IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) 1.0 I.I IA&12.8 ■50 ^^" 2.2 u m ^ us, 12.0 1.8 III'-'' l'-^ iiir-^ ■m 6" ► Photographic Sdences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STillT WIISTIR.N.Y. 14510 (716) I72-4S03 ..V CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques \' Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibtiographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ D D D D D D n 0- Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^ et/ou pelliculAe Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relii avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La re liure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int6rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 4tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas M filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires; HALF-TITLE PAGE MISSING. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meiileur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6tA possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D D D D D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommag^es Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou peiliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^color^es, tachetdes ou piqudes Pages detached/ Pages ditachdes Showthrough/ Transparence rryi Quality of print varies/ Quality inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmies A nouveau de fa^on it obtenir la meilleure image possible. This Item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filmA au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous 10X 14X 1SX 22X 26X XX ) V 1 r ■" 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X 1 aire details ues du t modifier ger une > filmage The copy filmed here has been reproduced thank* to the generosity of: University of Toronto Library The images appearing here are the best ^uaUty possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaire filmA fut reproduit grice i la g4n6rositA de: University of Toronto Library Les images suivantes ont 6ti reproduites avec le plus grand soin. compte tenu de la condition et de la netteti de l'exemplaire filmA. et en conformit6 avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. Ail other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. ides Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimie sont film6s en commen9ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniire page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iiiustration. soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmte en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iiiustration et en terminant par la dernlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des syrnboles suivants apparaftra sur la derniire image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols —► signifie "A SUIVRE", le sV'Yibole V signifie "FIN". ire l\/laps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmis A des taux de rMuction diffirents. Lorsque ie document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seul cliche, ii est filmt A partir de Tangle supirieur gauche, de gauche k droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mithode. >y errata ed to int ne pelure, ipon A 1 2 3 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 r / ITS FOU w: BOS&] ^ THE *:*• • CREED OF CHRISTENDOM: ITS FOUNDATIONS CONTRASTED WITH ITS SUPERSTRUCTURE. BT WTLLTAM RATHBOKE GREG. ' *t( %nevn of gljm foaa (or flg^f.' TORONTO : ROSE-BELFORD PUBLISHING COMPANY. MDCCOLXXVIII, \ Jl*^ I Ifh-il^O i ^■■^:. .xH'y CONTENTS. PAGE PBEFATOBT KOTB TO THIS aDinOV , 7 INTBODCOnOM TO TBS THIBD BDmON 9 FBBFAOB TO THS VIBST XDITION 63 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. CHAPTER I. INBFIBATION OF TBB BOBIFXUBES 75 CHAPTER II. MODBBM MODIFIOATIOKB Of THB DOOTBIME OF IN8PIBATZ0N 96 CHAPTER III. AUTH0B8HIP AND AOTHOBITT OF THB FBNTATBUOH AND THB OLD TES- TAUBNT CANON QBNBBALLT 106 CHAPTER IV. THE PB0PHB0IX8 126 CHAPTER V. THEISM OF THE JEV7S IMPDRE AND PBOOBEBSIYB 146 CHAPTER VI, OmOlN OF THB OOBPELB 153 CHAPTER VII. FIDBtlTT OF THB QOSPEL HTBTOBT-NATHBL AND UmiB 168 ^■4:. 6 CONTENTS. PAGE CHAPTER VIIT. nDBLITT OF THX GOSPEL HISTOBY CONTINUED— UATTHBW 185 CHAPTER IX. SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED— MABK AND LUKE 199 CHAPTER X. SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED— GOSPEL OF JOHN V. . . 210 CHAPTER XI, BE8ULT8 OF THE FOBBOOINO CBITICISM 223 CHAPTER XII. THE LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHOBITT 235 CHAPTER XIII. MIBACLES 2G3 CHAPTER XIV. BESUBBEOTION OP JESUS 281 CHAPTER XV. IS CHBISTIANITY A REVEALED BELIOION ? 297 CHAPTER XVI. -^ CHBISTIAN EOLBOTTOISM 318 CHAPTER XVIT. THE OBBAT RNIOMA 352 ) PAGE . 185 , 199 , 210 . 223 , 235 , 2G3 281 297 318 352 PREFATORY NOTE TO THIS EDITION. A WORK SO celebrated as Mr. Greg's " Creed of Christen- dom" needs no introduction to the American public. The present edition has been printed from the latest English, — the fifth. Where possible the references, which are very numerous, have been verified, and a considerable number of clerical and typographical errors and other slips have been corrected. These emendations, being of a minute character, — for the most part in the number of a chapter or verse in the Bible, — have been made silently, so as not to incumber the text with additional notes. In every other respect the text is an exact reprint of the English edition. The utility of the work has been still further enhanced by the addition of a very full indjx, which no previous edition* either English or American, has possessed. By these means it is hoped that the pre- sent edition has been made the most accuratt,^ and com- plete ever issued. " I Bhonld, perhaps, be a happier, at all eventi a more useful, man, if my mind v, ore otberwise constituted. But so it is : and even with regard to Christiani^ itnelf, like certain plants, I creep towards the light, even though it draw me away from the more nourishing warmth. Yea, 1 should do so, even if the light made its way through a rent in the wall of the Temple."— C^LSBiDOfl. " Perplex'd in faith, but poor in deeds. At last he beat his music out ; There y.ven more faith in honeet doubt, Believe me, than in half the creeds. " He fouf^ht his doubts and gathered strength ; He would not make his judgment blind ; He faced the spectres of the mind. And laid them : thus he came at length « To find a stronger faith hi> own : And Power was with him in the night, Which makes the darkness and the light, And dwells not in the light alone, " But in the darkness and the doud." TranrrsoH. " x« o inquirer can fix a direct and olesr-slghted gMe towards TVnth, who is caating ude-glanoes all the while on the piroq)eots of bii soaL**— Mabiivxau. " What hope of answer or redress? Behind the veil, behind the veil." TXNNTBOM. mTKODUOTION TO THB THIRD EDITION. This book was originally published nearly a quarter of a century ago. Its sale since then, though by no means large, has been singularly continuous and regular — the number of copies taken by the public having scarcely varied from year to year ; and the second edition was disposed of somewhat more rapidly than the first. It is, therefore, fair to conclude that the work met a perma- nent want felt by many of my countrymen which no other writings at the time accessible to them could fur- nish, and at least temporarily filled a gap in our literature which, so far as I am aware, has not since been otherwioe supplied. During the period that has elapsed since its publication, moreover, I have received many gratifying and even touching testimonies both from friends and strangers as to the assistance which it rendered them and the comfort which it suggested to them, when their minds were perplexed and agitated by the doubts and the questions which had disturbed my own. Under these circumstances, I have acceded without demur to the wish of my publisher to issue a new and revised edition. I have re-perused every chapter with great care, but I have added little and altered less. Here and there I have modified a phrase where I thought I had expressed myself too confidently or too harshly, or where I appeared to have fallen into incorrectness or exaggeration ; but the changes introduced have been few and slight. Whatever I have added in the way of commentary or confirmation 10 INTROD JCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. J i is diitinguished by brackets [ ]. On the whole, I thought it wisest and fairest to leave the text as it originally stood, bearing distinct marks of the date at which it was written, when the topics discussed were comparatively new to English readers, and when the several authors who have since handled them, and thrown so much light upon them, had not yet put their views before the world. But I have re-considered every point with caution, and I am sure with candour ; I have read with attention and respect and with a real desire to profit, the various criti- cisms and replies which the book on its first publication called forth ; and I am bound to say that I see no reason to believe that I was in error as to any essential point. The progress made in Biblical criticism and historical science during the last five-and-twenty years has fur- nished abundant confirmation, but I think refutation in no single instance. It is in no spirit of elation or self- applause that I say this-— even if with some unfeigned surprise ; for I know better than most with how little learning the book was written, and how much learning — to say nothing of genius and insight — ^has since been brought to bear upon the subject. Strauss's great work had, indeed, been published and translated into English before my work appeared; but Bishop Colenso's " Inquiry into the Pentateuch," "EcceHomo," Benan's " Vie de J^sus" and his Apostolic volumes, " The Jesus of History," by Sir B. D. Hanson, Chief Justice of South Australia — a work well worth perasal, as having in some degree a special stand-point of its own, and showing the impres- sion made by the evidence adducible on a trained legal mind — ^and Arnold's " Literature and Dogma," are all of much later date. The marvellously painstaking, conscientious, and mi- nute investigations of the Bishop of Natal, embodied in his five volumes on the so-called books of Moses, have succeeded in making those conclusions as to the character and origin of the Pentateuch certain which I could only state as probable, and have furnished fifty proofs of the thesis here maintained^ where I was content with addu- BISHOP COLENSO. 11 cing three or four. It is, I think, all but impossible no^ for any one who has really followed these researches, to retain the common belief in the five first books of the Old Testament as either accurate, strictly historical, or Mosaic, — quite impossible after perusing " The Speaker's Commentary " on these same books. It is with the same curiously sad feeling of mingled sickness and despair in- spired by the proceedings of the Pan-Anglican Synod and the recent discussions in Convocation on the Athan- asian Creed, that we read those wonderful comments which the highest dignitaries of the Church — two Arch- bishops and at least four Bishops — have permitted their most learned theologians to lay before Christendom, in their name and with their sanction, as the most adequate replies they can furnish to the close and crushing argu- ments of German and English scholarship combined. They look like bows and arrows, or the sling of David, against Armstrong guns. The impression they leave mc^t clearly on the mind is of an utter incapacity on the part of the writers to perceive either the strength of their adversaries' position, or the scope and bearing of their own admissions. On the one hand, the insuperable diffi- culties in reference to the Biblical figures (chronological and other) are neither candidly admitted nor clearly and distinctly met; while the legends relating to the Creation and to Noah's Ark — ^both of which are ostensibly assumed to be veracious histories — are dealt with in a fashion al- most incredible in its feeble puerility. On the other hand, it appears to be admitted that, as the two versions of the Ten Commandments delivered from Mount Sinai, contained in Exodus xx. and Deuteronomy v., differ ma- terially, both of them cannot contain the ipaissima verba of the Most High, though both claim to do so, and that in all probability neither of them can make good this pretension ; — that, in fact, when Scripture writes, " God spake these words," He did not in reality speak those words, but only some of them; and that while the actual dicta, " Thou shalt " and " Thou shalt not," came from Him, the reasons and enlargements interwoven with them in both versions are merely the explanatory com- n 12 INTRODUCTION 'O 'y^ ifi THIRD EDITION. ments of the annotato) .cult to read the notes historian. At least it is difR Part I., p. 336 and p. 822 intended to convey any other meaning. as Kenan's work appears to me to be in some respects of extraordinary, and almost unique value. He proposed to himself the task of reproducing the actual life and teach- ing of Christ, out of such historical or semi-historical ma- terials as liave reached us, by replacing himself in imagi- nation amid the surroundings, — social, moral, intellectual, and physical, — of eighteen centuries ago. He endeavours to do this, first, by examining on the spot the scenery, climate, and natural objects among which the early years of Jesus w^ere passed, as well as the habits of life of the primitive people among whom he dwelt ; thus imbibing, as far as might be, the influences which must have oper- ated so powerfully upon the character and tone of mind Oi the Founder of our -faith. He then labours thoroughly to imbue himself with the special peculiarities — £o diffi- cult to us Westerns to realise — of the Oriental or Semi- tic nature, — its mingled impassibility, mysticism, and simplicity, its boundless capacity of enthusiasm and of belief, its utter incapacity for cold, critical, scientific in- vestigation. Finally, he studies with exhaustive patience the state of thought and opinion pievalent in the times and the countries of early Christianity, as well as the several political conditions in the midst of which that marvellous drama was acted out. He thus approaches the problem of what Jesus truly was and did with an intelligence and a fancy saturated, as it were, by mere force of sympathy with the colouring and temperament of the country and the age, and by this means is enabled to lay before us a picture astonishingly lifelike and at- tractive. Two points, more especially, he brings out with unequalled vividness ; the first is the gradual alteration which came over the language and conceptions of Christ as he exchanged the sanguine and buoyant enthusiasm of the earlier months of his career for the gravity and dis- couragement of its later period, when the sympathetic affections and cheerful sceneiy of Qalilee had been left BENAN'S " VIE DE Jlesus.' 16 behind for the arid and sombro landscape of Judea, and the obstinate and incredulous hostility he there encoun- tered, and when the full difficulty of his mission and its inevitable ending had grown clear to his conception ; — fl changes which convey a painful sense of inconsistency and inharmoniousness to those who regard His ministry as a single transaction arranged and thought out from the beginning. The second specially valuable contribution towards a true conception of Christ's history which we owe to Renan, is his masterly description of the manner in which miracles grow up, as it were, around the steps of every great prophet and reformer in the East, apart from his initiation, sometimes without even his conni- vance, occasionally too, in spite of his reluctance and his protests. On the other hand, the value of the book, if I may venture to pronounce such a judgment, is much impaired, and the fidelity of the portrait jt presents singularly marred, by one pervading and persistent error. The wonderful reproductive imagination of the author has not been steadily kept in check by his critical acumen. Al- most in spite of himself and at issue with his intended caution, he has been led to draw the materials of his picture of the character and proceedings of Christ too promiscuously from faithful traditions and authentic rec- ords, and from sources either apocryphal or spurious. When he originally wrote, he believed the fourth gospel to be the production of the apostle whose name it bears, and in consequence (as the narrative of an eye-witness, though an aged one) to have an equal or superior author- ity to that of the Synoptists. He therefore endeavoured to reconstruct the Jesus of actual life from two sources utterly discrepant — i.e,, to frame a breathing, living, pure, self-consistent teacher from narrators whose respective conceptions of that teacher were in most essential points quite at variance, — in fact, to create one solid Reality out of two incongruous Ideals. Naturally, the result was, to a great extent, a failure, — a painful and, in the eyes of many, an oft'ensive, failure; inasmuch as this funda- mental error forced Renan to attribute to Christ preten- 14 INTRODUCTION TC THE THIRD EDITION. sions, assumptions, and language irreconcilable with that perfect sincerity and transparent truthfulness in act and word, which it wounds the susceptibility of all his dis- ciples not to believe was his unfailing characteristic. In the 13th edition, the author recognised his error, and endeavoured, but not quite successfully, to eliminate its consequences. After long and searching investigation, he arrived at the definite conclusion, that the fourth gos- pel, however valuable in many points of view, was neither the work of the apostle whose name it bears, nor in any distinct sense historical. But the mischief was done ; the study of that gospel had so influenced M. Kenan's concep- tion of the great original, that he has been able only most imperfectly to shake himself free from the bias therein derived, and all his careful corrections have not quite sufficed to shake his portrait free from incongruous and disfiguring features. But this is not all. Several passages in the other gospels, which M. Kenan's exegesis had decided him to reject as spurious, or at least, as entirely unauthentic, he yet has allowed to influence him in his deiiner ♦^^ion of Christ's character and actions; while endea- vouring (most ineffectually) to imdo the mischief by foot- notes calling attention to the " feeble authority " or the total ungenuineness of the materials with which he has yet allowed himself to build. The unfortunate result is shewn more especially in chapters xviii. and xix., though reappearing frequently throughout the volume. But with all these drawbacks, the impresion left upon my mind by a second perusal, after an interval of several years, is that M. Kenan's book is perhaps the most essential contribu- tion to a faithful, and rational, and adequate conception of what Christ was, and did, and taught, which the nine- teenth century has given us. Like four or five other works which orthodoxy eyes askance, or furiously de- nounces as open or insidious attacks, it should be viewed rather as proceeding from an independent auxiliary and a cordial ally, than from a hostile critic of real Christianity.* * The following passage will justify this estimate in the eyes of all oandid readers, xxviii. pp. 462-3 : " J6»\u a tix^ pour toujours la mani^re dnnt il faut ooncevoir le culte pur. **ECCE HOMO.** n '* Ecce Homo " is a book of very different stamp from the Vie de J^aus, though composed with a similar purpose. It is an attempt to reproduce the historical Christ, or perhaps we should rather say, to create out of the moral consciousness of the author and the sum total of the traditional materials before him, a complete and consis- tent picture of the ideal Christ, whom history has left so dim and whom theology has so distorted. The plan is worked out with singular power and beauty, with a lofty imagination and a fine deep insight which, as far as our reading goes, are almost unrivalled. Perhaps so rich and noble, as well as so lovable, a conception of our great example has scarcely been given to tlie world. Probably, however, its accurate fidelity to the original reality is not equal to the grandeur of the ensemble, — the constructive fancy of the author being decidedly superior to his critical instinct or acumen. There is scarcely a single reference to chapter and verse throughout the volume; — while Benan and Strauss almost overload their pages with such justificatory citations. In the only two that we have noticed (the cases of Zaccheus and Nicodemus) he appears entirely to misrepresent the sense of the original. Sa religion n'est point limits. L'Eglise a eu ses ^poques et Bes phases ; elle s'est renferm^e dans des s^boles qui n'ont eu ou qui n'auront ^u'un temps : — J^sus a fond^ la religion absolue, n'excluant rien, ne determinant rien ai ce n'est le sentiment. Ses symboles ne sont pas de dogmes arr^t^ ; ce sent des images susceptibles d'interpr^tationa ind^niea. On chercherait vainement une proposition th^logique dans I'Evangile. Toute$ let profes- siom defoi sont de» travettitsements de I'idie de Jiiut^ k pen pr^ conune la Scolastique du moyen ftge, en proolamant Aristote .e maltro unique d'une science achev^, faussait la pens^ d' Aristote. Aristote, s'il etlt assists aux dt^bats de I'^ole, etlt r^pudi^ cette doctrine ^troite ; il elit ^t^ du parti de la science progressive contre la routine qui se cpuvrait de son autorit^ : — il edt applauoi k ses contradioteurs. De mdme, lu J^us revenait parmi nous il reoonnaltrait pour disciples, non ceuz qui pr^tendent le renfermertout entier dans quelques phrases de Cat^hisme, mais ceux qui travaillent k le continuer. Ea gloire itemelle, dans tous les ordres de grandeurs, est d'avoir pos^ la pr^mi^re pibrre. . Quelles que puissent dtre les transfor- mations du dogme, Jesus restera en religion le cr^ateur du sentiment pur ; le sermon sur la montagne ne sera pas d^asa^. Aucune revolution ne fera que nous ne nous rattachions en religion a la grande famille intelleotuelle et morale en tdte de laquelle brille le nom de J^sus. En ce sens nous sommes Chretiens, m6me quand nous s^parons sur pret^^ue tous les points de la tradition chretienne qui nous a precedes. Et cette grande fond&tion fut bien I'cEuvre personelle de jesus. Pour s'etre fait adorer k ce point, l faut qu'il ait ete adorable." Vi* deJi%u» —p. 462. V 16 INTRODtrcnON TO THE THIBD EDITION. II! Indeed, on more than one occasion — as in his remarks on forgiving offences " till seventy times seven," — he takes strange liberties ^rith the text. The author of " Ecce Homo " seems to have not so much studied and examined the Gospels with the view of ascertaining what was historical and what was legendary, as to have imbued his mind with their entire contents, and then suffered the whole to ferment patiently, till out of it arose before him a conception in seipso totus, teres, at<^ we rotundua. As- suming half unconsciously (rather than asserting dogmati- cally) that the narratives are in the main genuine aud faithful, — and believing unquestioningly (again without thinking it necessary to affirm) that Qirist's character and purpose must have been from the first and through- out complete, self-consistent, and diviner— he lias built up his interpretation and his portraiture confic^ently on these two foundations — both of which we, in common with Renan, F. W. Newman, and others, deem to be at least problematic. The result is, that his reproduction, mag- nificent and admirable, and in many respects singularly Eenetrating as it is, fails (it seems to us) in this : — That e attributes to Christ a deliberate scheme, plan, puipose, and organization for the conquest and conversion of the world, which, in its completeness at least, we belietre to have been a conception of much later date, and to have flitted only fitfully, if at all, through the mind of Jesus himself. He seems unable to picture our Lord otherwise than as founding a special society or " commonwealth," and as acting from the beginning upon a carefully formed and well-matured system of philosophy, indicative of the profoundest study and experience of human nature. Thus, while the idea of " E ..ce Homo " is the loftier, that of Kenan seems to us histwically the truer and more prob- able. We cannot understand the positiveness oi the writer's assertion that Jesus considered himself above all things a king, and his followers as subjects; that he peremptorily insisted upon the rite of baptism as the con- dition of being admitted among his followers ; and that the Rulsrs, Pharisees, and Scribes put him to death, not because he denounced them and led away the people from "BCGK HOMO." 17 them, but because h« would not fulfil their notions of what a king should do. Apart from these objections, the conception, as a whole, is full of truth and beauty — of truth that has been often missed, of beauty that has been deplorably disfigured. His idea of the " faith," spoken of in the Gospels as the one indispensable condition of membership in Christ's commonwealth, is new and stri- king, and may be correct. *' He who, when goodness is impressively put before him,exhibit8 an instinctive loyalty to it, starts forward to take its side, trusts himself to it, such a man has faith, and the root of the matter is in him. He may have habits of vice, but the loyal and faithful instinct will place him above many who practise virtue." The distinction dravm by the author between the religion of Jesus and the 'pldl- osophies of the ancient moralists and reformers, is valuable and well-defined, though not new. But the more original suggestions of the book, those which entitle it to be considered as a real and fresh contribution to our understanding of what Christianity in truth is, or was at the outset designed to be, appear to be these four: — First, The contrast between the highest notion of vi/rtue reached in the old world, as consisting in the control and subju^tion of all bad passions and propen- sities, and the holmeaa required by Christ, as consisting in a state of mind in which aU these pacsions and propensities are extinguished, burned up in the flame of a stronger affection and desire — in a word, between temp- tation resisted, and temptation n6n-existent ; so that what Christ demands is far less a course of life strictly and resolutely virtuous, than a frame of fooling to which vice is simply impossible because repugnant. Second, The contrast between the negative character of the heathen conception of consummate excellence, and the positim and expansive virtue required from the Christian disciple — the one being commanded merely to abstain from wrong, the other to devote himself to active good. Third, That love for, and sympatMy with, all fellow-men — growing out of, and embodied in an absorbing afec- tion and admiration for Jesus himself as the representor 18 IINTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. tive of aU that was lovable in mom, — ^which previous times felt and prescribed only for fellow-citizens and kindred. This the author calls "The Enthusiasm of Humanity," and regards as the special creation und triumph of Christ's life and teaching, and as affording a clue to the real significance of that predominant and constantly asserted " personality," which has given oc- casion to such strange misconceptions in different direc- tions. Fourth, The peculiar, high-strung, and almost extravagant character of both the devotion and the morality inculcated by Jesus — a pervading tone of tension (so to speak) — of lofty enthusiasm which ^s almost excitement, and has often fatally become such among his followers. " No heart (he writes) is pure that is not passionate. No virtue is safe that is not enthusiastic. And such an enthusiastic virtue Christ was to int.roduce." Mr. Arnold's " Literature and Dogma " is a. most noteworthy and even startling production, ota several accounts. In one respect it resembles " Ecce Homo," but differs from it in many more. Like that work it is (in the later portion at least) an attempt to conceive the precise purpose and mission of Christ, as well as the essentials of his character. But the conclusion arrived at is singularly discrepant. According to Mr. Arnold, the specific work of Christ was to restore that reign of righteousness which the Hebrew Race was the diosen instrument for establishing on earth ; and to do this by bringing back the idea of personal holiness, which by that time the Jews had almost wholly merged in the no- tion of social and national obedience to positirve and rigid law. His " method " was fieravoux, a chtuige in the inner man ; his "secret" was self-renunciation. So far there is no great discrepancy; but while "Ecce Homo" finds the clearest and most predominant characteristic of Jesus to consist in a fervent zeal, an undying enthusiasm, which was quite passion, and almost fanaticism, — Mr. Arnold, on the contrary, sees a " sweet reasonableness " (twuiKfia), « "mild winning gentleness," to be the most marked peculiarity of his nature. Such are the opposite results ABi ^'S " irrEBArUBB AND DOGMA." 19 which men arrive ai) from the same materials when their morality is not a science but a taste. So partial and im- peifect are at best the constructions of the keenest insight and the richest culture when acting under the orders of that " moral consciousness " which is in fact each man's highest, but still individual, standard of the good and true It cannot for a moment be doubted by any one who reads " Literature and Dogma" in an appreciative and unprejudiced temper, that Mr. Arnold's rehgious instincts and intuitions are often remarkably penetrating, and nearly always beautiful and touching, even if habitually too much coloured by his own inherent preferences ; and where they are erroneous and fanciful, the error arises not so much from any defect of intellectual — we might almost say spiritual — perception, as from a sort of naive and confident audacity which enables him to deal with his materials rather as a creative poet than a conjecturing and investigating critic. He does not so much guess or infer, — he knows what each writer meant, even where that writer's words do not exactly tally with his reason- ing. The specially personal concrete, anthropomorphic God of the Hebrews (whose name in his translation becomes not Jehovah, but " The Eternal **) he volatilizes into the " everlasting stream of tendency," — " a power, not ourselves, which makes for righteousness." He takes almost precisely the same view we ha '■e in this volume endeavoured to make good, of the essence of religion and Christianity as distinct from the accretions and corrup- tions — or what he terms the " Aberglaube" or extra-belief — with which popular imagination and tradition have overlaid it. His pages arc full of rich and fine and proliijc suggestions, and bring much invaluable aid to I that reaction towards pure and simple Christianity, for I which we have been pleading all along , but the aid is less in the form of distinct argument or cogent demon- I stration, than in the quiet confident assumption of an intelligence of consummate culture, looking at these j matters from those " regions mild of calm and serene air ** where doubt and disturbance never aach, that such and 20 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. such must be the conclusions of all competent and tnie- minded inquirers. There is much in the tone of the book which will give just and gratuitous offence to the prej- udices of orthodox readers; some passages which will grate upon the feelings of many, and the taste of nearly all. There is a good deal that is fanciful, and not a little that is flippant; but no one who reads it patiently through, in spite of these drawbacks, can fail, we think, to find his mind enriched as well as stiiTed by the perusal. But still more remarkable than the book itself is the fact that such a book should have been written by such a man. If we \ashed to measure the progress made in the 'ast few years by the general mind of England in reference to this class of questions, we could not do better than compare what Mr. Arnold has written in 1873 with what he wrote only ten years ago. In 1863 he published in Macmillan's Magazine* two attacks singu- larly unmeasured and unfair, upon the Bishop of Natal, condemning that dignitary with the utmost harshness and severity for having blurted out to the common world his discoveries that the Pentateuch is often inaccurate, and, therefore, as a whole, could not possibly be inspired ; that much of it was obviously unhistorical, legendary, and al- most certainly not Mosaic. He did not, indeed, affect to question Dr. Colenso's conclusions, but he intimated that such dangerous truths ought to be reserved for esoteric circles, not laid bare before such babes and suckling-s as the mass of men consists of. I ventured at the timef to protest against the injustice of this assault upon a writer who was merely endeavouring] n laborious humility toma/i^ good that very right to treat the Bible as an uninspired, and consequently criticable narrative, which his assailant quietly, and without humility, assv/med as undeniable. The keynote and motive of Mr. Arnold's criticism was plainly indignation at the Bishop for having written what must shake that faith in the Old Testament as the Word of God, which he held to be so valuable and so comforting * " The Bishop and the Philosopher." " Stanley's Lectures on the Jew- iih Church." January and February, 1863. t *' Literary and Social Judgments.'*— Truth versut Edification. AKNOLD P " L11£BATUBE AND DOGMA. 21 to the popular mind. And now the critic himself comes for- ward to do precisely the same thing in a far more sweep ' ig fashion, and in a far less tentative and modest temper. He avows that the general belief in Scripture as a truth- ful narrative and an inspired record — as anything, in short, that can in any distinct sense be called " The Word of God " — is quite erroneous, and can no longer be de- fended ; that the old ground on which the Bible was so cherished having been cut from under us, those who value and reverence its teaching as Mr. Arnold does, must set to work to build it up on some fresh foundation in the minds of men. Colenso and others having so grubbed at the basement that the edifice is aeriously endangered, Mr. Arnold zealously and earnestly undertakes to under- pin it. In 1863 he would fain have kept things as they were, and fixed men's thoughts on what was " edifying " in the Bible, on its grand devotion and its uncompromis- ing inculcation of righteousness, maintaining a decorous silence as to the hollow basis of the common creed. In 1873 bo can say "hush, hush!" no longer. The secret has been indiscreetly revealed; the errant terrible of Natal has lifted up the curtain ; and all the collabora- ^teurs of the Si)eaker*s Commentary cannot now shut out he light. So Mr. Arnold sets himself manfully to remedy ithe mischief. It must be admitted that he does his work ith a rare courage, and, in the latter portions at least of he volume, with consummate skill. But the painstaking, Imost timid inferences of the Episcopal heretic are but he thin end of the wedge in comparison with the broad ast assumptions of the ex-Professor of Poetry at Oxford. 'e argues seldom — he demonstrates little ; but he treats 11 the creeds of the orthodox and the established notions f Christendom with a curiously calm indifierence, which is almost contempt — a quiet lofty scorn admirably calcu- ated to give spirit and confidence to less audacious free hinkers. Prophecies, miracles, transcendental dogmas, notaphysical propositions, " schemes of salvation, the postles' creed (" the popular science of Christianity"), he Nicene creed (" the learned science "), the Athanasian i-eed (the learned science " with a strong dash of violent 22 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. and vindictive temper"), all go down before his lance under the comprehensive phrase of " Aberglaube ; " and it is by no means clear that either a personal God or a future life is left standing amid the heap of ruins. It is surely a significant circumstance that one of the most popular authors of the day — "the Apostle of Culture" — gifted "with a sagacious tact as to all the intellectual currents of the age — who at the beginning of the decade came, like Balaam, to curse bold and searching Biblical criticism, should, at the end of that decade, have remained to lead, to bless, and to exemplify it so remarkably. It is, perhaps, more significant still that it should bo impossible to re- gard his work, trenchantly iconoclas tic though it indisputa- bly is, as otherwise than conceived in the interest, and im- bued with the spirit of sincere religion. Many will describe Mr. Arnold as having run a ruthless and sacrilegious tilt against the Bible. I should say rather that he had lifted it off one pedestal to put it on another — with much rever- ence, and perhaps a little condescension. It was remarked by a friendly critic of my first edition that in approaching the question of the resurrection of Christ from the side of the Gospels, instead of from that of the Epistles, I had thrown away the main strength of the case. The criticism is just, and in deference to it, I have since reconsidered the subject from the point of views suggested. The Epistles were of prior date to the Qospek , the earliest statement, therefore, that we pos- sess of the fact of the resurrection, as well as the only one whose author we know for certain, is that contained in Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians xv. 3-8. It is likewise the only distinct apostolic aaaertion of the fact ; for though Peter (i. 3 ; ii. 21,) alludes to and assumes it, he does not afiirm it, and James and John do not even n'entionit. Leaving out of view the Gospels, then, the * The date of the Gospels is at best conjectural. No authority, however, we believe, would place even the earliest of them before A.D. 60 or 65 ;— many much Inter. Now, the Epistle to the Corinthians was written almoBt certainly about a.d. 67, and the other Pauline writings between 62 and Gii. — {See Uonybear« and Hcwaon.) RBSURRECTION OF JESUS. 28 evidence of the great foundation doctrine of the Chris- tian Creed, consists in these two indisputable points, — that all the apostles and disciples believed it — had no doubt alx)ut it — held it with a conviction so absolute that it in- spired them with zeal and courage to live as missionaries and to die as martyrs ; — and that Paul, five and twenty years after the event, wrote of it thus : — " For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures ; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,* and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ; after that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part -remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen of James, then of all the apostles. And last of all, he was seen of me also, as of one bom out of due season." Now, if this were aU — ^if we had no further testimony to the resurrection of Jesus from the dead than that it was believed by the whole original Christian Church ; I that the apostles and personal followers of Christ, who must be supposed to have had the best means of knowing it, clung to the conviction enthusiastically, and witnessed to it by their preaching and their death ; and that Paul, not a personal follower, but in constant communication with those who were, made the above assertions in a letter addressed to one of the principal churches, and published while most of the eye-witnessess to whom he appeals I were still alive to confirm or to contradict his statements, — if the case rested on this only, and terminated here, every one, I think, would feel that our grounds for accepting the resurrection as an historical fact in ita naked simpli- city would be far stronger than they actually are. In jtruth,they would appear to be nearly unassailable and ir- • Our readers will not fail to notice the shadow of doubt which the ex- Jpression " according to the Scriptures " throws over even this direct testi- Imony. " According to the Scriptures " simply means, wherever it occurs, I "in supposed fulfilment of the erroneous interpretation of the Old Testa- Iment Psalms and Prophecies then current." Paul, moreover, it should be lobserved, here merely speaks at second hand, and declares what he had been hold by others— " that which I also received. " 24 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. resistible, except bj those who can imagine some probable mode in which such a positive and vivifying conviction could have m-own up without the actual occurrence hav- ing taken place to create it. Such explanation has been offered by many writers — by Strauss, by Renan, by Ar- nold, by Hanson, and others. I have considered them all, I think dispassionately ; — and ingenious as they are (especially the detailed one of M. Renan), I am bound to say they do not satisfy my mind. They do not convince me, I mean, that the belief arose as they suggest. They are very skilful, they are even probable enough ; but they do not make me feel that the iiTue solution of the mystery has been reached. Nor can I with any confidence offer one of my own, though I can conceive one more simple and inherently likely than those propounded. But the real difficulty lies in the gospel narratives. The evangelists contradict the apostle. Nay more, — they shew that the belief of the Cnristian Church was not simple, uniform, and self-consistent, as Paul's statement would lead us to suppose ; but that it was singularly vague, various, and self-contradictory. Nay, worse still, — ^they not only show in how many fluctuating shapes it existed, but they suggest how the belief may have formed itself by specifjdng a number of the circuxastantial details around which it grew and solidified so rapidly. In the Epistles and the Acts, we find simply the assertion of the fact, and evidence to the universal conviction. In the Gospels, we read the several traditions accepted in the Christian community thirty or more years after the event, as to the nature and surrounding context of that event. Now here commences our serious embarrassment; and the embarrassment consists in this, that the new witnesses called — ^possibly very incompetent ones — make it impos- sible to arrive at any clear or definite conclusion as to the what or the how. That is to say, — we cannot fraTne any theory whatever cw to the resurrection, which ie not di8- tirwtly negatived hy one or other of the evangelical ac- cov/nts. If the occurrence were to rest only on the gos- pel narratives, rational belief would be almost out of the question. If the belief in the early church had been I H"' BESURRECTION OF JESUS. 25 based upon these narratives (which it was not), that belief could carry with it only the faintest authority. Let us follow out this view a little in detail. Some have imagined that the reappearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples was of the nature of those apparitions of departed friends as to the occurrence of which there exists such a mass of overwhelming testi- mony ; and the related mode of his appearances and disappearances gives some primd fade colouring to the idea. He vanished out of the sight of the companions at Emmaus ; he ceased to be seen of them. When the dis- ciples were assembled at Jerusalem Jesus himself stood in the midst of them (John adds in two passages, that the doors were shut). " While he blessed them he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven." In the Acts, a cloud received him out of their sight. This view may be said, moreover, to be countenanced by the language of Paul himself, who classes the appearance of Jesus to himself along with his appearances to others ; yet his we know was an apparition (rather an audition, for he speaks of hearing him, not of seeing him). But then this theory is distinctly negatived by the assertions that Jesus assured the affrighted disciples (who had imagined him to be an apparition) that he was actually thus present in flesh and bones, his real old self with hands and feet and bodily organs, and able and desirous to eat. In fact Jesus seems positively to have refused to be considered in the light of the supernatural being his startled followers would at once have made of him, and did make of him shortly after. Others, again, adopt the supposition that Jesus did not actually die upon the cross, but merely swooned, and revived naturally (or by the aid of Joseph of Arimathea), when taken down and laid in a temporary sepulchre. I And this theory has many considerations in its favour, all which are discussed by Strauss and Renan. It ap- pears — ^though the several accounts do not tally very [closely — that he was not more than six hours, or I perhaps not more than four upon the cross (how long in [the grave we do not know — perhaps not an hour) ; and c 26 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. that, though so highly wrought and delicate an organi- zation as that of Jesus must have been, might well have succumbed to even that brief period of agony, yet that such speedy death from crucifixion was most unusual, and excited the surprise of Pilate. On this supposition the subsequent appearances narrated in Luke and Mat- thew are simple and natural enough ; nor need we trouble ourselves to speculate on his after hiitory and final dis- appearance from the scene. But, then, this theory neutralizes entirely the religious value of the occurrence — besides being irreconcilable with the "non-recogni- tion " feature of the narratives, to which I now proceed. This feature is, in truth, the terrible embarrassment which the gospel narratives present to those who hold the common creed on the subject of the resurrection. Those narratives relate that many of the disciples who saw him after he rose from the dead did not recognise him. They relate this of three cr four of his most re- markable appearances. Those who had lived with him for years, and who had parted from him on the Friday, did not know him again on the Sunday. If then, he was so changed — so entirely not his former self — that they could not recognise him, how covld they know, or how can we know, that the person aaaumed to be Jesus was actually their risen Lord ? Does not this non-recognition almost irresistibly suggest the inferences, that the ex- cited imaginations of his more suscepbi^ le disciples as- sumed some stranger to be Jesus, when they learned that his body had disappeared from the sepulchre and that angels had affirmed that he was risen ; and that those " whose eyes were hoJden," who " doubted," or "did not be- lieve for joy and wonder," were the more prosaic and less impressible of the beholders ? The diflBculty is obviously tremendous : — let us look at the particulars. Matthew relates two appearances, in very general terms : — Of the second he says, " but some doubted." Mark — the genuine gospel of Mark, which, as we know, terminates with the 8th verse of the 16th chapter — says nothing of any appearances ; but, in the spurious addi- tion, repeats twice that those who asserted that they had BESUBBECnON OF JEBUB. 27 seen him, were disbelieved, and that Christ, when he ap- peared himself to the eleven, " upbraided them with their unbelief." Luke narrates two appearances, and inciden- tally mentions that " the eleven " reported a third, " to Simon." With reference to the first, he says of the two disciples, Cleophas and a friend, who walked, talked, and ate with Jesus at Emmaus for several hours, " their eyes were holden that they should not know him." With ref- erence to the second appearance (" to the eleven ") it is said, first, " that they were afirighted, thinking they had seen a spirit," and shortly afterwards, that " they yet be- lieved not for joy, and wondered." But it is in the fourth Qospel that the non-recognition feature becomes most marked. Mary Magdalene, after Jesus had spoken to her, and she had turned to look at him, still " supposed him to be the gardener." His most intimate disciples, when they saw him in Galilee, " knew not that it was Jesus," even though he spoke to them; and even John him- self oidy inferred the presence of his master in consequence of the miraculous draught of fishes, and Peter only accepted the inference on John's authority. " Therefore, that dis- ciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, ' It is the Lord.' Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the Lord, he girt on his fisher's coat and did cast himself into the sea." One more difficulty — a very grave one — ^raised by the traditional accounts transmitted to us in the Qospels, must be indicated, but needs nothing beyond indication. These accounts all insist in the strongest manner upon the de- tailed demonstration, that it was Jesus in bodily shape, in the same actual form, with the same hands and feet, and the same digestive organs and human needs, whom they had known three days before, and had seen nailed to the cross, who now again came among them and conversed with them. Jesus himself is made to assure them that he was not a spirit, but fiesh and bones that could be handled. In this well-known presence, with these bodily organs and this earthly frame, he is said to have been seen to ascend into heaven. Can flesh and blood inhei-' ^ the spiritual kingdom ? or where was the body droppea i and when was the transmutation carried out ? 28 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. But, now, instead of takinfr the gospel narratives as they stand promiscuously ana 'n a whole, let us discard those portions which are certaii^iy or moct probably un- genuine or spurious, and take into consideration only that residue which may be fairly assumed to embody the ear- liest traditions of the Christian community ; and we shall find most of the difficulties we have thus mentioned either vastly mitigated or quite dispersed. In fact — and I would draw particular attention to this conclusion — we who show that the Gk>8pels are rather traditional than strictly historical narratives absolutely authoritative and correct, are the persons who do special service to the doctrine of the resurrection by removing obstacles to its credibility. The whole of the accounts in the fourth Gospel then fall away and cease to embarrass us at all. At most, they only serve to indicate how tradition had been at work and grown between the first and the second century — at least one generation, possibly two. Mark, probably the earliest writer of all, never presented any embarrassment at all— unless, indeed, a negative one — for he says not a word of post-sepulchral appearances, and merely mentions the ap- pearance of " a young man " at the tomb, who tells the disciples simply, and as a message, that Jesus is no longer there, b t has gone before them into Galilee.* Matthew, again, deals in general terms, and gives an account almost identical with that of Paul, though even less full and particular.-f" Luke, alone, remains to trouble us ; Luke, who probably wrote when apparitional accounts had be- gun to multiply and magnify ; whose perplexing narra- tive about Enimaus is not even alluded to by any of the other evangelists, and must almost certainly have been unknown to them ; and who directly contradicts Matthew as to the alleged command of Jesus, that they should go into Galilee to meet him. Matthew says, " go into Galilee." Luke says, " tarry in Jerusalem." Looking, then, at the ^ "The word he uses, moreover, is significant : he says, r^^ytpSri, "he i« risen,"— not ivaarhirti, he is risen from the dead. t Moreover, it is the opinion of some very competent critics, that the con< etniting portion of the last chai)ter of Matthew in not entitled to the sami character of indiopntable genuineneBS as the rest of the gospel. EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. 29 Bays, i^ytpBt], " he is matter in this light, we may not unfairly accept Paul's statement as embodying the whole of the recognised and authorized tradition of the early church on the subject of the appearances of the crucified and risen Jesus. This assertion, aiid the general and absolute conviction of the apostolic community, remain as our warrant for believing in the miraculous resurrection of our Lord. Are they ade- quate ? This is practically the residual question calling for decision. It is perhaps far less important than is commonly fan- cied. I have already (chap, xiv.) given my reasons for holding that, except it be regarded as establishing, and as needed to establish, the authority of the teaching of Christ, his resurrection has no bearing — certainly no favourable or confirmatory bearing — on the question of our future life. Just as the confident conviction of the earliest Chris- tians and the mighty influence that conviction exercised over their character and actions, constitute the chief evi- dence of th3 Resurrection of Christ, — so the existence of the Christian faith, its vast mark in history, and its establishment over the most powerful, progressive, and intellectual races of mankind, constitute the strongest testimony we possess to its value and its truth. This may, or may not, be sufficient to prove its divine origin and its absolute correctness, but it is the best we have, and is more cogent by far than any documentary evidence could be. Christianity as it prevails over all Europe and America, constituting the cherished creed, and at least the professed and reverenced moral guide of probably two hundred millions of the foremost nations upon earth, is a marvellous fact which requires accounting for — a mighty effect indicating a cause or causes of corresponding efficacy. Whatever we may conclude as to its origin, that origin must, in one way or other, have been adequate to the sub- sequent growth. In some sense, in some form, the victory of the Christian religion must be due to some inherent energy, excellence, vitality, suitability to the wants and character of man. Mere circumstances could not explain ao INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. this victory. We may safely go a step further, and say that this vital force, this inherent excellence, this appro- priateness, must have been something strange, subtle, unexampled. Those who conclude it, in consequence, to have been a special divine revelation, offer what we must admit to '>e prlmd fade the simplest and easiest solution. But the argument, as just stated, must not be pushed too far. Three considerations serve to indicate with how much caution, with what a large survey of history, with what a wide grasp and deep analysis of the phenomena of mind in various times and among various races, the prob- lem must be approached. Christianity is not the most widely spread of the religions of mankind. Buddhism is of earlier date, and counts more millions among its vota- ries. Islamism took its rise later, was diffused more rapidly, and rules over a larger area of the earth's surface. At one time it seemed as if Christianity would go down before its triumphant career. Some readers of history may even be disposed to argue that but for two men and two battles, — possibly but for a special charge of cavalry, or it may be a sudden inspiration of the leading generals, — it might have done so. The spread of Buddhism, the spread of Islamism, must have had an adequate cause, as well as the spread of Christianity. Again, the enthroned position and commanding influ- ence of our religion testify, with power which we make no pretence of resisting, to its truth and its surpassing excellences. So much no sceptic, we fancy, would wish, or would venture to deny. But this testimony is borne to Christianity — not any dogma of the creed carelessly called by that name ; to something inherent and essential in the religion — not to any particular thing which this or that sect chooses to specify as its essence. It does not testify at all — at least the orthodox are not entitled to assume that it does — to the divinity of our Lord, to his miraculous resurrection, to his atoning blood, to the Trin- itarian mystery, or to any one of the scholastic problems into which the Athanasian Creed has endeavoured to condense the faith of Christendom ; it may testify only, we believe it does, to that apocalypse and exemplification "ARE WE YET CHRISTIANS?" 31 of the possibilities of holiness and lovableness latent in humanity, which was embodied in the unique life and character of Jesus. And, thirdly, it must be admitted without recalcitra- tion, though the admission cart-ies with it some vague and startling alarm of danger, that Christianity, with all its unapproached truth and beauty, owes its rapid progress and, in some vast degree, its wide and firm dominion, at least as distinctly if not as much, to the errors which were early mingled with it, as to the central and faultless ideas those errors overlaid. On one point, at least, all — even the thinking minds among the most orthodox — will agree : — that the mightiest and most inspiring conviction among the earliest Christians, that which vivified their zeal, warmed their eloquence, made death easy and fear impos- sible, that which in fact more than any other influence caused their victories, was their unhesitating belief in the approaching end of the world, and the speedy coming of their Lord in glory. That this was an entire delusion we now all acknowledge. Many of us go much further. Few will doubt that the doctrine of the Messiah ship of Jesus aided most powerfully the triumph of his reli- gion among the Jews, and that of his proper deity among the Gentiles (not to mention other scholastic and pagan accretion.u.j ; — and many now hold that these are as indis- putable delusions as the other. In a word, truth has floated down to us upon the wings of error, treasured up and borne along in an ark built of perishable materials and by human hands ; some devotees, ther^jfore, still cling to the ark and the error as sacred agencies, worthy of all reverence and worship, confounding what they have done with what they are. But we do not read that Noah thought it incumbent upon him to continue out of grati- tude living in the ark when the waters had subsided. On the contrary, as soon as there was dry, firm ground for the sole of his feet, he came forth from his preserving prison- house, and gave thanks and ofiered sacrifice to the Lord. " Are we yet Christians ? " is the momentous question of the day, which is being asked everywhere in a variety 32 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. 'i iH of forms. It is the question asked, and answered in the neg- ative, in the last remarkable and unsatisfactory volume of Strauss, " Der alte und der neue Glaube." It is the question asked, but not answered, in a striking monograph so en- titled, which appeared in a recent number of the Fort- nightly Review.* It is the question which is forcing itself upon the minds of all students of the tone and temper of the times, who cannot fail to recognise, with anxious speculation as to the results,that a vast proportion of the higher and stronger intellect of the age in nearly all branches of science and thought — as well as large bodies, if not the mass, of the most energetic section of the working classes — is day by day more and more decidedly and avowedly shaking itself free from every form and variety of estiablished creeds. It is the question, finally, which is implied, rather than openly asKed, in the various uneasy and spasmodic, perhaps somewhat blind, attempts on the part of the clergy, in the shape of " Speaker's Commentaries," new churches, open-air preachings, Pan- Anglican Synods, and the like, to meet a danger which they perceive through the mist, but of which they have scarcely yet measured the full significance and bearing. Are we then ceasing to be Christians ? Is Christianity as a religion in very truth dying out from among us amid the conflicting or converging influences of this fermenting age. Most observers, seeing Christianity only in the popular shape and the recognised formularies, feel that there can be little doubt about the matter. Strauss, ac- cepting the " Apostles' Creed " as the received and correct representation of the Christian faith is just as distinct in his reply. " If then we are to seek no subterfuges, if we are not tc halt between two opinions, if our yea is to be yea, and our nay, nay, — if we are to speak as honourable and straightforward men — then we must recognise the fact that we are no longer Christians ? " I should give a diflferent reply, but only because 1 attach to the principal word a less conventional, but as- * March, 1873. '* ABE WE YET CHRISTIANS ? " 33 suredly a more correct and etymological signification. I entirely refuse to recognise the Apostles' Creed, or the Nicene Creed, or the Westminster Confession, or the Longer or Shorter Catechism, or the formularies of any church, whether Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinistic, or United, as faithful embodiments or authoritative representations of Christianity.* Rightly regarded, the very shape, character, purport, and title of these several docu- ments negative their claims to be accepted as such. Christianity was not, in its origin, a series of senten- tious propositions, nor a code of laws, nor a system of doctrine, nor a " scheme " of salvation,*!* but the * The Ghiardian (a recognised orthodox authority, I believe), June 11, 1873, gives the following definition of what it conceives Christianity to be— which would have astonished the Jesus of the Gospels : — " Now, for the purposes of this critique, we shall employ the word belief, as signifying belief in Christianity, and the word unbelief as signifying re- jection of the same. And if, further, it be demanded what we mean by Christianity, we say, as we have done before in similar cases, that we under- stand by it uiat religion which teaches — that man is alienated from the great Being who made him, in consequence of an original and hereditary enfeeblement ; that he has thereby lost the power of fulfilling, and even ot thoroughly knowing, his duty upon earth, and of preparing for the life to come ; and that deliverance from this condition, a reopening of the sources of pardon, of virtue, and of life, has been made by the advent of God in human form to this lower world ; by the life and death, the resur- rection and ascension, of Jesus Christ." t The very phrase, " scheme of salvation," as applied to Christianitv (like a somewhat analogous one often employed " making our peace with God"), strikes us as offensive and, when considered in relation to the details of the imagined scheme, almost monstrous. To those who have been brought up to this scheme from infancy of coiirse it is not so (to such nothing would be); but as describing the impression made upon those who come to it later in life, and who look at it from the outside, the word is not too strong. A scheme is a " contrivance " — a contrivance for attaining an object, or getting out of a difficulty ; and in the popular orthodox view, the Christian dispen- sation is in plain words— and putting it in plain words will perhaps be found its best and sufficient refutation and dissolvent — a " contrivance " concocted between God and His Son, between the first and second persons of the Trinity (or as we should say between the Creator of all worlds and Jesus of Nazareth, " a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief"), for enabling the human race to escape from a doom and a curse which certain scholastic theo- logians fancy (as an inference from particular texts of Scripture) to have been in some way incurred, either from the offences of each individual or from the offence of a remote ancestor. The ' ' scheme " first assumes that the original sin of our first parents (to say nothing of our own) cannot be for- given, nor the taint inherited by their innocent descendants wiped out, with- out the rigid exaction of a penalty (" damnation," eternal fire, and the like) altogether dispropoitioned to the offence,— that the attributes of the Deity imply and involve this "cannot." Then, since this doom is too horrible, ana the doctrine laid down in the above assumption too repdlant, alik* iUi* 34 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. outcome and combination of a holy life, a noble death, a wonderfully pure and perfect character and na- ture, a teaching at once seli-proving and sublime — the whole absolutely unique in their impressive lovableness. I cannot but remember — what is so strangely though sc habitually forgotten by all Christian sects — that this life was lived, this death consummated, this character dis- played, this devotion exemplified and inspired, this right- eousness preached and embodied, and this im/pression made — ^years before any convert or disciple conceived the fatal idea of formalising it all into a " creed." Nay, more, Icannot but remember that it was not till long after the elevating, spiritualising, restraining influence of the ac- tual presence and the daily example of Jesus was with- drawn, that anything fairly to be called " dogma " began to grow up among that apostolic society, whose best leaders even, as is obvious from the gospel narrative, stood on a moral and intellectual level so mr below their Master's.* I recognise more and more — what I believe its basis and its consequences, to be endured or accepted, the " scheme" than imagines the only Son of Goa (one hour's pain of whom, as a partaker of the divine nature, is an equivsJent to the eteraal sufferings of all human beings) agreeing to bear this doom instead of the m^mads of the offending race. An impossible debt is first invented, necessitating the invention of an incon- ceivable coin in which to pay it. A GUxl is imagined bent on a design and entertaining sentiments which it seems simple blasphemy and contradiction to ascribe to the Father in heaven, whom Jesus of Nazareth came to reveal to us,— and then he is represented as abandoning that design in considera- tion of a sacrifice, in which it is impossible to reco^se one gleam of appro- priateness or of hunuui equity. What looks very hke a legal fiction, purely gratuitous, is got rid of by what looks very like a legal chicanery, purely fanciful. To use a terse simile of Macaulay, the scheme "resembles nothing so much as a forged bond, vdth a forged release endorsed on the back of it. But the essential point to bear in mind is that not only do none of the genuine, authentic, mdisputable words of Christ contain or countenance this " scheme," but the entire tone and context of his teaching distinctly ignore it, and are at variance with its fundamental conceptions. * "Is the Apostles' Creed the original Christianity? we ask. Was it the mission of tfesus to draw up a Confession and to give currency to a formu- lated doctrine, rather than to wake up fresh religious life and to lay down principles which must always hold good in matters of religion for every doc- trinal sjrstem ? Was He, who dropped everything that was formal and therefore unessential in religion and morality, and preached the fulfilment of the moral element of the law and the prophets, and who, instead of laying down rulet for the moral life of man, insisted upon principles and change of heart. — was He who, of all that Israel considered holy in the Scriptures, retained as essential no more than love to God and to one's neighbour, ana preached as the rule of life, ' Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto "ARE WE YET CHRISTIANS?" 35 )ty, whose beat will be generally admitted now — that the articles of faith, the sententious dogmas, the '* scheme" of salvation, which have usurped the name of " Christianity " and " the Christian religion," originated almost wholly with Paul ; and that not only did they not form the substance of the teaching of Jesus, but that they are not to be found in, nor can obtain anything beyond the most casual, ap- parent, and questionable coimtenance from, his genuine and authentic words. And, finally, I remember and wish to recall to the reflection of my readers that this Paul, who thus transformed the pure, grand religion of his cru- cified Master, was distinguished by a character of intellect, subtle, metaphysical, and cultured, and therefore singu- larly discrepant from that of Jesus ; that, moreover, he never knew Jesus upon earth, had never come under his influence, or been sobered by his saintly spirit and his clear, practical conceptions ; had never seen him in the flesh, nor heard his voice save in trance, in noonday vi- sions, and ecstatic desert communings. It was the sincere and earnest, if somewhat ambitious purpose of this book to disentangle and disencumber the religion taught and lived by Jesus from the misconceptions and accretions which have gathered round it, obscured it, overlaid it, often actually transmuted it, and which began to gather round it almost as soon as its Founder bad disap- peared from the scene of his ministry. I shall have failed if I have not vindicated our right, and shown it to be our duty, to seek that pure original of devotional spirit and righteous life in the authentic words and deeds of Christ, and in these alone •, and, in the prosecution of this search, to put aside respectfully but courageously, whenever we you, do yon even so unto them, for this is the law and the prophets,' — was Be a dogmatist, a propounder of articles ? Was He, who made the true moral life of love as independent of Jewish doctrines as of the forms of the .) ewish theocracy, who gave its tone to genuine humanity everywhere, even in the Samaritan and the heathen, — nay, even placed the humane Samaritan above the orthodox priest and Levite, — was He, who, without appealing to any ecclesiastical authority of tradition or of Scripture, found his witnesses in the common sense and in the conscience of mankind, and recognised the true prophet by the moral power he displayed, — was ^e a dogmatist? Surely CJhristianity in its original form was not a confession nor a sjrmbol ; and to ])a88 judgment on it as such is logically inadmissible."— Soholtbm, Thfol. Review, April, 1873, 36 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. see warrant for it, whatever, whether in the Gospels or the Epistles, confuses, obscures, blots, or conflicts with this spirit and this life. I conceive that I have vindica- ted this right, and established this obligation by showing that even the immediate personal disciples of our Lord misconceived him ; that the chief of the apostles never was a companion or follower of Jesus in any sense, but claimed and gloried in what he declared to be a special, separate, and post mortem revelation ; and that even the Gospels contain some things certainly, and several things probably, which did not emanate from Christ. I am disposed, therefore, to give an entirely opposite answer to Strauss's question to that which Strauss him- self has given, aud to believe that when we have really penetrated to the actual teaching of Christ, and fairly dis- interred that religion of Jesus which preceded all creeds and schemes and formulas, and which we trust will sur- vive them all, we shall find that, so far from this, the true essence of Christianity, being renounced or outgrown by the progressive intelligence of the age, its rescue, re-dis- covery, purification, and re-enthronement as a guide of life, a fountain of truth, an object of faith, a law written on the heart, will be recognised as the grandest and most beneficent achievement of that intelligence. It may well prove its slowest as its hardest achievement ; for it is pro- verbially more difficult to restore than to build up afresh. To renovate without destroying is of all functions that which requires the most delicate perceptions, the finest intuition, the most reverent and subtle penetration into the spirit of the original structure, as well as manipula- tion at once the most skilful and the most courageous. And the task imposed upon the thought and piety of the coming time is to perform this function on the faith and creed of centuries and nations , — and to perform it amid the bewildering cries of interests and orders whom you will have rooted out of their comfortable and venerable nests ; of age, which you will have disturbed in its most cherished prejudices ; of affections, which you will have wounded in their tenderest points ; of massive multitudes whom you will have disturbed in what they fancied were IS A CHRISTIAN LIFE FEASIBLE ? 37 convictions and ideas ; of worshippers whose Idol only 3'ou will have overthrown, but who will cry out that you have desecrated and unshrined their God ; of craftsmen of the Ephcsian type, who " know that by this craft they have their wealth ; " and of cynical and faithless states- men whose unpaid policemen and detectives (the more efficient and more feared because unseen), and whose self- supporting penal settlement elsewhere (the more dreaded by malefactors because remotely placed, invisible, and un- defined), you will be supposed to have abolished. Another cognate question has been much discussed of late, and may be answered, we think, nearly in the same way. It is asked, not only, " Are we Christians ? " but " Can a Christian life be lived out in modem days ? " "Can we, and ought we to, regulate our personal and social life according to the precepts of Christ ? " " Is Christianity, in very deed and as nakedly preached and ordinarily taught, applicable to modern society and extant civiliza- tion ? " ** Is it possible, would it be permitted, can it be wise or right, to obey and act out the Christian rule of life in the British Isles and in 1873 ? " — No question can be more vital, none more urgent, none more essential to our peace of conscience. None, we may add, is more sedulously and scandalously shirked. There is no courage and no sincerity or downrightness among us in this mat- ter. We half say one thing and half believe another. We preach and profess what we do not think of practis- ing ; what we should be scouted and probably punished if we did practise ; what in our hearts and our dim, fled- from thoughts, we suspect it would be wrong to practise. Wherein lies the explanation of this demoralizing and dis- reputable untruthfulness of spirit ? Are the principles we profess mistaken ? Is the rule of life we hold up as a guide erroneous, impracticable, or inapplicable to the altered conditions of the age ; or is it our conduct that is cowardly, feeble, self-indulgent, and disloyal ? Is it our standard that is wrong, or merely our actions that are culpable and rebellious ? Is Christianity a code to be lived up to, or is it a delusion, a mockery, and a snare? 88 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. The specialities for the conduct of life prescribed by Christ's precepts and ttxample, as gath«red from the Gospels and the proceedings of his first disciples^ which current Civilisation does trammel and oppose, and which current Thought does question and controvert, are five in number : — non-resistance to violence, the duty of alms- giving, the impropriety of providence and forethought, the condenmation of riches, and the communism which was supposed to be inculcated, and which certainly was practised, by the earliest Christians. How far and under what modifications were these special precepts wise and sound at that time, and are they obligatory, permissible, or noxious now ? I. The precepts commanding non-resistance and sub- mission to violence are too distinct and specific to allow us to pare them away to anything at all reconcilable with modem sentiments and practice, even by the most .^treme use of the plea of oriental and hjrperbolic language.* They go far beyond a prohibition of mere retaliation or blame of hasty resentment or vindictive memory. They dis- tinctly command unresisting endurance of violence and wrong, whether directed against person or property. Now, can this precept be carried out, and would it be well that it should be ? The first consideration that occurs to us is, that obedi- ence to it has never been seriously attempted. The com- mon sense or the common instinct of Christians in all ages and in all lands, has quietly but peremptorily put it aside as not meant for use. Indeed, Christians have habit- * " I savunto yon, that ve resist not evil : but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whomsoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." " Put up thy sword, for all they tnat take the sword shall perish by the swords" " Blessed are the Meek, for they vhall inherit the Earth." It la true that in one of the Evangelists, just before his arrest, Jesus is reported to have said to the twelve : "He that hath no sword, let him aell hia garment and buy one." But the passage is so unintelligible, and so entirely ont of keeping with the context, that it is almost oerttSnly a case of misreporting, or misconception, or wholly unwarranted tradition. A fev hoars later. Jesus said " My langdom is not of this world : else would my MTTtttS fight" IS A GHBI8TIAN UFE FEASIBLE? 9$ ually fought from the earliest times just as savagely as Pagans. They have seldom dreamed even of confining themselves to self-defence — self-defence, indeed, being condemned just as decidedlj^ as aggression. Nay, they have habitually fought in the name, and, as they firmly believed, in the cause of Christ, have gloried in the title of " good soldiers of Christ," have died with priestly blessing and absolution amid the rage of conflict, confident that their reward was sure, and that angels would bear them straightway to the bosom of the beloved Master whose orders they had so strangely set at naught. One sect, indeed, among Christians have professed to take this pre- cept of Jesus Hterally — and what precept is to be so taken if this is not ? — and have professed to obey it to the letter. But in the first place, the Society of Friends never pre- tended to cany out more than one-half of it. They never went the length commanded in the text of facilitating assault and coercion. They never, we believe, denied them- selves the luxury of passive resistance in its most resolute and ingenious devices. They did not return a blow ; but they did not make the first so easy or so pleasant as to invite a second. And they have nearly died out. In the next place, they tried the experiment under circumstances which practiatily made non-resistance comparatively safe and easy, — namely, imder the aegis of police and law. It is but seldom that any of us now have actually to ward off a blow, or by force to resist an attempt at robbery, because, theoretically and potentially at least, the assail- ant knows and we know that the accredited guardians of order are there to do it for us. In fact, the daily routine of civilized life is organized on the assumption that the necessity for self-defence and resistance to evil is taken off our hands. Obedience to Christ's precept becomes won- derfully simplified — or rather it is dexterously evaded — when we have only to hand over our enemy to the nearest constable. We, in fact, do resist, and resist like the merest Pagan ; — only we resist by deputy— disobeying vicari- °^^^' ^^^^ ^® ^^^. ^^^ condition to obey in person. The truth is, that the whole of our criminal law and our police anungemeuts are based upon a systematic repudi- 4iO INTRODUCTION TO THE THIBD EDITION. ation of the precept in question ; and the order of modern Society, and the security of modern life could not other- wise exist. In savage communities and in disordered times, every man must succumb to violence or must defend himself. In such times obedience to the Christian precept would simply mean the extermination or enslavement of all Christians, the supremacy of the violent by the self- suppression of the gentle. In our days, division of labour is m the ascendant ; and we delegate the duties of resist- ing violence and evil to a professional class. If bad mm abound — ^and where would be the meaning of Christian precepts and exhortations to a Christian life if they did not ? — then, if the criminal class are not to prosper and to reign, police and the repressive and punitive law must exist and act, must restrain and retribute. Who among us would for a moment advocate their abolition ? Who that deems it right to maintain them can pretend that the Christian precept of non-resistance is obeyable in these days, or that he is endeavouring to obey it ? His mind may be penetrated with the spirit of patience, humanity, and consideration for his fellow men which led Jesus to utter that command ; but the command itself he simply repudiates and evades. The impossibility ajid impropriety of regarding the pre- cept of non-resistance to evil violence as sitant and oblig- atory becomes obvious from another diss of considera- tions. We may, as the Quakers do, deem it forbidden to resist or resent such violence when directed against our- f^elves, — ^though even they practically decline to recognise t nat the same command which forbids us to return a blow forbids us also to ward it off. But no one, however imbued with the spirit of the Gospel (unless, indeed, false inter- pretations have crushed all the manhood out of him), would fail to resist the blows directed against our neigh- bours, — against those whom we are taught to love, to assist, , and to protect. A man may be so disciplined as to take meekly the blow struck at himself, but would never dream it his duty to endure in the same fashion the blow struck at the woman leaning on his arm. One command of the Gospel here distinctly clashes with another, and no one IS A CHRISTIAN Ll'lFE FEASIBLE ? 41 (Lnibts for an instant which ought to be obeyed. We are then landed in the absurdity that of two persons walking in the street together, violence aimed at A. is to be ac- cepted with submission, and violence aimed at B. to be resented ; or that A. and B. may each resist the other's assailant, but not his own. There is still another view of the subject to be taken. The worst ill-service you can do to the violent, is to show them that they may work their wicked will unpunished and unchecked by the natural instincts of humanity. It is to make them " masters of the situation," to encourage them by success and impunity, to enthrone them as mon- archs of the world. It is to put goodness under the foot of evil, and so to diive back the progress of Humanity, to retard the coming of " the Kingdom of Heaven." It is, too, to harden the sinner in his wrong, the criminal in his crime, the brute in his brutality ; to teach him to proceed in outrages and iniquities that pay so well ; to make him heap up wrath against the day of wrath. Hun- j dreds, who would have been stopped at the outset of their criminal career by prompt and timely resistance, are led [on by the impunity which submission secures, till habits of crime are formed and recovery becomes hopeless. Non- I resistance, then, becomes connivance and complicity in [wrong. The orthodox reply to these common-sense representa- Itions is well known, but has never been convincing. [The wrong-doer, it is said, will be so amazed and melted Iby the calm acquiescence of his victim, that his heart [will be touched and his conscience awakened by the un- expected issue. He will be taken unawares, as it were — ipproached on an unguarded side ; and thus be disarmed in place of being baffled, and converted instead of being defeated. But, we apprehend, this anticipation assumes me or two postulates fatal to its realization, and some- jvvhat contradictory. It assumes that resistance and re- taliation are the rule — else there would be nothing in \>he attitude of meek endurance to surprise the violent nan into reflecti'^n and repentance. It implies, more- )ver, a susceptibility on the part of the violent which 42 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. the habit of violence soon destroys. It seems, too, to presuppose a moral atmosphere that could only be cre- ated by a community of non-resisting Christians — or a world at least in which the wrong-doers were so compar- atively few that they did not suffice to form a public opinion and class-sympathies of their own. It imagines the criminal, the oppressor, and the self-seeker, recoiling from the very facility and completeness of their success, and at the very moment when the prospect of its joys most radiantly dawns upon them. It expects them to be " touched by grace " just when the career of wrong looks most inviting and most fuU of promise. Such things may be ; such things have been in isolated instances. But can they ever become normal ? Can they be counted upon so as to form a safe or rational guide for conduct ? There is, however, one case in which the non-resistance doctrine is so obviously inapplicable that no one, we be- lieve, has ever dreamed of practising it ; namely, in the case of quarrels between nations. For one country to submit to outrage and wrong at the hands of anothcT, when the means of resistance lay in its power, has never been held right or obligatory. The question has never seriously been brought under discussion ; it being per- fectly clear that — the relative position of different nations from the earliest times even to our own having always been that of jealous rivalry, ceaseless controversy cither ' smouldering or flagrant, and hostility latent or avo wed- any people that habitually and notoriously submitted to violence would simply be overrun, enslaved, or trampled [ out. The doctrine of non-resistance would mean nothing but the destruction of the gentler and finer races, and the rampant tyranny of the stronger ; the reign of violence, not of peace ; the triumph of Satan, not of Christ ; in aj word, the suicide of all meek and truly Christian peoples. It is plain then that wc have here one of three or foui instances in which true Christianity must be held to re quire a disregard of its own precepts in favour of its own principles, in which Christ's exhortations are a guide tol the spirit we must cherish, not to the conduct we miistl )ITION. IS A CHRISTIAN LIFE FEASIBLE ? 43 , seems, too, to 1(1 only be cre- /hristians — or a were so coinpar- form a public -^n. It imagines seeker, recoiling of their success, pect of its joys pects them to be ' of wrong looks Such things may tances. But can 16 counted upon conduct ? he non-resistance ,t no one, we be- ; namely, in the ' one country to ands of anoth«T, power, has never estion has never a ; it being pei- : different nations 1 having always ontroversy ciLher ;ent or avowed- sly submitted to ived, or trampled lid mean nothing aer races, and the ■eign of violence, of Christ; in a I Christian peoples. of three or fouij st be held to re favour of its ova I ns are a guide to sonduct we mm pursue. We must cultivate the temper which will effec- tually prevent us from being quick to resent or prone to retaliate or severe to punish ; but without abnegating those natural instincts which are sometimes our safest o-uides, or ceasing to maintain that firm attitude of self- protection which, under the governance of good feeling and good sense, is the best antagonist to the prevalence of violence upon earth. II. Alms-giving* — Scarcely any precept in the Gos- pel is more distinct or reiterated than this. No duty has been more peremptorily insisted upon by the Church in all times and in all countries. It was one of the chief functions of the monastic institutions in the middle ages. It was made a legal obligation in the days which succeeded them. It is periodically inculcated from Protestant pul- pits, and the Catholics are still more positive in enforcing it on all the faithful. Our own country swarms with I proofs how literally and widely, generation after genera- tion, the obligation has been acknowledged and fulfilled. [The Reports of the Charity Commission, in countless vol- umes, bear testimony to the innumerable charities that [exist, and explain a little what they have done. The rec- lognition of the obligation of alms-giving is. to this day, Inearly as prevalent and as influential as ever. It is of all jChristian precepts that which is most strictly obeyed — )bedience to it being easier than to any other. A pious man and a tender-hearted woman do not feel comfortable )r good, unless they habitually give to beggars, or spend given portion of their income in succouring the poor — )r those who seem such. Yet nothing can be more certain than that all this is t^ery wrong and does infinite mischief. The more lit- erally the precept [" give to liim that asketh of thee "] is )beyed, the more harm does it do. No conclusion has " (Jive to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of Jiee turn not thou away." " Sell that thou haat and give alma." "Let June alms be in secret, and thy Father, who seeth thee in secret, himself shall leward thee openly." " He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that lath none." ^' Give alma uf such things as ye have ; and behold all things Ire clean unto you," 44 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. been more distinctly or definitely proved than that nearly all charity, popularly so called — more especially all indis- criminate alms-giving — is simply and singularly noxious. It is noxious most of all to the objects of it — whom it fosters in all mean and unchristian vices, in idleness, self- indulgence, and falsehood. It is noxious in the next place to the deserving and industrious poor, from whom it di- verts sympathy. It is noxious, also, to the entire com- munity, among whom it creates and cherishes a class of most pernicious citizens. The form which charity has a tendency to assume in societies so complicated as all civ- ilized societies are growing now, is such as to drain the practice dl nearly all its incidental good, and aggravate its peculiar mischiefs. The alms-giver has not his kindly feelings called forth by personal intercourse with the poor; he subscribes, he does not give; and charitable endowments and bequests are ingenious contrivances for diffusing the mo^t wide-spread pauperism. Paupers become sneaks and vagrants; and vagrants soon grow into criminals. It is need- less to dwell on this : — the consentaneous voice of modern benevolence and statesmanship alike is crying out against alms-giving as a mischief and a sin — as anything but philanthropy or charity — as a sentimental self-indulgence, and the very reverse of a Christian virtue, — a distinct, and now nearly always a conscious, complicity in imposture, fraud, laziness, and sensuality. Every one conversant with the question, all true lovers of their fellow-men, all earnest | and practical labourers in the field of social improvement, in the precise measure of their experience agree that, in I all schemes and efforts for rectifying the terrible eviis of j our crowded civilization, the most ubiquitous and insur- mountable impediments arise out of the practice of indis- criminate alms-giving and systematic charity. One of I the most pernicious and objectionable of our daily habits is in strict obedience to one of the clearest and most positive j of Christian precepts. Nor is it in England only that alms-giving is bad. It I is bad everywhere ; it is bad even in the East ; it is very bad in Italy ; it is worst of all perhaps in Spain. Every-' where it creates a special cla^ss of the worthless and t IS A CHRISTIAN LIFE FEASIBLE? 45 vicious, who soon become the criminal. It is of its essence to do this. The antagonism between the Christian pre- cept and what ought to be the conduct of really Christian men is direct, complete, undeniable, and all but universal. The mischief has arisen out of the time-honoured practice — a practice which surely now-a-days would be more honoured in the breach than the observance — of looking into the Gospel as a code of conduct instead of a well spring of spiritual influence, and picking out texts to act by and to judge by, as a French judge opens chap- ter and verse of the Code Napoleon, — instead of imbuing ourselves with " the same mind that was in Christ," and letting our behaviour afterwards flow freely therefrom. Christ directed us " to do good " to our fellow-men, espe- cially to the poor and helpless among !iem. In our stu- pid literalism^ we have taken this as -a command to do all the harm we can. " He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none," — read as an exhortation [to use our abundance and our advantages to succour the needy and assist the less fortunate, is conceived in a beau- Itiful and righteous spirit. But how when the second Icoat has been provided to meet next year's exigencies at jthe cost of much difficult self-denial, and when the coat )f the coatless man has been pawned for drink, and when [the one which I gave him is sure to follow its predecessor up the spout ? Is thrift to be discouraged and sodden sensu- ility to be fostered, in the name of Christian duty ? The solution of the difficulty is very 'plain. Jesus put tha ibstract principle in a parable or a concrete shape — as ho ilways did : — He cdmmanded a benevolent frame of mind fn the form of a precept to the simplest action to which that frame of mind would instinctively lead in circum- stances when reflection would suggest nothing to con- trol the impulse. Probably he never reflected on the langer of creating a whole tribe of begging impostors, perhaps the danger did not exist in that day. In any base, what he really designed and desired was to produce spirit of boundless compassion and love which should Inspire his disciples with anxiety to do all the good possi- ^'" to render all the aid possible to those, who were in )le. 46 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. distress or want ; his aim was to elevate, not to degrade, to foster the Christian virtues, not the selfish vices ; ajid the very texts that we read as enjoining alms-giving are really those which, interpreted aright, most distincUy prohibit it. Here it is not that a Christian life is not feaiti- bie in our days ; — it is only that it has become more dH8- cult because less simple ; and that in or 5r to disentangL; its dictates from its dicta, and to pierce tu its inner signif icance, demands more intellectual effort and more Intel lectual freedom than we are prone to exercise. Here, il anywhere, it is " the letter that killeth, and the spirit thjii giveth life." What we have to ask ourselves is, " Whji' would Christ, with all the circumstances before hii' have directed in these times ? " III. Improvidence. — There is scarcely any exhortatic in the line of social morality more incessantly or moi . unanimously addressed to the people of this country tha i that which urges them to provide for the future, " to lai by for a rainy day ; " to store up something of their daili earnings against the time when those earnings may fai or be interrupted. Assuredly there is no exhortation ( ' which they stand more in need, nor one which they moi i habitually neglect. Manifestly there is no duty the sedii lous discharge of which more vitally concerns their futuia welfare and their present peace. It is their improvidence } that condenms them to squalor, to indigence, to dependence, ' to wretched habitations, to unwholesome surroundings, and to all those moral evils and dangers which follow in the wake of these things. Few things can be more cer- tain . jan that if our working classes are ever to emerge from their present most unsatisfactory condition, if they are to become respectable citizens and true Christians, they must learn to save for to-morrow's needs, and to regard it as something very like a sin to leave to-moirow to take care of itself. To spend all their gains when those gains are ample, as they so habitually do, is ob- viously not only a folly, but something very like a fraud,] — inasmuch as it is wasting their own substance, in re- liance that when it fails they will be fed out of the sub- IS A CHRISTIAN LIFE FEASIBLE? 47 wiAiice of others. It is the conduct s6 distinctly condemned in the case of the foolish virgins — with an aggravation. They do not forget to bring their oil , they deliberately waste it, — knowing that they may say to their wiser neighbours, " Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out." The workman who in receipt of good wages saves nothing out of those wages is wilfully improvident, rely- ing on the providence of others ; for what is the property from which charitable funds are derived and on which Poor Rates are levied, but the accumulated savings of the provident and thoughtful ? What is all invested wealth, indeed, but the steadily augmented economies of those who, generation after generation, have taken thought for the morrow ? It is not too much to say that if our artisan classes would for two generations — perhaps even for one — be as frugal and as hoarding as the French peasant is, and as the better portion of the Scotch and Swiss once were, the whole face of the country would be changed; — ^they would be men of property instead of being Proletaires ; they could live in comfortable dwellings in place of wretched hovels and crowded alleys; they might be men of comparative leisure instead of mere toilers all day and every day, from childhood to old age ; education would be as much within their reach as it is within t^ a reach of their betters now ; and the soil would be prepared in which all the Christian virtues and most civilized enjoyments could easily take root and flourish. With providence would come sobriety, with property would come independence, and all the facilities for a worthy and happy life would grow up around them. In a word, providence, if not the very first duty of the social man, ranks very high among his duties, and is the sine qud non of any decided and permanent improvement in either his social or his moral state. About this there can be no doubt. As to this [there is no difference of opinion. Yet it is not to be denied that this prime duty, this im- Iperative obligation, this indispensable condition of human advancement, is not only deprecated but actually de- nounced and prohibited in that Sermon on the Mount, 48 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. which we are accustomed to look to as the embodiment of the Christian rule of life.* The words of Christ, and the exhortations of Cliristian statesmen, economists, and moralists, are, then, directly at variance — and the latter are undeniably in the right. How is the difficulty to be met ? How must the discrep- ancy be reconciled ? Why not meet the question honestly and boldly, and avow that Jesus was addressing hearers in a very different position and state of mind from the labourers and artizans of England — hearers who were wont to be not too careless, but too anxious, about the sor- row; whose climate rendered comparatively little necessary, and yielded that little to very moderate toil; the conditious of whose civilization were incomparably simpler than ours, and the obligations of whose labour less onerous.f It may well be, then, that the exhortations which were soun 1 and appropriate to them are inapplicable to us. But \ie may probably, with perfect safety and with no irreverenoj, go a step further, and observe that Jesus, as was naturt J and customary, not only spoke with that Oriental pictui- esqueness of style which is almost inevitably exaggeration, but fixed his own thought and directed that of his heare^u upon the one side and phase of truth with which he wim at the moment dealing, to the exclusion of all qualifyiij; considerations which must be taken into account as so( n as we begin to frame a code of conduct or a system of u- tion out of one isolated discourse addressed to one fraction t * " Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on Behold the fowls of the air, for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns ; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not better than they? . . . . And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow ; they toil not, neither do they spin ; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these, Wherefore if God so clothe the grass of the field . . • shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of uttle faith? .... Take, therefore, no thought, saying what shall we eat ? or what shall we drink ? or wherewithal shall we be clothed ? But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteous- ness, and all these things shall be added unto you Take, there- fore, no thought for the morrow ; for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itseu." t See K^nan, Viede J ism, ch. x., for a vivid delineation of the entirely different surroundings and features of the life of the Galilean fiaherraeu and peasants to whom these exhortations were originally addressed^ EBITION. IS A CHRISTIAN LIFE FEASIBLE ? 