Lord’s ministry could have been buried under a mass of legendary inventions.

      A single illustration will place in a striking light the value of the historical traditions of the Church during this interval of time,

      The last ten years of the first century are separated from the termination of Our Lord’s ministry by an interval somewhat less than that which intervenes between the present year and the date of the Battle of Waterloo.  Several of those who were present in it are still living; and many of those who hear me may have heard details of it, as I have myself, from those who were actually engaged in it.  Precisely similar must have been the condition of the Christian Church during the last ten years of the first century as to the chief events of its Founder’s life, to that in which we stand in respect to the various events connected with the return of Napoleon from Elba; while the recollections of the Church must have been far more vivid in proportion to the profound interest which was felt in them by its members.  While historical recollections were thus fresh, it would have been impossible for a purely legendary Jesus to have taken the place of the actual one, and obliterated the knowledge of the real events of His life.*

      *To take another illustration.  A period of eighty-four years separates us from the execution of Louis XVI.  This is only slightly less than that which must have separated the period of Justin’s historical recollection from that of the crucifixion of Jesus.  Most of us who have attained the age of sixty, have conversed with persons who took the deepest interest in that event, and who had a lively recollection of it.  In France large numbers of persons must be still living who have heard details of it from those who actually witnessed some of the events connected with it.  While they survive, supposing that no account of it had been committed to writing, it would be impossible that its chief occurrences, which were enacted before the public eye, could be superseded by a set of fictions.  The events which took place near the scaffold were witnessed only by few; and here, as we may expect, the accounts vary considerably as to the minor details, but these variations are almost exclusively due to the prejudices of the narrators.  There can be no doubt that if we were destitute of a single written or printed document, it would be quite possible to construct an accurate account of the chief facts, by the aid of the reminiscences of those who have heard them described by persons who were actually present.  I have selected this event because its interest was so great that it would be certain to have impressed itself deeply on the memory of those who witnessed it, and thereby insured its accurate transmission.  Deeply interesting, however, as it was to Frenchmen; the events of Our Lord’s ministry must have had a far more profound interest for the members of the Christian Church, and both the necessity and the means of transmitting an accurate report must have been far greater.  It follows, therefore, that falsification of its chief events within this brief interval of time would have been impossible, even if we suppose that the recollections of individuals were not aided by written memoranda – a supposition which is not only in itself in the highest degree improbable, but in the case of Justin, and the author of St. Luke’s Gospel, negatived by their express testimony.

      These considerations seem decisive: but we have evidence of a far higher order, which I will now proceed to adduce, namely, the testimony of the Pauline epistles.  These will enable me to cover the entire period in question; and to prove not only that the Church accepted the great facts of Christianity, as they are recorded in the Gospels, at the time when St. Paul wrote these letters; but that its belief was coeval with its reconstruction immediately after the crucifixion of its Founder.  In addition to this they establish the all-important fact, that the Church was reconstructed on the basis of the belief in His Resurrection within a few days after his crucifixion.

      The inconsiderable use which evidential writers have hitherto made of these epistles may well excite our surprise.  They have looked upon them as a portion of the position to be defended, rather than as one of the most important elements in the historical proof.  This has resulted partly from their having been viewed as the chief source of our doctrinal theology, and partly from the supposed necessity of proving the canonical authority of the various books of the New Testament, as an essential portion of the defence of Christianity.  However it may have happened, it is certain that their value as historical documents has been greatly overlooked; and in consequence of this it has been found necessary to adopt long and circuitous methods of proof to establish facts of which they afford the strongest confirmation.  Before however I adduce the facts which they enable us to prove, I must draw your attention to their high value as historical documents in connection with the present controversy.

      1. Nearly all the educated unbelievers of Europe who have studied this question fully admit the genuineness and authenticity of the four most important of these epistles, viz., the two to the Corinthians, that to the Romans and the Galatians, even while they deny that of nearly every other writing in the New Testament.  The evidence of this is of two kinds, viz., external attestation, and internal testimony.  Both of these are of the strongest character; but the latter is such as to put the suspicion of forgery out of the question.  In these four writings therefore we are not only in possession of compositions of the most active missionary of primitive Christianity, but of documents which were certainly written within twenty-eight years of the Crucifixion.  Consequently they have all the value of contemporaneous testimony.

      To these must be added four other letters, which profess to have been written by the same Apostle, and which must be either his, or the work of a deliberate forger, viz., the two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Philippians, and to Philemon.  Some sceptical writers, it is true, have endeavoured to throw doubts on the authenticity of these letters, but the greater part accept them.  In fact, the evidence in their favour is of the strongest kind; and the objections against them are of a very trifling character, arising chiefly from the presence of expressions and forms of thought in them, which are alleged to be un-Pauline.  Such evidence is at best very inconclusive; but when it is weighed against the overwhelming proof which such writings as the epistles to the Philippians and Philemon afford of the presence of the Pauline mind, it is worthless.  We can estimate it for ourselves if we read these two epistles and the two to the Corinthians consecutively.  I think that it is almost inconceivable that any person who is not utterly destitute of the power of the appreciation of character can do so, and doubt whether the presence of the same individuality is stamped on their respective pages.  Such an identity of thought and feeling utterly outweighs those minute variations which critics who possess microscopic eyes think they can detect in them when compared with those writings of the Apostle, the genuineness of which they allow.  The same remarks are equally applicable to the two Epistles to the Thessalonians.

      We are therefore in possession altogether of eight letters written by the greatest missionary of the Apostolic Church, the genuineness of which is beyond all reasonable question, two of which date within the short interval of twenty-five years after the termination of Our Lord’s ministry.  I claim the whole of these as historical documents of the highest order; but if any one is contentious, the first four, the genuineness of which is universally admitted, will furnish us with all the evidence that we require.

      Against two more letters which have been ascribed to the Apostle, viz., the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, I admit that more plausible objections have been urged, but they are founded on the untrue supposition that St. Paul’s doctrinal views must have been stereotyped, and incapable of progress.  To the Pastoral epistles, as of more doubtful authority, I shall not refer as unquestionably Pauline.

      One more writing in the New Testament has a definite historical value in this controversy, viz. the Apocalypse, because unbelievers are nearly unanimous in conceding its genuineness; and according to their views, it is the only book in the New Testament which was composed by one of the original apostles of Jesus.*

      *If the views of the unbelieving critics respecting this book are correct, its date cannot be fixed later than the year following the death of Nero, or about seven years later than the last written of St. Paul’s Epistles, unless we accept the second to Timothy as a genuine production of the Apostle.  Critics of this school consider that the book contains unmistakable allusions to events in the civil wars between Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian, and to the idea that Nero had not really perished, but had retired somewhere into the East, and to his expected return in the character of Antichrist.  If their data are correct, the year when it was composed would be unquestionably fixed, and its high antiquity established.  The readiness with which they have accepted the external testimony (which is certainly strong, although not stronger than that which can be adduced for other books which they summarily reject), that it is the work of the Apostle John, arises from its alleged Judaising tendencies, and the supposed opposition of the writer to Paul, whom they consider to be denounced under the character of Balaam.  The whole forms a singular illustration of the class of reasoning which will satisfy some minds of the truth of theories which favour their own prepossessions.  It may be briefly stated thus: We know from the Epistle to the Galatians that John was one of the pillars of the Church of Jerusalem.  He must therefore have been one of the chief leaders of the extreme Judaising party in that Church.  This party was violently opposed to Paul, therefore John must hare been his strong opponent.  Moreover, the whole imagery of the Apocalypse is essentially Jewish, therefore its author must have been an extreme Judaiser.  In it he uses very strong language denunciatory of some leader of the anti-Judaising party in the Church, under the name of Balaam.  Now Paul, as we learn from his Epistles, was the great opponent of Judaism in the Church.  Therefore Balaam is Paul.  On these grounds, therefore, we accept the traditions which affirm that the John who describes himself as the author of this book was John, not the presbyter, but the Apostle.  It will be readily seen that this course of reasoning involves throughout a petitio principii, and has been adopted as favouring a foregone conclusion.  Other internal evidence that the book is the work of John the Apostle there is none (for the Gospel and first Epistle, which contain a Christology greatly resembling that of the Apocalypse, are denied to be his), except perhaps the roughness of the Greek in which it is composed, which agrees well with the idea that it is the work of a man who had learned the language late in life.  On such grounds, however, it is simply absurd to accept the genuineness of the traditions which assign the Apocalypse to the Apostle John, and at the same time to reject those which ascribe the first Epistle of Peter to the Apostle of that name, while the latter has the advantage over the former in possessing very strong indications of the presence of the Peter of the Gospels, in the various traits of the individuality of the writer, which are scattered up and down its pages.

      With respect to the other writings of the New Testament, although their genuineness is denied by the majority of unbelieving critics, yet their value in an historical point of view is considerable.  Their antiquity is undisputed; and although they cannot be referred to with certainty as the works of the persons whose names they bear, yet they afford unquestionable evidence respecting the opinions of those sections of the Church, in furtherance of whose views they are alleged to have been composed.  Thus the Epistle of James must be considered to be an unquestionable representation of the opinions which were entertained by Jewish Christianity; and the first of Peter, of the Christianity of compromise.  It follows therefore that even if we provisionally accept the views of unbelieving critics as correct, they form documents of great historical value respecting the facts of primitive Christianity; and whenever they support the Pauline letters, they furnish a most important corroboration of their testimony, proving that St. Paul’s statements were not accepted merely by his own followers and disciples, but also by every section of the Church.

      Such are our historical documents, which will completely cover the period in question by the highest form of contemporaneous testimony.

      II.  The next important consideration is their date.

      The two latest of these eight letters cannot have been composed after A.D. 62, nor the next four later than A.D. 58, and the remaining two later than A.D. 55.*  Consequently, as far as they afford testimony to the facts of primitive Christianity, they enable us to bridge over thirty-five of the sixty years which separate the testimony of the Fathers from the date of Our Lord’s ministry.  As far therefore as we can prove by these epistles that the same facts were accepted by the Church when the Apostle wrote them as those which are referred to by the Fathers, this forms a proof which is absolutely conclusive, that the latter could not have owed their origin to the activity of a legendary spirit during the thirty-five years which followed the composition of these letters; and that the same remark is equally true with respect to the fundamental facts recorded in the Gospels.  I shall also prove that these letters contain ample materials to enable us to carry up our historical evidence to the very date of the reconstruction of the Church immediately after the Crucifixion.

      *A few illustrations will place before us in a striking light the claim of these Epistles to rank as contemporaneous documents.  Thus the Epistles to the Thessalonians are only separated from the termination of Our Lord’s ministry by the same interval of time as that which separates us from the proclamation of Napoleon III as Emperor of the French; the four great Epistles, by one year less than that which intervenes between the present year and the dethronement of Louis Philippe; and the latest Epistles, by that which lies between us and the repeal of the Corn Laws.  These events lie within our most lively historical recollections.  Equally vivid must have been the recollections of a great number of Christians of the chief events of Our Lord’s ministry, when the Apostle wrote these letters, rendering it impossible that they could have been buried under a mass of myths and legends.

      III.  These epistles form historical documents of the highest order.

      On the general value of original letters, as far as they contain allusions to contemporary events, I need not enlarge in this place.  Our historical studies prove that no materials for the composition of history are of greater value.  They constitute far more reliable informants as to actual occurrences than formal documents.  This is more especially the case when the allusions are incidental.*  The writer in such cases is almost invariably off his guard; and we are certain to get at the real facts, which in formal histories too frequently receive a colouring in conformity with the prejudices of the historian.  In the letters which we are now considering, we have this additional advantage, that the indirect references greatly exceed the direct ones in number.  Further, while letters addressed to opponents are carefully guarded in their statements, in those written to friends, the writer more commonly reveals to us the innermost springs of action, as far as he is acquainted with them.  Both these advantages we possess in the Pauline letters, for not only had the Apostle a body of warm friends in these Churches, to whom he poured out his whole soul, but also a party of most determined opponents.  The history of Rome affords a striking illustration of the value of such compositions, in the letters of Cicero, which frequently enable us to discover the secret springs of events to which they allude incidentally, and the true character of the agents.  Compared with these, the statements in his orations are untrustworthy.  The importance of letters composed by active participators in the events to which they refer, is now fully admitted.  By their aid the disguise has been stripped from many a man who has been surrounded by a fictitious halo; and an accuracy has been imparted to the writings of modern historians of which those of their predecessors were destitute.

