CHAPTER XVIII. THE TESTIMONY OF THE CHURCH, AND OF ST. PAUL’S EPISTLES, TO

THE FACTS OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANITY. THEIR HISTORICAL VALUE CONSIDERED.

I have in the preceding chapter drawn attention to the chief principles of historical evidence, and to the importance of certain classes of historical documents; also to the important bearing which the continued existence of a great institution like the Christian Church has on this subject, especially as its origin can be traced up to a definite period of history. I have further shown that as the Church gives a definite account of its origin, which, if true, is an adequate one; it is incumbent on those who reject this account to propound another which shall be able to stand the application of the principles of a sound philosophy of human nature. I must now consider the evidence which the existence of the Church as a visible institution, and the Epistles of St. Paul, afford to the great facts on which Christianity is based.

If it can be proved beyond question that the Church immediately after it assumed a distinctive form not only believed in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, as one among many miraculous facts, but affirmed that the belief in its truth was the one sole ground of its corporate existence, within a very short interval after the date of His crucifixion, it must be admitted, even by unbelievers, to involve a question of the most serious importance. It proves for certain that the belief in one miracle, and that the greatest of all recorded in the Gospels, was neither a mythic nor a legendary creation. It further follows that if the original followers of Jesus thought that He had risen from the dead, it may be taken as a moral certainty that they must have believed that other supernatural actions were performed by Him during His life. The solution which unbelievers propound as the account of the origin of the miraculous narratives in the Gospels is that they are a gradual creation of a mythic and legendary spirit. Hence their efforts to assign them to the latest possible date. If their publication can be deferred to the early years of the second century, they consider that this would afford the requisite time for surrounding the history of Jesus with a halo of mythic and legendary environment. But if it can be shown that the new‐born Christian Church, within a short interval after the Crucifixion, affirmed that the sole ground of its renewed life was the belief in the Resurrection of its founder, the possibility that such belief could have been either mythic or legendary is taken away. Whatever may be urged about the other parts of the story, there remains one miracle (and that the greatest of all), which it is impossible to affirm to have been either a mythical or a legendary creation. If the Church accepted it as the sole ground of its existence, and if that belief can be traced to the hour of its birth, it must have been due either to some species of delusion, or to a fact. If Jesus was thus believed to have risen from the dead, it is useless to assign the belief in His other miracles to a later legendary spirit.

But further: The Church, within a short number of years from the date of its birth, must have had all the consciousness that it was a young society. It was engaged in a constant struggle for existence, and had before it the alternative of enlarging its numbers, or perishing. A new society constantly struggling for existence could not fail within this interval of time to have the most lively consciousness of what it was to which it owed its origin, and which formed the bond of union among its members. It must have been to them a constantly recurring thought. Every one must have known that it was an alleged miraculous fact, a supposed Resurrection of one who had been crucified. Was it possible for the members of such a society to avoid looking back with anxiety on the alleged ground of its existence? It was no dogma capable of endless discussion, but a fact. The bond of union was allegiance to a living person. Is it conceivable that this person was not the object of daily interest to its members, or that they did not make His history the subject of earnest inquiry? Can we suppose for one moment that any of them were ignorant of or had forgotten the grounds on which they had joined the new community, or which formed the basis of its life? The recollections of the members of a society which is only between twenty and thirty years old must be fresh.

But it may be said, these people were very credulous. Be it so. Credulous people placed in the circumstances of the Christian Church are never deficient in curiosity. Even if the belief in the Resurrection of Jesus had originated in credulity, the first principles of human nature would have urged them to get all the information which they could respecting it. They were in the exact position to enable them to do this. Within ten, twenty, thirty, or forty years, there must have been plenty of information at hand to enable them to ascertain whether the society to which they belonged did or did not owe its existence to this belief, and to get full information as to the general outline of the story on which it was founded. It is impossible for members of a society whose origin was so recent to have remained ignorant of the circumstances which gave it birth. They must have been handed down by a lively tradition. I conclude therefore, that it would have been simply impossible for the members of the Church, within this short time, to be mistaken as to whether its existence and continued life was due to the belief that its founder had risen from the dead, or whether He was supposed to have worked miracles during His life; and that its belief could not have been due to mythic or legendary causes.

The question before us then, becomes clear and definite, freed from the vagueness with which it has been endeavoured to obscure it. If it can be proved that the Christian Church owed its origin to its belief in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that its renewed life began within the briefest interval after His crucifixion, the whole discussion becomes narrowed into the following issue: Is it possible that such a belief, within so short a time after His death, could have originated in a fiction? Three alternatives are open for our acceptance, and three only; either:

Jesus did not really die, while his followers supposed that He had, and they mistook some appearance of Him after His crucifixion for a resurrection:

Or they imagined that He appeared to some of them after His death, but the appearance was a delusion of their imaginations:

Or He rose from the dead as an objective fact.