49 he embodiment of iions of Christian :, then, directly at )ly in the right must the discrep- question honestly ddressing hearers f mind from the carers who were IS, about the;mor- ly little necessary, oil; the conditions simpler than ours, 3SS onerous.f It which were soun 1 le to us. But \» e th no irreverenoj, s, as was naturtil t Oriental pictu- bly exaggeration, hat of his hearens ith which he wim L of all qualifyii(| account as so( n )r a system of &t- jed to one fraction 1 eat, or what ye shall . . . Behold the reap, nor gather into e not better than they! Consider the lilies of ey spin ; and yet I say red like one of these, . shall he not Take, therefore, no irink ? or wherewithal God and his righteous- - • • Take, there- 1 take thought for the leation of the entirely iralilean fiahermen and tddressed^ of a great problem.* Here, as elsewhere, the idea which lies at the root of the teaching is undeniably correct, — for that idea deprecates and assails the inordinate worldli- ness which constituted one of the most insurmountable obstacles to the reception of Christ's doctrine. The erro) is ours, not Christ's — and consists in perversely applying an exhortation addressed to a congregation among whom a particular quality of mind and temper was in excess to a congregation with whom it is almost lamentably defi- cient. Had Jesus preached to English artizans, we may feel certain that he would have chosen a different theme, and used far other language. But this is by no means all that needs to be said. Not a word of Christ's rebuke to those who were eaten up by excessive care for the good things of the world, and were led thereby to neglect treas- ures immeasurably more precious, can be pleaded in justi- fication of those who are so far from undervaluing these good things that they insist upon their mstantaneous en- joyment and their immediate exhaustion ; who lay by nothing for to-morrow only because, like the brutes that perish, they choose to eat up everything to-day ; — who, ii they follow the letter of the law in laying up no treasure upon earth, utteriy flout its spirit, inasmuch as they cer- tainly lay up no treasure in heaven either. To eschew over-anxiety for future comfort and weU-being, in order that we may be the freer for the work of righteousness, is the part of all true followers of Jesus : — " to take no thought for the morrow " that we may indulge the more unrestrainedly in the indolence and sensualities of to-day, and to plead Gospel warrant for the sin, is to "wrest Scrip- ture to our own destruction." It would be well that divines should make this more clear. The form which Christ's teaching would take were he to come on earth now, without the least real change in its essential spirit, would probably be : — Take thought for to-morrow, and provide for its necessities, in order that, when to-morrow ♦ It must be remembered, too, that all these exhortations to lar -ip treas- ures m heaven, and not on earth, were delivered under the preVaiUng im- pression that the Kingdom of Heaven, where all things would be differently "idored, was close at hand. 50 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. comes, you may be free enough from sordid wants and gnawing cares to have some moments to spare for the things that belong unto your peace. IV. Denunciation of Wealth. — There is no line of con- duct so emphatically condemned by Christ, and so eagerly pursued by Christians, as the pursuit of riches. There is no mistake about either fact. Throughout the Gospels riches are spoken of not only as a peril and temptation to the soul, but as something evil in themselves, something to be atoned for, something to be singled out for condem- nation. The young man who has kept all the command- ments from his youth up, and asks what he must do fur- ther to secure eternal life, is told to despoil himself of all hia great possessions and give them to the poor. He is reluctant to do so, and Jesus thereupon observes that "a rich man shall hardly enter into the Kingdom of Heaven." According to Luke he said, " Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God. Woe unto you that are rich, for you have received your consolation." " Lay not up foj; yourselves treasures upon earth." In the parable of Dives and Lazarus, the rich man, without the faintest intima- tion that he had any other fault than wealth, is relegated to the place of torment ; while the beggar, without the faintest intimation that he had any olJier merit but his indigence and his sores, is carried by angels into Abra- ham's bosom ; and the startling and sole reason- assigned for the award is that now it is the turn of Lazarus to be made comfortable. It is true that in one passage the harshness of Christ's denunciation is modified into the phrase, " How hard it is for them that trust in uncertain riches to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven ; " and when his disciples are horrified at hearing that hard sentence about the needle's eye, and exclaim, " Who, then, can be saved ? " he holds out a mysterious hope that in the infi- nite resources of the Most High some way of escape from the sweeping condemnation may be found. Still the pre- vailing tone and teaching of the Gospel cannot be gain- said or veiled. It is to the effect that the poor are the more especial favourites of God ; that wealUi is a thing IS A CHRISTIAN LIFE FEASIBLE ? 51 to be shunned, not to be sought ; that it distinctly stands in the way of salvation, and will probably have to be atoned for hereafter by terrific compensation. Yet in spite of this emphatic warning, riches have been the most general pursuit of Christians in all ages and among all classes, with rare exceptions in the monkish ages ; among real and earnest, as well as among merely professing Christians ; among the accredited teachers of the Gospel (to a considerable extent), as well as among the mere following Hock of lay disciples. Nay more, the most really Christian nations have been, and still are, the most devoted to the pursuit of gain ; the most rigidly and os- tentatiously Christian sections of those nations — shall we say the Quakers and the Scotch ? — have been among the steadiest and most quietly successful in the search. No?- do they even affect to fancy that they are wrong or dis- obedient in thus eagerly striving for that wealth which their Master so distinctly ordered them to eschew and dread ; — they put aside or pass by his teaching with a sort of staring unconsciousness, as if it in no way concerned them ; — with a curious unanimity they vote his exhorta- tions obsolete, abstract, or inapplicable; — the most respect- able of the religious world give one day to their Saviour, and six days to their ledger ; — the most pious banker, the purest liver, the most benevolent nobleman, never dreams of " despising riches," or of casting from him his super- fluous possessions as a snare to his feet and a peril to his soul. On the contrary, he is grateful to God for them ; he returns thanks for the favour which has so blessed his poor efforts to grow affluent ; he resolves that he will use his wealth for the glory of God. Now, which is wrong — Christ in denouncing riches, or Christians in cherishing them ? Our Master in exhorting us to shun them, or his disciples in seeking them so eager- ly ? Will modern society permit us to despise thein ? And would it be well for modern society that we should ? — The answer, if we dare to state it plainly, does not seem to be doubtful, or very recondite. We must imbue our- selves with the spirit of Christ's teaching as enduring and surviving, ever extant through all forms and all tiinee ; — 52 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. and then we may safely ignore the letter as simply the accidental and temporary garment in which he clotliod his meaning. This is probably the unper verted imjuiLse of every true man, if he be a reflective man as well. Perhaps, indeed, the discrepancy between what Jesus preached, and that which every good and wise man would echo now, lies rather in the phraseology than in the essence of the doctrine. Jesus — living among the poor, cognizant of their " sacred patience " and their humble virtues, bent upon startling his world out of the self-indulgent ease into which it had sunk, and profoundly impressed with the; terrible influence which the abundance and the love ot earthly possessions exercise in enervating the soul, inca- pacitating it for all high enterprise, all self-denying etfort, all difficult achievement, seeing with a clearness which excluded for the moment all modifying considerations, the benumbing power of that fatal torpor and apathy which creeps over even nobler natures when this life is too lux- urious and too J03^ful, — saw that absolute renunciation would be easier and safer than the righteous use of wealth. We, on the other hand, who know — what was invisible in those simpler days — how necessary is the accumulation of capital to those great undertakings which carry on the progress and the civilization of our complex modern com- munities — naturally and rightly regard the employment of affluence, and not its pursuit or its possession, as the fit subject of our moral judgments. It was in the grave of a rich disciple that Jesus was laid after the crucifixion ; — and in the parable of the talents he praised and recom- pensed the men who had doubled their capital by honest trading, while condemning and despoiling the feckless and unprofitaV)le idler. And the wise and right-minded of our day would denounce as unmercifully as Christ himself the rich man whose riches blind him to the far higher value of spiritual aims and intellectual enjoyments ; whose lux- ury and lavish expenditure make life difficult for all ai-ound him ; whose ostentation is an evil and a tempta- tion to those who take him as their model ; to whom opulence is not a grand means, a solemn trust, and a grave responsibility but merely a source of sensual indulgence IS A CilBISTlAN LIVE FEASIBLE? 5S and of vacant worthlessnesH ; or piloses his youth and man- hood in adding house to house and field to field, wasting life without what alone rendera life worth having. We see, too, perhaps more clearly than could be seen in earlier times, that poverty has its own special and terrible tempta- tions and obstacles to virtue, as well as wealth ; and that with us at least, not affluence indeed, but assuredly com- petence, smooths the way, for the weaker brethn ii, to a crowd of Christian excellences. A.nd finally, we recognise now, what was not known — perhaps was not the case — then, that though a rich man may use his wealth right- eously and well, it is scarcely possible for him to get rid of it without doing mischief] and therefore doing wrong. V. Corrnnunism. — It cannot be said that the Gospel anywhere distinctly preaches a community of goods, though it may be felt that the general tone of Christ's exhortations tends in that direction. But there can be no doubt that the earliest body of disciples, those who con- stituted what is termed the " Church of Jerusalem," did so interpret the teaching of their Master, and " had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, as every man had need." The same statement is repeated still more fully and distinctly in the 4th chapter of the Acts : — " There was no one among them that lacked ;" " lands and houses were sold, and the produce laid at the apostles' feet for distribution ;" — " neither said any man that ought of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things common." It is difficult to describe the sinking of all private prop- erty in a common fund in plainer language ; and the strange story of Ananias and Sapphira, though the words are peculiar, can scarcely be held to invalidate the con- clusion. We can scarcely deny, then, that Communism is in some sort a corollary of Christ's teaching, though not a posi- tively commanded part of Christianity. It has been held to be such by reforming sects and theorists in many ages, and various are the attempts recorded in history to re- duce it to practice. The notion has been constantly re- 54 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. \W appearing during the last century, now in France, now in America. Many minds of no ordinary power have spo- ken in favour of the conception. Even Mr. J. S. Mill-— who would have been a great Christian if he had not been a great Thinker — ^has saia that the idea at the root of it was irrefragably sound : — " that every man should worl according to his capacities, and should receive according to his wants." Yet nothing is more certain than that every endeavour to carry out the scheme in practice has always failed, and as the eminent man just named has ad- mitted, must always fail, — being constantly shipwrecked on the same rock. The characteristics of human nature forbid success. As men are constituted, if they receive according to their wants, they never will work according to their capacities. If they are fed and provided with all they need, they will, as a rule, work as little as they can. As regards masses of men, it is only their regard for self that will compel them to do their duty by the community. The institution of private property, the conviction that " if any man will not work, neither shall he eat," alone calls forth adequate exertions, alone controls indefinite multiplication, alone counteracts inveterate laziness, alone raises nations out of squalor and barbarism, alone lifts man above the condition of the beasts that perish. Where communism prevails, nine men out of every ten try to get as much and to do as little as they can ; — and the system, therefore, is found to be simply suicidal. It encounters, too, whenever attempted, another fatal difficulty. It is impossible for any external authority to determine what are each man's capacities, or each man's needs. Practi- cally, therefore, communism is fatal to civilization, fatal to order, fatal to freedom, fatal to progress ; — and if Christianity commands, favours, or indicates communism, Christianity is fatal to all these good things. But the dim idea, the sound nucleus, which lies latent in the communis- tic creed — the conception, namely, that all our possessions, as well as all our gifts, are to be held in trust for the general good of all — is eminently and distinctively Christian. It will be answered that Christianity aims, and pro- IS A CHRISTIAN UFE FEASIBLE V 55 T aims, and pro- fesses, so to remould men's natures, and to eliminate their vices, and to neutralize their selfishness, as to make a community of goods feasible, and not only compatible with, but conducive to, the highest and surest advance of the species. But vs^e are dealing with the practical ques- tion : — " Is a Christian life livable in our day ? " And if Commriism be only possible and safe when all men are moulded in Christ's image, and permeated by his spirit, and is noxious and fatal to the best interests of humanity under all other conditions, — then, if a community of goods be implied in a Christian life, that life indisputably is not practicable now. It is found in actual fact, and has been found in all lands and in aU times, that the in- stitution of private property, with all the selfishness it in\rolves, and all the selfishness it fosters, is alone capable of drawing forth from our imperfect natures that strenuous and enduring exertion from which all progress springs. And this experience is the one sufficing, an»-i perhaps the only unanswerable, justifica- tion of that often assailed and questioned institution. To sum up the results of our inquiry. It may be safely pro)iounced that Non-resistance, Alms-giving, Improvi- dence, and Communism, are not practicable in these days, I and would be decidedly noxious, and therefore obviously wrong; while contempt of riches, if stopping short of that naked condemnation of them conveyed in the bald letter of the Gospel teaching, would be feasible enough. But the spirit and temper which Oriental imagination, hasty generalization, unreflecting intelligence, unacquaint- ance with the requirements of complex civilization, and habitually hyperbolic phraseology, would naturally em- body in those four exhortations, are as obligatory and as feasible as ever. The thought — the nucleus of inner meaning— is sacred still and of enduring truth. It is only the casual and separable shell of words in which that thought was once conveyed that we must regard as hav- ing passed away, or possibly as never having been more I than figuratively or exceptionally appropriate. And we may use our freedom of penetrating to the true 56 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. spirit and meaning of Christ's teaching through its casual or disguising let^jor, with the more boldness that it is only this spirit as to which we can feel absolutely certain. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, while his sayings are recorded for lis in Greek ; — and they must, therefore, have passed through the process of translation from one language into another ; and, moreover, from one language into another whose genius is as singularly distinct as that of the Ger- man from that of the French. The record, too, it is pretty certain, did not take shape till at least half a century, or about a generation and a half after the date of the events recorded — ample time for those events (whether facts or words) to have been moulded and modified by the invariable practice of tradition into the con- ceptions of the human intermediaries by whose agency they were handed down ; — a time so ample that this pro- cess of modification could not fail to have operated large- ly. And, finally, the Gospels themselves abound in in- dications that both the disciples who heard and repeated Christ's sayings, and the Evangelists who recorded them in a foreign language, did not always conceive them right- ly or comprehend them fully. Thus, what our English Testament practically contains is simply the form which the precepts of aGreatProphet and Master,orally delivered, have definitively assumed after having passed for a space of fifty years or more, by the process of oral tradition, through a succession of uncritical and imaginative minds, none of which grasped or understood them in their fulness or their pure simplicity ; and after being subsequently ex- posed to the double risk of transfusion, first from a Se- mitic into an Aryan, and then from a Classic into a Ten tonic, tongue. It would seem, therefore, self-evident that this is a case in which reliance on special phrases and ex- pressions, as well as on particular narrative details, must be singularly unsafe and unwise ; and, as a fact, we find that even theologians, who most loudly deprecate and re- pudiate this conclusion when formalised in words, do prac- tically recognise its truth, by putting their own gloss and interpretation on the bare language of Scripture wherever they find it necessary to do so ; and thai the extent, to IS A CHRISTIAN LIFE FEASIBLE ? 67 which they use this liberty is merely a question of degree. Only then, we may fairly conclude — indeed are forced to conclude — only that "mind which was in Christ," that spirit, temper, enduring and inspiring character — that Life, in tine, which shone through all his actions and permeated all his sayings, and which was so vital, so essential, so omnipres- ent and so unmistakable,as to have survived through all the channels and processes of transmission we have described, and defied their perils, can safely be taken or followed as his real teaching. Doubts and disputes among Christians have been infinite as to the " doctrine " of Christ — as to the " particulars " of what he said and did. None, we believe, ever truly differed as to the tone and temper of his mind or of his teaching — ^as to the essential features of his char- acter — as to what he meant by " Me," when he said, " Follow me," " Learn of me, for I am meek and lowly of heart, £ nd ye shall find rest to your souls." We may see now, too, how shallow and how groundless are the fallacies of those who jump to the conclusion that in order to realise and carry out a truly Christian life, it is necessary to upset Society, to abolish the hierarchy of ranks, and introduce a forced equality of position and possessions. The Gospel, rightly read, gives no counten- ance to those wild theories of ignorance, thoughtlessness, and envy. The New Testament contains many precepts as to our behaviour in those relations which spring out of that very inequality of conditions which Christianity, in the view of Communists, is supposed to discountenance. Some of the more distinctively Christian virtues, such as obedience and humility, would seem to be especially ap- propriate to a social organization where rank, if not " caste," holds sway. Certainly, as we have learned by experience, I some of the most unchristian vices, such as envy, lie deep at the root of the passion for equality, and have been seen to flourish with malignant strength where that passion has been most clamorous. Assuredly, too, we should say that a system of Civilization in which Masters and Ser- vants, Rulers and Subjects, rich and poor, the humble and the great, are recognised and established, appears to offer field and scope for a wider range and a greater variety o£ 58 INTRODUCTION TO THE T3TTRD EDITION. Christian excellences than a community in which a dead level of uniformity should prevail. Nor can we conceive any single form or manifestation of " the mind which was in Christ," that may not thrive in fullest vitality in So- ciety as now constituted, and find ample work in purging its evils and developing its capabilities, without seeking to disturb its foundations. If Christianity cannot flour- ish under ary phase of social and political organiza- tion, — if the seed of its more peculiar qualities can only germinate and fructify in soil enriched with the ruins of ancient orders and ancestral institutions, and flattened down by the hard grinding steam-roller of Democracy,— it can scarcely be the mighty or divine moral agency we have hitherto conceived it. Our conclusion, then, is, that we are and may remain Christians, and that we can and onght to obey the Chris- tian rule of life ; but that in order to do either we must deal with the kernel, not the husk ; we must penetrate to the true mind and temper of Jesus through the accretions which have overlaid it, the literalism which has dis%iired it, and (be it said with all reverence) the Orientalism and the incompleteness, if not the imperfection, which min- gled with and coloured it. Holding this, the utmost pos- sible conquests of intelligence and learning are divested of their terrors. It is not with Christianity that science can ever be at issue; only \n.th. theology calling itself Christian. And now, having reached a time of life when most sub- jects are grave, and when some have grown very solemn — when the angry passions of the controversialist can find no breath or aliment in the thin calm atmosphere of fading years — when egotism has little left to gather round it— and when few sentiments survive in pristine vividness but the love of nature and the reverence for truth, — I may be allowed one parting word, which, though personal, will scarcely be deemed obtrusive. I not only disclaim any position or feeling of antagonism w Christianity ; I claim to have written this book on behalf, and in the cause, of the religion of Jesus, rightly understood. I entirely re- CONCLUDINO WC^U)& 99 pudiate the pretensions of those whom I hold to have specially misconceived and obscured that religion, to be its exclusive or rightful representatives. I hold that thousands of the truest servants of our Lord are to be found among those who decline to wear what it is the fashion to pronounce his livery, with the grotesque and hideous facings of each successive age. I resent as an ar- rogant assumption the habitual practice of refusing the name of Christian to all who shrink away from or assail the errors and corruptions with which its ofl&cial defen- ders have overlaid the faith of Christ. And I can find no words of adequate condemnation for the shallow insolence of men who are not ashamed to fling the "name of atheist" on all whose conceptions of the Deity are purer, loftier, more Christian, than their own. Those who dare to dog- matise about His nature or His purposes, prove by that very daring their hopeless incapacity even to grasp the skirts or comprehend the conditions of that mighty prob- lem.* Even if the human intellect could reach the truth about Him, human language would hardly be adequate to give expression to the transcendent thought. Meanwhile, recognising and realising this with an unfeigned humble- ness which yet has nothing disheartening in its spirit, my own conception — perhaps from early mental habit, per- It must be that the light divine. That on your soul is pleased to shine. Is other than what falls on mine : For you can fix and formalise The Power on which you raise your eyes, And trace him in his palaoe-skies. You can perceive and almost touch His attriDut«B, as such and such — Almost familiar over much. You can his thoughts and ends display. In fair historical array, From Adam to the judgment-day. I cannot think Him here or there— I think Him ever everjrwhere — Unfading light, uijitifled air. The Two Theologm : Palm Leava, by Lord Hoiigbton. 60 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. haps from incurable and very conscious metaphysical in- aptitude — approaches far nearer to the old current image of a personal God than to any of the sublimated substi- tutes of modern thought. Strauss's " Universum," Comte's "Humanity," even Mr. Arnold's " Stream of Tendency that makes for Righteousness," excite in me no enthusiasin,com- mand from me no worship. I cannot pray to the "Immen- sities" and the "Eternities" of Carlyle. Theyprofterme no help ; they vouchsafe no sympathy ; they suggest no comfort. It may be that such a Personal God is a mere anthropomorphic creation. It may be — as philosophers with far finer instruments of thought than mine affirm— that the conception of such a being, duly analysed, is demonstrably a self-contradictory one. But at least in resting in it, I rest in something I almost seem to realise ; at least I share the view which Jesus indisputably held of the Father whom he obeyed, communed with, and wor shipped ; at least I escape the indecent familiarity and the perilous rashness, stumbling now into the grotesque, now into the blasphemous, of the infallible creed-concoc- tors who stand confidently ready with their two-foot rule to measure the Immeasurable, to define the Infinite, to describe in precise scholastic phraseology the nature of the Incomprehensible, and the substance of the great Spirit of the universe. I have but one word more to say — and that is an expres- sion of unfeigned amazement— ao strong as almost to throw into the shade every other sentiment, and increasing with every year of reflection, and every renewed perusal of the genuine woids and life of Jesus — that, out of anything so simple, so beautiful, so just, so loving, and so grand, could have grown up or been extracted anything so mar- vellously unlike its original as the current creeds of Christendom ; that so turbid a torrent could have flowed from so pure a fountain, and yet persist in claiming that fountain as its source ; that any combination of human passion, perversity, and misconception could have reared such a superstructure upon such foundations. Out of the teaching of perhaps thtj most sternly anti-sacerdotal CONTRAST BETWEEN CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 61 prophet who ever inaugurated a new religion, has been built up (among the Catholics and their feeble imitators here) about the most pretentious and oppressive priest- hood that ever weighed down the enterprise and the energy of the human mind. Out of the life and words of a master, whose every act and accent breathed love and mercy and confiding hope to the whole race of man, has been distilled (among Calvinists and their cognates) a creed of general damnation and of black despair. Christ set at naught "observances," and trampled upon those prescribed with a rudeness that bordered on contempt: — Christian worship, in its most prevailing form, has been made almost to consist in rites and ceremonies, in sacra- ments and feasts and fasts and periodic prayers. Christ preached personal righteousness, with its roots going deep down into the inner nature, as the one thing need - ful : — ^his accredited messengers and professed followers say No ! purity and virtue are filthy rags ; salvation is to be purchased only through vicarious merits and " im- puted " holiness. Jesus taught his disciples to trust in, and to worship a tender Father, long-suffering and plen- teous in mercy : — those who speak in his name in these later days, tell us rather of a relentless Judge, in whose picture, as they draw it, it is hard to recognise either justice or compassion. In Christ's grand and simple creed, expressed in his plainest words, " eternal life " was the assured inheritance of those who loved God with all their hearts, who loved their neighbours as themselves, and who walked purely, humbly, and beneficently while on earth : — in the Christian sects and churches of to-day, in their recognised formularies and their elaborate creeds, all this is repudiated as infantine and obsolete ; the official means and purchase-money of salvation are altogether changed eternal life is reserved for those, ai^d for those only, who accept or profess a string of metaphysical propositions conceived in a scholastic brain and put into scholastic phraseology ; and, to crown the whole, a Hell is conceived so horrible as to make Heaven an impossibility, — for what must be the temper of the Elect Few who could taste an hour's felicity, while the immeasurable myriads 62 INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD EDITION. of their dearest fellow-bsings — their husbands and wives, their mothers, their children — were writhing in eternal torments within sight and hearing of their paradise ? Theologians transmogrify the pure precepts and devotion of Jesus into a religion as nearly as possible their opposite, and then decree that, whoever will not adopt their travesty " without doubt shall perish everlastingly." It is the old spectacle which so disturbed Jeremiah, reproduced in our own days : — " A wonderful and a horrible thing is com- mitted in the land ; the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule through their means ; and the people love to have it so : and what will he the end thereof'} " Pabk Lodob, StpUmhir, 673, I PEEFAOE lO THl FIRST EDITION. This work was commenced in the year 1845, and was tinished in 1848. This much it is necessary to state, that I may not be supposed to have borrowed without ac- knowledgment from works which have preceded mine in order of publication. It is now given to the world after long hesitation, with much diffidence, and with some misgiving. For some time I was in doubt as to the propriety of publishing a work which, if it might correct and elevate tlie views of some, might also unsettle and destroy the faith of many. But three considerations have finally decided me. First. I reflected that, if I were right in believing that I had discerned some fragments or gleams of truth which had been missed by others, I should be acting a criminal and selfish part if I allowed personal considerations to withhold me from promulgating them ; — that I was not entitled to take upon myself the privilege of judging what amount of new light the world could bear, nor what would be the effect of that light upon individual minds ; — ^that sound views are formed and established by the contribution, generation after generation, of widows' mites ; — that if m;y small quota were of any value it would spread and fructify, and if worthless, would come to naught. Secondly. Much observation of the conversation and controversy of the religious world have wrought the con- viction that the evil resulting from the received notions 64 PREFACE. as +o Scriptural authority has been immensely under- estimated. I was compelled to see that there is scarcely a low and dishonouring conception of God cuiTent among men, scarcely a narrow and malignant passion of the hu- man heart, scarcely a moral obliquity, scarcely a political error or misdeed, which Biblical texts are not, and may not be without any violence to their obvious signification, adduced to countenance and justify. On the other hand, I was compelled to see how many clear, honest, and as- piring minds have been hampered and baffled in their struggles after truth and light, how many tender, pure, and loving hearts have been hardened, perverted, and forced to a denial of their nobler nature and their better in- stincts, by the ruthless influence of some passages of Scripture which seemed in the clearest language to con- demn the good and to denounce the true. No work con- tributed more than Mr. Newman's Phases of Faith, to force upon me the conviction that little progress can be hoped either .?or religious science or charitable feeling till the question of Biblical authority shall have been placed upon a soundfjr footing, and viewed in a very different light. Thirdly. I called to mind the probability that there were many other minds like my own pursuing the same inquiries, and groping towards the same light ; and that to all such the knowledge that they have f ellow-labourera where they least expected it, must be a cheering and sus- taining influence. It was also clear to me that this work must be per- formed by laymen. Clergymen of all denominations are, from the very nature of their position, incapacited from pursuing this subject with a perfect freedom from all ul- tejdor considerations. They are restrained and shackled at once by their previous confession of Faith, and by the consequences to them of possible conclusions. It re- mained, therefore, to see what could be done by an un- fettered layman,endowed with no learning, but bringing to the investigation the ordinary education of an English gentleman, and a logical faculty exercised in other walks. The three conclusions which I have chiefly endeavoured PREFACE. 65 to make clear are these : — that the tenet of the Inspira- tion of the Scriptures is baseless and untenable under any form or modification which leaves to it a dogmatic value ; — that the Gospels are not textually faithful rec- ords of the sayings and actions of Jesus, but occasionally at least, ascribe to him words which he never uttered, and deeds which he never did ; — and that the apostles only partially comprehended, and imperfectly transmitted, the teaching of their Great Master. The establishment of these points is the contribution to the progress of reli- gious science which I have attempted to render. I I trust it will not be supposed that I regard this work i in any other light than as a pioneering one. A treatise on religion that is chiefly negative and critical can never be other than incomplete, partial, and preparatory. But the clearing of the ground is a necessary preliminary to I the sowing of the seed ; the removal of superincumbent I rubbish is indispensable to the discovery and extraction ot the buried and intermingled ore ; and the liberation of the mind from forestalling misconceptions, misguiding prejudices, and hampering and distracting fears, must pre- cede its setting forth, with any chance of success, in the pursuit of Truth. Nor, I earnestly hope, will the book be regarded as antagonistic to the Faith of Christ. It is with a strong conviction that popular Christianity is not the religion I of Jesus that I have resolved to publish my views. I What Jesus really did and taught, and whether his doctrines were perfect or superhuman, are questions which afford ample matter for an independent work. I There is probably no position more safe and certain Ithan that our religious views must of necessity be easen- \tially imperfect and incorrect ; — that at best they can lonly form a remote approximation to the truth, while Ithe amount of error they contain must be large and Ivarying, and may be almost unlimited. And this must jbe alike, though not equally, the case, whether these lyiews are taught us by reason or by revelation ;— that |s, whether we arrive at them by the diligent and honest "se of those faculties with which God has endowed us, 66 rBETACE. or by listening to those prophets whom He may have ordained to teach us. The difference cannot be more than this : that in the latter case our views will contain that fragment, or that human disguise, of positive truth which God knows our minds are alone capable of re- ceiving, or which He sees to be fitted for their guidance; — while in the former case they will contain that form or fragment of the same positive truth which He framed our minds with the capability of achie\ing. In the one case they will contain as much truth as we can take in — in the other, as much as we can discover ; — ^but in botl. cases this truth must necessarily not only be greatly limited, but greatly alloyed, to bring it within the com- petence of finite human intelligences. Being finite, we can form no correct or adequate idea of the Infinite :— being material, we can form no clear conception of the Spiritual. The question of a Revelation can in no way affect this conclusion ; since even the Omnipotence of God cannot infuse infinite conceptions into finite minds,— cannot, without an entire change of the conditions of onr being, pour a just and full knowledge of His nature into the bounded capacity of a mortal's soul. Human in- telligence could not grasp it ; human language could not express it. " The consciousness of the individual (says Fichte) reveals itself alone ; — his knowledge cannot pass beyond the limits of his own being. His conceptions of other things and other beings are only his conceptions ; — they are not those things or beings themselves. The living principle of a living Universe must oe infinite, while all our ideas and conceptions are finite, and applicable only to finite beings. The Deity is thus not an object of knowledge, but of faith ; — not to be approached by the understanding, but by the moral sense ; — not to be con- ceived, but to be felt. All attempts to embrace the in- finite in the conception of the finite are, and nast be, only accommodations to the frailty of man " Atheism is a charge which the common understanding has repeatedly brought against the finer speculations of philosophy, when, in endeavouring to solve the riddle of PREFACE. 67 existence, they have approached, albeit with reverence and humility, the source from which all existence pro- ceeds. Shrouded from human comprehension in an ob- scurity from which chastened imagination is awod back and thought retreats in conscious weakness, the Divine nature is surely a theme on which man is little entitled to dogmatize. Accordingly it is here that the philosophic intellect becomes most painfully aware of its own in- sufficiency But the common understanding has no such humility ; its God is an Incarnate Divinity ; — imperfection imposes its own limitations on the Illimi- table, and clothes the inconceivable Spirit of the Universe in sensuous and intelligible forms derived from finite nature !" This conviction once gained, the whole rational basis for intolerance is cui- away. We are all of us (though not all equally) mistaken ; and the cherished dogmas of each of us are not, as we had fondly supposed, the pure truth of God, but simply our own special form of error — the fragmentary and refracted ray of light which has fallen on our own minds.* But are we therefore to relax in our pursuit of truth, or to acquiesce contentedly in error ? — By no means. The obligation still lies upon us as much as ever to press for- ward in the search ; for though absolute truth be unattain- able, yet the amount of error in our views is capable of progressive and perpetual diminution ; and it is not to be supposed that all errors are equally innocuous. To rest satisfied with a lower degree of truth than our facul- ties are capable of attaining, — to acquiesce in errors which we might eliminate, — to lie down consciously and con- tentedly in unworthy conceptions of the Nature and Prov- idence of God, — is treason alike to Him and to our own Soul. It is true that all our ideas concerning the Eternal Spirit must, considered objectively, be erroneous; and • " Our little systems have their day ; They have their day, and ceawe to be ; Th^ are but broken lights of Th^e, And Thou. O Lord, art more than t ley." In Memo 6S PREFACE. that no revelation can make them otherwise ; — all, there- fore, that we require, or can obtain, is such an image or idea of Him as shall satisfy our souls, and meet our needs — as shall (we may say) be to us subjectively true. But this conception, in order to become to us such satisfjring and subjective truth, must of course be the highest and noblest that our minds are capable of forming* ; — every man's conception of God must consequently vary with his mental cultivation and mental powers. If he con- tent himself with any lower image than his intellect can grasp, he contents himself with that which is faUe to him,. as well as false in fact, — one which, being lower than he could reach, he must ipso facto feel to be false. The Peasant's idea of God — true to him — would be false to me, because I should feel it to be unworthy and inade- quate. If the nineteenth century after Christ adopts the conceptions of the nineteenth century before him,— if cultivated and chastened Christians adopt the conceptions of the ignorant, narrow, and vindictive Israelite, — they are guilty of thinking worse of God, of taking a lower, meaner, more-limited view of His Nature, than the facul- ties He has bestowed are capable of inspiring ; — and as the highest view we are capable of forming must neces- sarily be the nearest to the tmth, they are wilfully acquiescing in a lie. They are guilty of what Bacon calls " the Apotheosis of error " — stereotyping and canonising one particular stage of the blunders through which thought passes on its way to truth. Now to think (or speak) ill of God is to incur the guilt of blasphemy. It is surprising that this view of the matter should so rarely have struck the orthodox. But they are so intently occupied with the peril on one side, ohat they have become blind or careless to the lc least equal peril that lies on the other. If, as they deem, er- roneous belief be dangerous and criminal, it must be so whether it err on the side of deficiency or of excess. They are sensitively and morbidly alive to the peril and * Religious truth is therefoke necesaarily progressive, because our power* Are progreRsive,— a position fatal to positive dogma. men, leai PBSFACE. 69 the sin of not believing everything which Revelation has announced, yet they are utterly blind to what should be regarded as the deeper peril and the darker guilt of be- lieving that Revelation has announced doctrines dis- honouring to the pure majesty of God. If it be wrong and dangerous to doubt what God has told us of Himself, it must surely be equally so, or more so, to believe, on inadequate evidence or on no evidence at all, that He ever taught doctrines so derogatory to His attributes as many which orthodox theology ascribes to Him. To believe that He is cruel, short-sighted, capricious, and unjust, is an affront, an indignity, which (on the orthodox supposi- tion that God takes judicial cognizance of such errors) must be immeasurably more guilty and more perilous, than to believe that the Jews were mistaken in imagining that He spoke through Moses, or the Christians in imagining that He spoke through Paul. He is affirmed to be a jealous God, an angry God, a capricious God, — punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty, — ^punishing with in- finite and endless torture men whom He had created weak, finite, and ephemeral, — ^nay, whom He had foreordained to sin, — a God who came down from Heaven, walked among "easted at their tables, endured their insults, died by me 9, because our powero their hands. Is there no peril in all this ? — no sin in believing all these unworthy puerilities of a Creator who has given us Reason and Nature to teach us better things ? — Yet countless Christians accept them all with hasty and trembling dismay, as if afraid that God will punish them for being slow t* / believe evil of Him. We have seen that the highest views of religion which we can attain here must, from the imperfection of our faculties, be neceasarily inaccurate and impure. But we may go further than this. It is more than probable that Religion, in order to obtain currency and influence with the great mass of mankind, must be alloyed with an amount of error which places it far below the standard attainable by human capacities. A pure religion — by which we mean one as pure as the loftiest and most cul- tivated earthly reason can discern — would probably not 70 PREFACE. be comprehended by, or eSective over, the less-educated portion of mankind. What is truth to the Phil()sui)her would not be truth, nor have the effect of truth, to the Peasant. The Religion of the many must necessarily be more incorrect than that of the refined and reflective few, — not so much in its essence, as in its forms — not so much in the spiritual idea which lies latent at the bottom of it, as in the symbols and dogmas in which that idea is embodied. In many points true religion would not be comprehensible by the ignorant, nor consolatory to them, nor guiding and supporting for them. Nay, true reli- gion would not he true to them : — that is, the effect it would produce on their mind would not he the right one, — would not be the same it would produce on the mind of one fitted to receive it, and competent to grasp it. To undisciplined minds, as to children, it is probable that coarser images and broader views are necessary to excite and sustain the efforts of virtue. The belief in an iriviiu- diate Heaven of sensible delight and glory will enable an uneducated man to dare the stake in the cause of faith or freedom ; — the idea of Heaven as a distant scene of slow, patient, and perpetual progress in intellectual and spiritual being, would be inadequate to fire his imagina- tion, or to steel his nerves. Again : to be grasped by, and suitable to, such minds, the views presented them of God must be anthropomorphic, not spiritual ; — and in propor- tion as they are so they are false : — the views of His Gov- ernment must be special, not universal ; — and in propor- tion as they are so thej'' will be false.* The sanctions which a faith derives from being announced from Heaven amid clouds and thunder, and attested by physical prod- igies, are of a nature to attract and impress the rudest and most ignorant minds — perhaps in proportion to their rudeness and their ignorance : the sanctions derived from accordance with the breathings of Nature and the dictates were ea * There are, we are disposed to think, several indications in Scripture that the doctrines which Christ desired to teach were put forth by him, not in the language of strict verity (even us he conceived it), but in that clothing which would most surely convev to his hearers the practical essentialH of the doctrine— the important part of the idea.— (See Bush's Anastaais, p. 143.) PREFACE. 71 of the soul, are appreciable in their full strength by the trained and nurtured intelligence alone.* The rapid spread and general reception of any religion may unquestionably be accepted as proof that it contains some vital truth ; — it may be regarded also as an equally certain proof that it contains a large admixture of error, — of error, that is, cognizable and detectable by the higher human minds of the age. A perfectly pure faith would find too little preparation for it in the common mind and heart to admit of prompt reception. The Christian reli- gion would hardly have spread as rapidly as it did, had it remained as pure as it came from the lips of Jesus. It owes its success probably at least as much to the corrup- tions which speedily encrusted it, and to the errors which were early incorporated with it, as to the ingredient of pure and sublime truth which it contained. Its progress among the Jews was owing to the doctrine of the Mes- siahship, which they erroneously believed to be fulfilled in Jesus. Its rapid progress among the Pagans was greatly attributable to its metaphysical accretions and its heathen corruptions. Had it retained Hs original purity and simplicity — had it been kept free from all extraneous admixtures, a system of noble Theism and lofty morality as Christ delivered it, — where would it now have been ? Would it have reached our times as a substantive religion ? —Would truth have floated down to us without borrow- ing the wings of error ? These are interesting, though purely speculative, questions. One word in conclusion. Let it not be supposed that the conclusions sought to be established in this book have been arrived at eagerly, or without pain and reluctance. The pursuit of truth is easy to a man who has no human j sympathies, whose vision is impaired by no fond partiali- * All who hu^ '0016 much into contact with the minds of children or of the uneducated cluases, are fully aware how unfitted to their mental condi- tion are the more wide, catholic, and comprehensive views of religion, j which yet we hold to be the true ones, and how essential it is to them to I have a well-definedj positive, somewhat dogmatic, and above all a divinely- I attested and atUhitrttative creed, deriving its sanctions from without. Such I are best dealt with by rather narrow, decided, and undoubting minds. 72 PBEFACE. t ties, whose neart is torn by no divided allegiance. To him the renunciation of error presents few difficulticb; for the moment it is recognised as error, its charm ceases! But the case is very different with the Searcher whose affections are strong, whose associations are quick, whose hold upon the Past is clinging and tenacious. He may love Truth with an earnest and paramount devotion: but he loves much else also. He loves errors, which were once the cherished convictions of his soul. He loves dog- mas, which were once full of strength and beauty to his thoughts, though i.ow perceived to be baseless or falla- cious. He loves the Church where he worshipped in his happy childhood ; where his friends and his family wor- ship still ; where his grey-haired parents await the resur- rection of the Just : but where he can worship and await no more. He loves the simple old creed, which was the creed of his earlier and brighter days ; which is the creed of his wife and children still , but which inquiry has compelled him to abandon. The Past and the Familiar have chains and talismans which hold him back iii his career, till every fresh step forward becomes an effort hnd an agony ; every fresh error discovered is a fresh bond snapped asunder ; every new glimpse of light is liki a fresh flood of pain poured in upon the soul. To sach a man the pursuit of Truth is a daily martyrdom — how hard and bitter let the martyr tell. Shame to those who make it doubly so : honour to those who encounter it saddened, weeping, trembling, but unflinching still. " Illi in vos saeviant qui nesciunt cum quo labore verum inven- ietur ; qui nesciunt cum quanta difficultate sanetur oculus interioris hominis."* To this martyrdom, however, we believe there is an end : for this unswerving integrity there is a rich and sure reward. Those who flinch from inquiry because they dread the possible conclusion ; who turn aside from the path as soon as they catch a glimpse of an unwelcome goal ; who hold their dearest hopes only on the tenure of a closed eye and a repudiating mind, — will, sooner or St. Augustine. PREFACE. 73 later, liave to encounter that inevitable hour when doubt will not be silenced, and inquiry can no longer be put by; when the spectres of old misgivings which have been rudely repulsed, and of questionings which have been sent empty away, will return " to haunt, to startle, to waylay ; " — and will then find their faith crumbling aw^ay at the moment of greatest need, not because it is false, but because they, haK wilfully, half fearfully, «rrounded it on false foundations. But the man whose faith in God and futurity has survived an inquiry pur- sued with that " single eye " to which alone light is promised, has attained a serenity of soul possible only to the fearless and the just. For him the progress of science is fraught with no dark possibilities of ruin ; no dreaded discoveries lie in wait for him round the comer ; since he is indebted for his short and simple creed, not to shelter- ing darkness, but to conquered lights The Crato, i>£c. 4, 185a ORE When a England evidence on e to 1 Bible an The Bib question directly ordinary Bible he and neai this ecu I spiration with SOI affirming dictated or Verba Scriptun Teachers bued wit words, tl were the Inspirat It is < stating t THB CREED OF CHRISTENDOM CHAPTER I. INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. When an Inquirer, brought up in the popular Theology of England, questions his teachers as to the foundations and evidence of the doctrines he has imbibed, he is referred at on e to the Bible as the source and proof of all : " The Bible and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants." The Bible, he is told, is a sacred book of supreme and un- questionable authority, being the production of writers directly inspired by God to teach us truth — being in the ordinary phrase, The Word of God. This view of the Bible he finds to be universal among all religious sects, and nearly all religious teachers ; all at least, of whom, in this country, he is likely to hear. This belief in the In- spiration of the Scriptures (©eoTrvcvoria) is, indeed, stated with some slight variations, by modem Divines ; some affirming, that every statement and word was immediately dictated from on high ; these are the advocates of Plenary or Verbal Inspiration ; — others holding merely that the Scriptural writers were divinely informed and authorized Teachers of truth and narrators of fact, thoroughly im- bued with, and guided by, the Spirit of God, but that the words, the earthly form in which they clothed the ideas, were their own. These are the believers in the Essential Inspiration of the Bible. It is obvious that the above are only two modes of stating the same doctrine — a doctrine incapable of being 76 THE CREED Bi^lSTENDOM. defined or expressed with phi.; jphi^^' Drecision, from our ignorance of the modus operandi of div-ne influences on the mind of man. Both propositions mean, if they have any distinct meaning at all, this affirmation : — that every statement of fact contained in the Scriptures is true, as being information communicated by the Holy Spirit- that every dogma of Religion, every idea of Duty, every conception of Deity, therein asserted, came from Ood, in the natural and unequivocal sense of that expression. That this is the acknowledged and accepted doctrine of Protestant Christendom at least is proved by the circum- stance that all controversies among Christian sects turn upon the interpretation, not the authority of the Scrip- tures ; insomuch that we constantly hear disputants make use of this language : " Only show me such or such a doctrine in the Bible and I am silenced." — It is proved, too, by the pains taken, the humiliating subterfuges so often resorted too, by men of science, to show that their discoveries are not at variance with any text of Scrip- ture ; — ^pains and subterfuges now happily discarded by nearly all, as unworthy alike of the dignity of Science and the rights of controversy, and as no longer required amid the increasing enlightenment of the age. — It is proved by the observation, so constantly forced upon us, of theo- logians who have been compelled to abandon the theory of Scriptural Inspiration or to modify it into a negation still retaining, as tenaciously as ever, the consequences and corollaries of the doctrine ; phrases which sprung out of it, and have no meaning apart from it ; and deductions which could flow from it alone. — It is proved, moreover, by the indiscriminate and peremptory manner in which texts are habitually quoted from every part of the Bible, to enforce a precept, to settle a doctrine, or to silence an antagonist. — It is proved, finally, by the infinite efforts made by commentators and divines to explain discrep- ancies and reconcile contradictions which, independently of this doctrine, could have no importance or significance whatever. This, accordingly, is the first doctrine for which our Inquirer demands evidence and proof. It does not occur INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 77 to him to doubt the correctness of so prevalent a belief : lu) is only anxious to discover its genesis and its found- ation. He immediately perceives that the Sacred Scrip- tures consist of two separate series of writings, wholly distinct in their character, chronology, and language — the one containing the sacred books of the Jews, the other those of the Christians. We will commence with the former. Most of our readers who share the popular belief in the divine origin and authority of the Jewish Scriptures, would probably be much perplexed when called upon to assign grounds to justify the conviction which they en- tertain from habit. All that they could discover may be classed under the following heads : I. That these books were received as sacred, authori- tative, and inspired Writings by the Jews themselves. II. That they repeatedly and habitually represent themselves as dictated by God, and containing His ipsis- sima verba. III. That their contents proclaim their origin and parentage, as displaying a purer morality, a loftier re- ligion, and altogether a holier tone, than the unassisted, uninspired human faculties could, at that period, have attained. IV. That the authority of the Writers, as directly com- inisioned from on High, was in many cases attested by miraculous powers, either of act or prophecy. V. That Christ and His Apostles decided their sacred character, by referring to them, quoting them, and as- suming or affirming them to be inspired. Let us examine each of these grounds separately. I. It is unquestionably true that the Jews received the Hebrew Canon, or what we call the Old Testament, as a collection of divinely-inspired writings, and that Christ- ians, on their authority, have generally adopted the same belief.— Now, even if the Jews had held the same views of inspiration that now prevail, and attached the modern meaning to the word ; even if they had known accurately who were the Authors of the saci cd booT , and on what 78 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. authority such and such writings were admitted into the Canon, and such others rejected ; — we do not see whv their opinion should be regarded as a sufficient guide and basis for ours ; especially when we remember that they rejected as an Impostor the Prophet whom we conceive tu have been inspired beyond all others. What rational or consistent ground can we assign for disregarding the decision of the Jews in the case of Jesus, and accepting it submissively in the case of Moses, David, and Isaiah ? But, on a closer examination, it is discovered that the Jews cannot tell us when, nor by whom, nor on what principle of selection, this collection of books was formed. All these questions are matters of pure conjecture, or of difficult and doubtful historic inference ; — and the ablest critics agree only in the opinion that no safe opinion can be pronounced. One ancient Jewish legend attributes the formation of the Canon to the Great Synagogue, an imagined " company of scribes," arvvayaryr} ypa/A/Aarcwv, pre» sided over by Ezra. — Another legend, equally destitute of authority, relates that the collection aleady existed, but had become much corrupted, and that Ezra was in- spired for the purpose of correcting and purifying it ;— that is, was inspired for the purpose of ascertaining, cor- recting, and affirming the inspiration of his Predecessors. A third legend mentions Nehemiah as the Author of the Canon. The opinion of De Wette — probably the first authority on these subjects — an opinion founded on mi- nute historical and critical investigations, is, that the different portions of the Old Testament were collected or brought into their present form, at various periods, and that the whole body of it " came gradually into existence, and, as it were, of itself and by force of custom and public use, acquired a sort of sanction." He conceives the Pen- tateuch to have been completed about the time of Josiah, the collection of Prophets soon after Nehemiah, and the devotional writings not till the age of the Maccabees.* His view of the grounds which led to the reception of * Introduction to the Critical Study of the Old Testament (by Parker), i. 26-35. INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 79 tament (by Parker), the various books into the sacred Canon, is as follows : — " The writings attributed to Moses, David, and the Proph- ets, were considered inspired on account of the personal character of their authors. But the other writings, which rre in part anonymous, derive their title to inspiration sometimes from their contents, and sometimes from the cloud of antiquity which rests on them. Some of the writings which were composed after the exile — such, for example, as the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and Daniel — were put on this list on account of the ancient authors to whom they were ascribed; — others — for example. Chronicles and Esther — on account of their contents; and others again, as Ezra and Nehemiah, on account of the distinguished merit of their authors in restoring the Law and worship of God."* Again : the books of the Hebrew Canon were custom- arily classed among the Jews into three several divisions — the Books of the Law, the Prophets, and the other sacred writings, or Hagiographa, as they are termed — and it is especially worthy of remark that Philo, Josephus, and all the Jewish authorities ascribed different degrees of inspiration to each class, and moreover did not con- ceive such inspiration to be exclusively confined to the Canonical writers, but to be shared, though in a scantier degree, by others ; Philo extending it even to the Greek translators of the Old Testament ; Josephus hinting that he was not wholly destitute of it himself; and both maintaining that even in their day the gifts of prophecy and inspiration were not extinct, though limited to few.f The Talmudists held the same opinion ; and went so far as to say that a man might derive a certain kind or degree of inspiration from the study of the Law and the Prophets. In the Gospel of John xi. 51, we have an inti- mation that the High Priest had a kind of ex o^io in- spiration or prophetic power. — It seems clear, therefore, * De Wette, i. 40. t pe Wette, i. 39-43. A marked confirmation of the idea of graduated inspiration is to be found in Numbers xii. G-8. Maimonides (De Wette, ii. 361) distinguishes eleven degrees of inspiration, besides that which was granted to Moses. Abarlmnel (De Wette i. 14) makes a similar distinction. 80 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. that the Jews, on whose authority we accept tlie Old Testament as inspired, attached a very different uieaning to the word from that in which our Theologians employ it ; in their conception it approaches (except in the case of Moses) much more nearly to the divine afflatus which the Greeks attributed to their Poets. — " Between the Mosaic and the Prophetic Inspiration, the Jewish Church asserted such a difference as amounts to a diversity . . , To Moses and to Moses alone — to Moses, in the recording no less than in the receiving of the law — and to every part of the five books called the books of Moses, the Jewish Doctors of the generation before and coeval with the Ap0)tles, assigned that unmodified and absolute BeoTTvevarTLa, which our divines, in words at least, attribute to the Canon collectively."* The Samaritans, we know, carried this distinction so far that they received the Pen- tateuch alone as of divine authority, and did not believe the other books to be inspired at all. It will then be readily conceded that the divine author- ity, or proper inspiration (using the word in our modem, plain, ordinary, theological sense), of a series of writings of which we know neither the date, nor the authors, nor the collectors, nor the principle of selection — cannot de- rive much support or probability from the mere opinion of the Jews ; especially when the same- Jews did not confine the quality of inspiration to these writings exclu- sively ; — when a large section of them ascribed this attribute to five books only out of thirty-nine ; — and when they assigned to different portions of the collection different degrees of inspiration — an idea quite inconsistent with the modern one of infallibility. — " In infallibility there can be no degrees."*!* * Coleridge. Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit, p^ 19. As I shall have to refer to this eminent writer more tnan once, I wisn it to be borne in mind that, though not always speculatively orthodox, he was a dogmatic Clnist- ian, and an intolerant Trinitarian ; at least he always held the language of one. ■\ Coleridge, p. 18. [Moreover, if we may trust a very remarkable and learned article on the Talmud, which appeared in the July number, 1873, of the Edinburgh Review, much of the Old Testament which Christian divines, in their ignorance of Jewish lore, have insisted on receiving and interpreting literally, the better informed Rabbins never dreamed of regard- INSPIRATION or THE SCRIPTURES. 81 II. The second ground alleged for the popular belief in the Inspiration of the Jewish Scriptures, appears to in- volve both a confusion of reasoning, and a misconception of fact. These writings, I believe I am correct in stating, nowhere affirm their own inspiration, divine origin, or infallible authority. They frequently, indeed, use the expressions, " Thus saith Jehovah,** and " the Word of the Lord came to Moses," &c., which seem to imply that in these instances they consider themselves as re- cording the very words of the Most High ; but they do not declare that they are as a whole dictated by God, nor even that in these instances they are enabled to record His v.'ords with infallible accuracy. But even if these writings did contain the most solemn and explicit asser- tion of their own inspiration, that assertion ought not to have, and in the eye of reason could not have, any weight whatever, till that inspiration is proved from indepen- dent sources — after which it becomes superfluous. It is simply the testimony* of a witness to himself, — a testi- mony which the falsest witness can bear as well as the truest. To take for granted the attributes of a writer from his own declaration of those attributes, is, one would imagine, too coarse and too obvious a 1 ;^cal blunder not to be abandoned as soon as it is stated m plain language. Yet, in the singular work which I have already quoted — singular and sadly remarkable, as displaying the strange inconsistencies into which a craven terror of heresy (or the imputation of it) can betray even the acutest think- ers — Coleridge says, first, " that he cannot find any such claim (to supernatural inspiration) made by the writers in question, explicitly or by implication " (p. 16) ; — secondly, that where the passages asserting such a claim are sup- posed to be found, " the conclusion drawn from them in- volves obviously a petitio principii, namely, the superna- tural dictation, word by word, of the book in which the ing as anything but allegorical. The " literalists " they called fools. The account of the Creation was one of the portions which the unlearned vrt\n specially forbidden to meddle with.] * • ' If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true " {%.e., ifl not to be regarded), John v. 31. 82 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. assertion is found ; for until this is established, the ut- most such a text can prove, is the current belief of the Writer's age and country " (p. 17) ; and, thirdly, that, " whatever is referred by the sacred penman to a direct communication from God ; and whenever it is recorded that the subject of the history had asserted himself io have received this or that command, information, or as- surance, from a superhuman intelligence ; or where the Writer, in his own person, and in the character of an his- torian, relates that the word of God came to Priest Prophet; Chieftain, or other Individual ; / receive the same with full belief, and admit its inappellable authority" (p. 27). — What is this, but to say, at p. 27, that he re- ceives as " inappellable " that which, at p. 17, he declares to involve an obvious petitio principii ? — ^that any self- assertet: infallibility — any distinct affirmation of divirie communication or command, however improbable, contra- dictory, or revolting — made in any one of a collection of books, " the dates, selectors, and compilers of which " lie avers to be " unknown, or recorded by known fabulists" (p. 18), — must be received as of supreme authority, wit'i- out question, and without appeal ? — What would such a reas ler as Coleridge think of such reasoning as th?- , (m any other than a Biblical question ? III. The argument for the inspiration of the Old Tes- tament Scriptures derived from the character of their contents, will bear no examination. It is true that many parts of them contain views of Duty, of God, and of Man's relation to Him, which are among the purest and loftiest that the human intellect can grasp ; — but it is no less tiue that other passages, at least as numerous and characteristic, depict feelings and opinions on these topics, as low, meagre, and unworthy, as ever took their rise in savage and uncultured mmds. These passages, as is well known, have long been the opprobium of orthodoxy and the dcjpair of Theologians ; and so far are they from be- ing confirmatory of the doctrine of scriptural inspiration, that nothing but the inconsiderate and absolute reception of this doctrine has withheld men from regarding and representing them in their true light. The contents of INSPIRATION OP THE SCRIPTURES. 83 the Hebrew Canon as a whole, form the most fatal and convincing argument against its inspiration as a whole. By the popular creed as it now stands, the nobler portions are compelled to bear the mighty burden of the lower and less worthy ; — and often sink under their weight. IV. The argument for the Inspiration of the Old Tes- tament Writers, drawn from the supposed miraculous or prophetic powers confen-ed upon the writers, admits of a very brief refutation. In the first place, as we do not know who the Writers were, nor at what date the books were written, we cannot possibly decide whether they were endowed with any such powers, or not. — Secotidly, as tiie only evidence we have for the reality of the mira- cles rests upon the divine authority, and consequent un- failing accuracy, of the books in which they are recorded, they cannot, without a violation of all principles of rea- soning, be adduced to prove that authority and accuracy. — Thirdly, in those days, as is well known, superhuman powers were not supposed to be confined to the direct and infallible organs of the divine commands, nor neces- sarily to imply the possession of the delegated authority of God; — as we learn from the Magicians of Pharaoh, who could perform many, though not all, of the miracles of Moses ; from the case of Aaron, who, though miracu- lously gifted, and God's chosen High Priest, yet helped the Israelites to desert Jehovah, and bow down before the Golden Calf ; — and from the history of Balaam, who, though in daily communication with God, and specially inspired by Him, yet accepted a bribe from His enemies to curse His people, and pertinaciously endeavoured to perform his part of the contract. — And, finally, as the dogmatic or credential value of prophecy depends on our being able to ascertain the date at which it was uttered, and the precise events which it was intended to predict, and the impossibility of foreseeing such events by mere human sagacity, and, moreover, upon the original lan- guage in which the prophecy was uttered not having been altered by any subsequent recorder or transcriber to match f be fulfilment more exactly ; — and as in the case of the prophetical books of the Hebrew Canon (as will be V\\\ 84 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. seen in a subsequent chapter), great doubt rests upon al- most all these points ; and as, moreover, for one predic- tion which was justified, it is easy to point to two which were falsified, by the event ; — the prophecies, even if oc- casionally fulfilled, can assuredly, in the present stage of our inquiry, afiford us no adequate foundation on which to build the inspiration of the library (for such it is) of which they form a part. V. But the great majority of Christians would, if questioned, rest their belief in the Inspiration of the Old Testament Scriptures, upon the supposed sanction or aflirmation of this view by Christ and his Apostles. — Now, as Coleridge has well argued in a passage already cited, until we know that the words of Christ conve)ring this doctrine have been faithfully recorded, so that we are actually in possession of his view — and that the apostolic writings conveying this doctrine were the pro- duction of inspired men — the utmost such texts can prove is the current belief of the Writer's age and country concerning the character of the book then called the Scriptures." — The inspiration of the Old Testament, in this point of 'dew, therefore, rests upon the inspiration of the New — a matter to be presently con- sidered. But let us here ascertain what is the actual amount of divine authority attiibuted to the Old, by the writers of the New Testament. It is unquestionable that these Scriptures are constantly referred to and quoted, by the Apostles and Evangel- ists, as authentic and veracious histories. It is unques- tionable, also, that the prophetic writings were considered by them to be prophecies — to contain predictions of future events, and especially of events relating to Christ. They received them submissively ; but misquoted, mis- understood, and misapplied them, as will hereafter be shewn. Further ; however incorrectly we may believe the words of Christ to have been reported, his references to the Scriptures are too numerous, too consistent, and too probable, not to bring us to the conclusion that he quoted them as having, and deserving to have, unquestioned authority over the Jewish mind. On this point, however, the opj re marl the on| am cor come you, ' shall ii He qu^ that affirms I the pri prophej sialiy, "the S a.' decii " Mosej On gated INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 85 the opinions of Christ, as recorded in the Gospel, present remarkable decrepancies, and even contradictions. On the one hand, we read of His saying, " Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till Heaven and Earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fuliilled."* He quotes the Decalogue as " from God ," and he says that " God spake to Moses."*!- It is true that he nowhere affirms the inspiration of the Scriptures, but he quotes the prophecies, and even is said to represent them as prophesying of him.J He quotes the Psalms controver- sially, to put down antagonists, and adds the remark, " the Scriptures cannot be broken."§ He is represented a." declaring, once positively and once incidentally,! I that " Moses -vvTote of him."ir On the other hand, he contradicted Moses, and abro- gated his ordinances in an authoritative and peremptory- manner, which precludes the idea that he supposed him- self dealing w'lih. the direct commands of God.** This is done in many points specified in Matth. v. 34-44 ; — in the ease of divorce, in the most positive and naked manner (Matth. V. 31-32; xix. 8 ; Luke xvi. 18; Mark x. 4-12) ;— in the case of the woman taken in adultery, who would have been punished with a cruel death by the Mosaic law, but whom Jesus dismissed with — "Neitheir do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more" (John viii. 5-1 1) ; — in the case of clean anduncleanmeats, as to which the Mosaic law is rigorous in the extreme, but which Christ puts aside as trivial, afiirm- * Matth. V. 17, 18. Luke xvi. 17. t Matth. XV. 4-6 ; xxii. 31. Mark vii. 9-13 ; xii. 26. t Matth. XV. 7 ; xxiv, 16. Luke iv. 17-21 ; xxiv. 27. § John X. 35. II John V. 46. Luke xxiv. 44. H It seems more than doubtful whether any passages in the Pentateuch can fairly be considered as having reference to Chnst. But passin^^ ove' this, if it shall appetr that what we now call " The Bookr of Moses " wt - nt'i ntten by Aloses, it will foUow, either that Christ referred to Mosaic writings which we do not posaesa ; or that, like the contemporary Jews and modern Christiana, he erroneously ascribed to Moses books which Moses (lid not write. ** " Ye have heard th.' t Ih has been said of old time ; "— " Moses, for the hardness of your heaHa, suffered you t • put away your wives," &c., &o. 86 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. ing that unclean meats cannot defile a man, though Moses declared that it " made them abominable." (Matth. XV. 11; Mark vii. 15.) Christ even supersedes in the same manner one of the commands of the Decalogue— that as to the observance of the Sabbath, his views and teaching as to which no ingenuity can reconcile with the Mosaic law.* Finally, we have the assertion ii. Paul's Second Epistle to Timothy (iii. 16), which, though certaini;y translatable two ways,-|* either a^rms the inspiration of the Hebrew Canon as a whole, or assumes the inspiration of certain portions of it. On the whole, there can, I think, be little doubt that Christ and his Apostles received the Jewish Scriptures, as they then were, aa sacred and authoritative. But till their divine authority is established, it is evident that this, the Jifth, ground for believing the inspiration of the Old Testament merges in the first, i.e., tV -^ belief of the Jews. So far, then, it appears that the only evidt^iice for the Inspiration of the Hebrew Canon is the fact that the Jews believed in it. — But we know that they also believed in the Inspiration of other writings ; — that their meaning of the word " Inspiration " differed essentially from that which now prevails ; — that their theocratic polity had so interwoven itself with all their ideas, and modified their whole mode of thinking, that almost every mental sugges- tion, and every act of power, was referred by them directly to a superhuman origin.^ — " If " (says Mr. Coleridge) " we take ir. o account the habit, universal with the Hebrew Doctors, tf referring ;.ll excellent or extraordinary things to the mate which I * See t>.is 'hole qi option most ably treatefl in the notea to Norton, Genu- ineneBs oi the Gosnels. It. § 7. t The English, ' 'i k ti . awl othi v versionB vender it, " All Scripture ia given by inspiration of Go'I, ?nuii profitable hn ueaoiiing," &c., &c. (vm. obviously incorrect reiider'T.T, uOessit can be shown that ypapri is always used by Paul in reference to the^^ao.tii T .ish Canon exclusively). The Vulgate, Luther, Calnaet, the Spanish a V Arabic versions, and most of the Fathers, trans- late it thus : " All >^r-'~i '■' inspired writings are also profitable fov teaching," ^c. This is little muie t' in a tr.iiam. But Paul probably meant, " Do not despise the Old Testatoent, because yoix have the Spirit ; since you know it Mas inspired, yon ought to be able to make it i)rotitable/' &c. t De Wotte, i. 39. DOM. INSPIRATION OF THE SCBIPTURES. 8? le a man, though tninable." (Matth. supersedes in the 3 f the Decalogue— Eith, his views and reconcile with the il's Second Epistle ;ainly translatable on of the Hebrew >iration of certain 1, 1 think, be little ceived the Jewish and authoritative, shed, it is evident the inspiration of , i.e., tV- belief of 7 evidtxtce for the fact that the Jews V also believed in their meaning of itially from that j-tic polity had so id modified their ry mental sugfiies- by them directly r. Coleridge) " we vith the Hebrew aordinary things otes to Norton, Genu- '' All Scripture is given kc. , &c. (an obviously 3 always used by Paul The Vulgate, Luther, )f the Fathers, trans- ofitable fov teaching," ably meant, "Do not ;it ; since you know it to the Great First Cause, without mention of the proxi- mate and instrumental causes — a striking illustration of which may be obtained by comparing the narratives of the same event in the Psalms and the Historical Books ; — and if we further reflect that the distinction of the Provi- dential und the Miraculous did not enter into their forms of thinking — at all events not into their mode of convey- ing theii thoughts ; — the language of the Jews respecting the Hagio;.:rapna will be found to differ little, if at all, from that of religious persons among ourselves, when speaking of an author abounding in gifts, stirred up by the Holy Spirit, writing under the influence of special grace, and the like."* — We know, moreover, that the Mahometans believe in the direct inspiration of the Koran as firmly as ever did the Hebrews in that of their sacred books ; and that in matters of such mighty import the belief of a special na- tion can be no safe or adequate foundation for our own. — The result of this investigation, therefore, is, that the popular doctrine of the inspiration, divine origin, and con- sequent unimpeachable accuracy and infallible authority of the Old Testament Scriptures, rests on no foundation whatever — unless it shall subsequently appear that Christ and his Apostles afiirmed it, and had means of knowing it and judging of it, superior to and independent of those possessed by the Jews of their time. ' I have purposely abstained in this place from noticing those considerations which directly negative the doctrine in question ; both because many of these will be more suitably introduced in subsequent chapters, and because, if a doctrine is shown to be without foundation or un- proved, disproof is superfluous. — In conclusion, let us care- full}'^ note that this inquiry has related solely to the divine origin and infallible authority of the Sacred Writings, and is entirely distinct from the question as to the substantial truth of the narratives and the jorrectness of the doctrine they contain — a question to be decided by a difl*erent method of inquiry. Though wholly uninspired, they may transmit n .rratives, faithful in the main, of God's dealings * Letters Ton Inspiration, p, 21. 88 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM, with man, and may be records of a real and authentic revelation. — All we have yet made out is this : that the mere fact of finding any statement or dogma in the Hebrew Scriptures is no sufficient proof or adequate war- ranty that it came from God. It is not easy to discover the grounds on which the popular belief in the inspiration, or divine origin, of the New Testament Oanon, as a whole, is based. Probably, when analysed, they will be found to be the following. I. That the Canonical Books were selected from the un- canonical cr apocryplial, by the early Christiaxx Fathers, who ifiiustbe supposed to have had ample means of judg- ing ; and that the inspiration of these writings is aflBlrmed by them. II. That it is natural to imagine that God, in sending into the World a Revelation intended for all times and all lands, should provide fov its faithful record and trans- mission by inspiring the transmitters and recorders. III. That the Apostles, whose unquestioned writings form a large portion of the Canon, distinctly affirm their cwn inspiration ; and tli-it this inspiration was distinctly fiomised them by Christ. IV. That the coLte^ats ol' Is New Testament are their own credentials, and by ihoir cublime tone and character, proclaim their superLuman rrign. V. That the inspiration of xDott of the writers may be considered as attested by the miracles they wrought, or had the power of working. I. The writin^N ^vhich. compose the volume called by us the New Testament, had assumed their present collective form, and wtre generally received throughout the Christian Churches, about the end of the second century. They were selected out of a number of others; but by whom they were selected, or what principle guided the selection, his- tory leaves in doubt. We have reason to believe that in several instances, writings were selected or rejected, not from a consideration of the external or traditional evi- dence of their genuineness or antiquity, but from the sup- M i OM. INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 89 Ell and authentic is this : that the r dogma in the or adequate war- is on -which the ine origin, of the Dased. Probably, the following, jcted from the un- ]!hristia^ Fathers, le means of judg- ritings is afl&rmed t God, in sending for all times and record and trans- id recorders, estioned writings nctly afl^m their on was distinctly stament are their ne and character, e -writers may be ihey wrought, or pme called by us >resent collective )ut the Christian century. They lilt by whom they |he selection, his- believe that in or rejected, not traditional evi- lut from the sup- posed heresy or orthodoxy of the doctrines they contained. We find, moreover, that the early Fathers disagreed among themselves in their estimate of the genuineness and authority of many of the books ;* that some of them re- ceived books which we exclude, and excluded others which we admit ; — while we have good reason to believe that some of the rejected writings, as the Gospel of the He- brews, and that for the Egyptians, and the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, have at least as much title to be placed in the sacred Canon as some already there — the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second of Peter and that of Jude, for example. It is true that several of the Christian Fathers who lived about the end of the second century, Irenseus, Ter- tullian, and Clement of Alexandria, distinctly affirm the inspiration of the Sacred Writings, as those writings were leceived, and as that word was understood, by them.f But we find that they were in the habit of referring to and quoting indiscriminately the Apocrjrphal, as well as the Canonical Scriptures. Instances of this kind occur in Clement of Rome (a.d. 100), Clement of Alexandria (a.d. 200), and, according to Jerome, in Ignatius also, who lived about A.D. 107. J Their testimony, therefore, if valid to prove the inspiration of the Canonical Scriptures, proves the inspiration of the rejected Scriptures likewise; and by necessary sequence proves the error and incompetency of the compilers of the Canon, who rejected them. No one, however, well acquainted -with the -writings of the Fathers, will be of opinion that their judgment m these matters, or in any matters, ought to guide our own.§ II. The second argument certainly carries with it, at [first sight, an appearance of much weight ; and is, we be- * See the celebrated account of the Canon given bjr Eusebius, where five Df our epistles are " disputed ; " — the Apocalypse, which we receive, is by bany considered " spurious ; " and the Gospel of the Hebrews, which we re- ject, is stated to have been by many, especially of the Palestinian Christians, •placed among the "acknowledged writings." De Wette, L 76. t De Wette, i., 63-66. X Ibid. p. 54, ftc. § See Ancient Christianity, by Isaac Taylor, passim— for an exposition of ehat these Fathers could write and believe. [See also " Literature and )(>t,'ma," by Mr. Arnold, p. 283, for a few curious specimens.] Q '\ 90 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. lieve, wiwi most minds, however unconsciously, the argu- ment which (as Paiej expres.«os it) " does the business." The idea of Gospel inspiration is received, not from any proof that it is so, but from an opinion or feeiino- that it ought to he so. The doctrine arose, not because it was provable, but because it was wanted. Divines can pro- duce no stronger reason for believing in the inspiration of the Gospel naiTatives, than their own opinion that it is not likely God should have left so important a series of facts to the ordinary chances of history. But on a little reflection it will be obvious thai we have no ground what- ever for piesuming that God will act in this or in that manner under any given circumstances, beyond what previous analogies may furnish ; and in this case no anal- ogy exists. Wi cannot even form a probable guess d priori of His moQj of operation ; but we find that gener- ally, and indeed in all cases of which we have any certain knowledge, He leaves things to the ordinary action of natural laws ; and if, therefore, it is " natural " to presume anything at all in this instance, that presumption should be that God did not inspire the New Testament writers, but left them to convey what they saw, heard, or believed, as their intellectual powers and moral qualities enabled them. The Gospels, as professed records of Christ's deeds and words, will be allowed to form the most important portion of the New Testament collection. Now, the idea of God having inspired four different men to write a history of the same transactions — or rather of many different men having undertaken to write such a history, of whom God inspired /oit?' only to write correctly, leaving the others to their own unaided resources, and giving us no test by which to distinguish the inspired from the uninspired,— certainly appears self -confuting, and anything but " natu- ral." If the accounts of the same transactions agree, where was the necessity for more than one ? If they differ (as they notoriously do), it is certain that only one can be inspired ; — and which is that one ? In all other religions ciaiming a divine origin, this incongruity is avoided. INSPIRATION OF \'HE SCRIPTURES. 91 Further, the Gospels nowaere affirm, or even intimate, their own inspiiation* — a d ?" Can any statement of the popular doctrine be more decided or un- shrinking than this ? Yet he immediately afterwards says, in reference to one of St. Paul's most certain and often-repeated statements (regarding the approaching end of the world), " we may safelj'^ and reverently say that St. Paul, in this instance, entertained and expressed a belief which the event did not justify. "i* Now put these * Christian Course and Character pp. 48C-i''0. t It is particularly worthy of r>imark \tknA aeems io have been most unao- countably and entirely overlooked by Dr. Arnold throughout hia argument), that, in the assertion of this <^n:onertUB belief, St. Pp^m expressly declares bimaelf to be speaking " by tLe word of the Lord." — 1 These, iv 15. heir own minds n, is equivalent Qade in the one ith great acute- Droposition, has i inconsistency ifficult to grasp lowever, quote y do I believe )f their inspira- jriptural narra- \ are themselves sannot conceive ise than sure." of the popular js : — " Consider , who had the e may suppose, ^Bi share of it ttd daily receiv- and more ripe a abundance of kble and incon- to be called in- has told us of . he spoke o refuse to be- ted ?" Can any decided or un- i\y afterwards >st certain and )proaching end ently say that id expressed a Now put these ve been most unao- lout his argument), expressly declares lieas. iv 15. MODIFICATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE. 99 statements together, and we shall see that Dr. Arnold fitHrms, as a matter not to be doubted by any reasonable mind, that when St. Paul speaks of certain things (of ( rod, of Christ, and of the last day),* he is telling us what Hi heard from God, and that to doubt him is to disbelieve God : yet when he is speaking of other things {one oj these thingn being that very " last great day " of which he had " heard from God ") he may safely be admitted to be mistaken. What is this but to say, not only that por- tions of the Scripture are from God, and other portions are from man — that some parts are inspired, and others are not — but that, of the very same letter by the very same Apostle, some portions are inspired, and others are not — and that Dr. Arnold and every man must judge for himself which are which — must separate by his own skill the divine from the human assertions in the Bible ? Now a book cannot, in any decent or intelligible sense, be said to be inspired, or carry with it the authority of being — scarcely even of containing — God's word, if only portions come from Him, and there exists no plain and infallible sign to indicate which these portions are — if the same writer, in the same tone, may give us in one verse a reve- lation from the Most High, and m the next a blunder ol his own. How can we be certain that the very texts upon which we most rest our views, our doctrines, our ]iopes,f are not the human and uninspired portion ? What c'vih he the meaning or nature of an inspiration to teach Truth, which does not guarantee its recipient from teach- ing error ? Yet Dr. Arnold tells us that " the Scriptures are not only inspired, but divinely framed and superin- tended ! " Dr Arnold then proceeds to give his sanction to what His precise words are these : — " < i hi ' Can any reasonable mind doubt that in what he has told us of . . . . Him who pre-existed in the form of God before He was manifested in the form of man— of that great day when we Hhall arise uncorruptible, and meet our Lord in the air— he spoke what he had heard from God," Ac, &c, Notes, p. 488. t It is certain that many of tho early Christians, readers of St. Paul's enlHtles, did rest ro ,ny of their hopes, and much of the courage which carried tneni through martyrdom, on the erroneous notions as to the immediate coming of Christ, conveyed in such texts as 1 Thess. iv. 15, and then gener- ally prevalent. 100 THE CBEFJ) OF CHRISTENDOM. we must consider as the singular fallacy contained in the Jewish notion, about different degrees of inspiration.* "It is an unwarrantable interpretation of the word," he thinks, " to mean by an inspired work, a work to which God has communicated his own perfections, so that the slightest error or defect of any kind in it is inconceivable Surely many of our words and many of our actions are spoken and done by the inspiration of God's spirit, with- out whom we can do nothing acceptable to God. Yet does the Holy Spirit so inspire ns as to communicate to us his own perfections ? Are our best words or works utterly free from error or from sin ? All inspiration does not then destroy the human and fallible part in the nature which it inspires ; it does not change man into God. — With one man, indeed, it was otherwise ; but He wi..s both God and man. To Him the Spirit was given without measure; and as his life was without sin, so his words were with- out error. But to all others the Spirit has been given by measure ; in almost infinitely different measure it is true: — the difference between the inspiration of the common and perhaps unworthy Christian who merely said that " Jesus was the Lord," and that of Moses, or St. Paul, or St. John, is almost to our eyes beyond measuiing. Still the position remains that the highest degree of inspiration given to man has still suffered to exist along with it a portion of human fallibility and corruption." Now, if Dr. Arnold chooses to assume, as he appears to do, that every man who acknowledges Jesus to be the Christ, is inspired, after a fashion, and means, by the above pas- sage, simply to affirm that Paul and tfohn were inspired, just as all gi-eat and good minds are inspired, only in a superior degree, proportioned to their superior greatness and goodness — then neither we, nor any one, wiU think it worm their while to differ with him. But then to glide, as he does, into the ordinary and vernacular use of the word inspiration, is a misuse of language, aiid involves the deception and logical fallacy, against whiih we have already warned our readers, of obtaining assent to a doc* ♦ Notes, pp. 486, 487 soningi reconcili spiratio: "Thed( be foun idea of tend to teuch is letters i munica vinely > ' Old ai doctrin And ye and th( assert i than I blende •Lett MODIFJCATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE. 101 trine by employing a word in its philosophical or etymo- logical sense, and then applying that assent to a doctrine involving the use of the word in its vernacular sense. A statement or dogma came from God, or it did not. If it came from God it must be infallible ; — if it did not, it must be fallible, and may be false. It cannot be both at the same time. We cannot conceive of a statement com- ing from God in different degrees — being a little inspired by Him — being more or less iTispired by Him. Unques- tionably He has given to men different degrees of insight into truth, by giving them different degrees of capacity, and placing them in circumstances favourable in different degrees to the development of those capacities ; but by the inspiration of a book or proposition we mean some- thing very distinct from this ; and to fritter away the popular doctrine to this, is tantamount to a direct nega- tion of it, and should not be disguised by the subtilties of language. Coleridge's view of Bible Inspiration is almost as diffi- cult to comprehend as Dr. Arnold's, for though his rea- soning is more exact, his contradictions seem to us as ir- reconcilable. His denial of the doctrine of plenary in- spiration is as direct as can be expressed in language. " The doctrine of the Jewish Cabbalists," says he,* *' will be found to contain the only intelligible and consistent idea of that plenary inspiration which later Divines ex- tend to all the canonical books ; as thus : — * The Penta- teuch is but one word, even the Word of Gk)d ; and the letters and articulate sounds by which this word is com- municated to our human apprehensions, are likewise di- vinely communicated.' Now for ' Pentateuch,' substitute ' Old and New Tesiament/ and then I say that this is the doctrine which I reject as superstitious and unscriptuml. And yet as long as the conceptions of the Revealing Word and the Inspiring Spirit are identified and confounded, I assert that whatever says less than this, says little more than nothing. For hew can absolute infallibility be blended with laJibility ? Where is the infallible criterion ? * Letters on Inspiration, p. 19. 102 THE GREED OF CHRISTENDOM. And how can infallible truth be infallibly conveyed in defective and fallible expressions ? " This is the very argument we have used above, and which the writer we are quoting repeats elsewhere in that clear and terse language which conveys irresistible con- viction :* — " The Doctrine in question requires me to be- lieve, that not only what finds me, but that all that exists in the sacred volume, and which I am bound to find therein, was not only inspired by, that is, composed by men under the actuating influence of the Holy Spirit, but likewise dictated by an Infallible Intelligence ; — that the Writers, each and all, were divinely informed as well as inspired. Now, here all evasion, all excuse is cut otf . . In Infallibility there can be no degrees." ' It is not easy to conceive under what modification, or by what subtile misuse of language, Mr. Coleridge can hold a doctrine which, in its broad and positive expression, he declares to be " ensnaring, thorny, superstitious, and unscriptural," and which, i.i any less broad and positive expression, he declares, " says little more than nothing.' We shall see, however, that his notion of Biblical Inspir- stion resolves itself into this : — that whatever in the Bible he thinks suitable, whatever he finds congenial, what- ever coalesces and harmonizes with the inner and the prior Light, that he conceives to be inspired — and that alone. In other words, his idea is, that portions of the Bible, and portions only, are inspired, and those portions are such as approve themselves to his reason. The test of inspiration to Mr. Coleridge is, accordance with his own feelings and conceptions. We do not object to this test — further than that it is arbitrary, varying, individual, and idiosyncratic : — ^We merely affirm that it involves a use of the word " Inspiration," which to common under- standings is a deception and a mockery. His remarks are thesef : — " There is a Light higher than all, even the Word that was in the beginning ; — the Light, of which light itself is * Letters on Inspiration, pp. 13, 18. t Ibid., pp. 9, 10, 13. MODIFICATIONS OF THE DOCTRINE. 