The evidences of Christianity

Front matter

^^^^■ Ij i j i I III II II I III I .

f tH2i

WITH AN INTRODUCTION ov

Preface

It is now fifteen years since I commenced to give lectures on the Evidences of Christianity to the Senior class of Madison University. These have so grown in extent as to render it impossible for the student to copy all of them in the time allotted to the study. This fact haa led me to think of putting them into a permanent form.

A few words with regard to the method and design of the work may not be out of place. Its governing idea iSj that Christianity is its own witness. The nature of Christianity, its influence, its relations to Divine Providence and to human progress, and its historical triumphs, constitute the best evidence of its divine origin. This method seemed philosophical, since all the great lines of evidence are wrought into the fabric of our faith, or touch some of the many aspects of human life and history. It is only the sacred records which need the aid of strictly external evidence. Here I have limited myself to an examination of the historical character of the New Testament. Very many questions of interest and

▼I PREFACE.

of importance are left untouched. These belong, however, to the province of biblical criticism, rather than to the field of Christian apology.

This method will, if carried out with a fair degree of success, help the student to gain a conception of the Christian religion in its unity and in its totality. I cannot but regard this object as of the highest moment. A man is hardly well educated who does not understand the religion of the civilized world. To this class, more than to any other, Christianity ought to be presented freed from the misconceptions of its friends, and from the perversions of its enemies.

My aim has been to present Christianity as accepted by the representatives of the Protestant faith. How far I have done so, does not become me to affirm. But every teacher can alter or omit any portion which he may deem defective in this respect.

I have added an introduction on the existence of God, and on the immortality of the soul. I have done this because doubt, at the present day, so often roots itself in a weak apprehension of the personality of God, and in a serious misgiving in relation to the conscious life of the soul hereafter.

It has been my desire to bring the work within reasonable limits. It may be that, here and there, I have been too brief, but I did not wish to preclude the necessity of an oral or written lecture by the teacher, or of

PREFACE. VU

an essay by his pupil, nor did I desire to supersede

the practice of a discussion in the recitation-room. Still, I hope the style is throughout clear and direct.

While I may venture to claim for the work some degree of superiority over others, as a text-book, I would yet express my high appreciation of the merits of those great apologetic works which adorn the English literature.

I take this occasion to acknowledge my obligations to my colleague, Dr. Arnold, for his valuable aid in examining and correcting the proof-sheets, and for the Index to the work which he has prepared.

If this volume shall prove of any service to the youth of my country, and to the ministry of '*Ay Lord, I shall be amply rewarded.

B. DODGB.

CHBISTIANITY A DIVINE DOCTBINE.

SECTION I.— The Idea of Christian Doctrine, .... 125 SECTION II.— The Doctrinal Aspects of Christianitt, . . 131

Chapter V. Chbistianity A Divine Law

SECTION I.— The Nbcessitt of an Authoritative Standard, . 14S SECTION II.— Christianity the Ideal of Human Life, ... 160

CONTENTS, XI

CHAPTEE VI.

CHRISTIANITY A DIVINE KINGDOM,

SECTION I. — The Idea of a Christian Church, .... 161 SECTION n.— The Value OF THE CHRisTiAir Ghubch, ... 174

CHAPTEE VII.

CHBI8TIANITY A FULFILMENT.

SECTION I.— The Ethnic Prepaeatiok, ••••.. 188 SECTION II.— The Jewish Prepabation, •••••• 192

CHAPTEE VIII.

CHBISTIANITY A WOBLD-POWEB.

SECTION I.— Its Adaptation to Humanitt, • . • • . 2Q(> SECTION II.— Its Historical Triumphs, .••••• 21' SECTION III.— Chbistdinitt a Fihalitt. • • a • • • 281

INTRODDCTIOJI.

/. TEE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

At the outset, two seemingly opposing opinions forca themselves on our attention. Thej maj be stated thus : The existence of God cannot be proved : the existence of God need not be proved. These statements are, however, diverse only in form. They in fact mutually correct and explain each other. The logical proof is inadequate without a sense of the divine ; and the religious instinct needs to be met and to be satisfied by the revelations of nature and of history.

Following the method here suggested, we are, first of all, to show that man has a religious nature, — that the soul was made for God. We shall then be prepared to consider how far his inborn spiritual tendencies and cravings have been responded to in the signs and in the symbols of an Infinite Living Presence.

The most direct means we have of determining the original nature and destination of the soul is to appeal to man's primary consciousness, — to that consciousness which is remote from whatever is merely individual, local, or national, but which underlies all human thinking and feeling.