Other alternatives there are none; and with respect to this particular miracle, the whole apparatus of myth, legend, development and compromise, which is so liberally used to account for the supernatural portions of the Gospels, is simply worthless as a rational account of the origin of the story.

A very bold affirmation has been made, that no contemporary testimony can be adduced for the performance of any miracle recorded in the New Testament. This assertion is founded on the supposition that none of the Gospels can be proved to have been written earlier than the end of the first, or the beginning of the second century. It is alleged that they are of very uncertain authorship, that two of them do not profess to communicate anything but second‐hand information; and the proof of the early composition of the other two utterly fails. The three first Gospels being thus quietly assigned to the region of myths and legends, and the fourth affirmed to be a forgery, it is asserted that contemporary evidence for the truth of the supernatural narratives of the Gospels wholly disappears.

What then is contemporaneous testimony to a fact? Few persons who actually witness events compose histories of them. There is scarcely an account of a great battle which has been composed by the general who commanded in it; and when such accounts have been published by persons who were actually present, they could have witnessed but a small portion of the events which they describe. Such is the case with the great mass of facts which constitute the history of the past. The chief actors in them are seldom the historians.

But although such persons rarely compose narratives of events at which they were actually present, yet it is quite possible to possess testimony which for all practical purposes is of equal value. As I have already pointed out, such testimony consists of historical documents composed by persons who lived during the time in question, and who had ample means of procuring information from those who must have known the truth of the occurrences.

We possess contemporaneous testimony of the highest order in the Epistles of St. Paul. I have already observed that no documents are of higher historical value than letters composed by persons actively engaged in the events to which they refer. I must now point out specifically the importance of these letters as historical documents.

First: four of the longest of them are admitted, by every school of unbelievers, who have given any consideration to the subject, to be the genuine productions of the Apostle. The evidence, both external and internal, of his authorship, is of the highest character. If it is not valid to prove that they were written by him, all historical certitude is rendered impossible. They are the two to the Corinthians, and those addressed to the Romans and the Galatians. Their importance is greatly enhanced by their presenting to us a more distinct picture of the innermost life of the Apostle than any others which have been attributed to him. To these may be added four more, viz. the two to the Thessalonians, and those to the Philippians and to Philemon, which, although doubted by some, are yet fully admitted by other unbelievers, among whom is Renan, to be genuine. The internal evidence that the Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon were written by the same person who composed those to the Corinthians and Galatians, is as strong as such evidence can possibly be. The whole form of thought is instinct with the presence of the same mind. Nor can the two to the Thessalonians admit of any reasonable doubt. To these follow the two to the Colossians and the Ephesians, for which the evidence is certainly less strong; but Renan admits that it greatly preponderates on the side of their being genuine productions of St. Paul. Altogether, then, we have eight letters which are undoubtedly his, and two more which are probably so; instinct with his mind, and placing before us a vivid picture of the innermost life of the early Church.

Secondly, as to their date. Six of them were unquestionably written within twenty‐eight years after the crucifixion, by the most active agent in the propagation of Christianity, who had been employed in this work for a period of at least eighteen years previously. Let us consider what such a period of time really means. Twenty‐eight years is about the period which lies between the present year and the repeal of the corn‐laws. While some of those who effected it have passed away, many of those who took a most active part in it are still living. All the events connected with it lie within the period of the most lively historical recollection. Many persons are still alive who can look back with the most perfect reminiscence to the great events of the anti‐corn‐law agitation. While these persons live, it will be impossible to encircle the chief actors in it with a halo of myth or legend. In precisely the same position must multitudes have stood to the ministry of Jesus Christ, and the foundation of the Christian Church, when these Epistles were written. The fact is worthy of our deepest attention, that when we read these letters and the various statements they contain, we are in the immediate presence of some of the most important events in history.

Although St. Paul had never seen Jesus himself, yet his age was such when he wrote these letters, that his recollection was good for many years before the commencement of His ministry. Great numbers of persons also were alive whose recollections of events that occurred at a much earlier date must have been distinct and clear. With the early followers of Jesus he had for not less than twenty years every facility for holding communication. Is it to be believed that a man whose entire being was swallowed up in one continuous sacrifice of himself to Jesus Christ, and who was penetrated with the profoundest love towards Him, had not accurately informed himself of the great facts of His earthly life, when during the last twenty years he had enjoyed every means of obtaining information from His followers, and previously had investigated it with the keen scent of an angry persecutor? The idea is incredible. In these letters of St. Paul therefore, as far as they throw light on this subject, we are in the presence of contemporaneous historical evidence of the highest order.

