^ LIBRARY IF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. GIFT OK Received Accessions No. , 1886 Shelf No. fc THE RELIGION OF THE CHRIST THE RELIGION OF THE CHRIST ITS HISTORIC AND LITERARY DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERED AS AN EVIDENCE OF ITS ORIGIN THE BAMPTON LECTURES FOR 1874 BY THE REV. STANLEY LEATHES, M.A. \\ MINISTER OF ST. PHILIP S, REGENT STREET ; PROFESSOR OF HEBREW, KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON ie Jffiei^ett ift nur in t>er SBafjr^eit. Goethe. PREFACE. THE object of the following Lectures has been to unfold the significance, too often overlooked or forgotten, of the name Christianity, which is neither more nor less than the Religion of the Christ. As a matter of historic fact, the name by which this religion is known does not lead us back so much to Christ as its founder in the way that Muhammadanism leads us back to Muhammad for its founder, as it does to the Christ as the object and substance of the earliest ascertainable faith of the people called Christians. Whatever uncertainty, real or imaginary, may attach to the actual origin of this belief, there is and can be no question whatever as to its earliest expressions. These survive to us in literary monuments, which are imperishable and undoubted. The four great Epistles of St. Paul are themselves a treasury of evidence in this respect, and they must continue to be so until it can be shown on equal evidence, which as yet is not producible, that they represent only one phase, and that a partial and sectional phase, of early Christianity. It is, however, commonly admitted now that we need not limit the genuine remains of the great Apostle to these four letters ; and it is certain, whatever our opinion as to the formation of the canon of the New Testament, or the degree of authority attaching to it when formed, may be, that the Eeligion of the Christ, or the belief in Jesus as xii Preface. the Christ, is not only common to every document com- prised in it, but is alike the very backbone and essential framework of all the documents. We may take it therefore as a position which is unassail- able, that the distinguishing mark of Christianity, from the very first, trace it back as far as we can, was the belief that Jesus was the Christ. So manifestly true is this statement, that the mere expression of it has all the ap- pearance of a truism. And yet it is not by any means such ; because, what is not involved in the fact, undenied and undeniable, that a vast society was called into exist- ence, and held together, by the confession and belief that Jesus was the Christ, and that but for such a confession and belief this society would and could have had no exist- ence ? There are involved at least these two principles 1. That the conception of the Christ, whether right or wrong, was a reality, and a reality fraught with the mightiest consequences; and 2. That the features of the human life of Jesus were adequate to setting in motion the machinery which was latent in the Christ-conception. And as to the strength and truth of this position, the evidence of the New Testament, whatever the date and authorship of its various parts may be, is conclusive and unimpeachable. Taking the very widest possible margin, we may say that within the first century and a half of our era this simple formula, Jesus is the Christ, had called into existence the whole of that literature, whatever its value, which is comprised in the New Testament. Within that period of time, from which we must of course deduct the thirty years of our Lord's own life, there had, as a matter of fact, come into existence the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apostolical Epistles, and the Eevelation; that is to say, we have certain literary monuments which must have come into existence between A.D. 30 and A.D. 150, and their actual existence is the problem to be solved. Preface. xiii Practically, this period may be considerably lessened. No one wishes to prove the existence of any Christian docu- ment prior to A.D. 50, and it is making unnecessary concessions to suppose that even the latest book of the New Testament is so late as A.D. 150. Within a period, then, probably at the most of seventy or eighty years, our existing documents were produced. To what was their production owing? Solely to the belief that Jesus was the Christ. It is alike impossible to eliminate this funda- mental tenet from any one of the books in question, and to account for their existence without pre-supposing its belief. The religion or belief, then, of which the books may be taken as the actual, and in some sense the natural expres- sion, may be called the Religion of the Christ. The immediate result of that religion or belief was the creation of a unique literature, for which no parallel can be found in the literary history of the world. The literature was the product, and is the witness to the existence, of a particular society known to us also from extraneous sources as the Christian society, whose very name brings us back again to the idea which was latent in every one of the books, that the Christ had come, and that Jesus was the Christ. It matters not now whether the society authenti- cates the books, or the books authenticate the society. To a certain extent the books, it must be allowed, have a testimony of their own; they are a fair index of the society which created them, and their relative position with respect to other books which were produced by the society is a proof of the estimate in which they were held by it; while in the case both of the society and the books it was not possible for either to have existed without the previous acceptance of the underlying principle that Jesus was the Christ. This was at once the germ of the society's exist- ence, the means of its cohesion and support when formed I xiv Preface. and the root-principle to which the books bore witness, and to which alone they owed their being. Not, however, that the maintenance of this principle was the direct object of all the books. It was so with the four Gospels only. We may say of them that the purpose for which they were written was to proclaim Jesus as the Christ. St. John said of his own record of events, These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ. 1 And the same might have been affirmed by the other Evangelists. But with the rest of the books this is not so much the purpose as the cause of their being written. In every one the position is accepted as a foregone conclusion which can only be referred to incidentally, but which is none the less present to the writer's mind and to the minds of all for whom he writes. Eliminate from him and them the belief in Jesus as the Christ, and you destroy the peculiar and essential features of their existence. And this, it must be observed, is altogether independent of the abstract truth of the principle they accepted. Here we have this obvious literary fact, the creation and exis- tence of a new and original literature solely in consequence of the belief in Jesus as the Christ. The rise of the Christ- religion proclaimed itself by the rise of a new literature which gathered round the central thought of Jesus as the Christ. This is an undoubted fact, independent alike of the genuineness and authenticity of the several books and of the actual truth of their central thought. Nor can it for a moment be maintained that the move- ment thus expressing itself was trivial or unimportant. We cannot pass it by as an insignificant or an uninteresting phenomenon. As a matter of fact the movement which so early produced these literary monuments, and resulted in what we call Christianity, has lasted to the present day ; it has played a most prominent part in modern history ; 1 St. John xx. 31. Preface. xv by some means or other it supplanted the dominion of the Caesars, and established itself on the imperial throne; it has penetrated all the framework of our social, political, and educational existence, and intertwined itself with our civilisation, morals, and government. Moreover, it is even now from time to time forcing itself into inconvenient prominence, and superinducing complications with which it is by no means easy to deal, and suggesting problems it is hard to solve, and yet not easy to put by. The fact, therefore, of the rise of this Christ-religion and Christ-literature derives unquestionably an additional significance from the nature of its subsequent history. It cannot be treated as a merely transient or passing incident. Whether or not it was calculated to be followed by conse- quences so tremendous, these are the consequences by which it was followed. It is possible that the haze of distance may have concealed from view many of the circumstances connected with the rise of this religion which it must be hopeless for us ever to discover ; but the results produced are independent of this obscurity, and are what they are, neither more nor less, even though somewhere in the first origin of the movement there may have been something faulty, or which, at all events, science now regards as un- satisfactory. In the long run, however, it is a sound maxim that the work proves the workman, and it is an inference not alto- gether hasty or unreasonable that a movement such as that of the Christ-religion, which has wrought so marvellously, cannot have been inherently defective from the first. No human agency or combination of human agents could have sufficed to produce the effects which have notoriously been produced, and therefore the effects may be estimated, not as the designed production of one or of many individuals, but as those great problems of history which are fraught with their own significance, and demand their own solution. xvi Preface. "We may hold our judgment in suspense as to whether this particular work is of Nature or of God, but at all events it unquestionably is not of man. And the alternative is named advisedly, of Nature or of God, because this with regard to Christianity is really the issue at stake. If the actual phenomena of the rise of the Christ-religion can be accounted for naturally, then there is an end to its claim to be in any sense the special expo- nent of the Divine will. Nature may be indeed another name for God, but God and Nature are not convertible terms, and to attempt to make them so is to destroy the special characteristics of both. God may have spoken, and doubtless has spoken, by all the religions of the world, but He has done so in a negative way, by showing us where they failed to apprehend the fulness