The Supernatural in the New Testament
Possible, Credible, and Historical
Or: An Examination of the Validity of Some Recent Objections Against
Christianity as a Divine Revelation
By the
Rev. Charles A. Row, M.A.
Prebendary of St. Paul’s
Author of “The Jesus of the Evangelists,” “The Nature and Extent of Divine
Inspiration,” “The Moral Teaching of the New Testament,” Etc.
London
Frederic Norgate
1875
CONTENTS
Dedication.
Chapter I. Introduction. The Position of the Controversy Between the
Opponents and the Defenders of Christianity.
Chapter II. Definitions of Terms.
Chapter III. The Supernatural Elements Contained in the New Testament: In
What Do They Consist? And What View Do Its Writers Take Respecting Them?
Chapter IV. Miracles, What Do They Prove?
Chapter V. The Antecedent Improbability of Miracles.—The Unknown and
Unknowable God.
Chapter VI. The Objection That Miracles Are Contrary To Reason Considered.
Chapter VII. The Allegation That No Testimony Can Prove The Truth Of A
Supernatural Event.
Chapter VIII. The Objection That The Defenders Of Christianity Assume
Certain Facts The Truth Of Which Can Only Be Known By Revelation, And Then
Reason From Those Facts To The Truth Of The Bible, Considered.
Chapter IX. Demoniacal Miracles—General Considerations.
Chapter X. The Existence And Miracles Of Satan.
Chapter XI. Possession: Is The Theory That It Was Madness Subversive Of
The Historical Value Of The Gospels Or Inconsistent With The Veracity Of
Christ?
Chapter XII. Possession, If An Objective Reality, Neither Incredible Nor
Contrary To The Ascertained Truths Of Mental Science.
Chapter XIII. The Alleged Credulity Of The Followers Of Jesus.
Chapter XIV. The Love Of The Marvellous—Its Bearing On The Value Of
Testimony To Miracles.
Chapter XV. Our Summary Rejection Of Current Supernaturalism Considered In
Its Bearing On The Evidence For Miracles.
Chapter XVI. General Objections To Miracles As Credentials Of A
Revelation.
Chapter XVII. The Historical Evidence On Which The Great Facts Of
Christianity Rest—General Considerations.
Chapter XVIII. The Testimony Of The Church, And Of St. Paul’s Epistles, To
The Facts Of Primitive Christianity. Their Historical Value Considered.
Chapter XIX. The Evidence Furnished By The Epistles To The Facts Of Our
Lord’s Life, And To The Truth Of The Resurrection.
Chapter XX. The Resurrection Of Jesus Christ An Historical Fact.
Chapter XXI. The Historical Value Of The Gospels As Deduced From Previous
Considerations.
Chapter XXII. The Historical Character Of The Gospels As Deduced From
Their Internal Structure.
Footnotes
[Cover Art]
[Transcriber’s Note: The above cover image was produced by the submitter
at Distributed Proofreaders, and is being placed into the public domain.]
DEDICATION.
To The Committee Of The Christian Evidence Society.
My Lords and Gentlemen,
Having undertaken to compose this work at your request, I beg permission
to dedicate it to you. In doing so I feel that it is a duty which I owe
both to you and to myself that I should state the position which we
respectively occupy with regard to it. Your responsibility is confined to
having requested me to compose a work in refutation of certain principles
now widely disseminated, which impugn the supernatural elements contained
in the New Testament. For the contents of the work and for the mode of
treatment I alone am responsible. When I considered the position of the
present controversy, I felt that it was impossible to treat the subject
satisfactorily except on the principle that the responsibility for the
mode of conducting the argument and of answering the objections should
rest with the writer alone. In dealing with a subject so complicated,
involving as it does questions of philosophy and science as well as the
principles of historical criticism, I can scarcely venture to hope that
every position which I have taken will prove acceptable to all the various
shades of theological thought. I have endeavoured to take such as seemed
to me to be logically defensible without any reference to particular
schools of theological opinion. As the entire question is essentially
historical, I have done my utmost to exclude from it all discussions that
are strictly theological. Modern unbelief however puts in two objections
which if valid render all historical evidence in proof of the occurrence
of miracles nugatory, namely that they are both impossible and incredible.
In meeting these I have been compelled to appeal to what appear to me to
be the principles of a sound philosophy. In all other respects I have
viewed the question before me as exclusively one of historical evidence.
If the Resurrection of our Lord is an actual occurrence, it follows that
Christianity must be a divine revelation. If it is not, no amount of other
evidence will avail to prove it to be so. As it has been strongly affirmed
that for this great fact, which constitutes the central position of
Christianity, the historical evidence is worthless, I have devoted the
latter portion of this volume to the consideration of this question, with
a view of putting before the reader the value of the New Testament when
contemplated as simple history. Using the Epistles as the foundation of my
argument, I have endeavoured to prove that the greatest of all the
miracles recorded in the Gospels rests on an attestation that is
unsurpassed by any event recorded in history. For this purpose I have used
the Epistles as simple historical documents, and I have claimed for them
precisely the same value which is conceded to other writings of a similar
description. The feeling among Christians that these writings contain the
great principles of the Christian faith has occasioned it to be overlooked
that they are also contemporary historical documents of the highest order.