Thirdly: Although these letters were written within so brief an interval after the Crucifixion as from twenty‐five to thirty years, yet they afford evidence which carries us up to a much earlier period. St. Paul’s conversion dates at least eighteen years earlier than the earliest of them. His testimony therefore is good as to the general nature of the beliefs of the Christian Church during the whole period of his ministry. It proves, among many other things, this all‐important point, that the Resurrection of Christ was believed by the whole Christian community, and formed the groundwork of the existence of the Church, within less than ten years after the crucifixion. But the Apostle’s hostile connection with the Christian sect dates still earlier. As a persecutor he must have ascertained what were the leading subjects of the Christian belief, and must have subjected the whole matter to a rigid investigation. Above all, he could not have failed to know whether the belief in the Resurrection of Christ was or was not from its commencement the ground of the renewed life of the Christian Church.

Every consideration must have induced him when a persecutor to make this entire question the subject of a most careful investigation. Nothing was more important than that he should ascertain whether any considerable interval had elapsed between the Crucifixion of Christ and the propagation of the report of His Resurrection; and his means of ascertaining the truth about it must have been complete. To determine this for certain would have been most important in his work of convicting the founders of the new sect of imposture; for if any considerable time had elapsed between the death and reported resurrection, it would have afforded that of which all the theories of unbelief stand in need, a sufficient interval for the delusion to grow and propagate itself; or, if the belief was the result of fraud, for the imposition to be concocted and spread. St. Paul’s testimony therefore affords the most conclusive proof that the belief in the Resurrection as a fact was contemporaneous with the foundation of the Church; that it was the cause of its renewed vitality; that no interval could have elapsed between the death of Jesus and His reported resurrection, sufficient for the growth of myth or legend, the fabrication of an imposture, or the gradual spreading of the hallucinations of a single individual among a multitude of persons. In one word, if the belief in the Resurrection originated in the conversion of some subjective delusion into an objective fact, it must have been one which spread with incomprehensible rapidity.

These letters also form the most convincing proof, not only that the Resurrection was universally believed as a fact by the communities to which they were addressed, but that it was accepted by the individual members of these Churches from the first commencement of their Christianity. Although two of these Churches had been planted by St. Paul, that of the Romans was not planted by him, and was of considerable standing when he wrote the letter. Its fame had spread throughout the whole Christian world. Everything in the Epistle denotes that its Christianity was of no recent growth. Many of these Churches, especially the Jewish portions of them, could carry their recollections up to a much earlier time. It should be carefully observed that the interval of twenty‐ eight years from the foundation of a sect is a period wholly insufficient for the growth of an hereditary and otiose faith. The majority of the members of these Churches were beyond all doubt actual converts, who had once been either Jews or Pagans. However credulous we may suppose them to have been, their conversion must have been due to an inquiry of some kind. The short period which had elapsed since the foundation of the Church and the supreme interest which the whole of the events and circumstances must have excited in the converts, were precisely what was requisite for preserving traditionary recollections with the utmost soundness. There could have been no doubt in any of their minds whether or not the belief in the Resurrection was the groundwork of their Christianity. They must have known therefore whether it was a story which had gradually spread, or had existed from the beginning; or whether the peculiar form of it was an invention of St. Paul; or whether it was the foundation of the convictions of those by whom they had been converted. The manner in which the fact of the Resurrection is referred to in these Epistles proves that the belief was of no recent growth, but had existed from the beginning. The Epistle to the Romans opens with these words:—“Concerning His Son Jesus Christ ... who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, _by the resurrection from the dead_.” It is impossible that a writer could have made such a reference as this at the opening of his letter, unless he had been certain that the belief in the Resurrection had been accepted as a fact by those whom he addressed, and by the whole Christian community with whom they were acquainted.

But further: it is utterly incredible that if the converts accepted the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ as the foundation of their Christianity, they should have contentedly remained ignorant of the facts of His previous history, at a period when there must have been abundant means of obtaining an acquaintance with it.

Fourthly: the value of these letters as historical documents is greatly increased by the fact that a strong spirit of party existed in the Churches. None are more ready to accept the fact that the Church was divided into a number of parties than the opponents of Christianity. Not only have they admitted it, but for their own purposes they have greatly exaggerated it. But it is a weapon which can be used in defence of Christianity more efficaciously than in opposition to it. It is clear on the face of these letters not only that the Churches were divided into parties, but that party‐spirit existed in them with considerable violence. It is needless for the purpose of the present argument to ascertain the number of the parties into which some of the Churches were divided; but these letters, confirmed as they are by incidental references in the Acts of the Apostles, leave no doubt that the opposition between St. Paul and those who followed his teaching, and a powerful Judaizing party in the Church, was of a very decided character; that this party had a great dislike to the person of the Apostle; and that he himself denounced them as corrupters of the fundamental principles of the Gospel. They make it quite clear that even in the Churches of which he was the founder, the Apostle was far from having it all his own way. Judaizing teachers had made very considerable progress in alienating the Galatian Churches from him. His letter to these Churches discusses the entire question between him and his opponents, who actually went the length of denying his apostolical authority. In the Church of Corinth also there was a powerful Judaizing party, who affirmed that he was no true Apostle. In this Church there were also other parties who designated themselves by the names of particular leaders in various degrees of opposition to St. Paul. It is evident that these parties must have derived their views of Christianity from a source quite independent of the Apostle. Portions of the first and not less than half of the second Epistle are occupied by St. Paul in setting forth his claims in opposition to these leaders. It is altogether a mistake to suppose that these Churches were disposed to accept his assertions without question, as equivalent to oracles from Heaven. On the contrary, Judaizing teachers habitually followed his steps, and to some extent succeeded in subverting the faith even of his own converts.

