Anti-Rationalistic lectufasDBL!

VBRBD A"T

EAST STREET MISSION HALL, AUOKLAND,

. By GEO. ALDRIDGE,

No. 1.

Is Jesus Christ an Historical Personage?

Is Jesus Christ an Historical Personage?

From its very introduction Christianity has had to encounter two mental attitudes-the attitude of sublime indifference to its claims, and the attitude of open hostility; of the two the latter is more preferable. The attitude of indifference from without has sometimes invaded the Church itself, and acted as a narcotic upon it, stifling its workings and cramping its life. ,The attitude of hostility towards Christianity has roused it into activity, and endued it with new vigour. There are some of us here who are old enough to remember the passage of Christianity through one severe trial. I suppose that which occurred some 30 or 40 years ago was one of the severest encounters which it has yet experienced; but it survived that, and to-day is facing another which is attacking it from another standpoint. You will pardon me if I believe from my little knowledge of history, and from personal experience of that to which I have referred, that the Christianity which has withstood the storms of past centuries will win safely through the present gale. Those who read at all the history of Christianity will know that in the very earliest days it had to encounter opposition. The German, Baur, one of the higher critics of some half century ago has said that in acuteness, in dialectic aptitude, in many-sided culture, Celsus stands behind no opponent of Christianity, " and he refers to an opposition which took place in the second century of our era. Some of us will remember how 35 years ago men used to refer with something like awe to the writings of Voltaire, the keen-witted Frenchman, who wrote so sarcastically against the Christian religion, of whom it is reported that he said that it took twelve men to found Christianity, but he would show the world that it needed but one man to overthrow it. Needless to say, Christianity still stands as firmly on its basis as when Voltaire wrote so strongly against it. I have referred to the free-thought of my early days. I can remember the strong language that was used, and how men spoke with fire and enthusiasm on behalf of free-thought, and used the coarsest invectives against Christianity. They prophe-

sied its overthrow. It was prophesied later, in this City, too, but Christianity still stands. I repeat that the religion which has passed through the crises of the past century is not to be quite so easily overturned as some of our modern teachers would have us believe. As you know, in this City recently, Christianity has been attacked from a new side-probably not new to those who keep abreast of things-but new at all events to the majority of the people of this City. It has been attacked under the banner of Socialism. The particular phase of Socialism which is being asserted in this City is one which, strangely enough, seems to demand that it shall go hand in hand with an assault upon Christianity and its principles. Perhaps I ought not to make a statement of that kind without some attempt at verification. I hold in my hand a copy of the Socialistic paper published in this City (you see I read that, too). This paper was sent to me by some member of the organisation. It contains an open letter addressed to the Auckland lHinisters' Association, in which the writer states: " In the first place, Socialism is neither Christian nor anti-Christian" (I think so, too) " no more than Liberalism is-8o when you deliver your antidotes to anti-Christian Socialism you attack a thing which has no existence." The same objection has been stated from the public platform, and has also been published in the daily press. Now, we can only judge on that point from what seems to be very clear evidence indeed, and to support the statement which I have made, I can but say that the attacks upon Christianity have been publicly made from the platform of the Opera House, and the advertisements stated that the addresses were given under the auspices of the N.Z. Socialistic Party. It is quite probable that the lecturer has had a perfectly free hand and is simply voicing his own sentiments, but I am not aware that the Socialistic Party has repudiated anything therein advanced by its lecturer. I discover, too, when I read Socialistic literature, that there is in some of it a veiled, and in others an open attack on Christianity. In Karl Man's Capital there are innuendoes directed against religion, and, whilst he does not openly state his opposition to it, he certainly makes.it clear that he is opposed thereto. Hyndman and Belfort Bax may be also named as strong opponents to Christianity. In Laurence Gronlund's Co-operative Commonwealth occurs the following: " If, however, by religion you mean this dogmatic theology, Socialists do profess to help drive it out. Socialism is the inveterate foe to theology, a fact of which our ecclesiastical authorities are well aware. Wherefore they are perfectly right in damning it." Robert Blatchford very definitely states in God and My N eiqhbour that he is warring against Christianity,

