Four Lectures to the Brahmos

In my first discourse I endeavoured to show you, gentlemen, that tUei'e is some such, weakness and some such defect in man's underslandiug with respect to divine and religious truths, though he may he very clever in other things, that whenever he tries to think or teach them wiihout the aid of revelation, he is sure i o go astray and to fall into all sorts of errors; and that Christianity, which alone teaches us the true religion in its purity, can never be a production of the human mind, but must be the revelation of God, as indeed it claims to be.

Then I said that you think that there are some objectionable points in Christianity also and that you do not think that even Christianity teaches us a perfectly pure religion, and therefore you would not accept my conclusion that it is a revelation of God. Bat I also said that I would be glad to say something at other times about those points against which you feel objections. Accordingly I tried, in the second and third discourses, to remove one of those objections, namely, your objection against certain judgments of God sent upon sinners, either directly from Himself or through the instrumentality of men, as recorded in the Old Testament. Now following the same course, I ought to go on dealing with other objections. And I think it is not difficult to do so, and I trust that by God's assistance all those objections can easily be removed. But I wish to stop in this course for the present, and would first draw your attention to one of the positive proofs which establish the divine origin of Christianity. And indeed that is the first thing we ought to seek after. We ought first to ascertain whether there are positive proofs to show that Christianity is a revelation of God. For if it be a revelation of God, then surely it is not for us, poor worms of earth, to bring everything that God has revealed before the judgment-seat of our poor reason, and accept it if our reason is satisfied, and reject it if that reason is not satisfied. How can it be that all the things which God has revealed should tally exactly with every one's notions while we know how fallible we are, and how many causes there are to give a wrong bias to our minds, and to train them up in errors, and make them apt to think that to be objectionable against which there are no real objections. I showed you in my last discourse that unless we consider our reason as nothing, and exercise humility and faith towards the things of God, we can neither retain our faith in revelation nor in Theism.

Now among the positive proofs of Christianity are the miracles wrought by Jesus Christ and His Apostles. You must know that Jesus Christ and His Apostles appealed to the miracles which they wrought to prove the truth of their divine mission. When S. John the Baptist sent messengers to Christ, asking Him, " Art Thou He that should come, or do we look for another V Jesus answered and said unto them, " Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see; the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up."

Again, at another time, He said to the Jews, " I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given Me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of Me, that the Father hath sent Me." At another time, again. He said to one of the Apostles, Philip, " Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me: or else believe Me for the very works' sake."

And so S. Paul also speaks of miracles as signs of an apostle. For he says to the Corinthians, " Truly the signs of an Apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs and wonders, and mighty deeds."

Now you will say that there are stories of miracles related in the accounts of all those also who are supposed to be saints by adherents of other religions. If we must believe in Christ's miracles we must believe in the miracles of all those men also; but if they were not true, how can we believe that Christ's miracles were true?! answer in the first place that I have showQ in my first discourse the very great difference that there is between all other religions and Christianity. How fall of all sorts of errors and unworthy notions about God and about other truths all those religions are^ which proves that they are not from God, but are the inventions of men, and therefore it cannot be believed that God would work miracles to uphold falsehood and error. But on the contrary, Christianity, from the very incomparable excellency of its teaching, is proved to be a religion not capable of being invented by men, but to be one which can only have come from God by revelation, and therefore it is only reasonable to expect that God should manifest His power by the performance of miracles in attestation of its truth. Then, again, look at the nature of Christ's miracles and the nature of those related in books of other religions, and your common sense will tell you that there is no comparison between them > for Christ's miracles were miracles of mercy, they were outward symbols of that more mighty and gracious work which He, as the Saviour of men, came to work upon the souls of men. His cleansing a leper was an outward symbol of His cleansing the soul from the leprosy of sin; His giving sight to the blind was a symbol of His opening the eyes of our minds. But look how absurd are the accounts of most of the miraculous acts contained in books of other religions. Krishna is said tohave lifted the hill called Govardhana upon his finger. For what purpose? Because he forbade the people of Gokula to worship Indra, whom it had been their custom for generations to worship, and advised them to worship the hiU Govardhana instead. What improvement was it upon the worship of Indra? However, Tndra is said to have got very angry and caused it to rain so heavily that the whole of Gokula was in danger of being washed away. And therefore Krishna lifted the hill Goverdhana over Gokula to protect it. Surely you will not ask me why I do not believe in such stories.

But the truth of Christ's miracles is proved by a strong body of historical evidence, while no evidence whatever can bo found to establish the truth of miracles that are related in the books of other religions.

And I beg you to keep this one thing in your mind, tliat our being certain ov uncertain about the truth of an eveufc does not depend at alJ on the nei*.-aess or remoteness of thtt,t event either in time or space, but upon the strenoih or vv^eakness of the evidence or of that medium through whi(.h the knowledge of tha-t event is conveyed to ils. Alexander the Gieat, for instance, lived long before Christ; yet no one who knows anything of history, entertains the least doubt that there was such a man as Alexander the Great, the son of Philip, the King of Macedonia; that he conquered the Persians and spread his dominion far and wide, and reached even as far as the borders of India; and that, when returning home, he became sick of fever at Babylon, and died there in the prime of his life.

We do not entertain any doubt, I say, either about the existence of Alexander, or about these events in his history, though he lived more than two thousand years ago, and yet we often remain in great doubt about the truth of events which are said to take place in our own time. AVhy? because we are satisfied about the validity of the evidence which we have for the history of Alexander, while we find that for many events which are reported as having taken place in our own time, the evidence is not satisfactory.

Dismiss therefore from your minds for ever that idle way of speaking by which some persons throw doubt on everything by saying, '' How can we make ourselves sure about events which are said to have taken place eighteen hundred years ago V* No, we have only to examine the evidences of those events carefully, and if they are valid and we are satisfied about their validit}', we shall be curtain about them though they may have occurred eighteen hundred or even eighteen thousand years ago.

Now you know that there are four Gospels which contain accounts of Christ's miracles. Two of these Gospels are written by two of Christ's own disciples. His constant companions, Matthew and John, and the other two by persons who lived in intimate connection with those disciples, Mark and Luke.

Now a very important part of the historical argument for the truth of Christ's miracles is to show that these Gospels are genuine, that is, that they are written by those very persons whose names they bear. I will therefore try to show this first, and the way of doing it is to bring proofs of this fact from the many authors who flourished and wrote from the early part of the second century and afterwards. I cannot, however, quote here all the passages from ancient authors in proof of the genuineness of the Gospels. I will only quote a few, and to a few again I will simply allude.

