THE EXTRAORDINARY STATE OF APOLOGETICS WITH REGARD TO MIRACLES
§ 1. Preliminary Remarks.
In this and the following chapters I hope to show how matters stand
with reference to the more important points at issue between the
Christian apologist and the Rationalist. The truth or otherwise
of the Bible miracles being of supreme importance, I begin with an
examination of the position of apologetics with regard to them.
THE VIEW OF SCIENCE.
Professor Huxley once made the following remark: "The miracles of
the Church are child's play to the miracles I see in nature." This
has been hailed by the apologist as a satisfactory admission that
science concedes the possibility of miracles. It is continually being
quoted in apologetic works and from the pulpit, and is apparently
considered as a conclusive piece of evidence that science has nothing
to say against miracles. But, Professor Huxley went on to explain:
"On the strength of an undeniable improbability, however, we not
only have a right to demand, but are morally bound to require,
strong evidence in favour of a miracle before we even take it into
serious consideration. But when, instead of such evidence, nothing
is produced but stories originating nobody knows how or when, among
persons who could firmly believe in devils which enter pigs, I confess
that my feeling is one of astonishment that anyone should expect a
reasonable man to take such testimony seriously." [30] We never hear
of this from the pulpit! Possibly Professor Huxley would not have
been thus misrepresented--or shall we say misunderstood?--if he had
spoken of the wonders of nature, and had not used a word popularly
understood to signify that break in nature's laws which it has yet
to be proved has ever occurred, or can ever occur. The wonders of
nature take place in accordance with natural laws; miracles do not.
WHY HAVE MIRACLES CEASED?
An obvious objection to miracles is the one often propounded
by an inquiring child, "Why do we no longer have miracles?" The
rationalist's reply, of course, is that, so soon as nature's laws were
better understood, trustworthy evidence was demanded and miracles
ceased. Paley tries to parry the question by saying: "To expect,
concerning a miracle, that it should succeed upon repetition is
to expect that which would make it cease to be a miracle; which is
contrary to its nature as such, and would totally destroy the use
and purpose for which it was wrought." [31] But, as Cotter Morison
remarks: [32] "Assuming that a miracle reveals the presence of a
supernatural power, why should its repetition destroy its miraculous
character? Above all, why should it destroy its use? If miracles are
intended to convert the stiff-necked and hard-of-heart, what more
likely way of bringing them to submission than the repetition of
miracles? And, according to Scripture, this was precisely the way in
which Pharaoh, king of Egypt, was humbled. He resisted the miracles
wrought by Moses and Aaron with stubbornness all through the first
nine plagues; but the universal slaying of the first-born broke even
his spirit.... It may suit Paley to say that repetition of miracles
would destroy their use; but he must be a luke-warm theologian who
does not at times wish from the depth of his heart that an authentic
miracle could be produced. Yet it is at this momentous crisis in
the religious affairs of the world, when the enemy is carrying one
position after another, and has all but penetrated to the citadel of
belief, that no miracles occur, that no miracles are claimed, except,
indeed, of the compromising species made at Lourdes.... When no one
doubted the possibility of the frequency of miracles they abounded,
we are told--that is, when, by reason of their number and the ready
credit accorded to them, their effect was the least startling, then
they were lavished on a believing world. Now, when they are denied and
insulted as the figments of a barbarous age; when the faith they might
support is in such jeopardy as it never was before; when a tithe of the
wonders wasted in the deserts of Sinai and the 'parts beyond Jordan'
would shake the nations with astonishment and surprise--when, in short,
the least expenditure of miracle would produce the maximum of result,
then miracles mysteriously cease. This fact, which is beyond contest,
has borne fruit, and will yet bear more."
Some pious Christians, feeling the force of arguments such as these,
contend that Christ's promises to believers do indeed apply to all
time; that supernatural manifestations have not ceased; and that,
when there is no exercise of the supernatural in the visible Church
of Christendom, it is owing to lack of faith. "Can you give me," asks
Father Ignatius, [33] "one single text in Holy Scripture to prove that
miracles and visions are to cease with the apostles? When we hear,
in all directions, of the supernatural being manifested, we need
not wonder, for we are living in a day which demands supernatural
manifestations more than any other epoch in the Christian Church."
BELIEF IN MIRACLES ESSENTIAL.