103 but the sh/edivnah and cloudy tabernacle ; — the Word that is light for every man, and life for as many as give heed to it Need I say that, in peinising the Old and New Testaments, I have met everywhere more or less copious sources of truth, power, and purifying impulses ; — that I have found words for my inmost thoughts, songs for my joy, utterances for my hidden griefs, and pleadings for my shame and feebleness ? In short, whatever Jinds me bears witness for itself that it has proceeded from a Holy Spirit, even from the same Spirit ' which, remaining in itself, yet regenerateth all other powers, and in all ages entering into holy souls, maketh them friends of God and Prophets.' {Wisdom vii.) ... In the Bible there is more that finds me than I have experienced in all other books together ; the words of the Bible find me at greater depths of my being ; and whatever finds me brings with it irresistible evidence of having proceeded from the Holy Spmt."* Need we pause to point out what a discreditable tam- pering with the truthful use of language is here ? Of how many hundred books may the same not be said, though in a less degree ? In Milton, in Shakespeare, in Plato, in ^schylus, in Mad. de Stael, ay, even in Byron and Rousseau, who is there that has not found " words for his inmost thoughts, songs for his joy, utterance for his griefs, and pleadings for his shame ?" Yet, would Mr. Coleridge excuse us for calling these authors inspii'ed ? And if he would, does he not know that the alleged in- spiration of the Scriptures means something not only very superior to, but totally different from, this. It is necessary to recall to our readers, what Coleridge seems entirely to have lost sight of — that the real, present, practical question to be solved is, not " Are we to admit that all which suits us, ' finds us,' ' agrees with our pre- established convictions,' came from God, and is to be re- ceived as revealed truth ? " hut, " Are we to receive all we find in the Bible as authoritative and inspired, though * See also, p. 61, where he says (addressing a sceptic), " Whatever you find therein coincident with yoiir pre-established convictions, you will, of course, reoognize as the Revealed Word " (I) 104 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. it should shock our feelings, confound our understandings, contradict our previous convictions, and violate our moral sense ? " This is the proposition held by the popular and orthodox Theology. This is the only Biblical question ; the other is commensurate with all literature, and all life. Mr. Coleridge rests his justification for what seems to us a slippery, if not a positively disingenuous, use of Ian- guage, on a distinction which he twice lays down in his " Confessions," between " Revelation by the Eternal Word, and Actuation by the Holy Spirit." Now, if by the " Holy Spirit," Mr. Coleridge means a Spirit teaching truth, or supernaturally conferring the power of perceiv- ing it, his distinction is one which no logician can for a moment admit. If by the " Holy Spirit," he means a moral, not an intellectual, influence ; if he uses the word to signify godliness, piety, the elevation of the spiritual faculties by the action of God upon the heart ; — then he is amusing himself, and deluding his readers by " palter- ing with them in a double sense ; "—for this influence has not the remotest reference to what the popular theology means by " inspiration." The most devout, holy, pious men are, as we know, constantly and grievously in error. The question asked by inquirers, and answered affirma- tively by the current theology of Christendom, is, " Did God 80 confer his Spirit upon the Biblical Writers as to teach them truth, and save them from error ? " If He did, theirs is the teaching of God ; — ^if not, it is the teach- ing of man. There can be no medium, and no evasion. It cannot be partly the one, and partly the other. The conclusion of our exarriination, so far as conducted, is of infinite importance. It may be stated thus : — The Inspiration of the Scriptures appears to be a doc- trine not only untenable, but without foundation, if we understand the term " Inspiration " in its ordinary accep- tation ; and in no other acceptation has it, when applied to writings, any intelligible signification at all. The mere circumstance, therefore, of finding a statement or doctrine in the Bible, is no proof that it came from God, nor any sufficient warrant for our implicit and obedient reception of it. Admitting, as a matter yet undecided, because un- MODIFICATIONS OF THE DOsJTRINE. 105 investigated, that the Bible contains much that came from (j()(l, we have still to separate the divine from the human portions of it. The present position of this question in the public mind of Christendom is singularly anomalous, fluctuating, and unsound. The doctrine of Biblical Inspiration still obtains general .credence, as part and parcel of the popular theology ; and is retained as a sort of tacit assumption, by the great mass of the religious world, though aban- doned as untenable by their leading thinkers and learned men ; — many of whom, however, retain it in name, while surrendering it in substance ; and do not scruple, while admitting it to be an error, to continue the use of lan- guage justifiable only on the supposition of its truth. Nay, further ; — with a deplorable and mischievous incon- sistency, they abandon the doctrine, but retain the deduc- tions and corollaries which flowed from it, and from it alone. They insist upon making the superstructure sur- vive the foundation. They refuse to give up possession of the property, though the title by which they hold it has been proved and is admitted to be invalid. CHAPTER III. AUTHORSHIP AND AUTHOllITY OF THE PENTATEUCH AND THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON GENERALLY. The next comprehensive proposition which our Inquirer finds at the root of the popular theology, commanding a tacit and almost unquestioned assent, is chis : — That the Old Testament narratives contain an authentic and faithful History of the actual dealings of God with man; — ^tliat the events which they relate took place as therein related, and were recorded by well-informed and veracious writers ; — that wherever God is represented as visiting and speaking to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, and others, he did really so appear and communicate his will to them ; — that the ark, as built by Noah, was con- structed under the detailed directions of the Architect of all Worlds ; — that the Law, as contained in the Penta- teuch, was delivered to Moses and written down by him under the immediate dictation of Jehovah, and the proceedings of the Israelites minutely and specifi- cally directed by Him ; — that, in a word, the Old Testa- ment is a literal and veracious history, not merely a na- tional legend or tradition. This fundamental branch of the popular theology also includes the belief that the Books of Moses were written by Moses, the book of Joshua by Joshua, and so on ; and further that the Prophetical Books, and the predictions contained in the Historical Books, are bon^ fide Prophecies — genuine oracles from the mouth of God, uttered through the medium of His servants, whom at various times He instructed to make known His will and institutions to His chosen People. That this is the popular belief in which we are all brought up, and on the assumption of which the ordinary language of Divines and the whole tone of current litera- ture proceeds, no one will entertain a doubt ; and that it has not been often broadly laid down or much defended. AUTHOKSfflP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 107 is attributable to the circumstance, that, among Christians, it has rarely till of late been directly questioned or openly attacked. The proposition seems to have been assumed on the one side, and conceded on the other, with equally inconsiderate ease. Now, be it observed that if the Hebrew Narratives bore, on the face of them, an historical rather than a legendary character, and were in themselves probable, natural, and consistent, we might accept them as substan- tiaUy true without much extraneous testimony, on the ground of their antiquity alone. And if the conceptions of the Deity therein developed were pure, worthy, and consistent with what we learn of Him from reason and experience, we might not feel disposed to doubt the reality of the words and acts attributed to Him. But so far is this from being the case, that the narratives, eminently legendary in their tone, are full of the most astounding, improbable, and perplexing statements ; and the repre- sentations of God which the Books contain, are often monstrous, and utterly at variance with the teachings of Nature and of Christianity. Under these circumstances, we, of course, require some sufficient reason for acceding to such difficult propositions, and receiving the Hebrew Nan-atives as authentic and veracious Histories ; and the onlv reason offered to us is that the Jews believed them* But we remember that the Greeks believed the Legends in Herodotus, and the Romans the figments in Livy — and that the Jews were at least as credulous and as na- tionally vain as either. We need, therefore, some better sponsors for our creed. * Even this, however, must be taken cum grano. The Jews do not seem to have invariably accepted the historical narratives in the same precise and literal sense as we do. Josephus, or the traditions which were current among his countrymen, took strange liberties with the Mosaic accounts. There is a remarkable difference between his account of Abraham's disBimu- lation with regard to his wife, and the same transaction in Genesis xx. — Moreover, he explains the iiassage of the Red Sea as a natural, not a mir- aculous event ; and many nimilar discrepancies might be mentioned. See De Wette, ii. 42. Observe, also, the liberty TP-hioh Ezekiel considers himself warranted in taking with the Mosaic dootrire that God will visit the sins of the fathem upon the children ^i'. xviii. passim), a liberty scarcely compatible with »beUal un his nart that such doctnne waa, as alleged, divinely aimoanoed. 108 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. If, indeed, we were only required to accept the authority of the Jews for the belief that they sprung from Abra- ham, were captives in Egypt, received a complete code ot Laws and system of theocratic polity from Moses, con- quered Canaan, and committed manifold follies, frauds, and cruelties in their national career — we might accede to the demand without much recalcitration. But we are called on to admit something very different from this. We are required to believe that Jehovah, the Ruler of all Worlds, the Pure, Spiritual, Supreme, Ineffable, Creator of the Universe — Our Father who is in Heaven— so blundered in the creation of man, as to repent and grieve and find it necessary to destroy His ovvm work — selected one favoured people from the rest of His children — sanc- tioned fraud — commanded cruelty — contended, and for a while in vain, with the magic of other Gods — wrestled bodily with one patriarch — ate cakes and veal with an- other — sympathized with and shared in human passions — and manifested " scarcely one untainted moral excel- lence " ; — and we are required to do this painful violence to our feelings and our understandings, simply because these coarse conceptions prevailed some thousand years ago among a People whose history, as written by them- selves, is certainly not of a nature to inspire us with any extraordinary confidence in their virtues or their intellect. They were the conceptions prevalent among the Scribes and Pharisees, whom Jesus denounced as dishonourers of re- ligion and corrupters of the Law, and who crucified him for endeavouring to elevate them to a purer faith. It is obvious, then, that we must seek for some other ground for accepting the earlier Scriptural narratives as j^enuine histories ; — and we are met in our search by the assertion that the Books containing the statements which have staggered us, and the theism which has shocked us, were written by the great Lawgiver of the Jews — by the very man whom God commissioned to liberate and or- ganize His peculiar People. If indeed the Pentateuch was written by the same Moses whose doings it records, the case is materially altered ; — it is no longer a tradi- tional or leg^"»^dary narrative, but a history by an actor AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 109 and a contemporary, that we have before us. Even this statement, however, were it made out, would not cast its {e^ris over the Book of Genesis, which records ev(mts from four to twenty-five centuries before the time of Moses. But when we proceed to the investigation of this point, we discover, certainly much to our surprise, not only that there is no independent evidence for the assertion that Moses wrote the books which bear his name — but that we have nearly all the proof which the case admits of, that he did not write them,* and that they were not composed — at ;.vll events did not attain their present form — till some hundreds of years after his death. It n ex- tremely difficult to lay the grounds of this proposition be- fore general readers — especially English readers — in a form at once concise and clear ; as they depend upon the results of a species of scientific criticism, with which, though it proceeds on established and certain principles, very few in this country, even of our educated classes, are at all acquainted. In the conclusions arrived at by this scientific process, unlearned students must acquiesce as they do in those of Astronomy, or Philology, or Geology ; — and all that can be done is to give them a very brief glimpse of the mode of inquiry adopted, and the kind of proof adduced : this we shall do as concisely and as intelligibly as we can ; and we will endeavour to state nothing which is not considered as established, by men of the highest eminence in this very difficult branch of intellectual research. The discovery in the Temple of the Book of the Law, in the reign of King Josiah, about B.C. 624, as related in • " After coming to these results," says De Wette, ii. 160, " we find no ground and no evidence to show that the books of the Pentateuch were com- posed by Moses, Some consider him their author, merely from traditionary custom, because the Jews were of this opinion ; though it is not certain that the more ancient Jews shared it ; for tbu expressions ' the Book of '. he Law of Moses,' * the Book of the Law of Jehovan by the hand of Moses,' only designate him as the author or mediator of the Law, not as the author of the Book.— Th^. Law is ascribed to 'the Prophets ' in 2 Kings xvii. 13, and in Ezra ix. 11. The opinion thai Moses composed these books is not only op- posed by all the signs of a later date which occur in the Book itself, but also by the entire analogy of the his lory of the Hebrew literature and lan- guage. " 110 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 2 Kings xxii., is the first certain trace of the existence of the Pentateuch in its present form.* That if this, the Book of the Law of Moses, existed before this time, it was generally unknown, or had been quite forgotten, ap- pears from the extraordinary sensation the discovery ex- cited, and from the sudden and tremendous reformation immediately commenced by the pious and alarmed Mon- arch, with a V iew of canying into effect the ordinances of this law. — Now we find wiat when the Temple was built and consecrated by Solomon, and the Ark placed therein (about B. c. 1000), this " Book of the Law " was not there — for it ig said (1 Kings viii. 9), " There was nothing in tho ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb."i* Yet on turning to Deuter- onomy xxxi. 24-26, we are told that when Moses had made an end of writing the words of the Law in a book, he said to the Levites, " Take this book of the law, and put in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee,' &;c., &;c. This " Book of the Law " which was found in the Tem- ple in the reign of Josiah (b. c. 624), which was not thre in the time of Solomon (b, c. 1000), and which is stated to have been written and placed in the Ark by Moses (b. c. 1450), is almost certainly the one ever afterwards referred to and received as the " Law of God," the " Law of Moses," and quoted as such by Ezra and Nehemiah.{ And the only evidence we have that Moses was the author of the books found by Josiah, appears to be the passage in Deuteronomy xxxi., above cited. But how did it happen that a book of such immeasur- able value to the Israelites, on their obedience to which depended all their temporal blessings, which was placed in the sanctuary by Moses, and found there by tfosiah, was not there in the time of Solomon ? — Must it not have been found there by Solomon, if really placed there by • De Wett«, ii. 163. t The same positive statement is repeated 2 Chron. v. 10. % Subsetxuent references seem especially to refer to Deuteronomy. AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON. Ill Moses ? for Solomon was as anxious as Josiah to honour Jehovah and enforce His Law.* In a word, have we any reason for believing that Moses really wrote the Book of Deuteronomy, and placed it in the Ark, as stated therein ? — Critical science answers in the Negative. In the first place, Hebrew scholars assure us that the style and language of the Book forbid us to entertain the idea that it was written either by Moses, or near his time ; as they resemble too closely those of the later writers of the Old Testament to admit the supposition that the former belonged to the 1 5th, and the latter to the 5th century before Christ. I'o imagine that the Hebrew language underwent no change, or a very slight one, during a period of a thousand years — in which the nation underwent vast political, social, and moral changes, with a very great admixture of foreign blood — is an idea antecedently improbable, and is contradicted by all analogy. The same remark appli 3, though with some- what less force, to the other four books of the Penta- teuch.f Secondly. It is certain that Moses cannot have been the author of the whole oi the Book of Deuteronomy, because it records his own death, c. xxxiv. It is obvious also that the last chapter must have been written not only after the death of Moses, but a long period after, as appears from verse 10. "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord !vnew face to face." Now, there are no critical signs of style or language which would justify the assumption that the last chapter was the production of a diflferent pen, or a later age, than the rest of the Book. Thirdly. There are several passages scattered through * Conclusive evidence on this point may, we think, be gathered from Deut. xxxi. 10, where it is commanded that the Law shall be publicly read every seventh year to the ijeople assembled at the Feast of Tabernacles: iind from xvii. 18, where it is ordained that each king on his accession shall write out a copy of the Law. It is impossible to believe that this conunand, Imd it existed, would have been neglected by all the pions and good kings who Hat on the throne of Palestine. It is clear that they had never heard of auch 11 command. + Da Wette. u. IGl. 112 THB CBEED OF CHBISTENDOIC. the book which speak in the past teTise of events which occurred after the Israelites obtained possession of the land of Canaan, and which must therefore have been written subsequently — probably long subsequently— to that period. For example : " The Horims also dwelt in Seir beforetime ; but the children of Esau succeeded them, when they had destroyed them from before them, and dwelt in their stead ; as Israel did unto the land of kk possession, which the Lord gave vmto them." Deut. ii. 12. Many other anachronisms oc-^ur, as throughout c. iii., especially verse 14 ; xix. 14 ; xx. v. 1-3 ; ii. 20-23. Finally, as we have seen, at xxxi. 26, is a command to place the Book of the 1-aw in the Ark, and a statement that it was so placed. Now as it was not in the Aik at the time when the Temple was consecrated, this passage must have been written subsequent to that event. See also verses 9-13. Now either all these passages must have been subse- quent interpolations, or they decide the date of the whole book. But they are too closely interwoven, and too har- moniously coalesce, with the rest, to justify the former supposition. We are therefore driven to adopt the con- clusion of De Wette and other critics, that the Book of Deuteronomy was written about the time of Josiah, shortly before, and with a view to, the discovery of thePentateudb in the Temple.* With regard to the other four books attributed to Moses, scientific investigation has succeeded in making it quite clear, not only that they were written long after his time, but that they are a compilation from, or rather an imperfect fusion of, two principal original documents, easily distinguishable throughout by those accustomed to this species of research, and appearing to have been a sort of legendary or traditionary histories, current among the earlier Hebrews. These two documents (or classes of documents) are called the Elohistic, and Jehovistic, from * It is worthy of remark that the Book of Joahua (x. 13) quotes the Book of Jashar, which must have been written as late as the time of David (2 SaHiuel i. 18). See De Wette, ii. 187. AUTHORSHIP OF THK OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 113 the different Hebrew names they employ in speaking of the Supreme Being; — the one using habitually the word Elohim, which our translation renders God, but which, being plural in the original, would be more cor- rectly rendered The Gods ; — the other using the word Jehovah, or Jehovah Elohim, The God of Gods — ren- dered in our translation The Lord God* The existence of two such documents, or of two dis- tinct and often conflicting narratives, running side by side, will be obvious on a very cursory perusal of the Penta- teuch, more especially of the Book of Genesis ; and the constant recurrence of these duplicate and discrepant state- ments renders it astonishing that the books in question could ever have been regarded as one original history, pro- ceeding from one pen. At the very commencement we have separate and varying accounts of the Creation: — the Elohistic one, extending from Gen. i.-ii. 3, magnificent, simple, and sublime, describing the formation of the ani- mate and inanimate world by the fiat of the Almighty, and the making of man, male and female, in the image of God — but preserving a total silence respecting the serpent, the apple, and the expulsion from the Garden of Eden; — the other, or Jehovistie, extending from Gen. ii. 4 to iii. 24, giving a different account for the formation of man and woman— dc scribing the Garden of Eden with its four rivers, one flowing into the Persian Gulf, and another sur- roimding Ethiopiai* — ^narrating the temptation, the sin, and the curse, and adding a number of minute and puerile details, bespeaking the conceptions of a rude and early age, such as God teaching Adam and Eve to make coats of skins in lieu of the garments of fig leaves they had con- trived for themselves. The next comparison of the two documents presents dis- crepancies almost equally great. The document Elohim, Gen. V. 1-32, gives simply the Genealogy from Adam to Noah, giving Seth as the name of Adam's firstborn son ; — * There are, hov tver, other distinctive marks. Theol. des Alt. Tcdt. c. ii. § 1. + Cush, or " the land of swarthy men." De Wette, ii. 77. Bauer, 114 TEE CREED OP CHRISTENDOM. whereas the document Jehovah, Gen. iv. 1-26, gives Cain as the name of Adam's firstborn, and Seth as that of his last.* Shortly after we have two slightly-varying ac- countsf of the flood ; one being contained in vi. 9-22; vii. 11-16, 18-22 ; viii. 1-19 ; the other comprising vi. 1-8; vii. 7-10, 17, 23. We will specify only one more instance of the same event twice related with obvious and irreconcilable dis- crepancies, viz. the seizure of Sarah in consequence of Abraham's timid falsehood. The document Elohim (Gen, XX.) places the occurrence in Gerar, and makes Abimelech the offender — the document Jehovah (xii. 10-19) places it in Egypt, and makes Pharaoh the ojffender ; whilst the same document again (xxvi 1-11) narrates the same oc- currence, representing Abimelech as the offender and Gerar as the locality, but changing the persons of the deceivers from Abraham and Sarah, to Isaac and Rebekah. Examples of this kind might be multiplied without end; which clearly prove the existence of at least two historical documents blended, or rather bound together, in the Pe i- tateuch. We will now proceed to point out a few of the passages and considerations which negative the ilea of either of thqm having been composed in the age or by t'ae hand of Moses.j The reader may draw his own inferences from this, or see those of Butt- mann, in hisMythologus, 1. c. vii. p. 171. * " ThbiO ia," says Theodore Parker, " a striking similarity between the names of the alleged descendants of Adam and EnoB (according; to the Elohim document the grandson of Adam). It is to be remembered that both names signify Man. I. TI. 1. Adam. 1. Enos. 2. Cain. 2. Cainan. 3. Enoch. 3. Mahalaleel. 4. Irad. 4. Jared. 6. Mehujatl. 5. Enoch. 6. Methusael. 6. Methusaleh. 7. Lamech. (G«n. Iv. 17-19.) 7. Lamech. (Gen. v. &-25.)" See also on this matter, Kenrick on Primeval Historv, p. 59. {t One account aifirms that seven specimens of clean beasts went into tlie cHihe other that only ttoo so entered.] t The formula " unto this day," is frequently found, under circumstances indicating that the wrifdr livfd long subsequent to the events he relates, (Gen. xix. 38 ; xxvi. 33 ; xxxLi. 32.) We find frequent archffiological •-expla- nations, as Ex. xvi. 36. "Now an omer (an ancient measure) is the tenth part of an ephah" (a mouem measure).— Explanations of old names, and additions of the modem ones which had superseded them, repeatedly occur, M At a«i. jdv. 2, 7, 8, 17; xxiii. 2 ; xxxv. 19. AUTHOBSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 115 The Elohim document must have been written after the expidsion of tfie Canaanitea, and the settlement of the Israelites in the Promised Land, as appears from the fol- lowing passages : — inter alia, — " Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things .... that the land vomit not you out also, as it vomited forth the nations which were before you." (Lev, xviii. 24, 27. 28.) " For I was stolen away out of the land of the Eehrews.'' (Gen. xl. 15.) Palestine would not be called the land of the Hebrew '•s till after the settlement of the Hebrews therein. " And Sarah died in Kirjath-arba ; the same is Hebron in the land of Ganxian!^ (Gten. xxiii. 2.) '* And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is BethleJiem' (xxxv. 19). "And Jacob came unto the city of Arbah, which is Hebron." (xxxv. 27.) These passages indicate a time subsequent to the erection of the Israelitish cities. The document must have been written in the tvme of the Kings ; for it says. Gen. xxxvi. 31, " These are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any kvng over the children of Israel." Yet it must have been written before the end of the reign of David, since Edom, which David subdued, is represented in eh. xxxvi. as still independent. The conclusion, there- fore, which critical Science has drawn from these and other points of evidence is, that the Elohim documents were composed in the time of Saul, or about B.c. 1055, four hundred years after Moses. The Jehovistic documents are considered to have had a still later origin, and to date from about the reign of Solomon, B.C. 1000. For they were written after the ex- imlsion of the Canaanites, as is shown from Gen. xii. 6, and xiii. 7. " The Canaanite was then in the land." " The Canaanite and Perizzite dwelt then in the land." They appear to have been written after the time of the Judges, since the exploits of Jair the Gileadite, one of the Judges (x. 4), are mentioned in Numb, xxxii. 41; 116 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. after SauVa victory over Agog, King of the Amalekites, who is mentioned there — " and his king shall be higher than Agag " (Numb. xxiv. 7) ; and if, as De Witfce thinks, the Temple of Jerusalem is signified by the two expres- sions (Exod. xxiii. 19; xv. 13), "The house of Jehovah," and the " habitation of thy holiness," — they must have been composed after the erection of that edifice. This, however, we consider as inconclusive. On the other hand, it is thought that they must have been written before the time of Hezekiak, because (in Numb, xxi, 6-9) they record the wonders wrought by the Brazen Serpent, which that King destroyed as a provocative to Idolacrj. (2 Kings xviii. 4.) We are aware that many persom. endeavour to avoid these conclusions by assuming that thv' passages in question are later interpolations. But — not to comment upon the wide door which would thus be opened to other and less scrupulous interpreters — ^this assumption is en- tirely unwarranted by evidence, and proceeds on the previous assumption— equally destitute of proof — that the books in question were written in the time of Moses — ^the very point under discussion. To prove the Books to be written by Moses, by rejecting as interpolations all passages which show that they could not have been written by him — is a very clerical, but a very inadmis- sible, mode of reasoning. It results from this inquiry that the Pentateuch as- sumed its present form about the reign of Eling Josiah, B.C. 624, eight hundred years after Moses; — ^that the Book of Deuteronomy was probably composed about the same date ; — ^that the other feur books, or rather the separate documents of which they consist, were written between the time of Samuel and Solomon, or from four to five hundred years after Moses ; — that they recoi d the traditions respecting the early history ni the Israelites and the Law delivered by Moses then current among the Priesthood and the People, with such material additions as it seemed good to the Priests of that period to intro- duce ; — and that there is not the slightest reason to con- clude that the historical narratives they contain were any- AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 117 thing more than a collection of the national traditions then in vogue.* It should be specially noted that nothing in the above argument in the least degree invalidates the opinion either that Moses was the great Organizer of the Hebrew Polity, or that he framed it by divine direction, and with divine aid ; — our reasoning merely goes to overthrow the notion that the Pentateuch contains either the Mosaic or a con- temporary a^cov/at of the origin of that Polity, or the early history of that People. With regard, however, to the first eleven chapters of Genesis, which contain an account of the ante-Abrahamic period, a new theory has recently been broached by a scholar whose competency to pronounce on such a ques- tion cannot be doubted. Mr. Kenrick, in his Essay on Primeval History, gives very cogent reasons for believing that the contents of these chapters are to be considered, not as traditions handed down from the earliest times, concerning the primitive condition of the human race and the immediate ancestors rf the Jewish nation, but simply as speculations, originally framed to account for existing facts and appearances, and by the lapse of time gradually hardened into narrative — in a word, eis sup- positions converted into statements by the process of transmission, and the authority by which they are pro- pounded. The call of Abraham he conceives to be " the true origin of the Jewish people, and therefore the point at which, if contemporaneous written records did not be- gin to supply the materials of history, at least a body of historical tradition may have formed itself ."•!• We will not do Mr. Kenrick the injustice of attempting to con- * De Wette and other critics are of opinion that both the Elohistic and •Tehovistic authors of the Pentateuch had access to more ancient documents extant In their times, and think it |>robable that some of these materials may have been Mosaic. De Wette, ii. p. 159. It seems right to state that this chapter was written before the appearance of Mr. Newman's Hebrew Monarchy, where the whole question is aiscussed much more fully, and the decision stated in the text is placed upon what appears to us an irrefragable foundation. Mr. Newman's work, pp. 328- 338, should be studied by every one who wishes to satisfy his mind on this important point. T Essay on Piime^al History p. IL 118 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. dense his train of reasoning, which he has himself given in as terse a form as is compatible with perfect clearness. He argues, and in our opinion with great success, that the Jewish accounts of the Creation, the Deluge, the confusion of tongues, &c., were the results of attempts, such as we find among all nations, to explain phenomena which could not fail to arouse attention, wonder, and questioning in the very dawn of mental civilization : but simple and beautiful as many of them are, they betray unmistakable signs of the partial observation and im- perffcot knowledge of the times in which they originated. Not only, then, can the so-called Mosaic histories claim no higher authority than other works of equal antiquity and reasonableness, but the whole of the earlier portion of the narrative preceding the call of Abraham, must be regarded as a combination of popular tradition, poetical fiction, and crude philosophical speculation — the first ele- ment being the least developed of the three. Now, what results from this conclusion ' It will be seen, on slight reflection, that our gain is immense; reh- gion is safer ; science is freer ; the temptation to dishonest subterfuge, so strong that few could resist it, is at once removed ; and it becomes possible for divines to retain their faith, their knowledge, and their integrity together. It is no longer necessary to harmonize Scripture and Sci- ence by fettering the one, or tampering with the other; nor for men of Science and men of Theology either to stand in the position of antagonists, or to avoid doing so by resorting to hollow subtleties and transparent evasions which cannot but degrade them in their own eyes and de- grade their respective professions in the eyes of the ob- serving world. In order to judge of the sad un worthiness from which our conclusion exempts us, let us see to what subterfuges men of high intellect and reputation have habitualfy found themselves compelled to stoop. The divine origin and authority of the Pentateuch having been assumed, the cosmogony, chronology,* and antedi as uni sway of thei *'l'be Impoosibility of accepting the Biblical chronology of the ante- Almi^hamio timeB m authentic, arises from three considerations i—Hr^sU its AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 119 antediluvian narrative of Genesis were, of course, received as unimpeachably accurate, and long held unquestioned sway over the mind of Europe. The first serious suspicion of their accuracy — for the progress of astronomical science was rendered formidable only by the absurd decision of the Court of Rome — was caused by the discoveries of modern Geology, which, at first doubtful and conflicting, gradually assumed consistency and substance, and finally emancipated themselves from the character of mere theo- ries, and settled down into the solid form of exact and ascertained science. They showed that the earth reached its present condition through a series of changes prolonged through ages which might almost be termed infinite ; each step of the series being marked by the existence of crea- tures different from each other and from those contem- porary with man : and that the appearance of the human race upon the scene was an event, in comparison, only of yesterday. This was obviously and utterly at variance with Mosaic cosmogony : and how to treat the discrepancy became the question. Three modes of proceeding were open : — To declare Moses to be right, and the geologists to be in error, in spite of fact and demonstration, and thus forbid science to exercise itself upon any subject on which Holy Writ has delivered its oracles — and this was the consistent course of the Church of Rome : To bow before the discoveries of science, and admit that the cosmogony of Moses was the conception of an unlearned man and of a rude age — which is our Adew of the case : or. To assume that the author of the Book of Genesis must have known the truth, and have meant to declare the truth, and that his narrative irreconcilability with that of the most cultirated nationfl of primitive an- tiquity, and especially with that of the Egyptians, whose records and monu- ments carry us back nearly 700 years beyond the Deluge — (Kenrick, 57) ; — secondly, the fact that the length of life attributed to the antediluvian Patei- archs, sometimes reaching nearly to 1000 years, precludes the idea of their belonging to the same race as ourselves, without a violation of all analogy, and tne supposition of a constant miracle ; — thirdly, the circumstance that the Hebrew numbers represent the East as divided into regal communities, populous and flourishing, and Pharaoh reigning over the monarchy of Egypt, at the time of Abraham's migration, only 427 years after the human race was reduced to a single family, and the whole earth desolated by a flood. — Mr. Kearick argues all these points with great 'orce aud learning.- Essay on Pruneval History. 120 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 1 ] ■^ - i ^ ■ it! 1' t: :9'; aii '■ ] 1 i L must therefore, if rightly interpreted, agree with the certain discoveries of modem science. This unhappily, has been the alternative most usually resorted to by our Divines and men of science ; and in furtherance of it they adopt, or at least counsel, a new interpretation of Holy Writ, to meet each new discovery, and force upon Moses a meaning which clearly was not in his mind, and which his words — upon any fair and comprehensible system of interpretation- will not bear,* Instead of endeavouring to discover, by the principles invariably applied in all analogous cases, what Moses meant from what Moses said, they infer his meaning, in spite of his language, from the acknowledged facts of science, with which they gratuitously and vio- lently assume that he must be in harmony. Instances of this irreverent and disingenuous treatment of the Scriptures are numerous among English Divines— to whom, indeed, they are now chietiy confined : and to show how fairly we have stated their mode of proceed- ing, we will adduce a few passages from two men of great eminence in the scientific world, both holding high sta- tions in the Universities and in the Church. Professor Whewell, in his chapter on the " Relation of Tradition to Pa-laetiology" (Phil. Ind. Sc. ii. c. iv.) (which is really a discussion of the most advisable mode of reconciling Geology and Palaeontology with Scripture), speaks repeatedly of the necessity of bringing forward new interpretations of Scripture, to meet the discoveries of science. " When," he asks, " should old interpretations *'*It happens," observes Mr. Kenrick, "that the portion of Scripture which relates to cosmogony and primeval historjr is remarkably free from philological difficulties. The meaning of the writer, the only thing which the interpreter has to discover and set forth, is everywhere sufficiently ob- vious ; there is hardly iii these eleven chapters, a doubtful construction, era various reading of any importance, and the English reader has, in the or dinary version, a full and fair representation of the sense of the original. The (fifficultiea which exist fflriae from endeavouring to harmonize the Writer't information with that derived from other sources, or to refine upon his simple language. Common speech was then, as it is now, the representative of the common understanding. This common understanding may be confused and perplexed by metaphysical cross-examinatiim, resi>ecting tne action of spirit upon matter, or of Being upon nonentity, till it seems at last to have no idea what Creation means ; out these subtleties belong no more to the He- brew word than to the English." — Essay, &o.. Preface, xv. AUTHORSmP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 121 be given up ; what is the proper season for a religious iind enlightened commentator to make a change in the current intei'pretation of sabred Scripture ? {\) At what period ought the established exposition of a passage to be given up, and a neiu mode of understanding the pas- mge, svbch as is, or seems to be, required by neiv discoveries respecting the laws of nature, accepted in its place ?" (!) He elsewhere speaks of " the language ^f Scripture being invested with a new meaning," quoting with approbation the sentiment of Bellarmine, that " when demonstration shall establish the earth's motion, it will be proper to in- terpret the Scriptures otherwise than they have hitherto been interpreted, in those passages where mention is made of the stability of the earth, and movement of the Heavens." " It is difficult," sa^s Mr. Kenrick, " to under- stand this otherwise than as sanctioning the principle that the commentator is to bend the meaning of Scripture into conformity with the discoveries of science. Such a proceeding, however, would be utterly inconsistent with all real reverence for Scripture, and calculated to bring both it and its interpreter into suspicion and contempt." Dr. Buckland's chapter (in his Bridgewater Treatise) on the " Consistency of Geological Discoveries with the Mosaic Cosmogony," is another melancholy specimen of the low arts to which the ablest intellects find it neces- sary to condescend, when they insist upon reconciling admitted truths with obvious and flagrant error. In this point of view the passage is well worth reading as a lesson at once painful and instructive. — After commencing with the safe but irrelevant proposition, that if nature is God's work, and the Bible God's word, there can be no real discrepancy between them, he proceeds thus : — " I trust it may be shown, not only that there is no incon- sistency between our interpretation of the phenomena of nature and of the Mosaic narrative, but that the results of geological inquiry throw important lights on parts of this history, which are otherwise involved in much ob- scurity. If the suggestions I shall venture to propose require some modification of the most commonly-received and poi)ular interpretation of the Mosaic narrative, this 122 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. admissA n neither involves any impeachment of the au- thenticity of the text, nor of the judgment of those who had formerly interpreted it otherwise in the aosev^e of in- formation as to facts which have been hut recently brought to light ; (!) and if, in this respect, geology shall seem to require some little concession from the literal interpreta- tion of Scripture, it may fairly be held to afford ample compensation (!) for this demand, by the large additions it has made to the evidences of natural religion, in a de- partment where revelation was not designed to give in- formation." — (I. 14.) Then, although he " shrinks from the impiety of bending the language of God's book to any other than its obvious meaning " (p. 25), this theo- logical man of Science — this Pleader who has accepted a retainer from both the litigants — proceeds to patch up a hollow harmony between Moses on the one side, and Sedgwick, Murchison, and Lyell on the other, by a series of suppositions, artificial and strained interpretations, and unwarranted glosses, through which we cannot follow him. Instead of doing so, we will put into a few plain words the real statement in Genesis which he undertakes to show to be in harmony with our actual knowledge of astronomy and geology. The statement in Genesis is this : — That in six days God made the Heavens and the Earth — (and that days, and not any other period of time, were intended by the writer, is made manifest by the reference to the evening and morning, as also by the Jewish Sabbath) ; — that on the first day of Creation — (after the general calling into existence of the Heaven and Earth, according to Dr. Buck- land*) — God created Light, and divided the day from the night ; — that on the second day he created a firmament (or strong vault) to divide the waters under the Earth from the waters above the Earth — (a statement indicating a conception of the nature of the Universe, which it is * Dr. B. imagines that the first verse relates to the original creation of all things, and that, between that verse and the second, elapsed an intervnl of countless ages, during which all geological changes preceding the human era must be supposed to have taken place — in contirmation of which he men- tions that some old copies of the Bible have a break or gap at the end of the firA verge, and that Luther marked verse 3, as verse 1. AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMBNT CANON.v 128 diflficult for us, with our clearer knowledge, even to ima- gine) ; — that on the third day, He divided the land from the water, and called the vegetable world into existence ; — that on the fourth day, He made the Sun, Moon, and Stars — (in other words, that He created on the first daj' the efect, but postponed till the fourth day the creation of that which we now know to be the cause) ; — that on the fifth day, fish and fowl, and on the sixth, terrestrial ani- mals and man, were called into being. — And this is the singular system of Creation which Dr. Buckland adopts as conformable to the discoveries of that Science which he has so materially contributed to advance ; — in spite of the facts, which he knows and fully admits, that the idea of " waters above the firmament " could only have arisen from a total misconception, and is to us a meaningless delusion ; — that day and night, depending on the relation between earth and sun, could not have preceded the crea- tion of the latter ; — that as the fossil animals existing ages before Man — (and, as he imagines, ages before the commencement of the " first day " of Creation) — had eyes, light must have existed in their time — ^long, therefore, before Moses tell us it was created, and still longer before its source (our sun) was called into being ; — and, finally, that many tribes of these fossil animals which he refers to the vast supposititious interval between the first and second verses of Genesis, are identical with the species con- temporaneous with Man, and not created therefore till the 21st or 24th verse. It will not do for Geologists and Astronomers, who wish to retain some rags of orthodoxy, however soiled and torn, to argue, as most do, " that the Bible was not intended as a revelation of Physical science, but only of moral and religious truth." This does not meet the difficulty ; for the Bible does not merely use the common language, and so assvmie the common errors, on these points — it gives a distinct account of the Creation, in the same style, in the same narrative, in the same book, in which it narrates the Fall of Man, the Deluge, the Revelation to Abraham, the history of Jacob and Joseph. The writer evidently had no conception that when he related the Creation of 124 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. I the Earth, the Sea, and the Sun, he was inventing or per- petuating a monstrous error ; and that when he related the Fall, he was revealing a mighty and mysterious truth ; and ^"hen he narrated the promise to Abraham, ho was recording a wondrous prophecy. The Bible professes to give infoimiation on all these points alike : and we have precisely the same Scriptural ground for believing that God first made the Earth, and then the Sun for the espe- cial benefit of the Earth ; that the globe was submerged by rain which lasted forty days, and that everything was destroyed, except the Animals which Noah packed into his Ark — as we have for believing that Adam and Eve were driven out of Paradise for a transgression ; that God promised Abraham to redeem the world through his progeny ; and that Jacob and Moses were the subjects of the divine communications recorded as being made to them. All the statements are made in the same affirma- tive style, and on the same authority. The Bible equally professes to teach us fact on all these matters. There is no escape by any quibble from the grasp of this conclusion. In unworthy attempts such as those which Dr. Buck- land has perpetrated, and Dr. Whewell has advised, the grand and sublime conception at the basis of the Biblical Cosmogony has J)een obscured and forgotten, — mz. That, contrary alike to the dreams of Pagan and of Oriental philosophy. Heaven and Earth were not self -existent and eteviial but created — that the Sun and Moon were not Gods, but the works of God — Creatures, not Creators. But another point of almost equal importance is gained by accepting the Historical books of the Old Testament as a collection of merely human narratives, traditions, and speculations. We can now read them with unimpaired pleasure and profit, instead of shrinking from them with feelings of pain and repulsion which we cannot conquer, and yet dare not acknowledge. We need no longer do violence to our moral sense, or our cultivated taste, or our purer conceptions of a Holy and Spiritual God, by strug- gling to bend them into conformity with those of a rude people and a barbarous age. We no longer feel ourselves DM. inventing or per- when he lulated aysterious truth ; Lbraham, he was ible professes to :e : and we liave or believing that 5un for the espe- I was submerged that everything sh Noah packed that Adam and msgression ; that orld through his e the subjects of \ being made to ;he same affirma- rhe Bible equally tters. There is no this coiiclusion. which Dr. Buck- has advised, the is of the Biblical tten, — T iz. That, and of Oriental self -existent and Moon were not not Creators. AUTHORSHIP OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 123 compelled to believe that which is incredible, or to admire that which is revolting.* And when we again turn to these Scriptures with the mental tranquillity due to our new-bom freedom, and read them by the light of our r3C0vered reason, it. will be strange if we do not find in thorn marvellous beauties which before escaped us — rich and fertilizing truths which before lay smothered beneath a heap of contextual rubbish — experiences which appeal to the inmost recesses of our consciousness — holy and magnificent conceptions, at once simple and sublime, which hitherto could not penetrate through the mass of error which obscured and overlaid them, but which now burst foi-th and germinate into light and freedom. In the beau- tiful language of an often-quoted author (Coleridge, p. 59), "The Scriptures will from this time continue to rise higher in our esteem and affection the better understood, the more dear — and at every fresh meeting we shall have to tell of some new passage, formerly viewed as a dry stick on a rotten branch, which has hudded, and, like the rod of Aaron, brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded alTnonda." * See in Dr. Arnold's Sermons on the Interpretation < ' Scripture to what straitrf the orthodox doctrine reduces the best and most ; inest men. )rtance is gained Old Testament s, traditions, and rith unimpaired from them with cannot conquer, id no longer do ted taste, or our I God, by strug- those of a rude er feel ourselves CHAPTER IV. THE PROPHECIES.- A PROPHECY, in the ordinary acceptation of the term, signifies a prediction of future events which could not have been foreseen by human sagacity, and the knowledge of which was supematurally communicated to the prophet. It is clear, therefore, that in order to establish the claim of any anticipatory statement, promise, or de- nunciation, to the rank and title of a prophecy, four points must be ascertained with precision — ^viz., what the event was to which the alleged prediction was intended to refer ; that the prediction was uttered in specific, not vague, language before the event ; that the event took place specifically, not loosely, as predicted ; and that it could not have been foreseen by human sagacity. Now, there is no portion of the sacred writings over which hangs a veil of such dim obscurity, or regarding the meaning of which such hopeless discrepancies have prevailed among Christian divines, as the Prophetical Books of the Hebrew Canon. The difficulties to which the English reader is exposed by the extreme defects of the received translation, its confused order, and erroneous divisions, are at present nearly insuperable. No chronol- ogy is observed ; the earlier and the later, the genuine and the spurious, are mixed together ; and sometimes the prophecies of two individuals of different epochs are given us under the same name. In the case of some of the more important of them we are in doubt as to the date, the author, and the interpretation ; and on the question whether the predictions related exclusively to Jewish or to general history, to Cyrus or to Jesus, to Zerubbabel or to Christ,* to Antiochus Epiphanes, to Titus, or to Napo- • The prophecy of Zechariah, which Archbishop Newcome. in conforniitv with its obviouB meaning, interprets with reference to Zeruobabel, David- oou luUiMitatingly refers to Christ alone (Disc, on Froph. 340, 2na ed.j.— THE PROPHECIES. 127 leon ; to events long past, or to events still in the remote future — the most conflicting opinions have been held with equal learning. It would carry us too far, and prove too unprofitable an occupation, to enumerate these con- tradictory interpretations : we shall in preference content ourselves with a brief statement of some considerations which will show how far removed we are on this subject from the possession of that clear certainty, or even that moderate verisimilitude of knowledge, on which alone any reasonings, such as have been based on Hebrew prophecy, can securely rest. There is no department of theology in which divines have so universally assumed theii> conclusions and modified their premises to suit them, as in this. 1. In the first place, it is not uninstructive to remind ourselves of a few of the indications scattered throughout the Scriptures, of what the conduct and state of mind of the Prophets often were. They seem, like the utterers of Pagan oracles, to have been worked up before giving forth their prophecies into a species of religious phrenzy, produced or aided by various means, especially by music and dancing.* Philo says, " The mark of true prophecy is the rapture of its utterance : in order to attain divine wisdom, the soul must go out of itself, and become drunk with divine phrenzy ."f The same word in Hebrew (and Plato thought in Greek also) signifies " to prophecy" and " to be mad ;"| and even among themselves the prophets were often regarded as madmen§ — an idea to which their frequent habit of going ab ut naked,|| and the per- The prediction of Daniel respecting the pollution of the temple, which critics in geneVal have no hesitation in referring to Antiochud, many mod- em divines conceive, on the supposed authority of the Evangelists, to relate to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. A Fellow of 0;5ord, in a most ingenious work (which had reached a third edition in 1826, and may have Hince gone through many more), maintains that the last chapters of Daniel were fulfilled in the person of Napoleon, and in him alone. (The Crisis, by Rev. E. Cooper.) « 1 Sam. xviii. 10 ; x. 5. 2 Kinn's iii. 15, 16. t Quoted in Mackay's Progress of the Intellect, 11. 192, X Newman, Heb. Mon. p. M. Plato derived fijivrts from natvttrieu. § 2 Kings ix. 11. Jeremiah xxix. 26. li 2 Sam. vi. 16, 20 ; 1 Sam. xix. 24 ; Is. xx. 3 ; Ezek. iv. 4, 6, 8, 12, 16 j 1 Kings XX. 3,5-38. 128 THE CBIED OF CHBISTENDOM. formance occasionally of still more disgusting ceremonies, greatly contributed. That many of them were splendid poets and noble-minded men there can be no doubt ; but we see in conduct like this little earnest of sobriety or divine inspiration, and far too much that reminds us of the fanatics of eastern countries and of ancient times. II. Many, probably most, of the so-called prophecies were not intended as predictions in the proper meaning of the word, but were simply promises of prosperity or denunciations of vengeance, contingent upon certain lines of conduct. The principle oi the Hebrew theocracy was that of temporal rewards or punishment consequent upon obedience to or deviation from the divine ordinances ; and in the great proportion of cases the prophetic language seems to have been nothing more than a reminder or fresh enunciation of the principle. This is clearly shown by the circumstances that several of the prophecies, though originally given, not in the contingent but in the positive form, were rescinded or contradicted by later prophetical enunciations, as in the case of Eli, David, Hezekiah, and Jonah. The rescinding of prophecy in I Sam. ii. 30, is very remarkable, and shows how little these enunciations were regarded by the Israelites from our modern point of view. Compare 2 Sam. vii. 10, where the Israelites are promised that they shall not be moved out of Canaan nor afflicted any more, with the subsequent denunciations of defeat and captivity in a strange land. Compare also 2 Sam. vii. 12-16, where the permanent possession of the throne is promised to David, and that a lineal descendant shall not fail him to sit upon the throne of Judah, with the curse pronounced on his last royal descendant, Coniah : " Thus saith the Lord, Write ye this man child- less, a man that shall not prosper in his days : for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah" (Jer, xxii. 30; xxxvi, 30). See, also, the curious argument as to the liability of prophecy to he rescinded, in the same book (Jer. xxxiii. 17-26). The rescinding of the prediction or denunciation in the case of Hezekiah, is recorded in Isaiah xxxviii. 1-5, THE PROPHECIES. 129 and that of Jonah in the Book which bears his name, iii. 4-10. III. It is now clearly ascertained, and generally ad- mitted among critics,^that several of the most remarkable and specific prophecies were never fulfilled at all, or only very partially and loosely fulfilled. Among these may be specified the denunciation of Jeremiah (xxii. 18, 19; xxxvi. 30) against Jehoiakim, as may be seen by comparing 2 Kings xxiv. 6 ; and the denunciation of Amos against Jeroboam II. (vii. 11), as may be seen by comparing 2 Kings xiv, 23-29. The remarkable, distinct, and positive prophecies in Ezekiel (xxvi., xxvii.), relating to the con- quest, plunder, and destruction of Tyre by Nebuchad- nezzar, we can now state on the highest authorities,* were not fulfilled. Indeed in ch. xxix. 18, is a confession that he failed, at least so far as spoil went. The same maybe be said of the equally clear and positive prophecies of the conquest and desolation of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. xliii. 10-13; Ezek. xxix.; xxx. 1-19), as Dr. Arnold, in his Sermons on Prophecy (p. 48), fully admits.-f* Jere- miah's prophecy of the captivity of seventy years, and the subsequent destruction of Babylon (xxv.), have generally been appealed to as instances of clear prophecy exactly and indisputably fulfilled. , But in the first place, at the time this prediction was delivered, the success of Nebu- chadnezzar against Jerusalem was scarcely doubtful ; in the second place, the captivity cannot, by any fair calcu- lation, be lengthened out to seventy years -^ and in the third place, the desolation of Babylon (" perpetual desola- tions " is the emphatic phrase), which was to take place at the end of the seventy years, as a punishment for the pride of Nebuchadnezzar, did not take place till long after. Babylon was still a flourishing city under Alexander the * Heeren's BesearcheB, ii. 11. Grote, iii. 439. t Grrote,w6i«Mpm.— Hebrew Monarchy, p. 363. t The chronologies of Kings and CJironicles do not quite tally ; but taking that of Jeremiah himself, the desolation b^an in the seventh year of Nebu- chadnezzar, B.C. 599, was continued in B.o. .588, and concluded in Bjo. 583. — The exile ended some say 538, some 536. The longest datethat can be made out is 66 years, and the shortest only 43. To ma^e out 70 years fairly, w© must date from 9.0. 606, tko first year of Nebuchadnezzar. 130 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. ir Great ; and, as Mr. Newman observed, " it is absurd to present the emptiness of Tnodern Babylon as a punishment for the pride of Nebuchadnezzar," or as a fultilnient of Jeremiah's prophecy. Gen. xlix. 10, must also be consid- ered to present a specimen of prophecy signally fjxLsified by the event, and being composed in the palmiest days of Judah, was probably little more than a hyperbolical ex- pression of the writer's confidence in the permanence of her grandeur. Finally, in Hosea, we have a remarkable instance of self-contradiction, or virtual acknowledgment of the non-fulfilment of prophecy. In viii. 13 and ix. 3, it is affirmed, " Ephraim shall return to Egypt ;" while in xi. 5, it is said, " Ephraim shall not return to Egypt." Isaiah (xvii. 1) pronounces on Damascus a threat of ruin as emphatic as any that was pronounced against Tyre, Egypt, or Babylon. " It is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap." Yet Damascus is to this day the most flourishing city in those countries, IV. We find from numberless passages, both m the prophetical and the historical books, that for a consider- able period the Hebrew nation was inundated with false prophets,* whom it was difficult and often impossible to distinguish from the true, although we have both pro- phetical and sacerdotal tests given for this express purpose, It even appears that some of those whom we consider as true prophets were by their contemporaries charged with being, and even punished for being, the contrary In Deut. xviii. 20-22, the decision of the prophet's character is made to depend upon the fulfilment or non-fulfilment of his prophecy. In Deut. xiii. 1-5, this test is rejected, and the decision is made to rest upon the doctrine which he teaches. If this be false he is to be stoned, whatever miraculous proofs of his mission he may give.-f From Jer. xxix. [26,27], it appears that the High Priest assumed the right of judging whether a man was a false or a true /prophet ; though Jereiniah himself does not seem to have been willing to abide by this authority, but to have ♦ Jeremiah v. 31 ; xxiii. 16-34. Ezekiel xiv. 9-11. t See also the whole remarkable chapter, Jer. xxviii. THE PROPHECIES, 131 denounced priests and the prophets who supported them (Jer. V. 31). Pashur, the priest, we learn (xx. 1-7), put Jeremiah in the stocks for his false prophecies ; and Shera- aiah reproves the priest Jehoiada for not having repeated the punishment, and is violently denounced by the prophet in consequence (xxix. 24-32). V. In the case of nearly all the prophets we have little external or independent evidence as to the date at which their prophesies were uttered, and none as to the 'period at which, they were written dovm ;* while the internal evidence on these points is dubious, conflicting, and, in the opinions of the best critics, generally unfavourable to the popular conceptions. — The Books of Kings and Chronicles, in which many of these prophecies are men- tioned, and the events to which they are supposed to re- fei', are related, were written, or compiled in their present form, the former near the termination of the Babylonian Exile, or somewhere about the year B.C. 530, i.e. from 50 to 200 yearsf after the period at which the prophecies were supposed to have been delivered ; — while the latter appear to have been a much later compilation, some critics dating them about 260, and others about 400 before Christ.| It is probably not too much to aflSrm that we have no instance in the prophetical Books of the Old Testament of a prediction, in the cas§ of which we possess, at once and combined, clear and unsuspicious proof of the date, the precise event predicted, the exact circumstances of that event, and the inability of human sagacity to foresee it. There is no case in which we can say with certainty — even where it is reasonable to suppose thaW)he predic- tion was uttered before the event — that the narrative has not been tampered with to suit the prediction, or the pre- diction modified to correspond with the event.§ The fol- * Hebrew Monarchy, p. 352 (note). t Amos and Hosea flourished probably about 790 B. 0. Jeremiah about 600. Zacliariah about 520. De Wette, ii. 436. + Such at least is the most probable result at which critical science has yet arrived. De Wette, ii. 248, 265. § De Wette and other eminent theologians consider that in many cases where the prophecy is unusually definite, this has certainly been done. ii. 357, 363. 182 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. lowing remarks will show how little certai'n is onr know- ledge, even in the case of the principal prophets. Isaiah, as we learn in the first and the sixth chapters of his Book, appeared as a Prophet in the last year of the reign of King Uzziah (b. c. 759), and prophesied till the fourteenth year of Hezekiah (b. C. 710). We hear of him in the 2nd Book of Kings and Chronicles, but not till the reign of Hezekiah ; except that he is referred to in 2 Chron. xxvi. 22, as having written a history of Uzziah. The prophecies which have come down to us bearing his name, extend to sixty-six chapters, of tJie date of which (either of their composition or compilation) we ham no certain knowledge ; but of which the last twenty-seven are confidently decided by competent judges to l)e the production of a different Writer, and a later age ; and were doubtless composed during the Babylonish Cap- tivity, later therefore tht.a the year B. C. 600, or about 150 years after Isaiah, The grounds of this decision are given at length in De Wette.* They are found partly in the marked difference of style between the two portions of thei Book, but still more in the obvious and pervading fact that the Writer of the latter portion takes his stand in the period of the Captivity, speaks of the Captivity as an existing circumstance or condition, and coroforts his captive countrymen with hopes of deliverance at the hand of Cyrus. Many of the earlier chapters are also considered spurious for similar reasons, particularly xiii. 1, xiv, 23, xxiv., xxvii., and several others. It appears as the general summary result of critical research, that our present collection consists of a number of promises, de- nunciation* and exhortations, actually uttered by Isaiah, and brought together by command, probably, of Hezekiah, greatly enlarged and interpolated by writings upwards of a century later than his time, which the ignorance or unfair intentions of subsequent collectors and commenta- tors have not scrupled to consecrate by affixing to them his venerable name. Jeremiah appears to have prophesied from about B.C. * De Wette, ii. 3fi4-.S90. 1:1 THE PROPHECIES. 183 from about B. c. G30-580, or before and at the commencement of the Cap- tivity at Babylon, and the chief portion of his writings refer to that event, which in his time was rapidly and manifestly approaching. The prophecies appear to have been written down by Baruch, a scribe, from the dictation of Jeremiah (xxxvi.), and to have been collected soon after the return from exile,* but by whom and at what precise Itime is unknown; — and commentators discover several passages in which the original text appears to have been interpolated, or worked over again. Still the text seems to be far more pure, and the real much nearer to the pro- liessed date, than in the case of Isaiah. The genuineness of the Book of Ezekiel is less doubt- I ful than that of any other of the Prophets. His prophe- j cies relate chiefly to the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened during his time. He appears to have been car- ried into exile by the victorious Chaldajans about eleven I years before they finally consummated the ruin of the I Jewish Nation by the destruction of their Capital. His prophecies appear to have continued many years after the Captivity — sixteen, according to De Wette.-f- Of all the prophetical writings, the Book of Daniel has been the subject of the fiercest contest. Divines have considered it of paramount importance, both on ac- count of the definiteness and precision of its predictions, j and the supposed reference of many of them to Christ. Critics, on the other hand, have considered the genuine- ness of the book to be peculiarly questionable ; and few j now, of any note or name, venture to defend it. In all probability we have no remains of the real prophecies of I the actual Daniel — for that such a person, famed for his wisdom and virtue, did exist, appears from Ezek. xiv. and xxxviii. He must have lived about 570 years before Christ, whereas the Book which bears his name was al- most certainly written in the time of Antiochus Epiplv anes, 110 years B. c. Some English Commentators]: and * De Wette, ii. 416 and 396. • t De Wette, ii. 426. X " I have long thought that the greater part of the book of Daniel w moat certainly a very lata work, of the time of the Maccabees ; and the [ to-- 184 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. Divines have endeavoured to escape from the obvious and manifold difficulties of the Book, by conceiving part of it to be genuine and part spurious. But De Wette has shown* that we have no reason for believing it not to be the work of one hand. It is full of historical inac- curacies and fanciful legends; and the opening statement is an ob\ious error, showing that the Writer was imper- fectly acquainted with the chronology or details of the period in which he takes his stand. The first chapter be- gins by informing us that in the third year of King Jehoiakim, Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, besieged and took Jerusalem, and carried the King (and Daniel) away captive. Whei'eas, we learn from Jeremiah that Nebuchadnezzar was not King of Babylon till the fourth, year of Jehoiakim, and did not take Jerusalem till seven years later. "f* It would be out of place to adduce all the marks which betray the late origin of this book ; they may be seen at length in De Wette. It is here sufficient that we have no 'proof whatever of its early date, and that the most eminent critics have abandoned the opinion of its genuineness as indefensible. ' III. Thirdly, We have already had ample proof that the Jewish Writers not onl^' did not scruple to naiTate past events as if predictin; future ones — to present His- tory in the form of Prophecy — but that they habitually did so. The original documents from which the Books of Moses were compiled, must have been written, as we have seen, in the time of the earhest Kings, while the Book of Deuteronomy was not composed, and the whole Pentateuch did not assume its present form tiU, probably, the reign of Josiah ; — yet they abound in such anticipa- tory narrative — in predictions of events long past. The tended prophecy about the Kings of Greece and Persia, and of the North and South, is mere history, like the poetical prophecies in Virgil and else- where. In fact, you can trace distinctly the date when it was written, be- cause the events up to that date are given with historical minuteness, to- tally unlike the character of real prophecy ; and beyond that date all in imi»sinary." — Ayain, ho thinks that criticism " proves the non-authenticitj ri great part of Daniel : that there may be genuine fragments in it in veiy Ukely."— Arnold's Life and Cor. U. 188. • D« Wette. ii. 499. i Bet the whole atyumeut in D« Wette, ii. 484 (note). K)M. THE PROPHECIES. 135 tt the obvious and iceiving part of it it De Wette has eving it not to be : historical inac- pening statement Writer was imper- or details of the e first chapter be- rd year of King Jabylon, besieged 'Aug (and Daniel) □a Jeremiah that ion till the fourth, rusalem till seven to adduce all the this book ; they ; is here sufficient Hy date, and that id the opinion of ample proof that cruple to narrate — to present His- b they habitually which the Books n written, as we Kings, while the 3d, and the whole orm till, probably, in such anticipa- ! long past. The srsia, and of the North cies in Virgil and else- vhen it was written, be- torioal minuteness, to- aeyond that date all it> es the non-authenticity fragmentB in it ii\ vety instances are far too numerous to quote ; — we will specify only a few of the most remarkable : — Gen. xxv. 23; xxvii. 28, 29, 39, 40 ; xlix. passim ; Numb. xxiv. ; Deut. iv. 27 ; xxviii. 25, 36, 37, 64. We anticipate that these remarks will be met by the reply — "Whatever may be established as to the un- certainty which hangs over the date of those prophecies which refer to the temporal fortunes of the Hebrew Na- tion, no doubt can exist that all the prophecies relating to the Messiah were extant in their present form long previous to the advent of Him in whose person the Christian world agrees to acknowledge their fulfilment." This is true, and the argument would have all the force which is attributed to it, were the objectors able to lay their finger on a single Old Testament Prediction clearly referring to Jesus Christ, intended hy the utterers of tt to relate to hiw, prefiguring his character and career, and manifestly fulfilled in his appearance on earth. This they cannot do. Most of the passages usually adduced as complying with these conditions, referred, and were clear- ly intended to refer,* to eminent individuals in Israelitish History ; — many are not prophecies at all '^f — the Messiah, the Anointed Deliverer, expected by the Jews, hoped for and called for by their Poets and Prophets, was of a character so difierent, and a career so opposite, to those of the meek, lowly, long-suffering Jesus, that the passages describing the one never could have been applied to the ote). * "We find throughout the New Testament," says Dr. Arnold, "refer- ences made to various passages in the Old Testament, which are alleged as prophetic of Christ, or of some particulars of the Christian dispensation. Now, if we turn to the context of tnese passages, and so endeavour to discover their meaning, according to the only soimd principles of interpretation, it will often appear that they do not relate to the Messiah, or to Christian times, but are either expressions of religious affections generally, such as sub- mission, love, hope, &c. , or else refer to some particular circumBtances in the life and condition of the writer, or of the Jewish nation, and do not at all show that anything more remote, or any events of a more universal and spiritual character, were designed to be prophesied." — Sermons on the Inter- pretation of Prophecy. Preface, p. 1. t [" The great prophecios of Isaiah and Jeremiah are, critics can now see, lot strictly predictions at all ; and predictions which are strictly meant as uuch, like those in the IRaok of Daniel, are an embarrassment to the Bible rather than a main element of it."— Literature and Dogma, p. 114, by Matthew Arnold.] 136 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. other, without a perversion of ingenuity, and a disloyal treatment of their obvious signification, which, if employed in any other field than that of Theology, would have met with the prompt discredit and derision they de- serve.* There are no doubt, scattered verses in the Pro- * This disingenuousness is obvicua in one point especially : the Messianic Prophecies are interpreted literally or figuratively, as may best suit their adaptation to the received history of Jesus. Thus that '* the wolf shall lie down with the lamb, and the lion eat grass like an ox," is taken figuratively; that the Messiah should ride into Jerusplem on an ass, is taken literally, [The following passage, written five and twenty years subsequent to the text of this volume, may be quoted in confirmation. " And what were called the •signal predictions ' concerning the Christ of popular theology, as they stand in our Bibles, had and have undoubtedly a look of supernatural prescience. The employment of capital letters, and other aids, such as the constant use of the futiu-e tense, naturally and innocently adopted by interpreters who were profoundly convinced that Christianity needed these express prediction* and that they must be in the Bible, enhanced, certainly, this look ; but the look, even without these aids, was sufficiently striking. That Jacob ou his death-bed should two thousand years before Christ have 'been enabled,' as the Shrase is, to foretell to his son Judah that ' the sceptre shall not depart from udah until Skiloh (or the Messiah) come, and to him shall the gathering of the people be,' doeii seem, when the explanation is put with it that the Jewish kingdom lasted till the Christian era and then perished, a miracle of predic- tion in favour of our current Christian theology. That Jeremiah should have * been enabled ' to foretell, in the name of Jehovah : ' The days come when I will raise to David a righteous Branch ; in his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely ; and this is the name whereby he shall be ci^ed, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS 1' — does seem a wonder of prediction in favour of that tenet of the Godhead of the Eternal Son, for which the Bishops of Winchester and Gloucester are so anxious to do something. For tmquestionably Jehovah is often spoken of as the swviour of Judah and Israel: ' All flesh shaU know that I the Eternal am thy saviour and thy redeemer, the mighty one of Jacob ; ' and in the prophecy given above as Jeremiah's, the Branch of David is clearly identified with Jehovah. Again, that Davia should say : ' The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit then on my right hand until I make thy foes thy footstool,' — does seem a p.-odigy of prediction to the same effect. That he should say : * Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and so ye perish,' does seem a supernaturally ^>rescient assertion of the Eternal Son- ship. And so long as these proohecies stand as they are here given, they no doubt bring to Christianity all the support (and with the mass of mankind this is by no means inconsiderable) which it can derive from the display of supernatural prescience. But who mil dispute that it more and more becomes known that these prophecies cannot stand as we have here given them ? Mani- festly, it more and more becomes known that the passage from Genesis, with its mysterious Shiloh and the gathering of the people to him, is rightly to be rendered as follows : * The pre-eminence shall not depart from Judah so long as the people resort to Shiloh (the national sanctuary before Jerusalem was won) ; and the nations (the heathen Canaanites) shall obey him,' We here purposely leavi; out of sight any such consideration as that our actual books of tne Old Testament came first together through the piety of the house of Judah, and when the destiny of Judah was already traced '; and that to say roundly : 'Jacob was enabled to foretell ,' ' The sceptif. shall not depart from Judah,' as if we were speaking of a prophvcy preached and publiehed by Dr« THE PROPHECIES. 137 phetic and Poetical Books of the Hebrew Canon, which, as quotations, are apt and applicable enough to particular points in Christ's character and story; — but of what equally voluminous collection of poems or rhetorical com- positions may the same not be said ?* Of the references made by the Evangelists to such passages, we shall speak hereafter. The state of the case appears to be this : — That all the Old Testament Prophecies have been assumed to be genuine, inspired predictions ; and when falsified in their obvious meaning and received interpretation by the event, have received immediately a new interpretation, and been supposed to refer to some other event. When the result has disappointed expectation, the conclusion has been, not that the prophecy was false, but that the interpretation was erroneous. It is obvious that a mode of reasoning like this is peculiar to Theological Inquirers. From this habit of assuming that Prophecy was Pre- Cumming, is wholly inadmissible. For this consideration is of force, indeed, but it is a consideration drawn from the rules of literary history and criticism, and not likely to have weight with the mass of mankind. Palpable error and mistranslation are what will have weight with them. And what, then, will they say as they come to know (and do not and must not more and more of them come to know it every day ?) that Jeremiah's supposed signal identi- fication of Christ with the God of Israel : ' I will raise to David a righteous Branch, and this is the name whereby he shall be called, the lokd our RIGHTEOUSNESS,' runs really : ' I will raise to David a righteous branch ; in his days Judah shall be saved and Israel shall dwell safely ; and this is the name whereby they shall call themselves : The EUitial is our righteoutneis I ' The Erophecy thus becomes simply one of the many promises of a successor to >avid under whom the Hebrew people should trust in the Eternal and fol- low righteousness ; just as the |>rophecy from Genesis is one of the many prophecies of the enduring continuance of the greatness of Judah; ' The Lord said unto my Lord,' m like manner — will not people be startled when they find that it ought to run instead : ' The Eternal said unto my lord the king,'— a simple promise of victory to a prince of God's chosen people ?— and that : 'Kiss the Son,' is in reality. Be warned,' or ' be instructed ; ' ' lay hold,' according to the Septuagint, ' on instruction ?' '' — Literature and Dogma, pp. 110-113. See also pp. 91-106.] * Perhaps none of the Old Testamentprophecies are more clearly Messianic than the following passage from Plato : — Othw SiUKtifityos 6 Almuos iuurTiy(i(rtTai,aTpefi\i&atTai, Setoff crai, iKHav^oerai t w^dKttM^rthtvrmvriiTa KMii vaBi>p lLvaaKiv9u\(v9^ hwman race. ity in the Old (^jumbled to- }ten by differ- w^hole bearing hich they re- THEISM OF TEE JEWS IMPURE AND PROGRESSIVE. 147 The representations of God in the history of Abraham a})pear to imply that the God whom he worshipped was a family God, selected, probably, by him for some reason unknown to us, out of a number of others who were wor- shipped by his fathers and his tribe. We are expressly told that the father and grandfather of Abraham " wor- shipped other Gods ; " — and the representations given of the God of Abraham, and of his pi oceedings during the lives of the three Patriarchs, are so mean and material that it is difficult to conceive how a knowledge of the One true God, Maker of Heaven and Earth, could have been ascribed to them. God appears to Abraham with two angels in the form of men — (they are spoken of as " three men") — bits at the door of his tent — partakes of his re- past — is angry at the laughter of Sarah, and an alterca- tion takes place between them ; after which He discusses with him the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, and informs him that He is going down thither to see whether the re- ports which have reached him are correct.* " Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor : and tliey served other gods." (Joshua xxiv. 2.) " The God of Abraham, and the God of Nachor, the God of their father, judge betwixt us." (Gen. xxxi. 53.) There are not wanting traces of Polytheism in the earlier portions of Hebrew History. The expression Jehovah Elohitn, " The God of Gods," may, perhaps, be taken as an indication. Bauer thinks that " the Elohim, who were probably at one time worshipped as equal Gods, are in Genesis recog- nised as subordinate deities, with whom Jehovah, the highest Eloah, enters into Council." (Theol. des Alt. Test, i. 3.) It will be remembered that l^aban, a near relative of Abraham, whose sister he had expressly selected as his son Isaac's wife, pursued Jacob for having " stolen his * Bauer observes that the Samaritan and Arabian translators, "from an anxious apprehension lest a corporeal existence should be attributed to the Deity, fre(|uently substituted the expression angel of God, for the names Jehovah and Elohim." Thus they have " Ye shall be as the angels of God," instead of " Ye shall be as gods" (Gen. iii. 6) ; "In the likeness of the angel of God made he him" (Gen. v. 1) ; "The angel of God went up from Abra- bam" (Gen. jcvii, 22), tvnd so on. 148 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. Gods." (Gen. xxxi. 30.) He, therefore, worshipped fetiches. In Gen. xxxv. 2-4, we find Jacob collecting the strange Gods worshipped by his household, and hiding them under an oak. It is certainly remarkable that both Abraham and Isaac should insist upon their sons marrpng into an idol- atrous family, if they had really believed their own God to be the only one. Jacob's ideas of God are, as might be expected from h . mean and tricky character, even lower than those oi Abraham. He makes a condition, on which he will select Jehovah to be his God, and will give Him a tithe of all his possessions (Gen. xxviii. 20.) ; — he represents Him as his confidant in cheating Laban, and wrestles with Him bodily to extort a blessing. Who, after reading such pas- sages, can for a moment accept the belief that Jacob and Job worshipped the same God-? In process of time the descendants of Abraham multi- plied and became a numerous people, and naturally con- tinued the worship of that God who had done so much for their forefathers. Thus the fo/mily God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, gradually enlarged into the natio'nai God of the Israelites, to whose worship they adhered with greater or less tenacity, with greater or less exclusiveness, during their residence in Egypt. As the history proceeds the conceptions of this God seem to become purer and loftier, till, in the mind of Moses, an intellectual and highly-educated man, versed in all the learning of the Egyptians, they often (as far as we can guess what came from him) reached to a sublime simplicity of expression rarely surpassed. Still, there is no distinct proof that Moses disbelieved in the existence of other Gods : — the God whom he server is still " the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; " — He is not asserted to be the onlt/ God ; the existence and power of rival Deities is not denied, but is even admitted by implication. All that Moses claims for Jehovah is, not that He is the Sole God, but that He is superior to all others. " Who is like unto Thee, Jehovah, among the gods ?" (Ex. xv. 11.*) And he represents him • Jethro says : " Now I know that Jehovah is greater than all gods : for Jn the thing wharein they dealt proudly he was above thejn. — (Exod. XviiL 11.) THEISM to Phara the Hebr Earth, great f oi God but which br shall hai whole view : h not as th Atheists, so great him to a Jewish 1 their ha the gold ural on " mount i lieved h is alway As ci arooC an throponc the peo] and the object c into a p many tl After tl showed even to find re Jehova among the wis Priests ment o compai God of Deity THEISM OP THE JEWS IMPURE ANDPROGBESSIVE. 149 to Pharaoh, by Jehovah's own command, as the " God of the Hebrews,' not as tlie Supreme Lord of Heaven and Earth. Even in the delivery of the Commandments, the great foundation of the Law, it is not said, " There is no God but Jehovah," but only " I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the House of Bondage ; Thou shalt have no other Gods beside me (or before me)." The whole of the xxivth chapter of Joshua confirms this he there urges the Israelites to choose Jehovah, view not as the only God, whom to desert would be to become Atheists, but as a God whose bounties to them had been so great that it would be black ingratitude not to prefer him to all others. The whole history of the lapses of the Jewish Nation into idolatry aiiso discourages the idea of their having been really monotheists. The worship of the golden calf and the Canaanitish Gods was quite nat- ural on the supposition of Jehovah being merely a para- mount and preferred God : — monstrous, if they had be- lieved him to be the only one. Moreover, their idolatry is always spoken of as infidelity, not as atheism. ' As civilization advanced, prophets, sages, and poets arose among the Hebrews, to whom the lunited and an- thropomorphic conceptions of the Deity, prevalent among the people, were painfully inadequate and revolting ;— and they endeavoured by nobler representations of the object of their worship to convert the national religion into a pure theism ; in which, however, it is thought by many that they did not succeed till after the Captivity. After this idea had once taken root, the nation never showed any disposition to relapse into idolatry. And even to the latest period of the Canonical writings we find representations both of the nature and attributes of Jehovah so utterly discrepant as to leave no doubt that among the Jews, as among all other nations, the God of the wise and the God of the ignorant — the God of the Priests and the God of the Prophets — were the embodi- ment of two very different classes of ideas. Let any one compare the partial, unstable, revengeful, and deceitful God of Exodus and Numbers, with the sublime and unique Deity of Job, and the nobler Psalms, or even the Godf o^ 150 THE CREED OF OHIOSTENDOM. Isaiah with the God of Ezekiel and Daniel — and he can scarcely fail to admit that the conception of the One living and true God was a plant of slow and gradual growth in the Hebrew mind, and was due far less to Moses, the Patriarchs, or the Priests, than to the superiority of indi- vidual minds at various periods of their history. Com- pare the following representations which we have arranged in parallel columns. And Jehovah spake to Moses, say* ing — Let them make me a sanctuary : that I may dwell among them — And thou shalt put the mercy-seat above u^n the ark, . . . and there I will meet with thee, and I will com- mune with the*.— Exod. xxv. 8,21-22. And it came to pass, as Moses entered into the tabernacle, the cloudy pillar descended, and stood at the door of the tabernacle ; and Jehovah talked with Moses. — And Jehovah spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. — ^Exod. xxxiii. 9, 11. For they have heard that thou Jehovah art among this People, that thou Jehovah art seen face to face. — ^Numbers xiv. 14. And Jehovah said. Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shall stand upon a rock : And it shall come to pass, while my glory pass- eth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass bv : And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts : but my face shall not be seen. — Exod.xxxiii.21-24. And Moaes returned imtothe Lord and said, Lord, wherefore hast thou so evil entreated this people ? Why is it that thou hast sent me? For since I came to Fharoah to speak in thy name, he hath done evil to this people ; neither hast thou delivered thy people at all.— Exod. v. 22, 23. And Jehovah said unto Moses I have seen this people, aad, behold, it is a stiff-necked people ; now therefore let me alone, that ni wnth may wax hot against them. But will God in very deed dwell on the eprth ? Behold, the Heaven, and the Heaven of Heavens, cannot contain Thee ; how much less this house that I have buildedl — 1 Kings viii. 27. Whither shall I go from thy spirit ? or whither shall I flee from thy presence ? — Ps. cxxxix. 7-10. Lo, he goeth by me, and T set him not ; he passeth on also, )ut I perceive him not — Job ix. 11. Behold, I go forward, but he is not there ; and backward, but I cannot perceive him : On the left hand, where he doth work, but I cannot behold him : he hideth himself on the right hand, that I cannot see him. —Job xxiii. 8, 9. O Jehovah my God, thou art very great ; thou art clothed with honour and majesty. Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment : who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain : Who layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters : who maketh the clouds his chariot : who walketh upon the wings of the wind. —Psalm CIV. 1-3. Then Job answered and said, I know it is so of a tn^th : but how should man be just with God ? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand. For he is not a man, as I am, that 1 should answer him, and we should come together in judgment.— Job ix. 1, 2. 3. 32. Shall mortal man be more just than God 7 Shall a man be more pure than his maker T— Job. iv. 17. THEISM and that In I will make < And Hose God, and sa wrath wax 1 which thou 1 the land of and with a n Wherefon speak, and i bring them mountains, t the face of thy fierce w evil against Abraham, servants, to thine own s I will multi of heaven, have spokei seed, and ever. And evil which 1 people. — Ej And the Speak now and let e\ neighbour, neighbour, jewels of g* the people 1 Egyptians. And the cording to they bom jewels of e and raime the people Egyptians, them. And - Exod. iii And Jel Ruade Aha fall at Bi said on t said on t came fortl the Lord, him. An Wherevnit forth, and the mouti he said, ' and previ Bo,~lKi 1 — and he can the One living ual growth in to Moses, the iority of indi- listory. Com- have arranged -very deed dwell iold, the Heaven, >f Heavens, cannot )w much less this lave buildedl — 1 I go from t\y • shall I flee from s. cxxxix. 7-10. by me, and I see jeth on also, )ut I -Job ix. 11. Pward, but he is not kard, but I cannot pn the left hand, |ork, but I cannot hideth himself on it I cannot see him. jrod, thou art very othed with honour lio coverest thyself a garment : who heavens like a eth the beams of the waters : who his chariot ; who winga of the wind. ered and said, I a tmth : but how with God? If he him, he cannot a thousand, nan, as I am, that m, and we sh(nild idgment.— Job ix. Eui be more just a man be more r?— Job. Iv. 17. THEISM OF THE JEWS ZMPUBE AND PROOBESSIVE. 151 and that I may consume them : and I will make of thee a great nation. ^ And Moses besought Jehovah his (Sod, and said. Lord, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say. For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consimie them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this lai.d that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. — Exod. xzxii. 9-14. And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak now in the ears of the people, and let every man borrow of his neighbour, and every woman of her neighbour, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold. And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians. And the children of Israel did ac- cording to the word of Moses ; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and je.wels of gold, and raiment : And Jehovah gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians, so that they lent unto them. And theyspoiled the Egyptians. - Exod. iii. 21, 22 ; xi. 1-3 ; xii. 35, 36. And Jehovah said. Who shall per* Huade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Bamoth-Gilead ? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said. I will persuade him. And Jehovah said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit m the mouth of all his prophets. And he taid. Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also : go forth, and do •o,--! Kings xxii. 20-22. The counsel of Jehovah standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart unto all generations. — Psalm xxxiii. U. I know that,\.~hatso«ver God doeth, it shall be for ever : nothing can be put to it, nor an3^hing taken from it — Eccles. iii. 14. The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent : for he is not n "^an, that he should repent. — ^1 Sau v. 29. Lord, who shall abide in thy tab- emacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that waJketh upright- ly, and worketh righteousness, and Seaketh the truth in his heart. — lalm XV. 1, 2. For the word of the Lord is right ; and all his works are done in tnith. He loved righteousness and judg- ment.— Psalm xxxiii. 4^ 6. Lying lips are abomination to the Lord : but they that deal truly are his delight. — Prov. xii. 22. 152 THE CBF.ED OF CHRISTENDOM. And they yrent in unto Noah into the ark, and the Lard shut him in. — Gen. vii. 15, 16. And Jehovah came down to see the city and the tower, which the chil- dren of men builded. — Gen. xi. 5. And Noah builded &n altar unto the Lord ; and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a •5we«t BAVour ; and the Lord said in Mb ha&rc, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake. — Gen. viii. 20, 21. But ye shall offer the burnt-offer- ing for a sweet savour unto the Lord. — ^Num. xxviii. 27. And ye shall offer a burnt-offering, a saciinoe made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord; thirteen young bullocks,tworams, and fourteen lambs of the first year ; they shall be with- out blemish.— Num. xxix. 13, 36. The eyes of th«; Itord are in every place, beholuing the evil and the good. — Prov. XV. 3. Jehovah looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men.— Psalm xxxiiL 13. I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goats out of thy folds. For every beast of the forest la mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills. If I were hungry, I would not teU thee ; for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanksgiving. —Pg. 1. 9-14. For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it : thou delightest not in bumt-offering. — Ps. li. 16. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me ? saith the Lord : I am full of the bumt-oifer ings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts ; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats. — Isaiah i. 11. Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah, and bow myself before the high God 7 Shall I come before him with bumt-offerin»i, with calves of a jrear old ? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil ? Shall I give my first-bom for my transgression, the finiit of my body for the sin of my soul f He hath showed thee, man, what is good ; and what doth Jehovah require of the&, but to do Justlv, to love mercy, and to walk lumbly with thy God?— Micahvi 6-8. i iord are in every the evil and the 3, th from heaven ; the sons of nien.~ bullock out of thy ts out of thy folds. f the forest is mine, m a thousand hills. , I would not tell d is mine, and the Will I eat the flesh the blood of goats? thanksgiving. — Ps. Bt not sacrifice; else ihou delightest not -Ps. U. 16. ie is the multitude unto me ? saith the of the bumt-offe^ id the fat of fed elight not in the , or of lambs, or of i. 11. dl I come before f myself before the I come before him igs, with calves of the Lord be pleased f rams, or with ten 8 of oil? Shall I give my transgression, >ody for the sin of th showed thee, >d ; and what doth of the&, but to do lercy, and to walk • trod?— Micah vi. CHAPTER VI. ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. The current idea respecting the nature of the Gospel History is, that the four Evangelists were eye-witnesses (or the amanuenses of eye-witnesses) of the events which they relate ; and that we have, in fact, embodied in their narratives, four independent and corroborative testimonies to the words and deeds of Christ. Their substantial agreement is appealed to in proof of their fidelity, and their numerous and circumstantial discrepancies are ac- cepted as proof of their independence.