CONSIDERATIONS.
I have proved in the preceding chapters that one of the miracles recorded
in the Gospels is substantiated by the highest form of historical
testimony, on evidence quite independent of their contents. I have adopted
this course because unbelievers affirm that the miraculous narratives
contained in them are alone sufficient to prove them to be unhistorical.
It has therefore become necessary to prove the truth of the greatest
miracle which they narrate, without any reference to their assertions.
Christianity unquestionably existed before the Gospels were written, and
the all‐important fact on which it rests can be substantiated without
their aid, on data which are conceded by our opponents. Its truth or
falsehood therefore does not rest on any mere question as to what was
their actual date, or who were their authors. Still they are the only
records of the life of Jesus Christ that the Church possesses. The
question therefore as to whether they are true in all their chief
outlines, is one of such importance as to render a few observations on
this subject indispensable.
There can be no doubt that no one would have ever thought of denying their
general authenticity, except on account of the miraculous narratives they
contain. This has made them the battle‐field of Christianity, because it
has been supposed that if their historical character can be shaken,
Christianity would be disproved as resting on no other basis. For this
purpose every variation in them, even the smallest, has been noted, and
these variations have been magnified into contradictions. There is no
weapon which criticism has not employed for the purpose of impugning their
veracity. But the real ground of offence is the miraculous narrative. As,
however, I have proved that the most important miracle recorded in them
can be established on grounds quite independent of their testimony, we can
now approach their consideration with this great antecedent difficulty
removed. If the Resurrection of Jesus is an actual occurrence, the other
miraculous events recorded in them no longer stand in the way of their
acceptance as genuine histories. This one miracle is sufficient to carry
all the rest; not, of course, that it proves that they occurred, but it
gets rid of the entire _à priori_ difficulty with which their acceptance
is attended. Nay, further, if Christ rose from the dead, it is more
probable than not, that this was not the only miracle connected with Him:
or, in other words, if the authors of the Gospels attributed to Him no
other miraculous action, it would rather afford a presumption against them
as credible historians. It follows therefore, that although the proof of
the Resurrection does not by itself establish the reality of the other
miracles recorded as having been performed by Him, it renders them so far
probable, that the same amount of evidence, which is sufficient to
establish the ordinary facts of history, is sufficient to establish the
general truth of the events recorded in the Gospels. I do not mean to
affirm that some miracle may not have been incorrectly attributed to
Christ in the traditions of the Church, from which the narratives in the
Gospels have been derived, in the same manner as some inaccurate reports
of facts have obtained admission into ordinary histories. But as these
latter do not affect the general credibility of history, so errors of this
description would not affect the general credibility of the Gospel
narratives. All that I claim for them is that they should be both alike
tried by the historical canons of criticism applicable to the same species
of documents. Let me state once for all the position that I occupy. I am
not called upon to prove that no error can have crept into their accounts;
that events are all arranged in their true order of sequence; that
variations do not exist in them which with our present knowledge of the
details, it is difficult to reconcile, or even that the Evangelists
themselves may not have misconceived their true order, or grouped them in
one that was the result of religious considerations. The determination of
such questions may affect our views as to the nature of the inspiration
under which we suppose the Gospels to have been written, but it is one
wholly foreign to an historical discussion. The question which I have to
consider is, not the extent of the inspiration of their authors; but
whether they do or do not contain genuine history; and if they do, to what
class of historical writings they belong, and to estimate their testimony
accordingly.
I will consider this last question first. The Gospels most distinctly
affirm that they do not belong to the class of professed histories, but to
that of memoirs. This is a very important consideration; for if they only
claim to be memoirs and not histories it is absurd to demand of them an
accuracy of arrangement and of detail, which would be essential to a
history, but which forms no portion of the plan of a memoir. But they not
only affirm that they are memoirs, but memoirs of a peculiar character;
that is to say, religious memoirs, composed with a double purpose, viz.
that of setting forth the events of a life, and at the same time of
teaching a religion.
This point is so important, and is so generally overlooked in the
arguments both of those who affirm and of those who deny their historical
character, that it will be necessary to prove it. It is not only evident
from the general nature of their contents, but three of the Evangelists
directly affirm it, and two of them, Luke and John, in express terms. The
former distinctly asserts that he composed his Gospel in order that a
person called “Theophilus” might know the certainty of the things in which
he had been instructed. “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth
a declaration of these things that are most surely believed among us; even
as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye
witnesses and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having
perfect understanding of all things from the first, to write unto thee in
order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of
those things in which thou hast been instructed.” (Luke i. 1‐4.)
