CHAPTER XVII. THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE GREAT FACTS OF

CHRISTIANITY REST—GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS.

It has been urged by opponents, that the defenders of historical Christianity rest content with endeavouring to prove that miracles are possible or probable; but that they neglect an all‐important part of their duty, viz.: that of adducing historical proof that miracles have been actually performed. If the fact is as here stated, there can be no doubt that works which profess to discuss the subject of miracles, and omit to give a clear statement of the chief points of the evidence which can be adduced to prove that they have actually occurred, must be unsatisfactory. To answer the objections which are urged to prove that miracles are impossible, or which affirm on general principles that all evidence in their favour is unworthy of credit, is an essential preliminary to the consideration of the historical evidence which can be adduced to prove their actual occurrence. But to afford proof, that as facts they rest upon an adequate attestation, is the essential duty of every one who asserts their reality. To this portion of the work I will now proceed to address myself.

What then is the position occupied by the Christian advocate? Is it requisite in order to establish the truth of Christianity, that he should give an historical proof of everyone of the miracles recorded in the New Testament? I answer this question emphatically in the negative, and for the following reason. The New Testament itself, while it affirm that many miracles have been performed, rests the truth of Christianity on one miracle alone, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. This is the great event which, according to the Acts of the Apostles, the early missionaries urged as the distinctive proof of their Master’s divine mission. The views expressed in the Apostolic Epistles are precisely similar. In them, the entire evidence of the truth of our Lord’s divine mission is made to centre in the fact of His resurrection. Not only is the great fact referred to either directly or indirectly in almost every page, but St. Paul has distinctly rested the truth of Christianity on the reality of its occurrence. Such a statement is made respecting no other miraculous event recorded in the New Testament. It is the miracle of miracles, unique and alone, by which the seal of God was affixed to the divine mission of Jesus Christ. It formed the _locus standi_ of the Church, and the sole ground of its existence. If it was not an objective fact, those who testified to its occurrence must have been false witnesses, and the whole of Christianity either a delusion or an imposture.

It follows, therefore, that this great miracle forms the very key of the Christian position. Everything else is an outwork, an important one it may be, but yet an outwork. If this position can be successfully assailed, the entire fortress of Christianity must surrender at discretion. If, on the other hand, the most determined unbeliever could be convinced that there is good historical evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, he would find no difficulty in accepting the Gospels as historical documents, and the whole _à priori_ objection against them would disappear.

Again: If the Resurrection of Christ is a fact, Christianity must be a divine revelation. The perfect historical accuracy of the Gospels in minute details may be still open to question; deep thought and careful investigation may be necessary for ascertaining the precise amount of truth communicated by that revelation; past ages may have erred in its interpretation, or in their deductions from it; many questions as to the relation in which revelation stands to science or history may be open ones—all this is both conceivable and possible—but still, if Jesus Christ rose from the dead, his entire manifestation, work, and teaching, must be a communication from God to man.

This then is my position. The real question stands within very narrow limits. The miracle that requires strong historical proof is the Resurrection. The other supernatural occurrences recorded in the Gospels are important portions of the revelation made by Christ. They were important evidences to those who witnessed them. But to us in these latter times the one great question is: Is the Resurrection capable of being established as an actual occurrence? If it is, it will carry with it all the others. If it is not, the proof of the others will fall along with it.

Let us examine the historical conditions of the case. Christianity differs from all other religions in professing not to consist of a mass of abstract dogmatic statements, but to be founded on, and largely to consist of, a number of historical facts. There are unquestionably a considerable number of dogmatic statements in the pages of the New Testament; but they profess to grow out of the facts and to be explanations of them. The facts form, so to say, the essence of the religion. The Christianity of the New Testament is a growth which encircles itself around the person of its founder in a manner in which no other system of thought or religion, which has existed among men, has ever done. If we take the person of Jesus Christ out of the New Testament, the whole system of its teaching crumbles into nothingness. If we remove the person of its founder from every other system of human thought—its great religions form no exception—the system remains intact. This is a very striking peculiarity in Christianity. In this respect it stands absolutely unique.