* Let as examine what foundation can be discovered for this current opinion. Have we any reason to believe that all the Evangelists, or that any of them, were companions of Christ — eye and ear-witnesses of his career ? And if not, what does critical Science teach us of the probable origin of the four Gospels ? The first gospel has come down to us under the title of the gospel of, or according to, St. Matthew : and the tra- dition of the Church is that it was written (probably about A.D. 68) by Matthew, the publican, one of the twelve apostles, the same who was called by Jesus w hile " sitting at the receipt of custom." This is distinctly stated by several of the early fathers, as the received opinion or * Thus Paley says, " The usual charac;.er of human testimony is sub- stantial truth under circumstantial variety. When accounts of a transac- tion come from the mouths of different witnesses, it is seldom that it is not possible to point out apparent or real inconsistencies between them. These inconsistencies are studiously displayed by an adverse pleader, but often- times with little impression upon the minds of the judges. On the contrary, a close and minute agreement induces the suspicion of confederacy or fraud." — Faley's Evidences, p. 414. Again, Ijardner says, ' ' I have all my days read and admired the first three evangelists, as independent witnesses, and I know not how to forbear rank- ing the other opinion among those bold as well as groundless assertions in whicli critics too often indalge without considering the consequences," — Dr. Lardner, like many other divines, required to be reminded that critics have nothing to do with consequences, but only with truths, and that (to use the language of Algernon Sydney), "a conseijueace cannot destroy a truth." K 154 THE CBEED OF CHRISTENDOM. tradition — as by Papias.(A. D. 116), Irenaeus (a, d. 178), Origen (a. d. 230), Epiphanius (a. d. 368), and Jerome (a. D. 392).* All these fathers, however, without exception, expressly affirm that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew language, whereas, the Gospel which we receive as Matthew's is written in Greek ; and not only have we no account of its having been translated, and no guarantee of such translation being a faithful one, but learned men are satisfied from internal evidence that it is not a tram- lation at all, but must have been originally written in Groek.-f- Our present Gospel, therefore, cannot be the Gospel to which the fathers above cited refer. It would appear simply that Matthew did write a history, or rather memorabilia, of Christ (for the expression tu, Xoyia says no more), but that this was something quite different from our Gospel. J This notion is confirmed by the fact that the Ebionites and Nazarenes, two Christian sects, possessed a Hebrew Gospel, which they considered to be the only genuine one, and which they called the Gospel according to Matthew.§ It appears, however, to have been so materially different from our first gospel as entirely to negative the suppoaition of the latter being a translation from it. * Fapias, whose information on this aa on other matters seems to have been derived from John, who is called "the Presbyter," an elder of the Church at Ephesua, simply sayn, "Matthew wrote the divine oracles (ra Xoyia) in tlte Hefyrew tongue, and every man interpreted them as he was able." — Irenaeus says, " Matthew, then, among the Jews, wrote a Gospel w their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome." — Origen and Jerome both state that (according to the tradition cone down to them) the first Gospel was written by Matthew, the Publican, in Hebrew. t Hug, in a most luminous and learned essay, has succeded in rendering this, if not certain, at least in the highest degree probable ; and his views are supported by Erasmus, Webster. Paulus, and De Wette. — The only critic 01 equal eminenje who adopts the opposite opinion, is Eichhom. t It seems to us very probable, however, as Hennell suggests, " that some one after Matthew wrote the Greek Gospel which has come down to us, incorporating these Hebrew koyia (and perhaps mainly framed out of them) ; whence it was called the Gospel according to Matthew, and in the second century came to be considered as the work of th« Apostle."— Hen- nell's Origin of Christianity, p. 124. § Hug, Introd. part ii. § 7, pp. 317, 320, 392.— Jerome allows that many considered it to have been the genuine original Gospel of Matthew. — Thirl- wall's Introd. to Schleiermacher, 48-50, and notes. Since writing the above, I have read Norton's dissertation on this subject, The onl that Matt same time thew wro reason to in the notes t that our Gos] fact the same Nazarenes, m polations, w not into our deed many oi Norton, i, 19 lated it into G some " accoi tlie tame as ox sary to transl tion of degre and to assurai right, and thi is clearly an rest : it is no1 early Church reason for su} lation, we an what degree Let us sun tant one. I. The ger Epiphanius, Matthew wr tians. The Papias (a.d. is preserved piece of infoi of the Chun II. A Hel sometimes tl according to ites, and was III. Ifth extant so t numerous n( believing ou' fair and fait IV. But 1 Gmrch to b Would this Gospel ? v. Again pel, and trai tent to jud first Gospel autumant, j OBIOIN OF THE QOSPELS. 155 The only external testimony, then, which exists to show that Matthew the apostle wrote a gospel, shows at the same time that our first gospel is not the one which Mat- thew wi-ote. External evidence, therefore, gives us no reason to believe that it was the production of an eye- in the notes to his " Genuineness of the Gospels." He holds to the opinion that our Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, and was in fact the same as the Gospel of the Hebrews current among the Ebionites and Nazarenes, with the exception of certain omissions, corruptions, and inter- polations, which he conceives to hav« crept into the Ebionite Gospel, not into our Greek Gospel. I cannot think nis arguments conclusive ; in- deed many of them are mere assumptions. Jerome says (see Hug, p. 323. Norton, i, 199) that he obtained a copy of the Ebionite Gospel, and trans- lated it into Greek; that some called it the Gospel " according to the Apostles," some " according to Matthew ; " it could scarcely, therefore, have been tlie same as our Greek Gospel, or Jerome would not have thought it neces- sary to translate it again ;— the discrepancies between the two are a ques- tion of degree, about which we have no adequate materials for judging ; and to assume, as Norton does, that in these discrepancies, the Greek Gospel is right, and the Hebrew wrong, is gratuitous, to say the least. If our Gospel is clearly an original, and not a translation, the question is of course set at rest ; it is not the Gospel of Matthew ; or if it is, the general tradition of the early Church that Matthew wrote in Hebrew {which tradition is our only reason for supposing that Matthew wrote at all) is erroneous. If it be a trans- lation, we are still in ignorance when it was translated, by whom, and with what degree of fidelity. Let us sum up briefly what is known on this subject, for it is an impor- tant one. I. The general tradition of the Church as given by Irenseus, Origen, Epiphanius, Jerome, and Chrysostom (from 178-398 A.D.), relates that Matthew wrote a Gospel in Heorew, for the benefit of the Jewish Chris- tians. The origin of this tradition appears to be solely the assertion of Papias (a.d. 116), whose works are lost, but whose statement to this effect is preserved by Eusebius (a.d. 315), and who is supposed to have had this piece of information, as he affirms that he had others, from John, an elder of the Church of Ephesus. II. A Hebrew Gospel, called sometimes the " Gospel of the Hebrews," sometimes the ** Gospel according to the Apostles," sometimes the " Gospel according to Matthew," was preserved by the Jewish Christians, or Ebion- ites, and was by them maintamed to be the only true Gospel. III. If therefore this Gospel agreed with our Greek Gospel, or wasnow extant so that we could ascertain that the discrepancies were neither numerous nor material, there would be very strong external testimony for believing our Greek Gospel to have been a. translation (and a sufficiently fair and faithful one) from Matthew's Hebrew work. IV. But these Ebionites, or Jewish Christians, were held by the early Cliurch to be heretics, and their Gospal to be uncanonical. (Norton, i. 199.) Would this have been the case had it really been the same as our first Gospel ? V. Again, Jerome (about A. D. 392) obtained a copy of this Hebrew Gos- pel, and translated it into both Greek and Latin. He was therefore compe- tent to judge, but he nowhere affirms it to have been the same as our first Gospel, but describes it as " secundum apostolos, sive, ut pleriqut ftti on on this subject I a^ttimant, juxta MatthaBum."— Hug (322) says, " It would appear fr«m US (A. D. 178), and Jerome (a, out exception, Gospel in the ch we receive only have we d no guarantee it learned men is not a trans- Uy written in cannot be tk ifer. It would story, or rather ?n TO, Xoyia says juite different led by the fact Christian sects, msidered to be led the Gospel Br, to have been j1 as entirely to ig a translation atters seems to have er," an elder of the the divine oracles sted them as he was ^8, wrote a Gospel tn ihing the Gospel at to the tradition cone w, the Publican, in ucceded in rendering bable ; and his views i Wette.— The only Dn, is Eichhom. lell suggests, "that ;h has come down to ainly framed out oi Matthew, and in the the Apostle."— Hen- ne allows that many 3f Matthew.— Thirl- 156 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. witness ; and it is worthy of remark that the anther no- where names himself nor claims the authority of an eye- witness. Internal evidence goes further, and we think effectually negatives the notion. 1. In the first place, many events are recorded at which we know from the record that Matthew was not present; — some, indeed, at which none of the disciples were pres- ent ; and yet all these are narrated in the same tone, and with the same particularity as the other portions of the narrative — sometimes even with more minute circumstan- tiality. Such are the Incarnation (c.i.), the story of the Magi (ii.), the Temptation (iv.), the Transfiguration (xvii.), the Agony and the prayer in Gethsemane (xxvi.), the de- nial of Peter (xxvi.), the dream of Pilate's wife (xxvii.), the conversation between Judas and the Priests, and that between Pilate and the Priests (xxvii.), and, finally, that between the Priests and the Soldiers about the missing body of Jesus (xxviii.). It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that if the writer the fragments which yet exist in Jerome, th-it it was neither very like, nor very unlike, our first Gospel." "In the remotest period in which the ex- istence of the Jewish Gospel is capable of being proved, it appears to have been so different from our Mattl}*w, as to afford no ground for supiiosiny the original ideatity of the two writings. The evidences of its existence in Origen and Clement are as many proofs of its dissimilarity to our first Gos- pel." — Norton, on the other hand (i. 203), thiiiks these differences no more than are perfectly compatible with original identity. VI. Moreover, wo have no account of the Gospel having been translated at all, nor when, nor by whom ; and many of the most learned critics have decided that it is no translation, but an original. The differences of opinion are wide enough to show how small is our ac- tual knowledge in the matter. Some, as Hug, consider our Greek Gospel to be by Matthew, to be quite different from the Hebrew Gospel, and to have been originally written in Greek. Others, as Norton, believe our Gos- Eel to be by Matthew, to be the same as the Hebrew Gospel, and to have een originally written in Hebrew, and faithfully translated. Others again, as several German critics, to whose opinion we incline, believe it not to be by Matthew, but by some subseouent compiler, and to have been originally written in Greek : the original Gospel of Matthew, if any such existed, being the one possessed by the Ebionites, and excluded by the orthodox as uncanonical. It appears pretty certain (see Hug, 341) that if the Ebionite or Nazarene Gospel was not the original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, no such original Hebrew Gospel existed. From this Hug argues that Matthew did not write in Hebrew ;— Norton, that this Ebionite Gospel was the original He- brew of Matthew. [Schleiennecber (Norton, i, 76) holds that ouv GospeUi are not those spoken of by Fapiae, aa proceeding from Matthew and Mark.] was not p Priests ab was he pr calming oi 2. Seco fragments sence of b the f requ( from a coi of Paul's writer wa 3. The that his indicate t fragments ness of p dwell mu 4. If, I and Lukt wrote th regarded authoritj deviate fi to Luke's be regarc any of i disciples although of them 5. The have bee try exce The s name ; b * Henne t Ex. gr. —the accuf % Papias Hieropolis Apostles, I ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. 167 the author no- 'ity of an eye- and we think orded at which as not present; ilea were pres- same tone, and (ortions of the te circumstan- le story of the juration (xvii.), (xx\d.), the de- 3 wife (xxvii.), riests, and that id, finally, that ut the missing a-t if the writer sither very like, nor iod in which the ex- it it appears to havo iundfor supi)osinj; }s of its existence in ity to our first Gog- iifferences no more ing been translated samed critics have low small is our ao- our Greek Gospel ew Gospel, and to )n, believe our Gos- ospel, and to have ted. Others again, believe it not to be ave been originallv any such existed, by the orthodox as ionite or Nazarene , no such original Matthew did not IS the original He- bre not those spoken was not present at the colloquy of Pilate with the Chief Priests about the security of the grave of Jesus, neither was he present at the feeding of the five thousand, or the calming of the waves. 2. Secondly, the abruptness of the transitions, the fragmentary style of the narrative, and the entire ab- sence of all those details as to the mode and object of the frequent journeys indicated,* which we should expect from a companion, and which we find in Luke's account of Paul's travels — all point to the conclusion that the writer was a compiler, not an eye-witness. 3. The same conclusion is drawn from the circumstance that his frequent double narratives of the same events indicate the confusion of a man who was compiling from fragmentary materials, rather than the fulness and clear- ness of personal recollection.-f* De Wette and Credner dwell much upon this argument. 4. If, as the great majority of critics imagine, Mark and Luke had Matthew's Gospel before them when they wrote their own, it is certain that they could not have regarded him as either an eye-witness or a very accurate authority, as they do not hesitate both to retrench, to deviate from, and to contradict him. Moreover, the proem to Luke's Gospel must, we think, by all unbiassed minds be regarded as fatal to the hjrpothesis of the authors of any of the gospels then in existence having been eifher disciples or eye-witnesses. It is clear from that, that although many histories of Christ were then extant, none of them had any peculiar or paramount authority. 5. The author of the first gospel scarcely appears to have been acquainted with any portion of Christ's Minis- try except that of which Galilee was the scene. The second gospel, like the first, • bears no author's name ; but by Papias, and IrenseuSjJ and (following them) * Hennell, p. 121. t £x. gr. , the cure of the blind men — the feedings— the demand of a sign —the accusation regai-ding Beelzebub. t Papias, our earliest source of information on the matter, was Bishop of Hieropolis, and must have been intimate with many contemporaries of the Apostles, and perhaps had converaod with the Apostle Joha. Hia works 168 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. by the universal tradition of the Church, is attributed to Mark, a friend and fellow-traveller of Peter, Barnabas, and Paul, who is several times mentioned in the New Testament.* Papias says expressly that he was neither a hearer nor a follower of Christ, but compiled his gospel from information obtained from Peter, whose " interpre- ter "f he is said to have been. Papias gives " the Pres- byter John," supposed to have been an elder of the Ephe- sian Church, as his authority. Mark, then, it is certain, was not an eye-witness. Nor have we any reason, beyond the similarity of name, to believe that the writer of the second Gospel was the same Mark who is mentioned in are now lost, with the exception of a few fragments preserved by Eusebius. '* Nothing (says Dr. Middleton) more eflfectually demonstrates the uncer. tainty of all tradition, than what is delivered to us by antiquity concerning this very Papias. Irenseus declares him to have been the companion of Polycarp, and tho disciple of St. John the Apostle. But Eusebius tells ug that he was not a disciple of St. John the Apostle, but of John the Presby- ter, who was a compamon only of the Apostle, but whom Ireneeus mistook for the Apostle." Now from Papias, through Irenseus, came most of the early traditions, some of them relating to the millennium, of the most mon. strous character, which Irenseus does not scruple to ascribe to our Saviour, and which fully dispose tis to credit the account of Eusebius, who says, " Papias was a weak man, of very shallow understanding, as appears from his writings ; and by mistaking the meaning of the Apostles, imposed these silly traditions upon Ireneeus and the greatest part of the ecclesias- tical writers who, reflecting on the age of the man, and his near approach to the Apostles, were drawn by him into the same opinions." In another passage, indeed, Eusebius speaks of Papias in a much more respectful man- ner, as remarkaole for eloquence and scriptural knowledge ; but this passage is not found in the older copies, and is supposed to oe spurious. It is obvious, therefore^ that little reliance can be placed on any traditions which are traced to Papias. Irenaeus, our next earliest authority, derives weight from his antiquity alone. His extreme childishness goes far to discredit many of his statements, and no reliance can be placed upon such of them as are at variance with the conclusions of citical science. His traditions of what John had related to the elders regarding the millenium are worse than anything in the Koran, yet he gives them as " testified by Papias." The fol- lowing passage will induce us to receive with great caution any evidence he ffives regarding the origin and authenticity of the Gospels : — '* As there are tour quarters of the world in which we live, and four chief winds, and the Churcn is spread over all the earth, but the pillar and support of the Church is the Gospel and its breath of life, plainly the Church must have four columnSf and from them must come forth four blasts," &c., &c. — Ad. Bares. c. iii. It would be melancholy to reflect that through such sources our only surviving testimony on these matters is derived, had these matters the supreme importanee usually ascribed to them. * Acte xii, 12, 25 ; xiii. 6-13 ; xv. 37. Col. iv. 10. Phil. 24. 1 Peter V. W. tWh*t this could mean, as apr>Hdd to a nun who " spoke with tongues," for thf Ohuroh to explain. the Acts Peter, by 1 Peter v. est of 1^0 the ident papias m( Neithej witness, that whi( is the fir author oi that he ^ ties, and ages. H mou, 24 ; Theai ject of r / Theologii ternal te who say the Lord lished a last cha] having.^ attestati self ,t an its auth believed the san genuine * Credn our Gospt opposite { of whom that it wi evidently scrupled tDe\ evidence t Thei ■-^eeDi f. s attributed to eter, Barnabas >d in the New he was neither iiled his gospel lose " interpre- ves " the Pres- ir of the Ephe- li, it is certain, reason, beyond ' writer of the I mentioned in erved by Eusebiug. ostrates the uncer. itiquity concerning 1 the companion of t Eusebius tells ug f John the Presby- n Irenaeus mistook came most of the U of the most mon. ibe to our Saviour, usebius, who says, gi as appears from Apostles, imposed rt of the ecclesias. his near approach ons." In another re respectful man- s; but this passage e spurious. It is y traditions which ;y, derives weight « far to discredit in such of them as His traditions of im are worse than *apias." Thefol. 1 an^ evidence he :— * As there are it winds, and the 1 support of the xh tnu3t /lave four &c. — Ad. Bares. sources our only lese matters the Wl. 24. 1 Peter 9 with tongues," ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. 169 the Acts as the companion of Paul and Barnabas (not of Peter, by the way), nor the same who is mentioned in 1 Peter v. 13, as his son. Mark was one of the common- est of Roman names ; and it is probable that the idea of the identity of the three Marks was an imagination of Papias merely.* Neither was the author of the third Gospel an eye- witness. His proem merely claims to set forth faithfully that which he had heard from eye-witnesses. Irensous is the fii'st person who distinctly mentions Luke as the author of this Gospel ; but little doubt appears to exist that he wrote both the Gospel and the Acts of the Apos- tles, and was the companion of Paul in many of his voy- ages. He is mentioned Col. iv. 14; 2 Tim. iv 11 ; Phile- mon, 24 ; and is supposed to be the same as Silas. The authorship of the fourth Gospel has been the sub- ject of much learned and anxious controversy among Theologians. The earliest, and only very important, ex- ternal testimony we have is that of Irenaeus (a.d. 178), who says, that after Luke wrote, " John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, likewise pub- lished a gospel while he dwelt at Ephesus in Asia." The last chapter of the gospel contains an attestation of its having, been written by John (verse 24) ; but as this attestation obviously does not proceed from John him- self ,t and as we do not know from whom it does proceed, its authority can have little weight. It is generally believed, that the gospel and the first epistle proceed from the same pen ; but if the second and third epistles are genuine,! it is very questionable whether this pen was * Credner, indeed, decides, but we think on very insufficient grounds, that our Gospel in its present form cannot be that of Mark. He notices the opposite accounts given by Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus, the former of whom says that it was written after the death of Peter, and the latter that it was submitted to him for his approval. This statement, however, is evidently one of those improvements upon fact which the fathers never scrupled to indulge in.— Credner, Einl. § 56. t De Wette doubts the genuineness of the whole chapter, and internal evidence is certainly against it. X Their genuineness, however, is doubted both by Eusebius and Origen. -See De Wette, i. § 23, 24. 160 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. that of John the Apostle ; for, though in the first chapter of the first epistle, the writer declares himself to have been personally acquainted with Jesus, yet in the second and third epistles he calls himself " the Elder." Now there was a John at Ephesus (from whom Papias derived all his information, and who, he says, was also a disciple of Jesus), to whom the title of " Elder " (Trpevfivrepos) was given, to d'istinguish him from the Apostle John. The balancing of the internal eviderce for and against the supposition that the Apostle John was the author of the Gospel, is a matter of extreme difficulty. The reasons adduced in behalf of each opinion are very strong. Hug entertams no doubt that the decision should be in the affirmative ; — Bretschneider almost proves the negative ; — De Wette finds it impossible to decide ; — while Strauss, who in his earlier editions had expressed himself satisfied that the gospel was not genuine, writes thus in the pref- ace to the third edition : " With De Wette and Neander in my hand, I have recommenced the examination of the ' fourth Gospel, and this renewed investigation has shaken the doubts I had conceived against its authenticity and credibility ; — not that I am convinced that it is authentic, but neither am I convinced that it is not." [In his " New Life of Jesus," however, written thirty years after his first great book, he finally and confidently decides against its authenticity. Renan, in the first edition of his Vie de J^sus, accepted the fourth Gospel as genuine, and largely maimed the completeness and beauty of his estimate of Christ by doing so. In the thirteenth edition (1867) he entirely discards his previous assumption, and decides after long investigation that it was not the work of the Apostle John. In the same year was published Mr. J. J. Tayler's " Character of tJte Fourth Gospel^' in which the writer, after an exhaustive examirxcition of the whole ques- tion, indisputably, as it seems to us,, establishes the same negative conclusion.] One argument against the supposition of John having been the author of the fourth Gospel has impressed my mind very forcibly. It is this : that several of thQ most remarkable events recorded by the other evangelists, at ORIGIN OP THE GOSPELS, 161 which we are told by them that only Peter, James, and John were present, and of which, therefore, John alone of all the evangelists could have spoken with the distinctness and authority of an eye-witness, are entirely omitted — wo may say, ignored — by him. Such are the raising of Jairus's daughter, the Transfiguration, the agony in Geth- semane. Now, on the assumption that John was the au- thor of the fourth Gospel, — either he had not seen the works of the other evangelists, in which case he would certainly not have omitted to record narratives of such interest and beauty, especially that of the transfiguration ; or he had seen them, and omitted all notice of them be- cause hecouldnot confirm the statements; for we cannotima- gine that he did not record them in consequence of find- ing them already recorded, and seeing nothing to alter in the relation ; — as an eye-witness, he would certainly, had they been true, have given them at least a parsing word of confirmation, and we find that he does, on more than one occasion, relate events of less moment already recorded in the other gospels, as the feeding of the five thousand, the anointing of Jesus's feet, &c. But all the events said to have been witnessed by John alone, are omitted hy John alone ! This fact seems fatal either to the reality of the events in question, or to the genuineness of the fourth Gospel. — Thus much, however, seems certain, and admitted ; — that, if the Gospel in question were the gen- uine composition of the Apostle John, it must have been written when he was at least ninety years of age — when his recollections of events and conversations which had passed sixty years before had become faint and fluctua- ting — when ill-digested Grecian learning had overlaid the simplicity of his fisherman's charactei, and his Judaic education — ^and the scenes and associations of Ionia had overpowered and obscured the recollections of Palestine.* It therefore becomes, as we shall see hereafter, an inquiry of only secondary moment. [An almost identical conclu- sion has been expressed many years later by two critics * In this case, also, as in th,\t of Matthew, we may remark that the evan- gelist relates events lonp past, md at wiiich he was not present, as minutely aad dramatically as if xh»y ha 1 occurred yesterday and m his presence. 162 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM incomparably more competent than I can pretend to be. Renan says : — " L'esprit de Jdsus n'est pas 1^ ; et si le fils de Z^b^die a vraiment trac^ ces pages, il avait certes bien oublid en les ^crivant le lac de G^ndsareth et les char- mants entretiens qu'il avait entendus sur ses bords."-^ Vie de JSaus, Introd. xxxi. Mr. Tayler writes (Fourth Gosfel, p. 154) — "To me there is something far less objectionable and offensive iu the supposition that we have in this gospel the free and genuine utterances of one who gives us his own deep per- sonal conception of the truth which he had imbibed in the heart of the Johannine church, than in admitting — which we must do if the Apostle John were the author — that one who had leaned on Jesus' bosom, and caught the very accents that fell from his lips, instead of treasuring them up with reverent exactitude,, has unscrupulously trans- formed them into his own language, and invested them with a form and colour which did not originally belong to them."] Of the first three (or, as they are commonly termed, the Sjnioptical) Gk)spels, we know that two, and we believe that all three, were not the productions of eye-witnesses. The question then arises, in what manner, and from what materials, were they composed ? This subject has for a long period exercised the minds of the most acute and learned divines of Germany, as Eichhorn, Credner, Bret- Schneider, De Wette, Hug, Schleiermacher, and Strauss ; and the results of their investigations may be thus briefly summed up. The numerous and irreconcilable discrepancies obser- vable in the three Evangelists preclude the supposition of their having all drawn their information from one and the same source — while the still more remarkable points of simi- larity and agreement, often extending to the most minute verbal peculiarities, entirely forbid the idea of their hav- ing derived their materials from independent, and there- fore mutually confirmatory sources.* * " Those who. to explain the harmony which we observe in these works, ua taxapiy w the identity of tbs au.bjeot, and, for the oAua« of tbeir Three di petent judg of the first him, Dr. M ment, now language (i from whicl with addit With manj one ; — but, fact that \ tenee of su< so many ] its credit > Eichhorn, modificatic The hypo demolishec Schleiermt theory by original, i in the ad cxvi.). TJ but effecti quainted authoritat The sec dwcrepanciee tion of the p which constr accounts of 1 wituesses, cc and withoul common sec Schleiermac * He ead( languages, a t " For np from concei I am to tig\] rolls or bool into anothe German stv tianity."— 5 ORIGIN OF I'HE GOSPELS. 163 •etend to be. ; ; et si le fils it certes bien et les char> ies bords."-^ 4)~"To me offensive iu the free and vn deep per- ibibed in the ting — which luthor— that ght the very isuring them lously trans- ivested them 'lly belong to >■ termed, the d we believe ^e- witnesses. d from what ct has for a it acute and -edner, Bret- ^nd Strauss; thus briefly ncies obser- pposition of one and the aintsofsimi- nost minute f their hav- and there- in these works, oau8« of Utt^ii' Three different hypotheses have been formed by com- petent judges to account for these marked characteristics of the first three Evangelists. Eichhorn (and, following him, Dr. Marsh) adopted the idea of an original docu- ment, now lost, written in the Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic language (the Aramaic Gospel, as it is called by some), from which all three Evangelists copied their accounts, with additions and omissions peculiar to themselves. With many divines this hypothesis is still the favourite one ; — but, in addition to the difficulty arising from the fact that we can nowhere find any allusion to the exis- tence of such a document, more minute criticism discovered so many peculiarities inexplicable on this theory that its credit was much shaken, and its principal supporter, Eichhorn, was driven, in order to maintain it, to admit modifications which have made it almost unintelligible.* The hypothesis appears to us to have been completely demolished by the reasonings of Hug, Thirlwall, and Schleiermacher. f An ingenious modification of this theory by Giesler, wJio substitutes an oral for a written original, is explained and controverted by Dr. Thirlwall, in the admirable treatise we have already quoted (p. cxvi.). The proem to Luke's Gospel, moreover, tacitly but effectually, negatives the supposition that he was ac- quainted with any such original and paramountly authoritative document. The second hypothesis is the prevalent one — that one ducrepancieB, to the peculiarities of the writers, insteaa of offering a solu- tion of the problem, only betray either their inattention to the phenomena which constitute it, or their incapacity to comprehend its nature. Three accounts of the same series of transactions, delivered by independent eye- witnesses, covd-i never, through whatever hands they might pass, naturally and without intentional assimilation, assume the shape exhibited by the common sections of the three first evangelists." — Thirlwall, Introd. to Schleiermacher, cxxii, * He ended by imagining four different editions or copies, in different languages, and with many variations, of this original gospel. t "For mjr part (says this latter) I find it quite enough to prevent me from conceiving the origin of the gospel according to Eichhorn's theory, that I am to figure to myself our good evangelists surrounded by five or six opeli rolls or books, and that too in ditferont languages, looking by turns froin ono into another, and writing a oomoilation from them. I fancy myself in T\ German stuay of the 19th century^ rather than in the primitive age of ChriB< tianity." — Sotdeiermaoher, Orit. Essay on Luke, Intr. p. 6. 164 THE CBEED OF C3HRISTEND0M of the Evangelists wrote first, and that the others copied him, with alterations, additions, and omissions, dictated by their own judgment or by extraneous sources of in- formation. Matthew is generally considered to have been the earliest writer ; but critics differ in the relative order they assign to Mark and Luke — some, as Mill, Hug, and Wetstein, conceiving that Luke copied both from Mark and Matthew ; and others, as De Wette and Griesbach, arguing that Mark was the latest in order of time, and made use of both his predecessors. Mr. Kenrick, in a masterly analysis (Prosp. Rev. xxi.), has, however, we think, succeeded in making it more than probable that Mark's Gospel was both first in order of time, and in fidelity of narration. This theory has been much and minutely examined, and to our minds it appears unsatisfactory. It accounts for the agreements, but not for the discrepancies, of the Gos- pels ; and Dr. Thirlwall, in his translation of Schleier- macher, has succeeded in showing that it is highly im- probable, if not wholly inadmissible.* The third hypothesis, which was first propounded by Lessing, and has since been revived and elaborated by Schleiermacher (one of the highest theological authorities of Germany), seems to us to have both critical evidence and a priori likelihood in its favour. These writers pre- sume the existence of a number of fragirnentary narratives, some oral, some written, of the actions and sayings of Christ, such as would naturally be preserved and trans- mitted by persons who had witnessed those wonderful words and deeds. Sometimes there would be two or more narratives of the same event, proceeding from different witnesses ; sometimes the same original narrative in its transmission would receive intentional or accidental vari- ations, and thus come slightly modified into the hands of different evangelists. Sometimes detached sayings wou ' • Those who wish to obtain a gttneral knowledge of this interesting con- troversy, should peruse the admirable summarv of it given by Bishop Thirl- wall in his introduction to Schleiermacher. We have purposely avoided en- tering into the arguitient, for it would b« unfair to copy, and impossible to ftbridge or amend, his liicid statement. be preserved would locate priate, or pn are numberL would be fr transmit tha hira most fo same expres witness heai action only, as he best n hands of all one, or of t^ the same e\ the hands o for their dis Evangelist, hisjudgmei or would c( case, the e from a seri pleteness. the gospels ly asserted in hand to qjohich are ', livered the', witnesses, < "The fir tian Histo: ♦ " The vei of Christ thai often given in are differentl; t The habi common then learning of tl generation to of narratives were almost ( + Thus the chiefly in Ga § Crlt. on ORIGIN ('F THE GOSPELS. 165 be preserved without the context, and the evangelists would locate them where they thought them most appro- priate, or provide a context for them, instances of which are numberless in the Gospels.* But all these materials would be fragmentary. Each witness would retain and transmit that portion of a discourse which had impressed hira most forcibly, and two witnesses would retain the same expressions with varying degrees of accuracy .-f" One witness heard one discourse, or was present at one trans- action only, and recorded that one by writing or verbally, as he best might. Of these fragments some fell into the hands of all the Evangelists — some only into the hands of one, or of two :J and in some cases different narratives of the same event, expression, or discourse, would fall into the hands of different Evangelists, which would account for their discrepancies — sometimes into the hands of one Evangelist, in which case he would select that one which his judgment (or information from other sources) prompted, or would compile an account from them jointly. In any case, the evangelical narratives would be compilations frcmi a series of fragments of varying accuracy and com- pleteness. The correctness of this theory of the origin of the gospels seems to be not so much confirmed as distinct- ly asserted by Luke. " Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things lOhich are mx>st surely believed among us, even as they de- livered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye- witnesses, and ministers of the word" " The first step (says Schleiermacher)§ towards a Chris- tian History was a natural and reasonable desire on the * "The verbal agreement is generally greater in reports of the discourses of Christ than in relations of events ; and the speeches of other persons are often given in the same terms, though the circiunstances which led to them are differently described." — Thirlwall, cxvi. t The habit of retaining and transmitting discourses orally was much more common then than now, and the practice carried to great perfection. The learning of the Jews was transmitted exclusively by oral tradition from one generation to another, and we entertain little doubt that the fragments both of narratives and discourses which formed the materials of our evangelists were almost entirely oral.— (See Thirlwall, cxviii. Norton, i. 287. ) X Thus the materialn of the first three Evangelists were evidently collected chiefly in Galilee ; those of the fourth came principally from Judea. § Crit. on Essay on Luke, Introd. 1'2-14. 166 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. A^ part of those who had believed on Jesus, without having a knowledge of his person. These individuals would un- doubtedly be glad to learn some particulars of his life, in order to place themselves as nearly as possible on an equality with their elder and more fortunate breth- ren. In the public assemblies of the Christians this desire was of course only incidentally and sparingly grat- ified, when a teacher happened to refer to memorable sayings of Christ, which could only be related together with the occasion which had called them forth : more copi- ous and detailed accounts they could only procure in fa- miliar intercourse upon express inquiry. And in this way many particulars were told and heard, most of them, prob- ably, without being committed to writing; but, assuredly, much was very soon written down, partly by the narra- tors themselves, as each of them happened to be pressed by a multiplicity of questions on a particular occurrence, respecting which he was peculiarly qualified to give in- formation. Still more, however, must have been commit- ted to writing by the inquirers, especially by s ich as did not remain constantly in the neighbourhood of v,he narra- tors, and were glad to communicate tie narrative again to many others, who, perhaps, wert never a.ble to consult an eye-witness. In this way detacned incidents and dis- courses were noted down. Notes of this kind were at first no doubt less frequently met with among the Chris- tians settled in Palestine, and passed immediately into more distant parts, to which the pure oral tradition flowed more scantily. They, however, appeared everywhere more frequently, and were more anxiously sought for, when the great body of the original companions and friends of Christ was dispersed by persecutions, and still more when that first generation began to die away. It would, however, have been singular if, even before this, the in- quirers who took those notes had possessed only detached passages ; on the contrary, they, and still more their im- mediate copiers, had undoubtedly become collectors also, each according to his peculiar turn of mind ; and thus one, perhaps, collected only accounts of miracles ; another only discourae^ j a third, perhaps, attached exclusive importance to the last d£ urrection. lection, colle( thority." The work masterly am the correctn( of the evang complete. 1 " The mai neither an i: from works life of Jesus the compile in existence his hands. arrangemen The theo does not m from Schlei think grat formed the tories, to 1 However, 1 conscious s tions and course of tl as would b * Genuinen lutely applied ORIGIN OF THE GOSPELS. 167 to the last days of Christ, or even to the scenes of his res- urrection. Others, without any such particular predi- lection, collected all that fell in their way from good au- thority." The work from which the above is a quo' .tion, is a masterly analysis of Luke's Gospel, with a view to test the correctness of the author's hypothesis as to the origin of the evangelical histories ; and the success is, we think, complete. His conclusion is as follows (p. 313) : — " The main position is firmly established, that Luke is neither an independent writer, nor has made a compilation from works which extended over the whole course of the life of Jesus. He is from beginning to end no more than the compiler and arranger of documents, which he found in existence, and which he allows to pass unaltered through his hands. His merit in this capacity is twofold — that of arrangement and of judicious selection." The theory of Norton * as to the origin of the Gospels, does not materially differ from the one we have adopted from Schleiermacher, with this exception — that he, as we think gratuitously, assumes the oral narratives, which formed the foundation or materials of the evangelical his- tories, to have proceeded from the Apostles exclusively. However, this may have been the case ; and then the un- conscious sources of error will be confined to such accre- tions and lapses of memory as might be natural in the course of thirty years' narration, and to such discrepancies as would be inevitable among twelve men. * Genuineness of the Gospels, i. 284-890 — a work full of learning reso* lately applied to the establishment of a foregone conclusion. It: i CHAPTER VH FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. — NATUBE AND LIMITS. Having in our lasb -chapter arrived at the conclusion that the Gospels — (the three first at least, for with regard to the fourth we pronounce no confident opinion) — are com- pilations from a variety of fragmentary narratives, and reports of discourses and conversations, oral or written, which were current in Palestine from thirty to forty years after the death of Jesus — we now come to the very inter- esting and momentous inquiry, how far these narratives and discourses can be accepted as accurate and faithful rec- ords of what was actually said and done ? — whether they can be regarded as thoroughly and minutely cor- rect ? — and, if not, in what respects and t what ex- tent do they deviate from that thorough and minute cor rectness ? It is clear at first view that the same absolute reliance cannot be placed upon a narrative compounded from tra- ditionary fragments, as upon a consecutive history related by an eye-witness. Conceding to both faithful intention and good, though imperfect, powers of memory, there are obvious elements of inaccuracy in the one case which do not appertain to the other. To tire corruptions, lapses, and alterations inseparable from transmission, especially when oral, is added the uncertainty arising from the num- ber of the original sources of the tradition, whose character, capacity, and opportunities of knowledge are unknown to U8. n Luke had recorded only what ho had seen, or Mark only what he had heard from Peter, we should have com- paratively ample means of forming a decision as to the amount of reliance to be placed upon their narrations ; but when they record what they learned from perhaps a dozen diflcrent narrators — some original, others only sec- ond-hand, and all wholly unknown — it becomes obvious FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 169 UBE AND that causes of inaccuracy are introduced, the extent of the actual operation of which on the histories that have comf.' down to U3, it is both ex remely important and singulad}^ dirticult to estimate. This inquiry we consider as of paramount interest to every other question of criticism ; for on the conclusion to which it leads us depends the whole — not of Christianity, which, as we view it, is unassailable, but — oi textual or dogmatic Christianity ; i.e., the Christianity of nine-tenths of nominal Christendom. We proceed, therefore, to ask what evidence we possess for assuming or impugning th( minute fidelity of the Gospel history. There are certain portions of the Synoptical Gospels, the genuineness of which has been much disputed, viz., the two first chapters of Matthew — ^the two firat of Luke — and the last twelve verses of the 16th chapter of Mark * Into this discussion we cannot enter, but must refer such of our readers as wish to know the grounds of decision, to Norton, Hug, De Wette, Eichhorn, and Gries- bach. The reaadt of critical inquiry seems to be, that the only solid ground for supposing the questioned portions of Luke and Matthew not to be by the same hand as the rest of their respective gospels, is the obviously insuffi- cient one of the extraordinary character of their con- tents ;f — ^while the spuriousness of the last twelve verses of Mark is established beyond question ; — the real Gospel of Mark (all of it, at least that has come down to us) ends with the 8th verse of the 1 6th chapter. In our subse- quent remarks we shall therefore treat the whole of the acknowledged text of these gospels as genuine, with the exception of the conclusion of Mark ; — and we now pro- ceed to inquire into the nature and Umits of the fidelity of Matthew's record. In the first place, while admitting to the fullest extent the general clearness and fulness with which the charac- ter of Jesus is depicted in the first Gospel, it is important • See Norton, i. 16, 17. t Strauss, i. 117, 142. Hug, 469-479. See also Schleiermaoher. ^ Norton, however, givee some reosuns to the contrary, which deserve consideratiou, i. 209. 170 i CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. F] to bear in ). r i, u.a^ — as Hug has clearly shewn* — it was written with a specj . we might almost say a polemical object. It was composed, less to give a continuous and complete history of Jesus, than to prove that he was the expected Messiah ; and those passages were therefore selected out of the author's materials which appeared most strongly to bear upon and enforce this conclusion. The remembrance of this object of Matthew's will aid us in forming our judgment as to his fidelity. According to the universal expectation, the Messiah was to be bom of the seed of Abraham, and the lineage and tribe of David. Accordingly, the Gospel opens with an elaborate genealogy of Jesus, tracing him through David to Abraham. Now, in the Ji/rst place, this geneal- ogy is not correct : — secondly, if the remainder of the chapter is to be received as true, it is in no sense the genealogy of Jesus ; and, thirdly, it is wholly and irrec- oncilably at variance with that given by Luke. 1. In verse 17, Matthew sums up the genealogy thus;— " So all the generations from Abraham to David are four- teen generations ; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations ; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." — Now (passing over as unnecessarily minute and harsh the criticism of Strauss, that by no way of counting can we make out fourteen generations in the last series, without disturbing the count of the others), we must call attention to the fact that the number four- teen in the second series is only obtained by the deliberate omission of four generations, viz., three between Joram andOzias,and one between Josiah and Jeconiah — as maybe seen by referring to 1 Chron. iii. There is also (at verses * " All Matthew's reflections are of one kind. He shows us, as to even- thing that Jesus did and taught, that it was characteristio of fuxi MeseiuL On occasion of remarkable events, or a recital of parts of the discourses of Jesus, he refers us to the ancient Scriptures of the Jews, in which this com- ing Saviour is delineated, and shows in detail that the great ideal which flitted before the minds of the Prophets was realized in Jesus. " — Hug, In- trod. .S12. These references are twelve in Matthew, two in Mark, and three in Luke. Again, he says (p. 384),, " Matthew is an historical deduction; Mark is hiitory." 4!-6) anothe Only four ge lived in the hundred yea 2. The gei genealogy oi father (or au are assured ( before she a of the Incari variance ; ai applied, can —and when the 1st and for an unpre author of th pels) was igi the carelessi — a careless] by an interi pilation. 3. The ge different fro efforts of d semblance ( give 26 ger Luke has 4 tirely differ the father Luke, Hell whom Jose than. Then the known obscure co Salathiel a the father * Luke iii. ! .''on of Joseph, f Allowing gen< 16tb verse of ! FIDEUTY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 171 »ewn*— itwM y a polemical >ntinuous and at he wa3 the vere therefore lich appeared lis conclusion, iv's will aid us the Messiah d the lineage 3el opens with him through ;e, this geneal- lainder of the . no sense the oily and irrec- iuke. ealogy thus:— )avid are f our- i the carrying ons; and from st are fourteen essarily minute by no way of jrations in the of the others), B number f our- >y the deliheraU between Joram iah — as maybe also (at verses ows us, as to every- stic of tbd MessiaL of the discourses of 1, in which this com- B great ideal which Jesus." — Hug, In- in Mark, and three storical deduction; 4-6) another apparent, and we think certain, error. Only four generations are reckoned between Naason, who lived in the time of Moses, and David, a period of four hundred years. (Compare Num. i. 7; Ruth v. 20). 2, The genealogy here given, correct or incorrect, is the genealogy of Joseph, who was in no sense whatever the father (or any relation at all) of Jesus, since this last, we are assured (verses 18 and 25), was in his Mother's womb before she and her husband came together. The story of the Incarnation and the genealogy are obviously at variance ; and no ingenuity, unscrupulously as it has been applied, can produce even the shadow of an agreement ; — and when the flat contradiction given to each other by the 1st and the 18th verses is considered, it is difl[icult for an unprejudiced mind not to feel convinced that the author of the genealogy (both in the first and third Gos- pels) was ignorant of the story of the Incarnation, though the carelessness and uncritical temper of the evangelist —a carelessness partially avoided in the case of Luke, by an interpolation* — has united the two into one com- pilation. 3. The genealogy of Jesus given by Luke is wholly different from that of Matthew ; and the most desperate efforts of divines have been unable to eflfect even the semblance of a reconciliation. Not only does Matthew give 26 generations between David and Joseph where Luke has 41, but they trace the descent through an en- tirely different line of ancestry. According to Matthew, the father of Joseph was named Jacob — according to Luke, Heli. In Matthew, the son of David through whom Joseph descended is Solomon ; — in Luke it is Na- than. Thence the genealogy of Matthew descends through the known royal line — the genealogy of Luke through uu obscure collateral branch. The two lines only join in Salathiel and Zorobabel ; and even here they differ as to the father of Salathiel and the son of Zorobabel. Many * Luke iii. 23 " Jesus . . . heing, at wm supposed (wt ivonl^ero), the .^on of Joseph," — a parenthesis, which renders nugatory the whole of the f ulowing genealogy, and cannot have originally formed a part of it.— The 16tb verse of Matthew also bears indications of a similar emendation. 172 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. iDgenious hypotheses have been broached to explain and harmonize these singular discrepancies, but wholly in vain. One critic supposes that one evangelist gives the pedigree of the adoptive, the other of the real father of Joseph. Another assumes that one is the genealogv of Joseph, and the other that of Mary — ^a most convenient idea, but entirely gratuitous, and positively contradicted by the language of the text. The circumstance that any man could suppose that Matthew, when he said " Jacob begat Joseph," or Luke, when he said " Joseph was the son of Heli," could refer to the wife of the one, or the daughter-in-law of the other, shows to what desperate stratagems polemical orthodoxy will resort in order to de- fend an untenable position. The discrepancy between Matthew and Luke in their narratives of the miraculous conception, affords no ground for suspecting the fidelity of the former. Putting aside the extraordinary nature of the whole transaction — a consideration which does not at present concern us — the relation in Matthew is simple, natural, and probable ; the surprise of Joseph at the pregnancy of his wife (or his betrothed^ as the words may mean) ; his anxiety to avoid scandal and exposure; his satisfaction through the means of a dream (for among the Jews dreams were habitually regarded as means of communication from heaven) ; and his abstinence from all conjugal connection with Mary till after the birth of the miraculous infant, — ^present pre- cisely the line of conduct we should expect from a simple, pious, and confiding Jew. But when we remember the dogmatic object which, as already mentioned, Matthew had in view, and in con- nection with that remembrance, read the 22nd and 23rd verses, the whole story at once becomes apocryphal, and its origin at once clear. "Now all this was done," says Matthew, " that it might be fulfilled which was spo ken of the Lord by the prophet, saying. Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son," &c., &c. Now this is one of the many instances which we shall have to notice, in which this evangelist quotes prophecies as intended for Jesus, and an fulfilled in nim, which have not the slij duced pro]: lieving Ah Isaiah woi enough to acy of Sy: should be ence to Jes fore, is una infulfilmei posed to h or modifiec since it is place, " in Pursuini stances in Jesus the i conceived stances res as well as tions, relat arity whic] Thus in ii. visit of th( fled into E " that it m by the pn son." Th( has not tl lows :— " ^V called my * "Therefc shall conceive fore the child that thou abl " And I w Then said tl to cry, My fa Samaria shal] No divine c had any ref ei out Matthew proELITT OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 173 explain and ut wholly in slist gives the real father of genealogv of 3t convenient contradicted ance that any said "Jacob 3eph was the 9 one, or the bat desperate n order to de- Luke in their rds no ground Putting aside ransaction — a acem us — the probable ; the } wife (or his iety to avoid gh the means re habitually ieaven); and 1 with Mary -present pre- rom a simple, •bject which, ', and in con- 2nd and 23rd )cryphal, and was done," lich was spo lold, a virgin 3on," &c., &c. lich we shall es prophecies I, which have not the slightest relation to him or his career. The ad- duced prophecy* is simply an assurance sent to the unbe- lieving Ahaz, that before the child, which the wife of Isaiah would shortly conceive (see Isa. viii. 2-4), was old enough to speak, or to know good from evil, the conspir- acy of Syria and Ephraim against the King of Judea should be dissolved ; and had manifestly no more refer- ence to Jesus than to Napoleon. The conclusion, there- fore, is unavoidable, that the events said to have occurred in fulfilment of a prophecy, which Matthew wrongly sup- posed to have reference to them, were by him imagined, or modified into accordance with the supposed prophecy ; since it is certain that they did not, as he afilrms, take place, " in order that the prophecy might be fulfilled." Pursuing this line of inquiry, we shall find many in- stances in which this tendency of Matthew to find in Jesus the fulfilment of prophecies, which he ei^roneously conceived to refer to him, has led him to narrate circum- stances respecting which the other evangelists are silent, as well as to give, with material (but intentional) varia- tions, relations which are common to them all — a peculi- arity which throws gteat suspicion over several passages. Thus in ii. 13-15, we are told that immediately after the visit of the Magi, Joseph took Mary and the child, and fled into Egypt, remaining there till the death of Herod, " that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son." The passage in question occurs in Hosea, xi. 1, and has not the slightest reference to Christ. It is as fol- lows : — '' When Israel was a child, then I lovod him, and called my son out of Egypt." Here is an event related, • "Therefore the Lord spake unto Ahaz, saying, . . . Behold, a virein aball conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name ImmanueL . . . Be- fore the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the goodj the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kin^s." Isa. vii. 10-16. " And I went unto the prophetess ; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me ... . before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the King of Assyria."— viii. 3, 4. No divine of character will now, we believe, maintain that this prophecy had any reference to tfesus ; nor ever would have imagined it to have, with* out Matthew's intimation. —See Hebrew Monarchy, p. 262. f 174 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. very improbable in itself, flatly contradicted by Luke's history,* and which occurred, we are told, that a prophecy might be fulfilled to which it had no reference, of which it was no fulfilment, and which in fact, was no prophecy at all. A similar instance occurs immediately afterwards in the same chapter. We are told that Herod, when he found " that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceed- ing wi'oth, and sent forth and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under ; " — an act which, whether suit- able or not to the known character of Herod (who was cruel and tyrannical, but at the same time crafty and politic, not silly nor insanef) — must, if it had occurred, nave created a prodigious sensation, and made one of the most prominent points in Herod's history! — yet of which none of the other evangelists, nor any historian of the day, nor Josephus (though he devoted a considerable por- tion of his history to the reign of Herod, and does not spare his reputation), makes any mention. But this also, according to Matthew's notion, was the fulfilment of a prophecy. " Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying. In Rama there was a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourn- ing, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not." — Here, again, the ad- duced prophecy was quite irrelevant, being simply a des- cription of the grief of Judea for the captivity of her children, accompanied by a promise of their retnm.§ * Luke's account entirely precludes the sojourn in Egypt. He says that eiffht days after the birth of Jesus he was circumcised, forty days after was presented in the temple, and that when these legal ceremonies were accom- plished, he went with his parents to Nazareth. t Neander argues very ably that such a deed is precisely what we should expect from Herod's character. But Sir W. Jones gives reason for believ- ing that the whole story may be of Hindoo orifirin. —Christian Theism, p. 84, where the passage is quoted. J Mr. Milman (Hist. .Tews, b. xii.), however, thinks differently, and ar- gues that, among Herod's manifold barbarities, " the murder of a few chil- dren in an obscure village " would easily escape notice. The story is at leaBt highly improbable, for had Herod wished to secure the death of Jesus, so canning a prince would have sent his messengers along with the Magi, not awaited their doubtfuH return. 9 The pasdAgo is as follows : — " A voice wa^ heard iu Kaniah, lamentation. A still verse, whi tion of ret] and came filled whij called a Nazarene there is r evangelist spoken toj her son a vow, wt was the o In this between 1 the paren Nazareth leftBethl reth, only tions. C: right on i There t of the E whether really a these sta followers first plac that Jesi born at 1 ever set bom at known ; obvious to the ^ and bitte forted for frain thy shall be n of the ene •SeelS FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 175 ted by Lni^g.j, lat a prophecy ence, of which i« no prophecy afterwards in rod, when he n, was exceed- children that thereof, from whether suit- rod (who was le crafty and ^lad occurred, de one of the -yet of which itorian of the siderable por- and does not But this also, ilfilment of a ^ was spoken there was a ^reat mourn- vould not be ?ain, the ad- imply a dos- ivity of her [•etTim.§ ;. He says that / days after was ies were accom- what we should sason for believ 11 Theism, p. 84, srently, and ar- sr of a few chil- rhe story is at ieath of Jesus, «^ith the Magi, 1, lamentation. A still more unfortunate instance is found at the 23rd verse, where we are told that Joseph abandoned his inten- tion of returning into Judea, and turned aside into Galilee, and came and dwelt at Nazareth, " that it might bo ful- filled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." Now, in the first place, the name Nazarene was not in use till long afterwards ; secondly,, there is no such prophecy in the Old Testament. The evangelist, perhaps, had in his mind the words that were spoken to the mother of Samson (Judg. xiii. 5) respecting her son : " The child shall be a Nazarite (i.e., one bound by a vow, whose hair was forbidden to be cut, which never was the case with Jesus*) unto God from the womb." In this place we must notice the marked discrepancy between Matthew and Luke, as to the original residence of the parents of Jesus. Luke speaks of them as living at Nazareth before the birth of Jesus ; Matthew as having left Bethlehem, the birthplace of their child, to go to Naza- reth, only after that event, and from peculiar considera- tions. Critics, however, are disposed to think Matthew right on this occasion. There are, however, several passages in different parts of the Evangelists which si^ggest serious doubts as to whether Jesus was really born at Bethlehem, and was really a lineal descendant of David, and whether both these statements were not unfounded inventions of his followers to prove his title to the Messiahship. In the first place, the Jews are frequently represented as urging that Jesus could not be the Messiah because he was not born at Bethlehem ; and neither Jesus nor his followers ever set them right upon this point. If he were really bom at Bethlehem, the circumstance was generally un- known ; and though its being unknown presented an obvious and valid objection to the admission of his claim to the Messianic character, no effort was made either by and bitter weeping ; Bahel weeping for her children refused to be com- forted for her children, because they were not. Thus aaith the Lord ; Re- frain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears : for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord ; and they shall come again from tne land of the enemy."— Jer. xxxi. 15, 16. •SeeNum. vi. 2-6. 176 THE CREED OF CHETSTENDOM. Christ or his disciples to remove this objection, which might have been done by a single word (John vii. 41-43, 52 ; i. 46). " Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, ShaU Christ come out of Galilee ? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was ? So there was a division among the people because of him." — ^Again, the Pharisees object to Nicodemus, when arguing on Jesus' behalf — " Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." The three Synoptical evangelists (Matt. xxii. 41 ; Mark xii. 35 ; Luke xx. 41) all record an argument of Christ addressed to the Pharisees, the purport of which is to sliow that th*^ Messiah need not be, and could not be, the Son of David. " While the Pharisees were gathered together, t'osus asked them, saying. What think ye of Christ? whose son is he ? They say unto him. The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, the Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool ? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?" Nov — [passing by the consideration that, as Mr. Arnold informs us, " the translation ought to run, * The Eternal said unto my lord the king,' and was a simple promise of victory to a prince of God's chosen people,"] — is it conceivable that Jesus should have brought forward the passage as an argument if he were really a descendant of David ? Must not his intention have been to argue that, though not a son of David, he might still be the Christ ? In xxi. 2~4, 6, 7, the entry into Jerusalem is thus described : " Then sent Jesus two disciples, saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straight- way ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her : loose them, and bring them to me. . . And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, and brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and set him thereon " (literally " upon them'' tVavw avrcuv). Now, [though two animals may well have been brought, the foal naturally accompanying its mother, yet] the description (in ver. 7), representing Jesus as sitting upon both ani- mals, is al all mentio] animal onl with both we read in be fulfille( Tell ye th unto thee, foal of an As a fin Judas. T covenantee thew, hov traitor an( had been j was given, (the purch by the rep between M by a propl case before be literallj to have ha it was utt prophet vi The passaj they took was value value; an< appointed given in a • The quol writer's own icnJ reduplics Matthew tho tran8la*-.e(l " i t Luke, hf the field wit Matthew saj X Matthev 12, 13. Soni do really bel ction, which m vii. 41-43 'j. But some [ath not the ed of David, David was? luse of him." rhen arguing it of Galilee i 41 ; Mark it of Christ ch is to show be, the Son :"ed together, 01 Christ? )n of David, in spirit call d, Sit thou y footstool ? ?" Now- Lold informs al said unto )f victory to sivable that ssage as an i^id ? Must LOugh noto, 3m is thus aying unto id straight- her : loose 16 disciples brought the les, and set w). Now, j'ht, the foal description a both aiii- FIDELITT OP THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 177 mals, is absurd ; and again, Mark, Luke, and John, who all mention the same occurrence, agree in speaking of one animal only. But the liberty which Matthew has taken with both fact and probability is at once explained, when we read in the 4th versC; "All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, aTid a colt the foal of an ass."* As a final example, we may instance the treachery of Judas. The other evangelists simply narrate that Judas covenanted with the chief priests to betray Jesus. Mat- thew, however, relates the conversation between the traitor and his fellow-conspirators as minutely as if he had been present, specifies the exact sum of money that was given, and the use to which it was put by the priests (the purchase of the Potter's field), when returned to them by the repentant Judas.f Here, as usual, the discrepancy between Matthew and his feUow-evangelists, is explained by a prophecy which Matthew conceived to apply to the case before him, and thought necessary therefore should be literally fulfilled ; but which, on examination, appears to have had no allusion to any times but those in which it was uttered, and which, moreover, is not found in the prophet whom Matthew quotes from, but in another.^ The passage as quoted by Matthew is as follows : — " And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value : and gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me." The original passage in Zechari.oh is given in a note. * The quotation is from Zechariah ix. 9 ; the passage has reference to the writer's own time, and the second animal is obviously a mire common poet- ical reduplication, ouch as is met with in every page of Hebrew poetry. But Matthew thought a literal similitude essential. " And " ought t > have been translated " even." t Luke, however, in the Acts (i. 18), state.f poetic or itory is not t may not among his lich should the healing devils, ac- ited to an ! the great these are Juke,* who jre was one ion of the ye think good, inv price thirty tne potter : a ihirtypieces of i." The wo r Phe LXX. has 8 between tlie ley are beside In the same manner, in chap. xx. 30-34, Matthew re- lates the cure of two blind men near Jericho. Mark and Luke* narrate the same occurrence, but speak of only one blind man. This story affords also an example of the evangelist's carelessness as a compiler, for (in chap. ix. 27) he has already given the same narrative, but has assigned to it a different locality. A still more remarkable instance of Matthew's ten- dency to amplification, or rather to multiplication and rep- etition, is found in xiv. 16, et 8eq., and xv. 32, et seq.y'f where the two miraculous feedings of the multitude are described. The feeding of the five thousand is related by all four evangelists ; but the repetition of the miracle, with a slight variation in the number of the multitude and of the loave^j and fragments, is peculiar to Matthew and to Mark.| Now, that both these narratives are merely varying accounts of the same event (the variation arising from the mode in which the materials of the gospel history were collected, as explained in our preceding chapter), and that only one feeding was originally recorded, is now admitted by all competent critics,§ and appears clearly from several considerations. — First, Luke and John relate only one feeding ; in the next place, the two narratives in Matthew are given with the same accompaniments, in a similar, probably in the very same, locality ; thirdly, the particulars of the occurrence and the remarks of the par- ties, are almost identically the same on each occasion ; and, finally (what is perfectly conclusive), in the second narration, the language and conduct both of Jesus and his disciples, show a perfect unconsciousness of ar y previous occurrence of the same nature. Is it credible, that if the disciples had, a few days before, witnessed the miraculous feeding of the " five thousand " with " five loaves and • Mark, x. 46 : Luke xviii, 35. t The parallel passages are Mark vi. 35 ; Lnke ix. 12 ; Jo' vi. 5. t See Mark viii. 1, et seq. The language of the two evanbdlists is here so precisely similar, as to leave no doubt that one copied the other, or both a common document. The word baskets is K6L c, '.el tortures ? In Mattlifiv/s account of the last moments of Jesus, w;' * It appears from Dout. xxi. 1-9, that the washing of the hands was a specially- appointed IVJo:- Ic rite, by which the authorities of any city in which murder had been conimitted wor» to avow their innooence of the eriuxe, and ignorance of the oriniinal. have the __'' Jesus yielded u was rent earth diel opened ; and cam( went int< nrst, this to have i is ignore reference to believ currence- wonder. self-cont is, that i hodie;s o: vulsions moment speaks c suppose, that the allowed clearly t avoid th translate graves, ' the ques Friday ) emancip return t of dust that it ^ suppose • Norte others, on probable, probable i truditlonn FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 181 .sion, when ' have re- g multitude ve so much mltitude ? " iving really e in minds inspiration 'irely aban- by the few argument, erving that 3s in some L his second command- he should i unworthy the puerile ospels, and 1 Pilate saw T a tumult mds before iood of this ; place, this ceremony,* n a Boman jmpt of the s. In the 3uld so em- matiou, by ry moment sr him over f Jesus, W!' I hands was a :ae. % The (rOBpel of the Hebrews says that a portion of the temple was thrown down. See also the Gospol of Nicodemus. § Similar prodigies we»'e said, or supposed, to aceompaiiy the deaths of mr.ny great men in former days, as in the case of Cassar (Virgil, Georif. i. 403, et seq,). Shakespeare has embalmed some traditions of the kind, o;st exalt the tide already amend to the m of critical CHAPTER VIII. FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY CONTINUED. — MATTHEW. In pursuing our inquiry as to the degree of reliance to be placed on Matthew's narrative, we now come to the con- sideration of those passages in which there is reason to believe that the conversations and discourses of Christ have been incorrectly reported ; and that words have been attributed to him which he did not utter, or at least did not utter in the form and context in which they have been transmitted to us. That this should be so, is no more than we ought to expect a 'priori ; for, of all things, discourses and remarks are the most likely to be imper- fectly heard, ii accurately reported, and materially altered and corrupted m the course of transmission from mouth to mouth. Indeed, as we do not know, and have no reason to believe, that the discourses of Christ were written down by those who heard them immediately after their delivery, or indeed much before they reached the hands of the evangelists, nothing less than a miracle perpetually renewed for many years could have preserved these tra- ditions perfectly pure and genuine. In admitting the belief, therefore, that they are in several points imperfect and inaccurate, we are throwing no discredit upon the sincerity or capacity, either of the evangelists or their informants, or the original reporters of the sayings of Christ ; — we are simply acquiescing in the alleged opera- tion of natural causes.* In some cases, it is true, we * This seems to be admitted even by orthodox, writers. Thus Mr. Trench says :— "The most earnest oral tradition will in a little while lose its dis- tinctness, undergo essential though insensible modifications. Apart from all desire to vitiate the committed word, yet, little by little, the subjective condition of those to m hoin it is entrusted, through whom it passes, will in- fallibly make itself felt ; and in such treacherous keeping is all which remains merely in the memories of men, that, after a very little while, rival schools U 186 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. FIDELr ■10$' shall find reason to believe that the published discourses of Christ have been intentionally altered and artificially elaborated by some of the parties through whose hands they passed; but in those days, when the very idea of his- torical criticism was yet unborn, this might have been done without any unfairness of purpose. We know that at that period, historians of far loftier pretensions and more scientific character, writing in countries of far greater literary advancement, seldom scrupled to fill up and round off* the harangues of their orators and statesmen with whatever they thought appropriate for them to have said — nay, even to elaborate for them long orations out of the most meagre hearsay fragments.* A general view of Matthew, and still more a comparison of his narrative with that of the other three gospels, brings into clear light his entire indifference to chronolog- ical or contextual arrangement in his record of the dis- courses of Christ. Thus in ch. v., vi., vii., we have crowd- ed into one sermon the teachings and aphorisms which in the other evangelists are spread over the whole of Christ's ministry. In ch. xiii. we find collected together no less than six parables of similitudes for the kingdom of heaven. In ch. X. Matthew compresses into one occasion (the send- ing of the twelve, where many of them are strikingly out of jjlace) a variety of instructions and reflections which must have belonged to a subsequent part of the career of Jesus, where indeed they are placed by the other evan- gelists. In ch. xxiv., in the same manner, all the prophe- cies relating to the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world are grouped together ; while, in many in- stances, remarks of Jesus are introduced in the midst of of disciples will begin to contend not merely how their Master's words were to be accepted, but what thase verywords were," — Trench's Hulsean Lectures, p. 16. * This in fact was the custom of antiquity — the rule, not the exception :- See Thucydides, Livy, Sallust, &c. passim. We find also (see Acts v. 34-39), that Luke himself did not scruple to adopt this common practice, for he gives us a verbatim speech of Gamaliel delivered in the Sanhedrim, after the apostles had been expressly excluded, and which therefore he could have known only by hearsay report. Moreover, it is certain that this speech must have been Luke's, and not Gamalier», since it represents Gamaliel iu the year ▲. d. 34 or 35, as speaking in the past tense of an agitator, Theudas, who did not appear, as we learn from Josephus, till after the year A. D. 44, othei-s with they are ol 12, which e In c. xi. ; the days of heaven sufl force." Nc cult to asce] the days of that the spe from John ; wrote in tl could not h A.D. 30 or 3 therefore, m from Jesus. In c. xvi. with perfec mouth of C from which could not 1 of the mult The simple upon our : having in 1: two feeding Oi Jesus ha that nature such events therefore congruity The pass being eithe ruption of ye that I Thou art Jesus ansv Simon Bar unto thee, say also ui id discourses i artificially ivhose hands y idea of his- t have been know that at ns and more ! far greater ip and round tesmen with to have said DS out of the a, comparison :iree gospels, ;o chroiiolog- 1 of the dis- have crowd- ims which in le of Christ's ether no less im of heaven. Dn (the send- irikingly out etions which the career of other evan- l the prophe- and the end in many in- the midst of iter's words were ulsean Lectures, bhe exception :— Be Acts V. 34-39), practice, for he sanhedrim, after are he could have that this speech ents Gamaliel iu gitator, Theudas, ihe year a. d. 44, FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY.-— MATTHEW. 187 others with which they .lave no connection, and where they are obviously out of place ; as xi. 28-30, and xiii. 12, which evidently be^ mgs to xxv. 29. In c. xi. 12 is the following expression : " And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven sufFereth violence, and the violent take it by force." Now, though the mef.ning of the passage is diffi- cult to ascertain with precision, yet the expression " from the days of John the Baptist until now," clearly implies that the speaker lived at a considerable distance of time from John ; and though appropriate enough in a man who wrote in the year A. D. 65, or thirty years after John, could not have been used by one who spoke in the year A.D. 30 or 33, while John was yet alive. This passage, therefore, must be regarded as coming from Matthew, not from Jesus. In c. xvi. 9, 10, is another remark which we may say with perfect certainty was put fuiwarrantably into the mouth of Christ either by the evangelist, or the source from which he copied. We have already seen that there could not have been more than one miraculous feeding of the multitude ; yet Jesus is here made to refer to two. The simple and obvious explanation at once forces itself upon our minds, that the evangelist or his authority, having in his uncritical and confused conceptions, related two feedings, and finding among his materials a discourse Oi Jesus having reference to a miraculous occurrence of that nature, perceived the inconsistency of narrating ^'iyo such events, and yet making Jesus refer to only one, and therefore added verse 10, by way of correcting the in- congruity. The same remark will apply to Mark also. The passage at c. xvi. 18, 19, bears obvious marks of being either an addition to the words of Christ, or a cor- ruption of them. " He saith unto them. But whom say ye that I am ? And Simon Peter answered and said. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him. Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona ; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this « IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^ 1.0 I.I 1.25 IB||2. 2.0 US t lis. 18 U IIIIII.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STRIET WEBSTIR.N.Y. 14S80 (716) S73-4S03 188 THE CBEED OF CHRISTENDOM. rock I will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and what- soever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The confession by Simon Peter of his belief in the Messiahship of Jesus is given by all the four evangelists, and there is no reason to question the accuracy of this part of the narrative. Mark and John, as well a^s Matthew, relate that Jesus bestowed on Simon the surname of Peter, and this part, therefore, may also be admitted. The remainder of the narrative corresponds almost exactly with the equivalent passages in the other evangelists ; but the 18th verse has no parallel in any of them, li'oreover, the word "church" betrays its later origin. The word iKKXrjoria was used by the disciples to signify those assemblies and organizations into which they formed them selves after the death of Jesus, and is met with frequently in the epistles, but nowhere in the Gospels, except in the passage under consideration, and one other, which is equally, or even more contestable.* It was in use when the gospel was written, but not when the discourse of Jesus was delivered. It must be taken as belonging, therefore, to Matthew, not to Jesus. The following verse, conferring spiritual authority, or, as it is commonly called, " the power of the keys," upon Peter, is repeated by Matthew in connection with another discourse (in c. xviii. 18) ; and a similar passage is found in John (c xx. 23), who, however, places the promise after the resurrection, and represents it as made to the apostles generally, subsequent to the descent of the Holy Spirit. But there are considerations which effectually forbid our receiving this promise, at least as given by Matthew, as having really emanated from Christ. In the first place, in both passages it occurs in connection with the suspicious word " church," and indicates an ecclesias- * C. xviii, 17. " If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church : but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man aad a publican." The whole paBsaye, with its context, betokens an eccleaiaa- tioftl, not » Ohrietian spirit. FIDELl' tical as op who nari'j promise so it is impo mouth piec< done, had i the compai equally on Thirdly, n< be the de impetuosit thorough immediate him, his L of Satan, £ spirituality denied hi conceivabl power of fellow-mer Does any fore, rega unwarrant indicative the time tl In xxiii. to be uttei against th come all t the blood son of Bar the altar." as having 850 years 1 son of Bai iv. 4).t ] • See 'l^hirl + Tt is true Bftricliias, wl nut have beei oi hell shall to thee the .soever thou : and what- 1 in heaven." lelief in the evangelists, iracy of this as well a^ Simon the may also be corresponds in the other el in any of ys its later disciples to into which esus, and is vhere in the eration, and iontestable.* lit not when ist be taken )SUS. uthority, or, keys," upon vith another ige is found the promise made to the of the Holy I effectually IS given by :ist. In the lection with a,n ecclesias- wto the church : an heathen man ens an ecclesiiw- FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. — ^MATTHEW. 189 tical as opposed to a Christian origin. Secondly, Mark, who narrates the previous conversation, omits this promise so honourable and distinguishing to Peter, which it is impossible for those who consider him as Peter's mouthpiece, or amanuensis, to believe he would have done, had any such promise been actually made * Luke, the companion and intimate of Paul and other apostles, equally omits all mention of this singular conversation. Thirdly, not only do we know Peter's utter unfitness to be the depositary of such a fearful power, from his impetuosity and instability of character, and Christ's thorough perception of this unfitness, but we find that immediately after it is said to have been conferred upon him, his Lord addresses him indignantly by the epithet of Satan, and rebukes him for his presumntion and un- spirituality ; and shortly afterwards this very man thrice denied his master. Can any one maintain it to be conceivable that Jesus should have conferred the awful power of deciding the salvation or damnation of his fellow-men upon one so frail, so faulty, and so fallible ? Does any one believe that he did? We cannot, there- fore, regard the 19th verse otherwise than as an unwarranted addition to the words of Jesus, and painfully indicative of the growing pretensions of the Church at the time the gospel was compiled. In xxiii. 35, we have the following passage purporting to be uttered by Jesus in the course of his denunciations against the Scibes and Pharisees : " That upon you may come aU the righteous blood shed ii^ on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." Now, two Zachariases are recorded in history as having been thus slain : Zacharias, son of Jehoiada, 850 years before Christ (2 Chron. xxiv. 20), and Zacharias, son of Baruch, 35 years after Christ (Joseph., Bell. Jud. iv. 4).-f- But when we reflect that Jesus could scarcely • See Thirlwall, cvii., Introd. to Schleiennacher. t Tt is true that there waH u third Z.-K^harian, the Prophet, also sou of a Bnricliiafl, who lived about 500 years before Christ ; but this man could not have been the one intended by Matthew, for no record exists, or up|)eara 190 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. FIDEi; have intended to refer to a murder committed 850 years before his time as terminating the long series of Jewish crimes ; and, moreover, that at the period the evangelist wrote, the assassination of the son of Baruch was a recent event, and one likely to have made a deep impression, and that the circumstances of the murder (between the Temple and the Altar) apply much more closely to the second than to the first Zacharias. we cannot hesitate to admit the conclusion of Hug, Eichhom, and other critics,* that the Zacharias mentioned by Josephus was the one intended by Matthew. Hug says : — " There cannot be a doubt, if we attend to the name, the fact and its circumstances, and the object of Jesus in citing it, that it was the same Zoxapia<; Bapovxov who, ac- cording to Josephus, a short time before the destruction of Jerusalem, was unjustly sh in in the temple. The name is the same, the murder, and the remarkable circumstances which distinguished it. correspond, as well as the character of the man. Moreover, when Jesus says that all the innocent blood which had been shed, from Abel to Zacharias, should be avenged upon * this genera- tion,' the awo and Iws denote the beginning and the end of a period. This period ends with Zacharias ; he w^as to be the last before the vengeance should be executed. The threatened vengeance, however, was the ruin of Jeru- salem, which immediately followed his death. Must it not, then, have been the same Zacharias whose death is distinguished in history, among so many murdered, as the only righteous man between Ananias and the destruction of the Holy City ? The Zacharias mentioned in the Chronicles is not the one here intended. He was a son of Jehoiada, and was put to death, not between the temple and the altar, or iv fxiai^ n^ vcuji, but in the court ; nor was he the last of those unjustly slain, or one with whom an epoch in the Jewish annals terminates." Here, then, we have an anachronism strikingly illus- trative of that confusion of mind which cha,i acterises to have existed, of the manner of hia death, and in his time the Temple iras in niins. — See Hennell, p. 81,^ note. *Hug, p. 314 Thirlwall, p. xoix., note, this evan, that an u one with i as speakir octjur till ' though fr< not have phetically in the fut over, havt therefore, intended \ he was gu which Jes In ch. 3 with alm( Christ : " ( them in tl the Holy proceeded allocation where app while as a thfoughoi; the form 1 form com/, in the Ac Jesus," or the threef is only foi the formu been bom difficult t( thence mi tjuence, re *"Hngir tl e death of saw the prec using the pa; t Pom. vl «d 850 years es of Jewish he evangelist was a recent impression, (between the losely to the 3t hesitate to )ther critics,* was the one to the name, it of Jesus in vxov who, ac- e destruction emple. The remarkable 3ond, as well jn Jesus says sn shed, from ' this genera- and the end IS ; he was to «cuted. The uin of Jeru- .th. Must it hose death is murdered, as ias and the IS mentioned ed. He was between the in the court; , or one with lates." ikingly illus- chiii acterises time the Temple FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. — MATTHEW. 191 this evangelist, and which betrays at the same time that an unwarrantable liberty has been taken by some one with the language of Jesus. He is here represented as speaking in the past tense of an event which did not occur till 35 years after his death, and which, consequently, though fresh and present to the mind of the writer, could not have l^een in the mind of the speaker, unless pro- phetically ; in which case it would have been expressed in the future, not in the past tense * ; and would, more- over, have been wholly unintelligible to his hearers. If, therefore, as there seems no reason to doubt, the evangelist intended to specify the Zacharias mentioned by Josephus, he was guilty of putting into the mouth of Jesus words which Jesus never uttered. In ch. xxviii. 19, is another passage which we may say with almost certainty never came from the mouth of Christ : " Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." That this definite form of baptism proceeded from Jesus, is opposed by the fact that such an allocation of the Father, Son, and Spirit, does not else- where appear, except as a form of salutation in the epistles ; while as a definite form of baptism it is nowhere met with throughout the New Testament. Moreover, it was not the form used, and could scarcely therefore have been the form commanded ; for in the apostolic epistles, and even in the Acts, the form always is " baptizing into Christ Jesus," or, " into the name of the Lord Jesus ; "f while the threefold reference to God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, is only found in ecclesiastical writers, as Justin. Indeed, the formula in Matthew sounds so exactly as if it had been borrowed from the ecclesiastical ritual, that it is difficult to avoid the supposition that it was transferred thence into the mouth of Jesus. Many critics, in conse- tjuence, regard it as a subsequent interpolation. * «« ' Hng imajfines," aaya Bishop Thirlwallj loc. dt., " that Christ prtdicted tie death of this Zacharias, son of Barachias,^ but that St. Matthew, who saw the prediction accomplished, expressed his knowledge of the fact by using the past tense." But should this then have been the aoriet i^vtixrart ? t Pom. vL 3 5 Gal, iii. 27 ; Acts ii. 38, viii. 16, x. 48, xix. 6. 192 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. FIDELI There are two other classes of discourses attributed to Jesus both in this and in the other gospels, over the character of which much obscurity hangs — those in which he is said to have foretold his own death and resurrec- tion ; and those in which he is represented as speaking of his second advent. The instances of the first are, in Matthew, jive in number, in Mark f(yiJijT, in Luke /ow and in John three* Now, we will at once concede,that it is extremely prob- able that Christ might easily have foreseen that a career and conduct like his could, in such a time and country, terminate only in a violent and cruel death ; and that in- dications of such an impending fate thickened fast around him as his ministry drew nearer to a close. It is even possible, though in the highest degree unlikely ,i* that his study of the prophets might have led him to the conclu- sion that the expected Messiah, whose functions he be- lieved himself sent to fulfil, was to be a suffering and dying Prince. We will not even dispute that he might have been so amply endowed with the spirit of prophecy as distinctly to foresee his approaching crucifGdon and resurrection. But we find in the evangelists themselves insuperable difficulties in the way of a(finitting the belief that he actually did predict these events, in the language, or with anything of the precision, which is there ascribed to him. In the fourth gospel, these predictions are three in number,! and in all the language is doubtful, mysterious, and obscure, and the interpretation commonly put upon them is not that suggested by the words themselves, nor that which suggested itself to those who heard them ; but t Matth. xii. 40 ; xvi. 21 ; xvii. 9, 22, 23 ; xx. 17-19 ; xxvi. 2, 3. Mark viii. 31 ; ix. 9, 10, 31 ; x. 33 ; xiv. 28. Luke ix. 22, 44 ; xviu. 82, 33 ; xxii. 13. John ii. 20-22 ; iii. 14 ; xii. 32, 33 ; all very questionable. + It was in the highest degree unlikely, because this was neither the in- terpretation put upon the prophecies among the Jews of that time, nor their natural signification, but it was an interpretation of the disciples ex eventu. X We pass over those touching intimations of approaching separation con- tained in the parting discourses of Jesus during and immediately proc<^iaK the last supper, as there can be little doubt that at that time h!s fate was so imminent as to have become evident to any acute observer, without the sup- position of auperaatnral information- is one affii supposed t In the thr are numer it was imi and parall and the S priests anc to death, a to scourge rise again explicit, a have been ineradical when repe distinct oc vmpresaio ception of his resurr either of them enti: by the on We fine stantly ai which an dominion — gloryin his right (Matt, xi which, w " should i * In the c« three days I used by Jesi since the wo 8ii>n, and co' vey, the mei Jews, Inth( of Jesus is I vey. The < altation, gl( tively, migl FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. — MATTHEW. 193 attributed to >ls, over the ose in which nd resurrec- ts speaking first are, in Luke four emely proh- rhat a career .nd country, md that in- fast around It is even y,t that his the conclu- tions he be- iiffering and at he might )f prophecy cifikion and I themselves ig the belief le language, ere ascribed ^re three in mysterious, iy put upon Qselves, nor I them ; but \ 3. Mark viii. !, 33 ; xxii. 15. neither the in- time, nor their iplea ex eventu. separation con- itoly procMiiag h's fate was so ithout the yup- is one affixed to them by the evangelist after the event supposed to be referred to ; it is an interpretatio ex eventu* In the three synoptical gospels, however, the pi-edictions are numerous, precise, and conveyed in language which it was impossible to mistake. Thus (in Matt. xx. 18, 19, and parallel passages), " Behold, we go up to Jerusalem ; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him : and the third day he shall rise again." Language such as this, definite, positive, explicit, and circumstantial, if really uttered, could not have been misunderstood, but must have made a deep and ineradicable impression on all who heard it, especially when repeated, as it is stated to have been, on several distinct occasions. Yet we find ample proof that no such impression was made ; — that the disciples had no con- ception of their Lord's approaching death — still less of his resurrection ; — and that so far from their expecting either of these events, both, when they occurred, took them entirely by surprise ; — they were utterly confounded by the one, and could not believe the other. We find them shortly after (nay, in one instance in- stantly after) these predictions were uttered, disputing which among them should be greatest in their coming dominion (Matt. xx. 21-24 ; Mark ix. 35 ; Luke xxii. 26) ; — glorying in the idea of thrones, and asking for seats on his right hand and on his left, in his Messianic kingdom (Matt. xix. 28, xx. 21 ; Mark x. 37 ; Luke xxii. 30) ; which, when he approached Jerusalem, they thought " should immediately appear " (Luke xix. 11, xxiv. 21). * In the case of the first of these predictions—" Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," — we can scarcely adnait that these words were used by Jesus (if uttered by him at all) in the sense ascribed to them by John ; since the words were spoken in the temple, and in answer to the demand for a 8i(>n, and could therefore only have conveyed, and have been intended to con- vey, the meaning which we Know they actually did convey to the inquiring Jews, In the two other cases (or three, if we reckon viii. 28 as one), the language of Jesus is too indefinite for us to know what meaning he intended it to con- vey. The expression " to be lifted up," is thrice used, and may mean ex- altation, glorification (its natural significatioij, or, artificially and figura- tively, might be intended to refer to bis cnioifixion. I 194 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. FIDELIT When Jesus was arrested in the garden of Gethsemane, they iirst attempted resistance, and then " forsook him and fled ; " and so completely were they scattered, that it was left for one of the Sanhedrim, Joseph of Aiimathea, to provide even for his decent burial ; — while the women who " watched afar off," and were still faithful to his memory, brought spices to embalm the body — a sure sign, were any needed, that the idea of his resurrection had never entered into their minds. Further, when the wo- men reported his resurrection to the disciples, "their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not " (Luke xxiv, 11). The conversation, moreover, of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus is sufficient proof that the resurrection of their Lord was a conception which had never crossed their thoughts ; — and, finally, according to John, when Mary found the body gone, her only notion was that it must have been removed by the gardener (xx. 15). All this shows, beyond, we think, the possibility of question, that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus were wholly unexpected by his disciples. If further proof were wanted, we find it in the words of the evan- gelists, who repeatedly intimate (as if struck by the in- congruity we have pointed out) that they " knew not," or " understood not," these sayings. (Mark ix. 31, 32 ; Luke ix. 45, xviii. 34 ; John xx. 9). Here, then, we have two distinct statements, which mutually exclude and contradict each other. If Jesus really foretold his death and resurrection in the terms recorded in the Gospels, it is inconceivable that the dis- ciples should have misunderstood him ; for no words could be more positive, precise, or intelligible, than those which he is said to have repeatedly addressed to them. Neither could they have forgotten what had been so strongly urged upon their memory by their Master, as completely as it is evident from their subsequent conduct they actually did.