      *In all incidental references to facts, the writer always assumes that those whom he is addressing have an accurate acquaintance with the events to which he refers, and that both he and they agree in accepting the general truthfulness of the accounts.  Thus in commenting on any well-known events at the present day, we never think it necessary to give a formal account of the occurrences to which we refer, but take it for granted that the most incidental allusion is quite sufficient to recall them to the mind of the reader.  This is precisely the case with the Pauline Epistles.  The allusions are of a very incidental character, and therefore prove that the writer was firmly persuaded that his correspondents were both thoroughly acquainted with the facts and accepted them as true.

      IV.  The letters of St. Paul possess an especial value, in that they present us with a vivid picture of the entire man; and thereby enable us to judge of the worth of his assertions.

      They place the sincerity of the writer beyond the power of question.  The indications of this are stamped on every page.  They vividly depict him in all the multiform aspects of his character.  We have him before us in every alternation of feeling, in his disappointments, and in his hopes, when expostulating with opponents, and when pouring out his whole soul to friends.  Probably no four letters exist in literature, which afford us so intimate a view of the character of the writer as the four great epistles of this Apostle.  By their aid we can reconstruct the entire man; and thereby form as vivid a conception of him as most readers are able to form of Dr. Johnson by perusing his life by Boswell.  Not only do they afford incontestable proof of the perfect sincerity of the writer, but they let us into the innermost secrets of his heart.  All these traits impart to his testimony the highest value as historical evidence, affording as strong a guarantee of its truth as if we were able to place him in the witness box, and subject him to a rigid cross examination.

      V.  No less decisive is the testimony which they bear to the calmness of his judgment.  This is the more important, since it has often been affirmed that his enthusiastic temperament rendered his judgment untrustworthy, especially in all matters connected with the supernatural.  While nothing is more rare in such cases than the union of a highly enthusiastic temperament with soundness of judgment in the same individual, the presence of both these qualities is deeply impressed on the pages of these epistles.  That the Apostle was enthusiastic none will dispute; but his enthusiasm was under the control of one of the calmest judgments.  From the numerous instances with which these epistles abound, I shall content myself with two, which have a direct bearing on the value of his judgment in relation to the supernatural.

      1. The mode in which in the First Epistle to the Corinthians he discusses the supernatural gifts of the Spirit, and the rules which he lays down for the suppression of the abuse of them in this Church, constitute a striking example.  This is precisely a case where we might expect that enthusiasm would run riot; yet mark the sound sense in the directions which he gives for their regulation.  The whole account in the 12th, 13th, and 14th chapters requires to be carefully perused in order to its due appreciation.  I question whether another person can be found in history who considered himself, and those to whom he wrote; to be the subjects of influences which both he and they were firmly persuaded to be divine, who would have written such directions, and discussed the subject in the manner in which it is here done by the Apostle.  Even those who affirm that the belief in the reality of these gifts was the result of the delusions of enthusiasm, cannot help arriving at the conclusion that it must have been an enthusiasm compatible with the soundest common sense.*

      *I quote a few brief illustrations.  In 1 Cor. 12:3–7, the Apostle distinctly ascribes all these gifts to the operation of the Divine Spirit, and at verse 11 he makes the following definite affirmation – “But all these worketh that one and self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.”  Among these gifts were those of prophecy, tongues, and interpretation, which on each mention of them he describes as being the direct result of the operation of the Spirit. The fourteenth chapter informs us that these gifts were abused by those who possessed them in the Corinthian Church ; and the Apostle gives some stringent directions for the suppression of the evil. Thus with respect to the prophets he writes, “Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.  If anything be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace; for ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.  And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.”  So again with respect to the gift of tongues, the abuse of which the Apostle describes as producing disorder in the Church, although he distinctly affirms that it was a gift due to the operation of the Divine Spirit.  After having described this disorder, he gives the following rule for its suppression.  “If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.  But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church, and let him speak to himself and to God.”  Rules of this kind contribute the strongest proof that the person who gave them could not have been a mere enthusiast, but must, on the contrary, have possessed strong common sense and a calm judgment.  No enthusiast would have thought of imposing restrictions on the exercise of gifts which he believed to be the result of inspiration.  In fact, we find it very difficult to conceive how such abuses were possible under the circumstances.  Such facts, however, are highly important as bringing us into the direct presence of a state of things which was exactly fitted to excite enthusiasm to the utmost height, and consequently to overpower the judgement.

      2. The directions which he gives in this epistle, and in that to the Romans, as to the forbearance to be exhibited towards the conscientious scruples of weaker brethren form another striking example of the same quality.  St. Paul claimed both divine illumination and apostolical authority to decide the questions which troubled the consciences of the different members of these Churches as to the lawfulness of eating certain kinds of food, and the duty of observing certain days.  He gives his apostolical decision that the points at issue are utterly indifferent under the Christian dispensation; yet with a singular comprehensiveness he directs that the scruples of those who were unable to accept his judgment on these matters are to be respected.  Such a spirit of toleration is without example among pretenders to a divine commission, whether they have been enthusiasts or impostors; and vastly exceeds that which the Church has since been able to realise in its practice.*

      *The following passages will serve as illustrations.  The same man who wrote, “But meat commendeth us not to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse” – “Whatever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake, for the earth is the Lord’s, and the fullness thereof” wrote also, “Wherefore if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.”  I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.  But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably; destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died.”  Compare with such precepts the conduct of Mahomet.

      VI.  The presence in these epistles of a large number of incidental allusions united with the existence in these Churches of a violent party spirit, imparts to them a value as materials for history, which is possessed by no other similar documents.

      As I have observed, the incidental allusions to facts connected with Our Lord greatly exceed in number those which are direct.  Their incidental form possesses this peculiar advantage.  They prove not only that the writer was firmly persuaded of the truth of the facts to which he refers, but also that those to whom he wrote entertained a similar persuasion.  A careful perusal of the epistles cannot fail to convince the reader that there were a large number of underlying facts, which the writer, and those to whom he wrote, accepted in common as veritable realities.  Allusions of this kind occurring in the Epistle to the Romans possess the highest historical value, because this Church derived its Christianity from sources which were independent of St. Paul; nor had he ever visited it.  Yet he presupposes that its members accepted as the groundwork of their common Christianity the same substratum of facts as those which had been planted by himself.

      But further: These epistles make it clear that in these Churches the Apostle had not Only a number of devoted friends, but also a body of determined opponents.  Not only were the Corinthian and Galatian Churches divided into strongly opposed parties, but one of them went the length of denying the validity of St. Paul’s apostolical commission.*  So formidable was this party in the Galatian Church, that they had succeeded in persuading a considerable number of his converts to embrace the principles of Jewish Christianity in opposition to his own, a fact which stirred the Apostle’s soul to its inmost depths.  The pages of these letters afford the strongest proof of the vehemence of the controversy; yet they were intended to be read in the presence of the very persons who denied his apostolical commission, and whom he again and again challenges to come forward and refute his positions.

      *Not only is the existence of a violent Judaising party within the Church apparent on the face of the letters, but that they went the length of disparaging St. Paul in comparison with the original twelve, and of even denouncing him as a false apostle.  This fact, which is of the highest importance in estimating the historical value of these epistles, has been left too much in the background, owing to a desire to set up certain theories about the Apostolic Church, which the facts of the case will not warrant; but it is necessary for a right understanding of the letters themselves, and of their doctrinal statements, that the existence of this Judaising element within the Church should be fully recognized.  On the other hand, the existence of an actual opposition between Paul and the original twelve is an inference for which the premisses afford no authority; nor have we any other data adequate to prove it.  Thus, as I have shown, the affirmation that Paul is the Balaam of the Apocalypse rests solely, as far as evidence is concerned, on its being the good pleasure of those who assert it, that it should be so.  That James was the head of the Church of Jerusalem, and continued until the end of his days to practise the Jewish rites, is doubtless a fact, of which we shall do well to take account; but this proves nothing as to his opposition to Paul.  Paul himself fully tolerated the observance of Jewish rites by those Christians who were Jews by birth.  He was fully aware that men cannot throw off the customs and ideas in which they have been born and educated in the same manner as they do their garments, but that it must be a work of time.  According to the principles which he has laid down, there can be little doubt that if he had occupied the post filled by James, he himself would have been an observer of the Jewish rites; in fact, his assertion is express, that he did so when he lived among Jews.  What St. Paul resisted was the purpose of a powerful party in the Church to convert it into a Jewish Sect, by imposing the Jewish rites on those who were not Jews by birth.  It has been asserted that St. James concurred in this attempt, but the evidence of it lies in the subjective consciousness of those who make the affirmation.  Its sole proof rests on an expression in Gal. 2 in which St. Paul alludes to his disagreement with Peter on this subject, and his public rebuke of his inconsistency.  The words which he uses are, “Before certain came from James, Peter ate with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.”  This is certainly a very slender foundation on which to erect a theory that these persons were sent by James for the purpose of opposing Paul.  All that the passage affirms is, that they had come from James; but for what purpose we are not told.  That they were Jewish Christians who held strongly to the Mosaic ordinances there can be no doubt; but there is certainly nothing to imply that they were authorised messengers of James sent by him for the purpose of opposing Paulinism.  Nothing is more unsafe than such general inferences, for the whole history of religious sectarianism proves that the rank and file of a party invariably rush into extremes which its chiefs have not sanctioned.  One thing the epistles fully establish, viz., that Peter, James, John, and Paul contemplated a common Christianity from somewhat different points of view, but of any trace of direct opposition to the writings of the New Testament, not even the Epistle of James affords any proof.

      This alone is sufficient to place these epistles in the highest rank as historical documents.  It proves that whenever they contain allusions to facts, above all, where they are incidental, their truth must have been accepted alike by the Apostle and his opponents.  To have propounded statements which he knew they would call in question in a controversy of this kind, would have indicated a degree of folly which is incredible.  This particular feature therefore affords such a guarantee of the truthfulness both of the direct and indirect allusions to facts contained in these letters, as is probably possessed by no other writings in existence.  I fully allow that this does not prove the truth of the facts themselves, but it renders it certain they were equally accepted by Paul, and those to whom he wrote, including his bitterest opponents.  This being the case, the testimony of these latter also carries with it the belief of the Church at Jerusalem, and enables us to prove that they must have been accepted by it as the basis on which the Church was reconstructed immediately after the crucifixion of its Founder.

      Such is the nature and the value of these epistles as historical documents.  Let me now point out the facts which they establish.

      First with respect to miracles.

      1.  They prove beyond the power of contradiction that the Jesus who is referred to in nearly every page, was accepted by the Apostle, and those to whom he wrote, as a superhuman Christ.  It is no part of my duty here to define the degree of the divine which they assign to Him; it is quite sufficient for my argument that the Christ of these epistles possesses a highly superhuman character, and that the incidental allusions to it prove that this was not only the opinion of Paul, but of the entire Church.  Nor less certain is it, that the Apostle, and those to whom he wrote, were fully persuaded that this divine Christ, who was now absent in heaven, had passed through an earthly ministry of some duration in Judaea, with the events of which they were acquainted.  The all-important question is, What was the character of this ministry?  Are we justified in drawing any inference respecting it, as to whether it contained any manifestations of a superhuman power?  It seems to me incredible that the Apostle, and those to whom he wrote, could have attributed to the Christ of these epistles the superhuman character with which he is evidently invested, and that the narrative of his earthly ministry, with which I shall presently prove that they were intimately acquainted, assigned to him no superhuman actions.  Common sense refuses to believe that they attributed a superhuman power in heaven, adequate to the government of all things, to a man who had never performed a superhuman action in vindication of his Messianic claims while on earth.  This being so, it follows that the accounts which St. Paul, and those to whom he wrote, possessed of the earthly ministry of Jesus, must have attributed to Him the performance of a number of miracles.