But as Christianity is founded on an historical person, who lived in a particular age, so He is the founder of a great historical institution, the Christian Church. This institution differs from every other society which has ever existed, in that both its origination and its continued existence are inextricably bound up with the person of its founder. Other societies could exist even if it could be proved that their reputed founders were creations of the imagination; but this would be fatal to the life of the Church of Christ. If it could be proved that Jesus Christ was a myth, or nothing but a learned Rabbi, the Christian Church, mighty society as it is, would certainly collapse. The Christian Church without Christ would be far more out of place than the play of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet omitted. In this respect it is a institution unique among all those which the world has ever seen, whether political or religious.

This great society, which now comprehends a vast majority of the intelligence of mankind, and all the progressive nations of the world, had a definite beginning in historical times. It differs wholly from a philosophic sect, whose bond of union consists in the acceptance of a body of dogmatic teaching. It is and ever has been an organized society with specific purposes and aims, and one which has ever meditated schemes of conquest. It differs widely from all political institutions, and yet ever since its birth it has taken a place beside them.

The origin of this society is not lost, like that of many others, in the mists of the hoary past. History enables us to assign a definite time when this society was certainly not in existence. It no less definitely marks out a period when it not only was in existence, but had entered on a condition of active growth. Its origin did not take place in the cloud‐ land of the mythic or the semi‐mythic period of history, but in the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, and in a country occupied by Roman garrisons, and presided over by Roman governors.

It will be objected that our only accounts of the causes which led to the organization of this society are writings composed by its own members. In this there is nothing peculiar; for until societies have grown sufficiently powerful to attract the attention of the world outside them, there can be no other source of information. Still the fact can be ascertained on the most unquestionable authority, that at a certain date this society was not in existence, and that within a certain number of years afterwards, it was not only in existence, but rapidly increasing; and that it originated in Jesus Christ, who was put to death by the Roman government.

This society, therefore, came into existence at a definite period of time. Its early writers give us an account of how it originated. They affirm that its founder was Jesus Christ; and that, having been interrupted by His death, it was called into a new existence by His resurrection. To this great event they most positively affirm that the origin of the Church, as an institution, was due. To the belief in it as a fact, it has certainly owed its gradual enlargement, until it has attained its present dimensions after more than eighteen centuries of existence. To this belief is due the great moral power which it has exercised on mankind; and if its members could be persuaded that the belief in the Resurrection of its founder was a mere delusion, great as this society is, it would certainly perish.

There are five facts connected with the origin of this society, which no one who believes in the possibility of historic truth will dispute.

First: That at the year A.D. 25, this society had no existence.

Secondly: That in A.D. 40, it was in a state of vigorous growth.

Thirdly: That it was founded by Jesus Christ.

Fourthly: That His crucifixion by the Roman government caused its temporary collapse.

Fifthly: That an event of some kind, which took place shortly after His death, imparted to it a new vitality, which it has never lost to the present hour, and which has caused it to exert a mightier influence on mankind than any other community, whether political or religious, that has ever existed.

The problem, therefore, which history has to solve, is to account for the renewed life, the marvellous progress, the intense vitality of this society, and the mighty influence which it has exerted on the destinies of mankind; originating as it did in the smallest possible beginnings, and in a manner differing from all other existing institutions.

The Christian Church has propounded, from the first commencement of its renewed life, its own solution of this problem. It is: that its founder, after having been crucified, rose again from the dead. This account has this clear and obvious advantage, that if it be true, it sufficiently accounts for all the phenomena whose existence we have to solve. His resurrection was a power adequate to revive the society after its temporary collapse, to impart to it its mighty moral and spiritual energy, and to impress on the original work and teaching of Jesus, a new and peculiar aspect. In short, assuming the Resurrection to have been a fact, it assigns a cause adequate to account for all the phenomena which have been presented by the Church. Here then we have firm ground on which to take our stand; viz., the belief of this society as to its origin, capable of being traced historically to the first hour of its renewed life, and which also, if true, affords a rational account of it.