* They might, indeed, have disbelieved * Moreover, if they had so completely forgotten these predictions, whence did the evangelists derive them? his pvedicti have done), led them to think of it prophecy their minds The cone dictions we uttered by o-loomy ant mind, and danger cai these app« them for ai he did so, vious to, th intimations doahfless, I existence o garded by minds afte expanding etition for the evang( prophetic : us. Anothei tory of tl affirming 1 terminatic might he J 49; Luk( the passio connected plains wh passages "i * " There the mouth o of his passio crucified bee J^eth8emane, Porsook him •ered, that it Arimathea, the women ;hf ul to his -a sure sign, rectiou had len the wo- )les, "their ey believed 1, moreover, is sufficient t conception nd, finally, y gone, her )ved by the >ssibility of )n of Jesus If further )f the evan- : by the in- knew not," :ix.31, 32; mts, which . If Jesus the terms lat the dis- ' no words than those id to them, id been so Master, as mt conduct disbelieved ctions, whence FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. — MATTHEW. 195 his prediction (as Peter appears in the first instance to have done), but in that case, his crucifixion would have led them to expect his resurrection, or, at all events, to think of it : — which it *did not. The fulfilment of one prophecy would necessarily have recalled the other to tliL'ir minds. The conclusion, therefore, is inevitable — that the pre- dictions were ascribed to Jesus after the event, not really uttered by him. It is, indeed, very probable that, as o-loomy anticipations of his own death pressed upon his mind, and became stronger and more confirmed as the danger came nearer, he endeavoured to communicate these apprehensions to his followers, in order to prepare them for an event so fatal to their worldly hopes. That he did so, we think the conversations during, and pre- vious to, the last supper afford ample proof. These vague intimations of coming evil — inteinningled and relieved, doiihiless, by strongly expressed convictions of a future existence of reunion and reward, disbelieved or disre- garded by the disciples at the time — recurred to their minds after all was over ; and gathering strength, and expanding in definiteness and fulness during constant rep- etition for nearly forty years, had at the period when the evangelists tvrote, become consolidated into the fixed prophetic form in which they have been transmitted to us. Another argument may be adduced, strongly confirma- tory of this view. Jesus is repeatedly represented as affirming that his expected sufferings and their glorious termination must take place, in order that the prophecies night be fulfilled. (Matt. xxvi. 24, 54; Mark ix. 12, xiv. 49 ; Luke xiii. 33, xviii. 31, xxii. 37, xxiv. 27). Now, the passion of the disciples for representing everything connected with Jesus as the fulfilment of prophecy, ex- plains why they should have sought, after his death, for passages which might be supposed to prefigure it,* — and * " There were sufficient motives for the Christian legend tlius to put into the mouth of Jesus, afte'- the event, a prediction of the particidar features of his passion, especially of the ignominious crucifixion. The more a Christ crucified became '^anto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks fool- 196 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. •why these accommodations of prophecy should, in process of time, and of transmission, have been attributed to Jesus himself. But if we assume, as is commonly done, that these references to prophecy really proceeded from Christ in the first instance, we are landed in the inadmis- sible, or at least the embarrassing and unorthodox con- clusion, that he interpreted the prophets erroneously. To confine ourselves to the principal passages only, a pro- found grammatical and historical exposition has convin- cingly sho\ n, to all who are in a condition to liberate themselves from dogmatic presuppositions, that in none of these is there any allusion to the sufferings of Christ.* One of these references to prophecy in Matthew has evident marks of being an addition to the traditional words of Christ by the evangelist himself. In Matt. xvi. 4, we have the following : " A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign ; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonaf , " The same expression precisely is recorded by Luke (xi. 29), with this addition, showing what the reference to Jonas real ly meant : " For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevitos, so also shall the Son of man be to this generation. The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it : for they repented at the, preaching of Jonas ; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here." But when Matthew repeats the same answer of Jesus in answer to the same demand for a sign (xii. 40), he adds the explanation of the reference, " For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly ; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights [which Jesus was not, but only one day and two nightsf] in the heart of the earth ; " — and he then proceeds with the same context as Luke. The prophecies of the second coming of Christ (Matt, ishnesB " (1 Cor. i. 23), the more need was there to remove the offence by every possible means ; and as among the subsequent events, the resurrection es- pecially served as a retrospective cancelling of that shameful death, so it mnst . nave been earnestly desired to take the sting from that offensive catastrophe beforehand also ; and this could not be done more effectually than by such a minute prediction." — Strauss, iii. 54, where this idea is fully developed.- * Even Dr. Arnold admitted this fully. (Sermons on Interpretations of Prophecy, Preface). + [Nay : possibly only a few hours.] FIDELITY xxiv; Mark up with tho! a manner w of orthodox passages w which they who wrote i many sourc< Christians— the world si those days"; take place c ation. " Vc pass away, 34 ; Mark x ing here, wl of man com I say unto ; Israel, till t I will that (John xxi. * Now,ift] was entireb spuit was r follow close years have inary signs If these pi evangelist mouth of C never uttei Much de the predict to the Ad creditable examined * See 1 Cor Peter iv. 7 ; 1 tAn appai Mark xiii. 10, all nations." J that St. Paul Id, in process ttributed to monly done, ceeded from the inadmis- •thodox con- aeously. To only, a pro- has convin- 1 to liberate hat in none b of Christ.* atthew has i traditional n Matt. xvi. adulterous hall no sign onaf," The ike (xi. 29), 36 to Jonas leNinevitPs, ation. The fit with this rented at the, an Jonas is 6 answer of ?n (xii. 40), 'or as Jonas i's belly ; so ghts [which itsf ] in the th the same irist (Matt. ffence by every esurrection es- ath, 80 it must ve catastrojjhe han by such a develof»ed.- irpretations of FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. — MATTHEW. 197 xxiv ; Mark xiii ; Luke xvii. 22-37, xxi. 6-36) are mixed up with those of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in a manner which has long been the perplexity and despair of ortliodox commentators. The obvious meaning of the passages which contain these predictions — the sense in which they were evidently understood by the evangelists who wrote them down — the sense which we know from many sources* they conveyed to the minds of the early Christians — clearly is, that the coming of Christ to judge the world should iollow iTnmediatelyf ("immediately," "in those days") the destruction of the Holy City, and should take place during the lifetime of the then existing gener- ation. " Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be fulfilled" (Matt. xxiv. 34 ; Mark xiii. 30 ; Luke xxi. 32). " There be some stand- ing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom " (Matt. xvi. 28). " Verily I say unto you. Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come " (Matt. x. 23). " K I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ? " (John xxi. 23). Now, if these predictions really proceeded from Jesus, he was entirely in error on the subject, and the prophetic spirit was not in him ; for not only did his advent not follow close on the destruction of Jerusalem, but 1800 years have since elapsed, and neither he nor the prelim- inary signs which were to announce him, have yet appeared. If these predictions did n^t proceed from him, then the evangelist has taken the liberty of putting into the mouth of Christ words and announcements which Christ never utterad. Much desperate ingenuity has been exerted to separate the predictions relating to Jerusalem from those relating to the Advent ; but these exertions have been neither creditable nor successful; and they have already been examined and refuted at great length. Moreover, they * See 1 Cor. x. 11, xv. 61; PhU. iv. 5 ; 1 Thess. iv. 15 ; Jamen v. 8 ; I Peter iv. 7 ; 1 John ii. 18 ; Rev. i. 1, 3, xxii. 7, 10, 12, 20. t An apparent contradiction to thie ia presented by Matt xxiv. 14 ; Mark xiii. 10, \»here we are told that '* the gospel must be first preached to all nations." It appears, however, from Col. i. 6, 6, 23 (se-j also Romans x. 18), that St. Paul considered this to have been alr<>^v accomplished in his time. 198 THE CREED OF CHBISTENDOM. are rendered necessary only by two previous (usvmptions: first, that Jesus cannot have been mistaken as to the future ; and, secondly, that he really uttered these pre- dictions. Now, neither of these assumptions is capable of proof. The first we shall not dispute, because we have no adequate means of coming to a conclusion on the sub- ject. But as to the second assumption, we tliink there are several indications that, though the predictions in question were current among the Christians when the Gospels were composed, yet that they did not, at least as handed down to us, proceed from the lips of Christ ; but were, as far as related to the second advent, the unau- thorized anticipations of the disciples; and, as far as related to the destruction of the city, partly gathered from the denunciations of Old Testament prophecy, and partly from actual knowledge of the events which passed under their eyes. In the Jirsi place, it is not admissible that Jesus could have been so true a prophet as to one part of the predic- tion, and so entirely in error as to the other, both parts referring equally to future events. Secondly, the three gospels in which these predictions occur, are allowed to have been written between the years 65 and 72 A.D., or during the war which ended in the destruction of Jeru- salem* ; that is, they were written during and after the events which they predict. They may, therefore, either have been drawn entirely from the events, or have been vaguely in existence before, but have derived their definiteness and precision from the events. And we have already seen in the case of the first evangelist, that he, at least, did not scruple to eke out and modify the pi evic- tions he recorded, from his own experience of their fulfil- ment. Thirdly, the parallel passages, both in Matthew and Mark, contain an expression twice repeated — " the elect " — which we can say almost with certainty was un- known in the time of Christ, though frequently found in the epistles, and used at the time the Gospels were com- posed, to designate the members oi the Christian Church. * The war began by Vespasian's entering Galilee in the beginning of the yMtf A.D. 67, and the city was taken in the autumn of a.d. 70. SAME Many of t ters— tendii several stai to Jesus not really to Mark an —of the gr Matthew, I gelist copi( same docui their histoi was the ear As we hi the traditic pel was w: originated who was s records a tradition 1: pared witl tirely the j matters re water, and miraculoui everythini body was visitors th Tn addi ties in tl • SeeThii + We muf with the 8th 'Sumptions : 1 as to the [ these pre- is capable of use we have on the sub- tliink there dictions in i when the , at least as !)hrist; but t, the unau- ar as related id from the partly from under their Jesus could the predic- , both parts y, the three 3 allowed to i 72 AJ)., or on of Jeru- id after the fore, either r have been rived their -nd we have , that he, at the jjiedic- their fulfil- n Matthew ated—" the ity was un- ly found in were com- :an Church. giiming of the CHAPTER IX. SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED — MARK AND LUKE. Many of the criticisms contained in the two last chap- ters — tending to prove that Matthew's Gospel contains several statements not strictly accurate, and attributes to Jesus several expressions and discourses which were not really uttered by him — are equally applicable both to Mark and Luke. The similarity — not to say identity — of the greater portion of Mark's narrative with that of Matthew, leaves no room for doubt either that one evan- gelist copied from the other, or that both employed the same documents, or oral narratives, in the compilation of their histories. Our own clear conviction is, that Mark was the earliest in time, and far the most correct in fact. As we have already stated, we attach little weight to the tradition of the second century, that the second Gos- pel was written by Mark, the companion of Peter. It originated with Papias, whose works are now lost, but who was stated to bo a " weak man " by Eusebius, who records a few fragments of his writings. But if the tradition be correct, the omissions in this Gospel, as com- pared with the first, are significant enough. It omits en- tirely the genealogies, the miraculous conception, several matters relating to Peter (especially his walking on the water, and the commission of the keys),* and everything miraculous or improbable relating to the resurrection *f — everything, in fact, but the simple statement that the body was missing, and that a ** young man " assured the visitors that Christ was risen. In addition to these, there are two or three peculiari- ties in the discourses of Jesus, as recorded by Mark, • See Thirlwall's remarks on this subject. Introd. cviL t We must not forget that the real geuuir') Gospel of Mark terminatM with the 8th verse of tiie 16th diapter. 200 THE C A;r >F CHBISTENDOM. Wd m which indicate that cae evangelist thought it necessary and allowable slightly to modify the language of them, in Older to suit them to the ideas or the feelings of the Gentile converts ; if, as is commonly supposed, it was principally designed for them. We copy a few instances of these, though resting little upon them. Matthew, who wrote for the Jews, has the following passage, in the injunctions pronounced by Jesus on the sending forth of the twelve apostles : " Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not : But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel " (x. 5). Mark, who wrote for the Gen- tiles, omits entirely this unpalatable charge " (vi. 7-13). Matthew (xv. 24), in the story of the Canaanitish woman, makes Jesus say, " I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Mark (vii. 26) omits this expression entirely, and modifies the subsequent re- mark. In Matthew it is thus ; — " It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs." In Mark it is softened by the preliminaiy, " Let the children first he filled;' &;c. Matthew (xxiv. 20), " But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the fiahbath day" Mark omits the last clause, which would have had no meaning for any but the Jews, whose Sabbath day's journey was by law restricted to a small distance. In the promise given to the disciples, in answer to Peter's question, " Behold, we have forsaken all, and fol- lowed thee ; what shall we have therefore V The follow- ing verse, given by Matthew (xix. 28), is omitted by Mark (x. 28) : — " Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed mo, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."* The Gospel of Luke, which is a work in some respects of . iore pretension, and unquestionably of more literary * [It is, however, almost impoisible to resist the iiif erenoe that we have her* one of the evanueliat's unwarranted ascriptions to Jesua of words which he never uttered, wEen we compare the subsequeut contradiction— sx. 21- merit, th ol)serv;iti< ocics of 1 Matthe\v ('([ually t« occuv; ai third ovf discourse! liesirles tl Loar an e wil! l>e ill The fir of the an all the n the annu] of Jesus- crepancie We are s this chap both of i. the narra at great 1 daring cli and by S( divines o lated by already c " Thus as an ori^ it in this the impr ical worl ter supp( will ado| the adve • The rer gelists ascr uttered it. member th HoitfceB, na FIDELITY OF GOSPEL HISTORY. — MARK AND LIKE. 201 t it necessai-y uage of them, jelings of the 30sed, it was few instances the following Jesus on the not into the le Samaritans sheep of the for tne Gen- ' (vi. 7-13). Canaanitish but unto the di. 26) omits ibsequent re- meet to take fs." In Mark children first ^our flight be day." Mark i no meaning journey was a answer to L all, and fol- The follow- 8 omitted by lat ye which 1 the Son of also shall sit ss of Israel."* ome respects nore literary oe that we have I of words which kdiotion— XX. 21- merit, than the two first, will require a few additional observations. The remarks we have made on the propli- ocics of his own sutierings and resurrection, alleged by Matthew and Mark to have been uttered by Jesus, apply, ('([ually to Luke's narrative, in which similar passages occur; and in these, therefore, we must ailmit that the third evangelist, like the other two, ascribed to Jesus rliscourses which never really proceeded from him.* But l)esides these, there are several passages in Luke which bear an equally apochryphal character, some of which it will be interesting to notice. The first chapter, from verse 5-80, contains the account of the annunciation and birth of John the Baptist, with all the marvellous circumstances attending it, and also the annunciation to Mary, and the miraculous conception of Jesus — an account exhibiting many remarkable dis- crepancies with the corresponding narrative in Matthew. We are spared the necessity of a detailed investigation oi this chapter by the agreement of the most learned critics, both of the orthodox and sceptical schools, in considering the narrative as poetical and legendary. It is examined at great length by Strauss, who is at the head of tlie most daring class of the Biblical Commentators of Germany, and by Schleiermacher, who ranks first among the learned divines of that country. The latter (in the work trans- lated by one of our most erudite and libei-al Prelates, and already often referred to) writes thus, pp. 25-7 : — " Thus, then, we begin by detaching the first chapter as an originally independent composition. If we consider it in this light somewhat more closely, we cannot resist the impression that it was originally rather a little poet- ical work than a properly-historical narrative. The lat- ter supposition, in its strictest sense at all events, no one will adopt, or contend that the angel Gabriel announced the advent of the Messiah in figures so purely Jewish, and • The i-emark will perhaps occur to some, that the circumstance of threeev&n- gelJHts ascribing the same language to Jesus, is a strong proof that he really uttered it. But the fallacy of this argument will bo ar-parent when we re- member thfait there is ample evidence that they ali drew from the same sources, namely, the extant current tradition. 202 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. FIDELn in expressions taken mostly from the Old Testament ; or that the alternate song between Elizabeth and Mary ac- tually took place in the manner described ; or that Zacha- rias, at the instant of recovering his speech, made use of it to utter the hymn, without being disturbed by the joy and surprise of the company, by which the narrator him«- self allows his description to be interrupted. At all events we should then be obliged to suppose that the author made additions of his own, and enriched the his- torical narrative by the lyrical effusions of his own genius." .... "If we consider the whole grouping of the narra- tive, there naturally presents itself to us a pleasing little composition, completely in the style and manner of sev- eral Jewish poems, still extant among our apocryphal writings, written in all probability originally in Aramaic by a Christian of the more liberal Judaising school." . . . " There are many other statements which I should not venture to pronounce historical, but would rather explain by the occasion the poet had for them. To these belongs, m t'^e first place, John's being a late-born child, which is evidently only imagined for the sake of analogy with several heroes of Hebrew antiquity ; and, in the next place, the relation between the ages of John and Christ, and likewise the consanguity of Mary and Elizabeth, which besides, it is difficult to reconcile with the assertion of John (John i. 33), that he did not know Christ before his baptism." Strauss's analysis of the chapter is in the highest degree masterly and convincing, and we think cannot fail to sat- isfy all whose minds have been trained in habits of logic- al investigation. After showing at great length the iin- satisfactoriness and inadmissibility of both the supernat- ural and rationalistic interpretations, he shows, by a com- E arisen of similar legends in the Old Testament — the irth of Ishmael, Isaac, Samuel, and Samson, in particular — how exactly the narrati\ j in Luke is framed m accord- ance with the established ideas and rules of Hebrew poetry.* * We cpnnot agree with one of Strauss's critics (see Prospective Review, Nov, 1846), that the evident poetical character of the first chapters of Mat- " The sc birth of d OldTestai in the min tures mos children b prototype, were botJ ' were advi son. It is of the fat parents^ ai Abraham, terity thro Daan, doul shall inhei this?' Th the Baptisi son, Samso destined t was know] source. B womb, anc The lyrica' uel. As S care of th does the ft particular the same c song of pn natural inc thew and Liil early Chriatia gobpels with V against their i agaiust the g( — e. g. the mi of money in t chapters has evidence. • Leben J< t The orig t Compare istament ; or tnd Mary ac- [• that Zacha- made use of id by the joy larrator him'- )ted. At all ose that the ched the his- own genius." of the narra- )leasiiig little anner of sev- apocryphal y in Aramaic school." . . . I should not ather explain these belongs, aild, which is Einalogy with he next place, d Christ, and zabeth, which 3 assertion of rist before his lighest degree lot fail to sat- abits of logic- ength the un- the supernat- ws, by a com- istament — the I, in particular Qed in accord- s of Hebrew ■ospective Review, t ohaptera of Mat- FIDELITY OF GOSPEL HISTORY. — MARK AND LUKE. 203 " The scattered traits," said he,* " respecting the late birth of different distinguished nen, as recorded in the Old Testament, blended themselves into a compound image in the mind of the author, whence he selected the fea- tures most appropriate to his present subject. Of the children bom of aged parents, Isaac is the most ancient prototype. As it is said of Zacharias and Elizabeth, 'they were both advanced in days,' so Abraham and Sarah ' were advanced in days'f when they were promised a son. It is likewise from this history that the incredulity of the father on account of the advanced age of both parents^ and the demand of a sign, are borrowed. As Abraham, when Jehovah promised him a numerous pos- terity through Isaac, who should inherit the land of Ca- naan, doubtingly inquires, ' Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it ? ' — so Zacharias, * Whereby shall I know this V The incident of the angel announcing the birth of the Baptist is taken from the h istory of another- late-born son, Samson. The command which before his birth pre- destined the Baptist — whose later ascetic mode of life was known — to be a Nazarite, is taken from the same source. Both were to be consecrated to God from the womb, and the same diet was prescribed for both.j .... The lyrical effusions in Luke are from the history of Sam- uel. As Samuel's mother, when consigning him to the care of the High Priest, breaks forth into a hymn, so does the father of John at the circumcision ; though the particular expressions in the canticle uttered by Mary, in the same chapter, have a closer resemblance to Hannah's song of praise, than that of Zacharias. The only super- natural incident of the narrative, of which the Old Testa- thew and Luke, their similarity with parts of the apocryphal gospels and early Christian writings, and tfieir dissimilarity in tone with the rest of the gospels with which they are incorporated, are sufficient to decide the question affaiuat their genuineness. If this argument were valid, we must pronounce against the genuineness of other passages of our gospels on the same ground — e, g. the miracle of (Jana — the mirnculous draught of fishes— and the piece of money in the fish's mouth — and others. The genuineness of these initial chaoters has often been denied, but without sufficient warrant from external evidence. • Leben Jesu, i. 118, et seq. + The original words are the same in both instances. t Compare Luke i. 15, with Judges xiii. 4, 6, and Ntimbers vi. 3. 204 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. I tiient oftei-s no precise analogy, is the dumbness. But if it be borne in mind that the asking and receiving a sign from heaven in confirmation of a promise or prophecy was common among the Hebrews (Isaiah vii. 11) ; that the temporary loss of one of the senses was the peculiar pun- ishment inflicted after a heavenly vision (Acts ix. 8, 17) ; that Daniel became dumb while the angel was speaking with him, and did not recover his speech till the angel had touched his lips and opened his mouth (Dan. x. 15) ; the origin of this incident also will be found in legend, and not in historical fact. So that here we stand upon purely mythico-poetical ground ; the only historical real- ity which we can hold fast as positive matter of fact being this : — the impression made by John the Baptist, in virtue of his ministry, and his relation to Jesus, was so powerful as to lead to the subsequent glorification of his birth in connection with the Christian legend of the birth of the Messiah." In the second chapter we have the account of the birth of Jesus, and the accompanying apparition of a multitude of angels to shepherds in the fields near Bethlehem — as to the historical foundation of which Strauss and Schleier- macher are at variance ; the former regarding it as wholly mythical, and the latter as based upon an actual occurrence, imperfectly remembered in after times, when the celebrity of Jesus caused every contribution to the history of his birth and infancy to be eagerly sought for. All that we can say on the subject with any certainty is, that the tone of the narrative is legendary. The poetical rhapsody of Simeon when Jesus was presented in the temple may be passed over with the same remark ; — but the 33rd verse, where we are told that " Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him," proves clearly one of two things : — either the unhistorical character of the Song of Simeon, and of the consequent astonishment of the parents of Jesus — or the unreality of the miracu- lous annunciation and conception. It is impossible, if an angel had actually announced to Mary the birth of the divine child in the language, or anything resembling the language, in Luke i. 31-35 ; and if, in accordance with FIDELIT that annou before she she should prophetic the angeli( miraculouj "she pone this dilficu the first ai inally by ( his Gospel not avoid an unauth The ger may be in piexitios i live be co only of J but simpl; parer of t knew or I we can co which is < previous { supposed, copyist, B the incon] to omittii The ac( audible si been ver^ with the (vii. 19) i and the i or interp( held imp descendii * The wh( by the fact 1 queut refere ess. But if it ceiving a sjtrn prophecy was 11) ; that the peculiar pun- .cts ix. 8, 17) ; was speaking till the angel (Dan. X. 15) ; Lind in legend, ve stand upon listorical real- sr of fact being ptist, in virtue as so powerful Df his birth in le birth of the [it of the birth of a multitude Bethlehem — as 8 and Schleier- ig it as wholly ual occurrence, n the celebrity history of his All that we I, that the tone a,l rhapsody of /Cmple may be he 33rd verse, ther marvelled proves clearly l1 character of astonishment of the miracu- ipossible, if an e birth of the esembling the cordance with FIDELITY OF GOSPEL HISTORY. — MARK AND LUKE. 205 that announcement, Mary had found herself with child before she had any natural possibility of being so — that she should have felt any astonishment whatever at the prophetic announcement of Simeon, so consonant with the angelic promise, especially when occurring after the miraculous vision of the Shepherds, which, we are told, "she pondered in her heart." Schleiermacher has felt this difficulty, and endeavours to evade it by considering the first and second chapters to be two monographs orig- inally by different hands, which Luke incorporated into his Gospel. This was very probably' the case ; but it does not avoid the difficulty, as it involves giving up ii. 33 as an unauthorized and incorrect statement. The genealogy of Jesus, as given in the third chapter, may be in the main correct, though there are some per- plexities in one portion of it ; but if the previous narra- tive be correct, it is not the genealogy of Jesus at all, but only of Joseph, who was no relation to him whatever but simply his guardian. On the other hand, if the pre ■ parer of the genealogy, or the evangelist who records it, knew or believed the story of the miraculous conception, we can conceive no reason fot his admitting a pedigree which is either wholly meaningless, or destructive of his previous statements. The insertion in verse 23, " as was supposed," whether by the evangelist or a subsequent copyist, merely shows that whoever made it perceived the incongruity, but preferred neutralizing the genealogy to omitting it.* The account given by Luke (iii. 21) of the visible and audible signs from heaven at the Baptism of Jesus, has been very generally felt and allowed to be incompatible with the inquiry subsequently made by John the Baptist (vii. 19) as to whether Jesus were the Messiah or not ; and the incongruity is considered to indicate inaccuracy or interpolation in one of the two narratives. It is justly held impossible that if John had seen the Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus, and had heard a heavenly voice * I'he whole story of the iQcamation^ however, is effectually discredited by the fact that none of the Apostles or sacred Historians make any subse- quent reference to it, or indicate any knowledge of it. 206 THE CREBD OP CHRISTENDOM. declaring Him to be the beloved Son of God, he couli ever have entertained a doubt that he was the Messiah, whoso coming ho himself had just announced* (iii. 16), According to Luke, as he now stands, John expected the Messiah — described himself as his forerunner — saw at the moment of the Baptism a supernatural shape, and heard a supernatural voice announcing Jesus to be that Mes- siah; — and yet, shortly after — on hearing, too, of miracles which should have confirmed his belief, had it e\ er wa- vered — he sends a message implying doubt (or rather ignorance), and asking the question which Heaven itself had already answered in his hearing Some commenta- tors have endeavoured to escape from tho difficulty by pleading that the appearances at Baptism might have been perceptible to Jesus alone ; and they have adduced the use of the second person by the divine voize (" Thou art my beloved Son ") in Mark and Luke, and the pecu- liar language of Matthew, in confirmation of this view. But (not to urge that, if the vision and the voice were imperceptible to the spectators, they could not have given that public and conclusive attestation to the Messiahship of Jesus which was their obvious object and intention) a comparison of the four accounts clearly shows that the evangelists meant to state that the dove was visible and the voice audible to John and to all the spectators, who, according to Luke, must have been numerous.' In Mat- thew the grammatical construction of iii. 16, would inti- mate that it was Jesus who saw the heavens open and the dove descend, but that the expression "lighting upon him," ipx^fifvov ctt' airrov, should in this case have been € avrov, " upon himself." However, it is very pos- sible that Matthew may have written inaccurate, as he certainly wrote unclassical, Greek. But the voice in the FIDELIT1 next verse, beloved Soi not to Jesu sion, €7r'avT0 numbers, " pass, that the accoun ded •• in a diet the id fact,— a vi that it wa: version gi^' clearly tha the traditi 1" was embo represente * Neander conceives that doubt may have assailed the mind of John in his dismal phson, and led to a transient questioning of his earlier conviction, and that it was in this state of feeling that he sent his disciples to Jesus. Bat, in the first place, the language of the message is less that of doubt than of inquiry, and would appear to intimate that the idea of Jesus' character and nuBsion had been then first suggested to him by the miracles of which rejxntN had reached him in his prison. And, in the next place, doubt as- smils men wbn have formed an Opinion from observation or induction, not xncD who ha^e received positive artd divine communication of a fact. descending appearance Jesus. Conside the natura act accord historical discrepam ly indicat different modificati the narra quent mei defender eiSei are J himself 8 ture mor with a 81 In all cure of ( the den testimoi once in 34; iii. 3M. FIDELIT\ OF iiO«PEL HISTORY. — MARK AND LUKE. 207 of God, he coulm ^as the Messiah mnced* (iii. m »hn expected the mer — saw at the ihape, and heanl to be that Mes- , too, of miracles had it ev er wa- oubt (or rather ■a Heaven itself iomft commenta- h(} difficulty by sm might have y have adduced e voi.3e (« Thou 3, and the pecu- >n of this view. the voice were not have given 'he Messiahship nd intention) a shows that the «^as visible and pectators, who, rous; InMat- 16, would inti- vens open and ion "lighting his f^ase have t is very pos- .ccurate, as he e voice in the lindof Johninhis aarlier conviction, iisoiples to Jesus, that of doubt tlian f Jesus' character miracles of which t place, doubt as- OT induction, not of a fact. next verse, speaking in the third person, " This is my beloved Son," must have been addressed to the spectators, not to Jesus. Mark has the same unharmonizing expres- sion, cVaurdv. Luke describes the scene as passing before numbers, " when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized ; " — and then adds to the account of the other evangelists that the dove descen- ded " in a bodily Siiupe, ev (TCD/MaTiKw eiSet, as if to contra- dict the idea that it was a subjective, not an objective fact, — a vision, not a phenomenon ; he can only mean that it was an appearance visible to all present. The version given in the fourth evangelist shows still more clearly that such was the meaning generally attached to the tradition current among the Christians at the time it was embodied in the Gospels. The Baptist is there represented as affirming that he himself saw the Spirit descending like a dove upon Jesus, and that it was this appearance which convinced him of the Messiahship of Jesus. Considering all this, then, we must admit that, while the naturalness of John's message to Christ, and the ex- act accordance of the two accounts given of it, render the historical accuracy of that relation highly probable, the discrepancies in the four narratives of the baptism strong- ly indicate, either that the original tradition came from diflFerent sources, or that it has unde^'gone considerable modification in the course of transmission ; and also that the narratives themselves are discredited by the subse- quent message. We think with Schleiermacher, the great defender and eulogist of Luke, that the words ev o-v/utaTiKoi ctSet are an interpolation which our evangelist thought himself at liberty to make by way of rendering the pic- ture more graphic, without perceiving their inconsistency with a subsequent portion of his narrative. In all the synoptical gospels we find instances of the cure of demoniacs by Jesus early in his career, in which the demons, promptly, spontaneously, and loudly, bear testimony to his Messiahship. These statements occur once in Matthew (viii. 29) ; four fimes in Mark (i. 24, 34; iii. 11 ; v. 7) ; and three times in Luke (iv. 33, 41; 208 THE CREED OP CHRISTENDOM. FlDHlii' viii. 28).* Now, two points are evident to common sense, and are fully admitted by honest criticism : — first, that these demoniacs were lunatic and epileptic patients; and, secondly, that Jesus (or the narrators who framed the language of Jesus throughout the synoptical gospels) shared the common belief that these maladies were caused by evil spirits inhabiting the bodies of the sufferers. We are then landed in this conclusion — certainly not a prob- able one, nor the one intended to be conveyed by the narrators — that tLe idea of Jesus being the Messiah was adopt d by madmen before it had found entrance into the public mind, apparently even before it was received by his immediate disciples — was in fact first suggested by madmen ; in other words, that it was an idea which orig- inated within insane brains — which presented itself to, and found acceptance with, insane brains more readily than sane ones. The conception of the evangelists clearly was that Jesus derived honour (and his mission confirma- tion) from this early recognition of his Messianic char- acter by hostile spirits of a superior order of Intelligen- ces ; but to us, who know that these supposed superior Intelligences were really unhappy men whose natural in- tellect had been perverted or impaired, the effect of the narratives becomes absolutely reversed ; — and if they are tb be accepted as historical, thty lead inevitably to the conclusion that the idea of the Messiahship of Jesus was originally formed in disordered brains, and spread thence among the mass of the disciples. The only rescue from this conclusion lies in the admission, that these narratives are not historical, but mythic, and belong to that class of additions which early grew up in the Christian Church, out of the desire to honour and aggrandise the memory /f its Founder, and which our uncritical evangelists em- Dodied as they found them. Passing over a few minor passages of doubtful authen- * It is worthy of remark that no narrative of the healing of demoniacs, stated as such, occurs in the fourth Gosiiel. This would intimate it to be the work of a man who had outgrown, or had never entertained, the idea, of maladies arising from powsesaion. It is one of many iudiijations in this evangelist of a C reok rather than a Jewish miud. ticity or ai Gospel, wh unwaiTant ported, aft " He that one. Am And he sai have utter anything very idea utterly pr gelists ; — i a severe r into the si shall I not thy sword shall peris passf'.ge w early nar Peter havi si on ; and like Luke apocrypha In cone' synoptical really occi not utter ; of great si stances, h( want of h indicates ' scrutiny c curable ni communit * Compari original exp erence for L words by th' For the ana* in Matthew KIDKLITY OF GOSPEL HISTORY. — MARK AND LUKE. 209 tful authen- ticity or accuracy,* we come to one near the close of the Gospel, which we have no scruple in pronouncing to bo an unwarranted interpolation. In xxii. 36-38, Jesus is re- porteii, after the last Supper, to have said to his disciples, " He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. And they said. Lord, behold, hero are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough." Christ never could have uttered such a command, nor, we should imagine anything which could have been mistaken for it. The very idea is contradicted by his whole character, and utterly precluded by the narratives of the other evan- gelists ; — for when Peter did use the sword, he met with a severe rebuke from his Master : — " Put up thy sword into the sheath : the cup which my Father hath given me shall I not drink it," — a(;cording to John. " Put up again thy sword into its placo ; for all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword," — according to Matthew. The passf.gt; we conceive to be a clumsy invention of some early narrator, to account for the remarkable fact of Peter having a sword at the time of Chris's apprehen- sion ; and it is inconceivable to us how a sensible compiler like Luke could have admitted into his history such an apocryphal and unharmonizing fragment. In conclusion, then, it appears certain that in all the synoptical gospels we have events related which did not really occur, and words ascribed to Jesus which Jesus did not utter ; and that many of these words and events are of great significence. In the great majority of these in- stances, however, this incorrectness does not imply any want of honesty on the part of the evangelists, but merely indicates that they adopted and embodied, without much scrutiny or critical acumen, whatever probable and hon- ourable narratives they found current in the Christian community. * Compare Luke ix. 50 with xi. 23, where we probably have the eame original expression differently reported. Schleierniacher, with all his rev- erence for Luke, decides (p. 94) that Iiuke vi. 24-2(5 is an addition to Christa words by the evangelist liimsolf— an *' innocent interpolation" he calls it. For the anachronism in xi. 51, see oui- ^emarkB on the oorrespunding passage in Matthew. CHAPTER X. SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED — GOSPEL OF JOTHN. In the examination of the fourth Gospel a different mode of criticism from that hitherto pursued is required. Here we do not find, so frequently as in the other evangeliste, particular passages which pronounce their own condem- nation, by anachronisms, peculiarity of language, or in- compatibility with others more obviously historical ; but the whole tone of the delineations, the tenour of the dis- courses, and the general course of the narrative, are utter- ly difierent from those contained in the synoptical gospels, and also from what we should expect from a Jew speak- ing to Jews, writing of Jews, imbued with the spirit, and living in the land, of Judaism. By the common admission of all recent critics, this Gos- pel is r«,ther to be regarded as a polemic, than an historic composition.* It was written less with the intention of giving a complete and continuous view of Christ's char- acter and career, than to meet and confute certain heresies which had sprung up in the Christian church near the close 01 the first century, by selecting, from the memory of the author, or the traditions then current among believers, such narratives and discourses as were conceived to be most opposed to the heresies in question. Now these heresies related almost exclusively to the person and nature of Jesus ; on which points we have many in- dications that great difierence of opinion existed, even during the apostolic period. The obnoxious doctrines especially pointed at in the Gospel appear, both from in- ternal evidence and external testimony ,-f- to be those held by Cerinthus and the Nicolaitans, which, according to * See Hug, Strauss, Hennellj DeWetfce. Also Dr. Tait's " Suggestions." t Irenseus, Jerome, Ei>iplianiu8. See Hug, § 51. See also a very detailed account of the Gnostics in Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, li. c. 1, 2. FID Hug, were perfect, an matter ; bt gradually was the Ci Jesus was great and natures — t Jesus at h; human po^ exalted ori his nature and pain, passion, re to pain an( Cerinthus Son of Go The Nicol Supreme '. ferior spirl the subalt distinguisl existence, Word, wl: begotten." These, 1 fourth G( which bei 31): "Tl life and u but that ; " that ye" of God ; J his name sial aim— lected or * Several " Every epi Hug, p, 423 t HSig, § FIDELITY OP THE GOSPEL HISTORY. — JOHN. 211 Hug, were as follows : — The one Eternal God is too pure, perfect, and pervading an essence to be able to operate on matter ; but from him emanated a number of inferior and gradually degenerating spiritual natures, one of whom was the Creator of the world, hence its imperfections. Jesus was simply and truly a man, though an eminently great and virtuous one ; but one of the above spiritual natures — the Christ, the Son of God — united itself to Jesus at his baptism, and thus conferred upon him super- human power. " This Christ, as an immaterial Being of exalted origin, one of the purer kinds of spirits, was from h?s nature unsusceptible of material affections of suffering and pain. He, therefore, at the commencement of the passion, resumed his separate existence, abandoned Jesus to pain and death, and soared upwards to his native heaven. Cerinthus distinguished Jesus and Christ, Jesus and the Son of God, as beings of different nature and dignity.* The Nicolaitans held similar doctrines in regard to the Supreme Deity and his relation to mankind, and an in- ferior spirit who was the Creator of the world. Among the subaltern orders of spirits they considered the most distinguished to be the only-begotten, the /xovoyei':^? (whose existence, however, had a beginning), and the Xoyos, the Word, who was an immediate descendant of the only- begotten."f These, then, were the opinions which the author of the fourth Gospel wrote to controvert ; in confirmation of which being his object we have his own statement (xx. 31) : " These are written " (not that ye may know the life and understand the character of our great Teacher, but that ye may believe #his nature to be what I affirm), " that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing ye might have life through his name." Now, a narrative written with a controver- sial aim — a narrative, more especially, consisting of recol- lected or selected circumstances and discourses — carries * Several critics contend that the original reading of 1 John iv. 3, was " Every spirit iAiaX teparateth Jesus (from the Christ) is not of God." — See Hugjp. 423. + Hug, § oL 212 THE CREED OP CHRISTENDOM. within it, as everyone will admit, from the very nature of fallible humanity, an obvious element of inaccuracy. A man who writes a history to prove a doctrine, must be something more than a man, if he writes that history with a scrupulous fidelity of fact and colouring. Accordingly, we find that the public discourses of Jesus in this Gospel turn almost exclusively upon the dignity of his own per- son, wliich topic is brought forward in a manner and with a frequency which it is impossible to regard as histoiical. The prominent feature in tl character of Jesus, as here depicted, is an overweening tendency to self-glorification, We ste no longer, as in the other Gospels, a prophet enger to bring men to God, and to instruct them in righteous- ness, but one whose whole mind seems occupied with the grandeur of his own nature and mission. In the three fir.st Gospels we have the message ; in the fourth we have comparatively little but the messenger. If any of our readers will peruse the Gospel with this observation in their minds, we are persuaded the result will be a very strong and probably painful impression that they cannot here be dealing with the genuine language of Jesus, but simply with a composition arising out of deep conviction of his superior nature, left in the mind of the writer by the contemplation of his splendid genius and his noble and lovely character. The difference of style and subject between the dis- courses of Jesus in the fourth Gospel and in the synoptical ones, has been much dwelt upon, and we think by no means too much, as proving the greater or less unauthen- ticity of the former. This objection has been met by the supposition that the finer intellect and more spiritual character of John induced him to select, and enabled him to record, the more subtle and speculative discourses of his Master, which were unacceptable or unintelligible to the more practical and homely minds of the other disciples ; and reference is made to the parallel case of Xenophon and Plato, whose reports of the conversations of Socrates are so diflferent in tone and matter as to render it very difficult to believe that both sat at the feet of the same master, and listened to the same teaching. But the cita- FIPI tion is an u than suspe( correct one ties in th(^ the (lisciph added som by his pre have beer that here t and discre Another sive ago Jesus in tl discourses style of tl own remai He makes himself sp John iii. 3 He that comt all : he that i and speaketh loineth fron And what h that he teat ceiveth his tc He that : hath set to 1 Forhewhi eth the wore eth not the s The Fath hath given a He that t everlasting 1 not the So the wrath o FFDRLITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. — JOHN. 213 •ery nature of accuracy. A vine, must be i history with Accordingly n this Gospel his own per- inerand with as histoiical. Tesus, as here glorification, prophet Giiger in rightooiis- 3ied with the In the three Lirth we have any of our bservation in I'^ill be a very ; they cannot of Jesus, but 3p conviction ihe writer by his noble and -•een the dis- he synoptical think by no 3s unauthen- 1 met by the 3re spiritual enabled him discourses of itelligible to ler disciples ; tf Xenophon of Socrates nder it very of the same tut the cita- tion is nn unfortunate one ; for in this case, also, it is more tliiui suspected that the more simple recorder was the more c(>rro(*t one, and that the sul)limer and subtler pecidiari- ties in the discourses re})()rted by Plato, belong rather to the disciple than to the teaciier. Had John merely siqx'r- (uhled some more refined and mystical discour.ses omitted by his predecessors, the supposition in question might have Iteer admitted; but it is impossible not to perceive that here the tvhole tone of the mind delineated is new and discrepant, though often eminently beautiful. Another argument, which may be considered as conclu- sive against the historical fidelity of the discourses of Jesus in the fourth Go.spel is, that not only they, but the discourses of John the Baptist likewise, are entirely in the style of the evangelist himself, where he introduces his own remarks, both in the Gospel and in the first epistle. He makes both Jesus and the Baptist speak exactly as he himself speaks. Compare the following passages : — John iii. 31-36. (Baptist loquitur). He that cometh from above is above all : he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth : he that tometn from heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth ; and no man re- ceiveth his testimony. He that receiveth his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. For he whom God hath sent speak- eth the words of God ; for God giv- eth not the spirit by measure. The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life : and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John viii. 23. (Jesus loq. ). Ye are from beneath ; I am from above : ye are of this world ; I am not of this world. iii. 11. (Jesus loq.). We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen ; and ye receive not our testimony. viii. 26. (Jesus loq.). I speak to the world tliose things which I have heard of him. — (See also vii. 16-18 ; xiv. 24.) V, 20. (Jesus loq.). The Father loveth the Son, and showeth him all things that himself doeth. xiii. 3. (Evangelist Ion.). Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands. vi. 47 (Jesus loq.). He that be- lieveth on me hath everlasting life. —(See also 1 Epistle v 10-13, and Gospel iii. 18, where the evangelist or Jesus speaks). vi. 40 (Jesua loq.). And this ia the will of him that; sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlast- ing life. 214 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 1 Epistle iii. 14. We know that we have passed from death unto life. 1 Epistle iv. 6. We are of God : he that knoweth God heareth us ; he that is not of God heareth not us . 1 Epistle V. 9. If we receive the witness of men, the witnjss of God is greater ; for this is the witness of (irod which he hath witnessed of his Son. xix. 35 (John loq.). And his rec- ord is true : and he knoweth that he saith true. xxi. 24. This is the disciple which testifieth of these things ; . . . and we know that his witness is true. V. 24 (JesuB lotj.). He that hear- eth my word .... is passed from death unto life. viii. 47 (Jesus loq. ). He that is of (iod heareth God's words : ye there- fore hear them not, because ye are not of God. v. 34 etc. (Jesus loq.). I receive not testimony from man. ... I have greater witness than that of John . . . . the Father himself which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me, V. 32. There is another that heareth witness of me ; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true. Another indication that in a gi-eat part of the fourth Gospel we have not the genuine discourses of Jesus, is found in the mystical and enigmatical nature of the language. This peculiarity, of which we have scarcely a trace in the other evangelists, beyond the few parables which they did not at first understand, but which Jesus immediately explained to them, pervades the fourth Gos- pel. The great Teacher is here represented as absolutely labouring to be unintelligible, to soar out of the reach of his hearers, and at once perplex and disgust them. " It is the constant method of this evangelist, in detailing the conversations of Jesus, to form the knot and progress of the discussions, by making the interlocutors understand literally what Jesus intended figuratively. The type of the dialogue is that in which language intended spiritual- ly is understood carnally." The instances of this are in- conceivably frequent and unnatural. W*> have the con- versation with the Jews about " the temple of his body " (ii. 21) ; the mystification of Nicodemus on the subject of regeneration (iii. 3-10) ; the conversation with the Samaritan woman (iv. 10-15) ; with his disciples about " the food which ye know not of" (iv. 32) ; with the peo- ple about the " bread from heaven " (vi. 81-35) ; with tlie Jews about giving them his flesh to eat (vi. 48-66) ; with the Pharisees about his disappearance (vii. 33-39, and viii. 21, 22) ; again about his heavenly origin and pre-exist- FIDE ence (viii. about the s place, it is v the gospel in a style v the next p people, so a literature inisapprehe cessantly a But perl historical c is to be foul logues, the; positions r it is next tained — e\ thesis, tha the time o: been said i memory ir to believe 14th, 15th retained ai one favou] therefore ' main we i in the fou evangelist eral sayii hence we which are pels. In the viciss only in tl « See the which it api Jewfi, and ( in fact that f Leben < p;i. FIDELITY OP THE GOSPEL HISTORY. — JOHN. 215 ). He that hear- 18 passed from q.). He that is of I words : ye there- t, because ye are loq.). I receive n that of John f which hath sent tnesB of me, lotherthatbeareth II know that the I'ltneseeth of me is of the fourth s of Jesus, is atiire of the lave scarcely few parables which Jesus le fourth Gos- as absolutely r the reach of it them, " It detailing the td progress of s understand The type of ied spiritual- >f this are in- ave the con- of his body" he subject of 1 with the iciples about s'ith the pco- 5) ; with the 8-66) ; with -39, and viii. d pre-exist- ence (viii. 37, 43, and 56-58) ; and with his disciples about the sleep of Lazarus (xi. 11-14). Now, in the first place, it is very improbable that Jesus, who came to preach the gospel to the poor, should so constantly have spoken in a style which his hearers could not understand ; and in the next place, it is equally improbable that an Oriental people, so accustomed to figurative language,* and whose literature was so eminently metaphorical, should have misapprehended the words of Jesus so stupidly and so in- cessantly as the evangelist represents them to have done. But perhaps the most conclusive argument against the historical character of the discourses in the fourth Gospel is to be found in the fact that, whether dialogues or mono- logues, they are complete and continuous, resembling com- positions rather than recollections, and of a length which it is next to impossible could have been accurately re- tained — even if we adopt Bertholdt's improbable hypo- thesis, that the apostle took notes of Jesus' discourses at the time of their delivery. Notwithstanding all that has been said as to the possible extent to which the powers of memory may go, it is difficult for an unprepossessed mind to believe that discourses such as that contained in the 14th, 15th, and 16th chapters, could have been accurately retained and reported unless by a shorthand writer, or by one favoured with supernatural assistance. " We hold it therefore to be established " (says Strauss,^ and in the main we agree with him), " that the discourses of Jesus in the fourth gospel are mainly free compositions of the evangelist ; but we have admitted that he has culled sev- eral sayings of Jesus from an authentic tradition, and hence we do not extend this proposition to those passages which are countenanced by parallels in the synoptical gos- pels. In these latter compilations we have an example of the vicissitudes which befall discourses that are preserved only in the memory of a second party. Severed from their * See the remarks of Strauss on the conversation with Nicodemus, from which it appears that the image of a new birth was a current one among the Jew3, and could not have been ho misunderstood by a master in Israel, and in fact that the whole convsrsfttion is almost certainly fictitious.— ii. 153. t Leben Jesu, ii. 187. 216 THE OREED OF CHBISTENDOM. l original connection, and bn 'I'in up into smaller and smaller fragments, they prese; when reassembled, the appearance of a mosaic, in which the connection of the parts is a purely external one, and every transition an artificial juncture. The discourses in John present just the opposite appearance. Their gradual transitions, only occasionally rendered obscure by the mystical depths of meaning in which they lie — transitions in which one thought develops itself out of another, and a succeeding proposition is frequently but an explanatory amplification of the preceding one — are indicative of a pliable, unresist- ing mass, such as is never presented to a writer by the traditional sayings of another, but by such only as pro- ceeds from the stores of his own thought, which he moulds according to his will. For this reason the contributions of tradition to these stores of thought were not so likely to have been 'particular independent sayings of Jesus, as rather certain ideas which formed the basis of many oj his discourses, and which were modified and developed according to the bent of a mind of Greek or Alexandrian culture."* Another peculiarity of this Gospel — arising, probably, out of its controversial origin — is its exaltation of dogma over morality — of belief over spiritual affection. In the other Gospels, piety, charity, forgiveness of injuries, purity of life, are preached by Christ as the titles to his kingdom and his Father's favour. Whereas, in John's Gos})el as in his epistles, belief in Jesus as the Son of God, the Mes- siah, the Logos — belief, in fact, in the evangelist's view of his nature — is constantly represented as the one thing needful. The whole tone of the history bears token of a time when the message was beginning to be forgotten in the Messenger ; when metaphysical and fruitless dis- cussions as to the nature of Christ had superseded devo- tion to his spirit, and attention tp the sublime piety and * See also Hennel, p. 200. " The picture of .Tenus bequrtathing hi'^ pu't- ingbonedictionw to the tlisoipleH, seems fully to warrant the idea that the author was one whose irnai,'iuatioii and affections had received an impress from real scenes and real attachments. The few relics of the words, lonks, and acts of Jesus, which friendship itself could at that time preserve unmixiil, he expands into a complete record of his own and the disciples' aentimout- ; what they felt, he makes JeBuo aneak.' FIDl simple self- of his own eloquent a pathos, anc gible truth histories ; ity, and m( apostle at i fragment ( original se» subtle and this Gospe purity to i which hav dogmatic c and more i lels to mal John xiii.l know that hil he should de] unto the Fal own which v, loved them ur John xiii. men know thi if ye have lov John XV. 12 ment, That j have loved yoit John xvii. pray not for which tiMU hi world, (v. 20) alone, but jc believe on me * I ventui this work w; of an a;j[e in times a spec: witho>it it tl other. I CO' certainly do sauie heart, day, howevt who are to 1 larijed or CO FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. — JOHN. 217 smaller and assembled, the mection of the transition an present just ansitions, only tical depths of in which one d a succeeding Y amplification iable, unresist- writer by the n only as pro- lich he moulds contributions e not so likely ngs of Jesm, sis of many oj and developed r Alexandrian ling, probably, ktion of dogma ction. In the njuries, purity o his kingdom hn's Gospel as God, the Mes- felist's view of the one thing Dears token of be forgotten fruitless dis- lerseded dovo- ime piety and unathing his i>.ivt- the idea that tlie jceived an iini>ies3 F the words, looks, preBerveuniiii.M'd, iipl«3H' sentiuieat- ; simple self-sacrificing holiness which formed the essence of his own teaching. The discourses are often touchingly eloquent and tender; the narrative is full of beauty, pathos, and nature ; but we miss the simple and intelli- gible truth, the noble, yet practical, morality of the other histories ; we find in it more of Christ than of Christian- ity, and more of John than of Jesus. If the work of an apostle at all, it was of an apostle who had caught but a fragment of his Master's mantle, or in whom the good original seed had been choked by the long bad habit of subtle and scholastic controversies. We cannot but regard this Gospel as decidedly inferior in moral sublimity and purity to the other representations of Christ's teaching which have come down to us ; its religion is more of a dogmatic creed, and its very philanthropy has a narrower and more restricted character. We will give a few paral- lels to make our meaning clearer. John xiii.l. Now when Jesus knuw that his hour was come, that he should depf't out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end. John xiii. 35- By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. John XV. 12. This is my command- ment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. John xvii. 9. I pray for them : / ftfay not for the world, but for them which tliou hast given me out of the world, (v. 20). Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on m« through their word.* Matth. V. 43. Ye have heard thaf, it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, pray for them which despitef ully use you, and persecute you ; . . For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye f do not even the publicAus the name ? Luke X. 27. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.— (Definition of a neighbour, as any one whom we can serve.) Luke vi. 28. Pray for them which despitefuUy use you ; bless them which persecute you. Luke xxiii. 34. Father, forgive them ; for they know not what they do. • I venture here to insert a note written by a friend to whom the MS. of this work was submitted for correction. "These passages are the growth of an a:,'e in which Christians were already suffering jjersecution. In such times a sppcial and peculiar love to * the brethren ' is natural and desirable ; without it thoy could not be animated to risk all that is needed for one an- other. I could not call it, at that time, a ' narrow philanthropy,' but it certainly does not belong to the aamo moral state, nor conm forth from the same heart, at the same time, as that of the other Gospels. In the present clay, however, the results are intensely evil : for this Gospel defines those who are to love another by an intellectual creed ; and however this be en« lartjud or coutractiid, we have here tiie usicnce of Bigotry. " q 218 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. !! !:, Juhn iii. U. And as MoHea lifted up the Horpeut in the wilderness, even so must the Son uf man be lifted up ; That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but havf eternal life. John vi. 40. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, ana believeth on him, may have ei'erlastinn b'fe. John xvii. ',i. And this is life eter- nal, that they might know thee, the only true God, andJesua Christ, whom thou hast sent. John vi. 29. This is the work of God, that ye believe an him whom he hath sent. John iii. 36. He that believah wi the Son hath evcrlasliiKj life ; and /«- tlmt believeth not the Hon shall not see life; but the wrath of God ahidpth in him. Matth. V. 3, 8. Blessed are the poor in spirit : for theirs is the kiwj- dom of heaven. Blesded are the pure in heart : for they shall see God. Matth. vii. 21. Not every one that aaithunto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ; bnt he that doeth the will of my Father which is in haven. Many will say to me ia that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name ? and in thy name have cast out devils ? ami in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you : depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matth. xix. 16, et soq. And, be- hold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good tiling shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And hesaidunto him, Why callestthoume good f Slc, &c. ; but if thou wilt eiUer into life, keep the commandments, ic. Matth. XXV. 31-46.— (Definition of Christ's reception of the wicked and the righteous.) — And these rhallgo away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal. Mark xii. 28-34. And the Scribe said unto him,Well, Master, thou hast said the truth : for there is one God ; and there is none other but he : &c., &c. . . . And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the king- dom of €hd. Luke ix. 51-56. And when James and John saw this (that the Samari- tans would not receive Jesus), they said, Lord, wilt thou that we com- mand fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did ? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said. Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of, &c. Luke x. 25-28. And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying. Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law! How readest thou ? And he answer- ing said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all 1^7 soul, and with all thy strength, and vdth all thy mind ; and thy neighbour as thyself. And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast answered rightly ; thi$ do, and tlutu t/taU Uct. There ai this Gospe more than dom of H confined t( of devils- nothing al topics wh Christ's m omission c narrative mitted int possession Jerusalem had quite pale of tl] * Modem in the fourth preted sent, i not have bet John. [These, ho to the date o fixing it on t day. Thisc versy " as it last only qu Those who \ throw upon haustive ace f erred to. — 1 took the vie Apostle Jolo till very lat< of quoting 1 nores the i Jesus, thoui the object c at least, Ch If the for seem impos rnent " of h unhistorica] from it fall such comm " Take eat were ever s si:;iiificanc< uttered, co cord them. f. FIDELITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. 219 Blesse.l are the or theirs is the (■»,„. Ulesded are the pure V shall see God. Not ever// one that 'd. Lord, shall enter 1 of heaven ; bnt Kt ili6g{ulons. The conch chapters is veloped. means of ing Christ Gospels, T Christ's cl least), fill that man) torical, bu least of th by him, b selves, or which the in all cas< many we prohabilii discourses With res{ they are i with aim words ; bi certainly did not p ungenuin forced, b; eonclude- those in ' in a man delineate elsewheri moral ai: Thirdly, Jeaug ler, askinir }^^f 'hat "his hour ivlien he knew •ebuff, Mary is his paHicdar le saith to the it ; " and ac- rders to them. md the enor- our lanp^uago, Lnd those who 11 have no dif- nity between miracles with ess, as well as 1 a portion ot ms character from 32. The nfTpTiriis equal to li Roman refore be from 104 CHAPTER XI. RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING CRITICISM. The conclusion at which we have arrived in the foregoing chapters is of vital moment, and deserves to be fully de- veloped. When duly wrought out, it will be found the means of extracting Religion from Orthodoxy — of rescu- ing Christianity from Calvinism. "We have seen that the Gospels, while they give a fair and faithful outline of Christ's character and teaching (the synoptical Gospels at least), fill up that outline with much that is not authentic ; that many of the statements therein related are not his- torical, but mystical or legendary ; and that portions at least of the language ascribed to Jesus were never uttered by him, but originated either with the evangelists them- selves, or more frequently in the traditional stories from which they drew their materials. We cannot, indeed, say in all cases, nor even in most cases, tuith certainty — in many we cannot even pronounce with any very strong prohahility — that such and such particular expressions or discourses are, or are not, the genuine utterances of Christ. With respect to some, we can say with confidence, that they are not from him ; with respect to others, we can say with almost equal confidence, that they are his actual words ; but with regard to the majority of passages, this certainly is not attainable. But us we know that much did not proceed from Jesus — that much is unhistorical and ungenuine — we are entitled to conclude — we are even forced, by the very instinct of our reasoning faculty, to conclude — that the unhistorical and ungenuine passages are those in which Jesus is represented as speaking and acting in a manner uncomformable to his character as otherwise delineated, irreconcilable with the tenour of his teaching as elsewhere described, and at variance with those grand moral and spiritual truths which have commanded the f 224 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. R ll assent of all disciplined and comprehensive minds, and which could scarcely have escaped an intellect so just, wide, penetrating, and profound, as that of our great Teacher. Most reflecting minds rise from a perusal of the gospel history with a clear, broad, vivid conception of the char- acter and mission of Christ, notwithstanding the many f)assages at which they have stumbled, and which they lave felt — perhaps with needless alarm and self-reproach — to be incongruous and unharmonizing with the great whole. The question naturally arises. Did these incon- gruities and inconsistencies really exist in Christ himself? or, are they the r suit of the imperfect and unhiatorical condition in which his biography has been transmitted to us ? The answer, it seems to us, ought to be this : — Wf cannot prove, it is true, that some of these unsuitabilities did not exist in Christ himself, but we have shown that many of them belong to the history, not to the subject of the history, and it is only fair, therefore, in the absence of contrary evidence, to conclude that the others also are due to the same origin. Now the peculiar, startling, perplexing, revolting, and contradictory doctrines of modern orthodoxy — so far as they have originated from or are justified by the Gospels at all — have originated from, or are justified by, not the general tenour of Christ's character and preaching, hvt those avnyle, unharmonizing, discrepant texts of which we have been speaking. Doctrines, which unsophisticated men feel to be inadmissible and repellant, and which those who hold them most devotedly, secretly admit to be fearful and perplexing, are founded on particular passages which con- tradict the generality of Christ's teaching, but which, being attributed to him by the evangelists, have been regarded as endowed with an authority which it would be profane and dangerous to resist. In showing, therefore, that sev- eral of these passages did not emanate from Christ, and thatin all probability none of them did, we conceive that we shall have rendered a vast service to the cause of true religion, and to those numerous individuals in whose tor- tured minds sense and conscience have lon^ struggled for the maste specificatic One of able doctr stamped !— is, that Jesus as t sent dovn mankind) vation. sought fo] common a motives t( themselve minds. 1 tain man^ trine so i these, anc they are The m couched language ous porti by the w the mout tical Gos wrested i teach it. several j Salvatioi mirit of abounds * It is tn gin at all, I texts from we shall CO show that \ chief obBta( i- " He t not shall b Buffice to •' ; John i § 1 Johi RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING CRITICISM. 225 ' minds, and llect so just, of our great of the gospel of the char- »g the many which they self-reproach th the great these incon- irist himself? unhistoiical ansmitted to e this: — We Qsuitabilities shown that he subject of [le absence of p also are due jvolting, and y — so far aa '■ the Gospels I by, not the eaching, bid • of which we sticated men ch those who e fearful and js which con- which, being jen regarded d be profane >re, that sev- Ohrist, and !eive thatwe ause of true 1 whose tor- truggled for the mastery. We will elucidate this matter by a few specifications.* One of the most untenable, unphilosophical, uncharit- able doctrines of the orthodox creed — one most peculiarly stamped with the impress of the bad passions of humanity ^is, that belief (by which is generally signified belief in Jesus as the Son of God, the promised Messiah, a Teacher sent dov;^n from heaven on a special mission to redeem mankind) is essential, and tlie one thing essential, to Sal- vation. The source of this doctrine must doubtless be sought for in that intolerance of opposition unhappily so common among men, and in that tendency to ascribe bad motives to those who arrive at difierent conclusions from themselves, which prevails so generally among unchastened minds. But it cannot be denied that the Gospels con- tain many texts which clearly afiirm or fully imply a doc- trine so untenable and harsh. Let us turn to a few of these, and inquire into the degree of authenticity to which they are probably entitled. The most specific assei-tion of the tenet in question, couched in that positive, terse, sententious, danmatory language so dear to orthodox divines, is found in the spuri- ous portion of the Gospel of Mark (c. xvi. 16),-f- and is there by the writer, whoever he was, unscrupulously put into the mouth of Jesus after his resurrection. In the synop- tical Gospels may be found a few texts which may be wrested to support the doctrine, but there are none which teach it. But when we come to the fourth Gospel we find several passages similar to that in Mark,J proclaiming Salvation to believers, hut all in the peculiar style and mirit of the Author of the first Epistle of John, which abounds in denunciations precisely similar§ (but directed, * It is true that many of the doctrines in question had not a scriptural ori- gin at all, but an ecclesiastical one ; and, when originated, were defended by texts from the epistles, rather than the gospels. The authority of the epistles we shall consider in a subsequent chapter, but if in the meantime we can show that those doctrinea have no foundation in the langui^e of Christ, the chief obstacle to the renunciation of them is removed. t " He that believeth and u baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned," a passage wiiich, were it not happily spurioufl, would BuflBco to «' dauin " the book which contains it. ; John iii. 16, 18, 36 ; v. 24 ; vi. 29, 40, 47 ; xi. 25, 26 ; xx. 3i, § 1 John ii. 19, 22, 23 ; if, 2, .% 6, 15 ; v. 1, 5, 10, 12, 13. 226 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. RI ' I it is remarkable, apparently against heretics, not against infidels, against those who believe amiss, not again-st tliose who do not believe at all) — all, too, redolent of the temper of that apostle who wished to call down fire from heaven on an imbelieving village, and who was rebuked by JeavM for the savage and presumptuous suggestion. In the last chapter we have shown that the style ol these passages is of a nature to point to John, and not to Jesus, as their author, and that the spirit of them is en- tirely hostile and incompatible with the language of Jesus in other parts more obviously laithful. It appears, therefore, that the passages confirmatory of the doctrine in question are found exclusively in a portion of the syn- optists which is certainly spurious, and in portions of the fourth Gospel which are almost certainly unhistorical ; and that they are contradicted by other passages in all the Gospels. It only remains to show that as the doc>,;ine is at variance with the spirit of the mild and benevolent Jesus, so it is too obviously unsound not to have been rec- ognised as such by one whose clear and grand intelligence was informed and enlightened by so pure a heart. In the first place, Christ must have known that the same doctrine will be presented in a very different man- ner, and with very different degrees of evidence for its truth, by different preachers ; so much so that to resist the arguments of one preacher would imply either dulness of comprehension or obstinate and wilful blindness, while to yield to the arguments of his colleague would imply weakness of understanding or instability of purpose. The same doctrine may be presented and defended by one preacher so clearly, rationally, and forcibly that all sensi- ble men (idiosyncracies apart) must accept it, and by another preacher so feebly, corruptly, and confusedly, that all sensible men must reject it. The rejection of the Christianity preached by Luther, and of the Christianity preached by Tetzel, of the Christianity preached by Loyola and Dunstan, and of the Christianity preached by Oberlin and Pascal, cannot be wofthy of the same con- demnation. Few Protestants, and no Catholics, will deny that Christianity has been so presented to men as to make it a simple veprt'sent, ter of meri p'j-'i'cncc i predched, i an error w ;in(l wise t ?'urtlie! ascribe to sul)liniest ' disbelief penalty — liciv we h telleet wli BoHef is .1 of the mil ed. Bein l)c,()v hav voluntary Itredlcate (if it be n lief ") by operation the redui meritoric In san( is sufficie —if it dc lence ad( tend beli jiental i but the is imposs or dishoi rious by for rew« Such is l();j;ians I nounce ( But, i RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING CRITICISM. 227 not affainst against tliose of the temper I from heaven ked by Jesm b the style ol n, and not to •f them is en- language of It appears, the doctrine »n of the syn- ortions of the unhistorieal ; iges in all the he doc^iiiie is id benevolent ave been rec- d intelligence heart. own that the lifferent man- idence for its that to resist 3ither dulness ndness, while would imply urpose. The jnded by one hat all sensi- t it, and by if usedly, that jction of the Christianity preached by preached by he same con- ies, will deny m as to make it n simple affair both of sense and virtue to reject it. To lepivsent, therefore, the reception of a doctrine as a mat- ter of merit, or its rejection as a matter of blame, mlthout rt'f'nynca to the consideration fioiv and by 'whom it in prt'dchcd, is to leave out the main element of judgment — an error whicli could not have been committed by the jusl .111(1 wise Jesus. Further. The doctrine and the passages in (luestion jisciibe to " belief" the highest degree of merit, and the suldiniest conceivable reward — "eternal life;" and tu ' (lis])elief " the deepest wickedness, and the most fearful |)enalty — " damnation," and " the wrath of God." Now. lici e we have a logical error, betraying a confusion of In- tel h:(t which Ave may well scruple to ascribe to Jesus. Belief is an effect produced by a cause. It is a condition of the mind induced by the operation of evidence present- ed. Being, therefore, an efect, and not an act, it cannot bc.or have, a merit. The moment it becomes a distinctly \()luntary act (and therefore a thing of which merit can be l)ie and menaced with punishment was ( as appears from John iii. 19) the disbelief implied in a wilful rejection of his claims, or a refusal to examine them — a love of darkness in preference to light. If so, the language employed is incorrect and deceptive, and the blame is predicated of an effect instead of a cause — it is meant of a voluntary action, but it is predicated of a specified and denounced consequence which is no natural or logical indication of that voluntary action, but may arise from independent causes. The moralist who should denounce gout as a fin, meaning the sinfulness to apply to the excesses of which gout is often, but by no means always, a consequence and an indication, would be held to be a very confused teacher and inaccurate logician. Moreover, this is not the sense attached to the doctrine by orthodox divines in common parlance. And the fact still remains that Christ is repre- sented as rewarding by eternal felicity a state of mind which, if honestly attained, is inevitable, involuntary, and therefore in no way a fitting subject for reward, and which, if not honestly attained, is hollow, fallacious, and deserving of punishment rather than of recompense. We are aware that the orthodox seek to escape from the dilemma, by asserting that belief results from the state ot the heart, and that if this be rif t, belief will inevitably follow. This is simply false i fact. How many excellent, virtuous, and humble minds, in all ages, have been anxious, but unable to believe — have prayed earnestly for belief, and sufiered bitterly for disbelief — iu \^m\ The dogma of the Divinity, or, as it is called in the technical language of polemics, the proper Deity, of Christ, though historically provable to have had an ecclesiasti- cal, not an evangelical, origin* — though clearly negatived by the whole tenour of the syno|)tical Gospels, and even by some passages in the fourth Gospel [and though it is difficult to i?ad the narrative of his career with an un- [* " The ITnecriptural Origin and EcdeRiastical History of the Doctrine nf the Trinity," by the Rev. J. Hamilton Thorn.] )ears from John rejection of his )ve of darkness ?e employed is radicated of an )f a voluntary and denounced al indication of •m independent ;e gout as a ein, cesses of which onsequence and onfused teacher s not the sense nes in common Christ is repre- ; state of mind ivoluntary, and )r reward, and , fallacious, and compense. to escape from ssults from the ig t, belief will in fact. How nds, in all ages, ! — have prayed for disbelief— 8 called in the ')eity, of Christ, an ecclesiasti- sarly negatived »pels, and even id though it is 'r with an un- j^ of the Doctrine of RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING CRITICISM. 229 forestalled mind without being clear that Jesus had no notion of such a belief himself, and would have repudia- ted it with horror] — can yet appeal to several isolated po'tions and texts, as suggesting and confirming, if not asserting it. On close examination, however, it will be seen that all these passages are to be found either in the fourth Gospel — which we have already shown reason to conclude is throughout an unscrupulous and most inexact j)araphrase of Christ's teaching — or in those portions of the three first Gospels which, on other accounts and from independent trains of argument, have been selected as at least of questionable authenticity. It is true that the doctrine in question is now chiefly defended by reference to the Epistles ; but at the same time it would scarcely be held so tenaciously by the orthodox if it were found to be wholly destitute of evangelical support. Now, the passages which appear most confirmatory of Christ's De- ity, or Divine Nature, are, in the first place, the narra- tives of the Incarnation, of the miraculous Concept! •)n, as given by Matthew and Luke. We have already en- tered pretty fully into the consideration of the authenti- city of these portions of Scripture, and have seen that we may almost with certainty pronounce them to be fabulous, or mythical. The two narratives do not harmonize with each other ; they neutralize and negative the genealogies on which depended so large a portion of the proof of Je- sus being the Messiah ;* — the marvellous statement they contain is not referred to in any subsequent portion of the two Gospels, and is tacitly but positively negatived by several passages — it is never mentioned in the Acts or in the Epistles, and was evidently unknown to all the apostles— and, finally, the tone of the narrative, espe- cially in Luke, is poetical and legendary, and bears a marked similarity to the stories contained in the apocry- phal gospels. * Tlie Mesaiah must, according to Jewish prophecy, be a lineal descendant of David : this Christ was, according to the ^teni-alogies : tliiw he was not, if the miraculous con ption be a fact. If, therefore, JePvis cauie into being as Matthew and Luke athrm, we do not see how he could have been th« Mesbiah, 230 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. The only other expressions in the three first GospeU which lend the slightest countenance to the doctrine in question, are the acknowledgments of the disciples, the centurion, and the demoniacs, that Jesus was the Son of God,* — some of which we have already shown to be of very questionable genuineness, — and the voice from hea- ven said to have beon heard at the baptism and the trans- figuration, saying, " This is my beloved Son," &lc. But, besides that, as shown in chapter vii., considerable doubt rests on the accuracy of the first of these relations : the testimony borne by the heavenly voice to Jesus can in no sense mean that he was physically the Son of God, or a partaker of the divine nature, inasmuch as the very same expression was frequently applied to others, and as indeed a " Son of God " was, in the common parlance of the Jews, simply a prophet, a man whom God had sent, or to whom He had spoken.f But when we come to the fourth Gospel, especially to those portions of it whose peculiar style betrays that tliey came from John, and not from Jesus, the case is very dif- ferent. We find here many passages evidently intended to convey the impression that Jesus was endowed with a superhuman nature, but neaiiy all expressed in language savouring less of Christian simplicity than of Alexandrian philosophy. The evangelist commences his Gospel with a confused statement of the Platonic doctrine as modified in Alexandria, and that the Logos was a partaker of the Divine Nature, and was the Creator of the world ; on which he proceeds to engraft his own notion, that Jesus was this Logos — that the Logos or the divine wisdom, * An expreaaion here merely signifying a Prophet or the Messiah. + " The Lord hath said unto me (David), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. " — (Ps. ii. 7). Jehovah says of Solomon, ' ' I will be his father, and he shall be my son." — {2 Sam. vii. 14). The same expres- sion is applied to Israel (Exod. iv. 22 ; Hos. xi. 1), and to David (Ps. Ixxxix. 27). " I have said, Ye are gods ; and all of you are children of the most High." — (Ps. Ixxxii. 6). " If he called them gods, unto whom the WDfd of Qoaoame,"ftc. — (John x. Sf)), "Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the Sons of God Beloved, now are we the Sous of God." — (1 John iii. 1, 2). (Sfe also Gal. UL 26: IV. 5, 6). " As j lany as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the ■ona of God."— (Rom. viii. 14). "But to as many as received him, he giive power to become the soiu of GoU."— (John L 12). the seconi person of read the < whole of tion that of the W Throughc the same for Chris already \ [Take, punishm( in the pc one sing] fire," " e petually the consi typifying distinctly precise < structioi The dod that we God of Great ] with th Scriptu] the wic finally, of the ( compari connect end of i . generat now de no nee *[Seec fied divi Punishm the Oonte RESULTS OF THE FOREGOmO CRITICISM. 231 first Gospels le doctrine in disciples, the as the Son of lown to be of )ice from hea- and the trans- >n," &c. But, derable doubt relations : the esus can in no a of God, or a the very same and as indeed 36 of the Jews, it, or to whom , especially to rays that they -se is very dif- jntly intended idowed with a sd in language »f Alexandrian Gospel with a le as modified a,rtaker of the he world ; on on, that Jesus ivine wisdom, e Messiah, ny Son ; this clay lomon, " I will be The same expres- David (Ps. Ixxxix, iliiren of the most [vhom the vord of of love the Father •ns of God i). (See alHo Gal. God, they are the ived him, he gave the second person in Plato's Trinity, became flesh in the person of the prophet of Nazareth. Now, can any one read the epistles, or the three first Gospels — or even the whole of the fourth — and not at once repudiate the no- tion that Jesus was, and knew himself to be, the Creator of the World ? — which John affirms him to have been. Throughout this Gospel we find constant repetitions of the same endeavour to make out a supv^rhuman nature for Christ ; but the ungenuineness of these passages has already been fully considered. [Take, again, the doctrine of the Eternity of future punishments — the most impossible of the tenets included in the popular creed. It rests upon and is affirmed by one single Gospel text. Matt. xxv. 46 ; — for, though "hell fire," " everlasting fire" — i.e., the fire that was kept per- petually burning in the adjacent valley of Gehenna for the consumption of the city refuse — is often spoken of as typifying the fate of the wicked, yet the expression distinctly implies, not everlasting life in fire, bvt the precise opposite — namely death, annihilation, total de- struction, in a fire ever at hand and never extinguished. The doctrine is not only in diametric antagonism to all that we can conceive or accept of the attributes of the God of Jesus, but to the whole spirit and teaching of our Great Master. It is at variance with other texts and with the general view* gathered from the authentic Scripture, which teaches the " perishing," the " death," of the wicked, not their everlasting life in torment. And finally, the isolated text in question occurs in one only of the Gospels, — and occurs there (as will be seen by comparing Matth. xxv. 31, with xxiv. 30) in Immediate connection with the prophecy as to the coming of the end of the world within the lifetime of the then existing generation, — a prophecy, the erroneousness of which is now demonstrated, and which there is (to say the least) no need for believing ever to have come out of the * [See countlesB argniments from the pens, not of unbelievers, but of quali- fied divines — among later ones, " Haimony of Scripture on future Punishments," by the Rev. S. Miuton, and a paper by " Anglicanua," iu the (hntemtiomry Bcview, for May, 1872.] ! i 1 i 'I ;i';' 232 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. K.-!| i mouth of Christ. What are called the " eschatological " discourses are notoriously among the passages in the Gospels of most questionable genuineness. Yet it is on the authority of a single verse so sus- piciously located, so repeatedly contradicted else wli ere either distinctly or by implication, and so flagrantly outot harmony with the spirit both of Theism and of Christian- ity, that we are summoned to accept a dogma revolting alike to our purer instincts and our saner reason !] Once more ; the doctrine of the Atonement, of Christ's death having been a sacrifice in expiation of the sins of mankind, is the keystone of the common form of modem orthodoxy. It takes its origin from the epistles, and we believe can only appeal to three texts in the evangelists, for even partial confirmation. In Matt. xx. 28, it is said, " The Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many" an expression which may countenance the doctrine, but assuredly does not contain it. Again in Matth. xxvi. 28, we find, " This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Mark (xiv. 24) and Luke (xxii. 20), however", who give the same sentence, both omit the significant expression; while John omits, not only the expression, but the entire narrative of the institution of thnd of Peter, Dse of James LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 237 and Jude, were at a very early period reckoned among the spurious or doubtful writings.* The epistles of cer- tain or acknowledged genuineness are thus reduced to fifteen, viz., thii'teen of Paul, one of John, and one of Peter. Thus, of fifteen epistles, of which we can pronounce with tolerable certainty that they are of apostolic origin, two only proceeded from the companions of Jesus, and the remaining thirteen from a man who had never seen him, save in a vision, nor heard his teaching, nor learnt from his disciples ; — a converted persecutor, who boasted that he received his instructions from direct supernatural communications.-}- We will now proceed to establish the following prop- ositions : — I. That the apostles differed from each other in opinion, and disagreed among themselves. II. That they held and taught some opinions which we know to have been erroneous. III. That both in their general tone, and in some im- portant particulars, their teaching differed materially from that of Christ as depicted in the synoptical Gospels. I. Infallible expounders of a system of Religion or Philosophy cannot disagree among themselves as to the doctrines which compose that system, nor as to the spirit which should pervade it. Now, the apostles did disagree among themselves in their exposition of the nature and constituents of their Master's system — and this, too, in matters of no small significance ; they are not, therefore, infallible or certain guides. Putting abide personal and angry contentions, such as those recorded in Acts xv. 39, which, however undigni- fied, are, we fear, natural even to holy men ; the first re- corded dispute among the apostles we find to have related to a matter of the most essential importance to the char- * De Wette, i. 69-83. See also Hug, 583-650. The Epistle of Jamea we are still disposed to consider genuine ; that of Jude is uiiimp()rt.-uit ; tlie second of Feter, and the third of John, are almost certoiuly unnrioiiij. '^ ■ 11-19. Ti .i.ii i'i\ Njralatians i. I.- ■ Vi: 238 THE CREED OP CHRISTENDOM. acter of Christianity — viz., whether or not the Gospel should be preached to any but Jews — whether the Gen- tiles were to be admitted into the fold of Christ ? We find (c. xi. j that when the apostles and brethren in Jiidea heard that Peter had ventured to visit Gentiles, to eat with them, to preach to them, and even to baptize them, they were astonished and scandalized by the innovation and " contended with him." The account of the discus- sion which ensued throws light upon two very interesting questions : upon the views entertained by Jesus himself (or at least as to those conveyed by him to his disciples), as to the range and limit of his mission ; and upon the manner in which, and the grounds on which, controversies were decided in the early Church. We have been taught to regard Jesus as a prophet who announced himself as sent from God on a mission to preach repentance, and to teach the way of life to all mankind, and who left behind him the apostles to com- plete the work which he was compelled to leave un- finished. The mission of Moses was to separate and edu- cate a peculiar people, apart from the rest of the world, for the knowledge and worship of the one true God : — The mission of Christ was to bring all nations to tliat knowledge and worship — to extend to all mankind that salvation which, in his time, was considered to belong to the Jews alone, as well as to point to a better and wider way of life. Such is the popular and established notion. But when we look into the New Testament we find little to confirm this view, and much to negative it. Putting aside our own prepossessions, and inferences drawn from the character of Christ, and the comprehensive grandeur of his doctrine, nothing can well be clearer from the evi- dence presented to us in the Scriptures, than that Jesus considered himself sent, not so much to the world at large as to the Jews exclusively, to bring back his countrymen to the true essence and spirit of that religion whose purity had in his days been so grievously corrupted ; and to ele- vate and to enlarge their views from the stores of his own rich and comprehensive mind. It will be allowed by all that the apostles, at the com- LIMITS luenccnient Lord, had n to any but but a Jewi tient questi vesurrcctioi this time re of the acc( strong relie ministry. the rclatio; new idea God is no that fearet with him" word whic and which the peopU shows, me we are to astonishe( out the gi to accouE and bapt dently (x tified bin not by q simply b to proce( peared v in a ma light ha' the Gen could th ciples ai tiles, or other ni mission LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 23.9 the Gospel ^er tlic Gen- 'hrist ? We [ren in Judea btiles, to eat faptize them, innovation the discus- , interesting esus himself is disciples), nd upon the controversies prophet who ' mission to of life to all sties to com- o leave un- ate and edu- f the world, true God .— tions to that ankind that to belong to V and wider shed notion, ^e find little t. Putting irawn from 'e grandeur )m the evi- that Jesus rid at large 3untrymen lose purity and to ele- 3res of his menconient of their ministry after the crucifixion of their Lord, had not the least idea that their mission extended to any but the Jews, or that tlieir Master was anytliing but a Jewish Messiah and Deliverer. Their first impa- tient question to him when assembled together after the resurrection, is said to have been, " Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel ? "* The whole of the account we are now considering, brings out in strong relief their notions as to che narrow limits of their ministry. When Peter is sent for by Cornelius, and hears the relation of his vision, he exclaims, as if a perfectly new idea had struck him, " Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons : but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts x. 34) ; and he goes on to expound " the word which God sent unto the children of Israel" (v. 3G), and which the apostles were commanded to " preach unto the people" (v. 42\ — " the people," as the context (v. 41) shows, meaning simply the Jews. The Jewish believers, we are told (v. 45), "as many as came with Peter were astonished, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." When Peter was called to account by the other apostles for having preached to and baptized Gentiles (xi. 1) — a proceeding which evi- dently (xi. 2, 3) shocked and surprised them all — he jus- tified himself, not by reference to any commands of Jesus, not by quoting precept or example of his Master, but simply by relating a vision or dream which he supposed to proceed from a divine suggestion. The defence ap- peared valid to the brethren, and they inferred from it, in a manner which shows what a new and unexpected light had broken in upon them, — " Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life" (xi. 18). Now, could this have been the case, had Christ given his dis- ciples any commission to preach the gospel to the Gen- tiles, or given them the slightest reason to suppose that; other nations besides the Jews were included in that com- mission ? (See also for confirmation xi. 19, aiid xiii. 46,) the com- • Acta. L )orate arguments contained in the Epistle to the Romans, to !