A Christian apologetic

Front matter

DC

)KS'T

'OR

Chapter I Introductory

The subject of Apologetics is one with which the majority of Christians concern themselves only under protest. They are not interested in it ; it seems to them unattractive and lacking in inspiration. The very word, Apology, suggests an atmosphere of strife, argument and counter-argument ceaselessly battling around a theme suited rather to serene contemplation than to the turmoil of polemics. Hence it comes that the subject is relegated, as a rule, to the theological class-room ; it is regarded as one of those technical preparations for professional work, which has little to do with the more pressing problems of practical Christian life. And it must be confessed that, under these influences. Apologetics have become to a great extent formal and perfunctory, until dreariness of treatment goes far to justify the aversion which is commonly felt for the subject. Meanwhile, it is well to examine, a little more closely, the causes which have combined to produce so widespread an indifference,

A

It is certainly a humiliating confession, but probably mental and moral inertia have much to do with the unpopularity of Apologetics. It is hard work to examine the rational ground of one*'s religious convictions, to thresh out honestly the arguments for and against one's faith. And much unquestioning belief, as well as much soul-disturbing doubt, springs from no more dignified source than unwillingness to undergo the exertion incident to painstaking inquiry.

Others, again, who are not obnoxious to the charge of laziness, shrink from Apologetics because of a certain half-formulated fear. If an examination of evidence be instituted, is it not a little doubtful whither the process may ultimately lead? They believe now, asking no questions ; but they are aware that many objections to Christianity have been raised, and that these have been accounted cogent by men of distinguished intelligence. Were it not rashness, then, to embark on so problematical a venture ? It is not always easy to characterise this mood justly; according to circumstances, it may signify cowardice, or simply prudence. To tremble before the possible verdict of facts may easily pass into conscious insincerity ; but, on the other hand, no one is under obligation to expose himself to danger unnecessarily. The plain man may easily be fooled by specious arguments ; is it not

Introductory 3

wiser for him to eschew all discussion, and trust implicitly the decision of such experts as he may choose? Undoubtedly there is a certain validity in this plea, and many must act thus. But, after all, such reasoning more or less begs the question. Experts are divided — how guarantee that a man shall choose wisely between them ? Thus we are brought back to the point at which we started. The moment that a man is confronted with the Apologetic problem, he must face it to the best of his ability. If it be only in the decision as to which guide he is to follow, he must determine this rationally, in view of what appears to him good evidence. And this is to develop an Apologetic.

But far removed from these lower motives of laziness and fear, there are subtle spiritual forces arrayed against an enthusiastic appreciation of Apologetics. The man whose whole energy is engrossed in constructive work along lines of spiritual certitude, not unnaturally feels something of impatience at the thought of going back once more to the beginning, and marshalling the purely logical arguments which clear the ground for the structure of faith. It may be that there are many gaps in the intellectual process whereby he has arrived at his convictions; but, having reached the vantage-ground of assurance, and tested the strength of his position by experience, why waste time in perfecting what is no longer essential to the integrity of his religious life? There is force in this argument ; but at least one important consideration would seem to be ignored. The Apostolic injunction must be reckoned with, ''Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear."^ These words are significant, as opening up a whole realm of social obligation. Even though we be satisfied, we have not fulfilled our religious duty until we have done all that in us lies to give satisfaction to our fellows. The "reason of the hope that is in us" is at least one of the opportunities offered for exercising an influence on the belief of our brother. Undoubtedly we exert such an influence by the mere fact of our own effective and triumphant faith. Often this is the most convincing argument which we can bring to bear in the interests of religion. But there are minds, with a predominant craving for intellectual enlightenment, which demand a different kind of help. The law of charity prompts that we offer this help, even though we deem that for ourselves the need of formulated Apologetics is outgrown.

But, while treating the mystical plea — that spiritual advance renders logical argument unnecessary — with all respect, one is haunted by the 1 1 Peter iii. 15.

