CHRISTIANITY REST—GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.
It has been urged by opponents, that the defenders of historical
Christianity rest content with endeavouring to prove that miracles are
possible or probable; but that they neglect an all‐important part of their
duty, viz.: that of adducing historical proof that miracles have been
actually performed. If the fact is as here stated, there can be no doubt
that works which profess to discuss the subject of miracles, and omit to
give a clear statement of the chief points of the evidence which can be
adduced to prove that they have actually occurred, must be unsatisfactory.
To answer the objections which are urged to prove that miracles are
impossible, or which affirm on general principles that all evidence in
their favour is unworthy of credit, is an essential preliminary to the
consideration of the historical evidence which can be adduced to prove
their actual occurrence. But to afford proof, that as facts they rest upon
an adequate attestation, is the essential duty of every one who asserts
their reality. To this portion of the work I will now proceed to address
myself.
What then is the position occupied by the Christian advocate? Is it
requisite in order to establish the truth of Christianity, that he should
give an historical proof of everyone of the miracles recorded in the New
Testament? I answer this question emphatically in the negative, and for
the following reason. The New Testament itself, while it affirm that many
miracles have been performed, rests the truth of Christianity on one
miracle alone, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. This is the
great event which, according to the Acts of the Apostles, the early
missionaries urged as the distinctive proof of their Master’s divine
mission. The views expressed in the Apostolic Epistles are precisely
similar. In them, the entire evidence of the truth of our Lord’s divine
mission is made to centre in the fact of His resurrection. Not only is the
great fact referred to either directly or indirectly in almost every page,
but St. Paul has distinctly rested the truth of Christianity on the
reality of its occurrence. Such a statement is made respecting no other
miraculous event recorded in the New Testament. It is the miracle of
miracles, unique and alone, by which the seal of God was affixed to the
divine mission of Jesus Christ. It formed the _locus standi_ of the
Church, and the sole ground of its existence. If it was not an objective
fact, those who testified to its occurrence must have been false
witnesses, and the whole of Christianity either a delusion or an
imposture.
It follows, therefore, that this great miracle forms the very key of the
Christian position. Everything else is an outwork, an important one it may
be, but yet an outwork. If this position can be successfully assailed, the
entire fortress of Christianity must surrender at discretion. If, on the
other hand, the most determined unbeliever could be convinced that there
is good historical evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, he would
find no difficulty in accepting the Gospels as historical documents, and
the whole _à priori_ objection against them would disappear.
Again: If the Resurrection of Christ is a fact, Christianity must be a
divine revelation. The perfect historical accuracy of the Gospels in
minute details may be still open to question; deep thought and careful
investigation may be necessary for ascertaining the precise amount of
truth communicated by that revelation; past ages may have erred in its
interpretation, or in their deductions from it; many questions as to the
relation in which revelation stands to science or history may be open
ones—all this is both conceivable and possible—but still, if Jesus Christ
rose from the dead, his entire manifestation, work, and teaching, must be
a communication from God to man.
This then is my position. The real question stands within very narrow
limits. The miracle that requires strong historical proof is the
Resurrection. The other supernatural occurrences recorded in the Gospels
are important portions of the revelation made by Christ. They were
important evidences to those who witnessed them. But to us in these latter
times the one great question is: Is the Resurrection capable of being
established as an actual occurrence? If it is, it will carry with it all
the others. If it is not, the proof of the others will fall along with it.
Let us examine the historical conditions of the case. Christianity differs
from all other religions in professing not to consist of a mass of
abstract dogmatic statements, but to be founded on, and largely to consist
of, a number of historical facts. There are unquestionably a considerable
number of dogmatic statements in the pages of the New Testament; but they
profess to grow out of the facts and to be explanations of them. The facts
form, so to say, the essence of the religion. The Christianity of the New
Testament is a growth which encircles itself around the person of its
founder in a manner in which no other system of thought or religion, which
has existed among men, has ever done. If we take the person of Jesus
Christ out of the New Testament, the whole system of its teaching crumbles
into nothingness. If we remove the person of its founder from every other
system of human thought—its great religions form no exception—the system
remains intact. This is a very striking peculiarity in Christianity. In
this respect it stands absolutely unique.