As such I have used them in proof of the great facts of Christianity,
above all in proof of the greatest of them, the Resurrection of our Lord.
With these observations I now present you the following work, with the
hope that it may prove the means of removing many of the difficulties with
which recent controversial writers have endeavoured to obscure the
subject. Trusting that it maybe accepted by the great Head of the Church,
the reality of whose life and teaching as they are recorded in the Gospels
it is designed to establish,
I remain, my Lords and Gentlemen,
Your’s faithfully,
C. A. Row.
London, January, 1875.
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. THE POSITION OF THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE
OPPONENTS AND THE DEFENDERS OF CHRISTIANITY.
Although every portion of the Bible is vehemently assailed by the various
forms of modern Scepticism, it is clear that the real turning point of the
controversy between those who affirm that God has made a supernatural
revelation of himself to mankind, and those who deny it, centres in those
portions of the New Testament which affirm the presence of the
supernatural. The question may be still further narrowed into the inquiry
whether the person and actions of Jesus Christ, as they are depicted in
the Gospels, are historical facts, or fictitious inventions. If the
opponents of Revelation can prove that they are the latter, the entire
controversy will end in their favour. It would in that case be utterly
useless to attempt to defend any other portion of the Bible; and the
controversy respecting the Old Testament becomes a mere waste of labour.
If, on the other hand, Christians can prove that the narratives of the
four Gospels, or even of any one of them, are a true representation of
historical facts, then it is certain that God has made a revelation of
himself, notwithstanding the objections which may be urged against certain
positions which have been taken by Ecclesiastical Christianity, and the
difficulties by which certain questions connected with the Old Testament
are surrounded.
It follows, therefore, that the historical truth of the facts narrated in
the Gospels constitutes the central position of the entire controversy. It
is not my purpose on the present occasion to discuss the general question,
whether the delineation of Jesus Christ which the Gospels contain is one
of an ideal or an historical person. That question I have already
considered in “The Jesus of the Evangelists.” But as the various forms of
modern unbelief are making the most strenuous efforts to prove that the
supernatural elements of the New Testament are hopelessly incredible, and
that the attestation on which the supernatural occurrences mentioned in it
rests, is simply worthless, it is my intention to devote the present
volume to the consideration of this special subject, and to examine the
question of miracles, and their historical credibility.
Modern scepticism makes with respect to supernatural occurrences (under
which more general term I include the miracles of the New Testament), the
three following assertions, and endeavours to substantiate them by every
available argument:
1st. That all supernatural occurrences are impossible.
2nd. That, if not impossible, they are incredible; that is, that they are
contrary to reason.
3rd. That those which are narrated in the New Testament are devoid of any
adequate historical attestation, and owe their origin to the inventive
powers of the mythic and legendary spirit.
It is my purpose, in the course of the present work, to traverse each of
these three positions, and to show:
1st. That miracles and supernatural occurrences are not impossible; and
that the arguments by which this has been attempted to be established are
wholly inconclusive.
2nd. That they are neither incredible, nor contrary to reason; but are
entirely consistent with its dictates.
3rd, That the greatest of all the miracles which are recorded in the New
Testament, and which, if an actual historical occurrence, is sufficient to
carry with it all the others, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, rests on
the highest form of historical testimony.
Such is my position.
A recent writer, who has ably advocated the principles of modern
scepticism, the author of “Supernatural Religion,” has in the opening
passage of his work clearly placed before us the real point at issue. He
states the case as follows:
“On the very threshold of inquiry into the origin and true character of
Christianity we are brought face to face with the supernatural. It is
impossible, without totally setting aside its peculiar and indispensable
claim to be a direct external revelation from God of truths which
otherwise human reason could not have discovered, to treat Ecclesiastical
Christianity as a form of religion developed by the wisdom of man. Not
only in form does it profess to be the result of divine communication, but
in its very essence, in its principal dogmas it is either superhuman or
untenable. There is no question here of mere accessories, which are
comparatively unimportant, and do not necessarily affect the essential
matter, but we have to do with a scheme of religion claiming to be
miraculous in all points, in form, in essence, and in evidence. This
religion cannot be accepted without an emphatic belief in supernatural
interposition, and it is absurd to imagine that its dogmas can be held,
whilst the miraculous is rejected. Those who profess to hold the religion,
whilst they discredit the supernatural element, and they are many at the
present day, have widely receded from Ecclesiastical Christianity. It is
most important that the inseparable connection of the miraculous with the
origin, doctrines, and the evidence of Christianity should be clearly
understood, in order that inquiry may pursue a logical and consistent
course.”—_Supernatural Religion, page 1._(1)
I fully accept all the chief positions laid down in this passage as an
adequate statement of the points at issue between those who affirm and
those who deny that Christianity is a divine revelation. A few minor
points require a slight modification, as incurring the danger of confusing
ideas that ought to be carefully distinguished.
