The Lost Gospel and Its Contents Part 18

Mark i. 24.

"This accordingly the devils also acknowledge Him to be: 'We know Thee Who Thou art, the Son of G.o.d.'" (Against Praxeas, ch. xxvi.)

Let the reader particularly remark this phrase. Tertullian quotes the last clauses differently from the reading in our present copies, "The Holy One of G.o.d." If such a quotation had occurred in Justin, the author of "Supernatural Religion" would have cited the phrase as a quotation from a lost Gospel, and a.s.serted that the author had not even seen St. Mark.

Luke, i.

"Elias was nothing else than John, who came 'in the power and spirit of Elias.'" (On Monogamy, ch. viii.)

"I recognize, too, the angel Gabriel as having been sent to a virgin; but when he is blessing her, it is 'among women.'" (On the Veiling of Virgins, ch. vi.)

"Will not the angel's announcement be subverted, that the Virgin should 'conceive in her womb and bring forth a son?' ... Therefore even Elizabeth must be silent, although she is carrying in her womb the prophetic babe, which was already conscious of his Lord, and is, moreover, filled with the Holy Ghost. For without reason does she say, 'And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me?' If it was not as her son, but only as a stranger, that Mary carried Jesus in her womb, how is it she says, 'Blessed is the fruit of thy womb?'" (On the Flesh of Christ, ch. xxi.)

"Away, says he [he is now putting words into the mouth of the heretic], with that eternal plaguy taxing of Caesar, and the scanty inn, and the squalid swaddling clothes, and the hard stable. We do not care a jot for that mult.i.tude of the heavenly host which praised their Lord at night. Let the shepherds take better care of their flock ... Spare also the babe from circ.u.mcision, that He may escape the pains thereof; nor let Him be brought into the temple, lest He burden His parents with the expense of the offering; nor let Him be handed to Simeon, lest the old man be saddened at the point of death." (On the Flesh of Christ, ch. ii.)

"This He Himself, in those other gospels also, testifies Himself to have been from His very boyhood, saying, 'Wist ye not, says He, that I must be about my Father's business?'" (Against Praxeas, xxvi.)

John, i.

"In conclusion, I will apply the Gospel as a supplementary testimony to the Old Testament ... it is therein plainly revealed by Whom He made all things. 'In the beginning was the Word,'--that is, the same beginning, of course, in which G.o.d made the heaven and the earth--'and the Word was with G.o.d, and the Word was G.o.d,'" &c.

(Against Hermogenes, ch. xx.)

I give only one reference to the first few verses, as the number in Tertullian's writings is enormous.

"It is written, 'To them that believed on Him, gave He power to be called Sons of G.o.d.'" (On Prayer, ch. ii.)

"But by saying 'made,' he [St. Paul] not only confirmed the statement 'the Word was made flesh,' but he also a.s.serted the reality," &c. (On the Flesh of Christ, ch. xx.)

John, ii.

"[He Jesus] inaugurates in _water_ the first rudimentary displays of His power, when invited to the nuptials." (On Baptism, ch. ix.)

The twenty-first chapter of the "Discourse against Praxeas" is filled with citations from St. John. I will give a small part.

"He declared what was in the bosom of the Father alone; the Father did not divulge the secrets of His own bosom. For this is preceded by another statement: 'No man hath seen G.o.d at any time.' Then again, when He is designated by John as 'the Lamb of G.o.d.' ... This [divine relations.h.i.+p] Nathanael at once recognized in Him, even as Peter did on another occasion: 'Thou art the Son of G.o.d.' And He affirmed Himself that they were quite right in their convictions, for He answered Nathanael, 'Because I said I saw thee under the fig-tree, dost thou believe?' ... When He entered the temple He called it 'His Father's house,' [speaking] as the Son. In His address to Nicodemus He says, 'So G.o.d loved the world,' &c....

Moreover, when John the Baptist was asked what he happened [to know]

of Jesus, he said, 'The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into His Hands. He that believeth,' &c. Whom, indeed, did He reveal to the woman of Samaria? Was it not 'the Messias which is called Christ?' ... He says, therefore, 'My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me, and to finish His work,'" &c. &c. (Against Praxeas, ch. xxi.)

SECTION XX.

THE EVIDENCE FOR MIRACLES.