of the truth, or to supply the actual craving of man's heart. If He has spoken by the Eeligion of the Christ, He has done so in a special and a positive way, which differs alike in the answer given to the wants of humanity and in the manner of His giving it. If the Eeligion of the Christ can be resolved into a mere expression of natural religion a mere variation of other expressions then it forthwith comes to an end, because there is no room for the Christ-function, and no meaning in the Christ-idea ; then, in that case, God and Nature are absolutely identical, and what is done by Nature is done by God, and what is done by God is only done by and in and through Nature ; and then Christ is an anomaly in Nature, interfering not only with the free action of her laws, but antagonistic in the very principle and idea of His existence, as proposing to discharge a function for which Nature has no need. It must be observed, however, that, supposing God to have spoken by all the religions of the world, and to have spoken in the same sense by Christianity too, then the message of Christianity must be in virtual harmony with Preface. xvii the message of other religions; it may surpass or excel, but it cannot contradict them. Now, the question whether or not it does contradict them is unhappily not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact, and capable of conclusive demonstration. The history of Christianity from the first has been a history of conflict of conflict, however, not sought, but encountered ; and the severity of this conflict was originally felt in the contact of Christianity with the elder religion from which it sprang, or at least with those who were the professed and devoted adherents of that religion. Nor has Christianity proved to be more acceptable to the other religions with which it has been brought in contact whether with the paganism of Greece and Home, or with Islam, in the middle ages, or with Brahrnanism or Buddhism in the East. It has never been received as an ally, but always been rejected as a foe. We may assume, therefore, that the message of Christianity is not in accord- ance with, but opposed to, the message of other religions. There is a point where it comes into collision with and contradicts them on their own showing; and this is the point which is expressed in the foundation and central idea of it as the Eeligion of the Christ. As long as Chris- tianity is content to be placed on a par merely with other religions, there is no offence; it is when she asserts her inherent superiority because of her Divine election, it is when she takes her stand upon Jesus as the Christ or chosen of God, that the cause of offence arises. Then it is that the Master's words begin to verify themselves, as they so often have, lam not come to send peace, hut a sword? And Christianity may historically be regarded as the Eeligion of the Christ. The earliest monuments of it show that its most essential feature was the recognition of the Christ character of Jesus. But when we come to examine 2 St. Matt. x. 34, 35; St. Luke xii. 49, 51. xviii Preface. this Christ character we find it was by no means peculiar to Christianity, but was in fact the legitimate and special offspring of Judaism, so that Christianity grew like a young and tender plant out of the soil of Judaism. This also is a fact which cannot be denied. If the Christ idea had not existed in Judaism, the actual foundation of Christianity would have been wanting, and its rise would have been impossible. The Eeligion of the Christ, therefore, may be regarded as reaching both before and after the time of Jesus of Nazareth ; for it is certain that the very earliest records of the Jewish nation either exhibit traces of the Christ idea or manifest features which supplied the actual foundation of the idea. The Religion of the Christ, then, is not merely that which we commonly understand by Christianity, but much more the complete phenomenon of the idea regarded as a whole, and embracing the earliest traces of it, as well as its full development in the writings of the New Testament. And this phenomenon is a literary fact established by literary monuments extending on the lowest possible computation over a period of a thousand years, from the earliest document in the Old Testament to the latest in the New. It is alike impossible to account for the literary existence of the New Testament without assuming the reality of a Christ element in the Old, and to account for its existence on the assumption that it is a mere exaggeration and the natural development of that Christ element. It is obvious, moreover, that these two positions are mutually destructive. If the books of the New Testament can be accounted for on the supposition of the intensity and fanatical ardour of the Messianic anticipations of the Disciples, then those anticipations presuppose a sufficient foundation for them in the books of the Old Testament, inasmuch as they can be referred to nothing else; we Preface. xix must acknowledge the existence of a Christ idea, which can only have been derived from them. If, on the other hand, we may assume the non-existence of any such ele- ment, then it is clear that the New Testament cannot have been caused by the exaggerated development of this ele- ment. Or if, once more, it is affirmed that the Disciples had indeed these anticipations in an extravagant degree, but that there was no valid foundation for them in the Scrip- tures, which can be critically explained otherwise, then we must admit that historical phenomena which are most remarkable, and literary phenomena which are unique, were alike the direct and natural consequences of a mis- apprehension so complete, of a blunder so palpable and gross. It appears, therefore, that the actual historic rise of faith in Jesus as the Christ, and the historic and literary results of that belief, may legitimately be allowed to have a retrospective value as evidence of the true meaning of the Scriptures. It is hardly possible to account reasonably for the character and prevalence of the Messianic an- ticipations, of which we have literary proof in the first century of our era, on the assumption that these antici- pations were not warranted by the language of Scripture were even a deviation from it. At all events, the Scrip- tures alone must be held responsible for their existence. It is surely, therefore, a daring course to adopt, to say that the historic result was one which ought never to have been produced. May we not rather say, that if the voice of God is ever to be heard in history, it may be heard in this historic result ? And is it not a further confirmation of its actual truth, that these ancient Scriptures, even when read now-a-days after so long an interval, are still found to be replete with an inexhaustible treasury of meaning which they could not have had for their original possessors, but which is derived solely from their relation xx Preface. to and association with Jesus as the Christ ? If He has thus shown Himself the light of prophecy, may we not infer that His was the light for which prophecy waited, and to which it was designed to point ? But if so, nothing can be more obvious than that such a combination of results is not to be reckoned as the pro- duct of nature ; because the only interpretation of it can be, that this is the expression of personal will manifesting itself through the results of history and the facts of litera- ture. Given the phenomena of prophecy as they are, and the human life of a person in whom, supposing his Christ- character to be a true one, their meaning is not only realised, but intensified and heightened to an infinite and before inconceivable degree, is it possible to regard the juxta- position of the two as an insignificant and casual incident ? If it is fraught with any meaning at all, the meaning is one which can only be other than natural and above nature. It is an expression of God's will such as is not elsewhere found, in the order and harmony of the natural world, in the ordinary course of history, and the like ; it is expressive of moral and spiritual truths which are not to be derived from other sources, and it teaches lessons which nature is incompetent to teach. Now this is the position which we claim for the Eeligion of the Christ. It finds its place naturally among the religions of the world, for it was the direct descendant of one of the oldest of them, and it has been brought into contact with all of them. But it stands on a different footing from all. For no religion can point to the same historic and literary development which the Eeligion of the Christ can show. In no other case has the supposed fulfilment of the promises of an earlier religion produced anything like the phenomena which were produced by the first preaching of Jesus as the Christ ; in no other case has the similar proclamation of such a fact, or supposed fact, Preface. xxi produced within fifty years after it was first proclaimed anything like the literary phenomena which we know for a certainty were produced in various writings of the New Testament. These two features, the one historic and the other literary, are unique in the case of the Eeligion of the Christ. May we not then fairly claim this historic and literary development of the religion as a patent evidence of its origin ? It is useless to point to any other literary monuments such as the Vedas, the Kuran, or the like because, independently of the inherent and intrinsic differ- ence of their substantive message, they differ fundamentally in the known circumstances of their origin. The Kuran, no less than the Christian books, may be regarded as the literary offspring of the Old Testament ; but who has ever found in Muhammad the analogue or antitype of the Jewish Messiah, and who would for a moment compare the literary origin of the New Testament with that of the Kuran ? One was the spontaneous growth of circumstances, and the product of many minds ; the other was the deliberate production of a single mind for a definite and deliberate purpose. To confound in any degree the two productions would be to lack altogether the faculty of discrimination the critical faculty. But if their literary and historic difference is so great, it is impossible that the two religions they represent can stand on the same basis. To imagine that they do is to reject the evidence of facts. And it is to this broad evidence that we point in attestation of the claims that were undoubtedly advanced by those who first proclaimed the Eeligion of the Christ. We have a marvellous