The old argument in support of miracles and inspiration was clearly
vitiated by its circular nature, for it was to the effect that
miracles were true because asserted to be so in the Bible, which was
the inspired word of God, and that the Bible was inspired because the
miracles proved it to be so. This argument is gradually being dropped,
and I have only alluded to it to show how much importance used to
be, and, for the matter of that, still is, attached to miracles, as
proving the truth of the Bible. Butler, Paley, Mansel, Mozley, Farrar,
Westcott, Liddon, and a host of other authorities, could not conceive
that revelation could be made in any other way than by miracles,
and felt that without them Christianity would be proved false and
overthrown. Such also appears to be the opinion of the majority of
our living dignitaries. On the other hand, the minority, which we may
take to be represented by the able writers in Contentio Veritatis
and elsewhere, maintain that "the time is past when Christianity
could be presented as a revelation attested by miracles.... We must
accept Christianity, not on the ground of the miracles, but in spite
of them.... There has been no special intervention of the Divine Will
contrary to the natural order of things." That is, by ruling miracles
to be out of court, the new school are able to reconcile the facts of
science with the Christian faith. "Our belief in Jesus Christ must be
based upon moral conviction; not upon physical wonder." [34] The old
school, on the other hand, consider Christianity to be untrue without
miracles. "The miraculous element," they say, "cannot be weeded out of
the Gospel narratives without altogether impugning the historical value
of these documents." [35] They are able to maintain this position,
and yet remain believers, by disallowing the facts of science. It is
an extraordinary state of affairs, and who can wonder that many of
the laity who know of these things are meanwhile fast lapsing into
agnosticism? As a matter of fact, no bishop, no clerk in Holy Orders,
can honestly retain his preferment unless he believes in miracles. He
would have to follow the example of the late Sir Leslie Stephen,
and resign.
§ 2. Miracle Apologetics.
The question arises, "How, then, do the majority of our spiritual
guides regard the accounts of miracles in the Bible?" Broadly
speaking, miracles are divided by them into three classes--(1)
mythical, but containing spiritual truths; (2) explicable naturally;
(3) historical and vital. Should their views be of a very advanced
type, all the miracles will be relegated to the first two classes. If
advanced, but not quite so much advanced, the fundamental miracles
of the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Ascension will be taken into
the third class; the miracles deemed to be not indispensable, or
not serving a useful purpose, being explained away. Continuing to
descend the scale of enlightenment, more and more miracles will
find their way into the third class, until no miracles alleged to
have been performed by Christ himself will be discredited--except,
perhaps, those that appear particularly incredible or useless, such
as sending devils into swine, turning water into wine, or withering a
fig tree. Regarding the miracles alleged to have been performed by the
Apostles we hear very little. Concerning the Old Testament miracles,
however, opinions are freely expressed, and range between those of
the Broad Church, who consider the miracles all belong to the first
two classes, and those of the strictly orthodox, who maintain all
the miraculous events to be facts, on the principle that, whether
the whale swallowed Jonah or Jonah swallowed the whale, they must be
true because they are related in the Holy Scriptures--the Scriptures
that were accepted as historical by their Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ. People who are the children of Christian parents have been
brought up from childhood to a literal acceptance of the miracles, and
now they are not only asked to give up the convictions so sedulously
implanted while their minds were most receptive, but to choose between
the conflicting views of the expounders of God's word.
Let us consider some examples of the latest interpretations, and see if
they appeal to our hearts and minds. "In John v. (the authenticity of
the passage is of no moment to this argument) we read that the stirring
of the waters and the consequent healing virtue was attributed to the
presence of an angel. The modern would speak of the pool as a medicinal
spring. The fact is the same. The mode of description is different. The
ancient knew little of what are called natural causes." [36] The
explanation is sensible enough; but, while incidentally showing that
the Evangelists were just as credulous and ignorant as other people
of their times, it is a dangerous concession. For directly a natural
explanation of this kind is allowed in one case, it must also be
allowed as possible in another, and thus the fundamental miracles might
be shorn of all that renders them of any value for substantiating our
faith. Regarding the particular explanation under consideration, one
may be permitted to ask, How is it the water has lost its medicinal
qualities? Also, How is it the ancient's belief is still foisted on
the credulous modern? When visiting the traditional Pool of Bethesda,
now in the custody of the Greek Church, I saw documents exposed in
the gateway giving the words from the fifth chapter of St. John in
fifty-six different languages!
The healing miracles performed by Jesus are now frequently attributed
to the use of the same power as that by which faith-cures are effected
at the present time--a power upon which the science of psychology
is shedding a new light, and which mental therapeutics will one day
place at the disposal of the human race. Apart from this disappointing
alteration in the character of the "mighty works" which were supposed
to betoken the divinity of Christ, is there not something abhorrent in
the thought that He should take advantage of a secret knowledge of the
powers of nature, in order to impose upon the credulity of the age in
which He lived, and thus secure the worship of His disciples? At least,
if we are Christians, let us assume that Christ, as man, believed He
was using supernatural powers, and that His disciples, if they had
faith enough, could remove mountains, just as He undoubtedly believed,
according to such an eminent authority as Dr. Sanday, that He really
was casting out devils when He cured "the epileptic," etc. It is
certainly difficult to understand this ignorance of the Son of God;
but, when apologists attempt to extricate Christian dogmas from the
quagmire of doubt by such methods, they only succeed in causing them
to disappear into it beyond all hope of recovery.