But further; besides this account which the Church has given of its own origin, there is no rival account of it in existence. As far as historical documents are concerned, there is no other. All others are founded on conjecture.

Our opponents, however, affirm that the alleged fact which the Church asserts to have been the cause of its existence is incredible, because all miracles are impossible. Then, leaving _à priori_ grounds, they also affirm that the evidence to prove the Resurrection to have been an historical fact is insufficient for the purpose.

The Church, however, is clearly in possession of a vantage‐ground, from which it is not easy to dislodge her. The cause which she alleges is adequate to account for all the phenomena.

The _onus probandi_ therefore clearly rests on the opponents of Christianity. If they deny the truth of the fact which the Church has ever handed down as the true account of her origin, they are bound not only to show that it is devoid of historical attestation, but to propound a theory which will adequately account for all the facts to which history testifies. It is clear that nothing short of this is required of them as philosophical historians. Certain facts are plain and undeniable. A society, of a very special character, sprang into existence at a definite point of history, and has exerted a mightier influence than any other on the destinies of man. If therefore they reject the account which the Church herself gives, they are bound to supply a rational account of how this great society came into being; how the phenomena which constitute its history have been brought about; and what it was that imparted to it its vitality and power. We are in the presence of the greatest institution with which history is acquainted, founded as it is on the greatest ideal conception (if it is not historical) which the human mind has ever succeeded in inventing. Both these came into existence, not in pre‐ historic times, but in the midst of a period of contemporaneous history. Respecting the times, the modes of thought, and the general character of the period, we have extensive historical data. The religious, moral, and philosophical opinions, and the general line of thought, are well known. The various forces which were then in activity we are able to appreciate. With all these data before him, it is incumbent on the philosophical historian to give us an account of the moral and religious forces in activity at this period, which were capable of creating the Christian Church, and generating its conception of the ideal Christ. If it is alleged that after the utmost investigation it is impossible to account for their origin by the action of any known moral or spiritual forces acting on the human mind, this would be at once to confess that the origin of Christianity and the Church is entirely abnormal, or in other words, that it is a moral and spiritual miracle.

To do unbelievers justice, they have not been slow to recognize the fact that if they reject the account which the Church has given of its origin, they are bound to give us a rational one of how Christianity came into existence. Accordingly, theory after theory has been propounded on this subject. No intellectual exertion has been spared to point out how Christianity and the Church have succeeded in getting into existence, and in effecting their religious and moral conquests, by forces purely human, and without the aid of any supernatural intervention.

One thing respecting these theories is worthy of particular attention. No unbeliever has as yet been able to suggest one which has succeeded in commanding, I will not say the universal, but even the general assent of the unbelieving world. Theory after theory has been propounded and abandoned. It is therefore clear that the difficulty of accounting for the origin of Christianity and the Church through the action of the ordinary forces that operate on the human mind, is extreme. There is no analogous case in the whole history of man. Let me briefly enumerate the chief principles which have been invoked to aid in the solution of this problem.

First, it has been attempted to get rid of the supernatural elements contained in the Gospels by representing them as distorted representations of real facts. This has been justly abandoned as childish. Then came the mythic and legendary theories. These, having been found inadequate, have been supplemented by various theories of development of ideas; and the supposition of a violent party spirit existing in the Church, which under the influence of a spirit of accommodation produced various compromises; a mass of varied and often contending opinions seething in the bosom of a society continually threatened with disruption, until they somehow succeeded in welding themselves together; enthusiasm, fanaticism, boundless credulity, aided by a prodigious power of mythic and legendary invention, and whenever occasion so required, the presence of a moral atmosphere, which on great emergencies did not shrink from deliberate imposture. All these, in ever varying degrees and proportions, have been pressed into the service of creating the Church, the ideal Christ, and the Christianity of the New Testament. It is impossible in a work like the present to examine these various theories, and show their inadequacy as philosophical explanations of the fact. This I have already done in a former work,(5) to which I must refer the reader for their refutation. A few observations only will be necessary in this place.