Nor is it necessary to bring proofs from every century beginning from the present. I will therefore go up at once to a very learned Christian father, and a voluminous writer, whoso name was Origen, and who was born about the year 186, and was, from his childhood, carefully trained, both iu literature and in religion, by his Father Leonidas, who was a Chi'istian. Some of his works are now lost, but some remain, and they show abundantly that in his time, that is, in the first quarter of the third century, these four Gospels were received, not only as genuine, but as authentic and authoritative, and even as divinely inspired books, by Christians throughout the whole world. Quotations of Scripture are so thickly sown in the books of Origen, that it has been remarked that "if we had all his works remaining, we should have before us almost the whole text of the Bible.^'' Now there are some spurious Gospels, called Apocryphal Gospels, but the Catholic Church never received them, because their genuineness cannot be proved. Some of these existed even so early as the second century. Origen mentions some of them, but only in order to censure them. And in one passage of his, quoted by Eusebius, he tells us that the Christian Church never acknowledged any other Gospels besides these four. For he says in that passage, " That the four Gospels alone are uncontro verted in the Church of God spread under heaven.'' What a noble testimony this is for the universal reception of our Gospels at that time. Now I wish to mention something here by the way.

after embracing Christianity, rejected it and became a Brahmo again. He has published a pamphlet in which he gives an account of these events. In that account I read the following

words, " I repaired to the Brahmo Missionary, Baboo Mahendro Nath Bose, who gave me a brief resume of the early history of Christianity, and the manner in which the four Gospels were selected, as the record of the life and teaching of Jesus Christ. Never, I confess, was I more surprised than when I was told that in a lottery at the Council of Nice these Gospels, on the supposed authenticity of which hangs the behef of so many human beings, were selected, and that more than 120 other versions of Gospels existed which were rejected by mere chance as Apocrypha."

Now remember, gentlemen, the Council of Nice took place at the end of the first quarter of the fourth century, and Origen flourished at the beginning of the third century, that is, a hundred years before that Council. And from that passage of Origen which I quoted above, as well as from his other writings, it is clear that the four Gospels, and they alone, were received by the whole Christian Church as the only true and authentic Gospels in Origen's time, that is, a hundred years before the Council of Nice. And that the belief of the Christian Church with regard to the Gospels was the same even long before the time of Origen appears from the writings of other Christian Fathers who lived before Origen. You will also see from some passages which I 'will quote that the Church, both before as well as after Origen's time, received these four Gospels as the only true Gospels, not by " lottery " or by '^mere chance," but by a careful investigation of historical proofs. What, then, do you think of that Brahmo Missionary who thus misled his inquirer by giving him that false information? Can you consider such men earnest seekers after God's truth? Can we expect that God will reveal His truth to us when we are so careless about making use of the means which He has provided for our attaining to the knowledge of His truth? I must tell you that in those parts of India where I have been hitherto, I always found that the Brahmos have never troubled themselves with examining the evidences of Christianity, and yet they would dare to set up a new religion, would dare to set Christianity at naught and reject it, would dare to think that so many philosophers, profound thinkers, men of vast learning and research, masters of historical criticism, and acute investigators, were such exquisite fools, so incredibly childish as to let their religious belief hang upon records which had no better foundation to rest their authenticity upon than " lottery '' and " chance."

All this, however, by the way. I will now proceed to give you proofs for the genuineness of the Gospels. There was another very learned father of the Church, Tertullian, who was born about the year 160, and another who is known as Clement of Alexandria, who was born about the year 165, and another by name Ireneeus, who was born about the year 120 or 30. All these Fathers have written large works, and their writings show, not only that the four Gospels existed in their times, and not only that they themselves fully believed them to be genuine and credible, but that they were so believed by all Christians of their times. And remember that these fathers lived iu places distant from each other. For S. IreuEeus lived in France; S. Clement at Alexandria; Tertullian at Carthage; another father of the same age, Theophilus, whose name I did not mention before, but whose writings also bear testimony to the Gospels, lived at Antioch. There were also other writers beside these in that age whose writings bear testimony to the Gospel, but I have omitted their names. The consent, then, of all these fathers, who lived so near the time of the Apostles, and not only their consent, but the consent of all Christians of their times about the genuineness of the Gospels, is a great proof of it. And the following considerations will show you that the testimony of these fathers to the genuineness of the Gospels is quite sufficient to prove it.

First, we have evidence to prove that these fathers and the Christians of their time were not careless to ascertain whether the books which they were to receive into their canon, as books of authority in matters of faith, were really genuine or not, and that they did not receive what they did receive from credulity, but that they were most careful and scrupulous in this matter. There are certain books in our present Canon of the New Testament, which are now accepted, and have been accepted for many centuries by the whole Catholic Church, as inspired and as a true portion of the New Testament, but in the first ages of Christianity, in the times of the above-named fathers, doubts were entertained about them from some reason or other, and many of the Christians hesitated to accept them. Such were the 2nd Epistle of S. Peter, and the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of S. John.

This fact shows that they were very careful in receiving books into their canon. I quote here Doctor Paley's words: —

*^ The four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen epistles of S. Paul, the First Epistle of S. John, and the First of Peter, were received without doubt by those who doubted concerning the other books which are included in our present Canon."

" I state (bis proposition,'^ continues Doctor Paley, '* because, if made out, it shows that the authenticity of their books was a subject, among the early Christians, of consideration and inquiry; and that, where there was cause of doubt^ they did doubt; a circumstance which strengthens very much their testimony to such books as were received by them with full acquiescence.*'

Oi'igen, that most learned father whom I already mentioned, and who flourished at the beginning of the third century, says, "Peter has left one epistle, acknowledged; let it be granted likewise that he wrote a second, for it is doubted." And of John he says, " he has also left one Epistle, of a few lines; grant also a second and a third, for all do not allow these to be genuine." Remember now that the same Origen, who thus discriminates and thus confesses his own doubts, and the doubts which subsisted in his time, expressly witnesses concerning the four Gospels that they alone are received without dispute by the whole church of God under heaven.

A second consideration is this. We have positive proofs that the method which the fathers of those times adopted in ascertaining the genuineness of those books which they accepted as canonical was not " lottery/' as that Brahmo missionary taught to his truth-seeking pupil, but it was that of collecting testimonies of writers who followed one after another in an uninterrupted succession from the time of the Apostles to their own times. The learned church historian, Euscbius, who lived at the beginning of the fourth century, and who was extremely conversant with the writings of Christians which had been published from the commencement of the institution of Christianity to his own time, after speaking of the books which he calls spurious, says, ** none of the ecclesiastical writers, in the succession of the Apostles, have vouchsafed to make any mention of them in their writings."