The analysis of that consciousness gives us the sense of absolute dependence. Here the law of necessity finds

xm

Xrv EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY

expression. This feeling rises with the dawn of our conscious life, and grows with our growth. We know that none of the life-forces which make up our being have theii source in ourselves. We learn^ too. that their home is beyond our reach and our control. This consciousness of absolute dependence finds expression in the poetry and in the philosophy of every people, as truly as in the more common utterances of prayer and of praise. Some form of worship is natural to man.

In this analysis we find, also, the feeling of supreme obligation. Here the law of liberty is revealed in our nature. This feeling carries with it an authority independent of all human legislation. It transcends in its imperatives the demands of passion or of interest. It can neither be annulled nor outgrown. No education, domestic or scholastic, can efface the idea of the right. All simple axiomatic principles of rectitude are intuitively recognized by all men, however they may differ when they come to ap ply them.

Again : our primary consciousness reveals to us anothei element ; namely, a love for the good. Its lowest expression is found in our instinctive desire for happiness ; and its highest manifestation is given in the spiritual longings and aspirations of the soul. Limited and defeated liore, we are ever turning, in our best moods, to an invisible world, where we hope to realize the ideal of a perfect human life ; where fellowship with the transient and the partial shall give place to a union with the source and ground of all that is true and good.

We need not carry the analysis further. These facts of our common consciousness have a profoundly religious significance. The first points to ajfower above us, abso-

INTRODUCTION. XV

lute and complete. The second indicates an authority over los, supreme and perfect. The third points to a goal he/ore us, final and ultimate. Now the power on which we depend, and the authoHtj to which we owe allegiance, and the goal for which we strive, can find their synthesis onlj in a living personal God.

All this is apparent from the fact that these springs of action are the great regnant principles of our lives. Thej must then have corresponding realities out of and above ourselves, else the root of our nature is a lie. And, as the J centre in a self-conscious soul, so the verities which the J indicate must centre in a self-conscious God. Were this not the case, there would be disharmony within us and discord without us. Thus, a profound psychology must involve a true theology. The consciousness of a finite selfhood must find its counterpart and so its meaning in the consciousness of an infinite selfhood. The soul is the enigma and God is the solution.

This general view is confirmed when we look at thf representative men of the race : for the men who have varied least from the idea and the law of their species best reveal human nature. We are not to go to the fore most men of any special class, — to scholars, poets, oi philosophers, — to learn what that nature is, but to the great chiefs of humanity. These best embody the ideal of a truly human character and a truly human life. Now it will be found that manhood has not suffered by faith in a personal God. The more truly religious a man is, the loftier is his general character and the more perfect is his humanity. We need here only allude to the Child of the race, whom the doubter and the believer alike admit to have been the noblest and purest of all that have ever trod

XVI EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

the earth. Now, he was not the head of a class, for character is before genius and before learning ; nor was he the mere light of any age, or the mere leader of anj peo pie, but the Saviour and the Guide of the entire race. But this personage was the representative of humanity^ in that he was the most religious of mortals.

Thus, whether we examine our common consciousness, or read the inner life of the noblest and best of our race, we come to the same conclusion, that man is a religious being. The model man is the truly religious man. The view here presented has not the suspicion of novelty. Cicero, in his work, '' De Natura Deorum," says that the idea of divinity is innate. ^' Omnibus enim innatum est et in animo quasi insculptum, esse Deos." Descartes declared that the idea of God could not have been originated by ourselves, nor have come from without, and so must have been implanted in our natures by God himself

This mode of statement is, in many respects, faulty and the doctrine of innate ideas is now exploded; but there underlies this view the undeniable truth that man, by virtue of his innate susceptibility and inborn spiritual tendencies, does instinctively turn toward God.

The question then presents itself, is man's nature met and satisfied, or have we a worshipper without a sanctuary and without a God ? Can this self-conscious and self-determining mind find its own infinite counterpart? Is its cry in the solitude of eternity answered only by a vain and empty echo ? Must man be thus left forever incomplete ? It cannot be so. Starting, then, with this assurance, we are prepared to examine the usually received pi oofs cf the divine existence.

The Historical Proof. — The belief in a sup-^rhuman

INTRODUCTION. XVII

intelligence is held by all nations. Its universality can be accounted for most easily on the supposition that such a being does in fact exist. But, as there have been very general beliefs without any foundation at all, the real value of this proof must rest on the view we have taken of man as a religious being. His character will then explain and justify his creed. This common belief was noticed by the ancients. Cicero, who compiled largely from the Greek philosophers, and so represented the current opinions among the learned of his times, says, in the vork above alluded to: " Non institute aliquo aut more, iut lege sit opinio constituto maneat que, ad unum omnium firma consentio . . . Esse Decs." This view of the Roman orator and philosopher is now generally accepted.