Here we have the purpose of the writer definitely affirmed. It is to set
forth a statement of the leading facts of the life of Jesus, for the
purpose of communicating instruction in the Christian religion. In one
word, the author proposed to teach a religion by means of a narrative of
facts. It is hardly possible to give a more accurate description of a
memoir as distinguished from a history. He also tells us that he meant to
compose it in an orderly arrangement, but he does not tell us whether the
order was intended to be strictly chronological, or merely regulated by
the avowed religious purpose of the work. It is quite possible for a
writer to adopt an orderly arrangement, who arranges his matter as much by
religious considerations as by chronological ones. According to the
statement of this preface, the religious purpose is clearly the
predominant one; and it is therefore only reasonable to suppose that it
has exerted considerable influence on the grouping.
We learn also from this preface that the things most surely believed among
Christians consisted of a number of facts, which had been delivered to
them by persons who from the beginning were eye‐witnesses and ministers of
the word. Several persons had already set forth written accounts of them
before the author composed this Gospel. It is implied that he did so
because he possessed better and more accurate sources of information than
previous writers. The object, however, is clear; it was that Theophilus
might know the certainty of those things, _i.e._ the great facts on which
the Christianity, in which he had been instructed, was based.
The assertion of this religious purpose in the composition of the fourth
Gospel, and that the materials are a selection from a large mass of others
is even more distinct and definite. “Many other signs truly did Jesus in
the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, but
these are written that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God, and that believing ye may have life through his name.” (John xx. 30,
31.)
Words could hardly have been framed which more definitely assert that this
Gospel is a memoir, and not a history; and that the religious purpose, in
its composition, was the predominant idea of the writer.
The assertions of the author of St. Mark’s Gospel, although not equally
full, are sufficiently definite. He designates it as “The beginning of the
gladsome message of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Here, again, the
religious idea is plainly the predominant one in the writer’s mind, and
the obvious conclusion is that he intended his work to be a memoir, and
not a history.
We have no such direct affirmation by the author of St. Matthew’s Gospel,
unless the opening words, “The book of the generations of Jesus Christ,
the Son of David, the Son of Abraham,” are intended to cover the entire
work. The nature of its contents, however, leave not the smallest doubt
that his design in writing was precisely the same as that of the other
Evangelists, viz. to teach Christianity by setting forth a memoir of the
life of Jesus Christ.
Such, then, is the avowed purpose of the authors of the four Gospels. Each
of them is a religious memoir. This being so, it is absurd to demand of
such writings what can only be found in regularly composed histories.
In what, then, does a history differ from a memoir? The object of the
historian is not only to give an account of the events which he narrates
precisely as they occurred; but the order of his narrative is regulated by
the definite sequences of time and place. The writer of a memoir, on the
contrary, is not bound to observe this order, but he is entitled to vary
it in reference to the special object he has in view, and the points which
he requires to illustrate.
But the religious purpose is most definitely affirmed to have been the
predominant one in the minds of the authors of the Gospels. It would
therefore have an important influence on their arrangement of their
materials. We should expect to find them grouped far more in reference to
this end, than to the mere sequences of time and place. When certain of
the actions or portions of the teaching of our Lord illustrated the
particular subject which each Evangelist had before him, he would neglect
the exact historical order, and group them in reference to this special
purpose.
In writings of this description, therefore, while all the chief points of
his life and his discourses ought to present a substantial agreement, we
should naturally expect to find a considerable number of minor
divergencies. While we have the fullest right to expect that the facts
will be accurately reported, we have no right to demand that the writer
should observe no other order in his narrative than the mere sequences of
time and place. It is on the assumption that the authors of the Gospels
intended to set forth an exact historical account of the ministry of
Christ, instead of taking them for what they have affirmed them to be,
religious memoirs of that ministry, that no inconsiderable number of their
alleged discrepancies have originated.