In another passage of the same work, Eusebius, speaking of the first epistle of S. Peter, says, " This the Presbyters of ancient times have quoted in their writings as undoubtedly genuine;" and then, speaking of some other writings bearing the name of Peter, " We know," he says, " that they have not been delivered down to us in the number of CathoUc writings, forasmuch as no ecclesiastical writer of the ancients, or of our times, has made use of testimonies out of them.'' ''But in the progress of this history," the author proceeds, " we shall make it our business to show, together with the successions from the Apostles, what ecclesiastical writers in every age have used such writings as these which are contradicted, and what they have said with regard to the Scriptures received in the New Testament, and acknowledged by all, and with regard to those which are not such." So far Eusebius, who lived in the beginning of the fourth century. The following passage from Tertullian, who flourished at the end of the second century, shows the same thing, namely, that the ancient Fathers of the Church made diligent inquiries through the time that intervened between them and the Apostles to ascertain the genuineness of books which they accepted as canonical. " If," says Tertullian, ""it

is acknowledged that that is more true which is more ancient, that more ancient which is even from the beginning, that from the beginning which is from the Apostles; it will in like

manner assuredly be acknowledged tliat tliat lias been derived by tradition from tlie Apostles wliicli has been preserved inviolate in the churches of the Apostles. Let us see what milk the Corinthians drank from Paul; to what rule the Galatians were recalled by his reproofs; what is read by the Philippians, the Thessalonians, the Ephesians; what is the testimony of the Romans, who are nearest to us, to whom Peter and Paul left the Gospel, and that sealed by theii' own blood. We have moreover churches founded by John. For even if Marcion rejects his Apocalypse, still the succession of Bishops (in the seven Churches)^ if traced to its source, will rest on the authority of John. And the noble descent of other Churches is recognized in the same manner. I say, then, that among them, and not only among the Apostolic Churches, but among all the Churches which are united with them in Christian fellowship, that Gospel of Luke which we earnestly defend has been maintained from its first publication." And " the same authority of the Apostolic Churches will uphold the other Gospels which we have in due succession through them and according to their usage, I mean those of (the Apostles) Matthew and John; although that which was published by Mark may also be maintained to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was: for the narrative of Luke also is generally ascribed to Paul: (since) it is allowable that that which scholars publish should be regarded as their master's work." In another place

TertuUian affirms that the three other Gospels were in the hands of the Churches from the beginning, as well as Luke's. This noble testimony fixes the universality with which the Gospels were received, and their antiquity; that they were in the hands of all and had been so from the first.

Thirdly, we have positive proof to show that those Fathers were most careful to ascertain that what they believed as religious truth was really taught by the Apostles, and that they were fully able to do so, for they were well acquainted with the succession of Bishops which intervened between them and the Apostles, and that this succession of Bishops from the times of the Apostles, and their doctrines, were so well known in all the principal churclies, and through them to other churches, that no one could be imposed upon in this matter. Thus, S. Irenaeus, who was born, remember, about the year 120 or 130, says,

" Those who wish to see the truth, may find the tradition of the Apostles manifested in the whole church throughout all the world; and we are able to number up those who were appointed by the Apostles to be Bishops in churches and their successors to our days. It is by this uninterrupted succession that we have received the tradition which actually exists in the church, as also the doctrines of truth as it was preached by the Apostles. '* The same S. Irenseus also " appeals to the known succession of teachers in the churches of Rome, Smyrna, and Ephesus, who held fast up to his own time the doctrine which they had received from the first age. So it is possible that he used writings as genuine and authoritative which were not recognized by those who must have had unquestionable means of deciding on their Apostlic origin."*

Another Father of the same age, S. Clement of Alexandria, says, " These men, preserving the true tradition of the blessed teaching, directly from Peter and James, from John and Paul, the holy Apostles, son receiving it from father, (but few are they who are like their fathers,) come by God^s Providence even to us, to deposit among us those seeds [of truth] which were derived from their ancestors and the Apostles."

All these considerations show that the unanimous testimonies of the Fathers who flourished from the second half of the second to the first quarter of the third century are sufficient to prove the genuineness of our Gospels, remembering also that the writings of those Fathers do not only tell their own belief regarding the Gospels, but that of the whole church spread under heaven, not only of their own time but of much earlier time. If to these testimonies we add those of still earher times, the proof becomes still stronger.

Now among the testimonies of earlier times I would mention first that of S. Justin Martyr. He was born about the year 103.

* Westcott on the Canon of the N. T., p. 297.

'* He lived within the half century following the death of the Apostle S. John. But his means of information reached back into the Apostolic age itself. He was acquainted with Christians of advanced age of every race who had been believers from their childhood. [His testimony to the Gospels is therefore almost as good as that of a contemporary.] He was^ moreover, a person of inquisitive temper; and his life was spent in various localities, and in intercourse and discussions with men of all sects and opinions. He was apparently what we should call an itinerant teacher."* S. Jastin giving, in his first Apology, an account to the emperor of the Christian worship, writes these remarkable words, ^' The Memoirs of the Apostles, or the writings of the Prophets, are read according as the time allows: and, when the reader has ended, the president makes a discourse, exhorting to the imitation of so excellent things."

The Memoirs of the Apostles, Justin in another place expressly tells us, are what are called Gospels, and that they were the Gospels which we now use, is made certain by Justin's numerous quotations of them. He also says in another place that they were composed by Apostles and their followers, a description exactly corresponding with our Gospels, for two of

* Preface to the translation of Works of S. Justin the Martyr, Library of the Fathers, vol. 40, — " After his conversion he seems to have considered it his calling to endeavour to win from their errors men of every nation, Jews and Gentiles, and those who under the name of Christians taught what was untrue. It was when he was on a voyage that he met with Trypho [a Jew]; Eusebius says at Ephesus; he lived some time at Rome; there he published his Apologies at long severed periods, and received the crown of martyrdom. He had therefore ample means of knowing what was the faith and practice of Christians throughout the world in his own as well as in earlier times. His honest}-, his fairness, his love of truth, and caution not to state anything of which he was not assured, are manifest throughout his works."

"These reasons for confiding in the cori'ectness of his representations are confirmed by the fact that he published the dialogue with Trypho as an assurance to the Jews that his statements respecting the Christian doctrines were true; challenging contradiction, if he had misrepresented them. And his trustworthiness is attested by the reliance placed on him by the writers who come nearest to his own time."

them are written by Apostles, Matthew and John, and two by their followers, Mark and Luke.* Justin describes the general usage of the Christian Church. Justin does not speak of it as recent or newly instituted, but in the terms in which men speak of established customs.

The second proof I bring from a writing called the Epistle of Barnabas. Its genuineness is questioned by some, that is, some suppose that it was not written by the person whose name it bears. But there can be no doubt of its antiquity (which is all that matters for our argument) for it is quoted by S. Clement of Alexandria, as the Epistle of Barnabas a.d. 194, and by Origen, a.d. 230. It is mentioned by Eusebius, a.d. 315, and by S. Jerome, a.d. 392, as an ancient work in their times, and as well known and read among Christians, though not accounted a part of Scripture. It purports to have been written soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, that is, before the end of the first century, and it bears the character of the age to which it professes to belong. Now in this Epistle there is an unmistakable quotation from the Gospel of S. Matthew. And the quotation is made with these words, '* As it is written.'* Now the writer of the Epistle was a Jew, and the Jews quoted their scriptures in that very form. From this quotation, therefore, it is proved, not only that the Gospel of S. Matthew existed at the time when this author lived, but that it was well known to Christians of that time and was considered a book of authority among them.

