Chapter XII. Possession, If An Objective Reality, Neither Incredible Nor Contrary To The Ascertained Truths Of Mental Science.
I now proceed to the consideration of the remaining alternative, the truth of which the form of the narrative seems most to favour, viz., that our Lord accepted the distinction between possession and mania; and that during those times possessions were actual occurrences.
In considering this subject, it will be necessary to pay attention to the distinction to which I have referred in the previous chapter, that even if many of the phenomena that accompanied possession were due to superhuman agency, the Gospels are by no means pledged to any particular theory of the modus operandi by which the phenomena were brought about. What I mean is that these phenomena might have been due to a superhuman agency, without involving the fact that the demon had a local habitation either in the body or the spirit of the man. All that the Gospels can be taken to affirm is, that the evil spirit in some way or other, of which we are ignorant, held the man in a state of thraldom, made his mental powers the subject of a divided consciousness, overpowered the functions of his reason and his will, and through his action on the mind used for his own purposes the organs of his [pg 269] body. The writers of the New Testament are pledged to no theory as to how such results were effected. They have simply reported the phenomena as they presented themselves to their observation. In doing this, the language which they have employed denotes local habitation; but the words used in stilling the storm make it quite clear that the literal meaning cannot be pressed. Considering the general character of these narratives, it is impossible to pledge them to the particular mode in which these results were brought about.
One circumstance seems to militate against the supposition that possession involved nothing but simple mania, namely, the numbers of those who are spoken of as possessed. If the Gospel narratives are historical, it would appear that such cases were numerous. Not only are several miracles of this description definitely recorded, but the Evangelists several times affirm that our Lord cured demoniacs in considerable numbers, without furnishing us with the details. Now it is difficult to believe that maniacs existed in such large numbers in a country of the size and population of Judæa. Yet all the phenomena of possession point to maniacal, and not to harmless lunacy. The number of the cases of mania that occur bears but a small proportion to those of the latter form of derangement. It is true that at times of popular excitement various forms and numerous cases of frenzy manifest themselves; but these differ from mania, though they not unfrequently terminate in it. I have made these observations, because, in discussing such a subject, it is only right to state fully the difficulties with which particular theories are attended. It is very probable, however, that as the symptoms so closely resembled each other, many cases of actual mania would be confounded in popular estimation with possession, and, therefore, that cases of actual possession [pg 270] may not have been so numerous as at first sight would appear.
On the supposition that possession was a reality, we have no means of determining what moral or physical preconditions were necessary for its manifestation. It is clear that the authors of the Gospels must have considered that it was owing to some predisposing causes, physical or moral, though they have not described them. Unless this was the case, the evil, instead of being partial, would have been universal. Various moral causes would naturally form a suitable precondition for its manifestation. There can be no doubt that a number of vices, when indulged in beyond a certain point, reduce man's moral being to a wreck and render him obnoxious to the action of external agency. The power of self-control may be indefinitely weakened. If vice is carried to its extreme forms, it produces phenomena hardly, if at all, distinguishable from madness. Such a state of man's moral nature would form a suitable precondition to enable a superhuman being to overpower the reason and the will, the supremacy of which was already impaired by an influence from within. In such cases possession would have been rendered possible by a man's self-induced moral corruption.
The testimony of history proves that during the century which preceded and that which followed the Advent, the state of moral corruption was extreme. Men were sated with the old, and craving for new and unheard of forms of sensual gratification. The old class of ideas, moral and religious, were gradually dying out, and men were eagerly seeking for something to fill the void. There consequently never was a time when a greater number of abnormal forms of thought burst on the human mind, which was shaken to its utmost depths. The outbreak of fanaticism [pg 271] combined with moral wickedness, which displayed itself forty years after in the Jewish war of independence, is probably without a parallel in the history of man. For this there must have been years of preparation. A somewhat similar state of things existed in the Pagan world, which led to the production of numerous religious charlatans and impostors. The times were characterised by an extravagance of thought on almost every subject, philosophy itself forming no exception. Such an abnormal mental condition was peculiarly suited to the reception of external mental influences, if we suppose them possible.
But I am bound to admit that the facts recorded in the Gospels prove that possession was not always the result of moral degradation. This is proved by the case of the youth, whose possession the father directly connects with lunacy, and says that it had seized him from a child. In this case the cause which rendered the possession possible must have been physical, probably a derangement of the nervous system.
If I understand rightly the position which is taken by those who affirm that possession was mania, and nothing else, it is as follows. It is alleged that at certain periods of history, the belief in possession has been widely spread. Possessions are unknown in modern times; and all the instances which have been alleged are either cases of mania or delusion. The belief in it has gradually died away as knowledge has advanced. In former times it generated a number of grotesque stories, which were pure inventions of the imagination heated by enthusiasm. Such facts as were real may be referred to madness as their cause. The others are simply disbelieved. Under the influence of increasing knowledge, there has arisen a widespread belief in modern times, that there is nothing superhuman [pg 272] in the causes of such phenomena, but that they are due to influences existing within the mind itself. This, as it is affirmed, being true of all the alleged instances of possession in the modern world, it is inferred that similar ones in the ancient world are equally unreal; and if we had the requisite data before us, we should be able to refer them all to ordinary human causes.
With respect to the general fact, there can be no doubt that advancing knowledge has caused a general disbelief in the reality of any modern form of possession, or of witchcraft. The supreme grotesqueness of the phenomena of the latter has caused the belief in it to perish under the influence of common sense, aided by an increased acquaintance with sound principles of causation, and the stability of the operations of nature. Still it is incorrect to affirm that the prevalence of such beliefs has been due to no other cause than universal ignorance. The belief in witchcraft produced its most unhappy results during the reigns of Elizabeth and the Stuarts, in the very age of Bacon, Shakespeare, and Raleigh. Such beliefs originate in certain principles of our minds whose gratification consists in the contemplation of the marvellous, the action of which I shall consider hereafter. They have existed in every condition of society, and only changed the form of their manifestation. Those who boast of our freedom from such delusions, owing to the superior light of the nineteenth century, seem to have forgotten the existence at the present day of a belief in spiritualism, which is little, if at all, less absurd than witchcraft, though the former has encountered a less severe treatment than the latter. This has been more due to the improvement of our humanity than to our knowledge of physical science. It is a fact that spiritualism is believed [pg 273] in by multitudes; and its votaries belong far more to the cultivated class of society than to the ignorant and the vulgar. What the witch mania was to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, spiritualism is to the nineteenth. It is the peculiar form rather than the possibility of such delusions that has passed away.
It should be observed also that the demoniacal supernaturalism of the monastic writers, and of the middle ages, differs from that of the New Testament to such a degree that they cannot fairly be compared. In the former the apparition of demons and departed spirits was a thing of constant occurrence; in the latter, never. To the monks the devil was continually appearing in the most phantastic forms, and performing the most grotesque miracles. To this form of demonology modern spiritualism can put in very strong claims to be esteemed the genuine successor. The heated imagination of even such a man as Luther suggested to him that he saw Satan in visible reality. It is worthy of remark that St. Paul knew nothing of visible Satanic manifestations. With him they were invariably spiritual.