The presence of variations, or if it is preferred to call them
contradictions, in writings of this description by no means invalidates
their historical character. It has been well observed by a writer in the
“Westminster Review,” that they are to be found in every historical
writing from Herodotus to Mr. Froude. As these discrepancies in the
Gospels are so largely dwelt on by unbelievers, I subjoin a passage from
Dean Stanley’s account of the murder of Thomas a Becket, in his “Memorials
of Canterbury Cathedral,” as showing the existence of such inaccuracies
even in the accounts of persons who were actual eye‐witnesses of events in
which they were deeply interested. Speaking of the number of existing
accounts of the murder, he says:—
“Of these thirty narrators, four, Edward Grimes, William Fitzstephen, John
of Salisbury, who unfortunately supplies but little, and the anonymous
author of the Lambeth manuscript, claim to have been eye‐witnesses. Three
others were monks of the convent, and although not present at the
massacre, were probably somewhere in the precincts. Three others, though
not in England at the time, had been on terms more or less intimate with
Becket, and two of them seem to have taken the utmost pains to ascertain
the truth of the facts which they narrate. From these several accounts, we
can recover the particulars of the death of Archbishop Becket to the
minutest details. It is true that having been written by monastic and
clerical historians, after the national feeling had been raised to
enthusiasm in his behalf, allowance must be made for exaggeration,
suppression, and every kind of false colouring which could set off their
hero to advantage. It is true, also, that _in some points the various
authorities are hopelessly irreconcilable_. But still a minute comparison
of the narrators with each other, and with the localities, leads to a
conviction that on the whole the facts have been substantially preserved;
and as often happens, the truth can be ascertained in spite and even in
consequence of attempts to distort and suppress it.”
It is clear, therefore, that the presence of variations, nay even
_hopeless contradictions_ in such narratives, does not interfere with
their general historical character. It appears that from narratives which
contain “exaggeration, suppression, and every kind of false colouring,” we
can ascertain the particulars of the death of Becket to the minutest
particular. Why do not unbelievers apply the same rule to the Gospels? Why
are their minor variations in details alleged to prove that the entire
narrative is unhistorical? One thing respecting them is clear: instead of
presenting indications of “exaggeration, suppression, and false
colouring,” they are characterized by a uniform sobriety in their
statements. They offer no comments, and allow the facts to produce their
own impression on the reader.
It follows therefore that if the Gospels were ordinary biographies, the
variations in them would not interfere with their historical character,
and that differences in mere details would leave the main facts
unaffected. Still more true is this with respect to memoirs, and
especially with those composed with the object of teaching a religion.
Attention to this obvious fact will get rid of a large number of the
objections which have been so pertinaciously urged against them.
With respect to their general credibility, it is important to observe that
even if the date of the Synoptics be placed as late as that assigned to
them by those critics who deny their historical character, viz. somewhere
between A.D. 90 and 115, still the time when they must have been composed
lies, according to the rule of Sir G. C. Lewis, within the period of
trustworthy historical tradition. In this case the earliest of them would
bear date about sixty, and the latest of them about eighty‐five years
after the events they narrate. Renan is of opinion that their internal
evidence proves them to have been composed before the destruction of
Jerusalem. Be this as it may; even at the date assigned to them by the
most sceptical critics, good traditionary information lay within the reach
of their respective authors. The interval is about the same in the one
case as that which separates us from the invasion of France by the allies
in 1814, and in the other case from the outbreak of the French Revolution.
Many persons are still alive who can remember the former event; and
although nearly everyone who could remember the latter has passed away,
yet large numbers of the existing generation, whose recollections will be
good for twenty years to come, have conversed with those who took the
deepest interest in the scenes in question. While this generation lives,
it would be impossible for the whole outline of the facts to become
falsified. Minor errors might creep into the details; their precise order
and sequence might not be accurately preserved; yet their general outline
would be handed down correctly, and it would be impossible to hide the
true history behind a set of legends. If the authors of the Synoptic
Gospels were only separated by this interval of time from the events that
they narrate, they must have had all the materials of true history within
their reach. Persons must have been living when the first Gospel was
written who could accurately remember the events in question; and even at
the latest date which can be assigned to the other Gospels, large numbers
of persons must have been living who had heard narratives of them from
their fathers, which, as unspeakably interesting, they would treasure up
with the liveliest recollection.