* The attempts of the author of " Supernatural Religion" to throw doubts on the testimony of S. Justin, as well as on that of Papias, (which I am going to refer to,) to our Gospels are so despicable, that I do not think them w^orth taking notice of. Canon Westcott has shown the groundlessness and unreasonableness of those doubts in his " History of the Canon of the New Testament." If any one wishes to see the worthlessness of the book called " Supernatural Religion," let him read Canon Westcott's preface to the fourth edition of his " History of the Canon of the New Testament," and Canon Lightfoot's articles in the Contemporary Review for December 1874 and January and February 1875. These ought to open people's eyes to the recklessness with which the Bible is sometimes assailed by so-called liberal critics.

The third proof 1 bring from Papias, the Bishop of Hierapoliss in Phryj^ia, who flourished in the early part of the second century. This author, in a passage quoted by Eusebius, from a work now lost, expressly ascribes the respective Gospels to Matthew and Mark, and in a manner which proves that these Gospels must have publicly borne the names of these authors at that time, and probably long before.

Now Papias tells us in the passage quoted from him by Eusebius that he ha4 been acquainted with those who had been acquainted with the Apostles and other disciples of Christ, and had inquired many things from them. Of how great value, then, is thetestimony of Papias to the Gospels of S. Mathew and S. Mark! Nay, in giving the account of the Gospel of S. Mark, Papias tells us expressly that he received it from John the Presbyter, whom he reckons among the disciples of the Lord. So you see it is in fact a testimony of a contemporaiy of the Apostles, coming to us through Papias. The very short sentence which Eusebius quoted from Papias about S. Matthew^s Gospel, without giving any context, does not authorise us to say the same thing about his testimony to S. Mattliew'a Gospel, though there can be little doubt that this testimony too comes from a contemporary of the Apostles. At any rate, well acquainted as he was with those who had known the Apostles, his testimony to S. Matthew, too, may be reckoned almost as good as that of the contemporaries of the Apostles.

I will now mention two authors who were the very contemporaries of the Apostles, S. Clement of Rome, and S. Polycarp of Smyrna. In their writings still extant there are clear quotations from our Gospels. Men have, however, raised doubts about these quotations, because these authors have not used words of quotation.

The following observations of Dr. Paley will show that there is no sufficient ground for such a doubt, and that they very probably did quote from the Gospels.

First, that Clement, in the very same manner, namely, without any mark of reference, uses a passage now found in the epistle to the Romans, which passage, from the peculiarity

of the words wliich compose it, and from their order, it is manifest that he must have taken from the book. Secondly, that there are many sentences of S. PauFs First Epistle to the Corinthians, standing in Clement's epistle, without any sign of quotation, which yet certainly are quotations; because it appears that Clement had S. Paul's epistle before him, inasmuch as in one place he mentions it in terms too express to leave us in any doubt. " Take into your hands the epistle of the blessed Apostle Paul." Thirdly, that this method of adopting words of Scripture without reference or acknowledgment was a method in general use among the most ancient Christian writers. These analogies not only repel the objection, but cast the presumption on the other side, and afford a considerable degree of positive proof, that the words in question have been borrowed from the places of Scripture in which we now

find them. As, however, there is room to doubt, I will not lay much stress upon these two authors as by themselves afiording undoubted testimony to the Gospels. Still it is useful to refer to them. For in the case of moral certainty, w^ich is the result of accumulation of proofs, rather than of one definite proof, one ought to take into consideration such proofs also as are by themselves and alone insufficient to establish a fact, but when added to others more certain, have their value.

Now the next proof for the Gospels which I wish to adduce is this. Eusebius relates that Quadratus and some others who were the immediate successors of the Apostles, ti'avelling abroad to preach Christ, carried the Gospels with them and delivered them to their converts. Eusebius had before him the writings both of Quadratus himself, and of many others of that age which are now lost. It is reasonable therefore to believe that he had good grounds for his assertion.

In the next place I bring the testimony of S. Irenseus again. For although he has been already mentioned as one belonging to that group of authors which belongs to the last quarter of the second century, yet there are reasons which make his testimony more valuable than that of his contemporaries, and make it in fact almost as good as that of contemporaries of the Apostles. For in the first place he was a disciple of S. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna^ who was a disciple of S. John. In his epistle to Florinus, S. Irenseus writes, " I

can tell also the very place where the blessed Polycarp was accustomed to sit and discourse; and also his entrances, his walks, the complexion of his life, and the form of his body, and his conversations with the people, and his familiar intercourse with John, as he was accustomed to tell, as also his familiarity with those that had seen the Lord. How also he used to relate their discourses, and what things he had heard from them concerning the Lord. Also concerning His miracles, His doctrine, all these were told by Polycarp, in consistency with the Holy Scriptures, as he had received them from the eye-witnesses of the doctrine of salvation. These things, by the mercy of God, and the opportunity then afforded me, I attentively heard, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart; and these same facts I am always in the habit, by the grace of God, of recalling

faithfully to mind." I have shown you also from another passage of his how zealous S. Irenseus was in preserving incorrupt the teaching of the Apostles. Is it then possible that he who was taught of Polycarp, the disciple of S. John, was himself deceived as to the genuine writings of S. John? This consideration, then, shows that the testimony of S. Irenaeus is of itself sufficient to prove the genuineness of S. John's Gospel. But this is not all. S. Irenaeus mentions some elders in his writings whom he knew and whom he calls disciples of Apostles. In the sayings of these elders quoted by S. Irenaeus there are quotations from the Gospels. Thus also he leads us to the very contemporaries of the Apostles and makes us acquainted with their testimonies to the Gospels.

Again, the churches of Lyons and Yienne, iu France, sent a relation of the sufferings of their martyrs to the Churches of Asia and Phrygia about the year 170. The epistle is preserved entire by Eusebius. In this epistle are exact references to the Gospels of Luke and John. And what carries in some measure the testimony of these churches to a higher age, is, that they had now for tlieir Bishop Potliinus, wlio was ninety years old, whose early life consequently must have immediately joined on with the times of the Apostles. In one of these churches S. Irenseus was then a priest and afterwards succeeded Pothinus in the Episcopate, and so his more explicit and more copious testimony to the Gospels throws light on the references that are made to the same in that aforementioned epistle and makes them certain.

Again, proofs for the genuineness of the Gospels are found also in the testimony of the early adversaries of Christianity. This proof also must be acknowledged to be of some weight. For to those who wanted to refute Christianity it would have been much more convenient to show, if they could, that the Gospels were later forgeries than to acknowledge their genuineness, as they did, and try to refute Christianity in another way. Near the middle of the second century Celsus, a heathen philosopher, wrote a professed treatise against Christianity, to which Origen published an answer. The work of Celsus is lost^ but that of Origen remains. In this Origen has quoted portions of Celsus's work, and from them it appears that these Gospels were as well known and acknowledged by Christians as authoritative at that time as they are now, and Celsus treated them as such.