historic and literary result distinctly traceable to no other cause than the supposed fulfilment in a particular person of the obvious and known require- ments of prophecy. Of the nature of this fulfilment we are, to some extent competent judges ourselves. According to one view, the degree of the fulfilment is only to be xxii Preface. regarded as infinite ; it is continually revealing itself to every independent student and disciple. According to another view, the fulfilment is simply nil, and purely imaginary. But this we may safely affirm, that the known results of the supposed fulfilment of prophecy in Jesus of Nazareth cannot be accounted for on the supposition that there was no more apparent correspondence between the person of Jesus and the character of the Messiah than those who hold this latter view would have us believe, or on the assumption that the correspondence was unreal. The Gospels, as we have them, which point to this corre- spondence, may more properly be regarded as the outcome of the belief in Jesus than as the cause of it. The belief itself is still to be accounted for, even if we reject the Gospel view of the character of Jesus, arid so likewise are the consequences which followed the belief. It is important, therefore, to remember that it is not merely with literary monuments that we have to deal, but with the known historic fact of great results produced, of which the literature itself, however regarded, is the surest proof. Can the supposition of falsehood in the character and claims of Jesus adequately account for these results ? or, rather, can they adequately be accounted for on this supposition ? Certainly not. There must have been other causes at work which we are at a loss to conjecture for these known results to have been produced, on the supposition that there was a lie in the alleged character of Christ ; while, on the supposition that His character was what it is represented to have been, all the phenomena to be accounted for are fully explained. The question of the genuineness of particular books is altogether a separate matter, to be decided on other grounds; but it would appear that these considerations are still of weight, however, in particular cases, this question of genu- ineness may be determined. Preface. xxiii And the wholly anonymous character of the first three Gospels would seem to corroborate this position. That the first Gospel is known by the name of St. Matthew does not pledge us to establish his traditional right to be the author of it before the narrative can be received as one substantially trustworthy, any more than it can be justly regarded as a claim advanced by him to have written it. And unless it can be shown that the original results pro- duced by the preaching of Jesus were owing solely to the publication of this and the other existing Gospels, which is absurd, it cannot be maintained that we are bound to substantiate their genuineness as veritable productions of the men whose names they bear, before we can insist upon or appeal to their authority ; because, as a matter of fact, the acknowledgment of these Gospels from a very early period as authentic narratives by the Christian society can be proved, 3 and because the known existence and phenomena of that society cannot be accounted for but on the suppo- sition of substantial identity between the narrative of the present Gospels and the very earliest Gospel narrative that was proclaimed. The existence and peculiar features of the earliest Christian society as we know them can only be explained on the supposition that a particular story was everywhere accepted, the central facts of which it is easy to discover. This story was unquestionably proclaimed by the first disciples of Christ ; and whether the record that we have of it emanated immediately from them or not, it is absolutely impossible that it should be substantially different. 4 3 See Dr. Westcott on The Canon of the New Testament. 4 Compare, for example : " If the Gospel of St. Matthew, such as we now possess it, is undoubtedly the work of the publican who followed our Lord from the receipt of custom, and remained with Him to be a witness of His ascension ; if St. John's Gospel was written by the beloved disciple who lay on Jesus' breast at supper; if the other two were indeed the com- panions of St. Peter and St Paul ; if in these four Gospels we have inde- xxiv Preface. For example, it is impossible that the story of the resur- rection should not have been a substantive part of the primitive and original Gospel. Wherever St. Matthew preached, we know as a fact that this is what he must have preached. Whether, then, or not he wrote the Gospel that bears his name is a matter of secondary importance, com- pared with the absolute certainty there is that his testimony on such points as the resurrection and Messiahship of Jesus cannot have been intrinsically divergent from that of our existing record. This consideration, which is perfectly valid, is quite sufficient to show that a doubt thrown on the genuineness of one or more of our existing Gospels is inadequate to disprove the essential truth of the Gospel, because certain known effects could not have been brought about but by an agency in all material and important pendent accounts of our Lord's life and passion, mutually confirming each other ; and if it can be proved that they existed and were received as authentic in the first century of the Christian Church, a stronger man than M. Renan will fail to shake the hold of Christianity in England." Froude, Short Studies, i. 242. Of St. John's Gospel he himself observes afterwards : " It is enough to say that the defects of external evidence which undoubtedly exist seem overborne by the overwhelming proofs of authenticity contained in the Gospel itself." Ibid, p. 252. This latter is a very considerable admission. If it is granted that there are "overwhelming proofs" for the Gospel of St. John being written by the beloved disciple who lay on Jesus' breast at supper, then we have in the admitted genuineness of the Gospel a strong ground for its authen- ticity, the strongest that can be desired. It may be a matter of question how far the credibility of the ordinary events recorded in the other Gos- pels is dependent on the fact of their being by the several authors whose names they bear. It is certain that no one of them professes so much of itself. But at all events we must not forget that there are certain features of our Lord's life and character for which we are not dependent upon the fact that St. Matthew's Gospel was written by St. Matthew, or St. Mark's by St. Mark, but much more upon the known phenomena of an early Christian society, whose very existence would have been impossible with- out the underlying framework of the life of Christ, and whose phenomena determine within certain limits what that life and character must have been. Preface. xxv points identical with that which they represent and express. When, however, it is borne in mind that any such doubts are virtually baseless and unwarrantable, it is satisfactory to know, not only that the main issue is independent of them, as it really is, but also that, if it were not, they are not deserving of the serious attention we are willing to bestow upon them. In like manner, when it is asserted, as one has heard it asserted, on ostensibly high authority, that we have no materials for a critical life of Christ because the evidence is not adequate to showing that our present Gospels ex- isted as they are 5 much before A.D. 170, one is naturally disposed to enquire, How is the position of the ordinary Christian of the present day affected by any such state- ment, supposing it to be valid, as he has neither the time nor the power to determine ? And here likewise the con- sideration of Christianity as the Keligion of the Christ will materially assist us. Given the assumption that we cannot rely upon the detailed facts of our Lord's life as stated in the Gospels, because the accounts vary, because some particulars are of later accretion, and because the generally miraculous character of the narrative is alone fatal to its credibility how far are we dependent on any such assumption ? It is certain that the earliest form of Christianity was directly and immediately connected with the belief in and acceptance of Jesus as the Christ. This position is absolutely impregnable. The evidence of it is documentary ; it is abundant, it is unvarying, and it is conclusive. What, then, do we know of the Jesus who was thus accepted as the Christ ? We know that He was 5 Cf. e.g. only, not as the case alluded to in the text. "The four Gospels, in the form and under the names which they at present bear, become visible only with distinctness towards the end of the second century of the Christian era." Froude, Short Studies, i. 248. Small edition. xxvi Preface. crucified, we know when and where and under what cir- cumstances He was crucified. We know that this death by crucifixion, which was a central and universally com- mon feature of the belief concerning Jesus, was also a feature the most unpromising for the proclamation of His being the Christ to be built upon. And yet the two are found uniformly combined, both among the Gentiles and the Jews. Now, if we knew nothing more of Jesus than this fact, we might, considering what we know of the faith itself, draw certain inferences which would not only be legitimate but inevitable. For instance, we should be safe in concluding that the Jesus who was thus accepted as the Christ was a person who had really lived. His death also on the cross must have been a fact. The reality also of those expectations, whatever they were, which are im- plied in the epithet Christ, is established beyond a doubt ; and that these expectations had been the net historic result of the Scriptures of the Old Testament is a re- markable fact which has no parallel. We can point to no other literature which has produced so striking and manifest an historic result. It is unique in the history of literature. But, further, we must infer also that if the death of Jesus was an unfavourable basis for the establish- ment of His claims to be the Messiah, then the features of His personal character must have been such as to counteract all these unfavourable conditions. He can have been no ordinary man. There must have been very remarkable characteristics attending His person and His career which alone would have made it possible that He should be recognised as the Messiah. Under the circum- stances, the mere fact of His dying the death