It follows, therefore, that even if we assume the latest date which has
been assigned for the publication of the Synoptic Gospels it lies
considerably within the period of accurate historical recollection, even
if we suppose that their authors composed them from traditional sources
only, and were not assisted by written documents. But the existence of
documents is expressly asserted by the author of St. Luke’s Gospel. And
even if we were devoid of this testimony, we might infer it from the
inherent probability of the case. This was inevitable, as the basis of the
religion was placed on a personal history. The system of instruction must
have involved a constant reference to the details of that history. When,
therefore, the members of the Churches heard them from the lips of
original witnesses, the interest of the subject must have induced those
who were able to write, to compose brief memoranda for the purpose of
assisting their recollections. In this way a considerable amount of
Christian literature in connection with the life of Jesus must have grown
up in the course of years, and the necessity for it would become the more
urgent in proportion as the original disciples who had heard His
discourses and seen His actions passed away from the scene. This is
exactly in conformity with the statement made by the author of St. Luke’s
Gospel.
It is clear, therefore, that even if the publication of our present
Gospels did not take place before the time assigned to them by
unbelievers, the historical materials at the command of their authors must
have been ample. It would have been impossible that facts and legendary
inventions should have become blended together within so short a period.
Consequently nothing but neglect to use the materials at hand, or a
deliberate purpose of falsification could have prevented them from giving
an account of the ministry of Jesus which would be substantially accurate
in all its main features. If on the other hand we suppose these Gospels to
have been written for the purpose of falsification, then their
contradiction to the accounts which had been hitherto accepted by the
Church must have destroyed their credit. It would have been impossible for
the authors to have succeeded in concealing the facts behind a mass of
myths and legends while they formed the very groundwork of the daily life
of the community. Under the peculiar circumstances of the Christians of
the first century some portion of the events of the life and teaching of
Christ must have been brought to their minds every day. The hostility of
the Pagan world around them was alone sufficient to ensure this. Moreover,
the religion was not one which was committed to the custody of a caste or
priesthood; but it appealed directly to the individual. As distinguished
from the other religions of the world Christianity may be not incorrectly
defined as the religion of the individual. It awoke emotions of the
profoundest nature in the hearts of even its humblest followers,
addressing itself both to their consciences and their affections. These
emotions were all centered in a personal life. If one fact is more certain
than another, it is that Jesus was viewed by the early Christians as their
religious King, to whom they owed a personal allegiance. This must have
rendered it necessary for them to treasure up all the facts of His history
with the deepest care.
Further: the early Christians not only lived in the midst of a society
extremely hostile to them, but were also zealous proselyters. This alone
would have been sufficient to compel them to keep in lively remembrance
the chief events in the history of Jesus. How else was it possible for
them to persuade others that He was the Christ? The Church was not a
school of philosophy, but consisted of a body of men whose bond of union
was adherence to a leader. To make converts to such a religion would have
been impossible without an accurate acquaintance with the facts on which
His claims were grounded.
Corporate bodies possess a power of handing down a traditionary knowledge
of events in a far greater degree than individuals. The Christian Church
consisted of a set of communities which had not only an individual, but
also the strongest corporate life. Although it contained no priesthood,
properly so called, the cohesion of these communities, placed as they were
in the midst of a hostile population, in Jewish or Gentile cities, was of
the strongest character, and in proportion to their smallness, the action
of each individual member would be important. Each separate Church
therefore formed a corporation as opposed to the Jewish and heathen world
by which it was surrounded; and each separate unit felt himself animated
by a similar life, which dictated to him the necessity of conquering or
perishing. From this arose an intense desire of making new converts and of
increasing the number of the faithful. How was this to be accomplished? An
organization was necessary. Each of the communities had one which was
suitable to its need. One of its most important functions must have been
to instruct new converts in its principles, and to keep actively burning
the zeal of its original members. But as the existence of the community
was founded on an adhesion to a person, the course of instruction must
have consisted to a considerable extent of details of the actions and
teaching of Jesus. “How shall they believe on him of whom they have not
heard?” was a pertinent question of St. Paul, “or how shall they hear
without a preacher?” No society has ever existed in the world which has
had an equal inducement to hand down accurately the events of its
founder’s life, or had equal facilities for detecting any attempt to
substitute a fictitious account of him for the true one.