It is important to keep steadily in view the fact, that the New Testament invariably represents possession as consisting in the action of a stronger mind on a weaker one. The influence which the demon exerted on the bodily organs might have been effected through the agency of the man himself. It is never described as involving a visible manifestation of the demon, but his action is one which is purely mental and spiritual. His presence and his departure were simply judged of by their effects.
It follows, therefore, that the denial of the possibility of an influence of this kind must rest on a very wide principle. It cannot be confined to such action alone, [pg 274] but must go to the extent of denying the possibility of the action of all spiritual beings on the mind of man. The only principle on which the denial can rest is, that our mental science has so far succeeded in analyzing all the past and present operations of the human mind, that it is justified in affirming that they all originate entirely within the mind itself; and are never brought about by an action on it from without by any invisible agent. If this is the principle on which the denial rests, it will be equally valid to exclude the action of God on our minds, as well as that of all other invisible beings. It will doubtless be urged that it is only intended to deny the action of invisible evil beings. But if it is true that our mental philosophy has ascertained that all our thoughts originate either in the mind itself, or in the mind acted on by external nature, or by other men, the principle must be valid for proving that all other spiritual agency exerted on the mind is impossible, and that all supposed instances of it are delusions. It is impossible on this principle to exclude the evil agency, and not to exclude the good also.
It is evident that this principle is far too broad to be used for the purpose of affirming the impossibility of the action of external evil agents only. It is based on the supposition that our mental philosophy is so complete as to be able to assign even the most abnormal portions of our mental action to definite and known forces, all of which originate within the mind itself, and are never due to external influences. If mental philosophy could establish this as a fact, it would doubtless prove that possession was impossible; but it could prove a great deal more, even that God never acted on or influenced the spirit of man. But if there is any one phenomenon of the mind, of the origin of which we are ignorant, the whole principle is vitiated, [pg 275] for that very phenomenon may be caused by the action of an external power. The real point of the controversy therefore is, Is our mental science thus complete? Has it been able to reduce all our mental phenomena, including the most abnormal of them, to the action of known forces? Has it analyzed our mental powers to their inmost depths? Until it has done this, it is impossible to affirm that the abnormal actions of the mind may not be occasioned by an external agency.
It will probably be urged, that although our philosophy has not yet succeeded in assigning all our mental phenomena to the action of known forces, it hopes to accomplish this hereafter; and that its past conquests ought to be accepted as a pledge of its future performances; and that the time will certainly come, when it will be able to refer every mental phenomenon to a cause originating in the mind itself, and acting in conformity with invariable law. Promises, however, are not performances; what is requisite to impart validity to wide affirmations is present actual knowledge, not the hope that future scientific conquests will be extended over the entire regions of the unknown. Science professes to walk by sight and not by faith. In a subject of this kind it is most unphilosophical to assume that the possibilities of the future are the realities of the present; and to enunciate propositions whose validity rests solely on the fact that they are so.
I will now definitely state the principle which can alone give any scientific value to the assertion, that such demoniacal action as that which is described in the New Testament, is unbelievable. It is as follows: that we have so completely ascertained the nature of the forces which act on our minds, and the laws which regulate them, that we know as a scientifically [pg 276] established truth, that they all originate either in our own mental organization, or in the action of other men on our minds. The statement of the principle in this distinct form at once shows that it is invalid.
It is impossible for one moment to affirm that our knowledge is so complete, that we have a scientific acquaintance with the causes of all our varied mental phenomena, and the laws which regulate them. We have ascertained the nature of several of our mental processes; but how small a portion of man's mental activity do they embrace. I need only particularize a few of which we are in complete ignorance, as to the forces which generate them, and the laws which regulate their action.
First, with respect to Genius. Genius is a mental power which manifests itself only on rare occasions. Who can affirm that we have ascertained the law which regulates its birth? We may judge from analogy that this, as other things, follows a law of some kind; but respecting the causes which give it birth our philosophy is profoundly ignorant. Nor have we any knowledge of its mode of action. It manifests itself in various forms. There is the genius which makes the poet, the philosopher, the scientific discoverer, the orator, the politician, and many others. How those who are possessed of this power effectuate their mental operations, or how their great ideas originate in their minds is a subject which exceeds the limits of our scientific knowledge. Take for example the genius of the poet. Whence came, and what was the nature of that intuitive power with which Shakespeare was endowed, or how was it called into exercise? We call such powers intuitions. We say that a great poet is endowed with a species of inspiration. What is this but to confess our entire ignorance both of the [pg 277] origin and the mode of his mental operations. Probably the poet himself would be unable to give us any analysis of the origin of his own thoughts, or of the laws that regulate them. How then can we venture to affirm that they must all originate in the mind itself, and not be due to the action of some external power? The habit of speaking of his inspirations, from which scientific men are not exempt, proves our complete ignorance both of its nature and origin.
But to descend to a humbler sphere—our own minds. We are all conscious that thoughts rush into them in a most unbidden manner, and that we pass through mental states which our analysis is unable to explain. Can any man affirm, however deep may be his philosophy, that the known laws of association of ideas are adequate to account for all the mental phenomena of which he has been conscious? Who has not had experience of severe efforts to realize something in thought, which have ended in failure, and that the right thing has suddenly come into his mind uncalled and unbidden? Not unfrequently has a sudden thought entered the mind (we know not whence it came) which has entirely changed the whole current of a previous life. Still more frequently has a happy idea occurred to us, the origin of which it is impossible to trace. Who again has not had experience of the sudden rushing of a temptation into his mind with an all but overwhelming force, even while his thoughts were occupied with subjects in no way allied to the suggestion? Many of our mental phenomena may be explained by the principle of association of ideas and other known mental powers; but who can venture to affirm that they are adequate to account for all the various states of which he has been conscious, or that some of them have not originated in suggestions from without? [pg 278] Scientific knowledge is certainly able to make no such affirmation.
Next: there are numerous abnormal conditions to which the mind is unquestionably subject. Who will venture to affirm that he has penetrated to their depths, or ascertained the laws which regulate their action? These have a most important bearing on the present subject. They are best designated by the term phrenzy. Their aspect is very varied. They differ in many respects from mania, though they are closely allied to it. They are confined to no one race of men, but are co-extensive with human nature. They were prevalent in the ancient world, and connected with various forms of religious belief. They display themselves with peculiar violence in the religious rites of savages. In Oriental countries at the present day, they frequently manifest themselves and assume a great variety of aspects. Examples might be easily adduced. The phrenzied fanatic often presents indications of his mind being acted on by an overwhelming external influence; and when under the influence of the rites of a degraded religion, the symptoms present no little resemblance to those which accompanied demoniacal possession.