because he finds it a bar to human progress. In the latter part of that book he says: " I have been asked why I have gone out of my way to attack religion; why I do not confine myself to my own sphere of work for Socialism; and what good I expect to do by pulling down without building up? In reply, I beg to say that I have not gone out of my way to attack it. It WI!-S because I found religion in my way that I attacked it, though I am working for Socialism when I attack a religion which is hindering Socialism." . Now,can I not say that I have vindicated my statement that the form of Socialism with which we have become familiar lately is opposed to that form of religion which we denominate Christianity? The historical existence of Jesus Christ is impugned. -It is to me a strange thing that the attack upon Christianity should come from that side-the more strange when historical writers inform us that when it came into existence it was on the side of the proletariat. It is a singular thing therefore that it should now be supposed to be altogether in the interests of a party which is oppressing the poor and exploiting the labourer. Lecky states in his History of Morality: "Whatever mistakes may have been made, the entire movement I have traced displays an anxiety not only for the life, but also for the moral well-being of the castaways of Society, such as the most humane nations of antiquity had never reached. This minute and scrupulous care for human life and human virtue in the humblest forms-in the slave, the gladiator, the savage or the infant, and was, indeed, wholly foreign to the genius of Paganism. . . It is the distinguishing and transcendent character of every Society into which the spirit of Christianity has passed." He is referring to those early days when Christanity came in. I mark it, therefore, as a singular change that there should be in those days a supposition that Christianity is on the side of the wealthy and against the well-being of the people, and that therefore it must be withstood. In dealing with the matter which comes before me this afternoon, I wish to state that I take it because it is the very central part of the religion in which I believe-the very core of Christianity. You may take away from other religions the person of their founders, and they still stand unaffected by the loss of the persons who established them. But if you take away from Christianity its centre-the person-the Lord Jesus Christ, you have taken away that which gives it its value to the sons of men. I propose, therefore, now to speak to the historicity of the Lord Jesus Christ. There are many who believe that He did live as a person, but that many of the sayings and doings attri5

buted to' Him were purely mythical and untrue-and some deny that He ever lived. Let me say that the question is not to be settled simply' by attacks upon it, by objections to it, or by ridicule. The man who assails Christianity by ridicule may have behind him reasons for what he affirms, or he may not, but he is hardly in a fair state of mind to deal with the evidence that may be advanced in favour of it. Huxley says in his Essays on Controverted Questions: "It appears to me that if there is anybody more objectionable than the orthodox Bibliolater, it is the heterodox Philistine who can discover in the literature which in some respects has no superior nothing but a subject for scoffing, an occasion for the display of his conceited ignorance of the. debt he owes to former generations." I should like that in dealing with this matter, we should do so calmly, and weigh the evidence as those who desire to arrive at a definite conclusion from following the lines of clear testimony. Christianity has a long story behind it. It has had a wonderful influence for good. Whatever we may say of it now, its past history, in the early days at all events, bears testimony to the beneficial influence which flowed from it. It is now the cherished possession of multitudes of our own kith and kin, and is prized by thousands in this City, and, because of this, if for no other reason, it deserves to be handled very carefully, so that we do not wilfully and unreasonably upset the equilibrium: of the dear people who believe in it. If it is to be overturned it must be by solid evidence-evidence that will convince the reason. Our friends on the other side seem to think they have a monopoly of reason ; they call themselves "Rationalists." You see this is a matter which must be determined by every person for himself, and if my friends claim to have supremacy of reason, all I can say is my reason must determine this matter for me, even though it be not so good in quality or so great in quantity as theirs. No person can force a decision on this' upon another. It is to be decided by the weight of" evidence that is presented, and if the evidence presented appeals to me as convincing, what other can 1 do than receive it, and believe it, and pr.each it 1 If it does not appeal to you there must be a gulf between us, but I must respond to it and proclaim it. There surely can be no person who can rightly claim to have a reason strong enough' to decide for himself and for all others as well. I say this because I have noticed that from the public platforms some Rationalist advocates seem to claim a monopoly of reason. From the exercise' of our own reason upon the facts our judgment must decide, and our actions must follow accordingly. I wish, then, to, present to you' those things which appeal to my reason, and which seem convincingly to answer in the affirmative eur, question. 6