It has been objected, however, that travellers have found bribes without any idea of God whatever. But such supposed cases have been very rare. The idea of some superhuman authority has maintained itself in the midst of great degradation and barbarism. The exceptional cases rest on doubtful testimony. If there are such, they are found where the moral and social nature has so suffered that an abnormal development has followed. Such tribes have no government and no institutions. They herd together and live together like the brutes. Their rational and moral perceptions have experienced a partial obscuration, — for a time even a total eclipse. As the Great Teacher declared, '' If the light within thee be darkness, how great is that darkness." We are to remember that the instincts of rational creatures are subject to greater variations than the instincts of the brutes : in short, that they are more or less under the law of moral develop' ment.

XVin EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY,

But how, it may be asked, shall we account for the Pantheistic and Polytheistic ideas which prevail so widelj? in the Eastern world ? We have classed them together, because thej are logically and historically connected. Both spring from one and the same root, namely, the estrangement of man from a personal communion with his Maker and ihe substitution of nature in his place. With the one, the life of the universe is the life of God. All living forms are only the transient waves of the infinite sea of existence. The Pantheist has lost all sense of God as a living person, and substituted instead his conception of nature as a whole, and deified his own abstraction. He has exchanged the unity of life for the unity of death. He has made an idol of his own generalization.

But, with the Polytheist, the various forces and agencies of the universe are so many veritable deities. In the place of one personal God, he puts the symbols of the philosophers and the personifications of the poets, or those agencies of nature which throng and press him on every side. The one divine light is thus broken into many colors by the media of his own selfish hopes and slavish fears. He, too, must have his idols ; but they must be brought down to the low level of his thoughts. The Pantheist sinks the living God in the idea of an unknown, impersonal force, infinite and eternal ; while tlie Polytheist divides the infinitude of God, and loses his personal unity in the very modes of the divine activity. There is, then, no real difficulty in these diverse but related types of thinking. As we have said, we have here an instance of the fact that man's moral judgments are not as fixed or as unerring as the instincts of the brutes. Though they can never be made to affirm that there is no God, yet they

INTRODUCTION. XtX

may greatly misapprehend his character and his relation to tJie universe. The difference, then, between the Polytlieist and the Pantheist is simply that of culture. The Brahman priest is a Pantheist, while the ignorant devotee is a Polytheist.

Besides, there is no evidence that the race emerged from Polytheism into the Monotheistic faith. Miiller, in his work on the Vedic Literature, says : " There is a Monotheism that precedes the Polytheism of the Veda; and even in the invocation of their innumerable gods, the remembrance of a God, one and infinite, breaks through the mists of an idolatrous phraseology, like the blue sky that is hidden by passing clouds." So, also, Creuzer, in his great work on symbolism and mythology.

The Outological Proof. — This has always been a favorite argument with speculative thinkers. Anselm was* the first who gave it a formal statement. We give hi? own words: God is " aliquid quo nihil majus cogitari potest. Id quo majus cogitari nequit, non potest esse ir intellectu solo. Existit ergo procul dubio aliquid, quo majus cogitari non valet, in intellectu et in re."'

We may render this argument into the following syllogism. Our idea of the most perfect being is our idea of God. Necessary existence is an element in our idea of absolute perfection. Therefore God necessarily exists. But the conclusion is not warranted by the premises. The only logical conclusion is this : therefore necessary existence is an essential element in our idea of God. We are still in the ideal world. We have only gained this lofty conceijtlon of the Deity, namely, that it belongs to the very nature of God to be, and not to become. We can only conclude that if God does exist, he exists in his cvfr]

XX EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

right and by virtue of his own nature. We are prepared to accept Jehovah's designation of himself, "I am that I am," as the profoundest which has ever been given. But we cannot infer from the bare conception of such a Being — though the conception may be complete — his objective existence. If the idea of a perfect Being were as necessary to our minds as the notion of self-existence is necessary to the idea of perfection, then Anselm's argument would be irresistible. But only that subjective thought or apprehension whose denial in the light of experience is inconseivable carries with it the pledge of the objective reality 3f its contents. An ideal conception, which we are free to form or not, however lofty it may be, can only give us ideal perfection.

The idea of the infinite is, however, a necessity of human thought. The sense of the infinite rises in strength and clearness with the growth of the soul. It is, however, rather a feeling than a complete intellectual perception.