I have no wish to affirm that such phenomena must be due to an action of this kind, but to draw attention to the fact that we are ignorant of the power in which they originate, and that such being the case, it is quite possible that their most violent and terrible forms may be aroused by the influence of a power external to the mind itself. Equally ignorant are we of the causes of even their milder manifestations. Whatever may be the hopes which are entertained of the future triumphs of science, it is not too much to assert, that it has not yet reduced these abnormal conditions of the mind to any thing like a scientific law, and that it has not succeeded [pg 279] in tracing the phenomena to the exclusive operation of a force acting within the mind itself. In truth our mental science is ignorant of their causes: and for aught that it can affirm to the contrary, many of them may be due to causes human, superhuman, or a combination of the two. In cases where we are profoundly ignorant, dogmatical assertions should be carefully avoided. While such phenomena are incapable of explanation by the action of known mental forces, the students of mental science are not justified in affirming that possession contradicts its known truths.
I fully admit, however, that there is a system of professed mental science, which, if its truth could be proved, would establish the fact that possession was impossible. I need hardly say that I allude to that which affirms that thought is the result of a function of the brain, and nothing else. According to the views of these philosophers, the brain secretes thought as a gland secretes its own peculiar secretion. Until this philosophy has succeeded in proving the truth of its first principles, it is useless to consider its bearing on this particular question.
There is another abnormal mental condition, the existence of which is unquestionable, and which has a close connection with the present question, namely, the ecstatic state. The forms in which this has manifested itself have been extremely various, and it is impossible for any one to assert that our mental philosophy has fully fathomed them, and has succeeded in assigning them to forces originating within the mind itself. On the contrary it is not too much to affirm that it has as yet wholly failed to analyze its nature, or to account for the abnormal powers displayed by the mind when in this condition. In the ancient world this state of mind was closely connected with the manifestations of [pg 280] the prophetic power, the reality of which was recognized by many of its philosophers. It will of course be observed that I am not speaking of this power as it existed in the Jewish church, but of its supposed manifestations in the heathen world. Similar ecstatic states have frequently displayed themselves in modern times. When in this condition the mind is especially liable to be acted on by external influences. Is it possible, I ask, in the present state of our mental philosophy, to assert that we know their nature, or the forces which produce them? The ecstatic in union with a phrenzied state of the mind was apparently the condition of the Delphian priestess when she delivered oracles to those who consulted her. According to all the accounts that we possess, she presented the appearance of being subject to an overpowering external influence. Every other description which we possess of the manifestation of this prophetic power, (and we have several) describes it as presenting phenomena closely allied to raving madness, an influence of some kind apparently overpowering the prophet's personality. Until the forces which produced these phenomena in the ancient world, and the somewhat similar ones which have been manifested in modern times, can be shown to owe their origin to forces originating in the mind itself, and to nothing else, it is absurd to affirm that such a phenomenon as possession is in contradiction to our scientific knowledge of the human mind.
There is another point which demands our attention, namely, the close connection between the extreme forms of moral wickedness, and madness. It is an unquestionable fact that nothing is more difficult than to draw the precise line where moral wickedness ends, and madness begins. In their great outlines they are easily distinguishable, but in the more advanced stages [pg 281] of moral evil, the one passes into the other by insensible degrees. So difficult is it to lay down the precise line which separates them, that scientific men are not wanting, who affirm that every extreme case of moral wickedness is a species of mania. Consistently with this theory frequent efforts are made to save the most abandoned criminals from the consequences of their crimes. If the principle is correct, it is impossible not to assign lesser degrees of moral evil to the same cause. Such a principle logically leads to the denial of any distinction between moral and physical action. Happily however, although this conclusion is one which has been arrived at by a considerable number of physicists, it is one which the common sense of mankind steadily refuses to accept. It is sufficient for the present purpose, that extreme forms of moral evil shade off into mania by insensible degrees; and that ultimately they are capable of producing insanity. If insanity can be produced by moral causes, it follows that a superhuman influence powerful for evil, acting on a degraded moral nature, may be attended with a similar result, and produce such a phenomenon as possession.
But further: while madness is produced by physical causes, it is a certain fact that it is frequently occasioned by causes purely mental. Of this the instances are innumerable. These mental causes react on the brain and the nervous system; and thus they superinduce disease on those parts of our bodily organization by means of which the mind exercises its powers. Still the disease itself originates in causes that are not seated in the body, but in the mind. The mind is therefore capable of acting powerfully on our bodily frame. If therefore possession be viewed as the action of one mind on another, there is no reason why it should not be able to superinduce those forms of [pg 282] bodily derangement which exhibited themselves in the demoniacs by the simple action of the mind upon the body. The mental causes capable of producing mania are, as we know, of a varied description; and among them is the action and influence which one mind is capable of exerting on another. As, therefore, in certain states of our minds, or of our nervous system, mania with all its results can be produced by the simple action of mind on mind, and through the action of the mind disorder may be produced in our bodily organization, there can be no reason why possession with all its attendant phenomena should not originate in similar causes. There is nothing to imply that the superhuman agency manifested in possession was directly exerted on the body of the possessed. An agency which was entirely mental was fully adequate to produce all the phenomena with which it was accompanied.
In cases of mania produced by mental action the removal of the exciting cause is the precondition of its cure, and in many cases effects it. Similarly, in cases of possession the removal of the exciting cause would produce similar results.
It follows, therefore, from the foregoing considerations, that the allegation that the possessions described in the New Testament are incredible, because they contradict the known truths of mental science, is disproved.
The question really resolves itself into the following one: Do evil beings, other than men, exist in the universe? Or, if they exist, is it credible that they are allowed to interfere in the affairs of men? This question we have already considered in a former chapter, and we have arrived at the conclusion that if we free ourselves from the trammels of à priori theories, [pg 283] and judge only by the facts of the universe as it exists, neither their existence nor their intervention in human affairs is contrary to our reason.
Two things, however, must be steadily kept in mind. First: that if such interventions in human affairs are facts, the agency which can be exerted is only a permitted agency, and only capable of being exerted in subordination to the divine purposes in the government of the universe. A large number of the difficulties with which the subject is attended have originated in the wholly inaccurate idea that a power is attributed in the New Testament to Satan, of interfering both in the material and the moral universe at his own will and pleasure. This, however, is altogether contrary to the fact. Whatever power is attributed to him is an entirely permitted one, and exercised in subordination to the general purposes of God. Secondly, that although the disorder in the moral world might lead us to suspect the presence of an evil agency, different from that of man; yet as it is not a visible one, but confined to the regions of the mind, it is one which cannot come under our distinct observation, and could therefore only become known to us by revelation.
One more difficulty has to be considered. It is alleged that possession never takes place now. It is therefore inferred that it never took place at all.