First: The positions taken by unbelievers are theories, which rest on the smallest basis of historical evidence. I readily admit that where there is a known fact, but the recollection of the events which would give an account of its origin has perished, if a theory can be propounded which fully accounts for the fact, then it has a right to take its place as an historical event which rests on evidence of the highest probability. An example derived from the mode in which the study of comparative philology discloses the history of the past will explain my meaning. We have before us the facts of language. The history of those who formerly used it has perished; the accounts of their migrations have nowhere been preserved. But certain facts of comparative philology justify the assumption that certain primitive races of men must have migrated in particular directions. These assumed migrations are really a theory, but one which is exactly adequate to account for the facts which language unquestionably presents. Thus the facts of the Indo‐Germanic languages justify the assumption that in the pre‐historic ages, migrations westward must have taken place, of which history contains no record. Still the theory affords so perfect an explanation of the facts, that the occurrence of the migrations is as certain as if they had been recorded by contemporaneous writers. On similar grounds it has been inferred with a degree of probability so high as to be equal to certainty, that a language earlier than the Sanskrit, and from which both it and the Indo‐Germanic family of languages have been derived, was spoken by a previous race. Investigations of this kind are largely adding to our historical knowledge.

Let us observe the basis on which such arguments rest. In all these cases we have before us not mere conjectures, but a distinct and positive fact, or set of facts. The connecting links are missing. By the aid of conjecture we propound a theory; or in other words, we suppose a set of events to have occurred, which, if they really happened, would be adequate to account for the facts in question. When they thus account for them, and for them alone, and no other conjectural occurrence will do so, the assumed fact is fully entitled to take its place in history as an event which has actually happened. The reason of this is, that it can stand the test of historical verification.

A problem similar to that above referred to is the one which those who deny the historical truth of the Gospels are called upon to solve. We are in the presence of certain unquestionable historical facts, viz., the five above referred to, and many others. The denial of the truth of the Christian account leaves them without the connecting link which once united them. What was that link? It can only be supplied by conjecture. But to enable such a conjectural fact or facts to take rank as historical events, they must be adequate to account for the facts, and be true to human nature, and to the circumstances of the case; in other words, they must be capable of enduring a rigid historical verification. Theories which cannot endure this are no better than ropes of sand. This is the character of the theories which have been propounded to account for the Christianity of the New Testament.

Let me illustrate this by one of the favourite theories used by unbelievers for this purpose. We are told that a number of extremely hostile factions divided the primitive Church. Of these the followers of James, Peter, and Paul may be taken as fairly representative. These were in a state of great hostility to each other, and went on gradually elaborating a Christianity that was in conformity with their own views and tastes. After a while it occurred to these hostile parties that it would be advantageous to compromise their differences. An influential person, such as we may suppose the author of the Acts of the Apostles to have been, composed a history, for the purpose of making matters smooth, and to afford a common ground of union among the contending factions. This process was repeated as often as was necessary; and in good time, by the aid of myth and legend, and the whole of the needful apparatus, appeared the Christianity of the New Testament, and the Church was consolidated out of these varied elements.

