L IB R J^ Jl Y
' OF TIIK
^ ;^ eological Seminary,
PRINCETON, N. J.
^;,,, BS 540 .H48 1871 v. 3
Hessey, James Augustus, 18
-1892.
Moral difficulties connect"
with tbA T^Th1;
^^ 6^/c4f5i_-f^^ c^ boKflv rj jxr]. voynKov be, 6 e^ apx^s oldev btatpepei
ovTcos r) aXXuiS, orau be 6a>VTai, bia(f)€p€r olov to pvas
\vTpovaBai, rj to aiya 3v€iv, aWa pt] bvo Trpo'/3ara" ere
oaa TU)V KadeKaaTa vop-odcTovcnv • oiov, to Bvhv Bpaaiba,
K(u TO. yj/TjcfyicrpaTOibi].
184 LECTURE VI.
administer. It follows that as He must be sup-
posed .to have laid down His enactments with
thorough acquaintance with the hearts of men,
and with their needs both as individuals and as
members of a body, He must be supposed
capable of adjusting their application. There
may be circumstances, known only to His in-
finite wisdom, which render it necessary to sus-
pend an enactment, with a view to the general
good, in the case of certain persons or for a
certain time. There may be reasons for strin-
gently and immediately enforcing it. There
may be, in the case of individuals, circum-
stances of palliation. Though these may not
be obvious to 21s at once, though, they may not
be discoverable b?/ us at all, they are certainly
known to Him. If, too, it is a prerogative of
earthly sovereigns to commute capital for other
punishments, is such a prerogative to be denied
to the Great Sovereign of the universe ?
Here is a third principle.
Ood''s administration is not confined to the
world visible^ even in this life. It follows that
we need not suppose that because a man suffers
no punishment which every one can at once
' appreciate, he suffers no punishment at all.
And it follows also that, though outwardly two
men may appear to have the same punishment
LECTURE vr. 185
awarded to them, the suffering experienced will
not necessarily be the same. Their moral sen-
sibilities, their previous habits, and positions,
may be so different that what is light to one, is
inexpressibly grievous to the other.
Here is a fourth principle.
God^s administration extends to the world to
come as icell as to this world. It follows that,
as we conceive it possible that justice, though
delayed here for a time, may overtake the
offender, even in our imperfect state of things,
it may, though delayed altogether till the next
life, overtake him there.
Here is a fifth principle.
Punishment is not the less due because a man is
ignorant what ivill he its exact character. It is
due whenever a man knows that he is trans-
gressing, or might have known.
Here is a sixth principle.
The maxim^ defendit numerus, is not ajpplicahle
to the Divine administration. If a man indi-
vidually deserves punishment, it is nothing to
him that his neighbours appear to escape. He
does not know that they eventually escape.
The presumption is all the other way.
Here is a seventh principle.
The ignorance which is spolcen of in Scripture
as in the mercy of God exempting a man from
186 LECTURE VI.
punwlnnent^ must he one xoMcli lie could not Jiel^.^
And surely God must be permitted, in right of
His acquaintance with men's hearts and lives,
to determine when and how far an ignorance of
this sort can be pleaded.
And here is the concluding principle.
Punishment is sometimes a vindictive visitation
for the good of society^ and not always a corrective
visitation as regards an individual. And it very
often happens that the sparing of an individual
for a time^ or a summary punishment of an indi-
vidual^ may he good and exemplary for the society
to which he belongs. God is surely to be allowed
to determine when this arrangement shall take
place, especially as something within us bids us
look forward to a time of final adjudication and
retribution.
Such are the principles which I would submit
to our objector. I have but to call his atten-
tion to one or two facts which have escaped
him before I proceed to apply these principles
to the cases which he has alleged.
1. Very significant indications are supplied in
the narrative of several of his cases of the
action of the principles above given.
* Conf. Arist. Eth. Nic.—Ml, 5—7.
'NofioderaL . . . KoXd^ovcri kol Tiftcopovvrai rovs Bpcovras
lio)(6-qpa, oaoL [xrj jSia, ^ fit' ayvoiav rj^ /x?) oi'toi ai'riot.
LECTURE VI. 187
2. Even though this is not so in all, yet the
instances in which they are supplied are sufficient
evidence that such action existed.
But to our task.
The man who was put to death for gathering
sticks on the Sabbath Day while the Israelites
were in the wilderness may be shown by many
of the considerations given above to have justly
deserved his sentence, and to have been no
special subject for mercy. It was only very
recently that the precept of the Sabbath rest,
which carried out the natural sentiment that a
certain portion of man's time is to be redeemed
from worldly labours and devoted to God and
the soul, had been promulgated. There could
be no mistake about the Divine intentions as to
the way in which it should be kept. The
miraculously sent manna shower was withholden
on the Sabbath Day, as was foretold. Corrup-
tion of what was gathered on the sixth day
was arrested for the needs of the seventh,
though this was not the case with manna
gathered on any other day. (Exod. xvi.
22 — 30.) Those who went out to gather
on the seventh day were disappointed. God
condescended even to make His own mysterious
and mystical Rest after the six days' work of
Creation a type and^ ensample of man's rest.
188 LECTURE VI.
" Therefore the Lord blessed the Rest Day and
hallowed it." No one was ''to stir from his
place on that day." Well, in spite of this clear
and recent legislation, a certain man chose to
gather sticks on the Sabbath Day. He did
this in defiance of a warning that death was the
penalty denounced by the Almighty. (See
Exod. xxxi. 14; Exod. xxxv. 2.) It could
not even be pleaded that gathering sticks on
the Sabbath Day was a work of necessity. No
fire was to be kindled throughout the habita-
tions of the Israelites on the Sabbath Day
(Exod. xxxv. 3), and therefore sticks could not
have been wanted. Under these circumstances
the transgression of the man was one peculiarly
wilful and presumptuous, and one to which the
penalty of presumption might naturally be
awarded. (Numb. xv. 30, 31.) " But the soul
that doetli ought presumptuously, whether he
be born in the land, or a stranger, the same re-
proacheth the Lord, and that soul shall be cut
oif from among his people. Because he hath
despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken
his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut
off; his iniquity shall be upon him." It took
place in the wilderness, we are told, a very
significant expression — in that very wilderness
where the statute had been so authoritatively
LECTURE VI. 189
promulgated, and with accompaniments which
could not have slipped out of memory. It is
said, indeed, that the Israelites did not know
what was to be done to him. This, however,
cannot mean that they were not aware that God
had ordained the penalty of death. It must
mean that they hesitated as to the question,
Is man to execute the sentence, or will God
take it into His own hands as He took that of
Nadab and Abihu " for offering strange fire to
the Lord?" (Lev. x. 1) or, supposing that man
is to execute, how and in what manner is the
sentence to be carried out? An appeal to the
Almighty assigned death by stoning, and it was
carried out. As to a similar sentence not being
carried out afterwards, this makes no difference
as to the guilt of the particular offender before
us. God does not intimate, either by nature or by
revelation, that He will always visit immediately
or in exactly the same manner, though He will
visit at length. He did visit the whole nation
eventually for their Sabbath-breaking. We are
told expressly that the Captivity should enable
the land to enjoy her Sabbaths, i.e.^ the Sabbaths
of the seventh year, neglect of which crept in
with neglect of the weekly Sabbath. Both phases
of the transgression were visited together. (Lev.
xxvi. 33, 34; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 2L)
190 LECTURE VI.
The recentiiess of his charge, and the unmis-
takeable character of it, would also be reasons, I
think, for the infliction of death on the man of
God who came from Judah. He did not, indeed,
know that death would be the penalty of his
transgression, but he knew that he was doing
what he was told not to do. He bore about with
him a solemn message from God, which was
accredited by occurrences of a very marvellous
character — the withering of the king's hand, its
restoration at his intercession, the rending of
an idolatrous altar, and the pouring out of its
ashes from it. Such a man knew or might
have known that all eyes were upon him, that
his God would be dishonoured by the incon-
sistency of his professions with his practice, and
that no alleged revelation of God's will ought to
weigh with him unless it were brought home
to his mind in the same way as before. But he
yielded easily, because to do so was in accord-
ance with his feelings of fatigue. Hence his
punishment; and, as in the case explained above,
God may surely be permitted to determine
when it is necessary, for the vindication of His
honour, to visit offences in a manner which
shall be exemplary to His people generally. It
does not follow, be it remembered, that the
Great and Eighteous Judge cuts off for ever
LECTURE YI. 191
from His presence those whom He mows down
by temporal death. We cannot suppose that
Josiah was finally lost, though he died in con-
sequence of his neglect of God and in the very
prosecution of it. (2 Chron. xxxv. 20 — 24.)
So, we cannot suppose that this man of God
from Judah was condemned eternally. The
weighing of the careers of all — the adjudication
according to their works to all — are matters
suspended till the last day.
" Ananias and Sapphira were visited vvith
death for a lie," says our objector. They were;
and this is another instance in which we may
surely allow the Almighty to determine whether
His honour demanded such a method of visita-
tion. Such, even with our limited knowledge,
would seem to have been the case. The two
offenders wished to gain extraordinary credit for
self-sacrifice and disinterestedness, and yet to
retain a portion of the wealth upon the
abandonment of which that extraordinary credit
should have depended. It was especially im-
portant that at the rise of the Christian religion
the motives of its adherents should be above
suspicion. If they were not, and if those
who were specially coromissioned to establish
it were found unable *to distinguish false
metal from true, the whole edifice would be
192 LECTURE VI.
endangered. Hence St. Peter was empowered
to execute at once, and to its very letter, the
terrible sentence which God ordinarily reserves
to Himself, or delays, or imposes in some
altered form. There would be a similar reason
for Elisha's being empowered to inflict leprosy
on Gehazi because of his lying and covetousness.
The disinterestedness of the Prophet himself
was in danger of being compromised by the
venality of his follower. " Is it a time," was
his indignant expostulation, "Is it a time to
receive money, and to receive garments, and
oliveyards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen,
and men-servants, and maid-servants ? The
leprosy therefore of Naaman shall cleave unto
thee, and unto thy seed for ever. And he went
out from his presence a leper as white as snow."
The punishment of Gehazi was not the same,
and was not apparently so severe, as was that
of " the man of God from Judah" or of Ananias
and Sapphira. But this much we are bound to
believe, and may fairly believe — His fault was
great, for Gehazi was not poor, and was not
exposed to the temptation of want, and, more-
over, committed his offence in the presence of
miracles, which might have taught him better.
But the obscurity of the man may have ren-
dered no more signal visitation necessary. His
LECTURE VI. 193
punishment^ too, was great, though his life was
spared. He was outwardly a perpetual monu-
ment of God's displeasure — loathsome to him-
self — loathed by others — the finger pointed at
him — the word unclean pronounced of him, and
his days were to be dragged out with bitter
thoughts of the holy lessons he had neglected,
and of the sorrow which he had entailed upon
his descendants.
But this brings me to another point. It is
obvious, even from Gehazi's case, that God
does not requite sin merely by visiting the body
of a man personally, but by the remorse which
He causes him to experience in his spirit, be-
cause he has offended, or because he has made
others offend, or because he has subjected others
to temporal sorrows. If this be so, Uzziah,
who was deposed from his royal position for
his presumption, though he did not die, but
suffered leprosy only, was surely and sorely
punished. Bitter, very bitter, must have been
his reflections, as from his " several house," to
which his infirmity condemned him, he wit-
nessed the majesty of his son and successor.
If this be so, the spirit of David must have,
indeed, been vexed within him, when those
people whom he had endeavoured to " rule
prudently with all his power," were devastated
194 LECTURE VI.
by a pestilence. They miglit, perhaps, have
partaken in his pride and vanity, but he had
been the leader and prompter of their sin, and
must have been regarded by them as the cause
of their temporal sorrows. And though he may
have seemed to have escaped without condign
punishment for the matter of Uriah and Bath-
sheba, was it nothing that he lost his child —
nothing that his family was rent by intestine
divisions — nothing that he was a fugitive from
his throne — nothing that the sword never de-
parted from his house — nothing that he was not
counted worthy, because he "had shed much
blood," to fulfil his life's desire of building a
Temple to God ? Was it nothing that he went
down to the grave the penitent and heartstricken
man which his own pathetic Psalms represent
him to have been? He did not, indeed, die at
once. God commuted his punishment, but that
to which he was subjected was, nevertheless,
a most real one. The cases of Solomon, of
" the old prophet who dwelt in Bethel," and
of Miriam and Aaron, were also instances,
not of escape with impunity, but of commu-
tation of punishment. For Solomon — he did
not, indeed, die for his polygamy, and idolatry,
and other grievous sins; but his latter days
were vexed by adversaries, who were permitted
LECTURE YI. 195
to rise against lilm, and by the prospect of the
brcakmg up of the fabric of his kingdom. And,
if we may believe that the Book of Ecclesiastes
refers to himself, he went down in penitence to
the grave. Was this no penalty to the man
whose supremacy had been acknowledged from
the ]\Iediterranean to the Euphrates, and whose
wisdom and glory distant sovereigns had tra-
velled to witness ? If he lived, it was the
worn-out life of a sated voluptuary — convinced,
we trust not too late, of the vanity ^/^f worldly
things, when pursued, without thought of God.