Nothing can more enhance the value of these letters as historical documents than the existence of this party‐spirit in the Churches to which they were addressed. If St. Paul had written them to none but devoted admirers, as is frequently the case with the leaders of religious sects, his assertions might have been open to grave suspicion. It might have been urged that such persons were ready to accept anything and everything which he affirmed. But nothing is more keen‐eyed than religious party‐spirit in detecting and denouncing the false positions of an opponent, even when it is sufficiently ready to accept everything which makes in its own favour. So strong was the opposition to the Apostle, that in two of these Churches, as we have seen, a powerful party existed who went the extreme length of denying his right to the apostolic office. Yet these letters were not only intended to be read to the whole Church, but portions of them are directly addressed to the opponents in question. What guarantee of the truthfulness of statements can compare with this? The Apostle’s letters are openly read in the presence of the opposing party, before the assembled Church, challenging them to impugn his statements. It will perhaps be objected that we have no record of the discussion which followed the reading of his letters, and of the results attending it. The second Epistle to the Corinthians has preserved some of those results, though it is plain that an opposing party still continued. This Epistle is a very strenuous attack on them. The man who had the moral courage to write such letters as the second to the Corinthians and that to the Galatians, to be openly read in the presence of his adversaries, must have been well assured of the goodness of his cause. Common sense alone would have suggested to him not to make in them statements which were sure to receive direct and instant contradiction.

It is clear, therefore, that certain points on which these letters make very definite statements must have been held in common by St. Paul and his opponents. If it had not been so, it is impossible that the letters could have been written in their present form. The Christianity on which the two parties agreed beyond all doubt, concentrated itself around the Messianic character of Jesus. The letters themselves make the points on which they disagreed sufficiently obvious, centering as they did on the necessity of observing the rites of the Mosaic law in the Christian Church. But the Epistles contain a vast number of allusions to other subjects, not a few of which are of a very incidental character. What is the only legitimate inference which can be deduced from this circumstance? Obviously that the Apostle wrote them with the fullest conviction that his statements on these subjects would be accepted by his opponents as part of their joint belief; and not only by them, but by all the members of the Church. It is inconceivable that a man of the mental calibre of St. Paul should have written letters such as those to the Corinthians and Galatians, abounding as they do with references to facts and doctrines, if he had not been fully persuaded that they constituted the common faith of himself and those to whom he wrote.

It is impossible to over‐estimate the historical importance of letters like these, when in this incidental manner they contain numerous references to facts and opinions, and to the actual controversies then existing in the Church. The form in which they are made constitute us almost as adequate judges of their value as if we were able to interrogate their author. We have him, in fact, in the witness‐box before us, and can narrowly scrutinize his mental character. They can leave no doubt on our minds as to whether the allusions were incidental, or made for a purpose. The value of letters, written by persons who have impressed on them the image of their own inner life and character, and referring at the same time to current events and opinions, is now universally acknowledged as the best means of correcting the mistakes and misrepresentations of formal histories. But when we take into consideration that these letters of St. Paul are outpourings of his inmost mind, intended not only for admiring friends, but for scrutinizing opponents, we have before us historical evidence of the highest order.

Fifthly: The Apostle presents himself to us in these letters in the fullest outbursts of his heart. We have the whole man before us, intellectually, morally, and religiously. Probably no eight letters exist in all literature, from which it is possible to construct in equal fulness the mental portraiture of the writer. Nowhere can we find stronger bursts of feeling. He was a man of deep sensibility, united with the firmest resolve. His sacrifice of self, and complete freedom from all selfish aims, is exceeded by only one character in history. Who can read these letters through, and question the sincerity of the writer? Can any one believe that he was not true to his convictions, or that he was capable of deliberately stating what he knew to be false? If the facts were not as he has stated them, the only possible alternative is that he was the prey of an hallucination. Yet in every detail of business, and in disposing of all practical questions, his judgment was of the soundest character.