But as Christianity is founded on an historical person, who lived in a
particular age, so He is the founder of a great historical institution,
the Christian Church. This institution differs from every other society
which has ever existed, in that both its origination and its continued
existence are inextricably bound up with the person of its founder. Other
societies could exist even if it could be proved that their reputed
founders were creations of the imagination; but this would be fatal to the
life of the Church of Christ. If it could be proved that Jesus Christ was
a myth, or nothing but a learned Rabbi, the Christian Church, mighty
society as it is, would certainly collapse. The Christian Church without
Christ would be far more out of place than the play of Hamlet with the
part of Hamlet omitted. In this respect it is a institution unique among
all those which the world has ever seen, whether political or religious.
This great society, which now comprehends a vast majority of the
intelligence of mankind, and all the progressive nations of the world, had
a definite beginning in historical times. It differs wholly from a
philosophic sect, whose bond of union consists in the acceptance of a body
of dogmatic teaching. It is and ever has been an organized society with
specific purposes and aims, and one which has ever meditated schemes of
conquest. It differs widely from all political institutions, and yet ever
since its birth it has taken a place beside them.
The origin of this society is not lost, like that of many others, in the
mists of the hoary past. History enables us to assign a definite time when
this society was certainly not in existence. It no less definitely marks
out a period when it not only was in existence, but had entered on a
condition of active growth. Its origin did not take place in the cloud‐
land of the mythic or the semi‐mythic period of history, but in the reign
of Tiberius Cæsar, and in a country occupied by Roman garrisons, and
presided over by Roman governors.
It will be objected that our only accounts of the causes which led to the
organization of this society are writings composed by its own members. In
this there is nothing peculiar; for until societies have grown
sufficiently powerful to attract the attention of the world outside them,
there can be no other source of information. Still the fact can be
ascertained on the most unquestionable authority, that at a certain date
this society was not in existence, and that within a certain number of
years afterwards, it was not only in existence, but rapidly increasing;
and that it originated in Jesus Christ, who was put to death by the Roman
government.
This society, therefore, came into existence at a definite period of time.
Its early writers give us an account of how it originated. They affirm
that its founder was Jesus Christ; and that, having been interrupted by
His death, it was called into a new existence by His resurrection. To this
great event they most positively affirm that the origin of the Church, as
an institution, was due. To the belief in it as a fact, it has certainly
owed its gradual enlargement, until it has attained its present dimensions
after more than eighteen centuries of existence. To this belief is due the
great moral power which it has exercised on mankind; and if its members
could be persuaded that the belief in the Resurrection of its founder was
a mere delusion, great as this society is, it would certainly perish.
There are five facts connected with the origin of this society, which no
one who believes in the possibility of historic truth will dispute.
First: That at the year A.D. 25, this society had no existence.
Secondly: That in A.D. 40, it was in a state of vigorous growth.
Thirdly: That it was founded by Jesus Christ.
Fourthly: That His crucifixion by the Roman government caused its
temporary collapse.
Fifthly: That an event of some kind, which took place shortly after His
death, imparted to it a new vitality, which it has never lost to the
present hour, and which has caused it to exert a mightier influence on
mankind than any other community, whether political or religious, that has
ever existed.
The problem, therefore, which history has to solve, is to account for the
renewed life, the marvellous progress, the intense vitality of this
society, and the mighty influence which it has exerted on the destinies of
mankind; originating as it did in the smallest possible beginnings, and in
a manner differing from all other existing institutions.
The Christian Church has propounded, from the first commencement of its
renewed life, its own solution of this problem. It is: that its founder,
after having been crucified, rose again from the dead. This account has
this clear and obvious advantage, that if it be true, it sufficiently
accounts for all the phenomena whose existence we have to solve. His
resurrection was a power adequate to revive the society after its
temporary collapse, to impart to it its mighty moral and spiritual energy,
and to impress on the original work and teaching of Jesus, a new and
peculiar aspect. In short, assuming the Resurrection to have been a fact,
it assigns a cause adequate to account for all the phenomena which have
been presented by the Church. Here then we have firm ground on which to
take our stand; viz., the belief of this society as to its origin, capable
of being traced historically to the first hour of its renewed life, and
which also, if true, affords a rational account of it.
