"to take the Resurrection as the keystone of what I may call the physical miracles of our Lord's life; for I imagine that no one who accepts that as a fact, would hesitate to accept a great many other miracles along with it." And in the second place Protestant controversialists at this day look for the historical evidence of the Resurrection, not primarily in the Gospels, but predominantly in the earlier and historically more cogent testimony borne by S. Paul. Every extremest infidel now admits, that certain epistles of S. Paul-to the Romans, the two to the Corinthians, and to the Galatiansare most certainly authentic and genuine. And the inevitable inference from this-an inference also admitted by these extreme infidels-is thus stated by Mr. Hutton

Within from eleven to thirteen, or at the most fourteen, years from the Crucifixion-within a less distance of time, that is, than that which separates us from the dispute with America as to the capture of the "Trent,” and much less than that which separates us from the relief of Cawnpore and the fall of Delhi-S. Paul found the belief in the Resurrection of our Lord firmly established among the Apostles at Jerusalem, so that he was afterwards able to tell the Corinthians that Christ was buried, and rose again the third day, that he was seen by Peter, then by the twelve (the eleven, I suppose he meant), then by above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part were then living but some were dead; then by James, then by all the Apostles, and last of all by himself.* That the Resurrection was not only believed, but believed as only those things on their faith in which people recast their whole lives are believed, no one with whom controversy is worth while in the least disputes (pp. 217, 8).

The absolutely conclusive historical argument, which is derivable from these truly momentous data, has been developed, we think, by Mr. Rowe, with more ability and success than by any other writer whom we have seen. We refer particularly to his recent work on "The Supernatural in the New Testament," which we hope to review with care in an early number. While laying his principal stress (as we have said) on the testimony of S. Paul, Mr. Rowe considers that the Gospels also largely contribute to the historical proof of the Resurrection; and in this certainly all Catholics will be of the same mind. Mr. Hutton however, so far from agreeing with him in this particular, considers the Gospel narratives as most seriously detracting from the force of the historical argu

* Mr. Hutton might well have added another particular. It is certain from S. Paul's Epistles, that in his time the Lord's Day was regularly observed as a Christian festival. We never heard of any doubt being raised, that the origin of this festival was the traditional belief of Christians in the Resurrection.

ment so seriously indeed, as to deprive that argument of its conclusive character.* And it is well known that the one main historical reason, adduced by infidels for disbelieving the Resurrection,† is based on that very allegation which Mr. Hutton endorses; the allegation of irreconcileable discrepancy between the narratives of the four Evangelists. Now we can nowhere find a more effective formulation of this indictment, than in Mr. Hutton's paper; and we shall take it therefore as the text of our remarks. We maintain that the indictment entirely breaks down; that between these four narratives there is no such mutual discrepancy at all, as Mr. Hutton concurs with his extreme theological opponents in thinking to exist.

Before citing however that paragraph of Mr. Hutton's to which we refer, we will say a few words on the general drift of his article. We began it with every possible prepossession in its favour. There is probably no writer in England, who has conferred more important service on national religion than Mr. Hutton. He has thoroughly the ear of the public, and is always to the fore where the interests of piety and morality are concerned. Whether it be from a philosophical or literary or political quarter that these interests are threatened, he is ever prompt and powerful in repelling the attack; and we are quite confident, that the good effects he has produced are far deeper and wider even than appears on the surface. But we cannot think that the article before us ranks among his most successful efforts. We heartily recognize indeed, that it contains many incidental remarks on the Christian evidence, which are both original and singularly valuable; of which indeed we hope to avail ourselves in our future article. Nevertheless it seems to us that his general argument is pervaded by two fundamental mistakes. On one hand, as we have said, we think he greatly undervalues the absolute conclusiveness of that historical evidence, which establishes the fact of the Resurrection; while on the other hand, to our mind he quite strangely exaggerates the power possessed by uneducated persons, of appreciating historical evidence at all. It appears indeed from his opening paragraph, that he once estimated that power even more highly than he does now; and was only undeceived by the popular delusions which have clustered round the Tichborne case. We do not understand how there can have been need of that experience. Take any historical

"The consideration of the historic evidence leaves the problem indeterminate" (p. 237).

