Supernatural Religion Volume I Part 1

Supernatural Religion.

Vol. I.

by Walter Richard Ca.s.sels.

PREFACE.

In preparing a complete edition of this work, I have revised it throughout. I have not hesitated to make any alterations, omissions or additions which seemed to me likely to improve it. I have endeavoured as much as possible to avoid presenting openings for side issues, and, with this object, I have softened statements which, however sustainable in themselves, might give rise to discussions apart from the direct purpose of the Inquiry. Wherever my argument has appeared to me either involved or insufficiently expressed I have as freely recast it as my limits permitted, and I have in several parts introduced new data discovered or elaborated since the work was first written, or which I may then have overlooked.

In one instance only has any alteration been requisite which demands special mention here. Since the sixth edition was published, I have been convinced that Marcion's Gospel was based upon our third Synoptic, and I have accordingly so far modified my results. It may not be unnecessary, however, plainly to repeat that, with this exception, which is not of material consequence, my convictions not only remain fundamentally unchanged, but have been confirmed and strengthened both by thorough reconsideration of my own argument, and by careful attention to the replies made by able official apologists. As regards the philosophical and other objections to miracles, their cogency is so fully recognized that Bampton Lecturers and eminent Churchmen practically abandon miracles as evidence, and press upon their brethren the necessity of reconstructing the Christian argument The necessity of reconstruction is indeed apparent, but the materials have not yet been made manifest.

Meanwhile, such apologists have been forced virtually to repudiate the great Christian representatives who have hitherto defended the Faith.

The case may fairly be considered desperate when the crew throw their officers overboard by way of lightening the s.h.i.+p. The historical argument is not in a better position. The learned professors and critics who have undertaken to deal with it do not even pretend, except perhaps in the case of Papias, to do more than a.s.sert the anonymous use of the Gospels by some of the Fathers, and their consequent existence; but, if this were established, what support could that give to the record of miracles? As for Papias, with his Hebrew Matthew and fragmentary indirect Mark, even if secured as a solitary witness to the composition of two Gospels, he would prove but a fatal friend to the apologetic cause.

The "Conclusions" have been almost entirely rewritten. This was essential to the finished work; but it was further necessary in order more adequately to convey my own views, and to withdraw expressions regarding the Unknowable, hitherto used from consideration for prevalent ideas and feelings, which I now recognize to have been too definite and calculated to mislead.

PREFACE TO THE SIXTH EDITION.

This work has scarcely yet been twelve months before the public, but both in this country, and in America and elsewhere, it has been subjected to such wide and searching criticism by writers of all shades of opinion, that I may perhaps be permitted to make a few remarks, and to review some of my Reviewers. I must first, however, beg leave to express my grat.i.tude to that large majority of my critics who have bestowed generous commendation upon the work, and liberally encouraged its completion. I have to thank others, who, differing totally from my conclusions, have nevertheless temperately argued against them, for the courtesy with which they have treated an opponent whose views must necessarily have offended them, and I can only say that, whilst such a course has commanded my unfeigned respect, it has certainly not diminished the attention with which I have followed their arguments.

There are two serious misapprehensions of the purpose and line of argument of this work which I desire to correct. Some critics have objected that, if I had succeeded in establis.h.i.+ng the proposition advanced in the first part, the second and third parts need not have been written: in fact, that the historical argument against miracles is only necessary in consequence of the failure of the philosophical. Now I contend that the historical is the necessary complement of the philosophical argument, and that both are equally requisite to completeness in dealing with the subject. The preliminary affirmation is not that miracles are impossible, but that they are antecedently incredible. The counter allegation is that, although miracles may be antecedently incredible, they nevertheless actually took place. It is, therefore, necessary, not only to establish the antecedent incredibility, but to examine the validity of the allegation that certain miracles occurred, and this involves the historical inquiry into the evidence for the Gospels which occupies the second and third parts.

Indeed, many will not acknowledge the case to be complete until other witnesses are questioned in a succeeding volume.