It does not come within the scope of this work to examine at any length the general subject of miracles. The a.s.sertion that miracles, such as those recorded in Scripture, are absolutely impossible, and so have never taken place, must be met by the counter a.s.sertion that they are possible, and have taken place. They are possible to the Supreme Being, and have taken place by His will or sufferance at certain perfectly historical periods; especially during the first century after the birth of Christ. When to this it is replied that miracles are violations of natural law or order, and that it is contrary to our highest idea of the Supreme Being to suppose that He should alter the existing order of things, we can only reply that it is in accordance with our highest idea of Him that He should do so; and we say that in making these a.s.sertions we are not unreasonable, but speak in accordance with natural science, philosophy, and history.

And, in order to prove this, we have only to draw attention to the inaccuracy which underlies the use of the term "law" by the author of "Supernatural Religion," and those who think as he does. The author of "Supernatural Religion" strives to bring odium on the miracles of the Gospel by calling them "violations of law," and by a.s.serting that it is a false conception of the Supreme Being to suppose that He should have made an Universe with such elements of disorder within it that it should require such things as the violation, or even suspension, of laws to restore it to order, and that our highest and truest idea of G.o.d is that of One Who never can even so much as make Himself known except through the action of the immutable laws by which this visible state of things is governed.

Now what is a law? The laws with which in this discussion we are given to understand we have to do, are strictly speaking limitations--the limitations of forces or powers which, in conception at least, must themselves be prior to the limitations.

Take the most universal of all so-called "laws," the law of gravitation.

The law of gravitation is the limitation imposed upon that mysterious force which appears to reside in all matter, that it should attract all other matter. This power of attraction is called gravitation; but instead of acting at random, as it were, it acts according to certain well-known rules which only are properly the "laws" of gravitation.

Now the very existence of our world depends upon the force of attraction being counteracted. If, from a certain moment, gravitation were to become the only force in the solar system, the earth would fall upon the surface of the sun, and be annihilated; but the earth continues in existence because of the action of another force--the projectile force--which so far counteracts the force of the sun's attraction, that the earth revolves around the sun instead of falling upon its surface.

In this case the _law_ of gravitation is not violated, or even suspended, but the force of gravitation is counteracted or modified by another force.

Again, the blood circulates through our bodies by means of another power or force counteracting the force of gravitation, and this is the vital power or force.

But why do we lift up our feet from the ground to go about some daily duty? Here comes another force--the force of will, which directs the action of some of the vital forces, but not that of others.

But, again, two courses of action are open to us, and we deliberately choose the one because we think that it is our duty, though it may entail danger or pain, or even death. Here is a still deeper force or power, the force of conscience--the moral power which is clearly the highest power within us, for it governs the very will, and sits in judgment upon the whole man, and acquits or condemns him according to its rule of right and wrong.

Here, then, are several gradations of power or force--any one of them as real as the others; each one making itself felt by counteracting and modifying the action of the one below it.

Now the question arises, is there any power or force clearly above the highest controlling power within us, _i.e._ above our conscience? We say that there is. There are some who on this point can reverently take up the words of our Great Master, "We speak that we do know." We believe, as firmly as we believe in our own existence, that this our conscience--the highest power within us--has been itself acted upon by a Higher Power still, a moral and spiritual Power, which has enlightened it, purified it, strengthened it, in fact renewed it.

Now, this purifying or enlightening of our moral powers has one remarkable effect. It makes those who have been acted upon by it to look up out of this present state of things for a more direct revelation of the character and designs of the Supreme Being. Minds who have experienced this action of a Superior Power upon them cannot possibly look upon the Supreme Being as revealing Himself merely by the laws of gravitation, or electricity, or natural selection. We look for, we desire a further and fuller Revelation of G.o.d, even though the Revelation may condemn us. We cannot rest without it. It is intolerable to those who have a sense of justice, for instance, to think that, whilst led by their sense of what is good and right, men execute imperfect justice, there is, after all, no Supreme Moral Governor Who will render to each individual in another life that just retribution which is a.s.suredly not accorded to all in this life. [152:1]

Now this, I say, makes us desire a revelation of the Supreme Moral Governor which is a.s.suredly not to be found in the laws which control mere physical forces. As Dr. Newman has somewhere said, men believe what they wish to believe, and a.s.suredly we desire to believe that there is a supreme Moral Governor, and that He has not left us wholly in the dark respecting such things as the laws and sanctions of His moral government. But has He really revealed these? We look back through the ages, and our eyes are arrested by the figure of One Who, according to the author of "Supernatural Religion," taught a "sublime religion." His teaching "carried morality to the sublimest point attained, or even attainable, by humanity. The influence of His Spiritual Religion has been rendered doubly great by the unparalleled purity and elevation of His own character. He presented the rare spectacle of a life, so far as we can estimate it, uniformly n.o.ble and consistent with His own lofty principles, so that the 'imitation of Christ' has become almost the final word in the preaching of His Religion, and must continue to be one of the most powerful elements of its permanence." (Vol. ii. p. 487.)