It follows therefore that at the period in question it would have been
simply impossible that a fictitious or legendary account of the life of
Jesus should have taken the place of the one which these Churches had
accepted at the time when they first came into existence. I have already
proved that the Epistles of St. Paul put it beyond the possibility of
question that an account of the chief facts in the ministry of Jesus
formed the foundation of the religious life of the Churches at the time
when he wrote them, and that it had done so from the first. The difficulty
therefore of introducing an entirely new version of it must have been
insurmountable. A doubtful fact or two might have become incorporated, but
while the religious life of the community was thus strong, it would have
been utterly impossible to give a new colouring to the whole.
But further: this difficulty must have been greatly increased by the wide
separation of such Churches as those of Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Jerusalem,
and others, from one another. Each Church must have had an account of its
own of the chief facts of our Lord’s ministry. If one of them could have
been induced to accept a new set of facts, there would have been the
greatest difficulty in persuading the others to follow its example. Daily
experience teaches us how very slow religious bodies are in changing the
fundamental articles of their belief. However much the sentiments of
individuals may have changed, the original confessions of faith are
retained with the utmost tenacity, even after they have ceased to embody
the religious life of the community. What confessions of faith are to
modern Churches, the chief facts of the ministry of our Lord must have
been to the primitive one; the only difference being that these latter
lived with a far greater tenacity in the minds of the early Christians
than the former have in modern Churches. If therefore a single Church
could have been induced to accept a new version of its Founder’s life, the
separation of these different communities from one another, would have
placed an insuperable barrier in the way of imposing such an account on
the other Churches. The inquiry must have at once arisen, Whence has this
Church derived its new Gospel, thus fundamentally different from that
which has from the first formed the basis of our religious life?
It is clear therefore that even if we accept the latest date which had
been assigned to the publication of the Synoptic Gospels, their authors
must have been in possession of abundance of materials for setting forth
an account of the ministry of Jesus, which would have been correct in all
its great outlines; and that even if they had been so minded it would have
been impossible for them to have succeeded in palming off a previously
unknown set of facts in place of those which had hitherto formed the
groundwork of the life of the different Churches. We have seen also that
when St. Paul wrote his Epistles, the different Churches were in
possession of an outline of the ministry of Jesus Christ which contained
within it, as a matter of the highest importance, the most remarkable
miraculous fact which is recorded in the Gospels. Is it to be believed
that this was the only one; or, is it possible that a set of miraculous
narratives could have succeeded in taking the place of the account of His
life and teaching which was in possession of the Churches, within the
interval of time which separates St. Paul’s Epistles from the publication
of the first of the Synoptic Gospels?
I conclude, therefore, that the original narratives must have attributed a
number of miracles to Jesus Christ; that the accounts of them must have
been handed down to the time when our opponents allow that the Gospels
were published, and that by this means they have been incorporated into
them. Not only has the alleged late date of the publication of the Gospels
been urged as a reason for discrediting them as reports of historical
facts, but also the uncertainty of their authorship. It will not fall
within the scope of this work to examine the value of the testimony by
which each Gospel has been assigned to its respective author. It will be
sufficient here to observe that it is as strong as that by which the
authorship of any other ancient writing is ascertained. The internal
character of two of these Gospels fully agrees with the traditionary
account. Although the assertions of the early Fathers vary as to the
precise relation in which Mark stood to Peter, the ancient traditions are
unanimous in connecting him in some way or other with the Apostle. The
phenomena of this Gospel are precisely such as we should expect if this
was the case. In nearly every case where we can ascertain, either from
this or from one of the other Gospels, that Peter was an eye‐witness of an
event recorded in it, St. Mark gives precisely such a description of it as
we might expect would be given by a man of the peculiar temperament of
Simon Peter. We know, both from the Acts of the Apostles and from the
Epistles of St. Paul, that St. Luke was a companion of that Apostle. The
peculiarities of the Gospel that bears his name are precisely such as we
should have expected if its author was a companion of the great Apostle of
the Gentiles. There is also every reason for believing that Luke was not
an eye‐witness of the ministry of Jesus. The author of the Gospel affirms
that he was not an eye‐witness. In conformity with this the Gospel bears
the most distinctive marks of compilation. So far the internal structure
of these two Gospels entirely agrees with the external testimony as to
their authorship. We know also on the authority of the early Fathers that
Matthew composed a Gospel in the Hebrew language which was designed for
the use of Jewish Christians. Now whoever is the author of the present
Greek Gospel which bears his name, it is distinguished by precisely the
same characteristics as those which are described as appertaining to the
Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew, that is to say, that the proportion which
the discourses bear to the narrative portions of it is very large; and its
contents make it evident that it was chiefly designed for the use of
Christians of the Jewish race. If therefore our present Gospel was not set
forth by the Apostle himself in Greek, both the external testimony and the
internal evidence prove that it is a representation of its contents
sufficiently accurate for all the practical purposes of history.