But further; besides this account which the Church has given of its own
origin, there is no rival account of it in existence. As far as historical
documents are concerned, there is no other. All others are founded on
conjecture.
Our opponents, however, affirm that the alleged fact which the Church
asserts to have been the cause of its existence is incredible, because all
miracles are impossible. Then, leaving _à priori_ grounds, they also
affirm that the evidence to prove the Resurrection to have been an
historical fact is insufficient for the purpose.
The Church, however, is clearly in possession of a vantage‐ground, from
which it is not easy to dislodge her. The cause which she alleges is
adequate to account for all the phenomena.
The _onus probandi_ therefore clearly rests on the opponents of
Christianity. If they deny the truth of the fact which the Church has ever
handed down as the true account of her origin, they are bound not only to
show that it is devoid of historical attestation, but to propound a theory
which will adequately account for all the facts to which history
testifies. It is clear that nothing short of this is required of them as
philosophical historians. Certain facts are plain and undeniable. A
society, of a very special character, sprang into existence at a definite
point of history, and has exerted a mightier influence than any other on
the destinies of man. If therefore they reject the account which the
Church herself gives, they are bound to supply a rational account of how
this great society came into being; how the phenomena which constitute its
history have been brought about; and what it was that imparted to it its
vitality and power. We are in the presence of the greatest institution
with which history is acquainted, founded as it is on the greatest ideal
conception (if it is not historical) which the human mind has ever
succeeded in inventing. Both these came into existence, not in pre‐
historic times, but in the midst of a period of contemporaneous history.
Respecting the times, the modes of thought, and the general character of
the period, we have extensive historical data. The religious, moral, and
philosophical opinions, and the general line of thought, are well known.
The various forces which were then in activity we are able to appreciate.
With all these data before him, it is incumbent on the philosophical
historian to give us an account of the moral and religious forces in
activity at this period, which were capable of creating the Christian
Church, and generating its conception of the ideal Christ. If it is
alleged that after the utmost investigation it is impossible to account
for their origin by the action of any known moral or spiritual forces
acting on the human mind, this would be at once to confess that the origin
of Christianity and the Church is entirely abnormal, or in other words,
that it is a moral and spiritual miracle.
To do unbelievers justice, they have not been slow to recognize the fact
that if they reject the account which the Church has given of its origin,
they are bound to give us a rational one of how Christianity came into
existence. Accordingly, theory after theory has been propounded on this
subject. No intellectual exertion has been spared to point out how
Christianity and the Church have succeeded in getting into existence, and
in effecting their religious and moral conquests, by forces purely human,
and without the aid of any supernatural intervention.
One thing respecting these theories is worthy of particular attention. No
unbeliever has as yet been able to suggest one which has succeeded in
commanding, I will not say the universal, but even the general assent of
the unbelieving world. Theory after theory has been propounded and
abandoned. It is therefore clear that the difficulty of accounting for the
origin of Christianity and the Church through the action of the ordinary
forces that operate on the human mind, is extreme. There is no analogous
case in the whole history of man. Let me briefly enumerate the chief
principles which have been invoked to aid in the solution of this problem.
First, it has been attempted to get rid of the supernatural elements
contained in the Gospels by representing them as distorted representations
of real facts. This has been justly abandoned as childish. Then came the
mythic and legendary theories. These, having been found inadequate, have
been supplemented by various theories of development of ideas; and the
supposition of a violent party spirit existing in the Church, which under
the influence of a spirit of accommodation produced various compromises; a
mass of varied and often contending opinions seething in the bosom of a
society continually threatened with disruption, until they somehow
succeeded in welding themselves together; enthusiasm, fanaticism,
boundless credulity, aided by a prodigious power of mythic and legendary
invention, and whenever occasion so required, the presence of a moral
atmosphere, which on great emergencies did not shrink from deliberate
imposture. All these, in ever varying degrees and proportions, have been
pressed into the service of creating the Church, the ideal Christ, and the
Christianity of the New Testament. It is impossible in a work like the
present to examine these various theories, and show their inadequacy as
philosophical explanations of the fact. This I have already done in a
former work,(5) to which I must refer the reader for their refutation. A
few observations only will be necessary in this place.