I reply first, if we grant that demoniacal action, in the form of possession has now ceased, it by no means follows that it was not once real. The objection overlooks the fact that its action was a permitted one; and could only be exercised within the limits assigned to it. There may have been reasons at the time of the Advent why the exercise of a Satanic agency should be permitted at that particular period to a greater extent than it ever has been before or since.
[pg 284]Secondly: certain moral and physical conditions were necessary for its exercise. These may be no longer in existence, but they may have passed away with many other abnormal conditions of human nature which existed in the ancient world.
Thirdly: it is not possible to affirm with certainty that, even at the present day, no supernatural agencies bearing an analogy to possession, are exerted on the mind. This will be only possible, when all those abnormal phenomena which manifest themselves in connection with various debased forms of religion and other cases of phrenzied excitement can be traced to known forces, originating solely in the mind itself.
There is one further objection which requires a brief consideration. It is urged that the writers of the New Testament entertained the belief, that diseases were generally occasioned by demoniacal action, quite independently of possession; and that this belief has received the sanction of our Lord. One case only is alleged in proof of this, that of the woman with the spirit of infirmity. She was no demoniac, but an ordinary diseased person, and the disease is asserted to have been occasioned by demoniacal action.
I reply, that considering the large number of diseases of various kinds mentioned in the New Testament, in none of which is there any allusion to demoniacal agency as their cause, a single example is a narrow foundation on which to build the affirmation that the followers of our Lord held such a theory as to the origin of disease in general. I admit that disorganization of the bodily functions is mentioned among the phenomena of possession. But this differs widely from a bodily evil superinduced without the agency of possession. Let us inquire whether the special instance affords any justification for this wide assertion.
[pg 285]The Evangelist states that the woman was bowed down by a spirit of infirmity, and could in no wise lift herself up. Here it is just as absurd to fasten on him the intention to describe a scientific fact, as when on another occasion it is said that “power” went out of our Lord “and healed them all.” The one stands on the same ground as the other.
In effecting the cure, our Lord uses the words, “Woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.” Here there is no reference to Satanic agency whatever. The only mention of it occurs in his argument with the ruler of the synagogue on the lawfulness of effecting such cures on the Sabbath day. The words are, “Thou hypocrite, ought not this woman, who is a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan hath bound, lo, these eighteen years, to be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?”
These words are addressed to the ruler in answer to the objection that our Lord was no prophet, because he effected his cures on the Sabbath. If so, as the reality of the miracle was not denied, it was intended to be implied that it had been wrought by the power of Satan, of which the violation of the Sabbath was the proof. The real point of controversy therefore was the lawfulness of effecting cures on this day, not the Satanic origin of the complaint. Was there any conceivable reason why our Lord should not discuss the point with the ruler on his own principles? Why was it necessary to raise a wholly different issue, viz. the Satanic or non-Satanic origin of the disease, instead of confining it strictly to the point, which was the all-important one, that His curing this woman on the Sabbath day was so far from being a proof that He did not come from God, that it was a strong reason for believing that He did so? To have entered on a discussion as to what was the cause [pg 286] of the complaint, would not only have diverted attention from the real question, but would have introduced one wholly foreign to the purposes of His divine mission.
Two suppositions only are possible respecting possession. It must have been either a form of madness produced by natural causes, or a manifestation of superhuman power. As the facts on which a judgment can be formed are meagre, I have not ventured to determine which of these two theories is alone consistent with the facts and phenomena of the New Testament. I have therefore taken either alternative, and shown, that neither does the theory that it was mania interfere with the claims of the Gospels to be accepted as historical documents, nor is the language attributed to our Lord contrary to the truthfulness of His character; nor does the supposition that it was due to superhuman causes contradict the established truths of mental science.
Chapter XIII. The Alleged Credulity Of The Followers Of Jesus.
The allegation that the followers of Jesus, and the early Christians generally, were a body of intensely credulous and superstitious people, may be considered as not only the stronghold of those who impugn the historical character of the Gospels, but also as the arsenal from which they draw no small number of their weapons of attack. A credulity which knew no limits is liberally ascribed to them as showing how every miraculous narrative might have been invented. They have even been credited with a facility of inventing fictions, and then deluding themselves into the belief that they were facts which they had actually witnessed. Thus it has been asserted that it was their firm belief that the Messiah ought to have wrought miracles; that Jesus himself may not even have professed to perform them; but that the fervid imaginations of His followers invented a set of miracles, attributed them to Him, and ended with the belief that they had seen Him perform them. On the other hand, whenever these objectors are pressed by a difficulty in accounting for the origin of particular phenomena in the Gospels, they retire on the credulity of the followers of Jesus as into a kind of citadel, in which they consider themselves so strongly entrenched that they may defy every attack. There is also another important purpose which it is made to serve. It is asserted that it renders worthless the [pg 288] testimony of the followers of Jesus as to the actual occurrence of miracles.
The allegation takes two forms:
1st. That the followers of Jesus were the prey of a credulity and superstition which greatly exceeded the limits of the ordinary credulity of mankind; and that therefore the value of their historical testimony is destroyed.
2nd. That the ordinary credulity of mankind with respect to the occurrence of supernatural events is so great and widespread, as to render the invention of miraculous narratives easy, and to destroy the credit of all narratives containing them.
I propose to consider these subjects in this and the following chapter.
Nothing is easier than to charge a body of men with intense credulity and superstition. Before, however, such charges deserve to have any notice taken of them, they should be substantiated by direct proof. It is impossible to meet them if urged in a mere general form. Fortunately, the author of “Supernatural Religion” makes a number of specific and definite charges, in which he endeavours to fasten an unspeakable degree of credulity and superstition on the immediate followers of Jesus and the authors of the Gospels, and refers to authorities in support of his assertions. I will state his general position in his own words.
“We have given a most imperfect sketch of some of the opinions and superstitions prevalent at the time of Jesus, and when the books of the New Testament were written. These, as we have seen, are continued with little or no modification throughout the first centuries of our era. It must however be remembered that the few details that we have given, omitting much of the grosser particulars, are the views absolutely expressed [pg 289] by the most educated and intelligent part of the community; and that it would have required infinitely darker colours adequately to have portrayed the dense ignorance and superstition of the mass of the Jews. It is impossible to receive the report of supposed marvellous occurrences from an age and people like this, without the gravest suspicion. Miracles which spring from such a hot-bed of superstition are too natural in such a soil to be the object of surprise; and in losing their exceptional character, their claims on attention are proportionally weakened, if not altogether destroyed. Preternatural interference with the affairs of life and with the phenomena of nature was the rule in those days, not the exception, and miracles in fact had apparently lost all novelty, and through familiarity had become degraded into mere commonplace.”
“There can be no doubt that the writers of the New Testament shared in the popular superstitions of the Jews.”
Before proceeding further, I must draw the reader's attention to three affirmations in this important passage.
