Part 56

Proofs of Jesus Christ.

Why the book of Ruth was preserved.

Why the story of Tamar.

The genealogy of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament is intermixed with so many that are useless, that it cannot be distinguished. If Moses had kept only the register of the ancestors of Jesus Christ, that had been too plain. If he had not marked that of Jesus Christ, it had not been plain enough. But after all, whoso looks closely sees that of Jesus Christ distinctly traced through Tamar, Ruth, etc.

Jesus Christ in an obscurity--as the world calls obscurity--so great, that the historians who wrote only the important matters of States hardly perceived him.

On the fact that neither Josephus, nor Tacitus, nor other historians, have spoken of Jesus Christ.--So far from this being any argument against, it is rather one for us. For it is certain that Jesus Christ has existed, that his religion has made a great noise, and that these people were not ignorant of it; thus it is plain that they designedly concealed it, or perhaps that they did speak of it, and what they said has been suppressed or altered.

When Augustus learnt that Herod's own son was among the children under the age of two years whom he had commanded to be slain, he said that it was better to be Herod's pig than his son. Macrob. Saturn. Lib. ii., c. 4.

Macrobius, on the Innocents slain by Herod.

Prophecies.--Great Pan is dead.

Herod believed to be the Messiah. He had taken away the sceptre of Judah, but he was not of Judah. This was held by a considerable sect.

Both Barcoseba and another received by the Jews. And the rumour which was everywhere in those times. Suetonius, Tacitus, Josephus.

In what sort should Messiah come, seeing that by him the sceptre should be eternally in Judah, and at his coming the sceptre should depart from Judah?

To the end that seeing they should not see, and understanding they should not understand, nothing could be better done.

Curse of the Greeks against those who count periods of time.

Proofs of Jesus Christ.--Jesus Christ said great things so simply that he seems not to have considered them, and yet so tersely that it is clear he had considered them. This clearness joined with simplicity is wonderful.

Who taught the evangelists the qualities of an entirely heroic soul, that they should paint it so perfectly in Jesus Christ? Why did they describe him weak in his agony? Did they not know how to paint a steadfast death? No doubt they did, for the same Saint Luke paints the death of Saint Stephen as braver than that of Jesus Christ.

They describe him therefore as capable of fear before the need of dying came, and then wholly strong.

But when they represent him as so afflicted, it is when he afflicts himself, and when men afflict him, then is he wholly strong.

The style of the Gospel is wonderful in many ways, and in this among others, that it contains no invectives against the executioners and enemies of Jesus Christ. The historians do not rail against Judas, Pilate, nor any of the Jews.

If this modesty of the evangelical writers had been simulated, as well as many other traits of a beautiful character, and they had only simulated it to attract observation, even if they had not dared to draw attention to it themselves, they would not have failed to procure friends, who would have remarked on it to their advantage. But as they acted thus without dissimulation, and from perfectly disinterested motives, they pointed it out to no one, and I believe that many points of this kind have never been noticed till now, which is an evidence of how dispassionately all was done.

The apostles were either deceived or deceivers. Both hypotheses are difficult; for it is not possible to mistake a man raised from the dead....

While Jesus Christ was with them, his presence might sustain them, but after that, what gave them force to act if he did not appear to them?

Proof of Jesus Christ.--The supposition that the apostles were deceivers is thoroughly absurd. Suppose we follow it out, and imagine these twelve men assembled after the death of Jesus Christ, making a plot to say that he was risen again. By this they attack all earthly powers. The heart of man is strangely inclined to fickleness and change, swayed by promises and by wealth. Had one of these men contradicted themselves under these temptations, nay more, had they done so in prison, in torture and in death, they were lost. Let that be followed out.

Hypothesis that the apostles were deceivers. The time clearly. The manner obscurely. Five typical proofs. 1,600 prophets. 2,000 400 scattered.

Atheists.--What reason have they to say it is not possible to rise again? Which is the more difficult, to be born or to rise again; that that which has never been should be, or that what has been should be again? Is it more difficult to come into being than to return to it? Habit causes the one to seem easy to us, the want of habit causes the other to seem impossible. The popular way of judging.

Why should not a virgin bear a child? does not a hen lay eggs without a cock? What distinguishes these outwardly from others? and who has told us that the hen may not form the germ as well as the cock?

What have they to say against the resurrection, or against the child-bearing of the Virgin? which is the more difficult; to produce a man or an animal, or to reproduce it? And if they had never seen any species of animal, could they guess that they were not produced without connection with each other?

How I hate these follies of not believing in the Eucharist, etc.... If the Gospel be true, if Jesus Christ be God, what difficulty is there?