First: The positions taken by unbelievers are theories, which rest on the
smallest basis of historical evidence. I readily admit that where there is
a known fact, but the recollection of the events which would give an
account of its origin has perished, if a theory can be propounded which
fully accounts for the fact, then it has a right to take its place as an
historical event which rests on evidence of the highest probability. An
example derived from the mode in which the study of comparative philology
discloses the history of the past will explain my meaning. We have before
us the facts of language. The history of those who formerly used it has
perished; the accounts of their migrations have nowhere been preserved.
But certain facts of comparative philology justify the assumption that
certain primitive races of men must have migrated in particular
directions. These assumed migrations are really a theory, but one which is
exactly adequate to account for the facts which language unquestionably
presents. Thus the facts of the Indo‐Germanic languages justify the
assumption that in the pre‐historic ages, migrations westward must have
taken place, of which history contains no record. Still the theory affords
so perfect an explanation of the facts, that the occurrence of the
migrations is as certain as if they had been recorded by contemporaneous
writers. On similar grounds it has been inferred with a degree of
probability so high as to be equal to certainty, that a language earlier
than the Sanskrit, and from which both it and the Indo‐Germanic family of
languages have been derived, was spoken by a previous race. Investigations
of this kind are largely adding to our historical knowledge.
Let us observe the basis on which such arguments rest. In all these cases
we have before us not mere conjectures, but a distinct and positive fact,
or set of facts. The connecting links are missing. By the aid of
conjecture we propound a theory; or in other words, we suppose a set of
events to have occurred, which, if they really happened, would be adequate
to account for the facts in question. When they thus account for them, and
for them alone, and no other conjectural occurrence will do so, the
assumed fact is fully entitled to take its place in history as an event
which has actually happened. The reason of this is, that it can stand the
test of historical verification.
A problem similar to that above referred to is the one which those who
deny the historical truth of the Gospels are called upon to solve. We are
in the presence of certain unquestionable historical facts, viz., the five
above referred to, and many others. The denial of the truth of the
Christian account leaves them without the connecting link which once
united them. What was that link? It can only be supplied by conjecture.
But to enable such a conjectural fact or facts to take rank as historical
events, they must be adequate to account for the facts, and be true to
human nature, and to the circumstances of the case; in other words, they
must be capable of enduring a rigid historical verification. Theories
which cannot endure this are no better than ropes of sand. This is the
character of the theories which have been propounded to account for the
Christianity of the New Testament.
Let me illustrate this by one of the favourite theories used by
unbelievers for this purpose. We are told that a number of extremely
hostile factions divided the primitive Church. Of these the followers of
James, Peter, and Paul may be taken as fairly representative. These were
in a state of great hostility to each other, and went on gradually
elaborating a Christianity that was in conformity with their own views and
tastes. After a while it occurred to these hostile parties that it would
be advantageous to compromise their differences. An influential person,
such as we may suppose the author of the Acts of the Apostles to have
been, composed a history, for the purpose of making matters smooth, and to
afford a common ground of union among the contending factions. This
process was repeated as often as was necessary; and in good time, by the
aid of myth and legend, and the whole of the needful apparatus, appeared
the Christianity of the New Testament, and the Church was consolidated out
of these varied elements.
Such theories grievously offend against the logic of history, and are in
direct variance with the facts of human life. We are here in the midst of
a whole mass of conjectural facts, each of which is imagined to account
for the existence of the other; and the whole of them taken together fail
to give an adequate solution of the phenomena before us. They are both
untrue to human nature and unable to account for either the facts of
Christianity or the existence of the Church. I must content myself with
selecting one of them for illustration. We are asked to believe that the
Church was divided into a number of parties, the opposition between whom
was violent; and that these effected a number of compromises, out of which
was ultimately evolved a common Christianity. This result is in direct
contradiction to the testimony of the religious history of man. Religious
parties do not effect compromises, but go on contending and widening their
differences, until their enthusiasm wears out and they die of inanition.
To this the history of all sects bears ample testimony, and the greater
the enthusiasm and not unfrequently the lesser the grounds of difference,
the greater the animosity. Compromises between hostile sects, in the rare
cases in which they have taken place, have been brought about by means of
external coercion. The religious history of mankind presents no example of
furious religious parties, while animated by a living enthusiasm,
voluntarily coalescing on the general principle of compromise. Witness the
unsuccessful attempts at compromise between the Eastern and Western
Churches, even when it was urged by the strongest external pressure.