There is yet another source from which testimonies can be obtained to the genuineness of the Gospels, and it is of such a character that the testimony derived from it makes the genuineness of the Gospels quite certain. That source is the early Christian heretics. S. Ii-eneeus, Tertullian, Origen, and later writers insist much and earnestly on the facts that heretics sought to maintain their own doctrines from the canonical books.* *^ So great is the surety of the Gospels," says S. Irenteus, " that even the very heretics bear witness to them, so that each one of them taking the Gospels as his starting point, endeavours thereby to maintain his own teaching."-}-

Now remember that those heretics promulgated doctrines whicli were altogether opposed to the teaching of the Catholic Church. They would not therefore have accepted the Gospels unless there had been proofs for their genuineness and authenticity which were even in the eyes of those heretics quite irresistible. They had to put forced and extravagant interpretations upon the words of the Gospels to reconcile them with their views. Surely they would rather have rejected them as no authorities if it were possible for them to do so, than betake themselves to such expedients.

Remember this also, that among the founders of those heretical sects some were contemporaries of the Apostles and some lived in the very next generation after the Apostles. One famous hei'etic of the Valentinian school, Heracleon, did actually write commentaries on the Gospels of S. Luke and S. John. I will mention yet another proof, but it is not based on ex.ternal testimony, but. on an internal phenomenon in the Gospels themselves. And this proof also is so great in my opinion, that it alone is sufficient to produce a strong persuasion in one's mind not only that our Gospels must be genuine, but that they must be true also. There are a very large number of spurious Gospels mentioned by ecclesiastical writers. Many of them are still extant. I think a few of them existed even so early as the second century. If you read any of them you will be struck at once with the great difference that will appear to you between them and our four Gospels. Their extravagance and legendary character become apparent to every one that reads them. Now I say that every one of those many 80-called Gospels is stamped with this character, and these four Gospels alone bear a character quite distinct from theirs. Now what is the reason of this? None other than this, that while those Gospels are forgeries, these are genuine and true. It is proved that forgeries cannot be written in the way in which our Gospels are written. Add to this the fact that the church has selected these four Gospels only as genuine and true. And you have seen that the ancient fathers who have selected these Gospels did not do so from credulity and

Carelessness, but that they were very careful and scrupulous and that they did so by careful investigation and on solid ground.

These two facts, then, namely, the internal character of these Gospels and the selection of them by the unanimous consent of the church and that after careful investigation, — these two facts» I say, make together a very strong proof indeed, quite suflBcient to produce moral certainty in a candid mind. Moreover the fact that out of so many spurious Gospels the church should select these four only, proves that her doctors were possessed with great power of criticism, and repels the charge of credulity in this matter brought against them by evil-minded opponents of Christianity.

I will mention yet another proof, which is also of the nature of an internal evidence. This proof however has reference to the Gospel of S. Luke only. In the beginning of " The Acts of the Apostles,'^ the author says that he himself was the writer of the Gospel of S. Luke. Now it appears that the author of *' The Acts of the Apostles," was a companion and a fellow traveller of S. Paul. How does it appear? He does not tell us so in so many words anywhere in that book. But in the sixteenth chapter, and in several places afterwards, in giving an account of S. Paul's travels, he uses verbs in the first person and plural number. For instance, in the sixteenth chapter, in the course of the narrative, all of a sudden he uses such words; **And after he (that is Paul) had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia." And again, " Therefore loosing from Troas lue come with straight course to Samothracia," and so on. Afterwards he drops this use of the first person plural and resumes it again. Evidently he drops it when he was not with the party and resumes it when he was.

Now if a forger had intended to make his readers believe that he was an eye-witness of the transaction, we can hardly suppose that he would have contented himself with such a poor expedient, as the use of the first person plural here and there, and that in the latter portion of his book. He would have said so plainly in the preface or at the end of it. That use of the first person plural then may be taken to indicate in a very natural and artless ivay, the truth that the writer was himself in company with S. Paul on those occasions. But there is another weighty argument, also based on a remarkable internal phenomenon, which goes to prove the same thing'. It is most ably treated by Doctor Paley in his work called "Horas Paulinee.*^ He there shows, by many undesigned coincidences between S. Paul's epistles and the book of '* The Acts of the Apostles," that the writer of this latter book must have been intimately acquainted with the history of S. Paul, and that in some of its minute particulars, and therefore he must have been what he professes to have been, namely, a companion of S. Paul in his travels. And there is yet another internal proof for it. There is a description of S. Paul's voyage and shipwreck in the 27th chapter of '^ The Acts of the Apostles." Now it has been observed by persons who were well skilled in the art of navigation and thoroughly acquainted with the state of the Mediterranean Sea, that no one but an eye-witness could have given such a description of that voyage. If, then, the author of "The Acts of the Apostles" was what he professes to have been, namely, a friend and a companion of S. Panl, then it is proved that the Gospel of S. Luke was written by one who was a friend and a companion of S. Paul, because, as I said, the author of " The Acts of the Apostles " tells us in the beginning of his book that he himself had written that Gospel. This, then, proves the author of the Gospel of S. Luke to have occupied that situation which he says he did occupy, that is, he was acquainted with the eyewitnesses of the history of Christ and that he wrote what he carefully learnt from them. And this is all that is wanted for our purpose; we do not care for his name.

J will mention one very weighty internal proof for tho genuineness of the Gospel of S. John. The first Epistle of S. John has been always acknowledged in the Christian Church as the undoubted writing of S. John. S. Irena3us, who was the disciple of S. Polycarj), himself the disciple of S. John, frequently quotes it as S. John^s; S. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian do the same. Origen's words, quoted before, show that this Epistle was acknowledged by those who doubted the genuineness of the 2nd and 3rd Epistles of S. John, and he continually quotes it as S. John's. Eusebius, the great Ecclesiastical historian, enumerates it among the uncontroverted books of the New Testament Canon. He also tells ua that Papias "has made use of testimonies from the 1st Epistle of John." And you remember that Papias was acquainted with intimate friends of the Apostles.

In the Epistle of S. Polycarp, the very disciple of S. John, there occur these words, "Every one who confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is antichrist." And in the 1st Epistle of S. John there are these words, "Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist. *' Seeing that the words of S. Polycarp "contain a plain allusion'^ to these words of S. John in his first Epistle, " and that Polycarp was the disciple of S. John, it has ever been regarded as an indirect testimony to the genuineness, and so to the authorship, of our Epistle."* But even if you leave out this last testimony from S. Polycarp, still you see that the proofs for the genuineness of the 1st Epistle of S. John are very strong. Now one has only to read this Epistle of S. John and his Gospel and he cannot doubt that both came from one author. " The internal testimony furnished by this Epistle," says Dean Alford, "to ita author being the same with the author of the fourth Gospel is, it may well be thought, incontrovertible. To maintain a diversity of authorship would betray the very perverseness and exaggeration of that school of criticism which refuses to beheve, be evidence ever so strong.^^f

Thus then this Epistle affords a proof of very great weight to the genuineness of the Gospel of S. John.

