of the human heart, and form the mightiest power in the moral world, more than eighteen centuries after the termination of His earthly life? These are questions to which history returns no uncertain answer. The might of His influence cannot be disputed. It follows, therefore, if it has been one which has been exerted by none other beside Him, that it is absolutely unique; or, in other words, that it proves the presence of the superhuman.

It is impossible to deny the validity of this line of reasoning, for it is one which is strictly in accordance with the requirements of modern investigation. Nothing more, however, can be done here than to hint at its general character. It is impossible, within the assigned limits, to sketch even the outlines of the argument, which requires a considerable space for its elaboration. To this aspect of it the first four Bampton Lectures (1877) and their six Supplements are devoted; and to attempt to state it in a more concise form would deprive it of its logical value. The attention of sceptical writers, and 'S. R.' in particular, is invited to this portion of the Christian argument; which has never yet been fairly grappled with. 'S. R.' informs us in his preface that 'his work is the result of many years of earnest and serious investigation, undertaken in the first instance for the regulation of personal belief,' yet its careful perusal leaves one under the impression that he has never even heard that Christianity rests on a body of moral evidences, which require to be grappled with as much as those which are usually regarded as miraculous. If he attempts, on any future occasion, to deal with this portion of the argument, he should grapple with its main issues, and not with mere points of detail; for objections may be urged against the latter which leave the former untouched. 'S. R.' has complained that he has received this mode of treatment from several of his critics. If his charge is just, it is surely incumbent on him not to follow a bad example; yet his own work forms a remarkable illustration of the practice which he condemns.

IV. The historical argument. -A few observations will be here necessary as to the mode in which 'S. R.,' who in this respect follows a multitude of unbelieving critics, deals with the historical portions of the Christian argument, because it either overlooks or evades the essential point of the controversy, for, unless it can be subverted, the essence of Christianity, as distinct from its adjuncts, remains unshaken. His mode of attack compels him to assail not only the superhuman (this word is used advisedly rather than supernatural)

elements of the New Testament, but even the ordinary details of the narratives of the Gospels and of the Acts of the Apostles as unhistorical; and this to such a degree that, if his criticisms are just, his reader must conclude that hardly a single incident referred to rests on a trustworthy historical foundation. His manner of dealing with our Lord's Passion, which has been already referred to, may be taken as a singular instance of this mode of criticism. A brief passage may be quoted as an illustration of his method :

'Let no one,' says 'S. R.,'' suppose that in freely criticising the Gospels we regard without deep emotion the actual incidents which lie at the bottom of these narratives. No one can form to himself any adequate conception of the terrible sufferings of the Master, maltreated and insulted by a base and brutal multitude, too degraded to understand His noble character, and too ignorant to understand His elevated teaching, without keen pain.'

'S. R.' then proceeds to subject the details of the narrative of the Passion to a rigid criticism, and if his method is a just one he does not leave us a single detail as historically reliable. It does not seem to have occurred to him that by thus destroying the truthfulness of the incidents he leaves little or nothing to excite our 'deep emotion.' He will doubtless reply that he has left the fact of the Crucifixion unassailed, even while he consigns all its details, and those of the Last Supper, to the regions of mythology. But if his method of historical criticism is correct, it is hard to discover what grounds we have for believing that Jesus 'was maltreated and insulted by a base and brutal multitude,' nay, more, why the fact of the Crucifixion itself should not be matter of mythological invention. On the principles adopted by writers of this school, it may full well have been a legend fabricated to embody certain theological tendencies.

The first 219 pages of S. R.'s' work are occupied with a laboured attempt to establish two positions, which, if true, would settle for ever the controversy between Christians and unbelievers, and render the historical investigation a mere work of supererogation. The first of these is that miracles are, on à priori grounds, incredible, and the belief in them irrational; the second is that the followers of Jesus and the early Christians were so intensely credulous and superstitious as to deprive their testimony of all historical value. As to the former, we are absolved from discussing it by the fact that the validity of a large portion of the reasoning proceeds on the assumption of the truth of the principles of Atheism, Pantheism, or Agnosticism; whereas 'S. R.' not only pro

fesses himself a Theist, but objections founded on the truth of these systems are, as has been pointed out, invalid by the conditions of the Christian argument. As to this portion of the subject the defender of Christianity may accept the principles laid down by Mr. J. S. Mill in his Logic and his posthumous Essays as a fair statement of the a priori position of the argument. It is true that S. R.' has done his best to controvert those propounded by Mr. Mill in his Logic, but his reasoning is too obviously inconclusive to require to be noticed here. Let unbelievers, if they can, prove Mr. Mill's positions invalid. The Christian argument requires nothing more than he concedes. One might have hoped that this portion of the question might have been considered settled.