For "the old prophet of Bethel" — he was
spared also, but for what ? Surely to pass the
short remainder of his days in remorse, with
the sepulchre ever before him of the brother
whom he had betrayed into transgression. Was
this no penalty? Read the record of what he
did, and of what he said, and then judge for
yourselves : " And the prophet took up the
carcase of the man of God, and laid it upon the
ass, and brought it back : and the old prophet
came to the city, to mourn and to bury him.
And he laid his carcase in his own grave ; and
they mourned over him, saying, Alas, my bro-
ther ! And it came to pass, after he had buried
him, that he spake to his sons, saying, When
I am dead, then bury me in the sepulchre
196 LECTUEE VI.
wherein the man of God is buried: lay my
bones beside his bones." (1 Kings xiii.
29 — 31.) For Miriam and Aaron — it did not
seem good to God, either because they had
done and suffered much for His sake, or
because they were only temporarily overtaken
by a fault to which He knew their heartia
were averse, to visit them for their murmuring
in the exact manner in which He visited
the Israelites when they murmured. But
was it no punishment for Miriam, " the pro-
phetess," — for her who had led the triumphant
minstrelsy of her countrywomen, whom, in one
place (Mic. vi. 4), God is declared to have sent,
and by whom, in another place. He is said to
have spoken (Numbers xii. 2), for her, who
was doubtless honoured as the agent in pre-
serving Moses himself from death in the Nile
(Exod. ii. 4, 7, 8) ; — was it no punishment
for her to be, even for a short time, a
hideous specimen of living death? Was it
no punishment for Aaron to feel that he was
only spared for his office' sake a similar degra-
dation ? Then, afterwards, when Aaron again
sinned In the matter of the Golden Calf, was it no
punishment to him to be conscious how grievously
he had fallen short of his duty, and to be bowed
in agony of remorse, like that of David's, be-
LECTURE YI. 197
cause the people whom he loved were destroyed
in the Divine displeasure ? It may be imagined
also that it was, at least, some humiliation to
Aaron to know that his exemption from death
at that time was due to the intercession of
Moses — of Moses, the very man against whom
he had formerly murmured, and with whom he
had considered himself co-ordinate. " The
Lord," says Moses (Dent. ix. 20), "was very
angry with Aaron to have destroyed him : and
I prayed for Aaron also at the same time." I
should add that God may have had reasons,
which we cannot fully fathom, but, perhaps,
may partially guess at, for sparing for a season
those whom He had called to be leaders of His
people. Those men were recognized by Israel,
and recognized by Israel's enemies, as of His
appointment. And He may have borne with
them lest His cause should be discredited.
This is intimated by the plea offered by Moses
in arrest of God's vengeance upon Israel gene-
rally, — " Now, if Thou shalt kill all this people
as one man, then the nations which have heard
the fame of Thee will speak, saying, because
the Lord was not able to bring this people into
the land which He sware unto them, therefore
He hath slain them in the wilderness." (Num-
bers xiv. 1;5, 16.) And it is further intimated
198 LECTURE YI.
In Saul's petition to Samuel, and in Samuel's
compliance with it : — " Then he said, I have
sinned ; yet honour me now, I pray thee, be-
fore the elders of my people, and before Israel,
and turn again with me, that I may worship
the , Lord thy God. So Samuel turned again
after Saul; and Saul worshipped the Lord."
(1 Samuel xv. 30, 31.) The prophet was
doubtless instructed that Saul's present rejec-
tion from God's spiritual comforts, and the
disasters which were eventually to overtake
him and his house, were sufficient to vin-
dicate the Divine honour, and that it was not
necessary to humiliate openly the successful
leader of God's hosts.
As for the objection that punishment does not
always light on the main offenders, two replies
may be made to it. In the first place, we are in
no sort adequate judges how far the people are
partakers in the sins of their leaders. Some-
times we have no information given us upon
this point, as in the instances of the people
suffering when David's numbering took place.
But sometimes we have information given us.
This is so, notably, in Exod. xxxii. 1 — " And
when the people saw that Moses delayed to
come down out of the mount, the people
gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and
LECTUKE YI. 191)
said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall
go before us ; for as for this Moses, the man
that brought us up out of the land of Egypt,
we wot not what is become of him." And
again in Exod. xxxii. 35 — " And the Lord
plagued the people, because they made the
Calf, which Aaron made." It is evident from
these passages, both that the people originated
the transgression alluded to, and that God
regarded them as having had, at least, a very
appreciable participation in it. But we have a
principle, recollect, which will cover a great
deal of ground. God's administration is not
bounded by this life ; and it does not follow
that, because one man's mortal span is cut short
while that of another is prolonged, their cases
will eventually exhibit any unfairness of treat-
ment. The Great Administrator will take into
consideration everything connected with the
inner biography and the outward career of each
and all, and requite each and all according to
their works.
By this principle, also, even the comparative
inequality of the sentences upon Uzziah and
IJzzah, which has been much insisted upon,
may be defended. We may grant, if you
please, that one was allowed to live, though in
humiliation and sorrow ; that the other was at
200 LECTUEE VI.
once struck dead ; though in either case the
offence was a breaking of an indifferent or
ceremonial precept. We may grant, if you
please, that Uzziah, who was an educated man
and a king, should have known his duty more
thoroughly than could Uzzah, a peasant;
though it is to be remarked that Uzzah could
not have been ignorant of the sacredness of
the ark ; how retention of it had been the
occasion of diseases to the Philistines; how
looking into it had been visited with slaughter
from the Lord in the case of the men of
Bethshemesh. We may grant that Uzziah's
sin was deliberate ; that of Uzzah momentary ;
though again the circumstances alluded to
should have taught Uzzah his duty. We may
grant that the vindication of the ark, as the
throne of God's visible presence, when it had
long been dishonoured, seems to imply a public
reason why Uzzah should have been summarily
punished, while Uzziah, in days when the ark
was honoured, was spared. I say we may
grant all this temporal inequality. Still the
future life will remain as a corrective of all
that seems inexplicable here ; and it may be
better there with Uzzah, though for his mo-
mentary irreverence he was suddenly removed
from earth, than for Uzziah, who, having
LECTURE VI. 201
committed a deliberate fault, was spared tor
repentance ; for we are not told that he did
repent.
I have but one word in conclusion. Obe-
dience to God's known will is the condition of
Man's life in this world. Disobedience to His
known will is an infraction of that condition.
It does not matter how His will is known. He
may have given an intimation of it from
within ; he may have given an intimation of it
from without ; but in either case transgression
of it involves death. True it is that He
suspends or modifies or commutes that sentence
in many cases, in His great mercy^ and in
consideration for the weakness of His creatures ;
and, blessed be His Holy Name, true it is,
also, that He has provided an Atonement for
the eternal wages of sin, both for those who,
aware of it, will accept it, and for those who,
not having known of it, have obeyed the lav/
of their mind. True it is, again, that He has
established that canon of gracious allowance
for want of opportunities which appears in the
Epistle to the Romans (ii., 12 — 16), and from
which it is certain that persons will only be
judged by their conformity to or neglect of the
standard which they have had means of
knowing. But, contemporaneously with His
202 LECTURE VI.
merciful consideration for sinners, He carries
on His moral government and He retains
and exercises the right to use punishment
as a means of vengeance as well as a cor-
rective — to foreshadov/ things to come — to
forestall in a manner part of what is to come.
We cannot, indeed, discover His whole system ;
but we may see part of it ; we may find reasons
for some of His arrangements; and this we
have endeavoured to do to-day. For the rest,
we must humbly confess our ignorance, and
bow the head submissively when He says,
*' Hear now, O house of Israel, are not My
ways equal? Are not your ways unequal?"
(Ezek. xviii. 29.)
LECTUEE YIL
Luke ix. 54, 55.
"Lord, -wilt Thou that we command 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."
A BOOK has been lately published, the tendencj
of which, whatever judgment may eventually
be formed of the author's design, is to prove
that Christianity is an impracticable scheme,
and that it is shown to be so by human expe-
rience. It therefore seems imperatively to
demand notice at the hands of the Christian
apologist, especially as it has obtained some
notoriety, and has reached its third edition.
The book assumes the form of a biography,
the subject of which is a man, who, from first
to last, is supposed to be acting upon thoroughly
earnest Christian principles, or, at any rate, to
be wishing to act upon them.
The result appears to be this : —
If this man's views of Christianity were
correct, arid if he was perfectly Christ-like in
the way in which he set them forth, we are to
204 LECTURE VII.
be induced to admit one of the following in-
ferences : — Either Christianity itself must be a
mistake and must forthwith be abandoned as a
scheme unsuitable to the present day, or the
Christianity of the present day is not in
accordance with the preaching and the life of
its Founder, and so requires to be reformed
and remodelled, and, as a last resort, by the
particular means suggested. In other words,
either the example, which Christ left us that we
should follow in His steps, is one utterly incom-
patible with, and inapplicable to, humanity —
certainly to humanity in the nineteenth cen-
tury ; or, humanity has mistaken what Christ
was, and what Christ intended, so completely,
that a thorough breaking through of its
existing maxims and a thorough breaking
up of its existing complications is necessary.
The alternative is a fearful one. It seems to be
either an elimination of Christianity, even in
theory, from society, or, in pursuit of a possible
Christianity, an introduction of such a state of
things as experience has shown to be subversive
of all Christianity.
Observe, however, that it is only on the
hypothesis that this soi-disant Christian, thus
pourtrayed, was well informed and judicious
as well as sincere and earnest ; that is, if his
LECTURE YII. 205
theoretical and practical views were correct,
that one of these momentous results must
ensue. That hypothesis I shall endeavour to
show to be inadmissible. If I succeed in doing
this, though It will not, Indeed, follow that
Christianity is to be maintained or that society
is in a perfect state, and needs no regeneration,
thus much will have been gained : a particular
assault, (for, whether intended as such or no,
this is an assault,) will have been repulsed,
and objectors will be compelled to seek other
methods of assault, if they wish to do so.
I will now commence my task, merely re-
peating what I said at first, that I am not at
this moment concerned with the design of the
author of the book to which I have been
alluding, but with the tendency of what I find
in its pages. I should be very loth to pro-
nounce, previously to examination, that it is
mischievously intended. There is much of
what is noble and self-devoted and self-
restrained in the hero ; and there is no doubt
that the bewilderment in which he is made to
try one scheme after another, and to adopt one
phase of belief after another, exhibits a mind
on the part of his biographer which is in itself
a psychological study of no mean interest. But
the book contains a large number of mistaken
206 LECTURE YII.
assumptions, theological, moral, and political ;
and these, being completely interwoven into a
fascinating and sensational narrative, are likely,
unless they arc exposed, to gain acceptance
together with the narrative. On a principle,
then, analogous to " vice is most dangerous
when divested of its coarseness," one ought to be
especially jealous of error when it is presented
in an embellished guise or with accompaniments
that attract the heart.
Joshua Davidson is the name by which the
hero of the book is introduced to the reader,
who is invited to interest himself in his fortunes
and to draw a moral from them. He is the
son of a carpenter in the North of Cornwall,
and in a remote and obscure district of that
county. His connections are humble, and
strictly in keeping with his father's calling.