It was a first-rate theologian who said: "The doctrine which cannot stand the test of rational investigation is not true. ' , I will endorse that, and I think so will you. I will put another proposition: "All reasoning against facts is false." If so be that the historic personality of Jesus Christ is a fact, all reasoning against it is false. The opposition may be very rhetorical, but if the fact itself exists, all reasoning against it is necessarily fallacious. Another proposition: "Truth is dangerous only to its enemies, and error is worthless to its friends." On the basis of these propositions I desire to proceed this afternoon. Let me say first-Christianity is an existent fact. We are not speaking of something which is in the clouds, but of something which is here. So far as the outward and visible manifestations of it are concerned, they are here, in this City of ours, in this land, the world wide over-under every clime and amongst nations of _ every race and colour. How did it come ? Mr. Cooper, in his'little book, The Bridge of History over the Gt~lf of Time, gives a .line of reasoning which I think is well worthy of investigation. If a man will carefully study it, he may find faults, but I think the main line of reasoning will stand. Let me further say, the religion which is in existence now had an origin. It has come to us through a long line of descent, and it claims to be to-day what it was at the first. It does not claim to have advanced away from what it was in the early days. Those who then believed it laid the foundation, and if we have built upon it, the basis remains as unchanged as when first put down. It is here, and its presence has to be explained. In the days to which I have referred, and which I remember so well, when one used to listen to Bradlaugh, Foote, and others, the attack was made upon the untrustworthiness of the documents. It was claimed by Mr. Bradlaugh and his friends that no one could trace the documents back beyond the middle of the 2nd century. He who makes that assertion today, makes it without the support of the best evidence. Recent investigators, and these the finest scholars of the age, are agreed that you can push certainty much further back; that you can go back into the second half of the first century to find the earliest documents. Some objectors say that the stories in them originated from myths, and have slowly changed and grown into their present form. Christianity is an existent fact-it must have had an origin, and we claim that at its origin it was precisely the same as it is to-day so far as its documents and the main features of its teachings are concerned. This claim is 'not to be dismissed with a contemptuous sneer. I purpose that we shall leap back 15 eentunies to the time-of Constantine, when Christianity unfortunately became linked

with the State. I say unfortunately, because it has never been in the interests of Christianity that it should be linked to a State. The State may have given her place and power, but when she joined hands with the State, Christianity trailed her white robes of purity in the dust, and henceforth lost her vigour and became weak. But referring to the- time of Constantine, ere she came into the position of power, Christianity was widely extended throughout the whole of the Roman Empire. I need hardly cite the evidence for you. Let him who will, read the story in Gibbon's remarkable work on the Decline of the Roman Empire, in the 16th chapter. Throughout the length and breadth of the Roman Empire, from Gaul to Asia Minor, from Egypt to the River Euphrates, Christianity found a home. Over the wide extent of that empire Churches were in existence. There were thousands upon thousands of believers, and in those days they had in their possession the originals of the documents we have now, and their Christianity (varied, may be, in its presentation by the difference of time) was precisely the same as we have it to-day. Are the New Testament documents genuine and authentic records ~ When I speak of genuine documents I mean those written by persons whose names they bear, and by authentic document I mean one which relates to facts, whether it bears the writer's name or not. If a document be a work of fiction and yet bears the name of the author, it is genuine. It may be an historical fact, but it is not genuine if it is written under a fictitious name. If the books of the New Testament are not genuine and not authentic, when did they come into being? These books could not have come into existence before the time when the things themselves are said to have been done, and they did not originate after the time of Constantine. They were in existence early in the Fourth Century-between that period of time then, say, 200 to 250 years, these books came into being. They could not come before, they have not come afterwards, as, at the close of that period all the Churches referred to at least eight-ninths of them, as the books on which their doctrines rested. Note this statement from the writings of Tertullian: " We are but of yesterday, and we have filled every place among you, ci~ies, islands, .fortresses, towns, market places, the very camp, tribes, compames, palace, senate, forum. We have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods. Without arms even and raising no insurrectionary banner, but simply in enmity to you, we could carry on the contest with you by an ill-willed severance alone, for if such multitudes of men were to break away from you and betake themselves to some remote corner of the world why, the very loss of so many' citizens would cover the Empir~