As I have alluded to the subject of Christ's belief in
"devil-possession," I should mention here that there are still many
cultured ecclesiastics, especially among those who still believe that
there is such a personage as the Devil, who argue that there was such
a malady as devil-possession in those days. Some even hold that it
still exists. On the other hand, the Rev. David Smith, in his book,
The Days of His Flesh, which professes to bring the Gospels "up to
date," holds that Jesus, "after his wont, fell in with the delusion,"
and that in the case in which the Gadarene swine play so important
a part, He, "like a wise physician, humanised the madman's fancy,
and feigned acquiescence in his lunatic craze." Exorcism, it may be
remarked, has been practised, in all times, wherever a belief has
existed in literal demoniacal possession. In the Latin and Greek
Churches it is used in the baptism of both adults and infants, in
the consecration of water, salt, oil, etc., and in specific cases
of individuals supposed to be possessed by evil spirits. Exorcism
in baptism is still retained also in some Lutheran Churches. In
Jerusalem, at the present time, there are three dissenting sects,
whose ministers practise the exorcism of spirits.
Opinions differ widely as to whether certain miracles actually
occurred, or whether they admit of a natural explanation. Take the
miracle of "the Feeding of the Five Thousand." The school, of which the
Bishop of Birmingham, late of Worcester, and the learned Dr. Sanday are
the mouthpieces, consider that, "whatever may have actually occurred,
a nineteenth-century observer would have given, if he had been present,
a different account from that which has come down to us." On the other
hand, the Bishop of London believes this miracle to have occurred
"because of the very humble, unimaginative [?], and truthful men who
reported it." [37] Could any two views be more diametrically opposite?
Obviously, as has already been pointed out, destructive admissions
concerning any one of the miracles tend to invalidate the truth of all
the rest; and, therefore, we find that apologists of a less advanced
stamp are still inclined to the view that the miracles connected
with the life of Christ are miracles pure and simple. Godet, in
his Defence of the Christian Faith, explains that "It will become
easy to understand why the prodigies which signalised the advent of
Jesus Christ upon earth do not occur in our day.... The appearance
of the perfectly Holy Man was so trenchant a break in the life of
humanity up to that moment that from the shock it produced there
resulted consequences which have not repeated themselves at any
other period.... One condition was requisite--viz., that there should
exist a Man fit to be associated with the exercise of the Creative
Omnipotence." Many doubters may be prepared to admit the necessity
of miracles as explained by the learned Professor; but they contend
that, up to the present time, there is no instance of a miracle having
been proved, not even the alleged sinlessness of Jesus Christ, and
they ask why, if God graciously furnished proofs to one generation,
He did not, in His infinite wisdom, ordain that these proofs should
be established for all time, beyond all possibility of cavil?
Passing on to the miracles of the Old Testament, we often find
that those who still maintain that only the first chapters of the
Bible are legendary will adopt a variation of the second class of
interpretation--they will say that the events were of an ordinary
character, but occurred in answer to prayer. Joshua is for them an
historical character. However, Joshua x. 12-14 must not be taken
literally, but allowance should be made for poetical licence. Joshua,
it is explained, never really committed himself to the extent of
commanding the sun and the moon to stand still, but only "besought
God that the black clouds of the storm driving up the pass from
the sea might not be allowed to blot out the sun and bring night
prematurely before his victory was complete." [38] This prayer,
be it remembered, was for the sake of a work of butchery which God
was supposed to have sanctioned! Besides, as the sun is said to have
obeyed Joshua, and, further, it is said that "there was no day like
that before it or after it," at least we are to infer that something
very unusual happened at Joshua's request. The explanation we meet
with in what are considered by some to be the "best" apologetics is
that the language used is purely figurative, just as one might say,
"I hope the sun won't set too soon," or "We never had such a day."
Similarly there is the north-east wind theory as a possible explanation
of what might have happened, if the "crossing of the Red Sea" ever
took place, and if Moses be not as mythical as the rod with which he
divided the waters.
Perhaps the most unsatisfactory explanation of all is that regarding
the rainbow. It is agreed, there being no other alternative, that
"it is not meant that the rainbow appeared for the first time to
Noah [another purely legendary character] after the Flood [although
this is certainly what the Bible leads one to suppose], but that it
was adopted then as a visible sign of God's covenant, as water is
adopted for a somewhat similar covenant in the New Testament." [39]
It is now known for a fact that, if there are any historical data
for the story, the Flood could only have been local; but let that
pass. Has the rainbow-covenant prevented millions of people perishing
since then in many a mighty flood? Looking at God's promise as a
token of His pity for suffering humanity, are not deaths occurring
every moment, accompanied by agony so prolonged and supreme that,
compared with them, a death by drowning would be a happy release? If
Jews and Christians still really believe in this story, how is it
that the rainbow attracts not the slightest devout attention? I
have never yet heard this beautiful spectacle alluded to with any
particular reverence. The reason is obvious. We know that the bow
consists of all the prismatic colours produced in the atmosphere by
the refraction and reflection of the sun's light from the rain drops,
and no one regards the Bible story seriously. Yet our divines try to
save the credit of the Bible by interpretations which are obviously
"catching at straws." Such methods are as harmful as they are pitiful.