*how that the gospel ovxfht to be preached to the GtntileH —that there is no dihorence between Greek and Jew, &e. —Paul, thongl'. he quotes largely from the Hebrew Proph- ets, never ajypeida to any sayings of Jesus, in confir- mation of his view , and in the Acts, in two instances, his mission to the Gentiles is represented as arising out of a direct subsequent revelation (in a vision) to hinisolf. (Acts xxii. 21 , xxvi. 17 ; ix. 15.) As, therefore, none of the apostles, either in their writings or in their discussions, appeal to the sayings or deeds of Christ during his lifetime as their warrant for preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, but on the contrary, one and all manifest a total ignorance of any such deeds or sayings — we think it must be concluded that the va- rious texts extant, conveying his commands to " preach the gospel to all nations," could never have proceeded from him, but are to be ranked among the many ascribed say- ings, embodying the ideas of a later period, which we find both in the Acts and the evangelists.* None of these are qiioted or referred to by the apostles in their justifi- cation, and therefore could not have been known to them, and, since unknown, could not be authentic. On the other hand, there are several passages in the Gospels which, if genuine, clearly indicate that it was not from any neglect or misunderstanding of the instructioTis * ThcHe texts are the following (Matth. viii. 11, 12) : " Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness. " This, however, as well as the parable of the vineyard (xxi. 43), and that of the supper (Luke xiv. 16), might be merely an indignant denunciation called fortn by the obstinacy of the Jews in re- fusing to listrin to his claims. Matth. xxiv. 14, xxviii. 19 ; Mark xvi, 15, we have already shown reason to believe spurious ; and Luke xxiv. 47, with Acts i. 8, d> ar equal marks of unauthenticity. It is true that Jesus talked with a Samaritan woman, and healed a Samaritan leper ; but the Samaritans were not (xen tiles, only heretical Jews. We find from Acts viii. 5, 14, that th^e apostles early and without scruple preached to and bap- tized Samaritans. Jesus also healed a Gentile centurion's servant : but in the first place, the servant might have been a Jew, though his master was not ; antf, secondly, a temporal blessing, a simple act of charity, Jeaus could not gruf'ge even to strangers. the ela>»orate |»e Romans, to the Gt'ii tiles and Jew, &e. lebrew Pioph." ^, in confir- instances, his [rising out of a i) to hiijLsolf. 'her in their the sayings or sir warrant for the contrary, ny such deeds' I that the va- ^ds to " preach proceeded from p ascribed say- nod, which we None of these n their justifi- nown to them, c. issages in the ihat it was not le instructions Many shall come ffl, and Isaac, and ;he kingdom shall I the parable of tlie , might be merely of the Jews in re- 9 ; Mark xvi 15, d Luke xxiv. 47, is true that Jesus m leper; but the e find from Acts ached to and biip- 8 servant: but in h his master was arity, Jesus could LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 241 of their Lord, that the Apostles regarded their mission as confined to the Jews. " Go not into the way of the Gen- tiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter 3''e not : but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel " (Matth. X. 5, 6). " I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel " (Matth. xv. 24). " Verily I say unto you, Tliat ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of ..lan shall sit in the throne of his gloiy, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tril)es of Israel" (Matth. xix. 28).* " It is easier for li aven and oai-th to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail" (Luke xvi. 17). " Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or tlie prophets : I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil " (Maith. v. 17). " This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham" (Luke xix. 9). " Salvation is of the Jews" (John iv. 22). It would appear, then, that neither the historical nor the epistolary Scriptures give us any reason for surmising that Jesus directed, or contemplated, the spread of his gospel beyond the pale of the Jewish nation ; that the apostles at least had no cognizance of any such views on his pait ; that when the question of the admission of the Gentiles to the knowledge of the gospel, came before them in the natural progress of events, it created con- siderable difference of opinion among them, and at fii-st the majority were decidedly hostile to any such liberality of view, or such extension of their missionary labours. The mode in which the controversy was conducted, and the grounds on which it was decided, are strongly charac- teristic of the moral and intellectual condition of t le struggling church at that early period. The objectors bring no argument to show why the Gentiles should not be admitted to the gospel light, but they put Peter at once on his defence, as having, in preaching to others than to Jews, done a thing which, prwui facie, was out of rule, and required justification. And Peter replies to them, not by appeals to the paramount authority of * [It is, however, nearly impossible to consider this verse as genuine, es- pecially when read in connection with ch. xx. 20-28]. 242 THE CBEED OP CHRISTENDOM. LIMI' ■f! Christ, — not by reference to the tenour of his life and teaching, — not by citing the case of the Centurion's ser- vant, the Cauaanitish woman, or the parables of the vine- yard and the supper, — not by showing from the nature and fitness of things that so splendid a plan of moral elevation, of instruction — tach a comprehensive scheme of ledemption, according to the orthodox view — ought to be as widely preached as possible, — not by arguing that Christ had come into the world to spread the heal- ing knowledge of Jehovah, of our God and Father, to all nations, to save all sinners and all believers ; — but simply by relating a vision, or rather a dream — the most natural one possible to a man as hungry as Peter is represented to have been — ^the interpretation of which — at first a 'puzzle to him — is suggested by the simultaneous appear- ance of the messengers of Cornelius, who also pleads a heavenly vision as a reason for the summons. This justification would scarcely by itself have been sufficient, for the dream might have meant nothing at all, or Peter's interpretation of it — evidently a doubtful and tentative one — might have been erroneous ; so he goes on to argue that the event showed him to have been right, inasmuch as, after his preaching, the Holy Ghost fell upon all the household of Cornelius ; " And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the begin- ing ; Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ ; what was I, that I could withstand God?" (Acts xi. 15, 17.) This argument clenched the matter, satisfied the brethren, and settled, once for all, the question as to the admission of the gentiles into the Church of Christ. It becomes nect'ssary, therefore, to inquire more closely into the nature of this argument which appeared to the apostles so conclusive and irrefragable. What was this Holy Spirit ? and in what way did it manifest its presence ? so that the apostles recognised it at once as the special and most peculiar gift vouchsafed to believers. The case, as far as the Acts and the Epistles enable us to leam it, appears clearly to have been this : — The indi- cation — 01 indubitab upon any ' to utter st in an unk on the da filled wit other tony ii.4). H " And th( on the Ge Ghost, i magnify ( also in th found at upon the s'pake vji " speakinj is added ' external which it received i ing with The po foreign le naturally and probi (Acts ii. : apostles audience many dii much re adraixtu: 1. We plicitly * See als "Andthcs cant out d< this interp period sp beUef. liis life and nturion's ser- 8 of the vine- n the nature Ian of mural isive scheme view — oiiphesying," or preaching) is the only specified external manifestation, cognisable by the senses, by which it was known that such and such individuals had received the Holy Ghost. What, then, was this " speak- ing with tongues ? "* The popular idea is, that it was the power of speaking foreign languages without having learned them — super- naturally, in fact. This interpretation derives countenance, and probably its foundation, from the statement of Luke (Acts ii. 2-8), which is considered to intimate that the apostles preached to each man of their vast and motley audience in his own native language. But there are many difficulties in the way of tliis interpretation, and much reason to suspect in the whole narrative a large admixture of the mythic element. 1. We have already seen that Luke is not to be im- plicitly trusted as an historian; and some remarkable * See also the passage in the spurious addition to Mark's Gospel (xvi. 17): "And these signs sliall follow them that believe ; In my name shall thev cast out devils ; they sltall apeak with new tonr/uea," &c. The date at which this interpolation was written is unknown, but it serves to show that, at that period speaking with new tongues was one of the establiehed signs of belief. 244 THE CREED OF CHEtSTENDOM. discrepancies between the accounts of the Gospels and the Acts Mrill be noted in a subsequent chapter, when we treat of the Resurrection and Ascension.* 2. It appears from Matthew (x. 1, 8, 20), that the Holy Spirit had been akeady imparted to the apostles during the lifetime of Jesus, and a second outpouring therefore could not be required. John, however, tells us (xx. 22), that Jesus expressly and personally conferred this gift after his resurrection, but before his ascension: "And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith tmto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." But in the Acta the " breathing " had become " a rushing mighty wind," and the outpouring of the Spirit is placed some days after the ascension, and the personal interposition is dispensed with These discrepant accounts cannot all be faithful, and that of Luke is apparently the least authentic. 3 We have no evidence anywhere that the apostles knew, or tjmployed, any language except Hebrew (or Ara- maic) and Greek — Greek being (as Hug has clearly proved*!") ^^^^ conunon language in use throughout the eastern provinces f>f the Roman Empire. Nay, we have soTTbc reason to l)elieve that they were not acquainted with other languages ;* for by the general tradition of the early church^: Mark is called the " interpreter " of Peter. Now, if Peter had been gifted as we imagine on the day of Pentecost, he would have needed no interpreter. 4. The language in which the occurrence is related would seem to imply that the miracle was wrought upon the hearers, rather than on the speakers — that whatever * [See also similar dififeiences between tiie Acts aiid the Epistles of Paul in narrating the same events.] t Hug. ii. 1, § 10, p. 326. t Papias, Ireneeus, and Jerome all call him so. See Eusebius. Another consideration which renders the story still more doubtful is, that it appenrs very probable that Greek, though not always the native, was the current language, or a current language, among all those nations enumerated (Acts li. 9-11). Media, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Arabia, and Egynt were full of Greek cities, and Greek was generally spoken there. (See the dissertation of Hug, above referred to.) 1* therefore the apostles had addressed the audience in Greek, as it was probably their habtt to do, they would natu- railv have been intelligible even to that miscellaneous audience. Acts xxiL 2, shows that even in Jenisaleni addressing the people in Hebrew was an uniiwiftl thing. LtMlTS the languag heard them came togeth ffian heard « Behold, ar how licar w were born ? addressed d: cessively, is dicates that at one time are not drui hovar of the 5. The strange an " What mea must be d if the Utter culations — to each set Moreover, 1 in the latte; dowed f ron languages > say, ignorai that we mi that those his fellow-< that outpc prophesied "This is \ and it shal I will poi sons and \ men shaU dreams." 6. Luk< cases men in tfte sar apostles ( xspels and the ier, when we that the Holy )ostles during ■ing therefore s us (xx. 22), rred this gift 'Sion: "And m, and saith it in the Acts ighty wind," ne days after i is dispensed 1 be faithful, ihentic. the apostles 3rew (or Ara- has clearly oughout the fay, we have uainted with 1 of the early Peter. Now, n the day of ter. e is related rought upon at whatever Bpistles of Paul ibius. Another that it appears was the current lerated (Acts Ji. nit were full of tlie dissertation I addressed the By would nalu- ice. Acts xxii. riebrew was an LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 24)5 the language in which the apostles spoke, the audience heard them each man in his own. " When the multitude came together they were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language" .... " Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans ? And how liear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born ? " The supposition that the (MfFerent apostles addressed different audiences in different languages, suc- cessively, is inconsistent with the text, which clearly in- dicates that the whole was one transaction, and took pla( o at one time, " Peter standing up . . . said . , . These are not drunken as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day." 5. The people, we are told, " werg in doubt " at the strange and incomprehensible phenomenon, and said, " What meaneth this ? " while others thought the apostles must be drunk — a natural perplexity and surmise, if the Utterances were incoherent and unintelligible eja- culations — but not so, if they were discourses addressed to each set of foreigners in their respective languages. Moreover, Peter's defence is not what it would have been in the latter case. He does not say. " We have been en- dowed from on high with the power of speaking foreign languages which we hove never learned : we are, as you say, ignorant Galileans, but God has given us this faculty that we might tell you of his Son ; " but he assures them that those utterances which led them to suppose him and his fellow-disciples to be drunk were the consequences of that outpouring of spiritual emotion which had been prophesied as one of the concomitants of the millennium. " This is that which was spoken by the Prophet Joel : and it shall come to pass in the last days, saith Jehovah, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh ; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams." 6. .Luke indicates in several passages, that in the other cases mentioned the Holy Spirit fell upon the recipients in tlie same manner, ana with tlte same results, as on the apostles on the day of Pentecost (Acts x. 47 ; xi. 16-17 ; 246 THE CREED OF CHRIST TNDOM. {1,1 ;l'i XV. 8, 9*). Now, in these cases there is no rea.«ion whtt^ ever to believe that the "gift of tongues" meant the power of speaking foreign languages. In the first case (that of Cornelius) it could not have been this ; for as all the recipients began to " speak with tongues," and yet were members of one household, such an unnecessary display of newly-acquiied knowledge of power would have been in the highest deg?'e& impertinent and osten- tntious. There can, we think, be no doubt — indeed we are not aware that any doubt has ever been expressed — that the remarks of Paul in the 12th, 13th, and 14th chapters of the first epistle to the Corinthians, respecting the *' speak- ing with tongues," — the " gift of tongues," — " the un- known tongue," &ic., — refer to the same faculty, or supposed spiritual endowment, spoken of in the Acts ; which fell on the apostles at the day of Pentecost, and on the household of Cornelius, and the disciples of ApoUos, as already cited. The identity of the gift referred to in all the cases is, we believe, unquestioned. Now the language of Paul clearly shows, that this " speaking with tongues " was not preaching in a foreign language, but in an ttnknown language ; — that it ' con- sisted of unintelligible, and probably incoherent, utter- ances.-f- He repeatedly distinguishes the gift of tongues from that of preaching (or, as it is there called, prophecy), and the gift of speaking the unknown tongues from the gift of interpreting the same. " To one is given by the Spirit the working of miracles ; to an- other prophesy ; to another divers kinds of tongues ; to an- other the interpretation of tongues!* ..." Have all the gifts of healing ? do all speak with tongues ? do all * Peter says "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be bnp. tized, which have receievd the Holy Ghost OS weW a« wc ? " . . . "The Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning." ..." ForaBmuch, then, a« God gaw them the like gift as tinto us." ..." And God gave them the Holy Ghost, even as unto us, and put no difference between us and them. " t We are glad to corroborate our opinion by a reference to that of Nean- der, who, in his " History of the Planting o^ the Early Church,'' comes to the same conclusion, chap. i. LIM interjiret "Let hi that he i power of been re{ very low second ar then gift tongues ' he that s pressly i terances, " He tha unto ma: (xiv. 2). pretty p known discredit age it. than ye words w also, tha (xiv. 18, into one in unlea mad ? " tongue, by coui not the (See als It is, the thr< made, \ Christii imaginj the ne\ eloquer ble line gave ve utterar M. LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 247 10 es reason what meant the ti the first case this; for as all igues," and yet in unnecessary power would lent and osteu- eed we are not 3ssed-— that the 4th chapters of -ng the *' speak- 3s,"— "the un- me faculty, or of in the Acts ; of Pentecost, i the disciples ity of the gift , unquestioned. 3WS, that this ag in a foreign ; — that it con- oherent, utter- gift of tongues [led, prophecy), agues from the is given by the racles ; to an- 'onguea ; to an- . " Ilave all ongues ? do all should not be bnp. ?" . . . "The . " Foraamuch, " And God gave '.nee between us and e to that of Nean- Church,' comes to interpret ? " (1 Cor. xii. 10-30. See also xiii. 1, 2, 8.) " Let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret " (xiv. 13). Again, he classes this power of tongues (so invaluable to missionaries, had it been really a capacity of speaking foreign languages) veiy low among spiritual endowments. " First apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, divei^sities of tongues " (xii. 28.) " Greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues " (xiv. 5). He further ex- pressly explains this gift to consist in unintelligible ut- terances, which were useless to, and lost upon the audience. " He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto man, but unto God: for no man understandeth him " (xiv. 2). (See also ver. 6-9, 16.) Finally, he intimates pretty plainly that the practice of speaking these un- known tongues was becoming vexatious, and bringing discredit on the Church ; and he labours hard to discour- age it. " I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all : yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue " (xiv. 18, 19). " If the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in unlearned men or unbelievers, will they not say ye are mad ? " (ver. 23). " If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course ; and let one interpret For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace " (ver. 27-33). (See also ver. 39, 40). It is, we think, almost impossible to read the whole of the three chapters from which the above citations are made, without coming to the conclusion that in the early Christian Church there were a number of weak, mobile, imaginative minds, who, over-excited by the sublimity of the new doctrine expounded to them, and by the stirring eloquence of its preachers, passed the faint and undefina- ble line which separates enthusiasm from delirium, and gave vent to their exaltation in incoherent or inarticulate utteraiHcea, which the compassionate sympathy, or the i 248 THE CREED 01* CHRISTENDOM. consanguineous fancies, of those around them, dignified with the description of speaking, or prophesying, in an unknown tongue. No one familiar with physiology, or medical or religious history,* can be ignorant how con- tagious delusions of this nature always prove, and when once these incoherences became the recognised sign of the descent of the Spirit, every one would, of course, be anxious to experience, and to propagate them. We have seen the same thing precisely in our own day among the Irvingites. How is it, then, that the same phenomena ol mental weakness and excitability which in the one case * Somewhat similar phenomena have manifested themselves on several occasions in the course of the last eight hundred years, and even in our own day, when religious excitement has proved too strong for weak minds or sensitive frames to bear without giving way We find them recorded in the case of the ecstatics of Cevennes, who underwent severe persecution in France after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and among the con- nulaionnaires oi St. Medard near the close of last century. Both these cases are examined in considerable detail in a venr curious and valuable work by Bertrand, a French physician, " Sur les Variet^s de I'Extase" (pp.323, 3.59). But our own country has presented us within a few years with a re- production of precisely the same results arising from similar causes. There IS extant a very remarkable and painfully-interesting pamphlet by a Mr. Baxter, who was at one time a shining light in Mr. Irving's congregation, and a great " speaker with tongues," in which he gives a detailed account of all the accompanying phenomena. It was written after he had recovered ; though he never relinquished his belief in the supernatural nature of these utterances, but finally concluded them to be from Satan, on the ground of some of the speakers uttering what he thought false doctrine. The descrip- tion he gives of his own state and that of others during the visitations in- dicates in a manner that no physiologist can mistake, a condition of cerebral excitement implying hysteria, and verging on madness, and by no means uncommon. Sometimes, when praying, his shrieks were so loud that he was compelled to "thrust his handkerchief into his mouth that he might not alarm the house. " Others fell down ' ' convulsed and foaming like demo- niacs." "My whole body was violently agitated ; for the space of ten minutes I was paralyzed under a shaking of my limbs, and no expression except a convulsive sigh." His friends "remarked on his excited state of mind." A servant was taken out of his houste deranged, and pronounced by the t jngues to be possessed by a devil. Another " speaker with tongues " did nothing but mutter inarticulate nonsense with a "mobt revolting expres- sion of countenance." Mr. Baxter says the utterances which wei« urged upon him by "the power," were sometimes intelligible, sometimes not; sometimes I^rench, sometimes Latin, and sometimes in languages which he did not know, but which his wife thought to be Spanish. He says at last, " My i>ersua.sion concerning the unknown tongue is that it is no tangunf/e whatever, but a mere collection of words and sentences, often a mere jar^'uu of sounds." One man seldom began to speak without the contagion seizinjj: upon others, so that numbers spilke at once, as in Paul's time. It is clear to any one who reads Mr. Baxter's candid and unpretending narrative, that a skilful physician would at once have terminatea the whole delusion by a liberal exhibition of phlebotomy and anodynes. LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORI'IY. 249 aroused only pity and contempt, should in the other be regarded with a mysterious reverence and awe ? v The language of Paul in reference to the " unknown tongues " appears to us clearly that of an honest and a puzzled man, whose life in an agf of miracles, and whose belief in so many grand religious L^arvels, has prepared him to have faith in more ; — whose religious humility will not allow him to prescribe in what manner the Spirit of God may, or may not, operate : — but, at the same time, whose strong good sense makes him feel that these in- comprehensible utterances must be useless, and were most probably nonsensical, morbid, and grotesque. He seems to nave been anxious to repress the unknown tongue, yet unwilling harshly to condemn it as a vain delusion. That there was a vast amount of delusion and unsound enthusiasm in the Christian Church at the time of the apostles, not only seems certain, but it could not possibly have been otherwise, without such an interference with the ordinary operations of natural causes as would have amounted to an incessant miracle. Wonders, real or sup- posed, were of daily occurrence. The subjects habitually brought before the contemplation of Believers were of such exciting and sublime magnificance that even the strongest minds cannot too long dwell upon them without some degree of perilous emotion. The recent events which closed the life of the Founder of their Faith, and above all the glorious truth, or the splendid fiction, of his resurrection and ascension, were depicted with all the stirring grandeur of oriental imagination. The expecta- tion of an almost immediate end of the world, and the reception into glory and power of the living believer, — the hope which each one entertained, of being " caught up " to meet his Redeemer in the clouds, — was of itself sufficient to overthrow all but the coldest tempers ; while the constant state of mental tension in which they wero kept by the antagonism and persecution of the world without, could not fail to maintain a degree of oxaltatioo very unfavourable to sobriety either ot thought or feeling. All these influences, too, wore brought to buav upon iniuds ill 250 THE CREED OF CHBISTENDOM. the most ignorant and unprepared, upon the poor and the oppressed, upon women and children ; and to crown the whole, the most prominent doctrine of their faith was that of the immediate, special, and hourly influence of the Holy Spirit — a doctrine of all others the most liable to utter and gross misconception, and the most apt to lead to perilous mental excitement. Hence they were con- stantly on th© look-out for miracles. Their creed did not supply, and indeed scarcely admitted, any criterion of what was or was not of divine origin — for who could \ unture to pronounce or define how the Spirit might or should manifest itself ? — and thus ignorance and folly too often become the arbiters of wisdom — ^and the ravings of delirium were listened to as the words of inspiration, and of God. If Jesus could have returned to earth thirty yeai-s after his death, and sat in the midst of an assembly of his followers, who were listening in hushed and won- dering prostration of mind to a speaker in the " unknown tongue," how would he have wept over the humiliating and disappointing spectacle ! how would he have grieved to think that the incoherent jargon of delirium or hys- teria should be mistaken for the promptings of his Fa- ther's spirit ! We are driven, then to the painful, but unavoidable, conclusion, that those mysterious and untelligible utter- ances which the apostles and the early Christians gener- ally looked upon as the effects of the Holy Spirit — the manifestation of its presence, the signs of its operation, the special indication and criterion of its having fallen upon any one — were in fact simply the physiologically natural results of morbid and perilous cerebral exaltation, induced" by strong religious excitement acting on uncul- tivated and susceptible minds ; — ^results which in all ages and nations have followed in similar circumstances and from similar stimulants ; — ^and that these " signs," to which Peter appealed, and to which the other brethren succumbed, as proving that God intended the gospel to bj preached to Gentiles as well as to Jews, showed only that Gentiles were susceptible to the same excitements, and manifested that susceptibility in the same manner as the Jews. LIMI Shortly Gentiles i the singi second su corollary confirms dispute ^ Gentiles Christian Jewish la they had observan and the show ho^ disciples, of the sp Jesus, ai simply a It api when Ps baptizin] sees we and diss new con Moses "■ opposed sion bee elders v the mai the pro there v —the James, accoun second that I side oi I witk •The M. 'he poor and the id to crown the their faitli was influence of the most liable to lost apt to lead hey were con- r creed did not ly criterion of ■for who could Spirit might or Je and folly too the ravings of nspiration, and o earth thirty of an assembly shed and won- bhe " unknown he humiliating e have grieved Jlirium or hys- ^gs of his Fa- i unavoidable, illigible utter- fistians gener- f Spirit — the its operation, having fallen ^ysiologically ;al exaltation, ing on unciil- ch in all ages Qstances and "si^ns," to ier brethren he gospel to showed only excitements, e manner as LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 261 Shortly after the question as to the admission of the Gentiles into the Christian Church had been decided in the singular and inconclusive manner above related, a second subject of dispute arose among the brethren — a corollary almost of the first — the nature of which strongly confirms some of the views we have just put forth. The dispute was this: — whether it was necessary for those Gentiles who had been baptized and admitted into the Christian Community, to observe the ritual portion of the Jewish law ? — whether, in fact, by becoming Christians, they had, ipso facto, become Jews, and liable to Judaic observances ? The mere broaching of such a question, and the serious schism it threatened in the infant sect, show how little the idea had yet taken root among the disciples, of the distinctness of the essence, the superiority of the spirit, the newness of the dispensation, taught by Jesus, and how commonly Christianity was regarded as simply a purification and renewal of Judaism. It appears from the 15th chapter of the Acts, that when Paul and Barnabas were at Antioch, teaching and baptizing the Gentiles, certain Jewish Christians (Phari- sees we are told in verse 5) caused considerable trouble and dissension by asserting that it was necessary for the new converts " to be circumcised, and to keep the law of Moses " — a doctrine which Paul and Barnabas vehemently opposed. The question was so important, and the dissen- sion became so serious, that a council of the apostles and elders was summoned at Jerusalem to discuss and decide the matter. From the brief account given by Luke of the proceedings of this conclave it does not appear that there was any material difference among those assembled — the speakers among them, at least Peter, Paul, and James, all arguing on the same side ; but from the account of the same* transaction, given by Paul in the second chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians, it is clear that Peter (covertly or subsequently) took the Jewish side of the discussion, " When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. *The same, or a similar one. 252 THE CREED OP CHRISTENDOM. LIM For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentile s : but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the cir- cumcision. And the otlier Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all. If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews ? " This speech, directed against Peter, is so like that which Luke (Acts xv. 10, 11) puts into the mouth of Peter, that we cannot but suppose some mistake on the historian's part.* It is certain, however, both from the narrative in the Acts and from the whole tenuur of the Pauline Epistles, that the case was argued without any reference to the intentions of Christ, or to instructions left by him — but, instead, by inconclusive quotations from prophecy, and by considerations of practical good sense. The decision £.t which they arrived, on the suggestion of James, seems t>n the whole tc have been both wise and sound ; viz., that the Gentile converts should not be bur- dened with the observances of the ritual law, but should abstain from everything which could be considered as countenancing or tolerating idolatry, from fornication, and from food which, probably from its unwholesomeness, was considered unlawful in most oriental countries. The discussion and decision of this Council on a ques- tion of such vital import, both to the success and to the character of Christianity — a question involving its spirit- ual nature and essence as apart from ceremony — shew strongly and clearly the two points essential to our pres- ent argument ; Jlrst, that difference of opinion on matters of vital significance existed among the apostles ; and, secondly, that these matters were discussed in their Councils on argumentative grounds, without the least * tTnless, as has been suggested, Peter, after o incurred Faul's indignation. 1] preiensio supernat of the mi Thatv iniportar several" ments nr through seemed others contaiRe( one who coinparis of James erepancy tive per by a cita of tone 8 that the entertaii ent.* ■ There differed views V course o in contr marriage given in 11. some o] essentia opinion which, have b *Hug (it I mey 8c» flatly, his doctr efficacy i tiavened le did eat with 3 withdrew and ere of the cir- i likewise with carried away iaw that they truth of the thou, being a s, and not as tiles to live as ainst Peter, is puts int.o the B some mistake however, both ) whole tenour rgued without to instructions uotations from al good sense. > suggestion of >oth wise and Id not be bur- 'W, but should considered as n fornication, holesomeness, •untries. cil on a ques- ts and to the ing its spirit- 3mony — shew 1 to our pres- n on matters Dostles ; and, sed in their Dut the least rpowered by the iuid 80 incurred LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 253 pretension on the part of any of them to infallibility, supernatural wisdom, or exclusive or peculiar knowledge of the mind of Christ. That veiy different views as to the essentials and most important elements of Christianity were taken by tho several' apostles, or rather, perhaps, that the same ele- ments underwent very material modifications in passing through such different minds — that to some its essence seemed to consist in the ethical and spiritual, and to others in the speculative and scholastic, ideas which it contained or suggested — can scarcely be doubted by any one who will read simultaneously, and for the purpose of comparison, Paul's Epis le to the Corinthians, the Epistle of James, and the first of John and Peter. But the dis- crepancy is of a kind that will be perceptible on an atten- tive perusal, rather than one which can be pointed out by a citation of particular passages. It is a discrepancy of tone and spirit. No one, we think, can fail to perceive that the views of Christ's object, character, and mission, entertained by Paul and by James, were radically differ- ent.* • There is some evidence also that the Apostles not only differed from each other, but that their own respective views varied materially on important subjects in the course of their ministry. This will appear, more especially, in contrasting the exhortations of Paul on the subject of marriage, for example, contained in 1 Cor. vii., with those given in 1 Timothy iv. 3, v. 14 II. Our second position was, that the Apostles held some opinions which we know to be erroneous. It is essential not to overstate the case. They held jever«l opinions which we believe to be erroneous, but only one which, as it is related to a matter of fact, we know to have been erroneous. They unanimously and unques- • Hug (p. 613) Bays, " In this epistle (that of James) the Apostle Paul is (if I niey be allowed to use so harsli an expression for a while) contradicted so flatly, that it would seem to have been written in opposition to some of his doctrines and positions. All that Paul has taught respecting faith, its efficacy in justification, and the inutility of works, is here directly con- tiavened. " 254 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. I . tioningly believed and taught that the end of the world was at hand, and would arrive in the lifetime of the then existing generation. On this point there appears to Imve been no hesitation in their individual minds, nor any dif- fei nee of opinion among them. The following are the passages of the apostolic writings which most strongly express, or most clearly imply this conviction. Paul (1 Thess. iv. 15, 16, 17). " This we say unto you hy the word of the Lord, that we tvhich are alije and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not pre- vent them which are asleep. For .... the dead in Chi-ist shall rise first : then we ivhich are alive and re- main shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air : and so shall we ever be with the Lord." (1 Cor vii. 29.) " But this I say, brethren, the time is short : it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none ; and they that weep, as though they wept not ; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not ; and they tliat buy, as though they possessed not ; and they that use this world, as not abusing it ; for the fashion of this world passeth away." (1 Cor. xv. 51.) " Behold, I shew you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed." (See also 1 Tim. iv. 1 ; 2 Tim. iii. 1.) Peter. (1 Ep. i. 5, 20.) " An inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to he revealed in the last time." " Christ .... who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you." (iv. 7.) " The end of all things is at hand." John. (1 Ep. ii. 18.) " Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists ; whereby we know that it is the last time." James, (v. 8.) " Be ye also patient ; . . . for the coming of the Lord draweih nigh." * vfh(tn LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 256 of the world ne of the then )pears to liave ", nor any dif- the apostolic most clearly we say unto kick are alije shall not pre- the dead in alive and re- them in the shall we ever it this I say, hat both they )ne ; and they tnd they that they that buy, that use this of this tuorld , I shew you a 5 shall all be ii. 1.) incorruptible, T, reserved in )ower of God zvealed in the } foreordained 3 manifest in i of all things ithe last time: 11 come, even we know that . . . for the We may well conceive that this strong conviction must, in men like the apostles, hav(i been something far beyond a more abstract or speeulativo opinion. In fact, it modi- Ht'd their whole tone of thought and feeling; and could not fail to do so.* The firm and living fjtith that a few years would bring the second coming of their Lord in his glo"}', and the fearful termination of all eaithly things — when "the heavens should bo gathered together as a fjcroil, and the elements should melt with fervent heat " — and that many among them should be still alive, and should witness these awful occurrences with human eyes, and should join their glorified Master without passing tlirough the portals of the grave — could not exist in their minds without producing not only a profound contempt for all the pomps and distinctions of the world, but an utter carelessness for the future interests of mankind, f( )r posterity, even for kindred — without indeed distorting all the just proportions of those scenes of nature and society, in the midst of which their lot was cast.-f* If the world, and all its mighty and far-stretching interests — if the earth, and its infinite and ever-varying beauties — if (he sky, and its myraids of midnight glories — were indeed to be finally swept away in the time and the presence of the existing actors in the busy scene of life, wl ere was the use of forming any new ties of kindred or affection, which must terminate so suddenly and so soon ? Why give a moment's thought to the arts which embellish life, the amenities which adorn it, the sciences which smooth it or prolong it, or the knowledge which enriches and dignifies its course 5 Marriage, children, wealth, power, astronomy, philosophy, poetry, — what were they to men who knew that ten or twenty years would transplant not only themselves but the whole race of man, to a world where all would be forgotten, and would leave the earth — the scene of these things— a * [How indispatably this conviction was the current one in the apostolio age may be perceived from finding that Matthew makes no scruple of putting the announcement into the mouth of Chist himself, " Verily I say unto you, thi^ generation shall not pass, till ye shall see the Sou of man coming in the clouds of heaven," &c., fto. — .Matt lew xxiv. 30-34.1 t See Natural History of Enthusiaam, § v., pp. 100, 101. 256 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. LIMII destroyed and blackened chaos ? To this conviction may be traced St. Paul's confused and fluctuating notions on the subject of marriage. And this conviction, teenung with such immense and dangerous consequences, and held by all the apostles, was, we now know, wholly incorrect and unfounded. Next to the resui-rection of Christ, there was probably no doctrine which they held so undoulit- ingly, or preached so dogmatically as this, with regard to which they were totally in error. If, then, they were so misinformed, or mistaken, on a point having so immediate and powerful a bearing upon practical life, how is it possible to place absolute con- fidence in them when they deal with matters of deeper speculation, or enforce obscure and startling dogmas, or lay down conditions of salvation apparently at least at variance with those announced by Christ ? . III. Our third position is, that the teaching of the apostles in some important particulars, but still more in its general tone, diifered from that of their Master, as the latter is recorded in the synoptical Gospels. We know that the apostles, during the lifetime of their Lord, were very far indeed from imbibing his spirit, or fully apprehending his doctrine. Their miscon- ceptions of his mission and his teaching are represented as constant and obstinate, almost to stupidity. They are narrow, where he was liberal and comprehensive ; they were exclusively Jewish, where he was comparatively cosmopolitan ; they were violent, where he was gentle ; impetuous, where he was patient ; vindictive, where he was forgiving ; worldly, where he was spiritual. They had their thoughts too much fixed on " the rep''.oration of the Kingdom to Israel," and the " twelve thrones " on which they hoped to sit ; they could not embrace or endure the sublime conception of a suffering Teacher and Redeemer ; of a victory to be acbipved by death ; they were dismayed and confounded by their Master's cnici- fixion ; they had no expectation of his resurrection ; and when his hour of calamily arrived, "they all forsook him and fled." Disciple nnderstooc representa unless sor them, of e change th( prise the { induence l cording to given, afte them all t brance" v to the Ra be traced views of 1 ambitious reasonabl urrection work, a v the tweb view of i cations t rather th notions ; »"The sary cbang Messianic God. The in connect principal i of his Kii vnih him ; wise migh might rais Jew."-(S 28.) The' large dedi of the M crucified reiippearf words att and, if ge .4and ye you into heaven. gion of tl LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 257 lonviction may Ing notions on ption, teeming bees, and held holly incorrect ff Christ, tliere 'so undoiibt- i^ith regard to istaken, on a bearing upon absolute con- ters of deeper ng dogmas, or ly at least at iching of the ft still more in Master, as the he lifetime of imbibing his Their miscon- re represented by. They are lensive; they 5omparatively > was gentle ; ve, where he 'itual. They le res'^oration thrones" on i embrace or Teacher and death; they aster's cnici- rection; and forsook him Disciples who so little resembled and so imperfectly understood their Lord during his life, could not be adequate representatives or expounders of his religion after his death, unless some new and strange influence had come upon them, of energy sufficient to rectiiy their notions and to change their characters. The Supematuralists, who com- prise the great body of the Christian World, conceive this induence to have consisted in that Holy Spirit which, ac- cording to John, was promised, and, according to Luke, was givenjafter the Ascension ol Christ, and which was to "teach them all things," and to " bring all things to their remem- brance" which their Lord had taught them. According to the Rationalists, this metamorphosing influence must be traced to the death of Jesus, which spiritualized the views of the disciples by extinguishing their worldly and ambitious hopes.* The first is a possible, the second is a reasonable and probable explanation. The death and res- urrection of Christ must have worked, and evidently did work, a very great modification in many of the notions of the twelve apostles, and materially changed their point of view of their Lord's mission. But there are many indi- cations that this change was not a radical one ; it aflfected rather the accessories than the essence of their Messianic notions ; for, though they relinquished their expectation * " The death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, introduced a neces- sary cliangc into the conceptions of the Apostlen ; these drove out of their Messianic idea the spirit of the world, and introduced into it the spirit of God. They could not retain their Jewish ide;-.3 of the reign of the Messiah, in connection wit', the crucified Jesus. . . . His death struck down a principal part o*' their errors, and his exaltation forced upon them a new idea of hi« Kingdom. . . . Christ returns to i arth to hTiow taat God wae with him : and he ascends into heaven to repel the imagination which other- wise might possibly arise, nay, which actually had arisen, that even yet he might raise nis standard upon earth, and realize the gigantic illusion of the Jew."— (Sermon on the Comforter, by the Rev. J. H, Thom, Liverpool, p. 28.) There is much reason in these remarks, but they must be taken with lai;,'e deductions. It is astonishing how much of the ** Jewish concejitions t)f the Messiah" the apostles did contrive to retain "in connection with a crucified and ascended Christ." They still looked for his victorious earthly reappearance in Judea, in their own times ; an expectation to which the words attributed by Luke (Acts i. 11) to the angels, l)ear ample testimony, and, if genuine, would have gone far to justify. "Ye men of Galileo, why stand ye gazing up into heaven ? This same Jesus, which ia taken up from you into heaven, wiall so come in like manner as ye have spnn him go into heaven. " —See also the view of Paulus on this subject, quote by Hare (Mia- sion of the Comforter, ii. 480.) 258 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. LIMIT of an immediate restoration of the kingdom, they still, as we have seen, retained the conviction that that restoration would take place, in their own day, in a far more signal and glorious manner. Their views were spiritualized up to a certain point, but no further y even as to this great subject ; and on other points the change seems to have been less complete. The Epistle of James, indeed, is a worthy relic of one who had drunk in the spirit, and ap- preciated the lessons of the meek, practical, and spiritual Jesus. But in the case of the other two apostles, Peter is Peter still, and John is the John of the Gospel. Peter is the same fine, simple, affectionate, impetuous, daring, ener- getic, irtipalsive character, who asked to walk on the water, and was over-confident in his attachment to his Master, but who has now derived new strength and dignity from his new position, and, from the sad experience of the past, has learned to look with a steady eye on suffering and death. And John, in the Epistles, is precisely the same mixture of warm affcctionateness to his friends, and un- charitableness to his enemies, whicli the few glimpses we have of him in the Gospels would lead us to specify svs his characteristics. We meet with several passages in his writings which indicate that the gentle, forbearing, and forgiving spirit of the Master had not yet thoroughly pene- trated and chastened the mind of the disciple — several passages which Jesus, had he read them, would have re- buked as before, by reminding his zealous follower that he knew not what manner of spirit he was of.* The case of Paul is peculiar, and must be considered by itself. His writings are more voluminous than those of the other apostles, in a tenfold proportion, and have a * "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jeaus is the Christ? He is aatichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. " — (1 Ep. ii. 22. ) " We are of God : he that knoweth God heareth us ; he that is not of God hoareth not us. "— (iv. 6. ) " There is a sin unto death : I do not say that he shall pray for it."- (v. 16. ) '* We know that v.e are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." -(v. ID.) "Ii there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house ; neither bid him God speed."— (2 Ep. veraelO.) "I wrote unto tho church: but Diotrenhes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among theui, receiveth us not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he dueth, prating agaiost us with mAlicioua words."-(3Ep. ver. 9,10.) flistinctive in the flesV till sudden means of b< of bis Lore And, fin have four given by 1 Acts ; a se^ given by 1 salein ; a t been givei cursory, fr to the Ga mar veil on internal* Nowtl which, w either fro has not I in doubt whether, his 'narr light wa himself, was. ] saying, . atfirms as hims speech and we supernE on his not an Paul rl f-turc of his preach 1 they still, as |at restoration r more signal iritualized up to this great leems to have [, indeed, is a ipirit, and ap- and spiritual _)ostIes, Peter >pel. Peter is I, daring, ener- ■ on the water, '0 his Master] dignity from ^ce of the past, suffering and soly the same iends, and un- k glimpses we specify as his issages in his ^rbearing, and >roughly pene- ciple — several ''ould have re- foUower that of* considered by than those of , and have a leChriBt? He is 22.) "We are of trod heareth not ; lie shall pray for >le world lieth in d bring not tliis 'jfodspeed."— (2 I, who loveth to trefore, if I come, 18 Mrith niftlicious LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 259 flistiiictive character of their own; yet he never saw Christ in the flesh, and was a bitter persecutor of his followers till suddenly converted by a vision. What, then, were his means of becoming acquainted with the spirit and doctrines of his Lord ? And, first, as to the vision which converted him. We have four narratives of this remarkable occurrence — one (riven by Luke, as an historian, in the 9th chapter of the Acts ; a second, reported by Luke (c. xxii.), as having been o-iven by Paul himself in his speech to the people at Jeru- salem ; a third, reported also by Luke (c. xxvi.). as ha^dng been given by Paul to King Agrippa; and a fourth, more cursory.from Paul himself , in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians, which omits entirely the external and marvellous part of the conversion, and speaks only of an internal* revelation. Now there are certain discrepancies in these accounts, which, while they seem to show that the occurrence — either from carelessness, confusion, or defect of memory — has not been related with perfect accuracy, leave us also in doubt as to the precise nature of this vision ; as to whether, in fact, it was mental or external. Luke, in his narrative, omits to state whether the supernatural light was visible to the companions of Paul as well as to himself. Paul, in his speech to the Jews, declares that it was. Paul is said to have heard a voice speaking to him, saying, " Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ?" Luke affirms that Paul's companions heard this voice as well as himself; but this assertion Paul afterwards, in his speech at Jerusalem (Acts xxii. 9), expressly contradicts ; and we are, therefore, left with the impression that the supernatural voice fell rather upon Paul's mental, than on his outward ear — was, in fact, a spiritual suggestion, not an objective fact. Again, in his speech at Jerusalem, Paul represents the heavenly voice as referring him to f'turc onfepences, at Damascus (xxii. 10), for particulars of his '.■■ lunission; in liis address to Agrippa (xxvi. 16- * " But when it pleaBcd God ... to reveal hia Son in me, that I might prea<:h him amoat; the heathen," &c, — Gal. i, 16. 260 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 18), he represenis the same voice as giving him his ecu- mission on the spot. Thus, in the three versions of the story which come, entirely or proximately, from the pen of Luke, we have positive and not reconcilable contradictions ; while in that reference to it, which alone we are certain pro- ceeded direct from Paul, the supernatural and external is wholly ignored. But the important practical question for our considera- tion is this . — In what manner, and from what source, did Paul receive instruction in the doctrines of Christi- anity ? Was it from the other apostles, like an ordinary convert ? or by special and private revelation from heaven ? Here, again, we find a discrepancy between the state- ment of Luke and Paul. In Acts ix. 19, 20; xxii. 10; and xxvi. 20, it is expressly stated that immediately after his conversion, and during his abode with the dis- ciples at Damascus, he was instructed in the peculiar doctrines of his new faith, and commenced his mission- ary career accordingly, there and then. If this state- ment be correct, his teaching will have the authority due to that of an intelligent and able man, vjdl ki- atruded at second hand, but no more. Paul, however, entirely contradicts this supposition, and on several oc- casions distinctly and emphatically declares that he lid not receive his religious teaching from any of the dis- ciples or apostles (whom he rather avoided than other- wise), but by direct supernatural communications from the Lord Jesus Christ,* ♦For example: — " Paul, au apostle, not of men, neither by man , but by Jesus Christ." "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of mo is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation oj Jesus Christ." " But when it pleased God to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen ; immediately I conferred not loith flesh and blood : neither went I up to Jeru- salem to them which were apostles before me ; but I went into Arabia, and returned .igain unto Damascus. ITien after three years I jjvent up to Jem- salem to see Peter, and abode witli him fifteen dayH. But othi^)' of the apos- tles saw I none, save JamcH the Lord'w brother." ((Jalatians i. 1, 11, l.'i-l'.t.) " By revelation he made known unto me the mysttiry . . . whereby ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." — (Eph. iii. 3.j "1 will come to visions and revelations of the liord. I knew a man in Christ about fourteen years p.go (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell ; God knoweth) ; sucn an one caught up to the third heaven. And I LIMIT! Of cours( received hii preference mation cou derived fro seen, that channels oi nality, exc knowledge competent triiies of ( may form ! and revels voured. I: from his r of no furt] apostles, a other. If, the worki tude and ardent an< easily cor Spirit, ai guish fro] teachings. Now, coidd ha" himself, t than a s yond a m which n more rea with one knew such i Grod know* unspeakabl lest I shoul tinns,'" &c. * Perhaj he was seet tion. I'he moment of LIMITS OF APOSTOLIC WISDOM AND AUTHORITY. 261 him bis ecu. which come, uke, we have ns; while in certain pro- id external is a< )ur considera- what source, es of Christi- e an ordinary from heaven ? len the state- 20; xxii. 10; immediately with the dis- the peculiar i his mission- If this state- the authority man, vjcM ki- \\i\, hos^evfr, )n several oc- ?s that he lid ly of the dis- d than other- lications from yman, buthy Jesm fospel which was it of man, neither ut when it pleased nong the heathen ; irent I up to Jeru- b into Arabia and |vent up to Jein- t othei- oj the apoK- ml 1, 11, 1&-I!t.) , where))y ye may Eph. iii. 3.) "1 f a man in Christ 36 body, I cannot 1 heaven. And I Of course Paul's own account of the mode in which he received his knowledge of Christianity must be taken, in preference to that of a nan-ator like Luke, whose infor- mation could only have been second-hand, though probably derived from Paul himself. Paul intimates, as we have seen, that he rather slighted and avoided all ordinary channels of instruction, and prides himself on the origi- nality, exclusiveness, and directness, of the sources of his knowledge. The decision, therefore, of his fidelity and competence as a representative and teacher of the doc- trines of Christ, depends entirely on the conclusion we may form as to the genuineness and reality of the visions and revelations with which he tilaims to have been fa- voured. If these were actup,l and positive communications from his risen and glorified Mastei', the (juestion admits of no further discussion; Paul was the greatest of the apostles, and his writings of paramount authority to any other. If, on the other hand, these visions were merely the workings of a powerful and fiery mind in the soli- tude and seclusion of an Arabian hermitage, such as an ardent and excited temperament, like that of Paul, might eas,ily come to regard as the suggestions of the Divine Spirit, and, perhaps, even could with difficulty distin- guish from them ; then all his numerous epistles are the teachings, not of Jesus, but of Paul. Now, not only have we no evidence- (perhaps we could have none^ — beyond the bare assertion of Paul himself, that these alleged communications had any other than a subjective existence — were in fact anything be- yond a mere mental process ; but among all the passages which refer to this subject, there are none which do not more readily bear this interpretation than any other, with one exception.* That exception is the statement knew such a man (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell : Grod knoweth) ; How that he was caught up into paradiae, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. . . . And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revela- tions,- &c.— (2 Cor. xii. 1. 2. .^ 4, 7.) * Perhaps the assertion of Paul that he had seen Jesus, " and last of all he was seen of ma also " (1 Cor. xv. 8), may be considered as another excep- tion. I'he sight of Jenus, however, probably refers to the viaion at tne- uomeut of his oonversion. 262 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. of Luke, that the heavenly voice at mid-day was heard by Paul's companions as well as by himself — a stateraent which, being afterwards contradicted by Paul (ov by Luke for him), may at once be put aside as incorrect. Paul " immediately," as he says, upon his miraculous con- version, went into seclusion to meditate and commune with his own heart upon the marvellous change which had taken place in all his feelings ; and the state into which he more than once describes hill's :lf as having fallen, is that of trance, a condition of the cerebral system — as- suredly not a sound one — which solitude, fasting, and religious excitement combined, produce in all ages and countries, and nowhere so readily as in the East. (Acts xxii. 17 ; 2 Cor, xii. 2, 3, 4.) We cannot, of course, and do not wish, to take upon us to affirm that, while in this state, Paul was not favoured with divine com- munications ; we merely wish to make it clear that we have no reason to believe that he was so favoured, beyond his own assertion — an assertion which has been made with equal sincerity and conviction by hundreds of ecstatics whom similar causes have brought into a similar physiological condition. There is much in the tone of the doctrinal writings of Paul which we believe and feel to be at variance, or at least little in harmony, with the views and spirit of Jesus, but nothing perhaps which we can prove to be so. We must therefore conclude with the ungracious task of pointing out a few passages of which the moral tone shows that the writer was not adequately imbued with the temper of him who said, " Do good to those that hate you : Pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (2 Thess. i. 6-8, ii. 11, 12; 1 Tim. i. 20; 2Tim.iv.l4;GaLi8, 9.) The posi< are made importani foundatio scarcely ^ respecting wrought and the { he preach received because h ' jach anc the preva more thii doctrines we shoul been foi and whf acles, ar^ must th^ Now confusic clear dij proceed L TI nor can! he preal II. and car inasmul |ay was heard a statement Paul (or by as incorrect, [iraculous con- -nd commune change which fate into which having fallen, .1 system— as- ', fasting, and all ages and e East. (Acts of course, and that, while in I divine corn- it clear that IS so favoured, '■hich has been 1 by hundreds brought into a inal writings of variance, or at 3 and spirit of prove to be so. racious task of he moral tone r imbued with to those that y use you, and I; 1 Tim. i. 20; CHAPTER Xni. MIRACLES. The position which the miracles of the New Testament are made to hold in the Christian economy is of the first importance. In the popular theory they lie at the very foundation of the system. The current and, till recently, scarcely questioned opinion of Protestant Christendom respecting them was this : — " The miracles which Jesus wrought constitute the proof of his divine commission, and the guarantee for the truth of the doctrines which he preached. His declarations and his precepts are to be received with unquestioning submission and belief because he wrought miracles in proof of his authority to ' jach and to command."* According to this view (still the prevalent one, though of late largely modified by the more thinking among the orthodox) the truth of Christ's doctrines is made to rest upon the reality of his miracles ; we should not know the doctrines to be divine, had it not been for the attesting wonders wrought by the teacher ; and whatever doctrines are preached by a worker of mir- acles, are, ipso facto, proved to be of divine authority, and must therefore be received without question. Now this popular notion appears to us to contain much confusion, and at least two fatal fallacies ; for the more clear disentanglement and exposure of which we shall proceed to show, I. That miracles wrought by any individual are not, nor can be, a pooof of the truth of the doctrines which he preaches ; and, II. That miracles are not the real basis of Christianity, and cannot be a safe foundation on which to rest its claims, inasmuch as miracles can never be proved by docu/men- •SeeFaley,Evid. 264 THE CREED O^ CHRT? ENOOM m) m tary evidence — least of all, by sucb 'documentary evidence as we possess. Before proceeding further, we wisi "'efine the precise theological meaning afl&xed to the word miracle in the popular mind (as far as the popular mind can be said to attach a precise meaning to any word). This is the more necessary, as a writer of great eminence and ability, in his attempt to show that miracles may be not a violation but a fulfilment, of the order of nature, appears to us tc have confounded a miracle with a prodigy. In common parlance — which alone we profess to use— a miracle is a suspension or violation of the ordinary course of nature, at the will of an individual — indica- ting, therefore, the possession by that individual of super human power. A similar suspension or violation, uncon- nected with the command or prediction of any indivi- dual, is simply a prodigy, not a miracle. A prodigy is merely a marvellous and abnormal occurrence, of the cause and meaning of which we are wholly ignorant ; a miracle is a marvellous and supernatural occurrence, the cause of which lies open to us in the expressed volition of an agent. Lazarus rising out of a four days' grave, without any discoverable cause or antecedent, would merely present to us a prodigy ; Lazarus coming forth at the command of Christ was a manifest miracle. Mr. Babbage, in that ingenious chapter, in his " Ninth Bridgewater Treatise," wherein he endeavours to show that miracles may be merely natural, but exceptional occurrences — the exceptional expressions of a natural law expressly provided for beforehand — seems to have al- together lost sight of this distinction. We might not have deemed it necessary to controvert this theory, had it not been recently adopted and promulgated in a popu- lar work of fiction (" Alton Locke "), by a clergyman of the Church of England, But when so sanctioned it be- comes incumbent upon us to unmask the fallacy. " The object of the present chapter (says Mr. Babbage) is to show that miracles are not deviations from the laws as- signed by the Almighty for the government of matter and of mind ; but tliat they are tLe exact fulfilment of k much mor< His conce] things, thf viatioiis fi call miracl stances ; ; suggests than eith. turbed orr both poini occurrence of the W" arguments in obedier law " imp: is Mr. B may be a dead by a from the this (the [ On Mr. B the comm resurrecti< efiect, but at the utn of his supt arrived w to operate position C( tive, and that Chrij not merel knowledg Mr. Ba make mir 30 by dep] the fact ci it ; or, to ible, by n * ItMr. 1 MIRACLES. 265 )ary evidence e the precise liracle in the m be said to 3 is the more id ability, in t a violation lears to us tc fess to use- she ordinary ual — indica- lual of super ition, uncon- any indivl- A prodigy is 3nce, of the ignorant ; a Burrence, the issed volition days' grave, dent, would ning forth at cle. I his " Ninth urs to show exceptional ■ a natural ls to have al- ''e might not 3 theory, had id in a popu- ilergyman of itioned it be- llacy. "The abbage) is to the laws as- it of matter fulfilment of much more extensive laws than those we suppose to exist." His conception is that, in the final arrangement of all things, the Deity provided for the occurrence of those de- viations from the established course oi nature which we call miracles, at certain periods, and under certa,in circum- stances ; and he contends that such an arrangement suggests grander views of creative power and foresight than either casual interpositions or a uniform and undis- turbed order of proceeding would do. We may concede both points ; we merely contend that such pre-arranged occurrences would not be miracles in the ordinary sense of the word, on which ordinary sense all theological arguments are based. If Lazarus rose from the dead in obedience to, and in consequence of, " an exceptional law " impressed upon matter in primeval times (which is Mr. Babbage's conception of the case, and which may be a correct one), then he was not raised from the dead by an action upon the laws of nature, emanating from the will of Christ ; and aU arguments based upon this (the prevalent) view of the event fall to the ground. On Mr. Babbage's supposition, the connection between the command of Christ, " Lazarus, come forth ! " and the resurrection of the dead man, was not that of cause and efiect, but merely that of coincidence or simultaneity ; or, at the utmost, the command was uttered, because Jesus, of his superhuman knowledge, knew that the moment was arrived when one of these " exceptional laws " was about to operate ; in fact the command was a prediction^ — a sup- position contradicted by the whole language of the narra- tive, and unavailing for the popular argument ; which is, that Christ had the power of coimtermanding nature — not merely that of foreseeing events hidden from ordinary knowledge. Mr. Babbage's conception, therefore, though it may make miracles more admissible by scientific minds, does 30 by depriving them of their theological utility. It makes the fact credible by annulling the argument drawn from it ; or, to speak more correctly, it renders prodigies cred- ible, by making them cease to he mdracles* * ItHr. Babbaija mfans. !;s i>n expression at page 97 aeema to intimate. 266 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. I. We now proceed to illustrate the first of our two positions. A miracle, we say, cannot authenticate a doc- trine. A miracle, if genuine, proves the possession, by him who works it, of superhuman power — but it is a strained and illogical inference to assume that it proves anything beyond this. This inference, so long and so universally made — and allowed — arises from a confusion in the popular mind between 'power and wisdom — be- tween the divine nature as a whole, and one ol the di- vine attributes. It mvolves the immense and inadmis- sible assumption that the possession of superhuman power necessarily implies the possession of superhuman know- ledge also, and the will truly to impart that knowledge ; that the power to heal diseases, or to still the waves, im- plies and includes a knowledge of the mind of God. The thoughts of ordinary men, undistinguishing and crude, jump rapidly to a conclusion in such matters , and on rec ognising (or conceiving that they recognise) supernatu- ral power in any individual, at once and without ratioci- nation endow him with all other divine attributes, and bow before him in trembling and supine prostration. Yet at other times, and in most countries, men ha\e, by happy inconsistency, admitted the falseness of this logic. Wherever there is iound a belief in one evil angel, or in many (and such is the current nominal belief of Christendom), the distinction between the attributes of Deity is made, and power is divorced from wisdom, truth, and goodness, and in a great degree from knowledge also. If there be such existences as Satan, Arimanes, or inferior agencies of evil — (and who can say that there are not ? What orthodox Christian but believes there are ?) — then superhuman power exists apart from divine wisdom, and in antagonism to it ; — then the power to work miracles involves no knowledge of divine truth, or at least no mis- sion to teach it — nay, may imply the very opposite, and can therefore authenticate no doctrine enunciated by the worker. hat the Creator had provided for these exceptional occurrences taking place wfuinever Chritt performed a certain operation which He gave him power to perform, and told him when to perform— then we are at a loss to discover in what way the oonception varies from, or is superior to, the vulgar view. The CO natural p have best pose but But this : gies of th — the po^ wealth, a — yet are these bes mainly, ii the reveri So strc reasoners which mu can auth( at the pr( worked b him a do( our mod( Locke, M the stror Course a: "Faith power-w( ship ; foi an idea than of might, th ledge it a be devilij from the distingui idea of reason b< Now. if world ag pronoun in confr God." )M. first of our two thenticate a doc- le possession, by wer — but it is a tie that it proves so long and so from a confusion -nd wisdom — be- id one ol the di- ase and inadmis- 3erhuman power jerhuman know- that knowledge ; 11 the waves, im- ind of God. The 3hing and crude, iters , and on rec jnise) supernatu- i without ratioci- e attributes, and I prostration, ntries, men have, falseness of this in one evil angel, lominal belief of the attributes of >m wisdom^ truth, 1 knowledge also. manes, or inferior Eit there are not ? ihere are ?) — then vine wisdom, and to work miracles ir at least no mis- ery opposite, and nunciated by the currences taking place He gave him power to e at a loss to discover or to, the vulgar view. MIRACLES. 267 The common feeling no doubt is, that as all super- natural power is the special gift of God, He would not have bestowed it upon any but the good, nor for any pur- pose but that of conferring blessings and spreading truth. But this inference is wholly at variance with the analo- gies of the divine economy. All power is the gift of God, — the power of intellect, the power of rank, the power of wealth, as well as the power of working physical marvels, — ^yet are these given to the good alone, or chiefly ? — are these bestowed on those who employ them exclusively, or mainly, in the service of mercy and truth ? Would not the reverse of the statement be nearer to the fact ? So strongly has the force of our position been felt by reasoners, — so plain does it appear that it is the doctrine which must authenticate the miracle, not the miracle whicli can authenticate the doctrine, — that few could be found at the present day who would not admit that no miracle worked by a preacher would induce them to receive from him a doctrine manifestly dishonouring to God. Many of our modern divines — Dr. Arnold, Archdeacon Hare, Mi-. Locke, Mr. Trench, and others — express this feeling in the strongest language. Dr. Arnold says (" Christian Course and Character," notes, pp. 4(32-3) : — " Faith, without reason, is not properly faith, but mere power-worship; and power- worship may be devil-wor- ship ; for it is reason which entertains the idea of God — an idea essentially made up of truth and goodness, no less than of power. A sign of power, exhibited to the senses, might, through them, dispose the whole man to acknow- ledge it as divine; yet power in itself is not divine, it may be devilish How can we distinguish God's voice from the voice oi evil ? . . . . We distinguish it (and can distinguish it no otherwise) by comparing it with that idea of God which reason intuitively enjoys, the gift of reason being God's original revelation of himself to man. Now, if the voice which comes to us from the unseen - world agree not with this idea, ive have no choice but to pronounce it not to hs God's voice : for no signs of power, in confirmation oj it, can alone prove it to be from God." 268 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. Locke says : — ** I do not deny in the least that God can do, or hath done, miracles for the confirmation of truth, I only say that we cannot think He should do them to enforce doctrines or notions of himself, or any worship of Him, not conformable to reason, or that we can receive such as truth for the ffwraclea' sake ; and even in those books which have the greatest proof of revelation from God, and the attestation of miracles to confirm their being so, the miracles are to be judged by the doctrine., and not the doctrine by the miracles."* Further. The idea that a miracle can authenticate a doctrine, or is needed to do so, involves an additional fal- lacy. It implies that our understanding is competent to decide whether an act be divine, but not whether a doc^ trine be divine ; — that the power displayed in a prodigy may be sufficient to justify us in confidently assuming it to be from God, — but that the beauty, the sublimity, the innate light of a doctrine or a precept cannot be sufficient to warrant us in pronouncing it to be from Him ; — that God can impress His stamp unmistakably on His physical, but not on His moral emanations ; — ^that His handwriting is legible on the sea, or the sky, on the flower, or on the insect, but not on the soul and intellect of man. It in- volves the coarse and monstrous conception that God's presence in His chosen temple can only be made manifest by a loud appeal to those external senses which perish with the flesh ; — that He pervades the earthquake and the whirlwind, but not " the still small voice ; " — ^that, in fine, the eye or the ear is a truer and quicker porcipient of Diety than the Spirit which came forth from Him ;— that God is Tnore cognizable by the senses than by the sovl,— * See also Lord King's Life of Locke, i. 231 et seq. Trench's Hulsean Lectures for 1845, pp. 8, 9.—' After all is done, men will feel in the deep- est centre of their being, that it is the moral which must prove the historic, not the historic which can ever prove the moral ; that evidences drawn from without may be accepted as tne welcome buttresses, but that we can know no ot\ier foundations, of our Faith, than those which itself supplies. Reve- lation, like the sun, must be seen by its own light." Hare's Mission of the Comforter, ii. p. 553. — " The notion that miracles have an augmentative and demonstrative efficacy, and that the faith of Christians is to be grounded upon them, belongs to a much later age. and is in fact the theological paral- lel to the materialist hypothesis, that all our kuowledge is deriv^ from the senses." MIRACLES. 260 by the material philosopher than by the pure-hearted but unleanied \vor8hipper. Tlie power to work miracles, then, does not, in the eye of reason, imply any other supernatural endowment. Neither does it in the eye of the Scripture. We have many indications, in both the Old and the New Testa- ment, that neither miracles, nor the co^ate gift of proph- ecy, were considered to qualify a Teacher, or to au- thenticate his teaching. The possession of miraculous and prophetic power is distinctly recogriised in individu- als who not only were not divinely authorised agents or teachers, but were enemies of God and of His people. Passing over the remarkable but inconclusive narratives relative to the Egyptian magicians, and to Balaam, — we find in Deut. xiii. 1-5, an express warning to the children of Israel against being led astray by those who shall em- ploy real nuraculous or prophetic gifts to entice them away from the worship of Jehovah, a warning couched in language which distinctly expresses that the miracle must be judged of by the doctrine of the thaumaturgist, — not be considered to authenticate it. " If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, cmd the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying. Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them ; thou shalt not hearken unto the words >f that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: and that Prophet, or that dreamer Of dreams, shall be put to death." The same proposition is affirmed with almost equal dis- tinctness in Matth. vii. 22, 23. " Many will say to me in that day. Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name ? and in thy name have cast out devils ? and in thy name done many wonderful works ? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you ; depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Again, Matth. xxiv. 24, " For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders ; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." In Matth. xii. 27, and Mark ix, 38, Christ clearly admits the power to work miracles in both his enemies and his ignorers. i :l 270 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. If anything further were wanted to show the vicv taken by Jesus of this matter, we should find it in his steady refusal to authenticate his mission by a miracle, when, in strict conformity to Jewish ideas (and to divine prescription, if the Mosaic books may be at all trusted), the rulers of the synagogue, in the plain performance of their official duty, 'billed upon him to work one. (See Matth. xii. 39 ; xvi. 4, and the parallel passages, as Mark viii. 11.) He reproaches the deputation for their demand, — grieves over it; according to Mark, — and says positively, " There shall no sign be given unto this generation." In an- other conversation with the Pharisees, the same idea is still more clearly enunciated. He there (John vi. 30-33) distinctly tells them that though Moses may have been accredited by miiaclos, lie will be judged o by his doctrine only. " They said therefore unto him, What sign she west thou then, mat we may see, and believe thee ? what dost thou work ? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert ; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven ; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. ... I am the bread of life, ' &c. The low estimation in which were held by the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. xii. 28), mirac clearly shows that he did not regard them as the credeji- tials Ox his mission ; and several passages in the Acts seem to intimate that, by th? early Christians, the possession of the miraculous or prophetic gift was not considered in- consistent both with false doctrine and enmity to Christ's Church (Acts viii. 9-11 ; xiii. 6-10 ; xvi 16 ; 2 Cor. xi. 13.) Finally, we have the conclusive fact that, according to the gospel narrative, the power to work miracles had been expressly conferred upon all the apostles, who " for- sook Jesus and fled " in his day of trial, — ^upon Judas who betrayed him, — upon Peter, who thrice denied him. It is said, however, by some, that miraculous power is bestow od upon Prophets, as their credentials; not as proving their doctrines, but as proving them to be sent I'rom God. But, is it not clear, that these credentials, if they mean anything at all, must mean that men are to lOBACLES. 271 listen to the Prophets who* present them, as God's mouth- pieces ? What is the object of proving them to be sent hom God, except for the sake ot the inference that there- Jjre what they teach must be God's truth ? II. Having now proved our first position, — that mir- acles cannot authenticate either the doctrines or the divine commission oi the thaumaturgist, — we proceed to the establishment of our second thesis, viz., — that miracles cannot be the basis ot Christianity, or of any historical or transmitted religion We fully admit at the outset of our argument that a miracle, as well as any other occurrence, is capable of proof by testimony — provided only the testimony be adequate in kind and in quantity. The testimony must be of the same kind as that on which we should accept any of the more rare and marvellous among natural phenomena, and must be clear-, direct, and ample, in proportion to the raarvellousness, anomalousness, ani rarity of the occur- rence. This, it appears to us, is all that philosophy authorizes us to demand for the authentication of the jact-part of a miracle. Miracles, we say, are not, and never can be, a sure loun dation for a revealed religion — an historic creed. A true Revelation, addressed to all mankind, and destined for all ages, must be attested by evidence adequate and accessible to all men and to all ages. It must carry with it its own permanent and unfading credentials. Now, miracles are evidence only to those who see them, or can sift the testi- mony which atfirms them Occurrences so anomalous and rare, which violate the known and regular course of na- ture, can, at the utmost, only be admitted on the evidence ol our own senses, or on the carefully-sifted testimony of eye-witnesses. Therefore, a revelation, whose credentials are miracles, can he a revelation only to the age in which it appears The superhuman powers of its Preacher can authenticate it only to those who witness the exertion of them, and — more faintly and feebly — to those who have received and scrutinized their direct testimony : — the superhuman excellence of its doctrines may authenticate 272 THE CREED OF CHBISTENDOM. II it through all time, and must constitute, therefore, its only adequate and abiding proof. Now, the essence of the whole question lies in this: — ThcU we have not the apostles and evangelists to cross-exarnvm; we do not know that they were ever cross-examined ; we do not know what was the nature ol the evidence or t«vS- timony which satisfied their minds ; and we have ampU indications that they, like most imperi jctly-educated men, were satisfied with a nature and amount of proof which woi-M never satisfy us. We have stated that we are far from denying the ade- quacy of positive and direct testimony to prove a miracle, if its amount and quality be suitable. What would be the amount and quality required ? It will be allowed on all hands that the testimony of one witness, however com- petent and honest, would not suffice. We must have the concurring testimony of several competerd and inde- pendent witnesses. Mr. Babbage has made a calculation (which many will think puerile, but which assuredly does not overstate the case), that, to prove some of the chief miracles, such as the raising of the dead, the concfurring testimony of six independent, competent, veracious wit- nesses will suffice, hut not less. Now, let us ask. Have we, for any of the gospel mir- acles, evidence — we do not say as strong as this, but — approaching to it ? in the slightest degree similar to it ? Have we the concurring testimony of six independent and competent witnesses ? or oi five ? or of three ? or of two ? Do we know that we have the testimony even of OTie wit- ness ? Do we know anything at all about the competency or the independence of any of the witnesses ? Have we any reason to believe that the evangelists sifted the testi- mony they received ? Have we, in fine, the distinct state- ment of any one individual that he saw or wrought such or such a specific miracle ? No ; but what we nave in- stead is this : — We have four documents, written we have to guess when — proceeding from we know not whom — transmitted to us we know not how purely ; three of them evidently compositions from oral testimony or tradition, and clearly not from independent testimony ; and all four, not conmrr documents i certain indi vious that \ testimony.* who any of says, " I wi know that that their concii'rrinQ ments of ur with many miraculous thirty yeai which, in i atiect per8< — e 'idencc summoned bow to th( Since Gospels would be tionable c for those its being tion deal be dispeD tion of tl tice the his own case, wil responds ccnsideri divines ( they res< narrativ 1, Th " We as Apostle J< tl W o MIBACLEa 273 pore, its only ithis:— TAo^ oss-examim; [amined; we ience or tes- have ampU lucated men, [proof which ing the ade- »ve a miracle, would be the lowed on all owever com- lust have the t and inde- a calculation Jsuredly does ( of the chief e concvrriTig racious wit- gospel mir- 3 this, but— milar to it? spendent and ? or of two ? Q of one wit- competency f Have we led the testi- ' istinct state- rought such sve have in- ten we have lot whom — iree of them >r tradition, md all four. not coTiGiirrvng, but often singularly discrepant ; — which documents relate that such miracles were wrought by a certain individual in a certain place and time. It is ob- vious that we have not here even an approach to personal testimony* We do not know with the least certainty who any' of those four narrators were; not one ol them says, " I witnessed this miracle;" — we do not, therefore, know that they were witnesses at all ; — ^and we do know that their testimony was not indevend/Gnt nor always concurring. At the best, therefore, we have only docu- ments of unknown date and uncertain authorship, stating, with many discrepancies and contradictions, that certain miraculous occurrences were witnessed hy others, at least thirty years before the record was composed ; — evidence which, in an honest court oi justice, would not suffice to ahect person or property to the slightest possible extent ; — e 'idenco, nevertheless, on which we are peremptorily summoned io accept the most astounding dogmas, and to bow to the heaviest yoke. Since then, for the miracles recorded in the synoptical Gospels we have not even that degree oi evidence which would be required to establish any remarkable or ques- tionable occurrence; and since the only superior authority for those of the iourth Gospel rests on the supposition of its being the production of the Apostle John — a supposi- tion doabtful and unproven, to say no more ; we might be dispensed from entering into any more close examina- tion of the narratives themselves — as in a court of jus- tice the jury frequently decide against the plaintiff on his own showing — pronounce that the appellant has no case, without requiring to hear the objections of the respondent. But it is important to call attention to a few ccasiderations which should long since have warnec' divines of the perilous position they had taken up, when they resolved to base Christianity upon the miraculous narratives of the Gospel. 1. The whole tenour of the Old Testament, and many " We assume here, not that the fourth G-ospel was not written by t ./ Apostle John, but Himply that we do not know that it was. ;'^;V' mi I K\ mm tell 274. THE CREED OP CHRISTENDOM. passages of the New, plainly indicate either that tlie povcr of working miracles was so common in those days as to argue nothing very remarkable in its possessor, or that a belief in miracles was so general and so easily yielded as to render the testimony of such facile believers inadequate to prove them. On the first supposition they will not warrant the inference ditiwn from them , on the second they are themselves questionable. Now, it is certain that the miracles recorded in the New Testament do not appear to have produced on the be- holders or the hearers the same eiioct as they would do at the present day, nor to have been regarded in the same light even by the workers of them. When Jesus was told by his disciples (Mark ix. 38) that they had found some unauthorized person casting out devils in his name, he expresses no amazement — intimates no douht as to the genuimeness Oj the nviracle — but rebukes his disciples for interfering with the thaumaturgist, saying, " Forbid him not : for there is no man whirl (Kid do a mvi'acle in my name, that can lightly speak evi' jf me." The casting out of devils — i.e,, the healing of the more furious epileptic and maniacal disorders — was the most frequent and among the most striking and the of tenest appealed to o the miracles of Jesus , yet in the conversation already referred to between himself and the Pharisees (Matth. xii. 24«-27) he speaks of it as one tha^ was constantly and habitually performed by their own exorcists ; and, so far from insinuating any difference be- tween the two caseS; expressly puts tJiem on a level* Paul, th'?ugh himself gifted with miraculous power, and claiming liom. xv. 19, 2 Cor. xii. 11) to be equally so gifted with any of tLt^ other apostles (2 Cor. xi. 5), yet places thu poiuer very low in the rank oj spiritual endowmencs (1 C w xii. 8, 9, 10, 28)'f* — distinguishing * Matth. vii. 22 ; xxiv, 21 ; Gal. iii. 5, and many other passages, show how common miracles thsiu "^ere, or were esteemed. t " For to uue ia ,.'ivtn 1 v > '.:9 8, irit the word of wisdom , to another the word of knowledge ; t( no^aer faith; to another the gifts of healing; to anoi>her ^Ae working of r«i/. - -to; to another prophecy," &(;. "And God hath aet some in the chnrcii, li- v apostles, aecondarily propheto, thirdly teachers, aflcr that miraolos, thea gifts of bealiugs, belps^ government^!, divorsitios of in hath p gifts o slighting suppositio real and i ot the wo served ore 2. Thoi to in the mission ; indication quenc'^ an For exam satisfy th gifts,'thoi unsuitable We have declines t< sion, but miraclep. 0. Galilee not believ were not 1 to be jud miracle, 1 sreaks of the provo viii. 10 ; i evangelis — the vei miracles ; why Jesi mighty v xiii. 58). that he 1 them. J (Mark vi 3 Ne — nor tl convictic M. MIBACLES. 275 'that the poorer lose davs as to sessor, or tiiat a isily yielded as vers inadequate they w'ili not on the second ded in the New Bed on the be- they would do egarded in the When Jesus that they had it devils in his ^tes no doubt it rebukes his ui'gisi,, saying, li^''- 'Md do a ^k fvr ,)f me." g of the more jrs — was the king and the us , yet in the mself and the it as one tha^ by their own difference be- on a level* as power, and be equally so )r. xi. 5), yet oj spiritual istinguishing ssages, show how , to another the B of healiii;^ ; to "And God hath thirdly teachers, ti, divoi'sitiosof in hath passages 'iniraxiles or thawmaturgie signs from gifts o healing ; and speaks of them in a somewhat slif'hting tone, which is wholly irreconcilable with the supposition that the miracles of which he speaks were real and indisputable ones after the modern signification ot the word, i.e. unquestionable deviations from the ob- served order of nature at the command of man. 2. Though the miracles of Christ are frequently referred to in the Gospels as his credentials, as proola of his divine mission; yet there are not wanting many significant indication.; that they were wrought rather as a conse- quenct! and reward of belief than as means to produce it. For example, we have the repeated refusal of Jesus to satisfy the Jewish chiefs by a display of his miraculous gifts, thou<;h wo can perceive nothing unreasonable or uusuitabie to pure Judaism in the demand (John vi. 30). We have the remarkable fact that Jesus here not only declines to work a new miracle in attestation of his mis- sion, but does nofc even refer his questioners to his former miracles. We have the reproach of Jesus to the people 0. Galilee — " Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe " (John iv. 48), clearly intimating that these were not the criterions by which he intended his mission to be judged. On several occasions, before working a miracle, he ascertains the faith of the applicant, and sreaks of the miracle as if it were to be the reward, not the provocative, of their faith (Matthew ix. 27, 29 ; ix. 2 ; viii. 10 ; ix. 22 ; xv. 28 ; Mark i. 40). And, finally, the evangelists twice assign the want of faith of the people — the very reason, according to the orthodox view, why miracles should be worked before them — as the reason why Jesus would not work them. " And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief" (Matt, xiii. 58). " And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. And lie marvelled because of their unbelief" (Mark vi. 5, 6). 3 Neither did his miracles produce general conviction — nor the conclusion which would have followed irom conviction — in those who witnessed thciu, whether 276 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. friends, enemies, or indifferent spectators. Had they ap- peared to the witnesses in that age in the same form which they assume in the documents in which they are handed down to us, conviction must have been inevitable, Yet this was far from being the case. We read, indeed, frequently that the people " marvelled " and " glorified God " — and that " the fame of his wonc'erful works went throughout all the land ;" — but we also find several pas- sages which point to a very opposite conclusion. " Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not : Woe unto thee, Chora ^n ! woe unto thee, Bethsaida ! for it the mighty works, which Trere done in you, had been Jone in Tyre and Sidon, they woi -Id have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." (Matt, xi 20, 21.) " But though be had done so many miracles before them (the people), yet they believed not on him." (John xii. 37.) Even his friends and disciples were not always convinced The miracle of the loaves, even, sec bis to have produced little effect on their minds, for we are told (as a reason tor their surprise at a subsequent marvel), " For they consid- ered not the miracle of the loaves : lor theii heart was haAdened' (Mark vi. 52) an expression which a corn- pa ison with xvi. 14, shows to have signified incredulity, A still more signified')! statenjont is tound in John vii 5, " For neither did his breil? -'rn b; lieve in him " A refer- ence to Johnxi. 45, lo, jhows th'l^ even so signal and un- questionable a miracle as is tkie n * ^ing of Lazarus, in the form in which it has com£ down tO us, did not produce universal conviction. " Thei many of the Jews which came to Mary, and b .;d seen ihe things which Jesus did, believed on him. Ijut some of them, went their ways to the Pharisees, ani told them what things Jesus had done." It is worthy of especial note, that to the last, in de- fiance of the numerous, astonishing, and public miracles recorded in the Gospels — of many of which, as the rais- ing of Lazarus, the cure of the blind man (John ix.), tht- Pharisees and chief men among the Jews are said to have been witnesses — the incredulity of these Rulers and of the Sanhed that it was refusal to Christ on a disbelief of its bei tation of tl intimidates them. Ha( blind, heal raise the d( degree or k still more, of superna and ambiti to his pret< his enmity they must baffle their taliation. the reverse were frienc tacked hin play of hi conduct si had not g( a convicti( 4. The : narratives discrepam one evani corded in pels ; the cases of t by John i tioned bj from the ing Jesus but sleep in detail MIRACLES. 277 Had theyap. 'he same form hich they are Jen inevitable. read, indeed, id "glorified 1 works went 1 several pa^. sion. " Then of his mighty t : Woe unto 1 ! for it the been Jone in long ago in 'But though (the people), 37.) Even ivinced. The •oduced little a reason tor they consid- iii heart was '■hich a com- l incredulity, John vii 5, A reter- ?nal and un- zarus, in the not produce Jews which ti Jesus did, eir ways to Jesus had last, in de- lic miracles as the rais- i hn ix.), th(, laid to havG lers and of the Sanhedrim i*emained unshaken. It is evident, too, that it was genuine and sincere disbelief — not merely a refusal to accept the inference of the divine mission of Christ on the ground of his miraculous power, but a disbelief in the miraculous power itself — or at least of its being miraculous in our full modern accep- tation of the term ; they were exonerated, but no way intimidated, by the wonders which he wrought before them. Had they really supposed that he could cure the blind, heal the lame, command spirits, still the waves, raise the dead (in a differerit manner, and w ith a different degree or kind of power from their own thaumaturgists) — still more, had they seen any one of these awful evidence? of supernatural power — then, however hostile selfishness and ambition [or class prejudices] might have made them to his pretensions, they would have dreaded to provoke his enmity, or to practise against his safetj^ satisfied, as they must have been, that he could not only foresee and baifle their machinations, but could inflict a fearful re- taliation. But we see nothing of all this ; we see just the reverse ; — they feared, not him, but the people who were friendly to him ; — they more than once openly at- tacked him, and tempted him, even by taunts, to a dis- play of his superhuman gifts ; — in a word, their whole conduct shows that his miracles, whatever they were, had not gone any way towards producing in their minds a conviction (or even a fear) of his supernatural power. 4. The minuter objections to the individual miraculous narratives in the Gospel, we need not dwell on. The discrepancies in the accounts, where given by more than one evangelist ; — the entirely distinct set of miracles re- coided in the fourth, from those in the first three Gos- pels ; the remarkable circumstance that, of the three cases of the dead being restored to life, one is mentioned by John only, one by Luke only, and the third case, men tioned by three of the evangelists, was no resurrection from the dead at all (for all accounts concur in represent- ing Jesus to have said expressly, " The damsel is not dead, but sleepeth ; ") — ^^all these topics have been dwelt upon in detail by other critics, and need not be considered here. 278 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. The conclusion suggested by all these combined con- sideration:^ .eras to be this : — that the miracles spoken of in the New Testament had not the eftect of lertl mira- cles upon the bystanders ; — thai, they were, probably, either remarkable occurrences elevated into supernatural ones by the general supernaturalistic tendencies of ♦^he age, or examples of wonderful healing powers, the original accounts of which have become strangely intermingled and overlaid with fiction in the process of transmission T^he Gospels (we must bear constantly in mind) are not contemporaneous annals ; they merely narrate the occur- rence of certain events, which, at the tiwje ivhen the tra- dition was congealed into a record, had assumed such and such a form and consistency in the public mind. They show us not the facts that occurred in the year A.D. 30, but the form those /acts had asswrned in popular belief in the pear A.i 70. There is yet another objection to the plan of propound- ing miracles as the basis for a Revelation, which is all but insuperable. The assertion oi a miracle having been performed, is not a siwmle statement ; it involves three elements — a lact and two injtrences. It predicates, iirst. that such an occurrence took place ; second, that it was brought about by the act and will oi the individual to whom it is attributed ; third, that it implied supernatu- ral power in the agent — i.e., that it could not have been produced by mere human means. Now, the fact may have been accurately observed, and yet one or both oi the inferences may be unwarianted. Or, either infer- ence may be rendered unsound by the slightest omission or deviation from accuracy in the observation or state- ment of the fact.* Nay, any new discovery in science— any advance in physiological knowledge — may show that the inference, which has always hitherto appeared quite irrefragable, was, in fact, wholly unwarranted and incor- rect. In the process of time, and the triumphant career of scientific inquiry, any miracle may be — as so many * Bentham observes that the report of u man going up with a balloon would become a miracle, if a spectator told all the rest of the story truly, but omitted to tell of the balloon. thousand pi currence. for so vast s A miracle \i —based up sible by ad^ — a creed Vi at the mere It should decline to r mission, we demurring and two i constituent acc'iracy ;- reasoning, i r,Mn power [" Romai miracles oi Protestant? by themsel of the late miracles w a natural stand siidi of scientific as our kno iravagance earlier rui] admits mi] vites to a When Ste and saw the right solid fact. las and M * " The mi to-day is a m wonders to o been though f^o." — Park MIR \CLES. 271) sombined con- iracles spoken ' of veil] mira- ere, probably, ) supernatural iencies of ^he •s, the original intermingled transmission mind) are not ate the occur- luhen the tra- assumed such public mind. in the year d in popular of propound- , which is all J having been ivolves three edicates, first. , that it was individual to id supernatu- ot have been ihe fact may e or both oi either infer- best omission ion or state- in science- ay show that peared quite id and incor- phant career ■as so many > with a balloon the story truly, thousand prodigies have been — reduced to a natural oc- currence No miracle can, therefore, be a safe foundation for so vast and weighty a superstructure as a Revelation. A miracle is an argument in some measure ab ignorantia —based upon [scanty knowledge,] and, therefore, defea- sible by advancing knowledge. A miraculous revelation — a creed whose foundation is miracle — must always be at the mercy of Science, and must always dread it. It should, then, be clearly understood that, when we decline to receive a miracle as evidence of a divine com- mission, we are not refusing simple testimony — we are demurring to a proposition composed of one observation and two injerences — a proposition, each of the three constituents oi which contains the elements of possible in- accuracy ; — wo are demurring, in fact, to a process of reasoning, which assumee as its basis that the li/mits of hu- ri.an power and knowledge are indisputably known to vs.* ["Roman Catholics laacy that Bible miracles and the miracles of their Church form a class by themselves; Protestants fancy that Bible miracles, alone, form a class by themselves. This was emii\enily ihe posture of mind of the late Archbishop Whately ; — to hold that all other miracles would turn out to be impostures, or capable of a natural explanation, but that Bible miracles would stand siiLing by a London special jury or by a committee of scientific men. No acuteness can save such notions, as our knowledge widens, from being seen to be mere ex- travagances ; and the Protestant notion is doomed to an earlier ruin than the Catholic. For the Catholic notion admits miracles in the mass ; the Protestant notion in- vites to a criticism by which it must finally itself perish. When Stephen was martyred, he looked up into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of Grod. That, says the Protestant, is solid fact. At the martyrdom of St. Fructuosus, BalDy- las and Mygdone, the Christian servants of the Roman * " The miracle is of a moat fluctuating character. The miracle worker of to-day is a matter-of-fact juggler to-morrow. Science each year Jtdds new wonders to our store. The master of a locomotive steam-engine would have been thought greater than Jupiter Tonans, or the Elohim thirty centurie' 1^0."— Parker, p. 202. 280 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. governor, saw the heavens open, and the saint and his deacon Eulogius carried up on high with crowns on their heads. That, says the Protestant, is imposture or else illusion. St. Paul hears on h's way to Damascus tht voice of Jesus say to him : ' Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ? ' That, again, is solid fact. The companion of St. Thomas Aquinas hears a voice from the crucifix say to the praying saint : ' Thou hast written well of me, Thomas , what recompense dost thou desire ? ' That, again, is imposture or else illusion. Why ? It is im- possible to find any criterion by which one of these incidents may establish its claim to a solidity which we refuse to the others. " One of two things must be made out in order to place either the Bible miracles alone, or the Bible miracles and the mirar!! >s of the Catholic Church with them, in a class by themselves. Either they must be shown to have arisen in a time eminently unfavourable to such a process as Shakespeare describes, to amplification and the pro- duction of legend ; or they must be shown to be recorded in documents of an eminently historical mode of birth and publication. But surely it is manifest that the Bible miracles fulfil neither oi these conditions. It was said that the waters of the Pamphylian Sea miraculously opened a passage for the army oi Alexander the Great. Admiral Beaufort, however, tells us that, * though there are no tides in this part of the Mediterranean, a consider- able depression of the sea is caused by long-continued north winds ; and Alexander, taking advantage of such a moment, may have dashed on without impediment ;' and we accept the explanation as a matter of course. But the waters of the Red Sea are said to have miraculously opened a passage for the children of Israel ; and we insist on the literal truth of this story, and reject natural ex- planations as monstrous. Yet the time and circumstances of the flight from Egypt were a thousand times more favourable to the rise of some natural incident into a miracle, than the age of Alexander. They were a time and circumstances of less broad daylight."]* * Arnold's Literature atui Dooma, p. 130' We are no^v the most in records — th to which tl cherished e hopes depe sequence ol tural Insp rejoice thai great for it the gospel Christianit more minu find their f the miracle obligatory feeling tha the less to should pro evidence, « punge it f ] feel that i. and their ( which, per! this ought All that V must be ii sequences hopes. we have I grounds, a to the fla-* saint and his owns on their >sture or else Damascus the ly persecutest companion of > crucifix say well of me, sire?' Thati ? It is im- one of these ity which we order to place ! miracles and lem, in a class own to have iuch a process and the pro- X) be recorded lode of birth that the Bible It was said miraculously 3r the Great, though there .n, a consider- ing-continued age of such a diment ;* and course. But miraculously and we insist i natural ex- jircumstances I times more iident into a were a time CHAPTER XIV. RESURRECTION OF JESUS. We are now arrived at the most vitally important, and the most intensely interesting, portion of the Christian records — the resurrection of Jesus. This is the great fact to which the afiections ot Christians turn with the most cherished eagerness, the grand foundation on which their hopes depend, on which their faith is fixed. If, in con- sequence of our enquiries, the ordinary doctrine of Scrip- tural Inspiration be relinquished, we have reason to rejoice that Religion is relieved from a burden often too great for it to bear. If the complete verbal accuracy of the gospel narratives is disproved, orthodoxy and not Christianity is a suflterer by the change, since it is only the more minute and embarrassing tenets of our creed that find their foundation swept away. If investigation shows the miracles of the Bible to be untenable, or at least un- obligatory upon our beliei, theologians are comforted by feehng that they have one weak and vulnerable outpost the less to deiend. But if the resurrection of our Lord should prove, on closer scrutiny, to rest on no adequate evidence, and mental integrity should compel us to ex- punge it from our creed, the generality of Christians will feel that the whole basis oi their faith and hope is gone, and their Christianity will vanish with the foundation on which, perhaps half unconsciously, they rested it. "Whether this ought to be so is a point for future consideration. All that we have now to do is to remember that truth must be investigated without any side-glance to the con- sequences which that investigation may have upon our hopes. Our faith is sure to fail us in the hour of trial if we have based it on consciously or suspectedly fallacious grounds, and maintained it by wilfully closing our eyes to the flaws in its foundations. .n^ "vv^ ^ ^ ^^-^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^^-^ ^j 1.0 I.I 1^ 1^ 18 m m 1-25 Iju |i.6 « 6" ►