The view I have taken is clearly supported by Mr. Mill. In his recently published "Essays on Religion," he directly replies to the question whether any evidence can suffice to prove a Divine Revelation, and defines what the nature and amount of that evidence must be. He shows that internal evidences, that is to say, the indications which the Revelation itself is thought to furnish of its divine origin, can only be negative. The bad moral character of the doctrines of an alleged Revelation, he considers, may be good reason for rejecting it, "but the excellence of their morality can never ent.i.tle us to ascribe to them a supernatural origin: for we cannot have conclusive reason for believing that the human faculties were incompetent to find out moral doctrines of which the human faculties can perceive and recognise the excellence. A Revelation, therefore," he decides, "cannot be proved divine unless by external evidence; that is, by the exhibition of supernatural facts."(1) He maintains that it is possible to prove the reality of a supernatural fact if it actually occurred; and after showing the great preponderance of evidence against miracles, or their antecedent incredibility, he proceeds: "Against this weight of negative evidence we have to set such positive evidence as is produced in attestation of exceptions; in other words, the positive evidences of miracles"(2) This is precisely what I have done. In order to show that Mr. Mill's estimate of the nature of this positive evidence for miracles does not essentially differ from the results of this work, the following lines may be quoted:?

"But the evidence of miracles, at least to Protestant Christians, is not, in our day, of this cogent description. It is not the evidence of our senses, but of witnesses, and even this not at first hand, but resting on the attestation of books and traditions. And even in the case of the original eye-witnesses, the supernatural facts a.s.serted on their alleged testimony, are not of the transcendent character supposed in our example, about the nature of which, or the impossibility of their having had a natural origin, there could be little room for doubt. On the contrary, the recorded miracles are, in the first place, generally such as it would have been extremely difficult to verify as matters of fact, and in the next place, are hardly ever beyond the possibility of having been brought about by human means or by the spontaneous agencies of nature."

The second point to which I desire to refer is a statement which has frequently been made that, in the second and third parts, I endeavour to prove that the four canonical Gospels were not written until the end of the second century. This error is of course closely connected with that which has just been discussed, but it is difficult to understand how any one who had taken the slightest trouble to ascertain the nature of the argument, and to state it fairly, could have fallen into it. The fact is that no attempt is made to prove anything with regard to the Gospels.

The evidence for them is merely examined, and it is found that, so far from their affording

{viii}

sufficient testimony to warrant belief in the actual occurrence of miracles declared to be antecedently incredible, there is not a certain trace even of the existence of the Gospels for a century and a half after those miracles are alleged to have occurred, and nothing whatever to attest their authenticity and truth. This is a very different thing from an endeavour to establish some special theory of my own, and it is because this line of argument has not been understood, that some critics have expressed surprise at the decisive rejection of mere conjectures and possibilities as evidence. In a case of such importance, no testimony which is not clear and indubitable could be of any value, but the evidence producible for the canonical Gospels falls very far short even of ordinary requirements, and in relation to miracles it is scarcely deserving of serious consideration.

It has been argued that, even if there be no evidence for our special gospels, I admit that gospels very similar must early have been in existence, and that these equally represent the same prevailing belief as the canonical Gospels: consequently that I merely change, without shaking, the witnesses. Those who advance this argument, however, totally overlook the fact that it is not the reality of the superst.i.tious belief which is in question, but the reality of the miracles, and the sufficiency of the witnesses to establish them. What such objectors urge practically amounts to this: that we should believe in the actual occurrence of certain miracles contradictory to all experience, out of a ma.s.s of false miracles which are reported but never really took place, because some unknown persons in an ignorant and superst.i.tious age, who give no evidence of personal knowledge, or of careful investigation, have written an account of them, and other

{ix}

persons, equally ignorant and superst.i.tious, have believed them. I venture to say that no one who advances the argument to which I am referring can have realized the nature of the question at issue, and the relation of miracles to the order of nature.

