(A.) The Evidences of Christianity.One remaining objection, why are there so many difficulties, and no more obvious proof? considered in detail.(B.) Summary and Conclusion.
(A.) The Evidences of Christianity.One remaining objection, why are there so many difficulties, and no more obvious proof? considered in detail.(B.) Summary and Conclusion.
(A.) The Evidences of Christianity.
One remaining objection, why are there so many difficulties, and no more obvious proof? considered in detail.
(B.) Summary and Conclusion.
We have now examined all the more important arguments for and against the Truth of Christianity. Many of them, as we have seen, involve a good deal of study, and we have often been obliged to consider a few examples only of various classes of facts; but it is hoped that no important argument on either side has been entirely overlooked. One remaining objection has still to be considered.
Does not, it is urged, this very fact of itself form a difficulty? Can an ordinary man be expected to ponder over arguments, objections, and counter-arguments by the dozen, even supposing the balance of probability to be in favour of the Religion? Surely, if Christianity were true, and God wished men to believe it, there would not be so many difficulties. He would have provided an easier way of proving it than this;or, at all events, if this elaborate argument were examined, the inference in its favour would be simply overwhelming. This is a difficulty felt perhaps by some who have read the presentEssay; fortunately it can be answered satisfactorily.
And first, as to there being so many difficulties. Several of these are simply due to the evidence in favour of Christianity being so strong. If, for instance, we had only one Gospel instead of four, the difficulties caused by the discrepancies between them would disappear, but the argument in favour of Christianity would not be strengthened in consequence. Still putting aside these, it must be admitted that there are many difficulties connected with the Religion.
But what is the cause of this? It is the very magnitude of the Christian Religion which opens the way for so many attacks. A religion which claims to be the only true one in the world; to have been founded by God Himself; to have been prepared for by prophecies and introduced by miracles; to be the centre of the world's history, all previous history leading up to it, and all subsequent history being influenced by it; to be suitable for all ages and countries; to hold the key to all mental and moral problems; to be man's guide and comfort in this life, and his only hope for the next;—such a religionmustbe assailable at a great many points. But provided all these assaults can be repelled, provided this longfrontier-line, so to speak, can be properly defended, it does not show the weakness of the religion; on the contrary, it shows its enormous strength. A religion which made lessclaims would, no doubt, have less difficulties; but it would be less likely to be the true one. If God became Incarnate, no claims can be too vast for the Religion He founded. And to many, this unspeakable grandeur of Christianity, so far from being a difficulty, constitutes one of its greatest charms.
Next, as to there being noeasiermeans of proof. It is a simple matter of fact that the vast majority of men, both educated and uneducated, who believe in Christianity, have not arrived at this belief by a long line of reasoning, such as we have examined. They assert that there is an easier way. They say that God has given them a faculty ofFaith, which, though it may be hard to explain, just as man's free will is hard to explain, yet gives them the most certain conviction of the truth of Christianity. And starting with this inward conviction, they say it is confirmed by their daily experience, just as a man's belief in his free will is confirmed by his daily experience. Of course, this appeal to faith is no argument to those who do not possess it. On the other hand, to those who do possess it, no arguments can really weaken or strengthen it. It is a thing by itself, and absolutely convincing.
It may be pointed out, however, that if man is a partly spiritual as well as a partly material being, which we have already admitted; then the existence of some spiritual sense, or faculty, by which to perceive spiritual truths, just as the body has material senses by which to perceive material objects, cannot be thought incredible. And this is what faith claims to be; it is a means to spiritual discernment, and maybe compared to eyesight. It does not enable us to believe what we might otherwise think to be untrue; but it enables us to know for certain, what we might otherwise think to be only probable (e.g., the existence of God). In the same way a blind man might, by feeling, think it probable that there were a certain number of pictures in a room, but if he couldsee, he would know for certain. And, just as a man, who had always been blind, ought not to reject the testimony of those who see, so a man who has no faith ought not to reject the testimony of those who have. And the existence of such a faculty will account for the very different views taken of Christianity by men of apparently equal intelligence and candour.
Still, it may be asked, why should some persons be given this faculty of faith, while others are not? The subject is no doubt a difficult one. But very possibly the faculty islatentin every one, only it needs (like other faculties) to be exercised and developed. And the man himself may be responsible for whether he takes suitable means (prayer, etc.) for doing this. However, we need not pursue this subject, since, as said above, no arguments can prove, or disprove Christianity to those who believe by faith.
