And it is by no means every fact which can possibly be expected to have such high attestation: only under very exceptional conditions can we erect so exacting a standard. Historical facts for the most part are believed, or at least not denied, when their evidence would fail altogether to produce such certainty. It is in relation with such facts as fall short, in a more or less conspicuous degree, from the ideally complete historical character, that there comes into existence a state of mind somewhat different from the reasonable assurance just mentioned. The facts are believed, on the whole; there is no need to decide on the claims of two conflicting accounts, they have verisimilitude-they are probable—there is no particular reason for denying

them. Perhaps an instance will make the matter clearer. In S. Clement of Alexandria (Quis Dives Salv. § 42) there is an anecdote related about S. John, cited to show that it is never too late to mend. It tells how S. John had converted to the faith of Christ a young man who, after a time, had fallen into evil courses, and had become captain of a band of robbers. S. John, hearing of this, had wandered out into a forest whither his convert had gone, had found him, and brought him back. S. Clement insists that the story is true, but points out that it is variously reported by different authorities. Beyond this mention in S. Clement, there is, we believe, no evidence whatever for or against the story. It is impossible, then, to regard it as proved; it falls far short of anything we can regard as historical certainty. And yet it is probable enough ; it makes no unusual demand upon our faith; it is consistent with the character of a Son of Thunder, moulded by the faith and the love of Christ. But that is all.

If it were disproved, we should have but little to resign; it would disturb no cherished convictions; we should regret it only on sentimental grounds. Till it is disproved, we cannot surely be said to do more than acquiesce in it, we could hardly go so far as to say we believed in it. It is important, we think, to emphasize the existence of this state of mind, because a very large number of the facts ordinarily ranged under the head of history fall, if we are not mistaken, into the province of this acquiescent state of mind.1

And, if its existence be not recognized, it tends to corrupt our historical judgment. It makes us inclined. to accept statements which would really vanish under criticism, because we are content with less than is required for complete historical assurance in so many cases. That is, to ignore the fact that this particular mental state corresponds to a particular set of evidential conditions tends to make our critical faculty lax. And, on the other hand, the sense that so many facts depend on this sort of evidence, and the want of distinguishing it from real historical certainty, lead to an undue scepticism as to history in general, or to the erection of a false standard of validity in historical evidence.

We must now face the question of the historical evidence for the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. And first let us observe that we wish to attain in regard of it 1 It can scarcely be better described than by Robert Browning (Ferishtah's Fancies, p. 16, 1st ed.)

"First, amend, my son,

Thy faulty nomenclature, call belief

Belief indeed, nor grace with such a name

The easy acquiescence of mankind

In matters nowise worth dispute, since life

Lasts merely the allotted moment."

real historical assurance; it must not be a matter in which we easily acquiesce. And next, let us call to mind the remarks we have made as to the necessity of bringing our theory of the world to bear upon our historical problems. We must not accept the Incarnation or the miracles which occur in connexion with it as being one of the things which might easily occur in ancient times, but could not possibly occur now. The possibility of it is a theoretical question, depending on the ultimate constitution of things, and not upon the age of the world. If the Incarnation was possible 1800 years ago, it would be in the region of possibility now, supposing that such a need could arise again. For 'possible' means that it is not excluded by the ultimate character of the world, and that must be true or false for all time. The same must be said of the miracles : if they were possible then, similar conditions would produce them unerringly now. This question has, we hope, been settled. We have seen that the constitution of the world, widely viewed, admits these possibilities, and our discussion of historical evidence has shown us that in approaching the purely historical evidence with this question closed, we are fulfilling the demands of the special logic which such matters require.

What evidence, then, do the Apostles allege in support of their belief that Christ was Son of God Incarnate? They say, that what proved it to them was the fact that Christ rose from the dead. They had grown in intimacy and in confidence all through Christ's life they had felt more and more certain that their interpretation of His nature was a true one, until the Passion came, and the Death on the Cross gave all their convictions a terrible shock. From this they only

recovered when the evidence of their senses assured them that He had overcome death, and was alive again. Then they knew that they had been right in their surmises during the period of discipleship: they were sure that He was indeed the Holy One of God. That is their story. They do not pretend to have had a sudden revelation of His true nature, or to have formed their conclusions apart from rational grounds, by some peculiar or inexplicable process. They admit that they were puzzled and put off and thrown back by the Death on the Cross, but they assert that when they knew of the Resurrection they felt sure again. Later they came to see, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Divine necessity and significance of death and resurrection alike.

Let us enter upon the discussion at the point which the Apostles represent as vital. What is the evidence for the Resurrection? S. Paul in writing to the Church of Corinth found himself in opposition to a class of persons who denied the Resurrection. In his answer he appeals to two sources of evidence the witness of those who had seen the risen Lord, the intrinsic fitness of the Resurrection itself. Under the first head he enumerates a number of those who had ocular demonstration of the fact, including himself, and adds that of these the greater part were still living, but some had fallen asleep. Now there are the same elements still necessary to prove the Resurrection-personal testimony and intrinsic fitness. But in our case the difficulty is increased, because there are not and have not been for centuries any persons whatever to whom we could appeal. Are we then to fall back upon general considerations of intrinsic fitness?

Certainly not. We have already pointed out that these will never prove a fact, they can only remove a priori objections to it. Somehow or other, then, we must put ourselves in contact with those who saw the risen Christ. Under ordinary circumstances what do we do? We inquire how far the fact in question fits in with other facts, with its period, with the rest of history as it may be known to us. Is it excluded by anything else

The

of which we are certain? Or are there traces of its existence all down the line of history? Now it is clear that there is nothing to exclude the Resurrection of Christ, unless it be its impossibility, and this question has been already sufficiently discussed. And it is clear too that no reputed fact in the world has ever left such deep and permanent traces as this of the Resurrection. testimony of the first witnesses has been believed steadily and continuously from that day to this. There is no break in the continuity of the evidence: no cessation in the stream of believers. The highest and most cultivated as well as the simplest have held to it as a fact. And what is more, it has not passed into the region of mere literature, like so much history; it has remained in full view of the consciousness of men throughout. Certainly the first witnesses have not lacked continuous support.

But it will be said that all this only proves that they believed it, and this may be easily granted. It does not prove that their belief was justified in fact. Certainly it does not; but then no historic evidence ever does or can. The only way to prove that the first witnesses were not deceived is to compare their reports with the facts as they report them: which is impossible. We are just as near the Resurrection as we are to any other fact in