The last of these general objections to which I need now refer is the statement, that the difficulty with regard to the Gospels commences precisely where my examination ends, and that I am bound to explain how, if no trace of their existence is previously discoverable, the four Gospels are suddenly found in general circulation at the end of the second century, and quoted as authoritative doc.u.ments by such writers as Irenaeus. My reply is that it is totally unnecessary for me to account for this. No one acquainted with the history of pseudonymic literature in the second century, and with the rapid circulation and ready acceptance of spurious works tending to edification, could for a moment regard the canonical position of any Gospel at the end of that century either as evidence of its authenticity or early origin. That which concerns us chiefly is not evidence regarding the end of the second but the beginning of the first century. Even if we took the statements of Irenaeus, and later Fathers like the Alexandrian Clement, Tertullian,

and Origen, about the Gospels, they are absolutely without value except as personal opinion at a late date, for which no sufficient grounds are shown. Of the earlier history of those Gospels there is not a distinct trace, except of a nature which altogether discredits them as witnesses for miracles.

After having carefully weighed the arguments which have been advanced against this work, I venture to express strengthened conviction of the truth of its conclusions.

{x}

The best and most powerful reasons which able divines and apologists have been able to bring forward against its main argument have, I submit, not only failed to shake it, but have, by inference, shown it to be una.s.sailable. Very many of those who have professedly advanced against the citadel itself have practically attacked nothing but some outlying fort, which was scarcely worth defence, whilst others, who have seriously attempted an a.s.sault, have shown that the Church has no artillery capable of making a practicable breach in the rationalistic stronghold. I say this solely in reference to the argument which I have taken upon myself to represent, and in no sense of my own individual share in its maintenance.

I must now address myself more particularly to two of my critics who, with great ability and learning, have subjected this work to the most elaborate and microscopic criticism of which personal earnestness and official zeal are capable. I am sincerely obliged to Professor Lightfoot

and Dr. Westcott for the minute attention they have bestowed upon my book. I had myself directly attacked the views of Dr. Westcott, and of course could only expect him to do his best or his worst against me in reply; and I am not surprised at the vigour with which Dr. Lightfoot has a.s.sailed a work so opposed to principles which he himself holds sacred, although I may be permitted to express my regret that he has not done so in a spirit more worthy of the cause which he defends. In spite of hostile criticism of very unusual minuteness and ability, no flaw or error has been pointed out which in the slightest degree affects my main argument, and I consider that every point yet objected to by Dr.

Lightfoot, or indicated by Dr.

{xi}

Westcott, might be withdrawn without at all weakening my position. These objections, I may say, refer solely to details, and only follow side issues, but the attack, if impotent against the main position, has in many cases been insidiously directed against notes and pa.s.sing references, and a plentiful sprinkling of such words as "misstatements"

and "misrepresentations" along the line may have given it a formidable appearance, and malicious effect, which render it worth while once for all to meet it in detail.

The first point (1) to which I shall refer is an elaborate argument by Dr. Lightfoot regarding the "Silence of Eusebius." (2) I had called attention to the importance of considering the silence of the Fathers, under certain conditions;(3) and I might, omitting his curious limitation, adopt Dr. Lightfoot's opening comment upon this as singularly descriptive of the state of the case: "In one province more especially, relating to the external evidences for the Gospels, silence occupies a prominent place." Dr. Lightfoot proposes to interrogate this "mysterious oracle," and he considers that "the response elicited will not be at all ambiguous." I might again agree with him, but that unambiguous response can scarcely be p.r.o.nounced very satisfactory for the Gospels. Such silence may be very eloquent, but after all it is only the eloquence of--silence. I have not yet met with the argument anywhere that, because none of the early Fathers quote our Canonical Gospels, or say anything with regard to them, the fact is unambiguous

{xii}

evidence that they were well acquainted with them, and considered them apostolic and authoritative. Dr. Lightfoot's argument from Silence is, for the present at least, limited to Eusebius.