It accompanies every notion of the finite. We may gather the field of consciousness and bind the harvest in logical bundles ; but yet there will be gleanings on that field richer than all our harvestings. Thus, the feeling of the infinite recurring so often and along so many different lines of thought is, however vague it may be, one of the roots of our idea of God. It compels us to ascribe the attribute of infinitude to the Being whom our nature demands, and whom the universe reveals.

The objection does not avail that the idea is purely negative. This does not accord with our consciousness. The soul, in expressing its belief in the infinite, makes its broadest affirmation. It does not simply deny all limitations, but affirms the unlimited ground of all that is

INTRODUCTION. XXI

limited. The word infinite is not, in our Tocabulary, a synonym for the non-existence of the finite. We have preferred to use the word "sense" rather than the term *''idea" in this connection. For the feeling of the preseace of that which is infinite, rather than any definite conception, seems to belong to all our highest modes of thought.

This proof, then, stripped of all its defects in statement, is of great value. It completes all the others. It necessitates and so justifies us in taking the last step from the finite to the infinite. It points to a goal to be reached in all our argumentation on the divine existence, and helps us to reach that goal. It shows how the mind naturally and necessarily carries the idea of a God beyond the conclusions of the logical understanding.

If the last step in any syllogism gives us a cosmicai cause, or an architect of the known universe, we are war ranted by the very highest law of our thinking to affirn. that that cause or that architect is infinite. This proof might have been termed the ideological, while the propei ontological proof would seem to require us to start witb the fact of an existence, limited and phenomenal, and thei infer existence which is infinite and absolute.

Such in fact was the argument of Dr. Samuel Clark. This proof has been termed the a priori argument. For though God is not an effect, yet the evidence of his existence may be the result of certain innate, rational tendencies.

This leads us to

The Cosmological Proof. — 'V\ e have a series of finite and dependent objects, of secondary causes and effects. These can only be accounted for on the supposition of a

XXII EVIDENCES OF CnHISTIAXJTT.

first cause — causa causarum. We are necessitated by a law of our nature to ask whence comes this changinnj and circling movement, and what is its gathering and governing centre. Must not all these forces turn

" Through darkness up to God " ?

Waiving for the present the fact that geology seems to indicate many specific creations (see chap. ii. sec. 2), and so to preclude the idea of a simple evolution of an infinite series of dependent agencies, let us examine the 7iz/- pothesis. The links in the chain of dependencies may be made on a colossal scale, and a grand phenomenal process may be conceived to go on somewhat after the following manner. Great cycles of creation will succeed each other. Each will begin with the elemental forces — primary molecules with their energies — forming in their combination and confluence a moving nebulous mass. This mass of nebulous matter will by its rotation become a sun to the bodies which it throws off from its surface. A solar system is thus formed, balanced by countless systems of a like kind, filling illimitable space and moving through great tracts of time. Each one of these myriad groups of worlds will in the course of ages reach its meridian of perfection, with all its forms of beauty and life, and then return, at the completion of its cycle, to its original nebulous condition. From out this state a new movement will commence, and advance by a like process to a like goal, and so on forever. What is true of one system will be true of all. But such a number of dependent series of worlds going on infinitely is simply impossible without a creating and moving cause. The beginning of each system, and the balancing of their innumerable cen-

INTRODUCTION, XXIIi

trea as thej all sweep through space, point to a supracosmical origin. An eternal Creator best satisfies the ' demands of our thinking. His continued presence must underlie all the continued changes of the universe. That wliich absolutely depends on God for its origination must ultimately depend on him for its continuance. It is ^vithin the sphere of the possible that these several series alluded to in the above hypothesis may have some unknown physical centre, though it transcends our imagination to conceive of any such centre. Nor do the facts in \he case warrant any such notion; nor, if they did, would vbat hypothesis aid us in the solution of our problem.

