LECTURE VI.

"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures." 1 Cor. xv. 1—4.

First that the writings of the Fathers who flourished during the first sixty years of the second century afford incontestable evidence that prior to the end of the first century the Church was in possession of a body of traditions respecting the actions and teaching of its Founder, which were substantially the same as those contained in the Synoptic Gospels. From this it followed as a necessary consequence, that no legendary narrative invented subsequently to A.D. 80, can have been incorporated into their pages.

:

Secondly that in the remains of the Patristic literature, the references to anything of which these Gospels do not contain a complete analogue are extremely few and that only four or five of the incidents referred to in it belong to a type of actions differing from those which the Synoptics have attributed to Jesus. From this it followed, that not only must the traditionary reminiscences of the Church within fifty years of its Founder's death have contained the chief facts and sayings attributed to Our Lord in the Synoptics, but the whole of them must have been modelled on

the same type; and further, if there were any in circulation of a different character, such, for instance, as those in the apocryphal Gospels, the Church must have rejected them as spurious.

Thirdly that the Christian Church was not only in a more favourable position for handing down a true account of the actions and sayings of its Founder than any other Society which has ever existed, but that the peculiarity of the circumstances in which it was placed must have compelled it to do so.

These considerations afford a probability, amounting almost to a moral certainty, that during this period of fifty years which intervenes between the termination of Our Lord's ministry and the date of the historic testimony which we have adduced, no accumulation of legendary matter can have taken the place of that genuine account which each Church must have received from its original founders as the ground of its existence, the source of the religious life of its individual members, and the bond of its cohesion.

:

Further as the different Christian communities were scattered over a wide extent of territorial space, that such a substitution, even if it could have occurred in the case of some one of the Churches, would have been absolutely impossible among any considerable number of them.

This interval is so brief that it lies far within those limits during which traditionary reminiscences are trustworthy informants respecting the important facts of history, even when unsupported by written documents. Minor details may undergo modifications according to the prepossessions of those who repeat them; but this does not affect the historical truth of the main facts. If this is true of political events, in which the interest felt by individuals is comparatively small, how much more must it have been the case with those actions and sayings of Jesus, which formed the ground of the existence of the different Christian communities, and of their daily religious life.

On the general question of the value of tradition as an historical informant, and the limits within which its testimony is to be relied on, I need not enter in this place. The whole subject has been so fully discussed by Sir G. C. Lewis in his work on The Credibility of early Roman History, as to render any observations of mine unnecessary.

Assuming the validity of his principles, it would follow, that even if the Synoptic Gospels were published during the first twenty years of the second century, they would still lie within the period of genuine historical tradition, during which, though variations may arise on subordinate points, the recollection of important events still remains unimpaired. But in the present case we have only to cover a period of fifty, or at most sixty years. During this period the traditionary reminiscences of the Church must have been of a most vivid character. If we assume that considerable numbers of its members who witnessed the events of Our Lord's ministry were not older than himself, and that many of them were ten years younger, according to the average duration of human life, not a few of them must have survived till the last twenty years of the first century; and several of them even longer. This being so, the numbers of those who had heard details of those facts which formed the ordinary subjects of Christian instruction, from those who had been eye-witnesses of them, must have been very considerable; and many of them must have been surviving, and in full possession of their faculties during the first twenty years of the second century. Consequently during this period of time, there must have been ample means of obtaining information of the highest order, which would have rendered it impossible, while these persons lived, that the record of the chief incidents of Our Lord's ministry could have been buried under a mass of legendary inventions.

A single illustration will place in a striking light the value of the historical traditions of the Church during this interval of time.

The last ten years of the first century are separated from the termination of Our Lord's ministry by an interval somewhat less than that which intervenes between the present year and the date of the Battle of Waterloo. Several of those who were present in it are still living; and many of those who hear me may have heard details of it, as I have myself, from those who were actually engaged in it. Precisely similar must have been the condition of the Christian Church during the last ten years of the first century as to the chief events of its Founder's life, to that in which we stand in respect to the various events connected with the return of Napoleon from Elba; while the recollections of the Church must have been far more vivid in proportion to the profound interest which was felt in them by its members. While historical recollections were thus fresh, it would have been impossible for a purely legendary Jesus to have taken the place of the actual one, and obliterated the knowledge of the real events of His life.*

*To take another illustration. A period of eighty-four years separates us from the execution of Louis XVI. This is only slightly less than that which must have separated the period of Justin's historical recollection from that of the crucifixion of Jesus. Most of us who have attained the age of sixty, have conversed with persons who took the deepest interest in that event, and who had a lively recollection of it. In France large numbers of persons must be still living who have heard details of it from those who actually witnessed some of the events connected with it. While they survive, supposing that no account of it had been committed to writing, it would be impossible that its chief occurrences, which were enacted before the public eye, could be superseded by a set of fictions. The events which took place near the scaffold were witnessed only by few; and here, as we may expect, the accounts vary considerably according to the minor details, but these variations are almost exclusively due to the prejudices of the narrators. There can be no doubt that if we were destitute of a single written or printed document, it would be quite possible to construct an accurate account of the chief facts, by the aid of the reminiscences of those who have heard them described by persons who were actually present. I have selected this event because its interest was so great that it would be certain to have impressed itself deeply on the memory of those who witnessed it,

These considerations seem decisive: but we have evidence of a far higher order, which I will now proceed to adduce, namely, the testimony of the Pauline epistles. These will enable me to cover the entire period in question; and to prove not only that the Church accepted the great facts of Christianity, as they are recorded in the Gospels, at the time when St. Paul wrote these letters; but that its belief was coeval with its reconstruction immediately after the crucifixion of its Founder. In addition to this they establish the all-important fact, that the Church was reconstructed on the basis of the belief in His Resurrection within a few days after His crucifixion.

The inconsiderable use which evidential writers have hitherto made of these epistles may well excite our surprise. They have looked upon them as a portion of the position to be defended, rather than as one of the most important elements in the historical proof. This has resulted partly from their having been viewed as the chief source of our doctrinal theology, and partly from the supposed necessity of proving the canonical authority of the various books of the New Testament, as an essential portion of the defence of Christianity. However it may have happened, it is

certain that their value as historical documents has been greatly overlooked; and in consequence of this it has been found necessary to adopt long and circuitous methods of proof to establish facts of which they afford the strongest confirmation. Before however I adduce the facts which

and thereby insured its accurate transmission. Deeply interesting, however, as it was to Frenchmen, the events of Our Lord's ministry must have had a far more profound interest for the members of the Christian Church, and both the necessity and the means of transmitting an accurate report must have been far greater. It follows, therefore, that falsification of its chief events within this brief interval of time would have been impossible, even if we suppose that the recollections of individuals were not aided by written memoranda-a supposition which is not only in itself in the highest degree improbable, but in the case of Justin, and the author of St. Luke's Gospel, negatived by their express testimony.