Such theories grievously offend against the logic of history, and are in direct variance with the facts of human life. We are here in the midst of a whole mass of conjectural facts, each of which is imagined to account for the existence of the other; and the whole of them taken together fail to give an adequate solution of the phenomena before us. They are both untrue to human nature and unable to account for either the facts of Christianity or the existence of the Church. I must content myself with selecting one of them for illustration. We are asked to believe that the Church was divided into a number of parties, the opposition between whom was violent; and that these effected a number of compromises, out of which was ultimately evolved a common Christianity. This result is in direct contradiction to the testimony of the religious history of man. Religious parties do not effect compromises, but go on contending and widening their differences, until their enthusiasm wears out and they die of inanition. To this the history of all sects bears ample testimony, and the greater the enthusiasm and not unfrequently the lesser the grounds of difference, the greater the animosity. Compromises between hostile sects, in the rare cases in which they have taken place, have been brought about by means of external coercion. The religious history of mankind presents no example of furious religious parties, while animated by a living enthusiasm, voluntarily coalescing on the general principle of compromise. Witness the unsuccessful attempts at compromise between the Eastern and Western Churches, even when it was urged by the strongest external pressure. Witness the sects which grew out of the Reformation. Compromises have frequently originated among politicians, but these have in vain tried their healing influences among contending sects. Occasionally they have been brought about by the aid of pressure exerted by the temporal power, as in the Church of England. Nothing more strongly illustrates the difficulty with which compromise between religious parties can be effected than the failure of the attempts to reconcile the Church of England and the Methodists. The compromiser who will effect this union exists only in the hopes of the future. But we need not confine ourselves to the manifestations of sectarian spirit in connection with Christianity. The Mahometan Church is also divided by sectarian differences. Is there any tendency to produce a common Mahometanism, erected on the basis of compromise? Do Buddhism and Brahminism show any disposition to compromise their differences by fusing them into a common Pantheism which shall suit both parties? The idea of producing a Christianity by a succession of happy compromises entered into by violently hostile parties in the early Church, is a dream which, however plausible it may have seemed in the closet, is rudely dissipated the moment we come in contact with the stern realities of life.

But further: the wide separation of the early Churches from each other; and, according to the opinions of those against whom I am reasoning, their want of a governing power acknowledged by all, must have rendered agreement on the basis of mutual compromise impossible. Compromises are the results of considerations of policy, and are unheard of among fanatics, such as my opponents assert the early followers of Jesus to have been. But what further renders this theory untenable is, that it is compelled to imagine a number of developments accompanied by corresponding compromises between hostile parties, before we can succeed in evolving the Christianity of the New Testament. Not only does it contradict the history of man; not only is it an assumption made to form the connecting link between other established facts, but it is itself founded on other assumptions. Among these are the assertions made as to the evidence of the party spirit existing in the Church, and the opposition between its leaders. Party spirit we know to have existed, but not with the violence which this theory is compelled to postulate. The statement also that the doctrinal opposition between these parties was of so declared a type is not founded on the evidence that we possess, but on a highly exaggerated view of it, distorted for the purpose of adding strength to the theory; or, in other words, it is founded on a set of unwarranted assumptions. The passages in the New Testament alleged to prove the declared opposition between the leaders of the Church, which this theory is compelled to pre‐ suppose, can only be made to do so by taking it for granted that they do. For example, the assertion that the person denounced in the Epistles to the Seven Churches in the book of Revelation, is St. Paul, is a simply gratuitous one, the only evidence for which is the will and pleasure of those who make it. The theory, therefore, not only contradicts the history of man, but is based upon a number of alleged facts which are either absolute assumptions or exaggerations, and fail to give any account of the origin of Christianity which will stand the test of the scrutiny of a sound philosophy.

The mythic and legendary theories are equally unable to account for the facts as they stand in the New Testament. I cannot here attempt to follow them in their innumerable windings. Taken by themselves they are not now accepted as adequate accounts of them, but other theories are called in to aid them. Still, whatever assistance these are supposed to impart, myth and legend must always hold a prominent place in the systems of those who endeavour to account for the origin of the Gospels on purely human principles. As they contain a large supernatural element, it is certain that if this is not historical, it must have originated in some species of fiction, _i.e._ either in the mythic and legendary spirit, or in pure invention. Hence the use of myths and legends must always be freely invoked by those who, while they deny the historical character of the Gospels, do not go to the length of accusing the original followers of Jesus of deliberate invention.

I must here draw attention to one particular portion of the evidence, the full significance of which I have described elsewhere. Whatever opinions may be formed as to the unhistorical character of the Gospels, there is one fact respecting them as to which believers and unbelievers must alike agree, namely that they contain a delineation of the most perfect conception ever formed by the mind of man, the character of Jesus Christ. There it is, beyond the power of contradiction; the overwhelming majority of men possessed of the most powerful minds have recognized it as the greatest of ideals, as well as the millions of ordinary men to whom it has been the object of supreme admiration and attraction. The following questions respecting it therefore urgently demand an answer.