There is one remarkable fact which these letters bring out distinctly, which is probably true of no other man that ever lived. The Apostle claimed to decide certain questions authoritatively in virtue of a divine guidance which he possessed. He gave that decision on two points, having the closest bearing on the daily life of the Christians of that day, and which excited deep conscientious scruples. These were: whether the obligation of observing certain days was binding on the Christian conscience, and whether it was unlawful to eat meat which had been offered in sacrifice to a heathen god. On each of these points he gives his own apostolical decision; yet in the very act of doing so, he directly enjoins that the conscientious scruples of those who could not acquiesce in it should be respected. Can this be said of any other man who thought that he possessed a supernatural guidance? Enthusiastic he was; but his was an enthusiasm which did not blind his judgment. He was a man, too, of a highly delicate mind, yet capable of using a refined sarcasm in dealing with his opponents. We have the whole man before us, and his entire character renders him a witness of the highest order.

As modern unbelievers refuse to allow us to appeal to the Gospels as historical documents, it becomes a matter of the highest importance to ascertain what facts in connection with the origin of Christianity and the beliefs of the earliest followers of Jesus can be established with the aid of these letters. Unbelievers cannot dispute that they are the authentic writings of the most active agent in the propagation of Christianity, who has contributed more to its permanent establishment than any other of the disciples of Jesus. This being so, it is impossible to deny that they are contemporary historical records of the highest value. Our opponents demand contemporary testimony, and we present them with the Epistles of St. Paul. In pursuing this argument, it will be my duty to forget that we Christians consider that the man who wrote them had a supernatural guidance, and to use them as I would the letters of Cicero. I will proceed to examine their testimony.

First: It has been asserted, with a view of weakening the evidence of the supernatural portions of the New Testament, that although its writers have reported miracles as wrought by others, not one of them has affirmed that he himself ever performed one.

I reply that St. Paul distinctly affirms that he believed he wrought miracles. “Truly,” says he, “the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.” (2 Cor. xii. 12.) He here affirms that such a power was possessed not only by himself, but by other Apostles also. The power to perform “signs, wonders, and mighty deeds” was directly connected with the apostolic office.

Again, he says to the Galatians (iii. 5), “He that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you.” In this reference he evidently means himself, and affirms that he had performed miracles in Galatia.

In the Epistle to the Romans he makes the following affirmation: “For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed, through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the Gospel of Christ.” (Rom. xv. 18, 19.) Here then we have St. Paul’s direct affirmation that in his own opinion, throughout the mission in question, he had been in the habit of performing “mighty signs and wonders.” After these passages it is needless to quote further. The Apostle deliberately affirms to the Corinthians and Galatians that he performed miracles, and the whole passage makes it clear that he supposed they would fully recognize the fact of his having done so. Of course this affirmation does not prove that they were real miracles; but it does prove that he and those to whom he wrote thought that they were so. Not less distinct is his affirmation to the Romans. These passages further distinctly prove that it was an accepted belief in the Churches when the Apostle wrote, and even at a much earlier period, that supernatural manifestations attended the early preaching of Christianity. It follows therefore that the invention of miraculous stories was not due to a later mythic and legendary spirit. This the statement made by the Apostle in his Epistle to the Romans distinctly proves; for he evidently considered that he had been in the habit of performing miracles up to the very time when he wrote the letter, and during the whole course of his preceding ministry. Also the affirmation that miracles were the signs of an Apostle, and admitted to be such, is a strong corroboration of the statement made by the Synoptics that our Lord was supposed to have conferred such powers on the Apostles; and as it is simply incredible that any should have believed that He conferred on the Apostles powers which He did not exercise himself, it carries up the belief of the Church that Jesus was a professed worker of miracles to the very first years of Christianity. I am quite aware that these beliefs of the Church do not prove these miracles to have been real ones. But they do prove that the belief in their actual performance was contemporary with the birth of Christianity itself. They therefore could not have originated, as the opponents of Christianity are never weary of assuming, in a mythic or legendary spirit; for myths and legends require a considerable time to grow; and it is impossible that they can encircle an eminent character with an unreal halo till after those who witnessed his actions and personally know him are silent in the grave. But in the case before us we have affirmations of St. Paul respecting himself, which put the whole apparatus of myths and legends out of the question. If then this belief in the manifestation of a supernatural power in connection with Christianity dates thus early, there are only three modes in which it is possible to account for it, viz. that it was due to deliberate and conscious imposture; or that Jesus and His immediate followers laboured under a delusion when they thought that they performed miracles; or that they were really wrought. As no one now‐a‐days pretends to maintain the truth of the first alternative, we may dismiss it from further consideration.

But it will be asserted that St. Paul does not mention any specific miracles which he considered that he had performed, and that his statements are merely general. I reply that such a mode of statement is precisely what we should expect to find in a letter of this kind, and is just the one which would be adopted by a person who was satisfied that those to whom he was writing were as firmly convinced of the fact as he was himself.... A formal and distinct description of the miracles which he had performed would have been quite out of place in a reference of this kind, and would have implied that doubts respecting them existed on one side or the other. Besides, the words which he uses embrace all the different expressions by which the various kinds and aspects of miracles are designated in the New Testament.