1st. That the educated Jews of the time of Jesus were a prey to the superstitions in question.
2nd. That the common class of Jews were a prey to yet grosser superstitious.
3rd. That the followers of Jesus, who were chiefly Jews of the lower classes, and the authors of the Gospels, shared in these superstitions.
The author devotes not less than fifty pages to a minute description of the superstitions of the educated classes. These are alleged to have been of so gross a nature, that the reader will get but a very imperfect conception of the point at issue, unless I give a brief sketch of some of them.
[pg 290]I. The Jews are affirmed to have believed in an innumerable multitude of angels, whose agency was continually displayed in the ordinary phenomena of nature. They presided over and energized in its ordinary operations, as for instance, in thunder, lightning, the winds, the seas, frost, hail, rain, mists, heat, light, &c.; heaven and earth in fact are filled with them, and they are also continually busying themselves in human affairs, of which minute details are given.
II. They are alleged to have believed in a demonology of the most phantastic description. To this I have elsewhere sufficiently alluded.
III. They are likewise affirmed to have believed that the sun, moon and stars are rational beings, and traces of this belief are distinctly affirmed to exist in the New Testament.
IV. The belief in sorcery, witchcraft and magic is affirmed to have been universal among them. To give the reader an idea of the grossness of these beliefs, to which even the educated classes are affirmed to have been a prey, I must quote the following passage:
“Amulets consisting of seals, or pieces of paper, with charms written upon them, were hung round the necks of the sick, and considered efficacious for their cure. Charms, spells and mutterings were constantly said over wounds, against unlucky meetings, to make people sleep, to heal diseases, and to avert enchantments; against mad dogs for instance, against the demon of blindness and the like, as well as formulæ for averting the evil eye, and mutterings over diseases.” Here follow several pages of unutterable absurdities. It is not too much to say, that there was hardly an occurrence in nature, and hardly an event of daily life, which was not influenced by these supernatural powers, and very frequently in a manner unspeakably grotesque. [pg 291] If such were the beliefs of educated people, urges the author (and he tells us that he has omitted the grosser forms of them), what must have been those of the lower orders, and the extent of their degraded superstition? It must be kept constantly in mind that the followers of Jesus chiefly consisted of persons taken from the lower strata of society. But the author in express words charges them with sharing in such beliefs. If they did not, the reference to them would have no bearing on the argument.
We have therefore in this portion of the work a definite issue raised for our consideration. It is no vague charge of general boundless credulity and superstition, such as is generally urged against the followers of Jesus and the authors of the Gospels. It is presented to us in a clear and definite form. I fully allow that if this charge could be substantiated, it would deprive the Evangelists of all historical credit.
The issue which is thus raised is consequently one of the highest importance. It will be necessary therefore for us carefully to examine the mode in which it is attempted to establish the truth of these charges. The process is an extremely singular one.
When we have a set of writings before us and endeavour to estimate the amount of credulity and superstition to which their authors were a prey, the only legitimate mode of proceeding is to subject these writings to a thorough and minute examination as to the indications of credulity and superstition contained in them. Having done this, it then becomes our duty to ascertain the amount of general good sense or the want of it which is displayed by them in these or in other subjects, and then to form a general conclusion by fairly balancing the indications of credulity and good sense against each other. The author, however, [pg 292] seems not to have had the smallest idea that it is the duty of the critic to ascertain what are the facts of the case as presented by the writings, and to form a general conclusion by a careful review of the entire evidence. On the contrary, his mode of reasoning is to quote a number of opinions held by various writers, widely separated from each other in time, to charge them on the contemporaries of our Lord, and refer to nearly every passage in the New Testament which has even the remotest bearing on the subject, for the purpose of fastening these superstitions on the followers of Jesus. Such a mode of reasoning can only avail to establish a foregone conclusion.
Again: In forming a judgment on such a subject, it also behoves us most carefully to consider whether the subject-matter of the writings is or is not of such a character, that if their authors had been addicted to such gross superstitions, there would not of necessity have been frequent examples of them in their pages? Also whether the absence of such references, when the subject on which they were writing was certain to have suggested them to their minds, does not constitute a strong proof that these superstitions were not held by them? In one word, it is absurd to attempt to charge writers with boundless credulity and superstition, on the ground that a multitude of grotesque beliefs were prevalent in their day. No author can be held responsible for beliefs other than those which appear in his pages, especially when subject-matter of his writings would have been certain to call them into activity if he had entertained them.
The course pursued by the author is directly opposite to this. He has been compelled to adopt it, because it is the only method by which extreme credulity and superstition can be fastened on the writers of the [pg 293] Gospels. The available contemporary literature, besides that contained in the New Testament, which can throw light on the opinions of the followers of Jesus, is very small. The point which requires proof is that the entire Jewish nation, without any exception, was a prey to the basest superstition and credulity. Unless this can be established, the charge against the authors of the Gospels falls to the ground, except so far as it can be proved by the Gospels themselves. The contemporary proof of it, however, failing, he endeavours to substantiate his position by quoting the opinions of writers separated from the times of Jesus by several centuries, and affirming that they were held by the entire body of His contemporaries. Such a mode of reasoning is useless to support anything but a foregone conclusion.
A brief reference to the authorities relied upon will at once expose the fallacy of the argument. First, certain differences existing between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Scriptures are pressed into the service, which are no instances of either credulity or superstition. Then the frequent idolatries which prevailed among the Jews prior to the captivity are adduced as a proof of the superstitious tendencies of the Jewish mind, as if superstitions prevalent at the time of Becket were any evidence of the condition of English thought at the present day. Next the absurdities in the Apocryphal Book of Tobit are put in as evidence, although the contrary evidence afforded by the other books of the Apocrypha, which contain no traces of such superstitions, is left without mention. The writings of an Assyrian Jew who lived about three hundred and fifty years before the Christian era are about as valid to prove the opinions held by Christ and his followers as the opinions of Cicero would be in [pg 294] evidence of the beliefs of Constantine. Then reference is made to the angelology and demonology contained in the writings of Philo, who was unquestionably a contemporary of our Lord; but not the smallest hint is given to the reader that he was deeply tinged with the principles of the Neo-Platonic philosophy, a mode of thought wholly alien from that of the Palestinian Jews, or that Philo was himself an Alexandrian Jew. Next the book of Enoch is quoted, which (whenever it was written, for its date is uncertain) is unquestionably not the work of a Palestinian Jew. This book, which is an Apocalypse, contains a monstrous angelology and demonology, and abounds with extravagances. Although part of it was written prior to the Advent, other portions are clearly subsequent to it. Its author is unknown; but it is highly probable from certain resemblances of expression between it and the New Testament, that he was acquainted with portions of the latter; or, to state the theory of unbelievers, that the authors of the New Testament borrowed from it. If this view is true, then it is evident that they must have rejected its angelology and demonology, for that contained in the New Testament is utterly dissimilar in character to that which we read in the book of Enoch. As far, therefore, as the evidence of this book is concerned, it affords a distinct proof that they were not a prey to its monstrous superstitions. This remark is equally applicable to the book of Tobit, and the writings of Philo.