In all these examples the explanations offered to us seem to come to
this--the phenomena were purely natural from start to finish, only
they occurred opportunely and were afterwards poetically embellished;
or they contain a spiritual meaning. Perhaps the most extraordinary
argument ever brought forward concerning the "sun standing still"
is that urged by the learned Bishop Westcott in his Gospel of the
Resurrection. He says (pp. 38-9): "It would be positively immoral
for us now to pray that the tides or the sun should not rise on a
particular day; but, as long as the idea of the physical law which
ruled them was unformed or indistinct, the prayer would have been
reasonable, and (may we not suppose?) the fulfilment also." It is
difficult to believe that these can really be the words of one of the
Church's greatest scholars. To what extent will not bias influence
the brain to use its powers perversely? It is far-fetched arguments of
this kind that increase rather than dispel doubt in the normal mind,
and especially when they are brought forward in all seriousness by
the very pillars of the Church. We are sometimes asked to banish our
doubts and "craving for intellectualism," as it is called, and "to come
to Christ as little children and in Him to find rest." Certainly it
is only by letting our minds sink to the level of a little child's,
or, what is the same thing, to the level of a primeval man's, that
we could bring ourselves to accept such childish nonsense. A child
asks for the moon, but does not know the physical impossibility of
obtaining his desire. His prayer is therefore reasonable, and (may
we not suppose?) the fulfilment also. This unconscious trifling with
the truth--for in reality it is nothing else--reminds me of a passage
in Dr. Smith's orthodox, but somewhat out of date, Dictionary of the
Bible, where an attempt is made to reconcile the Mosaic narrative of
Creation with the discoveries of modern science. It runs as follows:
"The very act of creation must have been the introducing of laws;
but, when the work was finished, those laws may have suffered some
modification." [40]
We have seen that, while one section of apologists contend that
belief in the miraculous is essential, other advocates of Christianity
try to get rid of all difficulties by suggesting that such words as
"miracles" and "supernatural" ought not to be used. In a paper on
"The Effect of Science upon Christianity," which he has contributed
to the Christian Commonwealth, the Rev. R. F. Horton, M.A., D.D.,
affirms that "the word 'supernatural' is ill-chosen," and he adds that
"it is unknown in the New Testament, and introduces ideas which are
alien to those of Christ." The word "miracles," [41] he holds, is
equally unfortunate, and represents a notion which is not contained
in the New Testament terms "signs" and "mighty works." If this be
not word-spinning, then what is? Does it matter whether we call the
raising of Lazarus a "miracle" or a "sign"? Is the miraculous feeding
of the multitudes rendered more credible if we call it a natural
instead of a supernatural occurrence? Is not the whole point of the
sign lost, too, if it be no longer supernatural--if it becomes a sort
of juggling feat? Dr. Horton leaves us in no doubt as to the object
of his play upon words. He aims at disposing of the difficulties
connected with Christian miracles by affirming that everything in
nature is miraculous. He observes: "There is no miracle in the New
Testament so amazing as the fact that from protoplasm has developed
the spiritual life of the saint." He is voicing one of the latest
pleas of the "advanced" apologists--a plea which is transparently
vain and futile. Development from protoplasm, like all the other
wonders of the universe, takes place in accordance with natural
laws more or less perfectly understood; and these things have no
sort of connection with the "signs" and "mighty works" of the New
Testament. Miracles are rejected not because they are amazing,
but because they are contradictory to experience and at variance
with the laws of nature. So far the scientist considers the "reign
of law" to be an established scientific fact, and he is naturally
loth to conclude, without the strongest evidence, that, after all,
he has been deceived. Much less would he come to such a conclusion
when there is not even a particle of trustworthy evidence. There is
the significant circumstance, too, that the laws now discovered were
unknown at the time of the alleged performance of miracles, and that
the belief in miracles, and in the supposed continuance of miracles,
varies in inverse proportion to knowledge.
§ 3. The Fundamental Miracles.
The above samples of apologetics fairly represent the various ways in
which miracles are now explained. Even if the reasoning were sound,
it would hardly serve to strengthen the arguments for those miracles
which cannot and must not be explained away--the miracles on which are
based the central doctrines of the Christian Faith. Christianity stands
or falls according as the Resurrection and Ascension are facts or
not. The Rationalist's criticisms have been presented in many articles
and books, but perhaps nowhere more clearly and forcibly than in the
well-known work, Supernatural Religion; and it is worthy of note that
these criticisms have been further strengthened by the latest "Higher
Criticism," as set forth in the articles on the Resurrection and
Ascension narratives in the Encyclopædia Biblica. I have specially
referred to Supernatural Religion, because this book created a
considerable stir in theological circles when it first appeared,
some years ago, and also because its arguments are popularly supposed
to have been completely demolished by Bishop Lightfoot in his Essays
on the Work Called "Supernatural Religion." But--and here is a good
instance of the ease with which the laity can be deceived--if anyone
will take the trouble only to glance at these two works, he will find,
to his astonishment, that the whole of the overwhelmingly important
portion of the book under review, such as the chapters on miracles,
on the Resurrection, on the Incarnation, and on the Ascension, has
received no attention! Besides, there is A Reply to Dr. Lightfoot's
Essays [42] which completely demolishes the Bishop's arguments.