Secondly: These letters also afford unquestionable evidence that at the time when they were written both the writer and those to whom he addressed them, were firmly convinced that there was then actively operating in the Church a number of supernatural manifestations of a very peculiar character, and widely different from any species of supernatural belief which has been current before or since. I allude to the gifts of the Spirit, to which the Apostle has so frequently alluded in these Epistles, and of the nature of which he has in those to the Corinthians given a distinct account, together with definite rules to regulate their use. The reason why he has given us a far more definite account of this class of manifestations than of the other is obvious. In the Church in question they had become the subjects of ambitious rivalry, and under its influence some of them had been perverted to pernicious uses. The whole subject is definitely treated of in the 12th, 13th, and 14th chapters of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, besides a number of distinct references to it in other portions of his writings. These assertions on the part of St. Paul that both he and those to whom he wrote were fully of opinion that supernatural powers were then manifested in the Church, are so clear that they require a most careful consideration. The following points respecting them are proved by this Epistle.

1. That St. Paul, and the various parties in the Corinthian Church, however much they might disagree on other points, fully believed that these supernatural powers were _then and there_ manifesting themselves in the Church. This belief might have been a delusion, but the letter proves beyond doubt that it was entertained by the whole Church, including all its various parties.

2. That these gifts were earnestly coveted by the various members of this Church; that many of them made a very ostentatious use of them; and that stringent rules were required to prevent their use from degenerating into an abuse.

3. Nine of these supernatural endowments are enumerated by the Apostle. It is not clear whether the list is intended to be exhaustive. Probably it is not; but it is evident that the writer intended to enumerate the chief of them. They are as follows: the gifts of wisdom, knowledge, faith; gifts of healing (χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων); working of miracles (ἐνεργήματα δυναμέων); the gift of prophecy, those of discerning spirits; tongues and interpretation. This list of gifts in a slightly altered form is repeated no less than three times in the same chapter. They are affirmed to be supernatural endowments, qualifying the possessor for distinct functions in the Church. It is worthy of particular remark, as showing how free the Apostle was from contemplating the subject with the eye of a credulous enthusiast, that he distinctly asserts that they were designed for a definite purpose only, and that when that was effected they were to cease. A fanatic would certainly have considered that they were destined to continue for ever. This point is worthy of our deepest attention.

4. The existence of a marked distinction between these gifts is definitely affirmed by the Apostle. They were not confined to a particular order of men, but were spread over the entire community. They also differed not only in kind but in degree. Some of them subserved higher, others humbler purposes. The reason for which they were given was the building up of the Church into a distinctive community. When that was effected they were to cease.

5. The Apostle also most carefully points out that a distinction of function existed between these various supernatural endowments. This is a very important consideration. Whether we view them as realities, or as delusions, it is plain that this distinction of function must have pointed to some corresponding facts well known in the Church, at the time when the Epistles were written. The possession of one of them by no means implied that of another, although the subject‐matter upon which they operated was closely akin. Thus the possession of the gift of tongues (whatever it may have been), did not imply the possession of the gift of interpretation. On the contrary, the rules which the Apostle gives for the regulation of those gifts, as well as his statements respecting them, prove that they were a set of distinct manifestations, and were possessed very often by different persons, and that the presence of the one power by no means implied that of the other. This must unquestionably point to the existence of a remarkable phenomenon of some kind. Even if it is supposed that St. Paul and those to whom he wrote were labouring under a delusion, it proves that the Apostle possessed a power of discrimination which is not exhibited by an ordinary enthusiast or fanatic.

A distinction which St. Paul affirms to have existed between two of these gifts, viz. between the gifts of healing and of miracles, deserves special attention. That a real distinction existed between them is affirmed three times over in the same chapter. Both of these gifts, according to our present mode of viewing the subject, would be confounded under the designation of a power of working miracles. But it is clear from the Apostle’s statement, that he, and those to whom he wrote, saw an appreciable distinction between them. “To another,” says he, “are given the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles.” “But all these worketh that one and the self‐same Spirit, _dividing to every man severally as he will_.” (1 Cor. xii. 9‐11.) Again, in summing up their relative importance, he says: “thirdly teachers, after that miracles, _then gifts of healing_,” (ver. 28); and again, as qualifying individuals for particular offices: “Are all apostles? are all prophets? _are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing?_” (ver. 29, 30.) Now although we may deny that these phenomena were supernatural in their character, it is plain that there must have been something in existence in this Church corresponding to them, and of which they were the supposed manifestation. The Apostle and those to whom be wrote evidently understood one another.