Traditions, faintly whispered, point indeed to
some genealogical relations with the legendary
monarch, Arthur, the ruins of whose castle,
Tintagel, are in the neighbourhood. But these
do not appreciably affect the general tone of
the family, or even light up the cottage where
Joshua was born. His nursery and mere
childish days are marked with no outwardly
striking incidents; but he evinces very early
a depth of character which almost awes his
LECTURE TIT. 207
parents, especially his mother. He has a
purity of heart and a thoughtfulness upon
Scripture subjects, and a desire to imitate
Christ and to see Him imitated by others,
which are rarely found in children. And, as
might be expected, he is somewhat puzzled at
discovering that Christians about him do not
bear the exact stamp of Christ which he had
been led to anticipate. He takes Scripture to
be applicable to Man's life and actions in the
most simple and literal sense. He holds every
Christian to be bound, in right of his calling,
to act personally as Christ acted ; to relieve
those whom he thinks Christ would have re-
lieved, irrespectively of any merit or demerit in
those relieved ; to rebuke those classes and
those men whose assumed prototypes in the Xew
Testament Christ rebuked ; to work, in proof of
his own mission to himself, and in attestation of
it to others, miracles such as Christ either
wrought or promised that those who preached
Him should be able to work. These principles,
deeply brooded over, soon bring him into
difficulties. At fourteen years of age, being
catechized in the parish church, he proposes as
questions to his vicar, — why he (the vicar) does
not embrace voluntary poverty, and why he
does not improve the condition of certain
208 LECTUEE yii.
miserable though not very deserving poor, —
suggests that an infidel, whom he names, who
has helped a vicious woman in her distress,
has more of the spirit of Christ than the
orthodox teacher — that this infidel is like the
second son in the Parable, who said he would
not do his Lord's will when he was ordered,
but who did it all the same eventually, and, by
inference, that the vicar was like the former.
Of course his simplicity is taken for imper-
tinence — his zeal for presumption — he is scouted
and driven back into himself; but he per-
severes in his attempt to live his imagined life
of Christ. Though he has failed in his public
attempt to work upon his superiors to do so, he
finds some favour with his equals in age and
station; he exercises by his love, and forbearance,
and truthfulness, and purity, a strong influence
upon these ; and though he abandons all resort
to Church ordinances, all resort to Christ's
ministers, whom he likens to the Jewish Priests
and the Pharisees, and denounces accordingly,
he is constant in prayer both by himself and
with the little band that he has gathered round
him. He has faith in Christ, though not in
man, and believes both that he is living after
Christ's pattern, and may fairly look for signs
that he is to re-christianize the world. The
LECTURE YII. 209
Scriptures seem to promise this. Those who
were told to "preach the Gospel to everj
creature," and who, according to his view,
represent not a distinct ministry, but every one
who is a believer, are encouraged in the
following terms : " If ye have faith as a grain
of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this moun-
tain, Remove hence to yonder place, and it
shall remove ; and nothing shall be impossible
unto you. Howbeit this kind goeth not out
but by prayer and fasting,'' (Matt. xvii. 20, 21.)
And again, "And these signs shall follow
them that believe ; in My name shall they cast
out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
they shall take up serpents ; and if they drink
any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them ; they
shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall
recover." (Mark xvi. 17, IS.) Well, he fasts
and prays, and accompanied by three of his
most devoted followers, (one of them named
John, who is his biographer,) goes in the
twilight to a place called the Eocky Valley,
and commands a huge stone " to move in God's
name, and because Christ had promised" such
an event to the word of faith. There was none
that answered. " The rock stood still." '"At
another time he took up a viper in his hand."
The beast stung him, and he was ill for days
210 LECTURE VII.
after. At another, lie ate a handful of the
berries of the black briony, and all but died of
the poison. By such miscarriages his conviction
that he is to imitate Christ and His Apostles in
exercising miraculous powers is rudely shaken.
Scripture cannot, he finds, be taken literally,
iSO far as this point is concerned. Still, Christ
is to be obeyed and to be imitated in His efforts
to bring the world to purity, to brotherly love,
to equality of condition, and the like. He has
been mistaken in one point, but he feels that
he cannot be mistaken here. For a time he
labours on in the country, enduring much
provocation, and only on one occasion, (when
h-e probably justified himself by Christ's example
and by that of St. Paul,) exhibiting anger in
return. He makes various abortive attempts to
do good, and especially to reclaim a drunken and
worthless vv^oman, whom he commits to his
mother's care. At length he comes up to the
larger world in London. Here, a strange change
has come over him, with the abandonment of a
belief as to the promise of miraculous powers
being perpetual. He gives up belief in the
Atonement; in the Divinity of our Lord, and, of
course, in the duty and efficacy of prayer to Him ;
in His prevision of the wants of the future ; in
His perfect knovfledge, whether of Nature or of
LECTURE yil. 211
Man. In fact, though he admits the existence
of a God, he accepts the Scriptures onlj so far
as thev represent the Man Christ Jesus as a
sharer in, and an alleviator of, to the extent of
His power, the miseries and inequalities of
humanity. Such a man, and such literally, will
Joshua be. He will live with the poor, and
sympathize with them — with the vicious or
morally leprous, the drunkard, the harlot, the
profligate, and endeavour to heal and reclaim
them by teaching them self-respect and better
pursuits ; he will disregard the gibes, and
insults, and contempt of the unsympathizing,
be pure amid the impure, be contented in
the face of riches, be humble in the face of
provocation, be sanguine of eventual success,
though often disappointed. Was not Christ all
this? Did not Christ enjoin all this? Shall
not Joshua be like Him? Shall not, through
Joshua's example and exertions, the days come
when liberty, fraternity, and equality, which he
interprets to be the sum of Christ's practical
Gospel, prevail?
It is impossible, though it would be inte-
resting, to follow Joshua through his struggles,
his self-denial, his philanthropic laboars amid
the worst part of the worst population of
the worst end of London. Suffice it to say.
p2
212 LECTURE VII.
that with a single exception, — the reclamation
of a poor Magdalen, whom, in defiance of
popular opinion, he takes into his house and
cares for, — he is, from whatever reason, utterly
unsuccessful in his attempt at a reproduction
of what he believes to be the Man Christ in the
bad world around him. He is suspected as a
consorter with the vicious, imprisoned as a har-
bourer of rogues and vagabonds, assaulted and
plundered by a drunken thief whom he had tried
to reclaim 5 even those who sympathize with him
for a time, are " bye and bye offended," and
"walk no more with him." Except, I say,
for the touching episode of the Magdalen, and
for the ray of encouragement which her pure
simple love gives him, his second attempt Is a
failure. He cannot bring about what he believes
to be the true practical Gospel, by his pre-
sentation of what he calls the moral life of Christ.
It is a failure, I repeat, and no wonder that
it is so. Having deserted Revealed Religion,
and its aids and doctrines, as a whole, the frag-
ment which he retains is not sufficient for his
purpose. His creed is mainly that of Natural
Religion, with the addition that he accepts as
a model. One, Whom, at his first endeavour to
imitate Him, he considered to be Divine, but
Whom he now considers to be human, like him-
LECTURE yil. 21;
self. The prestige of that Being's character
remains — so far as he understands it. Thus he
imitates Him, for a time. But, as the Being is
merely human, His views may have been short-
sighted or defective, and so require to be re-
cast. Joshua will recast them. He does so,
after the manner following, which represents
the final phase of his career :
He begins to speculate whether Christ may
not be translated^ though his rendering seems an
extraordinary way of translating Him. And
his speculation takes this form : Christ, were He
living in these days, would establish a commu-
nistic Gospel first, seeing that the Apostles
were, immediately after His ascension, so he
reads the Scripture, communists — and then
all the moral and spiritual benefits of Chris-
tianity would follow. So he gradually though
not entirely, withdraws himself from private
efforts — and becomes a public lecturer against
every existing organization of society, econo-
mic, ecclesiastical, financial, political. He
denounces capital — he joins the Workman's
International Union, and at length goes over
to Paris, and scruples not to associate himself
with the vilest of mankind, why ? because the
movement appears, detestable as are the means
employed, to be likely to promote the end which
214 LECTUEE VII.
he has in view. How his own purer spirit
could reconcile itself to partaking in such
iniquity we are not told. We are only told
that in the end he was disappointed, that he
was well nigh disheartenedj that his faithful
Magdalen was brutally shot as a petroleuse^ that
his companion John was almost murdered, that
he himself returned to England. Here he
again preached his communistic gospel, and
again endured all sorts of insult and hardship.
He fought against what he called the caste
of wealth, the caste of priestly influence, the
caste of capital, the caste of education, the
caste of patronage, and the like. At length
he died, what we are, I suppose, to consider,
a martyr to the truth, the victim of an excited
struggle provoked by his communistic preaching.
Such is the story of Joshua ; and, as I have
said above, we are intended to learn from the
incidents in it, and especially from the catas-
trophe, that, if his preaching were true, either
Christianity is impracticable in the present day,
or, that a different state of Christian society
must be looked forward to and striven for, the
present st~ate of it being hopelessly averse to
Christianity.
But, to turn from the "dream to the inter-
pretation.
LECTURE yir. 215
I must first remark upon a very painful cir-
cumstance. The life and death of Joshua
Davidson seem to be a sort of parody — I do
not use the word offensively — of the life and
death of Christ. Jesus or Joshua (the Saviour)
the Son of David according to the flesh, the
reputed son of a carpenter, born in obscurity,
yet of a family tracing a royal descent, and
with His ancestors' fortress in the vicinity of
His birthplace, and with a mother pondering
His sayings in her heart, is not obscurely
adumbrated by our hero. And, (though mis-
understood, and indeed travestied, by the
scene in the church and the dispute with the
vicar,) Christ in the Temple, sitting in the
midst of the doctors, " both hearing them and
asking them questions," is also brought before
us. He Who up to thirty years of age wrought
at Joseph's calling ; Who rejected, more or less,
the teachers of His day; Who consorted with
John the Evangelist and two others especially ;
Who lived with and did good to those of
humble means, or ill name, or distress of body
or mind ; Who was persecuted for what He did ;
and eventually suffered death at the hands of
persecutors — is the Figure Whom we are to
have before us ; and Who, indeed, is continually
rising to our view. And throughout, except in
216 • LECTURE VII.
the awful transactions at Paris, there is just
enough of external likeness to Christ to inte-
rest the reader ; and, unless he is warned of the
points in which the external likeness fails, and
of the essential dissimilarity between the God-
Man and the mere man, just enough to lead to
an unwary reception of the doctrines which
the work inculcates.
And now having noted the points of resem-
blance, let me note the points of dissimilarity.
Christ was one and the same throughout His
ministry. He was inaugurated by a miracle
acted upon Him at His baptism, and undoubted
testimony was borne to the reality of the occur-
rence. There was and there could be no mis-
take as to the cleft heavens, the descending
Spirit, the Voice from on high. Shortly after-
wards He was an agent in a miracle. And this
also was testified to by those who were at the
feast of Cana, by the servants who waited, by
the master of the entertainment. All the other
miracles which accompanied His career, whether
acted in reference to Him and on Him, as the
Transfiguration, as the strengthening in His
agony, or the Temple's rent veil ; or wrought
by Him, as the feeding of multitudes, or the
healing the sick, or the walking the waters, or
the raising the dead ; were not failures, were
LECTURE VII. 217
not tentative efforts, but successes. So was it
not with Joshua — he fails, and his faikire is
patent to all.
And contemporaneously, be it observed, Christ
was uniform throughout in His moral treatment
of men. From the first He began to inculcate
His doctrines, (what they were we shall discuss
presently,) that man should cultivate a higher
life than was then prevalent in Judea — higher
in respect to a man's self, higher in respect to
His brethren. And, as I have said. He was
accompanied by credentials to His mission,
which gave Him an authority, and which did
not desert Him to the very end, insomuch that
the centurion seeing the earthquake and the
things which were done, said. Surely this was a
righteous man, surely this was the Son of God.
With Joshua it was otherwise, he does not carry
on his pretension to miraculous power, and
only takes up his exclusively moral mission,
as a vocation of life, after he has affected
miraculous power, and failed to establish his
pretensions to it.
To this it should be added, that there is
nothing in the life of Christ which presents the
remotest likeness to the latter career of Joshua.