It is quite clear from this testimony of an enemy to the Christian religion, as it appears in the Scriptures, that if the Supreme Moral Governor had desired to give to man a revelation of the principles and sanctions of His moral government, He could not have chosen a more fitting instrument. Such a character seems to have been made for the purpose. If He has not revealed G.o.d, no one has.

Now, who is this Man Whose figure stands thus prominent above His fellows?

We believe Him to be our Redeemer; but before He redeemed, He laid down the necessity of Redemption by making known to men the true nature of sin and righteousness, and the most just and inevitable Judgment of G.o.d.

He revealed to us that there is One above us Who is to the whole race, and to every individual of the race, what our consciences are to ourselves--a Judge p.r.o.nouncing a perfect judgment, because He perfectly knows the character of each man, perfectly observes and remembers his conduct, and, moreover, will mete out to each one a just and perfect retribution.

But still, how are we to know that He has authority to reveal to us such a thing as that G.o.d will judge the race and each member of it by a just judgment? Natural laws reveal to us no such judgment. Nature teaches us that if we transgress certain natural laws we shall be punished. But it teaches no certain judgement either in this life or in any future life which will overtake the transgression of moral laws. A man may defraud, oppress, and seduce, and yet live a prosperous life, and die a quiet, painless death.

How, then, are we to know that Jesus of Nazareth had authority to reveal that G.o.d will set all this right in a future state, and that He Himself will be the direct Agent in bringing the rectification about? How are we to know that what He says is true respecting a matter of such deep concern to ourselves, and yet so utterly unknown to mere physical nature, and so out of the reach of its powers? What proof have we of His Revelation, or that it is a Revelation? The answer is, that as what He revealed is above mere physical nature, so He attested it by the exhibition of power above physical nature--the exhibition of the direct power of G.o.d. He used miracles for this purpose; more particularly He staked the truth of His whole message on the miracle of His own Resurrection. [155:1] The Resurrection was to be the a.s.surance of the perfection of both His Redemption and His Judgment.

Now, against all this it is persistently alleged that even if He had the power He could not have performed miracles, because miracles are violations of law, and the Lawgiver cannot violate even mere physical laws; but this specious fallacy is refuted by the simple a.s.sertion that He introduced a new power or force to counteract or modify others, which counteraction or modification of forces is no more than what is taking place in every part of the world at every moment.

Before proceeding further we will ill.u.s.trate the foregoing by testing some a.s.sertions of the author of "Supernatural Religion."

"Man," he a.s.serts, "is as much under the influence of gravitation as a stone is" (vol. i. p. 40). Well, a marble statue is a stone. Can a marble statue, after it is thrown down, rise up again of itself, and stand upon its feet?

Again--

"The law of gravitation suffers no alteration, whether it cause the fall of an apple or shape the orbit of a planet" (p. 40).

Of course the "law" suffers no alteration, but the force of gravitation suffers considerable modification if you catch the apple in your hand, or if the planet has an impulse given to it which compels it to career round the sun instead of falling upon his surface. Again (page 40):--

"The harmonious action of physical laws, and their adaptability to an infinite variety of forms, const.i.tutes the perfection of that code which produces the order of nature. The mere superiority of man over lower forms of organic and inorganic matter does not lift him above physical laws, and the a.n.a.logy of every grade in nature forbids the presumption that higher forms may exist which are exempt from their control."

The number of fallacies in this short pa.s.sage is remarkable. In the first place laws never act, _i.e._ of themselves. They have to be administered. Forces or powers act under the restraint of laws. I think I am right in saying that all physical _laws_, as distinguished from forces, are limitations of force. No man can conceive of a law acting by itself. There is no such thing, for instance, as a "Reign of Law." A power acts or, if you please, reigns, according to a law, but laws of themselves can do nothing.