Reason

doctrines in religion which we cannot understand, merely because we cannot understand them. To say that we refuse credence to a faith that makes such demands upon us, is irrational. It is, as we have shown, of the very nature of the case, that we must bow our reasoning powers before the revelalation of the highest Reason Itself. But it is quite another matter when we ask by what right any particular form of religion makes the demand for our adherence to it. Here our reason is the judge. Faith and If Christianity declares that it, and it alone, is the Revelation of God, we have the right to demand, "Show me your credentials. How am I to know that you come from God? Where are your proofs ?" And these proofs must be subjected to the most searching examination and cross-examination. Only when the evidence has made it clear that Christianity does speak with Divine Authority-then, and only then, must we accept its teaching, mystery or no mystery. We have no right then to question the possibility of the reasonableness of this or that doctrine, when once we are reasonably convinced that in Christianity we have God speaking to us. Such action would be to argue with God, to dispute His word; and surely this is irrational. It is here that Faith appears upon the scene. Reason has led us to the feet of Supreme Truth, and there she leaves us in the hands of Faith. Faith is to believe with

b

Christianity

out doubt whatever God has revealed, because He has revealed it, He Who is Truth Itself, and Who can neither deceive nor be deceived. Mark then the position. Reason is to be the judge in the first instance, of the credentials; once these are proved to be genuine, Faith in God's word takes its place. Not that reason is dethroned—far from it—but that Reason is now safeguarded from error in its path of discovery amidst Divine things, by the Divine Grounds of guidance of Faith. By what right then does the claims of Christianity claim to be the Revelation of God? It affirms that God took human form and dwelt upon earth in the Person of Jesus Christ. When we ask how this statement is to be established, we are confronted with the assertion that He proved Himself to be what He claimed to be, by rising The Resur- again from the dead, of His Own unaided power, with the same body, which was laid lifeless in the grave-that He was seen, handled, and conversed with in His risen state-that His Body was endowed with new attributes, not ordinarily belonging to the human frame-that He rose to die no more, and ascended into Heaven. This is a miracle, the most stupendous the world has ever known. Are

rection the

principal proof

we called upon to believe this by Faith, and without Not accepted a searching examination? Certainly not: for this primarily by is the great credential of which we spoke, in the

Faith, but by

Reason acceptance of which our reason must exert its

utmost powers. If the evidence be against the truth of this ever having happened, we must dismiss Christianity with its claims, as an impostor. If however the examination proves that this statement is true, then are we face to face with God and Jesus Christ is God. Moreover, the religion which He founded, is the only possible one, and we are bound to accept it with all its mysteries and its doctrines. We believe then in the Resurrection, because we can prove it a fact we believe in the teachings of Him Who rose, because He is God, and not because we can prove that they are true. This is so important that we beg our readers to think carefully over the distinction.

Christianity therefore makes no outrageous demands upon our credence. It is rational, logical, and founded upon a certainty. Let us then investigate the evidence which is offered us in support of the statement that Jesus Christ lived, died, and arose again from the dead, and that He ascended into Heaven. Certainly if He did so rise, He was God; for none but the Omnipotent could have wrought so great a wonder. And He did it in order that we might know when and where He had spoken.

MESSIANIC PHILOSOPHY

CHAPTER I

POSITION OF SCRIPTURE IN THE ARGUMENT

proofs not

ment,

It may be thought that our proofs are to be given Primary from the New Testament, in the first instance, as taken from it is the book which gives details of the death, New Testaresurrection, and ascension of Christ, purporting to be written by eye-witnesses, or by those who were intimate with eye-witnesses of these events. Such is not our purpose. The writings of the New Testament are not the primary basis upon which the Christian Church is built. She existed before they came into being, and she taught, and made but from converts many years before a single line of their origin, existcontents was ever written. She was, and is, the history of the living witness to the Resurrection. Her Founder Church never wrote a line; never gave any instructions for a written record of His life or teaching, but commissioned her to go with His Divine authority and guidance and teach all nations. Years later, many of her ministers and others wrote accounts of the Founder of Christianity and of some of His

A

ence, and

Christian