Thus I have tried to give you some proofs for the genuineness of the gospels. But I would advise you to read the whole ninth

* Prolegomena on 1st John.

chapter, containing eleven sections of the first part of Dr. Paley's book on the Evidences of Christianity, and also Canon Westcott^s works on the Canon of the New Testament. There you will find this arg-ument stated more fully and adequately. I have omitted altogether the consideration of tho peculiar style of the Greek in which the Gospels are written, although that forms an important part of the argument of the genuineness of the Gospels. I have also said nothing about the most ancient translations of the New Testament. They also afibrd another proof for the same.

Now you remember what is meant by genuineness. It means that a book was really written* by the person whose name it bears. Thus, when we say that tho Gospels of S. Mathew, S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. John are genuine, we mean that they were really written by S. Matthew, S. Mark, S. Luke, and S. John.

And you must remember that S. Mathew and S. John were Christ's own disciples, and not only disciples, but of the number of His Apostles, whom He selected out of the number of His disciples, to be His constant companions, and the principal teachers of His religion. And S. Mark lived intimately with the Apostles, and became afterward a constant attendant of S. Peter. S. Luke was an intimate friend and companion of S. Paul, and also was well acquainted with the other Apostles, as appears from the preface of his Gospel.

To prove the genuineness of the Gospels is, as I said before, an important part of the historical argument by which the truth of Christ's miracles is proved, and therefore I dwelt so much on this subject. Now for the sake of brevity I will not attempt to treat the subject of Christ's miracles generally, but will say a few words about Christ's resurrection alone, which was, of course, the crown of all miracles. I beg you then to notice that in the case of all false stories of miracles you will find one of these things: you will find in the first place mostly that those who tell you the stories of those miracles do not profess themselves to be eye-witnesses of those miracles. They generally relate what they themselves have learnt from hearsay, a??rT^?Tr. You hear stories of the miracles of Tukaram, Dny^nadeva, &c. But do you find them stated by any one who professes to have been an eye-witness? Mahipati tells the stories of those miracles in his Bhaktivijaya, but he lived long after the time of those men, and neither does he profess to have been himself an eye-witness of their miracles, nor to have learnt them from eye-witnesses. Again, remember this, that if you find any book containing false stories of miracles, ascribed " to the name of a person supposed to have been an eyewitness of those miracles, you will find it difficult to prove that that book is genuine, but will find reasons to suspect that it was falsely ascribed to the name of a contemporary.

Again, if you find a person who tells you a story of a miracle and declares that he himself has seen it, you will find one of two things; either you will find reason to suspect that the person himself was deceived, that is, he thought it to be a miracle when it was not; or you will find that there is not sufficient reason to make you quite sure that the person has not invented the story himself.

But I will tell you one sure mark of a thoroughly trustworthy witness of a miracle which can never be found in a false witness. If a certain number of persons' faith in a religion which they profess depends upon the truth of a miracle, and if the truth of that miracle again depends upon those persons having witnessed that miracle themselves, and if those persons openly declare to the world that they are the eye-witnesses of that miracle, and suSer all sorts of pain and torture and death for bearing such witness and for the sake of that religion which they profess, and from no other motive, then they must be true witnesses of that miracle; and if there is sufficient reason to believe that they were not themselves deceived in their belief that they saw the miracle, then it must be a true miracle.

Now you will find in the accounts of Christ's miracles, and pre-eminently in those of His Resurrection, all the marks of truth. In the first place those who relate them were eyewitnesses, or have learnt them from eye-witnesses.

See how clearly and emphatically S. John declares himself to be an eye-witness. '^ That wliich was from the beginning/' he says, " which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled^ of the Word of Life. * * * That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you." Here you see at once a great difference between the accounts of Christ's miracles and those of Tukdram and others.

S. John, who gives an account of Christ's miracles, declares most solemnly that he tells us what he himself heard and saw. Mahipati, who tells the stories of Tukaram's miracles, does not profess to have seen them. If Christ's miracles were not true, S. John, S. Matthew, and the other Apostles must have been most deliberate liars. Tukaram's and Dnyanadeva's miracles may have been false, and yet Mahipati need not bo supposed to have been a liar at all. Now although you do not admit that Christianity is a revelation of God, yet I think you believe that it surpasses all religions in its excellency, and that its teaching has a wonderful power of renovating and sanctifying the hearts of those who yield themselves unreservedly to its influence. Now do you think it credible that the very first teachers and promulgators of such a holy religion, John, James, Peter, Matthew, Paul, and others, should have been most deliberate liars and deliberate and cool inventors of false stories?

But I will now set before you some other considerations which will make it certain that the testimony of the Apostles to Christ's miracles is true. You must remember, in the first place, that the Apostles were themselves converts to a new religion. Now the very fact that a man leaves one religion and embraces another is a proof that he believes the new religion to be true, and that thereby he will get benefit to his soul. It also proves that the man has a religious disposition, and is in earnest unless we have reason to suspect that he had some sinister motives in embracing that new religion. But no one can suspect that the Apostles became followers of Christ from sinister motives. It is true that they had, at first, low views of Christ's kingdom which they believed that He came to establish, still they must have been sincere in their faith, for they must have really believed that He was that Christ whom the Prophets had foretold, for then only could they have expected that He would establish His kingdom upon this earth as foretold by the Prophets. But whatever low views they may have entertained about His kingdom at first, those must have vanished away when they saw Him crucified like a malefactor before their own eyes. Thenceforth their motives in adhering to Him could have been no other than those of the highest kind that any man ever had for adhering to a religion.

If, then, the Apostles were converts to Christianity, they must have believed that Christianity was true. There are however religions the embracing of which may not cost a man much. But you know what it costs to become a Christian even now; it cost far more in those days than it does now. If therefore one embraces a religion at such a cost, it is certain that his belief in that religion is genuine.

But you must notice further that not only must it have cost the Apostles much to have become Christians, but they also went about preaching it to others, and in doing so they passed their whole lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings. Jesus Christ had told them before that "they shall deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you; and ye shall be hated of all nations for My Name's sake." " They shall lay hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to synagogues, and into prison, being bi-ought before kings and rulers for My Name's sake, and ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolk, and friends." "The time cometh, that he that killeth you will think that he doeth God service." So Jesus Christ had told them before, and so it came to pass. They were persecuted, they were imprisoned, they were scourged, they were put to death, for His Name's sake and for preaching His religion."

S. Paul, speaking about himself and other Apostles, says, '* I think that God hath set forth us, the Apostles, last, as it were appointed to death; for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men; — even unto this present hour, we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffetted, and have no certain dwelling place; and labour, working with our own hands; being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day."

" We are troubled on every side,^* he says in another Eprstle, ^' yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;.persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body." And remember they suffered all this from no other motive than that of pure love to Christ and charity to men. Most certainly, then, the Apostles must have been good men; most certainly they must have believed in Christ, they must have believed in Christianity.

But now there is another thing to be considered, and it is, that if the Apostles had not really believed that Christ rose from the dead, they could never have believed that Christianity was true, or Jesus was the Christ whom their Prophets had foretold. For in the view of the Apostles Christ^s resurrection was the most essential doctrine of Christianity and the one great proof that Jesus was the« Saviour of the world, and that Christianity was from God.