To produce such a likeness we must imagine
Him associating Himself with some of the Jewish
218 LECTURE VII.
factlonaries of the day, the followers of Judas of
Galilee, for instance, in order to get rid of what
was deemed oppression ; or, if He did not do
this, He must be supposed to have assented to
His disciples' desire to make Him a king, in
order that He might spread those doctrines by
force which He found that moral suasion and even
miraculous credentials were only too gradually
introducing to society ; or, at least. He must
have accepted, (instead of repudiating, as we
know He did,) that proposal to rectify a financial
inequality, " Master, speak to my brother that
he divide the inheritance with me." (Luke
xii. 13.) But we find Him doing nothing of
the sort. His profession is from first to last,
'' My kingdom is not of this world." It is one
which is to reign in men's hearts. " If My
kingdom were of this world, then would My
servants fight that I should not be delivered to
the Jews, but now is My kingdom not from
hence." (John xviii. 36.) Christ said in effect,
Though I believe Myself to be the introducer
of a state of things which men will not have
at present, far be it from Me to establish it
with violence. This was not the policy of
Joshua. Defective as was his own view of
Christ's morality, of which we shall speak here-
after, could anything be more inconsistent with
LECTURE yii. 219
his personal purity, his self-denial, his non-resis-
tance to evil, than to consort with the sort of
men who composed the mass of the French
communists ? If to do so is to translate Christ,
to adapt Christ to modern times, we are indeed
ignorant what translation and adaptation mean.
The language of Joshua may be paralleled by
that of Shakspere's Orlando :
" Forbear and eat no more. . . .
Forbear I say,
He dies that touches any of this fruit
Till I and my affairs be answered."
As You Like It, Act ii., Scene 7.
But this is scarcely a translation of His lan-
guage. Who, when the people of a Samaritan
village would not receive Him and His disciples,
neither took vengeance, nor allowed it to be
taken : " Ye know not what manner of spirit
ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come
to destroy men's lives, but to save them."
(Luke ix.'55, 56.)
The excuse, however, which is given by
Joshua s biographer for this extraordinary
translation is, that the Christ of Scripture
would, in the present day, be an anachronism
and a mistake. These are the biographer's own
words : —
" Which will ycai take, Christianity as final
or as relative in its methods? If final, ther
220 LECTURE YII.
Jesus Christ among* us now as He was in
Judea — a vagrant preacher living by charity,
denouncing the rich and the powerful qua rich
and powerful, calling on men to think only of
saving their own souls, and urging on them
indiiference to the things of this world, and the
means of honest living — would do more harm
than good. Neither would He be an educated
man. The Christ of Judea was eminently un-
learned, and His knowledge of physical nature
was neither in advance of His own time nor
equal to ours. Yet, if all that He said and did
was final both in method and degree, then we
must suppose that God chose the exact point
of perfected human development, physical and
mental, for His Incarnation ; and that a
Nazarene Jew, who was shown by the Devil
all the kingdoms of the world from the top of a
high mountain, and who could cast out devils
from men into swine, was the ultimate of man-
hood the world had seen or could ever see. But if
the future man is to be superior to the*present,
the Saviour will have appeared under con-
ditions as much below those reached by that
future man as ours are beyond an Aztec's or a
Bushman's. On all these counts, and more that
could be added, I think we must give up the
absolute identity of being and action were
LECTURE YII. 221
Christ to appear now, and go back on the
theory of relative methods." *
It is painful to quote a passage at once so
irreverent in its tone, and so replete with
mistakes. Though Christ was, indeed, humanly
speaking, uneducated and unlearned. He was
also, as I showed in the Fifth Lecture of my
Second Series, as God the Creator, omniscient.
Though Christ was poor, it was by His own
choice, for He could feed others, but would not
feed Himself. Though Christ was not girt
about with this world's warriors, there were
those, as St. Peter, who would willingly, at His
faintest prompting, have taken up arms in His
behalf, and He might have had more than tvrelve
legions of angels at His command. Yet, He
who was all this, is supposed by the biographer
to be capable of translation into a leader of the
lawless hordes of the Commune ! His disciples,
of course — those men who, when they came, at
length, to understand the true nature of His
mission, rejoiced to be counted worthy to suffer
for His sake — were to be capable of forming
such lawless hordes ! If this were so, what
was to have prevented Him, when His moral
treatment of society appeared to fail, from
* Letter of the biographer in the ^indator, April 12,
1873.
222 LECTURE VII.
fissuming the conqueror or the devastator —
in fact, from doing evil, that a supposed good
might come? Why, Mahomet, who spent
three years in making fourteen proselytes,
and who had failed even to convert Mecca in
ten years, and who then put on the warrior,
might as well be considered a translation of
Christ as JosJiua^ '' whose Christianity, at last,
is Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, protected
by grapeshot, if need be." Again I am quoting
the biographer's own words.* They are sin-
gularly in accordance with Gibbon's description
of Mahomet's address to his scanty band of
early followers, and of the response which he
received from one of them. '' Friends and
kinsmen," said Mahomet, " I oifer you, and I
alone can offer, the most precious of gifts, the
treasures of this world and of the world to
come. God has commanded me to call you to
His service. Who among you will support my
burthen ? Who among you will be my com-
panion and vizir ? " No answer was returned,
till the silence of astonishment, and doubt, and
contempt was at length broken by the impa-
tient courage of Ali, a youth in the fourteenth
year of his age. " 0, prophet, I am the man :
* Letter of tlie biographer in the Sjjectator, April 12,
1873.
LECTURE VII. 223
whosoever rises against thee, I will dash out his
teeth, tear out his eyes, break his legs, rip up
his belly. O, prophet, I will be thy vizir over
them." " Mahomet," continues the historian,
"accepted his offer with transport."*
Several grand fallacies lie at the root of
Joshua Davidson'' s life — these both affected his
imitation of Christ, and caused him, at length,
to resort to the outrageous procedure which is
called translating Christ.
He mistook the tendency of Christ's moral
utterances, and imagined that they were to
be applied baldly and literally to society, instead
of being mainly personal.
He supposed these utterances, which he calls
moral and social principles, to be curative, if
worked out by individuals, of all the evils of
society.
He so far blinded himself as to what are really
moral and social principles, as to imagine
that when they have failed to gain acceptance,
by quiet means, they may be enforced by
violent means, which contradict them in every
sense of the word.
He mistook the nature of Christ's teaching in
reference to the regeneration of society, i.e. he
considered that His object was merely to relieve
* Gibbon, chap. 1.
224 LECTURE VII.
misery and poverty, not to abolish sin. He
mistook Christ in making Him a mere man.
Coincidently with this, he mistook the Scriptures
generally, imagining that he was at liberty to
choose certain points for his guidance to the
rejection of others, and thus violating the due
proportion of the faith (dvaXoyiav Trto-reojs).
He mistook society, and so despaired of it.
He mistook himself.
These fallacies run more or less into each
other, but they all spring out of that first
mentioned, around which, therefore, I shall
group what I have to say further.
He mistook the tendency of Christ's moral
utterances, and imagined that they were to
be applied baldly and literally to society instead
of being mainly personal.
This point, you will recollect, I discussed to
a certain extent in the Fifth Lecture of my
First Series. I observed there that every man
has two capacities, a personal and a social, or
in other words, a private and a public capacity.
I went on to remark that although he is indeed
to nourish these precepts in his heart, and to
manifest them in his conduct so far as he can,
he must, if he has merely common sense, see
that if they were carried out literally, society
could not go on. This I illustrated by reference
LECTURE yir. 225
to the two precepts, " 1 say unto you that ye
resist not evil," and, " Charity thinketh no
evil." If these were accepted in the letter, I
said, '' Men would be at the disposal of the
very worst of their kind: the gentle of the
violent, the undesigning and unsuspicious of
the plotter, the industrious of the idle ; but," I
went on to say, " Would this state of things be
society at all? Does not that word imply a
governing and controlling power, a relation
and correlation of every part, a protection of
the weak against the strong, an assurance of
the rights of property, an enforcement of the
duty of self-maintenance, a discountenancing
of the indolent and aggressor, a surveillance
over those whose characters afford grounds for
suspicion? And must not the carrying out of
such functions be entrusted to some one who,
in carrying them out, must divest himself in
a great measure, and by doing violence to his
private feelings, of the tempers described ? . . .
It is necessarily so. In the case of war, harsh
deeds, unjustifiable in time of peace, must be
performed and allowed. So, in their public
capacity, men have to suppress to a considerable
extent, the tenderness, the gentleness, the un-
suspiciousness, which, as private persons, thev
feel bound to entertain. Their object of course
Q
226 LECTURE VII.
is, eventually, to leaven society with tlie tone
whicli sliould pervade the individual soul.
Hence we see that the first of the precepts to
which allusion has been made, though couched
in general terms, refers primarily to the indi-
vidual, as strictly such. In their capacity of
private persons men should be ready to suffer
hurt rather than to inflict it, to give way rather
than to be aggressive,* to be unsuspicious
rather than to believe that those about them
are on the watch for occasions to injure them.
But everybody has a duty to the whole body as
well as to himself. A man cannot, and he
dares not, suppose that if an injury is com-
mitted on himself, this injury will be the only
instance in which the aggressor, if left unnoticed
or unpunished, will infringe upon his neigh-
bour's rights. Therefore, though he nourishes
no private feelings of revenge, and internally
forgives and even pities the offender, he is
obliged to sink self in regard to the safety of
* Compare Plato, Gorgias, c. 24 :
ni2A. 'H ttov 6 ye dTrodvqaKtov aSiKco? iXeeivos re Kol
affkios eariv ; 2Q. ^Kttov t] 6 clttoktivvvs, a> IlwXe, kol
T]TT0V rj 6 biKaicos aTTodvrjcTKaiv. IIQA. Iltoj djJTa, a
ScoKparey; 2i2. Ovras, as fieyio-rov tcov KaKcou Tvyx'^vei,
ov TO dSiKeiJ/. IIQA. ^H yap tovto fxeyL(TTOV', ov to
dbLKclo-Oai fielCov ; 2i2. "HKiora ye. IlflA. 2u apa ^ovXoio
av dhLKela-QaL fxaXkov t) dl^iKelv, 2G. BovXotfxrju fieu av
eycoye ovheTepa • el 8' avayKoiov e'lrj dbiKelv rj aSiKfio-^at,
iXoiiirjv av p-aWov dbiKelo-Oai, ^ aSucetJ'.
LECTURE VII. 227
the community. And so again, as to the second
precept, about ' thinking; no evil,' a man does
not suppose everyone whom he meets to be
inclined to rob him; and if he does not leave
his property unguarded, or his house open, this
is not because he imagines this or that particular
person to be ready to take advantage of his
negligence. He believes evil of no particular
man, until the conviction is forced upon him.
But for the sake of society in general, he is
bound to be careful against the evil which he
knows to exist in it, and which, by negligence,
he would foster and encourage instead of
preventing."
The subject now before us gives me an
opportunity, and indeed enforces upon me the
duty, of extending the scope of the above re-
marks. Joshua Davidson forgot, or he never
knew, that there is a very important distinction
to be made between those who are thoroughly
permeated by Christian influences and those
who simply bear the Christian name. Those
who come under the former class will, indeed,
in their personal conduct, endeavour to carry
out the precepts of Christ. They will not be
ready to take offence. They will hope all good
things of their neighbours. They will be ready to
impart of such things as they have. They will not
Q2
228 LECTURE YII.
be over-anxious for the morrow. They will not
trust in riches. They will consider what they
have to be a treasure entrusted to them for
which they will have to give an account. But
they will carry out these precepts with some-
thing like regard to the general bearing of the
Gospel. They will be aware that there are
other parts of Scripture besides those which are
sometimes quoted as forming the whole of a
Christian's duty. That Scripture inculcates
personal labour as well as personal almsgiving —
that it denounces those who will not work, saying
that if they will not, they are not to eat — that
it proposes an Apostle, nay, even the Saviour
Himself, as an example that one must labour with
one's own hands — that it speaks of the repression
and punishment of dangerous persons, and that
it recognises the existence of rich as well as of
poor, for otherwise, how could almsgiving be
possible? That it implies that some will be
rich capitalists, or proprietors of land, or mas-
ters of numerous households, for otherwise, how
could there be persons trading with entrusted
money, or labourers in vineyards, or servants
waiting at meat ?
Again, they will carry them out with some-
thing like regard to the spirit in which they
were uttered, and not to the mere letter.
LECTUIIE YII. 229
They will recollect that as the parable is an
imperfect form of conveying heavenly truths,
lowered for the time to the intelligence of
the hearer, so precepts in the concrete form,
" If any man take away thy coat," &c., are
husks of which the fruit, i.e.^ the abstract prin-
ciples, must be sought within. If more than an
abstract truth were intended, i.e.^ if it were
meant that a person were to be allowed to take
his neighbour's property, it is obvious that an
opposition would be at once set up to the pre-
cepts, '' Thou shall not steal," " Thou shalt do
no violence," and the like. Men would be
encouraged to break through and trample upon
one of the first principles by which society is
held together. It does not follow that, because
at a certain age of the world the concrete form
of delivering precepts was most appropriate and
was best understood that, therefore, the mere
terms of that concrete form, must, through an
idohzing of the letter, be accepted in their
baldest sense for ever.