Introductory 5

suspicion that, even as regards the individual himself, it were best not to press the claim too closely. Clear reasoning is always a healthy antidote to vagaries of the imagination. Sometimes those far advanced in holiness need the medicine. The most exalted of saints will not be less spiritual for a little plodding in the prosaic fields of critical investigation. Exceeding reverence for Jacts is an emotion which cannot be too often stimulated, for it is intimately allied with the loftiest virtues of sincerity and honesty. Hard labour in establishing the rational grounds which justify our assuming the attitude of faith at all must prove tonic in its effect. Many things which do not directly subserve spiritual edification, yet induce an earnestness of temper, a gentleness and humility, upon which all large spiritual results are conditional. Apologetics ought not, then, to be regarded as something which the mass of Christians are at liberty to neglect. Whether we are instinctively drawn to this line of thought is of secondary moment; our duty is plain — we are bound by every interest of our own spiritual development, as well as by the law of charity, to acquaint ourselves with the strongest arguments which can be adduced in defence of the Faith.

But the moment that we attempt to formulate any general system of Apology, we are met by a new difficulty. Every man needs a different

Apologetic. The force of an argument varies with the idiosyncrasy of the individual. Temperament, education, character, all go to determine shades of susceptibility to truth. To one who is keenly alive to nice logical distinctions, an argument will wear a very different face from that w^hich it presents to the man who is open only to obvious and more or less coarse contrasts. The scholar's difficulties will have no meaning to the man in the street; and the objections of the latter will in turn seem trivial to the keener insight of more comprehensive knowledge. Arguments against Christianity, which range from the subtlest metaphysical speculations, and the most abstruse points of literary criticism, to the crass tirades of the popular lecturer, cannot be met by one and the same method of defence. In just so far as a system of Apologetics seeks to cover the whole field, and meet all possible objections, will it probably lose in convincing power. The ring of reality will be wanting wherever the apologist does not himself feel the full force of the opposing argument. And, as the strength of a chain depends on its weakest link, so a really strong appeal w ill be rendered ineffective, if, for the sake of thoroughness, it is made to include anything approaching a logical tour de force. It is better, therefore, as far as practical helpfulness is concerned, not to attempt too exhaustive a treatment, but to allow free play to the personal

Introductory 7

equation. The vitality and intensity thus imported into the argument will more than compensate for what is lost in the way of comprehensiveness.

This must serve as excuse, if any be needed, for the method adopted in the following pages. No attempt has been made to adapt the defence to all possible lines of attack. The traditional divisions of the subject have been largely ignored. Many well-worn arguments have been abandoned, not necessarily as unsound, but because they have failed to appeal to the writer as having weight in view of the special exigencies of the present day. Nothing, indeed, has been included, which has not personally been put to the proof, and found efficacious in practical dealing with unbelief. Imperfect as the treatment may be in detail, it is hoped that the main outline of the argument will prove suggestive as a useful mode of approach to the well-nigh inexhaustible theme of Christian Evidences.

Chapter II

A NUMBER of questions press for settlement before we can proceed to formulate any Apologetic argument. First in importance is that which concerns the nature of the proof which we may hope to establish. Do we account it within the reach of Apology to demonstrate the validity of the Christian claim in such fashion that a reasonable man must believe? Or, on the other hand, are we to accept the more modest role of those who only seek to establish a probability? This distinction is of vital significance; to be in any doubt concerning it is to introduce hopeless confusion into our reasoning.