with shame." This was long before the later date to which I am referring, and the documents, as we have them to-day, are those to which he appeals as the grounds upon which the doctrines of Christianity rest, and the cause of the numerical extent of believers. Now, what means of knowledge did the people in those days possess to find out whether or not the documents were authentic and genuine? This is not the same question as one might put and say: " What means have we?" What means had they in those days ~ For if the reasons which would be convincing to them were good enough, the same facts are valid to-day. A fact does not become the less a fact by the lapse of time. A testimony valid 15 centuries ago is valid to-day-it remains as strong and forceful through the centuries-times does not make it invalid. We have just celebrated the tercentenary of the issue of the Authorised Version of the Bible. That is a longer period than the lapse of time between the time of Nero and the Decree of Toleration in 313 A.D. All through the lands of the Englishspeaking peoples there have been meetings to celebrate what was considered by many men an important event. We have just finished the third century. Who will dare to say there never was a Hampden Court Conference, and that the 50 or 60 men were not selected, and that the whole work upon the Authorised Version never took place? Yet there are few who know the facts about that work. We know there was a Conference, but men have disputed whether there was such and such a number who took part in it; and yet we know it has never been disputed as a fact that there was such a work, and that those men did take a hand in it, and that the work has been handed down to us to-day. How do we know it took place ~ Well, you may say, here is the Authorised Version. Yes, but what proof have we? There are two kinds of proof. Some things can be mathematically proved, others are established by the balance of probabilities. Suppose I ask a man what is his name; he answers " It is John Robinson." "Yes, but how do you know?" "Well, I have always been called by that name. " "Yes, but how do you know it is your name? Many men have an alias, and their friends all know them by that name." , , Well, sir, I was christened." "How do you know you were given that name ?" "Well, sir, we have a family Bible at home, and it is written there." "Did you write it?" " No, sir, someone else." " Well, then, how do you know that it refers to you at all ?" "Well, sir, I have my birth certificate. " , , Yes, but how do you know you were not changed in the cradle and that the real John Robinson is somewhere else under another name 1" It is like saying to a man who has the