Thirdly, they will read them and what are
considered to be the practical comments upon
them, derivable from other parte of Scripture,
with something like regard to the facts of the
case. For instance, they will see that though
Christ rebuked the uncharitable rich — the rich
230 LECTUEE VII.
who set their hearts upon their wealth, as
though it would last for ever — though He
warned them that it was very hard to disengage
themselves from the temptation to rest upon it,
He never spoke of them as sinning from the
mere fact of possessing it, or suggested that it
was a good deed to abolish the caste of wealth
altogether. They will see, again, that though
the Apostles and their immediate followers be
admitted to have had all things in common,
this was merely a transient circumstance, not a
precept of obligation. They were partners in
a common enterprize — the spreading of the
Gospel — and as is the case with partners in other
enterprizes, what each had was merged in one
common store, for convenience' sake. No one
was bound to be literally one of their partner-
ship, or to contribute all his possessions to it.
Ananias was expressly told, " Whilst it re-
mained was it not thine own, and after it was
sold was it not in thine own power? " He was
punished, not for withholding a part, but for
hypocritically pretending that, while he gave a
part, he was giving the whole. Zacchasus did
not profess to give more than half of his goods
to the poor. St. Paul does not enforce upon
his correspondents the duty of giving up
everything, but merely that of being ready to
LECTURE VII. 231
minister to the necessities of those whose cases
might be from time to time brought before
them.
Fourthly, thej will read them with something
like common sense, and common prudence, and
regard to the common weal.
With common sense. They know that if
persons find they can live upon the work of
others, instead of upon that of their own
hands, they are sure to do so. They will,
therefore, argue that it is impossible to found
on a large scale a society in which there is to
be a common stock, unless there are also insti-
tuted a compulsory obligation for all to work,
an undisputed understanding what the work of
each is to be, and a provision that, as all can-
not work in the same way, none is to envy
his neighbour or assert that that neighbour's
work is easier than his own.
With common prudence. They know that
if they were to give indiscriminately they
would give so as to do no good. If they gave
to a drunkard, for instance, the gift would be
spent in drink ; if they gave to the idle they
would encourage the idle class, and foster all
the evils to which idleness proverbially gives
birth ; if they gave to the threatening, or to
the habitual mendicant, they would foster the
232 LECTURE yii.
very plagues and curses which thwart and stifle
true benevolence and genuine Christianity.
And, accordingly, with regard to the common
weal. They know that if dissipation, if idle-
ness, if violence, if imposture are allowed to
go unchecked, and much more if they are
practically encouraged, the whole tide of
human passions which is at present kept in
somewhat due channels would burst upon and
destroy society. That the weak would be the
prey of the strong, the simple of the unwary,
and that, (for impunity is a vigorous infectant,)
brute force would soon prevail ; that the very
virtues which Christianity supposes, of obedience,
of contentedness, of humility, of liberality, of
consideration for others, would find no field for
exercise. Therefore, they are obliged to repress
evildoers; and, — alas ! so far is Christianity from
having at present leavened the mass of those
who are called Christians, — to repress by the
strong motive of fear, those who will not be
restrained by love — in a word, to acknowledge
the fact that there are those in the midst of
them to whom Christian precepts cannot, in
their literal sense, be applied.
Joshua Davidson did not see this. He took
the utterances of Christ to be precise codes
of law for the whole world, not vehicles of
LECTURE YII. 233
piinciples — and then, forgetting that men are to
act, not merely as mdividuals, but as members
of a body — he considered himself bound to
exhibit their working unaided. This miserably-
narrow interpretation made him both uncha-
ritably misconstrue the motives of others, and
isolate or nearly isolate himself, in his en-
deavours to attack and conquer the confessed
evils of society. He could not understand that
society must protect itself as a rule against the
vicious, the aggressive, the idle classes ; and that
unless as a rule also, it discriminates between the
poor who have become such through the faults
implied in the names of these classes, and the
meritorious poor, it must foster evils which will
be its destruction. He shut his eyes to the fact
that combinations voluntary or provided by
law, exist already in great numbers, for making
the discrimination required. That these,
whether they take the form of the Church's
care, or of poor laws, or of charitable organiza-
tions, or of hospitals, or of infirmaries, or of
refuges, or of alms houses, or of orphanages,
or of schools, or of regulations about labour in
mines and factories, or of emigration societies
and the like, are really acknowledgments of
the Gospel principles, and attempts to caiTy
out these principles, with a regard at once
234 LECTUEE VII.
to tlie real benefit of the persons relieved, and to
the protection of the persons relieving against
imposture. And that if there are those who
wish to be engaged in ministrations amongst
the poor, the wretched, and the oppressed, tliey
may always find associations in which such
yearmngs may find vent, and their energies find
a field for exercise. Whereas isolated, ill-
directed exertions, must end, as his ended, in
disappointment, and perhaps in that revulsion
of feeling which inclines persons to pull down
the edifice which they find themselves unable
to restore unaided. Had he been acquainted
with history, he would have known that the
doles of monasteries, the maintenance of a
crowd of idle retainers, the fancies of Owenism
did more evil than good. Had he taken the
trouble to make inquiries into the state of
things around him, he would have found
both how much good was being effected by
combination, and how much evil by the want
of it, even now. But he did not do this —
with an amiable quixotry he set out to abolish
poverty, and misery, and oppression single
handed, and he failed.
I have called this quixotry amiable. To a
certain extent it was so ; but I. cannot shut my
eyes to the fact that he was not merely ignc-
LECTURE YII. 235
rant of the principles of political economy, and
of the true application of the utterances of
Christ, but, as I have said before, unchantable
in his estimate of what is being done already
to alleviate the evils the existence of which
kindled his soul within him. This is one
serious flaw in his moral character. There arc
also others. He is, while possessed with an
overwhelming sense of what individual Christian
men ought to do, unhappily destitute of true
dependence upon Him, without Whose aid no
Christian man can do anything as he ought.
He imitates Christ, as he thinks, but he does not
pray to Christ for power to do so. He does
not even believe Christ to be God, or to be
sending down His Holy Spirit to aid those who
entreat of Him ability to carry out their desire
to be like Him. Inconsistently enough he
abandons the essential doctrines of those very
Scriptures, without access to which he never
could have heard of Christ at all. With utter
desertion of humility, he conceives himself to
be capable of selecting for himself what he will
admit in matters of faith, what points in Christ
he will imitate. In fact, he makes himself a
Christ.
A Christy I have said, but what sort of Christ*?
A Christ without Divinity, a Christ whose office
236 LECTURE VII.
it is supposed to be to struggle merely against
misery, not to abolish sin. Against sin, as such,
Joshua Davidson makes no assaults. Hence
he separates himself from the Church whose
province it is to carry out Christ's warfare
against sin, to leaven society with her Master's
Spirit, and so eventually, if not to abolish, yet
to mitigate sorrow. She has not done so, as
yet, he says mournfully, as he contemplates
misery. She can never do so, he goes on to
say, ignorantly. Then follow various corollaries
which to his own mind he seems to deduce
fairly. Christ, having been a mere man,
founded an institution which may have done
very well for a small society, with very good
maxims, and with a very good end in view.
But as the end, liberty, fraternity, and equality,
has not been attained by those good maxims,
/, Joshua^ feel myself free to attain the end,
quocunque modo^ even by contradicting for a
time every one of the maxims which Christ laid
down, and by associating myself with those
whose characters are utterly the reverse of
His. I may do evil that good may come.
This is hut to translate Christ.
A wondrous translation^ indeed ; and, setting
aside the unconscious blasphemy of it, as
applied to our blessed Saviour, I cannot help
LECTURE yii. 237
observing that it has translated Joshua himself.
He who, at the commencement of his career,
would do no wrong to any man, and would not
know a wicked person, except to endeavour to
reclaim him, at last will associate himself with
the very scum of mankind ; will elevate one
class by the plunder or murder of another ;
will imagine society going on well in the hands
of those, many of whom he knows to be its
very pests and destroyers.
Yet to this we are conducted by the fiction
which I have been examining. And I have
undertaken so ungracious a task, not as one
scorning, God forbid, self-sacrifice, forbearance,
patience, endurance of contradiction, and
other like qualities with which, in the pages
of the fiction, Joshua is invested. My
reasons have been far different. I have wished
to show. Firsts that the precepts of Christ,
though, if wrongly understood, they appear to
inculcate a Christianity not practicable in the pre-
sent day, are not really contradictory to human
experience. Secondly^ that imitation of Christ,
even in His supposed moral transactions as a
man, cannot be safely separated from a recol-
lection that He was God, and that He is God,
ready to send His Spirit to them that ask Him.
Thirdly^ that the disseverance of the imitation
238 LECTURE yii.
from that recollection, as it proceeds from want
of worldly knowledge, and from want of self-
knowledge, so it leads to lamentable mistakes of
conduct, to misapprehension of the wants and
temper of society, and may eventually issue in a
temper utterly the reverse of the temper of Christ.
And lastly^ that, as the fiction does not lead to
either of the results first supposed, that Chris-
tianity was a mistake at the outset, or that
society has Vv^rongly interpreted it ; so, it does
not lead to the further result, that society,
having wrongly interpreted it, must be brought
to the particular translation of Christ vvdiich the
Commune aimed at, and by the means through
which that aim was compassed. On the con-
trary, I urge that the fiction leads to this : First^
that there must be something intrinsically un-
sound in an uprising of class against class, which
contradicts all the best instincts of human nature.
Secondly^ that though such uprising may have
been prompted by a consideration of the evils
and miseries existing in society, there must
have been something unsound in the moral
character and moral efforts of any one who
rushed from love to hate, from self-denial to
permission of license, from persuasion to the
sword. Thirdly^ that this unsoundness is
traceable to forgetfulness of the doctrine that
LECTURE VII. 239
man cannot regenerate society by his efforts
unassisted from on high. It is true that an
Apostle said, " I know both how to be abased,
and I know how to abound ; everywhere and in
all things I am instructed both to be full and
to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer
need," (Phil. iv. 12) and that he acted upon
what he said. But he had strength to do so,
and owed what success he attained to saying
also, *'I can do all things through Christ,
which strengtheneth me." (Phil. iv. 13.)
Joshua Davidson said what is contained in
the former of these verses. He did not say
what is contained in the latter. He came
eventually to a system in which he acknow-
ledged no God but himself— no Christ but him-
self. Such a system must fail ; and this fiction
which has been before us, is, without the bio-
grapher's intending it, one proof of it.
LECTUEE YIII.
Acts vi. 10.
" And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the
Spii-it by which he spake."'
I HAVE chosen for the general subject of
this, my final, Lecture, a consideration of the
difficulties caused by the assertion that the
inspired men of Scripture exhibit, in their con-
fessedly authoritative statements, instances of
historical inaccuracy and of fallacious logic.
This assertion has been made in various forms,
and has been applied to various utterances of
the kind referred to on the part of those who,
whether under the Old Testament or under the
New, " spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghost." But it has been directed with especial
vehemence and pertinacity against the speech
of St. Stephen, and it seems to have been
assumed that the testimony which St. Luke
has borne, in the text, to his previous power
and honesty, would not be true if applied to
that document. Even such a man as Erasmus
has ventured to suggest that " it contains many
242 LECTURE VIII.
matters which do not seem to have very much
to do with the point which the speaker had
really to prove." He qualifies his suggestion,
indeed, by the supposition that the speech, as
we possess it, is a mere fragment of what
would have been said had not the development
of the argument been prevented by the cla-
morous Jews. St. Stephen was certainly inter-
rupted ; but, for all that, his topics may be to
the purpose, as far as ho was suffered to urge
them.
But, I have to deal with a more recent
objector, who has said two things concerning
it:—
First. ^' That, whereas St. Stephen should,
in all fairness, have derived his citations of
Scripture from the Hebrew text, he obtained
them from some paraphrase or imperfect Tar-
gum." This is, in other words, an assertion
that he mis-stated historical facts.
Secondly. " That the point really before St.