Moreover, it is of prime moment that we should understand clearly just what it is that we desire to prove. Vagueness, here again, spells sure disaster. It may seem, indeed, almost an impertinence to raise this question with reference to our present subject. Does not the very term, Apologetics, connote a definite line of inquiry and a self-evident purpose ? But this superficial simplicity yields at the touch of analysis, and we discover beneath it the possibility of widely varying aims. As a matter of fact, the impotence of much Apologetic literature is due to the indeterminateness of its reasoning. The argument fluctuates, now making for one goal and now for another, with the inevitable result that it finally arrives nowhere. For instance, what is the Christian apologist to take for granted ? Shall he traverse the whole ground of the theistic position, and vindicate the truth against the aberrations of materialism and pantheism ; or shall he assume the facts of natural religion, and only seek to defend the special claims put forward by the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Either procedure may be legitimate, but it conduces to clearness of thought to state which alternative is to be adopted. If the latter be the course chosen, it still remains to decide definitely what that Christianity is which we purpose to defend. Does it include any formulated system of theology.? What is its relation to popular notions of inspiration, of miracles, of ecclesiastical polity ? Can we, for Apologetic purposes, distinguish between what we may term essential Christianity and secondary truths, between premises and deductions from those premises.?

Enough has been said to show that it is the part of wisdom to decide clearly on the path along which we propose to travel, and not set forth too hastily on an adventurous enterprise.

Many a logical disaster might have been averted by the simple precaution of defining aim and purpose accurately before plunging into the thick of argument.

In the first place, then, it should be stated that the argument of the present volume assumes that there is a God. The witness of conscience and reason to this truth is generally recognised by the best thought of the present day. And even amidst the coarser forms of unbelief an avowed atheism is rare. The popular mood is not that of dogmatic denial, but rather that of a vague and questioning agnosticism. If there be a God, can we know Him ? Has He revealed Himself.? Are there valid reasons for attributing to Him a moral nature, as we understand the word moral ? Our approach to these questions will be indirect. It is believed that an answer to them will be found, by implication, in the following pages ; but they do not constitute the guiding clue in our special line of investigation.

The end which we explicitly have in view, is to vindicate the reasonableness of the belief that Jesus Christ is the supreme revelation of the living God. By supreme is meant adequate and final, in the sense that the revelation is all-sufficient for the religious needs of men. And while we hold that the abundant riches of His Person will ever find fuller and fuller recognition, as the Spirit guides the Church into all truth, and that thus the Christian revelation is progressive, yet we maintain that the Gospel is not merely relatively, but absolutely, the best gift of God to man.

There is a sentiment widely current that the man who accepts the authority of Jesus Christ as divine is in a precarious position so far as reason is concerned ; that, if he believes, he does so at the expense of his intelligence. This is constantly implied in much of the scientific and philosophical literature of the day, and finds more popular expression in the problem-novel and realistic drama. It is, moreover, the premise on which multitudes, who have drifted into religious indifferentism, erect their practical philosophy of life. And even within the Church it is all too common ; many Christians are secretly filled with amaze at the signs of the times, and feel that they can but cling desperately to their faith, in spite of reason. This mood becomes articulate in the shibboleth " don'^t think," which is the watchword of intellectual despair not infrequently heard on the lips of religious reactionaries. Now, it is against this phase of modern infidelity that our argument arrays itself. It seeks to prove that, however difficult it may be to believe, it is from the point of view of reason at least equally difficult to disbelieve. These difficulties may thus be found to neutralise each other, and leave the soul free to exercise its own distinctive powers in the discernment of spiritual things.