of crucifixion would simply have been fatal to it. There is evidence, however, to show that, as a matter of fact, instead of its being fatal to it, this was the very cause of His being so recognised. We are compelled, therefore, to the inference Preface. xxvii that there must have been something very remarkable in His life or in His death, or after His death, to account for a circumstance so anomalous as that His death on the cross should be the principal cause of belief in His Messiahship, or at least an element inseparable from that cause, whatever it might be. Consequently, we are safe in the conclusion that the personal character of Jesus was unquestionable, that He must have been pre-eminently virtuous. There is, however, abundant evidence to show that the character of the Messiah was not one that the disciples of Jesus had invented for Him, but also one to which He Himself laid claim. We know nothing of His history if we do not know that He claimed to be the Mes- siah. For example, \ve cannot account for His death but upon this supposition. Consequently, we have these three elements: first, His known death; secondly, the claim which we must assume was advanced by Him; thirdly, the integrity of personal character essential to any wide recognition of the claim. But the last two must stand or fall together. It is impossible that Jesus should have claimed to be the Messiah, and have been content to die for the claim, and yet have been personally upright, if He was not justified in advancing the claim. In that case the integrity of His character comes to an end, and the only estimate we can form of it is one which will throw Him open to the charge of gross and deliberate imposition. We must determine, therefore, whether, in the face of the evidence, we are prepared to form this estimate of the personal character of Jesus. With regard, however, to the elements without which a belief in His Messiahship could not have been established, we may say that while His death on the cross would naturally have been fatal to that belief, it would also materially have corroborated the supposed integrity of His character if His character had previously had the appearance of blainelessness ; and, xxviii Preface. coupled with the fact that He had openly claimed to be the Messiah, it would tend to establish its integrity. But the death of Jesus, together with His claim to be the Messiah, which, combined with the integrity of His personal character, it seemed to establish, could not alone have given the impulse to that belief in His Messiahship which we know to have been so widely diffused. We must throw in the announcement of His resurrection, which was universally made and within the Christian body uniformly believed. Indeed, when all things are considered, it is impossible to account for the general spread of the belief in Jesus as the Christ, without supposing that it was mainly occasioned by the announcement that He had risen from the dead. The question, then, we have to decide is simply this : Is it more easy to account for the phenomena of the early Christian society on the suppo- sition that the resurrection of Jesus was a reality, or on the opposite supposition that it was not ? And in reply, it cannot be denied that, on the supposition of its being a reality, all these known phenomena would be at once and amply accounted for ; whereas, on the supposition that it was not, a known effect is left without any adequate cause, and it may be reasonably doubted whether it is theoreti- cally possible to account for it. For in that case we should be reduced to the admission of these causes as really and efficiently operative : The death of Jesus; His claim to be the Messiah; the integrity of His personal character; the belief among His immediate followers that He had risen from the dead; and the an- nouncement persistently made by them and others to that effect. Of these causes the death of Jesus was most unlikely to produce belief in His Messiahship, as we have seen ; His personal claim to be the Messiah was not likely to be more operative ; the integrity of His personal cha- racter alone would have been insufficient; and therefore Preface. xxix we are compelled to assume that the known phenomena of the first Christian society were produced merely by an intense belief in that which was not true. That is to say, the faith of the disciples produced results which, but for it, they were themselves unable to have produced. To what, then, is this faith of the disciples traceable ? To suppose that they were intentional deceivers is im- possible ; we can only imagine they were the victims of delusion. How did they themselves become possessed of the conviction that Jesus was the Christ ? Two causes are at once apparent the actual teaching of Jesus, and His personal character. They could not have been for any considerable time in His society, and have arrived at the conclusion that He was the Christ, unless His personal character had been in accordance with His claims. Nor would they have been very likely to adopt the notion of His being the Messiah unless it had been encouraged by Him. When, however, they had seen their Master expire on the cross, there must have been an end to all their anticipations about Him, for it was precisely this death of His which was the least likely to convince them of His Messiahship. We are constrained, therefore, to postulate the occurrence of something after His death which had the effect not only of reviving their hopes, but of establishing on a secure basis their conviction that He was the Christ, in which they never afterwards wavered. If this was not His resurrection, it was at all events the belief common to all of them, that He had actually risen. His resurrection, however, does not appear to have been an event for which they were prepared ; on the contrary, it took them one and all by surprise ; they were not, it seems, without difficulty brought to -believe in it. To what, then, was this belief owing? The fact of the resurrection would at once account for it ? Can it be otherwise accounted for ? In their case also, therefore, we have certain known results produced c xxx Preface. which point us to a particular cause, but are not easily to be explained by the supposition of any other cause. And when to these results we add the others, equally patent of the peculiar life the disciples forthwith adopted of going about preaching the story of the resurrection, and of the remarkable consequences which followed their preaching it becomes by no means easy to accept the answer that the belief of the disciples is a sufficient explanation of all the phenomena, on the hypothesis that the resurrection was not a fact, when it is absolutely certain that had it been a fact there would remain nothing which required to be accounted for. We are able, then, to determine how far a critical life of Christ is an indispensable preliminary to our belief in Him. Even on the assumption that we had no materials for such a life, it would not follow that belief in Him was an impossibility; for it is certain that the results which actually followed the first proclamation of Jesus as the Christ are such as to lead us up to a few broad and definite facts as their necessary cause, and to make us virtually independent of all others. Whether one blind man was healed at Jericho, or two, may be more or less uncertain ; but the uncertainty attaching to that event is no measure at all of the degree of positive knowledge we possess as to the death of Jesus and the prevalence of belief in His resurrection. In like manner we are enabled, by a due consideration of the historic and literary phenomena of the Eeligion of the Christ, to arrive at a more correct idea of the position attaching to miracles in the scheme of revelation. It is not true to say that " the Eevelation rests upon miracles, which have nothing to rest upon but the Eevelation." 6 The e Miracles, of the reality of which there is no evidence worthy of the name, are not only contradictory to complete induction, but even on the avowal of those who affirm them, they only cease to be incredible upon certain assumptions with regard to the Supreme Being which are equally Preface. xxxi revelation is recorded in a literature which presents features altogether unique that no concatenation of purely natural causes is sufficient to account for. Here then we have a solid basis for the miraculous to rest on, for we are con- fronted with phenomena which were not merely exceptional but above nature. It is not this or that detail, this or that text or expression, which cannot be explained, but the vast and complex whole is so remarkable as to challenge to itself the special tokens of a Divinely ordered work. We have the appearance of an historic person, whose position in history, as a matter of fact, whether rightly or wrongly, has been determined by His relation to the ancient litera- ture of His country. That literature did not create His character, but it did create the part He played in history. Stupendous consequences have ensued from His relation to the Scriptures. These consequences themselves are out of the ordinary course of nature. They may well be termed miraculous. 7 Had there been nothing miraculous in the Old Testament, the character of Jesus and the Eeligion of the Christ would have been alike impossible. Had there been nothing miraculous in the person and character of opposed to Reason. These assumptions, it is not denied, are solely derived from the Revelation which miracles are intended to attest, and the whole argument, therefore, ends in the palpable absurdity of making the Reve- lation rest upon miracles which have nothing to rest upon themselves but the Revelation. The antecedent assumption of the Divine design of Revelation and of the necessity for it stands upon no firmer foundation, and it is emphatically excluded by the whole constitution of the order of nature, whose imperative principle is progressive development." Supernatural Religion, ii. 480. First Edition. Longmans. 1874. 