Besides, we cannot admit that a chain of causes and effects may be eternal though every link is finite and dependjnt. It is true we can as easily believe in an absolute 3ndlessness in one direction as in another. We can as readily accept a timeless regress without an efficient cause, as a timeless progress without a final cause ; for in truth we cannot accept either. The endlessness in one direction, as in the other, is purely relative in its character. The whole series is of a parenthesis connecting the first cause with the final cause and identifying the two, and is in the most absolute sense dependent throughout on the continued presence of a creative power. Besides, when we affirm the endless continuance of any one form of life, as, for example, of the human soul, we have only a relative term of departure. The link with which we start is itself absolutely dependent. We have not laid hold of even one end of the chain. We conclude, then, that an absolutely infinite series of finite and dependent forces and agencies is a simple absurdity. If it be objected that matter is eternal, and that the entire series of worlds is only the result of the interaction

XXIV EVIDENCES OF CnTiTSTIANJTY.

of its inherent forces ; we reply that matter, so far as we know or can know it, is dependent throughout ; foi we only know it as it addresses the senses or acts on our organism, or can be made the subject of experiments. If we analyze any form of it we never find a forceless entity, but a change-seeking and change-producing element. It is something to be accounted for. It is true, thus far we have not been able to reduce the elements to anything more simple ; but these very elements are composites of forces, — minute summaries of attracting and repelling powers. And wherever we meet with matter, it presents itself as a combination of afiinities and activities, and so as something demanding explanation. If there is anything else in matter, it is utterly unknown to us, and must be left out of the account both of the believer and of the doubter. If it be said that matter is a substance without properties, and so need not be accounted for ; we answer, then it will account for nothing, and must stand at the opposite pole of self-existence and be represented by zero, and so proclaim its absolute dependence.

We shall have occasion subsequently to treat of the theory of development here suggested.

It is added, however, that such a Being is as inconceivable as an uncaused and eternal universe. It is true they are both beyond our power of conception. But the reason for the inconceivablenessof the oneis the impotence of the human intellect, while the reason for the inconceivableness of the other is its repugnance to the human mind ; the one is above our capacity of comprehension, while the other is contrary to our reason. We bow our souls before the transcendence of the one, and repudiate the absurdity of the other. We cannot rompass the idea of an eternal God, and we cannot rid

INTRODUCTION. 3CXT

ourselves of it if we believe in God at all. But the measure of our coDiprehension is neither the measure of existence nor the limit of our faith. We are often compelled by the constitution of our souls to believe what we cannot image forth in our imagination, or construe to our logical underbtanding; for faitl is in its nature receptive, and not constructive.

But after all, it is still affirmed that the universe is simply under the reign of law. This mode of speaking is vao;ue and ambioruous. The literal meaninoj of the term law is a command with sanctions. It is the expression of sovereignty. It has here a metaphorical or figurative signification. It means the action of forces. Now these are only the administrators of the supreme will, and derive all their efficiency from the constant presence of that will. Their mode of acting, then, is but the operation of that sovereign will, and the constancy of that action is only an evidence of the immutability of that will, and of the perfection of its government. It is this permanency in the forces of nature — this immutability in the will of the supreme Author — which makes civilization possible. Tc say that the universe is under the reign of law is only say ■ ing that it is under the reign of a supreme Lawgiver.

Finally, it is objected that this proof does not lead us to a personal God. We answer, it must not be taken alone, for it rests for its support on the preceding argument, and is to be interpreted in the light of our essential spiritual cravings and of our abiding practical necessities.

Tlie Teleological Proof. — This has attracted the greatest attention. The literature of our language is exceedingly rich in works treating of this branch of our subject. The argument is, in truth, exhaustless. It is

XXVI EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY,

important that we fall into no mere plaj on words in oui statement. Such is the case when we affirm that the world bears marks of design, and therefore must have had a designer. Here design means a designing mind ; and sc we reason in a circle. Besides, we assume a unity of purpose, and so beg the conclusion that there is only one intelligent Architect of the universe.

Care, too, must bs taken not to limit to any one sphere the marks of intelligence. These relate to order, to beauty, and to utility.

Order pervades nature. The elements crystallize ac- - cording to fixed geometrical forms, and combine in definite numerical proportions. All forms in the plant kingdom are built up after the idea of the class to which they belong. Every individual organic structure follows the law of its kind. Variations are only temporary, and touch mly what is accidental, and merely adjust the creature to its new surroundings. In the animal kingdom, unity of plan is never sacrificed. Thus, when an organ ceases to be of use, its rudiments are still retained, to indicate the type to which the animal belongs. The structural pattern, in its chief outlines, is preserved in all the great branches of animal life, in order to show how species are related to each other. Thus, the bones of the hand, of the paw, of the fiuj are similar in structure. These homologues indicate that the several species to which they belong were formed according to one generic plan Here, too, varialiuns are only temporary, and answer special purposes. The great divisions in the animal economy make up th^e entire system of animal life, and mark the generically distinct and ascending paths in the creative movement. All this indicates thought of the greatest breadth and llfTRODUCTION, XXVIJ

farthest reach. The intelligence here revealed is the intellio-ence of the scientist ; for order is at the basis of all science.