Witness the sects which grew out of the Reformation. Compromises have
frequently originated among politicians, but these have in vain tried
their healing influences among contending sects. Occasionally they have
been brought about by the aid of pressure exerted by the temporal power,
as in the Church of England. Nothing more strongly illustrates the
difficulty with which compromise between religious parties can be effected
than the failure of the attempts to reconcile the Church of England and
the Methodists. The compromiser who will effect this union exists only in
the hopes of the future. But we need not confine ourselves to the
manifestations of sectarian spirit in connection with Christianity. The
Mahometan Church is also divided by sectarian differences. Is there any
tendency to produce a common Mahometanism, erected on the basis of
compromise? Do Buddhism and Brahminism show any disposition to compromise
their differences by fusing them into a common Pantheism which shall suit
both parties? The idea of producing a Christianity by a succession of
happy compromises entered into by violently hostile parties in the early
Church, is a dream which, however plausible it may have seemed in the
closet, is rudely dissipated the moment we come in contact with the stern
realities of life.
But further: the wide separation of the early Churches from each other;
and, according to the opinions of those against whom I am reasoning, their
want of a governing power acknowledged by all, must have rendered
agreement on the basis of mutual compromise impossible. Compromises are
the results of considerations of policy, and are unheard of among
fanatics, such as my opponents assert the early followers of Jesus to have
been. But what further renders this theory untenable is, that it is
compelled to imagine a number of developments accompanied by corresponding
compromises between hostile parties, before we can succeed in evolving the
Christianity of the New Testament. Not only does it contradict the history
of man; not only is it an assumption made to form the connecting link
between other established facts, but it is itself founded on other
assumptions. Among these are the assertions made as to the evidence of the
party spirit existing in the Church, and the opposition between its
leaders. Party spirit we know to have existed, but not with the violence
which this theory is compelled to postulate. The statement also that the
doctrinal opposition between these parties was of so declared a type is
not founded on the evidence that we possess, but on a highly exaggerated
view of it, distorted for the purpose of adding strength to the theory;
or, in other words, it is founded on a set of unwarranted assumptions. The
passages in the New Testament alleged to prove the declared opposition
between the leaders of the Church, which this theory is compelled to pre‐
suppose, can only be made to do so by taking it for granted that they do.
For example, the assertion that the person denounced in the Epistles to
the Seven Churches in the book of Revelation, is St. Paul, is a simply
gratuitous one, the only evidence for which is the will and pleasure of
those who make it. The theory, therefore, not only contradicts the history
of man, but is based upon a number of alleged facts which are either
absolute assumptions or exaggerations, and fail to give any account of the
origin of Christianity which will stand the test of the scrutiny of a
sound philosophy.
The mythic and legendary theories are equally unable to account for the
facts as they stand in the New Testament. I cannot here attempt to follow
them in their innumerable windings. Taken by themselves they are not now
accepted as adequate accounts of them, but other theories are called in to
aid them. Still, whatever assistance these are supposed to impart, myth
and legend must always hold a prominent place in the systems of those who
endeavour to account for the origin of the Gospels on purely human
principles. As they contain a large supernatural element, it is certain
that if this is not historical, it must have originated in some species of
fiction, _i.e._ either in the mythic and legendary spirit, or in pure
invention. Hence the use of myths and legends must always be freely
invoked by those who, while they deny the historical character of the
Gospels, do not go to the length of accusing the original followers of
Jesus of deliberate invention.
I must here draw attention to one particular portion of the evidence, the
full significance of which I have described elsewhere. Whatever opinions
may be formed as to the unhistorical character of the Gospels, there is
one fact respecting them as to which believers and unbelievers must alike
agree, namely that they contain a delineation of the most perfect
conception ever formed by the mind of man, the character of Jesus Christ.
There it is, beyond the power of contradiction; the overwhelming majority
of men possessed of the most powerful minds have recognized it as the
greatest of ideals, as well as the millions of ordinary men to whom it has
been the object of supreme admiration and attraction. The following
questions respecting it therefore urgently demand an answer.