But there is a reference made to Philo which deserves particular notice as an exemplification of the mode adopted by those who endeavour to fix the charge of unbounded credulity on the authors of the Gospels. I cite the author.
“The belief that the sun, moon and stars were [pg 295] living entities possessed of souls was generally held by the Jews at the beginning of our era, along with Greek philosophers, and we shall presently see it expressed by the fathers. Philo Judæus considers the stars spiritual beings full of virtue and perfection, and that to them is granted lordship over other heavenly bodies, not absolute, but as viceroys under the Supreme Being. We find a similar view expressed regarding the nature of the stars in the Apocalypse, and it constantly occurs in the Talmud and Targums.”
“We find,” says the author, “a similar view expressed regarding the nature of the stars in the Apocalypse,” i.e. that the stars are spiritual beings full of virtue and perfection, and that they hold lordship over other heavenly bodies. No quotation is made from this book, but four passages are referred to in a note as proving this. They are as follows: “The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.” (Rev. i. 20.) With as good reason may it be said that the book of Revelation teaches the rationality of candlesticks.
“These things saith He that hath the seven Spirits of God, and the seven stars.” (Rev. iii. 1.) It is difficult to see how this proves that the author of the Revelation was of opinion that the stars were rational entities. The next passage referred to (Rev. iv. 5) makes no mention of stars at all, but of “seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.” The last reference is: “I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth; and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.” (Rev. ix. 1.) Here a star is spoken of as a living agent; but to refer in [pg 296] proof of this to a book which is full of symbols and is an avowed vision is ridiculous and misleading. On the contrary, the New Testament supplies the most unquestionable evidence that its writers were free from this superstition, into which even philosophers had fallen.
The next writer referred to, to prove that the followers of Jesus were a prey to credulity and superstition, is Josephus, in his narrative of the signs which preceded the destruction of Jerusalem.
To what extent Josephus embellished these signs may be a question. Most of them have a very heathen aspect, and it is unquestionable that he was much disposed to conciliate his heathen readers. It is sufficient to observe that the pages of the New Testament contain nothing resembling them.
But the chief source whence these ineffable puerilities are derived, and charged on the contemporaries of our Lord, and through them on the writers of the New Testament, is the Talmud. Probably there are no writings in existence from which a more monstrous set of absurdities can be collected than from those of the Talmudists. But how does this prove that this mass of nonsense was believed in by the Jewish nation in our Lord's day? One portion of the Talmud, the Mishna, was composed between a.d. 180 and a.d. 200, or some years after the date assigned by unbelievers to the Fourth Gospel. The lateness of this date is urged by them as conclusive proof that that Gospel does not embody the real traditions of the early followers of Jesus. How then can it be urged with any thing like consistency that the Mishna adequately represents their views respecting the order of nature? But the other portion of the Talmud, the Gemara, was not put forth in a written form prior to a.d. 500. To quote [pg 297] works thus remote in time as proofs of the superstitions of the followers of Jesus, is to adopt a course which if applied generally to history, would reduce it to a tissue of falsehoods. Bishop Jewell was a believer in witchcraft; but it would be absurd if some future writer were to quote the writings of modern spiritualists as a proof that he believed in their doctrines.
Nor is it true that the opinions of the masses of a nation are at all adequately represented by those of its learned men, especially when learning, as in the case in question, assumed the most unbounded licence of speculation. In most cases the common sense of the masses who are brought into contact with the hard facts of daily life will preserve them from puerilities, into which learning, which draws exclusively on the imagination, is certain to fall. There is sufficient evidence of the superstition of the masses during the middle ages; but nothing would be more absurd than to quote some monstrous opinions held by the great scholastic writers to prove that they were the current opinions of the vulgar. Yet the principle here adopted is to adduce opinions propounded by learned writers, who lived centuries afterwards, as a proof that they were current among the entire Jewish race at the time of Jesus Christ.
The remaining references in proof of this position are still more noteworthy. To establish the superstition of the Jews at the time of the Advent, a set of opinions are adduced which were held by Christian Fathers, whose writings cover a period of not less than four centuries. A list of them will be sufficient. The apocryphal Barnabas and Hermas, Justin Martyr, Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Augustine, Jerome, Chrysostom, Lactantius, Eusebius, and Cyril of Jerusalem. A number [pg 298] of grotesque opinions are collected from these writers, as though they could have any possible bearing on the question whether the followers of Jesus were able correctly to report what they saw and heard.
I submit therefore that the facts adduced utterly fail to establish the charge of intense superstition and credulity against the followers of Jesus. But I go further, and affirm that they furnish the means of giving a most conclusive proof of the contrary.
These quotations furnish us with a clear and conclusive proof, which is also furnished by the entire range of literature, that when writers are the prey of a definite class of superstitions, their pages will afford abundant evidence not only of their existence, but of their nature and character. This, of course, must be qualified by the supposition that the subject-matter on which they wrote is one suitable to call their latent superstitions into activity. This always happens when the works are of a religious character. In such cases they will faithfully reflect the superstitions entertained by their authors. This is pre-eminently the case with all the writings in question. They are all on religious subjects, on which they allowed their imaginations to run riot. They entertained a number of grotesque opinions, and accordingly we find in their writings a grotesque super-naturalism, exactly corresponding to the peculiar ideas of each individual writer. On the principle that “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh,” we may be quite certain that when an author is extremely credulous and superstitious, it will find expression in his pages whenever he is writing on a subject on which his imagination gives scope to exhibit them.
I put the argument as follows: all writers exhibit in their pages the superstitions to which they are a prey. [pg 299] The writers of the New Testament do not exhibit the superstitions in question. It follows therefore that from these particular superstitions they are free. Consequently the charge against them of intense superstition and credulity falls to the ground, as far as it rests on the evidence in question.
The amount of subject-matter in the New Testament which, independently of a general belief in miracles, the opponents of Christianity can designate as superstitious, is of a very limited and definite nature. It may be said to be almost exclusively confined to a belief in the reality of possession;—a few cases of disease occasioned by Satanic agency;—an occasional intervention of angels, and their power to act on nature;—and perhaps that demonology and heathenism were in some way connected with each other. This is the sum total of such beliefs which appear on the face of the New Testament. They appear in unequal degrees in the works of different writers; and viewing them as mere human compositions, we have no right to charge on one writer the beliefs of another. The book of Revelation, and its imagery as professedly merely seen in a vision, cannot fairly be introduced into this controversy.