The point on which the argument turns is this: After examining the whole of the extant writings of the early Fathers, and finding them a complete blank as regards the canonical Gospels, if, by their use of apocryphal works and other indications they are not evidence against them, I supplement this, in the case of Hegesippus,

Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth, by the inference that, as Eusebius does not state that their lost works contained any evidence for the Gospels, they actually did not contain any. But before proceeding to discuss the point, it is necessary that a proper estimate should be formed of its importance to the main argument of my work. The evident labour which Professor Lightfoot has expended upon the preparation of his attack, the s.p.a.ce devoted to it, and his own express words, would naturally lead most readers to suppose that it has almost a vital bearing upon my conclusions. Dr. Lightfoot says, after quoting the pa.s.sages in which I appeal to the silence of Eusebius:

"This indeed is the fundamental a.s.sumption which lies at the basis of his reasoning; and the reader will not need to be reminded how much of the argument falls to pieces, if this basis should prove to be unsound.

A wise master-builder would therefore have looked to his foundations first, and a.s.sured himself of their strength, before he piled up his fabric to this height. This our author has altogether neglected to do."

(1)

Towards the close of his article, after triumphantly expressing his belief that his "main conclusions are irrefragable," he further says:

{xiii}

"If they are, then the reader will not fail to see how large a part of the argument in 'Supernatural Religion' has crumbled to pieces." (1)

I do not doubt that Dr. Lightfoot sincerely believes this, but he must allow me to say that he is thoroughly mistaken in his estimate of the importance of the point, and that, as regards this work, the representations made in the above pa.s.sages are a very strange exaggeration. I am unfortunately too familiar, in connection with criticism on this book, with instances of vast expenditure of time and strength in attacking points to which I attach no importance whatever, and which in themselves have scarcely any value. When writers, after an amount of demonstration which must have conveyed the impression that vital interests were at stake, have, at least in their own opinion, proved that I have omitted to dot an "i," cross a "t," or insert an inverted comma, they have really left the question precisely where it was. Now, in the present instance, the whole extent of the argument which is based upon the silence of Eusebius is an inference regarding some lost works of three writers only, which might altogether be withdrawn without affecting the case. The object of my investigation is to discover what evidence actually exists in the works of early writers regarding our Gospels. In the fragments which remain of the works of three writers, Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius of Corinth, I do not find any evidence of acquaintance with these Gospels,--the works mentioned by Papias being, I contend, different from the existing Gospels attributed to Matthew and Mark. Whether I am right or not in this does not affect the present discussion. It is an unquestioned fact that Eusebius does not mention that the lost works of these

{xiv}

writers contained any reference to, or information about, the Gospels, nor have we any statement from any other author to that effect. The objection of Dr. Lightfoot is limited to a denial that the silence of Eusebius warrants the inference that, because he does not state that these writers made quotations from or references to undisputed canonical books, the lost works did not contain any; it does not, however, extend to interesting information regarding those books, which he admits it was the purpose of Eusebius to record. To give Dr. Lightfoot's statements, which I am examining, the fullest possible support, however, suppose that I abandon Eusebius altogether, and do not draw any inference of any kind from him beyond his positive statements, how would my case stand? Simply as complete as it well could be: Hegesippus, Papias, and Dionysius do not furnish any evidence in favour of the Gospels. The reader, therefore, will not fail to see how serious a misstatement Dr. Lightfoot has made, and how little the argument of "Supernatural Religion" would be affected even if he established much more than he has attempted to do.

We may now proceed to consider Dr. Lightfoot's argument itself. He carefully and distinctly defines what he understands to be the declared intention of Eusebius in composing his history, as regards the mention or use of the disputed and undisputed canonical books in the writings of the Fathers, and in order to do him full justice I will quote his words, merely taking the liberty, for facility of reference, of dividing his statement into three paragraphs. He says:

"Eusebius therefore proposes to treat these two cla.s.ses of writings in two different ways. This is the cardinal point of the pa.s.sage.

{xv}

(1) Of the Antilegomena he pledges himself to record when any ancient writer employs any book belonging to their cla.s.s [--Greek--];

(2) but as regards the undisputed Canonical books he only professes to mention them, when such a writer has something to tell about them [--Greek--]. Any anecdote of interest respecting them, as also respecting the others [--Greek--], will be recorded.