7 " When the man of science can find a natural cause, he refuses to entertain the possibility of the intervention of a cause beyond nature." Froude, i. 234. By all means ; but surely the converse must hold good likewise ; and when no natural cause can be discovered, and when it plainly does not exist, then let us admit, not only the possibility, but the fact of the inter- vention of a cause beyond nature. It is that which we find in the Religion of the Christ. xxxii Preface. Jesus, the New Testament, as a mere literary phenomenon, would have been impossible, and so would the existence of the Christian church. These things singly are evidences of the miraculous only short of demonstration; taken together they furnish the completest possible moral proof of what can only be regarded as a miracle. But having arrived so far, it is not hard to see that what is miraculous as a whole may also be miraculous in its parts. What is in itself miraculous may be fraught with miracles. Any one of such miracles may be beyond the reach of scientific proof, and must be. 8 The resurrection of Lazarus at this distance of time cannot be investigated, and therefore cannot be proved ; but who shall say that the resurrection of Lazarus was 8 " Every thinking person who has been brought up a Christian, and desires to remain a Christian, yet who knows anything of what is passing in the world, is looking to be told on what evidence the New Testament claims to be received. The state of opinion proves of itself that the arguments hitherto offered produce no conviction. Every other miraculous history is discredited as legend, however exalted the authority on which it seems to be rested. We crave to have good reason shown us for main- taining still the one great exception." Froude, i. 264. If there is any value in the considerations now offered, it is plain that the whole surroundings of Christianity, in its known historic and literary development, are so remarkable as to constitute, at all events, a sufficient claim to our most earnest attention. When we have determined the amount of deference that is due to its moral and spiritual teaching, then, and not before, it will be time to decide about its miracles. If we can determine that the authority on which this teaching rests is merely human, that it is not rooted in the Divine, then we may reject the miracles by which it is accompanied as human likewise, that is to say fictitious. If we are constrained to admit that the teaching is Divine, that the circum- stances under which it was communicated and the method of its communi- cation were highly exceptional, and in fact unparalleled, then we may be willing to allow, not only that the revelation affords a presumption in favour of the miracles, but also that the miracles themselves, if true, would even tend to confirm the revelation. The essential history of the revelation, in all its bearings, itself involves a miracle, the greatest miracle of all. If this miracle is rejected, it is impossible that any other can be received ; if it is acknowledged, it may even carry others in its train. Bearing on this matter are the thoughtful words of Mr. Henry Eogers, in Preface. xxxiii beyond the power of one who should Himself rise from the dead ? If His resurrection from the dead was the ostensible and the declared spring of a movement which in all its features cannot be accounted for on the suppo- sition that it was unreal, is amply accounted for on the supposition that it was real, we have then, surely, laid in history a substantial basis upon which [the resurrection of Lazarus may rest, upon which it becomes intelligible, and not only intelligible but consistent. The resurrection of Christ carries with it the resurrection of Lazarus; and though the resurrection of Lazarus does not prove the resurrection of Christ, it may fairly be regarded as a link in the chain of preparation for it, and to those who have already believed in a risen Christ it comes with the force of an additional confirmation of that which has otherwise been found to be true. Miracles were regarded by our his recent work. The Superhuman Origin of the Bible, which I had not the pleasure of reading till after these Lectures were in print, but in which I am thankful to find so many of the sentiments expressed in them confirmed. "As to those more extensive excisions which demand the surrender of all that is supernatural in the Bible (however interfused with all its elements, and as incapable of being rent from it without destroying it, as the system of bones or arteries from the human body without destroying that), the advocate of the Bible will justly require, before even listening to such a demand, that science shall not affirm, but demonstrate, the impossibility or incredibility of miracles. When she has done that, 1 for one acknowledge that it will be time to shut the book as a hopeless riddle of fable or false- hood, or both, which it will be hardly worth while to open again. Mean- time he who admits in any degree the reasoning in these lectures ; namely, that the Bible is not to be accounted for by merely human forces, ought not to feel much difficulty in this last matter ; for if he concedes a revela- tion at all, in which are discovered truths and facts undiscoverable by human faculties, and conveyed in modes and forms for which human nature will not account, he has already admitted a miracle & fact as much in the face of that 'invariable order' of nature, and 'those immutable series of antecedents and consequents' on which the objector to miracles insists, as any that can be conceived. The only difference is, that the miracle here has been wrought in the sphere of mind, and not in that of matter a difference which, to a man who knows what the objection to all miracles logically involves, will not affect the question." pp. 422, 423. xxxiv Preface. blessed Lord as a subordinate proof of that mission which He was content to rest on the truth of His spoken word : And if I say the, truth, why do ye not believe me ? 9 But though subordinate, He appealed to them as a valid proof : The works that I do in my Fathers name, they bear witness of me" l The person of Christ, the character of Christ, the teaching of Christ, must ever be the highest evidence of Him. If that evidence is not accepted as in the truest sense miraculous, in the truest sense Divine, no miracles can suffice to prove His mission ; but it may be that the truth of His spoken words implies also the truth of His accomplished works; and if so, we cannot truly accept Him without accepting also the message of His works. It remains only to observe that, in proportion to the value of the evidence which the historic and literary de- velopment of the Eeligion of the Christ supplies as to its true origin, will be the prospect of its permanence in the world. If this religion is indeed Divine, as no other is Divine, then it cannot die. As Hooker says, "Truth, of what kind soever, is by no kind of truth gainsaid." We are therefore in no degree careful as to the issue of the various questions which science may from time to time propose. It is possible that these questions can receive no conclusive answer. The answer, however, so far as it is true, must be consistent with the Truth. Or they may remain, at the best, nothing more than theories which are but partly attested by facts. How, then, can the reality of that religion be affected thereby which is based not upon theories but upon facts ? If the coming of Christ was the explanation of a marvellous literature which must ever remain otherwise a hopeless enigma, and if the rise of Christian literature, and the development of history for eighteen centuries since, have tended to prove and confirm the truth of that explanation as nothing else can prove it, 9 St. John viii. 46. J St. John x. 25. Preface. xxxv here is a manifest and gigantic fact in the world's history, which cannot be set aside, however it may be interpreted. There is, and can be, no consistent interpretation of this fact but one. It is impossible to contemplate it fairly and deny its significance. The very existence of the Eeligion of the Christ is itself a message from God. No discoveries as to the ultimate origin of man, the unity of the human race, the antiquity of the earth, or what not, can avail to set aside that message. On these and other points it is possible we may be mistaken. As to the meaning of the message, if indeed it is from God, we cannot. At least in the message we have a truth which may suffice to be the guide of life, a truth that we can live and die by. Those who have not this conviction may hold their judg- ment in suspense, and live if they can without a religion they can trust, undecided about everything, and chiefly about the nature of God and the claims of Christ ; but to others the belief that in the person of Christ we have the assured fulfilment of the promises of God will be ever- more the pledge that they "shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life? Such, then, as it seems, is the inexhaustible significance of that name which in the wisdom of God was joined inseparably to the human appellation of His dear Son; and as long as Christianity retains the name which it thus derives from Him, it will bear upon its surface the mark of its Divine origin, the evidence of its difference from and superiority to all other religions, in being the Eeligion of the Christ, the Keligion of Him whose way was Divinely prepared before Him, and whose goings forth have been from of oldj from everlasting. 3 8 St. John viii. 12. 3 Micah v. 2. 89, ST. GEORGE'S SQUARE, S.W., September 29, 1874. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION A SECOND edition of the following lectures having been called for, it is needful to make a few observa- tions in order to remove some misapprehensions with regard to the intention of the argument. It must be obvious to everyone that that argument makes no pretensions to being new; on the contrary, it is as old as Christianity itself; but the form in which it has been presented is perhaps more or less original. I have endeavoured to look at the Christ-character of our blessed Lord in the light of the various recent theories that have been advanced with respect to Him and to the origin of Christianity. At the same time, I have endeavoured to suggest rather than define the exact bearing of the argument upon any of those theories. I have developed it in relation to the tone adopted by those who have been influenced by them, and manifested that influence in the current literature of the day. If the argument is sound, it is impossible that those theories can stand. In proportion as the weight of it is admitted, it will serve to correct them and to counteract their tendency. The general tendency of the thought of the present day is to accept Christianity so far as it is naturally good, but at the same time to divest it of and to disengage it from all that is supernatural and not to be distinctly referred to causes that we can satisfactorily trace and accurately define. Now the importance of keeping steadily in view what is virtually meant by the Eeligion of the Christ, and what xxxviii Preface to the Second Edition. is implied in the very word Christianity, is seen in the fact that the entire framework of the supernatural is in- volved in the due recognition of it. The very idea of a Christ is impossible without such a framework. It is impossible to affirm that the notion of a Christ is to be found outside the pale of revelation. It is impossible to say that it is not to be found in the Old Testament ; for if not found in the Old Testament, it could not exist in the New. In fact, the mere existence of the New Testament is a proof of the existence of the Christ-idea in the Old. But the existence of this Christ-idea is itself an evidence of the fact of prophecy; for that which the Christ-idea implies is a promise conveyed to man by a series of operations that cannot be accounted for by the mere working of nature. We may be at a loss to account for the Messianic expecta- tion among the Jews ; we cannot deny its existence, and we cannot explain it naturally. In proportion, therefore, as we acknowledge its reality, we shall be compelled to assume its supernatural origin. No nation could have had the sort of expectation which the Jewish nation had, unless it had been imparted from without; and in con- firmation of this is the fact that no other nation had any such hope. The mythology and theology of various other nations show us how far they could advance naturally towards the formation of the hope, and show us likewise the point to which they could not advance. The history and literature of the Jewish nation show us that they had advanced very much further than this, and in fact had advanced so far that without a supernatural and Divine revelation, however imparted, it would have been impos- sible for them to have done so. The index of this degree of advancement was the fact of the Christ-idea. The Jewish doctrine of the Messiah became the register of it for all time ; and it is a register that we cannot obliterate, and may not, without injury to ourselves, refuse to read. Preface to the Second Edition. xxxix And in order to estimate this degree, we have only to imagine what our condition would be if we were able to blot out of existence the entire history of the Christian church, and the entire literature of the New Testament. The contrast between the Old Testament and the other literature of the world would still be as great as it is now, but the book would be a singularly strange and incomplete one. It would be the record of a nation's mental condition for the period of a thousand years, who had believed themselves exceptionally near to God, and throughout that period ever on the verge of some great event which should place them at the summit of power and glory. Their law, their history, their poetry, their prophecy, would alike bear witness to this impression ; and what is more, we should be able to mark the exact period at which the nation ceased to produce those documents which gave expression to the hope. We should also be able to affirm, that for more than a thousand years after the latest book of the Old Testament was written, the people did not cease to be animated with the same hope which had been the stay of their forefathers. But we should also be able to say that the whole thing had been proved a delusion, for that the stream of history had gone on and had left their hope an unrealised dream, till they had grown utterly ashamed and weary of it, and had begun to regard their national history as a romance, and their national literature as a mistake. But we cannot thus blot out of existence the literature of the New Testament, or the history of the Christian Church ; and consequently the existence of this literature and history has completely altered the relation in which the world must ever stand to the literature of the Old Testament. The book which before was singularly strange and incomplete has now become invested with an im- probable and unexpected significance. And yet it was not xl Preface to the Second Edition. possible for any man, or any combination of men, designedly to bring about this significance ; it was wholly and entirely the work of history, and the gradual result of the progress of events. The kind of supplement the New Testament has supplied to the Old is unique in the literature of the world. What then is the interpretation of this fact ? The rise of Christianity has given a meaning to the Old Testament which it never had before, and which nothing else could give it. History has shown that there was something in the national life of Israel which there would not otherwise have been. It is, however, beyond the power of any nation to anticipate its own future as Israel did, no less than it was beyond the power of Israel to fulfil its own anticipa- tions. The fact that the anticipations were both cherished and fulfilled can only be accounted for on the assumption that the development of history is not a blind succession of events, but a connected chain of circumstances, arranged according to a plan, and arranged for a particular purpose, and on this assumption there is only one way open to us of explaining the phenomena in question. The plan which is so clearly marked was designed by God, and the purpose He had in view was the indication of the one Man who should receive the homage and adoration of the world. To this end the hope of a Messiah was given to Israel, and the course of history demonstrated the fact that the hope was not fallacious, but was confirmed by the development of events in a way which it was greatly beyond the power of man or nature to bring about or to anticipate. And if it is asked what right we have to make such an assumption, it is sufficient to reply that the assumption is forced upon us when we contemplate the known facts of secular and sacred history. In no branch of the history of the world is there any instance of the kind of correspondence between the facts of Christianity Preface to the Second Edition. xli and the history of the Jewish nation, and the kind of relation there is between the literature of Israel and the literature of the New Testament that we meet with in the history and literature of the Bible. The broad features of both are markedly distinct. Supposing, therefore, that we had a theory that was adequate to solve the problem of the entire history of the world, such a theory would be totally inadequate to the solution of the problem before us, arising from the facts of Bible history. Consequently this would be the crucial test which would serve to falsify our theory. This particular problem would still demand an entirely different solution. Nor would the difficulty be lessened by any attempts to place the phenomena of sacred history on the same footing with those of secular history, because the facts to which we now allude are precisely those which obstinately resist all such attempts. The argument adopted is of the broadest possible cha- racter, and is absolutely independent of all narrow in- terpretations and partial issues. If, therefore, we would find a theory that is capable of application to the facts of sacred no less than those of secular history we must adopt the assumption in point. In fact we must make two assumptions, neither of which is capable of absolute proof, but both of which are in the highest degree reasonable. First, we must assume that there is a God ; and secondly, we must assume that He has spoken and revealed Himself in history, so that we may be enabled to arrive at some knowledge of His purposes through the clear message of history. Granting these two assumptions, the argument of the following lectures may be regared as virtually con- clusive. If God has spoken in history, He has spoken in the broad facts before us in a way that He has spoken nowhere else; and the result is that the testimony thus given to Christ is such as has not been given in any second instance, and it is a testimony that is unmistakable. The xlii Preface to the Second Edition. evidence is of a highly elaborate and complex character ; it is cumulative and convergent to a degree that is entirely without parallel. It is of the nature of a perfect arch which rests on the independent foundations of a twofold history and a twofold literature. It must be understood, therefore, that the stress which is laid upon the Messianic character of Jesus is so laid for its ulterior rather than its primary importance. It has been said that we have nothing now to do with the Mes- sianic character of Jesus which had reference to a past condition of thought. That may or may not be true. Into this question we have not intended to enter. The Mes- sianic character of Jesus was that to which Christianity historically owed its existence. But the Messianic cha- racter of Jesus is impossible without the agency of the supernatural before and above and beneath and around it. In accepting that character, as we are bound to accept it, as the historic and originating impulse of Christianity, we are committed to a recognition of the supernatural. We cannot escape from it. We are placed in its immediate presence. It may be very true that the Messianic cha- racter of Jesus is not His only character, nor that character which has most direct reference to ourselves, nor that which is ultimately destined to have the greatest influence upon the world, but it is one which is inalienably and unalterably His, and therefore it is one which compels us to acknowledge the supernatural in Him, and serves to assure us that whatever aspect we regard Christ in must be a faulty and a perverted aspect, if in it the operation of the supernatural is lost sight of or obscured. To acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, is tantamount to acknowledging Him as the chosen of God ; but He can- not be the chosen of God unless God has not only selected Him from among men, but also made the fact of His choice known to man; and He cannot have made His choice Preface to tJte Second Edition. xliii known to man but by special and direct revelation, which involves the agency of special and supernatural means of communicating His will. It is impossible, therefore, that we should accept Christ, or accept Jesus as the Christ, without accepting also the agency of the supernatural. But if we once accept the supernatural in the Christ idea, and acknowledge Christ as a supernatural person, we can have but little hesitation in acknowledging the presence of the supernatural in the words and actions of Christ; and hence the acknowledgment of the