Hear what S. Paul says, '^ If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ." Again, " If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most miserable.^* And why so? Because according to the Apostle's notions, if Christ did not rise from the dead, then they had no hope whatever in the future. And in this life they had given up all that is calculated to make one happy, and exposed themselves to persecutions, imprisonments, and deaths. Who then could be considered more miserable aud more pitiable than they? You see, then, that in the view of the Apostles everything hung upon the resurrection of Christ. If Christ did not rise, then Christianity was a lie, Jesus no Saviour but a pretender, their faith was in vain, they received no remission of their sins, there was no hope for them in future, their death was an annihilation.

Then consider again that there was no other, proof for Christ's resurrection than the Apostles seeing Him after He rose from the dead. If they had not seen Him risen they could not believe Him to have been risen; and if they did not believe him to be risen, they could not believe in Him, or in Christianity. Christianity would have been a simple lie in their view, as I have already shown.

Think now, gentlemen, very seriously, I beseech you, and tell me, would they have clung all their life long to a religion which they believed in their hearts to be false? And would they have passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of a fact which they knew to be untrue, and for the sake of a religion which they believed to be a lie? Why, if you will believe this you will make the first teachers and promulgators of the holiest and wisest and world-renovating religion, I will not say deliberate liars, but the veriest maniacs. There have been what are called pious frauds we know. But what is a pious fraud? When a man really believes in a religion and invents stories of miracles to set forth the glories of the god, or of the founder and" teacher of the religion, then it is called a pious fraud. A pious fraud necessarily includes a real belief in a religion.

But that a person, or rather many persons, without believing in a religion, but rather knowing it to be false, should cling themselves to it all their life long, and should expose themselves to labours, dangers, sufferings, persecutions, scourgings, imprisonments, and deaths for the sake of that religion, and in attestation of a miracle which alone could make that religion true, but which the relators of it themselves know to be false, this is impossible. ^

There remains only 'one question; — were tlie Apostles themselves deceived with regard to the miracle of Christ's resurrection? But this supposition is equally impossible. For Christ* after His resurrection, appeared, not once only but several times, to His Apostles; not to one, or two, or three only, but to many together, and that also many times. Hear what S. Paul says. And whoever knows the history of S. Paul cannot entertain any doubt about his sincerity and honesty. He was first a great opponent of Christianity^ and persecuted Christians, and that from a religious motive, because he thought that it was a very wicked heresy and ought to be extirpated. Well, he himself was caught into the net of Christ, and then for His Name's sake, he spent the remainder of his life in labours and sufferings. From his Epistles you will know that he was neither a fanatic nor an enthusiast in the bad sense of the word, but was a most reasonable and sober-minded person. In his first Epistle to the Corinthians S. Paul says that Christ after His resurrection *' was Been of Cephas, (that is S. Peter^) then of the twelve. After that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that He was seen of James; then of all the Apostles." And we read in the Gospels that He was not only seen by the Apostles after His resurrection, but He conversed with them, they ate and drank with Him, and, as they tell us, they touched and handled Him. This is especially what S. John refers to when he says, "which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled."* Add to this that the Apostles themselves were not inclined to believe in His resurrection, but were most incredulous and slow to believe, and were only brought to believe by irresistible proofs. One of them even said that *' Except I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into Hia side, I will not believe." These facts remove all possibility of illusion in the matter. And tliat being removed, the truth of the miracle of Christ's resurrection is proved.

But before concluding this Lecture, it is necessary to say a few words in answer to two objections. Men have begun to say in these days that miracles are in themselves incredible. Why, I ask, is it difficult for Almighty God to work a miracle? And if it should please Him to give us a revelation, of which all of us certainly stood in great need, is it not most reasonable to suppose that He should give some credentials to the messengers of His revelation? Is it not on the contrary most unreasonable to suppose that God Almighty should send to us a messenger bearing His message to us, and the messenger should bring no credentials?

And what could be a more fitting credential from Almighty God than the manifestation of His Divine power in working miracles, and of His Divine knowledge in prophecies, both of which are beyond the power of man? And you see that Christianity, which claims to be a message from God, claims also to possess exactly these two things, miracles and prophecies, as its external credentials.

And observe this, I beseech you, that since Christianity, to say the least, appears most like a religion which should be a revelation of God, Christian miracles become the more credible, as we naturally expect that divine revelation should be accompanied by some manifestation of Divine power.

Some persons think that miracles being an alteration of the law of nature, a belief in a miracle would make God a changeable Being. Why, I ask, would a belief in miracles make God changeable any more than the changes of days, nights, and seasons do? You will answer that the laws which bring about the changes of days, &c., were fixed by God once for all from all eternity. I answer, so were the miracles. Do you suppose we believe that up to a certain time God thought nothing at all about the miracles which He was going to work, and suddenly at that time He changed His mind and began to alter the laws of nature? It is not so. '* Known unto God are aU His works from the beginning," say the Christian Scriptures.

Simultaneously with His ordinary laws He also fixed that at a particular time for the inestimable benefit of His intelligent creature, man, He would give to him His revelation and manifest His Supernatural Power in attestation of that revelation. Those who say that a belief in a miracle makes God changeable, should consider what they would be obliged to think of prayer. Do we not pray to God at a particular time to give us certain graces, and do we not believe that He will grant us those graces? But does this our belief necessarily make God changeable?

The second objection is this. When we refer to the evidence of miracles in support of the claim of Christianity to be a divine revelation, some persons are fond of bringing an objection that since the Bible says that even Satan can endow his agents with the power of working miracles, as it is said of antichrist that he will show " signs and lying wonders,"* miracles cannot be undoubted credentials of a messenger from God.

Now in answering this objection I wish to say, first, that most of those persons who bring this objection do so as an excuse for not entering deeply into the examination of the historical evidence for the truth of Christ's miracles, and they, not giving impartial and serious attention to that evidence, are not convinced of the truth of those miracles and do not believe them to have been really wrought. But until this question has been examined and until it has been assented to that Christ and His Apostles did really work miracles, of what use is it to consider the objection that since Satan also is said in the Bible to be able to give the power of working miracles to his agents, the miracles of Christ and His Apostles cannot be sure marks of their being sent by God? My advice, therefore, to such objectors is not to entangle themselves in such useless objections, but rather to examine the question whether there are satisfactory evidences to prove that Christ did work those miracles which the Gospels relate. For when they shall be convinced that Jesus Christ really did perform those mighty miracles, they will find sufficient reasons to believe ttat they were wrought, not by the power of Satan, but by the power of God. For though there may be, in the invisible world, beings endowed with power of doing some extraordinary things — things which are beyond the power of men to do — still surely we must believe that there is a limit to their power. And I think that our instinct naturally leads us to believe that such mighty miracles as Jesus Christ and His Apostles wrought could only be wrought by the power of God. Such would be our natural and instinctive conclusion when we are not driven to form other conclusions through some prejudice, as the Jews of Christ's time were through their bias to their fond theories of the Messiah with which the character of Christ did not seem to them to correspond. Nay, since it cannot be proved either from Scripture or from other authentic history that such mighty works have ever been wrought by any other power than that of God, and seeing that men are naturally apt to ascribe such power to God, and there is no reason to ascribe it to any other being than God, and since Jesus Christ and His Apostles, in working those mighty works, solemnly declared that they were working by the power of God, and in attestation of the message which they brought to us as the message of God, our instinct leads us to conclude that Almighty God would never allow any other being to endow his agents with power to work such mighty works in His Name and to deceive mankind.