The writer before me also raises no minor issue. Although the work is
entitled “Supernatural Religion, or an inquiry into the reality of divine
revelation,” its object, which is consistently carried out throughout it,
is to impugn the historical character of the Gospels, and to prove that
the supernatural occurrences which are recorded in them are fictitious.
The title of the work might have justified the writer in assailing other
portions of the Bible; but he clearly sees that to adopt this course is
only to attack the outworks of Christianity, and to leave the key of the
entire position unassailed. In doing so he has pursued a far nobler course
than that which has been adopted by many of the opponents of the Christian
faith. He has directed his attack against the very centre of the Christian
position, the historical credibility of the supernatural actions
attributed to Jesus Christ in the Gospels, being well aware that a
successful assault on this position will involve the capture of all the
outworks by which it is supposed to be protected; while it by no means
follows that a successful assault on any of the latter involves the
capture of the citadel itself. This writer does not take up a bye
question, but he goes direct to the foundation on which Christianity
rests. In doing so, it must be acknowledged that he has taken a
straightforward course, and one which must bring the question of the truth
or falsehood of Christianity to a direct issue.
I fully agree with the chief position taken in the quotation before us,
that Christianity involves the presence of the supernatural and the
superhuman, what in fact is generally designated as the miraculous, or it
is nothing. To remove these elements out of the pages of the New
Testament, is not to retain the same religion, but to manufacture another
quite different and distinct from it. In the first place, we have the
great central figure in the Gospels, the divine person of Jesus Christ our
Lord, and the entire body of his actions and his teaching. He, although
depicted as human, is at the same time depicted as superhuman and
supernatural, not merely in his miraculous works, but in his entire
character. To remove the divine lineaments of Jesus Christ out of the
Gospels is simply to destroy them. Besides this, we have a large number of
miraculous actions attributed to him. These are inextricably interwoven
with the entire narrative, which, when they are taken away, loses all
cohesion. Lives of Jesus which have been set forth, deprived of their
supernatural and superhuman elements, are in fact nothing better than a
new Gospel composed out of the subjective consciousness of the writers.
Various attempts have been made to pare down the supernatural and
superhuman elements in the Gospels to the smallest possible dimensions.
Still they obstinately persist in remaining. If everything else is struck
out of the Gospels, except their moral teaching, we are left in the
presence of teaching which is raised at an immense elevation above the
thoughts and conceptions of the age that produced it; and of a teacher,
who while distinguished by the marks of pre‐eminent holiness and greatness
of mind, is also distinguished by a degree of self‐assertion in his
utterances of moral truth, which is without parallel, even among the most
presumptuous of men. Deal with the Gospels as we will, while we allow any
portions of them to remain as historical, we are still in the presence of
the superhuman.
As the narrative now stands it is at least harmonious. The lofty
pretensions of the teacher bear the most intimate correlation to the
supernatural and superhuman facts that are reported of him. The one are
the complement of the other. If the facts are true, the lofty self‐
assertion of the teacher is justified; if they are not true, his
pretensions conflict with the entire conception of his holiness and
elevation of mind. The use which a wide spread school of modern criticism
so freely makes of the critical dissecting knife, for the purpose of
amputating the supernatural from the Gospels, can only be attended by the
fatal termination of destroying the entire Gospels as of the smallest
historical value. It is marvellous that persons who retain any respect for
Christianity as a system of religious and moral teaching, should have
attempted to throw discredit on this element in the Gospels with a view of
saving the remainder.
Nor is the case different with the other portions of the New Testament.
Christianity, as enunciated by its writers, does not profess merely to
teach a new and improved system of morality. If this was its only
pretension, it would certainly have but little claim to be viewed as a
divine revelation. In morals its teaching is both unsystematic and
fragmentary; though it is an unquestionable fact, that a great system of
moral teaching may be deduced from the principles it unfolds. But if one
thing is plainer than another on the face of the New Testament, it is that
the great purpose sought to be effected by Christianity is to impart a new
moral and spiritual power to mankind. It professes to be, not a body of
moral rules, but a mighty moral force, which is concentrated in the person
of its Founder. The acceptance of it had generated a new power or energy,
a moral and spiritual life, which raised those who had embraced it above
their former selves; and which it professes to be able to impart to all
time. This supernatural element, concentrated as I have said that it is in
the person of its founder, runs through the entire epistles, and
constitutes their most distinguishing feature. If the supernatural
elements in the person of Jesus Christ be removed from their teaching
nothing remains but a number of moral precepts robbed of all their
vitality. In one word, the whole system of teaching simply collapses.