But in seeking to prove that it is reasonable to believe, we do not take upon ourselves the task of presenting an irrefragable demonstration. There is a curious vagueness in most minds as to the exact degree of conclusiveness which may justly be demanded of Christian Evidences. And this vagueness may work serious detriment to the apologist. Many excellent arguments are spoiled by claiming too much. We are carried along by a sound logic, feel its force, and are sympathetically open to conviction, when suddenly an unqualified conclusion is drawn which arouses to instant revolt every instinct of fair play within us. This has been perhaps the besetting weakness of Apologetic literature. Spiritual things, from their very nature, are not to be demonstrated by any purely intellectual process. The most that reason can do is to clear the ground ; its function is only indirect in generating belief. And even as regards those outward facts which are most closely related to spiritual truth, the claim to establish them beyond a peradventure is futile. Take as an illustration the central fact recorded in the Gospels, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. The historic reality of this fact not only has not been proved, but it is manifestly impossible that it should be proved, in such sense as would warrant us in applying the word, demonstration, to the argument. This holds true of every historic fact, though the amount of evidence required to produce conviction in a given case varies with the practical consequences involved. If such fact is of little present moment in the affairs of men, slight proof suffices. As its implications grow more serious, its establishment as a fact becomes proportionately more difficult ; at least, stronger and more patent arguments are requisite to that end. In the case of a fact replete with the most momentous consequences, like that of the Resurrection, it is doubtful whether any mere logical process can establish its certainty so as to compel acknowledgment on the part of all truth-loving men. The most that we can hope is so to marshal the evidence that a reasonable probability shall be established, and thus, the question being lifted above the entanglements of the understanding, spiritual considerations may legitimately turn the scale in favour of belief. But to adopt the slightest arrogance of tone, boasting of certainty when, in fact, our logical achievement is of a humbler order, is wantonly to undermine the force of the most careful reasoning, and to discredit our cause with all who think clearly.

Some will doubtless argue that this admission tends to rob Apologetics of all practical effectiveness. Religion, they will say, must be based on certitude, probabilities can never stir the enthusiasm of the heart. This is true; but the certitude is that of faith, and not of intellectual demonstration. And if it seem a small thing to increase the weight of a probability, let it be remembered by what shght and impalpable movements the spirit is determined toward belief or unbelief.

Walter Pater, in commenting on a well-known character in fiction, draws a subtle picture of the influence of nice differences of temperament : " Robert Elsmere was a type of a large class of minds which cannot be sure that the sacred story is true. It is philosophical, doubtless, and a duty to the intellect to recognise our doubts, to locate them, perhaps to give them practical effect. It may be also a moral duty to do this. But then there is also a large class of minds which cannot be sure it is false — minds of very various decrees of conscientiousness and intellectual power, up to the highest. They will think those who are quite sure it is false unphilosophical through lack of doubt. For their part, they make allowance in their scheme of life for a great possibility, and with some of them that bare concession of possibility (the subject of it being what it is) becomes the most important fact in the world. The recognition of it straightway opens wide the door to hope and love; and such persons are, as we fancy they always will be, the nucleus of a Church. Their particular phase of doubt, of philosophic uncertainty, has been the secret of millions of good Christians, multitudes of worthy priests. They knit themselves to believers, in various degrees, of all ages.'"* ^ If there be truth in this delicate analysis, then to establish a probability may prove a mighty accomplishment in the interests of faith.

We have stated that our single aim is to prove the reasonableness of believing that Jesus Christ is the supreme revelation of God. We do not seek, however, to establish any theological propositions, by way of inference, from that revelation. In saying that Jesus Christ is the revelation of God, we certainly imply that He is divine. But any exact doctrinal definition of the divinity of Christ lies beyond the proper scope of Apologetics. We are concerned with a question prior to all theological developments, namely : Is there reasonable ground in the recorded life of Jesus Christ for the building up of any theology whatsoever.? Nor are we directly interested in substantiating any special theory of inspiration. It is enough for our immediate purpose if the Scripture may be relied upon as giving trustworthy testimony concerning the life and character of Jesus Christ. The exigencies of our argument, indeed, require us to propound

1 "Essays from the Guardian," by Walter Pater, p. 73.

16 A Cliristian Ai^ologetic

tentatively certain views concern in or the miraculous element which enters into Christianity, but these are entirely subsidiary and incidental. Our interest centres solely in the fact of the divine-human life of Jesus Christ, and the validity of His claim to our whole-hearted allegiance.