      This point is important, because it has been alleged that St. Paul refers to no miracle as performed by Our Lord.  This is true; but it is no less true that the subjects which he discusses in the epistles did not suggest a reference to them.  Any direct reference to Our Lord’s miracles would have been quite out of place in connection with the subjects discussed in the four great epistles, which are occupied with a wholly different set of questions.  In fact, the Apostle’s silence about them is a proof that their reality was undisputed in the Church.  My point is, that the superhuman character presupposes the miracles, and renders their absence from the accounts which he possessed of Our Lord’s personal ministry incredible. [See Supplement.]

      II.  They also afford unquestionable proof that St. Paul was firmly persuaded that both himself and the other apostles were in the habit of performing miracles, and that those to whom he wrote entertained a similar belief.  On this point he makes three definite assertions in his undisputed epistles.*  In the first of these he expresses his firm conviction that he had been in the habit of performing them during the whole course of his ministry. (Rom. 15:18, 19).  In the second, (2 Cor. 12:11, 12), after making a formal enumeration of them in their threefold aspect, as they are viewed in the New Testament, viz, signs, wonders, and mighty deeds, he not only affirms that they were the signs of an apostle, but that he himself had been in the habit of performing them at Corinth.  The third allusion (Gal. 3:5) is made in a very incidental form, and therefore proves that the fact must have been accepted by those to whom he wrote.  It is also particularly worthy of remark, that these two last allusions are made in those portions of the epistles which are of the most polemical character; and as he urges it in proof of his being a genuine apostle, it constitutes a direct challenge to his opponents to deny their reality if they could.  But further: the argument of the epistle proves that the power of working miracles was believed to be inherent in the apostolical office; and therefore it establishes the fact that the other apostles were believed to have been in the habit of performing them.

      *As these passages are very important, I subjoin them.  “I have therefore whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ in those things which pertain to God.  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 or deed; through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God, so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the Gospel of Christ.”  Rom. 15:17–19.  The allusion here to his frequent performance of miracles is of a most incidental kind.  So again in 2 Cor. 12:11–13, “I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me; for I ought to have been commended of you; for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.  Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds.  For what was it wherein ye were inferior to other Churches, except it be, that I myself was not burdensome to you?  Forgive me this wrong.”  In this highly controversial passage it is evident that the Apostle fully calculated that those to whom he wrote were firmly persuaded that he had wrought miracles among them.  The next allusion is brief, but it is very incidental, and in a highly controversial passage.  “He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles along you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?” Gal. 3:5.  The context makes it evident that by the expression, “he that worketh miracles among you,” he means himself.

      From the foregoing facts it follows by necessary inference:

      1. That it is untrue that the belief in the performance of miracles in connection with Christianity can have been due to the gradual growth of legend during the first century of our era, for these letters make it unquestionable that St. Paul believed that he was in the habit of performing them from the commencement of his work as an apostle, which cannot be dated later than A.D. 36–37; and that the other apostles were believed to have done so from a still earlier period.

      2. As it is inconceivable that St. Paul could have believed that he possessed a power of which his Master was destitute, it follows that the attribution of miraculous actions to Jesus cannot have been due to the gradual growth of a legendary spirit in the Church; but that the belief that he was in the habit of working them, must have been coeval with his ministry.  From this it follows that the accounts of Our Lord’s ministry, which were handed down in the Church by the primitive disciples, must have contained miraculous narratives.  Further, the Apostle’s position as a persecutor must have rendered it incumbent on him to investigate the facts, and to make himself familiar with them.

      These considerations absolutely demolish all those theories which account for the origin of the miraculous narratives in the Gospels on the ground that they were the growth of a legendary spirit in the Church, which first invented the miracles, and then gradually attributed them to Jesus, while he himself made no pretensions to perform them.  On the contrary, they render it certain that he himself must have been a professed worker of them.  This being so, few will doubt that he believed them to have been real.  Respecting these facts the information possessed by St. Paul at the time of his conversion must have precluded the possibility of mistake.  I fully allow that all this does not prove the reality of the miracles; and leaves the question still open, whether the belief in them may not have originated in some form of mental hallucination; but it does prove that the belief that they were performed by Our Lord and his Apostles was coeval with the birth of Christianity; and whether they were realities or not, they themselves were firmly persuaded that they wrought them.*

      *These allusions also dispose of another objection which has been not unfrequently hazarded, that although many persons have expressed their belief that others have performed miracles, yet it is impossible to find a man of high character who has deliberately affirmed that he himself has wrought them. Such an assertion must have been made in oversight of the passages above referred to, and of the other allusions to the exercise of this power which are found in the epistle. It is quite true that St. Paul nowhere argues from his miracles in the same manner as our modern evidential writers ; but this is nothing to the point, for it must be first shown that he accepted their position.

      III.  These letters further prove that St. Paul, and the Churches to whom he wrote, including his personal opponents, concurred in believing that not a few of their members were in possession of certain superhuman endowments, of so singular a character, as to be without parallel in the history of miraculous pretensions.  The Apostle’s description of them is extremely minute; and this minuteness constitutes no small portion of the evidential value of his account, as affording proof of the objective reality of the manifestation of some very extraordinary phenomena in these Churches, whatever opinion we may form of their character or origin.  My space however will only allow me to notice a few of the most salient points.

      1. These gifts of the Spirit are affirmed by the Apostle to have consisted of certain superhuman endowments imparted to a considerable number of the members of these Churches, and conferring on them powers different from those which were imparted by their natural faculties.  According to an enumeration more than once repeated, they were nine in number, two of them only conferring what we should now designate the power of working miracles.  The remaining seven are described as superhuman mental endowments.

      2. It is worthy of particular observation, that each of these gifts is repeatedly affirmed by the Apostle to have been distinct in function from the others.*  Such a description of them is about the last thing which would have occurred to an enthusiast, and stands in striking contrast to the popular theories of inspiration which have been propounded in modern times.  Such a distinction is twice asserted to have existed even between the two gifts which we now confound together under the common name of the power of working miracles, viz. ενεργήματα δυνάμεων, and χαρίσματα ιαμάτων.  The seven mental gifts also conferred no special illumination beyond the subject matter to which their function was limited.  This is clearly shown, not only by the Apostle’s express assertion and illustrations; but by the fact that a person could possess the gift of tongues, and yet be destitute of that of interpretation.  Different gifts, too, were not necessarily united in the same person; and the possession of one by no means involved that of another, even when the subject matter on which they were exerted was closely allied.  I draw attention to these very remarkable peculiarities, as proving not only the discriminating power of the writer of this epistle, who has been credited with such a degree of enthusiasm as to have rendered him unable to distinguish the creations of his own disordered imagination from the realities of things, but the existence of some very extraordinary phenomena in these Churches, wholly differing in character from ordinary miraculous stories.  Further: the mode of statement makes it certain that these distinctions, obscure to us, were clearly understood by the members of the Churches to whom the Apostle wrote, and that they were accepted by them as unquestionable realities, even by his opponents.  No less certain is it that the writer of the letters was firmly persuaded, that he himself possessed several of these gifts, and had the power of conferring them on others.  All these things indicate that we are in the presence of realities.

      *Thus the Apostle compares their action to that of different organs of the human body, as the eye, the ear, the nose, the hand, and the feet, all of which possess distinct functions; and no one of them conveys information on the definite subject matter of another.

      3.   There is another circumstance connected with these gifts, of so remarkable a character, that I am bound to call attention to it.  While they are all affirmed to have been imparted by the divine agency of the Spirit of God, the Apostle expressly states that they were liable to be abused, in the same manner as our ordinary faculties, for the purpose of ostentation and display.  This is, I believe, without precedent in the history of those who have claimed the possession of superhuman powers.  With such it has been the invariable course, along with the superhuman gift, to claim an infallible direction as to the use of it.  This is so natural that we find it difficult to apprehend how it could have been otherwise.  Yet the assertions of the Apostle on this point are express; and the facts to which he refers as taking place in the Corinthian Church, absolutely conclusive.  Not only was the gift of tongues so abused as to incur the, danger of throwing the whole Church into confusion, but the prophetic gift, the third, if not the second, in importance of the whole number, was liable to be misused by its possessor to such an extent that the prophets were in the habit of interrupting one another in its exercise.  A number of stringent rules are laid down by the Apostle for the suppression of these disorders, such as could never have been propounded by a man who was labouring under mental delusion.*

      *The affirmation of unbelief is that the appearance of Our Lord to St. Paul on the road to Damascus, was nothing but a subjective creation of his own mind, which he mistook for an external reality.  The discriminating power and sound judgment exhibited in these chapters even in matters relating to the supernatural, have a very important bearing on this question.

      From these data I draw the following conclusions.

      First: that these phenomena prove that we are dealing with realities of some kind, whether we explain them on the principle of a human or a superhuman origin.

      Secondly: that St. Paul, who was himself the subject of these gifts, was firmly persuaded of their superhuman character.

      Thirdly: that a similar persuasion was entertained by the whole Christian community, including his opponents; and that the possession of these gifts was a matter of warm emulation among its members.

      Fourthly: that the belief in the presence of such manifestations was not confined to the time when the Apostle wrote his various epistles, but was coeval with the reconstruction of the Church after the Crucifixion.

      Fifthly: that these gifts were believed to be the fulfillment of Our Lord’s promise made to His disciples, that He would communicate to them such supernatural endowments as were necessary for building up the Church after He had ascended into heaven.

      I fully admit that these points, taken alone, and apart from other considerations, do not prove that these manifestations were of superhuman origin; but they go a great way to establish that they were so.  One thing, however, they prove beyond question, namely, that both Jesus and His followers must have believed themselves to have possessed superhuman powers; and consequently, that the belief that they performed miracles is no aftergrowth of Christianity, but is coeval with its birth.  From this the inference is inevitable, that Jesus Himself must have professed to have performed them.  If they were unreal, it leaves us in the presence of only two alternatives; Either Jesus Himself, who on the confession of unbelievers was the greatest of the sons of men, must have laboured under a mental delusion on this subject; or, (with reverence be it spoken) while He Himself was the sternest denouncer of hypocrisy who has ever appeared among men, He must have concurred in the perpetration of a fraud.*

      *Mr. Mill accepts the discourses in the Synoptics as accurate representations of the sense of the veritable utterances of Jesus, and almost treats with scorn the idea that they can have been the inventions of His followers.  In taking this position Mr. Mill is in strict agreement with the course of reasoning adopted in these Lectures.  But if these utterances are allowed to be genuine, two inferences necessarily follow: first, that Jesus claimed to possess a superhuman character; and secondly, that He believed Himself to be a worker of miracles.  These Mr. Mill seems unaccountably to have overlooked.

      IV.  These epistles afford unequivocal evidence of the existence in the Apostolic Church of another class of phenomena which were believed to have had their origin in the operation of a superhuman power, of the abiding presence of which they were the manifestation.  The superhuman manifestations were not confined to mere wonders wrought in the material Universe, but the preaching of Jesus Christ acted as a mighty regenerating influence in the moral and spiritual world.  Considerable numbers of those whom the Apostle addressed had been rescued from the lowest depths of Pagan vice and moral degradation, and elevated by their reception of Christianity to a life of purity and holiness.  The reality and the greatness of the change was an undeniable fact, which was not only verified in its outward results, but equally so in the inward consciousness of those who had experienced it.  Whatever view we may take of the cause, the reality of the change is placed by these letters beyond the power of question.  I will cite a single passage out of many which bear similar testimony to this fact.  In addressing the Corinthians, the Apostle was able to appeal thus to their own experience.  “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?  Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.  AND SUCH WERE SOME OF YOU; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Cor. 6:9–11.  Can any one doubt that the Apostle is here speaking of a great reality, which must have been a patent fact?  It follows therefore that the superhuman energy which these epistles affirm to have been visibly manifesting itself in the Church was not believed to confine itself to the performance of those acts which are ordinarily designated miracles, but to be a power which was equally energetic in the moral world.  In this respect the supernaturalism of the Pauline epistles differs from all other miraculous narratives.  The reality of its manifestation in the moral world is unquestionable.  This forms a strong ground for believing that the Apostle cannot have been mistaken as to its reality in the material world.