If then we concede, for the sake of argument, that the Jews in the time of Christ were a prey to the extravagant superstitions referred to; if they believed that the whole course of nature and human life was incessantly interfered with by an army of spirits in numbers passing all comprehension, and that these interferences were of the most grotesque and phantastic character; if they universally believed in magic, charms and incantations, the non-appearance of such phenomena in the pages of the New Testament is a proof that its authors were not a prey to the current superstitions of [pg 300] the day. No inconsiderable number of supernatural events are recorded in their pages, but unbelief itself is compelled to admit that they are all of a dignified character, with perhaps the exception of the entrance of the demons into the swine, and the discovery of the piece of money in the mouth of the fish. From what is monstrous, grotesque and phantastic, they are absolutely free.
If it be conceded, for the sake of argument, that miracles are possible, then it cannot be denied that those of the New Testament, taken as a whole, stand out in marked contrast to the current supernaturalism of superstition. Their whole conception is lofty; there is in them nothing mean or contemptible; they subserve a great purpose; they are worthy of that great character to whom they are ascribed, Jesus Christ. I put the question boldly: how is it, if the followers of Jesus were a prey to the degrading superstitions above referred to, that we find no indications of them in their pages? Also: how is it possible that men of such a character should have invented such a number of noble creations? Let unbelievers account for this on any principle which a sound philosophy can recognise.
But further: the Gospels mention a certain number of possessions, and their cures effected by our Lord. Here then we are in the very presence of a demonology such as was actually believed in by the followers of Jesus. Here, therefore, is the very condition of mind and outward circumstances where, if they had been a prey to the phantastic and disgusting beliefs about demons above referred to, such beliefs would certainly have made their appearance in their pages. But, as I have shown, the demonology of the Gospels stands in marked contrast to that of the Talmud, of Josephus, and of the [pg 301] Christian Fathers. We have no fumigations of demoniacs with the liver of a fish, we hear nothing of a demon drawn out of a man's nose, and overturning a basin of water, nothing of a demon inhabiting every private closet. On the contrary, their action is described as mental, and, through the mind, affecting the body, with the exception of a few doubtful cases. I am not here arguing whether a belief in the reality of demoniacal possession is a superstition or not. But I affirm that if the writers of the New Testament had been a prey to the superstitions with which they are charged, these are the narratives in which they could not have failed to make their appearance. Again: It has been affirmed that they held a monstrous angelology. I reply that although angels are unquestionably stated to have appeared, and their existence is affirmed by the writers of the New Testament, still their recorded appearances are rare. They are confined to a few very remarkable occasions, viz.: the Annunciation and birth of our Lord, the temptation, the agony in the garden, and the resurrection. Surely this does not look as if the authors of the Gospels thought that they were always interfering with the course of nature or the events of life. In the Acts of the Apostles, they appear at the Ascension; once to liberate St. Peter, and at another time the Apostles, from prison; to direct Philip to preach to the eunuch; twice in a vision to St. Paul; and Herod Agrippa is also said to have been smitten by the ministry of an angel. There were certainly many occasions when, if the writers had believed in the habitual intervention of angels, we should have found them introduced. Thus an angel is not sent to deliver Paul from prison, or to still the tempest, but simply to assure him of his safety. St. Paul enumerates in a passage of some length the various dangers which beset [pg 302] him in his missions, especially mentioning the perils he encountered in travel. But neither he nor St. Luke once refers to an angelic intervention in his favour. In numerous passages he refers to dangers and persecutions which he encountered. But it is our Lord, and not angels, who delivered him. Is this consistent with a belief in their habitual intervention in nature? If he was the visionary which he has been asserted to have been, would he not have been continually seeing visions of angels for his protection?
In St. Paul's writings we are in the presence of documents which are in the highest degree historical. Even those who endeavour to prove that the Gospels and the Acts were not written until the second century, are obliged to allow that at least four of the most important of his letters were written within 30 years after the Crucifixion, and that the evidence that four of the remainder are his, vastly preponderates. Here then we are in the presence of historical documents of the highest order, compared with which such a writing as the book of Enoch is worthless, and the Talmud and the Fathers are modern compositions. What light then do these letters throw on the opinions of St. Paul and the Pauline Churches? Much every way: they let us into the secret of their inner life. They tell us that these Christians thought they possessed certain supernatural gifts; that St. Paul asserted that he wrought miracles; that demons by an invisible agency tempted men to sin, and opposed the progress of the Gospel; but beyond this there is scarcely a trace of angelology or demonology in them. With these epistles in our hands, is it credible that their writer, or those to whom he wrote, held a multitude of monstrous and phantastic beliefs on this subject? Are not these writings characterized by supreme good sense? Do [pg 303] they not in this point of view marvellously contrast even with those of the earliest Fathers? The writer undoubtedly believed that unseen spiritual agencies were capable of acting on the mind of man, and that they were active agents in the production of moral evil; but where is the evidence that he considered that external nature was under their control, or that they made themselves visible to the mortal eye? Although he affirms that he possessed a supernatural illumination on religious subjects, only on two occasions does he refer to visions as actually seen by him; and he directly affirms that he had the power of distinguishing the ecstatic from the ordinary condition of his mind. Even with the aid of the Acts of the Apostles, we can only add a few more to the number. Surely this is not the mental condition of a man who was a prey to unbounded superstition. Contrast the amount of good sense in the epistles of St. Paul with an equal number of consecutive pages from the Fathers and the Talmud, and the difference is enormous. Where are the ineffable puerilities found in these writings even hinted at in those of St. Paul?
Again: if we include in our examination the other writings of the New Testament, they wholly fail to supply us with any evidence of the superstition or credulity of their authors. On the contrary they are characterized by the marks of uniform good sense. It will be doubtless objected that they, as well as St. Paul, were bad logicians, and that their applications of the Old Testament Scriptures are inapt: but this does not affect their trustworthiness as historians. They were undoubtedly men of great religious fervour, yet they are both sparing in the use of miracles, and when they report them, the miraculous action is never represented as extending beyond the necessities of the [pg 304] case. Their miracles consist of simple acts, as for instance the cure of diseases, but all marvellous superadditions are wanting. It has been urged that in comparing the miracles of the Gospels with other miraculous narratives, we have no right to do more than compare the external miracle of the one with the external miracle of the other; as for instance a resurrection with a resurrection, or a cure of blindness recorded in one with a similar case recorded in another; and not to take into account either the external circumstances or the moral aspect of the miracle. I have elsewhere proved that this position is untenable. But for the purpose of the argument let us here assume that all the circumstances may be the invention of the narrator. If it be so, it proves at any rate the soundness of his judgment and the elevation of his ideas, i.e. that it is impossible that he could have been either intensely superstitious or credulous. How is it possible, I ask, for minds which were a prey to such monstrous beliefs as those which we have been considering, to have dramatized miraculous narratives of the elevated type of those contained in the Gospels? Would not all the circumstances with which they invested them be the counter-part of their own degraded conceptions?