If the Gospels are a mere collection of mythic and legendary stories, generated and put together in the manner affirmed by those who deny their historical character, how got this great character there? If the fables of which they are composed are the inventions of many minds, whence its unity? If their inventors were credulous enthusiasts and fanatics, whence its perfection? If they were implicated in all the superstitions of the age, whence its moral elevation? Of what order of thought then existing is it the embodiment? How could the credulity which was necessary for the acceptance of such fictions, or how could the spirit which invented them, have conceived these moral elements? There the character is—let us be distinctly informed how it was put together; how much of it is fact, and how much fiction; how the fictions were welded together with the facts so as to compose the whole; and what class or order of minds in the early Church was equal to its elaboration. This delineation must have been made at an early period, and could not have been a late invention; for it is substantially the same as that contained in those Epistles of St. Paul, which are acknowledged to have been written within thirty years of the date of the Crucifixion. A distinct answer to these questions is demanded of those who affirm that the Gospels have no value as histories. It is impossible to deny that they have a most important bearing on the present question. Why do not unbelievers set themselves to grapple with this problem?

But the value to be assigned to the Gospels as histories must be a matter for subsequent consideration. At present I need simply draw attention to the fact that while the opponents of Christianity fully recognize the necessity of propounding a rational theory of its origin, the more we examine their various theories in detail, the more apparent becomes their inadequacy to account for the phenomena. The fact, already alluded to, that unbelievers cannot come to any agreement among themselves on this subject, shows that they find the problem extremely difficult of solution. The plausibility of their theories is due to the abstract and general form in which they are presented. Various causes are held up without any discrimination as to what each of them is capable of effecting; and the wished‐for result is ascribed to their combined action. But when we analyse the various forces at their command, ascertain the mode of their action, the difficulties they would have to encounter before they could effectuate their results, and examine whether they are true to the facts of human nature as testified to by the long course of history, it is not too much to affirm that all the investigations of unbelievers have completely failed to give an account of the origin of Christianity which can take the place of that handed down to us by the Church. Until this can be given, notwithstanding all the expenditure of intellect on the question, we are justified in affirming that the problem is insoluble, although Christianity originated in a period unquestionably historical, in the midst of the Roman Empire over which it rapidly spread, despite the opposition of the government and the entire organization of society.

Before proceeding to the direct considerations by which the great fact of Christianity is attested, I must take a general glance at the nature of the materials which we have at our command, and at their historical value.

I shall take as my starting‐point the five facts already mentioned, the historical certainty of which it is needless to prove. My starting‐point, therefore, is the continuous existence of the Church, which came into being at a definite period of time, to which it can be traced up in one unbroken succession. This society has always affirmed that its corporate existence, as well as the life of its individual members, is due to the Resurrection of its founder. I shall also carefully examine and estimate the contemporaneous evidence afforded by the Epistles of St. Paul, especially those which are acknowledged to be genuine, as well as that of the other writings of the New Testament, for the purpose of estimating the value of their testimony on this subject. Even if some of these writings are not allowed by unbelievers to be the productions of the persons whose names they bear, still they are all of a very early date, and unquestionably reflect the thoughts and ideas of those who wrote them, and of the persons to whom they are addressed. But before I enter on my immediate subject, it will be necessary to lay down the leading principles of historical evidence, and to estimate the value of tradition as a testimony to historical facts.

I am fully prepared to abide by the chief principles laid down by Sir G. C. Lewis on this subject in his great work on the _Credibility of Early Roman History_. They are generally considered to be sufficiently severe and exacting. By many they are viewed as of far too stringent a character. The evidence on which the great fact of the Resurrection rests, will endure their most rigid application. They have this great advantage, that they are laid down for the investigation of a subject purely secular, with which religion has nothing to do. They are therefore wholly free from religious bias, and are simply the principles for testing the claims of ordinary facts on our belief. If the chief facts of Christianity can stand this scrutiny, it is impossible to affirm that they are not supported by the strongest historical testimony.