But the question as to the names of the persons who actually set forth our
Gospels has been made of far more importance than it deserves, both by the
defenders and the opponents of Christianity. The all important point is,
are they faithful accounts of the primitive traditions of the Church
respecting the chief events of its Founder’s ministry; and were they
composed within that period of time, when the recollections of it must
have been so fresh as to render it impossible to substitute a body of
fictitious and legendary narratives in place of those which had been
handed down in the Church from the beginning? Unless we know enough about
an author from external sources of information, to enable us to form a
definite opinion as to his judgment and means of information, our mere
knowledge of his name will help us little. The information which
ecclesiastical tradition affords us respecting the authors of the Synoptic
Gospels is little beyond that which is contained in the New Testament
itself, and is insufficient to enable us to form a judgment respecting
their character. That judgment must be formed exclusively from the
writings themselves, and can only be arrived at after a careful
examination of their contents.
It will be urged that if our present Greek Matthew could be shown to have
been the work of the Apostle, we should then have the testimony of an eye‐
witness of the ministry of Jesus; and if we have no certain evidence that
it was composed by him, then none of the events recorded in the Synoptics
rest on autoptic testimony. The truth of this position I entirely deny.
The real question is, do the events recorded in them faithfully represent
the traditions of the Church? Have we evidence that the traditions which
were current when these Gospels were composed, are accurate
representations of the accounts of the ministry of Jesus, which were
handed down by our Lord’s original disciples? If so, they must rest on
autoptic testimony, as they could only have been derived from our Lord’s
companions. The mere knowing the name of one of them, unless we knew a
great deal about his judgment and discretion, is of far less importance
than the assurance that we are in possession of the general testimony of
the entire body. Nor does it necessarily follow that any one follower of
Jesus, even an Apostle, was in constant attendance on His person. We know
from the Gospels themselves that this was not always the case. If such a
person had narrated events which occurred during his absence, he must have
been indebted for his knowledge of them to the testimony of others. If
therefore the present Greek Matthew could be proved to be the work of the
Apostle, still it by no means follows that he was an eye‐witness of every
one of the events recorded in it. If, however, it was set forth in its
present form by some other hand, I fully admit that neither of the
Synoptics was composed by an Apostle. But this is a wholly different point
from the consideration whether they do or do not embody the testimony of
the eye‐witnesses of the ministry of Jesus Christ. This does not depend on
our knowledge of the names of their respective authors, but whether we
have good evidence that they faithfully embody the primitive apostolical
traditions.
A careful perusal of the Synoptics will convince the reader that neither
of them professes to embody a set of personal reminiscences. On the
contrary, they bear the strongest indications of being a collection of
apostolic traditions. Of this I shall offer distinctive proof in the next
chapter. The only Gospel which embodies such personal reminiscences as
indicate the authorship of an eye‐witness is that of St. John. But the
indications of the presence of an individual personality in St. Matthew’s
Gospel are almost entirely wanting. In its general structure it forms a
striking contrast to that of John. Supposing it to have been composed by
the Apostle, he has entirely hidden his individuality in his narrative.
The question, therefore, really turns on the conclusion at which we are
able to arrive as to whether the Synoptic Gospels are faithful
representations of the primitive apostolic traditions. I have proved that
even at the latest date to which opponents assign their publication, they
must have been written within the period when all the requisite materials
existed for composing a substantially correct account of all the leading
facts; that such a traditionary account was certainly handed down in the
Church; that it formed the ground‐work of its existence; that it must have
been derived from apostolic men, who had ample means of knowing the facts;
that the Church possessed the means of transmitting them accurately, such
as were never possessed by any other Society; and that it was under the
necessity of doing so as the condition of its life; and that while this
account remained fresh in the recollections both of the community and of
its individual members, it would have been impossible to foist on them a
fictitious story. I shall now proceed to inquire how far the phenomena of
the Gospels tend to establish these positions.