Christ functions as a part only of the character of Jesus becomes a sufficient guarantee for our due submission and allegiance to all that comes to us on the approved authority of Christ, and with the fall sanction of His name ; for the actual presence of the supernatural in Jesus is the proof that what He so has He has for ever. He cannot have been a supernatural person once, and have ceased to be so now. His authority must be permanent until it is superseded by authority equally supernatural. A wider acquaintance with the sphere of the natural cannot avail to set aside the super- natural, or intrinsically to modify our relation to Christ ; for He must reign, till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. And not till all things shall be subdued unto Him, shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may "be all in all. 1 It is obvious that if Jesus was indeed the Christ whom God had promised to send, then the historic manifestation of Jesus becomes the type and pattern of His continual method of action, and of His permanent relation to us. He is not only the starting-point of our renewed existence, the source of our regenerated life, but He is also the goal to which we must ever return, the anchor of our souls both sure and steadfast, in faithful and firm attachment to whom 1 1 Cor. xv. 25-27. xliv Preface to the Second Edition. our bark may at all times ride securely amid all the changes and chances and the storm and sunshine of life. He is not only the express image of the Father, manifested once for all in the person of a man, but, in as far as He is the true manifestation of God, He is a manifestation which can never be altered, which must be independent alike of essential modification and of continual development. He must be the abiding centre and source, the enduring token and pledge, of all the promises of God. He must, in one word, be Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever? It can hardly be needful to remind the reader that I have purposely endeavoured in these lectures to divest myself of all Christian predilections, and have tried to frame the argument from an entirely independent point of view, in order to give the greater weight to those conclu- sions which appear to me to be unavoidable. I can truly say of my method of writing as St. John said of his design : These things are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through His name? 2 Heb. xiii. 8. 3 St. John xx. 31. 89, ST. GEORGE'S SQUARE, S.W., June 1, 1875. LECTURE I. ANTICIPATION OF THE CHRIST IN HEATHEN NATIONS. THE registering of doubts hath two excellent uses : the one, that it saveth philosophy from errors and falsehoods; when that which is not fully appearing is not collected into assertion, wherehy error might draw error, but reserved in doubt : the other, that the entry of doubts are as so many suckers or sponges to draw use of knowledge ; in so much as that which, if doubts had not preceded, a man should never have advised, but passed it over without note, by the suggestion and solicitation of doubts, is made to be attended and applied. But both these commodities do scarcely countervail an inconvenience which will intrude itself, if it be not debarred; which is, that when a doubt is once received, men labour rather how to keep it a doubt still, than how to solve it ; and accordingly bend their wits. Of this we see the familiar example in lawyers and scholars, both which, if they have once admitted a doubt, it goeth ever after authorised for a doubt. But that use of wit and knowledge is to be allowed, which laboureth to make doubtful things certain, and not those which labour to make certain things doubtful. Therefore these kalendars of doubts I commend as excellent things ; so that there be this caution used, that when they be thoroughly sifted and brought to resolution, they be from thenceforth omitted, discarded, and not continued to cherish and encourage men in doubting. BACON, Advancement of Learning. LECTURE I. As the hart panteth after the water brooks, so panteih my soul after thee, God. Ps. xlii. 1. M THE origin of Christianity has often been found an J- interesting and a fruitful subject of inquiry in our time. Many treatises have been written, and many theories advanced, about it. Any one who could invent an entirely new theory, whether plausible or not, would probably meet with many persons who would be willing to listen to him. For, whatever may have been its actual origin, there can be no question that Christianity in itself is the most remarkable phenomenon that history presents to our con- templation. It has already far outlived in its duration the utmost limits of time that can be assigned to the dominion of ancient Eome. Though its position in the world has ever been one of antagonism, and therefore of peril, it has survived the most desperate assaults whether from without or from within ; and now, in the nineteenth century of its existence, shows no signs of a slackening interest for the imagination, or of a declining influence on the human mind. Nor is it hard to see the reason of this. For Christianity appeals alike to the deepest instincts and the highest aspirations of mankind. It lays its hand upon the moral nature, the social constitution, and the undefined and mysterious spiritual sensibilities of man. It concerns itself not only with life here, but professes also to have the promise of life hereafter ; and, notwithstanding the almost 4 Anticipation of the [LECT. endless variety of answers that might be given to the anterior question, What is Christianity ? no two inde- pendent minds probably understanding thereby or deriving therefrom ideas in all respects identical that which the term implies is sufficiently definite to be easily intelligible to all, however widely their theoretical conceptions or their individual sympathies may differ. Indeed, it is no slight indication of the fascinating power exercised by Christianity, that men abandon with extreme reluctance their personal connection with the name of Christian. Those who have broken loose from all commonly received and traditional forms of belief, and those also who live in habitual disregard of the one ordinance which was designed from the first to be the mark of Christian fellowship, are yet jealously sensitive as to the appropriation of this name. "All who profess and call themselves Christians," to adopt the large-hearted language of our collect, would embrace a considerable number that could not conveniently be assigned to any recognised denomination. Some of those who are uncompromising in their treatment of many things that large bodies, or even the great mass of Christians, hold most dear, are yet second to none in their zeal to retain the name. We have no wish to narrow or to limit the claim of any man to be so who desires to regard himself as a disciple of the Son of man. It is He to whom all judgment has been committed, and with whom, therefore, we would gladly leave it ; but we may safely observe that a Christi- anity which repudiates Christ is a contradiction in terms, and that consequently, first or last, the doctrine and person of a Christ must be a prominent feature of Christianity, however interpreted. Whatever may have been the origin of Christianity, it was intimately associated with the person of Christ, for Christianity is the religion of the Christ. Whatever differences may have existed between the teach- i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 5 ing of Christ and the subsequent developments of that teaching among His disciples, it will probably not be denied that the impulse known as Christianity is rightly and directly traceable to His teaching and influence. At all events, we cannot dissociate Christ from the subsequent and existing phenomena of the religion which bears His name. He is Himself the most prominent and conspicuous feature in connection with it. The name of Christ, however, suggests an office rather than a person. It implies the supposed fulfilment of various preconceived ideas. The correspondence of Jesus with the ideal person and character of the Christ was the position assumed by the earliest preachers of Christianity. And as this is a fact which admits of no rational doubt, it is clear that there must have been certain predisposing causes to render the spread of Christianity possible. A belief of which one of the main features was the realisation in Jesus of a character at once clearly defined and readily intelligible could not have achieved any progress in the world, if there had not been adequate preparation made for it in the dissemination of such previous ideas. Because it was not the personal character of Jesus that won its way among mankind, but the fact that in His character was fulfilled the conception of the Christ., In the case of the Jewish nation this is sufficiently manifest, since in that nation there had existed for many centuries the conviction that a person known as the Messiah was eventually to arise. The whole conflict of Christianity with Judaism consisted, not in the maintenance of the doctrine of a Christ, but in the establishment of the claims of Jesus to be regarded as the Christ. Nor can it have been very different even with the Gentiles, who were led to believe in Jesus. We cannot affirm of them that there were certain definite notions of a coming deliverer existing in their minds, and that they 6 Anticipation of the [LECT. believed in Jesus because He fulfilled those notions ; but we may truly say that in "every case their belief in Him involved the conviction that He was the Messiah to whom the Jews looked forward. Of this there is abundant evidence. It does appear, however, that there were sundry latent ideas prevalent in the ancient world, which may have had the effect in no small degree of disposing the popular mind to accept more readily the announcement of One who especially claimed to realise the anticipations of His own people. When we look back over the mass of current traditions afloat in the ancient world, the attitude of expectation indicated in many ways, the impression conveyed by poetry, mythology, philosophy, and literature, that a want was felt in our nature, and a hope that it might be supplied was cherished, we can see that there was much even in the heathen world that answered to the Jewish anticipation of a Messiah, and that this condition of mind was one specially favourable to the preaching of a Christ, who was proclaimed as the good news of God to mankind. And indeed to the Christian, who is fully persuaded that Jesus Christ was all that He professed to be, and that in Him there is the present possession of as much happiness as our condition admits of, and the future promise of all that we can desire, it is not possible to survey the monu- ments of religious thought in any nation or language, and not discern indications of a mental state that bears col- lateral witness to the reality of the want which Jesus came to supply ; if, indeed, it does not manifest what may fairly be regarded as the unconscious hope of His coming. There is independent and corroborative evidence borne to Him by many writers that were ignorant of His name and by many religious systems that are antagonistic to Him. What St. Paul says to the Eomans is doubtless more or less true of every nation, and of all religions, that that which may ~be known of God is manifest in them ; for God hath shewed i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 7 it unto them} It is not given to all to bear equal testimony, but there are continually traces of a testimony borne, and in its general results it is neither discordant nor incomplete. And we may briefly characterise it as twofold. First, there is the universal consciousness of a deep and radical defect in our constitution, which, if not openly confessed, is at any rate sufficiently betrayed. And secondly, there is frequently revealed a kind of spontaneous impression or conviction that help, if it comes at all, must come from without; that it is not competent to human nature to regenerate or emancipate itself. It is not, of course, affirmed that either of these propositions is distinctly and broadly stated in so many words, but that, turn where we will, we are continually being confronted with that which tends to establish them. Arid, in fact, this testimony is the more remarkable, from the manifestly undesigned and unintentional manner in which it is borne. Human nature, in spite of itself, bears witness to the depth of its own wound. There can, one would think, be no question about this. Every form of ancient civilisation bears evident token of sin, and also of the consciousness of sin. Eites and ceremonies, laws, manners, and customs, which, after all possible allowance has been made for diversity of feeling and opinion, can only be regarded as indications of moral corruption, are common enough in the records of every ancient nation. Whether we look to Egypt or Assyria, to Persia or to Greece, to India or to the north of Europe, the witness is unfaltering, not only as to the depravity of man, but also as to a certain misgiving within the heart that all was not right. The hideous forms of sacrifice which confront us in many quarters are doubtless to be interpreted thus, and cannot fairly be interpreted otherwise. 8 If sacrifice implies a desire to 1 Rom. i. 19. 2 See, for example, G. W. Cox, Mythology of the Aryan Nations, ii. 144, 8 Anticipation of the [LECT. surrender what is most precious, and so far expresses a good intention and a noble effort, it implies likewise a conviction that to do so is absolutely necessary. But why necessary, unless because no other apparent means are open whereby to redress the balance of right which conscience declares to need and to demand rectification ? All analysis of the theory of sacrifice must ultimately result in this, that it is a witness to disorder within, for which it appears to promise the only available remedy. And when sacrifice takes the more awful and revolting form that it assumed among the Phoenicians and the Aztecs, it only shows the more plainly how deep and terrible the disorder is. But there can be no question that, long before the commencement of the Christian era, human nature had borne the most conclusive testimony to the existence of such disorder, and by many a blood-stained rite had confessed to the consciousness of it. Wherever, therefore, the Gospel of Christ came, it encountered a condition of mind which, being keenly alive to a sense of want within, was so far prepared to receive it. To make use of the vivid expression of an anonymous writer, every one who embraced the Gospel found that it "supplied a positive to the negative in himself." 3 When, however, we pass to the consideration of the other kind of testimony which was borne rather to the hope than to the need of a Eedeemer, it is perhaps possible to speak with less confidence. A vast field at once opens out to our contemplation, which we can only glance at in the most cursory manner. There have been three principal and the note ; also the elaborate essay of Dr. Kalisch on Sacrifice, prefixed to his Commentary on Leviticus ; and the Dictionary of Science, Literature, and Art, art. " Sacrifice." See also Hardwick's Christ and other Masters, part ii. p. 157 seq. a A reviewer in the Edinburgh Courant, quoted by S. Baring-Gould, Origin and Development of Reliyious Belief, part ii. p. 8. i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 9 methods of interpreting the mythological legends of Greece. They have been interpreted on rationalistic principles, as Lord Bacon 4 and others have explained them ; or they have been regarded as distorted versions of historical occurrences, or in some cases as perverted accounts of historical events. Latterly, however, the tendency has been to look at them in their relation to the mythological tales of other countries, as portions merely of a vast whole. And so it has been supposed that one principle pervades them all. This method of interpretation is known as the solar theory. 5 The daily natural phenomena of dawn and daybreak, sun- rise, noontide, and sunset, and of the varying seasons in their perpetual recurrence, having been originally expressed in sensuous language, which the mind afterwards outgrew, became ultimately invested with those very passions and accidents which the language literally suggested. And thus the foundation was laid of a copious mythology, in which the repetition of the same ideas in various forms is perpetually discernible. This theory may or may not eventually be regarded as a satisfactory explanation of the rise of the various myths ; it is not even imagined that it expresses the way in which they were actually understood either by the poets who gave them their existing form, or by the people who took delight in the repetition of them. However true it may be as a conjecture of their origin, it cannot for a moment be accepted as the actual message which they bore to the world at large. It would be quite as reasonable to assign to them a directly Christian meaning, as to pretend that their recondite etymological significance was that commonly understood. The poetical interpre- tations of comparative mythology are the natural fruit of comparative philology, and could not have been originated 4 In The Wisdom of the Ancients, and elsewhere. 5 Cox, i. 53, seq.; ii. 108, 109, et passim; Gubernatis, Zoological My- thology, &c. IO Anticipation of the [LECT. till it had given them birth. We are therefore at liberty to regard the ancient mythological legends in their literal form, as we may be sure they were popularly regarded, and consider to what extent they may have served to prepare men's minds to receive the doctrine and religion of the Christ. And here it cannot be questioned that all mythologies represented the gods as holding intercourse with men. They had their offspring among men, their friends and companions among men, their enemies among men. The teaching of mythology clearly was, that the notion of communion with the gods was neither absurd nor incon- ceivable. And so far as this mythology expressed on the one hand the popular sentiment, and on the other served to create and foster it, we may believe that to a certain extent it acted favourably rather than unfavourably in predisposing men to receive the message of the Incarnation. In like manner, the notion of assistance bestowed in an unexpected and supernatural way was by no means un- familiar to mythology, and would therefore be subservient to the doctrine of a Divine Redeemer, who came to succour the weak, and to raise the fallen. 6 And, finally, the natural inference derived from mythology, when regarded in its widest survey, is suggestive of the truth that there are sources of wealth and strength for man in heaven which are not to be found on earth ; and that, if he is to be delivered at all, it must be by a power exerted from without him, and not merely by strength developed from within. It appears then, that we may fairly say that, notwith- standing much that was in the highest degree revolting in mythology, and much that had undoubtedly begun to pall upon the taste of the healthier and the loftier minds, there 6 Cf. Hardwick, Christ and other Masters, part ii. p. 160 seq. The pass- age is too long to quote, but it is well worthy of reference. i.] Christ in Heathen Nations. 1 1 was also that in it which would serve as a sufficiently prepared basis whereon to rear the superstructure of faith in a Divine Son of God and Eedeemer of men, who should save His people with a mighty salvation, when His advent was proclaimed upon sufficient testimony. While, however, the effect of the ancient mythology, both as regards the disgust and loathing it must have excited, and the relations of beings of a higher nature to man with which it may have made men's minds familiar, may have been on the whole favourable as a preparation for the preaching of the Gospel, it does not appear that at any time it had sufficed to arouse the distinct anticipations of a Eedeemer to come, which obviously did exist among the Jews. We do indeed discover tokens of such anticipations from time to time ; 7 but these were probably derived rather than original, and are perhaps to be referred mainly to the influence of the Jewish Scriptures when they had become widely extended by means of the Alexandrine version. The effect of mythological teaching, therefore, would not be so much of a positive as a negative character, regarded as a preparation for Christ. It would have prepared the mind for the reception of the idea, but could not have communicated the idea itself. Still, we must carefully bear in mind what it could not do, in order that we may 7 The vetus et constans op'mio of Suetonius ( Vesp. iv. ; cf. Tac. Hist. v. 13) must refer among others to Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks, then more than 500 years old. Cf. Josephus, B. J. vi. 5, 4, etc.; also the third Sibylline Oracle. Kal TOT' 0i>os /j.eyd\oio GeoO ird\i KapTepbv &TTCU, ot irat>T(r 0eou &peT eyelpciv. 288- 290 Kal r6r' d?r' yeXioio 9e6s Tr^u^ei /3a(nX?7a 6s ira