If the Gospels are a mere collection of mythic and legendary stories,
generated and put together in the manner affirmed by those who deny their
historical character, how got this great character there? If the fables of
which they are composed are the inventions of many minds, whence its
unity? If their inventors were credulous enthusiasts and fanatics, whence
its perfection? If they were implicated in all the superstitions of the
age, whence its moral elevation? Of what order of thought then existing is
it the embodiment? How could the credulity which was necessary for the
acceptance of such fictions, or how could the spirit which invented them,
have conceived these moral elements? There the character is—let us be
distinctly informed how it was put together; how much of it is fact, and
how much fiction; how the fictions were welded together with the facts so
as to compose the whole; and what class or order of minds in the early
Church was equal to its elaboration. This delineation must have been made
at an early period, and could not have been a late invention; for it is
substantially the same as that contained in those Epistles of St. Paul,
which are acknowledged to have been written within thirty years of the
date of the Crucifixion. A distinct answer to these questions is demanded
of those who affirm that the Gospels have no value as histories. It is
impossible to deny that they have a most important bearing on the present
question. Why do not unbelievers set themselves to grapple with this
problem?
But the value to be assigned to the Gospels as histories must be a matter
for subsequent consideration. At present I need simply draw attention to
the fact that while the opponents of Christianity fully recognize the
necessity of propounding a rational theory of its origin, the more we
examine their various theories in detail, the more apparent becomes their
inadequacy to account for the phenomena. The fact, already alluded to,
that unbelievers cannot come to any agreement among themselves on this
subject, shows that they find the problem extremely difficult of solution.
The plausibility of their theories is due to the abstract and general form
in which they are presented. Various causes are held up without any
discrimination as to what each of them is capable of effecting; and the
wished‐for result is ascribed to their combined action. But when we
analyse the various forces at their command, ascertain the mode of their
action, the difficulties they would have to encounter before they could
effectuate their results, and examine whether they are true to the facts
of human nature as testified to by the long course of history, it is not
too much to affirm that all the investigations of unbelievers have
completely failed to give an account of the origin of Christianity which
can take the place of that handed down to us by the Church. Until this can
be given, notwithstanding all the expenditure of intellect on the
question, we are justified in affirming that the problem is insoluble,
although Christianity originated in a period unquestionably historical, in
the midst of the Roman Empire over which it rapidly spread, despite the
opposition of the government and the entire organization of society.
Before proceeding to the direct considerations by which the great fact of
Christianity is attested, I must take a general glance at the nature of
the materials which we have at our command, and at their historical value.
I shall take as my starting‐point the five facts already mentioned, the
historical certainty of which it is needless to prove. My starting‐point,
therefore, is the continuous existence of the Church, which came into
being at a definite period of time, to which it can be traced up in one
unbroken succession. This society has always affirmed that its corporate
existence, as well as the life of its individual members, is due to the
Resurrection of its founder. I shall also carefully examine and estimate
the contemporaneous evidence afforded by the Epistles of St. Paul,
especially those which are acknowledged to be genuine, as well as that of
the other writings of the New Testament, for the purpose of estimating the
value of their testimony on this subject. Even if some of these writings
are not allowed by unbelievers to be the productions of the persons whose
names they bear, still they are all of a very early date, and
unquestionably reflect the thoughts and ideas of those who wrote them, and
of the persons to whom they are addressed. But before I enter on my
immediate subject, it will be necessary to lay down the leading principles
of historical evidence, and to estimate the value of tradition as a
testimony to historical facts.
I am fully prepared to abide by the chief principles laid down by Sir G.
C. Lewis on this subject in his great work on the _Credibility of Early
Roman History_. They are generally considered to be sufficiently severe
and exacting. By many they are viewed as of far too stringent a character.
The evidence on which the great fact of the Resurrection rests, will
endure their most rigid application. They have this great advantage, that
they are laid down for the investigation of a subject purely secular, with
which religion has nothing to do. They are therefore wholly free from
religious bias, and are simply the principles for testing the claims of
ordinary facts on our belief. If the chief facts of Christianity can stand
this scrutiny, it is impossible to affirm that they are not supported by
the strongest historical testimony.
1. Every alleged fact, in order to be entitled to our belief, must be
shown to rest on direct contemporaneous testimony, or that which is its
historical equivalent.
This rule is by no means intended to affirm that every fact for which
contemporaneous testimony can be adduced is true; but only that it is to
be accepted as such when there is no reason for disbelieving it. We must
have some means to enable us to form a judgment of the knowledge and
veracity of the informant. It remains for consideration, when the direct
testimony of a contemporary is not to be had, as must be frequently the
case with events long past, what may be considered as its historical
equivalent?
It must be kept in mind that one of the most valuable forms of
contemporaneous testimony, if not the most valuable of all, is a set of
letters which contain various and definite allusions to the current
events, habits, and modes of thought of the time. For certain purposes
these are far more valuable than formal histories. The latter are
frequently written under the influence of party spirit, partiality, or
bias. The writer of a history is usually on his guard, has carefully
considered what he says, and affords us but little opportunity of
interrogating him. But the writer of a letter, unless he has special
reasons for being guarded, places before his correspondent his entire
mind. We are therefore capable of interrogating him. He often lets us into
the secret causes of events. He also makes a number of incidental
allusions to events which are passing. These form testimony of a most
valuable kind. We can in a manner almost converse with him. As a
confirmation of the facts which formal histories narrate, and as letting
us into the secret springs of events, a series of letters, written by
persons who were actively engaged in them, are historical documents of the
highest order. Their value is increased when they bear all the appearance
of coming from the writer’s heart. Nothing is more striking than the happy
results which have accrued from the extensive use made by modern
historians of original correspondence. It is not too much to say that it
has largely modified our view of events, as they have been reported in
formal histories. Another very high form of contemporaneous testimony is
the existence of institutions and monuments which can be certainly traced
up to a particular period, and which owed their existence to events of
that period. These form a species of living witnesses to the truth of the
facts out of which they have originated, and as far as their testimony
goes, it is incapable of falsehood. The most valuable testimony of this
kind is a great institution of which we possess definite evidence that it
originated in a particular event, or in the belief of it. This kind of
evidence Christianity possesses in the highest form, in the continued
existence of that great institution, the Christian Church.
2. Testimony has a general credibility, subject of course to the knowledge
and honesty of the informant, when the reports are derived from those who
lived during the generation in which a particular event occurred,
supposing it to have been one of sufficient notoriety to attract
attention, and that the reporter possessed adequate means of information,
and investigated it with sufficient care. We are always justified in
assuming that he tells the truth unless there are reasons for suspecting
the contrary.
3. Narratives of events which a man has heard from his father or his
contemporaries, but which happened before his own recollection, are for
the purpose of history, (but subject to the requisite qualifications) fair
representations of contemporaneous testimony.
History admits hearsay testimony under proper restrictions. The knowledge
of the past would be impossible, if it were to allow itself to be fettered
by the technical rules which have been introduced into the administration
of justice. The all‐important considerations with the historian, are the
notoriety of the fact and the truthfulness of the informant. Facts that a
man may have heard detailed by his grandfather or his contemporaries as
having happened in their time stand as representations of contemporaneous
testimony in the same position as those derived from the earlier
generation.
4. But when a third stage is interposed in the transmission of events, as
for instance when we learn from our fathers or grandfathers what they have
learnt from theirs, an element of uncertainty is introduced. Still an
historian, writing after such an interval of time, if he sifted evidence
with care, would be able to report with accuracy all the great events,
whatever difficulty he might have in ascertaining the minor details.
Within this period abundance of sources of accurate information exist on
all points of importance, although the details gradually fade out of
people’s recollections. After this interval, the accounts of events are
likely to receive a certain amount of colouring, according to the
prejudices of the narrators; but the interval is too short, and the
remembrance of them too recent, to allow of their becoming incrusted with
important mythical additions. All the materials for investigation are in
existence, and within the reach of the honest historian. He might find
difficulty in arranging the details in historical sequence; but if he does
not give an accurate account of the great outlines, it is owing, not to
the want of historical materials, but to the absence of a desire to
investigate and report the truth.