      V.  The next point of which these epistles furnish unquestionable proof is, that at the time when the Apostle wrote them, the Church was fully acquainted with an outline of the actions and the teaching of Jesus Christ, which was similar in its features to that which is contained in our present Gospels.  Of this the knowledge was so widely diffused as to render a number of direct references to it unnecessary; and to make the numerous indirect references with which the epistles abound thoroughly intelligible.  It is immaterial to my argument whether this existed in a written or an oral form.  All that we require is to prove that such an account was well known to the individual members of the different Churches; and that it formed the foundation of their daily religious life.  Of all this the epistles afford indisputable evidence; and what is still more important, they not only prove its existence at the time of their composition, i.e., within twenty-eight years after the Crucifixion, but they enable us to identify it with the beliefs of the primitive followers of Jesus.  This being so, it proves that all those various theories respecting the origin of the Gospels are invalid, which affirm that a large portion of the materials of which they consist, are the production of a legendary spirit.

      The direct references in these epistles to events in the history of Our Lord are few in number.  The most remarkable are the statement in my text and that in which St. Paul gives the account of the institution of the  Holy Communion.  The last of these is in substantial agreement with those contained in the Synoptics; and is equally full.  The mode in which it is introduced presupposes that the writer was in possession of a history of the Passion on an equally extensive scale.  This the frequent references made to it in the other parts of these letters render absolutely certain.  It follows therefore, that the Church in the year 58 was in possession of an account of the history of the Passion, which bore a close analogy to that which is contained in our Gospels.

      The reference in my text (1 Cor. 15:1–9) is a very important one, because it affirms that the Gospel which St. Paul imparted to the Corinthians consisted chiefly of facts; and both this and the former reference, prove that there was a body of facts which formed the groundwork of Christianity, and which he was in the habit of solemnly committing to the custody of the Church.  Thus he says, “I delivered unto you first of all (εν πρώτοις, among matters of prime importance), that which I also received” (1 Cor. 15:3).  And again, “For I have received of the Lord, that which also I delivered unto you.” (1 Cor. 11:23).  Both these passages affirm a solemn act of reception and communication.  Those which he enumerates in 1 Cor. 15, he affirms to have been among matters of prime importance.  This implies that among the things which he was in the habit of committing to the Churches, there were other matters of prime importance; and that these were united with others of secondary importance.  Such an account must have been analogous to that contained in our present Gospels, which consist of a number of facts of prime importance, among which the accounts of the death and resurrection of Christ occupy a very conspicuous place; and another body of facts of secondary importance, which are very closely related to them.

      To another fact of prime importance which the direct evidence of these epistles proves beyond the power of question, viz, the superhuman character which the apostles and the Churches attributed to Jesus, I have already referred.  This proves that the Church must have been in possession of an account of His actions, analogous to that contained in our Gospels.

      These epistles contain also two other direct references to Our Lord’s life.  The Apostle opens his epistle to the Romans* by affirming that he was of the seed of David according to the flesh, thereby ascribing to him both a human and a superhuman origin; and also that he submitted to the rite of circumcision.  These references prove that the apostles and the Church at Rome accepted an account of the infancy analogous to that in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke.

      *περι του υιου αυτου, (του γενομένου εκ σπέρματος Δαβιδ κατα σάρκα, του ορισθέντος υιου Θεου εν δυνάμει κατα πνευμα αγιωσύνης, εξ αναστάσεως νεκρων,) Ιησου χριστου του κυρίου ημων. – Rom. 1:3, 4.  It seems inconceivable that any candid reader can doubt that the Apostle takes it for granted in this passage that a belief in Our Lord’s supernatural conception was generally entertained in the Church; and that it was accepted by the Church of Rome, which he had never visited.

      In like manner they contain a few direct references to the moral teaching of Our Lord, in exact conformity with the teaching which we read in the Synoptics; but on this point it will be unnecessary to enlarge, for it is too plain to require argument, that the whole of that which is contained in these epistles and in the other writings of the New Testament, is based on that which the Synoptics have attributed to Jesus Christ; and consequently that a general outline of this teaching must have been preserved among the traditions of the Church.

      Such are the direct references.

      But the indirect ones are very numerous, and prove beyond the power of contradiction that the Apostle, and those to whom he wrote, were thoroughly acquainted with an account of the actions and the teaching of Our Lord, which they accepted as the basis of their common Christianity.  If I were to attempt to bring out each separate point, it would extend this Lecture to an unreasonable length.  I will therefore only summarise their general character, and adduce the evidence in a Supplement.

      The Apostle affirms again and again that the essence of his preaching consisted in the proclamation that Jesus was the Christ.  This was addressed to men ignorant of Christianity.  What does it imply?  Is it consistent with the idea that the Apostle taught merely a body of doctrines or moral precepts?  It is clear that his teaching must have been utterly unintelligible if it did not contain such an account of the actions of Jesus as was adequate to prove that He was the Christ.

      Again: the Christ whom the Apostle preached was a superhuman Christ.  He was a Christ who claimed to be “the Lord.”  It follows therefore that the actions which the Apostle attributed to Jesus in his preaching must have been of a superhuman character; otherwise it would have been. nugatory – or in other words, it must have been similar in general type and outline to those contained in our Gospels.

      The incidental character of the allusions proves that such a Christ was accepted by the different sections of the Church to whom the Apostle wrote, including the Church at Rome, which had received its Christianity from a source entirely independent of him.*  From this it follows that all these various Churches must have accepted a body of facts respecting Our Lord, which formed a portraiture of Him in entire conformity with the Christology of the Gospels.

      *In the absence of all definite information on the subject it is now impossible to determine the source from which the Christianity of the Church of Rome was derived.  All we can do is to fall back on the probabilities of the case.  Considering the constant intercourse which was taking place between Rome and the provinces, and the large number of Jews located there, the probability is, that it was directly derived from the Church of Jerusalem.  Still the whole tone of the epistle implies that Paul was well known to the members of this Church.  It is highly probable that some of them became acquainted with him at the time when Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome, when many of them would take refuge in Greece.  Still the whole tenor of the epistle proves the existence of a decidedly Jewish element, which could not have been derived either from Paul or from his disciples.  This is confirmed by a salutation in the last chapter.  “Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the Apostles, who also were in Christ before me.”  This passage proves that these two persons had joined the Christian Church before St. Paul’s conversion; and consequently, that they must already have been Christians for more than eighteen years, and, therefore, that they must have derived their Christianity direct from the Church at Jerusalem; yet it is evident that he calculated that they would accept the chief outlines of his Christology; and that his incidental allusions to the great facts of Christianity would be thoroughly intelligible to them.  Doubts have been expressed by a certain School of critics as to the genuineness of this last chapter; but the reasons assigned for its rejection are such that if they are valid, we may prove almost anything we wish.

      Further, as all these Churches contained a party of Judaising Christians, whose opinions must have been in conformity with the Church at Jerusalem, it follows that the facts of the life of Christ, which formed the substratum of the Pauline Gospel, as far as they are alluded to in these epistles, must have been accepted by that Church, or in other words, by the primitive followers of Jesus.

      The same result follows from the oft-repeated reference to the knowledge of Jesus Christ, as synonymous with Christianity itself.  Such a knowledge necessarily implies an intimate acquaintance with an extensive body of facts respecting His life and actions.  But this knowledge is described as one which was deeply influential on the heart and character, and that each individual Christian would immediately recognise it as forming the groundwork of his religious life.  From this it follows, that it must have consisted of a number of facts which exhibited Jesus in a light which would render Him capable of exerting such an influence.  Such a delineation we possess in the Gospels.  Consequently, the facts referred to by the Apostle as constituting this knowledge must have formed a portraiture closely analogous to that which they contain.  Further, one effect of this knowledge was to produce towards Him a spirit of devoted love.  But love can only be inspired by the presence of a lovely object.  The delineation of Jesus, which was accepted by these Churches, must therefore have depicted Him as a character capable of exciting a devoted love.  Here again its identification in general outline with that of the Gospels is complete.

      These epistles also contain another set of indirect references which prove not only that the persons to whom they are addressed must have had an intimate acquaintance with the actions of Jesus Christ, but that these actions must have formed a vivid delineation of His character.  I allude to those numerous passages in which Christians are exhorted to make Him the subject of their imitation.  These exhortations are not unfrequently introduced by the words “Ye know.”  Such a form of expression proves that the writer was fully persuaded that those whom he addressed were in possession of such a minute account of Our Lord’s actions as would enable them to use them as a model for imitation.  As this is a point of some importance, I will adduce a few illustrations.

      1. They are exhorted to imitate Him in various special details of conduct; and again, to “put on Jesus Christ,” which can only mean that their daily life was to be an exhibition of His character.  Such injunctions would be simply absurd if addressed to any but those who were known to be in possession of a detailed account of his personal character and actions.

      2. Another very incidental remark of the Apostle, “Ye have not so learned Christ,” warrants us in drawing an inference considerably in advance of this.  It presupposes that an account of His actions and teaching formed a regular subject of instruction in the Church, as it is described in the preface of St. Luke’s Gospel, “That thou mightest know the certainty of those things in which thou hast been instructed.”

      3. Another similar precept adds great weight to this inference; “As ye have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him.”  The persons addressed had received Christ Jesus the Lord.  How was this possible?  Only by having details furnished them of His life and actions, in conformity with which they are directed to model their lives.  These exhortations therefore prove not only that the account possessed by these Churches must have been of considerable detail, but that the communication of the knowledge of it was a part of the regular course of Christian instruction.

      It would be easy to multiply examples of this kind, but those which I have adduced will be sufficient as illustrations.  They all firmly establish the point I am seeking to prove, viz., that when the Apostle wrote these letters, the different members of the Churches were intimately acquainted, not merely with a body of doctrinal statements, or rules of conduct, which they attributed to Jesus; but with an account of His actions sufficiently minute to enable them to model their lives upon them.  This is precisely what our present Gospels enable us to do.  It follows therefore that whether these accounts were written or oral, they must have closely resembled them in character.  Further: As the Jesus to whom St. Paul is constantly referring is not an ordinary man, but a divine one, it follows that these accounts must have attributed to him a number of superhuman actions.  Here again the analogy between the account which was accepted by these Churches and that contained in our Gospels is complete.

      Only one additional remark on this portion of the subject will be necessary.  When St. Paul refers to Our Lord as a model of conduct, he rarely thinks it necessary to mention any particular act as an illustration.  The only exceptions are when he refers to Him as the great example of self-sacrifice.  Thus when he refers to Him as the highest example of meekness, he does not quote a single instance of the exhibition of this quality.  In a similar manner he speaks of it as a well-known fact, that “though He was rich, yet for our sakes He became poor,” yet he mentions no special instances of His poverty or humiliation.  I may say that this mode of reference is almost universal throughout the New Testament.  What is the legitimate inference from it?  I answer that its writers must have felt certain that those to whom they wrote were so thoroughly acquainted with the history of Our Lord’s actions, as to have rendered any definite references to them superfluous.

      These considerations justify the two following conclusions:–

      1. As the Church was in possession of an account of Our Lord’s actions, which in its great outlines was analogous to that which is contained in our Gospels, it is impossible that during the short interval between A.D. 58 and A.D. 90 a legendary Jesus can have altogether obscured the true lineaments of the Jesus of history.

      2. As the recollections of the Apostle, and of a considerable number of those to whom he wrote, must have been good for at least twenty years earlier, it is impossible that a legendary Jesus can have taken the place of the historical one between A.D. 58 and A.D. 37.

      3. As the incidental references in these epistles prove that the facts referred to must have been accepted by all the parties in these Churches, including those which adopted the principles of Jewish Christianity, the main outlines of these facts must have been substantially the same as that which was accepted by the Church at Jerusalem; or in other words, as that which was handed down by Our Lord’s primitive disciples; and whatever differences existed between them were not differences as to the fundamental facts of Christianity, but as to doctrinal inferences from them.  The evidence therefore which is furnished by these epistles carries us up to the period of the reconstruction of the Church immediately after the Crucifixion.

      I now approach a subject of paramount importance, namely, the evidence which these epistles furnish of the truth of the Resurrection of Our Lord.*  It will be impossible for me to adduce within the limits of these Lectures the whole of this evidence.  All I can do is to summarise the results of a careful examination of them, and of the other writings of the New Testament.