THE RESURRECTION.
Advanced modern criticism shows that the Resurrection can no longer
be regarded as a historical fact, the evidence being unreliable. This
is the sober opinion of professors of theology formed on the results
of the most careful research, and with no preconceived opinion as
to its scientific impossibility. What have the apologists to say to
this? While the obvious discrepancies and deficiencies in the accounts
of the Resurrection are left practically unexplained, the old argument
from the "empty tomb" [43] is being discarded as worthless by the best
scholars. Again, the new science of psychology robs "the appearances,"
supposing that they ever occurred, of any meaning that could be
construed into a proof of the Resurrection. Only one argument of any
account is left, and on this the apologist chiefly pins his faith,
more than on anything else. A certain contemporary of Christ wrote
some letters in which he shows a firm belief in the Resurrection: his
name was Paul. The evidence of this one man is considered sufficient
to substantiate a miracle, which is contrary to all human experience,
and upon the truth of which depend the Christian Faith and our hope
of immortality! Moreover, St. Paul was not present himself on any of
the occasions of the alleged appearances; and, except with regard to
his own particular "religious experience," his evidence is therefore
hearsay. The statement that Jesus was seen by 500 brethren at once is
of little value, and St. Paul omits to mention what steps he took to
ascertain the accuracy of his information--who the individuals were,
what the various impressions made upon them were, etc. The appearance
to 500 brethren is not mentioned in any of the Gospels. That St. Paul
heard such a report does not prove that the report was true, or, if
true, that the 500 had clear and unmistakable evidence of Christ's
presence.
There are critics who could not accept the evidence of St. Paul, for
the simple reason that they conclude that we possess no Epistles of
St. Paul; that the writings which bear his name are pseudepigrapha,
containing seemingly historical data from the life and labours of the
Apostle borrowed from Acts of Paul--a work containing, so far as is
known to us, both truth and fiction. [44] Less advanced criticism
lays down the broad thesis that all the Pauline epistles are real
letters written by him, but that "Paul, who reckoned the future of this
present world not by millennia or centuries, but by a few short years,
had not the faintest surmise of the part his letters were destined
to play in the providential ordering of the world." [45]
Accepting the genuineness of the Epistles, and therefore of the passage
in 1 Cor. xv. 3-8, let us pause and think over the chief features
of the argument. In the first place, it seems to me that the fact of
St. Paul having been a contemporary of the Messiah really only adds to
our perplexities. When there were so many who were eye-witnesses of
His life, why should God single out one who was not thus favoured as
His chief witness for all posterity? He was living at the same time
and in the same country as Christ, and yet never knew Him. Surely
it stands to reason that an eye-witness is of more value than a mere
visionary who wrote letters revealing a remarkable ignorance of the
greater part of the narrative of the Gospels, and indeed of the whole
body of teachings there ascribed to Jesus. That St. Paul would believe
in the Resurrection before he took up the Christian cause goes without
saying; but that he believed everything he heard from the followers
of Christ, and everything he thought he heard when in a trance, does
not, I fear, amount to much in the way of evidence--and especially so
when we know that this was an age when the resurrection of any great
prophet was taken to be a normal event. How often, I wonder, in the
world's history have not the disciples of great teachers attributed
miraculous powers to their beloved master, even when with them alive,
and still further magnified these powers after his death? How often has
it not occurred that these same stories have been further exaggerated
in the course of their transmission to succeeding generations? Nothing
is more conceivable than that the Bible story may spuriously embellish
the real life of Jesus as much as the mythical accounts of Buddha, for
instance, spuriously embellish the real life of Prince Siddârtha. Of
all old-world legends, the death and resurrection of a virgin-born
or in some way divinely-born Saviour was the most widespread. Saul,
the Pharisee, would have been imbued with this prevalent notion,
and so could never get away from the thought that some kind of
propitiation had to be made for the sins of men. Time after time
a terrible suspicion must have crossed his mind--what if he were
committing a heinous crime in persecuting the Christians? What if,
after all, the Crucified One were the real Saviour of mankind? Doubts
such as these may well have deeply agitated him. The living figure so
often described to him by the Christians must have stood out before
him. On his own testimony, as well as that of the Acts, he was prone to
visions and other ecstatic conditions (2 Cor. xii. 1-4; 1 Cor. xiv. 18;
Acts ix. 12, xvi. 9, xxii. 17, xxvii. 23). What more natural than that
after his "religious experience" near Damascus he should be convinced
that he had been specially favoured by an interview with the Saviour?