But now comes the most important part of the objection. Granting, it is said, that the subject is a difficult one, and demands a long investigation, yet when we do go through the arguments on both sides the conclusion is not irresistible. In short, why are not the evidences in favour of Christianitystronger? Of course they might be so, but we have no reasonfor thinking that they would be. In our ordinary daily life we have never absolute certainty to guide us, but only various degrees of probability. And even, in Natural Religion, the reasons for believing in a Personal God and the freedom and responsibility of man, though to most people quite convincing, are certainly not irresistible; since, as a matter of fact, some men resist them.
And if God intends us to act on such evidence in common life, and also with regard to the great truths of Natural Religion, why should He not do the same with regard to Christianity? He seems, if we may use the word, torespectman's momentous attribute of free will even in matters of Religion; therefore in His sight a right belief, like right conduct, may be of no value unless it is more or less voluntary. It is to be a virtue, rather than a necessity. And this fully accounts for the evidences of Christianity not being overwhelming. They are amply sufficient to justify anyone in believing it; but they are not, and were probably never meant to be, sufficient to compel him to do so.
If, however,—and this is a matter of practical importance—they are strong enough to show that the Religion isprobablytrue, a man who admits this is obviously bound to accept it. He cannot adopt a neutral attitude, because the evidence is not conclusive; since, as just said, in every other subject we have only probability, not certainty, to guide us; and why should religion alone be different? Then, if he accepts it, he is obviously bound to try and live accordingly, nomatter what the sacrifice may be; for Christianity, if it is worth anything, is worth everything. Such tremendous truths cannot be half acted on if believed, any more than they can be half believed; it must be a case of all for all. And then, if he tries to live accordingly, he may find (as Christians in all ages have found) that for himself the probability becomes a certainty.
Lastly, it may be pointed out that though perhaps the evidences of Christianity are not so strong as we should expect, they are precisely of such akindas we should expect; for they exhibit each of the three great attributes of God. His Omnipotence is shown in the miracles, His Omniscience in the prophecies, and His perfect Goodness in the Character of Christ; so that, judged by its evidences, Christianity is a Religion which might very reasonably have come from the God Who is All-Powerful, All-Wise, and All-Good.
It now only remains to give a summary of the previous chapters, and then point out the final choice of difficulties.
InChapter XIII.we considered thecredibilityof the Christian Religion, and decided that some of its leading doctrines, especially those of the Incarnation and the Atonement, seemed very improbable. All that can be said on the other side is practically this, that we have no adequate means of judging; and that when we apply similar reasoning to subjects about which we do know, such as the freedom of man or theexistence of evil, it generally leads us wrong. But still the fact remains that the Religion appears, at first sight, very improbable.
InChapter XIV.we considered theexternal testimonyto theFour Gospels, and decided that this was very strongly in their favour. At the close of the second century they held the same position among Christians as they do at present; during the middle of that century Justin shows that they were publicly read, together with the Old Testament Prophets; while the few earlier writers whose works have come down to us also seem to have known them.
InChapter XV.we considered theirinternal evidence, and found that it strongly supported the above conclusion; so combining the two, we have an almost overwhelming argument in favour of their genuineness.
InChapter XVI.we considered an additional argument of great importance, derived from theActs of the Apostles. There are strong reasons for dating this book aboutA.D.60; and if so it proves a still earlier date for the first three Gospels.
InChapter XVII.we considered theResurrection of Christ, and the accounts we have of it in the Four Gospels. And we decided that these Narratives, in spite of some obvious discrepancies and omissions had every appearance of being thoroughly trustworthy. Indeed their complete agreement in important points, their mutual explanations, and their signs of early date are all strongly in their favour.
InChapter XVIII.we considered the testimony of the First Witnesses, and examined in detail theirveracity, knowledge, investigation, and reasoning; and each seemed to be supported by irresistible evidence. Therefore the opposite theories, which are based on denying these points, and are called respectively theFalsehood, theLegend, theVision, and theSwoonTheory, are quite untenable. So we must either accept the Resurrection of Christ; or deny it, in spite of all the evidence, and solely because of the miraculous nature of the event.
InChapter XIX.we considered the other New TestamentMiracles, and came to the conclusion that they also occurred. Indeed their marks of truthfulness, and their publicity together with the fact that they were never disputed at the time, make the evidence in their favour extremely strong.
InChapter XX.we considered the argument fromProphecy; and discussed in detail Isaiah's Prophecy of the Lord's Servant, and the Psalm of the Crucifixion, and then glanced at several others. And we pointed out how completely these prophecies were fulfilled in Christ, and how utterly hopeless it was to find any other fulfilment of them. So here again the choice lies between either accepting these prophecies, or disputing them simply because they are prophecies, and imply superhuman knowledge. In other words, we must either admit the marvel of a Divine Revelation, or else we must face thementaldifficulty of believing that all these coincidences were due to chance, the improbability of which can scarcely be calculated.