      *It will be evident why I do not appeal to the Gospels to establish the truth of the Resurrection, but rely exclusively on the Pauline Epistles.  While the historical character of the former is denied by unbelievers, that of the four great epistles is undisputed.  Therefore, in dealing with their evidence, we are resting on a foundation which is unquestionable.  But before the Gospels can be made available for this purpose, we must first prove their genuineness, and that their contents embody an accurate account of the traditions of the primitive followers of Jesus.  This can only be effected by the circuitous course of reasoning above referred to.  In the present aspects of thought therefore, to attempt to prove the truth of the Resurrection by appealing to the testimony of the Gospels alone, and unsupported by other evidence, involves a petitio principii of the entire question, I therefore base the proof on documents which even unbelievers admit to be the genuine writings of the greatest Missionary of the Apostolic Church – in fact, on a species of evidence which the universal voice of modern historians affirms to be historical testimony of the highest order.

      I.  These epistles furnish unquestionable proof that at the time of their composition, i.e., within from twenty-five to thirty years from the date of the Crucifixion, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was accepted as a fact by every section of the Christian Church, including those Jewish opponents who denied St. Paul’s apostolical commission; and the Church at Rome, which he had not planted.

      II.  It was not accepted, as men give credit to an ordinary occurrence, or a mere ghost story, but as an event fraught with the most important consequences.  It was the foundation on which the Church was erected; it constituted the inner life of Christianity, it was felt to constitute a great moral and spiritual power;* in fact on it was based the entire claim of Jesus to be accepted as the Messiah, and his right of Lordship over the Church.  From it directly flowed that duty of self-sacrifice which every believer felt to be due to his risen Master, in return for His self-sacrificing love.  It was also viewed as the pledge of immortality, and formed the basis of the religious life of the Church as a community, and of its individual members.

      *Between a fact which has produced no effect on the world’s history and one which has exerted a mighty one, there is a wide interval.  Great results are produced by realities, unrealities collapse of themselves.  A phenomenon which has exerted the most powerful influence on the history of mankind affords of itself a strong presumption that it cannot have been founded on pure delusion.

      III.  The evidence furnished by these epistles, not only affords indisputable proof that the Resurrection was accepted by the entire Church as the ground of its existence, when the Apostle wrote them, but also that it was reconstructed on the basis of this belief immediately after the Crucifixion.  The proof of this is of the utmost importance in reference to the historical argument, for it renders it certain that the belief in the Resurrection could not have been one which grew slowly and gradually, after the manner of marvellous stories; being made up of one addition after another, aided by distance of time and place.  On this point they furnish us with the following evidence:–

      1. St. Paul accepted it as a fact from the date of his conversion.  He was persuaded that he had seen the risen Jesus.  Whether what he believed that he saw, was an objective reality, or the result of a heated imagination, it is equally valid to prove that the belief was at that period the accepted one of the entire Church.

      2. The Apostle’s personal testimony enables us to prove that this belief must have originated within a few days after the Crucifixion.  He informs us that he had been one of the chief agents in the persecution of the Church.  When acting in this capacity his means of ascertaining when and where the belief originated must have been ample; and as the agent of the priesthood, he must have been entrusted with their private theory on this subject.  That he did not make a thorough inquiry into a point of such importance, is inconceivable.  Yet he informs us that Jesus was believed to have risen on the third day after his crucifixion; and that His appearances took place immediately afterwards.  It is impossible therefore to account for this belief on the principle that it originated in a mere idle story, which distance of time and place converted into a fact.  Stories of this kind always require considerable intervals of time during which they consolidate themselves; but St. Paul’s testimony is conclusive that the necessary interval is not to be had.  If the belief in it was the result of a delusion, it must have originated then and there.

      3. The Apostle’s personal testimony is corroborated by the fact, that such was also the belief of the Judaising Section of the Church.  The incidental form of his references proves, that on this point there was no difference of opinion between him and his opponents.  Their beliefs carry with them that of the Church of Jerusalem, and of the primitive disciples of Jesus.  This being so, it is impossible that they could have been ignorant when the belief originated; and whether the Church was reconstructed on its basis.

      IV.  These epistles also afford definite proof that Jesus Christ was believed to have been seen alive after His crucifixion on the following occasions.  First by Peter.  Afterwards by the entire Apostolic body, when they were assembled together.  Subsequently by upwards of five hundred disciples at once, of whom more than half survived when St. Paul wrote the letter which contains the statement.  Next he was seen by James.  Subsequently by all the Apostles in a body.  Last of all he was seen by Paul himself.  The nature of this reference by no means implies that the writer meant to enumerate all the appearances with which he was acquainted.

      Two incidental references in the Epistle to the Galatians will help us to verify the truth of these statements.  The Apostle informs us, that three years after his conversion he paid a visit to Jerusalem of fifteen days’ duration, during which he was entertained by Peter: while thus in close communication with him, it is inconceivable that he made no inquiries of him respecting his interviews with his risen Master; this being his first meeting with any of the original Apostles of Jesus.  Now in the Epistle to the Corinthians a private interview between Peter and the risen Jesus is expressly alleged to have taken place, an interview of which we have no knowledge except from an incidental reference in St. Luke’s Gospel, who represents the Apostles as exclaiming, when Cleopas and his companion entered the room where they were assembled on their return from Emmaus, “The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared unto Simon.”  Can we have any doubt from whom St. Paul obtained this particular piece of information?

      In like manner the epistle informs us that on the occasion of this visit he had interviews with James.  The Epistle to the Corinthians likewise informs us, that James was favoured with a private interview with his risen Master.  This fact is mentioned nowhere else; can we doubt that the source of St. Paul’s information must have been James himself?  It is inconceivable that he should have had interviews with these two Apostles so shortly after his conversion, which he attributed to an appearance of the risen Jesus to himself, without making any inquiries about his appearances to them.  The comparison therefore of the statements of the Apostle in the 15th of the Corinthians with those in the 2nd of the Galatians puts us in possession of the direct testimony of two of the original Apostles.  This is further confirmed by the following fact.

      V.  St. Paul informs us in this epistle that on a subsequent visit to Jerusalem he had a formal meeting with the heads of the Jewish Church, of whom Peter, James, and John, were the acknowledged chiefs; that on this occasion he communicated to them the most important points of that Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles; and that he received their deliberate sanction of it.  Now the Epistles make it certain that one of the most important points of the Pauline Gospel was the erection of the Church on the basis of the Resurrection.  It follows, therefore, that there must have been an interchange of views on this subject not only between St. Paul and the three “Pillar Apostles,” but between him and the chiefs of the Jewish Church, and that they were absolutely in accordance with him.  This being so, it carries with it the whole weight of the testimony of the Church at Jerusalem to the fact that they had reconstructed that Church, after the crucifixion of Jesus, on the basis of His resurrection.  This fact, therefore, rests on an historical attestation, than which nothing can be stronger.

      VI.  The Epistle to the Corinthians furnishes us with a singular proof of the tenacity with which the belief in Our Lord’s resurrection must have been clung to as fundamental to the Christian faith.  Some of the members of this Church denied that there would be a resurrection of the dead.  This opinion, if carried out to its logical conclusion, would have been destructive of the belief in the resurrection of Jesus.  How does the Apostle deal with this question?  He endeavours to convince them of their error by the following very singular argument.  “If there be no resurrection from the dead, then is not Christ risen.”  Or, to put it in other words, “Your denial of a resurrection involves the denial of the resurrection of Christ.”

      Now nothing can be clearer than that the entire force of the Apostles’ reasoning lies in the firmness of their belief in the reality of the resurrection of Our Lord, which they must have clung to as a fact, although they held opinions which were logically inconsistent with it.  If this had not been the case, St. Paul’s reasoning was obviously exposed to the following crushing answer: “We affirm that the current belief in the resurrection of Jesus is the result of some mental delusion, and therefore the argument on which you rely is worthless.  Nothing can more strongly prove the tenacity with which the resurrection of Our Lord must have been accepted as a fact than the Apostle’s urging it as a proof of a general resurrection to those who considered such a belief to be irrational.*

      *The ground of the denial of a future resurrection would be in all probability a set of ideas respecting the impurity of matter, such as those which at a subsequent period lay at the root of the various forms of Gnosticism, viz., that matter was the source of moral evil, and was therefore a wholly unfit habitation for a purified spirit.  If these were the views which formed the ground of this denial, it is strange that those who entertained them should have accepted the Resurrection of Christ as a fact; and not have attempted to explain it away in some spiritual sense.  However this may have been, it forms a striking proof of the strength of the belief with which at this early period the Church must have accepted the Resurrection as an unquestionable reality.  Not long afterwards these opinions were carried out to their logical conclusion; but they did not result in the denial of the reality of Our Lord’s resurrection, but of his death; one party affirming that it was nothing but a phantom which suffered on the cross; and another that the Eon Christ had united himself to the human Jesus for the purpose of revealing the unknown Father and had deserted him on his crucifixion, leaving his former companion to expire miserably on the cross.

      VII.  These statements in the Pauline letters are fully corroborated by other portions of the New Testament, among which I would especially notice the Epistle of James, which, whoever may have been its author, presents an unquestionable portraiture of Jewish Christianity, and prove that the universal Church, without distinction of party, accepted the Resurrection as constituting the basis on which it had been erected.  Further, as the Apocalypse is admitted on all sides to be the work of one of the original Apostles, it furnishes us, not with secondary, but with primary evidence on this point.  Not only does it make it clear that its author was firmly convinced of the truth of the Resurrection; but I think that it is impossible to read it and arrive at the conclusion that the first interview which St. John believed that he had with his risen Master was the vision at Patmos.

      Such are the facts which the Pauline Epistles, and the other writings of the New Testament prove with regard to the Resurrection.  I will briefly summarise them.

      First. — That it is an unquestionable fact that the Church, which was for the time dissolved by the Crucifixion, was reconstructed on the basis of the Resurrection.

      Second. — That the belief originated on the spot within a few days of the Crucifixion, and that the fact was openly proclaimed as the now foundation on which the Church was to be erected and the Messiahship of Jesus to be set up.

      Third. — That all the efforts of Paul and his fellow persecutors failed to discover that this belief was the result of fraud or delusion.

      Fourth. — That the Apostolic body believed that they had two interviews with Jesus, in which they saw Him alive, after His crucifixion,

      Fifth. — That two of the Apostles were persuaded that they had private interviews with Him.

      Sixth. — That upwards of five hundred brethren believed that they saw Him alive after His crucifixion, when they were assembled in a body.

      Seventh. — That Paul was persuaded that he had seen Him.

      Eighth. — That large numbers of believers were firmly persuaded that in consequence of His resurrection they had become possessed of certain supernatural gifts and endowments.

      Ninth. — That the belief in the Resurrection acted as a mighty power of moral and spiritual regeneration.

      I fully admit that all this does not prove that the Resurrection was an objective reality, although it goes a long way in that direction.  It is still open to the alternative, that the belief in it may have originated in mental delusion; for the idea that it was owing to a deliberately concocted fraud may be dismissed at once.  Before concluding, let me briefly state what the evidence which I have adduced is adequate to prove.

      1. It disposes effectually of every form of the mythic and legendary theories, as well as those of tendencies, and gradual evolution, as affording any possible account of the origin of the narratives of the Gospels.*

      *It is simply marvellous that such an amount of ingenuity should have been expended in inventing theories to account for the origin of the miraculous narratives of the Gospels, on the principle that they have originated in the gradual creations of the legendary spirit, and in the other explanations which have been offered on the supposition that the belief in them has originated, not dishonestly, but in some form of delusion.  It is obvious that all such attempts are futile, while the theories propounded are not adequate to account for the belief in the Resurrection.  It is evident that no possible modification of any theory of myth or legend can effect this consistently with the facts which these epistles prove to have been unquestionable historical verities.  The sooner that both believers and unbelievers fully recognize that the entire controversy turns on the objective reality of the Resurrection of Our Lord, the better; for it will save useless expenditure of intellectual effort.  It was a belief which created the Christian Church, and not one which was evolved by it.

      2. It proves that it is impossible that the belief in the Resurrection could have grown up in the gradual manner in which ordinary fictions do, i.e. at a considerable distance of time and place from the occurrence of the supposed events; but on the contrary, that it originated at Jerusalem within a few days after the public execution of Jesus; that it was immediately proclaimed as a fact by His followers; and the Church was reconstructed on its basis.