In a similar manner, if we eliminate every thing supernatural out of the
New Testament, with a view of arriving at a residuum of truth, we are
brought into immediate contact with the most unique fact in the history of
man, the creation of the Church of Jesus Christ, the greatest institution
which has ever affected the destinies of our race, and which has for
eighteen centuries exerted a most commanding influence on human happiness
and civilization. This is professedly based on a miraculous fact, the
Resurrection of Jesus Christ. If, therefore, we remove the supernatural
elements out of Christianity, this institution, mighty for good in its
influence on the progress of our race, has been based on an unreality and
a delusion. Here again we encounter something which has very much the
appearance of the supernatural.
On these accounts, therefore, I cordially accept the position which is
laid down by the author of “Supernatural Religion” as a correct statement
of the case, that Christianity involves the presence of the Supernatural,
or it is nothing. We must either defend the chief supernatural elements of
the New Testament or abandon it as worthless.
But there is an expression which occurs in this quotation, and which is
frequently made use of in subsequent parts of the work, which requires
consideration, “Ecclesiastical Christianity.” What is intended by it? The
meaning is nowhere defined, and unless we come to a clear understanding
with respect to it, we shall be in danger of complicating the entire
question. The expression is ambiguous. If by it is meant any other form of
thought, than that which is contained in the pages of the New Testament;
if, in fact, by it is intended a systematic arrangement of doctrinal
truth, which has been elaborated at a subsequent period, I emphatically
assert that those who are called upon to defend the divine character of
the Christian Revelation have nothing to do with it. The only thing which
those who maintain that the New Testament contains a divine revelation can
be called on to defend, is the express statements of the book itself, and
not a system of thought which subsequent writers may have attempted to
deduce from it.
This point is so important, that I must make the position which I intend
taking with respect to it clear. It involves the distinction between
revelation and theology. The religious and moral teaching which is
contained in the New Testament is in a very unsystematic form. Not one of
its writings is a formal treatise on theology, nor does one of them
contain a systematised statement of what constitutes Christianity. Its
teaching of religious truth is incidental, and is called forth by the
special circumstances of the writer. The plain fact is that four of the
writings which comprise the New Testament are religions memoirs. One is an
historical account of the foundation of the Church. Twenty‐one are
letters, written to different Churches and individuals, and all called
forth by special emergencies. These all partake of the historical
character. The only one which does not participate in this character is
the Apocalypse, which, being a vision, is utterly unlike a formal or
systematic treatise on Christianity. The result of the form in which the
New Testament is composed is that its definite teaching is always
incidental, called forth to meet special circumstances and occasions in
the history of Churches and individuals, and never formal. It is also
universally couched in popular, as distinct from scientific or technical
language. Not one of its writers makes an attempt to formulate a system of
Christian theology.
The person of Jesus Christ constitutes Christianity in its truest and
highest sense. Three of the Gospels embody the traditionary teaching of
the Church on this subject. The fourth is the work of an independent
writer. The epistles may be received as a set of incidental commentaries
on the person and work of Jesus Christ, called forth by the special
occasions which gave them birth, and embodying the author’s general views
as to his work and teaching as adapted to a number of special
circumstances and occasions.
Between the contents of the New Testament and what is commonly understood
by Ecclesiastical Christianity the difference is extremely wide. The New
Testament contains a divine revelation. Ecclesiastical Christianity is a
body of religious teaching in which Christianity has been attempted to be
presented in a systematised form, or, in other words, it is a theology
more or less complete.
It is necessary that we should have a clear appreciation of the
difference. Theology is an attempt of the human intellect to present to us
the truths communicated in Revelation in a systematised form. It is in
fact the result of the human reason investigating the facts and statements
of Revelation. Theology therefore is a simple creation of human reason
erected on the facts of divine revelation. As such it is subject to all
the errors and imperfections to which our rational powers are obnoxious.
It can claim no infallibility more than any other rational action of the
human mind. Theology is a science, and is subject to the imperfections to
which all other sciences are liable. It stands to the facts of
Christianity in the same relation as philosophy and physical science stand
to the works of nature. In the one the human intellect investigates the
divine revelation contained in the works of nature, and endeavours to
systematise its truths: in the other it does the same with respect to the
divine revelation which in accordance with the assertions of the New
Testament has been made in the person of Jesus Christ.
What I am desirous of drawing attention to is that theology is not
revelation. Systems of theology may be accurate deductions of reason from
Revelation; or they may be inaccurate and imperfect ones. It is very
possible that a system of theology which has been evolved by human reason,
although it may have attained a wide acceptance, may be as inadequate an
explanation of the facts of revelation, as the Ptolemaic system of
astronomy was of the facts of the material universe. Objections which were
raised against the latter were no real objections against the structure of
the universe itself. In the same way objections which may be raised
against a particular system of theology, may leave the great facts of
revelation entirely untouched.