Stephen was a vindication of Christianity — that
he ought to have effected this by an appeal to
the miracles with which it was alleged to have
been accompanied, by bringing into court the
persons still living who were reported to have
seen Christ alive after His Passion, by justi-
fication of his own doctrine from the Law, or by
LECTURE yiii. 243
explanation of the Gospel as superseding the
Law; but that he did nothing of the sort." " On
the contrary,"' continues the objector, " he ram-
bled over the familiar histories of the Patriarchs ;
he showed no connection between ancient dis-
pensations and recent events ; and, at length,
burst into invectives against the Council, as
having transgressed the Law and having re-
sisted the Holy Ghost. On their remonstrating
— not unnaturally — at this, he ecstatically de-
clared that the Divine Nature of Christ was
miraculously revealed to him." This is, in
other words, an insinuation, either that he
argued fallaciously, knowing his premises had
nothing to do with the conclusion demanded,
or, that he wilfully mistook the conclusion to
which his arguments should have been directed.
" The speech," says the objector, " has the
character of authenticity." It is obvious, there-
fore, that he believes that it will be more
damaging to what he holds to be an incorrect
view of Christianity, to allow it to stand as a
part of our sacred records, than to expunge it
from them. He considers it, in fact, to be an
element of the Bible, so intrinsically weak,
that an exposure of its defects is sufficient to
inflict a severe wound upon that view.
I shall endeavour to-day, to confute those
r2
244 LECTURE VIII.
positions of our objector to which I have
alluded. It would be impossible in the time
yet remaining to me to take a larger range of
discussion. But my examination will, perhaps,
show how believers, who have been staggered
by similarly bold assertions in reference to
other passages, may, by patient examination,
re-establish their faith for themselves.
In reference to the first point — the assertion
that St. Stephen mis-stated historical facts, I
must observe that I cannot attack any premises
alleged by our objector in support of it. He
has not condescended to give any. I must,
therefore, examine the ordinary allegations upon
which I suppose his assertion to have been
founded. These being removed, as his book
gives no evidence that he has any more solid
grounds, or has indeed troubled himself to'
search for any, his assertion must rest simply
on his own authority, whatever the value of
that may be.
I address myself, however, in the first in-
stance, to the second assertion ; which, if it
could be substantiated, would be the more
damaging of the two, as implying a perverse
application of powers, whereas the former im-
plies merely ignorance.
Novr, what if it should appear that our
LECTURE YIII. 245
objector has entirely mistaken the point or
points to which St. Stephen was bound, under
the circumstances, to direct his pleading '?
That he has done this, is evidenced by the
fact that St. Stephen had to defend, not Chris-
tianity, but himself. His previous action, no
doubt, was concerned with the promulgation
and vindication of Christianity. He had preached
it openly in Jerusalem ; he had maintained it in
disputations with those of the synagogues of
the Libertines, the Cyrenians, and the Alex-
andrians ; those of Cilicia, (among them pro-
bably Saul or Paul, himself no mean disputant,)
and those of pro-consular Asia had felt the
vigour of his reasoning. " They were not able,"
says St. Luke, "to resist the wisdom and the
Spirit by which he spake." How did they
then meet him? Why, by setting up a new
and irrelevant issue. When they should have
confuted his position, that Christianity was to
be accepted, by showing cause why it should
not be accepted, they raised a cry that he had
blasphemed God, blasphemed Moses, blasphemed
the Temple. Instead of staying where they
were, and patiently re-arguing that other original
and relevant issue on the floor of the syna-
gogues, thev set up this new and irrelevant
issue, and upon it impleaded St. Stephen before
246 LECTURE VIII.
the National Council. St. Stephen had, directly,
little to do any longer with the issue which
had been thus violently thrust aside. He had
to defend himself against the charge of blas-
phemy in the particular matters alleged. Though
it was not the issue which he and his opponents
had at first mutually agreed to discuss, not the
one which- he had himself chosen, not the one
which in all fairness he should have been
allowed to follow out unmolested, it was that
which, as an accused man, he was compelled to
take up. And that he did take it up, (so far at
least as was compatible with a higher duty,)
that he did not fallaciously evade it, but
honestly complied with the hard conditions
which his menacing adversaries imposed upon
him, may be evidenced by that analysis of the
contents of his speech, which I now proceed to
give you.
" Are these things so ? " said the High
Priest, as president of what should have been
the dispassionate Elderhood of his nation,
addressing St. Stephen. " Hast thou, indeed,
uttered those blasphemous words of which these
men oxcuse thee? " " These things are not so,
men, brethren and fathers,"' is the tenor of the
Holy Deacon's rejoinder, and he straightway
applies himself to proving that they are not so.
LECTURE VIII. 247
'-'' I do not hlasjjlieme God. Listen to me, and
judge whether I do not revere and adore Him.
I assert Him to have been the Almighty God,
Who called Abraham, Who promised his pos-
terity the land in which ye yourselves now
dwell — Who has guided and guarded — Who
has chastened or encouraged — that posterity,
at every stage of its career, for nearly two
thousand years.
" / do not hlaspheme Moses. Again, listen to
me. The writings of Moses are those to w^hich
you hear me appeal for the earlier records of
your race, and for God's dealings in connec-
tion with it. Why do I believe in God's calling
of Abraham from Mesopotamia? AVhy in
God's gracious, though apparently discourag-
ing, assurances in reference to Abraham's seed ?
Why do I hold the divine origin of circumcision,
that distinguishing seal of our race ? Why are
the histories of Isaac, of Jacob, of Joseph, and
the other Patriarchs, of the Egyptian bondage,
and of Israel's deliverance from it, other than
mere legends to me ? Why are Moses himself
and his chequered career, — why is the burning
bush, — why are the wonders and signs in the
land of Egypt, and in the Ked Sea, and in the
Wilderness forty years — embraced by me as
solemn verities, ' affirmed by me, both here and
248 LECTURE VIII.
elsewhere ? It is because, so far from blaspliem-
ing Moses, I reverence him as the instrmnent
of giving the law, as the inspired annalist of
Israelj as the heaven-accredited leader of mj
people — nay, more, as the prophet who " rapt
into future times," foretold a Prophet like unto
himself — yea, that Prophet, Christ, Whom I
have been preaching unto you. Do I blaspheme
Moses ? Nay, I magnify him and his law — the
forerunners, and so the preparatives of Christ
and the Gospel.
" And I do not hlaspheme the Temple. David
desired to build it. It was the fond dream of
his life to construct a habitation for the God of
Jacob. Solomon was the builder of it, and to
have done so was the glory of Solomon's life. If
I say that the Temple, noble as it is, exhibits
but a parable or foreshadowing of the Temple
not made with hands — of the Temple to which
Christianity looks forward and indeed realises —
is this to blaspheme it ? Nay, is it not to invest
it with the very dignity of which Solomon and
the prophets spoke, without being supposed
thereby to disparage its character and grandeur.
Shall what they said, and said without reproach,
be accounted blasphemy if repeated by me?"
It is to be observed, however, that St. Ste-
phen has blended with his direct defence an
LECTURE yiii. 249
element of teaching and an element of rebuke.
And this he did fairly enough, and, at the same
time, consistently with a higher duty than self-
defence. He did so, fairly, for the charges of
misuse of the topics of God, of Moses, of the
Temple, were not fully repelled unless he shovred
why he brought them on the stage at all. He
did so consistently with a higher duty, for though
he stood before men as a defendant, he stood
before his God as an evangelist. And so he
seems to say, '* I sjjeak of God^ because I would
have you recollect that He is a God not of the
circumcision only, but of the uncircumcision —
that He called Abraham before the sign of cir-
cumcision was appointed, and that He is, there-
fore, the Father of all. Thei/ dishonour Him
who limit His fatherhood. / sj^eaJc of Moses^
because he pointed most emphatically and dis-
tinctly to One Who was to bear an office analo-
gous to his own — to hold the dignity of leader
of the world, as Moses held that of a leader of
the people. But observe, Moses was called to
his position before the Law was given, before
the promised land, upon which you find your-
selves, was entered. He was, therefore, more
than a local prince — he was a type of a Prince of
wider range. They dishonour him who attri-
bute a finality to his doctrine, and refuse to see
250 * LECTURE VIII.
into Vv^hat it was to be developed. I s])eah of
the Temple^ because, as Abraham's call was be-
fore circumcision — as the mission of Moses was
before the Law — so, worship of God was before
the Temple, which only localised and brought
to a focus the idea of that worship which was
bye and bye to pervade every clune, and to attract
every heart to the Most High. They dishonour
the Temple who limit its significancy, and refuse
to discover in it an emblem of universal worship
of God. If there are any blasphemers in the
matters of which I speak — if there are any dis-
honourers of God, of Moses, and of the Temple,
those persons are not myself, but ye."
The evangelist, however, has stept in at vari-
ous stages of the speech ; the man who forgets
himself in his desire to improve his hearers ;
the profound teacher who knows how to apply
the lessons of history, if haply those of his own
generation may profit by the errors of the past.
Hence St. Stephen's allusion to the envy enter-
tained by the Patriarchs towards Joseph — to
the misunderstanding of the mission of Moses
by him who wronged his brother in Egypt- — to
the Israelites' rejection of God, and choice of
idol-worship in preference to Him, — all of which
were foreshado wings of their present rejection
of Christ 5 and hence his final burst of indig-
LECTURE \iu. 251
nation, provoked, as it would seem, by the
non-acceptance of what he said by his audience,
— " Ye stifFnecked and uncircumcised in heart
and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost :
as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the
prophets have not your fathers persecuted?
and they have slain them which showed before
of the coming of the Just One ; of Whom ye
have been now the betrayers and murderers :
who have received the Law by the dispensation
of angels and have not kept it." (Acts vii.
51—53.)
More, perhaps, he would have said. Perhaps
he would have recapitulated his arguments, but
he was not permitted to do so. The same
temper which had met him in the synagogues,
met him here ; only intensified by his hearers
discovering that they were not merely van-
quished in argument, but shown to be morally
in the wrong. " When they tieard these things,
they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed
upon him with their teeth." (Acts vii. 54.) He
could do no more with them. From that
moment, he turned his eyes from the infuriate
multitudes to Him in Whom he trusted, and
saw Him, and declared that he saw Him. This
irritated them all the more ; but the less hope
St. Stephen found in man the more he had in
252 LECTUEE VIII.
God. " Lord Jesus receive my spirit," are
almost his last words. Yet something he said
at the moment of dying which showed that the
Spirit of Jesus had descended to meet him, and
that it was on him and in him, for he cried, after
his Master's example, " Lord, lay not this sin to
their charge." When he had said this he fell
asleep.
It would be beyond my present design to
dwell on the blended majesty and charity of
this closine: scene. I am most concerned to
remind you that so far from not being to the
purpose, St. Stephen's speech was very much
to the purpose. That it first repelled from
himself the charge of blasphemy ; and secondly,
showed to whom that charge, if it was to attach
to any one, should attach more justly ; a point
which it established at once by argument and
by historic example. That he did what he was
bound to do, that his process was not fallacious,
would seem to be established in no small degree
by the result, that his opponents had nothing to
say in return — that they silenced the speaker
instead of refuting the speech. And if, as I
have allowed, St. Stephen combined the teach-
ing and the rebuking element with his defence,
the former was part of the defence itself, the
latter was in obedience to a higher duty than
LECTURE VIII. 253
that of defence, the duty of preaching Christ.
He lahoured, after all, not for his own safety,
not for his own glory, but for that of Him, Who
as He strengthened him to speak and to act,
strengthened him also to endure.
And now having, I trust, met adequately the
charge of fallaciousness in argument which has
been alleged against St. Stephen's speech, I
will apply myself to that other charge which
has been been brought forward by our objector.
It was, you will recollect, a charge of misstating
the facts of the Jewish history: '* He ought, if
he cited the Scriptures at all, to have resorted
to the Hebrew text ; He has not done so, but
has obtained his citations from some paraphrase
or imperfect Targum."
That charge divides itself thus : —
First. St. Stephen misquoted the Scriptures,
as they really existed.
Secondly. He added to such Scriptures what
is not actually read therein.
Thirdly. He derived his misquotations and
additions from some paraphrase or imperfect
Targum.
I will treat, first, of the third point. Our
objector, of course, intends to imply that St.
Stephen, in many parts of his speech, appears
to cite Scripture rather from the version called
254 LECTUEE VIII.
the Septuagint, than from the Hebrew origmal.
Well, granting that this is so, does it necessarily
follow that he had not a good reason for doing
so, and that he might not have done so, con-
sistently with adherence to the general meaning
of the Hebrew ? May not his reason have been
that he was speaking in Greek, to an audience
acquainted with Greek, whether Jews from
foreign climes, or Jews dwelling at Jerusalem ?