      3. That as the truth of the Resurrection is a cause which affords a philosophical account of all the facts of history in connection with the Christian Church, end as it has ever been put forward by the Church as the true account of those facts, and the sole ground of its existence, we are fully entitled to accept it as the true one until some other can be propounded which is equally rational.

      Modern unbelief has fully admitted the necessity of some rational and philosophical solution of these unquestionable facts of history.  It denies that Jesus ever rose from the dead.  It affirms that the belief in His Resurrection originated in the hallucination of his followers; and in order to account for this delusion it has propounded two theories.  One of these is “the Theory of Visions.”  The other is that Jesus did not die of the wounds he received in crucifixion, but that he recovered and retired from public view; and that this recovery and retirement was mistaken by his credulous followers for a resurrection and an ascension into heaven.  How far these two theories are adequate to account for the verities of history it will be my duty to inquire in my next Lecture.

Supplement.

      The limits imposed on me by the necessity of treating this subject in a single Lecture, have allowed me to give only a summary of the chief historical facts, of which these epistles afford distinctive proof; but as the subject is one of the highest importance in relation to the Christian argument, I propose in this Supplement to adduce the evidence on which my positions rest, and to draw the conclusions which legitimately follow from it.

      On estimating this evidence, it will be necessary to observe the distinction between St. Paul’s express assertions and those which are made in so incidental a manner as to show that they were not only his own opinions, but were accepted by Churches which did not derive their Christianity from him, and above all, by his opponents.

      But even if it were otherwise, when we consider that the date of the composition of these letters was only separated from that of Our Lord’s ministry by the brief interval of twenty-eight years, and his conversion by only six or seven, his metamorphosing a perfectly human Jesus into the divine Christ of the epistles, is without a parallel in the history of deifications; and is only explicable on the assumption that he was acquainted with certain facts, which he held to justify him in depicting a man who had been publicly crucified by the chiefs of his nation, as invested with divine attributes.

      But I have already shown that the four great epistles enable us to get far beyond the Pauline views on this subject.  Their incidental references prove that certain of them must have been held in common with the members of the Church at Rome, which had not derived their Christianity from him; and these in the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians prove that even his opponents must have accepted Jesus as a superhuman Christ.  Hence it is inconceivable that the accounts which they possessed of His ministry did not attribute to Him the exercise of miraculous powers.

      As the Epistle to the Romans is the highest authority on this point, I will refer to it first.  It opens as follows:–

      “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God (which he had promised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures), concerning his Son Jesus Christ, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.” (Rom. 1:1–4.)  It is incredible that the Apostle should have introduced himself to a Church which he had never visited, and whose good will he was evidently anxious to conciliate by making statements such as are contained in this exordium, unless he had been persuaded that they were already fully acquiesced in by its members.  His opening words, in which he affirms that the good news respecting the Son of God had been previously promised “through the prophets in the Holy Scriptures,” prove that a large number of those whom be addressed were Jewish Christians; for such a reference would have been entirely out of place if addressed to Gentile converts, whose acquaintance with the Old Testament must have been very limited.  As the epistle makes it evident that his purpose was to win their good will, it is therefore certain that he could not have entertained the smallest doubt that the Jewish party, which was a powerful one in this Church, must have accepted the statement in the exordium as a portion of their common faith.  This being so, it must have constituted the faith of the Church at Jerusalem, and could not have been a mere Pauline development of Christianity.

      This exordium therefore establishes the following points respecting the beliefs of the original followers of Jesus.

      1. That He was the Son of God in a sense wholly different from that in which other men are the sons of God.  Such a view of His character is strictly in accordance with the delineation in the Gospels, to which I have before drawn attention, and which invariably represents Our Lord as carefully distinguishing between God’s Fatherhood to Himself, and His Fatherhood to other men, speaking of Him as “My Father” and “your Father,” but never as “our Father.”  This is strongly brought out in the language of the fourth Gospel, although the distinction is invariably observed by the Synoptics, “My Father and your Father,” “My God and your God.”

      2. That He became (του γενομένου) according to His human birth (κατα σάρκα) a descendant of David.

      3. That He was definitely marked out (του ορισθέντος) as the Son of God with power, by His resurrection.

      4. That He was the Lord of the Church, and the source of grace and peace in conjunction with the Father.

      From these facts it follows:–

      1. The Messiah who was accepted in common by St. Paul and the Jewish members of this Church, and whom they identified with Jews, must have been a superhuman Christ.

      2. That in conformity with the statements in the Gospels Jesus was a descendant of David.

      3. That He had an origin higher than His purely human one, and consequently that St. Paul and the members of this Church must have accepted an account of his superhuman birth analogous to that which is contained in our Gospels.

      4. That by the Resurrection He was definitely marked out to be “the Son of God with power.”  Such are the views respecting the superhuman character of Jesus, which must have been held in common by St. Paul and the Jewish members of this Church, who must have derived their Christianity from some of the primitive followers of Jesus.  Is it conceivable that persons who accepted such a Christ can have been ignorant of the events of his earthly ministry, and that the accounts which they possessed of it did not ascribe to him a number of miraculous actions?

      II.  The ninth chapter of this Epistle contains a statement closely analogous.  The Apostle is speaking of the privileges of the Jews, whom he designates his kinsmen according to the flesh; and expressing his deep sorrow at their national unbelief.  This portion of the Epistle is expressly addressed to that part of the Church which was of Jewish origin; he approaches them thus: “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom pertaineth the adoption and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises, whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever.” (Rom. 9:3–5.)

      This passage taken by itself might be open to the objection that the Apostle is speaking of two kinds of fatherhood, one arising from birth, and the other spiritual, and that, as it is in the former sense that he speaks of the Jews as his kinsmen according to the flesh, it might be urged, that in speaking thus of Jesus, he refers to his earthly origin, as distinct from his spiritual character.  But when we compare it with the exordium of the Epistle, no doubt can remain as to the reference intended.  In like manner it has been disputed whether the words “God blessed for ever” are intended to refer to Jesus, or whether they are a doxology to God the Father.  I therefore forbear to urge this passage by itself as affording a certain proof of my position; but only adduce it as a strong confirmation of that furnished by the exordium, which is open to no such ambiguity.  Both passages taken together prove beyond question, that the Jewish members of the Church at Rome must have attributed to Jesus a superhuman character; and consequently that the accounts which they possessed of His ministry must have contained narratives which afforded a justification of it.

      It will be needless for me to cite all the passages in this Epistle which attribute a high Christology to Jesus.  The all-important question is, did the Church accept this Christology on the authority of the Apostle, or were they already believers in it independently of his testimony?

      The following considerations render it certain that the latter must have been the case.

      First: the Christology of the Epistle is not propounded in a formulated system, as it certainly would have been by a person who was endeavouring to set forth a body of new doctrines with which those to whom he wrote were unacquainted.  On the contrary, it consists entirely of very incidental allusions.  It forms a striking contrast to the mode in which the writer sets forth his doctrine of justification by faith.  This is carefully formulated.  Here it is evident that he felt that he was communicating something which could be only imperfectly appreciated by a considerable number of those to whom he wrote.  Quite different is it with the Christology.  Its most advanced statements are made for purposes preeminently practical.  The doctrine of justification by faith is attempted to be proved.  Not a single attempt is made to prove the truth of the Christology.  What, then, is the legitimate inference?  I answer, that the author must have been convinced that those to whom he wrote already accepted it in its great outlines.

      Secondly: whenever one man urges a truth on another for the purpose of producing a practical influence on his conduct, he must necessarily do one of two things; either he must endeavour to prove it, or take it for granted that the person whom he exhorts is already persuaded of it.  Thus, if we attempt to exhort a man to the practice of virtue, on the ground that it would be conducive to his highest happiness, common sense suggests that unless the person we exhort admits the truth of our principle, we must endeavour to convince him that it is so.  Now the Epistle clearly shows that every reference which it contains to a Christology is made for the purpose of producing a powerful influence on the conduct of those to whom it is addressed; so that they must have already accepted one which assigned to Jesus the attributes of a superhuman Christ as fundamental to their faith.  I need only subjoin a single example of the Apostle’s mode of statement.

      In the 14th and in the opening of the 15th chapter of this Epistle, he is discussing a question which at the time was one of the greatest interest to Christians generally, and above all, to Jewish Christians, viz., the duty of observing certain days, and the lawfulness of eating certain kinds of food.  He disposes of the entire question by laying down a great principle, which involves a Christology of a high order; and as these questions were keenly debated between the two great parties in the Church, he must have felt confident that the principle thus propounded was one in which both of them would cordially acquiesce.  He writes as follows:

      “Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant?  To his own master he standeth or falleth.  Yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand.  One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike.  Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.  He that regardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.  He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.  For none of us liveth to himself; and no man dieth to himself, for whether we live, we live unto the Lord, and whether we die, we die unto the Lord; whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s; for to this end Christ died and rose, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.  For why dost thou judge thy brother; or why dost thou set at nought thy brother; for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.  For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, (Jehovah in the Prophets,) every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.  So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.”  (Rom. 14:4–12.)

      The Christology of this passage, although not formulated, is unquestionably an elevated one, and assigns a highly superhuman character to the Lord Christ.  He is not only regarded as the supreme source of obligation to Christians, not only is universal Lordship attributed to Him, but the writer, in a manner which is almost unconscious, intermixes the acts done by Him, and the obligations due to Him, with those which are done by and due to God.  It is impossible to conceive anything mere purely incidental than the allusions of the writer to the Christology; nor can anything be more practical than the purpose for which he makes them.  I infer, therefore, that he must have been firmly persuaded that the idea of Jesus as a superhuman Christ was fully acquiesced in by both sections of the Church.  If so, not only does its acceptance by the Jewish section carry it up to the earliest times of Christianity, but we also learn that two members of it, Andronicus and Junia, were members of the Church before St. Paul’s conversion; consequently their acquiescence carries with it that of the primitive Church at Jerusalem.  This being so, it is incredible that persons who lived so near the times of Our Lord’s ministry should have acquiesced in a Christology of this description, unless they were acquainted with a number of actions in which Jesus was believed by them to have manifested a superhuman power.

      III.  Equally valuable is the testimony furnished by the other three great Epistles.  It may be objected that they are addressed to Churches which were founded by Paul, and therefore that they only represent his own opinions; but fortunately for the purpose of my argument, the Corinthian Church contained a formidable Judaising party, which was far more opposed to the views of the Apostle than the corresponding party in the Church at Rome; and in the Galatian Churches it was the predominant one.  We may, therefore, safely draw the conclusion that those portions of the Pauline Christology which the structure of the Epistles proves to have been accepted by his opponents, must have been a common Christology on which the Church was erected, and similar in its features to that which was held by the primitive followers of Jesus.

      Here again the introduction to the Epistle furnishes conclusive evidence that every one of the numerous parties in the Corinthian Church must have recognized Jesus as a superhuman Christ.  “Paul, called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ, through the will of God; and Sosthenes our brother, unto the Church of God which is at Corinth, to them who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours.  Grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor. 1:1–3.)  The contents of the Epistle show that the Apostle was fully aware of the existence of a formidable party in this Church who denied the reality of his apostolical commission.  It is, therefore, inconceivable that he should have opened it with the statement of a Christology of which he must have been certain that his opponents would take advantage, unless he felt sure that they agreed with him in its main outlines.  As Jewish Christians they must have been deeply imbued with rigid monotheistic views, yet he speaks of them as invoking the name of Jesus Christ; and backs it up by a prayer invoking grace and peace from Him in conjunction with the Father.  Yet the following verses prove that it was the Apostle’s purpose to conciliate his opponents.  This introduction, therefore, renders it certain that they must have accepted Jesus as a superhuman Christ; otherwise its reading would have been interrupted by cries of blasphemy.

      But the same chapter furnishes additional evidence.  At the 23rd verse he writes: “We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” (23, 24.)

      The Apostle here affirms that he had been in the habit of proclaiming Christ as “the power of God, and the wisdom of God.”  From this it follows that he must have reported actions which justified the ascription to Him of the character of a superhuman Christ.

      Other passages follow to the same purport: “But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 1:30, 31.)

      The passage here applied to Christ is in the Old Testament spoken of the Lord Jehovah.  Nothing could have been mere offensive to a Monotheistic Jew.

      Again: “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.  Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.  But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self.  For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judged me is the Lord.  Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.” (1 Cor. 4:1–5.)