1. Every alleged fact, in order to be entitled to our belief, must be shown to rest on direct contemporaneous testimony, or that which is its historical equivalent.

This rule is by no means intended to affirm that every fact for which contemporaneous testimony can be adduced is true; but only that it is to be accepted as such when there is no reason for disbelieving it. We must have some means to enable us to form a judgment of the knowledge and veracity of the informant. It remains for consideration, when the direct testimony of a contemporary is not to be had, as must be frequently the case with events long past, what may be considered as its historical equivalent?

It must be kept in mind that one of the most valuable forms of contemporaneous testimony, if not the most valuable of all, is a set of letters which contain various and definite allusions to the current events, habits, and modes of thought of the time. For certain purposes these are far more valuable than formal histories. The latter are frequently written under the influence of party spirit, partiality, or bias. The writer of a history is usually on his guard, has carefully considered what he says, and affords us but little opportunity of interrogating him. But the writer of a letter, unless he has special reasons for being guarded, places before his correspondent his entire mind. We are therefore capable of interrogating him. He often lets us into the secret causes of events. He also makes a number of incidental allusions to events which are passing. These form testimony of a most valuable kind. We can in a manner almost converse with him. As a confirmation of the facts which formal histories narrate, and as letting us into the secret springs of events, a series of letters, written by persons who were actively engaged in them, are historical documents of the highest order. Their value is increased when they bear all the appearance of coming from the writer’s heart. Nothing is more striking than the happy results which have accrued from the extensive use made by modern historians of original correspondence. It is not too much to say that it has largely modified our view of events, as they have been reported in formal histories. Another very high form of contemporaneous testimony is the existence of institutions and monuments which can be certainly traced up to a particular period, and which owed their existence to events of that period. These form a species of living witnesses to the truth of the facts out of which they have originated, and as far as their testimony goes, it is incapable of falsehood. The most valuable testimony of this kind is a great institution of which we possess definite evidence that it originated in a particular event, or in the belief of it. This kind of evidence Christianity possesses in the highest form, in the continued existence of that great institution, the Christian Church.

2. Testimony has a general credibility, subject of course to the knowledge and honesty of the informant, when the reports are derived from those who lived during the generation in which a particular event occurred, supposing it to have been one of sufficient notoriety to attract attention, and that the reporter possessed adequate means of information, and investigated it with sufficient care. We are always justified in assuming that he tells the truth unless there are reasons for suspecting the contrary.

3. Narratives of events which a man has heard from his father or his contemporaries, but which happened before his own recollection, are for the purpose of history, (but subject to the requisite qualifications) fair representations of contemporaneous testimony.

History admits hearsay testimony under proper restrictions. The knowledge of the past would be impossible, if it were to allow itself to be fettered by the technical rules which have been introduced into the administration of justice. The all‐important considerations with the historian, are the notoriety of the fact and the truthfulness of the informant. Facts that a man may have heard detailed by his grandfather or his contemporaries as having happened in their time stand as representations of contemporaneous testimony in the same position as those derived from the earlier generation.

4. But when a third stage is interposed in the transmission of events, as for instance when we learn from our fathers or grandfathers what they have learnt from theirs, an element of uncertainty is introduced. Still an historian, writing after such an interval of time, if he sifted evidence with care, would be able to report with accuracy all the great events, whatever difficulty he might have in ascertaining the minor details. Within this period abundance of sources of accurate information exist on all points of importance, although the details gradually fade out of people’s recollections. After this interval, the accounts of events are likely to receive a certain amount of colouring, according to the prejudices of the narrators; but the interval is too short, and the remembrance of them too recent, to allow of their becoming incrusted with important mythical additions. All the materials for investigation are in existence, and within the reach of the honest historian. He might find difficulty in arranging the details in historical sequence; but if he does not give an accurate account of the great outlines, it is owing, not to the want of historical materials, but to the absence of a desire to investigate and report the truth.