And would not these be more attracted by a
citation of passages in the very form with v/hich
they were familiar, than by a closer citation
drawn immediately from the original ? It does
not seem to have been a custom, even with
Christ Himself or any of His followers, to cite
invariably the ij)siss{ma verha of the Old
Testament. It was enough for their purpose
to give the general meaning, or to make an
allusion. The Septuagint version presented a
convenient instrument for doing so, and they
very often adopted it ; and yet it may be shown
that they kept the Hebrew meaning substan-
tially in view. This I endeavoured to prove,
as you will recollect, in the Seventh and Eighth
Lectures of my Second Series. I there gave seven
Canons, by which the form of quotations in the
New Testament from the Old Testament may be
accounted for j and I also exemplified the appli-
LECTURE VIII. 255
cation of these Canons by various examples
treated of at length. I need not repeat here
what was treated of, so fully, there ; but I may
remind you of three things : —
Flrst^ — That I acknowledged that there were
some, though a very few, passages out of the
213 cited from the Old Testament in the Xew
Testament, for which the Canons will not satis-
factorily account. Zechariah xi. 12, 13, and
Psalm xl. 7 were instances. (Compare Matthew
xxvii. 9, 10, and Hebrews x. 5.)
Secondly^ — That one cause of this may have
been a very early alteration of the text of the
New Testament by well-intentioned but un-
learned persons, in order to bring it into accord-
ance with the only Old Testament with which
they were acquainted, viz.^ that of the Septua-
gint. (Very few of the Fathers — Origen and
Jerome being exceptions — had knowledge or
Hebrew.) I paralleled this alteration by the
fact that many of the corrections of the Vatican
text of the Septuagint which are found in the
Alexandrine, which was somewhat later, were
dictated by an anxiety to reconcile the Old
Testament Greek to that of the New Testament.
Thirdly^ — That if one allows that difficulties
almost inexplicable may be found in the text of
a profane author, without supposing that the
256 LECTURE VIII.
passages in which they occur were penned by
him in the exact form in which they now appear,
we may allow this in the text of sacred docu-
ments. Both one and the other may have
suffered from the carelessness of copyists or the
ignorant zeal of correctors and editors.
But now we come to the other allegations.
It is said that St. Stephen misquoted the
Scriptures as they really existed.
And, that he added to such Scriptures what
is not actually found therein.
Some ten places in the speech have been
brought forward in support of one or other of
these allegations. I will examine them separately.
(1.) In Acts vii. 2, St. Stephen is said to
have spoken of an appearance of God to
Abraham in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in
Charran or Haran. This is alleged to be an
addition to what is recorded in Genesis xi. 31,
where it is simply stated that Terah took
Abraham and the rest of his family to Haran
from Ur of the Chaldees, — not the sHghtest
intimation being given that a call from God
had anything to do with the matter. A
reply is at once ready. It does not at all
appear that St. Stephen had Genesis xi. 31
solely in his mind. Another passage, Genesis
xii. 1, has the words, "Now the Lord had said
LECTURE VIII. 257
to Abram." Said when ? Obviously, if wc read
these words in connection with other passages,
when he was in ^Mesopotamia, or Ur of the Chal-
dees. So it is at least probable that obedience to
a Divine command had produced the first move-
ment westward of Terah and his family. The
Hebrew w^ord is indeed in the past tense — " Now
God said" — but that language had no means of
making the nice distinction conveyed by the
pluperfect, as opposed to the mere past. Still,
the past included the other, and our translators
have rightly given, '•' Now, the Lord had said
to Abram." Besides, the probability of which
I spoke of their interpretation being correct is
rendered a certainty by three other passages,
which were doubtless before them as well as the
speech of St. Stephen. God says Himself, in
Genesis xv. 7, " I am the Lord that brought
thee out of Ur of the Chaldees to give thee
this land ;" and in Joshua xxiv. 3, " I took
your father Abraham from the other side of the
flood." And Nehemiah (ix. 7) thus addresses
his Maker, " Thou art the God Which didst
choose Abraham, and broughtest him forth
out of Ur of the Chaldees." So much for
this objection. A careful comparison of Scrip-
ture with Scripture evinces it to be utterly
baseless.
258 LECTUEE YIII.
(2.) In Acts vil. 4, it is said that Ahraham
moved from Haran into Canaan after the death
of his father. It appears in Genesis xi. 26, that
Terah was 70 years old when Abraham was
born, and in Genesis xii. 4, that Abraham was
75 years old when his migration into Canaan
took place. These two numbers together make
Terah only 145 years old at his death, but it is
said in Genesis xi. 32, that he died aged 205
years.
Again, a reply is ready to this very small
cavil. There is nothing in Genesis to raise
the presumption that Abraham was the eldest
son of Terah, except the fact that he is men-
tioned first, which was probably due to the
circumstance that the main interest of the
history was to cluster around him. All that
appears is, that Terah was 70 years old before he
had any children at all ; for ought we know 60
years may have elapsed between the birth of his
eldest and his youngest child, and Abraham may
have been the youngest. Surely something like
positive demonstration should have been adduced
before a man like St. Stephen is accused of falsi-
fying chronology ; and, though there is no need
of resorting to such a supposition in this case, the
uncertainty of numbers in the text of the Old
Testament is so great, that, even on this
LECTUEE VIII. 259
ground, a discrepancy of this kind cannot be —
even if it could be substantiated — considered of
great importance.
(3.) In Acts vii., 6, 7, it is said that God
declared that " Abraham's seed should sojourn
in a strange land ; and that they should bring
them into bondage, and entreat them evil four
hundred years. And the nation to whom they
shall be in bondage will I judge, said God ; and
after that shall they come forth, and serve Me
in this place."
On this it is urged, that the Israelites, Abra-
ham's seed, were in Egypt 430 years, as
appears from Exodus xii. 40, (compared with
Gal. iii. 17) ; and, though it may be shown,
from various considerations, that only half of
this time {viz.^ 215), was actually spent in
Egypt, the 430 being calculated from Abraham
going thither himself — yet, not to press this,
St. Stephen is wrong by at least 30 years.
Again, a reply is ready — St. Stephen is, of
course, speaking in round numbers, and in-
stances of this method are scattered abundantly
over the surface of Holy Scripture ; and as for
the minor objection, insinuated, but not pressed,
not Egypt only, but even Canaan, in which
God did not give to Abraham land to set his
foot on, was a strange land, a place of so-
s2
260 LECTURE VIII.
journing, to the chosen people, until they even-
tually came out of Egypt.
(4.) In Acts vil. 7, it is said that God declared
that, after the Israelites came out of Egypt,
" they should serve Him in this place," viz.^
in Canaan, where the words came to Abraham.
Now, in Gen. xv. 13, 14, we read simply,
" They shall come out with great substance." St.
Stephen, therefore, has altered the words of God.
Again a reply is ready — St. Stephen is simply
combining (as I showed in Lectures Seven and
Eight, Second Series, to be frequently the usage
of Holy Scripture,) two prophecies together.
This ]jlace refers not to Canaan, but to Horeb,
and the prophecy to Abraham has been combined
with another prophecy to Moses, which exhibits
this more clearly. It is to be found in Exodus
iii. 11, 12. " And Moses said unto God, who
am I, that I should go unto Pharaoh, and that I
should bring forth the children of Israel out of
Egypt ? And he said, certainly I will be with
thee ; and this shall be a token unto thee, that
I have sent thee : when thou hast brought forth
the people of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon
this mountain." This, then, is simply another
evidence that objectors should compare one
place of Scripture with another, before commit-
ing themselves to an objection.
LECTURE VIII. 261
(5.) In Acts vii. 9, St. Stephen asserts that
the Patriarchs sold Joseph into Egypt. This
is alleged to be incompatible with the statement
in Genesis xxxvii. 28, that they sold him to the
Midianites, who, and not the Patriarchs them-
selves, brought him into Egypt and sold him.
This admits of a very simple reply. It
appears from Genesis xxxvii. 25, that the
Patriarchs sold him to a caravan of merchants
who were obviously, from the direction in which
they were travelling, and from the spicery and
balm and myrrh with which their camels were
loaded, going into Egypt. Besides, what are
Joseph's own words in the matter on the affect-
ing occasion of his making himself known to
his brethcn in Genesis xlv. 3, 4. " And Joseph
said unto his brethren, I am Joseph ; doth my
father yet live? And his brethren could not
answer him; for they were troubled at his
presence. And Joseph said unto his brethren,
come near to me, I pray you. And they came
near. And he said, I am Joseph, your brother,
whom ye sold into Egypt." This cavil at St.
Stephen's accuracy, is not merely infinitesimally
minute, but contemptible.
(6.) In Acts vii. 14 it is said that St. Ste-
phen, by using the words, " Then sent Joseph,
and called his father Jacob to him, and all his
262 LECTURE VIII.
kindred, threescore and fifteen souls," has con-
tradicted the statements made in the Hebrew
text of Genesis xlvi. 26, 27. This is, " All the
souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which
came out of his loins, besides Jacob's sons'
wives, all the souls were threescore and six ;
and the sons of Joseph which were born to him
in Egypt were two souls : all the souls of the
house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were
threescore and ten." This latter sum is, of
course, made up by adding Jacob, Joseph, him-
self, and his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim,
to the former sum. But St. Stephen has evi-
dently quoted the number given in the Septua-
gint, in utter forgetfulness of the Hebrew.
TliA-e is not very much, I think, in this ob-
jection. It is true that the Septuagint has " All
the souls which came with Jacob into Egypt,
those which were born to him, were seventy-
five," Init then, in the next verse (27) there
is an interpolated passage which makes the
number of Joseph's children nine instead of
two, or instead of seven^if another interpo-
lated passage, which includes five of his grand-
sons or great-grandsons, is admissible. But as
these five appear in Numbers xxvi. 28 — 37,
and in 1 Chronicles vii. 14 — 20, we need
not suppose the Septuagint version of Genesis
LECTURE VIII. 263
to have been exclusively referred to. The
sum of seventy-five, which includes them,
is quite as correct as that of seventy, which,
besides including Jacob, includes Jo^seph and
his two sons who were in Egypt already. I will
merely add, that if this is not perfectly satisfac-
tory, we have still the resource of supposing
that a correction has been made in the text of
the Acts, with a view to bringing it into exact
accordance with the Septuagint, the only Bible
with which the Fathers in general were
acquainted.
(7). It is said in Acts vii. 15, 16, "So Jacob
went do^\'n into Egypt, and died, he, and our
fathers, and vrere carried over into Sycliem, and
laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a
sima of money of the sons of Emmor the father
of Sycliem." This statement is alleged to be
utterly discordant with what is said in the Old
Testament, and, at the least, to add something
to what is recorded there.
(1.) Jacob, it is said, was not buried at Sychem
(or Shechem) but at Machpelah, a totally dif-
ferent place, where Abraham and Sarah, Isaac
and Rebekah, and Leah were buried.
(2.) The Old Testament does not say where
the Patriarchs were buried.
(3.) The purchase of land at Sychem (of
264 LECTURE YEII.
Shechem) was not made by Abraham, who
purchased some land at Machpelah of Ephron
the Hittite, but by Jacob, who negotiated it
with the .sons of Emmor (or Hamor) the father
of Shechem.
Such are the difficulties connected with these
two verses, I cannot and would not conceal from
you that they are at first sight considerable.
I may not be able to explain them thoroughly,
but they may be removed to some extent.
One of the difficulties may, I think, be sum-
marily disposed of. St. Stephen does not assert
that Jacob was buried at Sychem (or Shechem)
but that the Patriarchs were. There is, then,
nothing- in his assertion to contradict what the
Old Testament says (Gen. 1. 13), that he was
buried at Machpelah.
As for the Patriarchs, the body of Joseph,
who died in Egypt, was put into a coffin there,
taken by the Israelites with them when they
quitted Egypt (Genesis 1. 26), and eventually
buried at Shechem. With one exception^ the
record of this is in remarkable correspondence with
the words of St. Stephen : " And the bones of
Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up
out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem, in a parcel
of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of
Hamor the father of Shechem for an hundred
LECTURE VIII. 265
pieces of silver ; and it became the inheritance
of the children of Joseph." (Joshua xxiv. 32.)