So many "spiritual experiences" of a like nature are on record
that it is difficult to know which is the best to select for
comparison. Professor Huxley, in his essay on "The Value of Witness to
the Miraculous," takes the cases of Eginhard (born about A.D. 770), who
wrote The History of the Translation of the Blessed Martyrs of Christ,
S.S. Marcellinus and Petrus; and George Fox, who, about the year 1647,
heard voices and saw visions which assured him that "there is a living
God who made all things." Perhaps the case of Emanuel Swedenborg [46]
may be worth a moment's consideration. He was the son of a bishop,
and was carefully educated. Endowed with unusual intellectual powers
and an iron constitution, he acquired vast stores of learning. From
early childhood he evinced a serious turn of mind, combined with a
remarkable tendency to indulge in religious speculations. Eventually
he received an extraordinary "call" in the shape of a vision. This
converted the scientific inquirer into a supernatural prophet. He was
now the mouthpiece of God. "The Lord Himself hath called me, who was
graciously pleased to manifest Himself to me, His unworthy servant,
in a personal experience in the year 1745." "I have never," he says in
his work on True Christian Religion, "received anything appertaining
to the doctrines of that Church from any angel, but from the Lord
alone, while I was reading the Word." Swedenborg was a man who won
the respect, confidence, and love of all who came in contact with
him. He had a peculiarly abstract metaphysical character of mind,
and was firmly convinced that he had "conversed with spirits" and
"seen the Lord." So was Martin Luther perfectly convinced that he had
seen the Devil when he threw his ink-pot at him. So was the peasant
girl of Lourdes convinced that she had seen the Virgin Mary. So is
Evan Roberts convinced that he has seen his Saviour. So have many good
Christians from time to time been convinced that they have seen Christ,
the Virgin Mary, saints, and angels. Father Ignatius, the Evangelist
monk, may be, as I have heard him called, an emotional wreck; but he
is also a most earnest Christian, and he is quite sure that he has seen
the Virgin Mary. [47] John Wesley, whose followers throughout the world
to-day number 30,000,000, was also a visionary. Thousands and thousands
of heathens as well as Christians have had visions of their saviours;
but such experiences could scarcely be brought forward seriously as a
proof of the existence of the divinities believed to have been seen,
or of their ascension after a life upon earth. Visual and auditory
hallucinations are now the subject of a searching inquiry by the
Society for Psychical Research, and, willing as some of its members
are to explain metapsychical phenomena by the simple theory of the
spiritists, the growing opinion is that these apparitions and voices
are purely hallucinatory and due to causes which are not extra-human.
As Mr. Lowes Dickinson pertinently remarks when speaking of
"Conversions" in his article on Revelations, in the Independent Review:
"The important question is whether the belief of the recipient in the
evidential value of the experience is justified; and I think that a
little consideration will show that it is not so, for it is noticeable
that the truth supposed to be revealed in the moment of conversion
is commonly, if not invariably, the reflection of the doctrine or
theory with which the subject, whether or no he has accepted it, has
hitherto been most familiar. I have never heard, for example, of a
case in which a Mohammedan or a Hindoo, without having ever heard of
Christianity, has had a revelation of Christian truth. Conversion,
in fact, it would seem, is not the communication of a new truth;
it is the presentation of ideas already familiar in such a way that
they are accompanied by an irresistible certainty that they are
true.... A religious revelation cannot be distinguished from what
would be admitted to be the hallucinations of disease. A man may be
convinced, with equal assurance, that he is a poached egg or a saint;
that he has a mission to assassinate the king or redeem the world;
that he is eternally damned or eternally saved; that he has had a
vision of the Virgin Mary or a vision of Nirvana."
Another argument for considering the Resurrection as an historical
fact is that brought forward by the Rev. D. S. Margoliouth. The
learned Professor argues in the Expositor that the Gospel narrative is
located within historic times. So are the narratives of King Arthur
(the Celtic Messiah), or William Tell, or Robin Hood; but historians
are silent about all these narratives, sacred and profane alike. There
was probably a real Arthur, however different from the hero of the
trouvères, and a real Robin Hood, however now enlarged and disguised
by the accretion of legend. Similarly there was a real Jesus Christ;
but the marvellous event of His resurrection is unrecorded by any of
the celebrated historians of the period.
The final argument is that "the Resurrection is, so to speak, of a
piece with the whole character and the claims of Christ.... Even had we
no Testament at all, we should be obliged to postulate something very
much like either the Resurrection or the belief in the Resurrection in
order to account for Christianity." No one disputes, I should think,
this necessity for the Resurrection, if we are to remain Christians;
but it is of the fact of the Resurrection that unfortunate doubters
wish to be assured. The Bishop of Ripon argues that the miraculous
accessories connected with the birth and resurrection of Jesus
Christ find a place only in the group of secondary witnesses, and
adds significantly: "Our belief in Jesus Christ must be based upon
moral conviction, not upon physical wonder." The meaning of this, in
plain English, is clear enough, and I leave it for the honest-minded
reader to decide whether this is a satisfactory foundation for the
Christian dogmas. Is this what he was taught, or what his children are
now being taught? Will it suffice? Can he remain a Christian? Will
his children, when they grow up and begin to think for themselves,
remain Christians? The Dean of Westminster writes to the Archbishop
of Canterbury: "Students of natural science find themselves left
with St. Luke as the strongest historical evidence within the New
Testament." Now, the author of St. Luke is also the author of the
Acts, and his propensity for miraculous decoration is by no means
reassuring. Besides, he was not an eye-witness. Then, too, we have
Canon Henson, in the Hibbert Journal for April, 1904, informing us that
"Any candid Christian reading through the accounts of the New Testament
evidences ... cannot escape the inference that the evidence for the
quasi-historical statements of the Creed is of a highly complicated,
dubious, and even contradictory character." He then asks us: "Is an
honest belief in the Resurrection really inconsistent with a reverent
agnosticism as to the historical circumstances out of which in the
first instance that belief arose?" The reply of an ordinary candid
layman is, I think, sufficiently obvious. Similarly, Abbé Loisy,
the champion of advanced theology in the Roman Catholic Church,
considers the Resurrection to be a spiritual fact only, and not a
fact of the historical order. "La Résurrection n'est pas proprement
un fait d'ordre historique." The powerful article in the Encyclopædia
Biblica also leads us to the same conclusion.