But his second thesis is very important, because it is habitually used throughout his entire work to throw discredit, on à priori grounds, on all the documents of primitive Christianity, and as a proof of the worthlessness of the testimony of the followers of Jesus to all facts involving the superhuman. The point which he desires to prove is that the early believers were to the last degree credulous and superstitious. It is necessary to establish this, because it affords the only means of accounting for the miraculous narratives of the Gospels without imputing deliberate fraud. His mode of reasoning is so striking an illustration of his method of dealing with historical questions that it deserves to be briefly stated. It is as follows:

First, he carefully ransacks the extant literature of several centuries before the Christian era, and selects a number of the most grossly superstitious and preposterous beliefs entertained during the times in question. These he carefully parades for the purpose of proving that the Jews, as a nation, were intensely credulous and superstitious. Next, Josephus is summoned to give similar testimony. Even this is not enough but he goes on with a choice selection of superstitious beliefs entertained by the early Fathers. The whole is presented to us in the form of a single picture, and we are invited to infer that the followers of Jesus were a prey to a similar mass of superstitions. On these grounds it is affirmed that the persons on whose reports the miraculous narratives of the Gospels were founded were so intensely credulous as to deprive their testimony of all historical value. Such a mode of reasoning would make short work with the writers of any age or nation whose historical testimony it is desirable to discredit. Nothing more is necessary than to make a selection of gross superstitions from the history of the past or the present,

and charge them on any particular author or his informants, and then aver that his testimony to any unusual occurrence is worthless. Yet this is really the course adopted by 'S. R.' for the purpose of invalidating the testimony of the primitive followers of Jesus.

It is evident that the only legitimate mode of determining how far a particular author is the prey of superstition or credulity is by investigating his own writings on this subject. It is absurd to credit him with superstitions, of which they afford no trace, on the vague ground that he lived in a credulous and superstitious age. The same principles would justify future critics in bringing a like charge against several eminent writers of the present day, because it is a fact that large numbers of people, and even a few scientific men, believe in the absurdities of 'Spiritualism.' What can be more absurd than to credit the authors of the Gospels with all the superstitions which may have been current some centuries before or after their birth, or even all those of their own age, without proof is given that they were a prey to them. They are clearly only responsible for those to which their own pages testify. This is true in any case; but as their story is a miraculous one, it is certain that if they were so intensely superstitious, as this theory presupposes, the subject on which they wrote would have called this spirit into active energy, and their pages would have contained narratives equally grotesque. It is hardly needful to observe that to urge their belief in miracles as a proof of their extreme credulity, when the truth of miracles is the question at issue, is simply to assume the point which has to be proved.

But 'S. R.' seems wholly unconscious that in attributing such an extreme degree of credulity and superstition to the followers of Jesus as he has endeavourd to fasten on them in his fifth and sixth chapters, and assumes as proved throughout his entire argument, he is cutting the ground from under his own feet. His object is to prove that the Gospels consist of a mass of myths and legends; and his zeal to effect this blinds him to the following all-important consideration.

There is another fact, besides the presence of the miraculous narrative in the Gospels, which requires to be accounted for the existence in them of a body of moral teaching, the elevation of which an overwhelming majority of unbelievers have concurred in admiring. Yet unbelieving critics seem totally unaware that it is necessary to prove that its existence in them is compatible with the theories of their origin which

they propound. Will they or even 'S. R.' pretend that this moral teaching is the creation of a body of enthusiasts who were sunk in the lowest depths of credulity and superstition? If he has succeeded in proving his case, it is certain that the primitive Christians must have consisted of a body of men who were intellectually degraded to the utmost extent. But such a mental condition is incompatible with a high state of moral elevation. If, therefore, the followers of Jesus were such as 'S. R.'s' position compels him to maintain, it is impossible that they can have created the moral elements of the Gospels. But if to escape this difficulty he takes refuge in Mr. Mill's assumption, that while the miraculous stories may have been the inventions of His followers, it is inconceivable that their moral elements can have been their creation, and consequently that these must be referred to the genius of the Great Teacher Himself, then it follows necessarily that large portions of the Gospels must rest on a firm historical basis; and among them must be some of those miraculous narratives whose high moral impress is unmistakable.

This is not all. 'S. R.'s' theory, and that of a large number of unbelievers, is that the Gospels consist of a mass of myths and legends, the inventions of a number of credulous enthusiasts, which gradually grew up during the first century, and which in the course of time took the place of the real facts of the life of the Founder of Christianity. These myths and legends then were the invention of a considerable number of people, whose intellectual and moral calibre was such as is described by 'S. R.,' and out of this mass of materials four unknown writers, at a comparatively late period, composed our Gospels. This, stated briefly, is the theory of modern unbelief, which the reasonings of S. R.' in his three volumes are intended to prove.

Let us invite his attention and that of his unbelieving friends to the following considerations. Our Gospels, whether genuine histories or bundles of legends, contain the delineation of a character, viz. that of Jesus Christ, which without contradiction is the grandest and most perfect ever conceived of by man. This is allowed even by a large number of unbelievers. Here, at any rate, we are in the region of fact; for it is one which cannot help being recognised on a simple perusal of their pages. Now of what does this character consist? To this question there is only one possible answer: that it is not due to any artificial delineation, but to the combined effect produced on the mind by their entire contents. These all form one harmonious unity. The character has