If we look into the history of Christianity, we shall find that as soon as
the Church began to consolidate itself into a distinct community, the
reason of man began to exert itself on the facts of revelation, and to
attempt to reduce its teaching to a systematic form. From this source have
sprung all the various systems of theology which have from time to time
predominated in the Church. It has been a plant of gradual growth, and as
such may bear a fair comparison with the slow growth of philosophy or
physical science. Such an action of reason on the facts of revelation was
inevitable and entirely legitimate. What I am desirous of guarding against
is the idea that when reason is exerted on the facts of revelation, it is
more infallible than when exerted on any other subjects which come under
its cognisance.
I am not ignorant that there is another theory respecting the nature of
theology. A large branch of the Christian Church holds that a body of
dogmatic statements has been handed down traditionally from the Apostles
and other inspired teachers, which has been embodied in the system of
theology which is accepted by this Church, and that this was intended to
be an authoritative statement of the facts of the Christian revelation. It
is also part of the same theory that the Church as a collective body has
in all ages possessed an inspiration, which enables it to affirm
authoritatively and dogmatically, what is and what is not Christian
doctrine, and that which it thus authoritatively affirms to be so, must be
accepted as a portion of the Christian revelation as much as the contents
of the New Testament itself.
I fully admit that those who assume a position of this kind are bound to
act consistently, and to defend every statement in their dogmatic creeds
as an integral portion of Christianity. Nor is it less certain, if this
principle is true, that if any portion of such dogmatic creeds can be
successfully assailed as contrary to reason, as for instance the
formulated doctrine of transubstantiation, it would imperil the position
of Christianity itself. Those, however, who have taken such positions,
must be left to take the consequences of them. It is not my intention in
undertaking to defend the historical truth of the supernatural elements in
the New Testament, to burden myself with an armour which seems only fitted
to crash beneath its weight the person who attempts to use it.
It has been necessary to be explicit on this point, in order that the
argument may be kept free from all adventitious issues. The introduction
into it of the expression, “Ecclesiastical Christianity,” brings with it
no inconsiderable danger of diverting our attention from what is the real
point of controversy. I must therefore repeat it. Ecclesiastical
Christianity is a development made by reason from the facts of the New
Testament, and is a thing which is entirely distinct from the contents of
the New Testament. With its affirmations therefore I have nothing to do in
the present discussion. It will not be my duty to examine into its
positions, with a view of ascertaining whether they are developments of
Christian teaching which can be logically deduced from its pages; still
less to accept and to defend them as authoritative statements of its
meaning. In defending the New Testament as containing a divine revelation,
I have only to do with the contents and assertions of the book itself, and
with nothing outside its pages. What others may have propounded respecting
its meaning can form no legitimate portion of the present controversy. The
real point at issue is one which is simple and distinct. It is, are the
supernatural incidents recorded in it historical events or fictitious
inventions? As that is the question before us, I must decline to allow any
other issue to be substituted in the place of it. Our inquiry is one which
is strictly historical.
Another statement made by the author before me requires qualification. He
says that “Christianity is a scheme of religion which claims to be
miraculous in all points, in form, in essence, and in evidence.” This
statement I must controvert. Christianity does not profess to be divine on
all points. On the contrary, it contains a divine and a human element so
intimately united, that it is impossible to separate the one from the
other. It is also far from clear to me how it can be miraculous in form
when it is contained in a body of historical writings. I shall have
occasion to show hereafter, that although miracles form an important
portion of the attestation on which it rests, they are not the only one.
With these qualifications I fully accept the position taken by this writer
as a correct statement of the points at issue between those who affirm,
and those who deny the claims of Christianity to be a divine revelation,
and accept his challenge to defend the supernatural elements in the New
Testament, or to abandon it as worthless. To maintain that any of its
dogmas can be accepted as true while its miraculous elements are abandoned
seems to me to involve a question which is hopelessly illogical.
Modern unbelief rejects every supernatural occurrence as utterly
incredible. Before proceeding to examine into the grounds of this, it will
be necessary to lay down definitely the bearing of the present argument on
the principles of atheism, pantheism, and theism.
As far as the impossibility of supernatural occurrences is concerned,
pantheism and atheism occupy precisely the same grounds. If either of them
propounds a true theory of the universe, any supernatural occurrence,
which necessarily implies a supernatural agent to bring it about, is
impossible, and the entire controversy as to whether miracles have ever
been actually performed is a foregone conclusion. Modern atheism, while it
does not venture in categorical terms to affirm that no God exists,
definitely asserts that there is no evidence that there is one. It follows
that if there is no evidence that there is a God, there can be no evidence
that a miracle ever has been performed, for the very idea of a miracle
implies the idea of a God to work one. If therefore atheism is true, all
controversy about miracles is useless. They are simply impossible, and to
inquire whether an impossible event has happened is absurd. To such a
person the historical enquiry, as far as a miracle is concerned, must be a
foregone conclusion. It might have a little interest as a matter of
curiosity; but even if the most unequivocal evidence could be adduced that
an occurrence such as we call supernatural had taken place, the utmost
that it could prove would be that some most extraordinary and abnormal
fact had taken place in nature of which we did not know the cause. But to
prove a miracle to any person who consistently denies that he has any
evidence that any being exists which is not a portion of and included in
the material universe, or developed out of it, is impossible.
