denied the existence of God.'1 Professor Tyndall himself records his declaration that it is not in hours of clearness and vigour that this doctrine [Material Atheism] commends itself to his mind; that in presence of stronger and healthier thought it ever dissolves and disappears, as offering no solution of the mystery in which we dwell.'2 This and similar utterancs on the part of earnest scientific men, who are commonly regarded as Materialists, may well lead us to the exercise of cautious charity, and remind us of the saying of Jacobi concerning himself: 'With the heart a Christian, though with the intellect a heathen.'

But even admitting that the majority of first-class scientific men were Materialists, for us to doubt the truths of Christianity on that account would be quite unreasonable. We speak at present of those who are merely physicists, and have devoted no special study or examination to the historical and critical evidences of Christianity. The well-deserved eminence which such men have attained in the field of physical science does not make their testimony in the least degree more worthy of weight than that of other men, in the department of historical and critical evidence; and this for the obvious reason that they are entirely out of their special field. Because a man is an eminent chemist and nothing

1 Body and Mind, p. 335.

2 Fragments of Science, vol. ii. p. 206.

more, that does not make his word of any authority in mathematics. Because a man is a splendid mathematician, that does not make him an authority in chemistry. So, on the same principle, because a man is an eminent physicist, that fact alone does not tend in itself to make him an authority in historical or Biblical criticism, any more than the fact that a man is eminent in the department of historical or Biblical criticism necessarily makes him an authority in physical science. In such cases, while the eminent specialists are trustworthy authorities in their respective departments, they entirely cease to be so whenever they pass into another department which is altogether strange. In this new field their special eminence counts for little or nothing; their testimony is simply that of an outsider, and not for a moment to be compared with that of even a very ordinary specialist in this department. In other words, just as the testimony of a very ordinary geologist is of far higher value in geology than that of the most distinguished theologian who is nothing but a theologian ; so the testimony of a very ordinary theologian is of far higher authority in the theological field than that of the most eminent geologist who is nothing but a geologist. We must accordingly distinctly guard against the common but grievous fallacy of supposing that because eminent scientific specialists are high authorities in their respective fields, therefore they must also be of equally

high authority in the totally different and foreign fields of theology and Biblical criticism.1

But it may be said that this Scepticism, or the rejection of the great facts and truths of Christianity, is not confined to mere physicists, who have never specially examined into questions of historical criticism. It is to be found strong and pronounced in men who have given a large amount of attention to such questions. We have it in such men as Baur and Strauss, Renan and the author of Supernatural Religion. And this is true. But then, in these and similar cases, the explanation is to a large extent plain and simple. These men were philosophers before they were critics. They had determined the question of supernatural or no supernatural in the sphere of philosophy before they approached the field of Biblical criticism; and in each of the cases mentioned, they had determined the question in the negative. Baur declares it to be a 'purely philosophical question.' He announces the standpoint of his criticism to be the 'purely historical' one, which, according to him, 'from the nature of the case,' excludes the absolutely miraculous. Strauss lays it down as a fundamental canon that 'an event cannot be historical which is inconsistent with the known and otherwise universal laws of

1 See Appendix, Note II.

2 Kritische Untersuchungen, p. 225; cf. also pp. 121, 530; Kirchen geschichte, vol. i. pp. x. 1. 24 ; Die Tübinger Schule, p. 14.

2

1

phenomena.' Renan states categorically that 'the gospels are shown to be partly legendary, because they are full of miracles and the supernatural.' He says, 'According to my philosophy, there is no place for individual will in the government of the universe;' and again, ‘It is an absolute rule of criticism to grant no place in historical narratives to miraculous circumstances.' The author of Supernatural Religion affirms that the miraculous is 'antecedently incredible,' and ' emphatically excluded by the whole constitution of the order of nature,' and the like. In other words, their starting-point is, that there is and can be no supernatural. It is a pre-determined question, and hence, when they come to New Testament criticism, they must of necessity explain away, in the best manner they can, everything that savours of the miraculous. That is to say, instead of first looking at the evidence for the grand facts of Christianity, they practically foreclose the question by declaring that there is no supernatural, and therefore the gospel narratives must be mythical and fictitious, just because they contain a large element of the miraculous. The supernatural is the very subject under proof, and they reject the evidence for it, just because it contains

1 Leben Jesu, vol. i. p. 103 (1837); compare New Life of Jesus, p. xii. (Authorized Translation).

2 Vie de Jésus, p. xv., 12th edition; Recollections, p. 325; Les Apôtres, P. xlvii.

3 Supernatural Religion, vol. ii. pp. 480 f., 3rd edition.

the element of the supernatural; as if the supernatural could ever be proved by anything short of the supernatural! In view of this, it is not a thing to be very much wondered at that such men should be disbelievers in the grand truths of Christianity. The necessity of their philosophy required it, and therefore the phenomenon need not occasion great perplexity.

So far as physical science, strictly so called, is concerned, it cannot possibly either directly prove or disprove any of the great verities and doctrines of the Christian faith. This will clearly appear, when we consider what are the special instruments which it employs in the discovery of truth, and what is the special field of its investigation. If we ask what are the special instruments which it uses, the answer must be, the physical senses. Its method may be generally described as the method of investigation by the trained, accurate, intelligent, and patient use of the physical senses. Even when it uses the most refined instrumental appliances as tests by which to discover the existence of the most delicate and subtle forces, it still depends on the thoughtful use of the bodily senses for its results. But if the instruments of discovery used by physical science are the senses, it necessarily follows that the field of investigation must correspond to its instruments. In other words, it must be the physical universe of matter and force, which

B