      This would have been strange language to address to opponents whom the writer knew to reject the fundamental points of the Christology involved in it.

      In the eighth chapter, where the Apostle discusses the lawfulness of eating food which had been offered in sacrifice to an idol, he proposes the following principle as the solution of the entire controversy:–

      “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him (εις αυτον); and one Lord Jesus Christ, through (δια) whom are all things, and we through him.”

      This passage is conclusive.  It is addressed to men with Jewish scruples for the express purpose of providing a solution of them.  The writer must thenceforth have fully calculated on their acceptance of the Christology which it contains, otherwise his observations would have been nugatory.

      I need only cite a single passage from the second epistle.  I will therefore adduce one from the most controversial part of it, where the Apostle is distinctly grappling with those opponents who denied his apostolical authority: “For I fear lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity which is in Christ.  For if he that cometh preach another Jesus, which we have not preached, or if ye receive another Spirit, whom ye have not received, or another Gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.  For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.” (2 Cor. 11:3–5.)

      In this passage the Apostle directly affirms in the face of his opponents that the Gospel which he preached was in its fundamental facts the same as that which was accepted by themselves.  What then was the difference?  Clearly in the question whether Judaism was or was not an essential portion of Christianity.  By the words, “He that cometh,” the Apostle evidently designates his chief Jewish opponent.  Yet they both proclaimed the same Jesus.  This could only have been the case, by both according to Him the character of a superhuman Christ; for if they had differed on this point the affirmation that the same Jesus was accepted by both would have been untrue.  It follows, therefore, that their respective Christologies must have resembled one another in their great outlines, for it is inconceivable that the Apostle should have written a statement like this, in the immediate context of which he throws down repeated challenges to his opponents to grapple with his assertions.

      The Epistle to the Galatians, the most controversial of all his writings, and in which be denounces his opponents in the most vehement language, opens with the announcement of a Christology precisely similar to that which we have been considering.  It is incredible that he should have adopted this course in the very opening of his letter if he had believed that his opponents, who formed the most formidable party in this Church, could have denounced it as inconsistent with that which was held by the Church at Jerusalem, his chief object being to show that the Gospel which he preached was accepted as genuine by the great pillars of the Jewish Church.  Yet immediately after the introduction, in which he affirms that he derived his apostolical office from no human authority, and his usual prayer for grace and peace from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, dropping the conciliatory tone with which he introduces his other epistles, he writes: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another Gospel, which is not another; but there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the Gospel of Christ.  For although we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.  As I said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other Gospel unto you than that which ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1:6–9.)

      I draw attention to the very remarkable expression here used to designate the Gospel of his Judaising opponents.  It was “another Gospel, which was not another.”  How could this be possible?  We have seen in the passage just cited from the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, that the Apostle distinctly affirmed that his opponents did not preach “another Jesus,” “another Spirit,” or “another Gospel.”  Yet in this passage, where he is aroused to indignation at the widespread defection which had taken place in the Galatian Churches, he designates this Judaising Gospel as “another Gospel which is not another.”  The only possible explanation of this expression is that both Gospels were the same in fundamental facts, but that they differed in the inferences deduced from them; in other words, that they agreed in assigning a superhuman character to Jesus; but that the Judaising Gospel differed from the Pauline in seeking to impose the observance of the Jewish rites as a condition of membership in the Church.

      This conclusion is borne out by the following passage in the Epistle to the Philippians: “Some indeed preach Christ of envy and strife, and some also of good will.  The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds; but the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the Gospel.  What then? notwithstanding every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.” (Phil. 1:15–18.)

      Here again we are plainly in the presence of some form of this Jewish Gospel.  The Apostle is evidently in a calmer state of mind than when he wrote to the Galatian Churches.  So earnest is his desire that the Gospel of Jesus Christ should be proclaimed, that he rejoices at its being preached, even by Judaising opponents.  It is impossible therefore that it can have been “another Gospel” in the sense in which he denounced such a Gospel, whether preached by himself, or “an angel from heaven.”

      From these considerations I draw the following conclusions.

      1. Even if we admit that the later Epistles of St. Paul present us with a more advanced Christology than his four great Epistles, still he held even at this time one of a very advanced type; and must consequently have been acquainted with such details of the ministry of Jesus as would justify it; in other words, he was in possession of an account similar in general character to that recorded in our Gospels.

      As St. Paul’s opponents accepted a Christology analogous to his own, they must also have been in possession of an account of Christ’s ministry which was substantially the same as that which was handed down by His primitive followers, and consequently must have ascribed to Him the character of a superhuman Christ; or, in other words, must have attributed to Him the performance of miraculous actions.

      There is yet one more document in the New Testament to which I must refer, viz. the Apocalypse.  Its affirmations on this point are decisive.  Unbelievers not only allow that it is the work of the Apostle John, but they affirm that he was one of the pillars of the Judaising party in the Church; and the uncompromising opponent of St. Paul.  This being so it must be decisive as to the opinions of the Judaising party.

      Nothing can be clearer in this book than the ascription to Jesus of the character of a highly superhuman Christ.  In this respect, it is fully equal to the Christology of the latest of the Pauline Epistles, and to that of the Epistle to the Hebrews; and none but critics who possess microscopic eyes, can discern any real distinction between it and the Christology of the Fourth Gospel.

      It is impossible by brief quotations to give an idea of the elevated Messianic character which this book attributes to Jesus.  It will be sufficient for my purpose to observe that its author proclaims Him to be the Prince of the kings of the earth: He is the first and the last – the Living One, who was dead and is alive for evermore.  He is the faithful and true witness, the beginning, i.e. the principle, or cause, (αρχη) of the creation of God.  He is worshipped in heaven in conjunction with the Father, and is His solo revealer.  He is King of kings, and Lord of lords.  But it is needless to make further references.  Yet such a superhuman character is attributed to Jesus in this book by an Apostle who was preeminently a Judaiser.

      But it will be objected that this is an apocalypse, and the work of a dreamer.  Truly, if it has been written by a dreamer, he must have been one who soared to the heights of the poetic spirit.  Even in madness there is a method; and it seems impossible that any amount of mental hallucination could have induced a man who had associated with Jesus during his earthly ministry to attribute to Him the superhuman character assigned to Him in this book, unless he was firmly convinced that a number of superhuman actions had been performed by Him; and that he himself had witnessed them.

      If our opponents are correct in the date which they have assigned to the composition of the Apocalypse, it is separated from that of Our Lord’s ministry by an interval of only thirty-eight, or thirty-nine years.  Its author would be somewhere between sixty and seventy years of age.  He had followed Jesus throughout His earthly ministry; and had been intimately acquainted with Him.  After an interval of thirty-eight years he writes this book, in which he arrays Him in the highest attributes of a superhuman Christ.  Is it credible that he can have done this, unless he was firmly persuaded, that during Our Lord’s abode on earth, he had witnessed actions which were the counterpart of the superhuman character which he has ascribed to Him?  It follows therefore that the Jewish Church, including its most extreme parties, must have accepted Jesus as a superhuman Christ; and consequently, that they possessed accounts of His ministry, of which narratives of miracles wrought by Him must have formed a portion.

      What then is the general conclusion deducible from this evidence?  The narrative of the Gospels, and the Christology of the Epistles mutually corroborate each other.  The miraculous actions attributed to Jesus in the Gospels presuppose the superhuman Christ of the Epistles; the superhuman Christ of the Epistles presupposes the miraculous narratives of the Gospels.  The one is the natural counterpart of the other.  Neither is intelligible except on the supposition of the other.

      But further: a superhuman Christ, analogous to the Christ of the Epistles, was accepted not only by the Pauline Churches, but by all the sections of the Church, including the Church at Jerusalem, and the primitive believers.  It follows therefore that the Christ of the Gospels, whose recorded actions form the counterpart of the Christ of the Epistles, cannot have been a legendary invention of times subsequent to Our Lord’s ministry; but that the Church must have possessed a narrative of His actions similar in its chief outlines to that which we possess.

      II.  I proceed now to consider the evidence furnished by these Epistles as to the fullness of the narratives which were handed down in the Church respecting the ministry of its Founder.

      1. We have already seen that the Epistle to the Romans contains such a reference to the supernatural birth, the Davidic origin, and the circumcision of Jesus, as to prove that they were accepted as well-known facts.  It is evident therefore that the account which was handed down in the Church must have been one sufficiently copious to have made these facts intelligible, and consequently it could hardly have been less full than that which we read in St. Matthew’s Gospel.  The whole subject must have been one of the greatest interest to the primitive believers, and consequently they would be certain to inform themselves as to the facts.

      2. We further learn from the same epistle that Baptism was the acknowledged rite of initiation into the Christian Church.  It follows, therefore, that it must have been in possession of au account of the institution of sufficient fullness to have been explanatory of its aim and purport.

      3. Of all the direct references to events in Our Lord’s ministry, St. Paul’s account of the institution of the Eucharist will enable us to form the most accurate judgment as to the fullness of this primitive Gospel.  It is as follows:–

      “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you.  This do in remembrance of me.  After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood.  This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.” (1 Cor. 11:23–25.)

      This account in point of fullness is on the same scale as that of the Synoptics.  It presupposes also that the Apostle was in possession of an account of the Last Supper and of the Passion, which he was in the habit of delivering to the Church.  This probability is converted into a certainty by his assertion in the fifteenth chapter, that among the matters of prime importance which he had received of the Lord, and formally committed to the custody of the Church, was an account of His death and resurrection.  We have every reason for believing, that these would be equally minute with his account of the institution of the Sacrament; which would in fact have lost nearly all its meaning, unless he had handed over with it an account of the Supper, of which it formed a portion, and of the death which it was intended to commemorate.  Both accounts are described by the Apostle as having been formally committed by him to the custody of the Church as the foundation of its faith.

      But the observation made in the 15th chapter that the account of Our Lord’s death and resurrection was one of the matters of prime importance which he had committed to the Church, implies that there were other matters of similar importance which he was in the habit of committing to it as the foundation of its Christianity.  His argument only rendered it necessary to refer to one of them, Our Lord’s death and resurrection; but the whole passage makes it clear that this was not the only one, and that his object in referring to it in this brief manner, was to recall a much fuller account to their recollection.  Whatever these other matters of prime importance may have been, there is no reason to believe that they were on a less extensive scale than the account of the institution of the Eucharist.

      4. These epistles also clearly establish that the Church was in possession of certain well-known details of Our Lord’s teaching, which could be referred to as authoritative.  Thus the Apostle writes:–

      “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord; Let not the wife depart from her husband; but, and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband, and let not the husband put away his wife.” (1 Cor. 7:10–12.)

      This is evidently an allusion to a well-known account of Our Lord’s teaching, of which we possess the analogue in a somewhat more condensed form in the Synoptic Gospels.

      Again: “Do ye not know that they that minister about holy things live of the things of the temple, and they that wait on the altar are partakers with the altar.  Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel should live of the Gospel.” (1 Cor. 9:13, 14.)

      The reference here made to Our Lord’s instructions to the Apostles and to the seventy, when He sent them on their mission, is too plain to be misunderstood.  It follows, therefore, that the Church must have been in possession of an account of those instructions analogous to that which we read in our Gospels.

      No less clear is it that the general moral teaching of these epistles, as for instance that which is contained in Rom. 12, is formed on the model of that which the Gospels have attributed to Jesus.  The incidental mode in which it is brought out proves also that its general principles were well known and thoroughly recognized.  This is equally true of every other writing in the New Testament.  It follows, therefore, that these Churches must have been in possession of an outline of Our Lord’s teaching bearing a close analogy to that which we read in the Synoptics.

      It is needless to insist further on this point, because many eminent unbelievers allow that the discourses in the Synoptics are the veritable utterances of Jesus.  This being so, the inferences follow:

      First, that along with the discourses the Church must have possessed an account of His actions sufficiently full to have rendered the discourses intelligible.

      Secondly: that Jesus must have professed to be a worker of miracles, because several of these discourses affirm the fact that He did so.

      5. I have already shown that the reiterated assertions of the Apostle, that the great subject of his teaching had been Jesus the Christ, and that the essence of Christianity consisted in the knowledge of Christ, prove that the Church must have been in possession of considerable details respecting Our Lord’s character and actions.  A few quotations will suffice to show that these details must have been extensive.