What this distinction was it is now impossible accurately to determine. As I have already observed, it probably had reference to a higher and lower class of miracles; those which were in the proper sense evidential; and those which might in various degrees have resembled the act mentioned by St. James, the anointing a sick man with oil in the name of the Lord, the offering fervent prayer for his recovery, and the gradual cure of his complaint. Such would belong to a lower class of miracles to which I have elsewhere alluded, as rather fitted to procure a favourable attention to the missionary than for evidential purposes. Be the distinction what it may, and even supposing that St. Paul and the Corinthians were under a delusion as to their supernatural character, it is plain that some real difference, which was clearly distinguishable, must have existed in the outward manifestations. This is a fact of very considerable importance, as it proves that both the Apostle and the Corinthians were in a state of mind in which they were capable of exercising a clear discrimination between these gifts, which is the last thing of which visionary and credulous enthusiasts ever think.

6. These gifts were likewise clearly separate in respect to the subject‐ matter on which they operated. The Apostle and the Corinthians supposed that they communicated a supernatural illumination of some kind; but the illumination conferred by one might leave the possessor completely in the dark with respect to the special subject‐matter of the other. This is definitely affirmed with respect to the gift of tongues, and interpretation. A person might possess the former and yet be altogether destitute of the latter. There can be no doubt that the same analogy ran through them all. This is affirmed when St. Paul asserts that all these gifts were the work of one and the same Spirit _dividing to every man severally as he will_ (1 Cor. xii), and is implied by the comparison which he institutes between them and the members of the human body and their respective functions. Thus: the power of seeing furnishes no information in matters of sound; nor the latter on the perceptions we derive through the sense of smell. Equally functional were these gifts, each being confined to its own proper subject‐matter. If the idea was that the possessor had an inspiration, as far as respects the subject‐matter of his gift, it conferred on him no supernatural knowledge on matters outside its special function. Thus a man who had the gift of tongues might remain perfectly ignorant of the interpretation of them, if he had not the latter gift. One who possessed the power of discerning of spirits might have been destitute of the power of working miracles. One who had the gift of prophecy might have had no illumination with respect to that special knowledge which was conferred by the gift of wisdom. The inspiration which was supposed to be conferred by them, conferred no general infallibility—it was strictly functional and did not extend beyond the limits of the gift.

All these points are of the highest importance in an historical point of view. Whether we think that St. Paul and the Corinthians were, or were not, under delusions about this matter, they clearly prove that there must have been phenomena of some kind which were supposed to be the results of the gifts in question; and that the persons who believed that they possessed them exercised a discriminating judgment respecting them. It is no less clear that they did believe that they actually possessed them. Some of them were of such a nature that it is difficult to comprehend how the possessor could be under delusion on the subject. Take for example the power of discerning spirits. Once the possessor had it not. Afterwards he must have believed that he possessed a supernatural insight into the character of others. It is difficult to comprehend how a man’s consciousness could be deceived on a point like this. He must have surely known whether within a definite period of time he had obtained an insight into character, which he did not possess before. Everywhere in the account given us of these gifts we seem to be dealing with facts. The distinctions laid down as existing between them, and the separateness of their functions are truly philosophical, supposing the gifts to have been real, and were the last things which were likely to have occurred to credulous enthusiasts.

7. These gifts admitted of being abused. The possession of them was not sufficient to confer any infallibility in the use of them. This fact is worthy of deep attention, not only as pointing to the reality of the manifestations but to the soundness of the Apostle’s judgment. If these gifts had been mere inventions of a credulous imagination they would have been represented as guarded from the possibility of abuse by the supernatural power in which they originated. Even at the present day it is a very common idea that the gift of inspiration cannot possibly be a functional one which is limited to a definite subject‐matter, but that it must confer a general infallibility. Very different were the views of St. Paul and of the Churches to which he wrote. The Apostle was of opinion that when they had been once conferred, they were subject to the control of the will, and capable of a good or bad use in the same manner as our ordinary faculties. His statement is clear that in this Church they were used in a manner little conducive to edification. In order to suppress this abuse he adopted some stringent rules. No person was to be allowed in the congregation to use the gift of tongues (a gift which he was so far from underrating that he thanked God that he possessed it more largely than any other member of the Church), unless there was some one present who had the gift of interpretation. The gift of prophecy held the second rank in point of importance. Yet from the eagerness of its possessors to use it, confusion arose in the congregation; and the Apostle was compelled to prescribe rules for limiting its exercise and enforcing order among the prophets. The more the account is studied the stronger must be the conviction that it points to actual phenomena, which were exhibited in the Apostolic Churches; and that St. Paul, in his description of them, exhibits the strongest indications of a sound judgment.