. vj^ Jk? '^^■^V ^.^* > Hiotographic Sciences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STRUT WIBSTIR.N.Y. 145S0 (n«) S72-4S03 \ 4 k ■\ o ^ «■ c>\ '^3^ «* '% y^ ^ 282 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. The belief in the resurrection of our Lord, when based upon reflection at all, and not a mere mental habit, will be found to rest on two grounds -.—first, the direct testi- mony of the Scripture narratives; and secondly, the evidence derivable from the subsequent conduct of the apostles. I. The narratives of the resurrection contained in the four Gtospels present many remarkable discrepancies. But discrepancies in the accoimts of an event given by different narrators, whether themselves witnesses, or merely historians, by no means necessarily impugn the reality of the event narrated, but simply those accessaries of the event to which the discrepancies relate. Thus, when one evangelist tells us that the two malefactors, who were crucified along with Jesus, reviled him, and another evangelist relates that only one of them reviled him, and was rebuked by the other for so doing, though the contra- diction is direct and positive, no one feels that the least doubt is thereby thrown upo*: the fact of two malefactors having been crucified with Jesus, nor of some reviling having passed on the occasion. Therefore the varifitions in the narratives of the resurrection given by the four evangelists do not, of themselves, impugn the fact of the resurrection. Even were they (which they are not) the first-hand accounts of eye-witnesses, instead of merely de- rived from such, still it is characteristic of the honest tes- timony of eye-witnesses to be discrepant in collateral minutiae. But, on a closer examination of these accounts, several peculiarities present themselves for more detailed consideration. 1. We have already seen reason for concluding that, of the four Gospels, three at least were certainly not the pro- duction of eye-witnesses, but were compilations from oral or documentary narratives current among the Christian community at the time of their composition, and derived doubtless for the most part from very high authority. With legard to the fourth Gospel the opinions of the best critics are so much divided, that all we can pronounce upon the subject with any certainty is, that if it were thu production when, eith( gination, oi allowed hii therefore, \ tive of the the form i1 or more af Now, th accounts a in historia event, whi they wrot( are, are, W( 0/ the kvthi which ga> more. Tl something that this ( have beer Someth groundwo then, wai fact? TI cleus, anc the other credible, formed a ture. Ml to the Se gone, anc that he v — and th the body was risei because • See chi t Wemi 8t ' verse RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 283 when based 1 habit, will direct testi- icondly, the duct of the lined in the iscrepancies. nt given by ntnesses, or impugn the le accessaries )late. Thus, jfactors, who and another ed him, and 1 the contra- hat the least [) malefactors )me reviling le varintions by the four B fact of the are not) the f merely de- J honest tes- n collateral jse accounts, tore detailed ling that, of not the pro- is from oral e Christian and derived I authority, of the best pronounce it were tho production of the Apostle John, it was written at a time when, either from defect of memory, redundancy of ima- gination, or laxity in his notions of an historian's duty, he allowed himself to take strange liberties with fact.* All, therefore, that the Gospels now present to us is the narra- tive of the Resurrection, not as it actually occurred, but in the form it had assumed among the disciples thirty years or more after the death of Jesus. Now, the discrepancies which we notice in the various accounts are not greater than might have been expected in historians recording an event, or rather traditions of an «vent, which occurred from thirty to sixty years before they wrote. These records, therefore, di.'ciepant as they are, are, we think, quite sufficient to prove that something oj the kmd occurred, i. e., that some recurrence took place which gave rise to the belief and the traditions ; — but no more. The agreement of the several accounts show that something ot the kind occurred : — their discrepancies show that this occurrence was not exactly such as it is related to have been. Something of the kind occurred which formed the groundwork for the belief and the narrative. What, then, was this something — this basis — this nucleus of fact ? The Gospel of Mark appears to contain this nu- cleus, and this alone.i* It contains nothing but what all the other accounts contain, and nothing that is not simple, credible, and natural, but it contains enough to have formed a foundation for the whole subsequent superstruc- ture. Mark informs us that w^hen the women went early to the Sepulchre, they found it open, the body of Jesus gone, and some one in white garments who assured them that he was risen. This all the four narratives agree in : — and they agree in nothing else. The disappearance of the body, then, was certain ; — the information that Jesus "was risen came from the women alone, who believed it because they were told it, and who were also the first to * See chap. x. t We must hear in mind that the genuine Gospel of Mark ends with the dt ' verse of chapter xvi. ; and that there is eood reauon to believo tbftt M vck's Gospel wm, if not the original one, at Utast the earlleit. 284 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. affirm that they had seen their Lord. In the excited statt of mind in which all the disciples must have been at this time, were not these three unquestioned circumstances— that the body was gone ; — that a figure dressed in white told the women that their Lord was risan ; — and that the same women saw some one tvhom they believed to be him ; — amply sufficient to make a belief in his resurrection spread with the force and rapidity of a contagion ? 2. It is clear that to prove such a miracle as the reap- pearance in life of a man who had been publicly slain, the direct and concurrent testimony of eye-witnesses would be necessary : — that two or more should state that they saw him at such a time and place, and kneiv him ; — and that this clear testimony should be recorded and handed down to us in an authentic document. This decree ot evidence we might have had : — this we have not. We have epistles from Peter, James, John, and Jude — all of whom are said by the evangelists to have seen Jesus after he rose from the dead, in none of which epistles is the fact of the resm'rection even stated, much less that Jesus wa8 seen by the writer after his resurrection. This point de- serves weighty consideration. We have ample evidence that the belief in Christ's resurrection* was very early and very general among the disciples, but we have not the direct testimony c^ any one of the twelve, nor of any eye- witness at all, that they saw him on earth after his death. Many writers say, " he was seen ; " — no one says, " / saw him alive in the flesh." There are three apparent exceptjons to this, which, how- ever, when examined, will prove rather confirmatory of our statement than otherwise. If the last chapter of the fourth Gospel were written by the Apostle John, it would contain the direct testimony of an eye-witness to the ap- pearance of Jesus upon earth after his crucifixion. But its genuineness has long been a matter of question amonpend( preceding ch of a history. chapter— its from shore, i fire ready m tradiction b( twelfth, as t( of the leger tion betwee draught of ; tion of Chri very comm last two vei and we ha genuine tha whole ques chapter wa? elder of th( In the fir and existen but when lieved in a transferenc and that tl disciples o 23-31 ; XX assertion t and that pression tl doctrine (" 8pirit,"t) i not a flesh * See Hu^ + BofarwOc mon translat and thue ent excited stato been at this umstances— 5sed in white -and that the d to be him ; resurrection Lgion ? as the reap- cly slain, the nesses would ite that the\ w him ;— and 1 and handed lis degree of rve not. Wo Jude— all of )n Jesus after les is the fact it Jesus was i^his point de- iple evidence IS very early have not the r of any eye- ;er his death. says, "/saw , which, how- ifirmatory of japter of the )hn, it would ss to the ap- fixion. But 3stion amoni^ alent among the it appears from would be imnii'- the belief that e of his death. RESURRECTION OP JESUS. 285 learned men,* and few can read it critically and retain the belief that it is a real relic of the beloved apostle, or even that it originally formed part of the Gospel to which it is appended. In the first place, the closing verse of the preceding chapter unmistakably indicates the termination of a history. Then, the general tone of the twentv-firsi chapter — its particularity as to the distance of the bark from shore, and the exact number of fishes taken — the fire ready made when the disciples came to Und — the con tradiction between the fourth verse and the seventh and twelfth, as to the recognition of Jesus — all partake strongly of the legendary character, as does likewise the conversa- tioij between Jesus and Peter. Again, the miraculous draught of fishes which is here placed after the resurrec- tion of Christ, is by Luke related as happening at the very commencement of his ministry. And finally, the last two verses, it is clear, cannot be from the pen of John, and we ha ""e no grounds for supposing them to be less genuine than the rest of the chapter. On a review of the whole question we entertain no doubt that the whole chapter was an addition of later date, perhaps by some elder of the Ephesian Church. In the first epistle of Peter (iii. 21, 22), the resurrection and existence in heaven of Jesus are distinctly afiirmed ; but when we remember that the Jews at that time be- lieved in a future life, and apparently in an immediate transference of the spirit from this world to the nert, and that this belief had been especially enforced on the disciples of Jesus (Matt. xvii. 1-4 ; xxii. 32 ; Luke xvi. 23-31 ; xxiii. 43), this will appear very different from an assertion that Jesus had actually risen to an earthly life, and that Peter had seen him. Indeed the peculiar ex- pression that is made use of at ver. 18, in affirming the doctrine (" being slain in flesh, but made alive again in 8pirit,"t) indicates, in the true meaning of the original, not a fleshly, but a spiritual revivification. * See Hug, 484. \ 9avar resurrection, I interval, nnell, p. 287). RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 289 accounts, which has not received the attention it deserves, is, that scarcely any of those who are said to have seen Jesus after his resurrection, recognised him, though long and intimately acquainted with his person. According to Matthew (xxviii 17), when Jesus appeared to the eleven in Galilee by his own appointment, some, even of them, " doubted ," which could not have been the case had his identity been clearly recognisable. According to Luke, the two disciples, with whom ho held a long conversation, and who passed many hours in his company, did not recognise him. "Their eyes were holden that they should not know him."* And even after the disciples had been informed, both of this reappearance and of that to Peter (xxiv. 34-37), yet when Jesus appeared to them, they were afirighted, and supposed that they saw a spirit. According to John, even Mary Magdalene, after Jesus had spoken to her, and she had turned to look at him, still did not recognise him, but supposed him to be the (rardener.*}" In the spurious part of John" (xxi. 4-6) the same want of recognition is observable. In the spurious part of Mark we see traces of a belief that Jesus assumed various forms after his resurrection, to account, doubtless, for the non-recognition ot some and the disbelief of others (xvi. 11, 12, 13): "After that he appeared in another form unto two of them." Now, if it really were * Here another interestiEsj point comt ". in for consideration. The con- versation between Jesus and his two companions turned upon the Messianic prophecies, which the disciples held to have been disappointed by the death of Jesus, but which Jesus as iured them related to and were fulfilled in him. Now, if the conclusion at which we arrived in a previous chapter (iv. ) be correct, viz., that the Old Te. esus at all, it follows, that at least half the story of Oleopas must be fabulous, unless, indeed, we adopt the supposition that Jesus held uhe same erroneous views respecting these propuecies as his djsciples. t Fume^s (" On the Four Gospels ") dwells much on the fact that t was "dark" when Mary visited the sepulchre (John xx. 1), and that this was the reason why she did not rerd, and that is reappear- definitively iply to call clear, con- a; that the stained and Jappearance in white at ' way neces- adily resur- le dead and tt ij he did, such resur- II, The conduct of the apostles subsequent to the death of Jesus, — the marked change in their character I'l om timidity to boldness, and in their feelings from deep depression and dismay to satisfaction and triumph, — as depicted in the Acts, affords tar stronger evidence in favour of the bodily resurrection of their Lord, than any of the narratives which have recorded the event. It seems to us certain that the apostles believed in the re- surrection of Jesus [with absolute conviction.] Nothing .short of such a belief could have sustained them through what they had to endure, or given them enthusiasm for what they had to do ; the question, therefore, which re- mains for our decision is, whether the apostles could have believed it, had it not been fact ; whether their re- ception of the doctrine of a general resurrection, [or rather of a futuie life,*] coupled with the disappearance of the body of Jesus from the sepulchre in wiiich he had been laid, and the report of the women regarding the state- ment of the angelic vision, be sufficient to account for so vivid and actuating a faith, without the supposition of his actual appearance to themselves ; whether, in fact, the apostles, excited by the report that he was risen, could have believed that they had seen him if they had not really done so. 1'his question will be differently answered by different minds ; nor do we know that any arguments will weigh more on either side than the simple state- tYient oi the problem to be resolved.*!* Certainly, the bold faith of the apostles, if sufficient, is the only sufficient avidence for the occurrence; the narrative testimony would be inadequate to prove a far more credible event. * [The current belief in those days appears to have been not in an im- oiediate liberation of the soul to a spiritual existence^ but in am ultimate ■esurrection of all at the great day of account. John xi. 24 ; Luke xx. 33 ; Mark xii. 23. See infra, note, p. 362]. t It is certain that we, in these days, could not believe in the resurrec- aou of an individual to an earthly life unless we had ascertained his death, ind ourselves seen him afterwards alive. But we cannot justly apply this reasoning to the early followers of Christ ; they were not men of critical, in- :iuiring, or doubting minds, nor accustomed to sift or scrutinize testimony, but, on the contrary, inured to marvels, anl trained to re3;a"d tlie f uperuat- nral as almost an ordinary part of the natural, given moreover to see vis« ions, and unhesitatingly to accept them as divnic communications. 292 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. All we can say is this ; that a belief in the resurrection and bodily reappearance of Jesus early prevailed and rapidly obtained currency in the Christian community ; that the apostles shared the belief in the resurrection, and did not discourage that in the bodily reappearance ; that, however, none of them (the fourth Gospel not hav- ing been written by John) has left us his own testimony to having himself seen Jesus alive after his death ; and that some of the disciples doubted, and others long after disbelieved the fact* In order to mitigate our pain at finding that the fact of Christ's resurrection has been handed down to us on such inadequate testimony as to render it at best a doubt- ful inference, it is desirable to inquire whether, in reality, it has the doctrinal value which it has been the habit ot theologians to attribute to it. We have been taught to regard it not only as the chief and crowning proof of the diviidty of our Saviour's mission, but as the type, earnest, and assurance of our own translation to a life beyond the grave. It is very questionable, however, whether either of these vieT^s of it is fully justified by reason. There can be no doubt that the fact of an individual having been miraculously restored to life, is a signal proof of divine interposition in his behalf. Such restoration may be viewed in three lights — either as a reward for a liie of extraordinary virtue ; or as an intimation that his mission upon earth had been prematurely cut short, and that his reanimation was necessary for its fulfilment ; or as an announcement to the world that he was in a pecu- liar manner the object of di-nne regard and the subject o divine influence. The first point of view is evidently ir- rational, and the offspring of unregenerate and unculti- vated thought. It is prompted either by the inconsiderate instincts of the natural man, or by disbelief in a future _ • See 1 Cor. xv. 12. The whole argument of Paul respecting the resurrec- tion is remarkable — it is simply this, there must be a resurrection from tlie dead because Christ " is preached " to have risen ; and that if there were no resurrection, then Christ could not be risen. It would seem as if he con- sidered the truth of the resurrection of Christ to depend upon the correct- neas of the doctrine of the general resurrection (vers^ 13). life. It 1 that this ing in an( gard it as lence to is, if poss that God defeat of their ren( to be reg which it viz., as a is my be is attend lu the taken as one case did not contain record t in none subject ' love or 1 one of B were a] pears U point o: them t enablin belief shaker ably vatich( then t' Now,] in an comm RESURRECTION OF JESUS. 293 hurrcction Jailed and Immunity ; Burrection,' jpearance ; II not hav- I testimony leath ; and long after .t the fact n to us on it a doubt- , in reality, le habit of taught to roof of the pe, earnest, beyond the ther either individual ignal proof restoration ivard for a m that his short, and ilment; or in a pecu- subject idently ir- d unculti- 3nsiderate a future the resurrec- on from tlio here were no •8 if he con- the correct- life. It implies either that there is no future world, or that this world is preferable to it, since no man, believ- ing in another and a better state of existence, would re- gard it as an appropriate reward for distinguished excel- lence to be reduced to this. The second point of view is, if possible, still more unreasonable, since it assumes that God had permitted such an interference with and defeat of his plans, that he was obliged to interpose for their renewal. The third aspect in which such a fact is to be regarded alone remains, and is in effect the one in which it is commonly viewed throughout Christendom, viz., as a public announcement from the Most High, " This is my beloved Son, hear ye him." But this point of view is attended with many difficulties In the first place, if the Gosp(3l narratives are to be taken as our standing-ground (and they are as valid for the one case as for the other), the restoration of the dead to life did not necessarily imply any such peculiar favour, or contain any such high announcement. The evangelists record three instances of such miraculous resuscitation, in none of which have' we any reason foi- believing the subject of the miracle to be peculiarly an object of divine love or approbation, in all of which the miracle was simply one of mercy to mourning friends. The resuscitated parties were all obscure individuals, and only one of them ap- pears to have been a follower of Christ, Secondly, this point of view was not the one taken by the apostles. To them the value of Christ's resurrection consisted in its enabling them still to retain, or rather to resume, that belief in the Messiahship of Jesus which his death had shaken.* If restored to life, he might yet be, and prob- ably was, that Great Deliverer whom, as Jews, they Tsacched and waited and prayed for ; if he were dead, then that cherished notion was struck dead with him. Now, if we are right in the conclusion at which we arrived in an earlier chapter,-f- viz., that Jesus had nothing in common with that liberating and triumphant conqueror * This is especially xuamfedt froui the conversation on the journey to Em- maus. t See chap. iv. *>!<>/, THE CREED OF CHBISTENDOM. predicted by the Jewish prophets and expected by the Jewish nation ; it follows that the especial effect which the resurrection of Christ produced upon the minds of his disciples, was to confirm them in an error. This, to them, was its dogmatic value, the ground on which they hailed the announcement and cherished the belief. Thirdly, it will admit of question whether, in the eye of pure reason, the resurrection of Christ, considered as an attes- tation to the celestial origin of his religion, be not super- fluous — whether it be not human weakness, i-ather than human reason, which needs external miracle as a sanction and buttress of a system which may well rely upon its own innate strength — whether the internal does not sur- pass and supersede the external testimony to its character — whether the divine truths which Christ taught, should not be to us the all-sufficient attestation of his divine mission. We have seeiA in the preceding chapter that miraculous power in any individual is no guarantee for the correctness ol his teaching. We have seen that if the doctrines which Jesus taught approve themselves to the enlightened understanding and thQ uncorrupted heart, they are equally binding on our allegiance whether he wrought miracles in the course of his career or not. And if the truth that God is a loving Father, and the precept, " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," derive no corroboration from the resurrection of Lazarus or the Youth of Nain, neither can they from that of Christ him- self. Doubtless we should sit with more prostrate sub- mission and a deeper reverence at the feet of a Teacher who came to us from the grave, but it is probably only the infirmity of our faith and reason which would cause us to do so.* Rationally considered, Christ's resurrection cannot prove doctrines true that would else be false, nor certain that would else be doubtful. Therefore, considered as a reward, it is contradictory and absurd ; considered as the renewal ol an interrupted mission, it involves an un- worthy and monstrous conception of God's providence ; * Jmob seems to intimate as much wheu he says, " If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dMML" considered it is an at and corrol superfluoi Is the ( take of ( and foret reason? truth. T is here n coming oi their own tion, — wl into the forth out company resurrect of the da fore, of V cognate only alt€ lieved, a body wl earnest still ren case ; it are not 8ure ; tions w our ear other myriaa pected lesurre rection — it m If, on poreal on ear pledge BBSUBBECnON 07 JESUS. 296 cr ;ed by the •ect which miDds of This, to hich they ■ Thirdly, e of pure 'S an attes- not super- ^ather than a sanction y upon its es not sur- character ■ht, should his divine hapter that arantee for een that if emselves to jpted heart, whether he [• not. And ;he precept, " derive no rus or the Dhrist him- ►strate sub- a Teacher bably only '^ould cause esurrection e false, nor considered isidered as ves an un- rovidence ; lear not Moses rose from the considered as an attestation to the Messiahship of Jesus, it is an attestation to an error ; considored as a sanction and corroboration of his doctrines, it is, or ought to be, superfluous. Is the other view which we have been accustomed to take of Christ's resurrection, — viz., as the type, pledge, and foretelling of our own, — more consonant to sound reason ? We believe the reverse will prove nearer to the truth. That it was regarded in this view by the apostles, is here no argument for us. For they looked for the coming of their Lord, and the end of the world, if not in their own lifetime, at least in that of the existing genera- tion, — when they who were alive would be caught up into the clouds, and those who were dead would come forth out of tlveir graves, and join together the glorious company of the redeemed. They looked for a bodily resurrection for themselves — which on their supposition of the date might appear possible, — a resurrection, there- fore, of which that of Jesus was a prototype — a pattern — ^a cognate occurrence. But in our position the case is not only altered, but reversed. Christ's resurrection was [be- lieved, and is affirmed to have been,] a reanimation of the body which he wore in life ; it could, therefore, be an earnest of the resurrection of those only whose bodies still remained to be reanimated : it was an exceptional case ; it refers not to us ; it conveys no hope to us ;—we are not of those whose resurrection it could typify or as- sure ; for our bodies, like those of the countless genera- tions who have lived and passed away since Christ trod our earth, will have crumbled into dust, and passed into other combinations, and become in turn the bodies of myriads of other animated beings, before the great ex- pected day of the resurrection of the just. To us a bodily resurrection is impossible. If, therefore, Christ's resur- rection were spiritual — independent of his buried body — it might be a type and foreshadowing of our own ; — if, on the other hand, as the evangelists relate, it was cor- poreal — if his body left the grave undecayed, and appeared on earth, and ascended into glory, — then its value as a pledge beloiiged to the men of that time alone,— we have 296 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. ( I neither part nor lot in its signification ; — it is rather an extinguisher than a confirmation of our hopes. It will be seen that we make no scruple in negativing a doctrine held verbally by the Church, viz., " the resur- rection of the body ; " since, whatever was intended by the authors of this phrase* — the meaning ol which is by no means clear to us, and was probably no clearer to themselves, — thus much is certain, that our " resurrection of the body " can bear no similarity to Christ's resurrec- tion of the body; — for his body remained only a low hours in the grave, and, we are expressly told, " did not see corruption," and ours, we know, remains there for un- told years, and moulders away into the original elements of its marvellous chemistry. We conclude, then, as before : — that as we c-nnot hope to rise, as Christ is said to have done, with our own pres- ent uncorrupted body, his resurrection, if it were a reani- mation of his earthly frame, can be no argument, proof, pledge, pattern, or foreshadowing of our own. If, on the contrary, his resurrection were spiritual, and his appear- ances to his disciples mental and apparitionary only, the} would, pro tanto, countenance the idea of a future state. Our interest, therefore, as waiters and hopers for an iin mortality, would appear to lie in cZisbelieving the letter of the Scripture narratives. • "We can," says Pearson, "no otherwise expound this article teaching the resurrection of the body, than by asserting that the same bodies whicL have lived and died shall live again ; that the sanae flesh which is corrupted shall be restored." Again, "That the same body, not any other, bhaU be raised to life which died, that the same flesh which was separated from the Boul at the day of death shall be united to the soul at the last day," Ac— Ptarton on the Creed, art. xi. IS Having n p-nise anc which we have arri^ of Scripti but is a g We have laws ot y. the prodi name the ding thai primary Hebrew j and imj perfect their Po people i ered thi Predict" single J or can pearanc been cc able qi that m down while Christ teachi recorc of Ch or act [t is rather an L negativing , "the resur- iatended by J>1 which is bj |no clearer to I " resurrection list's resurrec- P only a low fold, " did not IS there for un- jinal elements e cnnothope our own pres- were a reani- ument, proof. n. If, on the ind his appeaj- iaryonly,tho} a future state. Jrs for an im ing the letter IS article teaching same bodies whicL which is corrupted ay other bhall be separated from the e last day," Ac. - CHAPTER XV. IS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION ? Eaving now arrived at this point of our inquiry, let us ponse and cast a summary sj^lance on the ground over which we have travelled, and the conclusions at which we have arrived. We have found that the popular doctrine of Scriptural Inspiration rests on no foundation whatever, but is a grai uitous as well as an untenable assumption. We have seen that neither the books of Moses nor the laws ot Moses, as we have them, were (at least as a whole) the production ot the great Leader and Lawgiver whose name they bear We have seen ample reason for conclu- ding that a belief in One only Supreme God was not the primary religion either of the Hebrew nation or the Hebrew priests ; but that their Theism — originally limited and impure — was gradually elevated and purified into perfect and exclusive monotheism, by the influence of their Poets and Sages, and the progressive advance of the people in intelligence and civilization. We have discov- ered that their Prophets were Poets and Statesmen, not Predictors — and that none of their writings contain a single prediction Avhich was originally designed by them, or can be honestly interpreted by us, to foretell the ap- pearance and career of Jesus of Nazareth. What have been commonly regarded as such, are happy and ai:>plic- ahle quotations: but no more. We have seen further that none of the four histories of Christ wh ich have come down to us are completely genuine and faithful ; — that while they are ample and adequate for showing us what Christ was, and what was the essence and spirit of his teaching, we yet do not possess sufficient certainty that they record, in any special instance, the precise words or actions of Christ, to warrant us in building upon those words or actions doctrines revolting to our uncorrupted instincts T 298 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOBI. and our cultivated sense. We have found, moreover, that the apostles — zealous and devout men as they were— were yet most imperfect, and fallible expounders of the mind of their departed Lord. We have seen that miracles — even where the record of them is adequate and abovt suspicion, if any such case there be — are no sufficient guarantee of the truth of the doctrines preached by the worker of those wonders. And finally, we have been compelled to conclude that not only is the resurrection oi our Lord, as narrated in the Gospels, encumbered with toe many difficulties and contradictions to be received as un- questionable, but that it is far from having the dogmatic value usually attached to it, as a pledge and foreshadow- ing of our own. But however imperfect may be the records we possess of Christ's ministry, this imperfection does not affect the nature or authority of his mission. Another great ques- tion, therefore, here opens before us :-r-" Was Christ a divinely-commissioned Teacher of Truth?" In other words, "Is Christianity to be regarded as a Religion revealed by God to n lan through Christ ? " What is the meaning which, in ordinary theological parlance, we attach to the words "Divine Revelation?" What do we intend to signify when we say that " God spoke " to this Prophet, or to that saint ? We are all of us conscious of thoughts which come to m — which are not, properly speaking our own — which we do not create, do not elaborate ; — flashes of light, glimpses of truth, or of what seems to us such, brighter and sub- limer than commonly dwell in our minds, whiclf we are not conscious of having wrought out by any process of inquiry or meditation. These are frequent and brilliant in proportion to the intellectual gifts and spiritual eleva- tion of the individual : they may well be termed inspira- tions — revelations ; but it is not such as these that we mean when we speak of th3 Revelation by Christ. Those who look upon God as a Moral Governor, as well as an original Creator, — a God at hand, not a God afar off in the distance of infinite space, and in the remoteness of past or future eternity, — who conceive of him as ta- IS king a wa world, an —believe spoken tc breathed " wi'ough communi His Spiri souls, an( These are are not v made by Those, of the w( wonderfi conceive material different with bra must I tiuu. IS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION ? 299 Dreover, that fehey were— iiders of the that miracles le and abovt no sufficient Lched by the le have been lesurrection oi pered with toe pceived as un- the dogmatic ^ foreshadow- Is we possess not affect the ler great ques- Was Christ a ?" In other as a Religion iry theological i Revelation?" vy that "God lich come to us vn — which we light, glimpses fhter and sub- whiclf we are any process of t and brilliant piritual eleva- armed inspira- these that we Christ. '-ernor, as well ot a God afar he remoteness »f him as ta- king a watchful and presiding interest in the affairs of the world, and as influencing the hearts and actions of men, — believe that through the workings of the Spirit He has spoken to many, has whispered His will to them, has breathed great and true thoughts into their minds, has " wi'ought mightily " within them, has in their secret communings and the deep visions of the night, caused His Spirit to move over the troubled waters of their souls, and educed light and order from the mental chaos. These are the views of many religious minds ; — but these are not what we mean when we speak of the Revelation made by God to Christ. Those, again, who look upon God as the great artificer of the world of life and matter, ind upon man, with his wonderful corporeal and mental frame, as his direct work, conceive the same idea in a somewhat modified and more material form. They believe that He has made men with different intellectual capacities ; and has endowed some with brains so much larger and finer than those of ordi- nary men, as to enable them to see and originate truths , which are hidden irom the mf jS ; and that when it is His will that mankind should make some great step forward, should achieve some pregnant discovery. He calls into being some cerebral organization of more than ordinary magnitude and power, as that of David, Isaiah, Plato, Shakespeare, Bacon, Newton, Luther, Pascal, which gives birth to new ideas and grander conceptions of the truths vital to humanity. But we mean something essentially distinct from this when we speak of Christ as the Teacher of a Religion revealed to him by his Father. When a Christian affirms Ghristianit}' to be a " re- vealed religion," he intends simply and without artifice to declare his belief that the doctrines and precepts which Christ taught were not the production of his own (hu- man) mind,either in its ordinary operations,or inits flights of sublimest contemplation ; but were directly and super- naturally communicated to him from on high.* He means * Those who believe that Christ wan God— if any such really exist — must of course hold everything he taught wuh, ipso facto, a divine revela« tiou. With such all argument and inquiry ia necessarily superseded lu 300 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. this, or he means nothing definable and distinctive. What gi'oimds have we, then, for adopting such an opinion ? It IS evident that if the conclusions to which our pre- vious investigations have led us be correct, our only argu- ments for believing Christianity to be a divine revelation in contradistincti'ii to a human conception, must be drawn from the superhumanity of its nature and con- tents. What human intellect could ascertain, it would be superfluous for God to reveal. The belief of Chiist himself, that his teaching " was not his, but his Father's," — even if we were certain th^.t he used these precise words, and intended them to co.ivey precisely the mean- ing we attach to them, — could not suffice us, for the rea- sons assigned in the first chapter of this work. The be- lief in communications with the Diety has in all ages been common to the most exalted and poetical ordeV of religious minds. The fatit that Christ held a conviction which he shared with tiro great and good of other times, can be no argument for ascribing to him divine communi- cations distinct from chose granted to the great and good of other times. It remains, therefore, a simple question . for our consideration, whether the doctrines and precepts taught by Jesus are so new, so profound, so perfect, so distinctive, so above and beyond parallel, that they could not have emanated naturally from a clear, simple, un- soiled, unwarped powerful, meditative mind, — living four iiundred years after Socrates and Plato — brought up among the pure Essenes, nourished on the wisdom of Solo- mon, the piety ol David, the poetry of Isaiah — elevated by the knowledge, and illuminated by the love, of the one true God Now, on this subject we hope our confession of faith will be acceptable to all save the narrowly orthodox. It is difficult, without exhausting superlatives, even to unexpressive and wearisome satiety, to do justice to our intense love, reverence, and admiration, for the character and teaching of Jesus. We regard him not as the per- fection of the intellectual or philosophic mind, but as the perfection of the spiritual character, — as surpassing all men of all times in the closeness and depth of his communion IB with the ] are holdii Being tha humanitj lowing th us upon € has been ment to i in the w( But tl grounde(3 that eith were su| tion of teaching enforce : Ecclesias germs o genius o trine of ably no current] Jesus, aj We ha| powerfj feeling! Tiativei and m and ml reache and tl guish^ by w^ * Al Hennel in .Tev Deuts JesuH, I tiau p| owe tlf more enfo ■ iivc. What pinion I zh. our pve- only argu- I revelation I, must be e and con- n, it would : of Christ is Father's," lese precise Y the mean- for the rea- •k. The be- . in all ages ieal ordeV of a conviction other times, ne communi- eat and good Qple question and precepts so perfect, so tat they could r, simple, un- mind,— living » — brought up isdom of Solo- Aah — elevated le love, of the ession of faith r orthodox. It jves, even to justice to our : the charactei net as the per- lind, but as the ■passing all men his communion « OBUXSXU..XV . KBVKA.BB B.UO,0. 1 301 ,, ,,e Father, ^ reading ^ ^l^' -..^S! t^ VCA^^ a*Tr »e it have Hse. tr*p-natura. endowments »tW ^ ^'°V' '\ r vese'td for Hm^o eUcit pubU^ and feniuB of Christ ^^f.^^^^^^tt Enforced, perhaps prob- frine of a future rrld thou „t ^'^'/^i^Tof ^o^e^l mind, HUed ji*-X:rS:.es d«H»^- feeUngs, and studying the f '•"J" nj^ting^ what waa good and noble, and 'ejf <=''"? ^^t the conclusion which Jei.v.8 ind mi^ht naturally a»>^e at, w' attributes of God, reacS, as to the duties ot man, 'he ; .^ ^^ ltd the relation of man to God <^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^ j^an ^^t.'T:AlTV:T:^^^^ and ^expansion by what it aaaea — -- g •'^ _. ., - , .^. ..;„Vf mode of proving this. »;e in Jewish teaching ' ,^f/p„ijn,id, Quart. ■''e'^'f,"'\^,{!' ".^h'many of the Chns- Deutsch-s paper o^ \^„i^t S "^^ ^^^^'^''It^l^i^^^- to him that ire Jisus, ch. 5.1 But It in ^^^ ^ of •''-^ ' '/j^i, teachiu:;, and stiU jesws, «"• "-J ""^.r/aiit bt'toro cno i/i^'^- -• .„,.i- .»f hiii teacmu:;, ii"" i 302 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM il; » ; m of the best elements of its predecessor. It selects the yrand, the beautiful, the tender, the true, and ignores oi suppresses the exclusive, the narrow, the corrupt, the coarse, and the vindictive. It is Moses, David, Solomon. Isaiah purified, sublimated, and developed. If this be so, then the supposition that Christianity was snper- naturally communicated, idlls to the ground as need- less, and therefore inadmissible. What man could dis- cover naturally, God would not communicate supematu- rally. But we may go further. Not only is there no necessity for supposing that Christ's views as to God and duty were supernaturally revealed to him, but there is almost a ne- cessity for adopting an opposite conclusion. If they were the elaboration of his own mind, we may well imagme that they may contain some admixture of error and imper fection. If they were revealed to him by God, this could not be the case. If, therefore, we find that Jesus was in error in any point, either of his practical or his specula- tive teaching, our conclusion, hitherto a probability, be- comes a certainty. It is evident that we Ci^uld treat o this point with far more satisiaction if we w€ re in a posi- tion to pronounce with perlect precision what Christ did, and what ho did not, teach. But as we have seen that many words are put into his mouth which he never uttered, wf^ cannot ascertain this as undoubtedly as is desirable. There must still remain some degree of doubt as to whether the errors and imperfections which we detect, originated with or were shared by Christ, or whether they were wholly attributable to his followers and historians. There are, however, some matters on which the general concurrence of the evangelical histories, and their unde- signed and incidental intimations, lead us to conclude that Jesus did share the mistakes which prevailed among his disciples, though, in even going so far as this, we speak with great diflUdence. He appears to have held erroneous views respecting demoniacal possession, the interpretation of Scripture,* his own Messiahship, his secontui-u ix th^ eorihistical argmueut ascribed tt and the held the I evidence! know th( was so inl ble revell Christen! But v^ swered il this chai coverablj be taugl that is, i ment of other w( it could not ; the nated b;; cult to ( which CI to it, an not, in t work 01 powers, stateme cess mti truth if approv( and tal afitnei Christ, c Lord i^aii appears i to David signal vi Mesaiah * Iti be discc Saturn of the future already ociiurit IS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION ? 303 ft selects the nd ignores 01 corrupt, the v^id, Solomon If this be was super- ind as need- in could dis- e supematii- no necessit;^' id duty were almost a ne- If they were ^ell imagine rand imper d, this could Fesus was in his specula- aability, be 'uld treat (, re in a posi- ; Christ did, 'e seen that ver uttered, s desirable, i to whether , originated they were ians. the general 'heir unde- > conclude led among 1, we speak erroneous rpretation d coming, r instance of t aecribed to and the approaching end of the world. At least, if he held the views ascribed to him (and the preponderance of evidence is in favour of the assumption that he did), we know that on these topics he was mistaken. Now, if he was so in error, his teaching could not have been an infalli- ble revelation from the God of truth, in the sense in which Christendom employs that phrase. But we now come upon another question which if an- swered in the negative, at once closes the inquiry to which this chapter is devoted. " Is the revelation of an undis- coverable truth possible?" That is, "Can any doctrine be taught by God to man — be supernaturally infused, that is, into his mind, which he might not by the employ- ment of his own faculties have discerned or elicited ? " In other words, " Can the human mind receive an idea which it could not originate ? " We think it plain that it can- not ; though the subject is one which may be better illumi nated by reflection than by discussion. At least it is diffi- cult to conceive the nature and formation of that intellect which can comprehend and grasp a truth when presented to it, and perceive that it is a truth, and which yet could not, in the course of time and under idvourable conditions, work out that truth by the ordinary operation of its own powers. It appears to us that, by the very nature of the statement, the faculties necessary for the one mental pro- cess must be competent to the other* If an laea (and a truth is only an jdea, or a combination of ideas, which approves itself to us) can find en '■ranee into the mind and take up its abode there, does not th.s very fact show a fitness for the residence oj that idea ? — a fitness, there- Christ, concerning the supposed address of David to the Messiah. " The Lord said unto my Lord," &c. (Mattb. xxii. 44, and parallel passage.) It appears clear that this Psalm was not composed by David, but was addressed to David by I'J'athan, or some Coui-t Propnet, on the occasion of some.of his signal victories. — See " Hebrew Monarchy," p. 92. David did not ctil the Messiah " Iiord ; " it was the Poet that called David " Lord." * It may be objected that externa ^icta may be revealed which could not be discovered. We may be assured by revelation that the inhabitants of Saturn have \ving;s oi have no heads, but then we do not recognize the truth of the assurance. We may be assured by revelation of the existence of a future world ; but could we receive the assurance unless our minds were already so prepared for it, or so constituted, that it would naturally Lave ocuuritid to theui . 304 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. IS M- 5 fore, which would have insured admittance to the idea if suggested in any oi those mental processes which we call thought, or by any of those combinations of occurrences which we call accident — a fitness, therefore, which, as the course of time and the occurrence of a thousand such possi- ble suggesting accidents must almost necessarily have en- sured the presentation of the idea, would also have ensuied its reception t If, on the other hand, the idea, from its strangeness, its immensity, its want of harmony with the nature and existing furniture of the mind, could never have presented itself naturally, would not the same strangeness, the same vastness, the same incompatibility of essence incapacitate the mind from receiving it if presented super- naturally ? " Revealed religion," says one of our acutest writers, "is an assumption of some truths, and an ant,icipatio7i or conjivmation of others. . It is obvious that a truth which is announced from heaven in one age, may be dis- covered by man in another. A truth is a real and actual re- lation of things subsisting somewhere, — either in the ideas within us, or the objects without us, — and capable there- fore of making itself clear to us by evidence either demon- strative or moral. We may not yet have advanced to the point of view from which it opens upon us ; but a pro- gressive knowledge must bring us to it ; and we shall then see that which hitherto was sustained by authority, resting on its natural support ; we shall behold it, indeed, in the same light in which it has all along appeared to tlie superior Intelligence who tendered it to our belief. Thus revelation is an anticipation only of Science; a fore- cast of future intellectual and moral achievements ; a provisional authority for governing the human mind, till the regularly-constituted powers can be organized." In this case it is evident that the question whether a truth were ' discovered or revealed, depends upon a previous enquiry ; viz, whether the truth were too far before the age to have been discovered by that age .? and if so, whether the teacher ol it were not far enough before his age to make the truth which was hidden from his con- temporaries visible to hira ? It thus becomes a mere question revelatioi] tury henc shifting a of revelat Furthe distingmi conceived token, cai to him fi ceive tha he may b tion or m but this ii found an' was brea night, wl therefore what is t municatij unquestic ascendan Shall we in the ore he know human c the voice when it and ieeb by man'i commun not impt veyance really m hear fro speaks i the Sou thesis. Ourr the onl IS CHRISTIANITY -A REVEALED RELIGION ? 305 the idea if Iiich we call oceuneiicos hich, as the 1 such possi- ily have en- ave ensuied a, from its ly with the never liave Jtrangeness, of essence snted super- writers, "is cipation or hat a truth nay be dis- d actual re- in the ideas )able there- her demon- need to the but a pro- d we shull authority, it, indeed, ppeared to our belief. ice; a fore- ements ; a L mind, till lized." In ler a truth I previous before the ind if so, before his n his con- !S a mere (juestion of time and degree ; and what is justly called a revelation now, would be justly called a discovery a cen- tury hence. It is obvious that this is too narrow and shifting a ground to form a safe foundation for a theory of revelation. Further, we are at a loss to imagine how a man can distinguish between an idea revealed to him and an idea conceived by him In what manner and by what sure token, can it be made clear to him that a thought came to him from without, not arose within ? He may per- ceive that it is resplendently bright, unquestionably new ; he may be quite unconscious of any process of ratiocina- tion or meditation by which it can have been originated ; but this is no more than may be said of half the ideas of })io- found and contemplative genius. Shall we say that it was breathed into him "in a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon man ; " and that, therefore, he assumes that it is not his, but God's ? Yet what is this but to declare that God chooses for his com- munications with the mind of man the period of its most unquestionable imperfection, when the phantasy is ascendant and the judgment is torpid and in abeyance < Shall we say that the thought was spoken to him aloud, in the ordinary language of humanity, and that, therefore, he knows it to have been a divine communication, not a human conception ? But what singular logic is this ! Is the voice ot God, then only, or then most, recognisable when it borrows the language of man ? Is that unprecise and feeble instrument of thought and utterance, invented by man's faulty faculties, God's best and surest mode of communication with the spirit he has created ? Nay, is not imperfect languagv. an impossible medium for the con- veyance of absolute and infinite truth ? And do we really mean that we feel certain it is God's voice which we hear from the clouds, and douhffal that it is His which speaks to us silently, and in the deep and sacred musings ot the Soul ? We cannot intend to maintain this monstrous thesis. Our reflections, then, bring us to this conclusion : — that the only certain proof we can have of a revelation must 306 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. '\ lie in the tru*^ is it teaches being such as are inaccessible to, and tlierefore incomprehensible by, the mind of man; that if they are such as he can conceive and grasp and ac- cept, they are such £is he might have discovered, and ho has no means ot knowing that he has not discovered them; if they are such as lie could not have discovered, they are such as he cannot receive, such tOj hv could not recoguiso or ascertain to be truth. Since, then, we can find no adequate reason for be- lieving Jesus to be the Son of God, nor his doc- trines to be a direct and special revelation to him Irom the Most High — using these phrases in their ordinary signification — in what light do we legard Christ and Christianity ? We do not believe that Christianity contains anything which a genius like Chiist's, brought up and nourished as his had been, might not have disentangled for itself. We hold that God has so arranged matters in 'his beautiful and well-ordeicd, but mysteriously-govemrd universe, that one great Tuind after another will arise from time to time, as such are needed , to discover and fiash forth before the eyes of men fhe tiuths that are wanted, and the amount of truth that can bo borne. We conceive that this is effected by endowing them, or (for we pretend 'c no scholastic nicety of expreaaion) by having arranged that Nature and the course of events shall send them into the world endowed, with that superior mental and moral organization, in which grand truths, sublime gleams of spiritual light, will spontaneously and inevitably arise. Such a one we believe was Jesus ol Nazareth, the most exalted religious genius whom God ever sent upon the earth ; in himself an embodied revelation ; humanity in its di- vinest phase, " God manifest in the flesh," according to Eastern hyperbole ; an exemplar vouchsafeii, in an early age of the World, of what man may and should become, in the course of ages, in his progress towards the realisa- tion of his destiny ; an individual gifted with a grand clear intellect, a noble soul, a fine organization, marvel- lous moral intuitions, and a perfectly balanced moral IS < being; ant further tht an earnest what it wi the same i as these n He was, ai ity of the et, inorali.- — ndsrepr friends; i followers in this, th truth as they pass acombs, t islicd, wl have bee standing passions Everythi have in 1 still less pie, subli having < minds fa their unc and tarn lection ( only lial grasped * "The be laid on life, suffer this seems collected. Pharisees, His loftieE IS CHEISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION ? 307 inacces.sillo lind of man ; jrasp and at- ered, and h(! )veredtheni; red, they are lOt reco^'uisc ison for be- or his doc- to him lioiii eir ordinary Christ and ms anythincr nourished as r itself. We his beautiful ird universe, from time to I forth before i-ed, and the jonceiv:; that '■e pretend 'c ng arranged .1 send them mental and blime gleams /itably arise, ith, the most on the earth ; ty in its di- according to , in an early •uld become, the realisa- dth a grand ion, marvel- need moral being ; and who, by virtue of these <»udowmentb, saw further than all other men — '* Beyond the verijo of that bhu' Hky Where God's sublimuat secrets lie ; " an earnest, not only of what humanity may be, but of what it will be, when the most penoeted races shall bear the same relation to the finest minds oi existing times, as these now boar to the Bushmen or the Esquimaux. Ho was, as Parker beautifully expresses it, "the possi))il- ity of the race made real " He was a sublime poet, proj)h- ot, moralist, and lioro ; and had the usual fate of such — misrepresented by his enemies — misconstrued by his friends ; unhappy in this, that his nearest intimates and followers were not of a calibre to understand him ; happy in this, that his words contained such undying seeds of truth as could survive even the media through which they passed. Like the wheat found in the Egj'^ptian (,'at- acombs, they retain the power of germinating undimin- ished, whenever their a})propriate soil is found. They have been preserved essentially almost pure, notwith- standing the Judaic narrowness o. Peter, the orthodox passions of John, and metaphysical subtleties of Paul. Everything seems to us to confirm the conclusion that we have in the Christianity of Scripture, [not a code of law, still less a system of dogma, but a mass] of beautiful, sim- ple, sublime, profound, not perfect, truths, obscured by having come doAvn to us through the intervention of minds far inferior to that of its Author — narrowed by their uncultivation — marred by their misapprehensions — and tarnished by their foreign admixtures. It is a col- lection of gi-and truths, transmitted to us by men who only half comprehended thoir grandeur, and imperfectly grasped their truth.* * I 'The character of the record is such that I see not how any stress can be laid on particular actions attributed to Jesus. That he lived a divine life, suffered a violent death, taught and lived a most beautiful religion — this seems the great fact about which a mass of truth and error has been collected. That he should gather discijiles, be opi)osed by the 1' "ests and Pharisees, have controversies with tln'in -this lay in the nature of things. His loftiest sayings seem to me < 'le most likely to be genuine. The grc.it 308 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. IS U li The question whether Christ had a special mission- were specially inspired by the Spirit of God — will be de- cided by each man according to the views he may enter- tain of Providence, and to the meaning which he attaches to words which, in the lips of too many, have no definite meaning at all. We are not careful to answer in this matter We believe that God has arranged this glorious but perplexing world with a purpose, and on a plan. We hold that every man of superior capacity (if not every man sent upon the earth) has a duty to perform — a mis- sion to fulfil — a baptism to be baptised with — " and how is he straightened till it be accomplished ! " We feel a deep inward conviction that every great and good man possesses some portion of God's truih, to proclaim to the world, and to fructify in his own bosom In a true and simple, but not the orthodox sense, we believe all the pure, wise, and mighty in soul, to be inspired, and to be inspired for the instruction, advancement, and elevation ' of mankind " Inspiration, like God's omnipresence, is not limited to the few writers claimed by the Jews, Chris- tians, or Mahometans, but is co-ex tensive with the race. . The degree of inspiration must depend upon two things ^ — first, on thf» natural ability, the particular intel- lectual, moral, and religious endowment or genius where- with each man is furnished by God , and next, on the use each man makes of this endowment In one word, stress laid on the person of Jesus b,v his followers, shows what the person must have been ; they put the person before the thinj^, the fact above the ide&. liyt ft is not about common men that such mythical stories are told '" — Theodon? Parker, Discourse, p. 188 [" Les (^vangelistes eux-m6mes, qui nous ont legue I'image de Jdsus, sout si fort au-dissous de celui dont ils parlent que sans cesse ils le di'figurent, faulv d'atteindre a sa hauteur Leurs ecrits sont pleins d'erreurs et do coii- tre-sens. On entrevoit Ji chacque ligrn.' un original d'une beauto diviuo train par des rtJdacteurs qui ne le comprennent i ^s, et qui substituent leur.s pro- pres idetis h, celles qu'ils ne saisissent qu'a demi." — Renan, Vie dc Jesus, v. 4C0. "The more we conceiv* of Jesus as almost as much over the heads of his disciples and reporters as he is over the heads of so-callt i Chiistians now, the more we see his disciples to have been, as they were, men raised b\- a truer moral susceptiveness above their countrymen, but in intellectual con- ceptions and habits much on a level with them,- -all the more do we make room, so to speak, for Jesus to be inconceivably great and wonderful ; as wonderful as his reporters imagined him to be, though in a diffeont man- ner."— Literature and Doyma, p. 153.] it dependsl /;/,'/ of ob\ natiu-iil en and dcvel(| derrvecs oil loftiest sal same dcgi] character ble intelk endowmei that pcrfd conditions imperfect tain at th is the CO Each mar test. . . • more nati man's nat ited to nc and comn the infar bar God < dotage ai as in the and st or ever a h utter th( hearts oi nsalem, o-ood ma tion is 1 o-reat ai tain as heart s( iiresenc This, sentont [, IS CJIHISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION ? aO!) 'cial mission— <1— will be de- he may enter- ich he attaches ive no definite mswer in this d this glorious >n a plan, We ' (if not every rform— a mis- h — " and how We feel a md good nian roclaini to tlie In a true and elieve all the fed, and to be md elevation ni presence, is 3 Jews, Chris- ^vith the race. ;nd upon two rticnlarintel- ^enius where- next, on the In one word, what tlie person le fact above the stories are told " re de J,?su8, sont "s le di'figurent, rreurs et cle coii- aiitediviia. trahi ituent leiurt i)ro. Vi^Ue Jeans, p. the heads of his (-'hiistiaiiN iKiw, lion nuMed I)\- n ntellectuivl con- >re do we make wonderful ; as diffeorit umii- it depends on the man's Quantity Oj Being and his Qimn- tU;/ of Obedience. Now, as men dificr widely in their natural endowments, and much more widely in their use and development thereo , there must of course be various decjrees of inspiration, from the lowest sinner up to the lot ti est saint. All men are not by biith capable o. the same degree of inspiration, and by culture and acquired character they are still less capable of it. A man of no- ble intellect, of deep, rich, benevolent affections, is by his endowments capable of more than one less gifted. He that perfectly keeps the Soul's law, thus fulfilling the conditions of inspiration, has more than he who keeps it imperfectly ; the former must receive all his soul can con- tain at that stage of its growth Inspiration, then, is the consequence of a faithful use of our faculties. Each man is its subject — God its source — truth its only test Men may call it miraculous, but nothing is more natural. It is co-extensive with the faithful use of man's natural powers. . . . Now, this inspiration is lim- ited to no sect, age, or nation. It is wide as the world, and common as God. It is not given to a few men, in the infancy of mankind, to monopolize inspiration, and bar God out of the Soul. You and I are not born in the dotage and decay oi the world. The stars are beautiful as in their prime ; ' the most ancient Heavens are fresh and St oiig' God is still everywhere in nature. Where- ever a heart beats with love — where Faith and Reasoi utter their oracles — there also is God, as formerly in the hearts of seers and prophets. Neither Gerizim, nor Jer- usalem, nor the soil that Jesus blessed, is so holy as the good man's heart ; nothing so full of God. This inspira- tion is not given to the learned alone, not only to the great and wise, but to every faithful child of God. Cer- tain as the open eye drinks in the light, do the pure in heart see God ; and he that lives truly feels Him as a presence not to be put by."* This, however, to minds nourished on the positive and sententious creeds of orthodox Chrhtendom, is not ''•' Theodore Parker p. 161, et seq. 310 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. eno ^h. Truths that are written by the finger of God upon the heart of man, are not definite enough for them. Views of religion and redominates lony is more 'Bier the ease hour insepar- 5uch men are to them, and le deductions F corruptible ared by even )ther of their !h is the last archer after ; possible to ! process of any surer belief than ctions of the ittributes of e believe to the mintl a future exis- ibly point to end and aim at tlie possi- ot certain t\', IS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION ? 811 and that on anything short of certainty )ur souls cannot rest in peace. But if we are told, on the authority of certain ancient documents, and venerable but still modi- tied and metamorphosed traditions, that some centuries ago a saint and sage came into the world, and assured his hearers that they had one God and Father who com- manded virtue as a law, and promised futurity as a reward ; and that this sage, to prove that he was divinely authorized to preach such doctrines, wrought miracles, which fallible disciples witnessed, and which fallible narrators have transmitted — then we bow our heads in satisfied acquiescence, and feel that we have attained the unmistakable,, unquestionable, infallible certainty we sought! What is this but the very spirit of Hindoo Mythology, which is not contented till it has found a resting-place for the Universe, yet is content to rest it on an elephant, and on a tortoise ? The same fallible human reason is the foundation of our whole superstructure in the one case equally as in the other. The whole difference is, that in the one case we apply that reason to the evidence for the doctrine itself ; in the other case we apply it to the credentials oi the individual who is said to have taught that doctrine. But is it possible we can so blind ourselves as to believe that reason can ever give us half the assurance that Matthew is correct when he tells us that Christ preached the Sermon on the Mount and fed 5000 men with five loaves and two fishes — as it gives us that a mighty and benevolent Maker formed the Universe and its inhabi- tants, and made man " the living to praise him ?" What should we think of the soundness of that roan's under- standing, who should say, " I have studied the wonders of the Heavens, the framework of the Earth, the mysterious beauties and adaptations of animal existence, the moral and material constitution of the human creature, who is so fearfully and wondeif ully made ; and 1 have risen from the contemplation unsatisfied and uncertain tuhether God is, and wlidt Ho is. But I have carefully examined the four Gospels, weighed their dis- crepancies, collated their reports, and the result is a SI 2 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. IS perfect certainty that Christ was the miraculous Son of God, commissioned to make known His existence, to J J veal His will, to traverse or suspend His laws. It is doubt f til whether a wise and good Being be the Author of the starry heavens above me, and the moral world within me , but it is unquestionable that Jesus walked upon the water, and raised the Widow's --' "i at Nain. I may be mistaken m the one deduction — I cannot be mistaken in the other." Strange conformation of mind ! which ^an find no adequate foundation for its hopes, its worship, it prm'Jiples o action, in the >-:,r-stretchmg universe, in the glorious firmament, in the deep, full soul, bursting with unutterable thoughts, in the vast and rich store-house of the material and moral world — yet can rest all with a trusting simT^licity approaching the sublime, on what a book relates oi the sayings and doings of a man who lived eighteen centuries ago ! It the change which resulted - ^ om our inquiries were indeed a descent Irom certainty to probability, it would involve a loss beyond all power of compensation. But it ]s not so. It IS merely an exchange of conclusions founded on one chr.in of reasoning ; jr conclusions lounded on an- other. The ])lain truth, n we dared but look it in the iace, is this, — that absolute certainty on tliose subjects is not attainable, and was not intended. We have already seen that no miraculous revelation could make doctrines credible which are revolting to our ' eason , nor can any i-evelation give to doctrines greater certainty than that which attaches to its own origin and history Now, we cannot conceive the proofs of any miraculous revelation to be so pcrioct, flawless, and cogent, as are the proofs of the great doctrines of our lu-ith, independent of miracle or revelation. Both sets ot proofs must, philosophically speaking, be iraperfect ; but the proof that any particular individual was supernatu rally inspired by God, must al- ways be more imperfect than the proof that Man and the Universe are the production of His fiat ; that goodness is His profoundest essence , that doing good is the noblest '~"m. To seek that more cogent and rorship v^y compelling certainty of these truths which orlhodo: yearns afi have atta man's inc [In tru foundatic certain tl documeni unquestic ineness a; urgently this prop trine, fo: plainly r( in chapte on the N on the S( isolated, gruous. absolute the mor^ creed ho In gn shadow has saci matic v{ God, it were Father measure imitate perhaps * " Ha^ a liumaa certainly eke ; for ' thinking the other, pleased w adhere to more tha that was beautiful in IS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION ? 313 ulous Son of existence, to laws. It is the Autlior moral world esus walked 1 at Nain. I I cannot be tion of mind ! its hopes, its >^r-stre telling eep, full soul, the vast and i\ world — yet )roachiiig the gs and doings inquiries were ility, it would iation. But it usions founded ounded on an- look it in the lose subjects is 3 have already aake doctrines , nor can any nty than that •ry Now, we ous revelation ) the proofs of 3nt of miracle )hilosophically any particular God, must al- i Man and the that goodness is the noblest )re cogent and 2h orlhodoxy yearns after, is to strive for a shadow ; — to fancy that we have attained it, is to be satisfied with having affixed man's indorsement to " the true sayings of God."* [In truth, however, it is not for the sake of these grand foundation-stones of all religion which are so much more certain than the authority or inspiration of any ancient documents or traditions possibly can be, that positive, unquestioning, dogmatic, absolute conviction of the genu- ineness and infallibility of the letter of the Bible is so urgently insisted upon by the orthodox. This conviction, this proposition, is essential to their entire system of doc- trine, for the simple reason (which can never be too plainly realised or kept in mind, and which was discussed in chapter xi.) that this doctrinal system is founded, not on the New Testament narratives as a whole, nor even on the Scriptures as a whole, but on special texts, often isolated, often unharmonizing, often absolutely incon- gruous. Only if the whole Bible is unassailable in its absolute and omnipresent accuracy and authority, can the more difficult and startling doctrines of the popular creed hold their ground.] In grasping after this certainty, which can be but a shadow, ordinary Christianity has lost the substance — it has sacrificed in practical more than it has gained in dog- matic value. In making Christ t e miraculous Son of God, it has destroyed Jesus as a human exemplar. If he were in a peculiar manner "the only begotten of the Father," a partaker in his essential nature, then he is im- measurably removed from us ; we may revere, we cannot imitate him. We listen to his precepts with submission, perhaps even greater than before. We dwell upon the * " Having removed the offence we took in fancying God speaking with a human voice, and saying, 'This is my beloved Son: hear ye him,' — we certainly do not incline to call that a loss. But we do not lose anything else ; for considering the godliness and iiurity of the life of Jesna, and then thinking of God and his holiness on the one side, and of our destination on the other, we know, without a positive declaration, that God must have been pleased with a life like that of Jesus, and that we cannot do better than adliere to him. We do not lose, therefore, with those voices from heaven, iiujie than is lost by a beautiful picture from which a ticket is taken away that was fastened to it, containing the superfluous :> surance of it* being tk beautiful picture." — Strauw'it Letter to Professor Orelli, p. 20. 314 THE (JREED OF CHRISTENDOM. IS C excellence of his character, no longer for imitation, but for worship. We read with the deepest love and atliuiia- tion ol his genius, his gentleness, his mercy, his unvveai')'. ilig activity in doing good, his patience with the stupid, his compassion for the afflicted his courage in facing tor- ture, his meekness in enduring wrong ; and then we turn away and say, " Ah ! he was a God ; such virtue is not for humanity, nor ior us." It is useless by honeyed words to disguise the truth. Ij Christ were a man, he is our 'pattern ; " the possibility of our race made real." If he were God — a paftaker of God's nature, as the orthodox maintain — then they are guilty of a cruel mockery in speaking of him as a type and model of human excel- lence. How can one endowed with the perfections oi a God be an example to beings encumbered with the weak- nesses of humanity ? Adieu, then, to Jesus as anything but a Propounder of doctrines, an Utterer of precepts ! The vital portion o: Christianity is swept away. His Character — that from which so many in a)^ ages have drawn their moral li.o and strength — that which so irre- sistibly enlists our deepest sympathies, and rouses our highest aspirations — it becomes an irreverence to speak of. The character, the conduct, the virtues of a God !— these are iclt to be indecent expressions. Verily, ortho- doxy has slain the life of Christianity. In the presump- tuous endeavour to exalt Jesus, it has shut him up in the Holy of Holies, and hid him from the gaze ot human- ity. It has displaced him from an object of imitation into an object of worship. It has made his life barren, that his essence might be called divine, " But we have no fear that we should lose Christ by being obliged to give up a considerable part of what was hitherto called Christian creed ! He will remain to all ol us the more surely, the less anxiously we cling to doc- trines and opinions thir,t might tempt our reason to forsake him. But if Christ remains to us, and if he remains to us as the highest we know and are capable of imagining within the sphere ol religion, as the per- son without whose presence in the mind no perlect piety is possible ; we may fairly say that in Him do we still p< faith."* "But," becomes o uneducatei divine rev true,— if t curate exj — what a leisure, th requisite i them and themselve To this be shown spiritual i dogmas, t for the b€ Their cree not or ca the authc always d doctrines these doc was a te lieve thei their trul The onlj the auth( in the ot Moreo as an ins of God, i cellent, i munion need no of them pels ant IS CHRISTIANITT A REVEALED RELIGION ? 315 imitation, but e and adniiia- his uiivveaiy. th the stupid, in facing tor- then we turn virtue is not oneyed words aan, he is our real." If he the orthodox mockery in human excel- irfections oi a ith the weak- s as anythino' r of precepts ! b away. His i)'' ages have tvhich so irre- id rouses our ence to speak i of a God!— Verily, ortho- the presump- ut him up in tze of human- of imitation Is life barren, 3se Christ by of what was nain to all ol cling to doc- ir reason to 8, and if he are capable as the pei- l no perlect in Him do we still possess the sum and substance of the Christian faith."* "But," it will be objected, "what, on this system, becomes of the religion of the poor and ignorant, the uneducated, and the busy? If Christianity is not a divine revelation, and therefore entirely and infallibly true, — if the Gospels are not perfectly faithful and ac- curate expositors of Christ's teaching and of God's wilt, — what a fearful loss to those who have neither the leisure, the learning, nor the logical habits of thought requisite to construct out of the relics that remain to them and the nature that lies before them a faith for themselves ! " To this objection we reply that the more religion can be shown to consist in the realisation of great moral and spiritual truths, rather than in the reception of distinct dogmas, the more the position of these classes is altered for the better. In no respect is it altered for the worse. Their creeds, i. e., their collection of dogmas, those who do not or cannot think for themselves must always take on the authority of others. They do so now: they have always done so. They have hitherto believed certain doctrines because wise and good men assure them that these doctrines were revealed by Christ, and that Christ was a teacher sent from God. They will in future be- lieve them because wise and good men assure them of their truth, and their own hearts confirm the assurance. The only difference lies in this, — that, in the one case, the authority on which they lean vouches for the truth ; in the other, for the Teacher who proclaimed it. Moreover, the Bible still remains; though no longer as an inspired and infallible record. Though not the word of God, it contains the words of the wisest, the most ex- cellent, the most devout men, who have ever held com- munion with Him. The poor, the ignorant, the busy, need not, do not, will not, read it critically. To each of them, it will still, through all time, present the Gos- pels and the Psalms, — the glorious purity of Jesus, the * Strauss's Soliloqiiies, p. 67t Ill' 316 THB CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. sublime piety of David and of Job. Those who read it for its spirit, not for its dogmas, — as the poor, the igno- rant, the busy, if tunperverted, will do, — will still find in it all that is necessary for their guidance in life, their support in death, their consolation m sorrow, thf "r rule of duty, and their trust in God. A more genuine and important objection to the con- sequences of our views is felt by indolent minds on their own account. They shrink from the toil of working out truth for themselves, out of the materials which Provi- dence has placed before them. They long for the pre- cious metal, but loathe the rude ore out of which it has to be extricated by the laborious alchemy of thought. A ready-made creed is the Paradise of their lazy dreams. A string of authoritative dogmatic propositions comprises the whole mental wealth which they desire. The volume of nature, the volume of history, the volume of life, appal and terrify them. Such men are the materials out of whom good Catholics — of all sects — are made. They form the uninquiring and submissive flocks which rejoice the hearts of all Priesthoods. Let such cling to the faith of their forefathers — if they can. But men whose minds are cast in a nobler mould and are instinct with a diviner life, who love truth more than the rest, and the peace of Heaven rather than the peace of Eden, to whom " a loftier being brings severer cares," — " Who know, Man doea not live by joy alone, But by the presence of the power of God,"— such must cast behind them the hope of any repose or tranquillity save that which is the last reward of long agonies of thought ;* they must relinquish aH prospect of * ♦' Thou ! to whom the weurisome disease Of Past and Present ia an alien thing, ITiou pure Existence ! whose severe decrees I'orbid a living man his soul to bring Into n timeless Eden of sweet ease, Clear-ovod, clear-he-^rted — lay thy loving wing Jndeatrj upon me— i" that way alone Thy B^ttalJ Oraation-thought tnou wilt to me make known." R. M. M1LNI8. IS C any Heave] and portal lamp for a not be ne does not li must build faith, for I * Zschokke' interesting. IS CHRISTIANITY A REVEALED RELIGION ? 317 \e who read it ■»oor, the igno- f 11 still find in in life, their pow, thp'r rule »n to the con- linds on their working out which Provi- for the pre- which it has y of thought. _r lazy dreams. ions comprises The volume e of life, appal 'terials out of made. They i which rejoice ig to the iaith 1 whose minds with a diviner i the peace of hom " a loftier any Heaven save that of which tribulation is the avenue and portal ; they must gird up their loins and trim their lamp for a work which cannot be put by, and which must not be negligently done. " He," says Zschokke, " who does not like living in the furnished lodgings of tradition, must build his own house, his own system of thought and faith, for himself."* » Zschokke'H Autobioijraphy, p. 29« The .vhole section is mo&t da«plj interesting. ne, my repose or ward of long iH prospect of <• ' e known." CHAPTER XTI CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. Christianity, then, not being a revelation, but a concep- tion — the Gospels not being either inspired or accurate, but fallible and imperfect human records — the practical conclusion from such premises must be obvious to all. Every doctrine and every proposition which the Scriptures contain, whether or not we believe it to have come to us unmutilated and unmarred from the mouth of Christ, is open, and must be subjected, to the scrutiny of reason. Some tenets we shall at once accept as the most perfect truth that can be received by the human intellect and heart ; — others we shall reject as contradicting our in- stincts and offending our understandings ; — others, again, of a more mixed nature, we must analyze, that so we may extricate the seed of truth from the husk of error, and elicit " the divine idea that lies at the bottom of appear- ance."* I. I value the Religion of Jesus, not as being absolute and perfect truth, but as containing more truth, purer truth, higher truth, stronger truth, than has ever yet been given to man. Much of his teaching I unhesitatingly receive as, to the best of my judgmant, unimprovable and unsur- passable — fitted, if obeyed, to make earth all that a finite and material scene can be, and man only a little lower than the angels. The worthlessness of ceremonial obser- vances, and the necessity oj essential righteousness — "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord! Lord! but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven :" " By their fruits ye shall know them ;" "I will have mercy, and not sacrifice ; " " Be not a slothful hearer only, but a doer of the word ;" " Woe unto ye. Scribes and Pharisees, •Fichc. CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 319 but a concep- l or accurate, -the practical bvious to all. the Scriptures ve come to us h of Christ, is iny of reason. ! most perfect intellect and icting our in- -others, again, hat so we may : of error, and om of appear- 3eing absolute fch, purer truth, yet been given irtingly receive ble and unsur- lU that a finite a little lower emonial obser- ousness — "Not d! but he that heaven :" " By I have mercy, rer only, but a and Pharisees, ,„, ye pay «thes of mint an* ^^^:r:r^ t/the^^eighiier »att«« ;tV.e La .^.^^ ^^. temperance : — i '"^ ' ; '.' ■, f fj^(^ qovernment oj ii''(^ !^}vitv for purity «)/ V^, '^'^.^ 'Z,;;^er« of action— V laQnhemies : these are the ^nin„s ^ ^^ ^^ve thy neighbour as t^y^el* . ^^ .^^^^ ^nto them, for this is Should do unto you that do ye^x^^^^^^ of injnrws- L Law and the P^^^^^^,;! , /them that hate you;pray '•' Love your enemies ; <1« S?^';;^ ^^^ and persecute you , for them which d««Pit^^"7,^'!,J forgive those that tres- ' Forgive us our trespasses as we to . ^^^^ ^^^^^^ rwhi;:h a-pitet-ully us^yo- -^^^ tres- Foraive us our trespasses '^^ je lo ^ times,but ^"^7ainstus;'' "Isaynotuntot^^^^^^^^^ L.^«+A.+,imes seven; liyeiov ,^„i.Hcans the ' Forgive us uu.^ -f/" ^.^t unto thee,untii seven -—-ove pass against us ; i say noL ^^ ^^^ ^hat love Pntils^eventy ti-^« ^^.^^^.^e' do not even V-^^^^^^'";' vou what reward ^f^^/y.^^.,.,iiice in the cause of duty thv right hand otfend tnee, cu plough and looking No man, having put his ^^^^J?,!^jj^^i!it2/-" Blessed bfck S fit for the kingdom of God^^^^ J^.^^ .» « ge are the meek, for they «^^^J J^S;"'' He that is great- that humbleth l^f-^fj^^^^^^^ : ''-^f- 'To"o"t ;^f almS ore men, to be seen o^^- '...^ - '' When prayest, enter into thy closet and s y^ face, that ?W fastest, anoint thine ^^^^^'^^^^t-'-all these sublime hou appear not unto men to f ^f • ^^^ ,i,^ds, to rec- nVeceptsneed no miracle, no voce ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ ^, of ommSd them to our ^^^^f f^'^'.aTence by virtue of author as Himstii hiaiory. 320 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. II. Next in perfection come tho views which Christian- ity unfolds to us of God in his relation to man, which were })robably as near the truth as the minds of men could in that age receive. God is represented as Our Father in Heaven — to be whose especial children is the best reward of the peace-makers — to see whose face is the highest hope of the pure in heart — who is ever at hand to strengthen His true worshippers — to whom is due our heartiest love, our humblest submission — whose most acceptable worship is righteous conduct and a holy heart — in who.se constant presence our life is passed — to whose merciful disposal we are resigned by death. It is remarkable that, throughout the Gospels, with the exception, I believe, of a single pass- age,* nothing is said as to the nature of the Diety ; — his relation to us is alone insisted on : — all that is needed lor our consolation, our strength, our guidance, is assured to us : — the purely specuk ' -e is passed over and ignored. Thus, in the two great points essential to our practical life— viz., our feelings towards God, and our conduct to- wards man — the Gospels, [relieved of their unauthentic portions, and read in an understanding spirit, not with a slavish and unintelligent adherence to the naked letter,] contain little about which men can difler — little from which they can dissent. He is our Father, we are all brethren. This much lies open to the most ignorant and busy, as fully as to the most leisurely and learned. This needs no Priest to teach it — no authority to endorse it. The rest is Speculation — intensely interesting, indeed, but of no practical necessity. III. There are, however, other tenets taught in Scrip- ture and professed by Christians, in which reflective minds of all ages have found it difficult to acquiesce. Thus : — however far we may stretch the plea for a liberal interpretation of Oriental speech, it is impossible to dis- guise from ourselves that the New Testament teaches, in the most unreserved manner, and in the strongest lan- guage, the doctrine of the ejfficacy of Prayer in modifying the divine purposes, and in obtaining the boons asked for * Grod is a spirit. at the thro xi. 42) wo which Jesv markaV)le < his disciple for person told that (though M peculiar s\ to his disc stant pray iterated tl swered. l)ut by pr sire, wher and ye sh; what8oev( will give " Thinkes and he si of angels livered tc of the a] " Be cons him ask fectual p No or others oi abound, and his ( and ans^ from Hi ever goc instarun consona sequenci * " It if Wetstein, phetic int Th»Qksgi CHRISTIAN ECLBOnCISM. 321 Christian- which Were en could in Father in 5e.st reward ighest hope strengthen rtiest love, We worship se constant dispovsal we throughout single pass- )iety ;— liis needed lor assured to ignored, ir practical conduct to- nauthentic not with a ked letter,] -little from we are all aorant and aed. This endorse it. ndeed, but b in Scrip- reflective acquiesce, r a liberal ble to dis- eaches, in ngest lan- nodifying asked for at the throne of grace. It is true that one passage (John xi. 42) would seem to indicate that prayer was a form wliic'li Jesus adopted for the sake of others ; it is also ro- markaV)le that the model of prayer, which ho taught to his disciples, contains only one simple and modest request for personal and temporal good ;* yet not only are we told that he prayed earnestly and for specific mercies (though with a most submissive will), on occasions o' peculiar suffering and trial, but few of his exhoitation;. to his disciples occur more frequently than that to con- stant prayer, and no promises are more distinct or re- iterated than that their prayers shall be heard and an- swered. " Watch and pray ; " " This kind goeth not out but by prayer and lasting ; " " What things soever ye de- sire, when ye pray, believe that ye shall receive them, and ye shall have them ; " " Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he will give it you ; " " Ask, and it shall be given you ; " " Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels ? " The parable of the unjust Judge was de- livered to enforce the same conclusion, and the writings of the apostles are at least equally explicit on this point. " Be constant in prayer ; " " Pray without ceasi ng ;" " Let him ask in faith, nothing wavering ; " " The fervent ef- fectual prayer of a righteous man availeth much." No one can read such passages, and the numberless others of a similar character with which both Testaments abound, and doubt that the opinion held both by Christ and his disciples was that " Jehovah is a God that heareth and answereth prayer ; " — that favours are to be obtained from Him by earnest and reiterated entreaty ; that what- ever good thing His sincere worshippers petition for, with instance and with faith, shall be granted to them, if consonant to his purposes, and shall be gi'anted in con- sequence of their petition ; that, in fact and truth, apart * " It is a curious fact that the Lord's prayer maybe reconstructed," says Wetstein, " almost verbatim out of the Talmud, which also contains a pro- phetic intimation that all prayei will one day cease, except the Prayw of Thanksgivicg." (Mackay'a Progress of the lutelleot ii. 379.) 322 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM fM I r-f diJ from all metaphysical subtleties and subterfuges, the de- signs of God can be modified and swayed, like those of an earthly father, by the entreaties of His chUdren. This doctrine is set forth throughout the Jewish Scriptures in its coarsest and nakedest form, and it reappears in the Christian Scriptures in a form only slightly modified and refined Now, this doctrine has in all ages been a stumbling- block to the thoughtful. It is obviously irreconcilable with all that reason and revelation teach us of the di- vine nature ; and the inconsistency has been felt by the ablest of the Scripture writers themselves* Various and desperate have been the expedients and suppositions re- sorted to, in order to reconcile the conception of an im- mutable, all-wise, all-foreseeing God, with that of a father who is turned from his course by the prayers of his creatures. But all such efforts are, and are felt to be, hopeless failures. They involve the assertion and nega- tion of the same proposition in one breath. The problem remains still insoluble ; and we must either be content to leave it so, or we must abandon one or other of the hos- tile premises. The religious man, who believes that all events, mental as well as physi al, are pre-ordered and arranged accord- ing to the deci\ es of infinite wisdom, and the philosopher, who knows that, by the wise and eternal laws of the uni- verse, cause and effect are indissolubly chained together, ;ind that one follows the other in inevitable succession, — equally feel that this ordination — this chain — cannot be changeable at the cry of man. To suppose that it can is to place the whole harmonious .system of nature at the mercy of the weak reason and the selfish wishes of hu- manity. If the purposes of God were not wise, they would not be formed : — if wise, they cannot be changed, for then they would become unwise. To suppose that an all-wise Being would alter his designs and modes of pioceeding at the entreaty of an unknowing cniaturc, is to believe that compassion would change his wisdom into * " God iH not a muu that he should lie, uor the sou of a miUi, that lid ehould repent." * "In binds tOr will exui cduditioi not direi stitnti(n had bet is An tlieir 1) and tin last gei t Th( nil this L'onsiwtt L'an dec ceitain occur a and tin oonsidi' luund Hpecia wrili r ^jcllici- than c.xpirs to us ■ CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 32J (iges, the de- like those of fldren. This Scriptures in [pears in the lodified and stumbling- reconcilable s of the di- felt by the Vai-ious anrl )position.s re- on of an im- it of a father ■ayers of his ire felt to be, on and nega- The problem be content to jr of the hos- vents, mental mged accord- i philosopher, s of the uni- ned together, succession, — 1 — cannot be ;e that it can tiature at the /ishes of hn- t wise, they - be change(l, suppose that ,nd modes of [^ cn^aturo, is wisdom into f a mui, thul lie loolishness. It has been urged that prayer may render a favour wise, which would else be unwise ; but this is to imagine that events are not foreseen and pre-ordered, but are arranged and decided pro re natd ; it is also to igiiore utterly the unquestionable fact, that no event in lite or in nature is isolated, and that none can be changed without entailing endless and universal alterations.