And this moreover we cannot pass unnoticed, that those who generally bring this objection do not build it on their own reasoning. They do not themselves believe that Satan can work miracles; they do not believe that there is such a being as Satan, but they say that the Bible says so, and upon the saying of the Bible they build their objection. They ought, therefore, to take into their consideration what the Bible says to remove that objection. Now the Bible tells us plainly that Satan can only deceive those by his miracles who are not earnest seekers of God and His truth. S. Paul, in his 2nd Epistle to the Thessalonians (ii. 10), speaking of antichrist, says, " whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish, because they received net the love of truth that they might be saved/' Hence it is clear, as indeed our very instinct leads us to believe, that God Almighty will either not allow Satan to work miracles in order to deceive those who are seekers of God and His truth, or He will provide means whereby they may be able to distinguish his work from God's work and be preserved from being deceived by it. For instance, we read in Holy Scripture, with regard to the miracles which the magicians of Egypt wrought, that though God Almighty did allow Satan, for the greater manifestation of His own power, to work some miracles, yet it soon became evident that the power of Satan could not oppose the power of God. For the magicians could only go on to a certain extent doing their wonders, and then had to acknowledge openly that their own power failed before the power of God, manifested through His true messenger Moses, and were compelled to confess concerning it that " this is the finger of God," and so it became evident both to the people of God the Israelites, as well to those who opposed God, namely, Pharaoh and the Egyptians, that the power of God was superior to all.

But the decisive answer to such an objection is this. Let us consider the first great thing which miracles do. When a teacher claiming to be sent by God works miracles as Jesus Christ did, the first thing which his miracles do is to remove all doubts from our minds whether the teacher may not be putting forth the speculations of his own mind in the name of a message from God. And this is a very great thing. For we see that the world is fall of religions and pretended revelations, which by examination turn out to be simply the inventions of men's own minds. But when a teacher really sent by God comes to us and shows us works wrought by a supernatural power as credentials of his divine mission, we are made quite certain that the message which he brings comes from a source which is above man, for it is certain that man cannot, by his own power, work miracles, and so all doubts are removed as to whether what he teaches may not be merely an invention of his own mind. And this is a very great thing. For it differs his message at once from all the innumerable systems of men which they have been putting forth as messages from heaven.

But you say that there is still this doubt left, whether the superhuman power which this teacher possesses is of God or of some other being, and therefore whether also the message which he brings is from God or fi'om that other being. But this question can very easily be settled. If that being be other than God by whose power the teacher is working the miracle, it must be antagonistic to God, it must be an adversary of God, and the same we call Satan, for Satan means an adversary. But would Satan, the adversary of God, whose desire must ever be to oppose God, deliver such a religion as Christianity is, whose jBrst and 'principal command is " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind^'?* Would Satan, whose whole purpose is to dishonour God and to overthrow His kingdom, and to set up his own wicked kingdom, teach us to pray to God, " Hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven^'? Would Satan teach us, '^ Love thy neighbour as thyself,^' and not rather hate thy neighbour and kill him? Would Satan ever teach, "Blessed are the pure in heart; blessed are the merciful; blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness/' "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good; abstain from all appearance of evil; " " Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you "?

To be short, if, on the one hand, you will take into consideration the mighty works which Jesus Christ did, and, on the

* For " This is tlie first and great commandment," says Jesus Christ. And He adds, " And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commnndments," says He, " hang all the l?iw and the prophets."— S. Matt. xxii. 38—40.

other hand^ consider what sort of a religion Christianity is, and what sort of a person Jesus Christ was, the natural result will be that you will be quite certain that He really came from God and His message is the message of God. But he who will not be convinced of this by the force of those two considerations may as well remain in doubt for ever whether He who made this world was God. Doubts of this kind are of an extravagant and unnatural kind. There is room for admitting such doubts in everything which we believe either of God or man. You must remember that the grounds which our Maker has s^en fit to furnish us with for our conduct in this life, or towards God, (which is religion) are not scientific but moral, and therefore admit much room for extravagant and unnatural doubts. And herein consists the state of our probation. For those who are truth-loving", teachable, and humble, are instinctively satisfied oy those grounds with regai'd to all things which it is necessary for us to be convinced of. But if they are insincere, proud, and prejudiced, they, lose that healthy instinct and intuition, and become a prey to all sorts of unnatural and extravagant doubts. Now, dear Sirs, let me address you a few words of exhortation. God Almighty has graciously given us his revelation. We most certainly needed it, for we were all groping in darkness, and should have gone on for ever groping in it, if He had not sent to us His revelation, that is, Christianity, and in order to certify us that it is really the voice of God and not a theory of man, in order that we may have the certainty that we have got God's truth and not an imagination of man, God Almighty has certainly set His seal to the message which He has sent to us by those supernatural works which Jesus Christ wrought, and which He claimed as proofs of His Divine mission. Will you reject this sure and certain word of God, and rely upon Theism which, though mostly derived from Christianity, yet has no other foundation for i/oii (since you reject Christianity) than the reason, the notions, the imaginations, and the tastes of each individual? What reliance can be placed upon such a thing? What stability has it? How long will it last? Whether you believe or no the truth of what I have so fully shown you in my first discourse, that this Theism which you now profess you owe entirely to Christianity, it is nevertheless unquestionably so. But I must tell you that as man can never get right notions of religious truths without the light of revelation, so after he has acquired those notions by coming in contact with revelation, if he will not accept that revelation itself and make it his guide, but will rely still upon his own poor reason, depend upon it, that by degrees he will lose those notions, and wander away again into all sorts of errors. If human reason has always led men into errors, it is clear that if men, after coming within the light of revelation, will still rely upon reason and not hold fast to that revelation, that reason will lead them into errors again. If when a vessel has received heat from the fire which was put into it a man were to suppose there was no need of fire, the heat is an inherent property of the vessel itself, and so were to throw away the fire, the heat will still remain in the vessel fur a time, but it will not remain long. It will soon be altogether extinguished and the vessel will become as cold as ever again,

0 that you would think well and seriously on this subject, and recognize the voice of God which, is calling you, and obey it, and make yourselves and your children and your country partakers in the blessings which Christianity alone imparts. God said to Abraham thousands of years, ago, that "In thy seed shall the nations of the earth be blessed." Jesus Christ is that "Seed" of Abraham, and all those who believe in Him are blessed.