InChapter XXI.we considered theCharacter ofChrist; and the admitted excellence of His moral teaching seems quite inconsistent with deliberate falsehood on His part. Yet He kept asserting His superhuman and Divine Nature, and was finally put to death in consequence. So here once more we have a similar choice before us. We must either accept the Divinity of Christ, with all the wonders it involves; or else we must face themoraldifficulty of believing that the best moral teaching the world has ever had, was given by One, whose own life was full of falsehood and presumption.
InChapter XXII.we considered theHistory of Christianity, and found that its marvellous progress at first, in spite of its immense difficulties, and without the use of any force, could only be accounted for by its truth. So here for the last time we have the same alternatives to choose from. We must either admit the supernatural origin and spread of Christianity; or else we must face thehistoricaldifficulty of believing that its first preachers were able to convince men without evidence, conquer them without force, and found the greatest religion the world has ever seen on claims which at the time everyone must have known to be untrue.
InChapter XXIII.we considered theother evidenceon the subject, and briefly examined various arguments for and against Christianity, such as its connection with prayer; its adaptation to human nature, and its relation to other religions; but all of comparative unimportance.
Lastly, inChapter XXIV.we decided that theThreeCreedswere deducible from the New Testament; so the religion which has all this evidence in its favour is theChristian Religion, as we have used the term.
From the above summary it will be seen that the arguments against Christianity are all what may be calledantecedent(ora priori) ones. The Religion itself, its doctrines, its claims, its miraculous origin, all seem most improbable. Thus the objections to Christianity all lie on the surface. They are obvious and palpable to everyone.
On the other hand, the arguments in its favour have often to be sought for; but when found they are seen to be stronger and stronger the more they are examined. There are four main arguments. These are of a widely different character, and each appeals most strongly to a certain class of minds, so each is often said to be the chief argument for Christianity, but they are probably of equal value. They may be conveniently called the argument fromMiracles, including of course the Resurrection of Christ; fromProphecy; fromChrist's Character; and fromHistory. And it should be noticed in passing, that they mutually support one another. Miracles, for instance, are less difficult to believe when it is seen that they were to establish a religion which has for centuries exercised a greater influence on mankind than anything else; and prophecies become stronger when it is seen that the Life foretold was one that had such supreme and far-reaching effects.
Now, it is important to remember that the actual facts on which these arguments rest are in each caseabsolutelyunique. Once, and only once in the history of the world, have men appeared who asserted that they were actual witnesses of miracles, and who faced all forms of suffering and death solely in consequence of this. Again, once, and only once in the history of the world, has a long series of prophecies, uttered many centuries apart, united in a single Person, in whom they one and all find a complete fulfilment. Yet again, once, and only once in the history of the world, has a Man appeared of faultless moral character, who asserted that He was also God, and who boldly claimed all that this tremendous assertion involved, and submitted to the consequences. While, lastly, once, and only once in the history of the world, has a Religion, most improbable in itself, and without using any force, succeeded in conquering nation after nation.
These, then, are the four chief arguments on the subject, and in every case we have the same choice before us. We must either face the antecedent (ora priori) difficulties in accepting Christianity, or the mental, moral and historical difficulties in rejecting it. There is no neutral ground, no possibility of avoiding both sets of difficulties. But the difficulties on the one side concern what we donotknow—God's purpose in creating man—and may be due to our ignorance only. The difficulties on the other side concern what wedoknow. They are practical, they are derived from experience. We do know that men will not lay down their lives for what they believe to be false, and that the first preachers of Christianity must have known whether it was false or not. Wedo know that prophecies uttered at random through centuries would not all unite in a single Person. We do know that even moderately good men do not make extravagant claims. And we do know that no natural causes can account for such a religion as Christianity obtaining such a triumph as it did.
The choice, then, seems to lie between what we may callunknowndifficulties andknownones. The unknown difficulty of believing that the Eternal God could so love man as to humble Himself even to death to win man's love; and the known difficulty of believing that evidence so vast and so various, so cumulative and so apparently irresistible, could all unite in making a monstrous falsehood appear to be a momentous truth. Between these two sets of difficulties we have to make our choice. But to those who agree with the previous chapters, the choice cannot be doubtful; for however hard it is to believe Christianity, it is, as we have shown, harder still to disbelieve it. This, then, is our final conclusion, that the truth of the Christian religion isextremely probable, because, to put it shortly, though the difficulties of accepting Christianity are great, the difficulties of rejecting it are far greater.
Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua.
Judges.
I. Samuel.
II. Samuel.
I. Kings.
II. Kings.
I. Chronicles.
II. Chronicles.