But there is one most distinctive phenomenon presented by the Gospels which affords a conclusive proof that neither their authors nor the followers of Jesus could have been a prey to either degrading superstition or credulous fanaticism. I allude to the fact that, whatever theory may be propounded to account for their origin, the Gospels, as a matter of fact, unquestionably contain a delineation of the greatest of all characters, whether actual or ideal, that of Jesus Christ. I shall hereafter draw attention to the portraiture of this character for the purpose of proving that they are [pg 305] veritable historical documents. In this place I refer to it simply for the purpose of proving that their authors and those who invented the alleged fictions of which their contents consist, were possessed of a soundness of judgment which is wholly inconsistent with the truth of the assertion that they were a prey to boundless superstition or credulity.
For the purpose of the argument I must assume that this character is a fictitious one, because to assume that it is a delineation of an actual historical character, would be to take for granted the entire question at issue. If the Jesus of the Evangelists is an historical personage, there can be no doubt respecting the claims of the Gospel to be a divine revelation. But even if we make the assumption above mentioned, it is quite clear that those persons who invented the character, or who put it together out of the number of legendary stories floating about in the Church, must have been possessed of a sound judgment, and the highest appreciation of what was great and noble. The character we have before us, and it is confessedly the noblest which can be found either in history or fiction. The inventors, whoever they were, have succeeded in portraying a great harmonious whole. Such a character could only have been delineated by men possessed of sound discriminating judgment. The more the Gospels are depreciated as histories the more does this depreciation establish the credit of their authors as the successful delineators of an ideal character, to which they have succeeded in imparting a naturalness which men of the most exalted genius have mistaken for an historical reality. They must have been, therefore, consummate masters of the art of ideal delineation. The mental powers adequate to effect such results are those of high genius, to which in this case must have been added a very elevated conception [pg 306] of morality. Such mental qualities are never exhibited by men who are the prey of gross credulity and superstition. The great ideal delineations of poets have been only capable of being produced by the élite of the human race. On the other hand, if we assume that the character is a fictitious one, and its inventors men of the mental calibre which they are affirmed to have been by those against whom I am reasoning, it would have been inevitable that its proportions should be marred by the introduction into it of traits marked by meanness, puerility, and monstrosity.
In support of this assertion we have no occasion to appeal to theories but to facts. Happily antiquity has preserved to us several delineations of a mythical Jesus on which the inventors have stamped the most unmistakable impress of their own credulity and superstition. I need not say that I allude to the Apocryphal Gospels, the delineations of Jesus which they contain, and above all to their miraculous narratives. Those who reiterate these charges against the authors of the Canonical Gospels, are very slow to draw attention to their bearing on this portion of the argument. In the Apocryphal Gospels we are brought face to face with the legendary spirit exerting itself in the invention of miraculous stories. There can be no doubt that their authors were both extremely credulous and superstitious; and their miraculous narratives give us the precise measure of their credulity. There is every reason to believe that two of these compositions were written as early as the second century. What, I ask, is the general character of the miracles which they have attributed to Jesus? There can be only one answer. They are mean, ridiculous, degraded, burlesque, destitute of all trait of moral grandeur. If the authors of the four Gospels, or the inventors of their [pg 307] miraculous narratives, whoever they may have been, had been a prey to similar credulity and superstition, the marks of them would have been indelibly stamped on their pages.
These documents also contain accounts of miracles wrought by Jesus, some of which, as bare facts, are precisely the same as some recorded in the Canonical Gospels, i.e. they contain accounts of resurrections from the dead, and the cure of diseases. I ask, do their accompanying circumstances and moral aspect stand as nothing in our estimate of the credibility of their authors? Compare the account of the resurrection of Lazarus, or that of our Lord himself, with the resurrections in the Apocryphal Gospels, and mark the difference. Compare likewise the other miracles, which, as bare facts, resemble one another. The one have the stamp of historical probability, and precisely fit in with the lofty character of Jesus; the other of an unbelievable legend, in which the character is degraded to a level with the conceptions of the inventors.
Let not unbelievers, therefore, decline to grapple with the question. Let them cease to pass it over in silence. I propose to them the following questions for solution. If both sets of Gospels originated with minds intensely credulous and superstitious, whence has come the difference between them? Why is the one set of miracles dignified, and the other mean? Whence the entire difference of their moral aspect? Why is the Jesus of the Canonical Gospels the most elevated personage in history, and the Jesus of the Apocryphal ones, one of the most mean and silly? If two of the Apocryphal and the four Canonical Gospels are the production of the superstition and credulity of the same century, whence the marvellous contrast between them? Which of the Fathers of the second [pg 308] or third century was equal to the task of reducing a mass of floating legends, the creations of numbers of superstitious men, into their present form, as they stand in our Canonical Gospels? Would they not certainly have coloured the events with their own absurdities? If, on the other hand, it be allowed that the Canonical Gospels are the production of the first century, and the Apocryphal Gospels of subsequent ones, how came the credulous followers of Jesus to produce fictions dramatized with such admirable taste in the first century, and the same spirit in subsequent centuries to present so striking a contrast? The only possible answer which can be returned to these questions is that the phenomena of the Canonical Gospels are inconsistent with the supposition that their miraculous narratives are the invention of men who were the prey either of credulity or dense superstition; they must have been men well able to distinguish between a genuine miracle and a mythic parody of one.
But it has been urged that the dignified character of Jesus induced the compilers of our present Gospels to select all the miraculous stories of a high type which were current in the hotbed of Christian fanaticism, and to attribute them to Jesus, and to suppress all of a contrary description. If this be the true solution of the facts, then it certainly follows that the compilers of the Gospels must have been free from the superstitions of the times in which they lived. Otherwise, how came they to select all the elevated stories and attribute them to Jesus, and to consign those of a lower type to a well-merited oblivion? Is it not a fact that credulous and superstitious people have often attributed what is contemptible and mean to elevated characters? Let the Apocryphal Gospels bear witness. It follows, [pg 309] therefore, that even on this supposition the question must be decided in favour of the authors of our present Canonical Gospels, that they must have been free from the degraded superstitious to which their fellow-believers were a prey.
But there is yet another problem, even if we assume the above supposition to be true, which urgently demands solution. If, among the mass of legends with which the history of Jesus was incrusted, a certain portion of the miraculous stories were of an elevated type, who among His credulous and superstitious followers were the inventors of them? Were they men of like credulity with the remainder? There are only two alternatives. They were, or they were not. If they were, I ask, how came they to invent elevated stories? If they were not, then it follows that there were persons among His followers who were neither intensely credulous nor superstitious. If the latter be the alternative adopted, then the theory which I have been considering, which attributes to the followers of Jesus such a degree of those qualities as to render their historical testimony valueless, falls to the ground.
It follows, therefore, on a careful consideration of the position, that the data on which the charge which we have been considering is made against the followers of Jesus and the authors of the Gospels utterly fail to establish it; and that the phenomena of the New Testament prove the contrary to have been the fact.