It may help us if we bear in mind an analogy draw^n from the tactics of earthly warfare. It is good policy, when the battle is hot, to concentrate one's forces around the citadel. If the line of defence be stretched rashly, the ground cannot be as well covered, and a vigorous attack on the part of the foe may find the base of supplies exposed, and the vital centre of the whole struggle unguarded. Apology is warfare. The truth dear to us is threatened ; we would fain defend it. It is as important that the defence should be conducted with intelligence as that we should fight valorously. The essential truth of the Gospel is the citadel ; until we have made that quite safe we will not suffer our attention to be diverted, or our forces scattered, by any feint of the foe to capture an outpost. ^Ve would not impute disingenuousness of motive, but certain it is that the antagonists of Christianity seem always quick to seize the opportunity of obscuring the main issue by raising a cloud of dust on the outskirts of the field. INIr. Huxley's trenchant attack, in his controversy with Dr. Wace, on the credibility of the miracle wrouo^ht on the Gadarene demoniacs, is a case in point. His avowed aim was to make the whole question of the truth of the Gospel narrative hinge on a physiological theory. And while the details of such secondary questions are made the subject of lively debate, it is quietly assumed by the rationalistic objector that no stronger arguments than those under immediate discussion are available for the defence of the Christian position. Of course, in this particular instance, Mr. Huxley maintained that demoniacal possession is so intimately inwrought with the whole structure of the Gospels that, with it, their general trustworthiness must stand or fall, and that, therefore, his mode of attack was amply justified. But it is just this contention that we deny. If it could be proved that the writers of the New Testament were mistaken in their diagnosis of certain diseases, and that they represented their Master as sharing in their ignorance, this would not necessarily impair the soundness of their testimony concerning the moral and spiritual character of Jesus Christ and His teaching. Therefore, to pour scorn and ridicule on one incident recorded in the Scripture narrative, while it may be clever polemic, is absolutely worthless as an argument against the divine claim of the Gospel. We must resolutely decline to be entrapped by any such device. There will be time enough to debate concerning details when we have thoroughly settled the more important question upon which the significance and interest of the details depend. There is only one question essential to the integrity of Christianity : AVas Jesus Christ divine ? That a man who respects reason and obeys its dictates can believe that He was, is the thesis which we are interested to prove.

Chapter III Apologetics In The Light Of Modern Thought

A NICE discernment is needed if we are to adjust wisely the relative claims of past and present modes of thought. It is easy to err, either on the side of undue sympathy with the spirit of the age, or on that of reactionary protest; but to rise to a truly catholic judgment is hard.

We are all familiar with that provincial type of mind which reasons as though there were a kind of finality in modern scientific enlightenment, and the intellectual acquisitions of the past were discredited. But over against this exaggeration stands another, which more particularly threatens the religious temperament. Deference for the past is wise, but when it breeds indifference or suspicion toward the great currents of present-day thought, it easily degenerates into a gross superstition. Not infrequently an amazing dishonour is thus done to God in the name of religion. He is, in effect, banished to a remote period of history, and the tokens of His presence are sought for diligently in ancient records and far-ofF events. Meanwhile, all the profoundest movements of contemporary life are accounted secular, save as they dimly reflect the light of former revelations, when God vouchsafed a more immediate knowledge of Himself. It matters little, whether with Protestant prejudice we confine this revelation narrowly to Scriptural events, or, with wider ecclesiastical horizon, include the so-called ages of faith. Any sympathetic understanding of the past is bought too dearly if it sap the enthusiasm of our interest in the present revelation of the living God. We have no warrant for believing that any time was ever more sacred than the present, any spot holier than that whereon we stand — if only our eye be enlightened to behold the vision, our ear unstopped to hear the word of God.