We say "historical" reason: because they are even far more strongly influenced by a pseudo-philosophical reason; viz. their inveterate disbelief in the possibility of a miracle.

fact you please: the fact e.g. that Socrates swallowed hemlock in prison, or that Napoleon I. died at St. Helena. It is surely childish to suppose that ordinary labourers and farmers or for that matter, persons much higher in the social scale-can really form a judgment, on the value of the historical proof available for those facts. Our Blessed Lord's Resurrection-looked upon as a mere matter of history-is no less indubitable than either of them: but we do not see that its historical evidence is different in kind from theirs; nor therefore do we see, how the mass of uneducated persons are capable of appreciating it. And in like manner it simply amazes us, if Mr. Hutton considers that such arguments as those which he draws out from p. 223 to p. 237-original and momentous as many of them must be considered—are popular" arguments in any intelligible sense of that word. We are as far removed as Mr. Hutton from holding, that faith can reasonably be demanded from any man, unless he have reasonable grounds for that faith. We attempted a brief treatment of this important theme in April, 1871; and in regard to Catholics in particular, we enumerated (pp. 269271) certain reasons which, as we maintained, "are accessible to the most unintellectual Catholics": reasons "which admit of being pressed home to the mind with singular impressiveness by divine agency." "In their legitimate effect," we added, "they are super-superabundantly sufficient to produce certitude; and our affirmation is, that the Holy Ghost uses them for this very purpose in the soul of Catholics." proportion as any child of the Church "surrenders the whole current of his life to the influence of his Faith, in that proportion the divine authority of that Faith is more vividly and efficaciously evidenced to his mind." Nor of course is this privilege confined to the unintellectual. As regards even the most highly educated, the kind of reasoning which most powerfully persuades them of the Church's divine commission is precisely the same in character with that accessible to the humblest; and historical investigations occupy legitimately no more than a subordinate place. But we will not enlarge on a theme, which is entirely external to our present purpose, and which has been most admirably treated by F. Newman in more than one place. Here we will only add the obvious remark, that if it is a mistake to over-estimate, it is also a mistake to under-estimate the importance of the historical argument. That argument is invaluable in its proper place, to

In

See e.g. his sermon on Dispositions for Faith" in the "Occasional " volume; and see also many parts of his "Grammar of Assent."

those who are sufficiently cultured for its appreciation; and for obvious reasons it must ever occupy the most prominent position in controversy with infidels.

Our purely preliminary remarks have extended to a much greater length than we could wish; but we will now proceed without further delay to place before our readers that passage of Mr. Hutton's, on which we propose to comment. We have italicized one or two clauses, to which we desire especial attention.