Nor does the case differ in any material sense with pantheism. When we
have got rid of its hazy mysticism, and applied to it clear principles of
logic, its affirmation is that God and the Universe are one, and that all
past and present forms of existence have been the result of the Universe,
_i.e._ God, everlastingly developing himself in conformity with immutable
law. All things which either have existed or exist are as many
manifestations of God, who is in fact an infinite impersonal Proteus, ever
changing in his outward form. From him, or to speak more correctly, from
it (for he is no person), all things have issued as mere phenomenal
babbles of the passing moment, and by it will be again swallowed up in
never‐ending succession. Such a God must be devoid of everything which we
understand by personality, intelligence, wisdom, volition or a moral
nature. It is evident therefore that to a person who logically and
consistently holds these views the occurrence of a miracle is no less an
impossibility than it is to an atheist, for the conception of a miracle
involves the presence of personality, intelligence, and power at the
disposal of volition. All that the strongest evidence could prove to those
who hold such principles, is that some abnormal event had taken place of
which the cause was unknown.
It is evident, therefore, that the only course which can be pursued with a
professed atheist or pantheist, is to grapple with him on the evidences of
theism, and to endeavour to prove the existence of a God possessed of
personality, intelligence, volition, and adequate power, before we attempt
to deal with the evidences of miracles. Until we have convinced him of
this all our reasonings must be in vain.
There are four modes of reasoning by which the being of a God may be
established. I will simply enumerate them. First, the argument which is
founded on the principle of causation; second, that which rests on the
order of the universe; third, that from its innumerable adaptations;
fourth, that which is derived from the moral nature and personality of
man. If the argument from causation fails to prove to those with whom we
are reasoning that the finite causes in the universe must have a first
cause from whence they have originated; if that from the orderly
arrangements in the universe fails to prove that there must be an
intelligent being who produced them; if its innumerable adaptations fail
to establish the presence of a presiding mind; and if the moral nature of
man fails to prove that must be a moral being from whom that nature
emanated, and of whom it is the image, it follows that the minds must be
so differently constituted as to offer no common ground or basis of
reasoning on this question. The whole involves an essential difference of
principle, which no argumentation can really reach. To attempt to prove to
a mind of this description the occurrence of a miracle, is simply a waste
of labour.
A work, therefore, on the subject of miracles can only be addressed to
theists, because the very conception of a miracle involves the existence
of a personal God. To take this for granted in reasoning with a pantheist
or atheist is simply to assume the point at issue. It is perfectly true,
that a legitimate body of reasoning may be constructed, if the pantheist
or the atheist agrees to assume that a God exists for the purpose of
supplying a basis for the argument. We may then reason with him precisely
in the same way as we would with a theist. But the contest will be with
one who has clad himself in armour which no weapon at our disposal can
penetrate. After the strongest amount of historical evidence has been
adduced, and after all alleged difficulties have been answered, he simply
falls back on his atheism or his pantheism, which assumes that all
supernatural occurrences must be impossible, and therefore that alleged
instances of them are delusions.
This is not unfrequently the case in the present controversy. A
considerable number of objections which are urged against the supernatural
elements of Christianity, derive whatever cogency they possess from the
assumption that there is a God who is the moral Governor of the universe.
These are not unfrequently urged by persons who deny the possibility of
miracles on atheistic or pantheistic grounds. It is perfectly fair to
reason against Christianity on these grounds; it is equally so for a
person who holds these opinions, to attempt to prove that the historical
evidence adduced in proof of the miracles recorded in the New Testament is
worthless as an additional reason why men should cease to believe in them.
But it is not conducive to the interests of truth to urge objections which
have no reality except on the supposition that a God exists who is the
moral Governor of the universe, and then to fall back on reasonings whose
whole force is dependent on the data furnished by pantheism or atheism. I
shall have occasion to notice a remarkable instance of this involved mode
of reasoning hereafter.
I shall now proceed briefly to state the mode in which I propose to treat
the present subject. The point which I have to defend is not any
conceivable body of miracles or their evidential value, but specially the
supernatural occurrences recorded in the New Testament. I must therefore
endeavour to ascertain what is the extent of the supernaturalism asserted
in the New Testament, and what is the degree of evidential value which its
writers claim for it.
It has been asserted by many writers that the sole and only evidence of a
revelation must be a miraculous testimony. Whether this be so or not, this
is not the place to enquire. But in relation to the present controversy
the plain and obvious course is to ask the writers of the New Testament
what is the precise evidential value of the supernatural occurrences which
they have narrated. This is far preferable to falling back on any
assertions of modern writers, however eminent, on this subject. They may
have over‐estimated, or under‐estimated their evidential value. The
writers of the New Testament must be held responsible, not for the
assertions of others, but only for their own. I must therefore carefully
consider what it is that they affirm to be proved by miracles.
