The Historical Proofs of Christianity [pp. 223-247]

THE HISTORICAL PROOFS OF CHRISTIANITY.
surprise that the apostles should be utterly deceived in this
branch of their testimony. Thus, Matthew Arnold boldly-admits
that if we had the original reports of eye-witnesses, we should
not have a miracle less than we have now.' Very different is
the judgment of a great historical scholar, Niebuhr. He refers
to the critical spirit iri which he had come to the study of the
New Testament histories, and to the imperfections which he
supposed himself to find in them. He adds: "Here, as in every
historical subject, when I contemplated the immeasurable gulf
between the narrative and the facts narrated, this disturbed me
no further. He whose earthly life and sorrows were depicted
had for me a perfectly real existence, and his whole history had
the same reality, even if it were not related with literal exact ness in any single point. Hence, also, the fundamental fact of
miracles, which accordihg to my conviction must be conceded,
unless we adopt the not merely incomprehensible, but absurd
hypothesis, that the Holiest was a deceiver, and his disciples
either dupes or liars; and that deceivers had preached a holy
religion, in which self-renunciation is everything, and in which
there is nothing tending toward the erection of a priestly rulenothing that can be acceptable to vicious inclinations. As regards a miracle in the strictest sense, it really only requires an
unprejudiced and penetrating study of nature, to see that those
related are as far as possible from absurdity, and a comparison
with legends, or the pretended miracles of other religions, to
perceive by what a different spirit they are animated."' 2
"To see by what a different spirit they are animated "-it is
just this which Renan fails to see in the legends of the saints.
It is found impossible to dispute the fact that testimony substantially equivalent to the contents of the Gospels was given
by the apostles. The old fortification of unbelief, held up to
a recent day, is abandoned. That the apostles were wilful deceivers, if it be sometimes insinuated, is felt to be a weak position.
What, then, shall be said? Why, answers Renan, they were like
the followers of St. Francis of Assisi-credulous, romantic
enthusiasts. The frequency with which he reverts to the lives of
1 Contemporary Review, vol. xxvi. p. 697.
2 "Memoir of Niebuhr" (Am. ed.), p. 236.
243