and the despair of historians became the firmest pillar of belief in the church.[1]
- ↑ Previous to the overthrow of Biblical and other ancient cosmogonies by the extension of natural knowledge the historic inquiry as to the truth of supernatural religion was paramount. As recently as the fifties of the last century a sceptic, if asked to give reasons for his disbelief, might have answered that it was due to the absence of witnesses of known position and integrity to attest the occurrences; and that if such evidence were forthcoming he should certainly consider that Christianity rested on foundations which could never be shaken. Let us see whether it is in our power to prove that if a religion based on miracles could pass such an ordeal it would not necessarily even then hold an impregnable position. In 1848 certain phenomena, termed the "Rochester knockings," occurring at a place in New England, impelled a wave of credulity as to spiritual manifestations throughout Christendom, which has not wholly subsided up to the present date. Prof. Robt. Hare, an eminent chemist and electrician, was attracted to investigate the matter with the firm intention of exposing the folly. But he became convinced instead, and by the aid of a lady who could produce "raps," apparently unconnected with her person, he devised a code of signals from which resulted a couple of bulky volumes devoted by the professor to explicit details of the doings in, and the beauties of, the spirit-land, the whole recounted by deceased relations of his own; Spiritualism Scientific-
were obtainable sufficiently comprehensive to prove a negative; but no evidence is likely to come to hand close enough to exclude the credible details of the Gospel narrative from the possible occurrences at Jerusalem during the period. The English reader now possesses in the Encyclopaedia Biblica, a repertory in which Biblical investigations are treated in a manner as free from bias and obscurantism as is attainable at the present time. Such a work has long been needed in English literature, and marks a national advance. But much more remains to be done, and within a score or two of years we may see such discussions take up a stable position between the advanced critics who still feel obliged to entertain some illogical propositions, and the rather wild free-lances who would dissipate all marvel-tainted evidence by their uncompromising scepticism, in which they sometimes do more harm than good by their disregard of critical sanity. By that time a liberal application of the critic's broom will have swept many documents now held up to public respect into the limbo to which they properly belong.