* 11 the universe is governed by fixed laws, or (which is the same proposition in different language) if all events are pre-ordained by the foreseeing wisdom of an infinite God, then the prayers of thousands of years and generations of martyrs and saints cannot change or mociify one iota of our destiny. The propositio7> is unassailable by the subtlest logic.-f- The weak, fond affections of humanity struggle in vain against the unwelcome conclusion. It is a conclusion from which the feelings of almost all of us shrink and revolt. The strongesL sentiment of our nature, perhaps, is that of our helplessness in the hands of fate, and against this helplessness we seek for a resource in the belief of our dependence on a Higher Power, which can control and will interfere with fate. And * "Immediate proof of that system of interminable conneotion which binds together the whole human family, may be obtained by every one wlio will examine the several ingredients of his physical, intellectual, and social condition ; for he will not ind one of these circumstances of his lot that is not directly an effect or consequence of the conduct, or character, or con- stitution of his progenitors, and of all with whom he has had to do ; if tfiei/ luid been other than what th^y were, he afso must have been other than he is And then our i)redeces8or8 must in like manner trace the qualities of tlmir being to theirs ; thus the linking ascends to the common parents of all ; and thus must it descend —still spreading as it joes — from the present to the liist generation of the children of Adam." -Nat. Hist, of Enthusiasm, p. 149. t The author of the Natural History of Enthusiasm has a singular theory ni this point He is not very clear, l)ecause clearness would niiike his in- ;'on8istency and the strangeness of his position too manifest ; but as far as we lan decii)her his notion, it is tiiis : He divides all events into two classes — the certain and fortuitous. He conceives, as we do, that the great mass of events occur according to established laws, and in the regular process of causation : ;ind these he regards as settled and immutable : but in addition to these he considers that there are many others which are mere fortuities, lit the com- niiuid (if (iod's will and of man's prayers; and that these fortuities are the s])ecial province and mennti of the divine government (chap. vi.). Yet this writer allows that all events and all men's lots are int^xtricably woven to- gether (pp. l;!2, lilt) ; iiow then can one thing hv more furtuitniisor alterable tl)au anather ':? Moreover fortuity, as he elsewhere intiniiites, is merely an expression denoting our ixnoran<'o of caii-'alion: tliat, wiiich seems a ohanoe to us is among the moat settled and certain uf (iod's onlainnicnts. El 324 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. Hm<. though our reason tells us that it is inconceivable that tlie entreaties of creatures as erring and as blind as we are, can influence the all- wise purposes of God, yet we feel an in- ternal voice, more potent and persuasive than reason, which assures us that to pray to Him in trouble is an ir- repressible instinct of our nature — an instinct which pre- cedes teaching — which survives experience — which deHes philoBophy. " For sorrow oft tlie cry of faith In bitter need will borrow. " It would be an unspeakable consolation to our human infirmity, could we, in this case, believe our reason to he erroneous, and our instinct true ; but we greatly fear that the latter is the result, partly of that anthropomorphism which pervades all our religious conceptions, which our limited faculties suggest, and which education and habit have rooted so fixedly in our mental constitu- tion, — and partly of that fond weakness which recoils from the idea of irreversible and inescapable decree. The conception of subjection to a law without ex- ception, without remission, without appeal, crushing, absolute, and universal, is truly an appalling one ; and, most mercifully, can rarely be perceived in all its overwhelming force, except by minds which, through stem and lofty intellectual training, have in some degree become (jualified to bear it. Communion with Ood^ we must ever bear in mind, is something very different from prayer for specific blessings, and often confers the submissive strength of soul for which we pray ; and we believe it will be found that the higher our souls rise in their spiritual progress, the more does entreaty merge into thanksgiving, the more does petition become absorbed in communion with the " Father of the spirits of all flesh." That the piety of Christ was fast tending to this end is, we think, indicated by his instruc- tions to his disciples (Matt. vi. 7-9) . " When yo pray, \iso not vain repetitions : for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, hofore ye a^k him. After this manner, therefore, pray ye/' c:c. ; an our human reason to he -tly fear that )pomorphism s, wliich our u cation and tal constitu- i'hich recoils oable decree. without ex- a-l, crushing, )alling one ; 'ed in all its hrough stem 3gree become r in mind, is 'Jlc hleasvngs, >ul for which •t the higher B more does oos petition ather of the ist was fast his instruc- y«! pray, uso what things his manner, me sentence in Gethsomane, uttered when the agonizing struggle of the spirit with the flesh had terminated in the complete and linal victory of the tirst, " Father, if this cup may not pass from me except I drink it, thy will bo done." Prayer may be regarded as the form which devotion naturally takes in ordinary minds, and even in the most enlightened minds in their less spiritual moods. The highest intellectual efforts, the loftiest religious contem- plations, dispose to devotion, but check the impulses of prayer. The devout philosopher, trained to the investi- gation of universal system, — the serene astronomer, fresh from the study of the chsngeless laws which govern in- numerable worlds, — shrink from the monstrous iiTation- ality of asking the great Architect and Governor of all to work a miracle in his belialf — to interfere, f or tlie sake of his convenience, or his plans, with the sublime order con- ceived by the Ancient of Days in the far Eternity of the Past; for what is a special providence but an interference with established laws 'i And what is such interference but a miracle ? There is much truth and beauty in the following remarks of Isaac Taylor, but much also of the inconsistency, irreverence, and insolence of orthodoxy. "The very idea of addressing j^?e^^<^0')^8 to Him who worketh all things according to the counsel of his own eternal and unalterable will, and the enjoined [)iactice of clothing sentiments of piety in articulate forms of lan- guage, though these sentiments, before they are invested in words, are perfectly known to the Searcher of hearts, imply that, in the terms and mode of intercourse with God and man, no attempt is made to lift the latter above his sphere of limited notions, and imperfect know- ledge. The terms of devotional cotrvmunion rest even on a much lower ground than that which raan, by efforts of reason and imagination, might attain to* Prayer, by its very conditions, supposes not only a condescension of the divine nature to meet the human, but a humbling of the huTnan nature to a lower range than it tnighi * Is it not a clear deduction from this, that prayer is a form of devotiot conceded only to oar imi>erfeot npiritiru ciipacitien, and to Ije out^'rowu a* thoMH capacities aro raised ; iid strengtlioned 't 326 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 'i \ II ' easily reach. The region of abstract conceptions, of lofty reasonings, of magnificent images, has an atmos'phen too subtle to support the health of true piety ; and in ordui that the warmth and vigour of life may be maintainud in the heart, the common level of the natural affections is chosen as the scene of intercourse between heaven and earth. , . . The utmost distances of the material universe are finite ; but the disparity of nature which separates- man from his Maker is infinite ; nor can the interval be filled up or brought under any process of measurement. . . , Were it indeed permitted to man to gaze upward from step to step and from range to range of the vast edifice of rational existences, and could his eye attain its summit, and then perceive, at an infinite height beyond that highest platform of created beings, the lowest beams of the Eternal Throne — what liberty of heart would afterwards be left to him in drawing near to the Father of Spirits ? How, after such a revelation of the upper world, could the affectionate cheerfulness of earthly worship again take place ? Or how, while contemplating the measured vastness of the interval between heaven and earth, could the dwelleri: thereon come familiarly as before to the Hearer of Prayer ; bringing with them the small requests of theii petty interests of the present life. . . . These spec- tacles of greatness, if laid open to perception, would pro- sent such an interminable perspective of glory, and so set out the immeasurable distance between ourselves and the Supreme Being with a long gradation of splendours, and we should henceforth feel as if thrust down to an extreme remoteness from the divine notice ; and it would be hard or impossible to retain, with any comfortable conviction, the belief in the nearness of Him who is re- vealed as a 'very present help in every time of trouble. . . . Every ambitious attempt to break through the humbling conditions on which man may hold communion with God, must then fail of success ; since the Supreme has fixed the scene of worship and converse, not in the skies, but on the earth. The Scripture models of devo- tion, £ftr from encouraging vague and inarticulate con- CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 327 ms, of loffy atmosphere ,nd in order iiiaintaiiied I affections heaven and ial universe h separates interval be urement. . . . ward from f the vast eye attain nite height beings, the hat liberty in drawing ■tor such a affectionate place ? Or itness of the the dwellers ! Hearer ol ests of their These spec- , would pre- lory, and so urselves and ■ splendours, down to an md it would comfortable 1 who is rc- i of trouble.' hrough the communion bie Supreme not in the els of devo- culate con- templations, consist of such utterances of desire, hope, and love, as seem to suppose the existence of correlative feelings, and of every human sympathy, in Him to whom they are addressed.* And thoiiglt reason and Script are acsure us that He neitlier needs to he informed of our wants, nor ivaits to he moved by our supplications, yet will He he approached with the eloquence of importunate desire, and He demands, not only a sincere jeweling of indigence and dependence, hut an undissemhled zeal and diligence in seeking i.'ie desired boons hy persevering re- quest. He is to he supplicated with arguments as one who needs to he swayed, and moved, to he vjrought upon and influenced ; nor is any alternative ofJered to those who would present themselves at the throne of heavenly grace, or nny exception made in favour ol superior spirits, ivhose mo e elevated notions oj the divine pcrjectlons may render this accommodated style distastej al. As the Hearer of prayer stoops to listen, so also must the suppliant stoop from heights of philosophical or meditative abstrac- tions, and either come in genuine simplicity of petition, as a son to a father, or he utterly eoccluded froTn the friendship oj his Maker." f The expressions in this last paragraph — those par- ticularly which we have italicised — appear to us, we con- fess, monstrous, and little, if at all, short of blasphemy, i. e., speaking evil of God. What ! He, who " both by reason and Scripture " has taught us that He is nx)t moved by our supplications, requires us — " on pain of being utterly excluded from his favour " — to act as if He were ! He, Wi\o has given us the understanding to conceive His entire exemption from all human weaknesses, requires us to proceed as ) we " thought that He was altogether such a one as ourselves ! " He, who has made us to know that all things are ordered by Him from the beginning — " that with Him is no variableness, neither shadow of * That is, they are baaed on erroneouR premises, supported hy a natural feeling, the very feeling which, pushed a little further, has originated Sayers to Christ in the English Cnurch, and to Sainta and to the Virgin ary in the lionian Communion. t Nat. Hiat. of Enthusiasm, pp. 27-32. 328 THE CREED OP CHRISTENDOM. turning" — requires us to supplicate, " argue," importune, (U if we believed that supplication, argument, and im- portunity couly sway and turn Him from His purposes,— commands us, in a word, to enact in His august presence a comedy, which He knows, and we know, to be a mock- ery and a protence ' He, who has given us, as His divi- nest gift, to elev )e, tc perfect, and to purify, an intellect bearing some faiiit analogy to His own, — punishes with " exclusion from His friendship," those nobler conceptions of His nature which are the finest achievements of this in- tellect, unless we consent to abnegate and disavow them, or pretend that we do so ! — for this appears to be the sig- nification ol the last sentence we have quoted. Such are the bewildering positions into which Orthodoxy drives its more intellectual disciples ! The following remarks are thrown out rather as sug- gestions for thought than as digested reflections, but they may contain a clue to some truth. The inadmissibility of the idea of the bond fide efficacy of prayer, would appear to be enforced rather by our con- viction that all things in life are arranged by law, than by a belief in the foreknowledge (which in a supreme Being is equivalent to foreordainment) of the Deity. Tliis latter doctrine, however metaphysically true and probable, we cannot hold, so as to follow it out fairly to its conse- quences. It negatives the free-will of man at least as peremptorily as the efficacy of prayer : — yet in the free- will of man we do believe, and must believe, however strict logic may struggle against it. Why, then, should we not also hold the efficacy of prayer ? — a doctrine, .so far, certainly not more illogical ? Because if, as we can- not doubt, the immutable relation of cause and effect governs everything, in all time, through all space — then prayer — except in tliose cases where it operates as a natural cause — cannot affect the sequence of events. If bodily pain and disease be the legitimate and traceable conse- quence of imprudence and excess — if pleurisy or consumj)- tion follow, by natural law, exposure to inclement weather in weak frames — if neuralgia be the legal progeny of or- ganic decay or shattered nerves — if storms follow laws as certain as about the for the rel iUed, man a prayer f Prayer mental in moral ele> endure, and scien( which, ho ignorance us, as mai if heard I unknown be the na " li, howe moved hy agencies i that for I tainmg a: mutable y beings, si possessin prayer m Still, the prayers- best, th( toothach way, th; Onth rest in \ theory, with a c ous in tl our own can frai The coi those fi fain to >; importune, 3nt, and im- s purposes,— gust presence io be a mock- as His divi- T, an intellect )unishes with ir conceptions its of this in- isavow them, to be the sig- ed. Such are Ddoxy drives •ather as sug- ions, but thev djide efficacy er by our con- by law, than in a supreme le Deity. This ! and probable, f to its conse- an at least as 5t in the free- ieve, however then, should a doctrine, so if, as we cau- se and effect I space — then s as a natural bs. If bodily rceable conse- f or consuiii})- inent weather irogeny of or- coUow laws as CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 329 certain as the law of gravitation — ^how can prayer bring about the cessation of pain, or the lulling ot the storm, for the reliel '^f the suffering, or the rescue oi the imper- illed, man ? is not the prayer for such cessation clearly a prayer for a miracle ? Prayer may be itself a Tiatv/ral cause : — ^it may, by its mental intensity, suspend bodily pain ; — it may, by the moral elevation it excites, confer strength to dare and to endure. Prayer, to a tellow-creature of superior power and science, may induce such to apply a lenitive or a cure which, however, is simply a natural cause, placed by oui ignorance beyond our reach. It, therefore, there be around us, as many think, superior spiritual beings, our prayers, if heard by them, may induce them to aid us by means unknown to ourinlerior powers. But such aid would then be the natural result of natural though obscure causes. " li, however," it may be asked, " superior beings may be moved by prayer to aid us by their knowledge of natural agencies unknown to us, why not Gk)d ?" The answer is: that for Prayer to be a bond fide effective agent in ob- tainmg any boon, it must operate on an impressible and mutable will: — ^therefore, if there be superior intermediate beings, sharing human sympathies and imperfections, but possessing more than human powers and knowledge — prayer may secure their aid; but not that of a supreme God. Still, the question remains much one of fact : — are our prayers — are the most earnest prayers of the wisest, the best, the most suffering — generally answered ? Does toothache or sciatica last a shorter time with those who vray, than with those who only bear ? On the whole, however, we are content that man should rest in the Christian practice, though not in the Christian theory, of Prayer — just as we are obliged to rest satisfied with a conception of Deity, which, though utterly errone- ous in the sight of God, and consciously imperfect even in our own, is yet the nearest approach to truth our minds can frame, and practically adequate to our necessities. The common doctrine we cannot but regard as one of those fictions which imperfect and unchastened man is fain to gather round him, to equalize his strength with V 830 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. i the requirements of his lot, but which a stronger nature might dispense with ; — one of those fictions which may be considered as the imperfect expression — the approxima- tive formula — of mighty and eternal verities. IV. Remotely connected with the doctrine of an inter- posing and influencible Providence, is the fallacy, or rather the imperfection, which lies at the root of the ordinary Christian view of Resignation as a duty and a virtue. Submission, cheerful acquiescence in the dispensation of Providence, is enjoined upon us, not because these dis- pensations are just and wise — ^not because they are the ordinances of His will who cannot err, — but because they are ordained for our benefit, and because He has promised that " all things shall work together for good to them that love Him." We are assured that every trial and afflic- tion is designed solely for our good, for our discipline, and will issue in a blessing, though we see not how ; and that therefore we must bow to it with unmurmuring resigna- tion. These grounds, it is obvious, are purely self -regard- ing ; and resignation, thus represented and thus motived, is no virtue, but a simple calculation of self-interest. This narrow view results from that incorrigible egotism of the human heart which makes each man prone to regard him- self as the special object of divine consideration, and the centre round which the universe revolves. Yet it is un- questionably the view most prominently and frequently presented in the New Testament,* and by all modern divines.*}* It may be, that the prospect of "an exceeding, even an eternal weight of glory," may be needed to sup- port our frail purposes under the crushing afflictions of our mortal lot ; it may be, that, by the perfect arrange- » See especially Matt. v. 11, 12 ; xvi. 25-27 ; Romans viii. 18, 28 ; 2 Cor. iv. 17 ; Gal. vi. 9. There is one sublime exception, from the mouth of Christ : — "The cup that my Father has given me, shall I not drink it?" t The sublimest and purest genius among modem divines goeo so far as to maintain that, apart from the hope of future recompense, " a deviation from rectitude would become the part of wisdom, and should the path of virtue be obstructed by disgrace, torment, or death, to persevere would be mailuess and foUy." (Modern Infidelity, p. 20, by Kobert Hall.) It is sad to reflect how mercenary a thing duty has become in the hands of theologians. Were their belief in a future retribution once shaken, they woidd become, on their own showing, the lowest of sensualists, the worst o^ sinners. just, ai able ;- specia his eh and n( that c( of tht adapt< signs that pger nature rhich may be approxinia- of an inter- ■cy, or rather ihe ordinary ,nd a virtue, ipensation of |se these dis- they are the because they has promised to them that al and afflic- liscipline, and ow ; and that ring resigna- y self -regard- thus motived, interest. This jgotism of the 10 regard him- ation, and the Yet it is un- ad frequently •y all modern an exceeding, leeded to sup- afflictions of rfect arrange- dii. 18, 28; 2 Cor. m the mouth oi [ not drink it? ' 8 ROeo so far as to ' a deviation from ) path of virtue be rould be madness It is sad to reflect leologians. Were i become, on their CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 831 ments of omnipotence, the suficrings of all may be made to work out the ultimate and supreme good of each ; but this is not, cannot be, the reason why we should submit with resignation to whatever God ordains. His will must be wise, righteous, and we believe beneficent, whether it allot to us happiness or misery : it is His will ; we need inquire no further. Job, who had no vision of a future compensatory world, had in this attained a sublimer point of religion than St. Paul : — "Though he slay me, yet vr'\\\ I trust in him." " What ? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we hot receive evil ?" (Job xiii. 15 ; ii. 10). To the orthodox Christian, who fully believes all he professes, cheerful resignation to the divine will is com- paratively a natural, an easy, a simple thing. To the re- ligious philosopher, it is the highest exercise of intellect and virtue. The man who has realized the faith that his own lot, in all its minutest particulars, is not only directly regulated by God, — but is so legulatedbyGod as unerringly to work for his highest good, — with an express view to his highest good, — with such a man, resignation, patience, nay, cheerful acquiescence in all suffering and sorrow, ap- pears to be in fact only the simple and practical expres- sion of his belief. If, believing all this, he still murmura and rebels at the trials and contrarieties of his lot, he is guilty of the childishness of the infant which quarrels with the medicine that is to lead it back to health and ease. But the religious Philosopher, — who, sincerely hold- ing that a Supreme God created and governs this world, holds also that He governs it by laws which, though wise, just, and beneficent, are yet steady, unwavering, inexor- able ; — who believes that his agonies and sorrows are not specially ordained for his chastening, his strengthening, his elaboration and development, — but are incidental and necessary results of the operation of laws the best that could be devised for the happiness and purification of the species,— -or perhaps not even that, but the best adapted to work out the vast, awful, glorious, eternal de- signs of the Great Spirit of the universe ; — who believes that the ordained operations of Nature, which have ll! ^i lii i' 832 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. / brought misery to him, have, from the very unswerving tranquillity of their career, showered blessing and sunshine upon every other path, — that the unrelenting chariot of Time, which has crushed or maimed him in its allotted com'se, is pressing onward to the accomplishment of those serene and mighty purposes, to have contributed to wliich — even as a victim- -is an honour and a recompense :— he who takes this view of Time, and Nature, and God and yet bears his lot without murmur or distrust, because it is a portion of a system, the best possible, because or- dained by God, — has achieved a point of virtue, the high- est, amid passive excellence, which humanity can reach ,- and his reward and support must be found in the reflec- tion that he is an unreluctant and self-sacrificing co-op- erator with the Creator of the universe, and in the noble consciousness of being worthy, and capable, of so sublime a conception, yet so sad a destiny.* In a comparison of the two resignations, there is no measure of their respective, grandeurs. The orthodox- sufferer fights the battle only on condition of surviving to reap the fruits of victory : — the other fights on, know- ing that he must fall early in the battle, but content that his body should form a stepping-stone for the future con- quests of humanity .-f * *' * Pain is in itself an evil. It cannot be that God, who, as we know, is perfectly good, can choose us to suffer pain, unless either we are ourselves to receive from it an antidote to what is evil in ourselves, or else as such pain in a necessary part in the scheme of the universe, which as a wfiole is good. In either case I can take it thankfully. ... I should not be taken away without it was ordered so. . . . Whatever creed we hold, if we believe that Grod is, and that he cares for his creatures, one cannot doubt that. And it would not have been ordered so without it was better either for ourselves, or for some other persons, or some things. To feel sorrow is a kind of mur- muring against God's will, which is worse than unbelief.' " ' But think of the grief of those you leave.' " • They should not allow themselves to feel it. It is a symptom of au unformed mind.' " — Shadows of the Clouds, pp. 146, 148. This is » somewhat harshly-expressed philosophy, but full of truth. t "Is selfishness — For time, a sin — spun out to eternity Celestial prudence ? Shame ! oh, thrust me forth. Forth, Lord, from self, until I toil an i die No more for Heaven or bliss, but duty, Lord- Duty to Thee— although my meed should be The Hell which I deserve," Suint'4 Traytdif, ting prize produc haps U secrecy * ««■ thee cor in the pi bleth hi all and I tliat yel shall .sil ing tliel for myf the woti unswerving land suiisiiini' ig chariot of its allotted lent of tliose itedto which compense :-- re, and God, rust, because 'e, because or- ue, the high- can reach ,- in the reHec- dficing co-op- i in the noble of so sublime IS, there is no The orthodox . of surviving ;ht8 on, know- t content that he future con- 'ho, as we know, is we are ourselves to else as such pain in . whole is good. In not be taken away hold, if we believe )t doubt that. And ither for ourselves, 7 is a kind of mur- 3 a symptom of an 'uU of truth. IB — forth, I— CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 333 K/y. Somewhat similar remarks may be made with reference to the virtues of action as to those of endurance. It is a matter suggestive of much reflection, that, throughout the New Testament, the loftiest and purest motive to ac- tion — love of duty (is duty obedience to the will of Go jet'ous, and 3 in the other tssume tha^., it from the nat- isdeeds, it is r minds what >i the matter, wholly difier- violations oi e imposed b}' i by external 'he offence — following an ause. sequences of '' heavy. A as complete -n effect. To pray that God will forgive our sins, therefore, appears, in all logical accuracy, to involve either a most unworthy conception of His character, or an entreaty of incredible audacity — viz., that He will work daily mir- acles in our behalf. It is either beseeching Him to renounce feelings and intentions which it is impossible that a Nature like His should entertain : or it is asking Him to violate the eternal and harmonious order of the universe, for the comfort of one out of the infinite myri- ads of its inhabitants. It may, perhaps, be objected, that Punishment of sins may be viewed, not as a vengeance taken for in,jiiry or insult committed, nor yet as the simple and necessary sequence of a cause — but as chastiseTnent, inflicted to work repentence and amendment. But, even when con- sidered in this light, prayer for forgiveness remains still a marvellous inconsistency. It then becomes the entreaty of the sick man to his Physician not to heal him. " For- give us our sins," then means, " Let us continue in our iniquity " It is clear, however, that the first meaning we have mentioned, as attached to the prayer for forgiveness of sins, is both the original and the prevailing one ; and that it arises from an entire misconception of the character of the Deity, and of the feelings with which He may be supposed to regard sin — a misconception inherited from our Pagan and Jewish predecessors ; it is a prayer to deprecate the just resentment of a Potentate whom we have offended — a petition which would be more suitably addressed to an earthly foe or master than to a Heavenly Father. The misconception is natural to a rude state of civilization and of theology. It is the same notion from which arose sacrifices (i.e., otierings to appease wrath), and which caused their universality in early ages and among barbarous nations. It is a relic of anthropomor- phism ; — a belief that God, like man, is enraged by neglect or disobedience, and can be pacified by submis- sion and entreaty ; a beliet consistent and intelligible among the Greeks, inconsistent and irrational among Christians, appropriate at applied to Jupiter, unmeaning or blasphemous as applied to Jehovah. 338 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. In I Xi I We have, in fact, come to regard sin, not as an injury done to our own nature, an offence against our own souls, a disfiguring of the image of the Beautiful and Good, but as a personal affront offered to a powerful and avenging Being, which, unless apologized for, wiK be chastised as such. We have come to regard it as an injury to another party, for which atonement and reparation can be made and satisfaction can be given ; not as a deed which can- not be undone, eternal in its consequences ; an act which, once committed, is numbered with the irrevocable Past. In a word. Sin contains its own retributive penalty as surely, and as naturally, as the acorn contains the oak. Its con- sequence is its punishment, it needs no other, and can have no heavier ; and its consequence is involved in its commission, and cannot be separated from it. Punish- ment (let us fix this in our minds) is not the execution oj a sentence, but the occurrenA^e of am efect It is ordained to follow guilt by God, not as a Judge, but as the Crea- tor and Legislator ol the Universe. This conviction, once settled in our understandings, will wonderfully clear up our views on the subject of pardon and redemption. Ee- demption becomes then, Oi. necessity, not a saving but a regenerating process. We can be saved from the punish- ment ot sin only by being saved from its commission. Neither can there be any such thing as vicarious atone- ment or punishment (which, again, is a relic of heathen conceptions of an angered Deity, to be propitiated by offerings and sacrifices). Punishment, beiiig not the penalty, but the result of sin, being not an arbitrary and artificial annexation, but an ordinary and logical conse- quence, cannot be borne by other than the sinner. It is curious that the votaries of the doctrine of the Atonement admit the correctness of much of the above reasoning, saying (see " Guesses at Truth," by J. and A. Hare), that Christ had to suffer for the sins of men, be- cause God could not forgive sin ; He must punish it in some w^ay. Thus holding the strangely inconsistent doc- tiine that God is mo just that Ho could not let sin go un- punished, yet so unjust that He could punish it in the person of the iunocnt. It is for orthodox dialectics to oxi^lain h inu' the innocent If the wholeson can be no OT remitt that Go( eonseque shall he retlectioi has deba from, bu deemed bitterer love and the endi loftiest 1 what it (as one ceases t( tween tl knew tl turns t( genccs ( Agaii another aaonizii may re after m you lee but wh and an which to wit * Ruf« i^iven th utvitu'ly, ;iu(l bell Hido, aa CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 339 as an injury our own souls, and Good, but and avenging e chastised as iry to another 1 can be made ed which can- an act which, 3ablePast. In alty as surely, oak. Its eon- ther, and can lyolved in its it. Funish- e execution oj It is ordained as the Crea- pviction, once fully clear up Jmption. Re- saving but a n the punish- commission. arious atone- c of heathen ^-opitiated by iiig not the trbitrary and _ogical conse- inner. itrine of the )f the above by J. and A. of men, be- punish it in isistent doc- it sin go un- lah it in the dialectics to explain how Divine Justice can be impugned by pardon- ing the guilty, and yet vindicated by punishing the innocent ! If the foregoing reflections are sound, the awful, yet wliolesorae, conviction presses upon our minds, that there can be no forgiveness of sins , that is, no interference with, or remittance of, or protection from their natural effects; that God will not interpose between the cause and its consequence ;* — that " whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." An awful consideratioT> this ; yet all reflection, all experience, contirm its truth. . u sin which has debased our soul may be repented of, may be turned from, but the injury is done : the debasement may be re- deemed by after efforts, the stain may be obliterated by bitterer struggles and severer sufferings, by laith in God's love and communion with His Spirit ; but the efforts and the endurance which might have raised the soul to the loftiest heights, are now exhausted in merely regaining what it has lost. " There must always be a wide difference (as one of our divines has said) between him who only ceases to do evil, and him who has always done well ; be- tween the man who began to serve his God as soon as he knew that he had a God to serve, and the man who only turns to Heaven after he has exhausted all the indul- "•cnccs of Earth." Again, in the case of sin of which you have induced another to partake. You may repent— -^/ou may, after agonizing struggles, regain the path of virtue — your spirit may re-achieve its purity through much anguish, and after many stripes ; but the weaker tellow-creature whom you led astray, whom you made a sharer in your guilt, but whom you cannot make a sharer in your repentance and amendment, whose downward course (the first step of which you taught) you cannot check, but are compelled to witness, what "forgiveness" of sins can avail you ** llof er to Matt. ix. 2-6. ' ' Whether is it eaaier to say, Thy sins be for- •^'iven theo; or to aay, Arise, take u|) thy bed and walk?" Jesus seems here clearly tu intiin§ito that the vi(i\v taken above (of forgiveness of sins, uiiiiKly, involving an interference with the natural order of sequence, ami being therefore a miracle) is correct. He places the two bide by siilo, as equally difficult. 34.0 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM there ? Tliere is your perpe^-ual, your inevitable punish- ment, which no repentance can alleviate and no mercy can remit. This doctrine, that sins can be forgiven, and the conse- quences of them averted, has in all ages been a fertile source of mischief Perhaps lew of our intellectual errors have fructil:cd in a vaster harvest of evil, or operated more powerfully to impede the moral progress of our race While it has been a source of unspeakable comfort to the penitent, a healing balm to the wounded spirit, while it ha^s saved many from hopelessness, and enabled those to recover themselves who would otherwise have flung away the remnant oi their virtue in despair; yet, on the other hand . it has encouraged millions, j deling what a safety was in store for them m ultvmate resort, to persevere in their career of folly or crime, to ignore or despise those natural laws which God has laid down to be the guides and beacons of our conduct, to continue to do " that which was pleasant in their own eyes," convinced that nothing was irrevocable, that however dearly thej'^ might have to pay for re-integration, repentance could at any time re- deem their punishment, and undo the past. The doctrine has been noxious in exact ratio to the baldness and. naked- ness with which it has been propounded. In the Catho- lic Church of the middle ages we see it perhaps in its grossest form, when pardon was sold, bargained for, rated at a hxed price ; when one hoary sinner, on the bed of sickness, refused to repent, because he was not certain that death was close at hand, and he did not wish for tlie trouble of going through the process twice, and was loth, by a premature amendment, to lose a chance of any of the indulgences ol sin Men would have been far mo'e scrupulous watchers ^ver conduct far more careful ot their deeds, had they believed that those deeds would in- evitably bear their natural consequences, exempt from after intervention, than when they held that penitence and pardon could at any time unlink the chain ot Hccjuoncos ; just as now they are little scrujjulous of in- dulging in hurtful excess, when medical aid is at hand to remedy the mischief they have voluntarily encountered. But wen hope 01 they con earnestly parative their coi health, Let ai ward on produce" bedded ^ ably— tl mit a de done ; tl to the e\ inscribe! let him the mor convicti Perht which h and you stitutioi through them ; } not hel; but it Nature violate! for tim Agai You gi any s know you." ness o compl ing of powei could M CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 341 Jvitable punish- s and no mercy and the conse- s been a fertile bpllectual errors ^1, or operated 'ess of our race comfort to the spirit, while it labled those to ave flung away i^ on the other ' what a safety to pei"severe in r despise those be the guides o " that which i that nothing might have to t any time re- The doctrine 588 andnaked- In the Catho- 3erhaps in its ined for, rated 3n the bed of as not certain t wish for tlie and was loth, nee of any of een far mo'e re careful of 3ds would m- Bxempt from lat penitence the chain of »uIouH of in- is at hand to encountered. But were they on a desert island, apart from the remotest hope 01 a doctor or a drug, how far more closely would they consider the consequences ot each indulgence, how earnestly would they study the laws of Nature, how com- paratively unswerving would be their endeavours to steer their course by those laws, obedience to which brings health, peace, and safety in its train ! Let any one look back upon his past career — look in- ward on his daily life — and then say what efiect would be produced upon him, were the conviction once ^xedly im- bedded in his soul, that everything done is done irrevoc- ably — that even the Omnipotence of God cannot uncom- mit a deed — cannot make that undone which has been done ; that every act rmust bear its allotted fruit according to the everlasting laws — must remain for ever ineffaceably inscribed on the tablets of universal Nature And then let him consider what would have been the insult upon the moral condition of our race, had all men ever held this conviction. Perhaps you have led a youth of dissipation and excess which has undermined and enfeebled your constitution, and you have transmitted this injured and enfeebled con- stitution to your children. They suffer, in consequence, through life , suffering, perhaps even sin, is entailed upon them ; your repentance, were it sackcloth and ashes, can- not help you or them. Your punishment is tremendous, but it is legitimate, and inevitable You have broken Nature's laws, or you have ignored them ; and no one violates or neglects them with impunity. What a lesson for timely reflection and obedience is here ! Again, — You have broken the seventh commandment. You grieve, you repent, you lesolutely determine against any such weakness in future. It is well. But " you know that God is merciful, you feel that he will forgive you." You are comforted. But no — there is no forgive- ness of sins : the injured party may forgive you, your ac- complice or victim may forgive you, according to the mean- ing of human language ; but the deed is done, and all the powers of Nature, were they to conspire in your behalf, could not make it undone : the consequences to the body, 342 THE CREED OF CHBISTENDOM. the consequences to the soul, though no man may perceive them, are there, are written in the annals of the Past, and must reverberate through all time.* But all this, let it be understood, in no degree militates against the value or the necessity of repentance. Repent- ance, contrition of soul, bears, like every other act, ife own fruit, the fruit of purifying the heart, of amending the future, not, as man has hitherto conceived, of effacing the Past. The commission of sin is an irrevocable act, but it does not incapacitate the soul for virtue. Its con- sequences cannot be expunged, but its course need not be pursued. Sin, though it is ineffaceable, calls for no des- pair, but for efforts more energetic than before. Repent- ance is still as valid as ever ; but it is valid to secure the future, not to obliterate the past. The moral to be drawn from these reflections is this :— God has placed the lot of man — not, perhaps, altogether of the Individual, but certainly of the Race — in his own hands, by surrounding him vfiih fixed laws, on knowledge of which, and on conformity to which, his well-being de- pends. The study of these, and the principle of obedience to them, form, therefore, the great aim of education, both of men and nations. They must be taught — 1. The "physical laws, on which God has made health io depend. 2. The moral laws, on which He has made happiness to depend.f 3. The intellectual laws, on which He has made knoiv- ledge to depend. 4. The social and political laws, on which He has made natioTial prosperity and advancement to depend. 5. T'ue economic laws, on which He has made wealth to depend. *[I have left this whole argument just as it was written five-and-twenty years ago; because, though I recognise its painful harshness, I am unable to detect any flaw in the substance of its logic. ] + " There is nothing which more clearly marks the Divine Government than the difficulty of distinguishing between the natural and the superna- tural; between the penalty attached to the breach of the written *law, and the consequence, which we call natural, though it is in fact the penalty at- tached to the breach of the unwritten law In the divine law, the penalty always grows out of the offence." — State of Man before tlic Promulgation of Christianity, p. 108. A. true ceptional mankind — save CJ VI. Tf ted by oi in its fori to Christ the accre mine. 1 pels ; an< has reac sound, n assumes doctrine judgraei convicti a work were pl< of this With h hearers their re teachin: tions in for you do corr " What world I in exel first si are on viz., tl great < subdu feeling Th« and ] cheap engag i CHBISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 343 "lay perceive f the Past, and egree militates nee. Repent- other act, its . of amending ^ed, of effacing ■revocable act •'tue. Its con- se need not be lis for no des- 'ore. Repent- l to secure the ions is this :— ■ps, ^ altogether i — in his own on knowledge vell-being de- le of obedience iueation, both nade health to de happiness 3 made knoiu- He has made )end. ade wealth to five-and-twenty , I am unable to ne Government •nd the superna- ritten-law, and the penalty n,t- the divine law, klan before tlic A tme comprehension of all these, and of their unex- ceptional and unalterable nature, would ultimately rescue mankind from all their vice and nearly all their suffering — save casualties and sorrows. VI. The ascetic and depreciating view of life, inculca- ted by ordinary Christianity, appear to us erroneous, both in its form and in its foundation. How much of it belongs to Christ, how much to the apostles, and how much was the accretion of a subsequent age, is not easy to deter- mine. It appears in the Epistles as well as in the Gos- pels ; and in the hands of preachers of the present day it has reached a point at which it is unquestionably un- sound, noxious, and insincere. In Christ this asceticism assumes a mild and moderate form ; being simply the doctrine of the Essenes, modified by his own exquisite judgment and general sympathies, and dignified by the conviction that to men, who had so arduous and perilous a work before them as that to which he and his disciples were pledged, the interests, the afiections, the enjoyments of this life must needs be of very secondary moment, With him it is confined almost entirely to urging his hearers not to sacrifice their duties (and by consequence their rewards) to earthly and passing pleasures, and to teaching them to seek consolation under present priva- tions in the prospect of future blessedness. " Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust do corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal." " What snail it profit a man if he should gain the whole world and lose his own soul ? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul ? " Luke xiv. 26, 33, appears at first sight to go further than this ; but even these verses are only a hyperbolical expression of a universal truth viz., that a man cannot cast himself with effect into any great or dangerouH achievement, unless he is prepared to subdue and set at nought all interfering interests and feelings. , That the apostles, called to fight against principalities and powers, obliged to hold life and all its affections cheap, because the course of action in which they were engaged perilled these at every step, finding the great ob- 344 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. stacle to their success in the tenacity with which their hearers clung to those old associations, occupations, and enjoyments, which embracing the new faith would oblige them to forswear, — impressed, moreover, with the solemn and tremendous con\ iction that the world was falling to pieces, and that their own days and their own vision would witness the final catastrophe of nature ; — that the apostles should regard with unloving eyes that world of which their hold was so precarious and their tenure so short, and should look with amazement and indignation upon men who would cling to a doomed and perishing habitation, instead of gladly sacrificing everything to ob- tain a footing in the new Kingdom was natural, and, granting the premises, rational and wise. But for Divines in this day, when the profession of Christianity is attended with no peril, when its practice even demands no sacrifice, save that preference of duty to enjoyment which is the first law of cultivated hu- manity, to repeat the language, profess the : ^elings, incul* cate the notions of men who lived in daily dread of such awful martyrdom, and under the excitement of such a mighty misconception ; to cry down this world, with its profound beauty, its thrilling interests, its glorious works, its noble and holy aflections ; to exhort their hearers, Sunday after Sunday, to detach their hearts from the earthly life as inane, fleeting, and unworthy, and fix it upon Heaven, as the only sphere deserving the love of the loving or the meditation of the wise, — appears to us, we confess, frightful insincerity, the enactment of a wicked and gigantic lie. The exhortation is delivered and listened to as a thing of course ; and an hour afterwards the preacher, who has thus usurped and profaned the language of an apostle who wrote with the faggot and the cross full in view, is sitting comfortably with his hearer over his claret ; they are fondling their children, discussing public affairs or private plans in life with pas- sionate interest, and yet can look at each other without a smile or fi blush for the sad and meaningless farce they have boon acting ! Ygt tha closing of our connection with this earthly scene is a to the a J world wa tion on tl and insin ervoncouf of made it : nor IS of the Stoic oy the help of A\ those atiuc- lys be insepar- mrld lasts, and honour, and virtue, and industry have reputation in the world, there will be ambition and emulation and app^itite in the best and most accomplished men in it ; if there should not be, more barbarity and vice and wickedness would cover every nation of the world, than it yet suffers under."* It is difficult to decide whether exhortations to ascetic undervaluing of this life, as an insignificant and unworthy portion of existence, have done most injury to our virtue, by demanding feelings which are unnatural, and which, therefore, if attained, must be morbid, if merely 'professed, must be insincere — or to the cause of social progress, by teaching us to look rather to a future life for tl^ com- pensation of social evils, than to this life for their cure. It is only those who feel a deep interest in and affection for this world, who will work resolutely for its ameliora- tion ; — those whose affections are transferred to Heaven acquiesce easily in the miseries of earth ; give them up as hopeless, as befitting, as ordained ; and console them- selves with the idea of the amends which are one day to be theirs.f If we had looked upon this earth as our only scene, it is doubtful if we should so long have tolerated its more monstrous anomalies and more curable evils. But it is easier to look to a future paradise than to strive to make one upon earth ; and the depreciating and hol- low language of preachers has played into the hands both of the insincerity and the indolence of man. I question whether the whole system of professing Christians is not based in a mistake, whether it be not an error to strive after spirituality — after a frame of mind, that is, which is attainable only by incessant con- flict with the instincts of our unsophisticated nature, by macerating the body into weakness and disorder ; by dis- paraging what we see to be beautiful, know to be won- * Lord Clarendon's Essay on Happiness. + *'* I sorrowfully admit, that when- I count up among my personal ac- quaintance's all whom I think to be the most decidedly given to spiritual contemplati^'U, and to make religion rule in their hearts, at lea.st three out of four appear to have been apathetic towards all improvement of this world's eyatemiij and a majority have been virtual conservatives of evil, and hostile to poli ical and social reform as diverting mens energies from Eteral^." - Note by a Friend. 348 THE CR£ED OF CHRISTENDOM. {|i ■ill i derful, feci to be unspeakably dear and fascinating ; by (in a word) putting down the nature which God lias given us, to struggle after one which He has not bestowed. Man is sent into the world, not a spiritual, but a composite boinff a being made up of body and mind — the body havini;, as is fit and needful in a material world, its full, rightful, and allotted shai-e. Life should be guided by a full rec- ognition of this fact ; not denying it as we do in bold words, and admitting it in weaknesses and inevitable iail- ings. Man's spirituality will come in the next stage o his being, when he is endowed with the o-w/xa Trvev/iariKov. Each in its order : " first, that which is natural ; after- ward^ that which is spiritual." The body will be dropped at death : — till then God meant it to be commanded, but never to be neglected, despised, or ignored, under pain of heavy consequences. The two classes of believers in future progress — those who believe in the future perfection of the individual, and those who believe in the future perfection of the race- are moved to different modes of action. Perhaps they ought not to be ; but from the defects of our reason, and from personal feelings, they generally are. It is a ques- tion, however, whether the world, i.e., the human race, will not be more benefited by the labours of those who look upon Heaven as a state to be attaii ed on earth by future generations, than by those who regard it as the state to be attained by themselves after death, in another world. The latter will look only, or mainly, to the im- provement of their own character and capacities ; — the former will devote th^ir exertions to the amelioration o; their kind and their habitation. The latter are too easily induced to give up earth as hopeless and incorrigible ; — the former, looking upon it as the scene of blessed exist- ence to others hereafter, toil for its amendment and em- bellishment. There is a vast fund of hidden selfishness, or what, at least, has often the practical eftect of such, in the idea of Heaven as ordinarily conceived ; and much of the tolerated misery of earth may be traced to it.* * See 8ome very interesting refltctioiis on this subject (with which, how- ever, I do not ata]l agree), by Sir James Mackintoah (Life, 120-122). Sea CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 349 lating ; hy (in has given us, >we(l. Man i.s nposite being, dy haviiiir, as full, riohtfui by a full ree- ve do in bold levitable uil- next stmjeo fj.a TrvevfiariKov. itural ; after- ill be dropped umanded, but mder pain of )^ress— those dividual, and of the race — ^erhaps they r reason, and It is a q lies- human race, of those who on earth by a-rd it as the h, in another ^ to the im- acities ; — the elioration o; re too easily corrigible ;— lessed exist- ent and em- 1 selfishness, t of such, in md much of o it.* ith which, how- , 120-122). Sea Do we then mean that our future pro.spects have no claim on our attention here 1 Far from it. The fate of the Soul after it loaves those conditions under which alone we have any cognizance ot its existerice, the possi - bility of continued and eternal being, and the character of the scenes in which that being will be developed, must always iorm topics of the profoundest interest, and the most ennobling and refining contemplation. These great matters will o necessity, from their attractions, and ought, from their purixying tendencies, to occupy much of the leisure of all thinking :md aspiring minds. Those whose affections are ambitious, whose conceptions are lofty, whose imagination is vivid, eloquent, and daring — those to whom this life has been a scene of incessant fail- ure — those " Whom Life hath wearied in its race of hours," who, harassed and toil-worn, sink under the burden oi their three-score years — those who, having seen friend, parent, child, wife, successively removed from the homes they beautified and hallowed, find the balance of attrac- tion gradually inclining in favour of another life, — all such will cling to these lofty speculations with a tenacity of interest which needs no injunction, and will listen to no prohibition. All we wish to suggest is, that they should be regarded rather as the consoling privilege of the aspi- ring, the way -worn, the weary, the bereaved, than as the inculcated duiy of youth in its vigour, or beauty in its prime. Yet, having said thus much by way of combating an erroneous view of life which appears to lead to a perilous and demoralizing insincerity, I would not be thought in- capable of appreciating the light which the contemplation of the future may let in upon the present, nor the effect which that contemplation is fitted to produce on the development Oj. the higher portions of our nature. One of the most diffi- cult, and at the same time the gravest, of the practical problems > )t life, is the right adjustment of the respective also some curi(, us speculations by a Communistic Frenchman, Pierre Leroux, in liis w ork 1)» 1' Humanite. 350 THE CREED OP CHRISTENDOM. i: Mil claims of heaven and earth upon the time and thought of man . — how much should be given to performing the du- ties and entering into the interests of the world, and how much to preparation for a better ; — ^how much to action, and how much to meditation ; — how much to the culti- vation and purification of our ovm character, and how much to the public service ot our fellow-men Nor is this nice problem adaquately solved by sajdng that Heaven is most worthily served, and most surely won, by a scrupu- lous discharge of +he duties of our earthly station , and that constant labour for the good of others will af- lord the best development ior the purer portions of our own character. There is much truth in this ; but there is not complete truth. The man whose whole life is spent in discharging with diligence and fidelity the toils of his allotted position in society, or whose every hour is devoted to the details of philanthropic exertions, is in a rare de- gree " a good and faithful servant ; " yet it is impossible not to perceive that he may pass through life with many depths of his being altogether unsounded, with the ricli- est secrets of the soul undiscovered and unguessed, with many of the loftiest portions of his character still latent and unimproved ; and that when he passes through the portals ot the grave, and reaches the new Existence, he will entej* it a wholly unprepared and astonished stranger. Much quiet meditation, much solitary introspection, which the man involved in the vortex of actwe and publi- , life has rarely leisure to bestow, seem requisite to gain a clear conception of the true objects and meaning of exist .nee — oi the relation which our individual entities hold with the Universe around us and the Great Spirit which per- vades it. Without this drap and solitary communing with our inner Nature, the most energetic and untiring Philanthropist or Duty-doer among us appears little more than an instrument in the hands of the Creator — a useful and noble one, certainly, yet still an instrument — for the production of certain results, but scarcely to ha>'c attained to the dignity of a distinct and individual Intelli- gence — an agent who comprehendn himself and the nature of tbc w| routine Aii;ainl adiuivabl thattheil which a I unavoichl tites.the] not f avol Onthl an insigi of Being significa as entire If we V ible," th formed, that we realize should 1 state. CHRISTIAN ECLECTICISM. 351 id thought of 'ming the du- orld, and how uch to action, to the culti-' 5ter, and Iiow J^oristhis at Heaven is by a scrupu- station , and 'ers will af- •rtions of our I but there is life is spent e toils of his p is devoted in a rare de- s impossible ' with many 1th the rich- lessed, with f still latent through the xistence, he 3d stranger, tion, which Publi'lifo gain 8 clear >xist.nce— bold with w'hich per- onfjuiuning d untiring ittle more eator — a rument— y to haAe al Intelli- ^e nature of the work in which he is engaged, as well as the mere routine of its performance. A^ain, notwithstanding all that has been said as to the admirable effect of action on the character, it is certain that there are many points of personal morality from which a life of busy and even meritorious activity almost unavoidably diverts our attention. The temper, the appe- tites, the passions, require a ceaseless and guarded watchful- ness, to which incessant exertion is, to say the least, certainly uot favourable. On the other hand, too frequent a reflection, too deep an insight — too vivid a realization of the great mysteries of Being, would be apt to shrivel up into microscopic in- significance all the cares, toils, and interests of this life, as entirely to paralyze our zeal andjenergy concerning them. If wo were literally to " live as seeing Him who is invis- ible," the common works of earth could no longer be per- formed, save as a duty, and in a dream. It is well for us that we " walk by faith, and not by sight." If we could realize both the nearness and fulness of Eternity, we shoukl be unfitted for the requirements of this earthly state. CHAPTER XVII. THE GREAT EKIOMA. We are accustomed to say that Christ brought life and immortality to light by his Gospel ; by which we mean,— not that he first taught the doctrine of a future life,- scarcely even that he threw any new light on the nature of that life; for the doctrine was held, long before he lived, by many uncivilized tribes ; it was the received opinion of most, if not all, among the Oriental nations ; and it was an established tenet of the most popular and powerful sect among the Jews ; — but that he gave to the doctrine, for the first time, an authoritative sanction ; he announced it as a direct revelation from the Deity ; and as it were, exemplified and embodied it in its own resurrec- tion. But, as we have already come to the conclusion that Christianity was not a Revelation in the ordinary sense of the word, Christ's inculcation of the doctrine becomes simply the added attestation of the most pious and holy man who ever lived, to a faith which has been cherished by the pious and the holy of all times and of all lands. In this view of Christianity, a future life becomes to us no longer a matter of positive knowledge — a revealed fact— but simply a matter of faith, of hope, of earnest desire ; a sublime possibility, round which meditation and inquiry will collect all the probabilities they can. Christianity adds nothing certain to our convictions or to our knowledge on the subject, however rich it may be in suggestions of the truth. Let us, therefore, by a short statement of its views of futurity, see how far they are such as can be accepted by a cultivated and i quiring age. It may seem to many a strange observation, but we greatly question whether the views of Christ regarding the future world (so far as wo can gather thoni from the more imn God, who in He,.ive: lying ext( Christ vis tinct and ence of G ed, and n the New Job. Th affectionj pomorph vague, n gospel i( eminent] bear sen consciou necessar our facu obviousl to be su 2. Th THE GBEAT ENIGMA. 353 ught life and 1 we mean,— I future life- n the nature long before the received ital nations; popular and > gave to the 3anetion ; he Deity; and >wn resurrec- 3 conclusion he ordinary 'hq doctrine most pious ch has been imes and of becomes to -a revealed of earnest itation and they can. ctions or to may be in by a short they are quiring jn, but W(» / regai-din^' n from tl\c! imperfect and uncertain records of his sayings, which alone we have to go by) were not less in advance of those current in his age and country, than his views upon any other topic. The popular opinion — that he made that a matter of certainty which before was only a matter of speculation — has blinded our perceptions on this point. When we put aside this common misconception, and come to examine what the notions inculcated by the gospel concerning the nature of this futurity really were, we shall be surprised and pained to find how little they added, .ind how little they rose superior, to those current among the Pharisees and the Essenes at the date of its promulgation ; and perhaps even how far they fell short of those attained by some pious Pagans of an earlier date. The scriptural idea of Heaven, so far as we can collect it from the Gospels, seems to have been : — 1. That it was a scene hallowed and embellished by the more immediate, or at least more perceptible, presence of God, who is constantly spoken of as " Our Father who is in Htaven." It is the local dwelling-place of the Creator, lying exterior to and above the Earth, and into which Christ visibly ascended. Indeed, notwithstanding the dis- tinct and repeated assertions of the perpetual superintend- ence of God, He is depif^tod much more as a local and limit- ed, and much less as a pervading and spiritupl Being, in the New Testament than in many of tne Psalms and in Job. The delineations of the former are far more simple, affectionate, and human — far more tinged with anthro- pomorphism, in the tone at least ; those of the latter more vague, more sublime, more spiritual. In this point, the gospel idea of one of the attributes of Heaven, though eminently beautiful, natural, and attractive, will scarcely bear scrutiny. That in a future state we shall bo more conscious of God's presence, is not only probable, but is a necessary consequence of the extension and purification of our faculties : — that He dwells there more than here is an obviously untenable conception. The notion may be said to be subjectively true, but objectively false. 2. That Heaven would be a scene of retribution for the 354 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM m deeds and charactei-s of earth has been the view of its essential nature taken by nearly all nations which have believed in its existence : to this idea the gospel has added nothing new. That it would also be a state of competisa- tion, to rectify the inequalities and atone for the sufferings of our sublunary life, has long been the consolatory notion of the disappointed and the sorrow-stricken. This idea Christianity especially encourages ; nay, unless we tire to allow an unusually free deduction for the hyperbolical language which the New Testament habitually employs, it would appear to carry it to an extent scarcely reconcil- able with sober reason or pure justice; almost countenan- cing the notion — so seducing to the less worthy feelings of the discontented and the wretched — not only that their troubles will be compensated by proportionate excess of future joy, but that earthly prosperity will, per se, and apart from any notion of moral retribution, constitute a title to proportionate suffering hereafter — that, in truth, Heaven will be the especial and exclusive patrimony of the poor and the afflicted. " Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be ccmforted." '' Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom oc God. Blessed are ye that hunger now, for ye shall hvt filled. Blessed are ye that weep now, for ye shall laugh. But woe unto ye that are rich, for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto ye that are full, for ye shall hunger. Woe unto ye that laugh now, for ye shall weep." The parable of Dives and Lazarus inculcates the same notion. " Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Laz- arus evil things; but now he is comforted, and thou art tor- mented." It is very difficult to discover on what worthy conception of Divine Providence the ideas inculcated in these last quotations can be iustified, or how they can be reconciled with the doctrine of a just moral retribution ; and it is equally difficidt to shut our eyes to the encour- agement they may give and have given to the envious and malignant feelings of grovelling and uncultured '.xliids.* ♦ See Eugene Aram, chap, viii., for an illustration. A CalviniBt peaflant ■wnsidereil that the choictf^t bliaa of Heaven would be "to look down intt- ck« other piao*, and iee the folk griU." Tertullian has a pausage, part uf . 3. Th( we believi of the doc sary one, versal ad( has added our moral the unchc We atten dence tha rtrogress- purifying and impri doctrine it clearly ever at tl both Pagi of the et itself to c ories : it ments, in the revol felt, that has been the docti ought to is difficu Scriptur< taken as ' apostles yet madi and mer human 1 for the belief th That man, th? whicn Uib as horribl iMt. THE GREAT ENIGMA. 355 view of its i which have )el has added 3f compensa- the sufferings latory notion This idea ess we are to hyperbolical illy employs, cely reconcil- st countenan- hy feelings of ly that their late excess of 1, per se, and constitute a hat, in truth, patrimony of ^ that mourn, ye poor, for re that hunger lat weep now, re rich, for ye ye that are it laugh now, and Lazarus sr that thou in likewise Laz- i thou art tor- what worthy inculcated in y they can be 1 retribution; ;o the encour- ) the envious tured cxiiids.* Calvinist peasant to look down inti. I pfwsa^e, part of 3. The eternal duration of the future existence has, we believe, with all nations formed a constituent element of the doctrins ; though it is so far from being a neces- sary one, that it is not easy to discover wt.ence its uni- versal adoption is to be traceu. To this idea Scripture has added another, which presents a stumbling-block to our moral and our metaphysical philosophy alike — viz., the unchanging character of both its pains and pleasures. We attempt in vain to trace in the gospel the least evi- dence that the future state is to be regarded as one of y)rogres8 — that its sufferings are to be probationary and purifying, and therefore terminable ; or its joys elevating and improving, and therefore ever advancing. If any doctrine be distinctly taught by Scripture on this point, it clearly is, that the lot of each individual is fixed for ever at the judgment day. In this it stands below some both Pagan and Oriental conceptions. The gospel view of the eternity of the future life, which fully approves itself to our reason, is one which it shares with all the- ories : its conception of the eternity of future punish- ments, in which probably it stands almost alone, is one, the revolting character of which has been so strongly felt, that the utmost ingenuity both of critidiism and logic, has been strained for centuries — the first, to prove that the doctrine is not taught, the se jond, to prove that it ought to be received. Neither have quite succeeded. It is difficult to maintain that the doctrine is not taught in Scripture,- if the clear language of special texts is to be taken as our guide ; and it was probably held by the ' apostles and the first Christians ; and all the attempts yet made to reconcile the doctrine with divine justice and mercy are calculated to make us blush alike for the human heart that can strive to justify such a creed, and for the human intellect which can delude itself into a belief that it has succeeded in such justification. That would be a great book, and he would be a great man, that should detect aud eliminate the latent and dis- whicn bribbon quotes (c. nv. ), expressing the same ide* in language quite OH horrible. We believe there is a similar passage in Baxter's Saints* i«et. 356 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. figured truth that lies at the root of every falsehood ever, yet believed among men. In Scripture we meet with several doctrines which may be considered as the approxi- Tnate fo^nula, the imperiect, partial, and inaccurate ex- pression, of certain mighty and eternal verities. Thus. the spirituality of Christ's character and the superhuman excellence of his liie, lie at the bottom of the dogma oi the Incarnation ; which was simply " a mistake of the moially lor the physically divine," an idea carnalized into a fact. In the same manner, the doctrine of the eternity of future punishments, false as it must be in its ordinary signification, contains a glimpse of one of the most awful and indisputable truths ever presented to the human understanding — viz., the eternal and ineftaceable consequences of our every action, the fact that every word and every deed produces efiects which must, by the very nature of things, reverberate through all time, 8o that the whole of iaturity would be difierent had that word never been spoken, or thnt deed enacted.* * " The pulsations of the air, once set in motion by the human voice, cease not to exist with the sounds to which they gave rise. Strong and au- dible as they may be in the immediate neighbourhood of the speaker, and at the immediate moment of utterance, their quickly-attenuated force soon becomes inaudible to human ears. But the waves of air thus raised peram- bulate the earth's and ocean's surface, and in less than twenty hours every atom of its atmosphere takes up the altered movement due to that infini- tesimal portion of primitive motion which has been conveyed to it throu^b countless channels, and which must continue to influence its path through- out its future existence. " But these aerial pulses, unseen by the keenest eye, unheard by the acutest ear, unperceived by human senses, are yet demonstrated to exist by hu- man reason ; and in some few and limited instances, by calling to our aid the most refined and comprehensive instrument of human thought (mathemati- cal analysis), their courses are traced, and their intensities measured. . . . Thus considered, what a strange chaos is this wide atmosphere we breathe ! Every atom impressed with good and with ill, retains af once the motions which philosophers and sages have imparted to it, mixed and coml)ine(l in ten thousand ways with all that is worthless and base, The air itself is one vast library, on whose pages is forever written all that man has ever said or even whispered. There, in their mutable, but unerring characters, mixed with the earliest as well as the latest sighs of mortaaty, stand for ever recorded, vows unredeemed, promises unfulfilled, perpetuating, in the united movements of each particle, the testimony of man's changeful will •• J3ut if the air we breathe is the never-failing historian of the sentiments we have uttered, earth, air, and ocean, are in like manner the eternal wit- nesses of the acta we have done Ne motion impressed by natu- ral causes or by human agency ia ever obliterated. The track of e\ ery There ': tnre puni: if that ve whifh eni consequei render ou quences t superior ] action — \ action ioi self ages will be t( i-esOurces veil the 1 4. It ii the delig in the e: tions, the physical. teJlect ai the body sit at th( unquenc canoe whic registered i cupy its plf "Whilst timents we globe, bear the Almigl indelible n succeeding crime ; foi severed pi every com by which t Treatise, < "If we organ of h iutiuitesin all the aci fall at on still vibra turios bef( —Ibid. c. THE GREAT ENIGAIA. 857 falsehood ever. we meet with .s the approxi- inaccurate ex- erities. Thus. 16 superhuman the dogma oi listake of the lea carnalized octrine of the must be in its of one of the "esented to the id inefldceable .ct that every h must, b)' tlie :h all time, so rent had that ted.* ■ the human voice, e. Strong and au- the speaker, and at snuated force soon thus raised peram- wenty hours every due to that iiifini- 'eyed to it throiif,'li } its path through- 3, unheard by the •ated to exist by liu- dlingtoouraidthe uught (matheiuati- 8 measured. . . . phere we breathe ! I once the motions I and combined in rhe air itself is one a.n has ever said or characters, ini.xed y, stand for ever 'petuating, in the man's chauyefnl I of the sentiments ir the eternal wit- mpressed by natii- he track of e\ery There is therefore a sense in which the eternity of fu- ture punishment may be irrefragably and terribly true — if tliat very enhancement of our faculties in a future life whicli enables us to perceive and trace the ineffaceable consequences of our idle words and our evil deeds, should render our remorse and grief as eternal as those conse- quences themselves. No more fearful punishment to a •superior Intelligence can be conceived than to see still in action — with the consciousness that it must continue in action ior ever — a cause of wrong put in motion by it- self ages before. Let us trust either that our capacities will be too limited for this awful retribution, or that the lesOurces of Omnipotence may be adequate to cancel or to veil the Past. 4. It is remarkable that while in the New Testament the delights of Heaven are always depicted as consisting in the exercise and development of the spiritual affec- tions, the pains of Hell are as constantly delineated as physical. The joys of the one state are those of the in- tellect and the Soul ; the sufferings of the other those of the body only. In the gospel pictures, Heaven is " to sit at the right hand of the Father ; " Hell is " to burn in unquenchable fire." Unless there be some deep meaning canoe which has yet disturbed the surface of the ocean, remains for ever registered in the future movements of all succeeding particles which may oc- cupy its place. " Whilst the atmosphere we breathe is the ever-living witness of the sen- timents we ha\ j utter! d, the waters and t'le more solid materials of the globe, bear equally endurng testimony of the ac ts we have committed. If the Almighty stamped on the b; jw of the earliest murderer the visible and indelible mark of f'.s guilt, he has also established lav> i by which every succeeding criminal is no!; less irrevocably chainoj to the testimony of his crime; for e\oiy atom of his mortal frame, through whatever changes its severed particles may migrate, will still retain, adhering to it through every combination, some movement derived from that very muscular effort by which the cx'ime itself was perpetrated." — Babbage, Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, c. ix. " If we imagine the soul in an after stage of existence, connected with an organ of hearing so sensitive as to vibi.'te with motions of the air, even of infinitesimal force, and if it be still within the i)recinctsof its ancient abode, all the accumulated words pronounced fr.ym the creation of mankind will fall at once on that ear ; . . . . and the punished offender may hear still vibrating on his ear the very words uttered perhaps thousands of cen- turies beforj, which at once caused and registered his own condemnation." —Ibid. c. xii. 3.')3 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. 1' hidden under this apparent inconsistency ; unless it h ordmaii y iint'^nded to intimate to us that the blessed will be mad( ^Pl'^^^^ pu ./y spiritual, and that the damned will be wholly a> i^^^^^" ?° sorbed in their corporeality — an idea which it is ditiicu to admit ; it seems strange that the description of Hoj ven as consisting in communion with God and with th Just made perfect, should not have suggested the conel ative idea that Hell must consist in " living wdth tht Devil and his angels ; " in fact, what more horrible con- ception of it could be formed ? 5. But perhaps the most imperfect and inadmissible point in the Scriptural conception of the Future World is that which represents it as divided into two distine states, separated by an impassable barrier, decidedly o; one or other side of which the eternal destiny of ever one is cast. Such an arrangement, it is obvious, is in compatible with any but the rudest idea of righteous re tribution, and could only be the resource of imperfec justice and imperfect power. For as in this world therel is every possible gradation of virtue and of vice, which trrounds on Subsequent jlng there, \ it," has sun conceivabl supports I they are ] tween the mind (em and to nei build it u establish i i.e., infere the other trine is a tiveness i made to 1 run into each other by the most imperceptible degrees,! ^^^v > ^^ and are often only distinguishable by the minutest shadel ^^^ \,- — so in the next world there must be every possible gra-" ^^^® ^^ J dation of reward and punishment. A trenchant line oi demarcation, which from its nature must be arbitrary, and which every one who overpasses by a hair's-breadth must overpass by a great gulf, could only be the inven- tion of a judge of finite and imperfect capacity, for the more convenient dispatch of judgment. That, of two in- dividuals whose degree of virtue is so similar that the question of precedence can neither be decided by the keenest human insight, nor expressed by the finest min- utiae of human language, one should be rewarded with eternal joy, and the other condemned to everlasting tor- ment, is assuredly among the rudest of religious concep- tions. Yet, to all appearance, such is the notion of future retribution held by the New Testament writers. The doctrine of a future life has been firmly held in all ages and by 'every order of minds. The reasonings suggests grave ; I « The rei are raised, God of Ab: not a God %s anythin 1 Thess. i\ well- know mens exta 185 ; Busl In one ] lemarkab those of t tians, T a,'ain ; tl finis Tac placet, n( nect. ,- ■ tumque ; Anastasi shall be Icy ; unless it k ped will be madf fill be wholly al Jhich it is di/Hcu Iseription of Ho.- wd and with th rested the eoirel living with thi [lore horrible con land inadmissible ^e Future World into two distincl ier, decidedly o] destiny of even is obvious, is in' a of righteous re. rce of imperfec this world there id of vice, which rceptible degrees, e minutest shade 'ery possible gra- trenchant line oi 1st be arbitrary, a hair's-breadth iy be the inven- capacity, for the That, of two in- similar that the decided by the '■ the finest min- rewarded with everlasting tor- eligious coucep- notion of future Titers. ' firmly held in The reasonin£>s THE GREAT ENIGMA. 359 ordinarily adduced in proof of this doctrine have always appeared to me deplorably weak and inconclusive ; so jnuch so as clearly to indicate that they do not form the (Trounds on which it has been believed, but are merely Subsequent attempts to justify that belief. The ■ sed be- ing there, human reason, in the endeavour to ace >ur; for it, has surrounded it with props and crutches of o v )ry conceivable degree of weakness ; and these pr.st-dated supports have been mistaken for the foundation. But tliey are not so; and we must at once distinguish be- tween the conviction and the arguments ' -^ which the mind {erroTiecmsly supposing it to he based on, argv merit, and to need argument for its justification) has sought to build it up. Logic never originated it, logic can never establish it. All that can properly be called reasoning, i.e., inference deduced from observation, appears to point the other way. It is remarkable, too, that while the doc- trine is announced with the utmost clearness and posi- tiveness in the New Testament, all the attempts there made to bring arguments in its favour, to prove it logi- cally, or even to establish a reasonable probability for it, are futile in the extreme.* Nature throws no light upon the subject ; the phenomena we observe could never have suggested the idea of a renewed existence beyond the physiological science, as far as it speaks at all, grave * The reasoning ascribed to Jesus (Luke xx. 37) — " Now that tlie dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he called the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living" — it is scarcely possible to regard as anything but a verbal ingenuity. Paul's logic (Rojnans viii. 16, 17 ; and 1 Thess. iv. 14) is, to say the least of it, feeble and far-fetched. While the well-known passage in 1 Cor. xv. 12-16, i» ciio oi the most marvellous speci- mens extant of reasoning in a circle. On this, see Newman on the Soul, p. 185 ; Bush's Anastasis, p. 170. In one point of the view of a future existence there would appear to be a lemarkable coincidence between the notions of To Pagan philosophers and those of the more enlightened among the Jews and some of the early Chris- tians. The Ancients seem to have imagined that only the Great would live ivjiain ; that the mass of souls, the oi troAAot, were not worth resuscitating, i'luis Tacitus (Vit. Agr.), "Si qaia phvum manibus locus, si,utsapientibu^ |)lacet, non cum corpore extinguuntur magruK animie," &c. Cicero de Se- nect.,- " O praeclaram diem, cum ad illud divinum ajimorwm concilium ca;- turaque proficisear," &c. See the above passages in the Epistles. Also Anastasis, 169, 25 ".i ; in Luke xx. 35 ; remarkable expression, " They which shall be accounted worthy," &c. 3G0 THE CKEED OF CHRISTENDOM. distinctly negatives it. Appearances all testify to tlit reality and permanence of death ; a fearful onus of prool lies upon those who contend that these appearances art deceptive. When we interrogate the vast universe of or ganization, we see, not simply life and death, but grad ually growing life, and gradually 'approaching deatl After death, all that we ha\e ever known of a man is gone;* all we have ever seen of him is dissolved into its component elements; it does not disappear, so as to leave us at liberty to imagine that it may have gone to exist elsewhere, but is actually used up as materials for other purposes. So completely is this the case that, as Sir James Macki iitosh observes, " the doctrine of a resur- rection could scarcely have arisen among a people who buried theii- dead." Moreover, the growth, decay, and dissolution we observe, are, to all appearance, those oi the mind as well as the body. We see the mind, the affections, the Soul (if you will), gradually arising, form- ing (for no other expression adequately describes the jjhenomenon), as the body waxes, sympathizing in all the permanent changes and temporary variations of the body, diseased with its diseases, enfeebled by its weakness, dis- ordered by dyspepsia or suppressed gout, utterly meta- morphosed past recognition by cerebral affection, hope- * [A modification of this phrase would seem to be necessary. " There is one indication of immortality which must not be left out of consideration, though, of course, its value will be very differently estimated by different minds. I refer to that spontaneous, irresistible, and perhaps nearly univer- sal feeling we experience on watching, just after death, the body of one we have intimately known ; the conviction, I mean (a sense, a consciousness, an impression which you have to fight against if you wish to shake it off), that the form lying there is somehow not the ego you have loved. It does not produce the effect of that person's personality. You miss the Ego, though you have the frame. The visible Presence only makes more vivid the sense of actual absence. Every feature, every substance, every phenomenon la there— and is unchanged. You have eeen the eyes as firmly closed, the limbs as motionless, the breath almost as imperceptible, the face as fixed and expressionless, before, in sleep or in trance— without the same peculiar sensation. The impression made is indefinable, and is not the result of any conscious process of thought, that that body, quite unchanged to the eye, is not, and never was, your friend — the Being you were conversant with — that his or her individuality was not the garment before you plus a galvanic cur- rent ; that, in fact, the ego you knew once, and seek still, was not that — is not there. And if not there, it must be elsewhere or noioha-e, and ' nowhere,' I believe modern science will not suffer us to predicate of either force or substance that ouce ha^ been. " — Enigmas of Life, Preface vii.] lossly der aotually s ^Mvssion, into imb Tlio sudd cidont, at vioour, n to other i Power — ■ and men infant tl wo say r hour or j inmate 1 separatic moment be a me] upon wl it first 8 tality — — hang or a clu to whic a glooi escape "Adi nomens terialis; difficul surely anothe merely a rene^ is our there i frame, which * Lif THK GREAT ENIGMA. nni lessly deranjTed by a spicula of bono penetrating tlic brain, aotually suppressed by a vascular eftusion or a cranial dp ■ piession, wearied as the body aiijcs, and gradually sink'nL;- into imbecility as the body dies away in lielplcssnt's. Tlio sudden destruction of the corporeal frame by an ac- cident, at a moment when the mind was in its fullest vigour, might possibly suggest the idea of a transference to other scenes of so manifest an Entity, so undeniable a Powder — the slow and synchronous extinction of the bodily and mental faculties never could. Look, again, at an infant three years old — two years old — one year old : wo say it has a Soul. But take a new-born babe, an hour or a minute old : has it a soul, an immortal part or inmate ? If so, when does it come to it ? at the time of its separation from the Mother's life ? or a moment before, or a moment after ? Does the awful decision whether it is to be a mere perishable animal or a spiritual being depend upon whether it dies an instant before or an instant after it first sees the light ? Can the question of its immor- tality — of its being an embryo angel, or a senseless clod — hang upon such an accident as a maternal movement, or a clumsy accoucheur ? Inquiries these, our answers to which can only display either hopeless acquiescence in a gloomy conclusion, or equally hopeless struggles to escape from it. " Admitting all this," urges one reasoner, " the phe- nomena of life and death, nay, even the doctrine of ma- terialism in all its nakedness, need present no insuperable difficulty; for the same power which bestowed life is surely competent to restore it under another form and in another scene." Unquestionably ; but if we are material merely — if our inferences from observation are correct — a renewed existence must be a new creation ; where then is our identity ? We are not continued, but succeeded* " But," says another speculator, " how can you tell that there is not some unascertained portion of the human frame, infinitesimal, indeed, and evanescent to our senses, which does not perish with the rest of the corporeal fabric. * Life of Sir James Mackintosh, ii. 120, 121. I 362 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM. but forms the germ which is expanded into the new ex- istence V* It may be that there is such ; but no shadow of a probability can be adduced for such an as- sumption. It is at best only a mode of conceiving tk poasihility of that which, on other grounds, or witliout grounds, we have decided to believe. It offers no escape from the overwhelming weight of inference drawn from natural appearances. The philosophical value of the arguments ordinarily adduced to demonstrate the reality, or at least the high probability, of an existence after death, will be variously estimated by different minds. That they possess, accu- rately speaking, no logical cogency, will be admitted by all candid and competent reasoners ; to us, we confess, they appear lamentably feeble and inadequate. By some we are told that the soul is immaterial, and that by reason of its immateriality it cannot die. How can human beings, professing to have cultivated their un- derstandings, be content to repeat, and rest in, such wretched inanities as these ? — at best but the convulsive flounderings of an intellect out of its depth, deluding itself into the belief that it has grasped an idea, when it has only got hold of a word. That the immaterial must of neces- sity be immortal seems to us an unmeaning assertion on a matter of which we know absolutely nothing. Of the nature of the Soul, science has taught us, indeed, little- far too little to allow us to decide and dogmatize ; but honesty must admit that the little it has taught us all points to an opposite conclusion. Alas ! for the Spirit's immortal trust, if it rested on such scholastic trivialities as these ! * The ancient Jews held the existence of such a nucleus. ' ' They con- tended that there was an immortal bone in the human body (called by tliem ossiculum Luz) which is the germ of the lesurrection-body. This bone, they held, one might bum, boil, bake, pound, bruise, or attempt to bruise, by putting it on the anvil and submitting it to the strokes of the sledge-hammer ; but all in vain. No effect would be produced upon it. It was indestructible — incorruptible — ^immortal." — Bush's Anastasis, p. 177. The author of the " Physical Theory " seems to imagine that the body contains some imperisha- ble nucleus, or particle, or element, in which soul or life resides ; something as imponderable as light, as imperceptible as electricity, which does not perish vidth the coarser elements of our frame, but assumes a higher life, and collects about it, or evolves, a nobler and subtler organization. Ajrain. drawn f consider how easi of lunnai from this state is c Man, for love of 1 stinct wl joys and existence into a pa less exiai hope, the speedily and com] other sid arose. 1 tality; o of realizi of a Hei the Uni^ it falL^ t any ble?^ convicti( Itist prolongc in a futi of a coi physica here a p for thos they an still ren tence a ti-ansfer how th under tl Itwi 11 THE GREAT ENIGMA. 303 to the new ex- such; but no for such an as- conceiving tk ids, or without )ffer,s uo escape je drawn from 3nts ordinarily least the high ill be variously possess, accu- se admitted by IS, we confess, uate. mmaterial, and mot die. How vated their un- rest in, such the convulsive , deluding itself rhen it has only must of neces- ng assertion on (thing. Of the indeed, little- dogmatize; but ,s taught us all for the Spirit's istic trivialities tcleus. "They con- tody (nailed by them ly. This bone, they ttempt to bruise, by the sledge-hamiuer ; [t was indestructible The author of the *ins some imperisha I resides ; something ty, which does not jsumes a higher hfe, gauizatiou. Ajrain, Much stress is laid on the inference to be drawn from the general belief of mankind. But this consideration will lose nearly all its force when we r^'Hect how easily, in the fond, tender, self-deceptive weaknes? of humanity, a belief can grow out of a wish. Regarded from this point of view, the universal belief in a future state is only the natural result of universal love of life Man, for his preservation, is endowed with an instinctive- love of life, an instinctive horror of destruction — an in- stinct which is strengthened every hour by the mainifold joys and interests of existence. The prolongation of this existence becomes a natural desire, which soon ripens into a passion , in earlier times, the possibility of a death- less existence upon earth was, we know, the dream, the hope, the pursuit of many ; but as accumulated experience speedily dissipated^this foim of the longings of nature, and compelled men to transfer their aspirations to the other side of the grave, the notion of an invisible futurity arose. The first natural desire was for an earthly immor- tality ; out of the reluctantly acknowledged impossibility of realizing this, may have sprung the glorious conception of a Heavenly existence. If this view of the genesis of the Universal Creed be correct, the argument drawn from it falli- to the ground ; since the fact of our desire for any ble-^sing, even when that desire has grown into a conviction, can offer no proof that it will be bestowed. It is true that now, thousands who have no wish for a prolonged existence upon earth, yet long for and believe in a future life elsewhere. But this is the result partly of a conviction that the weariness and decay of both physical and moral powers would make continued life here a penalty and not a blessing, and partly of a desire for those higher capacities and nobler pursuits which they anticipate hereafter. The origin of the aspiration still remains the same : it is the desire for a happy exis- tence after their conceptions of happiness ; and they tiansfer the scene of it to heaven, because tiny do not see how these conceptions could be realized on earth, i.e., under the ordinary conditions of humanity. It will be ursred that the belief is stron-iost in the most 364 THE CREED OF CHRISTENDOM Mi spiritual and religious minds, that is, in those which dwell most constantly on unseen and superhuman reali- ties. This is true • and we cannot venture to say that to such minds, raised and purified by heavenly contempla- tions, may not be given a deeper insight into divine truths than can be attained by those occupied with the things of earth and time Still, the iact will admit of another and more simple explanation , since it is a well- known law of our intellectual constitution that topics and scenes on which the mind habitually and intently dwells, acquire, iipso facto, an increasing degree of reality and permanence in our mental vision out of all propor- tion to their certainty or actuality There is no fancy, however baseless — no picture, however shadowy and un- real — ^to which constant and exclusive contemplation will not impart a consistence, substance, and tenacity, sufficient to render it unassailable by reason, by experience, and almost by the information of the senses. And it cannot be doubted that, however inadequate were the original grounds for the belief in a iuture state, yet when once it was assumed as an article of faith, daily meditation would soon inevitably confer upon it a firmness and solidity witli which the most demonstrable truths of exact science would compete in v^in. Much, and as it appears to us undeserved, stress is laid on the argument derived from the unequal, and appar- ently unjust, apportionment of human lots A future life, it is said, is needed to redress the inequal- ities of this. But it is evident that this argument proceeds upon two assumptions, one oi which is clearly untenable, and the other at least questionable It assumes that the Presiding Deity is bound to allot an equa portion of good to all his creatures , that to permit th( condition of one human being to be happier than that oi another, is to perpetrate an injustice, — a positioxi foi which it is difficult to imagine any rational defence, anc which must probably be assigned to the unconsciouf operation of one of the least worthy passions of ou) nature — envy. What possible law can that be whicl shall make it the duty of Him who conlers his unpm chased g sovereign tion of hi confutes justice ai created i career, h existence what pel attributa individuj to assert tions to ponderat whether culably i the argu But ai piness tl jjenerall wishing arguing not at tl vated a —the o known known perils a: in pea( wealthy smiles, man \v to who who is life is I unbrok it»sight izes th pensat spirit THE GREAT ENIGMA. 365 m those which >erhuman reali- •e to say that to inly contcmpla- ;ht into divine supied with the |ct will admit of nee it is a well- ion that topics ly and intently legree of reality t of all proper- iere is no fancy, hadowy and un- ntemplation will nacity, sufficient experience, and And it cannot rere the original 'et when once it aeditation would md solidity with )f exact science 'ed, stress is laid Ljual, and appai- ts. ress the inequal- this argument ;vhich is clearly ible It assumef allot an equa b to permit th( >ier than that oi -a position foi lal defence, anr he unconsciou! Dassions of oil) that be whicl ilcrs his unpni chased gifts " with a mysterious and tmcontrollahlc sovereignty " to mete out to every being an equal propor- tion of his boons ? The very statement of the proposition confutes it. All that the creature can demand from the justice and the love of his Creator, is, that he shall not be created for wretchedness — -jthat, on the average of his career, happiness shall predominate over misery — that existence shall, on the whole, have been a blessing — or, what perhaps is the same thing, that it shall be fairly attributable to the voluntary fault — the option — of the individual, if it be not so. Now, without going so far as to assert that there are not, and never have been, excep- tions to the general fact that life presents to all a pre- ponderating average of enjoyment, we may well question whether there are such ; we are sure they must be incal- culably few ; and it is to these exceptional cases only that the argument can have any application. But are human lots as unequal in the amount of hap- piness they confer as at fii-st sight would appear ? It is generally acknowledged that they are not. Without wishing to maintain even an apparent paradox ; without arguing that the aggregate balance of enjoyment may not at the end of life be widely different with the culti- vated and the brutish — the intellectual and the sensual — the obtuse and the sensitive — the man who has never known a day's sickness, and the man who has never known a day's health — the savage who lives beset with perils and privations, and the noble who lives embosomed in peace and luxury — the wretched pauper, and the wealthy millionaire — the man on whom fortune always smiles, and the man on whom she always frowns — the man whose children are a glory and a blessing, and him to whom they are a plague and a reproach— the man who is hated, and the man who is loved — the man whoso life is a ceaseless struggle, and the man whose life is an unbroken sleep ; — it is not to be denied that every fresh insight we obtain into the secr(^ts of (!aeh man's lot, equal- izes them more and more; discovers undi'(famed-of com- pensations for goinl and for evil; disclosoH a vigorous spirit oi enjoyment