5. The limits of time during which tradition can be considered as a
sufficiently accurate medium for preserving the memory of events, may be
put generally at from one hundred to one hundred and twenty years. Within
this period careful investigation and inquiry will enable the historian to
report the main features of events with substantial truth, from the
testimony of those who were contemporaries, or who derived their
information from those who were. Beyond this period, when the knowledge of
occurrences has to pass through three or four media of transmission,
tradition becomes an uncertain and untrustworthy informant, and after the
lapse of a greater interval, it is utterly unreliable, affording no means
of checking the introduction of legendary narratives. There may be a few
exceptional cases which have impressed themselves deeply on the public
recollection. Occasionally the protracted lives of a few individuals may
lengthen the period of trustworthy transmission, but this is an event of
such rare occurrence as but slightly to modify the general rule.
It must be observed that there are two cases in which the traditional
knowledge of events is transmitted with far more accuracy, and over far
longer intervals of time than in ordinary ones, viz., those of families
which have an historical importance derived from the actions of their
ancestors, and those of bodies of men who have a kind of corporate life,
succeeding one another in unbroken succession, especially when this
corporate life is founded on the events themselves. This latter case
presents the means best adapted for the traditionary transmission of
facts, and one in which it is hardly possible that they should fail of
being accurately transmitted within a reasonable interval of time. This
was precisely the position occupied by the Christian Church during the
first century of its existence respecting the chief events in the life of
its founder.
An example will illustrate this: If there had been no written memorials of
the life of John Wesley, there can be no doubt that the society which he
founded would have handed down to the present day an account of the chief
events of his life, which would have been accurate in its main outlines.
Thousands of persons are now living who have conversed with those who have
heard him preach; I myself have done so. It would therefore be impossible
to impose upon them a wholly mythic account in place of that which would
have been handed down by the Wesleyan body. Yet this society is founded on
a set of dogmas, not on the historical facts of its founder’s life. The
Christian Church therefore was in a far superior position for preserving a
substantially accurate account of the chief events in the life of Jesus
Christ, yet the interval which separates us from the death of Wesley is
greater than that which elapsed between the death of Christ, and the
publication of the latest of the Synoptic Gospels, even if we accept the
dates which are assigned to them by our opponents.
6. When the knowledge of past events has perished, it is impossible to re‐
construct them by the aid of conjecture, except within the limits to which
I have previously alluded. These limits must be strictly defined,
otherwise that which is propounded as history becomes nothing else than a
statement of our subjective impressions. Conjectures which cannot stand
the test of historical verification cannot be accepted as facts of
history.
Nothing is easier than, when facts are wanting, to invent them, and thus
bridge over the intervals which lie between others, the connecting links
of which have perished. But how are we to know that such conjectural
events were real facts, and not mere creations of the imagination? Clearly
this can be determined in no other way than by subjecting them to a rigid
verification. If they will not endure this, they must be rejected.
Historical conjectures have no higher claims for acceptance than
scientific ones. Both must be subject to the same tests, and must share
the same fate. I do not deny that many such conjectures may have a
considerable degree of plausibility; but, unless we rigidly reject from
the rank of historic facts those that break down under the test of
verification, histories will be converted into novels or poems. If our
knowledge of the connecting links between events in the history of the
past has perished, we shall not improve it by imagining facts, and calling
the result by the name of history.
We cannot be too guarded in this particular subject, because an almost
boundless license has been introduced into the present controversy. Pure
creations of the imagination, which it is impossible to verify, are
constantly propounded as facts in the history of the past. I by no means
wish to deny that both parties must plead guilty to the charge of this
species of historical forgery. The fact may be unpleasant, but we shall do
no good by refusing to recognize it. When the knowledge of past events has
perished, and our conjectures break down under the test of verification,
we have nothing to do but to remain content with our ignorance.
If these principles are correct, a considerable number of recently
published lives of Jesus, and other similar compositions, have no claim to
the designation of historical writings. They are mere novels evolved out
of the self‐consciousness of their authors. They are nothing but simple
imaginations of what, under certain conjectural circumstances, might have
happened, but are destitute of all evidence that they actually occurred.
If history is thus degraded, it must become devoid of all scientific
value. I have pressed this point because nowhere is this license of
conjectural guessing at events more largely indulged in, than in questions
connected with the Bible and its criticism.