toothaehe : "Haw can you prove it ~" He will probably tell you to wait until you get it, and then you will know, Where you get the greatest number of probabilities there must be your line of proof far the particular subject which you are trying to trace. What could they do in the way of determining that the documents they held were sufficiently sound far them to erect their faith up an ~ The records contain the life, character, and teachings of Jesus Christ and His disciples in three provinces in the land of Palestine. They record, further, that the Apostle of the Gentiles, Paul, travelled through Asia Minor into Greece, and into Italy, that wherever he went there were churches established, and not only sa, but to many of thase churches he wrote letters-ta Corinth, Ephesus, Thessaloniea, etc. Here is a wide extent of country covered, not just one little isolated corner, but there was a wide and Imperial work. He left his footprints wherever he went-he sent his letters, and the churches received them. In those days there must have been hundreds and thousands who read .or heard of those letters which 'he sent. In the davs of Constantine there must have been thousands of people wha were descended from these people lineally, and who could say: " Our grandfathers heard these letters, and, so far as we know, there has never been a change in the documents since then, and we, as descendants of the early Christians, are holding to the same things which they held." They could say: " We know that the Emperar Nero persecuted the early believers, and those early believers held the same things as we hold to-day. They were named Christians, and all the evidence we have attached to that name goes to show that they held precisely the same views that we do naw." I might here bring in a side argument from the geographical and other recent researches as confirmatory of the early spread of Christianity. Professor Ramsay, who has written same remarkable monographs an Asia Minor, refers to Luke's statements concerning persons and places as showing that the writer must have had first-hand knowledge and was in personal touch with the things of which he wrate. That is a remarkable side light, to which I cannot now give time. There are three grounds upon which the people of that day could determine the veracity of the narratives: (1) If the early disciples sealed their faith with their blood, the memorials of those men and of their death must still exist in the days of Canstantine. (2) If the Church existed as a society far 250 years, it must have had a copious literature which would justify very largely its position and its claims. (3) If these were of sufficient magnitude and importance

-----...",....-----------------'---

------

to be alluded to in secular history, there will be somewhere in the writings of the secular historians a reference to them. In those times, there were men who were as sceptical as men are now. The statement is made by Mr. McCabe that the Roman Empire had reached its summit in point of civilisation, schools werein every town, secondary and primary, and in many cities were what we should call universities. The men of that time had advanced along the line of civilisation; they were not barbarians ; many were scholarly and as keen-witted as men are to-day. They would investigate then as men do now, and they did. 'The evidences that have come down to us from the Christian fathers show that those' who were opposed to Christianity were as strongly opposed as are the modern opponents, and that they were met by argument and by clear and decisive proof, for those who held Christianity still to hold it, and say that the objections were valueless. I want to lift your minds out of the idea that Christianity was imposed on the people; and that they were .not capable of judging for themselves ,whether it was worthy of acceptance or not. That is not so. I have long since come to the conclusion that the days of the early Roman Empire were days of advanced civilisation; the conditions have now changed, but those men were mentally abreast of the men of to-day; the keen wit, the shaft of ridicule, and the powers of judgment were as active among the men of that age as to-day. I repeat if the matters were -then of sufficient magnitude to be recorded in history, there will be some allusion made to them by the writers of the time, so that the appeal could then be made to those sources, the first sources I refer to being the memorials of those who suffered for their faith, copious literature, and secular historians. I wish to deal with the secular historians first. Here is a remarkable thing, to which I must call attention. There is no body of people anywhere that ever expects to find a truthful and accurate historian of any movement in the ranks of its enemies. It is stated in the letter I referred to that the members of the Ministers' Association did not understand Socialism. Those gentlemen stated what they believed concerning it, whether right or wrong, and I have no doubt they had the deep conviction that what they were saying was true. My friends in the opposite camp say: " But it is not true." That enables me to say that those who are opposed to any cause are not and cannot be historians of that ,.cause. They cannot be trusted, whatever their convictions may be, to give it truthfully. If a man rose who was opposed to your movement altogether, and he said: " I will write for you a history of Socialism," would you trust that man to write it ~ You would say" No, certainly n()t." The men who are in the movement, who know it -best,

""""