      Thus we read:–

      “For if our Gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.  For we preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ the Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.  For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” (2 Cor. 4:3–6.)

      This passage proves the following facts:–

      First : That the Apostle’s preaching had been a proclamation of Jesus Christ the Lord; or, in other words, it must have contained details of his personal history.

      Secondly: That this Jesus whom he preached was the image of God; and that the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, which shone forth in His face, or person, had diffused its radiance into the hearts of those to whom it had been proclaimed.  Hence, it follows, that if the character of Jesus was such a manifestation of the divine perfections as to constitute the image of God, through which the knowledge of the divine glory had shone into the hearts of the Corinthians, they must have possessed an account of His life and actions in considerable detail; in other words, one which must have delineated Him as morally perfect, as He is depicted in the Gospels.

      The same result follows from another passage: – “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” (2 Cor.3:18.)

      Again: “Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.  That I may know him, and the power of his Resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death. (Phil. 3:8, 10.)

      It is simply incredible that the Apostle could have written passages of this description, unless he had made every effort to inform himself of the minute details of his Master’s life.

      Statements of this kind are not exclusively Pauline.  “If these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of Our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Pet. 1:8.)  “But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.” (2 Pet. 3:18.)

      A few more passages will suffice to show the extent to which the Pauline Gospel must have consisted in the proclamation of a personal Christ, and the degree in which His historic life must have been the subject of constant meditation in the Apostolic Churches.  “We preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness; but to them who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” (1 Cor. 1:23, 24.)  “I determined to know nothing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” (1 Cor. 2:2.) For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timnotheus.” (2 Cor. 1:19.)  “But ye have not so learned Christ, if so be, ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus.” (Eph. 4:20, 21.)

      Incidental allusions of this kind prove that the acquaintance with the life of Jesus which was possessed by the apostolic Churches, must have been one of considerable minuteness, and that it must have been kept in constant recollection.

      6. Equally definite is the evidence afforded by those numerous incidental references which exhort Christians to follow Christ as the great example of holy practice.  Of this I cite the following instance:–

      The Apostle concludes his discussion of the lawfulness of eating certain kinds of food, in the following words: “Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.  Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God.  Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit, but the profit of many that they might be saved.  Be ye imitators (μιμηταί) of me as I also am of Christ.” (1 Cor. 10:31–33; and 11:1.)

      This passage proves:–

      First, that the actions and character of Paul were so well known in the Corinthian Church, that he could appeal to them as unquestionable proofs of his disinterestedness.

      2. That it was possible to institute a comparison between the actions of Paul and those of Our Lord.

      3. That it was the duty of Christians before they took St. Paul as the model for their imitation, to institute such a comparison, and only to imitate him as far as his conduct was in conformity with that of Christ.

      Next.  The Church must also have been in possession of a narrative of Our Lord’s actions, which delineated Him in various special aspects of His character.  Thus the Apostle writes:

      “We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves.  Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification; for even Christ pleased not himself; but as it is written, the reproaches of them that reproached thee fell on me.” (Rom. 15:1–3.)

      Such an exhortation would have been meaningless, unless the Church had been in possession of a well-known delineation of the actions of Jesus, which exhibited Him as the model of self-sacrificing disinterestedness.

      Again: “Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like minded one toward another, according to Christ Jesus, that ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Rom. 15:5–6.)

      From this it follows that a delineation of Him must have been well known by the members of this Church, on which it was possible to found an exhortation to unity.  Portions of the contents of St. John’s Gospel correspond to this idea.

      The Apostle further writes to the same Church: “And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep, for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.  The night is far spent: the day is at hand.  Let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.  Let us walk honestly, as in the day, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.  But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfill the lusts thereof.” (Rom. 13:11–14.)

      Similar exhortations are found in the Epistle to the Galatians:

      “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” (Gal. 3:27.)

      “My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you.” (Gal. 4:19.)

      The exhortation to “put on Christ,” can only mean, “incorporate His character into your own”; and in order to do this it is obviously necessary that we should possess an account of the actions of Him whom we are directed to imitate en an extensive scale.

      Further: the Apostle tells the Romans that the thing to be put off was the whole range of Pagan vice, as summed up in the expression, “the works of darkness”; and the new character which was to be assumed by Christians, as the opposite to this, consisted in “putting on the Lord Jesus Christ.”  From this it follows that the character of Christ which was to be made the subject of imitation, must have been a many sided one, as it is depicted in the Gospels.

      As these three last precepts are addressed to a Church which St. Paul had neither visited nor taught, it is evident that not merely the churches of Pauline origin, but the whole Church, must have been in possession of such a delineation as the foundation of its common Christianity.

      Several passages in the Epistles to the Corinthians illustrate the same subject.  Thus the Apostle writes: “Though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel.  Wherefore I beseech you be ye imitators of me.” (1 Cor. 4:15, 16.)

      The expression, “ten thousand instructors in Christ” is of course a pleonasm; but the whole passage clearly proves that the entire body of Christian teachers held up the actions of Christ as examples for imitation.

      The Apostle continues:

      “ For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach everywhere in every Church.” (1 Cor. 4:17.)

      Here the Apostle affirms that he had certain “ways in Christ,” and that one of the purposes for which he had sent Timothy was to remind the Corinthians of them.  These “ways in Christ” he likewise affirms that he taught everywhere in every Church.  What were these ways?  Clearly the instruction in Christ above referred to, which the Apostle exhibited in his own conduct, and which he exhorted those to whom he wrote, to make the subject of imitation.  “His ways in Christ,” of which Timothy was to remind them, could not have been details of his own actions, for he calls the Corinthians to witness that he had not preached himself, but Jesus Christ the Lord.  It follows, therefore, that they must have consisted of details of the actions and teaching of his Master.

      A delineation of Our Lord must have been well known to the members of this Church, which enabled the Apostle to plead His example as a motive for a liberal contribution for the relief of the poorer members of the Jewish Church.  Then he writes:

      “Therefore as ye abound in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also.  For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.” (2 Cor. 8:7, 9.)

      Similarly also, they must have been in possession of an account of his actions, which depicted him as an example of meekness and gentleness.

      “Now I Paul,” says the Apostle, “beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you, but being absent am bold towards you; and I beseech you that I may not be bold, when I am present with that confidence, wherewith I think to be bold against some, who think of us as if we walked according to the flesh.”  (2 Cor. 10:1, 2.)

      It follows therefore that this Church must have been in possession of a delineation of Jesus Christ, which exhibited Him as a perfect embodiment of gentleness and meekness; and as the reference occurs in the most controversial portion of the Epistle, that it must have been acquiesced in by his opponents.  The delineation therefore must have been precisely similar in character to that in our Gospels.

      A similar exhortation is contained in St. Paul’s earlier Epistles.  Thus he writes:

      “Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God, and our Father. ... For our Gospel came not in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance, as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake; and ye became followers (imitators, μιμταί) of us and of the Lord. ... And how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; and to wait for his Son from heaven, even Jesus, who delivereth us from the wrath to come.” (1 Thess. 1:3–10.)

      This passage is of considerable importance, for it proves that the body of this Church consisted of converted heathen.  The expression, “How ye turned to God from idols,” proves that most of its members, previously to his preaching, had been ignorant alike of Jesus, and of the idea of the Christ.  This must have rendered it necessary for him to give a large number of explanations as to the meaning of the Christ, and of details of the life of Jesus, sufficient to prove that he was the Christ.  The Epistle makes it clear that they were now well informed on both subjects.  They were perfectly familiar with the idea of the Christ, and they knew sufficient about Jesus to make him the subject of love, trust, and patient hope: They were also acquainted with sufficient details of his life to make him the subject of imitation.  “Ye became imitators of us, and of the Lord”; and the whole announcement had produced so powerful a moral influence on them, that they “had turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God,” and were filled with the strongest missionary zeal to spread the knowledge of it through the neighbouring cities.  In fact, a personal Jesus stands out prominently in both these Epistles.  It follows therefore, as the persons addressed had been heathens, that the Gospel preached among them by the Apostle must have been rich in details respecting the person, ministry, and teaching of Our Lord; in other words, that it consisted of what I have above referred to, viz. “his ways in Christ Jesus which he taught every where in every Church.”

      Two passages from his later Epistles bear witness to the same facts.  Thus he writes to the Ephesians:

      “This I say, therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.  But ye have not so learned Christ, if so be ye have heard him, and have been taught by him as the truth is in Jesus.” (Eph. 4:17–21.)

      Similarly also he writes to the Colossians:

      “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him, rooted and built up in him and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.” (Col. 2:6, 7.)

      Both these passages occur in the Epistles which contain the Apostle’s most advanced Christology; and as this was accepted by these Churches it follows that he must have communicated to its members a number of facts which justified that Christology, for as a large proportion of them consisted of heathen converts, the whole subject must otherwise have been beyond their comprehension.  The Ephesians are here described as having “learned Christ,” as having “heard him,” i.e. his teaching, (for they had not heard him personally) and as having been taught by him, “as the truth is in Jesus.”  This had led them to renounce their old pagan character, and to put on the new man created after God in righteousness and true holiness.  So the Colossians are directed to walk in him as they had been taught.  It follows therefore that they must have possessed a delineation of Jesus Christ which they had been in the habit of studying, corresponding to this description; or, in other words, one which resembled in its great outlines that contained in our Gospels, and formed part of the ordinary teaching of the Church.

      Such is the evidence furnished by the Pauline epistles that the various Christian Churches were in possession of an account of the actions and teaching of Our Lord, analogous in its main features to that which is contained in our Gospels, and was accepted by its various sects and parties as the basis of their common Christianity.

      I adduce a single passage from the Epistle to the Hebrews, which, although we cannot claim it as Paul’s, is unquestionably a writing of primitive antiquity; and if not by him, must represent the views of a different section of the Church.  After stating the advanced Christology of the first chapter, the author writes:–

      “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip.  For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we reject so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him, God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost according to his own will.” – Heb. 2:1–4.

      This passage renders it incontestable, that the writer was in possession of an account of what he considered to be the great salvation spoken by the Lord, which had been confirmed to those to whom he wrote by the testimony of eyewitnesses; and that this had received a miraculous attestation.

      The only remaining point for our consideration is the evidence which these epistles furnish of the truth of the Resurrection.  All the great facts to which they testify have been definitely brought out in the foregoing Lecture; and to quote and comment on all the various passages which refer to it would make this Supplement needlessly prolix.  So evident are the facts on the surface of the Epistles that the student cannot fail to recognize them for himself; and so numerous are they, that it is impossible to find any two pages in which the truth of the Resurrection is not either distinctly asserted, or assumed as the foundation on which the Christian Church was erected.  The Christ, who was essential to the Church, was not a dead Christ, but a living one; one who could be the object of devoted love; one who could kindle the affections; one who could claim the allegiance of the heart on account of what he had done for man; who could recognize devoted service, and reciprocate love.  He must be not merely one who could excite the fond reminiscence of departed worth, but who was capable of recognizing the acts of self-sacrifice which he evoked in the hearts of those who loved him.  Every mention of the Christ of these epistles either affirms or implies that it was the belief of the whole Church, and of every section in it, that Jesus had risen from the dead; and every reference to him makes it clear that, apart from this belief, the Church would have perished in its Founder’s grave.  The belief in the fact of the Resurrection was entwined around every association of the Christian heart.  It was not only accepted as a fact, but felt to be a great moral power, which imparted to the Church its religious life.  One citation will be sufficient, and it shall be from the epistle to the distant Church at Rome, which St. Paul had neither visited, nor taught.  He writes:

      “Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death?  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.  For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.  Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin, for he that is dead is freed from sin.  Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more, death hath no more dominion over him.  For in that he died, he died unto sin once, but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.  Likewise reckon ye yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” – (Rom. 6:3–11.)

      Thus the Pauline epistles render it indubitable, that the resurrection of Jesus was accepted as a fact by every section of the Christian Church; and that the Church was reconstructed on the basis of its truth within a few days after the Crucifixion, in the very place where he had been publicly executed.  Whether this belief could have originated in any form of mental hallucination must be determined on other grounds than those of simple attestation.

Chapters 3 & 4    Chapters 7 & 8    Home