One primary objection against the possibility of miracles is founded on
that peculiar form of theoretic belief, which affirms that both
philosophy, science, and religion alike point to the existence of a Cause
of the Universe, which is the source of all the forces which exist, and of
which the various phenomena of the universe are manifestations, and
designates this cause by the name of God. But while it concedes his
existence, it proclaims him to be Unknown and Unknowable. If this position
is correct, the inference seems inevitable, that any thing like a real
revelation of him is impossible. It will be necessary therefore for me to
examine into the validity of this position.
A vast variety of arguments have been adduced both on philosophic grounds
and from the principles established by physical science, for the purpose
of proving that the occurrence of any supernatural event is contrary to
our reason. If this be true, it is a fatal objection against the entire
mass of supernatural occurrences that are recorded in the New Testament.
The most important points of these reasonings will require a careful
consideration.
A very important objection has been urged against the Christian mode of
conducting the argument from miracles. It is alleged that it involves
reasoning in a vicious circle, and that Christian apologists endeavour to
prove the truth of doctrines which utterly transcend reason by miraculous
evidence, and then endeavour to prove the truth of the miracles by the
doctrines. If this allegation is true, it is no doubt a fatal objection to
the argument. I shall endeavour to show that it is founded on a
misapprehension of the entire subject.
An attempt has been made to re‐affirm the validity of Hume’s argument that
no amount of evidence can avail to prove the reality of a miracle unless
the falsehood of the evidence is more miraculous than the alleged miracle.
It will be necessary to consider the validity of the positions which have
been lately assumed respecting it.
A very formidable objection has been urged against the truth of the
supernatural occurrences recorded in the New Testament on the ground that
the followers of Jesus were a prey to a number of the most grotesque
beliefs respecting the action of demons, and that their superstition and
credulity on this point was of so extreme a character as to deprive their
historical testimony, on the subject of the supernatural of all value. As
this objection is not only one which is widely extended, but has been
urged with great force by the author of “Supernatural Religion,” I shall
devote four chapters of this work to the examination of the question of
possession and demoniacal action as far as it affects the present
controversy.
The entire school of modern unbelief found a very considerable portion of
their arguments against the historical character of the Gospels, on the
alleged credulity and superstition of the followers of our Lord. This is
alleged to have been of a most profound character, and it forms the weapon
which is perhaps in most constant use with the assailants of Christianity.
All difficulties which beset their arguments are met by attributing the
most unbounded credulity, superstition and enthusiasm to the followers of
Jesus. It has also been urged that the belief in supernatural occurrences
has been so general, that it renders the attestation of miracles to a
revelation invalid. I purpose examining into the validity of this
objection. As this may be said to be the key of the position occupied by
modern unbelief, I must examine into the reality of the affirmation, and
also how far the love of the marvellous in mankind affects the credit of
the testimony to miracles. This I propose discussing in two distinct
chapters.
It is an unquestionable fact that in these days we summarily reject whole
masses of alleged supernatural occurrences, as utterly incredible, without
inquiry into the testimony on which they rest. It will be necessary to
inquire into the grounds on which we do this, and how far it affects the
credibility of the miracles recorded in the New Testament.
The historical value of the testimony which has been adduced for the truth
of the miracles recorded in the New Testament, has been assailed by every
weapon which criticism can supply. It is affirmed in the strongest manner
that they are utterly devoid of all reliable historical evidence. The
Gospels are pronounced to consist of a bundle of myths and legends, with
only a few grains of historic truth hidden beneath them. They are affirmed
to be late compositions, and that we are utterly devoid of all
contemporaneous attestation for the facts recorded in them, and that the
true account of the origin of Christianity is buried beneath a mass of
fiction. If this be true, there cannot be a doubt that it is a most
serious allegation, which affects the entire Christian position. It is
further urged that while the defenders of Christianity publish works in
which they attempt to prove that miracles are possible and credible, they
carefully avoid grappling with the real point of the whole question by
showing that any historical evidence can be produced for a single miracle
recorded in the Gospels, which will stand the test of such historical
criticism, and it is loudly proclaimed that no real evidence can be made
forthcoming. Such a charge as this, it is impossible to pass over in
silence.
I propose, therefore, to examine into the general truth of these
allegations, and to consider the nature of the historical evidence which
unbelief, after it has exhausted all its powers of criticism, still leaves
us unquestionably in possession of.
This consists of the epistles of the New Testament viewed as historical
documents. Their value as such has been greatly overlooked by both sides
to the controversy, especially by the Christian side. Christians have been
in the habit of viewing them as inspired compositions, and have studied
them almost exclusively on account of the doctrinal and moral teaching
which they contain, and each sect has viewed them as a kind of armoury
from which to draw weapons for the establishing its own particular
opinions. In doing this they have forgotten that they are also historical
documents of the highest order, the great majority of which even the
opponents of Christianity concede to have been composed prior to the
conclusion of the first century of the Christian era, and many of them at
a much earlier period.