For the rest of the Patriarchs, it is more than
probable that the tribes named after them paid
a similar mark of respect to the remains of
their ancestors. And though no record of this
is found elsewhere in Scripture, we may surely
believe on the authority of St. Stephen that it
was the case. The murder of Zechariah the
son of Berechiah, the names of the magicians who
withstood Moses, the attribution of the great
drought in Ahab's days to Elijah's prayer, are
not found in the Old Testament, but they are
believed on the authority of our Lord and of
His Apostles. Why not the burial of the
Patriarchs in Sychem on that of St. Stephen '?
It may be mentioned, for what it is worth, that
St. Jerome, who was well acquainted with
Palestine and its traditions, speaks of Paula as
having visited the graves of the twelve Patri-
archs at Sychem ; and that Josephus (Antiq. ii.
8, 2) though he says they were buried in
Hebron, and was thus mistaken as to the exact
locality, is an evidence of a belief that their
bodies were brought into the Promised Land.
There are also Rabbinical traditions, quoted by
Wetstein and Lightfoot, which report them to
have been buried at Svchem.
266 LECTURE VIII.
Supposing, however, these preliminary diffi-
culties to be disposed of, there yet remains
this, the attribution of the purchase of Sychem
to Abraham, instead of to Jacob. The Old
Testament record is so distinct, that one cannot
suppose it possible that St. Stephen, even if he
had no supernatural guidance on the subject,
could have confounded the two purchases.
And we find Jacob expressly desiring to be
interred, not in any ground purchased by
himself, but in ground purchased by Abraham,
and consecrated by many tender recollections.
Hear his own words, and those by which they
are introduced and followed : " All these are
the twelve tribes of Israel : and this is it that
their father spake unto them, and blessed them ;
every one according to his blessing he blessed
them. And he charged them, and said unto
them, I am to be gathered unto my people :
bury me with my fathers, in the cave that is in
the field of Ephron the Hittite. In the cave
that is in the field of Machpelah, which is before
Mamre, in the land of Canaan, which Abraham
bought with the field of Ephron the Hittite, for
a possession of a burying-place. There they
buried Abraham and Sarfih his wife ; there
they buried Isaac and Rebekah his wife ; and
there I buried Leah. The purchase of the
LECTURE VIII. 267
field, and of the cave that Is therein was from
the children of Ileth. And when Jacob had
made an end of commanding his sons, he
gathered up his feet into the bed, and yielded up
the ghost, and was gathered unto his people."
(Genesis xlix. 28 — 33.) Under these circum-
stances, I am induced to believe that the word
Abraham is an interpolation in the sacred text,
and that the word bought and what follows it, are
to be referred to Jacob, of whom, and not of
Abraham, St. Stephen is speaking in this par-
ticular part of his address. I grant, indeed,
that no manuscript omits the word, and that
resort to omission is an ultima ratio ; but great
names as those of Beza, Valcknaer, Kuinoel,
and others are in favour of this amendment.
And, it may be added, the reference of a verb
to a rather remote subject or nominative case,
as it is very common in Hebrew, so it is not
uncommon in Hellenistic writers. The passage
will now run :
" So Jacob died, he and our fathers, and
they (our fathers) were carried over into Sychem,
and laid in the sepulchre which he bought for a
sum of money of the sons of Emmor, the father
of Sychem."
If this expedient is not admitted, I have no
other to offer ; but I would admit anything
268 LECTUEE VIII.
rather than impugn the accuracy of St. Stephen,
(which we have hitherto found unassailable, and
shall find further unassailable,) because of one
hard passage in it.
(8.) In Acts vii. 22, 23, it is said that
^' Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians," and that, "when he was full forty
years old, it came into his heart to visit his
brethren the children of Israel." The learning
of Moses, and the age at which he first visited
his own people, are, it is alleged, additions to
the Old Testament record.
I reply, be it so. But St. Stephen's autho-
rity, as I have observed already, may be ade-
quate for an interpretation, or even an addition
to the words of the Old Testament, " when
Moses was grown." And we may also take it
for certain that he was correct in stating that
one who was brought up by the daughter of
Pharaoh as her own son had all the advan-
tages of education which the royal family of
the most learned nation of the world could
obtain.
We need trouble ourselves no more with these
points.
(9.) In Acts vii. 29, it is said that Moses fled
from Egypt at the saying, " Who made thee a
ruler and a judge over us? Wilt thou kill me,
LECTURE VIII. 2G9
as thou diddest the Egyptian yesterday ?" This
is said to be opposed to the Old Testament nar-
rative, which attributes his flight to fear of the
King of Egypt. " And he said, Who made
thee a prince and a judge over us ? intendest
thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian V
And Moses feared, and said. Surely this thing is
known. Now when Pharaoh heard this thing,
he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from
the face of Pharaoh." (Exodus ii. 14, 15.)
I reply, to condense is surely not to oppose.
Of course, Moses fled at the word, because it
and the transaction which called it forth were
reported to Pharaoh.
(10.) In Acts vii. 42, 43, occur the following
words : — *' Then God turned, and gave them up
to worship the host of heaven : as it is written
in the book of the prophets, ye house of Israel,
have ye offered to Me slain beasts and sacrifices
by the space of forty years in the wilderness ?
Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and
the star of your god Eemphan, figures which ye
made to worship them : and I will carry you
away beyond Babylon." The quotation con-
tained in it would seem to be taken from the
Book of Amos (v. 25, 27), but the form in which
it occurs there is somewhat diflerent from the
version of St. Stephen : " Have ye ofl'ered unto
270 LECTURE VIII.
Me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness
forty years, house of Israel? But ye have
borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun
your images, the star of your god, which ye
made to yourselves. Therefore will I cause
you to go into captivity beyond Damascus,
saith the Lord, Whose name is the God of
hosts." It would seem at first sight that St.
Stephen has strangely altered the prophet's
words. For, not to press minor variations,
Babylon is substituted by him for Damascus,
and the name of the deity Chiun is altered
into Bemphan.
In reference to the former of these objections,
I reply as I replied in the Seventh and Eighth
Lectures of the Second Series, that the enlarge-
ment of a prophecy, by connecting it with other
prophecies, in quotation, is very usual in Scrip-
ture, and that no contradiction ensues from the
present enlargement. It remained perfectly true,
as a fulfilment of the prophecy, that the Israel-
ites were carried away beyond Damascus, though
Babylon, eastward of that place, and even the
further east, became the exact scene of their
captivity. " I will give all Judah into the
hand of the King of Babylon, and he shall
cany them captive to Babylon, and shall slay
them with the sword," are the words of God
LECTURE VIII. 271
by Jeremiah (xx. 4, 5.) No doubt St. Stephen
combined this prophecy and its fulfiment with
the words of Amos which he was immediately
quoting. No doubt also, this, his combination,
brouQ'ht to the memories of his audience the
pathetic words of the Psalmist, " By the waters
of Babylon Ave sat down and wept, when we
remembered thee, Sion."
As for the substitution of Remphan for
Chiun, it is true that this is found in the Sep-
tuagint, with various readings, such as Raiphan,
Rephan, or Rompha. No perfectly satisfac-
factory account can be assigned for the discre-
pancy. It may be that the Hebrew text has
been corrupted, or that the Septuagint word is
a synonym for the Hebrew word.* But, even
if the discrepancy is, with our present know-
ledge, inexplicable, it must be recollected that
no point of doctrine is affected by its being
so, and that it would be a very narrow and
microscopic criticism to condemn St. Stephen
of historical inaccuracy for so small a matter
as this.
Be this, however, as it may, enough evidence
has been adduced, I hope, to show that St.
* Chiun is said to be the name of the planet Satuni, and
it is tolerably certain that Saturn was called by the Egyp-
tians liaiphan. The two names would, therefore, be
equivalent.
272 LECTURE VIII.
Stephen, as he could not be fairly charged with
fallacious logic in his speech, is not, if his
references to the Old Testament are carefully
examined, chargeable with historical inaccuracy.
If St. Stephen's speech, then, which has been
specially attacked by objectors to the Bible,
admits of a vindication which is, under the
circumstances, so complete, this is surely a
strong ground for presuming that other con-
fessedly authoritative statements made by in-
spired men in Scripture, are susceptible of
similar vindication.
Let me say, however, one word in conclusion,
to explain why I am especially anxious to assert
the historical accuracy of the Bible.
There are of course some things in the Bible
upon which, by almost universal consent, such
absolute exactness as will at once commend itself
to the scientific, or the philological mind, is
not to be demanded. Men do not expect now^
whatever was the case in former days, that
allusions to subjects involving astronomical or
geological facts, and to matters of natural
history, should be expressed in other terms than
can be at once understood by the mere ordinary
observer. It is felt, and felt rightly, that the
Bible is written for all, — not merely for the man
of science. It is acknowledged that even the
r.ECTURE VIII. 273
man of science does not, in his ordinary con-
versation, employ circumlocutions unintelligible
to the multitude when speaking of natural
phenomena, but describes them in a popular
manner. And further, and at the root of all
this, it is acknowledged that, if the Bible had
anticipated scientific discovery, many faculties
of man would have been useless, and that, if
it had spoken scientifically of natural things
in a day when science was in its infancy, its
language would have been unappreciated by
those to whom its several books were originally
addressed.
So again, of philological matters. It is con-
fessed that, from whatever cause, difficulties
exist as to numbers in the Bible which cannot
be satisfactorily explained : they may be attri-
butable to those numbers having been originally
.expressed by letters used as figures; those
letters may have become confused with similar
letters, thus making a fresh combination ; and
the coiTupted combination may afterwards have
been e:j:pressed in words, so as to preclude the
po&sibility of tracing the source of the eiTor.
Proper names also of men and places exhibit
considerable variety, attributable, no doubt,
either to the carelessness of copyists, or to
injuries done to manuscripts, such as, unless we
T
274 LECTURE VIII.
suppose the integrity of the inspired documents
to have been guaranteed by a perpetual miracle,
might be expected during the progress of ages.
It is possible, also, that portions of the Books
of the Bible may have become displaced, and
that thus want of sequence may occasionally be
discovered.
Well, with such scientific inaccuracies, and
with such philological questions, we are not
greatly troubled. The latter were to have been
anticipated in any document which, though
Divine in its origin, has been entrusted to
human keeping ; the former deceive no one,
and it is a thing absolutely indifferent to man's
salvation, whether the appearance of day upon
the earth, or the movements of the lips of the
hare, are described as they are in themselves,
or simply as they present themselves to the
cursory observation of mankind.
Here, however, so it seems to me, our admission
of anything like inaccuracy must cease. A mis-
statement in God's Word as to historical facts
involves a mis-statement as to man, whose
condition Bevelation and its provisions are
intended to remedy. And if man's history is
not stated correctly, if varying and contra-
dictory accounts are given of it, a doubt is
necessarily thrown, not merely upon the justice
LECTURE VIII. 275
of the Divine displeasure at man's doings, but
upon the necessity of the scheme which is
represented as remedial of the effects of man's
doings. I am willing, indeed, to allow that
trivial features of difference in a narrative may
exist without any disadvantage to Scripture.
I candidly admit that these are to be expected,
unless inspiration reduces the inspired man
to a mere machine. But I would insist upon
the maintenance of the grand principle, that
Scripture and the inspired men of Scripture, are,
in their confessedly authoritative statements,
exempt from error. I would urge upon all,
as a grand duty, not to acquiesce without
careful examination, in any assertion as to
particular passages, which appears at first sight
to contravene this principle. And I would
also say, even if one or two, or perhaps more
passages cannot at once be reconciled to it, the
vast amount of ascertained accuracy must, in
all fairness, be taken into consideration.
But, I must now bid you farewell. My three
years' tenure of office has expired, and my treat-
ment, before you, of " Moral Difficulties con-
nected with the Bible " must cease. I do not
profess to have exhausted my subject. I must
say of my humble treatment of it, what Carlyle
savs was remarked of a much more ambitious
276 LECTURE VIII.
performance, " it is like a bas-relief sculpture,
it does not conclude, it merely ceases." This
apology is the more necessary because, with
certain exceptions,* the Lectures of the Three
Series are rather monographs than parts of
a continuous dissertation. To some, perhaps,
this may seem a disadvantage, but there are
those who will be attracted by detached lec-
tures who would be repelled by a connected
disquisition,
I thank you for your unwearying attention,
and trust that the important topics which
have come under discussion have not suifered
in my hands. For the rest, may the God of
Truth mercifully accept and bless what I have
endeavoured to say in defence of His Truth
and of the Bible, in which it is enshrined !
Amen.
* The two Lectures on "The Psalms," for instance,
and also the two Lectures on "The Septuagint," and the
four Lectures on " Prayer."