Those who believe in the fact of the Resurrection, and have not Canon
Henson's reverent agnosticism concerning the event, must believe also
in all the facts related in connection with it, including the account
of Jesus having eaten and having been touched, and of his bodily ascent
up into the clouds. If any one portion of the story be considered
incredible or untrustworthy, the whole collapses. It may be useful,
therefore, to put to ourselves some questions concerning any one of the
many marvellous accessories of the Resurrection. How few of us have
ever had our belief tested by searching questions such as a cultured
heathen would put if we tried to convert him? For instance, what would
you reply if you were asked by an intelligent native of India, China,
or Japan: "Who were the saints of whom Matthew speaks as having risen
from their graves? To whom did they appear? And how was it that their
graves were opened as Jesus died, while their bodies did not come out
till after His Resurrection? What also became of them afterwards?" To
this the only candid reply possible would be: "I am unable to give
you any information on this subject. Their not appearing till after
Jesus rose from death would seem to have been introduced so as not to
give them the precedence over Him in the exercise of the privilege
of resurrection. He is said to be 'the first that should rise from
the dead' (Acts xxvi. 23), 'the first fruits of them that slept'
(1 Cor. xv. 20), 'the first-born from the dead' (Col. i. 18)." This,
however, would hardly satisfy your questioner, who would reply:
"Your inability to give me this information excites my suspicions,
and your further statements seem to me to be very clumsy. To mark and
enhance the death of the Messiah, nature is said to be convulsed, and
graves thrown open; but the exit of the saints who were to come out
of them is restrained till He should first have made His egress from
the tomb three days later. And, after all, He had no such precedence
in resurrection, for several persons are said to have been raised
from the dead by the prophets of old and by Himself; two passed into
heaven without ever being in their graves, and one of them--namely,
Elias--appeared to Him with Moses in risen life at the time of His
transfiguration. May I ask, Are the disturbances of nature which are
said to have occurred at the crucifixion--namely, the preternatural
darkness for three hours and the earthquake--mentioned by historians
of the time?" You would have to confess, "They are not." Thus you
would fail to convert your heathen interlocutor, whose final fling
at you would be: "That seems to demonstrate that nothing of the kind
could really have occurred. Moreover, had there been such phenomena,
the other evangelists would not have failed to support their position
with these divine manifestations."
THE ASCENSION.
If apologetics dealing with the Resurrection are unconvincing,
still more so are those regarding the Ascension. There is little
or no attempt to explain the meagreness of the Gospel narratives,
how all mention of it is omitted in the Gospels of St. Matthew and
St. John; and one vague sentence is all we are given in St. Mark
and St. Luke--sentences which, according to the Higher Critics, were
never penned by these persons. In "The Acts" the "St. Luke" writer
furnishes the detail that "a cloud received him out of their sight,"
and that, "as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white
apparel, which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up
into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven,
shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven." In
these days "ascending up" has no meaning for us. Candidly, if the
writer had had our astronomical knowledge, would these words ever
have been written? Certainly they would not. Then is the Ascension a
fact or is it not? How is it possible that St. Matthew and St. John
could have remained silent regarding such an event if they had really
witnessed it? Or granting, in the case of the writer of "St. John,"
that he was not St. John the Apostle, though he distinctly says he
was, it is still astounding that he should have omitted to record
such important evidence of Christ's divinity, if it was an accepted
fact at the time he wrote.
Archdeacon Wilson, in a paper read at the Diocesan Conference at
Manchester, October 22nd, 1903, asks: "What do we mean in our Creed
when we say: 'He came down from heaven'? We explain away 'down,' we
explain away 'heaven' in the sense in which the word was originally
used. What do we mean by 'descended into Hell'? by 'Sitteth on the
right hand of God'?... Spiritual truths are spiritually discerned,
and do not admit of final intellectual definitions. We can only
avert the rejection of theology by recognising its limitations." Is
it possible for the bulk of humanity, I ask, to possess the requisite
spiritual discernment? Is it not far more likely that, with the spread
of education, they will finally reject theology?