=iiiiiiiiiiiiioiiioi

__

-=-__ .::--, -

--

are those who must be the true historians. The partisans of any movement will be the true recorders. I state that for this reason: The question is sometimes asked: "Where are the historians who have referred to the events of the gospels ~" I have heard it asked in this City: " Where are the secular historians who refer to these things ~" I say the historians of Christianity must be found within Christianity itself, not outside of it, and if a person says that Christian historians are untrustworthy-as Mr. Vivian does-I tell him that he is begging the question. I for one do not expect that a person who is outside or opposed to any movement is going to be a historian of that movement. The man who is inside is the one who is going to telT the truth about it. Whatever you may say about Eusebius, Socrates, and others, they are historians of the movement, and must be respected accordingly. What kind of notice do you expect to be made by secular historians ~ To the one who objects and says he must have the writings of secular historians, I would say: "Who are the secular historians of that period ~" Shall I tell you 7 At that period there are just nine names which stand out as historians from the very beginning of our era to the time of which I am speaking. Two were Greeks-Appian and Pausanias-seven were Romans, and of the entire number there were seven whose records terminate before, or with, the rei in of Tiberius A.D. 37. You could not expect those men to refer to the introduction of Christianity, whatever you may think of their silence on certain things contained in the gospels. You have, then, two remaining -Tacitus and Suetonius, and they have alluded to it. I will now quote from The Ohurches and Modern Thought: " The passage occurs in Tacitus, Annals 15/24, and runs as follows :-' Consequently to get rid of the accusation, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations called by the people Christians. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of 'I'iberius at the hands of one of our Procurators, Pontius Pilate. A most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty, then upon their information an immense multitude was convicted not so much of the crime of firing the City as of hatred M mankind.' " Observe that here is an allusion by Tacitus, who is writing the annals of the Empire, and he states that in the days of Nero there were some who were sufficiently numerous, called Christians, whose beliefs (in a person named Christ) were sufficiently

12

opposed to the Palace faith to be fastened upon as the cause of the burning of Rome when Nero was himself the incendiary. Here are men clamouring for secular history, and we produce it, but the moment it is brought forward they say: " Ah, but that is an interpolation." How do you know 1 I turn to Gibbon, and this is what I find him saying: " The most sceptical criticism is obliged to respect the truth of this extraordinary fact and the integrity of this celebrated passage of Tacitus. The former is confirmed by the diligent and accurate Suetonius, who mentions the punishment which Nero inflicted on the Christians, a sect of men who had embraced a new and criminal superstition. The latter may be proved by the consent of the most ancient manuscripts, by the inimitable character of the style of Tacitus, by his reputation, etc." Gibbon, a sceptical historian, says that. He who affirms it to be an interpolation must prove it, for there is no manuscript in existence but that has that passage. I would say the same concerning the well-known extract from Josephus. Some -Christian writers admit that it is an interpolation, but I am not ready to concede that ground. There is not only that passage in Josephus, but there is..another also which is seldom mentioned, which states that in the days of the High Priest Ananus he had assembled the Sanhedrin to hear an accusation against the brother of Jesus (who was called Christ), whose name Was J ames; and that is not questioned. What right has a man to say that the first is an interpolation? If he can refer to a manuscript without it, then there is some ground for the supposition, but when that cannot be found, I object, and say that the objection is not admissible. In the early part of this year, a remarkable demonstration took place in Berlin. An eminent professor (Dr. Drews) was delivering a lecture against the historicity of Jesus Christ, and claimed that Jesus Christ was a mythical person, and that, as you know, aroused the whole city of Berlin. The people came together in a mass meeting and protested against the idea that Jesus Christ was a mythical person. Here is a noteworthy thing arising out of that incident: A learned Divine in America (Dr. Sanderlin) has said: " Why does not Dr. Drews refer to the Talmud?" I have spoken with Jews and have not come across one yet who denies that Jesus Christ was a historical personage. The Talmud has declared that Jesus Christ lived, that He was put on trial by the Sanhedrin of the Jews, and that He was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, and it refers to Him in such courteous terms as " Jesus, The Hung." Dr. Sanderlin says: "For a man of learning, Prof. Drews did a most singular thing. While apparently exhausting the field of anti-Christian research, he overlooked one source from which