The bearing of this truth on Apologetics is obvious. Not only must we, for practical reasons, adjust our method to the special needs of the time, or else fail utterly in the one purpose which we have in view, but, in the more searching criticism to which the credentials of Christianity are subjected in these latter days, we are to see a providential leading of God. Individual critics may, or may not, be actuated by w^orthy motives; but the mighty movement of which they are representative has divine meaning, and is pregnant with spiritual consequences. Not grudgingly, but eagerly and reverently, should we seek to adapt our argument to the special exigencies of modern thought. It is true, that in studying the attacks of unbelief from the earliest Christian centuries down to the present day, we discover once and again similarities which tempt us to exclaim — it is the same old story always. But while certain broad lines of objection abide, the accent with which they are uttered is shifted ; and, to a great extent, the development of the scientific and critical method within the last century has completely revolutionised the whole aspect of the controversy.

If one were asked to name the most valuable contribution of the nineteenth century to the world's thought, it surely would not be far wide of the mark to answer — the inductive method. Of course, induction is no new thing. It is only necessary to define the word to discover that it is not only the scientific, but the common - sense mode of increasing knowledge. It has been practised in all ages and by all men in their ordinary processes of thinking. And yet we are not wrong in claiming that induction is distinctive of the thought of the last hundred years ; for, during that period, it has been applied to well-nigh all fields of research, with a thoroughness quite unparalleled before, and has produced astonishing results, both theoretical and practical.

So simple and so manifestly rational is the method, that we are left to wonder that the world waited so long before using it in systematic fashion for the discovery of truth. To define the method in briefest terms — it consists in the accumulation of facts, the classification of facts, and in generalisation, or the inference of universal law^s from the facts thus classified. It is hardly necessary to point out that the inference from an indefinite number of facts cannot be an absolute universal. But by this method we establish a probable universal, or working hypothesis, which can in turn be indefinitely verified by further observation, until it is practically proved to be an unvarying law. The assumption that, because this is pre-eminently the method of science, it must needs be strictly limited in its application, is ill-considered. It is hard to see why its application should not be as wide as the domain of facts ; though, by this, we do not mean that it is the only legitimate method of reasoning. The charge is sometimes brought against theologians that they deny its validity as applied to the phenomena of religion, and that they prefer to assume premises arbitrarily, and thence deduce facts according to their inclination or convenience. But if there be any colour of reality in this contention, it is certainly due quite as much to the narrow construction which the scientific mind puts on the inductive method, as to the dogmatism of the theologian. Very inadequate views as to the exact nature and significance of that method are widely prevalent. Its metaphysical implications are disregarded, and the facts deemed worthy of investigation are confined within absurdly restricted lines.

There are certain postulates upon which any process of induction must rest, and these ought to be recognised clearly. Moreover, these postulates vary with the class of facts under consideration. However the truth may be ignored or disguised, it still remains undeniable that, for the scientific investigation of the simplest material phenomena, we must assume that the universe is essentially rational. Unless one is to adopt the attitude of a pure, subjective idealism — a course which presumably will not appeal to the scientific temper of the day — there must be an outward order corresponding to the categories of our own mind ; otherwise, there could be no classification of facts, or inference establishing general laws. In application to moral facts, the analogous postulate, that the universe is essentially moral, is requisite. By this we mean that there are moral laws discernible, which are just as inevitable and as universal as the physical laws in accord with which the material world is governed. The moralist must not be blamed — as though he were hostile to the inductive method — if he protests against any juggling with the meaning of

24 A Christian Ajyologetic

the word moral. He has no choice but to set himself irreconcilably against any derivation of the moral ideal from the necessities of material existence, or mere considerations of social expediency. Here the real question at issue is, not whether a certain method of investioration is applicable to a certain class of facts, but whether there is ground for regarding the facts themselves as forming an independent class. It were a misnomer to speak of the inductive study of morals, without making the postulate that there is an eternal distinction between right and wrong. Similarly, as regards induction in the spiritual sphere, the requisite postulate is that the universe is essentially spiritual. If there are no spiritual facts, then the whole question as to applying induction to them falls. But if there are such facts, then in any attempt to classify them and arrive at a knowledge of general laws, we are obliged to assume the existence of a spiritual world, an ordered domain where love reigns supreme ; for this alone can justify scientific inquiry.