5. The limits of time during which tradition can be considered as a sufficiently accurate medium for preserving the memory of events, may be put generally at from one hundred to one hundred and twenty years. Within this period careful investigation and inquiry will enable the historian to report the main features of events with substantial truth, from the testimony of those who were contemporaries, or who derived their information from those who were. Beyond this period, when the knowledge of occurrences has to pass through three or four media of transmission, tradition becomes an uncertain and untrustworthy informant, and after the lapse of a greater interval, it is utterly unreliable, affording no means of checking the introduction of legendary narratives. There may be a few exceptional cases which have impressed themselves deeply on the public recollection. Occasionally the protracted lives of a few individuals may lengthen the period of trustworthy transmission, but this is an event of such rare occurrence as but slightly to modify the general rule.

It must be observed that there are two cases in which the traditional knowledge of events is transmitted with far more accuracy, and over far longer intervals of time than in ordinary ones, viz., those of families which have an historical importance derived from the actions of their ancestors, and those of bodies of men who have a kind of corporate life, succeeding one another in unbroken succession, especially when this corporate life is founded on the events themselves. This latter case presents the means best adapted for the traditionary transmission of facts, and one in which it is hardly possible that they should fail of being accurately transmitted within a reasonable interval of time. This was precisely the position occupied by the Christian Church during the first century of its existence respecting the chief events in the life of its founder.

An example will illustrate this: If there had been no written memorials of the life of John Wesley, there can be no doubt that the society which he founded would have handed down to the present day an account of the chief events of his life, which would have been accurate in its main outlines. Thousands of persons are now living who have conversed with those who have heard him preach; I myself have done so. It would therefore be impossible to impose upon them a wholly mythic account in place of that which would have been handed down by the Wesleyan body. Yet this society is founded on a set of dogmas, not on the historical facts of its founder’s life. The Christian Church therefore was in a far superior position for preserving a substantially accurate account of the chief events in the life of Jesus Christ, yet the interval which separates us from the death of Wesley is greater than that which elapsed between the death of Christ, and the publication of the latest of the Synoptic Gospels, even if we accept the dates which are assigned to them by our opponents.

6. When the knowledge of past events has perished, it is impossible to re‐ construct them by the aid of conjecture, except within the limits to which I have previously alluded. These limits must be strictly defined, otherwise that which is propounded as history becomes nothing else than a statement of our subjective impressions. Conjectures which cannot stand the test of historical verification cannot be accepted as facts of history.

Nothing is easier than, when facts are wanting, to invent them, and thus bridge over the intervals which lie between others, the connecting links of which have perished. But how are we to know that such conjectural events were real facts, and not mere creations of the imagination? Clearly this can be determined in no other way than by subjecting them to a rigid verification. If they will not endure this, they must be rejected. Historical conjectures have no higher claims for acceptance than scientific ones. Both must be subject to the same tests, and must share the same fate. I do not deny that many such conjectures may have a considerable degree of plausibility; but, unless we rigidly reject from the rank of historic facts those that break down under the test of verification, histories will be converted into novels or poems. If our knowledge of the connecting links between events in the history of the past has perished, we shall not improve it by imagining facts, and calling the result by the name of history.

We cannot be too guarded in this particular subject, because an almost boundless license has been introduced into the present controversy. Pure creations of the imagination, which it is impossible to verify, are constantly propounded as facts in the history of the past. I by no means wish to deny that both parties must plead guilty to the charge of this species of historical forgery. The fact may be unpleasant, but we shall do no good by refusing to recognize it. When the knowledge of past events has perished, and our conjectures break down under the test of verification, we have nothing to do but to remain content with our ignorance.

If these principles are correct, a considerable number of recently published lives of Jesus, and other similar compositions, have no claim to the designation of historical writings. They are mere novels evolved out of the self‐consciousness of their authors. They are nothing but simple imaginations of what, under certain conjectural circumstances, might have happened, but are destitute of all evidence that they actually occurred. If history is thus degraded, it must become devoid of all scientific value. I have pressed this point because nowhere is this license of conjectural guessing at events more largely indulged in, than in questions connected with the Bible and its criticism.