13

he ought to have sought information-the Talmud. Every notable Jewish scholar to-day knows that the Talmud, up to the year 1631, A.D., did contain a record of the accusation, arrest, trial, and conviction of Jesus. This record was written, of course, from the Jewish standpoint, but it appeared in every copy of the Talmud from the first century of the Christian era up to the 17th century. Owing to the bitter persecution of the Jews in Europe, the Jewish World Synod, held at Jaroslav, Poland, in 1631, ordained by formal proclamation that in every copy of the Talmud thereafter, all reference to Jesus Christ and everything relating to His life and death should be omitted, and the sign of a circle should stand instead of such reference which would be understood by the initiated. It was explained in the Synod's proclamation that this action was taken because the references- to Jesus Christ in the Talmud had provoked Jewish persecution, and that their removal would leave the people in the enjoyment of peace. There are copies of the ancient Talmud still in existence containing all of this subsequently prohibited record." You will pardon me now if I say, using the language of Grant Allen: " Whatever else may be said about the origin of Christianity, it is at least fairly agreed on either side, both by friends and foes, that this great religion took its rise around the personality of a certain particular Galilean teacher by name Jesus, concerning whom, if we know anything at all with approach to certainty, we know at least that He was a man of the people, hung on the Cross in Jerusalem in the procuratorship of Caius Pontius Pilate." But now I remark that covering the period between Nero's day and the opening of the reign of Constantine, there was produced a mass of Christian literature. This has been published in English by Messrs. Clark, of Edinburgh, in volumes which contain in all about 12,000 pages. In these writings are stated facts concerning the life and labours of Ohrist, and the main doetrizas of Christianity. It is claimed that from these alone the whole of the New Testament could be reproduced with the exception of about twelve verses. It is instructive to notice what a wide extent of country is covered by these writings; from Gaul to Antioch; from Egypt to Phrygia; in a word, the Roman Empire was dotted over by men whose very situation argued a wide extension of the cult of Christianity within a brief period, and a -widespread and deep belief in the veracity of the facts on which it was based. ~l:ake what you will of it, the literature of any time must supply the explanation of the events of that time, and the extant literature of that period, whether written by friend or foe, assigns one basis for the Christian faith. Before the date given, Christianity had no

14

I read the Old Testament record, observe the promises, the covenants, the preparatory history; I can see how the purposes were wrought into human history until there came that pure and lovely form which stands before us in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and in Him there is the completion of all that went before. He is the seed of the woman who should crush the serpent's head; He is the Prophet like unto Moses; He is the Son of David; He is the One set before the world as God's ideal of humanity through Whom shall come a salvation which man cannot improve upon, nor hinder. " Whence but from heaven could men unskilled in arts, In several ages born, in several parts, Weave such agreeing truths, or how, or why, Should all conspire to cheat us with a lie 1 Unasked their pains, ungrateful their advice, Starving their gains and martyrdom their price. Then for the style, majestic and divine It speaks no less than God in every line. QUESTIONS.

Question: What does it concern the millions of unemployed who starve and live in hovels to-day whether Jesus lived or not ~ Answer: Jesus Christ came into the world to bring for man what He termed salvation, and those who will read carefully what He has said, will know that the salvation He came to preach takes in every possible need of man. I am not one of those who believe in what is called simply a spiritual salvation, but in a perfected salvation, which deals not only with my individual deeds as a moral wrong-doer, but also with the needs that spring from my socilli conditions and physical ill-being. He is-a Saviour who is designed of God to bring in a perfected salvation, and the reason why it has not come is because men do not receive it. Question: Does it not say that if Christ had not been raised from the dead then your preaching and faith is vain? Answer: It does. Question: Have you established that Jesus Christ did rise from the dead 1 Answer: So far as that particular matter is concerned, the evidence that I have adduced includes that. There is no explanation of the Christian Church either in its origin or its continuance apart from the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. No explanation whatever. And the evidence which I have adduced to an extent, at all events, deals with that particular question that Jesus Christ did rise from the dead. The general question was put: " Is Jesus Christ an historical per-

16

sonage ?" and my first step was to show that such a person actually did live.