Of these writings four are universally admitted to be genuine, and to have
been composed prior to the year 60 of our era. Four more are genuine
beyond all reasonable doubt, and of two more the evidence in favour of
their authenticity is very strong. The Apocalypse, which is also admitted
to be genuine, although not strictly an historical document, can be
rendered valuable for the purposes of history. Of the remaining writings
the genuineness is disputed; but whether genuine or not, it is impossible
to deny their antiquity, and that they are faithful representations of the
ideas of those who wrote them. In fact the names of their authors are of
no great importance in the present controversy, when the writings
themselves bear so decisively the marks of originality. Thus the epistle
of James, by whomsoever written, bears the most unquestionable marks of
the most primitive antiquity. It is in fact a document of the earliest
form of Christianity,—in one word, the Jewish form, before the Church was
finally separated from the synagogue.
Such are our historical materials. Little justice has been done to their
value in the writings of Christian apologists. As included in the Canon of
the New Testament, it has been for the most part the practice to view them
as standing in need of defence, rather than as being the mainstay of the
argument for historical Christianity, and constituting its central
position.
It will be admitted that it will be impossible for me to do full justice
to such a subject in a work like the present. To bring out all the
treasures of evidence respecting primitive Christianity, and the
foundation of the Christian Church which these writings contain, the whole
subject would require to be unfolded in a distinct and separate treatise
exclusively devoted to the subject. Still, however, this work would be
very incomplete if I did not accept the challenge so boldly thrown down to
us, and show that Christianity rests on an historical attestation of the
highest order. To this I propose devoting the six concluding chapters of
this work.
I intend, therefore, in the first place to examine the value of the
historical documents of the New Testament, and show that several of the
epistles take rank as the highest form of historical documents, and
present us with what is to all intents and purposes a large mass of
contemporaneous evidence as to the primitive beliefs, and the original
foundation of the Christian Church. In doing so I propose to treat them in
the same manner as all other similar historical documents are treated.
I shall then show that these documents afford a substantial testimony to
all the great facts of Christianity, and especially to the existence of
miraculous powers in the Church, and that the various Churches were from
the very earliest period in possession of an oral account of the actions
and teachings of Jesus Christ substantially the same as that which is now
embodied in the Gospels; and that this oral Gospel was habitually used for
the purposes of instruction. Further, that this oral Gospel was a
substantial embodiment of the beliefs of the primitive followers of Jesus,
and that the Church as a community was a body especially adapted for
handing down correctly the account of the primitive beliefs respecting its
origin, and that the peculiar position in which it was placed compelled it
to do so.
I shall further show on the evidence furnished by those epistles, the
genuineness of which unbelievers do not dispute, that from the earliest
commencement of Christianity the whole body of believers, without
distinction of sect or party, believed in the resurrection of Jesus Christ
as a fact, and viewed it not only as the groundwork on which Christianity
rested, but as the one sole and only reason for the existence of the
Christian Church. I shall be able also to prove on the same evidence that
a considerable number of the followers of Jesus were persuaded that they
had seen him alive after his crucifixion, and that his appearance was an
actual resurrection from the dead. The same writings prove to
demonstration that this was the universal belief of the whole Christian
community, and that the Church was established on its basis.
These things being established as the basis for my reasonings, I shall
proceed to prove that it is impossible that these beliefs of the Church
could have owed their origin to any possible form of delusion; but that
the resurrection of Jesus Christ was an historical fact, and that no other
supposition can give an adequate account of the phenomenon.
Having proved that the greatest of all the miracles which are recorded in
the Gospels is an historical fact, I have got rid of the _à priori_
difficulty with which the acceptance of the Gospels as genuine historical
accounts is attended; but further, if it is an historical fact that Jesus
Christ really rose from the dead, it is in the highest degree probable
that other supernatural occurrences would be connected with his person. I
shall therefore proceed to restore the Gospels to their place as history,
and to show that even on the principles of the opponents of Christianity,
they have every claim to be accepted as true accounts of the action and
teaching of Jesus Christ as it was transmitted by the different Churches,
partly in an oral, and partly in a written form. I shall also show that
even if they were composed at the late dates which are assigned to them by
opponents, they were yet written within the period which is strictly
historical, while tradition was fresh and reminiscences vivid, and long
before it was possible that a great mass of facts which must have formed
the basis of the existence of the Christian Church could have been
superseded by a number of mythic and legendary creations. Having placed
these facts on a firm foundation, I shall proceed to consider their
accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and to estimate its
historical nature.
The proof that the greatest miracle recorded in the Gospels, the
Resurrection of Jesus Christ, is an event which has really occurred,
places the remainder of them in point of credibility in the same position
as the facts of ordinary history; and they must be accepted and regarded
in conformity with the usual methods of testing evidence.