Such were the phenomena which the Apostle, and those to whom he wrote, considered to be supernatural manifestations. I observe respecting them:

First: That it is clear that when St. Paul wrote these Epistles, both he and those whom he addressed were fully persuaded that certain supernatural manifestations were then habitually present in the Church. It is impossible to attribute this belief to the presence of the mythic or legendary spirit.

Secondly: It is clear from other statements in the Epistles, not only that St. Paul firmly believed that he himself was endowed with several of these supernatural gifts, but that he had been the means of imparting them to others.

Thirdly: If we consider the nature of some of these gifts, it is difficult to conceive that a man like St. Paul could have been deceived respecting their reality. Several of them involved accessions of mental power, as for example the gift of wisdom, knowledge, and discerning of spirits. He must have known that at one time he had nothing but his natural endowments. At a later period he must have believed that his wisdom, knowledge, and power of discerning character was increased. These must have been definite facts of his mental consciousness. It is difficult to conceive how delusion was possible, when in his treatment of the entire subject he displays such clear indications of sound judgment and common sense.

Fourthly: It is necessary to suppose not only that St. Paul was a prey to delusion on this subject—if we deny that the gifts were real—but that a similar delusion was spread over the entire Church. Its individual members believed that they possessed them, no less than the Apostle. Those who possessed only the lower gifts were emulously desirous of possessing the higher ones. They also made an ostentatious use of them. Such are not the phenomena presented by enthusiasm. Was it possible that considerable numbers of persons should be deceived in supposing that they had acquired particular mental endowments of which they well knew that they had been previously destitute?

Fifthly: While the phenomena under consideration were unquestionably believed both by St. Paul and the Corinthian Church to be supernatural manifestations, yet it is a supernaturalism which differs in its entire aspect and character from any other which has been believed in by man. We may wander over the entire regions of history and fable, and we shall fail to find any belief in the supernatural, bearing the smallest resemblance to it. It is most definitely contrasted with that which has been ascribed to the contemporaries of our Lord; and which I have considered in the earlier portions of this work. Whence has come this most striking contrast? If St. Paul and the members of the Corinthian Church were a prey to the superstitious beliefs above referred to, how was it possible for them to have considered themselves to be living in the midst of an atmosphere which presented so marvellous a contrast. The gifts, if real, were precisely suited to the wants of the Church, for building it up into the great institution which it became. It required accessions to its numbers from the populations in the midst of which it lived. The two miraculous gifts, even if they were not evidential, were fitted to draw attention to its claims. Collected as its members were from Judaism and Heathenism, without sufficient means for their definite instruction, those who performed this office were qualified for it by two gifts conferring various degrees of enlightenment. Then there was the prophet, who as an inspired preacher expounded and enforced the truths of Christianity. Its members were ill‐qualified for public offices, owing to the low condition of the society from which they sprang. Here again were two mental endowments to supply the need, the power of discerning spirits and the supernatural gift of faith. All these gifts here enumerated, were the very endowments suited for the building up of a body of converts taken from such unpromising sources, into the great society to which it speedily grew. A new society had to be formed of a wholly different character from any previously existing. It was designed to leaven by new influences the state of religious, moral, and political thought out of which it originated. The old social organization met it with determined opposition. The problem was how was it to be erected on such a basis as would give it permanence? The Church of Jesus Christ was to be a new moral creation in the midst of effete society. An extensive communication of endowments, such as are referred to in the Pauline Epistles, was the very thing which was requisite to accomplish this purpose. It came into existence; it grew; it struggled; it conquered; it subverted the old forms of civilization; it created new ones. These are facts which require to be accounted for. The forces referred to in these Epistles as in active energy before the eyes of St. Paul and the members of these Churches, were adequate to have effected this. Without some such moral creation attending the first planting of Christianity, the formation of this unique society out of the various elements of which it was composed, and their welding together into an organization instinct with life, which has imbued with its principles all existing institutions, must remain a problem which baffles all the attempts of philosophy to solve.

Lastly: These letters prove on the highest historical evidence that a supernatural power was believed to be manifested in the Church at the date of their composition, wholly different from any kind of ordinary current supernatural belief. Through the Acts of the Apostles, its existence can be traced up to a still earlier period. Two of these gifts, but two only, involved a power which we should now designate as essentially miraculous. This being so, the testimony of St. Paul, involving as it does that of the entire Church, is express as to the belief of contemporaries that miracles were actually performed. We can trace this belief up to the first origin of Christianity. If Jesus was believed to have endowed His followers with this power, it is impossible to believe that He was not supposed to have possessed it himself. These Epistles therefore are evidence that the earliest followers of Jesus believed that He was a worker of miracles. So far the proof is complete that the ascription of miracles to Jesus and His original followers was not due to the imagination of subsequent generations.

The careful perusal of these Epistles can leave only one impression on the mind of the reader, that he is in the presence of facts of an unquestionably historical character.