Question: Luke says Jesus was born when Quirinius was Governor. Matthew says it was when King Herod reigned. How does the lecturer account for the contradiction as to the time of the birth of Jesus, seeing that Quirinius was not appointed Governor until after Herod's death 1 Answer: A believer in the New Testament is inclined to accept Luke as "an historian equally competent with profane historians. However, as a matter of fact, the Roman lists of Governors fail us here, but the examination of the matter by Augustus Zumpt has shown with high probability that Quirinius was Governor twice, on the second occasion A.D. 6, and at the first at the time assigned by Luke. Qtlestion: I understand that the documents relating to the question of this afternoon were selected at the Council of Nicea in the reign of Constantine. How does Mr. Aldridge know that those gentlemen selected reliable documents and left the spurious ones out ? Answer: How do you know that the question came up at the Council of Nicea j As a matter of fact, the question of the Canon of Scriptures never came before the Council at all. It has been stated again and again that at the Council all the Bishops knelt down and prayed, first of all having put all the gospels under the table, and that when they prayed the true gospels separated from the others, and ca~e up and lay upon the table. I repeat, there is no historical evidence that ever the question of the Canon of Scripture came before the Council of Nicea. Question: These matters must be determined by every man for himself. I was brought up in the Church of England. What creed or sect is there which agrees with you that a man can either accept or reject Christianity and still remain a Christian? Answer: I did not say that a man could either reject or accept and still remain a Christian. You might as well say that a person could reject the teachings of Socialism and yet be a Socialist. Question: You say that men should use their reason. What reason can accept a Christianity which teaches that he that believeth not shall be damned to everlasting torture? Answer: When you can prove to me that Christianity damns a man to everlasting torture, I will give an answer to your question.

17

 Question: Do you not think by far the more important question is the historicity of the fundamental miracles on which Christianity rests-the incarnation, resurrection and ascension ~ Answm': My friends here have a list of subjects which I am willing to lecture upon, and the second lecture is to be " The Virgin Birth." Question : You claim for every man the free use of his reason, but " he that believeth not shall be damned." . Answer: Certainly. If conditions are off~red to a man, conditions which imply that he may have life if he will accept them, and he declines to accept those conditions, what is to be dime with him? Give him life which he will not have? Question: Can a man be a good man without
Christian? being a

Answer: Oh, yes. Qtestion: Does it really matter, in any conceivable particular, to anyone at any time, whether the Jesus of history existed or not; and is not the only thing that matters to anyone at any time, the integrity of life, character, and conduct of that One?

Answer: There are people who are contented with their state. It is a good thing for men and for society that everybody should live up to a line. But it does not matter- what your standard may be, sometimes you fall below it. A man can never be better than he ought to be. It is an utter impossibility. He -ean be-he often is-a good deal worse than he should be, and there is absolutely nothing which he himself can do to make up for his lapses from the standard. If I believe that there comes into human history a revelation which tells of a life to come in which there shall be no ill of any kind, and perfect social conditions shall be on this earth of ours for which our Socialistic friends yearn, I want to be there. Qtestion: Why do you ignore the story of the rich man and
Lazarus ?

Answer: For 30 years in this Dominion I have lectured upon subjects relating to man's nature and destiny, and the man who says I ignore that, is himself ignorant of facts. (Reference to pamphlet on the subject, written by the lecturer.) Q1estion: Assuming that Jesus -.did live, is it not a fact that He never wrote anything Himself, and that all those statements about being cursed and damned were put in at a later period ? Origen believed in reincarnation. Is that not a more likely thing ~ 18

Answer': Origen is said to have taught reincarnation, or believed it, anyway. A great many Egyptians believed in reincarnation or metempsychosis. But there can be no possible appeal to the New Testament for that, for the reason that it does not admit that any personality of man can be, apart from his organism. Question: I understand you to question whether the Bible teaches. everlasting torment. Does not it tell us of everlasting fire ~ Answer: Certainly; but what will that fire do? Listen: " Behold the day cometh; it burneth as a furnace, and all the proud, and all that work wickedness shall be stubble; and the. day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of Hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch."

19