The Rev. David Smith, in his book, The Days of His Flesh, [48]
dismisses the Ascension with the words: "When Jesus parted from
the eleven on Olivet, He did not forsake the earth and migrate to a
distant Heaven. He ceased to manifest Himself; but He is here at this
hour no otherwise than during those forty days." One can but wonder
how Ascension Day is kept in Mr. Smith's church, and how he brings
himself to repeat the Apostles' Creed.
Leaving aside the thoroughly unreliable nature of the Bible accounts
of the Ascension, consider how easy it is for the superstitious,
through optical illusions or subjective visions (or whatever name
it may please the neologist to give to these "experiences"), to be
honestly convinced of the occurrence of a supernatural event, and to
take care that it should lose nothing of its marvellous character in
the telling. Only the other day the good people of Sudja saw a mighty
iris-coloured cross appear over the cathedral during divine service,
and regarded the phenomenon as a sign of heaven's resolve to bestow
victory upon Christian Russia. This "miracle" was witnessed by all
the notabilities of the city, who forwarded a description to General
Kuropatkin in a document duly attested with their signatures. For the
stupendous and absurdly impossible miracle of the Ascension we have not
even got a satisfactory description, much less an attested document. Is
it not time that we should ask ourselves the plain question, Do we
really believe that an extraordinary levitation occurred, and that
Jesus Christ was seen to be rising in the air until some passing
clouds concealed Him from view? If we do not so believe, why do we
say we do when we repeat the Creed? Why do we pretend we do when we
sit in church and listen to the account of the Ascension, and perhaps
to a sermon on it? Why do we allow our friends to think that we do
so believe? Why is Ascension Day one of our Holy Days? And, finally,
why do we teach, or allow others to teach, our children what we know
to be untrue? Surely these are serious questions to ask ourselves.
THE INCARNATION.
There remains the miracle of the Virgin-birth. That this is under
dispute among Christian theologians is notorious, and the controversy
has but served to show with ever-increasing clearness how untrustworthy
is the evidence for this miracle. Christian Biblical experts inform us
that it belongs to the latest strata of the New Testament tradition,
and that no trace of the story can be found before 120 A.D. In
other words, that it is an obvious interpolation in St. Matthew and
St. Luke. Adolf Harnack, the learned Professor of Church History
in the University of Berlin, is looked upon, even by the orthodox,
as one of our greatest living Biblical scholars, and we learn from
him that we must disregard the history of Jesus' birth given in these
two Gospels; for not only is it untrustworthy, but "the evangelists
themselves never refer to it, nor make Jesus Himself refer to His
antecedents. On the contrary, they tell us that Jesus' mother and
His brethren were completely surprised at His coming forward, and did
not know what to make of it. Paul, too, is silent; so that we can be
sure that the oldest tradition knew nothing of any stories of Jesus'
birth." [49]
"Moral fitness" appears to be the only argument that we can fall
back upon, and this is now the apologists' last stronghold. If they
belong to the Church of England, they should remember that it was this
identical line of reasoning that gave rise to the "pious opinion" that
the Mother of Christ had herself been miraculously preserved from all
taint of original sin from the first moment of her conception in the
womb of her mother. As Bernard of Clairvaux vigorously argued (in 1140
A.D.): "On the same principle you would be obliged to hold that the
conception of her ancestors, in an ascending line, was also a holy one,
since otherwise she would not have descended from them worthily." Yet,
in spite of the absurdity, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception
was formally defined, as a dogma binding on the acceptance of all the
faithful, by the bull Ineffabilis Deus (December 8th, 1854). Certainly
there is a moral fitness in the Virgin-birth of the Son of God, and it
is also fit that His mother should have been immaculately conceived;
and those who hold to the one doctrine may well hold to the other.
Some apologists appear almost in despair of a continuance of belief
in this dogma. The learned Dr. Sanday says we ought to regard the
Virgin-birth "as one of those hidden mysteries which, whether or not
God wills that we should believe them now, He has, at all events,
willed that men should believe in times past." Is not this tantamount
to giving up belief in the Virgin-birth?
CONCLUDING REMARKS.
Because God once willed that men should have all kinds of absurd
superstitions, and now wills that they should acknowledge their
absurdity, are we, as Dr. Sanday appears to recommend, to keep up
the pretence of believing in them on the ground that they are hidden
mysteries? Surely not; but, speaking of mysteries, there is one which
ought to be cleared, or at least receive a much fuller investigation
than it has yet received at the hands of the Church. I refer to
the fact that, ages before the Christian era, certain miracles were
believed to have taken place, and that these were of precisely the
same nature as those recorded in the Bible. For instance, numerous
saviours were believed to have been born of virgins, to have died
for the sins of mankind, to have risen again from the dead, and
to have ascended into heaven. Thus not only are the Bible miracles
scientifically impossible; not only are they unsupported by anything
approaching adequate evidence; not only do the specious explanations
of apologists serve but to confirm our scepticism concerning them;
but we find that they are not even original--that they form part of
ancient superstitions. That these fresh grounds for suspecting the
truth of Christianity are of the gravest character will be shown in
the chapter on Comparative Mythology.
BIBLE CRITICISM