Amid the discrepancies which I freely admit in the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection, it is notable that S. Paul's statement agrees with that in the third Gospel, that S. Peter was the first Apostle who was a witness of the Resurrection, and that all the accounts alike agree that Jesus was seen by all the eleven Apostles together, though the Gospel called S. Matthew's only mentions such a meeting in Galilee, while the early fragment appended to S. Mark seems to agree with S. Luke, S. John, the Acts, and apparently S. Paul, in placing the earliest and most important meeting with the eleven Apostles in Jerusalem. It must be frankly admitted, however, that while the Gospel of S. Mark ends with the statement that the sepulchre was found empty, and with a prophecy of a meeting to take place in Galilee,—the addition describing Christ's appearances in Jerusalem being almost certainly of a different though early origin,-none of the extant accounts agree closely either with each other or with S. Paul's later summary of the facts. The first Gospel speaks of no appearance, except to the women, in the neighbourhood of the sepulchre, and of but one meeting with the Apostles "in a mountain in Galilee," and adds, "When they saw him they worshipped him, but some doubted," which reminds us of the story of Thomas's doubts given in the fourth Gospel alone, the scene of which, however, is there expressly described as being in Jerusalem. The account in the third Gospel is virtually identical with that in the early addition to Mark, recording the appearance to two disciples on their walk to Emmaus, and then to the eleven as they sat at meat, but agreeing with the fourth Gospel in making the first appearance of the risen Christ that seen by Mary Magdalene. The fourth Gospel differs from all the other accounts in describing the first appearance to the assembled Apostles as taking place to ten of them only, Thomas being absent, while only the second, a week later, included all the eleven, and in describing a meeting with seven disciples on the shores of the Lake of Galilee at some later time not defined. Of the appearance to James 'recorded by S. Paul we have no other account at all, nor of the appearance to above five hundred brethren at once. I should add that the command to the Apostles recorded in the third Gospel, to stay in Jerusalem till after Pentecost was passed, makes the prediction in the first and second Gospels that the first meeting was to take place in Galilee, and the assertion in the first that it actually did so, still less in harmony with the other narratives.

I think every candid person will admit that this condition of the merely external evidence is not of the kind which any one would wish for the purpose of establishing by direct testimony a very marvellous and unprecedented

event. But I think every candid person will also admit that it is just the sort of evidence we might expect if there had been no attempt to take records at the time, a good number of accounts (narrated by different persons) of different appearances in different places, a certain amount of local prepossession in favour of Galilee as the appropriate place for Christ's renewed intercourse with his disciples, and a complete conviction that Christ after his Resurrection had been seen so often and by so many persons that there was no real dispute about the matter. As I have said before, the only point on which all accounts agree is, that certainly all the eleven, and if the Acts can be relied on, all the twelve (including Matthias), had been witnesses of the Resurrection (pp. 218, 9).

In addition to various subordinate statements which we shall consider in due course, Mr. Hutton here makes two fundamental affirmations. He affirms (1) that S. Luke was under the firm conviction, that our Blessed Lord did not appear to His Apostles after the Resurrection, except only in Jerusalem: insomuch that the Evangelist (in Mr. Hutton's view) describes our Lord Himself (xxiv. 49) as having enjoined the Apostles on the very day of the Resurrection, not to leave Jerusalem before Pentecost. (2) Mr. Hutton further affirms by manifest implication, that S. Matthew was entirely unaware of any appearances to the Apostles in Jerusalem. And Mr. Hutton explains S. Matthew's supposed ignorance, as caused by the prevalence of "a certain amount of local prepossession, in favour of Galilee as the appropriate place for Christ's renewed intercourse with His disciples."+

Moreover Mr. Hutton's whole paragraph implies a further position; viz. that, in the years immediately succeeding the Crucifixion, there was no consentient tradition among Christians, as to the scene of our Lord's appearances after His Resurrection. Some Christians, it seems, located the

*This, we say, is most manifestly Mr. Hutton's implication: because he could not class S. Matthew's silence on any manifestation to the Apostles at Jerusalem among the "discrepancies" in the Gospel accounts, unless he understood that silence as implying denial of those manifestations.

It would not be logically permissible, in arguing either against Mr. Hutton or an infidel, to assume that the Gospels were written by those whose names they bear. We merely give them the recognized names, in order to avoid inconvenient periphrasis.

Our reason for ascribing this opinion to Mr. Hutton is as follows: He says (p. 220) that the "external discrepancies" of the "evidence" for the Resurrection seriously impair the legitimate effect of that evidence. He holds then that-whereas the historical evidence would be abundantly sufficient if S. Paul's testimony stood alone-the Gospel "discrepancies" constitute a positive argument on the other side. But they could not possibly do this (as a moment's consideration will show) unless they proved that, in the period immediately succeeding the Crucifixion, there were corresponding discrepancies in the received Christian tradition.